U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #110, 97-07-21
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, July 21, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS / STATEMENTS
1.....Announcement of guests
1.....Sec. Albright travel schedule
1.....Strobe Talbott speech
1-2.....Amb. Richardson update
2.....India Public Announcement on travel
BOSNIA/CROATIA
2, 3.....Pres. Plavsic
2-3.....Karadzic
3-4.....Cooperation with War Crimes Tribunal
4.....Capture of war criminals
CYPRUS/GREECE/TURKEY
5.....Peace Talks
5.....US role
5-6.....Greek airspace
17-18.....Desire for peace and reconciliation
CANADA
6.....Blockade of US Ferry
6-7, 9-10.....Fishing situation and Resolution
7-8.....Arrest of American Fishermen
8-9, 18.....Proposal for binding arbitration
PEACE PROCESS
10.....Saeb Erakat and Israeli Cabinet Sec. Naveh visit
10.....Resignation of Palestinian Justice Minister
10-11.....Land dealer executions
11-12.....Peace negotiations
12-13.....Israeli War games
IRAQ
13-14.....Amb. Butler and Iraqi Government
14.....Syrian treatment of Iraqi opposition media
CAMBODIA
14, 15.....Status of Solarz mission
14, 15.....ASEAN Initiative
14-15.....1991 Paris Peace Accords
14-16.....Albright at ASEAN
TAIWAN
16.....Future of Taiwan
LIBERIA
16-17.....Elections
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #110
MONDAY, JULY 21, 1997 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department
briefing. Glad to see everybody here. I want to welcome three State
Department interns - Moira McCaffery, from Personnel; Briana Pinney,
from our Equal Employment Opportunity Office; and Christina Curiel, from
our Africa Bureau. We also have interns and public affairs officials
from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Welcome to all
of you who are with us.
I have a couple of announcements. First, the Secretary will be back in
Washington tomorrow afternoon from Colorado. She leaves, as you know,
mid-morning on Wednesday for her trip to Los Angeles and then to Kuala
Lumpur and then to Singapore. She will deliver a luncheon address in
Los Angeles, for those of you coming with us and those of you not coming
with us, on Wednesday, July 23. This luncheon is co-hosted by the
Pacific Council and the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. It takes
place at the Bonaventure Hotel. The speech is at 1:15 p.m. She will
take questions and answers from the audience, following the speech. Her
address is going to center on Asia policy - specifically the United
States' relations with the Southeast Asian countries, addressing both
political and economic issues. We'll make that speech available to
those of you back here in Washington as soon as we can get it; we'll put
it up on the Internet the same day. For those of you traveling with us,
you'll be going to that speech with us, much as you did in San
Francisco.
We then proceed, on Thursday morning, from Los Angeles to Kuala Lumpur,
get in just before midnight on Friday evening, early Saturday morning.
Then she has a schedule of meetings - bilateral meetings - on Saturday
in Malaysia. Sunday and Monday are the ASEAN meetings, the ASEAN
Regional Forum and the Post Ministerial Conference. Tuesday, she'll be
traveling to Singapore; leaving Singapore on Wednesday and back in the
United States -- probably in Hawaii - on Wednesday, and then to Andrews
on Thursday. So that's a summary of her trip. I think all of you who
are going with us know you're going with us. We have ten journalists
traveling with us.
Strobe Talbott, our deputy secretary of state, is giving a speech at
this moment over at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies on U.S. policy in the Caucuses and Central Asia. It's entitled,
"A Farewell to Flashman: American Policy in the Caucuses and Central
Asia." It's available to you in hard copy in the press office. It's
also going to be on the Internet shortly.
If you're interested in Bosnia, Ambassador Bill Richardson has been
traveling in the Balkans over the weekend. He was in Croatia yesterday.
He spoke with President Tudjman, and pressed very hard that the Croatian
Government honor its commitments, as a signatory to the Dayton Accords,
to turn over the indicted war criminals on Croatian territory to the
United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. President Tudjman said that war
criminals who have been indicted by the tribunal will be turned over by
the Croatian Government to the tribunal. That's nice to know - good
words, a positive statement. We'd like to see positive actions from the
Croatian Government.
Secondly, President Tudjman said that Croatia would accept the return of
all Croatian Serbs, as the process of reconciliation continues in
Croatia and as the situation in Eastern Slovonia unfolds.
Ambassador Richardson was also in Brcko. He met with President
Itzebegovic this morning. They talked about a variety of issues
concerning Dayton compliance. He was scheduled to go to Banja Luka to
meet Mrs. Plavsic, but we haven't heard from Ambassador Richardson or
his party in a couple of hours. We would like to hear from them, and
will report to you once we do hear from them. He is also going to be
going on to Macedonia to visit the American forces who serve there with
the UN contingent.
We also have a public announcement that we have issued on travel in
India. It is a message warning American citizens that in the last few
days, the New Delhi Police have raised public awareness about the
possibility of a terrorist attack in New Delhi. We have circulated this
information to the American resident public and traveling public in New
Delhi itself.
