U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #89, 97-06-12

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

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

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, June 12, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

STATEMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1-2          U.S-Uzebekistan Discussions Completed/Decision to Create
               Joint Commission
2-3,23       U.S.-North Korea Missile Talks in New York
CONSULAR AFFAIRS
3            Passport Application Process/900 Telephone Number
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
4            Jerusalem as Permanent Status Issue
NATO
4-11,13-15   NATO Expansion -- Consensus on Czech Republic, Poland, and
               Hungary/Second Round/President Clinton/Albright Mtg. w/NATO
               Observer Group/Partnership for Peace/Turkish Membership
INDIA/PAKISTAN
11-13        U.S. Position on Development/Deployment of Ballistic Missiles
SOUTH KOREA
12-13        Possible Purchase of U.S. Stinger Missiles
IRAN
13           U.S. Policy toward Iran
TURKEY
15-16        Military Incursion in Northern Iraq
16           Reported Assertions by Turkish Military Intelligence re:
               Islamic Fundamentalism/PKK
HONG KONG
16-17        Swearing in of Provisional Legislative Council/Reversion
               Ceremony
DEPARTMENT
17-19        Nomination of Governor Weld of Massachusetts as Ambassador to
               Mexico
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
19-20        Brcko-Conditions for Elections
JAPAN
20-22        Status of American Baseball Umpire/Baseball in Japan
REPUBLIC OF CONGO
22           Brazzaville-Situation Update
CUBA
22           Michael Ranneberger Travel to Cuba
22           Groups Planning July Flotilla
22           Woman Detained in Havana
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
23           Japan--Site for 2005 International. Exposition

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #89

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 997 1:15 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: I have a question for the press corps. What's more important, liar's poker or the briefing?

QUESTION: Depends on what you got to say.

MR. BURNS: Well, we'll have to see what I have to say.

QUESTION: You talking about the Red Sox?

MR. BURNS: Oh, boy, the news is bad. The news is --

QUESTION: Did you watch?

MR. BURNS: I did not watch. I should have watched. They won 10-1, but there has been off-field activity -

QUESTION: I almost called you.

MR. BURNS: -- you almost called me?

QUESTION: It was six-nothing and I was going to call and say, you got to watch this.

MR. BURNS: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon; welcome to the State Department briefing. I have just two quick things to tell you. First of all, the United States has just completed a series of discussions with the government of Uzbekistan here in Washington. I can tell you that we have decided to create a joint commission between the United States and Uzbekistan.

That will be inaugurated in the Autumn of 1997. This came about after discussions with Secretary Albright, Deputy Secretary Talbott yesterday with Foreign Minister Komilov. This joint commission is intended to push forward all aspects of our bilateral relationship, including political cooperation, military, trade, investment and energy cooperation.

Secondly, I would like to tell you that during the course of the meetings with the Uzbek delegation, the United States expressed very clearly our support for the independence and sovereignty and integrity of Uzbekistan in its part of the world, in Central Asia. At the same time, the United States officials -- Secretary Albright and Deputy Secretary Talbott and Jim Collins -- underscored the importance of the need to strengthen human rights in Uzbekistan, to reinvigorate economic reforms there and to improve the climate for foreign investment.

We have a promising relationship with Uzbekistan. It has certainly improved since the beginning of our relationship back in 1992 and 1993. We were very grateful for these consultations.

QUESTION: Did you say it's a binational commission?

MR. BURNS: It's a joint commission.

QUESTION: It's not the like the one with the United States and Mexico or - -

MR. BURNS: They are all a little bit different. The binational commission with Mexico has been in place I think since the Carter Administration. It involves ten Cabinet secretaries. We have these with Ukraine, with Russia, with Egypt, with South Africa, a number of other countries. They are all a little bit different.

But this is a sign that we do want to improve our relationship with Uzbekistan.

If you look at the map and look at the natural resources, look at the proximity of Uzbekistan to Afghanistan, for instance. Uzbekistan is one of the key countries in the Central Asian and Caucasus region in geopolitical terms. Commercially it's a very important country for the United States, and, in terms of the conflict in Afghanistan, exceedingly important.

So we have a number of interests at play here. We do want to improve our relationship. We have been working on this for a long time, for five years, working on this relationship.

QUESTION: Can you say something about how high-level this commission is? Will it be chaired by the Secretary and her counterpart?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe it's going to be chaired by the Secretary. I think Strobe Talbott and Jim Collins -- or at least Jim Collins' successor, Steve Sestanovich, if he is confirmed by the Senate, will be centrally involved in this.

But the Secretary does feel that our relations with Uzbekistan have great importance in Central Asia. That is why she did drop by Deputy Secretary Talbott's meeting yesterday with Foreign Minister Komilov.

The second thing is just a press note. You all asked yesterday about the United States' talks with the North Koreans, how we're going to handle that. I can say that the talks began yesterday.

They are headed on our side by Deputy Assistant Secretary Bob Einhorn. They are continuing today and tomorrow.

I am not going to be providing an assessment of how the talks are going. We will do that at the end of the talks. We will do it in New York, probably at around 6:00 p.m. tomorrow night.

I apologize for the hour, but that is when the talks are ending.

Senior officials from our delegation will provide a background briefing at the foreign press center in New York City tomorrow night, and that will be late afternoon, probably around 6:00 p.m.

You can call the New York foreign press office tomorrow or our press office here for further details on when that will be, if you are interested in the North Korea-U.S. missile talks. Barry.

QUESTION: Congressman Gary Ackerman is declaring a triumph over the State Department. Remember the 900 number business?

MR. BURNS: I do remember the 900 number.

