U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #79, 97-05-21
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1373
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, May 21, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Press Briefing Visitors
1 Secretary Albright's Activities:
1 --5/21-U.S. Conference of Mayors Drug Summit; Capitol Hill
1-2 --5/22-Testimony before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee;
Trip to New York
2 --5/23-Press Conference (Tentative)
2-4 Statement on Pacific Salmon Negotiations
3 U.S.-Japan Common Agenda for Cooperation
CHINA
4-6 Allegations of Export of Prison-Made Goods/Prison Conditions
& Access
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
6-8,11,13 Threats against Palestinians for Land Sales to Israelis
8-13 U.S Report/Discussions on Occupancy Rates of Jewish
Settlements
11-12 Alleged Jamming of Independent Palestinian Television Station
BOSNIA
14-17 Return of Refugees from Germany/Admission of Refugees to U.S.
16-18 Secretary Albright's Upcoming Visit
2,18 Appointment of U.S. Ambassador David Scheffer
TURKEY/IRAQ
18-19 Turkish Incursion into Northern Iraq
19 U.S.-Turkish Discussions
19 Reports of Syrian/Iranian/Iraqi Troop Build-Up around
Northern Iraq
BURMA
19-21 Arrest of Opposition/Investment Ban/ASEAN Membership
LIBYA
21-22 Report of Letter from U.S. Senators to Ambassador Richardson
NORTH KOREA
22 Four Party Talks
22-23 North Korean Basketball Player in Canada
23 Food Aid
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #79
WEDNESDAY, MAY 21,1997 1:27 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: We've already got a question, before I get up to the podium.
The question is, how much did the Russian Government pay for the - well,
the Soviet Union constructed the Russian embassy up north of Georgetown.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: I don't know how much they paid for the land, how much it cost
them to build.
QUESTION: It seems to me it was an issue not too long ago, because the
U.S. wasn't paying very much for the embassy in Moscow. Now they are trying
to negotiate that?
MR. BURNS: Well, that's the way it is -- you sign an agreement, you have
to live by the agreement. We are a nation of laws; we believe in contracts.
Anyway, welcome to the State Department briefing.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to pre-empt you.
MR. BURNS: Nice to get a question before I get up to the podium.
QUESTION: I thought you might know the answer and just whip it out and
that would be it.
MR. BURNS: I should have the answer, exactly. I want to welcome several
guests - Marjorie Kaplowitz is the deputy presidential spokesman in
Guatemala. Thank you very much for coming today. We also have 17 members of
the New Jersey chapter of the Zonta International Group. I believe you're
here and perhaps some over here. It's an international women's service
organization. Thank you very much for being with us. We have Ms. Afaf Zein,
who is a London-based journalist for three Arab newspapers. Thank
you for coming with us.
I wanted to review the Secretary's schedule with you both today, tomorrow
and Friday. Today she was over at the White House this morning with the
President for the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Drug Summit, the breakfast
with the President. She is now on Capitol Hill. She's having lunch with
Representative Gephardt, the House minority leader. She's going to be
briefing at 1:30 p.m. a group of freshman congressmen and congresswomen on
the China MFN issues, which as you know, is one of the Administration's
lead priorities. She'll also be seeing Senator Leahy on the Hill today.
Tomorrow, the Secretary will testify before the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. That's at 10:30 a.m. in the morning.
There will be a variety of issues she'll want to discuss, including of
course, State Department resources; the need for greater funding for our
foreign affairs establishment. She'll also be discussing Bosnia.
Then later in the day, she's going to be traveling to New York in the
afternoon and evening. She'll be presented tomorrow with the 1997 Intrepid
Freedom Award, in recognition for leadership and promoting peace and
democracy around the world. This is part of the annual Fleet Week in New
York City. It's hosted by the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum. The
Secretary will receive the award from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
John Shalikashvili.
She is going to give an address up there at approximately 8:15 p.m. It will
be an address that focuses primarily on Bosnia. The Secretary believes that
all of us need to turn our attention to Bosnia to make sure that we do
everything that we can to fulfill the promise of the Dayton Accords. That
is why she is going to be visiting Sarajevo and perhaps other points in the
Balkans a week from this weekend. That is why she is giving this speech
in New York tomorrow.
Of course, as you know, the President has also appointed David Scheffer to
be the special American ambassador, American envoy, responsible for making
sure that the United States supports to the fullest possible extent the war
crimes tribunals in The Hague for the Bosnian war criminals and also the
Rwanda war crimes tribunals. I wanted to give you a sense of the Secretary's
commitment on that issue.
On Friday, the Secretary will be here most of the day, and I do anticipate
she will giving a press conference on Friday morning. I will get back to
you with details on that. But this is the press conference that we have
promised to you, and she will be glad to take your questions on any foreign
policy issues that are on your mind.
I have two brief statements before we go to questions. The first is a
statement on the Pacific salmon negotiations. This may seem to be an
esoteric issue to people from the East Coast, but I can assure you that for
this government, our government, and for our citizens in the Northwest, it
is a very important economic issue. I regret to say that the United States
must announce that negotiations over Pacific salmon fisheries with the
government of Canada were suspended yesterday by Canada.
Now, you know that we had officials from our two governments meeting in
Seattle. We also met today - excuse me, yesterday - in a continuing effort
to resolve long-standing salmon conservation and sharing issues. We had
previously agreed to allow a group of stakeholders, local citizens, local
and state government officials from our Northwest and the Western Canadian
provinces to meet to try to develop a series of recommendations to resolve
some of the problems on this issue.
We believe that the American citizens - the American stakeholders in this
process - more than met the challenge. They developed a wide range of
proposals that we believe are forward-looking, that entailed sharp
reductions in key U.S. fisheries and a radical restructuring of parts of
the U.S. fishing industry in the Northwestern part of the United States.
