U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #32, 97-03-04
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1102
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
March 4, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to Guatemalan Political Cartoonist and Armenian Television
Station Managers
1,11-12 Secretary Albright Meeting Thursday with Greek Foreign Minister
Pangalos
1 Statement on Behalf of the Co-Chairman of the Monitoring Group
2-4 Secretary Albright Meeting w/Foreign Minister Axworthy
CUBA
3-4 Difference in U.S. and Canadian Policy on Cuba
4 Asylum Offered to Tupac Amaru Hostage Takers by Fidel Castro
12-13 Narcotics Certification of Cuba
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
5 Israeli Reaction to the Formation of the Joint U.S.-Palestinian
Committee
5-6 Comparison of the Joint Committee to Vice-Presidential Commissions
6-8 Distribution of Financial Assistance to the Palestinian Authority
7-8 Export Assistance to the Palestinian Authority
18 Delay of Har Homa Settlement Construction
ALBANIA
9-12 U.S. Reaction to Albanian Government Actions Against Political
Opposition and Efforts to Aid Resolution to the Crisis
10 American Citizens in Albania
MEXICO
13-14 Congressional Effort to Decertify Mexico
CHINA
14-15 Chinese Response to U.S. Human Rights Report on China
INDIA
15-16 Letter from Vice President Gore on Punjab
SUDAN
15-16 Civil Conflicts and U.S. Military Aid
HONG KONG
17 Invitation to Secretary Albright to Attend the Handing Over
Ceremony
TURKEY
17-18 Internal Political Dialogue in Turkey on Issues of Democracy U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #32
TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997, 1:18 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome to the State
Department. I'd like to welcome some invited guests, honored guests: Mr.
Jose Chacon, who is a Guatemalan political cartoonist is here; and a group
of six television station managers and directors from Armenia, who I
believe are seated in the back row. You're most welcome. We're glad to
have you here. We have a very good relationship with Armenia.
I was hoping very much that Mr. Lambros would be here, but I guess he's not
here. Dimitri is not here. This is very disappointing to me because I
wanted to give a scoop to Mr. Lambros. Now, I'm going to have to give it
to Barry or George, or Patrick, Sid.
That is, the Secretary of State is looking forward very much to her
meeting this Thursday with Foreign Minister Pangalos of Greece. They will
discuss the full range of bilateral and regional issues with an emphasis on
the Aegean and on Cyprus. I promised Mr. Lambros the scoop. Dimitri,
thank you for coming in. Now, you get the scoop. You get to scoop
Lambros. Don't tell Lambros that Foreign Minister -
QUESTION: So they can discuss all issues, you better repeat it.
MR. BURNS: Foreign Minister Pangalos will be meeting with the Secretary
on Thursday. She's looking forward to this meeting.
This is a very important relationship. We have great respect for Minister
Pangalos. Mr. Lambros has missed his chance to become a hero in Greek
journalism. So now, Dimitri, you are going to be a star on Athens TV
tonight, as you usually are. That's 9:45 am on Thursday. There will be an
opportunity for all of you to see them in the Treaty Room, as usual, before
their meeting. I'll give you details on that.
I also want to let you know that I'm issuing a statement today on behalf of
the co-Chairman of the Monitoring Group. This refers, of course, to the
Monitoring Group that met in Naqoura, Lebanon, to consider a complaint
presented by Israel of a violation of the April 26, 1996, understanding
that was negotiated by Secretary of State Christopher. I would refer you
all to this.
The Monitoring Group, by unanimity, reaffirmed the obligation of all
combatants to act in conformance with the understanding and express its
great appreciation to UNIFIL for having provided the facilities for the
meeting.
Most of all, I just wanted to give you a brief summary of the meeting that
the Secretary of State had with Minister Axworthy.
That meeting lasted for one hour. It just broke up about 30/35 minutes
ago. It was a very warm meeting. They have an excellent personal
relationship. Of course, they've dealt with each other a lot in the past
and they intend to work very closely together.
They discussed the following issues. They discussed Haiti and the strong
agreement between the United States and Canada that there should be
continued international support for the peaceful transition in Haiti. They
discussed United Nations reform, and Secretary Albright briefed Minister
Axworthy on some of her recent telephone conversations with Secretary
General Kofi Annan about U.N. reform and her very strong support for
that.
There was a long discussion about Russia and NATO and the Russian-NATO
Charter. The Secretary briefed Minister Axworthy on her visit to Moscow,
her meeting with President Yeltsin, and the current trip by Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott to France, to NATO, and to Moscow this
week on that issue.
There was also a discussion of Ukraine. Not surprising. There was a
significant number of Ukranian-Canadians; as you know, particularly, in the
Western Canadian provinces.
Foreign Minister Udovenko is going to be in Ottawa this afternoon for a
meeting with Minister Axworthy, and he will be here on Friday afternoon for
a meeting with Secretary Albright. They talked about the need for NATO and
Ukraine to develop a NATO-Ukraine relationship similar to the NATO-Russia
relationship.
