U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #75, 97-05-15
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1106
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, May 15, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Press Briefing Visitors
3-4 Secretary Albright's Travel to New York and Wilmington,
Delaware
CROATIA
1,9-11 Secretary Albright's Meeting with Foreign Minister Granic
CUBA
2,17 "Flotilla" to Waters Off Cuba May 17
ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN
3 Meeting of OSCE Minsk Conference Co-Chairs on Nagorno-
Karabakh
TURKEY
3 Travel by NEA Acting Assistant Secretary David Welch
IRAN
4 U.S. Assistance to Earthquake Victims
MIDDLE EAST
4,6-8 Murder of Palestinian/Remarks of Palestinian Justice
Minister/US Assessment
4-5,8-9 Dennis Ross in Region
5-6,9 US Aid to Israel, Egypt and Jordan
ZAIRE
11-12 Mobutu/Kabila Meeting.
12 Kabila Meeting with Angolan President
12 Reported Troop Movements by Angola
13-15 Mobutu Assets/Reported Diversion of US Aid/Zaire's Debt
RUSSIA
15-16 NATO-Russia Charter/President Yeltsin's Statements
17 Russian Fishing Vessel/Canadian Helicopter Incident
BANGLADESH/INDIA
16 Ganges Water Accord
TURKEY
17-18 Reports Turkey to Seek Exemption to UN Sanction re Iraqi
Oil
NORTH KOREA
18 MIA Talks
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #75
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1997 1:26 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the State
Department. I want to welcome Lada Tikhonova, who is a foreign service
national with the American consulate general in Yekaterinburg in Russia.
Welcome; thank you very much for coming.
I have a lot of issues to cover today. Secretary Albright met with
Croatian Foreign Minister Granic this morning. I wanted to give you a
brief report on that meeting. It was a very interesting meeting. I can't
remember a tougher meeting in a long time that the Secretary's had with a
visiting official, a visiting foreign minister.
Her essential message to Foreign Minister Granic was that we respect him
very much personally; we want to have a good relationship with Croatia; we
want Croatia to be part of the West - part of the life of the West, of
Europe and of North America. That, in fact, is what the Croatian
Government says is its overriding foreign policy objective. However,
Secretary Albright made it crystal clear that the Croatian Government had
to improve its performance in abiding by the Dayton commitments if it
expected to be treated as a true friend and member of the West.
The Secretary reaffirmed our support for full cooperation with the war
crimes tribunal. That would assure that all commitments are being made;
that all Croatian citizens or people in Croatian territory indicted by the
war crimes tribunal would be handed over to the tribunal in the Hague. She
also reminded Foreign Minister Granic that all Croatian citizens, including
the Serbian population - the minority Serbs - must be able to return safely
to their homes in Croatia.
She said that much more can and should be done to improve Croatian
government performance on this issue; and particularly on the issue of the
Krajina region. She made clear that there must be an acceleration of the
return of the minority Serbs to their homes in Croatia. She expressed
concern about insufficient progress on critical issues related to the
re-integration process in Eastern Slovonia. As you know, there have been
some terrible incidents - violence against Serbs - in Eastern Slovonia
recently. She went through those incidents in some detail.
Jacques Klien, who is the UN administrator for Eastern Slovonia, was in the
meeting. He contributed specific detailed incidents, information on
incidents where Serbs have been accosted by Croatian mobs. This is a very
serious development. The Secretary had a long meeting with him, and she
wanted to make sure that our point of view was understood. I'll be glad to
take questions on this. Let me just go through a couple of announcements,
if I could.
Last evening we issued a press statement about the plans of a Miami-based
Cuban-American democracy movement to engineer a flotilla of boats and
accompanying aircraft that will travel to positions in international waters
and air space across from Havana and Caibarien and Santiago de Cuba this
weekend. The United States in that statement - I won't read that whole
statement because it's a very long one, but I refer you to it. The United
States reaffirmed our long-standing position that we recognize and support
the right of Americans to engage in peaceful protest in international
waters and international air space.
We have spoken to the leader of this particular group, who says that the
participants do not intend to enter Cuban air space or territorial seas on
May 17th. We have informed the organizers of the flotilla that people who
enter Cuban territory - Cuban territorial seas or air space - without
authorization from the Cuban Government may be in violation of the United
States law and international law, and they would obviously place themselves
in serious jeopardy and danger. The emergency cease and desist order and
notice of enforcement policy that was issued last year in 1996 by the
Federal Aviation Administration remains in effect.
It allows for enforcement action against U.S.-registered aircraft for
unauthorized entry into Cuban air space.
The Presidential Proclamation of Emergency announced in 1996, giving the
Coast Guard emergency authority to regulate, inspect and take strong
enforcement action against vessels which violate Cuban territorial waters,
has also been renewed. We have told the Cuban Government that we expect it
to show the utmost discretion and restraint in handling any violations of
its territorial seas or airspace. We expect the Cubans to act in
accordance with international law and international principles to assure
the safety of the lives of those at sea, or the lives of those aboard any
aircraft. The United States Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Authority
will issue notices reinforcing these dangers.
