U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #41, 97-03-19
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1175
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, March 19, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
DEPARTMENT
1-2,15-19 Secretary Albright's Visit to North Carolina, March 25/Itinerary
and Press Arrangements/Purpose for Travel
2 Secretary Albright's Address to Georgetown University, March 26
2 Secretary Albright to Address Harvard Commencement, June 5
2-3 Secretary Albright's Activities and Schedule for Today
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
3 Serbia's Lack of Progress in Implementing Gonzales
Recommendations
3-4 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - Interethic Tensions
ZAIRE
4-5,6-7 Summit Meeting in Nairobi/Situation on the Ground in Zaire
5-6 EUCOM Contingency Planning Team
6 Voluntary Departure of US Dependents
7-8 Whereabouts of President Mobutu
PERU
8-9 Reported Efforts by Japanese Vice FM to Seek Asylum for MRTA
Rebels
ALBANIA
9-10 Situation on the Ground in Tirana/Albania
10-11 U.S. Contacts with Albanian President Berisha
NORTH KOREA
11 Departure of Hwang Jong Yop from Beijing
11-12 Political Stability in North Korea
12 Reported US Agreement to Unfreeze North Korean Assets
12-13 World Food Program Survey on famine Situation/US Assistance
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
13-14 Israeli PM Netanyahu re Intelligence Information and Palestinian
Authority
IRAQ
14-15 U.S Contacts with Iraqi Opposition
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #41
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1997, 1:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department. I want to tell you a couple of things about the Secretary of
State's upcoming schedule.
As you know, the Secretary will be in North Carolina next Tuesday, March 25,
at the invitation of Senator Jesse Helms. She's going to be visiting Camp
Lejeune in the morning. On Tuesday morning she'll fly down to Camp Lejeune
to meet with our troops and meet with our commanders there; and then she'll
have a lunch in Charlotte, North Carolina, with community leaders, hosted
by the Jesse Helms Center. The Secretary will deliver remarks at that
luncheon; and then she'll travel to Wingate, North Carolina, where the
Jesse Helms Center is located. And she and Senator Helms will have
a joint press conference at the Wingate Center. That will be at approximately
3:45 p.m.
Following that, she will remain in Wingate at the Wingate University and
have dinner with the trustees, with the Helms family, and with members of
the Center; and that's in Wingate, North Carolina.
Then she departs late that evening from Charlotte for Andrews Air Force
Base. It should be a terrific day. Unfortunately, she has a very small
aircraft going down, a l2-seater, so we will not be able to take more than
one or two members of the press on the aircraft, but we very much want to
facilitate press coverage of the event. We wish we had a larger plane. So
if you can get yourself down to Charlotte, North Carolina, we will do
everything we usually do in a trip. We'll have transportation, and
we'll make sure that you can travel from Charlotte to Wingate with
her to participate in the joint press conference with Senator Helms.
This should be a rather unique day. I can't recall anything quite like
this in the last couple of years. She's doing it, obviously, because, on
the one hand, she believes it's very important to travel around the United
States and speak to the American people about foreign policy. In this case
she's delighted-she was delighted-to accept the offer by Senator Helms, who
agreed to accompany her and to have this joint press conference and to have
his family members there at the dinner, and she thinks it's a very good
display of bipartisanship.
Yes, Betsy.
QUESTION: Is there any coverage of the evening events?
MR. BURNS: Yes. She's going to give an address after dinner. Dinner is
at 6:00. At 7:30 she will give a speech at Wingate University, and that's
in Wingate, North Carolina - which I understand is, I think - any North
Carolinians here? I think it's around 40 minutes by car from Charlotte.
And she will address students, community members, and faculty and trustees
of Wingate University. This is where the Helms Center is located.
That is open press.
So there are a couple of things that you can cover. There is the tour of
the Helms Center. There is the joint press conference.
And there's the speech. So three different events to cover in North
Carolina. And please direct your questions on this to John Dinger and
Nancy Beck and others, and we'll be glad to help you. We do really want to
encourage you to travel down to North Carolina if you can make it down
there.
The following day, Wednesday, March 26, the Secretary at noon that day will
give a major policy speech on U.S. policy toward Iraq. She'll give that
speech at Georgetown University. There is a Georgetown symposium on U.S.-
Iraqi relations and she'll be there at high noon to give a speech on our
views about events in Iraq and our relations with Iraq.
I also want to let you know that the Secretary is going to be making a
couple of commencement speeches in late May and early June. The one that I
know is ready to announce is that on June 5 the Secretary has been invited
to receive an honorary degree and give the speech at the Harvard
commencement up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This comes on the 50th
anniversary of Secretary of State George Marshall's commencement speech at
Harvard in June l947, the famous Marshall Plan speech, where Secretary
Marshall unveiled the American ideas for assistance to the nations that had
gone through the Second World War - both victors and vanquished. And the
Secretary wants to use the occasion of this year's Harvard commencement to
talk about the future of America's relations with Europe, European security
issues, NATO enlargement - all of the issues that will be so prominent at
the Helsinki Summit tomorrow and Friday.
She will be attending and speaking at other commencements, and once we're
ready to announce those I'll be very glad to do so.
One more item about the Secretary's schedule. Today the Secretary, late
this afternoon, will travel up to Capitol Hill to discuss with Senate and
House members the issue of United States' arrears to the United Nations.
