U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #106, 97-07-15
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1282
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Tuesday, July 15, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors
1 Cease fire agreement in Congo-Brazzaville
1 Peru: Harassment of Baruch Ivcher
1-2 Helms' vs Albright's team baseball game
CYPRUS
3 Status of UN talks and outcome of meeting in NY
3 Richard Holbrook's schedule
CAMBODIA
3-5,6 Status of Prince Ranariddh
5-6 Conditions for continuation of US and international
aid
6 US contact with King Sihanouk
7-8 Hun Sen and involvement in drug activity
9 Vietnamese involvement in Cambodian Violence
IRAN
9 Loan from Germany and possible sanctions on Germany
TAIWAN
10 Lee Teng-Hui transit visa request
MIDDLE EAST
11 Plans for Sec. Albright to attend Doha summit
PERU
11-13 Harassment of Baruch Ivcher
COLOMBIA
13 Amb. Frechette statement on conditions for military
aid
13-14 US position on military aid and human rights
violations
14-16 Leahy Law and end-use monitoring
DEPARTMENT
16 Political Ambassadorial Appointments
NORTH KOREA
16-17 Status of food aid shipments
BOSNIA
17-18 Backlash from arresting war criminals toward SFOR
18 Additional security for Mme. Plavsic
20-21 Apprehension of war criminals
PANAMA
18-19 Agreement on multinational anti-narcotics center
SYRIA
19 US position on competing bills in House and Senate
KUWAIT
21-22 Purchase of Chinese military equipment
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #106
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1997 1:23 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department briefing. I want to welcome five interns from our Bureau of
Public Affairs who work with us, who are working with the press and others
this Summer - Laura Sawyer, Joseph Bradley, Cathy Quinones, Timothy Jenkins
and Denver Brunsman. Thanks for coming today.
I have a couple of statements. The first pertains to the situation in Congo,
Brazzaville. The United States welcomes the signing of the cease-fire
agreement July 14th between former president Sassou Nguesso and the
president and the government of Congo, Brazzaville, with the hope that it
will be implemented faithfully as an important first step towards bringing
peace to Congo, Brazzaville.
We strongly support the continuing mediation efforts of the United Nations
envoy, Mohammed Sahnoun, President Omar el Haj Bongo of Gabon and the mayor
of Brazzaville towards achieving a negotiated political settlement of the
present crisis. A clear commitment by the parties to settle political and
military issues, including elections, will be required before the United
States could consider favorably the deployment of a United Nations
peacekeeping force.
I also have a very short statement on Peru. Some of you may be aware of the
case of Baruch Ivcher. This is a case of a Peruvian media figure who is
being harassed and threatened with criminal prosecution for his television
station's reporting and commentary about Peruvian government officials and
the Peruvian military. This is an issue of concern to us.
It appears that the Peruvian Government is taking action to strip Mr.
Ivcher of his Peruvian citizenship for political reasons. These actions
raise fundamental questions of freedom of the press and freedom of
expression. The need to respect freedom of expression and of the press is
an essential element of democracy and support for democracy is and has been
a cornerstone of American foreign policy. If there are any credible
criminal or civil charges to be brought against Mr. Ivcher, we expect they
will be resolved in fair and open and quick court proceedings.
My last announcement has to do with the subject of baseball, but it's about
Madeleine Albright and baseball. This evening there's going to be a Game
for the Ages down on the Ellipse between a baseball team organized by
people here at the Department of State versus one organized by Senator
Helms. Oh, yes. The State Department team, which plays in a league on the
Ellipse, is called the All Brights. I understand that the Helms team is
called the Hitbillies. They named their own team.
QUESTION: What?
MR. BURNS: The Hitbillies.
QUESTION: Hillbillies?
MR. BURNS: Hit, hit, h-i-t, hit. You know, hit, like baseball - you get a
hit. Secretary Albright
will be at the game. She will not be playing; she will coach, she will
coach. She will wear a jersey with the number one on it. Senator Helms, I
understand, will also be at the game. This is going to be a fun match and
may the best team win.
QUESTION: What time is it?
MR. BURNS: Barry, 6:45 p.m.
QUESTION: What happens to - (inaudible) --
MR. BURNS: Actually, that's what - that's the - no, I'm just --
QUESTION: Do you know where this is going to be?
MR. BURNS: I don't know where specifically. The Ellipse, the Ellipse.
QUESTION: Will prospective nominees be in the on-deck circle?
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any prospective nominees who will be playing.
Actually, most of the State Department players are very young people --
first and second tour officers who are good baseball players.
QUESTION: Healthy?
MR. BURNS: Healthy, as opposed to prospective nominees who may not be
very healthy.
QUESTION: Plus, they know what side of their bread is buttered.
MR. BURNS: Absolutely, Barry. I mean, we expect to win this game. I had a
brief conversation with Mark Thiessen last night and we were trying to
figure out what we could wager on this game. We never came to a conclusion
of that conversation, but we're confident of victory tonight.
QUESTION: You could wager aid to China.
QUESTION: Well, what do you know about the schedule so far as it's fixed
or even probable, for efforts to resolve the Cyprus dispute? Have you got
some fixed notion now, when the two community leaders will meet, when Mr.
Holbrooke will come into - some stuff is coming out of the UN and I'm not
sure, you know, whether we can be sure of it.