QUESTION: Well, he thinks he's won, because if his provision prevails the State Department will have to go back to its old way of giving people passport information without any additional charge to the inquirer. I wondered if you feel that Mr. Ackerman is premature? Or if you want to re- enter a defense of the 900 number, or should we call you on the 900 number and ask you?

MR. BURNS: Call me. Yeah, you have to and I'll charge you. No, actually, Barry, I am not aware of where his legislative proposal stands, so I don't want to comment on that aspect. I would simply say that I think there has been a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding of this 900 number.

Let me put it in very simple terms. If an American citizen wants to call the State Department to apply for a passport, they don't have to call a 900 number. They can call as they would ordinarily do. Now, if you don't live in one of the 15 cities where we have a U.S. Passport Office and if you live sufficiently far away that you have to make a long distance call, that is the reality of doing business. We have 15 offices around the country, but we can't be in every town in the United States.

The 900 number is only for those people who, once having applied for a passport, they actually want to just check and see where their application stands. So we don't charge people on the 900 number to apply for a passport. If you live near one of the passport offices you can walk in. You don't have to call the 900 number.

It is just simply for those people who feel the need maybe every week to check on where the application is. I want to correct that. I think it is a very important misunderstanding.

The reason, of course, that we instituted the 900 number is that we simply don't have the number of people in this department necessary to answer detailed calls on the status of passport applications.

On a normal year when we issue five or six million passports per year, and the number of American citizens applying for passports has expanded exponentially in the last couple of years. That is my answer, Barry.

QUESTION: Okay. Another one?

MR. BURNS: Sure.

QUESTION: How do you feel about the way the House feels about Jerusalem being Israel's capital and providing $100 million to move the embassy there? I guess that follows up prior legislation, but does the State Department have a view or an old view or any view?

MR. BURNS: We have a constant view. We believe in constancy on the issue in Jerusalem and consistency. Our view --

QUESTION: Your policy hasn't changed?

MR. BURNS: Our policy has not changed. Thank you, Barry.

Our view is that we should avoid, as a country, taking steps that, in effect, in one way or another prejudge the issue of Jerusalem, which the Israelis and Palestinians agree is a permanent status issue that must be negotiated between them. We respect their negotiating process. We hope that they do get to permanent status talks at some point. This will be one of the most difficult issues, and we don't think we should be putting ourselves in a position that interferes with the Israelis and Palestinians resolving this problem at some point in the future. Sid?

QUESTION: Yeah, on NATO expansion.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Since NATO operated by consensus, can we surmise from the President's or his spokesman's position through his spokesman, that the United States, even if it is the only one of 16 that favors three, that it will not bend and will, in essence, veto the decision?

MR. BURNS: Well, let me just say this, Sid. You saw Mike McCurry's statement today, this morning. He was on the record.

Secretary Cohen is giving a press conference, I believe, right now in Brussels. He is at the NATO Defense Ministers Meeting where he is elucidating our own policy in further detail beyond what Mike said.

But essentially, it is this. There is a consensus in NATO right now. There is a consensus for three countries to come in -- the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. Today is the first day in three years of discussing this issue where the United States has gone on the record to say we favor those three countries. This was our idea to enlarge NATO. We believe in it. We have thought about this very hard. There is a consensus on three.

You know there are some countries in NATO who wish to bring other countries in. What will have to happen, from a process point of view, is for Secretary General Solana, the leader of NATO, to put together a consensus before Madrid. We believe a consensus can be put together. We prefer, obviously, very strongly that that consensus rest at three, and the reasons for that are quite simple. We believe it is important that the highest standards be met by applicants into NATO.

This is, as Secretary Albright has said many, many times, NATO is not a charity, it's not a club; it's a defense alliance. You have to meet the requirements for membership because if, in fact, the countries that we invite at Madrid to come in -- if those countries come in because the Senate and other parliaments will ratify an amended NATO treaty -- it means that all of us as NATO members will be responsible for the security of those countries. We want to make sure that their militaries, their political systems, their social structure is conducive to membership in the most successful alliance of this century. That is the ultimate reason.

We Americans also think it is important to hold the door open to another round of NATO enlargement in the future. We believe in that. We believe that there will be further evolution in democracy, economic reform in Central Europe in particular; that there will be other countries who we will want to bring in at some point down the road. Now, that obviously needs to be decided by NATO, but that is our very strong position. So there is hope for countries that have not made it in, and will not make it into the first round, to be considered in a second round.

So those are our reasons. The President, Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, Sandy Berger all have worked on this very, very hard -- the President for over three years. We think we have made the right decision.

QUESTION: As we found out in Portugal, not all the NATO countries favor a second round of enlargement. Can you say there is now a consensus among the 16 for a second round, or is this --

MR. BURNS: I don't believe there has been a consensus reached for a second round. But as the largest and most influential member of NATO -- the country that has the greatest military forces to bring to bear as part of the alliance -- we very strongly believe that there ought to be a second round. You can't simply stop the process of building stability and democracy in Central Europe.

You have to give some hope to those countries who want to meet the requirements of NATO membership -- if they can't now, in a couple of years hence.

So, I think in many ways the United States has become the strongest supporter of NATO enlargement. It's ironic to me that in Sintra, and also today in responding today in responding to press calls - and I don't blame the reporters for this - but some of the conventional wisdom is, well, the United States doesn't really vigorously support enlargement.

No, we vigorously support enlargement. It was our idea. We are pushing the idea of a second round, the open-door policy. We are going to stick with that. But we do think that the highest standards have to be met. That is very serious.

