U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #175, 96-10-29
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
Tuesday, October 29, l996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Welcome to Mr. Wei Liu, Correspondent, Peoples Daily ........ 1
Deputy Secretary Talbott Speech at Colombia University ...... 1-2
"This Day in Diplomacy" Fact Sheet: Lend/Lease Aid to Russia 1
Diplomatic Security Agents Recognition ...................... 2
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Republic of Srpska Violator of Article IV of Dayton Accords . 2-3,18-19
COLOMBIA
U.S. Support/Monitoring of Anti-Narcotics Efforts ........... 3-5
MIDDLE EAST
Syrian-Israeli Border: Reports of Military Activity ......... 5-7
Ambassador Ross' Return to Washington ....................... 6-7
CUBA
Amb. Eizenstat's Travel: Democracy in Cuba/Helms Burton ..... 7-12
Case of Brothers to the Rescue Shootdown .................... 25-28
NORTH KOREA
Status of Mr. Hunziker ...................................... 12-13
U.S.-North Korean Mtgs. in NY ............................... 12-13
Possible Ballistic Missile Testing .......................... 13
ARMS CONTROL/NON-PROLIFERATION
Report of Russian Monitor Visit to Oak Ridge ................ 13
India's Position on Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ........... 19-20
Report of China Missile Sale to Iran ........................ 28
IRAQ
UNICEF Report on Humanitarian Situation ..................... 13-17
--Proposed Fund for Emergency Food Shipments ................ 15
TURKEY/GREECE
Reported PKK Incursions Into Turkey ......................... 17-18
Aegean Islets ............................................... 21
JAPAN
U.S. Support for UNSC Rotational Seat ....................... 20-21
ZAIRE
Fighting in Eastern Zaire ................................... 22-24
--U.S. Support for Regional Conference ...................... 22
--U.S. Contact w/UN High Commissioner for Refugees .......... 23
RWANDA
Report of Allegation Against GOR
re: Weapons Supplies to Militias .......................... 24
MISCELLANEOUS
Alleged Contributions to the Democratic Nat'l. Committee .... 24
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #175
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1996, 1:05 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon and welcome to the State Department.
I want to welcome Mr. Wei Liu, who is the Chief Correspondent of the Shanxi
Province Bureau of the People's Daily, which is China's most widely read
newspaper. He's here under the auspices of the USIA International Visitors
Program. That's through the Meridian International Center. Very glad to
welcome you here.
I also wanted to remind you that Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott
is giving an important speech this afternoon at Columbia University. This
speech is on the future of relations between the United States and
Russia.
This speech helps to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Harriman
Center, the center named for Ambassador Averell Harriman at Columbia
University. I hope to have copies of this speech available to you shortly
in the next half hour. This would be an "as prepared" text that you could
look at.
I know that joining Deputy Secretary Talbott at Columbia today will be
Ambassador Pamela Harriman, who is there to take part in the proceedings,
both in the speech and in a dinner this evening. She will be making
remarks. Dick Holbrooke, our former Assistant Secretary of State, will also
be making remarks up at Columbia, will also be making remarks up at
Columbia. But the keynote speech will be by Deputy Secretary Talbott.
Fortuitously, we are also releasing today a press fact sheet in our series,
"This Day in Diplomacy," which talks about lend-lease aid to Russia. Of
course, the person who made it happen, working for President Roosevelt, was
Ambassador Averell Harriman.
I would commend to you, as you look at Strobe Talbott's speech -- you might
want to look back 55 years at the activities of Ambassador Harriman in the
autumn of 1941. He took a very important diplomatic mission to Moscow where
he talked to Stalin about the requirements of the Soviet Union in the face
of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
Out of that came the program that the United States put forward to help the
Soviet Union in the first years of the war. Ambassador Harriman's mission
was one of the critical diplomatic missions undertaken throughout the
entire war. So the fact sheet that I'm releasing today -- in fact right now
-- gives you a lot of detail about that diplomatic mission, which I think
you'll find interesting.
You can get this also on fax-on-demand at 202-736-7720 and also at our
Internet site at www.state.gov. All of our fact sheets -- in fact,
everything we do these days -- is put on the Internet on a same-day
basis.
QUESTION: Will there be questions and answers after Strobe's --
MR. BURNS: I think there will. This speech is not going to be piped in
here. I don't know if you have some of your colleagues up in New York. This
is an open event for the press. There will be press at the event in New
York.
I also wanted just to mention the fact that the Department of State is very
proud that two of our Diplomatic Security agents, Larry Salmon and Chris
Reilly, received honorable mentions in the prestigious 1996 Police Officer
of the Year Award. You met them here. They came and talked to you about
their efforts in Burundi to save the life of Ambassador Bob Krueger more
than a year ago.
As you remember, they put themselves in the middle of a firefight in
Burundi and saved the Ambassador's life; returned fire and were able to get
him out of there, and also to save the life of the Burundian Foreign
Minister.
We're very proud of both of them. Both of them have had long careers in the
Department of State. Their work is typical of the work our Diplomatic
Security agents do, and I wanted to commend them personally.
Last, before we go to questions, I just wanted to say that there has been
some discrepancy and a problem in communication in Bosnia about a very
important point, and this has to do with whether or not the Bosnian Serbs
have been faithful to their obligations under Article 4 of the Dayton
agreements on arms control.
Unfortunately, our Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum has been
misquoted egregiously, not by a member of the press but by actually some of
the diplomats who were out there. I wanted to correct the record, because
it was a very serious misunderstanding.
There have been some reports by some officials out there that the United
States has essentially given -- has not cared, has not made any kind of
protest about the fact that the Republic of Srpska has been a major
violator of Article 4 of the Dayton agreement.
I talked to John Kornblum this morning, and he has consistently told the
Republic of Srpska, as well as all the relevant IFOR officials, that the
position of the United States on this question is the following.
The Republic of Srpska has under-reported equipment holdings to an
egregious degree. They have exempted hundreds of pieces of equipment
through abuse of accounting rules, and they've declared a reduction
liability that in fact entails very few reductions on their part, meaning
they're not meeting their commitments under Article 4 of the Dayton
accords.
The United States believes that they should, and we are working with all of
the people in the region to make sure that they should. I wanted to get
this on the record that the United States has this position and that
Assistant Secretary Kornblum has been very consistent publicly and
privately in adhering to this position.
