Browse through our Interesting Nodes on Academic Institutions in Greece 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
Sunday, 19 May 2024
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Interesting Nodes
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #9, 97-01-16

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

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <>


U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing


January 16, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

1	Welcome to Mr. Reyes Mata
1-2	Secretary's Schedule for next two days and arrangements for next week
2-3	Farewell to A/S Winston Lord
3	Paul Nitze
3-4	1st Town Meeting of the Year in Richmond
4	Return of D/S Talbott from Europe
4	Statement on Niger
4	Update on Kurdish Talks
4	US-Russian Space Docking

3,5,	Dennis Ross and Briefing for Tomorrow
4-5.19	Hebron Agreement
19-20	Role of US Gov't in Hebron Agreement
21	Meetings with Clinton

5-7	Resumption of talks with Israel
7-8	Health of Assad
9	Communication between Assad and Clinton
9	Lebannon Peace agreement with Syria and Israel
9	Syrian Gov't Statement on Hebron
9-10	Bombings in Syria

10-11	Gen. Lebed Visit to Washington

11-13	Discussions on beginning START III talks
13-14	Landmines
14-19	Latin America Arms Transfer Policy

19	Strobe Talbott Meetings in Europe

21-22	Talks with Kurdish Groups

22	Proposed Arms Sales

23-24	Treatment of Members of Scientology


DPB #9

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1997, 11:45 A.M.


MR. BURNS: I just want to remind that gambling is illegal here, Sid, at the State Department. It's illegal to gamble on Federal property. We'll give you a warning this time. I 'm not going to -- if you were a Patriots fan, I'd overlook it, but you're not a Patriots fan.

QUESTION: (Multiple comments)

QUESTION: Do you stand by (inaudible) for gambling?

MR. BURNS: This is Liar's Poker; right? Is that what you guys are playing?


MR. BURNS: Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to be --

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: I just put you On-the-Record. Good morning.

I don't think we ever had a briefing in the morning before this.

I wanted to start the briefing by welcoming my personal guest, Mr. Fernando Reyes Matta who is the Spokesman for the Chilean Foreign Ministry. Mr. Reyes is a guest of mine and the guest of the State Department. He's going to be with us for a couple of days to review our Public Affairs and press operations. We're very, very happy that he is here. He had a meeting with Assistant Secretary Jeff Davidow this morning. He'll be meeting with others around the Department. He's also a scholar and a specialist in the development of international news agencies. He has been a visiting scholar at a number of prominent universities in Latin America and a visiting scholar at Stanford University in Palo Alto. I hope you'll join me in welcoming him and perhaps even some of you might want to just talk to him at some point today or tomorrow about your perspective of the State Department press operation. I'm sure that will be an interesting set of conversations.

The Secretary is in his last two days in his office here at the State Department. He's been very busy this week, as you know.

He was on Jim Lehrer the other night. I really wanted Barry to hear this. We arrived at the Jim Lehrer studio, Barry, and we were told this was the 30th time that the Secretary had been on the Jim Lehrer Show. I think that probably means that he prefers Jim Lehrer to Hafiz al-Assad. There have been more visits to WETA than there have been to Damascus, which I thought was very significant. I thought you would like that, Barry.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BURNS: Good.

QUESTION: I wonder if he's back the beginning of next week.

QUESTION: You have said a number of times that it's his last day "in the office" or "in Office." Who was the Secretary of State this weekend?

MR. BURNS: The Secretary is going to be having -- he's basically in a series of farewell telephone calls to his colleagues.

He's meeting a lot of employees. He just finished a retirement ceremony for several hundred State Department employees. He's being taken out to lunch this afternoon by some of his staff.

He'll leave the building tomorrow afternoon. There is a reception here with the President and the Vice President, with the Diplomatic Corps. After that, he'll leave the building. He'll be Secretary of State until Monday. On Monday, he'll attend the Inauguration.

Then, on Monday afternoon, late in the afternoon, his resignation will be official and he will fly to California.

During the time -- after his resignation, before the Senate votes on Ambassador Albright's confirmation and before she is sworn in, if she is confirmed by the Senate, Strobe Talbott will be Secretary of State, ad interim. He will not be Acting Secretary of State. He will be Secretary of State, ad interim -- there being no Secretary of State. He'll be serving in an ad interim capacity. That has happened many times in U.S. history when we have situations like this -- a Secretary of State has departed; a new Secretary of State has not yet officially been sworn in.

So that's the schedule, the program here at the State Department. As I said, the Secretary has been saying his farewells. Tomorrow afternoon at 2:00, he's going to address the employees of the State Department at C Street -- from the mezzanine at C Street. We expect many hundreds of people to be there. I know that many of you will be there as well.

There will be a variety of ways that we're all going to wish him well as he prepares to leave office. I'll have something to say at the briefing tomorrow at 1:00 about him.

The other person I wanted to recognize who is leaving office tomorrow, but who has a farewell ceremony today is Winston Lord. I just wanted to say a few words in tribute to him. I think Winston has been one of our finest American diplomats of the past 25 years. If you think about his career as a young man, as Special Assistant to Henry Kissinger, Winston was present at the end of the Vietnam war and he was present at the opening of our relations to China back in --in the early 1970s. In fact, I think you remember the famous story -- and Barry was probably on the plane -- when the Secretary's aircraft crossed into Chinese air space, Winston raced to the front of the plane so that he could actually precede Kissinger as the first American into Chinese air space.

He's been our Ambassador to China. He's been President of the Council on Foreign Relations and now Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. I think he's a person of the greatest distinction and high ethics and honor. And for me personally, he has been a great instructor on Asian matters. He's been one of the people in the Department who has been most willing to be open to the press and to the public and who believes that we in the Department have to open up this Department more than we have to date -- to the public and to the press.

I wanted to thank him for all of his help to us and to congratulate him on a most distinguished career in government.

There's another individual who has received his share of honors this week, and that's Dennis Ross. I just spoke to him. He finally made it home. He's with his wife and kids after five weeks away.

