US Department of State Daily Briefing #19:
Thursday, 1/31/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:01 pm; Washington, DC
Date: Jan 31, 19911/31/91
Category: Briefings
Region: Subsaharan Africa, E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa,
East Asia
Country: Egypt, Sudan, Israel, Kuwait, Peru, Iran,
Turkey, Chile, Lebanon, Belgium, Iraq, Jordan,
Philippines, South Africa, USSR (former), Estonia,
Yemen, Latvia, Lithuania
Subject: Terrorism, Military Affairs, Travel,
Democratization, State Department, Arms Control
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: What I thought might be helpful for you
today, since I haven't done it in several days, is to give an
overall terrorism, around-the-world, update.
[Terrorism: Update]
Several additional small-scale terrorist actions have
taken place in the last 24 hours. These incidents have resulted
in property damage. So far the injuries have been relatively
few. We have a report of one death -- a bank guard at a bank in
Lebanon on January 23.
The latest incidents raise the number of terrorism
directed against coalition states since the outbreak of
hostilities to approximately 70. Most of them have been
property damage attacks conducted by indigenous groups which
have carried out similar violence in the past. In some cases of
the recent violence, they have issued statements linking their
attacks to sympathy for Iraq in the Gulf crisis or
anti-Americanism.
The exact nature of the relationship of these groups
with Iraq is unclear at this point. Iraqi nationals have been
implicated directly in only one incident -- which I've mentioned
to you before -- which was in Manila on January 19 where an
Iraqi was killed and another injured when a bomb went off when
they were carrying it near the USIS building.
The most recent incidents include -- I believe it was
either yesterday or last night -- a drive-by shooting of the
American Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen. Three rounds of automatic
weapon fire hit a gate and a wall of the Embassy. There were no
injuries and no claim of responsibility has been made at this
time.
In separate incidents in Sanaa, a hand grenade was
thrown over the wall of the Turkish Ambassador's residence in
Sanaa. One person was injured. There also was an explosion in
the garden of the Japanese Ambassador's residence. There were
no injuries.
In Lima, Peru, a minor bombing took place at the U.S.
Binational Cultural Center. Two other bombs blew up the statue
of John F. Kennedy in a major city park. A fourth bomb
shattered windows at the Italian Embassy. While there have been
no claims for these attacks, they are probably the
responsibility of the Tupac Amaru group.
The French Cultural Center in Amman was burned.
Two-thirds of the Center was damaged in this attack. A branch
of the Islamic Jihad Movement claimed responsibility.
In the Philippines, police defused several improvised
time bombs at a VOA transmitter compound in the northern
province of Tarlac. In Manila, an explosion apparently caused
by a large firecracker occurred in a building housing the Saudi
Embassy.
In Santiago, Chile, an incendiary bomb damaged a Chase
Manhattan Bank office.
A stick of dynamite exploded outside the Qatar Embassy
in Beirut.
We also want to note that in Ankara, Turkey, police
report three assailants shot and killed the security chief
adviser to the Prime Minister's office. We have no information
that would confirm this was related to the Gulf crisis. The
attack was claimed by Dev Sol, the leftist group which has
claimed responsibility for some of the recent attacks in Turkey
because of the Gulf war. The group, however, also has claimed
responsibility for similar assassinations of retired military
officials in the past year or more.
Q Can we get a copy of that?
A Sure.
Q That's all in the last 24 hours?
A The specifics that I read for you are in the last
24 hours. The overall number I quoted to you is since
hostilities began. I said it was at approximately 70, and
predominantly at coalition members' facilities around the world.
Most of the incidents I reported are property damage.
Q While we are on the subject of terrorism, there's
a big row going on in Belgium about the visit there of a senior
operative of the Abu Nidal group. The Foreign Minister is under
pressure to resign.
I understand that the United States made some request
for information from the Belgian government. Can you shed any
light on that?
A My understanding, Alan, is I believe there is a
vote going on, probably right as we're briefing, concerning this
situation in their government, and I would like to refrain from
answering questions about it until after the situation works
itself out.
Q Regardless of their internal political debate,
which nobody here expects you to comment on, did you receive any
clarification from the Belgian government about this incident?
A There's very little doubt in my mind -- we have a
full Embassy there, an Ambassador -- that our Government,
through our Ambassador and our Embassy personnel there, have
been informed of the situation. It's also been very public, as
you know, in any number of press reports.
Q Margaret, can you confirm a report that Iraqi
diplomats are among those that have been arrested in Bangkok in
the investigation there?
