U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #37, 97-03-13
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1253
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, March 13, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ALBANIA
1-10 Increase in Violence/Secretary's Discussions with Foreign Minister
Kinkel, with U.S. Ambassador Lino and with Rep. Engel/Evacuation
of American Civilians by Military Helicopter/Meeting of North
Atlantic Council re: Coordination of Evacuation of Foreign
Civilians/Refugees/U.S. Embassy Staff to Remain in Tirana
MIDDLE EAST
10 Secretary Albright's Statement on the Death of Israeli
Schoolchildren in Jordan
10-11 --Response by Governments of Jordan and Israel
12 Upcoming Visit to Washington DC by King Hussein
13,15 Gaza Conference/Amb. Abington to be Sole U.S. Representative
CANADA
16-18 Article by Former Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs on
Quebec Separatism
18-19 Detention of Saudi Citizen for Acts of Terrorism
ZAIRE
19-21 U.S. Efforts Toward Cease-fire and Support for Humanitarian Relief
Operations/Departure of USAID Disaster Assessment Response Team
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #37
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1997, 1:44 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department.
I want to give you a sense of what we think is happening in Albania, and
what we're doing to protect American citizens there and to bring them out
of Albania in a very dangerous situation.
First, I should tell you that Secretary Albright has spent hours on this
issue this morning. She has had three separate meetings with her advisers,
including one that just concluded about 45 minutes ago. She's also been on
the phone with our Ambassador in Albania, Marisa Lino. She congratulated
the Ambassador on the way that the Ambassador has comported herself over
the last couple of weeks and particularly the last couple of days,
which have been quite difficult for the American Embassy staff and
for Americans and other foreigners in Albania.
The Secretary also spoke with German Foreign Minister Kinkel about what the
European countries and the United States should do to try to protect our
own citizens in Albania, but also to try to exert some Western influence
for the good in Albania. And last she also talked this morning with
Congressman Eliot Engel, who was the American representative in Albania
last week with the OSCE mission.
Because the situation in Albania has taken such a dramatic turn for the
worse over the last 24 hours, because there's been a breakdown of public
order now in Tirana, the capital of Albania, in the northern part of the
country, and because we believe the situation will continue to deteriorate,
the United States has decided to bring out all of our citizens and non-
essential government employees by United States military aircraft. In fact,
we've already begun that operation.
I can tell you that just in the last hour, four Chinook-46 helicopters
landed in Tirana. These are helicopters based from our fleet in the Ionian
Sea. They landed in Tirana. They discharged some forward deployed
elements of a small group of forces that will assist in the United States
evacuation from Albania. They brought out on their return to their ships
50 American civilians. Among them were, I think, a majority of young
children - dependents of American employees there.
We're going to be continuing this operation over the course of the next
several hours and perhaps the next several days to evacuate militarily from
Albania all non-essential American Government personnel, their dependents,
and as many American civilians as we can take out.
I want to be clear, the United States is not evacuating its Embassy in
Tirana. Ambassador Marisa Lino will remain in Tirana with a core staff of
roughly 17 State Department officials, but all the rest of the Americans
there - this is a group of about 170 American Government employees and
their dependents - who were ordered out yesterday will be brought out by
the American military over the next day or so.
In addition to that, we believe there are roughly 2,000 American civilians -
private Americans - living in Albania, and we intend to bring out all those
who wish to be brought out during this operation. There may be some who
elect to stay. There are some dual passport holders who may believe that
they are better off staying in Albania. That will be their choice.
For the private American community in Albania, our suggestion is the
following. Keep your heads down. Don't leave your homes because of the
insurrection on the streets. The American Embassy has a warden network,
and I know the Embassy is trying to contact the private American community.
Wait for the Embassy to contact you, and keep listening to the Voice of
America, which will be a reliable source of information on this evacuation
as it proceeds.
In addition to that, I should tell you there's a North Atlantic Council
meeting underway in Brussels - a NAC meeting. Ambassador Bob Hunter is
representing the United States, and at that meeting we are discussing with
our NATO allies how we can coordinate this evacuation by military means
from Albania. I think you've already seen some reports from Rome that the
Italian Government has begun to bring out Italian citizens from Albania. I
know there's great interest on the part of the United Kingdom and Germany
in being part of this effort. So we'd like to make this a coordinated
evacuation of foreigners, civilians from Albania, over the course of the
next couple of hours.
Let me make a couple of general points, and then let me go to questions,
because I think the general points are important. We had hoped to bring out
our non-essential employees and their dependents and civilians by
commercial charter flights or by regularly scheduled commercial flights.
The airport in Tirana was shut down last night.
The situation in the country is sufficiently difficult and disorder is such
throughout the country that we felt it was not possible to bring American
citizens or employees out either via sea on the Adriatic or by land routes.
We felt that an evacuation by American military aircraft was the safest way
to bring American citizens out.
I can tell you that we now have reports of trouble in Tirana - gunfire in
Tirana itself. There's no question that there's been a further breakdown
in public order, and the United States believes it's very important that
the rebels - the people in the streets who have broken into armories, the
Albanians who have taken to the streets with guns - ought to lay down their
arms. They ought to put their faith in the broad-based coalition
government that has been put together by President Berisha, by the
opposition political parties, by the new Prime Minister, Prime Minister
Fino - put their faith in that government and work to try to resolve
the considerable problems of Albania through peaceful means.
The United States calls on all the major political parties, including all
of those who are in the streets with guns to exercise maximum restraint.
We hope that the general amnesty that has been issued will be observed. We
hope that the principles of non-violence can now take hold in the country,
and we believe that those who have taken up arms are only bringing further
trouble for themselves.
