U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #65, 97-04-29
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1067
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, April 29, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
Secretary Albright's Activities
1 Town Meeting on Consolidation
3-4 MoscowTrip/Mexico Trip/Qatar Meeting
DEPARTMENT
2-3 Town Meetings in Washington and Arizona/Terrorism Reports
CHINA
1-2,16 Qian Qichen Meeting/ Western China
ISRAEL
4-6 Meeting with the Secretary/Syrian Chemical weapons/Amb. Abbington
IRAN
6-8 EU Declaration on Iran
ZAIRE
8-11 Amb. Richardson's Mtgs/Refugees/Mobutu-Kabila Mtg/
IRAQ
11-12 Kurdish groups fighting
PERU
12-13 Lori Berenson Update
SWITZERLAND
13-14 Swiss Gold Report
NORTH KOREA
14-15 Food Aid by China/Four Party Talks/
BELARUS
16 Return of US Amb/US-Belarusian relations
RUSSIA
16-17 Agreement with China
CUBA
17-18 Violations of Cuban Air Space
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #65
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1997 1:23 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to introduce
Pat McCardle from USIS, who is here today, who was to have been here today,
perhaps not Pat McCardle? No? Pat McCardle is more than welcome whenever.
But the real honored guests are two individuals seated right over here,
Earl and Jane Nelson. It's Earl's birthday. I won't, Earl, divulge the
exact number of birthdays that you've had; but just to say that Earl was
here for the swearing in of Congressman Pete Peterson, no Ambassador Pete
Peterson. They're good friends. He's a good friend of Sid Balman and Steve
Hurst and Barry Schweid and myself. We're really glad to see you here.
Thanks very much for coming.
If the journalists get out of hand, if they're too tough for me, you're
going to speak up on my behalf, right?
MR. NELSON: Not in this world.
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: Thanks, Earl, for all that support. Okay, the Secretary spoke
to employees of the State Department, AID, ACDA and USIS this morning, as
did John Holum and Joe Duffey and Brian Atwood about reorganization. That
was available to all of our employees here through B-Net. For all of our
employees overseas, we would encourage you to watch this on Worldnet, and
also maybe to get the documents off of our website, www.state.gov,
because it was a very important exchange of views about reorganization
and a lot of the employees here had a chance to ask questions about
it.
You know the Secretary last night had a working dinner with Foreign
Minister Qian Qichen. Let me very briefly review the highlights of that for
you. The dinner was devoted to a discussion of global issues and also
issues pertaining to the Asia-Pacific region, the environment and U.N.
reform - those four issues. It was a very good meeting. It was an informal,
in some respects, exchange of views. I think one of the better meetings
that I have observed in the last three years in the U.S.-China relationship
- a real give and take, a lot of ideas exchanged on some of these issues. I
know the Secretary's looking forward to seeing Vice Premier Qichen tomorrow
over at the White House when Vice Premier Qichen sees the President.
On the environment, they agreed together on the importance of joint action
on global warming. They noted that the United States and China are the two
largest emitters of poisonous gasses, of CO2 and other poisonous gasses.
Therefore, we have the responsibility to act together with other nations to
reduce the effects of global warming and to try to work together to improve
the environment.
On Russia, the Secretary made very clear that the United States welcomes
the recent attempts by Russia and China, during President Jiang Zemin's
visit to Moscow last week, for a lessening of tensions between those two
countries, for a resolution of the longstanding border disputes. Minister
Qichen explained some of the details of the agreement, that troops,
armaments, aircraft, artillery all being pulled back away from the border
where it had been for many, many decades.
He also explained the fact that when the Soviet Union broke up, it
presented unique challenges to China because not only did China have a
border with Russia, but with Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. So
that was an important agreement to meet all the Central Asian leaders last
week in Moscow.
On Korea, they agreed that we really do need to have intensified communication
and consultations between the United States and China. We are half of the
four-party peace talks. We are two countries that want the four-party peace
talks to begin as soon as they can. They agreed that we would exchange
meetings, we would have meetings between our senior officials on Korea.
They discussed the food aid issue. They discussed the agreed framework -
the nuclear freeze that is in place on North Korea, and a variety
of other issues.
On Tibet, there was a brief discussion of Tibet. The Secretary expressed
hope for a renewed dialogue, renewed communication between the Chinese
Government and the Dalai Lama, with whom the Secretary and the President
met last week.
On law enforcement, they had a long discussion of the fact that criminal
issues, international crime is now high on the agenda for China and the
United States. That is why we were very pleased the China extradited Li
Chia Cheng a couple of days ago to the United States. He is a major narco-
trafficker from Burma.
