U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #101, 97-07-08
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1149
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, July 8, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
1-2 Secretary's Meeting in Madrid with Greek and Turkish
Foreign Ministers
4 Statement of Lebanon Monitoring Group Chairman
CAMBODIA
2-4 State Dept Meetings With Reps of 1991 Paris Accords/US
Policy /Khmer Rouge Involvement in Govt/Advice to
AmCits/Situation of AmCits in Country/Prince
Ranariddh Visit to US/Plans for Evacuation of
AmCits/US Navy Vessels in Area
5-6 Reports of Execution of Interior Ministry Official/US
Opposes Use of Force/Curtailment of US Aid/Total US
Aid/Description of Events/Use of Word "Coup"
7-10 External Support/Use of Force/Regional Consultations/
Joining ASEAN/Rpts of Mass Arrests & Grenade Attack
TURKEY/GREECE/CYPRUS
10,11-13 Secretary's Meeting in Madrid/US Involvement/NATO
Proposals
18-19 Other Issues Discussed/Asst Secy Kornblum's Role
10-11 Amb Holbrooke's Mtgs/US Position on Talks
MEXICO
13-14 US View of Elections/Contacts with New Leadership
14-15 Identification of Deceased Drug Trafficker Fuentes/Rpt
of Pres Zedillo Link to Narco-Traffickers
NORTHERN IRELAND
15 Sen Mitchell's Whereabouts/Continuing Confrontation
DRoCONGO (K)
15-17 FM Karaha Mtgs Today at State Dept/Team to Investigate
Massacres and Brutalities
VIETNAM
17-18 Assessing Damage for Agent Orange Use/Compensation/
Possible Joint Research
NATO
18 Timeframe for Romania & Slovenia Membership
RUSSIA
18 Media Rpts for Preparations to Start Nuclear War
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #101
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1997 1:22 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department. We have a couple of guests here. Don Quinby, an intern in the
Bureau of African Affairs' Economic Policy staff is here from Albany, New
York, an international studies major at Colby College. That's in
Waterville, Maine, right? Right. That is Red Sox territory. So you are a
Red Sox fan?
MR. QUINBY: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
MR. QUINBY: A Yankee fan, actually.
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: Didn't they tell you the rules of admission here? You can't
be a Yankees fan and come to this. You are going to have to leave. You
can use that door or that door. We don't - well, listen, today is the All-
Star Game. I'll give you a break this time, but you have got to have the
right answer next time.
I also want to introduce you to Eudoxia Cutler an official from the Greek
Embassy Press Office, who is here with us. Welcome.
I have three things to tell you about today. One is a statement that my
colleagues have just put out in Madrid. Secretary Albright hosted a
meeting at the NATO summit in Madrid this morning between Greek Foreign
Minister Pangalos and Turkish Foreign Minister Cem.
During their meeting, the Greek and Turkish foreign ministers reached a
convergence of views on a basis for promoting better relations based upon
the following commitments: a mutual commitment to peace, security, and the
continuing development of good neighborly relations between Greece and
Turkey; respect for each other's sovereignty; respect for the principles of
international law and international agreements; respect for each other's
legitimate vital interests and concerns in the Aegean, which are of great
importance for their security and national sovereignty; a commitment to
refrain from unilateral acts on the basis of mutual respect; and a
willingness to avoid conflicts arising from misunderstanding; and finally,
a commitment to settle disputes by peaceful means based on mutual consent
and without use of force or the threat of force.
We believe, here in the United States, that this is a significant step
forward for both Greece and Turkey. This agreement reached today is part
of our attempt since the Imia/Kardak crisis of a year and a half ago to
have Greece and Turkey reaffirm their commitment to live together
peacefully and with a pledge to their mutual security and without resort to
threat in their relationship.
Secretary Albright was very pleased to have this meeting together and to
pull together this initiative. It was produced by a lot of hard work by
Secretary Albright, by John Kornblum, and Pete Petrihos of our European
office. I understand that after this particular meeting, Prime Minister
Simitis and President Demirel met in Madrid, and they have issued their own
statement reaffirming their agreement with the statement made today by both
Greece and Turkey.
We believe this is a new foundation for Greek-Turkish relations.
We look now to both of those countries to take practical steps to move that
relation forward and to give deeper meaning to this new foundation in the
Greek-Turkish relationship. Needless to say, Secretary Albright is
exceedingly pleased by this step forward.
She has been concerned by the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean,
especially since she visited it last summer about a year ago, and she is
committed to doing what the United States can do to help Greece and Turkey
overcome their problems. I know that the two governments in Madrid thanked
Secretary Albright for the efforts of the United States. I'll be glad to
take any questions on that.
QUESTION: This was released in Madrid?
MR. BURNS: It's a statement that was released in Madrid and we wanted to
give it further voice here because of the interest of reporters here.
Second, I wanted to update you on the situation as we view it in Cambodia.
Our Acting Secretary, Tom Pickering, consulted yesterday with senior
representatives of many countries, including many ambassadors. He met with
ambassadors and senior representatives from the ASEAN countries, the Perm 5
countries, Japan and Australia.
