February, 1991
US Department of State Daily Briefing #20:
Friday, 2/1/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:00 Noon, Washington, DC
Date: Feb 1, 19912/1/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, East Asia, Eurasia,
South America, Subsaharan Africa
Country: USSR (former), Israel, Iraq, Kuwait,
South Africa, Philippines, Jordan, Iran
Subject: Military Affairs, POW/MIA Issues,
Regional/Civil Unrest, NATO, United Nations, State Department,
Human Rights, Democratization
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Secretary's Congressional Testimonies]
MS. TUTWILER: I have one announcement I'd like to
make. Secretary Baker will be testifying in open session before
two Congressional committees next week on the President's
budget. The first will be on Wednesday, February 6, the House
Foreign Affairs Committee at 10:00 a.m., Room 2172 Rayburn House
Office Building; the second, on Thursday, February 7, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee at 10:00, Room 419 Dirksen.
As you know, our custom is, there will be no State
Department briefing on those two days.
[South Africa: Repeal of Apartheid Acts]
I have a statement I would like to read on South
Africa. We welcome President de Klerk's historic announcement
that his government will introduce legislation to repeal the
Group Areas Act, the Land Acts, and the Population Registration
Act. We also welcome his proposals to begin working toward
unified non-racial local governments. This is further evidence
of President de Klerk's courageous statesmanship.
Once enacted, these dramatic and far-reaching measures
will abolish the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid.
They are the latest evidence that an irreversible process of
change is underway and that substantial progress continues to be
made toward dismantling the system of apartheid and establishing
a non-racial democracy in South Africa.
The focus for all parties must now shift to
negotiations on a new political order. We are pleased that the
de Klerk government, the ANC, and others have committed
themselves to an all-party conference which is intended to
advance this process further. We urge those organizations which
have not yet accepted this call to do so.
We are also pleased that during this week Mr. Mandela
and Chief Buthelezi began an important process designed to lower
the level of violence so the work of building a new non-racial
and democratic South Africa can proceed in earnest.
That's it. Jim.
Q Are you familiar, or are you being kept up to
speed on what is happening in Iran with all these various
emissaries coming and going?
A Kind of.
Q What do you think is going on?
A As you know, it's not exactly easy for us to know
exactly what is going on. We are obviously aware that Ministers
of the Governments of Iraq, France, Algeria, and Yemen have been
in Tehran in recent days to confer with the Government of Iran.
We understand from statements broadcast on Tehran Radio
that Iran's Foreign Minister reiterated to the Iraqi Deputy
Prime Minister that Iran will remain neutral during the war,
will hold the planes and their crews for the war's duration, and
urged Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.
I do not have any more thorough readout for you of the
individual meetings or -- I can't even tell you if they're all
separate meetings or a group meeting. Just that, yes, we are
aware of it and obviously we will be trying to get more
information concerning them.
Q Are they -- these various emissaries and their
countries -- keeping the United States current in any way? Are
they telling you what's going on and giving you any idea of what
the outcome might be?
A Yes. It's my understanding that this has just
been going on. I don't have a definitive answer for you. I
would note that, for instance, the French Foreign Ministry has
stated publicly that its Secretary General has no mandate to
discuss a peace initiative during his visit to Tehran.
Q Have you received a readout from the French on
what the Iranians told the French regarding the planes, or
perhaps any other subject?
A Not that I have anything to give you, to be honest
with you. I asked this this morning and there's a lot of
confusion. So I can't tell you that we have a thorough readout
yet.
Q But you anticipate getting one from France,
because it is, after all, a member of the coalition?
A Correct, Bill.
Q And I'm sure they'll want to keep us completely up
to date?
Q Can we go back to South Africa a moment?
A Sure.
Q Can we just finish up with this. (Inaudible) the
bottom line. Do you think anything is cooking or not?
A Do we think anything is cooking?
Q Yeah.
A I don't know if anything is cooking or not, but I
know that our policy concerning, should someone come forward
with some ceasefire proposal in a total hypothetical, you know
that is something that we do not support.
Q You don't support any ceasefire policy. Period?
