U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #36, 97-03-12
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1245
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, March 12, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors.
1 Secretary To Visit to Watkins Primary School, March 14
1 Secretary To Deliver Speech at the Jesse Helms Institute in
North Carolina,March 25
1 Secretary To Deliver Keynote Address at Georgetown Univ.
Middle East Institute, March 26
1-2 Celebration of International Women's Day at the Department
2 Drawdown of Non-essential USG Personnel in Albania/Reissuance
of Travel Warning
3 UN Compensation Commission Payments to Victims of Gulf War
ZAIRE
3-7 Anti-American Demonstration/Department Meetings with Asst.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees/U.S. Contributions to
Humanitarian Assistance/
Situation of Refugees/Status of Ceasefire
Proposal/Discussions on Deployment of Multinational Force
NEPAL
7-8 Resignation of Prime Minister
MIDDLE EAST
8-13 US Participation in Meeting at Gaza to Discuss Peace Process/
Secretary's Recent Conversations and Meetings with Middle
East Leaders
NORTH KOREA
13-14 Readout of Bilateral Meeting March 11/No Agreement on
Date to Establish Liaison Offices
14-15 North Korean Basketball Player/Possible Visa Application
15-16 Prospects for Four-Party Conference
CIA
16 Confirmation Hearings of Anthony Lake
RUSSIA
16-17 Visit of Foreign Minister Primakov/Schedule of Meetings/
Press Availability
MEXICO
17-19 Congressional Review of Certification
ALBANIA
19-20 Departure of Americans via Commercial Aircraft/Efforts by
Italian and Greek Governments to Resolve Crisis
GREECE
20-21 Meeting Between Foreign Minister Pangalos
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #36
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1997, 1:06 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I want to welcome to
the briefing Mr. Gabor Horvath who is the Deputy Chief of Mission at the
Embassy of Hungary. He's soon to become the Hungarian Spokesman. He
observed our press guidance process this morning and learned what not to do
in preparing for a briefing.
I also want to introduce Marc Collins who is a new Foreign Service officer.
He is brand new, and he's going through his orientation course. He's a
personal guest of mine.
I want to make a few announcements about the Secretary's public activities
in the coming weeks. First, Secretary Albright is going to visit this
Friday, March 14, the Watkins Primary School here in the District of
Colombia. She will be visiting the school at 10:00 a.m., and she's going
to read to a first grade class.
This is part of President's Clinton's outreach to the Washington, D.C.
community. The purpose of the Secretary's visit is to create awareness
even at any early age of the connection of the United States to the larger
world around us.
On Tuesday, March 25, the Secretary will travel to North Carolina.
She will be visiting North Carolina at the invitation of Senator Jesse
Helms. As part of her on-going effort to speak directly to the American
people about our foreign policy priorities, she's going to fly to Charlotte,
North Carolina, on the morning of March 25 and she's going to participate
in several events with Senator Helms in Charlotte.
That evening, she is going to deliver a speech to the Jesse Helms Institute
at Wingate University in Wingate, North Carolina. We would be amenable to
taking the press corps along if there is interest. If you are interested,
please let us know. Nancy Beck has a sign-up sheet in the Press Office.
On Wednesday, March 26, Secretary Albright is going to deliver the keynote
address at the Middle East Institute at the Georgetown University School of
Foreign Service. That address will be on United States policy towards
Iraq. The Secretary will make remarks and take questions. That begins at
12:00 noon Wednesday, March 26, at Gaston Hall, Georgetown University.
I also want to draw your attention to International Women's Day, which we
celebrated today. The First Lady, Mrs. Clinton, was here. She gave a
speech in the Dean Acheson Auditorium along with Secretary Albright and
Under Secretary Tim Wirth. If you'd like to get a copy of those speeches,
we can make them available to you. You can also find them on our Web site
at www.state.gov.
That Web site is growing. There are 1.7 million hits on our Web site in
February of this year.
Now, to Albania. The United States remains greatly concerned about the
situation in Albania. The call by Albania's political parties for a cease-
fire and amnesty at this point remains unanswered by the insurgents in the
country in the south and in the north.
Large numbers of armed civilians have broken into weapons depots and have
taken possession of weapons, leaving the situation highly volatile.
The positive political steps taken by President Berisha in the last few
days to form a broad-based coalition government leading to early and, we
hope, free and fair elections have not yet succeeded in improving
conditions in the country because the insurgency continues.
In view of the concerns that we have about the security situation in
Albania, we are ordering a drawdown of non-essential United States
Government personnel in Albania. This is a precautionary measure because
of the instability in the country.
Dependents and non-essential personnel will depart Albania in the coming
days. In addition, we are advising American citizens to consider departing
Albania as soon as possible. Since the situation has worsened, our Embassy
in Tirana has been in extensive contact with American citizens in Albania
to keep them informed of developments.
We are updating the Travel Warning that we last issued on March 3. We're
re-issuing that travel warning today. Essentially, what it says is,
Americans who wish to travel to Albania should not do so. Americans who
currently live in Albania should leave.
There is this ordered draw-down of American Government personnel.
Let me just say a few words about the numbers of people that we have there.
We think there are roughly 2,000 private Americans in Albania. We are
attempting to contact as many of those people as we can - again, urging
them to leave. There are no reports of any injuries to American citizens
over the last couple of weeks since this crisis began.
In terms of our Embassy staff, I believe that the number of people who will
leave Albania, who are dependents of American Government employees or who
are employees themselves, are roughly 160 people: seventy-four of them are
Peace Corps volunteers and staff; 39 are State Department employees and
their dependents; 54 are USAID contractors and their dependents; and there
are some USIS-sponsored Americans - Fulbright people and the like - in
Albania who will also be leaving.
