US Department of State Daily Briefing #16:
Monday,1/28/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:24 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 28, 19911/28/91
Category: Briefings
Region: East Asia, Eurasia, MidEast/North Africa,
Europe
Country: Germany, Turkey, USSR (former), China, Iran,
Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Pakistan
Subject: Terrorism, Military Affairs, Travel,
Development/Relief Aid, Democratization,
Arms Control, Human Rights
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Iraqi Military Aircraft in Iran]
MS. TUTWILER: Have you got a question, Jim?
Q Yeah. Are you ready to start?
A Yes.
Q Have you had any contact, direct or indirect, with
the Government of Iran trying to find out what the future of
those Iraqi airplanes will be?
A Secretary Baker answered that Saturday here at the
Department for you when asked this question and said that we
have had assurances that the airplanes will stay there for the
duration. I can quote for you what he said, which I know you
don't think is necessary, but I could also quote for you what
Rafsanjani has said or their Security Council. They have been
speaking out on this, and that is our understanding and we have
no reason to not believe that is the case.
Q Right. But my question was not what we have been
told but, rather, how we know this to be true?
A How do we know this to be true?
Q How did this information come to you?
A As you know, we deal with the Iranian government
through a third party, and that is how these contacts have been
handled in this instance.
Q And you believe those assurances that these planes
will be interned until the end of hostilities?
A Yes.
Q Margaret, following up on that. Is it the
Secretary's understanding that Iran is keeping the planes on the
ground? Is it detaining the pilots? Is it questioning the
pilots in any way? Is it offering hospitality to the pilots of
those planes or to Iraqi personnel who accompanied those planes?
A I don't know.
Q Or do they just go home -- the pilots?
A I don't have answers to all those types of
questions.
Q Margaret, is there any indication at all as to
whether these people are defectors or whether there is some --
at any level -- some form of collusion between the Iranians the
Iraqis about these planes coming in?
A We don't have that level of analysis for you. The
Pentagon this morning did a briefing, I believe, in Riyadh.
There are any number of other officials of various governments
who are speaking on this, and we do not have anything that we're
in a position to categorically say to you, "We believe X."
I can state for you their Security Council statement,
their President's statement, what our Secretary of State has
said on Saturday concerning the assurances that our Government
has been given, and that's the extent of what I can say about
this subject.
Q When you said you believed them, what exactly did
you mean that the U.S. Government believes? The assurances that
they will be held until the end of the war?
A Correct.
Q Margaret, people might -- it's hard for us to draw
conclusions from the use of the word "assurances." Maybe
there's no way to draw a proper conclusion. But the word
"assurances," used by the Secretary, suggests that he's somehow
pleased or satisfied with this statement made by the Iranians.
But there's a possible other interpretation, which is that Iran
will hold safe these planes and preserve them from attack by
Allied forces if they were otherwise on the ground in Iraq; that
somehow their being in Iran provides Saddam Hussein, or his
successor, with the capability of having planes, following the
end of this war, having good quality aircraft still alive and
well. That might not necessarily be something that would please
the U.S. Can you help us shed any light at all on that kind of
interpretative question?
A The Secretary said on January 27 that we have
assurances Iran intends to remain totally neutral in this
conflict and that aircraft that arrive in Iran will remain there
for the duration of the conflict.
I believe that our military in the person of General
Schwarzkopf addressed himself to this issue this weekend and
said -- I'm paraphrasing; I don't have his direct quotes, but
they're there for the record -- something to the effect that "We
will monitor their whereabouts as closely as possible."
Q Did the United States seek and get assurance on
the internment of the pilots? That's a condition that the
"neutral" applies to.
A I don't have anything for you concerning the
pilots.
Q Can you take that question?
A I'll look at it.
Q Also on the Gulf, Margaret. The Secretary
announced on Saturday that the Saudis had come up with $13.5
billion in support costs.
Two questions. First, has the U.S. Government heard
from the United Arab Emirates on their contributions?
A No.
Q The second goes to proportions. As you know, a
Saudi official, when the Secretary was out there, said that the
Saudis would be picking up 40 to 50 percent of the cost.
Assuming that the Japanese $9 billion is 20 percent of
the total costs required for the first three months, then $13.5
billion would work out to 30 percent. Do you know, is that a
reduction in the Saudi commitment? Or are they not including in
the fuel costs?
