U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #105, 97-07-14
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1445
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, July 14, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
1 Condemnation of ETA terrorism in Spain
1-2 US donation of emergency food aid to World Food Program
2 Cyprus Talks concluded
NORTH KOREA
2 Food assistance and four-party talks
2-6 Details of food assistance, WFP
5 Sen. Nunn, Amb. Laney trip to N. Korea
24 Long term food assistance
CAMBODIA
6,10-11 King Sihanouk's statement
6 Status of American citizens
6-7 Persecution of Hun-Sen's opponents
7-8,10 Amb. Quinn meeting with Hun-Sen
8-9,11 Possible outcomes, requirements for resolutions
9 Prince Ranariddh State Dept. Meeting
10 US Aid Programs
11 Critics appraisal of Hun-Sen
CYPRUS
11-12 Expansion of EU to include Cyprus
12-13 Missile System possible threat to Peace Process
13 Amb. Holbrooke travel plans
20-21 Amb. Holbrooke's role in peace talks
CUBA
13-15 Charges that America supports terrorist bombings
16 Implementation of Title III of Helms-Burton act
16-17 Cuban baseball team
IRAN
17-19 Loan from Germany and possible sanctions on Germany
TAIWAN
19 Lee Teng-hui transit visa application
TURKEY
19 Prime Minister Yilmaz vote of confidence
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
21-22 Attendance at Doha economic Summit
21 Implementation of Oslo accords
22 Plans for Sec. Albright to attend summit
COLOMBIA
23 Amb. Frechette statement on conditions for military aid
PANAMA
23 Agreement on multilateral anti-narcotics center
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #105
MONDAY, JULY 14, 1997 1:18 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: I was just complimenting Barry on his appearance on television
this morning. I don't want to talk about Roger Clemens. I think he's not
done yet. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I want to welcome Melissa
Baker, who's an intern for Theresa Loar in our Office of Women's Affairs.
She's from New York, attends George Washington University where she studies
political science. Christina Kim is an intern in our Global Affairs Office.
She's from Winnetka, Illinois; attends Georgetown. Welcome to both
of you.
I have three announcements to make before we go to questions today. The
first is to stand side by side with the people of Spain and the Spanish
Government in condemning in the clearest and most forceful terms the
vicious terrorism of ETA. We extend our sincere condolences to the family
of Miguel Angel Blanco Garrido, the young city councilman who was shot and
murdered by the ETA terrorists. We understand that His Majesty Juan Carlos
will address the Spanish nation today. We are side by side with Spain in
opposing terrorism and opposing this notoriously vicious terrorist
organization, the ETA.
I also have two other announcements. The first is on North Korea. In
response to the World Food Program's announcement July 9 of an expanded
appeal for humanitarian food aid for children in North Korea, the United
States Government has decided to extend 100,000 metric tons of grain,
valued at approximately $27 million. Chronic food production short-falls,
which have been exacerbated by flooding in both 1995 and 1996 have resulted
in widespread malnutrition in North Korea, and children are among the most
vulnerable.
The United States Government assistance in the form of PL 480 Title II
Emergency Food Aid will be provided to the World Food Program and monitored
in two ways - 45,000 tons of grain will be monitored exclusively by the
World Food Program and used to feed children age six and under in nurseries,
kindergartens and orphanages. The distribution of the other 55,000 tons
will be monitored by a variety of U.S. private, voluntary organizations
who will work in conjunction with the World Food Program. This aid will
also be directed at the most vulnerable - chiefly children, but also
elderly population in North Korea.
The World Food Program has a proven ability to monitor distribution to
ensure that aid reaches those who are truly in need in North Korea. The
World Food Program has recently tripled its staff in North Korea to monitor
the increased donor submissions. Using American private, voluntary
organizations to assist will further enhance the monitoring of food
distribution inside North Korea.
Now, this commitment by the United States for $27 million of food aid
represents more than half of the July 9th appeal of the World Food Program,
which I believe was $45 million. It comes on the heels of $25 million in
food aid announced by our government in the beginning of this year. So this
is a substantial donation by the United States Government. It is donated
food. It is not money meant to be repaid. It is, I think, in line with our
tradition of believing in the World Food Program and believing that
people in North Korea are suffering and they deserve to be helped.
I'll be glad to respond to any questions on this.
My third announcement has to do with Cyprus. The United States Government
believes that the talks on Cyprus concluded over the weekend were positive
and useful talks. We are very pleased they took place. We think that face-
to-face dialogue on the issue of Cyprus is quite important. In fact, it is
essential.
We know that President Clerides and Mr. Denktash have known each other for
47 years. They hadn't met in three and a half years, and it is essential
that they continue to meet face-to-face for the cause of peace. They spent
a lot of time together in Trout Beck, at the Trout Beck Conference Center
in New York. The United States would certainly support a second round of
talks, if that can be agreed to. We hope very much it will be agreed
to.
I spoke to Dick Holbrooke just a short time ago. He met with President
Clerides this morning. They have a very good meeting. He intends to meet
with Mr. Denktash at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon. Dick Holbrooke will be
traveling to Western Europe the week after next to consult with our
European allies about the Cyprus issue. He does not plan to travel to
Cyprus or to the Eastern Mediterranean until at least after the next round
of talks, which we assume will be held sometime in August.
Nevertheless, we will remain very interested in supporting directly the
efforts of the United Nations. The Special UN Envoy Mr. Cardovez is
briefing the United Nations and interested parties including the United
States this afternoon. We are looking forward to a detailed, substantive
briefing from him on what was accomplished at these talks. We will very
much support him and Secretary General Kofi Annan as these talks proceed to
a second round, which we hope very much will take place. With that, Barry,
I'll be glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: Nick, is the fact that North Korea is in a dialogue with the
United States have any positive impact on the speed and the amount of food
assistance the U.S. is contributing?
MR. BURNS: We have never linked food assistance to the political talks.
That means that we have never held out as a threat the curtailment of food
aid should North Korea not agree to the four-party talks. Similarly and
conversely, we have never said that we would reward North Korea if it did
decide to go to the four-party talks.
Now, Barry, on August 5th in New York, we are having an important
preparatory meeting of the four parties. The first time the four parties
will have met on this issue, and this issue - food aid - has not been and
will not be linked to those talks. But obviously we have great respect for
the World Food Program. They issued an urgent appeal for food because
children and the elderly are experiencing famine. We felt, as a leading
contributor to that program, historically, that we had to step up to the
plate and deliver; and that's what we've done.