With that, George, I'll be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: Amnesty International USA held a news conference this morning
in which it said that U.S. military equipment supposedly earmarked for
counter-insurgency operations instead has been earmarked to Colombian
military units with an egregious record of human rights abuses. Do you have
any response to that?
MR. BURNS: Just a couple of points. First, I understand that one of the
ways that Amnesty International may have acquired some of the information
was through leaked documents, and, as you know, I don't comment about
leaked documents.
So putting that aside, I could say the following. The United States is and
has been strongly committed to human rights in Colombia, and we've never
hesitated to be critical, either publicly or privately, of the Colombian
Government when we see that there are abuses that have taken place.
It is also true that we've been very much committed to trying to work with
Colombia in the fight against narcotics trafficking and the production of
narcotics. It's very true -- and I think that this may get to the heart of
the matter here -- that Colombia has received a significant portion of the
Department of State's anti-narcotics budget; and that as part of that, as
you know -- and the President just made this decision in September --
are Colombians receiving a significant amount of defense articles,
defense services and training -- for its anti-narcotics efforts.
As you know, our program in Colombia entails a $40 million defense drawdown
that is part of this -- helicopters and C-26 observation aircraft and
flight support equipment, field equipment, communications gear, river
patrol boats -- will all be made available to Colombia.
The equipment is going to those elements of the Colombian military and the
Colombian national police, which have counter-narcotics responsibility. As
you know, we've tended to work with those parts of the Colombian Government
that we believe are interested in fighting drugs -- fighting narcotics
production and trafficking.
Elements of the Colombian military, the Colombian national police and the
Colombian Attorney General's office are the three main parts of the
government that we have worked with. We have given broad support to them
for their efforts.
We are mindful of the fact -- both the State Department and the Pentagon
are mindful of the fact that we have to have an effective monitoring system
to see that this equipment is used for the purposes intended, not in any
illegal or inhumane way against people, against people who are democrats,
who stand for human rights in Colombia, but against the narcotics
traffickers.
Because of that, we do have an end-use monitoring program in place through
which the condition and use of United States Government-provided equipment
is reviewed continually to make sure that the Colombian Government is
complying with the terms of the agreement. That's an important feature of
this program, and we do take it seriously.
QUESTION: How about the allegations that Amnesty --
MR. BURNS: I can't speak to the specific allegations. I wasn't at the
press conference this morning. I have actually not even seen any press
reports on it. I've just heard by word of mouth from people inside the
Department and others that Amnesty made these allegations.
Obviously, Amnesty is a respected organization, and we do take seriously
what Amnesty International says. We will be talking with them privately,
and we'll also want to look at what they've produced, and we will follow up
on this.
QUESTION: In your end-use system -- end-use verification system, have you
found that any of the equipment given -- transferred to Colombia has been
used in ways that might be suspect from a human rights point of view?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that we have, but we are checking into that
now. We're obviously -- given the allegations that have been made by a very
serious group, Amnesty International -- we are checking into that.
QUESTION: Nick, on another subject --
MR. BURNS: I think Tom wanted to follow up here, Barry.
QUESTION: The substance of their allegation is that this aid is supposed
to be used for counter-narcotics operations, but it has been used instead
for counter-insurgency operations. How do you feel about that argument --
let's say that distinction.
MR. BURNS: We are very clear that the military assistance that we provide
to Colombia must be used for the purposes intended -- counter-narcotics. In
Colombia, as you know, there have been charges made by some of the law
enforcement agencies and the military that there's a mix in who is running
drugs and who are the insurgents and who is part of the Mafia for other
reasons in Colombia, or Mafia on other issues.
This is one of the issues that we need to be very clear with Colombia that
the defense articles that we give are given for one reason only, and that
is to fight narcotics production and narcotics trafficking. That's our
position.
QUESTION: Nick, something else. On the Syrian border with Israel, is
there any ominous scud redeployments or troop movements that you can tell
us about? There are reports to that effect.
MR. BURNS: On which side of the border, Barry, are you referring
to?
QUESTION: Syrian side of the border. Since I raise my question in terms
of intelligence, of course, it will make it difficult to get an answer, but
some things are quite visible. Has the State Department heard or detected
anything alarming going on there?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of anything. Obviously, this is a border that we
watch very carefully, given the interests that the United States has. You
might want to refer your questions to the Syrian and Israeli Governments. I
know there's been a lot of talk in the press in Israel about this
particular issue, but I know of nothing in our own eyes here, Barry, that
would lead us to any kind of cause of undue concern.
QUESTION: Did Ambassador Ross get back?
MR. BURNS: Yes. He arrived just a couple of hours ago. He's taking a well
deserved day off after three weeks of continual negotiations, of not having
seen his family, of not having had a lot of sleep. He'll be in the
Department tomorrow. He'll be seeing Secretary Christopher and others
here.
As I said, once Chairman Arafat returns from his trip through Europe and
Ambassador Ross and Secretary Christopher have a chance to talk to Chairman
Arafat, Dennis Ross will be heading back to complete these talks, which
will end in a successful outcome, we believe.
QUESTION: Going back to Barry's question, there had been a lot of sort of
related things going on in Israel and Syria. Israel has announced its
intention to raise its defense budget by quite a large amount. Sources were
saying it's to counter a possible threat from Syria. There's been a lot of
Syrian troop movement recently. There's been a suggestion that President
Assad saw that Yasser Arafat had some degree of success in the uprising
recently in the occupied territories.
Yet you say there's no cause for undue concern. You don't see any
heightening of tensions. You don't see that the possibility of conflict
between the two countries is greater now than it was. You're not doing
anything diplomatically, other than the messages passed since a couple of
weeks ago to calm things down?
MR. BURNS: Relations between Syria and Israel are not good. They have
never been good. The United States has tried to be a conduit for communications
between the Israeli and Syrian leaderships, and we'll continue that. Our
long-term goal here is to help Israel and Syria produce a peace agreement
that would help produce an overall peace in the Middle East.
As regards to the military situation, we're not in the best position here
at the Department of State to give you a sense of which military units are
deploying where, on which sides of the border. But I can tell you that a
lot of people in this government do watch that question closely, and we
would obviously be taking certain steps if we thought that there was some
kind of possibility of imminent conflict here.