Finally, on U.N. reform, it was interesting because two of Minister
Qichen's deputies - his deputy foreign minister and his ambassador here --
were former Chinese ambassadors to the United Nations. There was a long
discussion about U.N. reform, about financing, about possible enlargement
of the Security Council. We agreed that Assistant Secretary of State
Princeton Lyman would travel to Beijing soon to have a full round of
discussions with Chinese officials on U.N. issues. That is important
because we are two-fifths, of course, of the Perm Reps on the Security
Council.
Now, today we have a town meeting underway in Seattle, Washington. I'll
report to you about that tomorrow. On May 6th, there will be another
foreign policy town meeting in Tucson, Arizona. This is sponsored by the
Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations, the U.N. Association of Southern
Arizona, the Sunbelt World Trade Association, and the Department of State.
We are cosponsoring this foreign policy town meeting.
Our speakers will be Ambassador Ted McNamara, our Assistant Secretary of
State for Political and Military Affairs; Ambassador Richard Brown, our
Coordinator for the Summit of the Americas; and Ray Burghardt, who is the
Consul General-Designate to our Consulate in Shanghai. This is a very good
group, and we are anxious to be in Arizona next week for this town
meeting.
Tomorrow, we unveil our annual report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism:
1996." I want to start the proceedings at 11:45 a.m. tomorrow morning here
in the briefing room, on the record with Ambassador Phil Wilcox. He, of
course, is our coordinator for counterterrorism. He will present our views
on the major patterns of terrorism during the last year. He will also
answer your questions on some of the specific countries concerned. That
will be on the record.
I plan to make copies of the report available at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow
morning. It will be embargoed until the press briefing. Then it's your free
choice after that to put it on the wires. I'm also going to put this on the
Internet at 12:30 p.m. - excuse me, at 11:45 a.m., and that is www.state.gov.
The following day, May 1st, at 3:00 p.m., Ambassador Wilcox will be over
the Foreign Press Center to essentially review the same issues with those
people who can't make it to the briefing.
Just two more announcements. The first is just to explain, again, what the
Secretary of State is going to be doing over the next week. She leaves for
Moscow tomorrow afternoon with 12 of you - 12 journalists going with us. We
are very pleased about that. We arrive in Moscow on Thursday. She has
meetings with Foreign Minister Primakov, probably in the afternoon and
evening. There will be a joint press conference on Thursday.
On Friday, the schedule is undetermined. But there will be some other
events and the possibility of meeting some intellectuals and foreign policy
thinkers from Russia to discuss U.S.-Russian relations. We should be back
here in Washington by about 4:00 or 5:00 p.m., hopefully 4:00 p.m. It's a
very quick visit. We get a day of rest on Saturday and then off to
Guatemala on Sunday, Mexico City Sunday night through Wednesday night. The
President will arrive on Monday night, and then to Costa Rica for the
meeting of the Central American presidents; and then to Barbados for
the meeting of the Caribbean leaders in Barbados. So a lot of travel
for the Secretary.
Now, in Mexico on Monday, the Secretary will lead the U.S. delegation to
the 14th meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Joint Binational Commission. The
Secretary will be joined by nine Cabinet-level officials from the United
States. This is an unparalleled opportunity that we have to review all the
issues that we have with Mexico. We have a unique critical relationship. We
have a 2,000-mile border. We don't discuss just high foreign policy issues.
We discuss environmental problems, border crossing problems, immigration
problems, trade issues that are very specific, and a host of other
issues.
This Binational Commission was established in 1981. It is going to be co-
chaired by Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Jose Angel Gurria, the
Mexican foreign minister. She's looking forward very much to meeting with
Foreign Minister Gurria.
Last, the Secretary met this morning with His Excellency, the foreign
minister of the State of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani. As you
know, Qatar is the current chair of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the GCC.
They reviewed our excellent bilateral relations. They discussed ways to
strengthen that relationship. The Secretary stressed the commitment that
the United States gives to the security and stability of the Gulf region,
and expressed appreciation for the security partnership that we have with
Qatar.
They reaffirmed their shared commitment for a search for a just, comprehensive
and lasting peace in the Middle East. They consulted on how we can help,
together, move that process forward. They also discussed the fact that
Qatar will host, in November, the Middle East Economic Summit that has been
so successful in past years in bringing Arabs and Israelis together for
commercial purposes. So that was a very important meeting. They also dealt
with Iran and Iraq, as you would expect, given that Qatar is a neighbor
of both of those countries.
