US Department of State Daily Briefing #13:
Wednesday,1/23/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:09 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 23, 19911/23/91
Category: Briefings
Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa, South America,
Europe
Country: USSR (former), Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey, Chile,
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia
Subject: Terrorism, Military Affairs, Travel,
Democratization, State Department, Arms Control
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Terrorism Update]
MS. TUTWILER: I want to give you a brief update on
terrorism around the world, and then I have one brief statement
to make on Israel.
Concerning terrorism, as you know, there have been no
major incidents directed against U.S. diplomatic and military
facilities in the last 24 hours. There have, however, been
several attacks on U.S. commercial facilities in Turkey and
Chile.
In Turkey, two U.S. businesses in Istanbul were bombed.
Damage was minor and one employee was slightly injured.
In Chile, two U.S. businesses -- Ford and Coca-Cola
subsidiaries -- and two Mormon churches were bombed. There were
no casualties.
These attacks have not yet been claimed by any one
group. Similar attacks in Turkey within the last week were
claimed by Dev Sol, protesting U.S. involvement in the Gulf war.
In Lebanon, a French bank was bombed in Baalbek, and a
Saudi bank was bombed in Beirut. These and other recent attacks
in Lebanon have been directed at the interests of nations
participating in the multinational coalition. One person was
killed in yesterday's Baalbek bombing.
There continue to be demonstrations in various cities
but no reports of damage to U.S. facilities. Some Embassies
have also received telephone bomb threats, but checks have found
that has been nothing.
[Iraqi Missle Attack on Israel]
Concerning yesterday's unprovoked Iraqi missile attack
against Israel, it demonstrates once again that we are dealing
with a regime prepared to use all means of terror against
innocents in pursuit of its goals. We condemn this brutal act
and extend our sympathy to the families of the victims.
The Government and people of Israel have shown
extraordinary restraint, courage and resolve during this crisis.
Both the President and the Secretary have expressed their
sorrow over these unprovoked attacks and their deep
appreciation for Israeli restraint. And we want the Government
and people of Israel to know that the United States will
continue to stand by Israel in the days ahead.
Jim?
Q On the first items, terrorism, has the State
Department been able to see any pattern in these? Is there
apparently any overall direction from anybody?
A Not that I'm aware of. No. And in my briefings
that has not been brought up.
Q And there's still been no credible specific
threats in this country?
A Correct. As of when I came down here to brief.
Q Is there evidence that Iraq is trying to step up
any sort of network activity along the terrorist lines? Are
there any Iraqi fingerprints on anything that you are seeing,
either intended or things that have already happened?
A Other than the public statements that have been
made over the last -- what is it now? -- almost six months that
they would resort to terrorists, that they would send out
terrorist personnel -- for lack of a better word. Those are the
only things that I can tell you that are concrete -- their own
public statements that they were going to use terrorists.
Q But what is your threat assessment? Are you
seeing indications, without being specific, that there are
Iraqi-motivated cells or groups or individuals that are moving
out with intent?
A Not that has been expressed to me in any of the
briefings that I've had. I'll be happy to talk after the
briefing again with Ambassador Busby and re-ask that question.
But that has not been brought up in any discussion I've had with
him.
Q When you're praising Israel for extraordinary
restraint, is that the sort of thing that the Secretary told the
Israelis yesterday -- do you know? -- through Larry Eagleburger:
"To show extraordinary restraint?"
A The Secretary spoke throughout the night and late
yesterday afternoon and again very early this morning with the
Deputy Secretary, and he has expressed, as the President did to
Prime Minister Shamir last night -- the White House put out a
statement of what the President said to the Prime Minister --
our deep sympathy and our deep appreciation.
Q Do you know how many times? By the way, you said
"throughout the night." I don't suppose every ten minutes he --
A I didn't count, but he has since yesterday
afternoon and this attack, he has talked to the Deputy Secretary
at least eight times.
Q At least eight times. Well, of course, my -- the
same question, though. I understand what you're doing publicly.
We hear that. We heard the President's statement yesterday.
Yours is a day later. But the question is, is the United States
telling Israel to show restraint? While you're praising it, is
that what you're counselling them to do?
A The United States stands with Israel in defending
against Iraqi aggression. The United States is, has it has been
for many years, committed to the security of Israel. We
recognize and respect the right of every sovereign state to
defend itself, and thus have never questioned Israel's right to
respond to attack.
We also recognize and respect Israel's desire not to be
drawn into this conflict and greatly admire Israel's restraint
in the face of Iraq's deliberate and murderous effort to widen
the conflict caused by its aggression against Kuwait.
Q You know, it's often -- one last one, though.
