Visit the International Association for Greek Philosophy (IAGP) Homepage Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923) Read the Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (24 July 1923)
HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Thursday, 28 March 2024
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #31, 97-03-03

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>


1505

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

March 3, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

DEPARTMENT

1..........Secretary Albright Mtgs. w/Chairman Arafat and Palestinian Delegation 1-2,5,7-8,10-17....--Discussion of Israeli Housing Proposal 2,5-8........--Economic Discussions-Formation of Joint U.S.-Palestinian Committee 25-26........--Evening Event 3-4........Statement on Continued Fighting in Eastern Zaire

NORTH KOREA 2-4........Briefing on Four-Party Talks in New York 3-4........U.S.-North Korea Bilateral Mtg.

SOUTH KOREA 3..........U.S.-South Korea Bilateral Mtg.

ALBANIA 4,23.......Re-election of President Berisha/State of Emergency/Censorship of Press 25...........--Travel Advisories

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS 8-9........Palestinian Commitments to Peace Accords 9..........Funding Commitments to Palestinians 9-10.......Trade Barriers in Israel 17-18......Re-deployment of West Bank 18.........Visit of Egyptian President Mubarak/King Hussein of Jordan to U.S.

INTERNATIONAL. NARCOTICS & LAW ENFORCEMENT 18-19......Drug Consumption in the U.S. 19.........Narcotics/Corruption 19-20......Mexico-Arrest of Cartel Lieutenant/Escape of Suspect

SAUDI ARABIA 20-22......Cooperation on Khobar Bombing

CUBA 22.........State of Health Care 22-23......Peruvian President Fujimori's Trip to Cuba

IRAN 23-24......Earthquake/Possibility of U.S. Aid

GREECE 24-25......Scheduling of Secretary Albright/ FM Pangalos Mtg.

CANADA 25.........Visit of FM Axworthy


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #31

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1997, 3:04 P. M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: You don't like my tie? Does the British press understand what this tie is?

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: It's called baseball, the American national pastime.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) send out for tea --

MR. BURNS: It's the American national pastime.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: He's a bum. So we're wearing this tie in honor of the opening of string training. The Red Sox won their first two spring training games over the weekend.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: What's that, Sid? You're casting aspersions on the Red Sox. Barry, did you hear that?

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Defend the Red Sox.

QUESTION: Never under the wire, Sid.

MR. BURNS: I do all the time. Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. I apologize for being late, but I wanted to make sure I could report to you fully on the meetings that have just concluded here at the Department between the Palestinian delegation led by Chairman Arafat and Secretary Albright and her delegation.

Secretary Albright attended the President's meeting with Chairman Arafat this morning. She then came back here, and she had about a nearly one-hour one-on-one meeting with Chairman Arafat, which centered largely on the issue of the Israeli proposal to build housing at Jabal Abu Ghnunnaim or Har Homa, and they had a full and very, very detailed discussion of that and all of its ramifications.

Following that, there was a working lunch between the two delegations where economic issues were primarily at the center of the discussions.

Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin and our AID Director Brian Atwood attended that meeting. There was a somewhat detailed discussion of ways by which the Palestinians could attract a greater measure of private capital to fund development projects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- a discussion of what it would take in the way of the reform of their tax and investment codes and infrastructural development to make private capital more attractive. There was also a discussion of the U.S. assistance program that Brian Atwood led from our side.

As a result of the economic discussions, Secretary Albright and Chairman Arafat have decided to form a joint U.S-Palestinian committee.

This will be similar to the committees that we have in place with the Russian Government and South African Government, the Egyptian Government -- a committee that will meet at their level.

They will both chair it -- Albright and Arafat; meet several times a year to take stock of where we are in the relationship -- our bilateral relationship with the Palestinians, to make sure that each of us is meeting our commitments -- economic, political and otherwise -- to each other, and to try to find ways practically to move the relationship forward, whether it's on economic issues or foreign policy issues or any other issues that are of importance to both sides.

Secretary Albright takes this very seriously as a commitment that she is making to Chairman Arafat and he to her to have a very active continual engagement with the other to make sure that this relationship works well.

At the working level, our Deputy Coordinator for Middle Eastern Affairs, Aaron Miller, and Nabil Shaath, who's a senior adviser to Mr. Arafat, will constitute the two principal working level figures who will make this work on a day-to-day, week-to-week and month-to-month basis.

As I said, there was a great deal of discussion on the Israeli housing proposal, and you can imagine that Secretary Albright heard from the Palestinian delegation quite a lot about that.

A very emotional but also very well put and very articulate presentation was made by Chairman Arafat and several other members of his delegation, which mirrored, I think, the conversation that took place in the Oval Office this morning.

I'll be very glad to take any questions on this issue, but I want to direct your attention to a couple of other matters just to get everything out on the board today.

First, as you know, the United States is looking forward to the meetings beginning on Wednesday in New York with the Republic of Korea and the North Koreans on the Four-Party proposal briefing.

As you know, this was announced by the President and by President Kim back on April 16th of 1996 in Cheju Island. The United States hopes very much that as a result of the Four-Party Talks briefing to be held this week in New York, North Korea will agree to attend Four-Party Talks, and, of course, the fourth party there would be the Government of China.

The United States will be represented in New York this week by Chuck Kartman, our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and the Government of South Korea by Deputy Foreign Minister Song Yong-shik, and the North Koreans by Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan.

Also, on March 7th in New York, we will have a bilateral meeting with the North Koreans to discuss a variety of issues, mainly the issues that we've been working on with them, and I think you know what they are. Chuck Kartman will be again representing the American side there. There will also be a bilateral meeting with the South Korean delegation, which will be separate, and together we and the South Koreans will brief the Japanese Government at all of these meetings this week, because the Japanese are a very important partner of ours.

Just a little bit by way of background. North Korea requested the Joint Briefing so that it could learn more about the proposal for the Four-Party Talks. We intend to explain our ideas concerning the goals of the Four-Party Talks, and we want to propose arrangements for the negotiating process options for the negotiating process itself.

