Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 14 November 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #103, 97-07-10

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>


1443

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, July 10, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1                 Welcome to Visitors
2-3,12-13         Liberian Elections on July 19

CAMBODIA 1-2,7-12,18,20,22 ASEAN Decision to Postpone Cambodia's Membership/Three ASEAN (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia) Foreign Ministers' Trip to Beijing/Suspension of US Aid/Update on Political Situation/Prince Ranariddh in DC Tomorrow/US Communication with Hun Sen 8 Departure of American Citizens 10 Role of Vietnam in Cambodian Political Situation

BOSNIAN FEDERATION 3-6,20 SFOR Troops and the Capture of Indicted War Criminals 6 Status of Amb. Gelbard

CROATIA 13-14 Consideration of an IMF Loan Delayed

NATO SUMMIT 14-15 Canadian PM Chretien's Comments on Domestic Politics Being the Push Behind NATO Enlargement 17-18 Congressional Ratification of NATO Enlargement

PACIFIC SALMON ISSUE 16-17 British Columbia Premier Clark's Open Letter in Seattle Newspapers 16-17 Canadian Request for Binding Arbitration

NORTH KOREA 18 World Food Program Appeal for Additional Food Aid 18-20 Defector Hwang Jang-yop's Comments on Politics on the Korean Peninsula 20-21 Four Party Talks

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 21 Egyptian-Israeli Meeting on Peace Process 21-22 New American Initiative

GREECE/TURKEY 23 Turkish Violations of Greek Airspace in the Aegean 23-24 Madrid Agreement on Greek-Turkish Relations

CYPRUS 24 UN Talks on Cyprus in New York


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #103

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997 1:15 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: I know if Henry Champ is here we're going to talk about Pacific salmon; I can just feel it. Why else would you dignify us with a visit like this?

QUESTION: I'd like to save it for the questions --

MR. BURNS: All right, that's fine.

QUESTION: I'll bet you can guess.

MR. BURNS: Fair enough - or the Pittsburgh Pirates, right? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to welcome Dr. Abdellatif Bendahane, who is the Minister Plenipotentiary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Morocco. He is here under the auspices of the International Visitors Program of USIA. We also have a group of interns from our administrative bureau. Welcome to you.

I thought I would lead off with two items. First, Cambodia. The United States is very pleased with the decision by the ASEAN countries meeting today to, in effect, postpone consideration of Cambodia for membership in ASEAN. We think this is a very important act, which is exactly what the United States wished would occur and which sends a very strong message to the leaders in Phnom Penh that it's not going to be business as usual between the international community and the current government of Cambodia.

We also very much support the decision of ASEAN to send the three distinguished foreign ministers of Indonesia and of the Philippines and of Malaysia to visit Beijing, to consult with King Sihanouk, who we believe has an important role to play in this conflict. We very much support the actions of ASEAN. This is in concert with the wishes of a great number of countries around the world who do not wish to see the actions of Hun Sen rewarded - the actions of last weekend rewarded.

I can also tell you that the United States has decided to suspend our aid programs to Cambodia for 30 days while we conduct an intensive review of those programs. We are consulting with other countries and other donors around the world about the programs of assistance. At the end of the 30 days - and depending upon the circumstances present in Cambodia at that time - we would anticipate resumption of those programs which do provide humanitarian, people-to-people support in the area of basic human needs.

But I can also anticipate that we will not be resuming those portions of our aid program that in some way directly or indirectly support the government of Cambodia. This is a clear signal to Hun Sen and his associates that the United States will not be conducting business as usual with those individuals. We hope very much that Hun Sen will reconsider his actions of going it alone, of rupturing the Paris Peace Accords and breaking the coalition government that had been in place for the last four years.

Tomorrow, as you know, Prince Ranariddh, who is in New York today -- the first prime minister -- will be in Washington. He will meet with acting Secretary of State Tom Pickering. I think the messages that we will have for Prince Ranariddh tomorrow will be the following. First, that we certainly consider Hun Sen's offensive against Prince Ranariddh and his associates to be unacceptable behavior. We hope very much that Hun Sen would take some steps to try to reconstitute the coalition. Second, that any cooperation with the Khmer Rouge is certainly not acceptable to the United States. Any attempt to bring the Khmer Rouge officials who are responsible for genocide against the Cambodian people back into positions of power in Phnom Penh is unacceptable to the United States.

Third, we will urge Prince Ranariddh, as we urged Hun Sen, to find a way to restore a functioning coalition in Cambodia. Now, this message - this very important third message - was delivered by our very fine Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jeff Bader to the Cambodian ambassador yesterday. The Cambodian ambassador in Washington is a member of the political party of Hun Sen. So we felt that was a useful channel of communications.

Our ambassador in Cambodia, Ken Quinn, is attempting to see Hun Sen but has not been granted a meeting to date. As long as we cannot see Hun Sen personally, we will continue to communicate with his ambassador here and communicate our wishes publicly. I will be glad to take any other questions that you have on Cambodia.

Now, I also just wanted to mention briefly that we have a statement today on the Liberian elections. Let me just read you the highlights. After seven years of civil war, the Liberian peace process has advanced further than ever before. National elections are now scheduled in Liberia for July 19. The United States supports free and fair elections to install a democratic government to take on the challenges of national reconciliation and the reconstruction of the country. We are working with the economic community of West African States - ECOWAS -- the Liberian Independent Elections Commission, and others around the world to make credible elections a reality on July 19.

The United States has made available $7.4 million to promote free and fair elections in Liberia. These funds are being provided through an association that we have with U.S. non-governmental organizations. To encourage an atmosphere that is free of intimidation in the run-up to the elections, the United States continues to contribute significant non-lethal support to the forces of the ECOWAS -- the West African States -- who have a monitoring group in place in Liberia. The United States has trained 500 Liberian police officers to reinforce election security, and we are also providing legal and administrative support and resources as the elections are prepared.

Liberia is a country where the United States has significant interests because we have a historic role that goes back to the middle of the 19th century. We do feel an obligation to do what we can to help the people of Liberia who had to live, unfortunately, with so many irresponsible governments. We hope that these elections on July 19 might presage a new chapter in the history of the Liberian people. George.

QUESTION: Can we go straight to Bosnia?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we can go to Bosnia and then go back to Cambodia. I will be glad to go to Bosnia.