They ought to commit themselves to a democratic, political order, to non-
violence, and they ought to help create conditions where the international
community can help.
The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the OSCE are all willing
to help the Albanians try to sort out their political problems, but that
kind of international assistance cannot and will not be effective until
there is basic order restored in the streets of Albania itself. That is
our wish, our collective Western wish, I should say, for the people of
Albania.
I know that Chancellor Franz Vranitzky, the former Austrian Chancellor,
intends to travel to Albania as soon as that is possible - as soon as the
airport can be opened up - and he hopes to put together a political
dialogue between the government and the new government and some of those
who are in opposition on the streets. That's going to be a very tall order,
but that has to be the direction in which we all head as we try to help the
Albanian people in this very difficult situation.
QUESTION: Nick, an obvious and probably ridiculous question, Americans
are not, right, targeted particularly? It's the terrible situation.
There's no venom, is there, directed at Americans, civilian or official
Americans?
MR. BURNS: We don't believe any Americans have been injured in the
fighting over the last month. We don't believe that Americans have been
targeted by those who have taken to the streets in the southern part of
Albania and now in the north, but because of the disorder and really the
anarchy in the streets of Albanian towns these days, it's really prudent
for Americans, all other foreigners, Albanians to keep their heads down;
stay out of the streets, stay out of harm's way.
QUESTION: When you talk of trying to work up some allied operation, right
now the U.S. is in business in evacuating. Is there any inclination to
take other nationals along on this -
MR. BURNS: Our first priority is going to be to bring out American
citizens. That's our first responsibility. As we can and when space is
available on these military flights, we'll of course, try to help out
friendly governments and bring out some of their nationals. This will be
coordinated. I expect that other countries will be deploying assets to
help in this coordinated operation; and, as I said, the NATO Ambassadors
are meeting in Brussels to try to work out the best way to coordinate
this particular mission.
Yes, Dimitri.
QUESTION: There is some information that President Berisha and his family
left the country - left Albania - and also Fatos Nan of the Socialist
Leaders (inaudible). Do you have any information on that or a reaction?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that President Berish has left the country. In
fact, I think we've been in touch with him just in recent hours, so I
wouldn't give that rumor too much credence.
As for his family, I just can't say. We know there's been a general
amnesty, and that some of those who were in the opposition - who had been
imprisoned - have been released.
What has happened in Albania over the last month is the following.
There's been a broad-scale social revolution of frustration and anger and
outrage because of the pyramid schemes, and the fact that a great
percentage of the country lost their life savings in these pyramid scheme
disasters. What the President of Albania has done just in the last six
days is to form a rather broad-based coalition government of all the major
political parties. So the opposition is now inside the government. A
southerner is now the Prime Minister of Albania, and we think that is a
step in the right direction. We hope that those various political
parties can now work together to try to save this very dangerous and
critical situation where there's been a general breakdown of order
throughout Albania.
The other actor, of course, are the mobs - mobs of people, unorganized,
different militia, people who've broken into armories, people who've broken
into banks, people who are in the streets taking public order into their
own hands. We call upon those people to lay down their arms, to stop the
rebellion, and to work with this broad-based coalition for the sake of
Albania and for the sake of the citizens of Albania who don't deserve to be
subjected to this kind of domestic political violence.
Carol.
QUESTION: President Berisha has asked the Europeans to send in an
intervention force. I'm wondering if you have an opinion as to whether
such a force is needed.
MR. BURNS: We've seen press reports to that effect. I'm not aware that
there has been a formal call by President Berisha for any kind of an
intervention force. It's something that we just have not organized,
obviously. Our first priority as governments has to be to protect our own
civilians who are in harm's way, and that's why we have launched this
evacuation by military means of American citizens and other foreigners.
As we proceed, we're going to have to review all the options available to
us to see how the United States and our European allies, particularly Italy
and Greece and Germany and the United Kingdom - countries that have been
very active over the last week - how we can all act together to help the
Albanian Government bring stability to Albania. But no decisions have been
made about any kind of intervention force.
QUESTION: This would be one such option then.
MR. BURNS: There will be a variety of options available to us, but
several things will have to happen. You have to have a coherent position
of the Albanian Government, and there will have to be a coherent set of
discussions with Western Governments.
I don't believe that either condition is in place right now, so we're
going to have to take that question one day at a time.
I don't want to lead you in that direction right now, but I do want to say
that we are deploying American military forces right now in order to
protect American civilians, and I think that the American public will
understand why that's necessary.
Dimitri just had a follow-up, Jim, and then we'll go to you.
QUESTION: Did Secretary Albright have a discussion with the Greek Prime
Minister or Foreign Minister Pangalos about this situation?
MR. BURNS: Today, she's had discussions, as I said, with Foreign Minister
Kinkel and with our Ambassador, Marisa Lino, and with Congressman Engel.
She's met for hours this morning in various meetings with her advisers, and
she'll continue to do that.
QUESTION: Nick, one of the sources of concern was an outpouring of
refugees, particularly toward Greece. Has that begun to happen?
MR. BURNS: We have not seen evidence of a wide-scale refugee flow across
the Greek border or across the Adriatic into Italy - have not seen that -
but that's always a possibility in a situation like this. I know the Greek
and Italian Governments are particularly concerned by that, as they should
be.
QUESTION: Nick, I appreciate the situation is chaotic and it's very early
to look much down the road, but still the Administration is in the midst of
a very high profile sales job on NATO expansion, boosting NATO as the force
for stability and security in Europe, and how that's the way to go about
things instead of using - a good preference to other fora in Europe.
Is this a job for NATO? Is this something where the new NATO - the no
longer "us against you NATO" but the peacekeeping NATO - might be of some
benefit?