We will invite suggestions and comments from the North Koreans about the best way to implement this negotiating proposal, and I want to stress, this is a briefing; it will not be a negotiating session, but we hope it does provide the North Koreans with sufficient information that they'll want to accept this proposal nearly one year after it was made back on April 16th at Cheju Island. I'll be glad to take any questions on that.

I'm also going to be posting two other statements today about two countries that are in the news, and where very troubling events are taking place. The first concerns Zaire. The United States is concerned that continued fighting in Eastern Zaire could undermine the tentative progress to date in establishing a basis for a peaceful resolution of the conflict there. As you know, we've been working with the South African Government to try to engage in discussions with representatives of the Government of Zaire and Mr. Kabila, representing the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo, Zaire.

Those discussions went well last week, but further work needs to be done to propel them forward. We hope very much now that both sides will show a clear willingness to seek a negotiated settlement without further bloodshed. We would note that there have been during recent days an escalation of the fighting in Eastern Zaire. You've probably seen the press reports about the alliance of rebel forces advancing into the town of Kindu in the vicinity of Lubutu and Tingi-Tingi, which is the refugee camp, the site of a large concentration of Rwandan Hutu refugees.

If these or other military movements continue on either side, the United States will be left with no choice but to conclude that certain parties to the conflict are not serious in seeking a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Therefore, we renew our call today on these parties for a cease-fire, and we ask them to enter into a genuine political dialogue without resort to violence to resolve their problems.

Last, the other country that is of great concern to us today is Albania. We're deeply concerned about the deterioration of the situation there. We've urged the President and the Government of Albania and all political leaders to work together to address the current crisis. That said, we regret very much that today under these difficult circumstances the Albanian Parliament went forward with the re-election of President Berisha. This step is likely to increase polarization rather than facilitate a solution.

We're very concerned that the state of emergency declared by the Parliament today is being used to stifle legitimate, free expression.

We strongly regret the introduction today of censorship. While the government has the right and responsibility to undertake measures to prevent anarchy, such powers of censorship should not be used as an excuse for repressing legitimate dissent.

In the view of the United States Government, this is a critical moment in Albania. We're consulting with our European partners and our Ambassador -- Ambassador Marisa Lino -- has tried to work to pull the government and opposition together in places where they can discuss their problems, but to no avail. Again, we strongly regret the measures taken by the Parliament and government today to in effect introduce a state of emergency and to introduce censorship of the Albanian press.

QUESTION: Nick, a couple of questions on the North Korean talks. Where in New York will they be held -- both sets -- and will the bilateral talks have a dynamism of their own, or does progress on that in any way depend on progress in the peace -- you don't want to even call them "negotiations." I can't call it a "peace" briefing, but pick your word.

You know my point, of course.

MR. BURNS: I do. First, Barry, the talks will be held at the Hilton Hotel in New York City. If you contact the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, arrangements will be made for any of you who want to cover this to at least be present at the camera spray at the top of this meeting. We're also going to be making sure that we brief you on a daily basis about these talks. I'll be glad to do that On-the-Record, and we'll also have some background briefings in New York.

As to your second question, it's a very good question. The United States has made it clear to the North Koreans that progress in our bilateral relations can only come in parallel or consistent with progress in relations between South Korea and North Korea, and the North Koreans ought to understand that. We have an alliance relationship with South Korea. We are committed to the defense of South Korea, and we want to make sure that any kind of progress in our own relationship parallels progress in the inter-Korean relationships.

Steve.

QUESTION: Middle East. What can you tell us was discussed as to what the United States might be willing to do beyond vocal support for Arafat's position against the expansion of housing -- Jewish housing into the portions of East Jerusalem that are in question now?

MR. BURNS: I think you know from the President's comments this morning that the United States continues to believe that this decision to build housing at Jabal Abu Ghunnaim risks undercutting a lot of the progress that has been made so far. You remember after the completion of the Hebron talks just six weeks or so ago and after the enormous efforts that the United States made to make those talks succeed, there really was a restoration of a certain level of trust and confidence, and indeed hope, as one Palestinian assistant to Mr. Arafat put it today -- there was a restoration of some hope that this process would move forward.

We believe the decision to construct housing at Jabal Abu Ghunnaim undercuts that progress. As the President said, we wish that this decision had not been taken. Now we're faced with a challenge.

We need to work with the Palestinians and Israelis to try to restore that sense of trust and confidence, because progress in the negotiations will not occur if the negotiating partners do not have an even minimal level of trust in each other, and they don't have a certain confidence that the other side is going to take steps that are commensurate with their obligations of the negotiating partner.

We intend, of course, to have a series of discussions with the Israelis and the Palestinians in the days and weeks ahead in order to try to re-establish that trust. I can't go into the details of what we intend to do, because we think that our chance of succeeding will be enhanced if we have a certain discretion in our public comments. But we certainly see this as the major problem and major challenge right now -- basically the core of your question.

QUESTION: May I ask about the economic part of all this, please? First, a technical question. If the Secretary of State is going to see Arafat several times a year, do you know already if that means she will be going to Arafat-controlled territory several times a year, or is the location still something to be decided?

MR. BURNS: I think it's assumed that we're going to be seeing Chairman Arafat many times per year.

QUESTION: I mean, apropos this commission or something?

MR. BURNS: Right. Let's assume we're going to be seeing him several times a year, and, when Chairman Arafat and Secretary Albright are not together, the committee will be meeting under the leadership of Aaron Miller and Nabil Shaath. That will happen in Washington. I'm sure it will happen in Gaza and every place else where we can meet with the Palestinians.

QUESTION: Unless I misunderstood you, I thought you said "she and he" will be meeting several times a year.

MR. BURNS: Absolutely. They have not set their next meeting, having concluded several hours of discussion today. As you know, we are still awaiting the visits of His Majesty King Hussein and President Hosni Mubarak to Washington. When those visits are completed, we'll have had here in Washington a series of discussions with all the major Middle East leaders -- the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Palestinians, the Israelis. Then Secretary Albright will consider the next steps in our Middle East diplomacy, including travel, but she's not made any commitments -- any final decisions as to when she might undertake her first trip to the Middle East.

QUESTION: Nick, is the U.S.-Palestinian meeting an announcement of cooperation, and I wish I'd keep track of all this, because it strikes me you've done this about 137 times. You've announced new commissions and new committees. First, can we have a fact?

