U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #160, 96-10-07
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
I N D E X
Monday, October 7, l996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Best Wishes to Pope John Paul II............................. 1
Secretary's Trip to Africa................................... 1
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
Overview of Secretary's Trip................................. 1-2
--Implementation of the Oslo Accords/Negotiations............ 3,4
--Redeployment in Hebron..................................... 3
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Failure of Mr. Krajisnik To Participate in the Opening of the_
_ National Assembly.......................................... 4-5
--Discussion Between A/S Kornblum and President Milosevic.... 5
--Discussions with Serbian FM Milutinovic and Krajisnik...... 5-6
--Monitoring by UN Security Council.......................... 6-7
--Consultations with Carl Bildt, European Allies............. 8
Presence of Foreign Fighters................................. 8-10
AFGHANISTAN
US Envoy/US Contacts with Taliban/Human Rights Issues........ 10-12
TURKEY
U.S. Reaction to Comments by Turkish PM Erbakan Re: Libya and
Terrorism.................................................. 12-17
IRAQ
Reaction to Kissinger Article on an Independent Kurdish State 18
HELMS-BURTON
Possible Exemption for Spanish Companies..................... 18-19
NORTH KOREA
Reported Arrest of a U.S. Citizen............................ 19-22
--Situation in Country/Food Shortages........................ 20-21
Dialogue/Diplomatic Contacts Between the U.S. and North Korea 22
BURMA
Possibility of Sanctions..................................... 23
Arrival of U.S. Charge d'Affaires............................ 23-24
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #160
MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1996, 1:17 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department briefing. I have a couple of
things to tell you about and then we'll go to questions.
First, I think it's appropriate for those of us in this building to take a
moment to express, on behalf of a lot of us here in the State Department
but certainly our Mission to the Vatican and millions of people around the
United States, our very best wishes to his Holiness, Pope John Paul II for
a successful operation and a full recovery from that operation. A lot of
people in the United States are thinking of him as he awaits his operation
in the hospital in Rome.
Second, I wanted to let you know that the Secretary of State has just
arrived in Bamako, Mali, on the first leg of his trip -- five-nation trip --
to Africa. He expects tomorrow to meet President Konare, to have lunch with
him, to go over to the National Assembly and meet legislators there and
parliamentarians and political leaders.
Mali is an emerging democracy. Mali is setting a standard in West Africa
that other countries, in our view, should aspire to.
The Secretary will also, tomorrow, go out to the Peace Corps Training
Center. We have one of the largest Peace Corps missions in Mali anywhere in
the world. He's going to look at some sanitation and tree-planting projects
there. He has a pretty active day tomorrow in Mali.
After Mali, as you know, on Wednesday, he goes onto Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
for meetings both with the Organization of African Unity and with the
Ethiopian Government.
The Secretary was very satisfied with his trip over the weekend to Israel
and to Gaza; satisfied with the meetings he had with Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Levy and President Weizman on the Israeli
side, and with Chairman Arafat on the Palestinian side.
The Secretary made a variety of public comments but, in essence, believes
that the Washington summit may have served, we hope, to break the cycle of
violence and of grievances there. Clearly, the talks are getting back
underway now.
We believe that both sides must emerge as winners in these talks. We also
think it's very important for them to work for very quick progress and
tangible progress. It's important that the Israeli Government has committed
itself to no renegotiation of the Oslo Accords. But as the Secretary said,
as they discussed the implementation of the Oslo Accords, it is appropriate
to take into account recent events there.
I talked to Dennis Ross about two hours ago. He was going into a meeting at
Erez, at the crossing point between Israel and Gaza. He explained that
they've decided to break the talks into five separate sub-groups.
First, on Hebron redeployment; second, on security issues; the third on
civil affairs issues; fourth, on economics; and the fifth, on what they're
calling cooperation and coordination, which is essentially is people-to-
people exchanges.
The Hebron group is meeting right now. Dennis Ross is in that group. We
will have an American at the table in every single one of the meetings that
takes place on a daily basis. Dennis is certainly out there for awhile --
I'm sure through the end of the week -- to monitor these talks and to
participate in them.
These various sub-groups are going to meet on alternate days because there
is an overlap in the representation in the groups. That will occur this
week. But next week, they'll have enough people, I think, on both sides to
have each of the groups meet everyday.
So this is a very ambitious schedule -- a diplomatic negotiating schedule
that they've agreed to. As I said, the United States will be looking at
this quite closely. They have not yet decided on a permanent site for these
talks. It's going to be Erez for awhile. There are various proposals to go
beyond Erez. We'll just have to see what the Palestinians and Israelis
decide.
Barry.
QUESTION: Nick, maybe I don't have a lawyer's mind. Maybe there's a
distinction that a lawyer would appreciate.
I don't understand, when the Secretary speaks of understanding, that there
might be a need for modifications in the agreement. Yet, he also says the
agreement won't be renegotiated. Those are not inconsistent, are they? Or
maybe the best way you could address this is, tell us what recent events
the U.S. Government believes could be taken into account?
MR. BURNS: I think everybody agrees, including Prime Minister Netanyahu,
who had said so publicly yesterday in Israel, that the Oslo Accords will
not be renegotiated, meaning that the basic commitments that were agreed to
by Israel and the Palestinians will be adhered to by both sides.