MR. BURNS: Right. Well, first of all, we were very pleased by the talks
in Trout Beck, New York. We think they were a very good, useful, positive
start to get these two leaders together, and they had not met for three and
a half years. It is ironic. They have known each other for 47 years, but
they hadn't met for three years.
What happens next, we understand, is the possibility perhaps of some
informal meetings in Cyprus itself between the Turkish Cypriot leadership
and the Greek Cypriot leadership - the Cypriot Government, excuse me.
Following that, we understand that the United Nations would like to have a
second round of negotiations. That would be in the middle of August, I
believe, between the 11th and 15th of August. We very much support that. We
think there is no substitute for face-to-face discussions between President
Clerides and Mr. Denktash. We will put our full support behind Mr. Cardovez,
who is the UN special negotiator.
QUESTION: Do you know where those talks would be? Would they be in the
same location?
MR. BURNS: You'll have to check with the United Nations. I believe Geneva,
but please check on that.
QUESTION: Well, they're saying Geneva and I wondered if that or upstate
New York.
MR. BURNS: I think it is Geneva. Now, in advance of that, before that -
and I believe that would be the last week of July - our special negotiator,
Dick Holbrooke, plans to take a trip to European capitals where he would
like to consult with our European allies - the British and the French and
others - about the Cyprus problem; particularly the British because of the
great interest of the United Kingdom in this problem, their past association
with it and their current association in the person of Sir David Hannay,
who is a very astute, capable negotiator.
But Mr. Holbrooke will not be going to Cyprus or to Greece or Turkey before
the second round of UN talks. He still thinks it's appropriate to let the
United Nations certainly take the lead and that we should support the
United Nations. At some point after those talks, so at some point this
Autumn, I would imagine Dick Holbrooke will be making a trip to the Eastern
Mediterranean, but he has not scheduled it.
So we know this is a long road ahead. There are a great number of
challenges and barriers to progress, but we very much support this process
led by the United Nations and we want to reaffirm that today.
QUESTION: On another subject, continuing our conversation from yesterday
on Cambodia --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: One, have you confirmed the reported statements by King
Sihanouk that you were in doubt about yesterday? And second, more broadly,
does it look more and more as if Ranariddh is history?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, Jim, I can't confirm King Sihanouk's
remarks. I simply haven't seen them. I'm not aware of anybody in the East
Asia Bureau who's seen them. If they have, they haven't shown them to me. I
understand the reason why you ask the question, but I simply can't confirm
the remarks.
On the second question, we consider Prince Ranariddh to be the first prime
minister of Cambodia. We hope that Hun Sen will be open to further work and
collaboration at some point with Prince Ranariddh. We think that it's very
important that the political system remain pluralist, and not be dominated
by one party - namely Mr. Hun Sen's party, just because he holds military
power in Phnom Penh and throughout most of the country. We think the wishes
of the Cambodian people, as expressed in the 1993 election, ought
to be honored by Hun Sen; and that is to allow Prince Ranariddh's political
party and Prince Ranariddh to remain active in Cambodian politics.
QUESTION: Would it satisfy the U.S. five points if somebody from
Ranariddh's party, but not Ranariddh himself, would enter into some kind of
power-sharing arrangement with Hun Sen?
MR. BURNS: That's a decision that Prince Ranariddh and his party would
have to make, free of intimidation. We'd never want to participate in any
kind of pressure or leverage against him to motivate him towards that. It's
entirely his decision to make, along with his political party leadership.
The important thing is that Cambodia remain an open country with elections
in May of 1998. I see that Hun Sen today publicly said that he would
support elections for next May. We very much agree with that, but we don't
want to see one-party elections. We don't want to see elections that are
not free and fair. We want to see elections where Prince Ranariddh and his
associates can compete should they desire to do so.
QUESTION: Well, just narrowing the question down, would it be in
conformity with the five points which you have raised - which Ambassador
Quinn has raised with Hun Sen that a member of Ranariddh's party, but not
Ranariddh himself, would be in this power-sharing arrangement?
MR. BURNS: What is most important, obviously, putting aside personalities
- I think that's what you're asking. What is most important is that the
system remain pluralist, open and democratic and that certainly Prince
Ranariddh's political party be allowed to participate in the elections and
be allowed to function, obviously, in advance of the elections and to
participate in the government; because they won the elections in 1993.
I would not include us in any kind of effort to try to convince Prince
Ranariddh to make one decision or the other. It's entirely his right, and
he ought to have the freedom to do this - to make whatever decision he
wishes concerning his own personal political future. We're not going to be
in a position to stand aside, if that's what you're asking. He ought to be
free to make that decision - whether to participate or not - on his
own.
QUESTION: Nick, given the things that Hun Sen has said over the last
couple of days, which seem to track pretty well in many ways with the U.S.
songbook, including this idea that there would be elections in May and they
would be "free and fair," does the United States at this point believe
that continued aid to Cambodia is likely? I mean, given the fact that
he has said nice things publicly in a rhetorical sense, is your inclination
- I mean, you made a comment earlier about you hope that Hun Sen will be
open to collaboration at some point. You seem to be quite willing to accept
the status quo, which is Hun Sen in the power seat, and look to the future
to some sort of political change, if it ever comes. So given that, do you
intend to continue aid?