How much assistance is the U.S. providing the Palestinians? How much has actually been delivered? And what's new about this?

It sounds like you've just begun to try to help the Palestinians.

You've been trying to help them for years with commissions and meetings and groups and visits. Christopher went to Gaza several times. I mean to -- into Gaza. What's new here?

MR. BURNS: Barry, I'm sorry you're not more impressed with the fact that we've made this announcement today. (Laughter)

QUESTION: No, it's good press --

MR. BURNS: We thought it was a big deal.

QUESTION: No, no (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: We came out here thinking this is a big deal --

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: -- tell the press that --

QUESTION: -- but I want to see what's the substance.

MR. BURNS: No, it's not throwing --

QUESTION: What's the substance behind it?

MR. BURNS: Barry, let me just take a moment to defend myself here.

QUESTION: Not the PR here --

MR. BURNS: We're not just throwing something in front of someone. We are proposing something a little bit different than anything we've done before.

QUESTION: How so?

MR. BURNS: We have found in our relationships with South Africa, with Russia, with Egypt, that it does make a difference to form a committee that will be responsible for actually accomplishing what you promise each other that you're going to do. There's no substitute for that in relations between countries. Making promises, making offers of assistance is one thing; fulfilling them is quite another. Making bureaucracies in both countries -- in this case, in the PA and the United States work together -- is often a challenge. You can cite, based on your years of experience here at the State Department, a hundred examples whereby the best intentions were not turned into concrete results.

Frankly, the Secretary and Chairman Arafat felt it was time to make sure that certain individuals -- namely, themselves, and people who work for them -- put themselves on the line and said together, okay, we're going to meet a certain number of times a year; we're going to fulfill on the ground what we said we would do, and that's the purpose of this.

In answer to your question, the United States has committed $500 million in assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and we have disbursed, as of last Friday afternoon, $220 million. The word "disbursed" is very important. That does not mean "allocate" or "promise." It means the money has been spent on the ground. That's a very good record of assistance since we're only, I believe, just past the half way point in terms of time of this $500 million allocation. So we're really on target here.

But, again, they felt it very important to make sure that people had a responsibility to sit down together and resolve these problems.

So we think this is a big deal. Maybe you're more impressed now, but I think a lot of other people around the room are very impressed by this.

Jim was next, Charlie.

QUESTION: Going back to this challenge you say you are being faced to restore the trust and confidence. In the opinion of the U.S. Government, can this be done without a reversal of the announcement of the new housing units in East Jerusalem?

MR. BURNS: Again, I want to say this because it's very important. But I want to repeat myself and say that we wish very much this decision had not been undertaken, because it's important not to undercut the basis of peace negotiations. We will be working with both the Israelis and Palestinians to try to achieve some concrete ways by which trust and confidence in each other can be restored, but we're going to be private about that. I hope you'll allow us to do that in some privacy over the next several weeks.

QUESTION: Let me just ask about the options. The announcement had been made. But if it were to be extended indefinitely, postponed indefinitely the actual putting bricks on bricks, would that be one way of restoring confidence?

MR. BURNS: Jim, I think that both the Palestinian Authority and the Israelis need to take responsibility for restoring that confidence. I don't want to get into a game of citing specific initiatives that they have to undertake. Because, again, we think our best chance of achieving results is to do that -- is to have those discussions with them privately.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Nick, the other joint commission-type arrangements you've described -- South Africa, Egypt, and Russia, if I'm correct -- are at the Vice Presidential level, at least on our side. Why is this one not at that level? And should anything be read into it?

MR. BURNS: I wouldn't read anything into it at all. The fact is, I think it's fair to say, that Secretary Albright is going to be taking a fairly major role in the Middle East peace negotiations as did Secretary Christopher before her. We think that given the fact that we have a team in place here which runs economic -- the State Department, which runs the economic assistance program, the best place for the chair on our side was the State Department. But please don't read anything into that. In fact, I think the fact that she and Chairman Arafat have decided to do this together is a fairly strong demonstration of our commitment that the Palestinians are partners of the United States, they are friends of the United States; that we are committed to trying to help the Palestinian people achieve a greater measure of economic prosperity.

They face a number of challenges. As you know, Palestinian business people cannot export freely. As you know, they continue to talk to the Israeli Government about the port, about the airport, about safe passage, and other issues. All these issues need to be worked out between the Palestinians and Israelis. But we Americans want to use our influence with both parties to make the playing field level for the Palestinian business community which needs, over the next several decades, to create the jobs to sustain a growing population on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This is a tall order.

This is not a normal economy because, of course, we're not talking about a nation-state here. We're talking about an entity run from Gaza.

So every effort has to be made to help the Palestinians economically.

The presence of Secretary Rubin and Brian Atwood as well as Secretary Albright at the table today, I think, demonstrate the seriousness of the U.S. approach here.

Sid.

QUESTION: A hundred fifty-three Congressmen are sending a letter to Chairman Arafat. They'll give it to him tomorrow, hopefully, when he's up on the Hill. The letter calls for him to honor his commitments under Hebron and various other accords.

They're asking him to come up with a firm timetable for purging the Palestinian charter of negative references towards Israel, extraditing people the Israelis consider terrorists, and a couple of other things. What's your opinion about pressing Arafat to set a timetable for doing the things he said he would?

MR. BURNS: Our view is that the Palestinians are meeting their commitments to the Israelis and to us that they have made consistently for the last four years.

As you know, the President and the Secretary need to certify every six months or so that the Palestinians are doing that so that American assistance can continue. The Administration just submitted a report to Congress, I believe, just last month to the effect that the Palestinians are meeting their commitments. They have been good partners of the United States and of Israel. They are meeting their commitments.

When we think there's any problem, we raise it with the Palestinians as do the Israelis. I don't think that one ought to put the Palestinians in the dock and accuse them of not having met their commitments in the Middle East peace process over the last four years. They have. They've met them. They're led by a man who has made a fundamental commitment to peace. They have a number of officials on their side who are doing everything they can to work in cooperation with the Israeli Government as well as the United States. I don't think we have a problem there.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Nick, how is the level of giving by other countries?

