U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #42, 97-03-20

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, March 20, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

DEPARTMENT
1         Welcome to Visitors
1         Secretary Albright's Trip to North Carolina, March 25
1         Statement Concerning Iraq and U.N. Resolution 986
ZAIRE
1-2,7     Summit Meeting in Nairobi/Situation on the Ground in Zaire
2-3,6     Mr. Kabila's Meetings with U.S. Officials
3-6       Voluntary Departure of US Dependents
6,7-8     Whereabouts and Health of President Mobutu
7         Refugee Situation/Humanitarian Assistance
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
8-9       Israeli Government's Statements Regarding Final Status Talks
9-10      Possibility of Violent Protests
ARMENIA
10-11     Appointment of new Prime Minister
BELARUS
11        Status of U.S. Aid
PERU
11-12,16  Reported Efforts by Japanese Vice FM to Seek Asylum for MRTA Rebels
HONG KONG
12        Status of U.S. Consulate
ALBANIA
12-15     U.S. Contacts with Albanian President Berisha/Situation on the
          Ground Evacuation Efforts
CHINA
15        Lease of Former Naval Base to Government-Owned Company

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #42

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1997, 2:00 P. M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to welcome Mr. Harliantara, who is an Indonesian journalist visiting the United States through the Meridian International Center. Also, we have Mr. Zhang Pengyun, a Chinese journalist visiting the United States through the Institute of International Education.

One word about Secretary Albright's trip to North Carolina on Tuesday, March 25. She will not be going to Camp Lejeune.

Unfortunately, the logistics didn't work out on that. So the schedule, essentially will be, she'll be leaving here mid-morning, around 10:00 or so, and she'll be heading directly to Charlotte, for the events in Charlotte, and then to Wingate, North Carolina - Sid Balman's favorite American town. We do encourage all of you who wish to meet the Secretary down there, because we don't have facilities on the plane for the press. It's only a 12-seat plane. We will arrange for all of you to cover the events in Charlotte and in Wingate. I think it's going to be well worth it.

I have one statement to make today before questions. I'm issuing a statement today on the situation in Iraq concerning U.N. Resolution 986. The United States welcomes the arrival of the first foodstuffs in Iraq under U.N. Security Council Resolution 986. Several tons of food crossed the border from Turkey to northern Iraq on March 19. The United States is pleased that the intent of U.N. Security Council Resolution 986 is finally being realized and that important humanitarian commodities are starting to reach the people of Iraq.

The total value of all contracts for humanitarian goods approved by the United Nations Sanctions Committee, to date, is approximately 287 million dollars. This reflects the approval of 26 of the 29 contracts submitted to date by the U.N. agencies tasked with implementing the resolution. More contracts are being approved each day. This is a good sign, that finally the Iraqis have stopped their obfuscation of the monitoring process and have allowed the United Nations to go forward so that the Iraqi people can benefit. We're very pleased about that.

George.

QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on the situation in Zaire? What has Secretary Moose reported from Nairobi?

MR. BURNS: Secretary Moose was in Nairobi yesterday along with Howard Wolpe for the meeting of the African leaders there.

I believe Assistant Secretary Moose has now joined Mrs. Clinton in South Africa on her trip through Africa.

I understand the final communique affirmed respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire. It urged all the parties to facilitate humanitarian access, particularly in eastern Zaire where there have been tremendous problems. I understand that there were more supplies delivered today to the Tingi Tingi camp which is the major refugee camp in eastern Zaire.

The conference leaders also called for implementation of the five-point peace plan which had been endorsed by both the United Nations and the Organization for African Unity.

The communique urged the parties to the conflict to cease hostilities and to create a better environment for negotiations.

I know that they look forward to a meeting on March 26 in Lome of the OAU Central Committee. That meeting will be another opportunity for the African leaders to try to see if they can exert some influence on the rebels and the Zairian Government to get peace talks underway.

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, also had some very helpful and positive comments to make today about the need for African countries to ban together to play a role to try to stop the violence in Zaire.

I know yesterday they talked about a possible monitoring mechanism that could be set up if, in fact, there's a cease-fire and acceptance of the five-point peace plan as the way forward in the negotiations.