That will leave Ambassador Marisa Lino in place with 17 State Department
officials who will be the corps of our American Embassy presence in
Albania.
I'll be glad to take any questions on this. But just one other word on
Albania. We do welcome the appointment of Bashkim Fino.
He's a member of the Socialist Party from the southern part of Albania.
He's been appointed the new Prime Minister of Albania.
We expect that President Berisha will be announcing other members of the
new government later today. We urge all Albanian citizens to support this
government and to work for a political non-violent resolution to the
current crisis.
We do call upon the new government and all opposition forces to establish a
decent political dialogue that would lead to a cessation of hostilities and
that might restore the peace so that the economic problems that stimulated
this crisis in the first place can be attended to.
The other day I did mention that the International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank want to send a mission there, but cannot do so because of the
current instability.
We will continue to work with the Italian Government, the Greek Government,
the European Union, the OSCE - particularly the OSCE - to try to exert
influence on the actors in Albania, the political actors, to lead the
situation towards a peaceful, non-violent resolution of the problems in
that country. So that's what I had to say on Albania.
Again, I'll be glad to go back to any questions that you have on Albania.
The last item that I have is just to note for you that the United Nations
Compensation Commission in Geneva began today the process of compensating
the more than one million people - governments, organizations around the
world - who were victimized by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the
Persian Gulf War.
Today, the U.N. Compensation Commission announced that it will transmit
approximately $144 million to 63 governments to be distributed to over 57,
000 claimants. These payments are made possible because of the fact that
we are now beginning to see some proceeds from the oil-for-food deal - U.N.
Resolution 986. As you remember, 30 percent of the proceeds from the sale
of the oil are directed to compensate the victims of Saddam Hussein's
aggression. We have begun to see today those installments paid out. We
expect this process to continue as U.N. Resolution 986 is implemented
over the course of the next several months.
I'd be glad to go into any detail on that issue as well. George.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the anti-American demonstration
in Kinshasa today?
MR. BURNS: We've just received press reports about this demonstration. I
understand that a group of several hundred people were parading up and down
in front of the American Embassy. They burned an American flag and they
seemed to be quite unhappy with the United States.
I have no idea who these people are. You never know in situations like
this. Obviously, anytime anybody demonstrates in front of an American
Embassy, we take note but we're not unduly concerned because we think that
we have a good relationship with Zaire.
We're giving the Zairian Government the advice that we can about the need
for political reform there, elections there.
The United States has taken the lead with the South African Government in
trying to do something about the problems of the country.
Yesterday, there were some statements about conspiracies of silence and
people not paying attention.
The United States has contributed one billion dollars - one billion dollars
- in humanitarian assistance to the Central African countries since 1993.
I believe we are the leading financial donor to the countries of that
region. Of that money - of that one billion dollars -- $350 million of
assistance was delivered in 1996, and $153 million will be delivered in
1997. So we've been the leading contributor of humanitarian assistance.
In addition to that, we have effectively sponsored the cease-fire with the
South African Government, following the lead of the South African
Government. That is an initiative that we hope - the major international
initiative that we hope will stop the fighting.
We are in day-to-day contact with the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees,
the World Food Program, to try to get humanitarian assistance to the
refugees in Central Africa.
Now, tomorrow, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, who is the Assistant United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, will be in Washington for talks on
the Zaire crisis. He will be meeting with Princeton Lyman, with our
Special Envoy Dick Begosian, with John Shattuck, with Charlie Sykes from
our Refugee Bureau. All of these people will be talking about what support
the United States can give to the refugees in Zaire.
I don't think the United States has anything to apologize about.
I don't know who was demonstrating in front of our Embassy or what their
agenda was, but I think the people of Zaire and the Government of Zaire
know that we are making a very constructive effort to be helpful.
Sid.
QUESTION: What is it the United States can do now? You already said
you've given aid; you're consulting. But what more can the U.S. do to ease
this situation?
MR. BURNS: Let's remember where responsibility lies in a situation like
this. The primary responsibility to bring peace and stability, order, aid
to the refugees, rests with the Zairian Government and rest with the rebels
- Mr. Kabila. They are the people who are primarily responsible for the
situation that has developed. We don't live in Zaire. We are a friendly
country.
We have an embassy there, and we try to be of help.
In this case, we are the largest financial donor. What can we do? We can
continue to encourage Mr. Kabila to do something that he has not done, and
that is to agree to the cease-fire, to stop fighting, to lay down his arms
before his troops begin an assault on Kisangani.
Secondly, we can continue to encourage the United Nations to take the lead,
as it is doing, in extending humanitarian assistance to the refugees, more
than 200,000 of whom have fled the refugee camps. It's an extraordinary
situation. The Tingi Tingi camp held approximately 170,000 people in
eastern Zaire. It has been emptied out. The refugees have fled because of
the fighting.
Just a few people - elderly, some women and children - are left; a handful
of people, and they're going to be evacuated by the United Nations.
The refugees have fled westward, away from the fighting, behind the lines.
They want to go eastward. We believe that Mr. Kabila should open up
humanitarian corridors to allow them to go eastward towards Rwanda. So we
can do those two things: Promote the cease-fire, help the refugees. There
are efforts in place to do both.
It's somewhat curious to see that some people are saying that nothing is
being done. A lot is happening. President Mandela deserves great credit
for the cease-fire proposal which we helped him to develop and to
negotiate. The United Nations deserves great credit - Kofi Annan for
taking the lead on the humanitarian side. We are doing the right things,
but there is a crisis.
