U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #107, 97-07-16
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
430
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, July 16, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Secretary Albright's Activities:
1 --7/16-Mtg. w/Swedish FM Hjelm-Wallen
1-2 --7/17-Denver; 7/23--Los Angeles
1-2,15-16 --7/26-7/29--ASEAN Regional Forum/Post-Ministerial
Conference
1-2 --7/29-30-Singapore
2 Statement on U.S. Panama Talks/Relations
2 State Department/Senate Baseball Game/Rematch
2-3 Support for Nomination of Governor William
Weld-Ambassador to Mexico
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
4-8 French Position on SFOR Detention of War Criminals/
Tribunal
9 Stabbing of American Soldier
NORTH/SOUTH KOREA
9-11 North Korean Soldiers Cross Demilitarized Zone
LIBYA
11-12 UN Sanctions
LEBANON
12 U.S. Review of Travel Restrictions
MIDDLE EAST
12 Doha Summit
SYRIA
12-13 U.S. Senate Legislation re: Syria
CYPRUS
13 Reported Visit of Turkish Deputy PM to Cyprus
13-14 UN Talks on Cyprus
CAMBODIA
14-16 Reports of Arrests/Intimidations/Executions/ of
Cambodians/FUNCINPEC
16-17 U.S. Aid/U.S. Embassy Assistance to American
Citizens
TURKEY/GREECE
17-18 U.S. Delegation to Region re: Discussion of
U.S. Relations
NIGERIA
18 Reports re: Recent Bombings in Lagos
CUBA
18-19 Allegations of U.S./American Participation in Recent
Bombings
GERMANY
19 Report of Decision to Create U.S.-German Air Defense
Unit
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #107
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997 1:20 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. Welcome back to the State Department for our
daily press briefing. Secretary Albright is going to be seeing the Swedish
Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Hjelm-Wallen at 3:30 p.m. this
afternoon. That is a press opportunity, an open press opportunity. They
will have statements and they will take a couple of questions from all of
you. That is at 3:30 p.m. upstairs in the Treaty Room.
Starting tomorrow, the Secretary is going to take a long weekend with her
family, with her daughters at her home in Colorado. She will be back, I
think, on Tuesday, next Tuesday before she leaves next Wednesday. On
Wednesday, July 23rd, the Secretary will be traveling from Washington to
Los Angeles. She is going to spend the better part of the afternoon in Los
Angeles. I will be in touch with you about the details of her schedule in
Los Angeles. There's likely to be one or two public events there. Then she
goes on from Los Angeles to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia for the ASEAN Regional
Forum and the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference. The Secretary will be
leading the United States delegation from July 26th to July 29th to both of
those fora. The ASEAN Regional Forum is now in its fourth year. Foreign
Ministers from 20 countries, including China, Japan and Russia, as well as
the European Union, will meet to exchange views on the political and
security situation in the Asia-Pacific region.
Following the ASEAN Regional Forum, she will participate and lead our
delegation to the Post Ministerial Conference where we have a dialogue with
the ASEAN countries on our relationship with them, on the economic and
security and political situation, atmosphere issues in Southeast Asia.
Following her visit to Kuala Lumpur, the Secretary will also visit
Singapore on July 29 and July 30th. This will be the first visit by a
Secretary of State to Singapore during this Administration. The Secretary
will review with the senior Singaporean leaders the full range of our very
strong relationship, which encompasses a very healthy trade and economic
relationship and a very active political and security cooperative
relationship. I expect that regional issues, human rights issues,
everything that pertains to our relationship with Singapore will be on the
agenda. This is a very important relationship. She is looking forward to
her visit to Singapore.
Now, she should be returning to the United States, I would think on the
31st of July to Andrews, probably late that evening. This trip then extends
from the 23rd of July to the 31st of July. If you have any questions about
this trip, please let me know. We will have a sign-up sheet available to
all of you who would like to travel with the Secretary, available
immediately after the briefing. I am going to take that sign-up sheet down
tomorrow afternoon because we do have to get visas for you if you are
coming with us and leaving next Wednesday morning.
QUESTION: Overnight in Los Angeles?
MR. BURNS: Overnight in Los Angeles, yes. We have to do that for crew
rest. The crew cannot fly more than 15 hours, as you know, by U.S. Air
Force regulations, so we have to break up the trip in some way.
I wanted to let you all know that we did issue a statement last evening on
Panama - actually, a very important statement. It talked about our current
discussions with the Panamanian Government about the possibility of a U.S.
presence in Panama after 1999. As you know, we have an agreement in place
and has been in place for many years for the transfer of authority over the
Canal in 1999, but we are talking to the Panamanians about the possibility
of creating a multinational counternarcotics center.
This grows out of the visit in 1995 of President Perez Balladarez to
Washington when he and President Clinton talked about this general
issue. Since then, over the last two years, we have had a series of
informal conversations concerning the creation of a multinational
counternarcotics center and the question of whether or not the United
States would participate in that center. After these informal contacts we
have now agreed to go on to formal discussions. Ambassador John Negreponte
is leading the U.S. delegation. We are looking forward to these talks. They
are very important talks about the future of U.S.-Panama relations.
