U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #91, 97-06-16
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1137
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, June 16, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ STATEMENTS
1 Introduction of Visitors to Briefing
Secretary Albright's Activities/Schedule:
1 --Address Internat'l. Leadership Forum for Women with
Disabilities
1 --Working Lunch w/Bulgarian FM; Mtg. w/Carlos Westendorf
1 --Drop-by Under Secretary Pickering Mtg. w/Franz Vranitsky,
OSCE Rep.
1-2 --Hosting General Dick Myers Farewell Reception
2 --Commencement Address at George Mason Sr. High School on
6/17
2-3 --First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton at Andrews AFB Ceremony
on 6/17
REPUBLIC OF CONGO
2 Brazzaville-Situation Update
TURKEY
3-5 Political Debate/Recent U.S.-Turkish High-Level Contacts
NATO
5-8 NATO Enlargement/Prospects for Second Round
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
8,16-17 Israeli PM Proposal for Status of West Bank/Gaza Strip
17-18 Council on Foreign Relations Report
18 Issue of Status/Future of Jerusalem
NORTH KOREA/ SOUTH KOREA
8-9 Prospects for Four Party Talks/Tri-lateral Talks
NON-PROLIFERATION
10 Cyprus' Purchase of Missiles fr. Russia
TURKEY
10-11 Threats of Military Action against Cyprus
GREECE
11 Reported Mtg. between Greek Officials & Undersecretary
Pickering on 6/17
AEGEAN SEA
11 Imia-Kardak Islet
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
11-14 Croatia: Croatian Elections/U.S. Decisions on Loans
16 Macedonia: Clinton/Albright/Hill/Gligorov Mtgs.
NIGERIA
14-15 U.S.-Nigerian Relations
ALBANIA
15-16 June 29 Elections
CAMBODIA
18 Khmer Rouge/Pol Pot
18-19 Secretary Albright's Trip to Region
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #91
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997 1:42 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Was it a big hit?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Great, happy birthday to him; that's great.
QUESTION: The Red Sox got even.
MR. BURNS: They sure did - ten to one, that wasn't bad. We have to fire
Dan Duquette next, the general manager. Really, I'm speaking for Red Sox
nation - we have to fire Dan Duquette.
(Laughter.)
But they did split with the Mets over the weekend, which is not too bad -
ten to one. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I want to introduce some
distinguished visitors Andrej Brstovsek, who is a Slovenian journalist;
Vladan Marjanovic, a Yugoslav Serbian journalist; and Michayl Christov, the
third secretary from the Bulgarian Embassy press section. Welcome to all of
you.
Secretary Albright has had a busy day, as you know. She addressed this
morning the opening session of the International Leadership Forum for Women
with Disabilities. She is hosting right now a working lunch for the
Bulgarian foreign minister. You saw them upstairs.
In about 15 minutes from now, she'll be meeting with Carlos Westendorf, who
as you know is the new Carl Bildt - the new high representative, the person
who will be directing international efforts in Bosnia. We want to welcome
him here and have an initial discussion about the importance of Croatia and
Serbia and Bosnia meeting their requirements under the Dayton Accords.
She's also going to drop by a meeting that Under Secretary Tom Pickering is
having with former Austrian Chancellor Franz Vranitzky, who is the OSCE
representative in Albania. And finally, she's going to be hosting a
farewell reception this evening for one of our favorite traveling
companions - well known to all of you who travel with us - General Dick
Meyers General Meyers is a four-star Air Force general. He has been an
absolutely superb military advisor to Secretary Albright and Secretary
Christopher, before her. As you know, he's the special assistant currently,
to Chairman Shalikashvili.
His new assignment, based in Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, will be to command the
Pacific air forces of the United States, which is a major command job. He
was formerly in charge of U.S. forces in Japan. He's an outstanding
individual, and Secretary Albright wanted to say goodbye to him formally at
5:00 p.m. today.
Now, in addition to that, a very special graduation tomorrow evening at
George Mason High School in Falls Church, Virginia. Secretary Albright is
going to give the commencement address to the graduating seniors of George
Mason Senior High School. The person who will introduce her is Sarah
Frasure. Sarah is an 18-year-old, graduating this year. She is the daughter
of our departed colleague, Bob Frasure. It's a real honor, I think, for
Secretary Albright to be asked by the Frasure family to give the address,
and asked by the school. Sarah is an outstanding young woman. She is
moving ahead with her life. Obviously, she and her mother and sister
have had to undergo tremendous, tremendous problems over the last couple of
years just in dealing with Bob's loss. But they are surviving and moving
ahead, and she's an example of that. Secretary Albright is looking forward
to honoring Sarah and her classmates tomorrow evening.
The school is open to press coverage of this event, both to hear Sarah
Frasure and Madeleine Albright. That's tomorrow evening. If you're
interested, it's 7:30 p.m. It's in Falls Church, at 7124 Leesburg Pike in
Falls Church, Virginia.