A We do not support, as you know, a pause for peace,
as it is characterized. The other double word with that is a
type of ceasefire. Our reasons for this have been stated, one
of which would be, it would certainly -- if he chose to -- give
Saddam Hussein an opportunity, under the auspices of "Let's all
talk about this" to re-entrench, to re-group, to rebuild. As
you know, many of the briefers at the Pentagon, or the military,
are talking about some roads that are bombed. I just heard Pete
(Williams) talking yesterday -- some bridges. You can build
them right back. That has been our consistent policy concerning
that ceasefire, pause-for-peace concept.
Q But you do support a ceasefire if he begins to
withdraw -- announces an indication to withdraw and begins to
take concrete steps, as per the joint statement of Tuesday
evening?
A The joint statement of Tuesday evening, to my
knowledge, did not mention the word "ceasefire." It talked
about a cessation of hostilities would be possible if the
following were done.
Q What's the difference?
A Immediate -- there's a gigantic difference of
saying, "Let's have a pause for peace and talk about this" --
Q No, no. Between a ceasefire and cessation of
hostilities?
A There is a big difference in these concepts. I
know you know it as well as I do. We are not interested, have
not been, have not changed our policy, and are not today, in any
such type of mechanism or process which would allow him to do
the things that I just mentioned.
Our statement of Tuesday night could not have been
clearer: "Full implementation of all U.N. resolutions." That
is quite different than saying, "Let's just have a little pause
here and talk about this."
Q In other words, you don't like the term
"ceasefire" and will not use it to describe what the U.S. has
offered in the joint resolution?
A Correct.
Q But how does a ceasefire differ from a cessation
of hostilities?
A Cessation of hostilities, as it was used -- I
don't have the text in front of me -- would, as the statement
said, be possible if the following things happened. A call for
a ceasefire in a vacuum without his saying he's leaving Kuwait,
his taking concrete steps, abiding by the 12 U.N. resolutions,
is quite different.
Q Margaret, the statement on Tuesday said a
ceasefire -- a cessation of hostilities would be possible if
there were a commitment to withdraw from Kuwait. It didn't talk
about 12 U.N. resolutions.
A It said "full implementation," Ralph, "of the U.N.
resolutions." There are 12.
Q Yeah, but that was not in the -- well, the text of
the statement is there, it's On the Record, it's obvious what it
said.
A Correct.
Q It did not say what you just said it said. It
said what it said. (Laughter)
We're asking the question about -- I mean, Bill's
question is: What is the difference between a cessation of
hostilities, as used in that statement, and a ceasefire as you
use it today? There seems to be (inaudible) distinction.
A I'm going to answer this one more time. There is
quite a difference in an individual or a group of people saying,
"Hey, let's have a ceasefire." That is quite a different
concept, in my mind, than a statement that says: A cessation of
hostilities provided -- it's in the exact same two sentences --
that he does the following. Those are two, in my mind, very
different concepts.
Q In your mind?
A I think in most people's minds, that would be.
There have been any number, as you know, of nations who have
claimed that they were going to, at the United Nations, promote
a ceasefire with nothing else said -- nothing said; zero said,
no withdrawal from Kuwait, no implementation of the U.N.
resolutions. That is not at all what our policy is or what we
have said.
Q Your policy still is today, is it not, that a
commitment to withdraw from Kuwait, as stated in that document
the other day, that is still the U.S. policy, is it not?
A That policy, Ralph, is contained in two sentences,
and those two sentences, as stated, has been our consistent
policy; correct.
Q Right. Those two statements speak also of
concrete steps toward implementing fully?
A Yeah, I said that.
Q There's another thing that's kicking around, and I
wondered if you saw a distinction between a cessation of
hostilities once concrete steps to withdraw are taken -- the
distinction between that -- and ceasing hostilities when
withdrawal completely is concluded?
You see, a lot of the interest raised by the statement
was the notion that once Iraq says we'll pull out unequivocally
and once they take concrete steps in that direction, the United
States is prepared to hold its fire instead of waiting until all
the troops are out. The difference, of course, would be that if
you withhold your fire, Hussein keeps some war-making potential
that he might not have if, in the course of withdrawing, you
were still hitting him hard. That's one of the issues here.