There was a long conversation on China where the Secretary talked about her
visit to Beijing. They, together, talked about Hong Kong and the
importance of a peaceful, positive reversion on July 1 that will respect
the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong. They also had a brief discussion
on the issue of the U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution on China's
performance on human rights.
There was also a discussion on Zaire. Both countries, of course, had taken
a lead in December in the discussions up in New York about the possibility
at that time that there might be a multinational force for Zaire. In fact,
the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Chretien, was the
Special Representative of the Secretary General of the U.N. They agreed to
stay closely in touch.
They discussed the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal, and the support that both of
us want to give Justice Louise Arbour, a Canadian citizen who is doing an
expert job in running that Tribunal and in focusing on the shortcomings of
that Tribunal.
As you would expect, a very long discussion about Cuba. They agreed on the
need to send Cuba, and the Cuban Government, a consistent message on human
rights. They agreed that we would continue together, both of us, to
reinforce that issue with the Cuban Government.
They discussed Helms-Burton. It was a very amicable, cooperative
discussion.
In addition to Cuba, there was a discussion about the Pacific salmon, the
talks that are underway between the major fishing companies and fishery
representatives between the Western Canadian provinces and the Western
United States - Oregon, Washington, and California - all of which have
interest in this and the fact that we've put them together for conversations
to try to resolve this very important issue between the United States and
Canada.
There was a brief discussion of the International Whaling Commission; a
discussion of landmines; a discussion of Burma, and of the Arctic
Council.
I would just conclude by saying two things. First, we're looking forward
very much to Prime Minister Chretien's visit to the United States in April.
Second, this is an extraordinarily positive relationship. The meeting
today was symbolic of that. It is perhaps the most outstanding and
successful relationship that the United States has with any country in the
world. It is not an exaggeration.
I think that's just a statement of reality.
I know a lot of people like to focus on the tactical differences that we
have on Cuba or on Helms-Burton. But the overriding conversation today
really is about how we're working together on all of the issues that I just
mentioned. So the Secretary of State was very pleased to have this meeting
with Minister Axworthy.
With that, Barry and George, be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: Is there any narrowing of the tactical differences on how to
approach human rights? You both have, obviously, two democracies; both in
favor of human rights everywhere on the globe.
These two countries have extraordinarily different approaches.
One would stay away from Cuba. The other would try to cajole Cuba with
contact and with business. Have those tactical differences been narrowed?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe so. I think Canada is going to stick to its
policy of engagement. We're going to stick to our policy of containment.
In general, anything that focuses Fidel Castro on human rights, we think
has got to be positive. If the Canadian Government and its contacts with
the Cubans can promote advances in democracy in the treatment of the
Concilio Cubano and the repression of Cuban dissidents, well, that's going
to be good.
Frankly, though, we've had a very long history with Fidel Castro - we,
Americans. We are highly skeptical that some of these beautiful promises
by Castro will be translated into concrete, practical, positive steps on
the ground. So we have this tactical difference.
But I think we have a strategic concurrence on the goal, which Secretary
Albright told you a little while ago, is the peaceful transition to
democracy in Cuba. There, I think, Canada and the United States are very
much together. That was the tone of the discussion on Cuba.
QUESTION: Speaking of Cuba, does the Administration have an opinion on
sending the Tupac Amaru rebels to Cuba as President Fujimori revealed, that
he was considering yesterday?
MR. BURNS: It's rather extraordinary this offer that apparently has been
made by Fidel Castro. It's a rather extraordinary situation where, here,
you have these terrorists - the MRTA - who, of course, believe that the
Cuban revolution was a great thing; that Castro is a hero to them. But when
given the chance to go to Cuba, they say they prefer to stay in the jungles
of Peru rather than visit the beauties of downtown Havana. I think that's
a commentary on the state of affairs in Cuba today. Maybe Cuba has lost
a little bit of its luster in revolutionary circles.
Sid, we're not in a position to comment on these series of conversations
because I don't believe we've been briefed by the Peruvian or Cuban
Governments. What we hope for is a peaceful and quick and safe release of
all of the people - the 72 people - being held hostage. It is inhumane to
hold them hostage. It is against all international norms and international
law. The United States, of course, has had a very firm position on this
since the very beginning of this crisis.
QUESTION: Also on Cuba. Minister Axworthy talked about progress made in
several key human rights areas two hours ago upstairs. He left it hanging.
Do you know anything more about that. Did it come up during their
sessions?
MR. BURNS: I should let the Canadians speak for themselves here, but
they did describe for Secretary Albright what they felt was some incremental
steps forward by the Cuban Government, perhaps in agreeing to some of these
exchanges, work with non-governmental organizations and perhaps even work
on some of the covenants, the international human rights covenants. But
all of this is couched in the way of intentions - you know, that the Cubans
may think about doing something.
What would be much more impressive would be to see some actions on the
ground, which we have not seen to date in the last - what? -- 37 years/38
years now from Fidel Castro. I believe you also heard Minister Axworthy
say that Canada expects to co-sponsor the UNHRC resolution on human rights
in Cuba which tells you something.
