U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #102, 97-07-09
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1240
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, July 9, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Departure of John Dinger, ex-Director of the Office of
Press Relations
3 Restart of Peace Negotiations in Sudan
3-4 Conference on "Vital Voices: Women in Democracy" in Vienna
CAMBODIA
1-3,5,7-10 Ordered Departure of Embassy Dependents and Non-Essential
Personnel/ New Travel Warning/American Citizens/Update on
Political Situation/Reports of Mass Arrests/American
Policy/Prince Ranariddh in DC/ASEAN Meeting on Cambodia
6-7 U.S. Aid to Cambodia Under Review
7 Possibility of an International Peace Conference
9 Congressman Rohrabacher's Letter to Secretary Albright
10 Discussions with Vietnamese Government on Cambodia
DRoCONGO
4 Role of Rwandan Forces in President Kabila's Alliance
Victory over Mobutu
16 DRoCongo Foreign Minister Karaha's Visit to DC
16-17 US Assistance to DRoCongo
NORTH KOREA
11 Disputes with Japan over Fishing Rights in Territorial
Waters
11-12,19 World Food Program Appeal for Additional Food Aid
19 Defector Hwang Jang-yop's Press Conference
GREECE/TURKEY
13-14 Madrid Agreement on Greek-Turkish Relations and the Imia
Issue
CYPRUS
14-15 Amb. Holbrooke Meetings with Leaders of Cypriot Communities
in New York
15 Deployment of Russian Anti-Aircraft Missiles and Cyprus
Settlement
15 Additional Reports of Turkish Military Maneuvers
15-16 No US Freeze on Military Relations with Turkey and Greece
MEXICO
18 Opposition Victory in Legislative Elections and
Anti-corruption Reform
18 Reported Death of Narco-trafficker Amado Carrillo Fuentes
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
18-19 President Clinton's Remarks in Madrid on a New Initiative /
Possible Albright Trip
EGYPT
19 Egyptian Business Delegation Meeting in State Dept.
IRAN
20 Iranian-Saudi High Level Meetings/Possibility of US-Iranian
Dialogue
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #102
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997 1:29 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to all of you. I
want to say a word about our departed colleague, John Dinger. He departed
this morning for Iowa; lucky him. He has completed his two years as the
director of the Press Office. I want to thank John for everything he did to
make the Press Office run on time, on schedule, efficiently. I know a lot
of you had good relationships with him and wish him well. He is going
off to a well deserved vacation in his native state of Iowa, and then
on to the Senior Seminar, which is a very prestigious assignment for him,
over the next year.
With John's departure, of course, I have already formally welcomed, Lee.
But it's great to have Lee McClenny fully in charge here at the Press
Office. I know all of you, if you haven't met Lee, you should take the time
to get to know him. He is an outstanding officer and a great colleague.
We have got a couple of things to tell you about today, beginning with
Cambodia but also on Sudan, and also on an important conference in Central
Europe.
First on Cambodia. Given the present uncertain security situation, the
United States has decided to order the departure of our embassy dependents
and our non-essential personnel from Phnom Penh. We expect this draw-down
of our embassy personnel will take place over the coming days. We currently
have 61 official American diplomats in Cambodia. We will draw them down to
a total of 20 American diplomats in the next couple of days, and we will
hold there. Ambassador Ken Quinn, of course, believes it is very important
to maintain the integrity of the embassy, to keep it open. We very much
support that.
In addition to the employees who will be taken out of Phnom Penh, out of
Cambodia, we have 28 American dependents of our employees, and all of them
will be asked to leave. We are also encouraging all private American
citizens to leave Cambodia as soon as commercial transportation becomes
available. There are a variety of options for people. There are commercial
air charters from Phnom Penh, which have operated over the last 24 hours.
Indeed, many Americans have left via that route. The airport is now open to
those commercial flights, the airport in Phnom Penh. We believe as early as
tomorrow, but no later than Friday, the airport in Phnom Penh will be
open to regular commercial air traffic. So it should be possible for
the American citizens who are in Cambodia to leave safely and through
commercial means.
We are issuing today a new travel warning for Cambodia, which is available
to all of you. It's in the Press Office. Americans who are still in
Cambodia, we believe, should remain at home at night and be very cautious
about their activities during the day because there is still sporadic
shooting and fighting throughout the country, including in Phnom Penh
itself.
To the best of our knowledge, as I told you the other day, with the
departures over the last couple of days of several hundred Americans, there
are roughly between 1,000 and 1,300 American citizens, private Americans in
Cambodia. Over the last 12 hours, we believe, 220 Americans have been able
to leave Cambodia for Bangkok. Most of these have taken charter flights. A
few people have been able to go out overland.
Among these citizens leaving was an entire group of missionaries from
Oklahoma, a concern of Congressman J.C. Watts. We were able to get those
people out. All the Americans who were in the area of Siem Reap, where
there is considerable fighting, have been able to leave that area.
Our embassy in Bangkok has set up a reception center for American citizens
arriving from Cambodia. As I said, we hope that all of these people - up to
a thousand people - will be leaving in the next couple of days. Our embassy
in Bangkok is ready to help them with their onward travel and any problems
that they may be having.
As for the political situation in Cambodia, we continue to watch it very,
very carefully. We are aware of reports of political assassinations and
political killings, including reports that an associate of Prince Ranariddh,
Ho Sok, was killed yesterday while he was in the custody of the political
party of Hun Sen. The United States condemns this killing. We are very
disturbed by reports that indicate that responsibility for this killing
lies with Hun Sen and his associates. We urge Cambodian authorities -- and
particularly Hun Sen, who has taken over the capital -- to immediately
apprehend and punish the specific individuals who were involved in this
killing and whoever ordered the killing.
