U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #17, 97-01-31
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
968
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
January 31, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
1-2 Secretary Albright's Talks with Mexican FM Gurria and Mtg with
Justice Arbour
2,5-6 Secretary Albright's Mtgs at Foreign Affairs Agencies
2 Human Rights Discussions with Chinese Leadership
2-3,4 Statement Re: Iran
3 Situation in Eastern Slavonia
10 Secretary Albright's Upcoming Travel Plans
CHINA
2,3,4-5,11 Human Rights Discussions/U.N. Human Rights Commission/Taiwan
13-14
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
6 War Crimes Tribunal/Compliance with Dayton Accords
PERU
6-8 President Fujimori's Talks in Washington/Lori Berenson
Case/Hostage Situation
NORTH KOREA
8-10 Establishment of Liaison Offices/Food Shipments/New York Talks
SWITZERLAND
11-12 Nazi Gold Issue/Remarks of Swiss Ambassador
CYPRUS
12-13 Purchase of Missile System
RUSSIA
13 Elections in Chechnya
GREECE/TURKEY
14 Conflict over Islets
PEACE PROCESS
14-15 Ambassador Ross' Whereabouts/Incident in Southern Lebanon/
15 Secretary Christopher's Letters to Israelis and Palestinians
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #17
FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1997, 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department.
I want to welcome students from American University who are employed in
the co-op program in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. Welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
I also want to welcome a Chinese journalist, Ms. Xiao Lin Hua, who is
visiting under the auspices of the Meridian International Center. Forgive
me if I mispronounce your name. In any case, welcome.
Let me tell you what Secretary Albright has been doing today.
She called the Mexican Foreign Minister -- Foreign Minister Gurria -- this
morning. They had a very good talk about the state of U.S.-Mexican
relations. They plan to be in contact often given the importance of that
relationship. She also made phone calls to the Argentinian Foreign
Minister, Foreign Minister di Tella; to the Indonesian Foreign Minister,
Foreign Minister Alatas; and to the South African Foreign Minister, Foreign
Minister Nzo.
These talks continue the series of conversations she's had for the past
eight days since she became Secretary of State where she has tried to re-
establish contacts with people that she has worked with and met over the
last couple of years, and to establish contacts with individuals that she
has not yet met and worked with.
The Secretary also met this morning at 10:00 with Louise Arbour who is the
Prosecutor of both the -- the Chief Prosecutor -- of the Rwandan and former
Yugoslav War Crime Tribunals. That was a very important meeting.
Justice Arbour said that she was very grateful for the strong U.S. support
for both Tribunals. She specifically mentioned the recent action of the
United States to assist in detaining the Rwandan suspects who are believed
to have been responsible for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 -- the suspects
who were transported from Cameroon to Arusha in Tanzania. Secretary
Albright said that she had very strong personal support for both Tribunals.
In fact, she didn't say this but I remember that Justice Goldstone, the
former Chief Prosecutor, said a couple of times that Madeleine Albright was
the "Mother of all the Tribunals;" that she had been instrumental in
creating them and in leading the way towards solidifying them.
Secretary Albright said that she would continue her strong, personal
support for both Tribunals; that the issue of justice and reconciliation
both in Rwanda and in Bosnia was an important issue and that the United
States would remain supportive.
On the Rwanda case, Justice Arbour indicated that she felt that with these
arrests just over the last week, there is perhaps opportunity for a fresh
start for the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal. But she did say that that
particular Tribunal required additional -- much more support from the
international community, including African countries.
On the Balkans, the former Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, Secretary Albright
said we continue our specific financial and other support and that we would
continue to expect that the parties to the Dayton Accords would meet their
commitments to the War Crimes Tribunal.
Secretary Albright also visited ACDA this morning. This was the third
visit she had made to the agencies that, of course, operate under her
leadership. She went to USIA a couple of days ago and AID yesterday. She
had an excellent visit to ACDA.
I want to say a few things about some other things happening today.
As you know, we've had a delegation in China over the past week.
They have finished their discussions. Ambassador Sandy Kristoff and Jeff
Bader and Peter Eicher and others had constructive discussions on the wide
variety of issues in the U.S.-China relationship.
