U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #6, 97-01-10

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>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Friday, January 10, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
       1 Secretary Christopher's Address at Harvard University
     1-2 Carey Cavanaugh's Trip to Europe on Cyprus
    2,21 Ambassador Pelletreau's Talks with Kurdish Factions
       2 "This Day in Diplomacy" Series
GEORGIA / DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
    3,7 Statement by President Shevardnadze Re: Mr. Makharadze's Diplomatic
        Immunity
    4-5 U.S. Policy on Diplomatic Immunity
      5 U.S. Relations with Georgia
6-7,8-9 Legal/Diplomatic Procedures
    7-8 Post-Cold War Practice of Diplomatic Immunity
  10-11 Possibility of Makharadze Fleeing the U.S.
CYPRUS
  11-14 Reports of Turkish Threats of Military Strike/U.S.  Position on
        Sale of System to Cyprus/Official U.S. Contacts/Effect on Turkey's
        Security
MIDDLE EAST
  15-16 Update on Hebron Talks/ Amb Ross Meetings/Arafat's Reported Trip to
        France
KAZAKSTAN
  16-17 Death of American Journalist
CHINA/RUSSIA
  17-18 Reported Missile Deal
NORTH KOREA
  18-19 New York Talks
SERBIA/CROATIA/BOSNIA
  19-21 Cooperation with War Crimes Tribunal/Arrest of Alleged War
        Criminals/Role of SFOR
COLOMBIA
     21 Death of U.S. Pilot

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #6

FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1997 1:38 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department.

I want to let you all know that Secretary Christopher will be traveling to Boston, Massachusetts, next Wednesday, to Harvard University. He'll be giving his farewell address as Secretary of State to the students and faculty of Harvard. We'll make that available to all of you back here at the State Department. I'm not sure right now to see if we can pipe it in or give you a copy of the text as he begins to deliver it. I'll try to get it piped in, because we do want to make this available to you.

This will be an opportunity for the Secretary to reflect on the last four years on the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration; to look ahead at the priorities for the

United States in the future, particularly on this issue of resources for the State Department and diplomatic readiness that he and Ambassador Albright and others have been talking about.

So that will be at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 15^th, at Harvard University.

QUESTION: Will there be Q&A?

MR. BURNS: There will be Q&A, yes. Following his address, he'll take questions from the students and the faculty at Harvard, as is his custom when he travels around the United States.

I also wanted to let you know that Carey Cavanaugh, our envoy for southeast Europe left last night for his trip to Europe concerning the problems on Cyprus. Today, he's in The Hague with Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum for a meeting of the European Union Troika Political Directors. After his meetings in The Hague, Mr. Cavanaugh will travel to Cyprus on Sunday and Monday; to Greece from Monday night until Wednesday, and then to Turkey from Wednesday evening until Friday, returning here probably late a week from today, late on January 17^th.

In Cyprus, we expect that Mr. Cavanaugh will see President Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash, among others. In Greece and Turkey, he'll meet with Foreign Ministry officials. I think you know that we've been concerned by the escalation of rhetoric in the eastern Mediterranean over the last couple of days, and Mr. Cavanaugh is an experienced diplomat. His objective is to talk to the Greeks and Turks, to the Cypriot Government, to the other parties on Cyprus, about this situation in an attempt to see if we can revive some momentum toward discussions concerning the Cyprus problem.

I'll be glad to go into any of this, should you like, when we get to the question-and-answer period. He's going to be urging the parties to implement concrete actions that will reduce tensions immediately. This would include eliminating of the provocative military exercises that we've all seen in the eastern Mediterranean, to taking steps to reduce overall military activities, and to improve safety along the cease-fire lines on Cyprus itself. I'm sure we'll get into a discussion of this, because I know there have been some significant comments on this situation today from the region.

Two more things. I wanted to let you know that Ambassador Bob Pelletreau completed his talks yesterday here at the Department with the various Kurdish factions, with the representatives of the KDP, the PUK, the Turkish Government and the United Kingdom.

The talks were part of our effort to consolidate the cease-fire in northern Iraq and to try to promote some kind of reconciliation among the population of northern Iraq; not only the Kurdish groups but also the Assyrians and the other minority groups.

This particular round was a preparation for talks in Ankara next week. Ambassador Pelletreau will be traveling to Ankara for talks with the KDP and PUK, along with the Turkish Government and the U.K. I don't know if Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani will be participating in those talks. That's going to be up to those two leaders.

Finally, before we go to questions, we are issuing today another public statement, in our series of public statements, which is designed to highlight the role of diplomacy as part of American national security. "This Day in Diplomacy" talks about the Olney-Puncefote Arbitration Treaty. Tomorrow - and I know that the wires may want to ask for a - if we had the old system, the wires would have asked for a filing break on this - but tomorrow marks the 100^th anniversary of the signing of the Olney- Poncefote Arbitration Treaty.

This little known but historically important international treaty, although never ratified, had far-reaching - (laughter) - had far-reaching consequences for the United States and Great Britain, the signatory powers. This was during the administration of President William McKinley, and it helped to mediate a dispute along the Venezuelan-British Guianan border. Richard Olney was a distinguished Secretary of State who had his hand in this, and I commend this very detailed public statement by the State Department for you.

But the larger point here is that we here in the Department would like you and the press to remember some of the great moments in American diplomatic history, and that's why we issue these from time to time.

George.

QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on the case involving the Georgian diplomat, with particular emphasis on your interpretations of the conditions that President Shevardnadze has imposed for the envoy remaining here?

