US Department of State Daily Briefing #9:
Tuesday, 1/15/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 1:11 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 15, 19911/15/91
Category: Briefings
Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa, East Asia,
Europe
Country: Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, United Kingdom, France,
Japan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
Subject: Travel, Democratization, Terrorism
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I've got several things I'd like to do.
Since several of you have asked me -- I'd like to give you an
update on what Secretary of State Baker did once we returned
yesterday to the city, and what he has been doing this morning.
[Update: Secretary's Activities]
Prior to leaving on the last trip, Secretary Baker had
instructed his staff to leave his schedule for today completely
open. The reason he did so was so that he would have the
flexibility to deal with any late-breaking developments on the
situation in the Persian Gulf. So he has no scheduled public
meetings today, because that is the way he chose to have this
day scheduled.
To update you on what he has done since he's returned.
As many of you know, yesterday he attended three different
meetings at the White House with the President: the meeting with
the Japanese Foreign Minister, the meeting with the
congressional leadership, and the meeting with our Charge Joe
Wilson. He also spoke a number of times by phone with the
President yesterday.
He also yesterday afternoon met at the Pentagon with
Secretary Cheney and Chairman Powell. The Secretary spoke this
morning by phone with the President around 6:30 a.m. As many of
you know, he has been at the White House this morning,
practically all morning, and he met with the President from
10:30 to 12:30, and he has returned to the building.
The Secretary also has spoken this morning by phone
with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd. He has been very
involved in the situation up at the United Nations. And at 9:45
this morning the Secretary held a meeting with some senior State
Department officials on the situation in the Baltics. He plans
on meeting later today with the Soviet Charge in Washington to
discuss the situation there.
Without presuming to tell news organizations how to
conduct their affairs, we have issued any number of travel
advisories recommending against travel to Iraq. We have removed
our own personnel and roughly 2,500 private American citizens.
Most nations of the world have done the same.
In the current situation, those actions speak for
themselves. As the clock ticks down to midnight, we feel the
obligation to remind everyone that this is a truly very
dangerous situation.
[USSR Foreign Minister Appointed]
I have a statement for the Department on the
announcement of Mr. Bessmertnykh on his appointment as Foreign
Minister of the Soviet Union. We are pleased by the appointment
of the Soviet Ambassador to the United States, Alexander
Bessmertnykh, to the post of Soviet Foreign Minister.
Ambassador Bessmertnykh is a skilled diplomat of long standing
who brings to his new position great skill and the highest
standards of professionalism.
We know him well, and we know he was instrumental in
the positive improvement in our mutual relations during Foreign
Minister Shevardnadze's tenure. We hope the marked positive
improvement in our relations of the last few years can continue;
that we can continue to find points of mutual advantage, and
that there will be no reversal in the Soviet new thinking as it
pertains to foreign policy.
Having said that, the events of the last few days in
the Baltics deeply disturb and concern us. There can be no
lasting U.S.-Soviet cooperation without shared values. And, as
the President said on Sunday, events like those now taking place
in the Baltic states threaten to set back or perhaps even
reverse the process of reform which is so important for peace in
the world and the development of the new international order.
We remain deeply concerned and disturbed about the
situation in the Baltics. Force has been used in Lithuania, and
a terrible tragedy has ensued. Only peaceful dialogue, not the
use of force or the threatened use of force, can resolve this
situation without further bloodshed, not only in Lithuania but
in Latvia and Estonia as well.
An update on the situation in the Baltics for you all.
As of 7:00 a.m. this morning in Lithuania things were relatively
quiet. Mr. Landsbergis was in the Parliament building and a
parliamentary meeting was going on. In Latvia, the National
Salvation Front held a rally at approximately 8:00 a.m. our time
in a military stadium outside of Riga. There was no violence.
We have also seen press reports that several Soviet
officers may have deserted, but we have nothing to confirm this
report. We have also seen a report that black berets took over
a police training academy, but we do not have a confirmation of
that report either.
