U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #90, 97-06-13

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

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

ANNOUNCEMENTS
1               Baseballs Autographed by the Secretary for Journalists Who
                  Attended Opening Day Ceremonies at Camden Yards
2               Background Briefing on US-Korea Talks in New York Today at
                  3PM
2               Secretary's Meeting with Foreign Minister of Latvia,
                  Address to Women's Legal Defense Fund
2-3             Secretary's Schedule for Upcoming Week
3               Farewell to Tom Casey, Public Affairs Advisor, Bureau of
                  Inter-American Affairs
TURKEY
3-8             Tradition of Secular Democracy/Scope and Duration of
                  Incursion into Northern Iraq/Reaction to Appointment of
                  Amb. Holbrooke as U.S. Envoy on Cyprus/Deputy Secretary
                  Talbott Discussions with Gen. Bir/Status of Release of
                  Frigates/Announcement of New U.S. Ambassador
CYPRUS
7               Selection of Members of Amb. Holbrooke's Team
UNITED NATIONS
8-9             U.S. Position on Payment of Arrears and Need for UN Reform
CHINA/TAIWAN
9-10            Visa Issuance Process for Taiwanese Visitors to U.S.
MEXICO
10              Mexican Citizen Condemned to Death in Texas
CROATIA
11-14           Criteria for U.S. Support of World Bank Loans/Necessity for
                  Adherence to Dayton Commitments
HAITI
14-15           Postponement of Parliamentary Elections
MIDDLE EAST
15-19           Status of Construction of Housing Projects in
                  Jerusalem/U.S. Role in Peace Process
19-20           UNGA Vote on Requirement for Compensation by Israel for
                  Incident in Qana
CANADA
20              Status of Negotiations on Pacific Salmon Treaty
BOLIVIA
20-21           Composition of Coalition Government
NORTH KOREA
21              Conclusion of U.S.-DPRK Non-Proliferation Talks in New York

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #90

FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1997 1:03 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Gentlemen, how are you? Well, this is a special day here at the State Department. I know that a lot of you went up to Baltimore, to Camden Yards with the Secretary of State for Opening Day in early April, and we promised you then that you would get baseballs autographed by the Secretary of State. We deliver on our promises.

QUESTION: We're all getting baseballs?

MR. BURNS: We're going to throw out the first ball here today. But it is going to go to a very special individual. You probably can't guess, Barry, who it is, because you weren't here the other day. But Sidney Balman III, the son of Sid Balman, Jr., has a birthday tomorrow. He is how old? Four years old tomorrow?

QUESTION: Six.

MR. BURNS: Six years old tomorrow. When the Secretary of State found out that he was having his birthday, she autographed this ball, Sid. You have to catch it. We take it back if you can't catch it, okay?

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: Now, I'm going to throw a curve ball.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: How about throw a finger?

MR. BURNS: Anyway, I'm just going to toss this to Sid, and he got it. Excellent catch. For all of you who went up to Camden Yards with the Secretary, there are baseballs in the press office available to you signed by the Secretary of State. So how about that?

QUESTION: What if we went in spirit?

MR. BURNS: If you went in spirit, Barry, if you are the senior correspondents, anybody here, we give out baseballs to the people who have been here since which administration, Barry?

QUESTION: Coolidge.

MR. BURNS: The Coolidge Administration, right.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Since Bosnia was peaceful.

QUESTION: Please thank the Secretary for us, please.

MR. BURNS: I certainly will. We notice we weren't invited to young Sidney's birthday party, but that's all right, Sid.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) - the magician --

MR. BURNS: Okay, welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to welcome Patrick Murphy. He is Political and Economics Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Conakry. Thanks very much for coming.

Today at 3:00 p.m. in New York, at the foreign press center in New York, there will be a background briefing on the U.S.-North Korea proliferation talks. I will not divulge the identity of the background briefer, but I think you all know who that person is.

As you know, the Secretary met with Foreign Minister Valdis Birkavs of Latvia, and they had an excellent meeting. They mainly discussed ways by which Latvia can be integrated into the economic and political and security life of Europe and of the West.

Latvia, obviously, wants to become a member of NATO. That will not happen, at least at Madrid. But we do believe the door should be open to all members of the Partnership for Peace to be considered for membership in the future. In the meantime, we will continue our very close work in support of the Baltic Battalion, and our training of the battalion.

The Baltic Battalion serves with the United States in our sector in Bosnia and serves with the Russian troops there, as well. We have a particularly close relationship with Latvia and commend the Latvian Government on everything it has done to reform its economy and its political system.

The Secretary addressed today the Women's Legal Defense Fund Luncheon at the Washington Hilton Hotel. She has a variety of appointments this afternoon. Now, on Monday, the Secretary will be addressing the International Conference for Women with Disabilities. That is early Monday morning. Then she meets with the foreign minister of Bulgaria. I need to get back to you on press arrangements. There very well may be some press arrangements for that meeting.

