U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #79, 97-05-21

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

Wednesday, May 21, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1              Welcome to Press Briefing Visitors
1              Secretary Albright's Activities:
1              --5/21-U.S. Conference of Mayors Drug Summit; Capitol Hill
1-2            --5/22-Testimony before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee;
                 Trip to New York
2              --5/23-Press Conference (Tentative)
2-4            Statement on Pacific Salmon Negotiations
3              U.S.-Japan Common Agenda for Cooperation
CHINA
4-6            Allegations of Export of Prison-Made Goods/Prison Conditions
                 & Access
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
6-8,11,13      Threats against Palestinians for Land Sales to Israelis
8-13           U.S Report/Discussions on Occupancy Rates of Jewish
                 Settlements
11-12          Alleged Jamming of Independent Palestinian Television Station
BOSNIA
14-17          Return of Refugees from Germany/Admission of Refugees to U.S.
16-18          Secretary Albright's Upcoming Visit
2,18           Appointment of U.S. Ambassador David Scheffer
TURKEY/IRAQ
18-19          Turkish Incursion into Northern Iraq
19             U.S.-Turkish Discussions
19             Reports of Syrian/Iranian/Iraqi Troop Build-Up around
                 Northern Iraq
BURMA
19-21          Arrest of Opposition/Investment Ban/ASEAN Membership
LIBYA
21-22          Report of Letter from U.S. Senators to Ambassador Richardson
NORTH KOREA
22             Four Party Talks
22-23          North Korean Basketball Player in Canada
23             Food Aid

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #79

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21,1997 1:27 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: We've already got a question, before I get up to the podium. The question is, how much did the Russian Government pay for the - well, the Soviet Union constructed the Russian embassy up north of Georgetown.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BURNS: I don't know how much they paid for the land, how much it cost them to build.

QUESTION: It seems to me it was an issue not too long ago, because the U.S. wasn't paying very much for the embassy in Moscow. Now they are trying to negotiate that?

MR. BURNS: Well, that's the way it is -- you sign an agreement, you have to live by the agreement. We are a nation of laws; we believe in contracts.

Anyway, welcome to the State Department briefing.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to pre-empt you.

MR. BURNS: Nice to get a question before I get up to the podium.

QUESTION: I thought you might know the answer and just whip it out and that would be it.

MR. BURNS: I should have the answer, exactly. I want to welcome several guests - Marjorie Kaplowitz is the deputy presidential spokesman in Guatemala. Thank you very much for coming today. We also have 17 members of the New Jersey chapter of the Zonta International Group. I believe you're here and perhaps some over here. It's an international women's service organization. Thank you very much for being with us. We have Ms. Afaf Zein, who is a London-based journalist for three Arab newspapers. Thank you for coming with us.

I wanted to review the Secretary's schedule with you both today, tomorrow and Friday. Today she was over at the White House this morning with the President for the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Drug Summit, the breakfast with the President. She is now on Capitol Hill. She's having lunch with Representative Gephardt, the House minority leader. She's going to be briefing at 1:30 p.m. a group of freshman congressmen and congresswomen on the China MFN issues, which as you know, is one of the Administration's lead priorities. She'll also be seeing Senator Leahy on the Hill today.

Tomorrow, the Secretary will testify before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. That's at 10:30 a.m. in the morning. There will be a variety of issues she'll want to discuss, including of course, State Department resources; the need for greater funding for our foreign affairs establishment. She'll also be discussing Bosnia.

Then later in the day, she's going to be traveling to New York in the afternoon and evening. She'll be presented tomorrow with the 1997 Intrepid Freedom Award, in recognition for leadership and promoting peace and democracy around the world. This is part of the annual Fleet Week in New York City. It's hosted by the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum. The Secretary will receive the award from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili.

She is going to give an address up there at approximately 8:15 p.m. It will be an address that focuses primarily on Bosnia. The Secretary believes that all of us need to turn our attention to Bosnia to make sure that we do everything that we can to fulfill the promise of the Dayton Accords. That is why she is going to be visiting Sarajevo and perhaps other points in the Balkans a week from this weekend. That is why she is giving this speech in New York tomorrow.

Of course, as you know, the President has also appointed David Scheffer to be the special American ambassador, American envoy, responsible for making sure that the United States supports to the fullest possible extent the war crimes tribunals in The Hague for the Bosnian war criminals and also the Rwanda war crimes tribunals. I wanted to give you a sense of the Secretary's commitment on that issue.

On Friday, the Secretary will be here most of the day, and I do anticipate she will giving a press conference on Friday morning. I will get back to you with details on that. But this is the press conference that we have promised to you, and she will be glad to take your questions on any foreign policy issues that are on your mind.

I have two brief statements before we go to questions. The first is a statement on the Pacific salmon negotiations. This may seem to be an esoteric issue to people from the East Coast, but I can assure you that for this government, our government, and for our citizens in the Northwest, it is a very important economic issue. I regret to say that the United States must announce that negotiations over Pacific salmon fisheries with the government of Canada were suspended yesterday by Canada.

Now, you know that we had officials from our two governments meeting in Seattle. We also met today - excuse me, yesterday - in a continuing effort to resolve long-standing salmon conservation and sharing issues. We had previously agreed to allow a group of stakeholders, local citizens, local and state government officials from our Northwest and the Western Canadian provinces to meet to try to develop a series of recommendations to resolve some of the problems on this issue.

We believe that the American citizens - the American stakeholders in this process - more than met the challenge. They developed a wide range of proposals that we believe are forward-looking, that entailed sharp reductions in key U.S. fisheries and a radical restructuring of parts of the U.S. fishing industry in the Northwestern part of the United States.

