U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #162, 96-10-09
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
Wednesday, October 9, l996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT/Announcements
Assistant Secretary of State Kornblum's Trip to Bosnia....... 1
Secretary Christopher's Trip to Africa....................... 1
--Most Traveled Secretary of State........................... 1-3
BOSNIA/SERBIA
Update on President Milosevic's Absence at Parliament........ 3-4
Contact Group Meeting in London on 10/10/96.................. 4, 6
Sanctions & Bargaining Power of U.S.......................... 4-5
Possible Serb Reaction to U.S. Troop Withdrawal.............. 5
Repatriation of Bosnian Refugees from Germany................ 6-7
RUSSIA
President Yeltsin's Health................................... 7
PAKISTAN
Prime Minister Bhutto's Call for Intl. Conference on Kashmir 7-8
Pakistan Searching for Nuclear Technology.................... 14
CHINA
Chinese Nuclear Arms Sales to Pakistan/Chinese Compliance
With Non-Proliferation Commitment......................... 8-22
Government Leaks re Chinese Arms Sales....................... 8-11
17-22
Acting Director John Holman's Comments re Chinese Stance
on Non-Proliferation...................................... 12-14
NON-PROLIFERATION
Status of U.S. Policy on Non-Proliferation Violations........ 14
Failure of U.S. Policy on Non-Proliferation.................. 16
AFGHANISTAN
Taleban Fighting In Northern Afghanistan..................... 22
IRAQ
KDP Official Visit to Washington DC.......................... 23
Other Governments Involvement in KDP-U.S. Talks.............. 23
Kurdish NGO Employees Update................................. 26-28
Iraqi FM Statements re Kurds................................. 27
Kurdish Fighting in Northern Iraq............................ 28
TURKEY
PM Erbakan's Trip to Libya and Nigeria....................... 23-24
U.S. Reaction to PM Erbakan's Statements..................... 24
President Demirel Coming to U.S./Govt. of Turkey-USG
Discussions re Erbakan.................................... 24-25
LIBYA
U.S. Reaction to Kadafi's Statements......................... 25, 30
Other Government's Reactions to Erbakan/Kadafi Statements.... 25
CYPRUS
Amb. Williams Leaving Cyprus................................. 28-30
NORTH KOREA
Update on AmCit Arrested..................................... 31-32
PERU
Peruvian Request to USG for Help With Air Accident........... 32
SOUTH KOREA
3 Bodies Found............................................... 33
NICARAGUA
Daniel Ortega and Democracy.................................. 33-34
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
DPB #162
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1996, 1:25 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to remind you
that our Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, John Kornblum,
departs this evening for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Welcome Barry, Patrick. Nice to see you with us. Assistant Secretary John
Kornblum departs this evening, Barry, for Bosnia where he and his
interagency team are going to be meeting in Banja Luka, Pale, and other
places with the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Government leadership.
Before he arrives there, Assistant Secretary Kornblum, as I told you the
other day, is going to be in London tomorrow for a Contact Group meeting on
Bosnia. Obviously, we are interested in our discussion with the Bosnian
Serbs in making sure that some of the nice statements made by Mr. Krajisnik
over the past couple of days are translated into actions on the ground.
It was a very sorry performance last weekend when the Bosnian Serbs failed
to show up in Sarajevo at the National Theater for the opening of the
parliamentary assembly.
There needs to be a meeting of the presidency. There needs to be efforts to
appoint a Council of Ministers for this government by the end of the month.
That's the deadline they've set for themselves. Assistant Kornblum is going
out to push this process along and, in particular, focus on meetings with
the Bosnian Serbs.
Secretary Christopher has had a big day. Barry, I want you to know that I
actually delayed. I just sat here kibitzing about the Red Sox and Jim
Leyland and his failure to go to Boston. He chose Florida. I wanted you to
hear this because you are the veteran traveler in this group.
Secretary Christopher, today, enroute from Bamako to Addis Ababa, set the
all-time international travel record for a Secretary of State -- an
American Secretary of State -- in a four-year term. With the completion of
his trip into Addis today, the Secretary has traveled over the last four
years 704,487 miles. This exceeds -- this exceeds Secretary of State James
A. Baker, III, who, in four years, traveled 700,131 miles.
Just in the interest of fairness -- and Barry was going to call this to my
attention anyway, I know -- that in six years of office, Secretary of State
George Shultz traveled 900,000 over six years. So Secretary Christopher has
set the all-time American record over a four-year term as Secretary of
State.
I understand from a well-placed source on the Secretary's aircraft, with
whom I just spoke, that the Secretary was given a cake by the Air Force
crew. It was a yellow cake. It said, "Congratulations, Mr. Secretary, for
setting the all-time record." That cake was consumed by the Secretary and
the Air Force crew --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: A cake. It was consumed by the Secretary and the crew and the
others on the plane. I even believe members of the press corps on the plane
were invited to participate in this historic event.
Needless to say, I think this is a good record to have. It shows that the
Secretary of State has been active; that he's traveled all over the world
in pursuit of strengthening the United States in pursuing our foreign
policy. It's a great day.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) and stay a year or two more, do you think?
MR. BURNS: We're just going to have to see what happens in the future,
Barry. Anything is possible. In fact, with that record in front of him, who
knows. He might be able to travel 200,000 miles just in the next couple of
months. You never know.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary drink decaffeinated virgin Irish coffee to wash
down the cake? (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: I have no comment on that, Steve. I'm going to have to check
with my sources to see what accompanied the cake.
QUESTION: That was an Air Force cake he ate?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I believe the cake was an Air Force cake. It was supplied
by the crew.
QUESTION: And he's only on the second leg of --
MR. BURNS: He's on the second leg of an arduous trip.
QUESTION: Will you keep in touch with us, please?
MR. BURNS: I'm going to have a day-by-day -- in fact, we can even have a
three-times-a-day report.
QUESTION: The people on the plane were told this, weren't they?
MR. BURNS: The reporters on the plane were told this; yes. I'm sure we'll
see some Reuters and some AP reports; USA Today, because their correspondent
has a particular interest in culinary matters. I'm sure he's going to
report on the cake part of this.
QUESTION: Could I make a suggestion? Kornblum is in Washington. Will you
tell us that because that would be news.
MR. BURNS: He's in Washington right now.
QUESTION: Because telling us Kornblum is going on a trip is like saying --
MR. BURNS: John Kornblum is in Washington right now.
QUESTION: -- that Holbrooke has a statement to make.
MR. BURNS: I have no comment on the latter part.
QUESTION: Secretary of State Baker did not serve a full four years?
MR. BURNS: He served until August -- if I'm not mistaken -- mid-August 1992,
when he moved to the White House to become Chief of Staff. Secretary
Christopher has not served a full four-years either. He came into office on
January 20, so I think fair is fair.
I think Secretary Christopher has shown his endurance and the fact that
he's willing to travel all over the world in pursuit of U.S. national
interests.
QUESTION: Excuse me, we have a colleague with a filing problem, so can I
get in a quick question?
Has Milosevic played any role at all in this situation since -- we'll call
it a "boycott" -- of the ceremony? Has he weighed in? Has he said he would
weigh in? He's not the skier, is he? Has he been remote from all this, or
what?