MR. BURNS: I don't agree with the premise of your question. That's not
the way I would describe U.S. policy. We are not content with the status
quo. How could we be? The status quo has overturned the democratically
elected foundation of the government and it repudiates the will of the
Cambodian people. So we're not satisfied, and we expect that a lot of
Cambodians aren't satisfied either.
The question of aid is an important one. We've said that we'd give it 30
days, dating back to last week. We will do so. At the end of that 30-day
period, the Secretary and all of her advisors will have to get together to
decide how to go forward. I know that we would very much like to keep going,
keep operational those portions of the aid program that benefit people but
not the government. I don't think you'll see us embracing Hun Sen and
giving him billions of dollars or millions of dollars for his own personal
use. We won't do that at all. I don't anticipate you'll see a lot of
government-to-government aid. But there are a lot of activities, such as de-
mining activities - and when Secretary Albright was ambassador to the
United Nations, she visited that to look at that program. She very much
believes in that effort worldwide.
We'll try to find ways to help the Cambodian people. That's an important
proposition here.
QUESTION: Are you prepared, though - when you say there won't be
government-to-government aid and that you have no intention of seeing Hun
Sen reap the benefits of billions of dollars in aid, as Cambodia has gotten
over the last few years, are you saying then that the United States is
working with the international community to deny him this government-to-
government aid that is basically, the country has been so dependent
upon?
MR. BURNS: The question of - if you want to extend beyond our bilateral
relationship, the question of multilateral assistance or international
assistance is an important question. We are looking at that question, but
have not come to any conclusions with our partners around the world.
QUESTION: Nick, the suspension is for 30 days?
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: When did that - I mean, is the clock running on that?
MR. BURNS: Yeah, it's nearly a week.
QUESTION: Nearly a week. But that's all it is right now - 30 days?
MR. BURNS: That's right, that's right.
QUESTION: And do any - have American diplomats tried to get in touch with
Sihanouk to find out what his position is, or is he probably relevant to
the process?
MR. BURNS: There's no question that King Sihanouk is relevant to what's
happening in Cambodia. We believe he's a respected figure who should have a
role, obviously, in what happens in Cambodia, particularly at a time like
this when there's a political crisis which threatens to broaden into civil
war.
Whether or not Americans have talked to him, I'd have to check. I think
he's in Beijing. I believe he's in Beijing. Whether or not Ambassador
Sasser has spoken to him, I don't know. If any emissaries - I don't believe
we've sent any emissaries to Beijing, but I'll check that for you.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Nick, does the U.S. put any credence in Hun Sen's charges that
Prince Ranariddh and his party were introducing Khmer Rouge soldiers into
Phnom Penh and that was, in part, what precipitated his action?
MR. BURNS: We have said before that we felt it was a mistake, a tactical
mistake for Prince Ranariddh to seek a closer relationship with the Khmer
Rouge, to engage in a flirtation with the Khmer Rouge. But whether or not
that extended to actually introducing troops into Phnom Penh, I do not
know. I believe there's a lot of speculation. There's a lot of argumentation
on both sides of that issue if you talk to people who are observers and
even some people in the government. I'm not sure that we know how the
violence of a week ago this past weekend unfolded, who fired first.
But putting all that aside, because we can't answer that question - only
Hun Sen and Ranariddh can answer that question - there is no justification
for the type of widespread use of force in which Hun Sen engaged and has
engaged since then. The reports of arrests and executions, the threats --
the open, public threats against Prince Ranariddh should he return to
Cambodia -- all these are unacceptable to us and, I should note, a
violation of Cambodia's constitution and to any kind of internationally
respected norms about proper behavior in a democracy.
So whether Ranariddh's forces shot first or Hun Sen's - and there is an
open debate about this and an open question about it - we simply can not
sit back and acquiesce and be quiet and not respond to these very serious
charges that Hun Sen now has brought against himself.
QUESTION: But there is a relevance to those questions, isn't it? I mean -
MR. BURNS: There is a relevance but, Judd, we can not go back and
reconstruct all the events of that weekend. You've got competing versions
of what happened, on who fired first. I'm not sure we'll ever get to the
bottom of that.
QUESTION: I wonder if this is sort of a nuance shift here. Yesterday you
reported the ambassador talked to this fellow and that, you know, you were
hopeful that he would observe democratic principles. Based on his
performance, you don't sound so hopeful to me.
MR. BURNS: No, actually, that's not what I said yesterday. I did not say -
QUESTION: We're looking -
MR. BURNS: -- that we hoped he would.
QUESTION: That's true, but you're also hopeful.
MR. BURNS: He should.
QUESTION: He should, of course he should.
MR. BURNS: Now, I did note yesterday - and I would like to do this again
today. It's important that there be unity between a statesman's words and
his actions. The words are beautiful over the pat 48 hours -- the private
assurances to Ambassador Quinn, the two press conferences that have been
held over the last 24 hours by Hun Sen. But whether or not he can match
those words in reality with his actions is a very big test for him.
Right now, he is not doing very well on that score because there are still
press reports -- a lot of press reports and a lot of other reports beyond
the press -- that there have been people rounded up, both generals allied
with Prince Ranariddh, politicians allied with him, and there have been
executions. There is a public threat that he has made against Prince
Ranariddh. He said he is welcome to come back and we'll put him on trial if
he comes back. Those are not the words of a statesman, and the threatened
actions are certainly not consistent with what we would hope would
take place in Cambodia.