There's a political crisis, there's a rebel offensive. We can't control
the situation. So, fundamentally, it's the people inside the country that
have got to act on behalf of their own citizens and of the refugees who
find themselves unhappily in eastern Zaire.
QUESTION: You mean that you choose not to control the situation, or you
can't control the situation?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I don't believe there's a country in the world or a
combination of countries that can control the situation in eastern Zaire.
There's a rebel offensive underway. There's fighting, and we're doing the
best we can to help with the efforts to end that fighting. But let's
remember where responsibility lies here. It lies on the shoulders of Mr.
Kabila and the Zairian Government in Kinshasa.
Patrick.
QUESTION: What do you know about Angolan involvement in the Zaire
fighting - the Angolan Government or the UNITA movement?
MR. BURNS: All I can say on that, Patrick, is Mr. Kabila has talked about
the fact that there are rebels from Angola who have been helping him.
That's what he claims.
The United States, United Nations, South African Government and others have
warned all of Zaire's neighbors - Angola and Rwanda and Burundi and Uganda -
to refrain from allowing any cross-border attacks along their various
borders and certainly not to give any support to the militia groups - and
there are many of them - that have contributed to the fighting.
Secretary Albright gave that message directly to President Museveni in her
first week in office. We have followed up with several messages to the
Government of Uganda and the two other governments in Central Africa, and
you can be sure we've raised this with this the Angolan Government as
well.
Betsy.
QUESTION: Nick, on Albania -
QUESTION: Can I ask one more on Zaire?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Have there been some tense discussions between the United
States and France on the wisdom of having a multinational military force in
Zaire?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any tense discussions. What is interesting
is that the French Government and the United States Government for many,
many weeks have essentially been calling publicly for the same thing - a
cease-fire, aid to the refugees and for the neighbors of Zaire to make sure
that they don't allow these militia groups to cross the border. My
counterpart, Jacques Rummelhardt, made several public statements when we
were in Europe to that effect, and we publicly agreed with the French
Government.
There are some countries who believe that we ought to agree now to the
deployment of a multinational force for Zaire, and you've heard the
Secretary General of the United Nations even talk about that. We have
talked about that up at the U.N. George Moose was at the U.N. two days
ago. We have heard the ideas. Frankly, we're not convinced at this point
that a multinational force would serve a useful purpose, would be able to
do anything that the current efforts of the South African Government and
the United Nations are now serving. We're just not convinced that it
would have any practical, useful effect. It's always good to try
to think practically. What is it that a combination of - a coalition
of countries from the outside can do positively to affect a situation?
In this case, we think the efforts are underway.
The problem is that Mr. Kabila has refused to accept the wishes of the
international community to promote the cease-fire, and we'll continue to
work on him to agree to that cease-fire.
QUESTION: But the United States and France are on opposite sides of this
deployment of the force?
MR. BURNS: I can't speak for the French Government. I actually haven't
seen a public, on-the-record statement from a French Government official on
this issue. I don't want to venture what the French Government's public
position may be. I've seen a statement from the Elysee spokesman yesterday
which kind of talked about the issue but not specifically on the MNF - on
the multinational force. So why don't you ask the French Government
what their public position is?
We've talked to a number of countries. Some countries are pushing this,
and some countries believe that we ought to stick with what has the best
chance of succeeding. Everyone wants the situation in Zaire to be
improved. We don't want to see Zaire partitioned.
We don't want to see the country fractured into several different
fiefdoms. We want to see the country keep together. We want to see the
refugees helped.
So what's the best way to do it? We've put a lot of effort and a lot of
sweat into these activities in the last couple of weeks.
We believe that what's happening now is the right way to go.
QUESTION: You said yesterday that 200,000 refugees have - I believe you
said "strong humanitarian needs," or words to that effect. What is the
problem? A multinational force would have difficulty locating them? What
is the practical problem that you are alluding to?
MR. BURNS: The practical problem is the following. Roughly 200,000 -
that's a conservative number. It's probably well over 200,000 people were
living in refugee camps in Eastern Zaire, victims of - some of them victims
of the 1994 genocide; some of them participants in the fighting surrounding
that genocide.
They were dependent on international relief aid for food, for medicine, and
for protection. They have now evacuated the camps.
They have scattered north, south and west but not east. They are in the
forest. They're in the countryside. They are left to their own devices.
They're in large groups; they're in small groups.
How could a multinational force possibly locate all those people in the
short term and help them? What needs to be done is what's happening. Mrs.
Ogata has led the way for the U.N. High Commissioner to provide transit
camps, to provide feeding stations, to provide a way for these refugees to
at least get to places where they can get food, water, medicine. That's
the humanitarian side.
On the political side, President Mandela and the South African Government,
assisted by the United States, have offered a cease-fire proposal which the
Zairian Government has accepted and Mr. Kabila has said he'll think about.
How could a multinational force improve the chance that that cease-fire
proposal would be accepted?
We just believe that we're on the right track. We're very interested in
this. Secretary Albright, as I told you yesterday, has briefed on this
several times a day, is reading all the cables from our Ambassadors, has
thought about this a great deal, and our view is that we should continue
doing what we are doing.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Nepal? A few days ago the Nepal prime
minister was forced to resign. What's the future of the democracy
there?
MR. BURNS: I don't have anything formal to say, but I'll be glad to take
that question and get back to you on that.
QUESTION: According to the Israeli officials, the United States clarified
the Israelis that the Gaza meeting is a kind of a briefing and not an
international conference, and that's why the United States agreed to
participate in it. Can you comment on it?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to. Yesterday at about this time, we understood
that the Palestinian Authority had called a meeting for Gaza on Saturday.