MR. BURNS: President Milosevic called John Kornblum on Sunday evening. The
basis of that conversation was that he would try to use his influence to
make sure that the Bosnian Serbs participated fully in the creation of the
new institutions and in the meetings and ceremonies meant to create the new
Bosnian state, which is a very important undertaking.
As always with the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs, we remain more impressed by
actions than words.
QUESTION: Nick, could you clarify. Tomorrow is going to be a Contact Group
meeting. Is there going to be someone from Sarajevo -- Carl Bildt or
Bosnians or Serbs? Or is it at ministerial level?
MR. BURNS: It's not a ministerial-level meeting. It's a meeting of the
Contact Group political directors -- in this case, the representative of
the United States, John Kornblum. I'm not aware of the full invitation
list. Normally, Carl Bildt or someone representing him would take part.
You'll have to ask the British. The British are organizing this meeting.
QUESTION: You said before something about that. But popular opinion would
have it that the United States lost its leverage when they allowed
sanctions to be lifted on Belgrade. Do you have something precise on your
mind when you told us that you have some strength against the Bosnian Serbs
in Belgrade?
MR. BURNS: I would say two things. First, the United States said very
clearly on Monday from this podium that we would not hesitate to bring the
issue of sanctions back to the UN Security Council should the Bosnian Serbs
fail to comply with their fundamental commitments to the world community
under the Dayton Accords.
Second, the Bosnian Serbs, Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina itself --
all of them -- are going to have to be concerned by the reactions of the
international community to how this agreement is implemented. Because all
of them want international legitimacy, acceptance, participation in
European and North American institutions. They certainly need international
reconstruction assistance. They will take seriously, and I think do take
seriously, our skeptical point of view here, that we're going to be more
impressed by what they do on the ground to meet their commitments than we
will by the words that they use in saying what they want to do.
So I think we do have leverage. I think the international community
together has an enormous amount of leverage to make sure that the Dayton
Accords are fully complied with.
QUESTION: You leveled that threat on Monday: Instead of a stick, it would
be a toothpick unless you had support from other Council members. Have you
had a chance to find out if anyone shares the U.S.' sentiments, particularly
the Russians?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe we have taken soundings among the allies on this
particular question, but they do know our point of view.
Barry, you're right, there's more than one country on the UN Security
Council, but the United States is a leading member of the Security
Council.
In the case of Bosnia, no country has been more involved over the last year
and a half than the United States. I think all of these leaders do
understand that the United States continues to exert leverage with our
allies and that we won't hesitate to do that in the future.
QUESTION: Wouldn't the Serbs just be playing a waiting game until the
United States -- all of its troops are out by mid-March? In mid-March,
Secretary Perry stated that there will be zero troops in Bosnia.
MR. BURNS: It's not just a question of the presence of troops. It's a
question of the longer-term commitment that all of us around the world are
willing to make.
The economy in that region is shattered, and it needs to be rebuilt. The
countries involved -- Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, now united --
do not have sufficient funds on their own to rebuild their economies, their
transport system, their infrastructure to even have a chance of spurring
economic growth through the creation of businesses and jobs. That kind of
assistance will come from the European Union, the United States, Muslim
countries around the world who have taken an interest in this matter.
That kind of assistance will not be forthcoming if one of the parties --
the Bosnian Serbs, namely -- fail to meet their commitments.
If the Bosnian Serbs continue to act up, we can go on assisting the Bosnian
Muslims -- the government in Sarajevo -- and deny assistance to the Bosnian
Serbs. That's what they've got to be concerned about. I think that is
leverage. I think it's very effective leverage. Again, they know that we're
serious. They know that we're serious because we met all the commitments
that we made in 1995 and 1996.
We used military force in back in '95, when we said we were serious.
There's no question of that now. But now that we say that we're serious on
the economic end, they will listen to us.
QUESTION: Is the subject of the follow-up force going to be discussed at
the Contact Group meeting in London tomorrow?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if that's a major issue. I think, actually, the
major issue is the work that we have to do to help in building cohesion in
the construction of these new national institutions and in getting the
politicians to move in the right direction.
The issue of a follow-on security force was discussed in Norway last week
by Secretary of Defense Perry and his NATO defense colleagues. You know our
position on that. That's under study by NATO, but no decisions have been
made.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. BURNS: Anymore on Bosnia? On Bosnia.
QUESTION: According to reports, the Mayor of Tuzla contended today German
plans to forcibly repatriate 320,000 refugees living in Germany to Former
Yugoslavia. What is the U.S. position of this unhumanitarian German plan?
Are you going to allow Greece (inaudible) to repatriate more than 400,000
Albanians?
MR. BURNS: I think, first of all, you should know, Mr. Lambros, that the
German Government has been fully in touch with all of its partners,
including the United Nations, including Carl Built on the German plan on
Bosnian refugees.
Second, no country in the world did more for the Bosnian refugee population
than Germany since the beginning of the Bosnian war five years ago. No
country in the world shouldered a heavier burden financially or in every
other way, logistically, than the German Government.
The German Government, we believe, will meet its responsibilities to make
sure that any refugee program, repatriation program, is carried out
according to normal international norms.
As I said, the Germans have been fully in touch with all the competent
authorities in Bosnia, international and national about this.
QUESTION: They're going to repatriate 320,000?
MR. BURNS: The German Government will make the decisions that it feels it
must make pursuant to its own national security interests. As I said, the
German Government has been in touch with a variety of governments on this.
So I think your question is more appropriately directed at the German
Government.
But I did want to point out the heavy burden that the German Government has
shouldered.
Yes, Steve.
QUESTION: Nick, there are rumors floating -- I think primarily in the
financial markets -- that Boris Yeltsin has suffered a setback, if not the
ultimate setback. Have you folks got any information on that?
MR. BURNS: We heard this rumor a couple of hours ago. It seemed to emanate
from New York City, for some mysterious reason.
We have checked with the Russian Government, through our Ambassador in
Moscow, Tom Pickering. We have seen the statements by the Russian
Government press spokesman, and we've checked with the Russian Embassy
here.
What we hear from everyone is that these rumors are totally unfounded,
they're untrue, and there's no basis for them.
QUESTION: There was an agency report on Friday that the U.S. has rejected
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's call for an international conference on
Kashmir. When did
Mrs. Bhutto make this proposal, and to whom? And when was it rejected?
One other thing. It also quoted you as saying that Kashmir should be solved
through bilateral negotiations. It said that the U.S. stand on bilateral
talks indicated great thinking on the part of the Clinton Administration
which earlier used the Russians to intervene in all disputes. Will you
comment on that?
MR. BURNS: I can assure you I did not say all those things. But let me just
answer your question, On The Record and openly.
We did see a report of a speech made by Prime Minister Bhutto in which she
suggested an idea of some kind of international conference on Kashmir. It
remains the position of the United States that this is a very difficult
problem. We've had a long-standing position on it which has not changed.
We think that India and Pakistan, if they're concerns on the part of the
Pakistani Government, perhaps the best way to move forward is to have
direct contacts between India and Pakistan which have not been held at
senior levels, as you know, for quite some time.
That's really as much as we can say about this.
