US Department of State Daily Briefing #11:
Thursday,1/17/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:36 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 17, 19911/17/91
Category: Briefings
Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa
Country: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy,
Japan, Germany, Iraq, Kuwait,
Jordan, Yemen, Nigeria,
Algeria, Israel, Morocco,
Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
Tunisia, Mauritania, Pakistan,
Sudan, Bahrain, Qatar
Subject: Military Affairs, Travel, Democratization,
State Department, United Nations, NATO
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Update: Secretary's Activities]
MS. TUTWILER: If it would be helpful, I will be glad
to -- if it would not be helpful, just tell me -- go through
what Secretary of State Baker did yesterday. Many of you were
here late last night when I gave this to you. It's your call.
Q (Inaudible)
A O.K. I'll go through it. Yesterday, I said at
this briefing, the Secretary met with Prince Bandar. That was
around 8:00 a.m. in the morning. In late afternoon and early
evening -- and there is no priority nor order to the following
that I'm going to give you. The Secretary met here personally
in his office, one-on-one, with the following:
The Israeli Ambassador, the Ambassador from Kuwait, the
Ambassador from Germany, the Ambassador from Syria, the
Ambassador from Japan.
The Secretary -- and again there is no order of this;
this is just calls that were completed -- spoke by phone to our
United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to NATO Secretary
General Woerner, to the Foreign Minister of The Netherlands, the
Foreign Minister of Spain, the Foreign Minister of Egypt, the
Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, the Foreign Minister of
Italy, the United States Ambassador to Syria, the Foreign
Minister of Luxembourg.
He also spoke by phone to Senator Helms, Senator Pell,
Congressman Broomfield and Congressman Fascell.
During the same time frame, Under Secretary Kimmit met
with the five regional Assistant Secretaries here at the State
Department, and they in turn notified other countries. They
notified other coalition members. They notified members of the
coalition who are part of the financial coalition and other
members of the United Nations Security Council.
The Department sent out a cable last night at 7:00 p.m.
to all posts, informing them of the President's decision and
asking them to inform the host governments and to take whatever
security precautions were needed.
Last night we issued a new travel advisory, warning
Americans to take extra precautions in the region, especially
because of the heightened terrorist alert that we have had for
many days.
Today, Secretary Baker's schedule, as you know, has
been very public. He had breakfast this morning at the White
House at 7:30 with Defense Secretary Cheney and General
Scowcroft. He also met with the President. He attended the
President's congressional meeting at the White House. He went
to church with the President. He is having lunch here at the
State Department.
This afternoon at 1:30 he will be meeting with the
Director of the CIA, and he will be attending the President's
Cabinet meeting this afternoon. I believe that is at 3:00 p.m.
He has not spoken by phone since last night with any
Foreign Ministers as of this morning.
Can I do two other things, please? Concerning the
security --
Q Well, can I go back on the schedule?
A O.K.
Q A quick question on schedule.
A O.K.
Q Can we put to rest -- one of Bandar's people has
been passing the story along that he picked up the phone and
called King Fahd during one of those meetings. Is that not so?
A That is not so, and I spoke with Prince Bandar
last night myself at probably midnight, and he also says that is
not so. That was just an erroneous report. He did not make any
phone calls, whether to Saudi Arabia or to his Embassy or
anywhere else in his meeting with Secretary of State Baker here
at the Department yesterday.
[Terrorist Threats and Countermeasures]
Concerning any activities that may or may not be going
on around the world at our Embassies and Posts. As you know, we
have taken the possibility of terrorism seriously. We
continue to monitor and assess the threat towards our missions
and toward Americans in general. At this point there are no
specific and credible terrorist threats.
There have been demonstrations at United States
diplomatic missions overseas, but no reports of injuries to U.S.
personnel or serious damage to our property.
I was unable to pull together for you this morning in
time for the briefing -- because information is still coming in,
phone calls going back and forth -- a complete list of every
incident that may have happened at one of our Embassies. I will
try this afternoon and certainly by tomorrow to have that pulled
together for you.
Two examples I can give you are some broken windows at
a Consulate in Pakistan and two Molotov cocktails thrown at a
U.S. library in Milan. Our Missions have reviewed and adjusted
their security procedures because of the increased threat. I
had mentioned that to you all yesterday.
Many Posts are limiting access. Some have temporarily
suspended public operations such as visa issuance and libraries.
We have asked foreign governments around the world to increase
security at our diplomatic and military facilities. Cooperation
from these governments has been excellent.
Concerning the refugee situation: Overnight and from
our early reports this morning -- or as of 7:00 a.m. to be
specific -- the Department had no reports of new outflows of
displaced persons from Iraq and Kuwait.