We don't believe that's the case, and we believe that both the Governments
of Syria and Israel understand the catastrophic consequences of any kind of
conflict along the border. There are responsible leaderships in both
governments, experienced leaderships in both governments, so we don't
believe that somehow we're on the verge of any kind of crisis like
that.
QUESTION: On that subject --
MR. BURNS: On this subject, yes.
QUESTION: On that subject, have you spoken to Dennis Ross, and have you
asked him if he would have time to come down and visit with us?
MR. BURNS: You know, I didn't. That wasn't one of the issues that we
talked about yesterday when Dennis called from Israel. But I have promised
some of your colleagues that I will raise that issue with Dennis. I do take
your request seriously, and we'll see what we can do. Please don't call him
today. He deserves a day off. We can have a general agreement on that. He
won't talk to you if you call.
QUESTION: Ambassador Eizenstat's trip?
MR. BURNS: Yes. What would you like to know? (Laughter)
QUESTION: Is he still trying to --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Yes, he is. He's still trying. Ambassador Eizenstat, as you
know, who is a special representative of President Clinton and Secretary
Christopher for the promotion of democracy in Cuba, is currently on a trip
to Europe to talk about democracy in Cuba or the lack thereof.
He has been in Paris and Rome. He's going to be visiting The Hague today.
He is in The Hague today. He'll then proceed on to Stockholm and Copenhagen
before returning to the United States.
His job is twofold: to discuss with the Europeans the well-known and oft-
cited complaints that the European governments have about the Helms-Burton
legislation, which is the law of the land here in the United States.
Second, to talk to the Europeans about something that we don't hear much
from Europe about, and that's democracy in Cuba, and the importance of
Europe standing beside the democrats in Cuba who are being jailed and
harassed, intimidated and in every respect put down by the Government of
Fidel Castro.
We're interested in talking about both issues, and we're willing to talk
about the first, by the way -- Helms-Burton -- but we'd like the Europeans
to agree that we should talk about both issues. That's what his mission
is.
QUESTION: Has he got any promise on anything, especially after yesterday's
agreement in Europe. What is he trying to do now? How has he reacted to
this?
MR. BURNS: The United States is not happy with the fact that the European
Union has put forward legislation or a bill that would essentially serve in
their eyes as an anecdote to the Helms-Burton legislation. We don't think
it's appropriate for the Europeans to take that step. I'm sure Ambassador
Eizenstat is making that point.
As to his overall trip, I think we should let him come back and maybe
explain in his own words what he felt he accomplished on this trip. It's a
very difficult mission, but he's a very able diplomat and we have great
confidence in him.
QUESTION: Nick, what makes it difficult?
MR. BURNS: What makes the trip difficult?
QUESTION: Uh-hum.
MR. BURNS: The fact that there is uniform opposition in Europe to Helms-
Burton; that the EU has just taken a step which we believe is inappropriate
and unhelpful in trying to create its own legislation on this issue which
will not, we believe, serve to reduce tensions.
Our belief all along has been that we would like to minimize the impact of
this bill on the Europeans and maximize it on Cuba. We're trying to
minimize it on the Europeans. It doesn't help when the Europeans pass this
unnecessary legislation. It doesn't help when the Europeans don't help us
to try to maximize the international pressure on Castro.
Castro is the problem here. He's the guy who has created all the problems.
He's the one who is a massive violator of human rights. The Europeans are
democrats -- they're democratic countries. They ought to be concerned about
this.
QUESTION: Is that a case of NBA in your face?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Is that in-your-face type of action?
MR. BURNS: By. . .?
QUESTION: What NBA people call in your face? By the Europeans. Are they
trying to co-op you to just sort of brush you off?
MR. BURNS: I don't know what they're trying to do. I don't believe it's
co-optation. I don't think it's brushing us off either. They like to talk
about this issue. We have a lot of discussions on it. We've probably had
hundreds if not thousands of hours of discussion on it. I don't think it's
a brush-off. I think it's an attempt by the Europeans to show their
displeasure.
We understand that they don't like this. But the fact is that it's the law
of the United States.
As you know, under the Helms-Burton legislation, the President of the
United States, whoever that will be in January and February of this year,
has to make a decision about one important feature of Helms-Burton. That is
the ability of American citizens to sue in U.S. courts. That hasn't been
made yet. That's one of the reasons why we're consulting, to see what all
the repercussions from that decision will be.
This is a two-way street. We need a little help from the Europeans. It
would be very helpful, again -- I'll say this for the eighth time today and
a hundredth time in the last couple of days -- it would be very helpful if
they showed a little bit of concern for the victims of Fidel Castro. He's
not a romantic revolutionary. It's fashionable in some parts of Europe to
think that he is. He's an old man who is out of touch. He's the loan
autocrat in this hemisphere. The Europeans ought to realize that.
We live near Cuba. We understand the Cubans, I think, better, than the
Europeans do.
QUESTION: You're trying to minimize the effect of Helms-Burton. It is by
suspending this ability of Americans to sue here, or there are other
provisions that may be taken?
MR. BURNS: The President made a decision to essentially freeze that for
six months and to make a final decision in the early part of 1997. It was,
in part, an attempt by us to take a step towards the Europeans and show
them that we're willing to talk although no final decision has been made by
the President, I should hasten to add.
We'd like to see a little bit of reciprocity, a little bit of the Europeans
understanding our position -- understanding the deeply-held feelings in the
United States about this issue.
QUESTION: Is this unique European behavior?
QUESTION: Why is it not appropriate for the Europeans to take action to
defend themselves against something that they consider to be improper extra-
territorial legislation by the United States?
MR. BURNS: First, because we disagree with them on that point. We don't
believe it's extra-territorial. We believe it is consistent with our
international trade obligations.
Second, in appointing Ambassador Eizenstat, the President and Secretary of
State were clearly signaling to the Europeans, we know that you have
concerns about this; let's talk. Let's have a discussion about this. I will
have a Special Emissary visit Europe. He's now done that a couple of times,
and we'll keep the lines open. That would have been a far better way to
handle it.
QUESTION: Nick, when you say you want support, you mean in the economic
area; right?
MR. BURNS: We want Europe's support. We want Europe's support --
(inaudible) Castro.
QUESTION: Yeah, I know but --
MR. BURNS: On human rights issues.
