U.S. Department of State 95/09/21 Daily Press Briefing Office of the Spokesman U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING I N D E X Thursday, September 21, 1995 Briefer: Nicholas Burns FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Secretary's Meeting with Asst. Secretary Holbrooke re: Review of Situation in Bosnia/Holbrooke Itinerary ...... 1,3,4,8-9 11-12 Secretary's Meetings in New York on Bosnia ............... 1-2 Bosnian Serb Compliance with NATO/UN Requirements ........ 2 Situation in Sarajevo/Safe Areas/Fighting ................ 2-3,6-7 Contact Group Role in Peace Process ...................... 4-5 Status/Next Steps of the Peace Process ................... 5-6 Congressional Consultations re: Bosnia/Peace Implementation 9-11 RUSSIA Strategic Security Talks/Deputy Secretary Talbott's Mtgs with Russian Minister Mamedov ........................... 12 --Discussion of NATO Expansion ........................... 12-14 CHINA Under Secretary Tarnoff's Mtg with Chinese Vice Minister Li Zhaoxing Today and Tomorrow .......................... 14 Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeman Comments re: Possible U.S.-China Mtg/Issues to be Resolved/Taiwan ............. 14-16,18 U.S. Policy on Tibet ..................................... 17-18 U.S.-China Dialogue/Relations ............................ 18-19 TAIWAN U.S. Policy on Taiwan Participation in the U.N. .......... 16-17 JAPAN Okinawa Rape Case ........................................ 19-23 --Status of Forces Agreement Between U.S. and Japan ...... 19-23 IRAQ Iraq's Compliance with U.N. Resolutions/Sanctions ........ 23-24 COLOMBIA Cali Cartel Member Voluntarily Surrenders in U.S. ........ 24-25 DEPARTMENT Status of Court Ruling on Extradition .................... 25-26
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1995, 2:07 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: George? Q You said yesterday the Secretary is going to meet with Mr. Holbrooke today. MR. BURNS: Yes. Q Did they have their frank exchange yet? (Laughter) MR. BURNS: George, I wouldn't characterize this as a frank exchange. They had a very useful and productive meeting this morning. (Laughter) They had a nice meeting this morning, a very good meeting. The Secretary met with Dick Holbrooke at 9:00 a.m. this morning in the Secretary's office. A number of us were there. And Ambassador Holbrooke reported to the Secretary on his view of where the situation stands in Bosnia as a result of his travels through the region and his shuttle diplomacy among the various capitals. The Secretary and he discussed next steps. They had a second meeting later on, and there will be further meetings in Washington this afternoon about this subject of Bosnia. We are, of course, now looking to the future and hoping very much that the momentum that the United States has been able to give to the peace process can be sustained; and, indeed, it might even be speeded up. That's our very great hope for the future. Q Can you talk about meetings next week in New York, Bosnia- related? MR. BURNS: I still do not yet have confirmation on specific meetings for next week, so I'm not able to talk about specific meetings; but the diplomacy has turned, I think, towards New York. There will be a number of leaders from the Balkans in New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly next week. Secretary Christopher will be there. I think all of his Contact Group Ministerial counterparts will be there as well. So I'm certain that there will be a number of meetings, but I don't have anything specific to announce for you. Q Can I follow that? For better or worse, a lot of Dick Holbrooke's attention since Geneva revolved around lifting the siege of Sarajevo, getting beyond the exclusion zone, and then of course stopping or trying to stop the Bosnian-Croatian advance in central and western Bosnia. Does the focus now shift back to the agenda and to following up on Geneva -- that is, the more political aspects of diplomacy? Will that be the focus in New York? Is that fair to say? MR. BURNS: I think it's a fair question, and the way I would answer it is to say two things. First, the United States is pleased that the United Nations and NATO were able to reach the judgment yesterday, last evening, that in fact the Bosnian Serbs had withdrawn a sufficient number of weapons and types of weapons to have met the requirements of the agreement. That is a very good thing because it opens up the prospect that Sarajevo can now be a safe city. The people of Sarajevo, after four years of war, can actually have a peaceful winter. So we are encouraged by this. As the President said in his statement, however, last evening, we'll be watching very closely, and the Bosnian Serbs must refrain from all offensive -- any offensive -- military operations within the Sarajevo zone. They must continue to adhere to every aspect of the agreement. The roads must remain open. The airport must remain open. The humanitarian and civilian goods -- food and medicine, and furniture and tools, and that kind of thing must continue to flow into the city. That's very important. Now, hoping that the situation in Sarajevo will remain stable, yes, Joe, we're going to turn our sights once again the larger perspective of the peace process in Bosnia, which has as its starting point now the meeting in Geneva on September 8 which laid down the fundamental principles. Now we've got to work towards a peace conference. We've got to work towards a situation where the parties elect to sit down together and talk about their differences and talk about how they can resolve those differences and form a permanent peace. To date, until today, the parties -- Croatia and Bosnia, Serbia, the Bosnian Serbs -- had been talking through the United States and to the United States, to our negotiating team, about the Contact Group Map and Plan, about the constitutional challenges that will face a future Bosnia-Herzegovina that we hope will result from a peace conference. I think this phase will continue for some time -- this phase of the United States and our Contact Group partners being, in effect, the intermediary among the parties; but we hope to change that. So at some time in the future -- and it's very hard to predict when that will be in the future; it could be soon and it could be later -- some time they will elect to down together at a peace conference. That is our strategic objective here. That's what Secretary Christopher was discussing this morning with Deputy Secretary Talbott and Peter Tarnoff -- the Under Secretary of State -- and Dick Holbrooke, and others. As I said, those discussions are continuing