We think -- some of us think -- there is a difference
in what you said with the Soviets that night and waiting for
full withdrawal to stop hostilities. A practical difference.
A I am aware that some of you think there is a
difference. I know that you're aware that we do not think we
said anything new, and we will continue to stand by that we did
not say anything new.
I am aware that there some in some places of the world
who would like us to expand and enlarge the U.N. mandate. The
President has addressed himself to that and said that is not
what we are going to do; that our objectives are the ones that
he laid out.
Q So, in the current -- you're shifting it a little
bit, but I have to go in your direction, I suppose. The United
States is doing things now, militarily, to incapacitate him --
maybe it's accomplished it already -- Hussein's nuclear
capabilities, his chemical warfare capabilities.
A Biological?
Q Right. Those are in the --
A Command and control.
Q Now, are those in the mandate?
A In the mandate --
Q The people that want you to keep doing that and
think if you said --
A I'm well aware of that.
Q -- and think what you said the other night means
you won't go the full route; once he says, I'm ready to pull
out, and he begins to pull out, you'll hold up and not complete
the job. You say that job is an expansion of the mandate. I
say you're doing it now. If anyone is expanding the mandate,
which I don't think you are, you're the ones who are doing it.
A I'm saying that the mandate is and the mission is
the liberation of Kuwait. We are not, today, expanding or
enlarging that mandate.
I believe what your question is, in my mind, is: Are
you going to shoot him in the back as he's leaving? Are you
going to destroy Iraq? Are you going to do the following
things? Those are not what the United States and the
coalitions' mission is as mandated by the United Nations, Barry.
Q It's not what you're doing, so I'm not asking
about that. I'm asking about what you are doing. What you are
doing --
A What we are doing is going about liberating
Kuwait.
Q Exactly, and in doing that, you are also
devastating his war-making potential -- chemical, biological,
nuclear, if it exists, and that's the point. The point is, if
you see that as within the mandate of the U.N. resolutions, then
you have to answer my question, whether there's a difference
between keeping it up until he completely withdraws or stopping
once he takes concrete steps to withdraw, because one would
leave him with things he wouldn't have otherwise. Do you get
it?
A I get it, and I will refer you back to that as
addressed in the statement of Tuesday night: A cessation of
hostilities provided all of the things that are listed right
there in the same two sentences. So if your question to me is,
on a hypothetical, "If he says he is unequivocally" -- I believe
is the adjective that was used -- "going to withdraw." If he
takes immediate, concrete steps, if he abides by all U.N.
resolutions, are you asking me: Would the coalition shoot Iraqi
soldiers in the back as they are leaving? I have to tell you
that I have not heard the President asked this direct a
question. My answer would have to be, I can't imagine that the
coalition would support such a policy.
Q I don't know about shooting poor soldiers in the
back.
A What are you asking me?
Q I didn't bring that up. You keep saying that
that's what I'm asking you.
A That's what you're asking me.
Q First of all, you just introduced something that
isn't in the two sentences. The two sentences do not say --
they do say "unequivocal commitment." They do say "concrete
steps." They do not --
A "Immediate, concrete."
Q Right. The sentences do not say "fully abide by
the resolutions." They say "steps in the direction of fully
abiding by." That is the whole point. If you miss it, or if
I'm not putting it right, fine. But if you're not sort of
dealing with it, I'll drop it.
A (Inaudible)
Q That's the point. The point is the two sentences
do not require him to complete his adherence to the resolutions.
A I just answered that.
Q They say, if you move in that direction and we
believe you're moving in that direction, we'll stop hitting you.
I'm saying to you, that is the difference between what you've
been doing until now. You've been after his nuclear, chemical,
etc.
A Let me try to explain it to you this way. Let's
play numbers. When we began this, I believe the Pentagon was
saying he had 560,000 Iraqi troops in Kuwait. I believe that
the President, Marlin, the Secretary of State, everybody, has
said we would have to see -- which I interpret as concrete steps
-- a massive withdrawal.
Now, if you want me to tell you, "Does that mean
249,000 troops or 363,000 troops, I don't believe that we have
dissected it down to that number. But what I am clearly telling
you is if there are 23,000 or two Iraqi troops left in Kuwait,
would we shoot them as they're leaving? No.
