US Department of State Daily Briefing #12:
Tuesday,1/22/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:33 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 22, 19911/22/91
Category: Briefings
Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa, Europe
Country: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, USSR (former),
Jordan, Germany
Subject: Terrorism, POW/MIA Issues, Military Affairs,
Travel, Democratization, State Department,
United Nations, NATO, CSCE, Arms Control
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I have one announcement that I'd like to
make, please.
[Americans Reminded of Possible Travel Danger]
On January 11, 1991, and subsequent dates, the
Department of State advised the public of its concern about the
possibility of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism in the event of
hostilities. Consistent with these notices, the United States
Government is now asking all Departments and Agencies to review
carefully all current travel advisories before approving visits
of Government personnel abroad.
Americans considering international travel are urged to
review travel advisories issued by the Department of State when
making their own travel decisions.
For information on travel advisories, the public an
contact the Citizens Emergency Center of the Department of
State. The telephone number is (202)647-5225 or (202)647-0900.
[Evacuation of Private Americans]
Today, I can tell you, as some of you have already seen
reported, we are back-hauling Americans out of the eastern
province of Saudi Arabia. Approximately 398 passengers,
consisting of private American citizens and their foreign-born
immediate family members were back-hauled on 9 MAC flights from
Dhahran and one from Bahrain.
Q What is "back-hauling?"
A It means that it's a military aircraft. And when
there are available seats -- it's a standard term. You should
know. You served at the Pentagon.
Q I know, but I'd like you to speak English.
A It is my understanding of that, as it's been
explained to me, is that when a military plane is in an area, if
it has empty seats on it, American private citizens can get on
this military aircraft. It is called "back-hauling."
Q If that's the case, I've been back-hauled.
A Have you been back-hauled?
Q I have.
A I haven't yet. Anyway, the C-141 and the C-5
planes carried passengers to military air bases in Spain,
Germany, and Italy where most spent the night before returning
to the United States.
As always, our embassies and consulates overseas
assisted with the onward travel arrangements of the passengers.
We plan to continue these types of flights for private American
citizens from Dhahran as long as there are available military
aircraft.
We do not know at this time how many flights will be
requested or required.
On the first instance of taking passengers out this
way, we took 398. There has been some reporting this morning
concerning the cost to private Americans, and I will just refer
you to the Defense Department concerning their rules and
regulations affecting cost. I would tell you that there are
approximately 6,500 private American citizens who are in the
eastern province of Saudi Arabia. We have 350 more Americans,
on top of the 398 I've just mentioned, who have indicated that
they would like to depart, and we are trying to facilitate their
departure.
[Terrorism Update]
On terrorism, I can tell you that there were no major
terrorist attacks against U.S. interests during the past 24
hours. On Monday, a small explosion took place at a NATO
facility l2 miles from the United State Consulate in Istanbul.
There was extensive damage but there were no injuries.
That's it, Jim.
Q The letters of protest that you've given to the
Iraqi Charge, in addition to that, is there anything that you
can do? Is there anything you are considering doing to give
them an incentive to treat the Americans according to the Geneva
Conventions?
A I don't know concerning giving them an incentive.
They are a signatory to these Accords, and they should abide by
them. I can tell you that SITCOM notified the ICRC, which is
the International Committee of the Red Cross, and established
formal contact. In order to ensure their safety and to comply
with the Third Geneva Convention, the Iraqi POWs have been moved
from the front to an area of safety. They will be transferred
to army military police before being transferred to the Saudis.
The ICRC plans to visit them today or tomorrow.
Q You've cited the Third Geneva Convention. But
Iraq has violated the Fourth Geneva Convention: Apparently
movement of civilian populations, massively, by expelling the
Kuwaiti population from their country. Have you brought that to
anybody's attention?
A I think the situation in Kuwait, Jim, has been
brought to the world's attention. It has been over the last
5-1/2 months.
Q Right. But, specifically, the movement of
civilian populations is forbidden by the Fourth Geneva
Convention?
A If we have specifically filed somewhere in Geneva
concerning this, I'm unaware of it. But it is certainly no
secret of what the world has been engaged in up until January 15
concerning the situation in Kuwait -- not only of that but of
the rape and pillage of a country. So I'm not aware that we
have had some formal filing in Geneva under the Fourth Geneva
Accord. But I know that we all have been very loudly crying out
[to Iraq] to get out of Kuwait.
Q Margaret, when the Iraqi Charge came in, he
complained about civilian casualties of allied bombardments and
we were told that he had produced no evidence of it. But
generally speaking, can you address the question of what Gary
Sick, for instance, who --
A Who?
Q Captain Gary Sick, who was on the NSC in the
Carter Administration -- Jimmy Carter Administration.
A I don't know him.
Q The Jimmy Carter Administration -- the Democratic
Administration. Gary Sick said the United States is engaged in
carpet-bombing, which he didn't say was wrong --
A Does he currently serve at the Pentagon?
