U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #63, 97-04-28
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1233
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, April 28, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
Secretary Albright's Activities:
1 Address to Council of Americas
Visit of Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen:
1-2,15-16,20 Press Conference, Two Mtgs., Working Dinner
2 Trip to Moscow on 4/30 for NATO/Russia Discussions w/FM
Primakov
2 Deputy Secretary Talbott Trip to Brussels/Moscow
2-3,16-18 Address at Town Hall Mtg. re: Reorganization of Foreign
Affairs Agencies
2 Bilateral Mtg. w/FM Al Thani of Qatar on 4/29
2 Swearing in of Congressman Pete Peterson as Ambassador to
Vietnam
3 Working Breakfast/Mtgs. w/FM Matutes of Spain on 4/30
ZAIRE
3-5 U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richardson's Trip to Region
4-8 Refugee Situation
5-7 Reports of Alleged Massacres/Atrocities/UN Investigative Team
6-8 U.S. Diplomatic Presence/Negotiations/Ceasefire
NORTH KOREA
8-10 Food Situation/Aid
9-11 Proliferation Issues/Military
10 Alleged Statement by Russian Defense Minister in Beijing
11 Reports of Missile Deployment
EUROPE
11-13 EU Foreign Ministers Mtg. re: Critical Dialogue w/Iran
11-12 Peter Tarnoff's Trip to Europe
12 Secretary Albright's Letters to European Counterparts
18 NATO Affairs Office
IRAQ
13 Report of Fighting among Kurdish Groups along Iranian Border
TURKEY
13-14 Turkish-Iranian Natural Gas Pipeline Issue
14 Reports of Preparation for Turkish Military Incursion into
Northern Iraq
HONG KONG
14-15 Refugees/Political Dissidents
CUBA
18-19 Helms Burton-STET/IT&T Case
AFRICA
19 Former Secretary Baker's UN Mission
RUSSIA
19-20 Yeltsin/NATO Summit
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #63
MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1997 1:13 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. We have a
number of very distinguished visitors today. Let me begin by introducing
Mr. Eugan Serbanescu, the spokesman for the government of Romania who is
here. He observed the press guidance process this morning. It was messy
this morning, wasn't it? It really was - trying to anticipate their
questions. He is here with a program through the National Forum Foundation.
Of course, we had an excellent visit last week by the Romanian Foreign
Minister. So, you're most welcome.
Second, and very importantly to me, three of my cousins are here today. I
want to introduce them. Sister Maureen Toomey of the Sisters of Notre Dame;
my cousin Claire Sullivan; and my cousin, Kathleen Toomey of the Sisters of
Mercy. They're here. They are big Red Sox fans, and we're all glorying in
the smashing defeat of the Orioles yesterday, up at Camden Yards. It was a
wonderful game.
We also have, here with Charity Dennis from our Press Office, Roger Dennis,
who is a Boston Celtics and L.A. Dodgers fan. You could complete that by
Celtics, Red Sox, but that's very good - and his friend Mimi Ebmeyer, who
will be starting in law school at Georgetown in the Fall. Thanks very much
for coming.
Okay, the Secretary has been busy today, as you know. She addressed the
Council of Americas this morning. She has been preparing for the rest of
the morning for the arrival of Chinese Vice Premier and Foreign Minister
Qian Qichen. Let me just give you the order of battle. At 2:30 p.m. there
will be a press conference upstairs in the Treaty Room. All of you are
invited to that. There will be statements by both of the foreign ministers,
a couple of questions. Let me know or just signal me if you want to ask
questions at that affair.
Following that, the Secretary is going to have two meetings this afternoon.
She's going to start with a small meeting in her private office with
Minister Qichen. That will then evolve, at some point, into a larger
meeting. I expect about three hours of conversation. So this morning I
intend to come back here to this room at around 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. That
depends, obviously, on the length of the second meeting. I'll give you a
briefing on the hours of conversation this afternoon.
Then at 7:00 p.m. tonight, she hosts a working dinner, upstairs on the
eighth floor, for Minister Qichen. That is indeed a working dinner, where
they'll continue the conversation. I don't expect to give you a readout
tonight at 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., whenever we break up on that meeting.
I'll be very glad to be available to answer your questions tomorrow morning
on that. So 6:00 p.m. back here for a briefing probably by me on this
afternoon's session.
I expect that the discussions today with the Chinese are going to cover the
full range of our relationship with China - everything from human rights to
economic issues to political/military issues to proliferation to the
Chemical Weapons Convention. We're very, very pleased that the Chinese
Government has already deposited its instruments of ratification to the
Chemical Weapons Convention. That's a very positive step, especially in
light of the fact that other countries have not stepped forward. So we
appreciate that.
But I do expect it to be a series of meetings where all of the issues on
the agenda are talked about. Of course, what's most important to us is that,
whether we agree or disagree with the Chinese leadership on any number of
issues, we are meeting with them. This meeting is a very important step in
1997, of course, towards the meetings that our leaders will be having later
in '97 and in 1998. So that's what I wanted to say on the Chinese
visit.
Now, the other big issue this week, of course, is that on Wednesday
afternoon, the Secretary is leaving for Moscow for 24 hours of discussions
with Foreign Minister Primakov on NATO-Russia issues; and specifically, our
hope that we might make progress with the Russians to complete the
negotiations at some point this Spring - certainly not this week in Moscow -
at some point on the NATO-Russia charter negotiations. In anticipation of
that, Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott is leaving this afternoon, with his
inter-agency team, for Brussels for discussions with NATO officials, and
then into Moscow a day and a half or so ahead of the rest of us arriving
with the Secretary.