QUESTION: Nick, the Washington Times which tracks such things avidly has a
fresh report today of a Chinese nuclear technology sales, or at least
providing such technology to Pakistan, saying it's been verified by the
State Department and by the CIA. We've dealt with this subject before. It's
kind of a circle, and the Chinese deny it usually. I don't know if they've
denied this one yet. Is there any basis for that report, do you know?
MR. BURNS: I just have a couple of things to say, Barry. First of all, I
want to go back to a theme that I've put forward before, and that is that
the United States Government is not going to confirm the contents of
alleged intelligence reports, nor are we going to confirm the contents of
alleged diplomatic discussions between the United States and China.
The second point I would make is that it appears that there's been another
leak of a highly classified intelligence report to a major United States
newspaper -- American newspaper here in Washington -- the Washington Times.
I focus these remarks on the people who leaked the document, and it is
illegal for a United States Government employee to take a highly classified
document and give it to a reporter. It is illegal, and there's a very heavy
penalty associated with anyone prosecuted for this type of action.
It is also in my own personal view -- and this view is shared by all of my
senior colleagues here with whom I've spoken this morning -- highly
unethical for any U.S. Government employee to engage in this type of
activity. It is not done by the overwhelming number of employees in this
government. It is done by very few.
It is harmful to our diplomacy. It is harmful to our ability to conduct
stable relations with any country in the world, including China and
Pakistan. I wanted to repeat those views, because they're very strongly
held by my superiors here in the Department of State as well as by
myself.
As to the substance of this issue -- and I think this issue, of course, is
fair game; the general issue that we've talked about for a long time -- as
is very well-known, the United States opposes assistance to unsafeguarded
nuclear facilities. As you know, on May 11, the Chinese Government made a
statement that it will not provide assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear
facilities.
When we have questions and when we have concerns about this issue, we raise
them directly with the Chinese Government. Secretary Christopher normally
raises this general issue with the Chinese leadership, as he did in New
York two weeks ago when he met with Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Qian
Qichen.
On the specific charge, based on information currently available, we have
no reason to believe that China is acting in a way that is inconsistent
with the statement that China made on May 11, and that is as much as I am
really willing to say about this issue.
QUESTION: Well, nevertheless, let me see if we could parse that last remark,
because I can think of at least three interpretations of it. I thought
perhaps you'd want to be more specific, because they routinely deny that
they have violated agreements, and, when you look at these things, there's
usually some wriggle room. Their definition of a medium-range missile isn't
exactly the same, for instance, as others. You know, they play at the edges
of these things, and it's been going on for years.
You haven't said, have you, that China hasn't provided the technology
reported in this article. You've said that they say they're not violating
agreements. Number one, I don't know if they've provided technology that
they say doesn't violate the agreement. I don't know if they've provided
technology the U.S. thinks might violate the agreement, or if such
technology doesn't violate the agreement. There are all sorts of constructions.
I know you've lumped together, of course, leaking those documents with
simply diplomacy with other countries, because that's what we do all day.
We ask about diplomacy with other countries.
MR. BURNS: Right. But we don't --
QUESTION: And you have no problem with that.
MR. BURNS: No, I don't have any problem with talking about diplomacy with
other countries. I do have a problem. This is a very important point.
QUESTION: With leaks, yes.
MR. BURNS: With leaks of highly --
QUESTION: Well, classified documents.
MR. BURNS: -- classified --
QUESTION: I understand.
MR. BURNS: -- documents, that's the distinction here, and it's a felony,
and there's a very heavy penalty to pay if people are prosecuted. It's a
crime, and all of us who have access to those documents sign statements
saying, "We won't do this." And the vast majority of people in this
building, in the CIA, in the Pentagon and the White House don't do it --
the overwhelming majority of people.
QUESTION: I get your point on leaked documents, but I don't know what it is
you're saying that the Washington Times has reported that is or isn't
true.
MR. BURNS: I want to be clear about something. I am not restating here
Chinese Government views --
QUESTION: No, I know.
MR. BURNS: -- and let me just say this. Senior level people in this
government have looked at these specific charges, and based on the
information available to us, we do not conclude that China has violated the
commitments it made in its May 11 statement. We do not conclude that to be
the case.
QUESTION: Well, just to button it down -- the last thing that would button
it down is have they provided that technology, and the conclusion here is
it's not violative, or have they not provided the technology and therefore,
of course, there's no violation?
MR. BURNS: I really can't help you out specifically. I have chosen my words
very carefully. I've thought about what I was going to say, and I don't
feel a particular responsibility, given the circumstances of this
particular charge, apparently a leaked document -- I don't feel a
responsibility to discuss this in great detail.
But I think the statement that I've made is very, very clear about what we
think of the charge that China has engaged in activity that violates its
May 11 statement in actions subsequent to that statement, and I think
that's an important point.
QUESTION: The underlying meaning of your complaint about the leaking of a
secret document is that if there was such a document and it is being
accurately quoted. Is that not right?
MR. BURNS: I have made two points here, basically. One is we object to
leaks of documents of this nature. Two is we've given you a very clear, I
think, substantive reply to the question that was raised in the article of
the basic charge that China has engaged in activity that is inconsistent
with its own commitments.
QUESTION: Then what you're saying, I think, then is that this specific
technology -- this oven and whatever else is involved -- is not necessarily
directly concerned with proliferation matters. Is that right?
MR. BURNS: Actually, I am not being specific at all, in answer to the
specific technology that was cited in the article, because I choose not to
reward the leaker by going through, frankly, all the detail of this matter,
which we, of course, have heard about in the past -- charges similar to
this.
QUESTION: I'm making a point here about timing, and I noticed you used the
phrase "action subsequent to that statement." Are you saying that anything
that might have happened perhaps before that statement was made?
MR. BURNS: I can't confirm anything that happened before the statement, but,
as you know, when we made our own statement back in May about the ring
magnets case and China made its statement on May 11, we acknowledged the
fact that there had been before May 11 some shipments of concern to
us.
Of course, there was a decision made here that for a variety of reasons in
the ring magnets case, it wasn't necessary or appropriate or advisable to
go forward with sanctions, based upon the circumstances of that case.
But since May 11, China has agreed -- since it issued that statement --
that certain activities will not be undertaken, and my statement today I
think is very clear about the charges that were made.
Bill.
QUESTION: Nick, are you prepared to say anything at all about what has
happened -- what happened before May 11, specifically with regard to the
ring magnets --
MR. BURNS: Well, boy, I gave a press briefing back in May that went on for
about 45 minutes on the ring magnets case, and everything I said then I
stand by today, and we can get you the transcript of that press briefing.
QUESTION: But can you make a definitive statement about these others
allegations, including M-11s, ring magnets and the factory for M-11 --
MR. BURNS: We've talked in the past about M-11s. We've talked in the past
ad nauseam about ring magnets. We've given on-the-record press conferences.
I read a statement by the Secretary of State back in May on the ring
magnets issue, and we said everything we have to say about it -- everything
we have to say about it.
In the article this morning there were some new charges, if I'm not
mistaken, reading the article, and I'm trying to reply to those charges.
QUESTION: On those new charges, can you just clarify, does the State
Department believe that China sold a special furnace and diagnostic
equipment to Pakistan?
