U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #40, 97-03-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
988
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1 Welcome to German Radio & Television Journalists
1 Retirement of Court Reporter Ferdinand Kuyatt
2 Public Announcement on Papua New Guinea
2 Secretary Albright's Activities
2 --White House Press Briefing
2 --Attendance at Briefing on Helsinki Summit
2 --Telecon wRussian Foreign Minister Primakov
2 --Helsinki Departure-March 19
2 --Mtg. w/Brazilian Foreign Minister Lampreia
NATO
2 NATO Expansion
2-3 --Central/Eastern Europe
4,10-11 --Proposed Russia-NATO Charter
MEXICO
4-5 Arrest of Brigadier General Alfredo Navarro Lara
5-6 Drug Certification Decision/Process
COLOMBIA
6,-7,15 Effects of Drug Decertification/Consideration of U.S. Military
Aid?/Extradition
ALBANIA
7 Speculation on President Berisha's Resignation
7 U.S. Support for EU Delegation
7 Situation in Tirana
7-8 Evacuation/Refugee Update
RUSSIA
8-10 New Government Appointments/Economic Reforms
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
11-12 Building at Har Homa/Resumption of Negotiations
12 Yassir Arafat's Assurances on Violence
NORTH KOREA
13 Four Party Talks
13 Departure of Hwang Jong Yop from Beijing
CYPRUS
13 Carey Cavanaugh Consultations in Europe
ZAIRE
14-15 Situation Update/Mtg. in Nairobi on 3/19/Call for Ceasefire
WESTERN SAHARA
15 Former Secretary James Baker Appointment as Special Representative
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #40
TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997, 1:31 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department. I want to welcome to the briefing today 12 German radio and
television journalists -- I believe they're seated on both sides of the
room today - who are visiting the United States, and they're here on a
journalistic exchange program between the United States and Germany. I
want to welcome you.
Thanks for coming. I don't know what lessons you're going to learn about
the relationship between the American Government and the media, but let's
see what happens during the briefing.
I do want to take one minute to honor someone who has been an unsung hero
here at the Press Briefing. It's Ferd Kuyatt who is retiring from the
State Department on March 31. All of you benefit, as do I, from the fact
that we have Court Reporters here who transcribe everything you say and
everything I say. Ferd has been doing that since 1980 with the State
Department; and before that for 23 years with the Air Force as a civilian.
His first position with the U.S. Government was back in 1950 in Sidney,
Nebraska, if I'm not mistaken. His total years of service with the Federal
Government, as I said, are 42.
He's retiring. He has received many Performance Awards from the United
States Government. One of my predecessors, Chuck Redman, once wrote of
him: "He's always cheerful and helpful, consistently excellent work
standards. By general acclaim, Mr. Kuyatt is the best conference reporter
the State Department has ever had." And former Secretary of State George
Shultz was so amazed to see Mr. Kuyatt show up at an interview site despite
blizzard-like conditions that he wrote a letter to Mr. Kuyatt that said: "I
was astonished and reassured to see you show up this morning." Ferd
accompanied Secretary Shultz on many interviews inside and outside of this
city.
Ferd, you've been terrific. You've been one of the unsung heroes along
with Marilyn (Plevin) behind the scenes. Thank you very much. I think
it's appropriate that at least the State Department camera focuses on you
today. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. SCHWEID: Will Ferd be transcribing this briefing?
MR. BURNS: Yes, he will.
MR. SCHWEID: (Mumble, mumble, mumble)!
MR. BURNS: Barry, thank you. Your usually entertaining self.
Before Barry goes to his unintelligible questions.
QUESTION: (Errrrrrrr).
MR. BURNS: Yes, exactly --- errrrrrrr. I just wanted to let you know
that we are posting today a public announcement on Papua New Guinea. The
Department of State recommends that American citizens defer all
non-essential travel to Papua New Guinea due to the recent threats against
foreigners by insurgents in Bougainville Province and the related civil
disturbances that have been underway in Papua New Guinea over the last
week.
Just a word on the Secretary of State. I know that Barry, among others,
was at the White House this morning for the Press Briefing that she gave
with Sandy Berger. She is going to be attending a briefing with President
Clinton in just about half an hour over at the White House - a briefing on
the summit in Helsinki. She's been doing a lot work, as you know. She
took a call this morning from Foreign Minister Primakov who called in to
discuss some of the specific arms issues that they had been talking about
over the last three days here and that will be an issue at Helsinki.
