U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #108, 97-07-17
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
417
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Thursday, July 17, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Announcement of Visitors
1 Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group
1-2 African Crisis Response Initiative training by US
UNITED NATIONS
2-3,16-17 New permanent seats on Security Council
FORMER REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
3-4 Attack at Banja Luka and SFOR operations
4-5 Election of Milosevic as President of FRY
CAMBODIA
5-6,16 Appointment of Ung Huot and the return of Prince Ranariddh
6 Hun Sen criticism of US
6 ASEAN and Cambodia Membership
7-8 Recognition of Hun Sen's government
KOREA
8 N. Korean Export of Corn to Japan
8-9 DMZ incident
9 Effect on 4-way talks
9-10 US-ROK Nonproliferation talks
18 KEDO funding
SYRIA
10-11,17 House-Senate amendments restricting trade
10-11 US relationship with Syria
NIGERIA
11 Request to waive diplomatic immunity for US Amb.
CYPRUS
11-12 Ecevit's visit to Turkish controlled Northern Cyprus
12-13,14 Alleged violation of Greek airspace
13 Greg Craig mission
PEACE PROCESS
14-15 UN General Assembly resolution against Israel
IRAQ
15-16 Saddam Hussein request to lift sanctions
16 Kurdish cease fire
LEBANON
17 Travel Ban decision
GREECE/TURKEY
18-19 Political Cartoon
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #108
THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997 1:09 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 a group of African journalists here
who are here in an Institute of International Education and Professional
Exchange Program, and you are most welcome. Feel free to ask questions, if
you would like, on any issue.
We are posting today a statement on the results of the meeting of the
Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group, which met yesterday in Naqoura in Lebanon.
The group met to consider four complaints of violations of the April 26,
1996, understanding. Two of those complaints were filed by Lebanon, two by
Israel. We welcome the outcome of this meeting, especially the
re-affirmation of the importance that all parties must comply with the
April 26, 1996, understanding. We also note with satisfaction the group's
call on authorities on all sides to exercise caution and restraint in order
to defuse tension and protect civilian lives on both sides of the border --
that border being the Israel-Lebanon border. That statement is available
to you after the briefing in the Press Office. I think it is
self-explanatory. But I wanted to point it out, given the recent events
along that that border.
I also have one more statement before we go to questions, and it pertains
to Africa. Approximately 120 United States peacekeeping trainers will
deploy on or about July 21 to Senegal and to Uganda. The trainers come,
for the most part, from the Third Special Forces Group in Fort Bragg, North
Carolina. Their deployment marks the first visible step in the
implementation of the African Crisis Response Initiative. This initiative
is a training initiative intended to work cooperatively with African
countries to create highly effective, rapidly deployable peacekeeping units
which can operate jointly in the event of a humanitarian crisis in Africa,
or if there is a need for a traditional peacekeeping operation.
The initiative's emphasis on training is based on a common peacekeeping
doctrine, and a supply of communications equipment will enable the units to
work together more effectively. This initiative is compatible with the
call at the Denver Summit, the Summit of the Eight, for long-term efforts
to promote rapidly deployable African peacekeeping capabilities. We
continue to work very closely with France and with the United Kingdom, as
well as with many African countries, about ways that we can actively
explore mechanisms to coordinate these types of activities and towards the
establishment, we hope at some point, of an African peacekeeping support
group.
Senegal and Uganda were among the first group of African nations prepared
to participate in this initiative with battalion-size units. The training
in other nations, we expect, will follow shortly. At the same time we will
continue our dialogue with African countries, with the Organization of
African Unity, with the United Nations to further define the potential of
this initiative. We think it's very important, and I think this is a
prevailing sense in Africa itself, that African problems need to be handled
by Africans themselves. We hope that by expanding training opportunities
for Senegal and Uganda and other countries, we might contribute to that
effort, understanding that Africans - obviously, African countries -- need
to make these decisions on their own. With that I'll be very glad to go to
your questions.
QUESTION: Does the Administration plan to recommend that developing
countries get three permanent seats on the UN Security Council?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I think you're referring to one of the news reports in
the papers this morning. I can tell you that Secretary Albright, who
retains a very great interest in United Nations matters from her time at
the United Nations, has been working with others in the Administration on a
review of our policy on Security Council reform. As a result of this
review, the United States now agrees in principle that we ought to have
developing countries sit on a permanent basis on the UN Security Council as
new permanent members. We believe that this should be worked out and
discussed specifically, obviously, in the UN Security Council.
As you know, the United States also favors -- and has favored for a number
of years -- that Germany and Japan should be given permanent seats in the
Security Council. With the three new permanent seats from Asia, Africa and
Latin America, that would increase the size of the Security Council to ten.