Q No, no, he serves on television. No, he teaches
at (Laughter) -- he teaches at Columbia and he writes books and
he's an authority on the Persian Gulf and on the Middle East.
He, among other people -- I don't want to single him out
particularly -- thinks that there are civilian victims of this
bombing and that the United States is killing a lot of Iraqis.
Can you address that?
A One, I apologize in advance for my ignorance in
not knowing who this gentleman is, but I would have to say that,
as you've just confirmed to me, he is not working at the
Pentagon. He's not currently at the National Security Council,
and I would doubt that he is in the information flow of what our
government is or is not doing.
Having said that, I believe that General Powell,
General Schwarzkopf, Secretary of Defense, Cheney -- our entire
Administration has been On the Record stating what our policy is
from the moment that hostilities went into effect. As you know
-- we have made it very clear -- we have no argument with the
people of Iraq.
We have also told the Iraqis that the United States and
other coalition forces will only attack targets of military
value in Iraq. The civilian population will not be the object
of attack.
Q But the state of war isn't so precise that every
bomb is dropped exactly where you'd like to drop it. Haven't
there been large-scale civilian casualties?
A I think that question, to be honest with you, is
best asked at the Defense Department. They do military
briefings -- I believe it's once or twice a day -- and they
would be in a better position than I am to answer that question.
I have with me, but I don't think you want me to read
it to you, what all the various Government officials have said
concerning this. I would just check with the Defense Department
today.
Q Margaret, there's a story out there this morning
that has the Iraqi U.N. delegate possibly deciding to seek
political asylum. Do you have anything on it?
A I have not heard of that. It's the first I've
ever heard of it.
Q How about Rich Armitage being in Jordan -- the
Philippine-base negotiator who frequently does special
confidential missions for either the Secretary of State or the
President? What's he doing there?
A Richard, Armitage went to Jordan Sunday and is
returning today. While in Amman, he consulted with King Hussein
and other senior Jordanian officials on the Gulf crisis, the
resulting refugee situation and other issues of regional
concern.
As Marlin just said at his briefing this morning, Mr.
Armitage went representing the United States, as a
representative of the President, and it was at the President's
request. This decision, Marlin said, was made on Saturday up at
Camp David. That's really all I have on his mission.
Q Margaret, one of the networks said that he might
be going to other places, including Iran. Can you deny that?
A My understanding is that he is coming back today.
Q What was the necessity of him going? Obviously,
refugees is part of the concern but there are many other
concerns about Jordan. Was he trying to reassure the King of
certain American positions?
A I'd love to be more helpful to you. I said that
overall he was discussing the Gulf crisis. Just an offshoot of
that, as we all saw previously back in August, was the refugee
situation. That has not developed yet. But I would stick to
what I mentioned first of what he was going to discuss, the
overall Gulf crisis. And I just can't flesh it out anymore for
you.
Q So he had a message from the President, I presume,
since he was the President's personal emissary?
A I didn't ask that. I just talked to Marlin. I
don't believe Marlin said that, but we have both said that he
went as a personal representative of the President of our
country. This decision was made at Camp David on Saturday where
the President, as you know, was meeting with the Secretary of
State, Secretary of Defense, and others. He went and he's on
his way back.
Q If he went to see the King, presumably he did
carry a message for the King from the President?
A Do you mean a literal piece of paper or a verbal
communication or --
Q Either one?
A He went to consult with the King.
Q Margaret, the Iraqis were talking about
recognition by the U.S. Government of the POWs in their hands as
a condition to treat them as POWs, according to the Geneva
Accords. Did you recognize your POWs to the Iraqis in numbers
and names?
A I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me.
Q They were asking for recognition by the U.S.
Government for the names and numbers of the POWs in their hands
in order for them to treat those POWs as POWs, according to the
Geneva Accords.
A Number 1, I'm not aware that that is one of the
things the Iraqis are saying. If it is, I find that, to be
perfectly honest, a little ludicrous. You're telling me that
you need a list of names before you treat other human beings
humanely? I'm sorry, I don't get that. I've told you what our
government has done. We are abiding by the Geneva Accords. We
have, as I've told you, been in contact with the International
Committee of the Red Cross. We are doing everything exactly as
it should be done. So I do not see an Iraqi -- if it's true,
and I have not seen this -- claim that because they do not have
some names, that they, then, are going to treat people that they
are holding, in the manner of which they are holding them, I'm
just sorry, I can't buy into that.
Q It's quite clear that they are trying to give the
impression that they have a larger number of POWs than you are
recognizing. This is the point, as I understand it.
A The point is, it is quite clear that they are not
abiding by the 1949 Geneva Accords of which they are a
signatory.
Q Margaret, this is going to be a daily generic
question. But other than the Iraqi Charge coming in yesterday
afternoon, has there been any diplomatic contact between the
United States and the Government of Iraq?
