Browse through our Interesting Nodes Collection 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 #108, 97-07-17

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>


417

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, July 17, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1               Announcement of Visitors
1               Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group
1-2             African Crisis Response Initiative training by US

UNITED NATIONS 2-3,16-17 New permanent seats on Security Council

FORMER REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA 3-4 Attack at Banja Luka and SFOR operations 4-5 Election of Milosevic as President of FRY

CAMBODIA 5-6,16 Appointment of Ung Huot and the return of Prince Ranariddh 6 Hun Sen criticism of US 6 ASEAN and Cambodia Membership 7-8 Recognition of Hun Sen's government

KOREA 8 N. Korean Export of Corn to Japan 8-9 DMZ incident 9 Effect on 4-way talks 9-10 US-ROK Nonproliferation talks 18 KEDO funding

SYRIA 10-11,17 House-Senate amendments restricting trade 10-11 US relationship with Syria

NIGERIA 11 Request to waive diplomatic immunity for US Amb.

CYPRUS 11-12 Ecevit's visit to Turkish controlled Northern Cyprus 12-13,14 Alleged violation of Greek airspace 13 Greg Craig mission

PEACE PROCESS 14-15 UN General Assembly resolution against Israel

IRAQ 15-16 Saddam Hussein request to lift sanctions 16 Kurdish cease fire

LEBANON 17 Travel Ban decision

GREECE/TURKEY 18-19 Political Cartoon


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #108

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997 1:09 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to welcome a group of African journalists here who are here in an Institute of International Education and Professional Exchange Program, and you are most welcome. Feel free to ask questions, if you would like, on any issue.

We are posting today a statement on the results of the meeting of the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, which met yesterday in Naqoura in Lebanon. The group met to consider four complaints of violations of the April 26, 1996, understanding. Two of those complaints were filed by Lebanon, two by Israel. We welcome the outcome of this meeting, especially the re-affirmation of the importance that all parties must comply with the April 26, 1996, understanding. We also note with satisfaction the group's call on authorities on all sides to exercise caution and restraint in order to defuse tension and protect civilian lives on both sides of the border -- that border being the Israel-Lebanon border. That statement is available to you after the briefing in the Press Office. I think it is self-explanatory. But I wanted to point it out, given the recent events along that that border.

I also have one more statement before we go to questions, and it pertains to Africa. Approximately 120 United States peacekeeping trainers will deploy on or about July 21 to Senegal and to Uganda. The trainers come, for the most part, from the Third Special Forces Group in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Their deployment marks the first visible step in the implementation of the African Crisis Response Initiative. This initiative is a training initiative intended to work cooperatively with African countries to create highly effective, rapidly deployable peacekeeping units which can operate jointly in the event of a humanitarian crisis in Africa, or if there is a need for a traditional peacekeeping operation.

The initiative's emphasis on training is based on a common peacekeeping doctrine, and a supply of communications equipment will enable the units to work together more effectively. This initiative is compatible with the call at the Denver Summit, the Summit of the Eight, for long-term efforts to promote rapidly deployable African peacekeeping capabilities. We continue to work very closely with France and with the United Kingdom, as well as with many African countries, about ways that we can actively explore mechanisms to coordinate these types of activities and towards the establishment, we hope at some point, of an African peacekeeping support group.

Senegal and Uganda were among the first group of African nations prepared to participate in this initiative with battalion-size units. The training in other nations, we expect, will follow shortly. At the same time we will continue our dialogue with African countries, with the Organization of African Unity, with the United Nations to further define the potential of this initiative. We think it's very important, and I think this is a prevailing sense in Africa itself, that African problems need to be handled by Africans themselves. We hope that by expanding training opportunities for Senegal and Uganda and other countries, we might contribute to that effort, understanding that Africans - obviously, African countries -- need to make these decisions on their own. With that I'll be very glad to go to your questions.

QUESTION: Does the Administration plan to recommend that developing countries get three permanent seats on the UN Security Council?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I think you're referring to one of the news reports in the papers this morning. I can tell you that Secretary Albright, who retains a very great interest in United Nations matters from her time at the United Nations, has been working with others in the Administration on a review of our policy on Security Council reform. As a result of this review, the United States now agrees in principle that we ought to have developing countries sit on a permanent basis on the UN Security Council as new permanent members. We believe that this should be worked out and discussed specifically, obviously, in the UN Security Council.