We believe that as a total we could agree to a maximum of 20 to 21 members
because in addition to the permanent members, of course, you know you have
other members of the Security Council with limited terms.
We believe that the regions themselves -- the African countries, the Latin
countries and the Asian countries -- ought to decide how these seats will
be filled. Therefore, the United States is not making any recommendations
about which countries should fill these new permanent seats, but we expect
this to be very actively discussed throughout the next year. We'd like to
go forward with Security Council reform because it would enable us all
around the world, of course, to take advantage of some of the changes in
the world with the end of the Cold War, with the end of communism in
Eastern Europe and changes in many of the developing regions themselves.
So Ambassador Bill Richardson put this view forward to members of the
Security Council yesterday and other members of the United Nations. We
have consulted, of course, the key Senators and representatives on Capitol
Hill and this will be the United States' position as we go into the UN
General Assembly beginning in September. Sid?
QUESTION: Just to clarify, these are permanent seats that will be rotated
among developing nations or three developing nations will be selected to
sit permanently?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think that probably remains to be seen. Our own view
is that there should be three permanent seats from Asia, Africa and Latin
America. Whether or not it is the new members are named or whether it is
rotational, that will have to be worked out, I think, in the course of the
debate.
QUESTION: Okay. And secondarily, I noticed you leave out a region of the
world, the Middle East. You don't think the Middle Eastern countries
should participate in this?
MR. BURNS: Well, it depends. Well, I don't want to get into a
geographical discussion here, but you know that I think technically in many
countries, even some in the Middle East, understand that the Middle East is
part of Asia geographically. So we don't believe there's a need for a
specific country in the Middle East.
QUESTION: You're not - you don't - you're not --
MR. BURNS: And as you know, some countries that are commonly referred to
as Middle East countries, like Egypt, are African countries. Egypt is an
African country; it is a member of the Organization of African Unity. So I
think that we have a broad definition. By saying Africa, Latin America and
Asia, we are including all countries of the world, all regions of the world
that right now do not have permanent members of the UN Security Council.
QUESTION: Will these five new permanent seats also have veto power with
them?
MR. BURNS: Well, yes. I mean, we're talking about a proposal that would
expand the Security Council to ten, and we would think that all the rights
and privileges of membership would go with that. But if you have any
questions about that, perhaps what I should do on that particular one is
check with our UN mission and get back to you.
No more questions today?
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the bombing in Banja Luka
today -- last night?
MR. BURNS: Well, we know that there were some incidents at a British base
in Bosnia. All I can tell you is that SFOR has the mandate and the
capability to protect its personnel. SFOR is prepared to protect its
personnel. On the specific incidents that occurred last night, the
International Police Training Force and the Republika Srpska police worked
together cooperatively to locate suspects in those incidents, and we do
expect the Republika Srpska police to continue to cooperate with SFOR.
SFOR will defend itself.
At this point, looking at the actions of the last couple of days, we do not
believe that there is any established pattern of activity. We don't
believe there is any organized threat to the troops. These appear to be
isolated and separate incidents. I think as a general message, everybody
in that region should understand that SFOR troops are fully prepared to
continue their operations. We are not going to be dissuaded from doing
what we must do to bring peace to Bosnia by a few isolated incidents.
QUESTION: Can you point to a reason for these attacks, the attack
yesterday and then -
MR. BURNS: No, I can't; I can't, Sid. I don't know what was behind that
attack. It was a minor incident. Fortunately, the young soldier who was
injured is going to recover from his wounds, which were not very serious.
We of course deplore any attack or any kind of incident that involves
violence, and our troops will defend themselves.
QUESTION: You wouldn't connect this to the rest of the alleged war
criminals?
MR. BURNS: I don't think it's possible for me to do that because I don't
know the motivation of the person who did that, and I don't believe that
person has been apprehended.
QUESTION: Do you now have any views on the election of Milosevic to be
president of Yugoslavia?
MR. BURNS: Do we now have views?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I thought we had views the other day.
QUESTION: Yeah. No, you hadn't confirmed the report.
MR. BURNS: I think we can confirm the report. I know that foreign
minister Tinuvic has had a conversation with our charge d'affaires, Dick
Miles, in Belgrade. We know that Mr. Milosevic has decided to step down
from his position as president of Serbia and he will now occupy the
position of president of the former Yugoslav Republic.
Now, as you know, we don't recognize diplomatically the FRY. That seat is
vacant in the United Nations. So I don't believe we will have any official
state-to-state relations with the FRY, but what I can tell you is that we
will maintain our contact with Milosevic because he is a signatory of the
Dayton Accords. He is a very important person to carry out those accords.
So when we talk about Bosnia and we talk about implementation of Dayton, we
will, of course, continue to have conversations with him. But I think that
is about as much as one can say on this particular issue.
