U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #88, 97-06-11
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1298
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, June 11, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
STATEMENTS
1 Visitors/Secretary's Activities and Meetings Today
1-2 Statement on Counter-Terrorism Rewards Program,
Specifically for Acts Committed in Greece
2 Statement on Events in Republic of Congo (Brazzaville)
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)
3 Update on Evacuations
UNITED NATIONS
3-5,6 Congressional Progress on Paying US Arrears/Amount of
Arrears/Secretary-Helms Contact/Markup Tomorrow/UN Owes US
Money
DEPARTMENT
5 Reorganization Plan Proceeding for Foreign Affairs
Agencies/Ambassadorial Nominations
TERRORISM
6-7 Rewards Program for Terrorist Acts in Greece/Informants'
Safety/Greek Cooperation
18-19 Libyan Letters to PanAm #103 Victims' Families Offering
Proposal
HONG KONG
7 Secretary's Meetings with Chinese Officials
KOREA (NORTH)
7,10 Missile Talks Begin/Press Opportunity After Talks
8-9 World Food Program Request for Food Aid/US Aid for Children
9-10 Missile Technology Export Controls/Further US Sanctions
KOREA (SOUTH)
10-11 Legislator Cho Wong-kyu Visit/Comments on Situation in
North/US Access to Defector from North
BURMA
11 Contacts with Military Regime
MIDDLE EAST
11-13 Speaker Gingrich Comments on Killings of Palestinians Who
Sell Land/Allegations of Palestinian Helicopters Put in
Danger While Inspecting/Iraqi Air Space
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #88
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1997 1:26 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department. I want to welcome Sean and Dayle Sullivan. Sean's a presidential
management intern, from ARA. His mother, Dale, is here from New Mexico.
Secretary Albright today has participated in the President's bilateral
meeting this morning with the Emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad. She then met with
General Hugh Shelton, who is the commander in chief of the U.S. Special
Operations Command. Together, they went downstairs to our Exhibit Hall,
where we have this terrific exhibit on the history of American diplomacy.
They saw an exhibit on what special operations can do for the country and
for the State Department.
Special Ops has been very helpful to the State Department all over the
world. The Secretary told me she was very impressed by it, very impressed
indeed. She encourages members of the press corps to visit the display,
which you can do after this briefing; or you can leave the briefing, if
you're bored, and walk down to the Exhibit Hall. Although that rarely
happens here, right, Carol?
You can walk down the Exhibit Hall and see and learn all about Special
Operations. She was very impressed and very appreciative of General Shelton
for coming over.
She is going to - she is in a private lunch now. She is going to drop by
Deputy Secretary Talbott's meeting at about 2:00 p.m. with the Uzbekistan
foreign minister, Foreign Minister Kamilov. Following that, she has her own
bilateral at 2:30 p.m. with Sheik Hamad, the Emir of Qatar. Then this
evening, I think Mike McCurry will be telling the White House press corps a
little but about this - the President and the Secretary and others from the
Administration are meeting with the Senate and NATO observer group about
NATO enlargement, about the Founding Act and our European strategy.
That's a meeting at the White House. It's a private meeting at the White
House, but I think it is on the President's public calendar. So I wanted to
alert you to that.
Now, I have just two announcements to make. The first concerns a very
important issue - our counter-terrorism rewards program. The government of
the United States, as part of its efforts to work in close cooperation with
the government of Greece, is renewing its appeals to the Greek people for
information regarding terrorist acts against American citizens and American
property, under our counter-terrorism rewards program.
The program has offered, and still has on the books, $2 million for
information leading to the arrest and conviction of people or groups who
have committed terrorist acts against Americans. This is part of our
overall worldwide program to try to help governments around the world
capture terrorists - those people who carry out terrorist acts. Anyone in
Greece or beyond who has information about the deaths over the last 22
years of four Americans - Richard Welch, George Tsantes, William Nordeen
and Ronald Stewart; injuries to 28 other Americans; and a rocket attack on
the American Embassy in Athens in February 1996 -- anyone with information
about these crimes is encouraged to contact the United States Government.
You can do that by contacting our embassy in Athens directly by mail. You
can do that by gaining access to our State Department website, www.state.gov.
We have a heroes network there, a home page where you can transmit your
information.
As you know, we have paid out over $5 million over the last decade or so in
rewards to people all around the world. These aren't American citizens;
these are foreigners who have helped us to capture terrorists. We have not
forgotten about the four Americans who died in Athens over the last 22
years. We will not forget about them, until the Greek Government and the
American Government and others around the world can locate the people who
murdered them and bring them to justice.
We are issuing this appeal today - reissuing this $2 million reward -
because just two weeks ago, unfortunately, there was another assassination
in Athens of a Greek ship builder, Mr. Peratikos. We very much want to help
the Greek Government locate the people who are responsible for his
murder.
The group November 17 has claimed responsibility for this particular murder,
as they have with the murders of the four Americans, and we mean business.
We mean to help the Greek Government, work very closely with the Greek
Government to locate these people. So I wanted to make sure you all know
about this. We are making this appeal directly to the Greek people from
Athens today, from our American Embassy.
Second and last, I just wanted to say again how much the United States
deplores the recent fighting that has gripped Brazzaville, the capital of
the Republic of the Congo, since June 5th. We deeply regret the loss of
life in this crisis. We deeply regret the fact that rebel groups,
opposition groups have decided to take their fight to the streets. The
United States calls on all parties to lay down their arms and to observe a
cease-fire.
