HR-Net - Hellenic Resources Network Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read the Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations (30 January 1923)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Tuesday, 17 October 2017
 
News
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  Announcements
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Hosted
  Mirrored
  Interesting Nodes
Documents
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  Constitutions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Other
Services
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts
  Tools
  F.A.Q.
 

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #16, 97-01-30

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

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


1350

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

January 30, 1997

Briefer: Nicholas Burns

DEPARTMENT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
1		Welcome to Ms. Lazar, Spokeswoman of the Romanian
		 Foreign Ministry
1		Public Announcement on Abu Marzook
1		Release of the Department's 1996 Country Reports of Human Rights
		 Practices
1-2		Statements Re: Burma and Detentions in Nigeria
2		A/S Kornblum's European Travel
10-11		Secretary Albright's Travel Plans
NATO
2-3		Romania's Candidacy for NATO membership
12-14		NATO Expansion
PEACE PROCESS
3-4		Negotiations Between Syria and Israel
UNITED NATIONS
4-5		Possibility of Permanent War Crimes Tribunal
GERMANY
5		Human Rights Report/Church of Scientology
CUBA
6-7		White House Reports
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
7-9		War Crimes Tribunal/Compliance with Dayton
		 Accords/Train & Equip
PERU
9,15-16 	President Fujimori's Talks in Toronto/Hostage
		 Situation/Prison Conditions
CHINA
12,14-15	U.S.-China Talks Re: Human Rights/Attitude
		 Re: Hong Kong/
16-17,18	Religious Freedom/WTO Membership
TURKEY
14,22		Human Rights Report
TERRORISM
17-18-19	Rewards Program/Case of Abu Marzook
COLOMBIA
19-20		Human Rights Issue/Certification Decision
ARGENTINA
20		Alleged Human Rights Abuses
BRAZIL
20-21		Human Rights Record
SAUDI ARABIA
21-22		Possible Sale of F-16s
PAKISTAN
22		Human Rights/Elections

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #16

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1997, 2:06 P. M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BURNS: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. Thank you for waiting today. I want to introduce a very special guest. Gilda Lazar is the Spokeswoman of the Romanian Foreign Ministry. She is spending three days with us to see how the American press works and how we prepare ourselves to do battle with the American press on a daily basis. She is most welcome. She'll be with us tomorrow as well as, I hope, part of next week. So welcome. Nice to have you with us.

A couple of things before we go to questions. I wanted to make sure that you saw last night a public announcement that the State Department issued on the extradition of Hamas official, Abu Marzook. We talked about it in the briefing yesterday. Last evening, we simply issued an announcement which said that lawyers for Hamas political leader Abu Marzook announced yesterday that he's withdrawn his challenge to extradition to Israel. The State Department has no specific information regarding threats against Americans. Hamas has no prior history of targeting U.S. citizens or facilities, but we can't discount the possibility of random acts of anti-American violence in the Middle East.

This is an announcement really for American citizens. It's not a political announcement. It doesn't bear on the case of Mr. Abu Marzook, but I thought it was worth noting because we didn't have a chance to talk about it yesterday.

We've talked a lot of about human rights today. We've issued our annual country reports. The United States wishes to reiterate, in the case of Nigeria, it's grave concern over continuing and new detentions of people without charges in Nigeria. We are urging the Nigerian Government to release all prisoners detained for political reasons and to account for all detainees. We call for their release to their families or the commencement of rapid and fair trials in regular courts of law consistent with international standards of due process.

The reason we're issuing this statement today, which you can find in the Press Office, is because just recently over the last couple of months the Nigerian Government has detained three former Presidential candidates, apparently without charge, and only because of their opposition to the current government. The detention of these individuals for essentially political reasons is inconsistent with the supposed transition to democracy which the Nigerian Government likes to talk about. I refer you to this statement that we're issuing today.

A couple of final notes. Assistant Secretary of State John Kornblum and his interagency team are departing for Rome this evening. They'll participate in a Contact Group meeting on the Balkans tomorrow in Rome. Mr. Kornblum will then proceed to Romania for discussions on bilateral issues with senior Romanian officials, including Prime Minister Chiorbea. He will take advantage of that opportunity to express the very solid United States support for Romania's progress in democratization and on economic reform.

He will then travel to Sarajevo where he's going to be chairing a meeting of the Federation Forum. He's scheduled to return to the United States on February 4th.

I also will be issuing a statement on Burma. The United States deplores the attacks by the armed forces associated with Burma's State Law and Restoration Council -- the SLORC -- on unarmed civilians in three ethnic minority refugee camps in Thailand on January 28-29. The attackers set fire to two of the camps, destroying the homes and belongings of more than 10,000 ethnic Karen refugees. The attacks resulted in three deaths and several injuries. Among the victims were Thai civilians.

The United States calls on the Government of Burma to cease its support for repression and violence against the ethnic minorities and to respect international humanitarian principles and their obligations towards refugees inside of Thailand. This is a particularly outrageous act by the SLORC and the groups that work for the SLORC.

Having said all that, Barry.

QUESTION: Is Romania a potential candidate for NATO?

MR. BURNS: The United States has not excluded any country that is a member of the Partnership for Peace from NATO membership. We've not yet decided in NATO which countries will be invited in Madrid next summer, in July, to participate in negotiations towards membership. We'll be working that out within NATO over the next couple of months.

I'll tell you, we've been impressed by the progress that Romania has made politically and economically. We've been impressed by the commitment that Romania has made to the Partnership for Peace.

In saying that, I'm not indicating that they're a leading candidate or not a leading candidate. All Partnership for Peace countries are candidates for NATO enlargement in the future.

QUESTION: Well, we know what was on the on-deck circle, and I just wondered if the circle has been enlarged. The same three or four countries are always mentioned. I don't know why. Presumably, because they've advanced in their market systems and in their democratic institutions. You're saying such nice things about Romania, I wonder if Romania is now on the same level with Hungary?