QUESTION: Well, when you come to him and say, what about this agreement
that you have signed, he's going to say, predictably, that's not my
department any more; you should go and see somebody in the Serbian
Government. What do you respond to that?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know if he will take that position, Jim. If he
does take that position, obviously, we won't have anything to talk about
with Mr. Milosevic. If he would like to isolate himself from the United
States, that's probably the best way to do it. He is personally the
signatory of those accords. When then-Assistant Secretary Dick Holbrooke
had his shuttle mission through the region in September and October of
1995, Milosevic signed several agreements that assume some personal as well
as political responsibility for the negotiations and for the outcome of the
negotiations.
So I don't believe that Mr. Milosevic is escaping responsibility for the
Dayton Accords as he takes on this new position with this country that we
do not recognize. I think that Mr. Milosevic will want, as a matter of his
own self-interest, to be involved in the Dayton Accord implementation. He
has not given us any kind of understanding that he won't be involved. So I
don't believe that's going to be a problem.
QUESTION: Nick --
MR. BURNS: Question, yes.
QUESTION: To another subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Ung Huot has come out and said that he will accept the first -
the role of prime minister next to Hun Sen and rule on the behalf of the
Royalist Party. Does the United States think it's still feasible for
Prince Ranariddh to return to Cambodia and rule next to Hun Sen?
MR. BURNS: We recognize Prince Ranariddh to be the first prime minister.
He was elected by the Cambodian people. His party received the most votes,
and the assembly in Cambodia voted him to be first prime minister. The
assembly has not voted that the Cambodian foreign minister should become
first prime minister.
The Cambodian foreign minister ought to respect the fundamental norms of
any kind of democratic political party. You don't assume leadership by
standing on a soap box and declaring yourself to be a leader, or by taking
that power away from someone in the dark of night. You do it through an
open process -- a democratic process -- and you allow the person whom you
seek to replace to have a voice, an open voice, without any threat of
intimidation or coercion. That clearly was not the case here. There was
no open process. There was a coercive process. So we still believe that
Prince Ranariddh is first prime minister, and we encourage the Cambodian
foreign minister -- someone we know quite well, who lived in a Western
country, Australia, for 20 years, who ought to understand democracy and how
free political systems work -- we urge him to reflect on what he has done
and allow an open process in FUNCINPEC to take place.
QUESTION: You talked about democracy. He, himself, said that he is for
democracy, and he wants that to reign supreme over anything else in
Cambodia. He feels as though he could help democracy come to pass in
Cambodia. Are you - in light of what you just said - are you then
surprised that he would accept what Hun Sen has offered him?
MR. BURNS: I'm surprised he'd use democracy as a rationale for his recent
actions because his recent actions are clearly inconsistent with any
reasonable definition of democracy and how political parties select their
leaders. Prince Ranariddh ran at the head of a slate in the elections, and
he was elected on that basis. He has been the party leader. There has
been no open democratic political process to take that position away from
Prince Ranariddh.
The Cambodian foreign minister -- I suppose in collusion with Hun Sen - has
just summarily declared himself to be the first prime minister. That
doesn't seem right to us. We don't understand why any other country
outside of Cambodia would look on that with any degree of support. That is
going to be our position. We believe in democracy and we believe that
democratic rules should be followed.
QUESTION: So the United States will not try to contact Ung Huot and talk
to him about this at all?
MR. BURNS: I suppose that we will still talk to him. Our ambassador, Ken
Quinn, has to deal with reality. The reality in Cambodia, in Phnom Penh,
is that you have people -- Hun Sen, now this individual -- who believe that
just by declaring themselves to be democrats that we will accept them. We
will deal with them on a practical basis. It doesn't mean we have to like
them or agree with them. So we will continue to act in our own
self-interest, which is to assert that democratic rules and fair play
should be the order of the day in Cambodia.
QUESTION: Nick, the new leader of Cambodia, Hun Sen, took note of your
words on this topic yesterday, similar words, and said the United States
ought to butt out; it's none of their business. Do you have anything to
say to that?
MR. BURNS: Well, that's an interesting position to take when, in fact,
the world at large, the international community, with the participation of
the United States, helped to rid Cambodia of the dictatorship that had
ruled there. We helped to organize the elections. We in the international
community have given well over $1 billion of assistance over the last four
years. The Cambodian political leaders, including Hun Sen, have
consistently called for the active involvement of the United States and
other countries in helping to rebuild the country, in helping to organize
and monitor the elections. Now, when it is politically convenient for him
to tell us to butt out, that doesn't seem right. That's not right.
