Read The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (Part 1) (by Viscount Bryce) A)? GHT="50">
Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Tuesday, 25 February 2020
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Interesting Nodes
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #180, 96-11-06

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

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing


Wednesday, November 6, 1996

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

  Visiting Greek Journalist ...............................  1
  Secretary's Trips to Cairo, Beijing, Shanghai, Manila ...  1-2,3-4
  Lebanon Monitoring Group Statement Being Posted .........  2-3
  Israel-Arab Countries Economic Ties .....................  3
  Secretary's Plans to Visit Israel/Dennis Ross Travel ....  4
  Secretary's Visit to Bangkok With President .............  4
  Resignation Plans/Talk with President Yesterday .........  5-8,24-26
  Travel Plans to Europe in December ......................  5, 6
  Personnel Changes .......................................  6-8
  Under Secretary Davis' Talks on Proliferation/Nuclear ...  8-10
    Reactor Sale to Iran
  Dissident Released from Prison/Travel Restrictions ......  9
  Nairobi Conference/US Objectives/US Envoys in Region/....  10-12
    Relief Supplies to Refugees/Location of Refugees/
    Status of Cease-Fire
  Proposals for Intervention Forces/US Participation in ...  12-15
    Intervention Forces/Contingency Plans/US Logistical
    Support/US Contribution to Relief/US Talks with Zaire
    and Rwanda
  US Interests/Domestic Crisis/Former PM Bhutto ...........  15-16
  US Sale of F-16s ........................................  16-17
  Status of Study for Post-IFOR Security Options/Report ...  17
     to NATO Military Committee
  Commitment to Dayton Accords on Indicted War Criminals/ .  17-21
    Implication for Integration into Western Institutions
    and Sanctions Leverage/Importance of Dayton Accords/
    Follow-On Security Force
  US Military, Civilian Contact with Indicted War Criminals  21-23
  Turkish Troops Pursue PKK Into Northern Iraq ............  23
  Possible New US Initiative ..............................  23-24


DPB #180

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996, 1:30 P.M.


MR. BURNS: We have a distinguished visitor -- welcome to the State Department -- Ms. Kartali, who is a journalist from Greek television and is an associate of Dimitrios Apokis, who is our valued colleague. Welcome. Thank you for coming.

I want to begin with a very important announcement. I have an announcement concerning Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

Let me just announce that Secretary of State Christopher will be traveling to Cairo next week and Paris -- and Paris.

Secretary of State Christopher will travel to Cairo, Egypt, to lead the United States Delegation to the Cairo Economic Conference which will take place on November 12-14, next week.

As you know, there were two previous economic conferences -- the Middle East Economic Conferences in Casablanca in 1994, and Amman, Jordan in 1995. The Cairo Conference is an important opportunity to promote the peace process, to promote regional and economic development, to promote a normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab countries. We expect that many, many governments will be represented -- Arab governments as well as Israel. More than 1,000 business representatives will participate from all over the world, including 200 business representatives from the United States alone.

Following the Cairo Conference, the Secretary intends to travel to Paris on November 13-14 for a Ministerial-level Steering Board meeting of the Bosnia Implementation Council. This meeting has been called by the Secretary's colleague, Herve de Charette. It will include the Foreign Ministers of the Contact Group countries and a variety of Bosnian leaders.

This meeting will focus on the attempts that all of us are currently making and will continue to make to rebuild Bosnia over the next several years, and to continue the Dayton Peace Accords.

The Secretary intends to return from Paris on the evening of November 14. He'll be here in the office on November 15, Friday. Then I would expect that the Secretary a couple of days later -- I don't have a specific date, but I would think either Sunday or Monday -- would depart for China.

As you know, the Secretary will be making an official visit to China. He'll hold meetings on November 20 in Beijing with his Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, and other leaders of the People's Republic of China. Here, he plans to discuss the full range of global and regional and bilateral issues that are on the U.S.-China agenda.

The Secretary then intends to spend November 21 in Shanghai where he'll deliver a major speech and meet with local government and business leaders.

Secretary Christopher, as you know, was invited to China by Vice Premier Qian when they met together in Jakarta, Indonesia, in July.

The Secretary will then travel from Shanghai to Manila where he'll be participating in the APEC Ministerial meeting. This is the APEC meeting of Foreign Ministers which precedes the APEC Leader's Meeting, and that is on November 22-23. The Secretary will then be in Manila, obviously, to participate in the APEC summit meeting with President Clinton, when the President arrives in Manila for that.

You know that the APEC Ministerial this year and the APEC Summit are being chaired by the Philippines. The meeting will review implementation of the 1995 Osaka Action Agenda. This is the plan to achieve the goal of free and open trade and investment in the APEC region. It will also consider the program to strengthen APEC's work on economic and technical cooperation in support of trade and investment liberalization.

The Secretary is very much looking forward to both of these trips.

Let me also say before going to your questions that I am posting today a press statement on behalf of the Chairman of the Monitoring Group. This press statement concerns the meetings on November 5-6 of the Monitoring Group. They met at UNIFIL Headquarters near Naquora, Lebanon, to address two complaints brought by the Government of Lebanon concerning violations of the April 26, 1996 Understanding.

If you are interested in this, we can talk about that today, in this briefing. But I would also refer you to the press statement which is a statement that has been agreed to by all members of the Monitoring Group.


QUESTION: Nick, has there been a slump in economic ties between Israel and the Arab countries since the Netanyahu government came in?

MR. BURNS: Barry, I just don't in my head figures that would measure the level of economic trade and investment between Israel and the Arab countries. I think it's fair to say, as you know very well, that in the last couple of years there's been a vast increase in both investment and in trade between Israel and the Arab countries.

