U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #29, 97-02-27
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1178
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 27, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to Indonesian Journalists and A-100 Class
1-2 Secretary Albright's Schedule
2 Secretary Albright's Meetings with Saudi Officials
2-3 Statement on Situation Along the Thai-Burma Border
3 Deputy Secretary Talbott and National Security Adviser Berger in Haiti
SAUDI ARABIA
3-4,5 Cooperation in the Bombing Investigation/FBI Access to Suspects
4-5 Possibility of Reward
5-6 Funding Allocation to Palestinians
PEACE PROCESS
6-8 Proposed New Israeli Settlements
8-9 Impact of New Settlements on U.S.-Israeli Relations
9-10 U.S. Initiatives in Region
NARCOTICS CERTIFICATION PROCESS
10-11 Narcotics Certification Announcement
11 U.S.-Mexico Relations
GREECE
12 Future Meeting Between Secretary Albright and FM Pangalos
PAKISTAN
13 Terrorist Threats
KASHMIR
13 Visit of Ambassador Wisner
JAPAN
14 Action by Federal Maritime Commission
CHINA
14-16 Human Rights Covenants
NORTH KOREA
16-17 Changes to Political Structure/Food Aid/Four-Party Talks/Defection
UKRAINE
17-18 Visit of Foreign Minister Udovenko
CUBA
18 Repression of Journalists
18 Update on EU-U.S. Dispute over the WTO Panel on the Helms-Burton Act
NATO
18-19 Membership of Baltic States
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #29
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1997, 2:11 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department briefing. I want to welcome four Indonesian journalists who are
here through the USIA International Visitors Program. I believe they're
sitting right here. Welcome.
We also have a very distinguished group of Foreign Service Officers who
are new Foreign Service Officers. They're getting their assignment today.
They want to make sure that the behavior of the American press corps is
appropriate for these briefings.
That's why they're here. They're going to be watching today, George.
Let me give you an idea of what the Secretary of State has done today.
Today has been a day when she has focused very intensively on Saudi Arabia,
with the visit of Prince Sultan.
This morning she had a one-hour bilateral meeting up in her office with
Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister. I'll go into that in just a
minute. She then had a 45-minute bilateral just a little while ago with
Prince Sultan and Prince Saud and Prince Bandar.
She's now at a lunch given by her in honor of Prince Sultan, and this
evening she'll be attending a dinner in his honor.
This follows the meetings that Prince Sultan had with President Clinton
and Defense Secretary Cohen and others here in Washington. It's a very
important visit, and in a couple of minutes I do want to review the
substance of that with you.
This afternoon, the Secretary is going up to Capitol Hill to continue her
calls on members of Congress to make the case for our more expansive level
of support for State Department funding and talk about our priority
initiatives, of course highlighted by our support for the Chemical Weapons
Convention. She'll be seeing Senator Fritz Hollings and Senator Judd Gregg
this afternoon.
Let me just give you a sense of what she'll be up to next week. I think I
told you yesterday on Monday she'll be seeing Chairman Arafat for a working
lunch on Tuesday, and you'll be glad to hear this. She'll be hosting the
Canadian Foreign Minister, Minister Axworthy. There's a lot to discuss
there.
On Wednesday, at 10:00 a.m., she'll be testifying before the House
Subcommittee on Commerce, State and Justice appropriations; on Thursday, at
2:00 p.m., testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, State and
Justice appropriations.
On Thursday, March 6, she'll have a bilateral with the Hungarian Foreign
Minister, Foreign Minister Kovacs, and then Friday, March 7, she has two
bilaterals - one with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Minister Moussa, and
another with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Minister Udovenko. I'll be
giving you more information about those next week.
Let me speak for just a minute about her consultations this morning with
the Saudi leadership. The visit of Prince Sultan provides us with an
opportunity to emphasize the central importance of the U.S.-Saudi
relationship in the Middle East. Today, Secretary Albright talked to both
Prince Sultan and Prince Saud about four primary issues.
First, they talked about the Al-Khobar bombing, as you would expect, and
we've been assured of continued Saudi cooperation and intention to work
very effectively and completely with the United States but specifically
with the FBI in our ongoing investigation to determine who bombed the
Khobar barracks last June; who was responsible for the deaths of the 19
American officers. The United States is committed to bringing these people
to justice, and we're counting on the Saudi authorities to help us to do
that.
Second, they talked at great length in both meetings about the Middle
East peace negotiations. Secretary Albright reviewed for them the U.S.
understanding of where things are on the Israel-Palestinian track; our
appreciation of the Israeli-Syria and Israel-Lebanon tracks. Ambassador
Dennis Ross also met yesterday with Prince Sultan and Prince Saud for about
an hour-and-a-half and gave them an in-depth review of the U.S. position
and U.S. involvement in these talks.