MR. BURNS: I think it's just too early to say, Barry, if you're talking
about a NATO military operation in Albania, which is, I gather, is the gist
of your question.
QUESTION: It's spilling over to Greece and -
MR. BURNS: We have to take first things first. The first obligation of
the United States Government is to protect American Government employees
and American civilians and to bring them out. Because we could not do that
by commercial means, we've chosen to put our military into Albania just on
a temporary basis to bring them out. That's going to happen.
The second order of business here is to continue to exert, I think, a
Western influence on Albania, a collective Western influence.
That's primarily at this point through the Organization of Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
There was a successful mission last Saturday, and I think there's going to
be another mission tomorrow and perhaps over the weekend where we try to
convince the Albanian political leadership that they've got to work
together now for stability in Albania. Whether or not NATO becomes
involved after that is just a question I cannot answer right now because we
have to see the direction in which this situation turns.
Now, let me just complete the answer by saying, at this point, as of today,
we see no indications that the conflict in Albania is going to spill over
into Macedonia or into other countries - Greece or Italy or other countries
that neighbor Albania. Should that happen, obviously, that would be a
great concern for the United States and all of our allies in Europe, but
it's not happening now.
What we've got to be concerned about is our own citizens and then try to
help the Albanians - give them the support - to make the right decisions to
restore stability to their own country, remembering it's really up to the
Albanian Government and the people in the streets to make the right
decisions for the sake of peace.
Jim and then Yasmine.
QUESTION: On another subject.
MR. BURNS: Yes, Yasmine.
QUESTION: You said there was contact with President Berisha this morning.
Did this take place between Washington and Tirana?
And, secondly, you said he didn't bring up the need for an international
force at this point. Is there anything else he's asking?
MR. BURNS: My answer to Dimitri's question was, we don't believe that
President Berisha has left Albania. Our Embassy has had contact with him
and his government very recently, and we think he's still in Tirana.
The second question is, it's just too early for us to say on that.
QUESTION: Nick, a somewhat philosophical question. The West was a little
slow to respond in Yugoslavia. Do you think the lessons of that is
encouraging a faster response in this instance?
MR. BURNS: We have to understand one thing. The people who are
responsible for the civil disorder and the violence and the tragedy in
Albania today are the Albanians - not the West, not the United States, not
Turkey, not Greece, not Italy. First things first.
Secondly, we're doing what we can. We've put enormous pressure on
President Berisha to form this broad-based coalition government to come out
of his political shell and to reach out to the opposition.
We are willing to help the Albanian people economically. The IMF and
World Bank are ready to go in as soon as they. So I think we're doing the
right things. But I wouldn't compare Albania in 1997 to Bosnia in 1991 or
1992. I think it's much too early to do that.
This is a different kind of conflict produced by very different forces.
The Balkan tragedy - the Yugoslav tragedy - was produced by the breakup of
a country and the fact that certain people wanted to hold onto the old
order. This situation has been produced by a profoundly important economic
collapse of the country and the distrust that that has engendered
throughout the population about the government in Tirana.
It's up now to that new coalition government to rebuild some trust in
itself among the Albanian population. So I think it's too easy and
simplistic to compare the two and too early to draw any of these comparisons.
QUESTION: Nick, at the beginning of this crisis, it was people in the
South reacting to the economic collapse of these pyramid schemes. There
was also the political element to it - bad elections in May, and there was
that dissatisfaction as well.
Now, however, there seems to be an element of simply lawlessness that has
taken over the situation. Do you think that there is some sort of divide
to be made here between what is legitimate opposition and what is simply
people looting and taking guns and rampaging?
MR. BURNS: It's an exceedingly complex landscape. You have, on the one
hand, a profoundly important collapse of the country which has been caused
by the pyramid schemes. You have a North-South rivalry; you have ethnic
politics; you have ideological differences among political parties; you
have political in-fighting; and you have mob violence, which is the hardest
thing to explain and to control and to bring under control.
So you put all this together and you have a tinderbox, you have a
deteriorating situation. It's of great concern to everyone, but most
especially, of course, to the Albanian people themselves.
So that is how we look at it. That's a broad, analytical basis for
looking at it.
We will do our best - all of us working together in Europe and North
America - to try to exert some influence that might be helpful, but
understanding that the real decisions have to be made by the people in the
streets - the leaders of the people in the streets with guns - and by the
people in the coalition in Tirana.
QUESTION: Can you give us anymore details on the military force that went
in on the helicopters? You mentioned some forward-deployed personnel, but
do you have anymore details on that?
MR. BURNS: As in all operations - you might remember back to Somalia when
we brought the people out of Somalia - not the permanent military mission -
and Liberia in 1996. When our military goes in to extract American
civilians from a dangerous situation, they always send in a forward command
element which is what happened in this case.
When that command element was sent it, we did not anticipate, in sending it
in, that that command element would take civilians out. That command
element was to put into place the structure of the operation to do that in
the day or so ahead. But it was the Ambassador's decision, with the local
American military commanders, to put primarily kids - American kids - on
the helicopter flights -- these were four Chinook helicopters -- and to get
them out.
That made sense because there was some time to do that today before
darkness fell. We're very pleased that the Ambassador the local military
commander made that decision. Now they will put into place an operation
that will develop over the next couple of hours and perhaps day or two to
bring out the rest of the American community.
QUESTION: But are they strictly logistical communications types? Are
they soldiers for guarding the gates?
MR. BURNS: I'm going to have to refer you to Mike Doubleday who is at the
Pentagon about the specifics of what he wants to say about that. I want to
defer to the Pentagon. But, obviously, we've got a military operation
underway. That military operation will be defended and protected as long
as it is carried out. You would expect that to happen.