Regrettably, the Canadian Government did not match this effort. Therefore, the stakeholder talks ended inconclusively, and our own government-to- government talks ended inconclusively. The United States Government believes that the government of Canada has seriously misjudged this situation and has lost, at least for now, the possibility of achieving a long-term agreement that would benefit the resources and fisheries of both the United States and Canada, resources that both of us as friends need to share.

As a result, issues that have divided our two nations for a decade remain unresolved. The United States Government, nevertheless, reiterates its desire to reach an agreement with Canada, and we have suggested as an initial step towards that objective that the northern stake holders reconvene in the fall. The United States hopes that the government of Canada will avail itself of that opportunity to get our people together to resolve these problems.

Last, on just another media note, I wanted to just let you know that tomorrow, May 22nd, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. here at the State Department, we'll have talks between the United States and Japan on the U.S.-Japan common agenda for cooperation. These talks will be held here, led on our side by Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Tim Wirth; and on the Japanese side, by Deputy Foreign Minister Ogura. They intend to review progress under the common agenda with a reinforced focus between the United States and Japan on Latin America, including Haiti and the Caribbean. You know this common agenda was launched in 1993 by President Clinton and then-Prime Minister Miyazawa as an attempt to get the United States and Japan focused on some of the global, environmental and scientific and other economic issues that affect both of us and for which we, as world leaders, bear some responsibility.

Now, if you would like to attend the opening of this session, the opening remarks are open to the press at 9:30 a.m. Please contact the press office for information on that. George.

QUESTION: Will there be a press conference afterwards?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe there's going to be a press - there is going to be a press conference, John, if I read farther? Yes, 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Under Secretary Wirth and Deputy Foreign Minister Ogura will issue their joint statement and be available for questions 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Where will that be? We will let you know where that's going to be.

QUESTION: On the Canadians?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Claussen is quoted today as saying that she thought the Canadians walked out because it may have had something to do with the Canadian Government's unwillingness to risk losing support prior to the election - the June 2nd Canadian election. Do you have any comment on that? And also on the Canadian contention that the American negotiator informed the panel that she had no authority to negotiate compromises on the treaty?

MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, I don't want to comment on domestic political issues in Canada itself. The Canadians do face an election. It's not for me to describe the position of the government of Canada. I'll leave that to Canadian government officials.

Secondly, we did approach these negotiations with a full degree of seriousness. We were ready to compromise, as we indicated in our statement, and ready to make the kind of decisions to conclude an agreement. So we were fully prepared to do that - the United States Government and Canada.

QUESTION: Are the Canadians misinformed or are they misstating the facts or --

MR. BURNS: I just can't help you with Canadian perceptions. I can just tell you that we were serious about a deal. We were ready to make a deal. We put forward our stakeholders. Our stakeholders from the Northwest put forward a very good proposal.

QUESTION: Another question - last time the treaty talks broke down, the Canadians imposed financial penalties on passage of American vessels going to and from Alaska. Is that a prospect that you're prepared to meet? And if so, how would you meet it?

MR. BURNS: We hope very much that does not happen. We have a common objective. We should have a common objective with Canada to share resources and to have cooperative economic activities in our Northwest and their Western provinces. That means that you negotiate in good faith; and that when talks break down, you don't take punitive measures unilaterally that would be a great disadvantage to our economy in the Northwestern part of the United States. So we very much would oppose that and would not expect that to happen.

QUESTION: Do you have a vision for countervailing penalties?

MR. BURNS: Well, the United States always defends our economic interests. We always defend our citizens. That's why we don't want unilateral actions taken by the government of Canada - because it would force the United States Government to defend our selves and our own citizens in the Northwest.

QUESTION: Harry Wu is back in the news.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Charging that U.S. companies - K-mart and others - are selling illegally imported Chinese prison goods - goods made by Chinese prison labor. I guess I have a two-pronged question. What is your assessment of the situation? Are U.S. companies selling these goods? And two, what is the status of Chinese prison labor products today and how successful have you been at trying to curb this practice? That's actually three questions.

MR. BURNS: Well, we've seen the statements by Harry Wu, and let me just say first off that we respect him very much. He's a champion of human rights. He's undergone a great deal in his own life - a very courageous man. We haven't talked to him directly so therefore, I cannot tell you that we have a detailed understanding of what he is proposing and what information he has.

If he does have evidence that would indicate that China is allowing the export from China to the United States and other countries of prison-made materials, then we would like to see that evidence. We would be glad to talk to him. We do have an American law that prohibits the importation into this country of prison-made goods.

We also have separately from that, but it's complimentary, a U.S.-Chinese understanding that the Chinese Government will not allow the export from China and the import into the United States of prison-made goods. We take this very seriously. As you know, we are the one country in the world that stands up for human rights in China. In our annual report on human rights we have been critical of Chinese human rights practices in prisons and the conditions under which many of the political prisoners and other prisoners have to live. So we will be very glad to talk to Mr. Wu if he does have evidence to present to us.

QUESTION: Irrespective of the evidence Harry Wu has, have the Chinese - as far as the U.S. Government is concerned - lived up to that agreement that you referred to?

MR. BURNS: Well, as far as I know, the Chinese have. But we are always willing to have an open mind, to see evidence if it can be presented to us.

QUESTION: George Weisse, Customs -- was it director? I don't know - the head of Customs today testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China has not lived up to the understanding that they reached with the Administration I believe in '94, if I am not mistaken, saying they haven't allowed access to prisons when Customs has asked to investigate and that sort of thing. In light of what you just said, can you comment on that?