We are calling in the ambassador of Cambodia of today to raise our very
serious concerns about these political killings and we will raise them in
very clear and blunt terms. In addition to that, we have sent direct
messages to Hun Sen through our ambassador in Phnom Penh, Ken Quinn. We
have warned him that this type of activity will not be tolerated or
supported in any way by the international community.
There are also reports that you have all seen about mass arrests in Phnom
Penh. I am not in a position to confirm those, but we are checking out all
of those reports through our embassy. I can tell you that Ambassador Quinn
and his colleagues in the embassy have been in contact with several members
of Prince Ranariddh's party in Phnom Penh, and they appear not to have been
affected by any political recriminations that may or may not be underway.
Needless to say, there are too many reports for us to be quiescent and we
do want to warn Hun Sen and his associates that all of us will be quite
critical and opposed to any effort to intimidate or arrest Cambodians for
their political views. This is unacceptable. It is in direct violation of
the Cambodian constitution. I would note that Second Prime Minister Hun Sen
has said publicly that revenge would not be carried out against officials
of Prince Ranariddh's party, and we hold him to his word. We are making our
views known to him directly through our ambassador and directly this
afternoon to the Cambodian ambassador.
I want to reaffirm today the basis of American policy. First, we call on
the authorities in Phnom Penh, specifically Hun Sen, to take decisive
measures to prevent any further violence, further acts of physical
aggression in Phnom Penh and throughout the country. We are urging Hun Sen
and Prince Ranariddh and all of their political associates to drop the
swords and the guns and to get back to the negotiating table. The Paris
Peace Accords of 1991 are the only hope for Cambodia, a country with a
tortured and tragic past. It is their responsibility to get back to the
negotiating table to safeguard all Cambodians. We think it is very
important that all political leaders recommit themselves to the elections
promised for 1998.
I do want to reaffirm again today, the United States is opposed to the
return of the Khmer Rouge to positions of power and leadership in Cambodia.
Such a return would be unacceptable to the United States and to many other
countries around the world.
Now, as for Prince Ranariddh himself, he is en route to the United States.
He has asked to come here for talks at the United Nations in New York and
with us here in Washington. I have spoken to our Acting Secretary of State,
Tom Pickering, Acting Secretary Pickering has agreed to see Prince
Ranariddh, probably on Friday here at the State Department. If he has any
other appointments in Washington, I assume it would be with lower level
officials. I think Acting Secretary Pickering will be the most senior
American official to meet with him.
Needless to say, we are very disturbed by the continuing reports of unrest,
of bloodshed, of recrimination in Cambodia. We are watching the situation
very closely. We are also watching now for actions by some of our friends
in Southeast Asia. I know that ASEAN will be meting tomorrow to consider
Cambodia; many difficult questions associated with it. The United States
has given some advice to our ASEAN friends. We will not make that advice
public, but that advice will remain private. We think it is time for
the international community to make its voice heard on this issue
of political violence in Cambodia itself. I will be glad to take questions
on this, but let me just make two other very quick announcements on other
issues.
First, on Sudan, the United States Government congratulates the leaders of
Kenya, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda, who today announced that
they had obtained the formal agreement of the Sudanese Government to
restart peace negotiations to end the 14-year civil war in Sudan. The
United States Government had recently urged the Sudanese Government to make
this commitment. We urge that negotiations begin immediately and in good
faith so that a just and lasting peace can be established in Sudan and
throughout the Horn of Africa.
Finally, before going to your questions, I just wanted to note - and I am
releasing a statement today - that the United States is very pleased to
support the conference, Vital Voices: Women in Democracy. It is a
conference taking place beginning today in Vienna, Austria, and extends
through Friday. Women from government and the private sector in Central and
Eastern Europe will convene with women leaders from the United States and
the European Union to explore ways of strengthening the role of women in
the new democracies of Central Europe, both politically and economically.
Plenary speakers include First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and our United States Ambassador to Austria,
Swanee Hunt. This conference supports Secretary Albright's commitment to
incorporate concerns related to women into the mainstream of American
foreign policy. We are also releasing today -- in addition to our very
brief statement -- the statement of support that Secretary Albright has
sent to the conference.
I want to single out Ambassador Swanee Hunt, who has done a magnificent job
in Vienna over the last four years for having organized this conference.
She has been a very strong supporter of the role of women in Bosnia, also
in Central Europe, and she has been the creative force behind this
conference. I think she deserves a lot of credit for having brought it
about.
With that, I will be very glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: There is an interview this morning in The Washington Post with
the Rwandan Defense Minister Paul Kagame, and he was very explicit in his
role in helping organize the rebels in the former Zaire. And he sort of
made comments along these lines, but he has become quite bold in saying
that he was pretty much the architect at several key points in the rebel
march across Zaire. I'm wondering, did the U.S. know the extent of the
Rwandan involvement?
MR. BURNS: Did we know of the extent of the involvement at the time?
QUESTION: At the time?
MR. BURNS: Yes. As the rebel alliance grew from Goma in the east to
Kisangani and then down to Lubumbashi and then finally to Kinshasa, we had
very strong indications that a number of governments neighboring then-Zaire
were supporting not only morally, but also with war material, the rebel
alliance of Laurent Kabila.