Now, what we have done in addition to issuing this public statement is that
we have contacted the Cuban Government, both here in Washington and in
Havana, by diplomatic note. We have informed the Cuban Government of the
intention of this group to organize the flotilla this weekend. We have
advised the Cuban Government of their statements that vessels and aircraft
participating in the flotilla do not intend to enter into Cuban territorial
sea or air space. We have advised them that this group did not intend to
cross those lines.
But we also informed them that - and we underscored in very strong terms -
that the Cuban Government has an obligation -- and we expect that this
obligation will be met -- in accordance with international law to make sure
that the Cuban Government acts with restraint and with respect for the
lives and the safety of those involved. That is a very serious message
that we put forward to the Cuban Government. Considering what happened on
February 24, 1996, with the unauthorized, illegal, inhumane shootdown of
two American Cessna aircraft, we fully expect that the Cuban Government
will understand what this is, and what it is not. It is a peaceful
demonstration by American citizens in international waters. That is their
constitutional right, of course, to demonstrate peacefully, and we expect
the Cuban Government to recognize that. I'll be glad to take any questions
on that as well.
A couple of additional announcements. The Minsk Group which is trying to
bring peace to Nagorno-Karabakh and to effect a resolution of a
long-standing problem in Nagorno Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
is meeting today here in the Department of State.
The Minsk Group has a tri-chair, among France, the Russian Federation and
the United States. The chair for the United States is our Deputy Secretary
of State, Strobe Talbott.
I hope that at the end of this meeting, we will be able to work out a joint
press statement among the three that will give you some detail about what
they have discussed, and where we hope this process will lead. But I
wanted to let you know that those meetings are taking place.
David Welch, our Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs
was in Ankara yesterday and this morning. He is traveling now to Britain
for consultations with the British Government.
He met, along with representatives of the UK and Turkey, with the KDP, the
PUK, and the Turkoman Front. They met as part of the Ankara peace process
to continue our efforts to stabilize the situation in Northern Iraq.
Now, the parties agree on several measures aimed to strengthen the
cease-fire between the KDP and the PUK. They also said they are in support
of confidence-building measures that would allow them to work together
better, including prisoner releases and improved cooperation on civilian
services. They also agreed to continue discussions on revenue sharing in
Northern Iraq. As I said, David will be making his way back here to the
United States.
They agreed to work together to prevent terrorist activities, as well, in
Northern Iraq.
Secretary Albright is in New York. She is going to be seeing the Czech
President, Vaclav Havel today in New York. She'll be presenting an award
to him and to the German President, President Herzog this evening, as part
of the East-West Dinner in New York.
She'll be back late tonight to Washington, for appointments here in
Washington tomorrow - including, most notably, a meeting tomorrow at 11:00
a.m. with the Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy.
In addition to that, the last thing I wanted to tell you is that the
Secretary is planning a trip on Monday, May 19th to Wilmington, Delaware,
at the invitation of Senator Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign
Relations Committee. They will attend together a noon luncheon at the
Hotel DuPont in Wilmington.
Senator Biden and Secretary Albright will deliver remarks there.
That is open to the press. I understand Senator Roth of Delaware will also
be at that event.
Following lunch, the Secretary and Senator Biden will tour the Port of
Wilmington. They want to speak informally with dock workers at the port;
discuss with them the impact of our foreign and trade policies on U.S. jobs
in the shipping industry. Upon conclusion of their tour, there will be a
press availability at the Port of Wilmington. That begins at 2:45 p.m.
Later in the day, Secretary Albright will take part in a policy briefing
with the women's community in Delaware, at the Hotel DuPont. At 7:00 p.m.,
she will give a major policy speech at the Delaware Theater Company, and
she'll take questions from the invited audience. If you're interested in
taking part in this, contact me or John Dinger or Kitty Bartels. Kitty is
going to be our advance person, and we can give you her page number and her
fax number up in Wilmington.
Last, I just want to issue a correction. The other day we announced that
the United States Government, in response to the earthquake in Iran, would
be extending $100,000 in support to the earthquake victims. That is all
true. I think I made a mistake in saying this would go to the
International Committee of the Red Cross.
It actually is going into the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies. This is a sister organization of the ICRC, but it is
separate. I wanted to make sure that distinction was made. George.
QHave you concluded your assessment of the remarks of the Palestinian
Justice Minister, concerning the sale of land to Jews?
MR. BURNS: Well, we've been looking into this and actually, today we've
seen press reports just in the last hour or so that the Israeli police have
arrested two individuals - a Palestinian man and Palestinian woman on
suspicion of having been involved in this incident. Reports say that the
Palestinian man is actually a police official, a Palestinian police
official. There have been comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu and by the
Israeli Foreign Ministry on this incident. I would like to say that we
have pursued this issue with both the Israelis and Palestinians, and we
think it's very important that the police investigation proceed and that
justice be done.
