Visit the Canadian Hellenic Broadcasting (CHB) Homepage Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #5, 97-01-09

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

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>


839

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, January 9, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
Introduction of Eric Rubin, Assistant Press Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, NSC................................................... 1
Secy's Mtg Today with NATO Secretary General Solana/Issue of
Enlargement/NATO-Russia Charter/Other Issues Discussed................. 1-2
Central African Republic............................................... 2
Travel by Assistant Secretary Kornblum to Europe....................... 2

SERBIA Recognition of Opposition Victory in Nix............................... 2-3

GEORGIA / DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY US Attorney's Letter to State Department/Contents of Letter/Formal Request for Immunity Waiver/Contact with Govt of Georgia/US Position on Individual Remaining in US/Receipt of Formal Report................. 3-5

RUSSIA / NATO Position on NATO Charter Negotiations and Enlargement/US Proposals Made to NATO Secy Gen Solana/Importance of CSCE Limits................. 5-7 Pres Yeltsin Health.................................................... 13-14

MIDDLE EAST Update on Hebron Talks/ Amb Ross Meetings/Allegations of Ross Bias/Pres Clinton's & Secretary Christopher's Involvement.............. 7-8

IRAQ Asst Secy Pelletreau's Mtgs Today with Kurds/Agenda for Talks/Issues... 8-9

TURKEY American Diplomat Found with Cash...................................... 9

CYPRUS Reports of Turkish Threats of Military Strike/ Carey Cavanaugh & Amb Beattie Schedules/US Negotiators /Issue for Secy-NATO Secy Gen Meeting Today/US Negotiators....................................... 9-11

NARCOTICS Amb Albright's Position Made at Confirmation Hearing/Securing US Borders/Juarez Cartel Arrests.......................................... 12-13

SOUTH KOREA ....................................................................... 13


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #5

THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1997, 1:13 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: I want to make an introduction today. Eric Rubin, who is one of our outstanding younger Foreign Service officers is going to be starting at the White House on Monday as Assistant Press Secretary for Foreign Affairs, working with our old friend, David Johnson. Eric has been training today, so he's going to just watch the State Department Press Corps at work and take those lessons onto the White House, to deal with the White House Press Corps. It's a lot easier at the White House than at the State Department. Eric, congratulations on your job.

Eric was previously assigned to our Embassy in Kiev and is now currently working as a Special Assistant to John Kornblum in our European Bureau.

I have just a couple of things to say before we go to questions. First, Secretary Christopher met this morning with the NATO Secretary General - Secretary General Solana - for a very important breakfast meeting; Deputy Secretary Talbott, Peter Tarnoff, John Kornblum and others joined the Secretary for that meeting.

The Secretary began the meeting by saying that 1997 will be one of the most important years in NATO's history because NATO is going to take the decision at the Madrid summit on July 8 to expand, to grow, and to take on new members. The road from here to Madrid is going to be a long road. It's going to be a road that has a number of very important meetings along the way.

As you may know, Secretary General Solana will be traveling to Moscow on January 19-20 to begin a series of very important negotiations with Mr. Primakov and the Russian Federation on the NATO-Russia Charter. This is the charter which we hope will accompany the decision to expand NATO in order to make this process contribute to a truly unified Europe.

So most of the discussion this morning centered on the basis for those discussions that Mr. Solana will undertake on January 19-20. Those of you who were with us in Brussels in early December will remember that the North Atlantic Council Foreign Ministers agreed at Brussels that Secretary General Solana would negotiate on behalf of the NATO countries - 16 NATO countries - with the Russian Federation on this charter.

After the meeting with Secretary Christopher, Secretary General Solana had an additional meeting with Strobe Talbott. We've had some very detailed discussions this morning about this NATO-Russia Charter, about what we, the United States, thinks should go into it. Needless to say, Secretary General Solana has the full confidence of the United States and the full trust of the United States as he begins these negotiations on behalf of the 16 NATO countries.

This is an important step along the way. We would like to achieve a NATO- Russia Charter by the Madrid summit in July. However, if those negotiations cannot be fulfilled, we will, of course, continue with the summit in Madrid and continue with our decision to decide on the new members who will be invited to become NATO members.

