U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #28, 97-02-26
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
910
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
February 26, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to 20 Canadian Journalism Students and to the Estonian
Under Secretary for Policy, Press and Information
1-2 Secretary Albright's Schedule for the Rest of this Week and Next
Week
2-3 Statistics on the Secretary's Worldwide Trip
3 Press Availability at the Briefing on the Four Party Talks, Mar. 5
3 This Day in Diplomacy: President Wilson Learns of the Zimmerman
Telegram
NARCOTICS CERTIFICATION PROCESS
4-5,
10-11 U.S.-Mexico Relations and the Narcotics Certification Process
5-6 Narcotics Certification Decision Announcement
5-6 Criteria for Certification/Decertification
6 Reply to Congressional Letters on the Subject of the Certification
Process
8-9 Critique of the Politicized Nature of the Certification Process in
the NYTimes
9 U.S.-Colombian Cooperation Against Narcotics Trafficking
9-10 Comparison between U.S. Support of Mexican and Colombian
Counternarcotics Efforts
PEACE PROCESS
6-8 Proposed Israeli Settlements in Har Homa
NORTH KOREA
11 DPRK Postponement of Briefing on the Four Party Talks
12 Food Aid and the Four Party Talks
12-13 Chinese Request of Asylum for North Korean Defector Hwang
TURKEY
13 Turkish Delegation Visit to State Department Last Weekend
13-14 Update on Turkish-Cypriot Relations
HELMS-BURTON WTO DISPUTE
14-15 Update on EU-U.S. Dispute over the WTO Panel on the Helms-Burton Act
ARMS SALES
15 U.S. Policy on Arms Sales to Latin America
BURMA/THAILAND
15 Recent Fighting on the Border
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #28
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1997, 1:48 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: I don't see many survivors from the traveling press corps. In
fact, I don't see any survivors. But those of us who work for the
government are here, working. We're back the next day. We don't get a day
off.
Welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to welcome 20 Canadian
journalism students from Carleton University. They're visiting the United
States through the Meridian Center. I guess you're here to talk about
Helms-Burton. Is that why you've come?
To do that? We'll be glad to do that, if you'd like to do it.
We always talk about it.
QUESTION: Roger Clements.
MR. BURNS: Roger Clements, that traitor who went to the Toronto Bluejays.
We'll be glad to do that, too.
I also want to welcome a very distinguished guest, Mr. Mart Laanemae, who
is the Estonian Under Secretary for Policy, Press, and Information.
He's been observing our press guidance system this morning and will now
observe the behavior of the American and foreign journalists here. You're
very welcome. We have a very close relationship with Estonia, in
particular, among the countries in that part of the world, and we're very
glad you're here.
I want to give you a sense of what Secretary of State Albright has been
doing today. She has attended the President's bilateral meeting this
morning, including the welcoming ceremony, the lunch, and the press
conference with President Frei. You've all just seen that.
A little later on this afternoon, at 3:30, she's going to participate in a
public signing ceremony of two documents with the Chilean Government. I'd
invite all of you who would like to come to that event. That will be 3:30
this afternoon. It's a camera spray.
John (Dinger), is that up in the Treaty Room? In the Treaty Room on the
Seventh Floor. Two treaties, one is - or the two agreements, I should say.
One is the Fulbright Bilateral Education Agreement.
The President mentioned this in his press conference. As you know, the
Chilean Government has now decided to share the costs and responsibilities
of the program, which is really a quite significant departure as to how
this program has been run for many, many decades.
We welcome this very much.
I believe the Chilean-U.S. Fulbright Commission is the oldest commission in
this hemisphere. I think it dates back to 1955.
The second agreement will be an agreement between the Library of Congress -
our Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, and his counterpart in the
Chilean National Library, for an agreement to share information and
information-retrieval capabilities. So I would invite you all to attend
that signing ceremony.
At 4:40 p.m. - after that - the Secretary is going to be meeting with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, Minister McKinnon.
That will be their first meeting.
Tonight, the Secretary attends the State dinner at the White House for the
Chilean President.