On Tuesday, the Secretary will welcome here to the State Department, Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, who will be here for very important talks. She will also be addressing the George Mason High School commencement on Tuesday evening. That's for a very special reason: Bob Frasure's oldest daughter is graduating and Secretary Albright accepted the invitation of the students to address them in honor of Bob Frasure, in honor of his daughter who will be graduating that day. That's going to be a terrific event.

The Secretary will then go on with the President to Denver on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday of next week. Now, before we go to questions, I have a very special person I want to recognize and I hope all of you will join me in recognizing Tom Casey. It is Tom's last day today. I am very sad about that. He has been, without any doubt, one of the most outstanding press officers in this building. I know few other people who are more creative, more thoughtful, more energetic, who have higher professional standards, who have helped me more in this job than Tom Casey. He is one of the more junior people in this building who does press affairs, but he ranks in the top two or three of people who do it all over this building and this town.

One of the great things about the coming merger of USIA and the State Department is that we will be able to work together full time in just a couple of years. Tom is going to be going back to USIA here in Washington to work on European affairs. In fact, if you go the Madrid summit, you will see Tom there. I just want to thank you for everything you've done and I am sure the press corps joins me in that sentiment.

QUESTION: Will the leaks stop now?

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: The leaks are now going to stop, yeah. That's the only good thing about Tom's departure. All right, Barry?

QUESTION: Turkey -- the Secretary got into this subject a little bit this morning. Does the U.S. consider this to be a crisis situation?

MR. BURNS: In what --

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR. BURNS: I'm sorry. Turkey.

QUESTION: What does she mean by she would prefer they don't use - any party use extra-constitutional means? What is the danger there?

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if I would term it a crisis. That is for other people to determine, but certainly it is a very difficult time for Turkey. Turkey has been, for many months now, in the midst of a national debate about the nature of its political order and about the role of Islam in a secular society. As you know, we believe that Turkey's political difficulties ought to be resolved democratically. The Secretary said specifically, without resort to non-democratic means or extra-constitutional measures -- meaning, we believe that the Turkish constitution ought to be respected. The tradition of secular democracy, both those words being very important, ought to be respected.

Certainly, the military has a role to play in Turkish political life if you look at the Turkish constitution and look at Turkish history. But we believe in secular democracy. That is the foundation of our policy. We actually believe that Turkey has great inner strength, that its democratic institutions have survived crises in the past and we believe that the democratic institutions of Turkey ought to be allowed to function according to the Turkish constitution. That is what the Secretary meant. We are confident that will take place and we are not going to involve ourselves in the internal affairs of that country, but we remain a friend and we will watch this with great interest.

QUESTION: I'm still a little uncertain about democratic institutions and all those references. Has the U.S. seen on the horizon any kind of a political deal involving power that it thinks may not be all that constitutional? Is that what you're aiming at?

MR. BURNS: No. It is simply, I think it is prudent for us to remind everyone at a time like this that the basis of Turkey's success as a country in the last decade or so has been its democratic tradition and its secular tradition and we believe those institutions should be preserved. We also believe that the constitution should be respected. That is a very clear statement, Barry, I think, of purpose.

QUESTION: Also on Turkey, I guess it was last month when the Turkish troops entered northern Iraq, you showed an understanding point of view, in view of the fact that it was going to be limited in time and scope. It now appears that they are going to be there on a semi-permanent, if not permanent, basis. Have you changed your view of their incursion?

MR. BURNS: Jim, I would not agree with the premise of the question that they will be there permanently. The Turks have not said that. In fact, what the Turks have said very clearly to us, privately as well as in their public statements, that this is a limited incursion --limited in both time and in what they are trying to accomplish. They are trying to root out elements of the PKK which represent a mortal threat to Southeastern Turkey and to the safety of civilians throughout Turkey, as well as in the southeastern part of the country.

If you look at prior incursions -- and these have become almost an annual affair -- this particular one is not as long, so far, not nearly as long as the incursion in 1995 -- in the Spring and Summer of 1995, which went on for many, many months. So we do expect that the commitments that have been made to us and to others, that this incursion will be limited, we do expect that to be maintained and met. In the meantime, we do hope that the efforts by Turkey to fight terrorism will succeed, because all of us must stand against terrorists.

QUESTION: Well, when it began, did you expect the Turkish troops to be in Northern Iraq this long?

MR. BURNS: We did not know. The Turks did not tell us. I don't think they knew in their own minds how long it would be necessary to carry out the mission that has been set for the Turkish army. I think that is probably the most pertinent thing I can tell you -- that the amount of time the Turks are likely to stay is probably a direct function of the mission and the success of that mission.

We do believe that this should not be permanent, it should be limited; and we have been told that. I would like to just reaffirm once again, as I did yesterday, that the United States fully supports the territorial integrity of Iraq. We have never wavered on that point since March of 1991 when Iraq was soundly defeated by the Gulf War Coalition. We do not believe that any kind of mini-state should be created in Iraq. We do not believe that Iraq should be dismembered. That is not in the long-term interests of the Iraqi people. But it's certainly within the rights of the Turkish people to expect that terrorists that plague Turkey and threaten Turkey can be dealt with on this type of limited incursion.

