U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #72, 97-05-12

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, May 12, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS
	    Secretary Albright's Upcoming Activities:
1-3         Mtg. w/Albanian FM 5/12/Trip to Denver 5/13/East-West Awards
	      Dinner 5/15
3-5         Emergency Humanitarian Assistance to Iran
3           Presidents Yeltsin/Maskhatov Agreement re: Rejection of Use of
              Force
3           Statement on Pacific Salmon Stakeholders Process
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
5-7         Death of East Jerusalem Arab
6-9         Dennis Ross Mtgs. in Region
8-9         Settlements/Housing Construction
ZAIRE
9-11        Proposed Mobutu/Kabila Mtg./Further Reduction of Amercan
              Embassy Staff
CYPRUS
11-12       Cypriot/Turkish Unilateral, Separate Agreements on Military
              Overflights
GREECE/TURKEY
11-12       Aegean Disputes
IRAN
12-13       Report of U.S. Companies at Oil Conference
13-14       Iran-Libya Sanctions Act
EGYPT
14          Report of U.S. License to Sell Submarines to Egypt
TURKEY
14-15       Proposed Transfer of U.S. Frigates
15          Reported Letter to Sec. Albright from Aerospace Companies re:
              Export Licenses
INDONESIA
15-16       Status of Proposed F-16 Sale
SAUDI ARABIA
16-18       Roush Case-Mtgs. w/U.S. Officials
MEXICO
18          Reported Justice Dept. Investigation re: Salinas' Brother
RUSSIA
18-19       Stability/Control of Nuclear Forces

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #72

MONDAY, MAY 12, 1997 1:14 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Secretary Albright is going to see the Albanian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Fino at 4:15 p.m. this afternoon. Prime Minister Fino will have with him other members of the coalition government of the National Reconciliation Council this afternoon. Secretary Albright sought this meeting, invited him to the United States to express her strong support for the forces of moderation and consensus in Albania, as the country prepares for what we hope will be free and fair parliamentary elections on June 29.

In her meeting with Prime Minister Fino, the Secretary will highlight the substantial investment which the international community is currently making in Albania to help it resolve its political problems, its economic problems. She'll emphasize the importance of these elections as a means to re-establish public confidence in Albanian governmental institutions.

I expect that she will highlight the very important efforts that former Austrian Chancellor Franz Vranitzky and the OSCE mission have made over the last several weeks - including, last week, during Chancellor Vranizky's visit to Tirana. The Secretary will assure the delegation that that United States and Europe will not tolerate attempts by one party or faction to delay or obstruct the important process of the preparations for the elections. So we welcome him very much today. I think there's an opportunity for you for a camera spray at 4:15 p.m.

QUESTION: Nick, if this message was so important to get out, why didn't the Secretary express it herself in a photo op?

MR. BURNS: Carol, all I can tell you is the decision has been made to have a camera spray this afternoon. So I'm very glad to answer your questions on it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Pardon?

QUESTION: That was a question.

MR. BURNS: And I answered it.

QUESTION: No, you didn't.

MR. BURNS: Yes, I did, sir. If you have additional questions, I'll be glad to answer those questions. I'm at your service; this is a full-service operation.

QUESTION: If you want to attract attention to this, will he see other folks, other senior officials while he's here?

MR. BURNS: I think he is seeing people on the Hill, Capitol Hill. I think he's even seeing members of the press. That wouldn't surprise me at all. But Secretary Albright will be the senior ranking American government official to meet with him.

QUESTION: When was he invited, do you happen to know?

MR. BURNS: He was invited a couple of weeks ago. She called him a couple of weeks ago to invite him.

Now, furthermore, Secretary Albright will be going to Denver, Colorado, tomorrow. She'll meet with the organizers of the Summit of the Eight. She'll address a lunch co-hosted by the Denver Host Committee and the Women's Foundation. She's also going to visit her alma mater, the Kent- Denver School. She's going to tour local businesses with the mayor of Denver, Mayor Webb.

Almost all of the things she does tomorrow are open press events. We have an open press operation here. We encourage people to cover Secretary Albright. So if you want to make your way out to Denver, I'll be there and will be glad to have you cover Secretary Albright. One of the meetings she has with the host committee is closed; everything else is open.

QUESTION: What's the name of the group, the host committee? Or are they hosting her?

MR. BURNS: Actually, there is a host committee, put together by the city and the state, yes. They're preparing for the summit, and she's going to meet with them.

QUESTION: You don't have a contact or something, do you, to call? A number or a name?