A No. I'll look into it for you. I don't know off
the top of my head.
Q What is this meeting about between the Secretary
and a U.S. Jewish leader?
A That meeting -- the original request came in some
time over the Christmas holidays. The Secretary accepted the
request on January 3, and it's something that, you know, we've
had scheduled now for over three weeks.
Q So it's --
A It's at their request. They asked to see him. I
don't know, Jim, off the top of my head if this is something
that this group annually does with a Secretary of State or not.
But it's a longstanding request, and it's been on his calendar
for well over three weeks.
Q For today?
A For today.
Q And it's not connected with any disquiet --
A No, sir.
Q -- because of the joint statement.
A No, sir.
Q Margaret, back to terrorism. Your recognition
that these are mostly indigenous groups that have been -- their
anti-Americanism is known, and all that kind of stuff.
Basically, what you believe you're seeing is groups that may be
sympathetic to Iraq but not directed by. Is that a fair --
A That would be a fair generalization. I want to be
careful here. I am not in any way trying to, nor are we as
a Government, devalue at all the seriousness we take of Saddam
Hussein's claim to strike terrorism around the world. Nor are we
in any stretch of the imagination letting any of our guard down.
But many of you -- you know, last week we did this a
number of times -- were asking, "Have you seen a pattern here?"
The only one that we can tell you is clearly Iraqi is in the
Manila incident on January 19.
Q Excuse me. Last week we did talk about a credible
threat by Iraqi terrorists in Tanzania.
A That's correct. I stand corrected by Alan. There
was one other one we did mention last week. Thank you, Alan.
Q But just so I have this, so far as you know, these
are all serious and without taking anything away from that, you
do not see within this an orchestrated Iraqi-Saddam
Hussein-oriented terrorist attack. You see a number of groups
within countries that pre-existed this that are sympathetic to
-- may be sympathetic to the Iraqi cause.
A That's a generalization, fair characterization as
of today.
Q Margaret, an Egyptian opposition paper says that
Iraqi planes have gone to Sudan and Yemen as well as Iran. Can
you shed any light on that, and is there any concern about the
Sudanese alignment with Iraq, and what it's doing to a coalition
member, Egypt?
A I have not seen anything concerning either one of
those two reports, Jan, that you've mentioned, so I don't have
anything specifically for you on that.
Q Well, there's a big piece in today's New York
Times about the tensions in Cairo, and the concern that they
have over the hardening stance of the Sudan.
A Concerning the second portion of your question of
tensions between the Egyptians and the Sudanese, that is
something that we have seen reports of. We've noted these
reports. Egyptian President Mubarak has on numerous occasions
stated that Egypt will react forcefully to any attack on its
territory or installations.
We view any threats of attack on Egypt with grave
concern and support President Mubarak's strong position on
protecting his country from outside incursions.
Q Is this a subject that came up in the talks with
Mr. Abdel Meguid and Mr. Baker -- concern over Sudan?
A Not in the portion of the talks that I was in. As
I mentioned, the two Ministers met for about 15 minutes,
one-on-one, in Secretary Baker's office. The Secretary said
they discussed the Gulf. So in the portion of the meeting which
I think lasted -- I don't remember -- 40 or 45 minutes, no, it
was not brought up.
Yes, Owen?
Q Has this Government been in touch with Iran
through intermediaries in the last 48 hours to talk about either
the Iraqi airplanes, terrorism, the hostages in Lebanon or any
other issues involving the two countries?
A I didn't check this morning. I'll be happy to
check for you. You weren't here on Monday; on Monday I said, as
did the White House, that in the last 24 hours through our third
parties we had received additional assurances concerning the
Iraqi airplanes.
Q Right. That's why I was asking about the last 48
hours since Tuesday or even Wednesday.
A I hadn't even asked.
Q Any communication with Iraq?
A Not that I know of. No.
Q Do you have any idea of what the current status is
of al-Mashat, the Ambassador to the United States? Is he or his
family -- members of his family seeking asylum? Have you heard?
A I don't know.
Q Margaret, on the "cease-fire offer," have you
heard any word from the Soviets yet that they might carry this
forward as some sort of another attempt --
A No. We haven't.
Q -- to get the fighting stopped?
A No.
Q Nothing?
Q Margaret, can you comment today on a growing
number of reports that Gorbachev is having to share power now
with the Soviet military, and that the agreements negotiated by
Shevardnadze in Houston are not recognized by the people now in
power?