Now, on to the really important part of business today. Many of you are no
doubt aware of last evening's epic baseball match between the State
Department team, led by Madeleine Albright, and the Senate team lead by
Senator Jesse Helms, the Hittbillies. I have been authorized to tell you
that in her effort to promote bipartisanship, to promote full funding for
the State Department, to promote Senate acceptance of the Administration's
plan on UN arrears, the State Department team graciously and magnanimously
allowed the Helms team to win last evening, 8-to-4.
I can assure you, having spoken to Helms staff this morning, there is no
truth to the rumors that Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith were seen leaving
the Helms bench in the ninth inning of the match and that's what accounted
for the Helms victory. I guess you guys haven't seen Men In Black. You
should see Men In Black and you'd know what I am talking about. I can
confirm - I spoke to the Secretary just a couple of moments ago -- that she
has instructed her staff this morning to seek an immediate increase in our
150 account for equipment and training for the State Department baseball
team. As the Secretary told me just a couple of moments ago, when diplomats
lose, they attempt to do so diplomatically; so we will seek a rematch with
Senator Helms' team. Jim?
QUESTION: Did the name William Weld, come up in the encounter yesterday
around the baseball diamond?
MR. BURNS: I have no idea. The Secretary and Senator Helms had a good
time together. Senator Helms wore the tee shirt that Secretary Albright
gave him - on the tee shirt, it says, "Someone at the State Department
loves me," that tee shirt. The Secretary wore her tee shirt with her number
on the back . They had a great time. I am not sure the issue of Governor
Weld came up.
QUESTION: Is the Administration backing away from the nomination of
William Weld to be Ambassador to Mexico?
MR. BURNS: I know that Mike McCurry made a statement on this this morning
over at the White House. Mike said that the President absolutely stands by
the nomination of Governor Weld. I would refer you to Mike's statement on
that.
QUESTION: The Senator did comment. I was at the softball game and watched
the All-Brights lose diplomatically, if you will. The Senator said that he
is still opposed to Weld and he can have fun trying and fighting for this
ambassadorship to Mexico, but it is not going to happen. Any thoughts from
the Secretary on that?
MR. BURNS: Well, all I can tell you is that I think Mike McCurry has
delivered the definitive position of this Administration -- the very clear
position of this Administration this morning.
QUESTION: So, you are still behind the Governor --
MR. BURNS: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- for his ambassadorship?
MR. BURNS: Absolutely. We stand by Governor Weld , yes.
QUESTION: Nick, on that same topic, since obviously Mike McCurry said
we're going to fight for this nomination and Secretary Albright has what
seems to be a good relationship with Senator Helms, what, if anything, will
she do to help fight for this nomination?
MR. BURNS: Obviously, the Secretary and the President are totally
together on this and totally supportive of Governor Weld. Sometimes it is
important to -- especially in conversations with leading members of the
Senate, in this case, the chairman of the committee -- to let those
conversations take place privately and confidentially without any advance
warning from us here at the State Department Press Office.
QUESTION: Do you know when she will be involved in this?
MR. BURNS: The Secretary obviously supports all the President's nominees
and will do what she has to do in concert with senior officials in the
White House to make sure that we put our best foot forward and support
those nominees. Yes?
QUESTION: Nick, is France blocking another NATO effort to try to go after
war criminals?
MR. BURNS: Another NATO effort, did you say?
QUESTION: Well, didn't NATO go after two indicted war criminals last
week? That's another effort.
MR. BURNS: Oh, that effort. You mean the Prijedor effort where the
British captured one and shot dead another.
QUESTION: Exactly. Right.
MR. BURNS: And the question is, did the French try to block that?
QUESTION: No. Are the French trying to block subsequent efforts to go
after war criminals?
MR. BURNS: Subsequent to that? I am just trying to understand the
question.
QUESTION: Yes, subsequent to that Prijedor operation.
MR. BURNS: Well, all I can tell you is that Jacques Rummelhardt, the
French Foreign Ministry spokesman, gave a very clear statement this
morning. He said that France supports the detention of war criminals. He
said first and foremost, France has always supported that; that France
stood by the effort to detain war criminals. We think that is a very strong
and clear French statement. We support the French statement and support the
position of France. We do believe we have unity in NATO on this particular
question, on the need for, first of all, the parties -- meaning the Bosnian
Serbs and Serbs,Croatians, Bosnian Government - to turn these indicted war
criminals over themselves. We, of course, know and remember that SFOR
commanders have always had the authority to detain indicted war criminals
and the French statement this morning associated the French Government with
these views. We are very pleased about that.
QUESTION: I can read the wire, myself, so I am aware of what the French
have said, but my question to you is, apart from what the French have said
publicly, can the United States say whether or not the French have
heretofore blocked subsequent efforts to the Prijedor operation to go after
--
MR. BURNS: I am not aware that the French have blocked any efforts since
Prijedor -- not at all, no way, in no way. The French statement this
morning, we believe, is consistent with the French position that war
criminals ought to be detained and turned over to the Tribunal in The
Hague. We congratulate the French for that statement.
QUESTION: How about before Prijedor? Were the French opposed to it before
Prijedor?
MR. BURNS: Opposed to the Prijedor operation?
