U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #30, 97-02-28
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1173
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 28, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Deputy Secretary Talbott Trip to Europe
1-2 U.S. Foreign Policy Town Mtg. on March 4 at Univ. of Missouri
2-3 Decisions on Drug Certification
MEXICO
3-4 Arrest of Oscar Melherbe de Leone
NATO
4-5 NATO Position on Modification of CFE Regime
ARMENIA
5 Talbott Mtg. w/Armenian FM Arzoumanian
VATICAN
5-7 Vatican/Libya Relationship
NORTH KOREA
7 Briefing on Four-Party Talks
7-8 Food Aid
CHINA
8-9 Anniversary of Shanghai Communique
9 Alleged Political Contributions to Clinton Campaign
NORTHERN IRELAND
9-10 Issue of Visa Waiver for Gerry Adams
AEGEAN SEA
10 Alleged Violations of Air Space
TURKEY/GREECE
10-11 Turkish/Greek Relations
MISCELLANEOUS
11 Anwar Haddam Visa
SAUDI ARABIA
12-13 Protection/Security of Foreigners/U.S. Soldiers
12-14 The Al- Khobar Case
13 U.S. Troop Presence
14 Prince Sultan/Prince Saud Mtg. w/Secretary Albright
14 --Discussion of Iraqi Sanctions
IRAQ
14-15 Violations of UN Resolutions
IRAN/SYRIA
15-17 Reported Remarks by Mr. Ekeus re: Development of Weapons Programs
CHINA
17-18 Reports of Violence in Xingjiang
ZAIRE
18-19 Discussions in South Africa re: Eastern Zaire Hostilities/Relief/Repatriation
19 Violations of Sovereignty by Militia Groups
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #30
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1997, 12:59 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: We're just talking here about the Zimmerman telegram. We have
to check for Monday to get the date right, whether it was the 24th of
February or the 26th of February 1916.
QUESTION: Seventeen.
MR. BURNS: Seventeen? George should know the answer to the question.
QUESTION: It was 80 years ago. Today is a big day.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Today is a big day in U.S. diplomatic history.
MR. BURNS: The anniversary of the Shanghai Communiqué, and we can
talk about that if you'd like.
Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department briefing.
We were just talking about the Zimmerman telegram which is a great date in
American diplomatic history. We issued a press statement on this the other
day to commemorate that day; today is also the 25th anniversary of the
Shanghai Communiqué, and we can talk about that if you'd like.
I have two pieces of business, very quickly. The first is to tell you
that our Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott will be traveling to
Europe next Monday through Friday. He'll be in Paris, Brussels, and
Moscow. He'll be consulting with the French Government, with our NATO
allies in Brussels, and with the Russian Government about the range of
European security issues on which we've been working. NATO enlargement,
the proposed NATO-Russia Charter idea, the internal adaptation of NATO -
all of the issues that Secretary Albright dealt with in her recent trip
through the six capitals in Europe.
He will be taking with him his usual interagency team of advisors. Again,
he leaves early Monday morning and returns Friday.
Second, we'll be holding another one of our U.S. foreign policy Town
Meetings on March 4, next week, in Colombia, Missouri.
Stephens College, the University of Missouri and the U.S. Department of
State are co-sponsoring this Town Meeting which will be held at the
University of Missouri, March 4, 6:00-8:30 p.m.
The program consists of an Overview of American Foreign Policy and a
session on U.S.-China Relations. For all of you who would like to cover
this, you're most welcome. We have had some reporters travel to our
foreign policy Town Meetings to see what we do. If anyone is interested,
I'd be glad to help you do that.
Again, we had 23 Town Meetings last year. We expect to have more than
that this year. It's a way for us to reach out to the American people to
explain what we in Washington are doing for them and to talk about the
resources issue, the fact that the State Department is underfunded, and
other issues that are of importance to us here.
With that, George, be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: I understand that Secretary Albright has been at the White
House this morning, and the meeting has concluded.
I just wonder what your plans are in terms of an announcement on
certification?
MR. BURNS: I understand that the meeting has just concluded.
The Secretary is still at the White House. I haven't had a chance to
speak to her because she's still there. I don't have any announcement to
make.
As you know, the President and the Secretary have been discussing the
certification issues, particularly some of the countries that have been in
the news lately. I'm not aware that they've come to any final decisions.
Therefore, I'm not able to tell you at what point we're going to have a
press conference to announce our decisions.
Once the President and the Secretary do reach a set of decisions, I will
let you know whether it's during this briefing, at the end of the briefing,
or sometime after the briefing, when we'll be holding this press conference,
but it will happen here at the State Department. You'll hear the news here
first. Right here. This podium.
QUESTION: You say the meeting has broken up over there but you can't say
whether they've come to a meeting of the minds?
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: On her recommendations?
MR. BURNS: I just have nothing to say at this point.
I'll get back to you as soon as I can on this. I know why you're
interested. I know that there are deadlines, and we'll just have to see
what we're able to do today. If it's not today, it will be some day in the
future. We'll try to destroy your weekend.