Senator Trent Lott, the Majority Leader, has convened a bicameral,
bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives, including Senator Daschle,
Senator Helms, Senator Biden, Speaker Gingrich and others. And this group
is a working group to work with the Administration on our hope that we'll
come up with a financial plan to pay off the United States' arrears to the
United Nations.
This meeting, of course, follows the very impressive announcement by
Secretary General Kofi Annan two days ago about the reforms that he is
making. He's going to cut a thousand people from the U.N. payroll, and
he's going to be saving over $l00 million a year in doing so. We think
that Secretary General Annan's reform program deserves our support. The
Secretary spoke with the Secretary General about it and gave him her
personal support, and she'll be reaffirming that on Capitol Hill this
afternoon.
The Secretary then leaves, I think, around 9:00 this evening with the
President for the Helsinki Summit. She'll be returning late on Friday
evening. And I'll have any information about any weekend activities for
you later in the week.
I have two announcements that we're going to be posting, two statements.
I'd like to go through them because they're both quite important.
The first concerns Serbia. The United States Government is concerned by
Serbia's lack of progress in implementing the recommendations made by the
former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, to the OSCE Chairman after
the Gonzalez mission to Belgrade in late December. These recommendations
have been repeatedly endorsed by the international community, and their
full implementation is essential to the process of democratic reform in
Serbia.
While we welcome the reinstatement of the results of the November l7th
municipal elections, other important recommendations of the Gonzalez
mission have not been implemented. In the area of media freedoms, for
instance, the Serbian Government has taken a series of steps in precisely
the wrong direction.
We note specifically, with concern, recent moves by the Serbian Government
to restrict independent television transmission and to enforce the
continued closure of the radio station BOOM-93 in Pozarevac. Both actions
appear to be politically motivated efforts to restrict independent news
sources. The proposed media law also appears to be aimed at restricting,
rather than expanding, the free flow of information. Instead of passing a
new restrictive media law, the Serbian Government should encourage
independent private media and ensure independent, non-partisan management
of the state-owned media.
The United States calls on the Serbian Government to initiate a constructive
dialogue with the opposition on democratization measures that need to be
taken in Serbia, including this issue of the independence of the press, the
freedom of the press, and electoral reforms. The willingness of the
Serbian Government to address genuinely these concerns and to lay the basis
for free and fair elections later this year will determine the reaction
and policy of the United States and other members of the international
community concerning the Serb Government.
And, lastly, I wanted to note our Ambassador in the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia - Ambassador Chris Hill - has asked me to read to you
a statement that we have worked out with him concerning a very important
initiative taken today by the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The United States strongly supports the territorial integrity and peaceful
democratic development of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which
is an essential element of stability in the region. We have demonstrated
that commitment with the presence of over 500 American troops and with
considerable United States financial assistance. We welcome the declaration
by the Parliament on promoting interethnic trust and respect. We are
especially encouraged by the broad support this resolution has received
among the different political parties.
The United States supports the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in
providing all its citizens with equal human and civil rights and guaranteeing
protection of cultural diversity. We believe that substantial progress has
been achieved.
We do not support efforts to establish parallel structures, nor do we
support any effort to establish ethnically based federalism in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The United States urges all citizens and
political parties to work within existing legal and political structures,
to address their concerns through peaceful, democratic means.
We condemn acts of intimidation directed against ethnic nationalities.
These have no place in a civil society.
Ambassador Hill, you remember, was a member of the Bosnia Peace Negotiating
Team. He's an outstanding Ambassador. He's been working to promote the
kind of interethnic civil actions and interethnic relations that we think
are important for the future of the Balkans.
And, in addition to that, he is distinguished by the fact that he's
probably the leading Boston Red Sox fan in the Balkans. He listens by
shortwave to Red Sox games from Florida, from spring training. It's part
of the picture. I thought I should mention that, George.
I'll be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: That's my lead.
MR. BURNS: Good. He'd appreciate that. He's a huge Red Sox fan.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the summit in Nairobi, on the Zaire
situation?
MR. BURNS: I know that the summit called by President Daniel arap Moi of
Kenya has concluded; that President Moi, Prime Minister Mugabe, Pascal
Lissouba of the Congo, the South African Deputy President Mbeki, the
representative from Cameroon - they all got together and they called today
for a cease-fire in Zaire.
Our Assistant Secretary, George Moose, and our Special Negotiator, Howard
Wolpe, were in Nairobi. They had conversations with these leaders,
including with Prime Minister Kengo. The United States would like to
support the call by the African leadership for a true cease-fire in Zaire.
The fighting has gone on too long.
As for events on the ground in Zaire, as you know, yesterday, on March 18,
the Zairian Transitional Parliament took an action towards the Prime
Minister, to unseat the Prime Minister. This action, we believe, by the
Transitional Parliament presents complicated constitutional issues. It's
unclear to the United States that the vote yesterday satisfied all the
constitutional requirements to enter into force.
This is a Zairian domestic political issue. It's got to be sorted out by
Zairians. But until it sorts itself out, the United States will continue to
recognize Prime Minister Kengo as the Prime Minister of Zaire, and we will
continue to work with him and his government.
In addition to that, I can tell you that we're going to continue our
efforts - our political efforts - to try to reinforce the call for a cease-
fire, and we're continuing our efforts to try to help the United Nations
provide relief supplies to the refugee population.