A As we have said, since we were on the trip, and
any number of times since we've been asked, the Saudi official
was speaking to a number of you all On Background in the airport
as we were leaving. When we were asked about this on the
Secretary's airplane, we said that we were not sure what the
individual meant. That is still our stance.
As far as percentages, the Secretary refrained here at
the Department on Saturday from doing those. I believe they
were questions by Ralph. The President, on Friday, at his press
conference said that the total cost of the war figures were
being put out by the Pentagon, by the Secretary of Defense. The
President did not give a timeframe of when that would be done.
Q Right. Just working from the information,
however, we do have, if $9 --
A You're assuming the information you've just cited
to me is correct.
Q Are you saying that $9 billion is not 20 percent
of the --
A I can't do percents for you. I'm just giving you
-- you're assuming that you've got the correct percentages. I
can't verify those percentages for you.
Q Can you clarify the specific question about
whether the Saudi $13.5 billion includes fuel costs, or is it in
addition to the direct supply of fuel?
A I believe that it is in direct addition, but let
me check for you and ask on that. I know it is solely -- as the
Secretary said, all of these contributions, for the first three
months in 1991, are to support our costs for Desert Storm. I
will find out if it's in addition to transportation, water, etc.
Q Margaret, can I also follow up with something else
the Secretary said on Saturday night? It was the question about
whether he and Bessmertnykh had discussed the Baltics and other
internal developments in the Soviet Union. He chose to limit
his answer strictly to the question of the Baltics.
Can you tell us now whether he and Bessmertnykh
discussed the other steps which the Kremlin has taken in the
last, let's say, two, three, four weeks, but also in the last
couple of days which are not limited just to the Baltics --
things that have to do with the economic system, the banking
system, the press, other kinds of steps which some of us would
characterize as "crack-down"? Was that also discussed? Or was
the discussion limited to the Baltics?
A I don't know about Saturday. I know that today,
in their discussions here, they discussed the reform process
generally?
Q Any more descriptive about the way that discussion
went?
A No, because I wasn't in the meeting. It was a
one-on-one meeting, and the Secretary went straight from that
meeting to another meeting. I got a brief readout, probably
less than 45 seconds, from Dennis Ross who attended the meeting
with him.
I believe that you've got and have seen how the Soviet
Foreign Minister characterized the meetings today here in the
Department when he left the Department. Secretary Baker's
characterizations, I'm sure, would be very similar.
Also, you know that the Foreign Minister said upon
leaving that the two gentlemen will get together again tomorrow.
We don't have a time for you yet of when they will get
together.
In part of today's meeting, it was not one-on-one. For
the last 30 minutes, the arms control experts were called in.
On our side, that would be Reggie Bartholomew and Rick Burt. I
don't know who was called in on their side. Tomorrow, they will
spend time on arms control.
Q Margaret, if I can follow up on Ralph's question.
Bessmertnykh said before the talks that Soviet special troops --
the Black Beret units -- have left Lithuania. Do we have an
update on the situation there that would confirm this?
A I don't have a confirmation of that, and I haven't
seen where he said that. The only update I have on the Baltics
is the situation over the weekend: It remains calm but tense.
Q Is there a State Department transcript of his
remarks as he went into the meeting.
A He said all the Black Berets have left the three
Baltics?
Q He said the special troops that were sent to
Lithuania have left.
A I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that.
He's the Foreign Minister.
Q Could you take the question?
A We'll look into it; sure.
Q Margaret, what's the status of the START talks
that were going on with the Obukhov group last week?
A I left them Friday with "work remains." They did
not meet this morning, or were not schedule to until the two
Foreign Ministers got together. I did not have a chance to see
Reggie when they finished meeting. He said that depending on
their instructions from the Foreign Ministers, it would
determine whether they met this afternoon.
The two Ministers are going to meet tomorrow on arms
control, and I have to assume that's START and CFE.
Q If we ask a question that gets around the question
of a summit but doesn't talk about a summit, is there any
consideration between the two sides now of having some kind of
meeting that would not necessarily be a summit in Moscow or in
Washington but perhaps would deal strictly with the Gulf or
perhaps strictly with arms control but would somehow be more
limited than the summit that had been scheduled for the February
11-13 period? Is there any consideration being given to that
sort of --
A I haven't heard of any such idea.