In Estonia, there was a rally of the pro-Moscow
Interfront Movement. The meeting was lightly attended, and
there were no reports of violence. There remains a danger that
front organizations in Latvia and Estonia are engaging in
provocative actions by calling for the removal of the
democratically elected governments there.
We are watching this closely and urge dialogue rather
than provocation as the best path toward defusing the crisis and
reversing the damage already done.
That's it.
Q Margaret, I'm tempted to ask you a lot of
questions about the Soviet Union, but that clock that you're
talking about its ticking, and it's obviously the focal point.
When you spoke just before of the Secretary being involved with
the United Nations, could you elaborate a little?
A Sure.
Q Certainly, the Ambassador's words are quite clear
as to what he thinks of the French proposal, but tell us,
please, if the Administration is dead set against the French
proposal as being more of the same old thing and linkage, etc.?
A Let me tell you that the Security Council, as you
may already know, met til 3:30 a.m. last night. They were due
to meet at 10:00 a.m. this morning, and I think actually started
meeting in informal session around 11:00 or 11:30. Concerning
the French proposal, our view of this is that it would modify
resolutions already passed whose full implementation we have
been calling for.
We have been very clear in our refusal to consider any
initiatives which involve linkage with the Palestinian issue or
walking back from full compliance with the already passed 12
United Nations Security Council resolutions.
You should know -- and Secretary Baker discussed this
with Foreign Minister Hurd this morning -- we would be prepared
to consider a Council statement that encompasses the decisions
already made in the Council's 12 resolutions over five and a
half months. This is a British proposal which we welcome, and
it has the support, without speaking for others, of other
countries.
Q I can't recollect if we have them all, of course.
Do those resolutions speak of the need for some sort of a
Mideast conference?
A The ones that have already passed?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q In other words, you're prepared to summarize
what's been done already, but is the Administration prepared to
offer Saddam Hussein some language that gives him some hope of
getting a session going to deal with the Palestinians?
A No. I just said what we're proposing. And my
clear understanding of the 12 resolutions that have already
passed is that they do not call for an international conference.
Q I did remember them calling for it. I just wanted
to check with you.
A O.K. No. Our policy has not changed this
morning.
Q Just to clear this up, the British resolution, as
you understand it, would simply restate the aim of the 12
resolutions already passed and nothing further?
A Correct.
Q What's the point of that?
A The point of that is many nations, including our
own, have said until the very last moment that we would work for
a peaceful resolution of this. This is a proposal that the
Foreign Minister discussed with the Secretary this morning, and
the Secretary, after studying the proposal and discussing it
with the White House -- we welcome this proposal and will
support it.
Q But, Margaret, how does reiterating resolutions
already rejected by Saddam Hussein move the peace process
forward?
A I don't know if it will move it forward or
backwards or leave it where it is, John, but it's an attempt by
one nation which we have joined in, in an attempt to try to find
in the hours that remain a peaceful resolution to this
situation.
Q Margaret, if the French proposal came to a vote,
would the United States use its veto?
A I don't know, Alan.
Q You don't know.
A I don't know, because these are all -- right now
they're meeting in informal session. It is my understanding
that there is not a formal agreed-upon document for a vote, and
we have refrained, since our tenure here, from ever, without
having a final before us, saying how the United States would or
would not vote.
I have said, I think very clearly today, what our
position is on the proposal as we know it. It has not been
tabled or called for a vote, and our Ambassador -- Ambassador
Pickering -- was very clear last night on the United States
position.
Q If any country in the Security Council put on the
table a resolution which included calling for a Middle East
peace conference -- put that to a vote -- would the United
States veto it?
A The United States, I believe -- without
pre-empting a Presidential decision, Alan -- would not vote for
any resolution that clearly has linkage.
Q The British resolution would simply be a vehicle
for reaffirming solidarity at this 11th hour so there could be
no confusion about the unity of the U.N. allies?
A I don't want to second guess the British reasoning
for why they have put this proposal there. I have got a limited
characterization of it. I have said the Secretary has been
working this morning -- in fact, talking to the Foreign Minister
-- and it is a proposal in the shape, as has been described to
the Secretary, that the United States would support. But there
is no linkage in it.