As you know, the United States also favors -- and has favored for a number of years -- that Germany and Japan should be given permanent seats in the Security Council. With the three new permanent seats from Asia, Africa and Latin America, that would increase the size of the Security Council to ten. We believe that as a total we could agree to a maximum of 20 to 21 members because in addition to the permanent members, of course, you know you have other members of the Security Council with limited terms.

We believe that the regions themselves -- the African countries, the Latin countries and the Asian countries -- ought to decide how these seats will be filled. Therefore, the United States is not making any recommendations about which countries should fill these new permanent seats, but we expect this to be very actively discussed throughout the next year. We'd like to go forward with Security Council reform because it would enable us all around the world, of course, to take advantage of some of the changes in the world with the end of the Cold War, with the end of communism in Eastern Europe and changes in many of the developing regions themselves.

So Ambassador Bill Richardson put this view forward to members of the Security Council yesterday and other members of the United Nations. We have consulted, of course, the key Senators and representatives on Capitol Hill and this will be the United States' position as we go into the UN General Assembly beginning in September. Sid?

QUESTION: Just to clarify, these are permanent seats that will be rotated among developing nations or three developing nations will be selected to sit permanently?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think that probably remains to be seen. Our own view is that there should be three permanent seats from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Whether or not it is the new members are named or whether it is rotational, that will have to be worked out, I think, in the course of the debate.

QUESTION: Okay. And secondarily, I noticed you leave out a region of the world, the Middle East. You don't think the Middle Eastern countries should participate in this?

MR. BURNS: Well, it depends. Well, I don't want to get into a geographical discussion here, but you know that I think technically in many countries, even some in the Middle East, understand that the Middle East is part of Asia geographically. So we don't believe there's a need for a specific country in the Middle East.

QUESTION: You're not - you don't - you're not --

MR. BURNS: And as you know, some countries that are commonly referred to as Middle East countries, like Egypt, are African countries. Egypt is an African country; it is a member of the Organization of African Unity. So I think that we have a broad definition. By saying Africa, Latin America and Asia, we are including all countries of the world, all regions of the world that right now do not have permanent members of the UN Security Council.

QUESTION: Will these five new permanent seats also have veto power with them?

MR. BURNS: Well, yes. I mean, we're talking about a proposal that would expand the Security Council to ten, and we would think that all the rights and privileges of membership would go with that. But if you have any questions about that, perhaps what I should do on that particular one is check with our UN mission and get back to you.

No more questions today?

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the bombing in Banja Luka today -- last night?

MR. BURNS: Well, we know that there were some incidents at a British base in Bosnia. All I can tell you is that SFOR has the mandate and the capability to protect its personnel. SFOR is prepared to protect its personnel. On the specific incidents that occurred last night, the International Police Training Force and the Republika Srpska police worked together cooperatively to locate suspects in those incidents, and we do expect the Republika Srpska police to continue to cooperate with SFOR. SFOR will defend itself.

At this point, looking at the actions of the last couple of days, we do not believe that there is any established pattern of activity. We don't believe there is any organized threat to the troops. These appear to be isolated and separate incidents. I think as a general message, everybody in that region should understand that SFOR troops are fully prepared to continue their operations. We are not going to be dissuaded from doing what we must do to bring peace to Bosnia by a few isolated incidents.

QUESTION: Can you point to a reason for these attacks, the attack yesterday and then -

MR. BURNS: No, I can't; I can't, Sid. I don't know what was behind that attack. It was a minor incident. Fortunately, the young soldier who was injured is going to recover from his wounds, which were not very serious. We of course deplore any attack or any kind of incident that involves violence, and our troops will defend themselves.

QUESTION: You wouldn't connect this to the rest of the alleged war criminals?

MR. BURNS: I don't think it's possible for me to do that because I don't know the motivation of the person who did that, and I don't believe that person has been apprehended.

QUESTION: Do you now have any views on the election of Milosevic to be president of Yugoslavia?

MR. BURNS: Do we now have views?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: I thought we had views the other day.

QUESTION: Yeah. No, you hadn't confirmed the report.

MR. BURNS: I think we can confirm the report. I know that foreign minister Tinuvic has had a conversation with our charge d'affaires, Dick Miles, in Belgrade. We know that Mr. Milosevic has decided to step down from his position as president of Serbia and he will now occupy the position of president of the former Yugoslav Republic.

Now, as you know, we don't recognize diplomatically the FRY. That seat is vacant in the United Nations. So I don't believe we will have any official state-to-state relations with the FRY, but what I can tell you is that we will maintain our contact with Milosevic because he is a signatory of the Dayton Accords. He is a very important person to carry out those accords. So when we talk about Bosnia and we talk about implementation of Dayton, we will, of course, continue to have conversations with him. But I think that is about as much as one can say on this particular issue.