QUESTION: You have reiterated that you have been told more than once by the Turkish authority. Now, I wonder who told you this because the Prime Minister Erbakan said last weekend that it had finished. The operation has achieved this and they were withdrawing.

MR. BURNS: Well, that's not the case.

QUESTION: And then the General Cevik Bir announced, no, we haven't finished. So, there is conflict within the Turkish hierarchy. And who told you? And how can we rely, I mean, on your word?

MR. BURNS: First of all, it is a good question. I cannot account for any kind of discrepancies in public statements in the Turkish Government. You will have to address that to the Turkish Government, itself. We have been told by military officials on the Turkish general staff, as well as by civilian officials in the foreign ministry, in the Presidency, that this will be limited in scope and duration. I think those are credible sources, are reliable sources. We rely on those commitments that this will be limited and not permanent, not permanent.

QUESTION: In all these conversations with Turkey, have the Turks expressed an opinion on the possibility of a Cyprus settlement and on Holbrooke's appointment?

MR. BURNS: I believe the Turks are pleased about Dick Holbrooke's assignment because they know him well and know him to be a friend of all countries in the region - Cyprus and Turkey and Greece. They know him to be a particularly tough and determined negotiator. I think they feel that we have appointed a very good person for the job.

There have been public statements by the Turkish Government to this effect, as well as by the Greek and Cypriot Governments.

QUESTION: Has someone here thought through what the turmoil in Turkey, the impact that it might have on any requests for the Turkish army to give up its occupation of Cyprus?

MR. BURNS: Well, there is no question that the Cyprus problem exists not in isolation, but in the context of broader problems and broader developments in the Eastern Mediterranean. That is why Greece and Turkey both are so critical for a positive resolution of the Cyprus problem, which has gone on now for many, many decades.

That is why, in addition to concentrating his efforts in talks with President Clerides and Mr. Denktash and others on Cyprus, Dick Holbrooke will be spending some time in Ankara and Athens as part of his mission because both of those countries are quite influential in this problem.

QUESTION: When does this start to happen, by the way?

MR. BURNS: When does - excuse me?

QUESTION: When does he get rolling?

MR. BURNS: He hasn't decided yet. I know that he wants to allow the United Nations sponsored talks, which I believe now will be held on July 9th outside of New York City. He'd obviously would like to see those talks go forward. We support them. Dick Holbrooke will not be attending those talks, but I think he probably plans some more direct involvement after that date.

This problem is not going to be resolved in the next few weeks. It may not be resolved in the next few years. So we want to have a deliberate approach. We want to work in concert with the United Nations, as well as with Sir David Hannay of the United Kingdom, who is also a special negotiator and a very accomplished diplomat.

QUESTION: Nick, did Strobe Talbott come away from his meeting last week in Ankara with General Bir reassured on the first two points that the Turkish military would not move to take the government over in the next week or so? And that their operation in Northern Iraq would be limited in scope and duration?

MR. BURNS: Well, Sid, of course, you wouldn't want me to reveal the diplomatic contents of a high-level meeting like that, nor would you expect me to. I cannot do that. But I know that Strobe has discussed all of these issues with the Turkish leadership, as well as with General Bir. Our position on these issues which Secretary Albright enunciated for you earlier today - crystal clear.

They are well known to the Turkish leadership, both civilian and military. There is no problem in communicating between us because we are such close allies. I know that Strobe had a very productive visit. We work with Turkey on a lot of issues -- on Nagorno-Karabakh, which was Strobe's direct concern in his trip; the effort by Russia, France, and the United States, as tri-chairs of this new international group to try to push forward a solution on Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey has a pivotal role to play there.

We deal with the Turks on Bosnia, on equip and train. We deal with the Turks on the issue of Israel, and of course, on Cyprus and Greek-Turkish issues, as well as the NATO issues. So there is a lot to talk about in those meetings, not just these issues that you have talked about.

But the Secretary of State said today that we do not believe that there should be any resort or recourse to extra-constitutional measures. You can rely on her as the leading spokesperson for our foreign policy. That was very deliberate statement.

QUESTION: One more on Turkey. What has happened to the frigate deal? Is that now frozen?

MR. BURNS: Well, the United States wishes to proceed with the frigates for Turkey, as well as the renewal of the Knox and Adams class vessels for Greece. We support both of them. We are working on the Hill to move both forward. We have encountered some difficulties on the frigates, as you know. We will press forward, but we obviously have to respect the role of the Congress and the Senate in this.

We very much respect it and will work with senators and representatives on Capitol Hill to move both of these forward, because both are members of NATO and allies of the United States and we think that both need to have military assistance and equipment from the United States. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Sorry, I stepped in late. I don't know if this question was asked. Did Mr. Holbrooke start to assemble his team? And will there be a special State Department coordinator within that team, specifically for Cyprus?

MR. BURNS: Dick Holbrooke has begun to assemble a small team. I am not in a position to announce our ambassadorial-level coordinator for Cyprus who will work on a full-time basis with Dick Holbrooke, who will be working on a part-time basis. I hope to announce that person, who is a very experienced career diplomat, very soon. But I am not in a position to do it right now. Perhaps next week or the week after, we can do that.