QUESTION: -- you don't get enthusiastic support on Iran or Iraq or Libya.
I suppose on Cuba. Except Cuba, the Congress and the Administration are
treading in a kind of sensitive area that Jim has alluded to. What do you
want the Europeans -- do you want them to make statements that Fidel Castro
is a bad guy, or what? I don't know what they do for you particularly on
Iran or Iraq.
MR. BURNS: That would be a good first step. Barry, you've made a very
useful suggestion. That would be a very good first step.
The Europeans are democratic countries. They are champions of human rights
in many parts of the world, and they are very quick to talk about human
rights violations in Asia and Africa and the Middle East, for instance --
Middle East. We've heard a lot of that.
It would be interesting to hear that, and useful, about the major human
rights violator in the Western hemisphere -- Fidel Castro.
QUESTION: Now on China, where you have a flourishing trade program --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Cuba. A couple of times you said -- you've
emphasized that there is no final decision by Clinton on this issue. I just
wondered how much you want us to read into that, the repetition of that
point? Are you trying to signal anew to the Europeans that Clinton's
decision earlier to invoke that title of the act is even more tentative
than maybe it seemed at the time and that all we need is a little bit of
cooperation by them to persuade Clinton, if he is indeed President again,
to waive that section entirely?
MR. BURNS: First, you're right to say, first, we have to have our own
elections here to see who will be President of this country in January and
February. If President Clinton is re-elected, he's promised to look at this
and make a decision. He has not indicated what action he will take. I
cannot obviously commit him or anyone else in this Administration to a
decision that hasn't even been approached yet. I think that's important to
say, Carol.
We're not signaling here that we know what decision is going to be made. We
don't. The President alone can make this decision in January and February
of this year.
To get to your question, what I think it does signal to the Europeans, the
initial decision in the summer to suspend this title and to make a final
decision in the winter of 1997, it does say to the Europeans that we
understand their concerns. This is complicated, and that we want to
continue a diplomatic dialogue with them. That's what Ambassador Eizenstat
is trying to do.
QUESTION: But you're putting the emphasis on suspension. My reading of
his action was -- the presumption was that he was actually going forward.
He did agree to invoke that section but suspended implementation. Maybe
it's a question of glass half fuller/glass half empty.
It appeared to me that barring some extraordinary action on the part of the
Europeans to have some sort of common effort to work on democracy in Cuba,
that Clinton was pretty much locked into going forward?
MR. BURNS: Again, Carol, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to try to make
this decision in public for the President. He has to make it when the time
comes, in a couple of months from now. But I think I've given you the
background here and the context, which indicates that we have taken a step
forward towards the Europeans on this. We'd like a corresponding step
towards us, but we don't frankly see it coming.
QUESTION: Nick, the (inaudible) of the prisoner in North Korea, is there
anything new to tell us? Any prison visits perhaps? Anything on meetings in
New York?
I don't recall that you've ever -- there has been that meeting with that
higher-level North Korean official, etc. Can you bring us up to date? Is
there anything new to report?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I can only tell you that we have no new news on the
situation of Mr. Hunziker. We are still calling upon the North Korean
Government to release him immediately because he's innocent of all the
charges.
Second, we don't ever confirm meetings before they happen but there are
regular meetings in New York that our State Department diplomats engage in
with the North Koreans.
Third, Mr. Li, the senior North Korean diplomat, did meet with our
officials last week; and I said that -- I believe on Friday -- I told
people about that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) visits of Swedish diplomats? Nobody has had access
to him?
MR. BURNS: No. I don't believe Mr. Lovquist, who is our Swedish
diplomat/colleague, has visited Mr. Hunziker in over ten days.
QUESTION: Bill Richardson was supposed to go there about three or four
weeks ago and never did. Is that back on track?
MR. BURNS: I don't know where that stands. I think Congressman Richardson
probably has a lot on his mind right now with our elections approaching. I
don't know where it stands. We'll get back to you if anything does happen
on that.
Still on North Korea? Anything else?
QUESTION: Nick, Hans Blix of the IAEA yesterday said at the UN that North
Korea doesn't allow access -- inspector to the nuclear sites over there in
North Korea. Do you have any comment about that?
MR. BURNS: We would not take issue with anything that Mr. Blix said. One
of the problems we've had with the North Koreans is that they're not
transparent in terms of what they are doing with their ballistic missile
development.
As you know, we have very serious concerns about the possibility they may
undertake a test of their ballistic missiles which we believe would be
unhelpful and destabilizing in north Asia.
QUESTION: Nick, at that same event -- I wouldn't have asked you except
it's just come up here -- he made reference to Russian monitors going to
Oak Ridge, I think. I don't know if that's something you have material on.
We could find out otherwise, if you don't. Of course, is it previously
scheduled monitoring venture, or is this something new going on here?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check. We have a very active program with the
Russian Government, as you know -- exchanges of visits. I just don't know
about this particular visit.
QUESTION: Also, on the United Nations. Have you had a chance to look into
the statements made yesterday by Mrs. Ogata and her colleagues about a
number of people facing imminent starvation in Iraq?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we have. In fact, I believe the statements were made by
Mrs. Carol Bellamy and also by the World Food Program -- UNICEF and the
World Food Program. Both, by the way, headed by Americans; people who have
done a very good job in these UN agencies in reforming them.
We've look at it. Let me tell you the following. I want to accentuate one
thing. The United States is deeply concerned about the plight of the Iraqi
civilians who are victims of Saddam Hussein, people who clearly don't have
enough medicines and food; people who are living in extremely sub-standard
conditions. We're concerned about individuals and, collectively, about the
Iraqi people who have had to live under this dictatorship for a long, long
time.
Frankly, we'll have to look more closely at some of the figures. We're not
questioning them. But some of the figures from UNICEF are from the Iraqi
Ministry of Health.
UNICEF is a reputable organization. We're not taking issue specifically
with them except to note that some of the figures come from the Iraqi
Ministry of Health.
But regardless of the figures, UNICEF believes and the World Food program
believes that conditions are actually deteriorating. They're getting worse
in Iraq, and that is cause of concern for the United States.
I would like to point out something that perhaps is not widely known or
widely understood. It probably is by people in this room; maybe not by
people beyond it. The United Nations' sanctions on Iraq do not restrict the
export of Western food and medicine to Iraq. In fact, American companies
are free with Treasury Department licenses to export food and medicines to
Iraq as are European and Asian and African and Middle East countries.