QUESTION: Well, when you come to him and say, what about this agreement that you have signed, he's going to say, predictably, that's not my department any more; you should go and see somebody in the Serbian Government. What do you respond to that?

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if he will take that position, Jim. If he does take that position, obviously, we won't have anything to talk about with Mr. Milosevic. If he would like to isolate himself from the United States, that's probably the best way to do it. He is personally the signatory of those accords. When then-Assistant Secretary Dick Holbrooke had his shuttle mission through the region in September and October of 1995, Milosevic signed several agreements that assume some personal as well as political responsibility for the negotiations and for the outcome of the negotiations.

So I don't believe that Mr. Milosevic is escaping responsibility for the Dayton Accords as he takes on this new position with this country that we do not recognize. I think that Mr. Milosevic will want, as a matter of his own self-interest, to be involved in the Dayton Accord implementation. He has not given us any kind of understanding that he won't be involved. So I don't believe that's going to be a problem.

QUESTION: Nick --

MR. BURNS: Question, yes.

QUESTION: To another subject?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Ung Huot has come out and said that he will accept the first - the role of prime minister next to Hun Sen and rule on the behalf of the Royalist Party. Does the United States think it's still feasible for Prince Ranariddh to return to Cambodia and rule next to Hun Sen?

MR. BURNS: We recognize Prince Ranariddh to be the first prime minister. He was elected by the Cambodian people. His party received the most votes, and the assembly in Cambodia voted him to be first prime minister. The assembly has not voted that the Cambodian foreign minister should become first prime minister.

The Cambodian foreign minister ought to respect the fundamental norms of any kind of democratic political party. You don't assume leadership by standing on a soap box and declaring yourself to be a leader, or by taking that power away from someone in the dark of night. You do it through an open process -- a democratic process -- and you allow the person whom you seek to replace to have a voice, an open voice, without any threat of intimidation or coercion. That clearly was not the case here. There was no open process. There was a coercive process. So we still believe that Prince Ranariddh is first prime minister, and we encourage the Cambodian foreign minister -- someone we know quite well, who lived in a Western country, Australia, for 20 years, who ought to understand democracy and how free political systems work -- we urge him to reflect on what he has done and allow an open process in FUNCINPEC to take place.

QUESTION: You talked about democracy. He, himself, said that he is for democracy, and he wants that to reign supreme over anything else in Cambodia. He feels as though he could help democracy come to pass in Cambodia. Are you - in light of what you just said - are you then surprised that he would accept what Hun Sen has offered him?

MR. BURNS: I'm surprised he'd use democracy as a rationale for his recent actions because his recent actions are clearly inconsistent with any reasonable definition of democracy and how political parties select their leaders. Prince Ranariddh ran at the head of a slate in the elections, and he was elected on that basis. He has been the party leader. There has been no open democratic political process to take that position away from Prince Ranariddh.

The Cambodian foreign minister -- I suppose in collusion with Hun Sen - has just summarily declared himself to be the first prime minister. That doesn't seem right to us. We don't understand why any other country outside of Cambodia would look on that with any degree of support. That is going to be our position. We believe in democracy and we believe that democratic rules should be followed.

QUESTION: So the United States will not try to contact Ung Huot and talk to him about this at all?

MR. BURNS: I suppose that we will still talk to him. Our ambassador, Ken Quinn, has to deal with reality. The reality in Cambodia, in Phnom Penh, is that you have people -- Hun Sen, now this individual -- who believe that just by declaring themselves to be democrats that we will accept them. We will deal with them on a practical basis. It doesn't mean we have to like them or agree with them. So we will continue to act in our own self-interest, which is to assert that democratic rules and fair play should be the order of the day in Cambodia.

QUESTION: Nick, the new leader of Cambodia, Hun Sen, took note of your words on this topic yesterday, similar words, and said the United States ought to butt out; it's none of their business. Do you have anything to say to that?

MR. BURNS: Well, that's an interesting position to take when, in fact, the world at large, the international community, with the participation of the United States, helped to rid Cambodia of the dictatorship that had ruled there. We helped to organize the elections. We in the international community have given well over $1 billion of assistance over the last four years. The Cambodian political leaders, including Hun Sen, have consistently called for the active involvement of the United States and other countries in helping to rebuild the country, in helping to organize and monitor the elections. Now, when it is politically convenient for him to tell us to butt out, that doesn't seem right. That's not right.