Now, the United States remains deeply concerned by events in Brazzaville,
the Republic of Congo, where factional fighting has cost many lives and
brought the country to the brink of civil war. We call on all combatants to
adhere strictly to the cease-fire agreement reached on June 12th at the
national mediation committee under the leadership of the Mayor of
Brazzaville. We welcome and strongly urge immediate implementation of
measures agreed to on June 14th, which include reestablishment of
international and local telephone service, cantonment of troops at command
posts, free circulation on major city streets and reopening of hospitals.
The United States commends and supports the efforts of the mediation
committee, particularly to the President of Gabon, Omar El Hadj Bongo to
reach an early resolution to this crisis. We firmly believe that this
resolution must respect the rule of law and constitutional authority. In
this regard, we uphold the importance of respect for a democratically
elected government, for the restoration of the democratically elected
government, and we hope that this will occur and that presidential
elections can be scheduled on a timely basis.
The last thing I wanted to say before we go to questions is just to remind
you that tomorrow, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton will participate in a
send-off ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base which commemorates the 500th
humanitarian airlift mission to the new independent states of the former
Soviet Union. You will remember that President George Bush began this
operation, along with Secretary Baker, in the summer of 1992 -- 500 airlift
missions, comprising $1.8 billion in American humanitarian assistance first
to the Russian Federation, to Ukraine, to Moldova and now principally
to the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Tomorrow, the particular aircraft which is flying the 500th mission will be
a U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy. It will carry approximately $7 million in
privately donated medicines and medical supplies to rural parts of
Uzbekistan, including the Ural Sea region, and Ambassador Richard
Morningstar, who is the special coordinator for our assistance to the
former Soviet States; and actually part owner of a Red Sox farm team, by
the way, which makes him a special person in our eyes and a rabid Red Sox
fan.
He is going to be there along with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. I do
encourage you who have an interest in this subject to be there at 12:00
p.m., Hanger 3, Andrews Air Force Base. This ceremony will last about 40
minutes. The First Lady will make remarks. Ambassador Morningstar will make
remarks. We think that these 500 air missions represent the best of the
United States in our tradition of helping people who are in need.
They represent one of the first things, one of the first initiatives that
the United States took to help people in the former Soviet Union in those
states. Of course, our assistance has gone well beyond that sense, in
billions of dollars in other areas. I wanted to make sure that you all knew
about that. We posted a press statement on this on Friday afternoon. If you
haven't seen that, the press office can give it to you. George?
QUESTION: Why is every Red Sox fan "rabid?"
MR. BURNS: We have to be rabid. We have to be foolhardy to be Red Sox
fans. That's why we're rabid. We're Calvinists. Did you know we're
Calvinists? We believe in predestination. And the destiny of the Red Sox is
to fail, but we still root for them. That's why we're Calvinists. It goes
back to the Puritan 17th century roots in Boston. You're very sorry you
asked that question, now. I could go on and on.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: What does your mother say?
MR. BURNS: My mother is a Red Sox fan. My father, however, said they
broke his heart in the 1930s. He advised us never to root for them.
(Laughter.)
But I didn't follow his advice.
QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on the situation in Turkey? I
hear there's been a lot of phone contact with Ankara.
MR. BURNS: Well, the United States, obviously, since Turkey is a valued
NATO ally, is following the political events in Turkey quite carefully. As
Secretary Albright said late last week, we have full expectation that
Turkey's secular democracy will continue and be strong. We know this is a
difficult time in Turkey. We know that there is a lot of political in-
fighting underway. We choose not to participate in that. We're not going to
take sides. We just expect that the continuation of secular democracy,
civilian authority will be maintained.
QUESTION: Aren't those opposite ideas here? Civilian authority and
secular democracy?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe they are opposite at all. The president of
Turkey is a civilian, Suleyman Demirel. Secular democracy has been
flourishing in Turkey, although it is under attack internally in the
country, but we choose not to participate, interfere in that domestic
debate between those who prefer one course or another. We prefer just to
say that Turkey's secular democratic basis has been important to the United
States for a long time.
QUESTION: Are you worried at all about a coup there?
MR. BURNS: Well, we expect that civilian rule and secular democracy will
continue in Turkey. We hope very much that there will be no resort to any
extra-constitutional measures, including a coup d'etat, that would disrupt
the secular democratic tradition of Turkey itself.
Turkey's stability matters to the United States. The tradition of democracy
is very important in the rule of law, very important.
QUESTION: Has Albright or any other senior U.S. official been in contact
with high-level Turkish officials, including the army, to communicate
exactly that message?
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that the very strong view of the United States -
that secular democracy must continue - has been communicated to the highest
levels of the Turkish government. That includes the Turkish military.
QUESTION: And can you be more specific about that?
MR. BURNS: I don't care to be more specific, for obvious reasons. Those
contacts will remain confidential. But I can tell you, they were very high-
level on our part, and high level on the Turkish part as well, and
recent.