She's really devoting most of her time today to this meeting. She's going
to be leaving tomorrow night at around 6:00 with the President on Air Force
I. She'll be accompanied by Deputy Secretary Talbott, Ambassador Jim
Collins, and a few others from the State Department. She'll be returning
with the President on Friday evening. I just wanted to give you a little
account of what she's been up to.
The Secretary had an excellent meeting last evening with Minister Lampreia,
the Foreign Minister of Brazil. They had a meeting - I guess it lasted
about an hour - that covered the full range of issues between the United
States and Brazil, including the Peru-Ecuador border dispute which, of
course, that Brazil, the United States, and two others have been the
guarantors of since, I think, the early 1940s. A lot of talk about
economic trade between the United States and Brazil - economic issues;
specifically, also environmental issues, and discussions of the President's
upcoming visit to Brazil in May. A very good meeting, I wanted to note for
you. I'll be glad to take any questions on that.
Barry.
QUESTION: Why does the Secretary find it necessary to very vigorously and
repetitively say that the United States will not sacrifice the interests of
central and eastern Europe in its negotiations with Russia over NATO? What
sacrifices are being demanded?
MR. BURNS: The reason that she said that this morning and has said it
before is because it's a charge that doesn't hold water. It's a charge
that we've seen in the press just in the last couple of days from some
former American officials and also some other commentators from the region.
Barry, let's face it. As the Secretary said this morning, what's really
going to be happening at Helsinki and beyond in all the meetings that
President Clinton and Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac and Prime
Minister Major have, and the other NATO leaders have with the Russians is,
we're trying to design a new Europe for the new century, a Europe that's
truly different than the Cold War. That means that we have to take into
account the sensitivities and the sensibilities and the geo-strategic
position of the countries of central Europe.
Clearly, we want to bring some of those countries into NATO. We want to
enhance their security. There have been some ridiculous and silly charges
that the meeting in Helsinki is going to be a sellout. There's not going to
be any sellout, as she said this morning. They're not going to be any
concessions made. The security of those countries is fundamentally
important to the United States.
QUESTION: So it's not a response to any demands by the Russians. It's a
response to criticism here, in the West, suggesting -
MR. BURNS: It's in response to a lot of idle talk; that's right.
QUESTION: I don't know. That's a judgment call. But hasn't NATO already
taken steps to give some assurances to Russia on the forces that will be in
eastern and central - hasn't the U.S., by saying there won't be nuclear
weapons there?
MR. BURNS: NATO has made those decisions. They pertain to nuclear
forces. No reason and no intention and no plan to station nuclear forces
in new countries.
QUESTION: I thought there were assurances about saying that for the time
being, at least, there's no intention to put massive forces in central and
eastern Europe, non-nuclear as well.
MR. BURNS: That is true, but NATO has also said very clearly that it
cannot give any kind of assurance that would say that there will be no NATO
forces, troops, personnel stationed, on whatever basis, on the territory of
new members. We've not given that assurance.
We have to go back to the general principle that we're talking about here.
There is no second-class membership in NATO.
If we're going to bring new countries into NATO, all those countries have
to be full members of NATO. They have to have all the rights of NATO
members but they also have to fulfill the obligations that NATO countries
have to each other.
We have said that it may be necessary to have some people, at least,
stationed in those countries.
QUESTION: Do the eastern European countries have actually any influence
over the character of the charter, or is it just going to be decided
without their participation? Do they have a word on this process?
MR. BURNS: The proposed charter between Russia and NATO has been
developed by the 16 NATO countries. The other countries need to make these
decisions as to what kind of military relationship to have with Russia. We
have briefed the central European countries on what, in general, we would
like to see result in a charter between the United States and Russia.
But the only countries that have the right to agree to any kind of
arrangement between NATO and Russia are the 16 NATO countries themselves.
But I don't think there's anything in that charter that would surprise,
frankly, central European countries.
We're simply trying to take prudent steps to establish a working
relationship with Russia that will serve everybody in Europe well.
Another point, just related to that. A lot of people have been asking
today, "Well, do you think it's going to be possible to have an agreement
on the charter by Friday night in Helsinki?" As Secretary Albright said
this morning, no.