On the question of Hebron redeployment, of course there will be a
redeployment from Hebron. The question is, how will that be implemented and
under what conditions will that be implemented? Here, I think the Secretary
used the term, Barry, that these recent events must be taken into
consideration. They will affect the implementation of this redeployment.
Obviously, the recent security situation and the environment there will
have an effect. But this is very different than renegotiation. I think
there's a very clear distinction in our minds, and I think there's
agreement among the Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans on what this
means.
QUESTION: And if the U.S. believes there was something unusual about the
recent security situation in Hebron, that (inaudible) 1929, for instance?
MR. BURNS: Not just in Hebron.
QUESTION: There have been worse times in Hebron than recently.
MR. BURNS: We are aware of what happened in Hebron in the 1920s and also
1930s during the Arab revolt between 1936 and '39. We're aware of that
history.
QUESTION: Nothing special happened recently that's inconsistent with
Hebron's history.
MR. BURNS: I think the events of two weeks ago were extraordinary events.
Everyone agrees on that. The Palestinians agree with that as do the
Israelis. They were extraordinary events.
The level of fighting, the intensity, and the fact that security forces
were fighting each other was certainly extraordinary. But I don't want to
try to analyze this in too minute fashion from afar. The Secretary of State
has been out there. He has said what he said. I wanted to draw it to your
attention because I think it's an important point for the Palestinians as
well as the Israelis.
I think we do have agreement, Barry -- there's no disagreement -- we have
agreement among Arafat, Netanyahu, and Christopher on the proper basis to
go forward with these talks.
We've heard a lot of criticism of the Washington summit, including from not
only some people in this room but many of your colleagues beyond this room.
I think the feeling, at least in the United States Government this morning
is, it was a good decision to hold that summit for no other reason; and the
fact that they now have five groups that are meeting, negotiating with each
other, to resolve these outstanding problems between the Palestinians and
Israelis. We're glad we held that summit. We had no alternative but to do
so.
Short briefing today.
QUESTION: Bosnia?
MR. BURNS: Let's go to Bosnia next, and then we'll go to Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Probably Barry is -- first, I'm interested in Krajisnik and the
Saturday events.
According to Voice of America, a White House spokeswoman said that the
Clinton Administration used the Bosnian Serb decision as a minor setback to
the Dayton peace accords. What would you consider as a major setback?
MR. BURNS: Good question, Envera. Actually, I didn't see that comment,
and I haven't seen anybody on the record make that particular comment.
Actually, the United States Government was furious with the decision by Mr.
Krajisnik not to participate in the opening of the National Assembly, the
parliamentary assembly, on Saturday afternoon in Sarajevo.
It was an important symbolic event which was meant to kick off a new era in
Bosnia, an era where national institutions will be built now that the
elections have been held and have been certified by the OSCE. We are
extremely displeased by the attitude of the Bosnian Serbs. All of their
members stayed away, including Mr. Krajisnik.
There was to have been a joint meeting of the Presidency to coincide with
the opening of the National Assembly. It's most unfortunate.
The Serbs have missed, yet again -- yet again -- another important
opportunity to build on the momentum that was flowing out of the elections
and to contribute to the building of these new institutions.
We met with Mr. Krajisnik yesterday - our United States Embassy officials
in Sarajevo met with Mr. Krajisnik yesterday -- and they delivered a very
stiff letter from our Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum. There can
be no doubt that the Bosnian Serbs are fully aware of the displeasure of
the United States.
This letter puts Krajisnik and his colleagues on notice that we expect them
to take steps rapidly, in the next couple of days, to demonstrate their
commitment, the commitment of the Republic of Srpska to the peace process,
to the Dayton Accords, to the letter of what they committed to do when they
signed the Dayton Accords. And, in particular, we expect active cooperation
by the Bosnian Serbs in working with the others -- with the Bosnian Muslims
and others -- to form these new joint institutions: The presidency, the
legislature, the bank, the court, and everything else that's got to be done
and accomplished to make this state a unified state.
Assistant Secretary Kornblum received a telephone call last night from
President Milosevic who wanted to talk about this affair. President
Milosevic called Kornblum last evening and Milosevic was told in no
uncertain terms that the Serbian Government ought to use its influence with
the Bosnian Serbs to put things right.
This morning, the Serbian Foreign Minister, Mr. Milutinovic, called back.
He was told the same thing by John Kornblum.
We have stressed to the Bosnian Serbs that we are expecting their full
cooperation in implementing the Dayton Accords and that this is a
precondition for United States economic assistance to the Bosnian
Serbs.
We've also highlighted a very important fact to the Bosnian Serbs that the
United Nations Security Council, in lifting the sanctions last week against
the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia, pledged to monitor compliance with the Dayton
peace process as it took the decision to lift those sanctions. The UN
Security Council reserved the right to consider further action if
compliance is not satisfactory.
I can tell you that the United States will not hesitate to bring this issue
up in the UN Security Council should we come to believe over the next weeks
that the Bosnian Serbs are fundamentally unwilling to meet their commitments.
We expect -- based on these phone calls that we've had and a recent contact
just a couple of hours ago with Mr. Krajisnik -- we're expecting better
behavior. But we are putting them on notice that they have got to do what
they pledged to do.
QUESTION: Nick, have you got anything on the -- I mean, does the State
Department got a view -- the Embassy found no issue of controversy there.
If you want to call it the expulsion of those 28 Iraqis via Jordan from
Bosnia -- it's Bosnia.
