U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #100, 97-07-07
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1160
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, July 7, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS/ STATEMENTS
1 Introduction of Lee McClenny, new Director of the Office of
Press Relations
1 Results of National Elections in Mexico
1-2 Violence in Cambodia/Issuance of Travel Warning to American
Citizens
CAMBODIA
2-8 Update on Political Situation/No Evacuation of American
Citizens Planned
UnderSecretary Pickering to Meet with ASEAN Ambassadors
Candidacy for Membership in ASEAN/Relationship to Candidacy of
Burma
Secretary's Decision to Defer Travel to Cambodia
Implication of Current Instability for Future of Paris Peace
Accords
Whereabouts of Pol Pot
MEXICO
8-9 Reported Death of Narco-trafficker Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
8-9 Election Results/Implications for Stability
CYPRUS
10 Amb. Holbrooke Mtgs. with Cypriot Leaders
11,14-15 UN-Sponsored Talks in New York This Week
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
11-12 Attempts to Bring Indicted War Criminals to Justice
12-13 Discussions in Madrid/Amb. Gelbard Report to Secretary
13 Obligation of Croatian Government re: Dayton Commitments
GREECE/TURKEY
14 Possible Mtgs. at Madrid Summit on Greek-Turkish Issues
RUSSIA
14 Forthcoming Legislation on Religion
18-19 Nuclear Cooperation with Iran
ZAIRE
15-16 UN Investigation of Massacres/Composition of Investigative
Team
NORTH KOREA
16-17 Assumption of Leadership by Kim Jong Il
NORTHERN IRELAND
17 Weekend Violence/Future of Peace Talks
CHINA
18 Commitment to Parliamentary Elections in Hong Kong
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #100
MONDAY, JULY 7, 1997 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: It is my great pleasure to introduce Lee McClenny to all of
you. I know that many of you know him well. It is Lee's first day on the
job as the new director of our Press Office.
Lee is a career USIS Officer and he embodies the spirit of integration.
As we integrate our press offices among the four foreign affairs agencies
over the next few years, Lee will be the leader of that effort. He will be
directing the Press Office for several years to come.
I am delighted that he's here. I ask all of you to work with him as you've
worked with me and with Glyn and with John Dinger and, now, with Jim Foley,
cooperatively. I think you will find that Lee not only is an expert on
Latin American affairs, but he will surprise you with his encyclopedic
knowledge of affairs around the world.
Isn't that right, Lee? Excellent.
Okay. I have two statements to give you today before we go to questions.
The first is on the Mexican elections. Yesterday's Mexican elections mark
another step forward in the consolidation of democracy in Mexico. The
independent body charged with running the elections, political leaders from
all three major parties, and civic organizations which observed the
elections appear to be unanimous in their judgment that these elections
were free and fair and orderly. The United States congratulates the
winners and all who participated in the process, but most of all we
congratulate the Mexican people on this important step in the advancement
and consolidation of Mexico's democracy. I will be glad to take any
questions on that should you be interested.
The second issue that is of great concern to us this morning is the
situation in Cambodia. We are deeply concerned that the violence and loss
of life caused by the conflict between security forces loyal to the two
prime ministers. We call on the authorities to take decisive measures to
prevent further violence. We urge Cambodia's leaders to resolve their
political differences peacefully and to abide by the principles of the
Paris Peace Accords. The United States Embassy in Phnom Penh under the
leadership of our Ambassador Ken Quinn has been in constant contact with
the Royal Cambodian Government, including representatives of both political
parties of the two prime ministers.
The United States is also actively consulting today with other countries,
including ASEAN countries, the Perm-5 and other countries that were
signatories to the 1991 Paris Accords. The safety of American citizens,
including our embassy staff, is our primary concern. The embassy is
operating and will continue to operate.
It is monitoring the political situation very closely. It is working to
assure the welfare of American citizens in Cambodia.
The embassy over the weekend made extensive use of its warden network. It
has used radio broadcasts to inform American citizens about the dangers of
certain areas of Phnom Penh. In fact, I believe you know we issued a
travel warning last evening warning America citizens against travel to
Cambodia at this time.
We have no reports of American deaths or casualties as a result of the
fighting. We strongly recommend that American citizens defer travel to
Cambodia for the time being. We will certainly keep the resident American
population informed of events in Phnom Penh and throughout the country as
they unfold. This is a situation that has the attention of the Secretary
of State. As you know, she made some comments on it earlier today in
Madrid and, also, the attention of our Acting Secretary of State, Tom
Pickering, here in Washington.
George?
QUESTION: Well, how many Americans are in Cambodia? Do you have any
thoughts on evacuation? What is the condition at the airport? Are you
considering the evacuation, for starters, of dependents of U.S. officials?
MR. BURNS: I think there are approximately 1500 American citizens,
perhaps a little less, in Cambodia. There are 900 Americans registered
with our embassy in Phnom Penh, but our embassy believes that there are an
additional number between four and six hundred unregistered residents and
tourists who are in Cambodia at the present time. We are not contemplating
any kind of evacuation at the moment. The fighting has subsided over the
last 24 hours.
We hope that is the pattern over the next couple of days.
We have urged American citizens, if they feel insecure where they are in
Phnom Penh to go to the Sofitel Hotel or Cambodiana Hotel.
