U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #93, 97-06-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1584
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, June 18, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
1 Welcome visitors: Stephen Shore, Intern; FYROM reporters
1-2 Secretary's Schedule: Meetings with House Democratic Caucus
re China MFN; EU Ambassadors lunch; President's Bilateral
with Jordan Crown Prince Hassan; Meeting with former
Senator Bob Dole re his Balkan travels
2 Republic of Congo: US Embassy Brazzaville operations
suspended, official Americans & US Military team depart;
AmCits remain; Cease-fire, peace talks
EU/TURKEY
2-3 US view re Turkey membership in EU, other European
institutions
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
3-4 US Aid to Jordan, Congressional funds for US Embassy Tel
Aviv move to Jerusalem
4-5 Egypt suspends effort to re-start Israel-Palestinian
Authority talks; US role in process
TERRORISM
5-8 Mir Aimal Kansi in US custody; Operational details not
available; Rewards program
14-15 FBI credits Department of State for role in Kansi capture;
Message to terrorists
12-14,21-22 Saudi Arabia (al Khobar) bombing: Potential Iranian link;
Suspect al-Sayegh deportation from Canada to US
18 Possible Syria-Iran joint support for PKK, concern about
int'l terrorist networks
CAMBODIA
9,11 Pol Pot whereabouts, reported surrender, eventual
accountability for actions
9-10 Fighting in Phnom Penh; Security concerns and Secretary's
travel plans
9-10 US maintains political support for democracy; Talks with
China; US contacts
INDONESIA
11-12 Effect of Administration financial concerns on US foreign
policy
12 US bilateral relations with GOI; Human rights policies: East
Timor, arms transfers, meetings with opposition members
CHINA
15-16 Hong Kong: Preservation of democratic freedoms following
hand-over to PRC
15-16 Secretary's meetings in Hong Kong
NORTH KOREA
16 Increased rhetoric from DPRK; No US response
EUROPE
17-18 Economic balance; Economic development of Central, Eastern
European nations
BOSNIA/FYR of MACEDONIA
18 Gligorov offers FYROM as redeployment point for SFOR forces
CANADA
18 Resumption of Pacific salmon talks
TURKEY/GREECE/CYPRUS
19-21 Naval activity near Cyprus, port visits; US concerns about
provocative actions Potential Cyprus Coordinator
20-21 Alleged threats re Imia/Kardak, Aegean dispute; Tom Miller
onward assignment
ALBANIA
22 Importance of June 29 elections; US concerns expressed to
President Berisha
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #93
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1997 -- 1:47 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm very sorry to keep
you waiting today. I want to introduce Stephen Shore, an intern in our
East Asia Bureau. He's a student at Princeton University, majoring in
economics, with an Asian-Pacific emphasis.
Stephen, Stephen, right there. Princeton just won the lacrosse
championship. You must be very happy about that.
I also want to introduce reporters from the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, who are traveling with President Gligorov and who are here;
welcome. Thank you very much for coming. You are free to ask questions,
by the way. You can observe if you wish. If you want to ask questions,
you can do that, too.
Secretary Albright is having a very busy day. She started off today with a
meeting with the House Democratic Caucus on the MFN issue for China - or,
as we prefer to call it in the Administration, normal trade relations for
China - as part of our effort to convince the Congress that we ought to go
forward to extend that provision for China.
The Secretary also attended a lunch with EU ambassadors today, as part of
our effort to keep in touch with the Europeans and promote a good, stable
policy with the Europeans - particularly in light of the very important
summit that was held in Amsterdam yesterday. With her were Under
Secretaries Pickering and Eizenstat.
These are regular lunches that we have. It's the first time that I can
remember in a long time the Secretary of State has attended one.
The Secretary is also attending now the President's bilateral meeting with
Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan. At 2:30 p.m. today, the Secretary will be
seeing former Senator Bob Dole. Senator Dole will be traveling to the
Balkans - to Bosnia and Romania and Slovenia - on a private trip. He will
not be undertaking this trip on behalf of the Administration. But we're
very pleased that he's taking the trip, because he's a man who commands a
lot of respect all over Europe, and particularly in that part of the world.
The Secretary wanted to take advantage of his trip to brief him on our own
perspective on events in the Balkans, particularly on the Dayton Accords
and compliance with the Dayton Accords; but also, in the case of Romania
and Slovenia, on the great value we place on our relations with those two
countries and their participation in the Partnership for Peace. Senator
Dole and she will be talking about all those issues. I think it is another
example of the bipartisan spirit of this Administration and the fact that
Secretary Albright believes that bipartisanship ought to be at the root of
our foreign policy.
So among many, many things that she's doing today, those are some of the
activities she's been engaged in. One note, just to update you on the
situation in Brazzaville. We did, in fact, suspend our embassy operations
in Brazzaville today. All 12 official Americans, including Ambassador
Aubrey Hooks, departed for Kinshasa today. Ambassador Hooks will proceed
from Kinshasa to Washington for consultations.
The 12-member military team that had been with our embassy over the last
couple of weeks also departed for Libreville at about the same time this
morning. As I told you yesterday, we are establishing a temporary
observation post in Kinshasa with our Deputy Chief of Mission, Vince Valle,
and our consular officer, Ava Rogers, to keep watch on Brazzaville and to
help American citizens, should they have trouble in the coming days.
We have strongly advised all Americans to leave Congo, Brazzaville - all
Americans who are thinking of traveling in Central Africa not to travel
there. However, some American citizens did remain behind. We wish them
well, and obviously will want to help them in whatever way we can, but
we're not there any longer. That's why we'll monitor their situation from
Kinshasa.
