Browse through our Interesting Nodes of the Hellenic Government 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 #110, 97-07-21

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

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


U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Monday, July 21, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1.....Announcement of guests
1.....Sec. Albright travel schedule
1.....Strobe Talbott speech
1-2.....Amb. Richardson update
2.....India Public Announcement on travel

BOSNIA/CROATIA 2, 3.....Pres. Plavsic 2-3.....Karadzic 3-4.....Cooperation with War Crimes Tribunal 4.....Capture of war criminals

CYPRUS/GREECE/TURKEY 5.....Peace Talks 5.....US role 5-6.....Greek airspace 17-18.....Desire for peace and reconciliation

CANADA 6.....Blockade of US Ferry 6-7, 9-10.....Fishing situation and Resolution 7-8.....Arrest of American Fishermen 8-9, 18.....Proposal for binding arbitration

PEACE PROCESS 10.....Saeb Erakat and Israeli Cabinet Sec. Naveh visit 10.....Resignation of Palestinian Justice Minister 10-11.....Land dealer executions 11-12.....Peace negotiations 12-13.....Israeli War games

IRAQ 13-14.....Amb. Butler and Iraqi Government 14.....Syrian treatment of Iraqi opposition media

CAMBODIA 14, 15.....Status of Solarz mission 14, 15.....ASEAN Initiative 14-15.....1991 Paris Peace Accords 14-16.....Albright at ASEAN

TAIWAN 16.....Future of Taiwan

LIBERIA 16-17.....Elections


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #110

MONDAY, JULY 21, 1997 1:05 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department briefing. Glad to see everybody here. I want to welcome three State Department interns - Moira McCaffery, from Personnel; Briana Pinney, from our Equal Employment Opportunity Office; and Christina Curiel, from our Africa Bureau. We also have interns and public affairs officials from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Welcome to all of you who are with us.

I have a couple of announcements. First, the Secretary will be back in Washington tomorrow afternoon from Colorado. She leaves, as you know, mid-morning on Wednesday for her trip to Los Angeles and then to Kuala Lumpur and then to Singapore. She will deliver a luncheon address in Los Angeles, for those of you coming with us and those of you not coming with us, on Wednesday, July 23. This luncheon is co-hosted by the Pacific Council and the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. It takes place at the Bonaventure Hotel. The speech is at 1:15 p.m. She will take questions and answers from the audience, following the speech. Her address is going to center on Asia policy - specifically the United States' relations with the Southeast Asian countries, addressing both political and economic issues. We'll make that speech available to those of you back here in Washington as soon as we can get it; we'll put it up on the Internet the same day. For those of you traveling with us, you'll be going to that speech with us, much as you did in San Francisco.

We then proceed, on Thursday morning, from Los Angeles to Kuala Lumpur, get in just before midnight on Friday evening, early Saturday morning. Then she has a schedule of meetings - bilateral meetings - on Saturday in Malaysia. Sunday and Monday are the ASEAN meetings, the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Post Ministerial Conference. Tuesday, she'll be traveling to Singapore; leaving Singapore on Wednesday and back in the United States -- probably in Hawaii - on Wednesday, and then to Andrews on Thursday. So that's a summary of her trip. I think all of you who are going with us know you're going with us. We have ten journalists traveling with us.

Strobe Talbott, our deputy secretary of state, is giving a speech at this moment over at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies on U.S. policy in the Caucuses and Central Asia. It's entitled, "A Farewell to Flashman: American Policy in the Caucuses and Central Asia." It's available to you in hard copy in the press office. It's also going to be on the Internet shortly.

If you're interested in Bosnia, Ambassador Bill Richardson has been traveling in the Balkans over the weekend. He was in Croatia yesterday. He spoke with President Tudjman, and pressed very hard that the Croatian Government honor its commitments, as a signatory to the Dayton Accords, to turn over the indicted war criminals on Croatian territory to the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. President Tudjman said that war criminals who have been indicted by the tribunal will be turned over by the Croatian Government to the tribunal. That's nice to know - good words, a positive statement. We'd like to see positive actions from the Croatian Government.

Secondly, President Tudjman said that Croatia would accept the return of all Croatian Serbs, as the process of reconciliation continues in Croatia and as the situation in Eastern Slovonia unfolds.

Ambassador Richardson was also in Brcko. He met with President Itzebegovic this morning. They talked about a variety of issues concerning Dayton compliance. He was scheduled to go to Banja Luka to meet Mrs. Plavsic, but we haven't heard from Ambassador Richardson or his party in a couple of hours. We would like to hear from them, and will report to you once we do hear from them. He is also going to be going on to Macedonia to visit the American forces who serve there with the UN contingent.

We also have a public announcement that we have issued on travel in India. It is a message warning American citizens that in the last few days, the New Delhi Police have raised public awareness about the possibility of a terrorist attack in New Delhi. We have circulated this information to the American resident public and traveling public in New Delhi itself.

