U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #11, 97-01-21
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
672
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
January 21, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Former Secretary Christopher's Accident/Condition
1 Status of Secretary-Designate Albright's Nomination
1-2 Strobe Talbott, Secretary of State ad-interim, in Moscow
2-6 Inspector General's Office Concludes Gati Investigation
2 Public Announcement on Mexico
3 Extension of Passport Restrictions on Lebanon
3 Abdul Salam Y. Massarueh Admitted to GW Hospital
4-5 Christopher to Albright Transition Period
18-19 Diplomatic Security Assistance in Locating Mr. Kani Xulam
CUBA
7,9-11 Canadian Foreign Minister's Visit
8-11 U.S. Policy towards Cuba/Helms-Burton Law
SUDAN
11-12 Fighting/Situation in East
COLOMBIA
13-15 Sentencing of Cali Cartel Drug Kingpins
INDIA
15 U.S. Travel Warning
CYPRUS
15-18 Status of Agreement on Moratorium of Military Flights/
16-18 Deployment of Anti-Aircraft System
MISCELLANEOUS
19-20 Diplomatic Immunity--Status of Reports on NY & Washington, D.C., Incidents
20 --Report of Systematic Harrassment Against U.S. Diplomats in Moscow
HONG KONG/CHINA
21 Recommendations on Hong Kong's Bill of Rights/ Public Order Ordinances
IRAN
22 U.S.-Iranian Relations
NORTH KOREA
22 Four Party Talks Briefing
PERU
22-23 Hostage Situation in Lima
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
23 Appeals to Election Commission Rulings/U.S. Condemns Use of Force
SOUTH AFRICA
23-24 Arms Sale to Syria
24 ARMSCOR Case
COUNTER-TERRORISM
24 Report of Arrests of 22 Suspected Terrorists in Paris
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #11
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997, 1:14 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I have a
couple of things for you before we go to questions. First, is to let you
know I just spoke to former Secretary of State Warren Christopher who is at
his home in Los Angeles. Just to allay any fears that anybody might have
about his health, he was literally a couple of minutes away from leaving
his house for the airport yesterday. He resigned at 12:01, was leaving at
about 3:00 and he slipped in his garage on some grease and broke his wrist.
He went to GW - GU Hospital, Georgetown University Hospital; has a cast put
on, and he's now going to get some further medical treatment, but it's just
his wrist.
I received some press calls - you know how stories go. People thought
maybe the injuries were more severe than they were. It's his left wrist,
so his tennis-playing days, at least for the next month or so, are going to
be put on the back burner. He had great dreams of improving his backhand
and forehand. He's going to have to put those off for a little bit. But
he's fine. He sends his best wishes to all of you. He already misses you.
(Laughter) I don't really expect you believe that, by the way.
He is not studying French, to the best of my - nice try, though, Barry.
That was very good. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know about Secretary
Christopher.
Now, Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright is not in town. She's in New
York. But, as you know, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted
positively on her nomination yesterday. Her candidacy, her nomination now
goes to the full Senate. The full Senate, we hope, will take action in the
next couple of days and then she would be sworn in. I don't have any
details. I don't think she's made any final plans about how that would go -
the swearing-in - but she doesn't want to presume anything, obviously,
until the full Senate acts on her nomination.
Finally, let me tell you that Strobe Talbott, who is Secretary of State
ad interim, left this morning with the National Security Advisor to Vice
President Gore, Leon Fuerth, for Moscow. They'll be in Moscow from this
evening until Thursday. They're there to prepare for the upcoming meeting
of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission which will be taking place between the
fifth and seventh of February here in Washington, D.C.
This commission, as you know, was created at the Vancouver Summit in
April 1993. It's met many, many times. It's been our practice to have
meetings at the sub-Cabinet level to prepare these Gore-Chernomyrdin
discussions before they take place.
This trip by Secretary of State a.i. Talbott and Leon Fuerth is in
that tradition. They're also going to be talking about some of the
security issues like NATO enlargement, the Russian-NATO Charter, they're so
important in our relationship.
Let me also say, on a different matter, some weeks ago an article
appeared in a local paper here in Washington, D.C., one of the two dallies,
not the Washington Post - reporting that - and there was an article that
was followed by six stories on successive days, reporting in very bold
headlines that Toby Gati, who is our Assistant Secretary of State for
Intelligence and Research, was being investigated by the State Department
Inspector General for unauthorized disclosure of classified information to
foreign nationals and for improperly obtaining a security clearance.
I am very pleased to report, as a colleague of Toby's and a friend of
hers, that the State Department Inspector General's Office has concluded
its investigation into these allegations and has found that both of these
charges are without merit. We consider the matter to be closed.
I should also note for the record that the Inspector General's Office
found no credible information in the course of its investigation indicating
impropriety on the part of Charles Gati, who is the husband of Toby Gati
and a former employee of our Policy Planning staff here in the State
Department.
I feel compelled to come forward and make this announcement because both
Toby and Charles Gati found themselves the subject of press speculation and
some very high profile stories in the papers. I'd like to note that
there's a successful and happy ending here. May I just suggest, like
Michael Irvin, before me, that perhaps this paper has a responsibility to
print in as bold headlines the fact that she's been found innocent of all
charges - the same kind of headlines that were put in their paper when they
charged her with these improprieties.
QUESTION: There was an investigation?
MR. BURNS: There was an investigation by the Inspector General. Yes,
that's right - a formal investigation. It was included in the IG, the
Inspector General gave us the results. We looked at them this morning and
we decided we should go public. I do think that the "Michael Irvin point"
is well made here. I'd like to see some headlines tomorrow about the fact
that she has fulfilled all of her responsibilities, as she should have, and
that there are no improprieties whatsoever in this case.
Just a couple more things. Just a couple more announcements. We are
publishing today a public announcement on Mexico which concerns the
increasing frequency and violence of taxi robberies of Mexican citizens,
Americans, and other foreigners in Mexico City which is actually quite
alarming. We feel a need to alert the American public - Americans living
in Mexico, Americans traveling to Mexico - about this. This is being
posted. You'll find it in the press office.
Furthermore, I want to let you know, we issued press guidance very late
on Friday - I think the end of the afternoon/early evening - about
Secretary Christopher's decision to extend the restrictions on the use of
American passport for travel to Lebanon. This extension takes place -
excuse me - covers the period until July 31, 1997. If you have any
questions about that, we can go into it.