He will, of course, be with the Secretary during her discussions with
Minister Primakov in Moscow. Then he returns to Brussels at the end of the
week to brief the North Atlantic Council on our discussions with the
Russians this week.
Further to that, tomorrow the Secretary's going to address a town hall
meeting here in the Dean Acheson Auditorium. That's going to be on the
reorganization of the foreign affairs agencies. She'll address employees of
the State Department, ACDA, USIA and AID to explain, in some detail, the
President's proposal to reorganize and to give her view on how we can carry
that out over the next two or three years.
She also, tomorrow, has a bilateral meeting with the foreign minister of
Qatar, Foreign Minister Al Thani. Then she, very happily at 11:45 a.m. in
the Ben Franklin Room, will swear in Congressman Pete Peterson as the first
American ambassador to Viet Nam. That is going to be a very significant,
symbolic event because of the length of time that Congressman Peterson has
waited to take up his office and to be sworn in, but more importantly,
because he will be the first American ambassador to Viet Nam. We hope
his arrival as a former POW will help us to heal some of the wounds
from the Viet Nam War and to normalize our relationship with Viet Nam in
all ways.
On Wednesday, the Secretary is hosting a working breakfast for Foreign
Minister Matutes of Spain. Of course, Prime Minister Aznar is here. Both
foreign ministers will then go over to the White House and participate in
the meetings between the President and the Prime Minister. I believe the
President will also be seeing Foreign Minister Qichen that day.
Then she departs in the afternoon for Moscow, and that does it for this
week.
QUESTION: What time is the town hall?
MR. BURNS: The town hall is 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.
QUESTION: Is that event open to the press?
MR. BURNS: I think it's closed. I think it's just for the employees. I
can check that with John. John is not here. Julie, do you happen to
know.
JULIE: I think it's open.
MR. BURNS: You think it's open. Okay.
QUESTION: One of these have got to be right.
MR. BURNS: One of us is right. George?
QUESTION: What do you have on the activities of Ambassador Richardson?
MR. BURNS: I know quite a lot about the activities of Ambassador
Richardson. I'll be glad to go through that with you. As you know,
Ambassador Bill Richardson was sent by the President and the Secretary of
State to Zaire with three purposes in mind.
First is to meet with President Mobutu and Mr. Kabila and to try to get
them to agree on a cease-fire to end the fighting in Zaire. Second, to
encourage them to work together along with other people in the Zairian
political leadership on what we hope will be a peaceful transition to
democracy in Zaire. Third, and very importantly -- it's not the third-rated
objective, but I just list it third - is to look personally into the plight
of the roughly 100,000 Rwandan Hutu refugees who find themselves trapped in
Kisangani, where cholera has broken out and where many of them are
dying every day.
I think on that he's going to have some very strong words from the rebel
alliance. But let me not get ahead of myself. Here is what I think the
schedule will be. He is in Kinshasa today. He'll be meeting with President
Mobutu at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow morning in Kinshasa. Then he expects on
Wednesday to travel to Lubambashe, which is the second city of Zaire, to
meet Mr. Kabila. Following that, he will probably go up to Kisangani or in
some way touch base with the U.N. officials, the rebel alliance officials
who are trying to work to help the refugees up in Kisangani. Then
there possibly could be travel outside of Zaire to a neighboring country on
Thursday and Friday.
He does not have any definite plans for his return. But he is willing, I
think, and able to stay out there as long as he needs to, at least to
represent the views of the Administration on the three issues that I
mentioned.
Now, as for the first issue, there still is no agreement on a meeting
between Mobutu and Kabila. There have been various scenarios - South Africa
or Gabon. We just hope that they will select some city and they will agree
to meeting because that is the first step in ending the civil war.
The really serious situation is on the refugees, and I have a couple of
things to tell you about that. You know that for three weeks now, the
United States very vocally has been calling upon the rebel alliance to do
everything it must to help the 100,000 refugees who are in danger of losing
their lives, in danger, of course, from the cholera and the malnutrition.
You have seen a very strong statement from the Secretary General of the
United Nations, Kofi Annan, on this. We are going to press the alliance to
cooperate with the United Nations to allow the United Nations medical teams
to go into the camps, and to allow the evacuation of those refugees by air
to begin. Now, yesterday, we understand that Mr. Kabila met with United
Nations and EU officials, and he agreed to provide unlimited access to the
refugees and to re-establish collection points in and around the Kisangani
Airport.
We welcome his assurance. However - and this is a big however - he gave the
United Nations only 60 days to solve the problem of the refugees. That puts
an unusually difficult challenge in front of the United Nations, and
probably an unacceptable challenge. Frankly, the United States is opposed
to the deadline set by Mr. Kabila.
It does not make sense that for three weeks now, he and his rebel alliance
have not been fully cooperating - they have not been fully cooperating with
the United Nations. The United Nations says that over 100 people are dying
per day in the camps, and now he comes and he puts a deadline for the
evacuation of these people. That is unreasonable, and that is unacceptable.