QUESTION: Where are the people being taken?
MR. BURNS: They're being taken back to our naval vessels.
I think the vessels are heading north. They're currently in the Ionian
Sea, but I understand they'll shortly be in what we know as the Adriatic
Sea. These helicopters are flying the American civilians back to these
ships. Obviously, there'll be arrangements made to bring them probably to
Italy for flights out to the United States.
Again, I want to be very clear about what's happening. We are not closing
down the American Embassy in Tirana. We're going to maintain a presence
there, quite sizable, of our Ambassador and a 17-member, at this point,
State Department staff. But we are bringing out the roughly 170 people who
we deem to be non-essential for the present operation of the Embassy and
their dependents, and we'll bring out as many American civilians as we can;
and on a space-available basis working with our NATO allies, we'll
bring out as many foreign civilians that we can as well.
Sid.
QUESTION: Nick, I'd just like to clarify the thought of that military
intervention there. Since you're not ruling it out, would it be fair to
say there is planning going on here and in Brussels just in case? Can you
sort of say -
MR. BURNS: I don't believe any formal planning is underway for that. I'm
certainly not ruling it in at this point. I'm not leading you in the
direction that we are contemplating the introduction of a military force
today or tomorrow.
I am unwilling, because I always want to be candid and credible with you,
to say "that will never happen. I will completely exclude that." I can't
do that because no one knows in which direction the situation is going to
turn. It's a very dynamic, very fluid situation.
But I can say the reason our military has gone into Albania today is to
take out American citizens. They have no other military mission. When
they complete that, I believe most of those people will leave and then
we'll have to consider what our other options are. I don't want to get
ahead of ourselves. I can't, because these decisions haven't been made by
the President and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.
QUESTION: You're saying most of these forward-deployed troops will come
out but all of them?
MR. BURNS: Again, I can't predict all the decisions that will have to be
made. Let's remember back to what happened in Liberia. In Liberia, when
we took out the 3,000 or 4,000 civilians, took out most of the American
Embassy staff, we did retain a very small number of military people on the
ground, essentially to protect the Embassy. I don't know if that will be
necessary in this case; but if it is, I want to at least leave that
option open to us publicly.
QUESTION: But the Marine Guards are there as well?
MR. BURNS: We have a Marine Guard contingent in Tirana.
Whether it's necessary to reinforce that, because of the rapidly
deteriorating political situation and the violence in the streets of Tirana
today, that will be a decision that the Ambassador will have to make with
the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.
QUESTION: Nick, can we switch to the Middle East?
MR. BURNS: Any more on Albania? Tom has got another one on Albania.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. Government still believe that President Berisha
is the best chance, the best person to keep the country united since what
the people who are against him are asking is for him to go and then maybe
they might lay down their weapons?
MR. BURNS: That is a decision that the Albanian people are going to have
to make. We are working with President Berisha.
There is a coalition government in place. We're working with Prime
Minister Fino who is from a different political party and a different part
of the country.
We don't make decisions about who comes and who goes in Albanian politics.
Albanians produce those decisions. We are going to work with this present
government hoping that it has the capacity to try to reach out to the
people who are in the streets and try to convince them to lay down their
arms and the rebellion in the streets and restore order to Albania. I
think that's a very clearly defined Western objective to which the United
States subscribes wholeheartedly.
QUESTION: Nick, has the U.S. asked Jordan to give its version of what
happened? And if it has, can you tell us what the U.S. understands the
facts of the shooting to be?
MR. BURNS: First, Barry, I know you've seen President Clinton's
statement. Secretary Albright has also issued a statement.
I would like to read that because we want to give this wide amplification.
Secretary Albright said today, and I'm quoting:
"I would like to add to President Clinton's statement today my own feelings
of shock and horror at the attack on Israeli school children. Any violent
act of this magnitude inspires outrage and sorrow, but the death of
innocent school children is especially heartrending. The loss of children
is particularly tragic because it is through the peace process that we are
trying to create for them a better future. I want to offer our condolences
to the people of Israel and to the families of the victims. We share
their grief. We condemn this cowardly act in the strongest possible terms.
Violence can never be an answer. It can only produce more victims. We
call upon all leaders in the region to calm the situation, to do their
utmost to prevent future violence in any form and to redouble their efforts
to forge a just and lasting peace."
Barry, we have heard, I think, an Israeli Government spokesman say that the
Israeli Government believes, on a preliminary basis, that this was the act
of one individual; that it was not an act of the Jordanian Government; that
it is obviously a great tragedy; but that the Israeli Government intends to
continue its good relationship with the Jordanian Government.
Obviously, we hope there will be an investigation by the Jordanian
authorities, and we hope that the person who has killed seven young girls -
seventh and eighth graders - and wounded at least six others, we hope that
this person is brought to justice and punished for what he has done.
But it does not appear, as President Clinton said today and as the Israeli
Government has said, to be any kind of organized effort.
In fact, I think you've seen from the Jordanian authorities great sorrow,
a great sense of apology that this act was committed by a Jordanian.
King Hussein was out of the country, but Crown Prince Hassan, I understand,
rushed to the hospital in Jordan where some of the young Israeli girls were
taken - evacuated. I think we've seen that the Jordanian Government is
disassociating itself in every possible way from this madman who opened
fire on these Israeli kids.
QUESTION: You said "this madman."
MR. BURNS: Madman.
QUESTION: The U.S. has concluded he was a "madman?"
MR. BURNS: I don't know if he is certifiably - let's be clear about this.