With that, George, I will be very glad to go to your questions.

QUESTION: Do you have any words of encouragement for Mrs. Plavsic in her moment of trial?

MR. BURNS: I think the first thing to say is that we are not terribly surprised that the dinosaurs in Pale, the people who signed the Dayton Accords but don't believe in the Dayton Accords, it's not really surprising that they have decided to split with Mrs. Plavsic.

We hope that somehow out of this rupture over the weekend something good will happen in the Republika Srpska because the Bosnian Serbs need a decent leadership. They are not getting it, certainly from the people in Pale. We think they have a chance of getting it from Mrs. Plavsic in Banja Luka. She does remain the elected president of the Republika Srpska. We respect her in that role. We will continue to work with her, as will the international community. We fully expect that the army and the governmental authorities, whether they are in Banja Luka or Pale, should continue to respect her decision-making authority and the fact that she is president.

We are very concerned about the situation in the Republika Srpska, needless to say. We are concerned specifically about the propaganda and disinformation that appear regularly on the Pale-controlled state TV. We are concerned, as well, about the provocative leaflets that were distributed over the weekend; and specifically about the posters with Karadzic's image, with all sorts of messages on those posters that were distributed throughout the Republika Srpska over the weekend.

Just about a year ago, the President and Secretary Christopher sent Ambassador Dick Holbrooke to Pale and to Sarajevo to negotiate an agreement with the Pale Serbs. That agreement stipulated - and it was signed by the Pale Serbs and it was witnessed by President Milosevic - it stipulated that Radovan Karadzic would not participate in the political life of the Republika Srpska.

Now, he complied with that for a little while, but he has not complied with it for a long time -- yet another agreement that the Bosnian Serb leadership has broken and yet another reason for the United States to have nothing to do with Radovan Karadzic. That is how I would answer that question, George.

QUESTION: A follow-up.

MR. BURNS: Yes, Judd?

QUESTION: Obviously, the U.S. likes Plavsic because she is not Karadzic. Has she been cooperating in the capture of war criminals? Have you had any positive signs from her?

MR. BURNS: We've never pretended to hide our differences of view with Mrs. Plavsic. She was a major and enthusiastic supporter of the Bosnian-Serb war effort. She is obviously a nationalist in many respects. We have had a variety of differences with her. When Secretary Albright visited her in Banja Luka, they probably disagreed on more things than they agreed on. But at least we are talking. She is the president of the Republika Srpska. We need to work with officials there to implement the Dayton Accords and they need to work with us, so we will continue to talk to her. We have nothing to do with Mr. Karadzic because there's ample evidence that he is a war criminal; that he's responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Europe since the Second World War. We will continue to have nothing to do with him. His ultimate destiny, we hope, is going to be on trial in The Hague. That's where he deserves to be.

QUESTION: I take your answer to mean she has not given any cooperation on the apprehension of war criminals.

MR. BURNS: Unfortunately, if we were to grade the Republika Srpska on that issue, they'd have a failing grade. They have not turned over any indicted war criminals. At least the Croatian Government has turned over one or two. President Itzebegovic, of course, has fully cooperated with the War Crimes Tribunal. He's turned over Muslim citizens, and he does believe in this process of justice for those who are responsible for the war crimes in the Bosnian war.

QUESTION: Do you find that President Tudjman's statement, most recent statement on war criminals goes beyond what he has said in the past?

MR. BURNS: President Tudjman and other Croatian officials like Foreign Minister Granic have consistently said that they would cooperate with the tribunal. The words have always been reassuring. But what we've found is that their actions are lacking. So I think that despite the good words of yesterday, we'll remain a little bit skeptical until, say, Mr. Karadzic is turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal.

QUESTION: Those words were not any more forward-leaning, though? That's what I'm just trying to get at.

MR. BURNS: I don't think so. I think that the words on the return of Croatian Serbs were more forward-leaning. They were welcome words. But again, as in all things in the Balkans, we'll be more impressed by actions and deeds on the ground than we will be by words -despite the fact that the words were welcomed by Ambassador Richardson.

QUESTION: Admittedly, it was reported that NATO troops were seen hanging out in the vicinity of Karadzic's house this weekend. Is the pressure being put on to nab him? Should he be scared? I mean, are we going to - is he finally going to be captured, or what are we seeing here? Is this just a threatening tactic, or what?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think in light of the fact that NATO has taken one action and the International Police Training Force has taken another to try to capture three indicted war criminals over the last three weeks. Maybe that means that the other indicted war criminals who are on the loose ought to be worried about our intentions. If that's the case, that's good. Maybe they should lose some sleep for once over the fact that they can't know what our next move will be. We'd prefer to keep it like that. Still on Bosnia? Any more on Bosnia?