Finally, on a sad note. I must tell you that we just talked to your
colleague, Abdulsalam, who finds himself again in the hospital. He asked
that I simply tell you all that he unfortunately had to go back into George
Washington Hospital on Saturday. He asks for your thoughts and prayers for
him. He suffered another stroke. I think your notes to him would be most
appreciated, and he wanted this to be known to you all in this setting. I
didn't want to do this, obviously. I wouldn't have done it without him
asking us to do, but he asked that he be remembered to you. I think he
would appreciate hearing from you.
Barry.
QUESTION: Well, that's kind of too bad. It's terrible.
MR. BURNS: It sure is.
QUESTION: I don't imagine that you care to, or do you care to tell us
what the investigation - that involved Turkey, didn't it? And what was the
investigation?
MR. BURNS: You're referring to Toby?
QUESTION: Yes. There was more Charles Gati as far as the reports. I
have no information on them myself. Can you provide any details? Would
this 60-point headline story you're looking for would have a second
paragraph? Anymore information you'd like to -
MR. BURNS: I think the newspaper in question has all the information
it needs to write the story. In this case, Barry, as I understand it, I
did not read all of the initial - there was obviously a document alleging
improprieties and I didn't read that. I haven't read the whole IG's report
but I know that there were two basic charges: Unauthorized disclosure of
classified information, which, as you know, is against the law for any U.S.
Government employee; and for improperly obtaining a security clearance.
Both of these charges were found to be without merit. There's no evidence
to support these charges whatsoever.
The charges against Charles Gati apparently allege some kind of
impropriety in the way that he had contacts. That's right. These were
found to be without merit as well.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. I said Turkey. I meant Hungary.
MR. BURNS: Hungary is the country; not Turkey; right.
QUESTION: Is the IG's report available?
MR. BURNS: It's not available. It's not our practice, I think, to
release IG's report. This report is being made available to the Congress.
We felt it was important to do that just to protect the integrity of one of
our employees - a high-level employee, an Assistant Secretary of State.
But, Glyn (Davies), the decision has been made not to release this?
If you all hear what he said. Glyn said it's being released to both
houses of Congress.
QUESTION: Will she be staying on?
MR. BURNS: First of all, I should say, she has the full faith and
support and the backing of our leadership here at the Department of State.
She had that. Secretary Christopher said that when these charges were
made. I said that as well. She still has that.
Obviously, all of us are in the same position, all of us who work here at
the State Department. Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright, if confirmed
will decide who stays on and decide who comes on; what new appointees will
be made. I don't want to anticipate any decisions that Secretary-designate
Albright should properly made.
QUESTION: Nick, can we broaden that just for a second, if you don't
mind? The first day of a new Administration, in a general sense, because
each Administration proceeds differently, has there been any blanket
submissions of resignations? Basically, can you bring up a little bit on
the machinery? I'm talking about, of course, major jobs like Assistant
Secretaries/Under Secretaries? Have they in some way said, "I'm ready to
go if you want someone else? I'm ready to go, period?" Have some gone?
Some apparently have. Win Lord has. Can you cover that?
MR. BURNS: Sure. This has been a very friendly transition. You've
seen a lot of transitions and so have I. Sometimes they're not so
friendly. This one is exceedingly friendly in the sense, Barry, that the
Christopher team - Secretary Christopher - former Secretary Christopher -
and all of his senior aides and Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright's
team have worked together very amicably. There have been lots of meetings;
in fact, a regularly series of meetings.
You know that Strobe Talbott has been the formal head of Madeleine
Albright's transition team. Lots of meetings about substantive preparations,
about personnel issues, about making sure that the transition flows
smoothly so that Secretary-designate Albright, if she is confirmed by the
Senate, can get off to a good running start and so that we don't miss
anything here in the transition substantively; that we're on top of all the
issues that we should be on top of. That's point number one.
Shortly after the election, President Clinton's re-election in November,
the White House and State Department decided that we would not ask our
Ambassadors overseas formally to submit their resignations. That has been
the practice. There's no law requiring it. It's been the practice of many
Administration - Republican and Democrat. It was not done in this case. I
think that also sent a very nice signal to everyone in the field, all of
the ships at sea - as we call them - all of our embassies and consulates.
No one has been asked to resign here at the State Department. None of
our Under Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries or people below that rank.
That's also not been the practice, I believe, with previous transitions,
that people here would be asked to resign. I don't think so. Perhaps with
some exceptions.
Some of our Assistant Secretaries - Winston Lord is a good example, who
has already left - and some of our Under Secretaries have decided on their
own accord that they will be leaving office. I believe you know who they
are. Some of them have had good-bye parties. Some of them have talked to
you already. Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright, if she is confirmed,
will be filling those positions and filling any other position that she
wishes to fill. I think all of us understand - those of us who occupy
current positions - that she has the right to come in and at a senior level
decide if she wants to bring in a new person to fill that spot. But she's
the only one who make those announcements. I know that she has made some
preliminary decisions, but I believe that she'll make the announcements at
the proper time.
QUESTION: Nick, if the Ambassadors have not been asked to resign, has
there been any notice to the Ambassadorial Corps that when their three-year
terms are up that - that their three-year terms are up and that there won't
be extensions?
MR. BURNS: That's been the tradition for a long time in the State
Department that Ambassadorial tours, American Ambassadorial tours, extend
three years. There have been some exceptions to that. You and I can both
think of some - Chris Ross, our Ambassador in Damascus is an obvious one.
He's been there going on five years. I don't know if there will be further
exceptions or whether they'll stick to that. That's a process to be worked
out between the White House and Secretary-designate Albright and others.
QUESTION: Do you know that there's been a notice to these Ambassadors,
reaffirming that the three-year limit, three-year -
MR. BURNS: Let me take that question, Carol, and get back to you. I
think I can definitely answer it. I want to make sure that I'm on the
firmest possible ground in answering it.
Sid.
QUESTION: Just to go back to the IG investigation for one bit of
clarification. The investigation was launched as a result of the
Washington Times story or the Washington Times was subsequent to the
beginning of the investigation?
MR. BURNS: I believe it was - well, the Washington Times reported on
allegations that had been made. Obviously, somebody leaked it to the
Washington Times. The investigation was not stimulated by the Washington
Times. It was stimulated by allegations made by certain individuals about
impropriety. But, again, I'm glad to say that those allegations have been
proven to be without merit.
QUESTION: Just in all fairness to the Washington Times, I don't see
how your tirade against them is justified since the allegations -
MR. BURNS: I wouldn't call it a "tirade."
QUESTION: If these allegations were reported by the Washington Times -
MR. BURNS: I'm simply noting -
QUESTION: -- allegations that were raised by the Department itself.