Among the matters discussed were the overall state of our relations,
prospects for the coming year, activities and meetings for the coming year,
high-level visits, human rights, law enforcement cooperation, the situation
on the Korean Peninsula, and the situation in Hong Kong.
The issue of the resolution -- the Human Rights Resolution in the U.N.
Human Rights Commission -- was discussed along with general human rights
issues of concern to the
United States. As you know, many of them are available to you in our Human
Rights Report issued yesterday.
The United States looks forward to continuing to discuss human rights
issues with the Chinese leadership in the weeks and months to come. Those
discussions continue to involve issues, as I said, raised in the Human
Rights Report, as well as issues that are of concern to the U.N. Human
Rights Commission.
The United States delegation underscored the importance that we attached to
a smooth and successful transition in Hong Kong that protects Hong Kong's
existing system -- its freedoms and its way of life. The two delegations
also had a useful exchange of views on the situation pertaining to Korea.
So I wanted to let you know about that.
A couple of other items of interest. I'm issuing a statement today on
Iran. It concerns the fact that we understand that the Supreme Court of
Iran has upheld the death sentences of two Iranian Baha'is: Musa Talibi
and Zabihullah Mahrami, who were convicted of apostasy last year.
The United States Government strongly condemns this action and we call on
the Government of Iran to free these two men. We urge the Government of
Iran to free all prisoners of conscience and to ensure freedom of religion
and other basic human rights of the Iranian population. We call on the
Government of Iran, furthermore, to comply fully with the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights.
Finally, I wanted to say a word about the situation in Eastern Slavonia.
The United States strongly condemns the attacks today on the United Nations
soldiers by a Serbian gunman. We offer our deepest condolences to the
family of the Belgian soldier who was killed in the incident. Two other
soldiers were wounded and we hope for their speedy recovery.
This appears to be the act of a single individual who is now in police
custody and under United Nations supervision. We note that this is the
first attack on the United Nations forces since they began operations in
Eastern Slavonia over a year ago. As you know, U.N. military forces and
the regional police force, under the supervision of the U.N., are working
to ensure that these incidents are not repeated. This has been a very
successful deployment of United Nations troops -- 5,000 of them. We
believe they've allowed the two parties -- the local population; those
who are Serbian and those who are Croatian -- to build some confidence
between each other towards the successful integration of the region and the
fulfillment of the agreement.
As you know, the United Nations mandate has been authorized at full
strength until July 15 of this year. At that time, there will be a report
from the Secretary General with recommendations for further U.N. presence,
until December 31, 1997.
There was a major development today, a major positive development, on
Eastern Slavonia which happened to coincide with the tragedy in Eastern
Slavonia. The Croatian Government sent a Letter of Intent to the United
Nations Security Council. This concerns further steps towards reintegration.
The United States Government is very pleased by this. We believe it is a
substantial step forward for the situation in Eastern Slavonia because it
signals a Croatian Government willingness to protect the rights of the
Serbian population when this territory is transferred, and it would allow
the Serbian population -- in fact, guarantee -- their representation in
local and municipal and nationwide political structures. That is a highly
significant event, and I believe that there will be a statement by the
U.N. Security Council -- the President of the Council -- that supports
this Croatian Letter of Intent.
While we're on this subject, I think we should give credit where credit is
due to Jacques Klein, who is the American Foreign Service officer who has
been the transitional administrator for Eastern Slavonia over the past
year. He has really displayed terrific leadership. I know when Kofi Annan
was in Washington, he singled out Jacques Klein for his performance over
the last year.
George.
QUESTION: Is there anything more you can say about the discussion on
human rights with the Chinese? Did they react to your report? And is
there anything more you can say about the U.N. Human Rights Commission
meeting which is coming up in a couple of weeks?
Before you do that, could you spell the names of those two Iranians?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Let me spell the names of the two Iranians.
The first is Mr. Musa Talibi. Musa: M-U-S-A. Talibi: T-A-L-I-B-
I.
The second is Mr. Zabihullah Mahrami. Z-A-B-I-H-U-L-L-A-H; M-A-H-R-A-M-I -
- two Iranian Baha'is convicted of apostasy last year. This action was
taken by the Supreme Court of Iran, and we firmly oppose this action.
We've spoken out regularly about the civil rights and the religious rights
of the Baha'i population in Iran which has been systematically violated by
the Iranian Government for a number of years.