There was a special fund that was set up. I'm afraid I can't remember the name of it -- the Holst Fund. That's right.

MR. BURNS: The Holst Fund. Right.

QUESTION: I understand that giving under the Holst Fund there was a lot of promises but not much actual giving.

MR. BURNS: If you look at the period 1994 to '98, there was a total of $2.9 billion promised by the international community -- by countries and financial institutions around the world. Of that $2.9 billion; and of that amount, about $1.4 billion has been disbursed.

We do from time to time have talks with some of our European friends about turning commitments into reality. I don't mean to single out the Europeans. There are Arab countries involved as well that need to meet their commitments to the Palestinians. It's very important that all of us do everything we can to help the Palestinian people who have to live under enormous challenges.

QUESTION: Are there any efforts by the U.S. to try and push this further?

MR. BURNS: The Ad Hoc Liaison Group meets from time to time to discuss this issue, to discuss the problem of turning commitments into reality. That continues.

The other thing that the United States has done, since November 21, 1996, we have extended duty-free status to Palestinian businesses from the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- duty-free entry of their products -- manufactured products, agricultural products -- into the United States. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much growth at all in the trade relationship between the Palestinians and the United States because of continued trade barriers in Israel itself. It's an issue that we need to work on.

QUESTION: On Wednesday, the Security Council will convene discussing this question of Har Homa, the Arab name of this neighborhood.

MR. BURNS: Jabal Abu Ghunnaim.

QUESTION: What position will the United States take at the Security Council on Wednesday?

MR. BURNS: We know that there's been some talk about a discussion in the Security Council or a resolution. But, frankly, I know that the Secretary talked to Ambassador Skip Gnehm today.

I don't believe that there's been any action yet to bring that issue to the Security Council. I don't want to get ahead of that process. On a hypothetical basis, we'll just have to see where the situation heads.

QUESTION: You all will be working to keep it from coming before the Security Council, is that what you're saying?

MR. BURNS: Sid, that's not what I said at all. That's not what I said at all. I would just refer you to my previous response. I said, we don't want to get ahead of a situation where there has been no formal discussion in the Security Council about a resolution, about a discussion, about a debate.

Obviously, given the emotions that are quite high here, especially on the Palestinian side, we're going to proceed hour by hour and day to day. I don't want to get ahead of the situation in New York. If the situation gets there and there is a debate, I'll be very glad to answer your questions on that in a day or two.

QUESTION: There will be a debate on Wednesday?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

QUESTION: There will be a debate on Wednesday. The Security Council will convene --

MR. BURNS: And the United States will be present. But I took your question to mean, what kind of -- what position will the United States take in that debate. Where do we wish to see that debate end? I'm just going to have to wait until that begins before I can talk in anymore detail about that.

David.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. take the view that should this housing be built, that that would violate either the letter or the spirit of any already signed agreements?

MR. BURNS: We have views, but we prefer to keep those views private for obvious reasons. We're an intermediary. Our effectiveness is enhanced if we keep our views private.

QUESTION: I'm asking a legal question.

MR. BURNS: And in this case -- I know you're asking a legal question. I'm avoiding giving you a legal answer, in saying that I think it's best for us to keep our advice and our comments and our opinions on this particular issue private for our conversations with the Israelis and Palestinians.

I think you've heard from the President and the Secretary and others here in the Administration the fact that we wish very much that this decision had not been taken.

QUESTION: If you keep all your positions private, then the only thing public, it strikes me you've said, is you think what the Israelis did fosters mistrust between the negotiating parties?

You haven't taken a position on the legality. You haven't taken a position on the substance of this, or are you taking a position and using code words like "mistrust?" I mean, the United States?

MR. BURNS: Our track record here over the last four or five years is pretty good. We have been able to help the Israelis and Palestinians make progress because we've avoided the temptation of standing up here at the soapbox every day and literally telling everybody what's on our mind. We've been discreet. We have not always answered specific questions like this. The reason is, we don't want to make ourselves the issue. We want to keep these issues squarely centered on the Palestinians and Israelis. So I am not answering the question for that reason. I just want to be very clear about it.

QUESTION: You want to make progress. But I'm not sure what you want to make progress toward?

MR. BURNS: Progress towards a comprehensive peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. They have defined their own negotiating track. The final status talks which are to begin very soon deal with Jerusalem.

QUESTION: We're talking about Jerusalem now?

MR. BURNS: Right. I'm getting to that. For the United States to stand up and say, we think this is legal, we think that's illegal, we like that, we don't like this, makes us the issue.

They've already defined the negotiating process. They're going to have it together. They will debate these issues, which is an improvement over where they were until 1993.

QUESTION: You've answered the question. The United States today has not taken a position on the legality of this action nor on the future disposition of that barren terrain outside or on the outskirts of Jerusalem that the Israelis have chosen to build housing there. What you've taken a position on is the spirit of this action as spewing as fostering mistrust?

MR. BURNS: We have not taken a public position --

QUESTION: A public position --

MR. BURNS: -- on those issues, but we certainly made our views very clear in public since this decision was announced last week.

QUESTION: In public?

MR. BURNS: Yes, that's right, and in private.

QUESTION: But your public views go to atmospherics. They don't go to legality or substance that I can figure out.

MR. BURNS: Let me explain --

QUESTION: Because you're going to be wrong to do that.

QUESTION: Since the Palestinians and Israelis agreed on the structure of their peace negotiations, which includes the final status talks, which of course includes Jerusalem, we have made a tactical decision, for as long as I've been Spokesman here -- over two years -- not to comment publicly on perfectly legitimate questions like David's because we don't think it's in our tactical interest to do so. I'm just being very open with you.

I would judge us on our track record. We've been pretty successful in helping the Palestinians and Israelis make peace. So we might as well stick to the game plan that got us here.

QUESTION: Are you going to be able to keep the government lawyers who work on this matter from expressing their views in such a way that they'll come out in the public eye pretty soon?

MR. BURNS: I certainly hope so.

QUESTION: It's a simple matter of fact whether this is legal or not. You must have legal opinions -- you must have asked for legal opinions as to whether it is?