We have go to the Senate and the American people and ask the Senate and the American people to ratify an amended NATO treaty. It's arguably one of the most serious commitments that we make as a country, around the world. We have to be absolutely sure that the countries we bring meet all of the rational test of membership.

We are very confident that these three countries meet that test.

QUESTION: So as it stands right now, the two that you do not want in, have no reason for being hopeful because NATO hasn't agreed on the second round?

MR. BURNS: I'm not sure I understand the question.

QUESTION: As we stand right now, there is not a consensus in NATO for a second round of enlargement. Which means, by your -- the United States' wishes, there would only be three. And at this point, no possibility, no consensus for two more?

MR. BURNS: I don't agree with that logic. Respectfully, I don't agree with it. The United States is an influential country, and we have a very clear policy that NATO enlargement should not stop at Madrid; and it won't stop. I think there is an emerging view - especially among the larger countries in NATO - that this should be the case. So I'm not sure that there is going to be a problem. I just can't tell you that there is a formal consensus on the question, Sid. But I can tell you that that is the view of the United States and many other countries in NATO -- that there ought to be an open door to further expansion.

QUESTION: Nick, is Madrid likely to - or would the United States like the summit at Madrid to set a date certain for a second round?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if that will be the case. I don't know if that is going to be one of the outcomes of Madrid. But I can tell you the United States' policy of President Clinton and this Administration is to push for a second round. We are confident a second round will take place.

QUESTION: Is there anything that you can say about the meeting last night between Secretary Albright and the President and the NATO - the Senate NATO observer group and how this influenced today's announcement?

MR. BURNS: I would leave a detailed summary of that meeting to Mike McCurry. It was the President's meeting. All I can say is that we are very pleased that a number of senior members of the Senate have agreed to participate in this group. Many of them will be coming to Madrid. We want to keep open, obviously, a very active dialogue with the Senate and with the American people about NATO enlargement because the Senate has to make a very important decision, and that is to ratify and amended treaty.

We look forward to that debate. It is not going to be an easy debate. But we are confident that we will succeed in that debate.

QUESTION: Nick, why did the United States choose to make their choices public now, instead of pushing for a consensus?

MR. BURNS: We are the last country to make our choices public. Many of our fellow members of NATO, including heads of state, have said for months now that they support this country or that country. We, frankly, didn't think that was appropriate for us until today because the issue hadn't been finally decided by the President. But it has now been decided by the President, and we think it's important to surface this view point publicly so that there is no confusion as we approach Madrid.

I don't think we have been early in going public. We are probably the last country to go public, if you look at the French and the Germans and the British and others and the smaller countries in NATO.

QUESTION: Nick, you referred to requirements of criteria for membership. It isn't clear to me - maybe to others - these are the only three would-be new members who meet the criteria?

Or others do, but at this point only three are coming in? Which is it?

MR. BURNS: I talked about the highest standards for membership.

I think Secretary General Solana and NATO as an institution have talked about certain basis criteria--

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BURNS: -- civilian control of the military, the absence of conflicts on borders, certainly a democratic foundation for the country. Those are obvious before you bring a country into NATO, which is an alliance of democratic countries.

But beyond that, every country that is a member of NATO has to answer the following question. Which countries being brought into NATO are most likely to strengthen the alliance? This is something that Secretary Albright said publicly to those of you who were with us at Sintra. We are expanding NATO to strengthen the alliance, not to weaken the alliance. We think these three countries will strengthen the alliance.

We were not confident that bringing an additional number of countries in would serve that purpose at this point. But since we very clearly will hold the door open to a second round of enlargement, we hope that other countries will meet that basic test in the future.

QUESTION: So you are implying that, except for that last criterion, strengthening NATO, there are countries not coming in now who met all the basic criteria.

MR. BURNS: I think there are probably many members --

QUESTION: -- democratic systems --

MR. BURNS: There are many members of the Partnership for Peace - I think you could argue that Russia meets those criteria.

Certainly, many members meet that criteria. But, Barry, those were kind of minimal, over-the-threshold qualifications.

QUESTION: What makes these three golden is the judgment that their entry strengthens NATO.

MR. BURNS: It strengthens NATO.

QUESTION: That's the thing that tipped the scales, right?

MR. BURNS: Well, it would not be logical to proceed with NATO enlargement if you thought that bringing in a number countries would not strengthen the alliance. We want to strengthen the alliance.

QUESTION: Well, let me ask you just one more, then I'll let go. Does the geographic - does the geography and the history of a country - I mean, there was no question in anyone's mind you were going to let Poland in. And we needn't go into the historic reasons for that. You want to throw a defensive arm around Poland, which has been scissored many times in the past between stronger countries -- one of those countries to its immediate east, to whom the U.S. NATO expansion isn't aimed at.

MR. BURNS: I appreciate your commentary, Barry.

QUESTION: What is it that -- I mean, is Romania less democratic than Poland? Or Slovenia? Nobody has anything critical to say about Slovenia.

MR. BURNS: Let me just say something --

QUESTION: Is it too small?

MR. BURNS: Let me just say something --

QUESTION: Or to peaceful?

MR. BURNS: No, there are countries in NATO that are smaller than Slovenia. Luxembourg is smaller than Slovenia.

QUESTION: Well, once in, always in, right?

MR. BURNS: Luxembourg is a founding member and a valued member of the alliance. Let me say something positive about Romania and Slovenia.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Romania has made extraordinary leaps forward in its democratic and economic reforms just over the last couple of months, over the last couple of months. Slovenia, I think, has been a very good partner of the United States and other European countries for a couple of years now. We want to work with both Romania and Slovenia. We want our relationships to improve. We want them to be involved in the process of European integration, and we hope that they will continue. They are very active members in the Partnership for Peace, which has proven to be the place where one has to do business before one is considered for NATO membership.

