U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #57, 97-04-17

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, April 17, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1        Welcome to Visiting Students
1        Secretary Albright's Discussions with Dennis Ross
1        Secretary Albright's Speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan
1-2      Secretary Albright's Efforts Regarding Foreign Affairs Resources
2        Statements on Burundi and Appointment of John Bryant
NATO
2-3      Yeltsin's Comments Regarding a NATO-Russia Agreement
PEACE PROCESS
3-5      Effect of Political Crisis in Israel/Dennis Ross' Meetings
14       West Bank Closure
GREECE/TURKEY/CYPRUS
5-7      Resolution of Conflict in the Aegean/U.S. Initiatives/Madrid
           Summit
7-8      Effect on NATO Membership
IRAN/LIBYA
8-9      Possible Amendment to Iran-Libya Sanctions Act
9        U.S. Policy Towards Iran
NORTH KOREA
10-11    Distribution of Food Aid/Possible Four-Party Talks/Trilateral Mtg
11-12    Comments of North Korean Ambassador Regarding Food Shortage
HONDURAS/HAITI
12-13    Extradition of Michel Francois
ZAIRE
13-14    Contracts with U.S. Companies
14       Possible Kabila/Mobutu Meeting
JAPAN
14-15    Legislation Regarding Okinawa Lease/Visit of Governor Ota
IRAQ
15       UN Security Council and Hajj Flight

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #57

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1997 1:09P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, welcome to the State Department briefing. We have some special visitors today from the Key School in Annapolis, Maryland. We have 11 students from Paris, from France, who are here. We have their American student sponsors.

I want to welcome them; and they're led by a very good friend of mine, Francie Palmer Hale, who's sitting right over here. She is, among many other things, a huge fan of the Boston Red Sox. Yes, she is. We have a controversy over baseball here, Francie. So I wanted to point her out and welcome them.

Now, Secretary Albright today has been focusing on a couple of issues. She's kept in touch with Dennis Ross, who's in Jerusalem and Gaza, meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat.

She is working, particularly, on two very important issues before the Senate; and in one case, the Senate and the House. The first is the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Secretary has been making a series of calls to members of the Senate to try to convince them that this treaty ought to be ratified by the Senate next week.

She also went out to Grand Rapids, Michigan, yesterday to meet with former President Gerry Ford - to his museum there, where she gave a speech. I commend that speech to you. That speech was witnessed, I think, in the first row by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary Haig, former Secretary of Defense Cheney, Brent Scowcroft and Zibignew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisors. Midway through the speech, the Secretary departed from her text. So it's not in the text of the speech that we gave you, but it is in the tape.

I'm going to paraphrase because I can't reconstruct it word for word. But she basically referred to her predecessors, who were seated in front of her, and she said, some of you have been in my shoes. How would you like to sit on the same side of the table as Libya and Iraq? Do not do that to the President and the Secretary of State. That, I think, boiled down, is the message that we have to the Senate on the Chemical Weapons Convention. If the Senate fails to ratify this treaty, we'll be thrown into a group of countries - the rogue states - like Libya and Iraq and Iran, who want to build a chemical weapons capability and who cannot be trusted with it. That's the real danger for the American people and the United States if this treaty is not ratified. The Secretary's going to treat this issue as a priority issue over the next week, as we near the ratification vote.

The second thing that she is doing is working very hard on the issue of resources - a budget for the foreign affairs agencies.

Today at 2:30 p.m. she's going to meet with the Chair and ranking members of the Senate and House Budget Committees. This is Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg, Representative Kasich and Representative Spratt. She's going to make the pitch that the President and Vice President and she made to the congressional leadership last evening at Blair House. That is that we need an allocation of $19.45 billion to adequately fund the foreign policy of the United States - not just so that we can make up our arrears to the United Nations, but so that we can fund our diplomacy; so that we can afford to have a first-class diplomacy to go along with our first-class military.

That issue, of course, will not play out fully here until the summer time, as the appropriations process winds its way through the Congress. But it's a very, very important issue, and I wanted to let you know that those are the two issues that she'll be spending a lot of time on over the next couple of days.

