U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #24, 97-02-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
799
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 14, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to Radio Free Asia Journalists
Georgetown University Guests
1-2, 9 Secretary Albright's First Overseas Trip
2-5 Arbital Decision on Status of Brcko
3 Statement on Hostage Situation in Tajikistan
3-4 Statement on Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad
4 Public Announcements on Zaire and Tajikistan
8-10 Letter fr. Senator Helms re: Ambassador Ray Flynn
9 Ambassadorial Resignations
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
5-7 Israel-Syria Track
SOUTH AFRICA
7 Sale of Arms to Syria
TERRORISM
8 Report of Congressional Resolution
re: Anti-Terrorism Sanctions
NORTH KOREA
10-11 Hwang Jang-Yop Request for Asylum
10 Talks w/U.S. in New York
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
12 Parliament's Approval of Treaty w/Germany
TURKEY
12 Report of Sentencing of Religious Leader
13 Stability/Democracy/Secularism
CYPRUS
12-13 Decision Not to Deploy Russian Anti-Aircraft System
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #24
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1997, 1:54 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We have some visitors
today that I want to welcome. We have three journalists from Radio Free
Asia; and we spoke yesterday about the Vietnamese intention to jam Radio
Free Asia, which the United States, of course, rejects. We support very
much the free functioning of Radio Free Asia.
We also have two very special visitors - one from my hometown, Ellen McHugh,
from Wellesley, Massachusetts; and Chase Vokrut - both from Georgetown
University. And Ellen is a huge Red Sox fan, and pitchers and catchers are
reporting this weekend. The Red Sox are going to win--
QUESTION: They're not going to win though.
MR. BURNS: But not Roger Clements, because he's a traitor. (Laughter)
But we don't need him any more, by the way.
I think we have the pitching to win this year, actually. You heard it
here first -- Red Sox in '97. I'm the only one in the country predicting
that, by the way.
I won't be around in September '97.
O.K. A couple of things before we go to questions.
First is just to remind you - which you probably don't need to be reminded
of - and that is that Secretary Albright begins tomorrow her first overseas
trip as Secretary of State. She's going to nine countries in ten days.
She leaves at noon tomorrow from Andrews Air Force Base. The first stop is
in Rome; from Rome to Bonn; Bonn to Paris; Paris to Brussels. In Brussels,
she'll be meeting with both the North Atlantic Council and the European
Union. Then on to London. London to Moscow. She'll have an Internet Town
Meeting in Moscow with several thousand schools in the GLOBE Internet
Network from around the world. That's the first ever Secretary of State
Internet Town Hall Meeting. And then from Moscow on to Asia - to Seoul,
Tokyo and Beijing, with a return to Andrews and Washington late on Tuesday,
February 25.
This is a trip where the Secretary is going to roll up her sleeves - or, as
someone said to me today, push up her sleeves - and get down to work on the
common agenda that the United States has with each of these countries. And
that agenda will be to identify issues where we can work together with
these countries. For those countries that are allies of the United States,
that will not be hard. We have a common agenda with them already.
For those that are not allies but are friends - Russia, China, for instance
- we want to identify a common agenda of areas where we can work together.
We want to be able to manage our differences where we clearly have
differences. She decided personally that rather than make a first symbolic
trip to Europe or a first symbolic trip to Asia, she wanted to make a trip
to both continents because that reflects the vital national interest that
the United States has in both parts of the world.
And despite the fact that some members of the press but nobody in this room
have been writing that this is an introductory trip for her, it's to get to
know foreign leaders. Let me just tell you one thing. It's not that kind
of trip at all. She knows 90 percent of the people with whom she's going
to meet because of her experience over the last four years at the United
Nations and her life as an academic. She knows these people. This
is a trip where she's going to get down to business.
The first couple of weeks have been extraordinarily busy for her as
Secretary of State, and she's looking forward to this opportunity to spend
ten days talking about United States foreign policy with, arguably, eight
of the most important countries in the world, and the European Union and
NATO - two of the most important institutions for the United States. And I
would expect in Europe that the European security architecture, NATO
enlargement, the NATO-Russian charter idea, NATO's internal adaptation will
be a big issue.
