THE WHITE HOUSE

                       Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                    August 24, 2000


                             PRESS BRIEFING BY
                  NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SANDY BERGER

                   The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room


11:13 A.M. EDT


          MR. CROWLEY:  It's been a while since we've done this, a 
couple of weeks, anyway.  Sandy Berger has reminded all of us on the NSC 
staff that we have a sprint to the finish line.  And, certainly, the 
President's schedule for the next couple of weeks from a foreign policy
standpoint, reflects that -- today, receiving President-elect Vicente 
Fox of Mexico.  Tomorrow, he departs for Nigeria and Tanzania; next
week, a trip to Colombia, and right on the heels of the Labor Day 
holiday, a trip to New York for the Millennium Summit.

          Joined by members of the national security staff -- Gayle 
Smith, Susan Rice of the State Department, Arturo Valenzuela -- Mike 
Hammer now is not a spokesman, but a man of substance, as responsible 
for our Colombia policy -- a pleasure to introduce our National 
Security Advisor and our White House candidate for "Survivor," Sandy 
Berger.  (Laughter.)

          MR. BERGER:  Before you said that, PJ, I was going to 
vigorously reject the distinction between spokesman and people of 
substance.  But
since -- (laughter) -- since you made that comment at the end, I'm not
sure.

          Let me speak briefly about the two trips that PJ has mentioned,
which the President will be taking in the next week.  First, to Nigeria 
and Tanzania, and then to Colombia.

          The visit to Nigeria signals our strong support for the most
important democratic transition in Africa since the collapse of 
apartheid and underscores the opportunities opened by Nigeria's shift 
from pariah to partner.  Two years ago, the President last went to 
Africa.  Nigeria was at that time ruled by a general who stole more 
than $5 billion from the state, protected drug cartels and crime 
syndicates, arrested his adversaries, including the now-President 
Obasanjo murdered others and turned Nigeria into the poorest oil-rich 
country in the world.

          After a generation of mis-rule, daunting challenges remain for
President Obasanjo:  rebuilding trust in government, fighting 
corruption, managing ethnic and religious diversity, making sure the oil
wealth of the country benefits all of its people.  But for the first 
time in 20 years, Nigerians are truly addressing these challenges.  Of 
course, only the people of Nigeria and the government of Nigeria can 
undertake these challenges.  But we have a significant interest in 
their success and, therefore, a significant interest in assisting them.

          This is a make-or-break transition, not just for Nigeria, but 
for Africa.  If Nigeria succeeds, this can help lift the whole region 
to prosperity and peace.  If it fails it can swamp the whole region in
turmoil and misery.

          During the visit the President will convey tangible U.S. 
support for Nigeria's democratic transition.  In two years our 
assistance program in Nigeria has increased from $7 million to $108 
million, and the President will announce some additional support, 
particularly in the areas of primary education and the fight against 
infectious diseases.  He'll stress the importance of supporting
Nigeria's leadership in West Africa and beyond, for democracy, against 
infectious diseases, against crime, against drugs, and most importantly,
for peace.

          Nigeria has spent $10 billion on peacekeeping in the last 10
years.  We have an interest in helping Nigeria bear this burden and to 
do it in a way that helps to build a professional army for Nigeria,
not a political army.  Therefore, this week the United States will be
commencing training and equipping five Nigeria battalions who will
eventually serve in Sierra Leone, which, by the way, is the 27th
peacekeeping mission in Nigeria's history.

          So we consider this to be a very important visit, even though
a brief one.  Now, let me quickly go over our itinerary.  We'll be
leaving tomorrow afternoon and arriving in Abuja Saturday morning.  
President Clinton will meet with President Obasanjo at noon and then
do a joint press statement.  That will be followed by a speech to a 
joint session of the Nigerian National Assembly that will express our 
support for the democratic transition, address the challenges that 
Nigeria faces, encourage them to take the long view, recognize that 
this transition requires time and patience, as well as determination, 
and speak about the partnership that we are seeking to build.  That 
evening he will meet with the 36 Nigerian state governors before
attending a state dinner.