QUESTION: Right. Do the events of today foreshadow a more aggressive NATO posture toward indicted war criminals?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think you're seeing - based on the events of the last couple of weeks - there was an arrest made a week ago Sunday, as well, of the mayor of Vukovar - that the international community means business in Bosnia. We have said all along that justice is important, as well as peace; that peace is not sufficient to ensure the success of the Dayton Accords; that justice for those who were brutalized by the Bosnian Serbs and by the Serbs and others during the war, that justice must be achieved. You have seen some forceful actions by the international community over the last couple of weeks, and that is indicative of our very strong belief that indicted war criminals ought to be brought to justice.

Now, the first responsibility - let's remember this - it's being lost, I think, in the commentary today that I have seen. The first responsibility rests with the signatories of the Dayton Accords, themselves. Since all of them - with the exception of President Itzebegovic - have failed to meet their responsibilities, obviously when we have a chance and when we have opportunities, we try to do what we can to bring people to justice.

Let me tell you a little bit about two of the individuals who are in question today. Simo Drljaca, the former police chief in Prijedor, controlled civil and secret police during the Serb takeover and ethnic cleansing of the Prijedor area in 1992. Numerous news reports, accounts by survivors of the massacres and an extensive investigation by the United Nations indicates that he played a major role in the organization and management of concentration camps in the Prijedor area. Many detainees in these camps, as you know, were beaten and killed.

Dr. Kovacevic -- Dr. Milan Kovacevic, who is right now en route to The Hague - he'll be incarcerated at The Hague for prosecution and trial was deputy major in 1992 - had the rank of deputy major and was responsible for the delivery of Muslim prisoners to the Omarska concentration camp near Prijedor. This was a notorious detention center and the site of multiple alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. I think those are well- documented by some of your colleagues in the press corps, as well as by the United Nations.

These individuals were indicted war criminals. They deserve to be prosecuted, and they deserve to be judged by the international community. We're very pleased that at least one of these individuals will be judged. The other is now dead. But let's not mistake the resolve of the international community to see that justice is done in Bosnia.

QUESTION: Nick, when was this decision made to be more aggressive in this regard? And does it involve just the British, or does it involve the British and the Americans, as well? What about the French?

MR. BURNS: Well, I know that President Clinton answered this question yesterday at his press conference in Madrid. I would just refer you to President Clinton's response. The President said that achieving justice is an important goal of ours - has been for a long time. But he declined to go into specifics. I will also, obviously, decline to go into specifics.

QUESTION: Well, when he spoke, a specific incident such as today had not happened. So in the light of the circumstances, I just wondered if you could clarify a little bit more about what the U.S. intention is; whether the United States expects to be involved in these kinds of activities. And I mean, to what extent do you expect NATO troops to go after the other indicted war criminals in the next couple weeks?

MR. BURNS: Well, even though this incident had not occurred when the President spoke, you had the incident of a week ago Sunday, where the mayor of Vukovar was apprehended and is now also sitting in The Hague awaiting prosecution.

I think these incidents speak for themselves, and they speak to the determination of the international community -- not just the United States, but many countries -- and of SFOR and of the International Police Training Force to be deliberate but also to be determined to see that justice is done. There is very little detail that I can give you. Today's operation was not a United States operation, as Sandy Berger said. When he spoke about it, he described it obviously as what it was, and as Secretary Cook has described it, a British operation along with SFOR. We very much want to congratulate the British for the courage and determination of the people who took part in the exercise this morning.

QUESTION: Generally, though, U.S. troops will adhere to their long- standing position that they will not go after war criminals in this way?

MR. BURNS: Well, Carol, I would not describe our position like that. The rules of engagement for American forces since December 1995 have been very specific. I am not aware that those rules of engagement have changed. But I wouldn't describe them as you have described them.

QUESTION: Nick, would you expect to see more of this kind of thing in the future?

MR. BURNS: I think as a number of senior officials have said over the last couple of days, we will just have to keep all those indicted war criminals guessing as to what is going to happen. Maybe that is the best thing for them.

QUESTION: Nick?

MR. BURNS: Yes, Laura.

QUESTION: You have said that the rules of engagement have not changed. NATO acknowledged today that these individuals that the British forces encountered today, they have encountered many times in the past in that sector. And they chose not to attempt to arrest them. And this indictment, as I understand it, has been with The Hague since April. So, I mean, it begs the question, what happened? What changed the situation today from a week ago or two weeks ago, if these gentlemen have come in contact with SFOR, you know, over the last couple of months or last couple of years?

MR. BURNS: I think the less said about all of this the better, for us. Actions speak louder than words. They are beginning to see some actions and that is perhaps instructive for them.

QUESTION: Just one more. I didn't understand. Is that SFOR -- precisely an SFOR action, or British commandos, British special forces plus SFOR plus American troops among SFOR?

MR. BURNS: Right. Did you see Sandy Berger's --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Yes, I would just refer you to that, because Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor, made the official statement on behalf of the United States. I would refer you to that. I have got a copy of it here. We can show that to you after the briefing.

QUESTION: Would you agree, though, Nick, that the pressures and discussions going on at Madrid had a lot - had maybe something to do with this new invigorated action on behalf of NATO? I mean, it seems kind of timely that we see two arrests or two captures - a killing with one -- just days after - or a day after the summit is over.

MR. BURNS: No, I wouldn't say that. Obviously, there was a discussion at NATO. But mainly, I think, as I understand it of the situation, the very confused political situation in the Republika Srpska and of the strong belief that Madame Plavsic ought to be allowed to govern in the Republika Srpska. That was a statement that came out of the Madrid summit. I am not aware of any special discussions on this at Madrid, and as you know, I wasn't there.

QUESTION: The Secretary was quoted as saying a couple of days ago -- I don't know if it was an interview or what, while she was in Madrid -- that Mladic and Karadzic will get theirs and their day will come. Are we to assume that with this new precedent that has been set today, that Karadzic and Mladic better look over their shoulder? Maybe they will be picked up and plucked out, too?

MR. BURNS: Well, I am glad you raised the Secretary's comment because it's indicative of a general belief here since the Fall of 1995 that justice will be done; that Karadzic and Mladic sooner or later will face trial in The Hague. That is where their destiny lies. They are indicted war criminals. There is substantial evidence that the two of them are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and the brutalization of Muslim women. Those kinds of crimes against humanity cannot be tolerated and overlooked, and they are not forgotten. Karadzic and Mladic better wonder about their fact because their ultimate fate is The Hague -- war crimes.