That's not the problem. The problem is the willingness of the Iraqi
Government to spend its own money to import food and medicine for its
population, to make it a priority.
The Iraqi Government used to live high off the hog before its war with Iran
in the late 1970s. They were flush with money -- oil money. They no longer
are. Everybody understands that. So they've got to make choices.
They have finite number of dollars in their Central Bank. They've got to
make choices of how they spend it. Let's look at how they've made their
choices.
Since the defeat of the Iraqi army in the spring of 1991, they've been
spending the majority of their money on trying to rebuild the Iraqi army,
on building palaces for Saddam Hussein and his family throughout the Iraqi
countryside. They have maintained a presidential yacht. They have
maintained off-shore bank accounts, running into the tens of millions of
dollars for the family -- sons, wife, other relatives of Saddam Hussein.
This is where Saddam Hussein is putting his money.
He has a choice here. He can decide maybe we won't put the yacht out on the
Euphrates this year. He can decide, maybe we'll shut down the palace for
the winter -- three of the palaces, four of the palaces -- and use that
money to buy food and medicine on the international market, which he is
free to do, and the United Nations is not constricting his ability to do
that, and he's not making those decisions.
And then very cynically, his Minister of Health and some of his Iraqi
diplomats take the Western press and Western relief organizations through
Iraqi hospitals, and orphanages, and into Iraqi towns and they show these
heart-wrenching, terrible pictures of kids who are malnourished -- and they
are. Our hearts go out to those kids.
But let's put the responsibility here where it lies. It lies with Saddam
Hussein, and we should not be fooled by it.
In addition to that, the United States has tried to arrange a program where
we would allow Iraq to export $4 billion worth of oil per annum. In return
for that, take the proceeds and buy more food and medicine for the Iraqi
population. That program was supposed to have gone forward in late
September.
What did Saddam Hussein do? He got himself involved in northern Iraq. He
took steps militarily he should not have done. His agents were running
amuck in early September in Irbil, which was supposed to be the major
distribution point. He's effectively prevented the United Nations from
going forward with UN Resolution 986.
If you're looking for the guilty party here, my suggestion is, you need
look no further than the palaces in which Saddam and his family are
living.
QUESTION: One of the points the UN officials made was that there was a
proposed fund of about $40 million -- $39.6 million -- to buy emergency
food shipments. It has been vastly undersubscribed -- I don't think they've
even gathered $2 million. Is the United States contributing to that fund?
Do you plan to?
MR. BURNS: I will look into that question. I'm not familiar what the
United States committed to or did not commit to at the UN as that was
developed.
Let me make a suggestion. We'll agree to look into that question. Would Mr.
Uday Hussein care to donate to that fund? Would Mr. Saddam Hussein or his
uncles or cousins or brothers care to donate to the fund? I think this is a
relevant question. This is not just a rhetorical argument here that we're
putting up -- it's a relevant question. He's a leader of the country. Does
he care about the people who are suffering in his country? It is the
question, I think, that all of you ought to be asking about this.
QUESTION: Nick, do you think that Carol Bellamy and other officials who
head these relief organizations are being fooled by Saddam Hussein? Why do
you think they'd make this effort to make a huge public case about what
they consider to be a crisis in Iraq?
MR. BURNS: They are people who are doing their job, and we commend them
for doing their job. Their job is to point out to member states of the
United Nations where there are significant problems around the world, and
in this case, problems of malnutrition and a deteriorating situation.
They've done their job.
I'm just suggesting that those of you who read about this not be fooled by
Saddam Hussein.
QUESTION: Why don't they make the same case about Saddam Hussein as you
do, in pointing out the full picture?
MR. BURNS: They are officials of the United Nations. Iraq is a member of
the United Nations. UN officials sometimes aren't as free to speak as
member governments are. The United States, as a member government, is very
free to speak about this and that's what we're saying today. But we're not
taking issue here with Carol Bellamy or UNICEF or the World Food Program.
They're doing their job. They're pointing out that there's a problem.
We're just saying, in order to fix the problem, there are a couple of
possibilities. One, that the UN will make an effort -- we're all for that --
UN Resolution 986, any special programs. But isn't it appropriate to ask
the Iraqi Government also to make an effort?
It's certainly appropriate for us to point out where their money is
going.
QUESTION: Nick, if you have estimates here, if they're in the building,
as to these frills -- what they cost -- could you provide them, please?
MR. BURNS: It's some astronomical figure. It'll take us all night to
count, but we'll try to do it. I'll try to get you that figure.
QUESTION: Astronomical?
MR. BURNS: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Lots of countries in that area have palaces that come ahead of
the people.
MR. BURNS: And most of them don't have starving people. Most of them do
not have people who are starving.
QUESTION: Smaller populations.
MR. BURNS: Most of them have not fundamentally denied the economic rights
of their populations.
QUESTION: To make the case -- if you have some rough figures ....
MR. BURNS: We'll see if we can develop a figure for you. That would be a
very interesting exercise.
Still on this subject?
Savas.
QUESTION: About the Middle East -- Syria. Today the PKK terrorists at
different cities -- at three different cities conducted three suicidal bomb
attacks and killed several innocent people.
According to Turkish officials, most of the terrorists came again to the
Turkish-Syrian border. In the past, you were very careful to blame Syria on
this subject. Can you comment on this situation?
MR. BURNS: We've seen the video. We've seen reports about the terrorist
attacks today. We obviously condemn them because we're against terrorism.
We're not in a position at this point, several hours after these have
occurred, to trace it back to those who are responsible. But obviously
we'll give the Government of Turkey any support necessary to combat
terrorism. You know that's been our position. We're a good ally of Turkey
in this regard.
QUESTION: But (inaudible) housed in Syria, generally speaking.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: If not this particular attack, what is the Syrian connection to
these folks that the State Department --
MR. BURNS: I can only tell you, as you know very well, that Syria is on
our terrorism list; that Syria has been a direct supporter and funder of
terrorist groups. It's of great concern to us, and we raise this issue
regularly with the Syrians.
I just can't confirm the origin of these three attacks today because I'm
not in a position to do that. That's something we'll continue to look at,
Barry.