We have a statement that we're issuing today on the situation in Burundi.

The United States welcomes the results of the April 16th summit in Arusha. Significant progress was made on easing the humanitarian crisis in Burundi and promoting the peace negotiations.

Former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere and the leaders of the regional states as well as Major Buyoya and the representatives of Burundi's political parties are to be commended for the successful outcome of the Summit. The United States urges all parties involved to work towards the cessation of hostilities and the restoration of constitutional governance. In the meantime, we call on parties to respect the human rights of the civilian population of Burundi.

It's a longer statement. I've just given you the highlights, but it's posted in the Press Office.

We also have a statement today announcing that former United States Representative John Bryant of Texas has been appointed to lead the U.S. delegation to the International Telecommunication Union's 1997 World Conference; and that will take place in Geneva in October and November of next year.

And with that, George, I'll be glad to go to your questions.

QUESTION: Do you know what President Yeltsin was referring to this morning when he said in Bonn that there will be a - in Germany - when he said that there was going to be a NATO-Russia agreement signed next month?

MR. BURNS: Well, I heard the same remark, George. And I assume that President Yeltsin is referring to the fact that we're trying to negotiate the charter, the NATO-Russia document, by late May. It would be convenient because, of course, you know the NATO leaders will be meeting in The Hague on the 28th of May. Foreign Minister Primakov, when he was in Paris meeting with the French last week, said he hoped to have a conference in Paris on the 27th.

We haven't decided quite where a conference would be between Russia and NATO. But if we do work out an agreement, we'll certainly schedule one. And late May would be very good timing, indeed.

I can tell you that Secretary General Solana continues to negotiate this with the Russian government. We have not yet completed the negotiations. Those negotiations will continue. But we are hopeful that progress can be made towards a final document.

QUESTION: He's pretty definitive, and you're less definitive.

MR. BURNS: All, I know, George, is that the negotiations have not been completed. So we can't cite a victory before we have it. But we certainly have the hope. I can't point you to any dramatic progress recently. It's obviously good to see that Chancellor Kohl and President Yeltsin had a good discussion on this. And we hope very much that the optimism at the press conference today will be turned into reality in the substance of the negotiations.

QUESTION: Nick, there was a report yesterday that Russia was still demanding treaty-like guarantees on the deployment of more troops or nuclear weapons to the soil of new NATO members.

And that there was - you had an impasse on that point. Can you comment on that at all?

MR. BURNS: I don't want to comment on the details of the negotiations, except to say that NATO did make some very clear and firm statements in the first ten days of March about those issues. Of course, on the issue of nuclear weapons, NATO made a statement on that back in December at the conference - the North Atlantic Conference in Brussels.

So I think our position is very clear. I don't see that NATO is going to deviate from its position at all, on either nuclear weapons or the stationing of conventional forces. We'll continue to discuss this with the Russian government. NATO will; the United States and other member countries will. But we have a very clear position over what the right posture is. We've enunciated that, I think, as clearly as we can.

Yes, Steve.

QUESTION: The Middle East?

MR. BURNS: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does - Dennis Ross is continuing with his meetings in the midst of the seeming government crisis in Israel. Does the United States hold out any real hope that, until this is resolved, that he can make progress at all? The Palestinians have said that they don't think so, themselves.

MR. BURNS: Until -

QUESTION: The crisis is resolved.

MR. BURNS: Oh, the political crisis. Well, I would just say this - a couple of points. First of all, the United States is not going to comment on the ongoing political crisis in Israel.

That's for the Israeli government and the Israeli people to talk about, not us. We're going to keep our eyes focused on progress in the peace negotiations.

Now, Dennis met Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday. He met Chairman Arafat. He's had additional meetings with officials - Palestinian and Israeli officials today. I think it's certainly - we're going to be determined to make as much progress as we can. He'll come back this weekend, report to the Secretary and to the President; and they'll have to decide what options we want to deploy for the coming weeks.

But we are determined to move forward. We do think it's important to continue the talks with the Israelis and the Palestinians.

