U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #73, 97-05-13

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

Tuesday, May 13, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1-2             Welcome to Press Briefing Visitors
4-8             Gen. Qadhafi's Visit to Niger and Nigeria/Violation of UN
                  Sanctions
8-9             Secretary Albright Meeting with Albanian PM Fino
9               U.S. Tour of American Ambassadors to ASEAN Countries
9-10            Secretary Albright's Upcoming Travels
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
2-3             Rep. Gilman's Comments on PA Justice Minister's Threat of
                  Death for Selling Land to Israelis
2-4             Investigation into the Death of Palestinian Man
11              FM Levy Trip to Washington/Dennis Ross' Efforts
11-13           Possibility of Senior Level Israeli-Palestinian Meeting
NIGER
7               Libyan Complicity in 1996 Coup D'Etat
G-8 SUMMIT IN DENVER
10              Possibility of the Hong Kong Issue Being Addressed in
                  Denver
IRAN
10              Upcoming U.S.-EU Meeting on Iran Policy
20              Reported Oil Deal with a UK-Canada Consortium, ILSA
                  Violations and the WTO
ZAIRE
14-18           Ambassador Richardson's Return/Continued U.S. Diplomatic
                  Efforts
14-16           U.S. Position on Mobutu-Kabila Talks/UNHCR Refugee
                  Repatriation/Kabila as a Democrat
16-17           Update on UN Special Rapporteur Investigating Massacres
17-19           Reports of American Citizens Mistreated/Warning to
                  Americans in Zaire
GREECE/TURKEY
20-21           False Reports of an Agreement on Air Corridors over the
                  Aegean
20-21           Attack on Turkish Newspaper
NORTH KOREA
21              Update on Four Party Talks, Missile Talks, MIA Talks
SAUDI ARABIA
22-24           Pat Roush Case:  Helms-Feinstein Letter to Albright/Reports
                  of Roush Children's Father Visting U.S./Meetings with
                  State Dept. Officials

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #73

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1997 1:11 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department, ladies and gentlemen. I want to introduce and welcome ten regional newspaper and radio journalists from Portugal, who are here with the USIA International Visitors Program. Welcome to you. Also, I'd like to introduce the presidential press spokesman from Sierra Leone, Mr. Septimus Kaikai, who is the press secretary for President Kabbah of Sierra Leone. You're most welcome. He's spending a day with us, trying to observe how we work with the American press corps. It will be interesting to see what lessons you draw from this. Finally, Mr. Robert Van De Roer, who is a friend of mine, a

Dutch journalist here on business. Welcome to you.

QUESTION: Is he a Red Sox fan?

MR. BURNS: They asked if you're a Red Sox fan. Do you know about the Red Sox?

MR. VAN DE ROER: Well, I know that they play in Fenway Park.

MR. BURNS: Excellent. Are the Red Sox famous in Holland?

Are the Red Sox famous? They're more famous than the Yankees in Holland, right?

MR. VAN DE ROER: Yes, they are.

MR. BURNS: Excellent. See, he's getting all the right answers already.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Dutch-born pitcher --.

MR. BURNS: Why don't you ask him? This is a trivia question.

Which Dutch --

QUESTION: Name the Dutch-born pitcher who has won over 200 games in the major leagues?

MR. VAN DE ROER: I don't know.

QUESTION: Can he take the question?

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: Burt Blyleven. Thank you, Barry. This is the baseball briefing. You thought you'd come into a foreign policy briefing. We only talk about baseball here.

QUESTION: Do you know the position on Rupert Murdoch buying the Dodgers?

MR. BURNS: I heard that. I think, yeah, well I can't comment. Former Secretary Christopher probably has a comment on that. I'll phone him and see if I can share that with you tomorrow.

QUESTION: So does my father, but --

MR. BURNS: (Laughter) - doesn't sound like the right thing, does it?

Okay, foreign policy?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Yeah.

QUESTION: Will Warren Christopher remain the legal counsel for the Dodgers if Murdoch buys his ball team?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think what I'm going to do is phone Secretary Christopher today in California and ask him. He is a friend of Peter O'Malley, and he's a long-time Dodger fan, Warren Christopher. No one is perfect; we forgave him that. I'll let you know what I find out.

QUESTION: Really what I want to ask you, is Ben Gilman, who is the chairperson of the House International Relations Committee thinks it would be a good idea if Yasser Arafat publicly rejected the Palestinian Justice Minister's threat to execute any Palestinian who sells property to Jews. I wonder, are you folks still uncertain whether there was such a threat? And whether or not you are, what do you think of Mr. Gilman's idea?

MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, Barry, let me just answer this question. I do have some statements to make today.

QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. BURNS: Let me just do this question first, since you've asked it. I think two things need to be separated here. The first is, there's obviously been a murder committed in Ramallah on the West Bank -- a 70-year- old Palestinian man murdered under very suspicious circumstances. The Palestinian and Israeli police are investigating that. That's one issue. We need to await the results of that investigation, obviously, so that the police can determine the motive for the killing and, we hope, apprehend the suspects who might be prosecuted for the murder and convicted.

Secondly, we have the issue of public statements by members of the Palestinian Authority concerning what should happen to Arabs who sell land to Israelis. I think you know the position of the United States. We think that everything must be done in terms of what people say and what people do to create a climate of peace in that part of the world - in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, in Gaza and throughout Israel -- a climate of peace where people are free to pursue their own affairs within the law, as the law is currently constituted. That applies to businesspeople and it applies to politicians as well.

We would obviously be highly disturbed if it turned out that any officials had anything to do with the murder of the official in Ramallah. But I want to be very quick to say that has not been proven, it has not been indicated, and the police are investigating this particular crime.

QUESTION: Are you disturbed at all, either moderately or measurably, by the fact that Mr. Arafat has not disavowed this statement?

