US Department of State Daily Briefing #17:
Tuesday,1/29/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:31 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 29, 19911/29/91
Category: Briefings
Region: Eurasia, MidEast/North Africa
Country: Iraq, USSR (former), Germany, Turkey, Israel,
Iran
Subject: Human Rights, Terrorism, POW/MIA Issues,
Military Affairs, Democratization,
State Department
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: Go, Jim.
Q No announcements?
A Zero.
Q No questions.
A Great. Let's go.
Q Have you had any greater success in finding out
from the Iranians what their intentions are about those
airplanes which are taking refuge there?
[Iran: Update on Involvement in the Gulf]
A Not any more success than what any number of
Iranian officials have said over the last 24 hours on the
record. As you know, we understand that Iran's Ambassador to
the U.N. yesterday told Secretary General Perez de Cuellar that
Iran intended to impound for the duration of the war Iraqi
planes that fly to Iran.
We also note reports that the Iranian Charge in Baghdad
has protested the movement of Iraqi planes to Iran. At this
point we have no specific information on what Iran intends to do
with the pilots who flew the Iraqi planes to Iran, although we
noted Iran's U.N. Ambassador said the pilots were being
interrogated by Iranian officials.
We have requested that coalition members who have
diplomatic relations with Iran to urge the Iranians to impound
the Iraqi planes until U.N. Security Council resolutions
concerning Iraq have been implemented.
Based on its public statements and private comments to
coalition members who have raised the issue, we believe Iran
will meet its obligations not to allow these planes to return to
Iraq until U.N. Security Council resolutions concerning Kuwait
are fully implemented.
Yesterday, the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.N. noted to
the press that Iran had promised Kuwait its territory would not
be used to attack coalition forces.
Yesterday again, Secretary Baker said that we have
received assurances through diplomatic channels that the
aircraft would be kept in Iran, and that Iran was maintaining
its position of complete neutrality.
We have received additional assurances within the last
24 hours that as Iran has stated publicly, all aircraft,
military and civilian, will be held until the end of
hostilities.
Q Some of those airplanes apparently arrived
actually before the outbreak of hostilities. Are you aware of
any kind of arrangements or deal that had been made between the
two countries?
A No, I'm not.
Q Follow-up to the same subject: There were reports
yesterday night on one of the networks that the Presidential
Guards of Iraq are sneaking to Iran also -- like what's
happening with the air force. Do you have any comment on that?
A I haven't seen those reports, and I haven't heard
about that.
Q Margaret, what was the sequence? You said the
United States urged the Iranians to impound the planes, and then
you say there were additional assurances received in the last 24
hours. Can you --
A Since this first surfaced, Mark, and the first
time the Secretary of State commented on it here Saturday to the
members of the press, we have been consistently saying, and
we're saying again today, that we have received both privately,
and we refer you to Iranian public statements, that they have
said these aircraft are going to be impounded -- kept there for
the duration of the war.
Q That wasn't my question.
A I don't understand what you're asking me.
Q The question was, you say the United States urged
Iran. When did that happen, and when -- and can you put that in
relation to the additional assurances that you received?
A Our policy concerning Iran, concerning the
substance of our contacts, the number of contacts and who, other
than when we publicly -- which is publicly known, the Swiss --
we do not answer any of those questions. That's a policy that's
longstanding before this situation. So those questions I cannot
answer for you.
What I said today was that we have asked other
coalition members who have relations, diplomatic relations, with
Iran to also weigh in, ask that these aircraft be impounded, be
kept there.
But in the same breath, I'm pointing out that there
hasn't been anything that differs from that that the Iranian
governmental officials have said that isn't exactly along the
same lines that I'm aware of.
Q Do you have any information or comment about
pilots, prisoners of war, being used as human shields, being
either wounded or killed in air raids yesterday or recently?
A We don't have any evidence that any have, and I
believe the military briefing this morning in Riyadh addressed
itself to this very question. I, myself, have talked to Pete
Williams who will brief later this afternoon, and we don't have
any way, Bill, of confirming or denying these reports.
Obviously, we think that it is barbaric.
We have raised our concerns, as you know, three times
here at the State Department. Most recently, we will raise our
concerns again this afternoon at 4:00 p.m. when the Iraqi Charge
is brought in. He will be meeting with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State David Mack. The reason for this meeting is
threefold.
One, to remind them of their obligations concerning --
if there were to be any remains of Americans.
Two, to once again tell them that the Red Cross should
have access to the POWs. As you know, their government has
consistently denied access by the Red Cross.