We have been in touch, of course - many times today - with the United States Embassy in Kinshasa. Our Embassy reports that Kinshasa is quiet.

Throughout the rest of the country, there are no new reports of any fighting, any appreciable fighting, in the country. In fact, we understand the rebel alliance has declared a unilateral seven-day cease-fire within a 20 kilometer radius of Kisangani.

Part of the purpose of this, we understand, is to allow the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations to bring relief supplies into Kisangani to help the population there.

So that is a general report, George, on how we appreciate the situation in Zaire today.

QUESTION: I heard a piece on the radio this morning saying it was a conscious decision by the State Department not to meet with Mr. Kabila at anything above a mid-level?

MR. BURNS: I'm surprised by that. I can't remember the last time he was in Washington - if he's ever been in Washington - to meet the most senior officials of our government. So let's put that aside.

I do know that he had some meetings with fairly important United States officials in South Africa. Of course, we do not wish to take any kind of pledge that we won't have contacts with him. Perhaps we will and perhaps we won't. We'll have to see what the situation entails.

But our major focus, of course, is to maintain support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Zaire itself.

Our Embassy, of course, is very active in working with the Zairian Government, with Prime Minister Kengo and others. We'll continue that. Our major diplomatic contacts will be with the Government of Zaire.

QUESTION: Any change in planning for an evacuation, say, of dependents or drawdown of non-essential personnel?

MR. BURNS: No, no change whatsoever. In fact, the reports today from Kinshasa are that Kinshasa is quiet.

As you know, we have had a voluntary departure for dependents in place for the better part of a week. I understand six dependents of Embassy employees have left Zaire, but that's all. All of our Embassy employees have remained at post. None have left, none have been asked to leave. There's been no decision taken despite all the rumors in Washington today. No decision taken to order the departure of non-essential employees.

I should also tell you that we understand there are commercial flights available from Kinshasa, to other African countries, to Europe, and thus onto the United States. There's a ferry service to Brazzaville across the river which takes about 10 minutes.

It open, it's running.

We are not dealing here with a situation that is in any way analogous to the situation we dealt with last week in Tirana and throughout Albania where civil order had completely broken down; the government had lost the ability to function, and foreigners were clearly at risk and had no opportunity to leave the country via civilian routes - aircraft or boats. I think the situation is quite different in Zaire.

We're going to review this a day at a time, obviously.

Because the situation in country is quite worrisome, with the rebel alliance having captured a great part of the country in the eastern region of Zaire. So we'll review it every day. But right now, we're sticking with our policy and that is, we're keeping our Embassy open. We're not asking our employees to leave. We will maintain a voluntary departure for dependents of employees.

We did issue a travel warning on March 11. I want to read that because there have been so many questions today about what American citizens should do.

On March 11, we said - and this still stands - that "The Department of State warns U.S. citizens to defer all travel to Zaire due to the uncertain political and security situation and the potential for military and civil unrest throughout the country.

The Department has authorized the voluntary departure of dependents of U.S. Embassy employees. U.S. citizens currently in Zaire should consider carefully their personal security situation and, if appropriate, depart Zaire. For further information, of course, you can contact the State Department, the Consular Affairs Bureau;" contact www.state.gov which has daily up-to-date information on the security situation in countries that we are watching very carefully.

We are definitely watching Zaire. We want to make sure that we do the right thing for American citizens and our employees.

But right now, no change.

QUESTION: What is it you would have to see to decide to begin -

MR. BURNS: You know it when you see it. It's that kind of situation. Last week in Albania, it changed very quickly in 24 hours when police authority disappeared in the streets of Tirana.

Then we knew that we had to get our non-essential people out of Albania. We're not in that kind of situation in Zaire. There would have to be a further breakdown of rule in the country and in the capital, and certainly a further escalation of the fighting, I think, before we make that decision. We will evaluate it on a day-to-day basis. This is a decision that's very carefully made, with great sensitivity towards making sure we're giving the best possible advice to American citizens.