Bosnia, of course - specifically, with the decision today on Brcko, will
be an issue that I think is talked about a lot on the first part of the
trip. And certainly in Asia - the situation on the Korean Peninsula - and
our overall relations with the three countries there will be the focus of
the trip.
In addition to the Internet Town Hall, the Secretary will be going up in
Seoul to the Demilitarized Zone, as you would expect in her first official
visit to Korea. We have, of course, thousands of American troops there
defending the Republic of Korea and American interests there. And in some
of the capitals she'll try to get out and walk about and see some
things.
It's going to be very difficult though to schedule those because the trip
is so compact with meetings. Most of the program are meetings with heads
of state.
If you have any questions about the Secretary's trip, I'd be very glad to
go into them with you.
I've got just a couple of announcements to make, and let me just go to them
directly.
The first concerns the decision on the status of Brcko, which was announced
in Rome today.
The United States welcomes the arbitral decision on the status of Brcko
announced by Roberts Owen in Rome this morning. We commend Mr. Owen and
other members of the tribunal for their careful consideration of this
difficult and complex issue. The United States believes the judgment is a
fair decision, which places a high priority on reducing the underlying
tensions which burden the area, as the key to resolving the status of this
strategically important area.
The United States is deeply committed to the successful implementation of
this decision and will be working closely with the high representative -
Carl Bildt - with our Contact Group friends and other parties, to ensure
that this decision is implemented in full. As Carl Bildt announced today,
the first step will be the Peace Implementation Council Steering Board
Meeting on February l9, followed by the Implementation Conference in Vienna
on March 5
and 6.
Under the terms of the Dayton Agreement, the parties are obligated to
support and to implement the arbitral decision. We call on all sides to
exercise restraint and to work together to carry out this gradual and
integrated program of increased reconstruction assistance, the organized
refugee return, and to provide for enhanced security of the Brcko area.
The decision of the Arbitral Tribunal has the potential to make a
substantial contribution to lasting peace in Bosnia, but achieving that
goal will require a long-term effort from all involved.
And I'll be glad to take any questions on Brcko when the time comes, but
let me just also tell you that we have another statement that we're issuing
today on the situation in Tajikistan.
The United States Government strongly condemns the continuing hostage
situation in Tajikistan. There have been extremely disturbing reports over
the last 24 hours of the execution of one of the group of United Nations
military observers being held hostage by an armed group operating
independently in Tajikistan. However, this report has not been confirmed,
and it may have been issued by a hostage under coercion.
We strongly condemn such terrorist tactics and this outrageous treatment of
United Nations personnel, and we call on the captors to release these
people safely and immediately.
We're monitoring the situation closely through our Embassy in Dushanbe and
through contacts with the Tajik Government and the Russian Government and
others.
Despite this tragic development, we believe that the United Nations-led
peace negotiations should not be derailed and that the next round of
negotiations between the Government and the United Tajik Opposition,
scheduled to take place in Moscow on February 26, ought to go forward as
planned. We believe that these negotiations are essential to reach
national reconciliation among the disputing parties in Tajikistan.
That statement is available to you.
Also available in the Briefing Room is a statement of the Advisory
Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad. You remember yesterday Secretary
Albright spoke to this first-ever meeting of this group of religious
leaders from around the United States, who are advising the State
Department on the issue of how we can best promote religious freedom
overseas. It was the first meeting of the group. The next meeting will be
in June, and they issued together - Moslems, Jews, Christians, Buddhists,
Baha'i and others - one statement, and there were two significant parts of
it that I want to point out.
First, they said that they would continue to provide information to the
United States Government about religious persecution around the world, and
to develop recommendations to combat religious intolerance and to assist
those seeking refuge from religious persecution.
Second, the committee committed itself to provide information and
recommendations to those of us in the U.S. Government about the work that
religious organizations are doing to combat intolerance and to resolve
conflicts around the world.
We were very pleased that this group came to meet with us yesterday and to
meet with each other, and we look forward to the next meeting in June.
