U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #73, 97-05-13
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1403
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, May 13, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1-2 Welcome to Press Briefing Visitors
4-8 Gen. Qadhafi's Visit to Niger and Nigeria/Violation of UN
Sanctions
8-9 Secretary Albright Meeting with Albanian PM Fino
9 U.S. Tour of American Ambassadors to ASEAN Countries
9-10 Secretary Albright's Upcoming Travels
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
2-3 Rep. Gilman's Comments on PA Justice Minister's Threat of
Death for Selling Land to Israelis
2-4 Investigation into the Death of Palestinian Man
11 FM Levy Trip to Washington/Dennis Ross' Efforts
11-13 Possibility of Senior Level Israeli-Palestinian Meeting
NIGER
7 Libyan Complicity in 1996 Coup D'Etat
G-8 SUMMIT IN DENVER
10 Possibility of the Hong Kong Issue Being Addressed in
Denver
IRAN
10 Upcoming U.S.-EU Meeting on Iran Policy
20 Reported Oil Deal with a UK-Canada Consortium, ILSA
Violations and the WTO
ZAIRE
14-18 Ambassador Richardson's Return/Continued U.S. Diplomatic
Efforts
14-16 U.S. Position on Mobutu-Kabila Talks/UNHCR Refugee
Repatriation/Kabila as a Democrat
16-17 Update on UN Special Rapporteur Investigating Massacres
17-19 Reports of American Citizens Mistreated/Warning to
Americans in Zaire
GREECE/TURKEY
20-21 False Reports of an Agreement on Air Corridors over the
Aegean
20-21 Attack on Turkish Newspaper
NORTH KOREA
21 Update on Four Party Talks, Missile Talks, MIA Talks
SAUDI ARABIA
22-24 Pat Roush Case: Helms-Feinstein Letter to Albright/Reports
of Roush Children's Father Visting U.S./Meetings with
State Dept. Officials
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #73
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1997 1:11 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department, ladies and gentlemen. I
want to introduce and welcome ten regional newspaper and radio journalists
from Portugal, who are here with the USIA International Visitors Program.
Welcome to you. Also, I'd like to introduce the presidential press
spokesman from Sierra Leone, Mr. Septimus Kaikai, who is the press
secretary for President Kabbah of Sierra Leone. You're most welcome. He's
spending a day with us, trying to observe how we work with the American
press corps. It will be interesting to see what lessons you draw
from this. Finally, Mr. Robert Van De Roer, who is a friend of mine,
a
Dutch journalist here on business. Welcome to you.
QUESTION: Is he a Red Sox fan?
MR. BURNS: They asked if you're a Red Sox fan. Do you know about the
Red Sox?
MR. VAN DE ROER: Well, I know that they play in Fenway Park.
MR. BURNS: Excellent. Are the Red Sox famous in Holland?
Are the Red Sox famous? They're more famous than the Yankees in Holland,
right?
MR. VAN DE ROER: Yes, they are.
MR. BURNS: Excellent. See, he's getting all the right answers
already.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - Dutch-born pitcher --.
MR. BURNS: Why don't you ask him? This is a trivia question.
Which Dutch --
QUESTION: Name the Dutch-born pitcher who has won over 200 games in the
major leagues?
MR. VAN DE ROER: I don't know.
QUESTION: Can he take the question?
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: Burt Blyleven. Thank you, Barry. This is the baseball
briefing. You thought you'd come into a foreign policy briefing. We only
talk about baseball here.
QUESTION: Do you know the position on Rupert Murdoch buying the
Dodgers?
MR. BURNS: I heard that. I think, yeah, well I can't comment. Former
Secretary Christopher probably has a comment on that. I'll phone him and
see if I can share that with you tomorrow.
QUESTION: So does my father, but --
MR. BURNS: (Laughter) - doesn't sound like the right thing, does
it?
Okay, foreign policy?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Yeah.
QUESTION: Will Warren Christopher remain the legal counsel for the
Dodgers if Murdoch buys his ball team?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think what I'm going to do is phone Secretary
Christopher today in California and ask him. He is a friend of Peter
O'Malley, and he's a long-time Dodger fan, Warren Christopher. No one is
perfect; we forgave him that. I'll let you know what I find out.
QUESTION: Really what I want to ask you, is Ben Gilman, who is the
chairperson of the House International Relations Committee thinks it would
be a good idea if Yasser Arafat publicly rejected the Palestinian Justice
Minister's threat to execute any Palestinian who sells property to Jews. I
wonder, are you folks still uncertain whether there was such a threat? And
whether or not you are, what do you think of Mr. Gilman's idea?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, Barry, let me just answer this question.
I do have some statements to make today.
QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. BURNS: Let me just do this question first, since you've asked it. I
think two things need to be separated here. The first is, there's
obviously been a murder committed in Ramallah on the West Bank -- a 70-year-
old Palestinian man murdered under very suspicious circumstances. The
Palestinian and Israeli police are investigating that. That's one issue.
We need to await the results of that investigation, obviously, so that the
police can determine the motive for the killing and, we hope, apprehend
the suspects who might be prosecuted for the murder and convicted.
Secondly, we have the issue of public statements by members of the
Palestinian Authority concerning what should happen to Arabs who sell land
to Israelis. I think you know the position of the United States. We think
that everything must be done in terms of what people say and what people do
to create a climate of peace in that part of the world - in Jerusalem, in
the West Bank, in Gaza and throughout Israel -- a climate of peace where
people are free to pursue their own affairs within the law, as the
law is currently constituted. That applies to businesspeople and
it applies to politicians as well.
We would obviously be highly disturbed if it turned out that any officials
had anything to do with the murder of the official in Ramallah. But I want
to be very quick to say that has not been proven, it has not been indicated,
and the police are investigating this particular crime.
QUESTION: Are you disturbed at all, either moderately or measurably, by
the fact that Mr. Arafat has not disavowed this statement?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I don't live there. I don't have a complete set of
wire reports from that part of the world. I think just to be fair, for a
moment, I don't know what has been said by Chairman Arafat or by his
lieutenants on this affair - before the murder, after the murder. I don't
have a complete compendium of that. I think it is a fair question,
however. I do think it's a fair question.