MR. BURNS: I'll tell you something, Sid. The press - and I respect
the role of the press - the press has an absolute right to report on
allegations like this if someone - and, as you know, in the way that
Washington works, even if they receive the information through leaks, they
have a right to do it. No one's disputing that.
I remember reading the article and the follow-up articles and the follow-
up to those articles, and I remember reading the way that things are
written, and they didn't always consult with the appropriate people, I
think, before all the articles are written. I just wanted to note that for
the record and hope that we'd get a story tomorrow, letting the readers of
that paper know that these charges have been proven to be, found to be
without merit. I just think that's fair. I'm not arguing press freedoms
here at all.
QUESTION: One more on Gati. Given her sensitive position, was she
hindered in carrying out of her professional duties because of the
investigation? In other words, was she removed from any classified
information?
MR. BURNS: I don't think so. She remains in her position. She
carries it out every day, and Secretary Christopher decided early on that
she has his full support and full faith, and she still has the full support
and full faith of all of us here at the State Department.
QUESTION: Did other agencies, such as the CIA or the Pentagon, hold
back information because of these allegations?
MR. BURNS: I don't know that for sure, Jim. I'd be surprised, but I
don't know that for sure. Glyn (Davies), do you happen to know?
MR. DAVIES: I don't know the answer. I'd be surprised.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
Henry, yes.
QUESTION: Cuba, if I might. Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy
is in that country; arrived this morning. He is the second ranking
government official in Canada. This is the first time a man of his stature
has been in that country for better than a decade. The purpose of the trip
is to increase trade between Canada and the United States. He also has a
meeting with Fidel Castro -
MR. BURNS: Canada and Cuba.
QUESTION: Forgive me. Canada and Cuba. My apologies. He also has -
although that, too, we could work it out.
MR. BURNS: Just for the historical record.
QUESTION: He will also be meeting with Castro at the same time, and he
will most important be touring Canadian facilities and businesses that are
there. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that visit that might be
seen by some as being a bit pejorative or audacious in light of the Helms-
Burton bill?
MR. BURNS: We have the greatest respect for Foreign Minister Axworthy.
We were alerted to this trip by the Canadian Government. You would expect
that, given the close allied relationship that we have. We've been pleased
to see from press reports that Minister Axworthy has raised the issue of
human rights in Cuba. That we think is proper. That's where the
increasing international spotlight is. If you look at the Latin Bureau's
summit that was held in November. They decided they would do that - they
would be concentrating on human rights, in addition to other issues.
The European Union has developed a new policy. That is focused on human
rights, and we're glad to see that the Government of Canada is doing that
as well. But beyond that I really don't have much comment because,
obviously, Minister Axworthy has a right to travel there, if that's what he
deems to do. But we would encourage him and encourage the Government of
Canada to focus their attention on Cuba on the human rights issue because
of a massive violation of human rights by the Cuban Government.
QUESTION: As a supplement to that question, you're quite right,
Minister Axworthy and certainly his officials have been much quoted in the
newspapers about raising the issue of human rights in Cuba but not to in
any way restrain trade while they're down there. I'm wondering if it gives
you pause that the American position towards Cuba, which now in 37 years
seems to some outsiders to have achieved very little - that perhaps maybe
the Canadians have the right idea in their dealings with Cuba, which is
indeed to trade; at the same time raise the issues of human rights, which
seems to be the nub of the current dispute between Canada and the United
States.
MR. BURNS: I think it's a fair question. We would respectfully
disagree with the position of the Canadian Government and have disagreed
with it for a long time. That's not secret. The Canadians know that, and
we regularly discuss this. We just have a basic disagreement on how to
treat Cuba. We believe that isolation and containment and economic embargo
is the best way to deal with the lone remaining holdout from another era -
the communist era - the lone remaining holdout in this hemisphere.
We can't forget the repression a year ago next month of the Concilio
Cubano, the widespread repression of anybody who stands up and says, "I'm
against Castro," they get thrown in jail; the harsh prison sentences that
have been given out, even to some of Castro's former revolutionary partners
- people who have turned democratic on him. We can't forget that. We have
an obligation to do that.
We're not far from Cuba. We're less than 100 miles from Key West to Cuba,
and we know the Cubans fairly well. We have a long history of Cuba - long,
long history, going back to the 19th century. I think that
President Kennedy and every American President since him have made the
correct strategic decision in choosing to isolate Cuba.
QUESTION: But so far as raising human rights, isn't that an effective
way to do it on-site?
MR. BURNS: It's one way to do it, Barry, and I think it's also been
very effective to isolate Castro to make him an international pariah, which
he is in most of the world.
QUESTION: I don't think it's effective. He's been in power. He's
outlasted 137 Secretaries of State and several Presidents. (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Not quite that many, Barry.
QUESTION: Well, I mean add into it - if you include the ad interim.
(Laughter)
MR. BURNS: If you include the ad interim, possibly.
QUESTION: You're pursuing exactly the policy you pursue with regard to
a much larger country and one that maybe has a worse human rights record -
China. How can you say that the U.S. policy has been effective. You've
got people in Cuba terribly poor, and that's not the aim, is it?
MR. BURNS: Well, Barry, I think -
QUESTION: Your aim is to bring down Castro. It doesn't work.
MR. BURNS: Our aim is to end authoritarian rule in Cuba, and I think
you wouldn't argue that things have gone swimmingly for the Cuban
revolution since the early 1960s. They got into some big trouble in the
early 1960s. If you look at the living standards of the average Cuban, you
wouldn't argue that it's comparable to anybody in the Caribbean, with the
possible exception of the Haitians.
QUESTION: But I also wouldn't go -
MR. BURNS: And they've had their own troubles.
QUESTION: -- too far back -
MR. BURNS: And they've had their own troubles. So I would respectfully,
Barry, argue with you that we've had the appropriate policy, and it doesn't
make sense to reward a dictator in our own hemisphere who's completely
behind the times. You reward him by sending your Foreign Minister down to
visit, by having visits as usual, by trading, and we think that's
wrong.
QUESTION: So you are saying Canada is rewarding Cuba.
MR. BURNS: I've noted to Henry's question that we have a longstanding
difference of opinion with the Canadian Government. Of course, we do.
That's no secret.
QUESTION: I don't know that you want to say it rewards Castro, because
if you approve of their making an issue of human rights, then he doesn't
necessarily benefit from the visit. I don't know you can call it a reward,
but all right.
MR. BURNS: Barry, we are pleased that finally the European countries
have decided to put human rights on the front burner of their issues with
Cuba and pleased that the Canadian Foreign Minister is doing the same. But
we don't agree with a policy that has open arms to Castro - trade with Cuba
- we just don't agree with it.
