U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #23, 97-02-13
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1041
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 13, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Secretary Albright's Activities
1,5-6,16 --Working Breakfast w/PM Netanyahu
16 --Discussion of Mideast Bank
1 --Memorial Service for Ambassador Harriman
1 -- Remarks--Conference on Religious Freedom Abroad
1 Ambassador Bill Richardson Sworn In
1-2 Traveling with the Secretary on the Internet
1-2 Creation of Secretary of State E-Mail
2 Jovian Waltrick Family/ Director of Caucasus Affairs Mtg.
3 A/S Kornblum Upcoming Trip to Rome, Sarajevo, Pale
3-5 --Mtg. w/Contact Group re: Brcko Arbitration
10-11,14 Secretary Albright's Upcoming Trip
11-14 Secretary Albright's Family History
CHINA
6 Washington Post report re: Alleged Campaign Contributions
CUBA
Helms-Burton
6-7 -EU Postponment of WTO Challenge
14 ---Latin American Focus on Human Rights in Cuba
7-8 Sentences for Boat Hijackers Returned by U.S.
NORTH KOREA
8,10 World Food Program Appeal
8-9 Status of U.S-North Korea Mtgs. in New York
9-10,15 Hwang Jang Yop Request for Asylum @ S. Korean Embassy in Beijing
UNITED NATIONS
14 U.S. Arrears
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
15 Serbia-Report of Denials of Visas to U.S. Congress
15 A/S Shattuck Considering Trip to Region
16 Passage of Special Election Law
VIETNAM
17 Intention to Jam Radio Free Asia
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #23
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997, 1:59 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the State Department. As you know, Secretary Albright
had a working breakfast this morning with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
She's now over at the White House with President Clinton and
the Prime Minister and others, and I believe there will be a White
House press conference in about an hour, or hour and a half on
the Prime Minister's visit to Washington today.
She had a very good meeting with him, and she pledged that
she would be personally quite involved in the Middle East peace
negotiations and in relations with all the Middle East countries
but most especially Israel, Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, the other
primary countries with which we have contacts there.
She also attended the memorial service today for Ambassador
Pamela Harriman. As you know, she spoke to the Conference on
Religious Freedom Abroad. You all heard those remarks, and she
is now at the White House. So she's had a busy day.
On a separate note, I just want to congratulate Ambassador
Bill Richardson who was sworn in today as the United States Ambassador
to the United Nations. We think he's going to be an outstanding
Ambassador. He had a resounding 100-to-nothing vote of confidence
by the U.S. Senate. He is very well prepared given his vast diplomatic
experience over the last couple of years as a troubleshooter for
the Clinton Administration, and we all want to welcome him on
board here to the Department of State.
I also want to let you know about a feature of the Secretary's
trip that you might find interesting and also some new things
that we're doing with our Internet. We are launching today a
new program called "Traveling with the Secretary."
This coincides with Secretary Albright's trip to Europe and Asia.
It allows people, average citizens who don't get a chance - Sid
- who don't get a chance - I see you smirking here, Sid. Give
this a fair shot. Think of it this way. You have 240 million
Americans; about 15 of them get to come here to the State Department
everyday and ask questions.
If anybody out there wants to ask the Secretary of State
a question, they now can do it through the State Department Web
Site, www.state.gov. We are creating today a new designation,
which is a Secretary of State e-mail - secretary@state.gov. People
around the country or around the world can e-mail the Secretary
of State. I cannot guarantee she's going to personally sit at
home every night and answer every e-mail message, but I can guarantee
people who do send messages to her that they will get a response
from the State Department.
She will be given on a weekly basis a compilation of all
the messages that come in, with a breakdown of what subjects people
are sending messages about. In some cases, I think she will be
responding.
I also want to let you know - to go back to my main point
- that we're setting up this home page on the Web Site that will
effectively let people chart the course of this trip or any other
trip and to get information on what is being done by the Secretary
on a daily basis, whether it's in Italy or Germany or China or
Japan. It's meant to help educate, especially for students, for
young people.
You know, the Administration has set up a GLOBE network.
This is an education, environment and science program that ties
together, I believe, 4,000 schools around the world. Secretary
Christopher visited one of these schools in Stuttgart. All these
schools are linked by the Internet; they're linked by a common
concern by environmental problems and technological problems.
Secretary Albright intends to have, when she's in Russia on Thursday,
February 20th, an interactive Town Hall Meeting with
the GLOBE students around the world. She'll be on-line. They
can send in their messages or questions on-line and she'll be
responding to them.
So I am issuing a press statement today which details all
of this. I really do commend it to you. It's mainly for kids.