A No.
Q Margaret, going back to the POW issue and the war
crimes issue, does the United States have a specific mechanism
or forum or legal system in mind for trying war crimes? Would
this be an offshoot of the International Court of Justice, or
would it be a special tribunal, or what?
A We don't have an answer to that question yet,
Alan, and we are not ruling in or ruling out any options.
Q Are you studying the question?
A It is something that, of course, is being looked
into but there are no answers to the specifics -- what you're
asking me, I believe, is the mechanism.
Q Just one last follow-up here. What makes the
Iraqi crimes particularly more heinous than, say, the Soviet
atrocities in Afghanistan or the Chinese atrocities against
their population in Beijing or Tibet, or, indeed, U.S. excesses
in Vietnam?
A I have refrained for two years from doing
comparisons, and I'm going to keep that policy today. John.
Q Is the United States concerned, or has the issue
been raised about the transfer of Patriot missiles to Israel
being a violation of the ABM Treaty?
A If it has been raised, I'm unaware of it.
Q The Soviets have not raised this with you?
They're the only other signatory to the ABM Treaty.
A If they have, John, I have not heard about it.
Q Would it be possible for you check that question,
please?
A Sure. Carol.
Q There are reports today that Germany would be
reluctant to help defend Turkey if it were attacked by Iraq. I
just wondered what your understanding of the German position is?
And do you see this as causing strains within NATO?
A I don't see this as causing strains within NATO.
And without belaboring it, what I would have to do is refer you
to what Chancellor Kohl has said many times concerning the
German Government's position of coming to the aid of any of the
alliance that might be in need.
I also would have to tell you that, as I saw one report
today, it was not the Chancellor of Germany. It was unnamed
officials. So I would have to tell you that our opinion is that
the German Government has not changed their view towards this.
But, again, that's our interpretation of it. If you need a more
thorough one, maybe you could check with the Germany Embassy
here.
Q Let me make sure I understand this clearly. The
United States believes that Germany would, in fact, join NATO in
helping to defend Turkey if it were attacked by Iraq?
A I don't want to speak for Germany but there has
been no question in our minds about the Chancellor's commitment
to -- as you know, they have done an enormous amount on the side
of responsibility-sharing. The Secretary just met with them, I
believe it was two weeks ago, discussing 1991 sharing. But I
cannot be in a position of speaking for the German Government
from this podium about a hypothetical "what if." I have to
refer you back to -- and I'll be happy to get some of the quotes
for you -- what the Chancellor himself has said to his public
concerning this subject.
Q There's also Spain and Belgium on the same list of
countries that are expressing a lack of interest in coming to
the aid of Turkey if Turkey gets engaged further than it already
is or if Turkey is, in fact, attacked. Do you have any
information or any --
A I haven't seen a report. I've seen the one in one
of this morning's newspapers concerning Germany and Turkey. I
haven't heard of those two nor have I seen those two.
Q Margaret, it's not just a hypothetical. The
Germans have sent airplanes to Turkey and, presumably, they're
there to do something. Are they, as far as you know, helping,
like our Patriot missiles, to patrol Turkey's borders against
incursions by Iraqi missiles or airplanes? It's not a
hypothetical. The question is, are they doing this? Have they
notified us that they are doing it?
A It's a little awkward for me to speak on behalf of
the German Government. I will tell you that --
Q I'm speaking on behalf of the American Government.
Has the American Government --
A You're asking me what Germany is going to do.
Q What?
A You're asking me what Germany is going to do.
Normally, we refrain from saying in advance what another country
will do. That's all I'm doing.
Q Margaret, I'm not asking what another country is
going to do. I'm asking you whether Germany is doing it?
A OK. How about this. In his January 17 speech to
the Bundestag, Chancellor Kohl said that "The use of military
means against Iraq was taking place in accordance with U.N.
resolutions; that the Iraqi regime alone was responsible for the
fact that force was resorted to and that Germany stood by its
allies who bore the main burden of defending right and freedom.
Germany has already deployed a squadron of aircraft to
Turkey as part of NATO's allied command Europe mobile force
deployment to bolster Turkey's air defenses. The Belgians and
Italians have also deployed aircraft while the U.S. and Dutch
have already deployed Patriot missiles to Turkey. We are
confident that Turkey will continue to receive the full support
and assistance of its allies in defending against an Iraqi
attack."
So there's what Chancellor Kohl said on January 17. I
am not aware of anymore that he has said, and that's why I'm
going to continue to say, I have to refer you to the German
Government.
Q Margaret, I represent Channel 1, which is a
national news broadcast for high school students. Many of them
are concerned about terrorists attacks here at home. What
exactly is the State Department and other Government officials
doing to ensure their safety and the safety of other Americans?
A We have had any number of statements that we have
made over the last many months. We have made a number of
statements int he last week, and I would refer you to the record
concerning those.