QUESTION: Is that - I don't know - country to country, but is that
typical of the U.S. response to famine in other countries? Are there other
countries struck by famine where the U.S. is not as quick and as - what's
the word - as generous?
MR. BURNS: I can't cite any examples, Barry, where we've been asked --
QUESTION: Starvation in Africa.
MR. BURNS: -- and where we've had a tradition of being the largest donor,
which we have in North Korea. I know that, for instance, in Central Africa,
where there has been starvation because of the conflicts in Rwanda and
Burundi over the last four years, the United States has contributed $1
billion in food and medical assistance to Central Africa. We've contributed
far less to North Korea because the dimensions of the problem are not
as great.
But I don't think it would be appropriate to delay food aid in a case where
we really thought that there was a famine-like condition present. We have
to act out of humanitarian impulses. In this case, we have acted in that
fashion.
QUESTION: Where did this money come from? Is there some pre-ordained fund
which has already been approved by Congress?
MR. BURNS: Yes. Congress every year passes an appropriation for the
various public law food assistance programs. There is public law - PL -
there's a PL 480 Title I program. There's a Title II program, which is the
grant program. That's the program from which we've taken these funds - the
$27 million - to purchase the 100,000 metric tons of grain that we'll be
extending.
Now, normally what happens - as you know from our previous discussions of
this issue - is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs these
programs, will immediately go out with USAID to contract for the grains to
be purchased from U.S. producers and then for ships to be provisioned with
the grain to make their way to Nampo, the North Korean port. We'll do that
as soon as we can.
Fortunately, some of the food aid that we approved in February of this year
as part of our $25 million effort - our previous effort - has just arrived
in the past two or three weeks in North Korea, as you know, not only in
Nampo, but in the northeastern part of Korea. So there is American food aid
that's just arrived there that will help people now. It does take some time
to get a lot of food - 100,000 metric tons of grain - from the United
States to North Korea. I will try to give you a delivery schedule as soon
as we have worked that out with the private contractors. Judd.
QUESTION: Is $25 million the total U.S. contribution since the crisis
began? The previous $25 million?
MR. BURNS: No, it's not. In fact, we have responded to several appeals
since 1995. I'll bet by the end of this briefing - Nancy, if you wouldn't
mind calling Lorraine Toly -- I'll bet we can get a 1995-1997 figure that
would include the $27 million we're announcing today. We'll try to get that
by the end of the briefing. I should have had that; I should have
anticipated that. Yes.
QUESTION: On Asia, I want to just switch to another country in Asia.
QUESTION: One more --
MR. BURNS: Do you want to stay on North Korea?
QUESTION: You may have answered this, because I was out of the room. Just
a quick question - who are the private organizations and how are they there
- the private, voluntary organizations that will be monitoring?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to take that question. We would have to consult
with - they would be PVOs - private voluntary organizations - who will
effectively be subcontractors for the World Food Program. We'll have to ask
the World Food Program which ones they intend to work with, and I will get
that to you.
QUESTION: And why did you decide to add on PVOs this time instead of just
the World Food Program?
MR. BURNS: The World Food Program has been specially involved in the food
shortage for children. They have directed their appeal at children. As you
can see, 45,000 tons of the grain will be extended to that. The additional
will go to both children and the elderly. There are some PVOs that work
with different groups.
QUESTION: Well, you have been so adamant about saying publicly how you
have only gone through the WFP because you are so secure in their ability
to monitor the program. I just wonder if you feel that you need to bring
these extra groups now because there is more and more food aid going to
North Korea, and you may be worried that you can't monitor it all. Or that -
-
MR. BURNS: No, if fact, I should say the 45,000 tons going to the World
Food Program is exclusively for children under six. The additional 55,000
tons is for children and for the elderly. I assume, Carol -- but I can
check on this -- it's simply because there are other PVOs - private
voluntary organizations - operating in other parts of the country where the
WFP has not had experience. But they are American organizations. So we
obviously will have confidence in them and their ability to work well.
Laura.
QUESTION: Also on North Korea -- former Senator Nunn is traveling to
North Korea, I believe, next week. Are you working with him? And is a State
Department representative going to travel with him?
MR. BURNS: Yes, former Senator Sam Nunn - Senator Nunn of Georgia and
former American Ambassador to South Korea, Jim Laney, who has just stepped
down, plan to pay a private visit to North Korea from July 20 to 22, and to
our ally South Korea on July 22 to 24, to discuss Korean Peninsula issues.
This trip is private. It occurs at the invitation of the North Korean
Government. We have briefed by Senator Nunn and Ambassador Laney on the
latest analysis we have of the Korean Peninsula issues. We, of course,
look forward to hearing their impressions upon their return.
They are going for a general exchange of views on Korean issues with the
North and South Koreans. I expect they're going to explain to the North
Koreans the fundamentals of U.S. policy, including the historic opportunity
we have now to engage with the North and South, with China to make sure
that these four-party talks will actually go forward and will lead the way
to a cessation of the Korean conflict -- a formal cessation, a peace treaty,
after so many years.
I expect they will also discuss food aid, the agreed framework, the
importance of maintaining the agreed framework and other issues in U.S.-
North Korea relations. Now, they have been briefed by us and they will be
accompanied by three people. One of them is a private advisor -- long-time
advisor to both men, a Mr. Sukhan Kim -- and two working-level U.S.
Government officials - David Straub, who is a foreign service officer in
the State Department's Office of Korean Affairs, and also Mr. Richard Finn,
who works on Korean issues in the Department of Defense. They will
serve as a resource for Senator Nunn and Ambassador Laney.
On previous trips by private Americans, we have routinely sent officers
from our Korean Affairs Office because of their language ability and,
frankly, because there aren't a lot of Americans who have a lot of
experience and in-depth knowledge of North Korea. Our people in the
Department have that.
Now, I should tell you that we consider this an important visit. It is a
private visit, but it's important because both Ambassador Laney - obviously,
he was our ambassador in Seoul for four years -- and Senator Nunn are
senior respected figures who can convey a straight message from the United
States to North Korea in advance of the four-party preparatory meeting on
August 5th. So we do very much support their trip.
Yes, still on - I want to know if there were any questions on this
particular one, Jim, then I will go to you. I do have some figures. Let's
see if we can make sense of these. Including today's contribution, the U.S.
Government total food aid to North Korea this year is $52 million in
humanitarian assistance, all through the World Food Program. We gave a
total of $8.4 million in humanitarian food aid to North Korea in 1995 and
1996. Right. Of course, you know we have had contributions to KEDO in 1997,
but that is separate.