MR. BURNS: A contact of that committee?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Actually, the easiest thing to do is call Kitty Bartels of the Secretary's staff, who's in Denver. I think we can give you her page number and her cell phone number. She can tell you how you can cover that or if somebody from the AP is going to be out there, how they can do that.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BURNS: Yes. On Thursday night, May 15th, the Secretary will attend the 1997 East-West Awards Dinner in New York City. She'll present this year's award to its recipients. This year the institute is honoring the Czech President Vaclav Havel, the President of Germany, Roman Herzog, and the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Jacque de Larosiere. The dinner is at the Waldorf Hotel from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and I believe that journalists can cover that event -- another event where you can cover Secretary Albright.

Now, a couple more things before we go to questions. First, all of us in this government were shocked and saddened to see the earthquake in Iran over the weekend, to see the devastating effects of that earthquake on the people of Iran. Secretary Albright has decided that the United States will extend roughly $100,000 in emergency humanitarian assistance. We expect that this assistance will be given to the International Committee for the Red Cross, which has made an appeal internationally for funds. We will try to get that money to the ICRC as soon as possible.

We have had our disputes with the government of Iran for many, many years, but we don't have any arguments with the people of Iran. The people of Iran obviously are in need of support. Just as last time when there was an earthquake, the United States responded, we will be contributing to international efforts again.

We viewed with satisfaction the text of the agreement that was signed today in Moscow by President Yeltsin and by the Chechen President Maskhadov. It certainly affirms the commitments of both the Russian Federation and the Chechen authorities to reject the use of force in their relationship and to develop their relationships on generally agreed upon principles and norms of international law. This is a very important step forward between Moscow and Grozny, and we applaud this move which brings them further and further away from the terrible Chechen War.

Finally, we are posting a statement today on the Pacific Salmon Stakeholders Process. This is a very important issue affecting our Northwest states, and affecting several Canadian provinces and both governments. We are announcing today that the stakeholder talks, begun in February of this year with the government of Canada, have ended. The stakeholder groups have made progress, we think, in framing the issues, narrowing their differences on certain issues. We will have a governmental meeting between the United States and Canada on May 20th to look at these issues, and through the Pacific Salmon Commission, to work on fishing regimes for 1997 and 1998. If you are interested, we have a full statement on this.

QUESTION: Nick, can we go back to Iran a bit for a moment?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: The humanitarian assistance - is this an isolated action? Is there any reconsideration being given to the Administration's unfortunately lonely campaign to isolate Iran? Recently, for instance, The Christian Science Monitor did an extensive piece last week, which had people put the case for being a little more selective in your punishment of Iran or the attempts to punish Iran.

Humanitarian assistance stands aside? Or are there times when it might be in the U.S.' benefit to have some sort of contacts with Iran?

MR. BURNS: It is a separate issue. We are going to maintain our policy of containment and isolation of Iran. But this is a separate issue because this has nothing to do with the government of Iran, everything to do with the fact that thousands of people have been killed and are wounded and are homeless. Last time, in March, when there was another earthquake, the United States contributed $25,000. Given the severity of this particular earthquake, Secretary Albright felt we should do more.

Every American ambassador has discretionary authority to extend humanitarian funds to respond to a disaster. We don't have an embassy in Tehran, but Secretary Albright talked with her Near East advisors this morning and made this decision fairly quickly today. It's approximately $100,000. It could be a little bit more than $100,000. We need to isolate the specific source of money in the next couple of hours, but that will be done. We think it's the right thing to do to try to help people out in an emergency like this.

QUESTION: You say she made the decision fairly quickly. That sort of implies that there was no review, certainly no reconsideration of Iranian policy in that session.

MR. BURNS: No, there's been no review over the last 24 hours, and will be no review of our fundamental policy towards Iran, which is one of isolating Iran. We are responding solely, Barry, here to a humanitarian emergency.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. see no virtue in establishing - I mean, you know the piece, for instance, had the Iranians on a moderate side in Afghanistan, for instance, serving what would seem to be U.S. purposes against a very repressive regime. And the Europeans had their own view. Again, beating it to death, I suppose, but there is no opening, no consideration of some sort of a selective engagement with Iran, is there?

MR. BURNS: No, there isn't; not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: Nick, out of curiosity, what are the sources you can tap for the money?

MR. BURNS: We have several sources of funds - mainly AID sources. But there are some other sources of funds here in other programs in the State Department, and our Near East Bureau simply needs to now identify the specific source. But it will be done very quickly because we want to get this money to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

QUESTION: It is money, not --

MR. BURNS: It's money, it's money, yes. But there has been a long- standing tradition of the United States responding. I think back in 1990, when there was a particularly severe earthquake, the Bush Administration responded as well with several hundred thousand dollars in assistance. So Secretary Albright felt it was just - the United States has to act out of humanitarian impulses in a situation like this, to respond to people who are suffering. That is the right thing to do.