MR. BURNS: It sometimes is very important for governments to resist the temptation to spill everything into public, into the public view. Sometimes negotiations can succeed because they're private. Sometimes, as an intermediary, you're successful because you have the confidence of the parties. They know that when someone like me goes out and does a briefing, I'm not going to be detailing every last thing that we're talking about. That's where creditability comes in.

Some other governments don't play it that way. Some other governments are very happy to comment all day on these issues. I notice that they're not intermediaries in these discussions. We are. We have to be careful. We have to maintain the trust of the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

QUESTION: Do you consider the plan at Har Homa to be a plan to construct a settlement?

MR. BURNS: Sid, that's a trick question. I know a trick question. I've been up here long --

QUESTION: It goes to the question of legality, because --

MR. BURNS: I've been around the block enough with you guys to know a trick question when I see it. So I'm not going to give you an answer to that question. It is what it is. We're disappointed in it.

QUESTION: Which is what? Hold on. Which is what?

MR. BURNS: It is an initiative that we believe undermines the trust and confidence that is necessary to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, for obvious reasons. For obvious reasons.

QUESTION: Because it changes the character of Jerusalem?

MR. BURNS: For obvious reasons.

QUESTION: It's not obvious. It's sort of like --

MR. BURNS: Come on, Sid, give me a break. You want me to say things that are clearly not in my interest to say. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to start now.

QUESTION: You've ended this. But maybe the United States would prefer that Israel freeze any kind of new building until this final round can be concluded?

MR. BURNS: Bill, I'm just going to have to stand by everything I've said today and all last week. We've given you guys a lot of information on this. I'm surprised you even ask these questions.

QUESTION: Can I try a (inaudible) question from a slightly different angle?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Does the United States think the Security Council is an appropriate venue for a discussion of this issue?

MR. BURNS: Of which issue?

QUESTION: The Israeli building in Har Homa?

MR. BURNS: You know, the Security Council has been a forum for Israeli-Palestinian discussions for 30-odd years/40-odd years.

I'm sure it will go on that way. It's a place where countries can bring their problems. That's why the Security Council exists.

That's why you have the United Nations. We're more than happy to have conversations up in New York.

QUESTION: Will you cover one little opening there that hasn't been covered? You said what your opinion is and Clinton has said what his opinion is. Did Albright --

MR. BURNS: And Clinton's opinion is more important than my opinion.

QUESTION: True.

MR. BURNS: I would direct you to his opinions which are perfectly --

QUESTION: You had --

MR. BURNS: Mine are perfectly consistent with his, fortunately.

His are more important.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary of State get around during her lunch or meeting with Arafat to saying the things you're saying?

MR. BURNS: Oh, absolutely!

QUESTION: Did she tell him, "We think this hurts trust," whatever your guidance is?

MR. BURNS: Here's a question that I can be very forthcoming on, Barry. Secretary Albright repeated probably four or five times in the discussion over lunch today that the United States was disappointed that this initiative was taken by the Israeli Government because of the reason that I cited, because it does undermine trust and confidence. That's what makes a negotiation possible.

QUESTION: But you never addressed that you're willing to say whether Jerusalem belongs to Israel, whether East Jerusalem should be the capital of the Palestinian state?

MR. BURNS: Those issues did not come up.

QUESTION: She only spoke of atmospherics, that we don't like what the Israelis have done because it doesn't help build trust. In fact, it works against trust?

MR. BURNS: That issue did not come up. The reason it didn't come up is because the Israelis and Palestinians have defined for themselves, have agreed that they're going to discuss those issues in the final status talks. The reason why that's important -- you know this -- from 1948 to 1993, there was no way for the Israelis and Palestinians to discuss Jerusalem or settlements or anything else they wanted to discuss. Since '93, they've defined a place for that to happen.

That relieves us of the necessity to spout off in public about our own views. Our views don't matter. What matters is what the Palestinians and Israelis think.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) do matter because the Israeli Government --

MR. BURNS: I'm being slightly facetious.

QUESTION: The Israeli Government has actually done something, you see. They've done something. Even while Israel and the Palestinians have relegated Jerusalem to final status talks, the Prime Minister of Israel and the Cabinet, unanimously, have done something in the City of Jerusalem.

If the U.S. Government wants to keep saying, "We have no opinion on what they did except that it doesn't help create trust and we have no position on what they did," that's fine. But it isn't as if they haven't acted. Israel has acted.

MR. BURNS: Barry, I'm being slightly facetious here. I'm looking for a way to end the conversations.

QUESTION: It's not academic anymore.

MR. BURNS: The reason why their views matter more than our views is because they are the negotiating parties: The Palestinian Authority, the Government of Israel. The only way anything is going to happen positively or negatively is when they work together.

We hope it's positive.

We are the intermediary. We're trying to help them. We're going to be a constructive intermediary by not saying in public everything that we may be thinking in private.

QUESTION: Nick, in all this talk about the construction, were there any words from the Secretary to the Chairman about his calls for violence on the streets, these threats will erupt into violence, or did you all --

MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Sid. I think we better correct the record here. I don't agree with the premise of your question.

There was no need for the Secretary to make that remark because we have not heard Chairman Arafat call for violence. In fact, quite the contrary.

If you listen very closely to what Chairman Arafat and all of his lieutenants, his aides have been saying over the last several days, they've tried to cool passions on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. There was a general strike today in East Jerusalem, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Fortunately, it was not accompanied, as far as we can tell, by any degree of violence.

The United States firmly rejects calls to violence by either side -- by extremists on the Palestinian side; extremists on the Israeli side. We have not heard Chairman Arafat call for violence. In fact, we've heard the reverse from everybody sitting at the table with us today.

QUESTION: Was that at lunch today? Did the U.S. Government say, "We hope you don't get violent about this?"

MR. BURNS: I think it was clearly communicated to the Palestinians. We hope very much that this issue, which is quite an emotional and important issue -- the issue of Jabal Abu Ghunnaim/Har Homa -- can be settled peacefully. That is our very strong wish.

That was communicated.