QUESTION: Should he not be visiting Cuba, Mr. Castro -
MR. BURNS: Minister Axworthy has - first of all, we respect him. He
represents our closest NATO ally, and arguably our closest ally in the
world. He has a right to travel where he wants to travel. We're not
contesting that at all. We have a longstanding difference of opinion with
the Canadian Government on Cuba.
QUESTION: Is his visit - and apparently he is there to sign some sort
of human rights accord with Mr. Castro - is this visit proof that Helms-
Burton has worked? That it's forced Canada to push Castro into signing an
accord, or is it proof that Canada's policy of engagement has been more
effective in bringing about changes in Cuba?
MR. BURNS: We don't see many changes in Cuba. I mean, point to a
change in Cuba on the human rights policy since 1959. Point to anything
that resembles a decent human rights policy in the last 37 years. There
hasn't been any change. The Helms-Burton law, I think, did stimulate, both
in our own hemisphere but also in Europe, a change of focus. You can't
travel to Cuba as a foreign leader and not raise human rights anymore.
Everyone's got to raise human rights.
QUESTION: But in fairness -
MR. BURNS: So I think that Helms-Burton has had that benefit, and
we're pleased that it's had that benefit.
QUESTION: But in fairness, Mr. Burns, you're not suggesting that
Canadian Ministers or the senior people visiting in Cuba have never raised
the issue of human rights before, are you?
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not. I didn't suggest that. I didn't say
that.
QUESTION: Well, you just said that - you gave the implication -
MR. BURNS: But there's an increasing spotlight, Henry, on human rights
in Cuba - much more evident now from governments in our own hemisphere and
from the European Union and its member governments. There's no question
about that. They've never had in Europe before and the European Union the
kind of ringing declarations about the human rights violations in Cuba than
we just saw over the last two months.
QUESTION: Well, I don't want to nitpick over a transcript we'll all
look at afterwards, but I'm quite certain you just said that senior
government officials - and we're talking about Mr. Axworthy - are now
bringing up human rights, and I think Canadians would take issue there,
because as their government has long said that is a continual process of
their engagement with Cuba.
MR. BURNS: You know, it's interesting, Henry, a year ago - a year-and-
a-half ago Castro was welcomed in Paris. He was welcomed around the world
as some kind of romantic figure from a bygone era, and I think now people
are more prone to see him as a dictator who violates the human rights of
average Cubans. That's an important change in Western sensibilities about
him, and I think Helms-Burton and all the attention of this issue is a
factor that one can trace to the change in attitude we've seen both here in
our hemisphere and in Europe, and it's a welcome change.
QUESTION: If my colleagues will forgive me one final supplemental. In
response to Barry, you used the word "rewards." You must surely understand
that that's going to be a rather sensitive choice of words in Canada,
because they don't believe -
MR. BURNS: I think Barry used the word first, and then I talked about
it.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you -
QUESTION: Take another swing at it if you like. (Laughter)
QUESTION: You clearly indicated rewards, and I doubt very much that the
people or the Government of Canada would see this trip as a reward to
Castro. Wouldn't you agree?
MR. BURNS: Henry, I think we were talking about the fact that the
United States has elected for 37 years to have an embargo on Cuba - a trade
embargo on Cuba - and that we think that's the right strategic choice. We
don't think in general it makes sense to reward Castro.
I very specifically in answer to both of your questions did not contest
and will not contest the right of the Canadian Foreign Minister to travel
to Cuba. He has an obvious right to travel to Cuba, and no one's
contesting that. We have an obvious difference of opinion that we and the
Government in Ottawa are very clear about. We talk about it all the time,
and we understand that it's going to remain a difference of opinion.
QUESTION: Is Canada rewarding Castro by having Mr. Axworthy visit
Havana?
MR. BURNS: I've characterized Minister Axworthy's trip the way that I
wanted to characterize it, and I'm going to keep it at that. I've also
spoken plainly about our own views about the Castro Government that one
should not forget.
QUESTION: So "rewards" stands then in your view.
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to take back anything I've said, Henry, but I
think you're probably trying to make a little bit more of a fight between
Washington and Ottawa than there is. The fact of the matter is that we
note - we talk about this all the time. There's nothing new in this, there
really isn't. There's not much of a story here.
QUESTION: This might even be in the Washington Times.
MR. BURNS: We'll see if it's - it will be interesting to see how they
cover it.
QUESTION: Regarding the invasion of Sudan from the territory of Eritrea
and Ethiopia, this has been - seems to have been supported by Uganda. Lady
Carolyn Cox from Christian Solidarity International, who's a known figure
and opponent of the Khartoum regime, has been sighted in the area. I'd
like to ask you, is the United States supporting the operations that are
ongoing now in eastern Sudan, which have been, I think, correctly
characterized as an invasion?
MR. BURNS: The United States is concerned by the recent fighting in
the Blue Nile region of Sudan and in the area north of Kassala. This is
all south of Khartoum, if you look at the map. We are urging on all - on
the Sudanese Government, on the rebels and anyone else involved in this
fighting, restraint and a peaceful resolution of any differences here.
We've urged the parties directly in our contacts with them to avoid harm to
the civilian population, to property, and to treat all prisoners of war
according to international conventions.
I can't comment on the role that other countries may or may not be
playing, but I can say we've had a longstanding difference of opinion with
the Sudanese Government on the way it treats its own population. As you
know, we've had a very difficult relationship with the Sudanese Government,
in part because of that issue.
There's been a civil war underway, and we hope that this civil war can
end, not through violence but through some dialogue and negotiation at a
conference table.
QUESTION: The situation seems to have changed now, and that this is no
longer a civil war between different factions within Sudan, but that one of
these factions is getting what seems to be considerable support from the
outside, from countries where the U.S. has also increased its aid,
including military aid, recently. So it seems like a different situation
now.
MR. BURNS: Again, you're just going to have to address your question
about possible outside interference to those countries. I can tell you
this. I was asked on Friday, and implicit in your question is this charge
that maybe U.S. assistance has furthered the ability of countries beyond
Khartoum to be active here, and I can't really speak much to the details of
that.
I would just note for the record that we have not extended any lethal
military assistance to any of the neighboring countries - to Ethiopia or
Uganda or Eritrea. Furthermore, the non-lethal assistance that is in our
Fiscal Year 1996 budget, I believe around $15 million, has not even reached
these countries. So there's no possibility of American assistance,
military assistance, non-lethal, contributing in any way to what's going on
in and around Sudan.