There has been a murder, a savage murder; and the people who committed that
murder ought to be brought to justice. They ought to be tried and if found
guilty, they ought to be convicted and they ought to serve a prison
sentence. Now, in addition to that, let me just repeat something that I
said yesterday. We cannot prejudge the outcome of the investigation. But
as a matter of principle, if it turns out that there was any kind of
official sanction given to encourage people to go after Arabs who were
selling land, then obviously the United States would condemn, in the
strongest possible terms, any kind of extra-judicial action that would
affect innocent Palestinians.
We think it's very important that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian
Authority officials involved emphasize that the rule of law must apply in
territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority; and that in word and
in deed, the Palestinian Authority speaks up for the rule of law. There
can be no place for threats, public threats against civilians or anyone
else in the Middle East at this time. That's a very important message that
we have communicated to the Palestinian Authority, to many of their
officials. We think it would be good to see a public condemnation of some
of these threats by leading Palestinian officials. That's what I have to
say on that issue.
QUESTION: Also in the Middle East, I gather the meeting yesterday was not
a great success between the Palestinians and Israelis.
MR. BURNS: Is that right?
QUESTION: That's what I hear.
MR. BURNS: Is that what you hear?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. BURNS: Well, we thought actually, it was a useful discussion. Dennis
Ross felt it was important to bring the senior Palestinians and senior
Israelis together. We thought it was useful to have them sit across the
table from each other. Both sides made it clear that they want to find a
way to bring the peace process back on track.
As you know, Dennis met with Prime Minister Netanyahu today. I know he
intends to meet with Chairman Arafat. He will continue his efforts to try
to bring them together. I do expect he'll be returning to the United
States sometime probably tomorrow evening.
So he will not actually be here for the meeting with Foreign Minister David
Levy. But I know the Secretary had a chance to talk to him this morning,
get a report on his activities; and she obviously is anxiously awaiting his
return so that they can sit down together to map out our next steps in the
peace effort.
QUESTION: On the Levy meeting, Israeli radio is reporting that one of his
purposes is to raise objections a reported plan to cut somewhat Israeli and
Jordanian aid and divert it to African countries. Is that on the agenda?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if that particular issue will come up or
not. But I can tell you this, Jim, we've been doing all we can to assist
all the countries in the Middle East that support the peace negotiations.
We're looking for ways that we might assist those nations who are willing
to take risks for peace, like Jordan. For some time now, the President has
been seeking ways - the President and Secretary Albright - to provide
substantial American economic assistance to Jordan. King Hussein has taken
a genuine risk for peace, and he deserves the support of the United States.
He has been a courageous leader and visionary leader, particularly during
the last six months or so in the search for peace.
Now, we're still examining ways that we might provide substantial
assistance to Jordan. There have been no final decisions made in our
government. We have been in close consultations with the Israelis on this
issue, and with others, and we'll continue those consultations.
QUESTION: Nick, is one suggestion that, to find this aid, you would take
money from the two accounts which are the largest foreign aid accounts in
your diminished budget - and that is Israel and Egypt?
MR. BURNS: There are a number of options being debated within our
government, and being discussed with countries, including Israel. I don't
want to go into those publicly, but I do want to put the accent mark,
Carol, on the following. Jordan deserves our support because of King
Hussein's leadership; and we are actively trying to find ways to get that
support.
QUESTION: Clearly you're not ruling that out. I mean, there have been
times when the Administration would stand up and say, aid to Israel in
particular is sacrosanct. You are not saying that.
MR. BURNS: Well, I'm saying that there are a number of options being
considered. I don't want to publicly discuss those options because the
Administration hasn't made a decision. Obviously, we haven't had an
opportunity to have full discussions with the United States Congress, which
holds the purse strings. So we'll continue our review of the options here,
inside the Administration; we'll obviously talk at great length to Congress
about this, and to the Israelis and other governments in the region. What
I'm saying is, we have to find a way to get to provide a substantial amount
of aid to Jordan, to support Jordan. Obviously, our aid program to the
Israelis and to Egypt will continue because they're important cornerstones
of our policy in the Middle East.
QUESTION: Will it continue at the exact level it is now?
MR. BURNS: Well, that's a decision that Congress and the Administration
would have to make together. I can't anticipate that, Carol - the outcome
of that.
QUESTION: In my original question, I mentioned the word Africa. Is there
a plan to divert some of the Near East aid into the African account?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any option like that -- to divert money from
our assistance level to countries in the Middle East to Africa. I'm just
not aware of that. Carol has asked a very different question, and I
provided that answer to her.
QUESTION: I don't fully understand your answer to George's question.
Precisely what - has the U.S. Government determined that the Palestinian
Justice Minister did make those remarks, and you're calling upon Chairman
Arafat and other Palestinians to renounce them, but you don't know what the
connection is between those remarks and the incident in Ramallah itself?