So I would just say we are going to continue to comment on affairs in
Cambodia because we have an interest in doing that. We are not the only
country that comments. The ASEAN countries are very much involved and
interested. The ASEAN delegation just met with King Sihanouk in Beijing.
They will be meeting with Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh in Bangkok. So I
think all of us - in ASEAN, all the Asian countries and certainly the
United States - will continue to comment, and Hun Sen is going to have to
expect that.
QUESTION: Do you know if Cambodia will be sending some type of
representative to the ASEAN meeting, at what level, and will the Secretary
be meeting with this person?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if Cambodia will be represented there. You know
ASEAN has decided to delay the admission of Cambodia into its membership.
Will anyone be there? I simply don't know.
QUESTION: Nick, you say you have to deal with reality in Cambodia and
that the United States continues to recognize Ranariddh as the first prime
minister. However, one of the realities is also that he can't go back.
MR. BURNS: Well, when I say we have to deal with the realities, it is
still in our interest, given our humanitarian impulses -- the need to try
to help innocent people in Cambodia -- it is in our interest to deal, to
talk to and to communicate with people like Hun Sen and the Cambodian
foreign minister, the person who claims to be the first prime minister but
who is the foreign minister. It is in our interest to talk with them and
we will continue to talk with them. One of the things we will be doing in
our communications with them is to tell them where we think they need to
improve their own behavior to meet international standards and to
communicate the five principles that we have laid down now over the last
two weeks. That is reality.
But we also need to pay attention and be respectful to democratic
procedures. Prince Ranariddh was elected. One of the leading democratic
countries in the world, if not the leading democratic country, the United
States, is not going to turn it's back on democrats and we're not going to
agree with the usurpation of power, illegally, by a person like Hun Sen.
That's our position.
QUESTION: Isn't one of the realities is that he is now a politician in
exile without power?
MR. BURNS: He is currently in exile and he currently does not have power
in Cambodia, but we still believe he's the democratically elected leader of
the country, Jim, and it would be inappropriate for the United States to
turn it's back on democracy and that's what we would be doing if we simply
discounted him and refused to recognize his position any more.
If there is a fair and open way to change political leaders in Cambodia,
well, that's the way to go, elections. We very much support elections in
May of next year. We hope that Hun Sen will allow these elections to take
place on a democratic basis with international monitoring. That's the only
way that the international community can be assured that a democratic
process is followed. Still on Cambodia?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: In spite of the United States' strong attitude, there's some
movement among the United States' allied countries to recognize Hun Sen's
new regime. For example, Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto said the other
day he indicated to accept Hun Sen's new government, saying that the
important thing is to elect the new first prime minister who could replace
the Prince Ranariddh. Do you have any comment on this? Or do you have any
conversation with those countries?
MR. BURNS: Well, we support the ASEAN approach which is to try to consult
with King Sihanouk or Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh to see if there's a way
to restore reason to this debate over the future of Cambodia. We certainly
believe that Prince Ranariddh's political party ought to be free to operate
in Cambodia and free of the executions and arrests and intimidation that
have been underway for the last week or so. On Cambodia? Yes.
QUESTION: So what is the current US position on Cambodia's possible entry
into ASEAN? Because ASEAN delegation implied the possible entries sometime
this year?
MR. BURNS: The United States supports the decision by ASEAN to suspend
consideration of Cambodia for membership in ASEAN. Given the events of the
last couple of weeks, we think it would be inconsistent to go forward now
that Hun Sen has usurped power there. Yes.
QUESTION: North Korea.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: North Korea is reported to have exported some corn to Japan
that China gave North Korea to help feed hungry people, their hungry
people. I invite your comment on that.
MR. BURNS: I'm just unaware of the facts. The allegation is that North
Korea has exported corn to Japan?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of that. I'll be glad to take the question,
though, given the interest that all of us have in the situation of food aid
in North Korea and the fact that there's a famine underway. I'd be glad to
take the question. I can't respond today because I'm not aware of the
report.
QUESTION: According to KBS news this morning, North Korea --
MR. BURNS: I have not seen the report, but I'll be glad to take the
question. Further, on North Korea, we talked yesterday about the incident
along the DMZ. The United Nations Command filed a protest yesterday, based
on the results of the joint observer team, the special investigative team's
investigation, which determined that the North Koreans committed an
armistice agreement violation in their actions within the DMZ yesterday. I
understand that the North Korean delegation at Panmunjom informed the
United Nations that it did not accept the protest.
If there's any lesson here, it is that the North Koreans should adhere to
the armistice agreement. If there is another lesson, it is that we should
get on with the four-party talks so that we can create the basis for a
permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. The United States fully,
obviously, supports forward movement on the four-party talks. We will have
a meeting on August 5th in New York -- a preparatory meeting which for the
first time will include China, and we are looking forward to that meeting.