We, in fact, at the time, warned the Rwandan Government, as well as the
Ugandan Government, against a policy of aiding and abetting the rebel
alliance because we didn't think that it would lead - we thought it would
lead to the deaths of innocent people, and we thought it would simply throw
gasoline on the fire that had already been started. Needless to say, I
don't believe that our recommendations were accepted by those governments,
and the result is the history of the last six or seven months in what is
now Congo. The United States has believed for a very long time that
governments need to act responsibly. They need to act with due consideration
of civilians, and specifically in this case of the Rwandan Hutu refugees
who needed assistance.
Now Mr. Kagame has given his own justification. I don't want to debate it,
line for line and word for word. But I do want to be clear about what the
position of the United States was at the time.
QUESTION: Back to Cambodia.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Does the United States feel that the ASEAN countries need to
speak out more firmly against what has been happening in the country, in
Cambodia?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't want to give any public advice to the ASEAN
countries because we are giving our own private advice. But I can say this,
Carol, it is very important at time like this when there is chaos in
Cambodia, when they are on the verge of a civil war, when fighting is
occurring throughout the country between forces of the two major political
parties, for countries that have an interest in Cambodia to speak out about
what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
What is not acceptable are political assassinations, political killings,
endangering the lives of innocent civilians, breaking the constitution,
rupturing the Paris Peace Accords. We have spoken out against that. We have
spoken out against the activities of Hun Sen over the weekend. He bears
enormous responsibility for having ignited this fire, and we hope that
other countries will, as well; but more importantly, that we will all work
in concert to try to motivate the Cambodian leaders, the respective
leaders to come back to a coalition government and to try to resurrect
the integrity of the coalition government of 1993. That is very important.
There are a lot of questions that ASEAN faces. They have got to face this
particular question, which we all have to face. They also have to face the
question of whether or not Cambodia should be admitted to ASEAN in Kuala
Lumpur when the ASEAN convenes, I think, around the 23rd of July, of this
month. That is a very important question. We don't have a vote in that
matter. I am not going to give public advice on that matter, but we
certainly have a private view, which we are asserting.
QUESTION: Do you think - do you feel that the ASEAN countries have been
reluctant to take on Cambodia? And if so, why?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think a number of ASEAN countries have actually played
a leading role in trying to help Cambodia over the last couple of years. I
think they ought to be given credit for that. A number of leading countries
in ASEAN have; Japan has, as well as, Australia and New Zealand.
QUESTION: I mean now.
MR. BURNS: Well, we have seen some forthright statements from the
government of Japan on this and I think some very good statements from the
government of Japan, in general. As for other countries, we will just have
to see what they say. I think many of the countries in Southeast Asia maybe
have been holding their fire until the ASEAN meeting is convened tomorrow.
QUESTION: And how about the issue of aid? I know this was discussed over
the last couple of days, but has there been any change in the U.S. --
MR. BURNS: We have that question under very intensive review. In fact,
there is a meeting this afternoon to look at this question quite intensively.
It is a difficult question because, as I said yesterday, nearly all of our
aid goes to private organizations that are doing good work in Cambodia --
helping to rid the country of mines; helping people to supply themselves
with prosthetic devices -- people who have lost legs and arms to mines;
helping to prevent the outbreak of HIV infection; helping mothers
through baby and maternal care. A lot of very good humanitarian work
is going on.
We do not want to rush away from that because it is not as if our aid is
going to the government and propping up Hun Sen. It's not. Our aid is going
to innocent people who are affected by the fighting. If there are
components of our aid program - or components of international aid programs,
multilateral aid programs - that do directly support the government, I
think those programs will come under very intensive review and criticism
here in the United States and abroad. I think they would be very seriously
reviewed.
If it is possible to maintain some of the assistance that clearly goes to
individuals, apart from the government, we would like to find a way to do
that. I don't want to anticipate the decisions we make, but I am trying to
steer you through the very difficult questions that we face.
QUESTION: Another question. Are you saying that none of the U.S. aid -
that the U.S.
aid - direct U.S. aid only goes for humanitarian purposes?
MR. BURNS: No, I said the great majority of. I cannot say that every
penny goes outside the government coffers. A minority of aid probably does
indirectly or directly benefit the government. I think that is the aid, the
portion of the aid, that will be placed under the greatest inspection.
But it is a very difficult question, and I just wanted to take a moment to
explain it again because I see in some of the criticism from human rights
groups, even from editorials in major papers this morning, the Administration
should cut off aid to Cambodia as an expression of our concern. We are
concerned. We have spoken out more strongly than, I think, any government
that I have seen on the events of the last four or five days.
But you have got to proceed intelligently. To blindly wipe away all of the
aid programs when the vast majority of that money helps individuals and not
the government, that is a serious question which deserves serious
consideration. I am glad that we haven't taken the advice of some of the
newspapers and reflexively canceled aid programs, when in fact, that money
is doing a lot of good for people.
QUESTION: This meeting today, this review meeting, is it expected to come
to some sort of decision about aid?
MR. BURNS: Well, it is a meeting of mid-level officials who will, I think,
try to make some recommendations to the policymakers here who will have to
make the ultimate decision. I know that we will be getting to that question
very shortly.
QUESTION: One last question. Is there any suggestion, consideration by
the U.S. Government to try to reconvene the peace conference that put
together the Paris Peace Accords in 1991?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of any effort right now to try to convene
imminently in the next couple of days, any kind of international conference.
I don't think that is practical right now, given the fact that Cambodia is
in tatters and there is fighting all over the country; there are rival
militia groups.
