U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #74, 97-05-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1389
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, May 14, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Press Briefing Visitors
1 Secretary Albright's Activities:
1 -- Mtg. w/Russian Defense Minister Rodionov
1,4-8 Breakthrough on NATO-Russia Negotiations/START II/
1 Military Cooperation on Bosnia/Military-to-Military
Programs
1,19-20 --Mtg. w/Co-Chairs of Bosnian Council of Ministers
2,20 --Mtg. w/FM of Croatia on 5/15; Official Visit of ROK
FM on 5/22-24
2 --Wilmington, Delaware on 5/19
2 Foreign Policy Town Mtg. in Memphis
2 25th Anniversary of Reversion of Okinawa to Japan
2-3 Fact Sheet on U.S. Embargo to Cuba
3-5 Photo Opportunities w/Secretary Albright
ALBANIA
6-7 U.S. Press Statement on Elections-5/13
RUSSIA
8-13 Russian Fishing Vessel/Canadian Helicopter Incident
COLOMBIA
13-14 Colombian Senate Bill on Re-establishment of
Extradition
UKRAINE
14-15 Visit of President Kuchma to U.S.
15 NATO-Ukraine Charter
ZAIRE
16 Situation Update:
16-17 --Draw-down of U.S. Embassy Staff/Departure of American
Citizens
16-17 --Proposed Mobutu/Kabila Mtg.
16 --Ambassador Richardson's Calls to Mobutu/Kabila
16 --Evacuation of Refugees
23 --Mobutu/Zairian Gov't. Financial Assets
CYPRUS
18 Cyprus Conflict
TURKEY
18 Secularism
21 Turkish Military Operation Against PKK
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
18-19 Murder of East Jerusalem Arab/Threats of Violence
19-20 Dennis Ross in Region
POLITICO-MILITARY AFFAIRS
22-23 Exploration of Trilateral Military Exercise w/Israel &
Turkey
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #74
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1997 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department. We have some distinguished visitors here - two Greek journalists,
under the USIA International Visitor Program, Mr. Ioannis Kartalis, the
senior editor and chief of foreign news for Vima, the newspaper in Athens,
welcome; and Mr. Panagiotis Panagiotopoloulos, radio and television - I
pronounced that correctly, I hope - radio and television program producer
and commentator in Athens, welcome. Thank you very much for coming.
We also have some of our new Foreign Service Officers from our A-100 class,
I think, seated in the back here. Welcome to all of you; welcome to the
Foreign Service and to the world of public diplomacy.
The Secretary met this morning with the Russian defense minister, Defense
Minister Rodionov. They had an excellent meeting. They discussed the news
from Moscow today, that there has been a breakthrough on the NATO-Russia
negotiations. President Clinton's going to speak to that in about 45
minutes, over at the Rose Garden.
They also discussed START II. The Secretary told him that she hoped very
much that the Russian Government would continue to push the Russian Duma
for ratification of START II. That would allow us to consider negotiations
on a START III agreement that would further lower the level of nuclear
weapons between both countries. They discussed our military cooperation in
Bosnia, which is going quite well. They also discussed our ongoing military-
to-military training and exchange programs, which have really broken new
ground in our relationship over the last four or five years.
The Secretary emphasized the need for Americans and Russians to think of
each other differently; to view each other as security partners and not as
opponents. The news, obviously, this morning from Moscow speaks in volumes
to that. The Secretary also dropped into a meeting that Deputy Secretary
Strobe Talbott had with the co-chairs of the Bosnian Council of Ministers,
Harris Silajdiz and Boro Bosic. She spoke to them about the importance of
maintaining and fulfilling the promise of the Dayton Accords, and also
of making sure that all the obligations of the parties on human rights
issues, on war crimes issues, on economic development issues were being
met.
Tomorrow the Secretary meets at 9:00 a.m. with the Foreign Minister of
Croatia, Dr. Mate Granic. This is intended to be another review of Dayton
implementation issues with the Croatian Government. I can get into that
further if you'd like.
From May 22nd to May 24th, the Republic of Korea Foreign Minister, Yoo
Chong Ha and Mrs. Yoo will pay an official visit to Washington, D.C., at
the invitation of Secretary Albright. They plan to meet on Friday, May
23rd. He'll also have meetings here with other senior U.S. government
officials. Obviously, we'll want to discuss all of the developments
pertaining to the Korean Peninsula - the four-party peace proposals, the
food situation in the North, the agreed framework, other issues that we're
working on with the North Koreans. He is a good friend of the United
States. They met in Seoul, as you remember, during the Secretary's
worldwide trip to Seoul.
We have a Foreign Policy Town Meeting tomorrow in Memphis, Tennessee. I
think it's our ninth of the year. Jeff Davidow, our Assistant Secretary of
State for Inter-American Affairs is going to give the keynote address. Al
Larson, our Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs will speak on
international economic issues. This is part of our continuing attempt to
reach out to the American people, explain our foreign policy, communicate
with them. The Secretary had an excellent visit to Denver yesterday. That
was part of that process. As you know, she is going to be in Wilmington,
Delaware, on Monday with Senator Biden for a series of programs with
the citizens of Delaware.
Two final notes before we go to questions. The first is this is the 25th
anniversary of the reversion of Okinawa to Japan. This anniversary is a
reminder that Americans and Japanese share a remarkably close friendship
and alliance that has prospered for more than 50 years since the end of the
Second World War. We want take this opportunity today to reaffirm the
importance of our relationship with Japan, which is the foundation for the
peace and stability that all of us enjoy in the Asia-Pacific region.
As part of our alliance, the United States maintains forward-deployed
forces in Japan, most of which are based on the island of Okinawa. The
presence of American military forces in this region and in Okinawa remains
vital to peace and prosperity in the region. It does not threaten anyone.
It is not meant to threaten anyone.