MR. BURNS: Barry, I don't live there. I don't have a complete set of wire reports from that part of the world. I think just to be fair, for a moment, I don't know what has been said by Chairman Arafat or by his lieutenants on this affair - before the murder, after the murder. I don't have a complete compendium of that. I think it is a fair question, however. I do think it's a fair question.

QUESTION: You haven't been very vocal.

MR. BURNS: I do think it's a fair question.

QUESTION: And if Dennis Ross hasn't heard it --

MR. BURNS: I would be glad to --

QUESTION: -- you wonder what he's - what kind of confidence he's building.

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to come back to the question. But since I don't know right now, and since we haven't talked to Ed Abington about this to know what has been said on the Palestinian side, it's unfair of me to take up your question and to launch into criticism myself before we know what the Palestinians have said. But I will take that question.

QUESTION: Before you leave it. There is a Palestinian National Assembly, a quasi-parliament, a legislative body. It wouldn't require a rocket scientist to find out if that body has passed such legislation.

MR. BURNS: No, it wouldn't require a rocket scientist, but I don't have the information. So therefore I can't answer the question without having the information.

QUESTION: Nick, it's hard to understand how you don't have this information when we've been asking you all about for going on two weeks now. What is the hold-up in getting the information?

MR. BURNS: No, Sid. No, I'm sorry. There are different issues here. Last week, when I was not here, you asked John Dinger about some of the public statements that have been made on this general issue. Now we have a different scenario. We have a murder.

I don't know; you don't know; the Israeli and Palestinian police, I guess, have not yet determined who committed that murder and for what reason.

But that is a very serious question, especially in light of some of the public statements that have been made prior to the murder. So it is serious issue. It is a very serious issue, and it would be irresponsible for me, as spokesman here, to start denouncing people left and right without knowing what they have said and what they have done. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to feed that beast.

QUESTION: Has Dennis Ross raised the issue with Chairman Arafat?

MR. BURNS: I will have to ask Dennis. I have talked to Dennis a couple of times on the phone, but I have not talked to him about every issue that he has raised. That has not come up in our conversation, whether or not he raised the issue.

QUESTION: When --

MR. BURNS: He and I have discussed the issue generally.

But I don't know if he raised it or not.

QUESTION: After nine or ten days, you don't --

QUESTION: Could you ask him whether it has been raised and tell us whether it has?

MR. BURNS: I think this is a serious question that Barry started off with, and I'm glad to take it. I will commit to you that I will look into this and try to get you as good a statement as we can make on this tomorrow. I do need to talk to Dennis, and he is eight hours ahead of us.

Okay, let me just make a couple of statements, and then I'll be glad to go back to this particular question or any others. First, I wanted to take you back to the situation last week in West Africa when Muammar Qadhafi went on his little joy ride from Tripoli to Niamey and to Lagos. The United States condemns the deliberate violations of the United Nations sanctions by Libya, Niger, and Nigeria arising from Libyan leader Qadhafi's visits last week to Niger and Nigeria.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 748 prohibits air travel between Libya and any state except for humanitarian reasons which are approved prior to the trip by the United Nations. This was not the case last week. This ban on air travel, which all UN member states are obligated to carry out, under the UN Charter, reflects the international community's shared abhorrence of terrorism and the strong evidence of Libya's direct involvement in the sabotage of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 and UTA flight 772 in September 1989, which took the lives of 441 innocent people. It is a tragic irony that the destruction of the UTA flight happened over Niger.

Last week's visits, which were marked by careful advance preparation, can only be construed as a conscious provocation of international opinion and defiance of international law not only by Libya, but also by the governments of Niger and Nigeria. Neither Nigeria nor Niger took the steps required of them in UN Security Council Resolution 748 that would have brought them into compliance with the law and shown their solidarity with the international community.

This morning in the Security Council in New York, just about an hour and a half ago, our Ambassador Bill Richardson raised this issue in the Security Council. He demanded that the UN Sanctions Committee look at this issue, submit a report to the Security Council, and, we hope, condemn the actions of Libya, Niger and Nigeria. He was supported by many other members of the Security Council. The issue has now been given to the Sanctions Committee for a full investigation. The United States hopes that there will be a full condemnation by the United Nations Security Council of this action.

Now, Qadhafi, in his joy ride last week, may have had a lot of fun breaking out of Libya for the first time in a long, long time.

But that is going to be short-lived, because what we hope will happen internationally is that the UN condemnation that he deserves - and that Niger and Nigeria deserve - will lead to a strengthening of the commitment by the United Nations to maintain the sanctions on Libya until Libya turns over the two suspects - Libyan security agents, currently living freely in Libya - who we believe planted the bomb on board Pan Am 103 that killed all those people nine years ago.

We haven't forgotten those people. We haven't forgotten the passengers of the UTA flight, including the wife of our ambassador to Chad, Bonnie Pugh. We won't forget them until Libya turns these people over to justice in the United Kingdom or in the United States.

The United States remembers. We have a long memory, and our memory of Mr. Qadhafi's action has not dimmed in any way.

QUESTION: So you're not going for sanctions?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: You're going for words.

MR. BURNS: We already have sanctions.

QUESTION: No, no. When this --

MR. BURNS: We already have sanctions on Libya.

QUESTION: When this report surfaced, the spokesperson said that if this turns out to be true, the United States will consider asking for sanctions to be imposed - new sanctions. We don't have sanctions against Niger and Nigeria.

MR. BURNS: I was the spokesman last week.

QUESTION: I don't think you were the day --

MR. BURNS: Yes, I was, when this happened.

QUESTION: Well, maybe you were. But the issue --

MR. BURNS: We already have sanctions on Libya.

QUESTION: I know that.

MR. BURNS: And we want them to be maintained.

QUESTION: Was the UN defied by Niger and Nigeria? Why aren't you asking for sanctions against them? They permitted the plane to land and to take off.

MR. BURNS: What Ambassador Richardson asked for this morning - there's a procedure here, Barry.