The reason is, the United States cannot agree on its own to a new charter
between NATO and Russia. We have to consult with Germany and France and
Britain and Italy and Canada, and the other NATO allies. All of us need to
make that decision together. So we can guarantee you there will be no
charter agreed to by Friday evening, because this is a multilateral
exercise where 16 countries are negotiating with one country.
QUESTION: Yes, but could the U.S., at the end of this summit, find itself
satisfied with the main terms of the charter and then take that result to
the other countries?
MR. BURNS: Our expectation is that a substantial amount of work needs to
be done to complete the negotiations in the charter; that it will not be
possible to complete all of that work by Friday evening. Helsinki is a
step towards Madrid. It's part of the process of leading to Madrid.
Chancellor Kohl went to Moscow in early January. President Chirac went to
Moscow in early February. President Clinton goes to Helsinki in mid-March.
Following the Helsinki meetings, we're going to see a lot of diplomatic
activity between Helsinki and Madrid on July 7-8, and a lot of work.
There's still no assurance that NATO and Russia will agree on a charter.
If that happens, if by the end of June or very early in July, that there's
no charter worked out, NATO will simply go ahead with its plans to expand
and make that decision at Madrid.
Now, we far prefer to have a charter; obviously, we prefer to have a
charter, but it takes two to tango and we'll have to continue to negotiate
very seriously along the way.
Yes, Bill.
QUESTION: Thank you, Nick. Bad news. The bad news is for Mexico. I
believe Lieutenant General Navarro has been arrested for attempting to
bribe another General to cover up to protect the Tijuana mob - the Arellano
Felix mob. The good news, of course, is that he was caught; and the bad
news is that the army now, who have two high-ranking Generals have been
arrested in the last month for drug corruption. Do you have any comments
on this, Nick?
MR. BURNS: The facts, as we know them, are the following.
That General Alfredo Navarro Lara, a Brigadier General in the Mexican Army,
was arrested yesterday by the Mexican Government for allegedly offering a
bribe to another senior military officer, General Jose Luis Chavez Garcia,
and that this bribe was offered on behalf of a major narcotics syndicate in
Mexico.
General Chavez is the newly assigned person in charge of the anti-narcotics
effort in Baja, California.
General Navarro apparently threatened General Chavez and his family if he
declined the bribe. General Chavez, fortunately, reported the incident and
launched the investigation that led to the arrest of General Navarro.
The arrest certainly confirms that there continues to be a serious
corruption problem within the Mexican Government.
Bill, I would end on a more positive note. It also confirms that President
Zedillo is fundamentally committed to the war on drugs. He is arresting
senior people in his own government and making sure that when there are
problems, they're being rooted out.
In President Zedillo we do have the senior most Mexican official who is
absolutely and fundamentally dedicated to working with the United States to
keep drugs off the streets of Mexico as well as the streets of American
cities.
QUESTION: Nick, is this Department and this government confident that the
anti-cartel Generals have the upper hand in Mexico?
MR. BURNS: We're confident that the President of Mexico is determined to
win this. He said it's the highest priority that he has, as well it should
be, and we'll continue working with him.
QUESTION: Same subject. There was a meeting last night involving State,
NSC, Treasury, with Senators Coverdell, Feinstein, and Hutchison on Mexico
decertification. Do you have any details of that meeting?
MR. BURNS: I don't. We are consulting with the Congress now on the way
forward. Obviously, the President stands by his decision to certify
Mexico. The Administration believes that was the right step. We would
like to receive support in the Congress that would reflect this fundamental
point. In order to work with Mexico, you've got to show some faith and
trust in the Mexican authorities, and you've got to agree to a detailed
program of work together.
I can't give all the details of the meeting last night, George, except to
say, we'd like to work with supportive members of the Senate and House to
see if we can all go forward together with a positive program and a
positive message for Mexico. A negative message --the ultimate negative
message would be, you've got problems; we're going to give you the back of
our hand and we're going to sanction you.
We are convinced of one thing. If that's the route that the Congress wants
to take, then we won't win the war on drugs with Mexico because we won't be
able to cooperate with Mexico.
The only way to cooperate with Mexico is to truly work hand-in-hand, side
by side. That's why we believe the certification decision is the right
one. Because from the top on down in Mexico, President Zedillo is setting
a positive example for all of us.