MR. BURNS: I'm saying nice things about Romania for two basic reasons. One, the Romanian Government deserves it because of the reforms they've put in place and we have an outstanding Romanian Government official with us. We always want to be polite. But I don't think she wants to come to the podium today.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Southern Command?

MR. BURNS: She hasn't asked. I don't believe she's asked. You haven't asked for the Southern Command, have you? It's an inside joke, really. The Romanian Government has made very important progress and we need to recognize that.

Barry, the United States Government has never designated anybody of being in the on-deck circle for NATO enlargement. But we will be working that out with our NATO allies over the next couple of months.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about Syria and Israel? An extension from yesterday. Maybe not as lengthy as yesterday. Mr. Halim Khaddam, number two, I guess, in the hierarchy in Damascus -- maybe two or three -- two, probably -- has now said that when negotiations, if and when they resume with Israel, they ought to continue where they left off. Now, he's not saying there's an agreement, as far as I understand but he is saying -- after all, the two sides spoke for sometime, maybe over several years -- and that even though there's a new Israeli Government, let's pick up where we left off.

What does the U.S. think of that, or does the U.S. think it's a brand new deal if they ever get them together, they can start from Square One?

MR. BURNS: First, I've not seen the comments by Mr. Khaddam and, therefore, I don't want to comment on them, particularly. But I will try to answer your question, Barry. It's a good question.

The President said the other day at the White House that we want to be helpful to Israel and Syria in helping them move towards peace negotiations. Now, if that happens, if Syria and Israel decide to sit down together, perhaps with the United States with them at the table, then President Asad and Prime Minister Netanyahu will have to make a decision about what is the basis for those negotiations; what is the agenda for the negotiations; what's on the table; what's not on the table. They're the only two people that I know of who can make that decision.

But we believe, now having seen the recent progress on Hebron, that it makes sense for Israel and Syria to consider seriously the resumption or revival of the negotiations that took place last year in the United States. We'd like to make that happen. We will exert all of our efforts to try to make it happen.

But, fundamentally, Barry, it's going to depend upon the actions and the will of Syria and Israel to see that these negotiations are revived. We cannot make that decision for them.

QUESTION: I understand. But the policy line has been calibrated just a little bit differently, a little more specifically. Mr. Berger had a session with the reporters yesterday and said it isn't enough to hope and to want to have peace, but we want the parties to engage in worthwhile negotiations. Of course, he says this -- to the two parties, and only one of the parties is coming here and it's not Netanyahu, and he'll be here pretty soon. It's kind of a message to Netanyahu, but it's a message to both.

Would it be worthwhile for them to start where they left off, or again does the U.S. say it has no position; it's up to the parties to decide if they sit down, when they sit down, where they pick up?

MR. BURNS: It is fundamentally up to Israel and Syria to determine that particular question. If they do wish to talk to each, they've got to decide the basis of those talks.

QUESTION: (inaudible) spoke about creating a permanent force for apprehending them, trying, I guess, war criminals. Can you give me a sort of status report on that, and how does it relate to the existing War Crimes Tribunal?

MR. BURNS: This is an idea that has been talked about and discussed internationally for quite some time, for a very long time in fact, and it's been an idea that we in the Clinton Administration have at least discussed internally. The President obviously referred to it yesterday. It is an option for the future. We're not aware of any specific proposal, at least in the coming months, but it's certainly an option in the future. In the meantime, as Secretary Shattuck said, we will be concentrating our own efforts on supporting the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal and the Balkans War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. We've done so very specifically with money, with advisers, with people from our own government who've gone to work for those Tribunals; and, as you know, we are considering a variety of options to strengthen the ability of both Tribunals to make sure that the people who are indicted actually end up in the dock on trial. That's the objective.

QUESTION: Nick, tell us about the trip --

QUESTION: Follow up on that. Has not this idea been discussed not only internally but also in NATO and in Europe --

MR. BURNS: You mean the idea of a permanent tribunal?

QUESTION: Not a permanent tribunal but a force to go after --

MR. BURNS: Well, that's a different question.

QUESTION: Okay. Alright. Then let me segue to - going to the idea of a force to go after war criminals.

MR. BURNS: Charlie, the United States wants the people indicted for war crimes in Bosnia to be put on trial and prosecuted. We have supported the efforts of Justice Louise Arbour to strengthen the tribunal. In fact, she'll be here in the Department tomorrow morning to discuss the issue of the tribunal with Secretary of State Albright, and we look forward to that meeting.

We are reviewing a number of options that would allow all of us internationally to provide greater support to the tribunal, but I don't want to get into those options.

QUESTION: This year's Human Rights Report on Germany documents far more extensively than in previous years German Government discrimination against members of the Church of Scientology. Is this expanded coverage an indication that the discrimination against both German and American Scientologists has in fact grown worse over the past year?

MR. BURNS: The Human Rights Report on Germany for 1996 we think is a good and balanced report. There are some very positive trends in German society. These are not particularly the actions of the government but the actions of the German people. There's been a downward trend in violence against foreigners, and that's for the fourth year in a row -- a 50 percent reduction compared with 1995.

There's a downward trend in anti-Semitic acts. That has been continued in 1996. The overwhelming majority of the perpetrators of both anti-foreigner and anti-Semitic acts are frustrated, disaffected youths. They're on the fringe of German society. They don't represent the bulk of the German people. There was a decrease in the numbers of allegations of police brutality.

I think we as Americans need to point out what is positive on the German human rights scene. On the Scientology question, I would urge you to read the report very carefully. There was some advance reporting in the press here in the United States about what would be in the Scientology report, and you will notice that some of the strongest language in the newspaper reports do not appear in the human rights reports issued by the Clinton Administration.

The report that we have issued today continues to express concern of the United States over the treatment of Scientologists in Germany, particularly American Scientologists. In this regard, we note the call by a youth wing of one of the major political parties for a boycott of the film "Mission Impossible," because its star, Tom Cruise, is a Scientologist. We here in the State Department gave that four stars, two thumbs up. We think it's a good movie. We would encourage Germans to watch it, and we don't believe it's proper to see that movie banned anywhere in the world. It's a good product of Hollywood -- American cinema.