Tomorrow, there's a bilateral meeting here at 10:00 a.m. with the Saudi
Defense Minister - Defense Minister Sultan. That's at 10:00. Then, at
12:30, a meeting and lunch. There are a number of people who have been
invited to that lunch - private citizens who have an interest in Saudi
Arabia.
In terms for press purposes, we're going to have a camera spray before the
bilateral. I think the lunch is open for remarks, that Minister Sultan and
Secretary Albright will be making.
Looking into next week, on Monday, the Secretary is going to be hosting
Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority for a meeting and
working lunch. Then she has two days of testimony, on Wednesday and
Thursday. I'll let you know tomorrow, specifically, the committees and the
times of that testimony.
Of course, the Secretary is just back from a truly historic and busy and
tiring and, in many ways, fun trip around the world.
She visited two continents and nine countries in 11 days. She traveled 19,
466 miles. I'm going to give you a statistical overview.
There were 22 take-offs and landings. There were 42 press availabilities -
42 press availabilities. She met with eight Foreign Ministers, six
Presidents, four Prime Ministers, three Defense Ministers, two Premiers,
one Chancellor, one Secretary General, one Trade Minister, one Patriarch,
and one three-star General. That was up at the demilitarized zone along
the border between North and South Korea.
She also met with her North Atlantic Council Ministerial colleagues in
Brussels. She met with Partnership for Peace Ambassadors up there. She
spoke four languages on the trip. In one press conference, she spoke three
languages - in the press conference in Paris.
This is supposed to be fun. This is the style part of this, the
background part of it.
She had an Internet event in Moscow in which 3,000 schools participated.
Of those 3,000 schools, there were 80 schools who sent in questions, and a
total of 300 questions. Each of those questions is going to be answered;
each of those people - kids - who sent those questions in will get an
answer very shortly. All of that will be posted on our Web site at
www.state.gov. In fact, if you want to look back on the trip at anytime,
everything she said on the trip, all of her speeches and press conferences
and press availabilities, any Fact Sheets we put out, are all on our State
Department Web site.
So that's the background from the trip that no one else has. You all have
the scoop now of the statistical background of the trip. I thought it was
kind of fun to put it together.
You're laughing. Glad to see that some people thought this was interesting.
Next week, as you know, the Secretary announced in Seoul that we will be
having the first briefing on the Four-Party Talks among the South Koreans
and the North Koreans, including with the United States. That will be
followed by a bilateral meeting with the South Koreans and the United
States, and a bilateral meeting with the North Koreans. The briefing,
among the three, will be on March 5. There is going to be photo opportunity
for those of you who would like to cover it. There won't be a speaking
part to this. But for the first time, you'll be able to record a
meeting on camera with the North Koreans and the South Koreans and
the United States.
If you're interested in this, I suggest you contact Ken Bailes who is the
Public Affairs officer in the East Asia Bureau at 647-1028.
He will be able to help you with arrangements for this.
Finally, I am posting today another in our series of "This Day in
Diplomacy." This series, in which Sid Balman is very interested, and Sid
has made voluminous reports on this. This series attempts to document
significant events in our diplomatic history because we need to remember
our diplomatic history. This is particularly interesting.
Eighty years ago today, on February 26, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson
received the decoded text of a secret message sent by the German Foreign
Minister - Minister Zimmermann - to the German Minister in Mexico proposing
a German military alliance with Mexico and Japan against the United States.
It was the unveiling of that telegram - the Zimmermann telegram - which, in
many ways, led the United States to think very seriously about entering
into the First World War.
Our Historian's Office has done a very interesting job, a very good job, in
remembering this incident and documenting it. I think it's probably the
10th or 11th statement we've put out over the last six months to try to get
all of you more interested than you are in the history of American
diplomacy.
There will be a quiz tomorrow at the beginning of the briefing, so I
expect all of you to read it.
QUESTION: There will also be certified -
MR. BURNS: There was no certification process. Let's go to the first
question. George.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up on Mexico. Mexican officials are suggesting
the possibility of a rupture in relations with Mexico if they are not fully
certified. I'm sure you've seen the stories, and I just wonder whether you
have a comment?