QUESTION: There's a Palestinian who's more than suffering; he's dead. And there's a strong suspicion that he is the first victim of a threat voiced to the Associated Press by the Palestinians' Justice Minister the weekend before last, that anybody who sells land or property to a Jew - not to just Israelis, to Jews; they use it interchangeably - will be executed. And I wondered, number one, you know last week you said - the spokespeople here said if this is true, it would be very disturbing. We were referred to the Palestinian Authority to ask them what their policy is.

Let me bounce it back to you. Have you verified such a threat? And was this gentleman, this 70-year old man, a victim of that threat?

MR. BURNS: Well, Barry, we've all seen the reports of the death of the Palestinian man. We know that the Israeli police and the Palestinian police are investigating the murder. It appears to have been a murder, not an accident. We know that they have not - the police have not yet apprehended anyone or taken anyone into custody on suspicion of having committed the murder. We know that the Palestinian and Israeli police have not yet established any motive for the murder. So the investigation continues, and we cannot get ahead of the joint police investigation.

It is true, however, given what has been said in the past week - some of the inflammatory public comments by some of the Palestinian figures - that if this turns out to have been what is now alleged, a political murder, that will be highly disturbing, obviously, to the United States. But we have to wait for the conclusion of this police investigation before we can speak further about it.

QUESTION: The cleric, the mufti, who was appointed by the very same Palestinian Authority, denied the victim burial rights, Muslim burial rights, the ceremonial bathing, burial really, a Muslim burial. But he was appointed by the Palestinian Authority, and his words appear here in print. Does the State Department have a view of that part of the situation?

MR. BURNS: I think I read the same news report this morning that you did. I frankly do not know whether the quotes of the Imam are accurate or not. I think I would rather wait for a report from our Consul General in Jerusalem before responding to quotes that may or may not have been taken out of context.

QUESTION: Nick, leaving this crime aside, does this Administration think Palestinians should be free to sell their land to whomever they want to, if they own any? Israeli or whatever?

MR. BURNS: Well, Sid, that is loaded question, as you know. I think obviously we hope that both the Israelis and Palestinians are free to conduct business affairs within the law, as the law is established and when the law is absolutely clear and accepted by both sides.

In this case, for me to answer your question would be to inject the United States into a very hot political dispute. We prefer to use our influence privately as Dennis Ross is doing in the region today to try to adjudicate problems and referee problems between the Israelis and Palestinians, rather than to put ourselves into a position where we become one of the actors in these controversies.

QUESTION: You must mean civil law. You can't mean religious law because it is prohibited under Muslim law to accede territory to people who aren't Muslim.

MR. BURNS: I meant the law of the land, and the law of the people that business people have to go by. Yes.

QUESTION: Well, you are somehow implying that you would accept this as a law if it was a law.

MR. BURNS: Accept what?

QUESTION: This - the killing of Palestinians that sell land --

MR. BURNS: Sid, I don't know how you reached that conclusion, and for anyone just reading the transcript, either tonight or 100 years from now, in no way can you construe that what I just said would be any kind of apology for killing someone. I simply - the question was completely different.

I just simply said what I said -- that obviously Israelis and Palestinians ought to be free, business people ought to be free, to conduct their own affairs within the confines of the law. I'm talking about civil law here, the law that business people have to operate under. I'm not talking about various options under religious law. I would just urge you not to leap to conclusions like that.

QUESTION: Is this something Dennis is getting into?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe it's really at the forefront of what he is doing, no. What Dennis is trying to do - I spoke with him about an hour ago - he is trying to convince the Israelis and Palestinians to meet together and to move forward together on the peace negotiations. That is where the United States can be of most help.

But these questions of religious law and burial, and these questions of what orders were given or not given, they are for Palestinians and Israelis to sort out. The question of the murder of this gentleman is obviously for the police -- the Palestinian police and the Israeli police -- to sort out. We have to await their verdict on this.

QUESTION: There was one published allegation that he was murdered by Yassar Arafat's 417, which now, I guess, operates under the guise of being a police force of sorts. So you're asking them to sort it out?

MR. BURNS: Howard, I remind you, that's an allegation that's been made in the press. That's not a fact that's been certified by a court of law. So it's very important that we put our faith in the police who are investigating the crime - the Israeli and Palestinian police - and await whatever happens. If a criminal trial emerges, if someone is indicted, if evidence is brought forward to indict someone or possibly to convict, then perhaps this story is going to go farther down the road.

But at this point, there's been a murder. No evidence and no suspects. It's very difficult for the United States to leap ahead with you and to confirm everything that's appearing in the newspapers. We have to be responsible about what we say. We can't join in the fray here.

QUESTION: But have you verified - has the State Department verified now, ten days after the fact, that the Palestinian Justice Department or whatever it is, Justice Ministry has indeed threatened Palestinians who sell property to Jews with execution?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if our Consulate General has indeed verified if some kind of -

QUESTION: Death threat.