I think there are roughly 100 Americans there, although now some of them
have left to go back to their homes in Phnom Penh. Obviously, the safety
of American citizens is our primary concern in a situation like this. We
will keep this situation under very close review on a daily basis. Should
it be necessary to help Americans in a formal way, we will do so, but right
now we are hoping that the situation will calm itself sufficiently so that
an evacuation will not be necessary.
On the second question, we are maintaining our embassy at its full strength
today. This is another question that we will have to keep under daily
review, given any fluctuations in the political situation but, more
importantly, on whether or not fighting returns to the streets of the
capital of Phnom Penh.
Politically, I can tell you that Ambassador Quinn will remain in very close
contact with the parties of the two prime ministers.
Obviously, it is not possible for us to be in contact with - at least not
Ambassador Quinn to be in contact with Prince Ranariddh who is, I believe,
in Aix-en-Provence in France. But certainly he will do his best to make
sense of the political situation there.
It is a very chaotic situation. It is hard to understand everything that
may or may not be happening at the present time, but all of our efforts
will go towards urging the two prime ministers and their political parties
to respecting the Paris Peace Accords of 1991, to making sure that they
abstain from violence, that they agree to work out their differences
peacefully. No one wants to see a repetition of the fighting that occurred
over the weekend that left so many people dead and endangered the lives of
many others and that threw Cambodia into a state of political chaos.
QUESTION: Nick, you say that you are in contact with allies and other
members of the Perm-5. To what end, specifically? Do you have any plans?
Do you think that they might have some leverage that the U.S. Government
does not?
MR. BURNS: Well, for instance, we will be meeting this afternoon here in
the Department of State with the ambassadors from the ASEAN countries. Our
Acting Secretary of State Tom Pickering will conduct that meeting, and the
purpose of that meeting is to exchange information with them and to share
our respective assessments over the meaning, the political meaning, of what
happened over the weekend.
Some of the ASEAN countries do have close relations with the Royal
Cambodian Government, as do we. We would hope that all of us
internationally could agree that we ought to coalesce to argue for an end
to the fighting and for the recommencement of some kind of political
cooperation between the two co-prime ministers and their political parties
so that the people of Cambodia do not have to live through a civil war.
QUESTION: Nick, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Cambodia is slated
to be invited into ASEAN in a few weeks time.
Does the current situation there have any bearing on that as far as the
United States is concerned?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think it goes without saying that the current
situation there has been the object of a lot of discussion within ASEAN
over the last couple of weeks and among ASEAN partners.
That is certainly true of the United States in all of our dealings with the
ASEAN countries and with some of the other countries that are part of the
post-ministerial conference - Australia, for instance, and some of the
European countries.
I think it stands to reason that Cambodia would be the subject of
discussion in Kuala Lumpur at the end of this month at the ASEAN meetings.
As to whether it is a formal discussion, I don't know at this time. I
think it is too early to tell.
Steve?
QUESTION: So, is the United States going to use the suggestion that
Cambodia is not ready to get into ASEAN as a way to keep Burma also out of
ASEAN? Because the whole point was to get these last three in all at once.
MR. BURNS: Well, I think the United States would separate those questions
and separate those candidacies. The United States has a very clear
position on the issue of whether Burma is ready to be a member of ASEAN.
We have made that position clear to the ASEAN member states. It is their
decision, of course. It's their decision. They have to make this
decision.
But the United States has a very strong view that the government in Burma
is run by military dictators. What is happening in Burma is not consistent
with what's happening in most of the rest of southeast Asia, either
economically or, certainly, politically.
We will continue to try to isolate Burma through our own economic and
political policies. I think we would separate the two and prefer to treat
Cambodia individually rather than to lump it with Burma.
QUESTION: No. It's just that if you have what seems to be, in effect, a
successful coup d'etat through military force by one of the prime
ministers, it seems Cambodia becomes more analogous to Burma than it is,
let's say, to a lot of other countries in ASEAN.
MR. BURNS: I think that is too early to say. Obviously, the fighting
this weekend was engineered to produce certain results, but I think the
origin of the fighting is, at least at this point, sufficiently murky so
that we don't want to shoot arrows at one side or another today. What we
would like to do is use the next 24 hours to try to make better sense of
the political alignment of forces in Phnom Penh and throughout the country
to share our views and to ask for the insights of other countries, and then
to make some basic decisions about how the United States proceeds.
I can tell you that Secretary Albright is personally interested in this.
As you know, she intended to visit Phnom Penh just two weeks ago. She was
not able to do so because of the security situation. She has a long-
standing interest in this country, has been to Cambodia before when she was
UN Ambassador. She is following these events from Madrid rather closely
and all of us in Washington are doing the same thing. So I think within 24
to 48 hours we should have a better sense of where people are lining
politically in Phnom Penh and, therefore, be better positioned to make some
basic decisions about United States policy.
Betsy?
QUESTION: Nick, do you have any information about the University of
Oklahoma students and the students from the Oklahoma Baptist College who
are in Phnom Penh? Are you aware of any other American student groups like
that?
