U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #21, 97-02-06
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
855
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 6, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Secretary Albright's Activities Today
1 Secretary's Trip to Houston
1-2 Memorial Services for Ambassador Harriman
2 Public Statement on Terrorist Attacks in Rwanda
2 Public Statement on Hostage Situation in Tajikistan
2-3 U.S.-Canadian Discussions on Cuba
SUDAN
3 Involvement of Foreign Troops in Sudanese Civil War
RUSSIA
3-7 Possible Russian Sale of Nuclear Reactors to India
5-6 Russian Sales of Military Equipment to Iran and Cyprus
INDIA
7 Status of India as Signatory to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
TAJIKISTAN
8 Americans/Europeans in Hostage Situation
NATO EXPANSION
8 Ukrainian Relationship with NATO
10-11 Turkey Accession to NATO and the EU
11 French Statement Denying a Proposal for a Five Power Summit
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
8-9 Reported Bosnian Underground Intelligence Link to Iran Headed by Cengic
MEXICO
9 Secretary Albright Meeting Tomorrow with Foreign Minister Gurria
COLOMBIA
11-12 Colombian Army Statement on Fighting Near Bogota
GREECE
12 Alleged Albright Invitation to Foreign Minister Pangalos to Visit the U.S.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #21
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1997, 1:36 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: A couple of things. I wanted to let you know that Secretary
Albright this morning attended the National Prayer Breakfast, as she
mentioned. She also had a meeting with Congressman Livingston - Bob
Livingston of Louisiana - up on the Hill in her introductory calls on
Congressmen about State Department resources.
She is going to be meeting with Vice President Gore and Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin in about 25 minutes in a private meeting.
Then, I think at around 2:15, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and Vice
President Gore will begin their plenary session. The opening statements
are open to the press in the Loy Henderson Auditorium.
Those of you who want to go to that, I think you have to leave here in
about 15-20 minutes.
The Secretary is traveling to Houston tomorrow morning. She leaves at
7:00 a.m. from Andrews. We'll have 15 of you with us.
We're looking forward to having you with us. Let me just go over the
events again. She's going to be visiting a high school in Houston, Texas,
to talk to students about American foreign policy. She has a meeting with
the Mexican Foreign Minister at Rice University. She's giving a major
speech on our priorities, including resources, Chemical Weapons Convention,
the importance of bipartisan support for American foreign policy. That's at
Rice.
She'll have a reception with the university there. She's also taking
questions from the students at Rice. I'll try to have that speech piped
here into the Briefing Room. She'll see Secretary Baker tomorrow in Houston
and she'll see President Bush in Houston on Saturday morning. She returns
here on Saturday afternoon.
I want to let you know a little bit about the arrangements for the
memorial services and the funeral of Ambassador Harriman.
I understand there will be a valedictory commemoration at the United
States Embassy, at the residence of Ambassador Harriman, on Saturday
morning, February 8, for her family members and for Embassy staff. We are
also very grateful that President Chirac has decided to honor Ambassador
Harriman and pay tribute to her by offering her posthumously the La Grande
Croix de la Legion d'Honneur. That's the highest honor that the French
Government can afford anyone. It's really a great tribute to her, and
it's a wonderful gesture by President Chirac.
I also want to let you know that there will be a public memorial service
in Paris for Ambassador Harriman. I don't believe that time has been
set.
Finally, her funeral will be held at the National Cathedral
here in Washington next Thursday, February 13. Burial, in the presence
of her family, will be on February 14 at the Harriman family estate in
Arden, New York. That information comes to us from the United States
Embassy in Paris.
I have two statements that I'm going to be posting in the Briefing Room
following this briefing. Let me just give you the highlights of both. The
first concerns terrorist violence in Rwanda.
The United States condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks
against Rwandans and expatriates in Rwanda in the last several weeks.
You remember on January 18, there were attacks on humanitarian workers
where three Spanish aid workers were killed and an American seriously
wounded. Just a couple of days ago, on February 4, two United Nations
human rights monitors, a Briton and a Cambodian, were killed; three Rwandan
U.N. employees working with the human rights monitors were also murdered.
All of these victims were unarmed and it appears that all were deliberately
targeted.
The United States is urging all Rwandans to put aside their differences
and to end this violence. It appears that genocidal elements of the former
Rwandan Army combined with the Interahamwe militia have been staging
attacks into Rwanda, often killing innocent Rwandan civilians, including
government officials. These incidents appear to have increased in number
and in intensity just in the last couple of weeks.
