U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #109, 97-07-18
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
509
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Friday, July 18, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1 Announcement of Visitors
1 Deputy Secretary Talbott Speech at Central Asia Institute at
Johns Hopkins
2 Press Statement on U.S.-Cuba Migration Talks
2-4 Public Announcements-Spain, Bahamas, Nicaragua
2 PM of Andorra to Visit Department
Press Statement on Cambodia
2-6 --Designation of Congressman Solarz as Special Envoy
24 Secretary's Schedule for Week of July 27
CAMBODIA
6-8 Political Crisis--Diplomatic Initiatives
GEORGIA
8 Makharadze Case/Diplomatic Immunity
8-9 President Shevardnadze's Visit to U.S.
CASPIAN SEA
9-11 Oil Reserves/Pipelines
RUSSIA
11-13 Legislation on Religious Restrictions
15 U.S. Participation in MIR Program/Cooperation in Space
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
13,23 Proposal to Add Members to UN Security Council
NORTHERN IRELAND (UNITED KINGDOM)
13-14 Report of Gerry Adams' Offer for Ceasefire
CYPRUS
16 Report of Presence of Turkish Naval Vessels
16 Madrid Process/Second Round of UN Talks
GREECE
16-17 Reported Violations of Greek FIR by Turkish Aircraft
CANADA
18-21 Pacific Salmon Issue
BURMA
21 Aung San Suu Kyi/SLORC Mtg.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
21-22 Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erakat Mtgs. w/Pickering,
Eizenstat, Ross
22-23 Arafat Orders Investigation into Palestinian Policeman's
Activities
TURKEY
23-24 Allegation of Clandestine Relationship between CIA/Ciller
NORTH KOREA
24-25 Report of Chinese Corn Shipment from North Korea to Japan
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #109
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1997 1:08 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: That's right, I'm wearing my baseball tie because the Red Sox
thrashed the Orioles the last two days.
QUESTION: You're not going to read out the --
MR. BURNS: I'm gloating. We're in last place; we beat the Orioles.
QUESTION: We don't need to read the newspapers, just watch your tie.
MR. BURNS: Exactly, just watch this space right here; you'll know if the
Red Sox are winning. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the
State Department briefing. I want to welcome a couple of guests today -
Anthony Dragon from Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a student at NYU. Anthony
was at a program that we held here this morning for American and foreign
college and graduate students. Anthony, welcome. And two visitors from
Rhodes - Mr. Soulounias and Mr. Fokianos, who are here from Rhodes in
Greece. I don't know if Mr. Lambros has formed a welcoming committee; I
guess he hasn't.
(Laughter.)
Usually Mr. Lambros is here - our Greek journalist from Athens. But you are
welcome; very nice to see you here.
A couple of items before we go to questions. First, Deputy Secretary
Talbott - Strobe Talbott - is going to deliver an important Administration
statement on Monday. That's this coming Monday, July 21, from 1:00 p.m. to
2:00 p.m., to the Central Asian Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies - a terrific graduate school of advanced
international studies. The title of the speech is, "A Farewell to Flashman:
American Policy in the Caucusus and Central Asia." If you know about
flashman -- if you don't know about flashman, we can talk about that after
the briefing - a fictitious character in the great game in the 19th century
in that region. As you know, this school is located at Mass Ave., here in
Washington, so that is an on-the-record event.
Second, I wanted to make sure that you'd seen that we issued a press
statement last evening on the U.S.-Cuba migration talks that were held
between the 16th and 17th of July this week. We've got information on
that. I'll be glad to take questions on that.
Third, we've also issued some public announcements over the last 24 hours -
one on Spain, concerning the potential for violence in Spain, particularly
in the Basque region. I'd urge you to look at that. A public announcement
on the Bahamas, which talks about the threat to American citizens from some
criminal elements in the Bahamas. And also one on Nicaragua. So I want to
refer those to you.
Two other messages - the first is to tell you that Mr. Mark Forne Molne,
who is the prime minister of Andorra, will be visiting the State Department
today. Now, this is particularly important and particularly interesting. He
is the first head of government of Andorra ever to visit Washington on an
official visit for official talks. He'll be meeting with Under Secretary
Tom Pickering and officers from our Bureau of European and Canadian
Affairs. They're going to be discussing UN reforms, cultural exchanges and
other matters of mutual interest between the United States and Andorra. You
know we have diplomatic relations with Andorra.
While in Washington, he'll also be paying calls on various members of
Congress and seeing business leaders. He'll also be introducing the
Andorran Boys' Choir at their performance tomorrow night at the Kennedy
Center. So for all of those of you who have an interest in
Andorra-U.S. relations, I thought that would be of interest.
Finally, you all saw last evening we issued a press statement that
Secretary Albright has designated former Congressman Steve Solarz to be the
special American envoy to Cambodia. I talked with Congressman Solarz just a
little while ago, and I can tell you that he plans to leave Washington
tomorrow for the Far East. He'll be visiting Tokyo, Beijing, Jakarta,
Bangkok, Phnom Penh and Kuala Lumpur. That's the current itinerary. That is
subject to change, depending on the availability of some of the leaders
with whom he would like to meet. He will be meeting high-level leaders in
each of these capitals to discuss the situation in Cambodia. I expect in
Phnom Penh that he will be seeing Mr. Hun Sen and also the Cambodian
foreign minister. I expect in Beijing he'll be seeing King Sihanouk. He
hopes very much in Bangkok to see Prince Ranariddh, Mr. Sam Rainsy and
other prominent political figures in the Cambodian opposition.
The purpose of this mission is quite straightforward. It is to allow the
United States, though the auspices of a very distinguished former
congressman, Steve Solarz, to coordinate with our allies and interested
parties in the field in all of the countries that I just mentioned a
position which we hope will provide some international impetus to try to
help resolve the political crisis in Cambodia itself. This is a very
important mission. It has been given great thought here. Secretary Albright
has discussed this mission with Congressman Solarz. Under Secretary Tom
Pickering has had numerous discussions with him.
The major focus of this trip will be to undertake a very vigorous
diplomatic dialogue with all the countries along the way to look at the
crisis in Cambodia within the framework of the 1991 Paris Peace Accords,
and to try to see if the United States can agree with all of those
countries on some kind of coherent initiative to move this process forward
and in a positive direction. That is very important.
Now, Congressman Solarz will be meeting up with the Secretary in Kuala
Lumpur. I believe that will be the 26th of July. Before the Secretary
begins her meetings on the 26th, 27th and 28th with ASEAN leaders, she will
have the benefit of receiving a first-hand direct report from Congressman
Solarz on his diplomatic journey through the Far East and Southeast Asia.