QUESTION: Just one more thought. Nick, is there anything more that could be done? I mean, like putting out a large bounty like the U.S. does on terrorists? Or possibly trying in abstentia these guys that are so well-guarded and hard to get to? Is there anything else being thought of?

MR. BURNS: This is a very different case than, say, the case of the two Libyan terrorists who we believe shot down Pan Am 103 nine years ago. It's a very different case because the authorities who signed the Dayton Accords know where these people are. They work with them. I assume Mr. Krajisnik, who is one of the presidents in Sarajevo, I assume he talks to Karadzic all the time. The problem is not information; the problem is will. It doesn't make sense for us to pay money to the Bosnian Serbs to do what they've already promised the international community that they would do - and that is to turn these war criminals over to the tribunal.

So I'm afraid they're not going to be rewarded financially. But they've made a commitment; they've signed on the dotted line. They ought to keep that commitment. I would suggest that there's a lot of spotlight on what we're going to do. I think that's appropriate for you to ask what we're going to do, and we've answered those questions. But we ought to keep the spotlight on what the Bosnian Serbs and the Croatian Government have already committed to do. That's very important. Dimitris.

QUESTION: Yes, on Cyprus, there is a joint declaration between Turkey and Mr. Denktash. In this declaration, both the Cyprus Government and the Greek Government reacted with very strong statements. Does the U.S. have any comment on this declaration?

MR. BURNS: We have seen some of the statements that were issued over the weekend by Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit, by Foreign Minister Cem, by Mr. Denktash. We'll obviously study those statements. I think what we prefer to do - rather than try to pour oil on the flames, is try to reinforce our belief that a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation should be the ultimate objective of the peace talks; that we all ought to support Secretary General Kofi Annan in the second run of those talks that will take place in August; and that we would ask that people negotiate on a fair basis and on a constructive basis and that public statements be consistent with that need for fair, honest play in these negotiations. Mr. Lambros, yeah.

QUESTION: How do you explain the fact that whenever we're coming to Turkey, the U.S. Government cannot see Turkish vessels illegally in Cyprus ports; cannot see Turkey's war planes overflying illegally over Cyprus; and cannot even read statements illegally explained by Turkish officials? Why? How do you explain this?

MR. BURNS: Very simply, Mr. Lambros. The fact is that we are not a party to this conflict, this set of differences in the Eastern Mediterranean. We are an ally of both Greece and Turkey, and a friend to Cyprus. Therefore, we don't want to join the fray. When charges are launched back and forth, we prefer to stay above that and to counsel for constructive action behind the scenes. That's why we don't react in a boisterous way to some of the questions you ask. We want to be constructive. I think you expect us to be constructive, don't you?

QUESTION: But when we come to the case of Cyprus, for example, in the well-known issue of the Russian missile S-300, you make statements and actually you have advised the Cyprus Government for the time being not to do this for the sake of the talks, et cetera.

MR. BURNS: On major issues that we think can fundamentally affect the course of negotiations, we do speak out. But you asked a different question. You asked a question about allegations of violations by ships, by planes. They're very serious and we are concerned about them, but we're not a party to them and so we're going to keep our views private. Believe me, we do speak frankly in private.

QUESTION: Would you please comment information that a representative of your embassy in Nicosia was present in the illegal celebration of the occupied territory of Cyprus for the 25th anniversary of the Turkish invasion and occupation?

MR. BURNS: I cannot speak to that. I'm not sure what representation the United States had at those events over the weekend. But I'll be glad to take that question. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Last week, I asked if the United States Government recognizes ten-mile air space around Greek islands. You promised you would look into it. Did you?

MR. BURNS: Ten-mile - excuse me? That the United States recognizes - I don't believe you asked me that question. I don't remember it at all.

QUESTION: Well, I asked the question concerning the alleged --

MR. BURNS: Did you ask it during the background session?

QUESTION: -- violations of Greek air space. The issue in question is, Greek air space extends four miles further than the territorial waters.

MR. BURNS: I dealt with that question quite well. I think you were there. Actually, that question I dealt with in the background session. You know what my answer was, and I thought you were satisfied with the answer. We'll be glad to get into it afterwards if you haven't been. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Concerning the Pacific salmon dispute --

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: -- could you give us your reaction to the latest developments on the weekend - the blockade by BC fishermen of an Alaskan ferry in Prince Rupert; and also whether the U.S. Government has responded to the note that Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy sent on Friday, accusing the U.S., in fact, of violating the salmon treaty?

MR. BURNS: As you know, Canadian fishermen blockaded a United States passenger ferry in Price Rupert, BC - British Columbia - over the weekend. That ferry was bound for Ketchikan in Alaska. At this time, although the passengers were allowed to disembark, the vessel remains blockaded by the fishing vessels. On Sunday, the state of Alaska obtained an injunction against the blockade in Canadian court. However, the Canadian Government has not enforced that injunction - neither the provincial officials in BC, British Columbia, nor the federal officials in Ottawa.

