U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #66, 97-04-30
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
838
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, April 30, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Foreign Policy Town Meetings in Tucson and San Antonio
1 TAJIKISTAN: US condemns terrorist attack on President Rahmonov
1 Secretary Albright met this morning with Spain Foreign Minister
Matutes
ZAIRE
1-2 Ambassador Richardson's meetings with Mobutu, Kabila; visit to
refugee camps
2,7-8 --Richardson's message, next steps, travel plans
2-5 Refugees: Access; UN investigation of alleged massacre by rebels
3 --Kabila response re possible rebel soldier involvement in
massacres
3 --Potential for sanctions against rebel alliance in response to
massacres
2 Kabila clarification of 60-day "limit" for refugee repatriation
2 Status of Mobutu-Kabila meeting
3-7 US assessment of government transition, Kabila, democracy in
Zaire; US contacts w/ political leaders
3-4,8-9 Numbers of Americans in Zaire
8 Role of Angola, other nations, in conflict
SOUTH KOREA
8 American citizen arrested; US consular assistance
CYPRUS
9 Renewed UN effort to resolve Cyprus problem; US efforts
TURKEY
9-10,13 US relations with Turkish leaders, view of current internal
problems
IRAQ
10 UN Sanctions: Request for increase in oil sales under UN Res 986
BELARUS
10-13 Former Amb. David Swartz claim that NSC expedited agricultural
assistance
11-12 US decision to provide food assistance; support for
de-nuclearization, democratic reform
SPAIN
13 Readout of Secretary Albright mtg w/ Foreign Minister Matutes
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #66
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30,1997 12:26 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Okay, welcome back. I have a couple of things to announce
before we go to questions. First is that we're proceeding with our schedule
of town meetings. We had a foreign policy town meeting in Seattle,
Washington, yesterday. We have one coming up in Tucson, and we also have a
town meeting in San Antonio, Texas, on May 7th of this year. The World
Affairs Council of San Antonio and the State Department will cosponsor it.
Jeff Bader, our Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs,
our resident expert in Chinese affairs will be there, as will Judith
Johnson, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs,
along with John Sammis, who's a member of the policy planning staff. That's
May 7, 1997.
I do have a statement today on Tajikistan. The State Department condemns
the terrorist attack on Tajikistan's President Rahmonov and other
government officials that took place in the northern city of Khojend today.
At approximately 11:00 a.m. Tajikistan's local time, a hand grenade was
thrown at President Rahmonov's car as he was on his way to a public
appearance. We're very pleased that the president was apparently not
seriously injured in this attack. But we do want to express our condolences
to the families of the victims and to those who were injured.
This attack was condemned by opposition leaders in Tajikistan. We see no
reason why this incident should have any detrimental effect on the peace
negotiations in Tajikistan. The inter-Tajik negotiations have come a long
way. They now stand on the threshold of a successful national reconciliation.
It is important that both sides allow that commitment, their commitment to
the peace process to continue and not allow any diversions to deflect
them from the path to peace that they have embarked upon.
Finally, I just want to let you know the Secretary met with Spanish Foreign
Minister Matutes this morning. As you know, Prime Minister Aznar is here;
in fact, is over at the White House, meeting with the President right now.
They had a very good breakfast meeting. They covered a full range of issues
on our agenda. The President was looking forward to his meeting with Prime
Minister Aznar.
Other than that, I think that's all I've got, George.
QUESTION: What do you have on Ambassador Richardson's activities?
MR. BURNS: Well, Ambassador Richardson is meeting at this hour with
President Mobutu in Kinshasa. As you know, he's had a series of meetings.
He met with President Mobutu yesterday in Kinshasa. He met with Minister
Kabila in Lubumbashi. This morning Ambassador Richardson traveled to
Kisangani, where he visited the refugee camps and talked to the relief
officials there. He's now returned to Kinshasa and is meeting with
President Mobutu. His basic message in all of these meetings, on the
political side, has been to urge the government of President Mobutu to
agree to a cease-fire and to agree to political reconciliation talks
that might pave the way for a peaceful transition in Zaire.
In addition to that, Ambassador Richardson has spoken privately to Mr.
