US Department of State Daily Briefing #14:
Thursday,1/24/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:10 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 24, 19911/24/91
Category: Briefings
Region: East Asia, E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa, Europe
Country: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait,
Iraq, Japan, USSR (former), Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania
Subject: Terrorism, Military Affairs, Travel,
Democratization, State Department,
United Nations, NATO, CSCE, Arms Control
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I have two things that I'd like to make
statements on. The first is Japan and the second is terrorism.
[Japanese Contributions to Gulf Effort]
The United States Government appreciates very much this
further significant contribution of the Japanese people to the
multinational forces in the Gulf to fulfill the resolutions of
the United Nations.
This new contribution brings Japan's total commitment,
to date, to the multinational effort in the Gulf to over $13
billion. Japan is also making preparations to assist directly
in the transport of refugees from the region using Japanese
civil aircraft and, as required, aircraft from Japan's Self
Defense Force. We are very pleased with Japan's decision to
participate directly in this vital humanitarian effort.
From the very beginning of this crisis, Prime Minister
Kaifu and his government have demonstrated strong support for
the efforts of the United States and the United Nations. These
new announcements, encompassing both a major new financial
commitment for the defense effort and the physical presence by
Japan in the humanitarian effort to assist war victims and
refugees, demonstrates the important contribution that Japan is
making as we work to implement the resolutions of the United
Nations and establish a new world order.
As you all know -- I think we announced it either
earlier this week or late last week -- they also are
contributing $38 million to refugee assistance.
Yesterday, and almost everyday this week, you've asked
me a number of questions concerning responsibility-sharing.
This is the Japanese answer. I would tell you that yesterday
afternoon the Secretary met with three Ambassadors -- the
Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, the Ambassador of the United Arab
Emirates, and the Ambassador from Kuwait -- to discuss Desert
Storm and 1991 responsibility-sharing.
Q And --
Q On the Japanese --
A Excuse me, Jim. Just as we have in the past,
which is only appropriate and proper, each government will
announce its own contributions. We will not be announcing on
behalf of other governments what they have agreed or not agreed
to do. You have the Japanese announcement today made by the
Prime Minister.
I've told you the Secretary met yesterday with three
Ambassadors from three coalition partners, and it's up to those
governments to determine what they will be announcing and when.
Q On the Japanese $13 billion, that's $9 billion
this year; right?
A Yes.
Q And when do we come calling again on them?
A I don't have an answer to that question, Jim.
Q Well, is that meant to carry through calendar '91
or what?
A There are no answers to these questions. Whether
it is being directed at Japan or any other country, that, of
course, would depend on how long there are hostilities.
Q On the Japan question, how much has actually been
paid out? It's great to say "you pledge a certain amount." But
in the early going, Japan was one of the slowest to actually
come through with either the goods or the money.
A How much is paid out of 1990?
Q How much is paid out on any of it? How much have
they actually come across with?
A Since they've just announced the 1991 contribution
this morning, I doubt that that's being disbursed.
On the 1990 contribution, I believe their contribution
was a $2 billion contribution. I don't have for you -- I'll be
happy to ask the experts if all of that has been disbursed, what
part has, and where it was disbursed. Maybe you could call the
Japanese Embassy here, but I will see what information we have
on their 1990 disbursement.
Q It's swell to say you pledge something. But if
you don't deliver it, then it becomes a point of friction
between the governments and the coalition. It's an important
point, I think.
Q Margaret, while you're doing that, could you check
on all of the pledges we got? On that first trip, there was
announced $20 billion in pledges for 1990. How much of that is
money and how much is pledges?
A OK.
Q Margaret, I thought -- in fact, using your
figures, I thought the 1990 contribution by the Japanese was $4
billion.
Q Part to the U.S. and part to the --
A The Frontline States.
Q So the two is directly to the U.S. and the other
two is --
A It's my understanding of how this breaks down,
Jim.
Q And the nine is all to the United States?
a I'm not positive. (TO STAFF) Do you know if this
literally -- I don't think they've broken this out, to be honest
with you. We asked earlier this morning and I don't have a
breakout for you at this moment in time. This is the Prime
Minister's announcement that he made this morning. This is an
amount that is -- as we have said, there have been conversations
going on with various coalition partners concerning what the
1991 responsibility-sharing would be.
I don't have for you -- I'll ask if it is all worked
out at a lower level, what portions go where, and how this money
is going to be allocated.
