U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #103, 97-07-10
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1443
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, July 10, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
2-3,12-13 Liberian Elections on July 19
CAMBODIA
1-2,7-12,18,20,22 ASEAN Decision to Postpone Cambodia's Membership/Three
ASEAN (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia) Foreign
Ministers' Trip to Beijing/Suspension of US Aid/Update
on Political Situation/Prince Ranariddh in DC
Tomorrow/US Communication with Hun Sen
8 Departure of American Citizens
10 Role of Vietnam in Cambodian Political Situation
BOSNIAN FEDERATION
3-6,20 SFOR Troops and the Capture of Indicted War Criminals
6 Status of Amb. Gelbard
CROATIA
13-14 Consideration of an IMF Loan Delayed
NATO SUMMIT
14-15 Canadian PM Chretien's Comments on Domestic Politics
Being the Push Behind NATO Enlargement
17-18 Congressional Ratification of NATO Enlargement
PACIFIC SALMON ISSUE
16-17 British Columbia Premier Clark's Open Letter in Seattle
Newspapers
16-17 Canadian Request for Binding Arbitration
NORTH KOREA
18 World Food Program Appeal for Additional Food Aid
18-20 Defector Hwang Jang-yop's Comments on Politics on the
Korean Peninsula
20-21 Four Party Talks
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
21 Egyptian-Israeli Meeting on Peace Process
21-22 New American Initiative
GREECE/TURKEY
23 Turkish Violations of Greek Airspace in the Aegean
23-24 Madrid Agreement on Greek-Turkish Relations
CYPRUS
24 UN Talks on Cyprus in New York
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #103
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: I know if Henry Champ is here we're going to talk about
Pacific salmon; I can just feel it. Why else would you dignify us with a
visit like this?
QUESTION: I'd like to save it for the questions --
MR. BURNS: All right, that's fine.
QUESTION: I'll bet you can guess.
MR. BURNS: Fair enough - or the Pittsburgh Pirates, right? Ladies and
gentlemen, welcome to the State Department briefing. I want to welcome Dr.
Abdellatif Bendahane, who is the Minister Plenipotentiary to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Morocco. He is here under the auspices
of the International Visitors Program of USIA. We also have a group of
interns from our administrative bureau. Welcome to you.
I thought I would lead off with two items. First, Cambodia. The United
States is very pleased with the decision by the ASEAN countries meeting
today to, in effect, postpone consideration of Cambodia for membership in
ASEAN. We think this is a very important act, which is exactly what the
United States wished would occur and which sends a very strong message to
the leaders in Phnom Penh that it's not going to be business as usual
between the international community and the current government of
Cambodia.
We also very much support the decision of ASEAN to send the three
distinguished foreign ministers of Indonesia and of the Philippines and of
Malaysia to visit Beijing, to consult with King Sihanouk, who we believe
has an important role to play in this conflict. We very much support the
actions of ASEAN. This is in concert with the wishes of a great number of
countries around the world who do not wish to see the actions of Hun Sen
rewarded - the actions of last weekend rewarded.
I can also tell you that the United States has decided to suspend our aid
programs to Cambodia for 30 days while we conduct an intensive review of
those programs. We are consulting with other countries and other donors
around the world about the programs of assistance. At the end of the 30
days - and depending upon the circumstances present in Cambodia at that
time - we would anticipate resumption of those programs which do provide
humanitarian, people-to-people support in the area of basic human
needs.
But I can also anticipate that we will not be resuming those portions of
our aid program that in some way directly or indirectly support the
government of Cambodia. This is a clear signal to Hun Sen and his
associates that the United States will not be conducting business as usual
with those individuals. We hope very much that Hun Sen will reconsider his
actions of going it alone, of rupturing the Paris Peace Accords and
breaking the coalition government that had been in place for the last four
years.
Tomorrow, as you know, Prince Ranariddh, who is in New York today -- the
first prime minister -- will be in Washington. He will meet with acting
Secretary of State Tom Pickering. I think the messages that we will have
for Prince Ranariddh tomorrow will be the following. First, that we
certainly consider Hun Sen's offensive against Prince Ranariddh and his
associates to be unacceptable behavior. We hope very much that Hun Sen
would take some steps to try to reconstitute the coalition. Second, that
any cooperation with the Khmer Rouge is certainly not acceptable to the
United States. Any attempt to bring the Khmer Rouge officials who
are responsible for genocide against the Cambodian people back into
positions of power in Phnom Penh is unacceptable to the United States.
Third, we will urge Prince Ranariddh, as we urged Hun Sen, to find a way to
restore a functioning coalition in Cambodia. Now, this message - this very
important third message - was delivered by our very fine Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State Jeff Bader to the Cambodian ambassador yesterday. The
Cambodian ambassador in Washington is a member of the political party of
Hun Sen. So we felt that was a useful channel of communications.
Our ambassador in Cambodia, Ken Quinn, is attempting to see Hun Sen but has
not been granted a meeting to date. As long as we cannot see Hun Sen
personally, we will continue to communicate with his ambassador here and
communicate our wishes publicly. I will be glad to take any other questions
that you have on Cambodia.
Now, I also just wanted to mention briefly that we have a statement today
on the Liberian elections. Let me just read you the highlights. After seven
years of civil war, the Liberian peace process has advanced further than
ever before. National elections are now scheduled in Liberia for July 19.
The United States supports free and fair elections to install a democratic
government to take on the challenges of national reconciliation and the
reconstruction of the country. We are working with the economic community
of West African States - ECOWAS -- the Liberian Independent Elections
Commission, and others around the world to make credible elections a
reality on July 19.
The United States has made available $7.4 million to promote free and fair
elections in Liberia. These funds are being provided through an association
that we have with U.S. non-governmental organizations. To encourage an
atmosphere that is free of intimidation in the run-up to the elections, the
United States continues to contribute significant non-lethal support to the
forces of the ECOWAS -- the West African States -- who have a monitoring
group in place in Liberia. The United States has trained 500 Liberian
police officers to reinforce election security, and we are also providing
legal and administrative support and resources as the elections are
prepared.
Liberia is a country where the United States has significant interests
because we have a historic role that goes back to the middle of the 19th
century. We do feel an obligation to do what we can to help the people of
Liberia who had to live, unfortunately, with so many irresponsible
governments. We hope that these elections on July 19 might presage a new
chapter in the history of the Liberian people. George.
QUESTION: Can we go straight to Bosnia?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we can go to Bosnia and then go back to Cambodia. I will
be glad to go to Bosnia.
