U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #31, 97-03-03
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1505
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
March 3, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1..........Secretary Albright Mtgs. w/Chairman Arafat and Palestinian
Delegation
1-2,5,7-8,10-17....--Discussion of Israeli Housing Proposal
2,5-8........--Economic Discussions-Formation of Joint U.S.-Palestinian
Committee
25-26........--Evening Event
3-4........Statement on Continued Fighting in Eastern Zaire
NORTH KOREA
2-4........Briefing on Four-Party Talks in New York
3-4........U.S.-North Korea Bilateral Mtg.
SOUTH KOREA
3..........U.S.-South Korea Bilateral Mtg.
ALBANIA
4,23.......Re-election of President Berisha/State of Emergency/Censorship
of Press
25...........--Travel Advisories
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
8-9........Palestinian Commitments to Peace Accords
9..........Funding Commitments to Palestinians
9-10.......Trade Barriers in Israel
17-18......Re-deployment of West Bank
18.........Visit of Egyptian President Mubarak/King Hussein of Jordan to
U.S.
INTERNATIONAL. NARCOTICS & LAW ENFORCEMENT
18-19......Drug Consumption in the U.S.
19.........Narcotics/Corruption
19-20......Mexico-Arrest of Cartel Lieutenant/Escape of Suspect
SAUDI ARABIA
20-22......Cooperation on Khobar Bombing
CUBA
22.........State of Health Care
22-23......Peruvian President Fujimori's Trip to Cuba
IRAN
23-24......Earthquake/Possibility of U.S. Aid
GREECE
24-25......Scheduling of Secretary Albright/ FM Pangalos Mtg.
CANADA
25.........Visit of FM Axworthy
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #31
MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1997, 3:04 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: You don't like my tie? Does the British press understand what
this tie is?
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: It's called baseball, the American national pastime.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) send out for tea --
MR. BURNS: It's the American national pastime.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: He's a bum. So we're wearing this tie in honor of the opening
of string training. The Red Sox won their first two spring training games
over the weekend.
Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: What's that, Sid? You're casting aspersions on the Red Sox.
Barry, did you hear that?
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Defend the Red Sox.
QUESTION: Never under the wire, Sid.
MR. BURNS: I do all the time. Good afternoon. Welcome to the State
Department. I apologize for being late, but I wanted to make sure I could
report to you fully on the meetings that have just concluded here at the
Department between the Palestinian delegation led by Chairman Arafat and
Secretary Albright and her delegation.
Secretary Albright attended the President's meeting with Chairman Arafat
this morning. She then came back here, and she had about a nearly one-hour
one-on-one meeting with Chairman Arafat, which centered largely on the
issue of the Israeli proposal to build housing at Jabal Abu Ghnunnaim or
Har Homa, and they had a full and very, very detailed discussion of that
and all of its ramifications.
Following that, there was a working lunch between the two delegations
where economic issues were primarily at the center of the discussions.
Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin and our AID Director Brian
Atwood attended that meeting. There was a somewhat detailed discussion
of ways by which the Palestinians could attract a greater measure
of private capital to fund development projects in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip -- a discussion of what it would take in the way
of the reform of their tax and investment codes and infrastructural
development to make private capital more attractive. There was
also a discussion of the U.S. assistance program that Brian Atwood
led from our side.
As a result of the economic discussions, Secretary Albright and
Chairman Arafat have decided to form a joint U.S-Palestinian committee.
This will be similar to the committees that we have in place
with the Russian Government and South African Government, the
Egyptian Government -- a committee that will meet at their level.
They will both chair it -- Albright and Arafat; meet several
times a year to take stock of where we are in the relationship
-- our bilateral relationship with the Palestinians, to make sure
that each of us is meeting our commitments -- economic, political
and otherwise -- to each other, and to try to find ways practically
to move the relationship forward, whether it's on economic issues
or foreign policy issues or any other issues that are of importance
to both sides.
Secretary Albright takes this very seriously as a commitment that
she is making to Chairman Arafat and he to her to have a very
active continual engagement with the other to make sure that this
relationship works well.
At the working level, our Deputy Coordinator for Middle Eastern
Affairs, Aaron Miller, and Nabil Shaath, who's a senior adviser
to Mr. Arafat, will constitute the two principal working level
figures who will make this work on a day-to-day, week-to-week
and month-to-month basis.
As I said, there was a great deal of discussion on the Israeli
housing proposal, and you can imagine that Secretary Albright
heard from the Palestinian delegation quite a lot about that.
A very emotional but also very well put and very articulate presentation
was made by Chairman Arafat and several other members of his delegation,
which mirrored, I think, the conversation that took place in the
Oval Office this morning.
I'll be very glad to take any questions on this issue, but I want
to direct your attention to a couple of other matters just to
get everything out on the board today.
First, as you know, the United States is looking forward to the
meetings beginning on Wednesday in New York with the Republic
of Korea and the North Koreans on the Four-Party proposal briefing.
As you know, this was announced by the President and by President
Kim back on April 16th of 1996 in Cheju Island. The United States
hopes very much that as a result of the Four-Party Talks briefing
to be held this week in New York, North Korea will agree to attend
Four-Party Talks, and, of course, the fourth party there would
be the Government of China.
The United States will be represented in New York this week by
Chuck Kartman, our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and the Government of South
Korea by Deputy Foreign Minister Song Yong-shik, and the North
Koreans by Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan.
Also, on March 7th in New York, we will have a bilateral meeting
with the North Koreans to discuss a variety of issues, mainly
the issues that we've been working on with them, and I think you
know what they are. Chuck Kartman will be again representing
the American side there. There will also be a bilateral meeting
with the South Korean delegation, which will be separate, and
together we and the South Koreans will brief the Japanese Government
at all of these meetings this week, because the Japanese are a
very important partner of ours.
Just a little bit by way of background. North Korea requested
the Joint Briefing so that it could learn more about the proposal
for the Four-Party Talks. We intend to explain our ideas concerning
the goals of the Four-Party Talks, and we want to propose arrangements
for the negotiating process options for the negotiating process
itself.
We will invite suggestions and comments from the North Koreans
about the best way to implement this negotiating proposal, and
I want to stress, this is a briefing; it will not be a negotiating
session, but we hope it does provide the North Koreans with sufficient
information that they'll want to accept this proposal nearly one
year after it was made back on April 16th at Cheju Island. I'll
be glad to take any questions on that.