It tells you that there still is a widespread abuse of human rights by the
Cuban Government, and very recent. They've just locked up in the last six
weeks, as you know very well, George, some of the human rights champions in
Cuba.
QUESTION: What about the human rights resolution on China?
Did they reach agreement?
MR. BURNS: There was a very short discussion of that. I think both of our
governments are currently on the same track.
We are progressing towards that resolution. We're consulting together with
Canada, with European countries, with Asian countries.
We expect to find ourselves in a position of co-sponsorship, although we
have not closed the door completely because we still would very much like
the Chinese Government to come forward with some very practical, concrete,
and definite gestures, improvements in the human rights situation. We have
not seen that so far, however.
QUESTION: Nick, could I ask you something if we're off Cuba? Some of the
Israeli media is making a big to-do over this joint-whatever commission or
committee that was announced here yesterday. I haven't read the articles
but I've heard about them.
The gist seems to be that the Administration was elevating Arafat to some
higher status by suggesting he would be the co-Chair with the Secretary of
State of this bilateral arrangement.
Approach it anyway you want. If you want to talk about intentions, was
that the intention? Can we go through it one more time?
MR. BURNS: Sure. Obviously, we have a unique relationship with the
Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority is not a state. There's
no country there that we recognize, as you know. But we do work with the
Authority because it represents the Palestinian people. The United States
supports the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We
support them economically, and we want them to work with the Israelis for
peace.
We have decided to give this relationship, which is not a state-to-state
relationship - it's a unique relationship - we've decided to give it a
higher profile. Having the Secretary of State and Chairman Arafat chair
this committee together is symbolic of our wish to put a greater emphasis
on economic support for the Palestinians and to give them the kind of
public support and visible support that they deserve.
These are people, many of whom, of course, who have lost their homes, who
live in refugee camps, many of whom have experienced enormous privation
over the last several decades, who need help.
It is on a humanitarian basis appropriate to give them help.
On a political basis, it makes sense to us to grow closer to the
Palestinian Authority because it is a partner and a friend of the United
States. So I don't think anyone should be surprised by our elevation of
this relationship to this joint committee, because it really is very
consistent with the great emphasis we place upon improving our relations
with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.
Steve.
QUESTION: Nick, as I understood the concern that was voiced to the State
Department by the Israeli Embassy here, it was not necessarily over the
existence of the committee or the establishment thereof, but of the
analogies you were drawing yourself to this committee and such things as
the Mubarak Commission or the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission where there are
recognized governments that are being dealt with. Is it still the intent
to make that analogy?
MR. BURNS: I made the analogy, and I thought it was quite appropriate in
this sense. I've already explained that what is different about this
Palestinian-American committee versus, say, the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission or the Gore-Mubarak or Gore-Mbeki Commissions is just that,
Steve.
In those commissions, we're dealing with states that we recognize formally
as members of the - as states in the world. With the Palestinians, of
course, we do not recognize a state, but we do recognize the Palestinian
Authority as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
So that's the distinction. That's how the comparison is in exact.
But let me just respond to apparently this concern raised by the Israeli
Embassy - not to me but to you. Let me just respond to that in saying we
are trying to show publicly that we do care about the Palestinian people;
that we do want to upgrade and elevate the relationship. What is at the
heart of the Vice President's commission - putting aside the state-to-state
business - is that we're committed to improving the relationship, and
frankly we're committed to doing what we say we're going to do.
We want to see practical results in the relationship, and that's exactly
how we feel about this U.S.-Palestinian relationship.
So, therefore, I think the comparison in that sense is quite appropriate,
and we're going to stick with this U.S.-Palestinian committee.
QUESTION: Can we go a little further while we're on the subject? There's
been concern in the U.S. Government, certainly a lot of concern, and I've
heard it from people who work this economic area, that the aid doesn't get
where it should get. It doesn't get directly to the people, to projects.
There's bureaucracy, there's red tape.
Yesterday you spoke in terms of I think - I don't know, the legal
mechanisms, you know, to improve investment. As it stands now, you spoke
of the amount disbursed. You didn't use grass roots.
You didn't have to. Is there still a problem? Is the U.S. convinced that
whatever the reason, and I'd be happy to hear you enumerate the reasons -
are you concerned that this assistance is not getting through; that it's
somehow tied up?
MR. BURNS: Barry, what you describe is the general problem that I think
we have in all assistance relationships all over the world. It's a generic
problem that one has to deal with in a relationship like this. Let's take
the specific case here.
We have committed $500 million over five years. We've disbursed - that
means spent on the ground -- $220 million. That's a pretty good record.
We have had a very high degree of cooperation from the Palestinian
Authority for a lot of the priority projects.
In Gaza, we've been doing waste-water projects, safe-water projects.
We've been doing infrastructural development projects. The Secretary of
State just participated in honoring last night this agreement to build a
Marriott hotel complex in honor of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown - the
late Ron Brown. We've tried to convince the Palestinians to get at the
issue of changing their tax and investment codes to make the environment
there more open to foreign investment.
Indeed, we have been active in assisting the Palestinians, I believe,
since the early 1970s in a formal way and in a very significant way.
