US Department of State Daily Briefing #10:
Wednesday,1/16/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:04 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 16, 19911/16/91
Category: Briefings
Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa
Country: Jordan, Yemen, Nigeria, Iraq, Algeria, Israel,
Morocco, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Tunisia,
Mauritania, Pakistan, Sudan, Kuwait,
Bahrain, Qatar
Subject: Military Affairs, Travel, Democratization,
State Department
NOTE: AT 7:00 PM, US AIR FORCES BEGAN ATTACKS ON IRAQ. There
was a Presidential Statement to the nation at 9:00 pm, Defense
Secretary Cheney briefed immediately thereafter, followed by an
informal State Department briefing by Spokesman Tutwiler at 9:30
pm.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Security Increased]
MS. TUTWILER: Several of you all asked me yesterday
what the State Department was doing concerning security and you
asked me what we were doing overseas.
I said that I knew that the State Department had been
addressing this subject matter for many, many weeks but I did
not have the details with me. I'd like to give those to you
this morning.
The Department has implemented a more stringent
building security program. Procedures have been put in place to
ensure a safe workplace for all and to provide safeguards for
government property and sensitive information.
The following procedures are being effected:
An increased, uniform security personnel presence in
the building's public areas.
Closer inspection of vehicles and deliveries coming
into the building.
Mandatory wearing of building passes while in
Department of State buildings.
Adherence to established visitor clearance procedures
and escort requirements.
Employees are asked to curtail sponsorship of all
visitors who do not have official business in this building.
The Department is closed to public tours. And
functions on the Eighth Floor and in the auditoriums are being
reduced in numbers.
Should hostilities occur, we will close certain public
entrances and further restrict parking around the State
Department.
As an additional precaution, employees are requested
not to display their building passes or parking permits when
outside the Department.
As far as what we have done overseas, I cannot give you
as many details as I could concerning the building. But I can
tell you that the Department has asked U.S. Missions to review
their respective security situations, provided them with
security guidelines, and advised them to take appropriate action
as necessary. This has been an on-going process since Iraq
invaded Kuwait on August 2.
[Update: Travel Advisories]
I would like to recount for you -- many of these, as
you know, we've put out in any number of travel advisories. The
Department has ordered or authorized the departure of
non-essential U.S. Government employees and dependents from the
following countries: Jordan, Yemen, Nigeria, Iraq, Algeria,
Israel and the Occupied Territories, Morocco, eastern province
of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Mauritania,
Pakistan, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.
[Terrorism Precautions]
Concerning U.S. precautions on terrorism: In view of
threatening public statements by Iraq, and planning activities
undertaken by terrorist groups supported by Baghdad, the United
States Government believes that acts of terrorism directed
against American interests are likely in the event of
hostilities. President Bush has said that the United States
will hold Saddam Hussein directly responsible for any terrorist
attack Iraq sponsors.
Some of the steps that the United States Government is
taking to help counter this threat are the following:
One:
Since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, we
havereleased four public announcements warning of the risk of
Iraqi-sponsored terrorist activities. These warnings remain in
effect.
Two:
The Department has authorized or
ordered thedrawdown of personnel from most United States
diplomaticfacilities in North Africa and the Middle East. We have
publicized this information in travel advisories, and we
strongly urge that Americans considering travel abroad review
all travel advisories affecting the region or country to which
they may be planning to travel.
Three:
Ambassador Busby, who is the State
DepartmentCoordinator for Counter-Terrorism, has worked closely
with theFederal Aviation Administration, which has implemented
majorenhancements of aviation security standards for both
domesticand international service by U.S. airlines. The
internationalmeasures have been carefully coordinated with our
major aviationpartners.
Four:
Ambassador Busby has travelled
extensively sinceAugust to discuss the terrorist threats with our
allies and isworking very closely with them in coordinating
whatever measureswe are planning.
Five:
The Department has asked all United
Statesdiplomatic missions worldwide to review their respective
security situations.
Six:
American Embassies and Consulates
throughout theworld have been briefing local American communities
on stepsthat they can take to increase their personal security in
this time of heightened tension.
As we have said before to you, while it is likely that
terrorist events may occur, for which we have no forewarning,
should specific and credible information on a threat to the
American public be received, the Department of State will
provide information for travellers and other concerned parties.
[Update: The Baltics]
The next readout I'd like to do is on the Baltics,
concerning an update on that situation.