Q OK, so "concrete" means roughly about 225,000.
A I made all of that up, Barry, to try another way
to explain this. Come on!
Q "Concrete" means massive. It does mean massive?
A We've all said this. I also said -- and you were
late here -- that I have a meeting at 12:30 with the Secretary
that I'd really love to try to make.
Q Can we do South Africa?
A I'd love to.
Q A question. How are sanctions affected by today's
proposals?
A How are sanctions affected?
Q Yes.
A Another way of addressing that is, what remains to
be done? South Africa, as you know, has already satisfied three
of the conditions contained in the CAA. In addition to the
conditions just mentioned, repeal of the Groups Areas Act and
the Population Registration Act, the only other condition that
has not yet been met is the release of all prisoners persecuted
for their political beliefs or detained unduly without trial.
Over the last year -- just as a reminder to you all --
you know that over 300 political prisoners have been released,
including, of course, the release of Mr. Mandela. However, that
process is still underway and we will be following these
developments closely.
As you know, a similar process was used in Namibia
recently. My understanding is the South African Government is
using a very similar process of identifying and releasing
political prisoners. The same type of process, as we've said,
is underway there but it is not complete.
Q So they're getting pretty close, then?
A They've completed three and part of one, as you
know, was the release of Mr. Mandela. So they have part of
another one done. I would have to say yes. But, again, you
know what the President's policy is: That we have legislation
on this and he is not going to re-interpret that legislation.
Q Can we go back to the Gulf again, for a second,
Margaret? Can you tell us which nations the United States has
asked for permission to allow overflights of bombers from
Britain or elsewhere? In addition to that, can you also tell us
whether the United States has asked France to do that?
A No.
Q You can't tell us?
A I have no comment concerning the country you just
named, France. And I have no comment on any other countries
today that you may ask me about. As you know, the British
themselves and their Defense Minister made an announcement
concerning this subject.
Q Margaret, two quick ones on the war. At someone's
convenience, could we have a total now? Is 31 still the --
first of all, India's permitting some overflights.
A The what?
Q The total in the coalition --
A Oh.
Q -- the number of countries. It may have shifted.
If we can have an up-to-date number.
A Oh, sure. O.K.
Q And, secondly, I wish I'd brought it with me, but
I don't have the senior official's name, but do you have a
response there? Do you know about some senior Philippine
official denouncing the United States behavior in the Gulf war,
saying it's trying to be the world's policeman?
A No.
Q Did that come across your desk?
A No. I hadn't seen that. I'm not aware of that.
Q I should have had his --
A I'm sorry. I'm not aware of that.
Q No. I should have his name. I don't.
Q Margaret, do you differentiate between Iraq and
the Saddam regime?
A Excuse me?
Q Do you differentiate between Iraq and Saddam
regime?
A This Administration has consistently said that we
have no quarrel with the Iraqi people.
Q I do understand this, but for the purpose of
understanding your statement with regard to your saying that you
don't aim at destroying Iraq. Maybe you are aiming at
destroying Saddam's regime.
A Our aim is the liberation of Kuwait.
Q Margaret, if I could go back to this statement and
another problem it's created. There are persistent reports out
of Moscow and others, citing American officials of some kind of
quid pro quo agreement or understanding reached between the
Secretary and Bessmertnykh -- you know, support for the Gulf in
return for toning down criticism of Soviet policy in the
Baltics. Can you respond to that?
A Yes. I don't know what unnamed officials. You
never know we're doing this, but they obviously have no idea
what they're talking about.
These reports are absolutely, completely and totally
untrue. There was no deal, and there will not be any deal, and
I might point out, if you haven't seen on your wires this
morning, that my counterpart at the Soviet Foreign Ministry is
saying words to the exact effect, "It is simply without
foundation."
Q Margaret, could I also raise the issue again of
whether or not this was the first time since 1976 that the U.S.
and the Soviet Union have issued a joint statement on the
Arab-Israeli peace process.