Regrettably, the Canadian Government did not match this effort. Therefore,
the stakeholder talks ended inconclusively, and our own government-to-
government talks ended inconclusively. The United States Government
believes that the government of Canada has seriously misjudged this
situation and has lost, at least for now, the possibility of achieving a
long-term agreement that would benefit the resources and fisheries of both
the United States and Canada, resources that both of us as friends need to
share.
As a result, issues that have divided our two nations for a decade remain
unresolved. The United States Government, nevertheless, reiterates its
desire to reach an agreement with Canada, and we have suggested as an
initial step towards that objective that the northern stake holders
reconvene in the fall. The United States hopes that the government of
Canada will avail itself of that opportunity to get our people together to
resolve these problems.
Last, on just another media note, I wanted to just let you know that
tomorrow, May 22nd, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. here at the State
Department, we'll have talks between the United States and Japan on the
U.S.-Japan common agenda for cooperation. These talks will be held here,
led on our side by Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Tim Wirth;
and on the Japanese side, by Deputy Foreign Minister Ogura. They intend to
review progress under the common agenda with a reinforced focus between the
United States and Japan on Latin America, including Haiti and the
Caribbean. You know this common agenda was launched in 1993 by President
Clinton and then-Prime Minister Miyazawa as an attempt to get the United
States and Japan focused on some of the global, environmental and
scientific and other economic issues that affect both of us and for which
we, as world leaders, bear some responsibility.
Now, if you would like to attend the opening of this session, the opening
remarks are open to the press at 9:30 a.m. Please contact the press office
for information on that. George.
QUESTION: Will there be a press conference afterwards?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe there's going to be a press - there is going
to be a press conference, John, if I read farther? Yes, 4:30 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. Under Secretary Wirth and Deputy Foreign Minister Ogura will issue
their joint statement and be available for questions 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Where will that be? We will let you know where that's going to be.
QUESTION: On the Canadians?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Claussen is quoted today as saying that she
thought the Canadians walked out because it may have had something to do
with the Canadian Government's unwillingness to risk losing support prior
to the election - the June 2nd Canadian election. Do you have any comment
on that? And also on the Canadian contention that the American negotiator
informed the panel that she had no authority to negotiate compromises on
the treaty?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, I don't want to comment on domestic
political issues in Canada itself. The Canadians do face an election. It's
not for me to describe the position of the government of Canada. I'll leave
that to Canadian government officials.
Secondly, we did approach these negotiations with a full degree of
seriousness. We were ready to compromise, as we indicated in our statement,
and ready to make the kind of decisions to conclude an agreement. So we
were fully prepared to do that - the United States Government and
Canada.
QUESTION: Are the Canadians misinformed or are they misstating the facts
or --
MR. BURNS: I just can't help you with Canadian perceptions. I can just
tell you that we were serious about a deal. We were ready to make a deal.
We put forward our stakeholders. Our stakeholders from the Northwest put
forward a very good proposal.
QUESTION: Another question - last time the treaty talks broke down, the
Canadians imposed financial penalties on passage of American vessels going
to and from Alaska. Is that a prospect that you're prepared to meet? And if
so, how would you meet it?
MR. BURNS: We hope very much that does not happen. We have a common
objective. We should have a common objective with Canada to share resources
and to have cooperative economic activities in our Northwest and their
Western provinces. That means that you negotiate in good faith; and that
when talks break down, you don't take punitive measures unilaterally that
would be a great disadvantage to our economy in the Northwestern part of
the United States. So we very much would oppose that and would not
expect that to happen.
QUESTION: Do you have a vision for countervailing penalties?
MR. BURNS: Well, the United States always defends our economic interests.
We always defend our citizens. That's why we don't want unilateral actions
taken by the government of Canada - because it would force the United
States Government to defend our selves and our own citizens in the
Northwest.
QUESTION: Harry Wu is back in the news.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Charging that U.S. companies - K-mart and others - are selling
illegally imported Chinese prison goods - goods made by Chinese prison
labor. I guess I have a two-pronged question. What is your assessment of
the situation? Are U.S. companies selling these goods? And two, what is the
status of Chinese prison labor products today and how successful have you
been at trying to curb this practice? That's actually three questions.
MR. BURNS: Well, we've seen the statements by Harry Wu, and let me just
say first off that we respect him very much. He's a champion of human
rights. He's undergone a great deal in his own life - a very courageous
man. We haven't talked to him directly so therefore, I cannot tell you that
we have a detailed understanding of what he is proposing and what
information he has.
If he does have evidence that would indicate that China is allowing the
export from China to the United States and other countries of prison-made
materials, then we would like to see that evidence. We would be glad to
talk to him. We do have an American law that prohibits the importation into
this country of prison-made goods.
We also have separately from that, but it's complimentary, a U.S.-Chinese
understanding that the Chinese Government will not allow the export from
China and the import into the United States of prison-made goods. We take
this very seriously. As you know, we are the one country in the world that
stands up for human rights in China. In our annual report on human rights
we have been critical of Chinese human rights practices in prisons and the
conditions under which many of the political prisoners and other prisoners
have to live. So we will be very glad to talk to Mr. Wu if he does
have evidence to present to us.
QUESTION: Irrespective of the evidence Harry Wu has, have the Chinese -
as far as the U.S. Government is concerned - lived up to that agreement
that you referred to?
MR. BURNS: Well, as far as I know, the Chinese have. But we are always
willing to have an open mind, to see evidence if it can be presented to
us.
QUESTION: George Weisse, Customs -- was it director? I don't know - the
head of Customs today testified before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that China has not lived up to the understanding that they
reached with the Administration I believe in '94, if I am not mistaken,
saying they haven't allowed access to prisons when Customs has asked to
investigate and that sort of thing. In light of what you just said, can you
comment on that?
