U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #194, 96-12-03
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1431
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
INDEX
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS
Death of US Consul General (Guangzhou) in China ........ 1
Human Rights Abuses in Eastern Zaire ................... 2
Disarmament in Liberia ................................. 2
Release of Foreign Relations Volume .................... 2-3
Publication of "Emperor Dead" by FSO Peter Eicher ...... 3-4
ZAIRE/RWANDA
Status of Multinational Force/Airdrops/Military Force .. 4-5
Nationality of "Rebels"/Atrocities in Eastern Zaire/ ... 5-7
Military Offensive/US Position/Zaire Request to US
for Military Assistance
Amb Simpson's Remarks on US-French Cooperation on Aid/.. 12-14
US Relations with Zaire/US Ambassadorship
IRAQ/TURKEY
Operation Provide Comfort: Status/Changes/Continue ..... 7-9, 11
No-Fly Zones/Recipients of Benefits/Discussions on
Continuation
IRAQ
Establishment of Kurdish Parliament-in-Exile in North .. 9
Evacuations from North/Delivery of Humanitarian Aid .... 10-11
SERBIA
Independent Radio Shut Down by Govt/Annulment of ....... 15-17,18,19,20
Elections/Demonstrations/Sanctions Remain Option/
Components for Formal Relations with US & Int'l
Acceptance/No Trade Privileges
EU Extending Trade Privileges/London & Geneva Mtgs ..... 17
Sanctions Lifted by Dayton Accord/Reimposition Possible/ 18-19
US Unilateral Sanctions in Place/UN Action to
Reimpose Sanctions
State of Economy/Economic Reforms ...................... 19-21
US Congressmen in Belgrade ............................. 23
BOSNIA
Compliance with War Crimes Tribunal/Use of Economic .... 21-23
Leverage/Paramilitary Groups Carry Out Ethnic
Cleansing
MEXICO
Attorney General Fired/Anti-Narcotics Efforts/ ......... 24-25
High-Level Contact Group Mtg
KOREA
SOUTH: Update on Non-Proliferation Talks/Future ........ 25-26
Membership in MTCR
NORTH: Mtgs with US at Panmunjom ....................... 26
CUBA
Attack on Spanish Consul's Residence ................... 26-27
FRANCE
Subway Explosion ....................................... 27
CHINA
Visit by Defense Minister/Topics for Discussions ....... 27-28
CYPRUS
Moratorium on Greek & Turkish Overflights .............. 28
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #194
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1996, 1:33 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department briefing.
I have a couple of items to report to you before we go to questions.
The first is actually a very, very sad and tragic event and that is to
confirm that our American Consul General in Guangzhou in China, Philip T.
Lincoln, Jr., was killed yesterday in a car crash in Guangzhou Province.
Along with him in the car were a provincial official from the Guangzhou
regional government and also their driver.
Consul General Lincoln took up his Guangzhou assignment as our Consul
General, our chief diplomat, at a very important Consulate in China, in
August of this year. He served previously in Beijing and Taipei, in Seoul,
in Sydney and here at the Department in Washington.
He held the personal rank of Minister Counselor in the Senior Foreign
Service of the United States. He was born in Michigan.
He was one of our chief economic experts on U. S.-China relations, and he
is survived by his wife and his three children.
Our Ambassador in Beijing, Jim Sasser, speaking for his colleagues
throughout our diplomatic community in China, praised Mr. Lincoln as, "a
warm and wonderful man, an exemplary Foreign Service Officer, and a friend
to all of us who knew him. We shall miss him very much. Our sympathy and
prayers are with his family at this time of great sadness."
That is a quote from Ambassador Sasser that we received today from
Beijing. And those of us here in the Department would like to extend our
deepest condolences to his wife and his children and his other family
members on this very tragic day.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: I can get you more information.
Now, I want to read a statement on Eastern Zaire.
The United States is deeply concerned about allegations of human rights
abuses in Eastern Zaire by elements of the rebel alliance.
Recently, there have been consistent reports by refugees repatriating at
Gisenyi of killings by rebel forces in Northern Zaire, allegations of
slayings of refugees in the southwestern part of the rebel-held territory,
and rumors of executions of Zairian Government officials in Bukavu, as well
as allegations that returning young male refugees have been separated
before they have reached the border and have disappeared.
The United States calls on the rebel leaders in question to act
immediately to investigate all of these reports, these reports of human
rights abuses, to halt any ongoing operations that take the lives of
innocent civilians and to bring to justice those who have been responsible
for these murders.
We urge all parties in Eastern Zaire, including the rebel alliance, to
allow objective observers from the international community free and
unfettered access to that part of Zaire so that these allegations, these
very serious allegations, can be investigated and looked into on an
objective basis. And I'll be glad to take your questions on that, if you
have any.
I also have a statement that I posted in the press room regarding the
situation in Liberia.
The United States welcomes the beginning of disarmament of the factions
in Liberia's civil war. The surrender of arms, which began on November 22
in accordance with the Abuja Peace Accords, is an important step forward.
Disarmament is the cornerstone of the peace process in Liberia, and the key
to ending Liberia's nearly seven-year old civil war.
The United States commends the leadership, the performance and the
commitment of the West African Peacekeeping Force in beginning this
disarmament exercise. The United States would like to call on all the
factions in Liberia and their leaders to continue on this path to peace at
this critical moment in Liberia's modern history.
We urge the factions to disarm fully and quickly even before the January
31, 1997, deadline which is set in the Abuja Accords.
Two other quick notices. We also have a notice today concerning the
series, "Foreign Relations of the United States."
This is actually a major development. You know that the Department of
State chronicles the history of American foreign policy. Today we are
releasing the 75th and final volume which documents the foreign policy of
the Eisenhower Administration, from 1953 to 1960. We are leaving the 1950s
and we are now solely into the 1960s and 1970s in our documentation of
American foreign policy history.
So now we have 75 volumes which document the Eisenhower Administration's
foreign policy. This particular volume looks into the defense posture of
the United States in the years 1958 to 1960, a time when we began to make a
transition from the defense concept of massive retaliation, which had been
adopted earlier in the Eisenhower Administration, to one of flexible
response, and one that took into consideration the possibilities of other
types of defense postures for the United States.