We were very pleased to learn today that the Saudi Government intends to
continue its large economic assistance to the Palestinians in the West Bank
and Gaza. They also talked about Iran, and they agreed on the need for
continued international isolation of the Iranian Government for the reasons
that are well known to all of you. Secretary Albright briefed them on the
fact that Iran came up in every one of her nine stops on her trip,
predominantly in Europe where we differed, of course, with most of the
European governments on their continued attachment to the critical
dialogue; but also in Asia with the three governments that we visited
in Asia.
Last, they talked about Iraq, and there was complete agreement between
the Saudis and Americans today that we ought to continue to apply the
sanctions on Iraq - the U.N. Security Council sanctions - until Iraq meets
all of the relevant commitments under all the relevant U.N. Security
Council resolutions. If you have questions on this, I'd be glad to go into
these discussions further.
Two more items. I have a statement today that's available to you in the
Press Room concerning the very difficult and tragic situation along the
Thai-Burma border. Let me go into this just for a minute.
The United States is deeply concerned about the actions of the Royal Thai
Army forcibly repatriating some 900 Karen women and children from areas in
Ratchaburi Province across the border into Burma. We are equally disturbed
by reports that the Thai Army forcibly repatriated civilian Karen males,
including boys as young as ten years old, and this was done - they
transported them into Burma near the Karen military headquarters and
denied asylum to several hundred others at the same time.
The United States regrets these actions, which run contrary to Thailand's
previous generous policy of providing asylum to those fleeing oppression in
Burma. We urge the Thai Government not to abandon its historic commitment
to humanitarian treatment of the victims of conflict in Burma. We call on
the Thai authorities to cease the forcible return of Karen refugees
immediately and to recommence provision of asylum until conditions in Burma
permit the safe and orderly return of the refugees to Burma. The
ultimate responsibility for this tragedy lies, of course, with the
military dictators in Burma itself and with their repressive policies
against minority populations in Burma.
My last item is just to let you know that Deputy Secretary Talbott and
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger are spending the day in Haiti. They
are there to review with the Haitian Government the important progress that
Haiti has made in strengthening its new democracy and to encourage further
efforts towards economic reform. They'll be meeting with a cross-section
of the leadership.
They'll be reviewing all the support that the United States and other
members of the international community continue to give to Haiti, and to
emphasize our very strong and unyielding support for these reform
efforts.
With that, George, I'll be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: Can you characterize the Saudi position on getting to the
bottom of the bombings last June? I know you said that the United States
counts on the Saudis to do their part, and I just wondered whether you can
say anything about the Saudi response?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that in all of the meetings that they had,
but most importantly in the meeting with President Clinton, Prince Sultan
and his associates pledged full cooperation by the Saudi authorities with
the FBI and other agencies of the U.S. Government. We were very pleased to
receive these assurances, and we are counting on continued Saudi cooperation
in the future.
QUESTION: What were the specifics about assurances from the Saudis?
Will the FBI get to interview the suspects that are detained?
MR. BURNS: Bill, I can tell you that they were quite detailed
conversations on this. For obvious reasons, you'll understand why I'm not
going to go into those details in public. But safe to say that since the
start of this investigation, we've been assured of full cooperation. As
you know, we've had several comments to make along the way, but in these
face-to-face meetings this week, we were pleased to receive again the
assurances of cooperation from one of the senior Saudi leaders, and we
expect that that will continue.
I think the FBI Director has made very clear the importance of certain
types of access by FBI agents in Saudi Arabia, and we're counting on
that.
QUESTION: Nick, did they bring any new information on this incident
with them to share with the United States?
MR. BURNS: They did share with our Administration their appreciation
of how the investigation is going. I think Prince Sultan said publicly
when he was over at the Pentagon that the Saudis have not come to any
definite conclusions about who was responsible. The investigation
continues.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the level of help that is currently
being offered by the Saudis?
MR. BURNS: We're very pleased to receive the reassurances of
cooperation this week, and we're counting on that to be fulfilled in the
future.
QUESTION: Nick, you say there's no definite conclusion about who's
responsible on their part. Does that mean that they doubt the Iranian
link?
MR. BURNS: As you know, we've never spoken publicly about that. There
have been all sorts of allegations in the press, and we've never confirmed
those. When the Saudi authorities, with the assistance of the United
States, get to the bottom of this, hopefully we'll find the individuals who
planned and executed the attack on the American military compound and bring
those people to justice. But at this point the United States is certainly
not going to sling charges around the world. We're going to wait until the
investigation is completed.
QUESTION: Nick, the pledge of cooperation - was it just that general,
or was it as specific as: they'll allow the U.S. investigators to talk to
people they apprehend?
MR. BURNS: Sid, again you'll understand why I'm not going to go into
the details of all this, but just suffice to say that we're satisfied that
we've received assurances this week of full cooperation.
QUESTION: Is the FBI satisfied?