There was also a resolution by one of the German political parties that Scientologists be subjected to police surveillance. Fortunately, the German Ministry of Interior decided that that was not proper or permissible under German law, so we need to be balanced in our assessment of this question. We will continue to note our concern about the treatment of Scientologists in Germany. But I know I've said this before -- but I feel compelled to repeat it again -- the Scientologists in the United States, associated with some Hollywood moguls and Hollywood stars, have taken out full pages of advertisements in the International Herald Tribune, in The New York Times, asserting in The Washington Post, asserting that the German Government's treatment of the Scientologists in 1996 is comparable to Hitler's treatment of the Jews in the early period of Hitler's rule in 1933 and 1934.

This is an outrageous, inaccurate historical claim. The German people and the German Government deserve better than this. The German Government, of all the axis governments in the second World War, has done a very fine job, from Conrad Adenauer to Helmut Kohl, in educating the German people about the evils of Naziism, and Germany has overcome it, and Germany is a free and democratic country and does not deserve this kind of ahistorical, inaccurate criticism from Americans or from others.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. The human rights violations, as you document in your report, in Germany, would you consider those to be a violation of the international human rights accords to which Germany is a signatory?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe we've said that, and, if we felt that, I think we would have said it. We have been concerned by the treatment of Scientologists. But, look, in the great scheme of things in the world -- look at the rest of -- many of the other reports that we've issued today. The problems in Germany are in no way comparable to problems in Iraq and in Sudan or in China or in Iran. You know, countries that have severe human rights problems. Let's put things in perspective here.

QUESTION: Mr. Shattuck referred to these reports on Cuba that was published by the White House two days ago. Do you have any reaction what the impact been of these reports in Europe or in Canada, and the Cuban Government has already said it is an effort to destabilize the Cubans.

MR. BURNS: You'd expect the Cuban Government to say that, because the Cuban Government does not like it when people stand up and tell the truth about the Cuban Government. The report issued by the White House, mandated by Congress, attempts to do one thing. It's a message to the Cuban people. When you join the rest of the hemisphere in a transition to democracy, you will be supported by the United States and by other countries and by international financial institutions. The report even says we think there will be billions of dollars in assistance available to Cuba and to the Cuban people once communism ends and democracy takes over, and that's inevitable, because Castro cannot continue to be the relic that he is forever. Communism is not going to take hold in Cuba forever. Some day democracy will return, and we simply wanted to point out the advantages to the Cuban people and the support that they will have when they march down that road towards democracy.

QUESTION: So the other countries have no reaction yet, no comment yet?

MR. BURNS: We seem to have gotten the attention of the Cuban Government. That's nice to see.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: No, this is about the Cuban report. They've commented upon it. They don't like it. Well, that's tough. They don't like it because they're a totalitarian country that doesn't like it when people tell the truth or exercise freedom of speech, but we Americans believe in that, and we'll continue to tell it like it is on Cuba.

QUESTION: Nick, speaking of telling it like it is, Madeleine Albright has said that she was giving the Tribunal her full backing. Shattuck was asked to explain what that meant, and his answer was a little mushy. Could you explain exactly what does that mean? Does that include --

MR. BURNS: Let me defend my good friend John Shattuck. He is anything but mushy on the subject of human rights. He's been quite specific. Secretary Albright will be meeting Justice Louise Arbour, who runs the-- as you know, is the Chief Prosecutor for the Commission -- tomorrow. They will discuss a continuation, of course, of what the United States has already done to support the Tribunal. We're the leading financial contributor to the Tribunal. We have secunded over 20 U.S. Government employees, most of them attorneys, to provide the staff for Justice Arbour, so that we can prosecute the war criminals from the Balkans, and we are examining additional options to strengthen the ability of the Tribunal to prosecute the people who committed the atrocious war crimes throughout the Balkan wars.

So I think that's pretty specific. That's what our agenda is, and I know Secretary Shattuck - Assistant Secretary Shattuck was referring to that in his very specific and I thought very appropriate comments.

QUESTION: But does this full backing include the idea of using a military force to round up the war criminals?

MR. BURNS: I couldn't possibly comment on anything specific like that; just to say that we are considering a variety of options. We want to strengthen the ability of the Tribunal to prosecute war criminals.

QUESTION: Nick -

MR. BURNS: On this issue? Why don't we stay on this issue.

QUESTION: The Dayton Accord already has mechanisms in it to take care of the event where you don't have cooperation by the parties. You've had a letter from the Serbs, saying they're not going to hand over Mladic or Karadzic. Mr. Tudjman continues to have indicted war criminals living in Zagreb. Those mechanisms in the Dayton Accords call for the reimposition of sanctions on the Serbs and possibly the imposition of sanctions on anyone else who doesn't cooperate. Is that mechanism, which exists, one of the options that's being looked at?

MR. BURNS: It is an option available to the international community, but that is a decision that only the combined members of the community on the Security Council can take. But let me tell you, John, Mrs. Plavsic made a statement the other day that they wouldn't comply with the Tribunal. Well, she's fundamentally not in compliance with the Dayton Accords if she says that, and we've reminded her of the signature of her associates on the Dayton Accords, both from Dayton and from Paris -- first.

Secondly, the Bosnian Serbs have found out because they're not complying with the War Crimes Tribunal that they're not receiving much of the billions of dollars of international assistance that Carl Bildt, the European Union, the United States and others, are delivering. So the Bosnian Government is going to receive a lion's share of that as long as the Bosnian Serbs are fundamentally not in compliance, and that gets to your question on war crimes.

In addition to that, we've told Mr. Milosevic that there's no chance of the outer wall of sanctions, which deny him IMF and World Bank support, there's no chance of them being lifted if he continues to flaunt the Tribunal. We've raised very specific concerns with President Tudjman and the Croatian Government about the repeated failure of that government to turn over certain specific individuals who we know are living in Croatia to the Tribunal.