We expect that Cambodia will be a prominent issue during the ASEAN
meetings, and Secretary Albright figured this was the best way for us to
position ourselves to gain a lot of information, to gain the first-hand
perspectives of our friends and allies in the region, to try to see if
there can be an international solution to the problem in Cambodia. I will
be very glad to take questions on this or any other issue as we proceed.
QUESTION: Nick, to go to the warning in the Bahamas?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Very little information coming out of this building about a
sort of ambiguous statement. The Bahamians - the Bahamian Embassy here says
they knew nothing about it. They weren't very happy, and there has been
quite a few calls from the island itself, people expressing concern as to
whether they should leave, what sort of criminal elements. Can you shed any
light on this? Perhaps dampen the public hysteria a little bit.
MR. BURNS: I don't think there is any cause for public hysteria
concerning this announcement. We are certainly not recommending that
American citizens leave the Bahamas. But we do have an obligation to
American citizens to alert them when we think that there are potential
dangers to Americans overseas.
In this case, our embassy in Nassau, in the Bahamas, has received
information that some local criminal elements in the Bahamas may be
planning violence against U.S. interests in the Bahamas. We are very
actively investigating this information and a variety of sources with the
cooperation, I should add, of the authorities of the Bahamas. We'd just
like to remind American citizens who are traveling there or who are
residents there that they ought to pay special attention to their security
while they're in the Bahamas. Any suspicious activity that they might
notice should be reported to local authorities - to authorities of the
Bahamas. It's not meant to kind of create any kind of hysteria at all, but
it is consistent with our obligation to give American citizens the best
advice that we can.
QUESTION: Would you say this is more in line with street crime kind of
threats or something else?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to characterize these possible initiatives
because that might give an advantage to the criminals themselves. But we
just felt an obligation. Whenever we receive information privately -
through whatever source - it is not fair for the American Government to
protect its own people - our employees of our embassy - and not alert
American citizens. But I don't want to exaggerate this. There are
situations like this in many parts of the world and we routinely alert
American citizens to these problems.
QUESTION: Can you say that there's crime of a political nature, because
that's the way the statement reads?
MR. BURNS: Well, it's always hard to say, Howard, in these cases. We just
are aware that there are some criminal elements who may be planning an
operation against American interests. Now, it's always difficult to try to
predict what criminals have in mind. We just think that American citizens
ought to stay where they are, obviously, and try to enjoy themselves. But
they ought to just pay special attention to where they are and make sure
they know with whom they're traveling, for instance, and report any kind of
suspicious activities that they may notice to the local authorities who are
onto this issue and cooperating with us very effectively, we think.
QUESTION: Separate to who they are, what is their motivation? Do you have
any information on why that they're doing this?
MR. BURNS: I am deliberately not revealing as much information as we know
about because that would, we think, jeopardize our chances and the chances
of the local authorities in the Bahamas to be effective in interdicting
these people and hopefully incarcerating them.
QUESTION: Nick, on the Solarz mission, is he going out with any specific
ideas? Or is his brief just a listening one?
MR. BURNS: His brief is more than listening. His brief, obviously, is to
listen to the views of the Chinese and the Thai and the Cambodians and
others. But it's also to put forward a very vigorous view by the United
States that the status quo cannot be tolerated. The fact that Mr. Hun Sen
has illegally and unfairly usurped the power of the democratically elected
authorities; the fact that he has tried to intimidate Prince Ranariddh from
not returning to Cambodia; the fact that he is trying to install the
Cambodian foreign minister into the position of first prime minister -- all
without any recourse to democratic procedures - is very disturbing to us.
Now, what we'd like to do - and we've said this, I think, from the second
day of this crisis, a week ago Tuesday - is to act with ASEAN, with our
friends in Asia, like the Japanese Government, and to consult with
prominent governments like the Chinese Government to see if there's a way
that, all of us working together, can try to promote a peaceful resolution
of the current Cambodian crisis. We have an obligation and a self-interest
to try to be effective. That's why Congressman Solarz is going out to try
to help resolve the problems. We want to be as effective as we can, but we
do also have an obligation to be - to tell it like it is and to be clear
about our very strong opposition to what Hun Sen has done and to try to see
if that can be reversed.
QUESTION: You said the status quo -
QUESTION: Did you say he was going to Vietnam?
MR. BURNS: Did I say - no, I did not say he's going to Vietnam.
QUESTION: Why is he not going to Vietnam? It's a pretty important player.
MR. BURNS: Well, let me tell you. It is now Friday and the Secretary of
State is going to be in Malaysia before long, at the end of next week. He
has got a very daunting and challenging travel schedule as it is. We will
have a chance to discuss this issue with the Vietnamese in Kuala
Lumpur. They will be there as a member of ASEAN. So we don't wish to
exclude the Vietnamese, but you can only fit so many countries into one
trip. The countries that are mentioned, of course, are priority countries
here. But we have been talking to the Vietnamese in Hanoi about this
situation and will continue that.
QUESTION: Nick, you said the status quo can't be tolerated. You can't get
status quo anti either can you? The opposition is cornered and
disintegrating - I mean the opposition to the coup. Your friends out there
are one by one falling in line, backing whoever is in charge of
things. Isn't this sort of geared to the future -- hoping to maybe
negotiate a little room for political diversity? But haven't you just given
up? You're not going to get Hun Sen out of there, are you?
MR. BURNS: All provocative questions, Barry. But, no.
QUESTION: You want the real provocative? What took you so long to send
somebody?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Because it's all over, but the shouting. By all accounts, the
opposition has been overwhelmed. They are cornered near the Thai border,
right? Sihanouk in Beijing isn't even helping you. I mean, what are you
going to try to do? What can you do to undo this injustice?
MR. BURNS: Okay, so the questions have stopped. Now I'm going to answer.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BURNS: Basically, Barry, we are not willing to concede that the
status quo anti cannot be returned to. We are not willing to concede that
we should do nothing when democracy has been flouted so brazenly by Hun Sen
in Cambodia. We are not willing to concede that Prince Ranariddh is no
longer first prime minister of Cambodia. He is first prime minister of
Cambodia. The Cambodian people put him there, and the Cambodian foreign
minister does not have the right to take that position without the free
choice -- without coercion and without intimidation -- of Prince
Ranariddh's political party, of which the Cambodian Foreign Minister is a
member, and a leading member.