We had not at that time received a formal invitation nor had we been
briefed by the Palestinians on the objectives of the meeting. Having gone
through that process, we have been formally invited. The Palestinian
Authority has called this meeting to review the present situation in the
peace process, and we will attend. The United States will attend
this conference. Ed Abington, our Consul General in Jerusalem, will
be the U.S. representative.
This is an opportunity for the Palestinians to express their concerns about
the present situation in the Middle East and to hear the views of friendly
countries like the United States. It's appropriate that we go. We will be
there, and we have great respect for Chairman Arafat.
What we do not see this meeting - the United States does not see this
meeting as a forum for decisions on the Middle East peace issues or as a
negotiating session, nor do we view it as an alternative to the direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians that to this date have
produced the progress that we all know about in the Middle East.
We believe ultimately that progress on these Middle East peace issues can
only be produced in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
That's the basis for our view of the way forward in the Middle East, and
that is the basis for the participation of Consul General Ed Abington.
We have a similar view on the General Assembly debate today up at the
United Nations. As you know, Ambassador Richardson has elected not to
speak, because we've made our view very clear.
Obviously, the United States was not happy with the decisions made by the
Israeli Government on Har Homa and on Jabal Abu Ghunnaim and on the
Palestinian offices in East Jerusalem.
But progress has always been made by the Palestinians and Israelis
together. I can't remember the last time that concrete progress was made
up at the United Nations on this particular issue. So we're listening to
the debate this morning, but we're not going to make a formal statement and
participate in it.
The last thing I would say is that a lot of people are talking about
violence these days in the Middle East and the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
You have to be very careful when you talk about violence. Violence is a
language of the past in the Middle East.
Violence is what produced the tragedy of the Palestinian people, the
displacement of the Palestinian people, the wars that Israel has had to
fight since 1948. There is no place for violence, the threat of violence,
incitement, a call to violence - no place for that in the modern Middle
East.
One has to be very careful when talking about this situation.
We saw what happened last September on the streets of Jerusalem and
Ramallah and Nablus and Gaza. No one wants to see that repeated.
We want to see the Palestinians and the Israelis sit down together for a
fair negotiation and discussion of the issues that concern them both.
QUESTION: Have you seen the -
QUESTION: (Inaudible) invited --
MR. BURNS: At this point we're not sure if Israel has been invited or
not. We don't know if they have or not, but certainly if the Israelis are
invited, it would make sense for them to be there. But that's a decision
that the Israeli Government has to take.
QUESTION: But the way (inaudible) basically is a session for the
Palestinians to let off steam. Is there anything else involved?
MR. BURNS: Howard, those are your words, not mine.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) what it's not. Can you tell us again what it is
besides -
MR. BURNS: What it is is this: The Palestinians have been buffeted by
several decisions of the Israeli Government.
They've been affected by several decisions of the Israeli Government that
have had consequences for them and that are difficult to explain to the
Palestinian people. Chairman Arafat obviously believes it's time for the
Palestinians to have a public forum to express their concerns. This Gaza
conference, this meeting, will be such a forum. There will be friendly
countries there like the United States, like some of the European countries
that have been supportive of the Middle East peace process.
It does make sense from time to time to allow this kind of discussion to
take place. But it's also important, now that we've had a chance to talk
to the Palestinians and Israelis about this, to be clear about where
progress is made, and thus my emphasis on the fact that this will not be,
in our view, a negotiation; because the United States, France, Norway, the
European Union are not negotiating parties. Israel is a negotiating party.
The Palestinian Authority is a negotiating party. They're the only ones
who can make these tough decisions on final status issues and on other
issues.
QUESTION: Has the Israeli Government protested to the United States the
U.S. willingness to participate?
MR. BURNS: I think you've seen public comments by Israeli Government
officials, expressing their displeasure, but the United States Government
felt it was important for us to be present in Gaza out of our respect for
Chairman Arafat and out of our sense that there's a need for him to have a
forum to express his concerns.
QUESTION: More specifically, have you seen the statement by Foreign
Minister Levi, saying that the Gaza meeting will lead to negotiating
paralysis?
MR. BURNS: We've seen the statement, and we're aware of the Israeli
Government unhappiness. Our advice to the Palestinians and Israelis is,
you need to get beyond a war of words. You need to get beyond rhetorical
debates in public. You need to get back to the negotiating table, back to
where progress was made in 1993 and in 1995. That's the only way to
resolve the problems between you.
QUESTION: Speaking of a rhetorical war of words, a general QUESTION:
Have you seen King Hussein's - the letter that the palace elected to leak
to the press - to the Prime Minister - his response, and specifically his
observation that the U.S. position in vetoing at the U.N. has hurt your
status as an honest broker, whatever you choose to call yourself these
days?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I think there were two letters that I saw in The New
York Times and Washington Post and other newspapers. One was from His
Majesty King Hussein. The other was from Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Two letters, and we read the letters. We were aware of the
letters before even you in the news media were aware of the letters.
I would only say that both King Hussein and Prime Minister Netanyahu are
friends of the United States - good friends of the United States, and we
have respect for both men. They obviously have their differences on some
issues, but we hope that Jordan and Israel will continue to be friends, and
that the issues that they need to work out are worked out between them
bilaterally, just as we hope that Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister
Netanyahu can work out their differences. That's the only way progress
can be made - the only way - and we trust that both Jordan and Israel,
the Palestinian Authority and Israel, will remain convinced that it's in
their own interests to sustain positive momentum forward in the peace
negotiations.