QUESTION: Tomorrow, if not today?
MR. BURNS: We'll see.
QUESTION: Have you had a ruling from lawyers on whether it has to be
tomorrow?
MR. BURNS: I make it a practice - I limit my conversation with lawyers.
(Laughter) Having worked during Secretary Christopher's time for a lawyer
and with two other lawyers who were senior members of his staff, it's now
my practice not to talk to lawyers anymore.
I haven't consulted a lawyer on this.
Obviously, we want to make this decision as quickly as we can. It's a
very serious set of issues that the President and Secretary Albright are
dealing with, so they're taking their time to look at it very closely and
you'll understand why that's the case.
QUESTION: It's a question of whether it's March 1st, or the first working
day after?
MR. BURNS: Good question.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the arrest of this drug trafficker in
Mexico, and whether or not the U.S. has asked for his extradition to the
United States?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that the United States welcomes the arrest by
the Mexican Government of Oscar Malherbe de Leon.
The Mexican Government informed us yesterday of his arrest. He is a
notorious and violent narco-trafficker. He was previously tied to the Gulf
cartel. He's now associated with the Juarez cartel run by Mr. Fuentes, who
is well-known.
We hope very much that now that he's been arrested, he might be prosecuted
and brought to justice. If this is a trend, it's a good trend. We hope
that all of the narco-traffickers who are causing problems for the United
States and Mexico and Colombia and other countries can be apprehended.
That's our goal -- to find them, to prosecute them, and to make them serve
time.
QUESTION: And extradition? Have you asked for his extradition?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that the United States has made that request,
no.
QUESTION: Nick, was he, in fact, arrested in this country and turned
over to Mexican authorities?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that he was arrested. My understanding was, he
was arrested in Mexico. I'll be glad to check that, but that was my
understanding when I was briefed on this this morning.
I'll be glad to check it for you, though, Betsy.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: I have heard otherwise.
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to check that for you.
QUESTION: Nick, could I ask about the Talbott trip to Europe?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I don't know if you've seen it, but German Minister Kinkel put
out today a proposal that would sharply limit the number of conventional
forces in new NATO nations in eastern Europe.
One, is that similar or parallel to the ideas that Secretary Albright put
forward in Moscow last week? And, two, have you had a chance to look at
it?
MR. BURNS: I have not seen the announcement of an initiative by the
German Foreign Minister this morning. I can tell you that a week ago
Monday, the high-level Task Force met in Brussels, at NATO, and they
fashioned a NATO position. By last Thursday -- a week ago yesterday, as
well as a week ago today -- Secretary Albright was able to present that
position, that unified NATO position to President Yeltsin, Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin, and Foreign Minister Primakov.
The action has now shifted to Vienna where these CFE modification
proposals are now being negotiated by all the countries which are a party
to the CFE Treaty of 1990. The NATO positions do call for restraint on
certain levels of armament and modifications of treaty holdings in a
variety of places in central Europe and in other parts of Europe. But
there's been no final decision taken by all the parties to the CFE Treaty.
The negotiations still must ensue for final decisions on the modifications
to be made.
Needless to say, the United States believes, as I think all other NATO
countries, that this modification of the CFE regime help to ensure
confidence in the NATO-Russia relationship, particularly as it pertains to
conventional weaponry confidence, that we'll have agreed-upon levels and
that those levels constitute a reduced threat to all concerned. I think
they were well received in Moscow.
QUESTION: Have you had any formal or informal response from the Russian
leadership?
MR. BURNS: I can't be a spokesman for the Russian Government except to
say that I think they were intrigued by the proposals.
When Secretary Albright presented them in some detail to Foreign Minister
Primakov, Minister Primakov responded with several different comments. He
had some questions that needed to be answered. He had some comments, and he
thought -- I think he also had some praise for parts of the proposal.
I think it was a good beginning, but the negotiations do now need to
proceed in Vienna. That's where the action is.
We see the CFE modification proposal as part of our effort to define a new
relationship between Russia and NATO, and a new climate of confidence with
a vastly reduced threat, certainly from the days in the Cold War, when
there was a very high level conventional threat between the Warsaw Pact and
NATO.
We're friends with Russia and there ought not to be any threat whatsoever
between NATO countries and Russia, and the CFE modification helps us reach
that state.
QUESTION: Nick, Strobe Talbott had a meeting with the Armenian Foreign
Minister this morning. Did Mr. Talbott bring up Armenia's contacts with
Iran?
MR. BURNS: I talked to Strobe just a couple of minutes ago. I'm sorry,
I didn't ask him that question, didn't know there was interest in that
question.
He met with Foreign Minister Alex Arzoumanian who is well-known to us. He
was previously the Armenian Ambassador in Washington.
He's a very fine man. We have an excellent relationship with him. I know
that there were good talks this week. He was here for several days this
week. I just don't know if that issue came up. It wouldn't have surprised
me that if in the course of some of the discussions this week Iran did come
up. We've been talking to the Armenians about their relationship with Iran
for a number of year -- for four or five years now.