QUESTION: Can it be, Nick, that this whole certification process is
working against good relations and cooperation between Mexico and the U.S.?
That was stated in the hearing last week.
MR. BURNS: One thing about the separation of powers in the Constitution
of the United States is that the Executive Branch doesn't make the laws;
Congress does. The Executive Branch implements the laws. Certification is
part of our legal system.
Therefore, we have an obligation to implement it.
QUESTION: I guess I should ask if the Congress came to the State
Department, to the Executive, with what they think is a better idea than
certification, would this Department be open?
MR. BURNS: Purely hypothetical at this point. If it did, I'm sure we'd
look at it, but I don't see anyone coming up with new ideas.
QUESTION: Nick, on decertification of Colombia, is it true that the
Administration proposal for Colombia includes OPIC aid and also foreign
trade aid, as well as the anti-drug material?
MR. BURNS: Is it true that the active program included those two
elements?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I'd have to check. I don't quite remember everything that
we've offered to the Colombians.
QUESTION: What I'm wondering is whether decertification has any practical
effect on Colombia at all.
MR. BURNS: It certainly does. I think if you listen to the protests from
Bogota, you understand how concerned the Colombian Government is about the
fact that it is branded now as a country that cannot effectively deal with
narcotics problems. That has implications for not only the pride of the
Colombians but also for the reputation in international circles - even in
international financial circles.
I think that there is a penalty that's very substantial that countries feel
when they're decertified, and the Colombians certainly feel that way. A
more positive message for the Colombians would be there is nothing that
stands in the way of having the grade raised during the 12-month review
period. If, for instance, six months from now the Colombian Government can
show demonstrably that it is making a very good-faith effort to make a
difference in the war on drugs to cooperate with the United States to make
sure that drug cartel leaders who are arrested are actually convicted and
don't serve their terms in hotel-like prisons.
If all those good things happened, then, of course, there's always the
possibility of more positive action by the United States.
We don't have to wait until next March. We can take positive action before
that. That's the incentive, I think, for the Colombian Government.
QUESTION: That's even if President Samper remains in power?
MR. BURNS: President Samper had a lot of baggage, and so we'll just have
to take this one day at a time.
QUESTION: On Albania, what's the latest from that region, and could you
comment on this report that's floating around that the United States
Government asked President Berisha to step down?
MR. BURNS: All I can say on that is I know that the Chairman of the OSCE
-- the Chairman-in-Office, the Danish Foreign Minister -- Foreign Minister
Helveg Peterson, did speculate on the possibility of President Berisha's
resignation. It's very clear that President Berisha has become the focal
point for the anger of the great majority of the Albanian people who are in
the streets, because of the collapse of the financial and economic system
due to the pyramid schemes in Albania.
But it's not up to the United States to decide whether President Berisha
should stay or whether he should go. That's up to the Albanian people. In
the meantime, I can tell you the United States is putting its efforts
squarely behind the European Union, and the European Union delegation led
by the Dutch we think can make a difference in trying to convince this new
representative government in Tirana to try to act to enforce some stability
throughout Albania.
The OSCE is still involved, and I think we're going to remain very active
in a support role of the European Union. In general, Tirana is quieter
today than it was yesterday, and yesterday was a quieter day than Sunday or
Saturday. We have essentially completed at least most of the activity in
evacuating American citizens, evacuating European private citizens from
Albania.
Should it be necessary to revive those evacuation efforts, we have our
naval forces in the Adriatic; the Italians, the Germans; the British have
military forces that can do that. But right now there are probably more
people going back in, at least Westerners, than leaving.
There are quite a number of refugees, Albanian refugees, several thousand
today alone, trying to make their way across the Adriatic to Italy. The
Italian Government has done, I think, an excellent job in trying to cope
with the refugee flow. The U.S. military did pick up, as I told you
yesterday, a certain number of Albanians who were adrift in the high seas.
They rescued 105 Albanians from one vessel that had capsized and another
that was on the verge of sinking, and these people have been turned over to
the Italian Government in Brindisi, the Italian port of Brindisi.