You are aware that this Department has been working
very closely with the FAA to ensure all the airports, to the
best of our ability, are safe. So there's any number of things
that any number of agencies in our Government has been doing and
will continue to do.
Q Margaret, what prompted this advisory today?
A What prompted it? What prompts any of them?
There was a feeling that we wanted to be On the Record once
again reminding people that, basically, if they have
non-essential travel, they should maybe check in with the State
Department to find out what is our latest travel advisory
concerning whatever city or country they're going to. It was
our effort, Pat, just to continue to remind the public, as we
are, our Government-wide employees. And that's why I said, this
was for all Departments and Agencies.
As you know, we go to great lengths to try to avoid any
appearance of a double standard. If you're going to advise and
take a look at what could be characterized as non-essential
government travel, then, at the same moment, you should notify
our public that we are taking this very seriously and looking at
travel.
Q Saddam Hussein in almost six days has been unable
to inflict any offensive casualties. The Scud missiles had no
effect. The only casualties have been shooting down our pilots.
Does that suggest that you are now concerned that he may now
move to terrorism as the Number 1 objective?
A We have been very concerned about terrorism before
hostilities and since hostilities, and this is just another
effort to make sure that our public is aware that Government
employees, Department-wide, Agency-wide, will be looking at
travel.
Q But you don't think it is more likely now because
of his inability to inflict damages in any other fashion?
A I don't have any way to judge that. He and any
number of terrorist groups have been out over the last -- what
is it now almost six months -- claiming that they are going to
take terrorist activities. We take those threats seriously and
we have been acting accordingly.
Q Margaret, you have been quoting back Chancellor
Kohl's January 17 speech to us. You have said that the U.S.
Government does not see any problems in the way that Germany is
posturing itself in the last 24 to 48 hours. Has there been an
effort by the State Department to be in touch with the German
Government to make sure that, indeed, Chancellor Kohl still
sticks by his speech, or whether or not there is a not-so-subtle
change that has taken place in the German posture?
A Based on this one report this morning, have we
called the German Government?
Q There's more than one report.
A I am not aware -- I cannot remember. Marlin put
out a list of who all the President spoke with over the weekend.
I can't remember. I'd refer you to his transcript. It was a
number of leaders. I can't remember if Germany was on there or
not.
Q Baker is not --
A The Secretary of State has, to my knowledge, when
I came to this briefing, not spoken to his counterpart in
Germany. I'm not aware of a specific high-level conversation
that has gone on since this report. You say there had been
earlier ones. I'm just not aware of it.
Q Margaret, the Secretary has spoken of 28 nations
being in a coalition. The Pentagon has 31. Do you know of more
than a half dozen countries that are actually engaged in combat
against Iraq?
A I'd refer you to the Defense Department.
Q One country, reportedly, is Germany where there's
a massive anti-war protest.
A And Germany is engaged militarily?
Q Is Germany engaged --
A I haven't heard that.
Q Is Germany engaged militarily?
A I've never heard that, Barry. But, again, I'd
refer you to the Defense Department.
Q No, I mean the protest are against any
participation by Germany; and the reports are that -- you know,
the German Government responds rather quickly to anti-war
sentiments in Germany. It has on missiles and various other
things. The notion is that the German Government is not engaged
in this war very much because of the anti-war sentiments in
Germany. Are the Germans involved in this war?
A The Germans, certainly, Barry, as you well know,
because you travel with us, are engaged on the
responsibility-sharing. They certainly were in 1990. And as I
stated, Secretary Baker just saw Chancellor Kohl and Chancellor
Kohl has said that they would certainly do their full share of
responsibility-sharing for 1991.
As you know, the German Government has a constitutional
prohibition about military engagements. I am not an expert on
this. I will be happy to have the lawyers get it for you, but I
don't believe that the Germans have ever claimed to be
militarily involved in the coalition. But there is no question
that they have been --
Q Financially, they have been.
A That they have been -- well, that's (inaudible) a
lot of countries.
Q I know, but the notion that the United States is
banking on is that it isn't a U.S.war with Iraq. It's an allied
war. It involves 31 or 28 nations. I just can't count up more
than about five or six that are actually engaged in hostilities?
A Again, I'll refer you to the Defense Department.
They have a better way of judging who actually is involved in
hostilities than I do here. Joanne has been waiting for a long
time. I'll come back.
Q A couple questions. First, on Israel. The Los
Angeles Times is reporting, I believe this morning, that one
reason Israel has not retaliated is that the United States has
refused to give it the "Friend or Foe Code" that would be
necessary for any kind of air activity. Do you know anything
about the accuracy of that report?
A No, I don't.
Q Secondly, in the past you've said that the reason
Secretary Baker was not personally going to Israel was that it
might disturb the Arab nations that are part of the coalition.