MR. BURNS: I think they want to stay on this aspect of the story, Barry.
They're two different stories here. So let's stick on this and then I'll go
back to you.
QUESTION: What kind of contact did the U.S. have with Krajisnik
recently?
MR. BURNS: With Krajisnik? Two of our Embassy officers met with him
yesterday, where Krajisnik offered an explanation of why he didn't show up
in Sarajevo on Saturday. Frankly, that explanation was not satisfactory.
QUESTION: What was the explanation?
MR. BURNS: It was a long, involved explanation about this and that. You
can ask Mr. Krajisnik. Frankly, we're not interested in explanations. We're
interested in performance. It's in the self-interest of the Bosnian Serbs
to meet their commitments. If they don't meet their commitments, then
there's not going to be a positive international environment for them to
live in. There's not going to be U.S. economic assistance.
I've already referred quite strongly to the fact that the United States
won't hesitate to watch them closely and bring this back to the Security
Council. They have been put on notice. There's no other way to put it. I
can't put it in diplomatic terms. They know what they have to do. We're not
interested in excuses or long, involved explanations for why they didn't
show up in Sarajevo.
QUESTION: Can I go over this matter of the sticks for a minute. Is it not
-- do you have any reason to believe that the Russians would do other than
veto the reimposition of sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs?
MR. BURNS: I simply wanted to note the fact that the UN Security Council
has pledged to monitor and that we won't hesitate to bring it up. We're
going to give them some time to right the wrongs.
We've received some encouraging words. But as always in Bosnia, and
particularly with the Bosnian Serbs, it's always better to see actions.
We're expecting to see some positive actions, David. So I don't want to
predict exactly where this debate is going to go, but we're putting them on
notice. I deliberately wanted to let you know about our right to go back to
the Security Council.
QUESTION: Nick, how much (inaudible) is at stake there -- the Bosnian
Serbs?
MR. BURNS: I don't have an exact figure except to say that what's at
stake ultimately, Steve, here is a tremendous amount of assistance down the
road. The United States has pledged to stay in Bosnia economically.
When the American troops go home, as they will go home at some point this
year, and regardless of whether or not there's a follow-on security force
that a lot of people are talking about -- regardless of that; put that
aside -- we're going to be in Bosnia for several years with civilian
officials, with reconstruction efforts to rebuild a country that's been
shattered.
If the Bosnian Serbs keep this up, all that aid is going to go in the other
direction. It's not going to go to them.
QUESTION: If anyone is going to marry Bosnian and stay for such a long
period of time, like Iranians or something? Just kidding. Did you have any
confrontations --
MR. BURNS: You're really trying to throw me off track today, Envera.
QUESTION: Did you have any consultations --
MR. BURNS: You and Barry are working some kind of deal here? You're
trying to -- is this a pincer movement?
QUESTION: We'll do Iraq in a minute.
QUESTION: Did you have any consultations --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Iraqis in a minute.
QUESTION: Did you have any consultations --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: They're very bad dates, Barry. They really are.
QUESTION: -- with allies over the weekend?
MR. BURNS: We had a lot of consultation with
Carl Bildt over the weekend, who tried very hard to get the Bosnian Serbs
to do the right thing, and we've been in touch with our other allies on
this, and we'll keep them informed.
John Kornblum, our much traveled Assistant Secretary of State, is going
back to Europe for a meeting on Thursday of the Contact Group in London. I
think one of the major issues in the agenda will be this sorry performance
by the Bosnian Serbs. By Thursday we hope that they'll have taken some
specific steps to reverse themselves on this.
QUESTION: Did you talk with Paris or London over the weekend?
MR. BURNS: We talk to our allies everyday. I can't point you to any high-
level meetings, but they know our feelings on this.
QUESTION: Where is the Contact Group meeting?
MR. BURNS: London, on Thursday. Contact Group meeting in London --
Thursday.
QUESTION: You've got a Middle East (inaudible) evidently Jordan -- that
operation -- and they're withdrawing 28 Iraqis who will probably head back,
correct? The Embassy didn't find anything there to get excited about. Does
State have a view -- are these foreign fighters, or is this something --
MR. BURNS: This is a very curious episode. These people show up. Iraqis
show up in Bosnia -- it doesn't sound like a good combination to us -- and
working with nefarious elements there, and we did bring this to the
attention of the Bosnian Government, and I think the Bosnian Government has
taken expeditious action.
QUESTION: The U.S. approves of this, and in fact, they were nudged a
little bit by the UN . . .
MR. BURNS: We take a very dim view of renegades and ex-revolutionaries
and ex-militants traveling to Bosnia to try to help the situation. The fact
is we have 60,000 NATO troops. That's all the help that the people of that
region need to achieve stability. We don't need any more fighters coming in
from the Middle East and South Asia to help the situation, and we've made
that very clear.
QUESTION: What is the latest number for unmarried foreign fighters in
Bosnia?
MR. BURNS: Actually unmarried, Barry?
QUESTION: Well, not married to the local ladies, which gives them
apparently the right to stay indefinitely.
MR. BURNS: Barry, I think you know that our position is that there are no
organized outside fighting forces on Bosnian territory, except for the IFOR
forces; that the organized fighting forces that were clearly there, until
just a couple of months ago, have been disbanded; that some of those people
-- and I can't give you an answer; you'd have to ask the Sarajevo
Government -- some of those people have married Bosnian women, and
therefore, have a right to stay, and we've chosen to understand that.