Lithuania:
There has been no new violence
reported inthe last 24 hours. Today is the funeral for those killed
in the recent violence.
The Lithuanian government continues to meet in the
Parliament Building. Parliamentarians have received visits of
delegations from the republics of Russia, the Ukraine, and
Moldavia. These groups visited Vilnius to show their support.
Private groups from Poland and France have also visited the
Parliament in Vilnius to show their support.
The Federation Council Mediation Team, which was sent
to Lithuania several days ago, returned to Moscow and was to
report to the Supreme Soviet this afternoon. The Supreme Soviet
is sending a group of deputies today to talk to President
Landsbergis about the situation in Lithuania.
Pro-Moscow workers at a power plant in Lithuania say
power should be cut off at the end of the day if National
Salvation Committee demands are not met.
In Latvia:
The conditions are tense, but there
hasbeen no military action and no violence in the last 24 hours.
The Latvian Parliament is meeting today to discuss the on-going
crisis.
The Supreme Soviet is sending a group of deputies to
Latvia to discuss the situation.
Black Berets remain in control of the heating plant in
a Riga suburb.
Yesterday, the Latvian Supreme Soviet repeated a
November 14 action which had called for the cutting off of local
support to military bases where Black Beret units were
stationed.
In Estonia:
There has been no violence or
significant military action reported in Estonia in the last 24 hours.
Yesterday evening, Bob Zoellick and Dennis Ross and
Kurt Kamman received Endel Lippmaa of the Estonian government.
They met for approximately 90 minutes. Mr. Lippmaa expressed
his gratitude to the United States for its support and said he
hoped that the United States would use its good offices to help
the Baltic States if things did not improve.
Yesterday, in Tallinn a pro-Moscow group announced the
creation of a National Salvation Committee such as exists in the
other two Baltic republics.
The Estonian government reached agreement yesterday
with the Soviet Ministry of Defense that they would allow
Estonian draftees to serve in Estonia. In addition, deserters
from the Soviet military would be allowed to serve in Estonia
without punishment.
Estonia radio this morning carried an Estonian
government appeal for Estonians who had been paratroopers in the
Soviet military to contact the Estonian government in order to
join up with the Estonian Self-Defense Forces.
Pro-Moscow workers at a power plant in northeast
Estonia have said that electrical power should be cut off at the
end of the day if National Salvation Committee demands are not
met.
[Update: Secretary's Activities]
The only other thing I would like to give you an update
on is Secretary Baker's activities. The Secretary worked here
at the Department until approximately 10:00 p.m. last night.
This morning, he had breakfast at the White House at 7:00 a.m.
with Secretary Cheney and General Scowcroft. He also met
separately at the White House with President Bush.
He will be having lunch today at the White House with
the President, and he will have his regularly scheduled 1:30
meeting with the President at the White House.
The Secretary met early this morning with Saudi
Ambassador Prince Bandar for consultations on the situation in
the Gulf. He has also this morning talked to the Foreign
Minister of The Netherlands.
Yesterday afternoon, Secretary Baker talked to the new
Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. He called the Foreign
Minister in Moscow. He called to congratulate him on his
appointment and said he hoped he would be able to continue --
that they would be able to continue the path of cooperation
between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. He noted, however, that
the current Soviet actions in Lithuania put that objective at
risk. He emphasized that continued Soviet commitment to the
process of reform would be essential to U.S.-Soviet cooperation.
In this regard, the Secretary said, "Enduring
cooperation is not possible in the absence of shared values."
He told the Minister that the United States sees absolutely no
justification for the use of force against the peaceful and
democratically elected Government of Lithuania.
In response, the Minister said that maintaining close
U.S.-Soviet relations was extremely important from the Soviet
standpoint. He reiterated that the Soviet Union had no
intention of changing their foreign policy and he sought to be
reassuring on the Baltics.
Q You're going to be shocked but I'm going to ask
you if they talked about the Gulf, and if the United States will
give the Soviet Union any advance word before it moves against
Iraq?
A I won't respond to your second question. To your
first question: Yes, they discussed the Gulf.
As you know, Barry, when we were in Geneva, Secretary
Baker called then-Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, and we have
kept you up to speed on the back and forth with this Ministry
and their Ministry. Also, yesterday, Secretary Baker took the
occasion to tell the Minister that he appreciated the help the
Soviet Ambassador at the United Nations was giving concerning
yesterday's activities.