Since the attack on Israel and the voices from those nations in
support of Israel's right to defend itself, I'm wondering why he
sent Mr. Eagleburger instead of going himself?
A I don't believe, Joanne -- to be honest with you,
I wasn't there as part of the discussions -- that it was ever
raised that the Secretary of State would make this mission.
After all, the Deputy Secretary had just been there -- I believe
it was seven days earlier -- and this is, as you know, an
interagency team that he has once again led.
The Under Secretary of the Defense Department is with
him also. And I would judge the mission by the public
statements, not only of the Prime Minister of Israel but of
other high-ranking Israeli officials, and certainly of
Mr. Eagleburger himself.
Q One more thing: Since we haven't seen you in a
couple of days, could you bring us up to date on the Secretary's
activities? Has he been mostly at the White House? Was he at
Camp David?
A We have been putting this all out. I'm sorry if
you haven't gotten it from the Press Office every day. The
Secretary was at Camp David at the President's meeting. Today
he will be at the White House.
As you know, in his public schedule today he is meeting
with some gentlemen from the Baltics, and I believe -- unless it
got changed -- with the Mongolian. He has had any number of
contacts with coalition partners over the last four days.
He has obviously stayed in close contact with the
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security
Adviser to the President. He hasn't lacked, believe me, of
staying engaged and busy in trying to do his part in this
effort.
Q If you'll forgive one more follow-up. I have no
doubt of that. My question is whether he is conducting himself
these days more as Presidential best friend or Secretary of
State?
A It depends, Joanne. As you know, candidly
speaking, when a decision is made to begin hostilities, that
baton operationally -- State is not the lead, traditionally has
never been and is not in this military operation.
So if you're looking for the Secretary of State to be
the operational lead officer, that is not the case and is not
going to be the case and never has been the case, whoever's
Secretary of State.
If you are asking me when the need arises, as it did
the other night, with the situation concerning Israel, "Was the
Secretary of State up almost two nights the entire night?" Yes.
Because that was a political component and the political part
was engaged in the person of the Secretary of State.
Operationally, when that is not the case, no, he is
not. But is he serving two roles -- Secretary of State and the
management of this portfolio and as an adviser to the President,
a person he's known for over 30 years? Yes, he is serving both
roles.
Q Margaret, can you tell us --
Q With the Secretary being so deeply into what's
going on in Israel, you cannot answer whether the Israelis were
inhibited by more than just diplomacy from defending, from
retaliating -- this friend-or-foe code?
A No.
Q Why can't you -- you don't know, or it's a
security matter, or what?
A I think that everything concerning Israel has been
answered very clearly by the Prime Minister of Israel, by the
Deputy Secretary of State who has had extensive meetings not
only with the Prime Minister but with other officials. He is
continuing those meetings, and I don't have anything to add to
what both governments have been saying on the record for -- what
has it been now? -- four or five days.
Q I'm just wondering -- we're wondering about the
Los Angeles Times' story --
A I haven't read the Los Angeles Times' story, to be
honest.
Q Well, I haven't either, but the AP picked it up,
and the story basically is that not just diplomacy restrained
the Israelis, the United States denied Israel the code -- the
friend-or-foe code that it would need to safely execute bombing
raids against Iraqi; otherwise, it might be shot down by
American or other allied defenders.
A I know you don't want me to repeat all of the
Prime Minister's statements of the last 24 hours --
Q Unless they deal with friend-or-foe, I don't want
you to.
A Or the Deputy Secretary of State's. But there are
no secrets that the United States government has been deeply
appreciative -- the President of the United States answered this
on Friday for us -- of the role that Israel has played.
Israel's Prime Minister and their Defense Minister and
their Foreign Minister, have said how very appreciative they are
of the Patriot missiles being there. That Israel will, as it
should -- and Larry Eagleburger said this yesterday -- make
their own decisions.
Concerning a piece that I have not read -- the Los
Angeles Times -- you're right. I have no comment on it.
Q Well, let me ask you then a related question, a
quick one --
Q (Inaudible) -- or is it that you don't know
anything about it?
A I have no comment.
Q You have no comment. All right. One quick one.
The Secretary on his last trip, there was a lot of discussion of
strategy, timetable. We were getting ready -- you were getting
ready for a war, and there was a lot of consultations with
allies.
Were friend-or-foe codes given to Syria and other
people in your alliance?
A None of these questions am I going to answer.
Number one, I don't know; and, number two, there is no doubt in
my mind that we are not going to answer these types of
questions.
Q Margaret, could you --
Q Margaret --
A Sure, Saul.
Q In diplomacy, one of the things that apparently
the military would like out of Syria, which is a diplomatic
issue, is whether Syria will allow all the flights, so that
American planes can more easily attack targets in northern Iraq.
Could you please tell me whether Syria is allowing
over-flights, whether we've talked to them about it?
A I would refer you to the Pentagon for any type of
operational questions such as those.
