U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #12, 97-01-22
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1204
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
January 22, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS and STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
1 A/S John Kornblum Meeting with Serbian Students
2 Update on Serbian Demonstrations/Elections
2 Signing of Czech-German Declaration
2-3 A/S Raphel Travel Itinerary and Meetings
3 Consular Information Sheet on Israel
CUBA
3-4,6-7 Canadian Foreign Minister Axworthy's Visit
4-5,8 U.S. Policy towards Cuba
6,7-8 Joint Canadian/Cuban Statement
8-9 Pope's proposed visit to Cuba
UN
9-10 Meetings of Kofi Annan in Washington
DEPARTMENT
10-11 Secretary-Designate Albright timetable on announcement of appointments
13-14 Response to Written Questions by Secretary -Designate Albright
GERMANY
11 Czech-German Agreement
AFRICA
11 Activities of Executive Outcomes Organization
ISRAEL
11-13 Consular Information Sheet on Rabbinical Court
SOUTH AFRICA
14 Vote on Sale of Arms to Syria
SERBIA
14-15 Requests for Aid by Serbian Students visiting Washington
15 Update on US reactions to Serbian Gov't actions
TURKEY
15 NATO Enlargement
15-16 Cavanaugh comments of flights over Aegean
16 Sale of arms to Cyprus
16-17 Cavanaugh recommendation of two territorial
NORTH KOREA
17 Venue for Four Party Talks Briefing
NATO
17-18 US policy on NATO Enlargement and the EU
SUDAN
18-19 Fighting in Area
RUSSIA
19-20 Harassment of Foreigners
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #12
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997, 1:21 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon and welcome to the State Department. I have a
couple of announcements to make.
First I want to introduce some guests. Ms. Annemieke Ruigrok, who is the
First Secretary of the Dutch Embassy, and I hope I pronounced your name
correctly. Was that pretty good in Dutch? And Mr. Floris Van Hoevell of
the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who are accompanied by Oscar DeSoto,
who's our Desk Officer for The Netherlands. They've been observing the
press guidance process this morning, which I hope has been helpful to you,
and we want to welcome you here today.
We also have a Norwegian journalist, Ingeborg Eliassen, here from Norway. I
want to welcome this journalist as well.
A couple of things for you. First, John Kornblum met this morning with four
leaders of the student protest movement from Belgrade. As you probably
heard, they're visiting here - visiting Washington at the invitation of a
Serbian-American businessman, Milan Panic, and they've attended the
inauguration of President Clinton.
Assistant Secretary Kornblum expressed to the students when he met with
them this morning his admiration for their courage and their determination,
and in the way that the Serbian students have conducted themselves over the
past two months. He assured them of United States' support for democracy in
Serbia. The students explained their protest activities, which are now, as
you know, beginning a third month, and they briefed Assistant Secretary
Kornblum on the situation in Belgrade. They emphasized the broad support
their movement has received from all sectors of Serbian society.
Assistant Secretary Kornblum commended them on the peaceful and creative
nature of the demonstrations. He said he was deeply concerned by the press
reports over the last two days as the Serbian police have begun to use
violence and force against student demonstrators and other demonstrators on
the streets of Belgrade. He emphasized that the only solution for the
current crisis in Serbia is for the Serbian Government to respect the
recommendations of the OSCE. He was very impressed by them.
In general, I can tell you we continue to be unimpressed by the reaction of
the Belgrade Government to the demonstrations in the streets of
Belgrade. We would offer the following public advice to
Mr. Milosevic. Election results cannot be negotiated in the back rooms -
the smoke-filled back rooms. Election results are not bargaining chips to
enhance the political stature or the political survivability or the
political advantage of the Government in Belgrade. The Gonzalez report is
very clear, and all Western countries are united on it - election results
must be respected.
Yesterday - and we discovered this after our briefing yesterday - the
Serbian Government claimed that they've now won - they actually did win the
elections, they say, in eight of the 15 constituencies. This is a
repudiation of the OSCE of former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez,
and it digs the Serbian Government more deeply into the hole that they've
been digging for themselves over the last two months.
It is unacceptable to the international community to see the Serbian
Government now claim that they won the elections, when they clearly did not
win the elections. In the long run, these kinds of legal maneuvers,
familiar from the days of communism, and these stalling tactics are not
going to work. So we reiterate our call today on the Serbian Government to
respect the elections.
A couple of other items for you. We're issuing a statement today on the
signing of the Czech-German declaration in Prague. The United States warmly
welcomes the signing in Prague on Tuesday of the Czech-German joint
declaration by Prime Minister Klaus and Chancellor Kohl. We believe that
this will strengthen further the strong ties between these two close
friends of the United States. This is an important step forward in
overcoming the sometimes difficult legacy of the second World War and of
its aftermath, and we commend the commitment of the Czech and German
Governments, as well as the people of both countries, not to burden their
relations with political and legal questions arising from the past. We look
forward to the parliaments of both countries endorsing the declaration
expeditiously.
For ourselves, the United States is confident that this declaration will
lead to greater understanding between the people of the Czech Republic and
Germany, and we look forward to continuing to work with both of them as
partners in a secure and unified transatlantic community.
I also wanted to tell you that Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel is
in South Asia. She has been traveling in the region. She's currently in
Islamabad and Pakistan. She will also be visiting Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and
India. She will not be visiting Afghanistan. She will be meeting with in
each country senior political leaders of each of the countries involved, as
well as our Embassy staffs.