Kabila about the very serious concern we have over the plight of the nearly
100,000 Rwandan Hutu refugees up in Kisangani. In that respect, we have
urged the rebel alliance to allow the United Nations relief teams access to
those refugees, and to allow those refugees to be transported to safety in
Rwanda. Similarly, we have very grave concerns about the persistent
allegations of mass atrocities in Kisangani, in and near Kisangani, the
credible and persistent reports from the refugees that those atrocities
have taken place.
Now, we understand that the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Mr.
Garreton, who was to have arrived in Kisangani to investigate these reports
-- we understand that his team has been blocked from entering into Zaire.
We believe that the United Nations should be able to investigate these
reports, and we believe that justice must be done. Therefore, the U.N.
should be allowed on the scene to interview the refugees who have reports,
or who themselves suffered from retribution by soldiers, and a full
accounting of these massacres must be written by the United Nations. That
is very, very important. Ambassador Richardson has made a big deal
of this on his current trip.
Now, Mr. Kabila did indicate to Ambassador Richardson that the so-called 60-
day time limit that Kabila set on the repatriation of the Rwandan Hutu
refugees was not, in fact, a firm limit. It was a goal, not a deadline. Mr.
Kabila said that he would be prepared to extend the time frame if a good
faith repatriation effort is underway. We hope that is the case. We hope
there will be some flexibility here because it is not the fault of the
United Nations that these refugees have not been repatriated. It is the
fault of those who control Kisangani and who block access to the refugees.
That, I think, has to be put in that light.
Mrs. Ogata, who, of course, leads the U.N. High Commission for Refugees,
that office, is in Washington today. She is talking to Assistant Secretary
Phyllis Oakley and Assistant Secretary George Moose. We continue to be
deeply concerned about all of these problems affecting the refugees, and we
give our full support to the United Nations, including our financial
support to help these people.
So I think Ambassador Richardson is off to a good start on his trip. It
remains to be seen whether it is going to be possible for Mr. Mobutu and
Mr. Kabila to meet. They have been going back and forth on whether they
would meet and where they would meet. Bill Richardson is working on that.
That is a very tough nut to crack at this point, and I don't know what the
results of his meeting with President Mobutu will be. So we will just have
to stay tuned to that.
QUESTION: Nick, can you get more specific on who is blocking the U.N.
investigating team? And is it time for the U.S. and others to raise the
prospect of sanctions against those who bear responsibility for the
massacres?
MR. BURNS: Well, first, we think that the people who control the area in
fact, the rebel alliance, the soldiers there, are the ones who have blocked
at least temporarily we hope -- we hope only temporarily - the investigative
team from coming in. This team has a humanitarian mission to perform. It
must try to uncover those who are responsible for the deaths of the
refugees, the massacre of refugees over the last several days.
We are working with Mr. Kabila and his associates to get the team in as
soon as possible. I think what is stake here is the credibility of the
alliance - the rebel alliance, those who say they want to take over Zaire.
It is their credibility that is at stake. They are in control of a
substantial amount of the territory of Zaire and they must be held
accountable for what happens on that territory. Now, I'm not saying that
Mr. Kabila is personally guilty or personally responsible for what has
happened. In fact, what he has said today - and I think this is very
helpful - he said that soldiers should not mistreat the refugees, that he
will punish severely any soldiers who are found to have mistreated the
refugees in any way, and that is positive.
We hope that those actions will translate - excuse me, those words will
translate into actions. I think it's too early to talk about sanctions,
especially, Howard, sanctions on a rebel army that is moving quite fast. We
have to wait and see what happens in Zaire. But the United States has lent
its voice very urgently to this humanitarian crisis, and we are on the side
of the refugees. We want the refugees to be protected.
QUESTION: The issue came up a week or two ago about the number of
companies, including many American firms, who were flocking to sign
business deals with the rebels, Pat Robertson, apparently being the latest.
Is that an avenue that the U.S. can use, cutting off such access? I mean,
is there any leverage there?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think it might be a little precipitous in this sense.
There is a government in Zaire, and that government is not comprised of the
rebel alliance. Zaire is in a state of civil war. It remains to be seen who
will eventually lead a new government of Zaire.
We hope that that transition is peaceful, and we hope that it is stable. In
the meantime, we urge American citizens, for their own safety, not to
travel to Zaire - certainly not to go out into regional cities where there
is fighting and a lot of instability and land mines. I think these American
companies ought to just wait and see what happens in Zaire before making
any long-term commitments because that could be quite risky to them,
certainly to their corporations. But also just risky to the people
they send in there personally. We do not advise American citizens
to travel to Zaire. It is a war zone. Betsy.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have any updated count of the number of Americans
who are left in Zaire?