Q During this period of the passage of the 12
resolutions, there was also a resolution passed that stated the
Security Council's favoring an international conference at the
appropriate time.
Would the United States object if this British
resolution also reminded the world of this as part of an attempt
to suggest to Iraq that such a thing is possible down the road
as the President and the Secretary have said?
A Saddam Hussein -- and I have to assume the Iraqi
people -- are well aware of the Bush Administration position
concerning an international conference. Every single member of
the United Nations Security Council is very well aware of our
policy prior to August 2 concerning an international conference.
They also are equally aware of our policy post-August 2
of absolutely, positively no linkage, because we view -- feel
strongly that that does nothing more than reward Saddam Hussein
for his brutal aggression.
Q Well, let me ask you a question that I asked Baker
and did not get a satisfactory answer to, because Saddam Hussein
had not offered or responded to an offer of linkage. But is the
principle of linkage worth the lives that will be lost if a war
comes within the next few days?
A I think that the United States policy here has
been supported unanimously by the vast majority of the nations
of the world. Yes, as you well know, there are a few nations
who would -- or say they would go -- for a Middle East
conference. But the vast majority of the international
community does not support the principle of rewarding an
aggressor who has brutally invaded his smaller neighbor.
Q At this hour, if Saddam Hussein were to blink,
would he have the time in the eyes of the Administration -- does
he have the time to remove enough troops from Kuwait to make a
difference?
A Those are all hypothetical questions that I am not
going to deal with. Prior to coming to this podium, I am
unaware of any signal that Saddam Hussein has given that he is
intending to withdraw so much as a single soldier. Foreign
Minister Dumas, I have seen on the wires, is saying much the
same thing.
Everyone is crying out for this man to come to his
senses. This is within his grip and his hands to choose the
path of peace and not possible use of force against his nation,
against his people. And it is Saddam Hussein who can stop this.
Q Margaret, may I follow on Saul's question? The
French diplomats here and in New York are saying that their
proposal restates exactly what the American formula is for a
Middle East peace conference, international conference, at the
appropriate time, properly structured, and so forth; that it
would not be a resolution of the Security Council, but it would
be a statement by the President.
They say this is an American proposal. Why should the
United States oppose that now, having agreed to it already
earlier on?
A My understanding -- and I am not at the United
Nations, and I am not one of the people who is in New York
working on this as it is happening -- is that there is a French
proposal of last night that in the United States' view and in
the view of other members of the Security Council who have said
so today, "We believe that there is linkage." And our policy on
linkage has been well stated over the last five and a half
months.
Q Margaret, you indicated in Baker's schedule that
he has spent an enormous amount of time at the White House today
already, and that he was over at the Pentagon yesterday. What
is he doing at the Pentagon? Was he getting a slide show, a
tour? What --
A I have no comments other than to confirm that the
Secretary had a meeting with the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Q How long was he there?
A I don't know when the meeting began. It was
scheduled to begin -- I think I'm correct on this -- I believe
at some time between 5:30 and 6:00, and I believe the Secretary
left the Pentagon about 6:45.
Q O.K. And what --
Q Was it one meeting or two separate meetings?
A One meeting.
Q And having spent all this morning at the White
House, what's he doing?
A I have pointed out one of the things that he has
been doing is discussing what is going on in the United Nations.
I said that he had discussed with the White House our support
of the current British proposal. And, as Marlin characterized,
the President has had a meeting this morning. I believe that
Secretary Cheney was there. I can't remember who else Marlin
said. And that Marlin described it as the President and his
adviser were discussing a whole range of issues concerning the
Gulf crisis.
Q This is not --
Q Would you describe them as preparing for war?
A I'm not going to describe them, because that is a
White House role, not mine, and Marlin has given the description
on behalf of the President of the meeting the President had this
morning.