As part of her regular responsibilities, she's taking time in these
countries, particularly in Pakistan, to talk about Afghanistan. You may
have seen some press reports that she did have a meeting today with a
Taliban representative - Mullah Wakil Ahmed. This is part of our
long-standing series of contacts and meetings that we have had not only
with the Taliban but with all of the factions in Afghanistan, and those
meetings have occurred inside Afghanistan as well as outside Afghanistan,
as this meeting did.
We use our meetings to convey our concerns about the situation in
Afghanistan. As you know, we don't recognize any of the factions as the
legitimate government of Afghanistan. We have ongoing concerns regionally
about neighbors of Afghanistan not funneling arms to the factions. We'd
like to see them resolve their severe problems peacefully, and we do take
the opportunity in these meetings, as Assistant Secretary Raphel did today
in Islamabad, especially with representatives of the Taliban, to note our
very strong concerns about the human rights deficiencies of the Taliban
regime, particularly concerning women and girls.
So I've got a little bit more information on her trip, and I'll be glad to
go into that, should you wish.
Finally, I want to just let you know about another Consular information
sheet that we're issuing today on Israel, and this concerns the Rabinnical
Court detention of American citizens who are Jewish-Americans in
Israel. It's a rather complicated issue. If you're interested, we can go
into this.
George.
QUESTION: The Canadian Foreign Minister opened his visit to Cuba last
night, and apparently the visit includes some sort of human rights
agreement between the two countries. Do you have anything to say about the
visit?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have -- as you would expect -- we've talked to the
Canadian Government about the visit. They alerted us to the visit before it
occurred, as I mentioned yesterday, and we do expect at some point later
this afternoon the Canadian and Cuban Governments will have a joint
statement to make. We are not aware of the contents of that joint
statement, but we'll look at it very closely and, if appropriate, have
something to say perhaps tomorrow, if that's appropriate.
Since you had a lot of fun with this issue yesterday and you tried to get
me to make some news - and you may have succeeded in that - I wanted to
repeat -- especially for the benefit of our colleagues from Canada, two of
whom at least are here today -- I wanted to repeat in very clear simple
terms how we look at this visit.
First of all, and this bears repeating, we have the highest personal
respect for Minister Axworthy, and we have the closest possible
relationship with the Canadian Government.
Secondly, as I said yesterday in my opening remarks, and I repeated it
several times, the United States Government is not questioning the wisdom
of this trip. We're not even commenting on whether or not Minister Axworthy
should have undertaken it. That's a decision for him and for the Canadian
Government.
We do have policy disagreements with the Canadian Government on Cuba of
about 37 years standing, and I expect those disagreements, if they
continue, will be discussed privately, as has been our practice. We are
heartened by the recent public attention given to the issue of human rights
in Cuba not just by Canada but by almost all of our Western allies in
Europe, in this hemisphere, and that includes governments in Central and
South America.
Minister Axworthy said again yesterday that he was raising human rights
issues in Cuba during his visit, and that is a very good thing. Frankly,
the United States remains skeptical that the Cuban Government is in fact
prepared to take systematic and meaningful steps that would lead to a
transition to democratic rule in Cuba, or that would reflect a change in
the position of the Cuban Government on human rights.
Let me give you an example. Just in the last two weeks, several prominent
Cuban democracy activists - people living in Cuba - have been arrested by
the Cuban authorities, and this is reminiscent of the severe crackdown in
February 1996 against the democracy movement and specifically against the
Concilio Cubano. This reflects a continuing pattern of repression in Cuba
by the Castro Government which concerns us deeply, and we've brought this
issue of the arrest of these prominent democracy activists to the attention
of the Cuban Government through our Interests Section in Cuba.
QUESTION: Nick, yesterday -
MR. BURNS: George, I just wanted to know if you had a follow-up. Carol.
QUESTION: Yesterday you suggested that this trip was a reward - would
reward Castro, and I wondered if you still felt that way.
MR. BURNS: Carol, obviously I stand by everything I said yesterday. I
also wanted to just reiterate the fundamental points that I made two or
three times yesterday in the little debate that we had here on whither
Cuba, and what's the correct policy of the West to have towards Cuba. I've
reiterated those fundamental points this morning.
QUESTION: Do you have the names of the dissidents arrested and the
circumstances?
MR. BURNS: I believe we have the names of the dissidents who have been
arrested. We're choosing not to make them public for one reason which I
think, George, you'll understand, and that is we are urging the Cuban
Government to release them. We think these people ought to have the right
to remain in Cuba. If we go public with their names, it perhaps puts them
in a position of further jeopardy, which they should not be in.
QUESTION: These are Cubans?
MR. BURNS: These are Cuban citizens. These are Cuban citizens living in
Cuba who have been arrested because of their inclination towards democracy.
QUESTION: Nick, did the Canadian Government express concern to you in
some way about your choice of words yesterday, specifically (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Actually, no, and let me tell you I expressed some concern -
me and others - to Canadian Government officials here in Washington and in
- I called our Charge d'Affaires, Tom Weston, in Ottawa, because I was
concerned by how the stories played, frankly. We had an interesting
discussion yesterday, and I felt I made over and over again the points
about respect for the Canadian Government; the point about we weren't
contesting the fact that Minister Axworthy was traveling there, and I noted
positively Minister Axworthy's concern for human rights, and the fact that
he was going down there to raise human rights issues.