MR. BURNS: There have been a lot of press reports quoting the Justice
Minister as having made these threats. As you know, it has been a major
issue in the Palestinian community, a major issue between Israel and the
Palestinians. Those reports were of great concern to us, as you would
imagine they would be.
I spoke yesterday, and I will speak again today, that it is very important
that the Palestinian Authority stand up for the rule of law in word and in
deed. There is no place for public threats by public officials against
Arab individuals, Arab citizens, Arabs who now come under, some at least,
the purview of the Palestinian Authority, or Arabs who are living under
lands that are now controlled by Israel. So it is very important that that
message be heard.
QUESTION: Well, what does Arafat say when Dennis sits hours and hours and
hours with him? I mean, does he say this guy was freelancing? I didn't
really mean it. This is an official policy. What does he tell you?
MR. BURNS: Rather than take you through our private discussions with the
Palestinian Authority, I think I can safely say that this is an issue, that
it is an important issue for us because we have to stand up for peace. We
cannot support public threats against Arabs or Israelis. We can't support
that.
Now, there has been a murder, a vicious murder, and the culprits need to be
found. We have faith in the Israeli police and the Palestinian police that
together, in investigating this crime, they will produce the suspects.
They will find the suspects, and they will bring those people to trial, as
they should be brought to trial if there is evidence linking any
individuals to this crime.
QUESTION: Why has it taken you so long to say this from this podium?
MR. BURNS: Actually, I spoke up about this yesterday, Carol. What we
have done since - first of all, there were two things that happened. First
there were public threats, reports of public threats by Palestinian
officials. Second there was a murder.
After the public threats were issued, we did follow up with the Palestinian
Authority -- discussions about what was said and what was not said.
Frankly, it was sometimes hard to get to the bottom of what was said.
After the murder, we quickened those efforts because we felt it was very
important that we speak out, and we did yesterday. We do so again today.
QUESTION: But it was only today that you spoke out so strongly and
unambiguously. I mean, up until --
MR. BURNS: Yesterday, as well. Yesterday, I think I spoke out very
clearly, unambiguously. I do so again today because it is an important
issue.
QUESTION: So, Nick, have you - has the State Department determined that
the Palestinian Justice Minister did make the comments alleged that was
reported two weeks ago?
MR. BURNS: Well, there are many, many reports. A variety of press
reports which do not conflict with each other, that there were threats
made. The other thing I can tell you is that there was - as you know,
there was a decree passed. Let me just try to - there was a decree passed
by the Palestinian Authority. There is no comment or reference in the
decree -- this is on the sale of land - to the death penalty in the actual
decree that was issued, and the decree does not specify whether or not
sales of land can be made to Israelis or to Jews.
There was some question about whether that language had been used.
To the best of our understanding, the decree does not have an impact on
either of those questions. But in addition to this decree, there have been
some vitriolic public statements. We would hope very much that the
Palestinian Authority would speak up for the rule of law. There is no
place for these kinds of public threats.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BURNS: Well, actually, we believe that Saeb Erekat, who is a senior
Palestinian negotiator, has spoken up publicly and said that this is not
Palestinian policy. It would be good to see a reaffirmation of that.
QUESTION: Do you know for sure if there is a connection between those
remarks and the murder? Or is that still under investigation?
MR. BURNS: That, I think, is obviously part of the investigation.
The decree was passed. There were public threats made, and then this man
was murdered. We, standing thousands of miles away, cannot connect all
those events to each other. That is up to law enforcement officials to
determine whether they were connected, and to determine who committed the
murders. But we support the search for justice, and we think that the
people who killed this man ought to be brought to justice. Yes.
QUESTION: I'd like to speak a bit about the talks yesterday between the
Palestinian and Israelis?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: You were rather optimistic yesterday that something will happen
within 24 hours. That's what I felt after you spoke to Dennis Ross?
MR. BURNS: Yes, and I was right. Something happened.
They had a meeting.
QUESTION: However - however - Saeb Erekat, he, in an interview this
morning with BBC World Service Radio, described the discussion as a
complete failure.
MR. BURNS: We have not agreed with that characterization.
Dennis Ross said last evening in Herzilya, at Ambassador Indyk's house, he
thought it was useful, a useful discussion. That is the American point of
view.
QUESTION: He is the senior Palestinian negotiator in these talks, and he
described them as a failure. And when asked if there are more talks to be
held, he said there is no - he sees no reason for more talks. Americans
must realize we need the implementation of the Madrid and Oslo Agreements,
not more meetings here, meetings there. And he asked the Americans to
state their position on the annexation of occupied territory even once.
What do you comment on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, my comment is this: Dennis Ross, who is Secretary
Albright's lead negotiator, described the meetings as useful. It is
important to have meetings. I very much disagree with any characterization
that is not important to have meetings.
If you can't sit down together at the peace table, then you are not going
to have peace. So the United States firmly believes that the effort to try
to bring Israelis and Palestinians into the same room together, at the same
table, is vitally important to rebuilding trust and rebuilding movement
forward in the peace negotiations. I don't believe, frankly, that either
Palestinians or Israelis really disagree deep down inside with that
sentiment.