And with that, Barry, I'd be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: The Israeli foreign minister is or isn't seeing the Secretary
of State either Friday or next month or what. Can you clarify that?
MR. BURNS: Yes, the Secretary would very much like to see Foreign
Minister David Levy. We have been discussing with his staff the best time
for that. Initially we had hoped to have it early in May. But as you know,
the Secretary is going to be in Moscow on May 2nd, and then in Central
America next week. So we're looking for a mutually convenient date. When
we've worked that out, we'll let you know.
QUESTION: Who requested the meeting?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Did Israel request the meeting or the U.S.?
MR. BURNS: You know, I think we both would like the meeting to take place,
Barry. I don't know who said - who made the first move, but I think both of
us would like to see the meeting take place.
QUESTION: Won't she be able to see him on his visit that begins, starts
Friday?
MR. BURNS: No, because she'll be in Moscow. There's been some confusion.
There was an announcement, I think, from somebody - an unnamed person in
Israel - this morning, saying there would be a meeting on Friday. There was
simply a confusion. We were thinking about another Friday a couple of weeks
hence. So we're just going to have to get back to the Israelis and try to
work out a mutually convenient date. It was an administrative miscommunication
here, because she'll be in Moscow.
QUESTION: So then he won't be coming Friday. He won't be here?
MR. BURNS: Well, he's not going to be - there is no meeting with the
Secretary. I think he's coming to the United States in a private visit, but
not to Washington, D.C.
QUESTION: Do you know how long that private visit is? I mean, within that
visit will he be able to meet her or does he have to go back and come
back?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe the meeting will take place in the next week,
because the Secretary is in Washington for one day in the next week and a
half, and that will be Saturday. Of course, meetings on Saturday are not
possible with the Israeli leadership, for religious reasons. So therefore,
we are looking for a convenient date sometime hence, and we do look forward
to a meeting with Foreign Minister Levy.
QUESTION: What would be the purpose of such a meeting?
MR. BURNS: To review the excellent state of U.S.-Israeli relations and
the next steps on the peace negotiations and our efforts to bring the
Palestinians and Israelis together.
QUESTION: The Israeli Government today has announced that Syria has some
kind of chemical weapons stock, and also that they are open to new kind of
missile which delivers the chemical weapons. Do you have any information
and do you have any reaction on the subject?
MR. BURNS: No, it's the first I've heard of those allegations. I don't
have any information on them.
QUESTION: Are you going to take it up with North Korea in a couple of
weeks? They've been Syria's main supplier.
MR. BURNS: The Syrian issue? We're going to take up a variety of issues
with the North Koreans, pertaining to their alleged activities with a
number of countries. Charlie.
QUESTION: One of the things in the report out of Israel, or in a press
report out of Israel on the Syrian and chemical weapons story is that it
was discussed with the Israeli defense minister and the Secretary of
Defense. Not asking about that, but when the Israeli defense minister was
here recently, did he have any meetings with anybody at the State
Department to discuss this?
MR. BURNS: Well, when Minister Mordechai was here, he met here with
Secretary Albright. That issue did not come up in that meeting.
QUESTION: Syrian nerve gas did not come up.
MR. BURNS: It didn't come up in that particular meeting. I can't say if
it came up in other meetings that Minister Mordechai may have had
here.
QUESTION: Nick, also on Syria, there's reports out of the region that a
U.S. security team is traveling to Damascus to review how these Americans
are --
MR. BURNS: Yes, I'm still checking into that, Sid. I don't have an answer
for you, but I'm checking into it for you. We'll take that question.
QUESTION: Also on Israel, is Mr. Abington coming back?
MR. BURNS: Coming back, you mean --
QUESTION: Is he being re-assigned?
MR. BURNS: Well, yes, his assignment is completed this summer. He's been
a very distinguished and very effective American consul general in an
extremely difficult environment. He's had a tumultuous three years. He's an
outstanding officer, and he's rotating out. We rotate all of our chiefs of
mission after three years. He'll be replaced by another outstanding person.
Then, when the time is right, we'll announce the name of that person.
QUESTION: You mentioned earlier the issue of Iran and Iraq came up in the
meeting with the Qatar foreign minister.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Did you see the announcement today that the Europeans have
decided to send diplomats back to Iran --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: -- but not to renew the ministry-level contacts?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: And do you have any reaction?
MR. BURNS: Yes. The United States welcomes the declaration by the
European Union foreign ministers today. We strongly share the view of the
European Union that Iran must respect the norms of international law,
refrain from acts of terrorism, and live up to international commitments on
human rights and on proliferation issues.
We also welcome the new measures that the European Union has decided on to
stimulate a more positive Iranian approach to the international community.