We've built roads. We've built schools. We've brought Palestinians here on
scholarship to universities and graduate schools. We've provided money for
health clinics in refugee camps and in small towns as well as big towns.
So we're going to continue these efforts, and by and large we're very
pleased with the seriousness of the Palestinian Authority, the cooperation
they afford to us.
Do we have some problems in implementation? Yes, we do.
Some of those problems have to deal with the Israeli Security Forces and
the Israeli laws which do encumber our ability to have effective assistance
on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some of the problems have to do with
implementation of the Palestinian Authority side, but we're going to stick
with it and try to work through the problems.
I do want to get - I think, Steve, you both asked interesting questions. I
don't know who's objecting specifically to all this, but it shouldn't be a
surprise to anybody in that region - including people in Israel - that
we've made a fundamental commitment to the Palestinians. We have a very
important relationship there. The President of the United States spent an
hour-and-a-half with Chairman Arafat, and Secretary Albright spent many
hours with him. That symbolizes how important he is to us and how
important the Palestinians are to us.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have a position on whether the Palestinians
should be able to export this citrus, whatever their products are, without
going through any Israeli oversight and, if so --that probably is more
important than direct aid, because this is really changing an economy -
MR. BURNS: The President says -
QUESTION: -- and, if so, what is the U.S. doing to further this
goal?
MR. BURNS: The President made a decision, I believe, on November 21,
1996, to effect the duty-free entry of Palestinian products into the United
States for the very first time. I know that there were some meetings
between the Palestinian Delegation and the Commerce Department yesterday to
see if that can work more effectively.
We've seen only a very modest level of Palestinian exports to the United
States, frankly, because there's a Byzantine set of rules and regulations
that make it very difficult for the Palestinians to export, whether it's
citrus, other agricultural products or manufactured products to the United
States and to Western Europe.
Again, Barry, this is not a new problem. This problem is decades old, and
what we'd like to see is the emergency of an economy there that is free to
trade with countries outside of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza
Strip.
QUESTION: But the Byzantine era is over. That's a nice analogy, but you
have a different era now. Is your problem partly that Israel will not
permit the Palestinians to operate - this really goes to the same point -
as a state or state-like by having its own products stamped - they're not
stamped "Jaffa oranges," but stamped whatever - "Gaza oranges" - and being
allowed to export as if it were a state directly?
MR. BURNS: The United States is pushing -
QUESTION: Forget duty-free. I understand. What about the other
end?
MR. BURNS: Right. We're pushing an agenda. No, they're tied, Barry.
We're pushing an agenda with both the Israelis and Palestinians that has
very little to do with the question of a state, Barry, and everything to do
with economics and free-market trade and investment. In general, we're
pushing very hard for the Palestinians to have a port, to have an airport,
to have safe passage for people between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip;
for businesses there to be able to create jobs, earn money to create
jobs. One of the only ways they're going to be able to do that is if they
can trade with Jordan, trade with other Arab countries, trade with the
United States and with Western Europe.
The Palestinians are an ingenious people - they really are. If you look at
what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza over the last 20 years, they
have a traditional agricultural base in both Gaza and the West Bank in
citrus's and olives and in vegetables which they can export and sell to
Israel and sell to Jordan. But they have an export market for some of those
specialized products in Europe and the United States.
There has been a problem - a systemic problem for decades in getting those
products out as Palestinian products or on an unfettered basis to Europe
and the United States. But recently there's been a lot of software
developed in the West Bank, some microelectronics and a lot of intellectual
capital, particularly from Palestinians coming back from the United States
and Western Europe - bright young people. They're trying to create
companies, but they are encumbered by a set of regulations which often
times, we believe, ought to be modified to allow a greater access to
markets outside that region. That's part of the economic agenda that we
have with the Government of Israel and with the Palestinians.
Yes, Jim.
QUESTION: Could I ask a follow-up on that. Your $220 million does not
include the $10 million held up by Ben Gilman?
MR. BURNS: No, this is disbursed, money that's spent on the ground, so
it does not include the $10 million we'd like to see released.
QUESTION: Did the $10 million come up in any of the conversations
here?
MR. BURNS: It did not come up in the discussion in which I participated,
but I would think it would have come up in some place. There are lots of
other conversations below the President's and Secretary of State's level
yesterday.
QUESTION: Albania?
MR. BURNS: Anymore on Israel before we go on? Yes, on Albania.
QUESTION: The Italian Government, who yesterday was involved in -
directly in the Albanian crisis, shipping out journalists out of Vlore in
an emergency mission. It's proposing a three-point message to President
Berisha, which includes - calls for moderation, the acceptance of experts
from the European Union and International Monetary Fund to supervise the
economic problems of Albania, and an acceptance for a renewed effort for
constitutional reforms and possibly new elections. I would like to know
what's the position of the United States on this proposal and whether the
U.S. is going to do any steps of any sort for that crisis.
MR. BURNS: Let me review for you our appreciation of this dynamic and
very tragic situation in Albania. The United States is deeply concerned
about the direction of events in Albania today, and we have, I think, a
very good handle on what's happening through our United States Embassy
there.