QUESTION: Nick, you say secular democracy is under attack. What's under
attack by - by whom?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I think that's obvious to anybody following events in
Turkey. But what we don't want to do, as a friend of Turkey, is insert
ourselves into that political debate and say that we agree with one side or
another. We must respect the right of the Turkish people and politicians to
work out these problems among themselves. But I think just a reading of the
newspapers will tell you that there's a debate going on. There's no
sense in denying that.
This is a difficult time for Turkey. We think Turkey will see it through.
We think that secular democracy and democratic government will succeed in
Turkey, as it should succeed.
QUESTION: But it's really not clear to me. Could you - there's two ways
to look at it. Either it's under attack by the Islamists, or it's under
attack by the Turkish military. Can you specify which --
MR. BURNS: You're smarter than I am on these issues, and you can
certainly write the articles that you wish to write. But I don't care to be
a political science professor and describe the basic debates that are
underway, because they're obvious to anyone following events in Ankara and
Istanbul and other cities in Turkey.
But what we have to care about is our relationship with Turkey. It's sound,
it's an excellent relationship; Turkey's ability to fulfill its commitments
to NATO, its commitments in Bosnia - which it is currently doing. That's
what matters to us. But you heard Secretary Albright say that we obviously
would not support any extra-constitutional measures. That was a very clear
recitation of American policy. She said that, I believe, on Friday.
QUESTION: But that's - Sid's question follows on the question that I
asked - why the suggestion that those two things are opposed. The Islamists
are a threat, one would presume you're saying, to the secular nature of
Turkish society; and the military is potentially a threat to the democratic
part of Turkish society.
MR. BURNS: I am choosing not to be specific about what we think the basic
fissures are in Turkish society. I want to talk about American policy,
which of course relates to our foreign policy with that government, but
which does not insert us into a political debate that is properly for Turks
to resolve, not Americans.
QUESTION: Last week I asked a question about some area countries, for
example Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan as exporting this fundamentalism to
Turkey. You took the question last week. Do you have any answer on the
subject?
MR. BURNS: No, I still don't. I'm not aware of any kind of effort by
those countries together to affect Turkey's internal political situation.
I'm simply not aware of that. Obviously, Iran has tried to export its own
radical brand of politics to many different countries in the region. I'm
not sure that's true about Saudi Arabia. We hope that Saudi Arabia and
Turkey will continue to be friends.
We hope that Turkey has stable relations with all of its neighbors. Turkey
is a very important country. We'll continue to watch events there very
closely.
QUESTION: What kind of guarantees for after the first wave for NATO
enlargement there will be a second one at all?
MR. BURNS: The United States wants it to happen. We're the leading
country in NATO. We're the most influential country. President Clinton has
said many times that there should be this open door to a second round. I
believe at the Sintra meeting the consensus among the NATO foreign
ministers at Sintra in Portugal was that there ought to be a second
round.
Now, we've not actually established a date for it yet, but you can be
assured that when the President of the United States and the Secretary of
State both say that the United States wants this to happen, it's a fairly
good bet that we're going to use all the influence we can bring to bear in
NATO to make sure that happens, because we don't think it's proper just to
allow one wave of NATO expansion, because that wouldn't take into account
the continued evolution of European democracies in Central Europe; and to
make sure that when they are ready, when they can meet the tests of
membership, that they can be admitted as NATO members in the future.
QUESTION: And what is the reasoning behind President Clinton's clearly
expressed position of support for only Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary
to be admitted in during the first round of NATO's enlargement?
MR. BURNS: Yes. We gave, I think, quite extensive testimony to the wisdom
of our policy last week. The admittance of these three countries will
strengthen NATO. We think that there are other countries in the Partnership
for Peace - many countries, which are future possible candidates. We look
forward to working with them. I should add Bulgaria, obviously, to the list
of countries. Bulgaria has a new government, an impressive democratic
government.
Secretary Albright has been very impressed by her counterpart, the
Bulgarian foreign minister. We hope very much that Bulgaria will continue
to make progress within the Partnership for Peace so that it can one day
become a totally seriously viable candidate for NATO membership.
QUESTION: Why is the United States opposing naming the candidates for a
second round?
MR. BURNS: Well, the United States has tried to be prudent about what we
say on the issue of NATO enlargement. We were the last country in NATO - as
far as I can determine - that went public with its own choices for NATO
membership for the first round in Madrid.
I was surprised to see - I don't blame Bill Droziak, who is an excellent
journalist - but in Bill's piece on Saturday - and I'm not taking issue
with Bill at all; I have a lot of respect for him. But Bill quotes some
European diplomats, some friends and allies of the United States who
anonymously said they were shocked, shocked that the United States would go
public with its choices for NATO membership, and that it put pressure on
those poor countries.
I was shocked to see the statements. We were the last country to declare
our choices. You had presidents and prime ministers of European allies of
the United States parading around Europe for the last 12 months, announcing
their choices. We decided to withhold our choices publicly because we
wanted to be prudent about it. We wanted to make sure that we were working
internally in NATO, confidentially, to discuss our choices, as we did
with all of our NATO allies. But we had to go public a month before
Madrid in order to make sure that the decision was brought to bear.