I don't believe they're going to stop because there's a political crisis.

QUESTION: How can you expect the Palestinians, for instance, and this is kind of synonymous with the last elections, to go forward in any sort of agreements or negotiations with a leader who might not be around in a few weeks or a few months? I mean, it just doesn't - it's counter-intuitive.

MR. BURNS: See, that's a hypothetical question. You and I don't know how this is all going to play out. So in the meantime, we're not going to be commenting on what's happening internally in Israel. But we have an obligation to ourselves and to our national interest to move forward in the peace negotiations.

That stands to reason. I think that is logical. I can't foresee, and neither can you, what's going to happen over the next couple of days.

So we will stay on point. We will stay involved in these peace negotiations. Dennis is having meetings, and we're going to try to move forward as best we can.

QUESTION: I have a question which is not hypothetical.

(Inaudible) exists in the sort of crisis like that. Does that distraction form an impediment toward efficient discussions of something larger in the peace process?

MR. BURNS: You know, I haven't been - I'm not with Dennis, obviously, out there. I haven't been in the meetings; but I don't believe so. Dennis has been able to continue his discussions with the Israelis and Palestinians. So he will probably stay out there another 24 hours or so, and then return. He'll report back, and we'll see where we are.

As you know, the United States has put on the table some ideas that we hope might bridge the differences between the Israelis and Palestinians. It's very tough going, obviously, because of the profound disagreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

But that just argues all the more for a determined effort by the United States.

QUESTION: Did he get responses from both sides on the new ideas, or just we'll be back in touch with you?

MR. BURNS: Well, these ideas were presented to the Prime Minister and to the Palestinian delegation separately, last week, by President Clinton and Secretary Albright. They've had time to think about it. They're working through the ideas. They each have their own ideas, as well. There are lots of ideas circulating here. So Dennis is trying to see if there can be agreement on a set of ideas that might take care of some of the problems that both sides have raised, so that they might agree to meet their commitments and resume negotiations.

Obviously we want to see security cooperation. We also want to see political discussions.

QUESTION: Are you encouraged that the Israelis and the Palestinians have agreed to resume their security contacts?

MR. BURNS: Obviously. We've felt all along that Palestinians and Israelis need to work together on the ground, as they have been doing for the past two weeks to avoid substantial violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and in Israel itself. It just stands to reason that we would be in favor of resumption of security cooperation.

Yes, Dimitri.

QUESTION: Yes, Nick, I have a question on Greece and Turkey. Yesterday in Malta the Dutch Foreign Minister, Hans van Mierlo, said that progress has been made between Greece and Turkey on the dispute in the Aegean, on the rocky islets. Does the U.S. know anything about that, or do you have a comment on that?

MR. BURNS: I know the European Union has been anxious to try to produce a meeting of Greece and Turkey to discuss their respective problems in the Aegean. We hope that that occurs.

I've seen press reports this morning from Athens, which indicate that there's a lot of discussion of this. But I'm not aware of any concrete announcements of meetings.

We hope that Greece and Turkey will sit down to resolve their many problems in the Aegean. We support that; the European Union supports it as well.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. government have any role to play in this initiative by the European Union? Are you involved in this?

MR. BURNS: We're not involved in the particular initiative that you're referring to. But in a larger sense, we've been for years suggesting that the Greeks and Turks ought to negotiate their differences.

QUESTION: On the same subject, yesterday a senior administration official here in Washington said in a briefing that the U.S. initiative on these issues - Cyprus and the Aegean - Greece and Turkey's differences - is very close. The only thing that remains is the final status of the proposal by the National Security Council, because the ambassadors in Ankara, Athens, and Nicosia already made proposals to the Administration. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. BURNS: All I can say is that, since Secretary Albright took office, given her interest in Southeast Europe -- in the problems of Cyprus and Greece and Turkey -- she has asked our diplomats to be creative in trying to devise ways for the United States to be effective in working with them. And Carey Cavanaugh, who is our very capable and very active special negotiator here and office director, has met with our ambassadors, as you know.

