U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #39, 97-03-17
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
449
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, March 17, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to Interns from the Foreign Service Institute
1 Secretary General Annan's Announcement of UN Reform
2 El Salvadoran National, Mayoral and Municipal Elections
2-3 Detention and Expulsion of American Citizen in Belarus
3 St. Patrick's Day
ZAIRE
3-6 Fighting Update/Rebel Capture of Kinsangani
5 Update on Situation of Refugees
ALBANIA
6 U.S.-Albanian Diplomatic Dialogue
6-7 Update on Fighting and U.S. Evacuation
7-8 OSCE Assessment Mission to Tirana
8-10 IMF Loans, Pyramid Schemes and Economic Reform
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
10-13 Prospects of Success for the Peace Process
11 Visit of King Hussein to Families of Shooting Victims in Israel
11-13 Tomorrow's Scheduled Groundbreaking of Israeli Settlements in Har Homa
18-19 Status of Israeli Troop Withdrawals and a Palestinian Port and Airport
RUSSIA/NATO
13-14, 16 Foreign Minister Primakov's Meetings in Washington, D.C.
14 Proposed Russia-NATO Charter
14-15 Russian Concerns over NATO Enlargement
NORTH KOREA
16 Update on North Korean Defector Hwang
COLOMBIA
17 Resignation of Defense Minister Gonzalez
17 President Samper's Remarks on the Possibility of an Extradition Treaty
TURKEY
17-18 National Politics and Membership in the EU
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
18 Premature Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between Belgrade and Pale
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #39
MONDAY, MARCH 17, 1997, 1:39 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome to the State
Department briefing. I want to welcome interns from the Foreign Service
Institute who are here with us today at the briefing. I have a couple of
statements to read before we go to questions.
First of all, I think a lot of you saw the announcement this morning from
New York by the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, about his reform plans.
He announced a reform program that would essentially cut roughly 1,000
people from the U.N. payroll and save quite a bit of money on an annual
basis, well over $100 million.
The United States welcomes very much the reform plans announced by the
Secretary General this morning. We're pleased that he's been true to this
word. He's kept his promise to present a plan in a timely manner, and
we're very eager to study the details of this plan.
Secretary General Annan during his first few months in office has put
considerable energy into the efforts to insure greater efficiency and
effectiveness within the U.N. system. Along with pushing forward rapidly
with reforms that he can authorize, he is also serving as a catalyst for
broader reforms throughout the United Nations system.
These latter reforms require the approval of U.N. member states. We're
very pleased he's playing this role. We look forward to working with him
and other U.N. officials and other member states to see that the United
Nations system is prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
In a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, as you know, the Clinton
Administration has entered into a dialogue with the United States Congress
to reach prompt agreement on how best to promote the shared goal of a
reformed and reinvigorated U.N. system that costs less and in which the
United States continues to take the lead.
To be able to continue U.S. leadership as further reforms are made within
the U.N. system, the United States needs to honor our debts to the United
Nations and its affiliated organizations. Secretary General Annan called
Secretary Albright yesterday afternoon to alert her to the fact that this
plan was ready, that he'd be announcing it, and she was very, very pleased.
She had a good conversation with him, and she looks forward to working with
him on this issue.
Our Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, issued a statement
this morning, also congratulating Secretary General Annan.
My second statement concerns the elections yesterday in El Salvador. The
United States congratulates the government and people of El Salvador for
the free and peaceful conduct of elections held yesterday March 16th.
These were elections for 84 national legislative assembly seats and 262
mayoral and municipal council posts. These elections mark the second time
since the end of the Salvadoran civil war in 1992 that the Salvadoran
people have gone to the ballot box in a country at peace.
According to our U.S. Embassy monitors who were present in all 14
Departments as well as the capital, there were no reports of violence, and
we're also unaware of any indications of fraud or any irregularities.
The United States has consistently supported the efforts of the people of
El Salvador to consolidate their democracy and to implement the provisions
of the 1992 peace accord. This latest demonstration of the strength and
diversity of El Salvador's democratic expression gives confidence that all
parties will work cooperatively in this new assembly and at the municipal
level.
Finally, another statement - and I'm issuing all three of these
statements today -- they're being posted in the Press Room -- this concerns
the unhappy situation in Belarus. You remember on Friday the United States
issued a statement expressing great concern at recent developments within
Belarus where the government had cracked down on the political opposition
and on the media, and in fact had detained and harassed a number of
politicians as well as journalists.
Unfortunately, over the weekend the Executive Director of the Soros
Foundation, Peter G. Byrne, was prevented from entering Belarus yesterday
and was then expelled from Belarus -- he was at the airport - today. He's
now in Frankfurt. He had a valid visa to enter Belarus. He had been there
in the past. The Soros Foundation had done quite a lot of work there and
unexpectedly he was not allowed to enter the country when he arrived at the
airport in Minsk; was held without access to the United States Embassy in
Minsk; no ability to call on a Consular Officer for assistance; was
detained for many hours and then expelled from the country.