Q Was there a discussion of this last-minute effort
that now the Soviets have made, where they've pledged to Iraq
that they would help to try to get the Middle East discussed in
an appropriate way if Iraq would please pull out of Kuwait?
A Not in the conversation that Secretary Baker had
yesterday, which was early afternoon.
Q Margaret, I may have missed it in your list of
countries from which you had asked that non-essential people
leave the country. Was Israel included in that? If not -- it
was included?
A Sure.
Q Has the United States made any special effort to
evacuate Americans or to assist Americans to evacuate Israel?
And if not, why not?
A Not anymore special, John, than any other country
where we are assisting in various means, some of which I can
publicly tell you, some of which I cannot. But our embassies in
all of these areas have been working for many weeks. This is
not new information.
I just did a compilation for you. These announcements
were made concerning the country you're asking me about, I
believe while we were out on the road. There have been any
number of airline flights out, Americans leaving, etc. So this
was just an effort today for you all to pull that part of this
together. But absolutely the embassies are helping there. And
there are various means, if Americans need help, of having
expedited -- getting Americans out of these regions and these
countries.
Q Do you have a comment on the Soviets last-minute
peace initiative that the Deputy Foreign Minister has talked
about, saying that they have offered the various things that
Barry just described?
A No.
Q Does the U.S. support their effort at this point?
A I don't have -- to be honest with you, before we
came to the briefing -- a thorough readout. There have been so
many various reports this morning concerning this and other
matters in the Soviet Union, we just are not in a position to
respond at this briefing.
Q Has the United States Government had any word from
Baghdad in the last 24 hours? And is the door still open to a
potential bid from Baghdad to try and stop what appears to be
about to happen?
A We have had absolutely no word from Baghdad. The
Secretary remains hopeful that there will be a realization by
Baghdad of the seriousness of this situation and the need to
comply with the United Nations resolutions.
Obviously, if there was an initiative or indication
from Baghdad of a willingness to comply with those resolutions,
that would have to be pursued, but only if it did not involve a
walking-back from the United Nations resolutions. The sad and
tragic fact is that there has been no indication of any
flexibility in the position of Iraq.
Q But you're saying the door is still open?
A I am saying what the President has said, which is
what Marlin has said, the Secretary has said. I'm, Number l,
not going to play hypotheticals. We're going to refrain from
doing that. I think that this statement speaks for itself which
is nothing new that has not been said by the highest government
officials in our country previously.
Q You're saying that even at this late date Iraq
could forestall war if they would make a move?
A Everyone here knows, so I don't need to remind
you. The United Nations Resolution 678, if you read it, said
that after January 15, it authorized the use of all necessary
means. It did not call for action on that date or a specific
date after that.
Q In addition to the Soviet Union, what initiatives
are you hearing about that are now taking place in an effort to
still try and resolve the Gulf situation?
A To be quite honest, I am not aware of any new
initiatives that are out there. There may be some but I am
personally not aware of any.
Q On-going, though?
A I'm not aware of any that are on-going. You saw
the Secretary General's statement last night. I believe you've
seen what the French government has said today. Various
parliaments across Europe are voting today. I'm not aware of
any new initiative that is in play or one that is on-going.
Q Why not any optimism about the Soviet effort?
A Excuse me?
Q Why not an optimism about the Soviet effort?
A Because I make it a habit of not commenting on
something that I am not familiar with. I have not seen that.
As I said, there have been any number of various reports coming
out of the Soviet Union this morning on this subject and other
subjects. The Department was simply, at this briefing, not in a
position to respond responsibly to something we've seen
piecemeal.
Q Margaret, just for the record, could you explain
what was going on in Taif last Friday night when the -- if we
had not reached some sort of a deadline or call for action on
January 15, what was going on the other night in Taif when the
Secretary said that on January 15 we reach the brink. Was that
just psychological warfare on the part of the United States, or
did the Secretary misspeak?
A Of course he didn't misspeak. It's the same thing
that the United Nations said, John. The United Nations
resolution -- and I'm sure you've read it and are very familiar
with it -- says, "After January 15, you are authorized to use
force." The resolution does not address itself to any specific
date, but the date is anything that the coalition deems is
necessary. "After January 15, you are authorized to use" -- the
literal language is, "All necessary means." So the brink was,
as the Secretary stated on Friday, last night at 12:00 midnight.