It's a very significant volume. I commend it to all of you who are
interested in our diplomatic history. And on that point, my final
announcement has to do -- and I forgot to bring the book out here. I
usually don't plug books here, but I wanted to plug one today.
There is a new book out. It is called "Emperor Dead" and it is a book by
a Foreign Service Officer, Peter Eicher, whose wife Stephanie works in the
Bureau of Public Affairs and I thought would be out here today, and Peter
Eicher has written a book which is a collection of hundreds of dispatches
from American diplomats going back to the first dispatch ever sent to
Washington by Silas Dean from Paris in 1776, and taking you up to the
Vietnam War era.
And these dispatches, I think, give a unique flavor about what our
diplomatic history has been, what the work of the Foreign Service is, and I
commend this particular volume to you. The interesting title, "Emperor
Dead", refers to the two-word message that was sent by the American
Minister in St. Petersburg, John Foster, to the State Department in 1881
upon the death of the Czar, Alexander II, and he communicated in a very
different way. Here it is, "Emperor Dead" by my colleague, Peter
Eicher, from the United States Foreign Service.
This is a two-word communication on the death of the Russian Czar. Can
you imagine in the modern world if an American ambassador sent in a two-
word message on such a momentous event. It was a different time. And this
book does illustrate the way that diplomacy has changed over the last 200
years.
If you are really interested, there is actually a book-signing tonight at
DACOR, and I can give you the address and the time, and I am sure members
of the press will be most welcome to give this book some play.
I don't do this, obviously, for any commercial reason. The author did
not write this for a commercial reason. He wrote it because he wanted to
do something to document our diplomatic history.
"Emperor Dead."
George.
QUESTION: Back on Eastern Zaire.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Not much has been said lately about U. S. thinking concerning
a multinational force, and I wonder if the thinking has crystalized at all
over the past few days?
MR. BURNS: We continue to participate in the group that was formed by
the Canadian Government in Ottawa on Friday and that is a group that
includes, I think, roughly l5 countries.
We are in very close touch with the Canadian Government, with both their
civilian and military officials.
As you know, the United States has said that we are willing in principle
to participate in a multinational force in Eastern Zaire. However, at the
present time, because of the dramatic and very positive return of, we
believe, over 600,000 Rwandan refugees to Rwanda, we are still in the
planning stage.
As you know, the Canadians have talked publicly about the possibility of
an air drop proposal, air drop operations that would attempt to parachute
into affected areas badly needed food and medical supplies to groups of
refugees.
This proposal is still in the planning stage. The group that was formed
in Ottawa on Friday operates on a consensus basis, and there is, I think,
no consensus, even no inclination from the organizing countries, to proceed
yet with this operation.
The same is true about the contingency plans that had been written about
the possible deployment of a multinational military force.
That is still something that is a possibility but by no means a certainty.
The Canadians, I think, announced over the weekend that they had hoped to
send in a reconnaissance team to investigate both of these options. I do
not believe that team is yet in country in either Rwanda or Zaire, because
I don't believe that either government has yet given its permission.
So you can see that the international community is ready to do what it
must to be responsible in this situation. We do require the assistance and
the cooperation of the Rwandan and Zairian Governments, but I would just
like to take this opportunity to commend the Canadian Government for the
leadership it has given all of us over the last couple of weeks during this
crisis.
QUESTION: On the rebels, you seem to be convinced that they are, in
fact, Zairian. There has been some confusion, I think, about that. Some
have said that they may be Rwandans acting as, or masquerading as, Zairians
in order to achieve their own political ends.
MR. BURNS: Well, the rebel alliance that I referred to in my statement
refers particularly to the Banyamulenge rebels, the Tutsi rebels, in Zaire.
There is mounting evidence, Jim, unfortunately, of a series of atrocities
that have been committed just in recent weeks in Eastern Zaire, and the
victims have been returning civilian refugees, people who do not have arms,
people who in some cases are women and children, not just young men,
and the young men we know have been isolated in these exercises.
And we felt incumbent upon ourselves to draw public attention to this
today and to warn the Banyamulenge and others who may be supporting them
that the world is watching, that those who have perpetrated these
atrocities have to be held responsible for them, and that they have an
obligation to allow the proper U. N. and other international organizations
into that area to try to seek an accounting for what has happened.
QUESTION: Are you suggesting that there may be some connection between
them and the Rwandan Government, for example?
MR. BURNS: I have made no such suggestion at all. I have simply
suggested that we have -- I have stated that we have an increasing number
of reports, very serious reports, that need to be looked into, and we do
know that a great number of people have been killed in these atrocities
over the past couple of months.
Now what we cannot do is give you any kind of exact counting of how many
people have been affected by these killings. It appears that it may be in
the hundreds, it may be higher. We don't know.
That is one of the reasons why we believe the international organizations
should be allowed in.
Obviously we want to do everything we can to increase public pressure on
these rebel groups, the rebel alliance, in Eastern Zaire to make it cease
and desist from this type of outrageous behavior.
QUESTION: You're not asking them to cease and desist in their offensive
though?
MR. BURNS: Roy, on the contrary. The persistent call by the United
States since the beginning of this crisis has been for all groups whether
they are rebel groups, private militias, or government soldiers from Rwanda
or Zaire, or any other country, to stop the fighting.
We have consistently called for that. We don't believe the fighting is
amounting to anything positive, and on the contrary, it has just achieved
more destruction and death for the people of Eastern Zaire and Rwanda. And
we have, I think, an unblemished record and a very consistent record in
calling for that.
QUESTION: Could you bring us up-to-date on the events of this as far as
you know?
QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the offensive as far as you
know?
MR. BURNS: Which events, Roy?
QUESTION: Offensive -- the Kabila offensive. They're claiming to be in
Kisangani, which is a very long distance from Goma.
MR. BURNS: You've seen the press reports that I have.
We don't have Embassy officers in the field along this 250 kilometer front
that would allow me to give you a sense of the blow-by-blow of the
fighting. But, clearly, there is intensive fighting underway in Eastern
Zaire. There were very prominent press reports about it this morning.