QUESTION: Were they opposed to the Prijedor operation or --
MR. BURNS: I don't believe - I'm not aware that the French were opposed
to the Prijedor operation, no.
QUESTION: And another question on this - since the French are basically
in control of the area of Bosnia that includes Pale, and since, as you say,
that there is standing authority for NATO troops to go after war criminals,
why haven't the French gone after Karadzic and others, since they've been
seen openly on the street; and U.S. officials, including Senator Lieberman,
have reported instances where senior U.S. officials have been at Pale
headquarters and seen Karadzic's Mercedes and have been told that Karadzic
went out the back door?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think it's unfair to single out the French. I think
it's unfair to ask the question of why haven't the French done it. There
are multiple nations in SFOR, including the United States. We are all
responsible to make sure that SFOR is successful. In this case, you ought
to put - and we ought to put - the primary responsibility on Milosevic and
on Krajisnek and on Tudjman to come forward themselves and turn these
people over.
Now, they have not done that in the last year and a half. SFOR commanders
retain the authority to do this on their own. The Prijedor operation was a
very successful operation. The operation ten days before that was
successful. There have been two operations. We're very pleased about the
success, and we ought to keep the indicted war criminals, like Karadzic,
sitting in Pale, guessing - guessing as to our next move; and we hope
they'll lose sleep over it.
QUESTION: But NATO has no plans to do this again?
MR. BURNS: NATO is not going to broadcast its plans in advance.
QUESTION: Nick, how would you characterize France's support for the war
crimes tribunal? Wasn't France instrumental in setting up the tribunal in
the first place?
MR. BURNS: France was one of the leading countries that called for the
creation of the tribunal. France has supported the tribunal in all
respects. I think you have to give President Jacques Chirac credit in the
summer of 1995. He was instrumental, along with President Clinton and Prime
Minister Major and others at the time, in turning around NATO policy that
lead to the very successful NATO air campaign against the Bosnian Serbs in
September 1995; and thus, to Dayton. So I think the French have taken -
unfairly have been charged, frankly, in the newspapers. I think they
deserve some support from us, and they've got it.
QUESTION: But the issue isn't whether the French support the sort of
wide-ranging issue of the War Crimes Tribunal and the arrest of indicted
criminals. The specific issue is whether the French objected as too
dangerous and too risky a specific mission that NATO allegedly had under
plans.
MR. BURNS: The Prijedor operation?
QUESTION: No, it was a subsequent one.
MR. BURNS: Frankly, I can't speak to specific plans that NATO may or may
not have had. But you've seen two successful operations, and we're very
glad they succeeded. We're very pleased that the French have issued the
statement they did this morning; and we support it.
QUESTION: Nick, when I asked you about the - go ahead, Betsy.
QUESTION: Do you know if the French were involved in either one of the
operations that have taken place? The U.S. was involved logistically, and
the British, clearly in the Prijedor operation, used men to go in and make
these arrests or attempted arrests. The French don't seem to have been
evident at all in either of these --
MR. BURNS: You'd have to address that question to SFOR and the French
Government. I simply don't know. It was a multinational operation in
Prijedor. I don't know personally the roster of countries that were
involved in any way in that. So it's a good question, and I'd refer you to
SFOR and the French Government.
QUESTION: Nick, when I asked you about France's position on the tribunal,
you of course credited them with playing a leading role in setting it
up. Doesn't it stand to reason, does that carry through in France --
wanting to see people indicted by the Tribunal apprehended?
MR. BURNS: Yes, and Mr. Rummelhardt's statement this morning clearly says
that. That France wishes to see indicted war criminals apprehended.
QUESTION: Is there some hair being split here that isn't discernible that
somehow makes the newspaper report accurate and also France's support for
prosecuting war criminals a fact as well?
MR. BURNS: I am not sure I understand the question, Barry, if you
wouldn't mind repeating it.
QUESTION: All right. There is a newspaper account that says -- it quotes
anonymous officials as saying that France objected to a particular raid or
idea of carrying out some arrests. You know, their record - France's
record, as you have stated, as the French Government states it, is
suggested they would be in favor, at least as much as the United States has
been in favor, which is sort of in making arrests.
MR. BURNS: Not sort of, we do favor the arrest of indicted war criminals.
QUESTION: Well, there are 70 people floating around who have been
indicted, but I don't want to go off on that tangent. There has been some
enforcement, some minimal enforcement. Is France lagging behind the United
States?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of it. In fact, we believe we have NATO
unity. The only operation we can talk about is the operation that was
concluded. We don't talk about other operations that we may or may not be
planning. On that operation, I can say quite categorically the French did
not block the Prijedor operation. They certainly did not block it because
the operation came off.
QUESTION: Well, of course, they couldn't have blocked it --
MR. BURNS: If that is the charge, then I think one has to defend the
French. In general, the French have clearly stated today that they agree
with the unified NATO position that indicted war criminals ought to be
detained and they ought to be sent to The Hague for trial.
QUESTION: They can feel that way and still think in a particular
situation an operation would be ill advised. Now, putting aside the one we
know that was carried out, obviously by definition, they couldn't have
blocked it; it went through. Did they prevent another operation at some
point for whatever reasons they had?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I am not going to talk about NATO planning for any
operations because that would give an advantage to the indicted war
criminals. I think I have been pretty clear about our view of the French
position today and the fact that we very much support the statement made
today and the fact that France clearly is identifying itself with the NATO
consensus.