Should the coalition make such a decision, they have the
authority of the international community and the United Nations
Security Council.
Q Margaret, not to play word games with you, but
we're already over the brink, then; is that correct?
A The deadline was 12:00 midnight Eastern Standard
Time, January 15.
Q No, I'm using the Secretary of State's phrase,
that the brink would be reached. We're already over the brink,
then; is that correct?
A That's correct, John. That doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure that out.
Q Margaret, does your guidance still reflect the
idea that an attack could come sooner rather than later?
A I'm sorry, Bill, what?
Q Does your guidance still reflect the idea that an
attack could come sooner rather than later?
A Correct.
Q Margaret, has the Secretary spoken --
Q Can you reiterate --
A Can I what?
Q Do you reiterate that, that the attack is more
likely to come sooner than later?
A That is what Mr. Fitzwater has said today on
behalf of the President. That is what he said yesterday. It's
what the Secretary of State has said. It hasn't changed.
Q Margaret, has the Secretary of State spoken with
any other foreign minister or foreign official this morning,
either on his own or with President Bush?
A Other than the Foreign Minister of The
Netherlands, as of the briefing, he had not. And as I said, he
had met with Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States,
Prince Bandar.
Q Margaret, does the United States feel that it
knows where Saddam Hussein is?
A I would never answer a question like that. Sorry.
Q Well, I didn't ask you where he was. I asked you
if the United States feels that it knows where he is?
A That's a question that I'm just not going to
respond to at all.
Q Margaret, can you tell us what other kinds of
consultations are planned in the next hours or days with other
members of the coalition?
A There are none that I'm aware of that are planned.
Q Do you expect others to occur as if unplanned?
A There are none that are scheduled and there are
none that are planned. I can't predict the future and say that
right now while we're briefing that Foreign Minister X is not
calling the Secretary or the Secretary has had a meeting and
decides to call several foreign ministers. I can only address
what is real as we're standing here. There are none that are
planned.
Q Margaret, I find your statement today hopeful that
they'll still show a willingness to comply. Is there a deadline
for them to show the willingness, since we've already passed one
major deadline?
A Those are the types of questions that I absolutely
-- and I'm sure you understand -- will refrain from answering --
any and all types of questions along those lines.
Q Margaret, news organizations are being asked if
the people who make these decisions have relatives, close
relatives on active duty. So, naturally, we're being asked at
State if the Secretary has a son or any close relatives on
active duty in the Gulf who might be involved in hostilities.
Could you tell us if he does?
Q He has a niece's husband by his first wife who is
serving in Saudi Arabia. He has a stepson that is in the
Reserves that is in Texas that has not been called up. Those
are the only two members of his family that I'm aware of.
Q And that first person -- the niece's husband -- do
you happen to know if he's in the Army or Air Force?
A I don't.
Q Margaret, in terms of the on-going security
measures that you mentioned within the State Department, within
the diplomatic corps, and as well for U.S. citizens in foreign
countries, was there any dramatic change, any increase, any
implementation as of midnight last night in these plans?
A This is something, as I said, that Diplomatic
Security and the officials here have been working on and are
aware of. Some measures were put in earlier this week, I
believe. I don't have an exact timetable for you. But,
definitely, all the measures that they have deemed would be
appropriate for this building and other missions are now in
place.
Q Have there been incidents that you are aware of
that have been foiled by any of the increased efforts at
airports? Are you aware of any of the alleged busts that have
been made of various cells throughout Europe and perhaps in the
United States as a result of increased efforts to counter
terrorism?
A No.
Q No?
A No.
Q Could you take that question, please?
A Sure. We had a thorough briefing this morning --
so I'm very current on this -- by Ambassador Busby for the
Senior Staff. This question was addressed and the answer was,
if you want a specific, "No, I do not know of a specific."
Q When was the last diplomatic contact that the
United States had with any Iraqi official?
A I don't know. Ambassador Mashat, as you know,
left last night with his wife and driver. I don't know if
someone in the Department escorted him to the airport or saw him
at the airport. I know that he has left. I don't'know.
As you know, the President has not severed relations
with Iraq. He has kept their embassy here open and they are
down to four employees. The very reason that he kept it open
was, should they decide to get in contact with the United States
Government, they have their functioning channel that is there
and open.