At the same time, the United States recognizes the significant burden borne
by the people of Okinawa in hosting American bases and facilities. While
maintaining our military readiness and capabilities, we are striving to
reduce the burden of U.S. military facilities on the people of Okinawa
Working closely with the Government of Japan, we are moving forward with
the consolidation of those facilities as we agreed in last December's final
report of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa. This includes the return
of over 21 percent of the land that has been used by U.S. military forces
on Okinawa.
So on this occasion we offer our congratulations to the Japanese people,
and especially to the people of Okinawa. We look forward to working
together with the Japanese to further our security cooperation as allies in
the Asia-Pacific region.
Finally, we are issuing a fact sheet today on the issue of the United
States' embargo to Cuba, and the issue of whether or not the embargo
prevents humanitarian assistance by the American people to the Cuban
people. The reason we are issuing this, as you remember probably five or
six weeks ago, there was a report by an American group that alleged that
somehow the United States was preventing humanitarian aid to reach the
people of Cuba.
We rebutted that charge. We felt it was important to issue a lengthy fact
sheet which, in some detail, counters the charges that have been made by
some American groups, but most notably by the Cuban Government. This fact
sheet essentially can be summarized in the following few points.
The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 permits American companies and their
subsidiaries to sell medicine and medical equipment to Cuba. Since 1992,
there have been 38 license requests to the Department of Commerce by U.S.
companies for these purposes, and 36 of the 38 licenses have been approved.
Over the same period, the United States has approved over $150 million in
private humanitarian assistance to Cuba. That is more than the total
worldwide foreign aid that Cuba has received during that time. Much of this
has come in the form of medicines and other health-related items.
So the charge by Fidel Castro, his government, and some groups in the
United States that somehow we are shutting off humanitarian aid to the
people of Cuba is absolutely false. The amount of private, American
humanitarian medical aid exceeds the total value of what the Cuban
Government is spending on its own to help its own people. We wanted to put
that issue in its proper perspective. I commend it to you; it's available
in the Press Office. Barry.
QUESTION: Well, I think Steve has something.
QUESTION: Nick, just speaking on behalf of the Correspondents Association,
we respectfully request that those who make the decisions about turning
opportunities to ask questions of the Secretary of State into reporter-
excluded cameras and stills only might be reconsidered. Today is a perfect
case in point, from our point of view. That being that there was major news
in Moscow, and the Secretary of State was with the Russian Defense Minister
- obviously had something to say on this issue, and I think most, if not
all of us, correspondents were not there to hear it.
In our case, speaking personally, we are not going to be able to use her
comments, even though there is video tape of it, because of the long-
standing, and I think wise principle, of not reporting things that
reporters can't go to. That all being said, this is not life-threatening,
but please hear our plea, because we see this as something that's happening
more and more often. There is access to her in Denver but not, sometimes,
during major news events in Washington.
MR. BURNS: Well, let me just reply to that, Steve. First of all,
reporters are invited - print reporters, any kind of reporters - are
invited to the photo opportunities that are intended to be for cameras
only. Reporters can show up at any time. No one is excluded from those
events. I've made that an express part of our policy. Reporters are invited
to go to those events.
Now, sometimes we elect to have a photo op without questions. That has to
remain our prerogative. Because she does so many of those, she has to
decide which ones she wants to have Q & A on - question and answer - and
which she does not. So that will have to remain her decision, and the
decision of those of us who advise her. But you're all welcome to come to
that.
Secondly, all the Secretary said this morning - I think it was a one-line
answer; and that is that we were encouraged by the progress that had been
made in Moscow but that she really couldn't say anything more because we
had, at that point, not talked to Secretary General Solana. We have since
talked to him, and the President's going to speak to that in about 45
minutes.
In the future, we will obviously try to make the Secretary available to
you. I think since she came into office, she's been available a lot to you
on the trips, on the plane. She's given a lot of press conferences. But she
will not be giving a press conference every time a foreign visitor arrives
in the State Department. She will have to decide when she has a press
conference and when she does not.
QUESTION: Mr. Burns --
QUESTION: Nick, Nick --
QUESTION: Since you've chosen to describe it as a photo op, with no
questions allowed --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: How come you took it upon yourself to ask the Reuter's
cameraman to ask her a question?
MR. BURNS: I'll tell you why. We had intended this would be a camera
spray with no questions. But at the very last minute, when she returned
from the White House after some discussions there, we decided it would be
good at least to get that out to all of you to help you do your jobs, that
we were encouraged by what we heard. But she was not in a position to say
anything more. That's why I prompted the question. I'm glad I did it. It
gave you something to write about.
QUESTION: Mr. Burns, reporters were not allowed to be with the cameras
today, I believe due to space. At least there was an exclusion.
MR. BURNS: Bill - Bill, if you have a problem getting up to the 7th Floor
to a photo op, you call me. We will get you in. Don't worry. Reporters are
not excluded.
QUESTION: All right, sir, there is a problem.
MR. BURNS: Were you here at 9:00 a.m. this morning?
QUESTION: I was here on time to make that.
MR. BURNS: Were you? Well, you should have called me.
QUESTION: I want to say, Mr. Rodionov was very eager to talk to reporters
on the driveway. I believe he was open to having a press - a Q&A.
MR. BURNS: Let me just say this and we will move on to substantive
issues. Secretary Albright has been available to you all, and she has tried
to open herself up to you. She can't give a press conference every day. We
will try to reach a happy medium with you all. But she can't be available
every time there is a foreign visitor here.
QUESTION: Nick, now that you have seen the document, can you tell us
something about it? Specifically what the military arrangements are under
it for eventual --
MR. BURNS: No, the President is going to do all that at 1:45p.m. So I am
not going to take any questions on that.
QUESTION: Nick, on the theory the President will probably not be asked by
the generalists he'll be speaking to all sorts of technical questions that
only State Department reporters seem to get interested in, could you tell
us why it was decided that this is not a charter? And why it isn't legally
binding?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I'm just not going to take any questions. Let me tell
you what has happened. There was a good discussion this morning in Moscow.