Q Has the State Department or any branch of the U.S.
Government had any word from any member of the Iraqi government
since the bombing started?
A No.
Q Is there any way of them communicating with the
U.S. Government should they want to?
A As I mentioned yesterday, Jim, that is the very
reason that the President did not break relations with this
country. They have an Embassy that is here. Granted, it is
down to four employees, but that Embassy and those employees are
still here.
Q How would we communicate with them?
Q Can I ask --
A Excuse me, Bill?
Q How would we communicate with them, though, in the
event that there were to be a communication. There is nobody at
our Embassy there. You would rely on the people here to pass it
through?
Q CNN.
A I mean, they have a telephone. What do you mean?
Q Yesterday, before the attack was announced, but
obviously when it had been decided, you said that any
indication, any initiative, from Iraq would have to be pursued.
Is that still true now that hostilities have begun, or
are you on a roll and even if they wanted to talk -- talk, of
course, about your objectives, total withdrawal -- but even if
they wanted to talk, the U.S. wouldn't talk to them?
A That is a very broad, hypothetical, Barry. The
President stated our objectives very clearly last night in his
address to our nation: The liberation of Kuwait and the
restoration of the legitimate government, the full
implementation of 12 United Nations Security Council
resolutions, and the security and stability of the Gulf.
Q Those are the goals. Now, the question still is:
Is the door open, as it was yesterday, should they come forward
with any initiative, any indication -- I'm trying to remember
your words from yesterday -- the U.S. would pursue that? Is
that still true?
A Without answering hypotheticals --
Q Well, it wasn't hypothetical yesterday.
A Can I finish?
Q Why is it hypothetical today?
A I said it was a hypothetical yesterday.
Q But -- all right.
A The pause for peace mandated by the United Nations
Security Council resolution 678 is over. Our objective is to
achieve full Iraqi compliance with the United Nations Security
Council resolutions. We had hoped to achieve that peacefully,
but Saddam Hussein rejected the pause for peace and refused to
recognize the Security Council resolutions.
He rebuffed all peace envoys and categorically rejected
any Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. As a result, we and our
coalition partners are now using military force to ensure
compliance with the resolutions.
The international operation will continue until full
compliance with the United Nations resolutions has been
achieved.
Q So the answer is no?
A What is your question?
Q I think I remember it. I think it was, is the
door still open if Iraq came forward?
Q Is the door still open?
Q Is the door open to an Iraq initiative.
A That is such a broad hypothetical, I could not
possibly begin to answer that.
Q You did yesterday. But you did yesterday, so
you're withdrawing yesterday's statement.
A Today is a lot different, Barry, isn't it, than
yesterday.
Q That's what I wanted to know.
Q Margaret, if Saddam Hussein announced a pullout and
began same, would the United States cease the bombing?
A If Saddam Hussein complied with all 12 United
Nations resolutions, one of which is the total and complete
withdrawal from Kuwait, obviously, that is a Presidential
decision, but I could not lead you in the direction that force
would continue.
After all, the objective is compliance of these
resolutions, and I would refer you to what the Secretary General
of the United Nations said last night and said again this
morning. I would tell you that on our takeover night, I can
count on one hand the countries that have not been supportive of
this, that have not expressed that everything that could be
humanly, possibly done in the diplomatic field had been done.
There's overwhelming support of what is going on. And
in each nation's statement, John, they have said, "He must
comply with all 12 United Nations resolutions," and I would once
again remind you today, as I did yesterday, there has never been
-- not one -- tiny inkling that he had any inclination
whatsoever for complying with any of those resolutions, much
less all 12 of them.
Q So, Margaret, you're saying you won't listen
unless he stops the fighting, period, and pulls out?
A I think that it is very, very, very clear what
Saddam Hussein has to do. After all, he has been told this for
five and one-half months. Let me remind you that the
international community had a 45-day pause for peace. Nothing
that anyone has done has made a difference to Saddam Hussein.
And I have stated what the President's objectives are,
what our policy is. The Secretary of Defense gave a press
conference this morning and very clearly stated what his mandate
is from the President. And I have said basically the exact same
thing.
Q So unless he does that, you won't talk?
A Right. What's there to talk about?
Q The rules --
A I said the talk is over.
Q The rules of the game have changed as of the
beginning of the bombing. That's correct? I mean --
A No.
Q The conditions under which the United States will
talk to this guy have changed.
A I understand very well all of your questions.
They're all hypotheticals. I must deal with what is real. The
President stated the objectives last night. The Secretary of
Defense said what his marching orders are from the Commander in
Chief.