I don't know whether or not over the last several months, for instance, because of some of the political difficulties, there has been a corresponding downturn in economic activity. I'd have to check with the Department of Commerce, with our embassies in the region. We can do that for you in advance of this trip.

I would just say that Secretary of State Christopher firmly believes that peace has got to be broad. It can't be singularly political. It can't be just people negotiating on Hebron, although that's a very important issue. Peace between Israel and the Arabs has to be comprehensive. That means, in addition to political relations and in addition to normalization of diplomatic ties, economic ties have to be increased because that will really cement the peace across the board. That's one of the reasons why Secretary Christopher has been such a major supporter of these economic conferences. He's attended both, and he'll be attending this one.

QUESTION: When will he take off -- Sunday night or Monday morning?

MR. BURNS: The current plans are to leave on Sunday evening for Cairo. We would be arriving in Cairo I think late Monday afternoon. That could possibly change, but I don't expect that it will.

Let me just say one housekeeping point here. Those of you interested in traveling with us to the Middle East and Paris will need to sign up by tomorrow in the Press Office. Those interested in traveling to Beijing and Shanghai and on to Manila ought to similarly sign up in the Press Office because we do have some visa forms you need to fill out if you're traveling with us to China and the Philippines.

QUESTION: One specific question on the trip. You didn't mention Bangkok. Does that mean that he will not be traveling with the President to --

MR. BURNS: The President's trip is slightly different. The President is going to Australia, the Philippines, and to Thailand. The Secretary, I don't believe, has made a final decision about whether he will continue onto Bangkok. I think it's still an open question. He will be in Manila for the APEC meeting.

QUESTION: The Secretary doesn't plan to go to Israel when he's in the Middle East?

MR. BURNS: There are no current plans to go to Israel. He'll be in Cairo on Monday evening and all day Tuesday. He'll be leaving Cairo -- current plans are to leave Cairo for Paris on Tuesday evening and to spend all day Wednesday and most of Thursday in Paris; and then to leave Paris in time to get back to Andrews, probably sometime on Thursday evening.

QUESTION: Is Dennis (Ross) going to be going with him then, or will he be going out earlier?

MR. BURNS: Dennis has no plans to travel to the Middle East right now. Dennis will certainly accompany the Secretary to Cairo, but he has no plans right now to make his own trip.

As you know, Dennis has said that he's quite willing to go back to participate personally in the negotiations over Hebron. I'm sure at some point he will, but he hasn't decided when that will be yet.

QUESTION: He hasn't decided to branch off afterwards and stay?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I just don't know what his plans are. I'm not aware of any plans to branch off and stay. We'll have to treat this on a day-to-day basis. I'll be quite willing to keep you up to date.

Yes, Bill.

QUESTION: Will Secretary Christopher formally resign tomorrow, as reported? Have you anything formal?

MR. BURNS: Bill, I just can't imagine why you ask. Bill, I think on that, I would just say this. I have no personnel announcements to make. This is not the place to make personnel announcements. We've been besieged by all sorts of telephone calls, as you can imagine, this morning because of the press reports. I just simply have nothing to announce, and I'm not in a position to confirm these stories.

QUESTION: You're speaking of two trips immediately ahead. Does he anticipate travel in December to those European events?

MR. BURNS: Yes. The Secretary then will return to the United States shortly before Thanksgiving and then sometime in December -- the first or second week of December -- there will be a trip to Europe. The Secretary will certainly be attending the NAC Ministerial -- the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting. I don't have the dates in my head, but I think it's at the end of the first week, the beginning of the second week of December. There's a possibility of some other stops in Europe, but he has not yet made any formal decisions on those.

QUESTION: Will you be able to discuss these reports about the Secretary's plans with the Secretary?

MR. BURNS: Which plans -- the plans to travel to the Middle East and Paris and China and Europe?

QUESTION: No, the plans that have been alluded to in a number of news reports today?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I have. I've had several conversations with the Secretary about these reports.

QUESTION: So the only thing that he's asked you to say or let you say is that you have no personnel announcements to make?

MR. BURNS: First of all, there were a variety of -- if you read the morning newspapers, there are a variety of rumors in the papers about comings and goings of people here at the State Department -- the Secretary and others. I just have nothing to announce today.

I would just remind you of one fact. We just had our own national elections yesterday. President Clinton won a major victory. I think he deserves a day or so to savor that victory. I don't think today is a day to make any kind of personnel announcements. When we have announcements to make, we will make those announcements.

QUESTION: Maybe you can just continue discussing the Secretary's travel plans beyond December?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Any travel plans beyond December? You've gotten that far. Maybe you can try January, February, and March.

MR. BURNS: Let me ask you a question. Let me counterpropose something. In your experience, do you remember any Spokesman, any previous Secretaries of State having -- giving you travel plans for anybody at anytime in their tenure beyond one or two months? I don't think so.

QUESTION: You can always set a precedent.

MR. BURNS: I could set a precedent. I don't think I care to in this case. I've just told you about three trips the Secretary is going to take. No, I have nothing to say about the Secretary's travel after mid-December. He'll certainly be here in the Department in December.

QUESTION: Just to get you on the record. Who will be the Chief of Staff at the State Department tomorrow?

MR. BURNS: Is this "Jeopardy" or is this "Famous Chiefs of Staff for 200?"

QUESTION: Very, very soon.

MR. BURNS: Very, very soon -- tomorrow? Let me just say this. When we have something to announce on that particular question, I will announce it. Now is not the time to announce it. We're letting the President have a day to recover from the campaign and enjoy his electoral victory. There are no announcements planned for the Department of State today, and we're going to keep it that way for today.