But I want to disagree with the premise of Sid's question, because we've not heard the Palestinian -- responsible Palestinian leaders, including Chairman Arafat or anybody else with him today, urge violence. We've not heard anyone do that. Of course, we'd speak up if we heard that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) plenty of talk of the territories exploding from Arafat (inaudible). Maybe it wasn't as specific --

MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, Sid. I'm sorry, I just disagree with you. I don't think there's an incitement to violence here.

QUESTION: Was there any discussion of his suggestion that he might be tempted to declare Palestinian statehood if the Israeli decision was not reversed?

MR. BURNS: That did not come up at lunch.

QUESTION: Does the United States have a position on whether that would be a good idea or not?

MR. BURNS: The United States has a position, yes. That is, that the Israelis and Palestinians ought to discuss that together.

That's our position.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) discuss --

MR. BURNS: They are to discuss all the issues that are --

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: They ought to discuss all the issues that they want to discuss together.

QUESTION: They ought to discuss statehood of the Palestinians?

MR. BURNS: Barry, listen.

QUESTION: He said "statehood." Don't say "issues."

He said "statehood."

MR. BURNS: I'm saying issues. That's the way I choose to answer the question. I think you know what I mean.

QUESTION: Was there any discussion of the impact this might have on the withdrawal schedule, which is to begin on Friday?

You know, the next West Bank -- any apprehension that will go ahead?

MR. BURNS: Not in the meeting in which I participated.

That issue did not come up.

QUESTION: Is there any concern?

MR. BURNS: The United States hopes very much that all commitments will be met, including the commitment to further redeploy on the West Bank.

QUESTION: Nick, was there any discussion of housing for Arabs as a trade-off in Jerusalem, which has been suggested?

MR. BURNS: That's part of the Israeli proposal. I think that's been met by widespread skepticism among the Arabs that that will be the case, because I don't believe many houses have built, if any, since June 1967 for Arabs.

QUESTION: Netanyahu will change that. He agrees with you. He says no housing has been built. He intends --

MR. BURNS: I believe that Netanyahu --

QUESTION: On the "David Frost" interview, that he intends to go into massive housing.

MR. BURNS: And he made some statements today.

QUESTION: Any opinion on that at all?

MR. BURNS: We think that anything like that ought to be worked out to the satisfaction of both the Palestinians and Israelis.

For instance, anything that affects that situation would have to be worked out ahead of time. If the Palestinians were satisfied, then there would be no reason for the United States to propose it. But you're not really hearing cries of satisfaction from the Palestinians on that issue.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that, Nick. On the idea that 10 percent instead of three percent is going to be the withdrawal schedule for this Friday, did that issue come up at all?

MR. BURNS: That issue did not come up in the meeting which I attended.

QUESTION: Do you have dates yet when Mubarak and the King to come here, by chance?

MR. BURNS: I'll have to check with the White House, because both of those leaders will be the guest of President Clinton.

Those visits are coming up in the near future.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. BURNS: Gladly. Yes.

QUESTION: Let me go back to Friday and Mr. Gelbard's visit.

MR. BURNS: Mr. Gelbard's --

QUESTION: Mr. Gelbard's presentation on Friday. Nick, the $6 billion a year of drug-related money that's pouring out of the United States, is this money responsible for an international crime wave?

MR. BURNS: Bill, can you -- are you spent by Americans to consume drugs?

QUESTION: That's correct, $6 billion bucks a year going out of this country. Is that responsible for an international crime wave? A notable law enforcement figure made that statement over the weekend.

MR. BURNS: I think there's no question that the increasing crime in our own country as well as internationally is tied in part to the proliferation of narcotics. If you look at what the President proposed last week, the multi-billion dollar proposal to work on the demand problem here in the United States and look very closely at what Secretary Albright said here on Friday, we understand that we have the responsibility -- "we," Americans -- to work on this problem as well. It's not just a question of Colombia and Mexico and other countries cooperating with us. We've got to reduce demand in the United States for narcotics. We are a part of the problem, and we understand that.

QUESTION: General McCaffrey said this.

MR. BURNS: Right.

QUESTION: I was quoting him and --

MR. BURNS: Is that a quiz? I'm supposed to know that.

QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you already heard that or not. It wasn't a trap, Nick. With regard to that consumption in the United States, most of these dollars that are going into the hands of cartels, like in Mexico and in Colombia, are coming not from teenagers, I understand, but from young Americans, successful Americans with disposable income in their 30's and 40's, those we would call yuppies.

Nick, how come the drug emphasis as far as consumption in this country is concerned has not been directed toward that group?

MR. BURNS: I think if you look at the President's plan that he submitted to the Congress last week, it calls for federal and state action to try to influence teenagers and young adults.

The fact is, Bill, the teenagers are among the -- teenagers are in the highest proportion of drug users.

The President and the Vice President have asked that all parents sit down with their teenage kids this week to talk about drug use, and everyone should do that.

QUESTION: Mr. Gelbard passed on my question about as the cartel leadership continues to be free, as the money continues to be available to them, the corruption in Mexico and Colombia and other countries continues, the danger of that government being further corrupted then continues as those people -- those drug cartel leaders are free. Is that correct?

MR. BURNS: I can't give you a yes or no answer, but just to say that we believe there is a direct link between narcotics and corruption. No question about that.

Any more questions? Can the witness step down from the -- thank you.

QUESTION: I'd like to ask a question about Saudi Arabia --

QUESTION: Go back to (inaudible).

MR. BURNS: Yes, we'll go back to that.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the fact that Mexico waited until after the briefing to announce that it had misplaced the drug kingpin that had been arrested?

MR. BURNS: First of all, they did arrest an important lieutenant in one of the cartels on Friday, and that was important, and we did see on Friday night/Saturday morning the news that perhaps one of the leading suspects being held by the Mexicans had escaped. We are inquiring with the Mexicans now how that could have happened and why it happened.

QUESTION: They seemed to have sat on the information for a while, waiting, a cynic might say, until after you had done your briefing.

MR. BURNS: But I think we have to give the Mexicans the benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being. They need to reconstruct this for us, and until they do, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon here.

Sid.