In this regard, we strongly reaffirm our support for the mediation efforts
of the Mayor of Brazzaville, of the President of Gabon, President Omar El
Hadj Bongo, and of President Jacques Chirac of France. The United States
very much supports the French and the Gabonese and others who are trying to
bring peace to Brazzaville.
I should note that President Lissouba has just announced today a unilateral
cease-fire, and that he says he is open now to international mediation. We
hope very much that Mr. Sassou Nguesso, the opposition leader who has put
his forces into the streets, would accept and agree to a cease-fire and to
international mediation.
We remain deeply concerned about American citizens there. As you know, we
think that American citizens should keep their heads down. Today, we were
able to bring 56 people out of Brazzaville. This is on an American C-130, a
military plane from our European command. Of those 56 people, 30 were
Americans.
The French Government has also flown out more than a thousand people today,
among them, many Americans. We are maintaining our embassy in Brazzaville.
Ambassador Hooks is remaining there with a staff of 14 or so people. But we
have drawn down all nonessential staff. We think - and these are very, very
rough numbers - that there may be roughly 30 private Americans remaining in
Brazzaville, perhaps 70, 80, 90 to 100 Americans outside the capital
throughout the country.
These numbers are very soft because there has been so much action today.
With planes coming in and out of Brazzaville, it's hard to know exactly how
many Americans have gotten out. We do ask those Americans who wish to leave
the Republic of the Congo to be in touch with the American Embassy about
the best and safest way to do so. We do want to repeat our very strong hope
that this unilateral cease-fire will be honored by all and that international
mediation could perhaps resolve this crisis. George?
QUESTION: Apparently there is an agreement with key legislators
concerning UN reform and State Department reorganization. And I wonder what
you can tell us about that?
MR. BURNS: Well, I know the Secretary and others are working very hard on
this. I can tell you that the Secretary has believed, since the time that
she came into office, that the problem of UN arrears - the problem of the
fact that the United States is the largest deadbeat donor at the United
Nations is a very strong one. She mentioned this in her confirmation
hearings. She and Ambassador Richardson have worked very hard on a
resolution with members of both parties of Congress.
The Secretary is heartened by the progress made over the last several days
by Republicans and Democrats working together on Capitol Hill. She believes
that this is a major step forward, that progress has been made. But I
should caution that much more work remains to be done on this particular
piece of legislation before we can declare - or anybody -- can declare
victory.
I understand that several of the key senators and their staffs are still
working on this today; that there are some issues that are very much
outstanding; that they have not agreed on all parts of this. We just want
to be helpful to them - Republicans and Democrats - to try to produce a
final bill that would allow the United States to pay off its debt, and
obviously allow the United States to push forward on the issue of reform of
the United Nations. So despite some of the words of optimism last night, I
think we do need to see more progress before this can be fulfilled.
QUESTION: Nick, how can the Secretary accept a number that apparently
does not reflect the number she requested, and which is also lower than the
number that the UN says the U.S. owes?
MR. BURNS: Well, Carol, you heard my statement. This is not over. The
deliberations and negotiations on Capitol Hill continue. The Administration
is involved in those. I think just - I talked to one of our chief
legislative strategists just in the last hour. She tells me that there's a
lot of work that remains to be done. So what I do not want to do, because
I'm not on Capitol Hill, I'm not negotiating this, I don't want to put
myself or put the Department in a position of declaring victory or
accepting some of the facts that you saw in some of the reports; because I
think that we still do need to do a lot more work to complete a deal.
QUESTION: Can you say specifically, though, that the number, the amount
of money to be paid is one of those outstanding issues?
MR. BURNS: I think that is one of the issues that requires further work,
yes. Yes. Any more on the issue of UN arrears? Yes, Jim.
QUESTION: Is the figure higher than 819?
MR. BURNS: I'm not saying it's higher or lower. I'm just saying that I
don't - the people who have to agree on this are members of the Senate and
the House, of course, and that hasn't happened yet. There's still a lot of
talk and discussion going on on Capitol Hill. It's not appropriate for us
to get into this publicly, or to insert ourselves in a public way. We'll
remain behind the scenes, working with both parties to try to bring
about a resolution of the problem.
QUESTION: Is she satisfied with the scale of reductions that has been
enclosed in the deal in the United Nations?
MR. BURNS: Again, Jim, there is no deal yet. There's been a major step
forward in the negotiations. We think there's good will in both the
Democratic and Republican parties to push forward and have the State
Department do the right thing on UN arrears. But they have not produced a
final agreement. That means, until there's a final agreement, all the
elements of the package that have been debated, of course, are theoretical.
Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to, of course, on Capitol
Hill in a bill like this.
So, really what I don't want to do today is complicate the situation by
saying we agree with this number, we don't agree with that number, we agree
with that provision and not that; because that's just not in our interest.
QUESTION: Nick, you said that there's been a major step forward. What
major step were you referring to?
MR. BURNS: Well, as you remember, when the Secretary had her confirmation
hearings and when she took office, this was an aspiration that the
Administration had, to convince the Congress that we ought to make a major
inroads in paying off the arrears that the United States owes to the United
Nations system.
We have made a major step forward, we think, on a bipartisan basis, in
having prominent senators agree that we ought to do something about this -
very powerful senators. But the key will be in completing an agreement and
working out the final details. That is happening as we speak.
QUESTION: What about reorganization? There are factors being sent,
suggesting that ACDA will be out of business by October 1st of '97, '98, I
forget which. Can you talk about that? You've only talked about UN reform
so far.