QUESTION: I've never heard anybody up here say before that Syria is a
"direct funder" of these terrorist groups. I've heard them say they give
them safe haven and some support, but there's never been mention of direct
funding. Is that what you intend to say?
MR. BURNS: I stand by what I said. Still on this subject?
Howard.
QUESTION: A different subject.
MR. BURNS: Okay. Howard, and then we'll go right down there.
QUESTION: You're opening comment about the accounting error in the
hundreds of pieces of under-reported equipment. Can you get into what type
of equipment --
MR. BURNS: Unfortunately, I'm not in a position today to speak in great
specificity about this, except to say the following: Article IV of the
Dayton Accords does set certain limits for each of the parties.
As you know, General Eide has done a very good job in trying to work out
with each of the parties their responsibility to comply very specifically
with certain limits.
Unfortunately, there's been some miscommunication among Western governments
and Western officials in Sarajevo about the position of the United States
on this. Contrary to some of the rumors, we're not giving the Republic of
Srpska a free pass on this. In fact, we think they're a major violator -- a
major violator of Article IV. We have made that a specific issue with the
Republic of Srpska, and we'll continue to.
QUESTION: Are we talking hundreds of tanks, hundreds of APCs?
MR. BURNS: Let me do this. I talked to John Kornblum this morning. We had
a general discussion on this. I don't have the numbers with me, but we can
get them for you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: I don't, off the top of my head; no.
QUESTION: Nick, when this story first came out in the New York Times
about 10 days ago -- it was out of Vienna -- the NATO spokesman in Sarajevo
explicitly contradicted it and said that is an incorrect story. We don't
know of any under-reporting by the Serb army. Are you getting into a
situation again where a NATO spokesman is saying one thing and the United
States is saying something else on this?
MR. BURNS: We're very sure of our facts. In fact, General Eide, who is in
charge of this program, has several times recently met with the Contact
Group, asked for the support of the Contact Group members to press the
Republic of Srpska to come into compliance with the Article IV Dayton
commitments that they've made.
If General Eide believes that and if John Kornblum believes it, I think
those are two people who know their facts and I think were together. I
think there's some kind of miscommunication here on this issue. But,
unfortunately, I can't take you through the numbers. We have people in this
building who can.
For those of you who are interested, let's talk after the briefing. Maybe
we'll even set up a special briefing on this this afternoon, if you're
writing today or reporting today on it.
QUESTION: When is the next step if the U.S. is wrongly portrayed as not
caring about this? How do we turn this around?
MR. BURNS: One step was for me to say something today to all of you. I
can tell you, it's not a question of next step. We have been consistent
about this, Howard, in private with the Republic of Srpska, with General
Eide, with NATO, with IFOR, and with the other members of the Contact
Group. We'll just continue doing what we're doing, which is trying to get
these parties to comply with their Dayton commitments.
QUESTION: Ambassador Wisner was in town about 10 days ago speaking to a
group of Indian and American businessmen. He said it's about time to put
aside the CTBT controversy with
India. For the time being, let's (inaudible) contaminate the overall
relationship.
Does this mean that the U.S. has given up trying to persuade India? Does
that mean, effectively, if India doesn't sign, the entry into force doesn't
happen?
MR. BURNS: I guess three different questions in there. First, Ambassador
Wisner was back. I know he made a major speech to the group that you
referred to.
He, I think, was clearly enunciating the position of this Administration,
and that is that we can't allow this disagreement over the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to affect negatively other very important parts of the
relationship with India. That's a commonsensical point, and it's one we
believe in here at the State Department and in this government.
Second, we have not given up on the hope that some day India might decide
to reverse itself and make a decision to take part in this treaty. We think
it's highly significant now that not only have all permanent members of the
Security Council -- all declared nuclear powers signed this treaty;
President Clinton signing for the United States in September -- but well
over 100 countries have signed as well.
There's an overwhelming consensus in the United Nations that this is
positive. This treaty should go forward. It should be implemented. I think
India is alone on this.
Third, as we proceed -- we have an excellent relationship with India -- I
say that advisedly -- excellent -- far better than the relationship that I
think existed four or five years ago. Ambassador Wisner has done a lot to
improve it. It's not a relationship in which we agree on all issues.
We'll have to continue to discuss this issue with the Indian Government.
It's not something that's falling off the radar screen.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up, Nick. At the UN, there are rumors that the
U.S. worked behind the scenes to sort of topple India's chances of getting
a seat at the Security Council and lobbied furiously and vigorously for
Japan. Opposition leaders in India said this was sort of the fall-out of
the CTBT. Any truth in that?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I wouldn't want to get involved in that kind of speculation.
The United States supported certain countries for the rotational seats on
the Security Council. Japan was among them. But Japan is one of the closest
allies that the United States has. It may be the most important relationship
in all respects that we have anywhere in the world, so it's obvious that we
would support Japan whenever we can to take an active role.
As you know, we also support, in the future, when there is reform of
Security Council, a permanent seat for Japan.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Since a displeasure and concern was expressed by the spokesman
of the Greek Government, Mr. Dhimitrios Reppas, I'm wondering if you
finally revoked your statement of October 22 about this position of the
disputed islets in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, with all due respect, I'm just unaware if anyone
has expressed displeasure about the Department of State or even specific
individuals in the Department of State like me.
I haven't seen those statements, so I can't speak to them. I don't want to
revoke any of my previous statements on this issue because all of those
statements reflect United States Government policy.
If you go back eight or nine months on this issue of disputed islets, we've
had a very consistent position. We've not changed our position. It's the
right position to take, and it's well known to the Greek and Turkish
Governments.
QUESTION: May I assure, otherwise, that your government, on this specific
issue, agrees with the Turkish Government that there are disputed islets in
the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey and should be a disposition?
MR. BURNS: I don't think it's helpful to pick out certain words and
attach too much diplomatic meaning to them. The fact is, we've been very
clear about our position on Imia/Kardak. We're very helpful to the Greeks
and Turks privately. Let's concentrate our efforts on those private efforts
to help the Greeks and Turks resolve this problem.
QUESTION: What do you say about disputed islets or islands? Do you agree
with the Turkish Government to this point?
MR. BURNS: We agree with both Greece and Turkey that the status of
Imia/Kardak should be worked out peacefully between Greece and Turkey.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) I'm talking about the disputed islets or islands.