QUESTION: Do you have any (inaudible) this morning?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to get you -- we'll try to get a readout. We
were supposed to get something, and I guess our friends in S/NIS decided
not to give it to us. If they're listening, please come down to the Press
Office with a description of the meeting. If they're not listening, we'll
get back to them and we'll try to get you something. It's a fair
question.
QUESTION: The Vatican?
MR. BURNS: On the Vatican? Yes.
QUESTION: Mr. Navarro, the Spokesman for the Holy See in Rome denied
that there was any protest from the U.S. regarding the forging of the
relationship between the Vatican and Libya.
Today, apparently, he sounded a little different, like there was a protest
from the U.S. Can you comment on this?
MR. BURNS: The first thing I should say, because I always want to be
completely above board with all of you, is that my mother would disown me
if I said anything negative about His Holiness, Pope John Paul, II. So I'm
not going to do that. Isn't that right, Carol? You understand why that
is.
The second thing I will say is that we have the greatest respect for His
Holiness, Pope John Paul, II. We believe, in general, that it is best to
isolate Libya because of Libya's direct support for terrorist groups;
because of the fact that we believe -- there's very good reason to believe
that two Libyan agents placed a bomb on board Pan Am 103 in December 1988
and killed 269 people. So we have a major argument with the Libyan
Government.
I think that's where I'd like to put my emphasis today.
I don't know if our mission to the Vatican, led by Ambassador Ray Flynn,
has raised this issue directly with the Vatican authorities.
I think what's more important is that we try to maintain unity in the
United Nations for a continued application of sanctions towards Libya. And,
in general, the United States does not believe that it makes sense to have
a normal relationship with Libya.
The Vatican, of course, is a very different kind of international actor.
They have a different mission than a normal nation-state.
It's a religious mission. If the Vatican can do anything to soften the
rougher aspects of the Libyan Government's nature and if they can bring a
spotlight to bear on some of the shortcomings of the Libyan leadership,
then, of course, the United States would have no objection to that. We do
have the greatest respect for the Vatican and for its leader, Pope John
Paul, II.
QUESTION: A follow-up. Would the United States Government ask them, the
Vatican, to intercede for the return, or for the extradition of these two
Libyan agents implicated in the Pan Am 103 bombing?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that the United States has had any discussions
of that nature with the Vatican leadership. By the way, we have excellent
relations with the Vatican. But I do know that the United States and the
United Kingdom have long urged the Government of Libya to turn those two
people over to proper authorities in the United States, or the United
Kingdom for trial. They deserve to be tried for murder. They killed
269 people.
Their likenesses are on matchbooks all over the Middle East; on a poster
at the door of our Press Office here right down the hall. We've offered $4
million for information that would lead to the arrest of these two
individuals. That's an offer from the U.S. Department of State to anybody
in the Middle East, or elsewhere around the world, who can lead us to these
people so they can be apprehended, put on trial, and hopefully prosecuted
for murder. They murdered 269 people. We haven't forgotten even though
it's nine years later -- nearly nine years later. We haven't forgotten.
QUESTION: My notes from the post-briefing briefing -- I guess it was
either yesterday or the day before -- quote someone as saying -- I don't
know what the ground rules were at the time -- that the U.S. does not
encourage any country or entity to establish relations with Libya. We
don't think the Vatican ought to establish relations with Libya.
MR. BURNS: Yes, George.
QUESTION: That's somewhat different from what you're saying this
morning?
MR. BURNS: George, I'm On-the-Record, and my mother reads the transcripts
on the State Department Web site, www.state.gov., and she calls me when
she's unhappy with me. That was the first point I thought I should make.
I never want my mother to be unhappy with me.
The second point is, more seriously, that I just want to lead you back to
the comments that I made: that we have the greatest respect for the
Vatican, and that we do not wish that there be business as usual with the
Libyan Government because of its direct support for terrorism, and there
were Americans on that flight -- there were American diplomats on that
flight, and their names are etched in the plaque in the C Street lobby.
We have to remember what happened.
But I do think that the Vatican has a role and a mission around the world
that perhaps can put a spotlight on problems, more so than a normal nation-
state, and I would leave my remarks there.
QUESTION: So this country does believe, does it not, that Mr. Qadhafi
was responsible for that bomb-down through his two agents, and that dealing
with Qadhafi would be dealing with terrorists? Is that -
MR. BURNS: We believe that the two agents were working for the Libyan
Government, and he's the head of the Libyan Government.
Therefore, he's responsible for the actions of his government.
There's no question about that. Bill, that's what I have to say. I don't
want to buy into all the premises of your question -- all the other
premises about the Vatican.
QUESTION: The North Korean Vice Defense Minister has passed away a few
days after the Defense Minister, and I wonder if you could give us your
comments on that as well as if you see any repercussions to the situation
in -
MR. BURNS: Trying to understand events in North Korea is a great
challenge. The Prime Minister has resigned. The Defense Minister has
died. The Acting Defense Minister who succeeded him has now died. There's
a food shortage in the country. It's a turbulent and chaotic time in North
Korea. We can't know everything that's going on inside North Korea, but we
do know that we want to get to the Four-Party Talks briefing on March 5 at
the Hilton Hotel in New York.