QUESTION: Then it would - their capture is sooner or, I mean, than later?

MR. BURNS: There is just no way I can speak to that question. I would just point you to the fact that the President, when asked these specific questions, declined to discuss them yesterday. I'm not going to go anywhere beyond where the President has been, obviously.

QUESTION: What is Ambassador Gelbard up to today? I understand he is on his way back from the Balkans?

MR. BURNS: Ambassador Gelbard, I believe, is probably sitting on an airplane, flying back from some European capital to Washington, D.C. I expect him back late tonight or early tomorrow.

QUESTION: How much of his time in the Balkans the last week or so was spent on this question?

MR. BURNS: I don't know. I haven't spoken with Bob in several days. But he is our coordinator. He is responsible for all issues. He has been working on a variety of issues, not just the issue of war criminals.

QUESTION: I'm sure he raised this issue, though, when he met with the three presidents - two presidents.

MR. BURNS: We normally raise the issue. I'm not sure I have ever been in a meeting with any of the Balkan leaders where this issue of war crimes has not been raised. Both Secretary Christopher and Secretary Albright have been very consistent in marking this as a very high priority for the United States. We have never forgotten about the issue of war criminals.

QUESTION: There is no difference in his message at this time?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I just can't go into his message. We normally don't talk about his private conversations with Balkan leaders.

QUESTION: Back on Cambodia?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: What is the breakdown in aid between the humanitarian - what you call humanitarian aid and governmental aid?

MR. BURNS: Well, that is one of the reasons why we have decided to go with a 30-day pause and suspension, because we want to look very carefully at all of the programs. Most of them are run by private voluntary organizations funded by us. We want to make sure that we understand if there is any way some of these programs directly or indirectly benefit Hun Sen, now the only person running the Cambodian Government in Phnom Penh.

I think if programs are seen to fit in that category, I don't think they have a long life. But there are many programs that clearly do not benefit him personally or his political associates, but benefit people who have been victimized by the troubles in Cambodia. A very good example would be de-mining. De-mining benefits average people. So we wish to proceed on a humanitarian basis with some of those programs after this 30-day review. The review is also intended to put Hun Sen on notice that there are consequences from the United States based upon his own actions. He needs to be aware of that, and we hope we will have an opportunity to discuss this with him directly.

QUESTION: How much money is affected by your decision?

MR. BURNS: Well, that's unclear. It's unclear how much money is going to be taken out of the mix there. But I will certainly let you know --

QUESTION: Can you give some parameter?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't want to anticipate. We just started the review. So I don't want to anticipate the results of that review before it's over.

QUESTION: No, well, you put money on hold for 30 days. So how much money is on hold for 30 days?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I see what you mean. I would have to check. You're talking about the pipeline and how much money is - I will have to check. I gave you the aid figures the other day, though, for Cambodia. I gave you the four- year aid figure of $163 million of American aid over four years. I think I gave you the Fiscal Year '96 and Fiscal Year '97 numbers. Maybe, Phyllis, we could have someone just go in yesterday's press guidance and bring that in to me so I can just do it right here at the briefing today.

QUESTION: Tuesday's.

MR. BURNS: Now - Tuesday's - George says Tuesday's..

QUESTION: You're not suspending all aid for 30 days while you decide which of it you want to go forward?

MR. BURNS: No, we are suspending all aid programs for 30 days.

QUESTION: All aid programs?

QUESTION: All aid?

MR. BURNS: Yes, yes. All aid programs are being suspended. At the end of that - and a lot will depend on what the political situation looks like - we will make some final decisions. But we do wish, as I have been indicating for several days, to proceed with programs that clearly benefit people but not governments.

Just a couple of bits of information about American citizens. The airport in Phnom Penh is open. Charter flights are leaving; 100 American citizens left Phnom Penh today. We believe that 400 American citizens have left over the last several days. To the best of our knowledge, that would leave between 900 and 1,000 private American citizens in Phnom Penh. The airport, now open to charter flights, we believe will be open to regular commercial flights beginning tomorrow, which is another avenue for American citizens to leave Phnom Penh.

At this point, we do not anticipate having to utilize U.S. naval assets - ships or planes - to bring American citizens out. We think there is sufficient room and sufficient calm in Phnom Penh that American citizens can leave peacefully and securely and safely via commercial means. That is our plan. Should that situation change, we'll obviously look at all of the options at our disposal.

The American official employees there, numbering 61, will be drawn down to 20. None of them have left over the last 24 hours. They will begin to leave during the next several days.

QUESTION: What is the condition for resuming the aid?

MR. BURNS: The conditions?

QUESTION: Yeah, after the 30-day review to see which programs should be suspended.

MR. BURNS: There's a very clear line here. Those programs that we deem to benefit people but not the central government, we would hope to continue on a humanitarian basis. Those programs that might benefit the government, I think, are in danger of not surviving very long - as long as Mr. Hun Sen insists on running things on his own and not agreeing to the restoration of the coalition government.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. BURNS: On Cambodia, yes.

QUESTION: You keep saying any cooperation with Khmer Rouge is not acceptable. But what is your definition of the Khmer Rouge? Back 20 years ago, Hun Sen was also the a part of the Khmer Rouge. Are you specifically meaning Pol Pot or different - of the Khmer Rouge?

MR. BURNS: First of all, let me just give the aid figures before we go on. We have allocated $35 million for assistance to Cambodia in Fiscal Year 1997; $25 million for Fiscal Year 1996; as I said, $163 million in American aid since 1993. Those are the aid figures that we talked about Tuesday. Thank you, Phyllis.

Now, to answer your question. As for Mr. Hun Sen's past, I'm not going to apologize for him. He does have a past. He was associated with the Khmer Rouge at one point. He then turned on them, and you know the rest of the story - his alliance with the Vietnamese and all of that. I make no apologies for Hun Sen. We have chosen to deal with him, as has the international community, for a very long time now, because he has taken on different political coloration. I will make no excuses whatsoever for any member of the Khmer Rouge. But there are thousands of them. We have to be concerned in a pragmatic basis in our diplomacy with the senior members of the Khmer Rouge.