Q Margaret, can you go back to the beginning? How
long did they meet today on one-on-one or with other people?
A Today's meeting began at 9:00 a.m. They concluded
their one-on-one portion at approximately 10:45. I don't have
an actual moment. And for approximately 30 minutes, they were
joined by their arms control experts. Then the meeting
concluded and the Secretary went, as you all know, immediately
to his meeting with the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg.
Q Are they using interpretation --
A No.
Q -- or are they speaking in English. Speaking in
English?
A They each have one notetaker present. It's
exactly how they handled the meeting on Saturday, and I assume
how they'll handle it tomorrow.
Q Can you comment on the AP story that aid is cut to
Pakistan by $200 million? Why at this time?
A Since total foreign assistance funding has
declined in FY-91, most non-earmarked programs have had to be
reduced.
Since Pakistan's assistance program is not earmarked in
FY-91 -- it was, as you know, in previous years -- it's cuts are
part of that general decline in non-earmarked programs.
Under, as you know, the Pressler Amendment, Pakistan is
not eligible to receive assistance unless the President
certifies to the Congress that Pakistan does not possess a
nuclear explosive device and that the proposed U.S. assistance
program will reduce significantly the risk that Pakistan will
possess a nuclear explosive device.
Since the President has not yet made such a
certification for FY-91, no assistance can be provided to
Pakistan at this time.
As I have said, I believe in response to Jim's question
last week, this issue remains under discussion between the
United States and Pakistan.
Q Copy, please?
A Excuse me?
Q Copy?
A Sure.
Q Also on the question of foreign aid. At the time
of the vote on Resolution 678 at the U.N., which Yemen voted
against the United States on the use of force, an unnamed State
Department official was quoted in a newspaper story as saying to
the Yemeni delegate, "That's the most expensive vote you ever
cast." I notice that Yemen's foreign assistance total from the
United States has dropped from $23 million to $2.9 million next
year.
Was the aid to Yemen cut in retaliation for the vote at
the United Nations?
A Let me ask John Kelly and check into that. I know
that there is humanitarian aid that will continue to go, and I
think that's the figure you're responding to, to Yemen. But let
me make sure because it's my understanding, we have not released
yet the FY-92 numbers. So let me just ask John.
Q Margaret, a follow up. About this time last year,
big debates in these corridors was about the earmarking and the
need, as the State Department saw it, to cut or shave the
earmarked countries across-the-board and give more flexibility
to the Administration to disburse aid.
Has anything at all been done on that? Was there any
progress in this big Administration push?
A I don't know, Alan. To be honest with you, I've
been occupied with other subjects. I'll be happy to see if the
experts were able to do what the Administration and the
President has been seeking to do. I just hadn't been into it,
but I'll ask.
Q It would be interesting to see if you could come
up with a figure for the proportion of the total aid -- this
proposal this year that is earmarked?
A Right. But you know that FY-92 is not going to be
released until the budget is released. So I know I can't do
this for you in the next couple of days; and that, I believe,
goes up on February 4.
Q Margaret, while we're on Iran -- on Iran again.
During these third-party communications between the U.S. and
Iran, have the Iranians given any indication or told us in any
way that they would be or have been providing humanitarian food
and medicine aid to Iraq?
A No. We have seen this morning a story that such a
plan was underway. I can only tell you that under the U.N.
resolutions there's a mechanism, as you know, where you must go
to the Humanitarian Committee that was set up at the U.N. No
such request has come forward to the U.N. on an Iranian plan or
any other plan.
Q Margaret, on that subject, do you plan to resume
diplomatic contacts with Iran to clarify that or any other
point?
A No.
Q I mean, through --
A We're using our third party.
Q Are there plans to go back to the third party and
seek clarification on that or other points?
A I don't need to since the U.N. mechanism would
notify all countries, if there is a request, whether it is
Iranian or it's Greek or whoever it may be. So there's no need
to go back on that point. The mechanism exists so that you
automatically are notified.
Q This really speaks to Ralph's earlier question,
though, about how confident are we, or how confident is the
State Department or the Secretary that the Iranians mean what
they apparently are telling the French to tell us?