I felt, frankly, that I didn't see in most of the press reports that those
particular points got a lot of attention. They were buried at the end of
some of the reports. Some of the other comments that I made in general
about our own policy towards Cuba and the fact that we do not have a policy
of engagement but one of isolation, those points were up front.
I was concerned about that, so I wanted the Canadian Government - the
Embassy here in Washington - to understand exactly what I said and what was
behind our statement, and I wanted our chief diplomat in Ottawa to
understand that as well. So I took the initiative, and the Canadian
Government did not express to me or I believe to anybody else that I've
talked to in our government any displeasure over the remarks.
I think we understand something - the Canadian and U.S. Governments. We've
had a 37-year discussion of this, which I imagine is going to continue as
long as Castro's in power, and we'll respectfully disagree on some
issues. But we are united in our concern for human rights, and I was trying
to get that point across yesterday. Perhaps today it will get there - get
into some of these news reports.
Henry.
QUESTION: When you're talking about inaccuracies in press coverage or at
least treatment, you're clearly talking about the American press, one
presumes, and not the Canadian press.
MR. BURNS: Well, Henry, I think - no, I had a very liberal view of that
question yesterday. I think it was transnational. I think it was
binational in this case.
QUESTION: That aside aside, it is reported that you actually phoned the
Canadian Embassy in Havana. Is that correct?
MR. BURNS: In Havana?
QUESTION: In Havana.
MR. BURNS: No, that's not correct. I called the Canadian Embassy here in
Washington out of respect for them and because of our very close working
relationship with Ambassador Chretien and his staff, and I also called, as
I said, our Embassy in Ottawa. We didn't want to have any
misunderstanding, because I think the press played this issue a lot harder,
frankly, than it deserved to be played.
QUESTION: Can I turn your attention to the joint statement coming out,
which is not yet public and no one knows what is in it, obviously. What
does the State Department intend to do when that document comes forward?
MR. BURNS: We intend to look at it, to read it, to analyze it, think
about it and, if it's appropriate, we'll have something to say. But I would
think that would be tomorrow. Our understanding from our Canadian
colleagues is that this statement will come out later this afternoon -
4:00, 4:30, 5:00 - it's always difficult to know when it will happen. I
think we want to take some time to talk to the Canadian Government about
the statement, about what it understands the statement to be, to hear what
Minister Axworthy says, and perhaps tomorrow we'll have something
additional to say about it.
QUESTION: Given the mindset that you've expressed here in suggesting that
you do not believe that this visit has any real hope of achieving anything
in the area of human rights or convincing the Castro Government to change
whatever it is that you feel they're not doing - if that statement had
positive remarks in it, is it conceivable that the State Department or the
American Government could join in aspects of what's in that statement?
MR. BURNS: We'll have to see the statement first and make our own
judgments about it, but I do want to correct the record on one thing. I
didn't say anything in today's briefing certainly. I was very careful not
to say anything negative about Minister Axworthy's visit.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: When I talked about the fact that we remain skeptical about
the intentions of the Cuban Government, that reflects the point of view of
the United States Government in our experience with the Cuban Government
over 37 years.
QUESTION: Nick, did you ask the Canadian Government to ask Minister
Axworthy to raise the issue of the recent arrests?
MR. BURNS: I didn't bring that up. I'm not aware that we've done that. I
don't know if we've done that or not, frankly. We've had a lot of
conversations with the Canadian Government.
QUESTION: Is it possible that you've done that?
MR. BURNS: In the realm of the possible - there are so many conversations
on a daily basis between Canadian and American diplomats, I simply don't
know what is said in all of them. Whether we asked him to raise these
cases, I just don't know. Just don't know.
QUESTION: Perhaps on following up on that question, you could give us
some advice on what takes place, as you suggested, when Canada informs the
United States that, indeed, the visit is going forward. Is that an
opportunity for you, then, to speak your mind on what may or may not occur
there, and did you?
MR. BURNS: Did we in the past, you mean?
QUESTION: You've told us over two days now that Canada gave you
forewarning about going on this trip. Perhaps you could just explain to us
the manner of that, and did you raise objections at that time to any aspect
of the trip?
MR. BURNS: I don't know what was said in the conversations between
Canadian and American diplomats. I understand the Canadians alerted us to
the Minister's trip. We're grateful for that. I expect we'll have a
briefing by the Canadian Government privately on what transpired during the
trip, as one would expect, in relations between two close allies like the
United States and Canada.
QUESTION: What would you like to see in that statement - joint statement
- from Mr. Axworthy and the Cuban Foreign Minister?
MR. BURNS: I think I'll just have to defer that question until
tomorrow. This is a Canadian effort with the Cuban Government. I don't
want to prejudge it in any way. Since we have no idea what's going to be in
the statement, it's very difficult or us to try to give some public advice
to the Canadian Government.
QUESTION: I don't want to haggle this point, Mr. Burns -
MR. BURNS: Not at all, Henry.
QUESTION: You say you don't want to prejudge -
MR. BURNS: This is not a good story in Canada. I can't imagine that
Canadian TV would be interested in this story.
QUESTION: I appreciate that. But you say you don't want to prejudge and
yet you have clearly said, today and yesterday, that you have grave doubts,
I think was your exact word, about anything fruitful coming out of
this. Now, on the other hand, you say, "Well, I don't want to prejudge this
issue."