We call upon Mr. Kabila to give all support via the rebel alliance to the
evacuation efforts of the United Nations. To issue an ultimatum now,
particularly when the refugees are scattered, is most unhelpful. What we
hope is that the refugees can be located. There are some reports today that
they have begun to come back in to the refugee camps. We hope very much
that the money made available by the United States for this evacuation can
now be put to use.
Yesterday, 33 people were flown out of Kisangani to Rwanda. That is a
start. But we are talking here about up to 100,000 people. It's going to
require sustained cooperation by the rebel alliance. Frankly, the actions
of the rebel alliance are going to be more important and more convincing
that their words. So we are very concerned about this refugee situation. I
think the onus is on the alliance to show that it can act in a humanitarian
way.
QUESTION: Is Richardson carrying letters to either Mobutu or Kabila or
both?
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Richardson is carrying a letter from the President
to President Mobutu. He is not, as far as I know, carrying a message - in
fact, I don't think he is carrying a message to Mr. Kabila.
QUESTION: I don't suppose you want to say whether the letter calls for
resignation of Mr. Mobutu?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can't speak to that. In general, I can say, the letter
speaks to the hope that the United States has for a peaceful process
towards democracy in Zaire. That is the policy of the United States for
three or four years now. We've felt that the institutions built by Mobutu
have been crumbling, and that there is a need now for all Zairian
politicians to agree on a way forward that will include elections. We think
that's very important.
I can't go into the details of the letter, but I think that essential
message is embedded in the letter and in the instructions that the
ambassador is bringing to his conversations.
QUESTION: Nick, are there indications that the rebel alliance and Mr.
Kabila are going to start allowing the U.N. to have access to the refugees?
There were refugees emerging from the forest yesterday with machete wounds
on their heads, some of them children, who said that they had been attacked
by soldiers of Mr. Kabila's rebel alliance. Is there any reason to hope
that that approach is going to change?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can tell you, David, we don't know what happened to
all the refugees who fled the camps. The United Nations says that nearly
half of the 100,000 emptied out of two camps late last week. Now, some of
them had begun to come back into the two camps south of Kisangani. But we
certainly can't account for all of them.
There are two major issues here. You alluded to one that we haven't talked
about. There have been numerous allegations of massacres of the refugees
and of mistreatment of the refugees. Now, the United States is not in a
position to say who is responsible for these atrocities if, in fact, they
have occurred on a wide scale. But there are numerous reports and diverse
reports to this effect. The United Nations is sending in an investigative
team this week. We hope that the rebel alliance will give that team access
to all of the site where many people believe massacres occurred.
Obviously, justice must be done, and those responsible for these massacres
must be brought to justice.
On the first issue, and the most immediate issue, of course, is to try to
find the people who are alive and to help them medically and with food
assistance. That's what the United States and the United Nations have been
trying to do. We will judge the rebel alliance on their deeds, on their
pattern of cooperation over the coming days, rather than on their words
because the words, frankly, have not helped much.
QUESTION: Has the United States, through national technical means or
otherwise, seen any evidence of mass graves?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe the United States has any evidence of mass
graves. But what we do have, Sid, are consistent reports of atrocities.
They need to be investigated. The United Nations is the proper authority to
do so, and we certainly support fully the United Nations' investigation
into these reports. They cannot be taken lightly. Bill.
QUESTION: Nick, you stated you didn't know where the people were or who
might have been responsible for them. But in this part of Zaire, Mr.
Kabila's rebels or those under his command ultimately, are in control and
are responsible, are they not?
MR. BURNS: The rebel alliance is in control of that part of Zaire - that
part of Zaire in Kisangani and the surrounding regions. There's no question
about it. That's why we need their cooperation on humanitarian aid and
investigating reports of the atrocities. I want to be very clear, however,
the United States does not have government personnel in Kisangani. We have
people in Goma and in Kinshasa. So we do not have the ability to confirm
these reports for ourselves. But the United Nations ought to have that
ability and ought to be supported by the rebel alliance in finding out what
has happened.
QUESTION: Then is it fair to say that those rebels, in fact all citizens,
all humans in these areas under Kabila's control are under his protection?
Do we expect that they will be protected by him?
MR. BURNS: I think you have to understand, Bill, this is a war zone. This
territory has changed hands now, over the last couple of months. It
previously, obviously, was under the control of the government. It's now
under control of the alliance. It's a fairly chaotic situation. It's very
difficult for us to stand here and to tell you who carried out these
massacres, if in fact there have been - if in fact these reports are true.
But the effort must be made to uncover the truth, and we fully support
that. Charlie.
QUESTION: Can you expand on the U.S. diplomatic presence in the area? Who
is in what place, how frequently they're able to move in? Are we not in
Kisangani because of the reference to a war zone? Would we like to be?
Ambassador Richardson, apparently, is going to be. Will somebody stay
behind? Can you amplify on --
MR. BURNS: Well, we have our American embassy in Kinshasa. We have
embassies in all the surrounding nine countries, neighbors to Zaire. We
have an American embassy officer from Kinshasa who is in Goma, whose job it
is to stay in contact with the alliance, which, of course, is partly based
there.
We often talk to alliance leaders by satellite telephone from Washington.
Dick Bogosian, our special Central African negotiator and envoy, has been
in touch with Mr. Kabila. He has made all the points that I have mentioned
publicly to Mr. Kabila -- our concern about all these issues concerning the
refugees. You can believe that we make those points forcefully and
directly.