I also just wanted to remind you we have public announcements about travel
conditions in Zaire and Tajikistan that were issued yesterday, and you
ought to look for them and a possible announcement this afternoon about a
travel warning in another country. That's all I've got by way of
announcements.
George, be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: On Brcko, could you address the concerns of those who say that
today's announcement benefits the Serbs at the expense of the Muslims?
MR. BURNS: We don't agree with that. In fact, I'd point you to President
Izetbegovic. He made a statement this morning - a positive statement -
about the Arbitral decision. President Krajisnik, the Bosnian Serb member
of the Collective Presidency, also made a statement. John Kornblum met
with both of them. He met with President Izetbegovic in Sarajevo. He's
meeting now with President Krajisnik in Pale. We welcome these statements,
but we will welcome especially the actions of the parties to the Bosnian
conflict to implement this decision. We don't think it rewards the Bosnian
Serbs. In fact, let me just take you through the major points as we see
them.
First, you remember this was the most difficult issue at the end of the
Dayton negotiations on November 19th and 20th of 1995.
It was the last compromise made, and the decision made by the Bosnian
Serbs and the Bosnian Government -- along with Secretary Christopher -- was
that the Office of the High Representative would have a mandate, and that
mandate would be to work together with the other parties, including the
Arbitral Tribunal, which was created to try to resolve the Brcko dispute.
The decision made today by Roberts Owen and the Tribunal is that the Office
of the High Representative will assume interim international supervision of
the Brcko area. There will be no change in the boundary line between the
Federation and the Republic of Srpska.
Because of a lack of progress, frankly, in implementing the Dayton
agreement in the Brcko area, Mr. Owen determined that this interim
arrangement was necessary. The parties simply were not ready to accommodate
a final decision by the Tribunal as to the status of Brcko because of the
continuing inter-ethnic problems and intolerance in the area.
What will happen next. A Deputy High Representative for Brcko will be
named, and Carl Bildt has asked the United States to identify an American
to fill that position. That person will work with the Serbian and Moslem
communities to set up the necessary procedures to implement the agreement.
He or she will have the authority to promulgate binding regulations which
will prevail over the next year against conflicting local law, which is an
important point for those who think that this decision may be one-
sided.
This decision is not one-sided, and the arbitrator will retain jurisdiction
and will review the issue in approximately one year, but, as he said this
morning - the arbitrator, Mr. Owen - no later than the end of March
1998.
The decision also calls for accelerated economic reconstruction efforts in
Brcko and expanded international police presence and the IPTF will deploy
further and more aggressively in Brcko. Also, it calls for a managed
process of the return of refugees and among them are many, many Moslem
refugees and displaced persons.
This gradual implementation of the decision, as I said, will begin after
the adoption of an implementation strategy by the conference in Vienna on
the 5th and 6th of March. We think this is a rational way to proceed in a
particular part of Bosnia which is not yet ready, we believe, for a final
decision by the Arbitration Tribunal.
QUESTION: Could you be more specific about "they're not ready?" The
Bosnian Muslims, as far as I know, are ready to go home; more than 50,000.
You know that freedom of movement and return of refugees is a main problem
in whole Bosnia.
So what makes you sure that that problem is not going to remain in the
Brcko area for another year?
MR. BURNS: It's precisely because we're concerned about that very
problem. The failure of the parties to allow the refugees to return, the
failure of the Serbs and the Muslims to undertake arrangements where they
can live together - it's because of that problem that this decision has
been made, to place Brcko under international supervision for the next 12
to 13 months. We hope that during that period, through the efforts of the
High Representative, but especially of the Serbs and Muslims, there will be
improvements in the situation that will allow a final decision by the
Tribunal.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Middle East. The Syrian Ambassador in a number of places -
most recently, I've seen them last night - has said that in the talks in
Maryland there was virtual agreement for an Israeli pullout from the Golan
Heights to the June 4, 1967 lines. He has said, in all these places, that
that agreement was witnessed by the United States. Is he right? Was there
a virtual agreement?