If it's appropriate to make an announcement about that particular position tomorrow, then I'm sure we'll do it.

QUESTION: I was just wondering whether you're going to give any notice, or is this going to be a retroactive announcement?

MR. BURNS: Any notice to . . .?

QUESTION: When you say it isn't time to announce it --

MR. BURNS: Appropriate.

QUESTION: It isn't appropriate or --

MR. BURNS: Is there a requirement that we give the press notice, like 24 hours notice before these decisions are announced?

QUESTION: No requirement, as you well know.

MR. BURNS: I don't think so. Yes, exactly, exactly. I feel very comfortable with what we're doing today. We're enjoying the day. It's been rather quiet. I haven't heard from any of you at all, and thinking about the substantive issues that engage us here at the Department of State.

QUESTION: You're saying the first announcement, if there is one, will come from you. It wouldn't come from the "Jim Lehrer Newshour," for instance?

MR. BURNS: "The Jim Lehrer Newshour." Now, that would be curious, Barry. Why would you cite "The Jim Lehrer Newshour?"

QUESTION: Because of the Secretary's almost tropism --

MR. BURNS: I wouldn't use that word, Barry.

QUESTION: -- in appearing on the program several times a week.

MR. BURNS: I think the Secretary has a great deal of respect for Jim Lehrer. He's been on the "Newshour" a couple of times in the last four years.

QUESTION: If we bring him over here, will that -- (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: That would help. If he were here, I'd probably have an entirely different approach to this whole briefing.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) stories --

MR. BURNS: Steve.

QUESTION: Nick, two questions, if I may. First one, just to keep pushing this for a second. Are you suggesting that Al Kamen's reporting that Steinberg is about to become Chief of Staff and Donilon is going to go back to O'Melveny & Myers, is (a) inappropriate; (b) premature; (c) not true; (d) not any of the above?

MR. BURNS: Is there an "e"?"

QUESTION: "No comment," I suppose?

MR. BURNS: Yes. Barry has suggested an "f." (Laughter)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) until now.

MR. BURNS: We have been talking. Now we've been derailed, Barry. We've been derailed.

Because I have a lot of respect for Al Kamen, let me just tell you this, Steve. I had made no comment on Al Kamen. I hadn't brought his name up. You brought it up. I have no comment on Al's story this morning.

When it's appropriate for us to make an announcement, we'll make an announcement.

QUESTION: My second question: Is it appropriate to have a comment on Jeff Smith's suggestion today that the Chinese are trying to get on the United States' good side before the summit by --

MR. BURNS: Whose suggestion was this?

QUESTION: Jeff Smith's story today -- by recognizing that Iran isn't going to pay them for a nuclear power plant anyway, and so they're willing to not sell it?

MR. BURNS: I don't have a particular comment to make on that. In general, I would tell you Lynn Davis, as you know, had fairly broad talks with the Chinese on Monday and Tuesday, the 4th and 5th of this week. She's pleased by her discussions. She's enroute back to Washington. She'll be reporting to Secretary Christopher.

Her discussions focused on proliferation concerns, and we believe that China has made important commitments to the United States concerning missile non-proliferation. In the coming year, we would like to build on the commitments that China has made, and that is why we'll continue to raise the specific concerns we have and look for ways to resolve these issues through negotiations and discussions of the type that Lynn Davis has just had.

We certainly will work with China to continue to try to build up and strengthen their export control system. We'll continue to encourage China to engage in restraint in potentially destabilizing missile developments in East Asia itself.

She had good discussions. Those discussions, however, are going to continue. Secretary Christopher, I'm sure, will be raising some of these issues when he sees Vice Premier Qian Qichen during his trip to Beijing.

As for the article this morning, I really have nothing to say on the question of Iran except to say that we have discussed this with the Chinese, but I don't have anything particular to say about those discussions this afternoon.

QUESTION: If you don't mind, Steve -- they've also released a dissident, and they've announced that the travel restrictions on many Chinese dissidents are being eased. Doesn't it seem to you that there are a series of steps here -- liberalization steps being taken, and why do you think they are being done on November 6?

MR. BURNS: We've seen the press reports that China has released Chen Ziming, the noted dissident, on medical parole. We understand from the press reports that he is with his family, and, if these reports -- they seem to be true -- but in fact he has been released and will not be returned to jail, we welcome his release on medical parole. He has been suffering from cancer.

We felt all along, regardless of his medical condition, that he was being held unjustly, as are other political prisoners, political dissidents. They ought all to be released; but particularly in this case, given the humanitarian concerns here, the fact that he's ill -- we were pleased by the fact that he apparently has been released, and we hope that he will not be returned to any form of incarceration.

QUESTION: And the travel thing?

MR. BURNS: David, I'll have to check into that. I have not been apprised of that -- that there's been any kind of announcement on travel restrictions by the Chinese Government. If that is the case, that would be highly significant, but let me check into that.

QUESTION: To follow these questions, Nick, am I understanding correctly that you cannot comment -- you cannot say if Lynn Davis spoke to the Chinese more about the nuclear reactor sale to Iran -- if this topic even came up in these --

MR. BURNS: No. I said that we've had a variety of discussions with the Chinese on that particular issue, but I'm not in a position to make any substantive comments on that discussion.

QUESTION: Okay, and you cannot confirm or deny the very confident Jeffrey Smith's investigation?

MR. BURNS: No. I read the article, but I have nothing particular to say about it.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the situation in and around Zaire and Rwanda? There were some conferences yesterday, and the Times has a report today that the United States is considering providing logistical support for an international force. Is that the case?