And, three, we will take the occasion to raise our
concern about the four CBS correspondents.
Q Margaret, just about Iran again --
Q (Inaudible)
A 4:00 p.m.
Yes, Jan.
Q -- the Iranian Radio is currently reporting,
within the last hour or so, that a message was received by
Foreign Minister Velayati from Bessmertnykh, and there are
suggestions that it contained a message from the United States.
Was this asking the coalition partners to weigh in --
for those that have relations with Iran -- raised between the
Secretary in his meeting with Mr. Bessmertnykh?
A You'd have to -- I'm not familiar with this
report. What is it?
Q Iran Radio is reporting at the moment that a
message has been received by Mr. Velayati from Mr. Bessmertnykh,
and they're suggesting that that message contains a request from
the United States or some message from the United States.
So what I'm asking is whether or not this asking of
members of the coalition who have relations with Iran was done
at the level between Mr. Baker and Mr. Bessmertnykh.
A I don't know if they specifically discussed this
subject, Jan. It's not something that he's mentioned in his
debrief of his meeting. I don't know if this is one of the
coalition members. One of the nations I have just mentioned
that we are asking who have diplomatic relations with Iran to
weigh in on -- that those aircraft should be impounded. It's
just something I've never raised with the Secretary or heard him
mention.
Q Margaret, you have said repeatedly that you have
gotten assurances from -- that they will hold these aircraft
until after hostilities are over. Is the U.S. Government
satisfied with those assurances? Do you believe Iran? Do you
have any reason not to believe Iran?
A At this moment in time, we have no reason not to
believe them. And I would point out that since it's come to
light -- I believe it started on Saturday -- that these aircraft
are going to Iran, they have been very consistent in every
statement they have made, starting at the top of their
government with their President, President Rafsanjani, their
Security Council, their U.N. Ambassador. I mean, they have been
consistent now -- what's today, Tuesday or Wednesday --
throughout.
So there's no reason for this Government to not believe
them at this juncture.
Q Margaret, your reference now to public statements
is one that --
A And I said we've had the same assurances
privately.
Q Sure. And that's why I'm asking you if, because
of this indirect communication, is the United States able to
have a normal diplomatic exchange with Iran through these
intermediaries, or do you get cryptic messages back and have
some difficulty getting a real exchange going?
A We're not trying to get a real exchange going. As
you know, we do not have diplomatic relations --
Q The planes -- about the planes.
A -- with this country. As you know, which we
consistently remind the public, we do not deal directly with
this country. We have no diplomatic relations with them. All
of our private contacts, as you know very well, are through
third channels. I have not asked for an analysis of are the
messages in your characterization cryptic or easy to read. I
just haven't asked that.
I mean, let me put it to you this way. Why would I
then or would the Secretary of State twice say that we have
received "assurances." He did it again yesterday.
Q Exactly.
A If we didn't think we had those assurances, I'm
not sure he would choose that phraseology.
Q Does he get to ask, or does he get notified is the
point.
A As you know, we do not deal directly with this
government. We have never insinuated that we are doing so.
Q I know that. I'm asking you if through channels,
does the Secretary of State get to inquire, or does he simply
receive notifications from Iran indirectly of what the Iranian
government intends to do about the planes?
A Are you asking, "Is the Secretary of State
personally having meetings with our third party?"
Q No. I'm not asking about meetings. I'm asking if
the Secretary of State or someone acting in one of his -- you
know, one of his top people acting in his behalf, are they able
to ask questions, make inquiries, of Iran through these
intermediaries and get a satisfactory answer?
A I believe I've answered this for Ralph yesterday
when he said, "Are these messages -- have they been going on a
two-way street, back and forth?" I said yes.
Q Margaret, can you tell us whether or not any
commercial planes have flown to Iran? That is, airliners. And,
secondly, whether any Iraqi planes have flown to other countries
seeking refuge other than Iran?
A The military addressed this question this morning,
John, and I had a brief readout that the staff had done for me.
I don't have it with me. And I'd just refer you to the meeting
this morning. They did address themselves to this question, and
I read it briefly on the elevator. I can't remember.
Q It's the question of commercial planes you mean?
A The question of commercial planes, I do not know
the answer and haven't seen anyone respond to: Is there any
evidence of airplanes that are in another country? I don't
know.
Q Margaret, will you characterize your words to the
Iranians through third parties --
A No.
Q -- as appeal or warning or something in between?