That's why the Greek spokesman expressed concerns and displeasure about
your statement. That's why I'm wondering if you revoked this statement.
MR. BURNS: I think in order to be respectful to the Greek Government, I
should see first what the Greek Government has said about my statement, and
then I can maybe properly make a reply.
Yes, sir, and then we'll go to Betsy.
QUESTION: About Zaire. The Osservatore Romano, which is the Vatican
newspaper, has criticized the Western countries handling of the eastern
Zaire issue, because they say that they concentrate more on refugees
instead of seeing the real problem, which is to contain the fighting. Is
your government -- is the U.S. Government trying to pressure Rwanda and
Burundi to ask the groups which are fighting in eastern Zaire to stop or
withdraw?
MR. BURNS: I wouldn't agree that somehow the diplomatic steps here are
more important than the fact that 400,000-500,000 people are homeless. So
let's just review the bidding here. The United States has supported the
call by the United Nations for a regional conference of Central African
leaders to try to resolve this. We're supporting that.
We think it should be well planned, and we think specifically that the
important regional leaders from Central Africa, from the Great Lakes region
should attend this conference. But we support it, and we've been very
actively supporting this for a number of days.
Secondly, our Ambassadors in Kigali and Kinshasha have been in to see the
Rwandan and Zairian Governments every day for about a week to try to use
our influence on those two governments to try to end the fighting in
eastern Zaire.
Third, we are also encouraging sub-national leaders -- meaning local
leaders in eastern Zaire, people who have direct responsibility for the
situation in eastern Zaire -- we're urging them to meet their adversaries
and to try to work out some steps on the ground to end the fighting and to
help the refugees.
Fourth, we have been in constant contact with Mrs. Ogata over the weekend --
last Friday at the United Nations, over the weekend. Tomorrow I think there
will be a delegation from the United States Government traveling to New
York to talk with Mrs. Ogata at the United Nations. Ambassador Albright has
talked to her.
We're giving every assistance that we can to the UN High Commissioner on
Refugees, and we have put at the disposal of the UNHCR $30 million in
American assistance to help the refugees. We have an AID disaster relief
team in the area, looking beyond the $30 million, at what we can do.
So I think we've done everything we can diplomatically to draw attention to
this problem, to be responsible in using our influence with the governments
in the area and with the United Nations.
Let me just tell you the situation of the refugees is very, very severe.
We're not sure of the totals of the numbers here, but we may be talking
about up to a half a million people who have had to leave the refugee camps
in which they've been living and to take to the countryside because they
fear for their lives; and they ought to fear for their lives, given the
history -- they have every right to fear for their lives, given the history
of that particular area, and remembering what happened in 1994 in
that area.
We want to give these people every logistical support that we can, but the
UN is taking the lead here. I think that the United States and other
Western Governments have acted very responsibly here.
QUESTION: But yesterday the UN withdrew from Bukavu. They've gone to
Nairobi. And also you are talking about Rwanda and Burundi refugees. You
are not talking about Zairian refugees now, which have been created by
these new events.
MR. BURNS: We're talking about refugees who are Rwandan, the 1.1 million
Rwandans who have had to flee Rwanda over the last two years because of the
genocide there; 145,000 Burundians and Zairians, people who live in eastern
Zaire, who have also had to flee the fighting. We're talking about them as
well.
The United Nations temporarily pulled back some of their relief workers
over the weekend because their lives were in danger because of the failure
of these militias to respect the fact that there are international relief
workers in the area trying to help the people who are the victims of these
militias.
So I wouldn't be too critical of the United Nations. I think the United
Nations has done what it can to in this situation. We absolutely reject the
charge that somehow the United States or other countries in the West
haven't done enough. This is a problem where African leaders have to be
centrally up front and concerned, and we in the West will help, and we're
helping in very significant ways: logistically, with money, with diplomatic
support.
As you know, in the case of Rwanda, we supported the creation of the War
Crimes Tribunal in Rwanda. We have put over $875 million -- the United
States alone -- into Central Africa, into Rwanda, Burundi and eastern Zaire
over the last two years; $875 million in economic support and refugee
support. We're doing all we can, but we need the help of the leaders of
these factions and of some of these governments, particularly the
Governments of Rwanda and Zaire.
QUESTION: Do you think the Government of Rwanda is supplying weapons to
the militias?
MR. BURNS: We don't have any independent confirmation of that. We've seen
the charge that has been made, and it's a very serious allegation, and
we've raised it with the Rwandan Government.
QUESTION: You don't have a --
MR. BURNS: I don't have a confirmation. We've raised it with the Rwandan
Government.
QUESTION: You mean you've asked them if they're doing that or, if they
are, to stop?
MR. BURNS: When we say we've raised it, we normally raise issued that are
of concern to us. We would be opposed by that. We would be opposed to it --
excuse me.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have any comments at all regarding
requests to the Justice Department to investigate whether Taiwanese
businessmen have been pressured to contribute to President Clinton's re-
election campaign?
MR. BURNS: I spoke to this issue yesterday and really have nothing new to
offer on this particular issue. I thought I was very clear about where the
ball was on that.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up. The gentleman did serve in the State
Department in another post prior to the job in the Taiwan office. It's been
reported -- at least in a couple of places -- that he may have left because
his superiors were not happy with his work. Is that correct? Under what
circumstances did he leave his work at the State Department?
MR. BURNS: I can't trace all of his career for you. I know he worked in
the Office of the Legal Adviser and in the Office of Foreign Missions, but
I believe his service in the Office of Foreign Missions was in the 1980s
during the Reagan Administration.
I have seen public comments that while he was in the Reagan Administration
in the mid-1980s, he was asked to leave his position in the Office of
Foreign Missions. It did not happen on this Administration's watch.
Just to review the bidding, again I want to be very clear about this, our
Inspector General's office, which is, as you know, a very independent
office here and should be, did receive these allegations in June of this
year and passed them on immediately to the Justice Department, which was
the appropriate thing to do.
Betsy.
QUESTION: I have several questions on an article in Newsweek magazine
this week on Cuba. Was the State Department aware of Cuban air force
training exercises directed at low-flying, slow-moving targets prior to the
shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft in February? And, if so,
were Brothers to the Rescue warned about these exercises?
MR. BURNS: Let me review the bidding here. The United States Government
repeatedly cautioned Brothers to the Rescue and other groups about the
inadvisability of entering Cuban airspace without authorization from the
Cuban Government.