MR. BURNS: No. I've been very careful -
QUESTION: Isn't the -
MR. BURNS: -- the textual analysis of my remarks yesterday and
today. That would be interesting. But I've been very careful to describe
U.S. Government views and U.S. Government
policy. Since we don't know what's going to come out of this communique,
we're going to have to let that issue just rest until later on today or
tomorrow. But I am describing, as you would expect me to describe, an
American Government view of the nature of the Cuban Government. We don't
think that Cuba has changed its stripes in the last 37 years.
With the repression of the Concilio Cubano in February of last year, with
the recent arrest of these democracy activists over the last two weeks,
there's no concrete evidence, Henry, that the Cuban Government is acting
differently than its autocratic nature; therefore, I'm just expressing
American Government views which I think is within the purview of the State
Department Spokesman.
QUESTION: Apologies to my colleagues for one final statement. Doesn't,
no matter what effort is made in Cuba by any country to do something about
human rights, deserve the support of this country in terms of hoping that
it may be against the mind set of the United States, nonetheless something
positive?
MR. BURNS: Yesterday, about three times and today at least twice, but
let's make it three today, I have said - and this reflects the thinking of
all of our leadership here at the State Department and at the White House -
that we are pleased that Minister Axworthy is raising these human rights
issues. We're pleased that the European Union has done so. We're pleased
that the Latin countries, at the Ibero-Latin summit in November, raised
these issues. It's the third time today that I've said that. That's the
reflection of our very strong view on this.
QUESTION: Same topic, but you may have covered this prior to the
Christmas break. It relates the Pope's possible visit to Cuba. Do you have
anything to say about that?
MR. BURNS: You're trying to make trouble for me, aren't you, Sid?
QUESTION: No it's pertinent.
MR. BURNS: Rule Number One of Spokesman from the State Department podium:
Never criticize the Pope. I will not do that. We have the highest respect
for the Pope; the highest respect for him. We wouldn't even think of even
entertaining an answer to your question. We have the highest respect for
the Pope.
QUESTION: You're serious?
MR. BURNS: I'm serious. Glyn (Davies), would you agree with this as the
Rule Number One of Spokesman?
MR. DAVIES: One, two, and three.
MR. BURNS: One, two, and three. All right, I got it. Especially if you're
Boston Irish like me. Grew up in the Catholic Church; exactly.
QUESTION: Do you have a comment?
We have the highest respect for the Pope, His Holiness, the Pope. We have
the highest respect for his democracy mission during his tenure as the Holy
Father. He has shown his commitment to human rights and democracy all over
the world, beginning in his native Poland. So there is no reason for us to
question in any way his intentions to travel to Cuba.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BURNS: As I said, we have the highest respect for His Holiness, the
Pope.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Catholics in Cuba -
MR. BURNS: I'm just going to have to let my very clear concise remarks
stand for the record as the U.S. Government's view on this issue. I
understand the need to make headlines but we're going to be true to our
policy.
QUESTION: Can I move to another man with whom you have the greatest
respect? Kofi Annan is arriving in Washington today. He'll meet the
President tomorrow.
MR. BURNS: Yes, he is.
QUESTION: Now you have the man in charge at the U.N. that you wanted. Do
you think American relations with the U.N. will settle down or do you think
opposition in Congress to repay money to the U.N. will continue to provide
problems?
MR. BURNS: You're right. Secretary General Kofi Annan will be in
Washington tomorrow. He'll meet with President Clinton at the White
House. He will also meet here at the Department with Under Secretary for
Political Affairs, Peter Tarnoff, and Under Secretary for Global Affairs,
Tim Wirth.
He is someone that we respect greatly. Secretary Christopher met him two
weeks ago at the United Nations. Deputy Secretary Talbott had his own
meeting with Mr. Annan at the United Nations.
We think that this is a new page in U.S. relations with the United Nations
because we believe that Mr. Annan is committed to reform of the
institution. He also has a sterling record as a U.N. diplomat in
peacekeeping and in other parts of the U.N. bureaucracy, and we look
forward to working with him. The President, Secretary-designate Madeleine
Albright, former Secretary Warren Christopher have all spoken to the fact
that the United States wants to meet its financial obligations to the
United Nations and that we will work toward that. We've made that
commitment to Secretary General Annan. We take that commitment very
seriously.
Tomorrow's discussions give us a chance to talk about that issue, about the
very serious responsibilities that the United Nations has for peace and
stability in the world, both in regional conflicts, on some of the global
issues that Secretary Christopher and Secretary-designate Madeleine
Albright have talked about, and the important lead role that the United
Nations should take on those issues. So this is a meeting of friends. It's
a new time and era in United States relations with the U.N., and we intend
to meet our commitments to that institution.
QUESTION: How confident is the State Department that it can persuade
Congress that this is a new era?
MR. BURNS: I think that is going to be a challenge because there is a lot
of skepticism in the Congress about the United Nations. But they're going
to see a new U.N. Secretary General when Mr. Annan visits Capitol Hill and
meets with the Congressional leadership. The Administration, of course,
will be reminding the Congress that we are the - in many ways, Franklin
Roosevelt was the inspiration, conceptualizer of the United Nations. We are
one of the founding nations. We are the host nation. We're the largest
country, or at least the most powerful country in the United Nations. We
have an obligation to meet our commitments. That gets to finances, and it
gets to a good faith effort on the part of the United States to be a good
partner to the other countries and the institutions. I don't think there's
anybody in our government who feels those responsibilities more seriously
than our Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright.
QUESTION: Was he not suppose to meet with Ambassador Albright tomorrow?