With that, George, I will be very glad to go to your questions.
QUESTION: Do you have any words of encouragement for Mrs. Plavsic in
her moment of trial?
MR. BURNS: I think the first thing to say is that we are not terribly
surprised that the dinosaurs in Pale, the people who signed the Dayton
Accords but don't believe in the Dayton Accords, it's not really
surprising that they have decided to split with Mrs. Plavsic.
We hope that somehow out of this rupture over the weekend something good
will happen in the Republika Srpska because the Bosnian Serbs need a
decent leadership. They are not getting it, certainly from the people
in Pale. We think they have a chance of getting it from Mrs. Plavsic in
Banja Luka. She does remain the elected president of the Republika
Srpska. We respect her in that role. We will continue to work with
her, as will the international community. We fully expect that the army
and the governmental authorities, whether they are in Banja Luka or
Pale, should continue to respect her decision-making authority and the
fact that she is president.
We are very concerned about the situation in the Republika Srpska,
needless to say. We are concerned specifically about the propaganda and
disinformation that appear regularly on the Pale-controlled state TV.
We are concerned, as well, about the provocative leaflets that were
distributed over the weekend; and specifically about the posters with
Karadzic's image, with all sorts of messages on those posters that were
distributed throughout the Republika Srpska over the weekend.
Just about a year ago, the President and Secretary Christopher sent
Ambassador Dick Holbrooke to Pale and to Sarajevo to negotiate an
agreement with the Pale Serbs. That agreement stipulated - and it was
signed by the Pale Serbs and it was witnessed by President Milosevic -
it stipulated that Radovan Karadzic would not participate in the
political life of the Republika Srpska.
Now, he complied with that for a little while, but he has not complied
with it for a long time -- yet another agreement that the Bosnian Serb
leadership has broken and yet another reason for the United States to
have nothing to do with Radovan Karadzic. That is how I would answer
that question, George.
QUESTION: A follow-up.
MR. BURNS: Yes, Judd?
QUESTION: Obviously, the U.S. likes Plavsic because she is not
Karadzic. Has she been cooperating in the capture of war criminals?
Have you had any positive signs from her?
MR. BURNS: We've never pretended to hide our differences of view with
Mrs. Plavsic. She was a major and enthusiastic supporter of the
Bosnian-Serb war effort. She is obviously a nationalist in many
respects. We have had a variety of differences with her. When
Secretary Albright visited her in Banja Luka, they probably disagreed on
more things than they agreed on. But at least we are talking. She is
the president of the Republika Srpska. We need to work with officials
there to implement the Dayton Accords and they need to work with us, so
we will continue to talk to her. We have nothing to do with Mr.
Karadzic because there's ample evidence that he is a war criminal; that
he's responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Europe
since the Second World War. We will continue to have nothing to do with
him. His ultimate destiny, we hope, is going to be on trial in The
Hague. That's where he deserves to be.
QUESTION: I take your answer to mean she has not given any cooperation
on the apprehension of war criminals.
MR. BURNS: Unfortunately, if we were to grade the Republika Srpska on
that issue, they'd have a failing grade. They have not turned over any
indicted war criminals. At least the Croatian Government has turned
over one or two. President Itzebegovic, of course, has fully cooperated
with the War Crimes Tribunal. He's turned over Muslim citizens, and he
does believe in this process of justice for those who are responsible
for the war crimes in the Bosnian war.
QUESTION: Do you find that President Tudjman's statement, most recent
statement on war criminals goes beyond what he has said in the past?
MR. BURNS: President Tudjman and other Croatian officials like Foreign
Minister Granic have consistently said that they would cooperate with
the tribunal. The words have always been reassuring. But what we've
found is that their actions are lacking. So I think that despite the
good words of yesterday, we'll remain a little bit skeptical until, say,
Mr. Karadzic is turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal.
QUESTION: Those words were not any more forward-leaning, though?
That's what I'm just trying to get at.
MR. BURNS: I don't think so. I think that the words on the return of
Croatian Serbs were more forward-leaning. They were welcome words. But
again, as in all things in the Balkans, we'll be more impressed by
actions and deeds on the ground than we will be by words -despite the
fact that the words were welcomed by Ambassador Richardson.
QUESTION: Admittedly, it was reported that NATO troops were seen
hanging out in the vicinity of Karadzic's house this weekend. Is the
pressure being put on to nab him? Should he be scared? I mean, are we
going to - is he finally going to be captured, or what are we seeing
here? Is this just a threatening tactic, or what?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think in light of the fact that NATO has taken one
action and the International Police Training Force has taken another to
try to capture three indicted war criminals over the last three weeks.
Maybe that means that the other indicted war criminals who are on the
loose ought to be worried about our intentions. If that's the case,
that's good. Maybe they should lose some sleep for once over the fact
that they can't know what our next move will be. We'd prefer to keep it
like that. Still on Bosnia? Any more on Bosnia?