MR. BURNS: Well, as you know, the Administration and Congress have agreed
on a reorganization plan for the foreign affairs agencies. You remember the
Vice President's office announced this for the Executive Branch. We are
proceeding on that basis. I'm not aware that there's been any change in the
schedule. But, yes, eventually ACDA and USIA and, at least for press and
congressional affairs, AID will be fully integrated with the State
Department. I can tell you that we're working on a very good faith,
cooperative basis with all the agencies - all four now - working together.
We have, I think, nine working groups established. They are meeting every
day. There are reorganization offices in the transition suite here in the
State Department, where you have representatives of all agencies together,
working. In fact, two members of my bureau - Lula Rodriguez and Mary Ellen
Glynn, are chairing the two key groups on public affairs and press
affairs.
So we've made a lot of progress. We're still keeping to the schedule. I'm
not aware of anything that's changed the schedule.
QUESTION: Nick, could you describe what else might be on the table in
these discussions? For example, could you tell us whether there are any
ambassadorial nominations being held up right now by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee? The chairman?
MR. BURNS: I'm not the best person to ask that - to respond to that
question. I don't work directly on congressional affairs. I'm not aware
that any ambassadorial nominations are being held up. But I'd refer you to
Senator Helms' staff, Mark Thiessen and others on that question.
I'm just not aware, David, on the issue of UN arrears, whether other issues
have been introduced and have been attached to that. Again, I have had the
benefit of a couple of conversations with the Secretary, but also a phone
call with one of our chief legislative tacticians and strategists. She has
not told me that there are any overriding issues that are being involved
here.
We're very concerned about this issue. We hope that there can be an
agreement, because it's high time that the United States make good on its
arrears. We don't like being in a position of being the largest debtor. We
are the largest donor; we'll accept that. We don't like to be in the
position of being the largest debtor to the United Nations.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary been on the phone directly with Chairman
Helms in the last 48 hours; do you know?
MR. BURNS: I would have to check. I don't know if she's phoned Senator
Helms in the last two days. I do know that she's centrally involved in all
of this. She obviously was up on the Hill yesterday. She's going to be very
active on this issue.
QUESTION: Do you know what representation the Department will have at
tomorrow's mark-up?
MR. BURNS: I don't. I can ask about who will be there. I'm sure that
Barbara Larkin and her staff will be there. They're the ones who handle
this for the Secretary. I don't believe the Secretary will be at the mark-
up, if that's what you're asking. But she is directing our strategy on
this. Bill Richardson, of course, working for her; Princeton Lyman, for
her. Both of them have done a very, very good job on this, both men.
She is confident that with the right push and the right emphasis, we might
be able to get a good outcome. But I don't want to declare a victory yet,
because I think we really need to see what progress is made this afternoon.
QUESTION: Let me just ask one more. Does the Administration agree with
some in the Senate that in addition to the U.S. owing the UN some money,
the UN also owes the U.S. some money -- $100 million-plus?
MR. BURNS: David, I have to check. For a long time now, there's been a
discrepancy between the United Nations and the United States on the overall
dollar figure of United States arrears. I know there's been an issue coming
the other way. I don't have those figures in my head. I can check that for
you. Dimitris.
QUESTION: Yes, Nick, can I get back to the issue of the payment rewards
program. Can you give us some more details? Is this specific only for
Greece?
MR. BURNS: This specific program is for Greece - the $2 million program.
It's because of the fact that we've lost four Americans there in 22 years.
We Americans don't forget our people when they are killed by terrorists.
We're appealing to the Greek population, which is peace-loving and which
wants to do the right thing - wants to support its own government, wants to
support decency - to contact us.
They can do that by letters to our embassy, telephone calls to our embassy,
access to our website on the Internet. There are a variety of very easy
ways. We ensure confidentiality in all of these. We ensure that if people
give us information that leads to the arrest of the people who have been
killing Americans, that those people will be rewarded - the people who give
the information will be rewarded financially, up to $2 million for
information leading to the arrest of these people.
There's a post office box that they can write here in the United States.
There's a toll free telephone number that they can dial here in the United
States from overseas. All of that is contained in the press release that
we're issuing today.
QUESTION: How can you ensure the safety of the informants of this
program?
MR. BURNS: We can ensure the safety. We have a very good track record in
our government of doing so - both the confidentiality and the safety of the
people who come forward. They can be assured of that. They have our
commitment that that will be the case.
QUESTION: So the only purpose of this program is to get the terrorists
group, the 17th of November?
MR. BURNS: The purpose of this program is to help the Greek Government,
to assist the Greek Government in identifying the people who killed four
Americans, and who continue to kill innocent Greek civilians - most notably,
just an innocent person in the last two weeks in Pyraeos.
QUESTION: Can you say to us where are the - how is the situation with the
17 of November, and the collaboration between the U.S. and Greece on that
issue?
MR. BURNS: We are very pleased and satisfied with our cooperation with
the Greek Government. The Greek Government takes this threat very
seriously. This is a threat to Greece and to the Greek people, not just to
the United States - most importantly, a threat to Greece. We're satisfied
with the cooperation. The Greek Government is fully in concert with the
announcement that we're making today. I think that we'll continue to work
well together. Yes, Carol.
QUESTION: Will the Secretary meet Qian Qichen or Jiang Zemin when she's
in Hong Kong?
MR. BURNS: We have not yet, I think, had full discussions with the
Chinese Government about which of their officials will be present in Hong
Kong on June 30, July 1. I'm sure she'll want to take the opportunity to
meet a variety of people. We just haven't made those - it's really a
scheduling decision - haven't made them yet. We've seen press reports about
who may or may not be there from Beijing. We need to nail that down with
the Chinese Government.