Partnership for Peace has become a very important institution.

When it was created, I remember a lot of people -- including people in this room -- felt, well, this is a paper organization, it doesn't really have much meaning. It has turned out to be an exceedingly important institution. So we hope both Romania and Slovenia will continue to look upon relations with the West as the basis of their future and we certainly would not exclude them in any way whatsoever from consideration in the future. We, meaning the United States. Now, we have to have a NATO consensus before Madrid to, obviously, make a final NATO decision.

QUESTION: Nick, on a somewhat momentous day, in that the United States has finally gone on the record, as you noted, would you be so kind for the record as to say how the expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic strengthens the alliance and, beyond that, why the alliance needs to be strengthened?

MR. BURNS: Well, you always want to strengthen an alliance.

You can never achieve perfection. You have always got to try to make an alliance like NATO as strong as it can be. NATO had to respond in some fashion to the seismic geopolitical changes of 1989 to 1991. It was President Clinton's idea at Brussels at the NATO summit in January 1994, that doing two things would accomplish that -- expanding NATO and engineering a new NATO-Russia relationship.

We have accomplished through the Founding Act the latter, a new relationship with Russia, which is important. We are now going to accomplish at Madrid the former, which is the enlargement of NATO. In Secretary Albright's words, one of the fundamental reasons for expanding NATO is this -- if you look at the history of Central Europe in this century, two world wars have been produced because of a vacuum of power in Central Europe, uncertainty in Central Europe. We want to anchor some of the key countries in that region to the most successful alliance in Europe -- an alliance which is peaceful, defensive, not aggressive and which everywhere it has gone in 48 years of existence has expanded stability -- political and economic stability -- for its members. This alliance will make the Czech Republic and Poland and Hungary safer and more stable and, therefore, more productive members of the future of Europe in the 21st century. When we get to the second round, that will be true of the new countries that come into the alliance.

Steve, we can go on for hours, and I won't, but that is one of the reasons why we think it is so important to strengthen NATO.

QUESTION: Nick, (inaudible) with the Romanian and Slovenian ambassadors. Was Deputy Secretary Talbott assured that they would continue to work on these reforms, or was there any bitterness when the formal word was delivered?

MR. BURNS: Yes, thank you for asking that. Secretary Albright is making a series of calls to NATO allies to explain the rationale for the U.S. decision. She had gone into some of this in Sintra, but we hadn't made a final decision. She's attempting to reach Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, the new French foreign minister now. She will be talking to a number of other ministers.

Strobe Talbott, our deputy secretary, met this morning with the NATO ambassadors here in Washington, posted here in Washington, and with the Romanian and Slovenian ambassadors to Washington.

I actually did not sit in on those meetings so I can't tell you what the dynamics were. I have seen Minister Severin in Bucharest has given a press conference. We have the greatest hope of continuing a good, productive relationship with Romania and Slovenia and other members of the Partnership for Peace who also wanted to become members of NATO this year and next -- lots of other countries.

Strobe met with the three ambassadors of the Baltic countries because we keep in very close contact with them, and we have the greatest hope to strengthen the security of the Baltic countries in the future. So we will continue to reach out to all these countries -- the Baltic countries, the Central European democracies, the Balkan democracies - and try to do our best to cement good relations. But it is not possible to bring every country into NATO. This has to be done gradually. That is why we have a multi-step process here, the open door policy. But we think we are sending the right signals and making the right decision here.

QUESTION: How many potential NATO members are there out there, do you think, approximately?

MR. BURNS: Well, we have taken the position for a couple of years now that, theoretically speaking, any member of the Partnership for Peace is a candidate possibly for NATO membership in the future.

QUESTION: How many?

MR. BURNS: I think it's around 27 countries which have offices and ambassadors at NATO at the Partnership for Peace at the --

QUESTION: Well, who are you defending the people in against?

If everybody is in the club, who is the wolf at the door that you have to defend against?

MR. BURNS: Barry, you know --

QUESTION: I can only think of one country, possibly.

MR. BURNS: You know enough about history to know that we can not predict here on June 12th, 1997, what the future security threat to the United States, to Western Europe, to Central Europe will be five years from now or 25 years from now. All we know is that since the creation of NATO in April 1949, we have been spared a major conventional war between the European powers, which is significant because that was not the case for the rest of the century, which produced two hot wars and a cold war.

QUESTION: You can make --

MR. BURNS: So we think one of the most important issues in American foreign policy is, how do we defend the American position in Europe and how do we defend our allies in Europe? You do it through a collective military establishment. So we want to strengthen that establishment, not weaken it.

QUESTION: Now, you know there are talks of informal or maybe semi-formal links to the Mediterranean area. As you understand NATO's scope now, are actions - let's call things for what they are -- military action -- are NATO military actions restricted to Europe, as you understand it? Or could there be a threat in some other part of the world where the United States and other NATO countries would presumably have a rationale or a justification for an invasion or an intervention?

MR. BURNS: As you know, throughout its history, we've been fortunate that NATO has not had to act out of area. In fact, the first time we acted out of area was in Bosnia two years ago.

We have not had to. But the principle of the alliance is that an attack on one is an attack against all, no matter where that attack comes from. That could be anywhere. That is the value of Article V of the NATO treaty. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can you confirm the story in The Washington Post today given by American officials which makes four points.

Number one, that the United States detected the movement of the missiles towards the border. Secondly, the U.S. protectionism was aroused. Thirdly, Mr. Gujral said that this was done by the military officers without his knowledge. And fourthly, he canceled the movement and now everything is fine.