MR. BURNS: I've answered that question. We've looked at this question, at
this matter very closely, in great detail, and based on the information
currently available to us, we do not conclude that China has acted in a way
that's inconsistent with this May 11 statement, which is the operative
statement, of course.
QUESTION: And also, the CIA believes that Chinese leaders, unlike in the
case of the ring magnets, probably approved this latest transfer. Do you
have any comment on that?
MR. BURNS: I never comment on anything pertaining to the intelligence
community.
QUESTION: Okay. And also, there's the issue of Chinese officials discussing
or indicating that they plan to falsify end-user certificates. In light of
that information, is it the Department's position -- do you support what
John Holum said today that China is evolving -- its stand towards non-
proliferation is evolving in a very positive, constructive direction?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Holum is in China on a five-day visit. I don't think it's
fair for you to pick out one sentence that he uttered in a press conference
on a variety of issues, because a lot of the questions that he was asked --
in fact most of the questions he was asked had nothing to do with the
particular charges that were in your newspaper and your article this
morning.
They had to do with other issues in the U.S.-China security relationship,
and Mr. Holum, as I read the news report, gave a very general assessment of
the overall U.S.-China security relationship and whether or not we were
pleased with the types of talks that we're having with the Chinese. Of
course, we stand by what Mr. Holum said. He was asked something --
QUESTION: Do you agree with what he said?
MR. BURNS: Of course, we stand by what Mr. Holum said.
QUESTION: Even in spite of the fact that you --
MR. BURNS: And I hope that's not taken out of context in tomorrow morning's
newspaper -- either my statement or Mr. Holum's, because we've had a lot of
that in the past.
QUESTION: But you're admitting you sent a protest note --
MR. BURNS: Now, going on, Mr. Holum was asked specifically about the
charges that came to light in your article this morning, and he made
exactly the same statement that I've made, with slightly different words
but certainly the same meaning.
QUESTION: Do you agree that China's behavior related to proliferation is
"very positive and constructive"?
MR. BURNS: I think you're taking Mr. Holum out of context.
QUESTION: I'm asking you.
MR. BURNS: Let me just be straight here, because I don't want to be
misquoted in the Washington Times, which has happened in the past. I wrote
a letter to the editor about the Washington Times about the number of times
that I've been misquoted in that newspaper and misrepresented, so I want to
be clear about this.
As I understand it, John Holum was responding to a question on an entirely
different range of issues. Okay? We stand by his statement. You've asked
this morning -- others have asked -- about this specific statement. I've
given you two or three times our statement on that, and that's all I've got
to say.
QUESTION: Nick, lots of countries have taken the pledge not to be
proliferators, some a part of various regimes, to -- that's an interest, a
strong interest of the
United States to halt proliferation, at least slow it down as best you
can.
Does the U.S. routinely quiz countries whether they're behaving right, or
can I assume that if you look into something, it's because at least
somebody has some reason to maybe be concerned and wants to find out
whether there is a basis for concern.
MR. BURNS: Countries are obligated to maintain the commitments they've made
internationally. That's the way treaties work. When concerns are raised,
specific concerns, about particular countries, we look into all of them,
including the variety of charges that have been made about China and
Pakistan, over the years. These are not new charges. They are very similar
to charges that have been made in the past.
QUESTION: Can I ask about Pakistan very briefly. Pakistan. Is Pakistan
actively looking for nuclear technology? What is the U.S.'s appraisal of
Pakistan's behavior?
MR. BURNS: We have had some concerns. We have had concerns in the past and
up to the present about some activities, as you know, of the Government of
Pakistan. We've made those concerns known directly to the Government of
Pakistan. We've discussed some of those concerns publicly as they arise in
newspaper accounts, and I'm sure we'll continue to have a very active
dialogue with the Pakistani Government on this issue.
QUESTION: Has China backed down since May 11 on any of these other
proliferation issues -- the missiles, the ring magnets? Have they said to
us that they will desist?
MR. BURNS: I think the Chinese -- you ought to look at the May 11
statement. It's a public statement, and I think it speaks for itself. China
has committed that it will not engage in certain types of activities that
the United States believes would be injurious to the international
community, namely a transfer of certain types of technology to unsafeguarded
nuclear facilities.
We have a common international interest in trying to stem the proliferation
of these technologies, and certainly in the case of Pakistan, which is the
relevant case today, those concerns are ongoing, as I said in answer to
Barry's question.
QUESTION: Can they perform on their commitment -- in other issues besides
this one about the furnace?
MR. BURNS: I answered a specific question today about the allegations made
in the Washington Times' article, and I gave you a very clear answer to
that, and I have answered a variety of other specific questions since May,
and our opinion hasn't changed. We'll continue to look into these reports,
but we're not aware of any activity that violates China's commitments.
QUESTION: Nick, does this equipment mentioned in the newspaper article, if
not in the classified document, have an innocent purpose in terms of
proliferation?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, an innocent?
QUESTION: Yes. In other words, could it be used for purposes other than
advancing proliferation?
MR. BURNS: I'm not an expert in these technologies. I couldn't give you a
credible answer as to the possible alternative uses of the type of
equipment mentioned in the paper. I just couldn't. I'm sure that people in
this building can do that, but I'm not willing to do it based on my own
background and knowledge.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Oh, certainly. Listen, this issue was looked at the highest
levels of the Department and in a discussion of this issue, all of our
experts were involved. We looked at this very seriously. This is a very
serious charge, and we're confident of the statement we've made today.
Absolutely confident about it, yes.
QUESTION: Nick, you said several times that based on the information you
now have, China has not violated its May 11 agreement. Now, does that mean
there might be information out there that you're not aware of yet?
MR. BURNS: We can only act based on the information that's before us. We
can't know what the universe of information is out there, so we make the
best judgment we can, based on the information that's been presented to us
or that we have developed independently, and we have a variety of ways of
determining -- of developing information, as you know.
Bill.
QUESTION: Considering the range of proliferation activities that China has
engaged in, in just this year alone -- I mean, the press reports alone show
that there's clearly a track record of missiles, factories, parts,
components to a number of countries. Is it your position that China -- and
this has raised questions among critics that the Administration's non-
proliferation policy has failed. What's your response to that?
MR. BURNS: First of all, I have a process point, and I have a substantive
point. The process point is that I am not going to allow myself to accept
the ground rules here that somehow all of the information in the press
corps is true; all of the information points the finger at a certain
country.
The fact is that we can debate the information and the manner in which the
information is obtained is itself under question, and I've already spoken
to that. The fact is it's illegal for people to transfer this type of
information to the press corps is a very serious point.
On the second question, I challenge anybody to a debate about the success
of our proliferation policy. If you look at what we've done in freezing
North Korea's nuclear program; what we've done since January 20, 1993, in
reducing the number of nuclear powers in the former Soviet Union from four
to one; in stemming proliferation problems underway in Kazakstan -- a very
notable success of the Administration in Russia and Ukraine; and if you
look at what we have done in the case of Pakistan and India and other
countries, we have been vigilant -- this Administration.
I know this from experience, because I worked in the White House in the
prior Administration on this issue. This Administration has put more time
into it, more money into it, has made it a stated high-level goal of its
foreign policy. The President has talked about it in State of the Union
addresses; in addresses to the United Nations. No other American President
has ever done that.