I think we'll take the same tack on the issue of the second round. You're
not going to see the United States declare, three weeks from today, we
support these 18 countries or these two countries or five countries. We
need to see where these countries are a year or two from now, or whenever
in the future a date is set for the second round of NATO membership.
QUESTION: So, in other words, you would oppose at Madrid naming anybody
for a second round?
MR. BURNS: I don't think there's going to be a consensus at Madrid. NATO
operates on consensus; NATO doesn't operate because one country says it
wants certain countries in. I don't believe there's going to be a consensus
by Madrid on who should get in the second round.
We believe there will be a consensus at Madrid on the issue of a second
round, however; that there should be a second round. We'll leave it to the
intervening time to determine which countries should be invited to
participate in that second round. But there will be a second round. That's
the very strong view of President Clinton and Secretary Albright.
QUESTION: Still on NATO.
MR. BURNS: Yeah.
QUESTION: Last week - and you might have touched on this Friday, but I
wasn't here. You said that the Secretary was going to make calls to Romania
and Slovenia to explain the United States' decision on NATO this time. Did
she make the calls? And what was the reading on them?
MR. BURNS: I believe I said, Crystal, the Secretary would be making calls
to some of our allies. She called French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine.
They had a very good talk - their first talk since he was appointed as
foreign minister.
She outlined our rationale and the hope that we could work out a reasonable
consensus, heading towards Madrid. Our very firm view is three countries
for Madrid, and then an open door after Madrid. They had a good discussion
about that issue.
We have been in touch with the Romanian and Slovenian Governments through
our ambassadors, and also through some senior officials here in Washington
to explain our rationale. I think those countries are obviously disappointed
because they wanted to be in the first round. We think that it is better to
leave that question for a second round, that question, and to hope that
these countries can further cement their reforms and make sure that they
can meet the very high test that we have for NATO membership.
Let's remember this is not a beauty contest. It is not a popularity
contest. It is not a process where you give out political favors based on
your historical ties to a country. This is a process where you strengthen
NATO. That has to be the real sole criterion -- will it strengthen NATO? We
think these three countries, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland will
strengthen NATO.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Middle East?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What if Croatia is allowed - (inaudible) --
MR. BURNS: Well, let's go to the Middle East and then we'll come back to
Croatia. I'll be glad to. Yes?
QUESTION: The Prime Minister has gone public with a map.
MR. BURNS: The Prime Minister of Israel.
QUESTION: Of Israel, yes.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: With a map that outlines his vision of a final settlement. Have
you all seen it? What do you think about it? So-and-so?
MR. BURNS: Our view is that any proposals or comments or plans or maps
pertaining to the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are properly,
and only properly, the preserve of the permanent status talks between the
Palestinians and the Israelis. That's the appropriate forum, not the State
Department briefing, not the White House podium, not in what we say, but in
what they say and do. So, if there is a proposal -- and I gather there
is -- then obviously, it should be debated between Palestinians and
Israelis across the table from one another in permanent status talks. We
have taken the position, Sid, as you know, that we don't want to comment on
specific proposals in advance of those talks. Carol?
QUESTION: Apparently there is some optimistic words coming from Seoul
about the possibility of final agreement from North Korea on Four-Party
talks. Has the United States been informed by Pyongyang that it is ready to
enter into talks without conditions?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe we have. I know that there was another
trilateral meeting on Friday afternoon. Mark Minton, our very fine Korean
Desk office director, participated for the United States. We continue to
hope that North Korea will accept our invitation to participate in the four-
party talks, but we have no agreement yet by North Korea that it will do
so. This is a big - a very large, important objective of American policy in
Asia and we hope to realize it, but we have been down the road enough times
or almost to the altar enough times with the North Koreans to understand
that you do not want to say your vows until you actually get to the altar
and we're not there yet.
I do not know if we are even walking in the church yet. I'm not sure where
we are. We are probably thinking about the church and we have it on the
horizon, we've got our tuxedos on, but -- is this going to be understandable
in translation into Korean? That is what I'm worried about.
(Laughter.)
Let me just say this. Forget about my matrimonial metaphors. Let's just say
this. We have been down enough roads with the North Koreans and never
gotten to the end of those roads to know that we'll have to take it one
step at a time. We do not have an agreement yet. We hope to have an
agreement. We will continue to work on it. We're working pretty hard on
this right now. There are a lot of talks, but no progress yet that I can
point to.
QUESTION: There's been no progress?
MR. BURNS: Not that I can point to. Not that I wish to point to.
QUESTION: What can you say - it's been reported that there was no
progress; that the North Koreans didn't really want to go forward on these
missile talks on Friday with Mr. Minton.
MR. BURNS: Those were useful and business-like talks in the lexicon of
the State Department - useful and businesslike, Bill.