We very much look forward to continuing our close dialogue with the
European Union on Iran.
Let me just say that the statement is impressive. They confirm, under the
present circumstances, the European Union - there's no basis for the
continuation of the critical dialogue between the EU and Iran. They have
suspended official bilateral ministerial visits to Iran. They have
confirmed, re-confirmed the policy of an arms boycott on Iran from the
European Union. They will not give visas to Iranians with intelligence and
security functions. They will exclude Iranian intelligence personnel from
European Union member states. They have decided to keep the relationship
with Iran under close review. The critical dialogue is dead.
We very much appreciate the fact that the European Union member countries
have acted decisively today to send a clear message to Iran. We very much
welcome this announcement.
QUESTION: Are these measures pretty much what Secretary Albright
recommended in her communications to the Europeans over the weekend?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't want to say that the United States has had -
that they've agreed with everything the United States has put forward.
Ideally, we would have, of course -- in an ideal perfect world, we would
have preferred an agreement on complete isolation of Iran. That hasn't
happened. The EU ambassadors are going back.
But when they go back, they will go back with this very tough message that
it's not going to be business as usual any longer between the European
Union member states and the government of Iran. So we applaud what has
happened today in Luxembourg, and we very much look forward to working with
the European Union to make sure that we all have a realistic policy towards
Iran, and that Iran gets this message.
QUESTION: In your remarks yesterday, you sort of suggest - you spoke
about being realistic. They sort of indicated that the U.S. didn't really
expect all this much from the Europeans. Is this a surprise?
MR. BURNS: Well, we weren't quite sure what to expect because Peter
Tarnoff's mission-Peter Tarnoff had gone to four of the capitals last
week.
QUESTION: Russia - yes.
MR. BURNS: He had good discussions. I don't think the Europeans have
agreed with all the ideas we have put forward. They agreed with others. Now,
obviously, we would have preferred if the Europeans had included the threat
of additional economic sanctions in case Iranian behavior does not improve.
We would have preferred that, but I think we have to be realistic.
The European Union makes its own decisions. Obviously, it's friendly with
the United States, but it has to make its own decisions. It has made its
own decisions. On the whole, this is an impressive result. It's a result
that has resolve and backbone behind it, and we are very pleased with where
they ended up in Luxembourg.
QUESTION: But isn't it business as usual so far as commercial ventures?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's not business as usual in the way that they treat
the Iranian military and the security establishments, and the fact that the
critical dialogue is dead right now. This is an appreciable change in
Europe's policy towards Iran. It's not a wholesale change, and there are
still now some elements where we have a disagreement, of course, with the
European Union. But this is certainly preferable to where we were with the
Europeans just a couple of weeks ago.
It's clear that the Mykonos trial verdict had a decisive effect that people
now understand, not only in North America, but in Europe, that Iran is a
rogue regime that must be watched very carefully.
QUESTION: Are you sure their critical dialogue is dead? Or is it just
sleeping?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think a dialogue like that is built on a certain
measure of trust, it has to be; or else how can you have a dialogue about a
relationship. It seems to us that that basis of trust has been eroded by
the stark reality of the Mykonos trial, and that is the complicity of the
Iranian Government in political assassinations in Europe. It's a very
serious development. Yasmine.
QUESTION: Well, you keep saying that it's unrealistic to expect that they
will have some economic sanctions against Iran. When you keep saying that,
it gives us the sense that the U.S. has given up all hope that there will
be anything coming from the Europeans in the economic field against Iran.
Is that the case?
MR. BURNS: No, we haven't given up hope, because unfortunately, we think
Iran is going to disappoint the Europeans enough, time and time again. I
just want to be realistic in talking to all of you about what we could
expect from today's meeting in Luxembourg. But our own policy, we believe,
is the right policy; the containment and isolation of Iran, because it is a
dangerous state, a state that presents a threat to all of its neighbors and
to the rest of us, well beyond Iran's borders. We have no doubts whatsoever
in our government about the basis of our own policy.
QUESTION: Can you get into Zaire a little bit, and particularly
Ambassador Richardson's activities?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I'll be glad to. Ambassador Richardson called Secretary
Albright this morning shortly after his meeting with President Mobutu. Let
me give you a sense of his schedule and then a sense of what he has been
saying to President Mobutu, and then our very strong concern about the
events around Kisangani.
Ambassador Richardson, as you know, met with President Mobutu this morning.