The 72-hour cease-fire that was agreed upon yesterday appears, in most
respects, to be holding today. We hope very much that that could be the
case, so that the efforts to mediate the crisis, led by President Omar El
Hadj Bongo of Gabon might be successful; and we fully support President El
Hadj Bongo's initiatives. Barry.
QUESTION: Nick, besides reporting that Lee Katz has managed to get to
work by wheelchair and crutches --
MR. BURNS: Is Lee here today?
QUESTION: No, he can't get this far, but he is putting up a good fight.
MR. BURNS: Well, I am very glad Lee is recovering from his tragic
accident on July 9th.
QUESTION: He seems to be in better spirits.
MR. BURNS: Yes. Memorial Day.
QUESTION: Let me pick you up on a couple of points. In the luncheon was
there any discussion of Turkey's aspirations to become a full partner in
Europe?
MR. BURNS: I haven't a report on the lunch because the Secretary has not
yet returned from the lunch. Then she comes back for the meeting with
Senator Dole. So I just can't report on the lunch with the EU.
QUESTION: In particular, there is a question whether - in fact, a little
broader than that. Is there sentiment being expressed here, especially
with the situation in Turkey, whether the time is right to draw Turkey into
the European Union and to other institutions it wants to be a part of?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can tell you the very firm view of the United States.
We supported the creation of the customs union between Turkey and the
European Union last year. We believe that the European Union should remain
open to the possibility of Turkish membership. We have always believed -
Republican and Democratic administrations here in Washington - that Turkey
is a European country and should be fully embedded in the major European
institutions.
That doesn't mean just NATO. It means the European Union as well.
QUESTION: Are you selling that? And is it a harder sell now because of
what is going on?
MR. BURNS: Well, this is a decision that is clearly up to the Europeans
to make -- the members of the European Union -- not for the United States.
But we have our view, and that is our view. We address ourselves to the
Europeans consistently on this issue, privately. But we have never held
back publicly from saying that we think that Turkey's future must be in
Europe.
That is very important for the future orientation of Turkey, which is one
of the key states in all of Europe for the United States.
QUESTION: Let me ask you about, on the Jordan situation.
Once the announcement was made, there have been reports - at least there
was one in The Washington Times that there's some grumbling in the
Jordanian media about the $100 million not being sufficient reward for
Jordan; and also that Jordan is grumbling about congressional moves to
finance a shift of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, from Tel Aviv in Israel.
Are the Jordanians not doing cartwheels over $100 million in U.S. aid?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if they are doing cartwheels, but I know
that Crown Prince Hassan in his meeting with Secretary Albright yesterday
in the lunch was extremely pleased and, I think, grateful for the unusual
way that the United States put together this aid package -- to take $50
million from Israel and $50 million from Egypt, when those accounts had
been unassailable for many, many years. I think he is very grateful.
Frankly, when I saw the headline and then read the article, I don't know if
the headline writers were thinking the way the person who wrote the article
was thinking. Sometimes that happens in journalism. It sometimes happens
at The Washington Times. This is an example of it. I don't think the
headline was warranted, if you read the article. That is my personal view
- -
QUESTION: Well, I mean, were there expressions -- you may not want to
personalize it to the Crown Prince -- but were there expression during the
visit, negative on the move in Congress?
Which, of course, you are not thrilled about either.
MR. BURNS: You mean the move. Oh, that's a separate issue.
I was referring --
QUESTION: They don't think it's separate. No, I know you're referring to
the article, and you --
MR. BURNS: Let me be specific for people who read the transcript here and
governments who will read the transcript.
My remarks were referring to the supposed, alleged grumbling by the
Jordanian delegation over the amount and nature of the $100 million aid
package.
All we heard yesterday, quite sincerely, from the Jordanians was, I think,
gratitude and they thanked us for the fact that the President and Secretary
had worked so hard on this. The other issue, which is not related to the
aid, is the vote in the House on Jerusalem.
We've been very clear for a number of days that Jerusalem is the most
emotional, the most complex issue that the Israelis and Palestinians will
negotiate in the permanent status talks.
They have agreed to negotiate it there. We do not believe it's wise or
appropriate or good policy to prejudge that issue and to take initiatives
which, in effect, move that issue in a certain direction before the parties
of the conflict have even had a chance to discuss it themselves.
QUESTION: What are the Jordanians saying about it, if anything, during
the current visit?
MR. BURNS: I think the Jordanian remarks to us were quite consistent with
King Hussein's public remarks. They're very much opposed to the action by
the House.
QUESTION: Is the Jerusalem language --
MR. BURNS: Well, I think I presented our view on Jerusalem on that
particular bill as clearly as I can. I think it's abundantly clear to you
what we mean by this. We hope very much that this particular provision
will not end up in a final piece of legislation that the President will
have to sign or not sign. So I don't want to threaten a veto at this point
for one reason - we hope that this amendment will be taken off the bill
before it reaches the final stage of consideration in conference. If it
does come to that, obviously the President and the Secretary of State will
have to look at that very, very carefully.
But I can tell you - having discussed this with Secretary Albright and with
Dennis Ross, our special negotiator - we have one view of this. This is
not good foreign policy. This prejudges an issue that the Israelis and
Palestinians know is the most difficult issue for them, that they've agreed
they want to discuss and they want to handle together in the permanent
status talks. So why in the world would we, as a country, want to
interfere with their agreement? That's the best way I can describe our
opposition to this amendment. I think Betsy had a question.
QUESTION: On a different subject.
MR. BURNS: Any still on the Middle East, Talal? Then we'll go back,
Betsy.