The United States has protested and continues to protest this blockade. We also protest the refusal of Canadian federal authorities to stop the blockade or to enforce the court injunction. Canada must take action to enforce the court's judgment. The blockade harms innocent people who have nothing to do with the salmon fishery. It also is unhelpful, very unhelpful to our efforts - which we suppose and assume the government of Canada shares - to get the salmon talks back on track. The Canadian Government walked out of those talks. We think it's time for the Canadian Government to get back to the talks.

Now, you know our position on the charges that have been made by the Canadian Government, both in Ottawa and in British Columbia about over- fishing. We believe that the catch of the sockeye salmon by Alaskan fishermen is incidental to their catch of pink salmon. The reason the totals are up is because the stock is more abundant this year. But the ratio of pink salmon to sockeye salmon is consistent with ratios over the past couple of years. We think instead of complaining about Alaskan fishermen, Canadian officials - both Premier Clark and also officials in Ottawa - need to understand there isn't going to be an agreement with the United States if they continue to blockade American vessels, if they continue to take their case to American newspapers but if they refuse to sit down with us.

We are willing to return to the negotiating table. We were at that table when Canada walked away. There is no possibility of a compromise agreement that would satisfy both sides and most importantly, satisfy the American people of our Northwest and the Canadian people of British Columbia without negotiations. They've got to come back to the table. That's going to be our message to the Canadian Government.

QUESTION: This would be the formal response to Minister Axworthy's diplomatic note?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe there has been. We received a diplomatic note on Friday. Of course, we do not agree with the contents of that note, but we received it respectfully. We will reply to it respectfully. Canada is one of our great friends, and we think we ought to negotiate this in a spirit of friendship, understanding that there are serious issues involved here that have implications for thousands of businesses and people's jobs and that this is no way to proceed - to blockade vessels and to take out full-page advertisements in the Washington state newspapers, as the premier of British Columbia is doing. He and others like him ought to get back to the negotiating table.

QUESTION: Has the State Department represented or involved itself at all with the four American fishermen who were arrested by the Canadian authorities and their boats and nets and catch seized over the weekend?

MR. BURNS: We have been involved in that; we've been concerned about that; and we've discussed it with the Canadian Government - of course we have. Whenever American citizens find themselves in trouble in a foreign country, the State Department has an obligation to advise them and to help them as much as we can.

QUESTION: It is the Canadians' contention that they were fishing in Canadian waters. Is that something that you are disputing with the --

MR. BURNS: I do not know the particulars of that case. All I can tell you is the State Department is interested because American citizens are affected and we have a fundamental obligation to help American citizens when they are faced with any kind of charges. Yes, Sid.

QUESTION: Might there be a consideration of counter-retaliation?

MR. BURNS: At this point, we have many options under review. We have, obviously, a right to resort to those options. We have not done so to date because we really hope for reconciliation here and a little bit of spirit of fair play from the Canadians. It is very difficult for us to defend our own citizens and our own economic interests if we do not have a negotiating partner.

We understand the Canadian Government and the premier of British Columbia want to defend their citizens. That's fair; everybody understands that. But they have got to be fair with us and constructive with us. That means getting back to the negotiating table. We do have options that are available to us. We will have to leave that issue for a day or two and see if we get a response from the Canadian Government.

QUESTION: Any word of sending Old Ironsides to Prince Rupert?

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: Let me tell you something. The USS Constitution, I believe, undefeated in the 19th century - in the 18th and 19th century - is, I think, taking a little voyage around Boston Harbor, but the Constitution cannot get beyond the barrier islands, harbor islands in Boston. It cannot even fire its guns anymore, I don't believe. So it won't be the U.S. Constitution. Canada is our greatest friend and, obviously, we are going to resolve this dispute peacefully. We simply do not encourage any acts of violence or any criminal acts like the ones we saw over the weekend.

We certainly would not encourage any American citizens or fishermen to take any kind of retaliatory action. This is no time for people to take the law in their own hands. This is a time for diplomats and leaders - political leaders on both sides - to be reasonable and to sit down together and work out an agreement that will be mutually beneficial. That is what the United States wants to do. I cannot repeat that often enough.

QUESTION: Is the United States willing to send us to binding arbitration? Canadian officials feel that by going back to the negotiating table nothing will really get resolved there and that probably the only way it can be resolved is to send us to a tribunal for binding arbitration. Is the U.S. prepared to do that?

MR. BURNS: We have received a proposal from the Canadian Government that we take this to binding arbitration. We have not responded to that proposal; we will shortly. I don't want to anticipate what decision our government will make in response. Let me just say this -- the value of the way that we agreed to discuss the Pacific salmon treaty with Canada is this. It is not just federal officials and bureaucrats and Ottawa who decide these issues. It is the people of British Columbia and Alaska and Washington. It is local political leaders. It is people from the fishing industries. That is the way it should be. Binding arbitration would take those people out of the negotiations.