MR. BURNS: I think you all know that President Eduard Shevardnadze made a statement this morning in Tbilisi, in which he said that he, as President of Georgia, was prepared to lift the diplomatic immunity of Mr. Makharadze, should in fact the U.S. Attorney decide to bring charges.

Let me just say this is a courageous step by President Shevardnadze.

The United States welcomes this step by President Shevardnadze.

It's also highly unusual in modern diplomacy for a head of state to take a step like this. But given the emotions in the United States, given the feelings of the family and the local community here in Washington, D.C., we think it's the appropriate step for the Government of Georgia to take.

We understand from the Georgian Ambassador that Mr. Makharadze is in Washington, D.C., and President Shevardnadze did indicate in his public statement that he expected Mr. Makharadze to remain in the United States throughout this period of investigation.

You know that the U.S. Attorney who spoke the other night to you is considering criminal charges against Mr. Makharadze. It is up to the U.S. Attorney, obviously, and judicial authorities to determine the next steps in this, but the position of the Department of State and the U.S. Government has been that his diplomatic immunity ought to be lifted.

QUESTION: The Georgian Embassy here released a couple page statement about an hour ago. Have you had a chance to see that?

MR. BURNS: I have not had a chance to see the Georgian Embassy statement. I assume that we have it.

(TO STAFF) Chris (Bush), if you want to go check and maybe just bring it to me, and we can look at it during the course of the briefing.

I'm surprised I don't have it. I should have it. But, Sid, I'll be glad to take any questions. I'm not sure what I can say, if you want me to do a textual analysis or -

QUESTION: I'll pass on that one.

MR. BURNS: Good.

QUESTION: Well, basically it says what - it expands on what Shevardnadze said. It says that the reason - it based its initial decision to withdraw Mr. Makharadze on precedence - some by the United States withdrawing diplomats in similar situations -- and it refers to the case in Great Britain which he described a couple of days ago, and that's basically it. So -

MR. BURNS: Question?

QUESTION: Yes. I mean - and it says it reversed itself because of Secretary Christopher's intervention and in the interests of maintaining good relations. But it did specifically cite precedence by the United States for its initial decision.

MR. BURNS: I'm not sure that one can trace any kind of established precedence here, Sid. The fact is that most countries have to look at these instances on a case-by-case basis. As Glyn and I have told you this week, there are times when the United States has refused to lift diplomatic immunity, and there are times when we have lifted diplomatic immunity. That is also true of a number of other countries. But we can only concentrate on this particular case. Very serious criminal charges have been brought -- very serious concern by the family and by the friends of the family.

Yesterday, Secretary Christopher, who has followed this case from day one, everyday of the last week, looked at this again; talked with a number of our senior people here; and he was concerned by the direction in which this case was heading about 24 hours ago. Secretary Christopher instructed that we call in the Georgian Ambassador yesterday at 3:00 p.m., which we did, and he also sent a letter to President Shevardnadze overnight. In that letter, Secretary Christopher made a request that Mr. Makharadze remain in the United States, and that the Georgian Government consider lifting diplomatic immunity.

We were very pleased then that President Shevardnadze took the action that he did this morning. I want to accentuate how important this action is, how unusual it is, and how courageous it is. We think that he is adopting here a reasonable and responsible course.

QUESTION: The Secretary, in summoning the Ambassador, of course, was after he found out that the Embassy in Tbilisi had been formally notified that Makharadze would be withdrawn, is that not correct?

MR. BURNS: Yes, that's right, Sid. We have heard a variety of things from the Georgian Government over the last 24 to 48 hours, and we did understand yesterday that there was an intention that Mr. Makharadze would leave the United States. But I think, as in most governments, sometimes there are miscommunications, but most governments, if not all, are hierarchical. In this case, the leader of the government has made the final decision, and that's what counts, and I think we need to give credit to President Shevardnadze for having made a very difficult but courageous decision.

QUESTION: Nick, are you concerned - as Spokesman for the State Department, is the State Department concerned that this kind of precedence would have a negative effect perhaps in the future upon the United States' ability to use diplomatic immunity for its own diplomats, since it has gone so far out on a limb to demand that the Georgians waive it in a case like this?

MR. BURNS: No, we're not concerned, and for the following reason. This criminal charge - if in fact a criminal charge is going to be made - but the criminal allegations are very serious, and they're unusual. These kinds of incidents are not the pattern of diplomatic behavior either by foreign diplomats in the United States or by American diplomats overseas.

Again, all nations need to be responsible as we apply diplomatic immunity. We need to make our decisions on a case-by-case basis.

I think we have to commend the Georgian Government in this instance.

We do believe in diplomatic immunity. It's been the law of the United States since 1790. It has worked well for us for over two centuries, because it provides protection for our diplomats, especially in countries that do not have an established tradition of the rule of law.

I think that any fair observer would say that the United States does have that kind of tradition, and that in this country people can receive a fair trial. That may have made a difference here in the actions of the Georgian Government. But if you look at the situation in Cuba or the situation in Serbia, I don't think we want to see anyone tried in either of those two countries - certainly not American diplomats - because they wouldn't receive fair trials.

QUESTION: Nick, in his conversation yesterday, did the Secretary suggest that there might be some costs involved to Georgia if diplomatic immunity were not waived?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe that was part of the Secretary's letter. It was not part of our discussion with the Georgians.