MR. BURNS: I don't have one at this very moment. But I bet we can get one
in about five minutes. Christopher (Bush), could you just call the Africa
Bureau? We had statistics last week, numbers last week. I think it's
several hundred.
QUESTION: Well, I wondered if it had gone down.
MR. BURNS: Why don't we just call the Africa Bureau and see if we can get
that, Chris, if you wouldn't mind? Well, get it by the end of the briefing.
Yes.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, what you were saying is that Kabila cannot
hope to accede to any leadership position in Zaire unless these allegations
of atrocities are cleared up?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's going to be -- the United States, France, South
Africa, the United Nations is not probably going to control who becomes the
next leader of Zaire. That is going to be decided by Zairians. We hope that
that process is through negotiations and not through a civil war, not
through fighting.
QUESTION: We can't hope to control who the next leader is. We hope the
next leader is a democrat who will set elections for the country and allow
the people to determine the future of the country. What is at stake for him,
if he does become the next leader of Zaire - if he does - is his credibility.
There have been reports of massacres. There has certainly been mistreatment
of the refugees. There have been innumerable delays in getting permission
for the U.N. to take the refugees out of the country. This is very serious
because people have died as a result of these actions and inactions. So
that is what is at stake here for the alliance in general.
Now, I do want to call attention to the positive public statements of Mr.
Kabila today that he will severely punish soldiers found to be implicated
in the massacres, and that he does want to be flexible in this so-called
deadline for U.N. action in Kisangani. It is simply not appropriate for him
or anyone else to set deadlines on the United Nations, when the United
Nations wants to get in but is being prevented from getting in. That
doesn't make much sense.
QUESTION: A follow - has Mr. Kabila acknowledged that massacres have
taken place, first of all? And does he assert that he is in control of all
of these forces? Or does he say that he is not?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, I am just not aware of everything that
he may have said or hasn't said over the last 24 hours publicly. I do know
in the meeting with Ambassador Richardson that he accepts the fact that
there have been some at least very credible reports of massacres. There is
physical evidence on the refugees themselves, those who have survived the
machete attacks over the weekend, and that this needs to be looked into. He
accepts that.
As for his own control over the territory, it stands to reason that if this
is a cohesive alliance that seeks to take over the country, and if they
control more than half the country, they are responsible for what happens
in the areas under their control. If they have taken over control of
Kisangani from the government, well, they are responsible for what happens
in Kisangani. What has happened is that the refugees have been left
unattended. They have been denied international assistance - medical and
flight evacuation. Over the weekend, several thousands of refugees
were subjected to vicious machete attacks, and that is what needs
to be investigated by the United Nations.
QUESTION: Conceding that the U.S. has very little control over events on
the ground in Zaire, are there any questions in policymakers' minds about
whether it is wise to try to ease a transition of power? Conceding also
that Mobutu's regime was not the best, aren't there indications that Mr.
Kabila, having supported - having permitted atrocities to occur in the area
under his control and having prevented, or having allowed his aides to
prevent UN officials from investigating them - this is a long sentence,
isn't it?
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: I'm following it, though. I still follow it.
QUESTION: But you're following it?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Good.
MR. BURNS: I'm very patient. I'll wait till the end of the sentence.
QUESTION: Well, is there - are there any questions in policymakers' minds
about whether it's right to ease the transition in any way towards a regime
headed by Mr. Kabila?
MR. BURNS: There are no good options here for all the countries that are
looking into Zaire - South Africa, the European countries, the United
States, the United Nations. We must accept reality.
Reality is that Zaire is a country that has been torn apart by civil war.
The institutions of the Mobutu regime no longer have any credibility. They
are crumbling before the eyes of Zaire and all of our eyes. The government
is not carrying on its responsibilities to protect its own citizens. More
than half of the territory of the country has been taken over in a civil
war by a rebel alliance.
It is not an option to support the status quo for the United States. It's
not an option to support dictatorship. This has not been a sudden decision
by the United States. For the life of this Administration and even into the
end of the Bush Administration, the United States had basically made the
calculation - and had communicated this - that the Mobutu regime was
nearing an end. It's clearly on its last legs.
Now, we don't control Mr. Kabila. We have not been particularly close to
him in the past. We have had a lot of diplomatic contact with him, recently,
and we will continue that. It is in our interest to have diplomatic
contact.