QUESTION: Korean missile talks - did they actually take place today? Or
are they in the process now?
MR. BURNS: John has - do we have a start yet? It was planned to be
started. They have started. Thank you.
We can now officially say that the nonproliferation talks have started and
are led on our side by our very able Deputy Assistant Secretary Bob
Einhorn. I can tell you in press arrangements that I think there was not
any kind of open press event to mark the start of the talks. These are
confidential. But at some point, we are going to brief you; maybe on a
background basis. The leading individuals in our delegation will be
briefing you on the talks. You will get a shot at them.
QUESTION: Nick --
QUESTION: Up there or down here?
MR. BURNS: Probably up there. Isn't that right, John? In New York? John
said probably in the early evening of Friday afternoon, on the 13th of June,
after the talks are completed. These are three days of talks scheduled.
QUESTION: And you will let us know so we can tell --
MR. BURNS: We will let you know, yes.
QUESTION: Because they are having trouble getting in touch with anybody
up there.
MR. BURNS: Is that right? Well, we will let you know. Yes.
QUESTION: Also on North Korea. Has the U.S. Government been given a heads
up from the World Food Program that a big new request for food aid is
coming up?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't know anything about that. I know that the World
Food Program is drawing more attention to the plight of the North Korean
population. I am not aware that they have come forward with any kind of
request for additional assistance.
But we have said many times, Jim, that we consider this problem to be so
severe that we obviously will stand ready to look very seriously at any
further request from the World Food Program, which is the agency that we
work with, and let me just say on that issue - I know there's been various
press reporting about this including a piece in The New York Times this
morning - our food aid goes to young children below the age of six. It
does not go to the North Korean military.
There was a reference in The New York Times this morning that said that our
food aid might be directed to the North Korean military. That is not the
case at all. Our food aid goes to young kids who are absolutely affected by
the severe food shortages in North Korea. We have great confidence in the
World Food Program and its ability to account for the way that the food is
delivered, how the money is spent, and who is actually consuming this
food.
Now, there is no question that the North Korean military probably gets the
lion's share of the food produced in North Korea. That is one of the
problems in a communist society. They are not producing enough food, and
they are not allocating it efficiently. That is why they need international
help. They ought to change their system.
But until they change their system, we think it is important for all
countries to respond on a humanitarian basis to the civilians who need the
food. We will not countenance our food, any of our food, being directed or
diverted to the North Korean military.
QUESTION: So we're not talking about two different things here, I didn't
ask you if there was a formal request. I asked you if there was a heads up
from the World Food Program that they will be coming up with a formal
request for a new, large allotment.
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of it, and I haven't heard anything about that.
But I can continue to monitor that for you.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Still on North Korea?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: On North Korea, in the Monday briefing you said the United
States hasn't decided if the U.S. will impose sanctions on North Korea - in
the Monday briefing?
MR. BURNS: On the issue of sanctions?
QUESTION: Right. You know, plus the allegation on the missile technology
export. I talked with PM people who said - actually, they said, U.S. has
already twice imposed sanctions to the North Korea entity on the missile
exports. It said once in March of '92, and once in May of '96. So can you
check this for me?
MR. BURNS: Well, I mean, our experts have --
QUESTION: Or do you have the --
MR. BURNS: Our experts in the Bureau of Political and Military Affairs
can tell you what we have done in the past. But I, of course, take your
question to mean what are we doing now: Are we considering now in the June
of 1997 any further sanctions on North Korea or North Korean companies?
I have told you that we have been concerned by a number of allegations
about improper shipments, but we have not determined that there has been
any violation of American law or international sanctions law.
QUESTION: The sanction was May of '96, and just one month after the
Berlin talks, the first missile talks with North Korea. This sanction is to
the North Korean entity who exported missile technology to Iran. But
actually, the content of the sanction is meaningless. But I just wonder if
you have any kind of interpretation of the sanctions or can you check this
one?
MR. BURNS: Well, you have got more information from the Bureau of
Political and Military Affairs than I do. So maybe what I should do after
this briefing is go ask that Bureau, if you are interested in the history
of our relationship with North Korea and sanctions - John is coming with a
note. Yes, John says that the missile talks began at 10:00 a.m. this
morning.
I'll get back to you. We can get back to you if you are interested in the
history. But in this briefing, we normally talk about what is happening now
and what the United States will do in the future. I can tell you we have
not made a decision in recent weeks or recent days or even recent months to
sanction a North Korean company. And I will let you know if we decide to do
that.
QUESTION: Korea.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Nick, has Mr. Cho Wong-kyu, he is a legislator from South Korea,
yet met with Chuck Kartman? He was supposed to come up here sometime this
week.
MR. BURNS: Well, Chuck is in Seoul.
QUESTION: Oh, Chuck --
MR. BURNS: Chuck Kartman is in Seoul for trilateral talks with the South
Koreans and Japanese on the Korean Peninsula. So perhaps they have met
there. I don't know.
QUESTION: Oh, no, no. He is in Washington for five days.
MR. BURNS: Ah-hah.
QUESTION: Has he been to the State Department to meet with any of Chuck's
people?
MR. BURNS: I don't know. I don't know.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you have a comment on -- this man has changed his
posture on feeding the North saying that an eventual - that such - that an
eventual collapse of North Korean system could bring unthinkable calamities.
It could force North Korea to start a war. This guy has been going around
town basically waving a red flag.