QUESTION: Oh, is that where it is?
MR. BURNS: Yes, it is. And we'll be glad to give you the coordinates,
because we do want the American press to come and cover that event -- the
first meeting. Chuck Kartman will be leading the United States delegation -
- Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kartman. I believe Vice Foreign
Minister Li will be leading the North Korean delegation. I will check on
the South Korean Government participation.
Our emphasis here is on that Four-Party Talks briefing, on the Agreed
Framework, and on the food aid, and we'll focus ourselves on that. Trying
to figure out what's going on inside North Korea is a challenge. We try to
do it, but I can't give you a rational explanation for why all these events
are occurring in such a short period of time.
QUESTION: Nick, is food aid on the table in the Joint Briefing?
MR. BURNS: No. As you know, Secretary Albright made a decision on that
a week ago Monday night -- a $10 million U.S. grant allocation to the North
Koreans, to the World Food Program, to alleviate suffering and malnutrition
among young kids. We've made that decision. It's not linked to the Joint
Briefing. It's not going to be an agenda item, because the Joint Briefing
pertains to the Four-Party proposal for peace in the Korean peninsula.
QUESTION: Probably you look at food aid as in connection -
MR. BURNS: As one of our ongoing concerns in general, not in association
with the Four-Party Talks.
QUESTION: Do you have any indication that the passing of the Defense
Ministers will in any way affect these upcoming talks?
MR. BURNS: No. We have no indication that it would.
We expect the North Koreans to show up in New York next week.
QUESTION: Have they picked up visas?
MR. BURNS: I believe they're going to be picking up visas tomorrow
morning in Beijing, Saturday, March 1st.
Yes, sir. Welcome back. Haven't seen you in awhile.
QUESTION: Nick, you said you have something to say on the 25th
anniversary of the Shanghai Communiqué.
MR. BURNS: Yes. I'd be glad to say a few words. The Shanghai Communiqué
was a key milestone in United States relations with China. As Secretary
Albright said during her recent visit to Beijing, two great peoples, long
separated from each other by ideology, took a historic step towards each
other. The intervening years have seen many changes in that relationship,
and I think it's fair to say that that relationship has become significantly
deeper and more extensive.
Secretary Albright has addressed the complexity of that relationship in
her remarks in Beijing last Monday evening. Under Secretary Peter Tarnoff
gave a major speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on February
20th, which also looked into the past and into the future. We
believe that for the future we need to work to build a more constructive
relationship with China, and we look forward to a schedule of high-level
visits during 1997 and 1998, and we hope to build on the record of
the past to achieve a more stable footing for U.S.-China relations
over the next several years -- certainly more stable than we've had in the
last several years.
QUESTION: Secretary Albright in one of the weekend talk show interviews
did not rule out the possibility of a fourth communiqué.
Is the United States willing to talk to China for a fourth communiqué
with regards to Taiwan?
MR. BURNS: She was not referring to a fourth communiqué.
I think I know -- she was listening to a question from 10,000 miles away.
I think she thought the interviewer was talking about a communiqué
for her meetings. So the United States is not considering a fourth
communiqué that would complement the three communiqués that
are the foundation of U.S.-China relations -- the communiqués from
1979 and 1982 -- are not considering that at all. So that was just a
language misunderstanding in the interview.
QUESTION: Nick, to what extent did the Secretary discuss with the
Chinese in their meetings this question of Chinese political contributions
to the Clinton campaign?
MR. BURNS: Carol, I just have nothing for you on that question.
QUESTION: Is that because she didn't raise the issue?
MR. BURNS: I have nothing for you on that issue. There's nothing that I
can say on that issue.
QUESTION: And why is that? I mean, if she's the Secretary of State and
she discussed it with the Chinese, doesn't that make it fair game for the
Spokesman to say something?
MR. BURNS: It certainly is fair of you to ask the question, but, as you
know, there are times when I simply have nothing for you in response to a
question, and this is one of those times.
QUESTION: About Gerry Adams. The Financial Times say today that the
U.S. has refused to deliver any visas to the U.S.? Have you any comment
about that?
MR. BURNS: I have a few things to say. I know that there's always a St.
Patrick's Day party at the White House on March 17th, and for
good reasons -- one of the great days of the year; and I know that the
President is going to be inviting a range of leaders from Northern Ireland
to attend that briefing similar to -- excuse me, attend that celebration
similar to last year's celebration.
Concerning the issue of a visa waiver for Gerry Adams, we've not made a
decision on this because he has not applied for a visa. He's not applied
for a visa. I'm not aware that he's going to apply for a visa. I would
doubt he would apply for a visa. If he did apply for a visa, we'd have to
just look at the circumstances at the time he applied for the visa, and
we'd have to ascertain whether or not issuing that visa waiver would
contribute to momentum in the peace negotiations that are being led by
former Senator George Mitchell.