MR. BURNS: There's not going to be a rupture in U.S.-Mexican relations.
The most interesting thing said yesterday on U.S.-Mexican relations was
said by General McCaffrey - Barry McCaffrey. He essentially said, the
United States and Mexico have a fate that is interlinked. We have a
history and a 2000-mile common border and economies and trade and migration
issues and narcotics issue - a very serious issue - of the importation of
cocaine and heroin into the United States.
We cannot get away from our relations with the Mexicans and they can't get
away from us. We are linked, and that is our fate.
So we ought to make the best of it. We ought to try to have the closest,
possible working relationship between the United States and Mexico. So it
doesn't make sense to talk of a rupture. That is not going to happen.
As you know, the Secretary of State has just returned. She gave a lot of
thought on the flight back to this question of certification.
She has not yet made a recommendation to the President, and the President
has not yet made a decision. So it's not possible for me to indicate in
any way on what our decision might be.
But I can say this. The solution here, given the background of these very
surprising and dramatic and even tragic announcements out of Mexico about
the implication that senior officials in the Mexican counternarcotics
organization were fully involved with the cartels themselves; in fact, on
the payrolls of the cartels.
Our reaction to this announcement should not be to isolate Mexico.
It should be to work with Mexico. I'm saying this without any regard for
the certification decision. That's a decision that stands on its own. But,
in general, as General McCaffrey and Bob Gelbard have been saying, we've
got to work with the Mexicans to make sure that we do a better job in
keeping drugs out of both Mexico and the United States. It's an essential
part of U.S. national drug strategy to work with the Mexicans.
We must give our support to President Zedillo who, after all, took the very
courageous and decisive steps of routing out of his own government over the
last week those individuals who are associating themselves with the
cartels.
You saw further announcements today from Mexican Government officials -
from the Attorney General - that they're going to turn their own house
upside down to try to find out who is cooperating with the cartels.
We support the efforts of the Mexican Government to get to the bottom of
this, we encourage it, and we will work with them to try to make sure that
drugs are kept out of both of our countries.
There's a lot of work to be done. The Mexican Government has many
initiatives that they must take to improve their counternarcotics strategy
as does the United States, but that work has got to be done together.
QUESTION: When do you expect the certification decision to be announced,
and how and when?
MR. BURNS: It's not going to be announced. None of the decisions will be
announced until the President makes a decision.
That's how our system works.
I know that Secretary Albright will be looking into this question today and
tomorrow with her advisors here at the Department of State. She will then
at some point communicate to the President what her recommendations are,
and then she'll have to sit down with the President and other senior
members of the government who are involved in this strategy. Only then
will we know exactly when we're going to announce this decision. But it
will be done here at the State Department. I just can't forecast for
you the specific time.
QUESTION: What is the drop-dead deadline?
MR. BURNS: I believe we need to report to the Congress in the next couple
of days on this. I'm not a lawyer. I haven't consulted a lawyer to know
if it has to be by midnight Friday, or whether it could be Saturday, Sunday,
or Monday. That's a question for the lawyers. But I do know it's coming
up, and we intend, obviously, to communicate the decision to Congress
as soon as the President makes them. We will then communicate it
all to you in this room, and we're looking forward to that. But I don't
want to anticipate any decision by the President.
What I've said about Mexico has everything to do with our counternarcotics
strategy but nothing to do with the certification decision. I want to be
very clear about that.
Sid.
QUESTION: A different subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Anymore on Mexico before we leave this?
QUESTION: Is the certification separate from counternarcotics strategy?
MR. BURNS: I think you know what the criteria are. The President must
certify to the Congress; basically, review the performance of governments
on counternarcotics strategy. What I'm saying is, we are very clear about
what we have to do with the Mexican Government in the days and weeks and
months and years ahead. We've got to cooperate with it and work with it
and not isolate it because we're unhappy with the fact that some senior
members of the Mexican Government were implicated with the cartels.