QUESTION: On Saudi Arabia. A rather provocative article in The New York Times on Saturday about the Director of the FBI complaining about Saudi cooperation during a lunch down here at the State Department. Can you comment on that, and that sort of contradicts what a lot of people were saying during the Saudi visit last week.

MR. BURNS: First, Sid, I think what Mike McCurry and I both said last week is that we had received again from Prince Sultan and Prince Saud a reaffirmation of the Saudi commitment to work cooperatively with the United States on the investigation about the Khobar bombing, and that we expected that full cooperation would be given now and in the future; and that we were counting on that, and that more cooperation was needed.

If you read what Mike McCurry and I said and read between the lines of our statements, it think you'll get the sense of that.

Second, you've asked a very interesting question, and I'm going to give you my personal view, because I don't know we have a government-wide view on this. My personal view is that when journalists are invited to social occasions, clearly there's a different basis for their work. It's one thing to be at a press conference and to be recognized as a journalist and to ask a question and to report on what was said. It's quite another to be seated at a table as a guest -- to have in this case the Director of the FBI not even understand a journalist was there -- and the FBI Director had a private conversation, as I understand it, and that conversation was -- there was some eavesdropping into that conversation, if you will. And then the reporter runs back to her office and puts it on the front page of the New York Times.

Personally speaking -- I'm not journalist and, as you know, I'm not a professional press person -- personally speaking, I find that questionable, and it's that kind of peeping-tom journalism which I think is more appropriate for a tabloid than for the New York Times. I was very surprised by the decision to put it on page one and to give it so much credence, because it was clearly a private conversation, and the reporter in question was clearly there as a guest. We felt it was an off-the-record setting. This wasn't a press conference. She didn't describe herself as a journalist. He didn't even know she was there. He didn't know that a reporter was seated at his table. So I very much sympathize with Director Freeh here, and that's my personal view.

QUESTION: Is there any way to dispute what he said or know what he said?

MR. BURNS: The FBI issued a statement on Friday afternoon about Director Freeh's discussions with Prince Sultan on this very issue, and I would refer you to the FBI. They gave an on-the-record statement on this issue on Friday afternoon.

QUESTION: But there's no way to verify what was said at the table itself. I mean --

MR. BURNS: No, and that's just the point here. He was having a private conversation -- right? -- and someone overhears it. Doesn't identify herself. Doesn't say, "Hey, I'm a reporter. Can I ask you a question about this?" Overhears a private conversation. Takes it back to her bureau and prints it up -- writes it up -- and suddenly it's a page one story. I find that questionable. I really do.

QUESTION: Not to go too far into this, but was the reporter told beforehand that any comments at the lunch would be off-the-record?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe the reporter was, and that was certainly an oversight on our part, but let me tell you what our expectation was. When we invite journalists to social settings like this, we consider it to be off-the-record; and, believe me, in all future circumstances, we will state in the invitation, in writing, if necessary, that this is going to be off-the-record.

Interestingly enough, in that same lunch there was a public aspect to it. There were toasts given by Secretary Albright and Minister Sultan. The press that was working the event -- not the press that was invited -- came in for the toasts, covered the toasts and then left. I think there were eight or nine members of the press who had been invited to attend the event who remained behind.

Clearly, they were there on a different basis from their colleagues who had come in to cover the toasts -- the on-the-record portion.

Once the reporters left and the cameras left, on-the-record was over, and we think it was on a different basis.

Again, I haven't taken a poll here to be able to tell you this is a government-wide view. I'm giving you my personal view here.

But I feel compelled to give you that personal view, because I think it's a very important question for how we work together.

Sometimes journalists complain to me, "Why don't you take us more seriously? Why don't you sit down with us on an off-the-record basis? Why does everything have to be adversarial?" I agree with that, and we felt we were creating here a nice way to reach out to some journalists to say, "Let's have a civilized way to get together where you're not going to have to report everything we say. We don't report anything you say or judge you by it."

In this instance, we failed to make those rules of the road explicitly clear, but we assumed that those were the rules of the road.

After having described those rules of the road to the reporter in question, we hoped that she would decline to put this in writing and put it on the front page of the New York Times. She made a different decision. Her editors made a different decision. That's freedom of the press. We can't stop them from doing that, but we do have a right -- I have a right -- to stand up here personally to say I object to that. I think it's highly questionable as a mode of operation for a journalist.

QUESTION: Do you think it might jeopardize the investigation itself?

MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe it will, because the investigation is proceeding, and we and the Saudis are confident that sooner or later we will identify together who killed the 19 Americans, and we will capture them, and we will bring them to justice, and justice will be served. That is the commitment that President Clinton has made with His Majesty King Fahd.

George.

QUESTION: A medical group says that the health conditions in Cuba have deteriorated quite a bit since 1992 as a result of the Cuba Democracy Act, and they say it has had a devastating effect on children, women, the elderly, and so forth, and I'd like to know what your response is?

MR. BURNS: This is an extraordinary comment to make, and we have looked into it, George, and thought about the logic of it, and here's our view. We reject any allegation that the United States Government is responsible for the deplorable state of health care in Cuba. Let me just give you a couple of facts and figures.

During 1995, the Cuban Government itself reported that out of $2 billion of its foreign exchange purchases, it only spent $6 million on medicine for its own citizens -- less than 60 cents for each Cuban citizen.

The U.S. embargo has been consistently applied by the United States, but it has not been observed by almost any other country in the world. So Cuba trades with Latin countries. Cuba trades with European countries and Asian countries. There is certainly a way in those very active trading relationships to bring medicine in to take care of Cuban kids and other people who may be suffering.

It's a question of choice. The Cubans have a command economy.

They put their resources into armaments, into their military, and they choose not to spend money to help their own people.

Also, I would say the U.S. embargo does allow for the export from the United States of medicines and medical supplies subject to verification that they will be distributed to people who really need them. Ironically enough, George, the United States remains the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Cuba -- the largest donor. The Cuban people received more medicine from the United States last year than it did from its own government.

So if there's a finger to be pointed about why the Cuban people don't have adequate medical supplies, point it directly at Fidel Castro and his government. They've made the choice not to spend money on their own people. They prefer to have an active military, and they prefer to try to build a nuclear power plant at Juragua and these are the little toys that Castro spends his money on.