Jeff Bader, our Deputy Assistant Secretary of State met with India and
other countries. In fact, I think we were able to meet yesterday with all
of the signatories of the Paris Accords of 1991. Based on those meetings,
based on further conversations with Ambassador Ken Quinn and our further
review of the situation in Cambodia, I can tell you the following.
The United States believes that the use of force to overturn the 1993
election in Cambodia is unacceptable. The principles of the 1991 Paris
Peace Accords must be upheld. Number two, Cambodian political parties,
including the political party of co-Prime Minister Ranariddh must be
allowed to operate freely. Third, we believe that free and fair elections
should be held as scheduled in 1998.
Fourth, the United States is opposed to having senior Khmer Rouge leaders
play any role in Cambodian politics. We firmly believe that all Khmer
Rouge leaders who are suspected of having taken part in the brutalities of
the Khmer Rouge rule between 1975 and 1979, they ought to be brought to
justice.
Now, based on what I have just told you -- which has been communicated to
all the governments mentioned and to both political parties in Cambodia - I
can tell you that we have specifically urged both factions in Cambodia to
refrain from using violence, to resolve their differences peacefully in
order to prevent further loss of life.
Jeff Bader, our deputy assistant secretary, called in the Cambodian
ambassador yesterday afternoon to express our deep concern about the events
over the weekend, our strong opposition to the use of force to change the
results of the 1993 elections and the use of force by the forces of Hun Sen
to effectively rupture the Paris Accords of 1991.
Our embassy in Phnom Penh will remain in contact with the political party
of Hun Sen, as well as with the political party of Prince Ranariddh. The
safety of American citizens is our primary concern, as you can imagine.
With our embassy in Phnom Penh, with the Pentagon and other agencies of the
U.S. Government, we continue to monitor the situation of American citizens
quite closely. We remain very concerned about the situation on the ground.
Although there was very little fighting in Phnom Penh today there was
fighting in other parts of the country.
I can tell you that our advice to American citizens remains the same as
yesterday. They should remain in their homes at night and restrict travel
as much as possible. We are making extensive use of our warden network.
We have used the Voice of America radio broadcasts to inform American
citizens about the dangers of certain areas of Phnom Penh and other parts
of the country.
The last warden message issued today states that Americans who feel unsafe
in their homes should travel, if they can, in Phnom Penh to the Sofitel
Cambodiana Hotel, where the American Embassy is running a reception center.
There were approximately 350 Americans registered at that hotel yesterday.
Some of these people returned to their homes to sleep for the night, but
that is a place of refuge for Americans. Some Americans were able to cross
by land and by air into Thailand yesterday. We hope that the airport at
Phnom Penh might be open for international flights within the next few days
so that Americans who wish to leave can leave.
I understand that the Cambodian Government has airlifted approximately 30
American citizens from the area of Siem Reap. That is an area near Angkor
Wat. These Americans are now in Phnom Penh. We are trying to assist them.
We understand there are approximately 25 Americans left in Siem Reap. We
hope that most of them will be airlifted to Phnom Penh tomorrow.
Our embassy reports, furthermore, that 30 missionary students from Oklahoma
are safe at a residence in Phnom Penh. There are other groups of Americans
there. All of them have reported in safe. We have alerted the relevant
congressional offices, Congressman J.C. Watts, Senator Orrin Hatch both
called us over the weekend, concerned about citizens from Oklahoma and
Utah. We believe that all those people are safe.
Now, as you know, we understand that Prince Ranariddh, who was in Aixen-
Provence in France yesterday, intends to visit the United States in the
coming days. I can tell you he will be received here at the State
Department. We intend to meet with him when he does arrive in the United
States.
We will continue to review the situation there as closely as we can,
keeping in mind our priority attention to the safety of American citizens,
but urging all the time the two major political factions to reaffirm their
support for the Paris Peace Accords of 1991, respect for the people elected
in 1993 and respect for the fact that we believe that any differences
between the two factions ought not to be resolved by gunfire.
Now, the last statement that I have is one that we're posting today. It is
a statement issued on behalf of the chairman of the monitoring group
concerning the situation in Southern Lebanon and Northern Israel. The
group met on July 7th, yesterday, to consider two Lebanese complaints and
two Israeli complaints stemming from incidents over the weekend along the
northern border of Israel/the southern border of Lebanon. I refer that to
those of you who are interested. George?
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Prince Ranariddh's schedule here, a?
And b, what preparations are being made with respect to an evacuation from
Cambodia? I understand there is a vessel heading south from Japan.
Anything you have on that?
MR. BURNS: On Prince Ranariddh, all I know is his publicly stated wish to
visit the United States and consult with the U.S. Government. Obviously,
given our relationship with him as an elected leader in Cambodia, we will
obviously see him here at the State Department. I don't know specifically
who will be seeing him, but I will report to you as soon as we make those
arrangements, but we will certainly see him here.
On the issue of an evacuation, we have not made a decision to evacuate
American citizens or to evacuate non-essential personnel from our embassy
staff in Phnom Penh. We have not made that decision.
We are looking at that question, however, on a day-to-day basis.
We are mindful of our responsibility to do the right thing to protect
Americans. Should that be necessary, of course, we would move in that
direction. But that has not been judged to have been necessary, at least
today. Although we will probably review that question tonight and tomorrow
morning.