I'm also going to be posting two other statements today about
two countries that are in the news, and where very troubling events
are taking place. The first concerns Zaire. The United States
is concerned that continued fighting in Eastern Zaire could undermine
the tentative progress to date in establishing a basis for a peaceful
resolution of the conflict there. As you know, we've been working
with the South African Government to try to engage in discussions
with representatives of the Government of Zaire and Mr. Kabila,
representing the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation
of Congo, Zaire.
Those discussions went well last week, but further work needs
to be done to propel them forward. We hope very much now that
both sides will show a clear willingness to seek a negotiated
settlement without further bloodshed. We would note that there
have been during recent days an escalation of the fighting in
Eastern Zaire. You've probably seen the press reports about the
alliance of rebel forces advancing into the town of Kindu in the
vicinity of Lubutu and Tingi-Tingi, which is the refugee camp,
the site of a large concentration of Rwandan Hutu refugees.
If these or other military movements continue on either side,
the United States will be left with no choice but to conclude
that certain parties to the conflict are not serious in seeking
a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Therefore, we renew our
call today on these parties for a cease-fire, and we ask them
to enter into a genuine political dialogue without resort to violence
to resolve their problems.
Last, the other country that is of great concern to us today is
Albania. We're deeply concerned about the deterioration of the
situation there. We've urged the President and the Government
of Albania and all political leaders to work together to address
the current crisis. That said, we regret very much that today
under these difficult circumstances the Albanian Parliament went
forward with the re-election of President Berisha. This step
is likely to increase polarization rather than facilitate a solution.
We're very concerned that the state of emergency declared by the
Parliament today is being used to stifle legitimate, free expression.
We strongly regret the introduction today of censorship. While
the government has the right and responsibility to undertake measures
to prevent anarchy, such powers of censorship should not be used
as an excuse for repressing legitimate dissent.
In the view of the United States Government, this is a critical
moment in Albania. We're consulting with our European partners
and our Ambassador -- Ambassador Marisa Lino -- has tried to work
to pull the government and opposition together in places where
they can discuss their problems, but to no avail. Again, we strongly
regret the measures taken by the Parliament and government today
to in effect introduce a state of emergency and to introduce censorship
of the Albanian press.
QUESTION: Nick, a couple of questions on the North Korean
talks. Where in New York will they be held -- both sets -- and
will the bilateral talks have a dynamism of their own, or does
progress on that in any way depend on progress in the peace --
you don't want to even call them "negotiations." I
can't call it a "peace" briefing, but pick your word.
You know my point, of course.
MR. BURNS: I do. First, Barry, the talks will be held
at the Hilton Hotel in New York City. If you contact the Bureau
of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, arrangements will be made for
any of you who want to cover this to at least be present at the
camera spray at the top of this meeting. We're also going to
be making sure that we brief you on a daily basis about these
talks. I'll be glad to do that On-the-Record, and we'll also
have some background briefings in New York.
As to your second question, it's a very good question. The United
States has made it clear to the North Koreans that progress in
our bilateral relations can only come in parallel or consistent
with progress in relations between South Korea and North Korea,
and the North Koreans ought to understand that. We have an alliance
relationship with South Korea. We are committed to the defense
of South Korea, and we want to make sure that any kind of progress
in our own relationship parallels progress in the inter-Korean
relationships.
Steve.
QUESTION: Middle East. What can you tell us was discussed
as to what the United States might be willing to do beyond vocal
support for Arafat's position against the expansion of housing
-- Jewish housing into the portions of East Jerusalem that are
in question now?
MR. BURNS: I think you know from the President's comments
this morning that the United States continues to believe that
this decision to build housing at Jabal Abu Ghunnaim risks undercutting
a lot of the progress that has been made so far. You remember
after the completion of the Hebron talks just six weeks or so
ago and after the enormous efforts that the United States made
to make those talks succeed, there really was a restoration of
a certain level of trust and confidence, and indeed hope, as one
Palestinian assistant to Mr. Arafat put it today -- there was
a restoration of some hope that this process would move forward.
We believe the decision to construct housing at Jabal Abu Ghunnaim
undercuts that progress. As the President said, we wish that
this decision had not been taken. Now we're faced with a challenge.
We need to work with the Palestinians and Israelis to try to
restore that sense of trust and confidence, because progress in
the negotiations will not occur if the negotiating partners do
not have an even minimal level of trust in each other, and they
don't have a certain confidence that the other side is going to
take steps that are commensurate with their obligations of the
negotiating partner.
We intend, of course, to have a series of discussions with the
Israelis and the Palestinians in the days and weeks ahead in order
to try to re-establish that trust. I can't go into the details
of what we intend to do, because we think that our chance of succeeding
will be enhanced if we have a certain discretion in our public
comments. But we certainly see this as the major problem and
major challenge right now -- basically the core of your question.
QUESTION: May I ask about the economic part of all this,
please? First, a technical question. If the Secretary of State
is going to see Arafat several times a year, do you know already
if that means she will be going to Arafat-controlled territory
several times a year, or is the location still something to be
decided?
MR. BURNS: I think it's assumed that we're going to be
seeing Chairman Arafat many times per year.
QUESTION: I mean, apropos this commission or something?
MR. BURNS: Right. Let's assume we're going to be seeing
him several times a year, and, when Chairman Arafat and Secretary
Albright are not together, the committee will be meeting under
the leadership of Aaron Miller and Nabil Shaath. That will happen
in Washington. I'm sure it will happen in Gaza and every place
else where we can meet with the Palestinians.
QUESTION: Unless I misunderstood you, I thought you said
"she and he" will be meeting several times a year.
MR. BURNS: Absolutely. They have not set their next meeting,
having concluded several hours of discussion today. As you know,
we are still awaiting the visits of His Majesty King Hussein and
President Hosni Mubarak to Washington. When those visits are
completed, we'll have had here in Washington a series of discussions
with all the major Middle East leaders -- the Saudis, the Egyptians,
the Jordanians, the Palestinians, the Israelis. Then Secretary
Albright will consider the next steps in our Middle East diplomacy,
including travel, but she's not made any commitments -- any final
decisions as to when she might undertake her first trip to the
Middle East.
QUESTION: Nick, is the U.S.-Palestinian meeting an announcement
of cooperation, and I wish I'd keep track of all this, because
it strikes me you've done this about 137 times. You've announced
new commissions and new committees. First, can we have a fact?