Having said that, let me just say something else, which I think maybe
speaks more pointedly to the question. The United States Government
continues to be outraged by the resumption of Irish Republican Army
terrorism in Northern Ireland, and we continue to support the peace process
in Northern Ireland. We urge the IRA to restore an immediate cease-
fire.
In the absence of a cease-fire, the United States will continue to endorse
fully and completely the position of the British Government and the Irish
Government, and that is that Sinn Fein is not welcome and cannot participate
in the multi-party talks unless this pledge of a cease-fire and the reality
of a cease-fire are met.
What is happening is despicable. Innocent people and innocent civilians,
I should say, and British soldiers are being subjugated to the worst type
of political terrorism. The British soldiers do not deserve it. The
innocent civilians do not deserve it, and the United States will stand by
the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in insisting that there's
no place for Gerry Adams or the Sinn Fein or anyone else from that
organization at the multi-party talks until this cease-fire is implemented.
Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: In the last three days, Turkey is continuously violating the
Greek airspace in the entire Aegean Sea all the way up to the island of
Crete, and in some cases Turkish warplanes are crossing even Greek islands.
Do you have any comment on this activity?
MR. BURNS: I have no comment, Mr. Lambros. I'm not familiar with the
events that you're describing.
QUESTION: As a matter of principle, what is the position of your
government in violation and infringement in general in the area of the
international community?
MR. BURNS: In general - (laughter).
QUESTION: Do you have a position?
MR. BURNS: In general and specifically, the United States supports
efforts by Greece and Turkey to resolve their problems, and I was
interested to see that Secretary General Solana, who was in Athens today,
meeting with Prime Minister Simitis, also said that he as NATO leader would
try his very best to try to reduce tensions between Greece and Turkey. We
very much support the Secretary General, and we'll continue our own
American efforts to try to bring Greece and Turkey together, but ultimately,
Mr. Lambros, it's up to Greece and Turkey to resolve these problems.
QUESTION: I know this, but I'm saying do you have a policy vis-a-vis to
violations and infringement in general?
MR. BURNS: I think it makes sense that we support the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of Greece and of Turkey.
QUESTION: One more question. The last two days President Demirel of
Turkey and Prime Minister Erbakan exchanged important letters regarding the
national (inaudible) crisis in Turkey between (inaudible) and Islamic in
connection with U.S. policy. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BURNS: This is an internal affair for Turkish politicians to
resolve. I don't believe the United States is involved in this in any way.
That's why I object to the last part of your question -- the premise of the
question. No one's arguing about the United States here. Turkish
politicians are simply discussing with each other the future direction of
Turkey, and we Americans ought to let them do that without public
commentary from us.
QUESTION: I wouldn't challenge that. I'm seeing a connection between
your policy because Demirel is addressing this to Mr. Erbakan that
otherwise we're going to lose the support of the U.S. Government. That's
why I'm seeing a connection.
MR. BURNS: The U.S. Government is not going to become involved in this
domestic dispute. We have great respect for the secular democratic
tradition of Turkey, which has been the foundation of Turkey since Kemal
Attaturk's time.
Yes, George.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the visa situation of Anwar Haddam,
who was, as I understand, the Islamic Salvation Front representative in
Washington and who has been having some visa problems with the U.S.
Government?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I understand your interest. I understand that the
Immigration and Naturalization Service is acting on this.
They have primary responsibility for handling these matters, and it's been
our policy neither to confirm nor deny the existence of individual asylum
requests of individuals who may be in the United States. That is done in
order to protect the privacy of the individual and their families, and also
really to protect the integrity of the asylum process.
So I would have to refer you to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
on this. It's their bailiwick, not ours. But if you're interested in
Algeria, we can talk about that, but this particular case I have to respect
the purview of the INS.
Laura.
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Earlier in the week, the State Department issued a public
announcement concerning Saudi Arabia, and it had some very specific
language about the vulnerability of American citizens in Saudi Arabia.
Given the fact that there was a senior-level delegation here yesterday and
lengthy discussions, do you feel that Americans are safe in Saudi
Arabia?
MR. BURNS: We were pleased to hear from Prince Sultan and Prince Saud
that the Saudi Government considers it to be one of their major responsibilities
to protect foreigners in Saudi Arabia, including most particularly American
soldiers and American civilians. There are roughly 40,000, I believe,
American civilians who live in Saudi Arabia, and we appreciate that.
The Saudi Government since the Riyadh and the Al-Khobar bombings has
worked with the Department of Defense to maximize protection for the
American soldiers -- the men and women there who are part of the American
forces. Many of those men and women serve in
Southern Watch, which is an operation that benefits a lot of different
countries in the Persian Gulf area, not just Saudi Arabia, because we apply
our containment policy towards Hussein through Southern Watch.
Having said all that, it is still true that we believe that there are
threats to Americans in Saudi Arabia; that official and private Americans
ought to be aware of those threats, and that's why we issue the public
advisories. We believe that one must be mindful of the security situation
at all times and at all levels of American society in Saudi Arabia.
Having said that, the situation is not serious enough to warrant a
withdrawal of American diplomats -- not by any stretch of the imagination --
and we continue to have a very active and sizable American private
community there. So I want to realistic in describing what the situation
is.