QUESTION: $60 million.
MR. BURNS: That's right, $60 million since 1995. I believe we have now
responded successfully and positively to every appeal by the World Food
Program in the last two years. Yes, I want to make sure that Jim has a
chance to ask his question, unless it is directly related to what Laura was
talking about. Jim.
QUESTION: It's also on Asia, but not on North Korea. I wonder if you have
seen the statement by King Sihanouk from Beijing in which he seems to
acquiesce in the single leadership of Hun Sen, giving the impression to a
lot of people that the coup or whatever it is by him appears to have
succeeded and his competitor is out of the picture. Would you agree with
that analysis?
MR. BURNS: We have seen the press reports of King Sihanouk's statement
and, Jim, just before I came out here I saw some recent new wires in the
last hour or two which have further comments from King Sihanouk in Beijing
about the military situation, about who has won and who has lost, and about
the efficacy even of foreign involvement and of emissaries in this. It was
quite an interesting statement.
The problem I have is that we have not talked to him directly. We have seen
press reports, but I obviously can't confirm the words. So I will have to
withhold some judgment about King Sihanouk's statement. We do think he is
an important person in this drama -- certainly a legendary historic figure.
We think it's appropriate that the ASEAN delegation of foreign ministers
seek his views, which they intend to do. We also obviously seek his views
as soon as we can do that.
I can tell you for ourselves that we continue to monitor the situation in
Cambodia quite closely. We are pleased that the situation of American
citizens has improved. We now believe there are only probably around 350
American citizens left in Cambodia. That is down by more than 1,000 people
from the start of the hostilities just eight or nine days ago. We are
pleased about that.
Phnom Penh has been quiet for the last several days. The commercial and
charter flights are leaving the airport. American citizens, we believe,
should still leave; the remaining 350 should leave. We believe that they
can leave safely and on a regular basis. We are also concerned about
reports - and you have seen them and we are attempting to verify them with
Mr. Hun Sen, with whom our ambassador met for two hours this weekend -
reports that members of Prince Ranariddh's political party have been
arrested, that several have been killed.
Now, we have no independent confirmation of these. When I say that what I
mean is, we have no literal confirmation because these reports are being
denied by Hun Sen and his associates. But they are being claimed by
reputable people whom we know. So we continue to want to look into those.
But we are deeply concerned about those reports. We are also deeply
concerned that journalists and labor organizers and representatives of non-
governmental organizations have also been singled out -- people who have
been critical of Hun Sen in the past.
Any attempt to arrest or intimidate Cambodians solely because of their
political views is completely unacceptable to democrats around the world.
It violates Cambodia's constitution, and it violates rudimentary and
fundamental international human rights standards. So we reject those
efforts. We are concerned that Hun Sen get back to the effort of political
reconciliation. When Ambassador Ken Quinn met with him over the weekend, in
their very long meeting, he reiterated the major points that we have been
talking about publicly - the need for reconciliation; the need for an end
to violence; the need to allow Prince Ranariddh's political party
to operate freely in Cambodia; the need for elections in 1998 - the ones
that Prince Ranariddh and Hun Sen had agreed upon shortly before the
outbreak of the violence, that would allow the Cambodian people to
effectively be the judge of who should be in power in Cambodia.
We intend to maintain our political contacts with Hun Sen in order to
communicate this message to him. Ambassador Quinn has been in touch not
just with Hun Sen, but with representatives of Prince Ranariddh's party who
are still in Phnom Penh and other political forces in the country. So we
are very concerned about Cambodia, and we'll keep our eye on it. In the
wake of Ambassador Pickering's conversation with Prince Ranariddh, we are
putting a lot of stock in the ASEAN mission to Beijing and Phnom Penh and
to Europe or the United States to talk to Prince Ranariddh. We hope very
much that that will be a successful mission. Sid.
QUESTION: Yeah --
QUESTION: Well, does it look like it's going to complete that - Hun Sen
at this point?
MR. BURNS: Well, there's no question that he has certainly achieved a
major military victory, because he appears to have smashed the military
forces of Prince Ranariddh. There are, I think, in a couple of northern
provinces, still fighting and there's still a face-off between the military
militia of the two. But pretty much throughout the rest of the country -
and certainly in Phnom Penh - Hun Sen has the upper hand.
The question now - and the ball's really in his court, and I think that the
world needs to look to Hun Sen now for some answers. What will he do with
this newfound power? Will he govern as an autocrat? Will he decide to abide
by the clear wishes of the people of Cambodia and allow elections to go
forward? Will he allow - as he said over the weekend - for Prince Ranariddh
to return to the country without fear of political reprisal? Now, this is
going to be a difficult decision if this offer is made because there
are reports that military officers and politicians and labor organizers and
journalists have been taken prisoner or executed.
So I think that the onus is going to be on Hun Sen to prove, as he says -
and as he said to journalists over the weekend - that he intends to govern
liberally and intends to allow Cambodians to be free. We'll see. The proof
is going to have to be with him because the indications over the last eight
days are that he's not off to a good start; he's off to a very poor
start.
QUESTION: Did Ambassador Quinn get any reassurances on U.S. demands from
Hun Sen? What was the reply? What were you told?
MR. BURNS: I can say this, Carol. Without wanting to go into the
conversation in detail, because we do want to preserve its confidentiality,
I think Ambassador Quinn heard a lot of positive words from Hun Sen about
the five points that we put across. Frankly, when dealing with someone like
that in the wake of all these reports of the brutalities of the last eight
days. We're going to be much more impressed by his actions to put into
place a liberal, democratic government than these nice words.
QUESTION: You can't say anything about what these positive - supposedly
positive - indications were?
MR. BURNS: All I can say is that when Ambassador Quinn put forward his
points, I understand - without getting into the details - that Hun Sen gave
positive answers to the requests of the United States. We may request, of
course - the same points that we share with you in public last week -
elections, end of the violence, laying down of arms, allowing Prince
Ranariddh's political party not only to survive but to compete and to
coexist in Phnom Penh in the government. We received nice words, but
one will be much more impressed by actions rather than words.
QUESTION: You were calling for a restoration of the coalition. Has he
said that he will permit a restoration of the coalition?
MR. BURNS: I believe that as far as he's gone on that question is what he
said to some journalists in Phnom Penh over the weekend; which is Prince
Ranariddh is free to return without fear of political persecution. But if I
were Prince Ranariddh, I might wonder about that commitment.
QUESTION: That doesn't seem like it really answers your question, your
demands.