QUESTION: Yeah - (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: No, what he asked for was the Sanctions Committee to formally look into this affair; to interview the governments of Niger and Nigeria - to have their side of the story. I think we know enough as a country, because we have interviewed them -- we sent our Ambassadors in Niamey and Lagos in to ask what happened - that not only was there complicity, there was direct involvement. The President of Niger flew on the Libyan plane with Qadhafi between Niamey and Lagos. Then there was a hero's welcome for Qadhafi by the dictators in Lagos. So there's no question in our minds what's happening.

But Barry, we belong to the United Nations, so therefore we've got to go through the procedures. The Sanctions Committee investigates.

They interview the relevant countries here and then options are given to the Security Council. We'll see what materializes from that.

QUESTION: What about bilaterally? Is there any --

MR. BURNS: We will see what materializes from that.

QUESTION: What is your relationship with Nigeria? Do you have an aid program?

MR. BURNS: No, we don't. We have a difficult relationship with Nigeria. Nigeria is a major violator of human rights. As you know, we have a very poor relationship with Nigeria. We didn't have a great relationship with Niger, and now that relationship's gotten a lot worse.

So what I'd like to suggest here is that we await the action of the Sanctions Committee, which will report back to the UN Security Council. Then we'll see where we are. In the case of Libya, since there are already sanctions in place, we need to reconfirm the will of the international community to keep them in place.

In the case of Nigeria and Niger, we'll have to see what the Sanctions Committee recommends.

QUESTION: You talk about strengthening the sanctions.

Could you be more specific?

MR. BURNS: Strengthening the commitment of the United Nations to maintain the sanctions. Here's what I mean by that.

These sanctions, as with the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, come up for review periodically. There are some countries around the world that every now and then say,"the poor Libyans - they've been living under these sanctions for a long, long time; shouldn't we take pity on them and lift the sanctions?" The next time that happens, if some country suggests that, the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries will be able to point to last week's joy ride by Qadhafi - a direct violation of the sanctions - and say, look, this guy has no respect for the United Nations; he doesn't have any remorse for what happened - for the 441 people who have been killed in these two terrorist incidents. We have to reconfirm the commitment to keep them on.

That's what we mean by that.

QUESTION: There was a coup in Niger in early '96. The democratically- elected president was ousted by the current military ruler. Maybe you could take the question as to whether there was any Libyan complicity in the ouster of the elected president.

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take that question. Since that coup d'etat, our relationship with the government in Niamey, Niger has suffered. It is not a good relationship because of that.

Niger was a country that a lot of people had hope for until that coup d'etat.

QUESTION: Beyond condemnation, which doesn't seem likely to affect Niger and Nigeria too much, would you consider, are you considering some sort of punitive action, sanctions on either of those countries?

MR. BURNS: Against those two countries?

QUESTION: Because of this incident.

MR. BURNS: What we have decided to do is go to the Sanctions Committee first and see what the Sanctions Committee turns up by way of direct evidence. As I say, we have little doubt about what should be turned up. Then we will consider our options.

I don't want to anticipate that at this point.

QUESTION: You said there was careful advance preparation.

Did you mean anything other than the President of Niger traveling on Qadhafi's plane?

MR. BURNS: No, it's interesting what happens here, David.

It's very interesting. If you look back at the first press reports that came out of Niamey and Tripoli about this ride, you would have thought perhaps - and this is not the fault of the journalists but I think the people in the governments talking to the journalists - that perhaps Qadhafi has just on the spur of the moment decided to fly to Niger and those poor Nigerians - just a plane landed at their airport.

Well, we have looked into the matter, and it's clear to us that this was planned, that it was all worked out ahead of time secretly, and Qadhafi thinks he's pulled off this great diplomatic coup.

I think he is going to find out that he may have friends among the military dictators of some of these countries in Africa;but he is losing any kind of understanding, any kind of patience that some countries may have had for him. I don't want to include the United States in that because we have no patience for him whatsoever.

QUESTION: The Sanctions Committee is the Security Council, just sitting under a different name?

MR. BURNS: No, it's a committee of the United Nations.

It is a committee of the United Nations which is separate from the UN Security Council. In this case, the Security Council meeting in session today asked the Sanctions Committee to take this up, which I understand they have agreed to do.

QUESTION: The United States asked?

MR. BURNS: Ambassador Bill Richardson asked today, yes, and supported by many other countries in the Security Council.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I just have a couple other things. Just two other things, let me tell you what we have got here. Secretary Albright met with the Albanian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Fino last yesterday afternoon. If you are interested in that, I do have a read-out on that meeting, if it is of interest. Good.

QUESTION: Beyond what you distributed yesterday?

MR. BURNS: Yes, it is. Well, beyond the statement I issued last night? It mainly goes over those points. I want to accentuate one point, and that is that when the crisis began in Albania, the United States decided, for a variety of reasons, that we had to suspend our aid program to Albania. Yesterday Secretary Albright informed the Prime Minister that we are now reinvigorating all those of aid programs, that she is making $12 million available to the Albanian Government, geared to help Albania prepare for the national elections and for the aftermath.

This would involve election support carried out by the International Republican Institute, an American institute; by the National Democratic Institute; democracy assistance by the American Bar Association; private sector economic development programs by the Albanian-American Enterprise Fund; technical advice by the Urban Institute; agricultural assistance by a number of American NGOs. So the United States Government will now turn back on a lot of the aid programs that have been suspended because of the political crisis. That is the main point I wanted to leave you with.

QUESTION: How much?

MR. BURNS: Twelve million dollars. But they also covered a number of issues. The big issue, I think, that Secretary Albright felt was important is that the Albanian political leaders need to reach a consensus to hold the elections and to make sure that they agree on the steps necessary to prepare elections that can meet a standard of free and fair. If you are interested in more of the details we can go into that.

Finally, I am issuing a press statement today on the tour of the American ambassadors to the ASEAN countries. This is an annual exercise. Our ambassadors to ASEAN countries come back to the United States, in this case between June 1st to the 13th , to meet the press and to speak across the country about the importance of American trade, American political relations with the ASEAN countries; all this in advance of Secretary Albright's trip to Kuala Lumpur, I believe it is this year, for the ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference.