QUESTION: In that announcement, you also mentioned an interview with the
terrorist, Osama bin Laden. Was the interview discussed? I understand you
all have a readout of the interview and some of the things that he said in
that. Was any of that discussed with the Saudis?
MR. BURNS: We mentioned the interview with Osama bin Laden, because it
is a threatening interview, and in it he makes threats against the United
States. Our standard is that if the United States Government has any
information about threats to Americans, that we can't hold that information
to ourselves. We've got to share it with the American public, particularly
Americans who live in the country involved, and that's why we were
specific about Osama bin Laden. I know we have discussed him and his
threats with the Saudi Government.
QUESTION: A follow-up, please, Nick. Does a lack of solution of the
Khobar case -- does that contribute to an atmosphere of danger -- a
potential for terror against U.S. citizens in Saudi Arabia?
MR. BURNS: I think it stands to reason if we haven't caught those
responsible for the Khobar bombing, we have to assume that they are a
potential threat to other Americans, and we have to be attentive for that,
and all of our military forces and our diplomats are. They take extraordinary
precautions to defend themselves in light of these two bombings over the
last year, as you would expect them to.
QUESTION: And then -- I would take it then a lack of punishment for
those culpable would tend to decrease deterrence, is that correct?
MR. BURNS: Bill, now we've injected ourselves into the world of theory,
because since no one has been caught, we can't really talk about punishment
yet or of non-punishment. Let's wait and see if the killers are caught and
how they're tried before we can answer questions like that.
QUESTION: Nick, during the consultations this week with the Saudis, was
there any talk about reduction of American troop presence in Saudi
Arabia?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any -- not in the meetings which I
attended.
QUESTION: Something about Zaire and the newest development?
QUESTION: Stay on Saudi Arabia.
MR. BURNS: We'll stay on Saudi Arabia. Then let's go back to Zaire. I
do have something on that, yes.
QUESTION: Nick, you've just said twice "since no one's been caught."
Does that mean that the Saudis told you that any arrest they may have made
were not applicable to the Khobar bombing?
MR. BURNS: No. It just means that I'm not aware that anyone's been
apprehended or is going to be prosecuted for this.
We were told that the case is not closed; that the investigation
continues. So there we are.
QUESTION: Case not closed is one thing. No one caught is another.
MR. BURNS: I'm just not aware of it, Charlie. That's why I said
it.
QUESTION: You mean they're not holding the suspects, or do you mean they
haven't caught and convicted someone?
MR. BURNS: The Saudis have not determined -- they've not finished the
investigation. They've not determined who bombed the Al-Khobar barracks.
Therefore, these questions about prosecution are future-oriented questions,
because you can't talk about prosecution if you don't think you have the
people who committed the crime.
That's where we understand this to be. The investigation is not finished.
It is continuing. The Saudis and the FBI continue to work together. We
expect full cooperation in their work together, and we have the greatest
interest in this, because 19 American families are without their sons and
husbands because of this terrorist act.
QUESTION: But you're not saying no one's been detained?
MR. BURNS: I can't speak to that, because I'm not in charge of the
investigation, but I do know that they haven't come to the end of it, and
they don't have people who can be tried.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Nick, at one time it was clear that there were
people being detained. That was announced by the Saudis themselves. I
think what everybody's trying to find out is indeed are there still those
people in detention while this investigation goes on?
MR. BURNS: Henry, I can't speak to that. That's a question for the
Saudi authorities or the FBI, not for me. We've not commented on the
specifics of the investigation from this podium since it began, and I don't
want to do that today. But I am free to tell you, based on the consultations
we've had this week, the investigation is not closed -- it continues; it
proceeds -- because I don't believe that there's been a determination made
of who committed that crime.
QUESTION: Still on Saudi Arabia. Yesterday you said that there were --
that the Saudis and Americans are in full agreement on the U.N. sanctions
on Iraq. Was there some discussion of what was going to happen in Iraq, a
post-Saddam world? The Saudis have indicated that they wanted to discuss
that with you. And also can you confirm that the Oil Minister was at the
State Department yesterday with these talks? You didn't mention him
yesterday.
MR. BURNS: The Oil Minister was not in the meetings with Secretary
Albright that Prince Sultan and Prince Saud held -- two meetings. I can
ask the Near East Bureau whether or not he was here for other meetings --
on your second question.
On your first question, there was a very good and detailed discussion of
Iraq, and there was a genuine agreement -- complete agreement -- that our
two countries will push in the United Nations to maintain all the sanctions
on Iraq, because Iraq does not deserve to have them lifted. They've done
nothing to have them lifted, to meet any of the requirements of all the
relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.
As for the second part of your first question, I just can't go into
that.
QUESTION: Nick, the U.N. arms inspector, Mr. Ekeus, two days ago he
urged Turkey about the Iraqi arms buildup, and he believes that the Iraqi
has a substantial amount of arms, especially the long-range missile. Do
you share his concern about that?