MR. BURNS: -- if some kind of a death threat has been issued by the Palestinian Authority. I don't know that to be the case. I can tell you, Barry, I think the whole - our remarks are meant to try to put the focus of the investigation on the Israelis and Palestinians. Obviously, the United States would not support a death threat against anybody for whatever reason - political or religious.

QUESTION: How is Dennis doing in trying to get the Arabs and Palestinians back together again?

MR. BURNS: He's working at it.

QUESTION: And what's the problem?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think you can probably recite the problems as well as I can. There are major divisions between the Israelis and Palestinians in how they want to move forward in the peace negotiations. They have disagreements about the substance of the peace negotiations. Our view is that it's always better to have them talking than not talking, because when there are interludes of no action on the peace negotiations, what happens sooner or later is that we see violence. We don't want to see violence. We obviously don't encourage that. We are encouraging them to be serious, to negotiate with each other about security issues as well as about political issues, to get back to the talks and to make progress in them.

So he's working at that. He has had several meetings with Chairman Arafat, including one last evening; several with Prime Minister Netanyahu; with King Hussein; with President Mubarak in Sharm el Sheikh on Saturday; King Hussein today. He will keep at it. I expect Dennis will be in the region until the end of this week - several more days.

QUESTION: His meeting with Hussein, was that specifically on the Arab- Palestinian negotiations or is he branching out?

MR. BURNS: It's focused on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. I don't know if other U.S.-Jordanian issues were discussed.

QUESTION: And would the United States like King Hussein to play a more active role in bringing them back together?

MR. BURNS: He is already playing a significant role. In fact, I think he's been a genuine peacemaker over the last several months - a real leader in the peace negotiations. So we're very grateful for all of his assistance. I don't want to infer that he needs to play a larger role because it's hard to point out anybody in the Middle East who's played a stronger more vigorous role than King Hussein over the last several months.

QUESTION: Nick, your first response was that there are major differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians on how they want to move forward. You said that rather quickly. It's established that both sides want to move forward?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I think yes. We believe both sides are negotiating in good faith with us. Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat have told Secretary Albright and Dennis Ross that they do want to reconnect in these peace negotiations. They want to revitalize them. The problem is, how do you do that? You need to overcome some differences even to do that, even to get them talking again. So it's a very difficult process.

But Dennis is a creative diplomat, and he's been successful in the past. We have our hopes on him this week.

QUESTION: Did you see the Palestinian Authority's statement, "The American envoy, Dennis Ross, did not achieve any progress in his mission with the Israeli side as a result of the Israeli Government's insistence to continue settlement building." There are two points there - that there was no progress, and it's not much of a leap to the inference that the Palestinians still considered stopping the construction of pre-conditions in the negotiations. Are there still pre-conditions?

MR. BURNS: Well, on the first allegation, I don't know how that allegation can be made that there has been no progress because the talks haven't ended yet. Dennis is midway through his trip, so I don't think he should be judged until he ends his trip. Then even when he ends his trip, we will continue our efforts to bring them together. I think that is a little bit premature.

On the second question, settlements is a major issue. They have a major difference on the issue of settlements, and the issue of housing construction at Har Homa or Jabal Abu Ghunnaim. That remains a major sticking point between them.

QUESTION: The housing project is not a settlement by U.S. definition.

MR. BURNS: No, but I just very carefully just said, settlements are a major difference and the housing project at Jabal Abu Ghunnaim/Har Homa, is also. So I actually separated them. There was a comma or semi colon as I thought about it. Charlie.

QUESTION: Nick, you characterized the role King Hussein is playing. Can you tell what Dennis Ross - characterize his conversations with Mubarak and characterize the role President Mubarak is playing?

MR. BURNS: Yes, President Mubarak is playing a helpful role. Charlie, thank you for asking the question. Dennis had a good meeting with him at Sharm el Sheikh, and we will continue to work very closely with the Egyptian Government.

QUESTION: You want to swing over to Zaire and let us know if Kinshasa is about to fall or whatever?

MR. BURNS: Okay, Barry, what I can tell you is that we hope very much that the South African Government's proposal to have President Mobutu and Mr. Kabila meet on a South African naval vessel on Wednesday, we hope that that meeting is held. We hope that the two leaders can agree on a peaceful transition in Zaire.

There has been a lot of turbulence over the weekend, a lot of rumors in Kinshasa. Because of the uncertainty in Zaire, Ambassador Simpson, the United States Ambassador to Zaire, has decided to reduce American staff further at our embassy in Kinshasa from 37 people to 25. So we are down to a core of 25 people. Most of the people have left overnight by ferry to Brazzaville, by commercial aircraft to other African capitals and to Europe. We think this is a prudent move given the fact that fighting is drawing nearer to Kinshasa. The security situation is stable today. Our embassy does not report anything untoward today, but you never know.