They also discussed the CFE Treaty and related issues, and they had a long discussion about Bosnia and about the success of IFOR. Secretary General Solana said that he had been in Sarajevo the day, I think a week ago last Friday when the Bosnian Government effectively came together - the legislature and the Council of Ministers - for the very first time. Secretary General Solana and Secretary Christopher agreed that IFOR had made a signal contribution to the effort to stabilize Bosnia over the last year.

I want to just note for you that I have a statement that we're posting in the Press Office on the Central African Republic.

The United States is concerned about the situation in the Central African Republic. The United States strongly supports a speedy resolution to the conflict between the government and the rebel factions. We call on all parties to respect the rule of law and the democratic process. We applaud the efforts of those Central Africans who are working for a peaceful solution to these political differences, particularly the very important role played by the Malian President, Amadou Toumani Touhe. We urge all parties to respect the cease-fire negotiated by the African heads of state.

I should also just add here our great support for the efforts of the French military and the French Government to maintain stability in the streets of Bangui. The French lost two soldiers last week.

Finally, two important - I think rather important notes about Central Europe and the Balkans. John Kornblum, our Assistant Secretary of State, will leave tonight for The Hague, Brussels, Sarajevo, and Zagreb, returning to the United States on January 14.

In The Hague, he will participate in the semi-annual U.S.-EU Political Directors' Consultations. He then will then go onto Brussels for a meeting of the Contact Group which will focus, in part, on the question of reconstruction assistance for Bosnia. He then proceeds to the Balkans for a series of meetings with the leaders of Croatia and Bosnia on the Dayton Accords and on many of the issues that you are familiar with from the Dayton Accords.

I have a statement that I'm issuing today that talks a little bit more in detail about what he will be doing. But needless to say, the actions of the Serbian Government will be at the focal point of Assistant Secretary Kornblum's trip.

There has been a unified international condemnation of the theft by the Serbian Government of the November 17<SUP>th elections. We hope that the Contact Group, when it meets, will reaffirm our strong opposition to the actions of the Serbian Government. In that respect, let me just say, since we did not have a briefing yesterday, we suppose that the announcement by the Serbian Government to recognize the opposition victory in Nis is a positive development but it doesn't go nearly far enough.

The Serbian Government does not have the right to grant the opposition victories that the opposition won on its own in elections. Government leaders do not decide elections; people do. Mr. Milosevic doesn't seem to have grasped that fundamental lesson about what democracy is. He is practicing a form of politics that is reminiscent of the Cold War, of communism of authoritarian rule. He can't just think that he's going to dribble out over the space of several weeks or several months these minor concessions to the democratic opposition or to the international community and expect that we're going to applaud him. He must recognize, as the OSCE mission led by Felipe Gonzalez attested the November 17<SUP>th elections - all of them, in all of the constituencies. He's got to do that before he can think that he's going to have a normal relationship with the United States and with our partners in Europe. That will be a focal point of John Kornblum's trip to Europe beginning this evening.

George.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to the date on the case involving the Georgian diplomat, please?

MR. BURNS: I'd be very glad to do that. I think you all know that the U.S. Attorney held a press conference. He talked to the press last night. The U.S. Attorney has sent a letter to the State Department. I don't believe we've released that letter. It's up to the U.S. Attorney to decide whether or not he wants to. But let me just go over the letter with you so that we're all dealing with the set of facts.

The State Department received a letter last night from the U.S. Attorney which essentially says that based on the evidence available at the preliminary stage of the investigation, the U.S. Attorney believes that it has sufficient evidence to present this matter to a Grand Jury.

The letter states that the charges that the U.S. Attorney's Office might seek from the Grand Jury may range from negligent homicide to second degree murder. The letter requests that the State Department seeks from the Government of George a waiver of Mr. Makharadze's diplomatic immunity. The letter also states that the U.S. Attorney's Office will be sending to the State Department as soon as possible further information concerning the investigation so that we might provide that information to the Government of Georgia.