QUESTION: You said that France in no way, any way, has France blocked any
effort since that operation.
MR. BURNS: Since the operation, right.
QUESTION: Well, then the question that remains is, did they block any
before the operation?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of it.
QUESTION: Oh, okay. Before or after?
QUESTION: You are not as categorical as you are after.
MR. BURNS: No, I'm not aware of it. Here's the problem -- you are asking
me to talk specifically about operations that it is not in our interest and
plans to talk about. I am not going to do that. I will certainly try to
clear the air about the charges made against the French Government. I
believe the French ought to be congratulated for what they have said today
and for the fact that they have said they support NATO consensus on this,
which is that indicted war criminals should be arrested.
QUESTION: So, would you say that story is wrong?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Would you say that story is wrong?
MR. BURNS: I am not going to attack the story or the journalist, because
it is not in my interest to do so, nor is it my inclination to do so. I
have responded I think quite clearly and in a forthcoming way to the
questions about the French.
QUESTION: So if you thought the story was wrong, in the interest of truth
and clarification of U.S. policy --
MR. BURNS: We are always interested in truth here. You don't have to
lecture me on that.
QUESTION: -- and the Secretary of State's --
MR. BURNS: You don't have to lecture on that whatsoever. What I am not
going to do, I am not going to get into a specific conversation with you
about operations that are best left confidential because that would be
foolhardy.
QUESTION: I didn't ask about an operation. I asked you about a story.
QUESTION: Nick, nobody is asking you to compromise security of the nation
--
MR. BURNS: Well, come on.
QUESTION: The question is --
MR. BURNS: I think the questions are pointed in that direction and I am
not going to do it.
QUESTION: Has there been a difference between the United States and
France over tactics?
MR. BURNS: I am not going to discuss that.
QUESTION: You don't want to discuss it?
MR. BURNS: No. We don't discuss private conversations among NATO allies.
QUESTION: Another topic?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Laura?
QUESTION: On Bosnia -- an American soldier was stabbed today. This
follows on a series of explosions that have been targeted at the OSCE and
other organizations in Bosnia. You expressed concern yesterday and said
that there was a heightened sense of security. Can you expound on that a
bit today? Is there a greater concern now that an American soldier has been
directly targeted by a Bosnian Serb, following the raid and the sentencing
on Monday?
MR. BURNS: We have seen the report of the stabbing of the American
soldier. I cannot tell you the circumstances that led to that -- what could
have caused the stabbing to take place. I think that is under
investigation, so I would have to refer you to SFOR on that and to the
Pentagon. Our Embassy in Sarajevo is on a heightened state of alert, given
the situation there. I would have to refer you to SFOR as to what specific
precautions SFOR soldiers are being asked to take. Needless to say, our
soldiers, SFOR soldiers are there, very well equipped, stronger than the
adversary and certainly ready to defend themselves at anytime. Yes.
QUESTION: Anything about the incident between North and South Korea on
the DMZ?
MR. BURNS: Yes. I think you have seen the statement that was made today
in Korea by the United Nations Forces. We know that there was an exchange
of gunfire between North and South Korean military personnel today. The
incident began, according to the United Nations, when a number of North
Korean soldiers --14 they think -- crossed the DMZ in to the southern side
of the demarcation line about 60 kilometers east of Panmunjom. The United
States is obviously concerned by this incident. We are very concerned by
the crossing of the line by the North Korean soldiers, the fact that they
crossed the DMZ, which they are not permitted to do.
We do believe this incident should be addressed as soon as possible in the
framework of the military armistice agreement. The incident certainly
underlines the need for effective functioning of the Armistice Commission
itself, and the need for a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. Thus,
it supports our very strong view that the North Koreans ought to join us on
August 5th to proceed with the four-party talks and to establish a
permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. As to the particulars, this is now
under investigation by the UN military authorities in Korea. I'd have to
refer you to them for the particulars of that investigation. I do want to
draw attention to the fact that these North Korean soldiers crossed the
DMZ.
QUESTION: Nick, could this be construed as an attempt by North Korea to
draw South Korea into a military incident, a military conflict? The
defector, Hwang, has said to the South Koreans, they would use such a
pretext, a ruse in order to start a war and make it look like it was South
Korea's fault. Is this possible?
MR. BURNS: It is always perilous to try to understand the motives of the
North Koreans. There have been many incidents since 1953 along the DMZ --
some very bloody, some resulting in the deaths of Americans as you remember
some time ago. Who knows why they do this? It is a closed, autocratic
society, but they ought to observe the agreement, the armistice agreement
itself and the rules and procedures governing the conduct of soldiers along
the DMZ. They clearly crossed a line, literally and figuratively, this
morning. They ought not to have done that.