I've convinced Dennis that he should come in here tomorrow afternoon and speak to you about the Hebron agreement. He will do that. I will schedule it for sometime around 3:00-3:30. I will let you know by the end of today specifically. It will be in this briefing room. I would encourage you to come with all your questions on the Hebron agreement at that time.

I think you know that the Israeli Knesset is still considering the agreements. They're in session. So while they're in session, I'm not going to be able to answer -- I choose not to answer specific questions on this agreement. We're going to wait until the Israeli Knesset takes its action and then we'll be glad to answer your questions, and you'll have Dennis here tomorrow.

Finally --

QUESTION: On-the-Record?

MR. BURNS: We'll have to consider that. I didn't go over that with him. As you know, that's always the question around here and I'll try to make it On-the-Record. I think that probably would be the most effective way to do it.

QUESTION: Finally, just in terms of significant, great American diplomats. Paul Nitze turns 90 today. He is being honored at the School of Advanced International Studies, which bears his name, over at Johns Hopkins. He is one of the great American diplomats of our time. We, in the State Department, wish him well. He was one of the most significant people here for the last 50 years, from the end of the Second World War. He's also a founder of SAIS and we just wanted to mention him today.

Further, in the way of announcements, we're going to have our first Foreign Policy Town Meeting of the year, on January 30, in Richmond, Virginia. I'm posting an announcement today. It will feature Ambassador Tom Pickering who is currently President of the Eurasia Foundation. It will also feature Ambassador Philip Wilcox, our Coordinator for Counterterrorism; Mr. Aaron Miller, who has also just returned from Hebron, from Jerusalem and Gaza, and yours truly. All of us will kick off the first Town Meeting of the year in Richmond.

We plan to do at least as many Town Meetings in 1997 -- 23 -- as we did in 1996, and perhaps even more.

I also wanted to let you know that Strobe Talbott -- Deputy Secretary Talbott --has returned from his trip to Europe. He visited NATO Headquarters, London, Paris, and Bonn. He met with senior officials in all of those places. His conversations centered on the NATO issue -- security issues. They also involved some bilateral conversations. He is back in the building; has reported to Secretary Christopher; has met with him.

Of course, Strobe's visit took place before the very important visit by Secretary General Solana to Moscow, which takes place on the 19th and 20th, just in a couple of days from now.

I'm posting a statement today on the situation in Niger. This concerns the very deep concern of the United States about the arrest and imprisonment yesterday of the opposition party leaders and the announcement of a Special Tribunal by the government. We have some concerns about this, and we spelled them out in the one-page statement that we're issuing today.

Further, I wanted to refer you to the statement issued by Glyn Davies, Acting Spokesman, yesterday about the Kurdish talks in Ankara -- they have completed. Ambassador Pelletreau is on his way back to Washington. We think they were quite successful in helping to stabilize relations between the two major Kurdish factions. We look forward to future meetings with them and with the Turkish and British Governments.

Finally, we want to note a very significant event, and that is the fact that the space station Atlantis and the Russian Mir have docked. Astronauts and cosmonauts are being exchanged. This doesn't get much press attention but this is an exceedingly important event. Because this presages the U.S., Russian, and European cooperation to build an international space station, to begin that process later in 1997. I'm surprised by how little press attention this gets. It's one of the most significant things happening in international life today. We want to congratulate the Russian Government and NASA, the American astronauts for their extraordinary accomplishments in building this program and achieving a successful docking between Atlantis and Mir yesterday.


QUESTION: Nick, how many pieces of paper are there in the Hebron agreement and side papers? Notice, I say "paper" because I don't want to get caught up in terminology about assurances and side letters. I don't want to, by making the question too specific, miss out on some of something that will surface two weeks later as being a secret assurance.

How many pieces of paper are there? And why won't the U.S. release, make public, Christopher's letter to Arafat? And does it differ in any substantial way? Now you see this as being a matter of faith, taking on faith, since you're not releasing it. Does it differ in any way with what we know Christopher has told the Israelis?

MR. BURNS: Barry, I just received, in fact, the complete package. It's on John Dinger's desk. I don't have it in front me so I can't tell you exactly how many pieces of paper there are, but I'm sure we can get you a list.

Secondly, Dennis Ross was the mediator in these agreements -- not the intermediary, not the facilitator, but the mediator. It's a very complex agreement. I think suffice to say, I feel most comfortable letting Dennis speak for himself tomorrow with you. Again, we've chosen tactically, because the Knesset is still debating this issue, not to get into the details of this agreement today.

QUESTION: I'm not going to be put off by that. Dennis has already talked to the New York Times and everybody is writing about the agreement. People are talking about it. Your Ambassador in Israel is talking about it in Israel. The Israeli Ambassador is talking here. Everybody is talking.

MR. BURNS: And we've said what we have to say.

QUESTION: I know you pick and choose what you care to say, but we pick and choose our questions. Is it absolutely a given now that Israel gets to decide how much territory it will give up? If that's so, do you have any estimate of how much territory the Palestinians will take over as a result of this three-stage pullback?

MR. BURNS: Nice try, Barry. But, again, we have a Presidential statement; we have a Secretary of State statement. You had the Secretary at the Kennedy School yesterday. You have Dennis' public statement with Arafat and Netanyahu. You have some of these documents being made public by the Israeli Government and by the Palestinian Authority. But until our negotiator steps up here, since I did not sit in the room with him for the last four months, I'm going to let him answer all those questions. That's just good common sense.

QUESTION: Nick, do you think this deal in any way could help spur negotiations with Syria now? Or does it not necessarily have that kind of - -

MR. BURNS: I think this negotiation stands on its own. It's a good thing for the Palestinians and for the Israeli Government and Israeli people.

Obviously, the United States has had as a long term goal the reinvigoration of the Syrian and Israeli peace negotiations. Do we think that those are imminent? No, we don't. As you know, those negotiations didn't proceed very far into 1996. There's no indication right now that they're about to begin again.

But as a long-term objective, the United States is committed to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We would like to see those negotiations proceed in the future, but I can't realistically give you any early indication that that's about to happen.