QUESTION: Just one more thought. Nick, is there anything more that
could be done? I mean, like putting out a large bounty like the U.S.
does on terrorists? Or possibly trying in abstentia these guys that are
so well-guarded and hard to get to? Is there anything else being
thought of?
MR. BURNS: This is a very different case than, say, the case of the two
Libyan terrorists who we believe shot down Pan Am 103 nine years ago.
It's a very different case because the authorities who signed the Dayton
Accords know where these people are. They work with them. I assume Mr.
Krajisnik, who is one of the presidents in Sarajevo, I assume he talks
to Karadzic all the time. The problem is not information; the problem
is will. It doesn't make sense for us to pay money to the Bosnian Serbs
to do what they've already promised the international community that
they would do - and that is to turn these war criminals over to the
tribunal.
So I'm afraid they're not going to be rewarded financially. But they've
made a commitment; they've signed on the dotted line. They ought to
keep that commitment. I would suggest that there's a lot of spotlight
on what we're going to do. I think that's appropriate for you to ask
what we're going to do, and we've answered those questions. But we
ought to keep the spotlight on what the Bosnian Serbs and the Croatian
Government have already committed to do. That's very important.
Dimitris.
QUESTION: Yes, on Cyprus, there is a joint declaration between Turkey
and Mr. Denktash. In this declaration, both the Cyprus Government and
the Greek Government reacted with very strong statements. Does the U.S.
have any comment on this declaration?
MR. BURNS: We have seen some of the statements that were issued over
the weekend by Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit, by Foreign Minister Cem, by
Mr. Denktash. We'll obviously study those statements. I think what we
prefer to do - rather than try to pour oil on the flames, is try to
reinforce our belief that a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation should be
the ultimate objective of the peace talks; that we all ought to support
Secretary General Kofi Annan in the second run of those talks that will
take place in August; and that we would ask that people negotiate on a
fair basis and on a constructive basis and that public statements be
consistent with that need for fair, honest play in these negotiations.
Mr. Lambros, yeah.
QUESTION: How do you explain the fact that whenever we're coming to
Turkey, the U.S. Government cannot see Turkish vessels illegally in
Cyprus ports; cannot see Turkey's war planes overflying illegally over
Cyprus; and cannot even read statements illegally explained by Turkish
officials? Why? How do you explain this?
MR. BURNS: Very simply, Mr. Lambros. The fact is that we are not a
party to this conflict, this set of differences in the Eastern
Mediterranean. We are an ally of both Greece and Turkey, and a friend
to Cyprus. Therefore, we don't want to join the fray. When charges are
launched back and forth, we prefer to stay above that and to counsel for
constructive action behind the scenes. That's why we don't react in a
boisterous way to some of the questions you ask. We want to be
constructive. I think you expect us to be constructive, don't you?
QUESTION: But when we come to the case of Cyprus, for example, in the
well-known issue of the Russian missile S-300, you make statements and
actually you have advised the Cyprus Government for the time being not
to do this for the sake of the talks, et cetera.
MR. BURNS: On major issues that we think can fundamentally affect the
course of negotiations, we do speak out. But you asked a different
question. You asked a question about allegations of violations by
ships, by planes. They're very serious and we are concerned about them,
but we're not a party to them and so we're going to keep our views
private. Believe me, we do speak frankly in private.
QUESTION: Would you please comment information that a representative of
your embassy in Nicosia was present in the illegal celebration of the
occupied territory of Cyprus for the 25th anniversary of the Turkish
invasion and occupation?
MR. BURNS: I cannot speak to that. I'm not sure what representation
the United States had at those events over the weekend. But I'll be
glad to take that question. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Last week, I asked if the United States Government recognizes
ten-mile air space around Greek islands. You promised you would look
into it. Did you?
MR. BURNS: Ten-mile - excuse me? That the United States recognizes - I
don't believe you asked me that question. I don't remember it at all.
QUESTION: Well, I asked the question concerning the alleged --
MR. BURNS: Did you ask it during the background session?
QUESTION: -- violations of Greek air space. The issue in question is,
Greek air space extends four miles further than the territorial waters.
MR. BURNS: I dealt with that question quite well. I think you were
there. Actually, that question I dealt with in the background session.
You know what my answer was, and I thought you were satisfied with the
answer. We'll be glad to get into it afterwards if you haven't been.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Concerning the Pacific salmon dispute --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: -- could you give us your reaction to the latest developments
on the weekend - the blockade by BC fishermen of an Alaskan ferry in
Prince Rupert; and also whether the U.S. Government has responded to the
note that Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy sent on Friday,
accusing the U.S., in fact, of violating the salmon treaty?
MR. BURNS: As you know, Canadian fishermen blockaded a United States
passenger ferry in Price Rupert, BC - British Columbia - over the
weekend. That ferry was bound for Ketchikan in Alaska. At this time,
although the passengers were allowed to disembark, the vessel remains
blockaded by the fishing vessels. On Sunday, the state of Alaska
obtained an injunction against the blockade in Canadian court. However,
the Canadian Government has not enforced that injunction - neither the
provincial officials in BC, British Columbia, nor the federal officials
in Ottawa.