I know that you're aware that the Pentagon announced yesterday that it has
sent a EUCOM Team, a contingency planning team, into Libreville in Gabon,
and to Congo, Brazzaville, as well Kinshasa, to prepare contingencies for
any possible evacuation of American citizens and American employees.
As you know, until now, we have seen no reason, until today, to take such
an action. I believe we have a voluntary departure for our dependents, but
that's as much as we've done. Of course, that situation is always under
review. We've had it under review this morning. And if it should change,
I will certainly let you know.
QUESTION: That announcement was made yesterday about the time you were
saying there was no evacuation contemplated; that things were fine. It
appears to be another case where the State Department and the Pentagon are
not reading off the same script.
You're now saying that things may have changed this morning.
What's changed? What's different from yesterday, and what's with the
Pentagon and the State Department?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I'd like to just take this opportunity to assure you that
we have a seamless operation between the State Department and the Pentagon.
I talk to Ken Bacon every day before we come out. Actually, I was aware
yesterday that the EUCOM mission had just begun its departure - its
preparations to depart from Europe - for central Africa. If I had been
asked about that in the Press Briefing, I would have told you that. I was
prepared to talk about it. It is still true today, right now, at
1:34 in the afternoon, that we have made no decision to evacuate -
to order the evacuation of dependents or non-essential personnel.
We have simply provided dependents of our employees in Kinshasa with the
ability to leave should they wish to leave via commercial means.
Obviously, we're going to keep the situation in Zaire under constant review,
because there's a war underway in eastern Zaire. Mr. Kabila has threaten
to attack Lubumbashi as well as Kinshasa.
If that happens, I'm sure you'll see the United States and other
governments take precautionary measures to protect our civilians, the
roughly 2,000 Americans who live in Zaire, but we've not yet made that
decision.
Understanding that we're in a very fluid, dynamic situation, we felt it was
best, working with the Pentagon, to have this EUCOM Team travel to central
Africa to make the contingency plans necessary to pull people out if we
have to, but that decision has not been taken by the United States
Government. I've just reviewed it with my good friend, Ken Bacon, as part
of our seamless attempt to make sure that you have the fullest and freest
and most up-to-date information from the United States Government on this
issue.
QUESTION: Do you know if any of the non-essential Embassy employees
and/or their families have left?
MR. BURNS: I know that as of Monday no one had left. But in the last 48
hours, John (Dinger), we'll just have to check.
I don't think we've seen a lot of people elect to go. The situation in
Kinshasa is pretty calm, as you know. The journalists who are there have
been reporting that as well. But in a situation like this, you never know.
Things could change very rapidly.
That's the reason why we felt it necessary to make these contingency
plans.
QUESTION: The Pentagon is saying, at best, that it will take them 12 to
13 days to get a ship in position to do that.
Does that give you all enough time?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can't comment on contingency planning.
For obvious reasons we don't always make public all of our contingency
planning because you do want to have a degree of security for your
operation. For instance, when we began to pull our people out of Albania
last week, we did not tell you - the Pentagon didn't tell you nor did we -
that the helicopters had left the Adriatic, the Nassau, for Tirana until
the helicopters had landed and returned back because we wanted to avoid any
kind of security problem. In fact, we had some security problems last week
in Albania.
So I don't want to accept the premise of the question. All I can tell you
is that the United States military, I think, has shown time and again - and
most recently last week - it is one of the best in the world. It takes
care of American citizens when they find themselves in danger.
QUESTION: Nick, were the rebels represented at this Nairobi summit?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe the rebels were represented.
I think it was a meeting of central African, southern African, and east
African countries - interested countries. The United States was represented.
I think a variety of European countries were as well.
QUESTION: Do you or the Europeans have any direct contact with Kabila?
MR. BURNS: We have had contact, yes, with him - Mr. Kabila.
As you remember, he went down to South Africa and met with President
Mandela and others. We had contact with him when he was there.
We'll continue to try to have contact with him. He's kind of an elusive
guy. He's moving around. He's an important figure.
He commands a great swath of territory in eastern Zaire. He is leading a
rebel movement that threatens to destabilize the entire country-there's no
question about that-so we'll seek to have communications with him when we
can.
We don't agree with what he's doing. We don't agree with the attempt to
overthrow a government through violent means; to put a whole region of
Zaire into chaos, which is what he's done, and to endanger the lives of
innocent refugees which is what he's also done. That is why we're asking
Mr. Lawrence Kabila to agree to the cease-fire.
QUESTION: Were any of his putative suppliers of arms represented in
Nairobi?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that any of the putative suppliers of arms - and
they know who they are and you know who they are and we know who they are -
were represented in Nairobi, but we can check that for you. I'm sure our
Africa Bureau can check that for you.
QUESTION: About the action on the Prime Minister that you all find not
necessarily meeting the standard of the Zairian constitution -
MR. BURNS: I would just suffice it to say that I think our Embassy and
our Africa experts here who, of course, have read the Zairian constitution,
think at least some fairly complicated issues were put into play by the
vote in the Transitional Parliamentary Assembly yesterday. I don't think
it's appropriate for me to try to be a legal constitutional scholar here
and articulate those for you, but they're present. It's just unclear that
the Parliament had the right to do what it did. But that really is for
Zairians to figure out. Until they figure it out, it seems to us to
be the best way forward to continue to recognize the Kengo government
and to work with it.
Betsy.