All we are saying is this -- the 1991 Paris Peace Accords were the best
chance that Cambodia has had to try to go beyond the tragedy and the
genocide of the Khmer Rouge period. We think that ought to be
strengthened. We think it ought to be supported, and that is what we are
supporting. I don't think it is over yet in Cambodia. We think there is an
opportunity for the international community, particularly the ASEAN
countries, working with other countries in Asia and the United States, to
see if we can exert a point of view that will argue for a reasoned,
peaceful settlement of the crisis in Cambodia. That is what we are after,
an international solution. No, we don't turn out back on democracy. That
is not in the American tradition. We are not going to do that in this case.
QUESTION: Nick, did - -
QUESTION: Well, why did you send Solarz? Why didn't the Secretary send
him sooner? You just said that it's so little time left until ASEAN and
with so many cities --
MR. BURNS: He's still going to visit six countries. He's still going to
visit six countries.
QUESTION: But why not have sent him earlier when there was - you
condemned Hun Sen for so many days and you said that you weren't willing to
accept what he has done. Why not have appointed the Congressman sooner?
MR. BURNS: I'll tell you why -- because the United States said, when
ASEAN met and decided to send the trio of ASEAN foreign ministers to
Beijing and Bangkok and Phnom Penh, that we would like to see ASEAN take
the lead and we would like to see the ASEAN diplomatic mission go first. We
said that.
The ASEAN mission, now, has been to Beijing. They've talked to King
Sihanouk. They have been to Bangkok and talked to Prince Ranariddh. They
will be in Phnom Penh. Congressman Solarz is now being sent out to be the
American envoy to be debriefed personally and in detail by the ASEAN
foreign ministers about their own initiatives, and then to talk to the
principals - King Sihanouk, Prince Ranariddh, Mr. Hun Sen - personally
before Secretary Albright arrives in K.L., in Kuala Lumpur, for this round
of discussions on Cambodia, which of course will take place on the margins
of the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Post Ministerial Conference.
So I think we've had a well-integrated, actually, choreography here of
diplomatic steps - ASEAN first, now the United States. I should remind you
- because sometimes people forget this - we also have the benefit of having
outstanding ambassadors, foreign service officers and others in all these
capitals. They've been doing their job; they've been representing American
interests. We've been doing quite well, I think, in following the crisis
and inserting our own point of view.
QUESTION: Nick, there is this idea being floated around about caretaker
government and early elections. Is that something the United States would
be willing to support?
MR. BURNS: At this point, we're not going to float an American plan or
American ideas. We've seen reference to these ideas in the press
commentary. We're just going to, I think, refrain from any public comment
and negotiate privately and discuss privately various options with the
ASEAN and the other countries in the region.
QUESTION: Do you know what China's thinking on this is? Because there was
a report - I'm sure you saw it - in The Wall Street Journal today, saying
that China broadcast one of Hun Sen's speeches this week and basically is
endorsing him and coming out and saying they'd like to see him in power and
they're going to tell the Cambodian Assembly to recognize the foreign
minister as the first prime minister.
MR. BURNS: Well, I can't speak for the Chinese Government, so you might
refer to the Chinese spokesman or the foreign ministry for Chinese
comment. We are in touch with the Chinese very closely on this issue. One
of the reasons that Congressman Solarz will be traveling to Beijing not
only is to see King Sihanouk, but to touch base with the Chinese
Government.
QUESTION: So one would assume that the Congressman will bring this up
with the Chinese.
MR. BURNS: Bring the issue of Cambodia --
QUESTION: Whether they're endorsing Hun Sen or not.
MR. BURNS: Well, I'm sure he'll discuss all aspects of this crisis with
the Chinese Government.
QUESTION: Is the United States concerned about China's position?
MR. BURNS: The United States takes note of China's position as we
understand it. You'll have to ask China to express its position; I can't do
that for them. We'll be very pleased to work with China on this. We expect
that China will be a constructive partner in this process.
QUESTION: The other day the Japanese Government issued a statement saying
that it was "proper" for Hun Sen and his government to name the foreign
minister as replacement for Ranariddh. That appears to be in direct
conflict with the U.S. position. Is that not right?
MR. BURNS: I did not see the Japanese Government statement. But I can
tell you this - let's remember how these people came into power. There was
an election. Then the parliament met and by parliamentary vote, Prince
Ranariddh was made first prime minister and Mr. Hun Sen, second prime
minister. It is not appropriate in any way, shape or form for the Cambodian
foreign minister simply to declare himself to be the prime minister - the
first prime minister, to replace Prince Ranariddh - without resort to a
parliamentary debate and vote, free of coercion and intimidation by the
governing authorities in Phnom Penh. That's a very important principle in
any parliamentary democracy.
QUESTION: The point of my question, however, was that it is going to be
difficult to put together a coherent international position if the policies
of Tokyo and Washington are that diametrically opposed.
MR. BURNS: I am not aware that the policies of Japan and the United
States are diametrically opposed. We've had some good discussions with the
Japanese Government. Congressman Solarz will be there. I am sure the
Secretary will be seeing Foreign Minister Ikeda at the ASEAN meetings in
Kuala Lumpur. Sometimes friends and allies do have tactical differences,
but I am not aware we have an strategic differences, which is really what
is meaningful here. Yes, Howard.
QUESTION: Different subject. The trial apparently is opening Monday of
the Georgian diplomat, and I am wondering whether you have any thoughts on
the trial itself or any comment on the problem of foreign diplomats
violating that law and how that has been tackled in the intervening time?
MR. BURNS: Well, Mr. Makharadze will face trial, and that, of course, is
justice because there is an allegation of a very serious crime. I cannot
comment on that particular trial because that would interference by our
branch of government on matters that are properly that of the Judicial
Branch of government.
But I can say on the wider issue, Howard, that we remain convinced that
while American diplomats overseas have a responsibility to obey foreign
laws, foreign diplomats in the United States must obey our laws. I think
the American public feels very strongly. You have seen this in the reaction
to these cases of drunk driving and abuse over the last couple of months
that foreign diplomats in this country, while they have diplomatic
immunity, have an obligation to pay their parking fines, not to drive under
the influence of alcohol at 90 miles per hour on any road in this country.
This has struck a real nerve, I think, with the American public, as it
should. So we have reminded - this Department has reminded all foreign
diplomats accredited in New York, in Washington, Chicago, San Francisco,
wherever consuls and embassies are, they must obey our law. That is also
our instruction to our own diplomats overseas.
QUESTION: Nick, can you give us a bit of an advance on what the Strobe
Talbott-Eduard Shevardnadze meeting is all about?