I don't want to put myself in the position of being the person who can
describe that to you with any degree of authority. We know there's
fighting going on. In the midst of that fighting, not only are fighters
targeting each other, the rebel line seems to be targeting innocent
civilians, and that's what we are speaking to today.
QUESTION: Does the United States not have some kind of an office in
Kisangani?
MR. BURNS: The United States has an Embassy in Kinshasa, and the
United States has an Embassy in Kigali. We do not have, on any kind of
regular basis, American diplomats in that region.
We have had some AID workers in that region. There have been a lot of
international relief workers in the region, but they have, of course, been
occupying themselves in very different ways.
They've been trying to get relief supplies to the refugees.
QUESTION: What is the best picture you can give us of this offensive?
Is this a real offensive? Are they really taking this much territory?
Because it sounds like it would be a major threat to the Government of
Zaire, such as it is.
MR. BURNS: Roy, I can just tell you that we have seen the same reports
that you have -- very consistent reports about a determined and intensive
military offensive underway in Eastern Zaire.
As you know, the United States supports the territorial integrity of
Zaire. We recognize Zaire as one country under its current borders. We do
not wish to see Zaire's borders changed. We are not supporting in any way,
shape, or form these rebel movements and their military objectives.
We have called upon them to stop. We would call upon them again today to
stop their offensives and to allow the suffering people of Eastern Zaire,
many of whom are Zairian citizens, victims of this fighting -- both Tutsi
and Hutu and other ethnic groups.
We want this fighting to stop so that those people can live in some degree
of relative peace.
QUESTION: Has the Government of Zaire asked your assistance in
combatting these rebels as they are reported to be, in their offensive?
What is the attitude of the United States? If you want to support their
integrity and also the unity of the country, then it seems to be dissolving
right now.
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that the Government of Zaire has asked for
the military assistance of the United States in combatting this rebel
offensive in Eastern Zaire. I believe the Government of Zaire has
undertaken, on its own means, to resist this military offensive.
Our view is, the fighting should stop on all sides -- full stop.
QUESTION: Yesterday, we asked about "Provide Comfort."
Do you have any official --
MR. BURNS: An official statement on "Provide Comfort?"
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I can tell you this. "Operation Provide Comfort" has been
for five years a very important way for the United States and Turkey and
Britain and France and others to provide stability in northern Iraq.
As you know, the air components, north and south continue and will
continue. Of course, we carry on a very active dialogue with the Turkish
Government about the basis for "Operation Provide Comfort." We'll continue
to talk to the Turks about it.
But we expect that the basic alliance in place, that is engineered to
constrain Saddam Hussein and deter him from military movements north and
south, that is going to remain in place.
QUESTION: Any message officially that you want to cancel some part of
"Provide Comfort?"
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not aware of any kind of official message of that
sort.
QUESTION: Any message from Turkey and the Turkish side?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any formal message; no.
QUESTION: May I follow? What changes are envisaged for the operation?
MR. BURNS: If there are any changes, we'll tell you about them when
they've been agreed to. We carry on discussions with the Turks probably
everyday of the week about this issue and with our other partners. It's no
secret that we've been having discussions on this issue, but I have nothing
to give you, obviously, until those discussions are through.
I do want to leave you with a very firm impression that we'll continue to
maintain our "no flight" zones, north and south. Saddam Hussein has to
understand that.
QUESTION: Planes will be left in Turkey as a result?
MR. BURNS: Again, I'm not going to speak in any way to the specifics
of this because our conversations with our partners are private.
I just want to leave you with a very firm impression that Saddam has got
to figure in his own tactical and strategic calculations that the United
States hasn't forgotten he's there and that we're going to keep our "no
flight" zones intact and that he's not going to be able to fly in those
zones. That's going to limit his military behavior and it's going to limit
his ability to threaten his neighbors north and south and east and
west. That's a very good thing because he's a proven double and triple
offender who needs to be deterred and needs to be constrained.
QUESTION: Is it your policy point of view: Since most people who were
covered under this operation left northern Iraq -- most of it -- for whom
this operation will be providing comfort from now on?
MR. BURNS: Providing a lot of comfort to the citizens of Turkey, the
citizens of Kuwait, the citizens of Saudi Arabia, the citizens of every
other Gulf state; I would think most of the Arab world. Certainly, the
citizens of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and France,
just to name several hundred million people who are going to benefit from
the continuation of this operation.
Saddam Hussein is not going to be able to fly north or south.
We're going to prevent him from doing that, as we have during the last two
American Administrations -- of President Bush and President Clinton.
QUESTION: There's no more geared at northern Iraq? The focus seems to
have changed quite a bit.
MR. BURNS: No, it hasn't, because we're maintaining a northern "no
flight" zone. It's very much focused on northern Iraq. It's always been
focused, of course, as you know, the entire operation on southern Iraq as
well.
QUESTION: Yesterday, I asked another question about northern Iraq. The
Parliament in Exile -- the Kudish Parliament in Exile trying to establish
headquarters in the northern part of Iraq. Do you have anything on this
subject?
MR. BURNS: We are not aware of any attempt by the so-called Kurdish
Parliament in Exile trying to establish any kind of a base or capital or
center or safe house or broadcast station in northern Iraq. We're not
aware of it. But we know that the PKK has often used this name of
"Parliament-in-Exile." Of course, we're opposed to the PKK. We've been
consistently opposed to the PKK.
We're just not aware of any evidence that they've established themselves
as such in northern Iraq.
QUESTION: On "Provide Comfort", will it still continue to supply
humanitarian aid over land or by air?
MR. BURNS: I think that remains to be seen. That's one of the
questions that we've got to talk to the Turks and others about.
As you know, most of the people who work directly for the United States
Government in those humanitarian operations were evacuated from northern
Iraq in the two operations -- well, in the first operation, I should say,
to be most clear -- a couple of months ago. So we no longer have the
infrastructure in place that would allow us to have a continuation of those
problems, but we are looking at other ways to accomplish that purpose.
One of the things that we have been trying to achieve in our discussions
with the Turkoman population -- with the two major Kurdish factions, is
programs that would help to build stability and peace for the people of
northern Iraq.