I won't read all this, but there is a press statement here that will explain this. If you are interested in talking to Stape Roy or Tom Hubbard or other ambassadors from these countries, I can help arrange that.

QUESTION: Did you say that Secretary Albright would be going to the Post- Ministerial?

MR. BURNS: She certainly intends to, yes. It is in late July. She certainly intends to be at the ASEAN PMC this year.

She has a very busy travel schedule, as you know. She is in Denver today. She is in Wilmington, Delaware, next week on the 19th of May; a commencement address on the 25th of May at Mount Holyoke. She leaves probably on Monday the 26th with President Clinton for his trip to Europe.

She will be going to the NATO Ministerial at Sintra in Portugal at the end of that week. She may have some onward travel beyond that, which I am not yet prepared to announce, but we can talk about it later. She then will deliver a commencement address at the University of South Alabama on June 8th. She will probably do some additional travel after Alabama in the United States, the day after.

Then let's see, we've got the Denver Summit on the 20th to 22nd.

She then will go to Hong Kong at the end of June for reversion.

She will come back and accompany the President to Madrid, and there may be some travel to other countries before Hong Kong, by the way, in East Asia. Madrid - and then after Madrid, there is possible travel there; then out to East Asia at the end of July. So she is going to spend much of the next two and half months on the road with all these trips. That is a pretty good outline, I think, of what she has planned.

QUESTION: On another subject, but slightly related. Does the United States have any intention or has it already tried or asked to put the issue of Hong Kong on the G-7 agenda? There is a bunch of senators, including Helms, Lugar and Joe Lieberman who apparently are pushing the Secretary to do just that.

MR. BURNS: I would have to check with Dan Tarullo who is coordinating the Summit preparations for us. For the G-7 Summit - the G-8 Summit?

QUESTION: Oh, the G-8.

MR. BURNS: The G-8 Summit in Denver to see if, in fact, that is an issue that is going to be on the agenda. The leaders mainly talk about economic issues at that summit. But there is a political agenda of foreign policy issues, and I will just have to see if it is on there.

Obviously, the right country to talk about Hong Kong is China, and that is a big part of our relationship with China.

QUESTION: No, but the world's largest industrialized nations can also have a big impact.

MR. BURNS: Well, we will see. I will take the question and see what we can give to you.

QUESTION: Nick, yesterday we were talking about Iran, and the U.S.' singular and lonely fight to punish Iran.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Are you having Europeans, Canadians coming here this month to try to reconcile their policies with the U.S.'.

Do you have a date of that? The European Union - later this month, I understand, there is a European Union-U.S.-Canadian meeting here about Iranian policy. Do you have anything on that at this point?

MR. BURNS: I don't. I can look into that for you and see if we have a date. We have a U.S.-EU Summit in The Hague.

President Clinton is going to that summit, and I'm sure Iran will be on that agenda for that summit. But I can check into it.

QUESTION: Well, while we have people coming and going, can you confirm David Levy will be here Friday? And why? Because you have had talks with Netanyahu. There is one Israeli Government as far as I know.

MR. BURNS: Well, I can tell you that Dennis Ross saw Foreign Minister Levy today in Jerusalem. He also saw Defense Minister Mordechai and Dan Meridor, the Finance Minister. Dennis continues his efforts to try to put together a revitalization of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. There has been talk about a meeting at senior levels out there. We are hoping that could take place, but I'm not in a position to say anything about that.

QUESTION: Would it be a meeting the Palestinians and Israelis?

MR. BURNS: Yes, that's what we're trying to put together.

Now, in addition to that, Foreign Minister Levy will be here, I believe on Friday. I don't know if I have a time for that.

John, do we have a time for that yet? Okay. We'll get you the time, Barry.

QUESTION: Dennis comes back Friday, doesn't he?

MR. BURNS: Yes, he should be back by the end of the week.

That's what we think. He'll be out there a couple more days.

QUESTION: Now, senior level - will this be the secret meeting that he's reportedly been working on? Or will this be more in the open, on the theory that maybe for good faith negotiations, negotiations shouldn't be secret?

MR. BURNS: Well, if it were a secret meeting, I couldn't talk about it.

QUESTION: That's true.

MR. BURNS: They'd shoot me if I talked about it, so I couldn't do that.

QUESTION: No, you could talk about trying to put it together, and then you could have the meeting and announce a few days later, you know, that they had the meeting. That's all right. We're not going to run over and cover it, I'm sure. Are you talking about ministerial level? And are you talking about a secret meeting?

MR. BURNS: Senior level, senior officials.

QUESTION: Senior level.

MR. BURNS: Yes. Now, the meeting hasn't been put together yet, as far as I know. So I'm not in a position to say anything, to announce anything, except to say we'd like to put the Israelis and Palestinians back together at a negotiating table where they can talk about their differences. That's the whole point of this exercise.

QUESTION: Have you been able to peel off, you know, as has been done in the past, particularly with the Syrians - not that it worked out, but you know, isolate an issue or two that would be a good beginning? For instance, the military aspects of Israel's retreat on the West Bank or I don't know what.

MR. BURNS: I'm not sure that's the word that Israelis would like to call it.

QUESTION: What would you like to call it?

MR. BURNS: They call it redeployment. I don't think they call it "retreat".

QUESTION: Redeployment. When you go backwards, you're retreating. When you go this way --

MR. BURNS: No, there are two military terms. One is redeployment, Barry.

QUESTION: All right, all right. Well, they're not advancing; God knows that.

MR. BURNS: Well, it's not a war. I mean, they're trying to make peace.

QUESTION: Military folks advance or retreat without fire. Sometimes they have to when everybody gets on their case.

MR. BURNS: You usually retreat in a war, Barry, you usually don't retreat in peacetime.

QUESTION: No, you can retreat.

MR. BURNS: You redeploy in peacetime.