MR. BURNS: Well, you know that Mr. Shevardnadze is here as part of a
visit. He is seeing the President tonight at 7:00 p.m. He saw the Vice
President and Strobe yesterday. He's seeing Strobe today. We have a heavy
agenda with Georgia. If you would like, Barry, I can go through that
agenda for you. But President Shevardnadze has been one of our major
interlocutors since the collapse of the Soviet Union. We have worked very
well with him. We have a close friendly relationship with Georgia. We would
like to, I think, first and foremost acknowledge his leadership in the
Caucuses in forging an independent state in Georgia; for having introduced
market reforms economically, democratic reforms politically in a country
that never knew that when it was within the Soviet Union as a republic, or
under the tutelage of Russia in the 19th century.
There are some specific commercial issues that need to be
discussed. President Shevardnadze said yesterday he hoped to expand trade
and investment between Georgia and the United States. That is
important. We have an assistance program to Georgia which we feel is very
important. Georgia has, I think, been a rational voice in trying to make
sure that the Caucuses are not only stable, but independent in every sense
of that word. We also have an interest in talking about security issues in
that part of the world where President Shevardnadze has influence.
So there are a variety of issues here. He is a respected interlocutor. You
remember he was here in the Spring of 1994 on an official visit to see
President Clinton, and we are very pleased about it.
QUESTION: He is talking mostly, of course, about the Caspian oil reserve.
MR. BURNS: Also talking about that.
QUESTION: And probably going to get rich about it. What can the U.S. do
to - on behalf of American investors? What might the U.S. do? They
apparently have pretty decent help from former secretaries of state and
national security advisors, anybody who is willing to take a big pay
check. But I wondered what the incumbent government officials can do for
Georgia and the other countries that are likely reap a harvest?
MR. BURNS: Well, since the break-up of the Soviet Union, this issue of
Caspian oil reserves has been one of the major issues that we have dealt
with. We have had a consistent position all along. There ought to be an
opportunity for foreign countries to bid on contracts, explore for oil and
enter into joint venture arrangements with the Azeri Government and others
on the Caspian Sea littoral area to have free trade and free investment,
free of coercion - political coercion - from any neighboring state. That is
a very important principle.
The Caspian reserves, next to the Persian Gulf reserves are probably the
greatest reserves in the world. They will be very important for the future
stability of the Caucasus countries, the Central Asian countries and for
Europe and the United States. We have a number of major American oil
companies who would like to plan major investments in the Caspian and also
to construct various pipelines to take the crude out to be shipped to
markets in Europe and in Asia.
While the United States Government won't be constructing the pipelines, we
have worked very vigorously politically to make sure that all the issues
that encumber the construction of pipelines can be worked out and that
there is a free market to bid -- free of coercion. The states in the
Caspian have formed their own organization, their own process for working
out these issues, and we have been centrally involved. President Clinton
has discussed these issues with President Yeltsin, with President Aliyev,
with President Ter-Petrossian, with President Shevardnadze, and
Nazarbayez. The Vice President has been very active in this through his
commissions; Strobe Talbott very active; and now Secretary Albright. So
this is one of the major issues in our relations with the countries of the
former Soviet Union, and it is being discussed today, too.
QUESTION: Is there any restraint -- if not legal, moral -- on former
officials jumping in, using their prior knowledge in government to serve as
expensive consultants? I am referring especially to that extensive
Washington Post piece recently which names, if I remember, maybe a half a
dozen prominent people who have found ways to make big bucks out of this
Caspian bonanza. Is there anything wrong with that from the State
Department's view? Once a guy walks out of this building or out of the
White House, is he open for the highest bid?
MR. BURNS: Barry, you know that --
QUESTION: I don't remember Dean Rusk doing things like that, for
instance. I mean, he went back and taught law school. Is that the way it
goes now in end-of-century capitalism?
MR. BURNS: You have made some pretty serious charges against - -
QUESTION: I'm not making charges.
MR. BURNS: You have made some pretty serious charges --
QUESTION: It's not a charge. It's a fact, as reported by the Post.
MR. BURNS: Let me put it this way, implied in your question are some
serious charges, from my point of view, against some people -- highly
respected Republican and Democrats - who served in high positions.
QUESTION: Oh, bipartisan, of course.
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: And let me just answer the - it is bipartisan. I have worked
with a lot of these people in Republican and Democratic administrations.
QUESTION: No, I say insulting is a bipartisan venture.
MR. BURNS: Let me answer your question from two perspectives.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. BURNS: First of all, let's speak about this philosophically. Do you
think that former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense should
become hermits and not be able to live private lives --
QUESTION: Baseball commissioner wouldn't be bad?
MR. BURNS: -- and engage in commerce? Baseball commissioner would be a
great thing, but no one's offered the job for five years because Bud Selig
has it.
QUESTION: What do you suppose makes them so attractive to --
MR. BURNS: Can I finish my answer first, and then I'll be glad to answer
a follow-up question.
QUESTION: No, I thought you were asking me a question.
MR. BURNS: So I don't think it's proper to imply that somehow senior
members of the Cabinet who leave the government should somehow go and
cloister themselves in abbeys and not engage in normal private life -
which, in the United States, is capitalism, number one.
QUESTION: Or bill time for --
MR. BURNS: Number two, you know that the Congress - especially over the
last decade or so - has passed a series of laws that do place some
restrictions on Administration officials and their activities, once they
leave the government. Those restrictions are in the public domain; they're
quite clear. The Clinton Administration, President Clinton has strengthened
some of those restrictions so that there are all sorts of things that
people cannot do within the first year or five years of their private
employment.
I expect that all these officials are very well aware of those and are
acting within them. But it is appropriate for people who have been in this
government to play a role in the private sector on an issue as important as
this in the Caspian. I think it helps the United States and I'm sure it
helps American oil companies; and that's a good thing.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm, okay.
QUESTION: Nick, in that same part of the world - Russia, in this case -
the Senate passed a bill which would cut off aid to Russia if the Russian
Government signs a bill - if President Yeltsin signs a bill restricting
certain religions in Russia.
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: Does the State Department take a position on that Senate bill?
MR. BURNS: Yes, first of all, we have made clear to the Russian
Government - and the Russian Government, of course, must work this out in
its own democracy with the Russian Duma - that that particular bill, we
believe, discriminates against minority religions in Russia and therefore,
we do not favor it and we wish it not to pass. But this is a Russian
matter, which the Russian Government will need to work out with the Duma.