Second, we also are concerned very much with the situation in Tajikistan.
The United States Government expresses its deep concern over a worsening
hostage incident in Dushanbe and condemns this act of terrorism in four
separate roundups starting two days ago on February 4th and continuing
today.
A group of armed hostage-takers has grabbed 15 hostages, and they include
U.N. military observers, International Committee of the Red Cross workers,
U.N. Human Rights Commission people and journalists. These are both
expatriates and local staff of each of these organizations. The hostage-
takers, we believe, are an independent armed group belonging neither to the
government nor to the opposition.
We believe that the Government of Tajikistan must take more concerted
measures to protect United Nations personnel and personnel belonging to
humanitarian organizations in order to protect them. We look to the
Government of Tajikistan and the United Nations to try to secure the
release of the people who have been taken hostage.
There's a statement on this that I'm posting.
Finally, I just wanted to note - I know that Barry is not here, but he's
asked me five times this week, when will the Canadians be arriving to talk
about Cuba with the Americans? The answer is, tomorrow. We will hold
consultations tomorrow with the Canadian Deputy Foreign Minister on Latin
American issues, including on Cuba, and we hope that will include a
detailed briefing on Minister Axworthy's recent visit to Cuba.
With that, I'll be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTIONS: Does the United States have any evidence of involvement by
Eritrea and Ethiopia in the fighting in Sudan?
Does it risk the potential of there being a - the conflict there expanding
to the extent that it has expanded in the Great Lakes region - trouble in
the Horn of Africa?
MR. BURNS: I can't specifically point in this forum to that kind of
foreign involvement in the civil war in Sudan. It is a bloody civil war.
It is increasing in severity in the south and in the east of the country.
We talked about that before.
We, of course, would not like to see foreign involvement in Sudan.
The country has sufficient troubles without that. Contrary to some of the
speculation that we've seen in the press and we've seen from the Sudanese
Government, the United States Government is not providing military
assistance - lethal military assistance - to any of the countries that you
mentioned. We have non-lethal military assistance programs that have had
funds appropriated for them but no equipment has been delivered. The
equipment is non-lethal. It's uniforms, boots, shoestrings, and that
kind of thing.
Let me just go to Carol.
QUESTIONS: What does the United States know about a Russian deal with
India to sell two nuclear reactors, and has the government protested this
sale?
MR. BURNS: Has our government protested it?
QUESTIONS: Yes.
MR. BURNS: We have certainly raised this issue with the Russian
Government on a variety of occasions. Let me just take you through, if I
could, Carol, the background of this very briefly, but it is quite
interesting.
In 1992, the nuclear suppliers group, of which Russia is a member, adopted
full-scope safeguards - a policy of full-scope safeguards for the supply of
nuclear materials and equipment to other countries.
Under this policy, the members, including Russia, agreed to require as a
condition for future nuclear supply arrangements, that the recipient
country have in force a full-scope safeguards agreement.
As you know, India has not accepted full-scope safeguards. Therefore, we
do not believe the Russian Government should proceed with any kind of
nuclear assistance to India, including the provision of nuclear power
reactors to India. We have raised this issue with the Russian Government
repeatedly, and we'll continue to raise it with them.
QUESTIONS: When did you first raise this issue? Is this something going
back over the course of a year, two years?
MR. BURNS: I do not remember specifically when we raised it, but it has
been a number of years.
QUESTIONS: A number of years?
MR. BURNS: A number of years. I can't recall the beginning, but a
number of years.
QUESTIONS: Are you saying, then, that this deal has been in the works
for a couple of years?
MR. BURNS: We believe it has been in planning for a couple of years,
yes. There's been a lot of discussions back and forth, but we've been
quite consistent in our own position on it.
QUESTIONS: What's your understanding of the status of the deal now? Is
it about to come to fruition? Has Russian delivered any of the equipment?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to take that question. It's really probably
appropriately referred to the Russian and Indian Governments.
I don't know the exact status of the agreement, but I do know that we're
opposed to it.
QUESTIONS: When was the last time that this was raised with Russian
officials?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't know the last time, but you can be assured we've
raised it continually and we'll raise it in the future.
QUESTIONS: Is it something that Gore and Chernomyrdin will talk
about?
MR. BURNS: It's hard for me to say specifically what's going to be
raised and what's not going to be raised. They're going to talk about a
wide variety of issues, but I'll let you know after the talks and if this
did come up, if you're interested in that. There's also a press conference,
as you know, tomorrow in Room 450 of the Executive Office Building where
the Vice President and the Prime Minister will talk about what they've
discussed.