QUESTION: How would you explain the officials across the river - unnamed officials across the river - talking about 800 troops in 24 hours/48 hours -

MR. BURNS: You mean in Brazzaville?

QUESTION: No, different rivers.

MR. BURNS: That river? Oh, you mean the Potomac River.

QUESTION: The Potomac River.

MR. BURNS: The thing about the Potomac River is, you can't always believe everything you hear even from government officials ON BACKGROUND on either side of the Potomac River, or on either end of the Potomac River, depending which building you're talking about.

I can tell you this. We have a daily meeting in Zaire in this building. John Dinger went to the meeting today. There has been no decision by the Department of the State, by the Department of Defense, by the White House, to order an evacuation of non-essential employees. That decision has not been made. We'll review the situation again tomorrow and, if necessary, everyday thereafter.

But I can tell you, that just hasn't been made. John (Dinger), you were there.

QUESTION: But it was discussed, obviously?

MR. BURNS: No. We're discussing the security situation everyday. As a taxpayer and as a journalist, you would expect us to. That's our obligation to the American traveling public and to our own employees and their dependents. We make the decisions on a daily basis. I'll let you know if that changes.

Laura.

QUESTION: The Embassy's assessment of the situation in Kinshasa seems to be different than some of my colleagues and some of the people that we have actually talked to there. Commercial flights to Europe, for instance, are impossible to get any bookings on. The ferries, while they may be operating, it's also very difficult to get on those; that there is a level of panic that is reported to us from people who are trying to flee - people with money who are trying to flee - whether they're Americans or other Westerns.

The French have - I guess there's a difference of interpretation on whether or not they've ordered their non-essential personnel out or they've recommended that they leave. But they have, at least, publicly expressed a greater degree of concern for their safety.

How can you address the difference of assessment of the situation there? It could, as you said, deteriorate fairly quickly.

Isn't there some concern that, at least, elements be in place for facilitating a departure?

MR. BURNS: Laura, it's a good question, a good series of questions. All I can say is that we must rely on the judgment of Ambassador Simpson and his Embassy staff. They're very experienced people, as Africa hands, and as watchers of the situation in Zaire.

They report to us that the situation is normal - in a sense of normal, quiet.

Obviously, the situation is different than it was a week ago or a month ago or a year ago. There is fighting in the east that threatens the stability of Zaire. The leader of Zaire is out of the country and ill. The Prime Minister, of course, has had his own problems with the parliament over the last couple of days and has just now returned in the last 24 hours to Kinshasa itself.

I don't want to paint a picture of a completely bucolic Washington-like city. This is a city, obviously, that is quite different than it was a week ago. There are people trying to leave the city. But our Embassy does not sense that American citizens are under threat and the Embassy does not sense that the situation in Kinshasa resembles in any way the situation in Kisangani, which was overrun by the rebel alliance a couple of days ago and which is a city under siege in many ways.

So I think you have to distinguish, in a relative sense, what we mean by that. I do want to say - my second point is, we take very seriously the security question. It is the top priority of the State Department to make sure that we give the best possible advice to the American public, to our employees, and their dependents.

We are very conservative. If we think there's a reason to pull people out, we pull them out. We don't wait until the situation becomes dire.

You know that the Defense Department, with the complete agreement, of course, of the State Department has sent a small team to central Africa - to Brazzaville and Libreville, and Kinshasa - and they are preparing contingency plans to evacuate Americans should that be necessary.

We don't know if it will be necessary. We hope it will not be necessary. We hope that the situation will calm, and that there can be a cease-fire and negotiations to work out the differences between the government and the rebel alliance. But should the situation deteriorate, we will have plans available to us on a moment's notice that we can use to protect the American citizenry in Zaire, and that is only prudent that we do that. We do that because we do take these responsibilities seriously.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Has the Ambassador or anyone else at our Embassy been able to figure out who is in charge in that government?

MR. BURNS: You have President Mobutu who is ill and in France, and there are conflicting reports about whether or not he will be returning to Zaire. Prime Minister Kengo, we believe, is the Prime Minister of Zaire. We are treating him as such and working with him as such. Until the constitutional scholars in Zaire can sort themselves out or the politicians can, we will continue, of course, to treat - until they dictate otherwise -- we will obviously treat Prime Minister Kengo as the leading official in Zaire.