Secondly, we've made very clear to the Congress that despite our joint
opposition - Congress and Executive Branch - to this particular bill, it is
not in the U.S. national interest to totally cut off, curtail American
assistance to Russia because of one bill by the Russian Duma. We have a
multiplicity of American interests in Russia. We have a nuclear
relationship which is the most important single foreign policy issue
confronting us - the stability of our nuclear forces, the prevention of a
nuclear accident or war. We have a political relationship that is second to
none in terms of maintaining stability in Central Europe. We now have a
military relationship, through the Founding Act, which is centrally
important to our vital interests in Europe.
So why would we pick one law and, because of our unhappiness with that law
- we wish it to be defeated - therefore, cut off all that's important and
positive in our relationship. So the Congress knows our views and we hope,
in conference, that this particular amendment will not succeed and that
American assistance to Russia will go forward.
QUESTION: Do you know if there's a House version of that?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if there's a House version; I just don't
know. But I can tell you that we are making our viewpoint known on the Hill
and we'll be working very intensively at very high levels. American aid to
Russia is in the interest of the American people. That is obvious and we
should not allow our unhappiness over one bill to curtail that.
QUESTION: A follow-up, Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: On this specific subject, has Mr. Yeltsin or the Russian
Government made any response to the U.S. Government? I take it the U.S.
Government is joining the Pope in his June 24th letter on the subject. Has
there been any response from Russians on this matter?
MR. BURNS: Well, first, Bill, we've had intensive discussions, extensive
discussions with the Russian Government, but I would leave their response
to the Russian Government. Secondly, we're aware that His Holiness Pope
John Paul II has also spoken out against this particular bill because he
feels it infringes on the rights of the Catholic Church in Russia. I don't
believe - I just want to make sure the record is clear - we did not send a
letter with Pope John Paul II. I believe that he sent his own letter on
this.
QUESTION: Well, have you protested directly to Yeltsin, is what I'm
asking.
MR. BURNS: We have raised this issue repeatedly with the most senior
members of the Russian Government, including President Yeltsin.
QUESTION: And is it also understood that not only the Catholic Church,
but Baptists and other Protestant religious minorities are being
discriminated against by communists who are in control of the lower house?
Would that be a reversion or backsliding in human rights in Russia?
MR. BURNS: Bill, we are concerned with the right of minority religions to
practice freely in Russia and all the Protestant denominations that you
mentioned, there are implications for those denominations in this bill,
yes.
QUESTION: Can you give us some details about how the U.S. foresees the
process of including members of third world countries in the Security
Council, and how important this would be for the United States?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think we went into this quite extensively
yesterday. The basic proposal is that we think the Security Council needs
to be modernized to reflect modern, 21st century realities. We think it's
appropriate for the Security Council to grow in size in the number of
permanent members. We think it's appropriate that, in addition to the
current members and in addition to our support for Japan and Germany, that
seats from Asia, Africa and Latin America be added. We do not believe it's
appropriate for us to decide on our own which countries encumber those
seats. We prefer the countries of the region to work that out. We look
forward to discussing all this in a formal way in New York at the United
Nations.
You know that we don't think the Security Council in general should
encompass more than 20 to 21 members because it would then be likely to be
quite ineffective and unwieldy. So I think that Ambassador Richardson,
here, has put forward - and I think quite convincingly - in New York a very
coherent, reasonable, far-reaching, visionary American proposal. We're glad
that Ambassador Richardson will be leading the fight for us up in New York
on this issue.
QUESTION: But how is the State Department planning to overcome the
opposition of Senator Helms, for example?
MR. BURNS: Well, we do have a very active dialogue with Senator Helms. We
have great respect for him and for his role as chairman of the
committee. We will listen to his views respectfully, and hope to convince
him that this proposal does make sense.
Now, I do want to draw your attention to something yesterday - a question
that Jim asked - because I did not give a complete answer. I apologize for
that. On the question of veto, which is on everybody's minds, I want to
just reiterate the American position. The United States has not taken a
position on the question of a veto for new members - permanent members - of
the Security Council, including Japan and Germany. We will oppose any
resolution that would infringe on the prerogatives of the current permanent
members of the Security Council. That is our position. It's well-known to
all countries represented at the UN. But I wanted to articulate it because
I didn't do a very good job in answering Jim's question yesterday.
QUESTION: Nick, on Northern Ireland -- any response to reports that Gerry
Adams has called for a new cease-fire?
MR. BURNS: We have just seen the reports. In fact, we just heard the
reports on television, CNN, of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, offering
a cease-fire. I think I even have a piece of paper on this.
QUESTION: This just in?
MR. BURNS: This just in.
QUESTION: I hope it isn't just a wire report.
MR. BURNS: Flash! Stop! I can't reveal the company that produced this
wire because then it would be favoritism. I have a wire. Now, we know that
Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams have spoken out today. I can tell you, as
long-time supporters of the Northern Ireland peace process, naturally we
welcome the news that the Sinn Fein leadership has urged the IRA -- the
Irish Republican Army -- to call a new cease fire. We very much hope and
urge the Irish Republican Army to implement a lasting cease fire.
QUESTION: Have you contacted the British Government today about this?
MR. BURNS: I don't know that for a fact, but I would be very surprised if
there weren't. We are always in very close contact with the United Kingdom
on the issue of Northern Ireland, as we are with the government of
Ireland. I would be very surprised if we hadn't been in contact with both
governments on this particular issue. We wish to support both governments
in their efforts to go forward with the multiparty talks, of course. This
issue has always been very important. We do call on the IRA to implement a
lasting cease-fire.
QUESTION: Nick, I think the President of the Correspondence Association
--
QUESTION: -- on exactly how quickly Sinn Fein should bail out into talks
if the cease fire is, in fact, implemented?
MR. BURNS: Well, that would be a question, really, for those who are
involved in the talks directly -- for the United Kingdom and the government
of Ireland. I would leave that to them, obviously. The United States has
supported in the past the position that without an effective cease fire, it
would be very difficult where we would not support the inclusion of Sinn
Fein in those talks.
QUESTION: We have him right over here.
MR. BURNS: The President of the Correspondence Association?
QUESTION: Yeah, I was trying to slide this rather speculative question on
the rubric of discussion of Russia.
MR. BURNS: But Barry wouldn't let you?
QUESTION: But I've lost that opportunity, so this just comes out of left
field.
With the continuing problems of the MIR space station and growing
discussion of the United States perhaps backing out of that program or
discontinuing its participation, I am just wondering if there is discussion
here at the State Department about how that would effect U.S.- Russian
relations?