It's for all the people who don't get to come down to the State
Department everyday, and it's another way that we're trying to
communicate with the American public about what the State Department
is doing and what American foreign policy is all about.
Two more things. First, I want to let you know that, yesterday,
the family of Joviane Waltrick came into the State Department.
Joviane Waltrick, of course, is the young woman who was killed
in the automobile crash in which the Georgian diplomat, Mr. Makharadze,
was involved on January 3rd.
I understand that Mrs. Viviani Wagner, who is the mother
of Joviane Waltrick, her husband and a family friend, came in
yesterday. They met with Steve Young who is our Director for
Caucasus Affairs, the person who is in charge here at the Department
of State for Georgia and Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Mr. Young expressed his condolences on behalf of the Department
of State. He indicated our shared interest in seeing that justice
is served in this case. He described the responsibilities that
the State Department has and our action to try to convince the
Georgian Government to lift the diplomatic immunity of Mr. Makharadze
so that he might face trial, now that the U.S. Attorney has indicated
quite clearly that he intends to bring formal charges should diplomatic
immunity be lifted.
We were very pleased that she took the time to come in to
see us. We have a lot of sympathy for her and for her family members.
I just wanted to let you know that this happened and that we
stand ready to work with the family in whatever way they wish
to work with us. I think it was a quite constructive meeting
that we had yesterday.
Finally, I want you to know that our Assistant Secretary
for European and Canadian Affairs, John Kornblum, is leaving this
afternoon for Rome with his Interagency Team. In Rome, they will
meet with Contact Group members to discuss the decision on the
Brcko arbitration. They will then travel to Sarajevo to meet
with the leaders of the Federation. They'll travel to Pale, the
Republic of Srpska, to meet with Bosnian Serb leaders. Then I
think that John intends to return to Rome on Saturday evening
where he'll be met by the Secretary of State. He'll be flying
into Rome on the first leg of her trip around the world.
I know that a lot of you are interested in the Brcko decision.
As you know, just as a reminder, under the terms of the Dayton
Accords, this was one very last issues settled in the last two
days of the Dayton negotiations. The parties agreed to binding
arbitration of the disputed portion of the inter-entity boundary
line in the Brcko area.
Roberts Owen, the American attorney, is the presiding arbitrator.
He has been meeting with the Serb and the Bosniak members of
the panel, and he is making final preparations for a decision.
I understand that Roberts Owen intends to announce this decision
tomorrow in Rome.
I want to be clear about the role of the United States here.
This is a matter for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide, not for
the United States Government. The arbitration process is conducted
in confidence. It would be therefore be inappropriate for the
United States to comment on the arguments that have been presented,
in some cases, in public and to reporters by the various sides.
But since we believe the international community must move quickly
to provide support for the implementation of the Brcko solution,
once it's announced, the United States High Representative Carl
Bildt and the Contact Group member states have agreed to meet
tomorrow in Rome. They will be dedicated to helping to implement
this decision by the Tribunal - this very important decision on
Brcko.
I can't announce the decision today. It's not for the United
States to announce it, but it will be announced tomorrow and I'll
have a further comment tomorrow morning after it's announced in
Rome.
QUESTION: Can you say if a final decision has been
reached yet?
MR. BURNS: I can say that I think the final touches
- the final preparations are being made for this decision. By
and large, I think that Mr. Owen understands what decision he's
going to be announcing tomorrow, yes.
QUESTION: You're aware of reports that the Bosnian
Serbs are supposed to get administrative control over Brcko for
a year?
MR. BURNS: I am just not going to comment on any
aspect of the decision that's going to be announced tomorrow.
That's up to Mr. Owen to announce.
QUESTION: Nick, how concerned is the United States
that, regardless of whatever decision comes out, this situation
in Brcko could erupt into fighting?
MR. BURNS: At Dayton, Brcko was one of the most difficult
issues. As I said, I believe - as I remember, it was the last
issue that was decided with President Izetbegovic and Mr. Milosevic
and others. It was the suggestion put forward by Secretary Christopher
for this tribunal - the Arbitral Tribunal. It's a very emotional
issue. It also is an issue that has a lot to do with the geo-politics
of the area, given the geography of Brcko and its access to other
parts of the region that are quite important for all the groups.
We think it's one that has to be handled quite sensitively.
That's why the Arbitration panel has been meeting. The two sides
have committed under the Dayton Accords to abide by the decision
of the tribunal itself, which will be announced tomorrow.
QUESTION: How many troops do you think may be needed
to reinforce the area?
MR. BURNS: The decision hasn't been announced yet.