The only government that has a positive record is the Bosnian Government is Sarajevo, which has turned over a Moslem citizen to The Hague for prosecution, and which by and large has cooperated with the Tribunal and the rest of us. I think we ought to take some time to commend the Bosnian Government for its commitment to justice here.

QUESTION: At the same time, we just agreed to sell 15 helicopters to Mr. Tudjman. I don't know what kind of message that sends. Second of all, in the arm-and-train program, a lot of that -- the arms and the money -- are going to the HVO, of whom the indicted Bosnian Croats were either civilian or military leaders. So there seems to be a bit of a tangle here in terms of messages that are being sent.

MR. BURNS: I don't see the tangle, because, first of all, the equip-and- train money is directed towards making sure that there's no more war; that there's no incentive for the Serbs -- the Bosnian Serbs to start another war. That I think stands on its own two feet.

Secondly, the equip-and-train money is directed at the Federation military forces, and Ambassador Jim Pardew gave a press conference in Sarajevo yesterday where he detailed quite specifically where that money is going, and it's not going to go to war criminals.

Third, the ambition of the Croatian Government is to be accepted as a full- fledged member of the European and international Western community, and we've said repeatedly that its behavior on war crimes issues will be a determinant of whether the United States supports that process.

So I think we have, John, sent a stiff message to Croatia as well as Serbia about the war crimes issue.

QUESTION: (inaudible) about the special forces White House confirms. There is a consultation about special forces, but you said nothing --

MR. BURNS: I would just draw you to Secretary Albright's comments on television on Sunday, and that the fact is we want to strengthen the ability of the Tribunal to be successful. We're looking at a number of options, but we've not wanted to be specific about that, and I can't start doing that today.

Yes, different?

QUESTION: Yes. President Fujimori of Peru will be coming into Washington this Saturday. Can you confirm whether Secretary Albright will be meeting with him and whether the hostage situation in Peru will be debated during the meeting?

MR. BURNS: We obviously have seen the reports that President Fujimori will be meeting on Saturday with Prime Minister Hashimoto in Toronto. I am not aware that the Peruvian Government has advised us that President Fujimori will be coming to Washington.

If in fact he is, I'm sure he'll be warmly received, but I'm just not aware that there is a request for that officially. So I would direct your question to the Peruvian Government, and in the meantime, if we hear from the Peruvian Government, I'll let you know.

QUESTION: Nick, are you going to be able to announce --

MR. BURNS: I just want to --

QUESTION: The hostage situation -- has it been discussed recently between the Peruvian Government and the U.S. Government? You still have a team down there.

MR. BURNS: Ambassador Dennis Jett, our Ambassador in Lima, of course, is in contact with the Peruvian Government on this. Our policy hasn't changed on this issue. We obviously support the efforts of the Peruvian Government to have this terrible situation ended peacefully. We call upon the hostage- takers to release the 72 hostages immediately and unharmed.

We understand that there's a possibility of some direct talks between the government and the hostage-takers. This refers to the establishment of a commission, and we hope that those talks -- face-to-face talks -- will start as soon as possible. We're hoping for a peaceful resolution of this situation, and we're going to continue to hope that the hostage-takers don't succeed, and that these people are released unharmed.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Still on Peru? No. I think Norm had prior place here first.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask if you were going to announce the Secretary's trip, which Secretary Shattuck seemed to suggest you would be going to do?

MR. BURNS: Oh, the Secretary has already announced the trip. She announced it last Friday. She said she'd be taking a trip around the world, to Europe and Asia. We have not been able to be more specific with you --

QUESTION: Dates, places --

MR. BURNS: -- since then and I'm not going to be able to be specific today. Let me just tell you where we are. I talked to Secretary Albright just after noon. She is still looking at a couple of things -- the sequencing of the trip, the final dates of the trip, and we're still talking to several of the governments involved about the trip. Once we complete that process, once the Secretary makes a final decision on the dates of the trip, the order of the trip -- it's going to be both in Europe and in Asia, so it's a circumnavigation of the globe -- and we have final agreement with all the governments on the schedule for the trip, then we'll be very pleased to announce it to you.

I would expect that would happen, probably in the early part of next week. But I cannot confirm any of the particular countries nor the schedule, but I will get that to you as soon as I can, because I know a lot of you want to make plans.

QUESTION: (Multiple questions) she's coming.

MR. BURNS: Because I'm not in a position to do that, because I talked to the Secretary today, and all the decisions pertaining to this trip have not been made. Frankly, announcements of American Secretaries of State trips are normally made in Washington, D.C., by the State Department itself, and I think we'll just -

QUESTION: (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: Normally. That's a prediction that we'd like to continue here in the Albright regime. We announce the trips. We announce the dates. We announce the countries. We believe in -- we're traditionalists.

QUESTION: When you announce the dates and the countries, which all of us know anyhow, could you -- (laughter) -- could you tell us -- there may be --

MR. BURNS: I don't know. I've seen some things in the newspaper that are just not right about the trip. I'm going to keep you all guessing.

QUESTION: Okay. Maybe you can pack more countries in.

MR. BURNS: You never know. We're very unpredictable.

QUESTION: Maybe one a day may be too easy.

MR. BURNS: We like to keep you in suspense.

QUESTION: I'm not in suspense. I'm doing my laundry. Nick, can you --

QUESTION: Is India on the --

QUESTION: No, India is not. Nick, can you talk about -- if you can't talk about the places, I think the philosophy of this is very interesting, and maybe you can address that, because, after all, despite your lack of a formal announcement, a lot of people are writing about this trip, the notion of -- the selection of the countries seems to be -- even if you won't talk about them -- seems to be sort of different from the past. There seems to be less protocol and etiquette and more going to the places where the action is. Can you discuss in any way, without violating any of your self-imposed rules as to specificity, how she's making this selection? Why instead of going to Canada, Mexico or the 16 NATO countries, she's spreading her net further and going to places that the U.S. relationship isn't always so pleasant.