A The first part of your question, I don't have an
analytical analysis for you or response. The second part I
answered yesterday, I believe, when I gave you an update on
START. I said that basically what had been accomplished --
while the Ministers were here -- in the working group session
all last week was, basically, the firming up of what had been
agreed to in Houston and moving a little bit beyond. That's the
best way I know how to answer that for you.
[Baltics: Some Soviet Troops Withdrawn]
Q Anything new on the pullout of Soviet troops from
the Baltics?
A I have a little bit, not a whole lot. Basically,
the United States Government has confidence in the Soviet press
reports that some troops from outside the Baltics are leaving.
The overall situation in the Baltics again today remains tense
but calm.
Lithuanian officials report that some Soviet troops
deployed there earlier this month have left. The Lithuanian
government spokesman is quoted as saying there was no visible
Soviet troop presence on the streets of Vilnius overnight, and
President Landsbergis is quoted as saying, "Perhaps this is a
good sign; a step towards a better situation."
I also want to take note that they also report that
pro-Moscow units have not withdrawn from the government
buildings seized two weeks ago and have not dismantled
checkpoints on major highways.
Q Margaret, why do you frame it as "confidence in
Soviet press reports"? Are you not being told the same thing by
the Soviet government?
A This is the way that we are going to characterize
this for you today. As you know, in the President's State of
the Union, he said "representations have been made."
I have said that the two Foreign Ministers discussed
this during the last three days of meetings, but we have
refrained from giving out any specifics of those discussions.
And please keynote off of -- as I know you would -- I said "some
troops."
Q Yes, of course. But are we to take from that that
you've not heard anything directly --
A Since he left?
Q -- since he left -- from the Soviet government
about withdrawal of "some troops"?
A Not that I'm personally aware of.
Q Margaret, the Japanese Parliament is debating the
$9 billion that the government has offered for the cost of
Operation Desert Storm/Shield, and it appears that from the
speech of the Prime Minister, that that money has certain
strings attached to it. It's not to be used for military items.
Has the Japanese government put any conditions on that
contribution, should it be approved by Parliament?
A If they have, Alan, I'm unaware of it. I'll have
to ask the cconomic people. As you know, we have a Task Force
here who are the technical experts, who monitor the working
group, etc., and work with the various nations. I'm just not to
that level of detail. I'll be happy to ask them.
Q (Inaudible) -- question, Margaret: Are you going
to release the human rights reports tomorrow?
A Can I answer that after the briefing for you?
Q Yes.
Q Margaret, there's a story yesterday in the
Financial Times which says that this grand jury in Atlanta
investigating the problems of the fraud in an Italian -- in a
branch of an Italian bank -- bear with me -- involving Saddam
Hussein's son-in-law in apparently some bank fraud and loans in
which they stole money and turned it into military hardware for
Iraq. According to the Financial Times, the prosecutors there
are awaiting State Department approval before they go ahead with
indictments.
First, does the State Department approve or disapprove
of such things? And can you enlighten me as to --
A I don't know, Saul.
Q -- whether it needs State Department approval?
A I'll be happy to take your question. I'm unaware
of this entire case. I've never heard of the case, and I didn't
read the Financial Times article.
Q Can you check for me?
A Sure, I'll find out. I'll just have to ask the
lawyers. I just never heard of it before.
Q Margaret, what can you tell us about yesterday's
meeting between the Secretary and the Israeli Ambassador? In
your view, are the Israelis convinced that the statement did not
represent a change in policy? What kind of assurances did Baker
give him on that?
A Well, first, let me tell you that had there been
some type of -- as was portrayed in some reports -- urgent
meeting, I can assure you that when Ambassador Dennis Ross
talked to the Israeli Ambassador the night before, as I
mentioned yesterday, I think they would have scheduled the
meeting at a very early hour instead of at 4:30.
In fact, Dennis said that he and the Ambassador said,
"Let's get together in a day or two." Their staffs worked out
and scheduled it for 4:30 yesterday. While he was here in the
building meeting with Mr. Ross, the Secretary called him down
and said -- to be quite honest with you, it was late in the day
-- "Why don't you come down. I'll buy you a drink." So they
had a ginger ale together.
During that meeting, in Secretary Baker's office, of
course, the Secretary took that occasion to say to the Israeli
Ambassador what he has said to you all, what we all have been
saying, that there is nothing new in this statement. I would
only say that in my opinion, if you get a transcript of what the
Israeli Ambassador said when he left after that meeting, he
said, "The United States is consistent in its approach. It does
not contain a substantive change; possibly no change at all."
So that is all there was to that meeting, to be honest with you.