QUESTION: You haven't been very vocal.
MR. BURNS: I do think it's a fair question.
QUESTION: And if Dennis Ross hasn't heard it --
MR. BURNS: I would be glad to --
QUESTION: -- you wonder what he's - what kind of confidence he's
building.
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to come back to the question. But since I don't
know right now, and since we haven't talked to Ed Abington about this to
know what has been said on the Palestinian side, it's unfair of me to take
up your question and to launch into criticism myself before we know what
the Palestinians have said. But I will take that question.
QUESTION: Before you leave it. There is a Palestinian National Assembly,
a quasi-parliament, a legislative body. It wouldn't require a rocket
scientist to find out if that body has passed such legislation.
MR. BURNS: No, it wouldn't require a rocket scientist, but I don't have
the information. So therefore I can't answer the question without having
the information.
QUESTION: Nick, it's hard to understand how you don't have this
information when we've been asking you all about for going on two weeks
now. What is the hold-up in getting the information?
MR. BURNS: No, Sid. No, I'm sorry. There are different issues here.
Last week, when I was not here, you asked John Dinger about some of the
public statements that have been made on this general issue. Now we have a
different scenario. We have a murder.
I don't know; you don't know; the Israeli and Palestinian police, I guess,
have not yet determined who committed that murder and for what reason.
But that is a very serious question, especially in light of some of the
public statements that have been made prior to the murder. So it is serious
issue. It is a very serious issue, and it would be irresponsible for me,
as spokesman here, to start denouncing people left and right without
knowing what they have said and what they have done. I'm not going to do
that. I'm not going to feed that beast.
QUESTION: Has Dennis Ross raised the issue with Chairman Arafat?
MR. BURNS: I will have to ask Dennis. I have talked to Dennis a couple
of times on the phone, but I have not talked to him about every issue that
he has raised. That has not come up in our conversation, whether or not he
raised the issue.
QUESTION: When --
MR. BURNS: He and I have discussed the issue generally.
But I don't know if he raised it or not.
QUESTION: After nine or ten days, you don't --
QUESTION: Could you ask him whether it has been raised and tell us
whether it has?
MR. BURNS: I think this is a serious question that Barry started off
with, and I'm glad to take it. I will commit to you that I will look into
this and try to get you as good a statement as we can make on this
tomorrow. I do need to talk to Dennis, and he is eight hours ahead of
us.
Okay, let me just make a couple of statements, and then I'll be glad to go
back to this particular question or any others. First, I wanted to take
you back to the situation last week in West Africa when Muammar Qadhafi
went on his little joy ride from Tripoli to Niamey and to Lagos. The
United States condemns the deliberate violations of the United Nations
sanctions by Libya, Niger, and Nigeria arising from Libyan leader Qadhafi's
visits last week to Niger and Nigeria.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 748 prohibits air travel between
Libya and any state except for humanitarian reasons which are approved
prior to the trip by the United Nations. This was not the case last week.
This ban on air travel, which all UN member states are obligated to carry
out, under the UN Charter, reflects the international community's shared
abhorrence of terrorism and the strong evidence of Libya's direct
involvement in the sabotage of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 and UTA
flight 772 in September 1989, which took the lives of 441 innocent people.
It is a tragic irony that the destruction of the UTA flight happened over
Niger.
Last week's visits, which were marked by careful advance preparation, can
only be construed as a conscious provocation of international opinion and
defiance of international law not only by Libya, but also by the governments
of Niger and Nigeria. Neither Nigeria nor Niger took the steps required of
them in UN Security Council Resolution 748 that would have brought them
into compliance with the law and shown their solidarity with the international
community.
This morning in the Security Council in New York, just about an hour and a
half ago, our Ambassador Bill Richardson raised this issue in the Security
Council. He demanded that the UN Sanctions Committee look at this issue,
submit a report to the Security Council, and, we hope, condemn the actions
of Libya, Niger and Nigeria. He was supported by many other members of the
Security Council. The issue has now been given to the Sanctions Committee
for a full investigation. The United States hopes that there will be a
full condemnation by the United Nations Security Council of this action.
Now, Qadhafi, in his joy ride last week, may have had a lot of fun breaking
out of Libya for the first time in a long, long time.
But that is going to be short-lived, because what we hope will happen
internationally is that the UN condemnation that he deserves - and that
Niger and Nigeria deserve - will lead to a strengthening of the commitment
by the United Nations to maintain the sanctions on Libya until Libya turns
over the two suspects - Libyan security agents, currently living freely in
Libya - who we believe planted the bomb on board Pan Am 103 that killed all
those people nine years ago.
We haven't forgotten those people. We haven't forgotten the passengers of
the UTA flight, including the wife of our ambassador to Chad, Bonnie Pugh.
We won't forget them until Libya turns these people over to justice in the
United Kingdom or in the United States.
The United States remembers. We have a long memory, and our memory of Mr.
Qadhafi's action has not dimmed in any way.
QUESTION: So you're not going for sanctions?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: You're going for words.
MR. BURNS: We already have sanctions.
QUESTION: No, no. When this --
MR. BURNS: We already have sanctions on Libya.
QUESTION: When this report surfaced, the spokesperson said that if this
turns out to be true, the United States will consider asking for sanctions
to be imposed - new sanctions. We don't have sanctions against Niger and
Nigeria.
MR. BURNS: I was the spokesman last week.
QUESTION: I don't think you were the day --
MR. BURNS: Yes, I was, when this happened.
QUESTION: Well, maybe you were. But the issue --
MR. BURNS: We already have sanctions on Libya.
QUESTION: I know that.
MR. BURNS: And we want them to be maintained.
QUESTION: Was the UN defied by Niger and Nigeria? Why aren't you asking
for sanctions against them? They permitted the plane to land and to take
off.
MR. BURNS: What Ambassador Richardson asked for this morning - there's a
procedure here, Barry.