MR. BURNS: There have been a variety of diplomatic discussions around the world on this. The Nairobi conference of African countries -- the United States is represented by our Special Emissary, Howard Wolpe -- we believe was a useful conference, and that conference having now ended, we believe that the countries that met there ought to continue to discuss what we can do together to try to help the more than one million people who are suffering because of the fighting in eastern Zaire.

Let me remind you what the United States' objectives are here. First, we believe that Rwanda and Zaire and the militias fighting in eastern Zaire ought to agree to an immediate cease-fire. This is the most important step that they can take to help the refugees. That would allow them -- the international humanitarian relief organizations -- to return to eastern Zaire and to supply food and medicine and water to the refugees.

We are working on both fronts. Ambassador Dick Bogosian, who is our Special Coordinator for Rwandan Affairs and Burundian Affairs, is in the Great Lakes region. He'll be meeting with the Rwandan and Zairian Governments. Ambassador Howard Wolpe is also in the region. He'll continue his meetings.

We had a State and National Security Council group in Geneva, and they're now in Brussels, talking with the UNHCR about the humanitarian aspect of things. I know there have been some press reports about where and when these refugees should receive humanitarian relief supplies. I've even seen a statement by the Zairian Government that these people, these refugees, should not receive relief supplies in Zaire itself but only in Rwanda or Burundi.

We don't agree with that. We think that relief supplies should be given to these people wherever they are, and the vast majority of them -- over one million people -- are in Zaire. I think our latest count is that only about 2,000 people out of more than one million have returned to Rwanda, and these are Rwandan Hutus; that the vast majority remain in Zaire and many heading west, not east, in Zaire.

It's a humanitarian imperative that when relief agencies get back in at full strength, they be able to assist those people in Zaire, contrary to some of the statements made this morning by the Zairian Government.

So we are operating on a very urgent basis here, both diplomatically and on a humanitarian basis to try to help in this situation. We have received a number of proposals for an intervention force, humanitarian corridors. We are looking very carefully at all those proposals. We've had some specific discussions with France and other European allies. We have not made any decisions on those proposals, and, when we do, we'll let you know about them.

QUESTION: Could you address Zaire specifically? I mean, they didn't attend the conference in Nairobi, it seems.

MR. BURNS: No. It's very disappointing. Zaire had given indications as late as 24 hours before the conference that it would be represented at Nairobi. It decided at the last moment not to participate, and that was most unfortunate, because this meeting was to discuss a crisis that affects more than one million helpless people. Every country has an obligation to participate in those discussions.

QUESTION: What are you doing about that? I mean, is one of your envoys going to Kinshasa, or are you relying on the United Nations to deal with President Mobutu?

MR. BURNS: I would remind you that Ambassador Raymond Chretien, who is the UN Secretary General's personal envoy, is meeting in France with Mr. Mobutu; that Ambassador Dan Simpson, the American Ambassador in Zaire, has been talking to the Zairian Government day and night for more than two weeks about this, and that we have Ambassador Bogosian in the field. So there's no lack of diplomatic contacts here, and obviously we hope now that Zaire and Rwanda will do everything they can to pull back from this crisis.

QUESTION: What if the Zairians do not? I mean, they have not accepted the cease-fire, is that correct?

MR. BURNS: I don't think any of the parties have accepted a cease-fire. In this kind of situation, as you know, Roy, it requires all the parties to accept a cease-fire for it to be successful.

QUESTION: Rwanda also hasn't?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Do you mean Rwanda has not --

MR. BURNS: There is not a cease-fire, and that is the responsibility of all the parties, not just one party. It's the responsibility of Zaire, Rwanda and the militias fighting.

QUESTION: If there's not a cease-fire, can you say what is going on then?

MR. BURNS: There is no cease-fire. There is continued fighting, and it ebbs and flows. It's in one area or it's in another, but there's certainly continued fighting, which is impeding the ability of the humanitarian organizations to ship assistance to the refugees who need it?

QUESTION: Specifically, is one of the proposals that you are reviewing the possibility of sending American military men to the area to supply protection for those logistics?

MR. BURNS: There have been a number of proposals made -- several different ones -- and we're looking at all of them. Some of the proposals would require logistical support by the United States Armed Forces. We're not talking about ground force units here; logistical support, and we're looking at that question.

QUESTION: And would it require the permission of the sovereign country involved, in this case Zaire?

MR. BURNS: Normally in these instances, it does. Whether or not the Zairian Government is willing to work with these proposals, we don't know. That is one of the questions. We have raised a number of questions about these proposals, as you would expect us to do, in a situation like this. We want to help and we want to work internationally with our partners to try to help in eastern Zaire, but we've got to be assured that the plans are sound, that they're logical, and that they would work. That's really been the focus of most of our questioning and most of our discussions on this.

QUESTION: Would this be a multinational force, or it would be primarily American?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't think anyone's talking about a primarily American force. As I said, these ideas come from other countries -- France and other European countries -- and they're very different. I don't think that anyone has proposed a major contingent of American ground forces. I believe that both of the proposals have been more in the line of American logistical support, and that is a question that we must at least consider.

But the Administration -- certainly, Secretary Christopher and others in this building -- Secretary Christopher working with the President and others, have not made any decision about these proposals. So we continue to discuss them. We are looking at this on an urgent basis, considering the plight of the refugees.