QUESTION: But there are still some European-based humanitarian
organizations in --
MR. BURNS: Yes, there are.
QUESTION: Are they now being used as a conduit for humanitarian
aid?
MR. BURNS: Yes, there are efforts underway by the United Nations and
by private organizations to continue the efforts to deliver humanitarian
aid.
Northern Iraq is going to be a busy place for the next couple of months.
As you know, U.N. Resolution 986 appears to be very close to final
approval. That operation, that U.N. resolution, would put into place a
distribution system for both humanitarian goods but also for the export of
oil which will, in part, be centered on northern Iraq.
So it's going to be an area where there will be lots of outside
involvement in a very beneficial way. So I would expect that this general
effort to try to help the Turkomans and Kurds and Assyrians and others will
continue.
I think it's important that we would note, we're not just talking about
Kurds here in northern Iraq. We're talking about Assyrians and we're
talking about Turkomans and other ethnic groups. It's very important to
make that distinction.
QUESTION: Has there been any more progress that you can report on
getting out the NGO employees, the 5,000? Are they in some refuge
currently in northern Iraq where they are safe from reprisal? What can you
tell us?
MR. BURNS: As you know, Bill, we announced a week or so ago that we
believe, in principle, it's a good idea to bring those people out, but I
have no further details to give you on that issue today.
Yasmine.
QUESTION: When you're saying that the air component of "Provide
Comfort" will continue, are you taking into consideration the fact that the
National Security Council in Turkey, which is a military body mostly, has
for the first time decided not to extend the mandate of the operation?
This is for the first time since '91.
Yesterday, you told us that the sense you're getting from Ankara is that
the Turkish Government is also willing to continue with the operation. But
now there is a decision against that.
MR. BURNS: As you know, this is a collective international effort and
therefore all countries must cooperate together to continue it. We
certainly are sensitive and knowledgeable about the views of the Turkish
Government. We do have discussions underway about this issue.
I am giving you an American point of view, which is my job as the
Spokesman here, and I can tell you what the American point of view is.
These "no flight" zones must be continued because of our strategic effort
to contain Saddam Hussein.
We believe that Turks, Americans, French, and British, among others, can
agree on this, that we need to continue the efforts to contain him.
QUESTION: Would (inaudible) consider having, or would this government
consider continuing the operation from another country in the region?
MR. BURNS: I'm just not aware of any such proposals.
I assume that you're going to see more continuation than not as a result
of these discussions underway.
What I cannot do is tell you what the outcome of these discussions in
detail is going to be because we haven't arrived at that point.
Steve. We have to get back to Zaire at some point. I have something
else to say on Zaire. But, Steve, I'll be glad to go to Serbia first,
unless you would like me to do my Zaire thing.
Why don't I do Zaire first and then we'll go to Serbia.
I was remiss. I had intended to come out here and speak about an issue
on which I was asked yesterday, and John has been good enough to remind me
to do that.
Yesterday, Agence France Presse, that celebrated international press
agency with the distinguished correspondent in Washington -- a good friend
of ours, Andre Viollaz.
Yesterday, Agence France Presse reported that our Ambassador in Zaire,
Daniel Simpson, had made some remarks about the French Government as well
as about the Government of Zaire. I am here to tell you that references to
the statements by Ambassador Simpson in the article do not represent United
States Government policy nor do they reflect the views of Ambassador
Simpson.
Let me just speak in two respects about this issue. They are very
important issues. First, pertaining to U.S. French relations.
The United States continues to work closely with the French Government
and with other Western governments and with African nations on all issues
concerning the humanitarian crisis in the Central African region,
particularly in Eastern Zaire.
United States-French collaboration has been especially evident in our
ongoing discussions to address the current problems in Zaire, and we expect
it to continue and to reinforce the collaboration that we have forged with
the French in Central Africa.
Second, pertaining to United States' relations with Zaire, the United
States has a longstanding relationship with Zaire and a very important
relationship with Zaire. Zaire is a strategically important country in
Africa -- a look at the map, a look at the natural resources, the size of
the population is evidence of that.
We are strongly encouraging the democratic transition in Zaire -- the
idea of a democratic transition in Zaire, and strongly encouraging economic
reform in Zaire. We are also actively engaged, as you know, with the
Zairian Government at this moment and with other governments to bring an
end to the hostilities in Eastern Zaire and try to bring back some
stability to the people there.
So I just wanted to clear the air, and, if there are questions on that,
speak now or forever hold your peace -- at least until the end of this
briefing.
QUESTION: Are you saying the Ambassador was misquoted?
MR. BURNS: I am saying that his statements -- we've spoken to
Ambassador Simpson. His statements neither represent U.S. policy nor the
views of Ambassador Simpson.
QUESTION: Will the United States (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Well, let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, you're all
experts on this. I understand that Ambassador Simpson talked to some
reporters, as he normally does, on a monthly basis, and the ground rules
for the discussion were not on the record; they were on background.
I further understand that quite a bit of what he said perhaps got jumbled
in the translation or got jumbled in the understanding of some of the
people present and do not represent the views of Ambassador Simpson. And,
as I said, they do not represent the views of the United States Government -
- of the State Department, and we felt it was important to clear the air
here and let you all know what we think of some of those articles.
I'm not casting any aspersions on any particular news agency, much less
Agence France Presse, with which we have had and will continue to have very
good relations. There were a variety of press reports from individuals who
took part in this.
QUESTION: Will the Ambassador be -- let me get this correct, Nick.
Will the Ambassador be asked to retract his off-the-record statement?
MR. BURNS: No, because if you make a statement off the record, it's
impossible to retract it, isn't it, because it can't be reported by the
responsible members of the press corps. I'm simply saying -- let me just
be very clear -- they don't represent his views, and they don't represent
our views, and that covers the universe of people who you should be
interested in here.
QUESTION: So what do you say to the French who are complaining about
this?
MR. BURNS: I've just said this is a rather -- perhaps this is a
transparent way of saying we'd like to say to the French Government that
these statements do not reflect our views about our current collaboration
with the French Government.