          On Sunday morning we'll leave Abuja for the village of Ushafa.
Seventy percent of Nigerians live in villages such as this.  This 
provides the President a chance to talk informally with the residents 
of a Nigerian village about the day-to-day challenges of their lives 
and of rural development.

          With President Obasanjo, President Clinton will then visit the
Abuja Women's Center where he'll meet with and talk to representatives 
of several health NGOs and talk about efforts to fight and delegitimize
infectious diseases, particularly AIDS.  And I should note that 
President Obasanjo is a leader in Africa in this life or death battle.

          On Sunday, the President will attend a reception with American
and Nigerian business people and speak about the potential for increased
trade and investment following passage by Congress this year of the 
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which the President spoke about 
when he was in Africa two years ago and proposed.

          The second part of this trip is a stop in Arusha, in Tanzania.
The President is going there at the invitation and request of Nelson
Mandela, who has been facilitating, shepherding talks to seek a 
settlement to the conflict in Burundi.  The President will be going to 
support President Mandela, to urge the parties in Burundi to work
toward an agreement and to show that engagement with the world can be 
one of the dividends of peace if such an agreement is actually reached.  
While in Arusha, the President will also meet with President Mkapa of 
Tanzania, and express our appreciation for the role that he has played 
by Tanzania's leadership and example as a force for peace in central 
Africa.

          We'll be back home quite early Tuesday morning.  And on
Wednesday, the President will travel for the day to Cartagena, Colombia.
The purpose of this trip is to underscore America's support for 
Colombian democracy, for President Pastrana, and for his Plan Colombia. 
He'll be accompanied by Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senator Joe Biden and a
bipartisan congressional delegation who were critical to the passage of
U.S. assistance this year to Plan Colombia.

          Colombia's people are engaged in a life-or-death struggle to
preserve their democracy in the face of kidnappings    -- 2,500 in this
past year -- extortion; massacres by paramilitaries and insurgents; drug
trafficking that funds a conflict, insurgent conflict and feeds crime; 
an economy in recession with unemployment at 20 percent.

          President Pastrana, who has fought drug traffickers for 
decades, was kidnapped, as many of you know, by the Medellin Cartel in 
the 1980s, ran for president after other candidates have been
assassinated, was elected on a platform of peacemaking.  He has launched 
an approach he calls Plan Colombia, a blueprint for seeking peace, 
fighting drugs, building the economy, protecting human rights, and 
strengthening democracy.

          The cost of Plan Colombia is roughly $7.5 billion.  President
Pastrana has proposed that the government of Colombia undertake $4 
billion of that.  The balance will be made up by the international 
financial institutions, by other donors, some of whom have already made
commitments in a donors' conference that was held in Europe recently, 
and by the United States.  And as you know, with strong bipartisan 
support, we have appropriated or committed $1.6 billion over two years 
to support this Colombian plan.

          Our contribution includes a tenfold increase in our funds, 
from $20 million to over $200 million, to promote democracy, judicial
reform, human rights and economic development.  It includes funds to
help farmers make the transition from illegal to legal crops, and it 
will help train Colombia's counterdrug battalions to assist Colombia's 
national police fight the drug trade.  It will not support a
counterinsurgency effort.  It is designed to help defeat the traffickers
whose profits fuel the conflict.

          This is a plan that is pro-peace and anti-drugs.  The 
President is going to Cartagena to deliver a message of solidarity to 
the Colombian people and to make clear to them that as they struggle, 
at tremendous cost to make peace, build their economy, fight drugs, 
promote human rights and deepen democracy, the United States will 
stand by their side.

          The President will have a chance to express that message 
directly in a televised address that will run in Colombia the evening 
before we leave -- that is Tuesday, August 29th, the night before he 
arrives -- and certainly will be made available to you all.  The visit
itself will begin with a tour of the Port of Cartagena, where the 
President will be briefed on drug interdiction efforts, meet some 
members of the Colombian National Police, talk with others involved, 
including some widows of police officers who have been killed in the 
line of duty.