MR. BURNS: I don't think our question has been answered in full. I think
that's the clear, outstanding question that remains here in the wake of all
this violence and political intimidation. Will Hun Sen allow the situation
to what it was before the outbreak of fighting. I think the jury is out on
that question.
QUESTION: Did he just give a vague answer to Quinn? Did he say, I'll take
that under advisement?
MR. BURNS: I can't get into the specifics of the conversation. I've tried
to give you as much as I can from it, and say that we're going to much more
impressed by deeds here than words.
QUESTION: Nick, just to be clear, in your five points, you don't call for
the restoration of Prince Ranariddh; you call for the participation of his
political party. Are you backing off now on Ranariddh being reinstated and
you'll be satisfied with the Royalist party being allowed to participate in
--
MR. BURNS: Sid, we just met with Prince Ranariddh on Friday, which was a
clear expression of our support for him. We believe he is the first prime
minister of Cambodia. He was elected in 1993 by the people. We think he has
a right to participate in the political system. What we cannot do is get
involved in party politics - in his own party's politics - or in politics
in Cambodia itself. I can't give you a prescription of what's going to
happen.
Our ideal scenario would be the restoration of the status quo politically
in Cambodia. Whether that's going to happen or not is a different question
because Hun Sen is holding most of the cards now. He's got the power. So we
would like, actually, to put the onus and the international spotlight not
on us but on him. What is he going to do with all his power? Is he going
to govern effectively, positively with it; cooperatively with other
politicians like Prince Ranariddh? He needs to answer those questions.
QUESTION: Did the Ambassador -- was that one of the Ambassador's points -
we'd also like you to restore Ranariddh to power, or did he just say
Ranariddh's party should be allowed to participate? I mean, it's an
important distinction in your policy now whether you want the prince back
or whether you just want his party to be allowed to participate.
MR. BURNS: Sid, as I said, we would like nothing better than the
restoration of the status quo - meaning Prince Ranariddh could return and
assume his place as prime minister of Cambodia. We recognize him to be the
first prime minister.
When Tom Pickering saw him the other day, I think I told you, the first
words were, welcome Mr. First Prime Minister. That was not said without,
obviously, intention to show respect and to basically declare a political
statement that we think he is the first prime minister. But you have to
separate the situation into what one hopes will happen - which is
restoration of the government - versus what one expects to happen now. Hun
Sen has not, I don't think, done much to indicate to Prince Ranariddh that
it's safe to return. There are all these reports of political violence
and intimidation and arrests and execution. So we're hoping for the
best right now. We're trying to use our influence on Hun Sen to argue for a
positive outcome. But whether that will happen or not, I think we've all
got to be realistic. It seems that it might be heading down a different
path, despite these positive words.
QUESTION: Would you be satisfied - and I don't know how you measure that
satisfaction - with an outcome that allowed the Royalist party to stay up
and running but kept Ranariddh out, and everything else as you want?
MR. BURNS: The United States is not going to put itself - and will not be
- in the position of some kind of mediator where we make these political
compromises. These questions are for Prince Ranariddh and Hun Sen and
others to work out. Our ideal scenario would be to see Cambodia return to
what it was before last weekend - a week ago this past weekend. We'd like
to see the wishes of the Cambodian people, expressed in the 1993 elections,
returned. That is the party that got the most votes, and the individual
that leads that party, would go back to Cambodia. But I don't want to leave
the impression that that's going to happen today or tomorrow. It doesn't
look like to us it will happen. It's going to be an uphill struggle, but we
certainly still consider him to be first prime minister.
QUESTION: What did the Ambassador say about aid and sanctions - the
possibility of extended aid cuts, international aid cuts and possible
sanctions?
MR. BURNS: I don't know specifically what he said to Hun Sen on those
issues. I haven't read the "memcon." I don't even know if we have it in the
building - a "memcon," a verbatim transcript. But I know what we told Hun
Sen and his followers is essentially this - we are suspending our aid
program for 30 days. At the end of the 30-day period, we will have
reviewed all those programs. We'd like to go forward with programs
that don't necessarily benefit the government, but benefit people.
For instance, we have a de-mining program that's very important for
people.
He has to understand - he, Hun Sen must understand it can't be business as
usual with aid, bilateral or other, as long as he's acting the way he
is.
QUESTION: I'm just trying to get a sense of whether Quinn was tough with
him, whether he just went in and said we don't like it and was just sort of
very diplomatic or did he pound his fists on the table. Did he really try
to bring U.S. leadership and pressure to bear on this man in this face-to-
face meeting?
MR. BURNS: You can be assured - without my betraying - my doing what I
can't do, which is read you an account of the conversation, I can't do
that. You can be assured that Ambassador Quinn represented American views
forcefully and clearly and that Mr. Hun Sen now understands the position of
the United States directly from the President's personal representative,
Ken Quinn.
Our ambassador is a forceful individual - very experienced in Southeast
Asia. He knows these people quite well. He left it abundantly clear that
the United States is displeased with what has happened and that we're not
going to play ball and have business as usual with Hun Sen as long as he's
acting the way he is.
QUESTION: You said that you respect King Sihanouk and that you all aren't
clear as to what he's saying, but he's come out and seems to be supporting
Hun Sen and recognizing him as the sole leader of Cambodia. If he comes out
and continues to support him, and you confirm this, what will your
conversation be? Will you continue to yield to the king in this matter?
MR. BURNS: Well, first we can't - I cannot confirm everything that has
been in the press. I don't know if it's true or not. Sometimes things are
printed in newspapers that aren't exactly right; that's happened a couple
of times in modern history. So I want to just be a little bit delayed in
our judgment.
Secondly, what I should tell you, Crystal, is that we do respect King
Sihanouk. We respect the role he has to play. He's not the only political
actor in Cambodia. In fact, he is in many senses the father of modern
Cambodia. He was instrumental in restoring Cambodia to its present state
after the scourge of the Khmer Rouge. But there are other people that have
to be consulted by the United States, such as Prince Ranariddh, such as Hun
Sen.
So if one can confirm those remarks, they'd be quite interesting and quite
important. But they wouldn't necessarily be the final word because there
are a lot of other people who've run for political office, who hold office
who are now being intimidated. They should also be consulted.
QUESTION: But you said the United States hopes for one outcome and
sometimes thinks about the other outcome that they don't want. So obviously,
you've been thinking about this. The United States has been counting on the
possibility that they're going to have to deal with Hun Sen one way or the
other.