MR. BURNS: If the President of the United States is satisfied, Bill,
he speaks for the U.S. Government.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Some kind of reward? Any reward money, or anything?
MR. BURNS: Reward money. As you know, in instances like this, when we
believe that the terrorists have been identified but not apprehended, the
Department of State does offer publicly financial rewards for those people
who can come forward and give us information that would lead to the arrest
of the terrorists.
We've done that in the case of the two Libyans who we believe placed the
bomb on board Pan Am 103 in December 1988.
We've done it in a number of other instances, and, as you know, we've
paid out quite a lot of money over the last couple of years, and we even
have a home page on our website dedicated to this. We haven't made the
decision in this particular case, because there's no one to go after right
now publicly, because the Saudis haven't completed their investigation.
But I cannot foreclose that possibility in the future.
QUESTION: Nick, in light of the Prince's remarks at the Defense
Department, is it still your understanding from the Saudis that they are
holding suspects in connection with this crime?
MR. BURNS: David, I just can't go into all the details of our
conversation with them.
QUESTION: I understand that, but could you tell us whether or not they
have suspects held or not?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to answer the question. I don't want to take
you through all the specifics of our conversation with the Saudis this
week. Our ability - our common ability with the Saudis - to apprehend the
terrorists who killed the Americans is going to be enhanced if we are
discreet publicly, and we pledged to be so.
QUESTION: There's a confusing situation here, in that the Saudis had
previously said that they were holding suspects, and now Prince Sultan has
said that they haven't definitively decided who's committed this crime. It
leaves the public wondering what's going on.
MR. BURNS: We certainly understand the public interest here and
specifically the interest of the 19 American families, but we said since
the beginning of this search that we're not going to be commenting publicly
on the twists and turns in the investigation, because that might be
damaging to the investigation, so I'm not going to start that today.
QUESTION: But do you think they will really cooperate with the
U.S.?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we do.
QUESTION: Nick, on the same subject but a different area. You said
that the Saudis pledged continued financial cooperation with the Palestinians.
Did they quantify a number for you? What do you -
MR. BURNS: Yes, they did, but I'm going to leave it to the Saudi
Government to announce their specific allocations.
But they did tell us this morning - Prince Saud let us know - that the
Saudis are earmarking a very large and specific allocation for the
Palestinian Authority to fund some of the projects that Chairman Arafat has
undertaken on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
We very much support that.
As you know, the United States itself is contributing $500 million over a
five-year period to the Palestinians, and we've urged consistently that the
Arab countries not only pledge money but make good on their commitments.
We're very pleased to see that Saudi Arabia is taking the lead on
this.
QUESTION: Is this new money, or is it a commitment -
MR. BURNS: I did get the sense it was new money, but again, Judd, it's
not for me to announce a Saudi Government initiative. We're just very
pleased to hear the reaffirmation of Saudi interest in supporting the
Palestinians, which is a very large U.S. interest.
QUESTION: Do your recall how much they pledged publicly and how much
they disbursed already?
MR. BURNS: Aziz, I'm going to let the Saudis announce this.
QUESTION: But on this subject, Nick, can you make available - you have
in the past - list of previously pledged money and how much has in fact
been contributed?
MR. BURNS: I think we can do that. I think we can work with the Near
East Bureau to get you those figures, yes. Be glad to do that.
QUESTION: On the same subject - on the announcement of the new
settlements, there's been a lot of reaction around the world, including
from the European Union, which specifically describes such new settlements
as illegal under international law. Does the United States accept
that?
MR. BURNS: The United States has said what it wanted to say on this
issue. I think you have to take account of one central fact. The United
States remains the leading country that is trying to work with the Israelis
and Palestinians to make peace. We are in effect the intermediary. In the
case of the Hebron negotiations, Dennis Ross fulfilled the role of
mediator. So we've said what we believed is consistent with our role as
intermediary.
Let me just repeat it for you. The central fact here is that this plan
to construct housing on Jabal Abu Ghunnaim or Har Homa - the Arab and
Hebrew names are interchangeable - we think undercuts a basic premise of
the peace negotiations; that both parties have a responsibility to take
into consideration the needs of the other. We think that any major
initiatives undertaken by either the Israelis or the Palestinians always
have to have that central purpose in mind: Will this build trust and
confidence with the other party, or will it detract from it? This
action clearly undercuts the positive forward momentum that we have
seen in recent weeks in the peace process.
It clearly undercuts the climate of confidence that one would want to
have created for these peace negotiations. We wish very much that the
Israeli Government had not decided to undertake this action.
QUESTION: When you say it "undercuts," is that just the U.S. Government's
surmise, or have you heard from Palestinians that if "A" happened, "B"
they're returning to the talks -
MR. BURNS: First of all, as you know, we recommended to the Israelis
before yesterday's Cabinet announcement that this action not be undertaken.