We consider the failure of the Belarusian Government to allow immediate
access and to assure proper treatment, we consider this to be in violation
of the diplomatic and consular conventions in effect between the United
States and Belarus. He was held incommunicado for over 12 hours. He was
forced to sleep under guard. He was not provided with any food this
morning, and despite repeated approaches to senior-level Belarusian
Government officials, the United States Embassy was denied access to him
until moments before his forced expulsion from Belarus.
This disregard for international law, for diplomatic convention and
practice is unacceptable. The United States expects to continue discussing
this particular incident with the appropriate officials in Belarus. It is
another indication that all is not well in that country; that the rule of
law is troubled; that democratic procedures are not being followed by the
Government of Belarus, and another reason why the United States has decided
to follow a policy of selective engagement with Belarus, meaning we will
work with Belarus on those issues where the United States clearly has
interests that must be met. But it will be very difficult for us to work
with that government in any normal capacity, and that's a decision we've
made, reinforced by this unusual episode over the weekend.
Barry.
QUESTION: Happy St. Patrick's Day.
MR. BURNS: And to you, too. I see you're not wearing green, though. Is
that a green stripe in that tie?
QUESTION: You're a little closer to St. Patrick than I.
MR. BURNS: Jim Anderson has a green coat on. I'm looking for other
green - Tom Lipmann has an extraordinary green tie. Sid has distinguished
himself. Andre looking good.
QUESTION: All Irish.
MR. BURNS: I just thought I'd give you a little fashion report in the
press today.
QUESTION: All Irish (inaudible) people. (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Andre, vous (in French).
QUESTION: (In French)
MR. BURNS: (In French) You lived there. (Laughter) Ron Pemstein as
well, and James is looking very sharp in the back row.
QUESTION: The situation isn't very -
MR. BURNS: And Laura Logan looks resplendent, Barry - resplendent. In
fact, Laura, I think if the cameras could even - (laughter) - do you want
to take a bow? I think Laura -- she gets the award this year, Barry.
QUESTION: She's an off-camera person, but she certainly gets our award.
The situation in Zaire is terrible, too. Mobutu can't get back, or they
say he can't get back because of his health. He's in Monaco. Are there
implications for stability in Zaire? His absence - is that good? Is it
bad? What's your size-up now of the turmoil?
MR. BURNS: We are extremely concerned about the situation in Zaire. The
fall of Kisangani over the weekend is an extremely troubling indicator of
instability in Zaire. Obviously, we can confirm that the rebel alliance
took Kisangani International Airport and parts of the Eastern Bank. It's
the third largest city in the country. The fact that the rebel alliance
was able to pierce the defenses of the city so easily I think indicates the
strength of that alliance.
We are repeating our calls today on the Government of Zaire and on the
rebel alliance of Mr. Laurent Kabila to agree to an immediate cease-fire;
to agree to direct dialogue and negotiations aimed at a peaceful resolution
of the conflict. The United Nations special negotiator, Mr. Sahnoun, has
been in the region. He is working on this plan. We think it's the only
logical way to proceed to reinforce the political stability within Zaire,
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire.
We continue to recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Zaire. We continue to maintain diplomatic relations with the government in
Kinshasha. Clearly, the current administration in Kinshasha faces a number
of serious challenges. They have accepted the peace plan, suggested by the
U.N. Secretary General's Special Representative. But, as we said many
times before, a key element of any peaceful dialogue will be the discussion
of a democratic transition in Zaire.
We continue to believe that Zaire's long-term stability and economic
recovery depend on this transition. This does not mean transition from one
person to another. It means transition from an essentially autocratic
country to one that is governed by the rule of law; where elections have a
place in the political system; where people have some right to believe that
they'll get to choose the country's leaders.
This is what has troubled us about the situation in Zaire for many years,
in these last couple of years, as we've looked at the Mobutu regime. He is
in France undergoing medical treatment. Prime Minister Kengo is in charge
of the government in Kinshasha, and we are in touch with that government.
So we're encouraging a cease-fire, an assumption of political negotiations,
and we want the Zairian Government to point the way toward some kind of
political process that will give some hope that things might change.
But clearly a very troubled situation. There's no indication to us that
the rebel alliance is going to slow down in its military offensive. We
appeal to it to do so, to lay down their arms, to stop the fighting, but I
have no indication that they will accept that.
QUESTION: The central government is telling panicked people, "Don't
leave; we can take hold," and now Mobutu can't get back. He is that one
person, for good or for bad. I don't know that you offer advice to people
in a situation like that, but can that government take hold? Can there be
enough stability so that people don't have to flee or try to flee for their
lives?
MR. BURNS: We certainly hope so. We very much would like not to see in
Zaire what happened in Albania last week, which is the general panic within
the country as instability proceeds. In this case, we think there's every
reason to believe that it's possible to have a cease-fire; it's possible to
have these political negotiations. But both the government and the rebel
alliance need to make the proper decisions to put that into place. Right
now the rebels have the advantage militarily. They now occupy a great
swath of territory throughout Eastern Zaire.