But Dick has turned his attention to this problem now. He has thought long and hard about it. I expect he is going to be an activist in this job, and that is why Secretary Albright appointed him to the position.

QUESTION: Nick, how about the new Turkish - U.S. American ambassador to Ankara? Is there any progress in you announcing his name from this podium any time soon?

MR. BURNS: There is a big problem in me announcing anyone's name. The White House does that, not the State Department. I know that the White House has not announced who our next ambassador to Ankara will be. I think we ought to let the President have the right to do that. When he does, you will congratulate us on an excellent choice.

QUESTION: What about Athens?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: What about Athens?

MR. BURNS: I think it's also true of the American embassy in Athens. The President of the United States, the White House makes announcements like that, not lowly figures such as myself here in the State Department.

QUESTION: From what you understand, is that a good choice that is made for Athens?

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: I can tell you the choice for Ankara is going to be particularly brilliant. I couldn't possibly comment on the choice for Athens, though. Yes, David.

QUESTION: Nick, what position is the Administration taking - what position - what votes is the Administration advocating on senators, as the bill goes through mark-up in Senator Helms' committee right now on the question of whether there should be a set of benchmarks or conditions set for the United Nations to agree to?

I mean, it seems to be quite a debate in the committee as to whether it is fair to the UN to be laying down bench marks that they have to reach, or else they don't get any money. What is the Administration's position at this point?

MR. BURNS: Well, in speaking with Secretary Albright this morning about this issue -- the issue of UN arrears and reform -- she does consider the action yesterday by the committee to be a major step forward in trying to resolve the long-standing problem we have had with the United States as the largest debtor to the United Nations system. So we very much welcome the clear bipartisan agreement that has emerged from the committee. We appreciate the efforts of Senator Helms and Senator Biden, the chairman and the ranking minority member, who worked so hard to bring this about and so cooperatively with us.

David, we believe that the conditions that the legislation would impose for payment of arrears generally reflect Administration policy for UN reform. That is, we believe that these are achievable reforms, but there's no doubt they'll require hard-fought negotiations both within the UN Secretariat and also within many member states. But Secretary Albright, who of course was our representative to the United Nations for four years, does believe very strongly that the United Nations must reform itself; that all institutions must reform itself, including our own institution.

It is legitimate for the major funder of the United Nations and the founding member and the host of the United Nations to put forth the proposition that the United Nations should embark upon personnel reform, administrative reform and programmatic and policy reforms. Luckily for us, we have, in the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, someone who has already put on the table an ambitious reform program, which we support in many ways. We think, therefore, the idea that our paying off of our arrears should be linked to reform of the United Nations is appropriate and it's achievable, and we'll proceed on that basis.

QIf other countries also set benchmarks that they want to be achieved before they're willing to pay their UN dues, will the United States support their right to do that?

MR. BURNS: Well, I suppose we'll support the right of any country to stand up in the United Nations as we have, and say that the institution should reform itself. I don't want to commit that we will support every suggestion for reform. We'd have to look at them on a case by case basis to see if they made sense.

I don't believe the United States is being onerous here, or impossible in our demands. The fact is that we are the largest donor, and the American taxpayers have a right - as well as certainly the members of the Senate and the House - to expect that the Administration will be vigorous in supporting the concept of reform.

Now, in the prior Administration, in the United Nations, we had a secretary general who did not have reform as his priority. That was one of the reasons why President Clinton and Secretary Christopher felt it necessary to look for another secretary general. But we have, in the current secretary general, someone who is committed. We are looking forward to working with him. We think this bill will help us get there.

QUESTION: What do you say to Senator Lugar, who says that the arrearages are contractual obligations of the United States and should not be subject to conditions?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think President Clinton and Secretary Albright have been very clear, for as long as they've been in office, that we do not like being the largest debtor to the United Nations. In fact, we've called ourselves publicly the largest deadbeat debtor to the United Nations. We don't like that. The American people don't want their government to be in arrears to any institution, much less the United Nations.

But we have an opportunity here to make sure that while we take steps that are costly for us to pay off our arrears, we send forward a very strong signal that reform is important and that reform ought to be followed through. We've taken that opportunity. We have not been met with a fundamental objection by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. He has welcomed the progress that has been made this week. He's put forward his own reform proposal. So we don't have a problem with the secretary general, and we certainly would look for the continuous support of Senator Lugar on this effort. Yes.

QUESTION: We heard that the U.S. is going to issue visas directly in Taipei, instead of in Hong Kong. Is that true?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me? That we would issue the - that the United States would issue --

QUESTION: That visas to the United States in Taipei, instead of in Hong Kong.

MR. BURNS: Oh, you're referring to the fact because Hong Kong is reverting to - yes, I understand.

QUESTION: Right, is that true?

MR. BURNS: Well, we are certainly aware of the concern about this issue that's been expressed in Taiwan. We would like to assure travelers from Taiwan that their visa applications will continue to be handled efficiently by the United States. We will maintain the continuity and the convenience of our visa issuance process for people from Taiwan who would like to visit our country. I believe last year we issued roughly 350,000 visas for people from Taiwan. But I really can't speculate on what arrangements may or may not be made after the reversion of Hong Kong on July 1.