So we'll keep watching the refugee side. We'll keep a very close watch on
the evacuation situation. Politically, the Europeans, I think are doing a
very good job of trying to influence the government to pull itself together
and to make itself a force for stability, and we agree with that.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have anything beyond what Mr. Berger and Albright
said today about the changes in the Russian Cabinet?
QUESTION: On Albania, I have another question, please.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Could you tell me whether the U.S. is setting itself up as an
intermediary between the various parties? Are we offering our facilities
in Tirana as a place where negotiations can be held?
MR. BURNS: I think the European Union is taking the lead on that. The
European Union is trying to promote discussions - both intra-governmental
discussions between President Berisha, Prime Minister Fino and other senior
members of the government.
And at the same time, there is a little bit of organization to the
resistance in the southern part of Albania. There are some leaders who
have emerged, and the European Union is trying to get those people in touch
with the government leaders.
Our United States Ambassador, Marisa Lino, was in touch with Prime Minister
Fino and other governmental leaders, and we're playing a role in that, but
I think the lead role has been taking by the European Union, as it should.
This is a European problem.
Albania is a European country.
QUESTION: Do you like those new reformers in Russia?
MR. BURNS: I think a lot of us who know Mr. Nemtsov, who is the mayor of
Nizhny Novgorod, know him as one of the brightest and most capable young
reformers in Russia. He attracted a considerable amount of investment to
Nizhny Novgorod. His reform program was certainly one of the most
impressive undertaken by any city in the Russian Federation over the last
five years.
His appointment, the fact that Anatoly Chubais is First Deputy Prime
Minister; the fact that you have in Prime Minister Chernomyrdin someone who
has led the way to the current success - 70 percent privatization of the
economy, a reduction in inflation, and expansion of Russia's trade with
Europe and with North America and with Asia. This is a pretty good
program.
I remember, Barry, and so do you in 1992 and early 1993 a lot of people
felt the Russian economy was on the verge of collapse.
Just about five years ago, this month, they were on the verge of
hyperinflation in 1992. It looked like all of their productive capacity
was going to be torn apart, and during the course of five years the economy
has revived.
One of the interesting aspects of politics in Russia over the last five or
six years is that governments have always been comprised of reformers and
some people who wanted to hold back on reform. Here you have for the very
first time the new senior economic leadership of the Russian Federation,
all of whom are committed reformers; and, of course, led by the greatest
reformer of all, Yeltsin.
So we think it's a very positive sign. It's a vigorous group. It's a
young group, and we're very anxious to work with that group.
QUESTION: Surely you remember when Mr. Yeltsin fired reformers. You
know, reformer Foreign Minister, economic reformers.
Do you think he means it this time?
MR. BURNS: There's been an ebb-and-flow quality to -
QUESTION: When he does that, of course, the State Department has no
comment and says it's an internal matter. (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Which I think is a very prudent thing for us to do, Barry.
QUESTION: But this isn't internal; this is external.
Okay. But do you think Yeltsin at this stage of his career is finally,
firmly wedded to the kind of reform that will go ahead and maybe not leave
so many - create instant millionaires and create a vast poverty belt among
senior people particularly.
MR. BURNS: I think communism created the poverty.
QUESTION: You do?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I do. Absolutely.
QUESTION: I don't remember people selling their belongings on the streets
during communism.
MR. BURNS: Barry, you couldn't see it, because you weren't allowed in the
poorest cities and the poorest corners of St. Petersburg and Moscow.
QUESTION: Now you're seeing (inaudible).
MR. BURNS: Barry, you ask most economists in the West, in Europe or the
United States. I think they'd agree that communism is what bankrupted that
country, and that liberal economics is reviving it, however slowly and
however imperfectly. I don't agree with the premise of your question about
Yeltsin, because I remember the premise of your question was -
QUESTION: That he dismissed reformers before.
MR. BURNS: I don't agree with the premise of the question that somehow he
hasn't been committed from the start. I've tracked his career pretty
closely from 1988 on, and he is just about the most committed reformer that
you can find. There's been an ebb-and-flow quality to some of the
governmental policy, but we've seen that, with the exception of a couple
countries in Central Europe, in almost every other country. The record is
pretty good. The Russian Federation has weathered the worse economic
storms, and although considerable problems remain, we think they're heading
in the right direction. They certainly have the support of the United
States, of our European allies, and of the IMF and World Bank; and the IMF,
as you know, has a pretty tough standard to meet, and the Russian
Government by and large has met that standard over the last five years.