Would you confirm these details given to The Washington Post by, not by intelligence but by American officials?

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't wish to confirm all those things.

I read Jeff Smith's insert in the article. We don't confirm everything that you read in the newspapers. I don't want --

QUESTION: It's not intelligence.

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know it's not intelligence. I just can't get into diplomatic communications. I obviously can't get into intelligence, but here is what I can say. It is very clear to us in our recent contacts with both India and Pakistan that both countries are fully aware of our position on the development and deployment of ballistic missiles in South Asia. The United States has long held the view that the deployment or acquisition of ballistic missiles by India or Pakistan would be destabilizing and undermine the security of both countries.

Now, I know that Prime Minister Gujral has said that the missiles have not been deployed. We do not dispute that assertion. We just think that these long-standing differences of view and suspicions between India and Pakistan have strongly influenced the decision-making of both countries on what they see as their vital national security interests.

Our belief is that it makes best sense for India and Pakistan for the prime ministers and foreign ministers to continue with their efforts to reduce tensions between them and to meet together and to try to find a basis for peace between India and Pakistan in the future. That is our very strong advice and we are friends with both countries. We certainly encourage both Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Gujral to continue their efforts towards peace.

QUESTION: In the Indian media there is the strong train of thought that these leaks are inspired because they seem to come at a very crucial time. The India and Pakistani foreign secretaries are to meet. There are several people who believe that despite Gujral's assertion, despite the State Department's refusal to confirm, that these leaks are continuing. Could you sort of comment on that because it's really re-shaping the atmosphere?

MR. BURNS: I don't like leaks and governments don't constitutionally advocate leaks, and I can't account for leaks. I can account for what we say from this podium and I can certainly tell you what the Secretary of State thinks. She very much wants to support the recent decisions and moves by India and Pakistan to talk with each other and to try to reduce tensions. That is what Secretary Albright believes. I would respectfully submit you ought to pay more attention to her views than some people who talk on background.

QUESTION: You were saying two days ago that the South Koreans had purchased $307 million worth of Stinger missiles.

MR. BURNS: Right.

QUESTION: The South Korean foreign minister issued a statement yesterday saying that the deal is not done, that they are considering Stingers as well as French and German alternatives.

Which is it?

MR. BURNS: Well, the Pentagon announced - I think the Pentagon put out a piece of paper on this two days ago, Tuesday, that the Pentagon intended to sell the 307 Stinger missiles to South Korea.

If, in fact, the South Koreans say that, well, as a final step we need to assess whether the Stinger or some foreign products should be purchased, we would just have one bit of advice for the South Koreans. American products are obviously superior.

Because of our defense relationship with South Korea, we would hope that the purchase of Stingers would go through - and our presence of our 37,000 troops and our commitment to South Korea, which has been long standing over five decades.

We are a good friend to South Korea, and the South Koreans know that. We are the best friend that South Korea has. We are always there to help defend South Korea. So we attach particular importance to the sale of the Stingers, a lot of importance. American technology, I think, has proven itself in the Gulf War and other places as being superior to all other technologies.

QUESTION: Has the Emir of Kuwait - the Emir of Qatar been persuasive with the Secretary about his notion that maybe you ought to try some new approach to Iran? Something like the creative dialogue?

MR. BURNS: With due respect to the Emir, I think we are very comfortable with our policy toward Iran. President Clinton said it was obviously an important election. We obviously will look forward to Mr. Khatami when he takes office, President Khatami, to see what his policies are.

But fundamentally, given the very serious issues involved here - support for terrorism and the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and that capability, the outright animosity towards the Middle East peace process and the State of Israel -- we think those are important issues. Until we see some basic changes in the actions of the Iranian Government, I am not sure that there is going to be a basis to move the relationship forward very much.

But as the President has said, and Secretary Albright has said, these were interesting elections. We looked at the results quite closely. We hope there will be change. We can't base our policy on hopes and aspirations. We have to base it on concrete actions, and that is what we would like to see.

QUESTION: The President gave us three criteria three weeks ago.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: And since then there has been no noticeable change?

MR. BURNS: We have not noticed any change in the behavior in the government of Iran. But Mr. Khatami has not been become president. I believe he takes office in August. We will wait, Barry, with a great deal of interest to see what his policies are.

But we must base our own policy - given the stakes involved here - on actions. We are confident that we have the correct assessment of Iran's behavior and the correct policy to counteract its negative actions in those three areas.

QUESTION: Nick, on a NATO-related issue, dealing with Turkey. You mentioned at the top that civilian control of the military --

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: -- was a basic ground rule for NATO membership.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Also a democratic - democratic government.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: It appears today that Turkey is not really meeting either of those standards. Its military seems to be doing pretty much what it wants, and it seems to be exerting extremely heavy-handed control over the government. Do you have anything to say about --

MR. BURNS: Well, Sid, I don't accept the premises of your question. With respect to you, due respect, Turkey is a secular democracy. Turkey has had a secular foundation to its country since the early 1920s. Mr. Erbakan came to power - his party came to power and its coalition via national elections, which were considered by all accounts to be free and fair elections.

There are a variety of political parties that compete for power.

We see that all the time in Turkish politics. There is a very vigorous press in Turkey. Several people here can account for that. Turkey is a democracy. It is a secular democracy. It is in NATO as such. It is a very valued member of NATO, and we have no reason to question Turkey's political credentials to NATO.

Turkey has proven to be one of the most important and one of the most loyal members of NATO and one of the best friends of the United States. We proceed with our relationship on that basis.