A On food?
Q No.
A On the airplanes?
Q Yes.
A I don't have a further characterization for you
than what our Pentagon has said this morning --
Q But the Pentagon said this morning to ask the
State Department.
A -- and what we have said in the form of a
statement by the Secretary of State on Saturday afternoon very
late here at the Department -- nothing has changed this morning
to alter what he said on Saturday here to members of the press.
Q Is the U.S. using its third-party contacts with
Iran to query the Iranian government further on this subject?
Or was the third channel used essentially to convey the message
from Iran -- the policy message from Iran -- to the United
States?
A As is the policy here and the habit, it's my
understanding, of many years, we do not get into the substance
of our third-party use when contacting or passing messages back
and forth nor do we get into the number of times. I've been
instructed to follow that policy today.
Q Would it be fair -- would you be able to tell us
whether this was a two-way exchange?
A I would assume, Ralph, if the Secretary says we
have had assurances. He wasn't depending on press reports.
Q No, no, no. I asked whether it was a two-way
exchange between Iran and the United States or whether this was
a one-way communication from --
A That they just assured us?
Q -- from Iran to -- yes. What he said was the U.S.
has received assurances. The question is, is there a dialogue
going on on the subject, or is it a one-way communication?
A (Pause)
Q And what's the answer?
A I will find out. All of my common sense tells me
that we, by the way he answered the question and what other
officials here have told me, is that we have sought our own
information. They have sent information back. But I will be
happy to get a literal answer. That's just my instinct on
something this sensitive to the United States Government. I'm
just using common sense, but I will certainly ask the
authorities here.
Q Following up on Pakistan, was the figure given by
the AP correct in the --
A I'm sorry. What?
Q On the amount of reduction of the aid to Pakistan,
was the figure given by the AP correct in the story?
A I haven't seen the AP story. I don't know what
figure it is.
Q Secondly, you mentioned yesterday that Pakistani
troops, 11,000 of them, are in the Gulf for the liberation of
Kuwait. But there is a statement of the Prime Minister of
Pakistan, which is in FBIS, which says that they're there only
for the defense of the Kabala -- the Prophet's tomb -- and also
the sacred monuments against the guerrillas, and that Pakistani
troops will not fight fellow Muslims. Which is correct?
A Let me look into his statement. I'm not familiar
with that particular statement, but let me take a look at it.
Q Just a follow-up, because of the aid cut to
Pakistan, there's some indication that they might pull out their
troops from the Gulf.
Now, will the Department change its mind on the aid?
A The Pakistani government is well aware that under
the Pressler Amendment, the situation concerning aid is
something that existed before the Gulf, that is not something
new to them. And, as I said, these discussions are ongoing
between our two governments.
Jan?
Q Do you have anything on Somalia and the takeover
this morning?
A Yes.
Q Also, do you have anything on the state of
Berbera? What's happening at the port?
[Somalia: Situation Update]
A No. Not that I know of on that. On Somalia, we
have seen press reports that rebels from the United Somali
Congress (USC) have captured the Presidential palace and the
airport in Mogadishu. President Barre has reportedly fled the
city, and the rebels have announced that they will form an
interim government with representatives of two other main rebel
groups.
However, given the fighting in Mogadishu and the
suspension of U.S. diplomatic activities and the withdrawal of
all our personnel, we are unable to confirm these reports.
As you know, on January 5 and 6 of this year, we were
forced to evacuate all of our personnel from the Embassy. Our
Embassy remains open but unstaffed. We also evacuated at that
time -- which we have told you previously -- all Americans who
wished to go out.
Q Margaret, further on diplomatic contacts, just for
the record, has the United States had any contacts from the
Government of Iraq concerning diplomatic efforts to end the war
in the Gulf?
A No.
Q And can you tell me whether the United States has
had any further contact with former Iraqi Ambassador to
Washington al-Mashat?
A No. In fact, I don't even know where he is. Do
you?
Q (Several journalists) Vienna. (Laughter)
A He left. I don't know where he is.
Q Vienna.
Q That was our next question. Also, if I may --
A I think (inaudible) has a question.