I understand - and Mike Doubleday over at the Pentagon can give you further
information on this -- that the Pentagon has taken the precaution of moving
several of its vessels, including the Belleau Wood, into position to help
in an evacuation should that be necessary.
This is similar, of course, to the precautionary measures that we took in
advance of the evacuations in Central and West Africa over the last couple
of months. But again, we have not made a decision to evacuate Americans or
non-essential personnel. But we will keep you informed should we make that
decision.
QUESTION: Nick, a couple of questions. Philosophically, first, why is
the United States not calling this a coup? Secondarily, the Japanese
Government has decided to cut off aid - the aid that was - mainly the aid
that was raised just a few days ago in Paris, the $450 million, whatever
their share of it is. And thirdly, do you have anything to say about the
apparent execution of Ho Sok, the former senior official in the Interior
Ministry, who was arrested by Hun Sen's forces? And his forces have
admitted that he was shot in custody? Can you bring any light to any of
that? Also the newspaper publisher that published Sang Kroskher newspaper,
who has been detained by Hun Sen's forces, as well?
MR. BURNS: On the third question, Sid, all I can tell you is that we have
seen the press reports that you have about the alleged execution of Ho Sok.
We cannot confirm that on the ground in Cambodia, although we have seen
statements by some of his compatriots that he was executed by forces of Hun
Sen.
There has been obviously quite a lot of fighting going on, and we are just
not in a position to confirm what has happened and allegations of brutality
by either side. Obviously, if he has been executed, we would be most
displeased and most saddened by that. We don't wish to see politically
inspired violence. We wish to see the fighting stopped. There can be no
legitimate excuse for any kind of political violence of the type that you
described.
On the first question, all I can tell you is that we are making very clear
today, as we did to the governments with which we spoke yesterday, that the
United States is opposed to the use of force over the weekend by forces led
by Hun Sen. His decision to use force effectively attempts to rupture the
peace accords which have been the only bright spot in Cambodia's history
for the last 20 years; and effectively attempts to overturn the wishes of
the Cambodian people who elected a variety of people to government posts,
including members of the party opposite to Hun Sen, the party of Prince
Ranariddh. So we are very much opposed to the use of force.
On the question of aid, whether or not the United States should now curtail
our economic assistance to Cambodia, that is a question that we are going
to have to look at. We have not made a decision on what to do. But
obviously, given the changes there over the weekend, given the fighting,
given the use of force by Hun Sen, we will have to look at that question.
But we have not made a final decision. We prefer to keep that issue in
front of us for another couple of days to see what might happen on the
ground.
I can tell you that we allocated $35 million in assistance to Cambodia in
Fiscal Year 1997; $25 million in the last Fiscal Year, 1996. This money
pays for programs aimed at strengthening democracy and the rule of law,
respect for human rights, rural economic development programs, improve
primary education, maternal and child health care, HIV prevention,
assistance for disabled persons, of whom there are many because of the
landmines in Cambodia. The great bulk of this assistance is channeled
through private voluntary organizations -- American and international
organizations -- rather than directly to the Cambodian Government.
In addition, the Department of Defense has allocated $6.8 million this
year, $7.6 million last year for a variety of programs, including de-mining
efforts. Obviously, we wish to do as much as we can to help everyone in
Cambodia rid themselves of the problem with mines, which regularly cripple
kids and innocent people on a daily basis.
I believe since 1993 our total assistance to Cambodia is $163 million for
the political and economical development of the country.
We have tried very hard to be responsible in what we have done in Cambodia,
to help the people - not so much in helping the government, but through
these programs, to help the people. A decision of what to do about these
programs is a very difficult decision.
As you can see, these programs help average people and do not necessarily
help the people who are in power in Phnom Penh. They help people in the
countryside who desperately need it. We want to take some care with this
decision. We do not want to jump to a decision. We have the question
before us, but have not made any final decisions.
QUESTION: Human Rights Watch Asia claims that the reason you all are not
calling it a coup is because under U.S. law, you would be forced to cut aid
to a country that has undergone a coup.
Can you address that?
MR. BURNS: I have been told there is a provision in our assistance
legislation that essentially says that. I do not know that for myself. I
haven't consulted the works yet. So, what we prefer to do, Sid, is to
describe for you our political views.
We condemn the use of force and we have condemned the forces of Hun Sen and
Hun Sen, himself, for having gone to force. We condemn the participation
of the Khmer Rouge in the political life of the country.
We are calling on both sides, both armies, both political leaders -- Prince
Ranariddh and Hun Sen -- to come back to the Paris Peace Accords and come
back to the duly elected government of 1993 and to try to re-impose some
order and some peace and stability in Cambodia. That is what we prefer to
do right now. Mindful of the fact that all of this assistance is actually
helping average people, we are going to take great care with that question
of whether or not to curtail American assistance.
QUESTION: One, just this one last one. Under the American definition,
this is not a coup?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Under the American definition, this is not a coup. What's
going on in Cambodia is not a coup, in spite of the fact that --
MR. BURNS: Obviously, what's happened over the weekend is that Hun Sen is
trying to gain power for himself and for his political party through the
use of force. There is no question about that. Now, Prince Ranariddh has
called it a coup; other people have called it a coup. We prefer to
describe things the way we want to describe things because we have a
variety of interests here. I think we very clearly today indicated our
very strong displeasure with the use of force by Hun Sen and his forces
over the weekend. Dave?