How much assistance is the U.S. providing the Palestinians?
How much has actually been delivered? And what's new about this?
It sounds like you've just begun to try to help the Palestinians.
You've been trying to help them for years with commissions and
meetings and groups and visits. Christopher went to Gaza several
times. I mean to -- into Gaza. What's new here?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I'm sorry you're not more impressed
with the fact that we've made this announcement today. (Laughter)
QUESTION: No, it's good press --
MR. BURNS: We thought it was a big deal.
QUESTION: No, no (inaudible)
MR. BURNS: We came out here thinking this is a big deal
--
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: -- tell the press that --
QUESTION: -- but I want to see what's the substance.
MR. BURNS: No, it's not throwing --
QUESTION: What's the substance behind it?
MR. BURNS: Barry, let me just take a moment to defend
myself here.
QUESTION: Not the PR here --
MR. BURNS: We're not just throwing something in front
of someone. We are proposing something a little bit different
than anything we've done before.
QUESTION: How so?
MR. BURNS: We have found in our relationships with South
Africa, with Russia, with Egypt, that it does make a difference
to form a committee that will be responsible for actually accomplishing
what you promise each other that you're going to do. There's
no substitute for that in relations between countries. Making
promises, making offers of assistance is one thing; fulfilling
them is quite another. Making bureaucracies in both countries
-- in this case, in the PA and the United States work together
-- is often a challenge. You can cite, based on your years of
experience here at the State Department, a hundred examples whereby
the best intentions were not turned into concrete results.
Frankly, the Secretary and Chairman Arafat felt it was time to
make sure that certain individuals -- namely, themselves, and
people who work for them -- put themselves on the line and said
together, okay, we're going to meet a certain number of times
a year; we're going to fulfill on the ground what we said we would
do, and that's the purpose of this.
In answer to your question, the United States has committed $500
million in assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and we have
disbursed, as of last Friday afternoon, $220 million. The word
"disbursed" is very important. That does not mean "allocate"
or "promise." It means the money has been spent on
the ground. That's a very good record of assistance since we're
only, I believe, just past the half way point in terms of time
of this $500 million allocation. So we're really on target here.
But, again, they felt it very important to make sure that people
had a responsibility to sit down together and resolve these problems.
So we think this is a big deal. Maybe you're more impressed
now, but I think a lot of other people around the room are very
impressed by this.
Jim was next, Charlie.
QUESTION: Going back to this challenge you say you are
being faced to restore the trust and confidence. In the opinion
of the U.S. Government, can this be done without a reversal of
the announcement of the new housing units in East Jerusalem?
MR. BURNS: Again, I want to say this because it's very
important. But I want to repeat myself and say that we wish very
much this decision had not been undertaken, because it's important
not to undercut the basis of peace negotiations. We will be working
with both the Israelis and Palestinians to try to achieve some
concrete ways by which trust and confidence in each other can
be restored, but we're going to be private about that. I hope
you'll allow us to do that in some privacy over the next several
weeks.
QUESTION: Let me just ask about the options. The announcement
had been made. But if it were to be extended indefinitely, postponed
indefinitely the actual putting bricks on bricks, would that be
one way of restoring confidence?
MR. BURNS: Jim, I think that both the Palestinian Authority
and the Israelis need to take responsibility for restoring that
confidence. I don't want to get into a game of citing specific
initiatives that they have to undertake. Because, again, we think
our best chance of achieving results is to do that -- is to have
those discussions with them privately.
Charlie.
QUESTION: Nick, the other joint commission-type arrangements
you've described -- South Africa, Egypt, and Russia, if I'm correct
-- are at the Vice Presidential level, at least on our side.
Why is this one not at that level? And should anything be read
into it?
MR. BURNS: I wouldn't read anything into it at all. The
fact is, I think it's fair to say, that Secretary Albright is
going to be taking a fairly major role in the Middle East peace
negotiations as did Secretary Christopher before her. We think
that given the fact that we have a team in place here which runs
economic -- the State Department, which runs the economic assistance
program, the best place for the chair on our side was the State
Department. But please don't read anything into that. In fact,
I think the fact that she and Chairman Arafat have decided to
do this together is a fairly strong demonstration of our commitment
that the Palestinians are partners of the United States, they
are friends of the United States; that we are committed to trying
to help the Palestinian people achieve a greater measure of economic
prosperity.
They face a number of challenges. As you know, Palestinian business
people cannot export freely. As you know, they continue to talk
to the Israeli Government about the port, about the airport, about
safe passage, and other issues. All these issues need to be worked
out between the Palestinians and Israelis. But we Americans want
to use our influence with both parties to make the playing field
level for the Palestinian business community which needs, over
the next several decades, to create the jobs to sustain a growing
population on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This is a tall order.
This is not a normal economy because, of course, we're not talking
about a nation-state here. We're talking about an entity run
from Gaza.
So every effort has to be made to help the Palestinians economically.
The presence of Secretary Rubin and Brian Atwood as well as Secretary
Albright at the table today, I think, demonstrate the seriousness
of the U.S. approach here.
Sid.
QUESTION: A hundred fifty-three Congressmen are sending
a letter to Chairman Arafat. They'll give it to him tomorrow,
hopefully, when he's up on the Hill. The letter calls for him
to honor his commitments under Hebron and various other accords.
They're asking him to come up with a firm timetable for purging
the Palestinian charter of negative references towards Israel,
extraditing people the Israelis consider terrorists, and a couple
of other things. What's your opinion about pressing Arafat to
set a timetable for doing the things he said he would?
MR. BURNS: Our view is that the Palestinians are meeting
their commitments to the Israelis and to us that they have made
consistently for the last four years.
As you know, the President and the Secretary need to certify every
six months or so that the Palestinians are doing that so that
American assistance can continue. The Administration just submitted
a report to Congress, I believe, just last month to the effect
that the Palestinians are meeting their commitments. They have
been good partners of the United States and of Israel. They are
meeting their commitments.
When we think there's any problem, we raise it with the Palestinians
as do the Israelis. I don't think that one ought to put the Palestinians
in the dock and accuse them of not having met their commitments
in the Middle East peace process over the last four years. They
have. They've met them. They're led by a man who has made a
fundamental commitment to peace. They have a number of officials
on their side who are doing everything they can to work in cooperation
with the Israeli Government as well as the United States. I don't
think we have a problem there.