Q Margaret, this isn't the first time the French
have tried to come up with a compromise. And at the same time,
though, we are told repeatedly that France, like everybody else,
with the possible exception of Syria in the coalition, would
commit its troops and support U.S. policy. They're just simply
trying to find some diplomatic approach that the U.S. doesn't
find unacceptable.
Did the Secretary speak to the French Foreign Minister
at any point in this very busy two-day period? Did the French
tell the United States in advance the approach, the ploy, they
would try at the United Nations? Did this take the
Administration by surprise?
A Foreign Minister Dumas called for Secretary Baker
yesterday when the Secretary was in his meeting with the Foreign
Minister of Japan. The Secretary asked if Under Secretary
Kimmitt could please take the call for him, since his meeting
with the Foreign Minister of Japan was running approximately 40
minutes late. Secretary Baker had kept him waiting because of
meetings at the White House, and because he
was having a one-on-one meeting with the Foreign Minister of
Japan and did not want to step out.
So Foreign Minister Dumas spoke with Mr. Kimmitt twice
yesterday and throughout late yesterday afternoon any number of
times Assistant Secretary Seitz and Under Secretary Kimmitt have
spoken with the French Ambassador here in the United States.
Obviously, Ambassador Pickering is dealing with the
French Ambassador to the United Nations.
Q But in some of these conversations, at least in
one of them, did the French tell the United States it had this
approach it was going to put to the United Nations?
A I haven't asked Bob [Kimmitt] that question. I
don't know.
Q Margaret, the United States at this point may be
on the eve of a war which is going to cost thousands and perhaps
tens of thousands of lives. Has the United States nothing new
diplomatically to offer in these final hours that will bridge
the gap and prevent this war?
A I believe, John, that the entire world is asking
the question, "Why isn't Saddam Hussein saying that he chooses to
seek peace." The entire world, I believe, recognizes without
question that Saddam Hussein alone, singlehandedly, can stop
this.
The entire world has for five and a half months
exhausted every diplomatic opportunity and creativeness of the
best minds of the world. To deal with that, as we have said,
this has been an unprecedented international effort. There are
12 United Nations resolutions that have passed practically
unanimously. Many of them did pass unanimously.
There was a vote in the General Assembly of the United
Nations. The entire world is calling for this man, Saddam
Hussein, to choose peace, to use whatever is within his means,
and any kind of rational wisdom to withdraw from Kuwait.
Q And does the United States feel that it has no
responsibility at this point to help that come about?
A What do you mean?
Q No additional responsibility to make some
diplomatic move that would help this kind of peace come about?
Do you feel that you've done everything that you possibly can do
at this point, and that everything is now up to Saddam Hussein?
A I certainly think that everything is up to Saddam
Hussein. After all, there is one simple sentence that couldn't
have more than ten words in it that he could announce to the
world that says, "I am withdrawing from Kuwait."
Q But, Margaret --
Q That's not good enough.
A What do you mean that's [not] good enough. That's
what the world has been asking for, for five and a half months.
Q No. I say, the U.S. demand is total withdrawal.
I mean, you're speaking loosely, but he has to commit himself to
a total withdrawal, doesn't he?
A Absolutely.
Q Margaret, we've also asked for an unconditional
withdrawal.
A That's right.
Q And the President has said no compromises, no face
saving, no nothing. So what you're saying is these 12
resolutions are simply unconditional demands on Saddam Hussein,
and the French are suggesting that there may be certain
conditions that the world and the Security Council could live
with, and the United States -- even though Saddam Hussein has not
reacted -- the United States appears to be saying no to that.
Is that correct?
A Let's be clear here. This is not, nor has it ever
been, the United States against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. One
country you are mentioning, which I have acknowledged -- as we
have all along -- there may be a few others -- have said --
Q Germany.
A Correct. I said that.
Q Italy.
A I acknowledged it earlier. But the vast majority
of the international community, of the nations of the world,
have supported, are continuing to support, the 12 United Nations
resolutions. And they call for unconditional withdrawal.