A I'm not going to characterize it at all. That
gets into discussing the substance of our contacts which we
consistently refrain from doing.
Q What would the United States like the Iranians to
do with the Iraqi pilots who have flown the planes to Iran?
A I'm not sure that I have a policy position for you
on that. I've just stated what the Iranians say they're doing
with these pilots. I'm not aware that we have a Government
position on it.
Q Could we try to establish some definition on that.
Could you take that question and see if the powers-that-be
would put out a U.S. position? Do you want the pilots to go
away? Do you want them to be sent to a resort? Do you want
them to be put in prison? I mean, there's a wide range --
A I know the military said yesterday -- and I would
assume it would apply to the pilots -- that these planes that
aren't flying over Iraqi airspace, as far as they were concerned
-- it was some military person yesterday -- so much the better.
So I would have to assume that applies to the pilots
also. I'll ask if we have a Government position on the pilots.
Q This is so basic probably, you may have answered
it already. But is the U.S. considering the possibility that
Iran is helping Iraq stockpile some -- save some of its air
force for some future -- whatever, even a post-Saddam Hussein
era? They can be both neutral and be doing that, I suppose. Is
that one of the -- is that a suspicion -- allied suspicion?
A I think the United States -- the Departments that
are involved in this situation are looking at all options,
Barry, as they have addressed themselves to that -- the military
has specifically. And, as I said yesterday, this is a situation
that we are monitoring and following closely.
Q One more, Margaret, please. The Iranians, you
say, have said that they will keep the planes until the end of
hostilities. Our position is that they should keep them until
the U.N. resolutions are fulfilled. That could be a
considerable gap in time.
Have we asked the Iranians to re-define the period for
which they'd hold those planes and pilots?
A I'm not sure how you get that there would be a
substantial gap of time. What we're about right now is the
implementation of the resolutions, which is the total and
complete -- wait a minute -- withdrawal from Kuwait. That is,
indeed, what we intend to accomplish and what our objective is.
So one way or the other, hostilities are going to stop.
Q (Inaudible) are not identical.
A One way or the other, he's getting out of Kuwait.
Q When he's gotten out of Kuwait, who --
A Then our objectives will be fulfilled.
Q Yeah, but who's to say that he's going to stop
fighting right then? It seems a bit naive to think that he will
stop fighting just because he's out of Kuwait. What if he keeps
lobbing Scud missiles at Israel?
A Well, we'll see.
Q You take the point that the two are not identical?
Q Margaret, any comment on Germany's announcement of
aid to the Allied effort?
[Germany: Additional Funds for Gulf Effort]
A Yes. The government has announced that it will
provide an additional $5.5 billion for the first three months of
1991 to help cover the cost of Desert Storm. In addition, the
Federal Republic will immediately provide Roland and Hawk air
defense units to Turkey.
The Federal Republic has also offered equipment to
assist in Israel's air defense. According to the German press
agency, Germany is considering provision of Patriot and Hawk
systems to Israel as well as chemical-biological weapon
detection vehicles and CW protection equipment.
It goes without saying that we are very pleased with
this additional German contribution and the overall support the
Federal Republic has provided to the allied effort in the Gulf
throughout this.
Yesterday, John, you had asked me, and I said I didn't
have and couldn't remember Chancellor Kohl's most recent On the
Record statement. It was January 23, and I quote: "In this
fight of the world community for the restoration of peace and
the implementation of international law, we stand with
solidarity by the side of our partners and allies."
Q Margaret, can you add the usual footnote in this
case as you have in the previous three that the pledge is
exactly what the United States requested?
A As far as I know, Barry.
Q Has the government of --
Q (Inaudible) allies or political allies?
Q Does that mean he's going to come to NATO -- to
Turkey's aid or not?
A There's no question in our minds, and we discussed
this subject this morning because I thought that you might ask
me again, that Germany will live up to Article V of the NATO
Charter.
Q Margaret, has the government --
A "Should," obviously, I'm into a hypothetical here
-- excuse me, Jim -- should Turkey be attacked.
Q Has the Government of Israel approached the United
States with a request that Israel be permitted to attack Scud
sites?
A Not that I'm aware of, Jim. I saw one piece this
morning in one newspaper that said that unnamed officials --
Israeli officials -- saying that they were putting new pressure
on us, etc., etc. I've checked around the building and no one
is aware of it.
Q Margaret, there was a new report out of Moscow
today that the Soviets were floating some new peace proposal on
the Gulf war -- efforts to end the fighting. Did the Foreign
Minister raise any particular initiative with the Secretary?