He has been many things in the past. He has never led a government. He has
led guerrilla movements. He has taken Americans and others hostage in the
1970s, which is a despicable thing to do. We hope that if he does govern -
and that's a question that we can't answer - that he governs on democratic
principles, and that he leads the country through elections to a democratic
future.
That, I think, is the standard by which we hold any elected leader or
appointed leader or anyone who takes control of Zaire by other means. We
will hold them to that standard and to speak about a democratic future in
Zaire is not farfetched. If democracy can take root in South Africa, in
Russian, in El Salvador, if the war was ended in Cambodia, then certainly
peace can come to Zaire. That ought to be the international objective for
Zaire, and it ought to be the objective for all Zairians. That is our hope
for Zaire.
But in the meantime, we are just going to try to use our influence as we
can to promote a stable transition, a cease-fire and end of the killing. I
think all of us can work to protect the refugees. We owe them that. They
are defenseless.
Mrs. Ogata has been a sterling leader, and Secretary General Kofi Annan has,
I think, displayed great moral leadership in denouncing the injustices
committed against the refugees. We fully support the United Nations, and we
will continue to do that. That is the message that Mr. Kabila and Mr.
Mobutu are both hearing on that score.
QUESTION: Can I follow?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, Nick. From Mr. Richardson's discussions with Mr. Kabila,
does the United States now have a better understanding of why the refugees,
these defenseless Rwandan people, are being persecuted? Why they are being
attacked? This started back, I think, in the Summer when the camps were
scattered by attacks by the rebels. Do we have - do we understand what's
happening?
MR. BURNS: Bill, I think what's happened in Central Africa for the last
three years is ethnic violence -- ethnic differences trying to be resolved
by violent means, which is a bad idea and to horrific ends if you looked at
the genocide of 1994 and if look at the terrible attacks on the Rwandan
Hutus now.
QUESTION: These are ethnic persecutions, you believe?
MR. BURNS: It certainly seems to be the root of it.
QUESTION: You said a while a back - a week or two ago - that you saw
nothing to indicate that Kabila had any democratic instinct. Is that an
accurate paraphrase of what you said?
MR. BURNS: I don't think it's possible for me to stand here and tell you
that I think he is a democrat. I don't think he has ever described himself
as a democrat in the past. He has had - he has followed other ideologies. I
think it's such - we all know democracy when we see it. We all know a
democrat when we see him or her, and we hope that in this transition,
democrats will emerge to lead Zaire.
But I cannot tell you that we think he is a democrat. He is a rebel leader.
He is trying to take over the country. We hope that the situation can be -
can result in a peaceful transition. That has to be the basis of our
current outlook and our current policy.
QUESTION: Nick, aren't there others within Zaire -- a Mr. Tshiskedi, if
I'm not mistaken, who have sort of formed an opposition over the years? And
admittedly, they don't have an army behind them, but is the U.S. doing
anything to reach out to them at this point?
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Simpson, our ambassador in Zaire knows all the
political leaders, those who are in power, those who are out of power. We
are in touch with all of them. We are in touch with President Mobutu. We
are in touch with Tshisekedi. We are in touch with a variety of parliamentary
leaders in Kinshasa, and we have an embassy officer in Goma whose main
responsibility is to be in touch with the rebel alliance.
Dick Bogosian, our very fine special negotiator based here in Washington,
has been in touch by satellite phone with Mr. Kabila just in the last
couple of days. Bill Richardson has met with him. So all of our tentacles
are out, and all of our avenues of communication are out. We will be in
touch with all of these people. That makes sense, given the fact that Zaire
is in the middle of a dynamic transition and a very unstable one with
disastrous consequences for its people.
We are not going to side with any of these political leaders. We are not
going to anoint any of these political leaders with an American imprimatur.
We are going to stand by and hope that democrats emerge. If democrats
emerge, we will support those people. Betsy.
QUESTION: Nick, do you know when Richardson is going to leave Zaire?
MR. BURNS: When?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: He hasn't made any distinct plans right now. He is engaging in
shuttle diplomacy. So he is making those decisions probably on a quarter or
a half-day basis. He had his - he's in his third meeting with President
Mobutu now. There is a possibility that there could be some travel to
neighboring countries.