MR. BURNS: If there had an agreement or a virtual agreement, then we
wouldn't be here talking about the fact that Israel and Syria are not
talking about peace, if you get what I mean. If there had been a virtual
agreement or an agreement a year and a half ago or two years ago, then
there would be peace between Israel and Syria. Of that we're quite
confident. There isn't peace between Israel and Syria because they haven't
agreed on the outlines of a peace accord.
Obviously, Judd, I can't go into the details of what was on a piece of
paper, what was not on a piece of paper because the United States -- as the
President said yesterday -- never does that because we're objective, and we
want to maintain our credibility as an arbiter between Israel and Syria.
But the President told you yesterday that he was encouraged by his
discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The Prime Minister offered us some ideas, ways that the peace negotiations
can proceed, or could proceed, between Israel and Syria. We are considering
those ideas and we'll be in contact with the Syrian Government.
The United States wants to take steps to re-energize these negotiations and
to bring them about again, but we're not there yet. To get there, we need
the combined cooperation and, frankly, the political will of both
governments - the Israeli Government and the Syrian Government.
QUESTION: Can I follow? Without going into details, because I understand
why you can't and that you won't, should the talks resume at the place
where they left off in Maryland?
MR. BURNS: That is entirely up to Israel and Syria; entirely up to both
of them. It's obviously one of the issues that they'll have to decide if
these negotiations are going to be resumed.
But it's entirely up to them.
QUESTION: Nick, there will be a series of Middle East people coming to
meet the President in the coming months but not anybody from Syria. Were
the Syrians invited to send somebody?
MR. BURNS: You're right. I think the focus of America's Middle East
diplomacy is going to be Washington over the next month as King Hussein and
President Mubarak and Chairman Arafat come to Washington. I don't believe
there was an invitation extended to a high-level Syrian figure, but then
again we have excellent communications with the Syrian Government. We
speak to Ambassador Mualem frequently here. Ambassador Chris Ross, our
Ambassador, is in daily contact with the Syrian Government.
In our effort to try to convince the Syrians and Israelis to resume
negotiations, there's no problem in communication.
QUESTION: If the Syrian-Israeli resumption of talks was a focus of the
meeting yesterday at the White House, wouldn't it make sense to have a high
level direct contact with the Syrians on the same issue?
MR. BURNS: You know, we have those level-contacts generally when
Americans and Secretaries of State travel to the Middle East.
You remember, Secretary Christopher paid a fair number of visits to
President Asad in Damascus. That's generally been the way, I think, for the
last 30 years or so that the United States has communicated at the highest
level with the Syrian Government.
I can't remember -
QUESTION: No. President Bush -
MR. BURNS: I can't remember President Asad ever visiting the United
States. There was the meeting in Geneva; right.
So the fact is, Jim, we'll continue to have good contacts with the Syrian
Government. The President made the invitations that he made, those of the
leaders coming to Washington. But that does not preclude any kind of
progress in the Israel-Syria track.
While we're on this, I should say, we also hope for progress on the Israel-
Lebanon track because we have a very good relationship with the Lebanese
Government, and all of us want to see peace and stability returned to
Lebanon at some point.
QUESTION: Do you have an assessment of President Asad's health?
MR. BURNS: I do not. I'd have to direct you to the Syrian Government for
that. Still on the Middle East?
QUESTION: Still on Syria.
MR. BURNS: That's the Middle East.
QUESTION: It's sort of a Syria question. Al Gore is going to South
Africa. He arrives today. What's he going to be saying to the South
African - I'll get to Syria soon. I promise. What's he going to be saying
to the South African Government to persuade them not to sell arms to
Syria?
MR. BURNS: I don't know specifically if this is even an agenda item.
We've had a lot of contacts with the South African Government on this. It
may or may not come up. The South Africans know our position and we know
theirs. I think you've seen some -- you saw some statements from the South
African Government following the round of talks that we had, most recently -
what was it? -- three or four weeks ago. We have very good communications
with the South Africans on this, and we'd like to, obviously, resolve
the issue and that will be done privately between our two governments.