No one wants to see a situation where people are not meeting.
Everyone involved - everyone involved - the Palestinians, Israelis, and
Americans say they want this peace process to be reconstructed.
To do that you have to talk to each other.
QUESTION: According to Saeb Erekat, he felt that the meeting is a
failure, and Israel is acting outside the international law, and that the
Americans should state, at least for once, their position on that.
MR. BURNS: I don't think I have to defend the position of the United
States as an arbiter and good-faith negotiating partner of the Palestinians
and the Israelis, and very good friend of the Palestinian Authority, by the
way. So I am not going to defend our position on that score.
I will just tell you again, the person who mediated the talks, who brought
them together, felt it was useful. I would draw you to the central
importance of those remarks.
QUESTION: I have a question on the aid. Is the United States raising
this issue now in part to reflect frustration with the Israelis about the
peace process?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, I was asked; I didn't raise the issue of
aid to Jordan.
QUESTION: I didn't mean you. But I mean in terms of raising it with
them.
MR. BURNS: Oh, considering aid to Jordan?
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: No, there is no kind of corner shot here. There is no linkage
whatsoever. We have an excellent relationship with the State of Israel,
and we work well with the government of Israel. That is going to continue,
and the United States' aid to Israel is going to continue because there is
a bipartisan consensus that it should. It is in our national interest,
obviously.
But we feel very strongly that aid to Jordan ought to be upgraded and ought
to be filled out and expanded. That is what we are working on. But it is
not meant to signal any kind of problem with the government of Israel. We
would hope that the Israeli Government would support the United States'
assistance to Jordan because Jordan has been a friend to the state of
Israel. King Hussein has been the most important Arab interlocutor with
the State of Israel for many years now.
QUESTION: To go back to Croatia. Did the Secretary get any sort of a
satisfactory response from Granic?
MR. BURNS: I can't say that there was - there was a quite vigorous
discussion back and forth. There were long explanations by the Croatian
government officials, Minister Granic, and others, about why these problems
had occurred; why Serbs are not being treated well; why there has been mob
violence against Serbs; why Serbs are not allowed to return to their homes
in the Krajina region. These are the minority Serbs who must be protected
by the government of Croatia. So I can't say that the Secretary was
satisfied that all of her questions had been answered.
She sent a very strong signal that we are unhappy with the lack of
commitment, frankly, on the part of the government of Croatia to
fundamental aspects of the Dayton Accords. There will be an opportunity
for us to follow up on these discussions. The Secretary intends to do
that, and what we hope is that the Croatian Government, understanding now
the position of the United States very clearly, will seek to improve its
performance in a number of areas.
QUESTION: Was the Secretary (inaudible) in terms of how Croatia would pay
a price for this, other than sort of you know --
MR. BURNS: It wasn't that kind of a meeting. The Secretary did say this,
that we know that the overarching foreign policy ambition of the State of
Croatia is to become a full part of Europe, institutionally, through
assistance relationships and otherwise.
We said what we've been saying for a good year and a half on that issue -
that we also share that ambition, but that fulfilling it will be dependent
upon the actions of the Croatian Government on the Dayton Accords. Right
now, they're coming up short.
QUESTION: What about loans that are up for approval?
MR. BURNS: The Secretary did not refer specifically to any kind of
financial penalties. But I think you know, Carol, in the past, the United
States has looked quite carefully at some IMF bank loans to Croatia, very
carefully at them. Of course, we'll continue to keep all that under
review.
QUESTION: Do you know how many indicted Croats there are?
MR. BURNS: Well, there is, just in the last ten days, an individual has
been turned over to the Hague, who had been in Croatia. But there are
individuals who are on Croatian soil who are indicted and haven't been
turned over. I can try to get you the numbers, George.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary raise specific instances of --
MR. BURNS: Yes, yes she did.
QUESTION: -- Croatians who should be turned over?
MR. BURNS: She raised specific names of people who need to be turned over
to the Hague for the war crimes tribunal. If you'd like, we can even get
you some of those names.
QUESTION: Zaire?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What's your assessment of what's happening there?
Do you think Kabila has been as cooperative as he could be?
MR. BURNS: Well, we understand that Mr. Kabila is meeting right now with
President Mandela in Capetown. We also understand that President Mobutu
has returned to Kinshasa. We understand that the situation in Kinshasa
today is rather quiet. The South African Government has gone to enormous
lengths to try to put these two people in the same room together. Now they
are following a strategy of talking to both of them individually, which is
a very good thing. We hope at some point, these two individuals will agree
to meet together; or at least agree on a set of rules that would provide
the foundation for a transition. We think that transition must be made.
QUESTION: Do you have further analysis, though, of the breakdown in the
talks yesterday? Of who stood up --
MR. BURNS: We think the South African Government provided adequate
measures, security measures and others, to set up a meeting.
We, frankly, are extremely disappointed that the meeting did not take
place. It was no fault of the South African Government.