here. There will be further discussions around town this afternoon. That's where we're headed. Q On that matter, can you tell us who's attending the White Houses meeting this afternoon, besides Mr. Holbrooke and General Shalikashvili? MR. BURNS: I don't want to put myself in the position of announcing a White House meeting or confirming a White House meeting, much less saying who will attend. Obviously, there's a high level, David, of interest in this issue and participation by very senior people in the Government; and there will be meetings today and tomorrow, but it's not my place to announce those meetings. Q Where is Secretary Christopher right now? MR. BURNS: He is sitting at his desk, seven -- Q What type of seat? MR. BURNS: How many floors away is this? Is this the Second Floor? Five floors above us. He's in his office. (Laughter). He's with a group of people, continuing the discussions that we began this morning on Bosnia. Q Can you give us a time? MR. BURNS: Excuse me? Q At 2:30 he'll still be there? MR. BURNS: No. He will not be there at 2:30. He'll be elsewhere in the city at 2:30, but I can't confirm where that location might be. (Laughter) Q We're not far. MR. BURNS: Excuse me? Q We're not far away. MR. BURNS: It depends on your perspective. (Laughter) Q Last night, in the Secretary's speech, he indicated that some members of the Holbrooke team would be heading back to the region soon. Can you tell us if anyone's heading back and who they are? MR. BURNS: Yes. I think this has been in the press this morning. A couple of members of Dick Holbrooke's team will be returning to the region this weekend -- Chris Hill and Roberts Owen. They are the key members of our team who deal with constitutional issues, and also with the Contact Group Map on the land issues. I'm not at liberty to give you their itinerary; I don't have their itinerary. I'm not sure I'll be at liberty at any time in the next two days to give you their itinerary. We normally haven't done that with Dick's delegation in the specific sense. The Secretary will be going to New York on Sunday night, and Peter Tarnoff and Dick Holbrooke will accompany him to New York for those meetings. Charlie. Q One presumes you'll get to the stage of peace talks. Does the United States have a view of its role? That is to say, would you accept a role just as a member of the Contact Group, or would you want a stronger unilateral role, or would you move the Contact Group out altogether and you convene it, or leave the three to convene it? Does the U.S. have a position on it? MR. BURNS: I don't believe that the Contact Group or the parties have decided on a specific logistical framework for a peace conference. We certainly have not decided on the venue for a peace conference -- where it will held or when it will be held -- but, Charlie, I think it's fair to say that the United States has assumed a leadership role. We've assumed a leadership role, certainly, since July -- since the London Conference -- and we'll continue that. We're going to work very closely within the Contact Group to pursue these issues. The relationship we have with the other members of the Contact Group is an important ingredient for our success, the success that we've had to date. I imagine that the Contact Group will stay together throughout this process as an intermediary among the parties, led by the United States. Q Nick, would you argue with the assessment that Mr. Holbrooke has had some success in his consultations but has been unable so far to convince the parties to have direct negotiations? MR. BURNS: I think a literal answer to that question would be -- I wouldn't argue with it, but I think there's a lot more behind that question, Sid. It's important, after four years of war, to know that we've only had three weeks of peace discussions, of a real peace process that has the legitimate prospect of succeeding some time in the future. In that respect, you might say that we are certainly not at the middle of that process, we're not at the end; we might be at the end of the beginning of it -- a beginning phase of it. If what is behind your question is a literal request for "where are we today," we're not at a peace conference. But if there is any implicit criticism that somehow we should have achieved more, I would beg to differ. What we have achieved so far is the following in the last two and a half months. It's useful to resume this. The West, led by the United States and NATO has stopped the Bosnian Serb offensive all over Bosnia; not only in Bihac but also most particularly in Eastern Bosnia -- in Gorazde. The West has relieved the stranglehold, for the most part, of Sarajevo and permitted a situation to develop where the people there have a chance to live in peace this winter. The United States has also initiated a peace process which has had a very successful first meeting, where first principles have been agreed upon, and we are now driving towards a peace conference. So I'm just taking the opportunity of the question to review where we are in time as of September 21. We've made tremendous progress. There's more hope now than there has been in four years for some kind of positive outcome in Bosnia. Q I should clarify. Does the United States think it's now time for a peace conference and the parties do not? MR. BURNS: No. If the United States thought it was time for a peace conference, we would have asked the parties to convene at some city -- which we have not done. Secretary Christopher, Ambassador Holbrooke, Under Secretary Tarnoff have been very clear with the parties -- all of them have been involved in these discussions -- that they need to agree on a common agenda for a peace conference. They need to make further progress on the issues that will lie at the heart of a peace conference before we can put our weight -- "we" in the Contact Group -- behind a peace conference. So that lies at some point the future -- the convening of a peace conference. We have not yet attempted to convene one and will not do so until the parties have made more progress. Steve. Q Are you on the threshold, do you think, in this interim period between the framework and the actual peace conference of reaching a cessation of hostilities or a cease-fire? MR. BURNS: I can't say that we're on a threshold, Steve. I don't believe we're that close. We certainly hope that the cease-fire around the 20-kilometer zone around Sarajevo -- within that zone, excuse me -- will be expanded to a nationwide cease-fire. In fact, that is one of the objectives of the agreement that was reached last Friday evening with the parties. We've not seen that happen. There is continued