Q Is the Secretary meeting with other Ambassadors in
addition to the three you mentioned?
A There are none scheduled right now.
Q Margaret, can you tell me whether a formula has
been worked out so that as and if this thing goes on all the
participants will know approximately what their share is?
A Those kinds of details and planning have been
discussed between their officials, but I cannot give them out.
Q When we were over there, we got, as you remember
from a senior Saudi official, this 40 to 50 percent that the
Saudis would pay. Was this correct?
At the time we had no idea whether this was true or
false or -- 40 or 50 percent of what? Can you tell us?
A And at the time, a United States official said On
Background that we were not clear about what the Saudi Arabian
official meant on one statement On Background. That issue has
never come back up, so I have not -- there hasn't been a reason
to go pursue it further. I'll be happy to ask for you.
As you remember, that was one comment that was made by
a Saudi official at the airport when we were all leaving. And
when asked of American officials, we simply weren't exactly
clear what was being said.
Q But since then there have been reports that the
Saudis and Kuwaitis would pay a certain percentage, the Japanese
and Germans would contribute toward another percentage, and the
United States would have another percentage.
A I answered that. I said, yeah.
Q We're all doing that. But you can't discuss the
percentages?
Q What are the percentages?
A I cannot.
Q Why would that be a secret?
A That is something that I am just not in a position
to discuss or elaborate on at this briefing.
Q I know, but what is the rationale, do you know,
for wanting to keep it a secret versus something that is out in
the public?
A It's not a secret, John. As I just stated, there
are many governments that conversations are still going on with.
We're in the middle of a process. I am trying every day to be
as forthcoming with you all as I possibly can. I think you also
understand, I cannot pre-empt on-going conversations. I can't
do it.
Q Is it true that our contribution is around 20
percent?
A I'm not going to answer any questions concerning
percents of our Government or other nations. When our
Government and other governments are in a position to make all
of this public, they will make it all very, very public.
Q But you do expect it to be make public?
A I don't know when that will be.
Q But you do expect it?
A Just like it was on 1990 sharing. I don't believe
there were any secrets kept from our public or our media
concerning what our Government was doing concerning 1990
responsibility-sharing nor am I aware of any other governments
who are participating in this who kept it a big secret.
I have a statement on terrorism also, unless you all
are still in Japan.
[Update: Terrorism]
There have been no major incidents directed against
U.S. diplomatic or military facilities overseas in the last 24
hours. There have been sporadic non-violent demonstrations in
various cities around the world. There also have been numerous
telephone bomb threats to several U.S. Embassies as well as
schools and businesses associated with the United States.
Fortunately, these have proved to be unfounded.
As I know you understand and appreciate, we cannot talk
about on-going anti-terrorist efforts by our Government or any
other government or say anything which might make it harder for
us to prevent acts of terrorism and arrest those who are
planning such acts.
We have made four formal statements on the threat of
terrorism worldwide. We have noted, in particular, Saddam
Hussein's calls for terrorist attacks against the members of the
multinational coalition.
We have clear evidence that Iraq is supporting
terrorists around the world who are planning to mount attacks
against coalition member countries. The clearest examples of
this activity is the attempted bombing of the U.S. Cultural
Center in Manila on January 19. The Philippine government has
expelled an Iraqi diplomat for his role in this bombing. The
two Iraqis arrested are the sons of Iraq's Ambassador to
Somalia.
In addition to our worldwide advisories, our travel
advisories for Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, and India,
specifically mention the threat of terrorism.
We have worked actively with other governments around
the world to counter the Iraqi threat. Cooperation, as we have
said previously, has been excellent. Governments around the
world, including our own, have expelled Iraqi diplomats in order
to reduce the threat of terrorism from them.
While some violent acts and incidents have occurred
already, many of these appear uncoordinated and of local origin.
Others may prove to be Iraqi-sponsored. We take the threat of
Iraqi terrorism very seriously. Our primary goal is to prevent
acts of terrorism and catch those who may be planning such
activities before they are able to implement their plans.
You will understand, hopefully, that I cannot confirm
details of how we are going about this or how we are doing this.
If we know in advance of a specific terrorist act, we will, of
course, issue an immediate warning to the public.
Q Do you know how many countries have expelled Iraqi
diplomats and how many --
A I don't have the list for you. I could try to
pull it together.