QUESTION: The Egyptians have announced today that Osama el Baz has no
longer conducting the shuttle diplomacy. He's finished, over. They're
saying there's still a big gap between the two parties - the Palestinians
and Israelis. Now, where do we go from here? Are the Egyptians still
involved?
MR. BURNS: Well, first, we're very grateful to President Mubarak, Foreign
Minister Moussa and Osama el Baz for their very active leadership role
during the past couple of weeks. We've been working with them, and we
think they've done a marvelous job. Egypt has stood up for peace, which of
course has been Egypt's historic role for several decades now.
Second, I see that Foreign Minister Moussa lauded the role of the United
States, the central role the United States must play.
I know that Secretary Albright and Dennis Ross are focused on the issue of
how we can move the peace negotiations forward. Now, you've heard us say
that a million times. I'll keep saying it, because that's the root of our
policy. But I would listen very closely to what Secretary Albright says
whenever you ask her a question like this.
It is absolutely up to the parties - to the Palestinians and Israel - to
lay the basis for movement forward. All the good will and brilliant
negotiating by the United States and Egypt in the world is not sufficient.
We also need the efforts of the Palestinians and the Israelis. We've been
very disturbed by the violence in Hebron. We think it's incumbent upon the
Palestinians and Israelis to move away from violence and to move back to
the peace table.
Young kids were wounded in Hebron; and that is something that concerns
everybody. They have got to move away from that.
So we are willing, we are creative, we are good negotiators, we have a good
track record, and we're certainly not going to give up at this stage.
We'll keep moving forward. We need them to lead the way, and then we'll be
the objective mediator, the trusted friend that both of them need to make
the progress that they ought to make.
QUESTION: Nick, another Middle East - Mr. Kansi, once the State
Department poster boy, is now taken in.
MR. BURNS: He was. He was on posters and he was on matchbooks.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: All over the Middle East and South Asia.
QUESTION: Now that he's safely behind bars, which governments or other
entities does the U.S. wish to thank for their help?
And what sort of help was there?
MR. BURNS: That's an appropriate question, and if I were in your shoes,
I'd ask that same question. The answer is, we're very pleased that he's
going to be arraigned in Fairfax, Virginia, and that he's going to be
brought to justice. And by that I mean, he's going to receive a fair trial
in the United States. We're very pleased that he's been apprehended,
because we didn't forget the people who were killed outside of the CIA
headquarters four years ago.
The secret of our success is that we are disciplined, and that we are not
going to spill our guts in public and say exactly how all this came about;
because perhaps we'll want to do the same thing to some other terrorist in
the future. So we're not going to be saying here from the podium - and I
hope we won't be saying on background. I hope people won't be returning
the phone calls today and tomorrow and the next day inside the government -
phone calls to journalists to say how it happened, because preserving
operational details and preserving some of the relationships that we have
around the world is very important for our future effectiveness.
QUESTION: Have you paid the money, though? Have you paid the ransom
money? Not ransom, but reward money.
MR. BURNS: One of the great things about us is that we always meet our
commitments. We do what we say we're going to do. Now, in this case, what
I can tell you is this. I can tell you very little.
We've had a great success here in apprehending Amir Amal Kansi.
He's going to face justice. We don't talk about how we pay the money out,
and we don't talk about whether we pay it out, and we don't talk about who
gets the money. All I can tell you is, we meet our commitments.
QUESTION: What is meant by --
MR. BURNS: And the reason we don't do that is to protect - in general, on
this program, I'm not referring specifically, now, to Mr. Kansi, but in
general on this question - we don't do it, because we want to preserve the
identity of people who help us. But I don't want to say much more than
that, because I think it's important to preserve the way that we brought
this all about.
QUESTION: But I didn't ask you to whom you paid the money.
I just asked if you had actually paid any of this reward money out. And
with all due respect, the other day, you announced from that very same
podium that the United States has paid out $5 million over the last x
number of years that you had this program. So is it now $7 million?
MR. BURNS: I did announce that we paid out $5 million in, I think, over
20 cases over the last several years, but what we've never done is say,
okay, of that $5 million, x percentage went to this person for that case.
We haven't put that information out, and I won't because it's necessary to
preserve the integrity of the program and that is confidentiality.
QUESTION: Okay, well let me --
MR. BURNS: So, I've answered the second question.
QUESTION: No, you still haven't answered it.
QUESTION: Have you paid --
MR. BURNS: I answered the second question.
QUESTION: She didn't ask you who you paid it to. She asked you if it was
paid out.
MR. BURNS: Carol's asked a couple of questions. I answered the question
I wanted to answer.
QUESTION: Oh, I see.
QUESTION: Let me try one more time. Without --
MR. BURNS: Time honored technique of spokespeople around the world.
QUESTION: Without reference to any specific amount --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: -- has there been a reward paid in this case?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to answer that question.
QUESTION: Did the money play a role in his capture?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to answer your question. And again, I am doing
this, I am taking this tack because we have made a decision - and Secretary
Albright has made this in our own department. It's been agreed upon
inter-agency, with the FBI and with the CIA and the other agencies here in
town, the White House, that we're not going to talk about how we put this
effort together, how we brought it off and whether or not other people
helped us.
I can't do that. It would violate the pledge I've made not to do that.
QUESTION: Nick, where --
MR. BURNS: I think you understand why we can't do that.
QUESTION: Where was he arrested and when?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Where was he arrested and when?
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, I mean, some of that may come out in a court of
law, I don't know. But I am not going to reveal any of these operational
details.
QUESTION: On which border was he handed over to the U.S. authorities?
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to answer those questions.