QUESTION: Like I refuse to retreat from my description.

MR. BURNS: But the wars are over, we hope. That's why you redeploy in peacetime.

QUESTION: Is military the subject? Or is Jerusalem? Or have you picked a subject, or is it just sort of a wide open meeting Dennis is trying to set up?

MR. BURNS: We would like to see them re-engage with each other on all issues, across the board. A couple of weeks back, Dennis was able to put together a security level meeting --that's very important -- between the security chiefs, because obviously they need to cooperate together to maintain calm and peace in the West Bank towns and in Gaza, Gaza City.

QUESTION: That was last time. What about this time?

MR. BURNS: That was last time, but that's got to continue.

We hope that there's a regular, continuous pattern of security cooperation and meetings. But obviously, Dennis' agenda out there is to put together talks that would encompass a variety of issues, not just one or two.

QUESTION: I understand that. I understand his long-range objective is peace and goodwill. But you're talking about a particular possible senior- level meeting, and I'm asking you if you could give us an idea of the subject, if something's been isolated.

You're response was that they had a security meeting and it would be good to continue that. Are you saying that would be the emphasis?

MR. BURNS: No, no, my response was two-fold - that security talks are important, but we would anticipate talks on a variety of issues. That was my major point.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Yeah.

QUESTION: Nick, this is the meeting that you're trying to arrange at Ambassador Indyk's house this evening?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I know nothing about a meeting at Ambassador Indyk's house. If I did know something, I wouldn't tell you about it if it was a secret meeting.

QUESTION: The Israelis don't seem to think it's a secret.

MR. BURNS: As I said, well, there have been a lot of press reports in the last couple of days about meetings that never transpired.

So I just encourage you to wait and see what happens. If we have something to announce, we'll announce it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Pardon?

QUESTION: They could have been secret meetings.

MR. BURNS: Well, we've talked about this before. Sometimes governments have to do things in private in order to maximize our effectiveness. Sometimes we can't tell you everything we're doing. I know that disappoints you.

QUESTION: Can we talk about Zaire?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Why did Ambassador Richardson come back? I mean, given the crucial moment that exists now, particularly tomorrow's supposedly make-or- break meeting, why did the top U.S. interlocutor in this situation come back?

MR. BURNS: He had spent nearly two weeks in Central Africa in a variety of countries. His fundamental mission was to deliver a letter from President Clinton; to have face-to-face talks with President Mobutu about the necessity for a peaceful transfer of power; and to have face-to-face talks with Mr. Kabila about the necessity of a cease-fire, peaceful transition and adequate and more humane treatment of the refugees, who are the responsibility of the rebel alliance.

Secretary Albright and Ambassador Richardson felt that particular mission had been fulfilled. If we had been the leader of the international effort to put together these talks, he'd obviously still be out there. But the leader of South Africa, President Mandela, has taken the leadership role. We have always seen ourselves, in terms of the Mobutu-Kabila talks, to be supporting the lead role of South Africa, not the other way around. That seems to be in good hands. Now, I don't expect that there will be an American aboard the South African naval vessel tomorrow. But if the South Africans or the Zairians on either side should require that or request it, we'd obviously be able to have one of our ambassadors participate.

In addition to that, our special negotiator for Central Africa, former congressman Howard Wolpe, is in the region and, in fact, kind of handed off the baton with Richardson - or he received the baton late last week. He is in Lubumbashi today, attempting to see Mr. Kabila before the meeting that will take place, we hope, tomorrow on the South African naval vessel. At the same time, Ambassador Dan Simpson, the American Ambassador to Zaire, met with Zairian political leaders who work for President Mobutu today. So we have our channels in to both the rebels and the government in advance of this meeting. We're making the points we need to make.

QUESTION: Yeah, but Richardson went down there with a mission and, arguably, it's not completed. I mean, you are not confident that Kabila's forces will enter Kinshasa and there will not be a blood bath. There hasn't yet been a next crucial face-to-face meeting between the two. I mean, everything's unsettled.

MR. BURNS: Well, again, Carol, we think he accomplished the mission that he set out to do. The United States is not in a position in Zaire that is comparable, say, to our position in the Middle East peace talks. In the Middle East we are the sole intermediary. In Zaire we support the efforts of South Africa and the United Nations. I think that Bill Richardson did an outstanding job in accomplishing that mission. If it's necessary for him or anyone else to go back out there, they'll do that on a moment's notice. But right now, we think things are well in hand.

Let me just give you a resume of where we are. We hope the meeting takes place tomorrow. We encourage Mr. Mobutu and Mr. Kabila to attend the meeting, number one. Number two, we encourage them to work out together, face-to-face, transitional arrangements that will lead the country to a better future, away from the present government, away from the present government, and towards a transitional government, that that process can be conducted peacefully, and that the result of it can be elections whereby the people of Zaire could chose their own leaders.

In addition to that, we know the United Nations took 2,100 refugees out of Kisangani yesterday to Rwanda. That brings the total since April 27th to roughly 20,000 refugees. There are tens of thousands more who need to be transported. In addition to that, we need the support of the rebel alliance to allow those people to be transported, and they need to protect those people against the vicissitudes of life in and around Kisangani; and by that I mean the massacres -- the reports of massacres and brutal attacks against refugees by some of the armed elements operating in the area.

So there is a lot of business to be done. That is what the United States would like to see happen in the next couple of days.

QUESTION: One more question on Richardson and then I'll drop it. Did the South Africans make it clear to the United States that it preferred for the Ambassador to go back to New York? Was South Africa uncomfortable, irritated that the United States seemed to be stepping on its turf when it is making this big effort to be a leader in Africa?

MR. BURNS: Not that I am aware of. I did read that in the press. I read the same reports in the press. I'm not aware that that's the case. I haven't seen that in any of the written communications. I haven't heard it in any of the meetings I've been in.

We are trying to support the efforts of President Mandela. We see South Africa in the leadership role, and we think that is a very positive development in Africa that an African country has stepped forward to provide moral and political leadership when it's badly needed and when the Zairians clearly can't provide that for themselves.