It's important that you understand what the Bosnian Government has told us
just in the last couple of weeks, including on the day that Secretary
Christopher met the Bosnian leaders in New York, just two weeks ago, and
what they said publicly.
They said they're watching these villages where some of these ex-foreign
fighters, now married happily to Bosnian women, reside, and that they are
checking up on these people everyday. If there's any untoward business, any
wrong moves, any threatening actions, even the threat of action, that these
people are going to be taken care of.
It's not just action. It's the threat of action that counts, because some
of these people did make threatening gestures and threatening remarks to
some Polish soldiers a couple of weeks ago, and the Bosnian Government is
telling us -- and we believe it -- that it has control of this situation.
QUESTION: What do you mean "they'll be taken care of"?
MR. BURNS: It means that they'll be taken care of. It means that they'll
be -- you know, if there's any unusual business, I'm sure they'll be run
out of the country, and that's what they would deserve, should they
continue with these actions.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: I think we're still on Bosnia,
Mr. Lambros. I know you can't wait to get to a certain issue here.
Still on Bosnia?
QUESTION: Yes. The Mujahidin --
MR. BURNS: I think that's who Barry was talking about -- these people who
have --
QUESTION: Right. They're not moving. They're not leaving. They're still
out reconnoitering the bases of IFOR, Nick.
MR. BURNS: Bill, listen, I'm just reporting to you that we've looked at
this very carefully; that we even have a commission, as you know, that
we've formed with the Bosnian Government. It's reviewed regularly, and we
have an absolutely iron-clad commitment from the Bosnian Government that
they have warned these people who are now married and have put down their
guns and living in villages outside of Sarajevo -- you know the names of
the villages -- they've warned them. If there are any threats or any
actions, it will be taken care of expeditiously.
Anymore on Bosnia?
QUESTION: That's coming from the Muslim government?
MR. BURNS: President Izetbegovic.
QUESTION: I want to ask a question about Afghanistan. Has the U.S.
representative met with the Taliban?
MR. BURNS: No, our U.S. diplomatic official has not yet journeyed to
Kabul for his meeting with the Taliban and other factions. Let me say this,
because I think there's been a lot of attention in the press and some
excellent reporting in The New York Times and other places about
Afghanistan, and we've seen some very disturbing signs there over the last
couple of days.
Human rights in Afghanistan and particularly the status of women is a major
concern of the United States. The Taliban directives keeping women out of
the workplace and keeping young girls out of school threatened to generate
international isolation, which would deny Afghanistan the international
assistance it so badly needs after so many years of war.
Restrictions on women, on young girls and other Taliban directives are also
likely to severely limit their ability to mobilize the population to dig
out from over a decade of war; to rebuild the country, to establish a sense
of national unity in the country. Women are important in any economy, and,
if you look at some of the excellent pieces that were printed in the
newspapers over the weekend, Afghanistan is no exception to that. You can't
run an economy and take women out of it and be successful.
So we'll continue to press the Taliban leadership to respect basic human
rights, and that includes women's rights, and it includes the rule of law.
We've made this clear to the Taliban, and we'll continue to make it clear
to the Taliban when we have meetings with them, and those meetings at some
point are going to take place.
We've also seen reports of some fighting in the northern part of the
country between the forces of the Taliban and forces of Ahmed Shah Masood
in the Panjsher Valley. We are urging all factions -- the Taliban and
others -- to stop the fighting and to try to find some way to rebuild
Afghanistan and to unify the country.
QUESTION: Nick, who does the United States Government regard as the
sovereign authority in Afghanistan?
MR. BURNS: We have not, I think, at this point made the decision to
recognize the Taliban as a sovereign authority. That decision is at some
time in the future. It's a very complex, complicated situation, with many
different factions fighting and vying for power. As you know, we do not
have a United States Embassy there. We haven't had for many, many years, in
part because of the chaos and because of the complicated situation on the
ground. I think we're going to have to delay any kind of decision on that,
Jim.
QUESTION: How are you making your message to the Taliban about human
rights -- how are you presenting that message to them?
MR. BURNS: We've had contacts with the Taliban regularly in years past
but also this year. In fact, we've had some face-to-face meetings with them,
as you know, inside Afghanistan and outside of Afghanistan.
There are representatives of the Taliban in Pakistan, and there are public
statements. There are a variety of ways to get our message out, and the
message is out.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Taliban in Kabul?
MR. BURNS: We certainly have, including in some of the public statements
that have been made from this podium, and we've accentuated here the rights
of women, which ought not to be disregarded -- regardless of differences in
culture and national and history and geography. Women's rights are
fundamental anywhere in the world.
I mean, you take young girls out of schools and forbid them from learning,
and you take women out of the workplace and forbid them from going out in
the street; well, that's of concern to the United States, because we
support women's rights.
QUESTION: Nick, have you in any way thought better of this plan to send a
diplomat to Kabul or at least put it on the back burner or delayed it
perhaps because of this negative reporting about women's rights?
MR. BURNS: Our intention is to serve our own national interests here, and
we do have national interests in Afghanistan. So therefore, Patrick, this
argues for a continuous contact with the Taliban and others. We may not
like everything that they're doing, and we don't like some of what they're
doing, but that doesn't mean we should just cut them off from all contacts
with the United States.
