U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #164, 96-10-11
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
Friday, October 11, l996
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Welcome to International Journalists, SAIS Students .........1
Acting Secretary Talbott: Mtgs w/ Kyrgyzstan FonMin, Sierra
Leone President Kabbah; Speech re U.S.-Ukraine Relations ..1-2
Under Secretary Tarnoff Travel to Mexico ....................2
Asst Secretary Kornblum Contact Group Meeting, Balkans Tvl ..2
Asst Secretary Lord in Seoul, Republic of Korea .............2
AID Administrator Atwood Heads U.S. Observer Delegation to
Nicaragua Election ........................................2-3
Amb. John Negroponte Appointed Special Coordinator for
Post-1999 U.S. Presence in Panama .........................3
Secretary Christopher Mtgs in Tanzania, Onward Travel .......3
INDONESIA
Award of Nobel Peace Prize to Two East Timorese .............4,6
U.S. Sale of F-16s/IMET Funding/Human Rights Abuses .........4-6,8-9, 16-17
U.S. Relations with Indonesia ...............................5-9
TURKEY
Potential Sale of F-16s ..............................7
MIDDLE EAST
Chairman Arafat's Concerns About Erez Talks .................9-10
Israel-Palestinian Talks Resume in Taba and Eilat ...........9-11
Commitment to Ending Violence in West Bank, Gaza ............10
Status of Implementing Israeli Troop Redeployment in Hebron .10-11
Status of Israel-Palestinian Relationship ...................
SOUTH KOREA
Asst Secretary Lord's Onward Travel Plans ...................11-13
Readout of Meetings in South Korea/Planned Press Conference .12-13
DPRK Responsibility for Submarine Incident ..................13
NORTH KOREA
Swedish Diplomat Visit to Detained American Citizen .........11-12
HAITI
Report of Manuel Constant Involvement in Guy Malary Killing .13-14
NICARAGUA
U.S. Policy on Upcoming Elections/Brian Atwood Heads U.S.
Observer Delegation .......................................14-17
Daniel Ortega's Democratic Credentials ......................14-16
TURKEY/GREECE
Kardak/Imia Aegean Dispute/U.S. Role ........................17-18
PANAMA
Amb. Negroponte's Meetings/Status of U.S Troops .............18-19
FRANCE
Minister of Cooperation Godfrain Criticism of Secretary
Christopher's Africa Travel ...............................19-21
NATO/RUSSIA
General Lebed's Brussels Talks, NATO Enlargement ............21-22
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1996, 1:09 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Welcome to the State Department. We have a number of visitors
and guests with us today, including l4 journalists visiting the United
States through the United Nations Training Program for Broadcasters and
Journalists; and I believe they're sitting on both sides of the room today.
Welcome to you from a variety of countries around the world. We're glad to
have you with us.
We also have some students from the School of Advanced International
Studies at Johns Hopkins, and that's of course the finest graduate school
of international affairs in the United States; and they are all interns
here at the State Department, and they are welcome as well. It's an
excellent school.
I want to go through the schedule of what Acting Secretary Strobe Talbott
has done today. He met this morning with Aroza Otunbayeva, who is the
Foreign Minister of Kyrgyzstan, former Kyrgyz Ambassador to the United
States. They had a very long conversation about the situation in Kyrgystan
-- the very good relationship that the United States has had for five years
now with the Government of Kyrgystan about the situation in Afghanistan,
which is of course of great concern to the central Asian countries.
Acting Secretary Talbott then had a meeting with the President of Sierra
Leone, President Kabbah, where they talked about a variety of bilateral,
but also international, problems -- and, particularly, African problems.
This evening, Acting Secretary Talbott is going to address The Washington
Group. The Washington Group is a Ukrainian-American professional
organization, and Acting Secretary Talbott is going to go over to the
Ukrainian Embassy here in Washington at Georgetown to give a speech on the
U.S.-Ukraine Relations at Five -- it being five years since the breakup of
the Soviet Union. This is a progress report on U.S. policy. This event is
open to the press, and I commend this to you as a major articulation of
United States policy on Ukraine by Strobe Talbott.
I also wanted you to know that our Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs, Peter Tarnoff, is leaving today for Mexico.
He'll be in Mexico this weekend and on Monday for a series of meetings
with senior government officials in Mexico and party officials. He'll also
meet -- his senior appointment will be with the Foreign Secretary, Foreign
Secretary Gurria. This is an important opportunity to review U.S.-Mexican
relations.
Assistant Secretary John Kornblum is in the Balkans. Yesterday, he
completed a very important Contact Group meeting with our allies in London.
That meeting reconfirmed the position that the United States and the United
Kingdom and others have been talking about this week, and that is that
should the Bosnian Serbs not meet their Dayton commitments then the Bosnian
Serbs may very well subject themselves to continued isolation by the
international community; and we have not foreclosed the option of going
back to sanctions in the United Nations Security Council. That was
an important meeting of the Contact Group. Assistant Secretary John
Kornblum will be meeting with Bosnian Serb leaders over the weekend, as
well as with the government officials present -- Izetbegovic and Mr. Zubak -
- in an effort to try to spur the progress in creating these new national
institutions.