QUESTIONS: The Tajik hostage situation, do you know if -
MR. BURNS: We're on the same subject, I think.
QUESTIONS: Can we stay on the subject for just a moment, please? Nick,
this deal with India doesn't happen in a vacuum.
These are the same Russians who were trying to sell a nuclear power plant
to Iran, sold missiles to Cyprus, and several other things that you've had
occasion to comment about from that very lectern. Are the Russians
responsible citizens that we can continue to work with?
MR. BURNS: We've had concerns over the years with Russian export
policies of nuclear technology and nuclear programs. You're right to cite
the example of Iran. That issue has been a head of state issue that
President Clinton and President Yeltsin have discussed several times. We
did make some progress, as you know, in 1994-95 on that particular
issue.
We have ongoing concerns that countries that do not accept appropriate
international inspection of their nuclear programs and facilities, those
countries should not be assisted in developing those facilities, in
modernizing them, in proceeding with expansion plans, if they're not going
to accept rudimentary programs of oversight. That's the case here with
India. We don't think it's appropriate to go forward.
I don't believe the Russian Government has gone forward. I wanted to be
careful in answering Carol's question. You can never be sure exactly where
they are. We believe this is prospective, and that's why we continue to
raise it with the Russian Government.
We continue to oppose any kind of nuclear technology transfer to Iran
under the theory that not only the equipment but also the transfer of human
information, training of engineers, training of scientists, might allow the
Iranians to develop a nuclear capability on their own which, of course, the
United States is fully opposed to.
QUESTIONS: I want to go beyond the nuclear issue. The Russians also
sold submarines to the Iranians - conventional-powered submarines. Just
recently you had occasion to comment on their agreement to sell missiles
into Cyprus and a militarized Mediterranean.
Is there a pattern of irresponsible Russian behavior here? How do you
view this?
MR. BURNS: We have addressed these singularly. We have opposed the sale
of the Russian anti-aircraft system to Cyprus.
We've opposed the sale of all military equipment to Iran, not only from
Russia but from any other country because of our policy and view towards
Iran which is an outlaw state which cannot be trusted with the modernization
of its military program.
The Russian Government, in other respects, has been very concerned about
the issue of nuclear proliferation, both of fissile material and of other
technologies. The Russian Government has been very helpful along with us
and others in trying to stem the problem of proliferation worldwide. So I
don't think it's fair to say that the Russian Government is not paying
attention to its responsibilities.
We have a number of disagreements on particular countries.
But President Yeltsin himself has said that proliferation is a major issue
of concern and it's one of the issues that the Vice President and Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin will be talking about in just a couple of minutes
here at the State Department. We have had an ongoing series of work with
the Russians.
So, Tom, I think the record is probably mixed, to be fair, but we have to
call them as we see them. We'll continue to oppose prospective sales like
the sale to India and any sales to Iran because we think they're destabilizing
and unsafe.
QUESTIONS: The sale to Iran has been on the front burner, so to speak,
for two years now. Two years ago, the Administration announced it was
going to make a major push to stop that sale.
It hasn't stopped. In fact, site inspection has gone on; site work is
going on there. I'm wondering what more - there are two reactors in
Bushehr. I'm wondering what more the United States is prepared to do in
order to basically push its position on this?
MR. BURNS: John, I guess I'd say it's probably on the back burner. I'm
not sure it's on the front burner. If the sale to Iran - to the reactors
at Bushehr - were on the front burner, we would have seen them go
forward.
The Juragua nuclear power plant in Cuba is another good example.
That's been on the back burner since the latter Soviet period, when
Gorbachev was the Soviet Premier. The Russians, for a variety of reasons,
have not gone forward to an operational stage in Cuba or Iran. We're
thankful for that but we're going to continue to keep this issue on the
front burner - this issue of nuclear proliferation to states which we do
not believe can be trusted with advanced nuclear technology. Cuba and Iran
are two of them.
In the case of India, we have a much better relationship with India than
with Iran or Cuba. In fact, we wouldn't compare them. But the problem with
India is that India hasn't accepted the full-scope safeguards of the
nuclear suppliers group. We would hope that India would agree to do that
before it wished to modernize its own nuclear power plant technology.
QUESTIONS: The Russians have said that site preparation work at Bushehr
is going ahead; that it has been underway; that they have technicians
there. Are you saying that it hasn't?