What we would like to do as a first order of business is try to - together
with many other countries - motivate Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh to drop
their military offensives against each other and to return to some kind of
political dialog. That has to be the first step. Beyond that, if you are
asking about tactics to try to bring them further down the road towards a
political reconciliation, if that is possible, we will have to just wait
and see what might be possible tactically if we can get them to the first
step, and that is not at all assured.
QUESTION: Nick, so I should take from your statement that the U.S. will
not be chartering planes to get Americans out, nor will the U.S. use
American military to get Americans out?
MR. BURNS: Right. As you know, the Pentagon has deployed - the Secretary
of Defense has deployed certain military assets, including naval vessels of
the United States to the region to be there in case it is necessary, in
case there is some kind of emergency where American citizens are in
immediate and direct threat. Then of course we would want to act very
quickly to protect them. But fortunately, the situation in Phnom Penh
itself is quieter today than it has been at any time over the last four or
five days.
There are charter flights leaving; 220 Americans have left in the last 12
hours. And we are hoping - knock on wood - if this situation can hold that
the vast majority of Americans might be able to leave by civilian means --
by charter or commercial aircraft -- and it won't be necessary to bring the
military in. It is always a better idea to try to rely on normal transportation
channels. There is always an element of risk in bringing the military
into a situation, especially one as combustible as the one in Phnom
Penh.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea approximately how many Americans intend to
leave?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's hard to say. With the departure of several hundred
Americans over the last few days, we think there are anywhere from 1,000 to
1,300 Americans left, private Americans; not speaking here about our
official American population. We can not require Americans to leave. If
Americans wish to stay, they do so of their own volition. But we strongly
advise them and warn them to leave because our appreciation of the
political situation is that the violence could return at any moment and we
don't wish Americans to be caught up in that. We have been extremely
fortunate that no Americans have been wounded or killed in the fighting
over the last five days. We would like to maintain that record.
QUESTION: You said that the ambassador, among others, has sent a direct
message to Hun Sen. He reportedly made an announcement warning foreign
officials of any kind of getting involved in the business of Cambodia,
saying that foreigners need to butt out and let Cambodians solve their own
problems. What was the direct message, some of it - what would be a direct
message that could sort of sway him to listen to foreigners?
And second question, you said that you are going to continue to watch the
situation. You have condemned Hun Sen the last two days and his actions
over the weekend. Is it going to take more assassinations or what is
ultimately going to have to happen when Hun Sen doesn't sort of come to the
peace table for the United States or the international community to take a
harder stand with him?
MR. BURNS: Well, perhaps if Hun Sen would act more responsibly, he would
have a right to make an irresponsible statement like that. He doesn't have
that right. Cambodia has been a tortured country for a generation and it is
only because the international community has acted to support the 1991
Peace Accords and support the 1993 elections, through massive involvement
of observers and money, and only because we have poured over a billion
dollars -- all of us together, around the world -- into Cambodia over
the last four years that Cambodia even has a fighting chance right now of
being a civilized and peaceful country.
So I don't think Hun Sen has the right to lecture us about whether or not
we ought to be concerned. We are concerned because we have to be concerned
when we see atrocities take place, when we see established political order
overthrown on a moment's notice because of his own political ambitions. So
I think that is an important message for him. He has to understand the
world is going to judge him by what he does, and right now the judgment is
not very good. He is not getting passing marks from anybody in Asia or in
Europe or in North America because his actions are so reprehensible
over the past couple of days.
In answer to your second question, Crystal, about what is it going to take
for something else to happen, further to happen on the part of the
international community, let's just call it like it is. He is responsible.
He and Prince Ranariddh and the other political leaders are responsible for
the state of affairs in Cambodia today. We in the international community
have given every support to them, but we can't control their actions. They
have to be judged and held accountable for what happens in that country. We
will try to help as best we can, but they have got to stop the fighting
first. We can't make them stop the fighting.
QUESTION: You said you didn't want to cut off aid because that wasn't
good for the people, maybe, who are not directly involved in Hun Sen's
actions. So we don't want to do that but, at the same time, we want him to
try to resolve this problem but he is out manhunting, killing opposition
leaders. And it seems like there is a disconnect here with what the United
States is saying about - if you're not going to cut off aid, what is the
other solution?
MR. BURNS: Well, again, we very well may have to curtail or reduce or do
away altogether with that portion of the aid that we think, either
multilateral assistance or bilateral assistance, that directly benefits Hun
Sen. It is only logical to cut off aid to penalize someone if that aid
reaches them and is directed to them. But if there is another set of
programs that don't have anything to do with Hun Sen and that don't go
through his government coffers at all and that are directly managed to
benefit average people or unfortunate people, then we ought to try as best
we can to continue those. Those are humanitarian programs that don't
have any political benefit for Hun Sen.
We have got to try to find pressure points where we can exact some kind of
influence on him, and I think that is really international. We need to see
concerted international action together with ASEAN and other countries to
see if the right thing can be done here. The right thing clearly is for all
of us internationally to condemn the fighting, to urge an end to the
fighting, and to urge a return to negotiations for some kind of maintenance
of the 1991 Accords.
QUESTION: So membership to ASEAN, denying that to them, would be a
pressure point maybe? Is that fair to say?
MR. BURNS: That is a question for ASEAN to consider. The United States
does not have a vote and we are not inclined to give public advice,
although we do have private views on that question.
QUESTION: Congressman Rohrabacher has written a letter to Secretary
Albright calling on you to condemn this as a coup and threatening to cut
off trade benefits to Cambodia. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. BURNS: I have seen reports of the letter. I have not seen the letter
itself.