Specifically, we regret very much that the Albanian authorities are using
this state of emergency to intimidate opposition politicians and to shut
down the Albanian press and to shut down Voice of America. I tried to give
an interview this morning to the Voice of America's Albanian service, and I
gave that interview. I don't know if the Voice is actually is going to be
heard, however, by the Albanian people, because somehow the lines have been
cut.
It's incumbent upon the Albanian Government, if it believes itself to be a
democracy, to allow international broadcast stations like VOA to broadcast
freely and in an unfettered way into Albania.
We also think it's a great mistake to suspend the rights of journalists,
foreign or domestic, in Albania itself.
We felt as well that this summary rush to elections yesterday by the
Parliamentary Assembly and by the government was not the right thing to do,
because they did not give the opposition a fair chance to contest these
elections.
We are working very closely with the Italian Government and with the Greek
Government and with others in Europe to try to see if there can be some
unified position, perhaps within the OSCE, to make sure that we're speaking
to the Albanian Government - all of us in the West - with one voice. I
think our advice would be, "Restore democracy. Restore democratic rights
to the opposition. Restore rights to the journalists who are now
being intimidated." We'll continue working closely with the Italians,
the Government of Italy and the Government of Greece on this.
In the meantime, I notice there was an editorial in one of our major papers
saying we ought to cut off American aid to Albania.
This would not be in the self-interest of the United States.
Let me explain why. We have a $27 million assistance program to Albania
in Fiscal Year 1997. All of that money is directed not towards the
Government of Albania, but towards non-governmental organizations with an
emphasis on democratization, on the rule of law, on free-market economics,
on helping independent journalists, for instance.
All of that money is directed to building a democracy in Albania, and
surely when democracy is threatened by the government and by the military,
that's not the time to withdraw your support from the grass roots political
activists who do stand for democracy or for journalists who want to write
and broadcast what they are seeing.
So we're going to maintain our assistance program to Albania, despite the
counsel we've received from a major American newspaper today. I thought it
was important to spell that out for you.
QUESTION: Nick, a couple of more questions on Albania.
Can you tell me how many Americans you believe to be there, and then I'll
ask a couple more.
MR. BURNS: We believe there are very few Americans in the southern part
of Albania, which is fortunate, because that is where the majority of civil
unrest - the protests, the violence - is taking place. In the northern
part of Albania, we believe there are approximately roughly 1600 Americans -
quite a sizable number of Americans - and yesterday afternoon we issued a
travel warning. We recommended in that travel warning that American
citizens defer travel to Albania at this time due to increasing violence
there after the collapse of the pyramid investment schemes and because of
the resulting political instability.
We think that American citizens currently in Albania should consider very
carefully their personal security situation; and, if appropriate and if
they have any doubts about this, they ought to depart Albania.
There is a curfew in place from 8:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. imposed by the
Government of Albania, and I believe the workday has now been decreed to be
ended at 3:00 p.m.
So we strongly recommend that American citizens who remain there observe
the curfew, observe the laws, stay out of harm's way and seriously consider
leaving if they feel their security situation is in any jeopardy.
QUESTION: At the beginning of this crisis, didn't you announce that the
U.S. was sending an expert in these kinds of pyramid games to try and help
control this situation? Is this person still there? Is there anything you
can tell us about that?
MR. BURNS: In the first days of this crisis, it just so happened that we
did have two individuals who were going to travel to Albania, who had
expertise in that area. But frankly once they arrived the situation was
sufficiently turbulent that our Ambassador, Marisa Lino, our very fine
Ambassador in Tirana, decided that we just couldn't go forward with this
project at that time.
She has been, I think, by all accounts extraordinarily effective over the
last couple of weeks. She's tried to bring the government and the
opposition together for some quiet dialogue over the last couple of days.
She has been urging the government to maintain a democratic focus and
foundation which the government by and large has not done over the past
couple of days. I think all of us here have a great amount of admiration
for our Ambassador, who's a career Foreign Service Officer, and for her
staff. They have a very difficult time of it right now in the middle of
this crisis, but they're doing a superb job for us.
Laura. I'm sorry, Betsy, did you have a follow-up?
QUESTION: No. Is there anything else that the U.S. can do or is planning
to do to try and help calm the situation?
MR. BURNS: There is a limit to what we can do, because these events are
Albanian, and they're produced by a political crisis inside Albania itself.
But we have tried to group ourselves with Italy and with Greece and with
other Western countries to assert the primacy of certain values - democracy,
human rights, respect for journalism, respect for freedom of the media,
and we'll continue to do that. I wouldn't be surprised at all if
the OSCE got together this week to discuss this in a more organized fashion,
and I think you'll see some of the action shift to the OSCE, as it
should.
You remember back in the Serbian crisis the OSCE mission of Prime Minister
Gonzalez was very effective in asserting a Western viewpoint, and perhaps
in this case - I don't know if the OSCE will send a mission, but the OSCE,
speaking with one voice, perhaps would have the same effect on the Albanian
political leadership.