We will seek contacts with them. We'll maintain contacts wherever we can
have them, inside or outside of Afghanistan. That just is prudent, it's
good sense, and it's the best way forward for the United States. As we talk
to the Taliban, we're going to talk to other factions as well -- all the
other major factions -- because, as I said, the situation in Afghanistan is
not at all clear.
Mr. Lambros, you've been waiting very patiently, and I can't wait to hear
what's on your mind.
QUESTION: According to reports, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Necmettin
Erbakan, during his visit in Libya dismissed U.S. allegations that Libya
sponsored terrorism. Instead, proposed triple trade after $2 billion a year
with Muammar Qadhafi, Erbakan stated, inter alia: "This is propaganda. We
know that Libya is against terrorist activities. Libya is the country
suffering most from terror," meaning by the U.S. bombing in 1986 by the
Reagan Administration; and to this effect, Erbakan (inaudible) visited
symbolically a house that was hit during the American airstrike and said,
"We saw an example like a monument showing the suffering which Libya has
experienced by the great states of America." Could you please comment on
that?
MR. BURNS: I just hope these comments aren't accurate. I hope they're not
accurate. I hope that the Prime Minister didn't say those words. It would
be very surprising if he did. Libya has been one of the leading terrorist
states in the world. I'm not aware that Libya has suffered from terrorism.
It's been an active exporter of terrorism.
It would be highly surprising, indeed, if the Prime Minister of an allied
country, a NATO country, were to defend a terrorist like Muammar Qadhafi,
when Qadhafi is responsible for the shootdown of Pan Am 103 and the deaths
of hundreds of Americans, including three of my colleagues whose names are
in the C Street Lobby on a memorial plaque for people who have died in the
course of duty; highly unusual when the French government now believes that
there was direct Libyan Government complicity in the downing of the UTA
flight in Chad several years ago, where an American woman, spouse of one of
our diplomats, was also killed, and many French citizens were killed;
highly unusual when the United States has given more support to Turkey than
any other country in Turkey's fight against the PKK.
It's up to allies to be good allies and to understand you can't pick and
choose places where you're going to support us or not support us. The fight
against terrorism is not just a U.S. fight. The Turks are victims of
terrorism, as are the Americans, as are the French, and we've got to stand
together. You can't just go to another country and meet a dictator and
absolve him of all responsibility for a terrorist act.
So I'd just be very surprised if these reports turn out to be true; very,
very surprised about these comments. We've stood by Turkey's side.
Let me just also say while we're on this subject, we remain in general --
the United States remains troubled by any trip that could be seen as
benefiting the Qadhafi regime. The Qadhafi regime, as you know, is guilty
of violating a variety of international agreements. There are UN sanctions
in place on Qadhafi, and for good reason, and those sanctions are going to
persist for good reason.
So if there's any thought by the Turkish Government that they want to
normalize trade or export or import or engage in any big business deals,
they ought to look at the UN sanctions that a lot of countries are adhering
to, including the United States; and they ought to understand that
sometimes commerce has to take a back seat to the fight against terrorism,
because it's more important to send a clear, direct message to the
terrorists than it is to trade with them.
So that's our thoughts this morning as we look at these very surprising
developments.
QUESTION: Next one -- PKK. On the same side, Muammar Qadhafi in the
presence actually of the Turkish Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan stated:
"The state of Kurdistan should take its place in the spectrum of nations
under the Middle Eastern sun. Turkey should not fight against people
seeking their own independence."
Erbakan, to my surprise, said nothing. Could you please comment, Mr. Burns,
on the prospect that independent Kurdistan should be created --
MR. BURNS: You know, talk about surprising remarks. We're not surprised
by whatever Qadhafi says. He's most unreliable, and maybe his new
interlocutors are finding out just how unreliable Mr. Qadhafi is. You can't
trust him, and you can't work with him, and the sooner that people learn
that lesson, the better off they'll be.
QUESTION: Are you seeking clarification from Ankara whether the
statements are correct?
MR. BURNS: The statements would be very surprising, were they to be
correct, and we're just going to have to look to see if these were accurate
statements, because there may be some question about whether they're
accurate or not. I'm speaking generally here. If they are accurate, then
they're most surprising indeed, given the strong feelings in the United
States about terrorist states and the UN sanctions.
We have an agreement in the international community. We're not going to
trade with these people. We're not going to give them the time of day.
We're not going to treat them as normal international leaders. We're going
to try to isolate them. A country that's been victimized by terrorism ought
to be the first country to understand that.
QUESTION: It was reported also extensively that the Turkish President --
the Turkish Government of Necmettin Erbakan is planning now to convert the
Byzantine cathedral of St. Sofia, the symbol of Christianity, in downtown
Constantinople into a mosque.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I'm not going to touch this one. (Laughter) I
know enough about the history of the Byzantine Empire and the empires that
followed it not to get involved in religious questions. Jerusalem and
Istanbul are off limits when it comes to religious questions.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Except -- please.
QUESTION: Because they have a plan to do that, so I was wondering if --
MR. BURNS: The United States Government will not get involved in any
religious disputes on St. Sofia.
QUESTION: You mean if there's a tourist tunnel, you'll comment.
MR. BURNS: Actually, Barry, I think our comments on the archeological
tunnel that abuts Jewish and Moslem sites, I think they were quite prudent,
and we tried to be balanced, because we didn't want to excite religious
passions.