QUESTION: Well, did anybody in any way suggest to the Georgian Government that U.S. aid or good relations with the United States might suffer if this were not -

MR. BURNS: We've heard some of the calls publicly over the last couple of days that if the Georgian Government doesn't act to lift Mr. Makharadze's diplomatic immunity, then we should cut off American aid to Georgia. Frankly, we do not agree with that. We have an important relationship with Georgia. Georgia is a country that has been freed from communist rule and from the tyranny of the Soviet Union. It's a country that's trying to build itself. President Shevardnadze has set out a democratic and market-reform path for Georgia, although they have very difficult conditions there. We don't think it makes sense for the United States to penalize the entire country of Georgia for the seemingly irresponsible actions of one of its diplomats, so we do not agree with that call.

QUESTION: In some cases like this, the Administration has been known to say, "It's not us who is going to do it, but it will be Congress, and Congress has its own mind in these matters, and you should be aware of the possibility down the line that Congress might react." Was that suggested in any way?

MR. BURNS: I assume the Georgians have heard the call by Senator Gregg and others for a cutoff of American aid, but we have not used that in our discussions, as far as I'm aware.

It was not part of the Secretary's letter. We've tried to deal with the Georgian Government responsibly and fairly, and certainly we have the greatest respect for President Shevardnadze. No threats were made.

I think Secretary Christopher's letter was written in a tone that would suggest that we felt there was a sense of responsibility that had to be included in the equation, and I think President Shevardnadze has stepped up to the plate on that score.

QUESTION: Nick, on a couple of things. First of all, the U.S. Attorney's office is telling some reporters that there may be a problem here, because they cannot bring charges until diplomatic immunity has been waived. It is not clear - it appears that diplomatic immunity has not been waived yet. Could you clarify for us, how's this going to proceed now? Have you -

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to.

QUESTION: That's my first question.

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to. If you look at President Shevardnadze's statement, he says that he, as leader of Georgia, is prepared to waive the diplomatic immunity of Gueorgui Makharadze.

He also says that he reaffirms his concern over the car accident caused by the Georgian diplomat which resulted in the loss of human life. The Government of Georgia - at least to my knowledge and at the time of this briefing - has not taken the step of formally lifting the diplomatic immunity of Gueorgui Makharadze. But the President of Georgia has said that they are prepared to do that.

The action now is very much between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Georgian Government; in this case, Mr. Makharadze. As the U.S. Attorney said the other evening, they are preparing a criminal case. They are considering that. The U.S. Attorney has not, however, pressed formal charges. So that's the next step in this. Once that happens, of course, then it will be up to - or at least once the U.S. Attorney finishes his work, it will be up to the Government of Georgia to consider whether it will take the formal step of lifting the diplomatic immunity of Mr. Makharadze.

QUESTION: That point of sort of legal niceties or diplomatic niceties, what comes first? Can the U.S. Attorney legally file or announce or submit formal charges against Mr. Makharadze in the absence of diplomatic immunity having been waived?

MR. BURNS: David, I think your best source on that is the U.S. Attorney's Office. They've been talking to the press.

QUESTION: They are saying they can't.

MR. BURNS: I would obviously trust the word of the U.S. Attorney on this and the professional view of the U.S. Attorney.

It doesn't mean that charges cannot be brought. I think you'll hear that from the U.S. Attorney. They will need to work, as they normally do, under normal procedures, with the Georgian Government to adjudicate the next steps forward. There will certainly come a time when the Georgian Government has to consider whether it's going to formally lift the diplomatic immunity.

QUESTION: Another point of information, really. The statement by Mr. Shevardnadze appears to have a conditional phrase on the question of Mr. Makharadze staying in the country. It says, "Unless a different agreement between the two governments is reached." You don't take that conditional phrase to address the waiving as well, do you? In other words, he has said he's prepared to waive diplomatic immunity without regard to any future steps of the U.S. Attorney.

MR. BURNS: I think if you read the statement which is separated by paragraphs, the clause, "Unless a different agreement between the two governments is reached," pertains to whether or not he's going to be remaining in the United States.

It does not pertain to the statement that is very clear to us that he's prepared - "he," the President of Georgia - is prepared to waive the diplomatic immunity of Mr. Makharadze.

This language is the language of the Georgian Government. This is not a U.S. Government statement. We did not work this out with the Georgian Government. It's their language. I would refer you to them for an analysis of these clauses and why they included them.

But our position is very clear here. We have said consistently and publicly over the last couple of days, we think the Georgian Government should agree to lift or waive Mr. Makharadze's diplomatic immunity.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say that the U.S. Government will not agree to Mr. Makharadze leaving the country?

MR. BURNS: We have the word of the Georgian President that he will not leave the country during the course of this investigation - the word of the Georgian President is good enough for us.

QUESTION: One more question, if I may - if my colleagues will indulge me one more time. Do you think that this whole business of diplomatic immunity and how it's handled, de facto, is changing now since the Cold War is over? Is it your impression that we are seeing a shift here both in the policies of former Soviet-bloc countries and possibly in response in the policies of the United States?

MR. BURNS: David, I don't think that the end of the Cold War has brought a great difference in the way that countries look at the practice of diplomatic immunity. It preceded by two centuries - at least, in the case of the United States - the Cold War and it preceded by many millennia the Cold War because it was first practiced in ancient Egypt. It was practiced throughout ancient times in Greece and Rome throughout the Middle Ages. It's an ancient diplomatic practice, recently codified in the Vienna Convention of 1961.