But the certification decision is separate from my comments and separate
from the strategy - in essence, it's part of the strategy, but it's not
related to an articulation of the strategy, if you get what I mean.
QUESTION: Wasn't there evidence against Governor Beltrones?
And also, if I can two questions at once. Do know why Francisco was
transferred as consul in Hermosillo?
MR. BURNS: I really have nothing to say about either of the individuals
that you mentioned. Perhaps we'll have something more to say when our
certification decision is announced. Ambassador Gelbard might, but I just
don't want to go into that now; not at a time when we're trying to work out
some problems with the Mexican Government.
QUESTION: Could we conclude by what you've said that the announcement
won't be tomorrow, that it could be Friday?
MR. BURNS: The announcement will definitely not be tomorrow, because I
know the Secretary of State has to have a meeting with her advisors and
then she needs to make a formal recommendation to the President, and then
they need to sit down with him. So it won't be tomorrow. It will be
sometime after that, but I don't have a precise date or time for you. As
soon as we do, I'll give it to you.
QUESTION: Has there been any kind of reply to Senator Feinstein and other
folks who have written on this issue?
MR. BURNS: A reply to their letters? I don't believe there's been a
written reply. I know there's been contact with the Hill, and we're very
interested, obviously, in the views of members of Congress on this
issue.
QUESTION: I'll take the opportunity to switch a subject.
MR. BURNS: Okay, and then we'll give the floor back to Sid after
that.
QUESTION: The Israeli Government has taken a decision to go ahead with
this Har Homa development. The Palestinians are warning of violence and
bloodshed. I'm curious what your reaction might be.
MR. BURNS: There are a couple of things. I want to talk about that and I
also want to make a comment on the death of the Palestinian man. But first
things first.
We, of course, as a government, work very closely with the Israeli
Government, with the Palestinian Authority. Our main objective is to make
sure that those two - the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority -
are moving down the road to fulfill their common mission of peace.
Our focus must be - the focus of the United States - on building confidence
and ultimately trust between Palestinians and Israelis.
That is the only way to create a durable relationship between them, and
that has got to be their focus. When they make decisions, when they talk
to each other, it's got to be in a spirit of trust and cooperation, and the
actions they take have to serve the goal of trust and cooperation.
In that light and having said that, today's decision by the Israeli
Government to build housing at Har Homa is not a step that will build trust
and confidence. Frankly, the United States would have preferred a
different decision. It would have preferred that this decision not have
been taken. We will continue in all of our actions and in all of our words
to stress the primacy of trust and cooperation and positive movement
forward in the peace process.
QUESTION: What do you have to say to the Palestinians who threaten to
erupt with violence - people holding stones in the occupied territories?
Is that something that builds trust?
MR. BURNS: That's the language of the past. People who threaten violence
and people who incite violence and practice it are speaking the language of
the past. The language of the present is to sit down and negotiate
differences. The United States, obviously, would like to see calm in the
occupied territories, in Jerusalem and throughout Israel. We'd like to see
a disagreement on any issue, including this issue, resolved peacefully
between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and we reject those who
call for violence - those on either side, Israelis or Palestinians.
QUESTION: What do you expect to say to Chairman Arafat about this when he
comes next week? How is this going to play into those discussions?
MR. BURNS: I'm sure this is going to be part of those discussions. He's
coming here to consult with the President and with the Secretary of State
about the way forward in the peace process. I know that Secretary Albright
feels very strongly that the parties in the peace process have a responsibility
to act constructively and to take into consideration the viewpoint
and the position of their negotiating partner. It's because of that
point that we're disappointed, and that we would prefer that this decision
not have been taken by the Israeli Cabinet.
QUESTION: Did you make your feelings known to the Israeli Government
beforehand?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What's your view on the other part of the decision that they
could build a few thousand apartments for the Palestinians?
MR. BURNS: We would like the Israelis and Palestinians to work together -
whether it's on housing or whether it's on the issue of redeployment or
whether it's on the Final Status Talks. When the Palestinians and Israelis
work together - when they agree on an issue together - that is positive,
and, of course, we support that. But this first decision on Har Homa is
not a decision that meets that definition.