MR. BURNS: First, Barry, without confirming anything that you've said, let me just say that Secretary Albright, when she met with you on Friday in this room, said that she'd be going to key foreign capitals. There's been a long-running debate in American society about whether or not we're an Atlantic power or whether or not we're a Pacific power. Secretary Albright believes that we are both, and that both Europe and the Pacific are important to us economically, strategically, militarily and politically.

Therefore, it was her idea -- her personal idea -- as her first trip as Secretary of State overseas, she ought to undertake a trip that encompassed both of our strategic areas of vital interest -- Europe and the Pacific. So she'll be going to capitals in Europe. She'll be going to several capitals in Asia and the Pacific.

I think that reflects the fact that she believes that we are a global power with global interests, and this argument about whether Europe or the Pacific is more important is really not an argument worth having, because they're both important, and there's no need for us to choose. We're going to be operating under her leadership very aggressively in both areas.

I think there's something symbolically quite important about her selection to make her trip to both continents. But I also would just respectfully submit that she ought to have a couple of days to nail down the final details of this trip before we service it publicly. You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers, despite what my parents taught me when I was a kid. You know, they said, "Read the newspapers." But now I find that sometimes I read the newspapers, and there are inaccuracies. Not in your columns -

QUESTION: No, no.

MR. BURNS: Barry, I would never criticize you.

QUESTION: China. Could you give us some kind of an update on what's going on with these talks between the Chinese Government and the U.S. delegation regarding human rights concessions?

MR. BURNS: The talks are proceeding. Sandy Kristoff and Jeff Bader, Peter Eicher and others are proceeding with their talks. I expect they'll be back next week and report to the Secretary and others in our government. It's our tactical decision not to talk about the specifics.

QUESTION: Mr. Shattuck seems extremely sort of not optimistic about the way --

MR. BURNS: I think the best assessment of -- the best description of the human rights situation and our perspective on it came from President Clinton the other day in his press conference. He spoke quite forthrightly, and I direct you to his remarks on the human rights situation in China.

QUESTION: But it's the feeling that China is really not going to make any concessions, and the end result is going to be that the U.S. is going to co-sponsor this, because --

MR. BURNS: You heard Assistant Secretary Shattuck repeat the formulation that we have used on that issue. Secretary Albright has not yet made a specific decision on that question, nor can she until we have further discussions with the Chinese and further deliberations with the Europeans and further discussions within our own government. But at the proper time she will make a decision, and we'll move forward.

QUESTION: What were some of the substance of the talks with Leon Brittan on that issue?

MR. BURNS: As I said yesterday, there was a very good discussion with Sir Leon Brittan and with Foreign Minister Hans van Mierlo about the issue of human rights in China, the responsibilities that Europe and the United States share to promote human rights around the world.

QUESTION: Was the Dutch Foreign Minister persuasive in his strong statements? By the way, I didn't realize that he had said this to the Washington Times, too, there, and he said it before us that he thought a lot of consideration had to be taken of -- that a lot of consideration had to be given to the sensibilities of the Russian people and Russia. This thing I keep asking about, a lot of us keep asking about, you know, the Kozyrev notion, don't build -- not only Kozyrev -- don't erect new "Iron Curtains." Don't humiliate the Russian people by spreading an alliance whose work is basically done to Russia's borders.

Is the U.S. moving -- have the Europeans made any dent, and particularly the Dutch Foreign Minister, in U.S. thinking on that subject? Where is this -- where does it stand now? I mean, I don't hear the word "charter" anymore -- the Christopher notion there will be a special charter, was it, with Russia? I forget what the word was, but we --

MR. BURNS: Let's talk about the charter.

QUESTION: Where are we?

MR. BURNS: It's important.

QUESTION: Tell us where we are.

MR. BURNS: Secretary Albright had a rather long discussion with Foreign Minister Van Mierlo here the other day about this issue, and I'm very pleased to report that as a result of that discussion there is no question that all 16 members of NATO, including the Netherlands and the United States, agree with the decision that NATO will be expanded; that the decision to invite new members into NATO and to identify them publicly will be taken at Madrid from the 7th and 8th of July. No one disagrees with that.

I think what Foreign Minister Van Mierlo has been saying publicly about the need to be sensitive to the historical view of the Russians is embedded in our strategy. President Clinton in January 1994, when the decision was made to expand NATO in Brussels, went on to Moscow and gave a speech at the Ostankino broadcasting center where he talked about the following.

Europe will be peaceful, united and stable in the 21st century if the following things happen. NATO is expanded, moved eastward; new members taken in from the formerly communist countries. Number one.

Number two: NATO and Russia engage in a discussion for negotiations over a charter that would define the military relationship between NATO and Russia and keep that relationship stable and peaceful.

Number three: That NATO will reform itself and modernize itself internally. And I would point to the decisions taken at the Berlin meeting of the North Atlantic Council in June of 1996 that identify those issues. All that is happening, and I understand that Secretary General Solana will be having his second negotiating session with the Russian Government on the charter on February 23rd in Moscow.

QUESTION: The word is still "charter."

MR. BURNS: The word is still "charter."

QUESTION: That ties relations --

MR. BURNS: If it's not a charter, it will be some kind of understanding or treaty. It has to be.

QUESTION: I think there's some legal --

MR. BURNS: It has to be identified and negotiated between NATO and Russia --

QUESTION: Not a pat on the back.

MR. BURNS: -- and Secretary General Javier Solana is the principal NATO negotiator on this issue, and the United States has great trust in him. So, Barry, I think it's all happening, and I don't see any distance -- appreciable distance -- between the European members of NATO and the United States on this question.