Betsy.
QUESTION: Nick, how is the level of giving by other countries?
There was a special fund that was set up. I'm afraid I can't
remember the name of it -- the Holst Fund. That's right.
MR. BURNS: The Holst Fund. Right.
QUESTION: I understand that giving under the Holst Fund
there was a lot of promises but not much actual giving.
MR. BURNS: If you look at the period 1994 to '98, there
was a total of $2.9 billion promised by the international community
-- by countries and financial institutions around the world.
Of that $2.9 billion; and of that amount, about $1.4 billion has
been disbursed.
We do from time to time have talks with some of our European friends
about turning commitments into reality. I don't mean to single
out the Europeans. There are Arab countries involved as well
that need to meet their commitments to the Palestinians. It's
very important that all of us do everything we can to help the
Palestinian people who have to live under enormous challenges.
QUESTION: Are there any efforts by the U.S. to try and
push this further?
MR. BURNS: The Ad Hoc Liaison Group meets from time to
time to discuss this issue, to discuss the problem of turning
commitments into reality. That continues.
The other thing that the United States has done, since November
21, 1996, we have extended duty-free status to Palestinian businesses
from the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- duty-free entry of their
products -- manufactured products, agricultural products -- into
the United States. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much growth
at all in the trade relationship between the Palestinians and
the United States because of continued trade barriers in Israel
itself. It's an issue that we need to work on.
QUESTION: On Wednesday, the Security Council will convene
discussing this question of Har Homa, the Arab name of this neighborhood.
MR. BURNS: Jabal Abu Ghunnaim.
QUESTION: What position will the United States take at
the Security Council on Wednesday?
MR. BURNS: We know that there's been some talk about a
discussion in the Security Council or a resolution. But, frankly,
I know that the Secretary talked to Ambassador Skip Gnehm today.
I don't believe that there's been any action yet to bring that
issue to the Security Council. I don't want to get ahead of that
process. On a hypothetical basis, we'll just have to see where
the situation heads.
QUESTION: You all will be working to keep it from coming
before the Security Council, is that what you're saying?
MR. BURNS: Sid, that's not what I said at all. That's
not what I said at all. I would just refer you to my previous
response. I said, we don't want to get ahead of a situation where
there has been no formal discussion in the Security Council about
a resolution, about a discussion, about a debate.
Obviously, given the emotions that are quite high here, especially
on the Palestinian side, we're going to proceed hour by hour and
day to day. I don't want to get ahead of the situation in New
York. If the situation gets there and there is a debate, I'll
be very glad to answer your questions on that in a day or two.
QUESTION: There will be a debate on Wednesday?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: There will be a debate on Wednesday. The Security
Council will convene --
MR. BURNS: And the United States will be present. But
I took your question to mean, what kind of -- what position will
the United States take in that debate. Where do we wish to see
that debate end? I'm just going to have to wait until that begins
before I can talk in anymore detail about that.
David.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. take the view that should this
housing be built, that that would violate either the letter or
the spirit of any already signed agreements?
MR. BURNS: We have views, but we prefer to keep those
views private for obvious reasons. We're an intermediary. Our
effectiveness is enhanced if we keep our views private.
QUESTION: I'm asking a legal question.
MR. BURNS: And in this case -- I know you're asking a
legal question. I'm avoiding giving you a legal answer, in saying
that I think it's best for us to keep our advice and our comments
and our opinions on this particular issue private for our conversations
with the Israelis and Palestinians.
I think you've heard from the President and the Secretary and
others here in the Administration the fact that we wish very much
that this decision had not been taken.
QUESTION: If you keep all your positions private, then
the only thing public, it strikes me you've said, is you think
what the Israelis did fosters mistrust between the negotiating
parties?
You haven't taken a position on the legality. You haven't taken
a position on the substance of this, or are you taking a position
and using code words like "mistrust?" I mean, the United
States?
MR. BURNS: Our track record here over the last four or
five years is pretty good. We have been able to help the Israelis
and Palestinians make progress because we've avoided the temptation
of standing up here at the soapbox every day and literally telling
everybody what's on our mind. We've been discreet. We have not
always answered specific questions like this. The reason is,
we don't want to make ourselves the issue. We want to keep these
issues squarely centered on the Palestinians and Israelis. So
I am not answering the question for that reason. I just want
to be very clear about it.
QUESTION: You want to make progress. But I'm not sure
what you want to make progress toward?
MR. BURNS: Progress towards a comprehensive peace between
the Palestinians and the Israelis. They have defined their own
negotiating track. The final status talks which are to begin
very soon deal with Jerusalem.
QUESTION: We're talking about Jerusalem now?
MR. BURNS: Right. I'm getting to that. For the United
States to stand up and say, we think this is legal, we think that's
illegal, we like that, we don't like this, makes us the issue.
They've already defined the negotiating process. They're going
to have it together. They will debate these issues, which is
an improvement over where they were until 1993.
QUESTION: You've answered the question. The United States
today has not taken a position on the legality of this action
nor on the future disposition of that barren terrain outside or
on the outskirts of Jerusalem that the Israelis have chosen to
build housing there. What you've taken a position on is the spirit
of this action as spewing as fostering mistrust?
MR. BURNS: We have not taken a public position --
QUESTION: A public position --
MR. BURNS: -- on those issues, but we certainly made our
views very clear in public since this decision was announced last
week.
QUESTION: In public?
MR. BURNS: Yes, that's right, and in private.
QUESTION: But your public views go to atmospherics. They
don't go to legality or substance that I can figure out.
MR. BURNS: Let me explain --
QUESTION: Because you're going to be wrong to do that.
QUESTION: Since the Palestinians and Israelis agreed on
the structure of their peace negotiations, which includes the
final status talks, which of course includes Jerusalem, we have
made a tactical decision, for as long as I've been Spokesman here
-- over two years -- not to comment publicly on perfectly legitimate
questions like David's because we don't think it's in our tactical
interest to do so. I'm just being very open with you.
I would judge us on our track record. We've been pretty successful
in helping the Palestinians and Israelis make peace. So we might
as well stick to the game plan that got us here.
QUESTION: Are you going to be able to keep the government
lawyers who work on this matter from expressing their views in
such a way that they'll come out in the public eye pretty soon?