No other American President has ever formed an interagency working group
that is solely devoted to nuclear smuggling and to proliferation, and
President Clinton has done it. I challenge anybody to debate the record of
this Administration.
QUESTION: What about on China? What's the record on China?
MR. BURNS: On China, I think we have been open with you about every single
charge that anyone has leveled against us or any questions that have arisen
about China's conduct. We have been concerned, as you know. We've been
concerned about this problem. We've asked questions. We've raised issues,
and I think in the understandings that we have reached with the Chinese
Government in the fall of 1994 on the missiles, in the spring of 1996 on
the ring magnets case, I think we have worked to push the Chinese
Government towards a more serious commitment to join us in fighting
proliferation.
I think we've made this a first order issue with the Chinese publicly as
well as privately. I'm not embarrassed at all about our record with
China.
QUESTION: Nick, the part where is no -- a problem of the definition. You
know, there's a definition.
MR. BURNS: I don't think so in this particular case. I can tell you in this
case we looked into this very carefully --
QUESTION: What's new technology (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Very carefully, we looked into these charges, and I think the
statement I gave you, which is crystal clear, speaks for itself.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Chinese and the U.S. Do they speak the same
language now so far as --
MR. BURNS: I think we do now. I think because of the agreements that we've
worked out in 1994 and 1996, there's no question that they understand what
we understand to be a violation of MTCR commitments, of U.S. sanctions law.
We understand what the May 11 statement says. They understand what our
statement on ring magnets said.
I think we have a clear understanding in terms of the terminology and the
words that one uses, and the lines in the sand that ones draws. We have an
understanding about what we're talking about here.
QUESTION: It seems to be you're being more reactive then proactive on this
issue.
MR. BURNS: On the issue of proliferation in general?
QUESTION: Well, with China, in the way that some of these charges have been
put forward.
MR. BURNS: Here's what's happening. Here's the dynamic. Somebody, not in
the State Department, I believe, is leaking classified -- highly classified
intelligence documents on this particular issue to the Washington Times;
and that means when the articles are printed in the Washington Times, all
of you come to the briefing, and you ask all these questions, which you
have a right to do.
I am reacting to those questions, but I can tell you that we are proactively
raising this issue in our private meetings with the Chinese. Ambassador
Sasser is doing so on a regular basis, and Secretary of State Christopher
is. The press corps, as I remember, didn't ask him to raise these issues
two weeks ago in New York City. He did it on his own volition, because it
is a major issue in this relationship. So I don't feel in the least bit
defensive here, but I am answering the questions.
QUESTION: Are you doing anything about investigating the source of this
leaked document?
MR. BURNS: As always, that's a matter for law enforcement agencies in this
government, and I can tell you, based on the continual stream of leaks,
there have been, I think, inquiries made by law enforcement agencies into
who might be leaking these documents illegally.
I'm not just saying that for the record. I'm saying it personally speaking,
it's wrong to do this. It's a violation of the oath you take as an officer
in this government, and everybody I know agrees with that.
QUESTION: Would a document like this circulate to the legislative
branch?
MR. BURNS: I don't know about a particular alleged document. There is a
relationship and a commitment that the intelligence agencies have to give
certain documents to the Congress. I am not insinuating in any way that the
leak is coming from Capitol Hill. I don't know where it's coming from. I
don't believe it's coming from this building.
QUESTION: But if someone received a document, they -- really, I don't know -
- I mean, have they violated some law? I mean, would you try to prosecute --
MR. BURNS: I'm not talking -- I've been very careful this time and the last
couple times not to point the finger --
QUESTION: What is --
MR. BURNS: Not to point -- let me just be clear about this.
QUESTION: What's the liability of the press here?
MR. BURNS: Since I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read the entire law, okay,
so I've been very careful not to point the legal -- point out the legal
problems for the reporters. In this case, a colleague of ours is sitting
here. I've been very careful not to do that.
What I've done is -- because I have taken an oath and all other officers of
the government have taken an oath -- to point out that we are prohibited by
law -- we, who serve in the government -- from passing on these documents
to you in the press corps. It is not a minor offense. It's a major offense.
So that's my answer.
QUESTION: I didn't mean (inaudible) but that's okay.
MR. BURNS: I thought that's what you meant, Barry.
QUESTION: You do not object, Mr. Burns, to the publication of this
information, or do you? Should it not be published?
MR. BURNS: We do object to it. We don't think that highly classified
intelligence information or summaries of it should appear in national
newspapers. The reason why you have a system of classifying information
from Top Secret to Secret to Confidential to Unclassified is you want to
protect that information for national security reasons.
If we had a government where every document was available to all you in the
press, democracy couldn't function, and we couldn't function. There would
be utter chaos, and we would not have an effective foreign policy. So,
therefore, some information has to be kept out of the public eye.
QUESTION: So it is the responsibility and incumbent on the press not to let
this information out to the public -- to turn it back.
MR. BURNS: I am focusing my remarks on individuals who work for the U.S.
Government. You in the press corps have to make your own decisions and
examine your own ground rules as to whether or not you print information
like this. I am just talking about government officials. You'll have to
answer these questions about whether journalists should be printing the
information.
QUESTION: What is the policy of the Secretary on this?
MR. BURNS: I've stated it. It's not a question of policy. It's a question
of law. The law made by the Congress makes this illegal, and everyone in
the government knows about it.
Next subject.
QUESTION: I have one more on this one.
MR. BURNS: You've got one more on this one.
QUESTION: You've been repeating several times a statement and saying that
it's crystal clear, but you're not answering a number of questions. Just
for the record, am I right, you are not going to answer the following
questions.
Number one, is there a type of special furnace and diagnostic equipment
which has solely nuclear use, or are there other uses this equipment can
have?
MR. BURNS: I'm not answering that question. Right.
QUESTION: And, number two, do you have any information suggesting that the
Chinese may have sold to Pakistan prior to May 11 the kind of equipment
described in this article?
MR. BURNS: We've talked in the past about concerns we had, and I've
mentioned this at the beginning of this incredible dialogue that we've had
today. We have had concerns -- ongoing concerns prior to May 11 and after
May 11, and we've noted -- in fact, when we announced the ring magnet
decision, there was no question about whether there had been a transfer of
ring magnets. There was a transfer of ring magnets.
The question was -- related to the question of sanctions -- was there
knowledge by senior-level people, and we answered that question.
QUESTION: Why would you --
MR. BURNS: So we have answered that question before.
QUESTION: Excuse me, why would you have concerns after May 11? It could be
because the track record before May 11 was questionable, or it could be
because you came upon some information that raised concerns.
MR. BURNS: We've had concerns, and, when we have those concerns, we look
into them, and we examine questions.
QUESTION: I mean, you don't question Britain's commitment to proliferation -
-
MR. BURNS: No, we do not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: No, we do not.
QUESTION: Or, you know, or Mali, but if you're concerned about the Chinese -
-
MR. BURNS: Mali? The Secretary -- thank you for that opening. We're going
to shift the conversation to Africa.