The United States has protested and continues to protest this blockade.
We also protest the refusal of Canadian federal authorities to stop the
blockade or to enforce the court injunction. Canada must take action to
enforce the court's judgment. The blockade harms innocent people who
have nothing to do with the salmon fishery. It also is unhelpful, very
unhelpful to our efforts - which we suppose and assume the government of
Canada shares - to get the salmon talks back on track. The Canadian
Government walked out of those talks. We think it's time for the
Canadian Government to get back to the talks.
Now, you know our position on the charges that have been made by the
Canadian Government, both in Ottawa and in British Columbia about over-
fishing. We believe that the catch of the sockeye salmon by Alaskan
fishermen is incidental to their catch of pink salmon. The reason the
totals are up is because the stock is more abundant this year. But the
ratio of pink salmon to sockeye salmon is consistent with ratios over
the past couple of years. We think instead of complaining about Alaskan
fishermen, Canadian officials - both Premier Clark and also officials in
Ottawa - need to understand there isn't going to be an agreement with
the United States if they continue to blockade American vessels, if they
continue to take their case to American newspapers but if they refuse to
sit down with us.
We are willing to return to the negotiating table. We were at that
table when Canada walked away. There is no possibility of a compromise
agreement that would satisfy both sides and most importantly, satisfy
the American people of our Northwest and the Canadian people of British
Columbia without negotiations. They've got to come back to the table.
That's going to be our message to the Canadian Government.
QUESTION: This would be the formal response to Minister Axworthy's
diplomatic note?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe there has been. We received a diplomatic
note on Friday. Of course, we do not agree with the contents of that
note, but we received it respectfully. We will reply to it
respectfully. Canada is one of our great friends, and we think we ought
to negotiate this in a spirit of friendship, understanding that there
are serious issues involved here that have implications for thousands of
businesses and people's jobs and that this is no way to proceed - to
blockade vessels and to take out full-page advertisements in the
Washington state newspapers, as the premier of British Columbia is
doing. He and others like him ought to get back to the negotiating
table.
QUESTION: Has the State Department represented or involved itself at
all with the four American fishermen who were arrested by the Canadian
authorities and their boats and nets and catch seized over the weekend?
MR. BURNS: We have been involved in that; we've been concerned about
that; and we've discussed it with the Canadian Government - of course we
have. Whenever American citizens find themselves in trouble in a
foreign country, the State Department has an obligation to advise them
and to help them as much as we can.
QUESTION: It is the Canadians' contention that they were fishing in
Canadian waters. Is that something that you are disputing with the --
MR. BURNS: I do not know the particulars of that case. All I can tell
you is the State Department is interested because American citizens are
affected and we have a fundamental obligation to help American citizens
when they are faced with any kind of charges. Yes, Sid.
QUESTION: Might there be a consideration of counter-retaliation?
MR. BURNS: At this point, we have many options under review. We have,
obviously, a right to resort to those options. We have not done so to
date because we really hope for reconciliation here and a little bit of
spirit of fair play from the Canadians. It is very difficult for us to
defend our own citizens and our own economic interests if we do not have
a negotiating partner.
We understand the Canadian Government and the premier of British
Columbia want to defend their citizens. That's fair; everybody
understands that. But they have got to be fair with us and constructive
with us. That means getting back to the negotiating table. We do have
options that are available to us. We will have to leave that issue for
a day or two and see if we get a response from the Canadian Government.
QUESTION: Any word of sending Old Ironsides to Prince Rupert?
(Laughter.)
MR. BURNS: Let me tell you something. The USS Constitution, I believe,
undefeated in the 19th century - in the 18th and 19th century - is, I
think, taking a little voyage around Boston Harbor, but the Constitution
cannot get beyond the barrier islands, harbor islands in Boston. It
cannot even fire its guns anymore, I don't believe. So it won't be the
U.S. Constitution. Canada is our greatest friend and, obviously, we are
going to resolve this dispute peacefully. We simply do not encourage
any acts of violence or any criminal acts like the ones we saw over the
weekend.
We certainly would not encourage any American citizens or fishermen to
take any kind of retaliatory action. This is no time for people to take
the law in their own hands. This is a time for diplomats and leaders -
political leaders on both sides - to be reasonable and to sit down
together and work out an agreement that will be mutually beneficial.
That is what the United States wants to do. I cannot repeat that often
enough.
QUESTION: Is the United States willing to send us to binding
arbitration? Canadian officials feel that by going back to the
negotiating table nothing will really get resolved there and that
probably the only way it can be resolved is to send us to a tribunal for
binding arbitration. Is the U.S. prepared to do that?
MR. BURNS: We have received a proposal from the Canadian Government
that we take this to binding arbitration. We have not responded to that
proposal; we will shortly. I don't want to anticipate what decision our
government will make in response. Let me just say this -- the value of
the way that we agreed to discuss the Pacific salmon treaty with Canada
is this. It is not just federal officials and bureaucrats and Ottawa
who decide these issues. It is the people of British Columbia and
Alaska and Washington. It is local political leaders. It is people
from the fishing industries. That is the way it should be. Binding
arbitration would take those people out of the negotiations.