fighting in Central and Western Bosnia although, as I said yesterday, we do not believe that Banja Luka will be placed under military siege. But, certainly, the fighting there continues. There is fighting in Bihac which continues. There has been some sporadic shelling and gunfire around Sarajevo itself -- around the city environs. So we are a ways from that. We certainly want to reach that point. Now, is it an absolute precondition for a peace conference? We've never set that down as a condition. In fact, I would just remind you. We had a Geneva meeting while NATO was bombing the Bosnian Serbs. We had a very successful round of shuttle diplomacy while that was happening. We'll take a peace conference whenever we can get it, whenever the parties are ready for it and the time is right. We would like to have a nationwide cease-fire. That's up to the parties, and we're urging them towards that. Bill. Q To follow on that subject. There was some very good news today in the wires that the Croatians had stopped their offensive; in fact, were in retreat in northwest Bosnia; that the Muslims were also stymied by Serb defenses. My question is, does it appear that rather than cease-fire that the war is coming to a standstill throughout Bosnia? And would that be something that would promote the peace conference? MR. BURNS: Let me tell you what we hope and then I'll tell you what we think. What we hope is that the parties will turn away from fighting throughout Bosnia and turn towards negotiations. What we believe is that the fighting continues sporadically in Central and Western Bosnia. What appears to be happening is that the Bosnian Serbs are establishing defensive positions west of Banja Luka and that they're putting a considerable amount of military resources, personnel, and hardware into that defense of their central Serb city. We would hope that the fighting would now halt completely and that the peace negotiations might be given further impetus. Q Are you disturbed at all by -- there was a report of at least 1,000 paramilitary Serbs crossing the border heading into the Banja Luka area. Is that disturbing or destabilizing? MR. BURNS: Any description of a force like that is certainly disturbing to any government like ours that wants the situation to become more peaceful and less militaristic and less hostile, less violent. Yes, Mark. Q Nick, did Holbrooke give you any sense of the proportion of ground that he's already covered -- all the issues that would be taken up in a final agreement, and the amount of time that he needs, or that his people need, to act as intermediaries before face-to-face talks can begin? MR. BURNS: Yes, he did. This is a little like trying to follow events in Russia in early 1992. You've got to make sure that you're dealing with updated maps. In this case, Dick Holbrooke did bring what he thought was an updated map into the Secretary's office this morning. A good deal of their conversation early this morning centered around a map. Ambassador Holbrooke described for the Secretary how he thought the map had changed; how successful in many ways the Bosnian Croatian offensive had been in a military point of view in acquiring a lot more real estate over the last eight days than they had acquired over the last four years.. They had a specific discussions of some of the diplomatic challenges that now flow out of the changed configuration of the map -- where the forces are. So that was a big part of their meeting this morning, and he did bring that assessment to the Secretary. Q Did he give an assessment of the amount of progress that he's made so far? And what still remains to be done and how long it will take to do that? MR. BURNS: Yes, he did. That was the purpose of the meeting this morning, to really present his views on those three questions. Q And what were those views? MR. BURNS: Ah, that's a different question. This was a private discussion, not open to the press, in the Secretary's office this morning. Obviously, Dick Holbrooke was giving the Secretary his confidential views on his appreciation of the situation. The Secretary, in turn, gave his staff his own views as to how the situation must now be handled by the United States. The Secretary will obviously be in touch with the President and others here in this city about his advice for how we proceed. But that's all confidential. That's advice that's going to be given and, I think, received privately. Q You were there on our behalf? MR. BURNS: No, I was there on the Secretary's behalf. Now, I'm here on his behalf to communicate all this to you. You were not represented this morning, but I'm glad to say what I can say. We're in a period where it's appropriate for us now to assess what has been accomplished and what has happened over the past month -- these incredible events that have changed the map as well as the political situation and the psychology of the situation. We're sitting back now thinking about that, reflecting on where to go next. One thing is constant, and that is that there is a peace process that has been begun and we want to drive it forward. That's Secretary Christopher's strategic view of the situation. Q Has Holbrooke, since his return to the States -- meaning the last 48 hours, I guess -- had to talk to Milosevic to keep him restrained or is he not worried about Milosevic sending troops in anymore? MR. BURNS: We believe that with the Croatian and Bosnian commitment not to attack Banja Luka, and with the slowing down of the military offensive in the West -- in the central part of the country -- there's certainly no reason for the Serbian Government to involve itself militarily. We never thought there was a reason for them to do that, and we've called upon them not to do that. Q The question was, have you called upon them not to do that in the last 48 hours? MR. BURNS: I know that our Charge d'Affaires in Belgrade has certainly made that point to the government there. I don't believe there have been any personal conversations with Milosevic in the last 24 to 36 hours. Q (Inaudible) going over to the Balkans -- Roberts Owen, and who was the other? MR. BURNS: Chris Hill. Q This morning, General Shalikashvili addressed the size of a U.S. contribution to the peace implementation force should a peace accord be reached. Is there a sense of how soon U.S. troops would actually have to be on the ground once an accord is signed? MR. BURNS: This is really a very important question for those of us here. I know it's an important one for you as well. I think what is clear and what is easy to answer is that an international peace-implementing force will not be deployed until there is a peace to