Q The Israeli Ambassador says that there have been
20 incidents since the U.S. -- since the coalition started
attacking Iraq -- 20 incidents directly traceable to Iraqi
sponsorship. Can you confirm that?
A The only one that I know that we are On the Record
as saying is "Iraqi-sponsored" is the one I just mentioned. We
have come out here everyday and told you all of incidents around
the world at different U.S. -- either private facilities or
Government facilities. But I'm unaware of the number of 20.
As we said here -- you asked me yesterday, in fact, you
were the one who asked me the question about a pattern. I tried
to address that today by saying that it appears that the
majority of these incidents, which we report on everyday, appear
to be of local origin and uncoordinated.
Q Does it appear that Iraqi diplomatic facilities in
countries around the world are the hub of activities, to the
best of your knowledge, involved in terrorist planning, help,
storing of weapons? Are diplomatic facilities -- Iraqi
diplomatic facilities -- involved in any way?
A I have not heard that expressed, John. I will be
happy to ask that specific question. But, again, I want to
stress that we have got to be -- and I'm going to be -- and I
know that you understand it -- extremely careful on what we say
concerning this. This is, after all, a counterterrorism
worldwide effort. I can't tell you how many numbers of
countries are participating in this, and I'm not going to be
responsible for somehow, in an effort to give out information,
do something that could endanger lives.
We have said -- I just stated it again this morning in
this statement -- that many embassies or government, including
our own -- as you know, we have the Iraqi Embassy here down to
four. When we made that announcement, one of the reasons we
gave was so that it could not be used for terrorism type
activities.
Q Do you feel that the United States and/or the
coalition partners or any of the other governments involved have
successfully thwarted terrorist activities because of the
increased surveillance, increased law enforcement, etc.?
A That's a question that they would prefer, the
experts, for me to refrain from answering. I could only answer
it generally the way that I did -- I believe it was yesterday --
by saying that we have certainly been on the record every day,
speaking of the close cooperation we are having with many, many
countries around the world.
You know -- it's been no secret -- that our own
airlines, the FAA, are in a state of alert. They say, in their
own words, they have never implemented as many measures as are
being implemented here.
I do not have a readout from every country of what
every country is doing, but my impression is that they are all
doing very similar things.
So I can't help but believe, common sense would tell
you, without directly answering your question, that certainly
life has not been made easy.
Q Margaret, there was a report in the L.A. Times
that Iraqi diplomats had smuggled weaponry or explosives in
diplomatic pouches. Do you know of there being evidence of
that?
A I have no comments at all on the Los Angeles
Times' piece this morning. My only statement on terrorism, in
which I tried to address our concerns and what we have done, is
the two-page statement that I just read.
Q Margaret, can you go over for us what the State
Department's understanding is of the rules regarding diplomatic
pouches? What types of monitoring can the host-country use?
Can it use metal detector? What else can you tell us about what
the rules are on diplomatic pouches?
A I don't know. I'll take your question.
Q Included in that question, metal detectors,
X-rays, is that considered O.K. for a host-government to X-ray
either our diplomatic pouches going into another country or the
Iraqi's diplomatic pouches coming into ours, for example?
A This is an issue that has never come up in the two
years I've been here. I've never had to deal with it. I'm
sure that there are very explicit rules here, and I will just
get with the lawyers here and get the information for you on
what the standard operating procedure is.
Q Margaret, can I ask a question on aid to Israel,
please? Does the United States feel that Israel's continued
stance of remaining out of the war justifies increased aid to
Israel?
A I'll answer for you on this specific the way the
Secretary did to your question yesterday, I believe, on the
sidewalk. That is, we frequently get requests from the Israeli
government, I believe is what he said to you, John; that we
consider all such requests, as I said yesterday. This formal
request has not come into the Department yet, and that when and
if it does, it would be given full consideration.
Q Does the suggested amount of $13 billion sound to
you as a reasonable amount?
A Number one, it's my understanding from speaking
with the Deputy Secretary of State and from reading the Finance
Minister of Israel's public comments that this is not a formal
request from Israel.
Q But does it sound to you like a reasonable amount?
A I'm not going to comment whether it's a reasonable
amount or not, because to my knowledge there's been no formal
request made of any amount.
Q Margaret, yesterday or last night the President
indicated that he, too, along with Prime Minister Major would
shed no tears if something were to happen to Saddam Hussein.