QUESTION: Does the Clinton Administration know -- sort of resigned to the fact that those negotiations just have to sort of stew for awhile, or is there some plan on behalf of this Administration to try to re-engage the parties separately or together?

MR. BURNS: We've been pretty much consumed by the Israeli-Palestinian talks over the last four or five months. I think the Syrians and Israelis know that we will be very glad to help facilitate their discussions should that be necessary. But I just don't want to give you any kind of indication that I think that's around the corner. It's a standing offer. They know that because we are committed to a longer-term, comprehensive peace. But they've got to make the fundamental decision of whether or not they want to engage in formal discussions or informal discussions. I don't believe that either government has made that decision right now.

QUESTION: So you're waiting for some -- the initiative has to come from them?

MR. BURNS: That's normally what happens even in the Middle East where the United States does play a big role in these negotiations. It has to be up to the Israeli Government and Syrian Government to make that fundamental decision.

We cannot produce that for them. If they require our assistance in any aspect of this, of course, we're ready to work with both governments.


QUESTION: As a practical matter, is President Assad in any physical shape to begin the arduous negotiations?

MR. BURNS: Sid, that's a question for the Syrian Government. I'm not aware in any way, any detailed way, of the state of President Assad's health, so I'd refer you to the Syrian Government spokesman, my counterpart in Damascus.

QUESTION: You are aware he just had surgery.

MR. BURNS: We've seen the reports.

QUESTION: -- what the government said.

MR. BURNS: We've seen the reports.

QUESTION: And you've made no effort to look into the state of his health, to explore --

MR. BURNS: I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. I said that I am not competent to give you a description of President Asad's health, because I don't represent President Asad. The Syrian Government spokesman, I believe, is competent to do that. Of course, if a head of state, in this case President Asad, has surgery -- of course, we are interested in that fact, and we have a fine Embassy in Damascus which keeps abreast of these things as best as it can. But I can't give you an assessment of his medical condition, and you'll understand why.

QUESTION: So you think that a tentative word on Asad's -- you would advise us to take what the Syrian spokesman says as the definitive word on Asad's health.

MR. BURNS: I would invite --

QUESTION: You think that would be the accurate thing we should do and circulate around the world --

MR. BURNS: Barry, I would invite you to address that question to the Syrians. But, if you ask me about the health of any world leader, the Chilean Government or the Russian Government or the Syrian Government, I cannot give you an answer. I don't speak for those governments. I speak for our government.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) don't ask for his temperature.

MR. BURNS: Sid asked me for an assessment of his medical condition.

QUESTION: Well, Sid is asking for the very good reason that you're trying -- you say at least spiritually you'd like to see Israeli-Syrian talks resume --

MR. BURNS: I don't believe I said "spiritually," but anyway, it's a minor little distinction there, Barry.

QUESTION: Well, you know what I mean. In a practical sense you don't see it right down the pike, but you sort of see it as a goal.

MR. BURNS: Right.

QUESTION: And it being a one-man state, it's kind of significant if the guy in charge is up to it. So from a U.S. policy standpoint, you can't -- you're not curious about whether the Syrian President is physically able to direct his country's negotiations?

MR. BURNS: Let's just set the record straight here. I never said we weren't curious. I never said we were disinterested. I declined the opportunity to give you guys a medical bulletin, and I'm not going to do that. Are we interested whether the Syrian Government -- Syrian President is in good enough health to carry on his duties? Of course we are; and there's every indication from the Syrian Government, putting it into their own words, that he is. But I can't give you an assessment of his medical condition.

QUESTION: Look, Yeltsin goes to the hospital, and you're asked about the state of this -- and you're quite able to --

MR. BURNS: I said --

QUESTION: Wait a minute, let me finish.

MR. BURNS: No, Barry, I say it every time --

QUESTION: You're quite able to --

MR. BURNS: -- we're not his doctor.

QUESTION: I know that, and then you proceed to say, Mr. Chernomyrdin is in charge, and we have a good relationship, and we're able to deal, the government is functioning, everything's fine, and we hope Mr. Yeltsin recovers and goes back to work, but we are conducting business as usual. And that doesn't somehow bother you, but when you're asked about Syria, you get all -- I mean, the U.S. gets all uptight and nervous, right?

MR. BURNS: I'm not uptight. I'm not nervous either. (Laughter)

QUESTION: Look, first of all, you didn't answer Carol's question, to tell you the truth. She --

MR. BURNS: What was Carol's question? I forget.

QUESTION: Carol's question is whether -- if she'll permit me to restate her question. She's asking if the agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in the U.S. view will spur Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Your answer was you don't expect them to open right away, to that effect.

MR. BURNS: I answered the question. I answer the questions to the best of my ability.

QUESTION: Alright. So let me try it our way. Let me try it a different way. Netanyahu, having shown in the Hebron agreement that he is indeed, surprisingly to some of his supporters, willing to surrender land in the pursuit of accords with Arabs, is this -- does this encourage the U.S. that you can get back in the land-for-peace business with Syria? Do you have reason now to believe Netanyahu may be more agreeable to your philosophy of trading land-for-peace -- the U.S. philosophy?

MR. BURNS: You know, Barry, I'm choosing today not to link these two. Let me comment, just to resume and summarize this, about the Hebron agreement. We are encouraged that the Palestinians and Israelis concluded this agreement. It is a very good thing for everybody concerned, including the United States. We assume it's in the self-interest of both the State of Israel and the Palestinian authority to proceed, because they have agreed to it.

The separate matter is the Syria negotiations. I am purposely saying I can't draw you an intellectual link at this point. You have to see what happens here. We hope that there can be progress between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon for that matter, and we will work towards that end. But I don't want to mislead you by saying I think negotiations are going to start on Saturday or Sunday, because I don't believe that's the case.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: But it's encouraging to see this kind of progress on Hebron after so many months of negotiations.

