US Department of State Daily Briefing #21:
Monday, 2/4/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:06 PM, Washington, DC
Date: Feb 4, 19912/4/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, East Asia, E/C Europe
Country: Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, Egypt, Japan,
Yugoslavia (former), Israel
Subject: Military Affairs, Travel, Trade/Economics,
State Department, Democratization
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Announcement of Press Briefing on State Department 1992
Budget]
MS. TUTWILER: I have one announcement I'd like to make
for you. As you know, today the President's budget -- his 1992
budget -- was sent to the Congress. There will be an ON-
THE-RECORD briefing at the State Department on the State
Department's 1992 budget request immediately following this
briefing.
If you all want a five-minute filing break, that's up
to you all, but the briefers are here and ready to go when you
let me go. They will be Robert Bauerlein, head of the Policy
and Resources staff in the Office of the Deputy Secretary;
Charles English, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for
International Security Affairs; George Hill, Director of
Planning and Budget for AID; and Bruce Brown, Director of the
Office of Budget and Program Formulations.
[US Policy on Bombing Oil Truck Convoys to Jordan]
On Friday, John McWethy, I believe it was, asked me our
policy concerning bombing oil tankers on the road to Jordan, and
I said that I, at that briefing, did not have a very substantial
answer for you. I do have one for you today. Since many of you
have called me over the weekend concerning this, I'd like to
give you our answer now.
Coalition military operations in the Kuwait/Iraq
theater are not designed to enforce the embargo but to implement
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.
Though these oil exports do violate the sanctions, it
is not coalition policy to attack civilian trucks exporting
petroleum to Jordan. On the other hand, these vehicles are
traveling through a war zone and specifically through an area
that has been the source of Scud attacks against neighboring
states.
Moreover, we have credible information that war
materiel, including some related to Scud missiles, has been
transported in convoy with civilian oil trucks. Such materiel
contributes to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and is a legitimate
military target.
While we seek to minimize collateral damage in all our
operations, this is made difficult by Iraq's policy of
co-locating military and civilian targets.
Jim?
Q Since we last talked, do you have any idea if
anything is cooking on the diplomatic front, particularly
anything involving Iran?
A No. We do not have any specific offers or plans,
as has been reported. We've seen the various reports, but there
is nothing that has come to us direct --
Q Have you had any contacts --
A -- or indirect through our third party.
Q Have you had any contact directly or indirectly
with the Iranians?
A With the Iranians?
Q Iranians.
A Concerning this subject?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q Are you trying to get in touch with them?
A No. If you're speaking about the specific
television report that I just saw concerning -- that they have
offered to be a mediator, our response to that would be "what's
to mediate?". There are 12 United Nations Security Council
resolutions. The terms of those resolutions lay out the
standards for ending this conflict.
We would be pleased, obviously, if anyone could get
Saddam Hussein to fully comply with these 12 U.N. resolutions.
We do not, as you know, intend to walk back from these 12 U.N.
resolutions, and the only mediation in our opinion that would be
appropriate would be for the people who communicate with Saddam
Hussein to convince him to comply with the 12 United Nations
resolutions.
Yes, Bill.
Q Margaret -- go ahead, I'll wait.
A I'm through.
Q I'll wait.
Q Can I follow on this one or --
A Sure, Ralph.
Q Follow on this, Ralph, and I'll save what I
have.
Q Still on this subject, we've heard the Secretary
of State respond publicly to questions about contacts with Iran
and relations with Iran before but not recently. Is it still
the Administration's point of view that relations cannot improve
with Iran until Iran does certain things regarding terrorism and
hostages, and so on?
Does that apply as well to contacts with Iran on the
subject of the Gulf situation? Would the United States
entertain direct contacts with Iran if Iran were to ask for some
if the subject were limited to dealing with the present crisis
in the Gulf?
A That's a total hypothetical, Ralph. The facts are
not such. The facts are that they are, as you know, dealing
through a third party -- you know that we are -- and I'm not
going to entertain "what ifs" and hypotheticals out into the
future.
As concerning our policy, no, our policy has not
changed. It remains unchanged. And as we have said in the
past, we are prepared to meet directly with authorized
representatives of the Government of Iran to discuss outstanding
issues. This was enunciated, as I remember it, in the
President's inaugural address on Capitol Hill.