QUESTION: By your information, who is controlling the Turkish military now? Erbakan?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I don't think it is appropriate for you to ask me to be a political science professor and to analyze who is up and who is down in the Turkish Government. We don't comment on the internal workings and affairs of NATO allies. We respect the fact that Turks should answer those questions, not Americans.

QUESTION: I'm not asking you to be a political science professor, and I don't appreciate you minimalizing the question to such a basic denominator. You said at the top of this briefing that a basic precept of NATO membership was civilian control of the military. Now, I am calling your own card. Do you think there is civilian control of the military in Turkey?

MR. BURNS: Sid, look at the organizational chart of the Turkish Government. Look at the way their system functions. Look that the roles of prime ministers there for many, many decades.

I think you will get the answer to your question. Turkey is a secular democracy. The President of Turkey is a civilian. The Prime Minister of Turkey is a civilian. The Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister is a civilian. They are not military officers.

Now, Turkey has had in its past several periods with military control. The United States supports secular democracy and civilian control of that government.

QUESTION: So you are unwilling to say who is controlling the military in Turkey right now, in your opinion?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I just answered the question. The President, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are civilians.

They are not military officers. That is the hierarchy of the country. Okay, I'll play the political science professor. That is the hierarchy of the country. The military is subservient to the civilians.

I know that you are reading the same thing that I am reading, that there is lots of action and lots of talk about the relationship between various entities of the Turkish Government. But it's not appropriate for me to comment on that. But we are very satisfied with Turkey as a NATO member. No reason to question Turkey as a NATO member.

QUESTION: Turkey. The Turkish operation in the north of Iraq, now we have papers, headlines this morning hitting us that troops will stay in Iraq to fight troubles. Now, we have been hearing from the State Department that this operation is - as they understand it - is for a limited period. However, the officials, now they are saying, we are staying there. Iraq is a sovereign state and there are lot of worries between the neighbors of Turkey, like Iran and Syria, about what the Turkish are doing in the Northern Iraq.

MR. BURNS: It's probably not the best argument that Iran and Syria are concerned. But let me just say that first of all, you are correct in saying, obviously, Talal, that Iraq is a sovereign country. The United States does not wish to see Iraq dismembered.

We do support the territorial integrity of Iraq and have since the end of the Gulf War. We have not changed our view on that.

We have said that the Turkish Government has told us that this operation will be limited in scope and time. The Turks have, we believe, reason to be concerned about the actions of the PKK and the threat that the PKK poses to Southeastern Turkey. We accept that. Turkey's an ally, and we have no reason to question the need for an incursion across the border. This has become an annual exercise in Turkey's fight against the terrorist organization.

If you look at past incursions, this one is not longer than past incursions. In 1995, the incursion, I think, lasted several months, many months.

I don't know how long this one will last, but we have been assured it will be limited in scope and duration. There is a job to be done. Once that job is finished, I'm sure that the Turkish military will go back across the border into Southeastern Turkey.

QUESTION: With all due respect, I think you should be worried when Syria is talking raprochement with Iraq, and opening of borders and selling delegation of trade to Iraq, because of the Turkish incursion.

MR. BURNS: There can be no excuse of the UN embargoes on Iraq. All of us in the Gulf War Coalition are still together in the belief that Iraq ought to be quarantined and contained, which it is, by the no-flight zones in the South and North, and by the economic embargoes. That should continue, because Iraq is outside the - Iraq is not a normal country. It doesn't operate as a normal country. It is a perfidious government.

QUESTION: Syria opened their borders with Iraq.

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Syria has opened its borders with Iraq.

MR. BURNS: Well, we don't make decisions for the Syrian Government. We don't approve or like everything the Syrian Government does. Yes.

QUESTION: Turkish military intelligence, yesterday they had a big press conference. They put to some detail and some proof which Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran is exporting Islamic fundamentalism to Turkey. And also Iran and Syria is giving other than the safe haven they're providing some materials for the weapons for the PKK terrorists. Do you have any comment on the subject?

MR. BURNS: I can't comment because I haven't seen that particular report, and I just don't have the facts at my disposal to corroborate or take issue with that report. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: A question about the Hong Kong handover and Australia's response to it.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: The U.S. is boycotting the swearing-in ceremony of the China- appointed provisional legislature. Our prime minister said overnight that he won't boycott the ceremony. When it was put to him that the U.S. and the UK would boycott the ceremony, he said he didn't think the birth of a new entity should be tainted by - he said, "the birth of a new entity should be tainted by as little controversy as possible." He suggested that Australia was a small country, suggesting that the U.S. might be able to get away with that but Australia couldn't, without jeopardizing its relationship - particularly its trade relationship - with China. How does the U.S. view Australia's decision to attend that ceremony? And what sort of signals does that send to you about Australia's priorities on human rights?

MR. BURNS: Well, first, I wouldn't agree with the characterization of our own policy as a boycott. I'm not even aware that the Secretary of State has been invited to any such ceremony. But what we have said this week - I have said, and the Secretary, more importantly has said - is that should she be invited to witness the swearing-in of the provisional legislative council, she would not attend; simply because that would be inappropriate and inconsistent with our own position that there is currently a democratically elected council that ought to be respected.

On the issue of Australia, I should say, Australia is an ally of the United States and a very good friend. I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the actions and decisions of the Australian Government. We respect the Australian Government.

Each country will have to make its own decisions as to what to do in Hong Kong. I don't think we want to pass judgment on other countries. We have to account for our own decisions, and we've done that. We've made very clear what our own actions will be.

QUESTION: Doesn't this signal that there are going to be differences between the U.S. and Australia on human rights stands, regarding China? Is this issue going to be taken up?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think there's much more than unifies the United States and Australia than this particular issue. I think that our relationship with Australia is excellent in all respects, and will continue to be excellent in all respects.