QUESTION: Part of the decision that the Israeli Government has taken was
to build both a Jewish neighborhood and a Palestinian neighborhood - 3,000
apartments for the Palestinians. It's part of the same decision, so you
oppose the other part of the decision?
MR. BURNS: My remarks were on the Cabinet decisions to build housing for
Israelis at Har Homa. My remarks pertain to that decision that was taken
this morning, and that has been discussed by Mr. Bar-Illan and other
representatives of the Israeli Government on CNN.
QUESTION: Nick, the other part of that - there's two parts to that
decision. One is to build housing for Jews and one to build housing for
Palestinians. You can't separate them. I mean, there's two things there.
Are you praising them for building housing for the Palestinians?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I'm being very clear here. I'm saying that the real test
to meet - the real test - is whether actions taken by either party in the
peace process will lead to an enhancement of confidence and trust between
the two. If that test can be met and if they mutually agree to do
something together, the United States will support it. If they don't agree
and if we don't believe that the action meets that test, then, of course,
you're going to see the reaction that we've given you today.
QUESTION: Colombia?
MR. BURNS: Anymore on the Middle East before we go to Colombia?
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: The New York Times refers today the politicization of the
certification process. In the case of Colombia, do you believe it is a
political maneuver more than a way to improve end results performance?
MR. BURNS: I'm not quite sure what your question is. What is the
antecedent? What are you referring to?
QUESTION: The New York Times refers today the politicization of the
certification process.
MR. BURNS: By whom?
QUESTION: The United States.
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that there's been a politicization of the
certification process. I guess I wouldn't agree with the premise. The
certification process was set up by the United States Congress. It's the
law of the land. Therefore, the United States Government will meet that
test, and we'll go through with this certification process. I know there's
been a lot of complaints about it from President Samper and even by some
Mexican Government officials, and frankly, I can't do anything about
that.
Our President and our Secretary of State must abide by United States law,
and United States law says that we must certify these countries around the
world as to whether or not they are cooperating with us to rid all of our
countries of the scourge of narcotics.
Most countries cooperate with this. I know we've seen some negative
comments out of the Government in Bogota. Frankly, they're not very
helpful, and they don't have much connection to reality.
So we'll go ahead with this process, and we're looking very closely at the
record of the Colombian Government over the last year.
When the President makes a decision, Ambassador Gelbard will communicate
that to you.
QUESTION: Yesterday, the Prime Minister of Colombia mentioned the fact
that if this year the United States does not recognize the efforts of
Colombia, that they would be reconsidering the cooperation with the United
States also. Have you heard of those remarks?
MR. BURNS: I think it's in the national interest of the Colombian people
and the Colombian Government to cooperate with us on this issue of
narcotics. Narcotics are destroying Colombia.
They're destroying the political fabric of the society and, as we've said
many times before, influenced too many people in the Colombian Government.
Narcotics are also destroying the lives of young people in the United
States, and we have a responsibility to decrease our demand, but you have a
responsibility - Colombians have a responsibility to increase - to cut
drugs off at their source.
So this fight is a common fight. We've got to work together on it, and
that is really what you're going to be hearing from us when we unveil our
certification decisions. That's where U.S. national drug strategy is at
right now. That's what General McCaffrey's been talking about. So all
these attempts by people who have been charged with cooperation with the
cartels in the past is really, I think, illusory. They've got to
understand that this is common fight that we've got to wage together. They
shouldn't make excuses about it.
QUESTION: You mentioned today the United States should give some support
to the Mexican Government on this problem, because they are important to
the vital national interests of the United States. In order to stop the
flow of drugs, don't you think that the United States should give the same
support to the Colombian authorities?
MR. BURNS: You have to have a willing dance partner, and in the case of
President Zedillo, he has made the fight against drugs one of his national
priorities - one of the national priorities for the Mexican people. He has
cooperated. He's had some bad people in his government who, unbeknownst to
him, were working with the cartels, but he has identified those people. He
said he's going to try to find out who others may be who are still
under cover, and he's made this, I think, a public fight in Mexico, and we
ought to give our support to him.