MR. BURNS: Well, we are dealing with Hun Sen. We have not broken
relations with him. We are talking to him; we'll continue to talk to him
because we must. He holds power in Phnom Penh. But I don't want to jump
ahead on a hypothetical question - say what United States policy is going
to be a week or two from now. We have constant principles which we have
been reiterating to all the political actors there - Prince Ranariddh, Hun
Sen and others. We're going to stick by our principles.
QUESTION: And finally, some critics are saying that it might be a good
thing that Hun Sen has gained power through a coup, but nonetheless sole
power. It appears that he's trying to drive down that road. Critics are
saying maybe this is a good thing for Cambodia because power now can rest
with one central government instead of a split figurehead where there is
conflict. What is your response to that?
MR. BURNS: I don't know what those critics have been drinking. Those
critics may like authoritarian governments. They may like the fact that
democratic elections have been overturned; that the Paris Peace Accords
have been ruptured; that the will of the people of Cambodia as expressed in
free, internationally-supervised elections has been violated. If that's
what those critics want, I guess in the United States they're free to say
because we're a free country, but I don't know that anyone in our
government would agree with them. I think they're all wet, those critics.
Excuse me, Cyprus, yes.
QUESTION: The second day of the UN meeting in the Trout Beck - the
European Union announcement about the acceptance of Cyprus plus five other
countries as a new members at the Union. As the United States, do you think
it is helpful for the negotiation process? And do you support this kind of
announcement from the European Union?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if the European Union made this announcement
deliberately to coincide with the talks here in the United States, but the
European Union is obviously free to do what it wishes. It's facing some
historic decisions about its own expansion, and we took note of those
decisions. As you know, we've long supported expansion of the European
Union and we've long supported the idea that countries in the Eastern
Mediterranean like Cyprus and Turkey ought to be associated with the
European Union. That's very important to us.
QUESTION: But before the solution, do you support European Union and the
Cyprus integration, before the solution?
MR. BURNS: Are you asking me?
QUESTION: Yes, I am asking you.
MR. BURNS: Before which solution, Savas?
QUESTION: Before the solution in the Cyprus.
MR. BURNS: Lambros is interpreting your question. Is that acceptable?
QUESTION: You prefer prior or after the integration of Cyprus in the EU?
This is the question.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Prior or after the solution?
MR. BURNS: Now, is that is your question, Savas?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: That's exactly --
MR. BURNS: So we have a joint Greek-Turkish question? This is excellent.
We are making progress. We are making more progress here than - anyway.
That is up to the European Union to decide. The United States cannot decide
the timetable of European Union expansion. We have too much respect for the
EU to try to do that and give it public advice. We just think that the
expansion of the EU is a good idea. We think stability in the Eastern
Mediterranean is a good idea.
QUESTION: And also - so sorry. Also at the meeting, the Greek Cypriot
leader, Mr. Clerides, he didn't accept that Russian anti-aircraft missiles
pose a threat for the peace forces and the solution. Do you agree with
him?
MR. BURNS: Well, all I can say is that we have had a number of conversations
with the Cypriot Government about this. We are satisfied now with the
pledge by Cypriot Government that no part of this missile system will be
introduced into Cyprus for a great period of time. We think the Cypriot
Government is handling this responsibly in letting a period of time unfold
where we have an opportunity to resolve the problem. We are encouraging
Turkey and Cyprus and Greece and others to try to resolve this problem
amicably so that there is no resort to any kind of incident that could
produce more tension. We have some time to work on this problem. We should
all work responsibly on it, we think.
QUESTION: Can you give to us the names of the countries that Mr.
Holbrooke wants to visit and the main reason why he is not visiting Ankara
and Athens?
MR. BURNS: He intends to visit a number of countries in Western Europe. I
know the United Kingdom will be one of them because of the special role
being played by Sir David Hannay, for whom Dick Holbrooke has a lot of
respect. Dick told me he had not worked out a specific itinerary. So in the
coming days when he has, I will give that to you. All I can say is that
Dick feels it's not appropriate for him to visit Cyprus or Greece
or Turkey at the present time because we want to support the United
Nations. If there is to be a second round of discussions in Europe in
August -- and we hope there will be, we support that, we very much want
that to happen - then Dick feels he ought not to get in the way of that. He
ought to just do everything he can to support the United Nations, as he has
done over the last eight, nine, ten days.
Then at some point in the future, obviously, he will be traveling to Cyprus
and to Greece and Turkey. He is our Cyprus negotiator and will need to talk
with all of those governments, and the Turkish community as well, about
Cyprus. But he doesn't have a schedule fixed in his own mind yet. He is
going to wait and see what happens in the second round of talks, once one
is formally agreed to.
I am not sure it has formally agreed to, but the United States very much
thinks it is a good idea. So we are kind of pushing. We would like to help
push things in that direction.
QUESTION: Nick, do you have anything to substantiate these Cuban charges
that there was an American angle to these bombings over the weekend in
Havana? The Cubans are saying there might have been some American equipment
or devices involved, if not an outright perpetrator?
MR. BURNS: We have checked into this very carefully. Our interest section
in Havana has confirmed that there were explosions at the Hotel Nacional
and the Hotel Capri in Havana. Cuban authorities have told our diplomats in
Havana that there were no fatalities, that two Cuban citizens were slightly
injured. I can tell you that we have no information whatsoever here in
Washington or in Havana in our interest section about the origin of these
explosions. We know nothing about them. No one has told us anything
about them, besides the Cuban Government accusing Americans of being
responsible. We have no information whatsoever. There is no evidence
whatsoever that Americans were behind it. Needless to say, the United
States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this.
We condemn terrorism wherever it is practiced. If indeed, this was
terrorism -- and right now it's very murky, one doesn't know what caused
these explosions -- then we would condemn it. We are very sympathetic to
the people who were slightly injured in this attack. We would never support
any kind of bombing attack like this, if, in fact, it was a bombing
attack.
So I think the Cuban Government, before it starts making wild charges about
Americans being responsible for bombing attacks, it ought to do its
homework. If the Cuban Government has information about these bombing
attacks it would like share with us, our door is open. They can call us any
time. If they want to call us at three in the morning, they can call 647-
1512. That is the State Department Operations Center. They can wake up our
diplomats in Havana and call them in the middle of the morning if
suddenly they have some golden information.
It's a little bit suspicious that they have absolutely no evidence and yet
they accuse Americans of being responsible for these bombs. They ought to
do their homework, and they ought to treat this responsibly. It is not
right to go around accusing countries or individuals of bombing when you
have absolutely no evidence to support it.