We are an honest broker. We're an intermediary. We're the only country
that has the ability to be present at the table to make a difference,
frankly, and we're going to continue in that role.
Secretary Albright and Dennis Ross are working on this problem day and
night, and they'll continue to do that. I think the United States retains
the trust of all the negotiating parties - I'm quite convinced of that -
and the credibility among all countries that is necessary to be an honest
broker in those talks.
QUESTION: In that role, then, describe what the U.S. is suggesting to the
Israelis, to Prime Minister Netanyahu, ought to be done now about Jabal Abu
Ghunnaim or Har Homa. Having said that he's going to build there, is the
advice that he should reverse his position, or is the advice that he should
stall on building?
MR. BURNS: Our advice to both the Israelis and the Palestinians in this
case is to take action in the weeks and months ahead that will sustain
progress in the negotiations, that will
understand that you have a negotiating partner across the table who also
has political needs and sensitivities, and that all actions, private and
public, should be designed to build some momentum.
The peace process has had a number of difficulties.
But if you look at the last 30 years, you can see that in any set of
negotiations there are always times like this. You don't panic. You don't
make the situation worse. You try to make the situation better by calm,
deliberate, positive action forward.
That's our advice for the Prime Minister. It's also our advice for
Chairman Arafat, for both of them, and they have an equal responsibility to
make progress here.
QUESTION: Can you explain how that advice deals with the question I just
asked, which is should the Israelis - should Prime Minister Netanyahu now
withdraw his announced intention to build on that site, or should he delay
starting the construction while talks on the final status commence?
MR. BURNS: Our advice will remain private advice, as it has always been.
We have always resisted the temptation to stand on the soap box and say in
public everything that we're doing in private, and I won't break with that
tradition today.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu made a mistake by announcing his
intention to construct new buildings in Har Homa.
MR. BURNS: If you do a Lexis-Nexis search or just look in the video
library and look back at the last two weeks, you'll see many statements by
President Clinton and by Secretary Albright as well as much lower ranking
United States Government officials about our unhappiness with those
decisions. We've been very clear about that. But our view this morning is
that the Palestinians and Israelis need to take into their own possession
the peace negotiation and move it forward - not backwards, not sideways,
forward - and I think they both know what has to happen to move that
forward, but I'm not going to be specific about what we're saying in
private.
QUESTION: Nick, can you say what your opinion is of the Palestinian
refusal to accept the nine percent withdrawal? Do you think they ought to
accept it and go from there? I know you all are pushing for a little more
than that.
MR. BURNS: We issued a public statement last Thursday night which said
two things. One is, we commented positively on the decision by the Israeli
Cabinet to agree to a redeployment of a little over nine percent. Second,
it said that we hope that in the second and third phases of the redeployment
on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that more could be done and more would
be done, and that was the basis of our private discussions that we
had last week. Secretary Albright had a number of conversations with the
Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Israel, and the basis of our
discussions with the Palestinians as well.
QUESTION: But the situation is different now. The Palestinians have
rejected that withdrawal. The Israelis are saying they can't go forward
with it until they sit down and work out the details with the Palestinians,
so what do you think the Palestinians should do?
MR. BURNS: Peace is made step by step - one step at a time. Every inch
of territory the Palestinians regain under their authority we think helps
to fill out the interim accords, and I think that was the basis of our
statement. But I do want to draw your attention to both sides of the
statement. The first comment again was that any return of territory is
positive. The second was that more should be done, we hope would be done,
in the second and third phases by the Israeli Government.
QUESTION: Did the Israeli Government inform the U.S. about this plan of
9.1 of redeployment, or you were surprised by this, and what's the
Administration assessment of that? Is this too far left to -
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Aziz, I'll let you finish your question.
QUESTION: I said whether the assessment of the Administration that this
pullback went far enough based on the discussions that took place before,
or it went shorter than what was expected?
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Indyk was in constant touch with the Prime Minister
and Defense Minister and others throughout the week leading up to the
Israeli Cabinet decision. We were not surprised by it. The Prime Minister
was good enough to call Secretary Albright just after the Cabinet meeting
to inform her personally of the decision, and the Foreign Minister also
called.
So we were in constant touch with the Israelis, as were the Palestinians,
I believe, on this issue.
QUESTION: What's your assessment of the size of the pullback?
MR. BURNS: I just really answered that question. We issued a statement
on Thursday night. I have reviewed it twice in this briefing, and that
statement had two parts to it, and I refer you to that statement.
QUESTION: You said that your advice is that violence is the language of
the past, but do you agree with the assessment of King Hussein that going
ahead with the housing project could lead to violence?
MR. BURNS: Our view is the following: We want both sides to take
positive actions towards peace, not negative actions.
There is no justification whatsoever for violence in Israel, by Israelis
or in the West Bank and Gaza by Palestinians. There's no justification for
violence against the other group - no justification.
It has led to tragedy and bloodshed in the past, and that's all it will
accomplish in the future. It is the language of the past, pre-1993. All
the good things that have happened since 1993 are a function of the fact
that they've become negotiating partners, and they have to treat each other
like negotiating partners.
Mr. Lee.
QUESTION: Mr. Nick. Now would probably be the time, if it hasn't been
asked already, for the ritual question of whether the Secretary of State or
Ambassador Ross is going to the region in the near future.
MR. BURNS: Thank you for that question. It has not been asked in this
session. Middle East diplomacy for the last month or so has really been
conducted out of Washington - America's Middle East diplomacy. We've had
Prince Sultan, Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Mubarak, Chairman Arafat,
and King Hussein will be arriving on next Monday and Tuesday. So
President Clinton and the Vice President and the Secretary of State have
had an opportunity to review all of the issues that we're discussing
today at length for hours with the major players - Israeli and Arab. Once
that process is completed on Tuesday, the President and the Secretary will
fly off to Helsinki and Copenhagen for very important meetings on our
European policy.