Certainly, perhaps some revisions will have to be made in the processing, but I don't wish to speculate now on what they will be.

QUESTION: No timetable yet.

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of a specific timetable, but there must be a timetable because reversion is nearly upon us. At the appropriate time, I think everything will become clear.

QUESTION: You mean with it so near, you haven't decided on anything?

MR. BURNS: No, I didn't say that. I said I'm not aware of a specific timetable. I'm not in a position today to confirm any kind of change in our visa processing for residents of Taiwan who wish to travel to the United States; not in a position to confirm it. We've obviously given this a great deal of thought; and at the appropriate time, I'm sure we'll be able to confirm any revisions that are made. I suppose some must be made in this process.

QUESTION: Will they do that at the time they swear in the provisional legislature in Hong Kong?

MR. BURNS: I wouldn't link the two at all. I wouldn't link the two at all.

QUESTION: Nick, I have a Mexico question.

MR. BURNS: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: The Mexican foreign ministry says it has asked the State Department to urge Governor Bush of Texas to look into claims of procedural irregularities, concerning a murder case in which a Mexican faces the death penalty. That is a very brief summation. If you don't have guidance, perhaps Tom, as his last act, could look into that.

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: I'd like to delegate this question to the Honorable Tom Casey of the Inter-American Affairs Bureau, and see what he can do for you, George. I ask Mr. Casey, who is not off the job until 6:00 p.m. today, to get back to you with a very good answer. If you're not satisfied, George, you let us know.

(Laughter.)

Yes. I think Tom had his hand up first.

QUESTION: It's a Croatia question, as a matter of fact.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Dr. Tudjman is running for re-election on Sunday.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Today the president of the international Helsinki Federation is in town - sorry, International Croatian-Helsinki Committee.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: And he's put out a statement questioning your characterization of Croatian policy as having gone through a dramatic turnaround, and that then prompting the U.S. vote on the World Bank loan to Croatia. Specifically he says that, contrary to what you said, that there have not been several people arrested for attacks on elderly Serbs -- in fact, just one person; that the Interior Ministry held what was called, "informative discussions" with the other people accused in those beatings.

He also questioned whether President Tudjman's speech in Vukovar was as oriented to reconciliation as you suggested would be. He pointed out that Dr. Tudjman said there can be - although we will resolve individual cases of Serbs who fled Croatia, but of course there can be no question about 200, 000 or 150,000 people returning because then we would again have conflict and war.

He is saying that there has not been a dramatic turnabout, and wonders why the United States is not continuing its tough policy toward Croatia.

MR. BURNS: Well, in addition to his comments to the press corps, it might be useful if he made those comments directly to the United States Government.

QUESTION: That was to Assistant Secretary Shattuck.

MR. BURNS: He may have, he may have. I just am not aware of any kind of remonstrations he has made to us directly. It is always good, if you are an international official and you want to affect the behavior and thinking of the United States Government, to come to us, first and not go public with your concerns first. I don't know which he did in this case.

I would say this. We do not feel at all defensive, at all, about our policy towards Croatia in the last couple of weeks. I can't remember a more dramatic and unusual diplomatic scene than the scene in Zagreb at the press conference where Secretary Albright was so open and clear about our unhappiness with Croatian Government policy and the manner in which she talked to Minister Radic several hours later in front of a burned-out building in a little town in Croatia.

The United States has consistently, and more than any other country, stood up for what should be happening right in Croatia, what should be done to correct some of the abuses in the treatment of minority Serbs and others who have tried to return to Croatia. The fact is that what Secretary Albright laid on the table directly with President Tudjman was this equation. If Croatia can take positive steps on the issues of concern to us in Dayton implementation, then Croatia will have a friend and a positive supporter in the United States. If it does not, then the United States will respond and will not support Croatian efforts to integrate with European institutions or to be able to take advantage of international financial loans.

In this case, since Secretary Albright's visit, the following has happened. The Brcko Bridge was opened because President Tudjman let it be opened. He sent his Prime Minister to the opening with Secretary Albright. Fifty to sixty cars are crossing on a daily basis. Well, that doesn't sound like much to someone who is a veteran of the Beltway traffic wars, but as you know, in that environment, fifty to sixty is considerably more than zero, which was the number for many years. We think this is a victory and a step forward for freedom of movement.

Secondly, the fact is that President Tudjman did call for the arrest of Croatian citizens who were alleged to have brutalized elderly returning minority Serbs. Now, I cannot tell you how many people were arrested. I cannot tell you how many people ultimately will end up being punished for those crimes if they were committed. But the fact that the President of the country called for it publicly is a step forward. It would be more impressive if something actually happened to the people who perpetrated the brutalities.

Third, I did not read the entire speech that President Tudjman gave in Vukovar last weekend. But again, it would have been politically easier for him to have gone to Vukovar and made an anti-Serb speech. He didn't do that. He went to Vukovar and made a speech about ethnic reconciliation. Now, I cannot account for everything that he said in Vukovar, but one of the overriding messages that we took from that speech was a conciliatory approach by the Croatian president towards the Serbs in Eastern Slovonia and we felt that was positive.