Q Margaret, could you clear up a point? Was
Ambassador Mashat asked to leave, or did he choose to be among
the people who left as part of the drawdown of the Embassy here?
A My understanding is that he was recalled back is
how he announced it. He was not asked by the United States
Government. The United States Government did request that the
Iraqi Mission here be reduced to four people. It was their
choice who the four people would be.
Q Margaret, yesterday Jack asked you repeatedly
whether or not the midnight deadline meant that diplomatic doors
were closed, and you repeatedly stated that last night's
midnight deadline was the final deadline. It was a real
deadline.
Today you're saying that if there is a willingness from
Baghdad to withdraw some troops, then there seems to be a
window. Are you rolling back at all?
A No. I am not running backwards. I am stating,
number one, let's deal with the facts. The facts are to my
knowledge not one single Iraqi soldier has crossed back into
Iraq. I believe there are close to 600,000 of them there, or at
least over 500,000. Not one in five and a half months -- not
one sign of flexibility has been shown -- not one indication has
been shown.
There is one human being on the face of the earth who
can stop this -- Saddam Hussein. That has been the case for over
five and a half months.
That is what the real world is. I'm not going to deal
with any number of hypotheticals. We're going to deal with what
the facts are.
Q (Inaudible)
A Wait a minute, Barry. The facts also are, as I
said yesterday, there has been an unprecedented, historical
international community effort to try to get through to this one
human being who has it within his grasp to stop this, and
nothing has worked so far. And everyone -- everyone that I am
aware of -- has come to the same conclusion. They have
exhausted every diplomatic avenue that is known to man right
now.
Not playing the hypothetical game, which I will not,
yes, I said that should -- and who knows -- they give any type
of indication or initiative from Baghdad of a willingness to
comply with 12 United Nations resolutions, one of which is, as
you know, unconditional, total, immediate withdrawal from
Kuwait, that would have to be pursued.
But please deal with what's real, and the real world is
-- there has not been one sliver of an indication that they
intend to do such.
Q Margaret, the world -- undoubtedly, though, the
magic moment, the brink, has passed without the United States
acting, and I wondered if you could tell us why there are some
experts who appear on television a lot, and I think -- I hope
I'm not misquoting, but I think former Secretary Kissinger is
one of them who was not for holding back much longer.
But these folks seem to think that it could be very
characteristic of Saddam Hussein to act now immediately after the
deadline -- you know, within 24/48 hours -- and offer something.
Is that why the United States is holding back? Is it an
additional attempt to elicit compliance from Saddam Hussein, or
is it simply a military judgment that the U.S. will pick the
time and place?
A These are the types of questions that I am going
to refrain from answering.
Q Margaret --
Q But a brink is a brink. I mean, in answer to John
Dancy --
A I'll go back to --
Q -- you sort of walked away from the fact that Mr.
Baker stood out there with pilots and said, "You will soon
know." He also said with great drama that the brink will be
passed at midnight --
A And it was --
Q And it was passed, and we are still sitting here,
and the world is still at peace, and I wondered if that's
because the United States would like to allow a little more time
at least to see if Iraq will come forward.
A Let's also deal with the facts. The facts are
that the United Nations resolution did not call for action at
12:01 on January 16, correct?
Q Correct.
A No one in this Administration, to my knowledge,
has ever said at 12:01 we are going to take action. The United
Nations resolution clearly states, Barry, that after January 15,
which was the brink -- it was exactly as the Secretary said --
the international coalition is authorized to use all necessary
means.
Q Margaret, you're giving the impression that Saddam
Hussein could still stop this by saying a few words. My
impression was that the U.N. resolution demanded the total and
unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi troops from Kuwait by
January 15.
Can he really stop it just by saying a few words?
A These are getting me again down the hypothetical
path. The President addressed this question on Saturday, but it
is still -- as Mr. Fitzwater has said this morning, as the
President has said -- within Saddam Hussein's power to stop this.
Q Well, Margaret --
Q What does he have to do?
A He has to withdraw, massively withdraw --
eventually all of it, because it's unconditional -- his troops,
his force, from Kuwait, restoration of the legitimate Government
of Kuwait. They're the same demands the international community
has been making for five and a half months.
Q O.K. So words are not enough. He has to do
something, right?
A I'm not going to play hypotheticals.