Mr. Lambros, I think, probably -- you know, we're friends, but he's trying
to get me to comment on a religious issue. I'm not going to do it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Yes. I think ladies first, and then we'll go to Savas.
QUESTION: Thank you. Nick, you are being very diplomatic about this, and
I can understand, but there were 50 journalists present, Turkish journalists
present, when the Prime Minister was making these comments. And he also
called the U.S. and Israel terrorist states in Tripoli. So I would like to
know if the Administration is planning to take this up with the Turkish
Government, with maybe Turkish President, because it looks like it is also
causing some internal problems in Turkey. I mean, reaction from other
circles, other political circles in Turkey, is stronger than the reaction
which you just gave to us.
MR. BURNS: Frankly, perceptions are always interesting on both sides of
this aisle here, but I think that the statement that we've made this
morning is a tough statement, and it's meant to be tough. We don't normally
talk about allies the way we have this morning, but we've done it for good
reason.
I know what you're saying, Yasmine, about all these reporters being present,
but the United States Government needs to see and has not seen the full
transcript of the remarks. We've just seen aspects of it. But the aspects
that we've seen are highly troubling, and the comments that we've made are
intended to send a very strong message that we've all got to stand against
terrorism, and that allies need to support each other.
If there are problems in the relationship or if there are disagreements,
well, you do that privately. You don't go out and bash people on the head
for no reason, especially when you're sitting in a capital whose leader is
a terrorist and a well-known terrorist, an internationally agreed-upon
terrorist.
Savas.
QUESTION: After this visit with Iran and Tripoli, now he's going to go to
Nigeria right now -- another rogue state.
MR. BURNS: This is like the grand tour of --
QUESTION: It's a grand tour.
QUESTION: Same as Farrakhan.
QUESTION: (Multiple comments)
MR. BURNS: We've been through this tour before. We didn't like it the
first time around when an American citizen took the tour. You know, when a
prominent American citizen -- we thought this tour was over.
QUESTION: Is he going to meet with Christopher some place in Africa?
MR. BURNS: I don't think the Secretary has any plans to. The Secretary is
not going to be in Nigeria or Libya on this trip. But this tour failed in
the past when Mr. Farrakhan took it, because he stood beside dictators, and
frankly the American people couldn't understand why.
QUESTION: Erbakan's trip -- those kind of trips -- what kind of signal is
it giving to you? Is he trying to subvert Turkey's traditional Western
ties? How can you evaluate this trip and targets?
MR. BURNS: I think the trip to Libya is most disturbing. In Nigeria, we
hope that all of us can agree that the military government there that has
been a consistent and gross violator of human rights, including summary
executions of human rights activists for no reason; a country that refuses
to turn back to democracy when most Nigerians want to be democratic and
have a representative government; that there ought to be a message there,
if in fact they're going to go forward with this trip to Lagos.
But in general, allies need to stick together on these big issues of
terrorism and democracy. We need to support democracy. We need to criticize
those who are dictators, and we certainly need to oppose terrorists. So we
certainly have a lot of advice that we're going to give privately, and I
think I've been sufficiently clear publicly.
QUESTION: If I could follow on this issue; just a moment. Here's a wire
from this morning, Nick, quoting Qadhafi: "We are not happy in general with
Turkey's foreign policy. Turkey has lost its will. Turkey's future lies not
in NATO, U.S. bases and repressing the Kurds, but in its nobility and its
past."
What do you say in response to this driving a wedge between us and
Turkey?
MR. BURNS: Well, there he goes again. It's not surprising that Qadhafi
would say things like this; and, if Qadhafi's criticizing Turkey, that says
something good about the Turks. That means the Turks are really -- the
Turks have been a major ally of the United States and will continue to be.
The United States prizes its relationship with Turkey.
If Qadhafi is criticizing the Turkish Government, then that's a good thing.
You know what I mean? That means that the Turks -- that Qadhafi is worried
that the Turks are going to maintain the fact that they're a European
country -- Turkey's a European country; that it ought to be grounded in
Europe and with North America, in the EU, we hope, in the future, and with
NATO for as long as NATO exists. Turkey will always be a very valued ally
of the United States. But we are disturbed when we see the statements made
by Mr. Erbakan.
QUESTION: According to reliable sources, the Turkish military leadership
under General Ismail Karadayi is very upset by Erbakan's grand tour, as you
pointed correctly earlier. Not only this, but there are rumors for a coup
d'etat in Turkey, but Erbakan claims that the Turkish generals are not in a
position to do anything due to the fact that the majority of the young
Turkish officers are very loyal to the Refah Party and to the fundamental
Islam. Do you have anything on these rumors?
MR. BURNS: What I don't want to do is involve myself in internal debates
and disputes among the Turkish leadership. All I can say is that a secular,
democratic Turkey remains in the interests of all of us in the West, and
that we'll continue to work with Turkey on that basis.
QUESTION: And the last question: Dr. Henry Kissinger with an impressive
article in yesterday's Washington Post, calling the Kurdish people heroic
and not terrorists, proposed a creation as soon as possible of an
autonomous Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Could you please comment, since this
is a kind of advisal proposal to your government by Dr. Kissinger?
MR. BURNS: I didn't read that very long article. I just didn't have time
to get through it. But all I can say is that you know our position on the
Kurds. The United States has not favored, at least in 50/60/70 years, an
independent Kurdistan; certainly not since the end of the second World War.