MR. BURNS: Well, I know that there was a group of roughly 40 American
students from Oklahoma. Congressman J.C. Watts called us over the weekend
to alert us to the fact that they were there and to see if we could help
them. Our embassy in Phnom Penh has located them. They are safe. They
are all in one location. We will obviously assist them in getting out of
Phnom Penh, should they wish to do so.
I know that Senator Hatch has called about some Mormon students who are in
Phnom Penh. Our embassy is doing everything it can to locate American
citizens. Our advice to American citizens in Phnom Penh right now is to
keep your heads down, stay where you are, don't venture into the streets,
because we cannot assure anyone that fighting won't be started again in the
streets of Phnom Penh or in other cities in the country. As the situation
evolves over the next couple of days, we will continue to give advice to
American citizens there.
Sid, you had another question?
QUESTION: In retrospect -- and I know retrospect is imperfect -- but do
you think the Secretary should have gone to Cambodia, that possibly she
would have been able to do something to calm the tensions in this
situation?
MR. BURNS: In retrospect, and hindsight is always 20/20, I think the
Secretary made the perfect decision. I think she made the right decision.
We were very concerned about her security and the security of the press
traveling with us and the security of all the people who travel with the
Secretary of State. I think given what happened over the weekend -
fighting at the airport, fighting downtown - it was obviously the right
decision. She made the right decision in deferring travel for the time
being.
I know that you all think the United States directs events around the
world. That is not always true. The United States has interests in
countries like Cambodia. Our ambassador has represented our interests in a
very capable way on a day-to-day basis. The two co-prime ministers knew
what the policy of the United States was.
The Secretary even had phone conversations and sent letters to both of
them, so they knew what our position was. I do not think her presence
there would have -- unfortunately, would not have been able to avert the
tragic events of the past weekend.
We will continue to assert our views with the Cambodian leadership because
we do think that after the killing fields of the 1970s and the horrors that
the Cambodian people had to experience that the Paris Peace Accords hold
out the best promise for them.
QUESTION: What about future travel? I mean she's going to be in the
neighborhood in a couple of weeks. Do you think she might consider going
there again?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me, Sid, if I can get my voice back.
Keep talking, Sid. Ask a longer question until I get my voice back.
All right. Future travel, thank you. I think it's too early to say. The
Secretary is slated to be in Kuala Lumpur, I think, the middle of the third
week of July. It is just too early to say whether or not a trip to
Cambodia would make sense. I think we will have to see the direction in
which events head there.
I can tell you that American interests are constant and we'll continue
through Ambassador Quinn to assert those interests with both political
parties.
QUESTION: On Cambodia. Ranariddh said today to Le Monde about Hun Sen,
now that he has succeeded in his coup d'etat, dot-dot-dot, resistance must
continue. And Hun Sen said after Sihanouk invited them both to Beijing for
talks, it is too late and it is not necessary.
Everything is over. Does the United States recognize that this is a fait
accompli, that it's a done deal? Or do you not?
MR. BURNS: I think it is too early to say. I have seen those same
statements from Prince Ranariddh and from Hun Sen and his compatriots. We
prefer to continue our consultations with both political parties today in
Phnom Penh and with our allies before we are able to make that kind of a
final judgment that the Paris Peace Accords have been ruptured.
The problem is that the Paris Peace Accords were really the glue that held
the Cambodian Government together and that gave the people of Cambodia some
prospect for a better life and a stable political situation and a stable
government. We do not want to see those peace accords ruptured so easily
as to be caused by one weekend of fighting. We would like to see some
effort made to keep the situation as peaceful as it can, so we are going to
resist the temptation to call it what other people are calling it until we
can have further conversations.
QUESTION: And then also, do you think it was a mistake after the
elections in Cambodia, which Ranariddh and his party won, to let Hun Sen
pressure his way into an equivalent job in the government?
MR. BURNS: Well, that was a decision that was made by Cambodians and that
was made through the free will of both Prince Ranariddh and his associates.
I think that is for the historians to judge, not for us, especially on a
day when the dust hasn't even cleared from Phnom Penh.
QUESTION: What time is Undersecretary Pickering meeting with the ASEAN
people?
MR. BURNS: About an hour from now. I think 2:30 this afternoon.
QUESTION: And one other, just for the record. Do you have any credible
late information on whether Pol Pot is alive, sick or whatever?
MR. BURNS: We don't have any information that would lead us to believe
that Pol Pot is either alive or dead, and I mean that quite seriously. I
don't believe there has been a sighting of Pol Pot in many, many years.
There is conflicting information as to whether or not he is under house
arrest by other Khmer Rouge leaders in the region of the country that the
Khmer Rouge inhabits.
We have seen various claims that he is, that he is about to be sent to
Phnom Penh, but we just don't know about the veracity of these reports. He
is an international criminal. He is a barbarian responsible for the deaths
of over a million Cambodians. He ought to be brought to justice. No
country would like to see him brought to justice more than the United
States. As Secretary Albright said on here trip to Asia two weeks ago, we
would very much like to see him apprehended and brought to justice. But
the problem is the people who are holding him have to take that step and
they have not yet done that.
QUESTION: You said that we shouldn't get so excited and jump to
conclusions about the Paris Peace Accord and the dust should be allowed to
settle and fighting has subsided and we should just take time out to see
what is going to happen tomorrow, but isn't part of the problem that even
when the dust settles you still have two leaders vying for rule of this
country and Cambodia can't seem to settle on a centralized form of
government? I mean, it seems as though we are putting ourselves - not us,
but that Cambodia puts itself in more danger down the road by continuing
with this two-party, this two-headed leadership, if you will?