QUESTION: Nick, do you think the South Korean forces acted appropriately
in firing at the North Koreans after their initial warning shots, rather
than just continue with warning shots in the air?
MR. BURNS: Sid, I think I have to leave the answer to that question to
the UN investigative team. We weren't there. This is a very complex
situation. The UN investigative team confirmed that the North Koreans
committed a violation. I don't believe that they confirmed that the South
Koreans committed a violation, but the North Koreans did. We do stand by
our ally South Korea, obviously, in this matter and in all others. Still
on Korea? Yes.
QUESTION: Well, do you think that this little skirmish, that it will
affect the four-way talks - perhaps a delay? Do you expect that all
parties will still attend?
MR. BURNS: It will not affect our own intention to go to New York on
August 5th and to negotiate and discuss seriously the four-party talks
proposal. We think we should go on with that because that is in our best
interest and the best interest of the Korean people - the people of South
Korea and North Korea.
QUESTION: What about the ROK? Are they also expected to attend?
MR. BURNS: We believe the South Koreans will be there. The Chinese will
be there, and we hope very much the North Koreans will be there, as well.
They ought to. It's in their interest to be there.
QUESTION: On Korea?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the U.S.-ROK missile talks in Hawaii?
MR. BURNS: I don't have anything for you on that. But I'll be glad to
take the question. I'm sure somebody -- Lorraine Toly in our East Asian
Bureau, I'm sure, would be glad to give you something on that. Are you
talking about the nonproliferation task force meeting?
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was - okay. That meeting is
still going on so we will have a report on that. I thought you were
referring to a different set of talks.
QUESTION: In Hawaii?
MR. BURNS: The nonproliferation talks --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: -- are still ongoing. When they end, we will have something
to say about them. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yeah, Nick, the House and the Senate passed amendments calling
for the imposition of trade restrictions on Syria. The restrictions would
make it impossible for any kind of financial transactions between American
banks and Syrian banks. What is the position of the State Department on
this? And are you concerned that these new restrictions, if they become
law, would have a negative impact on the peace process?
MR. BURNS: I think our position with the House and the Senate, as they
move to conference, will be that we do not support these particular
amendments. As you know, the United States has a very difficult
relationship with Syria. Syria is on our terrorism list and our narcotics
list. There are virtually no major U.S. assistance programs underway.
There is no U.S. assistance to Syria. Ex-IM and OPIC are not operating
there. We don't have a normal relationship with Syria. But then again to
--
QUESTION: There is trade.
MR. BURNS: There is some trade. To treat Syria as we treat, say, Iran,
we think there has to be a distinction made. The distinction is this --
however difficult the Middle East peace talks have been, Syria has been at
the table for a number of years. Syria has at least been active with
Israel and with Lebanon and other countries in the Middle East in the
various tracks of the Middle East peace process. That's not true of Iran.
So there has to be some distinction made.
With Iran we have a total economic embargo. With Syria we have a very poor
relationship with strong disagreements on major issues like terrorism, like
narcotics. But we still think that this provision probably exceeds where
we ought to go. We will be making that clear to the Congress in our
private discussions with members of the Senate and the House.
QUESTION: Nick, Syria hasn't been at the table for more than a year now.
What are you talking about?
MR. BURNS: What I am talking about, Sid, is the fact that it takes -
Syria has been at the table, at the Wye Plantation. We still discuss the
Middle East peace process issues with the Syrians. Syria, at least as of
today, has not rejected the Middle East peace process as Iran has done.
There are distinctions here. I don't think you ought to - you would not
want to draw a monolith and draw Iran and Syria within the same group. I
don't think that would be accurate or fair.
QUESTION: Are you getting somewhere with the people on the Hill?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think that remains to be seen. We have already begun
to discuss this with people on the Hill. We will have to await the
conference and see where it comes out. But this is our position, and we
will pursue this position.
QUESTION: Nick, there are some investigators in this country who are
drawing a line between Iran and Syria on the Khobar bombing. How can you
make statements like that with that question still unanswered?
MR. BURNS: Sid, that question is unanswered. The United States
Government has not determined which groups were responsible for the bombing
of Khobar barracks that killed 19 American servicemen and officers. Until
we determine that, I don't think it's responsible of me or of you, to point
the finger in any country's direction. The chips will fall where they may.
If the evidence points to anybody, we will point the finger there. But the
evidence is not conclusive yet and the investigation is not over.
As I said, we have major problems with the Syrian Government and not a very
good relationship with the Syrian Government. But we believe, in the
context of this debate in the Congress, it's appropriate for us to have the
point of view that we have. We will pursue it with the Congress.
QUESTION: Nick, on Nigeria.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Is there any response to the Nigerians' request to speak to the
American ambassador?