          The President then will have a meeting with President 
Pastrana, and he will be joined for most of that meeting by the 
congressional delegation, Speaker Hastert and others.  And there will 
then be a press availability.

          After lunch, hosted by President Pastrana, the two Presidents
will go to a low-income neighborhood to tour the new Casa de Justicia in
Cartagena.  This is one of 20 Plan centers, funded by USAID, that gives
low-income people greater access to the justice system.  People can walk
into these centers, get access to ombudsmen, social workers, public
defenders, public mediators and others who can help address the problems
that they face in both civil and criminal matters.  This is part of the
general effort to strengthen the rule of law in Colombia, which is
ultimately the purpose of this entire effort.

          Let me just conclude by saying that this is a pivotal moment 
in Colombia's struggle to defend and preserve its democracy, just as it 
is a pivotal moment in Nigeria's effort to build its democracy.  In both 
cases, more is at stake than the fate of one country.  At stake are the 
prospects for entire regions and important American interests.  And our 
support, both moral and financial, can, we believe, make a difference.

          Now, let me take your questions.

          Q    Sandy, how big a military operation is envisioned here?  I
understand like 15 troops arrived this week in Nigeria to help train. 
How large is this going to be, and how much American involvement 
militarily there?

          MR. BERGER:  There will be -- I don't know what the numbers 
will be, there will just hundreds, not more than that, of Americans 
involved.  We'll be training seven battalions in all in West Africa,
five in Nigeria, one I believe probably in Ghana, and the seventh as
yet to be determined.  The purpose in the short-run -- these training 
programs will last roughly four months.  The purpose really is twofold, 
perhaps even threefold--number one and the immediate purpose is to
develop a stronger  professional military that will be able to deploy 
to Sierra Leone and strengthen the U.N. mission there.  This is 
extremely important, obviously.

          Second of all, in the course of doing this we will be
professionalizing Nigerian military.  To the extent the Nigerian
military becomes a professional military, not a political military, it
is good for stability and democracy in Nigeria.  And obviously, over 
the long-term, the extent to which Nigeria has a capable professional
capacity to continue to participate in peacekeeping missions, that will 
be important for stability in the region.

          The last thing I would say is all of these units will be fully
vetted for human rights abuses.  No units will receive any -- no units
where there are credible allegations of human rights abuses will receive
any American assistance.

          Q    -- American trainers -- will the President meet with the
American trainers?

          MR. BERGER:  No, not now while were in Abuja.

          Q    The President meets with the governors of the states in
Nigeria.  Is he going to discuss in any form the introduction of sharia,
Islamic law, by the state governors in several of the states that has
threatened to split the whole Nigerian country apart?

          MR. BERGER:  I don't know that he will address is 
specifically.  I'm sure that he will address the importance and 
challenge of diversity in a country as much a quilt as Nigeria.  
There's something like 260 different tribes in Nigeria; there are 
hundreds of languages; there are regional differences; there are 
religious differences.  And I would be surprised -- I have not discussed 
this with him -- I would be surprised if he didn't talk about strength 
from diversity, obviously a theme that he's talked about in the context
of the Balkans and other places -- the Nigeria can be enriched by that 
diversity.

          And in spite of all these differences, Nigeria has managed to
stay together as a country, with some tensions, obviously, over quite 
some time.

          Q    One other question about the oil.  Is he hoping to 
increase imports, U.S. imports of oil from Nigeria?

          MR. BERGER:  Well, that's not the purpose of the trip.
Obviously, bringing a greater degree of efficiency to the Nigerian oil
sector is quite important.  This is a huge oil producing country that
imports energy.  This is a pretty good, I think, reflection of the 
plunder of previous regimes.  So I'm sure he will talk to Obasanjo about
how to address that, how to make the oil sector work better.