President Mobutu, as you know, was present and ready to meet.
So that leaves Mr. Kabila.
Now, he has some concerns about his security; obviously, those are very
important concerns. We don't begrudge him that. But at some point, if he
is to be a part of the process of producing a peaceful transition and a
peaceful outcome, he needs to sit down with Zairian government officials to
work that out. That's what the South African Government is trying to do
now, and we support the South African Government.
QUESTION: Are you dismayed that, given his behavior in the last 24 hours,
that he is, as some commentators are suggesting, just bent on a military
victory?
MR. BURNS: Well, we understand that Mr. Kabila promised President Mandela
that his troops would stand down, pending further meetings. We hope that's
the case. He said that the last time, and the troops continued their
military offensive. So we'll have to judge him by his actions. We don't
believe that his troops should move forward into Kinshasa without prior
political talks that would decide on how the transition of power that is
clearly coming is going to take place; because we think that Mr. Kabila and
President Mobutu ought to have, above all, an interest in avoiding
bloodshed and protecting the citizens of Zaire from an ongoing civil war.
QUESTION: Is the United States giving any thought to sending another
special envoy?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any plans to send a special envoy. We have
our ambassador, Ambassador Simpson, in Kinshasa, ambassadors in all of the
countries where these events are taking place - Don Steinberg in Angola;
Ambassador Joseph in South Africa.
So I think we're well represented.
QUESTION: Prior to the meeting or the time of the meeting yesterday,
Mr. Kabila was meeting with the Angolan president.
The Angolans have clearly had some influence over the rebel alliance.
Have there been any conversations between U.S. officials and President dos
Santos about the influence that the Angolans are - or the role that they
are apparently playing in whether or not these talks take place? Or what
Mr. Kablia --
MR. BURNS: Yes, we have very strongly encouraged President dos Santos,
through Ambassador Steinberg in Rwanda, that the Angolan Government ought
to join the efforts of all of us - the South Africans, the United States,
France, the United Nations - to bring these parties together. We obviously
would not want to see Angola stoke the fires of a civil war and encourage
further military movement. We want to see cooperative behavior on the part
of Angola with the wider peace efforts.
QUESTION: Have you detected any troop movement by Angola lately?
MR. BURNS: I really can't speak to that. I just don't have any
information on Angolan troop movements. As you know, we have very strongly
encouraged Angola and other neighbors of Zaire not to lend arms or troops
to the fighting, but unfortunately there has been a great deal of evidence
to the contrary.
QUESTION: Nick, what role is Howard Wolpe playing and where is he? You
said before that there is no plan to send a special envoy. What do you
call Howard Wolpe?
MR. BURNS: No plans to send - I think where Carol is coming from - may I
interpret your question? Are you sending a special envoy from Washington,
like Bill Richardson - no plans that I know of to do that. Howard Wolpe is
a special presidential emissary.
He has been in the region. He was in Lubumbashi two days ago meeting with
Mr. Kabila. He is still in the region. I can try to track his movements
for you if you are really interested.
QUESTION: And also, I think you or someone told us that Ambassador
Richardson had spoken on the telephone with --
MR. BURNS: Two nights ago.
QUESTION: Two nights ago.
MR. BURNS: With Mobutu and Kabila.
QUESTION: Has he spoken since then?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe he has, but I can check on that.
QUESTION: Nick, as this transition takes place, as you say it inevitably
will and must, has the United States taken any accounting of what are
thought to be vast sums of money that Mobutu has in his control in various
parts of the world? How much is involved? What should be done with such
monies? How much of it came out of aid programs that never got to the
Zairian people?
Is that being worked on at all by the United States?
MR. BURNS: Well, just to take those questions one at a time, if I could.
We are not aware, we in the U.S. Government, that President Mobutu has any
substantial, or actually any financial assets here in the United States.
He may; he may not. We are just not aware of what his financial holdings
may be here. He obviously has sizable off-shore bank accounts. As you
know, he has homes in Morocco and in France and in other countries.
Obviously he must have financial holdings overseas. That is the answer to
question one.
The answer to question two is that we have seen reports today by the rebel
alliance that they are requesting a freezing of President Mobutu's assets
overseas. Frankly, we've not been informed by the rebel alliance that they
are expecting the United States to take any action in that regard. Perhaps
it is directed at other countries.
Third, we are not aware of any evidence, of any diversion of U.S.
assistance to Zaire to Mobutu's personal use. For a long time, for many
decades, the United States did supply economic assistance, funds to Zaire.
That stopped in the early 1990s, several years ago. We've not been
providing Zaire with that kind of assistance.
We would be extremely concerned were there any evidence that any of the
money sent to Zaire by the United States in the '60s or '70s or '80s had
been diverted, but there is no evidence of it. Obviously, that is a
pertinent question. I understand why you are asking it, and we'll continue
to keep that in the forefront of our own view here.