MR. BURNS: I have not seen Mr. Weisse's statement, but I was answering a question that I took to be, has China allowed the export of prison-made materials into the United States? I don't believe we have any evidence that they have. In that sense, we believe they have lived up to the agreement.

There is a separate question here about conditions in Chinese prisons and also the lack of access by the international human rights organizations to Chinese prisons. We have consistently advocated that those Chinese prisons be opened up so that people can see for themselves, objective observers, what those practices are. In that sense, I very much would agree with the statements made by the Customs Service this morning.

QUESTION: But following that question, you said, as far as you know, China has not allowed the importation of prison-made goods into the United States.

MR. BURNS: That's right.

QUESTION: Is there a suggestion here that those goods might be coming in without the knowledge of the Chinese Government?

MR. BURNS: Well, that is always a possibility. But, of course, it is up to the Chinese Government to police its own manufacturers, its own exporters. We had a problem on ring magnets a year and a half ago with just this kind of situation. Where there were clear violations of United States law, the Chinese Government says unbeknownst to the Chinese Government. So you are always responsible for what happens in your country from a trading perspective, and we remind the Chinese of that obligation.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Yasser Arafat has come out strongly in support of the - what he is calling an old Jordanian law that they inherited that allows them to kill people who sell land to Jews. Do you have a comment on that?

MR. BURNS: Well, I do have a comment, and it's meant to be a very clear reaffirmation of the American position. The United States condemns any law or any decree that would threaten death against any Palestinian for selling land to Israelis or Jews. That is wrong. It is contrary to what must prevail in the Middle East, which is peace and the spirit of peace.

Chairman Arafat must stand up for the rule of law. He must defend it in what he says and what he does. Frankly, the recent statements by members of his administration, his authority, inciting Palestinians to attack and murder other Palestinians for selling land - those statements are reprehensible. We have made that clear to Chairman Arafat.

Frankly, his comments this morning are comments we cannot support; are comments that leave us quite puzzled as to why he would say those things. We think it's very important to stand up for peace and the rule of law. Heaven knows, in the last 49 years there has been enough bloodshed, enough political murders, political assassinations on all sides. It's time for that to stop. It's time for leaders to stand up for peace, and to encourage their own populations to follow the rule of law.

QUESTION: Well, have you determined that there is such a law?

MR. BURNS: Well, the Palestinians say that they are implementing an old Jordanian-era decree, when Jordan had responsibility for the West Bank and Gaza. If there was such a decree and they say they're following it now, the United States cannot support that.

QUESTION: But does it impose a death sentence?

MR. BURNS: Well, Chairman Arafat did not say that explicitly today, but members of his administration have said that people who sell land to Israelis or Jews ought to be murdered. That is not a statement that the United States in any way, shape or form can support. We denounce it.

QUESTION: Is there anything more than denouncing it? Does the U.S. consider its relationship with the Palestinians --

MR. BURNS: We are encouraging the Palestinian Authority to observe the rule of law in what they say and what they do. We've made that clear personally to the senior members of the Palestinian Authority membership. We make it clear again today through this public briefing.

QUESTION: More specifically - nothing beyond verbal encouragement, then. The U.S. has an involved relationship with the Palestinians at many levels, including financial aid. None of that - is any of that being reconsidered?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any review of that. The United States will obviously need to continue to talk to the Palestinian Authority and to work with it. We hope to work with it well. The Israeli Government will continue to talk to the Palestinian Authority and work with it. But when we see statements like this that clearly lead people to believe that there's a license to kill other people, that is wrong.

QUESTION: Nick, do you think these statements implicate the Palestinian Authority in any of the two previous killings and perhaps a third one today?

MR. BURNS: There's no evidence to that. As you know, I'm aware of two suspicious murders in the last two weeks. I'm not aware of a third. The Israeli and Palestinian police are investigating both of them. Until they develop evidence that would lead to arrests and prosecutions and convictions, the United States simply can't comment on that particular issue.

We do want the murderers to be found because people have been killed and it's wrong.

QUESTION: So you want them to follow the rule of law. What is the rule of law? Is this U.S. law? Is this Israeli law? What do you mean by the rule of law?

MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, I think I'm not aware of any society on Earth where murder is legalized; where there's a law that says, yes, you can go out and murder certain types of people. That's wrong. There's also higher laws that government leaders and leaders, for instance, of Palestinian leaders - all of us around the world - need to live up to. The higher law is that you don't kill other people. You don't encourage people to kill other people because of political differences. That's the higher law that all of us have to observe.

But the rule of law means that laws protect individuals and that governments make sure those laws are implemented.

QUESTION: The Palestinian minister of justice, just two or three days ago said in BBC radio interview that the laws they implement are mainly Egyptian or Jordanian in the Palestinian --

MR. BURNS: Any governing authority, whether it's the Palestinian Authority, the State of Israel or the United States Government, has a responsibility for the laws that you observe. No matter where the laws were made or when they were made - in the 17th century or the 20th century; in Jordan or in Israel - you're responsible for what you do. If you say you're living up to a law, then you're responsible for that law. That's not an excuse.

QUESTION: But he's arguing that the Jordanian law allows - and he actually cited a few cases of people who were imprisoned and were up for execution in Jordan for selling land - so - and he asked why Jordan, which the United States is now thinking of increasing finances to, is getting away with it.

MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, let me remind you that Jordan has not been in control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since June 1967. So we're talking about a little bit of history here. Secondly, the Palestinians are responsible for the laws that they are implementing. If one of the decrees or laws states that people should receive severe penalties or be murdered because of their activities, then the United States has an obligation to criticize that and to be very clear about it. That is what we are doing.