QUESTION: What follows useful and businesslike?
MR. BURNS: Well, hopefully more useful and more businesslike talks so
that we can get better behavior from the North Koreans on proliferation
issues. That is important. But we will continue to work very seriously with
the North Koreans on all these issues.
QUESTION: How about other talks that are going to follow these talks on
the missiles? I mean more missile talks?
MR. BURNS: I don't know that we have agreed to any specific dates for new
talks. But obviously, the United States wants to have regular talks with
the North Koreans on the issue of missile proliferation, yes.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BURNS: Yes, and them we'll go to Mr. Lambros. Yes?
QUESTION: Primakov in Moscow -- he said that these contracts for the
Greek Cypriot missiles have been signed and missiles will be shipped. There
will be no retreat. What is the U.S. comment?
MR. BURNS: I saw those comments. The position of the United States has
not changed. We believe that Cyprus' purchase of SA-10 or S-300 missiles
represents a setback to diplomatic peace efforts. Secretary Albright
reiterated this view when she met with Foreign Minister Kasoulides on June
6th.
We have raised this concern at the most senior levels of the Russian
Government consistently over the last couple of months. You will recall
that, I believe it was in January of this year, January 1997, when
President Clerides guaranteed that not one component of this particular
missile system would reach Cyprus for 16 months, starting on the clock in
January 1997. This gives times for negotiations and for discussions which
we hope will make sufficient progress among the parties so that it won't be
necessary or wise for the deployment of these missiles to be necessary 16
months after January '97 or in March of 1998.
QUESTION: But given your statement --
MR. BURNS: Longer than March '98, excuse me. The summer of 1998.
QUESTION: Two weeks ago, the last week, the Cypriot Foreign Minister
visited Ms. Albright. At that time, even his statement and your statement,
show that Greek Cypriot import some part of this missile and even discredit
his promises. Don't you have any reaction?
MR. BURNS: I don't accept your facts, with all due respect, Savas. With
all due respect, I do not understand that that report is true. We have been
told in very clear terms by a very honorable person, the president of
Cyprus -- a man who has kept his word always to the United States -- that
none of these parts would be imported for 16 months. That would take us to
the Summer of 1998. We have no evidence to the contrary -- no evidence
that missile parts have been introduced, missile parts that are components
of this SA-10 system.
QUESTION: Despite the fact that Mr. Clerides promised not to deliver in
the next 16 months period, still Turkish threatened for plaintive strikes
against the Republic of Cyprus. I would like you to comment on this
particular issue.
MR. BURNS: Just as we do not believe it is wise to introduce a missile
system into the Eastern Mediterranean, we think it is objectionable and
unwise for Turkey to threaten any kind of military action against Cyprus.
We have said so publicly. We have told the Turkish Government privately
about this. We mean what we say. Turkey ought not to threaten Cyprus.
Turkey has no reason to threaten Cyprus, because here you have the United
Nations Secretary General bringing the parties together in just a couple of
weeks outside of New York. You have Dick Holbrooke appointed by the
Secretary of State to lead our own efforts. You have Sir David Hannay,
who will be leading the U.K. efforts. There is enough reason to think
that there could be diplomatic movement forward to encourage the Turkish
Government not to launch rhetorical broadsides and threats against the
government of Cyprus which are unwarranted.
QUESTION: Of course you said the other day about counter-measures on
behalf of Turkey. You remember one of your letters -- the read-out for the
meeting between Secretary of State and Mr. Clerides. You were talking about
counter-measures by others, namely Turkey. That is why --
MR. BURNS: We would never support any threat of force or any use of force
in the eastern Mediterranean.
QUESTION: The Greek Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Ioannis
Kasoulides - together with a bunch of Greek ambassadors in charge for
Turkish, U.S. and Balkan Affairs are going to meet tomorrow here at the
State Department with Under Secretary Pickering. I am wondering, Mr. Burns,
who initiated this meeting and the purpose of it?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I will try to get you more information on those
meetings and we will get back to you tomorrow with enough information to
satisfy your curiosity on that issue.
QUESTION: And the last one -- the President of the Western Pallas Center
of California last week met here at the State Department with senior
officials regarding the Aegean issue. He stated after the meeting to the
press that the State Department instructed Penniman's map agency to place
in its map Imia as a Greek and not as a so-called Kardak*. I am wondering
if your policy has been changed.
MR. BURNS: One of the great things about the United States is that we
maintain our policies. We maintain consistency of our policies and our
policy in this particular issue has not changed. I am unaware of the
instructions on maps. I just don't know anything about that.
QUESTION: Can you take the discussion, because --
MR. BURNS: I will consider it. Mr. Lambros. I am not sure we can give you
a better answer than the perfectly useful answer I've just given you. Our
policy has not changed.
QUESTION: But remember, since February 1, 1996, the U.S. Government does
not recognize either Greek nor Turkish sovereignty over Imia, correct?