Now, on China. There's not much else I can, George, except to say that we
did have, as a member of the delegation, one of our chief human rights
officials here, Peter Eicher. The delegation had fully comprehensive talks
on the issues of human rights that are of concern to us, and we heard from
the Chinese Government its position on these issues. We've decided not to
go into detail about that.
Concerning the U.N. Human Rights Commission, as you know, the Chinese
understand that the United States has the option, of course, of going
forward along with others with a resolution this year.
That final decision has not been made by the Secretary of State.
But the Chinese understand that their actions on human rights issues and
their behavior on these issues will be the critical factor in determining
the decision of the United States to go forward or not go forward with our
co-sponsorship of a resolution in 1997.
QUESTION: Nick, even if you can't go into detail on this issue, can you
at least say whether or not the Chinese gave you any indication that they
were going to make any gesture on human rights that might meet some of your
concerns?
MR. BURNS: Our view all along, Carol, is that actions are more important
than words. Sometimes in negotiations you hear things that you might think
are positive. I'm not saying that's the case here this week. But it's
always better to judge a country by its actions, particularly pertaining to
human rights questions. Because the pattern of behavior consists of
individual actions by the government on a variety of prisoner cases and
also pertaining to laws and the application of laws. I think we have
to judge them over time on that.
So I really point you to the Human Rights Report which is our most
objective appraisal of their behavior, their actions.
QUESTION: I understand that. But given the nature of this meeting and one
of the reasons why it was held, was there any reason for you to feel
optimistic about the potential gesture on the part of the Chinese?
MR. BURNS: In general, we've been quite disappointed by Chinese actions
over the past year. We're going to hold them to a standard of action. I
understand there was across-the-board discussions, but I just can't go into
what the details of those discussions were.
QUESTION: Does this meeting set dates for Qian Qichen to come to the
United States and for Vice President Gore to go there?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe it did. It discussed a series of high-level
visits that we hope to undertake with the Chinese in 1997, but we've not
indicated the date of Qian Qichen's visit to the United States. I don't
believe the Vice President has indicated the dates of his own visit to
China.
QUESTION: Nick, do the Chinese still have time, as far as you're
concerned, to do something that might alter any possible decision on the
resolution?
MR. BURNS: I know that the United States and the Secretary of State and
others have not yet made a decision on this question.
We have to judge China on the broad pattern of its activity over a course
of time, but there's been no decision -- no final decision -- made by the
United States.
We did have a good talk -- Secretary Albright did -- with her European
counterparts, Sir Leon Brittan and Hans van Mierlo, the other day on this
particular issue. We'll continue to be in very close contact with the
European Union and its member states on this issue of the vote in the U.N.
Human Rights Commission.
QUESTION: Nick, Secretary Albright's talks at ACDA and USIA, has she
given any indication either in those episodes or in any other way about
what she feels about consolidation of those agencies within State?
MR. BURNS: No, she hasn't. As you remember, in her Congressional
testimony she was asked about this. As I remember it, she said, essentially,
that she had an open mind on this question, meaning she hadn't made a
decision one way or the other.
The purpose of the visits to AID and USIA and ACDA was to familiarize
herself with the staff there and the operations and to pay a visit to each
to show interest and support for the activities of each organization. But
to the question of consolidation, which is a very complex question, she has
not determined what her own plans would be on this.
QUESTION: Is she preparing to take a position on it?
MR. BURNS: I don't know when she'll be asked or if she'll be required to
make a decision. It's something, as you know, a couple of years ago that
was in the news and it was discussed in all those agencies along with the
State Department more than two years ago. I don't know if there's any
timetable for this.
It's just a question that's out there. She's been asked about it by the
Congress.
As you know, some senior members of Congress have specific views on this
and she is interested in those views. But I don't think she feels that
she's required to make an early decision. She has an open mind.
QUESTION: Presumably, it will have some impact on the budget request
which is coming up pretty soon.
MR. BURNS: Yes, and I can't anticipate the budget request.
The President will be rolling that out next week.
QUESTION: Right. So does that mean to say that there will be a position
taken by next week?
MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not sure
they're so closely tied together, Jim, but I don't know if the budget has
anything to do with that particular question.