I think we simply would not support in any way, shape or form any senior member of the Khmer Rouge playing a role in the political life of Cambodia. That means taking a position in the political life of Cambodia. This gets back to, I think, a central question here about what's happened over the last week. That is, how should we look at these various political actors? I want to repeat something that I said the other day. There are no heroes here. There are very few heroes that you can identify in Cambodia, because on the one hand you have Hun Sen, who has chosen the path of violence and the other you have Prince Ranariddh, who was toying with a political alliance with the Khmer Rouge, which we thought was a great mistake.

So I think one has to recognize there have been mistakes all around the political spectrum in Cambodia.

QUESTION: Nick, how do you avoid appearing to embrace the Khmer Rouge by embracing Ranariddh, who after all is fairly closely allied with them?

MR. BURNS: I have not embraced anyone this week, Sid. I don't believe the United States is embracing anyone. If we were embracing anyone, we would be speaking in glowing terms about one side and in very brutal terms about the other. But that's not what we're doing. I think the pervasive color here is probably gray, and not black and white in this situation.

Prince Ranariddh, we think, made a very serious error in his flirtation with the Khmer Rouge. We cannot abide the Khmer Rouge, and we will not support having the Khmer Rouge in senior positions.

QUESTION: But are you sure that it's no more than a flirtation? And after all, Ranariddh is the one that you're meeting at a high level in Washington this week.

MR. BURNS: We normally meet with people with which we have serious disagreements. That's the nature of diplomacy. That's the nature of diplomacy, and has been for millennia. You don't always meet with your best friends. Sometimes you meet with people with whom you disagree. There's nothing new in that at all.

Prince Ranariddh is giving a press conference here in Washington tomorrow. Ask him that question. I cannot speak for him. But I can tell you that in addition to agreeing with him that Hun Sen should not have resorted to force over the weekend, we will certainly make the point that the Khmer Rouge has no role to play in the political life of Cambodia. That point will be made very directly to him.

QUESTION: Are you in a position today to say anything about Vietnam and what role, if any, it's playing in all of this?

MR. BURNS: That remains a question that you're going to have to ask Vietnamese spokesmen and spokeswomen, not me.

QUESTION: Well, you must have an opinion on it.

MR. BURNS: We have opinions, but sometimes we hold those opinions confidential. We have had discussions with the Vietnamese Government and will continue to review with them the situation in Cambodia. But you'll have to ask the Vietnamese how they see things. I cannot speak for them.

QUESTION: Do you consider them helpful?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Do you consider them helpful?

MR. BURNS: I don't wish to characterize the Vietnamese involvement in this conflict.

QUESTION: Are you in a position to make public your opinion of whether Cambodia should be allowed to join ASEAN in the next month?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I can now reveal the American position, which has been put forward very aggressively over the last three days. We were against it. But we have so much respect for ASEAN, we sincerely did not want to intrude publicly on ASEAN's right to make it's own decisions. We felt it was prudent for us to hold back publicly. Now that ASEAN has stepped forward and said Cambodia will not become a member at the present time, we're very pleased to say we agree very much with that decision by ASEAN.

I think we need to point out here, specifically, the leadership role of Malaysia and Indonesia and the Philippines and other countries - very experienced diplomats who have made the correct decision, we think. We very much support the initiative of sending the three foreign ministers - all of whom are very experienced diplomats - to Beijing to consult with King Sihanouk, who we believe has an important role to play here.

QUESTION: What role is that?

MR. BURNS: That will need to be defined by King Sihanouk himself, and perhaps by ASEAN. But it's certainly not for the United States to say, but I just wanted to point out the important role that we believe he can play.

QUESTION: What is your understanding of the King's health?

MR. BURNS: I don't have a detailed understanding of his health, but obviously we wish him well. He's a very distinguished individual. We have had a very good relationship with him and we have great respect for him.

QUESTION: My point being, all due respect to the King, whether or not he is up to this huge task?

MR. BURNS: Sid, the King is one of the great survivors. He's been on the throne for many, many decades and he has played a very important role in the restoration of Cambodia to its present state - until last weekend - of stability. We believe he has an important role to play and it's entirely appropriate for ASEAN to decide to send its ministers to Beijing first for consultations with King Sihanouk.

QUESTION: Is the United States' position going to keep on being gray, even though there are rumors that the government of Hun Sen is hunting down members from the opposition?

MR. BURNS: Without introducing colors into the conversation, our position is not gray. Our position is clear; it is transparent. Our position, we believe is the right one. That is to argue against the use of force to rupture the Paris Peace Accords; to argue for the restoration of stable, civilian-led government and multiparty government in Phnom Penh; and to argue for reason.

What is gray, and not black and white, are the distinguishing characteristics of the politicians and political parties in Cambodia. I think it's important to point that out so we all understand what we're dealing with here. We're not dealing with a case of democrats versus authoritarian figures. We are dealing with people who have made some mistakes on all sides, and we wish that they would recognize that and agree to work with each other.

QUESTION: Nick, how does sending Mr. (inaudible) sound to you? Do you think this is going to play a role?

MR. BURNS: I've not heard anything about that. But I can tell you that we very much support the ASEAN decision to send the three foreign ministers - all of whom we respect very much - the three foreign ministers of the ASEAN countries. We wish ASEAN well and we'll be glad to give any support whatsoever to the ASEAN mission. But we think it's appropriate, since these are the countries that live in Southeast Asia that have to live with the consequences directly of the Cambodian problem, it's certainly appropriate for ASEAN to be a central player at this point.

QUESTION: Nick?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: You said Ambassador Quinn attempted to see Hun Sen. So what kind of message exactly the U.S. wants to deliver to Hun Sen?

MR. BURNS: Well, Ambassador Quinn, who has 25 years of experience in Southeast Asia is anxious to see Hun Sen to describe the U.S. position pretty much the way we've been describing it publicly over the last couple of days - to argue against the continued use of force and argue against killing of the political opposition; threatening Prince Ranariddh, should he return to Cambodia - that's not appropriate. He should be allowed to return freely and participate in political life there.