We are taking all appropriate precautions to safeguard the official Americans in Zaire. We continue to ask the private American community, which numbers still roughly 300 people, John?

MR. DINGER: Three hundred twenty-five.

MR. BURNS: Three hundred twenty-five people, we urge those people to leave - business people, NGO's, missionaries. The situation is too precarious, too unstable for them to stay. We have a travel advisory out to that effect, and we reaffirm that today.

QUESTION: It sounds like over 120 people have left in the last week or two. Is that about right?

MR. BURNS: Official Americans?

QUESTION: No, as I recall, the last time I looked at this, there were 440 of all stripes.

MR. BURNS: That's right, roughly. We don't have specific numbers, George, at least not right now. But I think that's true that the numbers have declined. That is a good thing. People ought not to take chances in a situation like this.

Now, we hope that the transfer of power is going to be peaceful, but that is not certain. The rebel army continues to march towards the capital. It is unclear whether or not this meeting will be held on Wednesday. It is unclear what the Zairian Army in Kinshasa will do, currently in its barracks. It doesn't have a great track record about civil law and order in the past. We are mindful of that. There have been a lot of rumors over the weekend, as you know, including some rumors that the Zairian Government was prepared to kill expatriates in order to draw in foreign intervention forces. Now, we don't believe that rumor was true, but we have a responsibility to take it seriously.

So we have taken some very significant security precautions over the weekend, and we have asked these people to leave. So we're down to 25 official Americans.

QUESTION: What about the rumors of looting in the capital?

MR. BURNS: We saw the reports today, but our embassy has not reported anything like that. They report a quiet city. But it is a big city, so I'm not sure they know everything that is happening all around the city.

QUESTION: Would you say these rumors are partially responsible for this draw-down of a dozen or so?

MR. BURNS: It's certainly one of the factors, but not the only factor, yes. We have a fundamental responsibility to protect our people. As you know, Secretary Albright has been watching this daily. She's asked for a daily report on the security situation at our embassy in Kinshasa for two and a half, three weeks now. We just feel, given the fact that the endgame is approaching in Zaire, the transfer of power is going to happen one way or the other, we ought to be down to the absolute minimum number of people that Ambassador Simpson needs to run his embassy.

We are going to keep the embassy open, obviously as long as possible. We would like to keep it open because the United States ought to be represented when the transition occurs. Laura?

QUESTION: The number of private Americans in the country still seems to be fairly high given these rumors that you have referred to surfacing over the weekend. Is there some other effort, you know, beyond your making the call from the podium and encouraging Americans to leave there or not to travel there at all? Are there any phone calls going out from the embassy to encourage the Americans to leave before it becomes a situation where an evacuation might be necessary?

MR. BURNS: Well, we have encouraged American citizens to leave for many months. We are not in a position to force American citizens to leave Zaire. Each American has to make his or her own decision about their own personal welfare. There are missionaries there who believe, obviously, that they are doing necessary work. There are business people there who are chasing profits, chasing contracts, and obviously they and their companies have decided it is worth the risk.

We think it is a high risk, frankly. In a situation like this, in a country like this where you have a major, potent rebel force which is marching on the capital; where you have a rather undisciplined central government Army with a very poor track record in its barracks in Kinshasa, we cannot predict what is going to happen. So our message is clear as a bell to the American private community -- get out of Zaire. Get out of Zaire before you find yourself in harm's way. They ought to listen to that message. Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: I'm delighted to welcome you back.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you.

MR. BURNS: We have missed you here. We really have. How are you?

QUESTION: I'm fine, thank you.

MR. BURNS: Great.

QUESTION: It was reported in Athens that in the recent Greek-U.S. talks on the island of Crete, the U.S. Government succeeded to reach an agreement between Greece and Turkey over specific air corridors in the Aegean. Could you please comment on what it is about?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambrose, on Friday, yes, the United States, we announced from this podium that unilaterally and separately Cyprus and Turkey had decided - unilaterally and separately - that there would be no overflights, military overflights of Cyprus during the current military exercises. That was a unilateral and separate decision that the Turkish Government made, and the Cypriot Government. Of course, the Cypriot Government decision referred to Greek military aircraft overflying Cyprus. So we were very pleased that those governments had made those unilateral land separate decisions. We are very pleased about it and we hope it is a step forward in building confidence among these parties in the eastern Mediterranean.

QUESTION: My question is, if you succeed to reach an agreement between Greece and Turkey over specific air corridors in the Aegean as it was reported today in Athens. And I'm wondering what is it all about?