MR. BURNS: Our policy has not changed on that issue.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Would you care to comment on the Croatian elections?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I would encourage you to look at the Secretary of State's
comments. She answered two questions upstairs. I don't want to repeat
everything that she said about those elections, and she gave very good and
full answers.
QUESTION: Meeting with the Bulgarian foreign minister?
MR. BURNS: Yes, that's right. The Secretary answered those two questions.
I think I would sum it up by saying she said that the Croatian Government
remains on notice that its commitment to Dayton will be under close
scrutiny by the United States and our partners and that is a very important
set of commitments that they need to meet.
QUESTION: The New York Times made interesting comments saying in theory -
he sent report from Mostar from Herzegovina -- and he said in theory this
region is part of the American Balkan Federation of Bosnia. In fact, it has
been annexed by Croatia in one of the most flagrant violations of Dayton
Agreement. And I'm sure that you know what he meant by that so --
MR. BURNS: Well, I took that to be the opinion of the writer. I don't
think he was saying that they had formally annexed it because they haven't,
as you know. That was the opinion of the journalist.
QUESTION: Besides that, what is your opinion or State Department position
by the fact that Bosnian Croats voted most -- maybe 300,000 Bosnian Croats
voted for sure for Tudjman?
MR. BURNS: Well, without defending these elections -- because they appear
not to be defendable -- because they were not deemed to be fair by the OSCE,
as Secretary Albright said, we understand that the Croatian Government and
the Bosnian Government agreed in their federation that Croatian citizens,
even some living in Bosnia, Croatian citizens who have dual citizenship
would be permitted to vote in the Croatian national elections. This was
worked out in the federation. I don't defend that. I just say it's a
statement of fact. That might be something that Mr. Hedge's -- a response
to one of the points in Chris Hedge's article this morning.
But, you know, our opinion is that I think the words used by the OSCE this
morning is that these elections did not meet even the minimal standards of
democratic traditions; that they may have been free but they were not fair.
We know that one of the leading presidential candidates was beaten up by a
police official who is beholden to the current government. That is not
fair.
We also know, incredibly enough, that last week alone, I think President
Tudjman appeared for 4,008 seconds on Croatian television and the leading
opposition candidate appeared for 16 seconds. That gives you an indication
of the control of the national media by the government and the fact that
they denied to the opposition the right to put themselves in front of the
population before the vote, which is undeniably not fair in terms of an
election.
When we had an election here, you saw Bob Dole on television just about as
much as you saw Bill Clinton. In any normal democratic country, the
opposition candidate gets to be on television and talk to the people
directly. Apparently, in Croatia they don't believe in that; and that is
most disappointing.
QUESTION: But as far as I remember you said that you were satisfied with
the Croatian - what Tudjman was doing five days ago.
MR. BURNS: No.
QUESTION: Seven days ago.
MR. BURNS: Last week we formally protested the assault and battery upon
Mr. Gotovac, the opposition presidential candidate, and said that it
troubled us as an indicator of the elections.
Our comments on President Tudjman last week pertained not to the elections
but to several other issues concerning Dayton compliance that Secretary
Albright had raised with him. The fact is that since Secretary Albright's
visit, there has been some modest progress, a step forward in the right
direction, on communications, on opening of bridges and on federation
issues. But we have been disappointed since her visit that there has been
no progress on the war crimes issue.
So we continue to believe that whether or not we can support Croatia
economically in the future and politically will be a direct function of
Croatia's behavior on these issues, and the jury is out. The jury is out.
As Secretary Albright said, they are still on notice that we can use some
of the sticks in our policy as well as the carrots. Last week we used a
carrot. We may have to use some sticks in the future if Croatian government
behavior is not suitable, as the Secretary indicated this morning.
QUESTION: Just a quick one. For - (inaudible) -- you actually were then
gave almost $500 million for what Croatia got $13 million for bridge
coverage or what kind of compliance?
MR. BURNS: That was a loan to a company, a Western company, doing
business in Croatia, okay? There will be other larger loans upcoming and
we'll have to make a decision on whether or not we can be favorable about
these loans, based on Croatian Government behavior. I don't want to
anticipate what decisions may or may not be made by the Secretary of State
and others here.
QUESTION: I think there is a vote at the end of this month, just 14 days
or so, of the $30 million loan. Is the jury still out on that?
MR. BURNS: The jury is still out on that. Each of these major loans is
going to be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I think you heard in the
Secretary's comments this morning when she said this morning that they are
still on notice. What she meant was, there is no free ride here. If they
comply with Dayton, then they are going to find the United States is a good
partner. If they don't, it is going to be difficult for us to support
them.
QUESTION: Can you say whether the conduct of these elections hurts or
helps?
MR. BURNS: It doesn't help -- not when they beat up an opposition
presidential candidate; not when there are so many issues of concern to the
OSCE, the objective, independent, international monitor.
QUESTION: So they have hurt their case for the loan at the end of this
month?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to tie everything directly to the loans, but
we're talking generally here.