We have maintained contact with the Iranian government
throughout the Gulf crisis through our protecting power, the
Swiss.
Q With all due respect about it being hypothetical,
the Iranian President did use the phrase, at least as it was
reported from Tehran, "contact with the United States." Maybe
you consider that hypothetical -- I don't know -- but, I mean,
it's not something that we're making up. There's a possibility
at some distant point down the --
A He said that he wished to have contact with the
United States?
Q I didn't say that. He used the phrase "contact
with the United States," and he said he would be willing to
engage in such contact, if that could be useful.
A I haven't seen that report. The report I saw, and
I believe it was just on your network, was that the Iranians
have said that they have been dealing with the Swiss, who is the
third party.
I'm not playing games with you. I haven't seen that
part of the interview, or whatever it was that's reported on
your network. I'll be happy to look at it. I did ask this
question before I came down here, and they said, no, our policy
hasn't changed.
Q O.K. I guess my question is, all of the things
you just said are perfectly consistent with the Administration's
past policy. You're prepared to meet with authorized
representatives to discuss outstanding issues. I guess my
question is just a slight refinement of that: Do those
outstanding issues include a discussion of the Gulf crisis, or
must any contact with Iran also deal with the other issues the
U.S. has always had on its agenda for Iran -- terrorism and
hostages?
A I am not aware of any change in our policy today.
Q I'd like to go back to Jordan for a minute, if
we're through with Iran.
A Jordan?
Q Yes. Was there a specific, credible threat that
caused the issuance of a travel advisory last night, which went
beyond the normal advisory and advised U.S. citizens to leave
Jordan?
A There is not a specific threat that I can point
you to, Bill. It was an overall assessment of the situation
there. As you know, since the beginning of hostilities in the
Gulf, tensions in this area have continued to rise.
In Jordan, there is widespread sympathy for Iraq and
that has resulted in the continuing possibility of anti-American
incidents.
For this reason, a decision was made to further draw
down staff and to advise Americans to leave Jordan. As you know
-- and I don't have the specific dates of when our other travel
advisories were for Jordan -- we have been doing this in Jordan
and other countries throughout.
We're not going to give today a specific number of the
Embassy personnel that are left there in Amman. I will tell you
that as of today, there are approximately 4,600 Americans that
are in Jordan.
Q I was wondering about the timing, coming as it did
over a weekend. Anything that drove that timing specifically?
A I think that this, as in every country, it's quite
obvious that we are continuing to monitor the situations in a
number of countries. There are a number of criteria and
analytical work that goes in to making these recommendations and
decisions, and this was in large part due to a general appraisal
of the situation for Americans in Jordan.
Q Margaret, going back to the specific and credible
threat, the Department of Transport in England on the 22nd of
January, on the 28th of January, and on the 2nd of February
issues warnings to British airports and all airlines operating
in Britain, including American airlines, of a specific, credible
terrorist threat against Western aircraft.
Why was that not reported here, and is a credible
warning there not considered to be a credible warning here?
A I'm totally unaware of any of those warnings that
the British government has put out. I'll be more than happy to
take your question and take a look at it. As you know, we have
been meticulous from this Department on putting out all travel
advisories, all travel warnings. In fact, many of them for a
number of countries have been updated as many as three or four
times.
So I'm just unfamiliar with that, Jan, and I'll take a
look at it.
Q Can we return for just a moment to Iran. Does the
United States have any objection to sitting down and having
face-to-face discussions with an official from Iran on the war?
A I would have to answer your question the same way
I answered Ralph's. Our policy has not changed concerning
direct contacts with Iran.
Q Which is to say that you will sit down and talk to
them.
A I will read to you what President Bush said in his
State of the Union -- I mean -- I'm sorry -- in his Inaugural
speech to our nation:
"We are prepared to meet directly with authorized
representatives of the Government of Iran to discuss outstanding
issues."
To date, as you know, they have not picked up on the
President's offer of almost -- what was it? -- two years ago.
Q Well, Margaret, that seems to imply by the use of
the word "outstanding issues," issues which predated the Bush
Administration. You do not consider peace with Iraq to be an
outstanding issue, is that correct?
A I consider peace with Iraq within Iraq's
capability of achieving. And, when I answered the question, the
suggestion that I believe is on the table -- I forget whether
the United States and Iran deal directly -- is some type of
mediation.