Bessmertnykh, as you know, in two different locations
-- here and in Moscow again on the record, not an unnamed
official, the Soviet Foreign Minister -- said, "It is the first
time since 1976."
You told us the other day that you believed Helsinki
qualified as a joint U.S.-Soviet statement on the Arab-Israeli
peace process. Do you still stand by that? Do you think he's
wrong? Have you contacted the Soviet Union to discuss the
issue?
A We have not contacted, to my knowledge -- I don't
know if officials in the building have -- and, of course, we
stand by what we said. And the statement obviously does speak
of the Middle East, and it's by the two Presidents of the two
nations.
Q In the Helsinki statement.
A The Helsinki statement, I believe, I said it was
September 9, 1990.
Q Right.
A Yes.
Q Margaret, do you have any comment on reports that
Ambassador Matlock has endorsed a referendum in the Baltics on
independence? That's been kicking around in some places.
A That he's endorsed a referendum?
Q Yes.
A Not that I am aware of. I haven't seen anything
about that. I know that our policy concerning a referenda in
the Baltic states is that the United States believes that that
is a matter for the peoples and governments of the Baltic states
to decide on their own.
We would support any steps, as has been our consistent
policy, that would lead to a peaceful resolution of this current
situation.
Q Margaret, (inaudible) press reports from Amman
today that despite the U.N. embargo on trade with Iraq, the U.N.
Sanctions Committee gave Jordan special permission to import
Iraqi oil.
Does the United States believe Jordan has special
permission to continue importing Iraqi oil --
A No, we do not. And our understanding is that the
reports say that there is some type of document at the U.N. We
are not aware of any such document. And although -- and we
admit that Jordan has been heavily dependent on oil imports from
Iraq. Such imports are a clear violation of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 661, and the Sanctions Committee has never
approved an exception for Jordan.
Q Can I follow on that --
Q I'm sorry.
Q Does that mean that -- is that by way of a kind of
justification, if you will, of the United States attacks on the
Jordanian convoys that are going along the road from Baghdad and
perhaps other Iraqi cities to Amman, essentially pointing out to
the Jordanians that the U.S. doesn't think you have permission
to do this in the first place; therefore, don't be surprised if
you come under attack?
A Well, I would start with the substance, which is
there is no document at the United Nations that has such a
statute in it. And this does not fall under United Nations
Resolution that I just said, 661. And as far as this highway,
the Pentagon and here at the State Department yesterday, we
addressed ourselves to that particular highway.
Q And, Margaret, to your knowledge, has the United
Nations given any exceptions, or whatever, for humanitarian
purposes for any kind of assistance to Iraq during the course --
any kind of trade with Iraq, I'll put it that way.
A Of oil?
Q Oil or food or medicine, or anything for that
matter.
A It's my understanding, Ralph, that in a similar
case in which another country requested permission to take oil
from Iraq in payment of outstanding claims, the Sanctions
Committee specifically disapproved the request as being in
violation of the Security Council Resolution 661.
Q Margaret, did you deal with the Iranian --
A I'm sorry, what?
Q Do you know what country that was?
A I don't know. I didn't say which country. I
don't know.
Q When you dealt with Iran previously on their
humanitarian -- have you dealt with that at this briefing?
A I'm not sure what --
Q Well, whether the United -- I didn't want to take
you through it again. But has the United States verified Iran
is providing humanitarian assistance, and is what they're
providing consistent with the U.N. resolutions, if they're
providing it.
Iran has announced a major -- or disclosed a major
humanitarian lift of food and such to Iraq.
A I thought, Barry, to be honest with you, that it
was a Red Cross operation out of Iran; that it was under the
International Red Cross is my understanding of it.
Q It may be true. I'm not sure. I thought Iran was
going to help Iraq in a humanitarian way.
Q Margaret, can you shed any light on the situation
of Ambassador al-Mashat in Austria?
A No. And I saw just before I came to the briefing,
he is quoted on the wires in Vienna. These are his words, not
mine, that he is absolutely, unequivocally not seeking asylum,
and that he is there because his wife is very ill.