Q Well, it's not an operational question. It's also
a diplomatic question.
A I understand, but we are in an operational mode
now, and I will refer those types of questions to the Pentagon.
Q Margaret, can I ask two quick questions? First of
all, Israeli Finance Minister Yitzhak Modai today said that
Israel needed $13 billion in additional aid from the United
States --
A $13 billion?
Q $13 billion. He said that $3 billion of that is
what they need for their war costs up until now, and that they
would like $13 billion over the next five years.
I was wondering, has there been a formal request from
the Israelis made for additional financial aid? He specifically
mentioned that they needed $3 billion for the war costs that
they've incurred up until now, and are you asking the coalition
partners to contribute to Israel's war costs?
A If there is such a request, Mary, I'm unaware of
it. I have not talked to Larry or in any of his reporting
cables read any such request, so I would just have to tell you I
don't know. I haven't seen the Finance Minister's statement
this morning, and I'm unaware of any such request.
Q And one more question, if I may. There have been
some articles written recently, saying that the United States
has different political goals in this war than are the goals of
the United Nations Security Council resolutions. That by
destroying Iraq's nuclear capability, for instance, the United
States has gone beyond the goal of forcing Iraq out of Kuwait.
Is that a fair assessment? Do you believe that the
United States is going beyond the goals of forcing Iraq out of
Kuwait?
A No. And I believe that we have neither enlarged
nor enhanced what was the mandate and the objective that was
laid out by the President of the United States. And there were
four objectives, and those are still the four objectives.
Q Margaret, there was a meeting yesterday in New
York among the finance ministers from the industrialized
countries at which pledges were made, financial pledges, toward
the war effort. The Germans made some pledges, and I believe
the Japanese did too.
Do you have any --
A Specifics?
Q -- any comment, any specifics, anything to say at
all about them?
A I know better from my Treasury days than to
comment on G-7 meetings. And, two, I can tell you that the
Secretary of State this afternoon will be having an internal
meeting concerning responsibility sharing for 1991. No. I do
not yet have specific numbers, whether it be for Japan or other
countries in the coalition.
Q You'll have full details of that meeting at
tomorrow's briefing, right?
A We'll probably post it this afternoon. Yes.
Q Margaret, on the question of war crimes and
prisoners of war, has the United States yet made a submission to
the United Nations on particulars of various war crimes within
Kuwait and/or Iraq?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Could you check and see if perhaps there's
something that's happened outside your knowledge?
A Sure. I'll be glad to, John. The United Nations
Security Council, today, as I came to briefing had no meetings
scheduled. I'll be happy to see if there's some formal
mechanism that has kicked in. My instincts are, as I answered
earlier, we are looking at all options and don't rule anything
in or out.
My instincts would tell me that we have not, since it
has not been decided which mechanism you would pursue, but I'll
be happy to see if I'm right or wrong.
Q Which mechanism you would pursue -- what does that
mean?
A My understanding, John, is there are a variety of
options if you choose to prosecute under war crimes, war
criminals, etc., one of which would be to go the U.N. route.
Having met with the lawyers this morning, my limited
understanding in this field is that there are many different
types of legal options.
I will be happy to ask the lawyers if they have decided
which mechanism to pursue. But since they met with me and told
me that they have not, my instincts are that there's not some
formal mechanism they have sent to the United Nations.
Q Margaret, there have been a couple of peace
initiatives thrown in by specifically India and Pakistan, and
possibly one by Egypt as well. Do you still support any further
peace initiatives by any countries, and those that are already
part of the coalition?
A I think that maybe you need to look at President
Mubarak's statement that he made just this morning. I'm not
sure of what Egyptian peace initiative you are talking about.
And I think --
Q Is it probable?
A Well, he has addressed this question this morning
himself. And I think that you should check with the Indian
government concerning what they may or may not be doing.
Q Well, if you won't comment on the peace move by
these countries --
A I'm not aware that there is a peace move by these
countries.
Q At least a cease-fire -- kind of cease-fire appeal
or something?
A That is certainly not what President Mubarak said
this morning in Egypt, and I'd just refer you to his statement
this morning to his public.
Q What would the U.S. say to proposals, for example,
from Pakistan which have been made by the former Prime Minister
and by various other nations that are looking for a pause in the
bombing so that peace initiatives can be explored?
Is the United States in favor of a pause in the bombing
so that peace initiatives can be explored to reduce the killing?
A No. And we answered earlier this week that Saddam
Hussein had a 45-day pause for peace. He obviously did not
choose to pursue that avenue, and so my answer is no.
Q Margaret, does that mean that the -- what is it?
-- four contacts that the U.S. has had with Iraq dealt entirely
with the prisoners of war issue?
A It's my clear understanding from talking to two of
the gentlemen who met with him.
Q Another subject?
A Suits me.
Q Can I ask one more?
Q Can we expect --
A Wait. Mark hasn't had a question yet.