MR. BURNS: Secretary-designate Albright/Ambassador Albright is awaiting
confirmation by the Senate. The Senate, I understand, has begun debate on
her nomination. We expect the vote will take place probably beginning in
the next hour or two. If she is confirmed - if she is confirmed by the
United States Senate, then I would expect she would be sworn in tomorrow
and she would assume her responsibilities as Secretary of State.
If that is the case, then it may be possible for her to attend some of
these meetings but maybe not. I don't know about the meeting at the State
Department, but perhaps a meeting at the White House. We'll just have to
see how things go today.
QUESTION: Nick, when is -
MR. BURNS: But she doesn't want to presume in any way, shape, or form her
confirmation by the Senate. That is a constitutional duty that the Senate
must perform without undue interference from those of us at the State
Department.
QUESTION: When does Secretary-designate Albright expect to start making
announcements of her appointments?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe she's made that decision yet. She is not
confirmed. She must respect the wishes of the Senate and the role of the
Senate. Once that confirmation process is over and the vote is taken,
she'll begin to think about her first meetings and any other issues. But
she has been very, very careful not to presume that.
QUESTION: Are you trying to say that she has given no thought at all to
who she is going to name to top jobs in critical -
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not trying to say that whatsoever. I'm just saying
that she's careful and I've been very careful on her behalf publicly to
give due deference to the constitutional role that the Senate must play. So
it wouldn't be appropriate for us to talk about any of these issues until
she is confirmed, if she is to be confirmed by the Senate.
QUESTION: Nick, if I could take you back to the German-Czech agreement,
or whatever you want to call it. Just a point of historical interpretation
on the Administration's part. Do you think it was appropriate for the
Germans to demand that the Czechs apologize, I guess is the right word, for
the expulsion of Germans prior to the war, and for the Czechs to come
forward with that statement and apology?
MR. BURNS: It is not for the United States to position itself as some
kind of judge or arbiter about these incredibly complex political, social,
ethnic, and emotional issues stemming from what happened during the Second
World War and what happened in the aftermath of the war in Czechoslovakia
at the time.
We just note that two very good friends of the United States have made an
agreement at the highest levels; that they've asked their parliaments to
ratify that agreement; that they've asked their peoples to carry on a
relationship between each other in a spirit of that agreement. That's
frankly good enough for us. I don't think it's appropriate for us to cast
judgment on complex issues like this when so many years have gone by, when
you have Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Klaus and President Havel now
taking that responsibility on themselves. There are emotions on all sides
of this issue, as you know, on the Sudeten question and others. But we
simply cannot put ourselves in a position to comment on that.
QUESTION: Nick, there are a number of articles in the British and French
press in the last couple of days exposing the work of a group called
"Excutive Outcomes" which is characterized as a multinational war comprised
of former South African intelligence officers, former SIS officers which
are closely connected. They're said to advise the Rwandan Patriotic Front
-SPL. They're heavily financed by raw material concerns.
In light of the instabilities in countries like Zaire and Sudan, I wonder
if the United States is aware of the operations of "Executive Outcomes" and
if it's concerned that they might be conducting some of their operations to
destabilize countries in the hope of winning new gains in the rich raw
materials existing in these countries?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of the existence of this group. I've not heard
any reports privately about the operations of any such group.
Yes, Howard.
QUESTION: You issued a statement on Israel. Can you at least give the
short version of that?
MR. BURNS: It's very difficult to - it's so complex, but let me just try
to do that and then we'll post it. I've got a lot of things I can say,
perhaps now or later.
As we understand it, under Israel's judicial system, the rabbinical courts
exercise jurisdiction over all Jewish citizens and residents of Israel in
cases of marriage, divorce, and related issues such as child support and
child custody. There's been recent cases that have come to our attention of
our Consulate General in Jerusalem and our Embassy in Tel Aviv involving
American Jews who entered Israel as tourists and who have been prevented
from leaving Israel because of cases filed against them in the rabbinical
courts of Israel that are pending jurisdictional ruling. So these are
cases, for the most part, where private citizens, usually in divorce cases
or child custody cases, bring a claim against an American citizen. That
person - man or woman - who finds themselves in Israel as a tourist,
they're forced to stay in Israel to submit to the jurisdiction of the
rabbinical court on a matter that may have already been decided or ruled in
an American court.
In these cases, some of the American citizens have been forced to remain in
Israel for prolonged periods of time while the Israeli courts consider the
question of jurisdiction. We simply feel an obligation to remind the
American traveling public as well as American citizens living in Israel,
particularly those who are of the Jewish faith, that this situation exists
and that they may fall under the jurisdiction or the claim of jurisdiction
of these courts. It's very complicated, so we are issuing today a consular
notice to the American public advising them of this situation.
QUESTION: Are these cases where one of the parties is seeking a
rabbinical divorce? Is that what's happened here?
MR. BURNS: I assume that to be the case. But since I'm not an expert on
rabbinical law or on the Israeli judicial system, I don't want to give a
legal interpretation. But, Judd, I think you're in the ballpark. I think
you're in the ballpark.
It's our understanding - let me just read this - that in cases where it has
jurisdiction under Israeli law, the rabbinical court may impose sanctions,
including jail terms and restrictions on leaving the country on persons
married in Jewish religious ceremonies who, in case of divorce, refuse to
give their spouses a religious divorce. We understand this was the basis
for some of these stop orders that have already been issued by these
rabbinical courts.
So we just feel an obligation to American Jews, among others, to bring this
matter to their attention because it could have a bearing on a certain
number of people in our own country.