QUESTION: Also on the Middle East. What can you tell us about this U.S. report on the occupancy rate of Jewish settlements?

MR. BURNS: I can't say very much about that. As I told you yesterday, for a long time now, for several decades, we have been following the development of the settlements, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. You know that the United States has had a clear position on those settlements for many, many years, through many administrations.

We periodically try to assess what is going at those settlements -- who is in them, and how many people are in them. We use that information for our own discussions with the Israeli Government and with the United States Congress. We have not made those reports public, as far as I can remember, which goes back 12 years. I don't believe we are going to make the current analysis, which we have just done, public. But we are going to share it with the Israelis and with the Congress.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu says the information contained in it is so much baloney.

MR. BURNS: I saw the Prime Minister's comments.

QUESTION: Not in those words.

MR. BURNS: I did see the Prime Minister's comment. I don't think it's wise for us to have a public debate about this issue. That is why I am taking the position that we would rather have private discussions with the Israelis, and not public debates.

QUESTION: Have you had private discussions based on --

MR. BURNS: Yes, we have had private --

QUESTION: -- this report?

MR. BURNS: Well, we have had private discussions about this issue for many years. About this particular report, I believe we are going to be having in the future, the near future, some of these discussions in private.

QUESTION: Did Dennis Ross raise the issue with the Israelis on his recent trip?

MR. BURNS: Well, the general issue has been discussed. I understand that we are going to be having quite soon some private discussions with the Israelis. But we think the way you work with a friend - and Israel is a friend of the United States - is to when you have a difference, if you have a difference, you work it out privately. You don't work it out publicly.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: I can tell you that there has been analysis done by the U.S. Government. But it is analysis that we wish to keep private.

QUESTION: Apparently, Mr. Abington, the consul general in East Jerusalem doesn't agree with you, or you don't agree with him. But he is discussing this report openly, discussing what it is used for, discussing the vacancy rates, you know, to whoever - it seems like whoever will listen. So what's - is there a disconnect? Who is right? Him or you? Or what's the real --

MR. BURNS: Sid, don't - you wouldn't pit me against Ed Abington. He is a good friend of mine. He has done an outstanding job as consul general in Jerusalem. I am obviously - pardon?

QUESTION: So let's not personalize this.

MR. BURNS: I know, exactly - I agree with you. So let's just leave it there. We won't personalize this. We won't get into yes or no questions.

QUESTION: Okay, diplomatic --

MR. BURNS: You won't ask me to comment on various individuals. All I'm saying is that this is position that we are following here. We would like to have a private discussion of this issue.

QUESTION: But Mr. Abington said in fairly clear terms that this report shows what it shows, and that it proves that the Israelis are - their position on expanding settlements is baseless.

MR. BURNS: Well, I've seen how the press has reported his comments. I haven't had the benefit of talking to him personally about this. I don't know what else he may have said in the course of comments to reporters. So I want to be fair to him, obviously. But I can tell you that for two days running I have told you we are not going to be explicit publicly about the details of our analysis because we don't think it is useful.

QUESTION: Is that the U.S. position -- that your analysis of settlement vacancy shows that there is no reason for Netanyahu to be expanding settlements?

MR. BURNS: I'm going to keep our positions private because I think we owe that to the Israelis to have an effective conversation with them. We want to be respectful of our relationship, which is a very good relationship.

QUESTION: Then should Abington's comments be disregarded?

MR. BURNS: Pardon?

QUESTION: Should his comments be disregarded?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I wouldn't disregard the comments of our consul general in Jerusalem. He is a fine man; he has done a fine job. All I am telling you is this is a very difficult issue. We have never had an agreement with any government of Israel on this issue of settlements -- the Reagan Administration, Bush Administration or Clinton Administration. I think the best way for us to pursue a discussion with them is in private. I would like to keep it there.

QUESTION: Do you have any --

MR. BURNS: I think Laura has a follow up.

QUESTION: Generally speaking, does the U.S. Government think there is a housing shortage?

MR. BURNS: The U.S. Government has many views on many issues. But it's not in our interest to voice everything publicly. My goodness, if we said everything that we were thinking and everything that we knew, we would have a weak and ineffective foreign policy because no one could trust us to keep things private. So we're going to keep this one private.

QUESTION: In a very unscientific survey, our crews went out today to a number of settlements and spoke to some of the clerks there and also to individuals who live there, and discovered that there were actually quite a few homes that were vacant in a number of different settlements, which would seem to support the comments being made by U.S. officials - unnamed U.S. officials - in Israel. I mean, is there not a legitimate point that is being made here? I mean, it's an argument that is out in the public domain. Aside from what analysis the U.S. may have done privately, and are discussing privately with Israeli officials, is there not a more public issue, though, to be discussed?

MR. BURNS: Well, I mean, the press, you're free. ABC News is free to go out to any of the settlements and to talk to people and to make your own calculations. But I don't think we have a responsibility to divulge publicly everything that we're saying to the Israelis because in diplomacy, for about two or three or four thousand years, there's been this element of confidentiality in discussions between governments; especially between friends. I'm just going to keep it there.

I think there's certainly an issue here, Laura. Perhaps you'll be more free to discuss it in public than we choose to be. Charlie, you've got something on this?

QUESTION: No, it's actually on the first part of this Middle Eastern discussion. Aside from your comments from the podium today, denouncing those who speak against the rule of law and inciting people to kill, has Dennis Ross or the Secretary spoken to Yasser Arafat specifically about this issue?

MR. BURNS: Well, I do know that I can't account for who said what to whom. I know this message has been communicated to the Palestinian Authority.