QUESTION: Have you been able to answer the question of whether or not Hun
Sen is engaged in drug trafficking?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have seen the charges and I was asked, I think,
Friday. I have asked our experts and they tell me that, to the best of our
knowledge, we have no evidence that would link Hun Sen to drug trafficking.
To the best of our knowledge, we would have no evidence. There is obviously
lots of drug trafficking underway in Cambodia, but that is our position.
QUESTION: Then what did the United States mean in its 1997 narcotics
report when it said - it talked about corruption and drug activity that
involved official levels of the - high levels of the government?
MR. BURNS: Right. I went back and looked at that again yesterday as well,
anticipating your question. It was a vaguely worded statement made in our
human rights report. Excuse me, I think it was in the drug report,
narcotics report. I cannot point you to any direct evidence that we have
that Hun Sen personally has been involved in narcotics trafficking. Now,
whether or not members of his political party or associates of his has,
that is another question; I'd have to look into that. I haven't been
asked about that. But certainly there's a lot of drug trafficking underway
in Cambodia these days.
QUESTION: Well, maybe that statement was incorrect, then; maybe the
report was wrong?
MR. BURNS: Which statement?
QUESTION: The drug report was wrong, maybe.
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not taking issue with that report. I'm just noting it
in general - it's a very general comment. It doesn't give names; it doesn't
make specific charges. I'm not working that statement back in any way. But
the question to me today is, is Hun Sen involved in drug trafficking? We
have no direct evidence that he is. But it's still, obviously, a matter of
great concern for us because along with Burma, Cambodia is a country with
a significant narcotics problem.
QUESTION: Well, a lot of times, the United States is --
MR. BURNS: In Southeast Asia.
QUESTION: -- doesn't have direct evidence of a lot of things and yet it
has insinuations or suggestions or hints or whatever, and thereby has
concern. So the fact that you have no direct evidence of Hun Sen, how
categorical should we take that? I mean, are there less than direct
evidence of Hun Sen's involvement?
MR. BURNS: You should take that as a very clear statement. We have no
direct evidence of his involvement. We normally don't accuse world leaders,
leaders of countries of being involved in narcotics if we don't have the
evidence. Now, in the case of Colombia, for instance, we have made the
accusations about involvement with the narco-traffickers on the part of
President Samper. That's because we have evidence. But in the case of
Cambodia, I can't say that we have that evidence. It doesn't mean it
doesn't exist; it means we don't have it. I'm trying to be as helpful and
as open as possible.
QUESTION: Do you have any evidence now that there was any Vietnamese
involvement in the violence that broke out a week ago in Cambodia?
MR. BURNS: No, we have no evidence of that.
QUESTION: Do you have any evidence that Hun Sen was supported, either
logistically or politically by Vietnam?
MR. BURNS: We have no evidence of that.
QUESTION: Nick, is there an - from Germany on the possible loan to Iran
to develop Persian Gulf project?
MR. BURNS: I don't have any further information on that, Barry. I have as
much as I gave you yesterday. I know that we have consulted with the German
Government. We'll continue to do that in private. But I should note that we
are not aware that this loan has been made. We're aware that it's under
consideration. But that's a concern of ours and we've made that clear to
the German authorities.
QUESTION: Has the Cuban Government called up American diplomats in Havana,
as you suggested, and give them any evidence?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe we received any phone calls, even though we
gave out the number yesterday of the State Department Operations Center -
647-1512. It's never busy.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: They're there 24 hours a day. The phone always rings. I don't
believe Castro's called with any evidence linking Americans to these
bombings in Havana. The baseball team didn't show up. They're opting
out.
QUESTION: It's the Yankee farm team --
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: It's the Yankee farm team, you know.
MR. BURNS: They're good players. We'd like to have them play in the
United States.
QUESTION: Do the Cubans get to play the winner of the Albrights and the
Hitbillies?
MR. BURNS: Well, listen, if they wanted to come any play, we'll take all
comers. But it's slow pitch softball versus baseball.
QUESTION: On the Taiwan visa issue, have you gotten a request from Taiwan
for a transit visa for its president, is the first question. And yesterday's
question was, if you haven't gotten a formal request, have there been
informal conversations between the two?
MR. BURNS: Right. Well, I note that even this morning there are press
reports emanating from Taipei that President Lee Teng-Hui plans to attend
the Universal Panama Canal Congress in September at Panama's invitation. I
can tell you I checked right up to the time I came out - we have not
received any request from the Taiwan authorities for a transit visa. I am
not aware of any specific conversations about them pertaining to this
request. I'm not aware of it.
QUESTION: Have you checked the airlines to see if there's a way to get to
Panama without stopping --
MR. BURNS: I have not checked with the airlines.
QUESTION: Because there never seems to be a way to get anyplace, except
to stop in the United States.
MR. BURNS: So we are --
QUESTION: Direct travel to Panama, is that possible?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Is there a way to get to Panama without stopping?
MR. BURNS: From Taipei?
QUESTION: Well, yeah.
MR. BURNS: You would have to ask your travel agent, Barry. Maybe you can
consult him.
QUESTION: I think I will because, darn it, there always has to be U.S.
trans-- stop, doesn't there? Yeah.
