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