MR. BURNS: Savas, I missed who the "he"" is. Who are you talking
about?
QUESTION: Ekeus.
MR. BURNS: Oh, Rolf Ekeus.
QUESTION: Rolf Ekeus.
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Ekeus has done a magnificent job in exposing the
consistent pattern of violations by the Iraqi Government of all the U.N.
resolutions pertaining to the arms and chemical weapons and biological
weapons, and we continue to give him our full support. The Iraqis have
done nothing -- nothing to merit a lifting of United Nations sanctions.
This issue came up in Secretary Albright's trip throughout Europe and also
in Asia, and it was a big part of the conversation. The United States
will not permit the U.N. Security Council to lift those sanctions, because
Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve it. If we lift them, he'll again become a
threat to his neighbors, and we cannot allow that to happen.
QUESTION: And also, is it true of the neighbors' country -- Turkey's two
neighbors' country -- Iran and Syria is also getting to more arms and
buying more arms, the new kind of chemical weapons.
Do you have any contact, or do you share this same concern of the other
two countries -- Iran and Syria?
MR. BURNS: We have long suspected, in fact we believe very deeply, that
the Iranian Government is trying to achieve a nuclear weapons capability
and trying to acquire or develop other weapons of mass destruction. That
is why we are isolating Iran and encouraging our European friends to do the
same. That policy of critical dialogue has not worked at all, and
therefore, we are encouraging the Europeans to take a more realistic
and tougher approach towards Iran.
QUESTION: How about Syria?
MR. BURNS: We have a well-known position on Syria, and we regularly talk
about Syria. Syria is on the terrorism list.
Syria is on lots of other lists. Stay tuned. We have a relationship with
that government, because we want to further the Middle East peace process.
We have a lot of concerns about the actions of that government.
QUESTION: Nick, a quick follow-up. Those three countries, Nick -- Iran,
Iraq and Syria -- does the State Department think their arms are a threat
for Turkey?
MR. BURNS: We think Iran is a threat to all of southeast Europe and all
of Western Europe, and that's what's so puzzling about the continued
attachment of many countries to the critical dialogue. It doesn't seem to
be in the interests of those countries when in fact we know that Iran is
trying to develop a capacity to build weaponry that can threaten countries
thousands of miles away. The same is true of Iraq. There was just a wire
service report this morning about Iraqi intentions to develop a missile
that could reach Western Europe.
We have got to contain both countries because they are opposed to the
peace negotiations and they support terrorist groups, and they are
irresponsible governments.
QUESTION: What about Syria? Syrian arms are a threat to Turkey as
well?
MR. BURNS: I think the Turkish Government is probably the best place to
describe the threats that it appreciates to its own position in the world.
I'm describing threats that the United States appreciates in the Middle
East.
QUESTION: On the threat to western Europe, that was mentioned in the
wire report I think you just made reference to in the first part of the
last series of questions.
Do you agree with Ambassador Ekeus that Iraq is developing or has weapons
that are a threat to western Europe?
MR. BURNS: You'll have to ask Ambassador Ekeus whether or not -
QUESTION: Does the U.S. agree with his assertions?
MR. BURNS: My answer to your question is, you'll have to ask Ambassador
Ekeus whether or not he believes that Iraq has actually achieved the
capability to produce these weapons or has them. That's what his mission
is all about.
We believe that Iraq has the intention to acquire the weapons, and they've
consistently lied to Ambassador Ekeus and the U.N. for five years about the
fact that they hid some of the elements of those weaponry throughout Iraq.
So we don't trust the Iraqi Government, and with good reason.
QUESTION: Nick, can you say if the Secretary had any success in
convincing the European nations to join in this policy of dual containment,
as defined by the U.S.?
MR. BURNS: She certainly hit hard at this point. She raised it herself
from Rome all the way to Moscow, and she also raised it at every stop. She
also raised it in Asia with the Japanese Government and Chinese Government
with good reason, because we have a lot of evidence that both countries are
threats -- present and future -- to all countries in the Middle East as
well as European countries. I can't point to any dramatic change in the
perception of the problem by the European governments, but we think the
trend is in the right direction.
We sensed during these discussions - in Europe, in particular -- a growing
sense of feeling of frustration with the Iranians, because the Iranians
have not changed their stripes. The Iranians are still funding Hamas and
Hizbollah. They're still resolutely opposed to the peace negotiations, and
we know that they're trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We
know that. We have the evidence, and we've given it to our friends.
So I think there's a growing sense that this critical dialogue hasn't paid
off for the Europeans. There's just no concrete evidence of any change in
Iranian behavior because they've gone to seminars and have had discussions
over the past couple of years.
When you're faced with a regime like that, I think history teaches us that
kind of regime, which is malevolent, has to be isolated. That's why
President Clinton, in March 1995, made the very big decision to cut off
American investment in Iran. It hurt a lot of American energy companies.
They lost contracts to European firms, but there's something more important
than commerce.
It's national security. It's protecting your people from threats.
The Iranians pose a potential major threat to all of us.
Secretary Albright made that point during her trip. There are things that
are more important that business, than trade.