Second, we've had extensive conversations with the Palestinians and today
with the Saudis, and I think it's very clear what the Arab reaction is to
the Israeli Government decision.
It does not add to the positive, forward momentum that we had achieved
with the breakthrough on Hebron. That's where we need to go.
The United States is going to remain centrally involved in our unique
way. We've said what we have to say on this. But now the challenge is to
keep the peace process together and keep it moving in a forward direction.
That's what we're dedicated to in our conversations with both the PA and
the Israeli Government.
QUESTION: In your talks with the Palestinians, have they indicated that
they would do "X" if this announcement went forward?
MR. BURNS: Well, I'm not going to reveal everything that we've
discussed with the Palestinians, but I think you've seen Chairman Arafat's
comments today. You've seen comments by other Palestinian officials.
They're very unhappy.
What needs to happen is that they need to work with the Israelis to make
sure that this decision does not undermine everything else that's been
accomplished. The Israelis need to work with them, and that's what we'll
be encouraging.
QUESTION: Nick, when you inform the Israelis of your opposition to this
and the response was, the government would fall if they didn't go ahead
with it? What was your response to the government's -
MR. BURNS: Sid, I'm not accepting the premise of your question.
You're writing a MEMCON for me. I don't accept that.
I'm not going to tell you what the basis of our conversation was. I
simply noted the fact that the United States did not give a green light to
this action. The United States did advise the Israeli Government that this
action, we felt, would be contradictory to the peace negotiations. I'm
simply not going to repeat for you the specific nature of our discussions
with the Israelis.
QUESTION: Leaving aside the specific discussions, aren't there
political realities for the Prime Minister of Israel on this issue that he
can't ignore if he wants to remain the Prime Minister of Israel?
MR. BURNS: There are political realities for the Israelis and there
are political realities for the Palestinians. The challenge for an
intermediary like the United States is to make sure that there is some
common ground between those political poles that can be created for
progress.
In the last four years, they, together, have made tremendous progress;
more than anytime since the creation of the State of Israel nearly 50 years
ago. They made that progress because they pledged to each other that they
would take account of each other's political sensitivities and political
problems. It works both ways, Sid. It's not just a one-way street. It's
a two-way street.
David.
QUESTION: To just understand a little better just how strongly the
United States feels about this. If these settlements go ahead, will that
have any impact on the U.S.-Israeli relationship?
MR. BURNS: David, we have said what we wanted to say over the past 24
hours. The fact is that we're a friend of Israel and a friend of the
Palestinians. We need to keep engaging both the Israelis and Palestinians
to make sure that progress can be possible in the future. It's not an
option for us to walk away, to throw up our hands and say, "We don't agree
with what's happened; we're getting out." That's not the American way,
and that's not what the United States - the role that we've had for the
past quarter century in the Middle East. So we're going to stay in there.
We've had disappointments in the past. We need to overcome them.
QUESTION: There is, though, however, a history of the United States
using influence in these areas. You might use the word "punish." Is there
any activity planned in that regard?
MR. BURNS: I've said what I have to say over the last 24 hours about
this incident.
QUESTION: Did the Saudis ask you to do something more than just saying
you don't like it and you did not accept it?
MR. BURNS: There was a general discussion in both of the meetings this
morning. Obviously, the Saudi reaction has been quite negative as it has
been throughout the Arab world.
I think our reaction has been to say, we need to manage these challenges,
all the challenges that present themselves.
All of us do - Americans, Arabs, all of us who support the peace
negotiations.
QUESTION: Was there a discussion on how we can do that?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Was there any discussion about how this can be done?
MR. BURNS: There was some specific discussion, yes.
The Saudi Government, of course, supports the Madrid peace process.
The Saudi Government has been involved in some of the multilateral talks
in the past, and we very much hope that all the Arab countries that have
participated in those talks in the past will continue to do that in the
future.
QUESTION: Nick, in his public statements, Yasser Arafat said that the
new settlement announced is not only an obstacle to peace but it contravened
the American letter of assurances which were given to him and the other
side at the time of the signing of the Hebron agreement. Do you think it
in any way contravenes that letter of assurances from then-Secretary
Christopher?
MR. BURNS: Jim, again, I hate to repeat myself, but we've said what we
want to say on this issue in public. If we have other things to say, and
we may, we'll leave those for our private discussions.
QUESTION: Mr. Burns, did Prince Sultan invite the Secretary to visit
the Middle East, or is Ambassador Ross going? Are you going to do any new
initiatives?
MR. BURNS: First thing, (inaudible), I think the Secretary has heard
from all of her Arab interlocutors, including from Prince Sultan. They
hope that she will visit the Middle East and, of course, she will at some
point in the future.
Our Middle East diplomacy is really focused on Washington for the next
month or so because following Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister
Sultan's visit, Chairman Arafat will be here next week and His Majesty King
Hussein will also be visiting shortly thereafter.