I also want to let you know that Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia
and Pacific Affairs, Winston Lord, is in Seoul.
He's going to be giving a press conference -- I think seven or eight hours
from now. He's had a series of very important meetings, including with the
Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs -- Foreign Minister Gong -- with the
National Security Advisor, and with many others; and this visit is an
attempt by the United States not only to have a good round of discussions
with the South Koreans but to present a united front with South Korea,
certainly in the face of many of the provocations of the last month.
There's an announcement, press statement, waiting for you in the Press Room
after the briefing concerning Nicaragua. The United States will be sending
a delegation to observe the Nicaraguan elections on October 20th. That
delegation will be led by Brian Atwood, who is the Administrator for the
Agency for International Development. He will be accompanied by the
Assistant AID Administrator, Mr. Mark Schneider, and by our State
Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, John R.
Hamilton.
This delegation is going to observe the elections on behalf of the United
States Government. We have provided $9 million to support the electoral
process in Nicaragua, and this assistance continues our long-standing
support for democracy in Nicaragua; and I would just refer you to the
public statement that we have on the elections.
I also posted a statement last evening concerning the appointment of
Ambassador John Negroponte as the Special Coordinator for post-l999 U.S.
presence in Panama. Ambassador Negroponte will chair an Interagency
Working Group here in Washington on this very important issue relating to
whether or not the United States and the Panamanian Government will choose
to have a continued U.S. presence in Panama after the treaty expires in
l999. You remember that in l995, when President Clinton met President
Perez Balladares, they agreed to have exploratory talks to determine what
the U.S. presence should be.
Ambassador Negroponte is one of our most senior and most experienced
American diplomats. He's been the United States Ambassador to Honduras, to
Mexico, and to the Philippines most recently. He's also been the Deputy
National Security Advisor under Colin Powell when General Powell was the
National Security Advisor in the latter part of the Reagan Administration.
Very experienced. He'll be working full time on this issue.
Finally, just to let you know that Secretary Christopher has had a good
series of meetings today in Arusha in northern Tanzania with President
Mkapa, with former President Nyerere, with President Moi, and President
Museveni -- excellent series of meetings on the problems of East Africa.
They discussed the problems in Burundi and Rwanda, and also some bilateral
issues between the United States and Tanzania.
Secretary Christopher is flying to Cape Town, South Africa, where he'll be
this weekend. He'll be meeting President Mandela tomorrow in Cape Town.
He will give a major speech in Johannesburg, and he'll have a variety of
other events in South Africa.
As you know, he'll be going to Angola on Monday morning, and then he'll fly
back to the United States. He's scheduled to arrive back sometime around
midnight on Monday evening.
That finishes the very long series of announcements.
Jim -- or Patrick?
QUESTION: Your reaction to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize?
MR. BURNS: My reaction certainly is to congratulate the two who've been
given this award. The United States has long encouraged efforts to achieve
peace in East Timor. In this regard we've strongly supported direct
discussions between Indonesia and Portugal in this problem; these
discussions have been facilitated by the United Nations Secretary General.
We have supported the continuation of the Secretary General's initiative,
the all-inclusive Intra-Timorese dialogue; and we believe that continued
discussion -- peaceful discussion -- among the East Timorese of varying,
differing viewpoints is an important part of achieving a resolution here.
We certainly hope that the action by the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee
would contribute to ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict in East
Timor.
QUESTION: You have spoken to Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo, both the
winners of the Peace Prize. Jose Ramos Horta says that the selling of F-
l6s to Indonesia is like selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. Winston Lord
has said that he's going to push for that in January when Congress
reconvenes, as well as pushing again for the reinstatement of IMET for
military training aid.
How do you justify this? And this certainly goes against the desires of
both of these Peace Prize winners.
MR. BURNS: Certainly, I would reject any characterization of the
Indonesian Government as being similar to the Iraqi Government.
Saddam Hussein stands alone; he's unique. He stands alone and ought to be
isolated by all the world, and he is isolated by the United States. To
compare Saddam Hussein to the current Indonesian leadership is an
outrage.
On the question of the F-l6s --
QUESTION: Do you consider Soeharto one of the great human rights
violators in the world today, like every human rights group does?
MR. BURNS: I've just given you a statement. I'm trying to answer your
two-point question. I answered the first part of it. I made a very clear
statement in response to your first charge.
I can also say that the United States will go forward with the sale of F-
l6s to Indonesia. We have said that in the past. I believe Mike McCurry
affirmed that this morning, and I'm glad to reaffirm it again.
QUESTION: Why, and what is the justification when you've got the Timorese
-- one of the worst genocides in the 20th Century?
And you've got the Indonesian people themselves, with Soeharto cracking
down and killing his own people, because an opposition party -- he raided
the offices of an opposition party and they protested. How do you justify
this?