That has wreaked havoc with the refugee problem, which I can report to
you on just a bit this afternoon. As you know, all of the refugee camps in
Eastern Zaire that had housed the roughly 200,000 people who had fled in
1994 from Rwanda - all of them were emptied out. Unfortunately, those
people fled in different directions and in small groups.
I know that roughly 100,000 of the people who had been in the Tingi Tingi
refugee camp have arrived in Ubundu, and the United Nations High Commissioner
on Refugees is now making efforts to get relief assistance to them. I also
know that 200-300 of the refugees - we don't have the exact number - died
while trying to cross a river during a storm over the weekend. We think
the refugees are at risk. We think that there is a way to get assistance
to them through the United Nations, but they're clearly at risk, and it's
up to both the rebels and the government to make provisions to help these
people with shelter, with food and with medicine; and to work with the U.N.
agencies to make sure that assistance can be given to them.
Further on Zaire, before we leave Zaire.
QUESTION: Nick, have you any evidence that the rebels used Ugandan arms
in their push on Kisangani?
MR. BURNS: I've seen the press reports that the -
QUESTION: Do you have any evidence of your own?
MR. BURNS: -- rebels had access to armored vehicles and other weaponry
from the Ugandans. That's long been a concern of ours, and you know that
Secretary Albright took that up personally with President Museveni more
than a month ago. We're still concerned by the flood of reports that there
is assistance flowing to the rebels by the government in Uganda and also
the governments in Burundi and Rwanda. We're troubled by them.
We've raised this issue repeatedly with those three governments, but I
can't say that we're satisfied with what we see happening on the ground.
We're also concerned, as you know, by men and arms coming across the
Angolan-Zairian border. This is an extremely troubling development - the
recent sets of events over the last week, but particularly over the last
two to three days that Zaire is threatened on all sides.
The territorial integrity of Zaire, its sovereignty is terribly important
for stability throughout Central Africa. You see the consequences of this
type of fighting. Who gets hurt? Average people get hurt. Refugees get
hurt. People who don't have political benefactors get hurt, and that is a
tragedy that the rebels and the government have to assume some responsibility
for.
QUESTION: Nick, Mrs. Clinton is due in Kampala in the next couple of
days. Do you know if she's going to raise this with Ugandan officials?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that our Embassy in Kampala has been raising
this issue continuously for more than a month; the Secretary of State has.
I don't know if Mrs. Clinton's trip is going to take on that kind of
political dimension. It's a goodwill tour of Africa. As you know, what
she said last week when she was here at the Department, it's primarily
directed toward accentuating development and international assistance to
people in need. I think that will remain the focus of this trip. I don't
want to burden her trip with a whole host of every-day political concerns
that our Embassy and others can certainly take care.
QUESTION: Nick, could I ask a question about Albania? Has the United
States been in touch or tried to get in touch with President Berisha, and
would the U.S. Government prefer that he step down from office and end this
anarchy?
MR. BURNS: I know that our Ambassador, Ambassador Lino, has been in
touch with Prime Minister Fino several times over the last couple of days,
both about the evacuation efforts but also about the political situation.
I don't believe that Ambassador Lino has been in touch directly with
President Berisha in the last several days; in fact, in the last four or
five days. I can check, but I'm not aware that that happened.
As for President Berisha's position itself, that's certainly a question
that the United States cannot answer. That's a question for the people of
Albania, for politicians in Albania, but not for us.
QUESTION: Could you provide us with an update of what is the latest
situation in Albania that you of? Just give us a summary of that?
MR. BURNS: Be glad to do so.
QUESTION: And totals, updating from Saturday.
MR. BURNS: Yes. I think there was some random gunfire around our
Embassy last night, but today has been fairly quiet.
There are protests and some unrest that appear to be continuing on a
fairly wide-scale basis in the southern part of the country. But the north
and the capital are relatively more calm and peaceful than the south.
Ambassador Lino, as I said, is directly in touch with the Albanian
Government -- will continue to be -- about the security situation, so that
she can make the best decisions about our own Embassy staff that has
remained behind.
To date, the United States has evacuated nearly 500 American citizens
from Tirana and evacuated - all by air - and evacuated nearly 400 foreign
citizens. About 900 people came out via U.S. helicopter.
I can also tell you that we know that approximately 80 to 90 Americans
were able to make it out via the Italian helicopter airlift or through the
land border with Macedonia. So we're talking here about nearly 100 people -
excuse me, 1,000 people who have been able to depart.
Should other Americans decide that they want to leave the country, we
will make arrangements for them to leave Albania. They should be in
contact with the American Embassy in Tirana which has remained open.
I know that the last helicopter flight that went in this morning actually
took more journalists in than people out which gives you some indication
that the situation has calmed down in the capital city and, at least, your
members of the profession feel it's a story that they can cover safely.
We have made a commitment to the American journalists in Tirana that if
they wish to come out, that if they feel threaten, we will help them come
out. I think we know where most of the American journalists are. We'll
continue, as I said, also to take foreigners out on a space-available
basis. I believe of the 400 nationals that we took out of Albania, they
were from 34 countries. Most of them were European countries but some were
from Asian and South Asian countries.