QUESTION: I have three questions on Syria. In the past, after every major achievement or breakthrough, there was a traditional phone call from the White House or from the Secretary to President Assad to clue him in on what's going on. Isn't it right that this time there was no communication? The second question is about the negative anti-agreement statements coming from Damascus, linked to Hamas' headquarters statement that there will be an "answer" from Damascus in the ground after and following the Hebron agreement. Can you comment on that? And one more. The Israeli Ambassador lately suggested an international conference to deal with the Lebanon issue first. Do you think that the Lebanon issue first is still a viable venue?

MR. BURNS: Okay. On the first question, I'm not aware that there's been any kind of formal routine about who calls whom after any stage of these negotiations. I don't agree that there's any kind of rigidity about that. The fact is that the President did talk, as you know, to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat, and all of our Embassies in the Middle East have shared our views on this accord with their host governments, and that includes the Government of Syria. Of course, we've been in contact with the Government of Syria.

Furthermore, to skip to your third question for a minute, on Lebanon, our view -- we haven't changed our policies or our views. We hope that there could be a peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel, and Lebanon and Syria, and we're going to work towards that. We've had very good talks with Prime Minister Hariri. He was here in late December, as you know. We hope very much that that will be the fate of the Lebanese people in 1997 or 1998 -- peace with Israel as well as a Syria-Israeli peace.

Now your second question?

QUESTION: The statement from Damascus --

MR. BURNS: Right. I haven't seen any Syrian Government statements. We saw a ridiculous statement from Colonel Qadhafi, but that really doesn't deserve any kind of comment by the U.S. Government, because it's so ludicrous in itself. I've not seen the Syrian Government statement on the Hebron accords. I just haven't seen them, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: On another subject --


MR. BURNS: Still on Syria -- David, yes.

QUESTION: After you said what you said about the explosions in Syria, and questioning the Syrian Government's statement that the Israelis were behind it, have you had any discussions with the Syrian Government about these explosions, and have you got any closer to figuring out who caused them?

MR. BURNS: We have had discussions with the Syrian Government, usually at their initiative, about this particular issue and what we've said publicly and what may or may not have happened. We have expressed to the Syrian Government privately what we have said publicly. In our view there is not one shred of evidence that the Israeli Government was involved here, and it's a very serious charge indeed for one government to accuse another of a terrorist incident on its turf.

Prime Minister Netanyahu made a very strong statement against the bombing in Syria. We have said that we regret very, very much the loss of life in Syria. People died. I believe up to nine people died; many more were injured, and our condolences go out to the family of those killed. We don't know who committed this act of terrorism, and the Syrian Government, I suppose, is looking into that very vigorously.

QUESTION: Didn't the Syrians attempt to convince the United States that the Israelis were behind the bombing?

MR. BURNS: I think we made it very clear that we did not believe that was so, and we have not received any kind of evidence whatsoever from the Syrian Government, that the Israeli Government had any link to this. As you know, following the press reports, some of the radical groups in the Middle East have claimed credit for this bombing. I believe the Islamic Movement for Change has claimed credit for this particular bombing.

QUESTION: Thank you for letting me change the subject for just one minute.

MR. BURNS: That's fine. I'm glad to change subject.

QUESTION: Alright. With all these conflicting reports that I read about General Lebed's arrival here, can you tell us exactly if you know who invited General Lebed here? Is that an official invitation, and more to it, have you been approached by his people in arranging any meetings here? If you are approached, what would be your decision? Update us on that.

MR. BURNS: Good. Let me just say the U.S. Government policy longstanding for the inaugural is the following. We expect that Ambassadors here and Chiefs of Mission of diplomatic posts here -- Embassies in Washington -- will represent foreign countries at President Clinton's inauguration on Monday. Therefore, we have not invited any foreign dignitaries. We have not invited kings, presidents, prime minister, queens, princes -- anyone. We expect that diplomatic representatives here will be the representatives of their country. They will be seated in a prominent section of the seating at the inauguration, and they'll view the parade.

I think some non-profit groups, some of the lobbying organizations here in Washington, businesses, have invited a great number of foreigners. These are not invitations by the U.S. Government. I have no idea who invited General Lebed. I do not believe that he's made any request to see anybody officially, although obviously anytime that General Lebed is willing to talk, we're willing to talk, because he's a significant person in Russian society, and we have had a relationship with him. We've had conversations. He had a very good visit here a couple of months ago, and we're very much open to discussions with him. But I don't believe anything is planned.

QUESTION: On Strobe Talbott's trip, has the United States made a proposal, or is it considering a proposal to basically leapfrog START II, because you can't get it through the Duma and go right into START III negotiations?

MR. BURNS: Carol, I saw the same press reports that you did. I am not aware that any firm decisions on any of these issues -- on that particular issue -- any decisions have been made by the Administration. Our position is formally and privately and publicly that we think START II, which was signed four years ago this month, ought to be ratified by the Russian Duma, as has been ratified by the U.S. Senate. We certainly have always said for a number of years that we would like to go beyond START II and explore the possibility of further reductions in the level of nuclear arms.

But START II is important. I'm not aware of any decision in the United States Government to forget about START II or leapfrog START II and go on to START III.

QUESTION: But my question was not about a firm decision, and you keep using the word "decision." My question is, has there been a proposal floated? Is there consideration among senior officials in this government about doing this -- leapfrogging START II?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any such proposal being made to any foreign government. I'm not aware of that. Okay?

QUESTION: Alright.

MR. BURNS: Wait a minute, Barry. I'm answering Carol's question. You've got --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) foreign government --

MR. BURNS: You've got to let me answer the question.

QUESTION: But you keep changing the question.

MR. BURNS: I'm not changing the question, Barry. I'm answering -- why don't you ask the question.

QUESTION: I'll ask it -- no, let her go. Then I'll try it a different way.

QUESTION: I did not say making a proposal to a foreign government. I'm leaving it as vague as possible, so that I don't want you to get caught up on any one word. Have there been discussions in this government about going beyond START II because you can't get it through the Russian Duma and trying a new approach and going right to START III negotiations?