I just don't want to get into it, and I really can't extrapolate
from a decision that hasn't been announced to anticipate what
security requirements will be needed. But I can say this, I know
that the United States and the other Contact Group members are
fundamentally dedicated to making sure that once the Brcko decision
is announced, it is implemented, because the parties have an obligation
to do so under the accords. They pledged to do so.
QUESTION: What's the likely repercussions of the
Brcko decision on the Greater Bosnia peace deal?
MR. BURNS: Our sense is that the momentum that is
clearly there to continue peace - and there has been a peace for
well over a year - to continue efforts to reconstruct the country
and to follow the Dayton Accords. That momentum will continue.
QUESTION: But are you not fearful at all that Brcko,
being the powder keg that it is, if fighting were to erupt, that
it could unravel the whole Bosnia peace -
MR. BURNS: I don't want to assume that the worse
is going to happen. I understand why you ask a question like
that, but I don't want to assume the worse is going to happen.
We assume that with the proper care here by SFOR, by the international
community, and by the parties, this decision will be another peace
in the puzzle to put together a continuation of the momentum from
the Dayton Accords.
The Dayton Accords have turned the situation around for the
better, and we expect that that trend will continue.
QUESTION: Nick, is the United States willing to contribute
additional troops necessary or police - let's call them security
forces - if that's required to monitor the Brcko corridor?
MR. BURNS: We have no plans to contribute any additional
forces beyond the forces that have been committed by President
Clinton to the SFOR effort. Those force levels will stay the
same. This decision will not require us to deploy additional
troops to Bosnia.
QUESTION: You don't have use the word "troops"
and you don't have to talk about exclusively SFOR. You know,
security forces, police monitors, the whole -
MR. BURNS: I can't comment - since the decision hasn't
been announced, I can't comment on the decision and I can't comment
on what provisions SFOR is going to make for implementation of
the decision. That has to be done tomorrow in Rome.
QUESTION: You just can't say, "Basically, our
policy on committing more forces to police is . . ."
MR. BURNS: Sid, you understand why I can't answer
this question. It's not because I don't have answers. It's because
the decision hasn't been announced. It's not for me to announce
it. It's for the Tribunal to announce it; it's for Mr. Owen to
announce it. Once it's announced, I'm sure he'll lay out his
rationale for the decision and you'll have a chance to ask SFOR
and me tomorrow about any of these other questions. We're about
24 hours ahead of that question.
QUESTION: Nick, in your description of the meeting
this morning with Prime Minister Netanyahu, you said that the
Secretary pledged to personal involvement. Does that imply that
she intends to do a lot of traveling to that region?
MR. BURNS: She's made no decisions on travel to the
region. She's got a big trip coming up, to Europe and the Middle
East. When she comes back, she has an important Congressional
testimony.
In terms of the Middle East, here is what's happening. Prime
Minister Netanyahu is the first in a series of four visitors to
Washington over the next couple of weeks. So, therefore, the
focus of Middle East diplomacy concerning the peace negotiations
is really Washington, D.C., until the springtime.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, Chairman Arafat, President Mubarak,
and King Hussein will all be the guests of President Clinton and
Secretary Albright. I think that's where the locus of our own
diplomacy will be here in Washington. I'm sure at some point
the Secretary will entertain the possibility of a trip to the
region, but she's just not there yet.
QUESTION: Could you translate the phrase, then, for
us? What does her "personal involvement" mean? How
will it be different?
MR. BURNS: She had a very good breakfast, by the
way. They got along quite well. They had a substantive discussion
on a variety of the issues concerning the various peace discussions.
She was simply indicating that the Middle East is a region of
great concern to us and she, as Secretary of State, will be directly
involved in our own diplomacy, paying a lot of personal attention
to it, as all of her predecessors have done for several decades.
QUESTION: Will Ambassador Ross' functions change
with his new title?
MR. BURNS: I don't expect so. I think he'll continue
to be the point man -- person for the United States on our Middle
East diplomacy.
Yes, Lee.
QUESTION: Nick, there were charges in the Washington Post today that the Chinese Government was involved in funneling
campaign money to the Clinton Administration. Is that correct?
MR. BURNS: I simply have no comment to make on that
story.
QUESTION: If I can return to Prime Minister Netanyahu
for a second and the discussion yesterday of the discussions on
the sale of jets to Saudi Arabia. Is the Administration willing
to give Israel military equipment, perhaps access to some sort
of intelligence that would help alleviate the concerns they have
about losing their strategic edge?
MR. BURNS: I think on these questions, since the
President and the Prime Minister are going to give a press conference
in about an hour's time, I think on specific questions pertaining
to our relationship with Israel, what is being discussed by the
President and the Prime Minister, I'm going to leave that to the
President and the Prime Minister. I did answer this question
yesterday and certainly stand by everything I said yesterday.