QUESTION: Nick, about the Human Rights Report. When I looked at the Human Rights Report and the Turkish part, you never hesitate to name, for example, the minority as a Kurd or the other groups. But, on the other hand, when you look at the Greece part, you are very careful to not name to (inaudible) minority as a Turk, and also in your report is mention about some Turkish language secondary school. I wonder which ethnic minority group (inaudible) is it French, Italian or according to your report?

MR. BURNS: Savas, I would just say that the United States has had -- for many years has publicly discussed the issue of human rights in Turkey, and we continue that today with the publication of this report. Those are serious concerns, but it does not diminish in any way our respect for the Turkish Government and people, and the fact that we have an alliance relationship that will continue. I think it's Turkey's foundation as a secular democracy --

QUESTION: (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: A secular democracy, Savas. That will be very important as we continue our efforts to bring Turkey into Europe. We want the European Union and others to be open to Turkey and to bring it further into the Western system so that Turkey will be firmly embedded as a Western country.

QUESTION: That answers the question?

MR. BURNS: That answers the question.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

MR. BURNS: I answered his question. It did, Barry. It did. It answered it the way I wanted to answer it. (Laughter) You don't have a right of review, Mr. Lambros. We're going to go on to other issues.

QUESTION: On Hong Kong, which I don't think has been mentioned yet. How does this report, the Human Rights Report, inform American foreign policy regarding China and Hong Kong -- I'm looking at the facts or the implication that China's record on human rights doesn't appear to have improved over the last year. How does this report inform foreign policy with Hong Kong?

MR. BURNS: I would direct you to President Clinton's comments on that specific issue, because I always want to be specific in answering reporters' questions. President Clinton spoke to your question the other day. We have continuing concerns over the treatment of the residents of Hong Kong, over the maintenance of their civil liberties as we approach reversion on July 1.

As the President said the other day, we have continuing concerns, and they have not abated over the performance -- the behavior of the Chinese Government towards its own people. This is a major issue in U.S.-China relations and will continue to be. It is not the only issue in U.S.-China relations. There are many others.

As Ambassador Sasser has been saying publicly over the last couple of days, we need to have a balance in the relationship. China is too big a country to have a relationship with the United States centered only on one issue.

So we'll continue to talk about human rights. Secretary Albright says she'll tell it like it is on human rights, but she and others will also be concentrating on the economic and political and military issues that we must discuss with China to have a stable relationship and a peaceful relationship.

QUESTION: Nick, to follow --

MR. BURNS: Excuse me, I think there's a follow-up.

QUESTION: If Secretary Albright does go to China, as is expected, is this like something that will come up in her talks with the Chinese Government, and specifically will she discuss --

MR. BURNS: Again, I cannot confirm Secretary Albright's visit to China. When the time comes to announce her trip, we'll talk about where she's going. But, when she does meet Chinese leaders, wherever that may be, she will raise the issue of human rights -- certainly -- along with all the other issues in the relationship. A delegation this week is discussing a wide variety of issues, which includes human rights but is not solely human rights.

QUESTION: A follow-up.

MR. BURNS: Yes. I think we have a follow-up in the back.

QUESTION: The Human Rights Report criticizes Peru for its prison conditions and military tribunals. Are you concerned that this could undermine President Fujimori in the hostage crisis?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe it will undermine President Fujimori's, we hope, successful actions in this hostage crisis. We've had long-standing concerns. We've made them public. We have an obligation to make them public, about some of the conditions in which American citizens are held in Peru, and in the way that American citizens have been tried -- sometimes by military tribunal, not by civilian courts.

I don't believe this should have any impact whatsoever on our hope for a successful, early and peaceful release of all the hostages.

QUESTION: If President Fujimori were to come on Monday, would human rights be brought up in the discussions with the President?

MR. BURNS: We'll have to see what President Fujimori's travel schedule is. If he does come, I'm sure that the issue of the hostage situation will be the leading issue.

QUESTION: Nick, if I might, on the human rights issue, especially that of freedom of religion, I'll read from this report briefly: "In China, the government intensified its policy of severely restricting and bringing under official control all religious groups, including Christians, Muslims and Buddhists." It further says here under religion, generally, "A disturbing aspect of the post-Cold War world has been the persistence and in some cases the intensification of religious intolerance, religious persecution," etc.

My question to you is, Nick, what is the trend currently based on this human right reports and past reports? Is there now a decline in religious freedoms worldwide? Is it going in the wrong direction?

MR. BURNS: First, on China, as you know, our report talks about the repression of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists which is of great concern to the United States. Secondly, as Secretary Albright said to you just a couple of hours ago, she's going to be attending the first meeting of the Special Commission that we have formed here that does look at the issue of the persecution of various religions around the world -- of Christians, of Muslims, and in some cases, of Jews, of Buddhists, many other religions. She'll be attending that.

John Shattuck has formed a group of eminent Americans and others to look at that. I think that speaks to our commitment to religious rights.

QUESTION: Does this Department feel is the current trend in religious freedom --

MR. BURNS: We always hope that the trend will be positive, and we'll work towards that.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Nick, I have two questions. One has to do with China. The U.S. has said that they don't feel that China is ready yet for entry into the WTO. Does your decision on that -- is that impacted by the human rights report? Is human rights part of your assessment of their readiness to enter this organization? And I have a follow-up.

QUESTION: On the question of WTO membership, which is one of the leading issues, currently, in U.S.-China relations, the United States has said quite consistently that our market access concerns must be dealt with in a satisfactory way, both in the WTO talks but also bilaterally between the United States and China, before the United States can actually vote for the accession of China into the WTO.

We support the objective of China becoming part of the WTO. But our market access concerns must be addressed. In that context, I should note that we have repeatedly discussed, as Ambassador Barshefsky did yesterday, the issue of agricultural products which are of particular concern of the United States. This is no surprise to the Chinese Government. We've talked to them extensively in private, and I'm sure our delegation in Beijing has repeated this concern this week.

QUESTION: On something entirely different. The U.S. has something called the Hero Program which rewards people who give information that leads to the capture of terrorists and others that the U.S. Government is looking for. How effective do you believe this program and others are?