In addition, the USS Nassau, which, of course, is patrolling the Adriatic
and primarily responsible for this evacuation operation, has rescued
approximately 85 Albanians from two unseaworthy vessels in the Adriatic,
one of which had capsized. I know that they're taking care of these
people. I don't know what will happen with the final disposition of those
two ships.
As for the politics, what's happening, the United States attended a
meeting of the OSCE in Vienna on Saturday where former Chancellor Vranitzky
reported back to the OSCE about his trip to Tirana on Friday. The United
States welcomes very much the announcement by the European Union that it is
sending a high-level assessment group to Tirana to lay the groundwork for a
Special Advisory Mission in response to Vranitzky's call. This group
contains OSCE, EU, and other country representatives.
The United States is not represented on this mission to Tirana today but
it does have our full support.
QUESTION: Do you know what he means yet by a "stabilization force?"
Does he mean a military force? Or has the idea sort of slipped away? I
guess not.
MR. BURNS: I think it's very clear from what he said on Friday afternoon
publicly to members of the press that he did have in mind some kind of
military force. Frankly, that was not the view of the European governments
or of the United States.
QUESTION: Or of the U.S.?
MR. BURNS: Or of the United States when we met on Saturday morning in
Vienna. Frankly, we couldn't see the utility of injecting an outside
military force into Albania. We couldn't see what that force could
accomplish, and we really felt over the weekend that our primary military
mission had to remain the evacuation of the American citizens and the
foreigners.
We do welcome this assessment mission. If it's possible for all of us to
be helpful politically or even with a team, that, of course, is something
that we'll agree to look at very seriously. But I don't think anyone is
talking about a military intervention force.
The political imperative, we believe, must remain the necessity of
getting these political leaders together, getting them talking - these
leaders in the National Reconciliation Government. There is a little bit
of organization to the insurrection in the south. There are people with
whom one can talk. We believe if that can happen, perhaps the situation
could be stabilized a bit to reduce the risk to both Albanians and
foreigners who live in Albania.
Sid.
QUESTION: There was a report over the weekend that said this meeting on
the ship - the Italian warship - that the American view was that Berisha
should step down, and we've made that known in no uncertain terms. You
said a few minutes ago, it's not up to us to say. Can you comment on that
report?
MR. BURNS: I believe the first meeting was on the warship - that was on
Friday. Chancellor Vranitzky's meetings. I believe the other meeting was
in Vienna on Saturday. We were represented by a diplomat from our OSCE
Mission.
All I can say is that the United States made a number of points in that
meeting but I don't want to go into everything that we said because it was
a private meeting. Obviously, this is a very sensitive issue. We have our
views, but we'll let them simmer for a while as we talk to the Albanian
Government privately.
Still on Albania?
QUESTION: Yes. Has there been anymore serious consideration about the
economic background of this whole blowup in Albania? Although there was
this pyramid scheme which developed, it did develop in terms of trying to
implement the usual IMF conditionalities that have been imposed on all east
European countries. Sali Berisha, not being a hard-line communist or
something, was, indeed, implementing the program. He was known by many as
"Sali, the Liberalizer." It was on the basis of this implementation that
this whole thing blew up. You have a similar situation in Macedonia which
also is towing the line with regard to the reform policies, also a
dangerous pyramid scheme which seems to be developing, and perhaps in other
countries, combined with the growth of crime.
Isn't there a reconsideration of, if not the basis of the policy, at
least the way it's been implemented in many of these cases?
QUESTION: I can tell you this. The United States did not recommend that
the government adopt pyramid schemes as a financial initiative. I don't
believe the IMF and World Bank would have either. So I don't believe you
ought - that any blame should be pinned on the West for this.
The fact is that this current political crisis was produced by the fact
that pyramid schemes were widespread in Albania and that a great number of
people had their life savings and investments tied up in them. The
government simply has to deal with that political crisis. There's no
question that President Berisha has become the focus of a lot of the
animosity that you see being expressed in the streets.
But for a country the size of Albania and an economy the size of Albania,
these are gross estimates. But the estimates are that a great percentage
of the private capital in that country was tied up in these pyramid schemes
and Ponzi schemes. I think you've got to lay that at the door of the
investors who put those together. There's just no question that that was
the initial stimulus for the riots that broke out in the south and the
continuing political turmoil. That question sooner or later has to be
addressed.
I wouldn't blame it on overly stringent advice from the West because the
West does not advise any country to adopt pyramid schemes as the basis of
their financial policy.
QUESTION: A follow-up, Nick. I'm not saying that the IMF caused the
crisis. What's I'm saying is -
MR. BURNS: That's good, because the IMF certainly didn't. The IMF is
waiting to go back in to try to help fix a system that's been crippled.
QUESTION: What I'm saying is that in implementing the so-called reform
policy, the possibility of these things occurring was opened up wide open.
In many of these countries, for many years during the socialist period,
capitalism was equated with crime. Many of these people who thought that
when they became capitalists, they would become criminals. This is your
phenomenon you have in Russia today, to a great extent.