safeguard. There is not now a peace to safeguard, and that peace can only come as a result of a peace conference. Now, when will that happen? We just don't know. At some point in the future, we hope. We hope the parties get there. What size should the force be? Secretary Christopher spoke on the record this week about this. Secretary Perry has spoken to this, as well as number of others. Really, the honest answer is, we don't know and we won't know until we know what the shape of the peace is and therefore what requirements flow out a peace settlement for a military safeguarding of that peace. Where will the deployments have to be made? What will the mission be of these forces? Until we can answer those questions, the Pentagon and NATO will not be able to assess the manpower required for that mission. We have talked in the past about, certainly, a sizable international force. Certainly, we think that NATO would play a central role -- not an exclusive role, perhaps, but a central role -- in peace implementation. Q Can I follow on that? As part of a peace treaty eventually both combatant forces will have to redeploy at some point because the maps will change, and there's no doubt there will be troop movements. Does the U.S. have a view at what point NATO peacekeeping troops, including American troops, would go in? Would they go in before the redeployment of local forces to give confidence to them to redeploy, or after they've been redeployed so that there will be less danger to the peacekeepers? MR. BURNS: That has not yet been decided. That question will be answered when the peace conference appears to be on the verge of success. Q New topic? MR. BURNS: Any more on Bosnia? David. Q Does the President have the authority to send up to 25,000 U.S. troops to be involved in such a force without going to Congress first? I take it he does. MR. BURNS: When we thought in July that there was a prospect or a possibility of a NATO extraction force in which the United States would play a leading role, there were consultations with the Congress. Now that we are on the verge of another situation where there may be a need for a force to go in and implement a peace, as opposed to a defeat or a withdrawal, certainly the Administration will consult all along the way with the congressional leadership on that issue. That has begun. There have already been a number of conversations by senior officials of this government with senior members of the Congress on this issue. What we cannot yet advise the Congress, though, David is how many troops are we talking about, which troops and for which mission. Q (Inaudible) having chats with people and asking about whether there has to be a vote in the Administration's view, there doesn't, is that right? MR. BURNS: I don't believe we've thought that at any point along the way when we were considering the other alternative that there had to be a vote. There certainly is an obligation on the part of the Executive Branch to consult. Mark. Q Regardless of any action that Congress may or may not take, is this Administration committed to sending in that force to help implement a peace agreement? MR. BURNS: This Administration is publicly and privately committed to the parties and to our allies that we will be part of a peace implementation force, yes. Bill, still on Bosnia? Q Yes. I'm on Bosnia. Regarding the meeting this morning, can you tell us about the mood of those who were participating? Is this all seen as a success as we see it? Was there jubilation, and does this process -- this plan -- is this on track? Has this come off as planned pretty much? MR. BURNS: I'm glad you asked that question, because it gives me a chance to maybe knock down some expectations. No champagne yet. (Laughter) I think the mood -- certainly, the Secretary's mood -- I can speak to that -- as well as others in the room was one of determination that we have come a long, long way since mid-July -- the low point when Srebrenica and Zepa fell -- that the United States has made a tremendous difference through our diplomacy and through our leadership in military circles; and that our American pilots and American military technology has made a tremendous difference. There's a certain sense of satisfaction that we have helped to turn the situation around. However, there is no gloating here. There is no sense that we have achieved any kind of ultimate diplomatic success, because we haven't. The peace conference has not even been convened yet, much less successfully ended. Peace has not broken out. There's still fighting. People still have to live in safehavens. So I think the mood is one we need to press forward. We need to keep this up. We need to continue our efforts diplomatically. We'd like the situation now to really focus more on the diplomacy than on the fighting, and that's our counsel and our advice to the parties. Q The game plan is on track, I take it. MR. BURNS: I think our game plan -- our strategic objective of convening and successfully concluding a peace conference is ahead of us, yes. Q New subject? MR. BURNS: New subject. Q The Talbott-Mamedov talks -- how are they going? MR. BURNS: They're going quite well. Strobe Talbott and his delegation were at Annapolis yesterday. They held several hours of talks with the Russian delegation, led by Mr. Mamedov, and they are preparing for the meeting next week in New York between Kozyrev and Secretary of State Christopher. These are strategic stability talks. Some of the issues covered yesterday: The situation in Bosnia and all of its ramifications; what we call European security architecture, the process of NATO expansion, and there was a development on that score yesterday in Brussels, and the process of defining and developing a Russia-NATO relationship; START II; CFE; the Iran nuclear issues that we have discussed, and the issues of biological and chemical weapons. All of these are on the table. This morning the talks reconvened here in the State Department up on the 7th floor. They'll continue all day today. They'll continue into tomorrow. It's not possible, since we're just at midpoint, to give you a sense of where we're going to end up, because we're not at the end yet of those talks. Q On the development that you alluded to, vis-a-vis NATO expansion, can you tell us a little bit about the U.S. view of that, and what is next on that track? What's the next step? MR. BURNS: David, if you'll bear with me, maybe I can just go through what I think NATO accomplished yesterday. It's actually quite an important development. The North Atlantic Council formally approved the conclusions of a nine-month study on the rationale and process of