MR. BURNS: I have not seen Mr. Weisse's statement, but I was answering a
question that I took to be, has China allowed the export of prison-made
materials into the United States? I don't believe we have any evidence that
they have. In that sense, we believe they have lived up to the agreement.
There is a separate question here about conditions in Chinese prisons and
also the lack of access by the international human rights organizations to
Chinese prisons. We have consistently advocated that those Chinese prisons
be opened up so that people can see for themselves, objective observers,
what those practices are. In that sense, I very much would agree with the
statements made by the Customs Service this morning.
QUESTION: But following that question, you said, as far as you know,
China has not allowed the importation of prison-made goods into the United
States.
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: Is there a suggestion here that those goods might be coming in
without the knowledge of the Chinese Government?
MR. BURNS: Well, that is always a possibility. But, of course, it is up
to the Chinese Government to police its own manufacturers, its own
exporters. We had a problem on ring magnets a year and a half ago with just
this kind of situation. Where there were clear violations of United States
law, the Chinese Government says unbeknownst to the Chinese Government. So
you are always responsible for what happens in your country from a trading
perspective, and we remind the Chinese of that obligation.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Yasser Arafat has come out strongly in support of the - what he
is calling an old Jordanian law that they inherited that allows them to
kill people who sell land to Jews. Do you have a comment on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, I do have a comment, and it's meant to be a very clear
reaffirmation of the American position. The United States condemns any law
or any decree that would threaten death against any Palestinian for selling
land to Israelis or Jews. That is wrong. It is contrary to what must
prevail in the Middle East, which is peace and the spirit of peace.
Chairman Arafat must stand up for the rule of law. He must defend it in
what he says and what he does. Frankly, the recent statements by members of
his administration, his authority, inciting Palestinians to attack and
murder other Palestinians for selling land - those statements are
reprehensible. We have made that clear to Chairman Arafat.
Frankly, his comments this morning are comments we cannot support; are
comments that leave us quite puzzled as to why he would say those things.
We think it's very important to stand up for peace and the rule of law.
Heaven knows, in the last 49 years there has been enough bloodshed, enough
political murders, political assassinations on all sides. It's time for
that to stop. It's time for leaders to stand up for peace, and to encourage
their own populations to follow the rule of law.
QUESTION: Well, have you determined that there is such a law?
MR. BURNS: Well, the Palestinians say that they are implementing an old
Jordanian-era decree, when Jordan had responsibility for the West Bank and
Gaza. If there was such a decree and they say they're following it now, the
United States cannot support that.
QUESTION: But does it impose a death sentence?
MR. BURNS: Well, Chairman Arafat did not say that explicitly today, but
members of his administration have said that people who sell land to
Israelis or Jews ought to be murdered. That is not a statement that the
United States in any way, shape or form can support. We denounce it.
QUESTION: Is there anything more than denouncing it? Does the U.S.
consider its relationship with the Palestinians --
MR. BURNS: We are encouraging the Palestinian Authority to observe the
rule of law in what they say and what they do. We've made that clear
personally to the senior members of the Palestinian Authority membership.
We make it clear again today through this public briefing.
QUESTION: More specifically - nothing beyond verbal encouragement, then.
The U.S. has an involved relationship with the Palestinians at many levels,
including financial aid. None of that - is any of that being reconsidered?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any review of that. The United States will
obviously need to continue to talk to the Palestinian Authority and to work
with it. We hope to work with it well. The Israeli Government will continue
to talk to the Palestinian Authority and work with it. But when we see
statements like this that clearly lead people to believe that there's a
license to kill other people, that is wrong.
QUESTION: Nick, do you think these statements implicate the Palestinian
Authority in any of the two previous killings and perhaps a third one
today?
MR. BURNS: There's no evidence to that. As you know, I'm aware of two
suspicious murders in the last two weeks. I'm not aware of a third. The
Israeli and Palestinian police are investigating both of them. Until they
develop evidence that would lead to arrests and prosecutions and convictions,
the United States simply can't comment on that particular issue.
We do want the murderers to be found because people have been killed and
it's wrong.
QUESTION: So you want them to follow the rule of law. What is the rule of
law? Is this U.S. law? Is this Israeli law? What do you mean by the rule of
law?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, I think I'm not aware of any society on
Earth where murder is legalized; where there's a law that says, yes, you
can go out and murder certain types of people. That's wrong. There's also
higher laws that government leaders and leaders, for instance, of
Palestinian leaders - all of us around the world - need to live up to. The
higher law is that you don't kill other people. You don't encourage people
to kill other people because of political differences. That's the
higher law that all of us have to observe.
But the rule of law means that laws protect individuals and that governments
make sure those laws are implemented.
QUESTION: The Palestinian minister of justice, just two or three days ago
said in BBC radio interview that the laws they implement are mainly
Egyptian or Jordanian in the Palestinian --
MR. BURNS: Any governing authority, whether it's the Palestinian
Authority, the State of Israel or the United States Government, has a
responsibility for the laws that you observe. No matter where the laws were
made or when they were made - in the 17th century or the 20th century; in
Jordan or in Israel - you're responsible for what you do. If you say you're
living up to a law, then you're responsible for that law. That's not an
excuse.
QUESTION: But he's arguing that the Jordanian law allows - and he
actually cited a few cases of people who were imprisoned and were up for
execution in Jordan for selling land - so - and he asked why Jordan, which
the United States is now thinking of increasing finances to, is getting
away with it.
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, let me remind you that Jordan has not been
in control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since June 1967. So we're
talking about a little bit of history here. Secondly, the Palestinians are
responsible for the laws that they are implementing. If one of the decrees
or laws states that people should receive severe penalties or be murdered
because of their activities, then the United States has an obligation to
criticize that and to be very clear about it. That is what we are
doing.
