THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Arusha, Tanzania)
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 28, 2000
PRESS BRIEFING BY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SAMUEL BERGER,
NSC SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS GAYLE SMITH
AND SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE GREAT LAKES,
FORMER CONGRESSMAN HOWARD WOLPE
Arusha International Conference Center
Arusha, Tanzania
9:38 P.M. (L)
MR.CROWLEY: Can I have your attention, please? We've got a very
narrow window here as the event is wrapping up. But to kind of detail
what has gone on with the Burundi peace process, we have Sandy Berger,
the National Security Adviser, assisted by Gayle Smith, the NSC Senior
Director for African Affairs, and Howard Wolpe, who is the Special Envoy
for the Burundi peace negotiations.
Sandy.
MR. BERGER: Thank you, P.J. I particularly want to acknowledge
former Congressman Wolpe, who has been the President's Special Envoy for
these negotiations for five years? Four years? It seems like forever.
What we have witnessed today is an important step forward in an ongoing
process to establish a secure peace in Burundi.
As you heard, this negotiating process has been going on for quite
some time; and finally, as a result of leadership first of President
Nyerere and then President Mandela, an agreement was drafted, and today
has been signed by 14 of the 19 parties, including the government,
including all of the Hutu parties and including all of the major - the
largest Tutsi parties. The other parties have indicated that they are
not ready to sign today, given the kind of nature of how things
developed over the last 24 to 48 hours. They have not have sufficient
time to review the changes that were made, but I think people are
hopeful that they will sign the agreement.
When we arrived here earlier today, we honestly could not have told
you exactly what would transpire when that meeting convened. There was
a lot of discussion still going on among the parties, and I think that
that discussion with many of the regional leaders, together with the
quite extraordinary one-two punch that the parties heard from President
Mandela on the one hand, I think, castigating the lesser angels of their
nature, and President Clinton appealing to the better angels of their
nature, I think altogether, caused a critical mass of parties to agree
to sign.
The two major issues that have been the last sticking points - and
then I'll ask Gayle and Howard to describe this in more detail - the
relationship with implementation to the cease-fire; of course, there is
no cease-fire at this point, and a number of the parties were concerned
that they not begin an implementation process until there was a
cease-fire. And second, the transition period and the nature of the
leadership of Burundi during that transition period.
To some degree, those issues were clarified in the last 24 hours,
to some degree, they remain still to be discussed. And I think as you
heard, this process will continue and the reservations that have been
expressed by some of the parties will be addressed over the weeks and
months ahead.
The last thing I would say is, again, I think this is an important
step in a very intractable -- and during conflict, we should not have an
illusion that this ends all of the problems in Burundi. This is, again,
a step in a process which hopefully builds confidence and leads over
time to a new social fabric in Burundi by which people can live in a
greater degree of peace.
Let me ask Howard to add anything, and Gayle.
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: This has obviously been a very difficult
process. I think there was an expectation of agreements being reached
even earlier than they were reached in testimony to how tough the
negotiations were. Given the intractability of the conflict, the levels
of fear and insecurity, it's understandable.
I think that the document - all the parties now understand the
document as an invitation to the armed rebel groups not presently in the
negotiations to now become part of the negotiations for a cease-fire,
because that is absolutely indispensible, obviously, if there's going to
be any basis for a secure peace. It is very important now that they
have essentially all of the major parties on board a political framework
that provides now much more reason for the parties, or less excuse, I
should say, for the armed rebel groups to stay apart from the process.
So we certainly join with all of the regional leaders and with all of
the Burundian parties assigned in saying it's time now for the rebels to
come to the table, be part of the process and contribute to a secure and
peaceful Burundi.
MS. SMITH: I would just add one other point, which I think is
quite significant in terms of what has happened here over the last 48
hours, which is that, as you've observed, there are a number of heads of
state who have joined President Mandela here from around the sub-region
and as far away as West Africa. Their reason for doing so is, I think
they clearly recognize the intractability of the Burundi crisis, but the
serious effects for the entire Great Lakes region. The fact that they
have lent their weight to this process and through the course of the
last two days have, themselves, been involved in helping the mediation
move forward has been significant, and I think contributed a great deal
to the parties getting as far as they did today. That's the only think
I would add.
Q What's the next step here? I mean, we leave in sort of a
point of limbo.