So if you go the route of linkage, that is a condition
in our interpretation and many of the other nations'
interpretations. And then you would be setting the principle of
rewarding aggression.
Q And the principle of linkage -- you said the
French have suggested something that has been called "loose
linkage." Indeed, the President, in his United Nations speech,
suggested that possibly as well -- what could be called "loose
linkage." But now you're saying that there is no opportunity
for even that, to include in this new Security Council
resolution, at least the statement reiterating not only the 12
resolutions but reiterating the Security Council's belief and
the American belief that an international conference could be
called at the appropriate time, properly structured, subsequent
to the withdrawal from Kuwait, and we're opposed to that?
A The United States' position, as I said earlier,
concerning an international conference was well stated and well
founded prior to August 2.
Post-August 2, the United States' position has been:
We will not subscribe to linkage which in our minds, and many of
the nations of the world, rewards aggression. It violates that
very fundamental principle. No one, to my knowledge, is keeping
a secret about what the United States' position is. It's a
position of many years on a Middle East conference. But the
United States, and many, many nations, do not want to reward
this brutal dictator, who has invaded a country, by giving him a
condition. It is clearly laid out in the U.N. resolutions:
Unconditional withdrawal.
Q Margaret, there appears to be a growing anti-war
movement in the United States and also abroad. Has this taken
the State Department by surprise? And what's your view of these
protests? Are these people misguided or playing into the hands
of Saddam Hussein? And how might that affect U.S. policy if this
grows?
A Are you speaking of people here in our country?
Q Here in this country and abroad.
A I'm not aware of Americans who are demonstrating
abroad. I'm just not aware of it.
As far as Americans demonstrating in America, that is
our way of life. That is our country.
Q And what about foreigners that are demonstrating
in front of U.S. Embassies around the world, including our
allies in Germany?
A That, again, is a fundamental principle of our
government of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. That
is a fundamental right of people in our country. That is their
prerogative.
Q Margaret, the Secretary and the President have
referred to a new world order. How is that being defined?
A They are defining it, as the Secretary of State
and the President have said, by the insistence on the
implementation of the 12 United Nations resolutions. The entire
world has been defining it, in my mind, over the last five and a
half months.
Look at what the United Nations has done. Look at what
the world community has done. It's unprecedented and it's
historical.
Q On the Soviet Union?
Q One more on the area.
Q Just thought I'd try.
Q Margaret, what was the subject of the meeting with
the Japanese Foreign Minister?
A They discussed a host of things, Johanna. It was
a one-on-one meeting with our Assistant Secretary there and the
interpreter. One of the things they did discuss was 1991
responsibility-sharing for the Gulf. They also, as you know --
and we put out a Fact Sheet yesterday -- signed a bilateral
arrangement. I don't have what the Department put out yesterday
-- a full readout of the meeting of the various subjects they
discussed.
Q The reason I asked is, it's curious that on the
eve of war the French Foreign Minister calls in with the latest
-- perhaps the last diplomatic initiative and the Secretary
doesn't take time out from a meeting to talk to him. Does this
suggest that Secretary Baker has given up on diplomacy?
A The French Foreign Minister, when being told that
the Secretary was in a meeting with one of their colleagues,
asked to speak with Under Secretary Kimmitt. Secretary Baker
did not say, "I cannot speak to him." Foreign Minister Dumas
requested speaking with Mr. Kimmitt whom he knows very well.
Q Has the Secretary given up on diplomacy?
A The Secretary would not give up. He hopes that
Saddam Hussein will come to a decision to choose peace.
Q Margaret, we both don't like the questions. But
if the French send their Foreign Minister to Baghdad, is the
United States hostage, then, to French policy? In other words,
could the United States go to war while the French Foreign
Minister is in Baghdad trying to negotiate something that the
United States, in any event, disapproves of but there he is?
A That's a total hypothetical for me.
Q What happens, Margaret, when midnight passes, and
let's assume there has not been a military attack? What is the
State Department going to be doing? Just sort of sitting there
with a Task Force watching and waiting?