What's the U.S. official policy on targeting Saddam
Hussein during this campaign?
A That has been addressed any number of times and
this week by Secretary Cheney and by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Powell. That is not our policy, as you know.
That is not what we're doing, and in fact General Schwarzkopf
addressed himself to this, this weekend.
Q But the fact that the President of the United
States has said that he would shed no tears if the Iraqi leader
were to disappear --
A It's not the first time the President of the
United States has expressed those sentiments, and I believe that
they're sentiments that are shared by any number of people.
Q And yet it's not part of official policy?
A Expressing an emotion does not mean that that is
policy. Our policy is very clear. I don't believe the
President last night was stating policy. He was stating his
personal emotions, is how I would interpret it, which is how I
believe most people who heard the speech did interpret it.
Q And the Secretary -- does he have any emotions on
that point?
A I have never asked the Secretary what his emotions
are on this point. I know that the President, the world, the
Secretary, wishes that Saddam Hussein would abide by the 12
United Nations resolutions; would stop what he has done
knowingly, I have to assume, inflicting the hurt and harm to his
country and to his own people.
And so that, I think, is an emotion that the vast
majority of the world is pretty much expressing.
Q Margaret, given that the U.S. pilots have now been
paraded in front of television and that the President has said
he believes that they've been coerced into some of the critical
remarks about U.S. policy that they've made, and given the Scud
attacks which the U.S. describes as terrorist weapons, does the
United States stand ready to do business with a government led
by President Saddam Hussein?
A That's a hypothetical question for me to answer.
That has been answered before. I'm not aware that our policy
has changed. What this is about, as you know, is the
implementation of 12 United Nations resolutions. I'm not aware
that any of those resolutions addresses itself to the Government
of Iraq.
Q No. But certainly the U.S. Government has to
consider that. I mean, is there any circumstance under which,
after what has already transpired -- that our government would
have dealings with Saddam Hussein?
A That is totally hypothetical and speculative for
me to answer. I don't know, number one, if Saddam Hussein is
going to withdraw unconditionally, totally from Kuwait. As I've
stated, that is our policy. I'm not aware that a United Nations
resolution says, and we have been very clear about saying, that
our goal is not the change of Iraqi government, the change of
Iraqi borders, etc. This is about withdrawing from Kuwait.
So I would have to, on that premise, on a hypothetical,
if this man leaves, then I would tell you that that is our
policy.
Q Margaret --
A Excuse me. But having said that, so that I do not
make a mistake here, we have also said and the Secretary, I
believe, said it in public testimony, that should Saddam Hussein
withdraw completely, totally out of Kuwait, the region and the
world would have to address what type of security structure you
would have to have for that region if he is still sitting there
with his weapons of mass destruction. And in fact this is
something that the Secretary made very clear to the Foreign
Minister, Tariq Aziz, when we were in Geneva.
Q Margaret, do you have any knowledge of Soviet
advisers who may still be in Iraq?
A I don't have any information which would confirm
these reports. I would point you to a statement today by the
Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman who says that there are no
military experts left in Iraq.
There's another statement that I read this morning that
the Soviet Defense Ministry spokesman denied reports that Soviet
military advisers remain in Iraq.
Q Have you asked the Soviets here for any
assurances? Have you raised the matter with them yourself?
A Since this morning's report, we have not raised
it. As you know, this has been raised in the past.
Q And to the best of your knowledge, are there still
a lot of Soviet citizens stuck in Iraq, or have those that
wanted to get out, have they successfully gotten out?
A The last time that we dealt with this, as I
remember -- and the record would correct me if I'm wrong -- I
believe that the Soviets were saying there were approximately
200 Soviet citizens still there. That was weeks ago. In
addition, today the Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman said that
there were 41 Soviet diplomats left at their Embassy in Iraq,
and that all others had left.
And, as I remember, we began with a Soviet universe
there of between seven and eight thousand Soviet citizens on
August 2.
Q Margaret, on the Soviets, does the Secretary or
anybody in the government have any intentions to meet soon with
the new Soviet Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh?
A We could well be.
Q When and where would that be?
A I don't have an announcement to make concerning
that at this briefing.
Q Margaret, the President said last night that
Saddam Hussein would be "brought to justice."
A Would be what?
Q "Brought to justice." He said -- I'm paraphrasing
-- "No one will weep when this tyrant is brought to justice."