Tom, welcome back.
QUESTION: Thanks. On Helms-Burton? Does the United
States view the Helms-Burton law as a matter of national security
and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the WTO, and (inaudible)
on what grounds?
MR. BURNS: First, let me just make, if I could, a
larger comment and then try to get to your question. You know
that the European Union has decided to postpone, at least for
a week, its proposal that the WTO look into this question. It's
helpful that they've decided to postpone the question, but we're
a little bit disappointed they've only postponed and not dropped
or suspended entirely this request for the WTO Director General
to select panelists to adjudicate the differences of opinion between
the EU and the United States on this issue.
We said many times that the Liberated Act, Helms-Burton,
is first and foremost the law of the land. It's also a foreign
policy matter. We don't consider it to be a trade issue. We
consider it to be a foreign policy issue. The WTO has jurisdiction
over trade issues but not foreign policy issues or national security
issues, and that, I think, is a distinction that we will continue
to press home.
We, therefore, believe it's inappropriate for the WTO to
consider this issue at all - this dispute between the United States
and the European Union. It's a highly political matter, and we
think it will just have adverse implications for the way that
the WTO does business.
QUESTION: Are you not concerned, though, that other
governments could use the same argument to get the WTO - to remove
the WTO from jurisdictional over trade issues that they might
consider to be highly political?
MR. BURNS: No, we're not, because we think that there
is a fairly clear agreement internationally on what are trade
issues and what are political issues. This is an exception, but
there are not a lot of other issues out there in which we're involved
centrally where we think either our economic competitors or other
countries around the world are going to claim politics, when it's
clearly a trade issue at hand.
I think there is a distinction there that most people in
the international community will accept.
George.
QUESTION: Did you see the story about Cuba prosecuting
six rafters or folks - I guess they hijacked a tugboat and were
intercepted by the Coast Guard; repatriated back to Cuba and were
prosecuted by Cuban authorities, and some people might say that
this runs counter to the agreement which was reached a year and
a half ago.
MR. BURNS: What I can do, George, is take you through
what we know about this issue. These people - the six Cubans
- were returned to Cuba by the U.S. Coast Guard under the terms
of the May 2, 1995, Migration Agreement between the U.S. and Cuba.
As you know, under that agreement, the Government of Cuba has
pledged not to prosecute or otherwise take reprisals against returnees
as a consequence of their attempt to immigrate illegally.
For example, these people should not be prosecuted for the
act of departing Cuba without an exit permit, which is a requirement
of Cuban law. The May 2, 1995, agreement does not, however, provide
immunity against prosecution for criminal offenses, such as hijacking,
which are committed before or during or after the departure attempts.
I wanted to make that legal distinction for you.
As we understand it, since the repatriation of these six
Cubans on May 6, 1996, officers from the United States Interest
Section in Havana have made regular visits to the family members
of the accused hijackers to monitor the progress of the case and
insure that no reprisals were taken against the family members.
Yesterday, our Interests Section delivered a Diplomatic Note
to the Cuban Government, asking for confirmation of the disposition
of this case. In this case, we understand just purely, not on
a normative basis but on a factual basis, that 8- to 20- year
sentences would be consistent with the normal length of sentences
in Cuban hijacking cases. I don't say that we approve that.
It's just a factual representation of what is normal in the Cuban
system.
QUESTION: Can you tell us whether these people were
sentenced?
MR. BURNS: Yes. That appears to be what happened.
QUESTION: So it's not an issue, as far as you're
concerned, between the United States and Cuba?
MR. BURNS: I wanted to take you through the history
of this, to say that we think the May 2, 1995, agreement needs
to be respected. In this case, our officers had access to these
people, and there is this distinction in the law between criminal
offenses and then violations of, for instance, emigration law.
There's a broad distinction, I think, that I wanted to point
out to you in this particular case.
QUESTION: So the Cubans have not violated the agreement
is what you're saying?
MR. BURNS: We've not accused them of violating the
agreement, that's right, in this particular case. But I'm not
saying that we support the actions either. I'm just saying we're
not accusing them of violation, that's right.
QUESTION: Do you view this as a loophole, as something
that they could continue to use and something that this government
might try and close?
MR. BURNS: I think it's something that we were aware
of - this distinction about hijacking is something that we were
aware of when the May 2, 1995 - before the May 2, 1995, agreement
was consummated with the Cubans.
QUESTION: Nick, do you agree with their explanation
that this is a hijacking instead of a migration issue?
MR. BURNS: That's what they were tried under, and
we've not, I believe, raised our voice publicly to counter that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on food aid to North
Korea?