A What happens at midnight, in my mind, is, as you
know, the world community has said, at that moment the world is
authorized to use force, if that is the decision that is
ultimately made.
Q And diplomatic efforts are completed, as far as
the United States is concerned; last minute appeals and all of
that sort of stuff. The receptors of the United States
Government are shut down after midnight, is that correct?
A This deadline is very real, as the Secretary has
said and the President any number of times: It is a real
deadline.
Q It is a real deadline, and we've all heard that.
Does that mean that incoming phone calls from the major
participants in this, including the government in Baghdad, are
not going to be received or heard?
A That is a hypothetical, John. I can't tell you
that at 11:59 a phone call comes through that the United States
Government wouldn't take.
Q The question is, if the government of Baghdad
tries to do some of the things that the Bush Administration has
been warning the world it may do and if it tries to sue for
peace and it is, in fact, the 16th of January and not the 15th,
is this government saying flat out that it's not going to talk
to anybody after that deadline passes; that the time for
diplomacy is finished? Or are you leaving yourself wiggle room?
A No.
Q No, you're not leaving yourself wiggle room?
A January 15, Eastern Standard time, at midnight, is
a real deadline.
Q So there will be no diplomacy on this issue after
January 15 as far as the focus of the issue is concerned, and
that is the violation of the U.N. resolutions? This government
is finished? It's doors are closed on the issue of trying to
settle this peacefully after January 15?
A I'll have to keep stating for you that January 15
is a very real deadline.
Q But does that mean you won't talk to anybody after
the 15th?
A I'm not going to play that. I'm going to continue
to tell you, which we have been saying and we mean, January 15,
midnight, Eastern Standard Time, is a real deadline.
Q Sure. But without knocking that in any way, and
accepting that to be the case, does that mean you won't talk to
anybody after the 15th?
A If I answer that question, then I might as well
say next September 19, we'll still be talking about it and next
November 4 we'll talk about it. January 15 is a real
international deadline.
Q Your warning the journalists had a real sense of
urgency about it. Can we draw from that that military conflict
is imminent?
A No. You can draw from it what we stated, that we
felt a responsibility. We certainly do not presume to tell news
organizations how to conduct their business, but we feel a
sincere responsibility. It goes without saying, to remind that
this is a very dangerous situation.
Q Margaret, I think what Jack and Bill are asking,
and I'm asking, is between the 12:00 midnight deadline, which is
real, and the shooting that starts -- whenever it starts -- does
the Baghdad government have a way of getting in touch with us to
do the things that would prevent the shooting from starting?
That's the point.
A There's nothing preventing the Baghdad government
from calling at this moment or having called for the last five
and a half months. This deadline is real. I'm not going to
push the envelop further. It is real --
Q I know. But can they call before the shooting
starts, after 12:0l?
A They have until 12:00 midnight Eastern Standard
time. That's the international community's deadline.
Q So they can't call after midnight, before the
shooting starts?
A I'm not answering. One, it's my understanding,
Saul, which you know, that the President has not made such a
decision. So you keep saying, "Before the shooting starts." I
have no authority to answer that question. The Secretary of
State told you any number of times on this trip that the
President has not made such a decision.
Q He hasn't said that lately.
Q Margaret, were you given any assurances by the
Japanese or by the Germans, specifically, that they would help
in the cost, to help defray the cost of this operation this
year?
A The Foreign Minister himself answered it here at
the State Department yesterday. He said that he had told
Secretary Baker that he would continue to consider additional
steps -- it, meaning Japan -- could take as the situation in the
Gulf evolves.
Q What about Germany? Their participation has been
laxed?
A Without addressing myself to that, Secretary Baker
said, in his meeting with Chancellor Khol and with Foreign
Minister Genscher -- and I'll get you the statements he made
afterwards -- that he was very satisfied with those meetings,
and that was just five days ago when we were in Germany.
Q Margaret, on the same topic. Is the State
Department ready yet to announce any dollar figures or
percentage figures for responsibility-sharing from the states
the Secretary visited on this trip?
A No, not yet.