QUESTION: Yeah - (inaudible)
MR. BURNS: No, what he asked for was the Sanctions Committee to formally
look into this affair; to interview the governments of Niger and Nigeria -
to have their side of the story. I think we know enough as a country,
because we have interviewed them -- we sent our Ambassadors in Niamey and
Lagos in to ask what happened - that not only was there complicity, there
was direct involvement. The President of Niger flew on the Libyan
plane with Qadhafi between Niamey and Lagos. Then there was a hero's
welcome for Qadhafi by the dictators in Lagos. So there's no question in
our minds what's happening.
But Barry, we belong to the United Nations, so therefore we've got to go
through the procedures. The Sanctions Committee investigates.
They interview the relevant countries here and then options are given to
the Security Council. We'll see what materializes from that.
QUESTION: What about bilaterally? Is there any --
MR. BURNS: We will see what materializes from that.
QUESTION: What is your relationship with Nigeria? Do you have an aid
program?
MR. BURNS: No, we don't. We have a difficult relationship with
Nigeria. Nigeria is a major violator of human rights. As you know, we
have a very poor relationship with Nigeria. We didn't have a great
relationship with Niger, and now that relationship's gotten a lot
worse.
So what I'd like to suggest here is that we await the action of the
Sanctions Committee, which will report back to the UN Security Council.
Then we'll see where we are. In the case of Libya, since there are already
sanctions in place, we need to reconfirm the will of the international
community to keep them in place.
In the case of Nigeria and Niger, we'll have to see what the Sanctions
Committee recommends.
QUESTION: You talk about strengthening the sanctions.
Could you be more specific?
MR. BURNS: Strengthening the commitment of the United Nations to
maintain the sanctions. Here's what I mean by that.
These sanctions, as with the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, come up for
review periodically. There are some countries around the world that every
now and then say,"the poor Libyans - they've been living under these
sanctions for a long, long time; shouldn't we take pity on them and lift
the sanctions?" The next time that happens, if some country suggests that,
the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries will be
able to point to last week's joy ride by Qadhafi - a direct violation of
the sanctions - and say, look, this guy has no respect for the United
Nations; he doesn't have any remorse for what happened - for the 441 people
who have been killed in these two terrorist incidents. We have to
reconfirm the commitment to keep them on.
That's what we mean by that.
QUESTION: There was a coup in Niger in early '96. The democratically-
elected president was ousted by the current military ruler. Maybe you
could take the question as to whether there was any Libyan complicity in
the ouster of the elected president.
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to take that question. Since that coup d'etat,
our relationship with the government in Niamey, Niger has suffered. It is
not a good relationship because of that.
Niger was a country that a lot of people had hope for until that coup
d'etat.
QUESTION: Beyond condemnation, which doesn't seem likely to affect Niger
and Nigeria too much, would you consider, are you considering some sort of
punitive action, sanctions on either of those countries?
MR. BURNS: Against those two countries?
QUESTION: Because of this incident.
MR. BURNS: What we have decided to do is go to the Sanctions Committee
first and see what the Sanctions Committee turns up by way of direct
evidence. As I say, we have little doubt about what should be turned up.
Then we will consider our options.
I don't want to anticipate that at this point.
QUESTION: You said there was careful advance preparation.
Did you mean anything other than the President of Niger traveling on
Qadhafi's plane?
MR. BURNS: No, it's interesting what happens here, David.
It's very interesting. If you look back at the first press reports that
came out of Niamey and Tripoli about this ride, you would have thought
perhaps - and this is not the fault of the journalists but I think the
people in the governments talking to the journalists - that perhaps Qadhafi
has just on the spur of the moment decided to fly to Niger and those poor
Nigerians - just a plane landed at their airport.
Well, we have looked into the matter, and it's clear to us that this was
planned, that it was all worked out ahead of time secretly, and Qadhafi
thinks he's pulled off this great diplomatic coup.
I think he is going to find out that he may have friends among the
military dictators of some of these countries in Africa;but he is losing
any kind of understanding, any kind of patience that some countries may
have had for him. I don't want to include the United States in that
because we have no patience for him whatsoever.
QUESTION: The Sanctions Committee is the Security Council, just sitting
under a different name?
MR. BURNS: No, it's a committee of the United Nations.
It is a committee of the United Nations which is separate from the UN
Security Council. In this case, the Security Council meeting in session
today asked the Sanctions Committee to take this up, which I understand
they have agreed to do.
QUESTION: The United States asked?
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Bill Richardson asked today, yes, and supported by
many other countries in the Security Council.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I just have a couple other things. Just two other
things, let me tell you what we have got here. Secretary Albright met with
the Albanian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Fino last yesterday afternoon.
If you are interested in that, I do have a read-out on that meeting, if it
is of interest. Good.
QUESTION: Beyond what you distributed yesterday?
MR. BURNS: Yes, it is. Well, beyond the statement I issued last night?
It mainly goes over those points. I want to accentuate one point, and that
is that when the crisis began in Albania, the United States decided, for a
variety of reasons, that we had to suspend our aid program to Albania.
Yesterday Secretary Albright informed the Prime Minister that we are now
reinvigorating all those of aid programs, that she is making $12 million
available to the Albanian Government, geared to help Albania prepare
for the national elections and for the aftermath.
This would involve election support carried out by the International
Republican Institute, an American institute; by the National Democratic
Institute; democracy assistance by the American Bar Association; private
sector economic development programs by the Albanian-American Enterprise
Fund; technical advice by the Urban Institute; agricultural assistance by a
number of American NGOs. So the United States Government will now turn
back on a lot of the aid programs that have been suspended because of the
political crisis. That is the main point I wanted to leave you with.
QUESTION: How much?
MR. BURNS: Twelve million dollars. But they also covered a number of
issues. The big issue, I think, that Secretary Albright felt was important
is that the Albanian political leaders need to reach a consensus to hold
the elections and to make sure that they agree on the steps necessary to
prepare elections that can meet a standard of free and fair. If you are
interested in more of the details we can go into that.
Finally, I am issuing a press statement today on the tour of the American
ambassadors to the ASEAN countries. This is an annual exercise. Our
ambassadors to ASEAN countries come back to the United States, in this case
between June 1st to the 13th , to meet the press and to speak across the
country about the importance of American trade, American political
relations with the ASEAN countries; all this in advance of Secretary
Albright's trip to Kuala Lumpur, I believe it is this year, for the ASEAN
Post-Ministerial Conference.