On that basis, because of those three actions, we felt it was important to be positive in international financial institutions about Croatia's interest in receiving loans. That does not take away the lever that Secretary Albright is clearly exercising here; and that is, that if the Croatians backtrack on any of these issues, we can certainly resort to punitive treatment by the United States and other countries. I think we have done the right thing.

Surely, when you ask someone to take a positive step and they do it, if you don't respond to that, then you are confusing them about the carrots and sticks that clearly are being exercised here in our relationship with Croatia. So, I just wanted to be clear about that and I think - I think we are following the right path here and we are going to be very tough with Tudjman and Milosevic and the others who have not, by and large, fulfilled their Dayton commitments.

QUESTION: Does Croatia expect U.S. support on the next World Bank loan, which I think is coming in about ten days?

MR. BURNS: That remains to be seen. That will depend on the actions of the government of Croatia on a number of issues. We were very disturbed by the fact that Mr. Gotovac, the opposition presidential candidate, was beaten up by an official of the Croatian Government last week. We protested that. The poor man has had to leave the hospital and try to campaign again, obviously under very adverse circumstances. We call them as we see them. I do not know another country that does it like this. We will continue this tradition.

QUESTION: Could you call the Croatian election as you see it? Has it so far conducted a free and fair election?

MR. BURNS: We are going to, I think, ask the Americans who participate in the international observation of that election to make that judgment free and fair; because it is always best to let people who are on the ground, looking at polling places, observing the way the candidates are behaving to make that judgment.

Croatia, in many ways, has the markings and trappings of a democratic country in many ways. This was clearly an unusually negative event -- to see an opposition candidate beaten up and nearly hurt very severely. He had a cerebral concussion. That was most unwelcome and we advise the Croatian Government that it ought to do something to fix the state of affairs that allows that to happen. That will be part of the record of this campaign. You cannot avoid that.

QUESTION: Would you say that there has been equal access or fair access to the media by the various presidential candidates?

MR. BURNS: I cannot judge that, David, from my perspective. But, certainly, that's a fair question for you to ask perhaps Monday or Tuesday, once we get reports from the international observers who are looking at that question very directly.

QUESTION: Nick, if you're not happy with the answers to these kinds of questions, once the election has been conducted, will you be voting against the World Bank --

MR. BURNS: We are looking at the question very directly.

QUESTION: And if you are not happy with the answers to these kinds of questions once the election has been conducted, will you be voting against the World Bank loan?

MR. BURNS: Secretary Albright made it very clear, privately as well as publicly, that our basic position on whether or not those loans should go forward - it's not a question of actually voting, as you know, in some of the institutions like the IFC -- our basic position on these issues But more broadly on how Croatia should be treated by the West is going to be a direct function of what Croatia does on issues concerning Dayton.

That involves elections. It involves refugee returns. It involves war criminals. Croatia is failing on war criminals, failing. Croatia is not doing very well on refugee return, and we will see how it does on elections. But we do have to measure progress as we see it, and clearly there has been some progress over the last two weeks since Secretary Albright's visit.

QUESTION: Since you raised war criminals, could I just ask -- there were reports in the paper today that the military commanders of NATO looked at various American proposals on how to make the best use of forces as long as they're there in Bosnia.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: And that among those proposals was that it back up some kind of a separate force that would be involved in rounding up war criminals. The reports are that the military commanders didn't like that idea; they poured a lot of cold water on it. Are you disappointed by that?

MR. BURNS: I was fascinated by the report. I don't mean to take issue with the journalist at all. I was just fascinated by the report, because when I asked about this this morning, I was informed by the most credible people, people who were there, as well as people who are on the phone with people who were there, that the issue was not discussed in the NATO Defense Ministers Meeting. It was not on the agenda, it was not discussed. The Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, and Secretary Cohen both said that publicly yesterday. It did not come up in the NATO defense ministers session.

Now, I can say this. We've been very disappointed by the actions of Serbia and Croatia, particularly, on war crimes. It is their responsibility to turn these people over. They must do that. We are going to look for ways to continue to support Justice Arbour and the tribunal. We are reviewing a variety of options to strengthen that tribunal.

QUESTION: Nick, do you have anything on the Haitian elections, which I believe have been postponed again?

MR. BURNS: Yes. I don't think I have to defer to Mr. Casey on this, but I usually do in most senses. But I can tell you, George, that we understand that Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council postponed the run-off parliamentary elections. This will allow sufficient time for the council to implement measures which will enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral

process. We hope that this postponement will promote fairness.

We also hope, in contrast to the last Haitian election, where there was a very low turnout, that postponing it may allow the Haitian authorities to make sure that the broadest number of people participate.

We certainly think that a postponement for the sake of strengthening the electoral process is certainly a rational step. For those people that believe that Haiti should be held to the very highest standards and compared, say, to the United States or to Britain - we've had centuries to develop our democratic system. They ought to look at Haitian history just over the last 25 years and look where the Haitian people were under the dictators, and how far they've come since then. So I think everything's got to be judged in a relative sense. We think this probably, on balance, makes sense to postpone - with the understanding that these elections will be held with a date certain to be provided by the Haitian Government.