We have informed the Government of Georgia - we did last evening and again today - about the contents of the letter from the U.S. Attorney. We've seen this morning from the Government Georgia, in Tbilisi, a statement by the Foreign Minister which is actually quite forthcoming - a statement that does speak about the personal responsibility that diplomats should take in incidents like this, possibly where criminal charges may be brought. It speaks about the fact that the Government of Georgia will extend its full cooperation to the United States. It states quite clearly that the Government of Georgia understands that Mr. Makharadze must remain in the United States during the course of this investigation.

I'd like to make clear on behalf of the State Department, once the investigation is complete - meaning, once the State Department has received the full investigative report from the U.S. Attorney - that has not yet been received here at the State Department - the

United States will formally request a waiver of immunity from the Government of Georgia. This is a very serious criminal case. A young woman has died. We believe the Government of Georgia ought to maintain and continue its full cooperation with us and consider very seriously lifting this person's diplomatic immunity so that he may face trial in the United States. That is our position. He will remain in the United States, and we hope that he and his associates at the Georgian Embassy will remain available for questioning by the police authorities and by the U.S. Attorney.

QUESTION: But you have no way of ensuring that he would stay in the United States, do you?

MR. BURNS: We have no way of insisting that he stay in the United States or incarcerating him in order to ensure his continuation in the United States. What we have this morning, Jim, is a very important statement from the Georgian Foreign Minister that he will remain in the United States. We have the word of the Georgian Government. We expect that that will be honored, and we have every reason to think it will be.

QUESTION: A follow up?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have an idea when you'll get the full report from the U.S. Attorney's Office? And when you do, what kind of turnaround time are we talking before you go to the Georgian Embassy with a formal request?

MR. BURNS: We don't know when the full investigative report will be sent to us. This is a very complicated case. Obviously, if the U.S. Attorney is thinking of a Grand Jury action, then I'm sure they'll want to have all their ducks in order, all the information collected and analyzed. So I can't anticipate when that will be. We've been led to believe it will probably not be this week.

I can tell you, we at the State Department have been seized by this issue. We've put a lot of effort into considering what our responsibilities are. I would fully expect that once that report is received in the State Department, given everything else we know about this case and have heard from the U.S. Attorney and the Washington, DC police, there will be an exceedingly quick turnaround by the State Department, meaning that I believe we would be in touch with the Georgian Government very quickly, after the receipt of the report, to formally request the lifting of this man's diplomatic immunity.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Just to clarify things, the word from the Georgian Government, in Tbilisi, this morning only relates to his staying here for the investigation - until it's complete. It in no way implies that they will leave him here for trial; is that correct or incorrect?

MR. BURNS: That's the way I read the press announcement from Tbilisi. But I would also add, Charlie, that the Georgian Foreign Minister repeated some of what Chairman Shevardnadze indicated in his early letter on this last weekend, which is that the Georgian Government believes that there should be a measure of accountability and responsibility here. What that means, how that translates, whether or not that means that they would agree to a lifting of his diplomatic immunity, we'll just have to see. They have not given us a commitment on that. They've not, I think, given us any indication as far as I know of what decision they would make. But they've clearly got to be thinking about that.

I think they understand the seriousness of these charges and these allegations. I think they understand the emotional impact that it's had here in the Washington, DC area and, frankly, beyond the Washington, DC area.

Carol.

QUESTION: To go back to the Russian issue with NATO. There have been reports recently that Yeltsin has hardened his position on the elements of a charter and that this was communicated to Kohl at their meeting. Does the United States believe that Yeltsin has hardened his position?

MR. BURNS: First of all, Carol, Mike McCurry, I think, gave a short summary of President Clinton's conversation with Chancellor Kohl, and I would refer you to that. It was quite general, I understand. I cannot speak about the Yeltsin-Kohl discussions. That's for the German and Russian Governments to speak about. But you've asked a good question.

The Russians have been opposed to the idea of NATO expansion for three years - since January 10, 1994. We're one day short of three years. They've been consistent in that. We have heard from the Russian leadership - Yeltsin, Chernomyrdin, Primakov, Kozyrev before him - fluctuations of concern over the last three years, but they've been fairly consistent about their opposition, in general. They do know that we're going ahead. NATO will go ahead on July 8 in Madrid.