Right now he is meeting in Lubumbashi with Mr. Kabila at this hour. After
that meeting he will proceed to Kisangani where he intends to visit the
refugee camps, to meet with United Nations officials on the status of the
refugees, and then he will travel back to Kinshasa for another meeting with
President Mobutu.
He delivered a letter from President Clinton to President Mobutu in French,
translated into French, which I think explains very clearly the policy of
the United States; and that is, that we hope and expect that there will now
be a peaceful transition away from dictatorship in Zaire. Bill Richardson
is urging both the government and the rebel alliance to agree to a cease-
fire, a cessation of hostilities and to a negotiated settlement toward
a transition.
With Mr. Kabila -- and the meeting is taking place right now -- Bill
Richardson will underscore the very, very strong concern we have that the
rebel alliance has not done enough to insure access by the humanitarian
agencies to the refugees. We expect full cooperation with the U.N. high
commissioner for refugees. Mrs. Ogata will be in Washington tomorrow to
discuss this problem with the United States.
We also expect respect, for human rights. Unfortunately, now there is a
growing body of credible evidence that massacres have taken place in rebel-
held territory. You've seen on the television screens, you've seen on the
wire reports consistent, credible reports that thousands of people were
chased from the refugee camps, that many of them have returned, those that
survived this onslaught, with machete wounds. They're malnourished, and
many have died. This is a very serious development because the rebel
alliance must bear responsibility for what happens to innocent people in
the regions that they occupy.
Mr. Robert Garreton, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Zaire,
will arrive in Zaire on May 4th, with a team of U.N. officials including a
forensic team. We expect that the rebel alliance will give Mr. Garreton and
his team full and complete access to the sites where we believe that these
killings have taken place. Certainly, the standard here should be justice.
Those who carried out the killings should be found, and they should
be tried, and they should be brought to justice.
The situation of the refugees is horrific in every way -- a lack of medical
attention, a lack of food, a failure to be protected from the whims of
soldiers who are patrolling in the area. It is a disastrous situation now,
with thousands of people trying to make their way back to points where the
United Nations can help them.
Ambassador Richardson's brief with Mr. Kabila is not only to talk about a
cease-fire and a transition, but to talk about the situation in and around
Kisangani. That is why he is going up to Kisangani tomorrow.
QUESTION: Is the United States suggesting that President Mobutu should
leave Zaire as soon as possible? What is the U.S. position on whether this
peaceful transition requires his departure from the country as soon as
possible, or not?
MR. BURNS: We believe the time for a transition has come. We believe the
era of Mobutu is over. The institutions he has built are crumbling before
his eyes and everyone else's eyes. They have not served the people of
Zaire. Zaire is in crisis, therefore it is imperative that the Zairians
move on to something better and something more durable. We hope that is
democracy via elections.
QUESTION: Having financed him for so many years--
QUESTION: Could I just ask once again?
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Could I just ask once again, should Mobutu leave the country or
not?
MR. BURNS: That is his choice. He alone, can decide that question, but I
think the United States has made very clear that we believe his era is over
and that the time has come for a transition to democratic leaders, not
dictatorial leaders, but people who are willing to engage with their public
to build something better for Zaire, for that country in crisis.
QUESTION: Having financed him for so many years, years ago, is the U.S.
willing to undertake one more economic benefit to Mr. Mobutu and help him
find a new home, and maybe set him up in a good place with a lot of fine
wine?
MR. BURNS: I think probably there is no need for that, Barry. Based on
the fact that a lot of people have enriched themselves in Zaire, a lot of
the government leaders over the last several decades -- off-shore bank
accounts -- I'm not sure that an infusion of financial resources is
necessary. What is necessary is to face reality. The reality is Zaire is
crumbling. We cannot let it crumble because it is a country that borders on
nine others. If we want to stem some of these disastrous humanitarian
problems associated with the refugees, there has to be political stability.
QUESTION: I'm sort of following David's line of questioning, too, because
even rich dictators sometimes get a helping hand in making an exodus from
the United States, to facilitate and push the process along.
MR. BURNS: I'm not sure. I just don't think it is a factor in the present
situation.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: I think what he needs to see is reality and face reality, and
that is the time has come for a transition.
QUESTION: Nick, what you said about the era of Mobutu being over, a time
for transition - Is that the message that Ambassador Richardson delivered
to him and also the message from President Clinton?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't want to go into the details of the President's
letter, except that it reflected American policy and stated American policy
and gave some advice based on American policy. Ambassador Richardson is
carrying that oral message as well. It is time to face reality. It is time
to get on to something better in Zaire.
QUESTION: Can you verify that there will be a meeting this weekend on a
South African ship in international waters between Mr. Kabila and Mr.
Mobutu?