QUESTION: Can you tell me -- a follow-up, Nick - why the United States
voted against an attempt to take this whole matter up at the Security
Council.
MR. BURNS: That's a very good question. We do believe it's important
for the United Nations to be involved in all the questions surrounding the
attempted assassination of President Mubarak and the support that the
Sudanese Government has given to international terrorism. That question is
at the United Nations and should stay there.
This particular question - of the situation in Eastern Sudan and the
problems that Sudan has had with some of its neighboring countries - we
believe can be best resolved through the actions of the Organization of
African Unity. That's the advice that we've given, but, of course, the
United States is not in a position to dictate the decision as to which
international body looks at this question. But our advice would be the
Organization of African Unity is the best institution to try to resolve
this conflict.
QUESTION: On that same subject, some Egyptian opposition parties today
accused Israel of having a role in Sudan, in the conflict. Are you aware
of any Israeli role?
MR. BURNS: It's always easy to accuse Israel of doing this or that,
and we've seen some other governments in the region, in the Middle East, do
that just in the last couple of weeks. I'm not aware of any Israeli
involvement. Ask the Israeli Government. I'm not aware of any. I've not
heard that story.
Still on this issue?
QUESTION: On Colombia. A judge on Friday sentenced the Cali cartel's
drug kingpins to nine and ten years respectively. This has been termed as
very low sentences. Ambassador Frechette said it was really, really
regrettable that these were the kinds of sentences. Can you comment on
this?
MR. BURNS: We fully support Ambassador Frechette's comments. We're
extremely disappointed at the inadequate sentences that have been given to
these two narco-traffickers, because the Rodriquez or Orejuela brothers are
notorious, major kingpins. These are the people who have controlled a
multibillion dollar drug trafficking ring. They aren't the servants of
that ring. They aren't the foot soldiers. They're the people who run the
financial and drug empire.
Nobody knows how much cocaine they are responsible for shipping around
the world, but in the span of only one year in the early 1990s, U.S. and
international law enforcement authorities seized over 27 tons of cocaine
belonging to the Rodriquez or Orejuela organization. That gives you some
idea of the of the magnitude of their business operation - their narcotics
operation.
Sentences of nine years and ten-and-a-half years for crimes of that
magnitude are woefully insufficient, and we've been very pleased to see
even the Colombian President - President Samper - question the Colombian
judicial system - the system that offers these light sentences. You know
what happens. They live in these jails. They're called jails, but they're
more like penthouses. They have phone contact with their lieutenants in
the narco-trafficking organization. They don't have a cement bed. They
have all of the trappings of a multimillionaire drug kingpin life. They
live the high life in jail.
Obviously, the sentencing structure needs to be looked at, but also the
conditions of incarceration need to be looked at. Why should they have
these kinds of cushy conditions when an average Colombian criminal -
somebody without money and influence - would have a normal prison
existence. There's a lot that's got to be looked through here by the
Colombian judicial system.
QUESTION: How does it affect the certification process that will come
out March 1st?
MR. BURNS: If you look at our narcotics report of 1996, you will note
that this issue is an issue worldwide - not just for Colombia but for a lot
of other countries. It's a factor in the decision that we have to make
about certification.
Still on Colombia? Yes, Judd and then -
QUESTION: A couple of prominent Colombians today called for Colombia to
rethink its policy on extradition. Do you think that these kinds of
sentences might in the end have that effect?
MR. BURNS: Colombia is going to have to make its own decision. As you
know, we've had a longstanding position of interest in that. People who
traffic in the United States, people who violate our own laws in certain
cases we think ought to be eligible for extradition. But that's an issue
that we continue to discuss with the Colombian Government
Still on Colombia?
QUESTION: Yes, Colombia. The President, as you just mentioned, he's
going to interfere with - or he's not agreeing with this sentencing. Do
you believe that - is this a way of showing the United States that Colombia
as a whole is trying to work hard on meeting what the U.S. is expecting
from them - not just the decision from one judge?
MR. BURNS: We certainly hope the Colombian Government will act on
President Samper's initial public statements and make an issue of this
inside the Colombian Government, as the Executive part of the Colombian
Government affects the judicial authorities. It's up to them to make sure
that the laws are being respected and the laws make sense and are
consistent with international standards. These lenient sentences are not
consistent with what most countries in the world do.
QUESTION: Follow-up. We just received on Saturday the new Ambassador
from Colombia, who as a Minister of Defense was very well respected by the
United States Government. Are you expecting that his presence in
Washington is going to be a good way to reestablish this certification for
Colombia?
MR. BURNS: The Ambassador-designate Juan Carlos Esguerra arrived in
Washington, I believe, on Saturday. He was met by officials of the State
Department. We're looking forward to working with him. We have had a good
relationship with him in the past. Obviously, whatever he can do to
strengthen the policies and actions of the Colombia Government on narcotics
issues will be very helpful in this question of certification, but also
more broadly in just meeting Colombia's own obligations to its citizens and
to its neighbors in this hemisphere.
There are many factors that will go into the certification decision.
Actions are much more important than words, and we'll want to have the
closest possibly cooperation of the Ambassador-designate as we proceed on
this certification decision.
Still on Colombia?
QUESTION: Yes. In his first press conference, Ambassador Esguerra just
talked like an hour ago and mentioned a little bit of a disappointment
about the way the United States does not seem to recognize the difference
among the different branches - the judicial and the executive branches, for
example - when it comes to judging the results, when it has to do with the
sentencing, for example. So what is your response? I mean, do you think
that you are judging unjustly the executive branch for a decision that was
made in the judicial branch?
MR. BURNS: We have to judge the Colombian President and his senior
cabinet officials based on their actions, and we'll continue to do that.
We're of course sensitive to the constitutional framework of Colombia, as
we are to other countries, and even in our own country sometimes you need
to make that separation. That's why it's good to see positive public
statements from the President of Colombia about these sentencings and the
leniency of these sentences.
QUESTION: Nick -
MR. BURNS: Still on Colombia? Any more? On India, yes.
QUESTION: You have issued as statement about that Mr. Singh was
extradited by the U.S. on the charges of bombing in Delhi which killed nine
people. Also you have warned the U.S. Embassies and Consulates abroad. Is
there a reason why you have warned Embassies? Also, what sort of
(inaudible) played -
MR. BURNS: Because we know that sometimes when decisions like this -
extradition decisions are announced, it sometimes is accompanied by a
reaction - not by a government but by people or various groups, and we
wanted to make sure that American citizens are cognizant of that -
understand that as they travel in these areas.