QUESTION: In May, after the first bombs appeared in Havana, apparently
the FBI in Miami checked the same reports. They had someone from the United
States or the material was coming from the United States. Apparently, the
FBI last month opened an investigation to check these reports. Do you have
anything on that?
MR. BURNS: I have nothing on that. But in the current case, I can tell
you we just have no evidence whatsoever, no information about these
bombings. There were a few Americans in the hotel, we understand. But none
of the Americans were injured, fortunately. I don't know who the Americans
were. There are a lot of Americans in Cuba these days.
QUESTION: It's not the first time that a group from Florida tried to
attack hotels in Cuba --
MR. BURNS: Wait a minute. In our country, if you want to indict somebody
or indict a whole group of people - an entire ethnic group in our country -
then you better have your facts straight. If you don't have your facts
straight, and if the Cuban Government doesn't have their facts straight,
you ought to forget about it. You are not going to get any sympathy from
us.
If there is any information the Cuban Government has that they think is
real and they want to turn to over to us -- if they think Americans are
implicated -- we will listen. But there is no evidence; there is no
information.
QUESTION: Actually, in 1993 people from a Cuban exile group did attack
from a sea --
MR. BURNS: We are not talking about history. We are not talking about
1993. We are talking about something that happened this past weekend. The
Cuban Government has launched a serious charge against Americans. It better
put up or shut up.
QUESTION: Do they have reason to be suspicious, given the history of the
U.S.-Cuban relations beginning with attempts to assassinate Castor?
MR. BURNS: Barry --
QUESTION: Do they have reason to be a little bit --
MR. BURNS: All I can say is this --
QUESTION: -- a little bit, you know, in their whatever their reasons are,
is there a history behind this?
MR. BURNS: I think they are definitely paranoid.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. BURNS: They are paranoid for a lot of reasons. They have got a failed
system. There is also domestic opposition to the Cuban government in Cuba.
It is quite easy to disregard domestic opposition and say, it's the
Yankees; it's the Americans who are responsible for this.
QUESTION: Well, given that, this is sort of an understandable reflex,
isn't it?
MR. BURNS: If we were in a court of law, which is where you should be in
a case like this, if there is any evidence, or if you are a police official,
you have to see evidence, Barry. It is simply not good enough to blame
Cuban-Americans for something, when there is no evidence or information.
QUESTION: I'm not going to argue with you.
MR. BURNS: If there is turn it over.
QUESTION: Of course.
QUESTION: You're going to meet Alarcon in New York in a couple of
days.
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to meet Alarcon in New York. No, I'm not going
to meet Alarcon. I have never met him, and I probably never will.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, the State Department officials will meet him. You
will not present a list of these opinions to him personally?
MR. BURNS: I think that with all due respect to Mr. Alarcon, I think the
ball is in his court here. There is no information or evidence whatsoever
linking Americans to these bombings. If Mr. Alarcon has the evidence, he
should turn it over when he meets American officials. He's got American
diplomats on his doorstep in Havana. They are there to receive the
information. They don't have any yet.
QUESTION: Nick, on another subject --
QUESTION: Cuba - related to Cuba.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: There is some - we have some information that the decision has
been made to basically ignore Title III of the Helms-Burton again, by the
White House. Do you have anything about that?
MR. BURNS: Ignore Title III?
QUESTION: Basically not put it into effect.
MR. BURNS: Well, all I know is that, as you remember, when the President
made his initial decision on this, I think back in January of this year, he
agreed that we would make six-month judgments on it. The six months is
coming due in the next couple of days, I believe. So when a decision is
made - and I am not aware that the formal decision has been made yet by the
President - then we will present that to you . I even hope to get, perhaps,
Under Secretary Eizenstat here in the briefing room to run through that
issue with you. But I don't believe - I could be wrong about this - I don't
believe a formal decision has been made yet. But I know that it's got to be
made in the next couple of days.
QUESTION: And one final questions - Forbes has just announced that Fidel
Castro has made the top ten list among dictators and monarchs --
MR. BURNS: Not best dressed?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- as far as being rich.
MR. BURNS: Rich?
QUESTION: Yeah, $1.5 billion --
MR. BURNS: No surprise. In a communist society what happens is, 98
percent of the people get nothing, and the politburo gets everything. That
happened under the Soviet Union; it happened in China. It's happening again
in Cuba. It works very well for the ruling clique, communism; it doesn't
work very well for the vast majority of people.
QUESTION: Nick, Cuba has canceled the visit by a baseball team that was
supposed to tour and play a game, citing as one reason the weekend bombing
at the Havana hotels. Do you have any comment?
MR. BURNS: How did I know somebody was going to ask me about this? This
baseball competition was to be held in Norwalk - Norwalk or Norwich?
Norwich, Connecticut.
QUESTION: Norwich.
MR. BURNS: Norwich, Connecticut which is a very peaceful hamlet. To argue
that somehow the Cuban baseball team was going to be under threat for
walking the streets of Norwich, Connecticut, is a little bit strange. We
think that despite all the political problems between us - and they are
considerable - that Castro ought to let his players play ball. What he is
probably most afraid of is that because they come from a Stalinist society,
because he keeps them down on the farms, literally, and doesn't allow
them to earn what they are worth in the free market, he is afraid that most
of these players or a great number of them are going to walk; they're going
to defect to the United States. That is what he is afraid of.
QUESTION: That's the American way.
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: That's the American way. They'll get big bucks.
MR. BURNS: Well, listen. We would gladly welcome more Cubans pitching and
playing ball in the American League.
QUESTION: The Yankees --
MR. BURNS: Not for the Yankees, for the Red Sox. That is what he is
afraid of. He is using this as an excuse. He is an old pitcher himself, his
fast ball has long since died.
(Laughter.)
He still has a few curve balls, which he throws at us routinely. We think
he ought to let his players come here and play ball.
QUESTION: On another subject, Nick? There is a report out of Tehran that
a German bank called West Deutscheland Bank, West German State Bank is
going to give Iran a $90 million loan for reconstruction of an offshore oil
field. This would seem to trigger D'Amato sanctions. One, have you heard
about the deal? And two, are you considering such sanctions?
MR. BURNS: We are aware of reports -- in fact, over the past eight months
-- suggesting that the West Deutscheland Bank has been considering a loan
to an Iranian firm in connection with rehabilitation of the Soroush
offshore oil field. The law in question -- the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act --
states that any entity purchasing a share of ownership in the development
of Iran's petroleum resources or entering into an agreement providing for
participation in the earnings of such developments may be sanctionable
under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Any investor in such a project could be
affected by the legislation.