NATO enlargement. This is a significant step forward within the Alliance's broader strategy for meeting the great security challenges that the West is facing and that, indeed, the East is facing in the post-Cold War world. You remember back to January '94 when the NATO heads of state decided that there would have to be a process of NATO expansion, as well as the process of engaging the new democracies in the East through the Partnership for Peace. Yesterday NATO announced a study that sets forth the rationale and the process of enlargement, in the vernacular, the "how and the why" of NATO enlargement. This study contains no timetable for NATO expansion, nor does it include a list of prospective members. As we have said from the beginning, the question of who will become a member of NATO and when that will happen -- when those members will be received into NATO -- is a question for the future that will certainly not be answered this year. The study contains the thinking of the NATO members on these issues. Now NATO will set out, beginning on September 28, to collectively brief the more than 20 countries in the Partnership for Peace. Then a NATO team will travel to all the capitals of the Partnership for Peace partners between September 28 and early December when there is the next ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council. This will be an attempt by us to brief the partners on what the requirements for NATO membership will be, which is an important process, because all these countries want to know what they must do and how they can prepare themselves for eventual NATO membership. So this is actually a significant development, but it does not answer perhaps the most appealing question to a lot of people, and that is who's going to get in and when is it going to happen. That's certainly not anything that NATO is currently dealing with. Q Do you expect, at the NAC meeting in December, to address those questions in any way? MR. BURNS: I think the NAC meeting in December will address the "how and the why." The ministers will be briefed in the first week of December on the results of the consultations that will take place in October and November between NATO staff and the Partnership for Peace countries. Q On the China talks, are you planning anything for us after they're over tomorrow? Either a briefing or at a minimum a readout, or are you going to low-profile this one? MR. BURNS: Perhaps at the briefing tomorrow we'll be in a position to talk about these talks -- talk about these talks -- (laughter). The talks begin later on this afternoon when Peter Tarnoff, the Undersecretary of State, will meet Vice Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, and then the Secretary will be meeting with the Vice Foreign Minister tomorrow morning. All that happens between now and our next session at one o'clock tomorrow afternoon. So we'll have something to say at that time on how these talks went. The Secretary, of course, is looking forward to tomorrow's meeting but also looking forward to his meeting next week with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Qian. Q Nick, what are your realistic hopes? What are the realistic results that you hope to achieve from the talks today and tomorrow? MR. BURNS: These talks are designed, really, to prepare for a successful meeting next week. What we hope is that the two weeks of discussions -- this week and next week -- will lead to a confirmation, both public and private, between the United States and China, that we have in fact left behind us a number of the problems that we encountered this summer; and that we have turned a corner in the relationship; and that we resolve together to move ahead on the really important issues in the relationship -- our economic relationship, our military discussions, our political ties and discussions, and, of course, the human rights agenda, among others. Q Nick, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said earlier today that the Taiwan issue would have to be resolved before the Sino- U.S. summit can take place, and he said that negotiations are starting today in Washington, referring to the Tarnoff-Li Zhaoxing meeting. How do you expect the Taiwan issue to be resolved? MR. BURNS: I don't believe that it will be resolved through negotiations. I don't think we'll be negotiating this issue, because our position is abundantly clear to China and our position is not going to change. I think we will have in-depth discussions of this issue. Taiwan will be one of the major issues discussed by Peter Tarnoff and the Secretary with their counterparts during the next two weeks. I think we've spoken definitively on this subject, publicly and privately. The Secretary gave an authoritative, definitive presentation on this topic on August 1 in Brunei. He has since communicated on a number of occasions with his counterparts. I think the President has made clear what our policy is. Our policy won't change. There's no need for negotiations. If there is a need for discussions -- and I think there probably still is a need for discussions -- we'll do that in the next two weeks. We want to move towards a summit. We have not decided to have a summit. We have nothing to announce by way of a summit, and a summit will be held if there can be a reasonable expectation that a summit can be a successful meeting. That's always the test of whether or not you decide to go to a head of state meeting. Q When you talk about no need for negotiation, are you -- mean specific on the fourth communique -- because there's a little confusion here. Before yesterday you have been talking for a couple of times from this podium that the U.S. would like to loosen and even discuss with Chinese when they propose fourth commmunique but did not include the so- called visa issue. But yesterday we read a press readout, "The U.S. are not negotiating a communique on any subject with China and have no intention to do so." Did they mean that there's a final position that the U.S. is not going to discuss with Chinese under any communique or joint statement, even though there's a summit ahead of us? MR. BURNS: I'm just trying to stay away from the word "negotiations," because it has a very specific import in diplomacy. Discussions are quite different. And we have said consistently that we'd be willing to discuss this issue. But there can't be any negotiations because our position is not going to change. We are not going to negotiate a fourth communique that would ask us to take a pledge never again to issue a visa to anyone from Taiwan. I think I did say the other day in a hypothetical sense, should the Chinese propose other