I think there will be a very stiff message to Hun Sen. I should take a moment just to tell you, we're fortunate to have Ken Quinn in Phnom Penh. He served in the Vietnam War in Southeast Asia. He is one of our true regional experts on Southeast Asia. He has done an outstanding job in helping to cope with the many - well over 1,000 American citizens who have been in some danger there for the past week. We're very grateful to Ambassador Quinn.

QUESTION: Will you be encouraging the Prince to return to Cambodia?

MR. BURNS: That is a decision he will have to make. Hun Sen, in his press conference, threatened Prince Ranariddh with arrest and trial should he return to Phnom Penh. It was an inelegant and somewhat, I thought, dishonest statement to say, he's free to return to Phnom Penh and when he does, we'll arrest him and put him on trial. So Prince Ranariddh will obviously have to make his own decisions. We have not had a chance to talk to him yet. So I would like to withhold judgment on that question.

QUESTION: -- In the Liberian elections, which I believe are scheduled for the end of next week. One of the leading candidates is Charles Taylor, who has a somewhat checkered past. He has had Libyan backing; he has wreaked a lot of mayhem over the past seven or eight years. Does the United States have a view as to who should win that election?

MR. BURNS: We never have a view as to who should win, George. But lots of people with checkered pasts participate in elections - have in the last ten years. Redemption is an important element in diplomacy - an important theological element in diplomacy. The Liberian people have resurrected themselves. You remember a year ago this past Spring, in the Spring of '96, there were the horrible civil disturbances and fighting and thousands of people killed in the streets of Monrovia. Now they're on the verge of elections. So I think we have to congratulate them.

If Charles Taylor will agree to run freely and fairly and to accept the results of the elections, I think we are in no position to argue against that. As to who should win, that's for the Liberian people to decide, not the United States.

QUESTION: Nick, another subject. Has the United States blocked another loan - this time from the IMF to Croatia?

MR. BURNS: Well, I believe a couple of days ago - I believe it was two days ago, was it the fund or the bank? I know one of the banks - either the bank or the fund, and we'll have to get the details -- did agree to delay an important loan to Croatia, and the United States very much supported that delay. I will have to get the specifics.

QUESTION: Is the United States supporting it? Or did the United States request it? If not, whose idea was it?

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know how the votes lined up, Carol. I don't know who spoke first and put the motion on the table. All I know is that the decision was to delay the loan and we very much supported that.

QUESTION: But you are not taking responsibility for it? This is not part of your policy?

MR. BURNS: We always take responsibility for our actions. Secretary Albright has clearly indicated that we will not be supporting substantial international financial assistance to Croatia until Croatia shows by deed that it is going to implement the Dayton Accords, including on the issue of war criminals.

QUESTION: Well, actually the U.S. position has been somewhat more vague than that. I mean, you said that economic assistance like this would be used as a lever. But clearly you have made different decisions about different loans. And I would really like to get a clear reading as to whether the United States just went along with this delay or whether, in fact, this is part of your policy and you have specific reasons -- such as, in the last case, non-cooperation on war criminals -- that made you make this decision now.

MR. BURNS: Well, I would just like to respectfully disagree with your characterization of American policy. I think since the relevant date, which is June 1, when the Secretary stood in that field in Croatia and made this condition about American assistance, I believe there have three votes pertaining to Croatia. I believe we have successfully argued, in a leadership role, that the international financial institutions should not go forward on two of them.

On a very minor $13 million vote in the second week of June, we decided to give the Croatians the benefit of the doubt and agreed to go forward on that particular loan, much smaller than the other two, because President Tudjman had taken some actions in the first week of June which we believed were consistent with what he and Secretary Albright had talked about. But unfortunately since then, we have not seen any good actions by the government of Croatia. So until the government of Croatia does something concrete to show us that it is interested in fulfilling its commitments, it is not going to get much support for us.

Thank you. Phyllis, has given me the relevant information. It was a $40 million tranche of an IMF loan to Croatia, a previously approved extended fund agreement. It was under consideration on July 9 by the International Monetary Fund's executive board. There was consensus on the board to delay the consideration of that loan, as I said. I can tell you the United States very much agreed with that. I think if you want to describe us as having been in a leadership role, you would be very accurate in doing that.

QUESTION: Could we state --

QUESTION: But were you? But were you?

MR. BURNS: Well, one thing we don't do - we believe in rules and regulations and procedures. We don't come and spill our guts about what we said in the inner confines of the Fund over here, a couple blocks away, or the World Bank. But if you want me to describe whether we are in the forefront or whether we are on the tail of these initiatives, I can say we are in the forefront of these initiatives. I am very pleased that the Croatian Government knows that.

QUESTION: Were you on the forefront of this initiative?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we were, Sid, as I indicated. That is what I thought I was indicating in my Delphic way to Carol.

QUESTION: You said these initiatives. You didn't say this initiative.

MR. BURNS: These and this - this and these. This and these, yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Unambiguous policy by the United States of America on this issue.

QUESTION: Can we stay with views of American foreign policy? Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien -- you would be aware of some of his inadvertent but now, nonetheless, public comments.

MR. BURNS: I knew you were here to create trouble, Henry.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, there is a point, though, to those inadvertent remarks that were and now have become public. And the gist of them is that the American foreign policy and its expansion of NATO was not directed in the time-honored traditions of President Wilson and President Truman helping out Europe, but rather to satisfy the ethnic voting needs of Chicago. And that the President was interested only in the expansion of NATO based on domestic concerns and not the concerns of Europe. Since that remark is now public, and since this building occasionally contributes to foreign policy, what do you make of it?

MR. BURNS: Occasionally?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: You could read into that whatever you prefer.

MR. BURNS: You're trying to provoke me, Henry, but I am not going to be provoked. Let me just say, I believe my colleague and friend Mike McCurry had no comment to make on Prime Minister Chretien's statements, which Mike termed interesting. I think I am going to stick with that. I think whatever Mike does, I'll do on this issue.

QUESTION: Well, then let me ask you, taking Prime Minister Chretien out of the equation, there has been criticism in the United States by any number of domestic critics of expansion of NATO in which they have said that the initiative of the United States has been domestic and not international, and that the security of Europe is secondary to considerations here.