Q As a follow up on Mary Jo's question, can you
elaborate at all on the President's goal of security and
stability in the Persian Gulf region and say whether that is
compatible or not with the survival of the current Baghdad
regime?
A I'm not exactly clear of what you're asking me,
Mark.
Q Can you have achieved stability and security in
the Persian Gulf if the current regime headed by Saddam Hussein
survives?
A The President has answered this before. We have
never said -- our government has not -- it is not one of the
objectives or goals to eliminate Saddam Hussein. That is not one
of the stated goals -- has never been stated.
Q No. The President said last week that we're not
targeting individuals.
A That's right.
Q What about the government which he heads?
A That's too hypothetical. I mean, what are you
asking me? Saddam Hussein is head of the government.
Q That's right.
A Are you saying now, are we targeting his
employees? The answer would be no.
Q Is it U.S. policy to change the government in
Iraq?
A That is not one of the stated objectives or goals
as enunciated by the President when he addressed the nation --
wasn't it January 15? -- concerning his policy and what his
objectives and goals were.
Q Could we switch to the Soviets or something else
for a change?
Q Margaret, one more. You mentioned that you had
talked to two of the people who had met with the Iraqi envoy, so
I'm curious whether the United States government is confident
that any of those messages are getting to Baghdad?
A In each of the meetings, Joanne, the Charge said
that he would transmit the views of the United States Government
to his government. I have no idea if it's getting over there or
not.
Q Is he coming again today, to the best of your
knowledge?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Margaret, the legal adviser of the -- still with
the Iraqi affair -- can we expect the Legal Adviser of the State
Department to just give us kind of background of the mechanisms
-- what you called mechanisms of --
A Today?
Q -- going to the --
A I'll see.
David?
Q Can I ask you, moving to the Baltics -- President
Gorbachev said today that -- I'm paraphrasing -- that it is an
internal matter for the Soviet Union and people of the Soviet
Union and nobody's business otherwise what happens to the
Baltics.
First of all, do you accept that view? And, secondly,
is the United States reassessing any of its credits, aid,
lifting of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment -- any of those kinds of
things -- in light of the violence that occurred?
Q And summit plans.
A Let me answer this three ways. One, the summit
was answered yesterday by Marlin by saying it's still up in the
air.
Two, yesterday Marlin said that concerning
Jackson-Vanik, etc., etc., that all of that is under review.
Three, the situation in all three states remains quiet
today but tense. No major military moves have taken place in
the last 24 hours. A variety of diplomatic and political talks
are going on. The United States condemns all intimidation and
use of force in the Baltic states and regrets deeply the loss of
innocent lives.
As the President said yesterday, we urge the Soviet
government to act to end its use of force and turn back to
seeking a peaceful, political solution to the conflict.
We have instructed Ambassador Matlock to follow up in
Moscow on the contacts made here in Washington concerning
Sunday's events in Riga. Embassy Moscow is also in contact with
various Soviet government and republic leaders.
In recent days, we have engaged in intensive
consultations with our European allies and friends concerning
the situation in the Baltic states. Among member states of
CSCE, for example, there is nearly universal condemnation of the
recent violence in the Baltics.
In concert with a number of other states, we plan in
the next few days to invoke the human dimension mechanism in
response to what we view as serious violations of the Soviet
government's human dimension commitments under various CSCE
documents, including the Copenhagen Document and the Charter of
Paris adopted last November.
We also note the decision by the EC to postpone this
week's scheduled meeting of the EC-U.S.S.R. joint commission.
We understand that the EC is reviewing its assistance to the
U.S.S.R., including the package of measures announced last
December. We are undertaking a similar review.
As for direct contacts with the Baltic states, our
Consul General in Leningrad, Richard Miles, visited all three
Baltic capitals over the weekend and consulted with each of the
Baltic presidents.
We are seeking to maintain a United States government
official presence in all three Baltic capitals on a continuous
basis.
This afternoon Secretary Baker will be meeting with the
three Baltic leaders. The Secretary will convey this
Administration's strong support for the freely and
democratically elected governments in the three states and for a
peaceful political settlement through dialogue.
For those of you all who do not know, as I didn't this
morning, I will tell you what the CSCE human dimension mechanism
is and how it works.
Q We know --
A You know?
Q Not exactly.
A I didn't know. The mechanism usually begins with
one or more member states formally requesting another member
state to explain how its actions conform to its commitments on
human and political rights under CSCE.
The latter state must respond to the inquiry. The
state or states invoking the mechanism may request a bilateral
meeting with the other party. They also may bring their inquiry
to the attention of other CSCE states and raise their concerns
at CSCE meetings related to the human dimension.
Q Has it ever been done before?
A I don't now, Barry. I'll ask.
Q O.K. This is the U.S. that will invoke this
mechanism. Is that what you were saying?