So we will continue to rely upon the judgment and wisdom of our Embassy staff, which is working very hard, under relatively difficult conditions, and we're very proud of the work that they have done.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Back to what you were talking about, the earlier question on meeting with the rebel leader, Mr. Kabila. If you don't know, can you tell us, but do you know that high U.S. officials have met with him in the recent past in South Africa, have they not?

MR. BURNS: Yes, there have been meetings with Mr. Kabila in recent weeks and before that.

QUESTION: But with senior U.S. officials.

MR. BURNS: Yes, I wouldn't describe them as mid-level.

I would describe them as senior people who are traveling in Africa and who have an interest in trying to work out an agreement that there should be a cease-fire. You remember the South African Government took the lead in those talks, and the United States assisted. So there have been contacts. But primarily I want to go back to the very important point: we defend in principle, of course, the territorial integrity of Zaire and its sovereignty.

We want to see it respected. We do not encourage Mr. Kabila at all to continue his warfare. We encourage him to agree to a cease-fire and to talks with the government.

Sid.

QUESTION: Back to the meeting in Nairobi, I gather that the Prime Minister did not look favorably on the proposal?

MR. BURNS: You'll have to ask the Zairian Government for the Zairian Government's view of the Nairobi conference. I've given you our evaluation, which is in many ways positive.

But what the leaders who congregated in Nairobi agreed were a lot of the things that the United States would like to see happen - the cease-fire, negotiations, humanitarian access to the refugees, and continued African deliberations to see if the African countries themselves can bring some input to bear on the situation.

Betsy.

QUESTION: You said that supplies - that a second shipment of supplies had gone into the Tingi Tingi camp.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you know if any of that food is reaching refugees? You had said earlier that the large number of refugees that were in that camp had left. Are they starting to come back?

MR. BURNS: They're trying to attract people back, I know, but they're also using that as a base in order to get to the smaller groups of refugees who have collected throughout the countryside.

So I cannot give you an on-site report to say X food shipments actually ended up in the hands of suffering people. But that is the intent, and we do have great faith in the United Nations relief agencies.

Along those lines, Betsy, I know that the United Nations has issued an emergency appeal to the Great Lakes Region. The United States Government will respond positively to the appeal by the United Nations for emergency assistance to the suffering refugees in the Great Lakes Region. We have responded to previous appeals. We support this appeal, and we will be determining shortly the exact amount of assistance that we will donate.

I will remind you that over the last four years, the United States has given in grant aid $1 billion of humanitarian assistance to the Great Lakes Region in Central Africa.

QUESTION: Do you know how much the appeal by the U.N. agency is for?

MR. BURNS: I believe it was for upwards of over $240 million, if my memory serves me correctly, but I can try to get that exact figure for you.

Yes, still on Zaire?

QUESTION: Has anyone in the U.S. Government seen President Mobutu lately or know what his condition is?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe so. He's been absent from Zaire for many, many months with that brief return that he made a short while ago. He's back in southern France. I don't believe that we've been in contact with him for quite some time, but let me check that with our Africa Bureau to make absolutely sure.

QUESTION: So you don't have an update on his health?

MR. BURNS: I do not have an update on his health. You've seen the French Government public remarks. You've also seen the Zairian Government statements on that issue.

QUESTION: Mobutu just asked today, from the South of France, for a cease- fire and creation of a national council with representatives of different political forces. What is your reaction to that?

MR. BURNS: I have not seen President Mobutu's statement, so I don't want to comment on it specifically. I don't know what else was said. Except to say the United States supports the cease-fire proposal of the United Nations, of Mr. Sahnoun, and of the OAU, and we also support, of course, political negotiations that would lead the country internally, politically towards greater reform and ultimately towards elections. We believe that Zaire has suffered from a lack of reform and, obviously, a lack of the electoral process, of democracy, for many years.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. BURNS: Any more on Zaire, or we're finished? Good.

QUESTION: Middle East. Anything to say about the Prime Minister's proposal on the final -- leaping ahead to finish the final status talks?