QUESTION: And do you have any idea how they got in the U.S., on what
kind of visa, husband and wife?
MR. BURNS: I don't have that information, no, but we can check on it
for you.
QUESTION: Can you look into this?
MR. BURNS: We can do that, yes.
Mr. Lambros, welcome back.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: It's been a long time. We've missed you. We've had a lot
of action on Cyprus since you were gone, and I was probably not able to do
it without you.
QUESTION: I followed very carefully. I was in Greece.
MR. BURNS: Did you follow --
QUESTION: Yes, definitely. Regarding moratorium over Cyprus, the
Cypriot President, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, stated that the moratorium is
dead. Mr. Carey Cavanaugh however, stated that the moratorium is alive.
Could you please clarify your position?
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to, Mr. Lambros. About a week ago, when Mr.
Cavanaugh met with President Clerides, he received signals from the
Cypriots, as well as the Greeks, as well as the Turks, that they would all
work very hard last week on this proposal to limit - for a moratorium -
excuse me - on military flights over the Aegean.
Unfortunately, we've been -
QUESTION: The Aegean?
MR. BURNS: On Cyprus, excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Lambros, I've got to
be on my toes with you back. I know you're looking at every word that I
say and parsing it.
We were very disappointed that the parties were not able to conclude the
measure which has been on the table in different forms since July 1996. We
had been encouraged, as I said, by some positive statements that we had
heard out of Nicosia, Ankara and Athens last week. But unfortunately when
the Cypriot and Greek leadership met in Athens on Friday, they were unable
to reach a final agreement on this arrangement.
We believe that this approach of a moratorium offers a diplomatic
alternative to the deployment of an anti-aircraft system, and there is a
link between them, and that the agreement on the moratorium perhaps makes
it unnecessary to deploy the anti-aircraft system in 1998, about a year-and-
a-half from now.
Nonetheless, we'll continue to work with all the parties, including the
Turkish Government, on this proposal and also on the other measures along
the green line - along the boundary line, excuse me - and the other issues
involved in the Greek and Turkish relationships, so that all these problems
can be resolved peacefully and without resort to threats. That's what,
unfortunately, we've seen over the last couple of weeks - unnecessary
rhetoric from all sides.
QUESTION: Would you please confirm information that Mr. Carey Cavanaugh,
during his last trip in Athens, discussed also with the Greek Foreign
Minister, Theodhoros Pangalos, that the proposed moratorium as you mention
over Cyprus should be extended over the Aegean Sea, as it was proposed, by
Professor Khristos Rozakis?
MR. BURNS: When Carey gets back, I'll talk to him and ask him that
question, and we'll see what we can get you on that. That wasn't part of
what we said publicly last week. I know he did have a good conversation
about other issues, and I'll just have to get back to you on that, Mr.
Lambros.
QUESTION: Would you take this question?
MR. BURNS: Be glad to, yes. Any follow-up to this?
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: About Turkey.
MR. BURNS: I think there might be follow-up to this question.
QUESTION: Yes. What do you think is the problem? I mean, why did the
parties and specifically the Cypriots say one thing and then reject
it?
MR. BURNS: We did not have ironclad assurances that this agreement
would be reached last week. But we had positive signals that they could
accept it. You'll have to ask the Greek Government and the Cypriot
Government why they did not conclude this agreement on Friday. We're
disappointed. We're very disappointed, and we'll continue working with
them on it.
QUESTION: Any plans for Cavanaugh or somebody else to go out there any
time soon?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any new missions that we can announce, but
I can say that we'll be keeping close track of these issues, and we'll be
heavily involved. Ambassador Ken Brill met with President Clerides today
in Nicosia. Ambassador Brill expressed our disappointment to the press
there, and he will remain on top of this issue.
Yes, Savas. Savas had a question, I think, and then Ugur.
QUESTION: A different - I have Cyprus question.
QUESTION: Ankara, the Turkish Government, and the Turkish Cypriot
Government issued a joint declaration yesterday. It is a mirror image of
the joint defense agreement between Greece and the Greek Cypriot Government,
basically saying any attack, threat on Turkish Cypriots would be perceived
as a direct attack on Turkey; and if Greek Cypriots go ahead with their
plans to have these naval and air bases in Cyprus, there will be similar
mirror image bases in north. Could you comment on this new development?
MR. BURNS: I think that we've said many times in the past that there
is no reason for the Turkish Government or the Turkish Cypriots to
overreact to the events of the last ten days. We are calling upon all
parties for restraint, and I would note for the Turkish Government and the
Turkish Cypriot leadership that President Clerides has promised that this
antiaircraft system will not be deployed for up to 16 months. That's a
very significant promise, and none of the parts of this system will
actually even be imported into Cyprus during that time. This should allow
all the parties to work out their differences amicably without resort to
the kind of dramatic statements and threats that have been made.
QUESTION: To go back to (inaudible) question, is it fair to say, Nick,
that Ambassador Ken Brill heard from President Clerides a definite no this
morning?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if it was a definite "no." I think it was a
statement that they were not able to reach an agreement on Friday. I don't
know if this agreement will be impossible to reach in the future. We're
not going to stop our efforts to suggest that this is the best way forward:
A moratorium that would increase the level of confidence on the part of all
the actors in the region and give some diplomatic space, some quiet space,
for the negotiators to work on these problems without resort to threats.
QUESTION: How would you characterize the Turkish approach to the
proposal? Are they accepting it?
MR. BURNS: I have characterized - oh, you mean to the specific
proposal.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I'd let the Turkish Government do that.
QUESTION: Nick -
MR. BURNS: Savas.
QUESTION: Head of the PKK front organization, Mr. Kani Xulam, in
Washington, D.C., accused the State Department, because it's harassing him.
Do you have any comment on the subject?
MR. BURNS: I do. I looked into this this morning, and, as soon as I
can find it, I'm going to begin talking about it, but I'll filibuster in
the meantime. It's some place here.
We looked into this this morning, and the charge that somehow the State
Department is harassing this guy is just baseless. Let me tell you the
facts.
On the afternoon of January 16th, last Thursday, the State
Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security received a call from the
District Attorney's office in Santa Barbara, California. The District
Attorney's office informed us that they had issued a nine-count felony
arrest warrant for Mr. Xulam. They requested our assistance in locating
him. We agreed to provide that assistance.
On Friday, January 17th, Mr. Xulam was located by Diplomatic
Security agents of the Department of State and arrangements were made with
the Metropolitan Police of Washington, D.C., to arrest him, and he was
arrested in the presence of two of our Diplomatic Security agents.
