U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #20, 97-02-05
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1460
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 5, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to American University Students
1-2,
15-16 Death of U.S. Ambassador Pamela Harriman
2-4 Secretary Albright's Remarks on 2/6 re: President Clinton's Budget
Secretary Albright's Activities:
3 --Telecon w/Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu; w/Malian President Konari
3 --Mtg. w/Ugandan President Museveni; w/Belgian Foreign Minister Derycke
3 --Lunch w/former Secretary of State Al Haig; former Secretary of State Baker
3-4,
9-10 --Trip to Capitol Hill
4-5 Trip to Houston on 2/7-8
5-7 Gore-Chernomyrdin Mtgs. 2/5-2/7
Statements:
7 --Swiss Banks to Create Fund - U.S. Applauds
7 --Bulgarian Agreement on Early Elections
7-8,14 --Situation in Ecuador
8-9 --Joint U.S.-Canadian Statement on Pacific Salmon
HUMAN RIGHTS
9 Canada-U.S. Talks re: Cuba
NORTH KOREA
10-11 Briefing on Four Party Talks/Food Aid
GREECE
11-12 Report of Albright Message to FM Pangalos
TURKEY
12-14,
22-23 Turkish Stability/Democracy
12-13 NATO Expansion
13 Turkey-Israeli Relations
LATIN AMERICA
14-15 President Clinton's Trip to Region
NATO
16-22 NATO Enlargement
20 --Report of French Proposal for "Restricted" NATO Summit
CUBA
23-24 U.S. Opposition to Nuclear Power Plant
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
24 Demonstrations/Election Results
ZAIRE
24 Situation in Eastern Zaire
RWANDA
25 Ambush Killing of Five UN Human Rights Workers
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #20
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1997, 1:25 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department.
I want to welcome students from the Washington Semester Program at
American University - I think seated on both sides. Welcome.
Glad you're here.
You all heard Secretary Albright's statement about Ambassador Harriman, and
you saw the President's very moving comments this morning. Secretary
Christopher just called me from California, and he asked that I pass on to
you all his thoughts. He believes that Ambassador Harriman was an
extraordinarily effective American Ambassador to France. Secretary
Christopher worked closely with her between 1993 and just three weeks ago -
1997.
He believes there was no single person who was more effective in establishing
the close relations between President Clinton and President Chirac than
Pamela Harriman, and he said that it was hard to imagine Washington without
her distinguished presence.
They had a long association that went back many decades. They worked
together, of course, in 1992 and in the transition in 1993.
He's going to miss her very much, and he wanted me to pass that on to all
of you publicly.
Let me just repeat what I told some of you earlier. I was on the phone
this morning with some of Ambassador Harriman's staff at the hospital in
Neuilly, and they just wanted me to pass on the following about arrangements.
There will be a Memorial Service for Ambassador Harriman in Paris, and our
Embassy in Paris, our Charge d'Affaires, Don Bandler, will be announcing
the time and place of that Memorial Service.
Her remains will be transported to the United States, accompanied by her
son. There will be a funeral in Washington, probably next week. When we
get the date, we will give that to you. Then she will be interred at Arden
House in New York state, which is, of course, the residence of her husband,
the late Governor Averell Harriman.
So those are the arrangements that have been given to us by the United
States Embassy in Paris, and I'll be passing on to you - today and tomorrow
and the day after - as we get this information the specific dates.
QUESTION: Nick, a question on the Harriman thing, if you are about to
leave it, please.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Secretary Albright made reference to looking - for her looking
forward to Harriman's return as a friend and somebody she would be talking
to and implied in talking to her also about U.S. diplomacy. That means
that Harriman was not going to stay on in Paris as Ambassador, doesn't
it?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I know that Ambassador Harriman had told Secretary
Albright that she intended to leave her post in Paris some time in the next
couple of months and to return to Washington.
I know what Secretary Albright was referring to at the end of her
statement. They talked -- the first full day that Secretary Albright was in
office, they met privately, and they talked about a variety of ways that
Ambassador Harriman would have been supportive of the Clinton Administration's
foreign policy. She intended to be very active in Washington. I can't say
much more than that, but I know that to be the case, and she had decided to
leave.
Let me just conclude. I mean, you've obviously -
QUESTION: I'm sorry - you're moving on.
MR. BURNS: You obviously have seen very personal statements from
President Clinton and Secretary Albright. I just want to say on behalf of
Foreign Service Officers that she really was one of the finest Ambassadors
that many of us had seen in the field. If you talk to her Embassy staff,
as I did this morning, she was loved by her Embassy staff. That is not
true, obviously, everywhere in the world in relationships, but it is very
true in this case, starting with her Deputy Chief of Mission, Don
Bandler; her Public Affairs Officer, Chris Snow.
She was highly respected by the professionals in her Embassy and in this
Department because of the way she comported herself. She was a very serious
person. She spoke the language fluently.
She had a relationship with the President of France which was unmatched,
and she had a relationship and an effectiveness with the French Government
that was of great assistance to Secretary Christopher and Secretary
Albright.
Okay. Let me just give you a couple - we have an enormous number of things
to give you today, and let me try to go through that as quickly as I
can.
Secretary Albright is going to appear in this briefing room tomorrow at
12:30 to make a presentation to you - make some remarks to you - on the
President's budget, specifically concerning foreign affairs spending. You
saw in the State of the Union address last night an unusually long section
by the President, unusually long remarks, about foreign policy and about
the resources issues.
He mentioned specifically the need to support diplomacy.
Secretary Albright will come down at 12:30 tomorrow and make remarks to you
about that budget and about why that budget is important to us in
preserving our diplomatic posture around the world and our diplomatic
leadership.
When she finishes, I'm going to ask Craig Johnstone - Ambassador Craig
Johnstone - who's our resources chief here at the State Department, to
follow her to the podium and to speak in a little bit more detail but
mainly to answer questions that you may have on the budget. I would think
the whole event would last from about 12:30 to about 1:15. We'll then
follow that at 1:30 with the regular briefing on other issues. So that's
tomorrow at 12:30, Secretary of State Albright in this room.
I also want to let you know what Secretary Albright has been doing.
I told some of you about this last night, but yesterday afternoon
Secretary Albright called Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to extend our
condolences on the terrible tragedy in Northern Israel with the crash of
the two helicopters and the deaths of the 73 Israeli soldiers. She just
expressed really the heartfelt concern that Americans felt when they saw
this.