MR. BURNS: Well, without any regard to the statements made by Prime Minister Chretien and putting that totally aside, without any reference to it, Henry, obviously, the proposition that you put forth in your question obviously has no merit. If you look at the evolution of the NATO enlargement idea, it is an American idea for American strategic foreign policy reasons. What the Clinton Administration has tried to do over the last three years in this issue is in the best interest of the United States of America, all of our citizens. There is no more serious question than the question of security in Europe; because, too, we Americans have sent millions of soldiers to Western Europe in two world wars - hot wars and a Cold War.

We have paid a significant price as Americans. There is no more serious question for an American president or secretary of state than how to safeguard the security of this country, how to protect our soldiers in Europe, and how to create a Europe in the next century that hopefully will bear no resemblance to the Europe of the 20th century; that is - as President Clinton has described it - a unified, peaceful and secure Europe with no more Berlin Walls and no more antagonistic relationships among the great powers.

Under President Clinton's leadership, around the world and NATO, we now have a peaceful friendship and partnership with Russia and Ukraine - just signed yesterday with Ukraine - and we have an expanded NATO. I think the United States has played a leadership role here, and it's been in the best traditions of American foreign policy and the tradition of Wilson and Roosevelt and Truman. President Clinton deserves great credit for that. I think that historians are going to see it that way and not see it for any other reason. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I want to move off to the --

MR. BURNS: But Henry, actually, I should say - now that Henry has provoked me -- I'm going to provoke you a little bit, or perhaps the British Columbia Premier Glen Clark. Interesting that in the Seattle newspapers today, there is an open letter to the people of Washington State about the protection of salmon resources in the American Northwest and the Canadian West. It's an open letter sent by Glen Clark, the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. I have a comment to make about Premier Clark's letter, now that we are speaking frankly in this relationship.

The letter published today by Premier Clark is unhelpful, and it is grossly inaccurate. The allegations that he makes -- that the State of Washington has begun aggressive fishing before the strength of the salmon runs could be determined -- are false allegations. The United States has stated that we will conduct responsible fishing this year. That's exactly what the people of Washington, Oregon and California are doing, and Alaska, for that part.

The State of Washington, in fact, twice postponed the start of the fishery in question until it was clear that the strength of the salmon run justified the opening of the fishery. The state then stopped the fishery earlier than had been expected when catches were higher than originally estimated.

As to Premier Clark's plea that the American public tell its elected representatives to conclude a Pacific salmon treaty, might I respectfully remind Premier Clark that such a treaty does, in fact, exist. The problem is that Canada will not work seriously with the United States to make this treaty work. If Premier Clark, perhaps might spend more time working on the treaty than writing open editorials to the people of Washington, perhaps we would make more progress.

QUESTION: Can I follow on that? Canada's trade minister met yesterday with Ms. Barshefsky. And now they are asking for - Canada is asking for binding arbitration to end this dispute. Now, the United States we know is sort of opposed to binding arbitration. But there was a report in a Canadian newspaper that the White House may consider appointing an arbitrator. Is that, in fact, something that could be done from the United States -- appointing a separate arbitrator to end this dispute?

MR. BURNS: I am not aware of that. I can just say that we believe that the present configuration of listening to our stakeholders and allowing people who have the greatest stake in this process to be influential in the negotiation of this treaty, that that process should continue.

We think that Canada's unwillingness to support even the minimum standards for conservation on Coho stocks have made it impossible for us to conclude an agreement for long-term fishing arrangements under these provisions. We are very concerned about this. We hope that the Canadians will come back to the table, seriously and constructively. We need to work this out.

QUESTION: Just on that question, Prime Minister Chretien's remarks - again inadvertent, but nonetheless, now public - indicate that the difficulty with the talks was that the United States could not speak as a unit; that when he and the President, according to his remarks, had actually solved the deal, the negotiator Mary Beth West said that that deal could not be consummated without going back to 35 - according to the Prime Minister - separate groups for approval.

And notwithstanding whether that happens to be the way the United States does business, is there any effort on the part of the State Department to try to change what happens in the United States so that the two leaders can get a solution?

MR. BURNS: We have agreed that our stakeholders, our governors and our fishing industries will be involved in these talks. We cannot disavow that. We stand by the arrangements that have been made and we request that Canada stand by the arrangements that Canada agreed to. That is to have stakeholders involved in the process.

QUESTION: Even when you have - according to the Prime Minister - an agreement between the President and himself on what should be the final settlement?

MR. BURNS: I did not address - and I'm not going to address -- Prime Minister Chretien's remarks on Pacific salmon. I don't wish to and I haven't seen the remarks. I can only tell you that the United States and Canada agreed on a process. We think it's very important to maintain that process and maintain the integrity of the process. We don't wish to disavow the interests of our western states; neither would Canada wish to disavow the interests of your western provinces.

So we respectfully suggest, based on this very unhelpful letter that's been published today by Premier Clark, it's time to stop the public campaign and it's time to start serious private negotiations. But if he wants to throw words at us, we're willing to come back with our own response and we'll defend ourselves.

QUESTION: A final question, if I might, sir. Mr. Clark has also threatened the existence of the torpedo base at Nanoose Bay. Do you take that as a serious threat at all?

MR. BURNS: No.

QUESTION: I had a question before we got to the part about Prime Minister Chretien's comments in Madrid, which you don't want to comment about.

MR. BURNS: No, I don't wish to comment.

QUESTION: But can we just ask one question? It's been said that expansion of NATO could be a hard sell in Congress. And I'm wondering if comments like that make the sell to expand NATO in Congress a lot harder.

MR. BURNS: Oh, I think that our Senate is going to base its decision - which is a very important decision and responsibility - on the facts and on the basic strategy that the administration has laid out for good foreign policy reasons. I don't think we'll be deterred by anything else. Several members of the Senate, including Senator Roth, were in Madrid. Senator Biden was there. The President and Secretary Albright are going to make a concerted effort to talk to the Senate in advance of the ratification of votes so that our viewpoint is clear.

I think, as we always do in the history of the United States on major treaty questions - going back to the League of Nations, going back to the United Nations, to the creation of NATO in 1949 - we'll have a serious foreign policy debate on the issue because Americans are serious. We have been the world leader for some time - a half a century. We have been a responsible steward for security in Europe. I think that's clear for everyone to see; and history will write it that way.

QUESTION: Has there been any decision made yet on aid to North Korea -- new food aid?

MR. BURNS: There has not been a decision. We are addressing that question urgently, but we've only had the information from the World Food Program for 24 hours. So we'll need some more time to look through the request before the Secretary can make a decision.