QUESTION: On Afghan or Pakistan border?
MR. BURNS: I am not going to answer those questions because the man
hasn't even - as far as I know, he may just be being arraigned.
It's very important that we not talk about these cases before the justice
system gets into them. As you know, we have taken the pledge; and the
pledge is we're not going to release operational details of this mission.
QUESTION: Death penalty has been asked by the Fairfax authorities in this
case.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Death penalty has been asked?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware what happened this morning in Fairfax.
QUESTION: Yeah, that's what the Fairfax authorities -- they have asked
the judge for death penalty.
MR. BURNS: Well, I would refer you to, obviously, to the local officials
in Fairfax --
QUESTION: And do you support --
MR. BURNS: -- and the Department of Justice.
QUESTION: Do you support if they have asked the death penalty?
MR. BURNS: That is not question that is pertinent to the State
Department. I don't want to involve myself in judicial affairs. We have a
separation of powers here. It is very important I respect that.
QUESTION: Finally, has the Pakistani Government played any role?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Has the Pakistani Government played any role?
MR. BURNS: I am not in a position to answer that question.
I'm sorry.
QUESTION: I just have one final --
MR. BURNS: Yes, Betsy was next in line, Crystal. Then you can go.
QUESTION: Do you have any information about whether Pol Pot has
surrendered and where he might be? And what you might like to see done
with him if he has, indeed, surrendered and is in custody?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Let me tell you we have seen the same reports from Khmer
Rouge Radio that you have. We are watching the situation very closely. I
cannot confirm, based on U.S. Government sources, whether or not Pol Pot
has given himself up.
What I can tell is what we have said all week. We don't shed any tears for
him. He is a mass murderer. He ought to be brought to justice and tried
for his crimes, which is genocide. We are concerned about the violence in
Phnom Penh. We hope that the violence can be stopped, arrested. It is
very important that Cambodia be allowed to continue its efforts to build a
democratic country after a quarter-century of genocide and of war and of
domestic turmoil.
Ambassador Ken Quinn is doing his best to represent that view to the
Cambodian leadership. But there has been a good deal of fighting in the
streets of Phnom Penh. We urge all sides to take immediate steps to
prevent further violence. We call on Cambodia's leaders to resolve their
political differences peacefully and to abide by the principles of the
Paris Peace Accords, to which they have subscribed.
In the longer term, we think the best way for the United States to protect
our interest is to remain engaged. We will do that.
We want to help the Cambodian people, certainly. Let me also say -- since
this issue of the Khmer Rouge is so prevalent in this crisis -- the United
States would be gravely concerned if senior Khmer Rouge leaders were
permitted to play a role in Cambodian national politics or permitted to
retain administrative control over areas occupied by Khmer Rouge defectors.
That is an important statement about our view of how this situation should
proceed.
QUESTION: When you say that the United States intends to remain engaged
-- the United States took a leadership role in getting Cambodia to the
peace agreement that was reached for that country. Now the whole thing
certainly seems to be unraveling.
When you talk about engagement, exactly what are you talking about? Are
there new ideas for international action?
MR. BURNS: I am talking about the continued political support that we
have given as a country individually and in association with other
Southeast Asian nations collectively to the effort to build a democracy and
to lay down at some certain times markers that we think are important, as
are some of the markers we have laid down this morning -- the need for an
end to violence, the need to abide by the Paris Peace Accords, the need -
we believe - to keep the Khmer Rouge leaders out of government and out of
administrative control of some of the regions of Cambodia.
QUESTION: Have you bee in touch with the Chinese at all?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if, in fact, today we have. It would surprise me
if we had not in one form or another. We talked to a lot of countries --
the Chinese and others -- concerning Cambodia.
QUESTION: Nick, who are you dealing with in that government?
It seems to be fairly chaotic there.
MR. BURNS: We deal with the first and second prime ministers Ranariddh
and Hun Sen. We deal with other ministers of the government.
These are some of the people that Secretary Christopher met in August 1995,
in Phnom Penh. We look forward to continuing to work with them. They are
the duly constituted leaders of Cambodia.
QUESTION: Is it a safe place for a Secretary of State to visit?
MR. BURNS: That is a very important question. I think we will need to
take some time to monitor the security situation, to talk to a variety of
people about the security situation. At some point, the Secretary will have
to consider all these factors about a final decision.
QUESTION: So you are much more tentative than in --
QUESTION: There has been some softening since yesterday when you said
there were no plans to change the itinerary. And now you are backing off
that somewhat.
MR. BURNS: Yesterday I said the Secretary had not changed her schedule,
and she has not changed her schedule. She has not changed it. All I am
saying is Barry has asked a direct question -- are we concerned about the
security situation? We, of course, are concerned about the security
situation. There was fighting in the streets of Phnom Penh yesterday. A
round hit our American Embassy. An American reporter from Agence France
Presse was shot in the arm and taken to the hospital and luckily he is
going to survive. So we are concerned about the security situation -- let
me put that on the table today -- because we have a lot more information
today than we had yesterday, point one.
Point two, the Secretary and her advisers - our embassy, but also her
advisers here - obviously in a situation like this have to look at the
situation and they have to decide whether it makes sense to proceed. She
has not made a decision to cancel the trip, but she is obviously going to
have to look at this in the days ahead.
When we are confident that all the factors have been weighed, and we have a
sense of whether or not the violence is continuing, I'm sure she will make
a decision. We will let you know as soon as we know about that decision.
But no changes to the schedule yet, but I wanted to give you a little bit
more of a feel for the subject because we have more information today,
George.