Secretary Albright also called the Malian President, President Konare, who
is visiting Washington in a private visit, and they discussed U.S.-Malian
relations, and they followed up on some of the issues that Secretary
Christopher was able to undertake on his visit to Bamako last October.
Secretary Albright also met with the Ugandan President, President Museveni,
and they had a very long conversation about the situation in Eastern Zaire
in particular, but also about the general instability in Central Africa,
and I'll be glad to respond to any questions on that.
Today, Secretary Albright met with the Belgian Foreign Minister, Foreign
Minister Derycke, and they also had a long conversation about the situation
in Eastern Zaire. Belgium, of course, has a particular interest in Zaire.
There was a confluence of views on the need for outside countries to stay
outside of Eastern Zaire - neighboring countries to stay out of Eastern
Zaire. That was the message that Secretary Albright transmitted to
President Museveni yesterday afternoon.
They talked about NATO expansion. They talked about the de-mining
initiative, and they talked about Eastern Slavonia where Belgium is playing
a leading role. Belgium's the major troop contributor and where a Belgian
soldier was shot to death last week. It was a very good meeting with the
Belgian Foreign Minister.
Right now the Secretary is having lunch with former Secretary of State Al
Haig. As you know, she had lunch with former Secretary James Baker
yesterday. She has talked, I think, to all of her predecessors, and now
she's trying to follow up with longer sessions, really to listen to their
advice on how she can help create a bipartisan base for our foreign
policy.
Then this afternoon, Secretary Albright will be traveling up to Capitol
Hill. This will be her - I guess her third or fourth trip to Capitol Hill
since taking office. She'll be meeting with Senator Helms, with Representative
Hamilton and with Representative Gilman, three key members of Congress, on
all issues concerning us here at the State Department. You know we spoke
yesterday about the Chemical Weapons Convention, how important that
is.
You heard President Clinton address that last night. So Secretary
Albright's been very busy.
QUESTION: Nick, just one thing on that. Is there going to be any
opportunity for reporters to talk to her before, after or during these
sessions on Capitol Hill?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe so. These are private visits. They're
not media opportunities on Capitol Hill. But you'll see her here tomorrow.
You'll have an opportunity -
QUESTION: She won't take questions tomorrow, right?
MR. BURNS: I will see.
QUESTION: You left the impression that Craig Johnstone -
MR. BURNS: This is a presentation on the budget.
QUESTION: I understand, but will she take questions on -
MR. BURNS: I haven't talked to her about that, so let me get back to you.
We haven't made a final decision on that.
But these are private visits, Steve. She's tried to make a series of these,
because she's trying to reach out to members of Congress on Capitol
Hill.
QUESTION: Nick, are those one-on-one visits, or is it -
MR. BURNS: No. She's going to be accompanied, I think, by Barbara Larkin,
who's our Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations.
QUESTION: But she'll meet separately with each of these -
MR. BURNS: Yes, I'm sorry, Bob. Yes. A separate meeting with each of
the three. She's making three separate calls this afternoon. Again,
resources for the State Department, bipartisanship in foreign policy, the
Chemical Weapons Convention - these are some of the major - among the
issues that she'll be raising. These are some of the major issues.
Let me just talk briefly about Houston. I'm very pleased to say that we've
had 17 reporters sign up to travel to Houston. We'll be contacting you
later this afternoon and early tomorrow morning to confirm your participation
with us, to fly down with the Secretary early Friday morning. She's going
to be visiting a high school in Houston to talk to students about foreign
policy. She's going to be visiting our U.S. Passport Agency in Houston,
which, of course, is run by the State Department. She'll be making a
major address at the Baker Institute, a major speech, which I will
have piped in here to the briefing room -
(To staff) What time will that be? I think it's going to be 3:00 o'clock
here in Washington. We'll pipe it in to the briefing room. We'll make the
text available as soon as we get it finished and completed in Houston.
There will be a reception for her, hosted by Ambassador Djerejian and
former Secretary Baker following the speech. Then on Saturday she'll be
seeing President Bush.
So those of you coming with us will be contacted, and I'm very thankful for
those of you who decided to come. I think it's going to be an interesting
trip. I almost forgot actually the major event of the day is her meeting
with the Mexican Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Gurria, which will take
place at Rise University, which is the site of the speech. There will be a
press conference after the meeting - she and Minister Gurria. I don't have
the specific time. I think it's around 1:00 o'clock, local time,
before the speech.
QUESTION: You mean a press conference, not a photo op.
MR. BURNS: No, a press conference. So that I will get back to you with
the specific schedule probably tomorrow.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: No, but I hope you're coming. You're a native Texan.
QUESTION: He's a Dallas person.
MR. BURNS: I know he's a Dallas Cowboy's fan, but not everybody -
QUESTION: Do you think Dallas will go to Houston?
MR. BURNS: No one's perfect, Barry, but it is his home state.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Actually that would be very helpful.
QUESTION: Tex-Mex (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: A few other notes. The Gore-Chernomyrdin meetings begin today,
and they extend until Friday. I wanted to let you know what your
opportunities will be. I understand that Prime Minister Chernomyrdin will
be arriving at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon at Andrews Air Force Base. Vice
President Gore will be receiving him, and that is an open press event. No
Q&A, but open press for those of you with cameras.
Tomorrow, at 2:00 p.m., the Vice President and the Prime Minister will open
the major plenary session here at the State Department in the Loy Henderson
room. So at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, there will be an open press event for
opening statements only. You'll hear Vice President Gore and Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin give the opening statements. Then the media will
leave, and the Plenary Session will follow, and that session will extend
from 2:00 p.m. to 6:15.
So it's the major substantive meeting on the agenda.
On Friday, February 7<SUP>th, there will be - I think at approximately
4:00 p.m. - a press conference in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office
Building, next door to the White House.
QUESTION: What time?
MR. BURNS: About 4:00 p.m., but check with us and check with the White
House on Friday for the specific time.
Now, a couple of other announcements, Barry. Can I do that? Do you want to
do Gore Chernomyrdin?
QUESTION: Yes. Do you have a meeting Friday, too? I'm sorry, did I miss
that?
MR. BURNS: There are going to be meetings Friday, but I don't believe
there is any press access.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on two levels. Obviously, you have no press access
to almost every event you've mentioned so far.
But so far as the two -
MR. BURNS: Actually, there's press access for the opening.
QUESTION: If Chernomyrdin and Gore begin meeting at 2:00 p.m. and the
press can't get to them until 26 hours later, you might imagine there would
be some interim interest and people will do what reporters usually do -
they'll try to get information from sources.
MR. BURNS: And I'm sure we'll try to help you out tomorrow evening.