MR. BURNS: We have followed the MIR situation very closely because it is
such a dangerous situation for the cosmonauts and astronauts. The first
thing we should say is that we wish them well this weekend. They have a
very dangerous mission. It is a very important mission.
Secondly, I would say that the current problems on MIR have not affected
negatively at all the United States' relationship with Russia. We are
together on MIR; we have made a commitment together. When there are
problems, we try to overcome them together. Now, we have this very dramatic
episode where an American astronaut seeks to help Russian cosmonauts solve
some serious technical problems on MIR.
We are also together in one very important respect. We are no longer ever
again going to compete in space. We competed in the 1960s and '70s and
'80s. It is over. We are now going to join forces not only on MIR, but to
build a new international space station with the help of Russia and the
United States, with Canada and Japan, with many countries - more than ten
countries. This is the future of space exploration. I suspect that the
space initiatives will serve to strengthen U.S.-Russian relations and not
weaken them. That is a very firm view of our leadership here in the
department.
QUESTION: There is no move whatsoever in the Department or anywhere else,
as far as you know, to suspend U.S. participation in the MIR program?
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of any such movement, but that would not be a
question directly for the State Department. That would be a question for
Dan Golden and NASA, which of course runs the American space program and
our cooperative efforts with Russia. But I can tell you that Mr. Golden has
been a strong proponent of cooperation with Russia.
I can't speak to your question about what we do in the future with
MIR. That's really for Mr. Golden and his associates to figure out. We will
be supportive of him, obviously. I think the U.S.- Russian space program is
one of the great hallmarks of the new era of our relationship. Dimitris.
QUESTION: Yesterday you heard the Turkish deputy prime minister to use
his upcoming visit to the occupied Cyprus in order to contribute to the
constructive and positive trend on the island.
MR. BURNS: Right.
QUESTION: Today we have six Turkish navy vessels in the occupied part of
Cyprus, in order to participate in the celebrations for the invasion of
1974. And also, Mr. Ecevit is expected to announce some kind of economic
unification between the occupied Cyprus and Turkey. What's the U.S. message
to this provocative action?
MR. BURNS: First of all, Dimitris, although I had a rather long
conversation with our experts in the European Bureau about this issue this
morning, I was not aware - have not been aware of the presence of any
Turkish naval frigates, if that's what has happened. So we'd have to check
that report.
But in general, we believe that Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit should act in
a constructive and positive way to further the forward momentum that
clearly is in evidence from the Madrid process. We would obviously not like
to see any initiative or event or statements that would detract from the
Madrid process. As you know, the Secretary General of the UN has planned a
second round of talks on Cyprus for the middle of August. We think this is
a time for all of us to focus on a peaceful reunification of Cyprus on a
bi-communal, bi-zonal federated basis.
QUESTION: Yes, well, since you mentioned the Madrid Agreement, contrary
to the spirit emanating from this agreement, there is a continuation to the
violations of Greek FIR from Turkish aircraft. Do you have any reaction on
that?
MR. BURNS: Well, I know that Mr. Lambros asked the same question
yesterday. We've seen a report of the Greek Government spokesman's
statement on this topic. We have no independent confirmation of these
violations because the United States does not monitor every square inch of
airspace all around the world. We take note, obviously, of the Greek
Government's statement on this. We hope very much that Greece and Turkey
will be able - in this instance and in others, on other issues, broader
issues - to work out effectively and peacefully any differences between
them.
QUESTION: As an issue of principle, do you agree if this actually
happened?
MR. BURNS: Do we agree - excuse me, Dimitris? Do we agree -
QUESTION: As a matter of principle, after the Madrid Agreement, does the
U.S. agree if this actually happened? The violations?
MR. BURNS: We are not in a position to confirm whether or not this
particular incident took place or confirmed violations. We weren't there;
we weren't watching. This is obviously a serious matter for Greece and
Turkey to discuss together.
QUESTION: Did you have the chance to check the RAP - regional air picture
- system of NATO, which has been imposed by Brussels with full cooperation
of your government in order to monitor the air activity of Greece and
Turkey over the Aegean since February? In other words, the NATO -
(inaudible) - have the full data of the air activity. I am wondering, did
you have the sense to check with them to see who is violating, who is
making the infringement?
MR. BURNS: I don't know, Mr. Lambros, if anyone has checked with NATO
about this. I just don't know the answer to that question. But I think you
know - I mean, I know why you're asking these questions, but let's get back
down to the basics here. Greece and Turkey must work together peacefully to
resolve problems. The United States is not in a position to adjudicate
every single problem or to confirm what happened or didn't happen. But our
major point is that they should try to live in peace with each other.
QUESTION: Bulent Ecevit, of Turkey, in a new version of statements
yesterday, considered the Cyprus issue as a problem of security between
Cyprus as an island and Turkey and not as one between the Cypriots of Greek
and Turkish origin. That's why he favors annexation to Turkey. Could you
please comment and to remind him what is the problem of Cyprus?
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: You want me to debate Mr. Ecevit through this microphone on
the Cyprus issue?
QUESTION: What is the U.S. policy, vis-à-vis to the Cyprus issue?
He considers it a matter of security between an island and Turkey. It's a
new version. So it seems to me that he has something in his mind to annex
the island. This is already my question -- (inaudible.)
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I do not wish to have a long debate with
Mr. Ecevit. He is responsible for what he says and what he does. We would
hope very much that his actions and comments would be positive and
constructive. We will certainly want to talk to him and have a dialogue
with him if we think his actions and comments are not positive and
constructive.
I do not wish to debate the Cyprus, however, with him. That's not
appropriate. This is not the forum for it. You know very well what our
position on Cyprus is and has been.
QUESTION: Exactly, you consider the Cyprus issue a problem of foreign
invasion and occupation.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, we believe that the Cyprus problem should be
resolved by President Clerides, by the government of Cyprus and, of course,
working with the Turkish community on Cyprus, with Mr. Denktash. We believe
that's very important -- President Clerides and Mr. Denktash, Mr. Lambros.
We think it's very important that they work peacefully together,
constructively together to resolve this problem.
Obviously, Greece and Turkey have a role, the United Nations does, the
United Kingdom does, the United States does. We are just trying to
help. But I don't want to get into a long debate about this particular
issue. Still on the Middle East?
QUESTION: The Middle East.
MR. BURNS: Well, still on the Eastern Mediterranean?
QUESTION: Burma.
MR. BURNS: Because I know Henry has a question that he has been dying to
ask for two days.
QUESTION: And I'm passed for the president of the correspondence
association.
MR. BURNS: We'll make you president. He is no longer here.