QUESTION: Also on the Middle East. What can you tell us about this U.S.
report on the occupancy rate of Jewish settlements?
MR. BURNS: I can't say very much about that. As I told you yesterday, for
a long time now, for several decades, we have been following the development
of the settlements, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. You know that the United States has had a clear position on those
settlements for many, many years, through many administrations.
We periodically try to assess what is going at those settlements -- who is
in them, and how many people are in them. We use that information for our
own discussions with the Israeli Government and with the United States
Congress. We have not made those reports public, as far as I can remember,
which goes back 12 years. I don't believe we are going to make the current
analysis, which we have just done, public. But we are going to share it
with the Israelis and with the Congress.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu says the information contained in it
is so much baloney.
MR. BURNS: I saw the Prime Minister's comments.
QUESTION: Not in those words.
MR. BURNS: I did see the Prime Minister's comment. I don't think it's
wise for us to have a public debate about this issue. That is why I am
taking the position that we would rather have private discussions with the
Israelis, and not public debates.
QUESTION: Have you had private discussions based on --
MR. BURNS: Yes, we have had private --
QUESTION: -- this report?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have had private discussions about this issue for
many years. About this particular report, I believe we are going to be
having in the future, the near future, some of these discussions in
private.
QUESTION: Did Dennis Ross raise the issue with the Israelis on his recent
trip?
MR. BURNS: Well, the general issue has been discussed. I understand that
we are going to be having quite soon some private discussions with the
Israelis. But we think the way you work with a friend - and Israel is a
friend of the United States - is to when you have a difference, if you have
a difference, you work it out privately. You don't work it out publicly.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that there has been analysis done by the U.S.
Government. But it is analysis that we wish to keep private.
QUESTION: Apparently, Mr. Abington, the consul general in East Jerusalem
doesn't agree with you, or you don't agree with him. But he is discussing
this report openly, discussing what it is used for, discussing the vacancy
rates, you know, to whoever - it seems like whoever will listen. So what's -
is there a disconnect? Who is right? Him or you? Or what's the real --
MR. BURNS: Sid, don't - you wouldn't pit me against Ed Abington. He is a
good friend of mine. He has done an outstanding job as consul general in
Jerusalem. I am obviously - pardon?
QUESTION: So let's not personalize this.
MR. BURNS: I know, exactly - I agree with you. So let's just leave it
there. We won't personalize this. We won't get into yes or no questions.
QUESTION: Okay, diplomatic --
MR. BURNS: You won't ask me to comment on various individuals. All I'm
saying is that this is position that we are following here. We would like
to have a private discussion of this issue.
QUESTION: But Mr. Abington said in fairly clear terms that this report
shows what it shows, and that it proves that the Israelis are - their
position on expanding settlements is baseless.
MR. BURNS: Well, I've seen how the press has reported his comments. I
haven't had the benefit of talking to him personally about this. I don't
know what else he may have said in the course of comments to reporters. So
I want to be fair to him, obviously. But I can tell you that for two days
running I have told you we are not going to be explicit publicly about the
details of our analysis because we don't think it is useful.
QUESTION: Is that the U.S. position -- that your analysis of settlement
vacancy shows that there is no reason for Netanyahu to be expanding
settlements?
MR. BURNS: I'm going to keep our positions private because I think we owe
that to the Israelis to have an effective conversation with them. We want
to be respectful of our relationship, which is a very good relationship.
QUESTION: Then should Abington's comments be disregarded?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Should his comments be disregarded?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I wouldn't disregard the comments of our consul general
in Jerusalem. He is a fine man; he has done a fine job. All I am telling
you is this is a very difficult issue. We have never had an agreement with
any government of Israel on this issue of settlements -- the Reagan
Administration, Bush Administration or Clinton Administration. I think the
best way for us to pursue a discussion with them is in private. I would
like to keep it there.
QUESTION: Do you have any --
MR. BURNS: I think Laura has a follow up.
QUESTION: Generally speaking, does the U.S. Government think there is a
housing shortage?
MR. BURNS: The U.S. Government has many views on many issues. But it's
not in our interest to voice everything publicly. My goodness, if we said
everything that we were thinking and everything that we knew, we would have
a weak and ineffective foreign policy because no one could trust us to keep
things private. So we're going to keep this one private.
QUESTION: In a very unscientific survey, our crews went out today to a
number of settlements and spoke to some of the clerks there and also to
individuals who live there, and discovered that there were actually quite a
few homes that were vacant in a number of different settlements, which
would seem to support the comments being made by U.S. officials - unnamed
U.S. officials - in Israel. I mean, is there not a legitimate point that is
being made here? I mean, it's an argument that is out in the public
domain. Aside from what analysis the U.S. may have done privately, and are
discussing privately with Israeli officials, is there not a more public
issue, though, to be discussed?
MR. BURNS: Well, I mean, the press, you're free. ABC News is free to go
out to any of the settlements and to talk to people and to make your own
calculations. But I don't think we have a responsibility to divulge
publicly everything that we're saying to the Israelis because in diplomacy,
for about two or three or four thousand years, there's been this element of
confidentiality in discussions between governments; especially between
friends. I'm just going to keep it there.
I think there's certainly an issue here, Laura. Perhaps you'll be more free
to discuss it in public than we choose to be. Charlie, you've got something
on this?
QUESTION: No, it's actually on the first part of this Middle Eastern
discussion. Aside from your comments from the podium today, denouncing
those who speak against the rule of law and inciting people to kill, has
Dennis Ross or the Secretary spoken to Yasser Arafat specifically about
this issue?
MR. BURNS: Well, I do know that I can't account for who said what to
whom. I know this message has been communicated to the Palestinian
Authority.