So I would just say we are going to continue to comment on affairs in Cambodia because we have an interest in doing that. We are not the only country that comments. The ASEAN countries are very much involved and interested. The ASEAN delegation just met with King Sihanouk in Beijing. They will be meeting with Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh in Bangkok. So I think all of us - in ASEAN, all the Asian countries and certainly the United States - will continue to comment, and Hun Sen is going to have to expect that.

QUESTION: Do you know if Cambodia will be sending some type of representative to the ASEAN meeting, at what level, and will the Secretary be meeting with this person?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if Cambodia will be represented there. You know ASEAN has decided to delay the admission of Cambodia into its membership. Will anyone be there? I simply don't know.

QUESTION: Nick, you say you have to deal with reality in Cambodia and that the United States continues to recognize Ranariddh as the first prime minister. However, one of the realities is also that he can't go back.

MR. BURNS: Well, when I say we have to deal with the realities, it is still in our interest, given our humanitarian impulses -- the need to try to help innocent people in Cambodia -- it is in our interest to deal, to talk to and to communicate with people like Hun Sen and the Cambodian foreign minister, the person who claims to be the first prime minister but who is the foreign minister. It is in our interest to talk with them and we will continue to talk with them. One of the things we will be doing in our communications with them is to tell them where we think they need to improve their own behavior to meet international standards and to communicate the five principles that we have laid down now over the last two weeks. That is reality.

But we also need to pay attention and be respectful to democratic procedures. Prince Ranariddh was elected. One of the leading democratic countries in the world, if not the leading democratic country, the United States, is not going to turn it's back on democrats and we're not going to agree with the usurpation of power, illegally, by a person like Hun Sen. That's our position.

QUESTION: Isn't one of the realities is that he is now a politician in exile without power?

MR. BURNS: He is currently in exile and he currently does not have power in Cambodia, but we still believe he's the democratically elected leader of the country, Jim, and it would be inappropriate for the United States to turn it's back on democracy and that's what we would be doing if we simply discounted him and refused to recognize his position any more.

If there is a fair and open way to change political leaders in Cambodia, well, that's the way to go, elections. We very much support elections in May of next year. We hope that Hun Sen will allow these elections to take place on a democratic basis with international monitoring. That's the only way that the international community can be assured that a democratic process is followed. Still on Cambodia?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: In spite of the United States' strong attitude, there's some movement among the United States' allied countries to recognize Hun Sen's new regime. For example, Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto said the other day he indicated to accept Hun Sen's new government, saying that the important thing is to elect the new first prime minister who could replace the Prince Ranariddh. Do you have any comment on this? Or do you have any conversation with those countries?

MR. BURNS: Well, we support the ASEAN approach which is to try to consult with King Sihanouk or Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh to see if there's a way to restore reason to this debate over the future of Cambodia. We certainly believe that Prince Ranariddh's political party ought to be free to operate in Cambodia and free of the executions and arrests and intimidation that have been underway for the last week or so. On Cambodia? Yes.

QUESTION: So what is the current US position on Cambodia's possible entry into ASEAN? Because ASEAN delegation implied the possible entries sometime this year?

MR. BURNS: The United States supports the decision by ASEAN to suspend consideration of Cambodia for membership in ASEAN. Given the events of the last couple of weeks, we think it would be inconsistent to go forward now that Hun Sen has usurped power there. Yes.

QUESTION: North Korea.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: North Korea is reported to have exported some corn to Japan that China gave North Korea to help feed hungry people, their hungry people. I invite your comment on that.

MR. BURNS: I'm just unaware of the facts. The allegation is that North Korea has exported corn to Japan?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of that. I'll be glad to take the question, though, given the interest that all of us have in the situation of food aid in North Korea and the fact that there's a famine underway. I'd be glad to take the question. I can't respond today because I'm not aware of the report.

QUESTION: According to KBS news this morning, North Korea --

MR. BURNS: I have not seen the report, but I'll be glad to take the question. Further, on North Korea, we talked yesterday about the incident along the DMZ. The United Nations Command filed a protest yesterday, based on the results of the joint observer team, the special investigative team's investigation, which determined that the North Koreans committed an armistice agreement violation in their actions within the DMZ yesterday. I understand that the North Korean delegation at Panmunjom informed the United Nations that it did not accept the protest.

If there's any lesson here, it is that the North Koreans should adhere to the armistice agreement. If there is another lesson, it is that we should get on with the four-party talks so that we can create the basis for a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. The United States fully, obviously, supports forward movement on the four-party talks. We will have a meeting on August 5th in New York -- a preparatory meeting which for the first time will include China, and we are looking forward to that meeting.