QUESTION: But you're referring to them as "statements," and that
implies that something was stated and that it has not been misquoted --
MR. BURNS: The articles in question put quotation marks around
statements, and, if you read the articles in question, they're very bald
statements, and they don't represent the views of the Ambassador or of the
United States.
QUESTION: You said, Nick, that he wasn't supposed to be quoted on, what
he said?
MR. BURNS: No, there were two problems with the interview.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: No, there were two problems. The first is unfortunately --
and this never happens here at the State Department, fortunately -- the
reporters violated the rules of the interview.
Second, the substance of the interview was not reported correctly by some
of the reporters. I'm not interested in going after any of the reporters
individually or any of the organizations. That's not the issue here. The
issue is we wanted to clear the air about what we think of our relations
with two countries -- France and Zaire -- and we've tried to do that
today.
Do you want to follow-up Steve, or do you want to go back?
MR. BURNS: Thank you. Forever hold your peace.
QUESTION: Is the Ambassadorship in Rwanda open?
MR. BURNS: No. We have an American Ambassador in Rwanda.
QUESTION: Has the United States moved any closer to doing anything
specifically as regards reinstating sanctions, perhaps with the closure of
two radio stations by the Milosevic Government and the continuation of
demonstrations there and political unrest?
MR. BURNS: Let me go through, if I could, our views and the situation
today which, I think, Steve, will answer your question.
The United States understands through our American Embassy in Belgrade
that the Serbian authorities today shut down Radio B-92 and Radio Index,
which is a student-run broadcast station.
The United States condemns this suppression of the remaining elements of
the independent media in Serbia. This is a transparent effort to keep the
Serbian public in the dark, and it demonstrates the fundamental lack of
respect and lack of regard the Serbian Government has for democratic
principles.
It is curious, indeed, that the Milosevic regime views even these modest
and peaceful attempts to speak publicly by members of the media to be
somehow a threat to the Serbian Government itself. This is a rather dim
and dark picture of the corner into which the Serbian Government has
painted itself by its actions over the last two weeks.
Our Embassy in Belgrade has made these views plain and clear to the
Milosevic Government. We believe again that the Government must respect
the results of the municipal elections -- the results that were flagrantly
overturned by anti-democratic measures.
We are going to continue to monitor the situation in Belgrade very
closely. Our charge d'affaires, Dick Miles, has in the last two days been
personally in touch with major opposition figures, including Mr. Draskovic,
including Mr. Djindjic and this morning including with another opposition
leader, Vesna Pesic.
Those discussions have reviewed the entire situation, and in those
discussions Mr. Miles has made clear the views of the United States
Government. We commend the opposition for keeping these demonstrations --
these massive demonstrations -- peaceful. We commend that they respect an
orderly, democratic process where people have a right to have their views
heard by their fellow citizens.
Let me tell you, on the part of the United States, we spoke yesterday
about the fact that the reimposition of sanctions remains an option for the
United States. We are concentrating our efforts on trying to make sure
that the entire international community is speaking out together, uniformly,
about these anti-democratic measures in Serbia.
It was with great gratitude that we heard from several European
governments yesterday in Lisbon -- very strong statements against the
behavior of the Serbian Government. We would expect at the London
Conference tomorrow and Thursday, December 4 and 5, that the United States
and our European partners will join forcefully to make clear to Foreign
Minister Milutinovic, who will be representing the Government of Serbia,
that the annulment of the elections is unacceptable to the international
community.
The United States, as I have repeated a couple of days running -- but
I'll be glad to do it again -- has taken its own unilateral efforts, made
its own unilateral efforts, to express our displeasure for a long time
about the nature of the Milosevic Government and about its repression of
its own people.
Just to review, the United States does not have and will not have full
diplomatic relations with the Government of Serbia and Montenegro as long
as this type of behavior continues.
First, we will not be exchanging Ambassadors with that government.
We will not give them permission to open consulates in the United States.
The United States will not extend its own economic benefits -- either
economic assistance, financial assistance or trade preferences; most-
favored-nation status, Ex-Im Bank lending, OPIC insurance.
These are the components of a normal relationship that the United States
has with any country around the world, and they will be withheld from this
relationship, these concrete economic benefits, as long as this type of
behavior continues.
Furthermore, the United States will not support the efforts of the
Serbian Government to take the seat of the former Yugoslav Republic at the
United Nations. We will not support Serbia for membership in the OSCE, the
summit of which has just been held and concluded today in Lisbon. We will
not support Serbia's desire to join the International Monetary Fund or the
World Bank or to receive assistance from those two financial organizations.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the time has come for any country
around the world to grant any similar trade privileges to Serbia. There
has been some talk in Europe, as you know, about an increase in Serbia's
cooperation with the European Union.
The United States has made clear to our European partners that we oppose
that. This is not the time to do business as normal with Serbia. This is
the time to stand up together and to confront the Serbian Government about
its frankly outrageous behavior towards its own people.
QUESTION: Would you elaborate on the European trade move? Exactly what
are you referring to?
MR. BURNS: I obviously want to give the floor -- and you ought to ask
representatives of the European Union to give you the details -- but there
has been some talk recently about the European Union considering extending
trade privileges to Serbia; some of the trade privileges that are similar
to the ones that I just enumerated that we're not going to give.
It's one thing, obviously, to even engage in preliminary conversations
before the events of the last two to three weeks. It would be quite
another, indeed, were any country or any international organization to
continue those discussions in light of the fact that democratic elections
have just been suspended. So we certainly would hope that that would be
the position of the European Union. That's certainly the position of the
United States.
QUESTION: What have the Europeans told you in response?
MR. BURNS: As I said, we have a good opportunity now at the London
Conference over the next two days to exchange views specifically with the
European governments, and the Serb Foreign Minister will be present, which
is an excellent opportunity for us to stand up in a unified way -- Europe
and North America -- to oppose what's going on in Belgrade.
Betsy.
QUESTION: Nick, did the U.S. disinvite or uninvite the Serbians from a
meeting this week in Geneva, I think -- a multinational meeting?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check with you. There are so many multinational
meetings that take place in Geneva. I don't know which one you're
referring to, but, Betsy, I'll be glad to look into it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) European cooperation --
MR. BURNS: I will check into that. In general, I can say in answer to
both of your questions, this is not the time to do business as usual with
Belgrade. We need to send a stiff and clear message to Belgrade that its
ability to have a normal relationship, which is want Serbia wants with all
of us in the West, is fundamentally compromised with this type of
behavior.