But when you see this occurring, this kind of social revolt and unsteady
economic situation happening in many of these countries, and today there's
major demonstrations in Hungary, which has been relatively stable, where
the demonstrators are attacking the IMF and the World Bank, when you see
these kind of things happening, doesn't this give you pause to rethink
perhaps some of the assumptions one took for granted for so many years?
MR. BURNS: No, it doesn't at all, because I don't agree with the premise
of your question, for two reasons. For every Albania that you can point to,
you can point to an Estonia, or Czech Republic, or Poland, or Hungary, or
Slovenia or Russia -- governments that are making the right decisions on
economic reform.
The second is, if we've learned anything since 1989 about economic reform
in central Europe, it's this. Those who go fastest with short-term pain,
which might be quite high, but those who go fastest develop the most.
Those who fastest achieve the highest rates of economic growth and the
highest standards of living for their population. Witness: Estonia, Czech
Republic, Russia.
You take other countries like Ukraine, that have essentially waffled on
economic reform for a number of years, that have made some advances and
stepped back, those countries have seen a continuation of some of the major
systemic problems that arose after the collapse of communism. So I just
don't agree at all with the question or the observation.
QUESTION: Speaking of Russia -
QUESTION: If this were the case, would it not be the fact that the
populations would be very happy with how successful they are, but what we
see is mass demonstrations -
MR. BURNS: You walk down the streets of Tallinn or Prague or Slovenia or
most streets in Russia, a great percentage of the people are certainly
better off than they were in 1989 or 1990 or 1991. There has been
tremendous economic hardship, but the fact that these economies have turned
around is because of the dedication to liberal economics. So I very much
disagree.
I think the IMF has done an outstanding job over the last six or seven
years.
QUESTION: Another Albanian question. I understand the 85 Albanians are
still on the USS Nassau. Do you know where they go from here?
MR. BURNS: Those are the Albanians that I think were picked up in the
two vessels that were not making it across the Adriatic. I don't believe
the military has made a final decision, or we have, about where these
people should end up. We'll have to consult with the Italian Government,
I'm sure, before that happens. I assume they are making their way to
Brindisi.
Tom.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) a question on Albania?
MR. BURNS: Anymore on Albania. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: There seems to be a sort of looming train wreck sense hanging
over Israel and the Palestinians this week. What, if anything, is the
United States doing to try to head it off?
MR. BURNS: Actually, Tom, I wouldn't agree with that characterization of
the problem. I think, certainly, the peace negotiations are troubled. You
and I can point to a lot of different events over the last couple of weeks
that have been extremely disquieting to the United States and to others.
But, essentially, what we saw over the weekend was a profound humanitarian
gesture by King Hussein to visit the seven Israeli families who lost 13-
year old daughters.
QUESTION: from Netanyahu.
MR. BURNS: No. King Hussein was accompanied by Prime Minister Netanyahu
to all of these meetings. Then we had a meeting between King Hussein and
Prime Minister Netanyahu. There are now rumors, at least in the press, of
a possible meeting between the Prime Minister - Prime Minister Netanyahu -
and Chairman Arafat. Sometimes it takes very tragic events to produce at
least some positive movement forward in the peace negotiations. I don't
know if we're seeing that. But at least we saw over the weekend a
courageous decision by the King of Jordan to reach out to Israeli families
and to say and do the right things to them in their period of grief.
We've now seen renewed contacts between Israel and the Jordanians and
renewed contacts between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We measure
progress sometimes one baby step at a time. I'm not talking about giant
leaps forward, but the fact that they were not talking a week or - any of
them - and that they're now talking is a small step forward.
What we think has to happen, especially in the wake of a Gaza meeting on
Saturday, is for the Israelis and Palestinians to go back and actually have
some political discussions, negotiations on the issues that separate
them.
The Gaza meeting we felt was an important meeting because it gave the
Palestinians an opportunity to express themselves to a number of governments.
But it did not result in any kind of a resolution or any kind of an
agreement on the way forward. So that has to happen between the Palestinians
and Israelis. I don't think a train wreck has to be the result of what's
happened over the last couple of weeks. In fact, we hope the reverse, that
these small steps forward might lead to larger steps in the next weeks or
months.
QUESTION: We're also looking forward to tomorrow, I suppose, when Tom
worries about a train wreck. Netanyahu says he will go ahead and break
ground on that housing project. With all due respect, I don't think you
can easily blur - and you're not really doing it entirely - the Jordanian
and Israeli situation and the Israel-Palestinian situation. They're very
different. Israel and Jordan have peace. It's a warm peace. King Hussein
has had a relationship with Israel that is incomparable to the Palestinian
relationship.
It's on the Palestinian track that there's a big event tomorrow. I
wonder if the U.S. had any words on that prospect of ground-breaking?
MR. BURNS: Clearly, as I said in the initial part of my response to
Tom's question, the situation is troubled and has been troubled for many
weeks. I don't minimize the difficulties here at all. I'm talking about
the very small, perhaps even imperceptible to some people, change which
sometimes helps move a situation forward. We've been through this many
times in the Israeli-Palestinian talks: Tragedies, violence, people being
killed. You have to overcome that. You have to move beyond it. The first
step is talking to each other, and that's what happened over the weekend.