Following that, I'm sure the Secretary will sit down with Dennis Ross and
her other advisers, and they'll determine how best to move forward. She
has not yet scheduled a trip to the Middle East, nor has Ambassador Ross.
Obviously, both of them will be going at some point in the future, but
there's no schedule yet.
In the meantime, we have a terrific American Ambassador, Martin Indyk, in
Israel. We have a Consul General, Ed Abington, in Jerusalem, who has done
a magnificent job over three years. We have Ned Walker in - Ambassador
Walker in Cairo, Ambassador Chris Ross in Damascus. We have people all
over the Middle East who are competent, who know what they're doing, who
are in touch with the heads of states of these governments.
So the problem here - and I've been amazed -- intrigued to read in a lot
of press reports, the press commentary why isn't the United States
launching a diplomatic mission. Why aren't we flying off some place.
We've had all the Middle East leaders here, right here in the Oval Office
and the State Department up on the 7<SUP>th floor, and we have this
magnificent array of career professionals and others in the Middle East in
our Embassies. So I think we're doing what we need to do, and Dennis Ross
conducts telephone negotiations every day, for many hours per day. So
there's no problem with American contacts. The problem is that we need to
encourage the Israelis and Palestinians to be more agreeable with each
other in these negotiations.
QUESTION: Can you give us any specific results from the meetings that
took place with North Korean officials yesterday and tell us if any more
were scheduled for today?
MR. BURNS: Mark Minton had a good meeting with his North Korean
counterparts yesterday. Mark Minton is our Korean Office Director. He met
with Mr. Li Gun. They talked about a variety of bilateral issues,
including our joint efforts to recover the remains of U.S. soldiers lost in
the Korean War. They discussed our non-proliferation concerns, the Agreed
Framework. They discussed the establishment of liaison offices. I believe
the North Korean delegation went on a real estate tour yesterday of
possible sites for their liaison office in Washington.
But we do not have an agreement and have not yet agreed on a date to
establish those liaison offices. That's ahead of us, and that will depend
on some of the logistical issues that are very important to us in these
conversations. So we think it was a good visit.
Mr. Kim Gye Gwan, the Vice Foreign Minister, is in Washington but on a
private visit, and as far as I know, he has not seen American Government
officials.
We were also asked yesterday if Chuck Kartman would be traveling to North
Korea, and he has no plans to do so at this time.
QUESTION: Anyone on the schedule for today with any State Department
officials?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that there are any meetings scheduled today,
but I wouldn't be surprised if in the course of the day there were contacts
or meetings at this mid-level that I've described. It wouldn't be a
surprise at all, because we do have these contacts ongoing with the North
Korean Foreign Ministry.
QUESTION: Has (inaudible) been made to have another round of talks
specifically on these issues, liaison offices, and MIAs?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe there's been any agreement on a schedule to
establish a liaison office. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an
agreement. That's ahead of us, and that will depend on some of these
logistical concerns that we have.
Obviously, reciprocity is a very important concept in the establishment of
liaison offices, reciprocity being a foundation for diplomacy in many
ways.
Steve.
QUESTION: On North Korea, is there anything in the mix there about this
very fine candidate, as I understand it, for the NBA that exists in the
North but can't make it into the league?
MR. BURNS: That's an intriguing question. I believe that Mr. Katz's
newspaper had an article on the sports section of USA Today on a 7'8"
North Korean basketball player -
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: We have heard -
QUESTION: (inaudible) as far as eligibility for George Washington
University.
MR. BURNS: I had a different thought.
QUESTION: Yeah, I know, the Celtics.
MR. BURNS: The Boston Celtics are in the cellar, and they desperately
need a center to combat Akim Olajuwon and Gheoghe Muresan and he's 7'8.
He's taller than Gheoghe Muresan, so that was my thought, the Boston
Celtics, not GW.
We've heard indirectly that a North Korean basketball player has expressed
interest in playing professional basketball in the United States, and we're
not aware of any visa application; and, if an application were submitted,
we'd have to review it, as we normally do. But it's quite an intriguing
story, and I want to thank Mr. Katz's newspaper for bringing this to the
attention of Boston Celtics' fans everywhere. Thank you, Lee.
QUESTION: A follow-up -
MR. BURNS: They desperately need help.
QUESTION: They're a disgrace to the Celtics -
QUESTION: Nick, is there anything new on Primakov's visit?
QUESTION: Nick, can I (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: We'll go back to that, Steve.
QUESTION: Nick, the North Korean delegation is scheduled to leave today
for New York. How do you assess the whole event or series of events,
starting with last week's Four-Party Talks and Friday's bilateral talk on
the yesterday's meeting? A senior State Department official after Four-
Party Talks, he described it was a modest progress. So how do you -
MR. BURNS: A senior U.S. official?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I always agree with everything senior U.S. officials say -
QUESTION: It was after Four-Party Talks, so he had bilateral talk on
yesterday's meeting.
MR. BURNS: Is this a senior official in New York? Can you divulge your
sources?
QUESTION: Yes. It was - well - background briefing.
MR. BURNS: Right. I always agree with senior American officials,
speaking in New York, who characterize the process last week as modest
progress. It was a very good opportunity for us to put forward with the
Republic of Korea a proposal for the Four-Party conference. We believe we
made a good offer, and we hope that Mr. Kim Gye Gwan will return to
Pyongyang and will be able to convince his senior associates in the North
Korean Government that they ought to join China, South Korea and the
United States in Four-Party talks.