QUESTION: On the --

MR. BURNS: -- very clearly, and that Chairman Arafat is aware of the views - very clearly aware of the views of the United States. There's also the benefit of having public briefings like this, where there's no mistaking at all what the views of the United States Government are on laws that seem to sanction violence.

QUESTION: But you don't know or won't say whether it's Dennis, Ed Abington or Secretary Albright who has communicated this?

MR. BURNS: No, frankly, I just can't tell you. There are so many conversations that go on in our relationship with the Palestinians. I can't tell you in which conversation was this message transmitted. But I do know from my discussions with Dennis that it has been transmitted.

QUESTION: On the question of communications --

QUESTION: -- has the case of Daoud Kuttab been brought up? The journalist who was arrested by the PA?

MR. BURNS: Well, Daoud Kuttab is well-known to us. We've known him for a long time - more than 15 years. He's a respected independent Palestinian journalist. There are many of them. I think you saw that very interesting report in the newspaper - are you talking about the jamming of the television station?

QUESTION: Which apparently led to his arrest.

MR. BURNS: Well, actually, I am not aware of his arrest. I will certainly look into that and try to get you something on that. But I can tell you, in terms of the alleged jamming of the independent Palestinian station, we believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We think it's a fundamental right for all people, including the Palestinian people.

We actually gave a grant to this independent Palestinian television station to get it started. We assumed that there was going to be freedom of the press in Palestinian-controlled territories. We hope very much that the lifting of the restrictions on that station will be permanent, so that it can broadcast and report to the Palestinian people what it feels it must.

QUESTION: On the question of communicating with the Palestinians, did you communicate to the Palestinians the results of your survey on occupancy rates?

MR. BURNS: Well, I suppose we did. Our consulate general in Jerusalem has a mandate to be in touch with the Palestinians. That's the major link, and so I'm sure that the results of our surveys, our work are known to the Palestinian leaders through our consulate general in Jerusalem, as they will be to the Israelis because this is an issue that affects the Palestinians.

QUESTION: If it's known to the Palestinians, it's known to the Israelis, it's known to the U.S. officials, why can't it be made public?

MR. BURNS: Well, let me just give you an example. When we have nuclear arms talks between Russia and the United States, it's known to the Russian Government, it's known to our government. We don't always make it public, because in diplomacy you have to choose what you make public and what you don't in order for diplomacy to be effective.

We have never had, as a standard for this press briefing, that I have to tell you everything that I know. I have to live under the law here, which says that when I have information that is classified, I can't tell you; it's against the law. It's against the law for me to talk about classified information. Sometimes, even when information is unclassified, not classified, we choose to keep our diplomatic discussions private.

QUESTION: Well, wouldn't this information --

MR. BURNS: That's the way governments have always worked.

QUESTION: Wouldn't this information support what you often describe as your long-held position on settlements?

MR. BURNS: Yes, but there's another unwritten rule in relations between friends -- and we're a friend of the State of Israel - that when you have a disagreement, you don't always immediately meet the temptation to go out and publicize that disagreement. You don't try to embarrass your friend. You try to have private discussions so that you can make some progress. We're trying to be respectful here in a relationship with a friend.

Frankly, with the Palestinians, we tried to be respectful of them in the first couple of days when we heard these reports of a murder. We tried to get them to tell us what they knew. But after the silence there, we decided not to wait any longer. So you always have to gauge these things tactically on a day-to-day basis.

QUESTION: You've gotten no cooperation from the Palestinians on this issue?

MR. BURNS: Well, it's really an issue they are going to have to cooperate on with their own people and with the Israeli Government. Now the United States is an outsider, but we do have views; and since we're the mediator, we felt it was important to enunciate those views.

QUESTION: But you asked them, and you got no cooperation from them; is that correct?

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't think we have heard from the Palestinians the kind of resounding renunciation of violence that one would hope to hear, frankly.

QUESTION: Nick, you mentioned that the settlements survey would be discussed with the Israelis quite soon?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you say by whom, at what level?

MR. BURNS: By American diplomats with the Israeli Government -- I can't tell you when, where, who and how, but I can assure you that we'll have these discussions.

QUESTION: You seem to be talking about a specific meeting that is planned.

MR. BURNS: We have meetings with the Israelis ten times a day in Jerusalem, in Washington, and I'm sure - I know we are going to have these discussions with them.

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Anything on the thousands of Bosnian refugees who are forcibly leaving the 16 German states, creating another Balkan mess? And I would like to know, Mr. Burns, how many thousand of those refugees are going to be received by the United States?

MR. BURNS: Yes, Mr. Lambros, thank you very much. This is a more fruitful avenue for our discussion than yesterday's, but --

QUESTION: Why?

MR. BURNS: Well, because you know I have the greatest respect for the Greek press, that's why, and for Dimitri and Thomas, here, to defend the honor of the Greek press, as well.

QUESTION: Did you check if this document is true?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Did you check for me if this document --

MR. BURNS: No, I must give you this -- I did read that document. It had those words in it, and I was surprised to see those words because my own view is that the Greek press is responsible and I have had the best relations with the three of you, who are Greek journalists.

QUESTION: The Greek media in general, and who prepared the report?

MR. BURNS: I think --

QUESTION: Thomas Neinze?*

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: No, some institution called the Bureau of Public Affairs of the United States State Department.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Therefore, you can imagine my surprise when I saw the - well, the Bureau of Public Affairs actually prints, isn't that right John? It's our bureau -- the bureau which I currently head. Thank you for that public service of bringing this issue to my attention. We're working this issue inside the U.S. Government, confidential discussions which will not be revealed publicly.