QUESTION: In the interests of clarity, you're suggesting these proposals you refer to are coming in from others -- from France and elsewhere. But I believe that for quite a few months now there has been active contingency planning going on here, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and elsewhere -- the Pentagon -- indeed for just this kind of situation, very similar situation, and focusing on how the U.S. would provide logistical support using the Pentagon resources or private resources or other resources. So there's a great deal of contingency planning, both in the Administration and in connection with other countries to the UN (inaudible) and other countries.

So I'm a little bit confused by your comments where you're suggesting that you're reviewing these plans coming in, when in fact you've had quite a bit of time to develop your own contingency plans. So I wonder what -- are you looking -- have you set some benchmarks for what you would -- the circumstances under which you would take part in these things, such as a cease-fire? But I think there was a mistaken impression that these were all ideas coming in from outside.

MR. BURNS: It's not a mistaken impression. Contingency plans are one thing. My lord, if you looked in the files of most U.S. Government agencies, we've got thousands of contingencies plans for any kind of situation around the world.

These are specific proposals coming to us from other countries, and we are working with these countries on those proposals. We are offering some of our own ideas, as you would expect. We have thought about these potential crises. We want to learn from what happened in the spring of 1994 in Central Africa.

So we've thought about it ahead of time. But the specific proposals are not from us; they're from other countries.

QUESTION: Why aren't you putting forward your proposals? You've had months now to have been drawn up over recent months, and do you require certain standards required before you --

MR. BURNS: The United States has been very actively involved over the last couple of weeks in this crisis. As you know, we have contributed $30 million towards the immediate relief supplies, $875 million over the last two years. As you know, we've been very active diplomatically on the first order of business, which is the cease-fire.

QUESTION: Nick (inaudible) something about an airlift and engineering.

MR. BURNS: I'm not talking specifically about anything. I'm just saying that there have been some proposals made, some ideas put forth to us, and we're considering them.

QUESTION: But don't the ideas focus on those two things?

MR. BURNS: They focus mostly on logistical support. I don't want to be specific, because these negotiations are private.

QUESTION: Nick, seeing as how the Zairian Government hasn't been cooperating exactly, and that they didn't attend yesterday's meeting, wouldn't you -- and these plans all require a landing in some country, most likely Zaire -- wouldn't you think -- wouldn't it be urgent before you could even consider these plans, to discuss directly with the Government of Zaire whether they'd be willing to accept them? So far they've said they would not.

MR. BURNS: Certainly, that's one of the relevant questions. It's the Government of Zaire's attitude. It's also the Government of Rwanda's attitude as well, because, as you know, Rwandan troops crossed the border last week, and they should not have done that. So it's two governments we're dealing with here; not just one.

QUESTION: What is their attitude as you probed it so far?

MR. BURNS: I don't care to go into that. We have private discussions with both Zaire and Rwanda. But, obviously, this is one of the issues that is under discussion.

QUESTION: Public statements have been in both cases to have rejected this suggestion.

MR. BURNS: I've seen the public statements. They speak for themselves. We don't agree with them.

QUESTION: It seems that President Mobutu and Jonas Savimbi are at the moment taking Jonas Savimbi's troops from coming (inaudible) in Zaire to eastern Zaire. Now, the French seems to be part of the project, and that's why they are insisting that they should go there, so that they can bring weapons to these troops. Does the U.S. -- do you know anything about this?

MR. BURNS: I have said "absolutely no comment" on that. I'm not aware of those particular troop movements. I'm just not aware of it.

Mr. Arshad, welcome back.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MR. BURNS: I haven't seen you in a long time.

QUESTION: Yes, I was away on vacation. Thank you, Nick. This is Arshad. A very quick question on the crisis in Pakistan, which may have a snowball effect in the region. The (inaudible) are hopping within the winds of the political development in Pakistan, and we in Bangladesh -- we have got a similar situation where we have got the softer outward reaches where we may be also threatened. In a situation like that, what is your observation of the United States, in particular, about having democracy restored in these two countries and to support democracy in that area, as opposed to extra-constitutional (inaudible) government. I appreciate your kind comment to that, calling (inaudible) Pakistan.

MR. BURNS: We have been very careful not to intrude on a very delicate and tumultuous, actually, internal situation in Pakistan. We have an interest here. The interest of the United States is to have a stable and positive relationship with Pakistan, which we have had for a number of years, and which we wish to continue.

We will work with the duly constituted Government of Pakistan. It appears that the President of Pakistan acted within his constitutional authority in taking the action he did. It is also true that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has made very clear this morning that she intends to contest that, to appeal that decision.

That is an issue not for the United States to decide or comment upon but for the Pakistani courts and for the Pakistani authorities on both sides of this issue to deal with. We're going to keep out of this. We're going to concentrate our attention in making sure that United States' interests in Pakistan are met.

We have a very active and able Ambassador -- Ambassador Tom Simons, a Foreign Service Officer -- in Islamabad, assisted by a very able Embassy staff. They're there to represent United States interests, and they will do that very well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) placing Benazir Bhutto under house arrest in the Pakistani constitution when they talk about this situation?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I'm not an authority on what's happening in Islamabad. I don't believe she is under house arrest. She had a press conference this morning, and there's a statement from the government that she's able to move around. I'm not making any qualitative judgments, by the way. I'm just describing to you what we've seen in the press. I just want to correct the record slightly in what may be the facts of the case.

She's obviously quite opposed to the action of the government. She's appealing it. She's talked about the incarceration of her husband, which she does not obviously agree with, but it's not appropriate for the United States to get involved in this -- to get into the center, to interpret it, to take sides. We're not going to do that. We're going to just try to represent American national interests in Pakistan and hope that our relationship with the country and the people of Pakistan continues to be a good relationship, which it ought to be.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up. Do you think those interests still include the attempt to sell Pakistan's F-16s to Indonesia?