Secretary General Solana left Moscow for Brussels. He is now meeting with
the North Atlantic Council in Moscow. We have not yet seen, as far as I
know, all the documents that were negotiated in Moscow. Ambassador Hunter,
our ambassador, is looking at those now, and I assume he is going to fax
them back.
But the first analysis of this is going to come from the President over in
the Rose Garden. I'm just not going to take questions on it.
QUESTION: I talked to U.S. NATO earlier, and they said the State
Department had the documents before they did.
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: And that you should have had them.
MR. BURNS: I don't know who you were talking to --
QUESTION: And that you were in touch with U.S. NATO some time ago about
what you would say in the briefing. Which is one of the reasons I came to
the briefing because I figured you would follow through on that.
MR. BURNS: Roy, I was with Secretary Albright and Deputy Secretary
Talbott until about an hour ago. Neither of the two of them had seen the
documents, and they are the two senior officials in this building.
Therefore, we can't comment on the documents until we see them.
Now, the President's is going to be out. He is going to make a statement.
I'm not going to move anything on this story. I'm not going to answer any
questions because he is the leader of this government. He ought to have the
opportunity to speak first, without the State Department analyzing things
publicly for him.
QUESTION: Well, without analyzing, what are the papers? Can you tell us
what you have here?
MR. BURNS: No, I --
QUESTION: I mean, is it more than one paper?
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to go into any aspect of this.
QUESTION: But Barry's question is also --
MR. BURNS: The President is going to present himself to the American
press corps at 1:45p.m. He is going to make a statement and take questions.
There is then going to be a background briefing at the White House. I think
this was all known to you. There is going to be a background briefing on
this.
So those people -- the President and the people who do the background
briefing - are going to be answering the questions. We can't have competing
press briefings. I'm not going to start that today.
QUESTION: So it must be good news if it's being done by the White House,
right?
MR. BURNS: Well, as the Secretary of State said this morning, we are
encouraged.
QUESTION: Or good news from the U.S. perspective, anyway.
MR. BURNS: We are encouraged, we're encouraged. Yes, we are. Sir?
QUESTION: Albania?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Developments there, President Berisha seems to - he has passed
a law that would tend to get his party win the upcoming elections. And as a
result, Mr. Fino, the Albanian opposition, seems to be calling for a
boycott of the elections. What is the U.S. position on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, we issued a press statement last evening. I think you
saw that. Our position hasn't changed since we issued it, and that is that
there should be free and fair elections in Albania. The Secretary had good
discussions with Prime Minister Fino. All political parties ought to have
equal access to television and to radio, equal time to prepare themselves
for the elections. We hope very much that the Government of National
Reconciliation is able to work out an agreement on the best way to move
forward in the elections.
We do know the elections have to be held because that's the only way to
produce a good outcome from the political crisis in which Albania has been
enmeshed. We hope very much that Dr. Vranisky, who is the representative of
the OSCE, will be able to help work out a solution to this problem. But I
would refer you to the very full press statement that we issued on this
last evening.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the Russian statement? Two questions come to
mind, at least. The first is, the delay -- if you want to call it a delay --
of the Russian parliament to act on the treaty was supposed to be based in
part on concerns by the Russian military.
MR. BURNS: On START II.
QUESTION: On START II.
MR. BURNS: Yeah.
QUESTION: Concerns on the part of the military that they don't have the
resources to build weapons that they're allowed, while they dismantle
weapons that would put them over the caps. If the defense minister is in
favor of it, is the U.S. saying now that there is no Russian military
objection and that there's further reason now for the parliament to go on?
And I don't understand - I don't want to follow your words that closely -
but how can the Secretary tell the Russian defense minister, then, when
START II is ratified, the two sides can move ahead with START III,
when we've been told by the Vice President and other senior U.S. officials
that talks, at least on guidelines for START III, needn't wait and aren't
waiting for ratification of START II?
MR. BURNS: First, Barry, you remember at Helsinki, President Yeltsin said
publicly, very clearly on behalf of the Russian Government that the Russian
Government wants to have the Duma ratify START II. No question about that.
Minister Rodionov was asked at the Pentagon yesterday whether he personally
supported START II, and he said, yes, he did. He supports START II
ratification. So that's the answer to number one. The Russian Government's
on record. But we can't move forward, obviously, to implement START II
until it's ratified by the Duma.
QUESTION: You figure he's speaking for the military, not just for the
executive branch?
MR. BURNS: He --
QUESTION: He's speaking for the armed forces.
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, President Yeltsin spoke for the Russian
Government, and Minister Rodionov fully backed up President Yeltsin
yesterday in his public comments, speaking for the Russian Ministry of
Defense and the uniformed military.
On the second question, it's long been our position that while we are open
to some preliminary discussion of START III, we're not going to be able to
negotiate, begin negotiations on START III until START II is ratified by
the Duma. I think the President, Vice President and Secretary Albright have
all spoken to that.
QUESTION: All right, well, we don't have to belabor it.
MR. BURNS: There's no contradiction.
QUESTION: It's a government decision, it's your government's decision. I
mean, starting on START III is supposed to make it easier to get START II
ratified because it would be further cutbacks and the Russian military and
industries won't have the problem finding money for weapons that they
wouldn't be able to have anyhow. So why wouldn't you want to move ahead
with START III? But all right, that's your decision. But you don't begin to
negotiate III until START II is ratified, except for some preliminary
discussions.
MR. BURNS: We're not going to negotiate START III until START II is
ratified by the Duma. That makes common sense. Our negotiating partner has
to fill its responsibility to move ahead with START II before we can
realistically go on to START III. But we hope that the prospect of further
reductions in nuclear warheads between the two countries will entice the
Duma to think seriously about a START II ratification vote this summer.