Laura.
QUESTION: On the ground there you mentioned what the Ambassador is
attempting to do. I understand when the parliamentary election went
forward yesterday or the day before, that the U.S. representation boycotted
this. How effective is the dialogue at this point?
You said she doesn't seem to be making headway in terms of convincing the
government to respect democratic institutions.
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Lino has offered the right advice to the
Government of Albania, and that's very consistent with the advice given by
other Western Embassies in Tirana. It's not her fault that the Government
of Albania has decided to turn in a non-democratic direction over the past
couple of days. She will remain in Albania to represent us and to
represent the values for which we stand. Albania is a country that's
wanted for a long time to be accepted by the West. We had problems with
the elections that were held last fall, and we certainly have a lot
of disagreements with how the Albanian Government is acting right
now.
Mr. Lambros, you missed your scoop. I gave it away.
QUESTION: No, no.
MR. BURNS: He's already reported on Greek television that Minister
Pangalos is coming to Washington.
QUESTION: It was given by the Greek Ambassador, Loukas Tsilas, to a Greek
TV correspondent yesterday. That's why I asked, but you were not informing
yesterday. You were today.
MR. BURNS: I want to be absolutely sure.
QUESTION: Finally, it was 100 percent.
MR. BURNS: We'll be very pleased to meet Minister Pangalos here on
Thursday at 9:45 am, here at the State Department.
QUESTION: I have a question on Albania. The Washington Post reported
today that a fear exists for an exodus of Albanian refugees over to Greece.
What is the U.S. position vis-a-vis to this problem?
MR. BURNS: We hope that the human rights of the people of Albania will
be respected by the Albanian authorities in the midst of this crisis. No
one wants to see an exodus, either to Italy or to Greece or to other
countries, but we have to be prepared for any eventuality.
QUESTION: But for normal reasons, in the ongoing Albanian crisis,
according to reliable sources of the European Union, particularly Germany,
would like for Greece to receive more Albanian refugees but already we have
400,000. So that I would like you to clarify the U.S. position to this
problem.
MR. BURNS: We are working very closely with the Greek and Italian
Governments, both of which are very close to this crisis. They have a good
view into this crisis because of their geographic proximity to Albania, and
we will continue to work very well with both governments.
QUESTION: How about with the opposition in Albania - with the opposition?
MR. BURNS: Our Ambassador, as have other Western Ambassadors, have been
in touch with the opposition and the government in an attempt to bring them
together to see if together they can resolve the problems of Albania.
QUESTION: And any response from Berisha so far in your effort? Any
response?
MR. BURNS: I think you see the response by his actions on the ground,
which are most disappointing.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) and they have some press reports which I saw today,
which they probably are wrong, but they say that Cuba was certified as a
country which cooperates in the fight against narco-trafficking with the
United States. I think it's a mistake, but I don't know, because I read it
this morning.
MR. BURNS: I think we passed out the certification reports, and there is
a section on Cuba.
QUESTION: That Cuba was certified?
MR. BURNS: No. There's a section on Cuba. We can check the language for
you, but I think it's pretty clear.
QUESTION: Yes, because what I saw this morning is that they said that
Cuba was certified; but probably this is wrong.
MR. BURNS: I don't believe so.
QUESTION: It's not a transit country, therefore certification does not
arise.
MR. BURNS: Okay. There you go. That's the answer. I was looking for
John, but George knows more about Cuba than all of us in the State
Department combined. We're going to make him the Cuban Desk Officer, if he
doesn't watch out. (Laughter)
QUESTION: Could I follow up on drugs. Mexico. Nick, Senator Coverdell
stated that the actions in the certification of Mexico on the part of the
Administration were a resounding endorsement of the status quo, and that
the status quo was unacceptable.
Mr. Coverdell said, "We are losing this war." That's what the status quo
represents, Nick. What does the Department say to the effort in the
Congress - and it's a very serious effort - to decertify Mexico by
legislation? Trent Lott says that the certification is in serious
difficulty.
MR. BURNS: We respectfully disagree with some of those statements that
you just mentioned. Respectfully, we'll continue to discuss this openly
with the Congress and with the Senate - those who have interest in this -
but I think you ought to go back to Secretary Albright's main message from
Friday afternoon.
We're not keeping score here. This is not a game where you tally up the
points, okay? What we're trying to do is enhance the cooperation between
the Mexicans and the Americans - Mexico and the United States - and
President Zedillo has led by arresting his drug chief and by saying he's
going to prosecute him if the evidence warrants that. That's a very
dramatic statement of President Zedillo's intention to try to fight and win
the war against narcotics.
The fact is we share this 2,000 mile border. If we walk away from the
Mexicans, we'll be shooting ourself in the foot, and you know why we'll be
doing that? Because the drugs will keep coming into our cities and into
our towns. We need the Mexicans to win this war on drugs, and they need
us. We have this symbiotic relationship with Mexico that nobody can
disregard. If we're going to win the war on drugs, we've got to have the
cooperation with the Mexicans.