MR. BURNS: I'm not sure I would agree with that. I think that the merits
of the co-habitation, as the French call it, of the two co-prime ministers
over the last several years is that at least they haven't been fighting.
It has been an uneasy relationship.
They are different political parties with different views of Cambodia's
future, but they have been able at least to get along until this past
weekend and they have been able to keep the situation peaceful for the
people of Cambodia.
You contrast that with the situation of the 1970s when the Khmer Rouge ran
amuck and murdered over a million people. I think the Paris Peace Accords
were a historic improvement for the people of Cambodia. That is why we
don't wish to see them pass so easily and so quickly from the scene when
that seemed to be the only way to keep Cambodia a stable country.
Any others on Cambodia?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to know if you could tell us what is going on
with the request made to Canada by Secretary Albright concerning Pol Pot.
Can you confirm that?
MR. BURNS: Yes, I believe that - well, I know that after the original
reports of the sighting of Pol Pot and the reports, the allegations, that
he was going to be turned over to the central authorities in Phnom Penh,
which did not occur, we did talk to Canada and to several of our European
allies about possibly seeing as to whether or not, if he was apprehended,
he could be tried in another country, in a European country or in Canada.
I think Prime Minister Chretien has spoken to this question and said that
he did not think it was going to be possible in Canada, but we are still
pursuing this really on a theoretical basis at this point with some other
of our allies because we do want to see him brought to justice one day. He
deserves to be put on trial for what he did to the Cambodian people.
QUESTION: Nick, one other on the same topic?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have or can you get us the amount of direct U.S. aid to
Cambodia and whether we are cutting that off or suspending it or letting it
go ahead? And then is there a separate figure for the American proportion
of World Bank or IMF money?
MR. BURNS: I don't have in my head the figure for American assistance,
but we can get that for you. We have not made a decision yet as to whether
or not we should curtail American assistance to Cambodia. That is a
question that may or may not lie ahead of us, but it is something that we
are putting aside for today because we do want to concentrate on trying to
clarify exactly where the alignment of political forces is in Phnom Penh.
QUESTION: On Mexico, the DEA reported the death of narco-trafficker Amado
Carrillo Fuentes. Can you confirm that and, if not, can you tell us why
not?
MR. BURNS: Well, I did see the DEA press statement of yesterday. DEA
confirms death of major Mexican drug trafficker.
What I can tell you is that Amado Carrillo Fuentes, we understand both from
the Mexican government and news sources, reportedly died on July 4th of
complications relating to cosmetic surgery.
The preliminary reporting indicated a high degree of confidence that the
deceased was Amado Carrillo Fuentes; however, we are still awaiting final
confirmation, official confirmation, of his identity, the identity of the
corpse, from the Mexican government.
I really think it is prudent to let the Mexican government speak about
this. After all, it is their country and they are best placed to make this
kind of assessment. They do have a corpse in their possession and they are
doing medical tests on the corpse to see if they can positively identify
that to be the corpse of Mr. Fuentes.
You have also seen in the press speculation that this could be a ruse
designed to protect him from prosecution and incarceration.
So we will have to see what the Mexican government concludes, and we
certainly have great faith in the Mexican authorities to get to the bottom
of this.
QUESTION: In terms of the elections, do you see any change from the
relation with Mexico, especially with the PRI to lose the majority in
Congress and the PRD has already won the government of Mexico City?
MR. BURNS: Well, this is the way of democracies. You know, the people
get to decide who sits in the seats of power.
We respect Mexico's democracy, which is a fully functioning democracy.
As Secretary Albright indicated earlier today in Madrid, we look forward to
working with the people who have been elected to lead Mexico. We have the
closest relationship with Mexico. We want that to continue. We are
confident that our excellent relationship with Mexico will continue.
Yes, Laura.
QUESTION: I want to go back to Mr. Fuentes. Is an American official,
though, going to attempt to identify the corpse independent of any Mexican
official identification?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that's going to be necessary for us to check
up on what the Mexicans are doing. The Mexican government has an interest
in answering this question, as well and we will certainly observe and live
by the judgment of the government of Mexico on this particular case.
We do have a close drug cooperation with Mexico. I am personally not aware
of any American who is going to be present at an autopsy or a scientific
test to determine his identity. But I can tell you that we have great
respect for Mexico and we will certainly trust the decision that is
announced - the judgment that is announced by the government of Mexico.
QUESTION: Nick, if this is, in fact, true and he is dead, what effect do
you believe this will have on the drug trade or efforts to assume his
mantle by others?
MR. BURNS: Well, if he is proven to be dead, then we hope very much that
this will interrupt the activities forever of the cartel that he ran and
the perfidious nature of that cartel, which was to run drugs into the
United States. We hope very much that the Mexican government will continue
its efforts to break the cartels and to diminish the flow of drugs from
Mexico and through Mexico from other countries to the United States, and
Mexico will have our full cooperation in that effort.
QUESTION: On the Mexican elections. The Mexican people, they don't have
any experience at all in living a pluralistic system. Do you think that
the election of the PRI as a major in Mexico City will create some sort of
instability?