Q If I may just follow up, one more thing on Mashat:
Perhaps you answered this question last week. Turn me off if
you have. There was a TQ that was distributed last week that
said that the United States granted his son humanitarian, I
think, permission to remain in the United States for educational
purposes.
A Correct.
Q Can you expand on the rationale for the United
States making a decision like that and perhaps tell us if there
are other cases similar to that in which Iraqis remain in the
United States on humanitarian grounds during the war?
A I don't know how to expand on an explanation of
"for humanitarian grounds" for a high schooler who, on the
request of his father, is allowed to stay in our country. I
think it kind of speaks for itself.
I'm unaware if -- it's never come up -- other children
of Iraqi diplomats who left also asked on humanitarian grounds
to stay. I'll be happy to ask.
Q The reason for asking the question is at the
Pentagon they've talked about -- and elsewhere in this
Government they've talked about keeping an eye on Iraqi citizens
who are in the United States when asked questions about
terrorism. I just wondered whether there's any inconsistency in
allowing additional Iraqis to remain in the United States versus
some apparent (inaudible) --
A Not in my mind. This is a high school student
whose father asked our Government for humanitarian purposes,
would we allow his son who's in high school to stay in high
school. We said yes.
Q There's a story today that the son is now thinking
of leaving because of harassment. Do you have anything on that?
A I have seen that story, and we do not have
anything on that, and we have to refer questions concerning any
decisions that the son may or may not make to the Iraqi Embassy
here in Washington.
Q Do you yet have a comment on the German position
towards Turkey, and Germany's lack of interest in stating
definitively that it will come to the aid of Turkey if the Turks
are attacked? Does the U.S. have a position on that?
A We had something for you last week. Since it
wasn't on my radar screen, I did not bring it with me. There
was something, as I think, John, late last week that Chancellor
Kohl himself spoke to, and I just -- may I get the record for
you? It wasn't the first time I commented on it; it was the
second time, after you had asked me the questions the first day.
The Chancellor was out making additional comments
concerning this very subject, and I'll just have to get it for
you. I don't want to paraphrase him.
Q He basically refrained from taking a position one
way or the other, and Germany is deeply divided over it. I
would think that the U.S. would have rather strong opinions on
whether or not a NATO ally ought to defend another one if it's
attacked.
A In the most recent comments that I saw -- and it
was very shortly after we had discussed this here -- he did take
a position on it, so that's why -- I just don't have it at my
fingertips. Let me get for you what the Chancellor said and
what the date was.
Q Would you also find an answer, if you don't have
one, to whether we believe as a matter of policy that the North
Atlantic Treaty makes it an obligation of all NATO countries to
come to Turkey's aid if Turkey is attacked? And do we believe
that as a matter of policy is what ought to happen?
A It is my understanding, and I know that in one of
the many NATO meetings that Secretary Baker went to at the
Ministerial level -- I've forgotten, it was either in, I don't
remember, July or some time -- this very subject was discussed.
And I cannot remember the specific article under NATO's Charter
where this is addressed, but it is definitely addressed.
(TO STAFF) Is it Article V? That's what pops in my
mind.
Q Yes.
A That's what pops in my mind, Saul, and I'll refer
you to that. Of course, the United States supports that.
Q Margaret, could I just broaden Ralph's question?
Have there been any contacts at all between the U.S. and Iraq?
Not just peace feelers, just --
A Other than the ones that we have mentioned, which
were about ten days ago where we passed diplomatic notes, no.
Q And how about any third countries coming to you on
behalf of Iraq?
A Not that I personally have heard of or that I am
aware of.
Q Is there anything out there in the way of a peace
plan or a peace proposal or a suggestion that the State
Department sees any hope in?
A I am not aware of anyone who is floating or
promoting a peace plan. There are various rumors that various
nations are, but, when we go check, we are told, no, they're
not. The Security Council is meeting this afternoon in informal
session, and there is no plan that we know of that some nation
is going to submit concerning their idea of a peace plan.
Q Would that be where any peace plan would have to
come through -- through the Security Council, through the
auspices of the U.N.?
A I can't say that it would have to, but that's one
obvious avenue where some nation might go through the United
Nations since, after all, the alliance is operating under the 12
U.N. resolutions.
But I can't say and rule out that if someone came
direct, what we would do. But our policy concerning any pause
for peace has not changed, and we would not support such an
effort in the United Nations.