QUESTION: Nick, do you think the South Korean forces acted appropriately in firing at the North Koreans after their initial warning shots, rather than just continue with warning shots in the air?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I think I have to leave the answer to that question to the UN investigative team. We weren't there. This is a very complex situation. The UN investigative team confirmed that the North Koreans committed a violation. I don't believe that they confirmed that the South Koreans committed a violation, but the North Koreans did. We do stand by our ally South Korea, obviously, in this matter and in all others. Still on Korea? Yes.

QUESTION: Well, do you think that this little skirmish, that it will affect the four-way talks - perhaps a delay? Do you expect that all parties will still attend?

MR. BURNS: It will not affect our own intention to go to New York on August 5th and to negotiate and discuss seriously the four-party talks proposal. We think we should go on with that because that is in our best interest and the best interest of the Korean people - the people of South Korea and North Korea.

QUESTION: What about the ROK? Are they also expected to attend?

MR. BURNS: We believe the South Koreans will be there. The Chinese will be there, and we hope very much the North Koreans will be there, as well. They ought to. It's in their interest to be there.

QUESTION: On Korea?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the U.S.-ROK missile talks in Hawaii?

MR. BURNS: I don't have anything for you on that. But I'll be glad to take the question. I'm sure somebody -- Lorraine Toly in our East Asian Bureau, I'm sure, would be glad to give you something on that. Are you talking about the nonproliferation task force meeting?

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BURNS: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was - okay. That meeting is still going on so we will have a report on that. I thought you were referring to a different set of talks.

QUESTION: In Hawaii?

MR. BURNS: The nonproliferation talks --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BURNS: -- are still ongoing. When they end, we will have something to say about them. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, Nick, the House and the Senate passed amendments calling for the imposition of trade restrictions on Syria. The restrictions would make it impossible for any kind of financial transactions between American banks and Syrian banks. What is the position of the State Department on this? And are you concerned that these new restrictions, if they become law, would have a negative impact on the peace process?

MR. BURNS: I think our position with the House and the Senate, as they move to conference, will be that we do not support these particular amendments. As you know, the United States has a very difficult relationship with Syria. Syria is on our terrorism list and our narcotics list. There are virtually no major U.S. assistance programs underway. There is no U.S. assistance to Syria. Ex-IM and OPIC are not operating there. We don't have a normal relationship with Syria. But then again to --

QUESTION: There is trade.

MR. BURNS: There is some trade. To treat Syria as we treat, say, Iran, we think there has to be a distinction made. The distinction is this -- however difficult the Middle East peace talks have been, Syria has been at the table for a number of years. Syria has at least been active with Israel and with Lebanon and other countries in the Middle East in the various tracks of the Middle East peace process. That's not true of Iran. So there has to be some distinction made.

With Iran we have a total economic embargo. With Syria we have a very poor relationship with strong disagreements on major issues like terrorism, like narcotics. But we still think that this provision probably exceeds where we ought to go. We will be making that clear to the Congress in our private discussions with members of the Senate and the House.

QUESTION: Nick, Syria hasn't been at the table for more than a year now. What are you talking about?

MR. BURNS: What I am talking about, Sid, is the fact that it takes - Syria has been at the table, at the Wye Plantation. We still discuss the Middle East peace process issues with the Syrians. Syria, at least as of today, has not rejected the Middle East peace process as Iran has done. There are distinctions here. I don't think you ought to - you would not want to draw a monolith and draw Iran and Syria within the same group. I don't think that would be accurate or fair.

QUESTION: Are you getting somewhere with the people on the Hill?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think that remains to be seen. We have already begun to discuss this with people on the Hill. We will have to await the conference and see where it comes out. But this is our position, and we will pursue this position.

QUESTION: Nick, there are some investigators in this country who are drawing a line between Iran and Syria on the Khobar bombing. How can you make statements like that with that question still unanswered?

MR. BURNS: Sid, that question is unanswered. The United States Government has not determined which groups were responsible for the bombing of Khobar barracks that killed 19 American servicemen and officers. Until we determine that, I don't think it's responsible of me or of you, to point the finger in any country's direction. The chips will fall where they may. If the evidence points to anybody, we will point the finger there. But the evidence is not conclusive yet and the investigation is not over.

As I said, we have major problems with the Syrian Government and not a very good relationship with the Syrian Government. But we believe, in the context of this debate in the Congress, it's appropriate for us to have the point of view that we have. We will pursue it with the Congress.

QUESTION: Nick, on Nigeria.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Is there any response to the Nigerians' request to speak to the American ambassador?