MR. BURNS: It needn't. There are a lot of examples of democracies that
live with divided governments. The French Government is an example of
that. The United States Government is an example of that. We have the
executive branch controlled by one party, currently, and the legislative
branch by another. We have been able to maintain our own stability in our
own democratic system.
So there is no reason that a democracy cannot survive with cohabitation.
In fact, that really is the lifeblood of a democracy, that certain parts of
the government can be controlled by one party, others by another.
But we know that the people who have been elected to these positions - and
we certainly know that President Zedillo - are committed to maintaining
Mexico's democracy, and therefore will find a way to work with these
various political parties who now will share power with the PRI.
We did not involve ourselves in the elections, and that would not have been
appropriate. But we certainly respect the results and we wish the Mexican
people and the people who won the elections well. We will very definitely
want to work with all these people.
Any others on Mexico? Yes, Mr. Lambros. Yes.
QUESTION: Cyprus. Yesterday it was said that Mr. Holbrooke is going to
see separately Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot
leader Rauf Denktash. Do you know why Mr. Holbrooke is going to meet also
privately with the Cypriot foreign minister Ioannis Kasoulides? Is there
any particular reason for such a separate meeting?
MR. BURNS: Well, Ambassador Holbrooke simply wants to inform himself of
the positions of all the parties going into these talks. It makes perfect
sense for him to meet with Foreign Minister Kasoulides, who is a very
responsible person and for whom we have great respect.
QUESTION: He is going to see the President and the Turkish Cypriot
leader. Why he has to see separately the foreign minister?
MR. BURNS: This is not unusual in diplomacy, Mr. Lambros.
I can cite probably a million examples where you have a meeting with the
president of the country and then you meet with the foreign minister,
perhaps to go into further detail on an issue. So there is no conspiracy
here. Ambassador Holbrooke is an experienced politician, experienced
diplomat, and he looks forward to all these meetings.
QUESTION: According to reports, the Holbrooke plan is targeting the
recognition by the Cyprus Government over the illegal, unilateral
declaration of independent (inaudible) of the Turkish Cypriot UDI via
Dayton-type process. Do you have any comment on that report?
MR. BURNS: The Holbrooke plan?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I am not aware of a Holbrooke plan. I talked to Dick last
Thursday, and I think Dick is still in the planning stages. He doesn't
have a plan yet. In fact, he very much supports the efforts of the
Secretary General to convene the parties in New York beginning tomorrow
night and then Wednesday and for the rest of the week.
So there is a UN plan, and the United States supports that plan.
If we can be helpful in furthering that effort, we will do so.
QUESTION: And the last one. Bulent Ecevit, the one known master of the
Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus in 1974, with new statements is
threatening again the free Cyprus with advances. Any comments since you
are mediating in the upcoming talks in New York City?
MR. BURNS: We are not going to be mediating in the talks on Cyprus. That
is the United Nations that will do the mediating, not the United States. I
have not seen statements by Mr. Ecevit, but I have seen statements by
Mr. Yilmaz about his intention to govern effectively, and we look forward
to working with the Yilmaz Government.
QUESTION: You said you are not mediating. Just you are getting
(inaudible) in those talks?
MR. BURNS: The United Nations is sponsoring the talks in New York. So
the United Nations, I think, could be called the mediator. The United
States is an interested party to the talks and a friend to all concerned.
That is, I think, the appropriate way to describe our respective
involvements.
QUESTION: Party in those talks? Not mediation? Not involvement?
MR. BURNS: As you know, Mr. Lambros, these are United Nations talks, not
United States-sponsored talks. Ambassador Holbrooke is simply conferring
with the parties before the talks begin.
QUESTION: Can we go to another subject?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: What is the current state of play in the U.S. policy toward
taking a more active role in the arrest of indicted war criminals in
Republika Srpska?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think that Secretary Cohen stated our policy quite
succinctly this morning when he said that we are doing everything we can to
support the Tribunal, and that we can't, at this stage, rule anything in or
anything out. I would refer you to General Shalikashvili's statements on
national television yesterday, Secretary Cohen's statements this morning,
that we are looking for wars to bring indicated war criminals to justice.
Mr. Karadzic, who is a poisonous figure, and who is inserting his poisonous
views in Serbian politics just over the last couple of days, is someone who
ought to end up under prosecution. We hope that is the case. Obviously,
we are not going to be specific about what we may or may not be
contemplating at the present time.
QUESTION: You are saying that you are not ruling anything in or ruling
anything out sounds different from what spokesmen, including yourself, have
been saying for the past couple of weeks, which was that the policy had
been the same as previously and that there would no concerted effort to
capture indicted war criminals.
MR. BURNS: No. I know what I have said over the last couple of months,
and that is that we are working hard and are considering various options to
strengthen the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague and its ability to
prosecute the most notorious war criminals. That is what we have said.
Therefore, we would never rule anything in our out publicly. But neither
would we want to share, with all due respect, with all of you publicly what
we may or may not be considering because this is an avenue best pursued
privately at the current time.
QUESTION: Nick, let me follow on that a little further.
Has the increase in diplomatic pressure prompted the Bosnian Serbs to make
any move at all to surrender Karadzic?