QUESTION: On the --
MR. BURNS: -- very clearly, and that Chairman Arafat is aware of the
views - very clearly aware of the views of the United States. There's also
the benefit of having public briefings like this, where there's no
mistaking at all what the views of the United States Government are on laws
that seem to sanction violence.
QUESTION: But you don't know or won't say whether it's Dennis, Ed
Abington or Secretary Albright who has communicated this?
MR. BURNS: No, frankly, I just can't tell you. There are so many
conversations that go on in our relationship with the Palestinians. I can't
tell you in which conversation was this message transmitted. But I do know
from my discussions with Dennis that it has been transmitted.
QUESTION: On the question of communications --
QUESTION: -- has the case of Daoud Kuttab been brought up? The journalist
who was arrested by the PA?
MR. BURNS: Well, Daoud Kuttab is well-known to us. We've known him for a
long time - more than 15 years. He's a respected independent Palestinian
journalist. There are many of them. I think you saw that very interesting
report in the newspaper - are you talking about the jamming of the
television station?
QUESTION: Which apparently led to his arrest.
MR. BURNS: Well, actually, I am not aware of his arrest. I will certainly
look into that and try to get you something on that. But I can tell you, in
terms of the alleged jamming of the independent Palestinian station, we
believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We think it's a
fundamental right for all people, including the Palestinian people.
We actually gave a grant to this independent Palestinian television station
to get it started. We assumed that there was going to be freedom of the
press in Palestinian-controlled territories. We hope very much that the
lifting of the restrictions on that station will be permanent, so that it
can broadcast and report to the Palestinian people what it feels it
must.
QUESTION: On the question of communicating with the Palestinians, did you
communicate to the Palestinians the results of your survey on occupancy
rates?
MR. BURNS: Well, I suppose we did. Our consulate general in Jerusalem has
a mandate to be in touch with the Palestinians. That's the major link, and
so I'm sure that the results of our surveys, our work are known to the
Palestinian leaders through our consulate general in Jerusalem, as they
will be to the Israelis because this is an issue that affects the
Palestinians.
QUESTION: If it's known to the Palestinians, it's known to the Israelis,
it's known to the U.S. officials, why can't it be made public?
MR. BURNS: Well, let me just give you an example. When we have nuclear
arms talks between Russia and the United States, it's known to the Russian
Government, it's known to our government. We don't always make it public,
because in diplomacy you have to choose what you make public and what you
don't in order for diplomacy to be effective.
We have never had, as a standard for this press briefing, that I have to
tell you everything that I know. I have to live under the law here, which
says that when I have information that is classified, I can't tell you;
it's against the law. It's against the law for me to talk about classified
information. Sometimes, even when information is unclassified, not
classified, we choose to keep our diplomatic discussions private.
QUESTION: Well, wouldn't this information --
MR. BURNS: That's the way governments have always worked.
QUESTION: Wouldn't this information support what you often describe as
your long-held position on settlements?
MR. BURNS: Yes, but there's another unwritten rule in relations between
friends -- and we're a friend of the State of Israel - that when you have a
disagreement, you don't always immediately meet the temptation to go out
and publicize that disagreement. You don't try to embarrass your friend.
You try to have private discussions so that you can make some progress.
We're trying to be respectful here in a relationship with a friend.
Frankly, with the Palestinians, we tried to be respectful of them in the
first couple of days when we heard these reports of a murder. We tried to
get them to tell us what they knew. But after the silence there, we decided
not to wait any longer. So you always have to gauge these things tactically
on a day-to-day basis.
QUESTION: You've gotten no cooperation from the Palestinians on this
issue?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's really an issue they are going to have to cooperate
on with their own people and with the Israeli Government. Now the United
States is an outsider, but we do have views; and since we're the mediator,
we felt it was important to enunciate those views.
QUESTION: But you asked them, and you got no cooperation from them; is
that correct?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't think we have heard from the Palestinians the
kind of resounding renunciation of violence that one would hope to hear,
frankly.
QUESTION: Nick, you mentioned that the settlements survey would be
discussed with the Israelis quite soon?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you say by whom, at what level?
MR. BURNS: By American diplomats with the Israeli Government -- I can't
tell you when, where, who and how, but I can assure you that we'll have
these discussions.
QUESTION: You seem to be talking about a specific meeting that is
planned.
MR. BURNS: We have meetings with the Israelis ten times a day in
Jerusalem, in Washington, and I'm sure - I know we are going to have these
discussions with them.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Anything on the thousands of Bosnian refugees who are forcibly
leaving the 16 German states, creating another Balkan mess? And I would
like to know, Mr. Burns, how many thousand of those refugees are going to
be received by the United States?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Mr. Lambros, thank you very much. This is a more fruitful
avenue for our discussion than yesterday's, but --
QUESTION: Why?
MR. BURNS: Well, because you know I have the greatest respect for the
Greek press, that's why, and for Dimitri and Thomas, here, to defend the
honor of the Greek press, as well.
QUESTION: Did you check if this document is true?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Did you check for me if this document --
MR. BURNS: No, I must give you this -- I did read that document. It had
those words in it, and I was surprised to see those words because my own
view is that the Greek press is responsible and I have had the best
relations with the three of you, who are Greek journalists.
QUESTION: The Greek media in general, and who prepared the report?
MR. BURNS: I think --
QUESTION: Thomas Neinze?*
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: No, some institution called the Bureau of Public Affairs of
the United States State Department.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: Therefore, you can imagine my surprise when I saw the - well,
the Bureau of Public Affairs actually prints, isn't that right John? It's
our bureau -- the bureau which I currently head. Thank you for that public
service of bringing this issue to my attention. We're working this issue
inside the U.S. Government, confidential discussions which will not be
revealed publicly.