MR. BURNS: This is very curious that an autocratic regime, a dictatorial regime, a major violator of human rights like the Nigerians would seek to question the ambassador of the United States on a terrorist issue and ask him to lift his diplomatic immunity. There must be a misunderstanding here. The Nigerians must have misunderstood either this issue, or they must have misstated something or mis-communicated their intentions publicly, because we cannot figure out what the Nigerians are up to. To assert or to imply in any way that the United States is involved in terrorism in Nigeria is outrageous and unfounded. There is no question about diplomatic immunity.

Our ambassador is not going to give up his diplomatic immunity to appear at a hearing in a country that's dictatorial and that has no rule of law. That would be foolhardy on our part, and it's not going to happen. So I think probably we ought to toss the ball back in the Nigerian court and ask them for an explanation of these very curious and unusual charges. Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Anything to my yesterday's pending question on Bulent Ecevit's visit to the Turkish occupied territory of Cyprus?

MR. BURNS: Well, Mr. Lambros, we have seen press reports that the deputy prime minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, is planning to travel to Northern Cyprus with a delegation. The situation on Cyprus this summer, in contrast to last summer, is calm. There are positive signs that come out of last week's talks in Trout Beck, New York, where President Clerides and Mr. Denktash spent a great deal of time together. As you know, they are going to be meeting in Geneva in the middle of August and there may even be some informal conversations in Cyprus before that.

So we think the trends in Cyprus are positive and we very much hope that Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit will use his visit to help further this constructive, positive trend on Cyprus. I think constructive and positive would be the two words that I would suggest you accentuate in your news report on this briefing.

QUESTION: In other words, did you approve this visit to the occupied territory of Cyprus?

MR. BURNS: It's not a question of approving. I didn't say we approved of the visit. I did not say we approved -

QUESTION: But this is an opportunity -

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, give me time to respond. You have asked a very good question. I did not say we approved of the visit. I have taken note of press reports that he will be visiting. I am simply suggesting that his visit be constructive and positive. If Cyprus is going to be resolved as a very, very serious issue in the Eastern Mediterranean, it will take Turks and Greeks, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, to resolve it. We are calling upon Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit to carry out, to acquit himself in that spirit, a positive, constructive spirit.

QUESTION: But how will it be constructive since made statements yesterday that he is intent to annex Cyprus to Turkey?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, perhaps that is why we are calling upon him to be positive and constructive.

QUESTION: According to Athens news agency -- the official news agency of the Greek government, I have to emphasize -- a group of ten armed Turkish F-16 and F-4 were placed yesterday in (inaudible) -- again, the Athens FIR -- and violated the Greek airspace over the Aegean between the Greek islands of (inaudible) and Lesbos.

How do you comment since Mr. Kornblum has brokered the so-called Madrid agreement of principles -

MR. BURNS: Mr. who?

QUESTION: Kornblum.

MR. BURNS: He did what?

QUESTION: He brokered.

MR. BURNS: Oh, broker. I thought you said he broke.

QUESTION: No, no.

MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, I thought you were charging John Kornblum with having broken the Madrid agreement.

QUESTION: No, no, no.

MR. BURNS: He and Secretary Albright brokered the accords.

QUESTION: That's it.

MR. BURNS: Right, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: So the so-called Madrid agreement on principles which, under these Turkish circumstances, is a joke.

MR. BURNS: Yes, I am not aware of the incident that you refer. I have no information available to me about any violation of the Athens FIR. So we will have to check into that before I can get back to you on that. But I will say this -- that the Madrid agreement is very positive and constructive as well. We hope that in the spirit of Madrid, Greece and Turkey will now take some practical steps to carry on this process of improving relations between those two countries.

Obviously, Mr. Lambros, I don't know about this particular incident, but the United States would expect that Turkey and Greece would respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and not engage in incidents that would violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of either. I cannot comment, however, on this particular incident because we have to check the facts first and check the reports.

QUESTION: Anything on the U.S. mission in the area by Greg Craig, Peter Petrihos and Miriam Sapiro?

MR. BURNS: Greg Craig, the policy planning director who reports directly to Secretary Albright has visited Athens, Ankara and is now in Cyprus --

QUESTION: Cyprus, yes, today.

MR. BURNS: -- on his visit to the eastern Mediterranean. I expect he will be back over the weekend here in Washington.

QUESTION: What are these so-called airspace violations? Isn't it true that the United States Government does not recognize ten-mile airspace around Greek territorial waters?