MR. BURNS: It's not unusual to hear this kind of prediction of calamity
from various South Koreans. That happens all the time. The fact is that the
United States does not believe that North Korea is on the verge of a
collapse. We think North Korea is operating under severe strains, certainly
economically because of the failure of their communist economic system, and
the people are being subjugated to massive privation and food shortages.
That is why were are responding with our food aid.
But I don't think any of our analysts would agree - or most of our analysts,
I should say - would agree that the system is on the verge of a collapse,
imminently in the next couple of days or couple of weeks. We do watch the
situation there carefully because we have our 37,000 American troops in
South Korea, and they are prepared to defend South Korea should that be
necessary.
QUESTION: This fellow was calling for a five-nation committee to prepare
for an eventual collapse. He didn't say it was --
MR. BURNS: I don't know anything about that proposal. I read about it, as
you did, in the newspaper. I am not aware of any impetus to create such a
committee. We will continue to consult with the South Korean Government and
the Japanese Government as the best way to coordinate our policies towards
North Korea.
QUESTION: Have U.S. officials debriefed the North Korean defector?
MR. BURNS: I will have to check. That is a very good question. We have
been promised access to him by the South Koreans. I don't know if we have
yet gained access. But it is a good question. It deserves an answer. Yes,
Zita.
QUESTION: Japan's chief counselor for external affairs, Mr. Irabayashi is
scheduled to travel to Burma. He may be there now. Do you have any comment
on that? Does the U.S. support such a move at this time?
MR. BURNS: I don't have any particular comment on his trip, no. We are
not against contact with the military dictators in Rangoon. We have Kent
Wiedemann, our charge d'affaires, there. We have contact all the time. We
just have a plain disagreement with the course that they have embarked upon,
which is to repress their people and deny them basic civil liberties.
We have made that very clear, and we would hope very much that other
governments, particularly in the region, governments that are leaders in
the region, would exert some political and moral pressure on the dictators
in Rangoon to change their policies. Telal, yes, sir.
QUESTION: Concerning the remarks by the House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: In which he says that the killing of realtors is the action
identified with Nazis. Now what --
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: He identified with Nazis. Now, what he said and I quote him, is
that the vigilante murder of realtors by Palestinian security officials is
an egregious violation of human rights and of international norms.
Now, it was an emotional speech. That may be, but is it based on an
allegation by the Israelis or does the United States have information that
Palestinian officials are involved in these killings?
MR. BURNS: Well, let me say this, I think that Speaker Gingrich certainly
has a right to speak out about this issue. It's an important issue. I
wouldn't use all of the words or the reference to the Nazis, but I would
say this. He is right in this respect. The Palestinian Authority has got to
make it absolutely clear to the Palestinian population in Gaza, in East
Jerusalem, and in the West Bank that it is unjustifiable, it's wrong,
it's illegal, for anyone to try to target land dealers, to try to
subject them to any kind of pressure and, obviously, not to hold the
threat of political assassination against people whose business it
is -- is real estate.
That's an emotional issue in that part of the world, obviously, with
political connotations, the issue of real estate and land. But nobody has
the right, much less senior officials of the Palestinian Authority, who
have done this to incite the Palestinian population to murder land dealers.
That's wrong, and we expect Chairman Arafat to be forthcoming publicly.
Now, he has told Consul General Ed Abington, our Consul General, that he is
against this incitement to violence, that he rejects it, that he will hold
members of his own administration accountable should it be proved that they
have been implicated in this incitement to violence. So I think Speaker
Gingrich obviously has done the right thing by calling attention to a very
serious problem.
We would differ -- the United States Government would differ - in one
respect, and that is we think that American aid should continue to the
Palestinians. American aid is directed towards the Palestinian people. It
does not go to the Palestinian Authority. It doesn't go to the coffers of
the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. It goes directly to Ramallah and Jenin
and Bethlehem and Hebron and Gaza City, to private voluntary organizations,
to schools, to individuals. This aid is in the interest not only of the
United States, but of Israel - this $500 million over five years that
the United States is transferring to the Palestinian people.
So we believe that we have got to be vigilant on the issue of politically
motivated killings, obviously. But it should not lead us to conclude that
we should stop all American assistance to the Palestinians because that is
in our interest.
QUESTION: I understand. But is there any proof that the officials are
involved in the killings? I mean, there are allegations and counter-
allegations from both sides.
MR. BURNS: What we know is this: Senior Palestinian justice officials
have publicly called for political assassinations. That is wrong, and those
people ought to be repudiated or fired. What we don't know is who killed
the several people, who is responsible for the deaths of several landowners
who were shot down in Ramallah and outside of Jerusalem. That is for the
Israeli justice system, the Palestinian justice system, and the police in
both of those cases to resolve.
But we very much support the efforts of the Israeli Government and the
Palestinian police to get to the bottom of who killed these people because
the people who killed them ought to be brought to justice.
QUESTION: Nick, clarify this. You are calling on the Palestinian
Authority to fire their justice minister, is that it?
MR. BURNS: I said repudiate or ultimately, obviously, let go of people
who call for political assassination. No question about it.
QUESTION: Nick, are you saying the justice minister has called for
political assassinations?
MR. BURNS: You can judge that on your own. There were intemperate and
irresponsible statements made by Palestinian officials many, many weeks ago
about this issue. The United States has consistently called for a
repudiation of those statements. Chairman Arafat assures us that he has
done that publicly at the OAU Summit and he says that privately he will
hold his officials responsible.
We welcome the statements by Chairman Arafat. We need to see these
statements reaffirmed. They need to be clear. Certainly, we are not going
to have much business to do with people who call for land dealers to be
murdered.