MR. BURNS: The United States is going to go forward with that arrangement, as we've said many times, and I have nothing to say that would change that.

QUESTION: Did you notify Congress that you're going to go forward with that arrangement?

MR. BURNS: I believe the intention is to notify the new Congress, once the new Congress comes in session in late January. There does have to be a formal notification of Congress, but Congress is now out of session, so I believe that will happen in a couple of months' time.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, one last thing. I may have got my dates wrong, but wasn't today some NATO Council meeting on Bosnia, at which there were supposed to be suggestions made about what might follow on IFOR or not?

MR. BURNS: Yes. I think the North Atlantic Council was briefed today on the status of the ongoing military study for post-IFOR security options. What are the options available to NATO as we look at the future of Bosnia. The members who met today -- the members of the North Atlantic Council, the Ambassadors, the permanent Ambassadors in Brussels -- instructed the NATO military committee to continue its work. The North Atlantic Council did not set a precise date for the military committee to finish its work. So this is an ongoing study.

As you know, as we've said before, we expect this study will be concluded shortly. I don't know what "shortly" means, given the action today. Once it's concluded, then it will be available to the NATO leadership -- the Foreign Ministers, the Defense Ministers and the heads of state -- to look at, and a decision will have to be made about this question of whether or not after the IFOR contingent leaves in mid-December, it's appropriate to put a follow-on security force and whether or not the United States should contribute troops to that security force.

It's a very important question. It will be one of the key questions, obviously, that the Administration will be focusing on over the next month or two, and we take it very seriously. But apparently the NATO Ambassadors decided today that perhaps more work needs to be done on this particular study before the decision-makers can focus on it.

QUESTION: But it's your understanding that there was at least a partial briefing and then a decision taken to keep at it.

MR. BURNS: That's right. That's my very clear understanding.

QUESTION: Also on Bosnia. (Inaudible) don't have any comment about the -- or any reaction specifically to all six of those indicted war criminals working in posts in the Republic of Srpska. Can you say what the Secretary of State or what the Administration would like to see happen to them in terms of implementing the Dayton agreement? I know that under Dayton, they shouldn't be doing that, but how do you actually carry out Dayton?

MR. BURNS: All indicted war criminals -- and there are many of them -- ought to be turned over by the competent, relevant authorities -- countries there, the relevant authorities on the ground -- to The Hague for prosecution. That's our clear position.

Dayton is very clear about that. There are commitments that these people made at Dayton on November 21, 1995 when they initialed the accords. Dayton is going to be successful if the parties that agreed to the Dayton accords honor them. They are responsible. They're the parties that one has to go to for enforcement. We've had a very spotty record on the issue of war crimes over the last year or so.

By and large, the Bosnian Government in Sarajevo has complied with its obligations. By and large, the Serbian Government and the Bosnian Serbs have not complied with their obligations. The Croatian Government has a most unfortunate record as well. We know that there are indicted war criminals in Croatia, who have not been apprehended by the Croatian authorities, and they ought to be.

We continue to hammer away at these issues; and, when Secretary Christopher meets in Paris on the 13th and 14th on this issue, this will be one of the issues that he talks about. Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck has been in Banja Luka just over the last couple of days. He's been in Zagreb, and he's been in Belgrade. He's talking to all of these authorities -- these recalcitrant authorities -- on this issue, about this issue.

We're not happy about it. But, ultimately, Roy, the situation -- the Dayton accords have got to be implemented by the people who signed them and initialed them.

QUESTION: What do you plan to do about it if they aren't? I mean, if they continue to show impunity?

MR. BURNS: In the case of Croatia, we said this will certainly have an impact on our willingness to make sure that Croatia -- our willingness to support steps to integrate Croatia into European and Western institutions.

In the case of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs, we're maintaining the so- called outer wall of sanctions. The outer wall of sanctions are very important. It denies Serbia the right of membership in very important international financial institutions: the IMF and the World Bank, and it also calls for a denial of their membership in organizations beyond that.

We're going to maintain those outer wall of sanctions until we see some progress on war criminals and some progress on Kosovo by the Serbian authorities. That's a very important point of leverage for the United States because of Serbia's desire for normalization. They want economic ties. They're not going to have those until we see a better performance by the Serbian authorities.

QUESTION: But there's nothing on implementation specifically, just maintaining sanctions.

MR. BURNS: No, I disagree with the way you phrase your question. We have leverage here, and we're exercising the leverage, and it's effective leverage.

QUESTION: There's no implementation, is there --

MR. BURNS: The implementation has been very disappointing, and we are looking for improvements.

QUESTION: Did I understand you to say just now that Dayton will succeed if the parties meet their obligations? Do you mean to be saying that if these other parties -- Serbia, Croatia and the Bosnian Serbs -- do not turn over war criminals, there cannot be success for Dayton?

MR. BURNS: We have said from the very beginning of the Dayton process, when we were in Dayton and after, that ultimately the success or failure of the Dayton accords -- long term, looking into the future -- were going to depend on the people who signed the accords; that we in NATO would try to give them a couple of years to get their houses in order by providing troops for security, by separating the armed forces, by helping them to hold elections, by setting up this new state that is emerging -- the unified state -- with unified institutions.

We'll be there for some period of time. The troops are there until December. There may or may not be a follow-on security force. There will certainly be a continued civilian presence with Carl Bildt's operation. But at some point all those people are going to go home. At some point you're going to have the Serbs and the Bosnians and the Croats, and they're going to be the ultimate arbiters of whether or not Dayton succeeds -- four or five or six years down the road.