QUESTION: The other North American --
MR. BURNS: Yes, sir. Henry, delighted to see you.
QUESTION: Taking note that you said earlier that the key question facing
the State Department was the nuclear arrangement between the United States
and Russia, could we turn to the second most important problem --
MR. BURNS: Pacific salmon?
QUESTION: Yes, Pacific salmon.
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: Yes, I'd be glad to.
QUESTION: The Canadian fishing authorities tally of the current fishing
on the coast indicates that, by their figures, that American fisherman have
caught three times more fish - sockeye salmon, in particular -- than they
were entitled to. Apparently, the Alaskan Government indicates that they
have been catching this fish, but say it's been an accidental by- product
of hunting for other fish. The Canadians seem quite exercised about this,
obviously. Do you agree with those figures? Is it your calculation that,
indeed, there is over-fishing by Americans?
MR. BURNS: This is a very important issue for the American citizens who
live in our Northwest, particularly the citizens of Alaska. I can tell you,
we have done our homework on this. Alaskan fisherman have always caught
Canadian-bound sockeye incidental to their pursuit of pink salmon. So the
major point is that we had a traditional pink salmon fishery in Alaska, but
sockeye salmon tend to run with pink salmon.
It's very well known that this year, 1997, the stock is quite abundant,
quite high. The catch has been quite high. The catch of both pink salmon
and sockeye salmon has been quite high. Our relevant point to make to the
premier of British Columbia is that the ratio of pink salmon to sockeye so
far this season is consistent with the ratio of every year of the last five
years. There is no deliberate attempt by the state of Alaska or by Alaskan
fisherman to somehow go after sockeye salmon which violate or exceed the
ratio that has been in effect for five years.
Again, the high catch levels reflect the abundance of fish. There is no
change in our fishing practices. There is no redirection of Alaska's
fishery to target Canadian stocks.
QUESTION: But accepting your explanation for this, nonetheless, the
current treaty calls for 120,000 fish to be taken - sockeye salmon, I'm
referring to - to be taken by Alaskan fisherman. The tally so far indicates
400,000. Since the issue is conservation of the fish stocks,
notwithstanding the fact that there appear to be more fish than there is in
normal years, that does indicate that American fisherman have taken three
times as many fish as they are by treaty entitled to.
MR. BURNS: Well, Henry, I don't have the figures in front of me so I am
not going to assume that your figures are correct. But out of respect for
you, I don't say that they are incorrect either. I will have to check the
figures. But I think the major point here is that the United States has
tried very hard to negotiate a Pacific salmon treaty with our stakeholders
on our side, with the Canadian Government and Canadian stakeholders on
their side. We did not break off the talks. Canada broke off the talks.
It's time to come back to the table. It's time for the premier of British
Columbia to stop talking to the press incessantly and taking out full-page
advertisements in our newspapers and get back to the negotiating table. He
is not going to resolve this issue by appealing to Canadian television or
to the Seattle Times. He is going to resolve this issue with us, if he sits
down with our governors and local elected officials in our Northwest and
with our negotiators from the Department of State. We want to negotiate a
satisfactory outcome.
We understand the need for compromise with Canada. We want to live amicably
with Canada. But taking this consistently to the press is not fair, and
it's not going to get him the agreement he wants.
QUESTION: He talked --
QUESTION: Nick --
QUESTION: Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: No, no, I want it on the same subject.
QUESTION: Just to finish off, if I may just ask one final question,
though, you do talk to your negotiators, you clearly have been studying
this issue and know how they feel. Just a basic conservation issue, though,
isn't it sad that both governments have reached a point where the
conversation, which both governments say is necessary for this fish stock,
has gone away for this year? And rather than preserving the stocks, both
governments have caught more fish than their scientists reliably told them
they were entitled to catch before the beginning of the year?
MR. BURNS: Henry, I can't confirm the figures. I don't have the figures
in front of me. But I can tell you that the United States wishes to
negotiate a fair treaty with Canada, and we stand ready to go back to the
negotiating table. We hope that Canada has the same spirit that we do, and
we assume that it does. It's time to go back to the negotiating table.
QUESTION: Nick, your two main points seem to be the sockeye catch is
incidental to the other catch?
MR. BURNS: That's right. Incidental to catch of pink salmon.
QUESTION: And that there is a ratio - well, fisherman don't go out with a
calculator do they and figure, I'll catch one of these and 11 of those each
time? Is there no limit? As long as it's incidental, you mean it can be
boundless and limitless?
MR. BURNS: I assume, Barry, that there are --
QUESTION: It's accidental that it worked out that way, isn't it?
MR. BURNS: Barry, I assume that there are some limits. I just am not in a
position --
QUESTION: It's a treaty.
MR. BURNS: -- to give you all the limits, to give you the numbers right
now. I don't have them in front of me. But I think the larger point here is
that we can - if we continue to argue with our friends the Canadians in
this briefing room or in the pages of our newspapers, we are not going to
get very far. We have a negotiating team that wishes to negotiate with the
Canadians. They should come back to the table. They walked away; they
should come back.
QUESTION: But just to clarify, you are conceding, though, without getting
into numbers that the sockeye catch is up and over previous quotas because
--
MR. BURNS: I said nothing about quotas. I talked about ratios.
QUESTION: You did say --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: Ratios, ratios. Ratios are different than quotas.
QUESTION: Okay, but the sockeye catch is up because salmon fishing, in
general, is up; is that the point you made?
MR. BURNS: The pink salmon catch is up. Sockeye is up.
QUESTION: Which the Americans go after is the pink salmon.
MR. BURNS: As do the Canadians. We both fish these grounds, right? Right.
QUESTION: This is a dolphin and tuna all over again, but it's with
Canadians this time.
MR. BURNS: Let's bait and switch and go to - and then to Talal.
QUESTION: Do you - there was a meeting last night between the military
government in Burma and the opposition Aung San Suu Kyi's party.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to that? Does this amount to the
beginning of a dialogue of any sort?
MR. BURNS: Well, I understand that Aung San Suu Kyi did have a meeting
with Lieutenant General Nyunt of the SLORC last evening. We hope this marks
the beginning of a long-awaited meaningful dialogue between the National
League for Democracy and the military dictators in Rangoon. We hope that
dialogue can be aimed at national reconciliation.
QUESTION: Nick, a couple of quick ones, may I? Oh, is there another
subject?
MR. BURNS: Talal had a question. Then, Barry, we will go back to you.