MR. BURNS: I certainly hope so.
QUESTION: It's a simple matter of fact whether this is
legal or not. You must have legal opinions -- you must have asked
for legal opinions as to whether it is?
MR. BURNS: It sometimes is very important for governments
to resist the temptation to spill everything into public, into
the public view. Sometimes negotiations can succeed because they're
private. Sometimes, as an intermediary, you're successful because
you have the confidence of the parties. They know that when someone
like me goes out and does a briefing, I'm not going to be detailing
every last thing that we're talking about. That's where creditability
comes in.
Some other governments don't play it that way. Some other governments
are very happy to comment all day on these issues. I notice that
they're not intermediaries in these discussions. We are. We
have to be careful. We have to maintain the trust of the Palestinians
as well as the Israelis.
QUESTION: Do you consider the plan at Har Homa to be a
plan to construct a settlement?
MR. BURNS: Sid, that's a trick question. I know a trick
question. I've been up here long --
QUESTION: It goes to the question of legality, because
--
MR. BURNS: I've been around the block enough with you
guys to know a trick question when I see it. So I'm not going
to give you an answer to that question. It is what it is. We're
disappointed in it.
QUESTION: Which is what? Hold on. Which is what?
MR. BURNS: It is an initiative that we believe undermines
the trust and confidence that is necessary to make peace between
the Israelis and Palestinians, for obvious reasons. For obvious
reasons.
QUESTION: Because it changes the character of Jerusalem?
MR. BURNS: For obvious reasons.
QUESTION: It's not obvious. It's sort of like --
MR. BURNS: Come on, Sid, give me a break. You want me
to say things that are clearly not in my interest to say. I'm
not going to do it. I'm not going to start now.
QUESTION: You've ended this. But maybe the United States
would prefer that Israel freeze any kind of new building until
this final round can be concluded?
MR. BURNS: Bill, I'm just going to have to stand by everything
I've said today and all last week. We've given you guys a lot
of information on this. I'm surprised you even ask these questions.
QUESTION: Can I try a (inaudible) question from a slightly
different angle?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Does the United States think the Security Council
is an appropriate venue for a discussion of this issue?
MR. BURNS: Of which issue?
QUESTION: The Israeli building in Har Homa?
MR. BURNS: You know, the Security Council has been a forum
for Israeli-Palestinian discussions for 30-odd years/40-odd years.
I'm sure it will go on that way. It's a place where countries
can bring their problems. That's why the Security Council exists.
That's why you have the United Nations. We're more than happy
to have conversations up in New York.
QUESTION: Will you cover one little opening there that
hasn't been covered? You said what your opinion is and Clinton
has said what his opinion is. Did Albright --
MR. BURNS: And Clinton's opinion is more important than
my opinion.
QUESTION: True.
MR. BURNS: I would direct you to his opinions which are
perfectly --
QUESTION: You had --
MR. BURNS: Mine are perfectly consistent with his, fortunately.
His are more important.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary of State get around during
her lunch or meeting with Arafat to saying the things you're saying?
MR. BURNS: Oh, absolutely!
QUESTION: Did she tell him, "We think this hurts
trust," whatever your guidance is?
MR. BURNS: Here's a question that I can be very forthcoming
on, Barry. Secretary Albright repeated probably four or five
times in the discussion over lunch today that the United States
was disappointed that this initiative was taken by the Israeli
Government because of the reason that I cited, because it does
undermine trust and confidence. That's what makes a negotiation
possible.
QUESTION: But you never addressed that you're willing
to say whether Jerusalem belongs to Israel, whether East Jerusalem
should be the capital of the Palestinian state?
MR. BURNS: Those issues did not come up.
QUESTION: She only spoke of atmospherics, that we don't
like what the Israelis have done because it doesn't help build
trust. In fact, it works against trust?
MR. BURNS: That issue did not come up. The reason it
didn't come up is because the Israelis and Palestinians have defined
for themselves, have agreed that they're going to discuss those
issues in the final status talks. The reason why that's important
-- you know this -- from 1948 to 1993, there was no way for the
Israelis and Palestinians to discuss Jerusalem or settlements
or anything else they wanted to discuss. Since '93, they've defined
a place for that to happen.
That relieves us of the necessity to spout off in public about
our own views. Our views don't matter. What matters is what
the Palestinians and Israelis think.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) do matter because the Israeli Government
--
MR. BURNS: I'm being slightly facetious.
QUESTION: The Israeli Government has actually done something,
you see. They've done something. Even while Israel and the Palestinians
have relegated Jerusalem to final status talks, the Prime Minister
of Israel and the Cabinet, unanimously, have done something in
the City of Jerusalem.
If the U.S. Government wants to keep saying, "We have no
opinion on what they did except that it doesn't help create trust
and we have no position on what they did," that's fine.
But it isn't as if they haven't acted. Israel has acted.
MR. BURNS: Barry, I'm being slightly facetious here.
I'm looking for a way to end the conversations.
QUESTION: It's not academic anymore.
MR. BURNS: The reason why their views matter more than
our views is because they are the negotiating parties: The Palestinian
Authority, the Government of Israel. The only way anything is
going to happen positively or negatively is when they work together.
We hope it's positive.
We are the intermediary. We're trying to help them. We're going
to be a constructive intermediary by not saying in public everything
that we may be thinking in private.
QUESTION: Nick, in all this talk about the construction,
were there any words from the Secretary to the Chairman about
his calls for violence on the streets, these threats will erupt
into violence, or did you all --
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Sid. I think we better correct
the record here. I don't agree with the premise of your question.
There was no need for the Secretary to make that remark because
we have not heard Chairman Arafat call for violence. In fact,
quite the contrary.
If you listen very closely to what Chairman Arafat and all of
his lieutenants, his aides have been saying over the last several
days, they've tried to cool passions on the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. There was a general strike today in East Jerusalem, in
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Fortunately, it was not accompanied,
as far as we can tell, by any degree of violence.
The United States firmly rejects calls to violence by either side
-- by extremists on the Palestinian side; extremists on the Israeli
side. We have not heard Chairman Arafat call for violence. In
fact, we've heard the reverse from everybody sitting at the table
with us today.
QUESTION: Was that at lunch today? Did the U.S. Government
say, "We hope you don't get violent about this?"