It's been a consistent policy with Republican and Democratic administrations.
I know of no American political leaders in the Republican or Democratic
party who are now asserting that we ought to favor an independent
Kurdistan. We have with the Turks and the British and French created a zone
in northern Iraq above the 36th parallel that seeks to give the Kurds
stability and protect them from Saddam Hussein.
You know that that has been tested severely over the last two months, but
that zone remains. We're going to continue "Operation Provide Comfort" and
the air flights there. We'll continue working with the various Kurdish
groups to try to maintain stability in northern Iraq. But the United States
is not proposing, has not proposed for decades, an independent Kurdish
state.
QUESTION: The largest Spanish newspaper in Madrid, El Pais, said
today that the U.S. envoy Stuart Eizenstat, when he was in Madrid September
10, promised the Spanish Government that the United States is not going to
penalize any Spanish companies that are doing business in Cuba. He said
that you will promise that the Chapter 4 is not going to be applied to
Spanish companies. Could you confirm if this is true or not?
MR. BURNS: I can't confirm a private conversation. I can just tell you
that the Administration has said consistently, including President Clinton
last night in the debates, that we will carry out the terms of the Helms-
Burton legislation. Ambassador Eizenstat has carried out his instructions
as the President and Secretary of State's emissary to talk to the Spaniards
and the EU and the British and French, the Canadians, the Mexicans, about
how Helms-Burton is going to be implemented. But I can just tell you it
will be implemented. We are bound by the law to implement it.
QUESTION: You're saying that you cannot confirm private conversations --
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: -- means maybe when your President was in Madrid -- mean that
this story is true or not? It's true that you promised the Spanish
Government --
MR. BURNS: No, it just means I can't respond to a press report citing a
snippet from a conversation and say whether it's true or not. I don't
choose to do that. Diplomatic conversations ought to remain confidential
and private. But I can talk about the issue in larger terms, as I
have.
QUESTION: Yes, but in this boilerplate reference to Helms-Burton, you
wouldn't want to put the word "punitive" -- the two words "punitive
provisions" in your answer, would you?
MR. BURNS: I'm satisfied with the way I talked about them.
QUESTION: There are waivers in Helms-Burton. Saying that firmly, as the
Administration has been saying for weeks now, doesn't necessarily mean that
punishment is going to be meted out, does it?
MR. BURNS: The law is going to have to be implemented. We are bound by
the law to implement it. The President does have discretion to look at some
of the articles and, as you know, to think in the future how they're
implemented.
But there is a consensus in the United States Congress and with the
Administration that the law should have gone into effect. It did, and
therefore we're bound to implement it.
Steve.
QUESTION: I was just going to ask about North Korea, the spy case. What
can you tell us, Nick, about that? Can you confirm that an American has
been arrested; that his name is as reported?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you this. We are aware that a U.S. citizen was
arrested on August 24 for reportedly entering North Korea illegally. We
have pursued access to this American citizen through the Swedish protecting
authority. Sweden is the protecting power of the United States in North
Korea.
The Swedes were granted consular access on September 16-17 to this
individual. We've also pursued the case directly in contacts between the
Department of State and the North Korean Mission to the United Nations on
several occasions. We'll continue to do that.
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to confirm the identity of the person
because he has not given the Swedes a Privacy Act Waiver to do so. The
Privacy Act says that we cannot say his name on the record because he does
not wish us to do so.
We are pressing for additional details about his case from the North
Koreans. We're working to ensure an acceptable level of access to him by
the Swedes who are our protecting power. Certainly, we want him to have all
the normal consular protections that one would normally have in this type
of situation, and we hope that he's released and allowed to return to
freedom.
QUESTION: Is he accused of espionage? And is it an accusation that says
he is working for South Korea? If either of those are true, could you
respond for the United States?
MR. BURNS: All we've seen are some of these quite shrill comments from
certain North Korean officials and the press, actually. I'm not sure we've
been told -- I'm not sure what we've been told exactly in private, and I
can check that for you. I wouldn't lead you in the direction of those
reports.
QUESTION: Is there something the State Department thinks North Korea
might be up to here? Some sort of a trade-off in the works?
MR. BURNS: I'm going to use --
QUESTION: Has any been proffered? Let me ask you that.
MR. BURNS: I'm going to use Secretary Christopher's -- the word he
commonly uses when he describes the North Koreans, as "opaque." It's an
opaque government and society. It's difficult for us to understand.
We've had a lot of things happen. We've had an illegal incursion of a
midget submarine in the South Korean territorial waters. We've had this
very unusual incident of an arrest made in late August and just announced a
couple of days ago. It's hard to fathom the timing of this announcement.
We have had reports of food shortages in North Korea recently. It's clearly
a country under a lot of stress. There's been a lot happening inside of
it.
All we know is, we're going to stand by our ally, South Korea; that North
Korea was clearly at fault for the submarine incident; that North Koreans
ought not to hold on to an American citizen who is being detained in North
Korea. He should be released immediately. We're going to have to continue
all these discussions on these various matters with the North Koreans.
Fortunately, if you look at one of the vital interest that the United
States has, the Agreed Framework is in place. There has been no violation
of the Agreed Framework. KEDO monitors it regularly. The United States will
continue to look at that very closely because that's one of our vital
interests in North Korea as well as protecting our ally, South Korea, from
these threats that appear to emanate from North Korea.