MR. BURNS: This is very curious that an autocratic regime, a dictatorial
regime, a major violator of human rights like the Nigerians would seek to
question the ambassador of the United States on a terrorist issue and ask
him to lift his diplomatic immunity. There must be a misunderstanding
here. The Nigerians must have misunderstood either this issue, or they
must have misstated something or mis-communicated their intentions
publicly, because we cannot figure out what the Nigerians are up to. To
assert or to imply in any way that the United States is involved in
terrorism in Nigeria is outrageous and unfounded. There is no question
about diplomatic immunity.
Our ambassador is not going to give up his diplomatic immunity to appear at
a hearing in a country that's dictatorial and that has no rule of law.
That would be foolhardy on our part, and it's not going to happen. So I
think probably we ought to toss the ball back in the Nigerian court and ask
them for an explanation of these very curious and unusual charges.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: Anything to my yesterday's pending question on Bulent Ecevit's
visit to the Turkish occupied territory of Cyprus?
MR. BURNS: Well, Mr. Lambros, we have seen press reports that the deputy
prime minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, is planning to travel to Northern
Cyprus with a delegation. The situation on Cyprus this summer, in contrast
to last summer, is calm. There are positive signs that come out of last
week's talks in Trout Beck, New York, where President Clerides and
Mr. Denktash spent a great deal of time together. As you know, they are
going to be meeting in Geneva in the middle of August and there may even be
some informal conversations in Cyprus before that.
So we think the trends in Cyprus are positive and we very much hope that
Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit will use his visit to help further this
constructive, positive trend on Cyprus. I think constructive and positive
would be the two words that I would suggest you accentuate in your news
report on this briefing.
QUESTION: In other words, did you approve this visit to the occupied
territory of Cyprus?
MR. BURNS: It's not a question of approving. I didn't say we approved of
the visit. I did not say we approved -
QUESTION: But this is an opportunity -
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, give me time to respond. You have asked a very
good question. I did not say we approved of the visit. I have taken note
of press reports that he will be visiting. I am simply suggesting that his
visit be constructive and positive. If Cyprus is going to be resolved as a
very, very serious issue in the Eastern Mediterranean, it will take Turks
and Greeks, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, to resolve it. We are
calling upon Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit to carry out, to acquit himself
in that spirit, a positive, constructive spirit.
QUESTION: But how will it be constructive since made statements yesterday
that he is intent to annex Cyprus to Turkey?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, perhaps that is why we are calling upon him to be
positive and constructive.
QUESTION: According to Athens news agency -- the official news agency of
the Greek government, I have to emphasize -- a group of ten armed Turkish
F-16 and F-4 were placed yesterday in (inaudible) -- again, the Athens FIR
-- and violated the Greek airspace over the Aegean between the Greek
islands of (inaudible) and Lesbos.
How do you comment since Mr. Kornblum has brokered the so-called Madrid
agreement of principles -
MR. BURNS: Mr. who?
QUESTION: Kornblum.
MR. BURNS: He did what?
QUESTION: He brokered.
MR. BURNS: Oh, broker. I thought you said he broke.
QUESTION: No, no.
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, I thought you were charging John Kornblum with
having broken the Madrid agreement.
QUESTION: No, no, no.
MR. BURNS: He and Secretary Albright brokered the accords.
QUESTION: That's it.
MR. BURNS: Right, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: So the so-called Madrid agreement on principles which, under
these Turkish circumstances, is a joke.
MR. BURNS: Yes, I am not aware of the incident that you refer. I have no
information available to me about any violation of the Athens FIR. So we
will have to check into that before I can get back to you on that. But I
will say this -- that the Madrid agreement is very positive and
constructive as well. We hope that in the spirit of Madrid, Greece and
Turkey will now take some practical steps to carry on this process of
improving relations between those two countries.
Obviously, Mr. Lambros, I don't know about this particular incident, but
the United States would expect that Turkey and Greece would respect each
other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and not engage in incidents
that would violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of either. I
cannot comment, however, on this particular incident because we have to
check the facts first and check the reports.
QUESTION: Anything on the U.S. mission in the area by Greg Craig, Peter
Petrihos and Miriam Sapiro?
MR. BURNS: Greg Craig, the policy planning director who reports directly
to Secretary Albright has visited Athens, Ankara and is now in Cyprus --
QUESTION: Cyprus, yes, today.
MR. BURNS: -- on his visit to the eastern Mediterranean. I expect he
will be back over the weekend here in Washington.
QUESTION: What are these so-called airspace violations? Isn't it true
that the United States Government does not recognize ten-mile airspace
around Greek territorial waters?