MR. BURNS: Our program saves lives. It helps prevents acts of terrorism. It helps put terrorists behind bars. Just in the last couple of years, we, in the State Department, have paid out over $5 million to over 20 individuals who have given us important information that has helped us and other governments to locate terrorists and to bring them to justice.

I would note, specifically, the case of Mr. Ramzi Yousef. This program played a critical role in the arrest of Ramzi Yousef who has been, of course, responsible for the World Trade Center bombings.

I understand that we received on our Internet address, which is www.heroes.net, 50,000 inquiries a month from all over the world, people who think they have information about acts of terrorism that have been committed or may be committed.

Interestingly enough, we have now the ability through the Internet to reach countries, which are state sponsors of terrorism and which in the recent past have not allowed the Department of State to take out advertisements in their newspapers, to advertise the Heroes Program. I'm thinking specifically here about Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

When we want to catch a terrorist, one of the things we do is, we advertise the fact that in the case of the two Libyans who bombed the Pan Am flight in December 1988, killing 269 people, there is a $4 million reward for each of these individuals for anybody who can give us information that would allow us to capture these individuals and bring them to justice here in the United States -- a $4 million reward.

Now, in previous years, we haven't been allowed by some of these rogue states to advertise this program in their countries but they can't stop the Internet, because they can't shut down the phone lines. So through our program on www.heroes.net, anybody in those countries can let us know if they have information about the two Libyans who killed 269 people or the other people who may have been responsible for terrorists acts. This is one way where we've tried to modernize ourselves in the Department and make sure that we can have technologies serve the larger interests of the United States.

QUESTION: Do you know how many hits have come from these countries or what interest is shown --

MR. BURNS: Fifty thousand log-ons per month -- 50,000 people --

QUESTION: Worldwide?

MR. BURNS: Worldwide, into our internet - our Home Page on terrorism, on the Heroes Program. We've encouraged people in Iraq, Iran, Libya, who may be reading this briefing on our Internet address, www.state.gov. We encourage all those people who will be reading this tomorrow in some of these rogue countries -- let us know if you think you have information and access our web site, our home page, and we'll get back to them. Isn't that terrific way that technology can help us catch criminals? It really is.

QUESTION: It's a good jobs program, too. On the first question, WTO, I'm not sure you answered whether China's performance on human rights helps or hurts or --

MR. BURNS: I very specifically noted --

QUESTION: It doesn't have any impact, does it?

MR. BURNS: -- that market access concerns are the critical factor in determining the position of the United States on that issue.

QUESTION: Right, not how you treat your own people.

MR. BURNS: Market access concerns.

QUESTION: Same topic.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: You noted at the beginning that Hamas is not targeting Americans specifically. But Musa Marzook, yesterday, through his lawyers, did raise a few grievances and complaints about the American legal system. Members of his family and some members of Hamas did react directly in threatening Americans that if he will be extradited, there will be consequences. In light of that, and the fact that the lawyers formally announced that they will draw their legal effort to halt this extradition, what is the script, the scenario of the decision-making process now in the next two months? And I'm asking you because Justice is referring questions back to State. What will be the decision-making process about timing, about who has the final say, and when this will happen?

MR. BURNS: First, good question, Chaim. I just want to note that the process here is the following. The issue of the case of Mr. Abu Marzook is before the Justice Department. It's a law enforcement case, a judicial responsibility. The State Department has not been asked to take action on this as of noon today, when I last spoke to relevant people here. So we'll just have to wait to see how this case proceeds on a judicial basis before the State Department can take any action whatsoever. It's not on the Secretary of State's desk. It's not on the desk of anybody here in the State Department.

But the reason for issuing the public announcement is simply to alert American citizens of a possible ramification of the case of Mr. Abu Marzook.

Secondly, I should say, we have noted some rather irresponsible and wild statements made by certain supporters of Mr. Abu Marzook about threatening terrorist acts against American citizens. Anyone who threatens terrorist acts against American citizens ought to think twice because we have a fundamental obligation to protect American citizens wherever they are and all the reasonable governments with which we deal. That includes, by the way, the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority are dedicated to making sure that terrorism is a thing of the past in the Middle East.

We've received very good cooperation from the Palestinian Authority on the issue of terrorism, generally, as we have from the Israeli Government.

QUESTION: Colombia is a country that's had a problem with human rights in the past. Also, it's a country that's watching very closely what you're reported in the human rights report, with issues like certification coming up. How do you see the situation in Colombia in terms of human rights?

MR. BURNS: First, on Latin America in general, the trends are positive over the last several decades because democracy is ascendant and there's only one autocratic regime left -- Cuba.

On specific countries -- Colombia, of course, is a country that deals with a variety of internal problems. I think we note in the report the problems associated with paramilitary violence and sometimes the activities of local police authorities. We obviously will assist the Colombian Government in whatever way we can to improve the situation.

QUESTION: (inaudible) regarding freedom of the press in Colombia also?

MR. BURNS: We have a worldwide concern for freedom of the press. That pertains not only to Colombia but to every country in the world.

QUESTION: Since the Government of the United States -- the certification is pre-close. Colombia is waiting for positive certification -- decertification, actually. It seems like the

United States doesn't trust the military forces in Colombia, according to this report. Also, it can damage the possibility the certification (inaudible). What is your comment about that?

MR. BURNS: These are two different processes. The human rights reports are an objective assessment of the situation in the country. The certification decision is totally dependent upon the actions of the Colombian Government in fighting narcotics trafficking and the cartels. It's a different question. We will be making a certification decision -- a decision on certification on the issue of certification. I don't know what decision will be made. That will be made by Secretary Albright and by Ambassador Gelbard and others in this government.

QUESTION: The military forces -- in their report about the military forces, is it going to affect

or is it going to --

MR. BURNS: I understand why you're asking the question but I just don't want to anticipate a decision. We can only roll out one report at a time. Today is human rights day. We'll have a narcotics day shortly. Then we'll have a terrorism day.