I can look into that for you. It's a legitimate question, obviously.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Mrs. Arbour. Did she express any frustration
with the lack of getting the defendants or the indicted to The Hague?
MR. BURNS: I think Secretary Albright and Justice Arbour agreed that
there had to be a greater effort made to detain war criminals and prosecute
them. We have been saying that for well over a year now. The United
States has been frustrated for well over a year by the fact that the
parties to the Dayton Accords have fundamentally not kept their commitments,
with the exception of the Bosnian Government, and there was a general
discussion of that issue. That's part of the reality of Justice Arbour's
work. She needs the support of countries around the world, and she
certainly has the support of the United States.
QUESTION: President Alberto Fujimori of Peru will be in town this
weekend. Can you tell us of any plans by State Department officials to
meet with him?
MR. BURNS: I understand that late yesterday afternoon we received word
from the Peruvian Embassy here in Washington that President Fujimori
planned on making a private visit to Washington following his discussions
in Toronto with the Japanese Prime Minister.
We understand that President Fujimori will be arriving sometime Saturday
evening, February 1, and departing on Monday, February 3.
We understand he's got a variety of activities planned in Washington,
including an appearance at the National Press Club, an address to the
Organization of American States and attendance at an international
conference here in Washington, the Micro-Credit Summit. Our Assistant
Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Jeff Davidow is going to be
meeting with him. I know he's going to greet him at the airport here in
Washington and meeting with him.
As for any additional meetings, we just haven't set any in stone yet. I'll
let you know if there is a word on additional meetings.
QUESTION: Can you give any specifics of the meeting with Davidow --
what's going to be the subjects?
MR. BURNS: We'll certainly be interested in hearing what President
Fujimori has to say about the situation in Peru concerning the hostages,
but we have a broad relationship, and there will be other issues in our
relationship that we'll want to discuss as well.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? Do you expect the Assistant Secretary
of State to bring up the Lori Berenson case?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if he will bring up that case.
We have addressed that ourselves to the Peruvian Government consistently
on that case. Of course, we're interested in a continuation of Consular
Officer access to her in the prison where she's being held, and I think you
know our basic position on the Lori Berenson case. Whether or not it's
raised by Assistant Secretary Davidow, I just don't know.
QUESTION: Could you just (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Would you mind reiterating that position?
MR. BURNS: I think you know that Lori Berenson was charged with very
serious crimes, and she was convicted in a military court of those crimes.
The United States, of course, did not involve itself specifically in the
case. We do not do that in cases involving American citizens anywhere in
the world, but we have spoken about our unhappiness that she was not tried
in a civilian court. We are concerned about the conditions of her
detention, as you know, as we are concerned with the conditions among all
Americans being held in Peru, and we regularly seek visits where we can
apprise ourselves of her condition to satisfy ourselves that she is being
treated humanely.
QUESTION: Has the siege of the Embassy changed your stance on this case
at all, regarding the fact that she claimed the Tupac Amarus had given up
violence?
MR. BURNS: It hasn't changed our position on the case, because we cannot
and do not as a matter of principle and of law take a position on legal
cases involving American citizens. Our obligation -- the State Department's
obligation -- is to see that American citizens have access to counsel when
they are charged with crimes for prosecution, access to defense counsel,
and we want to make sure that they're held in conditions, both before
trial and, if they're convicted, after trial which meet international
standards. So we've limited ourselves to that.
As you know, in this particular case, Lori Berenson has not granted us a
Privacy Act waiver, so we're not able to discuss specifically the
conditions of her detention in the issues that we raise in that regard.
She's also not sought out the assistance of the United States Government in
her legal -- in terms of the legal aspects of this.
QUESTION: Same subject, regarding the hostage crisis.
Where does the U.S. come down on the question of sovereignty, whether the
Japanese or the Peruvians have the right to decide what type of solutions
to seek in this?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I think that's an issue that the Japanese and Peruvians
have worked out between each other, and I think they've been very clear
publicly about that. I'm not sure that's a question that the United States
ought to be involved in. We do have a view on this crisis which has been
clearly stated since the very beginning, and that is that we hope that the
hostages can and will be released safely and unharmed and as quickly
as possible.
We've also said that this Commission, we believe, is a good idea.