It's up to them. They've got to make the permanent peace. We cannot do it for them. We can help them, but we can't stay there for 100 years to enforce it.

QUESTION: But I was going to ask you whether it's your judgment that Dayton can succeed without these war criminals being turned over?

MR. BURNS: I think it's a very important question. We've always said that in addition to peace, justice is important. Part of answering that question will be, is justice going to be served if you've got 50 or 60 war criminals running around the countryside and free, and they're not being asked to put themselves on the dock in The Hague to defend themselves against these very serious charges -- the most serious that have been made in Europe since the second world war. Justice will not be served until all those people are sent to The Hague for trial.

QUESTION: I'm just wondering, I guess the President probably regards the Dayton accords and the Bosnian settlement as one of the achievements of his first term; whether he isn't going to feel in his second term that that achievement needs to be protected. I fail to see how you're going to convince these people to turn over war criminals unless the United States is willing to take steps itself, which it could easily take, if it wished to.

MR. BURNS: I'm going to make a familiar point, but I think I should make it, and that is we have already succeeded. We stopped the war, and we helped them build a peace. It's up to them to cement that peace. I think this is going to be an ongoing preoccupation of the Clinton Administration for the next couple of years.

We never had any illusions about Bosnia. We knew that after we stopped the war, we stopped the killing, we helped them make the peace, it would be a multi-year project to help them implement the peace.

That's why we always said, our economic assistance is going to be apportioned over three years. We've just given the first year's economic assistance. We've got two years to go; that Carl Bildt's operation should be in the field long term. Not for a year, as the soldiers are, but for several years.

Now, we have a question about soldiers -- whether there should be a follow- on security force. I don't know what decision is going to be made finally, but that's at least a question that has to be looked at.

QUESTION: Nick, the NATO report on the follow-on force. I'm just wondering how long the United States believes that a decision on this can be delayed? I mean, if it's still Christmas and you're talking about this, do you think this is an expeditious way to handle it?

And, second, might there be any connection between the delay in the report and President Clinton's post-election vacation and work trip to Asia?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I'm not aware of any link between the President's travel plans and this decision. As you know, this decision is a NATO decision. It's not a United States decision alone. The NATO Ambassadors have sent this study back for continuation of work. Once it re-emerges, and once the North Atlantic Council Ambassadors, at least, sign off on it, it will then go to the policymakers in capitals. We expect that to happen at some point in the near future. I just don't know what the days are for that, but we'll keep you posted on it.

This is a question that has got to be looked at in the coming weeks. There's no question about it, given where we are on the timetable.

QUESTION: But you have no problem if it gets to be December or January 1, or something like that, and you still haven't engaged on this issue?

MR. BURNS: This is not my decision to make. It is the decision of the NATO leadership. I can't make the decision on timing for them.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) since Monday, whether U.S. personnel -- military or civilian -- in the Bosanski Samac area, which is under U.S. responsibility, whether they had any contact with this deputy mayor or President of the Municipal Council, whatever he was?

MR. BURNS: We've asked the question. It's very hard to know. There are so many Americans. There's tens of thousands of Americans in Bosnia. It's hard to know who had contact and who didn't.

I can tell you this. The United States Government was not aware that an indicted war criminal -- we would not have a normal relationship with an indicted war criminal. Once we were apprised, in the case of the four policemen -- which is a separate case -- and these individuals that they, in fact, were working in responsible jobs and were indicted war criminals, we made very strong representations to the proper authorities that they ought to be kicked out of their jobs and that they ought to be sent to The Hague for prosecution. We have a very clear position on this.

QUESTION: Do you mean to suggest that the Americans in that region who seem to know the elected and non-elected officials in these various municipalities didn't realize that one of the top officials in their own area of responsibility was on the posted "Wanted" list?

MR. BURNS: Roy, I think I just said that I can't account for the tens of thousands of Americans in Bosnia, who had conversations with which individuals, what did they know at what point in time about this person -- this indicted war criminal's activities. It is impossible to answer that unless you collected all the Americans in Bosnia, put them in a football stadium, and had a press conference with each of them. We can't do that.

I can't answer a question that is impossible to answer.

QUESTION: A remarkable oversight. My own contacts with the military there, in a different part, was that they led me to think that they had a very good idea of everybody they were dealing with and of the authorities in every town. You're suggesting that maybe they didn't.

MR. BURNS: I'm suggesting that I can't possibly give you a direct answer to the question you asked. You asked, of the tens of thousands of Americans in Bosnia, who had contact with these people and what did they know, what they didn't know about these people? I simply can't answer. But I've given you a very clear answer, clearer than most governments are willing to give, by the way, and that is that the United States believes that all these war criminals ought to be tried. They ought to be put on trial.

We've had a very consistent position; no country in support of the War Crimes Tribunal as we have. That will continue in the second term, obviously.

QUESTION: Did they not know who was in the top offices? And did they not compare the list --

MR. BURNS: Roy, you're asking me about people who I don't know. You're asking me a collective body of tens of thousands of people. I cannot answer that question. You've got to give me a break here. You want me to be direct with you. I'm trying to be direct. I can't mislead you. I'm not willing to mislead you.

QUESTION: I'm sure you've made inquiries from other departments. It sounds like they are not answering your inquiries, and it sounds like they are pretending that they were not aware?

MR. BURNS: What really matters here is what the President of the United States and the Secretary of State think. They have signed on the bottom line. They have put the United States fully behind the War Crimes Tribunal, and we're going to support the War Crimes Tribunal at every corner.

QUESTION: A different subject?