MR. BURNS: There's been no progress on that issue.
We continue to consider the World Food Program's appeal. We
think that we'll make a decision shortly. Secretary Albright
was quite forthright in speaking about this yesterday on Capitol
Hill, and, when we have something to announce officially, we'll
certainly let you know that.
QUESTION: Can you tell me when your last official
meeting was in New York with the North Koreans?
MR. BURNS: Let me check on that. I'm not quite sure
when it was.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) defector who - in fact
who the South Koreans say he is?
MR. BURNS: Let me just say on that, all we have,
of course, are the reports from Beijing that this gentleman apparently
has defected to South Korea. As you know, he remains, as far
as we know, in the South Korean Embassy in Beijing. You've heard
what the North Koreans have said, and we hope that this case can
be worked out under the normal procedures.
We've not had any contact with Mr. Hwang. I'm not aware
of any plans to have contact with him, and it's something that
the South Korean Government needs to work out with the Government
of China.
QUESTION: Nick, did you express that sentiment to
the Chinese, that you'd like them not to send him back to Pyongyang,
as they have in some cases like this?
MR. BURNS: I don't know that we've been involved
in any way in this episode. I don't know that we've had any direct
contact with the Foreign Ministry in Beijing. I can check and
see if our Embassy has. I don't know for sure. This is a matter,
we think, for the South Koreans, obviously, to deal with, since
the gentleman is in their Embassy, which is on their sovereign
territory in Beijing, and also an issue for the Government of
China to work out.
But I can't speculate either about the reasons why he apparently
has defected. I'm sure at some point if he does make his way
to South Korea or some other country, he may have an opportunity
to speak publicly, but not yet. We haven't heard anything from
him.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. see this matter could influence
Joint Briefing and the Four-Way talks, something like that?
MR. BURNS: We don't believe that this incident should
affect the willingness of any party to participate in the Four-Party
talks or before that in the Joint Briefing that the United States
and South Korea have offered to North Korea. We remain hopeful
that North Korea will proceed with the briefing and get on with
the Four-Party talks. We will consider all those issues, obviously,
as separate from this particular incident.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) and, if so, could you
answer whether you have any opinion as to whether this really
is Mr. Hwang or not?
MR. BURNS: I believe that was Jim's question. We
have no reason to doubt what the South Koreans have said publicly,
and that is that Hwang Jang-Yop has asked for asylum at their
Embassy in Beijing. We know that he was Chairman of the North
Korean Foreign Affairs Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly,
and he's also a Party Secretary of the Central Committee. He
is a senior figure in North Korea's leadership and has been for
some time. We have no reason to doubt what the South Koreans
have told us at this point. But again, we haven't had access
to him. We're reading the same reports that you are and, of course,
are receiving some general information from the South Korean Government.
QUESTION: How do you characterize the impact on the
North Korean Government of losing someone at such a high rank?
MR. BURNS: It's obviously a quite extraordinary event
to have a person of this level in the North Korean Government
- a person of this kind of influence - to defect from North Korea
to South Korea. I think it's very clear what the significance
of this is. It's the first time a senior person like this has
defected.
QUESTION: Going back to Cuba -
QUESTION: No, can we stay on this.
MR. BURNS: Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: Nick, earlier you said you haven't had
any access to him, and you didn't know of any request, but would
not the United States like to talk to him?
MR. BURNS: I think at this point we're quite content
to let the South Koreans and the Chinese resolve this incident.
I don't think it's the business of the United States to get involved.
I don't believe we've been asked to get involved, as far as I
know. So, I think we'll leave it there. If at some point, he
does reach South Korea or another country and wishes to talk,
well, that's another matter. But I know that we haven't made
an attempt to get involved in any way.
QUESTION: How do you think - is there any implication
between his defection and the food crisis which is taking place
in North Korea?
MR. BURNS: We just cannot speculate on the reasons
for this gentleman's defection. Who knows? We haven't had a
chance to speak to him. We do know separate from that, that there
is a severe food crisis in North Korea. That's why we're seriously
considering this food appeal from the World Food Program.
Yes, Lee.
QUESTION: Nick, I'd like to get back to the trip
for a minute. Two questions. First, has Secretary Albright considered
or is she considering any stops to any Holocaust-related places
or memorials during her visit, given the recent revelations about
her background? And, secondly, could you just go over a little
bit about the whole media frenzy about the trip; about how many
people wanted to go on the trip; the overwhelming interest, etc.?
MR. BURNS: The second question is particularly interesting
to me. I'm not sure there's a media frenzy to go on the trip.