MR. BURNS: I am not aware of any such discussions and, if I knew about them, I wouldn't tell the press about them -- if they were just deliberations or musings inside the U.S. Government before any approach had been made to a foreign government. I'm not aware of any, and I wouldn't say so even if I were.

Secondly, I don't believe that there's been any approach to foreign governments.

Third, START II is the centerpiece of our efforts right now.

QUESTION: Nick, you have --

QUESTION: I just want to make sure -- do the bidding here. As near as you know, as the spokesman of this State Department and in contact with all important senior officials, there's been no discussions of this idea. There has been no proposal, and there has certainly been no decision.

MR. BURNS: Carol, you understand what I'm saying. I'm not aware of any. I'm the spokesman here. I'm not in charge of our arms negotiations. I don't attend all meetings, so I cannot possibly know. I can't prove a negative, and I can't prove a positive. If I haven't been over at ACDA every day for the last five months or at the White House or at the Pentagon, or if I hadn't sat with Lynn Davis every day for the last five months, I can't possibly know everything that has been said and everything that has not been said.

I'm just telling you I'm not aware of any, but we're not in the practice here of sharing preliminary proposals under discussion inside the government with the public and the press. It's not the way the government works.

QUESTION: Well, will you take the question?

MR. BURNS: I'll consider looking into it, but I cannot promise an answer.

QUESTION: Nick, this is a kind of expertise and going back to the previous administration. Spurgeon Keeney, the head of the Arms Control Association, months ago -- and you know the arguments he made. He's not talking about leapfrogging. He's talking about unlocking this stalemate which one of the reasons the Russians haven't ratified, it's expensive for them to do this. You're helping them a little. They have to make choices between weapons, building the new weapons allowable with the expenses under START II. He proposed months ago a very detailed, serious proposal that you start on START III. The President proposed starting on START III to make it easier to get START II ratified, because the more weapons that are banned, the Russians won't have that big expense. That was one of his reasons.

I'll settle for considering. You have a March -- assuming Yeltsin's health is up to it -- you have a March summit coming up. Is the Administration considering that proposal or some variation of it to simultaneously -- well, not simultaneously -- to start on START II -- START III as a way of facilitating Russian approval of START II.

MR. BURNS: I can't settle for that word, because, as I said, when we're ready to make announcements, we make them. Our position is that START II ought to be ratified, and I gave an answer to Carol which I thought was as direct as I could be.

QUESTION: If you could leapfrog out of it, maybe you'd be freer -- not leapfrog, because, obviously, you want START II ratified, but to get started on START III before START II is ratified as a way of getting START II ratified.

MR. BURNS: I understand probably some of the confusion here. There have been a lot of people speaking on background to various reporters. We've even seen some On-the-Record statements in months past about this particular issue. The great thing about a hierarchical government is that the President gets to decide these, and I'm not aware the President has made any such decision. I'm not aware of any proposals on his desk, and therefore the President's position and the Secretary of State's position is START II ought to be ratified.

I do know that in all recent conversations with senior Russian Government officials, we have been saying privately START II is our priority. Let's work on ratifying START II.

QUESTION: While we're on arms control, is there an Administration position now on how to go about doing -- a total ban I don't think may be in the offing -- how to go about restrictions, global restrictions on landmines?

MR. BURNS: That's a big issue. The President spoke to it last May, I believe. He made a significant statement.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: That's right. It's of great concern to us. We do want to do everything we can to help eliminate landmines because you know the scourge they've been and the number of amputees. Millions have been created because of them. There is a Canadian proposal now, which is a quite significant proposal, that is being considered internationally, and that proposal is under review in our Administration. But I don't believe the President has made a decision on that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) proposal.

MR. BURNS: I'm talking about the Canadian proposal.

QUESTION: I said there's a second, go through the U.N., because Russia and China are not keen on the Canadian proposal. The other way is slower but possibly will attract China and Russia. He hasn't come down -- the Administration hasn't come down on one side or the other.

MR. BURNS: I believe that those latest proposals -- but I'm speaking particularly about the Canadian one -- are under review here, and no decision has been made on those proposals. But I do want to bring you back to President Clinton's own personal statements on this issue in 1996, which were quite forthcoming, and which indicated that the United States does want to move forward on this question.

QUESTION: While we're on arms control, Nick, what is the advantage that the Administration

-- specifically Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry -- see in opening up Latin America to a cascade of arms sales?

MR. BURNS: Again, I'm not going to agree with the premise of the question that somehow Secretary Christopher is recommending that. Let me just tell you that we are reviewing our conventional arms transfer policy towards Latin America in the context of the significant political and economic military transformation that has occurred in South America and Latin America in general over the past ten years.

We want to encourage all the Latin countries to concentrate their resources on economic and social development, because we think that's the best way to foster the kind of stability across the hemisphere that is needed in the next century. I can tell you that this general policy -- there have been a lot of rumors that somehow our policy has changed. I'm not aware of that. I'm not aware there's been any decision by the White House, by the President, to fundamentally change the policy that has been in place for many, many years.

But we have told you before that this policy is under review, and I believe it's still under review. I don't believe any fundamental decisions have been made here.

QUESTION: Without a decision being made, there have been recommendations made. How would increased arms sales contribute to the economic resources of any Latin American country?

MR. BURNS: Let me just say -- perhaps something -- and you're a veteran here, you know this --but that's obvious if I start to talk about proposals being made at the White House, then I deserve to lose my job. That's just not something that a State Department spokesman -- any spokesman -- should be doing. I can't talk about that. I can just tell you that there's a review underway. There's a considerable amount of discussion about this. There have been public statements by both Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry during their respective trips to Latin America at the beginning of 1996. But since the President has not made any decision to change our policy that I'm aware of, I can't talk about the private deliberations that might influence the review.

QUESTION: When did (inaudible) transformation, because I infer something else from that -- that there's more democracy there and you feel freer in providing weapons. What is your point about the political transformation, indeed?

MR. BURNS: We want to encourage the positive transformation evident in the hemisphere, with the exception of Cuba, over the past five to ten years, and there's no better example than Chile.