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: Well, there are two main outstanding issues
that need to be resolved. One is the issue of the transitional
leadership - who will lead the transition. The second is the issue of
the cease-fire. The facilitation team has pledged to bring the parties
together, the -- rebel groups, the government in the shortest possible
time, and so that is one part of moving forward. Probably in South
Africa is the venue of those talks.
The other question of the conditional leadership with be for the
Burundian parties themselves to continue to negotiate and then to come
to a consensus decision on. And the agreement that has been signed
stipulates that that process is to be concluded within a 30-day period.
Q Excuse me, I'm sorry, but the process to go forward now is the
process spelled out in the agreement signed today despite the fact that
there were some groups that didn't sign.
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: Exactly. Exactly. And we would certainly have
a - the critical mass. I think really, the significant interests are
all now identified with this political framework. And now, there are
other issues still in contention, some details to be worked out. But I
must say, within the last 48 hours, enormous progress was made. The
pressure, the deadline, the constant pressure on the parties to begin
talking seriously, really began two weeks ago.
The first face-to-face discussions were among the principals. And
when you think back two years ago when people were so demonized on each
side of this ethnic divide, that it was impossible to even contemplate
them coming to one room together, this is really a very significant
achievement, a very important step forward. But it is just that. It is
a step that hopefully now will produce other important steps as well.
Q But how do you go forward with a peace process if five parties
to the agreement haven't signed it, or five parties involved in the
process haven't signed it?
MS. SMITH: Well, I think there is an important qualification
there, number one. They have said that they will not sign this evening,
but they haven't ruled out the possibility of signing. They wanted more
time to review the agreement and the stipulations that have been agreed
to today.
The other thing that I think is important, and this applies to
those parties as well as to the rebels as how it suggests - they have
signed on to a political agreement, a political framework here that
enables them to resolve the outstanding issues, including the tough
issues of cease-fire and transitional leadership. Those five parties
and the rebels now have a process into which they can come, and I think
it will be interesting to watch those five parties over the next several
days, at least, as this process unfolds, and we sincerely hope that they
will recognize that there's something in it for them to engage over the
next month.
Another important point here. Those five parties are small,
Tutsi-based parties from what is called the G-10 - the major Tutsi
political parties have signed onto the agreement. Yes, obviously in the
government.
Q But President Clinton and the rest of the leaders stayed for
only seven of the parties - at that point, did it seem like only seven
parties were going to sign?
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: As I said earlier, I think when we arrived, the
President met with President Mandela and then with President Buyoya.
This was very much a work in progress. And I think some of those absent
parties were in rooms in the back with other leaders who were part of
the facilitation team trying to iron out last issues.
I think the fact that the meeting - the President came - the fact
that the meeting convened became an essentially ultimately
action-forcing event for a number of those parties.
Q President Mandela seemed to be urging the government and the
other Tutsi groups to put pressure on the ones who didn't sign and
perhaps to isolate them. Is there any prospect with these groups to be
isolated and perhaps even cut out of the process and the process going
forward without their involvement?
MS. SMITH: Let me just make a brief point and then Howard has
obviously worked this on a day-to-day basis. But that applies to both
the five small parties that didn't sign, but also to the rebels in what
was stipulated this evening. In other words, is now a framework, and
those parties which choose not to participate, there is agreement
significantly that they will not be afforded the benefits, including
participation in government. So that potential isolation would apply to
both rebels on the Hutu side of the equation or the small Tutsi parties.
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: When you see the final document, you will see
in the cover of the document, of the front part of the document, what
was referred today as a chapeau. Language that says very clearly that
if young rebels, given this opportunity, are not yet prepared to still
come forward, that there is an expectation that the parties can prevail
upon the international community, the region, to put all possible
pressure and to make very clear that there is an expectation out there.
There's no excuse for the continuation of the war.
Q Couldn't you interpret President Mandela's remarks about the
cease-fire and the Hutus holding on to their arms as somewhat in
contrast to what you just said?
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: No. In fact, in other times that President
Mandela has spoken to the assembled Burundians, he has usually
oftentimes distinguished between the commitment to lay down arms in
advance of a cease-fire and the importance of once you've gotten an
agreement, to suspend hostilities and even finally to cease hostilities.
And in fact, he has cited at times the South African experience in that
regard where the, as he pointed out today, the ANC never abandoned the
principle of the right to hold arms, but you may recall, the ANC itself,
suspended hostilities in advance of the final agreement in order to
create the confidence and the conditions necessary for the agreement
that finally emerged. And he, himself, makes that distinction.