Mr. Lambros, you have asked an important question on Bosnia. The United States supports the return of the refugees under the terms of the Dayton Peace Accords and the repatriation efforts of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata. Now, the UNHCR, the UN, has formulated a strategy for facilitating the return of refugees and displaced persons over two years, 1997 and 1998. In this case, we urge the German Government to work closely with the United Nations on repatriation and to differentiate, to distinguish between Bosnians from areas where their ethnic group is in the minority and those from areas where their ethnic group is in the majority.

The United States strongly supports the voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons to Bosnia. We do believe that it is premature to return forcibly Bosnians to areas where their ethnic group is in the minority. The reason for that is that we have to be realistic. The conditions are not yet appropriate for minorities to return to some areas. We've seen, in the past week, terrible repression by Croatians against minority Serbs in the Krajina Region and we've seen also violent incidents in Eastern Slovonia. Secretary Albright has made known her displeasure with those incidents to the Croatian Government.

We have made this view clear to the German Government and we're all working with the United Nations, and we ought to work under the lead of the United Nations. Now, the United States expects to admit up to 18,000 refugees from the former Yugoslavia, primarily Bosnians, this year. This is our fiscal year which ends on September 30, 1997. The United States has admitted, I believe, over 38,000 Bosnian refugees since 1992. We are doing our share.

The German Government has borne the major share of the refugee problem. The German Government has taken in more refugees than any other country, and the German Government has spent millions of Deutchmarks to support those refugees. So I think we have to commend the German Government for having acted in a humanitarian way since 1992. But we do believe that refugees should not be returned involuntarily, especially where they are in the minority.

QUESTION: I have another question. Anything on the continued Turkish invasion, occupation, of Northern Iraq against the Kurdish people? Ankara has deployed more troops and forces inside Iraq, and I wonder what happened to the territory integrity?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I think Sid wants to stay on this issue, and then I'll be ready to talk about Turkey.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Isn't the German Government just acting as the Dayton Accord calls for -- if someone votes in the election, then they give up the presumption of asylum; and so they therefore, have to go back? Isn't that what the German Government is doing?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think it's a complex issue, Sid. I think you are talking about tens of thousands of people here. So I can't generalize about that group of people and say that they voted or didn't vote, or they should or shouldn't go back.

The principle here is that however much progress we have made on Bosnia, it is still not safe for some refugees to return to their home towns. Therefore, the principle of voluntary repatriation is a very important principle that the United Nations believes must be upheld.

QUESTION: But isn't that correct that the Dayton Accord - that is a stipulation of the Dayton Accord? So the German Government - these people who voted are supposed to return? They have given up the right to asylum?

MR. BURNS: I would have to check. The Dayton Accords is a big document. I don't recall every aspect of it in my mind, and I would have to check that question.

QUESTION: We have been through this before. It's a pretty key point.

MR. BURNS: I'm sure we have a long time ago and been through many issues since. I just don't recall the chapter and verse from the Dayton Accords, Sid. But I will be glad to take the question.

QUESTION: Okay, also on Bosnia - apparently the Secretary is going to be announcing some financial incentive and disincentives in her speech tomorrow relating to different groups in the region. Can you discuss that at all?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't want to get ahead of the Secretary of State. She is going to give a speech. I want her to be able to give that speech without me spilling my guts before she gives it. What I can tell you is this -- the speech is in the evening. So what I would like to do is have a background briefing here at around 3:00 p.m. by a senior administration official intimately involved in our Bosnia policy. Then I will try to give you at 3:00 p.m. -- or as soon thereafter as I can -- the text of the speech which you can use on the record. You can quote from it, so you can all file stories before you go home.

I can do that so you will know about the speech hours in advance, before she gives it. But I don't want to do that 24 hours in advance.

QUESTION: Will it still be hours after it was leaked to The Washington Post? Days after?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I don't know what you are referring to?

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BURNS: I don't know what you are referring to. Yes.

QUESTION: Still on Bosnia.

MR. BURNS: Yes, Envira.

QUESTION: You mentioned 38,000 Bosnians, they live already in the United States? Is that so, 38,000?

QUESTION: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BURNS: We have taken in 38,000 Bosnian refugees since 1992 into the United States.

QUESTION: Plus 18,000 --

MR. BURNS: We intend to take 18,000. In addition to the 38,000, we intend to admit into the United States approximately 18,000.

QUESTION: It was only about 5,000, before Klaus Kinkel was talking about 5,000?

MR. BURNS: Eighteen thousand, yes, this year. So the numbers are quite high. The United States is trying to do its share to respond to this humanitarian problem.

QUESTION: Do you have a wide picture of how many Bosnians are going to live in the United States? Or do you think that doing so, you are helping those who are not ready to immigrate to a country?

MR. BURNS: I don't know how many individuals of Bosnian descent live in the United States. I am sure that the Census Bureau could help you with that. On the second question, this country was founded by immigrants. We are all immigrants and therefore, we must remain open to immigrants. It's the strength and the backbone of our own country. So we will keep our doors open. We take in a million people a year as immigrants into the United States. That is a great number, but immigrants help our economy and they support us in many ways.

QUESTION: I'm sure the return of refugees is going to be a major issue during the talks in Bosnia. You didn't give us too much detail. Do you have an idea about going to Banja Luka or going to Brkco?

MR. BURNS: The Secretary is considering a number of options for her visit to Bosnia and the wider Balkans region. She has not made any final decisions. She is definitely going to Sarajevo to see President Izetbegovic. She may well go other places; in fact, I think she will. But she has not made firm decisions, so therefore, I am not able to announce them.

QUESTION: Could you define the short purpose of her first visit to Bosnia since she took office?