ideas on other issues, of course, we'd listen to that. But on the issue of visas, it's quite clear there can be no fourth communique on Taiwan visas. There can be a discussion. But we've already made our views, in a very authoritative way, at the highest levels, clear. Q The visa question aside, do you have a fixed position, for example, on the possibility of Taiwan having some sort of association with the United Nations? MR. BURNS: Yes, we do. I'm going to give you the fixed position of the United States. It's so fixed that I can even read it. (Laughter) In the first line you'll be stunned to know it says, "United States policy on this question is well known." But let me go beyond that. (Laughter) Q (Inaudible) MR. BURNS: Let me go beyond that. Actually, it's not, I think, so well known, because I think we've seen through the questioning over the last couple of days that there's been some confusion on this. Let me try to put aside the confusion. The United States does not support Taiwan's participation in the United Nations. We could, however, accept any solution to this issue which is consistent with the United Nations Charter and which is agreed upon by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. We do support Taiwan's participation in certain economic, technical and other international fora in which statehood is not a condition for participation. For instance, our support for Taiwan's membership in the Asian Development Bank, in APEC, for its accession to the GATT on acceptable terms has been part of this particular effort to involve Taiwan in economic institutions. But on the question of the United Nations, our position is quite clear. Q Nick, come back to the communique issue. I know this is a very touchy word. Are you prepared to discuss -- not negotiate -- discuss a fourth communique that does not ban or does not touch upon the issue of visas for Taiwanese leaders? MR. BURNS: Okay. This is a trick question, but let me -- (laughter) -- I don't believe that China has put forward any proposals - - I'm not aware that China has -- for a fourth communique on any issue other than Taiwan visas. So speaking hypothetically, without any connection to the reality of our current political discourse with China, should China wish to offer other views on other issues, then of course we'd listen to it as a partner with China. But we're not going to be discussing visas. Q So beyond the visa question, the U.S. is going to discuss or even negotiating with China on fourth communique, is that right? Q The reason why we ask such questions is that China may ask the U.S. to state its position on Taiwan's U.N. membership or, you know, other issues, without touching upon the visa issue. So if China asks for a fourth communique, are you willing to discuss it or negotiate? MR. BURNS: I meant issues other than Taiwan. Q Taiwan visas. MR. BURNS: No. Let me broaden my answer now, now that you've asked a specific question. I don't believe the United States is interested in a fourth communique that deals in any way, shape or form with the subject of Taiwan, because our position on Taiwan is clear. It has been re-enunciated, reaffirmed, re-discussed over and over again this summer at the highest levels of our government in written form, in oral form, on the telephone. We've done it and we're not going to get into discussions on a fourth communique. But my only caveat here was, in answer to the other question, if on some other subject, some subject totally unrelated to Taiwan, China wants to discuss another communique, we'll listen. But we've made no prior commitment to go down that road. That's clear. I think that's clear. Q How about on Tibet? MR. BURNS: What's the question, a fourth communique on Tibet? No, we're not interested in that. Q Well, on that subject, if I might -- MR. BURNS: Because our position on Tibet is clear, and it's been re-articulated a couple of times during the last two weeks. We can even do that again today. Q No! (Laughter) MR. BURNS: It's so well known. Q The Chinese are still upset about President Clinton meeting the Dalai Lama last week. They've come out in one of their official newspapers saying the United States again creates trouble. It all seems to go back to the matter of what's autonomous Chinese territory. The Taiwan and the Tibet issues are very sensitive to them. So what -- will this matter be coming up today in today's discussions? MR. BURNS: If it does -- if the subject of the Dalai Lama comes up, we'll simply restate our position on our deep respect for the Dalai Lama, and the fact that we think it's entirely appropriate to meet with him. Q And I have one follow-up on that on something a little different. Will we be discussing today the summit arrangements as well as discussing the matter of the Foreign Minister and the Secretary of State's visit next week? MR. BURNS: We'll certainly discuss today, tomorrow and next week the issue of a summit, yes. But no decision has been made on a summit. Mark. Q If the Chinese want a summit, if it takes place, to occur in Washington and not New York, do you have a preference? MR. BURNS: If there is a summit -- if we make a decision to have a summit, then we'll have to address the question of where it will be held, and that's a decision really for the President to make, and he'll get a recommendation, of course, from the Secretary on that issue. But I can't flag how we're going to lean on that particular issue. Sid. Q Would the Administration consider the meetings today and tomorrow successful if China agreed to resume the human rights dialogue and the dialogue on the MTCR -- on its accession to the MTCR? MR. BURNS: Those would be good steps forward. Because one of the casualties of the Taiwan debate over the summer were meetings that we were suppose to have on non-proliferation -- specifically, on the potential Chinese missile sales -- sales of missile technology to Iran, and on human rights. They're important parts to this dialogue. We're not going to have a fully stable relationship until we can talk about those issues. They would be a step in the direction, Sid. Q I think the last time Shattuck met on human rights with the Chinese was January. So that wouldn't have really been a casualty of the Taiwan issue, would it? MR. BURNS: No. What I meant to say is, I think that's actually evidence to support what we're both talking about. Since the issuance of the visa to President Lee Teng-hui, a number of meetings were cancelled by China -- not by the United States -- including meetings that cover the two issues you asked about. So, if, as a result of the next two days or next week's meetings, China agrees to have