Now as to what should happen on this issue of his financial assets, I think
that is an issue for the government of Zaire to work out with the rebel
alliance and others.
QUESTION: I'm talking about aid money and not other kinds of money like
from the CIA for example.
MR. BURNS: George, I always talk about - George, we're in public here.
I'm talking about U.S. economic assistance from the U.S. Agency for
International Development to Zaire. Of course, I could never comment on
actions of the Central Intelligence Agency.
QUESTION: Not to nit-pick, but before you said money from the United
States, and John Stockwell has said that Mobutu stole millions in the '70s
of money that was supposed to be earmarked for other purposes.
MR. BURNS: George, I can't comment on anything pertaining to
intelligence, but I can say that of the very large amount of money extended
to the government of Zaire for many decades, through U.S. AID, we're not
aware of any kind of diversion of those funds for the personal use of
Mobutu.
Now, having said all of this, I should say this -- one of the reasons why
the United States has been so concerned about Mobutu's stewardship of Zaire
is that the country is bankrupt. It is bankrupt financially. The people
of Zaire have not seen the benefits of the economic riches, the mining
operations of that country. There is tremendous poverty in the country. A
small group of people in and around the Mobutu ruling circle have enriched
themselves.
There's just no question about that, and no reason to deny it in public.
So we're dealing with a problem of huge dimensions inside Zaire, and it's
partly responsible for the opposition to President Mobutu in Zaire.
QUESTION: Nick, on the question of the assets, are you saying that you're
not aware that Mobutu has any assets in the United States because you just
don't know about it, or have you actually done some looking?
MR. BURNS: Because we just don't know. I don't believe that our Bureau
of African Affairs has checked with American banks or investment firms, or
whether or not we even have access to that kind of information.
QUESTION: Well, is this something that you'd be interested in? I mean,
do you feel like you have an obligation to find out if Mobutu has funds in
this country?
MR. BURNS: At this point, we think it's very important that Mobutu, the
government of Zaire, President Mobutu, and the rebel alliance -- they
discuss these kinds of issues. This is a transitional issue. It's one of
the issues that obviously will be discussed. It's not for the United
States to offer public comment on how that issue should be adjudicated
between these competing factions.
QUESTION: Are you worried that if the United States were to take an
aggressive stance on this, that perhaps Mobutu would be less inclined to
leave?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe so. I think it's just our appreciation
that the United States cannot delve into every aspect of a country's
political crisis as if it's all our business.
This is something that he and other Zairian political leaders, including
Mr. Kabila, need to work out. This is what they ought to be talking about,
in part - all of these different questions.
It's not helpful for us to throw rocks from the outside.
QUESTION: Our story from Geneva suggests that the rebels do want - are
asking the United States to freeze whatever assets, if there are assets
here.
MR. BURNS: Yes, I saw that same report.
QUESTION: But you haven't gotten some formal request?
MR. BURNS: I checked with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bill
Twaddell just before coming out here. He said he's not aware, we are not
aware of any request from the rebel alliance.
Now, perhaps one will be forthcoming, I don't know. We'll just deal with
that if it does.
QUESTION: Would you honor that?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Would you honor that kind of request?
MR. BURNS: We'd have to look at the request and see what it was, but our
general orientation, our general view is that the Zairians need to work out
these problems. One cannot expect the United States to solve all problems
of Zaire. The Zairians need to shoulder responsibility here. Betsy.
QUESTION: I saw one article that says that the amount of debt that Zaire
now carries as a country is about $9 billion.
You're saying that this transition is inevitable. Have there been
discussions by this building, either with other countries or with
international banking institutions, as to what the world response should be
to a country that has a debt like that? Will we make any effort to help
them deal with this crisis?
MR. BURNS: Actually, I think it's very difficult for the rest of the
world to think of grand schemes to assist Zaire economically in the middle
of a civil war and just prior to a fundamental political transition of
power.
If there is a peaceful transition of power, and if the people who come into
the government are devoted to stability and economic reform and democracy,
if they want to hold elections, I think there would be great sentiment in
the United States, in Europe, in Africa to help in the organization of
elections. There would be great sentiment to help Zaire get back on its
feet. That will all depend on the philosophy of the people who take over
after this transition - the economic and political philosophy. We hope
it's liberal economically, and democratic politically. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: According to one wire service report, there are differences
between some U.S. officials and President Boris Yeltsin as to what kind of
assurances Russia has now that NATO is expanding closer to its borders. I
wanted to ask you whether there are these differences, and what is the
U.S. point of view on this?
MR. BURNS: You know, I really don't have any differences to offer to you.
We think the Founding Act is a very good document.
Now, NATO is still looking at that document, and I understand that the NATO
review should be completed, we hope by tomorrow -- we will see - by the
North Atlantic Council. Once that has happened, and once the Russian
Government has given its final approval, we expect the way is opened to a
signing of that document, the Founding Act, in Paris on May 27th.
We think we had good negotiations between NATO and Russia. The Founding
Act is quite clear in all respects. We think we have a full understanding
with the Russian Government of that act.