QUESTION: Right. Do the events of today foreshadow a more aggressive NATO
posture toward indicted war criminals?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think you're seeing - based on the events of the last
couple of weeks - there was an arrest made a week ago Sunday, as well, of
the mayor of Vukovar - that the international community means business in
Bosnia. We have said all along that justice is important, as well as peace;
that peace is not sufficient to ensure the success of the Dayton Accords;
that justice for those who were brutalized by the Bosnian Serbs and by the
Serbs and others during the war, that justice must be achieved. You
have seen some forceful actions by the international community over the
last couple of weeks, and that is indicative of our very strong belief that
indicted war criminals ought to be brought to justice.
Now, the first responsibility - let's remember this - it's being lost, I
think, in the commentary today that I have seen. The first responsibility
rests with the signatories of the Dayton Accords, themselves. Since all of
them - with the exception of President Itzebegovic - have failed to meet
their responsibilities, obviously when we have a chance and when we have
opportunities, we try to do what we can to bring people to justice.
Let me tell you a little bit about two of the individuals who are in
question today. Simo Drljaca, the former police chief in Prijedor,
controlled civil and secret police during the Serb takeover and ethnic
cleansing of the Prijedor area in 1992. Numerous news reports, accounts by
survivors of the massacres and an extensive investigation by the United
Nations indicates that he played a major role in the organization and
management of concentration camps in the Prijedor area. Many detainees in
these camps, as you know, were beaten and killed.
Dr. Kovacevic -- Dr. Milan Kovacevic, who is right now en route to The
Hague - he'll be incarcerated at The Hague for prosecution and trial was
deputy major in 1992 - had the rank of deputy major and was responsible for
the delivery of Muslim prisoners to the Omarska concentration camp near
Prijedor. This was a notorious detention center and the site of multiple
alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. I think those are well-
documented by some of your colleagues in the press corps, as well as by
the United Nations.
These individuals were indicted war criminals. They deserve to be
prosecuted, and they deserve to be judged by the international community.
We're very pleased that at least one of these individuals will be judged.
The other is now dead. But let's not mistake the resolve of the international
community to see that justice is done in Bosnia.
QUESTION: Nick, when was this decision made to be more aggressive in this
regard? And does it involve just the British, or does it involve the
British and the Americans, as well? What about the French?
MR. BURNS: Well, I know that President Clinton answered this question
yesterday at his press conference in Madrid. I would just refer you to
President Clinton's response. The President said that achieving justice is
an important goal of ours - has been for a long time. But he declined to go
into specifics. I will also, obviously, decline to go into specifics.
QUESTION: Well, when he spoke, a specific incident such as today had not
happened. So in the light of the circumstances, I just wondered if you
could clarify a little bit more about what the U.S. intention is; whether
the United States expects to be involved in these kinds of activities. And
I mean, to what extent do you expect NATO troops to go after the other
indicted war criminals in the next couple weeks?
MR. BURNS: Well, even though this incident had not occurred when the
President spoke, you had the incident of a week ago Sunday, where the mayor
of Vukovar was apprehended and is now also sitting in The Hague awaiting
prosecution.
I think these incidents speak for themselves, and they speak to the
determination of the international community -- not just the United States,
but many countries -- and of SFOR and of the International Police Training
Force to be deliberate but also to be determined to see that justice is
done. There is very little detail that I can give you. Today's operation
was not a United States operation, as Sandy Berger said. When he spoke
about it, he described it obviously as what it was, and as Secretary Cook
has described it, a British operation along with SFOR. We very much want
to congratulate the British for the courage and determination of
the people who took part in the exercise this morning.
QUESTION: Generally, though, U.S. troops will adhere to their long-
standing position that they will not go after war criminals in this
way?
MR. BURNS: Well, Carol, I would not describe our position like that. The
rules of engagement for American forces since December 1995 have been very
specific. I am not aware that those rules of engagement have changed. But I
wouldn't describe them as you have described them.
QUESTION: Nick, would you expect to see more of this kind of thing in the
future?
MR. BURNS: I think as a number of senior officials have said over the
last couple of days, we will just have to keep all those indicted war
criminals guessing as to what is going to happen. Maybe that is the best
thing for them.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Laura.
QUESTION: You have said that the rules of engagement have not changed.
NATO acknowledged today that these individuals that the British forces
encountered today, they have encountered many times in the past in that
sector. And they chose not to attempt to arrest them. And this indictment,
as I understand it, has been with The Hague since April. So, I mean, it
begs the question, what happened? What changed the situation today from a
week ago or two weeks ago, if these gentlemen have come in contact
with SFOR, you know, over the last couple of months or last couple
of years?
MR. BURNS: I think the less said about all of this the better, for us.
Actions speak louder than words. They are beginning to see some actions and
that is perhaps instructive for them.
QUESTION: Just one more. I didn't understand. Is that SFOR -- precisely
an SFOR action, or British commandos, British special forces plus SFOR plus
American troops among SFOR?
MR. BURNS: Right. Did you see Sandy Berger's --
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Yes, I would just refer you to that, because Sandy Berger, the
National Security Advisor, made the official statement on behalf of the
United States. I would refer you to that. I have got a copy of it here. We
can show that to you after the briefing.
QUESTION: Would you agree, though, Nick, that the pressures and
discussions going on at Madrid had a lot - had maybe something to do with
this new invigorated action on behalf of NATO? I mean, it seems kind of
timely that we see two arrests or two captures - a killing with one -- just
days after - or a day after the summit is over.
MR. BURNS: No, I wouldn't say that. Obviously, there was a discussion at
NATO. But mainly, I think, as I understand it of the situation, the very
confused political situation in the Republika Srpska and of the strong
belief that Madame Plavsic ought to be allowed to govern in the Republika
Srpska. That was a statement that came out of the Madrid summit. I am not
aware of any special discussions on this at Madrid, and as you know,
I wasn't there.
QUESTION: The Secretary was quoted as saying a couple of days ago -- I
don't know if it was an interview or what, while she was in Madrid -- that
Mladic and Karadzic will get theirs and their day will come. Are we to
assume that with this new precedent that has been set today, that Karadzic
and Mladic better look over their shoulder? Maybe they will be picked up
and plucked out, too?