QUESTION: Something reasonable.
MR. BURNS: We're talking generally here, and I can say that these
elections don't help the cause that Croatia has put before us all. Croatia
says, we're a European country; we want to be judged as a European country;
we want to be part of Europe; we want to be part of all Europe's institutions.
They want a good relationship with us.
Well, we are holding them to those very high standards. We do have greater
expectations for Tudjman in Croatia than we do for Milosevic, say, who is
not someone who is being considered for anybody's club in Europe. Tudjman
is so he has to be held to higher standards and he is not meeting a lot of
those standards.
QUESTION: How do you respond to the Croatian measures against the Serbs
of Eastern Slovonia not to vote in the elections?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think, as Secretary Albright said this morning, we
have heard the report just a couple of hours ago from Senator Simon, who is
the chair of the OSCE monitoring commission. We need now to look at that
report in some detail to ascertain what went wrong and whatever little went
right in these elections. Then based upon that, and based upon some
conversations, obviously, with her advisors, the Secretary will have to
decide how we move forward.
I don't want to jump ahead too much before we have a chance to look at
these elections with some care. Carol.
QUESTION: On another subject.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What can you tell us about this Nigerian policy review?
MR. BURNS: Oh, we don't talk about policy reviews, whether they're
occurring or not occurring. I can just say that Nigeria is an important
country. We always keep our relations with important countries like Nigeria
under review, almost around the clock.
I cannot point publicly to any particular piece of paper or meetings or set
of meetings. But obviously, given the role that Nigeria plays in a lot of
different venues - in oil politics, as a force for instability or stability
in West Africa, in Sierra Leone, for instance - we need to keep Nigerian-
U.S. relations in the forefront of our thoughts.
We have a new assistant secretary coming on board -- Senate willing - Susan
Rice, who's a very impressive, bright, knowledgeable person. Obviously,
she'll want to give some thought to this, with some advice of the
Secretary. But I don't want to get ahead of her appointment in a long,
deliberative process that probably lies ahead of us.
QUESTION: So, Nick, you haven't changed your opinion on the seizing of
power there, the narcotics, the official role in narcotics smuggling and so
forth?
MR. BURNS: The execution of Nigerian oppositionist Ken Saro-Wiwa and
others - no, we have not. The Nigerian Government has a lot to answer for.
It's non-democratic; it's autocratic; it's a major violator of human
rights; problems with drugs. These problems aren't going to go away, and no
one is trying to sweep them under the rug, not at all. They remain, really,
the problem in U.S.-Nigerian relations - all these obstacles to good
relations.
If we could see improvement on these issues, obviously, that would be of
interest to the United States. If we don't see improvement -- we haven't
really seen much - then obviously it's going to be difficult for us to move
forward in any demonstrable way.
QUESTION: But is there some reconsideration that perhaps engagement and
more carrots - say, in the case of Croatia - might be a useful tool, rather
than talk of sanctions --
MR. BURNS: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- which had been current, certainly, when Secretary Christopher
went to Africa.
MR. BURNS: Well, Sid, of course was raising some of the strategic issues.
The tactical issues, how do you serve the strategy, that really is up to -
we'll have a transition in our African Affairs Bureau. That will be a
question, I suppose, will be looked at. But I don't anticipate any
immediate changes. But we would have to reserve the right to follow any
number of tactics that would accomplish the strategic objective that we set
out for ourselves.
I just can't tell you we've changed. Whether we will in the future - that
will depend a lot on what happens in the next couple of months. Still on
this issue or --
QUESTION: Albania.
MR. BURNS: Albania, yes.
QUESTION: Anything on the upcoming Albanian elections of June 29th? It
seems there is a lot of deep concern now for violence, even by the 6,000
European military force.
MR. BURNS: Well, we assume the June 29 elections will be held as
scheduled. It's going to be up to the Albanian Government of national
reconciliation to make a final determination on the elections, in
conjunction with the OSCE. The Albanian Government has asked the OSCE to
assist with preparation and monitoring of the elections. We expect that
Switzerland, Denmark and Poland - the troika of the OSCE - will make a
recommendation on the feasibility of holding elections later this
week.
We actively support Franz Vranitzky. That's why the Secretary is seeing him
just about now. We will listen very closely to his advice on this. We do
believe that elections are the best way forward for the Albanian people.
They will be the avenue to create a government that is responsive to the
people, that will have a clear mandate in order to take the steps that are
necessary on political and economic reform.
QUESTION: Do you know if President Gligorov of Skopje who is in town is
going to meet Madame Secretary Albright?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Do you know if Kiro Gligorov, who is in the town --
MR. BURNS: President Gligorov? Yes.