MR. BURNS: We've seen that report. I cannot verify that. We'll have to
see what Ambassador Richardson says. Now, Ambassador Richard said publicly
that Mr. Mobutu has agreed to meet Mr. Kabila. I don't know if they have
worked out for sure where that will take place, so I'd prefer to let the
South African government or the Zairian government announce that.
Patrick.
QUESTION: Is it your position that Mobutu should step down at the
beginning of this transition, in other words, almost straight away? Or at
the end of it?
MR. BURNS: That is a decision he alone can make.
QUESTION: Is one of the issues for him whether his fortune will be
protected from legal appeals by whatever new government they --
MR. BURNS: I simply don't know, David. That is an issue he'll have to
grapple with. I don't know the answer to that question.
QUESTION: And do you know if he has bank accounts in this country,
Nick?
MR. BURNS: I do not know if he does.
QUESTION: And if they did would there be any problem with him taking
whatever money he claims is his?
MR. BURNS: Well, first, I just don't know where he has his bank accounts.
We assume some of them are offshore, outside of Zaire. But that is a
decision he will have to make. There is no basis right now for the United
States to take any action against his assets, no basis whatsoever for that.
Yes, Savas.
QUESTION: Another subject, Northern Iraq, the PUK and some Kurdish
religious groups, they are fighting each other.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on that subject?
MR. BURNS: Anything on that particular subject? Yes, we know that over
the weekend there were classes between the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and
the Kurdistan Islamic Movement. We believe that those clashes have now died
down.
The Kurdistan Islamic Movement is a small armed group with which we do not
have close relations. It is not one of the groups that is part of the
Ankara Process of Conciliation among the various peoples of Northern Iraq.
But we do hope to continue that process, which essentially is centered on
the relationship between the KDP and the PUK. We hope that those two groups
will remain peaceful, as well as with the Assyrians and Turkomans and
others.
We remain committed to working along with Turkey and the United Kingdom to
help the people of Northern Iraq bring stability to their area so they can
fend off Saddam Hussein and minimize these problems among the rest of
them.
QUESTION: Did you find this religious group - the religious Kurdish group
provoked -- or used (inaudible) from the Iranian part?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if it received assistance from Iran. I can check
into that for you. I can certainly check into that for you. I just don't
know the answer to that question. Yes.
QUESTION: Another issue. The Taliban declined the U.S. invitation to meet
in Ankara?
MR. BURNS: A recent U.S. invitation? Are you talking about history or
future?
QUESTION: No, no, very recent - after they --
MR. BURNS: Well, we hope that they will get together. We think they ought
to get together, and we will try to bring them together, along with the
Turkish Government. There will be follow-up meetings to the ones that David
Welch, our acting assistant secretary, had a couple of weeks ago. Yes,
Betsy.
QUESTION: Do you have an update on Lori Berenson in jail in Peru? Has she
been visited? Have we continued to press for a civilian trial for
her?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Our American embassy in Lima, in Peru, is continuing to
provide the appropriate services to Lori Berenson, as we would for any
American who is incarcerated overseas. We have told the Peruvians of our
desire to visit her regularly. We have told them that we desire to see her
receive a trial in a civilian court, and we don't believe that the end of
the hostage crisis at the Japanese embassy will have any effect on the
situation of Lori Berenson.
We visited her most recently on April 17th, five days before the storming
of the Japanese embassy. We also visited her on February 25th. She has
received 14 visits by American consular officials at the Yanamayo Prison
since she was transferred there on January 17, 1996.
We also have made the Peruvians aware of the wish of her parents to visit
her. We expect that she will be treated well while she is incarcerated.
QUESTION: Can you tell us how she was the last time she was visited?
MR. BURNS: Actually, Ms. Berenson has not given us a Privacy Act waiver.
So we are not able to give you publicly our observations on her well being.
She refuses to give us the Privacy Act waiver. Therefore, I must respect
her privacy.
But I can assure you that we do make the point to the Peruvian authorities
that she ought to be treated well, despite the fact that she has been
convicted by a military court.
QUESTION: So you are not aware of any change in the Peruvian authorities'
behavior towards her since the storming of the embassy?
MR. BURNS: No, we are not, and we would expect that the storming of the
embassy would have no effect at all on the way that she is treated. She
ought to be treated well. All prisoners in that system ought to be treated
well. But I must say that conditions in Peruvian prison are often quite
grim.
QUESTION: Nick, did they say they would allow her parents to come see
her?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if there has been a response yet. But we
certainly hope that her parents might be able to visit her, and we support
that.