MR. BURNS: Well, I am glad you raised the Secretary's comment because
it's indicative of a general belief here since the Fall of 1995 that
justice will be done; that Karadzic and Mladic sooner or later will face
trial in The Hague. That is where their destiny lies. They are indicted war
criminals. There is substantial evidence that the two of them are
responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and the brutalization of
Muslim women. Those kinds of crimes against humanity cannot be tolerated
and overlooked, and they are not forgotten. Karadzic and Mladic better
wonder about their fact because their ultimate fate is The Hague -- war
crimes.
QUESTION: Then it would - their capture is sooner or, I mean, than
later?
MR. BURNS: There is just no way I can speak to that question. I would
just point you to the fact that the President, when asked these specific
questions, declined to discuss them yesterday. I'm not going to go anywhere
beyond where the President has been, obviously.
QUESTION: What is Ambassador Gelbard up to today? I understand he is on
his way back from the Balkans?
MR. BURNS: Ambassador Gelbard, I believe, is probably sitting on an
airplane, flying back from some European capital to Washington, D.C. I
expect him back late tonight or early tomorrow.
QUESTION: How much of his time in the Balkans the last week or so was
spent on this question?
MR. BURNS: I don't know. I haven't spoken with Bob in several days. But
he is our coordinator. He is responsible for all issues. He has been
working on a variety of issues, not just the issue of war criminals.
QUESTION: I'm sure he raised this issue, though, when he met with the
three presidents - two presidents.
MR. BURNS: We normally raise the issue. I'm not sure I have ever been in
a meeting with any of the Balkan leaders where this issue of war crimes has
not been raised. Both Secretary Christopher and Secretary Albright have
been very consistent in marking this as a very high priority for the United
States. We have never forgotten about the issue of war criminals.
QUESTION: There is no difference in his message at this time?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I just can't go into his message. We normally don't talk
about his private conversations with Balkan leaders.
QUESTION: Back on Cambodia?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What is the breakdown in aid between the humanitarian - what
you call humanitarian aid and governmental aid?
MR. BURNS: Well, that is one of the reasons why we have decided to go
with a 30-day pause and suspension, because we want to look very carefully
at all of the programs. Most of them are run by private voluntary
organizations funded by us. We want to make sure that we understand if
there is any way some of these programs directly or indirectly benefit Hun
Sen, now the only person running the Cambodian Government in Phnom
Penh.
I think if programs are seen to fit in that category, I don't think they
have a long life. But there are many programs that clearly do not benefit
him personally or his political associates, but benefit people who have
been victimized by the troubles in Cambodia. A very good example would be
de-mining. De-mining benefits average people. So we wish to proceed on a
humanitarian basis with some of those programs after this 30-day review.
The review is also intended to put Hun Sen on notice that there are
consequences from the United States based upon his own actions. He needs
to be aware of that, and we hope we will have an opportunity to discuss
this with him directly.
QUESTION: How much money is affected by your decision?
MR. BURNS: Well, that's unclear. It's unclear how much money is going to
be taken out of the mix there. But I will certainly let you know --
QUESTION: Can you give some parameter?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't want to anticipate. We just started the review. So
I don't want to anticipate the results of that review before it's
over.
QUESTION: No, well, you put money on hold for 30 days. So how much money
is on hold for 30 days?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I see what you mean. I would have to check. You're talking
about the pipeline and how much money is - I will have to check. I gave you
the aid figures the other day, though, for Cambodia. I gave you the four-
year aid figure of $163 million of American aid over four years. I think I
gave you the Fiscal Year '96 and Fiscal Year '97 numbers. Maybe, Phyllis,
we could have someone just go in yesterday's press guidance and bring
that in to me so I can just do it right here at the briefing today.
QUESTION: Tuesday's.
MR. BURNS: Now - Tuesday's - George says Tuesday's..
QUESTION: You're not suspending all aid for 30 days while you decide
which of it you want to go forward?
MR. BURNS: No, we are suspending all aid programs for 30 days.
QUESTION: All aid programs?
QUESTION: All aid?
MR. BURNS: Yes, yes. All aid programs are being suspended. At the end of
that - and a lot will depend on what the political situation looks like -
we will make some final decisions. But we do wish, as I have been
indicating for several days, to proceed with programs that clearly benefit
people but not governments.
Just a couple of bits of information about American citizens. The airport
in Phnom Penh is open. Charter flights are leaving; 100 American citizens
left Phnom Penh today. We believe that 400 American citizens have left over
the last several days. To the best of our knowledge, that would leave
between 900 and 1,000 private American citizens in Phnom Penh. The airport,
now open to charter flights, we believe will be open to regular commercial
flights beginning tomorrow, which is another avenue for American citizens
to leave Phnom Penh.
At this point, we do not anticipate having to utilize U.S. naval assets -
ships or planes - to bring American citizens out. We think there is
sufficient room and sufficient calm in Phnom Penh that American citizens
can leave peacefully and securely and safely via commercial means. That is
our plan. Should that situation change, we'll obviously look at all of the
options at our disposal.
The American official employees there, numbering 61, will be drawn down to
20. None of them have left over the last 24 hours. They will begin to leave
during the next several days.
QUESTION: What is the condition for resuming the aid?
MR. BURNS: The conditions?
QUESTION: Yeah, after the 30-day review to see which programs should be
suspended.
MR. BURNS: There's a very clear line here. Those programs that we deem to
benefit people but not the central government, we would hope to continue on
a humanitarian basis. Those programs that might benefit the government, I
think, are in danger of not surviving very long - as long as Mr. Hun Sen
insists on running things on his own and not agreeing to the restoration of
the coalition government.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. BURNS: On Cambodia, yes.
QUESTION: You keep saying any cooperation with Khmer Rouge is not
acceptable. But what is your definition of the Khmer Rouge? Back 20 years
ago, Hun Sen was also the a part of the Khmer Rouge. Are you specifically
meaning Pol Pot or different - of the Khmer Rouge?
MR. BURNS: First of all, let me just give the aid figures before we go
on. We have allocated $35 million for assistance to Cambodia in Fiscal Year
1997; $25 million for Fiscal Year 1996; as I said, $163 million in American
aid since 1993. Those are the aid figures that we talked about Tuesday.
Thank you, Phyllis.
Now, to answer your question. As for Mr. Hun Sen's past, I'm not going to
apologize for him. He does have a past. He was associated with the Khmer
Rouge at one point. He then turned on them, and you know the rest of the
story - his alliance with the Vietnamese and all of that. I make no
apologies for Hun Sen. We have chosen to deal with him, as has the
international community, for a very long time now, because he has taken on
different political coloration. I will make no excuses whatsoever for any
member of the Khmer Rouge. But there are thousands of them. We have to be
concerned in a pragmatic basis in our diplomacy with the senior members
of the Khmer Rouge.