We're pleased with the modest progress that was made, and we've had some
good bilateral talks with the North Koreans - a good chance to review
things with the South Koreans as well as with the Japanese Government on
Saturday in New York. So I think we made some steps forward, but I don't
want to certainly exaggerate the success, because we won't know ultimately
until we hear back from the North Koreans exactly where we are on the Four-
Party Talks.
QUESTION: Well, you're probably just waiting for North's answers to Four-
Party Talks?
MR. BURNS: As we say, the ball's in their court. Right.
We're waiting back to hear from the North Koreans.
QUESTION: Nick, speaking of Boston, did you see the remark by the Senator
on the Intelligence Committee, saying that Tony Lake, as a Red Sox fan, may
be dangerously out of touch with reality?
MR. BURNS: I didn't see it. Where was that Senator from - New York?
(Laughter) Yankees fan, probably. It wasn't New York.
Let me just say two things. First of all, I have the highest personal
respect for Tony Lake. I worked for him for two years.
A lot of us here in the government are very strong supporters of him, and
we're wishing him the best of luck in these hearings.
Secondly, Tony Lake has the best baseball judgment of any senior American
official I've met. He sent me a Red Sox calendar which I have on my door.
I hope he and I will go up to Camden Yards to see the Red Sox thrash the
Orioles in mid-April. That's all I have to say on that.
I haven't talked about the Patriots or the Bruins yet, but we can do that.
There's probably a Patriots angle here.
Steve.
QUESTION: Do you have anything more on Primakov's visit about potential
for covering that - plans and so forth and so on?
MR. BURNS: Yes. We expect Foreign Minister Primakov to be in Washington
from the 15<SUP>th to the 17th.
He'll be visiting Secretary Albright on Saturday afternoon.
On a preliminary basis, I would imagine we'd probably do what we call a
camera spray on Saturday afternoon at the beginning of the meeting. I
don't want to promise much more than at this point because there's a
continuum of meetings. He'll spend several hours with Secretary Albright
on Saturday afternoon. He then will have some meetings over at the
Pentagon on Sunday afternoon.
He then will be going to the White House for meetings with President
Clinton, Secretary Albright, the Vice President, and others, on Monday.
Then I would expect that you'd probably get an On-the-Record briefing from
the Secretary and others on how the three days of conversations went,
leading up to Helsinki. That's a preliminary view of how we at the State
Department would see the press coverage. Not much promise for Saturday. I
don't believe I'll be giving any kind of substantive readout on Saturday
afternoon of how the discussions went, simply because it will be the first
of three days. We want to judge the visit based on what happens over three
days; the most important meeting of which, obviously, will be the
meeting with President Clinton on Monday morning.
But, Steve, it gives me an opportunity to say one thing very briefly, and
that is that this Helsinki meeting is an extraordinarily important
opportunity for the United States and Russia. President Clinton and
President Yeltsin have not had the opportunity to meet in nearly a year,
personally, although they've talked and written each other.
We are looking forward to the opportunity to re-engage with the Russian
Government on bilateral issues and specifically on the European Security
issues. This may be the most important American foreign policy priority of
the next six months - to proceed with NATO enlargement, to proceed with the
NATO-Russia discussions that have gone well recently under the stewardship
of Secretary General Solana; to make sure that the United States is
providing the right kind of economic assistance to the Russian Federation
- to Ukraine, to the Caucasus states, to the Central Asian states.
You know that the Secretary has unveiled a new initiative, a new partnership
initiative that would re-order American economic assistance towards
economic growth activities, towards trade and investment.
There's a very big agenda for Helsinki, and we are looking forward to this
as an opportunity to re-engage with the Russian leadership.
As I said yesterday, the initial decisions that President Yeltsin has made
just in the last two weeks are hopeful. He is sending an unmistakable
message that Russia remains committed to economic reform at home; to a good,
positive relationship with the United States and our NATO allies abroad.
He is retaining, in Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and First Deputy Prime
Minister Anatoly Chubias, two of the leading reformers in the Russian
Federation.
So we have a positive outlook towards the Helsinki meetings.
It's going to be a very, very important two days in Helsinki.
Then onto Copenhagen for important discussions with the Danish Government
and an important speech by the President there.
QUESTION: Have you seen Al Kamen's column this morning?
MR. BURNS: I always read Al Kamen. He didn't mention the State
Department this morning.
QUESTION: He talks about a folder circulating on Capitol Hill on the
Mexico certification question. There was one page which was labeled a "non-
paper." It starts off saying "The political culture of Mexico is immature;
any perceived slight by 'the giant of the north' could lead to an upsurge
in nationalism and limit the ability of Mexican authorities to cooperate
with the U.S."
MR. BURNS: Is this a wire report reading or some kind of newspaper
article?
QUESTION: This is Al Kamen.
MR. BURNS: Is he quoting a newspaper article?
QUESTION: No. He got ahold of a folder.
MR. BURNS: That's very interesting. I can't substantiate - Al is a good
friend, and he's an enterprising reporter and he's an entertaining
reporter. But I can't substantiate or confirm the contents of a folder
that talks about a "non-paper."
I've personally never seen a paper like that.
QUESTION: But you'd love to take the question, wouldn't you?
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to answer the - if there was a question asked, I'd
be glad to consider even answering the question.
QUESTION: Who authored this "non-paper?"
MR. BURNS: I have no idea. I can tell you this. The President and
Secretary Albright met with a group of members of Congress the other night.
They'll continue that today.