It's become a sort of a cliche, a truism even, an axiom, that
somehow if Israel defended itself by hitting Iraq, that this
would weaken the coalition. Isn't it possible that if Israel
participated, that Israel's force would enhance the coalition?
That there would be another active and fairly powerful nation
fighting for the same end the United States is fighting? Is
that possible?
A That is a speculative question for me, Barry. I
will restate for you, which I know you're very, very familiar
with, as has been enunciated throughout since hostilities began,
by our President, by Mr. Eagleburger who's there on the ground,
by our Secretary of State of what our policy is concerning this
situation.
Q Margaret, the statement --
Q Can you tell us --
A I'll be back. Yes, Saul.
Q Can you tell me first, will Eagleburger now stay
there as long as the threat to Israel continues, or how long, or
what do you see about that? Second, how are we reacting in
addition to expressing our appreciation? Are we expressing
appreciation in any more tangible way aside from the Patriots,
and what is our response initially to reports that the Israelis
are going to be asking for some added aid and help in various
ways?
A To your three questions, the first answer is that
the Deputy Secretary is there for -- there's no fixed time on
when he will be returning. Your second question had to do with,
I believe, "Are there any more tangible things that we can point
to that we are doing for Israel." I don't have something
tangible this morning to announce.
And, three, concerning the meeting the Deputy Secretary
had yesterday with the Israeli Finance Minister concerning a
suggestion of $13 billion, I spoke with the Deputy this morning
in Israel, and he said: Yes, this subject was discussed; that
he made no commitments; that he listened, and that he said he
would report back to Washington.
We do not have that full report yet, and, when we get
it, it will be given our full consideration.
Q But he said something to the Israelis to the
effect, you know, "We won't forget what you're doing."
Something to that effect? When in all of these eight phone
calls, surely we're doing something else besides expressing
outrage.
A I said that we have continued to express, and the
President did again last night when he spoke with the Prime
Minister, the Deputy Secretary saw the Prime Minister briefly
this morning. We have continued to express privately what we
are expressing publicly, that is our deep appreciation and our
heartfelt sympathy for the innocent victims of this aggression
by Saddam Hussein.
Q Margaret, you said that the United States would
give full consideration to the Israeli aid request. What do you
see as the possibility of using some of the aid that's been
donated by some of the larger Arab states for Israel?
A That is purely speculative for me. The reason I
have to address the question the way that I am is that we do not
have Deputy Secretary Eagleburger's full report, and we're
waiting for that report. But our initial reaction to this
meeting with the Finance Minister yesterday is that we would
give full consideration to this, and I believe it is being
characterized -- correct me, if I'm wrong -- by the Israeli
Finance Ministry as not even an official request yet.
So this is how we would characterize the discussions
that are going on at this moment.
Q Margaret, the statement that you gave us in
response to one of Barry's question is almost word for word what
Eagleburger said --
A It is.
Q -- a couple of days ago before the latest Scud
attack. Is it still your understanding that Israel does not
want to be drawn into the conflict?
A I'm not going to characterize Israeli views on
this. No one in our government has. Just this morning their
Defense Minister was on an American network giving an interview.
I could refer you to any number of Israeli officials who are
speaking on behalf of their country concerning their policy in
this situation.
Q Just to follow up, Arens said -- and I'm
paraphrasing -- "We are fighting the same enemy." Those words
don't suggest that they are staying totally removed from the
conflict any longer.
A I'm just am going to refrain from characterizing
Israeli policy. They are speaking, as they should, for their
country. They are all over the record on this -- any number of
officials from the Prime Minister on down -- and it is
appropriate that they continue to respond on behalf of their
country.
Q Why don't you speak to U.S. policy and say why
it's good, why it's appreciated, if Israel exercises restraint?
Why is that the right thing to do?
A I'm not going --
Q What is the benefit that accrues to the U.S.?
A I'm not going to analyze United States' policy. I
have stated what the policy is.
Q No. You don't have to analyze it. Just tell me.
"What are you talking about?" is all I'm asking you.
A I think you know very well what we're talking
about.
Q No, I don't. I haven't heard it in a long time.
I haven't heard it since before the war about the Arab coalition
falling apart, because, you see, subsequently Syrians,
Egyptians, Kuwaitis, and it's even suggested the Saudis, have
actually whispered that they would all understand if Israel
retaliated when civilians are killed.
So I don't even know what the United States -- what
coalition you're trying to hold together. Certainly, the French
and the British are not going to run away. Why is it greatly
appreciated that Israel not respond to being attacked?
A For the very obvious reasons that you know only
too well, and when you just named those countries and said they
have whispered, I believe any number of --
Q No. Some of them actually said it.