QUESTION: On Turkey. Turkish troops crossed the Iraqi border yesterday for hunting PKK terrorists in this area in hot pursuit. It was reported that 8,000 troops were involved. Apparently, KDP or PUK, for that matter, have shown an unwillingness or inability to prevent terrorist attacks from the southeastern border of Turkey.

Does the United States have any objection to this major operation in northern Iraq?

MR. BURNS: First, I can't confirm the particular operation. You'll have to address yourself to the Turkish General Staff or the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

Second, Turkey made it very clear, at the beginning of September, that there would be occasions when its troops would cross that Turkish-Iraqi border in pursuit of terrorist groups; namely, the PKK.

The United States said at the time, and continues to believe, this is part of Turkey's right to defend itself. Turkey has assured us they would not garrison its troops in northern Iraq; that any cross-border operations would be limited and they would only be undertaken in the pursuit of defense of Turkey's border, which is legitimate. Turkey is a NATO ally, and we have strong support for its ability to defend itself against terrorists. The PKK group is a terrorist group.

QUESTION: Another question. Actually, on Cyprus. In light of Clinton's victory yesterday here in the United States, both sides -- from Cyprus -- leaders express their hope for Clinton to launch a new initiative. Are you aware of any new initiative in that matter?

MR. BURNS: I don't think we've thought of a new one since last night. But if you give us a couple of weeks or months, stay tuned.

President Clinton and Secretary Christopher and Ambassador Albright and Ambassador Holbrooke, who used to be here, and now Ambassador Kornblum have all dedicated themselves to have the United States play a responsible role here. I'm not aware of any new initiatives from last night or this morning. But we're going to be continually involved, as we have been.

We want to work with the Government of Cyprus -- the two communities in Cyprus -- and the Greek and Turkish Governments on this question.

Mr. Lee.

QUESTION: Speaking about the elections, can you tell us why Secretary Christopher thought it would be a good time on Tuesday to discuss his future with President Clinton? Would that be to give me enough notice to ensure a smooth transition? Why did he want to talk about his future?

MR. BURNS: Were you not here at the beginning of the briefing when I gave --

QUESTION: Yes, I was here.

MR. BURNS: -- very full and complete answers to all these questions?

QUESTION: Yes, yes. I think it was full. "I have no personnel announcements to make."

MR. BURNS: Exactly.

QUESTION: I believe that you're --

MR. BURNS: Let me tell you about the background of yesterday's meeting. The President invited Secretary Christopher to come down to Little Rock. They met together between 4:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon. They had an excellent discussion. They discussed a wide variety of issues. The Secretary was very pleased by his conversation. The Secretary was frankly honored that the President would take time on an election day to spend time with him and discuss this wide variety of issues.

As Mike McCurry said yesterday, the Secretary of State was instrumental in 1992 in the transition, in helping the President to establish his Cabinet. The Secretary is a senior member of the Cabinet, and I think the President honored him by inviting him down yesterday. The Secretary was very pleased by that.

He returned here last night. He was able to watch the late returns and watch the acceptance speech and watch Senator Dole's speech. It was a long night, a long day for the Secretary. He's back today. He's going to be meeting in a couple of minutes on eastern Zaire. The Secretary is going to receive another briefing today on that. He's talked to Dennis Ross about the Middle East peace process.

In general, the Secretary gave instructions to all of us this morning, who met with him, that we've got a lot of work to do. It is the day after an election, but we've got a lot of work on our plate; everything from the Middle East to Bosnia, to China, and a lot of other issues beyond that.

The Secretary intends to keep working as hard as he can on all these issues, as he has done everyday that he's been in office for the last four years.

QUESTION: I understand that. But I believe Mike said that they discussed Secretary Christopher's future. I was wondering, without revealing whatever personnel announcements you might or might not have to tell us any time in the near future, why Secretary Christopher chose Tuesday to discuss that? Perhaps, he thinks --

MR. BURNS: Again, Lee, let me just point you back to an important fact here. The President of the United States invited the Secretary to Little Rock, and the Secretary went down. He works for the President. The President said he wanted to talk about a variety of issues. The Secretary went and he did that. The Secretary was very pleased and honored by that conversation.

QUESTION: Nick, was this conversation one on one with the President, or were there others present?

MR. BURNS: I think most of it was one on one, but I think there may have been others in the room at varying times. But I think the great majority was one on one.

QUESTION: What's it do to U.S. policy and the image of stability in U.S. policy when, at a time, as you acknowledge yourself, that there are many important issues on the plate, that both -- and for the sake of dealing with your comments at the beginning of the briefing -- the Secretary and now the Defense Secretary are both purported to be planning to resign in the near future? What symbol does that send to the world?

MR. BURNS: Let's just cite some other facts. The President of the United States was just re-elected by a resounding margin. That ought to send a signal of certainty and stability, and certainly a signal of assurance to countries all around the world that American foreign policy continues at full throttle; that we understand that we have a lot of priorities on our plate today and that we're going to pursue those very vigorously.

Second, the Secretary is now going to be embarking on three trips over the next five to six weeks -- three very important trips -- in the Middle East, in Europe, and in Asia -- to work on some of the most important issues confronting the United States. I think that sends another signal, that we have an active, vigorous diplomacy. That will continue.

As for personnel decisions, as I said at the beginning of the briefing, these decisions -- any personnel decisions are going to be announced when they're going to be announced. There's nothing being announced today. The Secretary of State is working today. He's working very hard today, and he'll continue to do that.

Thanks very much.

(Press briefing concluded at 2:22 p.m.)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright 1995-2016 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.00 run on Wednesday, 6 November 1996 - 20:49:42