MR. BURNS: All I would say there is that we've obviously seen the reports and the statements by the Israeli Government.

If either side has proposals to make, we think they should be made at the negotiating table. That is the purpose of the Israel-Palestinian negotiations. That's what the Israelis and Palestinians should be focused on right now - making sure that they're talking to each other at the table. And, if proposals are to be made, it makes sense that they be made directly in a negotiating forum.

QUESTION: Nick, the United States is the facilitator or heavily involved in the process - in the Israeli-Palestinian track - and here is one of the partners who is voicing the opinion that there is no building of confidence. On the contrary, he suggests a change, of course, which is backed by the members of the opposition, Mr. Beilin, and, as we hear, Mr. Peres. There is almost no reaction from Washington. Can we understand from that very silent reaction today that you are not endorsing this change of pace; that you would like to stick to the Oslo agreement as it was and to the change of agreements that followed the Oslo agreement?

MR. BURNS: We are not silent. We have just enunciated the U.S. Government position, and we've thought about our position very carefully.

QUESTION: You're not expressing any opinion for or against it?

MR. BURNS: On some days in the midst of diplomatic negotiations, it's best to say very little, but what we've said is something very clear. If one party to a negotiation has a proposal to make, it ought to make it, but it ought to make it to the other party in a negotiating forum. That's what the Israelis and Palestinians must do. You talked about confidence. Both parties have a responsibility to create an environment where there's confidence in the negotiations - both parties, equal responsibility - and that is our position.

The United States is many things, and we are very active in the Middle East peace negotiations, particularly behind the scenes. We very seldom have a lot to say publicly about the particulars of negotiations, the tactical questions, and I think we're going to maintain that posture today.

QUESTION: Was the United States consulted before the proposition was made public in Jerusalem about the very fundamental change of approach? It's not a minor tactical difference.

MR. BURNS: I'll have to check with our negotiating team on that question. I will check with them on that question.

QUESTION: Any reaction to the Palestinian refusal to accept this? It's already on the table now, so to speak - not on the very concrete table of the negotiations - but between Jerusalem and Gaza the situation is quite clear. The Palestinians are rejecting this proposal.

MR. BURNS: We're great believers of the negotiating table.

The negotiating table is a place where two delegations sit down physically with each other, and they talk to each other directly.

We believe in that process. It produced the Hebron agreement.

It produced the other agreements that haven't received a lot of attention, some of the positive decisions by the Israeli Government since Hebron and the release of the women prisoners. So we believe in the negotiating process. We believe the Israelis and Palestinians ought to embrace that process, particularly at a time of great difficulty in the Middle East peace negotiations. You know that and I know that and everyone knows that.

When the peace negotiations are having difficulty, it's always best to resort to the direct talks that have moved Israel and the Palestinian Authority so far since 1993.

QUESTION: Just one last question, if I may. There's some violence on the ground. Do you still maintain that these protests on the ground are not connected in any way, shape or form to Mr. Yasser Arafat, the Chairman, and does he continue to reject any form of violence until the two sides will return to the table?

MR. BURNS: I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday or the day before. Obviously, I stand by the statements we've made this week on that. We have a commitment from Mr. Arafat, from Chairman Arafat, a public commitment and a private commitment that he will not encourage violence, and we expect that that commitment will be met.

As for the situation today in Bethlehem, I can say this, confrontations leading to violence will resolve nothing, and we've made it very clear that both sides ought to exercise maximum restraint in the current situation, and they ought to exercise a maximum degree of cooperation in order to get back to the negotiating table where we believe progress can be made in the future. We have not given up hope, obviously, that the Middle East peace negotiations will resume productively at some point in the future.

We would be denying history if we did, because, as you know, in the past quarter century, there have been many times along the time-line when negotiations have broken down, only to result in progress afterwards. That's what we hope will happen here under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Chairman Arafat.

QUESTION: Nick, last night a few Jewish families get into their houses - their houses that they had purchased before in Silwan I believe - in East Jerusalem. Do you have any comment on it?