Mr. Lambros, you have asked an important question on Bosnia. The United
States supports the return of the refugees under the terms of the Dayton
Peace Accords and the repatriation efforts of the U.N. High Commissioner
for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata. Now, the UNHCR, the UN, has formulated a strategy
for facilitating the return of refugees and displaced persons over two
years, 1997 and 1998. In this case, we urge the German Government to work
closely with the United Nations on repatriation and to differentiate, to
distinguish between Bosnians from areas where their ethnic group is in
the minority and those from areas where their ethnic group is in the
majority.
The United States strongly supports the voluntary return of refugees and
displaced persons to Bosnia. We do believe that it is premature to return
forcibly Bosnians to areas where their ethnic group is in the minority. The
reason for that is that we have to be realistic. The conditions are not yet
appropriate for minorities to return to some areas. We've seen, in the past
week, terrible repression by Croatians against minority Serbs in the
Krajina Region and we've seen also violent incidents in Eastern Slovonia.
Secretary Albright has made known her displeasure with those incidents to
the Croatian Government.
We have made this view clear to the German Government and we're all working
with the United Nations, and we ought to work under the lead of the United
Nations. Now, the United States expects to admit up to 18,000 refugees from
the former Yugoslavia, primarily Bosnians, this year. This is our fiscal
year which ends on September 30, 1997. The United States has admitted, I
believe, over 38,000 Bosnian refugees since 1992. We are doing our
share.
The German Government has borne the major share of the refugee problem. The
German Government has taken in more refugees than any other country, and
the German Government has spent millions of Deutchmarks to support those
refugees. So I think we have to commend the German Government for having
acted in a humanitarian way since 1992. But we do believe that refugees
should not be returned involuntarily, especially where they are in the
minority.
QUESTION: I have another question. Anything on the continued Turkish
invasion, occupation, of Northern Iraq against the Kurdish people? Ankara
has deployed more troops and forces inside Iraq, and I wonder what happened
to the territory integrity?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I think Sid wants to stay on this issue, and then
I'll be ready to talk about Turkey.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Isn't the German Government just acting as the Dayton Accord
calls for -- if someone votes in the election, then they give up the
presumption of asylum; and so they therefore, have to go back? Isn't that
what the German Government is doing?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think it's a complex issue, Sid. I think you are
talking about tens of thousands of people here. So I can't generalize about
that group of people and say that they voted or didn't vote, or they should
or shouldn't go back.
The principle here is that however much progress we have made on Bosnia, it
is still not safe for some refugees to return to their home towns.
Therefore, the principle of voluntary repatriation is a very important
principle that the United Nations believes must be upheld.
QUESTION: But isn't that correct that the Dayton Accord - that is a
stipulation of the Dayton Accord? So the German Government - these people
who voted are supposed to return? They have given up the right to
asylum?
MR. BURNS: I would have to check. The Dayton Accords is a big document. I
don't recall every aspect of it in my mind, and I would have to check that
question.
QUESTION: We have been through this before. It's a pretty key point.
MR. BURNS: I'm sure we have a long time ago and been through many issues
since. I just don't recall the chapter and verse from the Dayton Accords,
Sid. But I will be glad to take the question.
QUESTION: Okay, also on Bosnia - apparently the Secretary is going to be
announcing some financial incentive and disincentives in her speech
tomorrow relating to different groups in the region. Can you discuss that
at all?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't want to get ahead of the Secretary of State. She
is going to give a speech. I want her to be able to give that speech
without me spilling my guts before she gives it. What I can tell you is
this -- the speech is in the evening. So what I would like to do is have a
background briefing here at around 3:00 p.m. by a senior administration
official intimately involved in our Bosnia policy. Then I will try to give
you at 3:00 p.m. -- or as soon thereafter as I can -- the text of
the speech which you can use on the record. You can quote from it,
so you can all file stories before you go home.
I can do that so you will know about the speech hours in advance, before
she gives it. But I don't want to do that 24 hours in advance.
QUESTION: Will it still be hours after it was leaked to The Washington
Post? Days after?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I don't know what you are referring to?
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: I don't know what you are referring to. Yes.
QUESTION: Still on Bosnia.
MR. BURNS: Yes, Envira.
QUESTION: You mentioned 38,000 Bosnians, they live already in the United
States? Is that so, 38,000?
QUESTION: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BURNS: We have taken in 38,000 Bosnian refugees since 1992 into the
United States.
QUESTION: Plus 18,000 --
MR. BURNS: We intend to take 18,000. In addition to the 38,000, we intend
to admit into the United States approximately 18,000.
QUESTION: It was only about 5,000, before Klaus Kinkel was talking about
5,000?
MR. BURNS: Eighteen thousand, yes, this year. So the numbers are quite
high. The United States is trying to do its share to respond to this
humanitarian problem.
QUESTION: Do you have a wide picture of how many Bosnians are going to
live in the United States? Or do you think that doing so, you are helping
those who are not ready to immigrate to a country?
MR. BURNS: I don't know how many individuals of Bosnian descent live in
the United States. I am sure that the Census Bureau could help you with
that. On the second question, this country was founded by immigrants. We
are all immigrants and therefore, we must remain open to immigrants. It's
the strength and the backbone of our own country. So we will keep our doors
open. We take in a million people a year as immigrants into the United
States. That is a great number, but immigrants help our economy and
they support us in many ways.
QUESTION: I'm sure the return of refugees is going to be a major issue
during the talks in Bosnia. You didn't give us too much detail. Do you have
an idea about going to Banja Luka or going to Brkco?
MR. BURNS: The Secretary is considering a number of options for her visit
to Bosnia and the wider Balkans region. She has not made any final
decisions. She is definitely going to Sarajevo to see President Izetbegovic.
She may well go other places; in fact, I think she will. But she has not
made firm decisions, so therefore, I am not able to announce them.
QUESTION: Could you define the short purpose of her first visit to Bosnia
since she took office?