QUESTION: Is the report going to affect somehow the decision about certification?

MR. BURNS: It's a good question, but I do want to separate human rights - - the question of human rights report from narcotics certification. They are separate. We'll take all factors into consideration when we make our decision on narcotics.

QUESTION: Following up on Latin American human rights. Last Saturday night, in Argentina, there was an assassination of a journalist in Mafia-like style. Looking at the reports on human rights in Argentina, you just notice two trends. Two comments. One, in '96, there were several attacks on journalists. I would add, none of them were solved. The second point is police brutality.

This journalist was investigating the police in the province of Buenos Aires. Because of the timing, I don't think it could possibly been included in this report. I would ask you if you have any comment, if there is a possibility of --

MR. BURNS: It's certainly a legitimate question. Let me look into it and try to get you an answer. I'll talk to our -- I'll probably direct you to Lee McClenny and Tom Casey in the Bureau of Interamerican Affairs. Just a couple more questions.

QUESTION: How would you rank Brazil in relations in human rights in relation to the other countries and in relation to last year? Would you say, according to the definition of countries in transition, that Brazil was a country in transition or a country in full democracy?

MR. BURNS: First, I don't wish to compare one country to another. The case of -- Brazil is obviously a great country. We've noticed some concerns about the status of street children and about police violence.

But let me just say, President Cardoso is an individual who suffered from human rights discrimination in the past, someone who personally is aware of what it's like to live under a government that is not a government of laws. He has, of course, presented a human rights plan to the Brazilian people. He has appointed a human rights ombudsman. Because of his own personal experience and because of his own enormous credibility, we are not in a position to question him. In fact, we support very much what President Cardoso has done. He's a man of great, great credibility. He has an excellent relationship with this government.

QUESTION: So do you see any improvement from last year?

MR. BURNS: Anytime the President of a country fundamentally dedicates his government and people to improve the human rights situation, as he has done, we have to applaud that. So we applaud the efforts of President Cardoso.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. My second question. You see Brazil as a democratic country or a country in transition?

MR. BURNS: Brazil is certainly a democratic country. It's a country that is modernizing in many ways. It's a very good friend of the United States. Secretary Albright had a very nice discussion with Minister Lampreia two days ago. Secretary Christopher visited Brazil last year. Brazil is in the forefront of the countries with which we want to have improved relations. We have a good relationship already.

Just a couple more questions. It's getting very late.

QUESTION: How important are these reports of democratization in Latin America? In other words, how much of a role -- you said that that trans- Latin America have been positive this year. How much of that was due to reports such as these or U.S. pressure on the region to democracy?

MR. BURNS: It's due to the Latin Americans. It's due to the people of Guatemala who have overcome their civil war; it's due to the people of Nicaragua who had a free and fair Presidential election. It's due to the people of El Salvador who are celebrating their fifth anniversary of democracy and freedom.

The people of Latin America have liberated themselves and made themselves into democracies, and I think we have to respect that.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia: Do you have anything on a U.S. sale of F- 16s?

MR. BURNS: To Saudi Arabia? I know that we've been discussing the question of military modernization with the Saudis. As you know, we have an extraordinarily close relationship with the Saudis.

Our military has worked for years with the Saudis on military readiness. Saudi security is vitally important to us. There have been discussions between U.S. industry and the Saudi Ministry of Defense on the possible replacement of the Saudi F-5 fleet. Those discussions continue.

That said, I don't believe we've received here in the U.S. Government any official notification of an intention to purchase F-16s. If we do receive a request, we'll, of course, review that with the Pentagon. We do have these ongoing discussions. I just wanted to note them.

Yes, Ugur.

QUESTION: The two groups of countries mentioned by Mr. Shattuck, one in those that the record went for the positive developments; the other one is going downhill. Turkey was not in either group. Here, in the report, it says the report was uneven and deteriorated in some respects. So your (inaudible) overall assessment in Turkey, the situation is the same as the year before?

MR. BURNS: Yes, it is, essentially.

QUESTION: Essentially, it's the same?

MR. BURNS: We continue to be concerned by a variety of human rights problems. But we'll continue to have an excellent relationship with the secular democratic government of Turkey.

QUESTION: This is despite the fact the pages devoted to Turkey -- 41 pages -- is second longest after China. You are still saying that the situation, basically, remains the same?

MR. BURNS: We have continuing concerns that we've expressed on an annual basis. Those concerns continue. It's important for us to document as best we can the situation in Turkey. But I do want to point to the fact that we'll have a responsible and cooperative discussion of these issues with the Turkish Government. We hope to see an improvement in the performance on human rights, but we have an alliance relationship that I don't want to put into any question.

We really have to leave. Last question. Very quickly, and then Mr. Lambros is going to have the last word.

QUESTION: Elections will take place in Pakistan on Monday?

MR. BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Also, the problem is the human rights report (inaudible) Pakistan. Also, every two to three years, the government in Pakistan are dismissed.

MR. BURNS: We understand there will be elections. The election campaign, we understand, has been relatively low key and largely free of violence. We hope that the people of Pakistan vote in great numbers and vote freely and fairly. We're not going to involve ourselves in any way in the elections. We are simply going to observe them happening. There will be some international observers, including a U.S. team from the National Democratic Institute. We always support democratic, free, and fair elections.

Mr. Lambros, last word.

QUESTION: How large is the Greek minority in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia since there is nothing in the report. To my surprise, you (inaudible) and ethnic Turks but not even one Greek. Why?

MR. BURNS: Do I get $400 or $800? This is a Jeopardy -- it's a factual question. I'll be glad to ask the Greek Desk to try to give you our best assessment. I don't have the answer on top of my head, so I guess I don't win Jeopardy today.

(Press briefing concluded at 3:03 p.m.)

(###)


U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
Back to Top
Copyright 1995-2016 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 Friday, 31 January 1997 - 2:59:11 UTC