We have always believed in the stakeholder process. Our people have
been with us at these negotiations. We rely on the people of Washington
and Alaska to help us negotiate this. We certainly want them to
continue to participate.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Carol.
QUESTION: The other day when you asked that binding arbitration
question, you pretty much slammed the door and said we are wedded to the
negotiation process that we had agreed to. Now, you are clearly
opening the door to --
MR. BURNS: I am not, actually. I am sorry if I am being misunderstood
or if I am not communicating our position. I do not want to get ahead
of my superiors who need to make the ultimate decision in how to respond
to the Canadian proposal. We want to respond privately to the Canadians
before we do publicly, because we want to be good partners in these
negotiations.
I can't tell you what our exact response will be. But I did note one of
the fundamental problems with binding arbitration and that is that you
take a whole class of people who are fundamentally affected by these
issues out of the negotiations. I think that is sufficient indication
of our general view of this issue.
QUESTION: Why do you think the situation has escalated to the point it
is now, which is pretty extraordinary in relations between the United
States and Canada? I mean, is it a function of personalities? Is it a
question that the issue has been festering for so long?
MR. BURNS: When people's livelihoods are at stake - we've seen this up
in the George's Banks, up off New England; we've seen fishing disputes
between Canada and the European Union just last year - a very vicious
one. It's not unusual when people have their livelihoods at stake or
think they do. When there are allegations that people aren't playing
fair by the rules, emotions get high and people try to take the law into
their own hands. But I think we have a responsibility as government
leaders to implore our own citizens - Canada and the United States - not
to resort to violence and taking a ship hostage. Not letting that ship
proceed to Ketchikan was certainly an unfriendly act by the people who
did it.
We assume the Canadian Government does not support this. We assume that
the very good decision by the Canadian court - the injunction against
this - is going to be honored by both the Canadian Government and, we
hope, the local officials of British Columbia. Upholding the rule of
law is essential. That's what we argue for here. We know the Canadians
well enough and are friendly enough with the Canadians that we know we
can get a good agreement for them and for us. But it won't happen as
long as people resort to these illegal tactics and the premier of
British Columbia is more interested, perhaps, in publicity for his own
position than he is in negotiations.
QUESTION: What kind of options are there if diplomatic initiatives
don't work and if this situation here can't be resolved?
MR. BURNS: In any trade dispute or economic dispute like this, there
are always retaliatory options available. But we're too good a friend
of Canada to want to go down that road. Now, we know that some people
on the Canadian side are threatening that against us. We want to have a
negotiated settlement here and we think that we are all brilliant
enough, diplomatically, to be able to carry that off as long as we're at
the table with each other.
QUESTION: Has Secretary Albright gotten involved personally?
MR. BURNS: Secretary Albright is very concerned about this. She has
had a number of conversations over a number of weeks with Minister
Axworthy. Our Under Secretary of State, Tim Wirth, worked on this all
throughout the weekend. We need to take this very seriously because the
economic livelihood of our fishermen is at stake. We need to represent
them effectively with the government of Canada, and that's what we
intend to do. Judd.
QUESTION: New subject? The Middle East?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: There seems to be a flurry of activity going on. Saeb Erakat
was in Washington last week. The Netanyahu government is sending a
representative over shortly, I note. The Palestinian justice minister
resigned today - all of which may point to some developments in the Mid
East. Is there anything you can tell us about what's going on?
MR. BURNS: We were very pleased to see Saeb Erakat here last week. He
saw Dennis Ross, our special negotiator. He saw Under Secretary of
State Tom Pickering, who himself, of course, has a long history of
involvement in the Middle East; he had two ambassadorships there. We're
very pleased that Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided to send his
cabinet secretary, Mr. Naveh, to Washington. We look forward to talking
to him.
The United States is trying to do what it always tries to do. We're
trying to be an effective mediator between the Palestinians and the
Israelis. Obviously, we'll share our own ideas and listen to theirs
about how the peace process can move forward.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the resignation of the Palestinian
justice minister?
MR. BURNS: Well, as you know, we had a major disagreement with the
Palestinian justice minister because he condoned publicly, on the record
and quite openly, political assassinations for those people who were
suspected of selling land to Jews and Israelis in Israel and the West
Bank. So I'm not sure there are many tears being shed. Chairman
Arafat, obviously, will appoint a new justice minister. We hope to work
closely and amicably with that person. But our position on land sales
remains very sound and very clear for everyone to know.
QUESTION: Do you think his resignation now will settle this issue for a
lot of Israelis who are very concerned about that policy or that
particular --
MR. BURNS: Well, I think Israelis have a legitimate right to know that
the Palestinian Authority is not going to encourage political
assassinations against people who sell land to Israelis. We were
pleased that Chairman Arafat came out unequivocally with a very strong
statement - this was some time ago - against these threats of political
assassinations and we assume that that will now be the abiding position
of the Palestinian authority. With the departure of the justice
minister, perhaps that prospect is more sure now.