There is a great demand of people -- more than 40 members of
the press signed up to go on the trip; and, unfortunately, because
we still fly in Circa 1960 707s - President Kennedy's Air Force
One, we have space for 12 journalists to travel with us. So we
regret very much that we weren't able to take everybody who wanted
to come, and we are appreciative of the interest that the press
shows in our foreign policy. It's a good thing, and we're looking
forward to traveling with the 12 who will be going with us.
On the first question, I know that Secretary Albright's schedule
in each of these stops is going to be jam-packed with meetings.
Let me tell you about the trip itself. This is not a trip where
Secretary Albright feels she needs to get acquainted with world
leaders in these capitals in Europe and in Asia. She knows almost
all of them. She's had extensive contact with almost all of them,
with one or two exceptions.
This is a trip where she's going to roll up her sleeves and
get down to work on the agenda that we have with these countries,
which is in all cases - with all of them, in Europe and Asia -
a very important, vital agenda for the United States. In most
cases, she's only going to have enough time because of the compressed
nature of the schedule to meet with the governmental leaders.
In a few cases, she'll be doing things outside of the meetings,
but they'll be very brief, and I'm not aware of any plans by her
on this particular trip to visit Holocaust-related spots.
Having said that, she is a lifelong student of the Holocaust.
She is a Europeanist. She is someone throughout here entire
life - teenage and adult life, professionally - has been primarily
interested in the history of Europe in the second half of this
century. She knows quite a lot about what happened in the Holocaust
during the second World War.
You can imagine then how these revelations of the past several
weeks have affected her. It's a very emotional issue for her.
She lost three grandparents in the death camps. She lost an
aunt. She lost a cousin and many other family members, and she
is very interested in looking further into her family's past to
uncover what else she may not know about her family's past. She's
very proud of her family. She's very proud of her parents. And,
as she has said many times, that she owes a lot to her parents
for having rescued her from both Adolph Hitler and Stalin.
Having said all that, Lee, I think you should agree with
me - and I hope the press would agree - that this is an intensely
personal issue for her and her family. I think the press needs
to respect that a little bit. It is certainly reasonable for
the press to write articles, to ask questions, as you've been
doing - and she's been talking to members of the press. Some
of the people in this room have talked to her. But I think
it's also true that at some point this has to become a personal
issue for her family, and she has to be allowed to do her job
as Secretary of State.
QUESTION: Nick, when you just said, without any qualification,
that she lost three grandparents, an aunt and a cousin, you didn't,
you know, say there's been some information, or she's looking
into, or she has heard, or she's been told. When last we visited
this subject, it was in the latter category. She had heard this.
It was all new to her. It was a major surprise, and she was
going - and her family were going to look into it. Maybe you
were speaking a little quickly just now to Lee, but if it is now
established fact, could you tell us how it moved from the "may"
to the "sure"?
MR. BURNS: Barry, even, beyond the Michael Dobbs
-
QUESTION: Is this the weight of all the information?
MR. BURNS: Beyond the Michael Dobbs' information
- the research that Michael Dobbs did - we now have further reports
from journalists, even one who has been to Prague, who visited
the Holocaust Memorial Site, the Jewish Memorial Sites in Prague,
and the names of her grandparents are on that list. This is fairly
compelling information. She's had a chance to think about it.
She's had a chance to sift through it. So I'm representing what
I understand to be the truth here as she understands it and as
we understand it. But there's been a rush of information available
to her, and even since the Michael Dobbs' article came out and
more information, more press reports - you've seen them all -
have come in.
So the weight of the evidence seems to be quite clear here.
She and her family intend to look into it, as I said, much more
deeply, because they're proud of their parents, and they're proud
of their family; and they want to know more about their family's
origin, as you would, I think, or I would, if we were in this
situation.
QUESTION: Wait a minute. All the names of all the
Holocaust victims are listed, aren't they, in Prague? The Synagogue
is the Holocaust Memorial, I believe.
MR. BURNS: I haven't been to -
QUESTION: But she's never -
MR. BURNS: I haven't been to the Synagogue there
-
QUESTION: Alright.
MR. BURNS: -- so I just know that, as reported by
The New York Times and The Washington Post, there is a list of
the victims - the Czech victims of the Holocaust, and the list
is quite specific.
QUESTION: Right, but while we're into this subject,
I've been there, and I haven't seen the list, nor did I look for
the list, but I have no Czech background. She, in all her visits
there, had never looked at that list, right? She has never had
occasion to look at the inscriptions?
MR. BURNS: You know, Barry -
QUESTION: Or do you know?