I won't read all this, but there is a press statement here that will
explain this. If you are interested in talking to Stape Roy or Tom Hubbard
or other ambassadors from these countries, I can help arrange that.
QUESTION: Did you say that Secretary Albright would be going to the Post-
Ministerial?
MR. BURNS: She certainly intends to, yes. It is in late July. She
certainly intends to be at the ASEAN PMC this year.
She has a very busy travel schedule, as you know. She is in Denver today.
She is in Wilmington, Delaware, next week on the 19th of May; a commencement
address on the 25th of May at Mount Holyoke. She leaves probably on Monday
the 26th with President Clinton for his trip to Europe.
She will be going to the NATO Ministerial at Sintra in Portugal at the end
of that week. She may have some onward travel beyond that, which I am not
yet prepared to announce, but we can talk about it later. She then will
deliver a commencement address at the University of South Alabama on June
8th. She will probably do some additional travel after Alabama in the
United States, the day after.
Then let's see, we've got the Denver Summit on the 20th to 22nd.
She then will go to Hong Kong at the end of June for reversion.
She will come back and accompany the President to Madrid, and there may be
some travel to other countries before Hong Kong, by the way, in East Asia.
Madrid - and then after Madrid, there is possible travel there; then out to
East Asia at the end of July. So she is going to spend much of the next
two and half months on the road with all these trips. That is a pretty
good outline, I think, of what she has planned.
QUESTION: On another subject, but slightly related. Does the United
States have any intention or has it already tried or asked to put the issue
of Hong Kong on the G-7 agenda? There is a bunch of senators, including
Helms, Lugar and Joe Lieberman who apparently are pushing the Secretary to
do just that.
MR. BURNS: I would have to check with Dan Tarullo who is coordinating
the Summit preparations for us. For the G-7 Summit - the G-8 Summit?
QUESTION: Oh, the G-8.
MR. BURNS: The G-8 Summit in Denver to see if, in fact, that is an issue
that is going to be on the agenda. The leaders mainly talk about economic
issues at that summit. But there is a political agenda of foreign policy
issues, and I will just have to see if it is on there.
Obviously, the right country to talk about Hong Kong is China, and that is
a big part of our relationship with China.
QUESTION: No, but the world's largest industrialized nations can also
have a big impact.
MR. BURNS: Well, we will see. I will take the question and see what we
can give to you.
QUESTION: Nick, yesterday we were talking about Iran, and the U.S.'
singular and lonely fight to punish Iran.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Are you having Europeans, Canadians coming here this month to
try to reconcile their policies with the U.S.'.
Do you have a date of that? The European Union - later this month, I
understand, there is a European Union-U.S.-Canadian meeting here about
Iranian policy. Do you have anything on that at this point?
MR. BURNS: I don't. I can look into that for you and see if we have a
date. We have a U.S.-EU Summit in The Hague.
President Clinton is going to that summit, and I'm sure Iran will be on
that agenda for that summit. But I can check into it.
QUESTION: Well, while we have people coming and going, can you confirm
David Levy will be here Friday? And why? Because you have had talks with
Netanyahu. There is one Israeli Government as far as I know.
MR. BURNS: Well, I can tell you that Dennis Ross saw Foreign Minister
Levy today in Jerusalem. He also saw Defense Minister Mordechai and Dan
Meridor, the Finance Minister. Dennis continues his efforts to try to put
together a revitalization of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. There has been
talk about a meeting at senior levels out there. We are hoping that could
take place, but I'm not in a position to say anything about that.
QUESTION: Would it be a meeting the Palestinians and Israelis?
MR. BURNS: Yes, that's what we're trying to put together.
Now, in addition to that, Foreign Minister Levy will be here, I believe on
Friday. I don't know if I have a time for that.
John, do we have a time for that yet? Okay. We'll get you the time,
Barry.
QUESTION: Dennis comes back Friday, doesn't he?
MR. BURNS: Yes, he should be back by the end of the week.
That's what we think. He'll be out there a couple more days.
QUESTION: Now, senior level - will this be the secret meeting that he's
reportedly been working on? Or will this be more in the open, on the
theory that maybe for good faith negotiations, negotiations shouldn't be
secret?
MR. BURNS: Well, if it were a secret meeting, I couldn't talk about
it.
QUESTION: That's true.
MR. BURNS: They'd shoot me if I talked about it, so I couldn't do
that.
QUESTION: No, you could talk about trying to put it together, and then
you could have the meeting and announce a few days later, you know, that
they had the meeting. That's all right. We're not going to run over and
cover it, I'm sure. Are you talking about ministerial level? And are you
talking about a secret meeting?
MR. BURNS: Senior level, senior officials.
QUESTION: Senior level.
MR. BURNS: Yes. Now, the meeting hasn't been put together yet, as far
as I know. So I'm not in a position to say anything, to announce anything,
except to say we'd like to put the Israelis and Palestinians back together
at a negotiating table where they can talk about their differences. That's
the whole point of this exercise.
QUESTION: Have you been able to peel off, you know, as has been done in
the past, particularly with the Syrians - not that it worked out, but you
know, isolate an issue or two that would be a good beginning? For instance,
the military aspects of Israel's retreat on the West Bank or I don't know
what.
MR. BURNS: I'm not sure that's the word that Israelis would like to call
it.
QUESTION: What would you like to call it?
MR. BURNS: They call it redeployment. I don't think they call it
"retreat".
QUESTION: Redeployment. When you go backwards, you're retreating. When
you go this way --
MR. BURNS: No, there are two military terms. One is redeployment,
Barry.
QUESTION: All right, all right. Well, they're not advancing; God knows
that.
MR. BURNS: Well, it's not a war. I mean, they're trying to make
peace.
QUESTION: Military folks advance or retreat without fire. Sometimes they
have to when everybody gets on their case.
MR. BURNS: You usually retreat in a war, Barry, you usually don't
retreat in peacetime.
QUESTION: No, you can retreat.
MR. BURNS: You redeploy in peacetime.