MR. BURNS: No. I've just seen some press reports just in the last couple of hours about that. I don't have the particulars, the facts of the situation in Silwan. I suppose we'll get those from our consulate in Jerusalem, and, when we do, I might have something else to say.

Sid.

QUESTION: On the proposal again, Nick - I know you don't have a lot to say about it - but would it be fair to conclude that if the parties sit down and decide that that's the way they want to go, it's fine with the United States, including the part about Camp David style negotiations with President Clinton?

MR. BURNS: It's up to the Israelis and Palestinians to define their own negotiating process, forum, and schedule. If the Israelis and Palestinians agree to something, mutually agree to something and want to move forward, they will have a partner in the United States.

Yes. Israel? Any more on Israel? Savas.

QUESTION: Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian today named the leader of Azerbaijan break-away Nagorno-Karabakh region Robert Kocharyan as Armenia's new Prime Minister. Do you have any reaction on this subject?

MR. BURNS: We have been working very hard for more than four years, along with Russia and the Europeans and others to try to diminish the tensions in Nagorno-Karabakh and to try to find a peaceful resolution to the terrible conflict there. I think you know what our legal position is on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

I think you know that Azerbaijan, I believe, has at various times had 20 percent of its territory occupied. We'd like to see a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem peacefully. We've had very good discussions with the Russian Government, the French Government and others on this, and there is an international process in place, of which the United States is a co- chair, to try to resolve those problems. That's what I have to say today about Nagorno-Karabakh.

QUESTION: Doesn't that show that Armenia started annexation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, territory, in her border unofficially.

MR. BURNS: We would not favor such a process, and we hope very much that that is not the intention of the Government of Armenia.

Yes, Jane.

QUESTION: Belarus. Can you confirm reports that the United States is cutting off $39 million in aid to Belarus because of human rights abuses there? And also the reports have it that the money was earmarked to help Belarus dismantle its nuclear weapons infrastructure. Is this a kind of counter-productive move?

MR. BURNS: I'll have to check the record. I don't know if we have in fact decided today or yesterday to make such a decision with that amount of money involved. We have decided, though, to pursue a tougher policy vis-a- vis Belarus - one of selective engagement. We will engage them on issues that are clearly in our national interests, like the nuclear issue, and Belarus ought to meet all of its commitments, of course, to the international community on that issue.

But we don't find much in common, frankly - much common ground - with the Belarusian Government on other political and foreign policy issues. We'll have very limited dealings with them and I think a minimal amount of American assistance to Belarus at the present time. There are too many other countries around Belarus that are better friends of the United States who are more deserving of the money - Ukraine, Moldova, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Armenia, Azerbaijan - too many countries that are setting a better example than Belarus is currently setting internationally. I'll check these facts for you and try to get you a posted answer this afternoon on that question.

Still on Belarus? Ladies first and then Patrick.

QUESTION: Has the United States had a chance to consult with the Japanese regarding the Vice Foreign Komura's trip to Cuba?

MR. BURNS: I believe we've had some discussions with the Japanese Government about the trip, and all I can say is that we've had a very good set of contacts with the Japanese Government and the Peruvian Government, and we do hope for a peaceful and rapid resolution of this in a way that will allow the hostages to be released safely and unharmed.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) supported this specific act of the Japanese to put their backing behind a deal with Cuba?

MR. BURNS: You'll have to ask the Japanese Government what the nature of the discussions was with the Cuban Government.

I don't want to speak for the Japanese Government. I wouldn't dare to speak for the Cuban Government. You'll have to ask them for a sense of what they were trying to accomplish with that meeting.

That's not for me to discuss.

QUESTION: I mean, what I'm asking is if the U.S. supports what it understands the agreement to be?

MR. BURNS: I think we're going to reserve our judgment for our private discussions with our friends and allies on that issue.

Patrick.

QUESTION: There are reports that the United States and China have reached an agreement on the future of the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong. Do you have any details of that agreement decision?