MR. BURNS: So, we have no requests from the Taiwan authorities for a
transit visa for Lee Teng-Hui. Should one come forward, obviously, we would
have to look at it in the framework of our policy, which is that transit
visas are issued for the safety and the comfort and the convenience of the
traveler on a case-by-case basis. That has always been our policy, as you
know.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Did you check with the Secretary on whether she intends to go
to the Middle East, North Africa --
MR. BURNS: You know, I did. You guys put me in a difficult position
yesterday because I hadn't talked to her. But I went and talked to her
today and she said she plans to attend. It is very likely she is going to
lead our -
QUESTION: Where?
MR. BURNS: The Doha Summit, the Middle East economic summit that will be
held - I believe it's November of this - sometime in November in Doha. It
will be the fourth summit and she does plan to lead the U.S. delegation.
Let's be fair now. Now you have to give me my due. That should demonstrate
to you the commitment that the United States has to this summit and the
reason why we think that Arab countries should attend this summit; very
important. We expect that the government of Israel will be invited and, of
course, would attend.
QUESTION: Will she go elsewhere in the region?
MR. BURNS: She hasn't made any plans.
QUESTION: Does that look like her first trip --
MR. BURNS: You know, it's several months away. Excuse me?
QUESTION: As it stands now, would that be her first trip to the
area?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's very hard to say, Barry. We've got three or four
months between - four months between now and the Doha Summit. In foreign
policy, that's just too long a period to predict.
QUESTION: But she knows to go to this because of the significance?
MR. BURNS: It's scheduled, and Secretary Christopher went to the first
three summits, as you know.
QUESTION: Can we jump to Peru? I have a few questions on Peru.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: First thing, regarding your statement, you mentioned that this
is - there might be credible allegations or that there could be credible
allegations on illegal actions by Mr. Ivcher. Do you have more information
about that, because this is new on the Peruvian press. We have not heard of
any accusations against Mr. Ivcher besides what -- there were speculations
on other sources.
MR. BURNS: Well, all I can tell you is that he understands - and I think
his attorneys understand - that he is being threatened to have his
citizenship taken from him because of statements that he has made as a
journalist on television. That charge and that threat to take away his
citizenship seems to us to be rather excessive, given the fact that we
would hope Peru would be dedicated to freedom of the press. We are
dedicated to freedom of the press, and we want to reaffirm that internationally.
QUESTION: But you suggest that it could be credible -- other problems
that Mr. Ivcher has with the Peruvian law. That is what I understood from
your statement. And that if there would be - that there are other problems
between Mr. Ivcher and the Peruvian law. If these are credible, they should
be brought out and judged -
MR. BURNS: We are saying that nothing should be done in a back room. If
the Peruvian government believes that he has violated Peruvian law, they
ought to say so. If he has violated the law and there are reasons to bring
him to trial then, obviously, the Peruvian government has that option. But
they seem to be operating differently. We object, of course, to any
stripping of someone's citizenship because of his political views. That is
not democratic. That doesn't respect fundamental press freedoms. It is
certainly contrary to what we hope the Peruvian Government would be
committed to.
QUESTION: Now, in your statement I didn't pick anything up regarding the
illegal wire tapping of members of the press.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me? The legal wire tapping?
QUESTION: Illegal wire tapping.
MR. BURNS: Illegal wire tapping.
QUESTION: Which was a big thing over the weekend down there. Do you have
any comment about that?
MR. BURNS: I don't have any comment on that, no.
QUESTION: But are you looking into these other events that also attempt
against freedom of expression or freedom of the press?
MR. BURNS: We always want to safeguard freedom of the press in all of its
dimensions, yes.
QUESTION: And one last question. You mentioned - I mean, you bring up
this issue about Mr. Ivcher it appears to be as an isolated event when for
us it looks that there are a chain of events pointed in the same direction -
- stripping opposition members of freedom of expression and freedom of the
press rights. Do you see this as an isolated event or is this something a
little more complicated than that?
MR. BURNS: Well, we wanted to speak about this today because it is an
important case and it is an important test for the Peruvian government, so
we have done so. Are there other problems in Peru? Yes, there are. You
might consult our human rights report. We catalog them there.
QUESTION: Colombia?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I wonder if you have any guidance on my question yesterday
regarding the remarks by Ambassador Frechette over the weekend?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I do, and thank you. We did look into that overnight. We
and the Colombians believe that an effective effort against narcotics
trafficking in Colombia and respect for human rights are compatible goals.
They are individual goals but we believe they are compatible. This is one
of the reasons that we insist on end-use monitoring for material that we
deliver for anti-narcotics cooperation, not just in Colombia but all
over the world. That is consistent with the Leahy Amendment.
We want to make sure that these materials that we, in this case, extend to
police authorities for use in our anti-narcotics operations are used
properly and are not used improperly in other activities of the police and
the military in Colombia. We are asking the government of Colombia to take
certain steps in the end-use monitoring agreement to ensure that U.S.
assistance does not go to units which do not respect human rights.
We hope to reach an agreement with the government of Colombia on this
issue. We are working very hard on it. If I were you, I would treat
Ambassador Frechette's remarks as indicative of our very great concern
about this issue.