QUESTION: I'm not sure we'll get information.
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: But could you tell us, is there anything Friday - you know, any
highlight meeting between them, or is it, you know, working experts types
meetings?
MR. BURNS: Let me do this. By tomorrow I should have -
QUESTION: They sit back and wait for the experts to do some work Friday
and then meet again. I don't mean sit back, but, you know, hand off to
experts on Friday. Is that the point of progress?
MR. BURNS: Actually, their pattern in these meetings has been to actually
lead the meetings themselves with the experts.
QUESTION: So you think they'll meet Friday.
MR. BURNS: I figure they will meet Friday, and I'm sure there will be
some White House meetings. When I get a fuller schedule, I'll give that to
you tomorrow.
Now, to conclude, we are issuing four separate statements today, in
addition to what I've told you. Hey, listen, we have a worldwide foreign
policy. We're the indispensable country, so we're very active. (Laughter)
Let me just take you through them very briefly.
The first concerns Switzerland. The United States applauds the announcement
by three Swiss banks of a new private sector humanitarian fund to alleviate
the plight of Holocaust victims and their heirs.
This is an important demonstration of good will by the major banks of
Switzerland. We note that the banks indicated the new account will be
opened for further contributions from other parties, including the Swiss
Government and the Swiss National Bank. We hope that that proposal is
implemented expeditiously.
More broadly, we've been encouraged since the visit of Ambassador Eizenstat
to Bern last week by a number of actions undertaken by the Swiss. You know
that they've lifted their bank secrecy rules; that they have established
the Volker Commission to investigate dormant accounts from the Second World
War and after. They've also created a Historical Commission to look into
Switzerland's entire relationship with Nazi Germany and the Nazi-seized
assets before, during, and after the Second World War.
We believe that these actions demonstrate a willingness to examine the past
and to let the facts, however uncomfortable, speak for themselves. We
think that's a very important principle. I won't read the entire statement
but I wanted to give you a flavor of it, and you can find that in the Press
Room.
Second, I want to note a very important development in Bulgaria.
The United States welcomes the agreement reached by the Socialist-led
ruling coalition and the opposition in Bulgaria yesterday, February 4,
under the leadership of President Petar Stoyanov. This, we hope, will put
an end to the weeks of political stalemate and open the way for Bulgaria to
focus on its urgent economic crisis.
We understand that the agreement allows for parliamentary elections to be
scheduled for mid-April and, as I said before, this should pave the way for
the Bulgarian political spectrum and people to be able to try to resolve
some of the severe problems of the country.
I have a statement on this as well.
The situation in Ecuador has gripped our attention over the last 24 hours.
The United States is following closely and views with concern the events
taking place in Ecuador and calls for calm and national reflection. We
hope all Ecuadorans will refrain from violence.
The United States believes that political reconciliation can only be found
through a broad political dialogue and national dialogue of the country's
political leadership. We call on the political leadership of Ecuador to
respect the democratic processes, to respect the constitutional provisions,
taking into account legal precedence and to approach all decisions with
deliberation and conciliation.
The Secretary General of the OAS, Mr. Caesar Gaviria, is now traveling to
Quito for discussions with the range of the political and governmental
leaders in Quito, and we support his efforts to promote political
reconciliation there.
Last but not least, as I look out Mr. Champ, I'm very pleased to say that
the governments of Canada and the United States have agreed to renew their
commitment to resolve the salmon dispute under the Pacific Salmon
Treaty.
Our two governments have agreed in the process of government-to-government
negotiations, which includes direct participation by stakeholders from our
relevant regions. This is very important. Canada and the United States
have not been able to agree on the implementation of the principles of the
Pacific Salmon Treaty signed in 1985. But now we have a process, working
with some of our regional leaders, to do so. We're pleased about that and
we look forward to an early agreement between the United States and Canada.
I have a lot more information on this in case Mr. Champ and others
are interested; an entire statement to give you for the Canadian Broadcasting
Company. It's the least I can do. Right?
QUESTION: I won't accept -
QUESTION: I'll wait until -
MR. BURNS: He said my concern for Canada is a bit fishy.
I'm a big fan of Canada.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Big fan.
QUESTION: Then, if I could, since we ended on that, just ask one
question.
MR. BURNS: Has Barry formally deferred to you? We have parliamentary -
Barry's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure here are quite intricate.
QUESTION: Since we are in a diplomatic arena, I thank the Dean of our
group for this opportunity. But, seriously, allowing the stakeholders to
participate in this negotiation and, indeed, take it over, because for 12
years the two governments have been stalled in finding an answer to all of
this, does it follow that the United States Government considers themselves
bound by these stakeholder discussions? And in simple terms, if the
Canadian fisher people and their counterparts, the United States,
come up with a solution, does your government automatically go along
with that solution?
MR. BURNS: That's a very good question. I think that will depend on the
specific recommendations that are agreed upon in the negotiating process
between Canada and the United States.
It's difficult to answer that question up front. But we, hopefully, are
on a track now where some specific recommendations will be made. Whether
they're binding or not depends on the negotiations that we're about to
have.
QUESTION: Well, can you give me a level of the good will that's being
shown these people as they work? Since you have - since the two governments
have not succeeded in finding a solution, one assumes that they have more
carte blanche than they might under normal circumstances?
MR. BURNS: I think there's a new spirit here. Let me just point to a
couple of factors. First, as you know, Eileen Claussen, our Assistant
Secretary of State, and John Frasure , Canada's Ambassador for the
Environment have met. They had good discussions. I think they've agreed
on the parameters of these discussions.
In addition to that, I know that the American Governors - of Alaska, of
Washington, and Oregon - all pledged their good will and their interest in
resolving this as did the Premier of British Colombia, Glen Clark. They've
all emphasized the importance of not delaying these negotiations further
and reaching an agreement. So we think, actually, some of our leaders -
political leaders - governors and premiers of provinces have played a
useful role here.
We now also have two negotiators, Yves Fortier and Mary-Beth West.
Yves Fortier is the Canadian and Mary-Beth West is the American.
We have a lot of confidence in them. Mary-Beth West is an excellent
negotiator. I've worked with her on other issues.
So we have confidence that we've kind of broken through a psychological
barrier after 12 years and that we might now make some progress.
QUESTION: You've made a lot of ground here. But, can we first check off -
because I asked yesterday and I guess if you had an answer today, you would
given it to us - is there a schedule yet for Canadian-U.S. talks about
human rights in Cuba?