QUESTION: Thank you. The minister of internal rule and the chief
Palestinian negotiator Mr. Saeb Erakat spent a long day yesterday in the
State Department, meeting with Assistant Secretary Pickering and Assistant
Secretary Eizenstat and Ambassador Ross -- long meetings. Could you tell us
something about these meetings?
MR. BURNS: Saeb Erakat was here. He did see Under Secretary Pickering. I
know he saw Dennis Ross. He had a good series of meetings with us,
consistent with our long, long -- more than a decade long -- relationship
with him. We have great respect for him, consistent with our view that we
ought to be trying to push forward an agreement with Israel and
Palestinians.
QUESTION: I spoke to Mr. Erakat after he left the meetings. He said some
American ideas were discussed. Could you shed any light on that?
MR. BURNS: No. With all due respect, we wish to keep our ideas private
and confidential so that we might accentuate the possibility of being
successful in the talks.
QUESTION: But these ideas, he also added, have not polarized. They are
just ideas.
MR. BURNS: Have not - what is the verb? Have not?
QUESTION: Polarized..
MR. BURNS: Polarized.
QUESTION: Crystallized. I'm sorry.
MR. BURNS: Crystallized.
QUESTION: A polarized promise.
MR. BURNS: We have ideas that we contribute to the Israelis and
Palestinians from time to time and try to help overcome problems. They have
their own ideas. They are working hard, we hope, to resolve these
problems. You know our commitment to the Middle East peace negotiations.
QUESTION: However, the television - the Israeli state television stated
yesterday that some of the American ideas are to start the final stage of
our negotiation first to coincide with an Israeli pull-out from 12 percent
of the occupied territories in the West Bank. Is there any truth in these
reports?
MR. BURNS: I simply cannot comment on any ideas that are being floated in
the press. That wouldn't be reasonable of me.
QUESTION: Israeli television.
MR. BURNS: Well, I simply don't want to comment. I have no information on
those proposals.
QUESTION: Is Ross going back to Middle East?
MR. BURNS: Dennis is --
QUESTION: This is not a unique idea.
MR. BURNS: Dennis has no plans as far as I know to travel to the Middle
East.
QUESTION: And they also said that he is going in August to the Middle
East. Dennis Ross is going to the Middle East in August.
MR. BURNS: I know of no plans by Dennis currently to travel to the Middle
East.
QUESTION: Nick, let me ask you about an Israeli Government official told
the Associated Press that Israeli intelligence collected evidence proving a
senior Palestinian police commander ordered a squad under his command to
ambush Israeli cars on the West Bank. Does the U.S. have anything on that?
MR. BURNS: We know that the Israeli Government and the Palestinian
Authority have been in contact, regarding the arrest of certain
Palestinians by the Israelis. Chairman Arafat has informed us that he takes
this allegation very seriously and that he has ordered an investigation
into the activities of the Palestinian policeman in question.
We believe very strongly that these allegations must be taken with the
highest degree of seriousness and serious purpose by the
Palestinians. There can be no place for anyone - anyone - with any
association with the Palestinian Authority trying to take part in an act of
terrorism. We believe that full cooperation between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority is essential to get to the bottom of this. Yes.
QUESTION: Can we do the UN again? Just one last question. If the
countries added to the Security Council would not have veto power, would
that mean they are like second class members?
MR. BURNS: No. Our position on the veto is as I have stated it. I do not
know what the outcome of these negotiations will be. But I can tell you
that being on the Security Council as a permanent member is a privileged
position internationally. It does confer on a particular country and region
advantages that are quite clear for everyone to see. We are trying to be
receptive to the ideas of developing countries that there ought to be
broader representation on the Council. Yes?
QUESTION: Nick, the Turkish military forces investigating allegations
that former Foreign Minister Tansu Ciller is a CIA agent. The latest claim
in Turkish press is that she submitted a secret military document to
U.S. consulate general and Turkish military intelligence is aware of
this. Any comments on this?
MR. BURNS: Any allegations that there is a clandestine relationship or
has been or was ever a clandestine relationship between Ms. Ciller and the
United States Government is false, false.
QUESTION: Did you have any official contact with Turkish Government or
military officials about this issue?
MR. BURNS: I don't know. I don't know whether the Turkish authorities
have talked to our embassy. This charge of a clandestine relationship is
false.
QUESTION: Are you commenting on an intelligence report?
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: No. I am commenting on a press report, Charlie.
QUESTION: Well, it is a press report about an intelligence matter.
MR. BURNS: I never comment on intelligence reports.
QUESTION: It is about an intelligence matter.
MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, Charlie. It is a press report and I am commenting
on it. I get to decide when I comment and don't, the last time I checked.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the Hawaiian meeting with South Korea
on missile talks?
MR. BURNS: I know that Lorraine Toly is the expert on those
matters. Would you like to come up and comment on this? We will try to get
you something after the briefing.
QUESTION: So, you don't have anything?
MR. BURNS: I don't have any up-to-date information. I don't believe that
I have any up-to-date information on that particular issue.
QUESTION: Nick, did you get the Secretary's details of her stop in Los
Angeles?
MR. BURNS: I haven't yet, no. The Secretary will be leaving about noon.
QUESTION: In fact, you didn't know which day she was leaving, now you do.
MR. BURNS: About noon on Wednesday, July 23. She'll be traveling to Los
Angeles. She will be giving a speech in Los Angeles. On Monday, I will give
you the particulars about that speech. Then she will have some private
time. She may do some other public activities; we're not quite sure. The
following day, she will travel from L.A. to K.L.
QUESTION: Thursday or Friday?
MR. BURNS: On Thursday morning. Wednesday, she travels to Los
Angeles. She stays in Los Angeles Wednesday night. Thursday morning, we
travel to Kuala Lumpur. We have closed the sign-up sheet for that
particular trip.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BURNS: We have one more question, sorry. Barry, Barry?
QUESTION: I just wanted to know if there is any update on the corn
shipment to Japan from North Korea. Was it merely stopping over in North
Korea or was this some sort of export?
MR. BURNS: This is an important question. We have seen different reports
in this matter. An early report said that the corn came from North Korea. A
later report quoted a source as saying that the grain was a commercial
transshipment from China through a North Korean port to Japan, rather than
the export of food aid that North Korea had received from China. I know
that both Japanese and South Korean authorities are looking into this
matter. I have to refer you to them. We remain very confident that our food
aid makes sense; that it is going to be delivered through the World Food
Program which has expanded the number of monitors to 30; and that our food
aid will arrive where it should arrive -- that is to help little kids and
the elderly overcome the effects of famine in North Korea.
Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 P.M.)
(###)
|