QUESTION: Are the figures that you gave for aid for Cambodia - they didn't include the military aid, did they? You mentioned --

MR. BURNS: No, but I think the other day I gave you those figures. I believe I have it. I believe the figure for de-mining is $6.8 million in Fiscal Year 1997 and $7.6 million in Fiscal Year 1996. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes. What's your comment on the North Korean defector, Hwang Jang-yop's news conference? He said North Korea has already the declaration for war against South Korea and Kim Jong-Il believes that North Korea can defeat South Korea in an all-out missile attack to South Korea, including Seoul. And he said it will be wise for South Korea to assume that North Korea has the nuclear weapons. What's your comment?

MR. BURNS: Well, Mr. Hwang is a free man now, who lives in a free country and that's a very good thing. He previously did not live in a free country - North Korea.

There's no doubt that the Korean Peninsula remains a potentially destabilizing place. That is why the United States has a defensive alliance with South Korean and why we have stationed 37,000 troops along the demilitarized zone. We are absolutely prepared to defend our ally, the Republic of Korea, should that be necessary.

Now, we hope that will not be necessary because we hope that the recent steps by North Korea to agree to the four-party talks -- the meeting on August 5th in New York -- that that will go forward. The agreed framework which has frozen North Korea's nuclear program in place now for two and a half years - going on three years this Autumn - that program is in place, the commitments of North Korea are being maintained. We don't know that because we trust North Korea. We know that because we are able to verify North Korea's actions.

We are realistic. We know a lot about North Korea, and we know that North Korea understands that the United States has made a very serious commitment, that we are the greatest power in the world and we will meet our commitments to South Korea. We hope that North Korea chooses a path of peace in the four-party talks and in other areas that the peaceful re-unification of Korea might be possible at some point. But, of course, that would have to happen on a democratic basis.

QUESTION: Mr. Hwang said the North Korean agreement to attend the four- party talks is merely a key to obtain the emergency food aid.

MR. BURNS: Well, we have never joined the issue of four-party talks with food aid. We have always told the North Koreans that they will not be rewarded by food aid for attending the talks, neither would be withhold food aid should they decide not to attend the talks. We will know if North Korea is serious sooner rather than later, once we get to the table with China, the Republic of Korea and North Korea in the four-party talks. If they are not serious, it will be evident very early on. Yes.

QUESTION: One of the defector's remarks was that the Kim Jong-Il regime is now using the food as a means of controlling its people and oppressing the political opposition groups. So that means as a result, the United States is helping not the North Korean people, the hunger-stricken North Korean people, but helping Kim's regime to maintain its Stalinist regime. And are you sure that the American Government is not helping Kim's regime instead of these people?

MR. BURNS: I am sure. I am sure. We have no interest in propping up that decrepit regime in North Korea -- the communist system. It's a failed system; it's a dinosaur. Marx and Lenin and Stalin and all of them have been proven wrong about how societies ought to be ordered. We do have an interest in helping four- and five- and six-year-old North Koreans who are suffering from famine. We can account for all of our food aid. None of it goes to the North Korean military. None of it goes to the government in Pyongyang. All of it goes to the World Food Program, which distributes food directly through its subsidiaries to individuals in North Korea, civilians in North Korea. We would never give food aid directly to the government because the Army would get the food aid. That is why we deliver it to the World Food Program in which we have great trust.

QUESTION: Nick?

MR. BURNS: Yes, and you had a question.

QUESTION: Can you tell us the U.S. contact with Mr. Hwang since he was --

MR. BURNS: I can tell you that we have had a series of discussions with Mr. Hwang, yes.

QUESTION: What is the content?

MR. BURNS: Oh, no, I am not in a position to go into the content because that was a private series of discussions that we had with him. Yes, I believe this woman - did you have a question? Yes.

QUESTION: Back to Bosnia?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Were only two people involved in arrests today? Or were there more?

MR. BURNS: I would just have to refer you to the British Government and to SFOR on the scene for the details of these operations. This was not a United States operation. But I think you have seen the names of the individuals who were involved. One person was shot dead because he chose to shoot at the British troops, and therefore they acted in self-defense, as they should, to protect themselves. The other person should have landed in The Hague by now. He will be incarcerated, awaiting prosecution in The Hague. Thank you. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: You praise ASEAN very much. Do you have any comment on their final decision, including the - (inaudible) - ASEAN?

MR. BURNS: Well, now you are just trying to disrupt a wonderful day in U.S.-ASEAN relations. We obviously do not agree with this decision. I think that is well known. But we do agree with the decision to keep Cambodia out for the present time. There is certainly much more that unites ASEAN and the United States than divides it.

Secretary Albright is very anxious to embark on her trip to Kuala Lumpur for the three days there in Malaysia of ASEAN meetings. She always has believed that Asia is a place of vital national interests for the United States. She has been there several times as Secretary of State, and she is very pleased to go back. She is very anxious to have these meetings with the ASEAN leaders. Yes.

QUESTION: I want to go back to a North Korean issue. Do you have any update on the four-party talks? Of course, we know on August 5th you have a preliminary talk. Do you have any concrete idea when four-way talks will take place? When do you want to have that?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I expect that we will be having a bilateral meeting with the North Koreans shortly to prepare for the preparatory meeting. We then expect a preparatory meeting of the four parties on August 5th in New York. That would be the first time that China had participated in these talks since April 19, 1996, when President Clinton and President Kim suggested this idea. We hope that beyond the August 5th meeting, it will be possible to actually embark on negotiations with the eventual goal being a final peace treaty that would conclude the Korean conflict that began so many years ago.

QUESTION: Is it okay for the United States to talk about the long-time food assistance to North Korea if four-party talks can take place?

MR. BURNS: The United States has never linked food assistance and the four-party talks nor will we in the future.

QUESTION: Even the long-time food assistance?

MR. BURNS: No. We're not going to link food aid. Our food aid is directed at little kids, so we wouldn't link that to political issues. Yes, Talal. And then we'll go to you and then to Mr. Lambros, yes.

QUESTION: After President Clinton's statement yesterday, there was some movement at last in the peace process in the Middle East. There was a meeting last night held in Ambassador Bassiouny's house, I think, and was attended by Yitzhak Mordechai, the Israeli defense minister, Bassiouny is Egyptian ambassador to Israel.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: And also attended by Martin Endyk. Now, can you tell us more about this meeting and what transpired?