Q Well, Margaret, can I just -- could we just go
back about two weeks then to a statement by the President -- the
date of which I do not recall exactly -- but he said very
clearly that Saddam Hussein had to have all of his troops out of
Kuwait by January the 15th.
Was that, (a) unrealistic, or (b) psychological warfare
on the part of the United States? There seems to be a
consistent pattern of, to use your phrase, walking back from
various deadlines, and I'm just wondering why you're doing it.
A I don't know how in the world you could say that
anyone in this Administration is "walking back from a deadline."
What do you mean? What deadline? That deadline -- you must
have or misinterpreted the United Nations resolution or
misinterpreted the President, the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the international community.
You must have been misinterpreting or a little bit
confused that at 12:01 war starts. There was no confusion on
behalf of the international community, the coalition or the
President. None.
Q No, no. You folks put a gloss on the U.N.
resolution. The resolution doesn't speak of war. We all know
that.
A "All necessary means."
Q That's right. The resolution does not say
midnight, Eastern Standard time. But either for the reasons
John Dancy is suggesting -- psychological warfare or something
-- you folks narrowed and made very explicit when that brink is,
and you said that he had to get all his troops out by midnight,
Eastern Standard time, the 15th of January.
That has passed, and we're simply asking, some of us
think that's a bit of a reprieve, and we're asking why the
reprieve, and what could he now do that perhaps would extend the
reprieve. Now, it's a little early to speak of a reprieve.
It's only 12 hours or 14 hours, but it is a bit of a reprieve,
and it's self-evident.
We're not the ones who put midnight into the U.N.
resolution, you folks did.
A And we have never said, Barry -- I don't know how
many times I have to say it; check the record -- we have never,
ever, ever, ever said "12:01 we will authorize all necessary
means."
Q We know that.
A O.K. So what are we debating?
Q The thing is, the United States Government
interpreted the resolution to mean midnight, and he's got to get
everybody out by midnight, and he hasn't. And we're just
wondering, why not?
A My understanding of United Nations rules and
regulations, Barry, is that some resolutions specifically say
and state Greenwich Mean Time. Some state other specific times.
This one was decided, even though it did not specifically say
it, we would use U.N. time, which happens to be Eastern Standard
time in the United States.
That is how that decision was determined and that is
standard operating procedure in the United Nations.
Q So, Margaret --
A Yes, Bill.
Q Deadline's passed. He is still in there. So now
what?
Q Why isn't it too late?
Q Well, no. Now what? Now what?
A I have said this yesterday. I'll keep saying it
today. Saddam Hussein should do as the world community is
demanding: withdraw immediately, massively, unconditionally.
The international community has called for him to leave Kuwait,
get out of Kuwait; the legitimate Government of Kuwait to be
restored.
But, please, let's deal, as I said earlier, with the
real world. As of this briefing, there is not one shred of
evidence, one indication, that he is taking any initiative to do
what the international world has been demanding for five and a
half months.
Q So, now what?
A I'm not answering "now whats."
Q But if he did do any of the things that you are
indicating, even though we have passed the deadline, it sounds
as though the United States is still willing to listen. The
door is still open. Is that correct?
A I'm only going to continue to answer this the way
that I have been answering it. I don't have any new
explanations for you all; new ways to push the story forward for
you. I am not going to play hypotheticals.
The United Nations deadline was the brink. It was the
pass -- it has passed.
Q But you're not willing to say that you're willing
to talk to him, although you're suggesting that you're willing
to talk to him.
Q She said yes, they are willing to talk to him.
A I said -- again, let's deal with the real world --
if there was an initiative or indication from Baghdad of a
willingness to comply with 12 United Nations resolutions, that
would have to be pursued, but only if it did not involve a
walking back from any single one of the 12 United Nations
resolutions.
I have also said any number of times that the tragic
fact is, there is no indication of any flexibility in the
position of Iraq.
Q Margaret, you ad lib a lot right there, and it's
very commendable. But would you throw into that, too, still the
Mideast peace conference?
A I think that --
Q No walking back. Now, wait a minute, you've
covered about the whole waterfront. It's a lot to remember.
But you have no walking back from the resolution --
A Which has been standard United States policy for
five months.
Q Exactly. But you didn't happen just this moment,
so I'm asking you if it's just -- you know, just --
A No, Barry, it's not an oversight, and I think we
spent probably close to 40 minutes on that subject yesterday.