Remember, Canada was sending a representative here. That's not on the
docket yet?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I'm sorry. I just don't have the answer to that but we
should get you the answer to that question. But I think most importantly,
Minister Axworthy and Secretary Albright have had a good discussion on this
issue, and we will continue to work well with Canada on this issue as we do
on all issues.
QUESTION: If I may backtrack on a couple of things. I'll at least do
one. Her trip to the Hill today, you know at least one, and I suppose two,
of those three people are very avid about cutting expenses in foreign
operations. Of course, she's very avid about restoring funding. Is she
going to present to these gentlemen anything in the way of concrete cost-
cutting measures that she has decided upon in her brief time here?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe she's presenting this afternoon any kind of
blueprint of that sort, or any kind of detailed figures of that sort. But
I do know this. Secretary Albright believes that all of us here in this
Department - the roughly 25,000 people who work here and overseas - have to
pay attention to being economical, not wasting the taxpayers money, trying
to do things as efficiently as we can.
Having said that, Secretary Albright, of course, fully supports what the
President said last night. We are looking for an increase in Foreign
Affairs funding. Foreign Affairs funding is one percent of the Federal
budget. It is not going to break the bank to raise even slightly the
amount of money for State Department operations, to pay our debt to the
United Nations, to pay our arrears to international financial institutions
which is also part of the budget. All of this is going to be rolled out
tomorrow by the Secretary and Craig Johnstone.
We will be economical but we need a budget increase to do our job here for
the American people.
QUESTION: One specific - I haven't checked lately, but as far I know,
Chairman Gilman is still sitting on his block funds for the Palestinian
Authority. He has his reasons. Is she going to pitch for release of those
funds?
MR. BURNS: Let me check that. I don't know if that's on the agenda
today. But I do know, Barry, that this Administration believes the funds
should be unfrozen. We've believed that for a number of months, as we've
talked to Representative Gilman about this. Let me check and see exactly
where that issue is. That should be fairly easy. I think we're talking
about a limited amount of funds. I believe it's in the neighborhood of
about $10 million.
QUESTION: There's a lot of symbolism involved?
MR. BURNS: There's a lot of symbolism. As a country, we've got to meet
our commitments, and we should meet our commitments to the Palestinians who
are doing their share to bring peace to the Middle East.
Steve.
QUESTION: The Ambassador to the U.N. from North Korea said yesterday that
the reason the briefing hadn't gotten off the ground was, in fact, because
the United States had not carried through with its promise to provide food
aid to the North Koreans.
Nothing your answer yesterday that the United States had washed its hands
or was not getting involved in negotiations between the North and Cargill,
I'm just wondering, which side of this is correct? Which is the truth
here? Has the United States promised and then reneged, or are the North
Koreans incorrect in believing that?
MR. BURNS: That was a very interesting interview. We read it quite
closely. I mean this quite sincerely. Perhaps something was missed in the
translation or just missed in the communication, because what we have done
is very clear.
The United States never promised a specific amount of food aid to the North
Koreans as an inducement to convince them to come to the table and have a
briefing on the Four Party Talks, number one.
We did not promise to deliver food or to guarantee commercial shipments of
food. But we recently approved an application by a private American grain
company for a license to export grain to North Korea. We approved that
already. That deal needs to be concluded between that grain company and
North Korea.
I should also tell you that we have been assiduous in listening to the
World Food Program and the other non-profit organizations. When they have
come forward with emergency appeals for grain to North Korea, the United
States has responded. I said two days ago that we understand the World
Food Program is considering another appeal and that we would look very
seriously at that appeal.
I believe the United States has acted in good faith. It is simply not
accurate to say that the United States Government is holding up the talks
because we've been straightforward with the North Koreans on what we can do
and what we can't do.
QUESTION: Would it be fair to say, then, that what you're saying is that
the North Koreans are making the historical and typical socialist mistake
of believing that Cargill and the United States Government are one in the
same thing?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if the North Koreans believe that, but I think
that is a good point to make, to remind people about.
Cargill is a private company. It is not an arm of the United States
Government. It makes its own decisions. It does require an export
license. We've already granted that.
We have tried to facilitate North Korea's contacts with private American
grain companies. But it's a good point to make, Steve.
Mr. Lambros, yes.
QUESTION: According to an obvious fabricated story that appeared in
Athens, Nicosia, Ankara, London, and New York, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright sent an unusual long message to the Greek Foreign Minister,
Theodhoros Pangalos, on Greek-Turkish affairs and an invitation to visit
Washington as soon as possible.
Could you please confirm that this decision was overplayed by the state
media in Greece?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone's reporting
abilities. I'm not going to criticize any news agency.
I'm just not aware of any invitation. But I know that Secretary Albright
looks forward to a very good relationship with Foreign Minister Pangalos
and with the Prime Minister as well.
QUESTION: Not even a message?
MR. BURNS: I'm just not aware of it, but I think we should probably check
for you. Again, I don't really - we don't need to attack the Greek -
QUESTION: Anything on the upcoming coup d'etat in Turkey with the code
name "Operation Democracy" and any particular comment on Turkey's General
Ismail Karadayi's statement that he's going to crush the Turkish political
Islam, and can you confirm information from Ankara that a number of Turkish
officers have already been arrested by the military favoring the Islamic
revolution in Turkey?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, do you think this briefing is boring and you're
just trying to inject some excitement into it?
QUESTION: It's very important.
MR. BURNS: You're trying to - as I said yesterday, I believe the secular
democratic state that Turkey clearly is, is a stable country with a stable
political system. We're confident that Turkish democracy will continue to
flourish and that Turkey will continue to be open to a broader relationship
with Europe and that Europe should be open to a broader relationship with
Turkey.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) confirm via the Internet system that Turkey
finally would veto NATO expansion unless it is placed on the list of the
candidates to join the EU as a full member.
Could you please comment on this and unusual Turkish blackmail against
your policy of the NATO planning?
MR. BURNS: Without agreeing to the premise of your question about
blackmail and all of that, I don't agree with that. Let me just say, we've
never heard officially from the Turkish Government any sentiment that would
run counter to NATO enlargement. We didn't hear in the North Atlantic
Council meeting in December - the historic meeting that called for the
Madrid summit - any negative points of view by the Turkish Government.
In fact, Minister Ciller fully supported the agreement by the NATO
Ministers to have a summit in Madrid on July 7-8 and to make the decision
at that summit publicly to invite certain countries to negotiate with us
for future NATO membership.
I wouldn't pay attention to these reports because the Government of Turkey
has never talked like this to the United States.