I have stated for you today what our policy is. Every
one of these questions has come at me in a very broad, broad
hypothetical. I have said what every nation that I know, except
for a handful, is saying, "You're right. The game has changed."
And he must one way or the other leave Kuwait, and one way or
the other the 12 United Nations resolutions are going to be
honored.
Q Margaret, it's true that every one but a handful
of nations thinks Saddam Hussein has done wrong, and that he
ought to leave Kuwait. But many, many nations -- now that the
United States has pummeled Iraq, and there's been considerable
bloodshed, and a lot of people have died -- think that maybe
this is an opportunity to see if he's ready to say "uncle."
That maybe this is a chance, perhaps, without further bloodshed
for him to capitulate, indeed, through negotiations.
Now, yesterday you said if they came -- well, period.
The United States does not feel that way. The war must roll on.
Unless he totally withdraws from Kuwit, you don't want to hear
from him. Is that correct?
A I'm not going to try to re-craft words and policy
that I think I have articulated quite straightforwardly.
Q But you did say a handful of nations --
A A handful of nations in the world, Barry.
Q It's not hypothetical. Margaret, it's not
hypothetical. It's a very real situation. He's been dealt a
serious blow, and a lot of people around the world and a lot of
citizens of this country think that maybe he's got the message,
and now maybe there should be some talking and have him pull
out.
A Another way of asking me, which is more direct, is
there going to be a pause for peace? If that's what you're
asking --
Q I'm asking you.
A Well, then --
Q A pause for negotiations.
A -- express it that way.
Q Is there going --
A That's a more literal way to express it.
Q O.K.
A I've answered that this morning, and I have said
no. He had a 45-day pause for peace that was voted on by the
United Nations Security Council.
Q Margaret, is it also fair to say that we're not
going to be sending any messages to Saddam? That he has to act
or do or say something first?
A There couldn't be any more public messages. As
the President has said, there have been no secrets in this at
all. There have been five and a half months of daily messages
from the coalition and from most nations in the world: "Leave
Kuwait."
Q Margaret, can you maybe be a little bit more
precise in one area? You are saying that military operations
will not cease until the Iraqi troops get out of Kuwait. Do you
mean until they're all out of Kuwait, or do you mean until the
U.S. has independent evidence that they are leaving Kuwait?
A I am simply not going to do any hypotheticals
today, and I will state again what we have said: That the pause
for peace, mandated by the United Nations Security Council
Resolution 678, is over.
Q Margaret, one of the military objectives that the
President ticked off -- in fact, he put it first last night --
was the destruction of Iraq's nuclear military potential. Under
which United States goal does that fall?
A What do you mean "Which goal does it fall?"
Q There are four goals. One is to expel Iraq from
Kuwait. Is it necessary to bomb the nuclear facilities to do
that?
A I believe, sir, that we are in a very different
mode than we have been up until this point. We are dealing with
a man who has weapons of mass destruction, as everyone knows,
and everyone has been very concerned about.
The President stated last night what his objectives
were, and I will leave to the military what their military
orders are. You've had now two briefings by the Secretary of
Defense and by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
I'm just not going to get into it.
Q Margaret, could you shed some light on the
President's phrase last night that the goal is not the conquest
of Iraq but the liberation of Kuwait?
A Not really, John. I'll leave it to Marlin if he
feels an obligation to interpret the President's speech last
night. He's going to brief in about 7 minutes.
Q That was not a --
Q Who?
A Marlin Fitzwater at the White House.
Q That was not a phrase inserted in concert with the
State Department, then?
A John, the Secretary of State worked with the
President concerning the President's message to the nation last
night. I did not participate in that, and so I do not know
which phrases the Secretary and the President discussed.
Q OK. But there seems to be a message to the
foreign policy establishment in there that the United States has
no interest in being an occupying power in Iraq but would stop
short of the Iraqi border. One could interpret it that way. Is
that the message that was intended?
A I really want to refrain and let Marlin ask John
Cochran -- maybe he could ask Marlin if Marlin feels free to
interpret the President's message last night. I don't at this
briefing.
Q Margaret, several east European countries have
units in the Gulf providing support services. Can you say
anything about that contribution as allies of the United States?
A I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon.
Q Margaret, since the United States is enforcing the
compliance with the U.N. resolutions, who will determine if and
when that compliance has been met? Will it be the United
States, which has launched the military attack? Will it be the
United Nations?
A The only thing that I would change a little bit in
your characterization is, the coalition is in this operation.