Diplomatic immunity makes sense for the United States because it means that several thousand of our own diplomats are protected in often hostile and capricious environments where you cannot assume that the rule of law will be followed, that a government will not - for

instance, the Government of Cuba will not elect to bring our diplomats in front of a hostile court on trumped-up charges.

I do want to go back the case of Robin Meyer, the American Foreign Service Officer who was expelled from Cuba in 1996. She was accused of all sorts of improper behavior by the Cuban Government. These were false charges. If diplomatic immunity did not apply, if she was not covered by it, we could not have been reasonably confident that she would have been protected from prosecution by a dictatorial, communist government in Cuba. That's why it's in the interest of the United States to have diplomatic immunity.

In this particular case, this is an unusual, egregious criminal allegation of wrongdoing. That's why the United States Government has decided to be so forceful in pressing the case of a lifting of this man's diplomatic immunity. You have to look at these on a case-by-case basis.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) namely, that there not be a hostile and capricious environment; that the rule of law should exist.

In situations like that, is the United States then prepared, in the event its own diplomats have traffic accidents, to let local justice take its course?

MR. BURNS: The United States, probably for the most part, has observed diplomatic immunity and insisted that our diplomats retain immunity from prosecution. But there are examples, and we've reviewed them for you this week, where the United States or American diplomats have agreed to a lifting of diplomatic immunity on an American diplomat. There are cases where American diplomats have faced prosecution. It's not the standard. It's more the exception than the rule.

But, again, we can't be entirely inflexible about this. These remain the decisions that governments must make. In this case, we are gratified that President Shevardnadze has given it such thought and has seen his way towards this very reasonable position.

QUESTION: Are these terms that you gave us - the type of environment and the rule of law - are these the criteria, then, that you use routinely for deciding this, and you will in the future use for -

MR. BURNS: These are not legal criteria. This is the way that one can properly explain the self-interest that we have in continuing the legal practice of diplomatic immunity. We cannot, as a country, decide that we're going to allow our own diplomats to live overseas without any protection in a world where there are many authoritarian and dictatorial regimes that do not believe in the rule of law. No American leader with a good conscience could send diplomats into a situation like that. That is why despite the emotion of the last week, despite the loss of life, and the understandable concerns of the family, we need to continue this practice of diplomatic immunity. It's in our own self-interest.

QUESTION: Is this suspect presently at liberty to hop on a plane and leave?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Makharadze - in the United States, Bill, as you know, one is presumed innocent until one is proven guilty.

He is in the United States. He is in the city of Washington.

He is not in anyone's custody.

The Government of Georgia has the absolute legal right to bring him out of the country - to send him out of the United States back to Georgia or anywhere else. In this case, however - I just want to bring you back to the words of the President of Georgia - they have decided to keep him here to cooperate with the investigation by the U.S. Attorney and the Washington, DC police and to stay here until the U.S. Attorney and the Georgian Government have finished their own conversations. That's where the action is.

It's with the U.S. Attorney and the Georgian Government.

QUESTION: What about (inaudible)? You said that the Government of Georgia has decided to keep him here. He presumably has a passport, a credit card. If he turned up at a U.S. airport with a ticket, no one could prevent him from leaving?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe we're in a position to do that, but we have the word of the Georgian President that that will not happen. One can assume that there's reasonable control over his activities.

QUESTION: Related to that, Nick. If a country lifts diplomatic immunity on an individual, is that the bottom line, or does that individual have some grounds to protest that or challenge it in any way?

MR. BURNS: As I understand it from our very fine legal experts who have given me a lot of advice this week, governments control diplomatic immunity. Governments have the right to lift diplomatic immunity, not individual diplomats. These are governmental decisions.

I think we told you about a case concerning the United States, where the United States Government lifted the diplomatic immunity of one of our diplomats. That individual is now suing the United States Government. So, you see, that is where the power resides here. But that's a fundamental principle of the Vienna Convention.

It's conferred upon states, government; not individuals.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Nick, I'd like to try and clarify two things.

In the Georgian statement, it says, citing that the U.S. has followed the practice of taking diplomats out of the country instead of letting them be charged. About the case in 1993, the U.S. diplomat who was involved in an accident where you say a Russian woman was killed, this statement says that an 11-year old girl was killed and that the woman was injured. Could we get some clarifying information on that? You said that the woman was killed?

MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to look into that. I am not personally aware of the circumstances of this incident in 1993. I'm generally aware that there was an American diplomat whose vehicle did strike pedestrians and kill a Russian woman. That diplomat was covered by diplomatic immunity and he was brought to the United States by the U.S. Government.

I've just been given - just as I've been standing here - this statement by the Embassy. What I prefer to do is to look at the very productive and constructive statement of the President of Georgia. He speaks for the Government of Georgia. We don't see here any excuses. We don't see here any legal arguments. We don't see here any tendentious, historical recollections. We see here a constructive and rational and reasonable response by the President of Georgia. He's the leader of the country.

I think we're going to make this document the basis for our reaction to the Government of Georgia today.

QUESTION: The Georgia Foreign Ministry issued another statement, separate from those two, earlier today.

MR. BURNS: Did you say a Foreign Ministry statement?

QUESTION: The Foreign Ministry, yes - saying that - it left my head. Sorry.

QUESTION: Can I take up on just the thing that Sid was preparing to ask?

MR. BURNS: There's some kind of connection between the wires here and mental telepathy among UPI and Reuters. It's very impressive.