Barry, back on your question, I was right. An ICRC
convoy with medical supplies left Iran on January 31 for
Baghdad. Prior to sending this shipment, the ICRC notified all
interested missions in Geneva. Medical supplies are not covered
by the United Nations embargo on Iraq, so notification to or
approval by the Sanctions Committee was not required.
Q Thank you.
A That's International Red Cross.
Q What is the U.S. position on the Iranian
statements that they're going to be sending food as well?
A I haven't seen those. I can't comment on
something that I don't know about. This is what I am familiar
with and know, which is under the International Red Cross, and
it's medical supplies is my understanding.
Q In the few minutes we have left, can you sharpen
what the State Department put out yesterday about Israel's
curfew? It's a little bit ambiguous. It said "curfews" --
meaning, of course, the West Bank and, I suppose, Gaza --
"curfews should be temporary."
Are you saying that the curfew should be suspended;
it's gone on long enough. Or is the State Department saying in
a general way it should be temporary, but you're not telling
Israel to stop now? I'm not clear what you're trying to say,
because the curfew's been in effect for some weeks now. If you
know.
A To be honest with you, I don't have anything
further than what we put out yesterday. I mean, I can try to
elaborate on it for you, but I don't have anything to take the
story further for you.
Q Margaret, can you comment on reports from Greece
that the United States has agreed in principle to supply Patriot
missiles to that country?
A No.
Q Has the International Red Cross --
Q Margaret -- (inaudible) --
A I have no comment on it. What?
Q Has the International Red Cross provided any
information about American POWs in Iraq, to your knowledge?
A I did not check this morning. As of yesterday
they had not.
Q Margaret, do you have any response to the Iraqis
saying that the pilots are war criminals and, therefore, do not
deserve to be treated as prisoners of war but deserve to be
treated as war criminals because they allegedly machine-gunned
Iraqi civilians on the street?
A I think it's another manifestation of a barbaric
nature to treat any people, especially Americans and coalition
people who have been taken prisoners of war, in such a fashion.
I heard a report last night -- I don't know if it's true or not;
I cannot verify it -- that I found sickening.
Q (Inaudible) -- report I'm referring to.
A I don't know what report you're referring to. I
know which one I'm referring to, but I don't know if it's true
or not, but the idea that these individuals would not be treated
under the Geneva Accords, which Iraq is a signatory to, would be
given their basic rights as prisoners of war is outrageous.
Q Is the U.S. still trying -- are you making efforts
to get the Iraqis to allow the ICRC in to see these prisoners?
General Schwarzkopf referred to that the other day in his
briefing.
A Absolutely. We have meetings -- is my
understanding -- in Geneva with our Ambassador there all the
time. We have said it here any number of times it is not
something that we will give up on, that we will stop pursuing,
we will stop pushing on. We have made it very, very clear, as I
believe that the other coalition members who have prisoners of
war there are doing the very same thing.
Q Margaret, do you feel with this Iraqi statement
that this is setting them up to stiff-arm the ICRC? They're
just not going to let them see these prisoners?
A I don't think this statement, Mary, sets them up
any more than their actions which have spoken very clearly since
hostilities began. I mean, they have not done anything. So I
don't think this statement adds or detracts, to be honest with
you. Why don't they act and do what every civilized nation in
the world would do if they had prisoners of war in this type of
situation?
Q Has the U.S. heard anything further from Iran
through direct or indirect channels about a readout of the
interrogations of the Iraqi pilots who are in Iran? Anything
further beyond the Iranian public statements which you cited
earlier --
A No.
Q -- or U.N. statements, or anything like that?
A No.
Q Margaret, can you confirm the Post story this
morning that a study is underway at the State Department about
the future of Iraq once the war is over, and sort of give us
some indication of where that study stands?
A I can confirm it, because I've confirmed it over
the last several weeks. So there's nothing new in that. We
have said all along for some time now that a study is going on
here at the Department about post-crisis planning.
We have obviously been thinking and planning for a
post-crisis situation. We've said that many times before, and
we've said it's been ongoing, and it's been going on for quite a
while.
As far as a number of the options that are mentioned in
that specific report, no, I'm not going to comment on. Many of
those options, as you know, Secretary Baker has addressed
himself to in response to questions from you. Many of the
options that were mentioned are obvious.