MR. BURNS: You know, what I would like to do is, just on this particular charge that has been made today, I want to try to get the facts and see if we can corroborate the report, then I'll have an answer at tomorrow's briefing.

QUESTION: I think U.S. position is Turkish position.

MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to take up that issue, the question you asked, at tomorrow's briefing as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BURNS: Yes, sir, Talal.

QUESTION: Ignoring your strong United Nation rebuke, Israel has ordered the bulldozers back again to resume work at the Har Homa settlement. Netanyahu has declared yesterday there are many important issues and, most of all - and I quote him -- is "Jerusalem and that we will not surrender to pressure on that issue," meaning Jerusalem.

How can you reconcile between the position in the United Nations voting against that rebuke, with Micronesia, I must add -

MR. BURNS: Excuse me? With?

QUESTION: Micronesia. You heard about Micronesia?

MR. BURNS: I certainly have heard.

QUESTION: Okay, sir.

MR. BURNS: You don't mean to demean Micronesia by noting their vote with the United States?

QUESTION: That's right, sir.

MR. BURNS: Good.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Okay.

QUESTION: And how do you reconcile between your position and the clearly stated policy of that administration that Jerusalem must be left to the final stages in negotiation?

MR. BURNS: Our consistent position in the Middle East peace negotiations has been that Israel and the Palestinians have a mutual obligation to make peace together. We did not think it was helpful for the General Assembly to pass a resolution which you and I know - - and everyone else in the General Assembly knew when they voted -- would have zero effect on the ground.

The United Nations is a very important institution which we support wholeheartedly. We do not believe it should be a debating society about issues that the Palestinians and the Israelis have already agreed are their own issues to conduct privately between themselves. For an outside body like the General Assembly to intrude on that process, we think it's not helpful. Nothing good is going to come out of it. It is just words and it's just a debate that will not materially, in a concrete way, affect positively the Middle East peace negotiations.

So, therefore, we think the General Assembly, with all due respect, ought to concern itself with other matters. We think the Palestinians and the Israelis, having already agreed on a process to negotiate, should continue their negotiations, be fair to each other and try to make progress. That is where the United States lies. We are very secure about our vote the other day. Just because other countries did not join us doesn't mean that they are right and we are wrong, by the way.

QUESTION: What is your comment on the statement by the prime minister that they will not surrender to any pressure on the Jerusalem issue, meaning any pressure?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think you know the long-standing position of Israel and the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords; and that is that that particular issue is a final permanent status issue. We would expect that when the talks and if the talks reach that stage, that an issue would be addressed by them. That's why that issue, which is a very emotional and complex and sensitive issue, ought to be left to the Israelis and the Palestinians to deal with without any kind of debate and votes in the United Nations which are not going to affect the situation on the ground. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Turkish Cypriot President Mr. Denktash today offered to Greek side to establish a joint police force which in charge of the green line. Did you see this news?

MR. BURNS: I did not. No, I'm not aware of that. So that's another question we'll have to check on for tomorrow's briefing.

QUESTION: Yeah. Another subject is the government of Baghdad wants total the lift of the UN sanctions against Iraq. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. BURNS: You mean Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be lifted?

QUESTION: Saddam Hussein.

MR. BURNS: Well, that's not going to happen because he has violated UN Security Council resolutions going back to March of 1991. Until he assures all of us that he is fully in compliance with those resolutions and until he answers the question of what happened to the more than 700 Kuwaitis who disappeared when Kuwait was illegally occupied by Iraq, he doesn't have a prayer of having the sanctions lifted. There is no support for that in the Security Council and there will be no support.

If you look at the testimony of Ambassador Ekeus, who has left his position as the UN special negotiator, Saddam Hussein has consistently lied to the United Nations about his program to develop weapons of mass destruction. So why would we lift the sanctions if he continues to violate UN Security Council resolutions and continues to lie about his program to build weapons of mass destruction? That wouldn't make any sense to lift the sanctions.

QUESTION: And also, today is the Iraqi Kurdish groups violated the cease fire in Northern Iraq and they start fighting each other. And do you have any comment on the subject?

MR. BURNS: Well, we have been in touch with both the KDP and the PUK, with the leaders of both about some of the problems in their work together in Northern Iraq. Both leaders -- Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani -- have assured us that they wish to continue to implement the cease fire established last October. Both parties have expressed concerns to us about some of these incidents, but they say that both are prepared to remain in discussion with each other about ways to resolve them and that's the proper thing to do.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. BURNS: You're welcome. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Back to Cambodia. King Sihanouk told ASEAN foreign minister -- delegation of the ASEAN foreign minister, that he was not opposed to the appointment of the new first prime minister. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. BURNS: We do not have a briefing yet from ASEAN or a report from ASEAN on the conversation that the three foreign ministers had with King Sihanouk. So I can't really reply to that question until we get the report.