The Secretary had a very positive --
QUESTION: No, I know. (Laughter) I heard he might stay a third day, because
he couldn't get it all done in two days, but --
MR. BURNS: In fact, he went to a village where we have our Peace Corps
volunteers, and it was a terrific visit, and the Malians welcomed him with
open arms. We have an excellent relationship with Mali, and I'm glad to
make the transition, because we've gone over this.
David, do you have any more questions you want to ask about this?
QUESTION: No.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
QUESTION: No, I just want to ask really about the Chinese thing and maybe
end it. I mean, it's the last thing I want to ask. And that is why did you
have concerns -- what aroused your concerns after May 11 -- previous track
record?
MR. BURNS: This is a very serious issue which is one of the priorities for
this Administration, as I said in answer to Bill's question. Therefore,
when questions arise, we look into them seriously.
QUESTION: The questions did arise then?
MR. BURNS: When they do arise.
QUESTION: But they did.
MR. BURNS: When they do arise.
QUESTION: Wait a minute, you raised -- you had concerns after May 11, and
you say you have concerns when questions arise.
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: So your concerns --
MR. BURNS: In July, we had concerns. In August we had concerns.
QUESTION: I can only draw one conclusion, questions arise --
MR. BURNS: In September we had concerns. And each time a reporter said, "Do
you have concerns," I said yes.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: We look into all allegations made. We take all allegations
seriously. The specific question of today is -- and we're going to get out
of this conversation in about two seconds -- is what is our reaction to the
Washington Times' report, and I gave it. I gave it three times.
QUESTION: Afghanistan?
MR. BURNS: Thank you, Charlie. Yes, Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Do you have any reports on the apparent stalled drive of the
Taliban and also the status of our diplomat who may or may not have left
for Kabul?
MR. BURNS: We certainly understand that Taliban troops and troops loyal to
Ahmed Shah Masood have engaged in a firefight -- have been fighting each
other in the Panjshir Valley north of Kabul. We do not know the extent of
the casualties. We don't know which side came out best. We've seen reports
of a Taliban retreat.
Frankly, since we don't have American Government people in the area or even
reliable press reports at this point, we don't know who's winning this
current round of the fighting.
Our very strong belief is that the various Afghan factions should discover
that they're not going to resolve their problems on the battlefield; that
they have to try to engage in some kind of effort to stop the fighting and
deal with their problems politically among themselves, and that's the
recommendation we've given to all the factions -- Masood faction, Dostam
faction, the Taliban and others.
We will maintain contact with all of them, including the Taliban. But I've
nothing to report about the trip of the American diplomat into Kabul,
because it has not yet happened.
Yasmine.
QUESTION: First of all, on Iraq, is there any truth to the report that Mr.
Barzani or some other high-ranking KDP official will be coming to
Washington to meet Ambassador Pelletreau next week?
MR. BURNS: As I've said a couple of times, we have had discussions with Mr.
Barzani. I don't believe he will be coming to Washington, but some of his
KDP colleagues will be coming to Washington. I am not aware that we have
set a date for their visit. I can check into that for you, Yasmine. I'm
just not aware. I think my knowledge is as late as yesterday on this that
we have set a date.
QUESTION: Do you know if French and Turkish officials here will be
participating in the talks? Excuse me -- British and French.
MR. BURNS: I don't know what Ambassador Pelletreau has in mind here,
whether these will be strictly talks -- American-Kurdish talks or whether
Turks or Brits in the case will participate.
QUESTION: Could I ask you about Turkey. Your Turkish counterpart this
morning dismissed your remarks, criticizing Prime Minister Erbakan's trip
in Africa, as unacceptable, and he also said that the U.S. has not conveyed
its concern through diplomatic channels. It looks like, you know, you're
making a statement from this podium here, and it's being answered by
another statement from another podium in Ankara. It looks like you're not
preferring the private news or discussion in this. Is this public
discussion producing any results? Have you heard anything from Ankara that
is a relief about your concerns about the trip?
MR. BURNS: First of all, I stand by everything that I've said over the last
two days, as do my superiors in the Department of State.
Secondly, we hope that what we have said publicly -- and it was unfortunate
that we had to go public, but let's remember who went public first -- it's
unfortunate that we had to resort to this kind of public debate, but it was
necessary to defend the interests of the United States and to defend the
truth.
Third, we have raised this issue privately.
And, fourth, we hope that this issue can be resolved privately, as
disagreements among allies normally are, and that's how we intend to
operate in the coming days.
QUESTION: Just to be sure, because your counterpart said it wasn't
discussed privately, but you're saying it's still being discussed
privately.
MR. BURNS: Certainly, it is.
QUESTION: In Ankara or here or both?
MR. BURNS: I believe both places, yes.
QUESTION: Nick, 3,000 of South Korean citizens were --
MR. BURNS: We're just going to stay on this subject for a minute, and then
we're going to go to South Korea.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Erbakan who upon his return to Ankara
today from his grand tour stated provocatively the following: "We have
returned like victorious Roman commanders." (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I have not seen that statement, and so I can't --
QUESTION: It was in the Reuters dispatch. It is all over. Still he is
provoking the USA, the West and everyone, so I would like you to comment.
MR. BURNS: I've not seen the statement; and, as I've said, we have been
very clear in the past few days about our own unhappiness with Mr.
Erbakan's statements, and we'll continue to discuss this privately with the
Turkish Government.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) information that you're in process to invite here
Suleyman Demirel for a decision.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, who has been invited? I didn't quite make that
out.
QUESTION: The President of Turkey, Suleyman Demirel.
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that there's been any invitation to President
Demirel, no, to visit the United States. I'm not aware of one, no. But
we'll continue to have close contacts with the Turkish Government on this
issue and on others. Turkey is a NATO ally.
QUESTION: What has been their response? In 48 hours, do you have any
official response from them?
MR. BURNS: From the Turkish Government?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I think we've seen a variety of statements from the Turkish
Government publicly and privately, and this is a big internal issue in
Turkey. I think it's appropriate to allow the Turks to discuss this
privately among themselves.
We said what we did, and we stand by it, because it was important that we
spoke out on that matter.
Yes, Savas.
QUESTION: Erbakan's party -- some member of Erbakan's party, they claim
that the Turkish -- American reaction for the visit is too big and too
speculative, because they said that the President of Egypt, Mr. Mubarak,
has a very good relation with Libya, which they are the biggest U.S. aid --
MR. BURNS: President Mubarak has consistently criticized the Libyan
Government for its involvement in Pan Am 103, as have most other leaders
around the world.
QUESTION: How about Tunis?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Tunisia?
MR. BURNS: I think most of the North African governments and the Arab
governments -- they carry on contacts with the Libyan Government, but they
certainly understand that there are UN sanctions in place against Libya,
because Libya was directly involved in the shootdown of Pan Am Flight 103,
December 21, 1988 -- 269 people dead, among them many Americans -- among
them three State Department employees whose names are on our memorial
plaque in C Street. See, we don't forget these things, and that's what the
Libyans need to understand. We're never going to forget this incident until
the two individuals who are currently living in Libya, with a $4 million
price on their heads, until they're delivered to the United States for
prosecution in a U.S. court.
We can't forget it when Americans are killed by terrorists, and our allies
need to understand that. This is very serious business for the United
States, and not just for those of us in the government -- for the American
people. That's what was at issue over the last 48 hours. That's why we
responded the way we did.