MR. BURNS: I believe we pretty much had an agreement worked out at the time of Secretary Albright's visit. She had a discussion of this with Minister Qian Qichen. I believe there was some remaining work to be done, but the major issues, we felt, had been overcome. We, of course, will be maintaining our American Consulate General in Hong Kong under the leadership of Richard Boucher, who is well and favorably known to all of you. He was here in on consultations; he's now back in Hong Kong. He's got a big job to do, and we expect that all the rights and privileges that the Consulate had enjoyed up until now will be extended when reversion occurs.

It is more complicated than that. If you'd like a fuller report on that, we can get that for you from our East Asia Bureau.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Yesterday, I asked if you would check into to see whether or not Ambassador Lino had attempted to contact President Berisha or not attempted specifically. Do you have an answer?

MR. BURNS: I can tell you that Ambassador Marisa Lino has not seen President Berisha since March 7th, and here we are on the first day of spring, March 20th. But she has been in contact with Prime Minister Fino and other members of the National Government that has been formed over the last eight or nine days. In terms of the situation in Albania, the situation in Tirana remains tense. Conditions over the rest of the country continue to be unstable.

Our evacuation efforts have pretty much come to a halt because there aren't any American citizens who wish to be evacuated.

But we will be able on a moment's notice to resume that operation, should that be necessary to protect American citizens, whether they be government officials or private Americans. In the meantime, we're working with the European Union and the OSCE to see if we can exert some influence on the various politicians in Albania to get their act together, and to make sure that they're doing everything they can to talk to the insurgents in the south and increase the authority of the Government of Tirana throughout the country.

We haven't talked to Mr. Berisha in nearly two weeks.

I should say this, because there was a prominent article by Christine Spolar in the Post this morning. I thought it was a very well written article and a very good article. The point of view there was that somehow the United States had been asleep to the realities of the changed situation in Albania. I'd like to respectfully disagree with that.

As you remember, in May of last year the United States was exceedingly critical of the way that the elections were conducted.

We expressed our concerns at the time and have so continuously since then - and I've done this on a number of occasions - our concern about growing authoritarianism in Albania. We urged greater political and human rights in Albania, particularly with respect to the justice system and media freedoms. We were sharply critical of many of the actions of the government between May and the present time, and we privately approached President Berisha and asked him to undertake reforms in a clearly flawed system. To underscore our message to President Berisha, we decided not to pursue a training course for police officials in Albania, and we cut substantially our military assistance program to Albania, while the rest of the Central European countries received increases.

We took a number of steps to indicate that we were not pleased by our relationship with the Government of Albania. We also warned the government about the danger of the pyramid schemes, which shook the foundations of the country a couple of weeks ago.

So I would just like to respectfully assert on the record that the United States Government has followed a fairly realistic policy towards Albania for the past year, and our Embassy was right on top of the situation, in contrast to what you read this morning in The Washington Post.

QUESTION: Nick, President Berisha got the all important White House photo op, I guess, at the same time you were all so concerned about -

MR. BURNS: Beforehand.

QUESTION: Before -

MR. BURNS: Before we began to take most of these decisions. President Berisha came to Washington, met with President Clinton.

He went back to Albania and authoritarianism began to spread, and a number of decisions that he made - arrests of people that he didn't like, a curtailment of media freedoms, the very unfortunate May 1996 elections, and the elections this fall where there were irregularities.

We were wide awake to all of these changes. We were privately counseling him to reform politically and economically. He did not do so. We warned at the highest levels that the collapse of these pyramid schemes was inevitable. That was our judgment about the nature of pyramid schemes. They do collapse.

I would just like to respectfully say, I think Christine Spolar is a terrific reporter, by the way. On this one, we just disagree with her. I felt it was important to put all this on the record.

QUESTION: I think, at least, part of her point was that Berisha was getting messages of encouragement from the most senior levels of this government - encouragement to go forward with what he felt was the correct course?

MR. BURNS: No, that's not true. That is absolutely not true. What President Berisha heard from the President of the United States, from the Secretary of State - Secretary Christopher - and from Ambassador Lino was that, we think you ought to move towards reform more than you have. When he began to crack down on people that he didn't favor in his own political system - among them journalists - then, we told him we felt he was going in the wrong direction politically. We publicly criticized his elections in a very strong statement that I made last May. We warned him about the collapse of the pyramid schemes.