MR. BURNS: I can't tell you much about the meeting, except to say that we obviously support any movement to get Israelis and Palestinians together and to have face-to-face talks. We very much support that. We want to see movement in the Middle East.

QUESTION: Is there a new American initiative in the area?

MR. BURNS: Well, again, I have to take my lead from our President, who said yesterday that we have new initiatives but declined to discuss them in detail; therefore, I must do so as well. Yes, Azis.

QUESTION: Can you at least tell us what is the scope of the ideas, because some people are reporting peace process -- including Lebanon and Syria -- we are only talking about the Palestinian track. And if we are only talking about the Palestinian track, are we only talking about the resumption of the security talks or it is wider than that?

MR. BURNS: Well, again, the President decided yesterday he would not go into these details; so, therefore, I cannot as well. But you can be assured the United States wants to do its share in moving the peace process forward.

QUESTION: Some people suggesting that this really did was trying to, you know, create the situation that there is movement on the peace process after the United States being criticized for not moving or not doing enough to --

MR. BURNS: We shouldn't be criticized. We shouldn't be criticized. We have done everything we can to move those talks forward. It is up to the Israelis and Palestinian to move them forward. You should direct your criticism elsewhere.

QUESTION: No, I'm not saying I'm criticizing. I am saying they are criticizing. But the point is, is this could be related to the fact that there is a concern on the part of the Clinton administration that more Arab countries might follow Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in not attending the economic summit in Doha.

MR. BURNS: Well, we're concerned about that. We think all Arab countries should attend that summit. If they are interested in peace, they need to be interested in peace in all of its dimensions -- economic as well as political. The economic summit is in Casablanca, Amman and Cairo have been successful, and we want the Doha summit to be successful. It will not be if Arab countries stay away.

QUESTION: Would you say the spirit of the Arab-Israeli relations at the time in Casablanca and Cairo is totally different than what it is now --

MR. BURNS: That logic will lead you directly backward to 1948 - directly backward to 1948. You will be imprisoned by that logic forever. You have got to break out of it. That is what Sadat did and that's what Begin did and that's what Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat did. That is what His Majesty King Hussein is doing. We think that more countries ought to emulate the role of Jordan, more countries in the Arab world. That logic will get you nowhere. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Back to Cambodia.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: French Prime Minister said that he would urge the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Cambodia. Is it pretty much right to consider such an action? Or you will seriously reconsider this idea?

MR. BURNS: I think before we reflexively try to strike out in our mutual frustration with Hun Sen, we ought to allow the ASEAN foreign ministers to consult as they intend to with King Sihanouk, Prince Ranariddh and Mr. Hun Sen. We put great faith in ASEAN. Acting Secretary Pickering has had a meeting, a lunch meeting today with the ASEAN ambassadors to consult. He is very interested in the ASEAN views prior to his meeting with Prince Ranariddh tomorrow, which will be at noon here tomorrow at the State Department.

So I think we would like to consult further to see if there is room to promote some kind of restoration of stability in Cambodia before we resort to very dramatic initiatives from which it is very hard to return. Of course, we are taking a very hard line with Hun Sen. He ought to understand that. I think our announcement today on our own aid program is indicative of that.

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes. On the Aegean issue, while the Greek Foreign Minister Theodore Pangalos was defending today your Madrid agreement during a press conference in Athens, at the same time, Turkish F-16 fighters were aggressively violating and infringing the Greek airspace around island of - (inaudible) -- in the center of the Aegean Sea. Any comment, since you mediated for the Madrid agreement actually on principles?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: I am not aware of the incident to which you refer, the incident with the Turkish F-16s, but I will look into that and take that question.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR. BURNS: I do wish to take issue with your characterization of what happened in Madrid.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR. BURNS: That was a statement and commitments made by the foreign minister of Greece and the foreign minister of Turkey and supported by the two prime ministers. So I do not think it is appropriate for you to case aspersions on it because we think this is a very good agreement for both Greece and Turkey.

QUESTION: It has been through your mediation. It's --

MR. BURNS: And we are very pleased and very honored to have been part of this mediation.

QUESTION: So you succeeded --

MR. BURNS: We all succeeded; but, most importantly, Greece and Turkey have succeeded. You know --

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR. BURNS: -- when something good and positive happens in the Eastern Mediterranean, we should not be so quick to criticize it.

QUESTION: It's not so easy --

MR. BURNS: It is not every day that something positive happens in the Eastern Mediterranean.

QUESTION: Read the statement by the Greek political leaders and some professionals, you will see this is not exactly true. How do you answer to the series of criticisms that gives the United States the Madrid agreement is contrary to the treaties of Lausanne, Paris, (inaudible) and the international law of the sea to the point that Greece, for the first time, recognized vital interest for Turkey in the Aegean with no legitimate basis.

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: We think the Greek and Turkish governments have done a very good thing. Their statement of principles, their agreement on a statement of principles -- which really is what the statement referred to -- is a positive step forward. But as you know, there were no practical agreements attached to the statement of principles, and now we look forward to Turkey and Greece considering some practical steps to fill out the agreement.

I think whatever your political persuasion is here, whatever your political party is, whatever ideology your newspaper has, it seems to us, it is very hard to argue when two countries get together and say, we want to live in peace; we want to respect each other; and we want to work together. It is hard to argue with that. That is like arguing, as we say here in the United States with mom and apple pie. We don't do that here in the United States. We prefer to be positive, not negative. I will be positive here.

QUESTION: On Cyprus, despite the embargo on Cyprus talks by UN Secretary General, a number of U.S. newspapers dispatched stories for the permanent division of Cyprus based on the UDI of Rauf Denktash of the Turkish- occupied area of Cyprus. To this effect, I will quote only the title of today's story in The Washington Post -- "Talks Open on Partition of Cyprus." Could you please comment?

MR. BURNS: I don't write editorials -- headlines for The Washington Post or story headlines. I cannot be responsible for what The Washington Post writes. Kofi Annan, Secretary General has asked for a news blackout. I am going to honor that.

Thank you very much.

(The briefing concluded at 2:16 P.M.)

(###)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01a run on Thursday, 10 July 1997 - 23:50:42 UTC