QUESTION: Given the fact that the Zairian Government is in such disarray,
what value was there to this meeting? The government representative really
had no power. You have no idea whether he speaks with the authority of the
government or not.
MR. BURNS: I think it's true that Prime Minister Kengo does retain a
significant degree of power, both over civil agencies and also the military
in Zaire, although it is a very complicated and complex scene. We
recognize him to be a legal authority of the Government of Zaire, so
therefore it was very much appropriate for him to attend.
I would just note that the other African countries essentially made the
same decision-to meet with him and deal with him as a legitimate representative
of the Government of Zaire. So it's not just the United States that is
making this calculation.
Patrick.
QUESTION: President Mobutu's people are apparently saying he's going to
go back to Zaire this week. Is that a welcome development from your point
of view?
MR. BURNS: We've seen the press reports. We've seen a lot of press
reports out of Nice about the intentions of President Mobutu. That's a
decision he will have to make. We understand that he is not in good health.
He'll have to make that decision on his own. I'm not sure the United
States Government has a position either way on that.
Our position is that we'd like to see a cease-fire. We'd like to see
humanitarian assistance to the refugees, and we'd like to see the Zairian
Government and political structure agree to a reform process that would, at
some point, lead to elections.
We think that Mr. Mobutu ought to be committed to that, as well as the
other leaders in Zaire.
Still on Zaire? No.
QUESTION: Nick, the Japanese Foreign Minister, Minister Komura is going
to Cuba today to work on an asylum deal for the Tupac Amaru rebels.
MR. BURNS: The Japanese Foreign Minister.
QUESTION: Vice Foreign Minister.
MR. BURNS: Vice Foreign Minister. Thank you.
QUESTION: Mr. Komura. There's also speculation that there may be money
involved in this deal to entice Cuba to speed up negotiations and to work
with the negotiations. How does the U.S. - what are the U.S. concerns with
this, that Japan is involving Cuba in dealing with these hostage negotiations?
And, also, how does the U.S. view the aspect that there might be a
financial settlement involved between Japan and Cuba on this?
MR. BURNS: First, I don't think it's appropriate for me to say much about
the mission of the Japanese Vice Minister without having had the benefit of
discussion with the Japanese Government first. So I'd rather put off this
question perhaps until later today or tomorrow until we have the benefit of
talking to the Japanese who are, of course, a very, very strong ally of the
United States.
Second, I cannot agree with the presumption that somehow money is going to
be involved. I do not know that for a fact.
Third, I would simply note that the Japanese Government did not bring the
Cubans into this. President Fujimori and Castro got together a couple of
weeks back and began talking about a possible role for Cuba in the peaceful
resolution of the hostage crisis in Lima.
The Japanese obviously have an interest. It's their sovereign territory.
It's their ambassador, and a great number of Japanese who are being held.
We are satisfied that President Fujimori and Prime Minister Hashimoto and
the others involved are doing everything they can to have this end
peacefully, without violence, without in any way allowing the hostage-
takers to win. No one wants the hostage-takers to win because they're
terrorists.
So I'm not in a position here to second guess the Japanese Government
without knowing the full facts about this current trip.
QUESTION: Was this discussed with President Fujimori, this issue of
bringing Cuba in too?
MR. BURNS: I know that we've been informed by the Peruvian Government
after President Fujimori's trip to Havana, about the reasons why it was
undertaken.
Yes, we are updated by the Peruvian Government, I think, fairly continually
on this crisis. It has been - what - three months now, that these people
have been held hostage. That's inhumane, and it's wrong, and the hostage-
takers ought to release these people immediately and safely, and that
remains the bottom line of the United States position.
QUESTION: Has the United States been supportive of Fujimori's efforts to
involve Cuba?
MR. BURNS: President Fujimori, of course, is in a very difficult
situation. He needs to make the decisions that he feels best to resolve
this peacefully and without harm to the hostages and without letting the
terrorists win. I think that all of us are quite satisfied with his
performance and with his actions over the last several months. He had a
good meeting with President Clinton when he was here in Washington, and
we've had good contacts with him since.
QUESTION: On Albania. Do you have any clear picture of what is going on,
on the ground?
MR. BURNS: We, of course, are in contact with our Embassy.
We still have a Task Force underway up in the 7th Floor. That Task Force
is in constant communication with Tirana, with the American Embassy.
Ambassador Marisa Lino continues to be in contact with Prime Minister Fino
as well as leaders of other political parties.
I can tell you that there have been some random gunfire in the vicinity of
the United States Embassy in Tirana, but in a relative sense the situation
remains calm, while the conditions in the rest of the country, particularly
in the south, appear to be somewhat unstable. The evacuation has really
come to a halt over the last two days. I don't believe we've taken out any
American citizens over the last two days, although helicopters keep coming
in to supply our Marine contingent there - the new Marine contingent
there. Should any Americans wish to leave, our Embassy will make
provisions for them to leave on one of the outgoing helicopters.
As for the political situation, we know that there have been upwards of 12-
15,000 refugees who have left Albania. The country that seems to be most
affected is Italy. Italy has declared a state of emergency in Italy,
because this is an enormous burden for a country like Italy to assume. We
think the Italian Government, which has not requested any direct assistance
from
us, has made extraordinary efforts to be humane, to be accepting, and to
deal with a very difficult problem.