Q Margaret, is the Secretary satisfied with the
Japanese Foreign Minister's response of yesterday?
A Yes.
Q Not financial -- I mean, apart from financial?
A You should also know that the Japanese announced
yesterday that they have pledged to fund the full $38 million
start-up cost of the U.N. Disaster Relief Organization's Refugee
Relief Program in the Gulf. It is evidence in our mind of their
continuing commitment.
Q Is there any concern because of the French's
proposal that this may be a weakening in the consensus, the
international consensus?
A No. Let me remind you that President Mitterrand
has said on any number of occasions -- and, of course, I'll
refer you to his record -- that he supports -- they have voted
for -- the United Nations resolutions. He has also said, until
midnight January 15, he would work for any type of peaceful
resolution that he could.
Q Margaret, in all of the linkage debate, can you
tell us if Iraq has ever indicated to the United States that if
linkage was accepted, they would leave Kuwait?
A If you're talking about directly to the United
States, I'm not aware of that. They have certainly said it in
every bombasting statement that they have made out of their
capital, and there has been no secret that that is exactly what
they have tried to do.
As you know, they came out with the statement that the
reason they invaded Kuwait was to help the Palestinian cause. I
don't believe that there are many people who believe that is why
they invaded Kuwait.
Q Speaking of beliefs, does the Administration
believe that President Gorbachev did not give the charge order
in the Baltics? That actions were taken around him? And,
similarly, if you happen to know, did Defense Minister Yazov try
to get the troops to return to the barracks and also get
disobeyed?
A I don't know the answer to either of your
questions, and we are not going to speculate concerning
President Gorbachev on what he knew or didn't know.
Whatever the course of events, the Soviet leadership
must be held responsible for the actions of the Soviet
government.
Q Even if he didn't know, his government is
responsible and could be held accountable and might even suffer
economic penalties?
A As you know, the President has not made any
decisions concerning those types of items, Barry.
Q Following that up --
Q Summit planning?
A I'm not going to speculate on the summit. As you
know, Mr. Fitzwater yesterday addressed himself to this and
basically said that -- let me get Marlin's exact words -- "The
final decision has not been made and will not be made for some
time."
Q Is summit planning continuing? Are you continuing
to have the discussions as though there were really going to be
a summit with the Soviet government? Normally, you have almost
daily conversations prior to a big meeting like that. Are those
occurring?
A I don't know.
Q Can you take that question?
A Sure. But to be honest with you, I don't know --
at what level are you talking? I don't remember the last time
when we had the summit here.
Q Foreign Ministry-to-Foreign Ministry.
A I'll ask.
Q And do you know when the last START negotiations
were held -- sorry, part of planning.
A What?
Q If you can't now -- or we could ask ACDA. But do
you have any notion of the pace of arms control negotiations --
that treaty that would be signed were it ready, were there a
summit, both of which, of course, seem highly unlikely?
A Yes, I'll take your question. Alan has a
question.
Q In his Pontius Pilate statement yesterday,
Gorbachev showed scant remorse for the events in Lithuania. Do
you have any comment on Gorbachev's statement on his lack of
regret for the blood that was spilled there?
A To be honest with you, Alan, I have not seen his
statement. I have characterized for you what our statement is
for today concerning the Soviet leadership on whether they knew
or did not know. I just have not, since we returned, had an
opportunity to see his statement.
Q Can you ask the same question about the Temple
Mount?
A What?
Q Margaret, can I ask you about the PLO shootings
and the charges that Israel --
Q Why is the Charge coming? Is Bessmertnykh already
--
A He's in Moscow.
Q -- back?
A He is in Moscow.
Q So the Charge is coming in to meet with --
A Secretary Baker.
Q And --
Q Filing break, please. In other words, can we just
drop out and continue with other subjects, if you'd like?
Q Do we know how many journalists are in Baghdad?
A No, I do not. But I do know, and you all know,
there are American journalists, and I'm sure other journalists,
that are there.
Q Is there a list of U.N. countries' contributions?