By the way, we're part of the problem. There's a tremendous demand in this
country for narcotics. We are part of the problem. We better look at our
own house and make sure that we're doing everything we can to reduce demand
for drugs here. That's why the President and the Vice President have
counseled everyone to talk to their kids this week - teenagers and young
adults - about the dangers of drugs. Everyone ought to do that, and we
ought to work in this country to get our own house in order.
We're not going to be successful here at home without the Mexicans, and
that's the spirit with which this Administration is approaching this
difficult question.
QUESTION: Did this matter come up in the bilateral?
MR. BURNS: This matter did not come up in the meeting with Minister
Axworthy.
QUESTION: It did not?
MR. BURNS: It did not.
Sid.
QUESTION: I'm wondering if you've seen this 20-page response the Chinese
Government through its press agency, Xinhua, is now putting out in response
to the Human Rights Report?
MR. BURNS: I saw press reports on this. The United States is a country
that has always been a democracy, and the best way to understand that is
that we have millions of people who want to come and live here. I think in
most authoritarian countries around the world, you don't have millions of
people trying to get in. You probably have millions of people trying to
get out but not millions of people trying to get in.
We're very proud of our human rights record here. We are an imperfect
country. We do have our own problems in this country. We have racial
problems. We have problems of crime and terrorism, and we're very open
about it. But I don't think we need to listen to lectures from authoritarian
countries about our human rights performance because we are the world's
champion of human rights.
Just talk to all the unfortunate people around the world who have had their
human rights taken away. They look to us to speak up for them, and that's
why we do that every year in our human rights exercise. You know what?
We're going to continue talking about human rights, because that's what
Americans should do, given our history.
So the message, Sid, here is that we're very confident about our policy and
emphasis on human rights, and we're not going to be deterred, especially by
countries that are major violators of human rights.
QUESTION: Is that the message you - conciliatory message you would expect
on the eve, so to speak, of your final decision on sponsoring the human
rights resolution -
MR. BURNS: My own response here is in the spirit of our Secretary of
State who believes that we should tell it like it is, and that's just
telling it like it is. That's the hallmark of Madeleine Albright, and I
think she's done it very effectively on this issue.
We want to work with the Chinese, but let's do it in amicable way. Let's
not call each other names with reports like this.
Let's work to see if we can redress the human rights concerns.
QUESTION: May I go to China's neighbor?
MR. BURNS: Which one?
QUESTION: India.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: There's great agitation in the Indian parliament following a
letter by the Vice President, Mr. Gore, to the so-called Council of
Khalistan suggesting there's great civil conflict going on in the state he
calls Khalistan. I was wondering whether you still regard the Punjab as a
part of India, and how you view the whole thing on whether the Vice
President was taken for a ride by somebody who did not when the Punjab was
or where India was?
MR. BURNS: I respect very much why you are asking the question. It's a
very good question. The United States does recognize the Punjab as an
integral part of India; always has and I believe always will, in this case.
We do not recognize any kind of Republic of Khalistan.
There was an unfortunate error in the preparation of that letter.
I can tell you that the Vice President obviously supports American policy,
which is that Punjab is part of India.
QUESTION: Nick, on Sudan. There was recently an American delegation led
by former State Senator, Theo Mitchell, from South Carolina to Eastern
Sudan where they had visited the battlefields in that conflict there. From
reports with local military leaders, it was said that about two-thirds of
the troops they had been fighting were SPLA and about one-third were
Ethiopians. I know you had expressed some concern about the foreign
involvement in the area although it's been less outspoken as, for instance,
in the case of Zaire. Is there still a similar concern in that?
The other question I'd like to ask is, the SPLA troops had been transported
to the battle area, according to reports on the ground, from Uganda where
they had been trained, in Hercules C-130 planes. I'd like to ask is, to
your knowledge, any other people than American citizens or American
military capable of piloting these planes, and is there any concern that if
this is the case, that there might be some kind of American involvement,
either private or public, in that conflict?
MR. BURNS: American policy toward Sudan remains constant and unchanged.
We have a lot of concerns about the situation inside Sudan, particularly
Sudan's support for terrorism and the miserable human rights record of the
Sudanese regime.
We have counseled Sudan's neighbors not to interfere and to violate the
sovereignty of Sudan. I must repeat again, the military assistance which
is envisaged but has not yet even arrived to some of Sudan's neighbors is
non-lethal military assistance - uniforms, boots, shoestrings, gloves, that
kind of thing, desert-ware. It's not lethal at all. So the United States
is not involved in supplying the type of military assistance that I know
you've asked about in the past.
We continue to have a major disagreement with the Sudanese Government on
its own policies, both external and internal.
QUESTION: If the Hercules C-130 planes were involved in this, would there
be concern that there might be some kind of a rogue operation, at least, in
logistical support?
MR. BURNS: I've not seen those reports. I can't speak to them. I just
have no knowledge of any kind of transport operations in that area.