QUESTION: How does it relate to arms sales?

MR. BURNS: How does that relate to arms sales?


MR. BURNS: Because we have a policy towards our own hemisphere that is not based just on political considerations alone or economic considerations alone or military. We try to make sure that we have a united policy that integrates all those factors. That's why. So they are related here.

QUESTION: Can I try this a little differently? You may not be speaking publicly about this issue, but the Pentagon is.

MR. BURNS: What have you seen the Pentagon say in the last couple of days that changes my --

QUESTION: Has the Secretary of State changed his position on the U.S. policy towards high-tech arms sales to Latin America?

MR. BURNS: What was that show, "Truth or Consequences"?

QUESTION: "Twenty-one Questions."

MR. BURNS: "Twenty-one Questions." That's what I feel like today. This is kind of, "Tell us everything you're thinking privately, and let's just all write articles on it." I can't do that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the answers.

MR. BURNS: I don't have the answers. I may have some of the answers, but I -- well, they're legitimate questions, and I understand why you're asking them. I mean, just to be serious for a moment. But you understand that in any government like ours if I begin to say, Secretary Christopher made a recommendation to the President today and here it is, well, that is not going to help the Secretary or the President make a decision in an environment that is rational. It exposes them, before the President has a chance to see a piece of paper, to all sorts of questions from the press, and I don't believe there's been any spokesman who's ever done that from this podium. So I'm not going to start today.

The Secretary has views on this. He has studied the issue. The Department has studied it. The Pentagon has studied it. We've worked it with the Pentagon and the NSC staff. But I'm not in a position to tell you what our preliminary conclusions may be, and the great thing about our government is that those views ultimately don't matter. What matters is what the President thinks, and I'm not aware he's made a decision.

QUESTION: This issue has been under review for quite a while --

MR. BURNS: Right.

QUESTION: And the Secretary had no compunction about expressing his particular point of view publicly when he did several months ago before Congress. And so I think to ask the question publicly now, you know, does the Secretary still share that point of view, or has he changed it in any way is a legitimate question that deserves a straightforward answer.

MR. BURNS: Certainly, it's a legitimate question. I agree with you. But I have a responsibility to protect the integrity of our decision-making process here. I'm not going to violate that. The Secretary of State has talked a lot about this, as has Secretary Perry, but their private views and any possible evolution in those views --and I'm not saying there even has been -- are for them to communicate to the President privately.

Once the President makes a decision, then the Administration will announce a maintenance of the policy or a revision of the policy --hatever the President decides -- but I can't anticipate that decision.

QUESTION: Nick, the reality of the situation is that Pentagon officials are saying that Mr. Christopher has signed a letter along with Mr. Perry, and that therefore his views have changed. Unless you say that isn't true, that stands.

MR. BURNS: No, it shouldn't stand, because I would challenge you to ask my colleague, Ken Bacon, about that -- On the Record -- and see what answer you get. I would bet that Ken would say on the record exactly what I have said, because he and I have discussed this.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: If other people are talking at the Pentagon, they shouldn't characterize the views of the Secretary of State. We don't characterize the views of the Secretary of Defense from our podium.

QUESTION: Well, conversely then, should we take it that what's on the record concerning the Secretary's position remains the position?

MR. BURNS: Absolutely, positively. Whatever the Secretary has said on this issue stands as the Secretary's views.

QUESTION: So he opposes high tech -- opening up the high tech market to Latin America.

MR. BURNS: I don't believe the Secretary -- I mean, I've been with the Secretary, I think, every time he's said anything on this over the last year. I don't remember anything that stark, Carol. I remember the Secretary basically saying on his trip and in congressional testimony after his trip that in essence we have a policy. We've been following this policy for decades. There is now a review of that policy. We've discussed this review with the Chilean Government, the Argentinian Government, the Brazilian Government, and we're going to work through this.

But the Secretary has not enunciated any change of the policy, and the President has not, and neither has Secretary Perry.

QUESTION: Nick, without specifically to Latin America, I seem to remember -- I probably could find it -- that the Secretary a few months ago enunciated what appeared to be a more lenient or a more --lenient is the word, I guess -- policy on high-tech sales and sort of veering to the Commerce Department's position, if I can put it maybe in a unfair nutshell, that he's become

-- how should I say -- more inclined -- and, you know, he said many times this Administration is the friendliest to business of any Administration -- and weapons is --

MR. BURNS: That's true.

QUESTION: -- is part of capitalism that makes this country great. So isn't the Secretary --

MR. BURNS: That's true as well.

QUESTION: Absolutely. Andrew Undershaft felt the same way.

MR. BURNS: Excuse me, who did?

QUESTION: George Bernard Shaw's "Andrew -" forget it. It's just an unfortunate literary reference. Is the Secretary inclined, generally speaking, if you want to take Latin America out of the question, to support arms sales to countries that are not threatening anybody's security?

MR. BURNS: I can't speak generally about that, because our arms sale policy is regional and sometimes country specific. We have very different policies, depending on what the political and --

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Sure. And the Iranians and others.

QUESTION: But Latin America is almost consistently democratic now.

MR. BURNS: Listen, I can't improve upon what the Secretary said this year, but the major line of questioning here is, have we changed our policy, and I can't --

QUESTION: Well, maybe it's a vowel (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: That's the major line of questioning.

QUESTION: My question was, in this specific instance, since the Secretary of State has felt free to speak publicly about his position himself, do we accept that as continuing to reflect his position, or has there been a change in his thinking?

MR. BURNS: Carol, the Secretary has not explained his personal position. He has enunciated publicly the Administration's position, and what I am trying to say is you're trying to get me to say what's Christopher's position, what's Perry's position, do they agree. Have they suggested a change to the President. I'm saying we have a -- if you look at what Ken Bacon has said, Mike McCurry and myself, including all of our superiors over the last year, it's fully consistent. We have a policy, but we've told you that it's under review.

What we haven't done yet is said the review's finished; here are our conclusions. But I can't do that today, because the review isn't finished, as far as I know.