QUESTION: Any comment on the Israeli Minister of Defense proposal to your
government for joining air and naval exercise - with Israel and Turkey?
And I would like to know your response and if this exercise will take place
also into the Aegean Sea?
MR. BURNS: I would refer that question to the Israeli and Turkish
Governments. But the United States has supported, during the past year,
the new relationship between Turkey and Israel. It's positive for
stability in the eastern Mediterranean.
QUESTION: What is your response to the invitation to join the exercise?
MR. BURNS: I'm just not aware of the details, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: It was proposed yesterday.
MR. BURNS: I'd refer you to the Turkish and Israeli Governments on this,
but we do favor their rapproachement, the renewal of their relations.
QUESTION: Nick, on Turkey, for days you've been asked about Turkey and
you tip your hat to what is called "secularism" in Turkey. Does the U.S.
State Department have a view, an analysis, does it accept the analysis
which is broadly the analysis in the press, that the military moves are a
demonstration of displeasure with the Islamist trends in Turkey; that the
military is doing what it's doing to sort of say, we would like secular
democracy to continue in Turkey and we're a little nervous about it?
You keep saying Turkey is a good friend of NATO and it's a secular
country.
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: Well, all right. You know things are going on in Turkey, and
I'm curious to have the State Department analysis of why the military is
going to these - taking these steps, and what do you think is going on
there?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I'm just not in a position, and it would be inappropriate
for me to put myself in a position to comment on internal events in Turkey
that are clearly domestic.
QUESTION: But they have a U.S. impact. Turkey is an important ally of
the United States. If Turkey's democratic system is under challenge, I
would imagine that the State Department would be concerned. Is it under
challenge? Is the military trying to hold the fort?
MR. BURNS: Two points. First, on process. It is not appropriate for
anybody at this podium to comment on internal affairs in a NATO country.
But it is appropriate to answer your last question, and I've done it
before. We believe that Turkey is stable politically. We believe that its
secular democracy is going to continue.
Every country has dramas. Every country has turbulence in it, including
our own country. I know that these events are interesting to you, but it's
not appropriate for us to comment on them. I think I have answered the
question that's most important here, and we believe that Turkey is a stable
country.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Ecuador for a moment?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: As you mentioned, there are strikes going on in the country and
calls for President Bucaram's resignation.
What is the United States most concerned about in the situation?
What do you think is the biggest threat or fear on your part with what's
going on in the country?
MR. BURNS: This is a very delicate situation. Let me just say this. We
understand a national strike has been called today in Ecuador by labor and
political groups to protest price increases and reductions in government
programs.
We also understand that some Congressional leaders have also stated their
intention to call a special session of Congress to ask for the replacement
of President Bucaram. There are differing opinions, obviously, as to how
that might take place under the Constitution in Ecuador.
We're following it closely. We hope that all Ecuadorans refrain from
violence. We believe that political reconciliation, which clearly must
take place in Ecuador, can only be brought about by direct dialogue and not
by backroom political machinations.
So we would like to see, as a friend of Ecuador, stability, due respect
for the Constitution of Ecuador and for the political process.
The OAS is a very important regional institution in many ways, but here's a
good example of it. Caesar Gaviria is en route to Quito to represent all of
us in the Americas to argue for respect for the Constitution, respect for
democracy, and not for the return to the old ways of doing business in this
hemisphere. It's a very important message. Believe me, our Embassy in
Quito is also relaying that message to everybody concerned in this
political drama.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Congress is thinking of calling a special
session for his resignation. There are also reports that President
Bucaram's government is threatening to dissolve Congress if they take those
steps. What is your reaction to these pressure points?
MR. BURNS: We are not going to involve ourselves specifically with public
comments in supporting one side or the other except to say the Constitution
should be respected and all future discussions should be direct and
straightforward. I think the Ecuadorian political leaders across the
spectrum understand what that means.
Mr. Gaviria is going to represent all of us in transmitting that message
to them; but we're very concerned about Ecuador.
QUESTION: This morning, the White House, I believe, released their formal
announcement that the President is going to be making his trip to the
region.
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: Just for the record, what is the main purpose or the specific
reason that he is going down to -
MR. BURNS: The President talked last night in his State of the Union
address about the importance of Latin America to the United States, not
just for trade reasons, although that's self-evident, but also for
political reasons - military as well.
He's long wanted to make a trip to Latin America. Following Secretary
Christopher's very successful trip last February, he'll be going to some of
the key countries - Argentina and Brazil - but also to some of the
important countries - Central America, Costa Rica, and to Barbados. But
his first trip, preceding that, will be to Mexico.
Mexico and Canada are arguably the two most - are the two countries that
affect us the most, and a trip to Mexico City is in order considering the
close relationship we have with President Zedillo and the success, as the
President mentioned last evening, about the recovery assistance that the
United States extended to Mexico.
I remember at the time a lot of opposition to that, a lot of predictions
from people against the President's initiative who said it was going to
fail. It succeeded, and it succeeded in the most dramatic way - with
interest. That's testimony to the integrity of the Mexican President and
the increasing stability of the Mexican economy.
Yes, Mr. Katz.
QUESTION: Nick, is there a particular protocol to be followed when a
sitting Ambassador dies? Can you give us some idea of what the State
Department has been doing in response to Ambassador Harriman's illness and
death; what plans have been made within the building, etc.?
MR. BURNS: Her illness was quite sudden. Her death is sudden. I think
Secretary Albright and others have simply been - they've been focused on
her health and on her death today.
In all cases, whether in this case, tragically, an Ambassador dies in
office, whether the Ambassador leaves the country on annual leave, leaves
the country for consultations, the Deputy Chief of Mission always takes
over in any of those cases and becomes the Charge D'Affaires. Don Bandler
is a career Foreign Service officer. He has been extraordinarily effective
in Paris. He is now the American Charge D'Affaires ad interim. I think
you all remember what that means from our recent transition here between
Secretaries of State.
Until the next American Ambassador is sworn in here, Mr. Bandler will be
the chief American diplomat in Paris. Secretary Albright has absolute
confidence in him.
QUESTION: I understand that. What I was asking more about, is there any
specific protocol for honors at the funeral, etc.?
MR. BURNS: Lee, at the beginning of the briefing, I mentioned what the
arrangements are going to be. I can't be more specific than that because
we want to respect the wishes of her family and her son. I think, in
consultation with him, we'll work out the right and the most dignified
honor for her when her remains are transported back to the United
States.