MR. BURNS: As you know, the United States has spoken out -- in fact,
during the visit of Secretary Christopher this past summer to Jakarta about
our concern for some of the continuing human rights problems in Indonesia.
We have not been bashful about that.
We also have an important relationship with Indonesia -- one of the most
important and largest countries in that part of the world.
That relationship is multi-faceted. It is political, it's economic, and
it's military. And we believe that the sale of the F-l6s is appropriate,
considering Indonesia's security and defense needs.
The United States will continue to have a very active -- and, we hope,
positive -- relationship with the Indonesian Government.
On some of these questions that you've referred to, we have been quite
vocal on human rights issues; and we'll continue to be.
I'm sure you're familiar with our Human Rights Report which we issue on an
annual basis here in the State Department, which is quite frank about the
situation in Indonesia.
On the situation regarding East Timor, the United States has long supported
efforts to resolve this peacefully. We have spoken out in the past about
problems associated with East Timor, and we'll continue to do so in the
future should that be necessary.
QUESTION: Did Congress cut off military training aid after the November
l99l massacre where the Indonesian military used U.S. M-l6s to gun down
more than 250 Timorese? I witnessed it.
I survived the massacre, despite the fact that I was beaten by those
weapons.
After that, Congress cut off weapons -- cut off military training aid. Now,
the State Department is pushing to reinstate it. Bishop Belo said the
human rights situation is worse than it's ever been.
What's the justification?
MR. BURNS: The justification is that we have many issues to consider in
our relationship with the largest Moslem country on earth, and one of the
largest and most important countries in East Asia. As I said, that
relationship is multi-faceted.
The United States actually probably stands second to none in our belief
that human rights is important, and we have spoken out publicly about human
rights abuses in Indonesia and will continue to do so.
Sometimes we stand alone when we speak out against human rights abuses.
There are other aspects of this relationship that are important to the
American people and to the United States over the long term.
We do balance our interests; but we feel quite comfortable in going ahead
with this sale of F-16s.
QUESTION: Will President Clinton meet with Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop
Belo? Will he invite them to the White House?
MR. BURNS: I don't know that the President has announced any plans to do
so. But, as I said, we can congratulate these two men for winning this
award. It's an honor to win the Nobel Peace Prize. We hope that the
action of conferring the award upon them will lead to a resolution of the
problems of East Timor in which the United States does have an interest.
QUESTION: Will President Clinton spearhead an effort at the United
Nations to call for self-determination for the people of East Timor -- what
Bishop Belo is calling for -- a U.N.-sponsored referendum?
MR. BURNS: Well, as you know, since 1976 the position of the United
States has been that we accept Indonesia's incorporation of East Timor,
without maintaining that a valid act of self-determination had taken
place.
You know that has been a consistent policy of this country for 20 years.
Republican Administrations and Democratic Administrations have stood united
on this policy.
You obviously have a lot of expertise and experience in this, and so you
know far better than I, that this is a very complicated, emotional,
sensitive problem. We do understand that. We do speak out against human
rights abuses when they take place. We did so yesterday in the case of
China, and we have not failed to do so in the past in the case of
Indonesia.
We also have other interests that the United States has to be concerned
about, and we always have to act in the interests of the United States and
of the American people, and I believe we do that very effectively in
Indonesia.
QUESTION: On the same issue, --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: The Turkish Government --
MR. BURNS: On the same issue?
QUESTION: That's exactly.
MR. BURNS: No. Erbakan did not visit East Timor this week. I know he
didn't.
QUESTION: The Turkish Government (inaudible) Necmettin Erbarkan is in the
process to sell F-16s to Indonesia, too. I would like you to comment.
MR. BURNS: Well, that's a matter between the Government of Turkey and the
Government of Indonesia. I'm not the spokesman for either government.
QUESTION: Well, under human rights, (inaudible) why is the Turkish
Government doing that all the way from one part of the world to another?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I have given, I think, a very clear statement on
why the United States feels it is appropriate to go ahead with the sale of
F-16s to Indonesia. But please don't ask me to speak for the Turkish
Government or the Indonesian Government.
They have very capable spokespeople who can do that for them.
QUESTION: I don't ask you to comment on the Turkish Government.
I would like to have the U.S. comments as far as for this specific action
(inaudible) on the part of the Turkish Government.
MR. BURNS: I just don't have anything I can say on that.
I think I have commented fully on that.
Still on -- ?
QUESTION: On Timor, can you comment a little on what are some of the
other interests that the United States has vis-a-vis Indonesia that have to
be balanced with human rights? Why are F-16s --
MR. BURNS: Well, it is not surprising, I think, to any of you in this
room that when the United States looks at its relations with any country in
the world, in most cases there are a variety of interests that animate that
relationship, and Indonesia is no exception to that.
In the case of Indonesia, here you have the largest Muslim country in the
world, one of the largest countries in East Asia with a very important
economic relationship with the United States in the present and in the
future; a country that has security concerns of its own, as most countries
do all over the world --
QUESTION: Like what, which country would invade --?