QUESTION: Nick, the people in the Cambodian Government that you have been
talking to, not only about the security situation and other things dealing
with that and the Secretary's trip -- have they said anything to you about
the arrest of Pol Pot when you asked them anything about this? What is
their response?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think what you have seen over the last couple of days,
you have seen Cambodian military officials say that Pol Pot was fleeing
Cambodia, fleeing his protectorate for Thailand. I don't know what
Cambodian Government officials are saying today.
I have seen some press reports about the end of the Khmer Rouge era. I
think, given the perfidious, evil nature of Pol Pot, we don't really want
to base our policy on press reports. We hope that the end has come for Pol
Pot, in one way or another, but we will have to see evidence of that before
we can confirm the reports that you are seeing out of Phnom Penh.
QUESTION: If and when the end does come, does the United States have a
view on whether Pol Pot should be tried in a Cambodian court of law? Or
perhaps in some international tribunal?
MR. BURNS: I would think that that would be a decision for the people of
Cambodia who were his victims, including many members of the leadership who
were his victims.
But we certainly want to see justice done. He is a mass murderer,
responsible for the deaths of well over a million people in Cambodia in the
killing fields. He needs to be brought to justice in one way or another.
But I would think we would need to defer to the people and the government
of Cambodia to have the priority say on that. It seems to us that the
government would be determined to bring him to justice were that physically
possible.
Now, whether that is the case today, that's the $64 million question.
We'll have to wait to see if further evidence can present itself about what
has happened to him.
QUESTION: Nick, also on Southeast Asia.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: There was a story in the Wall Street Journal today which
suggests that the Clinton Administration has been unable to come to grips
with growing problems with Indonesia because any gesture toward the
Indonesians would be seen as payoff for Indonesian supporters of President
Clinton. This is attributed to a U.S. diplomat in Indonesia - one diplomat
was quoted as saying, "this is the first tangible example of Clinton's Asia
money scandal hurting our foreign relations." That's a direct quote from a
U.S. diplomat in Jakarta.
MR. BURNS: Yes, a diplomat who had the courage not to put his name - the
lack of courage to put his name to that quote.
Let me say two things, George, if I could. One is personal - and I mean
that as a foreign service officer. When I see American diplomats go on
background and criticize directly the President and the Secretary of State
and the Administration in general, I blanche and I am embarrassed, because
it is unethical. We take an oath of office to be loyal to governments.
That oath of office does not include going on background and sniping from
the sidelines in a cowardly way. I think this is indefensible and
objectionable - what these officers have done. I think they should be
reprimanded, if we can ever find out who did the talking.
Now, on the policy, we have a very important strategic relationship with
Indonesia. It's the fourth most populous country in the world. It is one
of the most important countries in all of Asia.
It is one of the most active countries politically in Asian affairs.
We've worked very well with Indonesia on a variety of issues - arms
control, peacekeeping, on APEC issues, on the Cambodian peace accords.
Indonesia was instrumental in helping the 1993 accords come about. We do
engage the Indonesian leadership on all of these issues.
There is a claim in that article that somehow we've been paralyzed in our
policy. That's nonsense. It surprises me that people who would be serving
in Jakarta would be so blind to the fact that our policy has moved forward
in this Administration. Let me just take that charge on straightforwardly.
The charge that we've been soft on human rights - well, since 1993, since
President Clinton came into office, we have reversed the policy of the Bush
Administration and we have cosponsored a UN Human Rights Commission
resolution on the situation in East Timor.
Since President Clinton came into office, we've adopted a policy to
restrict the transfer to Indonesia of small arms and equipment that could
be used to perpetuate the human rights abuses that we have been very vocal
about in our human rights report, in our direct conversations - Secretary
Christopher's conversations, for instance, in Jakarta last Summer, with the
Indonesian leadership.
Just yesterday, the President met with Bishop Belo, the Nobel Prize
laureate from East Timor; and Under Secretary Tom Pickering did, as well.
I don't know what to make of this article, except to say that I am
chagrined and embarrassed that fellow foreign service officers could be so
wrong and so objectionable in the way they voice their opinions.
QUESTION: The situation - oh, go ahead, I'm sorry.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Suppose there turns out there's evidence that Iran was behind
the bombing of Saudi Arabia, what then?
MR. BURNS: You're going under a different question.
QUESTION: Oh, yeah, going on to --
MR. BURNS: I'm thinking Indonesia, Barry. Okay, you're talking - could
you reformulate your question, Mr. Schweid, and I'll be glad to respond to
it.
QUESTION: Well, frankly, the White House wasn't very forthcoming today,
so we thought we'd try State. There used to be a time when the U.S. --
MR. BURNS: That's always the best way to ensure a forthcoming answer from
the State Department.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah, well, but he was on the record.
MR. BURNS: The White House won't tell us anything, but can you?
QUESTION: He was on the record, though. He was courageously on the
record.
MR. BURNS: Who was this? Mike?
QUESTION: Yeah, he spoke --
MR. BURNS: Well, Mike is always on the record.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, he's the spokesman.
MR. BURNS: Mike's an excellent spokesman.
QUESTION: He is, indeed.
MR. BURNS: Thank you. Glad we agree.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: The question is, we're not hearing the verve or the
determination that we used to hear if Iran is found out to be a direct
sponsor or directly implicated in terrorism. I'm referring, of course, to
the bombing of the - the Dhahran bombing, in which 19 Americans were
killed. I guess you could say it's hypothetical, but the Administration in
the past has jumped on such hypothetical situations and made strong
statements. What if Iran, indeed, is linked with evidence to the bombing;
what then?