          There are, obviously, also equity issues in that region, and 
how the people of the oil producing areas can benefit more directly in 
the wealth of the nation.

          Q    Sandy, what's your response to this new GAO analysis of 
the President's foreign travel that shows that over the last three years 
he ran up nearly a quarter billion dollars just in travel expenses 
alone?  Are the expenses ever considered when you plan these trips, 
and is the President conscious of this and do you think this is an
accurate reflection of the expense of his travel?

          MR. BERGER:  Well, there's always attention to trying to hold 
the numbers of these trips down.  There's a kind of irreducible minimum 
number of people that go with the President.
          I think the United States has benefitted enormously from the
President's travel over the past seven years.  I think that those of
you who were with us in India, for example, I think would recognize that
that trip transformed, I believe, the relationship between the United 
States and India.  And all of the data that I have seen, both anecdotal 
and quantitative since show that that trip has brought about a sea
change in the way the largest democracy in the world views the United 
States.  I think that was a valuable trip.

          I think the President's travels -- last trip to Africa, the 
first trip -- extended trip the President ever made to the continent of 
Africa -- to say to Africa, we want a new partnership with Africa, not
based upon dependency, but based upon partnership -- I think was
enormously valuable to the United States.

          So I think that these are considered travels.  I think they're
worthwhile.  Obviously, there is an effort to keep the costs down.  I 
don't know how, for example, the cost of a trip by President Clinton 
compares to the cost of a trip that might have been taken by previous
Presidents when adjusted for inflation.  There's obviously the security
involved, but I think we've benefitted very substantially from those 
trips.

          Q    On the trip to the Arusha section, apparently Mandela 
hopes to have a final agreement to sign when President Clinton is 
there, but it looks like there are a lot of problems still finding an
agreement, a peace deal.  Is the President worried that this may fall
through and there won't be any peace to witness?

          MR. BERGER:  Well, there continue to be issues that need to 
be resolved among the 19 Burundi parties.  This has been an undertaking
that President Mandela took over from President Nyerere.  He's gone 
about it in a very determined way, as only President Mandela can do. 
And I think when President Mandela asked the President to come, knowing 
that he would be in Nigeria, I think the President felt that that was
important for him to do that.

          We recognize that this problem is not going to be solved in a 
day or a week, but I think it's important that we support what President
Mandela is doing, that we support the peace process in Burundi, and we
demonstrate that the international community cares about what happens
there.

          Q    When the President meets with Obasanjo, will he address
human rights abuses, either with regard to what's happening in the 
south?

          MR. BERGER:  I'm certain that that will come up, both in
Nigeria and in Colombia.  In both cases, to the extent we're engaged in 
training of military, this is a cornerstone, a centerpiece of what we 
want to do.  We want to train battalions that have a greater degree of
professionalism and a greater degree of respect for human rights.  But 
generally, both President Obasanjo and President Pastrana have committed 
themselves to programs of improving human rights in the two countries, 
and that's something we'll talk about.

          Q    To follow up on that, Sandy, the Secretary of State was
unable to certify that the human rights problem in Colombia have been
cleared up, so the President had to sign a waiver.  Did the President 
have to hold his nose when he did that, because we do feel that human
rights abuses really are somewhat intolerable?  And can you explain the 
national security interests that he invoked?

          MR. BERGER:  Well, let's understand here that this legislation
just passed two months ago.  And as part of the legislation, it requires
certification of certain undertakings or certain performance by the
Colombians.

          In one instance where the issue was whether the government of
Colombia would issue a directive saying that members of the military who
are accused of human rights abuses would be subject to trial in the
criminal courts -- President Pastrana has done that -- we are able to
make that certification.