We hope for face-to-face dialogue between the government and the hostage-
takers, and we certainly hope for a peaceful resolution of this hostage
crisis. We've also noted many, many times our agreement with the general
principle of no concessions -- no concessions -- to hostage-takers.
David.
QUESTION: A couple of North Korea questions, if I may.
Kyodo is reporting out of Seoul that North Korea and the United States
have agreed to establish liaison offices in each other's capitals by July.
The articles goes on to name who will represent the United States in the
liaison office. Can you react to the article, please, first of all?
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to. I know -- and I checked this just a couple
of days ago -- that while we have long had the objective of establishing
liaison offices in each other's capitals, in Pyongyang and Washington, the
United States has not agreed to the establishment of those liaison offices.
We've not agreed to any specific date for it. There are still some
logistical issues that need to be worked out, and we do address ourselves
to those issues in our talks with the North Koreans -- our regular talks up
in New York.
We have identified some staff -- in fact, a Foreign Service Officer who's
studying Korean -- as you would expect us to, to assume the head of the
liaison office, if a decision is made to establish one. We'd like that
decision to be made, but we're not there yet. And we're just trying to --
since you have to train people a year or two ahead of time for these hard
language posts -- and Korean is a difficult language -- we've taken the
step to do that.
But we have not made a formal decision on this, so I cannot agree with the
basis of that report.
QUESTION: My second question is about food. What is the status, as you
understand it, of North Korean efforts to arrange for a shipment of food
supplies? I gather they were negotiating with a company about that. The
World Food Program issued a report this week that says that urban dwellers
in the North are getting about 100 grams a day, which is only 15 percent of
the adult allowance in a refugee camp under U.N. terms, which means
starvation virtually.
Is that your understanding of the situation, and is there anything the U.S.
plans to do about it?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, David, we understand that the
negotiations that the North Koreans have underway with the U.S. and other
grain companies continue. I don't believe they've reached an agreement on
the import of private grain into North Korea, and we hope very much of that
can take place. The United States Government is not directly involved, as
you know, in those discussions, although we are responsible for issuing
export licenses for commercial sales of humanitarian goods, but we're not
interfering in those commercial discussions.
On the question of the food situation, since we don't have an Embassy in
Pyongyang or a liaison office, I should say, we're not in a position
firsthand to characterize what the situation may be. We've relied upon the
World Food Program and the other non-profit agencies that have been active
in North Korea; and, when they have made appeals for international food
shipments, the United States generally has responded to them, including
most recently in August and September.
We've done this several times. I don't believe we have any immediate plans
to ship U.S. humanitarian food aid, but we are open at any time to
suggestions and appeals from the United Nations to do that.
QUESTION: Did the World Food Program not accompany this report they
issued last week with an appeal?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check that. I don't know if there's been a
formal appeal by the WFP or by other agencies of the United Nations. But,
as I said, we've responded to them quite generously just in the past year
on a couple of occasions.
QUESTION: Could I follow up? The Ambassador in South Korea said that he
believed it was possible they would put off the talks again in New York.
Do you have any indication that that's happened or might happen?
MR. BURNS: We'll have a better indication of that in the next 24 to 48
hours, because I believe the North Korean diplomats have to apply for visas
at our Embassy in Beijing, and we'll have to see what happens. Right now I
know -- I talked to the East Asia Bureau just before coming out here -- I
know we're continuing planning to hold the joint briefing in New York on
February 5<SUP>th, and in the U.S.-North Korean bilateral meeting
after that, shortly after that.
With the North Koreans, you always have to take things a day at a time. So
we'll get back to you if anything should change on the fact that we
continue to plan for this meeting. But, as you know, we had to postpone
the last meeting because of these grain negotiations in which the North
Koreans have involved themselves.
QUESTION: Well, Nick, are the Chinese going to take part in this briefing
if you ever have it? Do you know that?
MR. BURNS: I believe this is a briefing with the United States, the
Republic of Korea and North Korea. The Chinese, of course, are most
welcome, because the Four-Party proposal, of course, includes the Chinese.
I can check to see if they'll have a representative at the talks in New
York. But we do hope, Ron, for continued Chinese support for the proposal,
which, as you know, seeks to put together a peace treaty for the Korean
Peninsula many decades after the war ended.