Following that round of consultations, the Secretary will sit down with
Dennis Ross and her other advisors and decide how we proceed from there.
At some point, I'm sure Ambassador Ross will travel to the Middle East and
at some point I know the Secretary of State will make a trip to the Middle
East but she's not set specific dates for it.
QUESTION: On the same subject. If you could explain the Secretary's
comments about building - she said, I believe, "building a new life for the
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza?" It's sort of a generic comment.
Can you explain a little more what she means?
MR. BURNS: I think all of us focused on the need to support economic
growth, job creation, and an elevated standard of living for the Palestinian
population in Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem. It's very
important that we do that, because Chairman Arafat has considerable
challenges ahead of him.
He's got to keep a population united on this difficult path called the
"peace negotiations," which do not always produce immediate results. He's
got to make sure that his rule is seen to be the PA's authority and tenure
is seen to be productive for the Palestinians, that it makes a difference
for people in their daily lives.
That's why we've pushed so hard on the Europeans and some of the Asian
countries and all the Arab countries to make good on their commitments and
actually to produce on the ground what they've pledged to do. The United
States has a very good record in the money that we've appropriated over the
last two years. We have actually disbursed on the ground a vast majority
of it. We hope that the record of some our partners will be equally as
good in the future. That's what she meant.
QUESTION: Did she also mean parts of Jerusalem, as you just said?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I wouldn't read too much specifically into her
comments. She was talking about the need for economic assistance. I just
gave you the background of what we've been doing over the last couple of
years.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. What did you mean by "parts of Jerusalem?"
MR. BURNS: You know there are Palestinians who live in Jerusalem, in
East Jerusalem and in the outlying areas. Right.
That's a fact.
QUESTION: You were talking about self-rule areas in the West Bank and
Gaza. Then you threw in parts of Jerusalem?
MR. BURNS: You know, international programs that assist the Palestinians,
the vast majority of the money goes to people who live in what you and I
would agree to be -- the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There are
Palestinians living in Jerusalem.
Some of those programs benefit Palestinians living in Jerusalem.
That's all I meant to say.
QUESTION: Could you say whether there was a discussion of any extent on
the status of King Fahd's health?
MR. BURNS: Not in the meetings in which I attended, no.
Yes, Bob.
QUESTION: Nick, did the Secretary make her recommendations to President
Clinton yet concerning drug certification?
MR. BURNS: No, she has not. She met with her advisors yesterday.
She'll continue today on these very difficult issues of certification on
narcotics. She's not yet made recommendations to the President.
QUESTION: Will it happen today?
MR. BURNS: Will a recommendation occur today? I don't know. That
just depends how much progress is made here internally.
QUESTION: So there's no plans for her to go to the White House this
afternoon, or anything of that nature?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any plans for a meeting at the White House
today; no.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Any more on certification?
QUESTION: Just one final question; a brief question.
What is your understanding of the deadline on Mexico?
MR. BURNS: On certification, in general?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: The Administration has to report to the Congress on or
about March 1st. March 1st is Saturday. I still haven't checked with the
lawyers in the last 24 hours to understand what the definition of
"Saturday" is. Does it extend to 11:59 Saturday evening? Does it end
sometime before that? All I know is that we will be reporting to you in
this room at some point over the next couple of days. When I have a fix on
that, we'll call all of you and ask you to come down. You'll hear
a full explanation from Ambassador Gelbard on the decisions that
we've taken on certification for all countries, not just Mexico.
QUESTION: The actual announcement will be made here?
MR. BURNS: Yes, it will. Yes.
QUESTION: On the drug issue - specifically to Mexico - does this
Department or this Administration have a comment, Nick, regarding the Los
Angeles Times article today by Ms. Sheridan and Ms. Shogren quoting Mr.
Molina, the former drug czar of Mexico, saying that Mr. Gutierrez could
have had access and given all the information that the drug agency had to
whomever he chose?
And, secondly, Mr. Constantine is saying that it appears that the damage
from the Mexican scandal could be worse than that done by Aldrich Ames to
the U.S.?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, I have no comment.
I can't possibly comment on a question like that.
On the second question, let's just keep things in perspective here. The
fact is that these are entirely different situations involving entirely
different countries. I don't think it makes sense to compare the
two.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Anything on the upcoming meeting between Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and the Greek Foreign Minister, Theodhoros Pangalos, in
early March?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I'm delighted you asked that question. The
Secretary is hoping very much that she might be able to work out a time for
a meeting with Foreign Minister Pangalos.
She has great respect for him. Visits by senior Greek officials are part
of our relationship with Greece.
We understand that he plans to travel to New York in March to attend the
opening of an exhibition on Byzantine art at the Met - the Metropolitan
Museum. When we can decide on a time for a visit and a date and a place,
we'll do that. But relations with Greece are very important. She has the
greatest respect for Minister Pangalos, and we're looking forward to a
meeting.