MR. BURNS: No. What I'm saying is, the nuclear power plant has not yet
been constructed and it's certainly not operational.
So there is time to continue to try to affect the attitude of the Russian
Government on this issue, and we will certainly do that.
QUESTIONS: This particular program, it appears, was promised - these
reactors were promised to India before there was a nuclear suppliers group.
So, really, it antedates the agreement, is one argument. Secondly, the
United States has got a nuclear power reactor in India with all the full-
scope safeguards. What exactly is the problem with the - what do you fear,
actually? What is your fear?
MR. BURNS: Let me just tell you. No contracts for the supply of nuclear
technology to those Indian reactors were concluded before 1992, which was
the year when the nuclear suppliers group was formed and when it made its
own rules. So I think that's very important.
If the contracts came after, they violate the letter and spirit of the
nuclear suppliers group. Certainly, if Russia is to be a good member of
the nuclear suppliers group, which we're sure that it does want to be, we
think this is simply not in the spirit of the agreement to go forward.
What bothers us about this? We have an excellent relationship with India.
I think we've improved that relationship over the last four to five years.
But on this question of nuclear technology for nuclear power plants, we
believe all countries should submit themselves, and that includes our own
country, to international rules of the road; to regulations to ensure
nuclear power plant safety. This is just common sense. It protects people
all over the world: people in India as well as people in our own
country.
QUESTIONS: On Tajikistan. Do you know if any Americans are involved?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Sonia. We'll just stick on this issue.
QUESTIONS: One more on this. You haven't made any reference to the fact
that India hasn't signed the Test Ban Treaty. I wonder whether New Delhi's
obvious obstruction in that regard is of any concern as they try to acquire
new -
MR. BURNS: They really are separate issues. In this sense, we're hoping
that India will submit itself, as do most other countries, to the full-
scope safeguards. This is on peaceful uses of nuclear power - nuclear-
power plant technology.
The issue of the test ban, of course, refers to something quite different.
We have a well-known position on that which has not changed.
QUESTIONS: But you wouldn't relate the two. Your opposition to India
getting these reactions is in no way tied to their obstruction on the test
ban?
MR. BURNS: That's right; it's not tied at all. But both issues are
important. There are international agreements in place on both issues
which we wish India would respect and, in fact, join. I think that's the
long-term goal that we have in our relationship with the Indian Government.
Yes, Sonia.
QUESTIONS: I just -
MR. BURNS: Excuse me. We have one more question. Is this the final
question on India and Russia? Then Sonia gets to ask a question.
QUESTIONS: Nick, now that you have said this is an ongoing issue between
Russia and the United States, I am wondering whether you raised this issue
with the Indians in the recent past?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we have, and quite consistently. The Indian Government
is well aware of our views.
Sonia.
QUESTIONS: Do you know whether any American citizens or Westerners are
involved in this hostage crisis in Tajikistan?
Are any American diplomats involved in negotiations there to resolve
it?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that any American citizens have been taken
hostage in Tajikistan. I believe these are others, Europeans and others
who work for the United Nations and international organizations, and also
Tajik citizens who work for the organizations that are carrying out
humanitarian operations in Tajikistan.
QUESTIONS: This concerns another CIS state, the Ukraine.
I was wondering, sir, considering there might be another diplomatic track
to deal with the Ukraine as a parallel process to the NATO-Russia charter,
the Ukraine would seek some kind of elaboration of a treaty that would take
into account their security preoccupations.
Would the United States support such initiative?
MR. BURNS: NATO has already spoken about that issue and said that NATO
wishes - and this is led by the United States - to have an ongoing series
of discussions with the Ukrainian Government about Ukraine's relationship
to NATO. We see Ukraine as a major, important, independent state in
Central Europe; very important for the future of the region. We've begun
those conversations.
The United States itself, going back to 1994, began these talks with the
Ukrainian Government about Ukraine's place in Europe, about how Ukraine can
work together with NATO peacefully. As you know, the Ukrainians have a
delegation among the SFOR troops in Bosnia, working in the French
sector.
QUESTIONS: The Los Angeles Times has reported that Mr. Cengic has set up
some sort of underground intelligence network with the support of the
Iranians. What do you have on this?
MR. BURNS: What I have is - I know what the article said.
It gets back to whether or not it's appropriate for us - the real issue
here is, is it appropriate for the United States to have a military
relationship with the Bosnian Government if a member of that Government or
someone affiliated with that government has a relationship with the
Government of Iran?