QUESTION: Nick, you also criticized the idea of Khmer Rouge involvement
in any government. If there was to have been any, it would have been
through the Prince's party. So, it sounds as if you are trying to balance
your criticism and make some criticisms on both sides.
MR. BURNS: There are very few heroes in this drama if you look around.
Hun Sen certainly did not distinguish himself over the weekend with his
resort to massive force which, of course, involved - as it always does in
these kind of situations - innocent civilian life. We very much oppose
efforts by whoever, Prince Ranariddh or whoever, to try to bring the Khmer
Rouge back into positions of leadership in Phnom Penh.
QUESTION: You also urged both factions to refrain from using violence.
Would the Prince be unjustified in using force to try and reverse this
what- you-don't-want-to-call-a-coup by Hun Sen?
MR. BURNS: Well, that would put the United States into a position of
aiding and abetting and throwing gasoline on a fire in Cambodia. That
would not be a very responsible thing for the United States to do. That
might be an easy thing to do. It may play to the crowds, but it would not
be the responsible thing to do.
The responsible thing is to encourage the better angels of their natures --
if those angels are present -- and to encourage them to look at the
formation of the elected government of 1993, remember the Paris Peace
Accords of 1991, and remember the importance of the peaceful adjudication
of civil and political disputes. If we start calling for one side to fight
the other because of some grievance, then we become part of the problem and
not part of the solution. And we think that the international community --
ASEAN, Japan, Australia, the United States, countries that have an interest
in Cambodia -- need to be responsible and stand above the petty arguments
that have led to the fighting over the weekend and the killing of innocent
civilians.
QUESTION: And wouldn't that leave it that Cambodia is in the hands of Hun
Sen and all you are doing is deploring it?
MR. BURNS: Well, if you look at what is happening over the last 24 hours,
there is
considerable fighting in the countryside by elements of Prince Ranariddh's
militias, Hun Sen's militias and the Khmer Rouge.
It looks like the Khmer Rouge may be entering the fighting in certain parts
of the country.
The United States is not going to put itself in the position of aiding and
abetting an escalation of the warfare in Cambodia.
We are going to continue to argue that these political leaders are
responsible for what happens in their own country and that they ought to go
back to a formula of a peaceful adjudication of disputes. This is not
naïve pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.
This is reality. It is what we believe should happen. That is our very
considered advice to Prince Ranariddh and Hun Sen and to the others who are
leaders in Cambodia.
QUESTION: Yesterday, you were ambiguous or unwilling to pin any specific
blame on who was responsible for the fighting.
Today, you are not. What has happened in the last 24 hours to convince you
to point a finger of blame at Hun Sen?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Yesterday, what I was trying to say in diplomatic-speak
yesterday was that we wanted to take a pause of 24 hours or so to consult
with our friends in ASEAN and with Japan and Australia and India and with
some of the European countries, with the United Nations, to share
information, to share assessments and to see if we all could agree on what
we should do to help the situation in Cambodia.
We felt it was prudent for us and responsible for us to delay casting
judgment on what had happened until we had those consultations and until we
had finished the consultations in Phnom Penh with the political factions
there. We obviously have come to the conclusion, based on all those
contacts and now having completed them, that what happened over the weekend
was a gross injustice and a gross threat to the Paris Peace Accords. So
sometimes governments need to reflect and take time to coordinate with
others and take time to consider our responses before we reflexively, in a
television age, go in front of the cameras and to say what we think at
heart.
QUESTION: Do you think that Hun Sen is receiving any external support,
either material or moral, from anybody outside the borders of Cambodia?
MR. BURNS: I can't speak to that. I know there are rumors to that
effect. But I have no evidence of that, but it's not to say it doesn't
exist.
QUESTION: You're aware that he was in Vietnam two days before the coup?
MR. BURNS: I was not aware that he was in Vietnam two days before the
coup, no.
QUESTION: You don't see the hands of the Vietnamese in this at all?
MR. BURNS: As I said, there have been rumors that there is outside
involvement on both sides of this conflict. But I am not in a position to
say that I can confirm those rumors. It doesn't mean we deny them. It just
says we are not in a position to confirm them.
QUESTION: Did the subject of Cambodia come up when the Secretary was in
Hanoi?
MR. BURNS: The issue did come up in some of her meetings.
She had three major meetings with Vietnamese government leaders, and I
remember a brief discussion - essentially sharing views on the situation as
it existed two weeks ago. That was a lot of hot words between the two
factions and some fighting. You remember that day of fighting before the
Secretary's arrival in the region. So I think it was of that nature. But
there was not an extended conversation between the Secretary and Foreign
Minister Cam or Prime Minister Kiet or the others with whom she met.
QUESTION: So no words of caution to the Vietnamese about stoking the fire
or being involved?