That is on a routine basis. He's listened to their views. They send their cables in. Marc Grossman, our ambassador to Turkey, has been in the building for the last couple of days. Ambassador Niles and Ambassador Brill, of course, are very active in asserting their views with us. We have taken many ideas into consideration.

We're trying to do our best in developing a set of ideas that might be helpful. But we haven't come to any conclusions.

I can't talk about pieces of paper going this way or that way.

But we will continue to work on this.

QUESTION: The same administration official said that the U.S. will propose a package process more for Cyprus and the Aegean. Is it true?

MR. BURNS: I'm just not going to - I can't confirm statements that aren't made on the record, and I don't know who is doing the talking. I can just tell you this, we want to be present and active in the effort to find a solution to the Cyprus problem.

We have for a long, long time. The fundamental responsibility rests with the Cypriot government, the Turkish community on Cyprus, the Greek and Turkish governments.

If we can be helpful to the European Union, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, the United States, we will do so. We all contribute ideas. There is no lack of special negotiators. There are about ten around the world who are special Cyprus negotiators.

I think the people in Cyprus can't look to us for salvation.

They've got to produce the political will and flexibility to make an agreement themselves; and perhaps we can play a role in that.

QUESTION: Does the Administration see that as a connective international effort on this issue, or you have your own ideas?

MR. BURNS: We, of course, have our own ideas, but we work very closely with the United Nations, with the United Kingdom, with the European Union. We certainly would urge all of them to be active, and we'll congratulate any of them who can be successful.

But the fundamental responsibility lies with the people who live in the island and who live in the region.

Yes, Yasmine.

QUESTION: Two quick follow-ups - one of them is about the Aegean. Does the Administration see the July summit in Madrid as a deadline, or I should say, a target date for dialogue to resume between Greece and Turkey?

MR. BURNS: I don't know that we've set the Madrid summit as some kind of a deadline. We'd prefer if they could meet tomorrow or next week, and not wait until July 7th and 8th in Madrid. That's a long time away. I don't believe we've set any formal deadline for July.

QUESTION: Do you think if the dialogue doesn't start until then, by the July summit, do you think this will cause some problems at a time when NATO is discussing to invite - or inviting already new members?

MR. BURNS: I don't think it's going to have any affect on NATO's attitudes toward the prospective new members, who are members of the Partnership for Peace - Greece and Turkey already being members. I don't think it'll have any affect on that question whatsoever.

QUESTION: But one of the conditions for the newcomers is that they should solve their problems between each other before they even apply, or you know, before negotiations can start for their entrance into the Alliance. Some countries in Europe, non-NATO countries, have said that Greece and Turkey have their problems, and they're already in NATO. So, I mean, is there kind of -

MR. BURNS: Both statements are true. They have their problems, and they're in NATO. So we talk about these problems in NATO sessions. I think I know - I'm not sure I grasped the question when you first asked it, Yasmine. We will do our best to help Greece and Turkey solve their problems.

Now, as we look at new members in NATO, one of the factors - it's not the sole factor - is, we hope that new members of NATO, prospective new members, can resolve as best they can their own territorial, border, political problems with their neighbors.

We've seen examples of Hungary and Romania, and Poland and Ukraine, and at least the attempt by Slovakia and the Czech Republic to resolve some of these problems. But it's not the only factor.

I think we said the other day, in the case of the Czech Republic and Slovakia , that any continued turbulence in that particular relationship would not unduly affect the candidacy of either for NATO membership because there are many other factors that have to be taken into consideration. Is the country willing and able to take on the responsibilities of membership; is there civilian control of a military? Is there a functioning democracy in the country?

These are all very important questions. So I wouldn't just isolate one of them as being important.

QUESTION: Just one more on Cyprus. You talked about these 10 people trying to negotiate. Is it true that Richard Beattie is now out of the picture?

MR. BURNS: No, it's not. He's the United States President, and the Secretary of State's special emissary and negotiator.