It has been a condition of our train-and-equip program for Bosnia-
Herzegovina that it sever its military and operational intelligence links
to Iran. We believe the Bosnian Government is complying with that
commitment that was given to us by President Izetbegovic, and we monitor
that commitment continuously, including in the person of Ambassador Jim
Pardew who I believe had a statement to make on this very subject
yesterday.
That was a very interesting story in the Times, but a lot of it quoted
intelligence sources, and I can't talk about intelligence sources,
obviously, or intelligence issues. We never do that in a public forum.
QUESTIONS: Has Cengic done what he is alleged to have done? Is there
such an underground network?
MR. BURNS: What I can say - I can't speak for Mr. Cengic.
I don't know what he's doing or not doing. I know what the Government of
Bosnia-Herzegovina is not doing. It is not conducting, we believe, an
operational intelligence program with the Iranian Government or a military
assistance program with the Iranian Government.
It doesn't need to do that anymore because it has the United States on its
side with a $100 million commitment of our own to train and equip and
significant commitments from a number of Muslim countries, including
Turkey. That's a very great support to the Bosnian Government so they
don't need the Iranians.
The Iranians are being edged out of Bosnia by the United States and our
Muslim partners. That strategically is a very good thing, and we really
hope that the European countries - our allies in Western Europe - would see
the strategic wisdom of this program and join us. It would be a stronger
program if we had the support of Western Europe. But, thankfully, we have
the support of a number of Muslim countries.
QUESTIONS: Cengic is doing this - what you seem to be suggesting is that
he's doing it without the support of the Government of Bosnia?
MR. BURNS: He would have to be because we have firm ironclad commitments,
publicly made by the Bosnian Government not to engage in this activity. We
monitor their compliance with those promises continually, including, as I
said, just yesterday.
QUESTIONS: Nick, regarding the meeting, tomorrow in Houston, between
Madam Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Gurria.
Just for the record, what can we expect from that meeting? The name of
the cities with President Clinton and President Zedillo is going to meet,
or what?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that Secretary Albright will make any
announcements about the specifics of the President's schedule. Of course,
the President will be making a very important visit to Mexico in April.
The reason for the meeting is the following. Secretary Albright and
Minister Gurria spoke by phone last week. They agreed they need to get off
to a quick start in their own relationship in promoting a strong U.S.-
Mexican relationship.
Certainly, part of the meeting tomorrow can be used to talk about the
substantive objectives that we ought to have for the meeting between
President Clinton and President Zedillo. But there are a huge number of
issues that affect the United States and Mexico - environmental issues,
migration issues, narcotics issues along our border, but also a variety of
other hemispheric issues, trade issues, political issues. They'll begin to
discuss that.
We have a common agenda with Mexico. Secretary Albright wants to advance
that. I think it's highly symbolic, highly important that her first
meeting with a foreign leader outside of the Beltway is with the Mexican
Foreign Minister. That shows how important Mexico is to the United
States.
Yasmine.
QUESTIONS: Nick, last week you were asked about Turkey's threat to block
the NATO expansion. You chose to say several times that you did not
believe the Turkish Foreign Minister was quoted accurately. But after
today's meeting between the Turkish Prime Minister and Secretary General
Solana, it's obvious that Turkey has made a policy decision to use its veto
at NATO if the EU closes the door to full membership. I'm wondering if
this government is taking Turkey's decision more seriously now, and
if you are planning to raise it with the Turks?
MR. BURNS: NATO made a firm, irrevocable decision in December to hold a
summit in Madrid in July and to identify then the countries with which we
will negotiate membership. The Turkish Government supported that decision.
And, as far as we know, the Turkish Government still does. That is the
united will of NATO led by the United States. Our position on this issue
will not change.
We predict that on July 7th and 8th in Madrid, the NATO leaders will codify
this decision, make the decision formal and public. There's a long way to
go between now and Madrid, but that's the prediction that I will give you
today. That's the clear will of all the NATO countries.
Now, concerning Turkey and the EU, there's been a lot of talk, we know, in
Europe about Turkey lately. We believe that the European
Union should be open to Turkey -- open to future membership, open to
future association. Turkey is a European country which needs to be
embedded in European institutions -- not just NATO but also in affiliation
with the European Union. We said that repeatedly, and I think it's
important to reiterate that today.
But it is not appropriate to draw a link between the two and say that NATO
expansion is going to be stopped because of some problem between Turkey and
the European Union.