MR. BURNS: No, it's up to the Bosnian Serbs, to Mr. Krajisnik,
especially, who is a close associate of Mr. Karadzic to turn him over to
the War Crimes Tribunal for prosecution. Mr. Krajisnik -- I believe his
initials and his signature are in the Dayton accords, and he is violating
the Dayton accords by not fulfilling that commitment, as are all the other
leaders of the Republika Srpska. So we are calling upon them to do the
right thing.
Now, if they don't do the right thing, obviously we will have to consider
our options. But we are not going to do that in a public way.
QUESTION: So as far as you can see at the moment there is no movement,
then, by the Government of Srpska to hand over Karadzic?
MR. BURNS: There has been no movement that has been apparent to anybody
that the Republika Srpska intends to fulfill its commitments.
That is why it is being penalized and not being given even a fraction of
the foreign assistance that is now currently flowing to the government of
President Izetbegovic, who is doing the right thing, that government being
in Sarajevo.
I think General Shali said it best: Let's keep Karadzic guessing, as to
what we may or may not have in store for him.
QUESTION: We have discussed this for a couple of years now. Doesn't this
put U.S. and all NATO troops at greater risk and a greater risk of conflict
to have the U.S. poised to go in with special forces and take Karadzic?
MR. BURNS: No one has said that that is under consideration.
We have said we can't rule anything in or anything out and that we are
considering ways, looking at ways, to strengthen the Tribunal.
No one has talked about that specific option.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the Greece and Turkey?--
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Madrid meeting, Nick, are you aware, are they going
to talk specifically about this part of the Dayton agreements or what is
going to be a topic? Mr. Benjamin said that President Clinton is going to
talk bilaterally with others about Bosnia. Could you tell us more detail?
MR. BURNS: I think Bosnia is on the minds of everybody meeting in Madrid.
It is not the first order of business. The first order is enlargement.
But certainly, I know that Ambassador Gelbard is currently in Madrid. He
is briefing Secretary Albright about his most recent trip -- he just came
out yesterday - his most recent trip to the Balkans and his conversations
with Mrs. Plavsic and others. We are concerned obviously about the
situation in the Republika Srpska. President Plavsic dissolved the
assembly - the Serb assembly - on July 3rd. The United States will,
therefore, not recognize any actions taken by the assembly after July 3rd.
We want the Republika Srpska to follow the rule of law and democratic norms
and practices. President Plavsic was elected last summer by the people of
the Republika Sprska to lead them. The current political crisis creates,
we think, instability and uncertainty at a time when they all should be
concentrating on the business, the really central business, which is the
implementation of the Dayton accords.
The further along we go in implementing the Dayton accords, the further
back the Bosnian Serbs find themselves. Their economy is not growing.
People don't have jobs. They don't have international assistance and won't
have unless they conform to the Dayton accords.
Their neighbors in Sarajevo, the Bosnian government, will be increasingly
more stable and increasingly wealthier and increasingly on better footing
than the Bosnian Serbs as long as the Bosnian Serbs refuse to implement the
Dayton accords.
QUESTION: Are you --
QUESTION: Another topic?
MR. BURNS: I think she has a follow-up.
QUESTION: Just the other one. President Tudjman granted an interview to
Reuters. And he said he did everything he possibly could regarding the
Hague and this issue. So what is your message for the Zagreb government?
MR. BURNS: We believe that the Croatian Government can do more, can do a
better job at implementing the Dayton accords.
We are not satisfied that the Croatian Government has met its obligations
to parties and to the international community on the subject of war
criminals.
QUESTION: And last one, Mate Boban, you know, Mate Boban.
Do you have any idea, is it going to be something different among Bosnian
Croats since they have new leaders but old politics all the time? Do you
believe that they are going to change because some people says that Mate
Boban influenced Herzeg-Bosnia as Karadzic influenced Republika Srpska.
MR. BURNS: Well, you see, we want to see Herzeg-Bosnia wither away and
cease to exist in any way, shape, or form. We want to see that part of
Bosnia fully cooperating with the Bosnian Government in Sarajevo and not
trying to keep alive the vestiges of a Croatian mini-state in Bosnia. That
is our objective and has been for a long time.
QUESTION: Nick, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Yilmaz, he offered his
friendship. And also he said that he can't repeat -- when he was the
foreign minister, he met the Greek foreign minister and he established some
kind of committee to solve the dispute between the two countries. Did you
see this report or do you have any comment on this?
MR. BURNS: I have not seen the report but, obviously, the United States
wishes that Turkey and Greece would work more closely together to resolve
their respective bilateral disagreements.
QUESTION: And, also, we heard that the Secretary of State, she will met
at Madrid Mr. Cem, the new Turkish Foreign Minister and, also,
Mr. Pangalos, to talk about the Aegean problem and the Greek-Turkish
dispute.
MR. BURNS: I don't know if those meetings are on her schedule, yet. I
know there was at least some talk about them. I just don't know if they're
going to happen. I'll have to consult with my associates in Madrid.
QUESTION: On another topic?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Is the United States concerned about final passage by the Upper
House of the Russian Parliament of the law that would put restrictions on
religions that haven't been there for 15 years?