QUESTION: Are you confident that you have persuaded them that the sale is
not a good idea?
MR. BURNS: That's a decision that the South African Government must take
of its own accord. The United States has a point of view, and we have
enunciated that quite clearly.
QUESTION: North Korea. Today's Washington Times reported that some of
the Congressmen are planning to introduce some new resolution to put some
new sanctions against the terrorism-supporting countries. Do you have any
comment on -
MR. BURNS: Which countries are you referring to?
QUESTION: Excuse me?
MR. BURNS: Which countries are you referring to?
QUESTION: Syria and Sudan.
MR. BURNS: Syria and Sudan?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: Right. Here's our limitation in responding to that Washington
Times article. We were not aware until the article that any legislation
was being drafted or being considered.
We've not seen any such legislation and so, therefore, it's difficult for
me to respond to something that doesn't quite yet exist formally.
So we'll have to check further with these Congressmen to see what they
have in mind.
Ron.
QUESTION: Senator Helms has written the State Department demanding that
Ambassador Flynn be relieved of duty because of his political things that
he was reprimanded by Secretary of State Christopher for. Do you have any
response to Senator Helms on this issue?
MR. BURNS: I know that the letter has been received here in the State
Department. I know also that Ambassador Ray Flynn, a Bostonian, has served
as Ambassador to the Holy See for three years. We understand that he has
told the Secretary of State that he plans to leave his post and return to
the United States this summer.
As for these allegations that are contained in the letter that was received
today, you know, under the Privacy Act, we're not permitted to discuss
those allegations or to discuss any action taken by the Inspector General.
Those are long-standing guidelines.
QUESTION: What about the actions taken by Secretary of State Christopher
in regards to that?
MR. BURNS: Right. As you know, I'm not permitted to discuss in public
either the specific allegations that are brought against an American
official and then go to the Inspector General, or to discuss in public the
action taken - the specific action taken by the Inspector General.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) indicate as to why he's returning home. Is it a
normal -
MR. BURNS: He served for three years. As you know, the great majority of
American Ambassadors serve for three years in their post, and then they
return home and they go onto another post. I know that Ambassador Flynn
has decided that he's going to return to the United States this summer. So
that would be my response to your first question, Ron.
QUESTION: When letters are received concerning an American Ambassador,
you say something to the effect that the Secretary retains the highest
confidence in the individual targeted. I invite you to say that or not say
it.
MR. BURNS: Thank you, George. I can tell you, I spoke to the Secretary
this morning about these news reports. I can tell you the Secretary has
respect for Ambassador Flynn and full confidence in Ambassador Flynn's
abilities to carry out his duties as our Ambassador to the Holy See for the
next several months.
He plans to leave this summer, and we'll continue to work very well with
him.
QUESTION: On that subject. Have all political-appointed Ambassadors been
given orders to send in letters of resignation as of June 30?
MR. BURNS: I know there's been contact between the White House and the
State Department with our Ambassadors in the field.
I know that in the majority of cases, the Ambassadors who have served
their three-year terms will complete their terms and be asked to either
come back to the United States or consider appointment elsewhere. That's a
process, as you know, that's run by the White House primarily but involves
the Department of State.
Yes, I think there have been communications to the Ambassadors about that.
There are a variety of Schedule C, political appointee, Ambassadors who
will be remaining in the field because they just got to their post.
Ambassador Jim Sasser is the best example I can think of off the top of my
head, are ambassadors who will be remaining in the field. So it's hard to
generalize about this.
But, generally, people serve three years, and that includes Foreign
Service officers. If their three-year term is up, they generally depart
post but there are some exceptions to that.
QUESTION: Will the Secretary be seeing Ambassador Flynn on this
trip?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check the schedule. I don't know if the
Ambassador is in Rome. I'll have to check, and I'll just have to see. If
he's there, it would be normal for him to come to the airport and shake her
hand along with our Ambassador to Italy, Reg Bartholomew. Normal, but
we'll just have to see what happens in this case.