The United States has not changed its position on the Israeli construction
proposal at Har Homa or Jabal Abu Ghneim - what the Arabs call Jabal Abu
Ghneim. We didn't think it was a good idea when it was raised. The
President made that very clear as did Secretary Albright, and that's still
our view.
It appears that the Israeli Government is determined to move forward.
We've seen that decision by the Cabinet. We just hope that in working out
the obvious differences on this issue between the Israelis and Palestinians,
two things happen. First, it's that any difference of opinion on this be
pursued in a non-violent way. There's no justification for anyone on other
side to take to the street or to take up violence as a political method.
Second, we hope that Israelis and Palestinians will continue to talk
together, sit down politically and try to negotiate their differences.
That's the only way forward.
QUESTION: So I take it, like the shooting in Jordan, like so many other
events, some bloody, some not bloody, but highly controversial, the U.S.
feels that the peace process can survive. It can survive the ground-
breaking, it can survive - you know, all the way back to the Palestinians
blowing up Ma'Alot and killing a bunch of Israeli school children, and the
Israeli who went nuts and killed a lot of people in a mosque, and all
that.
Tomorrow's event can be absorbed, much as you don't like it?
MR. BURNS: You know, there's nothing inevitable about progress. There's
nothing inevitable about success in the peace negotiations. We've said all
along that success can only be achieved if they actually sit down together
and if they do one other thing, Barry. See in the other person, or other
group of people across the table, a negotiating partner; try to anticipate
the political needs and sensitivities of that partner and try to account
for them. Because compromise is the basis of any outcome between the
Palestinians and Israelis. That's what we felt was missing in the Israeli
decision at Har Homa. We made that very clear.
Both the Israelis and Palestinians have an obligation to make sure that
they are taking into account the political needs of the other person across
the table. The peace negotiations won't succeed unless there's that kind
of spirit across the table.
The Israelis have said they're going ahead no matter what. So all of us
need to work to try to make sure that the negotiations continue; that
there's a forum for these differences to be worked out and that people are
not so hopeless that they take their troubles to the streets. There's no
justification for that. There can be no justification whatsoever for
anyone firing a gun or setting off a bomb or mounting a violent protest.
There is now a forum for the Israelis and Palestinians to work their
problems out. I think that has to be the most basic advice that Americans
can give Arabs and Israelis.
QUESTION: Nick, new subject?
QUESTION: Has the United States Government been in touch with the
Israeli Government in the last couple of days asking them not to go ahead
with the actual ground-breaking?
MR. BURNS: I know that there were some high-level phone calls last week
and high-level letters that made very clear the position of the United
States, that we did not think this decision ought to be taken and we didn't
think that this construction ought to go forward. We made our position
known, but the Israeli Government is going forward.
QUESTION: In the past two or three days, have there been such appeals?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if, in the past - over the weekend, you mean?
I'm not aware of any high-level contacts over the weekend. I can check. I
know that there were some "mid" last week.
QUESTION: Is there anything that you can tell us about Minister Primakov
and Secretary Albright's meeting early this afternoon?
MR. BURNS: I waited. I stood by the phone all weekend waiting for the
reporters to call. I'm just kidding.
QUESTION: There was a meeting today; not Saturday.
MR. BURNS: I appreciate your forbearance over the weekend and for
understanding that we didn't want to come out and have press conferences
because the negotiations are underway.
Let me just tell you what's happened over the last couple of days.
Secretary Albright has had a very intensive round of discussions with
Minister Primakov. As you know, they met Saturday afternoon. He was her
guest, or the guest of some enterprising reporters at the Gridiron Dinner
on Saturday night. I understand he enjoyed himself immensely at that
dinner.
They met yesterday afternoon for a couple of hours. They met here at the
Department at around noon for a little over an hour. In between the
Secretary's meetings with Primakov, the experts have been meeting on
European security issues, on arms issues, on foreign policy issues.
There's literally been an around-the-clock set of meetings over the last
three days. Primakov was also over at the Pentagon late yesterday
afternoon for meetings with Secretary Cohen.
I understand he will be seeing the President in just over an hour at the
White House. At the end of that meeting, there will be a press briefing,
probably by my friend and colleague, Mike McCurry, over at the White House.
He'll be very glad to answer your questions about the meeting with the
President. Then, tomorrow, we expect Secretary Albright and Sandy Berger,
the National Security Advisor, to hold another press conference -- two in
24 hours for you guys - where they'll make statements summing up the visit,
looking forward to Helsinki, and answering questions about anything that is
on your mind. So that's the way we intend to proceed.
QUESTION: They working off a text, Nick?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: They working off a text?
MR. BURNS: Is who working off a text?
QUESTION: The United States and the Russians?
MR. BURNS: We are working on a variety of things. We're talking through -
QUESTION: Solana is the lead man; he remains the lead man?
MR. BURNS: Solana is definitely the lead person.
QUESTION: He was working on a text. Are they working on Solana's
text?