QUESTION: Nick, could you please explain the mission of Secretary
Albright's trip to South Korea next month?
MR. BURNS: I'm not able to confirm her trip -- any of the specific stops
in Asia, but let me just say this. I expect I'll be able to do that early
next week, perhaps even as early as Monday. I can tell you this: It's
been very interesting to see all the press reports, naming the places where
she's going to go and naming the dates. I know from the discussions in
which I was involved this morning at Secretary Albright's senior staff
meeting at 8:30 a.m., that she has not yet finalized and her assistants
have not yet finalized the sequencing and dates for these trips.
There are still a couple of issues up in the air about when she would be
in certain cities and if it's even convenient for her to be in certain
cities.
So we prefer to be accurate in what we say. When we have fully nailed down
her itinerary in Europe and in Asia on this circumnavigation of the world,
this world tour, then we will let you know about that. We'll let you know
specifically where she's going and when she'll be in those capitals.
Secretary Albright said she'd be visiting key foreign capitals, and that
still is the general foundation of this trip. But I'm not in a position
today to confirm dates or to confirm countries. I know that one government
has indicated that a visit is going to take place. I am not in a position
to confirm that until this whole trip is put together.
QUESTION: Nick, is she considering a possible meeting sometime during
this possible trip with the Israeli Foreign Minister?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I don't know. I'll have to check on that for you, and I
will check on that for you.
QUESTION: Can we (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: Getting back to Albright's trip to Europe and Asia, do you
expect to have an Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs in
place when she goes to Asia?
MR. BURNS: No, I do not, because, as you know, Secretary Albright's trip
will take place in mid-February, and Secretary Albright has not yet named
publicly her choice and the White House's choice for Winston Lord's
successor. Under our system, once an appointment is announced publicly,
then that individual has to go through a variety of steps, including Senate
confirmation.
So I don't believe that there will be a confirmed Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs -- not any chance of having one
confirmed -- by the middle of February.
QUESTION: Not even naming a successor?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't know if anyone will be named. I just don't know
when it's going to be possible for the White House and Secretary Albright
to name publicly her candidates for some of these senior positions. But
you said "in place."
We will not have one in place as a confirmed individual by mid-February.
QUESTION: Can I take you back also to the U.S.-China talks.
You mentioned a lot of the issues discussed during the talks, but there
was no mention of the perennial issue of Taiwan. Did that come up at
all?
MR. BURNS: I'm sure it did. (Laughter) In fact, I can bet you that it
came up. Taiwan always comes up in U.S.-China discussions. Usually the
Chinese Government raises the issue of Taiwan. Sometimes we do. I didn't
give an exhaustive list.
I didn't mention every issue that had been raised. I mentioned some of the
principal issues under discussion. But our well-known views on that issue
haven't changed.
QUESTION: One more question relating to Taiwan. A week ago at the
Foreign Press Center when you were asked about the resignation of Mr. James
Wood, the Managing Director of the American Institute in Taiwan, you
indicated that a successor will be named shortly. Any forward movement in
that regard?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any, but once a successor or successors are
named, I'll let you know.
QUESTION: Nick, on Monday, as you know, the Swiss Ambassador resigned,
and you said you would be very troubled if the remarks attributed to him
turned out to be true, and he has since made some efforts to explain those
remarks. I just wonder whether you are still troubled or whether you are
satisfied with his explanation, if indeed you're aware of what he
said.
MR. BURNS: I understand that the Swiss Ambassador was in the National
Press Club this morning. I've seen a wire report but have not seen the
text of his remarks. I tried to get the text of the remarks. I have not
seen them, so I'm a little bit limited.
But let me say this: Ambassador Eizenstat -- Under Secretary of Commerce
Eizenstat, I should say, has been in Bern over the last couple of days. He
had an excellent meeting with Foreign Minister Cotti, and I think
Ambassador Eizenstat said that we hope very much to continue working with
the Government of Switzerland on the issue of the Nazi gold assets, on the
issue of the compensation fund for Holocaust survivors and their families,
and in general on the international effort to try to achieve a measure of
justice here for Holocaust survivors and their families who need answers
to questions more than 50 years after the end of the war.