He's ably assisted, of course, in that by all of our ambassadors in the field who are career foreign service officers - and all three of them very senior and excellent people; and assisted by Carey Cavanaugh, who's been very active. So we have a team. We have a team. When there are any announcements to be made about people coming or going, we'll certainly let you know. But we haven't made any announcements.

Yes, sir. Yes, David.

QUESTION: Could I try to get a better understanding of the Administration's position on proposed legislation which would punish companies from third countries that are investing in Iran?

I take it, first of all, that in general terms the Administration supports the proposed legislation?

MR. BURNS: You're not referring to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act now, you're referring to -

QUESTION: I am, yes.

MR. BURNS: The current law of the land.

QUESTION: Well, is there not some legislation suggesting additional sanctions? Perhaps I'm wrong on that.

MR. BURNS: There may be. I'm not familiar with it myself.

I could check into it for you.

QUESTION: I guess what I'm asking is this, in light of the proposed - in light of the WTO -- the resolution of the WTO dispute, under which the Administration is going to ask Congress to make some changes to the Helms-Burton law, does the Administration believe that there should be changes also, of a similar variety, to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act?

MR. BURNS: Fine, I do understand the question now. I can tell you this, in our discussions with the European Union last week, as we talked about Helms-Burton and the WTO dispute, the United States made no commitment that we would alter or that we would exempt European Union countries from the effects of our law, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. That law is in place. It has to be implemented by the Administration as the law of our land. We made no commitment to the European Union whatsoever, that we would alter that or exempt them from that.

Now, I think there was some discussion that maybe in an idealistic way, in a future-oriented way, that if the European Union can develop the same kind of tough, realistic policy towards Iran that the United States follows, then we might be in a different situation where it might be possible to talk about some modification of our own legislation. But I don't believe that we're - that that time is near. The European Union has taken the very reasonable and sensible step of recalling its ambassadors from Tehran, including the Greek ambassador. He is now out of Tehran.

They've suspended the critical dialogue; and that's good. But we want to see action over the long term. We think Iran should be contained by the Europeans and the United States, and we haven't seen that effort yet. So I don't believe that any of the fundamental compromises on Helms-Burton will have an affect on our policy and our law pertaining to Iran.

QUESTION: Is there a review going on of what different ways - what different methods could be used to punish Iran in the event that it's discovered that Iran was involved in the Khobar Towers bombing?

MR. BURNS: Well, first things first. First, we have to complete the investigation. When the investigation is completed, we hope that we'll have identified the people responsible for the attack on the American officers and the death of 19 American servicemen. But we're not there yet. So therefore, I can't publicly discuss any possible responses. It's really a hypothetical situation that you're asking me to discuss.

QUESTION: Proposal makers have to make plans for hypothetical situations all the time. What I'm asking is whether they are or not.

MR. BURNS: Policymakers make plans based on hypotheticals, but spokesmen do not discuss those plans. I'm not even saying that the plans exist. I'm just saying on a theoretical basis, I can't get into a public discussion of that. I can just tell you, we have not come to the end of this investigation. We have not determined who is responsible for the attack on Khobar. But we are going to do that; we're going to reach the end of it and we will bring to justice those responsible, along - we will do that in concert with the Saudi authorities.

QUESTION: Let me ask a more general question. Is there any kind of review, perhaps ordered by the Secretary or I'm not sure who, going on right now, in general, as to whether the U.S. has the right set of policies towards Iran.

MR. BURNS: I don't think that there's any doubt in the mind of Secretary Albright or the people around her that we have the right policy towards Iran. She believes that we have the right policy, that Iran ought to be contained because of all the reasons we've cited before. But it's useful to cite them again.

Iran is blocking the Middle East peace negotiations, trying to; directly funding Middle East terrorist groups; and trying to build a chemical nuclear and biological weapons capability. Those are adequate reasons to contain Iran. Secretary Albright is convinced of the wisdom of our policy. There is an ongoing discussion about Iranian affairs because that makes sense - Iran is a major country in the Middle East. You would expect that of us.