QUESTION: What about the story?

MR. BURNS: Which story?

QUESTION: The stories that were out yesterday about this memo.

MR. BURNS: I didn't even read through all of the story yesterday, so I can't possibly even -- to be fair to you and to me, I can't say I deny it, I concur with it. I haven't read through the whole thing. I usually read through these stories, but I didn't get through that one.

QUESTION: It's a bogus defense.

MR. BURNS: It's not a bogus defense. Let's be fair here. You're asking me to do something that no other rational spokesman would do. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to tell you what we're thinking privately.

QUESTION: Nick, in your sort of introductory remarks on this topic, you seem to be suggesting that there is some hesitation based on those countries inability to afford the initial purchase as well as the maintenance of some of these high-tech systems. Did I read you correctly on that?

MR. BURNS: I don't remember saying anything at all about that issue; I'm sorry.

QUESTION: You said "We want to encourage these nations to --

MR. BURNS: About affording -

QUESTION: -- "affording resources on economic development." When you were asked about whether we would like --

MR. BURNS: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't say anything about countries not being able to afford it. I was on the record. We'll be glad to print those words if you want it.

QUESTION: Why would you choose that statement when we're talking about arms sales?

MR. BURNS: Barry asked that question, and I answered that question. It's rational to have such an approach. We look at any question like this as having several dimensions -- political, military, and economic. Not just one dimension. That's why I said what I did.

QUESTION: Another subject.

MR. BURNS: I want us to keep talking about this. It's so much fun.

QUESTION: You probably can't talk about this one either. Can you enlighten us a little bit on what Strobe Talbott was discussing regarding NATO and what kinds of concessions/offers/fig leaves -- whatever - -NATO is ready to offer?

MR. BURNS: I have the "Top Secret" negotiating papers, I think. John, can we give those to the press? We can publish them afterwards, maybe. I'm being a little bit facetious because this is a little bit -- strange line of questioning. I can't tell you what Strobe's private conversations were and the private ideas that he put forward.

I can tell you that he was in Europe discussing NATO issues, European Security issues, bilateral issues. What he said privately to senior government officials in Bonn and Paris, it's not in our tradition to say what he said.

QUESTION: Nick, two questions, if I can go back to the Middle East. When that package of papers is untied and all the pieces of paper are put on the table, could you let us know, in any way you choose, how many side letters or assurances there are, by whom to whom, accompanying the agreement itself? And, secondly, Dennis is back and we all know issues were deferred -- not only final status but Gaza airport; all sorts of issues had to be put aside for the sake of concluding the implementation agreement.

Is Dennis available to jump back in at any point to try to narrow these -- you know, the White House has expressed confidence and said he's staying on and all that, but I'm just trying to get an idea if he changes his clothes and jump back or do you figure there will be some -- what Mr. Rabin, I guess used to say -- a period of digestion is required before you get back into these other issues? I'm not talking about "final status." I know that's down the road.

MR. BURNS: If the Palestinians and Israelis want us to become involved in any aspect of this in the future, I'm sure we'll be glad to do so because we were so much involved in the creation of these documents. I think it probably goes without saying, but it's worth repeating.

QUESTION: How do you describe the U.S. role in this agreement? What word would you choose: "guarantor, mediator?"

MR. BURNS: I think the Palestinians and Israelis publicly have said over the last two days that the President and Secretary Christopher and Dennis Ross played the role of mediator in the discussions. We were very much involved in helping them achieve the agreement, so therefore we'll be available -- in answer to Barry's question -- in the future should they need us to help sort out any problems, if there are any problems.

QUESTION: What about the risk factor?

QUESTION: You wouldn't call yourself the guarantors of this agreement?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe that Dennis has described our role or the President -- I don't believe so; I can't remember all the phrases used. We are a friend of the Palestinians and we're a friend to Israel. We've helped them reach this agreement, and we sure want to help them keep the agreement. So, Sid, I hope that gets to what you're asking.

QUESTION: "Guarantors" is a strong word. The running refrain here, the boilerplate is: As they take risk for peace, the United States will stand by them. So has anybody, either side or both, taken a risk by this agreement? And if they have, what will the United States do exactly to "stand by them?"

MR. BURNS: The agreements are in the self-interest of both sides. They're in the self-interest of the United States. So we enter into them with our eyes open, and we want them to succeed.

QUESTION: But is there a risk factor involved? Did somebody, or two sides maybe, take any risks -- political or security or whatever -- that you're aware of?

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any risks. If the agreement is in the self- interest of the Palestinians and Israelis, they go into this willingly.

QUESTION: You know, (inaudible) both. You can do something on a calculated - take a calculated risk.

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any risks.


MR. BURNS: I'm not aware of any specific risks. These agreements are in their self-interest.

QUESTION: On another subject. Do you take -

MR. BURNS: I'm sorry, Jim, we have one more question over here.

QUESTION: Was Secretary-designate Albright involved in the latest stages of the Hebron agreement?

MR. BURNS: No, she was not.

QUESTION: Do you have -- she was not?

MR. BURNS: No. And the reason she was not is because she cannot presume confirmation by the United States Senate. The Senate has an important constitutional responsibility to vote on her confirmation.

Ambassador Albright has been rigorous in not carrying out any official functions related to the Secretary of State's job. She will not do so until the Senate votes to confirm her and she is sworn in here in Washington.

We have a Secretary of State. His name is Warren Christopher. When he leaves, Strobe Talbott will be Secretary of State ad interim until such time as Madeleine Albright is sworn in, if she is confirmed. She was not involved in these negotiaions in any way.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the agreement was achieved. Is there a better idea when the succession of leaders -- Netanyahu, Arafat, Mubarak, and King Hussein -- will arrive to Washington to --

MR. BURNS: I'm not aware that the White House has announced the dates of the visits by the Prime Minister and Chairman Arafat, so I'd refer you to Mike McCurry on that. We'll try to keep you informed as well when that news is ready.


QUESTION: The Kurdish issues. Secretary Pelletreau is meeting in Ankara.