NATO enlargement will go forward in July.
QUESTIONS: On NATO expansion -
MR. BURNS: Yasmine has a follow-up.
QUESTIONS: But, nevertheless, are you advising the European Union to
come out with a formal statement of openness to full membership in the
future before the Summit in July so that there won't be any problems?
MR. BURNS: I don't wish to give any public advice to the European Union.
This is its decision to make, not ours. But our policy advice to the
European Union, recently stated by the Secretary of State to Sir Leon
Brittan and Foreign Minister Van Mierlo, is that the European Union should
have a close association with Turkey. They have a Customs Union. We
believe they should be open to further closer association, including
eventual membership; and that's our position.
QUESTIONS: On NATO expansion, your French colleague earlier today said
no decision had been taken on holding a Summit of U.S., U.K., Germany,
France, Russia on NATO expansion. I know you dealt with this yesterday,
but have the French floated the idea that such a meeting should take place
in April?
MR. BURNS: I think you're very right to commend the statement by my
colleague (inaudible), the Deputy Spokesman of France. He said this morning
very clearly there's no formal proposal - no proposal that has been made by
the Government of France.
I would just refer you to the French Government statement.
There have been a number of diplomatic contacts and discussions about the
road to Madrid, but, frankly, the United States Government is concentrating
on substance. We are looking forward to President Clinton's meting with
President Yeltsin in March. We're looking forward to the Madrid Summit,
where the decision is going to be made. Anything else is hypothetical at
this point, not concrete; and we certainly support the continuation of
Secretary General Solana's talks with Foreign Minister Primakov; and I
believe that's on February 23, just after Secretary Albright will have been
in Moscow for her own talks with Foreign Minister Primakov. So we're
focused on Madrid.
QUESTIONS: I have a procedural question. You are saying Turkey agreed
to the expansion of the North Atlantic Council.
I mean, how did that work, as far as you know. Once somebody agrees on
something, it can't be taken back; it's an ironclad rule?
MR. BURNS: Actually, the decision was made in January 1994 by the NATO
heads of state in Brussels. It's been reaffirmed at every NATO ministerial
since, but most importantly at the Brussels ministerial just six weeks ago.
There's no turning back. NATO is going forward toward enlargement.
QUESTIONS: Concerning the NATO and the Turkish and EU issue, might not
this come up at the Netherlands' meeting between the U.S. and EU leaders?
Specifically, what I'm trying to get at is, is there perhaps not - although
it may not be official policy yet - some kind of a linkage between
timetables of EU and NATO expansion?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any linkage at all between EU expansion and
NATO expansion. Obviously, the two phenomena are occurring, but I'm not
aware of any linkage drawn by either organization. I do expect Turkey to
continue to come up in the radar screen when the United States talks to
European Union officials.
It's been on the screen since well back into the Bush Administration, but
most intensively in this Administration.
QUESTIONS: On human rights with respect to Colombia, the Colombian
military has put out a statement saying that they have not committed any
kind of torture or abuses against the people of Colombia, and that there is
no alliance with the paramilitary groups. Do you have any comment on
this?
MR. BURNS: I would just refer you to our own human rights report on
Colombia that was issued last week, and we certainly stand by that
report.
Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTIONS: Did you find finally if Secretary of State Albright sent a
message to the Greek Foreign Minister, Theodore Pangalos, on Greek-Turkish
affairs as it was reported extensively the Greek daily Vima in Athens?
MR. BURNS: We don't allow advertising at State Department briefings for
newspapers, but that's okay. We'll let it go this time.
QUESTIONS: It's very important.
MR. BURNS: I know.
QUESTIONS: It's a big newspaper, and to my surprise an extensive report
is filed with points on specific cases, over the Aegean, over Cyprus, so it
should be clarified. Finally, the Secretary of State sent a message to Mr.
Pangalos.
MR. BURNS: I never talk about diplomatic correspondence unless it's in
my interest to do so, but I would just say we don't believe we have any
meeting agreed upon between Minister Pangalos and Secretary Albright. We
understand he may be in New York in March on a private visit to open an
exhibition on Byzantine art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York,
and I'm sure he'll have a lot - he has a lot of friends in the United
States. He'll see them. But I'm not aware of any official meetings that
have yet been scheduled.
QUESTIONS: He's coming only for the exhibition as you know so far.
MR. BURNS: I believe so, yes.
Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 2:06 p.m.)
(###)
|