But I don't sense any doubt in the leadership of the United States about the correctness of our policy.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about North Korea?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Andrew Natsios who used to work in this building and now with World Vision says that it's going to be three months at least before the corn shipment that you announced the other day will actually arrive in North Korea and be prepared for distribution.

He says that is has been common practice in the past to arrange what he has called a "swap." In other words, the United States can go to a neighboring country like China and draw down 50,000 tons from their stockpile, which would be delivered almost immediately, and then that would ultimately be replenished by the United States' shipment. Is the United States looking into such a thing?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if we are or not. But let me just try to respond to Mr. Natsios a little bit. We have provided 25 million - we have offered $25 million in food assistance to North Korea. The $10 million - the first tranche, was announced in February. I understand that is 27,000 metric tons of corn, rice, and corn-soy blend.

The two ships from Houston, Texas, are supposed to arrive at Nampo in North Korea on May 6th and May 22nd.

Of the $15 million tranche that we announced the other day, 50,000 metric tons of corn, we believe that the ships carrying that corn can arrive in approximately two months. Now, we are part of a larger international effort. Other countries, many of them closer to North Korea, will be donating food as well. We assume that those closer will be getting the food in a nearer time to the North Koreans, and that will help serve some of the short-term need to get food to the people and the young kids who need that food.

If the World Food Program asked us to engage in any kind of a swap, I'm sure we'd consider it. But we have to rely on the organization of the World Food Program in this instance.

And I think that we have responded. We have certainly taken the leading position in the world in responding to this. We're offering more money. We're offering a greater volume of food than any other country. We will be flexible in the way we do this because we want to be helpful to help resolve the problem.

QUESTION: You mention countries closer. He and Tony Hall say that the Japanese, who are close, have been reluctant to contribute any new food because of the political problems they have been having with North Korea. Has anybody joined the United States in this last - in response to this last appeal?

MR. BURNS: I don't have a tally list. You'll have to ask the United Nations, which is coordinating this. I'm sure that other countries have. But I just - I don't have the list in front of me. Now, the Japanese have - you know, they have been reluctant in the past. They'll have to make their own decisions.

We do believe there is a humanitarian imperative here. The World Food Program is focusing on kids, six years of age and under, who are either malnourished or, in some cases, starving. So we think there's an humanitarian imperative and on that basis we made the decision - not on a political basis, but humanitarian.

Any follow-ups on North Korea? Ron?

QUESTION: In New York, apparently, the North Koreans are looking for more food commitments before they commit to the four-party talks. Is that something the United States can make any more commitments on?

MR. BURNS: I think the United States has done what it can in committing to $25 million in food aid. I'm not aware of any initiative within the State Department or the U.S. government to try to see if we would ratchet that up.

We've also said very clearly, we don't believe it is wise to link questions of food delivery with political questions, like whether or not we're going to have a peace treaty to end the Korean War. Now, yesterday, Chuck Kartman, our negotiator, reported to you that he had found encouraging progress in his day-long talks with the South Koreans and the North Koreans. They'll meet again tomorrow on a trilateral basis in New York. We, of course, hope that at the end of the day tomorrow, we'll be able to say that the North Koreans and the South Koreans and the United States have agreed, along with China, to four-party talks. We hope we can get there, but I can't predict that. We'll have to see where we are.

I understand that after the trilateral meeting, probably on Saturday, there'll be a bilateral meeting between the United States and North Korea to discuss the MIA issue, the agreed framework, to discuss the possible opening of liaison offices in each other's capitals. Today, I think there are some informal working-level conversations underway among the three countries, but Chuck Kartman is testifying before Congress here in Washington. That's the reason why -- one of the reasons why the talks couldn't continue today in New York. So we're hopeful that the talks might be successful, but it's never over until it's finally over. So we have to be a little bit skeptical until we get to the end.

QUESTION: It is a generally known fact that North Koreans are suffering from food shortages. However, Mr. Son Song Pir, who is North Korean Ambassador to Moscow, said yesterday there is no food crisis whatsoever in North Korea at all.

MR. BURNS: He must be misinformed.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: Because we have heard directly from North Korean government officials that there is a food shortage. That's what they said at the United Nations and that's what they've said at the United States. So I can't explain adequately the reasons for this very curious statement out of the North Korean Minister to Moscow.