So there is no problem in communicating with the alliance or the government.
But the President and the Secretary of State felt it was important to send
a personal emissary to talk to Mr. Kabila and Mr. Mobutu about all the
issues that we have discussed - the reports of atrocities, the food, the
situation of the refugees, the political crisis and the civil war, and our
hope for a cease-fire, our hope that the Zairian crisis does not end
violently, but peacefully.
QUESTION: Nick, if indeed, there is evidence that Kabila has launched
some kind of campaign of ethnic cleansing in the civil war that is going on,
does the United States have a fall-back option? Or is it totally relying on
Mr. Kabila's willingness to cooperate? The obstructionism seems to be part
of a definite policy. If that policy isn't changed, what can the U.S.,
either alone or with others, do to prevent further genocide?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, I don't believe there has been any
credible pattern of evidence presented that would implicate any one group
or any one individual. I think we need to remain - we certainly need to
engage in some fair play here and allow the investigation to proceed
without finding anyone guilty first.
Second, I must say, I think the United States has shown great concern -
publicly and privately - for weeks now about the plight of these refugees.
We did not wake up to this problem last week. We have been talking about it
for a full three to four weeks, publicly, trying to exert our influence and
put our pressure on the alliance to have it do the right thing and to treat
the refugees well and to help the refugees get back to Rwanda where they
deserve to be.
So we have contributed to that. We have also contributed financially $1
billion in the last three years to the Central African refugee problem. We
are prepared to do our part in the current crisis to help these people with
food, with medicine, and they have our political support.
QUESTION: Nick, I don't understand the logic of your first point. What
would be the point of a victorious rebel leader, who essentially controls
half the country, sitting down to talk with a man who the U.S. Government
itself describes as part of history, has no workable military force? Why
ever would Kabila sit down with someone who is, in effect, defeated? Or is
part of history?
MR. BURNS: Yes, thank you, Jim. First of all, Mr. Kabila has said
publicly that he is interested in having a meeting with President Mobutu.
Obviously, we believe it is always important in situations like this to
argue for peaceful negotiations, a peaceful transition away from dictatorship,
rather than to support those who want to win the day through violence and
through physical force. It can't be in anyone's interest to see a civil war
continue where the main victims appear to be innocent civilians - and
not even the soldiers in the respective armies.
So if the United States stands for dialogue, we do so in order to save
lives, stop a war and try to have a peaceful transition for the Zairian
people. They deserve that, and certainly we ought to be arguing that on
their behalf.
QUESTION: Well, couldn't it work exactly the other way? Negotiations
would take time. In the meantime, the chaos and the food shortages and
disease run rampant. Wouldn't it be - is that not a possibility that
stringing out this resolution by talks would simply string out the
misery?
MR. BURNS: We are not for stringing out anything here. We are for a cease-
fire so that people stop firing guns at innocent people. We are for
immediate assistance to the refugees, and we're for a transition to
democracy in Zaire. We hope that happens quickly. We hope that does not
take months or years to happen.
I think you're going to have to assume, however, as are we that in a
situation like this in a country that size - one of the biggest countries
in Africa - there is going to be tremendous instability and continued
poverty and continued uncertainty.
Now, you can criticize the government for not having helped the refugees or
not having provided for stability. But I would note that the alliance is
now in control of more than half the country. With control on the
battlefield comes responsibility for the people who are now effectively
under the control of the alliance - the innocent people who are suffering
near Kisangani.
Okay, next issue. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: North Korea.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: There are further reports today that famine may become a factor
in North Korea soon, and comments being made - you've probably seen them on
the wires - by people who worry about this matter, that other countries
besides the United States are not coming forward and making contributions
to the World Food appeal. Is the United States contemplating more aid in
order to take up the slack, since South Korea and Japans and others
seem to be reluctant?
MR. BURNS: We've seen the statements from the World Food Program director,
Ms. Bertini this morning. We certainly share her concern. We do believe,
based on our own information, that there is a famine in North Korea; that
this particularly effects young children; and that these people ought to be
helped.
As you know, we are the leading donor to the World Food Program. We have
met two requests in the last two months. We have not been asked for any
additional food aid. We will simply rely upon the World Food Program as the
authoritative source to tell us if there is a need for an additional
tranche of food aid from donor countries. If they do come forward to us
with another appeal, of course we will look at that very, very seriously.
In the meantime, I believe the first two ships of grain from Houston will
arrive at Nampo, the North Korean port May 4th, just a couple of days from
now, and May 12th.
The second shipment from the second tranche of food that we have promised
will be arriving later in the Spring. We do hope that other countries will
respond favorably to the United Nations, because we think one ought to
separate politics from the humanitarian need that people obviously have in
North Korea.
QUESTION: Nick, given North Korea's poor record, by all accounts, on
proliferation, I know you want to separate the two and you've spoken of
that before. But does that hurt - doesn't that hurt North Korea's case
internationally, so far as getting assistance, because of their avid
proliferation and reports, considered credible by this government, that
they have produced nuclear weapons?
MR. BURNS: You know, if we were going to tie food aid to political issues,
there are four or five political issues we could tie it to in North Korea.
We could do the same thing in Zaire. We could do it in any number of
countries. But once you start tying food aid to political issues, I think
you pretty much guarantee you won't deliver food aid to people in most
countries of the world because people are starving where there's political
instability or political failure or economic failure. As President
Clinton said on Friday, there is economic failure in North Korea.