QUESTION: Like I refuse to retreat from my description.
MR. BURNS: But the wars are over, we hope. That's why you redeploy in
peacetime.
QUESTION: Is military the subject? Or is Jerusalem? Or have you picked
a subject, or is it just sort of a wide open meeting Dennis is trying to
set up?
MR. BURNS: We would like to see them re-engage with each other on all
issues, across the board. A couple of weeks back, Dennis was able to put
together a security level meeting --that's very important -- between the
security chiefs, because obviously they need to cooperate together to
maintain calm and peace in the West Bank towns and in Gaza, Gaza City.
QUESTION: That was last time. What about this time?
MR. BURNS: That was last time, but that's got to continue.
We hope that there's a regular, continuous pattern of security cooperation
and meetings. But obviously, Dennis' agenda out there is to put together
talks that would encompass a variety of issues, not just one or two.
QUESTION: I understand that. I understand his long-range objective is
peace and goodwill. But you're talking about a particular possible senior-
level meeting, and I'm asking you if you could give us an idea of the
subject, if something's been isolated.
You're response was that they had a security meeting and it would be good
to continue that. Are you saying that would be the emphasis?
MR. BURNS: No, no, my response was two-fold - that security talks are
important, but we would anticipate talks on a variety of issues. That was
my major point.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: Yeah.
QUESTION: Nick, this is the meeting that you're trying to arrange at
Ambassador Indyk's house this evening?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I know nothing about a meeting at Ambassador Indyk's
house. If I did know something, I wouldn't tell you about it if it was a
secret meeting.
QUESTION: The Israelis don't seem to think it's a secret.
MR. BURNS: As I said, well, there have been a lot of press reports in
the last couple of days about meetings that never transpired.
So I just encourage you to wait and see what happens. If we have
something to announce, we'll announce it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: They could have been secret meetings.
MR. BURNS: Well, we've talked about this before. Sometimes governments
have to do things in private in order to maximize our effectiveness.
Sometimes we can't tell you everything we're doing. I know that disappoints
you.
QUESTION: Can we talk about Zaire?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Why did Ambassador Richardson come back? I mean, given the
crucial moment that exists now, particularly tomorrow's supposedly make-or-
break meeting, why did the top U.S. interlocutor in this situation come
back?
MR. BURNS: He had spent nearly two weeks in Central Africa in a variety
of countries. His fundamental mission was to deliver a letter from
President Clinton; to have face-to-face talks with President Mobutu about
the necessity for a peaceful transfer of power; and to have face-to-face
talks with Mr. Kabila about the necessity of a cease-fire, peaceful
transition and adequate and more humane treatment of the refugees, who are
the responsibility of the rebel alliance.
Secretary Albright and Ambassador Richardson felt that particular mission
had been fulfilled. If we had been the leader of the international effort
to put together these talks, he'd obviously still be out there. But the
leader of South Africa, President Mandela, has taken the leadership role.
We have always seen ourselves, in terms of the Mobutu-Kabila talks, to be
supporting the lead role of South Africa, not the other way around. That
seems to be in good hands. Now, I don't expect that there will be an
American aboard the South African naval vessel tomorrow. But if the
South Africans or the Zairians on either side should require that
or request it, we'd obviously be able to have one of our ambassadors
participate.
In addition to that, our special negotiator for Central Africa, former
congressman Howard Wolpe, is in the region and, in fact, kind of handed off
the baton with Richardson - or he received the baton late last week. He is
in Lubumbashi today, attempting to see Mr. Kabila before the meeting that
will take place, we hope, tomorrow on the South African naval vessel. At
the same time, Ambassador Dan Simpson, the American Ambassador to Zaire,
met with Zairian political leaders who work for President Mobutu today. So
we have our channels in to both the rebels and the government in advance of
this meeting. We're making the points we need to make.
QUESTION: Yeah, but Richardson went down there with a mission and,
arguably, it's not completed. I mean, you are not confident that Kabila's
forces will enter Kinshasa and there will not be a blood bath. There
hasn't yet been a next crucial face-to-face meeting between the two. I
mean, everything's unsettled.
MR. BURNS: Well, again, Carol, we think he accomplished the mission that
he set out to do. The United States is not in a position in Zaire that is
comparable, say, to our position in the Middle East peace talks. In the
Middle East we are the sole intermediary. In Zaire we support the efforts
of South Africa and the United Nations. I think that Bill Richardson did
an outstanding job in accomplishing that mission. If it's necessary for
him or anyone else to go back out there, they'll do that on a moment's
notice. But right now, we think things are well in hand.
Let me just give you a resume of where we are. We hope the meeting takes
place tomorrow. We encourage Mr. Mobutu and Mr. Kabila to attend the
meeting, number one. Number two, we encourage them to work out together,
face-to-face, transitional arrangements that will lead the country to a
better future, away from the present government, away from the present
government, and towards a transitional government, that that process can be
conducted peacefully, and that the result of it can be elections whereby
the people of Zaire could chose their own leaders.
In addition to that, we know the United Nations took 2,100 refugees out of
Kisangani yesterday to Rwanda. That brings the total since April 27th to
roughly 20,000 refugees. There are tens of thousands more who need to be
transported. In addition to that, we need the support of the rebel
alliance to allow those people to be transported, and they need to protect
those people against the vicissitudes of life in and around Kisangani; and
by that I mean the massacres -- the reports of massacres and brutal attacks
against refugees by some of the armed elements operating in the area.
So there is a lot of business to be done. That is what the United States
would like to see happen in the next couple of days.
QUESTION: One more question on Richardson and then I'll drop it. Did
the South Africans make it clear to the United States that it preferred for
the Ambassador to go back to New York? Was South Africa uncomfortable,
irritated that the United States seemed to be stepping on its turf when it
is making this big effort to be a leader in Africa?
MR. BURNS: Not that I am aware of. I did read that in the press. I
read the same reports in the press. I'm not aware that that's the case. I
haven't seen that in any of the written communications. I haven't heard it
in any of the meetings I've been in.