QUESTION: Can you say anything, Nick, about the response you can give to
Helms? It seems that he seems to be asking for immediate recall. Also,
just recently, three former Ambassadors took the unusual step of criticizing
Flynn quite publicly in a letter, rebuking him.
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of the second question. I'm not aware of any
letter by former Ambassadors. I just haven't seen it.
David, in answer to your first question, as I said, Ambassador Flynn will
remain at his post until the summer. He's notified the Secretary of State
that he'll then leave, and she retains - he has her full confidence as he
carries out his duties at the Holy See.
QUESTION: It is reliably reported that the defector, Mr. Hwang, the North
Korean defector, has written a letter and released in Seoul, I understand,
that says that his country's government has gone mad; that they are in
chaos; that they're basically - this is a warning flag for possible
conflict in the peninsula.
Does the U.S. have any comment with regard to Mr. Hwang's assessment?
MR. BURNS: Bill, we couldn't possibly comment because we have no idea
whether these reports are accurate or not. We know one thing: He is who
he is. He is in the South Korean Embassy in Beijing. The South Korean
Government and the Chinese Government are currently working out an
arrangement to deal with the situation.
The United States Government is not involved. We've had no contact with
him. We, of course, have been in contact with the South Korean Government.
We've had no contact with this individual, and this is a matter that the
South Korean and Chinese Governments ought to work out between themselves.
Obviously, it's an extraordinary event that a person of his stature would
have defected from North Korea. It probably tells you a lot about the
situation in North Korea, which is a situation of tremendous hardship -
economic hardship. I simply can't confirm the existence of any letters
from him or anything that he may or may not have said.
QUESTION: Nick, let me follow up briefly. Has the U.S. been talking to
North Korea in new York on any of these subjects?
MR. BURNS: We had a meeting yesterday, one of our normal meetings, with
the North Koreans up in New York. It was State Department officers from
Washington and the North Korean delegation up at the North Korean mission
to the U.N. That was on the variety of issues that we're working on with
the North Koreans, the Four-Party Talks briefing, the food situation --
because you know we are considering the appeal from the World Food Program,
KEDO, and the Agreed Framework and all the issues that are important to the
United States in dealing with North Korea.
QUESTION: Any progress that you can report from that meeting?
MR. BURNS: No, we generally don't report specifically on those meetings,
because we like to maintain their confidentiality.
QUESTION: Did we ask the North Koreans to let Mr. Hwang go?
MR. BURNS: Bill, I don't believe we raised the issue.
QUESTION: Do you think the Chinese should be encouraged to facilitate his
entry into South Korea, which is want he wants to do?
MR. BURNS: George, I think it's very important we do one thing: We
understand that this is an issue between South Korea and the Chinese
Government, and we hope that this issue can be resolved amicably. Whatever
the South Korean Government, of course, wishes to do would be the primary
interest that the United States would have here. The Chinese Government, I
believe, has cooperated with the South Koreans. They've provided security
for the South Korean Embassy in Beijing, and it looks like the Chinese
Government and the South Koreans will be able to resolve this on their
own.
So the United States sees no reason for us to insert ourselves into this
issue at the present time.
QUESTION: This is Chung-soo of Korean Broadcasting System.
But do you believe ultimately Secretary Albright is willing to discuss on
Mr. Hwang's defection to help resolve the problem if she is questioned by
either side of South Korea and China or both of them?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that either the Chinese or South Korean
Governments have requested Secretary Albright's assistance - I'm not aware
that they have - and I don't know what the status of this situation will be
by the time that the Secretary reaches Seoul and Beijing on her Asia trip,
because that's still more than a week away before she's in those capitals.
So we'll just have to take this one day at a time. We'll continue to
watch it closely, because it is an issue of enormous interest to us,
you understand, given the importance of events on the Korean peninsula to
the United States.
QUESTION: Nick, on another subject, how long have you seen -
QUESTION: One more on this.
MR. BURNS: Take one more on this one, Jim.
QUESTION: Apparently, Mr. Hwang has confirmed that around 50,000 North
Korean spies have infiltrated South Korea. I wonder if the U.S. is still
confident that this situation is not going to affect the Four-Party
Talks?