MR. BURNS: Her first visit to Bosnia as Secretary of State is meant to
underscore the very strong commitment of the United States to see the
Dayton Peace Accords implemented fully, in all respects -- not just
economic reconstruction, not just the maintenance of peace by our troops,
but also the fulfillment of the obligations of the parties on war criminals,
on return of refugees to the areas where we have not seen compliance by any
of the major parties, with the exception of the Bosnian Government.
QUESTION: How would you characterize the role of this new ambassador?
Ambassador Scheffer?
MR. BURNS: I think David Scheffer has been a long-time advisor to
Secretary Albright when she was Ambassador to the UN. He was the guiding
force behind the creation of the war crimes tribunals, advising Secretary
Albright on that. She has great confidence in him, and he is going to look
at all of the war crimes issues on a global basis, not just Bosnia, but
also Rwanda.
QUESTION: Is it possible that Gelbard and Scheffer are going to Bosnia
with her?
MR. BURNS: I am quite sure that Ambassador Gelbard will be going. I don't
know if Ambassador Scheffer will be going. Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Anything on the continuing Turkish invasion and occupation of
Northern Iraq against the Kurdish people? Ankara is deploying more troops
and weapons inside the Iraqi territory, and I am wondering what's happened
to the territorial integrity of Iraq?
MR. BURNS: Well, many questions in there. I have nothing much to say on
the incursion except to say that Prime Minister Erbakan and Foreign
Minister Ciller have assured us that this will be short, brief, in both
time and in scope. Second, that the incursion is against the PKK, not
against the Kurdish people, against a terrorist organization that has
killed innocent Turks in southeastern Turkey.
Third, the United States, ever since the end of the Gulf War in March 1991,
has supported the territorial integrity of Iraq. We still do. Saddam
Hussein just gave up the right to be responsible for the northern and
southern thirds of his country because of his aggression during the
war.
QUESTION: I just have a follow-up. There was a death toll reported as of
a couple of days ago from that operation in the many hundreds. Are you
confident that those were all combatants? Do you have any kind of breakdown
on this?
MR. BURNS: No, we cannot be confident of that because we are not there.
We don't have American officials there. We have to rely on the Turkish
Government and also anyone who is an independent observer. There are
probably very few in Northern Iraq. So I cannot account for the figures,
and I certainly can't exclude the possibility, unfortunately, that
civilians may have been killed.
QUESTION: So you rely on the Turkish Government statements and assurances?
MR. BURNS: Turkey is an ally of the United States. We trust the Turkish
Government.
QUESTION: Nick, what do you understand from the shortened time in limit
and scope?
MR. BURNS: It's I don't believe we have ever quantified it, but there
have been a number of Turkish incursions into Northern Iraq for many years.
They have always been limited to a couple of days or a couple of weeks.
They have never been six to eight-month occupations.
The Turkish Government has been clear. It does not seek to occupy Northern
Iraq. It seeks to destroy the base of a terrorist organization that
threatens Turkey -- particularly, the civilian population in the southeast.
We believe that Turkey has a right to defend itself against terrorism. We
also believe that this incursion should be short, brief in time, as well as
scope.
QUESTION: Nick, a senior advisor to the Prime Minister of Turkey is here.
He has been meeting State Department officials. Is this something you all
have been discussing? And what other topics?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have discussed this issue with the Turkish Government,
both in Ankara and in Washington. We will continue to do so. I can't report
to you on the other discussions we are having. But I can take the questions,
see what we can get for you.
QUESTION: With this gentleman.
MR. BURNS: I would be glad to. Yes, still on Turkey. We are heading away
from Turkey --
QUESTION: Asia.
MR. BURNS: -- towards Asia. Patrick.
QUESTION: Turkey and Iraq. There's a Turkish report this morning that
Syria, Iran and Iraq are all building up their forces around Northern Iraq.
Do you have anything on that?
MR. BURNS: We have seen the press reports. We have not been able to
confirm those press reports. Iran and Iraq have no business massing troops
in Northern Iraq, and neither does Syria. I can't confirm the reports. But
without even being in a position to confirm them, I can tell you there is
no reason for those three countries to be alarmed by Turkey's military
movements. Yes, I just want to go here. Yes.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have any reaction to the SLORC of Burma rounding
up 50 of Aung San Suu Kyi's followers?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we understand that the military dictators in Burma have
arrested at least 50 people, if not more, members of the National League of
Democracy, supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi.
They have done this to prevent these people from attending a National
League for Democracy meeting scheduled to take place May 27th at Aung San
Suu Kyi's compound to mark the anniversary of the 1990 elections, which
were won by the National League for Democracy and the subsequently stolen
by the military dictators. This is yet one more example of the perfidious
and inhumane nature of the Burmese regime.
It's another reason why we don't think that Burma ought to be treated as a
normal country. It's one more reason why the President, yesterday, formally
put into play American economic sanctions against Burma, which we hope will
convince the Burmese Government that they are going to be more and more
isolated by the United States if they continue this inhumane treatment of
their own people.
I can also tell you that, in addition to that, we believe in recent months
more than 100 people have been arrested for political protests in Rangoon
and outside of the capital city; that several hundred political prisoners
remain in detention, including 29 members of parliament elected in 1990.
There have been at least 32 instances where members of parliament have been
pressured by the government to renounce their electoral mandates.
So we have seen repression on the streets against students, against
politicians. We have seen a full-scale assault by the Burmese military on
the Karin people, near the Thai border. We have seen the Burmese Government
look the other way when narco-traffickers have tried to sneak drugs out of
Burma into Thailand and into the United States by extension. We have a lot
of complaints about the behavior of the Burmese Government.
QUESTION: In view of that, is the Administration looking at going one
step beyond the sanctions yesterday and applying sanctions to existing
investment programs, particularly the UNOCAL oil investment program?