If you listen to the Serbian Government over the last year, what they're
seeking is recognition in the United Nations, in other international
organizations, trade benefits, normal commercial relationships, normal
political relationships. I've just read you a list of actions by the
United States -- which are one year old, by the way, and in some cases more
than a year old -- which have plainly put us in the corner of saying, "No
recognition, no business as usual, no trade benefits, as long as this
type of behavior continues."
Steve.
QUESTION: Nick, the sanctions that were lifted with the signing of the
Dayton peace accords seemed to have been the tool which brought Milosevic
around on that issue. Is the United States now thinking about reapplying
or reusing that same tool to bring him around on the issue of the elections
and his own domestic political problems?
MR. BURNS: Steve, those sanctions, which are the trade sanctions that
were lifted -- that the Dayton Accords called to be lifted, were a part of
the containment of Serbia that was underway in the latter years of the
Bosnian war. They were lifted.
When they were lifted, the United States said at the time, on the day
they were lifted, that we reserve the right to reconsider our position,
should that be necessary based on Serbian Government behavior.
This is quite a complicated process. To actually reimpose those
sanctions, it would have to be an action of the members of the U.N.
Security Council, and one can never, of course, take for granted the
unanimity of that particular body. But the United States said that it
reserves the right to bring back to that body this question. And, as I
said yesterday, we reserve that right, and Serbia, of course, is on notice
and has been on notice about that.
In the meantime, in addition to those sanctions, we had our own
unilateral sanctions in place, and we have determined, of course, over the
last couple of weeks that we were right in maintaining those sanctions, and
that those sanctions will now be extended and consideration to lift them
will not be given seriously until this type of anti-democratic behavior
ends.
QUESTION: But is there a movement afoot in this Department or in the
Government here to reinstitute or to take this back to the United
Nations?
MR. BURNS: As I said yesterday -- and I think I was very clear about
this -- we reserve the right to discuss this with our U.N. Security Council
partners. We have not taken such a step. We have essentially put the
Serbian Government on notice that such a step is possible. I'm not aware
of any action to do so in the next week or two or three was what I said
yesterday.
But it's important to note it, and it's also important to note the
unilateral measures that we have taken. Since there should be no business
as usual, we would hope very much that the European Governments individually
and the European Union collectively would decide to stand with us in
opposition to the government in Belgrade on this particular issue of the
elections and of the treatment of demonstrators.
I should hasten to add, because it's a relevant question every single day,
the United States has made very clear to the Serbian Government that no
harm should come to these demonstrators; that the use of force should not
be taken against the students and the workers and the other citizens -- men
and women, children -- who are in the streets of Belgrade.
QUESTION: Nick, from time to time the United States has used Milosevic
has a lever of pressure against the Bosnian Serbs. Is that lever now non-
operative?
MR. BURNS: No. In fact, a variety of the press questions in the last
couple of days have focused on this issue, Jim. We don't share the
conventional wisdom that somehow we need Milosevic more than he needs us.
Frankly, it's the other way around. He needs us in this situation very
much, and we are denying to him the kind of trade and economic advantages
that any normal head of state can assume in a relationship with the United
States.
Furthermore, given the state of affairs in Serbia, the economy is in
ruins. Unemployment and inflation are high. There's no economic growth.
There's widespread despair in the population, which accounts for the tens
of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, on the streets. They don't
have an option to violate the Dayton Accords. They don't have an option to
go back on their commitments.
It's in their self-interest to promote the Dayton Accords, because the
Dayton Accords at least give them peace and a measure of stability.
They simply have no interest and neither do the Bosnian Serbs in returning
to the situation of 1991 to 1995.
QUESTION: Without going into the relative benefits of who gains most in
this relationship, the question is, does the United States lose a lever of
pressure against Bosnian Serbia?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe so, because I think as long as Mr.
Milosevic is in power -- and, of course, I can't forecast how long that
will be -- but as long as he is, it's going to be in his self-interest to
make sure that the Bosnian Serbs comply with the Dayton Accords. If
there's another government that takes power in Belgrade, we believe it will
be in the interest of whoever takes power to continue the cooperation with
the West on Dayton.
That also goes for the Bosnian Serbs. As you know, Ambassador Menzies/John
Kornblum have an independent relationship with Mrs. Plavsic and Mr.
Krajisnik and Mr. Buha and the other Bosnian Serb leaders independent of
Serbia, and we'll continue to work both avenues to make sure the Dayton
Accords are maintained.
QUESTION: Did the Ambassador, in talking to the three opposition
leaders, inquire as to the incident last week when an American flag was
apparently burned in front of the U.S. Embassy?
It was reported on AP in several cycles.
MR. BURNS: I don't know if he raised that in particular.
It wouldn't surprise if he did. But I just haven't seen a readout of his
conversations with these individuals. I understand, frankly, that more has
been made of that -- that there's less than meets the eye here; that in
fact if you look at the way these demonstrators have comported themselves
and what they've said to all of you, there is very little anti-American
sentiment here, nor should there be, because the United States has been in
the forefront of countries supporting the right of the demonstrators to be
in the streets. We certainly understand the anger of the demonstrators,
because the elections have been stolen from them.
QUESTION: Speaking of being in the forefront, Carl Bildt made a
statement yesterday. He called for a rapid move towards radical political
and economic reform in Serbia, paving the way for a democratic society and
a free economy. Do you agree with Bildt's statement? This is in the
Lisbon Conference.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: You do?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: The meaning of a "rapid move toward a radical political
reform" is open to interpretation, but these are very strong words. They
really suggest a change of the government.
MR. BURNS: Roy, with all due respect, I am not in the business of
doing textual analyses and deconstructing sentences.
But I can tell you that in general we agree with that statement because
we've called for economic reform, political reform, democratization, and
certainly all of those are badly needed in Serbia today.
QUESTION: The word he used was "radical political and economic
reform."