QUESTION: Nick, from where the U.S. stands - and where it stands looks remarkably like the sidelines, have the Egyptians been making --

MR. BURNS: What issue is this, Barry? We're rarely on the sidelines.

QUESTION: First Mid-East question. Oh, you're on the sidelines --

MR. BURNS: We're on the sidelines, maybe, in Equatorial Guinea, but we're not on the sidelines in the Middle East, Barry; you know that.

QUESTION: Oh, I know, on the ramparts on human rights in China.

MR. BURNS: We're just on the sidelines. We're not a former colonial power in Africa. I mean no disrespect to Equatorial Guinea. We have a very good relationship with Equatorial Guinea. I'm just saying we're not in the forefront of politics there. We're in the forefront of politics in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What's the language of Equatorial Guinea?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: What is the language --

MR. BURNS: You answer that question.

QUESTION: Spanish.

MR. BURNS: Spanish. Malabo is the capital, right?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Only place in Africa.

MR. BURNS: All right.

QUESTION: All right, so that takes care of Equatorial Guinea. And this may be the only Mid-East question you got all week.

MR. BURNS: I've never been asked a question on Equatorial Guinea, in two and a half years as spokesman. Although, I did know the capital.

QUESTION: Well, the lack of questions on the Mid East may suggest you are on the sidelines.

MR. BURNS: No, it just means that you guys are on the sidelines.

QUESTION: You seem too happily go to --

MR. BURNS: We're on the forefront every day, and you never ask me about it.

QUESTION: Telephone diplomacy, huh?

MR. BURNS: Absolutely.

QUESTION: You seem to move to the sidelines when the Palestinians seemed to decide that they couldn't do justice from the U.S. peace team; so Egypt moved in. From what you hear now, secondhand, is there progress specifically - from the sidelines -

(Laughter.)

-- and specifically have --

MR. BURNS: It's Friday the 13th. Barry's trying to --

QUESTION: Have the Israelis agreed - if agreed is the right word - decided to slow down construction of their Jerusalem housing project?

MR. BURNS: I've got a proposition for you, Barry.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MR. BURNS: You know the Middle East better than I do.

QUESTION: No, I don't.

MR. BURNS: You've been covering it since before I was born; isn't that right?

QUESTION: Not right.

MR. BURNS: Okay, anyway, you ask Benjamin Netanyahu, Yasser Arafat, Crown Prince Hassan, when he comes on Monday, Hafiz al-Assad and Hosni Mubarak - you put them in a room and you ask them, is the United States on the sidelines or in the middle of the Middle East peace negotiations?

QUESTION: You get them in a room, and I'll ask them anything you like.

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: You know what?

QUESTION: If you weren't on the sidelines, you'd be able to get them in a room.

(Laughter.)

MR. BURNS: And you know what, Barry? We are the only country --

QUESTION: Trusted by all sides.

MR. BURNS: No, no, that's not it. You didn't anticipate correctly. We're the only country that's ever gotten them in a room together - all those countries.

QUESTION: That's fabulous.

MR. BURNS: It is fabulous. I think it's the answer to your question. We're right in the middle of it. Now, the United States is in direct contact with the Israeli Government, with the Palestinian Authority, with the government of Jordan and with Osama el Baz, the Egyptian negotiator. We understand they had very nice meetings yesterday. We can't point to any particular progress in those meetings, although we are hopeful that something positive will come from them.

We very much respect and appreciate the role of Egypt. It's very important that Egypt is standing up in such a stalwart way for peace. We hope that that will continue to be the case. We're going to continue our efforts to try to bring the parties together. It's their fundamental responsibility to make the progress, though, as you well know.

QUESTION: Well, if you can't point to any particular progress, would you have considered an Israeli slow-down in construction a sign of progress?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that there is such a proposal. There may or may not be. I couldn't possibly say in a public setting like this.

QUESTION: Well, what can you say in a public setting?

MR. BURNS: Why couldn't I?

QUESTION: Don't you have a position?

MR. BURNS: We never --

QUESTION: You had a position. Oh, no, a position on the project.

MR. BURNS: You asked me a question about what the Israelis may or may not be doing, not what we're doing. We never comment on the details of substantive negotiations on those issues.

QUESTION: I didn't ask - well, the question was, is Israel slowing down construction and if it is, do you think that's terrific?

MR. BURNS: I don't know if Israel is slowing down construction. We do know that our position on settlements has not changed, that we think it's --

QUESTION: It's not a settlement.

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: By their definition.

MR. BURNS: Are you talking about Har Homa?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BURNS: I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about settlements.

QUESTION: No, excuse me. I'm talking about Har Homa which is the late --

MR. BURNS: You're talking about Har Homa.

QUESTION: I'm talking about Har Homa which was a major - yeah, no.