It's their system that has produced the shortages. But we feel we
have an obligation to help the young kids under the age of six who
are targeted by the United Nations for most immediate assistance.
So, Barry, despite our concerns about proliferation - and we have big
concerns, and we're going to address those to the North Koreans in our
talks to them in New York on the 12th and 13th of May - we very firmly
believe you've got to separate these issues of food aid and all the other
political differences we may have with that regime.
QUESTION: In your own assessment of the situation in North Korea, have
you uncovered evidence of the cannibalism that is being reported in the
last couple of days?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe so. We've seen that report in the press. It's
obviously very disturbing. But I don't believe we have any direct
information at all about cannibalism. We have information from visiting
congressmen, from the United Nations, from a lot of the non-governmental
organizations that work there that there is tremendous shortage. It is
widespread throughout the country, and it particularly affects older people
and young kids, as you would expect in a situation like that.
QUESTION: And given that situation, do you have anything to say about the
appointment of 120 new generals in North Korea and the apparent fitness of
the military?
MR. BURNS: Well, we think the North Koreans should turn their attention
to the civilian needs of their population. It's an over-militarized country,
one of the largest standing armies in the world. That is one of the reasons
why we have 37,000 American troops up along the DMZ to protect South Korea
and our own interests.
It would seem - you watch this military parade that the North Koreans had
on Friday, that CNN paraded on the television screens all day on Friday and
throughout the weekend, it would seem to us that those well fed soldiers,
and well groomed soldiers with brilliant uniforms, that some of the money
ought to be spend on their own people who are starving.
That just would seem to be a proper allocation of resources. I just return
you to the President's comments on Friday - this all gets back to economic
failure, which is produced by communism.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, still on North Korea?
QUESTION: Yes. I saw a strange report last week, when the Russian defense
minister was in Beijing, he said once war starts on the Korean Peninsula,
Russia should join the battle. Did you see that report?
MR. BURNS: Who should join the battle?
QUESTION: Russia.
MR. BURNS: Russia?
QUESTION: Yes. The Russian defense minister said in Beijing, once war
starts on the Korean Peninsula, Russia should join the battle. So what --
MR. BURNS: Well, I haven't seen that statement. It doesn't seem to be -
it seems to be an improbable statement or it must have been a misquote. I
think the Russian Federation has said consistently over the last few years
that it supports stability in the Korean Peninsula. China has said that.
China, Russia, and the United States all have worked well on the issue of
Korea. We all want to see stability, peace. Nobody wants to see a
war on the Korean peninsula.
However, I feel compelled to say that we do have American troops there, and
an American security commitment to South Korea to protect that country
should it come under attack by North Korea. We don't believe that that is
an imminent prospect, but we are always ready, and our troops are forward-
deployed. Charlie, still on this?
QUESTION: Yes, still on this.
MR. BURNS: Nick, does the U.S. Government support food aid to the
civilian people of North Korea, specifically those above six years
old?
QUESTION: Well, we support food aid to everyone who needs it in North
Korea, but it seems to us to be the civilian populations. The military
seems to have been taken care of. That is usually the way it works in
communist societies. The people with ribbons and medals get the resources.
The World Food Program of the United Nations has specifically targeted kids
under six. They say that those are the people in North Korea most
susceptible to malnutrition and to starvation. Therefore, we rely upon its
judgment and we contribute our food aid for that purpose. But we obviously
hope that whoever is starving, in need of food aid, of whatever age,
receives it - receives that assistance from the world community.
QUESTION: On another subject --
QUESTION: I wanted to chew this one.
MR. BURNS: Do you want finish this, Bill?
QUESTION: On North Korea, still? Okay, this one to follow with. I believe
in the past week, the North Koreans have deployed their - I think it's
called NoDong Missile, Nick. This missile has been designed specifically to
reach Japan - or parts of Japan. Now, couple this with what Mr. Hyang - Mr.
Hyang had to say about the plans of the North Korean Government to
devastate, to annihilate Japan. Have you any comment from this Government
on those missile deployments?
MR. BURNS: Well, first we are aware of the reports about the missile, and
it's obviously one of the issues that we wish to raise on the 12th and 13th
of May with the North Koreans in New York.
Second, we watch the North Koreans very closely, and not only do we have a
security commitment to South Korea, we have a security commitment to Japan
of long standing, many decades. That will continue, and the North Koreans
are aware of that.
It does seem to us that the North Koreans have opened themselves up a
little bit to
political dialogue with the West, with the United States, South Korea,
Japan, on a number of issues. We hope that trend continues because we,
obviously, prize peace and stability on the Peninsula. We want to build on
that. Thank you. Jim.
QUESTION: Have you seen the report that the European Union has decided to
resume its critical dialogue with Iran, and to send its diplomats back?
Does that please you?
MR. BURNS: I think that report is probably a prediction, because I know
that the European Union foreign ministers meet tomorrow in Luxembourg, I
believe, to discuss the issue of how they respond to the Mykonos trial
verdict, which clearly implicates the government of Iran in these
assassinations in Germany.
So what we have done is two-fold. First, Peter Tarnoff, of course, was the
emissary of the Secretary of State last week in Europe to try to explain
our policy that all of us need to confront Iran. Second, the Secretary of
State sent letters to her counterparts over the weekend on this same issue.