MR. BURNS: Well, again, you know, it's not my practice here at this
podium to go into hypothetical scheming about what wars will break out in
the future. But all countries have security interests. All countries have
to prepare themselves to meet future security concerns, and Indonesia is no
exception to that. One should not be surprised by that.
So we have economic interests. We certainly have a security relationship
and we have a political relationship, a political relationship where
Indonesia's voice in East Asia, in ASEAN, in APEC, and in the United
Nations is a very important voice.
We regularly meet with the Indonesian leadership. President Clinton meets
with the Indonesian leadership at APEC meetings. Secretary Christopher
meets with Foreign Minister Alatas as frequently as he can, because we find
that despite the fact that you are never going to agree with any one
particular country on all issues, having diplomatic contact is essential.
So we are going to go on in this relationship with Indonesia.
At the same time, I don't think there are many countries in the world that
have been as open about our ongoing concern about human rights in East
Timor. It has been a major part of our relationship with the Indonesian
Government, and we have not always had happy and productive dialogues on
this issue. We have often had a strong difference of view.
Now we have catalogued our assessment of the human rights situation in
Indonesia. We print it, and you can go down the hall and I can give you a
copy of this. There aren't many governments in the world that do
that.
At press conferences we talk about our differences on this issue, as
Secretary Christopher did when he was in Jakarta this summer on a different
issue, but an issue that certainly involved human rights.
So I'm not going to be put in the position, frankly, at this briefly of
having to be defensive about this. We have a positive policy that serves
the interests of the United States, and I'm going to put it forward very
clearly for you.
QUESTION: Let me ask you a quick question. The Indonesian military has
killed a third of the population of Timor -- 200,000 people -- on November
lst, gunned down more than 250 Timorese, one of the smaller massacres in
East Timor, using U.S. weapons.
What would it take for the U.S. Government to cut off military aid to
Indonesia?
MR. BURNS: That question would obviously be a function of a variety of
factors, and I guess if you want to engage in this kind of hypothetical
thinking, certainly
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: Certainly, certainly -- you asked me a question in the future
tense -- certainly the human rights situation will be part of that. But
the fact is we have not made that decision.
If we ever make that decision, we'll announce it. But we have not made
that decision and we are going to go forward with these sales.
QUESTION: New subject? Mid-East?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Yasser Arafat sounded somewhat pessimistic in his analysis of
the talks going on between Palestinians and the Israelis. Do you have a
comment?
MR. BURNS: If you are referring to his comments made yesterday in
Ramallah before the Palestinian Council, I can only say that it's not
surprising to hear from either the Palestinians or Israelis a sense of
frustration about these ongoing negotiations, because they are difficult.
They are very tough, and they have not yet succeeded. They are not yet
complete.
Now I think the good news from the advantage point of the United States is
this. We were right to hold that summit here in Washington last week. It
did move the situation forward despite much of the criticism from the press
on this and from other outside experts, because they have moved away from
violence in the streets, very dramatically moved away from that, and they
are now talking.
On Monday, the talks moved to Taba and to Eilat. They will be meeting
Monday and Tuesday in Taba; Wednesday and Thursday in Eilat. And we
believe that those talks can and must be successful.
The situation is better today than it was two weeks ago.
Not surprising, however, and you ought not to be surprised in the future of
these negotiations to see some public diplomacy exercised by both sides, to
see some of the negotiations spill over into comments made in public. We
think that is part of the nature of the negotiations. We understand
it.
Certainly there can be no return to violence, and we know that Chairman
Arafat, as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu, have pledged to each other as
well as to President Clinton that they will do everything necessary to stem
any further violence in the West Bank and Gaza strip. That's a very
serious undertaking to which both are committed, and we are committed to
that as well.
QUESTION: On that subject, the Israeli spokesman has said that, in
keeping with what you have been saying, that there would be no renegotiation
of the Hebron schedule. Did they say that they are seeking adjustments in
that schedule. Do you accept the difference between adjustments and
renegotiation?
MR. BURNS: I don't think we have a problem here. In fact, in announcing
the relocation of the talks to the Red Sea yesterday, Dennis Ross confirmed,
speaking on behalf of both delegations -- the Israelis and the Palestinians
-- that both of them agreed once again, and announced publicly once again,
there will be no renegotiation of the Oslo Accords.
Obviously the implementation of the Oslo Accords is what they are
negotiating, what they are debating and discussing, and some of which they
disagree on.
Some of the implementation has to consider recent events. That's the core
of the matter, but everybody agrees no renegotiation, which was particularly
important for the Palestinian delegation.
And we understand why.
QUESTION: Well, as I understand, it, the Oslo Accords laid out a schedule
which has not been kept to for Israeli redeployment from military positions
in Hebron.
Since it hasn't been fulfilled, is that not in
de facto renegotiation?
MR. BURNS: No. In fact, let's remember that the decision not to meet the
schedule for having redeployment was made by Prime Minister Shimon Peres
back in March of 1996 before the Israeli elections.
That has been now one of the outstanding problems. It is the major problem
in the negotiations. We believe that a deal to agree on a redeployment
schedule from Hebron can and will be arranged.