We are trying to support the efforts of President Mandela. We see South
Africa in the leadership role, and we think that is a very positive
development in Africa that an African country has stepped forward to
provide moral and political leadership when it's badly needed and when the
Zairians clearly can't provide that for themselves.
QUESTION: Nick, you speak all the time of hoping for democratic
elections. You also speak of transition. There was an effort a week or
two ago to try to give a profile. It was rather -- if you don't mind me
saying so -- you were looking, or whoever was doing it was looking real
hard for some democratic leanings in Mr. Kabila. The building must be very
interested in what sort of a fellow he is, and there must be some work done
on this subject.
Number one, are you asking that, assuming he is victorious, that he step
aside after a reasonable period and have the people elect their own
leaders? Secondly, what about those two - how do you feel now about his
commitment, or lack of it, to those two principles that you or the U.S.
seems to promote all over the world -- capitalism and democracy, a free
market system and democracy? Is he a good candidate to fulfill those
objectives?
MR. BURNS: On your first question, it should be up to Mobutu and Kabila
to work out these transitional arrangements.
It's going to be very delicate to work out what arrangements can be made
to make a transition from one government to the next phase in Zaire's
history. We don't think that should be for politicians alone and rebel
leaders and presidents of countries to decide alone. We think it should
also be for the people. That's why we think elections have to be a
component of this process.
Second, on Mr. Kabila himself, we actually know him fairly well.
In addition to Howard Wolpe's meeting, Dick Bogosian, another one of our
special Central African envoys, talks to him regularly.
We have a political officer in Goma who talks to him. Bill Richardson has
now had a couple of meetings.
I think it is a time of testing for Mr. Kabila. He is a person who now has
enormous authority over one of the most important countries in Africa.
That authority is broadbased. He needs to protect the people who have come
under his responsibility.
Here we are talking about the refugees. There is a lot of evidence, and
the U.N. is looking into this now, that there were attacks on the refugees
at Kisangani -- brutal attacks that killed a lot of people. Someone is
going to have to answer for that, and we think that Mr. Kabila and his
associates ought to be open to the effort a special UN rapporteur to get
into Kisangani and to inspect, make an investigation of what happened. Now,
it has not been possible for the United Nations to get in there and to
investigate these brutalities. That is the first order of business.
The second order of business will be what happens in the future.
Part of this time of testing for Mr. Kabila will be to see how he and the
rebels comport themselves as they continue their march toward Kinshasa. We
believe very strongly it is in their interest, the rebel interest, as well
as the interests of the people of the country, to try to effect a peaceful
entry of those forces into Kinshasa. This is probably one of the issues
that can be talked about tomorrow in the South African-sponsored talks,
meaning that instead of a military assault on Kinshasa, they work
out an arrangement for a cease-fire and a peaceful transition so that
innocent people aren't killed.
Another part of this testing for Mr. Kabila is whether or not, if he does
gain power, he rules in a democratic fashion - both politically and
economically, and if he pays attention to the human rights of the people of
Zaire. We have to have high standards.
Zaire is one of the most important, largest countries in Africa, and the
people of Zaire deserve a better government than the one they have had over
the past 30 years. Mr. Kabila has a lot on his shoulders. We hope very
much that he will be able to meet these tests. We wish him well. But the
world is watching.
QUESTION: On your first point, the inquiries on refugees - the brutal
treatment of refugees. That has been going on for weeks, I mean --
MR. BURNS: Yes, it has been going on for weeks.
QUESTION: So the U.S. asked him to and you don't have a definite answer
yet?
MR. BURNS: No, we do not because the test is going to be whether the
rebel alliance allows the UN Assessment Team, the Special UN Rapporteur and
the team into Kisangani to investigate what happened. The refugees came
back into the camps with machete wounds. Many of them died. Many of them
were bludgeoned to death and hacked to death. These are very serious human
rights allegations, and they have to be investigated.
QUESTION: On Kinshasa. Yesterday you made a - you put out a very blunt
warning to Americans to get out. It's been suggested that there are plans
afoot on the part of Mobutu's people to begin massacring Westerners in
order to make it into an international incident, which the United States
and others would have to come in and rescue, in effect, the Mobutu
Government. Is that what you - or is that the subtext of what you were
talking about yesterday?
MR. BURNS: Well, those rumors were abundant in Kinshasa over the
weekend. Our ambassador, Dan Simpson, checked into them, talked to
everybody he could find in the Zairian Government, and to the best of our
knowledge - based on conversations with senior Zairian government officials
- those rumors are untrue.
However, in the present climate, we would be irresponsible as a government
if we did not warn the American citizens who chose to continue to live in
Zaire that there are these rumors out there; that there is a civil war
underway; that there could well be a military assault on the capital of
Kinshasa if the politicians can't decide to have a peaceful transition; and
that American citizens who may be looking for profits, or may think that
they are not going to be the ones who get affected, they need to think
very clearly that they are in a war zone. They ought to get out of Zaire.
They ought to leave Zaire for their own good. They can always come back
after the transition has been effected. But why stay and take a risk that
they are going to end up in a very precarious situation?
QUESTION: There are reports that some journalists, several TV network
crews have been taken hostage and beaten up and robbed.
Are there any reports that you have of Americans being mistreated that
way?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of any reports of American citizens having
been mistreated in the manner that you speak of. But I would like to take
that question and see if we can ask our embassy in Kinshasa again. I know
that our Ambassador and his staff have urged the American private community
to leave. It's too dangerous a situation. We cannot anticipate how the
endgame is going to turn out there.
QUESTION: Nick, in Wolpe's meeting - possible meeting with Kabila, is he
just going to be reiterating the points you have been going through here?
Or is there something slightly different?
MR. BURNS: He is going to raise the need for a peaceful, inclusive
transition. He is going to raise the need for elections once the
transition has begun. He is going to raise our concerns about the
treatment of the Rwandan Hutu refugees in and around Kisangani. We are
talking about a huge number of people -- nearly 100,000 people.
QUESTION: He must have gotten the point by now.
MR. BURNS: He has heard this from Bill Richardson. He has heard it from
every American envoy with whom he has spoken.