MR. BURNS: Well, Sid, now wait a minute. You are really juxtaposing two
different time frames. When the Secretary was in Vietnam, these events
hadn't occurred. There had been one day of fighting between the factions
and a lot of arguing. The United States privately and publicly was arguing
for them to resolve their problems peacefully.
So it's a little unfair to suggest, implicitly, at least, that somehow the
Secretary with 20/20 hindsight should have been telling the Vietnamese not
to get involved a time when we didn't think there was a prospect for this
kind of event, a full-scale rupture in the Paris Peace Accords, which
appears to be what is happening.
QUESTION: Nick --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: The countries of ASEAN say that they are going to have a
meeting on Thursday to reconsider Cambodia's coming into that organization.
What is the view of this Administration on whether they should become
members or not?
MR. BURNS: Well, that is a decision that ASEAN will have to make. The
United States is not a member, a voting member of ASEAN itself. We are a
partner of ASEAN in the post-ministerial conference. So I think we prefer
to give private advice to our friends in ASEAN, but not to give public
advice when it's really not our direct business.
Obviously, all countries need to consider how best to influence Cambodia,
if, in fact, the fighting results in an overturn of the democratically
elected government. If that should be the case several weeks from now,
that will be a very serious reality that countries around the world need to
deal with. That also gets to our own question of whether or not we
continue with our own economic assistance. We need to answer that question
at some point. Any more on Cambodia? Yes, Cambodia, Tyler.
QUESTION: Human rights organizations are also talking about mass arrests
in Phnom Penh. Do you have anything on that?
And secondly, the tentative finding by the FBI that Hun Sen was - or his
people were responsible for the March 30th grenade attack on a political
rally on Phnom Penh. What kind of new meaning do those findings take on in
the present environment?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can't say that we have evidence that would support any
of those allegations, although there have been many reports - much
information that has come forward in the press.
But I can't confirm those events for you.
We will continue to look at that situation, and we will call them as we see
them. What happened over the weekend was a clear violation, obviously, of
the Paris Peace Accords by Hun Sen and his forces.
QUESTION: Mass arrests, nothing?
MR. BURNS: No, I can't confirm them. We have seen reports and
information about them. I just am not in a position to confirm.
But we will continue to watch the situation. Any more on Cambodia before
we go to other issues? Dimitris.
QUESTION: The meeting in Madrid. It seems the Secretary initiated this
meeting, does she have any further plans for follow-up on this issue? And
my second question, you spoke about practical steps from the two sides from
now on. Can you be more specific on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, in answer to the first question, the Secretary believes
that the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean ought to be a priority for
the United States. She asked John Kornblum and Pete Petrihos to be
centrally involved in the negotiations that led to today's meeting, and we
have had this in works for days now, all the way back to a couple of weeks
ago, trying to plan for this initiative which succeeded today. She wants
everyone involved in Greek and Turkish affairs to be pushing, helping to
push the ball forward and helping the Greek and Turkish governments to do
what they can to diminish their respective differences.
On the second the question, all I would say is that the United States is
going to maintain its central involvement as we can in these matters. We
hope that practical steps are forthcoming.
The practical steps need to be decided by the two governments.
As they identify areas where they can cooperate, they will have the
assistance of the United States, should they wish it, in helping to reach
initiatives and conclude initiatives that can make a difference in the
Eastern Mediterranean. But I would rather let the Greek and Turkish
governments define what these steps might be in the future.
QUESTION: Do you think that a good step will be an agreement on the NATO
proposals by Secretary Solana?
MR. BURNS: We think those are good proposals. We think that the
governments ought to take their time in looking at them to make sure that
they have an opportunity to look at every aspect of them. That is what the
Greek Government wishes, and we think that is rational. But we certainly
support Secretary General Solana's proposals and are encouraging the
Turkish and Greek governments to consider them seriously.
QUESTION: And also on a related matter, do you have any word from Richard
Holbrooke on his meetings?
MR. BURNS: We have many words from Richard Holbrooke.
You saw the statement this morning that Dick said that the United States
very much supports membership for Cyprus in the European Union, the
candidacy for Cyprus in the European Union. I spoke with Dick last
evening. He had a very good meeting with Mr. Denktash last evening, a very
good meeting with President Clerides this morning. He made brief
statements to the press after each of those meetings which essentially
underline our very strong support for Secretary General Kofi Annan's
mediation effort that begins tomorrow in Amenia, New York.
Dick and I decided together that the United States will not be commenting
on a daily basis on those talks. We are not part of the talks, although we
will have an observer there. We are not part of the talks. This is up to
the United Nations, I think, and the parties themselves to describe what is
happening in those talks. Perhaps at the end of the talks, the beginning
of next week, on Monday or Tuesday, we will have something to say. But we
don't wish to intrude upon the talks or make ourselves the center of
attention when we shouldn't be the center of attention in those talks. I
just want to forecast that for you so that in future briefings this week
you will understand why I am not going to comment on that issue.
QUESTION: Did Mr. Kornblum set up any precondition for this meeting in
Madrid?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Kornblum?
QUESTION: Yes. You said he was --
MR. BURNS: John Kornblum, our assistant secretary, was one of the people
who helped negotiate these accords. No, there were no preconditions.