We think these talks are going to be successful.
QUESTION: But is the Israeli Defense Minister not calling for changes in
the Oslo Agreement, in particular relating to the type of weapons to be
carried by the Palestinian police, for example?
MR. BURNS: We have been assured by Prime Minister Netanyahu that there
will be no re-negotiation. The discussion concerns the implementation.
But I should also say to defend my colleague, Dennis Ross, that essentially
I think they've all agreed to a press blackout starting Monday and Tuesday.
Press will be on site at Taba or at Eilat where they'll be meeting.
As you know, we're not going into the substance of questions like that,
Patrick, because we want to preserve some confidentiality here so we can be
successful in the negotiations. So I couldn't possibly answer it. But I
can tell you about this very important distinction about no re-negotiation.
QUESTION: But Oslo specifies whose troops are to be where and who's to
patrol there -- whose police and security forces.
What kind adjustments are we talking about? Is this the timetable?
MR. BURNS: They're going to have to define the results of these
negotiations. They are the ones negotiating. They're the ones making the
decisions. We are a facilitator at these talks, and we're present at the
table. We'll remain at the table.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Asia but a different subject.
Has there been any change in Assistant Secretary Lord's travel schedule?
Specifically, is he going to China?
MR. BURNS: I do know that Win Lord intends to travel beyond Seoul in
Asia. Yesterday, I think I told you I wasn't aware of any travel plans,
which was the case. Subsequent to my briefing, I have been informed by my
friends in the East Asia Bureau that he does intend to stay in Asia. But
I'm not at liberty, actually, to announce where he'll be going next.
QUESTION: Have you got any word back from the Swedish diplomat on the
American being held?
MR. BURNS: But, listen, in order to take the sting off that a little bit,
he will not be heading directly north of Seoul.
No, no. I'm not trying to insinuate anything like that. He will be going
to another country with which we have -- or countries with which we have
diplomatic relations, so it won't be North Korea. But I'm just not at
liberty at to disclose that now, because his final plans aren't set.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. BURNS: It's not Kissingerian, even though he worked for -- no, it's
not at all.
QUESTION: Have you heard back from the Swedish diplomat?
MR. BURNS: We have not, and I think not surprisingly, because Mr.
Lofquist, the Swedish Charge d'Affaires, had to take a four-hour train ride
from Pyongyang to visit the jailed American.
Given the time difference and given the problems with communications, we
simply haven't heard back from the Swedish Government.
We hope to, as soon as we can over the weekend. We repeat our calls today
for the release of the American being held unjustly by the North Koreans,
and we hope that Mr. Lofquist will have found that the American is in good
health; that he is not being mistreated; that he has full access to
understand what the charges are that are being brought against him.
He's been charged with espionage, which is one of the most severe charges
that anyone can face anywhere in the world, much less in an autocratic
society like North Korea.
QUESTION: Nick, about Mr. Lord's trip, could you give us more on the
content of discussions he had with the South Korean counterpart?
MR. BURNS: Certainly, be glad to. Winston Lord met yesterday and today
with Foreign Minister Gong, with the National Security Adviser of South
Korea, with other ministers and other officials of the South Korean
Government.
The purpose of his trip is to step back and review the major issues in our
relationship with the Republic of Korea in light of the very dramatic and
mostly negative events that have occurred on the peninsula in the last
month.
I think it's fair to say that the United States wants to send a strong
signal to North Korea that we support our ally, the Republic of Korea; that
we stand by it. Of course, we have a security commitment to it, and that
we believe that North Korea is solely responsible for the submarine that
violated the sovereignty of South Korea a month ago. We hold North Korea
responsible for that. It was a violation of the United Nations armistice
agreements, which are very clear.
We are also very concerned by other activities undertaken by North Korea
against South Korea. I think sometimes in relationship, you need to
demonstrate publicly solidarity, and that's a big part of Assistant
Secretary Lord's trip.
As I said, he is going to be giving a major press conference about seven or
eight hours from now, and for those of you who have deadlines that meet
that, I would encourage you to try to follow that.
QUESTION: Do you know whether they discussed joint military operations?
MR. BURNS: I don't know specifically all of the issues that they talked
about, but I know that Winston is going to give a good press conference
where I'm sure he'll tell you everything that he did.
QUESTION: Will he give his travel time from Pyongyang?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe he's going to be any more illuminating on his
plans than I have been when he gives his press conference.
There's nothing mysterious here. We're just trying to give you something
to think about over the weekend -- (laughter) -- so you don't have a
completely peaceful, long weekend. We have to keep you on your toes. It's
very important.
QUESTION: Go to a different area?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: This would be Haiti. There's a lawsuit in New York that the
CIA gave documents to -- that were subpoenaed. It's under the Alien Tort
Claims Act, and one of the documents that was just provided to the
plaintiff -- it provides copies of -- excerpts of a report of late October
1993, in which it says that a Manuel Constant met with various people on
the morning of the killing of the Justice Minister, Guy Malary, who was
killed that afternoon. So the implication is in the text -- or it's
more than an implication -- that Constant had a direct role in the killing
of Malary. I don't suppose you have guidance on this at this point because
it just came out, but could you take the question as to whether the
Department of State was aware of this report at the time and decided not to
deport Mr. Constant to Haiti and instead to release him on parole?