The importance of these charter negotiations is to ensure the Russians that we want them to participate in the security life of the West, and we want to have a mechanism whereby NATO and Russia can ensure that we continue to live at peace and we continue to, in fact, cooperate together militarily. Whether they're hardening or not, I can't say that we believe that they're hardening because it's always been a very tough, difficult issue between us.

QUESTION: But you acknowledge that there have been fluctuations. Sometimes -

MR. BURNS: There have been fluctuations.

QUESTION: And sometimes you seem more amenable to it than others. How would you characterize the Russian position at this time?

MR. BURNS: My own impression is that the Russian position of the last several weeks is quite consistent with what we heard from Mr. Primakov throughout the autumn and indeed at the Berlin NATO Ministerial last June, which is opposition.

QUESTION: Have they asked for new and stronger - a new and stronger Russian role? For instance, there is a report that Yeltsin has asked for a legally binding commitment that Russia would have a decision-making role with NATO?

MR. BURNS: I should be clear about one thing. We and NATO have had a lot of conversations with the Russian Government over the last three years, but particularly since about the time of the Berlin NATO meeting last June until now. But they've been mainly bilateral discussions - the United States with the Russians, Germany with the Russians, France with the Russians.

Now we have on January 19<SUP>th and 20th the beginning of the formal negotiations which Secretary General Solana will lead for NATO. He will speak on behalf of all NATO countries. I think all the NATO countries have heard a variety of things, sometimes contradictory, from the Russians over the last six months, eight months or so. We really won't know for sure, I think, what the Russian position is on these details until these negotiations start.

QUESTION: But how does it strike you? I mean, would the United States be inclined to consider some kind of legally binding commitment that would insure Russia's participation in NATO decision-making?

MR. BURNS: I think one thing is clear, and I know that Secretary Perry and Secretary Christopher have both spoken to this many times. No country outside of NATO will have a veto over NATO decision-making. Carol, you've asked a very specific question. We're just going to have to see how these NATO-Russia negotiations go. The United States will not be making the decision for NATO - it's a collective enterprise - and Secretary General Solana will have to lead us through this process over the next six months or so.

I cannot anticipate what specific decisions we're going to arrive at. We do hope to accomplish the accord, but again if the negotiations drag out, we will continue with our objectives of announcing the new countries at Madrid.

QUESTION: One last question. Can you say anything about any proposals or ideas that the United States may have given Solana today?

MR. BURNS: Secretary General Solana was given, I think, a very detailed and clear view of the objectives that the United States believes that NATO should have, and on some of the detail questions what we think NATO's position should be. But, of course, I can't go into that publicly.

Sid.

QUESTION: Nick, so there's not yet a unified NATO position on what - at least from NATO's side what this charter should be - what it should look like?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I think there's a pretty clear idea, that Secretary General Solana has on behalf on all of us, of what our objective is, what the outlines of an agreement should be. But again, in any negotiation, since you can't anticipate all the tactical questions that will arise, there will be a process of the Secretary General having to come back to the NATO community - the Sixteen - over the course of the next couple of months to decide some of these important tactical questions that Carol's been asking about.

Yes, Ugur.

QUESTION: On the same issue. What importance do you think the CSCE limits on the Caucasus and flanks - what kind of a role it will play in these negotiations? Will the United States insist on the original limits, or are you ready to cut some slack for Russia on this issue?

MR. BURNS: The CFE Treaty and all of the discussions since its signing in 1990 - all of that is important. In fact, for the Russian Government and for us and others, it's one of the most important issues being discussed these days on European security. It does not have, however - a CFE Treaty - a formal role in the NATO-Russia charter negotiations, but it provides part of the backdrop to it.

QUESTION: Nick, on another subject, can you bring us up to date on how Dennis Ross is doing? There are reports that the negotiations are <I>in extremis.</I>

MR. BURNS: Yes. Secretary Christopher spoke to Dennis Ross this morning. He remains - Dennis - engaged in these negotiations. He is right now in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Earlier today he had a meeting with some Palestinian leaders - not Chairman Arafat but some other Palestinian leaders. Dennis is still taking this on a day-to-day basis. We obviously have always remained hopeful that this agreement can be secured. It has not yet been secured, and that's up to the Palestinians and the Israelis to do.

Sid.