Can you give us any kind of an update on plans at work to bring
this about, or what kind of mechanism would be followed?
A I don't have anything new for you on what type of
mechanism would or would not be pursued. Since I dealt with
this, I believe it was on Tuesday, I have nothing new on it.
Q Well, what does that mean -- "brought to justice"?
What are you talking about?
A I don't make it a business of mine to interpret
Presidential statements or speeches. If you need clarification,
maybe Marlin is dealing with this today at his briefing. I'm
going to refrain from trying to do that.
Q It sounds like arrest and trial, and things like
that. That doesn't sound like you're dealing with the head of a
government necessarily. It sounds like perhaps the U.S. has
slightly different plans.
A The United States plan -- I have not,
unfortunately, had an opportunity to either see or read the
President's entire remarks last night. I'm unaware if the
President has changed our policy. I do not know of a change in
policy by the United States government or the U.N.
Q Margaret, has the Soviet Union fulfilled the U.S.
request for an explanation of what happened in Latvia?
A An explanation?
Q You said the other day that we had asked the
Soviet Embassy to explain those events.
A There have been any number of meetings. I'm not
sure what you mean by "an explanation."
Q It's what you said.
A They have had -- in fact, Ambassador Matlock has
had any number of meetings at the Foreign Ministry, and I'm not
sure that I'd call it an explanation. But they have certainly
had discussions concerning this issue, and they are well aware
of our deep concern about what is going on in the Baltics.
Q Have they offered any explanation -- and can you
tell us anything about where it stands, on this question of the
Soviet ship that was carrying things that were not on the
manifold -- weapons, parts, that were not on the manifold? Have
the Soviets offered any explanation for that? Has the U.S. come
to conclusion about why that occurred?
A I don't remember this, David. When is this?
Q I'm talking about the Red Sea ship which --
Q Before the war began.
Q -- before the war began that was carrying tank
parts?
A I don't know. I have no idea. I mean, I'll ask
for you, but I have no idea.
Q Can you tell us if the START negotiations are
still underway here, and how --
A They're still meeting, and I talked to Reggie
[Bartholomew] this morning, and he has the same
characterization: Work remains.
Q (Laughter)
A They're plugging along.
Q Manfred Woerner, the top dog at NATO, was critical
this morning of the level of support by the NATO allies for the
United States in this coalition effort.
Is the United States satisfied with the level of
support of the various NATO countries? And I am aware that some
NATO countries have troops there. But overall is the United
States happy with the support?
A To my knowledge, yes.
Q Margaret, on burden-sharing, you can't give us the
American share, but can you say that there definitely will be an
American share? We're not asking the others to pick up the
whole tab?
A I don't want to answer any questions concerning
percentages, etc., even our own. This is not for me to
announce, and this is something that I'm just going to continue
to refrain from answering. Sorry.
Q On burden-sharing -- probably this is a silly
question, but it should be asked --
A Go for it! (Laughter)
Q In our discussions with the Saudis and the
Kuwaitis, since they have helped other front-line states that
have suffered damage, has any thought been given to asking them
if they would help Israel which has suffered damage?
A I don't know, Saul, if that has been raised or not
raised.
Q Do you mean it might have been?
A I don't know. I've never, to be honest with you,
asked the question, and so I can't make it up. I don't know.
Q Would you see if you can answer it, if they have,
or whether "yea" or "nay"?
A Yes.
Q Because we know that we've asked on behalf of -- I
mean, Egypt and others who have not been physically damaged, at
least not yet.
A Yes.
Q Is the U.S. planning to offer assistance or give
some kind of help to Israel for the cost of settling Soviet
refugees?
A I'm not aware of -- this gets back into, I
believe, the $13 billion request. As I saw it reported in one
of our leading newspapers yesterday, a break-out from the
Israeli Finance Ministry had dollar amounts for that. But in
the same exact article, the Israeli Finance Minister was saying
that they have not made a formal request. So I can't deal with
something that we don't have yet.
Q But I'm not asking whether there's been a request
yet. I'm asking whether the U.S. in principle is planning to
help the Israelis pay for their --
A The United States in principle, I believe, just
gave several months ago $400 million in housing loan guarantees
, which is the only formal request that the Israelis have made
to date for help with this situation, that I'm aware of,
Q Thank you.
A Thank you all.
(The briefing concluded at 12:38 p.m.)