QUESTION: Nick, I was curious about your language when you said something
to the effect of you hope that the North Koreans join the U.S. and the
other parties on August 5th. I wondered if there was some reason that you
are less confident about them --
MR. BURNS: Well, one never knows about the North Koreans. You have seen
that --
QUESTION: I wonder if you have gotten any actual indication from them
that they are having second thoughts or --
MR. BURNS: No. We have not received any indication that they are having
second thoughts. We expect them to show up in New York on August 5th. My
statement was more meant to encourage them to get in the spirit of why we
are having the four-party talks so that needless incidents like the one
this morning are not repeated and people's lives are not put into
danger. There was a serious exchange of gunfire this morning. Obviously,
with 37,000 troops in Korea, we were not part of this this morning; our
troops were not in that region. But we do not want to see our soldiers
endangered needlessly. It was more in that spirit. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: I would like to, please, revisit another subject which is the
renewal of --
MR. BURNS: I think we have other Korea questions. I will be glad to go
back to you.
QUESTION: Some analysis in Korea has said this incident is engineered by
North Korean regime to rally domestic support behind Kim Jong-Il at a time
for the --
MR. BURNS: That would be curious logic indeed.
QUESTION: -- kind of a - (inaudible) -- by the North Korean tactics. Do
you agree with that analysis?
MR. BURNS: We have no idea what prompted the incident along the DMZ this
morning. We have no idea. You will have to consult the North Korean web
site and see if there is any elucidation of this incident there. But it
would be curious logic, indeed, if they felt that by provoking a military
incident they were somehow improving their own situation. This is a country
that has to get with it and has to negotiate with us and South Korea and
China a peace treaty and a permanent end to the Korean conflict. This
morning's incident was certainly not consistent with that.
QUESTION: Nick, will this affect U.S. plans to ship aid to North Korea?
MR. BURNS: It has no effect on it because that aid is designed to assist
young kids under the age of six and the elderly. These people are innocent
victims of the fact that they happen to live in North Korea. Still on
Korea?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Yes, sir?
QUESTION: I think it is not enough for the United States to - (inaudible)
- North Korea not to do it again. I'd like to ask you, do we have any plan
to raise the concern to North Korea directly?
MR. BURNS: We have been in touch this morning with both the North Korean
Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea, our ally. We have
certainly made known our concerns to the North Koreans. We and the South
Koreans are trusting and have full faith that the UN military authorities
will investigate this properly and will obviously prepare some judgments so
that all of us can come out of this with a better understanding of what
exactly happened after the soldiers crossed the line. They clearly crossed
the line.
QUESTION: What is the response of North Korean officials to United
States?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to go into our conversations with the North
Koreans. But you can be assured that we communicated our deep concern about
this incident to North Korea. Still on Korea?
QUESTION: No.
MR. BURNS: I just want to go this gentleman who had the next question.
QUESTION: I would like to revisit the subject of renewing sanctions
against Libya. The Arab League and the African Unity Organization has asked
in the last debate in the Security Council that the sanctions would be
lifted, giving some indication that the world opinion is now thinking that
Libya has made some efforts toward satisfying the demands of the United
States and Britain on that. And is the United States thinking that there is
a lack of confidence in The Hague justice system to not agree that the two
Libyan suspects would be tried there?
MR. BURNS: Well, I'll try to keep this brief, because I want to be
merciful to all the reporters that have heard this about 80 times. The
United States in no way, shape or form will agree to lift the sanctions on
Libya. That is not a consensus in the United Nations, although some
countries may mistakenly have that point of view.
We believe that the Libyans are responsible for the fact that Pan Am 103
crashed and everyone on board was killed in December 1989. The Libyans have
to have that on their conscience and they have to answer for it.
Nobody in The Hague has agreed - nobody in the International Court of
Justice, no justices have agreed to take this court on. It's not an
international legal matter; it's a matter between states. The plane crashed
in the United Kingdom; the majority of people on it were American
citizens. The United States and the United Kingdom would agree to a trial
for the two Libyans who we believe planted the bomb either in the UK or in
the United States. That is our right. It's not the right of Libya to
dictate where a trial is held. It's our right to say where that trial is
going to be held because we're the aggrieved states. So there's no
possibility that Libya is going to get off the hook here - no possibility
whatsoever. You shouldn't even try.
QUESTION: Can I just ask you one more question about the investigation
the Der Spiegel said about a former Iranian intelligence agent who said
that that was done by an Iranian?
MR. BURNS: Well, I know nothing about a Der Spiegel article; I don't read
Der Spiegel. I'm sorry, I don't read German. But all we know is that there
has been an intensive investigation and two people who are believed to be
the leading suspects - they're Libyan intelligence agents being harbored by
the government of Libya. We know where they're living. The Libyan
Government should turn them over for prosecution in the United Kingdom or
the United States.
QUESTION: How is the situation with the friends of the United States,
like Egypt and the others who are affected by these sanctions?
MR. BURNS: We have very little sympathy for anyone for the position that
these sanctions should be lifted. These sanctions are in place to protect
everyone in the world against Libyan-sponsored terrorism. That is a higher
priority than any other priority that can be cited. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I understand Secretary Albright is reviewing the travel
restrictions on Lebanon. As you said, she'll be traveling most of this
month. A decision has to be made before the end of July. Can we expect a
decision soon? Do you have any inclination where she's going?