MR. BURNS: I'll be very glad to just briefly summarize
again what Secretary Albright has said in public - that's important
to do that, and that is that her earliest memory as a very young
child in London during the second World War was of being a Christian
-
QUESTION: Right. No, no, I just meant -
MR. BURNS: It's important for me to answer it, because
you've asked a very important question. Throughout her entire
life until several weeks ago, her parents had given her and her
sister and her brother information that was quite consistent in
their own minds - the minds of the kids - that they were Catholics;
that they came from a Catholic family in Czechoslovakia. There
was never a reason -
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: -- for the Secretary to think any otherwise,
nor would there be for me or for any of you out there, and I think
she said this in public, but it's a very important point. She
and her brother and sister had no inkling of this until these
letters started to arrive from Central Europe, as she has said,
during the time - during the transition, after she was named,
and before she was sworn in.
QUESTION: One last thing, please. If she were here,
she's really the person to ask. But the incredible - it's not
just articles and columns and letters, leading newspapers and
all, and the buzzing around. Is any of this distracting or unsettling
to her?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you this. She understands
that the press has a job to do, and the press is -
QUESTION: Letters, too. People who write and say
she's running away from her past or we understand why she would
do this.
MR. BURNS: She understands. Secretary Albright understands
why the press is interested in the story. It's a fascinating
story. It's also a very tragic story. She welcomes all the letters
that she's received, and she hopes that those letters will help
she and her sister and brother and others to look into this matter
further, so that they can uncover the full story of their family.
She understands that the press needs to report on this.
All of us understand that, because that's the way our society
runs. I'm just saying - and there's been a lot of commentary
in the press. I'm just saying that I think at some point - and
I say this just personally as someone observing this - at some
point this has to be treated as a personal issue for her. She
has a busy job as Secretary of State, and she's doing it. She's
off to a great start. She's worked 20 hours a day. She's not
going to allow anything to distract her from doing the job that
President Clinton swore her in to do, and that is to be the best
Secretary of State that she can be.
But she's obviously going to take some time over the next
couple of years to continue to look into this, and that is a personal
issue for her and her family. I think in our society, it's important
to respect privacy. It's importance to have a sense of tolerance,
especially when judging people who are deceased. It's very important
to be tolerant about people who are deceased, not to try to read
things into the minds of people who are deceased. This is my
own personal view here. I think that's a very important factor
in this whole equation that's being debated now.
QUESTION: Nick, what did she think about the Post
story today, suggesting that the Israeli Government knew about
this -
MR. BURNS: I have not talked to her about that particular
story.
QUESTION: So she hasn't considered - you said she
has no current plans to visit any Holocaust-related site. Has
she considered at all any plans to visit any Holocaust -
MR. BURNS: No, as I said, on this particular trip
- this ten-day trip to eight countries - I'm not aware in the
planning - I don't believe there's going to be any Holocaust-related
site on this particular trip.
But I know, given the person that Madeleine Albright is,
given her history and now the new history that's being uncovered
about her, that she will find an appropriate way at some point
in the future, as a senior member of this government - as Warren
Christopher did, as James Baker did, as Henry Kissinger did, as
George Shultz did - on a trip to Europe to talk about the fact
that we can't forget the Holocaust and that Americans have as
much responsibility as everyone else to remember the Holocaust
and to memorialize people who died during the Holocaust. That's
something that she feels very deeply as a European and as a human
being; and, of course, she'll take the time to do that.
But on this particular trip, she has a schedule. It's a
very compressed schedule, and she's going to keep to that schedule.
QUESTION: Going back to Cuba, do you have anything
on the Helms-Burton law in getting cooperation from the Europeans
to put pressure on Castro?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Now that you are preparing trips to Latin
America, and the Secretary has said she is going to intensify
the relationship with Latin America, do you expect a similar situation
with Latin America parallel to what Europe has been doing?
MR. BURNS: We already find that's the case. At the
Ibero-Latin Summit in November, which I believe was held in Chile,
there was a decision taken by the countries to increase their
focus - expand their focus - on the human rights situation in
Cuba. It is commensurate with the decision taken by the European
Union. We believe that Latin countries are increasingly now interested
in this question of human rights and democracy in Cuba. That's
a very good thing.
QUESTION: Nick, Kofi Annan held a news conference
today. He said that it's illegal for nations to refuse to pay
their dues. Now, granted, the Administration does want to pay
the money and the ball is in Congress' court, as it were. Do
you accept that -
MR. BURNS: I don't want to quibble with the words
at all. We have great respect for Secretary General Annan. We
agree that the United States ought to pay its dues. We're the
founding member. We're a member of the Security Council. We
ought to pay our dues. The President and the Secretary of State
have both pledged to do that, and they have a way to do that in
the budget presented to the Congress last week. We hope the Senate
and House will agree with us, that we ought to pay our dues.