Mark?
Q Can you outline the purposes of this afternoon's
meeting with the Egyptian Foreign Minister and also respond to
the reported comments of the Deputy Foreign Minister over the
weekend that Egypt would be willing to accept having Saddam
continue in power once he was forced out of Kuwait?
A The President addressed that on behalf of our
nation on Friday. That is not something, as you know, called
for in the 12 United Nations resolutions, and we have been
consistent in saying that we are neither expanding nor enlarging
those 12 United Nations resolutions.
Concerning Foreign Minister Meguid who will be here
this afternoon, it is my understanding that his government has
said that the primary mission of this particular visit of the
Foreign Minister concerns their workings with the IMF. But, of
course, he and the Secretary will take the occasion to discuss
the situation in the Gulf.
Q Margaret, going back to Pakistan, former Prime
Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was here, and on Friday at
the Hyatt Regency Hotel she made comments that might (inaudible)
visit here is for two goals: One, to liberate Palestine and to
liberate U.S. aid to Pakistan.
A And your question is?
Q Do you have any comments on --
A I haven't seen --
Q Because she met -- she was here at the State
Department also.
A And that was Ambassador Kelly, which we reported
on on Friday. We said what Ambassador Kelly would be talking to
her about. I checked with him this morning. That is what they
discussed, and I haven't seen what she said at the Hyatt
Regency.
Q Has the Charge in the Iraqi Embassy been invited
to the President's State of the Union address?
A I don't know.
Q Is it standard procedure that diplomats in
Washington --
A Right.
Q -- from all Embassies are invited. Could you take
that, please?
A Sure. I'll look into it.
[China: Trail/Conviction of Dissidents]
Q Margaret, on another subject, a Chinese court
handed down some sentences for some of the pro-democracy
leaders. Do you have any reaction?
A Yes. We are very disappointed by the convictions
of Wang Dan and four others. We have seen no evidence that
their offenses consisted of more than a nonviolent expression of
political views. If so, these convictions would appear to
violate the U.N.'s universal declaration of human rights, which
guarantees the right of political expression.
Naturally, we welcome the release of some 66 others. We
are disappointed as well that these trial are being conducted
without any independent observers present which inevitably
raises concerns as to whether the trials meet internationally
recognized standards of due process and fairness.
We have advised Chinese authorities of our position on
the trials on numerous occasions, most exhaustively during the
September visit to China of Assistant Secretary Schifter. We
have urged them not to punish further those who did not engage
in violent actions and to open the trials to foreign observers.
Officers of our Embassy in Beijing have attempted, so
far without success, to attend the trials, as have journalists
and other interested persons. We are particularly concerned
about reports that in some cases even relatives of the accused
were prevented from attending the trials, and that some
defendants, reportedly including Mr. Wang, were not allowed to
choose their own defense attorney.
Q Copy, please?
Q Can we get a copy of that?
A Yes.
Q Margaret, can you just tell us where the
possibility of a summit meeting in February stands now that
there have been two meetings between the Secretary and Foreign
Minister Bessmertnykh?
A No.
Q Is it still up in the air, as the White House --
A I have really absolutely nothing to say concerning
the summit, as the Secretary of State refrained from doing this
morning in two different photo ops when he was asked that
question.
Q Well, the White House said on Saturday that it
was, I believe, "up in the air" was the phrase they used. You
wouldn't repeat that statement?
A I really would just rather say that I have
absolutely nothing to say concerning the summit, and that,
obviously, is a White House announcement, and they will handle
it in the fashion that they choose from there.
Q Can we expect an announcement after the visit to
the President this afternoon?
A I'm really not trying to be nitty on this. I just
have nothing to say concerning the summit.
Q Margaret, just a general housekeeping question:
Is it a policy of this Administration that members of the
Western media have the same access as members of the American
media?
A "Access"? What do you mean?
Q Access to this building.
A As far as I know, yes. Anybody who has a press
pass. Right. As far as I know. Is there a problem?
Q Yes. We'll discuss it later.
A O.K.
Q One more question on the Chinese, Margaret: Can
you tell us anything about how the Chinese respond to this
Administration when it makes these --
A All my various attempts, as I said, have gotten us
nowhere, and we've made numerous attempts. We had the Assistant
Secretary for Human Rights there. These trials have gone on.