I know he was interested in seeing if he could travel to Angola, mainly to
warn the Angolans that they ought to stay out of the Zairian civil war.
That is true, we think, of all nine of Zaire's neighbors. They ought to say
out and not contribute to the chaos.
QUESTION: Another area?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: North Korea.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on a U.S. executive who has been arrested
there?
MR. BURNS: In North Korea?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. BURNS: No, no.
QUESTION: South Korea.
MR. BURNS: In South Korea, yes. I saw a report that there had been an
American arrested in South Korea. I understand that we have not obtained a
Privacy Act waiver from the American citizen. Without that waiver, I am not
at liberty, under our law, to provide you with his name or the circumstances
of his arrest.
But you can be assured that our embassy in Seoul is following this case. We
have an obligation to this individual to try to advise him of his rights
and to provide all necessary consular assistance to him. But perhaps we
will try again tomorrow. But until he gives us that waiver, we can't talk
about it.
Let me just go back to Betsy's question , and Chris (Bush), thank you for
getting this, I understand that as of today there are 49 official Americans
or American diplomats resident in Kinshasa and roughly 400 private
Americans in Zaire. That totals 449 roughly, Americans.
As you know, we look at the situation of the Americans on a daily basis.
Secretary Albright has asked Under Secretary of State Pat Kennedy to do
that. He reports to her on a daily basis about the security situation in
Kinshasa. We will be very conservative in protecting our people. I mean
conservative. I mean we will watch this very closely, and we will take all
due precautions with our own people. It does make sense to have American
diplomats there now represent our interests with these variety of
politicians who are angling for power and to protect and to represent
the American citizens who are still there.
But our very, very strong advice to the American public is not to travel to
Zaire if you are considering travel. If American citizens are in Zaire, our
very strong advice for them is to leave Zaire. There are commercial flights
out of Kinshasa. There is river traffic across the river to Brazzaville in
Congo. They ought to take advantage of that because Zaire is an unpredictable
country right now. We don't know which way the civil war is going to
turn. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Mr. Kofi Annan, the General Secretary of United Nations, made
this statement and said that he is trying to bring two Cypriot leaders
together on the 1st of June. Are you supporting that accords?
MR. BURNS: We absolutely support the efforts of Secretary General Annan
and to his special representatives who have been working very hard on the
Cyprus problem. We hope very much that the leaders of the two communities
in Cyprus will agree to talk. We believe there should be a settlement of
the problems on Cyprus. We are very encouraged that there may be this
incremental step forward. We would call it progress in diplomatic
terms.
We have been very emphatic, publicly as well as privately, that Ambassador
Ken Brill is available to be of assistance to the Cyprus government, to the
Turkish community in northern Cyprus. We work hard through Ambassador Niles
and Ambassador Grossman in Athens and Ankara. Secretary Albright has a
special interest in Cyprus, in the Eastern Mediterranean, and we want to be
of help. But we certainly will be the first to congratulate the United
Nations if something good comes from these talks.
QUESTION: Turkey. You were recorded by the Dutch media as saying that the
only leader we trust in Turkey is President Demirel and I know you said
later you didn't make such a statement. But could you clarify your position
on President Demirel?
MR. BURNS: I would be very glad to do that.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. want to see him play a new role?
MR. BURNS: That's the second time I was misquoted today. You know, I have
generally been very well treated by the press corps in my two and a half
years here, but here is an example where I am just really - I am just
puzzled. You all heard what I said on the record yesterday about the
situation in Turkey and in our background session afterwards, of course, we
can't reveal what was said but I will reveal - I will make an exception
and just say that I never said anything like this.
I talked to Ambassador Grossman this morning. What he and I have been
saying publicly is that we hope very much that the Turkish political
leaders will be able to resolve Turkey's problems in a democratic fashion.
We have great faith in the secular democratic foundation of modern Turkey
since Ataturk took over in the 1920s. Turkey is an ally and a friend of the
United States. We wish it well. But that is all we have said.
I have never made a statement of the type, Yasmine, that you quoted. I know
it is not your quotation. You are just reporting it. I know it was reported
on Turkish television last night. I have just never said it. I wouldn't say
it. It doesn't reflect U.S. policy and I am very disturbed that there could
have been such a miscommunication on such an important issue at such an
important time for Turkey. Yes.