MR. BURNS: Solana has had several meetings with Primakov where they're
trying to work out a charter. Of course, the charter is going to have to
be written down. The understanding between the two will be written down.
So we're working off some of the same language that Solana has been working
on because we're keying off what he has been doing.
We have been talking, in some detail, about the proposed charter between
the United States and Russia. I would describe the discussions over the
weekend as intensive and cooperative and, in some cases, productive. But
it's really hard to predict where we're going to end up. The President
hasn't had his meeting with Primakov. Probably more importantly, he hasn't
had his meeting with Boris Yeltsin yet. And then the process goes on
beyond Helsinki. So it's always hard to know where you are in time. I'm
sure when you see Secretary Albright tomorrow, you'll talk about that and
many other issues.
Still on Primakov?
QUESTION: The Russian Ambassador to the Czech Republic said that if the
Czech Republic will become a member of NATO, Russia might reconsider
economic deals with the Czech Republic. Do you think this is just a part
of Russian concessions again, or this is something that not just the Czech
Republic or the United States should consider?
MR. BURNS: You've seen a very stiff response to that from the Czech
Foreign Minister this morning, as it should have been a stiff response.
There's no place in the new Europe for those kinds of public threats of
retaliation. What's implicit in Partnership for Peace - and both Russia and
the Czech Republic are members of Partnership for Peace - is that countries
will deal with each other on a fair basis. Certainly, any country that's a
member of the Partnership for Peace has a right to stand up and say it
wants to become a member of NATO. We've not excluded Russia, theoretically,
as a member of NATO in the future, and we've certainly not excluded the
Czech Republic as a member of NATO.
Any country has a right to try to seek association with NATO without
being threatened from another country. So I think that just goes without
saying.
QUESTION: That's your answer to their statement about the Balkans?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Is that your answer? Does that stand as an answer to the
Russians -
MR. BURNS: The Baltic countries are members of the Partnership for Peace,
and we have not excluded anyone from being a member of NATO in the
future.
QUESTION: They're talking about - you know, rightly or wrongly, they're
talking about countries that were part of the Soviet Union -
MR. BURNS: And you know the policy of the United States, which has not
changed.
QUESTION: I know, but for many years those states were incorporated in
the Soviet Union, and they're saying - they consider it, obviously, more of
a poke in the eye to look at Estonia as a potential member than to look at
Poland.
MR. BURNS: Our position hasn't changed, on the Baltics or any other
country in Central Europe. We have a relationship with the Baltics that's
quite good. We are helping them to build a Baltic battalion, a military
structure, and in fact that battalion is participating in Bosnia with us.
So we have quite good relations with the Baltic states.
QUESTION: And yet you talk about Belarus before - you know, the talk at
the other end, that if you want to expand, the Russian Federal can form new
alliances, and Belarus would be a logical partner. Is that something that
would make you nervous?
MR. BURNS: We're looking forward to a positive relationship with the
Russian Federation, and I think we're heading down the right road. We
have agreed in NATO to enlarge NATO at Madrid in July. We've also agreed
that we very much want to have a charter to define NATO-Russia military
relations and political cooperation in Europe. We have made some progress
on that, but we are a long way from concluding those talks or from being
anywhere near an agreement. We need to keep working on it. That's one of
the reasons for Minister Primakov's visit, and certainly one of the reasons
for the President's trip to Helsinki.
QUESTION: Nick, the mechanics of these meetings sometime tell more than
anything else. Why as early as a few hours ago the Secretary was supposed
to speak publicly about her meetings with Primakov, and now it's Mike
McCurry answering questions, if we'd like. What's the problem?
MR. BURNS: I understand it's simply a matter of schedule. It's better
for their respective schedules to do it tomorrow, rather than do it today,
and there are two purposes for this press briefing, by the way - not only
to give you a briefing on what happened with Minister Primakov over the
last three days but to look ahead to Helsinki, and they will do both
tomorrow. But knowing that the Primakov visit ends today, Mike and I
decided that we had to have a way to get you a briefing on what happened in
the President's meeting, and that's going to happen. Mike's going to give
that. Mike will attend the meeting, and he will give you a readout on
that. I think we're trying to serve both objectives here.
QUESTION: The President's spending, what, 45 minutes with him, and this
building has spent three days and the Pentagon three days with him. It
seems like you all would have a little something more to say than in some
case it's productive and intensive and cooperative.
MR. BURNS: You will understand that in the meeting with the President
all the most important issues will be raised there; that all the work done
over the last three days will be condensed into that meeting. So I think
you can be assured that the briefing you get from Mike on that meeting is
going to be a fairly good summary of what's happened over the last three
days and where we think we are heading into Helsinki.
Laura.
QUESTION: I'd like to change the subject. There were reports over the
weekend that the Philippines had agreed to be a transit country for the
North Korean defector. Do you have any update on his status? There were
also some reports today that the process may already be taking place; that
he will be going to Philippines.