The issue of human rights in China is a major issue for the United States. Obviously, we encourage universal support for human rights in China, but each country must make its own decisions. As a general principle, we don't take issue, publicly, with decisions that allied governments make. We have to respect those decisions, respect their own political prophecies. If we had any kind of disagreement, we would reserve that for private discussions, not public discussions.

QUESTION: The Secretary is walking a bit of a tightrope, though, isn't she - going to Hong Kong? In one sense, she's going there to mark the ceremony. In another sense, she's avoiding certain parts of it. Can you give us some sense of what is guiding her thinking in making decisions on what to do and not to do in Hong Kong?

MR. BURNS: Well, she believes she's made absolutely the right decision to attend the reversion ceremony. She was invited by the United Kingdom, our ally, as well as by China, to attend, first and foremost. Second, she believes it's an important opportunity to reaffirm the policy of the United States, which is support for democracy in Hong Kong; for a continuation of the way of life, politically and economically of the many millions of people who live there. She will take the opportunity, in visiting Hong Kong, to assert publicly the very clear view of what the United States believes should happen once control of Hong Kong passes to China at midnight, or 12:01 a.m. on July 1.

So it's a good opportunity for us to reaffirm our policy. She'll obviously have a number of meetings with counterparts there. She feels this is absolutely the right decision. She's looking forward to the trip, as well as looking forward to the opportunity to talk to the Vietnamese and Cambodian leaderships about our very important relationships with those two countries. Yes, Crystal.

QUESTION: Different subject, completely unrelated.

MR. BURNS: Okay.

QUESTION: Senator Helms' office is telling me that the Senator has not changed his position at all about the Weld nomination.

In fact, he is even more adamant against this nominee going to Mexico. There are rumors on the Hill that senators are calling for a hearing for this nominee, so he will have a fair shake.

As you know, hearings seem to be the kiss of death for nominees.

MR. BURNS: I hope not.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Would the Secretary --

MR. BURNS: Most nominees have successful hearings.

QUESTION: Well, some --

MR. BURNS: The great majority of them.

QUESTION: -- it's been troublesome over the last - recently, of late, I should say.

MR. BURNS: We have to be optimistic about these things.

QUESTION: Troublesome, the hearings have been, and they can be. Has the Secretary spoken with the Senator - first part of the question.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And did she charm him in any way or --

MR. BURNS: I'm sure he was charmed. I'm sure she was charmed by him. They're both charming individuals.

QUESTION: So you could say that their relationship - she wouldn't try to sacrifice --

MR. BURNS: It's a charming relationship.

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: Let me be absolutely serious. They talked at the Harvard commencement last Thursday. Governor Weld, of course, was on the dias as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as an alumnus of Harvard. He is a very impressive individual. The Administration, the President, and the Secretary have great faith in him, that he is the right choice for Mexico. We firmly stand by this nomination. I know that Secretary Albright will be discussing this with a number of senators, including Senator Helms.

QUESTION: And just a final tab on this issue, should things go down the road - continue down the road as they are, and Helms holds on to his position, would the Secretary risk sacrificing such a good relationship with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee over this nomination?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't want to agree that somehow there is going to a negative conclusion to this story. We hope there is a happy ending. We hope that Governor Weld will receive a hearing. We are confident that if he is given a hearing, he will be able to convince the committee, as well as the full Senate, that he is the best choice to be ambassador to Mexico -- one of the most important countries to the United States, one of the biggest challenges for any American ambassador. We think he is an impressive man with great credentials, and we stand by his nomination.

QUESTION: So she hasn't thought about any other - or the Administration hasn't put forth any other candidates?

MR. BURNS: Absolutely not. Governor Weld is our candidate to be ambassador to Mexico. We are not thinking of any fall-backs, and we are not thinking in negative terms here. We are thinking positively.

QUESTION: Nick, on the Brcko situation.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Election fraud seems to be quite widespread.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: And I wondered how you felt about that and whether the Bosnian - are you going to tolerate the Bosnian Serbs doing this kind of thing?

MR. BURNS: Well, the OSCE has uncovered irregularities, as you know, in the registration of supervisors. The registration, which began on May 5th ,is ongoing. The OSCE has placed registration supervisors at every registration site now, and they have been working for months to establish the best possible conditions for the elections.

The OSCE is doing its job in finding irregularities and exposing them. We are not going to tolerate any kind of nonsense from the Bosnian Serbs up in Brcko. It's very important the Bosnian Serbs get the message that these elections are not going to be tainted. They are not going to allowed to be affected negatively by the Bosnian Serbs. They have got to go along with democratic principles here, and they will be asked to do that.

If they don't do that, then there is going to be a price to pay.

They're are not going to be able to cooperate well with the member countries of the OSCE to receive economic assistance from the assembled countries in the Bosnia coalition.

QUESTION: But as we have discussed many times before, they are not getting very much anyway. And they don't seem to be influence by this.

MR. BURNS: They have got a very clear historical choice.

If they want to isolate themselves into the backwater of the Balkans, which is what they will become, they should then continue with these obstreperous activities. If they want to move forward, as the Bosnian Government in Sarajevo does, as we believe the Croatian Government does, move forward historically to become part of Europe, then they have got to get with it and understand that the world is going to move forward without them unless they agree on basic democratic principles for these elections.

QUESTION: They appear to care more about maintaining political control of Brcko, which for them is strategic.

MR. BURNS: They are not going to be able to succeed in intimidating the OSCE. We will stand up to them, and they will not be allowed to run false elections. They won't be allowed to do that.