I think we simply would not support in any way, shape or form any senior
member of the Khmer Rouge playing a role in the political life of Cambodia.
That means taking a position in the political life of Cambodia. This gets
back to, I think, a central question here about what's happened over the
last week. That is, how should we look at these various political actors? I
want to repeat something that I said the other day. There are no heroes
here. There are very few heroes that you can identify in Cambodia, because
on the one hand you have Hun Sen, who has chosen the path of violence
and the other you have Prince Ranariddh, who was toying with a political
alliance with the Khmer Rouge, which we thought was a great mistake.
So I think one has to recognize there have been mistakes all around the
political spectrum in Cambodia.
QUESTION: Nick, how do you avoid appearing to embrace the Khmer Rouge by
embracing Ranariddh, who after all is fairly closely allied with them?
MR. BURNS: I have not embraced anyone this week, Sid. I don't believe the
United States is embracing anyone. If we were embracing anyone, we would be
speaking in glowing terms about one side and in very brutal terms about the
other. But that's not what we're doing. I think the pervasive color here is
probably gray, and not black and white in this situation.
Prince Ranariddh, we think, made a very serious error in his flirtation
with the Khmer Rouge. We cannot abide the Khmer Rouge, and we will not
support having the Khmer Rouge in senior positions.
QUESTION: But are you sure that it's no more than a flirtation? And after
all, Ranariddh is the one that you're meeting at a high level in Washington
this week.
MR. BURNS: We normally meet with people with which we have serious
disagreements. That's the nature of diplomacy. That's the nature of
diplomacy, and has been for millennia. You don't always meet with your best
friends. Sometimes you meet with people with whom you disagree. There's
nothing new in that at all.
Prince Ranariddh is giving a press conference here in Washington tomorrow.
Ask him that question. I cannot speak for him. But I can tell you that in
addition to agreeing with him that Hun Sen should not have resorted to
force over the weekend, we will certainly make the point that the Khmer
Rouge has no role to play in the political life of Cambodia. That point
will be made very directly to him.
QUESTION: Are you in a position today to say anything about Vietnam and
what role, if any, it's playing in all of this?
MR. BURNS: That remains a question that you're going to have to ask
Vietnamese spokesmen and spokeswomen, not me.
QUESTION: Well, you must have an opinion on it.
MR. BURNS: We have opinions, but sometimes we hold those opinions
confidential. We have had discussions with the Vietnamese Government and
will continue to review with them the situation in Cambodia. But you'll
have to ask the Vietnamese how they see things. I cannot speak for
them.
QUESTION: Do you consider them helpful?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Do you consider them helpful?
MR. BURNS: I don't wish to characterize the Vietnamese involvement in
this conflict.
QUESTION: Are you in a position to make public your opinion of whether
Cambodia should be allowed to join ASEAN in the next month?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I can now reveal the American position, which has been
put forward very aggressively over the last three days. We were against it.
But we have so much respect for ASEAN, we sincerely did not want to intrude
publicly on ASEAN's right to make it's own decisions. We felt it was
prudent for us to hold back publicly. Now that ASEAN has stepped forward
and said Cambodia will not become a member at the present time, we're very
pleased to say we agree very much with that decision by ASEAN.
I think we need to point out here, specifically, the leadership role of
Malaysia and Indonesia and the Philippines and other countries - very
experienced diplomats who have made the correct decision, we think. We very
much support the initiative of sending the three foreign ministers - all of
whom are very experienced diplomats - to Beijing to consult with King
Sihanouk, who we believe has an important role to play here.
QUESTION: What role is that?
MR. BURNS: That will need to be defined by King Sihanouk himself, and
perhaps by ASEAN. But it's certainly not for the United States to say, but
I just wanted to point out the important role that we believe he can
play.
QUESTION: What is your understanding of the King's health?
MR. BURNS: I don't have a detailed understanding of his health, but
obviously we wish him well. He's a very distinguished individual. We have
had a very good relationship with him and we have great respect for
him.
QUESTION: My point being, all due respect to the King, whether or not he
is up to this huge task?
MR. BURNS: Sid, the King is one of the great survivors. He's been on the
throne for many, many decades and he has played a very important role in
the restoration of Cambodia to its present state - until last weekend - of
stability. We believe he has an important role to play and it's entirely
appropriate for ASEAN to decide to send its ministers to Beijing first for
consultations with King Sihanouk.
QUESTION: Is the United States' position going to keep on being gray,
even though there are rumors that the government of Hun Sen is hunting down
members from the opposition?
MR. BURNS: Without introducing colors into the conversation, our position
is not gray. Our position is clear; it is transparent. Our position, we
believe is the right one. That is to argue against the use of force to
rupture the Paris Peace Accords; to argue for the restoration of stable,
civilian-led government and multiparty government in Phnom Penh; and to
argue for reason.
What is gray, and not black and white, are the distinguishing characteristics
of the politicians and political parties in Cambodia. I think it's
important to point that out so we all understand what we're dealing with
here. We're not dealing with a case of democrats versus authoritarian
figures. We are dealing with people who have made some mistakes on all
sides, and we wish that they would recognize that and agree to work with
each other.
QUESTION: Nick, how does sending Mr. (inaudible) sound to you? Do you
think this is going to play a role?
MR. BURNS: I've not heard anything about that. But I can tell you that we
very much support the ASEAN decision to send the three foreign ministers -
all of whom we respect very much - the three foreign ministers of the ASEAN
countries. We wish ASEAN well and we'll be glad to give any support
whatsoever to the ASEAN mission. But we think it's appropriate, since
these are the countries that live in Southeast Asia that have to live
with the consequences directly of the Cambodian problem, it's certainly
appropriate for ASEAN to be a central player at this point.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: You said Ambassador Quinn attempted to see Hun Sen. So what
kind of message exactly the U.S. wants to deliver to Hun Sen?
MR. BURNS: Well, Ambassador Quinn, who has 25 years of experience in
Southeast Asia is anxious to see Hun Sen to describe the U.S. position
pretty much the way we've been describing it publicly over the last couple
of days - to argue against the continued use of force and argue against
killing of the political opposition; threatening Prince Ranariddh, should
he return to Cambodia - that's not appropriate. He should be allowed to
return freely and participate in political life there.
I think there will be a very stiff message to Hun Sen. I should take a
moment just to tell you, we're fortunate to have Ken Quinn in Phnom Penh.