We have always believed in the stakeholder process. Our people have been with us at these negotiations. We rely on the people of Washington and Alaska to help us negotiate this. We certainly want them to continue to participate.

QUESTION: Nick?

MR. BURNS: Carol.

QUESTION: The other day when you asked that binding arbitration question, you pretty much slammed the door and said we are wedded to the negotiation process that we had agreed to. Now, you are clearly opening the door to --

MR. BURNS: I am not, actually. I am sorry if I am being misunderstood or if I am not communicating our position. I do not want to get ahead of my superiors who need to make the ultimate decision in how to respond to the Canadian proposal. We want to respond privately to the Canadians before we do publicly, because we want to be good partners in these negotiations.

I can't tell you what our exact response will be. But I did note one of the fundamental problems with binding arbitration and that is that you take a whole class of people who are fundamentally affected by these issues out of the negotiations. I think that is sufficient indication of our general view of this issue.

QUESTION: Why do you think the situation has escalated to the point it is now, which is pretty extraordinary in relations between the United States and Canada? I mean, is it a function of personalities? Is it a question that the issue has been festering for so long?

MR. BURNS: When people's livelihoods are at stake - we've seen this up in the George's Banks, up off New England; we've seen fishing disputes between Canada and the European Union just last year - a very vicious one. It's not unusual when people have their livelihoods at stake or think they do. When there are allegations that people aren't playing fair by the rules, emotions get high and people try to take the law into their own hands. But I think we have a responsibility as government leaders to implore our own citizens - Canada and the United States - not to resort to violence and taking a ship hostage. Not letting that ship proceed to Ketchikan was certainly an unfriendly act by the people who did it.

We assume the Canadian Government does not support this. We assume that the very good decision by the Canadian court - the injunction against this - is going to be honored by both the Canadian Government and, we hope, the local officials of British Columbia. Upholding the rule of law is essential. That's what we argue for here. We know the Canadians well enough and are friendly enough with the Canadians that we know we can get a good agreement for them and for us. But it won't happen as long as people resort to these illegal tactics and the premier of British Columbia is more interested, perhaps, in publicity for his own position than he is in negotiations.

QUESTION: What kind of options are there if diplomatic initiatives don't work and if this situation here can't be resolved?

MR. BURNS: In any trade dispute or economic dispute like this, there are always retaliatory options available. But we're too good a friend of Canada to want to go down that road. Now, we know that some people on the Canadian side are threatening that against us. We want to have a negotiated settlement here and we think that we are all brilliant enough, diplomatically, to be able to carry that off as long as we're at the table with each other.

QUESTION: Has Secretary Albright gotten involved personally?

MR. BURNS: Secretary Albright is very concerned about this. She has had a number of conversations over a number of weeks with Minister Axworthy. Our Under Secretary of State, Tim Wirth, worked on this all throughout the weekend. We need to take this very seriously because the economic livelihood of our fishermen is at stake. We need to represent them effectively with the government of Canada, and that's what we intend to do. Judd.

QUESTION: New subject? The Middle East?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: There seems to be a flurry of activity going on. Saeb Erakat was in Washington last week. The Netanyahu government is sending a representative over shortly, I note. The Palestinian justice minister resigned today - all of which may point to some developments in the Mid East. Is there anything you can tell us about what's going on?

MR. BURNS: We were very pleased to see Saeb Erakat here last week. He saw Dennis Ross, our special negotiator. He saw Under Secretary of State Tom Pickering, who himself, of course, has a long history of involvement in the Middle East; he had two ambassadorships there. We're very pleased that Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided to send his cabinet secretary, Mr. Naveh, to Washington. We look forward to talking to him.

The United States is trying to do what it always tries to do. We're trying to be an effective mediator between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Obviously, we'll share our own ideas and listen to theirs about how the peace process can move forward.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the resignation of the Palestinian justice minister?

MR. BURNS: Well, as you know, we had a major disagreement with the Palestinian justice minister because he condoned publicly, on the record and quite openly, political assassinations for those people who were suspected of selling land to Jews and Israelis in Israel and the West Bank. So I'm not sure there are many tears being shed. Chairman Arafat, obviously, will appoint a new justice minister. We hope to work closely and amicably with that person. But our position on land sales remains very sound and very clear for everyone to know.

QUESTION: Do you think his resignation now will settle this issue for a lot of Israelis who are very concerned about that policy or that particular --

MR. BURNS: Well, I think Israelis have a legitimate right to know that the Palestinian Authority is not going to encourage political assassinations against people who sell land to Israelis. We were pleased that Chairman Arafat came out unequivocally with a very strong statement - this was some time ago - against these threats of political assassinations and we assume that that will now be the abiding position of the Palestinian authority. With the departure of the justice minister, perhaps that prospect is more sure now.