In contrast, there are some other governments in our hemisphere who have
not spoken out nearly as vigorously, but more importantly have not taken
the actions to counter the drug dealers, the narco-traffickers, as has
President Zedillo. I think there's a very broad and very important
distinction that needs to be made there among certain governments in this
hemisphere.
I say all this again without any reference to the certification decision.
I'm not trying to say that we're going to make one decision on Mexico and
one on Colombia. I don't know how those decisions are going to turn out,
because the President hasn't made them yet. But I think what I'm saying is
certainly consistent with everything we've said about President Samper and
the Colombian Government in the past.
QUESTION: But there are members of Congress - I'm sorry - that have said
right now the U.S. is not applying the same standards to Mexico as it is
applying to Colombia.
MR. BURNS: We make the decisions that we make based on the information
available to us and based on our appreciation of the attitudes and the
actions of the governments concerned.
We make the best decisions we can.
QUESTION: (Through interpreter) It's been said that the only thing that
the United States wants from the Colombian Government is the extradition of
drug leaders from Colombia to the United States. Is there any other thing
that will satisfy the United States?
MR. BURNS: Yes. We want to see the Colombian Government make a concerted
national effort to fight the narco-traffickers, to jail them when they can
be prosecuted, to make them stay in jail and not live in five-star jail
hotels, as some of the narco-traffickers do, and to work with us to keep
drugs out of our hemisphere. That's what we want. I think it's very clear
to the Colombian Government what we want.
QUESTION: How about extradition?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Extradition.
MR. BURNS: We've spoken many times about the need for that, but you have
to have a willing partner.
QUESTION: On the same subject, but Mexico. Okay? Nick, yesterday on the
House side in a hearing Mr. Tom Constantine, the DEA Director, revealed
that, (1) he had been receiving phone calls at his home by Mr. Madrazo.
Mr. Madrazo called to tell him that Mexico was trying to work a way to
better cooperate with regard to vetted task force - something that we've
talked about in this forum. I would like - has the State Department any
knowledge of this, and do you have any comment on this kind of close
personal cooperation?
MR. BURNS: I have not comment on that. I didn't read the transcript of
the DEA testimony, so I just don't want to comment on it.
QUESTION: Okay, Nick, and then another thing that was very disturbing
came from that hearing, also from Mr. Constantine - he said that as far as
the DEA is concerned, there is no police organization in Mexico trustworthy
of DEA close cooperation.
MR. BURNS: We do know we can trust President Zedillo and his Attorney
General and many other senior officials of the Mexican Government. We have
had an excellent working relationship with that government. Mexico is our
neighbor. We have a national self-interest in working with the Mexican
Government.
The Mexican Government has worked to root out the people in its own
government who are taking money from the narco-traffickers and who are in
league with them, and we ought to applaud those efforts and hope they
continue.
QUESTION: And we'll just sort of finally ask you about Mr. Zedillo. Does
this government believe firmly that Zedillo is in control insofar as his
backing from the army to continue a government that is anti-cartel?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Can we change the subject and go on to Korea and China?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: Why is third time a charm? Korea has refused to come to the
joint briefings - North Korea - twice. Did something transpire when
Secretary Albright was in Seoul that makes them believe that the third time
is going to be a charm?
MR. BURNS: The North Koreans did postpone twice last month the Four-Party
Talks briefing that had been scheduled for New York, but they let us know.
We meet with them in New York, as you know, weekly. They let us know in
that channel that they wanted to come this time; that they were definitely
coming, and on that basis we decided to go forward with the briefings.
This is a good sign.
The object of this exercise is to convince the North Koreans that they
ought to go to the talks with China, the United States and the Republic of
Korea to talk about ways to reduce tension along the demilitarized zone.
Secretary Albright was up there last Saturday. It's an extraordinary
experience to look over that fence into North Korea; to know that it's one
of the most heavily fortified places on earth.