MR. BURNS: Her first visit to Bosnia as Secretary of State is meant to underscore the very strong commitment of the United States to see the Dayton Peace Accords implemented fully, in all respects -- not just economic reconstruction, not just the maintenance of peace by our troops, but also the fulfillment of the obligations of the parties on war criminals, on return of refugees to the areas where we have not seen compliance by any of the major parties, with the exception of the Bosnian Government.

QUESTION: How would you characterize the role of this new ambassador? Ambassador Scheffer?

MR. BURNS: I think David Scheffer has been a long-time advisor to Secretary Albright when she was Ambassador to the UN. He was the guiding force behind the creation of the war crimes tribunals, advising Secretary Albright on that. She has great confidence in him, and he is going to look at all of the war crimes issues on a global basis, not just Bosnia, but also Rwanda.

QUESTION: Is it possible that Gelbard and Scheffer are going to Bosnia with her?

MR. BURNS: I am quite sure that Ambassador Gelbard will be going. I don't know if Ambassador Scheffer will be going. Yes, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Anything on the continuing Turkish invasion and occupation of Northern Iraq against the Kurdish people? Ankara is deploying more troops and weapons inside the Iraqi territory, and I am wondering what's happened to the territorial integrity of Iraq?

MR. BURNS: Well, many questions in there. I have nothing much to say on the incursion except to say that Prime Minister Erbakan and Foreign Minister Ciller have assured us that this will be short, brief, in both time and in scope. Second, that the incursion is against the PKK, not against the Kurdish people, against a terrorist organization that has killed innocent Turks in southeastern Turkey.

Third, the United States, ever since the end of the Gulf War in March 1991, has supported the territorial integrity of Iraq. We still do. Saddam Hussein just gave up the right to be responsible for the northern and southern thirds of his country because of his aggression during the war.

QUESTION: I just have a follow-up. There was a death toll reported as of a couple of days ago from that operation in the many hundreds. Are you confident that those were all combatants? Do you have any kind of breakdown on this?

MR. BURNS: No, we cannot be confident of that because we are not there. We don't have American officials there. We have to rely on the Turkish Government and also anyone who is an independent observer. There are probably very few in Northern Iraq. So I cannot account for the figures, and I certainly can't exclude the possibility, unfortunately, that civilians may have been killed.

QUESTION: So you rely on the Turkish Government statements and assurances?

MR. BURNS: Turkey is an ally of the United States. We trust the Turkish Government.

QUESTION: Nick, what do you understand from the shortened time in limit and scope?

MR. BURNS: It's I don't believe we have ever quantified it, but there have been a number of Turkish incursions into Northern Iraq for many years. They have always been limited to a couple of days or a couple of weeks. They have never been six to eight-month occupations.

The Turkish Government has been clear. It does not seek to occupy Northern Iraq. It seeks to destroy the base of a terrorist organization that threatens Turkey -- particularly, the civilian population in the southeast. We believe that Turkey has a right to defend itself against terrorism. We also believe that this incursion should be short, brief in time, as well as scope.

QUESTION: Nick, a senior advisor to the Prime Minister of Turkey is here. He has been meeting State Department officials. Is this something you all have been discussing? And what other topics?

MR. BURNS: Well, we have discussed this issue with the Turkish Government, both in Ankara and in Washington. We will continue to do so. I can't report to you on the other discussions we are having. But I can take the questions, see what we can get for you.

QUESTION: With this gentleman.

MR. BURNS: I would be glad to. Yes, still on Turkey. We are heading away from Turkey --

QUESTION: Asia.

MR. BURNS: -- towards Asia. Patrick.

QUESTION: Turkey and Iraq. There's a Turkish report this morning that Syria, Iran and Iraq are all building up their forces around Northern Iraq. Do you have anything on that?

MR. BURNS: We have seen the press reports. We have not been able to confirm those press reports. Iran and Iraq have no business massing troops in Northern Iraq, and neither does Syria. I can't confirm the reports. But without even being in a position to confirm them, I can tell you there is no reason for those three countries to be alarmed by Turkey's military movements. Yes, I just want to go here. Yes.

QUESTION: Nick, do you have any reaction to the SLORC of Burma rounding up 50 of Aung San Suu Kyi's followers?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we understand that the military dictators in Burma have arrested at least 50 people, if not more, members of the National League of Democracy, supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi.

They have done this to prevent these people from attending a National League for Democracy meeting scheduled to take place May 27th at Aung San Suu Kyi's compound to mark the anniversary of the 1990 elections, which were won by the National League for Democracy and the subsequently stolen by the military dictators. This is yet one more example of the perfidious and inhumane nature of the Burmese regime.

It's another reason why we don't think that Burma ought to be treated as a normal country. It's one more reason why the President, yesterday, formally put into play American economic sanctions against Burma, which we hope will convince the Burmese Government that they are going to be more and more isolated by the United States if they continue this inhumane treatment of their own people.

I can also tell you that, in addition to that, we believe in recent months more than 100 people have been arrested for political protests in Rangoon and outside of the capital city; that several hundred political prisoners remain in detention, including 29 members of parliament elected in 1990. There have been at least 32 instances where members of parliament have been pressured by the government to renounce their electoral mandates.

So we have seen repression on the streets against students, against politicians. We have seen a full-scale assault by the Burmese military on the Karin people, near the Thai border. We have seen the Burmese Government look the other way when narco-traffickers have tried to sneak drugs out of Burma into Thailand and into the United States by extension. We have a lot of complaints about the behavior of the Burmese Government.

QUESTION: In view of that, is the Administration looking at going one step beyond the sanctions yesterday and applying sanctions to existing investment programs, particularly the UNOCAL oil investment program?