MR. BURNS: Well, Barry, we don't engage in hypotheticals, as you know,
hypothetical thinking. We can't do that in relating to other states around
the world. We have to deal with facts.
Right now, we cannot prove conclusively who bombed the Khobar barracks and
killed 19 Americans and wounded 250 others. But we're going to find out.
One of the reasons that we sought the arrival here of Mr. Al-Sayegh is that
we might question him about this crime. Now, we have to come to the bottom
of the case. When we do locate the people who planned the operation, set
the bomb and detonated it, we are going to bring them to justice.
We'll work very cooperatively with Saudi Arabia in that process.
But this is not the time for us to engage in hypothetical thinking on a
serious issue like this.
QUESTION: Has it been said -- I haven't been working the last couple of
days - why he was brought here?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Has the U.S. Government explained --
MR. BURNS: No, we're not going to do that --
QUESTION: -- whether it was for his own protection?
MR. BURNS: No, we won't be doing that. You're going to get very little
out of me or nothing on this, because --
QUESTION: I'll get you to read a description of the Saudi justice system
and whether it's in the best interest of the case.
MR. BURNS: Well, before we get to that question, let me just say that
obviously the governments wishes and case are going to be brought in a
court of law here. He is also going to be arraigned and I don't want to
get mixed up in judicial matters.
That's not my purview.
QUESTION: Does the United States still leave open the possibility that he
could still be sent to Saudi Arabia?
MR. BURNS: I have no comment to make on that. We'll have to see what
happens.
QUESTION: Nick, I just want to go page back to the Kansi.
I had a follow-up and we went on to a new subject. The deputy director of
the FBI, Mr. Esposito said that without the State Department, this capture
would not have been possible. Would you - I know you don't want to
elaborate a great deal on this; you made that clear. But is the State
Department's role - was it a significant one? Was it a large role in this?
MR. BURNS: I know that Secretary Albright believes that this was really
the best example of agencies working together - the FBI, the CIA the State
Department, the White House, the Pentagon. The State Department played a
very large role in this.
But we're going to restrain ourselves about congratulating ourselves on the
specific details. We're going to preserve that confidentiality.
QUESTION: And we had two individuals in the news today.
You had Mr. Kansi and Sayegh. What does this kind of - what kind of signal
does this send to future terrorists?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think that Secretary Albright, as we said last night
in our public statement - I'd just like to paraphrase what Secretary
Albright believes here. That is that the United States is a country that
remembers our killed and our wounded in terrorist attacks. We are not a
country that forgives. We seek retribution. We will track these
terrorists down, wherever they are. Mr. Kansi may have thought for several
years, four years, he was safe in his hideout. He wasn't safe.
The people who kill Americans in Greece, the people who kill Americans in
other parts of the world are not safe, and they will pay the price of our
justice system or other countries' justice systems.
That is the fundamental message. It is very interesting, it's compelling
that two individuals are being arraigned in this country in this
metropolitan area today. That's very important - a very important message.
We don't forget.
QUESTION: On Hong Kong, the pro-democracy forces there seem to be pretty
clear about their intention to aggressively hold protests during the
hand-over. And I just wondered whether the United States is concerned
about this; whether you have suggested to them that, while public
expression of political differences is appropriate, perhaps moderation
might be justified in this case.
MR. BURNS: Carol, with all due respect, I don't believe this is an issue
where the United States has the leading role, here. You have Hong Kong;
you have the democratic activists there; you have the government there; and
you have China, which will assume control of Hong Kong very shortly. They
need to work out all of these issues.
I want to be clear about one thing. The United States supports the right
of people to peacefully assemble and protest government policies in our own
country and in countries around the world.
When we talk about the need to preserve Hong Kong's way of life, we mean
exactly this -- democratic freedoms that the people of Hong Kong have, and
should continue to have after July 1. That is our hope. That is the
fundamental reason why Secretary Albright is going to Hong Kong -- to stand
up and to say we hope that this transfer does not diminish the rights of
people to enjoy a democratic way of life.
QUESTION: Might the Secretary meet with the pro-democracy forces if they
stage some sort of demonstration --
MR. BURNS: Well, I - we've just heard about these plans, and I think
there are even press reports that the group will not be allowed to
demonstrate where they wish to demonstrate, but in some other location. I
don't believe the Secretary has any plans to meet with the demonstrators,
but I can say that the Secretary obviously will be meeting with a cross-
section of the Hong Kong population. She and the President have already
met with Martin Lee here and will continue to keep our hand outstretched to
those who believe in democracy in Hong Kong. We'll meet them.
Our very fine Consular General Richard Boucher also, as part of his job, is
going to be in touch with the democratic community in Hong Kong throughout
the rest of his time in Hong Kong. So of course we'll be in touch with
people. The Secretary's schedule is pretty much set, and I think she'll
keep to her schedule.
QUESTION: When you say she'll meet with a cross-section of society, you
are not including Martin Lee in that?
MR. BURNS: What I'd like to do is go back and take a closer look at the
schedule and see if we can, closer to the trip, give you a flavor of whom
she'll be meeting with. She'll be meeting with, obviously, with the
Chinese leadership, with a cross-section of the Hong Kong people in the
various events she attends. Obviously these will be big events, but she'll
obviously be talking to a great number of people and that is one of the
reasons she wants to go -- to get the flavor of politics in Hong Kong, and
to communicate our basic message of support for democracy in Hong Kong. I
know she'll take every opportunity to do that.
QUESTION: At the same time she is meeting Chinese officials, C.H. Tung
and all of them, it would seem to also reinforce that message if she were
to meet with the people that she has already recognized as --
MR. BURNS: I'm sure she is going to seeing - she's having a reception.