We don't know if this Jordanian soldier is certifiably crazy. But any
soldier who opens fire on a group of school girls is a mad person;
absolutely.
I would just like to draw your attention to the end of the Secretary's
statement, because she feels personally very strongly about this.
There's no place for violence in the modern Middle East. That is a
language of the past. That's the recipe that produced 49 years of warfare
and bloodshed, from 1948 to 1997.
I just call your attention to the latter part of what she said and what
President Clinton said today: the United States believes that all
politicians and all political leaders in the Middle East have a responsibility
to renounce violence and to encourage their own people to be peaceful in
the way they go about adjudicating their differences.
We hope very much that the Israeli and Palestinian - Israeli Government and
Palestinian authorities can find a way to sit down together and to restore
the momentum in the peace negotiations that's clearly been lost.
QUESTION: Nick, let me go back to my (Inaudible) question because
I don't think it's been answered. There are at least, unfortunately, two
conflicting versions: Where was the soldier?
Was he on a tower, or was he in a jeep? Basically, I was asking you if
the U.S. has obtained or even tried to obtain from the Jordanian Government
an account of what literally happened, and evidently not because you
haven't said yes?
MR. BURNS: Barry, in situations like this, it's always best not to try to
say what you felt happened when you weren't there. So we are relying upon
the Jordanian authorities and the Israeli Government, who will clearly have
a direct interest in this, to look into this and to try to provide a
rational accounting of the event as it took place.
But I think what we've seen from both Israel and Jordan is an appeal for
calm and an appeal for a return to normalcy in the Israeli-Jordanian
relationship. But it's a great tragedy, and all of us feel that.
QUESTION: There's one more thing coming, at least, out of Israel, and
that is the Foreign Minister of Israel is saying - and you remember King
Hussein's scathing letter just the other day to the Prime Minister of
Israel questioning his commitment to peace, etc. - that this has created a
psychological atmosphere that makes such actions -
MR. BURNS: What did?
QUESTION: The vitriolic attack by Jordan on Israel's recent behavior -
motives, commitments -- at least that's what the report is; I haven't seen
the Foreign Minister, of course. The report is that he saying (inaudible)
has created an unfortunate psychological atmosphere that makes such acts
more likely. Do you feel there's any validity to that remark?
MR. BURNS: I feel it's very important at a time like this when seven kids
have died, it's a great tragedy when the peace process has had its many,
many problems over the last few weeks not to point fingers. That's not the
role of the United States.
King Hussein is a man of peace. He has demonstrated throughout his life,
since he took the throne in 1951, that he is a man of peace. He is
arguably the Arab leader who has taken the most courageous steps towards
Israel. His government has acted in such a way - and his brother, the
Crown Prince has acted in such a way while the King is out of the country -
to make that very clear this morning, that Jordan regrets very much what
happened.
This is a tragedy, and the Jordanian Government will obviously take steps
to discipline and punish the individual responsible.
I don't think it's appropriate for the United States to point fingers.
What we ought to do today, as the intermediary in the Middle East peace
negotiations, is encourage all the political leaders to put aside the
rhetorical warfare and to return to negotiations, and to return to the kind
of concrete progress that's going to provide the people - the Arabs and
Israelis, the people of the region - some hope for the future. We're going
to keep our remarks positive today, not negative.
QUESTION: Nick, there's some confusion about whether King Hussein is
postponing his visit to Washington in light of this?
MR. BURNS: We have not been informed that the King is going to postpone
his visit to Washington. He is expected here early next week. We've just
not been informed of that. We're expecting him to come to Washington.
We're expecting him to come.
QUESTION: I thought he said in Spain that he's going home?
MR. BURNS: But it's Thursday. He's not expected here until Monday.
QUESTION: He can make a U-turn.
MR. BURNS: I'm not under any impression that the King is canceling his
trip to the United States. Should he decide to do so because of what has
happened today, we would obviously understand that. But he is welcome here
in the United States.
This decision is clearly up to the King, but he's most welcome, obviously,
in Washington.
QUESTION: Speaking of the peace process, Ambassador Indyk is quoted in
some stories as saying to the Israeli Council on Foreign Relations that as
a result of the tortuous Hebron negotiations in which both sides seem to
rely excessively on U.S. mediation that the United States has decided to
pull back in its role as mediator and not to be so activist. Has that
decision been made?
MR. BURNS: I remember Dennis Ross, when he returned from the Hebron talks,
told all of you in this room that he felt the degree of mediation that he
exerted in those talks was unprecedented in his own involvement over a
decade or more in the Middle East peace negotiations and that we hoped very
much that in the future the Palestinians and Israelis might be able to work
together in such a way they wouldn't need the United States to be a
mediator, understanding that we see a great distinction in a mediation
versus an inter-mediation.
Generally, throughout the past three decades we've been an intermediary,
which is very different. An "intermediary" is someone who is in the room
most of the time, but perhaps not all the time, who makes suggestions, who
helps facilitate. A "mediator" is someone who sits between two parties and
develops suggestions and language and ideas that actually bridge gaps.
It's a very different role. That's our hope.
We will play, however, any role that we have to play to restore momentum to
the peace negotiations. I know Secretary Albright believes that, and
Dennis Ross does as well. We'll just have to define our own tactical role
in the upcoming talks based on what the Israelis and Palestinians want us
to do and based on our own appreciation of the situation.
I do need to correct a fact today. The Washington Times reported that the
United States is going to be sending two envoys to this conference in Gaza -
Ed Abington and Aaron Miller. Wrong. Ed Abington will be the sole
American representative at the Gaza conference on Saturday. I don't know
where the Washington Times got this report. It was in bold headlines. So
much so, and I've received a lot of calls this morning that I felt I had to
correct the record.