What the North Koreans should know is that the United States has a
fundamental commitment to the security of South Korea; that our 37,000
troops in the Republic of Korea are dedicated to defending South Korea.
That's why we want to go to the Four-Party Talks:
to reduce this climate of suspicion and distrust, to reduce the level of
military tension along the 151 miles of the Demilitarized Zone, and to try
to point towards eventually a peace treaty that would end effectively,
after 46 - excuse me, 43 years, the Korean War.
QUESTION: History. They refuse to come to the Four-Party Talks, and we
are now giving them $10 million in food aid. Do you think they're going to
keep holding out until they get as much food aid assistance as they can
get?
MR. BURNS: The United States has not drawn a connection between aid to
kids in North Korea, which is what our $10 million is going towards. It's
going to be food to help people - kids under five and their families,
obviously - their mothers and fathers - cope with malnutrition. We don't
draw that connection.
QUESTION: How are you assuring that it's going to the kids and the
mothers and fathers and not -
MR. BURNS: We're working through the World Food Program, which has an
established track record for effective distribution, and the World Food
Program tells us that the people under greatest threat during the current
famine in North Korea are very small children. The threat is malnutrition
and death by starvation.
Therefore, the money contributed by the United States, by the Republic of
Korea, by European Governments, is going to be directed through the WFP to
those kids. We're confident that the food aid will get to those kids.
It's not going to go to the North Korean military, and it's not going to go
to the North Korean Government.
But North Korea has a national self-interest in showing up at New York on
March 5, because the country is in crisis. There's obviously a political
crisis underway, and there's also, obviously, a food crisis underway. They
need to get on to the work of peace with South Korea, 43 years after the
armistice of 1953, and that's our goal. We hope after the briefing on
March 5th, the North Koreans will decide to go to the formal peace talks
that President Kim and President Clinton envisaged when they announced this
last April.
QUESTION: Nick, is China - can you confirm or deny that China actually
approached the United States or Madam Albright when she was there about
giving political asylum to Hwang Jang-Yop if he doesn't find his way back
to Seoul or if he doesn't get asylum anywhere else?
MR. BURNS: No, I just have no comment to make. I'm not aware of any such
request. I was in all the meetings that Secretary Albright had with
President Jiang Zemin, with Premier Li Peng and with Foreign Minister Qian
Qichen. I'm just not aware of it. In fact, when we were in Seoul and
Beijing, we were briefed by the South Korean Government and the Chinese
Government on the state of play concerning the defector, and we received
very good briefings on it. We are not a party to this. We've not
been requested to be involved, as far as I know, and we haven't volunteered
that.
QUESTION: Did you have briefings on that? Do you know what his state is?
Can you - do you have any -
MR. BURNS: I cannot, because the United States Government is not
involved. So I would really direct you to my colleague, Shen Guofang, the
Chinese Spokesman, or the South Korean Spokesman.
QUESTION: Nick, there was a high-powered Turkish delegation in town last
week, including Turkish Minister of State, Minister of Defense, Turkish
Deputy Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and they also
visited this building - met with Secretaries Talbott and Tarnoff.
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: Do you have any official reaction, reflection on this
visit?
MR. BURNS: I don't have any official reflections. I just got back
yesterday afternoon. I know that Strobe Talbott left Moscow on Friday
afternoon very hurriedly so he could get back to the meeting with the
Turkish delegation on Saturday morning, and we were very glad that they
were here because of our Alliance relationship with Turkey. If you'd like,
I can talk to our people and see if we can give you a more considered
analysis of the trip, but we're very glad that they came.
QUESTION: You didn't get any official word yet?
MR. BURNS: We'll get you an official word, but we'll do that by tomorrow.
Be very glad to do that, yes.
QUESTION: On the same subject.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, yes.
QUESTION: How did you comment on the last few days, Turkish violations
and threats for new adventures against the Republic of Cyprus in a period
in which the moratorium is in effect and President Clerides has committed
himself not to deploy the missiles for the next 16 months? Otherwise, how
the defense of Cyprus will be protected from those Turkish violations, etc.,
during that period?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any new actions by the Turkish Government
that require a statement by the United States. There were some statements
and actions a couple of weeks ago that we did comment on, but I'm just not
aware of anything new that would fundamentally change the situation, Mr.