We await the judgment and the wisdom of the European Union on this
issue.
We'll probably have something to say after their decision is announced.
Our view is there ought to be room for the United States and Europe to work
together to fashion a realistic policy towards Iran - one which understands
that Iran is a terrorist state; it finances terrorist groups; it is opposed
to the Middle East peace process; and it continues to seek a capability to
produce weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it is a regime that needs
to be contained.
We obviously are not a member of the European Union. We won't be at the
meeting tomorrow. We will respect the decisions of the European Union, but
we hope those decisions are realistic, in light of what the Mykonos trial
has revealed about the direct involvement of the Iranian Government in
political assassinations.
QUESTION: Can you just tighten that a little bit, because you spoke of
the Secretary sending --
MR. BURNS: I thought it was pretty tight.
QUESTION: No, it was a good statement, but all you did - so far as she's
concerned. You say she sent letters.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Stating the U.S. policy, pretty much as you've described
it?
MR. BURNS: Pretty much reviewing the U.S. policy as you would understand
it in this issue. I don't want to be specific, because we don't reveal the
contents of our diplomatic correspondence.
QUESTION: I realize that's a problem, but just to say she sends letters,
you know, we can't make the jump on our own.
MR. BURNS: Why don't you put it this way --
QUESTION: We can't make the jump on our own.
MR. BURNS: She's been in touch with her colleagues.
QUESTION: Well, we can't make the jump on our own.
MR. BURNS: Following Peter Tarnoff's --
QUESTION: And when you speak of working something out with them.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: When you speak of working something out with the Europeans.
You'd like to sort of coordinate with them. Usually when two parties work
something out - the Middle East is a good example - both parties give
ground. Is the U.S. prepared to give any ground in its attempt to isolate
Iran, because the Europeans after, what, about a seven-day hiatus, are
ready to resume their trade with Iran?
MR. BURNS: Well, we'll see what the Europeans decide. I think there's two
issues here. The first is, what should United States policy be towards
Iran? Well, we think we have the right policy.
QUESTION: That's not a change.
MR. BURNS: That policy is not going to change. The policy of containment,
economic containment of an economic boycott of Iran because of its perfidy.
Second, we do hope to find some way whereby the United States and the
European Union can work together on this issue. We're always more effective
if we work together.
Now, we've done that on the issue of Cuba. After decades of squabbling, we
now have a consensus between the EU and the United States that we ought to
focus on Castro's human rights violations. If we could find some way to do
that, vis-à-vis Iran, it would be helpful. But we're realistic. I
don't think we anticipate that the European Union is going to adopt our
policy tomorrow. But we hope that its decisions are realistic and that
they're effective. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: There are reports that two Kurdish groups fighting again near
the Iranian border, part of Northern Iraq. Do you have a comment on
that?
MR. BURNS: I have not seen those reports, but we will certainly look into
them. We're obviously always concerned about stability in Northern Iraq.
We've just had a very successful meeting with David Welch's visit to
Northern Iraq, among the major Kurdish groups, the Assyrians and others,
and we'll continue that. I think there are meetings planned for Ankora to
bring those groups together again. We always try to minimize their own
conflict so we can turn our common attention towards Saddam Hussein.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Do you have any new information about the Turkish-Iranian
natural gas pipeline issue?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe I have any new information about that issue.
That's an issue that we look at continuously here at State.
QUESTION: Are you inspecting the situation deal?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Are you still inspecting the deal?
MR. BURNS: Well, we're still in touch with the Turkish Government about
it. We have an interest in it because there is American law at play here
that obviously needs to be satisfied. But we've not come to any fundamental
conclusions about the particular proposals. It is a very complex situation.
Turkmenistan is involved in this pipeline and we need to be assured of all
the facts before we can speak on it.
QUESTION: There are reports that the Turkish military is preparing to
make another incursion into Northern Iraq to clean up some Kurdish PKK
camps. Have you had any information to that effect and do you have any
problems with it?
MR. BURNS: I have no particular information about the activities of the
Turkish military on their southeastern border. But, as you know, the PKK,
which is a terrorist organization, has operated in Southeast Turkey for a
long time. The Turkish Government, the military defends Turkey and the
Turkish people against the PKK. In the past, there have been some cross-
border incursions, but they have always been limited in time and limited in
scope. So, that has been our reaction to past incursions, but I just
can't anticipate any future incursions.
On Turkey?
QUESTION: On Hong Kong.
MR. BURNS: Why don't we go to Hong Kong, yes.
QUESTION: Hong Kong has long been a haven for refugees from Viet Nam,
Korea, as well as political dissidents from China. After Hong Kong reverts
back to China, has that issue ever been raised by the United States -- what
happens to these refugees and political dissidents who are in Hong Kong
right now?
MR. BURNS: Well, I know that there is, of course, the multilateral
agreement, a common plan of action for the refugees, the Vietnamese
refugees who still find themselves in Southeast Asian camps. It depends on
what country you are talking about, but I think there have been agreements
with most of the countries involved on what will happen to those people. We
have joined a consensus on the common plan of action on the refugees.
Obviously, we hope that once refugees do return to Viet Nam that they are
well treated, that there is no retribution taken against them because of
the fact that they've fled Viet Nam at some point during or after
the Viet Nam War.
QUESTION: I mean, there is no way all those refugees are going to go back
to Viet Nam before July 1st. So, really, what happens to them after that?