QUESTION: Nick, you speak all the time of hoping for democratic elections. You also speak of transition. There was an effort a week or two ago to try to give a profile. It was rather -- if you don't mind me saying so -- you were looking, or whoever was doing it was looking real hard for some democratic leanings in Mr. Kabila. The building must be very interested in what sort of a fellow he is, and there must be some work done on this subject.

Number one, are you asking that, assuming he is victorious, that he step aside after a reasonable period and have the people elect their own leaders? Secondly, what about those two - how do you feel now about his commitment, or lack of it, to those two principles that you or the U.S. seems to promote all over the world -- capitalism and democracy, a free market system and democracy? Is he a good candidate to fulfill those objectives?

MR. BURNS: On your first question, it should be up to Mobutu and Kabila to work out these transitional arrangements.

It's going to be very delicate to work out what arrangements can be made to make a transition from one government to the next phase in Zaire's history. We don't think that should be for politicians alone and rebel leaders and presidents of countries to decide alone. We think it should also be for the people. That's why we think elections have to be a component of this process.

Second, on Mr. Kabila himself, we actually know him fairly well.

In addition to Howard Wolpe's meeting, Dick Bogosian, another one of our special Central African envoys, talks to him regularly.

We have a political officer in Goma who talks to him. Bill Richardson has now had a couple of meetings.

I think it is a time of testing for Mr. Kabila. He is a person who now has enormous authority over one of the most important countries in Africa. That authority is broadbased. He needs to protect the people who have come under his responsibility.

Here we are talking about the refugees. There is a lot of evidence, and the U.N. is looking into this now, that there were attacks on the refugees at Kisangani -- brutal attacks that killed a lot of people. Someone is going to have to answer for that, and we think that Mr. Kabila and his associates ought to be open to the effort a special UN rapporteur to get into Kisangani and to inspect, make an investigation of what happened. Now, it has not been possible for the United Nations to get in there and to investigate these brutalities. That is the first order of business.

The second order of business will be what happens in the future.

Part of this time of testing for Mr. Kabila will be to see how he and the rebels comport themselves as they continue their march toward Kinshasa. We believe very strongly it is in their interest, the rebel interest, as well as the interests of the people of the country, to try to effect a peaceful entry of those forces into Kinshasa. This is probably one of the issues that can be talked about tomorrow in the South African-sponsored talks, meaning that instead of a military assault on Kinshasa, they work out an arrangement for a cease-fire and a peaceful transition so that innocent people aren't killed.

Another part of this testing for Mr. Kabila is whether or not, if he does gain power, he rules in a democratic fashion - both politically and economically, and if he pays attention to the human rights of the people of Zaire. We have to have high standards.

Zaire is one of the most important, largest countries in Africa, and the people of Zaire deserve a better government than the one they have had over the past 30 years. Mr. Kabila has a lot on his shoulders. We hope very much that he will be able to meet these tests. We wish him well. But the world is watching.

QUESTION: On your first point, the inquiries on refugees - the brutal treatment of refugees. That has been going on for weeks, I mean --

MR. BURNS: Yes, it has been going on for weeks.

QUESTION: So the U.S. asked him to and you don't have a definite answer yet?

MR. BURNS: No, we do not because the test is going to be whether the rebel alliance allows the UN Assessment Team, the Special UN Rapporteur and the team into Kisangani to investigate what happened. The refugees came back into the camps with machete wounds. Many of them died. Many of them were bludgeoned to death and hacked to death. These are very serious human rights allegations, and they have to be investigated.

QUESTION: On Kinshasa. Yesterday you made a - you put out a very blunt warning to Americans to get out. It's been suggested that there are plans afoot on the part of Mobutu's people to begin massacring Westerners in order to make it into an international incident, which the United States and others would have to come in and rescue, in effect, the Mobutu Government. Is that what you - or is that the subtext of what you were talking about yesterday?

MR. BURNS: Well, those rumors were abundant in Kinshasa over the weekend. Our ambassador, Dan Simpson, checked into them, talked to everybody he could find in the Zairian Government, and to the best of our knowledge - based on conversations with senior Zairian government officials - those rumors are untrue.

However, in the present climate, we would be irresponsible as a government if we did not warn the American citizens who chose to continue to live in Zaire that there are these rumors out there; that there is a civil war underway; that there could well be a military assault on the capital of Kinshasa if the politicians can't decide to have a peaceful transition; and that American citizens who may be looking for profits, or may think that they are not going to be the ones who get affected, they need to think very clearly that they are in a war zone. They ought to get out of Zaire. They ought to leave Zaire for their own good. They can always come back after the transition has been effected. But why stay and take a risk that they are going to end up in a very precarious situation?

QUESTION: There are reports that some journalists, several TV network crews have been taken hostage and beaten up and robbed.

Are there any reports that you have of Americans being mistreated that way?

MR. BURNS: I am not aware of any reports of American citizens having been mistreated in the manner that you speak of. But I would like to take that question and see if we can ask our embassy in Kinshasa again. I know that our Ambassador and his staff have urged the American private community to leave. It's too dangerous a situation. We cannot anticipate how the endgame is going to turn out there.

QUESTION: Nick, in Wolpe's meeting - possible meeting with Kabila, is he just going to be reiterating the points you have been going through here? Or is there something slightly different?

MR. BURNS: He is going to raise the need for a peaceful, inclusive transition. He is going to raise the need for elections once the transition has begun. He is going to raise our concerns about the treatment of the Rwandan Hutu refugees in and around Kisangani. We are talking about a huge number of people -- nearly 100,000 people.

QUESTION: He must have gotten the point by now.

MR. BURNS: He has heard this from Bill Richardson. He has heard it from every American envoy with whom he has spoken.

Mr. Kabila, to be fair to him, said last week publicly that he was going to be sensitive to the issue of the refugees, that he expected his soldiers to take care, that he would fire any of his soldiers who were implicated in any atrocities. We were pleased to see the statements. We need to see actions.

