US Department of State Daily Briefing #5:
Tuesday, 1/8/91
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: 1:30 pm Washington, DC
Date: Jan 8, 19911/8/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, South Asia
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Somalia
Subject: Military Affairs, Terrorism, State Department,
Travel
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Announcement: No Press Briefing January 9]
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm very
sorry I'm late. I'm glad to be here. (Laughter) It gives me
great pleasure -- my first announcement is that given the focus
of events tomorrow on the Secretary's meeting in Geneva, we're
not going to do a briefing here tomorrow.
Q What?
A Make that the news. And then, of course, we'll
have responses on other subjects and developments available from
the Press Office. But you can go ahead and schedule lunches and
go to them on time tomorrow.
[Sudan: US Deplores Release of Terrorists]
I'd like to make one statement on some developments in
the Sudan before we go on to other questions.
Five terrorists convicted in 1988 attacks on the
Acropole Hotel and the Sudan Club in Khartoum which killed seven
people, including two children, were released yesterday by the
Sudanese Supreme Court.
Four British nationals were among those killed, and
three Americans were injured in the attack. The five terrorists
are members of the Abu Nidal organization, one of the world's
most notorious terrorist groups.
According to news reports, one of the terrorists said,
"We would do it again elsewhere." We take this statement very
seriously, especially since the Abu Nidal organization has
aligned itself with Iraq.
The release of these convicted terrorists is
reprehensible. Serving less than a three-year prison term is
not suitable punishment for the terrorist murder of seven
people, and their grossly premature release is an insult to
those whom they murdered and to the families of those who were
murdered and injured.
That's the statement. Be glad to take your questions.
Q How long had they been sentenced to, do you know?
A The legal aspects of the case are frankly somewhat
unclear to me. They were sentenced in October of 1988
and then they appealed. I think that this action now is the
result of the culmination of that process. They served less
than three years.
Q Richard, did the United States try to intervene
with the Sudanese government or make a protest at their release?
A At this point we are approaching the Sudanese
government. The basic effort is to try to make -- have them
ensure that these people don't go on to commit other terrorist
acts.
Q What's your understanding of why they were
released? Was it a legal issue, or was it a political issue?
A I don't have a clear understanding of the Sudanese
judicial system. I think I have to leave that for you all to
research. I think I'd just want to make clear that we think
that this kind of release is reprehensible, and that it's not
justified.
Q Do we know if these people have left the Sudan?
A No, I don't.
Q Was the U.S. aware that this was going to happen?
A We were certainly aware that the case was under
appeal, and we've been following it. Yes.
Q Have you also been --
A Whether this actual --
Q -- making known the views you are now making
known?
A I believe we have. Yes.
Q Richard, there was also a convicted Abu Nidal
terrorist in Belgium. Do you know anything about the
circumstances of his incarceration? Is he being released in
exchange for these people who were being held in Lebanon or
something?
A I don't think I have anything on that. As for
whether there was any deal, I mean, whether the releases --
should they prove true, there have been reports. We don't have
independent confirmation that the Belgian hostages are going to
be released. Whether there was any deal is something you'll
have to ask the Belgians. You're certainly aware of our policy
that we don't encourage or accept any deals for hostages.
Q There is a report that it was part of a deal,
isn't there?
A It's something the Belgian government will have to
address.
Q Turning to Iraq, do you have a time now and other
details about the Baker/Aziz meeting?
A I don't have anything here, and that is not
something we would put out here. That's something the party
will have to put out.
Q Can we ask you about this travel advisory to
Pakistan? It's basically sort of stuck on top of the previous
one that talks about dangers from ethnic tensions, and so on.
And it just talks about -- just vaguely sort of tensions in the
Gulf. What specifically are you worried about in Pakistan?
Have you had any --
[Pakistan: US Authorizes Non-Essential Personnel to
Depart]
A The concern is a general one. It's the unstable
conditions created in the region by Iraq's invasion and the
occupation of Kuwait. I believe that those conditions have
recently intensified, and they have resulted in the continuing
possibility of anti-American incidents.
I would point out that Pakistani authorities in the
area have continued during this period to provide effective
security to Americans and other foreigners, but we nonetheless
believe it's prudent in the current circumstances to issue this
advisory.
The chief new element of this advisory is that we are
now authorizing departure on a voluntary basis for our
dependents and non-essential personnel. When we take that step
for our own people, we feel it's only wise and appropriate for
us to inform the public so that they can make similar decisions.
Q But then, I mean, if you're going to do it as a
general principle, then why not do India and various other
countries in the region? I mean, why specifically Pakistan?
A We have authorized departure in some countries.
We have ordered departure of our dependents and non-essential
personnel in other countries, and we inform the public when we
do that. There is a series of travel advisories out. I think I
have something that can review the status of different countries
and different notices. But they're based on our best
assessments of the general security situation and the
possibility of developments that would result -- or the
possibility of a deterioration in that situation.