QUESTION: -- is going to meet with the Secretary of State?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I believe that both the President and the Secretary of
State will be seeing President Gligorov. Our ambassador Chris Hill is back
for those meetings. This is an important week in our deliberations with the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
QUESTION: Middle East?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I understand what you said about the State Department will not
be speaking about the ideas that Mr. Netanyahu --
MR. BURNS: Thank you, I appreciate your understanding of our ideas.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- put forward. And that the place will be the Arab-Israeli -
the Palestinian negotiations. But the matter of the fact is that the prime
minister, according to the article, first briefed President Clinton on it.
And I am just wondering whether it is true that the President has been
briefed on this or not.
MR. BURNS: You would have to check with the White House. They met
sometime ago and I can't remember all the issues that were raised. Would
you please check with Mike McCurry on that?
QUESTION: Can we talk about Cambodia?
MR. BURNS: I think he still has a --
QUESTION: Are you aware about this?
MR. BURNS: What is that?
QUESTION: Are you aware about this report that was issued by council on
foreign relations?
MR. BURNS: No.
QUESTION: Today?
MR. BURNS: No.
QUESTION: Okay. They - basically, they pronounce Oslo dead and they were
calling for intensive intervention on the part of the United States to
reach a new principle of declaration. First, do you agree with this premise
that Oslo is dead?
MR. BURNS: Well, I do not want to attack a report that I have never seen,
so I won't do that. I have too much respect for the council on foreign
relations to do that.
Secondly, let me just say without any reference to that report or the
council on foreign relations that this administration, Americans are not
defeatists. We don't give up easily. If we gave up, if we had been
defeatists back starting in 1948, we wouldn't have been effective
intermediaries in the Middle East for 49 years now.
When the times get tough, you don't run and you don't throw up your hands
and think up 16 different policy options to pursue. You stick with what got
you to the game. What got us to the game was the consistency of American
mediation, of our objectivity and friendliness with the Palestinians and
the Israelis, of the trust that we have in both of the Palestinian
Authority and the Israeli Government.
We very much appreciate what the Egyptian Government I doing right now,
because Egypt is playing a leadership role and that is positive. We commend
President Mubarak and we commend Osama el Baz. But the United States will
remain engaged on what got us to the point that we're at now -- more
progress in the last four years than at anytime since 1949. So, we are not
going to be defeatists. We are not going to stand up in a crowded theater
and yell, fire.
We are going to be composed and continue to push ahead on the Middle East
knowing that sooner or later, the Israelis and Palestinians will make a
breakthrough. It is a difficult moment with all the violence that we have
seen over the weekend, but we will keep at what we have been successful
at.
QUESTION: But is Oslo still the platform?
MR. BURNS: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely, positively. Thank you. Talal?
QUESTION: Do you have something to say that describes the Congress vote
about Jerusalem as regrettable and ill-timed. Do you agree with that
assessment?
MR. BURNS: We believe that any measure -- like the vote last week in the
House of Representatives -- any measure that seeks to prejudge a complex
emotional historic issue like Jerusalem is not wise and that it prejudges
the permanent status negotiations which the Israelis and Palestinians agree
is the proper place for a discussion of the status or future of Jerusalem.
Let's allow the Israelis and Palestinians to deal with this question as
they have agreed to do. That is our position. Cambodia? Yes.
QUESTION: The recent developments in Cambodia with Pol Pot on the run
trying to fight guerrillas, the assassination of Son Sen -- given the
Secretary's upcoming trip to Cambodia, do you have a comment and analysis
of the situation?
MR. BURNS: Well, I would just refer you to the Cambodian Government for
the facts because we simply cannot have the facts of what's happening in a
remote part of Cambodia. We do believe that the leaders of the Khmer Rouge
are massive human rights violators, among the worst in this long bloody
century. We believe that they ought to be brought to justice. There are no
tears being shed in the State Department about Pol Pot, believe me. He is a
mass murderer. He does not deserve one ounce of sympathy from anybody.
Now, as to where he is and what's happening with him, the Cambodian
military and government are much better, much more effective and authoritative
sources on that than we are.
The Secretary is going to Cambodia in just over a week and to Vietnam, but
to Cambodia to demonstrate our belief that the future of Cambodia can be
better and more hopeful than the past 25 years. Certainly, we want to do as
much as we can as a country to help Cambodia solidify democracy and the
rule of law and to put the Khmer Rouge forever behind the Cambodian people;
and may the Khmer Rouge be hunted down and brought to justice. That has to
be the wish of any sensible person around the world right now.
QUESTION: But there is trouble even in the government in Cambodia between
Hun Sen and Sihanouk's son that continues. So what exactly is the Secretary
hoping - what is the message going to be? How is the situation going to be
fixed?
MR. BURNS: The message will be - Secretary Christopher went out two years
ago, and Secretary Albright will go out next week to assert a simple
message that Cambodia has come a long way since the killing fields of the
1970s; that it needs to continue moving forward to consolidate its
democracy. It's obviously a very difficult time politically inside the
country. But we would express our support for those who believe in
democracy and the rule of law and stability.
King Sihanouk is providing that kind of leadership for the future. We hope
the government may be united in following his leadership.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 2:26 P.M.)
(###)
|