QUESTION: The problem seems to be, though, that what the United States
Government wants is a signed agreement by which any violations or alleged
violations of human rights in Colombia by any organization - as I said, the
church or non-governmental organizations - when there is somebody who is
even suspected of human rights violations, this person should be removed
from whatever unit he is serving in and somebody else should be put in
place. Basically what happens is that that is skipping the whole due
process that is demanded by the law, and that is a problem that the
Colombian government apparently has with that.
MR. BURNS: That is your question? Is that a statement or is that your
question?
QUESTION: Well, basically, it's both. What is your opinion on that? Is
that the case? Is that what the United States wants?
MR. BURNS: What the United States wants is to make sure that when we
transfer weaponry and other lethal and non-lethal equipment to the
government of Colombia, it's used for the reasons for which we are
transferring it -- anti-narcotics operations -- , that it is not used
improperly by those who may be violating the human rights of a variety of
people in Colombia. That is an important consideration.
It seems to us you can't have it both ways. If you want this assistance
from us, you do have to agree on the limited use of the equipment. We are
not willing to enter into an agreement that allows Colombia to use the
equipment for other reasons, which we find incompatible with the reasons
for the transfer in the first place - namely, use of force or excessive use
of force that may, in fact, violate the human rights of a variety of people
in Colombia.
QUESTION: So --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: A good number of congressmen --
MR. BURNS: Yes, he's --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: He's got a question.
QUESTION: A good number of congressman in the United States argue that
the Leahy law does not apply to this assistance that is about to be given
to Colombia. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. BURNS: We believe the Leahy Amendment is in effect, and we follow
it.
QUESTION: Has the United States at any point delayed the giving of aid to
Colombia?
MR. BURNS: I would have to check for you. You mean in the past have we
delayed the assistance?
QUESTION: This specific aid.
MR. BURNS: Because of concerns?
QUESTION: This specific aid - the two packages that are --
MR. BURNS: I would have to check for you. I'll do that.
QUESTION: Nick, what specific steps is the U.S. asking them to take? And
are you, in essence, saying that we will not provide the aid unless they
agree to this document that you all want them to?
MR. BURNS: Sid, we have to be consistent with our law, and we intend to
do that. So we intend to make sure that there is monitoring of the use of
this equipment. We will do that. We hope to work out ways by which that can
be done with the Colombian Government in a written agreement which we are
now seeking to negotiate with them. I would rather keep those negotiations
and some of the specific steps we are asking them to take confidential
at the present time until this agreement is completed, if we can complete
it.
QUESTION: And if it's not completed, the aid won't go forward?
MR. BURNS: I assume that's the case. We have to have an agreement to
assure ourselves that there is end-use monitoring.
QUESTION: And would it be fair to say that the aid package has been
suspended until they sign this agreement?
MR. BURNS: I wouldn't use that word. I don't know what is happening in
the pipeline right now, so I am not going to use that word. But we are
certainly negotiating this difference right now. There is a clear
difference of opinion.
QUESTION: Are you doing the same with Mexico and with Bolivia and with
all countries? You are requesting a written agreement that this - with this
kind of --
MR. BURNS: We insist on end-use monitoring for material that we deliver
all over the world, not just in Colombia. We are not picking on Colombia.
We are trying to be consistent with American law, which is the obligation
of this government.
QUESTION: But in this case you are requesting a written agreement?
MR. BURNS: We normally have written agreements. When we have a defense
relationship, or when we provide lethal or non-lethal equipment, we write
that down. We don't do it on a handshake. We write down the terms of the
transfer, the uses for which the equipment will be put into play. There's
nothing unusual about this.
QUESTION: Now, are there certain units or certain individuals you don't
want to have access to this equipment? Is that part of the - something you
are seeking?
MR. BURNS: Well, if there are units that have been found to have violated
the human rights of the people of Colombia, then of course, we would be
very leery of working with those units.
QUESTION: Is there sort of a blanket statement that this equipment won't
be used by people who have been accused of human rights - people or units
who have been accused of human rights violations?
MR. BURNS: The reason to monitor the use of the equipment is to assure
yourself that the equipment is used in a way that is compatible with our
law and with the purposes of the program that we are engaged in, and not to
be used, for instance, in other activities such as activities that could be
construed to be or are violations of humans rights of the people of
Colombia.
QUESTION: That's not what I asked.
MR. BURNS: No, it was what you asked. I answered your question.
QUESTION: I asked there were specific individuals or specific units that
will appear in this agreement that will be barred from using this
equipment?
MR. BURNS: Oh, I didn't hear appear in this agreement. I'm sorry, if that,
in fact, is what you said. I don't know the answer to that question.
Betsy.
QUESTION: There was an article recently in The Dallas Morning News, which
listed five Democratic contributors who went to coffees at the White House
and who now possibly may be awarded ambassadorships because of contributions.
How does this building feel about this practice, Nick?
MR. BURNS: I couldn't possibly comment on that, Betsy, because I have no
idea what the facts are - no idea. The only proper person to comment on
ambassadorial appointments would be, well, Mike McCurry of the White House.
The White House announces ambassadorial appointments. I don't know if these
individuals that you are referring to have been nominated. I don't know
so I can't comment.
QUESTION: Do you have any more information on the North Korea food
assistance?
MR. BURNS: More information on the --
QUESTION: Shipments.