When we're ready to announce it, we'll give you the date.
QUESTION: So far, there isn't anything to this effect - specifically,
day/time? There isn't anything -
MR. BURNS: Not yet, but we're working on it. I hope your readers
understand that, the great respect we have for Minister Pangalos.
QUESTION: Mr. Pangalos stated yesterday there is a plan disputing Greek
sovereignty in the entire region of the Aegean Sea as far as the region of
the island of Crete. Whoever supports Turkey is entirely wrong.
(Inaudible) is a part of this Turkish plan. Do you have any comment on his
statement?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't.
QUESTION: According to reports, Turkish Under Secretary Onur Oymen and
Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott, when they met the other day here at the
State Department, they discussed also the issue of non-existing borders
between Greece and Turkey and the Aegean Sea and that your side, for the
first time, understood the Turkish position. Could you please confirm this
information?
MR. BURNS: I think we've always understood the Turkish position.
We've always understood it. It doesn't mean we've always agreed with it
but we've understood it.
QUESTION: This one?
MR. BURNS: We've understood what the Turkish position is for a long,
long time.
QUESTION: Can you confirm this information also?
MR. BURNS: I can confirm they had an excellent discussion, but I don't
want to say anything specific about sovereignty or islands or islets.
QUESTION: Nick, taking from this public announcement from your office
on Pakistan that Americans - are you saying Americans are at a greater
threat, or American diplomats, or what?
MR. BURNS: There's been a constant threat, we believe, to Americans in
Pakistan. As you know, two years ago next month we had two Americans
killed by terrorist action in Pakistan. We haven't forgotten that.
These messages to the American public living in Pakistan or traveling
there are simply cautionary messages to make sure that everyone who is an
American there understands the threat.
QUESTION: Are you asking them to leave Pakistan?
MR. BURNS: No, we've not asked Americans to leave Pakistan.
QUESTION: How about American diplomats, are they also at greater
threat?
MR. BURNS: American diplomats are at threat - some level of threat in
most parts of the world. We do take the necessary precautions to protect
our diplomats.
QUESTION: On India. Ambassador Wisner visited Kashmir.
Was there any reason for him to visit (inaudible)? He met with a group of
Kashmiris that the Indian Government didn't want him to meet.
MR. BURNS: I don't find it surprising that Ambassador Wisner would
have visited Kashmir; don't find that surprising at all. He was just
conducting official business for the United States there.
QUESTION: Was there any reason at this particular time?
Or he was carrying any kind of message from the Secretary of State?
MR. BURNS: He was carrying out his responsibilities as our Ambassador.
He's been there before. It's not the first time and it won't be the last
time that an American Embassy official or an American Ambassador is in
Kashmir.
QUESTION: Is there any plan for the Secretary to visit India?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Secretary Albright -
MR. BURNS: I think the Secretary has a great interest in South Asia -
in all of the countries of South Asia. I know that she wants to be very
actively involved in the relationship, but she's not set any dates; not
worked out any arrangements for a trip to South Asia yet, no.
QUESTION: Do you have statements or comments on the recent trade
dispute between the United States and Japan on shipping?
The National Maritime Commission slapped duties on Japanese ships visiting
the U.S.
MR. BURNS: We weren't surprised to see the action of the Federal
Maritime Commission. When Secretary Albright met with the MITI Minister,
Minister Sato, on Sunday in Tokyo, she warned him that the United States
continued to be very displeased by some of the discriminatory actions taken
by Japanese ports against American ships.
It only stands to reason that the United States is going to defend our
economic interests when we believe there's been discrimination. Thus, the
reason for the action by the Maritime Commission yesterday.
QUESTION: Japan is saying that this may violate a U.S. Treaty on
Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation. Have you looked into whether this is
a violation?
MR. BURNS: We wouldn't have taken the action had we thought it was a
violation of any of our treaty commitments. We don't believe that's
so.
QUESTION: The spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry told today that
the Chinese Government is actively considering signing two international
covenants on human rights. Is it going to affect your attitude toward the
resolution by the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva?
MR. BURNS: That's a very good question. Over the past couple of
months, we have been involved in a discussion with the Chinese about
concrete, meaningful measures that the Chinese Government might take to
address the concerns of the United States and many other countries around
the world have about the human rights situation in China.
In her meetings in Beijing on Monday evening with President Jiang Zemin,
Premier Li Peng, and Foreign Secretary Qian Qichen, Secretary Albright
discussed these ideas that we have and she discussed the importance of
additional measures being taken by the Chinese Government. She made very
clear that we'll continue to consult with our European friends and with
others around the world about this process that will lead to a U.N. Human
Rights Commission resolution.
That process is underway. We haven't made any final decisions, but that
process is underway. In principle, we're prepared to move forward if there
is no corresponding positive action by the Chinese Government.