National security is one of them. This is a point that we're going to
continue to discuss with the European countries.
QUESTION: They said there were no dramatic movements, but did you see
people - for instance, somebody say, yes, we now believe that maybe what
you're doing is correct?
MR. BURNS: We heard a growing sense of frustration with the Iranians.
It was palpable throughout the six cities in western Europe. Those
countries will have to announce their own policies.
The European Union will have to announce its own policy. I can't really
speak for them, but I can speak for us. We haven't changed our view one
bit about who the Iranian leaders are and what they're up too.
QUESTION: One question. What about the role of NATO?
Because many, many times you stated from this forum that NATO is in charge
of the security of western Europe, whatever it is?
So in that particular case -
MR. BURNS: NATO is a collective security organization, Mr. Lambros. It
exists to defend the 16 countries.
Yes, Sid.
QUESTION: There's a sort of raft of credible reports of serious Chinese
abuses in Xingjiang -- I believe is the way you pronounce it -- against
Chinese Muslims. Have you focused on that? I know you don't have anybody
there. If this abuse proves true, which apparently includes some summary
executions of dozens of young Chinese by the Chinese police security forces,
will that be ground into the decision on the human rights resolution?
MR. BURNS: We do not have an American Embassy or Consular officials in
Xingjiang, but we have seen consistent reports about violence there.
The United States cannot condone and does not support violence in any form
as a solution to differences between ethnic groups in any country around
the world, but including China. We urge all sides in these types of
conflicts, and in this one, to seek to resolve their disagreements through
principled compromise and peaceful discourse. Those are not just words.
That's what we believe should happen in a situation like this when there
are ethnic problems in a country. Physical force and violence are
not the answer.
QUESTION: Do you find these reports credible, these summary executions?
You seem to be laying some blame on both sides here.
MR. BURNS: Sid, it's hard for us to speak definitively about these
incidents because they were not witnessed by American Government officials,
but there have been persistent reports about the riots and the bombings.
There's no reason to disbelieve them because they have been persistent and
quite consistent. I've given you our position on them.
QUESTION: And no criticism of China's behavior?
MR. BURNS: It depends on how you read the statement I just made.
Yes, Laura.
QUESTION: On the talks in South Africa concerning Zaire and what role
the United States is playing?
MR. BURNS: Just a little bit of background. As you know, the Government
of South Africa and the United States are engaged in a discussion, a series
of discussions with representatives of the Government of Zaire and of the
Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo Zaire. That's
Mr. Kabila's organization.
We have convened these discussions in South Africa under President
Mandela's leadership for the purpose of ending the hostilities in eastern
Zaire and to facilitate the provision of relief to the refugees and other
displaced persons as well as to try to repatriate the refugees.
We would like to establish a framework of political dialogue that would
help to resolve the political problems in Zaire itself.
These efforts have been undertaken in cooperation with and in support of
the United Nations, the OAU, and the Nairobi Regional Initiative efforts to
resolve the crisis in the Great Lakes region.
I understand that Mr. Kabila and his delegation left South Africa today
following meetings with President Mandela and meetings with American
Government officials in South Africa. He has said -- Mr. Kabila has said --
that he will engage in consultations on the peace negotiations. A member
of the Zairian Government delegation has now returned to Kinshasa to
consult.
The United States calls upon the Government of Zaire and on Mr. Kabila to
refrain from any military action in the coming days that would undermine
prospects for peace and that would create further suffering and instability
in Zaire itself. We believe the continued hostilities would not serve to
undermine the initial steps that have been undertaken in South Africa to
find a peaceful resolution to the crisis in eastern Zaire.
We were represented by senior-level American officials in South Africa who
worked very closely with President Mandela and his staff. This was a very
good example of the leadership role of South Africa, throughout Africa, and
of patient and consistent American diplomacy which has been underway for a
number of weeks on this issue.
QUESTION: Do you know if representatives of the Government of Zaire and
Mr. Kabila's organization, or Mr. Kabila, sat down face to face, or was all
of this communicated through the mediator?
MR. BURNS: I cannot confirm, mainly, because I just don't know if they
were face-to-face discussions, but I know that both sides had a chance to
meet with the South African delegation and the American delegation. We
hope that there can be further meetings now that they've both retreated to
consult with their advisors.
QUESTION: Nick, is there any indication that the three countries that
the United States had warned from getting involved in their Rwanda, Burundi,
and Uganda, I believe, were the countries that they have, in fact,
withdrawn whatever troops may have been there?
MR. BURNS: I will have to check on the military situation across the
border of these three countries with eastern Zaire.
We have been very concerned for the last several months about repeated
violations of Zairian sovereignty by militia groups from Rwanda, Burundi,
and Uganda. Secretary Albright spoke directly to President Museveni in her
first week in office about this problem.
We're mindful of it. It's very important. They have pledged - the three
of them - not to cross the border, not to allow any cross-border attacks,
for whatever reason, into eastern Zaire. But that situation bears some
watching. I think I owe you all perhaps a status report on that.
Thank you very much.
(###)
|