QUESTION: Can you tell me, then, on a related subject, if you have gotten
any indications that the forces allegedly involved in the conflict in
eastern Zaire have been withdrawn or are no longer present in that -
MR. BURNS: I can't give you an up-to-date analysis of the military
situation in eastern and southern Sudan, both areas of which are quite
unstable. You know about the long-standing civil conflicts in both of
those regions.
QUESTION: Nick, going back to the Khalistan-Punjab faux pas, doesn't the
White House get in touch with some of the regional experts in the State
Department when it sometimes gets beyond what it is? Or was it that the
White House thought that Khalistan was a central Asian republic?
MR. BURNS: Sometimes we have a perfect foreign policy and sometimes we
have minor mistakes. In this case, there was a mistake. We made a mistake
in the reply to that particular letter and it was quickly seen to be a
mistake. We've now said publicly - and this is with the absolute consent
of the Vice President's staff - that that letter should not have been sent
the way it was. We've apologized to the Government of India because of
course we do not recognize a Republic of Khalistan.
We recognize of the Punjab to be part of India. There's no mistaking
that. That's long-standing American policy. Our Ambassador, Frank Wisner,
of course, has expressed that many times, and the Vice President obviously
supports U.S. policy that Punjab is part of India. We could not be more
clear about this. It was a minor, technical error. I would encourage you
not to read too much into it, really.
QUESTION: Beyond your public apology here, has there been a private
apology to that effect?
MR. BURNS: Oh, absolutely. We've conveyed to the Government of India
our regret that this letter was sent. We've said that the wording, of
course, does not represent our policy. The Vice President is very well
aware of that. I think this is a closed matter which we'll put behind us
with the Indian Government.
QUESTION: Can you relate the thinking of the State Department on a visit
to Hong Kong by Madeleine Albright if she were invited?
MR. BURNS: I can only tell you, I'm not aware that any formal invitations
have been issued by the British and by the People's Republic of China. So
we'll just have to wait and see if formal invitations are issued.
QUESTION: Any comment on Necmettin Erbakan's statements in Turkey,
governments are formed in parliament, not in the National Security Council?
And to the military response, Erbakan is playing with fire?
MR. BURNS: We're not going to get involved in the internal affairs of
the Turkish people. Turkey is a great secular democracy, and that secular
democracy, we believe, will thrive. The secular foundation of modern
Turkey since Ataturk is very important to the Government of Turkey.
QUESTION: According to the Washington Post, 115,000 weapons have been
obtained Islamic radicals in Turkey in an obvious effort to challenge the
Turkish military establishment. Do you have anything on that? It was
reported today.
MR. BURNS: I know nothing about that. I just don't have any basis to
speak about that. Don't know anything about it.
I think Sid was next.
QUESTION: Can a secular democracy, as the United States sees it, be ruled
by a military government?
MR. BURNS: You know, Sid, Turkey has had a tradition of secular
democracy since, I believe - correct me - 1923, as the Great Ataturk laid
the foundation of the state. We believe that civilian rule is important.
It's an important part of democracy.
We encourage civilian rule. And NATO, of course, 16 countries, all ruled
by civilians with a subordinate relationship to the military. That's very
clear.
Having said that, we have the greatest respect for many of the people who
champion secular democracy in Turkey. We have an excellent working
relationship with the Turkish military, Turkish general staff on a
bilateral basis, on NATO issues, and on bilateral Turkish-U.S. issues. So
we're not going to interfere in internal Turkish affairs, but we are going
to continue to work with the various civilian and military officials in
Turkey to improve our relationship.
QUESTION: Just to follow that up a little. Just to follow that up.
Somehow there's a problem. I haven't heard any comment on the problem that
sometimes (inaudible) matters of democracy to destroy democracy. In other
words, you get an election once and no more because of (inaudible)
religious fanaticism. What do you in a situation like that? Where does
democracy come in?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if you're referring to any specific case. But,
in general, the test of a democracy is the second election, not the first
one. The Haitian people, for instance, have passed that test. It's very
important.
Yes, Gene.
QUESTION: Could I put on record a double question about - last night,
they announced that there was going to be a delay in Har Homa. It was
being referred to the Attorney General. Have you got any instructions on
that?
And, secondly, the Defense Minister of Israel has announced 1,500 more
apartments to be built on the West Bank, east of Jerusalem, quite separate
from Har Homa. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. BURNS: On the second question, I just have not heard of that
proposal so I cannot react to it. On the first question, we cannot confirm
this report. I think it's a Kol Israel report.
In fact, you've on the wires some words from Prime Minister Netanyahu that
he intends to go ahead with Har Homa within a couple of weeks.
You know our position. We're very disappointed. We wish this decision had
not been taken. There's been an erosion of trust and confidence. What we
need to do right now is try to build that back up between the Palestinians
and Israelis.
QUESTION: There's Christian peace team from Hebron in touch with the
Department about their hunger strike that's going on until Easter
concerning the 700 demolition orders that have been issued against
Palestinian houses in the West Bank.
MR. BURNS: Are you asking for my reaction to that? I'm just not aware
specifically, Gene, of that initiative, that peace initiative.
Thank you very much.
(Press briefing concluded at 2:07 p.m.)
(###)
|