QUESTION: He faxed it here.
MR. BURNS: Well, I'm sorry, I didn't get a fax but I'm sure that when
Secretary Albright sees the letter - she's traveling - she will respond
very quickly out of our respect for the Congress and the legitimate views
expressed by members of the Congress. I think we have gone over this ground
many times. It is a highly complex situation.
It would be easy to say it is a coup d'etat and walk away, but there is a
lot going on in Cambodia. In addition to the takeover of Phnom Penh by Hun
Sen, there is vicious fighting now underway in many of the provinces. It is
not at all clear what will be the result of that fighting and who is going
to be on top and who is going to be at the bottom as a result of that
fighting. I think we are going to have to, unfortunately, if the fighting
continues, spend a little more time analyzing what's going on before we are
so quick to brand this as a completed act because there is a quite a lot of
opposition to Hun Sen right now, military opposition.
QUESTION: Well, it may not be completed, but it was an attempt at power.
By definition isn't that a coup - a coup attempt, at least?
MR. BURNS: There has certainly been an attempt to rupture the Paris Peace
Accords, to do way with Prince Ranariddh's political activities in Phnom
Penh and to cripple his political party. No question about it. But this
drama is not over. What we would like not to see is a full-fledged civil
war. We would like to see cooler heads prevail, and we would like to see an
agreement between Hun Sen and Ranariddh to stop the fighting. That clearly
is the responsible thing for the United States to be urging right now. We
always try to be responsible.
QUESTION: Have you spoken to the Vietnamese in the last day about the
situation?
MR. BURNS: We have exchanged views with the Vietnamese Government, both
here in Washington through the embassy and in Hanoi through our embassy in
Hanoi.
QUESTION: And are they being helpful?
MR. BURNS: Well, you will have to ask the Vietnamese Government for its
view of the situation in Cambodia. I don't speak for the Vietnamese
Government. But we have certainly made our views clear to Vietnam and hope
very much that Vietnam will act responsibly to urge an end to the fighting,
as well.
QUESTION: Did they give you any assurances that they will?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to go into our conversations with the Vietnamese,
except to say that I think our views are very clear to the Vietnamese, and
I think we received their views as well.
QUESTION: What level was that message passed? Was it here in Washington?
MR. BURNS: Here in Washington and in Hanoi, yes.
QUESTION: Can you say who it was here?
MR. BURNS: I don't - no, I don't normally do that, unless it is in my
direct interests to do so.
(Laugher.)
MR. BURNS: Are we still - any more Cambodia questions? Any more? Still on
Cambodia, yes, sir.
QUESTION: No.
MR. BURNS: No, we have finished with Cambodia. Okay, yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes, I want to make a question about the ongoing territorial
dispute between the Korean and Japanese governments.
MR. BURNS: The Korean?
QUESTION: Korean and Japanese governments. In a few months, the Japanese
coast guard seized a dozen Korean fishing boats. And then the Korean
Government is saying that the boats were doing a job in the open sea -- I
mean, the international waters. But the Japanese Government says vice
versa. They are saying that the boats were - the area where the boats were
sailing was within the Japanese territorial waters. In conclusion, the two
governments have totally different views about the territorial waters,
especially about the sea between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese
islands. Do you have any comment about that?
MR. BURNS: I would just note that Japan and the Republic of Korea are
both major and important allies of the United States. We do not wish to
take sides in this disagreement. We urge and hope that both will resolve
these differences peacefully.
QUESTION: Do you have any plan to go between the two countries and make
some effort for developing a compromise?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware that we have been asked to do so, and a
successful ingredient of any mediation is that you need to be asked by both
sides. I am not aware that we have. These are both responsible governments
who we believe should be able to work this problem out amicable.
QUESTION: So you mean right now you are just going to wait and see and
hope that the weather will be some day good again?
MR. BURNS: Well, we hope very much that the problem can be resolved, of
course we do. Because we don't wish to see any of our allies be in
disagreement in a matter like this. Yes, Sid.
QUESTION: Nick, the World Food Program has released another appeal for
aid to North Korea.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you all have anything - have you seen it? Have anything to
say about it?
MR. BURNS: I understand that the World Food Program, Mrs. Bertini
announced this morning the rationale for an expansion of the current food
drive for North Korea. This is the program that is designed to help
children under the age of six. I would just note that having received this
appeal just this morning, we are now going to take it under consideration.
I can tell you that I believe we have responded positively to every food
appeal from the World Food Program over the last several years. We are the
largest contributor, and I would argue, the strongest supporter of the
World Food Program's activities in North Korea. So we are going to give
this very serious consideration. Obviously, what we will have to do is have
our experts sit down here in the government and consider this formally and
make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, and then I'm sure she will
act very quickly upon the recommendation. I understand the expansion
is for an additional 129,534 metric tons of humanitarian food assistance.
QUESTION: Do you expect the United States - sorry - do you expect the
United States to take some action on this within the next few weeks,
specifically before the meetings in New York in August?
MR. BURNS: Without wanting to create any artificial deadlines here, I
think, given the fact that this is an emergency appeal to a situation that -
to a country that has very severe food deficiencies, I think that we would
obviously look at this with some degree of urgency and probably arrive at a
decision fairly quickly. But I obviously can't indicate what that decision
is until it is made formally by the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- likely from the United States would you go that
far?