QUESTION: Nick, there was a fourth land dealer who died over the
weekend whose body was discovered on Saturday. Have you talked to the
Palestinians again about this situation?
MR. BURNS: Betsy, I am not aware of the particulars in that case. I
think it is a good question. I will be glad to take that question. I
just want to leave you in no uncertain terms with our very strong view
that there is no place for the threat of political assassination in the
Middle East. There are enough troubles in the Middle East without that.
We assume that the Israeli authorities, as well as the Palestinian
authorities, would look into any kind of incident like this. I just
cannot speak to the specifics of it.
QUESTION: Nick, would the Palestinians change whatever aspect of their
law it is that is making this legal?
MR. BURNS: I don't know if it is a question of law, Sid. I think it
may be more with the previous justice minister -- the man who resigned
today -- a case of political encouragement, open encouragement. I did
not realize at the time and still don't realize or accept the view that
it is somehow a question of the law. Obviously, even speaking
theoretically, we would never support any law that sought retribution
against people simply for selling land. That would be wrong. Yes?
QUESTION: According to some press report in Israel, President Clinton
invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat separately to the
White House. Can you confirm this report?
MR. BURNS: I can't confirm that report, no. I've not heard of it.
That is the first time I have heard of that, so I would be very dubious
about it. Mr. Erakat, Saeb, was here last week and Mr. Naveh is here
this week. Those are the officials with whom we are meeting. Yes?
QUESTION: I don't understand yet what is the main goal from the talks
with Saeb Erakat and Naveh -- just exchange of views? Or you trying to
launch a new initiative in the Palestinian-Israeli track?
MR. BURNS: The main objective of these talks is quite simple. It is to
promote the willingness of both sides to move forward with the type of
face-to-face meetings, discussions, that will allow the peace
negotiations to succeed and to allow the Oslo Accords to succeed.
QUESTION: Nick, what would your comment be to this? There has been
some speculation that there is a new American plan in the offing.
MR. BURNS: I would tell you the United States is acting as we always
do. We are acting for peace. We are urging political dialogue and
reconciliation.
QUESTION: But you just said five minutes ago that you had your own
ideas about what to do.
MR. BURNS: We have always had our own ideas, all the way back to 1948.
We have never been shy about sharing those ideas, our points of view,
our reactions to certain events with both the Palestinians and the
Israelis. In fact, it would be strange if the United States didn't have
our ideas.
We want to hear Israeli ideas and Palestinian ideas, too. How can they
break the current logjam in the Middle East peace negotiations and how
can they move forward?
QUESTION: Would you give us some more details about the package deal
that Saeb Erakat was talking about?
MR. BURNS: No. I do not want to speak specifically about any of the
discussions we have been having. That would violate our cardinal rule
here; and that is, we don't speak in public about specifics of what
we're talking about without accepting the premise in your question.
QUESTION: Did you already share your ideas with both sides, with the
Palestinians and the Israelis?
MR. BURNS: We have been talking all along for months and months since
things began to turn sour in the Middle East. We have been talking on a
daily basis with Israelis and Palestinians, but I cannot be more
specific than that.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Telal, yes.
QUESTION: Your indulgence on two questions in the Middle East. Maariv
and the daily, Yediot Ahrandt, two newspapers in Israel, said that the
army general staff concluded from the war games conducted one month ago
that while reoccupying PLO areas was possible, it was not the preferred
response to an outbreak of hostilities.
A right-winged legislator, Uzi Landau, said also it must be made clear
to the Palestinians that they cannot feel as if we would not allow
ourselves the necessary operation in their territory, including entering
(inaudible) area, which is the PLO. Would you find such comments
helpful to promoting trust and building confidence between the two
parties at a time when the peace process is at a crisis?
MR. BURNS: We assume that responsible Israeli government officials and
responsible Palestinian officials will live up to the commitments they
have made to each other in Oslo I and Oslo II. You all know what
responsible comments are and which aren't.
Fortunately, we have -- with Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister
Netanyahu -- two individuals who want to preserve the Oslo Accords and
want to move forward. The difficulty is in arranging a specific way to
do that. We are interested, obviously, in helping them get to the point
where they can begin again to resolve their problems face-to-face
together.
QUESTION: How about concluding such war games? Is that helpful to
reoccupy PLO --
MR. BURNS: I did not see these newspaper reports. I am at a little
bit of a disadvantage in commenting upon them. Obviously, we expect
that the actions, as well as the statements of both sides, will be
consistent with their desire for peace and with a settlement.
QUESTION: My second question is about the start of Richard Butler's -
(inaudible) -- to Baghdad, among conciliatory noises made by the Iraqi
Government press. Do you have a message for the Iraqi Government at the
start of Mr. Butler's mission?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Butler represents the United Nations. Mr. Butler ought
to be treated well. He ought to be given all the information necessary
to conduct his responsibilities. Ambassador Ekeus was not given all
the information. In fact, he was lied to consistently by the Iraqi
Government. That is what he reported to the United Nations when he left
his position as a special negotiator.