QUESTION: On the same subject, Nick, there is $100 million appropriated
to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Now, we
understand that President Clinton opposes such a move - both as an obstacle
to peace and infringement on his authority to conduct foreign policy. Does
the State Department agree with the President that such a move is an
obstacle to peace?
MR. BURNS: Well, Telal - Telal, let me say something that should be self
evident. The State Department always agrees with the President. He is our
boss. So when the President says something or decides something, we obey.
We agree with the President that American policy, which is well known on
this issue, has not changed.
QUESTION: Do you consider it as an obstacle to peace?
MR. BURNS: No, I didn't say that. I said that American policy, well known
on the issue of Jerusalem, has not changed.
QUESTION: Which is?
MR. BURNS: American policy is so self evident to everybody in this room,
Telal.
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: After the briefing I can have you go see Aaron Miller or Tony
Verstandig or Dennis Ross and they can go through this with you in
detail.
QUESTION: Concerning the move of the embassy, I mean.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Concerning the move of the --
MR. BURNS: Our policy has not changed.
QUESTION: Which is?
MR. BURNS: Our policy is clear, and we think that - generally, we think,
Telal, that on issues concerning Jerusalem, which is a permanent status
issue that the Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to discuss and
negotiate in permanent status talks, which have not yet begun, we think it
is important that the United States not take preemptive measures or
unilateral measures on our own that might complicate issues pertaining to
Jerusalem. That has been long-standing U.S. policy of Republican presidents
and Democratic presidents, including President Clinton.
QUESTION: All right, Nick, (inaudible) Time Magazine with regard to
Consul General Abington has just come out in which he supposedly has been
given a slap on the hand by Albright for saying a couple of things on this
issue.
MR. BURNS: Gene, I hate to admit this, I haven't read Time Magazine.
Should I have read Time Magazine?
QUESTION: Yes. The front part, you know.
MR. BURNS: We usually get it, but it didn't show up when Newsweek and
U.S. News so they didn't send it to me.
QUESTION: Fischer has a very interesting little article about it.
MR. BURNS: Dean Fischer, the former State Department spokesman?
QUESTION: No.
MR. BURNS: I'll have to take a look at the article.
QUESTION: Yeah, all right.
MR. BURNS: That would be unfair of me to comment on that article because
Dean is a friend and I respect him.
QUESTION: Right, right.
MR. BURNS: I can't comment until I see it.
QUESTION: A follow-up on - the other day I raised the question of the
fact that --
MR. BURNS: Let me just say this, Ed Abington has done an outstanding job
over the last three years under very difficult circumstances, and I think
everybody in this building would second that statement.
QUESTION: Is he in Jerusalem now, do you know?
MR. BURNS: I believe he is.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: He is getting ready to move, but --
MR. BURNS: He will be transferring out. His three years are over. You
know our chiefs of mission only stay for three years. He is going to be
replaced by an outstanding foreign service officer.
QUESTION: Who?
MR. BURNS: John Herbst.
QUESTION: John Herbst?
MR. BURNS: Yes, the foreign service officer who is currently the deputy
to Ambassador Jim Collins. I don't know what Ed's plans are, but a lot of
people in this building respect him very much.
QUESTION: Can I raise the question, which I raised the other day, about
the land sales? The United States is hip-deep into the land sales problem
itself, because there have been complaints to the IRS about the activities
of the Moskovitz Foundation and other foundations that have been buying
land. The money, in other words, is again coming from the United States and
it's coming from 501(c)(3). Those, supposedly, are in violation of U.S.
laws for buying land in such situations.
MR. BURNS: Gene, I'd just like to - I don't mean to just cut you
off.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: I want to make clear that the United States Government is not
involved in land sales or deals in Jerusalem. You're referring to American
citizens who are involved.
QUESTION: Yes, but --
MR. BURNS: The United States Government is not involved in land sales in
Jerusalem.
QUESTION: -- but they're in violation of IRS rules with regard to their
foundation.
MR. BURNS: American citizens. Well, that's an allegation that I have
seen. I can't comment on that without checking into it further.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: That's a very complex issue.
QUESTION: I asked the other day, would you take the question, please?
MR. BURNS: I'd be very glad to take that question, sir.
QUESTION: All right, thank you.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: One more on land sales.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Without in any way equating what I'm about to ask you about
with murder of land dealers, there are quite a few laws and regulations
under which it is made very difficult for Palestinians to buy land in
Israel. Does the U.S. Government oppose those kinds of regulations, just as
it seems to oppose laws against Israelis buying Palestinian land?
MR. BURNS: This is a very complex issue. It's a very emotional issue of
long standing that emanates from the events of the last 30 years, dating
back to June 1967. The United States does have views on these issues, both
what should be the rights of Palestinians in Israel itself and what should
be the rights of Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
What we don't wish to do is pour gasoline on the fire by making ourselves
part of the issue. I think I know that for decades we've had views. We've
asserted those views privately. The proper and responsible thing is to keep
those views private and not to become part of the public debate on
this.
QUESTION: Nick, it has become part of the public debate on the other
side.
MR. BURNS: When it comes to assassinations and the threat of assassinations
--
QUESTION: Have you not also said --
MR. BURNS: -- governments like ours have a responsibility to speak up for
what's right. It is wrong for Palestinian officials to incite their
population to murder land dealers, all of whom are business people just
trying to make a living. It is wrong to do that.
The political issue that you refer to is a legitimate political issue,
where our government has taken a position. But I just don't wish to become
part of the fray. We think that we're more effective if we keep our advice
private to the Israeli Government on the issue of Palestinians, and to the
Palestinians on the issue of Israelis.