QUESTION: I learned from the French Desk about 30 minutes ago that Pamela
Harriman had been avid fitness swimmer for a number of years. She was in
excellent health; had no record at all of any kinds of problems. It was a
complete shock to the Embassy - her death was. She was out of the pool at
the time, on the bank, I believe where she was struck.
MR. BURNS: Bill, I just don't it's appropriate for me.
I'm not a family member. I think we should respect the wishes of the
family for some privacy about what happened in the last couple of days. If
the family wants to speak at some time, I'm sure they will.
QUESTION: With Prime Minister Chernomyrdin arriving in a couple of hours,
and his remarks that were published in the Washington Post and the spate
of articles that have been written, including George Kennan's article in
the New York Times against - quite adamantly -against NATO expansion, I
wonder if this is coloring -- must be coloring the dialogue a little bit
of today's meetings and whether it's prompted any soul-searching within the
policy?
MR. BURNS: We have absolute confidence in our government about the wisdom
of NATO enlargement. This is not a new discussion.
The Russian Government has disagreed with the idea of NATO enlargement for
three years. They disagreed in January 1994, and they still disagree. We
understand that.
President Clinton's original vision of three years ago is U.S. policy and
NATO policy: NATO enlargement, accompanied by a NATO-Russia understanding,
which we are currently negotiating, accompanied by the internal reform of
NATO.
If we accomplish those three things, we think that NATO will continue to be
the central security institution in Europe, and we're not surprised by the
comments of the Russian leadership. We respect their views. The Vice
President, Strobe Talbott, Secretary Albright and others will be talking to
him about these issues.
NATO enlargement will take place. It will not be slowed down.
It will not be delayed. The Madrid Summit will be held on time. We will
announce publicly the members that we wish to take in at that time. As the
President said, we hope those members can actually become officially part
of NATO in 1999. But the NATO-Russia discussions must continue, and we
hope they can be completed by the Madrid Summit, because they're very
important.
QUESTION: Nick, two follow-ups - I mean, a two-point follow-up.
You were asked about a letter yesterday that may have been two years ago.
Remember, Foreign - State Department people - I don't know if that letter
turned up. I guess you would have told us if it had.
MR. BURNS: None of us remember the letter. I did ask our staff to look
into it, and we certainly respect the views of former American officials.
But I can tell you, there's unanimity in our government about this issue.
We should go forward.
QUESTION: You see, as we discussed yesterday, once there's a decision,
there's unanimity, usually. But before a decision, there's hopefully - as
Christopher always said, he hopes for lively exchanges. If it were two
years ago, that would be after the decision.
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: So it would be interesting and, you know, don't poke around and
try to find it, but we thought since you asked yesterday, you might have
some word on whether it exists and whether any credible study you can refer
to. I know there are all sorts of variables about NATO expansion - where
the troops go, who comes in, who does -- all these affect costs. But do
you have any cost figure, because the opposition, you've got to realize,
to NATO expansion, and you can make it a final situation - fait accompli
- but you've noticed from New York Times' editorials to retired diplomats,
to other people and to people on the Hill who are cost conscious, for one
thing, it isn't a - you know, it isn't totally 100 percent approved by
everybody in this town. So the cost figures are important. Do you have
any?
MR. BURNS: Yes. First, there is a debate in this country about NATO
expansion. There are lots of people who don't think it's the right idea.
Former government officials -
QUESTION: And Michael Mandelbaum.
MR. BURNS: Michael Mandelbaum, New York Times, lots of people think
it's not the right thing to do. The Washington Post, on the other hand,
thinks it's the right thing to do.
Their editorial line has been quite consistent. Former Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger thinks it's the right thing to do.
QUESTION: Brzezinski is for it.
MR. BURNS: Yes, speaking of -
QUESTION: He thinks she's taking too long to do it.
MR. BURNS: So we have a debate in the country. What I said yesterday was
that we did have a debate in the fall of 1993 in the government -
discussions - and there were people on various sides of the issue. But
since January '94 - not just because government people have to toe the line
- I think our senior leadership has been privately unified on this issue as
well as publicly, and it's the right thing to do. We're convinced of it.
We have to make that case to the
American people, and we are bound by a commitment to the Congress to
actually publish what our cost assessment is. But I believe the Pentagon
will do that, and I believe that's going to take place at some point in the
next month or two. I can't do it today.
QUESTION: Nick, as a matter of history, who's idea was NATO expansion?
QUESTION: Brzezinski. (Laughter) People like Brzezinski.
(Laughter)
QUESTION: Nick, did all of the NATO -
QUESTION: People in Brussels (inaudible) the worst.
MR. BURNS: Victory has a thousand fathers and mothers.
QUESTION: No, who came up with the idea?
MR. BURNS: I don't recall. In our own government, you mean? I don't
recall.
QUESTION: That came from outside government.
QUESTION: Who first had the idea to expand NATO, do you know -
MR. BURNS: I don't know.
QUESTION: Or did all foreign ministers sort of -
MR. BURNS: I hesitate to give credit to one individual, but I remember
the Rand Corporation study in the summer and fall of 1993 was quite
important in generating discussion within the Administration, and I
remember taking part in that when I was in a different position at the
White House. It was a quite vigorous discussion. But by the time
Secretary Christopher went to Moscow on October 22, 1993, to present this
to President Yeltsin, we had a unified government position, which the
President then followed up in January 1994 at the NATO summit.
So there are a thousand fathers and mothers, I guess, to this, but I think
you have to give full credit to the President's Ostankino speech in Russia,
which was the first full-scale articulation of the concept - not just of
NATO enlargement but of a NATO-Russia relationship. We're proceeding on
parallel tracks. A NATO-Russia charter is equally important to NATO
enlargement, but it will not derail NATO enlargement, and that's an
important tactical point.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? First of all, George Kennan, who's
obviously a former diplomat and someone who's respected by a lot of people
in the building here -
MR. BURNS: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Did his views expressed in The New York Times today have any
impact? Are there any of them that you regard as arguments that need to be
carefully analyzed and perhaps might have some merit to them? And,
secondly, I'd be interested in knowing, since we're doing a little history
briefly here, what was it that convinced Deputy Secretary of State Talbott
to change his mind and come out in favor of something he had been
previously opposed to? Which particular part of the equation was it
that changed the his mind.
MR. BURNS: Two questions. I'll give you two answers - an answer to both.
We do have great respect for Ambassador Kennan.
In fact, in the fall of '93, we invited him to the White House to meet
with a group of Administration people discussing NATO enlargement. We
heard from him in a two-hour session in the White House, and a lot of
people here have kept in touch with him since.