those meetings, that will be a step in the right direction. That's, of course, not all that we would like to see happen. We'd like to see an American Ambassador in Beijing soon. We'd like to see the Chinese Ambassador back here in Washington, D.C. We have a number of other wishes for this relationship. Q You still want China to formally join the MTCR? Wasn't that step two of your agreement from last October? MR. BURNS: We've had discussions on that issue, yes. Q You said yesterday you saw no reason to revise the Status of Forces Agreement with Japan. Now the U.S. and Japan are going to review the agreement. Will you explain why you changed your position? MR. BURNS: We have not changed our position. I know that Ambassador Mondale met today with Japanese Foreign Minister Kono. Ambassador Mondale repeated the very deep regret of the United States Government over the recent rape of an Okinawan schoolgirl allegedly by, as you know, three American servicemen. Ambassador Mondale emphasized the outrage of all Americans regarding this deplorable incident. He said that the United States would continue to cooperate with the Government of Japan in bringing the perpetrators of the crime to justice. Ambassador Mondale noted that the American suspects have been and will continue to be made fully available to Japanese investigators. As provided for in the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Japan, the United States military will promptly turn over the three suspects to Japanese authorities once a formal indictment is issued. What also happened is that the Ambassador said -- Ambassador Mondale said -- that the United States Government continues to believe that there is no need to revise the Status of Forces Agreement between our two countries. However, in response to Foreign Minister Kono's direct request, the United States agreed today to a bilateral fact-finding study with Japan on the implementation of criminal jurisdiction procedures under the existing Status of Forces Agreement. So we have not changed our position. We have simply taken a step with the Japanese Government, and at the request of Minister Kono, to look into what is possible under the criminal jurisdiction procedures. I would also just note, there was a question yesterday that somehow there is anger in Okinawa that these three suspects are able to live a normal life. At least at this point, they're not. They're in the brig. They're in military confinement at Camp Hansen. They are not living a normal life. They are suspects in a very serious crime, and they are being treated as suspects in a very serious crime. Q Perhaps one of the problems here, a difference in Japanese and American law as to when one indicts a suspect. I understand that the Japanese don't usually indict someone until they have a pretty airtight case against them. Is that right? Is there maybe just sort of a legalistic misconnect here that is a problem? MR. BURNS: There isn't a perfect seam that has been formed between the two legal systems. They're quite different legal systems, but there is something that we do have in common -- that's the Status of Forces Agreement. There are parts of that agreement that do speak to the procedures that both countries must follow in a situation like this. I think the United States and Japan both understand that there are those current procedures. There's a separate question as to whether those current procedures are adequate. But certainly that's a question not for today. The United States believes that the existing Status of Forces Agreement is adequate and is logical. In saying all this -- in commenting upon all the legalisms -- let me just go back to the first point I made. The uniform reaction in this government is one of outrage at the fact that three Americans are suspects -- outraged and a deep sense, as Ambassador Mondale said, of shame that three American servicemen would be suspects in a deplorable action towards a young girl. So I don't want that to overshadow the discussions of the legalisms. The Ambassador has done a very good job in conveying the deep, deep feelings of the United States on this issue and our very, very great regret. That has been expressed to all the people of Japan. Q It's sort of a legal question, so maybe you can get an answer for us. But given the judge's ruling on extradition last week, I believe it was, would the United States technically be able to give those soldiers over to the Japanese if they were, in fact, indicted? I think, in a sense, it's U.S. territory on which they're -- MR. BURNS: Once a formal indictment is issued by the Japanese authorities, we have said that we will turn over the three suspects promptly. They are suspects. They need now to have a chance at a fair trial. But we will turn them over to the Japanese authorities once the indictment is issued. Q And that's consistent with the judge's ruling the other day on extradition? MR. BURNS: This is not a case of extradition. This is not a case of extradition at all. This is quite different. We're talking about servicemen who are in Japan as part of the defense alliance between the United States and Japan. There is an existing legal framework for their presence and for the presence of all of our tens of thousands of servicemen in Japan, and that is the Status of Forces Agreement. That is the relevant law here. Q A U.S. military base is not considered U.S. territory? MR. BURNS: Whether it's considered U.S. territory or not, Sid, we have an obligation under the law -- an agreement with Japan -- to take certain steps in certain situations. We have freely said that once the indictment is issued, we will turn these men over to the Japanese Government. There is no doubt about that. Q So you intend to go forward whether the court -- whether it's consistent with the court case or not? MR. BURNS: The court case on extradition has no bearing on this particular case in Okinawa. It is separate from it. Mark. Q Apparently, Japanese law does not allow suspects to have a lawyer present during questioning. Do you know if the United States Government is providing legal counsel to these three suspects? And if the questioning occurs on the U.S. base, are lawyers present for that? MR. BURNS: I don't know the answers to either of those two questions. They're logical questions. Why don't we talk with the Pentagon and see if we can get you answers to both of them. Q You said that the three are confined. Well, that's fine. But had they been allowed to roam around the base since they became suspects at any point? Was their detention in the last couple of days? MR. BURNS: Was it immediate or was it done late? Q Yes. MR. BURNS: I don't know the answer to that question. George, it's another answer I think that we in the State Department and Pentagon can get for you. I do know this. There was a rumor in Okinawa that somehow the men were free to live a relatively normal life pending judicial action and that is not the case. They are confined in a Marine facility at Camp Hansen -- a brig -- a Marine prison, if you will. Q So this commission that's being formed is going to be involved in discussions or negotiations? Or could we consider this commission to be a precursor to negotiations on the Status of Forces? MR. BURNS: The wording of this is a bilateral fact-finding study. It's certainly a mutual effort by the United States and Japan to discuss an issue that is very much in the minds of Japanese and the Japanese Government. We have such a good relationship with Japan, we're taking this step to demonstrate that and to leave no stone unturned so that we can -- this deplorable incident can be handled under a legal system the way it should be and then we can continue, we hope, a very close, productive military relationship with Japan. Q Is the fact-finding in terms of getting facts in order to change the Status of Forces, or if that's necessary? MR. BURNS: No. Fact-finding to inform the discussion, the on- going discussion between our two governments on the Status of Forces Agreement. Q Is the United States considering to turn over the U.S. military suspects in the future under the (inaudible) under the current agreement given the case is very serious? MR. BURNS: I believe that, at least our view on this particular case, has been that there should be an indictment of the three gentlemen who are suspects, and at that point they will be turned over. Q Were U.S. law enforcement officials sent out to help out in the investigation? MR. BURNS: I simply don't know. I don't know. Q Can you take that? MR. BURNS: We can look into that. We can take that question, yes. Q Iraq? MR. BURNS: Iraq. Q Will you take one more? MR. BURNS: Sure. Q An article in The Washington Times (laughter) -- alleging that the U.N. is witnessing that Ralph Ekeus is holding out on the U.S. on biological weapons information obtained from the Iraqis, I think voluntarily. Is there any validity to any of this article, Nick? MR. BURNS: Didn't see much. (Laughter) But let me be fair to Ambassador Ekeus, for whom we have great respect. He has done a tremendous job under -- I mean he's had to deal with the Iraqis, under very difficult circumstances. They've lied to him, and now they've revealed that they've lied to him in the past. He's done an outstanding job. We have great respect for him. Any inference in a newspaper that somehow he's holding out on us is simply wrong. I think on October ll Ambassador Ekeus will present a report to the Security Council on his findings, and we're going to listen to that report. The Security Council is going to have to decide: What are the next tests in the relationship with Iraq? Are they still withholding information; are they still lying to us? Have they uncovered all of their own lies from the past about biological growth material, about chemical weapons? I would just say that I don't think Iraq has a prayer of getting sanctions lifted as a result of the October ll report and debate in the United Nations, but it's the next logical step to continue international pressure on Iraq to get to the bottom of this amazing story of a country that was developing chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons just before the Gulf War broke out in August l990. For any Iraqi -- Saddam Husayn or others -- to think that somehow, now that they've admitted some of their lies, we're going to allow them off the hook -- they're badly mistaken. They don't have a prayer of getting off the hook on this one. There are a lot more questions that have to be asked. Q Do you have any more information you can share with us on the Cali cartel accountant who is in the United States, apparently of his own free will, to cooperate? Who's got him? This -- MR. BURNS: I'll see what I have today on Mr. Guillermo Pallomari. It's our understanding that Mr. Pallomari arrived in the United States and he voluntarily surrendered to United States officials. I would put the accent on "voluntarily." I cannot discuss our ongoing investigations or the identity of those people who may or may not be cooperating with U.S. law enforcement officials. It's a very serious case, and I think we'll get through this case most happily and most successfully if we don't say much about it in public. Q When did he arrive? Q Is he in Washington? MR. BURNS: I believe he arrived just yesterday. Sid is saying "No" -- which leads me to believe that I'll go back and check my facts on that one. (Laughter) I thought he had arrived. Q I didn't mean to correct you. MR. BURNS: He's arrived recently, and we are able to give you his name. I think the crucial fact here is that he arrived voluntarily, and we'll check on exactly what day he arrived. Fair enough? Q I think he is under indictment in a Florida court and he has been charged, as I understand it, on that crime. Can you say whether he's in jail, when his case is going to be -- what's going to happen with his case, so on and so forth? MR. BURNS: I can not. No, I can't discuss his case. Yes, I'm sorry. Q The Colombian Government is considering to extradite this person. My question is if the United States will also consider this case, despite our recent court ruling about extradition. MR. BURNS: That's a good question, and the answer to the question is: At this point, the United States Government has filed in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia a motion for a stay and a notice of appeal of the District Court's September l5 ruling, and we're waiting for the Court of Appeal's decision on our motion for a stay -- which we're anticipating shortly, it says in the margin here. As you know, we are also appealing the August 3l ruling of the District Court, and as we go through this process we now can not surrender individuals against whom surrender warrants have been issued - - at this point. But we are hopeful that we will have, very shortly, a decision on our motion for a stay. If that decision is positive, then, of course, we might be able to take normal action. We have to wait for the judge's decision in this case. Q How long does it normally take? MR. BURNS: It's always hard to predict, and we're hoping this will be answered shortly. Q Two weeks -- three weeks? Months? MR. BURNS: I just don't know. I just don't know. Q Okay. Q Thank you. (The briefing concluded at 3:02 p.m.) (###)To the top of this page