We hope that Mr. Butler will have more luck with a government in Baghdad
that is more willing to deal with the truth. We have our suspicions
that the Iraqi Government has not changed its stripes. We are watching
them very carefully, as we always do.
QUESTION: So you do not believe the Iraqi Government gives conciliatory
statements through their press?
MR. BURNS: I have not believed anything out of Baghdad in about seven
or eight years. I would encourage you not to believe anything from them
either. They have not dealt truthfully with the press, much less those
of us in government.
QUESTION: So, what new tactics will Mr. Butler be applying to deal
with this government --
MR. BURNS: Saddam Hussein said the other day that he wanted to have the
UN sanctions lifted. He doesn't have a prayer of getting the sanctions
lifted unless he deals over a consistent long period of time in a fair
way with the United Nations -- unless he meets his commitments, which he
has not done since the end of Gulf War in March of 1991.
QUESTION: Will Mr. Butler be more successful in dealing with them than
Mr. Ekeus?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Butler is a very capable person. That is why he was
chosen for this job. He is a very tough person. He will carry out his
duties to the United Nations. He has our full support.
QUESTION: Nick, despite the Administration's position on Iraq, Syria
seems to be moving much closer to it. In recent days, there has been
some reports that they are closing Iraqi opposition radio stations and
considering expelling Iraqi opposition members. Do you have anything to
say about that?
MR. BURNS: I have seen the reports; I simply can't confirm them. But
obviously we would hope and trust that Syria would maintain the UN
sanctions in place against Iraq. Carol?
QUESTION: Nick, do you have any feedback yet from Solarz?
MR. BURNS: Well, we know that Steve Solarz visited Tokyo and met with
Foreign Minister Ikeda last night. He had a very good meeting with
Foreign Minister Ikeda. He has arrived in Beijing and in a couple of
hours will begin meetings with a variety of people in Beijing including
with King Sihanouk who is convalescing there; with Liu Huaqiu, who is
the director of the foreign affairs office of the state council; and
with the vice minister for Asian affairs, Mr. Tang Jiaxuan. He will see
three people, important people, for meetings. He then continues on his
trip to the other capitals -- to Djakarta and Bangkok, Phnom Penh. He
will be meeting the Secretary in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday morning to
fully brief the Secretary as she begins her talks there on what he has
found out.
I must say, in watching the events over the weekend in Cambodia, the
United States very much regrets Mr. Hun Sen's rejection of the ASEAN
efforts at mediation, because we consider the ASEAN initiative a very
constructive one. Contrary to Hun Sen's contention, which he was public
about, ASEAN and the other members of the international community, such
as the United States, are deeply involved in Cambodia. We have been
since we helped resurrect Cambodia through the 1991 Paris Peace Accords.
Those accords were signed by 18 countries. They paved the way for the
end of the civil war. They paved the way for the 1993 elections. It
has been our international aid - all of us together - that has
essentially allowed Mr. Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh to have a start in
a coalition government in 1993 to get their feet on the ground.
So we hope Mr. Hun Sen will understand why we comment on affairs in his
country. It is entirely proper to do so. We hope very much that he and
his colleagues in Phnom Penh will reconsider the constructive proposal
put to him by the ASEAN countries. We support ASEAN. Secretary
Albright intends to consult very closely with ASEAN in Kuala Lumpur on
this issue, both at the ASEAN Regional Forum and at the Post Ministerial
Conference.
QUESTION: With him rejecting any outside effort, including ASEAN,
realistically, what can you do?
MR. BURNS: Realistically, what we can do is to continue to assert the
point of view that democratic elections ought to be upheld; that the man
who is chosen by the legislature in Cambodia to be the first prime
minister should not be kicked out of that job on a whim by Mr. Hun Sen.
That is a realistic point of view and very important one that we should
continue to put across with ASEAN, as we have done. All of us want to
see Cambodia have a chance to succeed. It won't succeed if it flouts
democracy, we believe.
QUESTION: Did the Japanese agree with your position? Did Solarz
persuade them of your view?
MR. BURNS: What I cannot do - and you will understand the reasons why -
is report on each leg of his mission, what he has discussed privately
with our friends and allies - in this case our ally Japan - in the
region. But, needless to say, we count very much on the support of
Japan, on Japan's influence for the ASEAN effort. We will have further
discussions with the Japanese in Kuala Lumpur.
Any more on Cambodia before we go to - Mr. Katz, I should welcome you
back. This is the first time we have seen Lee since he broke his leg on
July 4th; isn't that right?
QUESTION: That was last Memorial Day.
MR. BURNS: Do you have any questions you want to ask today? For the
readers of USA Today?
QUESTION: I think the readers of USA Today are getting plenty.
MR. BURNS: They're getting what?
QUESTION: In fact, I brought an intern, Mr. Silvers, here, at USA
Today, to observe that.
MR. BURNS: Welcome, welcome.