MR. BURNS: I'm sure that we'll have a decision. The Secretary is
reviewing this. She has met with her advisors on it, as you would
expect. I'm sure we'll have a decision by the appointed time, which I
believe is the end of July. I can't guess at this moment when that decision
is going to be made and when it will be announced; but we're looking at it
very carefully.
QUESTION: Okay, another issue in the region - yesterday again you
reiterated your position on the Doha Conference in November, the Middle
Eastern Cooperation Conference. Yet public indications from their world
tells me that some of your allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia are
saying publicly they're not going to attend the conference. Other allies,
like the Jordanians and the Egyptians, are reluctant and they say, we will
go if everybody goes. Are you hearing something different in private from
those governments?
MR. BURNS: We continue to encourage all countries in the Middle East to
attend the Doha Summit. We believe it's in their economic self-interest to
do so. Secretary Albright has made clear her intention to lead the
U.S. delegation. Yes, sir, Talal.
QUESTION: Yesterday's question about the bill in the Senate, concerning
Syria?
MR. BURNS: Oh, concerning Syria, yes. I don't have a statement for you
yet. I understand that this is - there are lots of amendments being
introduced right now and lots of bills. I'm not aware if we've taken a
particular position. I do understand that we owe you an answer on that, and
I want to get that for you. Unfortunately, I was unable to get that answer
for the next briefing.
QUESTION: Tell me, please, if they said the Department position supports
the prohibition of any financial dealings with Syria.
MR. BURNS: As I said, Talal, I am not able yet to give you an
Administration position, but I will do so shortly. Yes, Mr. Lambros, yes.
QUESTION: Nick, it was reported that Bulent Ecevit, the new deputy prime
minister of Turkey and the well-known chief architect of the Turkish
invasion and occupation of Cyprus will make a provocative visit to the
occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus July 20, the day of the invasion,
in order to participate with the so-called celebrities of the Cypriots of
Turkish origin. Do you think that kind of provocative visits are, at this
time are - (inaudible) -- for a solution to the problem via the UN talks?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I'm just not aware of the intention of Deputy
Prime Minister Ecevit to make this visit. I'll have to check into that and
get back to you.
QUESTION: It seems the U.S. press, by The Washington Post and _The New
York Times_ dispatched stories for UN talks on the partition of
Cyprus. Could you please clarify the present U.S. policy vis-à-vis
to the Republic of Cyprus, a victim of the continuing Turkish invasion and
occupation.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I think we've made abundantly clear - probably
every day for the last three or four years - what our position is on
that. We support a resolution of the Cyprus problem. We support the
reunification of Cyprus on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federated basis. The
United States, with the leadership of Secretary Albright and Ambassador
Holbrooke, are very much interested in supporting the efforts of the
Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in moving towards a Cyprus solution. We
believe the first round of talks were useful. Now we'll very much support
the second round of talks in Geneva.
QUESTION: Do you mean also one ethnicity and one nationality?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I don't want to debate specific issues; no, I
don't want to debate this. You know the position of the United States; it's
very clear, it's very clear. But I thank you for your questions.
QUESTION: No, no, I'm saying vis-à-vis to the nationality and the
ethnicity. This is a most important part of the whole problem. So the
stories are focusing to this - that's why I'm raising this question.
MR. BURNS: Our policy is very clear. We want to see a federated state on
a bi-communal, bi- zonal basis. We want to see the reunification of the
island.
QUESTION: Nick, on another subject - there are reports that - and
apparently, pretty reliable reports - that as many as 40 members of the
FUNCINPEC party have been assassinated by Hun Sen's people.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Do these reports give you any new doubts about dealing with Hun
Sen, even as part of a coalition government?
MR. BURNS: Yes, they do. We're very deeply troubled by these reports of
the executions. We're deeply concerned about the reports of the executions
and other reports about intimidation of Cambodians who have been working to
build a civil society - people like journalists and labor union organizers,
Cambodian citizens who work for private voluntary organizations. Any
attempt to arrest or to intimidate or to execute people because of their
political views has to be rejected by the United States. It is contrary to
all decent standards of international behavior, and it's contrary to the
Cambodian constitution.
We have made this point to Mr. Hun Sen, directly -- our Ambassador Ken
Quinn has. We will continue to make that point to him. We are deeply
troubled by that.
QUESTION: Do you have independent confirmation --
QUESTION: -- have a practical effect on the policy right now, though,
does it?
MR. BURNS: In what sense, Carol?
QUESTION: Well, you know, Jim asked specifically about this new
information about 40 deaths. And his question - your answer to his question
initially suggested that perhaps you were even less disinclined to be
supportive of Hun Sen than maybe yesterday. I just wondered if this new
information had any new practical effect on your policy?
MR. BURNS: I see what you are asking. Well, I wouldn't say we support Hun
Sen in any way. It's not a question of being less supportive or more
supportive. We certainly don't support what he has done in usurping
power. We certainly reject the actions of executing people, arresting them,
intimidating them, threatening Prince Ranariddh.
We also are very concerned about the decision this morning to make the
Cambodian foreign minister co-prime minister with Hun Sen. We are concerned
because we see no evidence whatsoever that FUNCINPEC, the political party
of Prince Ranariddh, has met and has elected on a free basis, on a
democratic basis, a successor to Prince Ranariddh.