QUESTION: Earlier this week, Mr. Al-Anbari, an Iraqi envoy, told a
conference on sanctions that the U.N. should at least double the oil for
food sales because the Iraqis are not getting enough revenue to buy food
and medicine. What is the U.S. position on this?
MR. BURNS: Our position is that we think that the U.N. Resolution 986 is
being implemented faithfully by the United Nations; that the general terms
of the deal that were arranged up in New York are good, they are satisfactory.
If there is any reason to adjust the volume of oil or the volume of food
going into Iraq, the food going into Iraq, the oil going out, that decision
has to be made up at the United Nations. The United States has an
imperative, and that is we want to help the Iraqi people who have suffered
under Saddam Hussein. That is why we sponsored the resolution. It was our
idea.
The Iraqi regime has a lot to be responsible for here. They have to be held
accountable for the millions of dollars spent by Saddam Hussein and his
family on their own personal pleasure - the houses, the mansions they have
constructed for themselves. If the Iraqi government and if Mr. Al-Anbari
truly want to help the Iraqi people, they should stop threatening their
neighbors; they should stop pouring millions or billions of dollars into
their military hardware in a vain attempt to recreate their former military
power; they should stop the money going to overseas bank accounts of
senior Iraqi government officials.
If they really want to help the suffering Iraqis, they should take the
revenues that the Iraqi state has and direct them to helping ordinary
Iraqis. You know, they have a budget that is all out of whack. It goes to
the clan from Tikriti, the Saddam Hussein clan, and it goes to the
military. The only people helping the civilians in Iraq are the United
Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and the other members of the
United Nations. So I think we have to put the responsibility where it
deserves to be put.
QUESTION: So I take it from that answer the U.S. has no plans at this
time to seek modification of the -
MR. BURNS: I said that's an issue for the United Nations to decide. The
United States will participate in any fair discussion of any problems
associated with the implementation of U.N. Resolution 986. We think it has
been implemented effectively. But we certainly want to see the Iraqi people
get the food and medical assistance that they deserve. We don't have any
argument with the Iraqi people. We want to see them helped, but their
government is not sensitive to their needs and is not serving their
needs.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have any response to the charges made by retired
Ambassador David Swartz that in '93 you helped expedite aid to hard-liners
in Belarus?
MR. BURNS: Well, as I read the article this morning, I thought to myself
there is good news and there is bad news about this article. The good news
is that Bill Gertz finally wrote an article that is not based on a leak of
highly classified intelligence. I thought that was the good news. The bad
news is that the story that you wrote is a total fabrication. It is not
only false, it's malicious; and frankly, it is needlessly malicious.
Let me just tell you a little bit about the Clinton Administration's
foreign policy towards Belarus. I had the great honor to carry out
faithfully the policies of two Presidents towards Belarus for five years
when I was at the National Security Council. I served for three years under
President Bush, a Republican, and two years under President Clinton, a
Democrat. I worked very well with both Republican and Democratic officials
during those years. The particular decision in your false article this
morning had to do with the decision by President Clinton to provide food
assistance to Belarus in 1993.
That decision, which was based on a request from the government of Prime
Minister Shushkyevitch -- excuse me, President Shushkyevitch, was a
decision that was looked at by the Agriculture Department, the State
Department, the Treasury Department and the National Security Council. The
decision to go forward with the food aid was made by the President,
following the advice of all those cabinet secretaries.
As a National Security Council official, I carried that policy out
faithfully, I supported it personally, and I carried it out. The State
Department was not only fully involved, they were one of the authors.
During those years I was joined at the hip with the State Department and
worked very effectively with the State Department.
I would respectfully submit that anybody interested in this issue ought to
judge the Clinton Administration; and if you want to judge me, Bill, judge
me and this Administration by what we accomplish in Belarus. The overriding
national security interest of the United States in 1991 and 2 and 3 was to
convince the Belarusian leadership to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.
That was in our national security interest, supported on a bipartisan basis,
both houses of Congress, both political parties. We did that.
President Clinton was able to convince the Belarusian leadership, President
Shushkyevitch, to give up their nuclear weapons, to transport the nuclear
warheads back to Russia where they had been destroyed. That was a
significant foreign policy accomplishment of this administration.
Everything that we did in those years with Belarus was oriented towards
that result. I don't think you can argue with that success. I think that,
in fact, the fact that Belarus and Ukraine and Kazakstan chose to get rid
of their nuclear weapons was probably one of the most significant
accomplishments of American foreign policy since the destruction of the
Soviet Union in 1991, and it was my great honor to be associated with
that policy.