So today's announcement by my counterpart, the Chinese spokesman, is a
positive step. It's a positive step of China's intentions to sign and
ratify the two international covenants on civil and political rights and on
economic, social, and cultural rights. If this can be done by a date
certain, this, we think, would be consistent with China's interest in
promoting a better discussion of human rights with the United States and
other countries.
Having said all of this, having said it's a positive step forward, much
more progress - much more progress - needs to be made by the Chinese
Government.
As you know, we have a number of concerns, very important and serious
concerns, that remain about the treatment of political dissidents, of
religious dissidents, those who try to practice their religion - in Tibet,
for instance. A number of important concerns remain.
QUESTION: Those positive actions, would that include releasing some
dissidents?
MR. BURNS: We've always said - without going into the specific
conversations that we had the other day, the United States has always said
that we think that all political prisoners ought to be released. They
should not be held purely because they spoke their minds.
QUESTION: But in terms of the course of action that the U.S. decides to
take in Geneva, is signing these documents sufficient, or are you also
asking China to do something more concrete?
MR. BURNS: They haven't signed the documents. They said they may sign
the documents. So they haven't even taken that action yet.
I want to be a very clear about this. That would be a positive step
forward, but there are other very important measures that would have to be
taken to indicate that there has been a fundamental change in Chinese
Government positions here.
QUESTION: Positive but not sufficient. Is that fair to say?
MR. BURNS: There would have to be a number of other important actions
taken to convince us that China had developed a different position on human
rights.
QUESTION: You mean the number of steps they have to take in order to
prevent you from co-sponsoring the human rights resolution, or in general
for you assess that there's been a change in China?
MR. BURNS: In terms of the human rights resolution at Geneva, I've
made very clear today that we continue to move forward to consult about
that resolution with our friends and allies around the world. We'll
continue to do that, because there's been no corresponding action by the
Chinese Government that would stop that process. So I think that answers
your question, Sid.
In a larger sense, we still need to be convinced that there's going to be
fundamentally a different approach in China concerning human rights.
QUESTION: Unless they sign the document, do you think there will be
major changes in the U.S. policy towards China?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me? If they sign the document?
QUESTION: If they sign the document.
MR. BURNS: We'll have to see what happens. We'll have to see if that
even happens, if they do sign the documents. But again I want to point to
my earlier remarks I just made, that there are other issues out there that
are very important to us and to people around the world and to the Chinese
people.
QUESTION: Nick, North Korea. In light of this - of the Deputy Defense
Minister of North Korea -- just last Saturday Defense Minister died in
North Korea, and also the Prime Minister just resigned and Mr. Hwang
defected. Do you see any changes of the leadership in North Korea? Any
sign of change?
MR. BURNS: There's clearly a lot going on in North Korea these days.
It's clearly a time of turbulence in North Korean society - no question
about it - with the events that you mentioned and also the terrible food
shortages that are affecting the civilian population. We can't do much to
affect the North Korean political structure or to affect who's in what
job.
But we can do two things that are important. We can deliver the food aid
that we promised, and we'll do that, because that might help young kids in
North Korea who are victims of the system there - the communist system
there - and second we can work at the Four-Party briefing talks that will
commence on March 4 in New York to see if we can convince the North Koreans
to go to peace negotiations with the South Koreans and the Chinese
and ourselves, and we can make sure that the Agreed Framework is being
implemented, which it is. These are our interests in North Korea, and
we're going to pursue all of those interests.
But I think we have very limited leverage over what happens internally
over who sits in which chairs in Pyongyang.
QUESTION: March 4th or March 5th?
MR. BURNS: March 4th.
QUESTION: But they say March 5th.
MR. BURNS: We said March 4th yesterday, didn't we - the date for the
New York -
QUESTION: Three-party talks - 5.
MR. BURNS: Is it 5th? I stand corrected. Sorry.
QUESTION: Can I follow. So you say - in which direction do you think
North Korea is going - the reform direction or more turbulent and
disorganized in light of the changing of the leadership?
MR. BURNS: I think it's impossible for us to answer that question
adequately for you. It's a complex society - very difficult to read what's
going on inside the country - but clearly given everything that you've
mentioned, society is in some turbulence.
QUESTION: Nick, has it always been the Administration position that it
doesn't serve anyone's interest for North Korea to come tumbling down in a
violent upheaval, and your efforts have tended to sort of coax them into a
more moderate position.
MR. BURNS: Our primary interest is to see stability maintained on the
Korean peninsula - not that we support the communist system; we don't. But
you don't want to see war break out, and that's why we have 37,000 American
troops south of the DMZ - inside or south of the DMZ - and that's why we
have a defense commitment to South Korea which is unshakable and has been
for more than four decades. That's why we want to see the Agreed
Framework maintained, because we don't want to see North Korea become
a nuclear power; in fact, would never allow that to happen. So
I think our interests are very, very clear, and we abide by those
interests. We live by them.