Let's just call a spade a spade here.

QUESTION: President Alberto Fujimori of Peru has made an unexpected stop in Cuba and has met with Fidel Castro. Was the U.S. aware of his intentions, and what are your comments on possible asylum for MRTA rebels in Peru?

MR. BURNS: We've seen the report that President Fujimori has made a surprise trip to Cuba. Frankly, I don't believe we have been in touch with him about this trip, and there are a lot of reasons why he may have made a trip like that, but I think we need to have a conversation with him first before we can say much further.

We hope that this hostage crisis can end quickly and peacefully and with the safe release of all the 72 people held. Of course, you know the U.S. policy here, and we don't think that terrorists should be rewarded.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the idea of the rebels being given asylum in Cuba?

MR. BURNS: It's purely hypothetical, because we've not been told by either the Cuban Government or by President Fujimori that that is in fact on the table.

Dimitri.

QUESTION: On Albania. I understand that you said -- if I understand correct -- that it was a mistake -- the move by the Albanian Parliament to elect President Berate to his position.

And also I wanted to ask you if because Greece is a neighboring country to Albania and seriously affected by all this situation, do you have any consultations with the Greek Government on the situation in Albania?

MR. BURNS: I believe we have shared our viewpoint with the Greek Government in the past. I don't know if we've been in touch today. Our disappointment is purely from the fact that they called for new elections over the weekend and held them today.

That doesn't really give the opposition time to mobilize, organize itself on any free and fair basis. It doesn't meet a democratic test at all.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) push the Government in Albania to hold elections in the near future --

MR. BURNS: If they're serious about democratization, if they really are serious about elections, they ought to have not sham elections but bona fide elections. I believe that Ambassador Marisa Lino has been making this point to the Albanian Government.

Yasmine, yes.

QUESTION: Can you tell us more about your discussions with the Europeans about Albania? Are there any concrete measures being discussed?

MR. BURNS: As you know, we have discussed the issue of Albania in the OSCE in the past, particularly last autumn when the Albanians held their other elections, which we found fault with as well. We continue to discuss Albania with a number of European countries -- Central European countries, other neighbors of Albania.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a different issue, if I may -- on Iran. Can you tell us what the U.S. policy is regarding the international rescue and aid efforts for the earthquake victims in Iran?

MR. BURNS: I'm glad you asked about that, and I know this is probably a good way to end the briefing, in this sense, because it's such a serious issue. We would like to offer our condolences to the families of those who died in the earthquake in Iran and to those who have been injured and those who suffered other losses.

We have well known problems with the Government in Tehran, but they do not extend to the Iranian people. They do not extend to the Iranian people, and it never has. We very much regret the terrible tragedy that has befallen the Iranian people, and we offer our sincere condolence to the families of those who have lost loved ones.

QUESTION: Are we offering any aid?

MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Betsy?

QUESTION: Are we offering any aid, any medicines or anything else?

MR. BURNS: We have not been asked to extend assistance.

We are trying to examine what may be possible for us to do, however, and, if we can do something -- we don't have state-to-state relations -- if there's a way that we can be helpful, we will try very hard to do that, and we mean that quite sincerely.

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: It was reported in Athens today that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is going to meet the Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros Pangalos this coming Thursday, and that inter alia, they are going to discuss the situation in Albania, too.

Could you please confirm and comment?

MR. BURNS: Mr. Lambros, I'm going to make a promise. When we schedule the long-awaited meeting between Foreign Minister Pangalos and Secretary Albright, you will be the first to know.

You'll get the scoop. (Laughter) We'll scoop every other journalist in the room.

QUESTION: How? Here or --

MR. BURNS: I'm going to call you and leak it to you.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Okay? (Laughter)

QUESTION: One more --

MR. BURNS: So let me just say we've not yet scheduled it as far as I know, but we're trying to, out of our deep respect for Minister Pangalos. I hope that your paper -- your newspaper prints it that way

QUESTION: Eleftherus Typos.

MR. BURNS: -- our deep respect -- Eleftherus Typos -- our deep respect for Minister Pangalos. You're going to get the scoop on that.

QUESTION: One more question. Do you know why the State Department (inaudible) of Albanian diplomat (inaudible) travel advisory.

MR. BURNS: On Albania?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BURNS: We have issued travel notices to the American citizens living there and to the traveling public about the situation in Albania. If you call the European Bureau, they'll be glad to give you those or our Consular Affairs Bureau.

Yes, and then David.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister is coming to Washington -- the Canadian Foreign Minister is coming to Washington.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: I guess Cuba is again one of the areas for discussion tomorrow?

MR. BURNS: Minister Axworthy will be here tomorrow. I don't think Cuba will be the number one issue. I think European security issues. U.S.-Canadian bilateral issues will be far more important. We do have an active discussion with the Canadians on Cuba, and I'm sure that will come up, but it's not at the top of the agenda, and we're looking forward to this meeting very much.

David.

QUESTION: Nick, is the Secretary of State making public remarks this evening at an event that is not on her public schedule?

And, if it isn't, why -- and, if she is, why isn't it on her public schedule?

MR. BURNS: The Secretary plans to attend a reception -- dinner or reception for Chairman Arafat tonight. There are two of them, I understand -- two dinners that Chairman Arafat is attending.

She is going to attend one, I believe. We never saw this as a public event. I think it's a private dinner, and she's going to make remarks, probably a toast, but we never saw it as a public event, David. If you're interested in covering it, we can talk to the Palestinians about that.

QUESTION: People who have organized it are organizing logistics for camera crews and all the rest of it and say that she's going to make five to 15 minutes worth of public remarks.

I just appeal to you when she is going to do such things, if you'll put it on the public schedule.

MR. BURNS: Right, and we always try to do that. I was completely unaware that the organizers were advertising it as such. We view it as a private dinner. If it's not a private dinner, if the press is being invited, then I would encourage you to attend.

Thank you very much.

(The briefing concluded at 4:02 p.m.)

(###)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright © 1995-2023 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
All Rights Reserved.

HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
std2html v1.01 run on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 - 3:36:21 UTC