We were right about the situation in Albania. Our Embassy, our Ambassador, our intelligence, our analytical capabilities, were right. We predicted what was going to happen. We saw it coming. We warned the government. I think our Embassy has served us very well in the last year in reading what was going to happen in Albania.

QUESTION: Nick, to follow up on my original question of yesterday. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I don't believe you've given me the answer to the question. The question, I think, was, has -

MR. BURNS: Charlie, I'm trying to answer your question.

QUESTION: Well, let me just try one more time. Has the Ambassador tried to reach President Berisha? We know she hasn't talked to him, but is there an effort to reach him or is there a policy of not trying to reach him?

MR. BURNS: Oh, I don't believe there's a policy of not trying to reach the President of Albania. I know that Ambassador Lino is concentrating her political talks on the Prime Minister and other senior officials of the new government. I think it's widespread knowledge that President Berisha is relatively isolated.

I don't mean politically; I mean he's not seeing a lot of people, although he did see Chancellor Vranitzky and he did see the EU mission a couple of days ago.

We'll continue to concentrate our efforts on some of the other political figures - on Prime Minister Fino. We have nothing against talking to President Berisha. We just haven't had the opportunity to do so, Charlie, since March 7th.

QUESTION: Have you tried?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: But have you tried? It's a pretty simple question.

MR. BURNS: The Ambassador has been in contact with a broad spectrum of the political leadership of the country. I'm sure that if President Berisha wants to talk, she would be very willing to talk. She also, as you know, has been quite occupied by the effort which was superbly carried out by the Embassy and the U.S. military to evacuate 860 people from Tirana last week.

Howard.

QUESTION: There's been fairly strident criticism of this deal to lease the former Long Beach naval base to a Chinese Government-owned company. Can you give a capsule summary of how the decision was reached and whether that's being subject to some rethinking?

MR. BURNS: Long Beach. Right. I can tell you what I know about this. This is a private business deal reached last year before the China Ocean Shipping Company, known as COSCO, and the City of Long Beach, California. Long Beach, the city, has been seeking to find tenants and businesses for the site since the base realignment and closure process decided to close the Long Beach Naval Station in 1991. As you know, naval operations ended there in 1994.

The COSCO ships have been using the Long Beach port for 15 years. The company has, in recent years, been seeking to expand its West Coast operation. So it's an established firm; international shipping well known to the city authorities of Long Beach, California.

If you want to know about the lease arrangements, I think you should go to the City of Long Beach. For more background on the history of the naval station disclosure, you can go to the Pentagon. There is a review process underway - the BRAC process - that Ken Bacon can tell you more about, and that's to assess any national security concerns that could result from this deal or any other deal that's made by the city authorities, the City Fathers, about the disposition of a Long Beach site. That process is underway, and the Pentagon has said so.

So if there are any national security concerns, well, we'll let you know about them. But at this point the feeling is that all the necessary steps have been followed by the local authorities as well as by the Federal Government.

We have one more right here.

QUESTION: Going back to Japan and the terrorist issue.

If the terrorists get into Cuba, is the United States happy or very unhappy? Is it okay that a terrorist country accept another terrorist? What kind of concrete conversation do you have on this issue with the Japanese Government?

MR. BURNS: With all due respect, it's somewhat of a hypothetical question. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know how this hostage crisis is going to end. We want the situation to end peacefully, and we want the situation to end where the hostages are unharmed. The terrorists, obviously, should not succeed in their mission. That's the position of the United States.

It's very difficult to speculate on the outcome of this crisis.

QUESTION: How would the United States deal about having this group of people 90 miles off the coast of Florida?

MR. BURNS: Sid, I would just respectfully suggest that that situation has not developed. We don't know what the outcome of this will be; how President Fujimori and the Japanese Government will decide to try to find a resolution with the hostage-takers.

We need to be respectful of both Peru and Japan as they work through a very difficult process, but I'm not going to answer a question that presumes that a bunch of terrorists are going to be sent to Cuba. If it happens, we'll have a reaction to it.

(Press briefing concluded at 2:42 p.m.)

(###)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article