MR. BURNS: I think it was clearly communicated to the
Palestinians. We hope very much that this issue, which is quite
an emotional and important issue -- the issue of Jabal Abu Ghunnaim/Har
Homa -- can be settled peacefully. That is our very strong wish.
That was communicated.
But I want to disagree with the premise of Sid's question, because
we've not heard the Palestinian -- responsible Palestinian leaders,
including Chairman Arafat or anybody else with him today, urge
violence. We've not heard anyone do that. Of course, we'd speak
up if we heard that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) plenty of talk of the territories
exploding from Arafat (inaudible). Maybe it wasn't as specific
--
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, Sid. I'm sorry, I just disagree
with you. I don't think there's an incitement to violence here.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion of his suggestion that
he might be tempted to declare Palestinian statehood if the Israeli
decision was not reversed?
MR. BURNS: That did not come up at lunch.
QUESTION: Does the United States have a position on whether
that would be a good idea or not?
MR. BURNS: The United States has a position, yes. That
is, that the Israelis and Palestinians ought to discuss that together.
That's our position.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) discuss --
MR. BURNS: They are to discuss all the issues that are
--
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BURNS: They ought to discuss all the issues that they
want to discuss together.
QUESTION: They ought to discuss statehood of the Palestinians?
MR. BURNS: Barry, listen.
QUESTION: He said "statehood." Don't say "issues."
He said "statehood."
MR. BURNS: I'm saying issues. That's the way I choose
to answer the question. I think you know what I mean.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion of the impact this
might have on the withdrawal schedule, which is to begin on Friday?
You know, the next West Bank -- any apprehension that will go
ahead?
MR. BURNS: Not in the meeting in which I participated.
That issue did not come up.
QUESTION: Is there any concern?
MR. BURNS: The United States hopes very much that all
commitments will be met, including the commitment to further redeploy
on the West Bank.
QUESTION: Nick, was there any discussion of housing for
Arabs as a trade-off in Jerusalem, which has been suggested?
MR. BURNS: That's part of the Israeli proposal. I think
that's been met by widespread skepticism among the Arabs that
that will be the case, because I don't believe many houses have
built, if any, since June 1967 for Arabs.
QUESTION: Netanyahu will change that. He agrees with
you. He says no housing has been built. He intends --
MR. BURNS: I believe that Netanyahu --
QUESTION: On the "David Frost" interview, that
he intends to go into massive housing.
MR. BURNS: And he made some statements today.
QUESTION: Any opinion on that at all?
MR. BURNS: We think that anything like that ought to be
worked out to the satisfaction of both the Palestinians and Israelis.
For instance, anything that affects that situation would have
to be worked out ahead of time. If the Palestinians were satisfied,
then there would be no reason for the United States to propose
it. But you're not really hearing cries of satisfaction from
the Palestinians on that issue.
QUESTION: A follow-up on that, Nick. On the idea that
10 percent instead of three percent is going to be the withdrawal
schedule for this Friday, did that issue come up at all?
MR. BURNS: That issue did not come up in the meeting which
I attended.
QUESTION: Do you have dates yet when Mubarak and the King
to come here, by chance?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check with the White House, because
both of those leaders will be the guest of President Clinton.
Those visits are coming up in the near future.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. BURNS: Gladly. Yes.
QUESTION: Let me go back to Friday and Mr. Gelbard's visit.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Gelbard's --
QUESTION: Mr. Gelbard's presentation on Friday. Nick,
the $6 billion a year of drug-related money that's pouring out
of the United States, is this money responsible for an international
crime wave?
MR. BURNS: Bill, can you -- are you spent by Americans
to consume drugs?
QUESTION: That's correct, $6 billion bucks a year going
out of this country. Is that responsible for an international
crime wave? A notable law enforcement figure made that statement
over the weekend.
MR. BURNS: I think there's no question that the increasing
crime in our own country as well as internationally is tied in
part to the proliferation of narcotics. If you look at what the
President proposed last week, the multi-billion dollar proposal
to work on the demand problem here in the United States and look
very closely at what Secretary Albright said here on Friday, we
understand that we have the responsibility -- "we,"
Americans -- to work on this problem as well. It's not just a
question of Colombia and Mexico and other countries cooperating
with us. We've got to reduce demand in the United States for
narcotics. We are a part of the problem, and we understand that.
QUESTION: General McCaffrey said this.
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: I was quoting him and --
MR. BURNS: Is that a quiz? I'm supposed to know that.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you already heard that
or not. It wasn't a trap, Nick. With regard to that consumption
in the United States, most of these dollars that are going into
the hands of cartels, like in Mexico and in Colombia, are coming
not from teenagers, I understand, but from young Americans, successful
Americans with disposable income in their 30's and 40's, those
we would call yuppies.
Nick, how come the drug emphasis as far as consumption in this
country is concerned has not been directed toward that group?
MR. BURNS: I think if you look at the President's plan
that he submitted to the Congress last week, it calls for federal
and state action to try to influence teenagers and young adults.
The fact is, Bill, the teenagers are among the -- teenagers are
in the highest proportion of drug users.
The President and the Vice President have asked that all parents
sit down with their teenage kids this week to talk about drug
use, and everyone should do that.
QUESTION: Mr. Gelbard passed on my question about as the
cartel leadership continues to be free, as the money continues
to be available to them, the corruption in Mexico and Colombia
and other countries continues, the danger of that government being
further corrupted then continues as those people -- those drug
cartel leaders are free. Is that correct?
MR. BURNS: I can't give you a yes or no answer, but just
to say that we believe there is a direct link between narcotics
and corruption. No question about that.
Any more questions? Can the witness step down from the -- thank
you.
QUESTION: I'd like to ask a question about Saudi Arabia
--
QUESTION: Go back to (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Yes, we'll go back to that.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the fact that Mexico
waited until after the briefing to announce that it had misplaced
the drug kingpin that had been arrested?
MR. BURNS: First of all, they did arrest an important
lieutenant in one of the cartels on Friday, and that was important,
and we did see on Friday night/Saturday morning the news that
perhaps one of the leading suspects being held by the Mexicans
had escaped. We are inquiring with the Mexicans now how that
could have happened and why it happened.
QUESTION: They seemed to have sat on the information for
a while, waiting, a cynic might say, until after you had done
your briefing.
MR. BURNS: But I think we have to give the Mexicans the
benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. They need
to reconstruct this for us, and until they do, I'm not going to
jump on the bandwagon here.