And I would just tell you that those options and many
other options are being studied and explored. A lot of
brainstorming is going on here at the Department, but I don't
have any announcements -- specific announcements to make today
concerning any decisions that the Secretary may or may not have
made.
Q Wouldn't those decisions be made in consultation
with the Gulf states particularly, but perhaps other members of
the coalition as well? Or is there some U.S. decision that --
A The United States will, I think, Ralph, probably
evolve its thinking on this and have its thinking that it does
discuss with its own coalition partners. What my point is, is
that the United States State Department thinking is in the
process right now and has been for many weeks ongoing.
So then I am sure -- I think you would agree with me --
we will have our ideas about this. I would imagine other
coalition partners will have their ideas that their ministries
are working on, and that their heads of state and their staffs
are working on. And somewhere through all of that will come
whatever is the post-crisis policy.
Q I don't suppose there's any implication in that
statement that the U.S. might actually publicize it -- publish
its ideas before consulting with the other coalition members?
A I think that the United States could well, any
time it chooses to, answer questions. We have all along about,
"What do you think about this?" We, as you know, have been
extremely clear on the subject of linkage. Other members of
the coalition had a different idea concerning that, as you will
remember back. So I don't think it's unusual when the United
States has finished its review and its thinking processes and
its brainstorming to think this is what we think.
Q Margaret, at this point, is the State Department
thinking a cooperative venture with the White House, or are
there dueling plans going on?
A How this is proceeding, as it has been for many
weeks, is, as you know, Mr. Gates at the National Security
Council, as he does on all of these issues, is chairing an
interagency process. The State Department will be feeding into
that process the State Department thoughts and views.
Q Margaret, turning for just a moment to Jordan and
the importation of oil, whether it is legal or not legal under
U.N. sanctions.
Because you say that Jordan cannot be taking delivery
of oil from Iraq, does that leave the United States free in the
view of the State Department to attack convoys of oil trucks
coming from Iraq to Jordan?
A I'm not aware that the United States Government is
attacking oil trucks.
Q (Inaudible) -- no.
A Let me finish. I understand.
Q But that wasn't the question.
A I understand. The Pentagon is the best to answer
the question about these trucks. I do know that the Pentagon
has said, and we said yesterday -- if you're referring to the
trucks that were on this one highway, where some individuals in
other governments had said that we were bombing refugees -- that
we have said this is a very dangerous war zone.
We have said it is our policy and intention to -- at
some risk to our own pilots, General Schwarzkopf has said --
avoid civilian targets, avoid cultural centers, religious sites,
etc. So I can't answer for you. The Pentagon would be best.
Is the Pentagon literally targeting a gasoline truck
that's on this highway? I don't know.
Q But as a matter --
Q Margaret, he's asking for a legal construction.
Q Pardon me. Pardon me. As a matter of policy,
does the United States regard oil trucks, which would be
carrying embargoed material in the view of the U.S. Government,
as fair game on these open highways. It is a policy matter
which then is translated eventually into a targeting matter.
You guys do the policy; the Pentagon drops the bombs. What's
the policy?
A I have never asked if our policy is to target oil
caravans that may be on this highway.
Q They may be breaking the embargo.
A I understand -- that may be breaking the embargo.
You know that any number of us did everything that we could to
make sure that the embargo against Iraq was effective, and I
think most people say it was technically effective.
Q It was. Now we're in a new phase and a new
situation.
A I will be happy to ask a specific question on if
we are bombing oil trucks going up there, because --
Q No, no.
Q That's not the question.
A I understand. Because it breaks the embargo.
Q Let us pose the question. Can we pose the
question?.
A I understand the question. Or is it legally on
the embargo.
Q Is it a legal construction, and is it policy?
A I understand.
Q You have a --
A I understand.
Q -- construction of the U.N. resolution. You can't
shift that to the Pentagon. The State Department -- I don't
mean you -- the State Department are the folks that --
A I understand the question.
Q -- that worked up the resolution very carefully.
A We're five minutes over when I said I had to go to
a meeting.
Q Violations of sanctions may be attackable.
A Anybody got anything else, or can I go, please?
Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at 12:35 p.m.)