Secretary Albright let both the Greek and Turkish governments know last
Friday that we wanted to have the meetings in Madrid, that we hoped to. We
sent them a list of some of the principles that both of them were working
on at the time that we felt made sense. We have been working the document
ever since. So, no preconditions. They both came willingly to the table.
I think Prime Minister Simitis and President Demirel effectively said that
in issuing their own statement of support.
QUESTION: The next question is how long lasted this meeting with Madame
Secretary, Pangalos and Cem?
MR. BURNS: I believe it was a relatively brief meeting.
I think it was 30 to 45 minutes because it was sandwiched between the NATO
sessions considering enlargement.
QUESTION: Did they discuss the Cyprus issue, too?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if they discussed the Cyprus issue.
QUESTION: Did they really reach any specific agreement of the Aegean
issue?
MR. BURNS: They issued the statement which I read to you; I will be glad
to make available to you. The statement speaks for itself.
QUESTION: No. Any agreement between the two sides as far as --
MR. BURNS: The statements, if you will, are a foundation of principles
and commitments, which pledge each government to work cooperatively with
the other. And we think that is a very good beginning because for the past
year and a half, Greece and Turkey have not had a foundation or a frame
work within which they could work with each other. Now they have it. Now
they need to get on to practical steps in their relationship.
QUESTION: Did they sign any political document -- the two sides in the
presence of the Madrid --
MR. BURNS: The statement was issued by the honorable James B. Foley, the
deputy spokesman for the United States of America -- the statement which
articulates what happened in the meeting with Secretary Albright. Then,
Prime Minister Simitis and President Demirel issued their own statements.
So, we have statements issued here. I don't believe there have been any
signed documents.
QUESTION: You have said your statement, respectfully - (inaudible). How
this could be true, since Turkish officials does not recognize the present
Greek-Turkish borders in the Aegean and the stature of all the Greek
islands?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, my suggestion is that we put aside the petty
differences -- I mean the differences over all these issues, over many,
many years, and we recognize that today the Greek and Turkish leaderships
have taken a step forward together pledging their mutual cooperation. I
think the headlines in your newspaper tomorrow should be very supportive --
if I may humbly suggest -- very supportive of this agreement. It should
not nitpick it and look for problems.
I think you ought to take a day to just tell the Greek population -- and I
hope that the Turkish newspapers do the same thing -- that something good
has happened in Madrid between Greece and Turkey. Let's just congratulate
the Greek and Turkish governments for having taken this step forward.
QUESTION: This is not so easy. Did they discuss the future of NATO
military command over the Aegean?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Mr. Lambros?
QUESTION: Did they discuss the future NATO military command over the
Aegean Sea - the two sides in the presence of Madame Secretary?
MR. BURNS: I don't know, I don't know. I was not there; I'm here. They
were there. I'm simply relaying to you the significant diplomatic
accomplishment of the United States, Greece and Turkey today, and the very
positive step forward of Greece and Turkey.
I hope your newspaper will accentuate that.
QUESTION: Did you speak to any U.S. official who participated in the
meeting?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I did.
QUESTION: With whom, if it's possible to say?
MR. BURNS: Is this a courtroom? I spoke to a variety of officials who
were in the room. You can be assured that what I'm telling you is fully
accurate and fully consistent with what happened.
QUESTION: Does this have any implications on the broader question of
future settlement on Cyprus?
MR. BURNS: Well, these are separate issues.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: The problems in the Aegean between Greece and Turkey, problems
in the Greek-Turkish relationship on the one hand; problem on Cyprus on the
other - they're separate issues.
We're going to proceed separately.
As you know, we have a Cyprus coordinator, Dick Holbrooke, who works on
Cyprus issues. Secretary Albright now has played a very key role in the
separate issue of Greek-Turkish differences. I think we prefer to keep them
separate as to the governments involved.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: On Mexico - with regards to the elections, yesterday you said
that you expect - are confident the United States will continue its
excellent relationship with Mexico.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you if you could describe a little bit why.
And also to describe what contacts we've had; how much do we know these two
opposition parties that did quite well in the elections?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, let me say, just reaffirm the United
States is very pleased about the elections because they were obviously held
at the highest possible standards. They were free and fair elections.
They let the Mexican people decide who would be the mayor of Mexico, who
will sit in the lower house of the assembly. That's what democracy is all
about. I think I can say - talking about advice to newspapers - let me
just take a cue from The L.A. Times and The Washington Post, The New York
Times, all of which, I think, had a consistent editorial line today -- it
was a great day for democracy in Mexico.
Sunday was a great day because we've seen now, with these elections, the
evolution of democracy in Mexico. Fifteen, 20 years ago, 30 years ago we
didn't see elections like this - fully contested, where the opposition had
a chance to run on a fair basis. That is something that we think is very
positive. We have a lot of experience working all around the world with
governments that have an executive of one party and a legislature
controlled by another party. Let's start with our own government, the
United States, that's what we have. That's what the French Government has.
Governments all around the world have it. This is nothing unusual.
We are very confident, given our very close and supportive relationship
with President Zedillo that we will continue to work well with President
Zedillo, as well to now work well with members of the opposition who have
been elected to national office and to local office, to governor's offices.
I can't think of anything negative to say about these elections. They're
entirely positive, from our point of view.