So we know his views well, and we respect them.
I think I should let Deputy Secretary Talbott speak for himself on this.
But I was a very close associate of his at the time, and I think there's
been a lot of misinformation about his position inside the Administration
on that issue during that fall. He was a major player in trying to think
through the concept and the problems, but he was fully on board once these
discussions became real discussions in September and October of 1993. I
read a lot that he was an opponent. He wasn't an opponent. He was
someone who brought a lot of questions to the table because he had a brief
that was responsible for Russia and the former Soviet Union.
But he was one of the major people who helped to craft the policy of NATO
enlargement, and the parallel track negotiations of a NATO-Russia dialogue,
which everyone forgets about. I think all of us who talk about this -
reporters and officials - have to remember it's not just NATO enlargement.
We're trying to bring Russia into Europe through a charter or another
understanding and Strobe Talbott had a lot to do with formulating that
proposal that the President made in Brussels in January '94. That's
my very clear view and memory of those events, and I worked every
day with Strobe, as you know, on that issue at the time.
QUESTION: But he was never an opponent.
MR. BURNS: I'm trying to say that the argument has been presented in much
too simplistic terms by people writing about this, because there was no
time until October '93 where we had to make a decision. There was simply a
lot of talk and a lot of debate, and that's where we ended up.
Betsy.
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: Stay on NATO enlargement, if I can.
MR. BURNS: Yes, Andre.
QUESTION: We have indication that France is willing to organize a
restricted NATO summit in Paris in April with only four countries and
Russia to coordinate before the Madrid summit.
Are you aware of the proposal, and do you think it would be useful?
MR. BURNS: Let me tell you, we've seen the press reports, but I've
checked with senior people in the White House just before coming out here,
as well as senior people in this building. We have not received any such
proposal from the French Government.
No such proposal at all. We've never had a discussion about this
proposal. We are moving and pointing towards Madrid, July 7<SUP>th
and 8<SUP>th. Secretary Albright had a very good meeting with the
Belgian Foreign Minister this morning, and they talked about the process of
getting to Madrid, and they agreed that NATO must be unified and that the
views of all NATO members must be considered, large and small, as we travel
to Madrid, which is going to be the signal event of our foreign policy, I
would say, in the next six months - getting to Madrid.
The negotiations that Secretary General Solana will have, again on February
23<SUP>rd with Primakov, and the conversations we are all having in
NATO with the Russians - there will be conversations with Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin in the next couple of days on this issue - all important to
get us to Madrid, unified under Secretary General Solana's direction.
QUESTION: But Paris - is there no such proposal?
MR. BURNS: All I can tell you -
QUESTION: Well, you haven't received it -
MR. BURNS: -- is very clear advice from senior members of our government
that no such proposal has been received from the French Government, and we
are pointing towards Madrid.
QUESTION: Were it received -
QUESTION: Will the proposal be discussed within NATO in Brussels?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any such proposal. I'm not aware of it, and
again I'm not at NATO every day. I can't say there have been no discussions
in the NATO corridors ever about this. There are a lot of press reports.
There's obviously some discussions somewhere. The United States Government
has not been given a proposal for such a meeting. We are concentrating
on Madrid. That's what we would like to do.
QUESTION: Would it be useful, Nick, however, should it become a reality -
this proposal, an interim session that would include the NATO heavyweights
and Russia?
MR. BURNS: You know, that's not something that I believe we have proposed
ourselves. We believe that the focal point should be the negotiations
between Secretary General Solana and the Russian Government. He has been
deputized to speak for NATO in those negotiations. We have a lot of
confidence in Secretary General Solana, who himself has been talking about
his negotiations just today in Brussels. We believe that should be the
focus, and the Madrid Summit should be the place where all of us meet - 16
countries in Madrid.
QUESTION: NATO expansion - as far as the security status of the Baltics
is concerned, do you think that the upcoming talks between Chernomyrdin and
Vice President Gore, they will be discussing what the status of the Baltics
will be in the emerging security framework in Europe?
MR. BURNS: The Baltics often come up when we meet with the Russian
leadership, because we've been effective in the past four years in trying
to promote better relations between Russia and Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania. We're quite mindful of the future security concerns of the
Baltics. That's why we are funding and sponsoring the creation of the
Baltic Battalion which participated with us in our sector in Bosnia, which
has been trained in the United States. We are not going to forget the fact
that the Baltic countries ought to be pointed Westward, which is their
natural orientation.
I think there's no better authority on this issue than President Clinton
who said a couple of months ago when he met the Baltic leaders, that while
we've made no commitments to anyone and while - I don't know if it's likely
that the Baltics will be among the first to enter NATO - perhaps not - but
the first shall not be the last. All members of the Partnership for Peace
are eligible to be considered in the long term for NATO membership. The
Baltic countries have had no better friend than the United States
and will continue to have no better friend. Witness President Clinton's
trip to Riga in July '94. I think he's demonstrated that in his meetings
with the three Baltic leaders. He's done that at several points along the
way - I think four meetings in the last four years.
QUESTION: I think you said a while back - a few minutes ago - that Madrid
is when the new members will be announced?
MR. BURNS: Yes. The decision will be made in Madrid on July 7<SUP>th
and 8<SUP>th to begin negotiations with certain members of the
Partnership for Peace who wish to become members of NATO, and that's a very
public thing.
QUESTION: All right. That's slightly different. I mean, Madrid will
reveal which of the Central and Eastern and whatever European countries are
considered acceptable as members, or will it just say, "Tell us why you
want - you know, let's talk about it."
MR. BURNS: NATO will make the formal decision at Madrid to invite certain
countries who are members of the Partnership for Peace currently to begin
negotiations with NATO from that point on - formal negotiations.
QUESTION: But sort of like a country fraternity - whoever is invited, the
assumption is -
MR. BURNS: It's not really a -
QUESTION: -- they will be - it sounds like it. whoever's invited is, you
know, is likely to go through the door.
MR. BURNS: And then we expect, as the President and Secretary have both
said that there will be a time period during which we negotiate NATO
membership, and we hope those negotiations can be completed by 1999, which
will be the 50<SUP>th anniversary of the founding of NATO.
QUESTION: All right, how many countries have asked for membership, or
expressed interest in membership, approximately?
MR. BURNS: I think a lot of the members of the Partnership for Peace have
been quite public and open to you as well as to us in saying they want to
be members of NATO. But we have not revealed which countries we believe
will be invited, because that decision hasn't been made by NATO yet.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) I was asking - but you don't have a number.