MR. BURNS: Right. I am not aware of any kind of change in Israeli policy on that. You would have to direct that to the Israeli Government. But on the issue of settlements, which I thought you were asking about, our position has not changed.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BURNS: We think that this is the time -- considering the problems in the Middle East peace negotiations -- for countries to take positive steps, not negative steps that will impede progress in the negotiations.

QUESTION: What will it take to get the United States back into the primary mediation role that Egypt is now filling?

MR. BURNS: I don't accept your question. With all due respect, I do not think your question is a correct analysis of the current status of the Middle East peace negotiations. We are thick in the middle of this, Barry, and have been for many, many years and won't leave that position because there is no country like the United States.

There is no country with our combination of strength and political will to be both friendly to Israel and friendly to the Palestinians and to be the kind of objective party that can help both of them make peace. Most other countries around the world side with one or the other with the exception of the United States. That is what makes us unique. That is why we have been able to make more progress as a mediator than anybody else over the last four year, the life of this administration.

QUESTION: Do you think Egypt shares that unique quality?

MR. BURNS: I think Egypt is a very important country -- one of the most important Arab countries. It is different because in the region, it is an Arab country. But we very much encourage President Mubarak to continue his leadership role. We are very supportive of it and we are very pleased that Osama el Baz has been so active. Dennis Ross speaks to him directly, Barry - not indirectly - every single day, ask Osama el Baz. Yes.

QUESTION: The General Assembly United Nations today is voting or endorsing the vote on compensation $1.7 million to United Nations from Israel. Now, this money is compensation for the base which was destroyed through the Qana incident, and also for the costs which the United Nations incurred in treating the injured during that incident.

There was also an inquiry last year which found that the firing on Qana of rockets into - was unlikely to have been the result of gross technical or procedural error for Israel. Now, why should the United States oppose such payment of reparation to the United Nations for the base and for the treatment of injured people?

MR. BURNS: These are two different questions. They are very separate questions in the UN system. On the first question, we do not believe that the Fifth Committee, the Budget Committee has jurisdiction to demand that a member state of the United Nations be assessed full responsibility for the cost of a UN operation. That is not the jurisdiction of the Fifth Committee. Only the Security Council has that power, not even the General Assembly, first.

On the second question, it's a very different question -- whether or not the families of the victims in Lebanon ought to be compensated directly by the State of Israel. That is a question that the Israeli Government will have to consider along with many other questions on this; but it is not something that the United States wishes to offer public advice on. It is a very sensitive and emotional issue, obviously, for the Arab families. Our heart went out to those Arab families. No one wanted to see this happen. We obviously regret very much that so many people lost their lives and we said that at the time.

This is a question that the Government of Israel and others will have to work on, but it is very much separate from the first question. Yes, do you have a question?

QUESTION: Yeah, about Canada and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Where do things stand trying to get back to the negotiating table? I believe Mary Beth West went out west last week to talk to some of the Pacific Northwest stakeholders. Was she able to shake loose anything the United States could lay in front of Canada and say, let's get going again?

MR. BURNS: Well, I mean that question presupposes that somehow the United States bears full responsibility for getting these talks going again. Let's remember who called off the talks -- Canada. They walked away. Canada walked away from the negotiating table, not the United States.

Mary Beth West continues to be very active. She is an excellent attorney for us. Senator Ted Stevens has been very active in a positive way on behalf of Alaska. Our American stakeholders remain committed to getting back to the table with their Canadian counterparts. We need to see less heated rhetoric from certain politicians in Western Canada, and we also need to see a hand outstretched towards us from the government in Ottawa.

Now, Secretary Albright and Minister Axworthy have talked about this a number of times on the phone in recent weeks, they are working well together. They want to have a solution. It is a very complex question. We think we should get back to the table; we are ready to go. But don't ask the United States to make all the concessions here. This is a negotiation where both sides have to compromise, not just one side.

QUESTION: The answer is, we're not ready to go back to the table yet?

MR. BURNS: Well, when we are back at the table, we will let you know because that will be a very great day. We want to resolve this problem. We ought to be able to resolve it because we are such good friends with the Canadians. Yes?

QUESTION: Regarding Bolivia, the winner of the elections in Bolivia, Hugo Banzer, is making a coalition with the party of Jaime Paz-zamora, who was accused by the United States as drug trafficking. I would like to know your reaction to this coalition.

MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if it is appropriate for the United States to interfere in the internal politics of Bolivia and to comment on who should be part of a coalition and who should not be part of a coalition. I can tell you that Secretary Albright did have a good phone conversation with the president of Bolivia, the current president, just, I think, five or six days ago.

We are watching the situation very carefully because we care about what happens in Bolivia. Without commenting on the internal affairs of Bolivia, I would also tell you, of course, it would be very difficult for us to work productively with people who have in the past been so centrally involved in narco-trafficking. I am not talking about any particular individuals, I am just putting forth a general proposition. Yes, Zita?

QUESTION: Since the non-proliferation talks in New York have already finished, can you give us any comment at all about how they went?

MR. BURNS: No. The commitment we made was to have the briefing in New York by the people who did the negotiating. I wasn't there. I would not want to mislead you in any way, so I think I will have to defer that until about an hour and 14 minutes from now.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:47 P.M.)

(###)

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