QUESTION: How much do we know of these opposition leaders?
Have we been in - had talks with them before? What do we know about these
guys?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's hard for me to generalize. We're talking about a
great number of people who have been elected from the opposition. We know
a great number of them - particularly those who have been elected - the
mayor of - Senor Cardenas, of course, the new mayor of Mexico City and the
new governors and some of the new, more prominent members of the
legislature we know very well. That's the responsibility of our embassy in
Mexico City -- to know people from across the political spectrum. We think
it is positive because it means that the Mexican people have decided how
they want their government to be composed. That is the basis of any
democratic system -- any representative, pluralistic democratic system. We
are fully confident that this is going to help Mexico solidify itself in
its own democracy and achieve stability in the future.
QUESTION: Nick --
MR. BURNS: Still on Mexico?
QUESTION: On Northern Ireland.
MR. BURNS: I think we still want to - yeah, and then I'll go, Betsy, to
you.
QUESTION: Just for the record, Nick, Mexican officials are telling that
they don't want to accept any American official to go to Mexico and try to
certify that the body of narco-trafficker, it was really Mr. Amado Carillo
Fuentes. Is the government of the United States trying to contact the
Mexican Government for sending somebody from the official - the embassy at
least?
MR. BURNS: As I said yesterday, I think this is a Mexican decision.
Mexico is sovereign, obviously, in this affair as in all others inside its
country. It ought to be a Mexican decision as to who inspects the corpse
and who does not.
I still cannot confirm to you that this corpse is that of Mr. Fuentes. We
will have to await word from the Mexican Government on this. Obviously, we
have a very great interest in this because his activities as a notorious
narco-trafficker affected millions of people in this country. We have a
great interest in this and we intend to pursue our narcotics cooperation
program with the Mexican Government. We do not wish to intrude on issues
that are clearly pertinent to the Mexican Government and to its
sovereignty.
QUESTION: And today, the Miami Herald report that the former Mexican
groups are linking the father-in-law of President Zedillo to the
narco-traffickers. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me. I didn't quite catch the --
QUESTION: The father-in-law of President Zedillo.
MR. BURNS: I have no information on that issue. I'm sorry.
I just couldn't comment on it. Yes, Betsy?
QUESTION: Northern Ireland. Is the U.S. involved in any way in trying to
bring an end to the violence that has erupted again? Is George Mitchell
there? Is he working on this problem?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that Senator Mitchell is in Ireland. The
multi-party talks are not in session. I don't believe he is there, but we
are checking that for you.
All I can say on Northern Ireland, as I said yesterday, is that the
continuing confrontations in Northern Ireland concern the United States
very deeply. We are doing everything possible to urge restraint. It is
essential, we believe, for leaders of both the Nationalists and the
Unionist communities to show political courage in calming emotions and
preventing further violence. The future of the multi-party talks depends on
their willingness to seek reconciliation. We hope that mutually acceptable
arrangements will be made between the two communities on the handling of
the upcoming traditional parades. Sid?
QUESTION: The Congo?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: The Foreign Minister is in town, Dr. Karaha.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: He's speaking to some of the media.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: He has some very interesting things to say.
I would like to just get your reaction to some of them. He says he is in
town to get U.S. assistance to rebuild the country. That's sort of his
overarching goal. He's going to be visiting the White House and over here
today. But on elections, he said that the pledge to have elections in two
years is merely a goal and that they would probably not meet it. He said
that, first, they had to rebuild, educate their people and feed their
people, otherwise it's pointless. On the issue of inclusion of opposition
members in the government, specifically Mr. Tshisekedi, he referred to him
as an enemy of the state, quote, his words, and said that he would never -
Kabila would never include him in the government.
He accused him of paying demonstrators the equivalent of $10 in this recent
incident a week or so ago to confront Kabila's forces in hopes that they
could create some sort of embarrassment, some sort of -
And he also says that the alliance forces had absolutely no role in the
massacre. They did not fire one shot a refugee. If you could comment on
those -- on his claims, please?
MR. BURNS: I would just like to let you know that Foreign Minister Karaha
will be meeting with Under Secretary Pickering today. He will be meeting
with Assistant Secretary John Shattuck.
One of the issues that they will be discussing with him is our very strong
belief that the investigation into the brutalities and massacres in
Kisangani and of the allegations of brutalities going as far back as 1993,
that they ought to be pursued.
We expect no compromise in the impartiality and integrity of the
investigation. We are confident that the Secretary General of the United
Nations is going to select a team of impartial investigators, and we expect
full cooperation from the government of Congo in this effort -- full
cooperation and no fooling around with the investigative team.
That message will be conveyed to the foreign minister quite clearly.
On the issue of elections, we have long said for many months now that we
think that the Democratic Republic of the Congo should proceed to elections
as soon as possible. It's not good enough to say maybe in two years, maybe
in five years. That is not good enough -- as soon as possible. As soon as
possible means the government will make a good faith effort to prepare the
country for elections.
Everybody understands you can't have elections a week after a rebel army
has taken control of a city and overthrown a dictator, in the case of
Mobutu. But to wait many, many years and to use as an excuse the fact that
it used to be a dictatorship is simply not good enough when you look at
what the Cambodians were able to do in 1993, what the Salvadorans have been
able to do, what the South Africans have been able to do, just to name
three examples in three different parts of the world.