The Administration is making a concerted effort to convince the Congress
that we ought to stick with certification because that's in our best
national interests and it's the best way to work with Mexico. Mexico is
our partner. We've got to be taking positive actions towards Mexico to
encourage further progress on narcotics.
QUESTION: What would you like to see the Mexicans do to turn around the
stampede toward decertification on the Hill?
MR. BURNS: President Zedillo named a new drug czar just the other day
which is positive. If you look at the performance of the Mexican
Government in 1996, arrests are up. They've made a concerted effort to try
to interdict some of the trafficking lanes, and they've had a number of
problems as well. Mr. Gutierrez is the most dramatic example of that. So
the record was mixed but the effort, we think, from the President of Mexico
is a committed effort. It's undeniable that he has made this the largest
and most important issue that Mexico faces. But we're in it together.
While we're asking the Mexican Government to take greater measures to
interdict the supply lines from South America, we need to ask ourselves,
what can we do in our country to decrease demand? The President and Vice
President have launched a campaign to get American parents to talk to their
teenagers about drug use. So demand is a problem as well.
Yes, Betsy.
QUESTION: Albania. The people who are coming out, who are being ordered
out, they're coming out commercially?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Thank you for reminding me. We expect that all of our
people coming out, all of our employees and the private Americans, will
come out via commercial air routes - normally scheduled commercial airlines
- flights or by charter aircraft.
I believe that some of the American Government people will charter an
aircraft. So there will be no need for the American military to play any
role whatsoever in the evacuation of Americans from Albania.
By the way, we're not the only country asking our citizens to leave. A
number of European countries made that decision today.
QUESTION: Nick, can you give us a better evaluation of what your
assessment is of the level of violence in that country?
Are we concerned about fighting getting closer to Tirana, spreading
further in the north? How concerned are we?
MR. BURNS: Our concern is that the fighting hasn't stopped in the south.
And, really, the mob actions of storming arms depots and banks and other
public buildings has not stopped.
For the first time yesterday, it did spread to the north which is of very
great concern to the Albanian Government as well as to the rest of us. The
announcements, which were fairly dramatic of a cease-fire, a broad-based
government and of elections shortly, that announcement does not seem to
have affected the inclination of the insurgents to continue their actions
in the streets which is disappointing to us.
We call upon those who are in the streets to lay down their arms and to
understand the fact that the opposition is now part of the government.
That includes northerners as well as southerners, and that people ought to
act in the best interest of their country and stop the violence no matter
how great the frustration is over the pyramid schemes and the Ponzi schemes,
which are at the root of this problem.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) too little, too late by Berisha?
MR. BURNS: President Berisha was advised, I think, by all of us to take
these steps many weeks ago. He has taken these steps. Now, I think in
order to preserve stability and peace in Albania, it's incumbent upon
average citizens to consider what they have to do to contribute to the
peace.
QUESTION: The U.S. has participated in the OSCE group that went to
Albania last weekend. You are awaiting the results of their visit - the
report that will come. Is there anything else that this government is
trying to encourage? Any kind of action by other organizations or
countries to try and influence events in Albania to keep this from
spreading? Do you see any indication of spread into Kosovo?
MR. BURNS: We have put our faith in the OSCE, which has done a very good
job in asserting the will of the international community.
Secondly, we would like to commend the Italian Government for the efforts
of the Italian diplomats in Albania who have tried to convene political
opponents to talk to each other peacefully, and also the Greek Government
for the efforts that the Greek Government has made to resolve this
political crisis. I think both of them have taken a lead, which is welcome
- welcomed by the United States.
Sid.
QUESTION: Nick, the looting of small arms and so forth is one thing, but
the rebel opposition - whatever you call them - now appear to have seized
jet fighters, major heavy equipment.
Is that something NATO is concerned about? What is NATO prepared to do if
these planes leave Albanian air space? What about proliferation to
countries that you're not so confident in?
MR. BURNS: Thank you for making the distinction between the opposition
and the rebels, because there is a distinction.
The opposition are political party members who have joined the government,
by and large. The rebels are the people in the streets.
I don't believe that any of us are concerned at the present crisis at this
point is going to spill beyond the borders in a military dimension.
There's obviously the threat of a refugee flow, and the Greek Government is
very concerned about that as is the Italian Government and others. But I
don't believe at this point we think that the military action will have an
effect on NATO. I'm not aware that NATO has taken any special precautions
or should take any special precautions at this point.
Mr. Lambros. This ought to be the last question.
QUESTION: In the Pangalos-Albright meeting the other day, do you know if
the Imia issue was discussed, too, and to which effect?
MR. BURNS: Yes, that issue did come up - the Imia/Kardak issue did come
up. The United States - Secretary Albright reaffirmed the U.S. view that
Greece and Turkey ought to work out this problem to their mutual satisfaction
and that we are available, if both of them wish, to play a role in that, or
through some other consensual body like the International Court of
Justice.
QUESTION: Do you know if the two Ministers discussed, also, what would be
the role of the U.S. and the U.N. in case of conflict between Greece and
Turkey starting on Cyprus, all the way to the Aegean Sea?
MR. BURNS: No, they did not engage in worse-case planning.
There was a very positive, productive discussion of U.S.-Greek relations
and of Turkey's role in Europe. You saw Minister Pangalos make some very
statesmanlike comments on that issue.
I can tell you, they didn't engage in worse-case planning.
QUESTION: And the last one. Do you know if they discussed the issue of
the visit of the Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. Simitis, to the United
States?
MR. BURNS: That issue did not come up, but it has been discussed at
length by both governments, including by our Embassy in Athens.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:01 p.m.)
(###)
|