MR. BURNS: Well, we have, of course, made our views clear to the Russian
Government and to Russian legislators as we meet them that we would fully
expect that in a democratic society like the Russian Federation that
religious rights would be fully protected.
We have had an interest in particular pieces of legislation.
I am not up to date today on the status of that particular bill, but I can
take that question and see if we can give you a fuller answer in the coming
days.
Dimitris?
QUESTION: Yes. I want to get back on the issue of the discussions in New
York. Your announcement on Thursday, you said - you called actually the
two Cypriot communities and all other interested sides or parties to work
hard towards the process that would bridge the differences in the island.
Mr. Denktash, before his arrival in New York, he visited Ankara and had
meeting with the Turkish leadership. After this meeting a statement
published and, also, Mr. Sezgin, the designate Deputy Prime Minister, made
some kind of provocative statements like annexation of the occupied part of
Cyprus, that the principal negotiator in this process is Turkey and not Mr.
Denktash. And at the same time, you know that President Clerides and
Foreign Minister Kasoulides during his last visit in Washington in a
meeting with Secretary Albright, they say that they will go to the
discussions with an open mind and with a political will towards progress to
the process.
Do you think in general that this kind of statements from the part of the
Turkish leadership are helpful right now in view of the discussions?
MR. BURNS: We think that all the parties are approaching these talks in
New York with an effort to cooperate with the United Nations and with each
other. I haven't seen any indication of any party not wishing to be open-
minded and to be cooperative in these talks. I do not want to take a
snapshot of certain statements and comment upon them because I am not aware
of all the various comments that have been made over the last couple of
days. We urge all the parties, Turkey - but not just Turkey - Greece and
the Turkish Cypriots as well as the Greek Cypriots to be constructive in
these talks.
QUESTION: Nick, today was the day that the UN was supposed to begin
investigating the massacres in Eastern Zaire. To my knowledge, it hasn't
started. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. BURNS: Well, we're aware that the United Nations representatives in
Congo and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo were not able
to reach an agreement on the composition of the investigative team and of
the time frame to be investigated.
Consequently, I understand the matter has now been referred to Secretary
General Kofi Annan. We understand that he will prepare an investigation
under his own auspices. We very much support this decision. We agree with
the Secretary General that getting the facts is what is most important. It
is crucial to get an investigative team on the ground as soon as possible
and we believe that only impartial investigators should be part of this
mission.
We also believe that the investigative time frame should date back to the
initiation of the cycle of violence in Central Africa.
That was in 1993. The Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo
is in Washington. He arrived on Saturday. He will have appointments this
week at the State Department. I can tell you more about those tomorrow. I
know that Ambassador Simpson has already informed President Kabila of the
critical need for this investigation.
We think that justice must be done. There were certainly massacres that
took place in and around Kisangani earlier this year as the rebel forces,
the then-rebel forces were proceeding with their drive against the
government of President Mobutu. The people who conducted those massacres
ought to be held responsible for them. That is just part of the picture
here, but it is a very important part of it.
QUESTION: Do you think it is proper, though, that the possible subject of
the investigation, Kabila, is being allowed to determine the composition of
the investigators?
MR. BURNS: I wouldn't agree that he is being allowed to determine the
composition of the team. It is a negotiating process and he is negotiating
with the UN Secretary General. The Secretary General is a respected man.
He has agreed now to take this negotiation under his own authority and to
decide, himself, the composition of the team. The United States believes
that only impartial investigators should be part of this team. That should
solve the problem that evidently concerns you.
QUESTION: The head of the investigative team, are you saying that the
allegations that he was partial or that Kabila made are correct?
MR. BURNS: Excuse me? I didn't understand the question.
QUESTION: Kabila had objected to the head of the team.
He claimed he was not impartial. You are now taking up this opinion?
MR. BURNS: No, no. We are agreeing with the UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan who says that he will form the team and that only impartial
investigators should be part of it. We agree with that. Now, it is up to
the Secretary General to determine who will be part of that team. We have
every confidence in Secretary General Kofi Annan.
QUESTION: Does he have any reason to believe that the team as it was
composed had people in it who were not impartial?
MR. BURNS: No, I don't believe the United States questioned the
composition of the team. There was a great controversy by other parties,
not by the United States, about that. But we stayed out of that. Our
priority is to see a team formed and launched and on the scene as quickly
as possible so that first-hand accounts can be taken, people who were
objects of the massacre can be interviewed, and the people who are
responsible for them can be brought to justice.
QUESTION: As he said, it is curious, the two things that Kabila demanded,
or his people demanded, were a different team and for the investigation to
go back to '93, and now, Kofi Annan and the United States support that
position.
MR. BURNS: Sid, let's just get the references here correct.
This was a discussion between the government of the Congo and the United
Nations. And the United Nations Secretary General, who was the first
person to call attention to the atrocities near Kisangani publicly and to
ask for a full accounting, has said that he will make sure this team gets
in and it will be impartial. I think in the current environment we ought to
put our faith in him. We ought to trust that he is going to do the right
thing because we know he will.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: I would like to ask you about North Korea. So far there have
been a lot of prediction and speculation that Kim Jong Il, the leader of
the North Korean government, will assume the title of presidency three
years after his father, Kim Il Sung, died. Today is the third anniversary
of his father's death. Can you give us some assessment of North Korean
situation in terms of assumption of the presidency?