MR. BURNS: Oh, I think a great many -
QUESTION: A couple of dozen?
MR. BURNS: -- of the Partnership for Peace countries have asked - publicly
declared for NATO membership. But we have not made a decision in NATO as
to which countries will be invited in. I want to be clear about that.
QUESTION: We'll all be surprised in July.
QUESTION: Sorry to prolong this, but going back to Turkey for a second.
Should the stability of Turkish democracy in the next week or so become
less, I'm wondering how the United States looks historically back at the
three military coups in Turkish histories in the past 30 or so years. Are
they viewed as a positive factor historically, negatively, or what is the
diplomatic view of those coups?
MR. BURNS: I'm not the best person to give you an historical view of the
past, but I can tell you that we believe that Turkey's secular democracy
and its civilian government - its civilian leadership are important to
Turkey's position in Europe, to Turkey's relationship with the rest of NATO
and certainly to its relationship with the United States. We have great
confidence that Turkish democracy under its civilian leadership will
continue, and that the secular basis of Turkey's own constitution and its
own political system will continue.
We are a close ally of Turkey, and we watch events there very carefully, as
you expect we would, through our Embassy in Ankara and our Consulate in
Istanbul. But we don't share some of the concerns that Turkey is on the
verge of instability. We think it is a generally stable country.
Obviously, it's got its problems, just as we have our own problems here.
But we think that Turkish democracy will continue, and that's our very
strong hope.
QUESTION: Where does that confidence come from?
MR. BURNS: It comes from our personal relations with the Turkish
leadership, and it comes from our knowledge of the commitment that we
believe all segments of the Turkish government have to democracy and to
civilian rule, which is a very important principle among all NATO
countries.
I think Betsy had a question.
QUESTION: Yes, I have several questions on the Cuban nuclear power plant.
I've been asked to ask these questions. It has to do with IAEA funding.
The U.S. pays 25 percent of the funding for IAEA, and the U.S. gives 33
percent of the funding for the technical support unit within IAEA, which
helps third-world countries deal with their nuclear power facilities.
In the last seven years, the IAEA has given Cuba about $1 million out of
this fund, and clearly a lot of these funds have been spent on this
particular power plant, which the U.S. feels, as do others, that it is
dangerous -
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: -- and a threat not only to the Cubans but to people in this
country. How can the U.S. justify spending U.S. taxpayer money on a
project like this?
MR. BURNS: The United States' record on the Juraguar Nuclear Power Plant
in Cuba is crystal clear, going back into the Soviet period when Gorbachev
was the Soviet premier. President Bush consistently, with Secretary Baker,
raised this issue with the Soviet Government, and since the fall of the
Soviet Union, President Bush and President Clinton and their Secretaries of
State have raised it with the Russian Government officials.
Our view is that this plant is not a good idea. It is partially constructed.
It should not be brought on line. We opposed the Juraguar Nuclear Power
Plant being brought on line, because we think it will be unsafe. We don't
trust the technology. We don't trust the capacity and capability of the
Cuban Government to run it efficiently.
We have an absolutely clear record. It's an item that is high on our
agenda with both the Russian Government and the Cuban Government, and we
have asked time and again that the Russian Government not assist the Cuban
Government in completing this construction.
We are a leading members of the IAEA, and we do have a responsibility to
provide funds for IAEA activities. But in the case of the Juraguar Nuclear
Power Plant, the IAEA funds are only directed at maintaining a constant
inspection of the plant so that we can assure ourselves and the residents
of Florida that it is stable.
But none of the IAEA funds - none of them - will be directed towards
bringing that plant on line. The United States would oppose that. We
would not let it happen.
QUESTION: Did the U.S. decide from the amount of money that it gives in
the overall budget - gives voluntary amount to the IAEA of about $35
million? Would the U.S. consider withholding these funds to make sure that
no U.S. funds are spent for this plant?
MR. BURNS: No, because it is American money well spent to make sure that
the Juraguar Nuclear Power Plant does not come on line, but while it exists
in its undetermined state, that it is stable; that it doesn't present a
safety or health problem for the citizens of Cuba or the citizens of our
south. We're 90 miles from Cuba. We have to be concerned by what happens
in Cuba. We think this power plant is unstable and dangerous. We
don't wish to see it be built.
But the IAEA is helping us in that regard. It's maintaining our assurance
that there are no health or safety problems at the present time, and we
will not allow IAEA funds to be spent to complete it, and I don't believe
this plant will be completed. It would be terribly expensive for the Cuban
Government do so, and I don't believe the Russian Government has the money
to give it for that project.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about Serbia? It looks like the protest
is still going on, despite Mr. Milosevic's pledge to accept the results.
MR. BURNS: We await the actions of the Serbian Government to fulfill its
promise of yesterday to respect the elections and to allow Zajedno to take
its seat in the various municipal assemblies.
We're looking for concrete deeds, and we haven't seen them yet.
We sure would like to see them, and our skepticism remains healthy and
alive until we see these actions by the Serbian Government.
QUESTION: Do you want to talk about Uganda?
MR. BURNS: Actually, I do. There's some news here that we need to do at
the end, which we haven't done, and it concerns Africa. I told you that
Secretary Albright met with President Museveni yesterday and met with the
Ugandan President Museveni yesterday, and she also met with the Belgian
Foreign Minister. Both of those conversations centered on the situation in
Eastern Zaire, which is very troubling.
The United States appeals again today to the neighbors of Zaire to stay out
of Zaire, to not involve themselves in the fighting.
200,000 Rwandan Hutu refugees are trapped inside Eastern Zaire because of
the fighting, because of the insurgency.
Yesterday, I didn't name countries, but I can tell you that we have
underscored this message to Uganda and Rwanda and Burundi, and we were very
pleased to see that we have a common position on this with the French
Government and with the Belgian Government, both of which are very
important governments with a lot of influence in Central Africa.
We're concerned about this situation, and Secretary Christopher has taken
the opportunity over the last 24 hours to transmit - Secretary Albright -
QUESTION: (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Now you've got me going. Secretary Albright has transmitted
this message. The last thing I want to say and then we can go is that
there was a terrible killing yesterday of United Nations Human Rights
monitors in Rwanda. Two U.N. Human Rights monitors and three other U.N.
employees were ambushed, and the United States strongly condemns this
attack. We call on the Government of Rwanda to spare no effort in bringing
these people to justice and in creating conditions of safety for the
U.N. people who are there to help the Rwandan people.
And my apologies to Secretary Albright for those comments.
(The briefing concluded at 2:26 p.m.)
(###)
|