A No. And I would refer you, again, to his comments
yesterday at the White House on the Soviet government's position
concerning this. No.
Q Back on Israel, Margaret. Does the United States
continue to appreciate Israeli restraint?
A Absolutely.
Q Margaret, back on the Iraqi Charge being called in
this afternoon. There have been reports that the Saudis have
not been too helpful in helping CBS track their four missing
members of the staff. Have you also asked the Saudis for more
help?
A I'm not aware that the State Department has. I
saw that one report in today's newspaper. I don't know, to be
honest with you -- and I want to be careful here -- I think it's
more appropriate for me not to step into the middle of this. As
you know, the Pentagon has been the lead on this. They have,
since this first occurred, been doing everything that they can
in the middle of their operation to try to help, to try to
assist. I have to believe that they are coordinating their
efforts with the Saudi government.
I'm not aware of any complaints about the Saudi
government. CBS, to be honest with you, talked to me yesterday
and asked that the next time we met with the Iraqi Charge, would
we take the occasion to raise it through our channels and we
said absolutely. Today's the first time we've had the
opportunity to do that.
Q There's a report from New Delhi --
A What, Alan?
Q The three points that you said were to be raised
by David Mack, the first one was obligations on remains, was
that?
A In case any Americans should be killed, their
remains -- there are certain international procedures, it is my
understanding, of how to deal with that subject.
This is for us to once again, just as we did concerning
POWs, go back on the record with them and say that we expect you
to live up to international standards concerning this.
Q Can I follow that real quickly?
A Wait one second.
Q Just on that same thing. The three, and if you
add the (Bob) Simon, you have four points for Mr. Mack to talk
to them about.
A I have two substantive points, and I said we were
going to take the occasion to raise the CBS one.
Q OK, OK. I mean, basically, the question is, is
there some sort of -- I understand. Is there some sort of an
expansion, would you say, of the dialogue with Iraq? No, no,
it's a legitimate question, because it's just possible down the
road sometime you might be talking to Iraq about finding a way
out of this?
A Not today.
Q Not today. OK.
A And when you look at the subjects that we're
discussing, I wouldn't call that an expansion.
Q No, I wouldn't at all.
A The second subject that I mentioned is their
continuous denial of allowing the International Red Cross in to
help people, to see what assistance they can be to people, and
it is continuous. So I wouldn't say this is any expansion at
all.
Q It isn't on the face of it, but I wondered if the
door is opening a little bit?
A Absolutely not.
Q Will the Iraqi Charge be among those listening to
the State of the Union address tonight?
A No, he will not. He was not invited.
Q Why is that?
A I don't know. You asked the question yesterday.
I just got the answer right before I came out here. He wasn't
invited. I would guess it's for obvious reasons -- for the
obvious.
Q Can you provide us with the details of those
obligations that Iraq is under for the remains?
A Sure. I'll get the lawyers to.
Q Can you comment on the report from New Delhi --
A The what?
Q There's a report from New Delhi that American
planes on their way from the Philippines to the Gulf are being
refueled in India. Do you know anything about that? And also,
actually, the Embassy here said that it is in accordance with
the friendly bilateral relations between the United States and
India. I was wondering whether you have anything on that?
A Your first question, I know I don't. I'd refer
you to the Pentagon. I'm not sure I understand your second
question.
Q The second question is the statement by the
Spokesman of the Indian Embassy confirmed them saying that this
is in accordance with the friendly bilateral relations between
the United States and India?
A It's tied into the first question?
Q Yes.
A You'd have to go to the Pentagon because I don't
know if airplanes are or are not refueling.
Q Margaret, can you tell us anything about today's
meeting between the Secretary and the Soviet -- the Mayor of
Moscow, Governor Popov?
A Briefly, the meeting went on longer than was
anticipated and I had to excuse myself in order to get down here
to brief.
Basically, it was very similar to the meeting that the
Secretary had with the Mayor when they were in Moscow several
months ago. The Secretary asked the Mayor for an overview of
what is going on there in the Soviet Union, not only in his
republic but in the Soviet Union. The Mayor gave the Secretary
a fairly lengthy overview of changes that he has seen over the
last eight or nine months. I do not have a list of them that I
brought with me.
The second subject that they discussed was Western aid.
They also discussed briefly the Baltics. When I excused
myself, they had begun a discussion on the Gulf.
Q The press reports from the Middle East are --
A Yes, John.