QUESTION: This statement quoted the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Tbilisi, Lawrence Kerr, as telling President Shevardnadze that Mr. Makharadze had made an attempt to flee the country after this accident or between the accident and now. Can you shed any light on that? And if he attempt to flee, who could have stopped and how?

MR. BURNS: I'm not in a position to comment on Mr. Kerr's statement because I haven't seen it. But I would imagine he's been misquoted. Mr. Makharadze is currently covered by diplomatic immunity, and certainly as of yesterday, before any of these statements were made by the Georgian Government - by the President - he had a legal right to leave the United States. It's not a question of fleeing the United States. He didn't have to go out in the trunk of a car or in the hold of a ship. He could leave through any international airport. But things have changed now.

The President of Georgia has said he's going to remain here and he's going to cooperate with the investigation and that's good enough for us. If that's what Mr. Shevardnadze says, we certainly trust him.

QUESTION: Nick, related to that, there were some rumors going around last night that gentleman was in New York. Do you know anything about that?

MR. BURNS: I think you have to direct those questions to the Georgian Embassy here in Washington. We had some very strong concerns yesterday afternoon, as I said, about the direction in which this case was heading. That is one of the reasons why Secretary Christopher intervened personally to order the demarche to the Georgian Government and to write the letter to President Shevardnadze.

QUESTION: Cyprus: The Turkish Defense Ministry is apparently looking at the crisis as another case of Cuban missile crisis.

That's the analogy that's been used. Now there are words about a possible naval blockade if the missiles were brought through sea lanes. And if through air, then there's talk about closing Turkish air space, to stop it no matter what. Would you care to comment?

MR. BURNS: I would suggest that the Turkish General Staff re-read their history. The Cuban missile crisis is far afield from the current situation in the eastern Mediterranean. There are very few parallels, and we don't see them, frankly.

Let me tell you, we saw some statements by Foreign Minister Tansu Ciller this morning which seemed to up the ante from the tendentious statements made yesterday by the Turkish Defense Minister.

If Foreign Minister Ciller is being quoted accurately, we believe such dramatic statements from her or any other Turkish official are uncalled for and most unwise.

As we have made clear this week, the United States does not support the decision by the Government of Cyprus to purchase and in the future deploy the SA-10 anti-aircraft missile system. But, nevertheless, any threat of the use of force, any decision to use force, is absolutely beyond the bounds of acceptable international behavior. We have made this view known directly to the Turkish Government. These public statements concern us because they are inconsistent with the oft-repeated Turkish statements and professions of interest in peace in the eastern Mediterranean and of a negotiated peaceful settlement in Cyprus.

We think that everyone in the eastern Mediterranean - Turks, Greeks, the Cypriots, the parties in Cyprus - should draw back from this type of aggressive public rhetoric. They should sit down together and they should go through the peace discussions on Cyprus and attempt to resolve the problems peacefully. That is why the United States has sent Carey Cavanaugh, our envoy, to the region, to ask that that be the position of all the governments in the region.

QUESTION: Nick, do you see any indication on the part of the Greek Cypriot Government to perhaps cancel the deal or to lower the tensions?

MR. BURNS: The United States has spoken plainly about our opposition to the deal. I think you've seen public statements from President Clerides that Cyprus intends to go ahead with this. That is unfortunate.

Nevertheless, that is not sufficient reason for the Turkish Government to engage in this type of irresponsible public commentary.

Demitri.

QUESTION: Nick, does the U.S. Government believe that there is a potential for a crisis in Cyprus?

MR. BURNS: We have been encouraged by the responsible statements of the Cypriot Government over the last 24 hours in reaction to these Turkish statements. The point that Mr. Cavanaugh will be making is that all of the parties need to pull back from this type of dramatic rhetoric and get down to business at the negotiating table.

Savas.

QUESTION: According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, under the London agreement, Turkey has the right, as a guarantor, to interfere in this kind of behavior on the island. The Turkish Foreign Ministry is asking if the U.S. has this kind of power to interfere in this subject?

MR. BURNS: The United States is not interfering. The United States is a partner of Turkey and Greece and Cyprus, and the Greek and Turkish communities on Cyprus, in the quest for a peaceful settlement. We are routinely invited by the Turkish Government and the Greek Government and the Cypriot Government to confer with them. We are asked time and again to play a leadership role in trying to resolve the problems. We are not interfering.

We are a partner. We are an established, recognized partner so we don't understand that kind of statement.

QUESTION: Also today, the Turkish Government, they sent some diplomatic note to Moscow, explaining how -- against their signature in the United Nations Security Council. Because, if you remember, the latest U.N. Security Council, the resolution mentioned excessive militarization -- against the militarization of the island. Russia has their signature on this subject also, as a Security Council permanent member. Did you convey your concern on this subject to Moscow again?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we did. We've talked to the Russian Government about our disappointment concerning the Russian sale of the SA-10 system to Cyprus.

Yes, Dimitri.

QUESTION: Nick, except Mr. Cavanaugh, does any other U.S. official have contacts with the government in the region?

MR. BURNS: Dimitri, as I said yesterday, in addition to Mr. Cavanaugh, we have Ambassador Grossman and Ambassador Niles and Ambassador Brill, three of our most senior career diplomats.

They are all seized with this problem and are going to be representing U.S. interests throughout the weekend on it.

QUESTION: How can you say that Clerides is making irresponsible statements when, in the first place, it was the Cypriots who ordered the new missiles and who, in a sense, provoked this?