Q So essentially you have secrets?
MR. BERGER: The agreement, which we have today, framework
agreement, cessation of hostilities, which hopefully then can lead to a
negotiated cease-fire and whatever kinds of disarmament provisions might
be included in that.
Q I have several questions - small ones. First, how many
foreign leaders ended up showing up today? Anybody know?
MS. SMITH: I think at last count, we had -
MR. BERGER: How do you define a leader?
Q Anyway, you -
MS. SMITH: We had 13 heads of state and several foreign ministers.
So I think you could easily say that 20 governments were represented at
very high levels.
Q And a semantic question. You said that we have an agreement
now. There is an agreement, even though there are people not signing?
I mean, how do you -
MR. BERGER: I would say there is a framework agreement that has
been signed by the vast majority of the parties, except for the handful,
the smaller parties that didn't sign and the Hutu rebels who are still
outside the regime.
Q And just one last small question. When did these people sign?
Was it after the one-two punch, as you called it?
MR. BERGER: Yes.
Q It was after, when the signatures actually happened?
MR. BERGER: Yes. It literally was happening as we were walking
over again, as we were getting to the concertina wire to get to the
press.
Q So no -- signed before that, or some people had signed before
that?
MR. BERGER: No one had signed it.
MS. SMITH: Nobody had signed. There were different indications of
whether they would sign or not. But the formal signing took place after
the remarks by President Mandela and President Clinton.
Q Based on the fact that it was a snap decision for some of
these parties to cave in under that kind of rhetorical pressure, and
they may not have so much influence on events on the ground, what should
the international community do if there is either violence sustained or
escalated as it has been in the last few weeks as a result in the coming
days and weeks and months of this agreement?
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: First of all, we don't want to assume that that
will, in fact, be the scenario that unfolds. There have already been
some preliminary contacts between two of the armed rebel groups and the
facilitator. There was even some preliminary contacts between the FDD
and the delegation of the government a month ago in Arusha. So there
are indications of an interest in beginning to engage. So we're not
going to assume the worst.
But if, indeed, they were to stay out of a process that is so
clearly defined, that has such clear, broad support of the largest part
of the Hutu and Tutsi leadership in these negotiations, then I think
that you will find that the region will be joining in unanimous fashion
pressing the international community to do everything possible to
isolate and essentially to marginalize people who are refusing to permit
peace to go forward.
MR. BERGER: Let me answer - that's a very good question. A couple
of facts here. First of all, when President Mandela asked President
Clinton to come here several months ago, a few months ago, and in
several contexts since, he has made it clear to President Mandela that
he will come regardless, that he did not - regardless of whether or not,
in fact, this meeting resulted in an agreement, precisely because while
he wanted to bring, I think, whatever moral force to bear, he could, and
while his presence, I believe manifests the international community's
concern about Burundi, ultimately, these are decisions voluntarily
choices that the parties, themselves, have to make and live with the
consequences.
The second thing I would say is, in his remarks, he was very clear
in saying that what happens here is very important, but what happens
when the parties go back to Burundi and what happens in terms of
implementing these commitments is really by far the greater test.
MR. CROWLEY: Last question.
Q Can we go back to the two outstanding issues - commitment.
What is the next actual deadline? You said there are 30 days within
which they will agree to a cessation of hostilities if that - and could
you also address the elements of the transition?
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: I think the hope is to resolve the issue of who
will lead the transition within that time frame, and secondly, to begin
the process and if possible to include it, but at least certainly launch
the process to negotiate the terms of the cease-fire agreement concluded
between the rebels and the government.
Q Within the next 30 days?
CONGRESSMAN WOLPE: That's the objective they have laid out, and
the agreement.
Q Sandy, did Clinton and Mandela agree to this good-cop, bad-cop
buzz scenario that they ended up doing in advance?
MR. BERGER: No. President Mandela gave President Clinton a
briefing on where he thought things stood, was not quite as somber as
listening to him in the room; it was a pretty tough speech he gave. And
the President improvised, I think, a fair amount in terms of what he
said and I think said well about what's at stake from his perspective
for the parties. So I think they probably fed off each other, but there
was not, as far as I know, any design to it.
Q Was Mandela as angry as he seemed, or does he deserve an
Oscar?
MR. BERGER: Far be it for me to question President Mandela's
intentions. I think he's invested a lot in this process.
END
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