Now, these charges are very serious - nine counts of felony. They were
brought by the District Attorney in Santa Barbara. They're not State
Department charges. That's not how the American judicial system works, as
you know very well, but perhaps he doesn't know or chooses not to believe.
He's got to submit to the legal authority of the State of California here.
These are serious charges. He'll have to face them.
The State Department simply provided assistance at the request of our own
judicial authorities and was able to help find him and help in his arrest.
That's what we're responsible for doing under our own law. He now faces a
charge - a trial in the United States, and I refer you to the District
Attorney in Santa Barbara, California, for an elucidation of the charges
brought against him.
QUESTION: One of those charges is larceny, if I'm correct. I wasn't at
the hearing this Saturday. He claimed that this is old charges. It's
connected with his passport fraud. Do you have any knowledge about this
subject?
MR. BURNS: I can't discuss the charges. Our system at the State
Department, now being a law enforcement agency, would never discuss charges
like this. That's up to the State of California.
Bill.
QUESTION: Nick, at the other end of the - near the terminus of the
cocaine pipeline from Colombia through Mexico, there's an article today by
Mr. Dettmer -
MR. BURNS: Mr. -
QUESTION: Mr. Dettmer -- Jamie Dettmer, published by the Washington
Times today. Mr. Dettmer's article alleges that U.S. law enforcement
agencies - the DEA, FBI, and Customs - are not presently being allowed to
carry their firearms into Mexico on their official business. It further
alleges that there are four vetted Task Forces that have been trained by
DEA, including 20, I believe, Mexican officers in each Task Force, that are
not just sitting, not being deployed, not being allowed to be deployed by
Mexico.
My question is, do you have any particular comment on this article and
these allegations in lieu of the fact that robberies are up in Mexico City,
and a 100 percent increase per year in the use of cocaine in Mexico City
may be a factor?
MR. BURNS: No. No, I don't have any particular comment. I would
refer you to General McCaffrey's office. He's the coordinator of America's
drug war against the narco-traffickers. He is in close touch with the
Mexican Government authorities on this. I'd refer you to his office.
QUESTION: You can't say whether you think this is accurate or
not?
MR. BURNS: No, I cannot. No. Betsy has been waiting.
QUESTION: Nick, on diplomatic immunity. Have you heard from - have you
gotten a report either from New York on the New York incident or from the
U.S. Attorney's office on the Washington, D.C. Makharadze incident?
MR. BURNS: No, on both counts. We have not received the police report
from the New York City Police Department. We've not heard of any major
change by the U.S. Attorney in his proceedings. He's still investigating
these charges - allegations - against Mr. Makharadze.
QUESTION: Have you heard at all from New York when this report might be
forthcoming? This has been a good three weeks.
MR. BURNS: I believe it's not unusual in cases like this to have a
report take so long to write. I'm not saying anything pejorative there,
because the New York City police has got to be - they want to, of course,
interview all the bystanders, make sure they've done all of their
investigation before they release an official, comprehensive, final police
report which will then stand as evidence, perhaps, in any kind of future
proceedings.
So we haven't been surprised by that. I just can't speculate on when
this report will arrive. I'd refer you to Mayor Giuliani and the City of
New York.
QUESTION: On the same subject, Nick. Have you been aware - have you
been made aware of a Russian police campaign to harass foreigners,
particularly Americans in Moscow, apparently in retaliation for the New
York case?
MR. BURNS: I heard a very interesting report on NPR on Friday morning
about this. I was intrigued by it. I can't believe the Russians would do
anything like this. We expect - I'm shocked. We expect that the Russian
Government authorities, officials in New York and in Washington, diplomats,
will observe our laws just as we expect all diplomats to observe our laws.
When they don't, they usually hear about it, from a police department in
New York or Washington, or sometimes from the State Department.
QUESTION: Is there a campaign of systematic arrest against American
diplomats in Moscow?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check with John Tefft, who is our very, very
fine Charge d'Affaires in Moscow and ask him that question. I think it's a
good, legitimate question. I'll get back to you.
QUESTION: You mean you haven't heard from him that he was busted
twice?
MR. BURNS: I have not heard that. I heard NPR say that. I have not
talked to John. I've not heard from our experts on Russian Affairs if this
is the case. But it's a serious question and I'll give you a serious
answer at the briefing tomorrow.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) beyond diplomats -
MR. BURNS: That's really important, if we have journalists being
busted. Look, I think it's a good question. I think it's a legitimate
question. I'll try to get a good answer. But the point is that we are the
host here of the greatest collection of diplomats anywhere in the world.
Our laws ought to be respected. That's our constant refrain to other
governments.
George.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about the Chinese threat to strip the
people of Hong Kong of some of their civil liberties?
MR. BURNS: I certainly do. I certainly do have something about that.
We have been very concerned about those reports. We understand that a sub-
group of China's preparatory committee on Hong Kong has recommended that
portions of Hong Kong's Bill of Rights be repealed and that certain
colonial-era public order ordinances, including some of those amended in
1991, be reinstated. Protection of civil liberties is an important
guarantee of the 1984 Joint Declaration between China and the United
Kingdom. It's an important part of China's own 1990 Basic Law for Hong
Kong. This is a critical component of Hong Kong's way of life. It is vital
to continuing confidence in Hong Kong.
We're deeply concerned over any attempts to weaken civil liberties and
basic freedoms in Hong Kong. We believe this recommendation should be re-
examined - re-examined carefully against China's commitment to preserve
human rights, freedom of the press, and individual freedoms in Hong Kong.
Statements and recommendations of this kind do not help foster stability or
confidence in Hong Kong. We hope that China and the future Hong Kong
Government will consider seriously the damage that erosion of Hong Kong's
civil liberties and basic freedoms could do to its way of life and its high
degree of autonomy.
QUESTION: Nick, do you then think that this is a violation of the Joint
Declaration?
MR. BURNS: I think it's important to note what this is and what it
isn't. These are recommendations made by the preparatory committee. A
final decision has not yet been made. So in the intervening time, before
that decision is made, we will be raising this issue with the Chinese
authorities in Beijing. You can be assured of that. Our Consulate General
in Hong Kong will be doing its utmost to follow this issue and to confer
with the current Hong Kong Government. You've already seen some statements
on this issue by Chris Patten.
It's a very important issue. The Hong Kong Bill of Rights ordinance, as
you know, was enacted in June 1991 to codify the rights that are elaborated
in the international covenant on civil and political rights and the
international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. These are
important foundations for human rights all around the world. Hong Kong
should not be an exception. We should expect that when the Chinese
Government - when reversion does take place that all of these rights will
be respected. That's our strong hope.