MR. BURNS: I can say it because our view is that the reaction of the Cypriot Government to the unwise public threats of the Turkish Defense Ministry and now the Foreign Ministry was quite measured and calm, and attempted to pull itself back from any kind of sense of crisis. That was responsible.

I would distinguish that from the decision by the Cypriot Government to purchase the anti-aircraft system which we opposed formally and publicly.

QUESTION: You don't consider that a responsible decision, do you?

MR. BURNS: No, we do not. But I'm simply commenting upon the way that the President of Cyprus has reacted to these unwise statements by the Turkish Government.

We have a good relationship with Cyprus. We have a difference of opinion on the anti-aircraft system. It doesn't mean that we reflexively have to criticize the Government of Cyprus on all other issues or other aspects of the same issue. We want to be fair. We want to be judicious in what we say. We certainly want everything that we say and do to contribute to peace, not to the false sense of crisis that is being created by some of these statements.

Chris.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) that the Greek Cypriot Government deliberately manufactured a crisis? They must have known that the Turkish response was hardly going to be measured and calm.

MR. BURNS: We're getting the same question here from a variety of parts of the room. Let me just repeat once, I think, what I hope I have been able to communicate today and in previous days. The United States opposes the decision of Cyprus to purchase and deploy the anti-aircraft system. But that is no justification - that event - for the type of aggressive response that we have seen from the Turkish Defense and Foreign Ministries -- in fact, the two ministers of the Turkish Government over the past 24 hours.

There is no excuse for that type of public threat and it simply cannot be condoned given what the antecedent here is, what the offensive event is.

QUESTION: What I'm asking is, do you think the Greek Cypriot Government made a deliberate decision to try and cause a provocation? I know you say you oppose that decision.

MR. BURNS: No. We don't believe that the Cypriot Government is guilty of bad faith. We do not believe that.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Nick, on a different subject. Can you bring us up to date -

MR. BURNS: We still have some here.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: I don't believe it has.

QUESTION: The Russian missile ranges easily reach the southern part of Turkey. The Turkish air force base, they belong to the NATO allies. Cyprus is not a member of NATO. Do you consider this kind of missile, based in Cyprus, as a threat for Turkish security?

MR. BURNS: We have spoken clearly about our concerns regarding the anti- aircraft system. But, again, we do not agree with any kind of justification for these statements by the Turkish Government.

QUESTION: Nick, you said you talked to the Russians.

How do you evaluate their behavior? Are there any indications they are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and they will not back down or perhaps even maybe cancel the contract?

MR. BURNS: You'll have to address that to the Russian Government. We have a disagreement with the Russians but, then again, that's nothing new. We sometimes agree, sometimes disagree with the Russian Government. That relationship will go forward.

QUESTION: Nick, on that point, the Russians said yesterday that the United States was only complaining because it had lost some business?

MR. BURNS: I didn't see that Russian statement, so I can't comment on that specifically. But let me just say on your general point, Sid - or at least your summary of another point - that's ridiculous. The United States, because we believe in constructive behavior in the eastern Mediterranean, would never have sought to allow one of our companies to sell this type of equipment to Cyprus. It's not a question of commercial diplomacy.

It's a question of responsible actions by countries like the United States and Russia.

QUESTION: In the course of the responsible statements by the Cypriot Government, have you now gotten a good indication of just why they decided they have to have these missiles and whether they might just pull back from this decision?

MR. BURNS: Again, we have received a private explanation, but I'm going to let the Cypriot Government speak for itself.

QUESTION: Why (inaudible).

MR. BURNS: We disagree with the explanation given to us.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Given the events in the Middle East in the last 36 hours, can you bring us up to date on the peace process and Dennis' (Ross) plans, if any?

MR. BURNS: Yes. Dennis Ross called the Secretary this morning and gave him a full briefing on the state of play on the Hebron talks. I was able to speak to him at noon. He met with - he is meeting tonight - excuse me - with the Palestinian officials.

Not Chairman Arafat because he is in Paris, but other Palestinian officials.

Dennis Ross spoke by phone today with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

He was also with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday afternoon when the Prime Minister was alerted to the bomb blast in Tel Aviv, so that meeting had to be aborted.

Dennis continues his efforts - his herculean efforts - to bring about an arrangement on Cyprus, but that arrangement has not yet been agreed to by the Palestinians and Israelis.

QUESTION: You don't mean Cyprus?

MR. BURNS: Did I say Cyprus? (laughter) I meant Hebron. Dennis does many things in life. Cyprus is not one of them. "Cyprus on my Mind." Hebron. Strike that from the historical record.

Hebron.

QUESTION: Can you clarify whether, as Palestinians officials were saying yesterday, he has now proposed a delay in the implementation of the next phase of Israeli redeployment to 1998 from 1997?

MR. BURNS: Roy, it's been our practice not to discuss publicly any aspect of the private negotiations. But let me just say - and I said this yesterday - it is absolutely irresponsible for certain Palestinian officials visiting Washington, D.C., this week to make these kinds of charges against Dennis Ross. The United States is part and parcel of the Oslo process. We're fundamentally committed to it. Our actions are consistent with it, and Ambassador Ross is an effective intermediary. If the Palestinians were unhappy with him, they wouldn't have insisted to the Israelis that Dennis be at the table.

QUESTION: Can you say anything about the substance of whether there has been some new suggestions made by the United States regarding the goals?

MR. BURNS: No, I'm not going to discuss the substance of the negotiations.