QUESTION: Could I go back to my question which you perhaps deliberately
avoided answering. Has there been a U.S. policy decision to be less
activist in the Middle East negotiation process?
MR. BURNS: No. I believe that Ambassador Indyk must have been misunderstood.
The President and Secretary of State will be as active as they have to be
and as they are asked to be. I think we explained that the Hebron
negotiations, we felt, were unique. If we find ourselves in a unique
position in the future, we will be in there using our influence to try to
help the Arabs and the Israelis.
QUESTION: There's a construction problem here. You're not right now
working Jerusalem and withdrawal?
MR. BURNS: No. The final status talks have not been -
QUESTION: You're working the perimeters now --
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: -- because the other things are too hot.
MR. BURNS: The final status talks have not begun. What we're trying to
do now, through the President and the Secretary of State and Dennis Ross,
is convince the Israelis and Palestinians to get back to the table, to move
forward on the Gaza airport, the issue of ID's in Jerusalem, the Palestinian
port, the security issues that the Israeli Government is fundamentally
concerned with. That's the agenda that Barry has so helpfully indicated
is our agenda.
QUESTION: Into this equation, too, would be how much telephone time for
the Secretary and Dennis Ross? Could you tell us, in addition to this
tragic shooting, in the last couple of days that the process has been
disintegrating, has the Secretary or Dennis Ross, or anybody, been burning
up the telephone wires?
MR. BURNS: The Secretary was in touch with the Prime Minister of Israel
and the Foreign Minister last week; many, many times this week. Dennis
Ross has been on the phone every day, and I'm sure he and the Secretary
will be very active on the telephone in the run-up to King Hussein's visit
early next week.
QUESTION: Ross with Israel, Palestinians, Jordan?
MR. BURNS: Both sides; both sides.
QUESTION: Those two, at least?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Sid.
QUESTION: Just to go back to your statement about "rhetorical warfare."
You urge all the leaders to put it aside, sort of in response to -
MR. BURNS: I wasn't being specific about any particular leaders; just
general. I was generalizing.
QUESTION: It's pretty obvious what rhetorical warfare has been going on
this week. Why do you choose to say that after this shooting? If you
recall, there was some fairly pointed, although oblique criticism, of Prime
Minister Netanyahu when he was a candidate by the President of the United
States about whipping up rhetorical feelings.
MR. BURNS: Goodness, Sid! We're talking about ancient history here.
That was 1996. I'll be glad to talk about the last week, but I don't want
to talk about things that happened a year ago.
QUESTION: My point being, there had been fingers pointed in the past by
this government during tragedies like this. Why do you choose to call on
the leaders to put aside rhetorical warfare after this tragedy today?
MR. BURNS: We actually made that suggestion yesterday at this podium. I
made the suggestion, at the suggestion of Secretary Albright and Dennis
Ross, that we call for an end to the violence, an end to the language that
was present on both sides. We're just reaffirming that call today, because
the climate is quite bad. You've seen charges brought by one country
against another country, and it's happening on both sides. It's not just
the Arabs, and it's just not the Israelis.
It gets back to this central point, which I suppose all of you find
probably not newsworthy, and I'm not trying to be pejorative when I say
that. It's just that the central point here is that they're negotiating
partners. They need to take into consideration the other person's position,
both of them. They need to be sensitive to the political realities the
other faces, and, if they can get back to that state, we think that
positive things can happen.
But they've clearly lost that focus over the last couple of weeks, and
they need to return to it.
QUESTION: On that point and on the point of rhetorical warfare, what - do
the events of this morning cast any different shadow on the meeting
tomorrow in Gaza?
MR. BURNS: I don't think so. We still think it's appropriate for the
meeting to be held and for the United States to be there -- it's on
Saturday actually - and we will be there, but I want to stress again the
meeting on Saturday will not be a negotiation and cannot be a substitute
for the negotiations that must take place where Israel must be at the
table.
QUESTION: I was thinking about the rhetoric that might issue forth from
the meeting or at the meeting in Gaza.
MR. BURNS: We think it's very important for politicians to be responsible
about what they say, and to take into consideration the needs of the other
side with which they are trying to compromise for peace.
QUESTION: Did Yasser Arafat condemn the attack, as far as you know?
MR. BURNS: I don't know. You'll have to ask the Palestinian Authority.
I assume that he did.
QUESTION: Because two Palestinian leaders, Faisal Husseini and Hanan
Ashrawi, both said that Israel had to blame just itself for the attack.
The incident, they said, is the result of the volatile situation.
MR. BURNS: I have not seen the statements by Mrs. Ashrawi and Faisal
Husseini, so I don't want to comment on it specifically.
It wouldn't be fair for me to do so. But let me just say in general, no
one should blame Israel. No one can possibly blame Israel. It is
outrageous to blame Israel for the fact that seven 13-year-old girls were
gunned down when they were visiting an Island of Peace, which is what that
island is called. That is an outrageous claim, and it's that type of
political rhetoric, which is overblown and unwarranted and will not build
the road to peace that the Israelis and Palestinians have to build
together.
These kids were victims of an environment that for 49 years, 50 years, more
than that, has been taking the lives of young people, Israelis and Arabs,
and its' time for that to stop. That's what Secretary Albright wanted to
say in this statement that she made today, and I would encourage you all to
read it. I'd encourage the Israelis and Palestinians to read it. But we
have deep, deep sympathy for the families of the Israeli girls, and I think
they'd be deeply offended if they heard comments like that.