MR. BURNS: I simply can't confirm anything like that, because we don't
know if he said that or not. The fact is that Mr. Hwang has not given a
press conference. He's not, as far as I know, gone outside to meet the
press. He's inside the building, and he's in the custody of the South
Korean Embassy. So we're going to have to wait until this issue is
resolved and he has a chance to speak freely before we can assess what he
believes to be the truth about the situation in North Korea.
We don't believe that this particular incident in Beijing is going to have
an affect on the issues that are of primary concern to us - the issues that
I mentioned - including the Agreed Framework and the Four-Party Talks.
QUESTION: Another subject. Have you seen that the Parliament of the
Czech Republic has approved the treaty with Germany, in effect with both
sides let bygones be bygones. Does this now make it easier or does it
remove a final bar for Czech entry into NATO?
MR. BURNS: It is certainly important, we believe, that members of the
Partnership for Peace, all of whom are prospective members of NATO, that
they deal with some of the border problems and other conflicts that have
existed between countries there throughout the Cold War. The border issue
between Germany and the Czech Republic is one. Issues between Hungary and
Romania are a second. Issues between Poland and Ukraine are a third.
Issues between Russia and Estonia - the border issue, the Tartu Treaty
issue is another.
We think it's very important that states take the opportunity that they
have, now that the Cold War has ended, to resolve these problems. We
issued a statement the day after this historic agreement was reached
between Chancellor Kohl and President Havel. This is an agreement which we
believe serves both the Czech people and the German people and puts behind
both of them some of the worst aspects of the second World War and its
aftermath. So we're hopeful, and we're pleased that the Czech Parliament
has taken this step today.
Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: The other day a Turkish court sentenced Metropolitan Yakovus of
the Ecumenical Patriarch (inaudible) to five months in prison for having
officiated (inaudible) liturgy in the church.
Any comments of your government is very sensitive on the matters of
religious freedom.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I'm sorry, I'm not up-to-date on that. I had not
heard that. But it seems to be an important issue, so we'll look into it
for you and see if we can have a response.
QUESTION: How do you respond to the orchestrated campaign worldwide
against defenseless Cyprus to the direction that is threatening Turkey
where the missiles issue is de facto and moratorium exists and President
Clinton is not - excuse me - President Clerides is not going to deploy them
for at least for the next 16 months.
MR. BURNS: We think that President Clerides' decision not to deploy the
Russian anti-aircraft system and not even to import any element of it into
Cyprus for 16 months is a very positive decision, and we believe it allows
the Turkish Government, the Greek Government, the Cypriot Government, the
other party on Cyprus, to reflect about how best to move forward.
Secretary Albright yesterday and the day before talked about her hope that
1997 can be a year where the parties on Cyprus make progress towards
peace and towards a settlement of the Cyprus problem. She has said
publicly several times since she took office that the United States will do
whatever it can to contribute to that process. She has personal interest.
She was out in Cyprus and Greece and Turkey last summer, and she wants to
use the influence of the United States in a productive way.
QUESTION: But how do you explain the phenomenon, she is yesterday
worldwide. It is a campaign against Cyprus that is starting in Turkey.
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any campaigns against Cyprus.
What you have in Cyprus and Greece and Turkey is you have some differences,
but we believe they can be worked out amicably, and that the United States,
the United Nations, the United Kingdom can play a role in that. I think
all of us are willing to do that.
QUESTION: Any comment on yesterday's article by New York Times that
Turkey under Necmettin Erbakan is almost to a level of an Islamic cultural
uprising and the (inaudible) Turkish army is ready to intervene again?
MR. BURNS: I'd just point you to Secretary Albright's remarks before the
House two days ago where she said essentially that we believe that Turkey's
stability and democracy is grounded in secularism, and we also believe that
Turkey has a role to play in Europe. We want our European partners to be
open to integration with Turkey in the various European institutions, as we
certainly are to continued Turkish membership in NATO. Turkey is one
of the strongest and most important members of NATO.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:27 p.m.)
(###)
|