He served in the Vietnam War in Southeast Asia. He is one of our true
regional experts on Southeast Asia. He has done an outstanding job in
helping to cope with the many - well over 1,000 American citizens who have
been in some danger there for the past week. We're very grateful to
Ambassador Quinn.
QUESTION: Will you be encouraging the Prince to return to Cambodia?
MR. BURNS: That is a decision he will have to make. Hun Sen, in his press
conference, threatened Prince Ranariddh with arrest and trial should he
return to Phnom Penh. It was an inelegant and somewhat, I thought,
dishonest statement to say, he's free to return to Phnom Penh and when he
does, we'll arrest him and put him on trial. So Prince Ranariddh will
obviously have to make his own decisions. We have not had a chance to talk
to him yet. So I would like to withhold judgment on that question.
QUESTION: -- In the Liberian elections, which I believe are scheduled for
the end of next week. One of the leading candidates is Charles Taylor, who
has a somewhat checkered past. He has had Libyan backing; he has wreaked a
lot of mayhem over the past seven or eight years. Does the United States
have a view as to who should win that election?
MR. BURNS: We never have a view as to who should win, George. But lots of
people with checkered pasts participate in elections - have in the last ten
years. Redemption is an important element in diplomacy - an important
theological element in diplomacy. The Liberian people have resurrected
themselves. You remember a year ago this past Spring, in the Spring of '96,
there were the horrible civil disturbances and fighting and thousands
of people killed in the streets of Monrovia. Now they're on the verge
of elections. So I think we have to congratulate them.
If Charles Taylor will agree to run freely and fairly and to accept the
results of the elections, I think we are in no position to argue against
that. As to who should win, that's for the Liberian people to decide, not
the United States.
QUESTION: Nick, another subject. Has the United States blocked another
loan - this time from the IMF to Croatia?
MR. BURNS: Well, I believe a couple of days ago - I believe it was two
days ago, was it the fund or the bank? I know one of the banks - either the
bank or the fund, and we'll have to get the details -- did agree to delay
an important loan to Croatia, and the United States very much supported
that delay. I will have to get the specifics.
QUESTION: Is the United States supporting it? Or did the United States
request it? If not, whose idea was it?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know how the votes lined up, Carol. I don't know
who spoke first and put the motion on the table. All I know is that the
decision was to delay the loan and we very much supported that.
QUESTION: But you are not taking responsibility for it? This is not part
of your policy?
MR. BURNS: We always take responsibility for our actions. Secretary
Albright has clearly indicated that we will not be supporting substantial
international financial assistance to Croatia until Croatia shows by deed
that it is going to implement the Dayton Accords, including on the issue of
war criminals.
QUESTION: Well, actually the U.S. position has been somewhat more vague
than that. I mean, you said that economic assistance like this would be
used as a lever. But clearly you have made different decisions about
different loans. And I would really like to get a clear reading as to
whether the United States just went along with this delay or whether, in
fact, this is part of your policy and you have specific reasons -- such as,
in the last case, non-cooperation on war criminals -- that made you make
this decision now.
MR. BURNS: Well, I would just like to respectfully disagree with your
characterization of American policy. I think since the relevant date, which
is June 1, when the Secretary stood in that field in Croatia and made this
condition about American assistance, I believe there have three votes
pertaining to Croatia. I believe we have successfully argued, in a
leadership role, that the international financial institutions should not
go forward on two of them.
On a very minor $13 million vote in the second week of June, we decided to
give the Croatians the benefit of the doubt and agreed to go forward on
that particular loan, much smaller than the other two, because President
Tudjman had taken some actions in the first week of June which we believed
were consistent with what he and Secretary Albright had talked about. But
unfortunately since then, we have not seen any good actions by the
government of Croatia. So until the government of Croatia does something
concrete to show us that it is interested in fulfilling its commitments,
it is not going to get much support for us.
Thank you. Phyllis, has given me the relevant information. It was a $40
million tranche of an IMF loan to Croatia, a previously approved extended
fund agreement. It was under consideration on July 9 by the International
Monetary Fund's executive board. There was consensus on the board to delay
the consideration of that loan, as I said. I can tell you the United States
very much agreed with that. I think if you want to describe us as having
been in a leadership role, you would be very accurate in doing that.
QUESTION: Could we state --
QUESTION: But were you? But were you?
MR. BURNS: Well, one thing we don't do - we believe in rules and
regulations and procedures. We don't come and spill our guts about what we
said in the inner confines of the Fund over here, a couple blocks away, or
the World Bank. But if you want me to describe whether we are in the
forefront or whether we are on the tail of these initiatives, I can say we
are in the forefront of these initiatives. I am very pleased that the
Croatian Government knows that.
QUESTION: Were you on the forefront of this initiative?
MR. BURNS: Yes, we were, Sid, as I indicated. That is what I thought I
was indicating in my Delphic way to Carol.
QUESTION: You said these initiatives. You didn't say this initiative.
MR. BURNS: These and this - this and these. This and these, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: Unambiguous policy by the United States of America on this
issue.
QUESTION: Can we stay with views of American foreign policy? Canadian
Prime Minister Jean Chretien -- you would be aware of some of his
inadvertent but now, nonetheless, public comments.
MR. BURNS: I knew you were here to create trouble, Henry.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, there is a point, though, to those inadvertent remarks
that were and now have become public. And the gist of them is that the
American foreign policy and its expansion of NATO was not directed in the
time-honored traditions of President Wilson and President Truman helping
out Europe, but rather to satisfy the ethnic voting needs of Chicago. And
that the President was interested only in the expansion of NATO based on
domestic concerns and not the concerns of Europe. Since that remark
is now public, and since this building occasionally contributes to
foreign policy, what do you make of it?
MR. BURNS: Occasionally?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: You could read into that whatever you prefer.
MR. BURNS: You're trying to provoke me, Henry, but I am not going to be
provoked. Let me just say, I believe my colleague and friend Mike McCurry
had no comment to make on Prime Minister Chretien's statements, which Mike
termed interesting. I think I am going to stick with that. I think whatever
Mike does, I'll do on this issue.
QUESTION: Well, then let me ask you, taking Prime Minister Chretien out
of the equation, there has been criticism in the United States by any
number of domestic critics of expansion of NATO in which they have said
that the initiative of the United States has been domestic and not
international, and that the security of Europe is secondary to considerations
here.
MR. BURNS: Well, without any regard to the statements made by Prime
Minister Chretien and putting that totally aside, without any reference to
it, Henry, obviously, the proposition that you put forth in your question
obviously has no merit. If you look at the evolution of the NATO enlargement
idea, it is an American idea for American strategic foreign policy reasons.