QUESTION: On a different subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I believe Henry has had his hand up for a long time.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. David T. Jones, a senior Foreign Service
Officer -- and I'm reading here, served as Minister Counselor for Political
Affairs at the U.S. Embassy between 1992 and 1996, and because of
Ambassador Blanchard's resignation last year actually was deemed to be the
leading officer at the Canadian Embassy in Ottawa - has written an article
for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He makes the
following points, that Quebec would be a political and economic success and
goes further to say Quebec would continue in all existing free trade links
with the United States. That language is far beyond what we've ever
heard from the United States before, and given on the trade issue that
Canada is a partner with the United States, it would be unthinkable in
Canada that an American could make that statement just on the basis of
their being partners to any agreement.
Are you able to tell us how the State Department feels about Mr. Jones'
article?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you how I feel about Mr. Jones' article, and I
represent the State Department. I'm speaking on behalf of the Department
here. Mr. Jones in publishing this article does not speak for the
Secretary of State or for the rest of us in the State Department. These
are his personal views. These are not the views of the United States
Government.
Our views are the following - formal views of this Administration.
We believe in a strong and united Canada. President Clinton and Secretary
Albright have been very clear about that over the past couple of months.
Let me make a process point. No diplomat serving in the United States
Government has the right to in effect stand up in a theater and yell
"Fire!", and this is the diplomatic equivalent of it. When you work for
the U.S. Government, you have your private views, but those private views
are kept private. If you have a political argument with your superiors,
you keep it private.
You do not stand up on a soap box on C Street or on D Street or any place
else and assert your own private views. That is not done.
There's a process here. If someone wants to publish an article, my Bureau
is responsible for overseeing it. You give us that article, and you clear
it with us. I can tell you this: If Jones' article had been on my desk -
if he'd had the decency to give that article to me and my Bureau to clear
it, I would not have cleared it, because it does not represent the views of
our government.
He does not have a right to publish his private views and not check with
us first, because the last time I checked, we're paying him. He's still on
the rolls of the U.S. Government, even though he's left Embassy Ottawa.
I think this is - I can say this as a Foreign Service Officer - an
outrageous act and an undisciplined act. I can tell you - and we can
certainly assure the Canadian Government and the Canadian people - that
this is not the policy of the United States Government. We are Canada's
best friend, and we believe in a strong and united Canada.
QUESTION: A follow-up, Mr. Burns, if I might. He goes on in the article -
he is described, by the way, as an adviser on Canadian policy to the
President of the United States.
MR. BURNS: I don't believe he's an adviser on Canadian policy to the
President of the United States. He currently is working in the Freedom of
Information Office. He is not advising the President and the Secretary of
State on Canadian policy. He may once have done that as an Embassy official,
but he's no longer serving in that capacity. These views are his
alone.
Let me say something else. He made a point about NAFTA there.
There is nothing automatic about NAFTA. There's nothing that says that if
one province secedes, NAFTA applies. Nothing automatic.
It's a very complex issue.
QUESTION: The point I wanted to raise on this question of advice to the
President, where he at least one point was in that chain of information -
the article says, "Canada is virtually irrelevant to the average citizen of
Quebec." Given historically that there have been a number of elections,
a number of referenda on those issues and always in the majority Quebec has
voted for Canada, does this call for an apology by the State Department to
the Canadian Government, or does it call for disciplinary action against
Mr. Jones?
MR. BURNS: Since Mr. Jones does not speak for the United States
Government on this issue, and since I do, and Tom Weston, our Charge d'
Affaires in Canada does, and Tom Weston and I are completely agreed upon
this, we obviously want the Canadian Government and Canadian people to know
this is not our policy. We believe in a strong and united Canada, and I'm
glad to say that and make that reassurance to the Canadian people.
I would simply issue a formal apology if I felt that this was a person in
the chain of command in our Canadian policy, and that some mistake had been
made. The mistake is his. Let's just be very clear about it. He didn't
clear this, and he should have cleared it, and that's a violation of our
regulations.
QUESTION: Does the Spokesman understand the Canadian concern that's being
expressed in Ottawa that this kind of advice to the President falls well
below what they assumed was knowledge of the American State Department in
Canadian Affairs?
MR. BURNS: I've worked at the White House, and I've worked in the State
Department during the last four years. I have not met a senior American
official from the President on down who believes what has been written in
this article. I know that the President and the Secretary of State and
Secretary Christopher before her, believe in a strong and united Canada.
These are the views of the United States Government, and we obviously
want to reassure the Canadian Government and the Canadian people that
this kind of exercise - there's been a great mistake, and that certainly we
want to reaffirm our support for Canada and the united Canada that clearly
does exist.
Maybe he slept through the last election. Maybe Mr. Jones was out of the
country or slept through the last election. I remember the last election,
and I remember the vote in Quebec. The people of Quebec and the people of
Canada voted for a united Canada, and that's a fundamentally important
point to make.
QUESTION: With the indulgence of my colleagues, could I turn to another
quick question on Canada?
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
QUESTION: Sorry.
QUESTION: Has he been hauled to the woodshed? Is there any disciplinary
action?
MR. BURNS: Oh, believe me, we've just tried to find out where he works
first, and we found him in the Freedom of Information Office. He's not
working in the Office of Canadian Affairs. He's not the ranking American
official in Canada as some people have described him. The ranking American
official in Canada is Tom Weston, who carries out the President and
Secretary of State's policy, which was not described in this article. This
gentleman is no longer working on Canadian Affairs, and obviously, if
I have anything to do about it, given by own responsibility for
clearing articles like this, there should be some kind of disciplinary
action taken - absolutely.