QUESTION: Yes, but President Yeltsin, at least according to this story
they are quoting, said, you know, basically about the infrastructures of
the former Warsaw Pact, whether they ought to be used or not. I think this
was the gray area, so to say, which these misunderstandings, if there was
one, took place. According to this story, again.
MR. BURNS: Right. Yes, I have seen many stories. I think we have a very
clear view of what will happen and what won't.
One of the parts of the Founding Act is a very clear written presentation
of what NATO will do and what NATO intends not to do as a matter of NATO
policy regarding the deployment of nuclear forces, regarding the deployment
of combat forces, regarding the utilization of infrastructure. It is very
clear.
If there are any problems to be ironed out, I'm sure we will.
But I don't think there are any major problems. Mr. Arshad.
QUESTION: Thank you, Nick.
MR. BURNS: Welcome back.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR. BURNS: Great to see you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Nick. This is just a question on
Bangladesh and India. And the United States supported the much coated with
all the appreciation of the Ganges Water Accord, which is life and death
for Bangladesh, being a lower riparian country.
Nick, as it turned out to be, any treaty, any accord has got its, you know,
gestation period. Now, we are seeing - this is the time that the water is
supposed to be on the receiving side of Bangladesh. But to their awe and
to the surprise of many, the water is not being received in the Bangladesh
side, causing a real concern, which may put the country in (inaudible).
And the rest of the people are very much concerned about that it has got a
tremendous bearing on the relation with India.
Having seen that the United States supported it, what is the current stand
of the United States? Should this treaty -- is it in flux?
Or in disarray?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Arshad, I would have to check with our embassy in Dacca
and our embassy in Delhi to see how we appreciate the implementation of the
agreement. I would like to take that question and get back to you. I
would be glad to do that for you. Nice to see you. Yes.
QUESTION: On the Cuban flotilla. I am told that the Coast Guard is not
going to go at all. Usually the Coast Guard goes with the flotilla. Do
you know why?
MR. BURNS: I don't. You would have to check with the Coast Guard on
that. But we have had considerable discussions with the organizing group
and with the Cuban Government to make sure that this weekend's events are
peaceful.
QUESTION: Nick, a clarification on the one issue on the laser story that
was left hanging yesterday, and that is - specifically the length of time
between when the incident happened and the Coast Guard actually boarded the
Russian ship. And had the State Department requested a delay in that
boarding so that you could notify the Russian Government first?
MR. BURNS: The State Department at no time attempted to delay the
investigation or to restrict an investigation. As I said, the incident
occurred on April 4th, a Friday.
We were informed on Sunday evening, April 6th -- the State Department was
first informed about it. When that happened, we went to the Russian
Embassy in Washington and the Russian Consulate General in Seattle, and we
advised them that we were protesting the incident, and that we expected
full Russian cooperation.
The Russians said that they would cooperate. There was no delay, as we
understand it, in the actual Coast Guard boarding of the vessel and the
investigation on board the vessel.
QUESTION: Certainly, there was a request by the State Department?
MR. BURNS: There was no request by the State Department to delay that
investigation. That would not have been right.
Yes.
QUESTION: Were there limits placed by the Russians on the extent of the
search? Because reports today indicate that the hold was not searched?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that the Russian Government or the Russian
Consulate in Seattle placed any limits. I think the Coast Guard indicated
that there were certain areas of the ship that were searched and certain
that were not. I believe that was at the request of the crew, but you
might check with the Coast Guard on that because the Coast Guard carried
out the search.
Yes.
QUESTION: On Turkey and Iraq. The Turkish Energy Minister just came back
from Iraq, and he said this morning that the Turkish Government is going to
seek an exemption from the UN sanctions, similar to what Jordan now has.
And I know this has come up before, but what is the U.S. position on that?
And a second question, he also said that the AIOC - the international
consortium that is building a pipeline to carry Caspian oil had decided to
build the pipeline between Baku and the Turkish port of Ceyhan which, I
believe is a route that the U.S. is in support of, but I was wondering if
you would comment on that as well?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to take both questions. I'm not aware of the
Turkish official's statement this morning. I have to see what - we want to
obviously talk to the Turkish Government before we have a comment.
On the second question, as you know, there has been considerable work done
by the Caspian Sea Consortium of Oil Companies by the Azeri Government, and
others, about pipeline routes, construction routes. There are a number of
preliminary plans. I'm not sure of a final decision, so we can check into
that for you.
QUESTION: Do you have any result of MIA talks?
MR. BURNS: I think the Department of Defense, my friend Ken Bacon, is
going to have an announcement to make today about some of the outcomes of
the MIA talks.
QUESTION: Any agreement between USA and North Korea?
MR. BURNS: I think Mr. Bacon is going to be announcing an agreement
today. He should be doing that right now over at the Pentagon.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - messages -- North Korea and other pending talks?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that we've made any progress on any of those
issues with North Korea this week.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:14 P.M.)
(###)
|