Has that been probed at all?
MR. BURNS: I believe there is a schedule for the return of most of these
refugees. What I would like to do is take the question and perhaps tomorrow
we can get into it in more detail. I believe there is a schedule under the
common plan of action.
QUESTION: What about little, little refugees? We've seen these reports of
waves of children going from China to Hong Kong. Does the State Department
have any sense of the dimensions of that and what is to happen to
them?
MR. BURNS: We do not. We have seen some reports, but we do not have a
good sense to give you of exactly what is happening and what its meaning
is.
QUESTION: So, when you bring up human rights in China, you really don't
ever bring up political dissidents who are now in Hong Kong and are going
to end up going back to China after July 1st.
MR. BURNS: You know, we have our human rights agenda which talks about
the rule of law, it talks about international human rights principles that
are embodied in UN documents and we do talk about specific cases -- whether
it's Tibet, whether it's political dissidents in China, whether it's,
ramifications of human rights problems elsewhere. It's fairly broad.
QUESTION: But none of that has gone anywhere. I mean Wang Dan is still in
prison. Wei Jingsheng is still in prison. None of that kind of bringing it
up at every summit has gone anywhere. Is there concern that the human
rights issue, specifically in these specific cases, is really not being
dealt with by the Chinese; that they are finding ways of skirting
it?
MR. BURNS: Well, let's put responsibility where it lies here. It lies
with the Chinese Government. That is the government that obviously has an
impact on its own people, not the United States Government. We raise these
issues because of our own values and traditions and our national interests.
It is one of the areas in our relationship where we have a disagreement, a
fairly substantial disagreement. I know the Secretary will be raising a
number of these issues today, this afternoon. Sid?
QUESTION: On that subject, will the Secretary be discussing the case of,
what is it? Seven or six dissidents that are still in jail that the
President asked to be released? Will she raise their names specifically or
sort of gloss over the whole human rights situation as she usually
does?
MR. BURNS: I can assure you, Sid, and I know you are just trying to bait
me. I am not going to be baited. I'm not going to even say, "cookie
cutter."
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to be baited. It is not true, Sid. I respectfully
disagree with you. The Secretary is not going to gloss over anything. We've
got many, many hours of discussion ahead of us today with the Chinese and
those discussions will be direct and they will include our very deep
concerns on human rights issues. Name another country in the world that
does as much as we do to put a spotlight on human rights in China.
Secondly, I can tell you that beyond human rights, that human rights
discussion will be what we think it needs to be. I don't want to hold the
Secretary of State to any specific promises about how she is going to raise
these issues. I am going to stand up here in four hours and tell you what
she did. You can ask me then.
Third, you need to know that the dialogue with the Chinese is on human
rights, but it is also on trade. It is also on Korea. It is on the Chemical
Weapons Convention. It's on the balance of power in Asia. It is on any
number of issues that are of concern to us and we actually agree with the
Chinese on some of these issues, as you know. We do want to commend the
Chinese leadership for acting so quickly to deposit their instruments of
ratification in the CWC. Welcome news in contrast to the actions of the
Russian DMA.
QUESTION: Will John Shattuck be in any of these meetings?
MR. BURNS: There will be a small meeting mainly with the Secretary and
just a few others and then a larger meeting. I am sure he will be
there.
QUESTION: Have you had an answer, yet, on whether this thing tomorrow is
open or closed?
MR. BURNS: Which thing tomorrow?
QUESTION: This town hall --
MR. BURNS: The town hall meeting?
QUESTION: Open or closed?
MR. BURNS: It's closed. I was right -- 50 percent. I'm right some of the
time; not all the time. It's the closed forum. It's not open, Barry.
Barry's in a good mood because the Red Sox thrashed the Orioles yesterday.
QUESTION: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Perhaps "town hall" is the wrong thing to call it.
QUESTION: Maybe you shouldn't have called it town hall.
QUESTION: Secret Seminar.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Or glib clichés under --
MR. BURNS: May I respectfully submit that there are some people in this
building, about 9,000 of them, beyond the Press Corps. They happen to work
here. She wants to stand up and talk to them about reorganization which is
a sensitive issue in some quarters. So, I think doing that in a closed
session makes sense. I very much agree with this call.
QUESTION: Is there a list of former - I want to say State Department
officials, but a lot of them are former ACDA officials perturbed about this
reorganization. In the interest of full disclosure, is there anybody within
the building who doesn't think it's a great idea to kill the Arms Control
Agency?
QUESTION: John Holum
QUESTION: No, no. John Holum gets a job. I mean the people who don't get
a new job. Is there anybody in the building who thinks it's not great
idea?
MR. BURNS: You know, Barry --
QUESTION: Because if I go into the Town Hall, I would ask that, but I
can't --
MR. BURNS: You would? But you're not to get a chance to.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: Darn it. In my unscientific sampling of people here, just
people I know in the building, there are people who support reorganization
and there are people who oppose it for a variety of reasons. You would
expect that. Some of these agencies have been in existence for most of the
Cold War, almost the entire Second World War period, some of them, and you
expect that to happen. But the President and the Secretary are convinced
this is the right thing to do.
It makes us more efficient. It allows us to streamline our operations which
is what most Americans want us to do here in Washington, not to retain a
bloated bureaucracy when we can make it streamlined and, hopefully, down
the road save some money; but more importantly, make sure we have a more
effective foreign policy. I, for one, personally support it. I think it is
a good idea.