QUESTION: When he has a meeting -- at the same time one of the leader's of the Kurdish groups, he was at the Iran -- Tehran -- otherwise, in Baghdad.

MR. BURNS: Excuse me, was where?

QUESTION: Mr. Talabani -- when Pelletreau has a meeting with the Kurdish groups, at the same time Mr. Talabani is in Tehran and Mr. Barzani is in Baghdad. Doesn't that show these two groups, they are looking for something else other than the United States to help their problem?

MR. BURNS: I don't see the Iranians organizing any northern Iraq talks that encompass the Assyrians and the Kurdish groups and the other minority groups. I don't see the Iraqis doing it either. It seems like the United States and Turkey and Britain are the only countries that can pull it together. If the Iranians can do it, well, let's see. I bet they can't, and we know that Saddam can't. So I wouldn't pay much attention to the Iraqis and Iranians in this respect.

QUESTION: Can you say that meeting was a success?

MR. BURNS: Yes. The meeting was a success. It achieved some progress in stabilizing the relationship among these groups in northern Iraq.

Ambassador Pelletreau will be remaining in telephone contact with Barzani and Talabani and the others. While we have not scheduled any further meetings, I'm sure there will be further meetings. We appreciate the support of the Turkish Government and the British Government on this issue.


QUESTION: On a related issue. I understand this government has decided to go forward with the sale of army tactical long-range -- army tactical missiles to Turkey. What's the reasoning behind that?

MR. BURNS: I'll have to check with the Pentagon. I'm not aware that a formal decision has been made. Perhaps you can refer that -- you can ask that question of the Pentagon and I'll ask as well and see what we can say.

QUESTION: I'd like to know the political reasoning behind it; if it's more of a State Department question?

MR. BURNS: Fine. I need to get the details about the proposed sale, if there is a proposed sale. But you know Turkey is a NATO ally. It's not surprising that we would sell weapons to Turkey because it's a NATO ally of the United States.

QUESTION: But at the same time (inaudible) Greece getting long-range missiles -- the Greek Cypriots getting long-range missiles.

MR. BURNS: The Cypriot Government?


MR. BURNS: But that's a different matter entirely.

QUESTION: Change the subject?


QUESTION: The German Government's controversy with the Church of Scientology over the last days has become more aggressive. Probably this is a very German issue. The Germans seem to be concerned about the image that might change in the U.S. because even on the political side there are at least indications several Congress people wrote to the State Department raising concerns about the treatment of members of the Church of Scientology.

Do you have a position on this? Is the treatment of members of the Church of Scientology in Germany a violation of human rights, as some of members of Congress claim?

MR. BURNS: We have an oft-expressed position on this. We've expressed our position a number of times, and it's the following: We believe that the members of the Church of Scientology have a right to practice their religion in Germany and in all other countries -- the United States, all of the countries around the world.

If you look at our human rights reports from 1993 to 1996, we have commented, I think on a yearly basis, with the possible exception of one year in the middle, about the German Government's treatment of scientologists. We have been somewhat critical of the German Government's treatment of the scientologists. They have interfered, we believe, with the religious rights of many scientologists, among them American citizens and that's where we come in.

You know that Chic Correa and John Travolta and other noted American artists are scientologists. They have spoken out about this issue. Some Americans have had their religious rights infringed upon by the actions of the German Government.

There is another side to the story. Some of the scientologists have taken out full-page ads -- advertisements -- in the New York Times comparing the current German Government to the Nazi government. Those advertisements are outrageous and they are wrong. We have advised the scientology community not to run those ads because the German Government is a democratic government and it governs a free people. It is simply outrageous to compare the current German leadership to the Nazi area leadership.

We've told the scientologists this. And in this sense, we share the outrage of many Germans to see their government compared to the Nazis.

QUESTION: Nick, can you explain how you --

MR. BURNS: There's a follow-up, Barry, and then you ask your question.

QUESTION: Would you say that -- if you say there are some different judgments, would you go as far as to say that the treatment is actually a violation of human rights? Maybe just a different question. The German Government refers to testimonies by former members of the Church of Scientology in the U.S. saying that the church itself violates human rights and brainwashes members and there are a lot of accusations. That's something you don't take seriously?

MR. BURNS: We have listen to the German Government. We've had many, many discussions and an on-going conversation with the German Government on this. We have a clear position. We believe that the German Government ought to respect the religious rights of the scientologists and all other religious communities in Germany. Since America citizens are involved, we believe we have a right to say this publicly. I believe if you'll look at our human rights report that will be coming out in just a couple of weeks, you'll see some reference to this.

But we've also taken the position, Barry, with the scientologist that they've made a great mistake in launching this public relations campaign which incorrectly, obviously, and outrageously links the current German Government to Nazi-type behavior.

QUESTION: I was just going to ask you, how did you make this wish known that they don't persist on these ads? I mean the State Department.

MR. BURNS: I had a meeting in my office -- we've met with the scientologist community -- the Bureau of European Affairs has, and I have done it personally -- having encouraged the scientologists not to engage in this type of behavior. It's wrong.

QUESTION: One key difference appears to be that the German Government has taken the official position that scientology is not a religion but it's a cult, a specially closed word. We have had cults in the United States. Some have ended tragically. You disagree, then, with that definition?

MR. BURNS: Yes, we do.

QUESTION: You do not believe that it is a cult?

MR. BURNS: We believe that the scientologists have religious rights and that those rights ought to be respected.

QUESTION: Do you know what the criteria is for deciding what group is a religion?

MR. BURNS: Yes, obviously. This is a very important issue because there is a distinction between what one would normally recognize as a religion and cult. But we have chosen to think that they have religious rights - the scientologists - and therefore those rights ought to be respected. I can't cite those specific criteria, Judd, but I'm sure there are people in John Shattuck's bureau who can do that for you.

QUESTION: Nick, thanks a lot.

MR. BURNS: Thank you.

(Press briefing concluded at 12:41 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 Thursday, 16 January 1997 - 22:09:07 UTC