QUESTION: Officially he's an ambassador saying - announced in front of - you know --

MR. BURNS: That statement is at complete variance with everything else the North Koreans have told us. We actually believe, based on what the United Nations tells us, what visiting congressmen have told us, that there is a food crisis and a worsening food crisis in North Korea.

QUESTION: Nick, do you have any information now, or any reaction to the Honduran decision on the Haitian extradition?

MR. BURNS: Yes, I do. I looked into this. This is about Michel Francois. We are very disappointed by the decision of the Honduran judge, but I understand that an appeal to that decision is underway and we will certainly use all the legal means available to us to insist that this is the correct action, extradition of Michel Francois.

Let's just review who he is. This is a bad guy. Michel Francois was head of the Haitian police during the period of a military dictatorship. He is wanted in the United States on drug trafficking charges that date from this period. He was arrested by Honduran authorities in early March, and he has remained in their custody since then. This is a very bad guy. He was involved in narcotics.

He was a major abuser of the human rights of the Haitian people.

He does not deserve to go off scot-free.

Now, there is a judicial process underway in Honduras. We respect that process. That process in independent, as it should be.

But there is an appeal underway. We are hopeful that that appeal with overturn this decision and that Michel Francois will face justice as he should face justice. That is our position.

QUESTION: Correct me if I'm wrong, Nick, but the time to mete justice out to Michel Francois was when the U.S. was preparing to invade Haiti, but instead you allowed him to leave along with the other so-called bad guys, so what is this all about?

MR. BURNS: What it's all about is that since he left a lot of evidence has arisen that shows that he was up to his eyeballs in narcotics trafficking. On that basis we seek his extradition for prosecution in the United States.

I just remind you, Sid, that in September 1994, we kicked the dictators out of Haiti. We put American troops in there to stabilize the situation; and the Haitians have now had a couple of elections.

Now, it's a very highly imperfect situation in Haiti, and they have a lot of problems. But the Haitian people are surely a lot better off now than they were when Michel Francois was running the show.

QUESTION: Doesn't that draw into question the wisdom of your decision to let these guys go to avoid any sort of -- to allow for an easy entry -

MR. BURNS: Hindsight is perfect. Hindsight's always 20/20. I think the President, obviously, made the right decision in putting American troops in, and insisting upon the ouster of the dictators who ran Haiti.

I think if you look -- any objective look at our policy in Haiti would say that we fundamentally improved that situation for the better. The Haitian people are better off. I can't say we're perfect, Sid. We're not perfect. We do sometimes make mistakes. But on a strategic balance, the United States has succeeded in its policy in Haiti. The Haitian people, more importantly, have succeeded because these dictators like Michel Francois are now on the run internationally, trying to avoid justice and they're not running the show in Port-au-Prince. That's a very good thing.

I just want to defend our policy here, and I think you ought to see it in this light, in a strategic light.

QUESTION: What other so-called dictators, are on the run?

MR. BURNS: Pardon?

QUESTION: What other so-called dictators are on the run?

I think they're living pretty cushy lives in places you allowed them to go.

MR. BURNS: Oh, no. There are some - I can't tell you what Cedras is doing right now, but a number of people are on the run and Michel Francois is one of them. That's a very good thing. He should sweat a little bit, and he should worry about what is going to happen when he faces justice.

Howard?

QUESTION: Zaire. About a week after the Clinton Administration announced that the era of Mobutuism was over, it seems, coincidentally enough, that a company from Hope, Arkansas, is the first to sign a mining contract with the rebels. And other American companies -

MR. BURNS: With the rebels?

QUESTION: Other American companies are jockeying for a position to get in on it also. The question is, is this as it should be? I mean, I know you want a democratic transition and there hasn't been one yet. Is that how the game is played?

MR. BURNS: What's that, Howard?

QUESTION: Well, signing contracts with the rebels.