MR. BURNS: No, the President's decision does not do that. It talks about prospective, as opposed to retroactive punishment. But obviously we will maintain a vigil in watching the actions of the Burmese Government. I can't rule out any options in the future, but I can assure you no decisions like that have been taken.

QUESTION: Now, have any ASEAN countries supported any of these sanctions? Have they done anything?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of it, and that is a shame because you would think that budding democracies in Southeast Asia would want to stand up for democracy in Burma. The United States is - if we have to stand alone sometimes in Burma and Iran, we will do it because we are a democratic country, and we do believe in human rights around the world. It would be nice to see other countries -- European countries on the issue of China, Asian countries on the issue of Burma -- stand up with us.

QUESTION: Were you trying ASEAN to delay Burmese membership in their organization?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we are. We don't support that.

QUESTION: What are the prospects?

MR. BURNS: I don't know what the prospects are, actually. I think Burma is grouped with some other countries as well. I think it's complicated, but the U.S. position is quite clear on that issue.

QUESTION: Do you think that timing of these arrests might have been a clumsy signal to the United States, since it came on the same day that the investment sanctions came into effect?

MR. BURNS: Well, oftentimes military dictators are clumsy because they have no appreciation for people's sensibilities or for the media or for public opinion. If they think that by arresting 50 people, they are going to punish us, they're mistaken. It is just going to reinforce the mood here in Washington, and the Administration on Capitol Hill that the Burmese need to be isolated; they are acting in an uncivilized way. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Talking about dictators, 54 Senators wrote a letter to Bill Richardson asking for stronger sanctions against Libya, including international oil embargo. That is in response to Colonel Muammar Qadafi's flight to Nigeria, so-called religious flight. Do you think that is warranted?

MR. BURNS: Well, I haven't seen the letter to Ambassador Richardson. I do know that the United Nations had a statement yesterday, a statement that renounced Qadhafi's joy ride through West Africa, and criticized Libya, Niger and Nigeria for having violated the UN sanctions.

Very briefly, the sanctions are in place because we suspect very strongly that two Libyan security agents placed a bomb in a portable radio on Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1989, and killed 269 people. We haven't forgotten. Qadhafi is not going to get off the hook. The joy ride may have been temporarily fun for Qadhafi, but it is just going to strengthen support in the United Nations to keep the sanctions on Qadhafi because he is a dictator.

QUESTION: There are those who argue this flight was religious, and - I mean, you are asking now for international embargo --

MR. BURNS: It is a pitiful excuse. I'm not aware that the people of Niger or the people of Nigeria have been circumscribed in their ability to practice Islam, and we support Islam. We are the fifth largest Moslem country on Earth; we support Islam. But this has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with terrorism in the fact that Qadhafi sponsors terrorism.

There is another case where a French airliner was brought down over Chad, and the French Government is trying to bring Qadhafi's brother-in-law to court on that. Qadhafi has a lot to answer to, and let's keep the focus there, not on religion.

QUESTION: But you're asking for an international oil embargo, you support this now?

MR. BURNS: We have an American embargo on Libya, and it is going to stay there, and we have UN sanctions on Libya. Yes, Bill.

QUESTION: Yes, Nick. Has there been any movement that you can report on four-party talks?

MR. BURNS: Not that I can report on four-party talks, but there has been a very intriguing development. We understand that a North Korean basketball player is in - [laughter]. I'm serious, this is a serious issue, and I've seen press reports on it. A North Korean basketball player is in Canada on a Canadian visa. He has expressed a desire to play professional basketball in the United States. You know where I'm going with this.

Now, if there is a specific NBA basketball team that wishes to hire him, he would need to apply for a specific license from the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control. We're not aware that any team has done this, but the Boston Celtics did not get the first pick in the draft. It doesn't look like Rick Pitino is going to land Tim Duncan. We need a center. He is apparently about eight feet tall.

(Laughter)

We're desperate. This is an open invitation to all North Korean basketball players. Call Red Aurbach or Rick Pitino in Boston.

QUESTION: Let me get a serious question in.

MR. BURNS: This is a serious issue. The Celtics are in the cellar and we need to get them out of the cellar.

(Laughter.)

Like the Red Sox, like the Bruins, all the Boston teams are going to - I wore this tie to give support to the Red Sox who are in about a 22-game losing streak, as far as I can --

QUESTION: Nick, I'd like to follow up on that. What part did the Department play in determining whether, in all seriousness, whether this guy can play in the United States?

MR. BURNS: I'm serious.

QUESTION: I mean the NBA has --

MR. BURNS: What happens is, for a normal country, if an athlete wants to come here they have to apply for a visa, and American embassies and consulates issue visas, the State Department does. In the case of this wonderful, North Korean center, he comes from a country that is under U.S. economic embargo. Therefore, if he wants to come to the United States to play professional basketball, he needs -- the team that would like to invite him needs to apply for a license. But, hey -

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Seriously, would it be a congressman?

MR. BURNS: Well, it's up to the Treasury. Do you know anybody at the Office of Foreign Assets Control?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Cuban baseball --

MR. BURNS: Cuban baseball players have been able to get into this country for one - none of them have ended up in the Red Sox bull pen, but -

(Laughter.)

George Steinbrenner knows a lot of them, I think. Sir.

QUESTION: A North Korean diplomat, Mr. Li Gun, new on the block, expressed his thanks to the U.S. and all relief agencies that were involved in famine relief in North Korea today. Thought you might like to know that.

MR. BURNS: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on --

MR. BURNS: We support food aid to North Korea. It helps the North Korean people. Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:19 P.M.)

(###)

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