QUESTION: But it's not only a Palestinian official visiting Washington but also a senior Palestinian official in -

MR. BURNS: Frankly, if I were a member of the press corps - and I don't mean to sound - I would just take this advice. If I were a member of the press corps, I would think about the following. If the Palestinians are so unhappy with Dennis Ross, why are they insisting that he be the sole intermediary in the talks. They trust him. He's objective. He's well known to them, and they know that the United States is a friend of the Palestinians.

So I disregard this kind of clatter that we're hearing from Mrs. Ashrawi and others - these attacks on Dennis Ross. They are not warranted by the facts.

QUESTION: The point is that we would assume this until the point that they start criticizing him publicly in the way they have. At that point -

MR. BURNS: You might assume that some of this is being done for negotiating purposes.

QUESTION: Well, it might be, but at that point then the atmosphere changes, and possibly Dennis Ross is no longer so welcome as he had been.

MR. BURNS: I don't believe you can deduce that from the fact of the negotiations this week and his presence at the talks.

I think these charges are completely off base.

QUESTION: Nick, Chairman Arafat said he's going to Paris to enlist the help of the French Government, so obviously they feel they need some help outside of the United States.

MR. BURNS: The European Union has been involved - the French Government as well - in many aspects of the Middle East Peace Process, and the United States welcomes that.

QUESTION: Do you welcome the French starting to participate in this effort to broker an agreement on Hebron?

MR. BURNS: That's up to the Israelis and Palestinians.

So far this year, and in fact for the last four years, they've insisted on the sole intermediary being the United States. It's up to them. It's up to the Palestinians and Israelis.

Yes, Carla.

QUESTION: Nick, do you have any word on the American journalist killed in Kazakstan?

MR. BURNS: I do not have a lot of information, except to say that obviously the U.S. Government extends its condolences to the family. We are working with the Government of Kazakstan, asking them what can we do to support the police investigation into the murder of Christopher Gehring. It's obviously a great tragedy. We hope that the Kazak authorities can get to the bottom of it, find the person or people responsible and bring them to justice. We're giving all appropriate assistance from our American Embassy in Almaty.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea of what the motive was, or -

MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe that the Kazak authorities have established that or if they even have a lead. I don't know if they have a lead at this point on who may have killed him, but it's a great tragedy, and we extend our condolences to the family of Mr. Gehring.

QUESTION: Nick, yesterday I asked a question about a gentleman who claimed to be an American diplomat caught in the city of Diyarbakir with $90,000 cash on him, and you said -

MR. BURNS: An extraordinary amount of money for a diplomat to be carrying. (Laughter)

QUESTION: Yes, and you said you would check and see what the diplomat -

MR. BURNS: I've never carried $90,000 anywhere in my life anywhere. I was surprised at the amount. I've never seen $90,000 in one place.

QUESTION: Joking aside, did you have the time to check into that story?

MR. BURNS: I think we've looked into it, but I really have nothing to tell you on it.

QUESTION: Can you confirm if that gentleman, whose name I gave you, is a U.S. diplomat or not?

MR. BURNS: I just have nothing to say on this issue.

QUESTION: You don't confirm; you don't deny.

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: You don't confirm or you don't deny.

MR. BURNS: As I said, we're looking into it, but I have nothing to report to you on it. A fantastic sum of money.

QUESTION: I'm from Radio Free Asia. I wonder if you have any comments on this Washington Times' article about China and Russia making this deal over guided missile destroyers.

MR. BURNS: Who is the author of that article? (Laughter)

QUESTION: Oh, your friend -

QUESTION: Bill Gertz.

MR. BURNS: Oh, Bill Gertz, right. We don't comment on alleged leaks of intelligence information.

QUESTION: Well, what do you think alleged leaks like this do to U.S.- China, you know, relationships?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: What do you think this does to U.S.-China relationships?

MR. BURNS: Without any reference to the article at all - without wanting to reward people who leak information - on the general issue of China and Russia, we hope that China and Russia will build a good relationship. We'd be worried if they didn't have a good relationship. They do have a defense relationship.

The defense relationship consists mainly of transfers of conventional technology. When that occurs, the United States cannot have an objection.

The United States is concerned, of course, about international treaties that limit weapons transfers in one way or another and also our own law. When we see alleged violations of those agreements and our own law, we are vocal about it. We bring it to the attention of the relevant government. But in this case, if we're talking about a transfer of Russian destroyers, there's nothing that we see that contravenes international law or our own law, without any reference to this article whatsoever by Bill Gertz.

QUESTION: How about - if indeed the reports are true, these ships can threaten the U.S. Navy, even our aircraft carriers, with their missiles.

MR. BURNS: Again, the United States has a very good relationship with Russia, and we have an evolving relationship with China, and we need to pursue both of those relationships. We hope that Russia and China will, of course, observe international standards and treaties and laws governing the transfer of military technology of all kinds. When we see a violation, we'll tell you about it. I don't believe our experts have seen any violation, without any reference to the newspaper article.

QUESTION: Do you have a date certain for the North Korea briefing?

MR. BURNS: No, we don't, but I think we are probably approaching that. In fact, I believe that there was a meeting -

QUESTION: Yesterday.

MR. BURNS: Yes, there was a working level meeting between American and North Korean diplomats in New York City yesterday as part of our regular contacts. This was our Deputy Korean Office Director David Straub, and he met with his counterparts from the Korean Mission to the United Nations.