QUESTION: I thought you had said, in addition to obviously being against
killing, you had also said that you were against laws against land sales.
But you haven't said that, huh? You're not --
MR. BURNS: We've said so many things. I mean, we have commented in such
volumes on the Middle East, I can't quite remember everything that I've
said in the last two and a half years. But I can tell you that our modus
operandi is to be responsible and productive and to try to help resolve
problems, not add to them. I think if I were to tell you in minute and
excruciating detail about all the conversations we've had on this, I'm not
sure that would be productive. So I just elect not to respectfully answer
that question. Yes.
QUESTION: Different subject. A final vote at the committee to determine
the expo site for 2005 will soon be taken in Monaco, within 24 hours, I
understand. The final contenders are the Aichi prefecture in Japan and --
MR. BURNS: The first contender is --
QUESTION: Aichi prefecture, the city of Seto, in Japan.
MR. BURNS: Seto, yes.
QUESTION: And the city of Calgary --
MR. BURNS: Calgary in Canada.
QUESTION: -- in Canada. Could you please tell us the position of the
U.S.?
MR. BURNS: This is a tough day.
(Laughter.)
You're asking me -- and I know why you're asking - to comment on the
relative merits of one ally of the United States versus another. I do know
this decision is coming for a vote. I do know that the United States needs
to participate in that decision-making process. I also know that both the
government of Japan and the government of Canada have talked to us in great
detail about the merits of both of their cities. I do not know if we have
made a decision yet in our own government.
John, do you?
I don't. We'll take that question and try to get you an answer.
QUESTION: Can I follow up? Just one more thing.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: The environmental concerns are increasingly the issue to
determine this kind of large scale event. What is the general position for
the U.S. to cast a vote on this kind of decision?
MR. BURNS: You mean what kind of factors come into play? A variety of
factors - political and economic. Obviously, our relationship couldn't be
better with both Japan and Canada. That's why this is such a difficult
issue for us.
QUESTION: What about the environmental concerns?
MR. BURNS: I'm not personally familiar with the environmental factors
that may or may not be part of this decision. But we'll try to get you a
good answer on this as soon as we can. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Libyan leader, Muammar Qadhafi , is sending some letters to Pan
Am 103 victims' families. He's offering some new - actually, there's
nothing new about this - some kind of proposal to solve the problem between
the United States and the United Kingdom. You're aware of this proposal, I
believe. What's your reaction to this proposal?
MR. BURNS: Well, the Libyan mission at the United Nations has sent
letters to journalists, to diplomats, to families of the Pan Am 103 victims,
saying that they have a new way to resolve the problem. Well, it's an old
way. It's the old suggestion that somehow the two individuals -- with a $4
million price tag on their heads, by the way, under the State Department
rewards program, $4 million leading to the arrest of those two guys, who it
is alleged planted the bomb in the radio on board the aircraft.
The Libyans want these guys to go anywhere but to the United Kingdom or the
United States to face justice, to face a trial. That has been rejected by
the International Court of Justice. The Libyans say, let's have the
International Court of Justice or a Scottish justice in The Hague try this
case. The International Court of Justice says, we don't have jurisdiction.
This is not an international legal matter. This is essentially a criminal
matter. Therefore, it should be tried in the courts of the countries
involved: the United Kingdom, where the plane crashed, and the United
States, which lost the most number of people.
It has been rejected by family members and the family associations of the
Pan Am 103 victims. I think we ought to listen to the families. The
families are saying, as we are saying, that we have not forgotten; the
Libyans have to come clean and produce these two people for a trial. They
will receive a fair trial in the United Kingdom or the United States. They
wouldn't in Libya; and that we ought to see justice done.
Until that happens, Mr. Qadhafi is never going to be treated as a normal
leader. He's an abnormal person, an abnormal leader. He'll never be treated
as a member of the international community, and sanctions will be applied
to him for time ever more, until he turns these two people over to a court
to be tried.
QUESTION: Nick, there was a piece in the Post this morning, suggesting
that the Taiwanese, and perhaps in response to the Chinese, were going to
stage military exercises before the Hong Kong reversion. I was curious if
the United States has made any representations to either side about
potentially destabilizing behavior there and then?
MR. BURNS: Well, we've seen the same reports that there may be competing
military exercises carried on by Taiwan and China this month. We have
actually been encouraged by the gradual easing of tensions in the region,
in the Taiwan Straits region over the past year, and we hope that China and
Taiwan will continue their efforts to reduce tensions between them to make
the Taiwan Straits a region of peace. We don't believe that any - that
includes restraint in military activities in sensitive areas during
sensitive times. This is a sensitive area. It is a sensitive time. So that
is our advice to both.
QUESTION: Have you told them that directly?
MR. BURNS: Yes, of course, we have expressed this both to China and to
Taiwan. It is best to stand down in times like this and to continue
activities that promote goodwill and understanding and peace and not to
engage in activities that are counter-productive to those objectives.
QUESTION: And you have information that they are preparing for military
activities?
MR. BURNS: We have seen the reports and have been concerned enough by the
reports that we, of course, urge this upon both.
QUESTION: Did you ask them directly?
MR. BURNS: Ask?
QUESTION: The Chinese or the Taiwanese?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I can't report to you on the specifics of our conversations,
but I can tell you that we are making it very clear today that we think
that the general good trend in the Taiwan Straits region ought to be
continued by both governments.
QUESTION: When did you communicate this to the Taiwanese?