MR. BURNS: I'd just have to refer you to the Government of China and
perhaps the Government of the Republic of Korea. We saw some statements
from the Philippine Foreign Minister, as did you. We certainly want this
incident to be resolved in a peaceful way to the satisfaction of the
Republic of Korea and China, and it appears that the situation is heading
in that direction, which is good, but we're not a part of that. So we
would just simply welcome any result that would have this incident end
peacefully and that would respect the wishes of Mr. Hwang, who has clearly
said that he does not wish to return to North Korea.
QUESTION: Colombia.
MR. BURNS: Yes, certainly.
QUESTION: During the weekend, the Colombian Defense Minister resigned
because of accusations he'll receive money from the Cali or the leaders of
the cartel - narco-traffic cartel from Colombia. Does the State Department
have any comments about this?
MR. BURNS: The United States is pleased with the fact that Minister
Gonzalez decided to give his resignation. Government officials cannot
serve effectively or honorably, they cannot carry out their duties
responsibly, when they are indebted to drug cartels. This has been a long
running problem in the Colombian Government, particularly the government of
President Samper.
You know about the allegations of his own involvement with the drug
dealers in his own Presidential campaign. Virtually all of our United
States counter-narcotics assistance goes to the Ministry of Defense, and
there are a lot of good people, honest people in that ministry and in the
Colombian defense establishment who want to curtail the flow of drugs from
Colombia to other countries. We believe that with this resignation, all of
our efforts, our combined efforts to fight the drug runners, will be
enhanced.
QUESTION: On Colombia also. President Samper said in an interview
published today that he might consider now presenting extradition to
Congress because of the fight that international pressure could make it
very difficult for Congress to pass extradition. Are you aware of those
remarks?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of the remarks. They're not entirely
surprising. We think that extradition is important. It's a very important
way of fighting and winning the drug war and making sure that everyone's
accountable in that war. So we would very much encourage the Samper
Government to agree to extradition in cases where that is appropriate.
QUESTION: But what is the international pressure that he is saying is
actually not going to facilitate the process?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that international pressure is the problem.
The problem is the ineffectiveness of the Colombian President and other
parts of the Colombian Government in fighting the drug cartels in Colombia.
There are some very good people - the Attorney General and many people in
the Ministry of Defense - who are fighting the problem. They need good,
solid, stable leadership.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, the first or one of the first meetings
concluded of this group of eight countries who were pulled together by
Erbakan, which inlcudes Iran as well as Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Turkey. They had a certain amount of division of labor with regard to the
economic functions, and they seemed to be intent on continuing creating
some kind of economic cooperation. Do you have any comments on the fact
that this is going ahead in spite of warnings?
MR. BURNS: I don't have a particular comment, except to say that the
United States assumes that the secular foundation of Turkey will continue
to be the foundation of Turkey. There was another important meeting over
the weekend. The EU Foreign Ministers met in Apeldoorn in the Netherlands
to address the question of Turkey's relationship to the European Union, and
we have heard that the Ministers reconfirmed that Turkey has a European
vocation; that its membership application ought to be judged according to
the same criteria as other countries; and, if that is so, that's a very
good result.
That accords with our own expressed hope that there is a place for Turkey
in Europe. Having said that, let me just go a couple of countries away to
Serbia, because no one has raised it, and just say that there are press
reports that Belgrade and Pale have made an agreement about their special
parallel relations.
It is premature for the government in Belgrade, Serbia, to enter into a
formal agreement with one of the entities of Bosnia-Herzegovina before full
diplomatic relations have been opened between Belgrade and Sarajevo. We've
made that clear many times to Mr. Milosevic. In this regard, we expect
Belgrade to take prompt action to implement the agreement he made some time
ago - many months ago - with President Izetbegovic to establish full
diplomatic relations.
In order for an agreement between Belgrade and Pale to take effect, it
must be ratified by the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I
wanted to make sure that we talked about that today, because it's a very
important issue, and frankly we want to fire that little shot across Mr.
Milosevic's bow.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Yes, one more.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have any reaction to the Israeli Justice
Minister's very heavy and provocative warning that he would send Arafat out
on the world again if there was any violence? And, secondly, negotiations
are proceeding on the airport. What about the port and what about the
withdrawal? Are there negotiations going forward on that as far as
withdrawal? I know your attitude on withdrawal. That's Article 10 of the
Oslo II agreement which specifically says that negotiations should be
undertaken by Israel and the Palestinians with regard to withdrawal to the
specified military locations. I have no explanation for your policy on
this, but - and it may have been the reason for all of the events of the
last three weeks. But in any case, would you comment on the Justice
Minister?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, the United States certainly does not
agree with the comments by the Minister of Justice. They are inflammatory
and unacceptable, because Chairman Arafat has a place, and that place is in
Gaza and the West Bank, and that place should be secure from these kinds of
threats. When there are political disagreements, people ought to negotiate
them seriously and privately and peacefully and not resort to these types
of outlandish threats.
Secondly, we hope that the negotiations on the airport, on the port, on
ID's in Jerusalem - a lot of the issues that have been vexing the peace
negotiations - we hope they can move forward, all of them. The United
States is pushing on both sides to make progress on all those issues.
Thanks very much.
(The briefing concluded at 2:27 p.m.)
(###)
|