What the Clinton Administration has tried to do over the last three years
in this issue is in the best interest of the United States of America,
all of our citizens. There is no more serious question than the question of
security in Europe; because, too, we Americans have sent millions of
soldiers to Western Europe in two world wars - hot wars and a Cold
War.
We have paid a significant price as Americans. There is no more serious
question for an American president or secretary of state than how to
safeguard the security of this country, how to protect our soldiers in
Europe, and how to create a Europe in the next century that hopefully will
bear no resemblance to the Europe of the 20th century; that is - as
President Clinton has described it - a unified, peaceful and secure Europe
with no more Berlin Walls and no more antagonistic relationships among the
great powers.
Under President Clinton's leadership, around the world and NATO, we now
have a peaceful friendship and partnership with Russia and Ukraine - just
signed yesterday with Ukraine - and we have an expanded NATO. I think the
United States has played a leadership role here, and it's been in the best
traditions of American foreign policy and the tradition of Wilson and
Roosevelt and Truman. President Clinton deserves great credit for that. I
think that historians are going to see it that way and not see it for any
other reason. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I want to move off to the --
MR. BURNS: But Henry, actually, I should say - now that Henry has
provoked me -- I'm going to provoke you a little bit, or perhaps the
British Columbia Premier Glen Clark. Interesting that in the Seattle
newspapers today, there is an open letter to the people of Washington State
about the protection of salmon resources in the American Northwest and the
Canadian West. It's an open letter sent by Glen Clark, the Premier of the
Province of British Columbia. I have a comment to make about Premier
Clark's letter, now that we are speaking frankly in this relationship.
The letter published today by Premier Clark is unhelpful, and it is grossly
inaccurate. The allegations that he makes -- that the State of Washington
has begun aggressive fishing before the strength of the salmon runs could
be determined -- are false allegations. The United States has stated that
we will conduct responsible fishing this year. That's exactly what the
people of Washington, Oregon and California are doing, and Alaska, for that
part.
The State of Washington, in fact, twice postponed the start of the fishery
in question until it was clear that the strength of the salmon run
justified the opening of the fishery. The state then stopped the fishery
earlier than had been expected when catches were higher than originally
estimated.
As to Premier Clark's plea that the American public tell its elected
representatives to conclude a Pacific salmon treaty, might I respectfully
remind Premier Clark that such a treaty does, in fact, exist. The problem
is that Canada will not work seriously with the United States to make this
treaty work. If Premier Clark, perhaps might spend more time working on the
treaty than writing open editorials to the people of Washington, perhaps we
would make more progress.
QUESTION: Can I follow on that? Canada's trade minister met yesterday
with Ms. Barshefsky. And now they are asking for - Canada is asking for
binding arbitration to end this dispute. Now, the United States we know is
sort of opposed to binding arbitration. But there was a report in a
Canadian newspaper that the White House may consider appointing an
arbitrator. Is that, in fact, something that could be done from the United
States -- appointing a separate arbitrator to end this dispute?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of that. I can just say that we believe that
the present configuration of listening to our stakeholders and allowing
people who have the greatest stake in this process to be influential in the
negotiation of this treaty, that that process should continue.
We think that Canada's unwillingness to support even the minimum standards
for conservation on Coho stocks have made it impossible for us to conclude
an agreement for long-term fishing arrangements under these provisions. We
are very concerned about this. We hope that the Canadians will come back to
the table, seriously and constructively. We need to work this out.
QUESTION: Just on that question, Prime Minister Chretien's remarks -
again inadvertent, but nonetheless, now public - indicate that the
difficulty with the talks was that the United States could not speak as a
unit; that when he and the President, according to his remarks, had
actually solved the deal, the negotiator Mary Beth West said that that deal
could not be consummated without going back to 35 - according to the Prime
Minister - separate groups for approval.
And notwithstanding whether that happens to be the way the United States
does business, is there any effort on the part of the State Department to
try to change what happens in the United States so that the two leaders can
get a solution?
MR. BURNS: We have agreed that our stakeholders, our governors and our
fishing industries will be involved in these talks. We cannot disavow that.
We stand by the arrangements that have been made and we request that Canada
stand by the arrangements that Canada agreed to. That is to have stakeholders
involved in the process.
QUESTION: Even when you have - according to the Prime Minister - an
agreement between the President and himself on what should be the final
settlement?
MR. BURNS: I did not address - and I'm not going to address -- Prime
Minister Chretien's remarks on Pacific salmon. I don't wish to and I
haven't seen the remarks. I can only tell you that the United States and
Canada agreed on a process. We think it's very important to maintain that
process and maintain the integrity of the process. We don't wish to disavow
the interests of our western states; neither would Canada wish to disavow
the interests of your western provinces.
So we respectfully suggest, based on this very unhelpful letter that's been
published today by Premier Clark, it's time to stop the public campaign and
it's time to start serious private negotiations. But if he wants to throw
words at us, we're willing to come back with our own response and we'll
defend ourselves.
QUESTION: A final question, if I might, sir. Mr. Clark has also
threatened the existence of the torpedo base at Nanoose Bay. Do you take
that as a serious threat at all?
MR. BURNS: No.
QUESTION: I had a question before we got to the part about Prime Minister
Chretien's comments in Madrid, which you don't want to comment about.
MR. BURNS: No, I don't wish to comment.
QUESTION: But can we just ask one question? It's been said that expansion
of NATO could be a hard sell in Congress. And I'm wondering if comments
like that make the sell to expand NATO in Congress a lot harder.
MR. BURNS: Oh, I think that our Senate is going to base its decision -
which is a very important decision and responsibility - on the facts and on
the basic strategy that the administration has laid out for good foreign
policy reasons. I don't think we'll be deterred by anything else. Several
members of the Senate, including Senator Roth, were in Madrid. Senator
Biden was there. The President and Secretary Albright are going to make a
concerted effort to talk to the Senate in advance of the ratification of
votes so that our viewpoint is clear.
I think, as we always do in the history of the United States on major
treaty questions - going back to the League of Nations, going back to the
United Nations, to the creation of NATO in 1949 - we'll have a serious
foreign policy debate on the issue because Americans are serious. We have
been the world leader for some time - a half a century. We have been a
responsible steward for security in Europe. I think that's clear for
everyone to see; and history will write it that way.
QUESTION: Has there been any decision made yet on aid to North Korea --
new food aid?