I understand that the European Union team that was in Tirana is now in
Rome. They're working on their report, and we are awaiting a briefing by
the European Union on its own assessment. Our bottom line view is that
it's essential that all parties commit themselves to a peaceful resolution.
While it is clear that President Berisha is the focal point of the anger of
a lot of people, we think the key to recovery is for the government now -
the new government - to try to exert greater authority throughout the
country, to include a variety of political parties and leaders of the
insurgency in political discussions and to move forward towards the
elections that this new government promised when it took office about
a week ago, or slightly more than a week ago. That remains our
position.
QUESTION: On North Korea, yesterday you welcomed -
MR. BURNS: I think Charlie wants to stay on Albania, and I'll be glad to
go back to you.
QUESTION: Is Ambassador Lino or is any other person from the U.S. not
trying on purpose to contact President Berisha, or is contact impossible?
Are we choosing to avoid contact? I don't get it.
MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question. I think he is fairly
isolated. That's what one hears. I think the Ambassador is in touch with
the Prime Minister and other senior officials. Whether or not President
Berisha has tried to get in contact with us, I do not know. I know that
the Ambassador has not seen President Berisha for at least more than a
week. I can check exactly on where that stands.
QUESTION: Could you check and see whether -
MR. BURNS: Be glad to do that.
QUESTION: -- he is trying to make and just can't because -
MR. BURNS: Be glad to do that. You're still on Albania?
QUESTION: Are you aware of any efforts, any negotiations going on, to get
him out of the country - Berisha?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware personally of any negotiations to that effect.
This is a decision - whether he stays, whether he goes, what he does is
really a decision he needs to make with other politicians - other members
of the government in Tirana.
Yes, back to North Korea.
QUESTION: Albania, one more.
MR. BURNS: One more on Albania.
QUESTION: You said President Berisha is isolated. Is he geographically
isolated or -
MR. BURNS: Politically. I felt maybe isolated just in terms of who he
was seeing. I wasn't trying to make any political statement by saying
that.
QUESTION: Thank you. This is Chung-soo Lee of Korean Broadcasting
system. Yesterday you work on the patient process of North Korean
secretary Hwang Jang-Yop, and when Mr. Hwang Jang-Yop eventually succeeds
in the defection to South Korea for political asylum, what do you expect
him to do with South Korea?
MR. BURNS: That will be up to Mr. Hwang and the Government of the
Republic of Korea. That will be entirely up to them. Obviously, he
defected because he wanted to go to the Republic of Korea. He is currently
in the Philippines; and, if he does make his way to the Republic of Korea,
to Seoul, in the future, it will certainly be up to him and of the
Government of the Republic of Korea to decide what his role is or if he is
public about his views or not.
Of course, we have a great interest in this case, as you would expect, and
we're very pleased that it was resolved peacefully by the Government of
China - the People's Republic of China - and by the Government of Korea,
with the assistance of the Government of the Philippines.
QUESTION: Is there any suspicion on the part of the State Department that
there is this purge of top military leaders in North Korea that were sorted
of hinted at?
MR. BURNS: It's very difficult for us to come to a definite conclusion
about what's going on in North Korea. We have seen now, I think, the
departure of two Defense Ministers in the last - a Prime Minister and two
Defense Ministers or senior Defense people in the last month. Whether
there's a pattern here to be established on an analytical basis or whether
these are simply coincidental events, I think you might get a variety of
viewpoints from experts on North Korea to answer that question.
We will simply have to try to wait and see what it all means -- perhaps
this July when the three-year mourning period ends - to see if the
Government of North Korea reveals more about its own internal composition
and its own policies. In the meantime, we have to make sure that we are
ready to defend South Korea, which we are, with our joint military force in
the Republic of Korea along the DMZ. We have to make sure that we continue
to see the application of the Agreed Framework and the nuclear freeze,
and that is happening, and we are attentive to the Four-Party Talks.
We're waiting for a response from the North Koreans to that, and we're
obviously interested in the food situation there, which is quite critical.
So those are the interests that we have. As for analyzing what's happening
in North Korea, you can probably get that from Think Tanks around town, but
we're a little bit reluctant to do that on the record, on camera, because
there's so many different explanations of what might be happening.
QUESTION: There are reports out of North Korea that the United States has
agreed to unfreeze North Korean assets in the United States as part of its
offer on the Four-Party Talks. Any comments on that?
MR. BURNS: No, I simply can't comment on that. I simply can't comment on
that at all. I'm sure the assets are still frozen, as we speak, and we
have not yet received a response from the Government of North Korea about
our proposal for the initiation of Four-Party Talks. Until we do, I don't
think you're likely to see any kind of proactive measures on the part of
the United States of the type you're citing.
QUESTION: Would you go into a little bit of detail on what the offer was
that the United States made? I mean, it was more than just an invitation
to come to the talks. You probably didn't offer -
MR. BURNS: We have really enveloped those talks in a veil of secrecy and
confidentiality, as you would agree we should, in a situation like this. I
mean, I'm sure you wouldn't want to write about most of this stuff, because
we think our ability to be effective is going to be enhanced by maintaining
the confidentiality of the talks. But we have an open offer on the table
to begin the Four-Party Talks, and we hope that offer is accepted by
Pyongyang.
QUESTION: The Middle East?
QUESTION: Wait, one more on Korea, please. The World Food Program sent a
team to North Korea recently to survey the famine situation, and they came
back with some really horrific stories of malnutrition. Do you know of any
plans for them to up their requests, their dollar and I guess tonnage in
food requests?