Q (Inaudible) -- by Islamic fundamentalism in
Pakistan.
A I'd just go back and say that the statement -- the
travel advisory and our decision to permit voluntary
departure were done for the reasons that we've stated in the
statement and what I just said here.
Q The point that Ruth has been trying to make is
that the reasons given in the statement aren't really strong
enough. I mean, it wouldn't persuade me not to go if I was an
American citizen thinking about going to Pakistan.
If you said, "We are concerned about Islamic
fundamentalists." This is an Islamic fundamentalist country,
etc., etc. We've had this history with Pakistan before with the
Embassy in Islamabad. If you really spelled it out why there
was a real concern, then perhaps it would be taken as being
someting very serious, but I don't think it is.
A Jan, I'm not sure that whatever we told you, we
could persuade you not to go. (Laughter) Nonetheless, I think
the chief -- this is based on our overall assessment. Clearly,
the security concerns in different countries are different, but
in some places they're greater than others.
We have put out our best advice to American citizens on
these situations, and I think the chief indicator that people
should look at is not the listing of reasons but rather what we
decide we want to do with our own people. And that is in some
places we have decided that we should in fact order dependents
and non-essential personnel out. In other places we are
authorizing their departure and encouraging our dependents and
non-essential personnel to depart.
Q How many people are involved?
A There are a total of -- well, there are 390
official personnel in Pakistan. That includes Peace Corps and
AID contractors. They have with them 382 dependents. So the
number of people that we have authorized to depart is 382
dependents, plus a portion of the official personnel.
Q Richard, do you have anything more today on the
movement of the Soviet troops into the Baltics? You now know it
happened. It's not just a report any more, right?
A Yes. That's right. One of the benefits of my
being this late is that you all had the opportunity, I think, to
see what Marlin said on the subject. I won't repeat what he has
said. He --
Q Please --
A Well, O.K. Let me give you the gist of it. He
said it represents a serious step towards an escalation of
tension within the U.S.S.R. It makes the peaceful evolution of
relations among the peoples of the Soviet Union more difficult.
He said the U.S. is especially concerned at the Soviet
decision to send military units into the Baltic states which we
view as provocative and counter-productive. It could damage the
prospects for peaceful, constructive negotiations on the future
of those states.
The United States urges the U.S.S.R. to cease attempts
at intimidation and turn back to negotiations that are conducted
free of pressure and the use of force. He also pointed out the
U.S. has never recognized the forcible incorporation of the
Baltic states into the Soviet Union and supports the aspirations
of the Baltic people to control and determine their own future.
We are monitoring carefully the Soviet government's
decision, and that's basically what he said.
Q And has this been transmitted -- this sort of view
been transmitted to the Soviets today?
A As I think I mentioned yesterday, Ambassador
Matlock asked for a clarification in his meeting yesterday of
the reports that these Soviet military units had been deployed
to the Baltic states to enforce the conscription law. He
received a phone call today from the Foreign Ministry.
The Foreign Ministry basically just confirmed what the
Ministry of Defense had put in its announcement, and the
Ambassador took the opportunity at that time to register our
concerns once again.
Q Do you have information that new Soviet troops
actually have been introduced in those republics, or are these
movements of troops that were already there?
A It's a complicated issue. Let me start out by
saying that we don't know how many Soviet troops are involved.
We have seen reports from Baltic leaders, quoting Soviet
military estimates of between 2,000-6,000 men that would be
deployed to each republic. Once again I point out, however, we
don't have confirmation of these figures.
There is already a substantial Soviet troop presence in
the areas involved, and as of now we have no reports that new
Soviet troops have actually arrived in any of the republics that
were listed in the statement yesterday.
Q Does the United States have any position on the
drafting of Baltic country residents into the Soviet army?
A I would just reiterate what Marlin said: That we
have never recognized the forcible incorporation of the Baltic
states, and that we support the aspirations of the Baltic people
to control their own future.
Q There are four other republics involved here.
Does the same go for them?
A The basic situation with regard to the Baltic
states I just said. We support their efforts to exercise their
rights, including the right to develop their own laws as they
proceed with negotiations with Moscow.
The 12 other republics of the Soviet Union do have a
different status. Nevertheless, this action overall represents
an escalation of tensions and makes peaceful evolution more
difficult.
We believe, however, that some actions of the kinds
reportedly planned could trigger violence or bloodshed, so our
concern applies to the situation as a whole. And once again
quoting from Marlin's statements, we are especially concerned
about the Baltic states.
Q The Deputy Secretary is meeting today with the
Prime Minister of one of the affected Republics, Moldova. Can
you tell us what he's prepared to say to the Prime Minister?