MR. BURNS: Well, I never wish to get out ahead of my boss Madeleine
Albright, the Secretary of State. She is the one who has to make this
decision. I would simply note that we have supported the World Food Program,
never turned down an appeal, and believe it's a very effective organization
in dispersing aid, not through the government, not through the army, but
directly to kids. We have supported that program, as you know, just most
recently in our $25 million program since February of this year. Yes,
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: On the Aegean issue. According to --
MR. BURNS: I thought you were going to ask about Bosnia or Cambodia.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: The priority for me is the Aegean and the Cyprus issues.
MR. BURNS: All right. I'm well aware of that.
QUESTION: Colombia.
MR. BURNS: Colombia?
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: Are you interested in President Samper and the narcotics
problems in Colombia? We can talk about that, Mr. Lambros, if you would
like. I would be delighted to talk about that.
QUESTION: As a matter of interest, yes, but as I told you, the priority
is the Aegean issue. According to sources, the Madrid agreement on the
Aegean is a part in the continuation of the agreement on Imia, which has
been succeeded by President Clinton with Prime Minister Kostas Simitis and
Foreign Minister Theodhoros Pangalos. Any comment?
MR. BURNS: Now, Mr. Lambros, I think we went through this yesterday. The
Madrid agreement - the statement issued by my colleague Jim Foley - was an
expression of the commitments made by Greece and Turkey to further their
relationship, to improve it. It was reinforced by the meeting between
President Demirel and Prime Minister Simitis. That's a very important
foundation agreement which we believe should launch some practical steps to
fill that agreement out and to make Greek-Turkish relations more predictable
and more stable.
I specifically, yesterday, did not link it to any prior disagreement, and
did not note any kind of concrete steps that were taken yesterday. In fact,
what I said was we hope that practical, concrete steps can be taken in
light of this agreement. So that's the best way to answer your question.
But it really is the same question that we discussed yesterday.
QUESTION: In other words, it is not a part of the Imia issue?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: The Madrid agreement is not a part of the Imia issue.
MR. BURNS: The Madrid agreement is an agreement of principles, of
commitments in the relations between Greece and Turkey, and a very
important one. The Imia issue is a different issue. It's an issue, of
course, that involves the Aegean; but it's an issue that we believe should
be resolved amicably between Greece and Turkey.
QUESTION: But according to The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times
today, the Madrid agreement is connected with the decision of Prime
Minister Kostas Simitis not to extend the territorial waters in the Aegean
Sea from six miles to 12. Your comment.
MR. BURNS: Well, you have a choice - you can take my statements as
official U.S. policy or you can consult The Wall Street Journal. Really,
truthfully here - I think I've given you a very clear idea of what was
behind the Madrid statement yesterday and how pleased we are about it. But
we are not linking it to any other issue. There are many tough issues in
Greek-Turkish relations that need to be resolved. We hope that the Madrid
statement will be an impetus to do so in the future.
QUESTION: As a matter of record, according to the same sources, Under
Secretary John Kornblum prepared the final list of those small Greek
islands, which is going to be submitted to the International Court of
Justice as a part of the Imia case, in this particular case, of the Madrid
agreement. Any comment to this effect?
MR. BURNS: I just can't speak to whatever else Assistant Secretary
Kornblum is doing in Madrid. But I can tell you, he was very much involved
in the effort, along with Mr. Petrihos to put together the meeting and thus
the statement that was made yesterday.
The issue of Imia is of course a long-standing issue between Greece and
Turkey. As you know, the United States hopes that both of those countries
can resolve it amicably and peacefully. We have suggested some avenues for
a resolution of that dispute, but it's up to Greece and Turkey to decide
how it's going to be resolved and when it's going to be resolved.
QUESTION: How about Kardak?
QUESTION: I'm joking.
MR. BURNS: Good, I'm glad you're joking.
(Laughter.)
Take it easy on me, would you? Dimitris, are you going to pile on
here?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: I'm satisfied.
MR. BURNS: You see that? Satisfied - excellent. Any more questions on
Greece and Turkey, before we move to the Middle East?
QUESTION: Yes, on Cyprus.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: On Cyprus, why Mr. Richard Holbrooke met with Cypriot Foreign
Minister Ioannis Kasoulides tête-à-tête yesterday,
almost for two hours without the presence of President Clerides? Why? Is
there any readout to this effect?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't think there's any mystery or conspiracy here.
After meeting with Mr. Denktash and President Clerides, Ambassador
Holbrooke thought it was best to meet with foreign minister of Cyprus, with
the full knowledge and support and understanding of the president of Cyprus,
just so that he could have more detailed conversations in the time
permitted in the meeting with President Clerides. This is common in
diplomacy that you have a gradation, a series of meetings, and I can assure
you that Ambassador Holbrooke's meetings were simply intended to inform
ourselves on an up-to-date basis of the views of the Cypriot leadership.
Now, one word before we go into radio silence until Monday about the Trout
Beck meetings. We were delighted to see the convening of the meetings in
New York this morning between the Cypriot leaders, President Clerides and
Mr. Denktash, and delighted to see that they shook hands. We very much
wholeheartedly support the efforts of Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, to
convene them. We wish that this conference might be successful and the
process will be successful, and we are pledged to support it. That was
what Dick Holbrooke has conveyed to Kofi Annan earlier this week.
QUESTION: According to today's Washington Times, Mr. Kasoulides
reaffirmed that his government would go ahead with the deployment of
Russian anti-aircraft missiles if there is no settlement on the Cyprus
issue. Any comment?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't wish to comment on that because we are not going
to be commenting on the meetings we had with the Cypriot leadership. I
think Kofi Annan asked today for a newspaper silence, for a radio blackout,
on the conference in New York, which makes sense. The United States fully
agrees with that and we will not be commenting on these issues until Monday
when the conference is concluded.