A -- of those officials have been on the record on
behalf of their countries stating what their policy is. I will
just simply continue to enunciate what United States policy is,
as has been most recently enunciated to the Prime Minister last
night by our President.
Q But I'm just asking you --
A I'm not going to answer.
Q You say you're sticking to the policy. But I'd
like to hear a sentence or two of the policy. Why does the
United States want Israel to exercise restraint? Why?
A I haven't said that we have, have I, Barry? I
have said that we appreciate --
Q Well, why do you appreciate -- excuse me -- very
good. Why do you appreciate Israel exercising restraint?
A For the very obvious reasons that I am not going
to into any detail on. It is a United States policy that we
appreciate Israel's restraint which is Israel's decision,
Israel's choice, which we also publicly state at every
opportunity and that we appreciate it. It's as simple as that.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on burden-sharing
efforts to get Japan, Germany, and others to help pay for all
this?
A No. The Secretary has been working on that
yesterday and again today, but I don't have any announcements to
make.
Q Is Armitage back?
A I heard he was. But, then, when I checked this
morning I couldn't get it definitely confirmed. But I can
confirm that he did not visit any other countries. If he's not
physically back, my understanding is he's certainly enroute
back.
Q To Washington?
A That's my understanding, yes.
Q In light of his visit, Margaret, can you say
anything about the United States relations with Jordan?
A I don't have anything to add to the record that's
not already out there.
Q Margaret, obviously, our concerns about terrorism
are continuing. Have we asked or been offered any information
from our new ally, Syria, which obviously has the best
information on terrorists since they had ties with many of them
prior to the alliance? Have they offered to help us identify,
locate either threats or possible terrorists?
A I know that Ambassador Busby weeks before January
15, as we have talked about before, has been working with any
number of countries. I honestly don't have that list for you,
Susan, around the world. I will check after the briefing and
see if Syria is one of the countries that he has been working
with in his efforts on counter-terrorism. I just don't know off
the top of my head.
Q Do you have any comment on alleged air strikes on
holy shrines in Iraq? I understand that the U.S. doesn't like
to talk about targets that it's hitting. If you are hitting
some of the most holy places in the Moslem world, it would be
interesting to know why?
A One, I don't want to lay a precedent for the State
Department starting to comment on targets. You, as well as
anybody in this room, understands, that is a Pentagon question.
I will, though, be more than glad, without getting into
specifics of military matters and targeting, say that the United
States and this Administration has maintained from the beginning
of this conflict that our targets are military and we've gone to
great lengths to avoid involving civilians.
Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. It is with
Saddam Hussein. Given Saddam's track record and the lengths he's
willing to go to with his aggression, I'd be very cautious about
accepting Iraqi claims about anything. This man has repeatedly
demonstrated the unreliability of his word to his own people, to
his Arab neighbors, and to the world.
I also would point out that General Powell, General
Schwarzkopf, Secretary Cheney have all commented on this and
said that they are very sensitive to collateral damage in areas
and that they are very concerned about collateral damage, making
sure that no innocent civilians are killed or injured and that
they're very sensitive to cultural and religious sites within
the area.
Q Margaret --
A Yes, John.
Q -- my apologies. I came in late and you may have
covered this subject before I came in. But does the State
Department have any concern about the fact that the Japanese
government was originally scheduled to announce a new
contribution to the responsibility-sharing effort in the Gulf
and, today, called off or delayed the press conference at which
that was supposed to be announced?
A No.
Q Are you satisfied with the level of Japanese
commitment?
A I did answer -- I don't know if you were here or
not, for David, a littler earlier -- that Secretary Baker spent
some part of yesterday and again this morning working on
responsibility-sharing with various countries around the world.
I don't have any specifics to announce at this time, and I'm not
aware that other governments at this time have specifics to
announce.
Q But could you tell us whether you are satisfied
with the level of the announced intention of the Japanese?
A They haven't announced it; correct?
Q There have been press reports as to a level of $9
billion, I think, from the Japanese.
A I obviously, couldn't pre-empt an announcement or
discussions that may or may not be going on between our two
governments if those discussions are in progress and are still
continuing.
Q Margaret, can you identify any of the countries
that the Secretary is talking to on this subject?
A He hasn't personally, as of this briefing, spoken
to any of the countries. This has been internal. Doyle, as you
know, this is an interagency process. As of the briefing, he
has not yet spoken with people again; and I'll remind you, we
just took a trip not two weeks ago where this very subject for
1991 responsibility-sharing was discussed in his conversations
with many countries.
Q Yeah, but there was never any public disclosure of
any of the outcome of that trip. He went to many, many capitals
and he was moot on the subject of what he got or didn't get.
A There could be a very valid and logical reason.
At that point, there had not been any outbreak of hostilities.