QUESTION: Do they meet G-7 standards, so that G-7 can become G-8? Are
they a democracy, industrialized, the leading?
Are they on the same level with Canada and Italy and all the other members
of that elite group?
MR. BURNS: Since President Gorbachev and then President Yeltsin began
attending these G-7 summits in the summer, there has been an increasing
role for Russia, really, with every one.
We would expect that there would be an increasing participation by Russia
in the business of the G-7. There is some work that the G-7 does,
particularly on the economic side that it will probably continue to do
alone. But for the most part we welcome Russia as a member of what we call
the P-8 or the G-8 - eight countries getting together as they did at Lyon
last summer. But the G-7 still reserves some work for itself, and I think
it's a pretty good arrangement.
Jonathan.
QUESTION: Can I go back to NATO expansion?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: You say that NATO is going to expand, charter or no charter.
There is growing skepticism on the Hill and concerns on the Hill over the
implications of NATO expansion and the Russian opposition. Whether you
have a charter or not and whether you expand or not - and, if you do
expand, you have to have ratification on the Hill. Aren't you concerned
that if you don't have a charter addressing the Russian security aspects of
this, that ratification on the Hill is going to be extremely difficult?
MR. BURNS: Jonathan, we want to have a charter. We're the ones that
proposed the charter. The United States proposed a charter between NATO
and Russia, and we've given our full support to Secretary General Solana
who's negotiating it formally. We want the charter to be realized by the
time of the Madrid summit, and we're going to make every effort to do so.
That's why President Clinton is making this extraordinary effort to go -
given his physical condition, to go to Helsinki.
But we're just saying very clearly that if it's not possible, for whatever
reason, to reach an agreement on a charter with Russia, then we're
certainly going to go ahead with NATO enlargement.
The NATO enlargement decision was made three years ago, in January 1994, at
Brussels. It was not made last month, and it should not be a surprise to
anybody in the United States or in Europe that we're going to be going
ahead with this. It's the major foreign policy initiative of the NATO
countries for the next century.
It's very serious business, and I think that the Russians understand that,
and we hope that Helsinki might help just a little bit to propel us forward
towards that charter.
QUESTION: But my question is if you don't have that charter, what are the
prospects for ratification of the admission of the new members by the
U.S. Senate, which all the other NATO legislatures are probably going to
wait for, before they go ahead with their ratification processes also.
MR. BURNS: Let's just remember what the process is here.
NATO meets on July 7th and 8th in Madrid to make a public decision as to
which new countries will be invited in to join the NATO ranks. We don't
expect that those countries would actually become members until some time
in the early part of 1999 on the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO.
During that roughly two-year period, just under two years, all of us in
NATO will be asking our parliaments, our legislatures, to ratify a new
NATO, which is an expanded NATO.
There's certainly plenty of time in that two-year period, if we haven't
reached a charter with Russia by July 7th, to continue those negotiations
to work out a new relationship between Russia and NATO. If NATO and Russia
don't reach an agreement by July, it doesn't mean you have to stop trying.
You can simply resume the negotiations at any point thereafter.
Howard.
QUESTION: Have you been to the Middle East yet? I stepped out.
MR. BURNS: We haven't.
QUESTION: Okay. In shrugging off the groundbreaking at Har Homa,
Secretary Albright went on to call for a resumption of negotiations, saying
that's the best way or only way to achieve progress. Is this climate now
conducive to resuming negotiations?
How can that be brought about?
MR. BURNS: Again, I don't want to accept, Howard, with all due respect,
the stated part of your question that she's shrugging anything off. The
fact is that President Clinton and Secretary Albright wished very much that
the Israeli Government had not made this decision. They wished that they
had reflected and not taken this decision to build at Har Homa or Jabal Abu
Ghneim, as the Arabs call it, because it has caused problems in the peace
negotiations.
But as Americans with a lot of experience in the Middle East over the last
quarter century, we don't see any alternative but to go to negotiations and
ask the Palestinians and Israelis to go back to the negotiating table. The
only time anything good happens in the Middle East is when the Arabs and
the Israelis sit down and compromise. Nothing good happens when people
refuse to talk or when people resort to violence, and that's the other
thing she said this morning.