MR. BURNS: Well, as far as I know, Howard, the rebels are people. They are Zairian citizens. Do they have a constitutional right to sign a contract with a foreign country? I would say, yes. Does an American firm have a right to do business with individuals within Zaire? I would say, yes.

Our primary concern for American business representatives in Zaire is their personal safety in a country that is divided by civil war. That's our primary concern. Obviously we want American companies to obey the laws of any country in which they are living or working. I can't speak to these contracts. I read the newspaper article that you've read. I don't have independent information on them, so I can't speak to that particular question.

I would say safety is our biggest concern right now. Secondly, I understand the South Africans have indicated today that Kabila and Mobutu may have a chance in meeting in South Africa. That's a very good thing. We hope that hastens the end of the era of

Mobutuism because that was the era of a dictator. Now we think the era of democracy has arrived in Central Africa. That is what we want to see happen.

QUESTION: Back to the Middle East for a second on the closures and the fact that Har Homa - I was talking with someone out there yesterday. The bulldozers continue, and at this critical moment, in trying to get the peace process going again, Israel has closed the entire West Bank again. Is there any concern here about that?

MR. BURNS: You know, from time to time for security reasons, the Israeli government has effected a closure of one degree or another. Security has to be paramount in the minds of both Israelis and Palestinians. Now, I can't tell you what the justification was because I didn't see the words of the Israeli government.

I would refer you to the Israeli government to answer the question that you've asked.

We do hope that the Israelis and Palestinians can continue to work together to thwart any possible terrorist attempts and to make sure that security is provided for, for all the Palestinians and Israelis who live in that region.

Yes.

QUESTION: On, Okinawa, do you have any reaction to the legislation that was passed in Japan allowing the Prime Minister to extend the lease in Okinawa? And also, can you comment on the meeting today with Ota and Kartman?

MR. BURNS: Yes, well, we're very - obviously we're very pleased that the United States military will be remaining in Okinawa.

We want to be a good guest there. Our military is very sensitive to that after all these - some of these tragic incidents of the last couple of years. We do negotiate on that basis with the Japanese government.

As for Governor Ota, he is here in Washington. He has been meeting with a number of people here at the State Department and others around town. I think he is going to see Chuck Kartman. He is going to see Kurt Campbell, our deputy assistant secretary of defense. And we are very pleased to have these discussions with him because he is an important individual. As I said, we want to be a good guest in Okinawa. I think we have worked out now, over the last two years with the Japanese government in Tokyo a good series of arrangements, a very effective series of arrangements than can make sure that all of us understand what the rights and responsibilities of the U.S. military forces are.

We are there, of course, in Japan, at the invitation of the Japanese government to help defend Japan as part of our Alliance commitments.

I think that is a very important point to remember.

Yes, Yasmine.

QUESTION: The UN Security Council yesterday failed to support the U.S. position on the violation of sanctions on Iraq, about the pilgrimage to Mecca. Do you have any reactions?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we were very disappointed in that decision, as you can imagine. The United States had a lot of problems with what we thought was a violation by Iraq of the Security Council resolutions, an unauthorized flight.

The interesting thing was about how the United Nations worked, most of the members agreed with us. But the presidential statement was based on the ideal of consensus by all members. We think it's up to the Sanctions committee to determine what is permissible under UN resolutions and what is not. We don't think that Iraq has the ability to answer that question.

I think the UN spoke in a very clear voice yesterday. Despite the fact it didn't find that Iraq was in violation, it did say that Iraq doesn't have the right to determine if it was in violation.

That's only for the UN. I think that is a point in favor of the position of the United States.

So the last thing I want to say is that we do support and respect the rights of Muslims to make the Hajj, which is one of their religious obligations - lifetime religious obligations. There are ways for Iraqi Muslims to travel to Saudi Arabia overland, and other arrangements can be made. But the Iraqi government ought not to take the risky measure of putting people up in an aircraft that has not been cleared by the flight traffic controllers in neighboring countries and that we believe is clearly in violation of the UN sanctions. That's our very clear position on that.

Thank you very much.

(The briefing concluded at 1:47 p.m.)

(###)

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