QUESTION: What if they do go ahead with it? Would it be a violation of
the Joint Declaration?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I've said what I wanted to say about this issue. If,
in fact, the decision is made, then we'll have something else to say about
it at that time. You can be assured of that.
Savas.
QUESTION: Any officials - Iranian-English newspaper, Tehran Times,
report that the Iranian Government is ready to establish diplomatic
relations with the United States. They are asking some countries for
mediation.
Lately, the Turkish Minister of State, Mr. Adak, was here. I know when
the Iranian President was in Ankara, he asked the Turkish Government. Did
you get this kind of mediation from Minister Adak's visit -
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of it. The establishment of diplomatic
relations is a mutual exercise. It cannot be done unilaterally. The other
side has to agree. I've seen nothing in the behavior of the Iranian
Government that would lead us to do that.
QUESTION: You are not ready for the consultation with the Tehran
government?
MR. BURNS: I'm unaware that it's been given any serious consideration
here in Washington, which is where decisions are made.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on (Inaudible) briefing on the Four-
Party talks?
MR. BURNS: I don't. I have asked that as soon as a decision is made
about the site for those talks, that we give that to you. The talks will
be held - the Four-Party talks briefing - on January 29. That would be a
week from Wednesday.
We still are trying to work out with the North Koreans and the Republic
of Korea where those talks would be held, and we don't have the final
decision on that.
QUESTION: About this on-going hostage situation in Lima, Peru. What is
your basic position about the Peruvian Government's idea of letting the
terrorists out of the country - to a third country? Do you support or are
you critical of that?
MR. BURNS: The United States continues to condemn the hostage-taking
in Lima. We continue to be in contact with the Peruvian Government. Our
belief is that the terrorists - and that's who they are; they're terrorists
- they should release all of the hostages, all 73 of the hostages, quickly,
safely, and unharmed.
The Peruvian Government proposed forming a special commission. That is in
the hopes of advancing efforts to find a solution to the hostage problem.
But the Peruvian Government, as we understand it, said this commission will
be composed of representatives from the Catholic Church and the Red Cross
and that Canada be allowed to send a representative.
We support Peru's efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully. Although, as
you know, we strongly oppose any concessions to terrorists, we believe it's
important for the Peruvian Government to have open lines of communication
as a means of resolving the problem. That's a big distinction, of course;
one that's readily understood. We're not in a position and will not put
ourselves in a position of trying to second-guess the Peruvian Government.
President Fujimori has been admirable in the way he's handled this
problem. He's got a very, very difficult situation. We're not going to
second-guess him at all.
We've got a couple more questions. I want to say something on Serbia to
make sure that we do that before we leave.
The United States continues to be extremely disturbed by the actions of
the Serbian Government. They are now tying up this question of respect for
elections in a judicial process that cannot be considered to be democratic
by any means. We had been hopeful last week when the electoral commission
made its decision that the results should stand; that the Serbian
Government should back down. We were hopeful that the opposition could
actually take its seat in the Belgrade City Assembly and elsewhere.
But now the Serbian Government - Mr. Milosevic's party - has formally
protested - has formally protested the electoral commission's positive step
forward. They have tied this up in judicial knots and they've begun to use
physical force against demonstrators in the streets of Belgrade. This is
not a positive turn in these developments. We continue to be very clear,
along with our European allies, along with Canada, that the Gonzalez
Commission recommendations ought to be respected, and that is that the
November 17th elections should stand.
The opposition should be able to take its seat in the corridors of power.
We continue to remind the Serbian Government that the international
community will not react positively in any way to the use of violence and
the threat of the use of violence against protesters who have been
exercising their rights peacefully on the streets of Belgrade for more than
two months, and very admirably so. We condemn the use of force against
protesters in the streets of Belgrade.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) South Africa and Syria quickly, as a last
question. What is your reaction to the comments from the ANC Secretary
General's comments. She described America's Middle Eastern policy as
"bullying and hypocritical," and says South Africa -
MR. BURNS: What was the first word?
QUESTION: Bullying and hypocritical. It said South Africa might be
frog-marched into a foreign policy not of its own choosing.
MR. BURNS: That's quite a statement.
QUESTION: Quite a statement. What's your reaction?
MR. BURNS: I would just say, let's look at the facts here. I don't
think the Palestinians or the Israelis or Jordanians or Egyptians or
Tunisians or Moroccans or the Saudis or the people in the Emirates or in
Kuwait would ever describe the United States in those terms. I won't even
repeat the words.
I think if you look at reality in the Middle East, the United States is
widely seen, except in Baghdad perhaps, as the indispensable intermediary
and sometimes mediator. We have played a historically positive role. Just
look at the events of last week in the Hebron negotiations.
Now, on the issue that South Africa is concerned about, the same issue
we're concerned about. Our view is that all of us, internationally, have a
responsibility to our own countries to the global fight against terrorism.
Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. It is inadmissible for countries,
and unwise, to sell arms to Syria. That does not further the fight against
global terrorism, nor will it bring stability to the Middle East. That's
what we've all got to be interested in - peace and stability in the Middle
East.
We have a difference of view here. We know that the South African
Government has not made a decision, and we hope to continue an amicable,
reasonable, and rational discussion of the issues in private. That's what
friendly countries do, much in the way that we discuss our differences on
Cuba with the Canadian Government. We discuss them respectfully and
rationally and in a peaceful way.
So we would respectfully submit, it's better to have a useful, private
discussion rather than this war of words which is not going to help South
Africa or the United States. We won't engage in this war of words. We're
not interested in doing that.
QUESTION: Can I just ask you about -- Senator Helms has reportedly
written to the President asking that the ARMSCOR situation be linked to
this controversy. In the eyes of the State Department, are the two issues
entirely separate?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me -
QUESTION: The ARMSCOR situation.
MR. BURNS: ARMSCOR? They're entirely separate. Entirely separate.
QUESTION: According to the Associated Press today, the French police,
on information from German authorities, arrested 22 persons in Paris in
connection with a suspected terrorist network. Seven of them were linked
to an investigation of an Islamic network in Germany. Do you have anything
on that?
MR. BURNS: I don't have any information on that. I don't know any of
the facts. But certainly we support the efforts of the French Government,
in general, to fight terrorism, which has been a big problem in France. We
are in close touch with the Germans and French on a variety of general
issues, not on this one specifically. But we've all got to fight the
terrorism problem worldwide.
Thank you, Mr. Lambros, for bringing that up.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:15 p.m.)
(###)
|