QUESTION: Nick, part of the by-product of Netanyahu's election has been a
tightening of rabbinical law. That's a fact, in granting and exercising
broader powers by the rabbinical court. Would you agree with that - I don't
know how you can disagree - and do you have maybe a broad statement on the
impact of his rule on these matters?
MR. BURNS: I think that Rule No. 5 of Spokesman is never criticize Chief
Rabbis in the State of Israel, never criticize Imams in Muslim countries,
or Popes, or Archbishops or Cardinals. That's a pretty good rule. I think
Glyn and I have tried to maintain Rule No. 5 as well. So I will
respectfully decline answering that question, Sid. I think you understand
why.
QUESTION: But you won't go to the defense of the Dalai Lama?
MR. BURNS: You're really trying to get me into trouble this week. There's
a pattern in this room. You're trying to get me fired during the
transition; right? You're doing a good job.
We've spoken repeatedly about the Dalai Lama. I can just refer you to all
of the very clear and concise statements that we've made about Tibet and
about religious freedom and about Mr. Choephel and about the Dalai
Lama. We've had a lot to say on that.
Carol. Are we getting off religion and back to politics and government and
foreign policy?
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR. BURNS: Good.
QUESTION: In her questions, written questions to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Ambassador Albright talks about a new initiative for
the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. She suggests this
will be to move them from economic stabilization to economic growth. I was
wondering if you could provide anymore details about this? How much it's
going to cost, and any of the particulars?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I also noted that in the written responses. Carol, we're
working on getting you and everyone else a response to that. I would
prefer, perhaps, we await the decision of the Senate today and then perhaps
the Secretary-designate, or people she appoints, will be in a position to
talk about that.
Strobe Talbott is also in Moscow. I want to get a chance to talk to him
before we go into this in much detail, but we will get you an answer on
that question.
QUESTION: Does this have any connection to the whole NATO enlargement
question, comprehensive package -
MR. BURNS: I don't believe it's inextricably bound to it. We have had,
since President Clinton took office and, indeed, President Bush followed
this policy, we've had a very aggressive policy of support for democracy,
press freedoms, economic change and reform in all of these countries of the
former Soviet Union. We've had the largest single bilateral assistance
program of any country in the world to these 12 countries.
I know that Secretary-designate Albright was speaking in that spirit. But I
do want to get you an answer on the specific question of what is this new
initiative; what's the money behind it, and what are the concrete parts of
the program. So I will get that to you.
QUESTION: Can you say, Nick, whether this is a Madeleine Albright idea or
a Clinton Administration proposal?
MR. BURNS: In a couple of hours, the two will be synonymous. If she
becomes Secretary of State, she will speak for the Clinton Administration.
QUESTION: In her written responses, she was speaking for Madeleine - I
mean, theoretically, she would be speaking for Madeleine Albright.
MR. BURNS: And, of course, reflecting the views of the U.S. Government. I
think this is a proposal that has been worked on for a while. Because she
mentioned it in these written questions, it means that she has given her
support to it which is a very significant thing, considering the position
she's going to hold.
Yes, sir, and then Laura.
QUESTION: On a new topic. The South African Cabinet has this morning
postponed the decision on possible arm sales to Syria. Your reaction to
that? Is it disappointing for the State Department, or perhaps encouraging
that they may be listening to you?
MR. BURNS: I would just say that we note the action taken by the Cabinet
today. We've understood from the press and the South African Government
that this decision has been taken. We will continue to discuss this issue
privately with the South African Government. Our position, of course has
not changed, but we'll look forward to continuing productive and, we hope,
cooperative discussions on this issue with the South African leadership.
QUESTION: Do you have any information as to why it's being deferred,
because a decision was expected today?
MR. BURNS: I do not. But I'd refer you to the South African Government
spokespeople on this issue for that analysis.
Laura, and then Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: On the subject of the Serbian students visit today. Can you
tell us, did they have any specific requests of the U.S. Government,
perhaps, that there be more pressure put on Mr. Milosevic? Or was there a
specific request for - I read something in the wires yesterday about some
students meeting with a representative of the State Department requesting
perhaps some funds to help them in their independent media. Was any of that
discussed today?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if they made specific financial requests or
programmatic or policy requests of Mr. Kornblum. I know that they are very
appreciative of the public role the United States has taken.
As you know, we've also taken steps to support Radio B-92 and BOOM and the
other remaining independent radio and TV stations. We believe press
freedoms are important. We'll continue to do that through RFE, Radio
Liberty, Radio Free Europe, and through the Voice of America and through
the State Department.
QUESTION: Given the fact that you have consistently criticized the
actions of the Serbian Government and the fact that you're concerned and
you've expressed your concern for the last couple of days that there is
starting to be a use of force against the demonstrators, is there any
consideration of taking additional measures against the Serbian Government
to get your message across? Is consideration of additional sanctions or -
MR. BURNS: We've basically gone to the mat on this issue. As you know,
we've maintained the "outer wall" of sanctions which prevents international
financial institutions from extending the economic assistance to the
Serbian Government that it badly needs.
We have said that we will not have a normal relationship. We're not going
to have an Ambassador in Belgrade. We have encouraged the strongest
possible action on the part of the OSCE. We've been publicly, and I think
unusually in these matters, critical of the Serbian Government but for good
reason.
So I think we've taken the steps that we want to take but have expressed
our displeasure, and there is no hope for a normal relationship between
Serbia and the United States as long as these clearly anti-democratic
actions continue.
Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: How do you respond to Ankara's blackmail of not allowing NATO
enlargement in Europe unless Turkey becomes first an EU member?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware, Mr. Lambros, that that is the position of the
Turkish Government. We've never heard that from the Turkish Government. I
was at the NATO meetings in December where NATO enlargement was discussed,
and Mrs. Ciller made no such statement to her NATO colleagues. So I
wouldn't believe everything you read in the press about these matters.
QUESTION: Did you have the chance to find out if Mr. Cavanaugh discussed
with Mr. Pangalos a moratorium over the Aegean Sea, too?
MR. BURNS: Yes, thank you, I did, and Mr. Cavanaugh did not request that
the Cypriot Greek and Turkish Governments consider an extension of the
flight moratorium from the territory of Cyprus to the territory of the
Aegean. He did not make that request. We're talking about a moratorium
that pertains to the airspace above Cyprus.
QUESTION: Then my question is, what is your position for a moratorium
over the Aegean, as it was proposed by Professor Khristos Rozakis?
MR. BURNS: Our position is that the flight moratorium on Cyprus is a
proposal that can make a difference in improving the relations between
Greece and Turkey and Cyprus with Turkey. Our ideas in the Aegean are well
known. We think that Greece and Turkey should identify together steps to
reduce their tensions in the Aegean. If they wish to have the United States
as a partner in that process, we'd be most willing to do that.
QUESTION: But for moratorium over the Aegean, what is your position?
MR. BURNS: Our position is that Greece and Turkey should decide the
appropriate steps to diminish their rivalry and competition and uneasiness
with each other on the Aegean in particular.
QUESTION: Instead of moratorium of not using weapons, why you do not
propose moratorium on not buying weapons?
MR. BURNS: One moratorium at a time, Mr. Lambros. You know we're trying
to work out a moratorium on Cyprus. We think this proposal is a winner. We
think it's good for everybody concerned. We'll concentrate our efforts on
that through the offices of our American Ambassador Ken Brill.
QUESTION: According to Defense Minister today, the Turkish Government
ordered new advanced U.S.-made weapons over $500 million of value. I'm
wondering why, as in the case of Cyprus, you do not ask Ankara not to buy
them for a specific period of time?
MR. BURNS: I think Glyn's (Davies) gone, but I think Rule No. 7 is that
each correspondent only gets two questions. You had four. I'm just being
facetious. But, Mr. Lambros, Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States,
and we have a defense relationship with Turkey. There will be arms sales
between the United States and Turkey, and Turkey will purchase arms from
other countries. You can't generalize about these issues. Turkey has
legitimate defense needs, as does Greece, as does Cyprus. We've made a
determination in the case of the antiaircraft system for Cyprus that it is
not helpful to the search for a peace on Cyprus.
QUESTION: As a last, I was told that Mr. Cavanaugh proposed the creation
of two mini-states in Cyprus on the federal basis system. Therefore, I'm
wondering how the territorial integrity of that federal city or state would
co-exist with the -
MR. BURNS: I cannot confirm those reports. I can only say that
Mr. Cavanaugh's mission was meant to reiterate the well known American
concern over the last three decades to play a role in the search for peace
in Cyprus and to diminish the conflicts along the boundary lines that have
resulted in the deaths of two people in the last six months, and to search
for a solution on some of these overflight problems.
QUESTION: The boundary lines for Cyprus - it's an area for invasion,
occupation.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, this will be the last question. Please don't
infer any political importance to these statements. They're commonly
referred to by all the parties just for practical reasons, to take note of
the practical disposition of forces. That's what they're referring to. I
didn't make that term up.
Yes, George.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the venue for the North Korea talks?
MR. BURNS: That still has not been agreed to or not been decided, and the
day is January 29th, which is - what is January 29th - a week from today -
and I suppose that sooner or later we'll have to arrive on an agreement on
where to meet.
QUESTION: Rule No. 9 is never disclose the venue of the North Korea
talks. (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: No, it's not. Actually, we're willing to disclose the venue of
the talks once a decision has been made.
QUESTION: The people in New York think it's going to be up there.
MR. BURNS: Which people in New York - the reporters up there?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Well, you know, don't believe everything you read in the
press. I keep telling you.
Sid. Actually, you know, we had --
QUESTION: Could I go back to Lambros' question.
MR. BURNS: Okay, and then we'll go to the back of the room for questions.
QUESTION: On the question of NATO expansion and EU expansion. Is it
still the - what is the Administration's position on parallel expansion of
NATO and the EU?
MR. BURNS: Our position is that NATO enlargement is a decision to be
taken by the 16 countries of NATO. The decision was made in January
'94. The Madrid summit will identify the countries with which we wish to
negotiate the terms of NATO membership as NATO expands eastward.
The decision on European Union expansion is a decision not for the United
States but for the European Union. We are not in a position to give them
advice on this issue. They have to make their own decisions. It's a very
difficult and complex issue for them. In general, we do hope that the
European Union in general will reach out to the new democracies of Central
Europe and the former Soviet Union and bring them in in some fashion to a
system of integration of their economies with Europe, and that will also
allow us to do the same with North America. That includes the Baltic
countries as well as the other countries that I've mentioned.
QUESTION: Does it make any sense for the Administration - or what is the
sense of telling some of these countries you're good enough for NATO but
you're not good enough for the EU. I mean, there is this suggestion that
the Europeans -
MR. BURNS: I'm not sure that that's happening exactly.
QUESTION: Well, let me -
MR. BURNS: I'm just not sure that's happening, actually. I'm just not
sure that's the case.