QUESTION: Also on the Russians, but on a slightly different issue, did
the United States protest to the Government of Russia an incident involving
a laser beam aimed at or apparently ignited at a Canadian helicopter, which
contained also a U.S. Naval officer?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we did. We protested this incident forcefully to the
Russian Government. The Russian Government in turn promised to cooperate
with an investigation. It's unfortunate that in the newspaper report on
this this morning, there were some glaring errors.
First of all, the State Department and the Pentagon - I have a very clear
memory of this - had no significant policy differences over what to do.
When we were informed - the State Department was informed - by the Pentagon,
I believe it was on Sunday evening, April 6th, that there had been some
kind of incident out in the Northwest regarding a Russian fishing boat and
some Canadian helicopters. There was no failure to agree in the U.S.
Government on this. We all believed that this ship, which is the M.V.
Capitan Man, the Russian fishing trawler, ought to be searched by the
U.S. Coast Guard.
It was searched. There were no conditions placed upon the Coast Guard
during that search -- no conditions certainly on the part of the State
Department. We wanted there to be a full search, as did the Pentagon, as
did the Coast Guard. That search was conducted by the United States Coast
Guard.
I don't believe the Coast Guard determined that there had been any
culpability on that part of the Russian vessel, although it was a curious
incident; because we were informed that there had been eye injuries caused
to Lieutenant Daly, who was in the helicopter, by a laser. The final
medical report, I think, has determined that there was a laser shot at his
helicopter. There was eye damage. Fortunately for him that eye damage was
temporary. It is not going to be permanent, and he is going to recover
fully.
So what is curious about this is that we think a laser was pointed at a
helicopter. We don't know from whom. But we did search the Russian vessel,
and we expect full cooperation if there is any need to go back to this
incident in the future.
QUESTION: And what is the precise basis of the protest? That this is an
illegal weapon?
MR. BURNS: Well, you see we haven't been able to establish exactly the
source of the laser. But there was a boat, a vessel in the vicinity. We
felt it was important to search that boat fully. Now, what I would like to
take issue with, just on the facts -- and I get this from the Coast Guard,
which sent us the report this morning -- is the State Department in no way
tried to impede the search of the Russian vessel. We agreed, given
the unusual circumstances, that there had to be a full search. The
Coast Guard conducted it to its own satisfaction.
QUESTION: Well, what is the nature of the protest?
MR. BURNS: The nature of the protest is --
QUESTION: What are you protesting?
MR. BURNS: We are protesting that fact that an unusual activity occurred,
a laser was shot at a helicopter, which didn't harm the helicopter, but
unfortunately harmed one of the people in the helicopter. We just felt that
it was important enough to search the vessel and to ask the Russians to
fully cooperate with the search of the vessel and any other further
investigative work that needs to be done subsequent to this whole incident.
The Russians said they would cooperate with us.
QUESTION: Wasn't this a commercial boat?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Wasn't this boat a commercial vessel?
MR. BURNS: Yes, it was. But it was a Russian boat.
QUESTION: Well, if it's a commercial Russian boat, what basis do you have
to approach the Russian Government about this laser?
MR. BURNS: That is normal procedure in incidents like this, normal
procedure. The same thing would apply had an incident like this occurred,
or a similar incident occurred near Vladivostok or in the Russian Far East
with an American fishing vessel. The Russian Government would contact us
about questions of the activities of a private American vessel.
QUESTION: Did you make this known at the time to the public?
MR. BURNS: I did not make it known to the public at the time, no. We did
not make it known at the time.
QUESTION: Is there some reason why you did not?
MR. BURNS: Well, we decided the best course was to try to work to carry
out this investigation, to carry out the search of the ship privately,
without publicity. Sometimes we elect to do that.
QUESTION: No, but I'm thinking of the protest to the Russians.
MR. BURNS: We did not make that --
QUESTION: Is there some reason this was not made known?
MR. BURNS: No, we did not make that public because sometimes we have to
calculate that private conversations, conversations kept private maybe have
a better chance of succeeding than public ones.
QUESTION: You're always critical of The Washington Times and Bill Gertz'
story, but it sounds like he got it quite right this time.
MR. BURNS: Well, actually, one of the major allegations in the first few
paragraphs of the story is that the State Department acted like wimps on
this one - that we protected the Russians unduly and prevented the Coast
Guard from full access to the ship. That is absolutely untrue, and you can
check with the United States Coast Guard, if you'd like to have another
source on it.
QUESTION: Yes, but my point is that the State Department, if it's not
acting like wimps, why doesn't it just simply make this known to the public
so that we can take a different view, rather than The Washington Times.
MR. BURNS: Because in modern diplomacy, sometimes we elect to act, to
work privately with countries; specifically countries with which we have a
very good relationship. Other times, for instance yesterday, when we see
blatant violations of international law by the Libyan Government - and we
don't have a relationship with the Libyan Government - we elect to go
public. It's a tactical choice that you have.
QUESTION: Did the Russians respond to the vessel?
MR. BURNS: The Russians responded by telling us that they would ask the
vessel to fully cooperate with the search, which we hope it did; and
secondly that if there was a need for any further investigative work, that
they would cooperate with that. We were pleased to hear those words of
cooperation.
QUESTION: Nick, did you ask the Russians -- the Coast Guard to hold off
on the search until you had spoken with the Russian Government?
MR. BURNS: I don't remember that being part of the story, Sid. I can
check for you. I was not involved in these conversations with the Russians,
not personally, or with the Coast Guard. I'd have to ask the people who did
that. I just don't know. I can't re-establish a full timeline for
you.
QUESTION: Yeah, well, it seems like, from what you just said, that you
asked the Russians to ask the ship to cooperate with the search --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: -- as if maybe you went to the Russians first, because they
weren't being - the ship --
MR. BURNS: I know we talked to the Russians. I don't know whether we
asked the Coast Guard to delay a ship search, pending discussions with the
Russians. I can get back to you on that.
QUESTION: Nick, I'm still confused, forgive me. What exactly is the
nature of the protest, because you don't know where the laser came from,
correct?