Sid.
QUESTION: On Saudi Arabia. A rather provocative article
in The New York Times on Saturday about the Director of the FBI
complaining about Saudi cooperation during a lunch down here at
the State Department. Can you comment on that, and that sort
of contradicts what a lot of people were saying during the Saudi
visit last week.
MR. BURNS: First, Sid, I think what Mike McCurry and I
both said last week is that we had received again from Prince
Sultan and Prince Saud a reaffirmation of the Saudi commitment
to work cooperatively with the United States on the investigation
about the Khobar bombing, and that we expected that full cooperation
would be given now and in the future; and that we were counting
on that, and that more cooperation was needed.
If you read what Mike McCurry and I said and read between the
lines of our statements, it think you'll get the sense of that.
Second, you've asked a very interesting question, and I'm going
to give you my personal view, because I don't know we have a government-wide
view on this. My personal view is that when journalists are invited
to social occasions, clearly there's a different basis for their
work. It's one thing to be at a press conference and to be recognized
as a journalist and to ask a question and to report on what was
said. It's quite another to be seated at a table as a guest --
to have in this case the Director of the FBI not even understand
a journalist was there -- and the FBI Director had a private conversation,
as I understand it, and that conversation was -- there was some
eavesdropping into that conversation, if you will. And then the
reporter runs back to her office and puts it on the front page
of the New York Times.
Personally speaking -- I'm not journalist and, as you know, I'm
not a professional press person -- personally speaking, I find
that questionable, and it's that kind of peeping-tom journalism
which I think is more appropriate for a tabloid than for the New
York Times. I was very surprised by the decision to put it on
page one and to give it so much credence, because it was clearly
a private conversation, and the reporter in question was clearly
there as a guest. We felt it was an off-the-record setting.
This wasn't a press conference. She didn't describe herself as
a journalist. He didn't even know she was there. He didn't know
that a reporter was seated at his table. So I very much sympathize
with Director Freeh here, and that's my personal view.
QUESTION: Is there any way to dispute what he said or
know what he said?
MR. BURNS: The FBI issued a statement on Friday afternoon
about Director Freeh's discussions with Prince Sultan on this
very issue, and I would refer you to the FBI. They gave an on-the-record
statement on this issue on Friday afternoon.
QUESTION: But there's no way to verify what was said at
the table itself. I mean --
MR. BURNS: No, and that's just the point here. He was
having a private conversation -- right? -- and someone overhears
it. Doesn't identify herself. Doesn't say, "Hey, I'm a
reporter. Can I ask you a question about this?" Overhears
a private conversation. Takes it back to her bureau and prints
it up -- writes it up -- and suddenly it's a page one story.
I find that questionable. I really do.
QUESTION: Not to go too far into this, but was the reporter
told beforehand that any comments at the lunch would be off-the-record?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe the reporter was, and that
was certainly an oversight on our part, but let me tell you what
our expectation was. When we invite journalists to social settings
like this, we consider it to be off-the-record; and, believe me,
in all future circumstances, we will state in the invitation,
in writing, if necessary, that this is going to be off-the-record.
Interestingly enough, in that same lunch there was a public aspect
to it. There were toasts given by Secretary Albright and Minister
Sultan. The press that was working the event -- not the press
that was invited -- came in for the toasts, covered the toasts
and then left. I think there were eight or nine members of the
press who had been invited to attend the event who remained behind.
Clearly, they were there on a different basis from their colleagues
who had come in to cover the toasts -- the on-the-record portion.
Once the reporters left and the cameras left, on-the-record was
over, and we think it was on a different basis.
Again, I haven't taken a poll here to be able to tell you this
is a government-wide view. I'm giving you my personal view here.
But I feel compelled to give you that personal view, because
I think it's a very important question for how we work together.
Sometimes journalists complain to me, "Why don't you take
us more seriously? Why don't you sit down with us on an off-the-record
basis? Why does everything have to be adversarial?" I agree
with that, and we felt we were creating here a nice way to reach
out to some journalists to say, "Let's have a civilized way
to get together where you're not going to have to report everything
we say. We don't report anything you say or judge you by it."
In this instance, we failed to make those rules of the road explicitly
clear, but we assumed that those were the rules of the road.
After having described those rules of the road to the reporter
in question, we hoped that she would decline to put this in writing
and put it on the front page of the New York Times. She made
a different decision. Her editors made a different decision.
That's freedom of the press. We can't stop them from doing that,
but we do have a right -- I have a right -- to stand up here personally
to say I object to that. I think it's highly questionable as
a mode of operation for a journalist.
QUESTION: Do you think it might jeopardize the investigation
itself?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe it will, because the investigation
is proceeding, and we and the Saudis are confident that sooner
or later we will identify together who killed the 19 Americans,
and we will capture them, and we will bring them to justice, and
justice will be served. That is the commitment that President
Clinton has made with His Majesty King Fahd.
George.
QUESTION: A medical group says that the health conditions
in Cuba have deteriorated quite a bit since 1992 as a result of
the Cuba Democracy Act, and they say it has had a devastating
effect on children, women, the elderly, and so forth, and I'd
like to know what your response is?
MR. BURNS: This is an extraordinary comment to make, and
we have looked into it, George, and thought about the logic of
it, and here's our view. We reject any allegation that the United
States Government is responsible for the deplorable state of health
care in Cuba. Let me just give you a couple of facts and figures.
During 1995, the Cuban Government itself reported that out of
$2 billion of its foreign exchange purchases, it only spent $6
million on medicine for its own citizens -- less than 60 cents
for each Cuban citizen.
The U.S. embargo has been consistently applied by the United States,
but it has not been observed by almost any other country in the
world. So Cuba trades with Latin countries. Cuba trades with
European countries and Asian countries. There is certainly a
way in those very active trading relationships to bring medicine
in to take care of Cuban kids and other people who may be suffering.
It's a question of choice. The Cubans have a command economy.
They put their resources into armaments, into their military,
and they choose not to spend money to help their own people.
Also, I would say the U.S. embargo does allow for the export from
the United States of medicines and medical supplies subject to
verification that they will be distributed to people who really
need them. Ironically enough, George, the United States remains
the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Cuba -- the largest
donor. The Cuban people received more medicine from the United
States last year than it did from its own government.