I certainly stand by the basis of what I said on Monday. The Swiss
Ambassador has an absolute right to explain publicly what he meant. I
think on balance some of the worst aspects -- or at least worst rumors
about what may have been in his cable have now been cleared up, and that is
very good to see -- very good indeed to see. But we remain a little bit
concerned and troubled by the fact that there is an air of defensiveness,
not only in that cable but in other Swiss Government statements over the
last month or so, which is just not necessary.
The United States and other countries around the world are not out to get
Switzerland. We're out to help Switzerland get to the bottom of this issue,
because we have in the
United States many thousands of people who either were victims of the
Holocaust or whose relatives were victims of the Holocaust, and they
deserve answers. That's the American angle on this.
I've talked to our Chief Historian of the State Department, Bill Slany. He
has now refined his American report on what the United States Government
knew in the 1940s. I've talked to Ambassador Eizenstat, and we've agreed
that in a couple of weeks -- maybe even within the next two weeks -- when
that report is fully cleared and final, Ambassador Eizenstat will come down
to the Briefing Room and present that to you. He will at that point be
able to talk to you about all aspects of this issue.
So I think it's time that we cleared the air with the Swiss and let the
Swiss understand -- the Swiss Government understand that we want to be
helpful here, and there's no need for defensiveness, and the Swiss
Government needs to open itself up to this international scrutiny, so that
these questions from the second World War can be resolved finally.
QUESTION: What he was defensive about was his feeling that the Swiss
image or the impression, as he put it, in the world is suffering because of
the publicity. Is it wrong for him to be defensive about that?
MR. BURNS: Again, I'm at a little bit of a handicap here, because I
haven't seen his remarks. But clearly we saw the German translation -- the
German text of the cable, which was printed in the Swiss newspaper, and our
experts who looked at that and read it -- they were gratified, as I said,
that some of the worst aspects that we thought were in it were not in it,
but there was a tone of defensiveness that is unwarranted, and the Swiss
Government has to be open to the international Jewish community and to
others around the world who want answers.
Yes, Dimitri..
QUESTION: Yes, Nick, on Cyprus and the missiles issue.
The President of Cyprus, Mr. Clerides, said today that the missiles would
be unnecessary if we have progress on the solution to the Cyprus problem,
and that if -- to the Turkish side to decide about its willingness for
progress. Do you have any action on that?
MR. BURNS: We've seen the wire service reports. Our position on the
Government of Cyprus' decision to purchase the SA-10 missile system has
been very clear, and we believe it's a mistake which complicates all the
diplomatic negotiations. We believe it's also a mistake to try to see this
purchase as a way to leverage other issues in the negotiations that are so
complex between the Greeks and the Turks and the Cypriots -- the parties on
Cyprus.
So we would call again for a reconsideration of this decision to deploy
the missile system.
As you know, Secretary Albright has talked about the fact that the United
States has a very keen interest in playing a role in 1997 -- a concerted,
aggressive role -- to see that these problems in Cyprus might be resolved.
QUESTION: Don't you think that this is a positive position for the
missiles problem?
MR. BURNS: We think that the statement this morning might possibly even
complicate the negotiations.
Carla.
QUESTION: Do you have any information on the statement by Simon Raduyve
that he doesn't recognize the elections in Chechnya, and he's planning
terrorist attacks apparently "to three Russian cities must be burned to
cinders."
MR. BURNS: Those are clearly irresponsible statements by an irresponsible
person.
The fact is, the Chechen people had a chance to vote. They appeared to
have selected Mr. Maskhadov who is someone who has declared himself to be
willing to work peacefully with the Russian Government.
The Russian Government has made its own very constructive statements this
week. We congratulate the Russian Government and the Chechen authorities on
these statements, and we certainly reject any call for further violence or
acts of terrorism against the Russian Federation.
QUESTION: He was very effective in carrying the war to Dagestan last
year.
MR. BURNS: All we can do is say that we cannot support statements that
call for acts of terrorism.
Yes, Bill.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you, Nick. The question that occurs to me from
yesterday's report, especially on China, again, does the Administration --
does this Department understand why China is so actively engaged in the
repression of its people? Why dissent is almost wiped out? Religious
freedoms are being attacked? And the domestic press area is being attacked.
Why, now? What is their purpose?