We're calling on all sides - all sides, and extremists on both sides,
Israel and Palestinian - to refrain from violence, because that's the
language of the past, and it doesn't end up doing any good for anybody.
QUESTION: But do you see negotiations resuming at any point soon?
MR. BURNS: I have no idea when the negotiations are going to resume.
Now, what do Israel and the Palestinians have ahead of them? They have
final status talks ahead of them. They need to agree to set a date and to
sit down and begin the final status talks. It may take a lot of work to
get them now to do that, and the United States will be in the thick of the
action in suggesting that they get together informally to arrange those
final status talks.
Ultimately, and given the troubles - we haven't talked about this very much
over the last couple of weeks - we'd like to see Israel and Syria and
Israel and Lebanon go back to the negotiating table. These are the
ambitions that we have. We're in a very difficult period in the peace
negotiations. It's a period that's quite troubled with animosity and
distrust on both sides, enough to go around, and the only possible and
responsible course of action is for them to return to the negotiating
table.
QUESTION: Do you have any information on any agreement reached between
Yasser Arafat and Hamas, which according to Israeli reports, Yasser Arafat
gave a green light to Hamas to carry on some terror acts inside Israel?
MR. BURNS: We have not seen any evidence that Chairman Arafat has given a
green light to anybody to incite violence in Jerusalem or the West Bank or
the Gaza Strip. On the contrary, we have recent assurances from Chairman
Arafat that he stands against violence; that he will encourage all of his
followers in the Palestinian community to renounce violence, and that is a
very strong and important message from Chairman Arafat.
I know there have been some statements by Israeli leaders today that
there's been a green light given. We don't believe it to be true, and we
certainly will expect that Chairman Arafat keeps his commitment to Israel
and to the United States that there be no violence. We also expect that
extremists on the Israeli side will not provoke violence or resort to
violence themselves.
Still on Israel? Okay, North Korea.
QUESTION: Do you know what the current status is of the Four-Party Talks
and particularly what the U.S. understanding is of the current North Korean
position on the talks?
MR. BURNS: I checked just a little while ago, and I'm told that there is
no reported progress to date. The United States and South Korea have made
a proposal to North Korea. We hope that North Korea will accept it. We're
not aware that they have yet accepted it. They have not come back to us to
say that.
QUESTION: It seems that the North Korean Vice Minister for Foreign
Affairs, Mr. Kim Gye Gwan, is still in the United States. Do you know, is
there a possibility that negotiations will continue with him on the
Four-Party Talks before he leaves?
MR. BURNS: I understand that Vice Minister Kim Gye Gwan left the United
States this morning.
Savas.
QUESTION: Nick, is - Carey Cavanaugh is returned to the States from
Europe?
MR. BURNS: I think he's on his way back, if he hasn't come back already.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to report, any substantial results with
his meeting?
MR. BURNS: I don't have anything formal to report, Savas, except to say
that he was in Europe to consult with the European Union, with Britain,
with France and other countries that are interested in the Eastern
Mediterranean. One thing that we've remarked upon, there's a proliferation
of special envoys on Cyprus.
We'd like to give our support to some common efforts by Europe and the
United States to try to see if we can act together for the good in
promoting peace discussions on Cyprus in 1997. So part of his trip was to
make sure that we are working well with the Europeans.
Britain has, of course, historic - as they say, historic role to play and a
lot of influence remaining and a very good negotiator, Sir David Hannay;
and the European Union, of course, has an interest in what happens, because
a member state of the European Union, Greece, is centrally involved in this
drama.
QUESTION: Any comment now that Hwang Jang-Yop has left China for the
Philippines?
MR. BURNS: Only to say that we're very pleased that this incident has
been resolved peacefully among China, South Korea and North Korea. The
Philippine Government has welcomed Mr. Hwang to the Philippines. We think
that the basic principle that should have been observed has been observed.
If people want to leave a totalitarian society and do so, they ought to be
free to continue to where they want to go. That's what happened in this
case, and I think it's a very good outcome.
Yes, George.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the latest in Zaire?
MR. BURNS: I do, a little bit. There's a very troubling situation in
Zaire. We are watching it very closely. We are all supporting the efforts
of Mr. Sahnoun, who is the United Nations negotiator. In fact, tomorrow,
there will be an important meeting in Nairobi called by President Daniel
Moi. Mr. Sahnoun will present his latest plans to achieve a cease-fire
between the rebel alliance and the Zairian Government.