Mr. Kabila, to be fair to him, said last week publicly that he was going
to be sensitive to the issue of the refugees, that he expected his soldiers
to take care, that he would fire any of his soldiers who were implicated in
any atrocities. We were pleased to see the statements. We need to see
actions.
QUESTION: So you aren't sort of ratcheting up the pressure on him in
some fashion now? Sort of as a last-ditch effort type of thing?
MR. BURNS: We are advising the rebel alliance, Mr. Kabila and President
Mobutu to try to negotiate a peaceful transition.
No one wants to see a violent assault on Kinshasa, not in a city of that
size, not in a brutal civil war of the one that we have witnessed.
QUESTION: So the message is identical?
MR. BURNS: The message is absolutely identical to what Ambassador
Richardson carried last week. There has been a seamless transition between
Ambassador Richardson and Ambassador Wolpe.
QUESTION: Are you offering any inducements to Kabila to go along with
your proposals for a cease-fire and a peaceful transition?
MR. BURNS: Well, those who aspire to government leadership in one of the
most important countries in Africa need to understand that we have the best
of intentions, all of us around the world.
We want to work with the next government in Zaire. But our relationship
with whoever emerges as the next leader will be affected by how they
comport themselves as they take power. There is no question about
that.
QUESTION: Nick, these warnings that you keep reiterating with greater
strength, have you seen any evidence in the last 24 hours that the American
community is taking them seriously?
I don't mean you, I mean the United States.
MR. BURNS: Well, we have seen a rather dramatic reduction in the number
of American citizens living in Zaire over the last three or four weeks.
It's gone down by I think over 120 people, by our count yesterday. We
would hope that that number, which is now slightly over 300, would go down
to zero in the next couple of days. It probably won't happen. People
always think they are going to be the ones who are not affected by civil
war.
QUESTION: Nick, what --
MR. BURNS: Our warning is "get out now".
QUESTION: What responsibilities does the U.S. Government then have to
people --
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry. Did you - I wanted to let Carol follow-up,
Howard.
QUESTION: How come you haven't seen the numbers reduced?
I mean, yesterday there were 325 and today there is still 325.
MR. BURNS: We began these warnings more than a month ago, and we have
seen a reduction since then. I can't tell you that we have seen a
reduction over the last 24 hours. But I can check into that for you.
QUESTION: Because in your own words, we are at the endgame now. There
is an important meeting tomorrow. If it doesn't go well, who knows what
will happen.
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: People may only have 48 hours to get out.
MR. BURNS: Our advice is that they should get out immediately, and there
are ways to do that. There is a ferry to Brazzaville from Kinshasa, and
there are commercial flights out of Kinshasa to African and European
capitals. There are ways to get out of Zaire, quite easily.
QUESTION: But you would not abandon them in 48 hours if they decide to
say?
QUESTION: No.
QUESTION: That is not your message.
MR. BURNS: My goodness, let's just be clear about this.
We cannot compel American citizens to leave Zaire. We strongly, in the
most serious terms, urge all Americans to leave now before things get
worse.
Should the worst happen, as you know, the American military in Libreville
and in Brazzaville and off the coast of West Africa will be in a position
to evacuate Americans. We hope that is not necessary. But if it is
necessary, our military will protect American citizens. Our advice to
Americans is, don't put yourself in a position where you have to be
evacuated in the middle of fighting.
That is a very dangerous proposition. Ask the Americans who came out of
Monrovia last year in Liberia. Many of them had just barely escaped with
their lives. Ask the Americans who got caught up in the fighting in
Albania. Much less severe than the fighting currently going on in Kinshasa.
This is a very serious warning.
We think people should get out.
QUESTION: What percentage, roughly, of Americans in Zaire are in
Kinshasa; do you know?
MR. BURNS: The overwhelming percentage are in Kinshasa, in the capital.
We know who they are. We know where they are.
We keep in touch with them through a warden network, in addition to the 25
American diplomats who remain as the core of our American embassy. They
will stay, and we hope to maintain an embassy throughout this period. Yes,
David.
QUESTION: On Iran.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Forgive me if you covered on this yesterday.
But do you have a view - does the U.S. have a view on whether this
announcement by Iran of a Canadian-British consortium to develop the Balal
oil field falls under the D'Amato Sanctions Bill, I guess ILSA?
And second, do you have a reaction to the threat by the EU that they would -
if ILSA were triggered for Iran, that they would go to the WTO with a
complaint?
MR. BURNS: Well, on the first question, we have now fully read The Wall
Street Journal article on the Balal project, and we are going to look into
this. We are going to seek additional information from the British company,
from the U.K., and from other sources. Our law is very clear.
The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act sets a threshold for investment beyond which
companies are technically in violation. Therefore, it can be subject to
U.S. penalties. That is a very serious issue, and we are looking into it
with great care right now. But we have not yet made a determination if
this particular deal fits that category.
I'm sorry, your second question, David.
QUESTION: The EU threat to complain to the WTO on this matter, much like
they did with Helms-Burton.
MR. BURNS: Well, we hope that the European Union will work with us
cooperatively and not just jump to the conclusion that everything should be
adjudicated by the WTO. Let's sit down and talk about all these issues
before we go to a multilateral body. Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Did you hear that (inaudible) if Greece and Turkey (inaudible)
reached an agreement on some air corridors over the Aegean, as it was
reported extensively in Athens?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Mr. Lambros, I can tell you that I believe - gosh, I had
this here someplace. We actually - we tried to get this information for
you. We had it this morning, and it has now disappeared. Keep talking,
Mr. Lambros, while I look.
QUESTION: I have another question.
MR. BURNS: Filibuster. Okay, fine, filibuster. I'm going to madly look
through my book.
QUESTION: Any comment of yesterday's attack by Turkey's Islamist
radicals against the secular Turkish newspaper Hurriyet in Istanbul?
MR. BURNS: Well, we've seen press reports of that. No one could
possibly support an attack on a newspaper. We believe in freedom of the
press in Turkey, as we do around the world.
Now, Mr. Lambros, what I can tell you is that last week we held our annual
consultations with the Greek Ministry of Defense on the island of Crete.