QUESTION: Nick, there was a fourth land dealer who died over the weekend whose body was discovered on Saturday. Have you talked to the Palestinians again about this situation?

MR. BURNS: Betsy, I am not aware of the particulars in that case. I think it is a good question. I will be glad to take that question. I just want to leave you in no uncertain terms with our very strong view that there is no place for the threat of political assassination in the Middle East. There are enough troubles in the Middle East without that.

We assume that the Israeli authorities, as well as the Palestinian authorities, would look into any kind of incident like this. I just cannot speak to the specifics of it.

QUESTION: Nick, would the Palestinians change whatever aspect of their law it is that is making this legal?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if it is a question of law, Sid. I think it may be more with the previous justice minister -- the man who resigned today -- a case of political encouragement, open encouragement. I did not realize at the time and still don't realize or accept the view that it is somehow a question of the law. Obviously, even speaking theoretically, we would never support any law that sought retribution against people simply for selling land. That would be wrong. Yes?

QUESTION: According to some press report in Israel, President Clinton invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat separately to the White House. Can you confirm this report?

MR. BURNS: I can't confirm that report, no. I've not heard of it. That is the first time I have heard of that, so I would be very dubious about it. Mr. Erakat, Saeb, was here last week and Mr. Naveh is here this week. Those are the officials with whom we are meeting. Yes?

QUESTION: I don't understand yet what is the main goal from the talks with Saeb Erakat and Naveh -- just exchange of views? Or you trying to launch a new initiative in the Palestinian-Israeli track?

MR. BURNS: The main objective of these talks is quite simple. It is to promote the willingness of both sides to move forward with the type of face-to-face meetings, discussions, that will allow the peace negotiations to succeed and to allow the Oslo Accords to succeed.

QUESTION: Nick, what would your comment be to this? There has been some speculation that there is a new American plan in the offing.

MR. BURNS: I would tell you the United States is acting as we always do. We are acting for peace. We are urging political dialogue and reconciliation.

QUESTION: But you just said five minutes ago that you had your own ideas about what to do.

MR. BURNS: We have always had our own ideas, all the way back to 1948. We have never been shy about sharing those ideas, our points of view, our reactions to certain events with both the Palestinians and the Israelis. In fact, it would be strange if the United States didn't have our ideas.

We want to hear Israeli ideas and Palestinian ideas, too. How can they break the current logjam in the Middle East peace negotiations and how can they move forward?

QUESTION: Would you give us some more details about the package deal that Saeb Erakat was talking about?

MR. BURNS: No. I do not want to speak specifically about any of the discussions we have been having. That would violate our cardinal rule here; and that is, we don't speak in public about specifics of what we're talking about without accepting the premise in your question.

QUESTION: Did you already share your ideas with both sides, with the Palestinians and the Israelis?

MR. BURNS: We have been talking all along for months and months since things began to turn sour in the Middle East. We have been talking on a daily basis with Israelis and Palestinians, but I cannot be more specific than that.

QUESTION: Nick?

MR. BURNS: Yes, Telal, yes.

QUESTION: Your indulgence on two questions in the Middle East. Maariv and the daily, Yediot Ahrandt, two newspapers in Israel, said that the army general staff concluded from the war games conducted one month ago that while reoccupying PLO areas was possible, it was not the preferred response to an outbreak of hostilities.

A right-winged legislator, Uzi Landau, said also it must be made clear to the Palestinians that they cannot feel as if we would not allow ourselves the necessary operation in their territory, including entering (inaudible) area, which is the PLO. Would you find such comments helpful to promoting trust and building confidence between the two parties at a time when the peace process is at a crisis?

MR. BURNS: We assume that responsible Israeli government officials and responsible Palestinian officials will live up to the commitments they have made to each other in Oslo I and Oslo II. You all know what responsible comments are and which aren't.

Fortunately, we have -- with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu -- two individuals who want to preserve the Oslo Accords and want to move forward. The difficulty is in arranging a specific way to do that. We are interested, obviously, in helping them get to the point where they can begin again to resolve their problems face-to-face together.

QUESTION: How about concluding such war games? Is that helpful to reoccupy PLO --

MR. BURNS: I did not see these newspaper reports. I am at a little bit of a disadvantage in commenting upon them. Obviously, we expect that the actions, as well as the statements of both sides, will be consistent with their desire for peace and with a settlement.

QUESTION: My second question is about the start of Richard Butler's - (inaudible) -- to Baghdad, among conciliatory noises made by the Iraqi Government press. Do you have a message for the Iraqi Government at the start of Mr. Butler's mission?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Butler represents the United Nations. Mr. Butler ought to be treated well. He ought to be given all the information necessary to conduct his responsibilities. Ambassador Ekeus was not given all the information. In fact, he was lied to consistently by the Iraqi Government. That is what he reported to the United Nations when he left his position as a special negotiator.