QUESTION: Speaking of Dennis, Hanan Ashrawi had some comments this morning about Dennis - nothing new - but she said again that they think, at least at Dennis' level, the United States is biased in favor of Israel. She said that at this point the only solution is for President Clinton to become involved.

MR. BURNS: That's really an extraordinary claim to make, if you think about it, and an extraordinarily unwise remark to make. Think of it this way. The Palestinians and the Israelis have invited the United States to be the sole intermediary in these talks, and they have specifically invited Dennis Ross to be the person who sits with them day by day. I think if they truly believed - either side - that he was biased, they wouldn't have him at the talks. There's too much at stake for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, so frankly you ought not to pay too much attention to this, because we have not heard this from the people who count.

I would also say this: President Clinton was in touch with Chairman Arafat a number of days ago. He has been involved in this. He's been regularly briefed on this. He made a phone call from, as you know, when he was on vacation to intercede in this matter. Secretary Christopher was in touch with Dennis Ross every day of his own leave in California - was in touch with him all throughout this past weekend, all this week and this morning.

There is fully adequate Presidential and Secretary of State involvement in these negotiations. The Palestinians and Israelis know that Dennis Ross works directly for President Clinton and Secretary Christopher. And indeed the last point I would make is, because I'm so amazed by this charge, there is nobody who has greater credibility in the Middle East among the Palestinians and the Israelis than Dennis Ross. So I think these charges should be just cast aside.

QUESTION: Nick, did you have a meeting with the Kurds - did Mr. Pelletreau have a meeting with the Kurds today?

MR. BURNS: Assistant Secretary Pelletreau is meeting with the KDP and the other delegations; not Barzani and Talabani, but the two delegations. He's assisted by the Turks and, of course, representatives of the United Kingdom. We'll probably have something to say at the end of the day, but probably not much. These are preliminary negotiations to try to make sure that we can contribute to stability in northern Iraq.

What happens after these negotiations - do they move to a higher level with Talabani and Barzani - we'll just have to see.

QUESTION: Can you confirm -

QUESTION: So they're still going on?

MR. BURNS: I believe they are, yes. They haven't been completed yet, and I'll try to get you from our very helpful Near East Bureau a full readout of this after the talks have concluded.

QUESTION: At least can you confirm if revenue sharing is part of these talks?

MR. BURNS: You know, I don't want to go into the specific agenda for the talks. You wouldn't want me to do that, would you? (Laughter)

QUESTION: Yes, that's why I'm -

MR. BURNS: Would you really?.

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Pelletreau tomorrow.

MR. BURNS: You would? I'm not sure the KDP and PUK want us to reveal the specific agenda of these talks, and we have to respect that. We're talking here about the efforts to consolidate the cease-fire, maintain stability in northern Iraq, make sure that Saddam's influence is severely limited, and promote some kind of a reconciliation between these two Kurdish groups, as well as the Assyrians and the other minority communities of northern Iraq. I can't promise you Bob Pelletreau. He's very busy these days.

QUESTION: Since we are in the same region, there was a -

MR. BURNS: You're stuck with me.

QUESTION: There was a report in Turkish press about an American diplomat named Ahmed Mohammad Al-Moktar. He was, I think, in the Turkish city of Diyarbakir with $90,000 cash, and there was all this hoopla in the press as to his intentions, because the story was he was going to northern Iraq.

MR. BURNS: He was an American diplomat with $90,000 cash in his pocket in Diyarbakir.

QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter)

MR. BURNS: I know nothing about this.

QUESTION: You know nothing about it?

MR. BURNS: Nothing about this.

QUESTION: Can you confirm, if this gentleman is an American diplomat?

MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to look into it. I don't know the gentleman. I don't know if he is an American diplomat. If he is, I'll be glad to confirm that. We'll take the question.

Yasmine. Still on this?

QUESTION: Still on Turkey - actually on Cyprus. Turkish officials have threatened to strike the military targets in Cyprus. Do you have anything on that?

MR. BURNS: We sure do have a comment on that. First of all, we hope very much that this report from the Anatolian News Service is incorrect. We hope that it does not reflect in any way, shape or form the views of the Turkish Government. There can be no question that Turkey must respect the rules of the road here, which are: no country, and specifically in this case Turkey, should threaten the use of military force against Cyprus. No country, specifically here Turkey, should undertake military force against Cyprus.