MR. BURNS: I'll be glad to look into that for you. You're right, I have
not heard of this latest development. Of course, I know a lot about the
case of Mr. Constant, but I'll have to look into this for you.
QUESTION: The CIA had the document clearly for three years, since two
weeks after the killing of Malary. Is there any move right now to
extradite Constant, and where is he right now?
MR. BURNS: First of all, I never talk about the CIA. I have a lot of
friends there; we work with them very closely.
But I never talk in public about anything that the CIA is doing because we
don't do that. We never have done that and never will.
On the case of Mr. Constant, I can agree to look into this for you. We
haven't talked about this in a while here in this briefing room, and we'll
just get back to you on it.
QUESTION: I have one other question regarding Nicaragua, and I have to
apologize for not being here at the beginning. But did you mention in your
statement what the U.S. policy is with respect to preferring one candidate
for another in the elections on October 20th?
MR. BURNS: What I did at the beginning was just to announce that the
United States is sending a delegation to observe the elections, led by
Brian Atwood, our Administrator for the Agency for International Development.
It is certainly true that in this case, as in all other cases, the United
States does not take a position in support of one candidate or another. We
are neutral. We're not going to involve ourselves in the political
campaign in Nicaragua. That's for the Nicaraguan people to decide on
October 20th. That's a very important election.
QUESTION: If I could just follow, how do you square that strict
neutrality with remarks that you've made over the past week with respect to
one of the candidates? Well, I'll ask that question and then ask if you
have remarks regarding the other candidate, just to insure that there's
neutrality, I guess. (Laughter)
MR. BURNS: Thank you for asking the question. I square my remarks of the
other day -- actually, I've done it twice, I think: Monday and Friday --
very easily with the fact that we take no position on these elections. I
was asked by one of your colleagues, who's in the room, a direct question:
do we think that Ortega is a good democratic? One of the things that I
like to do here is be as open as possible, always as direct and honest
as I can be, and I'm always straightforward. And he is not, in my mind. I
would not use those two words to describe him.
I don't believe if you took a survey of the American people that 99.8
percent of our population would describe him as a good democrat -- not with
friends like Muammar Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein, whom he has recently
seen.
So I certainly stand by my comments, certainly stand by them.
I was responding to a question from a reporter here. It's also true that
the United States has not taken a position in favor of either candidate and
will not.
QUESTION: Just one more try. You mentioned it again.
It is true you were asked that direct question...
MR. BURNS: Yes, twice.
QUESTION: ...and I know everybody in this press corps appreciates your
honesty and candor.
MR. BURNS: Thank you.
QUESTION: But, for example, you volunteered, according to the transcript,
that Mr. Ortega had a "cozy" relationship with Qadhafi and Hussein, which
you didn't use those words this time, but you cited the same leaders. But
without being asked a specific question regarding his foreign relationships,
however cozy, my question is how is a remark like that, which was
volunteered, consistent with a policy of strict neutrality in an election
of a country with whom the --
MR. BURNS: Let me give you a good point of comparison.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BURNS: The Russian elections were held in June and July of this past
summer, and that was a very sensitive time for Russia. And it was
important that the United States not publicly endorse one of the candidates
or the other.
In the course of many, many days of questioning here, Mike McCurry had
questions over at the White House. We said a lot of things about Boris
Yeltsin. We said a lot of things about Mr. Zyuganov.
In fact, I made several comments very critical of Mr. Zyuganov in the
middle of a political campaign, as did other officials of the United States
Government.
The fact is that we have views on some of these leaders all around the
world -- not just Nicaragua, but others -- and we don't hesitate to make
those views known when those view are -- making them known is helpful to
the United States of America.
So we took a strictly neutral position in the Russian elections.
We take a strictly neutral position in the Nicaraguan elections.
We do not wish to interfere. But, when asked, the tradition in our
democracy is for government spokespeople to be open with the press corps.
I have tried in my two years to be as open as possible. And we have views;
we might as well express them. So this does not just pertain to Nicaragua.
It pertains to a lot of other countries around the world.
QUESTION: Given that, do you think Soeharto is a good democrat?
MR. BURNS: You know what? I'm not going to answer the question.
(Laughter)
QUESTION: You just talked about being open. Why not?
MR. BURNS: I'm as open as I can be and as I wish to be.
But what I don't want to do is have -- you know, perhaps one day we can do
this, because I think I know where you're coming from. If you'd like to
have a briefing where we debate the human rights situation in every country
of the world or any country of the world, I'll do it or we'll bring John
Shattuck up here, our Assistant Secretary. And we'll have a debate,
because this is clearly a debate about human rights issues.