Prince Ranariddh has two roles. He is the first prime minister of Cambodia;
he is also the president of the political party. He is overseas. Many
members of his party are in hiding in Southeast Asia or in Cambodia. We
fear that some members of his party have been executed and arrested. So
there is no evidence that FUNCINPEC met and democratically elected the
Cambodian foreign minister to become the new first prime minister.
We urge the authorities in Phnom Penh to refrain from announcing a new
first prime minister until Prince Ranariddh's political party has an
opportunity to make a reasoned decision on this matter, free of coercion,
free of intimidation. The decision on who should lead or represent Prince
Ranariddh's political party in Cambodia in the Cambodian Government is up
to Prince Ranariddh and his associates. It is not up to Hun Sen, and, with
all due respect, it's not up to the foreign minister to make that choice
absent the views of Prince Ranariddh.
QUESTION: There's something you don't like about this guy, right?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have dealt with him and in the past, I must say,
dealt with him very cooperatively as foreign minister. But we don't
recognize him as first prime minister. We recognize Prince Ranariddh to be
first prime minister because he was elected to that position by the
Cambodian people.
QUESTION: What would the United States like to come out of the ASEAN
meeting in regards to Cambodia?
MR. BURNS: The ASEAN delegations meeting or the ASEAN meetings in K.L.?
QUESTION: The ASEAN meetings in K.L.? When the Secretary goes to Kuala
Lumpur, what is she trying to encourage ASEAN to do?
MR. BURNS: Those meetings are ten days away. So I think, given the
fast-changing nature of the Cambodian political crisis, it is a little
early to say we think that a, b, and c can and should happen in Kuala
Lumpur. But it's a fair question, Carol.
I think, obviously, Cambodia is going to be a big issue in Kuala Lumpur. We
hope that the ASEAN mission of foreign ministers is successful in conveying
what appears to be a fairly unified international reaction to the crisis,
conveying that to Hun Sen; eliciting the views of King Sihanouk, who spoke
out today from Beijing against the executions and against the use of force
by the government of Hun Sen; and enabling Prince Ranariddh a chance to say
his peace to ASEAN. I think that first has to happen. We need to see what
the actions are, as opposed to the words of the Hun Sen government because
the actions and the words are at variance right now. The words are
beautiful; the actions are deplorable. At the appropriate time -- and that
will be at Kuala Lumpur - we will want to have a series of conversations on
this with a variety of people.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. --
MR. BURNS: So this is going to be a very important issue, I think, on a
day-by-day basis. It's pretty hard, though, to say ten days from now where
it is all going to stand.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. Government have independent evidence that these
executions have, in fact, taken place?
MR. BURNS: Our embassy does not have physical evidence of the
assassinations and the executions. However, there have been consistent
press reports and testimony by credible people in Cambodia, many people who
are being hunted down are in hiding. That deeply troubles us. We are
deeply troubled by all these reports. We feel compelled to speak out about
it. Yes.
QUESTION: The U.S. ambassador in Nigeria has apparently been somehow
implicated --
MR. BURNS: I think we want to stay with Cambodia for a minute, and then
we will go. Yes, Laura.
QUESTION: Will these recent developments have an effect on your - at
least your initial inclination to resume the humanitarian aid after a
suspension of 30 days? I mean, these developments are very troubling, you
indicate. But is it, do you think, going to have an effect on the aid?
MR. BURNS: Well, I am glad you asked because I know there has been a lot
of reporting about this, too. Secretary Albright is going to have to look
very closely with her advisors at this decision. I think around the 5th or
6th of August, that 30-day period of suspension will expire, and she will
need to make some basic decisions.
I think that we are inclined here to try to continue humanitarian programs
that clearly benefit average people like the de-mining activities, like the
people-to-people programs on HIV prevention and the maternal and child
care. But as we have said many times before, if there are programs that Hun
Sen is clearly now benefiting from, I am not sure those programs have a
good chance of continuing. So these are very difficult decisions.
We don't want to penalize the Cambodian people because of Hun Sen's
deplorable behavior. The Cambodian people have been through a lot in the
last 20 years - genocide and civil war. Statistically every Cambodian has
lost one or many more family members. We want to be very careful to
continue assistance to people who deserve it but not to support materially
and financially a government that has usurped power for itself in a
non-democratic fashion. On Cambodia? Any more on Cambodia before we go on?
QUESTION: Yes, Nick, I wanted to ask about the efforts on the part of the
U.S. Embassy to give asylum to those who may be trapped in the country and
under threat of death. Can you report anything on the activities of the
embassy? Two days ago there was a wire that said the U.S. Embassy wasn't
doing all it could.
MR. BURNS: Well, that story we checked out with our ambassador; that
story was false. The story alleged that we weren't doing enough for
American citizens, when in fact, Ambassador Ken Quinn spent most of the
last week concentrating on how to help American citizens. We are very
pleased and grateful to him for his efforts. Most Americans have been able
to leave. There may be several hundred left, but many, many more hundreds -
perhaps even a thousand people --have left safely, peacefully. They have
gotten out of harm's way. I think we need to thank our embassy and our
ambassador for that. So I would like to reject that charge that he hasn't
done enough for American citizens.
QUESTION: What of the Cambodians under death threat?