QUESTION: According to a document prepared also by Paul Huzey*(sp?) of
DOS and Harold Rhoad*(sp?) of DOD, Turkish F-16 will strike at the missile
site on Cyprus and Turkish troops will land in force in the island as well
on several of the Greek Aegean island adjacent to the Turkish shores. Any
comment to this document?
MR. BURNS: No, Mr. Lambros, I couldn't possibly comment on that. I have
no idea what these reports refer to. I've never seen them and I don't want
to give any veracity to these reports.
I can say this, on a separate issue, because many of you have asked about
this -- we very much hope that we can continue to have very positive
relations with Turkey now that Prime Minister Yilmaz is about to have this
vote of confidence on Saturday, and with the Greek Government of Prime
Minster Simitis. We want our relationships to continue. We want our
military assistance relationships with Turkey and with Greece to continue.
We have some issues that we're trying to work out with key members of the
Senate and the House, and we hope to work through those issues. We hope
that yesterday's statement in Madrid and the positive forward movement that
Madrid has given Greece and Turkey will help to resolve some of the
problems on Capitol Hill relating to the ability of the United States to
extend military assistance, frigates and destroyers and so forth, to both
Greece and Turkey.
QUESTION: Why not freeze the buildup for the time being?
MR. BURNS: Because the United States, Greece and Turkey are NATO allies
and they wish to have healthy military relationships and we wish to proceed
with our commitments that we have made to both Greece and Turkey. We hope
that yesterday's statement will facilitate that and facilitate a resolution
of some of the problems that we have encountered on Capitol Hill, both with
the Turkish as well as the Greek sales and leasing arrangements.
QUESTION: A different subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: The Congo?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: The meetings yesterday with the foreign minister, how did that
go?
MR. BURNS: Yes. I don't have a specific readout to give you, but just to
say, Sid, that the United States believes very strongly that the government
of the Democratic Republic of Congo has to be accountable to the United
Nations' investigative team now that Secretary General Kofi Annan has
decided on the composition of a team. Someone has got to be held responsible
for the murder and brutalities against the Rwandan Hutu refugees near
Kisangani earlier this year. We expect - and this message was given
directly to the foreign minister of the Congo - we expect the government
of Congo to cooperate fully with the United Nations.
QUESTION: And on elections?
MR. BURNS: We expect elections will be held as soon as possible. That has
to be the standard on any country, but specifically in this case.
QUESTION: Did the foreign minister give assurances on the points that you
raised?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't wish to characterize the position of the foreign
minister. I think you have seen some of his public comments, which were at
variance with some of the views that we have expressed as recently as
yesterday. We will continue to work through those issues.
QUESTION: So, consequently, there seems to be very little meeting of the
minds between yourselves and the Congo?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think we have a relationship which is evolving. We
don't have agreement on some major issues. We wish to see the Congo --
which really has a unique opportunity now to stabilize itself after so many
years of chaos - we wish to see Congo proceed in a democratic fashion
politically, economically, be open to western investment. We wish to see
early elections and we wish to see the government comply with the United
Nations' investigative team and be open to these investigations of
human rights abuses.
QUESTION: Did she discuss American assistance, financial assistance?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think there is reference to that. As you know, our
Deputy Assistant Secretary Bill Twaddell testified on the Hill yesterday
that we are planning a very modest $10 million assistance program. We are
going to continue to consult closely with Congress before we proceed in any
way with that program. We would center that program on human rights, on
democratization, support for elections preparations, and support for the
evolution of free market economic policies. So these programs will not
be handouts to the government in Kinshasa. They will be programs
that we hope will stimulate some of the democratic tendencies that we know
are apparent among the Congolese people.
QUESTION: Doesn't the question of the aid - legislation requiring an aid
cut-off come into play here as well, as it does with Cambodia, involving a
coup?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me? Is there a current provision, you mean?
QUESTION: No. The legislation currently requires cut-off of most types of
aid if there is a coup in a country. Doesn't that come into play here?
MR. BURNS: I think the question here is that if we were to proceed with
the $10 million, this modest assistance program, it would require a waiver
from Congress because the Mobutu regime defaulted on loans from the United
States to Zaire. So therefore, we are prohibited in going ahead with aid
unless there is a Congressional waiver -- a waiver from Congress, I should
say. I can't anticipate exactly what we'll do, but we are inclined to
proceed with this program as long as we can make sure that this money is
going to go to people who deserve it and not to fill the coffers of
those who are not in support of democracy and free market economics.
QUESTION: So it would be fair to conclude that the Administration will be
asking Congress for a waiver in the law so that they can provide this --
MR. BURNS: It's one of the options that we have under consideration. But
we're still going to consult with Congress before we embark on any of these
moves because obviously we need the support of the Congress to have a
healthy aid program or even an existing aid program to the Congo.
QUESTION: And how long do you think this process might take, the
consultations?
MR. BURNS: I think the process is underway right now. As you know, we're
planning for the next Fiscal Year, which begins October 1, so I think that
we'll see this issue adjudicated pretty much over the next month or
two.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Was it relevant to this topic?
QUESTION: No, I want a new subject.
QUESTION: Okay, I do also. For the record, Nick, and this is to you and
also indirectly to Lee, the Mexican elections. After seven decades, the
power of the - the grip of the PRI has been broken. The PRD and the PAN, I
believe, will control jointly the lower camara of the congress of Mexico. I
believe this lower camara has the prerogative to investigate corruption in
the executive branch of the Mexican Government. I believe that's one of
their functions, as a matter of fact. Does the United States Government
welcome this as a potential reform - as a potential for fighting and
changing the corrupt PRI system in Mexico?