QUESTION: Do you know if it would be normal procedure for parents to be
able to visit that particular prison?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if it's normal or not, but we are requesting
it.
QUESTION: Nick, have you determined when you are going to release this
U.S. report on the Swiss gold? April is almost over.
MR. BURNS: Are there any others on Lori Berenson? We're off Lori
Berenson. Swiss gold?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I think that report will be issued either late next week or
the following week. We are getting very close to the issuance of the
report.
QUESTION: Well, we have been close for a month now.
MR. BURNS: I can - no, we're close. We're much closer. I can see that
report clearly on the horizon.
QUESTION: Do we have to read it in the newspaper first?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I certainly hope not, Ron. I would expect that Undersecretary
of Commerce Eizenstat would be down here to issue the report from this
podium.
QUESTION: Nick, the Swiss said this week that they were informed the
report would be released Friday, this Friday.
MR. BURNS: It will not be released this Friday.
QUESTION: Why has there now been an additional delay?
MR. BURNS: It's not an additional delay. I met with Stu Eizenstat last
week, and we agreed that it would be issued either the first or second week
of May. I think it will be the first week, but I'll want to check that
because I haven't talked to him in a couple of days. But we never intended
to release it this week - not for a long time, at least.
QUESTION: You can't account for what the Swiss were saying?
MR. BURNS: No, I cannot, no. No. Yes, Bob.
QUESTION: Nick, in the Secretary's meeting last night with Minister Qian
Qichen, can you tell us what the Chinese were saying about the food
situation in North Korea, and whether the minister was able to shed any
light on why the North Koreans are delaying in responding to the four-party
talks request?
MR. BURNS: I think it's fair to say the Chinese share our assessment that
there is a dramatic food shortage in North Korea. Minister Qichen told us
that China has contributed a substantial amount of corn, grant corn aid to
the North Koreans just recently. We welcome that. We think that countries
have an obligation to meet this humanitarian need.
QUESTION: Nick.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday, during your - I'm sorry, Bob.
QUESTION: And on the other, Nick. Did he shed any light on why the North
Koreans are delaying a response to the Four-Party --
MR. BURNS: We did discuss why both of us think North Korea has not yet
made a clear decision to join the Four Party peace talks and let them
begin. I think both of our countries would like to see those talks
begin.
QUESTION: Have new allegations been raised about China's export of
chemical weapons equipment to Iran or Pakistan?
MR. BURNS: New allegations?
QUESTION: New allegations.
MR. BURNS: New allegations. How new, Sid?
QUESTION: Well, last time we visited this issue, I didn't hear anything
about chemical weapons equipment - a lot of missiles and so forth.
MR. BURNS: I would have to check. There have been so many allegations
from a variety of sources that it's hard for me to say this is new and that
is old. But when we do see the allegations, we look into them in some
detail. We raise them with the Chinese. Secretary Albright raised a number
of concerns that we have yesterday.
QUESTION: We follow this pretty closely, and I don't recall ever hearing
about a trading relationship regarding chemical weapons or chemical weapons-
related equipment. And yet yesterday, you --
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that is entirely new.
QUESTION: Entirely new would mean, I mean, since the last time they
met?
MR. BURNS: I would have to check. I don't negotiate proliferation issues
for us. I would have to check with the people who do. But it's not new in
the last couple of days or the last couple of weeks. We have known about
some concerns. We have heard about some concerns for some time, and we act
upon them.
QUESTION: Can you talk about those, the situation?
MR. BURNS: We don't talk about them specifically, as you know. We've
never done that. We prefer to keep these private, between us and the
Chinese. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yesterday, did the Chinese side pick up the U.S.-Japan security
issue? Was there any kind of a role of Japan playing security station in
East Asia?
MR. BURNS: There was not an extended discussion on Japan. The discussion
focused on Korea, Russia, Tibet and the environment, and the United Nations
last night. David.
QUESTION: On Belarus, when is the U.S. ambassador going back? How would
you characterize U.S.-Belarusian relations at this point?
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Ken Yalowitz is returning to his post in Minsk. He
has completed the consultations for which he was recalled. He is carrying a
strong message from the U.S. Government to the government of Belarus. That
message essentially is that we continue to have serious reservations about
the situation in Belarus, particularly its abysmal human rights record. We
are informing the government of Belarus that the future course of
our relationship depends on its actions, not on its statements.