Lambros.
QUESTION: I think you've talked about the (inaudible) over the last three
days. You know, the Turkish airplanes, they're violating the Cypriot air
space.
MR. BURNS: I just have no comment to make on those incidents.
QUESTION: One more question. You asked the Turks for a single moratorium
over Cyprus. What did they say so far?
MR. BURNS: A moratorium on what, Mr. Lambros?
QUESTION: Did you ask the Turks for a similar moratorium over Cyprus?
And what did they say?
MR. BURNS: What type of moratorium are we talking about here?
QUESTION: We are talking about - ask the Greeks not to fly over Cyprus
for a period of time as was said by Mr. Cavanaugh -
MR. BURNS: We have been interested in a flight moratorium on Cyprus. As
you know, Mr. Cavanaugh has talked to the Cypriot Government, and the Greek
and Turkish Governments about that but nothing has been worked out.
QUESTION: On Cuba. Last week, after the WTO appointed the panel, there
have been several statements coming Europe afterwards saying that they
still are trying to get into direct negotiations with the United States.
Can you tell me whether there are bilateral negotiations with anyone, and
summarize the situation at the moment for the United States?
MR. BURNS: On the WTO dispute on Helms-Burton?
QUESTION: WTO, yes.
MR. BURNS: Now, we have something that's going to interest the Canadian
students from Carleton, although Canada is not party to this particular
dispute between the United States and the European Union. The best way I
can describe our position is to say that when President Kennedy and all of
his successors thought about Cuba and the American embargo, they thought
about it in the foreign policy and national defense terms - national
security terms.
The main argument of the United States is, this is not a trade dispute
between the United States and the European Union. It's a foreign policy
difference. Therefore, using the WTO as a mechanism to resolve that is not
appropriate and we won't let it happen.
So Ambassador Eizenstat has been working with Sir Leon Brittan and others,
amicably, over the last couple of days to try to work out a settlement of
our differences with the European Union before the European Union insists
irrevocably that it go to the WTO panel.
We hope very much that that process, which is going I think smoothly in
the last couple of days, will result in an agreement between the United
States and the European Union. That's our hope.
QUESTION: You say "irrevocably." It means that this panel may still not
do anything? They may still stop it after they have appointed a panel for
the WTO?
MR. BURNS: Our strong hope - and I think if you ask the European Union,
they will back me up on this - is that we work this out together; we work
it out together. It's very important that that happen.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) happen in the last two days that you say the
negotiations are going so well?
MR. BURNS: We've been talking, I think, quite well with the European
Union and quite reasonably with them. We don't have an agreement yet, but
we have a common interest in reaching one.
The United States will not let the WTO adjudicate this. It's not a trade
problem. But Helms-Burton is the law of the land and we're going to
implement it.
QUESTION: Mr. Burns, could you comment, or how does the State Department
feel about the possibility of the lifting of bans on arm sales to South
America?
MR. BURNS: As you know, there has never been a ban on arm sales to Latin
America. There's been a policy of restraint.
Certain types of weaponry haven't been sold, but other types of weaponry
have been sold. So the question is, do we do away with the policy of
restraint; do we allow an open field where any types of arms can be sold to
our friends in this hemisphere?
No decision has been made by this government. This question has been
under review for a very long time - since last Spring - but no fundamental
departure from the policy of restraint has been made by President Clinton
or his Cabinet Secretaries. So that policy of restraint is still in
place.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Thai troops trucking Burmese women and
children back across the Burmese border?
MR. BURNS: I do not. I know that there's been a lot of fighting along
the border - Thai-Burma border - for the last several weeks, the Karen and
others are involved. The United States has been quite critical of the
actions of the Burmese military in that fighting. They've victimized
innocent civilians in that fighting.
But as to your specific question, George, I haven't seen that report but we
can look into it for you. Be glad to do that.
Thank you very much.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:25 p.m.)
(###)
|