On Ms. Tshisekedi, we fully support his right to participate in the
political life of the Congo. We do not agree or support in any way the
efforts of the government to intimidate him or his followers or to limit
his freedom of speech or freedom of participation in the political system.
On the issue of the human rights investigation, for the foreign minister to
say flat out that there is no evidence whatsoever linking the rebel forces
to the brutalities in and around Kisangani is very hard to believe. It's
very hard to believe. There are many, many allegations of brutalities to
innocent Rwandan Hutu refugees - women and children, especially - and well
documented by journalists, as well as by investigators, that require an
objective, aggressive investigation. We expect, instead of excuses, we
expect full cooperation in that investigation.
QUESTION: His explanation of the massacre was as follows - this is what
he said - that the Interahame conspiring with the French aid group Medicins
Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders), engineered this whole incident.
And the reason that Doctors Without Borders was involved was because they
wanted to make sure that aid kept coming so they could keep it for
themselves.
MR. BURNS: Well, I am certainly not going to question Medicins Sans
Frontiers because it's a reputable humanitarian group which has done
magnificent work all around the world. It is, I think, true to anybody who
knows the situation that not everybody - that this is a gray situation in
some respects. Some of the people who were refugees in Kisangani were
actually part of the problem in 1993. People who actually took part in
some of the massacres in '93 became victims in '97.
But it is also true that women and children were victimized to a very great
extent in those massacres and brutalities near Kisangani and that we need
to see an aggressive pursuit of justice. The people who carried out those
massacres ought to be tried and brought to justice, and there ought to be
justice done for the poor people who were killed and for their relatives
who survived. Yes, Bill.
QUESTION: Yes, thanks, Nick.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, did you have a question, too? Okay, let's go over
here, first, Bill. Yes, yes, sir.
QUESTION: On Vietnam. They have asked the United States and others - but
the United States specifically -- for help in assessing the damage from
Agent Orange with a look toward possible compensation. But my more
immediate question right now is, is the U.S. considering this at all --
considering providing either technical or economic help, or a combination
of either? Compensation aside, I assume that question will come later if
any --
MR. BURNS: When Secretary Albright was in Vietnam just two weeks ago, she
did discuss with several of the Vietnamese leaders our mutual concern about
the effects of toxic chemical use during the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese
officials, as far as I know, have not communicated to us any demands for
compensation to any U.S. Government officials, including to Secretary
Albright during the discussions in which I participated, or to Ambassador
Pete Peterson in Hanoi. But they have raised the issue with us, and we
have raised it with them on occasion.
In recent years, I understand American scientists have collaborated with
Vietnamese scientists in studying dioxin contamination in Vietnam. In
light of our strong mutual concerns about this issue, we are exploring the
possibility of joint scientific research on the effects of toxic
contamination in Vietnam that stems from the Vietnam War.
QUESTION: That will do, yeah. It wasn't the compensation so much as the
help in assessing the damage.
MR. BURNS: Right. So I think we are interested in helping them to assess
the extent of the problem. But as far as I know - and I was in the
meetings - there was no request for compensation.
Yes.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, no, it's your turn. I'm sorry.
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: No, I'm going to let you.
MR. BURNS: How do you rate the chances of defining a time frame for the
joining of Romania and Slovenia to the NATO membership in the Madrid
summit?
MR. BURNS: There are people a lot more senior and powerful than me
answering those questions right now in Madrid. The President, the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
National Security Advisor. Since I am not in Madrid, I would prefer to
kick the questions to them on that issue. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Nick, let me ask you this and this is kind of a strange topic
here, but --
MR. BURNS: It wouldn't be the first time, Bill.
QUESTION: It wouldn't be the first, would it? Thank you.
This is out of The Washington Times on Sunday. Does the United States
believe --
MR. BURNS: That wouldn't be the first time either, anyway.
Sorry.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. Government believe, Nick, that the Russian
military made all preparations for starting a nuclear war except for the
decision to launch back in January 25th of 1995 when a harmless research
rocket was launched from a Norwegian island and mistaken for a NATO attack?
Did this actually happen, sir? According to Mr. Peter Pride, former CIA
officer.
MR. BURNS: Right. Bill, I cannot confirm that. I don't mean to take
issue with it, either. I just don't have any evidence at all or any
information at all on that particular subject.
QUESTION: I'll let that go.
MR. BURNS: Yes, sir. One more.
QUESTION: Do you know if the Madrid meeting, the three sides discussed
the Imia issue?
MR. BURNS: I don't know.
QUESTION: You don't know. Since the U.S. is involved to reduce tension
in the Aegean, I wonder why Mr. Kornblum didn't try to convince Turkey to
sign a non-aggression pact with Greece as it was proposed by the
governments. And to us, the two countries to freeze the military buildup
for a specific period of time.
MR. BURNS: My advice is be positive. Something good happened between
Greece and Turkey today. Let's leave it at that. Mr. Kornblum did a great
job. Secretary Albright did an even greater job.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:10 P.M.)
(###)
|