We believed at the time, and we obviously believe in hindsight, that that
would place them in grave danger. We made this appeal privately to Brothers
to the Rescue on several occasions, and, if you check our records here --
I'd be glad to give you the transcripts -- we've probably raised this issue
publicly from this podium three or four times before February 24. We
publicly cautioned Brothers to the Rescue from undertaking these types of
missions so close to Cuban territory.
In fact, I remember at least on two occasions issuing press releases --
written press releases -- where we made this exquisitely clear, perfectly
clear, in public as well as in private. In addition to that, we warned the
Cuban Government not to overreact if this type of situation unfolded. We
warned the Cuban Government repeatedly, privately, as well as publicly in
these same press statements about the Cuban Government's obligation to
exercise the utmost discretion and restraint consistent with international
legal principles and laws and regulations concerning civilian aircraft.
We've deposited, by the way, these documents with the International Civil
Aviation Organization, which in its judgment on February 24 clearly --
clearly -- ruled that the shootdown occurred not in Cuban airspace but in
international airspace, and that in fact one of the planes that was shot
down was clearly flying northward, not southward. The ICAO has ruled the
Cuban Government has been at fault here.
It seems to us that this shootdown was a carefully calculated and brutal
attempt by the Cuban Government, preordained and planned, to strike at
Brothers to the Rescue; and that the international condemnation -- Time
Magazine ran an article on this -- ought to be directed at the Cuban
Government. Time Magazine asserts that somehow the United States
Government has some responsibility for this. That's hogwash, because we
know that Mr. Roque, who is the Cuban agent who infiltrated Brothers to the
Rescue and who left them a couple of days before the shootdown, went
back and reported personally to Fidel Castro.
This was premeditated murder on the part of the Cuban Government, and the
Cuban Government knows it, because that's what Mr. Roque's activities
amount up to. For any magazine in the United States to assert that somehow
the United States Government dropped the ball here is just rubbish. The
facts don't bear out. They don't support that claim.
I just want to take you through this, Betsy, because I know there is some
press interest today in this. We have an unambiguous record here. It's
deposited -- these documents -- with the ICAO, and I'll be glad to take you
through this in further detail if you want to pursue it. It's a very
serious charge that some news organizations have leveled against the U.S.
Government.
QUESTION: That the State Department had advised other agencies that these
people were going to be flying that weekend?
MR. BURNS: It was well known in the U.S. Government that on that weekend
and in previous weekends concerning both flights and also concerning the
flotillas that some of the Cuban-American organizations sailed right up to
Cuban waters. That happened on several occasions. We were very open about
it. The responsibility here lies with Cuba. The facts of this case talk
about premeditated murder of four Americans on two unarmed civilian
aircraft. That's what the facts of the case say.
QUESTION: If this government was so convinced that the Cubans were
planning this, why did they not go the additional step and provide a
fighter escort for these two planes nearing Cuban airspace when the facts
appeared to be so clear?
MR. BURNS: Sid, let the record show that I think you have a misunderstanding
of the facts. The facts are that we warned Brothers to the Rescue and the
Cuban Government about undertaking activities. We did not know until after
February 24 about the activities of Mr. Roque, the Cuban agent who
infiltrated Brothers to the Rescue; went back to Cuba; was very public; was
treated as a hero; talked to Fidel Castro.
We know, based on our analysis of all these events after the fact, what
happened. We did not know that the Cuban Government was going to shoot down
two unarmed light aircraft and murder four people. Right? But we condemned
it after the fact, and the facts established by the International Civil
Aviation Organization are that Cuba acted wrongfully, in violation of its
international commitments, and that the shootdown occurred in international
airspace.
Had we known about this premeditation beforehand, obviously, we would have
taken very, very severe measures against the Cuban Government. We did not
know beforehand, but we suspected that the Cuban Government might overreact
to any of these different flotillas or air flights, and we warned them
repeatedly, privately and publicly, and I would invite you to check the
record on that.
QUESTION: But these suspicions you didn't think were strong enough to
warrant that type of step.
MR. BURNS: We're not mind readers. We did not know that the Cuban
Government would maliciously fire at American civilian aircraft. We did not
know that beforehand, but we know it now that they did, and that it was
murder, and it's another reason why the European Governments ought to be
concerned; ought to understand our point of view here in the United
States.
President Clinton has said that this was the key event that led him and the
Congress to complete the legislation, Helms-Burton, and have the President
sign it, because of the outrage of the American people over this. If the
Europeans are looking for a reason why Helms-Burton was passed, they ought
to reflect upon this incident and what this tells them about Fidel Castro
and his government. He's not the romantic revolutionary, benign revolutionary,
that a lot of Europeans dream that he is. That's an illusion. He's a cold-
blooded autocrat.
QUESTION: China. There's a substantiated story about China selling a very
sophisticated air-to-ship missile to the Iranians that will be a part of
their attack helicopter fleet, supposed to be deployed in the Straits of
Hormuz or in the Persian Gulf.
Nick, first can you substantiate that the Chinese are indeed selling this
kind of hardware?
MR. BURNS: First of all, they're not substantiated charges. These are
leaks by unnamed people to the Washington Times, part of the familiar
pattern of leaks to a particular reporter there.
Second, we have been concerned about the build-up of arms in Iran, which we
believe is destabilizing in the Middle East, and we pursue these allegations
where they lead. We will be glad to look into this, but I do want to point
you back to the source.
QUESTION: Okay. So you're saying then if this were the case and the
Chinese were involved, this would be something of great concern to the U.S.,
something we would talk to the Chinese about?
MR. BURNS: If it's the case, if these facts can be established by the
United States Government and not by unnamed people leaking things to the
Washington Times -- two different things.
Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: Did the State Department send an emissary to New York
today?
MR. BURNS: I think the State Department should take the high road today
and say that -- the high road and the low road. Here's the high road.
Anybody with a heart has to feel good about the Torre family -- Frank and
Joe Torre. They're a class act. The Yankees won, and we're very disappointed
about the Yankee victory, but so be it.
The low road is that there were a lot of trees killed for all that confetti
that rained down upon the players today -- (laughter) -- and I wonder if
the EPA should take a look at this situation. Just kidding.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:03 p.m.)
(###)
|