QUESTION: Can you tell me any new development of Mr. Hwang in
Beijing?
MR. BURNS: I do not. I'm not aware of any new developments. The
Chinese Government and the South Korean Government are working together on
this, and we just hope that this situation can be resolved peacefully and
quickly and according to normal international norms, international
practices in these kinds of cases. We had a very good briefing from the
Chinese the other day about the status of Mr. Hwang and from the South
Korean leadership two days prior to that.
QUESTION: Can you tell us something about the visit of the Chilean
President and what's being discussed, what's been accomplished and -
MR. BURNS: My goodness. There was a full press conference yesterday
over at the Executive Office Building and lots of documents released by the
White House and the State Department. It was an excellent visit by
President Frei, both on economic issues and on political issues. We have a
very good relationship . We wouldn't have had a state visit if we didn't.
But I'd refer you to everything that we've published over the last few days
unless you have a specific question.
QUESTION: Having to do with NAFTA and economic integration.
MR. BURNS: Yes, I believe that President Clinton had a lot to say
about that in his press conference, as did President Frei, and I direct you
to both of their statements.
QUESTION: Can you tell us something about Foreign Minister Udovenko's
visit next week? Is there anything in particular that he's meeting -
MR. BURNS: The Secretary has not had a chance to meet with him yet as
Secretary of State. Ukraine is among the priority relationships that we
have in Central Europe. By virtue of its size and its location, it's going
to be one of the most important countries in Europe in the next century,
and we've tried to have a relationship that emphasizes denuclearization,
economic reform.
Our largest assistance program in the former Soviet Union is in Ukraine --
$225 million a year.
We've had a very close relationship with President Kuchma and with
Minister Udovenko. It's a chance for us to sit down with the Ukrainians,
take stock of the relationship and to move forward.
QUESTION: There are some reports out of Cuba that coinciding with this
anniversary of the downing of the two planes last year, there is much more
repression against independent journalists.
Do you have anything you can confirm it? Do you have any information?
MR. BURNS: A year after the shootdown, not much has changed in Havana,
in Cuba, and it is true that we've seen recently - and we've talked about
this - repression of democrats and of other political dissidents in Cuba,
jailing of people, and also just a squelching of anyone who tries to be an
independent journalist.
It's been refreshing to see the change in European attitudes about Cuba
over the last couple of months, because they're well aware of these
totalitarian practices by the Cuban Government, and it's good to see the
European Union focusing on this issue of democracy.
QUESTION: Can you say yet about the WTO thing? Do you have anything
new or not?
MR. BURNS: Nothing new. We still continue to try to work out an
agreement with the European Union so that we can avoid - and we will avoid -
having the WTO resolve this matter. The United States will not allow that
to happen.
Patrick.
QUESTION: My apologies in advance if you've addressed this recently,
but the Russians a couple weeks ago issued what they called "long-term
guidelines" on their relations with the Baltic states. These included,
amongst other things, a fairly stiff warning against the Baltic states
joining NATO, and I wondered if the State Department had any reaction to
these guidelines?
MR. BURNS: We're aware of the guidelines. The Russians ought to have
a good relationship with the Baltics and vice versa.
We've been encouraging that for a number of years. They've got to live
next door to each other, and so the United States has always tried in our
meetings with each - the Russians and of the three Baltic countries - to
emphasize the importance of cooperative work together, and we'll continue
to do that.
At the same time, we have an independent relationship with the three
Baltic countries. We think that they are countries that are European.
They were illegally occupied for 52 years. They now have had their
independence restored, and their security needs can be met, we think, in
the Partnership for Peace. We've trained and funded the Baltic Battalion.
We've trained them here in the United States. They're serving with us in
Bosnia actively, and President Clinton has taken the position that the
first shall not be the last in terms of NATO membership, meaning that
all members of the Partnership for Peace - and this includes Russia,
as well as the three Baltic countries - are eligible for NATO membership.
The United States is not willing to take any country off the board and
say we won't consider these countries. If in fact the Baltic countries do
or do not - are or are not admitted in the first round, we'll continue to
have - that's not been decided - we'll continue to have a very close
security relationship with the Baltic countries, because we are concerned
that they remain independent countries with their sovereignty fully intact.
We're committed to that.
What we've tried to do, from the President on down, is encourage the
Russians and the Balts to try to cooperate together, because they do have
to live side by side for the next several centuries.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you. One more - sorry.
QUESTION: Briefly back on Saudi Arabia. You mentioned about, with Iran,
the agreed need for continued isolation. Did they talk about the Iran
sanctions law at all?
MR. BURNS: That issue did not come up, no. It did not come up,
no.
(The briefing concluded at 2:54 p.m.)
(###)
|