A Well, I would point out that this is Prime
Minister Mircea Druc. He's in the United States on a private
visit. The meeting with the Acting Secretary is at the Prime
Minister's request.
We have had meetings with a series of leaders of Soviet
republics who have visited the United States. This is one
meeting in that series, and, of course, the Acting Secretary
will be interested in the Prime Minister's assessment of the
current developments in Moldova as well as the U.S.S.R. as a
whole.
Q When was it scheduled?
A It was scheduled since Friday at least.
Q Will he be expressing Marlin's views to the Prime
Minister?
A I'm sure he'll be making the U.S. government view
known, if the Prime Minister needs to hear them from us.
Q Richard, is there any chance of an open photo op
in that meeting?
A I'll have to check on that.
Q The deadline by January the 15th -- is that Iraqi
time midnight on the 14th?
A I'm afraid I don't have anything more to say on
that, other than what the U.N. and others have said. I'm
leaving those kinds of questions to the party.
Q Has the summit between President Bush and Mr.
Gorbachev been put -- delayed in any way?
A Marlin has addressed that. I think it's best for
him to address these summit dates. He said yesterday that it
was still scheduled for February 11th to the 13th. For our
part, we continue to have discussions and exchanges with the
Soviets on the issues involved and continue to prepare for a
summit.
Q Is there any problem specifically with the CFE or
the START agreement?
A We put up answers on the status of both those
things yesterday.
Q I saw the CFE answer. What about START?
A I believe we put up an answer on START as well.
(TO STAFF) Didn't we, Adam?
MR. SHUB: Yes.
Q Richard, on this Soviet cargo ship that has been
held up on its way to Aqaba, has the U.S. been asking the Soviet
Union for answers on what exactly this ship was up to? And, if
so, what answers are you getting?
A The Pentagon, I think, will have to do the details
of the boarding and the cargoes, and things like that. We have
raised the case with the Soviet Union. They said they would
look into it, and I would also like to say that we discuss these
sorts of things with various governments concerned who have
ships that we may encounter in the Gulf, and we don't see the
encounter with this ship as representing any change in Soviet
policy or our view of it.
Q Do you know whether the Soviets have any military
contracts to supply military equipment to the Jordanian
government?
A I don't know. You'd have to ask them that.
Q Richard, the report that I saw said that the ship
incident occurred on Friday, and you have no answer back from
the Soviet Union yet? Is that --
A I don't know exactly --
Q Did I read that right?
A -- when it was we raised it. But at this point
I'm not aware of any answer.
Q Then how can you say you see no change -- you
don't regard this as a change in Soviet policy, if you're not
sure what the ship was up to?
A The point is that whatever the ship was up to, the
Soviet Union has been steadfast and consistent in its support
for the U.N. resolutions and its support for the policy that the
international community has taken in the Gulf.
Q So you see this as an aberration?
A We'll have to see exactly what the cargo is and
what the explanation is, and things like that.
Q Can I follow up on the summit again? There was a
report today that said the White House had asked the State
Department to explore a possible rationale for postponing a
summit.
In fact, was there a meeting in this building yesterday
concerning that?
A Was there a meeting in this building yesterday
concerning what?
Q Concerning a White House request that the State
Department explore ways -- explore a rationale for postponing
the summit?
A Carol, the answer on questions of postponing the
summit, I think, has to come out of the White House, and they've
already been given. I've told you that we continue to work on
preparations for the summit, and we continue to discuss the
issues involved with the Soviets. I really don't have anything
else on that.
Q But you won't respond to that specific report.
A We don't normally describe every single internal
meeting we've had. I don't know if there was one or not, but
I'm not inclined to do so now.
Q What can you say about these Iraqi helicopters?
A I can say that you'll have to get whatever
information is available from the Defense Department or from the
Saudis.
Q Thank you.
Q Wait a minute. There's a report in the Wall
Street Journal today that -- concerning terrorism, that says
that a -- going beyond what you said yesterday, that there is a
plan to -- I'm not sure how to put it -- round up, I guess,
terrorists -- terrorism suspects if a war should start.
Would you like to touch that with a ten foot pole?
(laughter)
A No. I think you left out "in the United States,"
if I remember the report.
Q Well, it said both.
A Well, I'm not -- I don't have anything I can say
on such a thing.
Q Yesterday you said that there were no plans, that
you know of, to do anything with folks holding Iraqi passports
in the U.S. Is that still the case?
A I said I wasn't responsible for Iraqi passport
holders in the United States, and I wasn't aware of anything
being done. But my ignorance should not be taken as a
confirmation that there's absolutely no plan. (Laughter)
Q Can we get a readout on that meeting with the
Moldova --
A I'll see if we can get you one. Yes.
Q What time?
A 3:00 o'clock this afternoon, I think.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:48 p.m.)
(###)