MR. BURNS: No, the President's decision does not do that. It talks about
prospective, as opposed to retroactive punishment. But obviously we will
maintain a vigil in watching the actions of the Burmese Government. I can't
rule out any options in the future, but I can assure you no decisions like
that have been taken.
QUESTION: Now, have any ASEAN countries supported any of these sanctions?
Have they done anything?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of it, and that is a shame because you would
think that budding democracies in Southeast Asia would want to stand up for
democracy in Burma. The United States is - if we have to stand alone
sometimes in Burma and Iran, we will do it because we are a democratic
country, and we do believe in human rights around the world. It would be
nice to see other countries -- European countries on the issue of China,
Asian countries on the issue of Burma -- stand up with us.
QUESTION: Were you trying ASEAN to delay Burmese membership in their
organization?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we are. We don't support that.
QUESTION: What are the prospects?
MR. BURNS: I don't know what the prospects are, actually. I think Burma
is grouped with some other countries as well. I think it's complicated, but
the U.S. position is quite clear on that issue.
QUESTION: Do you think that timing of these arrests might have been a
clumsy signal to the United States, since it came on the same day that the
investment sanctions came into effect?
MR. BURNS: Well, oftentimes military dictators are clumsy because they
have no appreciation for people's sensibilities or for the media or for
public opinion. If they think that by arresting 50 people, they are going
to punish us, they're mistaken. It is just going to reinforce the mood here
in Washington, and the Administration on Capitol Hill that the Burmese need
to be isolated; they are acting in an uncivilized way. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Talking about dictators, 54 Senators wrote a letter to Bill
Richardson asking for stronger sanctions against Libya, including
international oil embargo. That is in response to Colonel Muammar Qadafi's
flight to Nigeria, so-called religious flight. Do you think that is
warranted?
MR. BURNS: Well, I haven't seen the letter to Ambassador Richardson. I do
know that the United Nations had a statement yesterday, a statement that
renounced Qadhafi's joy ride through West Africa, and criticized Libya,
Niger and Nigeria for having violated the UN sanctions.
Very briefly, the sanctions are in place because we suspect very strongly
that two Libyan security agents placed a bomb in a portable radio on Pan Am
Flight 103 in December 1989, and killed 269 people. We haven't forgotten.
Qadhafi is not going to get off the hook. The joy ride may have been
temporarily fun for Qadhafi, but it is just going to strengthen support in
the United Nations to keep the sanctions on Qadhafi because he is a
dictator.
QUESTION: There are those who argue this flight was religious, and - I
mean, you are asking now for international embargo --
MR. BURNS: It is a pitiful excuse. I'm not aware that the people of Niger
or the people of Nigeria have been circumscribed in their ability to
practice Islam, and we support Islam. We are the fifth largest Moslem
country on Earth; we support Islam. But this has nothing to do with
religion. It has everything to do with terrorism in the fact that Qadhafi
sponsors terrorism.
There is another case where a French airliner was brought down over Chad,
and the French Government is trying to bring Qadhafi's brother-in-law to
court on that. Qadhafi has a lot to answer to, and let's keep the focus
there, not on religion.
QUESTION: But you're asking for an international oil embargo, you support
this now?
MR. BURNS: We have an American embargo on Libya, and it is going to stay
there, and we have UN sanctions on Libya. Yes, Bill.
QUESTION: Yes, Nick. Has there been any movement that you can report on
four-party talks?
MR. BURNS: Not that I can report on four-party talks, but there has been
a very intriguing development. We understand that a North Korean basketball
player is in - [laughter]. I'm serious, this is a serious issue, and I've
seen press reports on it. A North Korean basketball player is in Canada on
a Canadian visa. He has expressed a desire to play professional basketball
in the United States. You know where I'm going with this.
Now, if there is a specific NBA basketball team that wishes to hire him, he
would need to apply for a specific license from the Treasury Office of
Foreign Assets Control. We're not aware that any team has done this, but
the Boston Celtics did not get the first pick in the draft. It doesn't look
like Rick Pitino is going to land Tim Duncan. We need a center. He is
apparently about eight feet tall.
(Laughter)
We're desperate. This is an open invitation to all North Korean basketball
players. Call Red Aurbach or Rick Pitino in Boston.
QUESTION: Let me get a serious question in.
MR. BURNS: This is a serious issue. The Celtics are in the cellar and we
need to get them out of the cellar.
(Laughter.)
Like the Red Sox, like the Bruins, all the Boston teams are going to - I
wore this tie to give support to the Red Sox who are in about a 22-game
losing streak, as far as I can --
QUESTION: Nick, I'd like to follow up on that. What part did the
Department play in determining whether, in all seriousness, whether this
guy can play in the United States?
MR. BURNS: I'm serious.
QUESTION: I mean the NBA has --
MR. BURNS: What happens is, for a normal country, if an athlete wants to
come here they have to apply for a visa, and American embassies and
consulates issue visas, the State Department does. In the case of this
wonderful, North Korean center, he comes from a country that is under U.S.
economic embargo. Therefore, if he wants to come to the United States to
play professional basketball, he needs -- the team that would like to
invite him needs to apply for a license. But, hey -
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Seriously, would it be a congressman?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's up to the Treasury. Do you know anybody at the
Office of Foreign Assets Control?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Cuban baseball --
MR. BURNS: Cuban baseball players have been able to get into this country
for one - none of them have ended up in the Red Sox bull pen, but -
(Laughter.)
George Steinbrenner knows a lot of them, I think. Sir.
QUESTION: A North Korean diplomat, Mr. Li Gun, new on the block,
expressed his thanks to the U.S. and all relief agencies that were involved
in famine relief in North Korea today. Thought you might like to know
that.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on --
MR. BURNS: We support food aid to North Korea. It helps the North Korean
people. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:19 P.M.)
(###)
|