QUESTION: Nick, could you provide an update, possibly, if this is an
occasion for it, those Kurds that worked for various U.S. Government
offices -- remember, that were being taken out. I think we lost track of
that.
MR. BURNS: Roughly 2,100 Kurds and members of other minority groups in
northern Iraq who worked directly for the United States Government were
taken to Guam. They are being processed in Guam for asylum into the United
States.
There is another group of people in northern Iraq who worked for American
private voluntary organizations not associated with the U.S. Government.
The question is, what should we do to protect them?
We don't believe that this particular group of people are in any immediate
threat because we don't believe Saddam Hussein's influence stretches as far
northward as most of them are. But we do believe in the long term, since
Saddam's security forces have engaged in such outrageous, objectionable
behavior in the past, we do believe in the long term that we have to at
least consider what their long-term security threats may be -- the rest to
them may be, excuse me -- therefore, we are studying the possibility of
trying to help these particular people leave northern Iraq and make their
way to safety elsewhere in the world.
This has been under active consideration in our government. We've not made
any final decisions on them.
QUESTION: How many people are there, approximately? Do you know?
MR. BURNS: This is a larger group of people which would exceed the number
of the first group. I don't have an exact number because, I think, actually
that's one of the questions: What is the size of people who might
potentially benefit from a U.S. Government assistance program to help them
leave northern Iraq?
QUESTION: Do you have the numbers of the first group that have been taken
to Guam in terms of processing? We know how many went there, but I'm
talking about from there. Have any come to the U.S. yet?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check for you. I don't believe so. The processing
takes a while -- several weeks, several months, in some cases. Let me check
with our Refugees Bureau.
QUESTION: To see if maybe 10 or 20 or 100 --
MR. BURNS: Right, right. Dimitrios.
QUESTION: Yes, I have a question.
QUESTION: The Iraqi Foreign Minister --
MR. BURNS: Why don't we stay here.
QUESTION: The Iraqi Foreign Minister seems to be holding out an olive
branch. Does the Administration have any response to that?
MR. BURNS: It's nonsense, frankly. We saw this naive statement by the Iraqi
Foreign Minister offering us sweetness and beautiful relations. The Iraqi
Government knows what it's going to take to have normal relations with the
United States.
What happened to the 600 Kuwaitis who Saddam's security goons took into
custody in August 1990 who have disappeared? Why doesn't the Iraqi
Government stop its persecution of the Kurdish population in the North, and
the Shi'a population in the South? Why doesn't Saddam stop trying to build
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? Why doesn't he stop trying to
invade his neighbors as he has done consistently since 1990 and threatened
his neighbors?
If the Iraqi Government can show us by word, but more importantly by deed,
that it's interested in acting responsibly on those issues and others, then
there's a possibility that we might reconsider our current policy. But I
can't imagine Saddam Hussein ever qualifying under the standards that we
have put out for him, which are reasonable and which protect and American
and Arab interests in the region.
QUESTION: A follow-up on the Kurds -- the second group. Has anything
happened that made you change your mind about the urgency of their
situation? Because when this was raised with the Turkish Foreign Minister
by the Secretary in New York two or three weeks ago, it looked like it was
an urgent situation, and a second evacuation operation was imminent.
Why are you saying now that you are not sure that they are under immediate
threat?
MR. BURNS: Actually, when the Secretary raised this with Mrs. Ciller -- I
was present at that meeting -- it was pretty much in the terms that I've
set out for you. This is an issue that we think we should look at to be
responsible. We need to get a better handle on the number of individuals
involved, where they're living, what the immediate and longer-term security
threats to them may be; what any operation would entail. We need to work
closely with Turkey on all those questions.
When the Secretary raised it in that tone in that way, he did not say it
was urgent, that it needed to be done that day. He did not indicate what
decision, finally, we would make. So I think we've been consistent publicly
and privately on this.
QUESTION: Is the screening process a problem for you at this point?
MR. BURNS: I think we can develop a screening process that will work. We
did in the first group of 2,100 people; a screening process that made sure
that no Iraqi agents or terrorists were involved. I know that's a concern
of Turkey, and that's a legitimate concern of Turkey.
QUESTION: A follow, Nick. Does heavy fighting continue between the forces
of Mr. Talabani and Mr. Barzani up in the North? And does that not threaten
those people who were working for the NGOs?
MR. BURNS: We're not aware of heavy fighting. There is some fighting going
on, but I wouldn't say it's heavy. Nothing approximating the fighting in
the earlier part of September.
Yes, Dmitri?
QUESTION: I have a question on Cyprus. Is it true that the Special
Coordinator of the Department, Ambassador Williams, will depart his
position very soon? And if it's so, why? And who will be replacing
him?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that Ambassador Jim Williams is going to move
onto other duties in the State Department after what we all believe is very
distinguished service as Special Cyprus Coordinator.
This change in no way signifies any lessening of the Administration's
resolve to be helpful to the parties on Cyprus, to Greece and Turkey and
the Cypriot Government itself. It is simply a change in normal rotation in
Ambassador Williams' duties.
As you know, those of us who are Foreign Service officers normally serve
two or three years in a job and then move on. That's consistent with
Ambassador Williams case.
Richard Beattie, the President's Special Emissary on Cyprus, continues to
be the Administration's point person on Cyprus.
Secretary Christopher had lunch with him a week and a half ago to discuss
Cyprus. He remains very actively involved. We also have our excellent
Ambassador Ken Brill, our Ambassador to Cyprus, as well as Ambassador Tom
Niles in Athens and Marc Grossman in Turkey. So we have no shortage of
people who are working on this issue with determination to see what the
United States can do to help.
QUESTION: You will not have any successor to Ambassador Williams as the
State Department --
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware, at this point, of who may succeed him. In the
interim, we have Ambassador Beattie, who works for the Secretary of State
as well as the President. We have the three Ambassadors, particularly
Ambassador Brill whom I've mentioned. The Secretary has absolute confidence
in Ambassador Brill as well as Mr. Beattie.
QUESTION: Nick, the problem isn't of the sort that requires a special --
this was symbolic as well as significant that you had someone specially
assigned to that. In fact, Holbrooke was going to take that on as his last
problem and left before he got to it when Bosnia tied him down.
What are you saying? Are you saying that the situation in Cyprus isn't as
tense or as difficult as it was? We've had special mediators for Cyprus for
a long time now. He's not the first.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Beattie is the President and Secretary of State's Special
Emissary. He works out of New York. He's frequently here and frequently in
the field. He continues his duties as Special Emissary along with our
Ambassador to Cyprus.
The only other point I'm trying to make is that I don't want anyone to
think that because Ambassador Williams is now following a normal rotation
to another job in the Department, this somehow sends a political signal of
diminished interest.
QUESTION: I thought you were suggesting he wouldn't be replaced.
MR. BURNS: I don't know who is going to replace him. I don't know when that
decision will be made, and I can't speculate on that.
QUESTION: So he will be replaced, but you don't know who? Or you're not
sure --
MR. BURNS: As you know, we've had a Special Cyprus Coordinator, and it's
really an issue that's been worked out with the United States Congress. But
at this point, I'm just not in a position to say who is going to replace
him and when that's going to happen.