          In some of the others, there just has not been time, even 
though President Pastrana has been deeply committed to human rights, to 
meet the performance requirements of a law that just passed two months 
ago.  So I don't think that we have to hold our nose.  I think that we 
will be talking -- I believe President Pastrana is deeply committed to 
human rights.  He has manifest that.  The complaints against the 
Colombian military are way down.  When there have been instances, 
allegations, he's fired people. He's fired four generals who were 
accused of human rights abuses -- most recently, this terrible
incident; he dismissed -- suspended 30 people from a unit that might
have been involved in some behavior that was unacceptable.

          I think that he -- let me put it this way.  President
Pastrana does not object to the requirements that are set up under this 
law.  I think we simply need to have a little time, he needs to have a 
little time to meet the performance requirements that are established 
by those requirements.

          Q    Do you think that President Obasanjo shares that same
strenuous commitment?  I mean, he's accused of essentially ordering his
military to raze a town in the oil fields that he felt wasn't
cooperating.

          MR. BERGER:  Well, I think it is important that as he 
undertakes what is really an extraordinary challenge, given the abuse 
of government over the last 30 of 40 years in Nigeria, the thievery,
the thuggery, the divisiveness that has been fostered by government -- 
he inherits a pretty tough situation.

          Now, he has been the victim of that.  He was imprisoned by 
the military government, so he's not oblivious to the consequences of 
human rights abuses.  And I think that he has to, as he builds a 
democracy, rebuilds a democracy in Nigeria, it's extremely important 
that he does so in a way that is respectful of fundamental human rights.
I think he understands that.  I think that it will take time to 
completely turn around a pretty devastated situation in Nigeria.

          Q    There have been criticisms in this country and abroad, 
even inside Colombia, that the U.S. aid is quite tilted to a military 
component and less toward the social component.

          MR. BERGER:  I think that's not correct.  First of all, Plan
Colombia, which was developed by the Colombians and developed by the
Pastrana government, provides for a range of activities -- economic
development, human rights, democracy building, institution building,
antidrugs.  Our package, our assistance package of $1.6 billion over two
years, increased the assistance that we're providing for human rights,
for democracy building, for institution building, for alternate 
economic activity tenfold, to $240 million.

          We probably would have increased it more had AID said that 
they could have absorbed the capacity to do more.  That is, we 
basically took it up to the level that AID said they could use without 
throwing money at the problem.  So we're deeply committed to that.  
Others will also assist that.  A lot of the money from the international
financial institutions and others will be for economic develop, 
institution building, et cetera.

          But it's very difficult to sustain a democracy in the middle 
of a guerrilla insurgency and a corrosive drug problem.  We have had 
experience in Peru and in Bolivia where we have worked with the
Peruvian government and the Bolivian government to train the military 
to go in and provide the kind of security that police need to 
confiscate or to destroy crops and to destroy these labs.  And drug 
production has gone way down in Peru, way down in Bolivia.

          And now we're going to try to help the Colombians do the same
thing.  It's very hard to imagine democracy surviving over the 
long-term in Colombia unless there can be both some, A, reversal in the 
grip of the drug traffickers and, B, a peace with the insurgents.

          The last thing I would say is we don't think there is a
military solution to the guerilla war in Colombia, nor does President 
Pastrana.  That is why he has embarked upon such a vigorous peace 
initiative.  He has taken risks in doing that.  There's a deeper level
of dialogue and engagement than there has been before.  It's going to 
be a long process.  This has been a 40-year insurgency.  But we don't 
see there being a military solution.

          So I don't think that we should -- I understand why the issue
is raised, but it is not either the intent or purpose or will be the 
way in which this program operates.

          Q    You said the United States is not going to be involved
in the counterinsurgency effort, as I think you've also indicated, the 
two are tied in the drug trade because the rebels -- and there's more 
than one outfit, but particularly the big outfit -- they're collecting
taxes on the coca crop there, that's how they sustain their existence.  
So once you
attack the coca crop, you're obviously involved in the counterinsurgency.
And you say a military solution doesn't work.  Didn't it work in Peru?
They went in there and just the beat --

          MR. BERGER:  After 40 years, I think our judgment, President
Pastrana's judgment is that there is not likely to be a military solution
to the insurgency in Colombia, that there needs to be a negotiated
solution.