MR. BURNS: There has not been a decision. We are addressing that question
urgently, but we've only had the information from the World Food Program
for 24 hours. So we'll need some more time to look through the request
before the Secretary can make a decision.
QUESTION: Are the figures that you gave for aid for Cambodia - they
didn't include the military aid, did they? You mentioned --
MR. BURNS: No, but I think the other day I gave you those figures. I
believe I have it. I believe the figure for de-mining is $6.8 million in
Fiscal Year 1997 and $7.6 million in Fiscal Year 1996. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes. What's your comment on the North Korean defector, Hwang
Jang-yop's news conference? He said North Korea has already the declaration
for war against South Korea and Kim Jong-Il believes that North Korea can
defeat South Korea in an all-out missile attack to South Korea, including
Seoul. And he said it will be wise for South Korea to assume that North
Korea has the nuclear weapons. What's your comment?
MR. BURNS: Well, Mr. Hwang is a free man now, who lives in a free country
and that's a very good thing. He previously did not live in a free country -
North Korea.
There's no doubt that the Korean Peninsula remains a potentially destabilizing
place. That is why the United States has a defensive alliance with South
Korean and why we have stationed 37,000 troops along the demilitarized
zone. We are absolutely prepared to defend our ally, the Republic of Korea,
should that be necessary.
Now, we hope that will not be necessary because we hope that the recent
steps by North Korea to agree to the four-party talks -- the meeting on
August 5th in New York -- that that will go forward. The agreed framework
which has frozen North Korea's nuclear program in place now for two and a
half years - going on three years this Autumn - that program is in place,
the commitments of North Korea are being maintained. We don't know that
because we trust North Korea. We know that because we are able to verify
North Korea's actions.
We are realistic. We know a lot about North Korea, and we know that North
Korea understands that the United States has made a very serious commitment,
that we are the greatest power in the world and we will meet our commitments
to South Korea. We hope that North Korea chooses a path of peace in the
four-party talks and in other areas that the peaceful re-unification of
Korea might be possible at some point. But, of course, that would have
to happen on a democratic basis.
QUESTION: Mr. Hwang said the North Korean agreement to attend the four-
party talks is merely a key to obtain the emergency food aid.
MR. BURNS: Well, we have never joined the issue of four-party talks with
food aid. We have always told the North Koreans that they will not be
rewarded by food aid for attending the talks, neither would be withhold
food aid should they decide not to attend the talks. We will know if North
Korea is serious sooner rather than later, once we get to the table with
China, the Republic of Korea and North Korea in the four-party talks. If
they are not serious, it will be evident very early on. Yes.
QUESTION: One of the defector's remarks was that the Kim Jong-Il regime
is now using the food as a means of controlling its people and oppressing
the political opposition groups. So that means as a result, the United
States is helping not the North Korean people, the hunger-stricken North
Korean people, but helping Kim's regime to maintain its Stalinist regime.
And are you sure that the American Government is not helping Kim's regime
instead of these people?
MR. BURNS: I am sure. I am sure. We have no interest in propping up that
decrepit regime in North Korea -- the communist system. It's a failed
system; it's a dinosaur. Marx and Lenin and Stalin and all of them have
been proven wrong about how societies ought to be ordered. We do have an
interest in helping four- and five- and six-year-old North Koreans who are
suffering from famine. We can account for all of our food aid. None of it
goes to the North Korean military. None of it goes to the government in
Pyongyang. All of it goes to the World Food Program, which distributes
food directly through its subsidiaries to individuals in North Korea,
civilians in North Korea. We would never give food aid directly to the
government because the Army would get the food aid. That is why we deliver
it to the World Food Program in which we have great trust.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, and you had a question.
QUESTION: Can you tell us the U.S. contact with Mr. Hwang since he was --
MR. BURNS: I can tell you that we have had a series of discussions with
Mr. Hwang, yes.
QUESTION: What is the content?
MR. BURNS: Oh, no, I am not in a position to go into the content because
that was a private series of discussions that we had with him. Yes, I
believe this woman - did you have a question? Yes.
QUESTION: Back to Bosnia?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Were only two people involved in arrests today? Or were there
more?
MR. BURNS: I would just have to refer you to the British Government and
to SFOR on the scene for the details of these operations. This was not a
United States operation. But I think you have seen the names of the
individuals who were involved. One person was shot dead because he chose to
shoot at the British troops, and therefore they acted in self-defense, as
they should, to protect themselves. The other person should have landed in
The Hague by now. He will be incarcerated, awaiting prosecution in The
Hague. Thank you. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: You praise ASEAN very much. Do you have any comment on their
final decision, including the - (inaudible) - ASEAN?
MR. BURNS: Well, now you are just trying to disrupt a wonderful day in
U.S.-ASEAN relations. We obviously do not agree with this decision. I think
that is well known. But we do agree with the decision to keep Cambodia out
for the present time. There is certainly much more that unites ASEAN and
the United States than divides it.
Secretary Albright is very anxious to embark on her trip to Kuala Lumpur
for the three days there in Malaysia of ASEAN meetings. She always has
believed that Asia is a place of vital national interests for the United
States. She has been there several times as Secretary of State, and she is
very pleased to go back. She is very anxious to have these meetings with
the ASEAN leaders. Yes.
QUESTION: I want to go back to a North Korean issue. Do you have any
update on the four-party talks? Of course, we know on August 5th you have a
preliminary talk. Do you have any concrete idea when four-way talks will
take place? When do you want to have that?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I expect that we will be having a bilateral meeting with
the North Koreans shortly to prepare for the preparatory meeting. We then
expect a preparatory meeting of the four parties on August 5th in New York.
That would be the first time that China had participated in these talks
since April 19, 1996, when President Clinton and President Kim suggested
this idea. We hope that beyond the August 5th meeting, it will be possible
to actually embark on negotiations with the eventual goal being a final
peace treaty that would conclude the Korean conflict that began so many
years ago.
QUESTION: Is it okay for the United States to talk about the long-time
food assistance to North Korea if four-party talks can take place?
MR. BURNS: The United States has never linked food assistance and the
four-party talks nor will we in the future.
QUESTION: Even the long-time food assistance?
MR. BURNS: No. We're not going to link food aid. Our food aid is directed
at little kids, so we wouldn't link that to political issues. Yes, Talal.
And then we'll go to you and then to Mr. Lambros, yes.