But I don't want to get dragged in this briefing into commenting and
describing every world leader. I answered questions about Mr. Ortega, and
I stand by the comments that I made. Actually, I think those comments
reflect the views of the overwhelming population of this country, because
we remember the 1970s and 80s. We remember.
We remember anti-American acts; we remember outrages against the American
people. And we do believe in redemption, as I said the other day.
Redemption can occur in some cases, and let's see if it ever does in this
one.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) why not answer the question?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Since Indonesia is in the news, it's a key issue today, with
the Nobel peace prize winners, do you consider Soeharto to be a democrat?
MR. BURNS: And after that, you'll ask me a question about someone else,
and all of the sudden this briefing this briefing will have turned into a
debate about a particular aspect of our foreign relations, which is human
rights.
QUESTION: I won't respond. Could you just say whether Soeharto is a
democrat?
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to reward you, and I don't want my remarks to be
twisted, because I think I know where you're coming from.
Yes, Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: A very important --
QUESTION: Can I ask the last one?
MR. BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: So if he wins the elections, are you prepared to have a normal
relation with Ortega, President of Nicaragua?
MR. BURNS: The United States will respect the outcome of a democratic
election. Had Mr. Zyuganov won the election in Russia, I'm sure we would
have worked with Mr. Zyuganov. We'll respect the outcome of a democratic
election in Nicaragua.
Mr. Lambros.
QUESTION: A very important letter of President Clinton on Imia reads as
follows: "The U.S. has not accepted Turkish claim to sovereignty over the
island," saying further that, "only the issue of ownership of Imia should
be addressed in the International Court of Justice." Since that reflects
U.S. foreign policy, I'm wondering if you're in a position to explain to us
the difference between sovereignty and ownership on Imia?
MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I don't have in front of me any letters that
President Clinton has written on this issue to any of the leaders of
southeast Europe.
QUESTION: Do you have a copy?
MR. BURNS: Well, I don't have a copy, which is probably a more important
fact in establishing this conversation. So, I just can't confirm that
letter. Our position on Imia/Kardak is very well known.
QUESTION: Once upon a time, you promised here to release for us a list of
those Greek small islands, islets, rocky islands of the Aegean which the
U.S. does not recognize Greek sovereignty.
Is this list ready today?
MR. BURNS: No, it's not.
QUESTION: Is your statement still valid today?
MR. BURNS: I don't remember making that commitment, but I'll check the
record. If I have, we'll see what we can do for you.
QUESTION: With the sovereignty, I want to remind you of your statement of
February 1, 1996, that the U.S. Government does not recognize Greek
sovereignty over Imia island, besides with the number of Greek small
islands, islets, rocky islands along the Aegean sea coast, some of them
smaller than the building of the State Department. I'm wondering, is this
statement still valid today?
MR. BURNS: I mean, I've said a lot of things about Imia/Kardak, and
whatever I have said in the past, I stand by, because they represent United
States Government policy. But I can't possibly recall everything I've
said.
This conflict, as you know, this is months back, and we have dealt with a
hundred other issues since. So if you're interested in this issue, let's
talk afterwards with one of the press officers and see if we can satisfy
your question. But I simply can't recall letters that President Clinton
may or may not have written months ago.
QUESTION: Could you confirm information that Greece, U.S. and Turkey via
confidential conducts these days are trying to find out which Greek small
islands, islets and rocky islands are on the same status role with Imia in
order to prepare the proper list for the International Court of Justice?
MR. BURNS: In general, I can just tell you this. The United States, when
asked, tries to be helpful to Greece and Turkey in resolving some of these
Aegean problems, and when we're asked to do so. But we're going to do this
privately and confidentially and not expose it in public.
QUESTION: On Panama, do you have a day of the start of the conversation
between Panama and the United States about the --
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that Ambassador Negroponte has set a date for
his first meeting, but clearly it will be his responsibility to be the
chief U.S. negotiator on this issue with the Panamanian Government as well
as the chief policy person here in Washington.
QUESTION: And what is the decision? Do you want to keep some troops in
Panama beyond 2000?
MR. BURNS: Actually, we haven't decided and neither have the Panamanians,
which is a very important half of this equation.
But President Balladares and President Clinton have agreed that it's worth
looking into; that neither government is willing to say now what we think
should happen, because we think we ought to discuss it with each other, and
we certainly have enough time approaching 1999; certainly enough time to
think about this and have a good discussion.
This is a positive event now in appointing Ambassador Negroponte, because
it allows us to have a single point of contact with the Panamanians on this
issue, and it gives us enough time to make the right decision. This is a
very important decision for both countries.
I have something I want to offer regarding France and the comments of a
French Government Minister, which I think will be interesting to you,
because it was surprising to us.
We understand that the Minister of Cooperation of France, Minister Godfrain,
made some very pointed criticisms of Secretary Christopher's current trip
to Africa -- something along the lines of this is purely being done for
political reasons to help in the election here. Since I have personal
knowledge of the beginnings of this trip, the beginnings of thinking about
the trip, and since I know why the Secretary undertook this trip, I thought
I should tell you on behalf of our government that these are outrageous,
unfounded and unjustified remarks by a Minister of the French Government,
and frankly they're very surprising.