The coalition is trying to, in one way or the other, as I've
said, force Saddam Hussein to abide by 12 U.N. resolutions.
Q Margaret, let's see if we can beat Marlin in
newspapers. Can we take a filing break?
A It's up to you.
Q You've got about a two minute edge on him.
A I'm not in a race.
Q The coalition has no formal mechanism for a
meeting. Most of them are members of the United Nations. But
will there be some kind of formal apparatus? Who determines
when Saddam Hussein has done enough to warrant or to justify the
end to the military action?
A That gets me right back into, Susan, again, a
hypothetical -- what's enough, what decisions will the coalition
make? I can't answer those types of questions.
Q I'm just asking, who makes them?
A What is the mechanism? I think that it would be
quite obvious -- if all the Iraqi troops leave Kuwait. I think
that that speaks in itself, if all of them, all of a sudden,
start going back into their country. But I can't play the game
of, "What's enough, when would it do it." I can't do that.
Q Now that the shooting has started, is there any
inclination to release the text of the letter that the President
gave to Secretary Baker?
A The White House released that last week.
Q Margaret, Soviet President Gorbachev has attempted
to communicate with Saddam Hussein, first, I guess, over the
airways and then by a personal message that was delivered
physically to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad asking him to comply with
the U.N. resolutions. Did the U.S. have any knowledge of that
before that happened, or was that done in concert with the
United States?
A The Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union and
Secretary Baker's brief conversation last night, to my
knowledge, did not mention that.
Q How about today?
A Secretary Baker has had no conversations with any
Foreign Ministers today, including those of the Soviet Union?
Q Are there any diplomatic efforts alive, still,
that the United States is aware of to end the war?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q Do have a special advisory for American
journalists in Baghdad of American sportsmen abroad, in general?
A I'm sorry, I didn't catch the first part of your
question?
Q Do you have any advisory for American journalists
in Baghdad now?
A Do I have any what?
Q Advisory.
PRESS CORPS: Advisory.
A Oh. None other than the personal statement that
Mr. Fitzwater made yesterday, the day before. We had made a
statement saying what a very dangerous situation this was; that
we did not presume to tell news organizations how to do their
business, but I don't have a new advisory today for them.
Q And for American sportsmen abroad, in general?
American sportsmen.
Q Teams.
Q Teams -- sports teams.
A Oh, sports. Sorry. No different -- they have not
been singled out any differently than all of the travel
advisories for Americans in this region. We've got any number
of travel advisories that I'll be happy to pull together for
you, but it affects all Americans whether they're athletes or
businessmen or doctors. It's Americans.
Q Margaret --
A Wait, Mark's got a question.
Q Now that the war has started and the President
says he won't fail, what efforts are underway to work on a
post-war security structure for the region? What are people in
the Department doing? And are you aware of any contacts with
allies along that line?
A Anything specific, Mark, no. But in
conversations, it has always been assumed and discussed by not
only officials of the Department but, of course, the Secretary
in his meetings, is that "Would force unfortunately, hopefully
not" -- this is prior to force being used -- "be used,"
obviously, we will have to address ourselves to the situation
post-crisis.
It's more general. He has also said words to that
effect in his own public testimonies, back over the past five
and a half months; that a number of issues will have to be
addressed once the crisis has resolved itself.
Q Margaret, keeping with post-war developments, does
the U.S. Government have plans at this early stage to go forward
with developing, in conjunction with the United Nations, a War
Crimes Tribunal to address any sort of atrocities that have
taken place in Kuwait and might take place during the following
conflict?
A I'll take your question. I just didn't check this
morning. I know we have stated that in the past. I would just
like to check with the lawyers.
Q What will Secretary Baker be doing now? If he's
not concerning himself with post-crisis, is he just consulting
with the coalition, trying to keep it together? What is his
role now?
A His role is, as you all know, a friend and advisor
of the President; a friend for over 30 years. He, as I said --
as the President has for the last two days -- he's basically
kept his schedule open. I have given you what all he is doing.
I guess the best way to describe it is that last night
on January 17, the Secretary General of the United Nations said
that "This is not the time for diplomacy. That time has
passed."
Q Margaret, right now we'll all, obviously, very
concerned about the human cost of this conflict but there are
also some very real financial costs. You really haven't
addressed the specific contributions that other nations might
make to this in 1991. Do you have anything for us on that now?
A Specifics?
Q Even anything general. Have you asked for
contributions? Have you gotten any pledges?
A You weren't on the trip, unfortunately, with us.
The Secretary, or I as his spokesperson, addressed this after
every meeting he had on the eight and half day trip.
Q O.K. specifics, yes.