QUESTION: May I follow up on that other Canadian question very briefly,
sir. The Canadian authorities are holding a Saudi citizen. I'm not sure
whether you have the detail on this. His name if Fahad al-Shaehri. The
Canadian authorities say there are reasonable grounds to believe he belongs
to a terrorist organization and reasonable grounds to believe that he's
been involved in acts of terrorism.
Reports from the Middle East suggest that the Canadian authorities are
holding him in connection with the bombing of the American barracks in the
Mideast. Do you have any interest in this man, and are those reports
coming out of the Middle East accurate, that indeed he may have been
involved?
MR. BURNS: Henry, I just don't have anything for you on this. That's the
first I have heard about this individual, and obviously we do want to work
with all governments to catch the people who bombed the al-Khobar barracks
in Dhahran. I don't know if this individual is connected or not. I don't
know anything about him, so I can't say anything about it.
QUESTION: Take the question?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to take the question. I can't promise a very
satisfactory response, given the sensitivity of this general issue.
Sid.
QUESTION: On Zaire - and if you covered it while I was out of the room,
I'll just get it from the transcript - is the Secretary dissatisfied with
the options that have been presented her as far as dealing with the
conflict in Zaire? Has she asked for some new options, possibly military
options?
MR. BURNS: The Secretary, as I told you - as I've told you over the
course of the week - has paid a great deal of attention to Zaire, because
that is a very troubling situation. As you know, we're also drawing down
some of our staff there because of the dangerous situation in Zaire.
She, of course, as in every situation like this, wants to get the best
possible advice, and she wants us to be rigorous in the way that we analyze
the situation and creative in the way that we develop policy options. So
she has asked for that in this situation, as in the Albania situation, as
in all others. She is not a reactive person. She is a proactive person.
She's engaged in these issues intellectually as well as operationally.
She makes her own suggestions, and she's the boss, and so we follow those
suggestions. She has asked our Africa experts to be very thorough in
examining all possible options whereby the United States might be helpful.
The situation today has not improved much in Zaire. The UNHCR has been
able to deliver some relief supplies to the Tingi Tingi refugee camp and to
other refugee encampments in Eastern Zaire. But we still don't have a
cease-fire and still don't have an adequate relief operation underway,
and we are working to support the United Nations and the other countries
in the region on both of those fronts.
QUESTION: Does what you just said change what you said yesterday about
military intervention?
MR. BURNS: No, it doesn't at all, because the United States at this point
does not favor a military intervention force in Zaire, because frankly we
feel that the current efforts underway stand the best chance of success.
QUESTION: But has - I'm sorry to beat this horse - but has the Secretary
asked for an examination of a military option - a military intervention in
Zaire, to bring it down to the finest -
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that it's been that direct, Sid.
As you know, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations and
some European countries have called for strong consideration of a
multinational force. So it's not as if the Secretary had to create that
option. That option is out there. We've had talks in the United Nations
this week, on Monday, about that option.
We just have not lent it our active support at this stage, because we
don't believe it is the best way to proceed.
QUESTION: Still.
MR. BURNS: That's our view.
QUESTION: And that includes U.S. airlifts as well?
MR. BURNS: At this point we believe that it's best to continue with the
UNHCR - the United Nations High Commission on Refugees Relief Operation.
QUESTION: But those positions are being re-examined.
MR. BURNS: Sid, we always have under constant review our position in a
crisis like this, whether it's Albania or Zaire.
Obviously, you can't just stand pat when events are changing the situation
fundamentally on the ground. But we've not decided to contribute to a
multinational force in Zaire, and I don't believe we have a tremendous
amount of planning underway in our government to do that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: I think you could probably find contingency plans for any
country in the world, for the deployment of military force, but it doesn't
mean you're on the verge of doing it. I want to be very clear about that.
I want to lead you away from the thought that we are on the verge of
agreeing to a multinational force. I don't believe that's the case,
although, of course, all options remain open. I'm not closing the door,
but I'm certainly not opening the door by any stretch of the imagination.
Carol.
QUESTION: And did anything concrete come out of the meetings this morning
with the UNHCR?
MR. BURNS: Yes. The Deputy High Commissioner, Sergio Vieira de Mello,
was in the State Department this morning meeting with Charlie Sykes, our
Deputy Assistant Secretary, and Dick Bogosian, our Special Negotiator.
There was a very fine review of the situation, and I can tell you the
United States stands prepared to expand our humanitarian assistance, if
that is required. In fact, we are sending a USAID disaster assessment
response team to the Great Lakes Region. That team is going to leave in
the next couple of days. It will be focused on Eastern Zaire, and we do
stand ready to expand on the assistance that we give to the United
Nations to alleviate the humanitarian problems there.
QUESTION: How many people (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: I'll have to get back to you. Those are relatively small
teams, but we can get that. We can post that answer for you.
QUESTION: Is it an interagency team?
MR. BURNS: That is an AID team but comprised of people from various
agencies of the government, yes.
QUESTION: Including the Pentagon?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if the Pentagon is part of that.
I don't think so, but I'll check, Sid.
QUESTION: Because last time, a couple months ago when the President said
he was prepared to consider sending troops there, this was the team that
went in first in preparation for that. So it raises the question, you know,
whether you're a little further along in that planning you say is not
really going on than you're indicating to us.
MR. BURNS: This is a very different kind of team. This is a humanitarian
team; not a military team. If we were on the verge of sending the United
States military into Zaire, we'd have military people in there, not AID.
So I really do want to lead you away from this impression that somehow
we're not telling you that we're right on the verge of a military force. I
don't think we are.
But we haven't closed the door. We've agreed to continue to discuss it in
the United Nations, but we believe that the current operation cease-fire,
plus the U.N. lead on humanitarian supply is the best way to proceed.
Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 2:40 p.m )
(###)
|