MR. BURNS: Right, but when you have a helicopter flying over the ocean
and there's one vessel in the area and there's been a laser shot at it,
then you draw the logical conclusion that maybe you ought to search that
vessel.
QUESTION: Is there a suspicion on the part of the U.S. Government that
the fishing vessel might have had other duties?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can't speak to that, Jim, certainly not in a public
forum. I wouldn't dream of speaking to that.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. BURNS: We sometimes have private concerns that we express privately
about a variety of activities. But I simply can't speak to that particular
one by this vessel.
QUESTION: And does the apparent presence of a laser suggest that this is
unusual equipment for a fishing boat?
MR. BURNS: I think it's highly unusual; there's no question about
that.
QUESTION: Where would one normally expect to find a laser?
MR. BURNS: Well, I'm not an expert on lasers. I mean, hopefully in a lab,
where people are fully protected from the adverse effects of lasers --
hopefully not on the high seas or if you're flying an aircraft, a
helicopter. But again, I can't speak to any specific charges like that. Yes,
Betsy.
QUESTION: You're saying that the laser was not found on the ship; is that
correct?
MR. BURNS: Yes. I believe if you'll check with the Coast Guard, the Coast
Guard will tell you there was a search of the ship, but they did not
uncover a laser or any equipment that would be able to beam a laser.
QUESTION: So is it possible - are authorities looking for any other
possible source of a laser? Would there be --
MR. BURNS: We are still looking into that, yes. Now, we're five weeks
after the incident, so it's - I don't know if we'll ever answer the
question in a satisfactory way. But we have an obligation to Lieutenant
Daly and others to pursue whatever leads there are.
QUESTION: Do you know what jurisdictions would have pursued an investigation
of the source of the laser if it were not on board the ship? Would local
jurisdictions in that area, local police have assisted in this?
MR. BURNS: I don't know. I believe a search of the ship was carried out
solely by the U.S. Coast Guard.
QUESTION: But if a laser was not found there --
MR. BURNS: I don't know if any local law enforcement officials were
involved.
QUESTION: No, but if the laser was not found on the ship, and there were
other places in the area that could possibly have been the source of the
laser beam - not the ship, totally separate from the ship - are you aware
of any other investigation over there?
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not. I'm not aware of any other investigation.
QUESTION: You've said that your decision was not to make the incident
public. Do you mean that it was leaked later in (inaudible) against your
will?
MR. BURNS: I assume so, yes. That's the normal business of Washington.
Things get leaked all the time, every day. We understand that. We try to
deal with it as best we can. Sometimes the leaks are very, very serious and
sometimes they're not.
QUESTION: Is there going to be an investigation of the leak?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any investigation of a leak, no.
QUESTION: If we are finished with the laser, could I move on to Colombia?
I just have a few questions on something.
MR. BURNS: Sure, yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday in the Colombian senate a bill was approved
reestablishing extradition. Do you have a reaction on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, we've been discussing our extradition concerns, as you
know, with the Government of Colombia. We recognize that the legislative
process is not yet completed in Bogota. We need to review the bill very
carefully before we can make a full assessment on it. But it is our view
that any bill that is ultimately enacted must have an absolute minimum of
restrictions on extradition to be a truly effective means of cooperation in
the fight against narcotics trafficking.
As you know, we think that we're only going to win the war against drugs in
this hemisphere if we have fully effective cooperation from other
countries. That means the ability to extradite a suspect to other countries,
in this case, to the United States.
QUESTION: Nick, the bill does have certain restrictions. It does not
allow extradition of those who give up voluntarily to the Colombian justice
system, and it does not allow extradition in cases where the penalty in the
requesting country is stiffer than the penalty in Colombia. Given that
these conditions make extradition very, very difficult, how does the U.S.
interpret this bill?
MR. BURNS: Again, we have not fully gone through the bill to our
satisfaction. We need to go through it, ask some questions of the Colombian
Government and when we've completed that process, we'll have a final view
on this both publicly and privately.
QUESTION: Okay, and just finally, if the bill does pass with this given
language would that satisfy the U.S. request to pass an extradition
bill?
MR. BURNS: We need to look at the bill carefully and then we'll make a
judgment on it. But we do want the bill to meet a standard that would
actually help us fight the war on drugs and to make sure that the narco-
traffickers don't have a place to hide. They've had lots of places to hide
in Colombia, unfortunately, in the last couple of years. We would like the
Colombian Government, in this bill, to close off those opportunities of
refuge for narco-traffickers. That is the standard that has to be met
here.
QUESTION: Colombia?
MR. BURNS: Still one on Colombia, yes.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the Colombia's Government support of such
bill? Does that please the United States?
MR. BURNS: Well, we want to work effectively with the Government of
Colombia. If we can, in fact, work effectively on extradition that would be
a good step forward. But there are other ways for the Colombians to prove
that they're really serious about the fight against drugs, and the
Colombians know what those standards are.
QUESTION: Back to Russia, to Rodionov.
MR. BURNS: Okay, we're running short of time here, Bill; what is your
question?
QUESTION: My question -- Mr. Rodionov, in the drive, spoke to a handful
of reporters and he said, in answer, response, to the situation in North
Korea, he said that the Russians were very concerned. And then he was asked
if the U.S. and Russia were going to cooperate in that particular matter,
and he said, of course. Do you have any details from this morning?
MR. BURNS: They did not discuss North Korea this morning.
QUESTION: They did not?
MR. BURNS: No, they did not discuss North Korea. They discussed a lot of
issues, but not North Korea. We are very pleased to work well with the
Russians on North Korea in general.
QUESTION: You said you were going to have something on Ukraine today. Do
you have it?
MR. BURNS: Not yet, no we don't; but we're looking forward to the visit
of President Kuchma for the Gore-Kuchma meetings. There's a lot of work
that needs to be done to further our relationship on economic reform, on
many of the nuclear issues. As you know, some of the nuclear issues we deal
with in the G-8 formula, and I believe we have, today and tomorrow, advance
talks for the Denver Summit underway here in Washington on nuclear safety
concerning the G-8 deliberations with Ukraine on closing Chernobyl by
the year 2000. So that is going on separately from the Kuchma visit.