MR. BURNS: Well, in Secretary Christopher's famous words, "North Korea is
an opaque society." Far be it from me to venture a guess as to what will
happen within the leadership and who will assume which titles. We have
seen all the press reporting on this, but I think we will have to wait
until Kim Jong Il decides what to do. I don't want to predict what's going
to happen there. We just hope that North Korea will continue to abide by
the international agreements that are so important to us in our
relationship with North Korea.
QUESTION: So far, the assumption of the title of presidency has been
regarded as stability of North Korean society. So if the North Korean --
if the assumption will take place - can you say that there will be still
uncertainty of North Korean politics?
MR. BURNS: As long as North Korea fails to be transparent, as long as it
continues to be opaque, then I think it is going to be very difficult for
us to have any degree of certainty about what's happening inside the
country. It is a closed authoritarian communist society. It is very
difficult for us to predict the leadership, the composition of the
leadership or, even sometimes, the actions of a leadership. We have to
make sure that we protect American interests by maintaining our troop
presence in South Korea and by maintaining the agreed framework which is
our paramount interest. Those two issues.
Laura?
QUESTION: On Northern Ireland, do you have any comments or observations
about the violence this weekend? Can you give us an assessment of the
state of play in the peace effort there?
MR. BURNS: Well, the United States was deeply concerned, deeply saddened,
by the confrontations that took place once again in Northern Ireland over
this past weekend. It is very regrettable that efforts to work out
mutually acceptable arrangements between Catholic leaders and Protestant
leaders, for the handling of the Portadown March, that those negotiations
failed.
We are not going to second guess the decision of the British authorities
and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to allow the parade. That decision was
made on security grounds. It was a very difficult decision, as you know.
The British Government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary believe that
perhaps by making this decision they might even limit the violence. If you
look at last week news events, that was obviously a good decision by the
British Government. The urgent task of reconciliation now falls more
heavily on the leaders of both communities, the Protestant and Catholic
communities. The United States urges a return to calm and constructive
efforts to invigorate the multiparty talks which still, we believe, offer
the best hope for peace in Northern Ireland.
Yes?
QUESTION: In the Middle East. Can you confirm that an advisor to
Netanyahu is having talks with the State Department?
His name is Uzi Arad, I believe.
MR. BURNS: I cannot confirm that. I can look into it and take the
question for you.
QUESTION: I'd appreciate it.
MR. BURNS: I'd be glad to.
Yes?
QUESTION: Hong Kong.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: I just saw a report Martin Lee has established shadow cabinet
in Hong Kong. Do you have any response to this report? Also, it's been a
week since Hong Kong's hand-over.
So, what's so far your assessment in that situation?
MR. BURNS: On the first question, I don't have any comment to make except
to say that the United States believes that elections should be held as
soon as possible so that the people of Hong Kong can elect their own
representatives. The current Legislative Council, of course, has been
appointed; and, therefore, it does not in our view represent - cannot
represent -- the people of Hong Kong. A way must be found to move to
elections very quickly.
It is very difficult to give an assessment after one week. We were
pleased, by the way, that the hand-over proceeded with great dignity on the
part of the United Kingdom and with, we hope, firm commitments by the
Chinese Government that it will honor everything it had agreed to in the
joint declaration of 1984. We hope that the Chinese Government will honor
its commitments because the people of Hong Kong have achieved a level of
prosperity and freedom that most people on earth couldn't even imagine.
And that political and economical success must be continued and best
continued through elections and democratic government.
Yes?
QUESTION: Going back to North Korea. Sorry. I just wanted to know, this
morning on the wires it said that there was some activity, North Korean
military activity on the DMZ. I was wondering if you could confirm that
and also perhaps state what the ROK and the US is doing.
MR. BURNS: I cannot confirm that. I have not seen that report, but I
refer you to U.S. and South Korean military authorities in South Korea
itself. But our troops are there to defend South Korea and will do so, if
necessary. Bill.
QUESTION: Nick, Ken Bacon sent this question your way.
This is referring to Jeffrey Smith's article on Thursday, July 3, on the
concern of the Administration of Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran,
specifically that Russia was continuing to help Iran in its mining and
processing of uranium materials to allow them perhaps a large supply of
fissionable material - an uncontrolled supply. I think Secretary Einhorn
spoke out to this issue.
Is this accurate reporting?
MR. BURNS: Well, I can't - I read Jeff's article. It was, as usual, a
very well researched article. But I can't remember all the details so I
don't want to pronounce myself on the article itself except to say on the
issue, Bill, which is more important, that we continue to talk to the
Russian Government every week about the issue of its activities, its
relationship with Iran.
We would hope that the Russian Government would conclude, as we have, that
it is best to stop all activities with the Iranians because they wish - the
Iranians intend to build a nuclear weapons capability, which cannot be in
the interest of the Russian Federation.
So we will continue that dialogue with the Russian government itself.
QUESTION: So is there a discrepancy between what the Russians are telling
us and what they are actually doing with the uranium, or can you say?
MR. BURNS: We think the Russians have dealt with us in a good faith
manner since President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed in September
1994 that certain Russian activities would be stopped. We believe they
have been stopped, and we are pleased about that. Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:55 P.M.)
(###)
|