QUESTION: After President Clinton's statement yesterday, there was some
movement at last in the peace process in the Middle East. There was a
meeting last night held in Ambassador Bassiouny's house, I think, and was
attended by Yitzhak Mordechai, the Israeli defense minister, Bassiouny is
Egyptian ambassador to Israel.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: And also attended by Martin Endyk. Now, can you tell us more
about this meeting and what transpired?
MR. BURNS: I can't tell you much about the meeting, except to say that we
obviously support any movement to get Israelis and Palestinians together
and to have face-to-face talks. We very much support that. We want to see
movement in the Middle East.
QUESTION: Is there a new American initiative in the area?
MR. BURNS: Well, again, I have to take my lead from our President, who
said yesterday that we have new initiatives but declined to discuss them in
detail; therefore, I must do so as well. Yes, Azis.
QUESTION: Can you at least tell us what is the scope of the ideas,
because some people are reporting peace process -- including Lebanon and
Syria -- we are only talking about the Palestinian track. And if we are
only talking about the Palestinian track, are we only talking about the
resumption of the security talks or it is wider than that?
MR. BURNS: Well, again, the President decided yesterday he would not go
into these details; so, therefore, I cannot as well. But you can be assured
the United States wants to do its share in moving the peace process
forward.
QUESTION: Some people suggesting that this really did was trying to, you
know, create the situation that there is movement on the peace process
after the United States being criticized for not moving or not doing enough
to --
MR. BURNS: We shouldn't be criticized. We shouldn't be criticized. We
have done everything we can to move those talks forward. It is up to the
Israelis and Palestinian to move them forward. You should direct your
criticism elsewhere.
QUESTION: No, I'm not saying I'm criticizing. I am saying they are
criticizing. But the point is, is this could be related to the fact that
there is a concern on the part of the Clinton administration that more Arab
countries might follow Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in not
attending the economic summit in Doha.
MR. BURNS: Well, we're concerned about that. We think all Arab countries
should attend that summit. If they are interested in peace, they need to be
interested in peace in all of its dimensions -- economic as well as
political. The economic summit is in Casablanca, Amman and Cairo have been
successful, and we want the Doha summit to be successful. It will not be if
Arab countries stay away.
QUESTION: Would you say the spirit of the Arab-Israeli relations at the
time in Casablanca and Cairo is totally different than what it is now --
MR. BURNS: That logic will lead you directly backward to 1948 - directly
backward to 1948. You will be imprisoned by that logic forever. You have
got to break out of it. That is what Sadat did and that's what Begin did
and that's what Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat did. That is what His
Majesty King Hussein is doing. We think that more countries ought to
emulate the role of Jordan, more countries in the Arab world. That logic
will get you nowhere. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Back to Cambodia.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: French Prime Minister said that he would urge the UN Security
Council to impose economic sanctions against Cambodia. Is it pretty much
right to consider such an action? Or you will seriously reconsider this
idea?
MR. BURNS: I think before we reflexively try to strike out in our mutual
frustration with Hun Sen, we ought to allow the ASEAN foreign ministers to
consult as they intend to with King Sihanouk, Prince Ranariddh and Mr. Hun
Sen. We put great faith in ASEAN. Acting Secretary Pickering has had a
meeting, a lunch meeting today with the ASEAN ambassadors to consult.
He is very interested in the ASEAN views prior to his meeting with
Prince Ranariddh tomorrow, which will be at noon here tomorrow at the State
Department.
So I think we would like to consult further to see if there is room to
promote some kind of restoration of stability in Cambodia before we resort
to very dramatic initiatives from which it is very hard to return. Of
course, we are taking a very hard line with Hun Sen. He ought to understand
that. I think our announcement today on our own aid program is indicative
of that.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Yes. On the Aegean issue, while the Greek Foreign Minister
Theodore Pangalos was defending today your Madrid agreement during a press
conference in Athens, at the same time, Turkish F-16 fighters were
aggressively violating and infringing the Greek airspace around island of -
(inaudible) -- in the center of the Aegean Sea. Any comment, since you
mediated for the Madrid agreement actually on principles?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of the incident to which you refer, the
incident with the Turkish F-16s, but I will look into that and take that
question.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. BURNS: I do wish to take issue with your characterization of what
happened in Madrid.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. BURNS: That was a statement and commitments made by the foreign
minister of Greece and the foreign minister of Turkey and supported by the
two prime ministers. So I do not think it is appropriate for you to case
aspersions on it because we think this is a very good agreement for both
Greece and Turkey.
QUESTION: It has been through your mediation. It's --
MR. BURNS: And we are very pleased and very honored to have been part of
this mediation.
QUESTION: So you succeeded --
MR. BURNS: We all succeeded; but, most importantly, Greece and Turkey
have succeeded. You know --
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. BURNS: -- when something good and positive happens in the Eastern
Mediterranean, we should not be so quick to criticize it.
QUESTION: It's not so easy --
MR. BURNS: It is not every day that something positive happens in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
QUESTION: Read the statement by the Greek political leaders and some
professionals, you will see this is not exactly true. How do you answer to
the series of criticisms that gives the United States the Madrid agreement
is contrary to the treaties of Lausanne, Paris, (inaudible) and the
international law of the sea to the point that Greece, for the first time,
recognized vital interest for Turkey in the Aegean with no legitimate
basis.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: We think the Greek and Turkish governments have done a very
good thing. Their statement of principles, their agreement on a statement
of principles -- which really is what the statement referred to -- is a
positive step forward. But as you know, there were no practical agreements
attached to the statement of principles, and now we look forward to Turkey
and Greece considering some practical steps to fill out the agreement.
I think whatever your political persuasion is here, whatever your political
party is, whatever ideology your newspaper has, it seems to us, it is very
hard to argue when two countries get together and say, we want to live in
peace; we want to respect each other; and we want to work together. It is
hard to argue with that. That is like arguing, as we say here in the United
States with mom and apple pie. We don't do that here in the United States.
We prefer to be positive, not negative. I will be positive here.
QUESTION: On Cyprus, despite the embargo on Cyprus talks by UN Secretary
General, a number of U.S. newspapers dispatched stories for the permanent
division of Cyprus based on the UDI of Rauf Denktash of the Turkish-
occupied area of Cyprus. To this effect, I will quote only the title of
today's story in The Washington Post -- "Talks Open on Partition of
Cyprus." Could you please comment?
MR. BURNS: I don't write editorials -- headlines for The Washington Post
or story headlines. I cannot be responsible for what The Washington Post
writes. Kofi Annan, Secretary General has asked for a news blackout. I am
going to honor that.
Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 2:16 P.M.)
(###)
|