QUESTION: So you aren't sort of ratcheting up the pressure on him in some fashion now? Sort of as a last-ditch effort type of thing?

MR. BURNS: We are advising the rebel alliance, Mr. Kabila and President Mobutu to try to negotiate a peaceful transition.

No one wants to see a violent assault on Kinshasa, not in a city of that size, not in a brutal civil war of the one that we have witnessed.

QUESTION: So the message is identical?

MR. BURNS: The message is absolutely identical to what Ambassador Richardson carried last week. There has been a seamless transition between Ambassador Richardson and Ambassador Wolpe.

QUESTION: Are you offering any inducements to Kabila to go along with your proposals for a cease-fire and a peaceful transition?

MR. BURNS: Well, those who aspire to government leadership in one of the most important countries in Africa need to understand that we have the best of intentions, all of us around the world.

We want to work with the next government in Zaire. But our relationship with whoever emerges as the next leader will be affected by how they comport themselves as they take power. There is no question about that.

QUESTION: Nick, these warnings that you keep reiterating with greater strength, have you seen any evidence in the last 24 hours that the American community is taking them seriously?

I don't mean you, I mean the United States.

MR. BURNS: Well, we have seen a rather dramatic reduction in the number of American citizens living in Zaire over the last three or four weeks. It's gone down by I think over 120 people, by our count yesterday. We would hope that that number, which is now slightly over 300, would go down to zero in the next couple of days. It probably won't happen. People always think they are going to be the ones who are not affected by civil war.

QUESTION: Nick, what --

MR. BURNS: Our warning is "get out now".

QUESTION: What responsibilities does the U.S. Government then have to people --

MR. BURNS: I'm sorry. Did you - I wanted to let Carol follow-up, Howard.

QUESTION: How come you haven't seen the numbers reduced?

I mean, yesterday there were 325 and today there is still 325.

MR. BURNS: We began these warnings more than a month ago, and we have seen a reduction since then. I can't tell you that we have seen a reduction over the last 24 hours. But I can check into that for you.

QUESTION: Because in your own words, we are at the endgame now. There is an important meeting tomorrow. If it doesn't go well, who knows what will happen.

MR. BURNS: Right.

QUESTION: People may only have 48 hours to get out.

MR. BURNS: Our advice is that they should get out immediately, and there are ways to do that. There is a ferry to Brazzaville from Kinshasa, and there are commercial flights out of Kinshasa to African and European capitals. There are ways to get out of Zaire, quite easily.

QUESTION: But you would not abandon them in 48 hours if they decide to say?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: That is not your message.

MR. BURNS: My goodness, let's just be clear about this.

We cannot compel American citizens to leave Zaire. We strongly, in the most serious terms, urge all Americans to leave now before things get worse.

Should the worst happen, as you know, the American military in Libreville and in Brazzaville and off the coast of West Africa will be in a position to evacuate Americans. We hope that is not necessary. But if it is necessary, our military will protect American citizens. Our advice to Americans is, don't put yourself in a position where you have to be evacuated in the middle of fighting.

That is a very dangerous proposition. Ask the Americans who came out of Monrovia last year in Liberia. Many of them had just barely escaped with their lives. Ask the Americans who got caught up in the fighting in Albania. Much less severe than the fighting currently going on in Kinshasa. This is a very serious warning.

We think people should get out.

QUESTION: What percentage, roughly, of Americans in Zaire are in Kinshasa; do you know?

MR. BURNS: The overwhelming percentage are in Kinshasa, in the capital. We know who they are. We know where they are.

We keep in touch with them through a warden network, in addition to the 25 American diplomats who remain as the core of our American embassy. They will stay, and we hope to maintain an embassy throughout this period. Yes, David.

QUESTION: On Iran.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Forgive me if you covered on this yesterday.

But do you have a view - does the U.S. have a view on whether this announcement by Iran of a Canadian-British consortium to develop the Balal oil field falls under the D'Amato Sanctions Bill, I guess ILSA?

And second, do you have a reaction to the threat by the EU that they would - if ILSA were triggered for Iran, that they would go to the WTO with a complaint?

MR. BURNS: Well, on the first question, we have now fully read The Wall Street Journal article on the Balal project, and we are going to look into this. We are going to seek additional information from the British company, from the U.K., and from other sources. Our law is very clear.

The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act sets a threshold for investment beyond which companies are technically in violation. Therefore, it can be subject to U.S. penalties. That is a very serious issue, and we are looking into it with great care right now. But we have not yet made a determination if this particular deal fits that category.

I'm sorry, your second question, David.

QUESTION: The EU threat to complain to the WTO on this matter, much like they did with Helms-Burton.

MR. BURNS: Well, we hope that the European Union will work with us cooperatively and not just jump to the conclusion that everything should be adjudicated by the WTO. Let's sit down and talk about all these issues before we go to a multilateral body. Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Did you hear that (inaudible) if Greece and Turkey (inaudible) reached an agreement on some air corridors over the Aegean, as it was reported extensively in Athens?

MR. BURNS: Yes, Mr. Lambros, I can tell you that I believe - gosh, I had this here someplace. We actually - we tried to get this information for you. We had it this morning, and it has now disappeared. Keep talking, Mr. Lambros, while I look.

QUESTION: I have another question.

MR. BURNS: Filibuster. Okay, fine, filibuster. I'm going to madly look through my book.

QUESTION: Any comment of yesterday's attack by Turkey's Islamist radicals against the secular Turkish newspaper Hurriyet in Istanbul?

MR. BURNS: Well, we've seen press reports of that. No one could possibly support an attack on a newspaper. We believe in freedom of the press in Turkey, as we do around the world.

Now, Mr. Lambros, what I can tell you is that last week we held our annual consultations with the Greek Ministry of Defense on the island of Crete. This is in accordance with our mutual defense cooperation agreement. These discussions covered a broad range of bilateral and regional issues, as they always do. Among other subjects, we discussed ideas to reduce the number of confrontations between Greece and Turkey and the Aegean region.