As I've said in the past, he mentioned to each one of the heads
of state that should hostilities break out that, obviously, we
would have to look again at the numbers because the cost,
obviously, goes up.
Q Margaret, what exactly is Deputy Secretary
Eagleburger --
A I'm sorry. What, Candy?
Q What is Eagleburger doing in Israel? How would
you characterize what his mission is there currently?
A As one of the most senior representatives of this
government, this Administration -- a man that Israel has known
well for many, many years -- his mission throughout has been to
head up a political and military delegation. He is there on
theground to answer questions that Israeli officials may have or
to be a relay to the Pentagon or the State Department.
As you know, the Under Secretary of the Pentagon is
there also. It was a way for the President, as he has said
himself, to demonstrate his genuine concern over the situation
there, and Larry is there to be of whatever help he can be in
the situation.
Q A daily question: Has there been any contact with
the Iraqis?
A No.
Q Is there anything you can add at all about the
Armitage meeting beyond the Gulf? Did they talk about the Gulf
war?
A They talked about the Gulf.
Q Do you have any other secret emissaries out there
you'd like to tell us about?
A None that I personally know of.
Q That's good. You'll find out before most of us.
A I don't know.
Q Margaret, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan,
Benazir Bhutto, is here in the U.S. Are there any plans of
meeting anybody from the State Department?
A Not that I've heard of. I'm not sure that she's
requested any, and I'm aware because I've seen her on our TV
doing interviews. But I haven't heard of a request to see
anyone, and I don't know if she has or not. I'll be happy to
look into it.
Q Any new terrorist activities in India (inaudible)
Pakistan which took place earlier?
A Nothing over the last 24 hours, as of this
briefing.
Q Margaret, could you provide a readout later --
Q (Inaudible)
A There's not.
Q -- on the meetings on Mongolia?
A What, Jan?
Q Could you provide a readout later of the Mongolian
meetings?
A Sure.
Q Margaret, are the arms control negotiators still
meeting?
A Yes, they are. The characterizations for you
would be that work remains.
Q Have they made any progress at all?
Q That sort of explains why they're still here,
doesn't it? If it was over, they'd be gone, wouldn't they?
A Definitely, work remains.
Q "Work remains." Can we quote you on that?
Q Is CFE still a problem?
A On the Record. What?
Q Is CFE still a problem?
A I can't characterize either as a problem. I can
only relate that there is work to be done.
Q Yesterday, you said that the START talks were
making progress. Today, you don't seem to be characterizing it
in the same fashion?
A I don't believe I said yesterday they're making
progress.
Q Yes, you did.
A "Progress," I said?
Q Well, maybe it wasn't as bold as that. Maybe you
just said -- maybe you said something like "headway."
A I don't think I used the word "progress."
Q That's all right. You don't want to say too much
at once here.
A I don't want to be too forthcoming.
Q You're not.
A I know.
Q Margaret, are there any other actions on
U.S.-Soviet relations since last night?
A Since last night?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q No new sanctions, statements?
A Excuse me?
Q No new sanctions, statements, or admonitions to
provide?
A No.
Q One of the Baltic leaders yesterday said that he
had urged the Secretary to send a high level delegation to the
Baltics to show recognition for their independent struggle and
whatever. Is there any consideration being given to this, or
have you decided to do it?
A There are any number of options and things that
the United States is looking at possibly doing. This could be
one such thing, but I'm not here making an announcement saying
that it is something the United States is going to do.
As you know, we've already announced that our Consulate
General from Leningrad is there; that we have employees in each
of the Baltics. So as far as a high-level person going, there's
absolutely no decision on that. But I want to be
straightforward and honest and say there are any number of
options that are being looked at.
Q Is this one of them?
A Yes. I said this would be one of them.
Q The summit still on?
A The White House answers that question. The latest
answer on that is that it's still up in the air.
Q Margaret, concerning the possibility of a
delegation going to the Baltics, have you discussed it with
Moscow? Would visas be forthcoming?
A I said this is one of many options. Since a
decision has not been made concerning this possibility, there's
no reason to move the train on down the road and pursue those
types of things. This is just one, so please be careful on how
you report this, of any number of ideas, options, things that
people are thinking about.
Q What are some of the others?
A I just don't want to get into them.
Q Is there any progress on the CSCE mechanism?
A I didn't check on that today. I'll be happy to
ask and see.
Q (Inaudible)
A Right.
Q Margaret, the U.S. Ambassador to India is back in
Washington. Do you have any idea, any --
A I didn't know he was back. I'm sure it's for
normal consultations, but I'll be happy to check into it for
you.
Q Thank you.
A Thank you all.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:32 p.m.)
(###)