But it is going on here.
QUESTION: What about the issue of corruption that Congress is so
concerned about? Is that something that the U.S. side plans to bring
out?
MR. BURNS: I'm sure it will come up as a very serious issue. President
Kuchma has identified it for an important issue for his government. If we
can be of help in the fight against corruption, we will be. But I think it
is primarily a problem that the Ukrainians need to work on themselves. It
really thwarts economic reform. It breaks down the rule of law.
QUESTION: Is that your response to their claim that they need help in
fighting corruption?
MR. BURNS: If they ask for specific ways that we can be of assistance,
I'm sure we will be open to that. Charlie.
QUESTION: Nick can you bring us up to date on Zaire?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Is there a new report from Ambassador Simpson?
MR. BURNS: Jim just wants to go back to Ukraine just for a minute, then
I'll go to you, Charlie.
QUESTION: There has been a U.S.-Ukraine charter under negotiations --
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: -- parallel to --
MR. BURNS: NATO-Ukraine Charter.
QUESTION: Yeah, NATO. Does the breakthrough on the NATO-Russian Charter
constitute a breakthrough as far as the NATO-Ukrainian one?
MR. BURNS: These are separate negotiations, so the breakthrough today
does not have a direct impact on our negotiations with Ukraine. But we hope
to establish - we and NATO - a singular relationship with Ukraine because
it needs to be treated as its own country and not grouped with others for
the purpose of NATO's future military cooperation.
QUESTION: Will that be a matter of discussion when President Kuchma
comes?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I'm sure that will be on the table with President Kuchma
is here with the Vice President and others. Yes, Charlie?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BURNS: Well, let me just go to Charlie. Charlie was next. And then,
Envira, I'll be glad to go to you. Charlie.
QUESTION: Just an update on Zaire. Any more further draw-down of
officials in the U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa? Any private Americans leaving?
What is --
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that we do not anticipate drawing down any
further our Embassy staff in Kinshasa. We have drawn-down now to 25 people,
including Ambassador Dan Simpson. That is the core of our Embassy staff,
and our objective is to keep that Embassy open and fully operational
throughout this crisis. Obviously, we will be looking at the security
situation every day to assure ourselves that those people are protected.
As for the 325 American citizens, private Americans, who continue to reside
in Zaire, I think about two-thirds of those people are in Kinshasa. The
rest are primarily in Eastern Zaire, where there is no longer much fighting,
fortunately. But our advice to those Americans is to get out of Zaire. The
rebel alliance is about 60 kilometers from Kinshasa.
You know that Kabila and Mobutu have not yet met on the South African naval
vessel. We don't know what is going to transpire if they do meet. We don't
know whether or not they will agree on a peaceful transition of power. If
it is not peaceful, it is going to be violent. The rebel alliance is going
to attack the capital city, and all those Americans there are going to be
in harms way.
We very strongly advise the American community to leave Zaire by ferry for
Brazzaville, or by commercial air. I think the commercial air possibilities
are now receding a bit. This is a serious warning. A lot of people are
staying. They are not really responding to this plea to leave. They may be
chasing profits. They may think they are indispensable to their companies.
They have got to think about their personal welfare.
We cannot anticipate how the Zairian Army itself is going to react to the
transition. We can't anticipate if there are going to be pitched battles in
the streets of Kinshasa. We don't know. It just makes sense to us that
people would want to take themselves out of a situation where they might be
caught up in the middle of a civil war. That just makes common sense.
Let me just say - can I just say a couple more words about Zaire. Bill
Richardson, our Ambassador to the UN, who is back here, called President
Mobutu last evening and also called Mr. Kabila. He encouraged both of them
to attend the talks today and to agree on a cease-fire, a peaceful
transition and to some immediate steps to help the refugees.
On the refugee front, I understand the UN has now taken 23,000 people out
of Kisangani, which is a very good thing. But tens of thousands of more
people need to be evacuated. We fully support that operation.
QUESTION: Nick, did Kabila indicate to Ambassador Richardson that he
wouldn't show?
MR. BURNS: I think last night he was unsure whether he would attend. Now,
we understand he has made his way to Angola, Mr. Kabila. Apparently, he
does intend to take part in these discussions, although he has taken a
circuitous route to Point Noire in Congo. We hope very much that they will
be able to get together under President Mandela's auspices today.
QUESTION: Nick, on Zaire. You are still calling for --
MR. BURNS: Betsy, did you have a question on Zaire?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Well, ladies first.
QUESTION: I just wanted to make sure that you are still holding on the
325 figure for private Americans?
MR. BURNS: We are. I think it's a pretty good number. We thought it was
321. We now think it is 325 private Americans in Zaire.
QUESTION: So none have left, then, because of your pleas?
MR. BURNS: We have not seen many people leave. For three days now, we
have been advising people. Let's remember what happened in Monrovia last
year and in Tirana earlier this year. You can't anticipate that things are
going to go well in a transition, however much they may go well. Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, sir, you still call the forces of Mr. Kabila as rebels.
Does it sound logical that with the fact that this Administration announced
that Mr. Mobutu's government is at the end of its history and you are
advising him to just resign peacefully and all that?
MR. BURNS: It's not meant in a perjuritive way. They are rebels. They are
rebelling against the current government. The current government remains in
power. It is a factual description of who they are. They have a name for
themselves. It's quite long, and if I use that full name every time we
would never get through the end of the briefing. So we don't mean any
disrespect at all to Mr. Kabila. Although we have said time and again, this
is a time of testing for him. He needs to acquit himself responsibly
in the way that this war is ended. We are watching that very carefully.