The United States has made very clear its position on the SA-10s. We're opposed to their deployment. The deployment, I understand, will not take place for perhaps 16 to 18 months from now. A purchase contract has been signed. There's no reason for the Turkish Government to run off and threaten anybody, and they should not do so. We need peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean. We need through the efforts of our envoy, Carey Cavanaugh, to try to convince the parties that we should re-energize the political talks on Cyprus. It's no time for the Turkish Government to be making wild and dramatic statements which will not, of course, be supported by any sensible member of the international community.

We warned the other day that it would be completely out of bounds for Turkey to take this action, and we reaffirm that today.

QUESTION: Nick, when you said Anatolian News Agency story is incorrect, you checked it, and nobody in Turkey uttered such a statement?

MR. BURNS: No. I said I hope that this news service report does not reflect the views of anyone in the Turkish Government. We hope this is some kind of misunderstanding or editorial mistake or reporters running amok or whatever it is. But, if it truly does represent the intentions of the Turkish Government, then you've heard what I have to say in Points 2, 3, 4 and 5 of my comment.

QUESTION: Is Carey Cavanaugh sticking to his original schedule?

MR. BURNS: I believe he is. I'm not aware that he's deviated from it, but, if you're interested, why don't you call the European Bureau and ask them.

QUESTION: Nick, is Cavanaugh now the main negotiator on Cyprus? I mean, what happened to Beattie, and all the other guys?

MR. BURNS: No, the principal negotiator is Mr. Beattie - Dick Beattie.

QUESTION: So where's he? Why isn't he going?

MR. BURNS: He's the Presidential envoy, but he's not the day-to-day negotiatior. Carey Cavanaugh, who is our Director for Southeast European Affairs, is our day-to-day person in charge. But, of course, Ambassador Beattie is the President and Secretary of State's primary diplomat. We just felt, given the developments in Cyprus this week, it was very important that he go out there to try to stabilize - at least inject some U.S. influence to encourage stability and discourage the kind of statements that we've seen today from this news agency.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the situation seems to be so serious - it seems to me that the man who is appointed the special envoy of the President would be the one - I mean, what's his job if he doesn't go at a time like this?

MR. BURNS: His job, of course, is to direct our efforts at resuming the political negotiations on Cyprus, and he's doing an excellent job in that. We do have, Carol, as you know, a very fine Ambassador, Ken Brill, in Cyprus - very fine Ambassadors in Greece and Turkey in Tom Miles and Marc Grossman, and those Ambassadors speak, obviously, for the President and the Secretary of State on a daily basis.

Marc Grossman, our Ambassador to Turkey, met this morning with the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erbakan, and they discussed a wide variety of issues concerning the United States and Turkey, and I wouldn't be at all surprised is this issue of Cyprus came up in that discussion.

QUESTION: Well, that still didn't really answer the question of why Beattie, if this is -

MR. BURNS: But that was my answer. The fact is you don't always need to have your special emissary, special negotiators from Washington, run out every time there is a problem. We do have very well qualified American Ambassadors, and in these three countries three of our best Foreign Service Officers - highly capable professional diplomats - and we have great confidence in them.

Dimitris.

QUESTION: Nick, if Turkey continues to make such threats against Cyprus, what kind of specific actions the U.S. Government plans to make?

MR. BURNS: We'll leave that to our discussions with the Turkish Government. But, obviously, as a fellow member of NATO, there can be no question that Turkey must not threaten Cyprus - not question about it - and the Turks know that. We thought we'd remind them of that central fact today.

QUESTION: Did the issue come up at all this morning in the meeting with Solana?

MR. BURNS: With Secretary General Solana? There was a very brief reference to the Greek-Turkish problems between Secretary Christopher and Secretary Solana, yes, and I know it's on Secretary Christopher's mind. In a meeting this morning, there was a discussion of this great difficulty that all of us in NATO have over these continued tensions between, in this case, Greece and Turkey as opposed to Greece and Cyprus. Secretary General Solana, of course, is aware of that, and all of us in NATO are trying to work to diminish the provocations and the tensions and the concerns that are clearly present between Greece and Turkey.