What we have got to do, I think -- if this deal does go through -- is
assure ourselves of the specifics of the deals and then to see if it does
fit in the framework of the sanctions. If it does, I'm afraid the United
States would have to take action. We have not yet made that decision
because a, we're not aware that this loan has been made -- we know it is
under consideration - and b, we don't know all the dimensions of the loan,
itself.
QUESTION: One question. You used the word, may. Are you saying that it is
discretionary on the part of the U.S. Government?
MR. BURNS: No, I think what that refers to - I think that's lawyers'
language for, we need to see the fine print and see exactly. I think the
key factor here is the amount of financial assets involved and whether it
meets the floor, the benchmark for the sanctions themselves.
QUESTION: What form do sanctions take?
MR. BURNS: I have to go back to the law.
QUESTION: Not this particular case. What do you do to --
MR. BURNS: I would have to go back to the law, Barry, and I'm sure we can
do that for you.
QUESTION: It makes it - (inaudible) - for executives and so forth?
MR. BURNS: Yeah, I want to go back to the law, though, and get it. I
think it's multi-layered actually. There are several things that happened,
and I just don't recall them off the top of my head.
QUESTION: Was this known to the U.S. Government during all the goings on
in Madrid, when the Germans and the U.S. were in the same city having a lot
of talks? And did anybody raise it with Chancellor Kohl or his people?
MR. BURNS: I assume this has been known to us. I don't know if it was
raised with Chancellor Kohl. I assume it's been raised with the German
Government. I can't tell you at which level. What I can do is take that
question and get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Since that's just a straight loan - I understand you don't have
all the details - then it wouldn't meet the standard you're talking about -
participation in profits or taking a position in the company itself. It's
just a straight matter of financing.
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if it is a straight loan or not. I just
don't know what it is. That's one of the things we'd have to look into if
this loan is made. I mean, a loan could be accompanied by a company or a
bank taking an equity position in some kind of investment, in which case it
would meet the requirements. I just don't want to indict this firm. I have
no idea what they have up their sleeve. Howard.
QUESTION: Is Taiwan's president going to be stopping in the U.S.?
MR. BURNS: Lee Teng-hui? No, I don't believe he has any plans to stop in
the United States. I've not seen any reference to that. If you're referring
to a transit, I have no knowledge. I don't believe he's made any application.
I know that there have been some press reports to that effect, but there's
been no application to us for a transit visa by the Taiwan authorities.
QUESTION: Are you shocked to think that they would even contemplate
something like that?
MR. BURNS: Well, we probably would not be shocked to think that they
would contemplate a transit visa for their senior officials because they've
done that a lot. But Lee Teng -hui has not been in this country since his
famous trip to Cornell, which was over two years ago. I think it was the
Spring of 1995.
QUESTION: Can I ask that question a little differently?
MR. BURNS: Yeah.
QUESTION: If you have not gotten an actual application for transit visa,
have there been overtures by the Taiwan Government to the U.S. representatives
that the president of Taiwan would like a transit visa?
MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question. That's a good
question; I'll be glad to take that question. Yes, Turkey, yes, and then
Middle East.
QUESTION: The new Turkish government got a vote a confidence last
Saturday from the parliament. Do you have a comment on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, we're very pleased to work with Prime Minister Yilmaz.
He's an impressive individual. We have a lot of experience working with
him. We were impressed by the fact that he does have now an ability to
govern effectively. After this period of uncertainty in Turkish politics
with the government's composition, it's good to have a partner in Ankara.
We look forward to working with him on a variety of issues - bilateral,
NATO issues and, of course, the Greek-Turkish issues that are so important
to us. Yes, Mr. Lambros, we'll stay on the Eastern Med.
QUESTION: Mr. Cardovez said nothing today during the press conference in
New York City on the substance of the talks, but only the procedures that
were involved via the subject of Mr. Holbrooke. Do you have anything of
substance to tell us, besides you express your support and satisfaction?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't. I decided with Dick Holbrooke today that we would
really restrain ourselves and limit our remarks to some of the things that
I told you, but I think we told you we felt these were useful and positive
talks. They ought to continue.
QUESTION: What was the specific role of Mr. Holbrooke in those talks?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Holbrooke?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: He had no role in the talks.
QUESTION: In this specific one.
MR. BURNS: He had no role in the talks. Mr. Holbrooke did not attend the
talks. He wasn't anywhere near Trout Beck. He stayed in Manhattan. He met
with President Clerides and Mr. Denktash before the talks began. He is
meeting them now as they leave. He is our Cyprus negotiator. He will remain
very interested in the developments here. He is supporting the UN, but is
not participating in the talks.
QUESTION: Why was Mr. Carey Cavanaugh not present in the open ceremony
along with the other representatives?
MR. BURNS: I have no idea, but I can tell you that Ambassador Holbrooke
asked Mr. Cavanaugh to be present at Trout Beck in Amenia, New York, to
have conversations in the margin, but we were not to participate in the
talks because that wouldn't have been appropriate.
QUESTION: As I told you, last Friday, the non-paper was given to both
sides was that Boutros Boutros-Ghali - (inaudible) -- 1992, which has been
rejected that time, is totally unacceptable. I am wondering what was the
role of Mr. Holbrooke to present again this non-paper to both sides?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I cannot confirm that non-paper. There was a news
blackout. We can't confirm what the United Nations may or may not have
done. I would ask Mr. Cardovez that question. I don't even want to accept
the premise of your question.
QUESTION: Why? You are involved with --
MR. BURNS: Because it is loaded with political judgments with which I do
not wish to associate myself. I mean I frankly don't want to talk about the
substance and you do. I can't do that here. I would ask Mr. Cardovez, with
all due respect.
QUESTION: On the same subject, can I follow? Mr. Cardovez' document, that
famous document they are discussing, suggests that the United Nations
prepare a constitution and - (inaudible) -- which is Article Number One
listed on the document.
MR. BURNS: I don't know if Mr. Cardovez has said what he did or did not
do. This is the problem I have, frankly, with both the questions of Greek
and Turkish [reporters] today. That is, I don't know if he said there is a
document, if he has told you what the document is. I want to respect his
role as negotiator and not try to make his job more difficult. That is all
I am saying. Talal, yes?