He's not returning to convey a sense of business as usual with Belarus. He
intends to intensify his own conversations, discussions and meetings with
those people in Belarusian society who are interested in democracy, in
human rights, in normal state-to-state relations and economic reform. In
this regard, I'd like to note that the April 26th march in Minsk commemorating
the 11th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster passed peacefully. The order
and restraint that were shown on April 26th ought to serve as a model for
how the government should treat its own people. It ought to allow
people to assemble and to speak their minds peacefully, as many of the
groups have tried to do.
I think the crowd over the weekend was 20,000, which was the largest rally
in Minsk in a year. So we're not hopeful. We can't say, with all due candor,
that we're hopeful for an improvement in U.S.-Belarusian relations, but
we're determined to send a signal of our strong support for democracy and
strong opposition to dictatorship.
QUESTION: Which day is he going?
MR. BURNS: He's going, I believe, this afternoon. Yes.
QUESTION: Nick, between the meeting, Secretary and Minister Qichen, was
the disturbances in Western China between government forces and Turks
raised? Quite a few people are getting killed recently. Is that a point of
concern for the United States?
MR. BURNS: We are concerned about the situation in Western China, among
the Muslim population. I can't say that that was raised specifically. But
there was a private meeting, a one-on-one, so I can't exclude the
possibility. I have to check on that. But you can be assured that human
rights were raised in some detail, with some degree of determination on
Secretary Albright's part. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: When the Secretary goes to Russia this week, what will she be
saying about the joint declaration signed last week between the Russian and
Chinese leaders on the new world order for the next century, particularly
their comments about a multi-polar world and calling for efforts for a
single polar world not to carry on, although it didn't specify which
particular power that was referring to?
MR. BURNS: Well, Secretary Albright believes that it is a positive step
forward that Russia and China are clearing away some of the elements in
their relationship that nearly produced a war between the Soviet Union and
China in the early 1960s - some of the border problems.
It is positive for the United States that China and Russia reduce the
problems between them. It's positive for our national security interests,
and we want to see that trend continue. We have our own relationships with
both of them - a very good relationship with Russia, and an evolving
relationship with China. The United States will continue to be, in Europe,
a great power and, in the Asia Pacific region, a great power throughout the
next century. So we're confident about our own purposes in the world,
about the kind of world we want to see develop; and peace with Russia
and with China and between Russia and China is a very important part of
that. So it was, I think, a positive meeting - President Jiang Zemin's
visit to Moscow.
QUESTION: And the American Government would like to see a multi-polar
world like they would?
MR. BURNS: I think that the United States Government cannot dictate a
certain order in the world. The world is ordered as it is, based on the
relative strength among countries. We are a great power in all respects.
We're probably the only power in the world that is a great power politically,
economically and militarily. But we seek cooperation with the other great
powers - with Russia and with China, certainly with Japan and Korea,
in our own hemisphere with Brazil and Argentina. We seek cooperative
peaceful relations with all the great countries of the world.
QUESTION: But when President Yeltsin referred to someone longing for a
single polar world, wanting to decide things for himself --
MR. BURNS: I can't imagine who they're referring to, because President
Bill Clinton's foreign policy has been a foreign policy that has accentuated
positive developing relations among the great powers. I think if you look
at how the United States has acted since the Second World War, when we were
clearly the dominant power in the world and had 50 percent of the world's
GNP - how we've acted since the end of the Cold War, we are a benevolent
power. We don't seek empire. We don't seek domination by the United States.
We seek peace and stability. That's been the hallmark not only of Bill
Clinton's foreign policy, but of post-War American foreign policy. So, we
don't see the big deal, frankly. David.
QUESTION: Is the United States aware of any violations of Cuban airspace
by Brothers to the Rescue or other civilian aircraft since the shooting
down sometime back?
MR. BURNS: Oh, since the February 24, 1996, shootdown?
QUESTION: Yeah, have there been violations of Cuban airspace by Brothers
to the Rescue or other --
MR. BURNS: Since the Cuban government shot down two unarmed Cessnas with
private citizens aboard - since they ruthlessly did that and were found
guilty by the ICAO of having done so, since that day when four Americans
were killed, I don't believe we have any evidence that there have been
violations of Cuban airspace since then. We don't encourage that to happen
because we think it is dangerous, given what happened on February 24, 1996.
But we absolutely defend the right of Brothers to the Rescue and the
other groups in Florida to make clear publicly their opposition to the
dictatorship in Cuba. There are ways that they can do that peacefully that
won't bring them up to the line of confrontation with the Cuban Government,
which of course, we do not want to see because it does risk people's
lives.
QUESTION: Can I ask you to take the question as to whether there have
been any crossings of that line that the U.S. is aware of?
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take that question, yes. Thank you very
much.
(The briefing concluded at 2:05 p.m.)
(###)
|