We were surprised by some of the Greek press reports claiming that Greece and Turkey had reached a Greek-Turkish agreement concerning air corridors over the Aegean in this meeting. These reports are not correct. We discussed the objective of trying to have Greece and Turkey agree on confidence building measures, but I don't believe that either country reached an agreement with the other on this particular issue. That is separate from the issue of Cyprus. We announced a breakthrough on that issue last Friday.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BURNS: Yes. Yasmine?

QUESTION: On the other naval exercises in the Mediterranean - Turkish, American, Israeli, do you have any information of those being postponed?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't.

QUESTION: Do you have any information of Turkey pulling out of those exercises?

MR. BURNS: No, I do not, no. Carol?

QUESTION: On North Korea, have you heard anything more from the Pyongyang on the four-way talks?

MR. BURNS: Silence.

QUESTION: Missile talks?

MR. BURNS: Silence from Pyongyang.

QUESTION: Silence.

MR. BURNS: The ball is in their court.

QUESTION: What does that all tell you?

MR. BURNS: They have to get back to us on the four-party talks. There is an open invitation. They have to get back, of course, on the missile proliferation talks. We are working well, monitoring the agreed framework; that is in place.

QUESTION: The MIA talks didn't go through?

MR. BURNS: The MIA talks proceeded last week, but I can't point to any breakthroughs for you. Unfortunately that is a very serious issue for American families in the United States. On food aid, we are proceeding with our shipments of food; the ships are arriving.

QUESTION: What is your analysis? What is the bottom line here?

MR. BURNS: I always rely on Secretary Christopher's wisdom in these matters, and that is - former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who is a very astute observer of the North Koreans, and I think all of us still agree with this, and that is that it is very difficult for us to read the North Koreans and to tell you why all this is happening. They are --

QUESTION: Opaque.

MR. BURNS: Opaque, thank you. We'll continue to try to convince the North Koreans it is in their interest to cooperate with us. Laura?

QUESTION: Just one question on Pat Roush, who is spending the day in Washington and has a number of meetings on Capitol Hill.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Last week she spoke with Senator Helms and Senator Feinstein, who sent a letter to Secretary Albright requesting that she personally become involved in Ms. Roush's predicament.

Do you know if Secretary Albright received the letter and if she is planning in any way of becoming personally involved, or perhaps meeting with Ms. Roush when she is here?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if Secretary Albright has personally received a letter. I can tell you that Secretary Albright wants our Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler, and our Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to continue to work on this assiduously, as they already have. We are in her corner. We are on Pat Roush's side. We want justice to be done for her.

Now, there was a question that Sid asked yesterday that I wanted to get back to you on. Her ex-husband -- the gentleman who came to the United States, illegally abducted the children, brought them back to Saudi Arabia and will not give her access to them -- he has been in our visa look-out system since November 1988.

Our visa look-out system is a list of the bad guys and girls -- women, around the world, bad people who are either terrorists or who are drug traffickers or who are people who have broken our laws, like this gentleman. He broke our laws.

Whenever he applies for a visa, wherever he is around the world, his visa application - the name will be checked in any American embassy around the world on a computer. His name will pop up and he won't be given the visa. He has been ineligible since 1988, and we checked again. To the best of our knowledge, he has not been given a visa at any time, since the abduction in 1986, into the United States.

QUESTION: Why did you say to the best of your knowledge?

Is there some way out of - is there some way he might have gotten a visa without you knowing about it?

MR. BURNS: I'm not trying to obfuscate the issue here.

John and I have discussed this. We don't believe there are actually computer records of all visa issuances, say 1986, '87, '88 in 260 diplomatic posts around the world where visas are issued.

So I can't tell you with 100 percent certainty that no visa has been issued, but we have checked with Consular Affairs. This case has been on our radar screen for years. They know this guy, and we think they would know if he had been issued a visa and had been in this country.

QUESTION: A direct follow-up to that, Nick, Ms. Roush says that in December of 1988, her ex-husband actually did enter the country with his ailing father who was going to a medical facility in the United States for treatment of cancer. This would be a month after he --

MR. BURNS: Was put on the lookout list.

QUESTION: -- after he was in the system.

MR. BURNS: Right.

QUESTION: Is there any way that he or his family could have had some kind of special, I don't know, VIP status that would have allowed him to enter the country without having to go through the normal visa process?

MR. BURNS: I can tell you, having been a Consular Officer, there is no such thing as a VIP visa. You get a visa. There are different classifications of visas -- student visa, business visa, tourist visa, whatever, and you are given a visa depending on what category you fit.

We are not aware that he was allowed to enter the United States to bring his father here for medical treatment. We have seen the allegation; it's a very serious allegation. This is an imperfect system. There are times when, inadvertently, we have let people in the country that we don't want to let in the country. We don't want him to come to this country. If he is foolish enough to sneak his way in, or to obtain a visa by whatever means, he will be arrested because he is a felon. He abducted two children illegally and he will be prosecuted here. It would seem to us his self- interest is to stay in Saudi Arabia. If he does come here, we will be very happy to arrest him.

QUESTION: To put the shoe on the other foot, Mrs. Roush and her attorney have made a very big deal about trying to get the State Department involved in this case, and yet they come to Washington and have not requested, according to you, this building, came here without even requesting to meet anyone over here. Do you find that at all odd? Does it put her case in any different sort of light than --

MR. BURNS: I don't want to second guess Mrs. Roush. She is a woman who has gone through hell for the last eleven years.

I'm not going to second guess her. All I know is that as of yesterday she had not asked to see anybody that we knew of in the State Department. She is most welcome here. She is welcome at any time, during office hours, after office hours. She'll be seen at the Assistant Secretary of State level. We take her case very seriously. We have a responsibility towards her, and I don't want to second guess her.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BURNS: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:04 P.M.)

(###)

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