QUESTION: But I think we are hitting the entire loop today. So I think
we are okay. I might have one question. What do you think that
Secretary Albright can do at the ASEAN forum in order to advance this
comment that you made about -- that the second prime minister of
Cambodia can't do whatever he wants?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all I should remind you - and it's very
important - that the Secretary is going to Kuala Lumpur because our
relations with the Southeast Asian countries, the members of ASEAN, are
really critically important to our economic well being. So she will
have a lot of discussions in Kuala Lumpur that are not on Cambodia, but
on important trade and political and military issues, particularly in
the ASEAN Regional Forum.
She will be meeting the Chinese foreign minister there. She will see
the Russian foreign minister, the Japanese foreign minister -- lots of
very important conversations. Obviously Cambodia will be a major issue
at ASEAN because of the depth of concern internationally. What we wish
to do is to maintain very close ties with the ASEAN countries in their
initiative to try to resolve this conflict.
We very much support ASEAN and hope that Mr. Hun Sen will be open to
discussions and real work with the international community to resolve
some of the problems of Cambodia.
QUESTION: Nick?
MR. BURNS: Yes, Judd.
QUESTION: Taiwan - Taiwan?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have a reaction to Taiwan's abolishing
provincial government?
MR. BURNS: A reaction to it?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: Not particularly. We don't have official relations with
Taiwan. As you know, we have unofficial relations pertaining to the
Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. So I don't really have a comment.
QUESTION: Well, does the U.S. fear that this is a step towards
independence and would provoke China?
MR. BURNS: I don't want to analyze this. I certainly don't want to be
provocative in any way in analyzing it. All I can say is our policy
remains very clear. The question that you asked about the future of
Taiwan and its relationship with China is really one for the people on
both sides of the Taiwan Strait to discuss themselves. It's not really
a question for the United States. It's up to them to make these
decisions, not us. But we assume that will be done peacefully and will
include people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Liberian elections? The
losing candidate seems to feel that there was widespread fraud.
MR. BURNS: What I can say is this, after many years of civil war,
countless tens of thousands of people who died during that civil war,
they finally had elections. That in itself is a very good thing. Now,
the international observers who were present -- and there were many --
including our special presidential envoy Howard Jeter, including
President and Mrs. Carter, 43 people from the Carter Center, hundreds of
people from around the world, they haven't spoken yet officially about
whether or not these elections were free and fair. So as in all cases,
we are going to respect the international monitors and await for their
verdict.
Secondly, it did seem to our embassy in Monrovia, as well as to
Ambassador Jeter, that actually the situation on election day was rather
calm in the city and in the countryside. The voting appeared to be
orderly. There are some charges of irregularities that need to be
looked into by the international monitors. The balloting certainly took
place in an environment that we thought was secure, which is important,
and the atmosphere was calm.
Now, people are saying that Charles Taylor has won. There is no final
tabulation of the polls. We will have to see what that is and when the
vote finals are given to us, we will obviously have a reaction to the
vote and to the way in which the vote was engineered. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: You stated earlier in the briefing Macedonia instead FYROM.
Why? And I am wondering if you have been influences by Mr. Theodhoros
Panaglos' statement in The New York Times today, "I want to get rid of
this problem because there is no substance to it." Could you please
comment?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, you are trying to get me in trouble again,
right?
QUESTION: No, to the opposite.
MR. BURNS: Pardon.
QUESTION: He waited for the whole briefing.
MR. BURNS: The United States, as you know, has business with the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Lambros, and if you look at my press
briefings over the past two years, probably 98 percent of the time I
have used that formulation because that is the correct formulation. If
I misstep from time to time it's because I have feet of clay, just like
you, and I am mortal, okay?
Now, on the second question, there was a very good article by Celestine
Bohlen in The New York Times, and Mr. Lambros, I think your newspaper
ought to take a look at this article. It talks about the positive
trends in Greek-Turkish relations. I think we sense those trends. Greg
Craig, our policy planning director, just came back from the Eastern
Mediterranean. He told me this morning that he senses in his trip to
Ankara, to Istanbul, to Athens and to Nicosia, a new spirit in the
Eastern Mediterranean for peace and reconciliation and productive
discussions. That is what we support and that is what we will continue
to support.
QUESTION: Could you elaborate on the new spirit? He came specifically
from Athens. I am very interested --
MR. BURNS: I think it's obvious to all concerned. It was explicit in
Celestine Bohlen's column today, such a good column. I would encourage
you to read that and inculcate that message. Yes --
QUESTION: On Cyprus - I am wondering, this is the anniversary - why for
23 years you understand the UDI of Rauf Denktash for the sake of less
than 112,000 Cypriots of Turkish origin?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, you know our position in Cyprus. You know what
we think the preferred outcome is. Savas?
QUESTION: As a good NATO ally, why don't you take your fish business
for Canada and the United States to the International Court of Justice?
MR. BURNS: Because that would be binding arbitration, Savas. Binding
arbitration has already been proposed but has not yet been accepted by
the United States, but it's a nice try. For arbitration to work, two
sides have to agree to it. Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:51 P.M.)
(###)
|