Our Assistant Secretary, George Moose, who has been in Paris for the last
two days conferring with the French on Zaire will be traveling to Nairobi
for that meeting. The French will be there, the British will be there, the
European Union, and Mr. Howard Wolpe - former Congressman Wolpe - will
also be representing the United States in Nairobi. So we continue to hope
that Mr. Laurent Kabila will stop his rebel offensive, will not attack
Kinshasa, and will agree to a cease-fire.
We also continue to urge Mr. Kabila, and particularly the states
surrounding Zaire, to help in the provision of humanitarian relief to the
refugees. There are several hundred thousand refugees in central Africa.
As you know, the United States has authorized voluntary departure for our
own employees from Kinshasa, for non-essential employees and their
dependents. There is no ordered evacuation, however, from Zaire and
there's really no reason to implement one.
The situation in Kinshasa is relatively tranquil despite these very
dramatic events happening near Kisangani. We hope that the Zairian
Government can get itself together, get its act together, in order to
continue a reform process. I don't think anyone has been happy with the
way the last few years have gone in Zaire with the tradition of autocratic
rule of Mr. Mobutu.
We are looking for a reform process -- a transitional process towards
elections, towards a government that is, of course, representative of the
Zairian people. We've been urging that for quite some time, and we have
been working well with Prime Minister Kengo on that.
And, last, George, the United States, despite some reports to the contrary,
supports the territorial integrity of Zaire.
We do not wish to see Zaire dismembered. We wish to see Zaire remain a
unitary state, a very important state in central Africa.
QUESTION: You refrain from calling on President Mobutu to step down. It
seems to some that perhaps his resignation might facilitate some sort of
peaceful outcome in Zaire?
MR. BURNS: That is not for the United States to decide.
I would note - and I think the French Government has spoken to this today
and yesterday - that Mr. Mobutu is ill. He's in France.
He's not on the scene. We do hope that there can be a transition to
democratic rule in Zaire. Zaire has not had a democracy for the last 31
years. It's people deserve to have a representative government, some
stability - some economic and political stability.
It's very hard to see how that's going to happen without a commitment from
the current government to a reform process and a commitment from Mr. Kabila
to stop the fighting in eastern Zaire.
QUESTION: Back on Colombia. Can you confirm whether the U.S. is thinking
about allowing Colombia to receive military aid and to participate in OPIC
and the TDA?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to take that question and look into it and get
you an answer. Be glad to do that.
QUESTION: On extradition, it seems that President Samper is back now from
his pledge to reintroduce extradition as one of the key elements against
drug trafficking. What does the United States think about that?
MR. BURNS: Extradition is important because it ensures in certain cases
that people who run drug cartels actually are imprisoned for it and don't
live in palace-like, hotel-like conditions but actually live in the kind of
conditions that you expect prisoners to live in.
The problem in Colombia is, when somebody is indicted, half the time they
don't face prosecution and aren't convicted.
When they are convicted, they get to run the drug operation from their drug
cell. That's been the record of the major cartel chiefs.
We think extradition is one way to break into that pattern and to send a
very stiff message to the narco-traffickers that there's a severe penalty
if you're caught.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say on the nomination of Mr. James
Baker as the Personal Envoy -
MR. BURNS: We absolutely do. Former Secretary of State Baker is a very
distinguished American. We're pleased and honored that Secretary General
Kofi Annan as appointed him to be the Special Representative for the
Western Sahara. All of us who worked for him admire him and see him as one
of the finest American diplomats of the post-Second World War era. There's
no question about it.
This is an extremely challenging international problem. If anybody can
make a dent in it, it will be Baker - James Baker - and we wish him the
best of luck. He'll have the full support of the Secretary of State and
the United States Government.
QUESTION: What is the position of the U.S. Government in that? Is the
U.S. Government going to help to settle down this - what is the position?
MR. BURNS: The United States has always followed the lead of the United
Nations. Now that the United Nations has a very capable and very
aggressive negotiator, Secretary Baker will have the full support of the
State Department - our full support. We genuinely wish him well. It's a
very tough assignment that he's taking on.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
(Press briefing 2:12 p.m.)
(###)
|