QUESTION: Nick, can I change the subject to drugs. In the confirmation hearings yesterday, Madeleine Albright agreed, I believe in response to a question, that drugs and the collateral corruption that comes with drugs were the greatest threat to the security of the United States. My question to you is does this Department: (1) agree with that statement and -

MR. BURNS: With Ambassador Albright's statement?

QUESTION: Yes, with that particular statement.

MR. BURNS: That's an easy question.

QUESTION: Okay. That's an easy question.

MR. BURNS: I can even answer without you finishing the rest of your question.

QUESTION: Well, I have another one for you. It goes along with it. Diane Feinstein had raised the issue of while there have been some arrests in the Juarez cartel, and what does that do to the Juarez cartel effectiveness? But, secondly, more importantly, why haven't there been arrests made in Tijuana? She couldn't understand that either. I asked you that question on Monday, Nick.

MR. BURNS: First of all, let me just state for the record the official position of the State Department and my position personally. I agree with everything that Madeleine Albright said yesterday, and I thought she was absolutely superb in the hearing, and I'm sure you agree.

QUESTION: I definitely agree, especially on this particular subject.

MR. BURNS: Thank you.

QUESTION: Now, the Customs Commissioner this morning stated that he was quite concerned that the battle for restricting the flow of drugs in the United States was not being won; it was not being lost, but that there was not steady progress on that. Could you comment on that particular issue?

MR. BURNS: I did not see the statement of the Customs Officials, but I can tell you that, as Ambassador Albright said yesterday, from the President on down, this is one of our major concerns and major priorities, and that is to secure the borders of the United States but also to diminish the flow of narcotics into the United States. General McCaffrey is in charge of U.S. Government policy and reporting to the President, and he is doing an excellent job on this.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. Excuse me, Nick, for interrupting you. Do you have any specific comment on the Juarez cartel arrests and how that might affect the drugs coming through that part of Texas?

MR. BURNS: I don't have a comment on that. I don't.

QUESTION: Nick, on another subject. Have you been reading the reports about the violence in the streets of South Korean cities following the labor law changes?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you take any position (1) on the government's new legislation, and (2) their action in face of the strikers?

MR. BURNS: Frankly, I think this is one of those cases where I'm not sure it's appropriate at this point for the United States to inject itself into this dispute which is clearly domestic - domestic to, internal to the Republic of Korea.

The extent of our concerns, where I can comment, would be the safety of American citizens. Our Embassy in Seoul, of course, has made it clear to the American community that they ought to avoid parts of Seoul where these demonstrations are taking place. That just stands to reason. I don't think at this point that it makes sense for the United States to intervene here.

QUESTION: From the news reports, anyway, it sounds like the actions of the police raise human rights questions which would be a legitimate interest of the United States. Do you believe that there has been abuse?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe we're in a position to make that judgment yet. We do have, of course, the annual human rights reports. I know that the report on the Republic of Korea will include this year, as it has in past years, a section on worker's rights. That is one of the issues, as you know, that is at play here. I think we'll have to wait until the release of that report for a statement. But I don't believe that we've had sufficient U.S. Embassy, at least, monitoring of what's going on in the streets, to be fair, about whether or not there has been some kind of fundamental violation of rights here.

Human rights do concern us. When we think that there are egregious violations of human rights, we do devote resources to it and we do make comments, but I don't believe we're at that stage.

Steve.

QUESTION: Has the United States had any deeper explanation from the Kremlin as to what is up with President Yeltsin - his health, his re- hospitalization, allegedly, for pneumonia?

MR. BURNS: We've seen the Kremlin's statements this morning concerning President Yeltsin's health that clearly indicate that he has pneumonia. We've seen through the services of CNN the testimony of Dr. DeBakey who is quite familiar with President Yeltsin personally and the situation, in general. Certainly, we hope that President Yeltsin fully recovers from this illness.

We don't have any specific information, Steve. We did receive from the Russian Government the kind of general information that CNN and others are reporting on the air, but no specific insights that we can offer you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(Press briefing concluded at 1:47 p.m.)

(###)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01 run on Friday, 10 January 1997 - 14:49:54 UTC