QUESTION: If, who or when?
MR. BURNS: I think there's probably going to be someone who takes up his
duties. I just can't tell you who that is.
QUESTION: On Turkey. Just for the record, Muammar Qadhafi, in the presence
of Erbakan, stated that "Turkey is under occupation by Western powers.
Turkey, a country under American control, has opened up its oil to American
bases. Turkey has concluded an accord with Israel, the enemy of Islam."
My question is, could you please comment on this, the Qadhafi-Erbakan
connection --
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, as Yogi Berra once said, this is deja vu all over
again. (Laughter) The fact is, I answered this question on Monday and on
Tuesday, and I kind of answered today indirectly. You can't trust Muammar
Qadhafi.
QUESTION: You saw the newspaper today that said the Administration keeps up
attack on the Turkish Prime Minister. You have a shot at a third day
getting into the Washington Post. (Laughter) You don't want to try?
MR. BURNS: I have nothing new to say.
QUESTION: The Post loves the story.
MR. BURNS: The Post does, and I don't blame the Post for liking the story.
We have nothing new to say to add to the very clear, consistent statements
that I made over the last 48 hours, supported by the Secretary of State,
the Acting Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Ambassador John Kornblum, and
Ambassador Marc Grossman. We have nothing new to say to that statement.
I don't want anyone to think that --
QUESTION: You haven't changed your mind?
MR. BURNS: -- we've changed our mind, because we haven't. The only thing I
can say to Mr. Lambros' question is this. Qadhafi is an unreliable,
untrustworthy person. The sooner that our friends understand that, the
better off all of us will be.
QUESTION: Korea?
MR. BURNS: Yes, gladly go to Korea.
QUESTION: The American detained and charged in North Korea?
MR. BURNS: Yes. I can tell you that yesterday in New York City, American
diplomats from the State Department met with North Korean diplomats
attached to the North Korean Mission to the United Nations. As part of a
variety of subjects that they talked, the American diplomats raised the
issue of the young man who is incarcerated in Pyongyang.
The United States strongly urged in the meeting yesterday that this man be
freed. He is innocent. There is no reason to hold him. We will continue to
make this point to the North Koreans at every opportunity. We have an
obligation. The State Department has an obligation to this man to give him
our support, our help, our consular protection through our protecting power,
the Swedish Government.
The Swedish Government continues to seek access to him. We hope that the
access is granted as soon as possible, tomorrow. They haven't had access --
the Swedes -- since September 17. We want to make sure that this young man
is okay, that his health is adequate -- at least, adequate -- and that he's
being given the proper food and the proper medical care.
One cannot make the assumption that conditions in prisons are good,
especially in a country like North Korea. We're concerned about this.
The best way for the North Koreans to handle this situation is for them to
release this individual to a free country. That's what we want.
QUESTION: The North Koreans are saying up there that the U.S. made its
argument on humanitarian grounds. Of course, that's part of your argument.
Did the U.S. also make these other points yesterday, that he's innocent?
MR. BURNS: Absolutely. Absolutely, and there's no question about that.
QUESTION: You said you hope that the Swedes gained access as soon as
possible, and you said tomorrow?
MR. BURNS: The Swedes; yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that they're going to?
MR. BURNS: The Swedes have made a request to get in immediately to see this
individual in jail. It's the North Korean obligation to allow diplomats
access to individuals under their responsibility. The Swedes do have
responsibility for American citizens in North Korea.
The North Koreans have an obligation here. They must meet their obligation.
They must give us access. The easiest way for them to resolve this problem
with the United States -- and it's a big problem -- is to release
him.
QUESTION: Tomorrow, the meeting by the Swedes is going to take place -- do
you think it's going to take place? Or are you just hopeful?
MR. BURNS: We don't know. The Swedes have requested a meeting. We're
hopeful that there will be a consular visit to this individual. Until it
happens, I don't want to predict that it's going to happen because we know
how opaque a society it is that we're dealing with.
QUESTION: How did the North Koreans respond to the American diplomat in the
meeting yesterday when the American --
MR. BURNS: I don't want to go into the details of the conversation or even
the tone. I want to maximize our possibility of having him released as soon
as we can.
We're going to resist the temptation to go back to Erbakan just for a
minute. (Laughter) I feel very comfortable talking about Asian issues now.
We've exhausted the China issue, the Erbakan issue, the Bosnia issue. Barry
needs to go and file.
Patrick.
QUESTION: I just wanted to go to America for a minute.
MR. BURNS: I need to have lunch. There are a couple of other issues.
QUESTION: Have you received a request from the Peruvian Government to
assist in the removal of the wreckage of the Aero Peru plane? There was a
U.S. Navy team that discovered the location of the plane today, apparently.
MR. BURNS: I don't know. We can check into that and get back to you on
that. I don't know the answer to that.
Any other questions on Asia?
QUESTION: Three bodies were found in South Korea. They seem to be murdered
by North Korean spies, instigators. So what is the Department's position?
What is the Department's view on this incident?
MR. BURNS: We have seen the press reports. The United States is not in a
position to corroborate these charges that have been made. This is a matter
for the South Korean law enforcement agencies.
QUESTION: You chose two times to criticize Daniel Ortega as apparently no
valid candidate or someone that you cannot have cooperation, a good
relationship. I was wondering why, if he takes part in the fair and
democratic elections and he has changed at least part of his old policies,
what does he have to do in order to be an able candidate or an able
president of Nicaragua?
MR. BURNS: As Tammy Wynette once said, this is a day of standing by your
man, and I don't mean Ortega, I mean me. I'm going to stand by my
statements that I made last week.
I was asked by Mr. Ensor of the American Broadcasting Corporation whether
or not I would use the words "good democrat" to describe Daniel Ortega.
Those words don't rush to mind when we think of Daniel Ortega. I would not
use those words to describe him. He has a past. His past is an anti-
American past in many respects. We remember the past, so I would not use
words to describe him in that manner.
As you know, as I also stated on the record yesterday, the United States
Government objects to the fact that in the current political campaign he
and his political party have used images of him with a U.S. Congressman to
insinuate that somehow Daniel Ortega has a beautiful relationship with the
United States Government. I can tell you that that's not the case.
QUESTION: What does he have to do in order to open a new chapter between
you and him?
MR. BURNS: I would refer you to a Wall Street Journal article this morning
which talks about his cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein and Muammar
Qadhafi, for starters. Actions -- actions -- are always more important than
promises when dealing with people who have been adversaries of the United
States in the past.
We really can't go back to Mr. Erbakan. We've done that subject.
Bill, you have a question.
QUESTION: Daniel Ortega. In the 80's -- especially 1984 -- he played host
to most of the terrorist nations on this planet, to many of the then-
communist regimes on his July 19th anniversary, Nick.
Back to this man's question --
MR. BURNS: Barry, the rules are, if the senior correspondent asks for
another question to be asked, you have to stay and listen to this.
We've done Erbakan. My short answer is this.
QUESTION: Has this guy changed his spots?
MR. BURNS: I think I've answered the question. I think we've been explicit
about Mr. Ortega. Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:29 p.m.)
(###)
|