There are going to be receptions that she attends.
There will be a variety of people who you would term as democratic
activists, champions of democracy. Of course, she'll meet with them and
she'll talk with them, yeah. She is going to see everybody in the
spectrum, within a reasonable spectrum. She'll be meeting lots of people
in the little over two days that she'll be there, lots of different people.
Again, I want to leave you with a very clear message. The compelling
reason for this trip is to promote democracy in Hong Kong, and the
continuation of democracy and the way of life of the people of Hong Kong.
Howard.
QUESTION: There has been some bellicose language out of North Korea,
which in and of itself is not unusual, but it seems to be heightened in
degree, talking about the final battle. Do you have any take on that?
MR. BURNS: It is always best not to respond every time there is bellicose
language from Pyongyang, because then we'd have to have press briefings for
six or seven hours a day to respond to every bellicose statement.
QUESTION: What would be - (inaudible) --
MR. BURNS: Well, some days we do.
QUESTION: You do the best you can.
MR. BURNS: We do the best we can, exactly. I would just prefer to say
that President Clinton and President Kim have their hand outstretched for
peace with North Korea in the guise of the four-party talks. Wouldn't it
be wonderful if the North Koreans accepted the offer of the United States
and South Korea?
QUESTION: You've got a question.
MR. BURNS: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Why don't we call on our visitors. Yes,
sir?
QUESTION: Today's press conference - (inaudible) of Macedonian radio -
today's press conference is practically a tribute to a well-synchronized
action of the various departments of the government.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
QUESTION: And that is on a --
MR. BURNS: And of the journalists.
QUESTION: -- important issue.
MR. BURNS: The importance of the journalists, as well.
QUESTION: Yes. But the other day you mentioned -- The Washington Post
wrote on Monday that the State and the Pentagon on another urgent matter do
not have synchronized views. And that concerns the long-term peace
commitment of the United States in the Balkans, as an - (inaudible) -- area
of Europe.
Now, I pose this question as follows. What is the position of the State
Department on the economic lopsidedness of Europe -- a view which President
Gligorov of Macedonia announced and explained and elaborated to President
Clinton yesterday? And as a cause for a long-term instability of this
continent? And how do you view? And do you have a calendar idea of the
second leg of Marshall Plan, which President Clinton supported in The Hague
last month as a probable cause that will lead Europe to balance its
lopsidedness and be a more stable area?
MR. BURNS: Thank you. First of all, I appreciate your comments about
freedom of the press and about the way we work here in the government. We
value freedom of the press here and the journalists that come to the
briefing. But there is one secret about how we deal with the press here.
You can't always believe everything you read in the newspapers; not
everything.
Even a paper as esteemed at The Washington Post sometimes gets things
wrong. In this case they did. The State Department and the Pentagon have
an identical view of what should happen in the Balkans. I can tell you
that.
Secondly - and people are free to quibble with that, if they would like.
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: I hear some quibbling on over here right now, as we speak.
But I'll address this question to you. Second, I think that the United
States obviously wants to see economic development in Central and Eastern
Europe, in the Balkans in particular.
Governments need to be receptive to that. They need to have domestic
policies that encourage economic reform and encourage foreign investment.
The most successful countries have those two things - the Czech Republic,
Estonia - to name probably the two most successful economies in Central
Europe. I think our advice would be emulate those countries. Reform
inside, attracting foreign investment with national treatment, with
investment laws that are attractive to companies that want to make a
profit.
We certainly want to see the Balkans, in particular, the former Yugoslav
republic of Macedonia enjoy the fruits of economic freedom which you now
have.
QUESTION: Follow up. President Gligorov has announced that if, in case,
an opinion prevails that the troops - the U.S. peacekeeping troops from
Bosnia - are to be retreated or find another location, that he offered
Macedonia to shelter or to be a host for part or the whole lot of the
troops of UNA -- or NATO.
How do you look at that proposal?
MR. BURNS: Well, NATO is very clear, and President Clinton is clear,
Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen are clear that the troops will be
out. We have no plans to retain our troops in Bosnia beyond June of 1998.
What happens to those troops then, I think the idea would be to bring them
home. It's a very generous offer. But I think in this case we are very
clear about what our priorities are. Yes.
QUESTION: Nick, I would like to come back to the Al Sayegh case. When he
was in Canada, he said that two of the countries - he gave the name of the
two countries which the both of them they are placed on your terrorism
supporting country list -- Syria and Iran. And after the attack, if I
correctly remember, some reports from Israel carried the same kind of
information. And my question is, it shows these terrorism supporting
countries are not working individually. They look like they are working as
some kind of network, which it shows - for example in the Turkish case, the
PKK, Syria gave it the safe haven and Iran is also giving safe haven to the
PKK. What is the State Department's view on this subject?
MR. BURNS: There are international terrorist networks.
We are concerned about them. If you look at our terrorism report, you will
see that we think there are patterns of international cooperation on
terrorism; and look at Iran, which is a fulcrum of terrorist activity in
direction and financing. We agree with that general supposition. Ron.
QUESTION: Did the salmon talks start today?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to let you know. We were hopeful that they would.
Unfortunately, I don't have any information on that. But we will try to
get you information. We will try to post something for you. Yes, Talal.
QUESTION: Are you worried or concerned about the Turkish maneuvers in the
Mediterranean? Have you had any communication from the Turkish Government
concerning the issue?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have spoken with the Turkish Government regarding our
concern over recent reports of Turkish military activity, naval activity,
near Cyprus. Turkey has described to us this as a naval visit that is
routine and not a military exercise but port visits in Cyprus. The Turks
say this is periodic and not unusual.