          Listen, here's what we're going to do.  We're going to send a 
few hundred trainers to Colombia.  They are going to train two 
battalions.  They're going to vet them for human rights, they're going 
to train those two battalions.  Those two battalions will be used to 
go into areas where  there are -- particular areas where the drug 
crops are most intense and most pervasive.  They will try to create
security so that the Colombian national police can go into those areas, 
destroy the crops and destroy the lavatories.  That is the purpose of
our support.

          Q    Sandy, what do you make of these reports that the
Colombian NGOs are refusing some of the money because they've been 
threatened by their rebels as being military targets?

          MR. BERGER:  Well, I mean, I think it's -- it will be 
important to have dialogue with the NGOs.  I think that's something 
that the government of Colombia intends to do.  There is a risk in 
Colombia every day -- 35,000 people were killed in Colombia in the last 
10 years.  This is a very tough place.  I think we can either help
Colombia try to come to grips with that, help Colombia in its effort to 
deal with that problem, or stand back and let Colombian democracy
collapse.  Obviously, it will be the responsibility of the Colombian 
police and the Colombian military to protect the human rights
organizations.

          Q    In sort of that same spirit, there is this sort of
escalation that appears to be happening.  You've heard the comparisons
to the Vietnamization of Colombia.  What do you make of that notion 
that this is happening that seems to be comparable in some ways?

          MR. BERGER:  I think that you can get paralyzed by the foreign
policy of analogy.  You should learn from what happened before, but the
fact is this is nothing similar whatsoever.  We're talking about a few
hundred American people going to train some -- going down on a one-day 
trip which was all that was really possible.  I think it's something 
the President wanted to do as soon after Congress acted as possible to
manifest to the Colombian people and express to the Colombian people
our solidarity -- the United States, Republicans and Democrats -- with 
their fight to save democracy, defeat drugs and to gain peace.  I think 
this was just the easiest place to go.

          MR. CROWLEY:  One more question.

          Q    Sandy, to what extent is corruption seen in Nigeria as 
an obstacle to the rooting of democracy?

          MR. BERGER:  There has been a serious corruption in Nigeria 
over the years of military rule.  And I think President Obasanjo
understands that extremely well.  He's taken some actions early on to
deal with this, but this is going to take a sustained, systematic
effort on his part to change -- to not only hold people accountable, 
but to change a culture particularly in the government that has very 
often lived off corruption.

          Q    Since Plan Colombia was approved, it seems like the war
in Colombia has been intensified.  As a matter of fact, since the 
President announced the visit, the guerrillas have launched more and
more attacks. They say that with the implementation of Plan Colombia, 
things are going to get worse, because they're going to respond to a 
plan that they reject.

          On the other hand, they are stating that if President 
Pastrana backs off from the Plan, they might be willing to negotiate a
cease-fire.  Is there room for a modification of the plan if the peace 
negotiations start showing --

          MR. BERGER:  I'm not going to get in the middle of a dialogue
between, or an exchange between President Pastrana and the FARC.  We
support President Pastrana.

          Q    On the Fox visit, just one second, about this open
borders plan.  Is the United States interested in this, or is it just 
impractical?

          MR. BERGER:  Let me say that -- we first have an obligation 
to enforce to the laws of our land, including laws against illegal
migration.  And we have undertaken strong efforts to do that.  What I 
understand President-elect Fox to be talking about -- and we will be 
interested to hear him discuss this today -- is something that is very 
long-term in his mind.  That is that as the wage levels in Mexico rise 
to a level that is more comparable to the United States over 20 years 
or 30 years, it may enable there to be a different kind of economic 
integration than exists today.

          But we certainly are in favor of efforts to raise the wage 
levels in Mexico.  We will enforce our laws against illegal migration,
but I'll be very interested -- I'm sure the President will be -- to 
hear his ideas.  Thanks.

                         
END        
11:54 A.M. EDT