Q No, I'm saying would you put in your statement --
A Our policy hasn't changed today.
Q Will you put in the statement if there's any
indication, blah-blah-blah-blah, etc., etc., ellipsis, and no
linking to the Mideast peace conference? Is that still part of
it?
A Our policy, Barry, has not changed overnight.
Q Can I have a filing break?
A If you want.
Q Do you have a comment on the actions by the French
and British governments in the last 24 hours? Their
parliamentary bodies basically supporting the decisions of their
executive part to follow through on military action.
A I don't have a comment other than it's just like
our vote in our Congress. It's another signal to Saddam Hussein
how serious not only our government but various governments are.
As I said earlier, there are, it is my understanding, a number
of votes going on in European parliaments today.
All of them had not been concluded, to my knowledge,
before we began the briefing. But if he needs another signal,
which is kind of a stretch of the imagination, then here is yet
another example of governments and people who support those
governments saying, "Get out of Kuwait."
Q You've mentioned the decision to act within the
basis of the coalition. Do you read the resolution to require
some unanimous decision, a concurrence among some number, or is
it possible that the unilateral action of any member of that
coalition can precipitate the use of force?
And, if it requires some sort of concurrence, by what
means would this be established? And, if there are members of
the coalition that don't agree with the use of force, what is
the concept here that you're describing?
A Those are, all three questions, I believe that you
asked, that I will refrain from answering.
Q Margaret, in a British newspaper over the weekend
on Sunday, I believe, Foreign Secretary Hurd was quoted as
saying that as of midnight when the deadline approached --
A The brink.
Q -- all of the allies -- the brink approached --
all of the allies would consult by telephone as to what to do
next, and at that point command and control, I believe you said,
would pass to the United States.
Did that telephone call take place? What's happened?
A I saw the same newspaper article that you did. It
was when we were there, while the Secretary was meeting with the
Prime Minister. The copy I read had no attributable quotes. An
unnamed source said Foreign Minister Hurd had said there would
be a phone call at 5:00 a.m. I'd never heard of any 5:00 a.m.
phone call. No such phone call took place.
But in fairness to Minister Hurd, those were not direct
quotes. It was an unnamed source saying that they had been told
this was what would happen.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the proposal
from the Pope for a meeting with the U.S. and Iraqi Ambassadors
to the Holy See?
A I believe that letter was sent to the President.
Marlin has commented on the letter on behalf of the President
this morning.
Q Can you describe the ongoing consultations between
the United States and Israel? Are there any new assurances
given or sought?
A Ongoing since Mr. Eagleburger was in Israel?
Q Ongoing as of right now.
A I am sure that there are, just as there are with
all of our friends and allies, constant communications. But I
don't have a specific for you.
Q Soviet diplomats have been quoted as saying that
they get the impression that the Iraqis don't really believe
that the U.S. or the allies are ready to use force.
A That gets me into a question of: "Is the United
States going to use force." I'm not going to answer that
question. I will keep referring to what the United Nations
resolution authorizes. And as far as what the Iraqis believe or
not, I have no way of telling or knowing or analyzing.
Q Margaret, going back to the wording of what you
said, are you trying to convey a message to Iraq that even
though the deadline has passed, there is still a chance for this
to be resolved peacefully?
A There's one message I'm trying to relay, and it's
not to the Iraqis, it's to Saddam Hussein. The whole world is
sending the same message. He obviously has not received it.
That he should withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait.
Q But that it's not too late.
A There's one message we're sending to Saddam
Hussein: Withdraw.
Q My question, though, it's not too late?
A January 15th, at 12:00 midnight, was a brink, and
that brink has passed. After that, the United Nations
authorizes "all necessary means."
Q Margaret, can you be more specific about the
Secretary's contact this morning with his colleague from The
Netherlands?
A No, not really. It was to discuss the situation
in the Gulf, and that was really about the only characterization
I can give you.
Q Was it about the political uncertainty in The
Netherlands if the Dutch would participate in a fighting war?
A I'd just have to leave it at generalizations,
unfortunately, sir, that they discussed the situation in the
Gulf.
Q Margaret, perhaps I read the wrong schedule. Is
there not a meeting today between Secretary Eagleburger and
Israeli officials? Did I read that --
A You're right, Candy. And they handed me that at
the very end. (TO STAFF) Do you remember who it's with? The
Ambassador?