MR. BURNS: Well, you know, we have an unofficial relationship with Taiwan
so we could never have official conversations with Taiwan officials. But
the American Institute in Taiwan, of course, does conduct, which is an
unofficial institution, does conduct conversations with Taiwan officials.
There is no surprise to that. It has been that way since 1979.
QUESTION: So this is done in Taipei and Beijing and --
MR. BURNS: I can't confirm for you exactly, you know, the time of day and
the room numbers and all that. I can just tell you that I think China and
Taiwan understand that the United States believes that there should be a
reduction of tensions in the region, not an escalation of tensions.
QUESTION: They are an unofficial entity but they still take directions
from the State Department, right?
MR. BURNS: George, you know that as part of the theology of the issue and
that Congress set up the American Institute of Taiwan to represent some
American interests in Taiwan, but we do not have an official relationship.
We don't have any relationship whatsoever with the Taiwan authorities.
Members of the American Institute in Taiwan, of course, have conversations
with Taiwan authorities, as you would expect them to do.
Now, we haven't talked about the Japanese baseball player yet and the
umpire scandal, but we'll do that before the briefing is over. We've got to
conclude the briefing in a short while. Yes?
QUESTION: Two Cuban questions. One is on the trip of Mr. Ranneberger to
Havana.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: On the trip of Mr. Ranneberger in charge of the Cuban
desk.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: In Havana. Do you have anything on this? Is there any special
reason for the trip at the time while the Cubans are trying to do this
diplomatic offensive in Latin America?
MR. BURNS: I will have to get back to you about Mr. Ranneberger's visit.
I am just not aware of the details of it.
QUESTION: The other thing is about the Cuban amendments that have been
presented in the last few days, especially two of them that concerned the
State Department. One is the one that requires the State Department to
report under Helms-Burton and the other is the Serrano amendment that
requests the State Department to report on the complaints by the Cubans.
Does the State Department have any position on any of those two amendments?
MR. BURNS: I'm sure we have detailed positions, but since you are
referring to our legislative process I would rather not get ahead of the
Congressional deliberations until they have been completed. I would note
this: Cuba denounced today what it said were incidents last week when a
U.S. military plane supposedly flew north of the island and came close to
two civilian aircraft.
Well, first of all, we will be happy to look into this. I can't believe
it's true. Secondly, it is supremely ironic that the Cuban government would
accuse the United States of unsafe air practices, considering the fact that
they shot down two unarmed Cessnas on February 24th of 1996. They ought to
mind their own business and they ought to establish their own safety
procedures before they cast stones at the United States.
QUESTION: And the last thing. There is a new flotilla preparing to go to
Cuba, I think next weekend. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know that to be the case, but I will check with
Lee McClenny and Tom Casey and we'll get back to you on that. We normally
like to talk to the organizers of those flotillas before they embark
because we are concerned that they not engage in activities that would
cross the international line and, also, we are concerned that the Cuban
government show maximum restraint, as it failed to do in February, 1996.
The onus here has to be on the Cuban government in all of these activities.
QUESTION: Following up on that Cuba topic, The Miami Herald is saying
that there is a Miami woman, a Cuban American, who is being detained in
Havana after trying to visit relatives on allegations they found traces of
plastic explosives in her purse. Do you know anything about that case?
MR. BURNS: I have seen the press reports. We are checking into it. I
don't have any information on it, Steve.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment, speaking of unfair air practices --
MR. BURNS: More Cuban practices, Bill?
QUESTION: Yeah, unfair air practices, practices in the air. In the Iraqi
commandeering of UN helicopters seems rather bizarre. I would ask, doesn't
the UN have full access by air, unlimited to surveillance access, and does
this government think that they were trying to keep the UN aircraft from
going someplace sensitive?
MR. BURNS: Well, you're right to use the word "bizarre." The bizarre
nature of the Iraqi regime has probably reached new heights. Listen to
this. This comes from UNSCOM. This comes from the United Nations.
"In the last few days, Iraqi individuals, escorts upon UNSCOM helicopters,
have grabbed the controls in flight of a United Nations helicopter and have
flown an Iraqi helicopter into the path of an UNSCOM helicopter to prevent
overhead inspection of a site suspected by the United Nations of hiding
prohibited weapons or documents."
So they are putting the lives of the UNSCOM experts, as well as their own
lives, into danger because they don't want to open up their country to UN
observation. As long as this continues -- and it has continued now for
seven years - as long as it continues, the Iraqis have no hope of getting
the UN sanctions lifted. We are on the Security Council. We have a veto in
the Security Council. We will not let those sanctions be lifted until Iraq
gives up its attempts to hide its weapons of mass destruction programs.
And Ambassador Ekeus, who will soon be joining us here in Washington full-
time as the Swedish ambassador to the United States, will be replaced by a
very hard-nosed Australian who is not going to put up with this nonsense
from the Iraqis and he will have the full support of the United States. But,
I mean, can you imagine this kind of behavior? You probably can from Saddam
Hussein.
QUESTION: The issue, one issue I asked about, was this. In the peace
settlement for the Gulf War, Iraq signed away their air space to the UN
inspection, all of it; is that correct?
MR. BURNS: Iraq has given up the right to object to UN inspections
because Iraq has admitted to lying for five years about its attempts to
build a weapons of mass destruction capability. It admitted that last year
and yet some countries still want to lift the sanctions on Iraq. That is
nonsense.
QUESTION: Speaking of Iraq, do you have anything to say about the
apparent recovery of Saddam Hussein's son and his ability to walk and leave
the hospital?
MR. BURNS: I do not, no. I don't. Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:18 p.m.)
(###)
|