MR. BURNS: Well, I'm not aware of any additional agreement that would refer to air corridors beyond Cypress, air corridors over the Aegean Sea. I'm not aware of any agreements.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) exact form because there was a report --

MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to check it for you. Of course, you know the United States is al ways looking to try to build confidence between Turkey and Greece, particularly on Aegean matters, on military matters, but I just can't report anything to you today.

QUESTION: The papers said on Friday you welcomed the information from the Turkish Government that Turkey has no plans to overfly Cyprus.

MR. BURNS: That's right.

QUESTION: I'm wondering if there is still an information or a decision by the Turkish Government, this information is not something concrete and permanent?

MR. BURNS: Oh, we think it is very - we think a decision has been made by Turkey and by Greece and by Cyprus, and that's good.

QUESTION: The last one - according to The Washington Times, the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr. Pangalos said that the U.S. supports Turkey in its issue with Greece for strategic reasons, based on a discussion he had with a U.S. official saying exactly, "It was like him telling me I think the world of you, but you have to cut off your arm and give it to me." Do you agree with his comment? It was reported yesterday in The Washington Times.

MR. BURNS: Your question is that somehow the United States is giving preferential treatment to Turkey as opposed to Greece in their conflict in the Aegean?

QUESTION: For strategic reasons.

MR. BURNS: I can tell you, Mr. Lambros, that that is not true. I am sure that Minister Pangalos did not say that, or was misquoted, because Minister Pangalos knows very well that the United States is a friend and ally of Greece as well as of Turkey. We are impartial. We use our good offices to try to help bring Turkey and Greece together as a good NATO ally, and we would never show preferential treatment to one versus the other.

Greece is one of the oldest allies that the United States has had. We are very pleased with our relationship with the Prime Minister, with Foreign Minister Pangalos, we have an excellent relationship with him, and we are sure that will continue. Yes, Yasmine.

QUESTION: To Teheran for a second. Do you have anything on some major U.S. companies attending an oil conference in Iran over the weekend?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we saw the report. I think there was a report in the Wall Street Journal about that. I can tell you that our current embargo on Iran does not prohibit travel to Iran, nor does it restrict Americans having discussions with Iran. The embargo is intended to deny Iran the benefit of United States investment, United States trade, exports and imports. But U.S. firms are firmly prohibited from entering into any legally binding contracts with Iran.

Certainly we think that the spirit of the sanctions are important. We don't look with favor or any degree of equanimity on meetings between American businessmen and the government of Iran. We think it is a bad idea. We think Iran is a bad partner, doesn't always pay its bills, and these companies are not going to be able to have contracts with Iran anyway. So we are not sure what good the discussions will have. These sanctions will be in place for a very long time -- as long as the Iranian Government maintains its current policies.

QUESTION: What about the Dutch and French companies, which seem to be getting ready to bid in some major tenders?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think you know it is our hope that the European countries would establish a much tougher policy against Iran, and that they would also join us in an economic boycott of Iran. I don't think that's going to happen in the short term. We have to be realistic. But it doesn't mean, when asked, that we would agree to it. We don't think it's a good idea.

QUESTION: Nick, in the same story it says Iranian officials on Saturday announced that the British oil company has signed an agreement to develop the Iranian off shore oil field, and it's going to cost about $140 million. Will U.S. sanctions be applied against this British company?

MR. BURNS: Well, again, you're quoting Iranian sources. I'd have to know the name of the British company --

QUESTION: The journal.

MR. BURNS: Well, the Wall Street Journal's a good newspaper. But if it's quoting Iranian sources, I can't establish that as the gospel truth.

QUESTION: But if --

MR. BURNS: If you're asking if American sanctions, if the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act will pertain to a certain investment, we would have to know the specific information in the case. We'd have to be able to corroborate. I can't do that off a newspaper story.

QUESTION: Could you look into it?

MR. BURNS: We'll be glad to look into it. We look into anything you guys want us to look into.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In a time when Turkish company is under review, I understand, for doing a natural gas deal with Iran, so one would expect impartiality in situations like these.

MR. BURNS: We're always impartial in situations like this. You can rest assured of that. I just don't have the facts of this case, Ugur, I can't sit here and announce we're going to place sanctions on someone without knowing the facts, without it going through our own process here in the government. We have a law that has to be respected, and the law has specific requirements.

QUESTION: Will you take the question?

MR. BURNS: I will hereby take this as a question and try to get back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: While you're taking questions, on another issue --

MR. BURNS: I have one on Turkey we've got to get back to, that Savas asked me about. We'll get back to that.

QUESTION: Frigates?

MR. BURNS: Right, frigates.

QUESTION: Has the State Department issued permission for two U.S. companies to make bids on selling two submarines to Egypt?

MR. BURNS: I don't know. I'll be glad to take that question for you. I don't know the answer.