The United States is concerned. We believe that all countries in the
Eastern Mediterranean, including Turkey, have a self-interest now, just
before the commencement of the UN-sponsored talks on July 9th, not to
undertake any provocative military initiatives that undermine confidence,
that get people excited, that undermine stability in the Eastern
Mediterranean. We think that countries need to be transparent in what they
are doing.
They need to tell other countries what they intend to do so that other
countries can have a reasonable confidence in the actions of that country.
That is our view. We have repeated that to the Turkish Government. We
hope that all the countries in that region will take efforts towards peace
and not efforts that undermine it.
QUESTION: Who were they visiting?
MR. BURNS: I believe they were - I will have to check the facts. I think
these were visits to ports in the Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus.
QUESTION: With which you have no relationship.
MR. BURNS: We do not recognize a government there.
QUESTION: No, I just wanted to --
MR. BURNS: We talked to Mr. Denktash, obviously.
QUESTION: Has anybody invited the Turkish military to have them --
MR. BURNS: We recognize the Cypriot Government, the government of Cyprus.
QUESTION: I understand that. But you don't know whether there was an
invitation from any party on the island?
MR. BURNS: I would have refer you to the Turkish Government for detailed
questions like that.
QUESTION: No, excuse me --
MR. BURNS: We know very little about these exercises.
What we know is, it concerns us -- about these naval visits, excuse me.
QUESTION: You did inquire of Ankara --
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: -- and Ankara said, this was a visit.
MR. BURNS: Routine port visits.
QUESTION: Oh, routine port visits.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Well, my actual question is who invited you?
MR. BURNS: Yes, and I don't know if we --
QUESTION: We didn't ask that question?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if we asked the question, Barry.
I can tell you I think we have expressed our views fairly clearly about
this activity.
QUESTION: You don't like it.
MR. BURNS: We are concerned by it. Yes, Peter.
QUESTION: What did you say - what did you say to the Turkish Government's
status for this visit?
MR. BURNS: I think we expressed our concern, Mr. Lambros, as I have done
publicly.
QUESTION: Did you accept the explanation that it was just a pure visit?
Or you went further as far as - because it's a violation of the Greek
territorial waters.
MR. BURNS: I think I have expressed our concern about these activities
very clearly today and yesterday.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Ciller's new threat against the Greek
island of Imia? She threatened again with the usual force sending
warships, like in the previous crisis.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I am not familiar with that threat.
I will have to try to see if we can get more information from our embassies
about that. I just haven't heard about that.
QUESTION: Commenting yesterday on the Pickering-Kranidhiotis meeting you
stated, "they discussed the situation of the Aegean and, of course, the
agreement that it will help to try to reduce tension in the Aegean." Could
you please clarify?
What do you mean, "and of course, the agreement?" Did they discuss any
specific test?
MR. BURNS: Well, I would rather keep my answer general because I don't
want to get into the specifics of our diplomatic discussions with the
government of Greece.
QUESTION: Tom Miller in your embassy in Athens is going to be the first
assistant to Mr. Holbrooke. I am wondering under which criteria Mr. Miller
has been selected for this position; if he will remain in Athens, or if he
will be in the kind of roving assistant like Mr. Holbrooke.
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, let me say Tom Miller is an outstanding
officer. We all have great respect for him. He has been a terrific deputy
chief of mission in Athens. I have no news at this point. Excuse me, I
have no announcement to make at this point about him, but at some point in
the near future I'm hopeful that we'll be in a position to announce who
will be the Cyprus coordinator working full-time on this issue with
Ambassador Holbrooke.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - this announcement.
MR. BURNS: I'm not in a position to make an announcement.
I'm just noting what an outstanding individual Tom Miller is, and the great
respect that the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, all of
us, including myself, have for him.
Peter.
QUESTION: On the Saudi case, after feeling somewhat constrained in
talking about Kansi, you're no doubt looking for a story on which you can
help us with great detail.
MR. BURNS: It would be nice.
QUESTION: I wonder what the Saudi suspect - what he has been able to tell
the government so far that contributes to the government's knowledge of
Iran as a, as you put it, "a fulcrum of terrorist activity"?
MR. BURNS: Well, whatever we hear from this individual, we're going to
maintain confidentiality, obviously, in order to preserve any options we
may want to undertake about the search for the killers of the 19 American
servicemen in Khobar. I just can't give you any information on that.
QUESTION: Nick, I'm going to try one more time.
MR. BURNS: Okay.
QUESTION: Maybe this is general enough. Was this fellow brought here --
MR. BURNS: Which fellow?
QUESTION: The Saudi.
MR. BURNS: The Saudi.
QUESTION: Was he brought here because of what he knows, or was he brought
here primarily for his own protection?
MR. BURNS: I can't answer that question, Barry. Yes.
Okay, thank you very much.
QUESTION: Were you briefed already in Canada? Does the government,
essentially, already know what it is that --
MR. BURNS: I'm not in a position to answer that question.
We have one more question? Yes, sir.
QUESTION: -- twice one celebration about the free election last year. In
these days, we are expecting next elections. Don't you think that by --
also in Albania is becoming very troublesome spot in the neighborhood of
Macedonia?
MR. BURNS: Secretary Albright meet with former Chancellor Vranitzky two
days ago. They both believe it is important to move towards the June 29th
election, that they be free and fair, and that all people in Albania be
allowed to vote in free and fair basis. We have had some concerns which
we've expressed directly to President Berisha about this.
Thank you very much. Thanks for coming today.
(The briefing concluded at 2:34 P.M.)
(###)
|