QUESTION: If they are tomorrow - or after tomorrow in Kinshasa, it would
be rather antagonistic to call them rebels while they are --
MR. BURNS: Well, they haven't taken power yet. If they do take power, I'm
sure we will call them something else. But until they take power, they are
in an active state of rebellion against the current government. They have
taken over 80 percent of the country. Lot of people have been killed. There
has been a civil war underway for many months. They are rebelling.
But it is semantic question, not a political question here. Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Yes, the German Institute, with the German capital letters SWP,
like Peter, based in Enbenhouse over by Germany, released a multi-page
report on Cyprus in which (inaudible) is saying that the only term for a
solution to the Cyprus problem is the European Union and the United States,
and the UN could play a role to this effect. Could you please comment on
that?
MR. BURNS: I haven't seen the report. I don't want to comment on it. But
you know that we think the United Nations has a central role, the United
Kingdom, the United States, the European Union. The problem is not the
number of negotiators or the goodwill of the negotiators from outside. The
problem is 22 years later we still don't have a resolution of the problem.
So we need to look inside to the Cypriot Government and the Turkish
community to see if they can make progress. We will be glad to help them.
But I think you ought to really focus the efforts on the people who
need to make the compromises.
QUESTION: One more question. How do you comment on Turkey's State
Minister Abdullah Gul's statement that secularism in Turkey is like atheism,
since you support secularism?
MR. BURNS: It's like what?
QUESTION: It's like atheism.
MR. BURNS: Atheism.
QUESTION: Secularism is like atheism.
MR. BURNS: I have not seen that statement, but you know that the United
States relations with Turkey are based on Turkey's secular democratic
foundation, which was put in place by Attaturk a long time ago in 1923. We
believe Turkey's secular tradition is an important component of its future
and must be an important component of its future. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Could we hear your comments about reports that the Palestinian
Authority which issued the sentence of death on anyone selling his land to
an Israeli? And also I would like to hear comments about what I understand
is Israeli law that forbids Israelis from selling their lands to Arabs?
MR. BURNS: Well, let me just say I think there are two issues here. First
unfortunately, there's been a tragic murder this week of a 70-year old
Palestinian man. That murder is being investigated by the Palestinian and
Israeli police authorities. No motive has been established by the police,
and no one has been apprehended. We hope that the investigation into the
murder will succeed in identifying the culprits and they'll be brought
to justice.
On the question that you asked directly, the United States believes that
Chairman Arafat has a strong interest in emphasizing the rule of law; in
emphasizing to all of the people who work for him the importance of
fulfilling the rule of law in their actions and in their words, in what
they say. There is no place for threats of murder in the Middle East, there
shouldn't -- not in an environment that has seen too much bloodshed over 49
years.
We would ask that the public comments of Palestinian officials be
consistent with the rule of law, be consistent with the emphasis that we
are all putting on peace and not violence. That is very important point
that we wanted to make today in response to all these questions about
whether or not threats were made. Now, I have heard that Saeb Erekat , a
senior Palestinian negotiator, made a public comment to the effect that
this is not Palestinian policy to threaten people with death. We very much
hope that that is the case.
QUESTION: What about Israeli law that forbids the sales by Israeli
citizens of land to Arabs.
MR. BURNS: The United States does not wish to make itself part of a
public debate about the activities of private businessmen. We think that
private people, Israelis, Palestinians, whoever they are, foreigners, ought
to be free to conduct their business within the confines of established
law. But we're not going to join any kind of public debate between Israelis
and Palestinians over who should do what.
We do have a position on violence, on threatening violence, and, of course
on acts that commit violence or terrorism. We are very clear about that,
and we wanted to make a very clear statement today about that. Now, I can
tell you, I just talked to Dennis Ross about an hour ago. He is in a
meeting -- he has been in a series of meetings all day with Israelis and
Palestinians to try to put together a process that would restore a
political dynamic to the negotiations. He hopes, of course, at some point
to bring people together to do this. We just have to wait and see if
he is successful in that, and we hope very much that he is successful
in that.
Sid, did you have a Middle East question?
QUESTION: I want to go back to Turkey.
MR. BURNS: Envira has been waiting, so let's do Envira and we'll go back
to Turkey, if you wouldn't mind.
QUESTION: Co-Prime Minister Silajdzic and Bosic were this morning at the
State Department talking with Strobe Talbott. Actually they were willing to
talk with Madame Albright, but they were talking with Talbott. Could you
share some details on that?
MR. BURNS: Actually, they had a chance to talk to both. They met with
Deputy Secretary Talbott, but Secretary Albright joined that meeting. She
decided this morning she just wanted to walk down the hall and meet them
because, of course, she knows them. It was a good discussion. They
discussed the importance of the Dayton Accords, implementing the Dayton
Accords, making sure that all the parties are fulfilling their commitments,
which of course, has not been the case.
By and large the Bosnian Government has done a good job in meeting its
commitments. The Bosnian Serbs have a woeful performance -- the Serbian
Government, woeful; the Croatians mixed. So this is the record we have to
address with them, and I know that the Secretary will be addressing some of
these issues with the Foreign Minister of Croatia, Dr. Mate Granic,
tomorrow morning.
QUESTION: Did Madeline Albright say anything to Mr. Bosic about war
crimes tribunal in cooperation with tribunal?
MR. BURNS: The issue of war crimes came up during the meeting. I wasn't
there, so I don't know whether it was raised by the Secretary or the Deputy
Secretary, but it always comes up in our meetings. The other issue we'll be
taking on, of course, is some of the press reports you've seen - this is
with the Croatians tomorrow - about the Croatians putting Bosnian Croats
into the homes of Serbs in the Krajina region.
We support to right of refugees and displaced persons to return to their
homes, the homes from which they were driven during the war, and we are
concerned that Croatia has not taken the steps necessary to facilitate the
return of the ethnic Serb refugees to Croatia. That is a very serious
concern that we will be addressing , we have already addressed to the
government, but we will address it to Dr. Granic tomorrow.