Q Was the Mayor optimistic? Was the Mayor
pessimistic in expressing his views on the Soviet Union and the
situation in the Baltics?
A He never ascribed any adjectives, to be honest
with you. It was very factual. He gave the Secretary a number
of his personal opinions of various scenarios that could evolve,
but he did not, that I remember in the part that I was in, ever
use an adjective like that. He really didn't. It was very
straightforward.
Q Margaret, going back to this question on India.
Apparently, these planes have been refueled for the past
fortnight. American transport planes from the Philippines have
been --
A I just don't know.
Q What I mean is, if it's been going on for a
fortnight, could it have been essentially a Defense Department
initiative or would there have been some diplomatic negotiations
before that happened?
A There may well have been diplomatic discussions
before this went on. I, number one, am not aware of this
particular instance. The Pentagon can answer for you if,
indeed, their airplanes, as I believe this gentleman said, are
refueling in New Delhi. I will be more than glad to ask after
the briefing: (1) if the State Department had some role in
this, knows something about it, etc.? I just simply don't know
at this briefing.
Q It may be Bombay and not New Delhi. Just a
correction. It could be Bombay, because the story broke in
Bombay.
A I understand. India.
Q There are reports from the Middle East to the
effect that Saddam Hussein is using his embassy in Amman as a
communication center for his diplomatic instructions all over
the world. Do you have any comment on that?
A No.
Q Do you know if this is true information?
A No.
Q OK, thank you. I think there's a question.
Q Yes, Margaret. I'd like to go back on Carol's
question.
A Which one?
Q I know you haven't seen the report, but
Gorbachev's spokesman said today that there was a new Soviet
initiative and that Gorbachev has sent a letter to Bush and to
heads of state. He didn't make it clear when he sent the
letter. Did Bessmertnykh come with a letter from Gorbachev?
A No. Let me clear that up. He did not give one to
Secretary Baker. I have not heard of such a letter that he
presented to President Bush yesterday. Maybe you want to check
at the White House. I have heard of no such letter that he
presented to Secretary Baker.
Q Margaret, a couple more questions on Bessmertnykh.
Is he attending the State of the Union message tonight?
A I don't know.
Q And yesterday he made a statement that the troops
-- the special troops -- were leaving from Lithuania and later
on this was found not to be quite true. Is there anything that
was said in the discussions that gives the United States reason
for optimism about an improvement in the Baltic states?
A The only thing I would be able to say is that the
Secretary has raised our concerns concerning not only troops
that are in the Baltics but specifically the Black Berets.
Q Margaret, is there a briefing -- is this the end.
Do you have Bessmertnykh's schedule. Will he --
A He will, as we announced yesterday, be here today
at 4:00. They will meet for as long as they could go -- for 3,
3-l/2 hours. I am unaware of another meeting tomorrow, and I
don't know when the Foreign Minister is going back to his
country.
Reggie Bartholomew and his counterpart have not been
meeting this morning. They're waiting for the Ministers meeting
and they, too, will probably meet later this afternoon.
Q And what are your plans at the end of that
meeting? Are they going to be coming out through the lobby?
A There are no plans for them to do that, no.
Q Traditionally, at the end of these, if in fact it
is the end, as you know, they have come out and said something,
but you have no plans for it?
A We have no plans for that. The main reason is
that the Secretary of State has to get to the State of the
Union. We are unsure of when this meeting will end. The
Foreign Minister, it's our understanding, can meet right up
until when the Secretary has to depart. The Secretary has no
flexibility in when he must be at the Capitol. So, no, right
now, we have not planned anything.
Q The focus of the talks this afternoon are arms
control?
A And some regional issues that they're going to try
to touch on. That was the plan as of yesterday.
Q And what regional issues?
A I don't have the specifics. I'm sorry. I should
have gotten it from Dennis (Ross). I don't know. It was
predominantly, though, going to be arms control. They said they
might try to hit on some regional issues. I'll get those for
you. It's a fair question.
Q Margaret, just one question. When you do ask this
question about India, could you also ask why not Pakistan? What
I'm trying to say is, if this cooperation has been going on,
whether there has been a shift in strategy cooperation between
the U.S. and India?
A I believe the question I'm going to try to find an
answer to is, "Are United States airplanes refueling?" Right?
And you'd like to know if they are, why are we refueling in
Pakistan? I can guarantee you most of this is going to be
answered at the Pentagon, but I'll see what I can find out for
you.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:58 p.m.)(###)