QUESTION: Do you see this staggering malnutrition -- I don't know if he
actually said that people have died, the President of South Korea. It's a
staggering figure. Is the problem that pervasive?
MR. BURNS: We have seen the reports of -- the comments by President Kim
Young-sam. It's clear to the United States that North Korea has serious
food shortages. Because of the situation, as you know, we have provided
$8.4 million in humanitarian assistance, most of it in food, over the last
year.
South Korea and Japan have provided even larger amounts than the United
States. Our last shipment was a $6.2 million shipment of food aid that
arrived in late August. We'll continue to monitor the situation in North
Korea. We have no plans to provide additional food assistance at this time,
but we do remain open to any appeals from the international community
should the relevant international institutions -- the World Food Program,
other bodies of the United Nations -- believe that it is important to do
so.
North Korea seems to be a society under great stress. So we're looking at
North Korea from a variety of angles: The food situation, the Agreed
Framework, the political situation, the case of an American who is being
held there unjustly. And, also, frankly, these very, very serious attempts
to infringe upon the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea. All of these are
of concern to us.
QUESTION: Do know what the American was doing on the Korean Peninsula?
MR. BURNS: As I said, Jim, I am bound by the Privacy Act. I'm not allowed
to mention his name or mention, really, anything that we've learned from
him in the conversations that the Swedish protecting powers have had.
But based on those conversations, we believe he ought to be released.
QUESTION: Is he a missionary in China?
MR. BURNS: Frankly, I just can't give you biographic information on him,
Steve. I'm not permitted by law to do that, and I have to respect
that.
David, welcome.
QUESTION: The North Korean Mission up in New York seems to suggest that
we have suspended various threads of dialogue with North Korea, such as the
repatriation of remains, the missile talks, certain aspects regarding the
joint framework. Is there a sort of suspension of diplomatic contact?
MR. BURNS: No, I wouldn't say so. As I told you, we've had diplomatic
contact with the North Koreans up at the UN quite recently, and I expect
we'll have it in the coming days. There are a lot of issues where we need
to talk to the North Koreans, however displeased we are by North Korean
behavior.
Let me give you another example. The offer of President Clinton and
President Kim Young-sam to have talks with the North Koreans to explain in
detail the proposal for a four-party conference -- four-party talks -- that
offer is still on the table. Should North Korea wish to pick up that offer,
we'd be glad to have those talks.
While we are beset now by a number of problems with the North Koreans, we
can't forget the larger interests that animate U.S. policy concerning the
nuclear freeze -- the freeze on all nuclear activity -- and concerning the
fact that for 43 years there has not been a peace treaty to end the Korean
War, and there ought to be one.
While we work through these issues that are very troublesome, and while
we'll disagree with the North Koreans on a lot of these issues, we've got
to keep in sight some of the larger strategic interests that are clearly in
the interests of the United States and the Republic of Korea and Japan.
QUESTION: I'd like to move to Burma. Are we done with North Korea?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: I was wondering if any U.S. sanctions against Burma are
imminent? There has been talk in the media about a ban of future U.S.
investment there. I was just wondering what the status of that was, and if
we're going to see anything new?
MR. BURNS: Let me just give you what we know about the situation and then
go directly to your question.
What we know is that the dictators in Rangoon, over the last day or two,
have said that they've been releasing members of the National League for
Democracy -- of the many hundred who were arrested.
Our best account, however, indicates to us that we think that roughly 200
people, including 34 members of the parliament, democratically elected,
still remain in the custody of the dictators in Rangoon, in Burma. This is
most worrisome for any country that's concerned with human rights. We
continue to make this message clear to the Burmese authorities from our
diplomatic mission in Rangoon.
As you know, the President, last Thursday, signed a proclamation which
suspends the entry into the United States of Burmese Government officials
who formulate or implement or benefit from their objectionable policies.
The United States, under the bipartisan legislation that was passed this
past summer by the Congress, the United States Government has the
flexibility to entertain additional measures, including tough sanctions,
should that be necessary.
Needless to say, this seems to be a critical moment in Burma. Of course, we
wish Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy well. We'll
keep the situation under review. We do reserve the right to undertake
additional measures should that be necessary.
QUESTION: But there's nothing imminent?
MR. BURNS: The way we normally work is, we try not presage or preview
events until a decision has been made and we're ready to act. The Burmese
authorities are going to have to live with some suspense on this issue. But
that's okay because I don't see why we ought to give them any advance
warning considering the actions they've taken against their own people.
QUESTION: The Charge d'Affaires will arrive in Rangoon as scheduled?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Kent Wiedemann, a senior Foreign Service officer, is
going to be arriving, I think within a matter of a couple of days, in
Rangoon to take up his duties as the U.S. Charge d'Affaires. We don't have
ambassadorial-level relations because of the unpleasant and objectionable
policies of the Burmese Government.
Judd, did you have something. You've been persuaded not to ask a question.
I can see the hand signals. I know what's going on here, you know. I can
see what's going on in the front rows. I know what that means. That means,
get them out of here. But Mr. Lambros has got one final question.
QUESTION: Any comment of the Greek and Turkish military exercise over the
Republic of Cyprus in the last two days?
MR. BURNS: No, I have no particular comment to offer on that, Mr.
Lambros.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:06 p.m.)
(###)
|