MR. BURNS: "Radical" is -- I can find a synonym with which I would
agree, and, as I said, we agree with Mr. Bildt's statement. But I don't
want to do what we used to do in sixth grade and diagram a sentence and
figure out what it all means behind the lines. I think Mr. Bildt has
reflected Western public opinion here and Western governmental opinion
here.
QUESTION: Why, though, has the Administration itself not made a
statement as strong as his?
MR. BURNS: I certainly have no interest in getting -- in allowing this
conversation to turn into any kind of fight with Carl Bildt. We respect
him. We agree with his statement. I think we see eye to eye on this, and
we have said repeatedly over the last year, we think that democracy and
economic reform should be the order of the day in Belgrade. I'm glad to
say it again today. I'm glad to associate myself with those remarks.
There's no distinction here or difference between Mr. Bildt and the
United States Government on this issue.
QUESTION: Bosnia. Mr. Kijac, the Interior Minister in the Republic of
Srpska, apparently has told international officials that the Writ of the
Tribunal does not extend to Republic of Srpska, and that --
MR. BURNS: You mean the War Crimes Tribunal.
QUESTION: Yes, at the Tribunal. And therefore there is no question of
arresting or even removing some of these people who have been indicted from
senior police positions. In fact, one of them seems to be his deputy.
I'm just wondering whether you have any response to this, and what do you
do about it?
MR. BURNS: That's rubbish. The gentleman is completely uninformed or
he's not telling the truth. The fact is that when Mr. Krajisnik and Mr.
Buha, and even Karadzic, by some indirect means, approved the Dayton
Accords, they signed on the dotted line to cooperate with the War Crimes
Tribunal. He's wrong. He is totally wrong.
QUESTION: But he said it. In fact, he's in charge there.
He's in control of this group.
MR. BURNS: One of the reasons why the Bosnian Serbs are receiving
barely a trickle of assistance from the international community is because -
- and in contrast, the Bosnian Government is receiving a lot -- is because
the Bosnian Serbs are fundamentally not in compliance with their war crimes
provisions of the Dayton Accords and the Bosnian Government is.
And if the Bosnian Serbs would like to see a ratio of about a million-to-
one in economic assistance between them and the Bosnian Government, well,
they should just continue their policies. The Bosnian Government will end
up with years of reconstruction aid and other economic assistance from the
West and the Bosnian Serbs will have nothing. If that's the way they want
it, they're doing a very good job, then, of making sure that they're going
to be disadvantaged.
QUESTION: Is it a violation of the Dayton agreements?
MR. BURNS: Yes, it certainly is.
QUESTION: So what do you do about it?
MR. BURNS: What we do is, continue to use real, concrete leverage --
in this case, economic assistance. Sooner or later, hope that leverage
works.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BURNS: As I said, they're currently being disadvantaged because
they're not complying with the Dayton Accords.
QUESTION: In another story the Washington Post carried today about
Bosnian Serbs organizing paramilitary groups to carry out ethnic cleansing
and they're connected directly to the ruling party, I wonder what you have
on that?
MR. BURNS: We're looking into these claims. I think the original --
the sources, the Human Rights Watch Report, we are looking into them
because they're very serious. We do deplore and criticize in the strongest
terms the continued resistance by the Bosnian Serb authorities to the
return of the refugees to their homes and the on-going and systematic
intimidation by the Bosnian Serbs and by paramilitary units and by police
officers and by even the highest level authorities to the return of
refugees to Bosnian Serb-held territories. These are clear violations
of the Dayton Accords.
QUESTION: This seems to be connected, according to this report, to
Kijac, or rather to the whole government. Because one of the people named
as organizing this is supposedly the Defense Minister of the Bosnian Serb
Republic.
MR. BURNS: Listen, I don't know how I can be anymore clear. They can
either comply with the Dayton Accords and receive assistance and be treated
as a normal entity, or they cannot comply and continue to be ostracized.
Right now, they're being ostracized and isolated. They simply cannot --
rational-thinking members of the Bosnian Serb community -- cannot -- cannot
believe this is the right policy for the Bosnian Serb community.
QUESTION: A group of U.S. Congressmen came this morning to Belgrade.
They met with the opposition leaders. They even addressed the student
rally. But, still, there is no signal that they are going to see Milosevic
nor any representative of his government. Can you explain? What's going
on?
MR. BURNS: Not for me to explain the workings of the Serbian
Government. We would hope that Mr. Milosevic would be open to talking to
members of Congress as well as to members of our Administration. It's his
choice. It appears that he's got a bunker mentality.
QUESTION: They are not planning to see him?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: The Congressmen are not planning to see him.
They are going to Montenegro?
MR. BURNS: If he's not willing to see them, I'm sure they have no
other option but to continue on their delegation -- on their trip. All I'm
saying is that we have seen them in the past week. As you know, Dick Miles,
our Charge d'Affaires, was in to see him. It's his choice as to how he
comports himself in this crisis. But I think we've made our views
abundantly clear.
Steve.
QUESTION: Our Spanish service was asking if the State Department has
any particular reaction to the naming or the firing of the Attorney General
in Mexico?
MR. BURNS: We are aware of the fact that Mr. Lozano has been relieved
of his duties and that there is now a replacement.
Jorge Madrazo is Attorney General.
All we can say is this: We have a very important cooperation underway on
anti-narcotics efforts with the Mexican Government.
We have achieved some victories in that effort together, and we have
experienced some setbacks.
We will continue our efforts to work with the Mexicans to disrupt the
narco-traffickers and the chain of supply that leads into our cities and
our towns here in the United States. That affects both the American and
Mexican populations.
In fact, General Barry McCaffrey, who is our overall senior coordinator
of drug policy in the United States Government, will be leading an
interagency team, including officials from the State Department, to Mexico
shortly for a discussion of these efforts with the new Mexican Attorney
General.
QUESTION: Can you (inaudible) that the high-level Contact Group is
going to meet as scheduled originally in the next week?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I can. I can confirm that the high-level Contact
Group will be meeting. I don't have a specific date.
But I can tell you that General McCaffrey is determined that we continue
our efforts to work with the Mexican Government.
It was a Mexican Government decision to replace Mr. Lozano with Mr.