A Specifics? No. We gave, and other countries did,
what their intentions were, what their attitudes were, what they
intended. And I know you can't help it because you weren't
there, because we sent transcripts back. They would say, in
many of meetings -- and we can refer you to the record which is
here -- that they would have their specialists and their
officials work together and to work on this.
Q Last year, there were a lot of Hindu/Arabic
numbers with dollar signs. There were specific numbers that
countries pledged. That hasn't happened and I just wonder why
it hasn't happened. Now that we're -- many experts think this
is about a billion-dollar-a-day meter running here and isn't it
about time we hear some specifics?
A You, the press, or the Secretary of State and the
President?
Q Everyone. The American people.
A The American people, I'm sure, will be told. I
think it is also common sense -- and the Secretary raised this
and I think you would agree -- should force be used, obviously,
the specifics we're talking about will change. So that is a
very legitimate reason, in my mind, why we have not put out
specifics because the specifics we could have given you prior to
January 15, 1991, look very different today. So it is only
correct that officials work on this information, and I'm sure
it's not going to be kept a secret. There's no reason to keep
it a secret. We didn't last year, nor did the other
governments.
Q Right. As you say, the costs do change a lot.
They go up a lot more.
A Correct.
Q So I think it is a very reasonable question to
know what other countries will be contributing, or will the
American taxpayer just be paying for it all?
A That, you know, is not the case. Each of these
nations on our last eight and a half day trip publicly stated,
and also gave the Secretary, for the President, private
assurances of their willingness, their intentions to be a part
of, as they were in 1990, 1991 responsibility-sharing.
Q I have a two-part question. President Gorbachev
has put his southern forces on alert. He said he's worried that
the present battlefront might spread to other countries.
Did Bessmertnykh, in his conversation yesterday with
Baker, seek any assurances on this?
A It was not raised.
Q How long did their conversation last? And was
anything besides the Gulf mentioned, such as the situation in
the Baltics?
A As you know, he had spoken with the new Foreign
Minister the day before concerning the situation in the Baltics
when he called him to congratulate him on his appointment.
Yesterday's conversation was a very brief conversation. That
did not come up.
Q Margaret, another question related to the Soviet
Union. There are reports from Moscow that the Soviets advised
the American Embassy there of potential terrorist threats since
the bombing campaign began. Can you shed any light on what the
Soviets have informed us of and what's going on?
A No. I'll look into it for you. I haven't heard
that yet this morning.
Q Do you have a readout on the meeting today between
our Ambassador Jack Matlock and Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister
Obukhov, I think is his name?
A No, I don't. I'll check into for you, but I
don't.
Q There are supposed to be delegations of Latvia and
Lithuania in Washington now. Will they be received in the State
Department?
A My understanding is that there are two Deputy Vice
Presidents that are travelling here to the United States. I
cannot give you yet who they will meet with and a schedule, but
it is something that we are working on.
Q Do you have any comment on the latest developments
in the Soviet Union and Gorbachev's request to suppress press
freedoms?
A As I said yesterday, if those reports of this
proposal were true, it would a step in the wrong direction.
Today, as you know, we can confirm that this was, indeed, a
proposal.
As you know, this proposal was rejected by the Supreme
Soviet, We obviously think is positive. It goes without
saying, the Soviet Union knows it, the entire world knows it,
that the United States' fundamental belief in freedom of
expression is one of the essential aspects of the basic human
liberties that are at the heart of a democratic society.
Q You mentioned the conversation the Secretary had
the day before yesterday in which he got certain assurances, you
said, from the new Foreign Minister about the Baltic situation.
Since then, there have been reports of deaths in Latvia and
further military action in Estonia.
Can you say anything more now about those assurances
and how satisfied the United States is with them?
A Unfortunately, you misunderstood a little bit of
what I said. I did not say that he got assurances. I said that
the Foreign Minister sought to assure.
Q About an hour and a half ago --
A I refuse to characterize it. Yesterday I left it
for the Soviet Union to characterize, but that is our
characterization of what the Foreign Minister relayed to the
Secretary. He sought to assure.
Q About an hour and a half ago the Soviet News
Agency TASS carried an article criticizing Gorbachev for the way
he handled Lithuania. Do you have any comment on it, or do you
have any information yet?
A I have no information on that.
Q Margaret, forgive me if you've already answered
this. Please just say so if you have. I think you were asked
whether the United States has received any messages from Iraq.
Has the United States sent any either directly or indirectly to
Iraq to explain the military operation there or to outline any
method for ending the hostilities?
A No.
Q Thank you.
A Thank you all.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:06 p.m.)