QUESTION: The United States is exerting a lot of pressure on many Arab
countries to attend the Doha Summit. There is a big debate raging in the
Arab world about that. Only Jordan until now has declared it is going; even
Egypt, a big recipient of American aid, has not declared its position. The
critics argue now, why are the Arabs expected to separate between economics
and politics when they take their cue from the United States? I can give
you an example, the United States apply the same -- Cuba, Iran, Libya,
Iraq, Cambodia. Can you answer that, please?
MR. BURNS: Well, most countries act out of self-interest. It is in the
self-interest of Arab countries to have an economic relationship with
Israel, given Israel's economic strength in the area. We assume that sooner
or later, countries will be governed by self-interest. That is the best
argument to make for the Doha Summit. It is also a commitment that the Arab
countries have made over the last four years to attend these summits in
Casablanca, in Amman, in Cairo. They have been very successful. They
help Arab countries. They help Arab businesses. That is the primary
reason that Arab countries should go.
QUESTION: Also, there was a commitment by the Israeli government to
implement the agreement of Oslo and Madrid, part and parcel, and not pick
and be allowed to pick what they like and what not they like.
MR. BURNS: And that holds true for the Palestinians, as well. It takes
two to tango. There are two parties at the Oslo Accords -- Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. You must ask of the Palestinian Authority what you
ask of Israel. Our view is that we must be reasonable and we must be
encouraging to the Palestinians and Israelis to make progress. By
boycotting a summit, you don't add positively to the Middle East Peace
process, you detract from it.
QUESTION: But you must agree that the political atmosphere or climate is
not conducive --
MR. BURNS: All the more reason to attend the Doha Summit. Countries have
to stand up, be courageous, act in their self-interest as well as act to
promote the peace process when it has problems. If everyone acted like this,
there would never be any progress. It would lead you right back to 1948
which is not in your interest, we believe.
QUESTION: Is the Secretary planning to attend the conference, as all her
predecessors have?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if she has made any scheduling decisions about
that. Of course, the United States believes in this conference. We will be
represented at the highest level. I am not trying to add any uncertainty
here. I just haven't talked to her about it. I am sure it is something that
is on her radar screen.
QUESTION: With all the focus on it and all the criticism for other
countries staying away, the Secretary would make a point of making her
first trip to the Middle East --
MR. BURNS: Well, she is in Prague, today. She is actually flying back
right now. Perhaps we can answer that question for you this week. There is
no reason for me to doubt that we are going to be represented at the very
highest level. I can't say for sure where she is going to be until I talk
to her or talk to her chief of staff.
QUESTION: You believe the summit will be helpful.
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: You believe the summit will be helpful?
MR. BURNS: We hope very much it will be helpful. We were in Cairo last
autumn. I don't know if you were with us, but it was a very successful
summit for the Egyptian Government and for the Egyptian people and for
Arabs in general. It may be that Arabs are getting just - or certainly true
that Arabs are getting just as much out of these summits as the Israelis
are. Again, you have to go back to economic self-interest here. It is very
important.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Bill.
QUESTION: Nick, I would like to ask you about the article Bob Woodward
had published yesterday, basically saying that FBI and CIA had cleared the
statements that Chairman Thompson had made.
MR. BURNS: I didn't read the article?
QUESTION: You didn't read that article?
MR. BURNS: No.
QUESTION: It was very significant. Let me ask you this. Has State
Department cleared or signed off on the allegations by Thompson that the
Chinese have been funneling money into --
MR. BURNS: Bill, you know I don't get involved in politics. I am not
aware at all if the State Department has been asked about this and I didn't
read the article.
QUESTION: Yeah, I read this article.
MR. BURNS: I didn't read the article. I was too busy reading about Roger
Clemens' 16 strikeouts against the Red Sox. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Colombia?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, Ambassador Frechette said that military aid
to Colombia will be withheld until the Colombian authorities sign an
understanding [regarding] any alleged violations of human rights by these
forces which will get the military aid. If there is any allegations by the
church or anything like that, that a specific individual within the Armed
Forces has violated the human rights of somebody, that person should be
removed from that unit he is serving and transplanted to some other
place. Basically, what that does, without due process, without an
investigation, what that would do according to the defense minister, and I
quote is, he says, "I cannot hand the Colombian system over, the
Colombian justice system over to the United States because, basically,
there wouldn't be any investigation, any due process." What is your
reaction to that?
MR. BURNS: I don't have the benefit of having seen Ambassador Frechette's
remarks. I would like to see them, first and obviously talk to our experts
in the Inter-American Affairs Bureau and then I will be glad to comment
tomorrow at the briefing on this issue. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Saturday, in Panama, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ricardo
Arias, said that last week Panama and the United States came to an
agreement to the formation of the multilateral anti-narcotics center in
Panama. He said it was a result of a meeting that happened here in
Washington. Could you confirm that? Could you give us some details about
how it's going to be, this center?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to take that question, as well. If you come to
the briefing tomorrow, I will be glad to talk to you about that. Yes,
sir?
QUESTION: Colombia, again. The U.S. Government asked today the Colombian
military to make distinction between guerrilla forces and narco-traffickers
as a condition to deliver the proposed aid to Colombia. Colombia says it
cannot make any difference in the field. Is this the U.S. requirement to
deliver this aid to Colombia?
MR. BURNS: Well, again, I think this is really a variation of the
question that was asked before. What I would like to do is have the
advantage of seeing our ambassador's remarks before I respond myself. Yes,
sir.
QUESTION: I want to go back to food assistance to North Korea.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Was this - your decision - to that decision is very generous, I
think. But it's a so-called short-term assistance, not long-term assistance.
But as you know, North Korea has asked for the so-called long-term food
assistance for them over and over whenever they had discussions with
officials of the United States. Perhaps probably they will ask again on
August 5th or when the four-way talks take place in the future. What do
you do? Do you accept to discuss on this issue? Or you are reluctant
to discuss long-term food assistance?
MR. BURNS: I am sure we are open to discussing anything. But our long-
term advice to the North Koreans - or advice for the long term is, reform
your economic and political system. The communist economic philosophy has
produced these shortages. They have been produced in every country where
communism has held sway - Cuba, the Soviet Union, China -- for many, many
decades. It doesn't work. So our long-term advice to the North Koreans is,
change your system, get rid of communism and allow market economics to take
place and you won't see these kinds of food shortages in North Korea.
We can only make these decisions as they come up, as the World Food Program
appeals. We have no plans for longer term food assistance that I am aware
of. But we remain interested in responding to appeals that we think will
help children and the elderly to cope with the clear famine that exists
there. Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 2:16 P.M.)
(###)
|