MR. BURNS: Bill, all I can say is that we've made ourselves -- we've
spoken until we're blue in the fact on this issue. We've issued a Human
Rights Report. It's fully explanatory. The President and the Secretary
have both spoken about this in the last couple of days. We're going to
continue to do what we can to convince the Chinese that their position in
the world will be a lot stronger if they followed elementary standards of
human rights in their treatment of their own citizens which they currently
do not do.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: I went very carefully through last night on your Report on
Human Rights and I figured out that you're not including even one word for
the continued Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus with 200,000
refugees still away from their homes. To the opposite, you (inaudible) the
victim, the Republic of Cyprus with aggression to Turkey. Why?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, the United States Government has had a very
clear position for 22 years now on what happened in Cyprus in 1974. This
is a political question; I understand quite emotional for the victims of
the occupation. But, nevertheless, I think we have a sufficient public
record that our views are well-known to you.
QUESTION: Why do you avoid that in public?
MR. BURNS: I'm not avoiding it. I just spoke about it.
I'll continue to speak about it if you ask me.
QUESTION: Congressman (inaudible) the Iraqis before yesterday circulated
a written statement saying, "The island of Imia has always been and will
remain Greek. There should be no negotiation over Imia sovereignty. I am
dismayed of the efforts, from whatever source (inaudible) to question the
sovereignty." It's obvious, a response to the State Department position
not recognizing Greek sovereignty over Imia since February 1, 1996. Any
comment on that?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't. I haven't seen the Congressman's letter or
statement. I don't want to hazard a comment until I do. But we have a
well-known position on Imia and Kardak. We believe it should be resolved by
a consensual body such as the International Court of Justice, but that's up
to the Greeks and Turks to decide.
QUESTION: Nick, two quick questions. The last incident in the zone in
Lebanon, is that before the Monitoring Committee now? And has the American
Ambassador to Damascus gone back to post?
MR. BURNS: On the second question, I don't know about the whereabouts of
Ambassador Ross. I'll just have to check.
Most ambassadors are at post, but they do take leave, they do travel, so
we'll just have to check.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BURNS: I just don't know where Ambassador Ross is.
On the first question, I don't believe that the incident in the security
zone has been taken to the Monitoring Group. It was never envisaged in
Secretary Christopher's negotiations last April that these incidents would
be unless they involved civilians. But incidents between the Israeli
Defense Forces and the various militia groups in southern Lebanon are
generally not brought to the Monitoring Group.
Sid.
QUESTION: Also on the Middle East. A text of what was supposed to be the
U.S. -- Christopher's letter to Yasser Arafat was published today in
Israel. Have you seen that?
MR. BURNS: No, I haven't. Which letter? There are many letters.
QUESTION: It was part of the Hebron agreement.
MR. BURNS: Okay, I have not seen that.
QUESTION: The one missing piece in all of this.
MR. BURNS: Haven't seen it.
QUESTION: It says that the United States commits itself to help implement
the agreement. Is that accurate?
MR. BURNS: You know, Secretary Christopher did send letters to both
parties. But I'm not aware that the Palestinian Authority has, on its own,
made that letter public. Until and unless it chooses to do so, I'm not
going to comment on it. This could be a leak to somebody in the Israeli
press, and I don't want to reward a leak. We have our own leak problems
here, as you know, in Washington, D.C. with certain newspapers.
QUESTION: The question has been brought up about whether the United
States is going to hold the parties -- attempt to hold the parties in more
of a broker role on side or the other -- sort of the general thrust of the
letter. There's been some criticism of that.
MR. BURNS: We've chosen not to go into the specifics of the letter. The
letters that were sent by Secretary Christopher, we did brief the other
party on the letter that was sent -- we briefed the Israelis on the letter
sent to the Palestinians and briefed the Palestinians on the letter sent to
the Israelis. That really is good enough for us. But we've not commented
publicly since the Hebron agreements about the contents of the letters,
and I can't start today.
Mr. Lambros, is this --
QUESTION: The German State capital of Stuttgart issued a decree on
January 29 by which prohibits Scientologists not to distribute beverages,
food, and clothes to the homeless with the reasoning not to disturb the
public traffic. Any comment?
MR. BURNS: I think we commented extensively on the issue of Scientology
yesterday and in our Human Rights Report.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Any further questions? Thank you very much.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:56 p.m.)
(###)
|