QUESTION: Is this incident, do you think, going to force a delay in a or a postponement in the fall elections?

MR. BURNS: We hope not because those elections have been postponed once, and we think they should be held. So what we would like to do is to work very hard over the next couple of months to ensure reasonable conditions so that people can vote freely and without fear of intimidation when they go to the polling place. Yes, George, and then Laura. Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the American baseball umpire who was basically run out of Japan?

MR. BURNS: This is a very serious issue, George. It's a very serious issue, indeed. Winston Churchill - this is actually related - Winston Churchill, I think, once said that the United States and the UK are two countries divided by a common language.

Perhaps the United States and Japan are two countries divided by a common game, baseball. I don't really mean that seriously.

The good that is happening -- okay, I'm going to back out of this by saying the good thing that is happening is that we now see the free movement of labor internationally in baseball. We have Nomo and we have Irabu and we have other Japanese players, including Robinson Checko. He's not Japanese but he is now in the Red Sox farm system at Sarasota, who came from a Japanese time, right? The Hiroshima Carp.

We think that as long as Japan can remain open to exporting its best baseball players to the United States, everything is going to be okay. There is only one problem. None of these great pitchers are ending up in the Red Sox bull pen. If you check the box scores, that is supremely evident.

(Laughter.)

So we hope that any misunderstandings between the American and Japanese people over baseball -- over this incident of the umpire -- can be resolved, and we can all agree that we will send over our aged, hobbled sluggers at age 38 to play in the Japanese leagues and we will take all of their best young pitchers in the American League. Is that fair? I'm going to get into a lot of trouble for this.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Nick --

MR. BURNS: These are my personal views.

QUESTION: Well, you just said that it's a personal view, but--

MR. BURNS: Yes, absolutely. The State Department does not, as far as I know, have an official view about baseball in Japan and the United States. But we have personal views, and it is important to get those across at some point.

QUESTION: This kind of news creates a lot of publicity here in the U.S. It has been put on the first page of The Washington Post. It has been broadcast on network news.

MR. BURNS: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Do you think this kind of news would perhaps create some kind of sentiment among the U.S. people that it's so different in Japan and the cultural differences are so big that it is very difficult to bring about an understanding between the two countries? Because this kind of thing always usually comes up. And it has been talked about that there is such a different gap in culture.

MR. BURNS: John has got his head down.

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: John knows Japan a lot better than I do. John, do you want to comment.

QUESTION: Send them Albert Belle.

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: Listen, you have asked a serious question, here is a serious answer. We think one thing that should unite the United States and Japan culturally is the game of baseball because we share that game. The Japanese play it very well, as they are showing now in international competition, and these wonderful players who come to the United States. I don't think that one incident involving an umpire is going to have much effect on how the American people view Japan.

We have great respect for the Japanese, for Japanese culture.

Certainly, I think baseball ought to unite - we should defy Winston Churchill - baseball ought to unite our two countries, not divide them. I think Laura has got a question.

QUESTION: Hang on. Just a quick update on Brazzaville.

Have you any more Americans --

MR. BURNS: I can say that Ambassador Aubrey Hooks continues his efforts to try to promote an effective cease-fire. He has been on the phone with President Lassouba, as well as Sassou Nguesso, the rebel leader, former president. I think our ambassador has played a major role in trying to bring these two factions together.

A unilateral cease-fire was declared yesterday. Unfortunately, that cease- fire has not practiced. We hope that the two sides can put into place an effective cease-fire. We are down to 12 American diplomats in the embassy in Brazzaville, along with the military assessment team which is at our embassy. Ten American citizens are at the airport in Brazzaville, under the protection of the French military; and the French military will take them out when that is safe.

We think we are approaching the point where those Americans who have wanted to leave Brazzaville -- not the countryside but Brazzaville -- have been able to get out. We have great gratitude to France for helping bring American citizens out of harm's way.

QUESTION: On the two questions from yesterday that you say you are going to look into. Do you have anything on Ranneberger's trip to --

MR. BURNS: Which one? There were two questions.

QUESTION: Ranneberger trip to Havana was one; the flotilla was another one; and this woman who has been detained in Havana was the third one.

MR. BURNS: Mike Ranneberger was in Cuba as part of - he is the head of the Office of Cuban Affairs -- as a low-key working level trip to kind of touch base with the interest section. He was able to inaugurate a refurbishment of the interest section in the building.

Secondly, we are aware that in mid-July, I believe the 13th of July, some groups are planning another flotilla in international waters and we will, of course, be in touch with those groups about the normal cautions. But we certainly would caution, first and foremost, the Cuban Government not to overreact and not to harm American citizens. And then you had a remaining question?

QUESTION: This woman who has been detained in Havana because they said that she --

MR. BURNS: I don't believe we have anything on that, but let's try to - we'll continue our efforts to try to get you some information on that woman.

QUESTION: Korea missile talks. What is your position of North Korea's chemical weapon development? It is one of the issues you are talking right now?

MR. BURNS: These are proliferation talks, so they encompass both ballistic missile and any kind of concerns that we would have with other proliferation activities, fissile material, anything that came into play. Although we believe that - we know the agreed framework is currently in place and that North Korea's nuclear activities have been frozen.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. taken a position on the World Expo?

MR. BURNS: Yes, the United States has taken a position on the World Expo, but we never reveal what it is. Now, this is an education for me. I checked. We never reveal how we voted, but I can tell you that the vote went in favor of Japan and Japan is to be congratulated. Japan will host the exposition -- another opportunity for us to learn about Japanese culture.

Thank you very much.

(The briefing concluded at 2:09 P.M.)

(###)

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