A My understanding is that there is almost -- I
don't know how many states -- it's in concert with other states.
It's not the United States solo. I just don't have a list of
-- but we are definitely joining in it -- and we're not alone.
I'll try to get a more thorough list of other states who are
doing it.
Q So what's the practical effects? Supposing in
step number two they say it's none of your business?
A Well, you all have been asking for many days about
what the United States is doing. Here is one concrete thing
that we can point to that we are doing in concert with other
states.
Q Yeah, but what I'm saying is once --
A What is the penalty for not doing it?.
Q Yes.
A I don't know, Jim.
Q Have the Soviets been notified prior to this
briefing?
A I don't know. I didn't think to ask that.
Q Margaret, in the meantime the Soviets have sent
their best -- or their senior negotiator here, and there were
talks on finishing START.
A Right.
Q I think it was the Secretary's position -- at
least before things got so heated in the Baltics -- to keep arms
control and progress on it separate from U.S.-Soviet tensions.
Is that still your hope, that you can proceed with the START
treaty, even while you don't like what they're doing in the
Baltics?
A As expressed by the President's spokesperson
yesterday, Marlin Fitzwater -- that is as of yesterday. I don't
know of a change today. That is the policy of the President at
this moment in time, is the best way I know how to answer you.
Q Is to what -- try to get the treaty done? To move
ahead on the treaty.
A Yes. We would hope to get a START treaty done.
Q Right.
A That has not changed.
Q But behavior does influence whether or not you're
able to make progress, doesn't it?
A Our hope is to get a START treaty, and that's why
-- I can only answer what policy is, as has been enunciated by
the President. If, obviously, the President makes some type of
a decision, then there's a new policy. So I am only guided by
what our policy is right now.
Q Do you happen to know if they talked today? They
were (inaudible) yesterday.
A Yes. They're supposed to have begun talking again
this morning. They met yesterday from, I think it's 2:00 to
6:30. I can't get into the substance of their discussions.
The key remaining issues are related to verification.
Significant progress was made on these issues, as you know, at
the Houston Ministerial and in subsequent discussions by the
U.S. and Soviet START delegations in Geneva.
However, there are still important aspects that need to
be resolved.
Q Do you know --
A Wait a minute. I don't know how long these talks
will go on, and our goal remains to complete a START agreement
as soon as possible.
Q Margaret, they are also here to discuss CFE and
the data discrepancy issue. Do you know if progress is being
made on satisfying our concerns about the data discrepancy
issue?
A I know that they are not only discussing START
while they're here, John. But, as you point out, they're
discussing CFE, and I do not know if they have made progress or
not on either one of those areas. They had the meeting
yesterday and are meeting this morning. But, yes, they're here
this week to discuss both.
Q Margaret, just for the record, are the Soviets
still helping us out on the Gulf, and would you say just for the
record whether the Soviet help on the Gulf has anything to do
with our attitudes toward the Soviets on the Baltics?
A Saul, we are very appreciative, and it has not
been a secret, of the Soviet Union's stand concerning the
situation in the Gulf since, I believe it was August 3, when
Secretary Baker was in Moscow and issued a joint statement with
then Foreign Minister Shevardnadze.
I am not aware of any change in our attitude toward
their position on the Gulf. Having said that, we have been on
record every day -- and the President was yesterday afternoon
-- expressing our deep concern over what is going on in the
Baltics.
Q Well, the reason I ask that is because that deep
concern was registered during our trip -- our recent trip after
13 people were killed, and now five more people have been
killed. But nothing specific has changed. That is, we're still
considering the summit, we're still considering the suspension
of Jackson-Vanik -- we're still considering those things, even
though another five people have been killed.
A The Administration has a lot of things under
review. Marlin answered on behalf of the President yesterday
that the summit is still up in the air. What I don't have for
you are Presidential decisions.
Q Margaret, has Secretary Baker, incidentally, been
in contact with the Soviet Foreign Minister or --
A He talked to him on -- (TO STAFF) When was it,
Thursday or Friday?
One day last week. He has not talked to him since the
time I announced that he had.
Q Congratulatory --
A It had three parts, remember?
Q Yes.
A You don't want me to repeat them?
Q No. (Laughter)
Q O.K. Thank you.
A Thanks.
Q Can I just ask you about the human dimensions
mechanism?
A (Inaudible)
Q So basically these nations are going to get
together and say, "Explain to us how this fits in with your
dedication to human rights," and then they either explain or
they don't explain.
A That's how I understand this. Yes.
Q Is this in a public forum, or is just a written
note required or --
A I believe it's at a CSCE meeting. That's 35
nations. That wouldn't be too secret. I don't know what the
rules are, whether the press is in the meeting or not. But, I
mean, 35 nations are there.
Q But they have to appear some place.
Q 34.
A Oh, I'm sorry. 34. 34 nations. Right. There's
one Germany now.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:20 p.m.)