QUESTION: Can I come back to the North Korean issue?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: You said that this defector should be worked
out in normal procedures. May I clarify that? By that, do you
mean that he should be dealt with -- recognized in international
customs and norms? By that, may I translate that.
As a general principle, apart from the politics, if Mr. Hwang's
independent desire to request asylum is established, as a general
principle, the United States will support his asylum?
MR. BURNS: What I mean by that is that this is an
issue to be worked out by the Government of South Korea and the
Government of China - because of course, this took place in China,
but the individual is now residing in the Embassy of the Republic
of Korea. There are agreed-upon international norms as to how
to adjudicate these situations. They should obviously be followed.
We have every reason to think they are being followed.
QUESTION: Serbia. The Serbs say they want to deny
visas to U.S. Congresspeople because some of them took part in
the demos last November and December. Have you protested this
to Serbia?
MR. BURNS: That would be a very bad idea. If Serbia
wants a relationship with United States, it must respect the people
who are elected by the American people. If Congressmen want to
travel to Serbia, they do so with the support of the Administration
and they ought to be given visas. If the Serbian Government denies
visas to members of Congress, they will have a very rough time
of it with Secretary Albright.
QUESTION: What about Mr. Shattuck - have you made
a decision whether he should go next week?
MR. BURNS: I know that John Shattuck is considering
a trip to the Balkans, but no final dates or, I think, even itinerary
have been established. I believe that some more work needs to
be done to prepare that trip, so we are not in a position to announce
it even though I know it was outted slightly in the press the
other day.
We haven't decided on the itinerary or the dates, or even
in some parts of the mission. So that has to happen. When we
do put that together, I'll let you know.
Let me just say, we welcome passage of the Special Election
Law. We now want to see it implemented. I want to repeat something
we said yesterday, and that is, these people who are taking their
seats now as victors in the November 17th election
ought not to have the assets of power stripped away from them.
If the Serbian Government has any intention to allow them
to occupy city council seats but then not respect the power of
city councils and the decision-making power of city council members,
if they try to exert an undue amount of central control over the
cities, that won't be fair and it won't be in the spirit of the
wish of the international community that people elected should
serve in the positions that they sought.
QUESTION: A couple of - Netanyahu, I guess, attached
questions, sort of what we call "B Matter" -
QUESTION: Or "C Matter."
QUESTION: Or "C Matter." He's apparently
trying to stir up interest again in this Mideast Bank. About
every six months, we ask you how it's doing, and you say "Just
fine." I don't think you can go in there and open an account.
Where is the Mideast Bank now? Are you and the Europeans on
the same track, and will there be a Mideast Bank? Or can you
tell -
MR. BURNS: I know that Secretary Albright mentioned
the Mideast Bank to Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning. He
does support it. The United States fully supports it. We have
had trouble in raising money for the bank, as you know. We'd
like to get a greater consensus both here in our own country and
the Congress and international, for funds for that bank.
QUESTION: Having troubles with Europe?
MR. BURNS: We continue to talk to the Europeans about
the central importance that we think a Middle East bank could
play in the economic development of relations among states and
in raising income levels all across the Middle East in the next
century.
QUESTION: I didn't see them come in, or hang around
Blair House. Did the Ambassador come - is Martin Indyk here for
these talks?
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Indyk is here. He was at breakfast
this morning with Dennis Ross and with Mark Parris and Toni Verstandig
and Aaron Miller, and others.
QUESTION: Will he going back? Will there be an announcement
on his future while Netanyahu -
MR. BURNS: I just can't help you out on an announcement
on Martin's future.
QUESTION: That's alright. We'll just makes calls.
MR. BURNS: If it's appropriate to make an announcement
on Martin's future, I'm sure the White House will do so.
QUESTION: We'll give you an opportunity, if you'd
like to.
MR. BURNS: The President is going to speak in 15
minutes. I don't want to really get too deeply into Middle East
Affairs.
I have one thing before we go. We understand that the Government
of Vietnam has announced that it intends to jam Radio Free Asia.
This is a most unfortunate decision.
The United States Government opposes jamming of international
radio broadcasts as an infringement on freedom of the press and
the free flow of information. We also reject the criticism by
Vietnam of Radio Free Asia. The criticism is that Radio Free
Asia is interfering in Vietnam's internal affairs.
The free flow of information to the Vietnamese people is
an internationally guaranteed right under United Nations covenants
and governments can't interfere with that. So we firmly reject
any attempt to stifle Radio Free Asia, and we'll give it all the
support we can to make it a vibrant and clear station so that
people in Vietnam and southeast Asia can have objective facts
put before them.
Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:43 p.m.)
(###)
|