Madrazo. So I can't comment on that. But I can certainly comment on what
we are doing with the Mexican Government.
QUESTION: You don't think that's a major setback? Because it was a
person which the United States always expressed with very high esteem
regarding his work.
MR. BURNS: It is certainly true that we have the highest esteem for
Mr. Lozano and worked very well with him and that is a fact. We hope to
have a similar relationship with Mr. Madrazo.
We hope that President Zedillo will remain committed, and his Attorney
General will remain committed, to the fight against the narco-traffickers
and the narcotics distribution, in general.
Did you have a follow-up on this, Bill, or can we go onto --
QUESTION: Just briefly. Do you have an opinion upon the appointment of
Mr. Madrazo?
MR. BURNS: No. I said we're not going to address ourselves to it.
That's an internal question for the Mexican Government and population.
QUESTION: Briefly, can you say if you believe that this is a positive
step in the drug war?
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to characterize it in any way.
It's not for the United States Government to characterize a Cabinet change
in the Mexican Government. It's pertinent for me to comment on our
bilateral cooperation, which I have done.
QUESTION: Mr. Lozano was relieved for good reason. Do we believe
that?
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to comment in any way.
QUESTION: Non-Proliferation Talks have been going on here yesterday and
today.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What's going on with the --
MR. BURNS: Glad you asked. I meant to tell you about this. I spoke
with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bob Einhorn this morning. He has
concluded a third round -- the third round of the U. S.-South Korean Task
Force on non-proliferation discussions.
The talks centered on issues of common concern, both bilateral and
multilateral, concerning missile proliferation and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Our shared objective with the government of South Korea about its future
membership in the missile technology control regime -- we want to see South
Korea become a member of that organization, and the importance of working
with South Korea and others in implementing the chemical weapons convention.
We also discussed further cooperation in support of our mutual non-
proliferation objectives both in Asia and around the world.
They were very successful talks. I know Mr. Einhorn felt that it was
worth having them, that they made some progress and we look forward to our
future talks with the South Koreans.
QUESTION: Did allegations --
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- anything to say about long-range missiles?
MR. BURNS: I can just tell you, George, that a variety of issues came
up, including issues pertaining to South Korea's own activities; that as
South Korea looks to the future, of course, we want to make sure that, as a
member of the MTCR, it is in compliance with its commitments, and we have
every reason to believe that will be the case.
QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the South Koreans are complying
with their bilateral agreement with the United States of 1979 on the range
of their missiles?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can tell you in response to that most of these
conversations were confidential. So I can't confirm the basis of your
question. I can just say we had good discussions, constructive discussions,
confidential ones which I am not going to be talking about in public.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) outside of this meeting, just independently
confirm the fact that they -- whether or not they are complying with the
1979 agreement?
MR. BURNS: I simply have -- I have no comment to make on that
particular question.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on U.S. and North Korea delegations
meeting in Panmunjom?
MR. BURNS: No, I do not. I don't have anything for you on that.
Yes.
QUESTION: There were some reports in Madrid this morning that the house
of the Spanish Consul in Havana has been attacked.
There was some denial in Havana. Do you know anything about it?
MR. BURNS: I have seen no reports about an attack on the house of the
Spanish Consul in Havana.
QUESTION: In Madrid there were some reports that in Havana it had been
denied. You don't have anything?
MR. BURNS: No. I have seen no reports, but nothing would surprise us
about the behavior of the Cuban Government, especially when it feels
cornered, especially when it feels that it's on the defensive, which it
clearly does on the issue of human rights.
Yes, Betsy.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the blast in the subway in Paris?
MR. BURNS: All I can say is we heard about a half hour, 45 minutes,
before the briefing began about this most tragic bombing in Paris in the
St. Michel, Montparnasse area. I know that Prime Minister Juppe has spoken
out publicly about the fact that a number of people have died and a number
have been injured.
Our greatest sympathy goes to those people, families of those who have
been killed, and those who have been injured, and we obviously wish the
French Government the best of luck and good fortune in finding out who
planted this bomb.
The French Government is saying it believes it was a criminal activity,
and all of us have a stake in the fight against terrorism around the world,
and we simply have great sympathy for the French Government as it deals
with this tragedy in Paris this evening.
Yes.
QUESTION: I believe the Chinese Defense Minister is -- is he in the
United States now?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe he's -- Mr. Chi Haotian has not arrived yet
in the United States, but he will be coming for talks with Secretary Perry
and other Administration officials, people here in the State Department.
QUESTION: Another philosophical question in that he -- I think he had
quite a hand in the Tiananmen Square situation -- how does the Administration,
which has complex relations with China obviously and delicate ones, how do
you make sure that this gentleman hears the proper message that we want to
have good relations with China, and yet seek to show him our continuing
displeasure with the breakdown on human rights?
How do we prevent him from drawing the wrong message on human rights from
his visit?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you, first, that the United States Government
obviously does not choose the Chinese leadership. We deal with the
leadership that has been identified within China itself in its own
system.
Secondly, it is important that we have military discussions with the
Chinese, given the fact that we are the two largest military powers in the
Pacific.
Third, in every conversation that we have had with the Chinese leadership
over the last four years and in every conversation that we have had over
the last two weeks with President Jiang Zemin, with Premier Li Peng, with
the Foreign Minister and Vice Premier Qian Qichen, and now with the Defense
Minister, we raise the issue of human rights. All of Mr. Chi Haotian
interlocutors in Washington, at the Pentagon, at the White House, at the
State Department, will raise this issue. He will not come away from
his trip to Washington with the impression -- with any other impression but
that human rights are at the center of our relationship with China, and
will remain there.
So there will be no problem in communicating those views because that is
part of what the United States does in this relationship.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: I think we have one more question, George, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: One last on Cyprus.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Has there been any agreement or at least progress on the
moratorium on flights of Turkish and Greek airplanes over Cyprus, because
there was some talk coming from Lisbon after meetings by Carey Cavanaugh
and Cypriot officials in Lisbon?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any agreement on that particular issue,
but it's an issue of continuing concern to us, and we'll be of help if we
can.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:32 p.m.)
(###)
|