Is the United States being asked to give more?
MR. BURNS: As you know, we've just responded to a slightly earlier
request just in the last month. We will be giving food aid to North Korea.
That was announced by Secretary Albright during her European trip and her
Asia trip. If the World Food Program comes forward with a new appeal, we
will, of course, give it very serious attention, because we have great
respect for that organization. Since 1995, the United States has given a
total of $18.4 million in food assistance, cash and in-kind donations
of food assistance to the U.N. appeals. We've been a major contributor,
and we will continue to work very closely. Our latest contribution is $10
million to the latest U.N. World Food Program appeal.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea when that $10 million in food might leave
this country?
MR. BURNS: When it will be disbursed?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I can look into that and get you an answer.
I don't think the food has left the United States, but I can get you a
specific answer on that, Betsy. Be glad to do it.
Sid.
QUESTION: The Middle East. Yesterday, the - we went through it a little
bit yesterday, and the Prime Minister said he had received specific
intelligence - specific information that Yasser Arafat had given extremist
groups the green light for attacks, and you refuted that, saying you'd
received assurances. My question is, did Israel share that intelligence
with the United States, and, if so, on what basis do you reject it? And,
if not, on what basis - how can you draw a conclusion without having seen
it?
MR. BURNS: Sid, you give me one problem here in that you've mentioned the
"I" word, and the "I" word is a very difficult word for me - the word
intelligence. We don't discuss intelligence matters in public. We don't
discuss different assessments or identical assessments, whatever they are.
We don't discuss our respective intelligence assessments of any given
situation.
I can tell you this. We have repeatedly and at the highest level made it
abundantly clear to the Palestinians that they must do everything they can
to contain and prevent the outbreak of violence in Jerusalem, in the West
Bank, in the Gaza Strip and in Israel.
Secretary Albright mentioned that publicly yesterday. I have mentioned it
publicly at every opportunity over the past week, because we're very
sensitive to that. We have seen from Chairman Arafat over the last 24
hours a public commitment that he is disavowing terrorism, that he
continues to, and that he calls on his followers to disavow terrorism. We
also have private assurances from Chairman Arafat that he will not take any
action that would lead to the outbreak of violence. That's a very
important commitment.
Our call over the last week or so has been to the extremists - our warning
has been to the extremists on the Palestinian side and on the Israeli side -
those who in the past have undertaken violent acts. We have urged them and
warned them not to engage in violence. We've said that violence is not the
way forward, and, of course, we repeated that call yesterday - I did -
and Secretary Albright, more importantly, did that, and I do it again
today.
QUESTION: The hardest question is for disagreement, I guess apparently
based on assessments as to what is actually going on behind the scenes in
Mr. Arafat's camp. You appear to be accepting what he's saying publicly
while Israel is showing a far different inclination - painting a far
different picture. Are you basing your information - are you basing what
you just said on real information, or are you basing it on what the
Chairman is saying in public?
MR. BURNS: There's the "I" word again - information - which is really a
veil for intelligence information, and I can't talk about that. I can tell
you this: There must be an agreement among the Palestinians and Israelis
that violence is not the answer, and the United States calls, of course, on
the Palestinians as well as the Israelis to make that clear. I think that
obviously you've seen from all sides, both sides, over the last day a
renunciation of terror and of violence. It's been public on the part of
Chairman Arafat, and it's been private, and I think I have to leave
it there, Sid.
QUESTION: By saying what you have just said and by saying, as you said
yesterday, that you have no evidence and in any case you don't believe it's
true, do you suggest that the Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, accusations
are quite baseless?
MR. BURNS: What I've said today is what I wanted to say.
I intended to say what I said today, and I said what I intended to say,
and I wouldn't advise you to infer anything else from what I've said but
what I've said, and I'd be glad to review it with you again. But it
doesn't serve a useful purpose to try to draw differences between people.
What does serve a useful purpose is to say that we've seen the Chairman of
the Palestinian Authority reject violence in his public statements, and he
is now committed to do that, and we expect that he will meet that
commitment.
Yes, Gene.
QUESTION: On the Middle East, a little different. Gulf security. I
notice that the Russian submarines are being considered by the GCC to meet
the requirements as against the Russian submarines that cross on the other
side, and that the Chinese are also talking with the GCC. This sudden
escalation of the competition for arms in the Gulf - what is the Department's
view on that, and what are you doing about it?
MR. BURNS: Gene, I'm just not aware of the particulars of what you're
reciting here.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: I say always ahead of you. I'm sorry.
MR. BURNS: We try to be ahead. Sometimes we are; sometimes we're not,
but I'm just not aware of this commercial competition that you're
discussing. I'll have to look into it for you.
Savas.
QUESTION: Nick, lately several U.S. officials contact with Iraqi National
Congress, which is the opposition of Saddam Hussein, they based in
(inaudible) right now, and are you trying to activate the Iraqi opposition
against Saddam again?
MR. BURNS: We are in contact with a variety of Iraqi groups that are
opposed to Saddam Hussein, as well we should be, since they want a
different kind of future for the Iraqi people than does Saddam Hussein.
Sometimes we talk to them in Northern Iraq, and sometimes we talk to people
outside the region. I don't want to give you all the particulars, but
we're certainly supportive of a variety of groups that we think have a
better stand for a better future for the people of Iraq. You'll hear
Secretary Albright next Wednesday give a major speech on Iraq, and she's
going to tell it like it is, the way she usually does.