QUESTION: There is this suggestion that the main motive the EU has in
keeping its club closed is to protect itself from economic competition from
countries where things can be produced less expensively and sold less
expensively in Western European markets.
MR. BURNS: We've had a lot of discussions with the European Union over
many, many years, and I think there's a strategic agreement between the
United States and the EU in our transatlantic dialogue that all of us have
a responsibility and a self-interest to bring these developing economies
and developing democracies into the Western institutions in some
fashion. That's what NATO enlargement is all about; that's what EU
enlargement's all about, and our own policies here in the United States
reflect that commitment to make sure that the economies of these countries
have a fair shot at competing with ours. That's good for them, and it's
good for us in the long term.
But please don't take anything I say in that regard as any kind of slight
towards the EU. The EU makes it own decisions. We have a consultative
process, but the United States is not a member of the EU, so we must
respectfully stand aside and watch the EU as it develops. I think your
question is more appropriately aimed - should be aimed at the EU
representative here in Washington or at some spokesperson in Brussels.
QUESTION: I have one on Sudan. What is your comment on the recent
military advances of the SPLA in Sudan? And the other part of the question
would be, how do you feel about the aggressive atmosphere in the
neighborhood there? I'm thinking of Sudan on the one side and Eritrea and
Ethiopia on the other.
MR. BURNS: As I said yesterday - we did talk about this a little
yesterday, and I don't think our position has changed since yesterday. The
United States is very concerned about the recent fighting in eastern
Sudan. We have urged all parties to avoid harm to civilians and to avoid
harm to private property; to treat all prisoners of war according to
international convention, and to resolve their disputes amicably at the
negotiating table but not on the battlefield. That's our general position
which we have communicated to all concerned.
It's no secret that the United States Government has had a lot of problems
with the way that the Sudanese Government has treated its own population
and treated us and treated the Egyptian Government. We have a lot of
problems with the Government of Sudan that need to be worked out, and it's
no secret that they've had a lot of internal civil problems, particularly
in the south and southeast, because of the policies of the Sudanese
Government.
But I say this - going back to the major point - we don't support armed
rebellion. We don't support any kind of civil war. We're not actively
supporting it. In fact, we're encouraging those who would foment a civil
war to go back to the negotiating table.
Speaking of diplomatic immunity, I have nothing further to say at this
point about the Georgia or New York cases, because we haven't received the
police reports. But I was asked yesterday about "Operation Foreigner" in
Moscow. I don't believe the Foreign Ministry in Moscow has told our Embassy
in Moscow that there's any formal operation going on, but I would just note
anecdotally that the Moscow traffic police have stopped American Embassy
employees, American diplomats and a lot of your colleagues - American
journalists, Western journalists - with a very high degree of frequency
over the last couple of days.
There have been lots of document checks, and I even understand some
policemen have made comments, "Now you know how it feels to be a Russian
living in New York." Kind of interesting. I would just say that in light
of this marked increase in the number of reports from our Embassy staff who
have been asked to stop for document checks on the streets of Moscow, we
expect our diplomats in Moscow to abide by Russian laws. We expect Russian
diplomats in New York and Washington and San Francisco and Houston and
other places to abide by American laws, and I think we can agree with the
Russian Government on that.
If there is an "Operation Foreigner," we would respectfully hope that it
would stop, and we can assure the Russian Government that Russian diplomats
are not being singled out on the streets of New York or in the streets of
Washington, D.C.
QUESTION: Is this something that Deputy Secretary Talbott was going to
raise?
MR. BURNS: I don't know. I mean, he had a lot on his plate. I don't
know, but I think that other people in our Embassy have - our Embassy
officials have made these concerns known to the Russian Government. But
it's not an incredibly serious matter. I was just trying to follow up on
the question asked yesterday and make sure I gave you a good response to
the good question that was asked.
QUESTION: Is the onus on the Moscow city government or the Russian
Government?
MR. BURNS: It's hard to say in these cases. We certainly expect that our
police authorities will treat all diplomats equally and with no sense of
bias. I have no indication that that's not the case, so it's hard to say. I
mean, you'll have to ask that question of the Russian Government, but I
would note the marked increase in people being stopped.
QUESTION: When you say "marked increase," a "high degree of frequency,"
and so forth, do you have numbers to back that up? You're talking about a
few, a few dozen?
MR. BURNS: I don't have specific numbers, but the numbers are high enough
to amount to some concern on the part of our Embassy officials in
Moscow. But again this can be resolved, I think, with a little good will on
both sides and with the reaffirmation of the basic diplomatic truth, and
that is when you go and serve in a country, you have to abide by that
country's laws. That's true of Americans. That's true of anybody else in
our country.
QUESTION: None of these incidents, though, has been of the degree of
seriousness of the New York incident, though.
MR. BURNS: No, nothing like that at all that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: In these talks with the Russians about this by the Embassy,
they were never able to determine if there was in fact - I mean, did they
ask if there was an "Operation Foreigner"?
MR. BURNS: I understand that we have not been informed by the Russian
Foreign Ministry that so-called "Operation Foreigner," as reported by
Michael Goldfarb on NPR on Friday, is in existence. We've not been told it
exists.
QUESTION: There have been several reports on this, actually.
MR. BURNS: Yes. That's the one I listened to, which I thought was an
interesting report.
QUESTION: The Washington Post.
MR. BURNS: The Washington Post, right. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:11 p.m.)
(###)
|