MR. BURNS: Shipments? No, I don't believe we have. Since we just
announced this yesterday, I don't believe we have information about which
ships will be carrying which tonnage of grain. I know that we gave you a
lot of information yesterday. I know that the assistance is going to
include 5,000 metric tons of corn soya blend; 10,000 metric tons of rice;
30,000 metric tons of corn, for instance. That is of the 45,000 tons that
is going to be given immediately to the World Food Program.
We believe that in the shipment schedule, the commodities might be able to
reach North Korea by late August and will cover that period between late
August and the harvest period in North Korea, which should be a critical
period for those people suffering from the famine.
QUESTION: Do you all have an opinion on whether this harvest might - what
might happen with this harvest? Have you been looking at that at all?
MR. BURNS: Well, I am sure there are people in this government that do
look at that, but I am not aware of what their estimates are. Laura.
QUESTION: On Bosnia.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: In recent days, there have been attacks on OSCE facilities and
vehicles in Bosnia. And these attacks have been linked to Bosnian Serbs who
are expressing their anger at the recent detention last week for war crimes
of one individual and the killing of another and then the sentence that was
handed down on Monday. Do you have any information about the attacks?
And is there some concern that the backlash that the Administration
feared -- should these more aggressive attempts at arresting more criminals
take place, that there would be a backlash against NATO forces?
MR. BURNS: President Clinton spoke to this this morning when he said
there is no call for retaliation; there is no reason for retaliation
against SFOR because we are implementing the Dayton accords. That just
makes sense. The Bosnian Serbs need to understand they signed the accords,
they have got to live by them. They promised to turn over the war criminals,
they didn't do it. Therefore, we have absolute right to take this action
that we have taken.
We have put the Republika Srpska police and political leaders on notice
that they are responsible for maintaining law and order in Republika
Srpska. We have sufficient number of troops there to do that if they can't
do it. But they ought to do it because it is in their self-interest to do
so. Our embassy in Sarajevo and SFOR troops are on a heightened state of
alert as they have announced today, I believe, in the region. But we will
obviously protect our people and our forces will protect themselves if
necessary. But I'd lead you back to the President's statement which was
very clear this morning on this issue.
QUESTION: Have there been any threats made - specific threats - to the
American embassy or to any facilities that you're aware of?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if there have been threats made specifically in
the last couple of days; I just don't know. But the embassy is in a
heightened state of alert because of the political situation. There have
been some minor demonstrations in Banja Luka, in Brcko. There are some
people in Brcko who seem to think that Arkan is a hero. We think that Arkan
is a criminal. We will protect ourselves, obviously, if need be. The
Bosnian Serbs ought to understand that it's not in their interest to engage
in any kind of retaliation because they will suffer.
QUESTION: Nick, I'm sorry, just a final question - do you know if there
is any security that is being afforded Madame Plavsic, as has been
suggested by some since she is in this political struggle with Karadzic and
--
MR. BURNS: I didn't get the question, Laura, I'm sorry. Can you repeat
it?
QUESTION: Has she been - there have been some suggestions that Mrs.
Plavsic should get some kind of security from NATO forces because of
threats made to her by opposition within her own party.
MR. BURNS: You'll have to address that to SFOR. I'm just not aware of the
particulars.
QUESTION: You said troops and embassy staff are on a heightened state of
alert, or just --
MR. BURNS: The U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo and SFOR troops, yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday I asked you about Panama and --
MR. BURNS: That's right.
QUESTION: -- and formal conversations between Panama and the United
States.
MR. BURNS: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Could you announce --
MR. BURNS: I remember your question was about statements made by the
foreign minister of Panama. What I can tell you is that - this is on our
anti-narcotics, again, efforts - that we have not reached an agreement on
the establishment of a multinational counter-narcotics center. We have held
a series of informal discussions about this. It's a good concept. We want
it to work, and we intend to continue discussions with the Panamanians
about this.
We have some specific ideas that we're ready to put forward, and we assume
the Panamanians are willing to talk as well. This is in the larger context,
obviously, of what we're doing with the Panamanians to continue talking
about the Canal and bases and so forth - that larger issue, which is very
much in play right now.
QUESTION: But are you prepared to open formal conversations with them?
Sit down and talk to them formally?
MR. BURNS: We're very much prepared to develop the specific ideas in
formal conversations, based on these informal discussions that we've
already had, yes.
QUESTION: Could you be more specific about what are the issues that you
are not agreed with them?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't think that's in our interest to do that because we
want to succeed in these negotiations. Sometimes the best way to do that is
to enforce some confidentiality in the conversations.
QUESTION: The president is coming to Washington Thursday. Are you going
to meet him or is there going to be any kind of meetings?
MR. BURNS: Let me take that question and see if we can get a schedule of
his meetings here in Washington. There certainly will be meetings, yes,
there certainly will be.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Talal, yes.
QUESTION: On June the 17th, the Senate passed HR 1757, which is the State
Department Authorization Bill. Now, Section 1645 prohibits all financial
transactions with Syria, except for fuel. However, the House of Representatives
has passed a different version of HR 1757, which in effect, does not
prohibit financial transactions with Syria. The conference committee must
meet to work out all the differences between the two bills. Now, the
U.S. State Department, we understand, opposes Section 1645. And you
described once the Jerusalem bill as bad foreign policy by the Congress
from this rostrum. Would you call this bad foreign policy as well?
MR. BURNS: I'll have to check. I just don't know where this particular
issue stands. I'll have to check for you.