QUESTION: Okay, I can give you the names of the companies and such

MR. BURNS: Thank you, Joe, yes. Savas?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the frigate question.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Friday.

MR. BURNS: Right. The frigates.

QUESTION: Are you ready to deliver?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Are you ready to deliver?

MR. BURNS: Well, as you know, the Clinton Administration has proposed the transfer to Turkey of three excess U.S. Navy Perry class frigates. We have notified Congress that we'd like to go forward with that action. But unfortunately, Congress has delayed the transfer of the frigates.

Secretary Cohen's working very hard on this on Capitol Hill, as is the State Department. We hope very much the Congress will agree to us that we need to maintain a vigorous military relationship with Turkey. I think you can rest assured that the United States wants to be a good military ally to Turkey. We want to continue to have a defense relationship, a supply relationship; and we will be ambitious about that. But right now, we have a problem in the Congress and we're trying to overcome that problem.

QUESTION: How about the President's making a connection with the Agean tension and this arms deal?

MR. BURNS: We don't need any further justification to us to convince us to go ahead with this. We think it's a good idea. We proposed it. But in our system of government, as you know, the legislative branch has a role to play here. We respect that, and I think all of you have to respect it as well. Yasmine.

QUESTION: Several CEOs of aerospace industry, U.S. companies, have written to Secretary Albright, asking her help to issue export license for arms sales to Turkey. Has she taken a position on that?

MR. BURNS: I'm just not aware of the letter. If you can give me some facts after the briefing about the specific letter, we can try to get you an answer.

QUESTION: This is an, I think, inter-agency review process going on to issue export licenses at all for arms sales to Turkey. And does the State Department have a position?

MR. BURNS: On arms sales to Turkey?

QUESTION: Yes, in the review process - export license.

MR. BURNS: Well, our general position is that we're a military ally of Turkey and that if there's a genuine need and if it has a beneficial impact on both countries, we'll proceed with arms sales and transfers. That's our long-standing position. But I can't speak to the specific question until I know the facts. Yes.

QUESTION: Can we change countries?

MR. BURNS: Sure.

QUESTION: Indonesia?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: What is the facts of the proposed sales of F-16 to Indonesia?

MR. BURNS: I believe that sale is still under review. That's where I think that sale is.

QUESTION: Okay, there's some reports in Indonesia that says that the United States Government is reluctant to move something that looks good to Indonesia because some people might say that it's because of something to do with the Lippo group and a political contribution. What is your comment on that?

MR. BURNS: I don't think it has much to do with that. I know there were some concerns raised in Congress last summer about this sale, but it was mainly about the human rights situation in Indonesia and some of the human rights complaints that have been brought against the government by Indonesian human rights activists.

As you remember, Secretary Christopher traveled to Jakarta last July, I believe, late July. He met with the human rights group there. Under Secretary Joan Spero, the Under Secretary at the time, met with some of the specific human rights activists. As I remember the issue, that's how it was framed. It was framed really on human rights concerns, not on any of the other allegations about improper financial activities by the Lippo group. That's my memory of it. Thank you. Sid.

QUESTION: Just to return to the case of Patricia Roush just for a moment.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Two things - Senator Helms and Senator Fienstein have written a letter to the Secretary asking her to personally intervene in this case. She's coming into town tomorrow, and I'm wondering if she had any meetings here at the State Department.

MR. BURNS: Well, first, Sid, I don't believe you were here on Friday.

QUESTION: No, I wasn't.

MR. BURNS: We spent a long time talking about the case of Patricia Roush.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: Good, and I just wanted to be fair to the people who might be hearing it for the first time. The United States Government for many, many years has tried to help Mrs. Roush get her children back because they were taken away from her illegally and unjustly by her ex-husband. She had legal custody. The children were abducted from the United States, brought to Saudi Arabia. She has seen them once, I believe, in 11 years. It's a great tragedy.

If she is going to be coming to Washington tomorrow or any other time, she will be seen at a very high level in this government. We routinely and consistently try to remain in contact with her and with the others involved in this case. I know Ambassador Wyche Fowler has taken this on as a major issue in our relationship. In fact, he has been discussing it with Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

QUESTION: Can you take the question, then as to who she will see in the government?

MR. BURNS: I'll very gladly take that question. I think she will be seen at a very high level.

QUESTION: Secondarily, her attorney, Michael Wyles alleges that her ex- husband, Mr. Al-Gheshayan, excuse my pronunciation, was issued a U.S. visa after he had been - there were arrest warrants out in the United States for him and an Interpol arrest warrant - that he was issued a visa to bring his father to the United States, after those warrants were issued, so that his father could have surgery. I don't know if you have an answer to that, but could you check into that?