Sid.
QUESTION: Speaking of Secretary Albright in her travels, I'm just
wondering, this trip to North Carolina seems a bit like kowtowing to
me.
MR. BURNS: My goodness, Sid, that's a very strong word to use. I don't
know who's doing the kowtowing, but I can assure you there's no kowtowing
being done.
QUESTION: Well, who's got all the -
MR. BURNS: I don't think either individual has ever in their careers
specialized in that practice.
QUESTION: Well, who's got all the business being held up by Senator Helms
up on the Hill, and why, with all these great institutions like Harvard,
where he said she's going, why does she choose to go to the little known
institute in North Carolina -
MR. BURNS: Sid, are you casting aspersions on Wingate University, which
is a fine educational institution in Wingate, North Carolina? It's the
seat of the Jesse Helms Center. I wouldn't do that. I think you're
treading on very thin ice in saying that.
My sister lives in North Carolina and my brother-in-law and their four
sons, and they're proud to be North Carolinians.
I think they'd be - as well as Senator Helms - would be shocked by any kind
of negative inferences from establishment types up in Washington about
Wingate, North Carolina. It's the heart of America.
QUESTION: I hardly think of myself -
MR. BURNS: Do you still have a question?
QUESTION: -- as an "establishment" type. No.
I'm telling it like it is, Nick. It's a legitimate question.
"Tell it like it is," as you all like to say. Why is she making this trip
besides -
MR. BURNS: I'm going to ask Mark Thiessen to give you a call. My good
friend and colleague, Mark Thiessen. I'm sure he's outraged, too.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Sid, remember this. The President is the President.
The Senate and House are controlled by Republicans. Therefore, for us to
do business as a country on foreign policy, this Administration has to be
cooperative with the Republican majority in the Congress - with Senator
Lott, and with Senator Helms, with Speaker Gingrich, and with a variety of
Congressmen and Congresswomen, as well as with Democrats.
The Secretary's first trip outside of Washington, D.C., as Secretary of
State, was to Houston, Texas, where she met with former President George
Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker - two Republicans.
This trip is to North Carolina with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee. The Secretary believes that we ought to try to build a
bipartisan consensus in the United States for our foreign policy overseas.
It makes perfect sense, and it is a good use of her time, to spend a day
with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's a very
powerful man.
A lot of what we need to do will go through his committee.
She had a conversation with him today where she previewed for him the
Helsinki Summit. She called him this morning and told him what we expected
to do and say, and what we hoped the results would be.
She talked about some of the specific issues with him, and she'll continue
to do that. It makes perfect sense to do this.
We thought we were being open to the press corps when Mark Thiessen and I
arranged this joint press conference. That's what Senator Helms and
Secretary Albright wanted us to do. You'll have a chance to talk to both of
them.
Sometimes, you can't just go to Cambridge, Massachusetts, New York, and Los
Angeles. You've got to go to Wingate, North Carolina.
You've got to Alabama where the Secretary hopes to travel in a couple of
months. You've got to go to the mid-West and the Rocky Mountain States
because that's where the American people are. They're not just living up
in the Athens of America up there in Boston, Massachusetts. (Laughter)
It's my hometown, the hub of the universe. They're also living in small
towns. This is where the Jesse Helms Center is.
She felt that by honoring Senator Helms, by going there, by spending a day
with him, she would send a clear and unmistakable signal that she wants to
do business with the Republican majority in the Congress; that that is what
the President wants her to do, and she's going to do that.
QUESTION: These problems with Senator Helms - you can use whatever words
like; "problem" is my word - didn't just dawn today. They've been going on
- they've gone on in the first term. Was Secretary Christopher ever
invited to go to the Wingate Center? If you don't know, would you take the
question?
And if he was, why did he choose not to?
MR. BURNS: All I can say is, in the first two years of Secretary
Christopher's tenure, there was a very different situation in the Congress
of the United States. That changed in 1994. Secretary Christopher actually
had a very good relationship with Senator Helms. I think both men would
tell you that. They spoke often.
Secretary Christopher testified often before the Foreign Relations
Committee. There was mutual respect there. I don't know if Secretary
Christopher ever received an invitation to the Helms Center, but he
certainly had an amicable relationship.
QUESTION: Could you take that question?
MR. BURNS: Gosh, I don't know how we would answer that.
You might go to Mark Thiessen to ask that. I don't know what the answer
to that question would prove. I think that Secretary Albright is
continuing a tradition that Secretary Christopher established of reaching
out to key Republican members of Congress.
Because in our system - we're fortunate in our system. We're not
polarized ideologically the way many countries are. We can work together
and have to work together.
Another thing. Secretary Albright believes that we ought to encourage
members of Congress to travel abroad. There's a tradition in Washington of
people calling Al Kamen from the bowels of this Department, trying to
embarrass members of Congress who travel on CODELs, insinuating that
they're somehow wasting the taxpayer's money. Secretary Albright does not
believe that.
When she meets with members of Congress - Republicans and Democrats - she
encourages them to travel overseas. Because how else are we going to
established a broadly-based bipartisan consensus about our strategic
interests.