QUESTION: Nick, from general experience, Syria's not eligible for any
type of U.S. assistance since it's on the terrorist list, right?
MR. BURNS: Syria is on the terrorism list and it's also - Syria is on two
lists of ours, but I would have to check. What you are asking, Talal, is
what is the U.S. position on these competing bills which have not yet gone
to conference in the House with the House and Senate. I just have to check
with our legislative people to see where we are on that.
QUESTION: Nick, thanks.
MR. BURNS: I've got some more questions, Barry. I'm sorry. Yes?
QUESTION: Could I get you to speak on Bosnia just for a moment?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: There was an open letter to the President in the paper this
morning put there, as you undoubtedly know, by a bunch of organizations and
individuals - Senator Dole is among them, former Secretary Schultz is among
them - pointing out that although from this podium you and others have
called upon participants in the Dayton Accords to fulfill their duty to
apprehend and turn over indicted war criminals, they have clearly said,
according to this letter, that they are not going to do it and, therefore,
the duty has to devolve upon NATO and SFOR and the United States.
Do you have anything that you have seen that indicates that there are any
of these participants who are, in fact, willing to apprehend these people
and turn them over?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What would that be?
MR. BURNS: President Izetbegovic has turned over Muslim citizens of his
country to the War Crimes Tribunal, people who have been indicted; and we
commend him for that. He is fulfilling his responsibilities and commitments.
By and large, President Tudjman is not. By and large, although there have
been some actions by the Croatian Government just recently -- over the last
month there has been one transfer -- but there are other areas where
the Croatian Government has fallen down. The Serbs and Bosnian Serbs have
failed completely and miserably, and they have not met any of their
commitments on the war crimes provisions of the Dayton Accords.
QUESTION: Would that call then for the U.S. and its allies to take action
upon itself, then, that involves strictly --
MR. BURNS: IFOR and SFOR have always had the authority, since they began
this mission in December of 1995, to detain war criminals and to transfer
them to The Hague. We've always had it. There is no need to create new
authority. It is there. The British exercised it last week, with very
successful results.
QUESTION: Have you got any remarks on the stunning victory by President
Milosevic in the elections to be president of Yugoslavia?
MR. BURNS: Has he won a stunning victory?
QUESTION: Yes, he did.
MR. BURNS: And I'm sure he had no competition because he is an autocrat
and doesn't choose to have competition.
QUESTION: How is he doing financially?
MR. BURNS: Financially?
QUESTION: What is the state of - I mean - (inaudible) --
MR. BURNS: I have no idea.
QUESTION: -- where he and his cohorts have socked away a lot of
money.
MR. BURNS: Well, the Serbian economy is failing.
QUESTION: Yeah, but not his.
MR. BURNS: No, right. I mean, Milosevic and his colleagues have enriched
themselves in Belgrade at the expense of the great majority of the Serbian
people in a command economy which has not been reformed since the fall of
the Berlin wall and the end of communism. They are still governing like
politburo apparatchiks and not governing the way that most other Central
Europeans are now governing themselves - free market economics, letting
other people enrich themselves, not just the ruling few. So it is
a very sad story, Barry.
QUESTION: Well, I hate to turn tables on you, but if that is the case,
what good are the sanctions against Serbia?
MR. BURNS: What good are the sanctions?
QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, if the people are getting hurt and the leaders
are doing fine, maybe the approach isn't all that sound.
MR. BURNS: Sanctions are sometimes blunt and imperfect instruments, and
this may be one of the cases. But, nevertheless, if you talk to Milosevic
as a journalist or as a diplomat, what he will tell you is that what he is
seeking beyond enriching himself, he is seeking international ties with the
international financial institutions. He is seeking - and he brings this up
- sporting ties -- international sports associations. We are denying
him some of these because he wants them and we think that that's some
leverage that we may have over him.
Now, whether or not that leverage is successful, we will have to see. It
may or may not be. It is sure worth the try. It is better than just
standing aside and doing nothing when the Serbs are not fulfilling the
Dayton Accords in many respects.
QUESTION: Nick, can you comment on The Washington Post report today that
Kuwait is planning to buy 72 Howitzer guns from China under pressure of the
-
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know what the facts are, but all I know is that
American military weaponry is, in almost all cases, superior to Chinese. So
if the Kuwaitis are actually interested in getting the best equipment, they
ought to buy American. Look at the results of the war to liberate Kuwait.
We had a war to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. We saved Kuwait, we
saved the royal family and we saved the economy and the structure
of the society as Kuwait knows it. We assume that Kuwait hasn't forgotten
that. And we assume that Kuwait reads Jane's and other defense industry
publications that clearly will tell you that American military armaments
are better -- superior in quality and efficiency and reliability -- than
Chinese or any other in Europe. So if the Kuwaitis are interested in
actually improving their military capabilities, they ought to buy
American.
QUESTION: But the paper is arguing that they are doing it to appease the
Chinese so they will vote for them in October to extend Iraq sanctions.
MR. BURNS: When it comes to national defense - and the Kuwaitis should
know this - when it comes to national defense, you would think they would
want to buy the best equipment, wouldn't you?
QUESTION: Maybe they have enough money to buy both.
MR. BURNS: Well, they ought to buy American, Barry. That's all I can say.
They ought to buy American.
(The briefing concluded at 2:10 P.M.)
(###)
|