For instance, the Canadians sent 17,000 troops and three ships.
Anything like that available?
A I think we've put that out any number of times.
Check in the Press Office and see if they can't give you some of
the old copies.
Q What time is the meeting with the Soviet Charge?
A I can't remember if it was set before we came down
there. The meeting with the Soviet -- was it at 1:30? I don't
know, Frances; I don't know.
Q Margaret, the PLO?
A Yes. What?
Q I wanted to know if you had any statement on the
assassination and also the charges that Israel is behind this?
A The first part of your question, the Tunisians
have not commented officially on responsibility. A Fatah
statement said that the assassin was "an Agent who infiltrated
as the bodyguard" of one of the victims and did not link him to
any specific group. However, press reports quote Palestinian
sources as saying the killer was a former member of the Abu
Nidal organization with which the PLO has had a long and bloody
rivalry; a rivalry that has led to assassinations in the past.
Apparently, the gunman held Abdel-Hamid's wife and
family hostage for several hours before being captured by
Tunisian police. That answers your first question.
Your second question concerning speculation that Israel
was involved. The Defense Minister of Israel has said,
"Definitely no, we had nothing to do with it."
Q With the possibility of war in the Gulf, are there
any advisories, outside of the advisory to reporters in Iraq, to
U.S. citizens in view of potential increases in terrorist
attacks? Any new advisories?
A Any new ones? There's not a new one today. But,
as you know, we just put out a new terrorist threat advisory
last week. There doesn't need to be an updated travel advisory
for Iraq.
As you know, and all of you know, there are a number of
Americans who chose, regardless of how many times they were
contacted, regardless of how many flights we had available that
went out with empty seats, there are Americans who chose to stay
in Iraq.
Q Margaret, what about terrorism in this country?
Does the Department regard it as a likely possibility, a
prospect?
A We had a 3-page statement last week, Bill,
concerning terrorism, and I would just refer you to that. It's
definitely -- terrorism -- the entire category is something we
are obviously concerned about.
Q Are you stepping up security in this building?
Q Could you just address the question of terrorism
in this country? In this city, for that matter?
Q In this building?
Q Do you regard it as a likely danger under the
circumstances?
A I cannot address myself to "In this building, in
this city." I will be happy to take your question. I don't
have a current security analysis. I just haven't asked. So I'd
be making it up.
Q Margaret, on the U.N. thing, you mentioned the
British and the French. Will the Secretary be talking to other
members of the Security Council this afternoon and this evening?
And will he take up the British and the French proposals with
the Soviet Charge when he's here?
A The intention of his meeting with the Soviet
Charge, as I stated, was to discuss the Baltic situation. I
don't know, Mark, if this subject, indeed, came up. I'm not
sure that it's necessary for it to come up. He might have
already had this meeting and completed it.
What was the first part of your question? Is he going
to call other people? When I came down for the briefing, there
were no scheduled phone calls, but he might well talk to any of
his colleagues or they could be calling him, but there was
nothing planned.
Q How many Americans are now in Iraq?
A I'm not sure that we've ever given out that
number. Have we?
MR. BOUCHER: There's about 180.
MS. TUTWILER: We've said about 180 who chose to stay.
Q Margaret, what is his schedule for the rest of the
day? Will he be staying through the evening, going back over to
the White House?
A As I said, he has intentionally kept his schedule
open and flexible for today. When I came down to brief, he did
not have any scheduled plans to go back to the White House but
he well could. So it's totally open.
Q Where is he going to be at midnight?
A To my knowledge, at his residence.
Q Does that 180 in Iraq include journalists, or is
that the --
A I believe this number does not include
journalists. This is the American community which we monitored
and stayed in contact with throughout the time until November.
So, no, it is not journalists. I'm not sure that we do have a
number of American journalists or foreign journalists that are
there. We just know that many organizations have one there.
Q The situation in the Baltics, is that a setback
for the new world order?
A It is obviously not a step forward.
Q Thank you.
A Thanks, John.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:52 p.m.)
(###)