MR. BURNS: Well, Bill, without accepting all the premises loaded in your
question - criticism of the PRI and all that - I think it's not appropriate
for the United States to intervene in questions that ought to be purely
Mexican. Whether the rules and regulations and procedures established by
the house, by the legislature in Mexico are really for Mexican politicians
and leaders to decide, not the United States.
Let me say something else along those lines, because I think it's related.
You have seen some of the press reporting about the investigation and the
death of the narco-trafficker Fuentes. I must say, as an American
Government official, I just want to speak on behalf of our government
publicly and say that we need to be sensitive about Mexican concerns here.
We need to be respectful of Mexico's sovereignty. I've been dismayed to
read some of these background quotes by DEA officials and officials from
other agencies of the U.S. Government that trod much too heavily on
questions that are purely Mexican to answer.
As a representative of this government, I think it's important the Mexican
people understand we do not wish to intrude in questions that are for
Mexicans to decide. We will wait for the judgment of the Mexican Government
on whether or not the corpse in question in Mexico City is that of Mr.
Fuentes. It's not for other American officials to judge the Mexicans
publicly and certainly not to cast aspersions on Mexico, which I've seen
some people do on background. It's not appropriate; its not right. We want
to just separate ourselves from these comments in the newspapers.
QUESTION: Well, thank you for that, Nick, but back to my issue. Is it not
good that Mexico now has an apparently more pluralistic congress? Is that
not a good thing?
MR. BURNS: Bill, the United States is on record congratulating the
Mexican people. These are positive elections. Democracy is flourishing. We
congratulate the Mexican people on a very successful election.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Jim.
QUESTION: This morning in his news conference in Madrid, President
Clinton mentioned that the Administration is working on a new Middle East
plan to revive the peace process. Is there anything that you can tell us
about at what stage this plan, this operation is?
MR. BURNS: Well, the President spoke to that question, and I think the
President said he was not inclined to go into any of the details in public.
And so it would be foolish of me to try to --
QUESTION: Right, okay, specifically I didn't ask you for any details for
that precise reason. So the question is, can you tell us at what stage this
operation is?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't wish to discuss it, except to just point you to
the President's remarks that we remain interested in making a difference in
the Middle East, and we are involved there. But I can't go into any detail
on this.
QUESTION: And whether by inadmission - or inadvertance or whatever, you
didn't answer the second part of that question. Is Secretary Albright
considering a trip to the Middle East?
MR. BURNS: I think the President said what he wanted to say, and I am in
no position to judge what the President said. In fact, I couldn't possibly
improve on the brilliance of his comments. Talal, yes, sir. How are
you?
QUESTION: I am very well, thank you, Nick. There was a meeting held here
yesterday in the State Department between an Egyptian business delegation
and an American one throughout the workings of the Gore-Clinton Committee.
Can you tell us anything about that meeting?
MR. BURNS: I don't have anything on that. I'll be glad to take the
question and get back to you should you wish the information on that.
Yes.
QUESTION: What is the State Department's position on North Korean
defector Hwang Jang-yop holding a press conference today? And how that will
affect that four-party peace talks?
MR. BURNS: One of the great things about living in a democracy like South
Korea is that you get to do things like that. You can speak out in public,
and you ought not to be criticized by anyone for having done so. So we
congratulate him for having left the communist North and gone to the Korea
that is free. We wish him well.
At some point, as you know, the United States is interested in talking to
him. But I couldn't possibly go into whether or not we have done that, or
the contents of that conversation. He lives in a free society. One couldn't
possibly question his right to have press conference. I don't want to
associate ourselves with everything he is saying because I wouldn't want to
do that. But he is certainly free to say what he wants to say. Yes.
QUESTION: Maybe this question has already been raised, but does the U.S.
intend to give some additional help to the World Food Program to North
Korea?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I have answered that. We have it under review. We were
apprised this morning of the request, and we have it under very serious
review as we speak.
QUESTION: One more?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: On Iran. I saw a report that there was a meeting last week,
definitely, between some high-level officials in Iran with Saudi Arabia
officials. And apparently, maybe the Saudis were carrying some sort of U.S.
appeal to, I don't know, some kind of a plan for some rapprochement or
something. Do you want to comment on that?
MR. BURNS: I have seen a lot of stories about a rapprochement. All I can
say is that we will have to judge Iran by its actions. Mr. Khatemi will
take power very shortly. If he is interested in doing away with Iran's
support for terrorist groups, doing away with its opposition to the Middle
East peace process, and doing away with its current campaign to build a
nuclear weapons program, then there is something to talk about, and there
is a basis to improve the relationship.
If Iranian Government behavior on those three issues, continues as it has
been for many years, then we are going to have continued problems in our
relationship with Iran.
QUESTION: Are there any attempts right now to sort of look for a back
channel at this point?
MR. BURNS: We have said for many, many years that we would be willing to
sit down with the Iranians and talk about those issues -- those three
issues I mentioned. The Iranians don't want to talk about those three
issues with us. I couldn't possibly discuss any other activities that may
or may not be underway. I have no idea if they are underway. So it is hard
to answer that question. But I think we have been very open with you and
with the Iranians publicly about the basis to improve the relationship.
President Clinton has spoken to this; Secretary Albright has. I am simply
repeating what they have said.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 2:12 P.M.)
(###)
|