Q A follow-up, Margaret. His meeting today with the
Jewish leaders, was that hastily arranged or was that --
A I answered that earlier, Connie, for Jim. That
request came in over the Christmas holidays and it was scheduled
on January 3.
Q The Ambassador did speak about Mr. Baker giving
assurances that in the future, when such statements were to be
issued, the Israelis would be consulted; isn't that correct?
A I'm not aware of that specific assurance, Alan.
I'll have to ask the Secretary.
Q Do you have any comment on the Safire column this
morning, which was rather tendentious?
A I have made it a habit in 24 months of having this
job not to comment on specific columns.
Q Do you have any comment -- I mean, does the United
States Government have any comment on the fact that since the
day after the fighting broke out the Palestinians in the
Occupied Territories have been under curfew virtually the whole
time? It's been impossible for them to earn a living, to
actually do much shopping, and they're all virtually under house
arrest. This is l.2 something-or-other -- a million people who
aren't able to move around.
A What I'd prefer to do for you, Jan, I'm not aware
that for the entire -- what has it been now, 14 or 15 days --
Q It's the longest house arrest --
A -- that they've been under, as you characterize,
"house arrest." Let me check that out with the experts and see
if that characterization is accurate.
Q What about the administrative detention of Sari
Nusseibeh?
A I answered that yesterday.
Q On South Africa. I know that there was guidance
on a meeting. But as a follow up to that, there has been
renewed violence despite the meeting. Do you have any comment
on that?
A Number 1, I'm not aware of renewed violence as of
this morning's briefing. It would be our same comment, Connie.
Of course, we are for a peaceful settlement to this situation.
We abhor violence, but I'm not aware of a specific violent act
this morning.
Q Magaret, you said yesterday you weren't aware of
the sort of tick-tock involved in the U.S.-Soviet statement.
But I'm just wondering if, since yesterday's briefing, you've
become more aware of that, particularly in terms of
communication between the White House and Baker about it?
A Marlin answered that question yesterday, as I
believe I did. We both addressed ourselves to that. Since
you're asking me from a White House angle, Marlin said -- which
is obviously, absolutely accurate -- "There's no reason to have
clearance on statements that say nothing new." So that was
answered yesterday.
As far as other tick-tock, yes, Jim asked me the
question yesterday and I used words like "aware" and I also
believe I said, as you know, we don't really do tick-tocks. So
that's kind of the same today.
Q Or windows.
A Right.
Q Pardon me if I missed this.
A That's OK.
Q The Christian Science Monitor reported in its
front page today that China was trying to smuggle weapons to
Iraq through a third country in an attempt to play both sides of
the Gulf war. Do you have any comment on that?
A Yes. As you know, China has supported resolutions
which imposed the trade embargo on Iraq and all available
evidence indicates that the Chinese have steadfastly upheld
that embargo, including arms sales.
We fully expect China to continue to do so, and we have
no information to substantiate the allegation in the article
that you refer to.
Q On a related --
Q A second question. Sorry.
Q Do you have any information that North Korea has
been supplying Iraq with Scud missile parts or entire missiles?
A I don't, but I'll ask for you.
Q Margaret --
A Who called me? Mark.
[US Attempts to Minimize Civilian Casualties]
Q The Jordanian Foreign Minister complained to the
American Ambassador about the deaths of Jordanians from the
bombing on the highway going to Jordan. Do you have anything on
that?
A Yes. We very much regret any civilian deaths or
injuries no matter what the nationality. At the same time,
everyone knows that this is a war zone and will continue to be
an extremely dangerous area, especially given the continuing
campaign against Scud missile activity.
Coalition forces, including the United States, have a
strict policy of avoiding civilian targets. They have made
every effort in this regard and will continue to do so even
though it means extra risk for our coalition personnel as has
been pointed out by General Schwarzkopf.
Yesterday, there was a military briefing in Saudi
Arabia. I will read to you some of the quotes given by that
person. He said, "We are striking only military targets. The
Iraqi government insists on storing Scuds in culverts and other
things along the highway. When we see those types of vehicles
go into those types of facilities, we bomb them. We make every
attempt to minimize any possibility of civilian casualties."
I also would like to point out that the International
Relief officials, who are monitoring the Jordanian-Iraqi border,
report that they have seen no war wounded or evidence of
displaced persons being attacked.
Q Margaret, as a follow up to that, we've never
heard much about the results of Richard Armitage's visit to King
Hussein. Is there any --
A Can I be more englightening today?
Q Yes.
A No. Sorry.