MR. BURNS: Well, we did receive this question this morning. Our Consular Affairs Bureau looked at his files. They show no record of a visa having been issued to this gentleman at any time. Now, I suppose that's not a 100 percent good answer to you, because I'm not sure how far back we keep the records, but they show no record and they have no knowledge of that.

There are a lot of people in Consular Affairs, as well as our Saudi Desk, who have followed this case very, very carefully over a number of years, and I think they would have remembered something very significant like that. I will say this to you, if this gentleman wants a visa to the United States he can probably get one because he'll be arrested at the border. He is a criminal. There is a warrant out for his arrest, and if he's foolish enough to seek a visa, well - and if someone gives him a visa, he'll be arrested. Hopefully he will be brought up on charges of child abduction, because that is what he is responsible for.

Mrs. Roush had legal custody of these children. He came to the United States and he stole those children. He abducted them and brought them back to Saudi Arabia against their will and against the will of the mother. We are not neutral in this case. We are impartial between Greece and Turkey and between Israel and the Palestinians, but we're not impartial between Mrs. Roush -- Patricia Roush, an American citizen -- and this no-good ex- husband of hers who has abducted her children and won't let her see the children. It is inhumane. It is illegal. If he ever dares set foot in the United States, he is going to be arrested.

QUESTION: Well, the year is - 1988 is the year her attorney alleges he was given a visa.

MR. BURNS: That's right, and our Consular Affairs Bureau looked at the records for that year and show no indication that this gentleman received a visa.

QUESTION: I was wondering, do you have anything coming out of State regarding the probe that the Justice Department is doing of the Mexican Government? There is an agency that was allegedly was used by the brother of former President Salinas. He apparently used one of these governmental agencies as a slush fund for drug trafficking profits.

MR. BURNS: No, I have nothing to say about that. If there is an investigation, obviously it would not be by the State Department, but by the Justice Department. I just can't speak to that question.

QUESTION: Is there an investigation underway of the reports about the Russian missile system malfunctioning with their nuclear weapons pointed in this direction? Can you comment on that?

MR. BURNS: Is there an investigation underway?

QUESTION: Or, is there - what can you say about that?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe there is an investigation underway. Are you referring to the report in The Washington Times today?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Let me just tell you, first of all, I can't speak to the report because the report refers to a classified intelligence document, and we never talk about classified intelligence documents, at least not in public.

Now, secondly, obviously in our relationship with Russia, the issue of the stability of the nuclear forces on both sides - the efficacy of command and control procedures in both Washington and Moscow and throughout both countries is an exceedingly important question. You can imagine that the United States devotes a considerable amount of resources -- intelligence, the State Department, other resources -- to making sure that we have the best view of whether or not the Russian Government has command and control of its forces.

Now, just in the last couple of months, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, the Russian Prime Minister, launched his own inquiry into this subject after some comments made by the Defense Ministry. Prime Minister Chernomyrdin said at the end of that inquiry that he was satisfied that Russia does have control of its nuclear forces, and that is our view.

We believe that nuclear weapons in Russia remain under the secure and centralized control of the Russian Government. I can also tell you that we have a cooperative threat reduction program with Russia, and the purpose of that program is to help them both dismantle nuclear weapons that ought to be dismantled under international agreements and maximize their ability to assure the safety of the storage of their nuclear weapons, and their nuclear command and control facilities.

We have put a lot of time into this, a lot of attention. We gave it very, very serious thought. The best way to control nuclear weapons ultimately, of course, is to reduce their number. That is what START I and START II is all about. If the Russian Duma would simply ratify START II, then we would get on to START III.

The other thing I would like to say is that part of the article spent time trying to diminish the importance of what President Yeltsin and President Clinton negotiated. That was the de-targeting initiative of 1994, meaning that for the first time since the start of the Cold War in the late 1940s, the United States no longer targets Russian cities or Russian defense industries or any Russian targets with our nuclear forces. Russia and Ukraine and the others - previously Ukraine when it had nuclear weapons - but Russia now no longer targets the United States. Part of the article was spent trying to say that this simply is not a very significant development because the weapons can be re-armed in a short period of time.

Actually, the de-targeting of the nuclear forces on both sides reduces the risk of accident, and reduces the risk of unintentional launch because a process has to be followed to re-target the missiles. So not only is it symbolically important that we no longer target them and they don't target us, it is materially significant and scientifically significant that that is the case because minutes do count in this business. So that is our response to today's article in The Washington Times.

QUESTION: Do you quarrel with the assertion then than it would take only a few minutes to re-target?

MR. BURNS: No, I think that is absolutely true. But are we better off having de-targeted from a military point of view, not symbolically - we are symbolically, but militarily? Yes, we are. We certainly are because it reduces the risk of accident.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR. BURNS: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:59 p.m.)

(###)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article