The Ambassador. You're right. Sorry. I forgot.
Q To discuss the Gulf situation one --
A I'll ask Larry. Sorry.
Q Margaret, can the U.S. by itself decide to use
force?
A These are all the types of questions that I am
simply going to refrain from answering.
Q Can I change the subject?
A Gladly. (Laughter)
Q A few questions about the Soviet Union. Today
Gorbachev apparently announced or revealed that he's considering
pulling back on press freedoms, and I was wondering how you
reacted to that?
A As I said earlier when asked a question about some
new Soviet initiatives, there had been a number of reports out
of the Soviet Union today, and many of them had been confused,
and I've seen them reported both ways.
I don't have, nor does the Department have, a clear
reading of whether, indeed, this is what they are intending to
do. It is my understanding from one report, this is a President
Gorbachev proposal. In another report I have read just from the
wires, it says that, no, he is not going to do this.
Our position is, as you would expect, if this is true,
it is obviously a step in the wrong direction.
Q You also said that in his conversation with
Bessmertnykh that the Foreign Minister had sought to assure the
Secretary on the situation in the Baltics. And that leaves the
question in my mind as to whether he actually did assure Baker
-- whether the Secretary was actually satisfied with what the
Foreign Minister told him.
A I want to leave it the way we described it, Carol.
Q And one more question: Has the Administration
made a decision about any further steps, sanctions, ending
high-level meetings or low-level meetings, or whatever, with the
Soviet Union?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q Can I follow up on that?
Q And a member of the Lithuanian Free Council --
A Wait a second. Excuse me. Margaret has a
question.
Q Two related questions: One is, Secretary Baker
told us on the trip that Shevardnadze did not give him a
specific warning about last weekend, what happened. But I
wonder if either Gorbachev gave to Bush, or whether from any
other source, an allied source or any other source, the U.S.
Administration had any advance warning of what was coming?
A Not to my personal knowledge.
Q And then secondly, what is the status of the
review of American aid -- and this is sort of another way of
asking Carol's question, but to the Soviet Union in light of
what happened?
A I don't have anything new or a new update. To be
honest with you, Margaret, I don't believe the Administration
has said they are doing a review. I believe the
Administration's posture has been that we are going to monitor
the situation closely.
Q And summit planning once again.
A Marlin had no update and nothing new to add to
questions concerning the summit.
Q Did Secretary Baker discuss going to Moscow with
Mr. Bessmertnykh to maybe work on summit arrangements?
A He did not discuss in his conversation yesterday
with the new Foreign Minister a potential trip by the Secretary
to the Soviet Union, nor did he discuss the summit.
Q Margaret, one more on that: There was a report
out this week that the Soviets -- or the Soviet military had
again tried to link SDI with the START Treaty, and I wondered if
that were true?
A I don't know, Carol. I'll be happy to ask Reggie
[Bartholomew] for you.
Q Margaret, just to dot the last "i" on this. Was
there any discussion of a U.S.-Soviet Ministerial anywhere --
A In yesterday's conversation?
Q Yes. Anywhere on the globe.
A What do you mean "anywhere on the globe"?
Q The question was asked in terms of would
Mr. Baker go to Moscow.
A Oh, no. The subject of travel did not come up.
This was, as I described it, it was three parts basically: A
congratulations; to thank him for what the Soviet U.N.
Ambassador was helping us do yesterday in New York; and (3) to
say to the new Foreign Minister, as he had to the old,
personally, how concerned he is about the situation in the
Baltics.
Q Does the Secretary hope a Ministerial can be
arranged early on since he's got a new Minister to deal with?
A To be honest with you, it's something I hadn't
even heard him mention.
Q Margaret, have you had any comment on the new
Prime Minister to the Soviet Union, Mr. Pavlov?
A No.
Q And do you --
A No. I'll be happy to ask if they do.
Q Margaret, yesterday a member of the Lithuanian
Supreme Council reported to European sources, journalist
sources, that their FAX communications with a number of European
governments were being interfered with, and that they had asked
for a number of actions, including the convening of a United
Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the bloodshed in
Lithuania.
Has the U.S. received a request of that? Are you aware
of these problems that that parliament is having, and what would
be the U.S. position on such a call?
A Since I am unaware of such a request, I would
rather refrain from the hypothetical, "If such a request came,
what would the United States' position be?"
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:49 p.m.) (###)