Q Margaret, on the Jordanian response -- just a
follow-up to that. Do you know anything about a warning that
they intend to take action the next time their civilians are --
some casualties as a result of the allied bombing?
A A warning?
Q Yes.
A No, I haven't heard --
Q Improbable as it may be, I thought I heard
something like that.
A No, I haven't heard about that.
Q Margaret, do you have anything today on the planes
that have gone to Iran? I have two specific questions. One is
the same as yesterday.
There are Iranian officials who are quoted as saying
that whereas they've offered assurances that those planes will
stay on the ground for the duration of the war, if Israel should
get in the war or if Shi'ite holy places in Iraq should be
attacked, they might have to reconsider those assurances.
First, has the U.S. heard those same conditions placed
on the assurances? And, secondly, do you have any comment on
those conditions?
A My answer to the question is the same as
yesterday. When I was asked, "Is this the type of message that
was passed to the United States?" I said, "No."
What do you want me to characterize this hypothetical?
Q Not hypothetical. There are reports --
A Well, it is to us, if they haven't said it to us.
You're saying there are reports that Iranian officials have
said. I can refer you to statements made by officials who have
spoken on the record on the position of their government
concerning this and concerning their pilots. In fact, there was
just yesterday -- you may not have seen it -- a letter that was
delivered from their U.N. Ambassador to the Secretary General of
the United Nations on this very subject.
Q Can I just follow up with one more question on the
planes? Yesterday, an American military briefer confirmed that
he knew of one Iraqi plane having done a round-trip -- a
transport plane -- after the war started, having gone back to
Iraq again. Do you know of any other planes doing a round-trip?
A Number 1, I'm unfamiliar with that specific. I'm
sure -- if the Pentagon has told you about it. I don't know of
any other ones.
I'll be quite honest with you. Many of these are what
I consider in the category of military and I do not follow them,
as I have other things that I've got to pay attention to and get
more specific about.
Q Somebody has suggested that international law
requires that any neutral country, or any country that proclaims
himself neutral, must therefore accept any refugees from war and
give sanctuary, but they have certain obligations. I wonder if
you're familiar with, or does the State Department have that
section of whatever international law we're talking about which
tells us the obligations of any neutral country like Iran --
A I have it right here with me, Saul.
Q Terrific. I wonder if you could --
A I will share it with you.
Q Well, you don't have to read it.
A You want me to just put it out? It's all in the
Geneva Conventions, and this apparently -- it's consistent with
the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war for Iran to treat
Iraqi pilots as prisoners of war.
The 1949 Geneva Convention on prisoners of war provides
that "A nation that is not a belligerent and who receives onto
its territory armed forces will treat those forces as prisoners
of war.
"Such action is without prejudice to more favorable
treatment which may be provided in accordance with the specific
terms of the convention.
"However, they may not be allowed to return to Iraq."
Remember, I said I'd really like to leave, if I could,
if at all possible, at 12:30.
Q If I could follow that. I asked you about the
status of the pilots yesterday. Has there been any
communication by the Iranians, indirectly to you or through the
Secretary General or whatever, that suggests that they are
treating the pilots as POWs?
A I believe, and I think it, again, was their U.N.
Ambassador yesterday who addressed himself to this and has
spoken to the record saying that they are, but check their
record. But I remember yesterday seeing some Iranian official,
and I think it was out of the U.N., who said this very thing.
Q Yeah, but to the media. How about to the U.S.
Government?
A You want to know if they're saying something
different to us than they are publicly?
Q I want to know whether they said that to the U.S.
Government.
A I'll have to ask that specific question.
Q Margaret, a White House official said yesterday
that any contribution by any country to the Gulf operation would
be welcome and it's up to that country to decide what type of
contribution is to be made. I wonder whether that also includes
Taiwan? Because last year when Taiwan wanted to make a
contribution, it was told to give the money directly to the
frontline states.
Right now, lawmakers in Taipei are debating what types
of contribution they can make to the Gulf operation. Because
they think as a member of the international community, they
should also contribute something.
So my question is whether you can specify the Bush
Administration's position regarding what type of contributions
Taiwan can make?
A I'm not sure that I have a specific concerning
Taiwan. You heard what the President's spokesman said
yesterday. He said, "All nations making contributions." I'm
not familiar with the specific case you're talking about -- 1990
dollars versus giving to the military portion of this or to the
frontline states. I just don't know whether someone in our
Government, at present, is talking to Taiwan concerning 1991
contribution and what type that may or may not be.
Q OK, thank you.
A Thanks, Jim.
(Press briefing concluded 12:29 p.m.)(###)