MR. BURNS: You know, what I would like to do is, just on this particular
charge that has been made today, I want to try to get the facts and see if
we can corroborate the report, then I'll have an answer at tomorrow's
briefing.
QUESTION: I think U.S. position is Turkish position.
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to take up that issue, the question you asked, at
tomorrow's briefing as well.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BURNS: Yes, sir, Talal.
QUESTION: Ignoring your strong United Nation rebuke, Israel has ordered
the bulldozers back again to resume work at the Har Homa settlement.
Netanyahu has declared yesterday there are many important issues and, most
of all - and I quote him -- is "Jerusalem and that we will not surrender to
pressure on that issue," meaning Jerusalem.
How can you reconcile between the position in the United Nations voting
against that rebuke, with Micronesia, I must add -
MR. BURNS: Excuse me? With?
QUESTION: Micronesia. You heard about Micronesia?
MR. BURNS: I certainly have heard.
QUESTION: Okay, sir.
MR. BURNS: You don't mean to demean Micronesia by noting their vote with
the United States?
QUESTION: That's right, sir.
MR. BURNS: Good.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Okay.
QUESTION: And how do you reconcile between your position and the clearly
stated policy of that administration that Jerusalem must be left to the
final stages in negotiation?
MR. BURNS: Our consistent position in the Middle East peace negotiations
has been that Israel and the Palestinians have a mutual obligation to make
peace together. We did not think it was helpful for the General Assembly
to pass a resolution which you and I know - - and everyone else in the
General Assembly knew when they voted -- would have zero effect on the
ground.
The United Nations is a very important institution which we support
wholeheartedly. We do not believe it should be a debating society about
issues that the Palestinians and the Israelis have already agreed are their
own issues to conduct privately between themselves. For an outside body
like the General Assembly to intrude on that process, we think it's not
helpful. Nothing good is going to come out of it. It is just words and
it's just a debate that will not materially, in a concrete way, affect
positively the Middle East peace negotiations.
So, therefore, we think the General Assembly, with all due respect, ought
to concern itself with other matters. We think the Palestinians and the
Israelis, having already agreed on a process to negotiate, should continue
their negotiations, be fair to each other and try to make progress. That
is where the United States lies. We are very secure about our vote the
other day. Just because other countries did not join us doesn't mean that
they are right and we are wrong, by the way.
QUESTION: What is your comment on the statement by the prime minister
that they will not surrender to any pressure on the Jerusalem issue,
meaning any pressure?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think you know the long-standing position of Israel
and the Palestinians in the Oslo Accords; and that is that that particular
issue is a final permanent status issue. We would expect that when the
talks and if the talks reach that stage, that an issue would be addressed
by them. That's why that issue, which is a very emotional and complex and
sensitive issue, ought to be left to the Israelis and the Palestinians to
deal with without any kind of debate and votes in the United Nations which
are not going to affect the situation on the ground. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Turkish Cypriot President Mr. Denktash today offered to Greek
side to establish a joint police force which in charge of the green line.
Did you see this news?
MR. BURNS: I did not. No, I'm not aware of that. So that's another
question we'll have to check on for tomorrow's briefing.
QUESTION: Yeah. Another subject is the government of Baghdad wants total
the lift of the UN sanctions against Iraq. Do you have any comment on
that?
MR. BURNS: You mean Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be lifted?
QUESTION: Saddam Hussein.
MR. BURNS: Well, that's not going to happen because he has violated UN
Security Council resolutions going back to March of 1991. Until he assures
all of us that he is fully in compliance with those resolutions and until
he answers the question of what happened to the more than 700 Kuwaitis who
disappeared when Kuwait was illegally occupied by Iraq, he doesn't have a
prayer of having the sanctions lifted. There is no support for that in the
Security Council and there will be no support.
If you look at the testimony of Ambassador Ekeus, who has left his position
as the UN special negotiator, Saddam Hussein has consistently lied to the
United Nations about his program to develop weapons of mass destruction.
So why would we lift the sanctions if he continues to violate UN Security
Council resolutions and continues to lie about his program to build weapons
of mass destruction? That wouldn't make any sense to lift the sanctions.
QUESTION: And also, today is the Iraqi Kurdish groups violated the cease
fire in Northern Iraq and they start fighting each other. And do you have
any comment on the subject?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have been in touch with both the KDP and the PUK,
with the leaders of both about some of the problems in their work together
in Northern Iraq. Both leaders -- Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani -- have
assured us that they wish to continue to implement the cease fire
established last October. Both parties have expressed concerns to us about
some of these incidents, but they say that both are prepared to remain in
discussion with each other about ways to resolve them and that's the proper
thing to do.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR. BURNS: You're welcome. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Back to Cambodia. King Sihanouk told ASEAN foreign minister --
delegation of the ASEAN foreign minister, that he was not opposed to the
appointment of the new first prime minister. Do you have any comment on
that?