So if there's a finger to be pointed about why the Cuban people
don't have adequate medical supplies, point it directly at Fidel
Castro and his government. They've made the choice not to spend
money on their own people. They prefer to have an active military,
and they prefer to try to build a nuclear power plant at Juragua
and these are the little toys that Castro spends his money on.
Let's just call a spade a spade here.
QUESTION: President Alberto Fujimori of Peru has made
an unexpected stop in Cuba and has met with Fidel Castro. Was
the U.S. aware of his intentions, and what are your comments on
possible asylum for MRTA rebels in Peru?
MR. BURNS: We've seen the report that President Fujimori
has made a surprise trip to Cuba. Frankly, I don't believe we
have been in touch with him about this trip, and there are a lot
of reasons why he may have made a trip like that, but I think
we need to have a conversation with him first before we can say
much further.
We hope that this hostage crisis can end quickly and peacefully
and with the safe release of all the 72 people held. Of course,
you know the U.S. policy here, and we don't think that terrorists
should be rewarded.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the idea of the rebels being given
asylum in Cuba?
MR. BURNS: It's purely hypothetical, because we've not
been told by either the Cuban Government or by President Fujimori
that that is in fact on the table.
Dimitri.
QUESTION: On Albania. I understand that you said -- if
I understand correct -- that it was a mistake -- the move by the
Albanian Parliament to elect President Berate to his position.
And also I wanted to ask you if because Greece is a neighboring
country to Albania and seriously affected by all this situation,
do you have any consultations with the Greek Government on the
situation in Albania?
MR. BURNS: I believe we have shared our viewpoint with
the Greek Government in the past. I don't know if we've been
in touch today. Our disappointment is purely from the fact that
they called for new elections over the weekend and held them today.
That doesn't really give the opposition time to mobilize, organize
itself on any free and fair basis. It doesn't meet a democratic
test at all.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) push the Government in Albania to
hold elections in the near future --
MR. BURNS: If they're serious about democratization, if
they really are serious about elections, they ought to have not
sham elections but bona fide elections. I believe that Ambassador
Marisa Lino has been making this point to the Albanian Government.
Yasmine, yes.
QUESTION: Can you tell us more about your discussions
with the Europeans about Albania? Are there any concrete measures
being discussed?
MR. BURNS: As you know, we have discussed the issue of
Albania in the OSCE in the past, particularly last autumn when
the Albanians held their other elections, which we found fault
with as well. We continue to discuss Albania with a number of
European countries -- Central European countries, other neighbors
of Albania.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) a different issue, if I may -- on
Iran. Can you tell us what the U.S. policy is regarding the international
rescue and aid efforts for the earthquake victims in Iran?
MR. BURNS: I'm glad you asked about that, and I know this
is probably a good way to end the briefing, in this sense, because
it's such a serious issue. We would like to offer our condolences
to the families of those who died in the earthquake in Iran and
to those who have been injured and those who suffered other losses.
We have well known problems with the Government in Tehran, but
they do not extend to the Iranian people. They do not extend
to the Iranian people, and it never has. We very much regret
the terrible tragedy that has befallen the Iranian people, and
we offer our sincere condolence to the families of those who have
lost loved ones.
QUESTION: Are we offering any aid?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Betsy?
QUESTION: Are we offering any aid, any medicines or anything
else?
MR. BURNS: We have not been asked to extend assistance.
We are trying to examine what may be possible for us to do, however,
and, if we can do something -- we don't have state-to-state relations
-- if there's a way that we can be helpful, we will try very hard
to do that, and we mean that quite sincerely.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: It was reported in Athens today that Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright is going to meet the Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros
Pangalos this coming Thursday, and that inter alia, they are going to
discuss the situation in Albania, too.
Could you please confirm and comment?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I'm going to make a promise. When we schedule
the long-awaited meeting between Foreign Minister Pangalos and Secretary
Albright, you will be the first to know.
You'll get the scoop. (Laughter) We'll scoop every other journalist in the
room.
QUESTION: How? Here or --
MR. BURNS: I'm going to call you and leak it to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: Okay? (Laughter)
QUESTION: One more --
MR. BURNS: So let me just say we've not yet scheduled
it as far as I know, but we're trying to, out of our deep respect
for Minister Pangalos. I hope that your paper -- your newspaper
prints it that way
QUESTION: Eleftherus Typos.
MR. BURNS: -- our deep respect -- Eleftherus Typos --
our deep respect for Minister Pangalos. You're going to get
the scoop on that.
QUESTION: One more question. Do you know why the State
Department (inaudible) of Albanian diplomat (inaudible) travel
advisory.
MR. BURNS: On Albania?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: We have issued travel notices to the American
citizens living there and to the traveling public about the situation
in Albania. If you call the European Bureau, they'll be glad
to give you those or our Consular Affairs Bureau.
Yes, and then David.
QUESTION: Foreign Minister is coming to Washington --
the Canadian Foreign Minister is coming to Washington.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I guess Cuba is again one of the areas for discussion
tomorrow?
MR. BURNS: Minister Axworthy will be here tomorrow. I
don't think Cuba will be the number one issue. I think European
security issues. U.S.-Canadian bilateral issues will be far more
important. We do have an active discussion with the Canadians
on Cuba, and I'm sure that will come up, but it's not at the top
of the agenda, and we're looking forward to this meeting very
much.
David.
QUESTION: Nick, is the Secretary of State making public
remarks this evening at an event that is not on her public schedule?
And, if it isn't, why -- and, if she is, why isn't it on her
public schedule?
MR. BURNS: The Secretary plans to attend a reception --
dinner or reception for Chairman Arafat tonight. There are two
of them, I understand -- two dinners that Chairman Arafat is attending.
She is going to attend one, I believe. We never saw this as
a public event. I think it's a private dinner, and she's going
to make remarks, probably a toast, but we never saw it as a public
event, David. If you're interested in covering it, we can talk
to the Palestinians about that.
QUESTION: People who have organized it are organizing
logistics for camera crews and all the rest of it and say that
she's going to make five to 15 minutes worth of public remarks.
I just appeal to you when she is going to do such things, if
you'll put it on the public schedule.
MR. BURNS: Right, and we always try to do that. I was
completely unaware that the organizers were advertising it as
such. We view it as a private dinner. If it's not a private
dinner, if the press is being invited, then I would encourage
you to attend.
Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 4:02 p.m.)
(###)
|