MR. BURNS: What about --
QUESTION: What about the Cambodians --
MR. BURNS: We deplore any threats against Cambodians, against innocent
people or people in the political opposition to Hun Sen. They ought not to
be intimidated.
QUESTION: Are they welcome to come to the embassy for asylum?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware that anyone has asked for that kind of
protection in the U.S. Embassy, but we have argued face-to-face with Hun
Sen that he ceases intimidation. Hold him responsible for what is happening
on the streets of Phnom Penh. Dimitris?
QUESTION: Nick, there is a U.S. delegation traveling in southeast
Europe, probably Athens and Ankara. Can you give us details about the
participants and what is the purpose of this mission?
MR. BURNS: Greg Craig, who is the policy planning director here and a
senior advisor to Secretary Albright, is leading a small delegation of
officials from the State Department to engage in policy planning talks with
the Turkish Government and the Greek Government. I will have to check his
itinerary. I don't know if they are going to Cyprus. I will have to check
that for you. The intention here is to - he's new on the job - is for him
to have an opportunity to talk to his counterparts about our relationships
with Turkey and Greece with the intention of promoting them and furthering
them. He is a well-placed person to do this. His predecessor, Jim
Steinberg, carried on a number of talks like this - policy-planning talks -
with many governments around the world. We thought Greece and Turkey were a
good place to start.
QUESTION: Can we assume that this is a follow-up to the Madrid Agreement?
MR. BURNS: No, I think it is broader than that. It is not to talk about
Greek-Turkish issues. It is to talk about U.S. relations with Turkey,
U.S. relations with Greece. Of course, I am sure the Aegean issues and the
Cyprus issue will come up and will be raised in these talks, but it is much
broader than that. It gets to the American relationship with these two
important NATO allies.
QUESTION: How many days they are going to spend in each capital?
MR. BURNS: In each capital?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I'd have to check Greg's - Mr. Lambros, I have not done a
scientific study of the schedule. Now, maybe you have, but I saw Greg on
Monday morning, wished him well. He said he was looking forward to being in
both Ankara and Athens, Mr. Lambros, and Athens.
QUESTION: Will he focus on Imia, too?
MR. BURNS: I am sure a variety of issues will come up, but you ought to
focus on U.S. relations with these two countries as the primary
agenda. Yes?
QUESTION: The Nigerians said they want to question the American
ambassador there, saying he had some knowledge about these recent bombings
in Lagos and elsewhere. Do you have any reaction to that? They are also
mentioning a waiver of his immunity for that purpose.
MR. BURNS: I must say, I saw a wire report on this just before coming
out. It is a very curious - the wire report is not curious, but the charge
is, and the requests are curious. We will have to check with our ambassador
in Lagos to see what he makes of all this. I will be glad to address that
either later on today if we are able to reach him or tomorrow.
QUESTION: But he hasn't agreed to any sort of --
MR. BURNS: We've only seen the same wire report that you have. I just
want to have some time to check into this. It does sound a little bit
curious the way that the Nigerian Government is wording its request. But
that wouldn't be strange, given the nature of the Nigerian Government.
QUESTION: Nick, on sort of the same subject, has the U.S. heard anything
from the Cubans on -- the Cubans were saying that the bombings last weekend
had U.S. components in them.
MR. BURNS: We haven't heard anything, Betsy. I know that Bernie Shaw of
CNN had an opportunity to interview Mr. Alarcon last night. In good
journalistic tradition, Bernie went after - well, he addressed this
question several times and from several perspectives. Mr. Alarcon couldn't
provide any information that the United States or American citizens were
involved in these bombings over the weekend. He talked about problems in
the past. So, it does lead us to believe that the Cubans ought to do their
homework first before they make outlandish charges like this.
QUESTION: Has anyone from the interest section asked for any information
that they might have?
MR. BURNS: We have offered our phone numbers. Yes, we've talked to the
Cubans about these incidents. We have told them we had nothing to do with
it, that we are not aware of any American citizen involvement. If they have
any information, we have told them here and in Cuba, they ought to turn it
over to us. They have not been able to do that. Mr. Alarcon was not able to
do that on CNN last evening, which I found very revealing.
QUESTION: On Germany.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: I have on Germany two questions.
MR. BURNS: Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: What is becoming of the decision for the creation of a
U.S.-German air defense unit, as it was reported extensively in Europe?
MR. BURNS: Yes. I will have to get back to you on that. It is a good
question. I just don't have any information on it. I saw the same stories
that you did. We have very close military cooperation with Germany. But I
either have to refer you to the Pentagon or try to see if I can develop
some information for you.
QUESTION: It's a political decision.
MR. BURNS: Excuse me?
QUESTION: It's a political decision, not a Pentagon matter.
MR. BURNS: No, the Pentagon does have a role to play in military matters,
Mr. Lambros. I think we ought to give them their due here.
QUESTION: And the German loan of $90 million to the Iranian firm?
MR. BURNS: Are you talking about the possible German bank loan --
QUESTION: That is right. It's a big issue in Europe.
MR. BURNS: Yes, and I commented upon that on Monday. I have no further
comments to make. I am not sure the story has moved at all.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:09 P.M.)
(###)
|