MR. BURNS: We do not have a briefing yet from ASEAN or a report from
ASEAN on the conversation that the three foreign ministers had with King
Sihanouk. So I can't really reply to that question until we get the
report.
QUESTION: And another subject, about the UN Security Council reform. Are
all developing countries divided into three groups - Asia or Latin America
or Middle East? No, not Middle East, Africa?
MR. BURNS: Well, our position is that the new permanent members should
come from those three regions. The countries of those regions should
decide on the candidates for the seats themselves. We're not going to
suggest our own candidates.
QUESTION: So the Middle East countries Kuwait or Saudi Arabia will be
qualified for the Africa or ASEAN group?
MR. BURNS: Depending on the geographic location of the Middle East
country. For instance, Egypt is an African country and had seen itself to
be an African country for many, many decades, and is part of the OAU.
Other Middle Eastern countries would not fit into Africa.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary conclude her review with advisors on the
travel ban to Lebanon?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe she has, but she is looking at that question.
There's been quite a lot of discussion about the issue and obviously, some
contacts with the Lebanese Government itself. At some point in the next
week or so or ten days, the United States will have to make a decision on
this. We will do so. We will inform you once that decision is made.
QUESTION: Will you make the announce when she's away? I mean, could it
be announced here when she's away?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't know. The Secretary is going to be on leave -
she left at noon today - from now until Tuesday evening. Then on Wednesday
morning, she goes off to California and then to Malaysia and Singapore. So
she won't be back in the office until, I believe, August 1st. So I assume
this decision will be announced when she's not in town. It could be
announced next week, it could be beyond that.
This is a very important issue. We're taking great care with it. We
understand the importance of this issue in Lebanon. We've spoken to Prime
Minister Hariri repeatedly over a number of years about this. We
understand the sentiments of the Lebanese people. We take all this into
account with all the other factors that we must look at, including the
security factors. We'll try to make the best decision that we can, and
we'll announce it to you once that decision is made.
QUESTION: Could we just go back to the Syria question? One button we
didn't press - is the Secretary prepared to recommend that the President
veto a bill that contains that element?
MR. BURNS: Oh, we're not anywhere close to that consideration yet, Sid.
I think what's happened is that you have language now from the Senate and
the House. At some point it will go to conference and there will be other
issues attached to the bills. So I don't believe there's any consideration
of that question yet because we're too early in the process.
QUESTION: The Guardian newspaper today has reported that the operation of
capturing Kansi cost the United States $3 million. I don't know how true
is that. But they also reported that you're actively now putting a plan
together to capture Osama Bin Ladin. He's been accused of financing and
organizing some terrorists. Is there any truth to this?
MR. BURNS: I have no information for you on that issue, for obvious
reasons.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Can we go back to North Korea? I understand senators have
passed an amendment limiting North Korean aid. Can you tell me a little
about that?
MR. BURNS: There may be some amendments in the Senate, various bills in
the Senate about food aid to North Korea.
QUESTION: No, not of food aid, economic aid like KEDO.
MR. BURNS: Well, KEDO comes up, of course, every year. The United States
strongly supports KEDO. It's part of the agreed framework, part of our
effort to freeze North Korea's nuclear program, and we very much support
full funding of our KEDO request. Yes, sir?
QUESTION: One more? On the Madrid agreement, the Greek newspaper
Pontiki, P-o-n-t-i-k-i, which means mouse -
(Laughter)
-- dispatched a very interesting cartoon presenting Simitis and Demirel to
get married in Madrid with President Clinton acting as a best man placing
their heads, Turkish faces as the (inaudible) under the title, "What
Clinton has brought together the Aegean Sea shall not put down,"
paraphrasing, actually, the biblical version of what God brought together
no man shall put asunder.
The cartoon does not clarify who is the groom and who is the bride.
(Laughter.)
But it clearly reflects the mentality in Greece right now that the Madrid
agreement is a very pro- Turkish agreement, produced by the
U.S. Government, as they say.
MR. BURNS: A what agreement?
QUESTION: Pro-Turkish, very pro-Turkish; it's against Greece, produced by
the U.S. Government. Could you please comment on the Madrid agreement once
again?
MR. BURNS: I have never been asked to comment on a political cartoon
before.
(Laughter.)
And I'm nearly out of this job. I'm not sure I should comment on a cartoon
days before I leave this job. I think, Mr. Lambros, Madrid was positive
for Greece and for Turkey, and we will continue to try to promote
Greek-Turkish understanding. That is our commitment to our NATO allies.
We have great respect for both governments and intend to work with them.
How is that? That's a good answer. I would print that. Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:53 P.M.)
(###)
|