QUESTION: You've got about 250 people in the Agency and the understanding
is a lot of them will be retained, so how many jobs are you saving by doing
this?
MR. BURNS: I think when the White House announced this ten days ago,
whenever it was --
QUESTION: It's one of the smallest agencies in the U.S. Government?
MR. BURNS: Well, the White House announced the reorganization of three
agencies in the State Department. The White House said they did not expect
major job losses, to begin with. What we are heading into right now, Barry,
is a transitional period of a couple of years where Pat Kennedy has charge
to try to implement this plan. The Congress will have a say. So, it is very
hard to predict the final outcome, but we know it is going to happen.
There will be the integration of these two agencies, ACDA and USIA into the
State Department and some elements of AID. The press and public affairs
elements, for instance, will be integrated, legislative affairs and the
AID. director under the direct authority of the Secretary of State. I think
it expands the power of the Secretary of State; it makes the whole process
less cumbersome and more efficient.
QUESTION: It's not bodies so much as table of organization. Can you tell
us anything about, speaking of going in the other direction, carving out a
new large office for NATO Affairs, because you have already split Europe
into Europe and what's called the Newly Independent States - the not-so-
newly independent states.
MR. BURNS: For NATO Affairs?
QUESTION: Yeah. Now, you're going to have a larger NATO bureaucracy
within this building?
MR. BURNS: No.
QUESTION: That's not right?
MR. BURNS: No. We brought on a special advisor to the President and
Secretary of State, Jeremy Rosner. I think the grand total of people in his
office is three. But he has been brought on to coordinate what we do with
the Hill, Capitol Hill, as the Senate seeks to ratify the NATO treaty when
the new members are brought in and also our public message to the American
people who ought to know about this.
QUESTION: Okay. It's not like the NIS?
MR. BURNS: No. No. NATO Affairs will remain under the Bureau of European
and Canadian Affairs. Yes? Why don't we just go back here, first, Bill, and
then we'll give you a question.
QUESTION: The Italian Communications Company that is thinking of paying
IT&T for the investment that it made in Cuba. Can you tell me something
more about it?
MR. BURNS: Is this the company, STET?
QUESTION: STET, yes.
MR. BURNS: This would be a step forward. If one of the companies,
European companies or Canadian that currently possess stolen American
assets in Cuba, if they want to compensate the American firm or the
American individual, that would be a step in the right direction. There are
5,911 American companies who have had their properties stolen by Castro and
now European firms have waltzed in and taken it over. We think that would
be fair play. We would encourage STET to go in that direction.
QUESTION: So, particularly, with the understanding directly between the
two companies that the Helms-Burton would practically have no effect
then?
MR. BURNS: Well, if - I'm not a lawyer, thank goodness. But if the
Italian company dispossessed itself of the stolen assets, or if they
compensated the American firm, then I think that obviously that would
change its status under Helms-Burton.
But I would just like to limit myself today by saying that would be a step
in the right direction. And you know what? It's the reason why Helms-Burton
was passed by both houses of the Congress. We want to focus the attention
of our European colleagues and countries here on the fact that Americans
have been ripped off in Cuba for 30 years.
QUESTION: On a totally different thing, James Baker in Africa, he
obtained the freedom of 45 people from the Polisario. Have you anything
else?
MR. BURNS: Well, we very much support former Secretary of State Baker's
U.N. mission. We launched that, or helped him launch it last week with a
public statement of support. He appears to have had some initial success.
The Polisario has freed, I believe, up to 90 Moroccan government soldiers
who have been taken prisoner. This is good news. He is a very effective
diplomat, and we wish him all the best. He has our support in every way, as
he undertakes this very difficult mission.
QUESTION: On a totally different thing again, the fact that Yeltsin is
not going to Madrid - Yeltsin said yesterday that he will not attend the
Madrid Summit.
MR. BURNS: Well, we hope that there might be an opportunity, if there is
a NATO-Russia charter document worked out for the NATO heads of government
to meet with President Yeltsin to complete the document and to sign it
together, and to symbolize it together, as a very important step forward.
Madrid will go forward on the 7th and 8th of July, the NATO leaders will be
there.
QUESTION: Madrid was never the site - intended site for that with Yeltsin,
was it?
MR. BURNS: The intended site is probably someplace in Paris before the
end of May.
QUESTION: The hopeful intended.
MR. BURNS: That's right, Barry. But there had been some talk about
perhaps the Russians going to Madrid as well, and apparently President
Yeltsin has indicated he will not do that.
QUESTION: Nick, then in Madrid, are all the partnership countries going
to be there, or is it just the applicants?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if NATO has made that decision. I think it has
not yet made a decision as to who will be invited. Yes.
QUESTION: Back to the bilateral to come in 30 minutes?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I would like to ask about Bob Woodward's article on Friday
about the FBI indicating that there is an ongoing effort by the PRC to buy
favor in the U.S. Government. Nick, will this be discussed today?
MR. BURNS: Yes, the Secretary plans to raise this issue with Minister
Qichen.
QUESTION: Would you allow me to ask him?
MR. BURNS: Ask Minister Qichen?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Well, it's a competition up there. It's a tough world up there
among the journalists. We'll just have to see who gets the questions in.
Thank you, Bill.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:59 p.m.)
(###)
|