I can't imagine that either President Chirac or Foreign Minister de
Charette knew about these remarks or sanctioned them before they were made.
It is highly unusual for a Minister of an allied government to be directly
critical of another allied government.
Now, we ran into this case earlier in the week, and we've run into it
again. These are disappointing remarks, and the French Minister who made
them ought to rethink them, because just in their last meeting, Secretary
Christopher and Foreign Minister de Charette agreed to make Africa an area
of intensified bilateral cooperation between the United States and
France.
Minister Godfrain seems to believe that the United States just discovered
Africa. Well, that's just not the case. And I think some of our visiting
journalists here, who are from African countries, will testify to this, if
they care to testify to this.
The fact is that our Vice President has visited Africa; that he has an
ongoing binational commission with Deputy President Mbeki in South Africa.
National Security Adviser Tony Lake is an Africanist.
He's an Africa expert and has been for 30 years. And he has brought to
this relationship more commitment and more action than anything I can
remember in any previous administration in my career in government.
Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott has been to Africa several times.
We have made Africa a priority. We've argued with the Congress for more
money for Africa. So a Minister of the French Government -- I don't know
if he's been living under a rock or what. He hasn't been paying attention
to what the United States Government has been doing. He ought to rethink
his statement. He ought to recommit himself to cooperation with the United
States on Africa.
QUESTION: Did you ask the French Government --
MR. BURNS: We're asking the French Government for an explanation of his
outrageous remarks, yes.
QUESTION: Have you called the Ambassador?
MR. BURNS: We're talking with the French Government.
QUESTION: But this is not the first time the French criticized you,
because in the Middle East a few weeks ago -- (laughter) --
MR. BURNS: Au contraire. Au contraire. (Laughter) When we were
shuttling in late April, seven days and nights between Damascus and
Jerusalem, Minister de Charette was also shuttling.
You did not hear any ON-THE-RECORD comments critical of each other. The
French Government was very careful.
The French Government was very careful, as was the American Government.
And we actually are a partner of Frances, as you know, on a variety of
these issues. But what's terribly ironic about this is that the two
leading foreign policy professionals -- Secretary Christopher and Minister
de Charette -- have just agreed to work together on Africa. So I think
that Minister of Cooperation Godfrain is slightly out of step here.
QUESTION: The problem is because they link to the elections.
MR. BURNS: Oh, the problem is that he's made unfounded and unjustified
remarks that aren't true and that aren't accurate and that ought to be re-
thought.
QUESTION: Back to the Middle East and the question I asked you yesterday,
Nick, about the wire reports of Mr. Netanyahu going to the Arabs -- going
out to the Palestinians over the TV. Were you able to look into that to
see if he was indeed winning some trust, succeeding in his confidence-
building? And specifically did other Arab leaders get involved in this as
a discussion?
MR. BURNS: Bill, I think that the Prime Minister made his public
statement more than a week ago, and I don't know if its' been successful or
not, but certainly a lot more work needs to be done to repair some of the
strains in relations between Israel and a number of Arab countries. The
United States is trying to be helpful in that.
QUESTION: A number of Palestinian leaders that I know -- not leaders that
I know, but Palestinians that I know here in this town were very -- well,
let's say distrustful of Mr. Netanyahu.
Now, in the opinion of the United States Government, does Mr. Netanyahu
need to reach out more than he has?
MR. BURNS: You know, I think 30 years of experience in the Middle East --
diplomatic experience -- has taught us, we Americans, that both sides need
to commit themselves to peace.
It's not a question of the Arabs having to be responsible for peace or the
Israelis solely responsible. They both have to be committed. That's how
we approach things. That's why the United States does not usually tee off
on one side or the other publicly.
We work with them privately together, and both sides have to work together
to compromise for peace.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout about Mr. Lebed's talks in NATO
headquarters in Brussels? Is his stance changing your timetable of NATO
enlargement?
MR. BURNS: I think that this was a very successful trip that Mr. Lebed
made to Brussels. He met with Secretary General Solana and with the
Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General George Joulwan. It was the
first time that Mr. Lebed had been in Western Europe, in the West, and I
think it was a very successful visit.
Now, his remarks, his public remarks at the press conference and otherwise,
were fairly consistent with what we've heard in the past from the Russian
Government. The discussions that he had with NATO were very important,
because they emphasized the need for Russia to continue to participate in
the Partnership for Peace; for Russia and NATO to develop a charter to
codify some rules of the road for Russia's military and security relationship
with NATO in the future.
NATO will not change its plans. NATO leaders have already decided two-and-
a-half years ago to enlarge NATO. Secretary Christopher said in Stuttgart
on September 6 that there would be a NATO summit in the spring, or late
spring of this year, that would in essence make the big decisions about
NATO expansion: when and who.
That remains NATO policy, and nothing that anyone outside of NATO says will
change that policy. But I do want to accentuate the positive here. It was
a positive visit.
Thank you.
(###)
|