I feel very proud of the record of the Bush Administration towards Belarus
and the Clinton Administration. I am very proud of my service on the
National Security Council and I am going to stand by that.
Now, Bill, you included some very harsh personal attacks on me in that
article. I was surprised by that because Mr. Swartz has never been good
enough to address any of those to me personally. But I'll tell you what,
I'm not going to respond to those attacks because that would be uncivilized.
That would be ungentlemanly and I am a gentleman. I am just not going to
respond to those kinds of gratuitous, unfair attacks.
QUESTION: Well, on the policy, you did mention that the policy back then
was to support democratic reform but, basically, what you are saying here
is that the policy was not to support democratic reform but to get Belarus
to get rid of its nuclear weapons. And since Belarus has basically
abandoned democracy, are you still saying that the policy was successful?
MR. BURNS: Bill, you ought to do your homework better before you write
malicious articles. Let me tell you that the policy of this administration
and the Bush administration was to support democratic reformers in Belarus.
The only person who has emerged as a democratic leader in that country over
the last five and a half years was Shushkyevitch, and we supported
Sushkyevitch wholeheartedly. In fact, President Clinton invited him to
the White House in July of 1993.
When President Sushkyevitch came, do you know what he brought with him? He
brought with him the instruments of ratification of Belarus to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty, and in the Cabinet Room he handed over those
instruments to President Clinton. That was one of the greatest days for our
country's foreign policy towards Belarus because it meant that Belarus was
giving up its nuclear weapons which posed a threat to the American people
because the nuclear weapons in that country had been trained on the
American people.
All of our efforts were to support the democrats in Belarus. What has
happened in Belarus since then? President Sushkyevitch did not survive
politically, much to our disappointment because we supported him. Who has
taken his place? An authoritarian figure, Mr. Lukashenko, whom we regularly
have criticized. In fact, Bill, if you had been at my briefing yesterday
you would have heard a very sharp criticism of Mr. Lukashenko because
President Clinton in his foreign policy has never supported communists or
neo-communists. We support democrats.
QUESTION: You didn't really answer the question.
MR. BURNS: I answered your question fairly and directly, sir, and you
probably don't deserve much more of an answer than that.
QUESTION: There was an allegation in here, Nick, that says that the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating you. Are you aware of
any such - or is that false or do they have any cause to investigate you if
you weren't a candidate for an ambassadorial office?
MR. BURNS: Bill, it has been my great - it is my great pleasure to serve
here as spokesman of the State Department. I have not been nominated to any
other office. I am unaware of any kind of investigation.
QUESTION: May I follow up what you said on the Turkish President?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: What you are falsifying is the reported quotation, quote, that
you allegedly said Mr. Demirel was the only Turkish leader you support?
Otherwise, a couple months ago you on record said that you respect Mr.
Demirel and you go through him as the channel in certain issues. That
stands as is, isn't it?
MR. BURNS: Ugur, what I can tell you is that there was a report on
Turkish television last night - I have a copy of it - which alleges that,
you know, I said the words that you quoted. It's just not true. I have
never made such a statement. We have an excellent relationship with
President Demirel. We have a relationship with Deputy Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister Ciller, as you know. We work with Mr. Oyman. We work with
a variety of Turkish officials. We work with the general staff. We work
with the defense minister. So we work with a variety of Turkish leaders and
we'll continue to work with a variety of Turkish leaders.
I am glad that you asked this question because it is very important for the
United States position in Turkey that the Turkish people know that we have
relationships throughout the government there and that we intend to
continue them, and that our hope is that Turkey's secular democratic roots
will be maintained. Yes.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) meeting with the Spanish foreign minister this
morning.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you tell me whether they spoke about the NATO expansion and
about the Helms-Burton or any other thing?
MR. BURNS: Yeah, they discussed Spain's important role in international
peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, in Guatemala, and in Albania. They reviewed
preparations for the Madrid summit, as you would expect. They talked about
the NATO enlargement issue, about the course of the NATO-Russia charter
negotiations, and they also did include a discussion of Spain's entry into
the military structure of NATO. Now, what I expect, of course, is that
all those issues, because they are very important, are being discussed
right now at the White House by President Clinton and Prime Minister
Aznar.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:02 p.m.)
(###)
|