QUESTION: And another subject, about the UN Security Council reform. Are all developing countries divided into three groups - Asia or Latin America or Middle East? No, not Middle East, Africa?

MR. BURNS: Well, our position is that the new permanent members should come from those three regions. The countries of those regions should decide on the candidates for the seats themselves. We're not going to suggest our own candidates.

QUESTION: So the Middle East countries Kuwait or Saudi Arabia will be qualified for the Africa or ASEAN group?

MR. BURNS: Depending on the geographic location of the Middle East country. For instance, Egypt is an African country and had seen itself to be an African country for many, many decades, and is part of the OAU. Other Middle Eastern countries would not fit into Africa.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary conclude her review with advisors on the travel ban to Lebanon?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe she has, but she is looking at that question. There's been quite a lot of discussion about the issue and obviously, some contacts with the Lebanese Government itself. At some point in the next week or so or ten days, the United States will have to make a decision on this. We will do so. We will inform you once that decision is made.

QUESTION: Will you make the announce when she's away? I mean, could it be announced here when she's away?

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know. The Secretary is going to be on leave - she left at noon today - from now until Tuesday evening. Then on Wednesday morning, she goes off to California and then to Malaysia and Singapore. So she won't be back in the office until, I believe, August 1st. So I assume this decision will be announced when she's not in town. It could be announced next week, it could be beyond that.

This is a very important issue. We're taking great care with it. We understand the importance of this issue in Lebanon. We've spoken to Prime Minister Hariri repeatedly over a number of years about this. We understand the sentiments of the Lebanese people. We take all this into account with all the other factors that we must look at, including the security factors. We'll try to make the best decision that we can, and we'll announce it to you once that decision is made.

QUESTION: Could we just go back to the Syria question? One button we didn't press - is the Secretary prepared to recommend that the President veto a bill that contains that element?

MR. BURNS: Oh, we're not anywhere close to that consideration yet, Sid. I think what's happened is that you have language now from the Senate and the House. At some point it will go to conference and there will be other issues attached to the bills. So I don't believe there's any consideration of that question yet because we're too early in the process.

QUESTION: The Guardian newspaper today has reported that the operation of capturing Kansi cost the United States $3 million. I don't know how true is that. But they also reported that you're actively now putting a plan together to capture Osama Bin Ladin. He's been accused of financing and organizing some terrorists. Is there any truth to this?

MR. BURNS: I have no information for you on that issue, for obvious reasons.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can we go back to North Korea? I understand senators have passed an amendment limiting North Korean aid. Can you tell me a little about that?

MR. BURNS: There may be some amendments in the Senate, various bills in the Senate about food aid to North Korea.

QUESTION: No, not of food aid, economic aid like KEDO.

MR. BURNS: Well, KEDO comes up, of course, every year. The United States strongly supports KEDO. It's part of the agreed framework, part of our effort to freeze North Korea's nuclear program, and we very much support full funding of our KEDO request. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: One more? On the Madrid agreement, the Greek newspaper Pontiki, P-o-n-t-i-k-i, which means mouse -

(Laughter)

-- dispatched a very interesting cartoon presenting Simitis and Demirel to get married in Madrid with President Clinton acting as a best man placing their heads, Turkish faces as the (inaudible) under the title, "What Clinton has brought together the Aegean Sea shall not put down," paraphrasing, actually, the biblical version of what God brought together no man shall put asunder.

The cartoon does not clarify who is the groom and who is the bride.

(Laughter.)

But it clearly reflects the mentality in Greece right now that the Madrid agreement is a very pro- Turkish agreement, produced by the U.S. Government, as they say.

MR. BURNS: A what agreement?

QUESTION: Pro-Turkish, very pro-Turkish; it's against Greece, produced by the U.S. Government. Could you please comment on the Madrid agreement once again?

MR. BURNS: I have never been asked to comment on a political cartoon before.

(Laughter.)

And I'm nearly out of this job. I'm not sure I should comment on a cartoon days before I leave this job. I think, Mr. Lambros, Madrid was positive for Greece and for Turkey, and we will continue to try to promote Greek-Turkish understanding. That is our commitment to our NATO allies. We have great respect for both governments and intend to work with them.

How is that? That's a good answer. I would print that. Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:53 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 Friday, 18 July 1997 - 0:04:08 UTC