Arrangements for the upcoming joint briefing on the Four-Party Talks are under discussion, and I think the joint briefing will probably be held towards the end of this month - towards the end of January. What we need to work out with the North Koreans is where that will take place, who will attend and the specific date.

We don't have that worked out yet.

QUESTION: What's holding it up, though? I mean, you've been talking about it so long.

MR. BURNS: I think we feel reasonably confident, following the gesture made by North Korea nearly two weeks ago, that the decision has been made by the North Koreans that they will participate in a joint briefing. The only question is modalities. Sometimes that takes a while to work out - logistics.

QUESTION: Do you have a place?

MR. BURNS: Do we have a place?

QUESTION: To hold the meeting.

MR. BURNS: We have lots of places to hold the meeting, and it's just a question of convincing the North Koreans which place they want to go to, and I'm sure we'll be able to do that.

QUESTION: Can you tell us -

MR. BURNS: As long as it's not Sunday at 4:00 p.m. Big football game. (Laughter) Go Patriots.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on Biljana Plavsic's statement yesterday -

MR. BURNS: Sid is rooting for Jacksonville? How is that possible?

QUESTION: I'm rooting for Dallas.

MR. BURNS: The Dallas Cowboys are out of it anyway. The Patriots will win. That's my prediction.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on Biljana Plavsic's statement yesterday regarding the Brcko arbitration, basically threatening to go to war if they don't get their way?

MR. BURNS: We never support statements of people who want to go to war if they don't get their way. Mrs. Plavsic did make a statement yesterday that I saw concerning the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal, and she basically said that she did not agree to submitting to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Serbian Government officials or people like Karadzic and Mladic who are indicted war criminals.

Obviously, the United States rejects that line of reasoning.

Mrs. Plavsic and her associates signed on the bottom line at Dayton and at Paris last year. They are legally committed and ethically committed to cooperate with the Tribunal, and any rhetoric aside, that's what the Bosnian Serbs must do if they want to be treated as normal members of the international community.

QUESTION: They wouldn't do that if - I mean, are there more sanctions you can impose or just maintain the current ones?

MR. BURNS: You know, the pattern of our relationship with Mrs. Plavsic is such she makes a statement like this, we argue for a long time, and then sooner or later the Bosnian Serbs come around. Example: the municipal elections. We argued for two months with her. We now have a date for the municipal elections in the spring. I'm sure that when she and others in Pale reflect on her position, they'll see that it has no standing in the international community and no support there.

QUESTION: Now, on Brcko, she said that her soldiers will fight another war if the arbitrators award Brcko to the Muslim-Croat Federation, and they also disagree with the idea of a neutral city. There are only so many possible outcomes to -

MR. BURNS: They lost the last war. It can't be in the interests of the Bosnian Serbs to fight another after a quarter of a million died in that war and two million people were made homeless. The economy is now beginning to pick up; unemployment is down from 90 to roughly 50 percent; economic reconstruction is underway; elections have been held; a new government has been formed. Surely the Bosnian Serbs don't want to tear that all down. That's not in their national self-interest.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) in the arbitration?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

Q Are they taking part in the arbitration?

MR. BURNS: Roy, I'm not familiar with all the procedures of the arbitration of Brcko, but we do have an American diplomat negotiating that; and, if you are interested, I'd refer you to the European Bureau. I'm sure they can give you up-to-date information on it.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the soldiers who came upon a war criminal or reputed war criminal in, I think, eastern Bosnia - I'm sorry, western Bosnia -

QUESTION: Vitez.

QUESTION: Vitez - and didn't arrest him even though they tentatively identified him?

MR. BURNS: I don't. I saw a press report on this. I believe it referred to not American soldiers but some European soldiers, and I don't have anything for you on that. I guess I'd suggest that you contact SFOR in Sarajevo and see what SFOR will say.

QUESTION: Secretary Solana was here yesterday, and do you have any details --except that IFOR was really successful in Bosnia.-- do you have any details about conversations between Secretary General and Secretary Christopher regarding this new mission and regarding those reports from Bosnia?

MR. BURNS: Secretary General Solana and Secretary Christopher discussed Bosnia, the success of IFOR, the promise of SFOR. It was a general discussion. It concerned the troops. It did not concern any of the more specific issues pertaining to SFOR.

QUESTION: But basically there is no change in Bosnia regarding war criminals and policy regarding Pale. There is no indication that it's going to be tougher.

MR. BURNS: If you look at what both Sandy Berger, our National Security Adviser, and Secretary Christopher have both said in the last few weeks, they have said that in 1997 the international community must find new and effective measures to enforce the war crimes provisions of the Dayton Accords. We take that seriously.

We say that with all deliberation, and we mean it, but I can't be more specific for you than that.

QUESTION: Are you referring to special forces to arrest those -

MR. BURNS: I'm not being specific.

Betsy, yes.

QUESTION: Nick, could you tell me if you have any more information about the U.S. pilot that was killed in Colombia when his plane went down on a coca spraying mission?

MR. BURNS: I do not have any more information. I know that Ambassador Frechette was on the scene, and he has been involved personally in the disposition of the remains and in honoring the man who died - Ambassador Miles Frechette - but I know that Tom Casey in our Inter-American Affairs Bureau can probably answer that question better than I can after the briefing.

QUESTION: What was the progress on the Kurd-Pelletreau conference yesterday?

MR. BURNS: Enough progress to move the talks to Ankara next week, but in that part of the world it's always safer not to predict too much progress, although we continue to be hopeful.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:30 p.m.)

(###)

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