About our policy towards China, for instance, Ambassador Sasser believes
that he saw about one quarter of the Senate of the United States in Beijing
in January. They visited. It's a very good thing. So we're encouraging
Congressional travel overseas. We're encouraging Congressional participation
in policy discussions with us. The Secretary is going to be on the Hill
meeting with Senator Lott and others this afternoon. This is a big part
of her job.
In fact, one of the reasons why she has decided to defer some foreign
travel in the first few months of her tenure is because she wants to spend
a lot of time on Capitol Hill. I know I'm protesting a lot here, in answer
to the question. But I wanted to extend it a little and give you a sense
of how she views here relationship with the Congress.
QUESTION: Methinks she doth protest too much.
MR. BURNS: I'm just trying to defend her from, I think, an unwarranted
charge here. I think this is a very positive, very important trip to North
Carolina. I hope you're there. I hope you're in Wingate, North Carolina,
next Tuesday afternoon.
We'll let you ask the first question. Not even Barry or George.
Sid.
QUESTION: If you could answer the answer on Secretary Christopher, what
it would show, since you raised the question is, that Secretary Albright
has chosen to take a far different approach to Congress than her predecessor.
If you're going to take that question, the second question you could take
is, how much the American taxpayer is going to pay for Secretary Albright
to go down and hang out with Senator Helms and his family.
MR. BURNS: Well, let me just take that second question.
This is a very serious charge to make.
I think one of the problems that we've had in the United States - I know
Secretary Albright does - is that we haven't had enough people from
Washington, D.C., to get up out of their chairs and fly outside the borders
of the Beltway here and actually talk to people who don't read _The
Washington Post_ every day but who may read small-town newspapers -the
American people who live outside of Washington, D.C., by and large - and
its incumbent on all of us who work for them, and they pay our salaries
here, to report to them from time to time on what we're doing with
their tax money and what we're doing to support them and defend them
overseas.
She believes very strongly that it's appropriate for her to get into a U.S.
Government jet and to take that jet with some staff members and reporters
and to travel to Wingate, North Carolina, or Charlotte, North Carolina, or
Houston, Texas, or Cambridge, Massachusetts, or south Alabama, and to meet
with American citizens who don't get a chance to talk with the Secretary of
State the way you do on a variety of occasions on a weekly basis.
I think that's an absolute good use of the taxpayer's money. I'm a taxpayer,
and I hereby volunteer some of my tax money to pay for those trips
(laughter); and I think it's a good use of the taxpayer's money.
And you know what? We have a web site, and we have an E-mail address for
the Secretary. Anybody listening to this or reading your column or
George's column or watching this on C-Span ought to E-mail us at www.state.gov.,
and you tell us as average Americans:
Do you want us to sit here in our prison inside the Beltway and not talk
to the American public, or do you want us to get out and talk to the
American public in Wingate, North Carolina? And I think that 98 percent of
the people who send those E-mails in - and I'll have my kid sending them in
tonight (laughter) - I think the great majority of the people who responded
are going to say, "Of course, the Secretary of State, in addition
to visiting Beijing and Helsinki, ought to be in Wingate, North Carolina."
Of course, she should because we derive our strength from the American
people and our support from the American people.
QUESTION: Let's say you're in, you know (inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Let's keep this going. This is a fun discussion.
I like this!
QUESTION: So the virtual audience can make an informed decision before
they send in their still positive E-mail, why don't you tell them how much
it's going to cost and then let them decide whether they think it's worth
it?
MR. BURNS: Well, listen, Sid. We're been very open. I mean the American
public - if they want, they can know how much I make and how much she makes
and how much it costs to travel to any country, and we're quite willing to
release that information any time. But, you know, you can't run a foreign
policy if you're the greatest power in the world on nothing. You've got to
have tax dollars to support it. And do you know much we pay as taxpayers
for our foreign policy every year? We pay one percent of the Federal
budget - one percent. And when the Americana public is polled by the
Chicago Council, by the University of Maryland, by objective independent
groups, the American public usually says, "We think we pay about l0 to l5
to 20 percent of our budget every year for foreign affairs." It's one
percent. And for that they get protection from nuclear threats, from drugs,
from terrorism, from environmental problems, the conduct of our relations
with other powers around the world - great powers. They get the defense of
the United States by diplomatic means.
I think that's a lot that the American people get - you and me as taxpayers
- for what our foreign policy does for the American people, and it's
absolutely legitimate for Secretary Albright or Secretary Christopher or
Baker or Dean Rusk or Cordell Hull to get into an airplane and to travel to
a foreign country - or, as Dean Acheson did, when he went down before
Secretary Marshall and spoke in Mississippi in l947 - Secretary Marshall
flew up to Boston in l947, fifty years ago, in a Government aircraft.
How much did it cost? It certainly was worth it, because he announced the
Marshall Plan which revived Western Europe.
So I absolutely defend her right to get into a Government airplane, to go
out and talk to the American people. It's high time we had a Secretary of
State who took this responsibility as seriously as she and Secretary
Christopher have.
QUESTION: You're not comparing the announcement of the Marshall Plan to,
say, the Secretary's speech in Wingate University?
(Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Well, Sid, you never know! (Laughter) She tells it like it
is. And you know, she said something very important in every speech she's
given. The Rice speech was terribly important.
George, you're having too much fun. You want to go? (Laughter)
QUESTION: I'm worrying about the court reporters. (Laughter)
(The briefing was adjourned at 2: l2 p.m.)
(###)
|