We hope that Mr. Butler will have more luck with a government in Baghdad that is more willing to deal with the truth. We have our suspicions that the Iraqi Government has not changed its stripes. We are watching them very carefully, as we always do.

QUESTION: So you do not believe the Iraqi Government gives conciliatory statements through their press?

MR. BURNS: I have not believed anything out of Baghdad in about seven or eight years. I would encourage you not to believe anything from them either. They have not dealt truthfully with the press, much less those of us in government.

QUESTION: So, what new tactics will Mr. Butler be applying to deal with this government --

MR. BURNS: Saddam Hussein said the other day that he wanted to have the UN sanctions lifted. He doesn't have a prayer of getting the sanctions lifted unless he deals over a consistent long period of time in a fair way with the United Nations -- unless he meets his commitments, which he has not done since the end of Gulf War in March of 1991.

QUESTION: Will Mr. Butler be more successful in dealing with them than Mr. Ekeus?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Butler is a very capable person. That is why he was chosen for this job. He is a very tough person. He will carry out his duties to the United Nations. He has our full support.

QUESTION: Nick, despite the Administration's position on Iraq, Syria seems to be moving much closer to it. In recent days, there has been some reports that they are closing Iraqi opposition radio stations and considering expelling Iraqi opposition members. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR. BURNS: I have seen the reports; I simply can't confirm them. But obviously we would hope and trust that Syria would maintain the UN sanctions in place against Iraq. Carol?

QUESTION: Nick, do you have any feedback yet from Solarz?

MR. BURNS: Well, we know that Steve Solarz visited Tokyo and met with Foreign Minister Ikeda last night. He had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Ikeda. He has arrived in Beijing and in a couple of hours will begin meetings with a variety of people in Beijing including with King Sihanouk who is convalescing there; with Liu Huaqiu, who is the director of the foreign affairs office of the state council; and with the vice minister for Asian affairs, Mr. Tang Jiaxuan. He will see three people, important people, for meetings. He then continues on his trip to the other capitals -- to Djakarta and Bangkok, Phnom Penh. He will be meeting the Secretary in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday morning to fully brief the Secretary as she begins her talks there on what he has found out.

I must say, in watching the events over the weekend in Cambodia, the United States very much regrets Mr. Hun Sen's rejection of the ASEAN efforts at mediation, because we consider the ASEAN initiative a very constructive one. Contrary to Hun Sen's contention, which he was public about, ASEAN and the other members of the international community, such as the United States, are deeply involved in Cambodia. We have been since we helped resurrect Cambodia through the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. Those accords were signed by 18 countries. They paved the way for the end of the civil war. They paved the way for the 1993 elections. It has been our international aid - all of us together - that has essentially allowed Mr. Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh to have a start in a coalition government in 1993 to get their feet on the ground.

So we hope Mr. Hun Sen will understand why we comment on affairs in his country. It is entirely proper to do so. We hope very much that he and his colleagues in Phnom Penh will reconsider the constructive proposal put to him by the ASEAN countries. We support ASEAN. Secretary Albright intends to consult very closely with ASEAN in Kuala Lumpur on this issue, both at the ASEAN Regional Forum and at the Post Ministerial Conference.

QUESTION: With him rejecting any outside effort, including ASEAN, realistically, what can you do?

MR. BURNS: Realistically, what we can do is to continue to assert the point of view that democratic elections ought to be upheld; that the man who is chosen by the legislature in Cambodia to be the first prime minister should not be kicked out of that job on a whim by Mr. Hun Sen. That is a realistic point of view and very important one that we should continue to put across with ASEAN, as we have done. All of us want to see Cambodia have a chance to succeed. It won't succeed if it flouts democracy, we believe.

QUESTION: Did the Japanese agree with your position? Did Solarz persuade them of your view?

MR. BURNS: What I cannot do - and you will understand the reasons why - is report on each leg of his mission, what he has discussed privately with our friends and allies - in this case our ally Japan - in the region. But, needless to say, we count very much on the support of Japan, on Japan's influence for the ASEAN effort. We will have further discussions with the Japanese in Kuala Lumpur.

Any more on Cambodia before we go to - Mr. Katz, I should welcome you back. This is the first time we have seen Lee since he broke his leg on July 4th; isn't that right?

QUESTION: That was last Memorial Day.

MR. BURNS: Do you have any questions you want to ask today? For the readers of USA Today?

QUESTION: I think the readers of USA Today are getting plenty.

MR. BURNS: They're getting what?

QUESTION: In fact, I brought an intern, Mr. Silvers, here, at USA Today, to observe that.

MR. BURNS: Welcome, welcome.

QUESTION: But I think we are hitting the entire loop today. So I think we are okay. I might have one question. What do you think that Secretary Albright can do at the ASEAN forum in order to advance this comment that you made about -- that the second prime minister of Cambodia can't do whatever he wants?