This is in accordance with our mutual defense cooperation agreement. These
discussions covered a broad range of bilateral and regional issues, as they
always do. Among other subjects, we discussed ideas to reduce the number
of confrontations between Greece and Turkey and the Aegean region.
We were surprised by some of the Greek press reports claiming that Greece
and Turkey had reached a Greek-Turkish agreement concerning air corridors
over the Aegean in this meeting. These reports are not correct. We
discussed the objective of trying to have Greece and Turkey agree on
confidence building measures, but I don't believe that either country
reached an agreement with the other on this particular issue. That is
separate from the issue of Cyprus. We announced a breakthrough on that
issue last Friday.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Yes. Yasmine?
QUESTION: On the other naval exercises in the Mediterranean - Turkish,
American, Israeli, do you have any information of those being postponed?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't.
QUESTION: Do you have any information of Turkey pulling out of those
exercises?
MR. BURNS: No, I do not, no. Carol?
QUESTION: On North Korea, have you heard anything more from the
Pyongyang on the four-way talks?
MR. BURNS: Silence.
QUESTION: Missile talks?
MR. BURNS: Silence from Pyongyang.
QUESTION: Silence.
MR. BURNS: The ball is in their court.
QUESTION: What does that all tell you?
MR. BURNS: They have to get back to us on the four-party talks. There
is an open invitation. They have to get back, of course, on the missile
proliferation talks. We are working well, monitoring the agreed framework;
that is in place.
QUESTION: The MIA talks didn't go through?
MR. BURNS: The MIA talks proceeded last week, but I can't point to any
breakthroughs for you. Unfortunately that is a very serious issue for
American families in the United States. On food aid, we are proceeding
with our shipments of food; the ships are arriving.
QUESTION: What is your analysis? What is the bottom line here?
MR. BURNS: I always rely on Secretary Christopher's wisdom in these
matters, and that is - former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who is
a very astute observer of the North Koreans, and I think all of us still
agree with this, and that is that it is very difficult for us to read the
North Koreans and to tell you why all this is happening. They are --
QUESTION: Opaque.
MR. BURNS: Opaque, thank you. We'll continue to try to convince the
North Koreans it is in their interest to cooperate with us. Laura?
QUESTION: Just one question on Pat Roush, who is spending the day in
Washington and has a number of meetings on Capitol Hill.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Last week she spoke with Senator Helms and Senator Feinstein,
who sent a letter to Secretary Albright requesting that she personally
become involved in Ms. Roush's predicament.
Do you know if Secretary Albright received the letter and if she is
planning in any way of becoming personally involved, or perhaps meeting
with Ms. Roush when she is here?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if Secretary Albright has personally received a
letter. I can tell you that Secretary Albright wants our Ambassador in
Saudi Arabia, Wyche Fowler, and our Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to
continue to work on this assiduously, as they already have. We are in her
corner. We are on Pat Roush's side. We want justice to be done for
her.
Now, there was a question that Sid asked yesterday that I wanted to get
back to you on. Her ex-husband -- the gentleman who came to the United
States, illegally abducted the children, brought them back to Saudi Arabia
and will not give her access to them -- he has been in our visa look-out
system since November 1988.
Our visa look-out system is a list of the bad guys and girls -- women,
around the world, bad people who are either terrorists or who are drug
traffickers or who are people who have broken our laws, like this
gentleman. He broke our laws.
Whenever he applies for a visa, wherever he is around the world, his visa
application - the name will be checked in any American embassy around the
world on a computer. His name will pop up and he won't be given the visa.
He has been ineligible since 1988, and we checked again. To the best of
our knowledge, he has not been given a visa at any time, since the
abduction in 1986, into the United States.
QUESTION: Why did you say to the best of your knowledge?
Is there some way out of - is there some way he might have gotten a visa
without you knowing about it?
MR. BURNS: I'm not trying to obfuscate the issue here.
John and I have discussed this. We don't believe there are actually
computer records of all visa issuances, say 1986, '87, '88 in 260
diplomatic posts around the world where visas are issued.
So I can't tell you with 100 percent certainty that no visa has been
issued, but we have checked with Consular Affairs. This case has been on
our radar screen for years. They know this guy, and we think they would
know if he had been issued a visa and had been in this country.
QUESTION: A direct follow-up to that, Nick, Ms. Roush says that in
December of 1988, her ex-husband actually did enter the country with his
ailing father who was going to a medical facility in the United States for
treatment of cancer. This would be a month after he --
MR. BURNS: Was put on the lookout list.
QUESTION: -- after he was in the system.
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: Is there any way that he or his family could have had some
kind of special, I don't know, VIP status that would have allowed him to
enter the country without having to go through the normal visa process?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you, having been a Consular Officer, there is no
such thing as a VIP visa. You get a visa. There are different classifications
of visas -- student visa, business visa, tourist visa, whatever, and you
are given a visa depending on what category you fit.
We are not aware that he was allowed to enter the United States to bring
his father here for medical treatment. We have seen the allegation; it's a
very serious allegation. This is an imperfect system. There are times
when, inadvertently, we have let people in the country that we don't want
to let in the country. We don't want him to come to this country. If he
is foolish enough to sneak his way in, or to obtain a visa by whatever
means, he will be arrested because he is a felon. He abducted two children
illegally and he will be prosecuted here. It would seem to us his self-
interest is to stay in Saudi Arabia. If he does come here, we will
be very happy to arrest him.
QUESTION: To put the shoe on the other foot, Mrs. Roush and her attorney
have made a very big deal about trying to get the State Department involved
in this case, and yet they come to Washington and have not requested,
according to you, this building, came here without even requesting to meet
anyone over here. Do you find that at all odd? Does it put her case in
any different sort of light than --
MR. BURNS: I don't want to second guess Mrs. Roush. She is a woman who
has gone through hell for the last eleven years.
I'm not going to second guess her. All I know is that as of yesterday she
had not asked to see anybody that we knew of in the State Department. She
is most welcome here. She is welcome at any time, during office hours,
after office hours. She'll be seen at the Assistant Secretary of State
level. We take her case very seriously. We have a responsibility towards
her, and I don't want to second guess her.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:04 P.M.)
(###)
|