We have said that we're disappointed. We continue to try. We
have not given up. But they have so far not resulted in any
results.
Q And I know it's not fair to compare two apples and
oranges situations, but in the case, for example, of the Soviet
Union, the Secretary and the President have said that the Soviet
behavior in the Baltics and in other aspects has affected or
will affect -- threaten the future of superpower relations.
What effect, if any, does the Chinese response to the
U.S. on these human rights concerns have on Sino-American
relations?
A Well, as you know, the last time I checked, we
still have sanctions on the Chinese government. I don't believe
that all of those have been lifted. And I would not think that
the President would make a policy judgment to lift them when
this type of thing is going on.
Q Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, the
Chinese have not responded to any of the 150 cases raised with
them by Schifter a month ago?
A I do not want to be held that literal, if they
have not responded to one single 150 cases. They have certainly
not responded to these trials that I have mentioned.
Q Margaret, tomorrow's meeting with -- between the
two Foreign Ministers, can you tell us what time --
A What Foreign Ministers? He's meeting with a
number tomorrow.
Q Bessmertnykh -- with Bessmertnykh -- with the
Soviet Foreign Minister.
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us what time they're expected to
meet, and what sort of issues are they still expected to go
over? Are the Baltics still on the agenda?
A As I said earlier, we do not have a time yet set,
and I said that tomorrow they would also be dealing with arms
control. I would envision that they would be dealing more
extensively with arms control, since they've spent two days on
the Baltics and the Gulf.
Q A related question: The CFE Treaty -- can you
tell me what program areas were discussed in today's meeting?
A No. Because I wasn't in the meeting, and I'd have
to see Reggie [Bartholomew] and ask him, and I haven't had an
opportunity to do so.
Q Can we get a readout of today's discussions,
especially on the Baltics since you didn't have time to --
A I doubt that he's going to have much more to say
than -- since it's a one-on-one meeting -- that they discussed
the Baltics. They discussed, as I mentioned to Ralph earlier,
the reform process generally in the Soviet Union. I'll be happy
-- and they were joined by the arms control experts.
I'll be happy to ask him, but it will be very late
today, as you all have seen his schedule. He has a number of
meetings and Foreign Ministers here. It will be very late today
before I can get to you any more elaboration on what they
discussed.
Q What are the Foreign Ministers he's meeting with
tomorrow?
A Tomorrow we have the Greek Foreign Minister. We
have the Minister of The Netherlands. We have the Soviet
Foreign Minister -- (TO STAFF) And who else?
MS. HOGGARD: The Netherlands is Wednesday.
MS. TUTWILER: Oh, The Netherlands is Wednesday. Kim
corrects me. Those are the ones that come to the top of my
head.
Q Does the Secretary of State plan to hold a news
conference any time in the near future?
A Not that I've heard about it.
Q Could you take a request to him that --
A Sure.
Q There are a lot of questions that are going
unanswered, I think, that he could answer.
Q Margaret, do you have anything new to say about
the Soviet position on the Gulf?
A On the Gulf?
Q Yes.
A I would refer you to what the Soviet Foreign
Minister said here in our State Department lobby to the press
that was assembled Saturday night, and I think that statement
speaks for itself. I mean, he was pretty clear that there is no
change in the Soviet position concerning supporting the 12
United Nations resolutions.
Q Margaret, on that, the Soviets, though --
Bessmertnykh, echoing a statement that Gorbachev made, seemed to
suggest that we're headed toward a wider war with wider
objectives involving the future of the Government of Iraq.
Just for the record, can you say whether there is any
possibilities that that might happen as this thing wears on?
A That that might happen?
Q Yes.
A I would refer you to what the President stated
this morning here in Washington, D.C., that he is not intending
to broaden the U.N. resolutions. I'll just get his speech. I
don't have it in front of me. But there's a specific paragraph,
in this morning's speech that he made here in town, addressing
himself to this very question under the heading, Saul, I'd say,
"destruction of Iraq."
Q Margaret, anything today about U.S. Ambassador
William Clark's visit to Washington?
A He was back for a personal visit is my
understanding -- a personal leave.
Q O.K. Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:58 p.m.) (###)