MR. BURNS: Well, first of all I should remind you - and it's very important - that the Secretary is going to Kuala Lumpur because our relations with the Southeast Asian countries, the members of ASEAN, are really critically important to our economic well being. So she will have a lot of discussions in Kuala Lumpur that are not on Cambodia, but on important trade and political and military issues, particularly in the ASEAN Regional Forum.

She will be meeting the Chinese foreign minister there. She will see the Russian foreign minister, the Japanese foreign minister -- lots of very important conversations. Obviously Cambodia will be a major issue at ASEAN because of the depth of concern internationally. What we wish to do is to maintain very close ties with the ASEAN countries in their initiative to try to resolve this conflict.

We very much support ASEAN and hope that Mr. Hun Sen will be open to discussions and real work with the international community to resolve some of the problems of Cambodia.

QUESTION: Nick?

MR. BURNS: Yes, Judd.

QUESTION: Taiwan - Taiwan?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have a reaction to Taiwan's abolishing provincial government?

MR. BURNS: A reaction to it?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BURNS: Not particularly. We don't have official relations with Taiwan. As you know, we have unofficial relations pertaining to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. So I don't really have a comment.

QUESTION: Well, does the U.S. fear that this is a step towards independence and would provoke China?

MR. BURNS: I don't want to analyze this. I certainly don't want to be provocative in any way in analyzing it. All I can say is our policy remains very clear. The question that you asked about the future of Taiwan and its relationship with China is really one for the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to discuss themselves. It's not really a question for the United States. It's up to them to make these decisions, not us. But we assume that will be done peacefully and will include people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Liberian elections? The losing candidate seems to feel that there was widespread fraud.

MR. BURNS: What I can say is this, after many years of civil war, countless tens of thousands of people who died during that civil war, they finally had elections. That in itself is a very good thing. Now, the international observers who were present -- and there were many -- including our special presidential envoy Howard Jeter, including President and Mrs. Carter, 43 people from the Carter Center, hundreds of people from around the world, they haven't spoken yet officially about whether or not these elections were free and fair. So as in all cases, we are going to respect the international monitors and await for their verdict.

Secondly, it did seem to our embassy in Monrovia, as well as to Ambassador Jeter, that actually the situation on election day was rather calm in the city and in the countryside. The voting appeared to be orderly. There are some charges of irregularities that need to be looked into by the international monitors. The balloting certainly took place in an environment that we thought was secure, which is important, and the atmosphere was calm.

Now, people are saying that Charles Taylor has won. There is no final tabulation of the polls. We will have to see what that is and when the vote finals are given to us, we will obviously have a reaction to the vote and to the way in which the vote was engineered. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: You stated earlier in the briefing Macedonia instead FYROM. Why? And I am wondering if you have been influences by Mr. Theodhoros Panaglos' statement in The New York Times today, "I want to get rid of this problem because there is no substance to it." Could you please comment?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, you are trying to get me in trouble again, right?

QUESTION: No, to the opposite.

MR. BURNS: Pardon.

QUESTION: He waited for the whole briefing.

MR. BURNS: The United States, as you know, has business with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Lambros, and if you look at my press briefings over the past two years, probably 98 percent of the time I have used that formulation because that is the correct formulation. If I misstep from time to time it's because I have feet of clay, just like you, and I am mortal, okay?

Now, on the second question, there was a very good article by Celestine Bohlen in The New York Times, and Mr. Lambros, I think your newspaper ought to take a look at this article. It talks about the positive trends in Greek-Turkish relations. I think we sense those trends. Greg Craig, our policy planning director, just came back from the Eastern Mediterranean. He told me this morning that he senses in his trip to Ankara, to Istanbul, to Athens and to Nicosia, a new spirit in the Eastern Mediterranean for peace and reconciliation and productive discussions. That is what we support and that is what we will continue to support.

QUESTION: Could you elaborate on the new spirit? He came specifically from Athens. I am very interested --

MR. BURNS: I think it's obvious to all concerned. It was explicit in Celestine Bohlen's column today, such a good column. I would encourage you to read that and inculcate that message. Yes --

QUESTION: On Cyprus - I am wondering, this is the anniversary - why for 23 years you understand the UDI of Rauf Denktash for the sake of less than 112,000 Cypriots of Turkish origin?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, you know our position in Cyprus. You know what we think the preferred outcome is. Savas?

QUESTION: As a good NATO ally, why don't you take your fish business for Canada and the United States to the International Court of Justice?

MR. BURNS: Because that would be binding arbitration, Savas. Binding arbitration has already been proposed but has not yet been accepted by the United States, but it's a nice try. For arbitration to work, two sides have to agree to it. Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:51 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 Monday, 21 July 1997 - 23:14:21 UTC