Specifically, we've called for assurances from the Government of Croatia
that ethnic Serbs and Croats will be able to return safety to their homes.
All Croatian citizens may be able to recover their property expeditiously.
This issue will be in the forefront of our agenda tomorrow morning.
QUESTION: Some PA officials were refraining from describing the meeting
at the Ambassador's residence as negotiations. What's the U.S. position vis-
à-vis this meeting?
MR. BURNS: Well, I'm not talking here specifically about any particular
meeting. Dennis has had a lot of meetings with Palestinians, and separately
with Israelis. He obviously hopes to bring the two of them together. Who
knows - that could even happen today. If it does happen today, we'll have
something to say about it after it happens, but not before it happens.
QUESTION: But it didn't happen yesterday. We didn't get --
MR. BURNS: I don't believe it happened yesterday, no. If I have anything
to say about this, I will have something to say probably in an hour or two.
I just want to put that on your radar screens, based on my conversation
with Dennis. But I don't have anything to say right now, until after a
meeting is over, if a meeting takes place. How's that? I have to go to Sid.
He's been waiting.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked your reaction to the Turkish prime
minister's decision to cancel their participation in joint military
exercises with the United States and Israel.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: You didn't appear to know anything about that. Have you looked
into it? Can you comment on it?
MR. BURNS: John, I don't believe we've seen anything, have we? We have
something? I don't have anything. I don't believe I've got anything.
Actually, let's see; I'm looking, Sid. I don't have anything.
QUESTION: Is it true?
MR. BURNS: I checked the book, which is the source of all knowledge.
We'll continue to look into that for you. I wasn't aware yesterday that
there had been any cancellation.
QUESTION: Well, the prime minister announced it.
MR. BURNS: Right, I'm well aware of that.
QUESTION: Apparently the military is --
MR. BURNS: Stranger things have happened.
QUESTION: Apparently the military is ignoring the prime minister in this
case, which would be a rather --
MR. BURNS: Well, see that may be why we haven't seen any cancellation of
the military exercises. But I can't help you at this point. I'll try to --
QUESTION: Could you take that question and get us an answer on a piece of
paper -
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to.
QUESTION: -- to get to the bottom of this?
MR. BURNS: We do know that the Turkish military has launched an operation
against the PKK in Northern Iraq. You know that we believe that Turkey has
a right to defend itself from PKK terrorism. Turkey must protect its
population in Southeastern Turkey. Now, the Turks have assured us that
these kinds of operations are going to be narrow in time and in scope. This
operation will be narrow in time and scope, and we do anticipate a quick
withdrawal of the Turkish forces.
John has very helpfully given me some press guidance. I'm afraid this press
guidance is totally unhelpful.
(Laughter.)
Cooperation with Turkey and Israel - let me read this - cooperation with
Turkey and Israel, two of our closest friends in the region is natural and
desirable. We've agreed to explore a trilateral exercise involving the U.S.,
Israel and Turkey, but any questions regarding the modality of military
exercises should be referred to our very good friends at the Department of
Defense.
What I can tell you is this - the United States believes that Turkey and
Israel ought to grow closer together militarily; that's a good thing. We
would like to have military cooperation on a trilateral basis with the two
of them.
You've asked a very good question. We've failed to give you a good answer.
Let me try to give you a better answer.
QUESTION: Are you going to invite Greece to this trilateral exercise
sometime in the future?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I'm not aware that we had extended such an
invitation. But we are a valued, very close NATO ally of Greece. We take
our relationship with Greece very seriously, and anything we can do to
improve our relationship with Greece militarily, politically, economically,
culturally --
QUESTION: I know this, but any plan to this effect to invite Greece
sometime in the future?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any plan to include Greece in this particular
exercise, although we have a variety of NATO military exercises that do
include our Greek allies. Thank you. Betsy, yes.
QUESTION: I have a Zaire question. I think that may be a Turkey
question.
MR. BURNS: Yes, yeah, and then we have to wrap it up. I don't want you to
miss the President.
QUESTION: Was there a date fixed about the joint exercise between Israel
and --
MR. BURNS: Well, this very helpful guidance doesn't give me any facts at
all. So I'm going to have to talk to my good friend Ken Bacon and try to
get you a better answer.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) this morning made a statement saying that there
were no dates fixed, so there is no postponement or cancellation.
MR. BURNS: That is our fault.
QUESTION: So (inaudible) --
MR. BURNS: No, no, I would never even try to pull that one over on you
guys. You mean the fact that we haven't set a date means we haven't
canceled it?
QUESTION: Yes, yes. There was not a date so there's no --
MR. BURNS: That sounds Orwellian.
(Laughter.)
I think - Mr. Lambros, excuse me.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the country given another explanation why he
canceled.
MR. BURNS: You would never cast any aspersions on the Turks.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: The last question to Betsy.
QUESTION: There were reports this morning that members of Mr. Kabila's
rebel alliance have asked that the Swiss freeze any assets owing to Mr.
Mobutu or the Zairian Government. Has that same request been made of this
government?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe it has. I haven't heard that it has, but I can
check into that for you. You know, I'm not sure that that is a direct
responsibility of the United States. We need to have the Zairians make
decisions about the transition. For us to get involved in disposition of
someone's financial assets ahead of even a transfer of government I think
would be precipitous, so I don't believe that we are doing anything on that
score. At some point, if we are asked to be involved, perhaps we'll
consider it, but this is the kind of thing that the two leaders have
to talk about.
QUESTION: This would seem to be a very important issue if the government,
the "government" that is there now is looting the banks and leaving
town.
MR. BURNS: That is a separate issue. The issue that I saw pertained to
President Mobutu's existing off-shore bank accounts. That's a separate
question in our mind from some of the disreputable activities of senior
government officials who may or may not be pilfering the Central Bank of
Zaire. I don't know whether they are or not, but there have been a lot of
press reports to that effect. Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 1:51 P.M.)
(###)
|