I gave you our reaction to that. Whether it is Iranian
mediation or any other nation's mediation, in our view there's
nothing to mediate.
Q But there is another aspect to what is coming --
A I understand.
Q -- out of Rafsanjani's mouth, and that is the
potential for more face-to-face talks between the two countries
or the prospect of somehow improving relations between Iran and
the United States. Is that something that the U.S. has an
interest in?
A As I answered earlier, that portion of this
report, I was completely unaware of before I came here. I did
come here with what is our standard policy. The only portion on
the wires and one network that I have seen since I arrived here
this morning before 7:00 concerns an offer to mediate. That I
did answer.
As far as the hypothetical, it, obviously, would not be
my decision should the President of the United States decide to
change or expand or elaborate on American policy. That's just
simply not something I can answer for you all.
Q Can I pose it a little differently? The United
States has an interest, obviously, in convincing, persuading
Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolutions and to withdraw from
Kuwait. If Iran believes it could be useful in assisting in
that persuasion, does the United States have any objection to
having another nation, such as Iran, specifically engage in that
type of persuasion, and would the U.S. be willing to discuss
with Iran the types of persuasion that it might exercise,
leaving out completely the question of mediation, but using Iran
as some kind of channel, perhaps, for conveying to Iraq the U.S.
point of view?
A The first part of your question I believe I
answered earlier when I said that our policy was for anyone who
communicates with Saddam Hussein who can convince him to
comply
with 12 U.N. resolutions -- so much the better.
Q But that doesn't get at the question of whether
the U.S. would want its point of view to be made known to Iran
directly through face-to-face contact, so that that message gets
conveyed correctly in the U.S. view, should Iran have contact
with Baghdad.
A I don't think that the United States' position is
a secret anywhere in the world. I don't believe it is a secret
in Tehran. I have restated it today, and I have said that any
nation on the face of the earth that can talk Saddam Hussein into
complying with 12 U.N. resolutions, so much the better.
To date, no one that I'm aware of has been able to do
such a thing. And, as you know, over the weekend there have
been any number of gentlemen representing other countries that
have been there. To date, I'm unaware of anyone that has come
out and said, "Yes. We believe Saddam Hussein does now believe
that he must abide fully by all 12 U.N. resolutions."
Q On Jordan and the overall assessment of the
situation there, you mentioned the possibility of anti-American
incidents. Included in the situation, is there also an
increased possibility that Jordan could become embroiled in the
conflict, and was that part of the reason for urging Americans
to leave?
A I don't know everything that goes into the
decision-making. It's Department-wide. Any number of bureaus
here are represented and put in their views -- Diplomatic
Security, Consular Affairs, the Bureau itself. Any number of
people put in their recommendations.
I would be purely speculating with you to say that it
is because Jordan might or might not be drawn into the conflict.
My clear understanding from the people I've met with this
morning is that it was a concern overall on the general
situation concerning the potential of anti-American activity.
Q Margaret, in regard to possible requests from
Israel for --
Q Excuse me. Can I do one more question on Jordan?
You gave a figure of 4600 Americans --
A As of today.
Q As of today.
A Approximately.
Q Your Bureau of Consular Affairs says that figure,
approximately that figure, is the number of Americans in Amman,
and that there would be a correspondingly higher number for a
total. I think the figure that most recently was given from
that podium was something like 6,000 Americans.
A Well, as of last week I had 5,000. As of today,
Consular Affairs gave me this number. I'll check if they have
limited themselves to the city of Amman or if this is
country-wide.
Yes, John.
Q Yes. In regard to requests, possible requests,
from Israel for additional aid, either for security purposes or
resettlement of Soviet Jews, have you now received anything,
either officially or unofficially, in the way of estimates,
either on paper or orally from --
A Not that I'm aware of. No.
Q Another one on Jordan for just a second: You
said, I think, in your opening statement that the motive -- that
the U.S. forces that are acting in the Gulf are not doing so in
order to enforce the United Nations sanctions; that that was not
the motive. I think I'm paraphrasing fairly, but correct me if
I'm not.
A Are not designed to enforce the embargo.
Q Right. Is the United States continuing to enforce
the embargo when it comes to Jordan and Jordan's relationship
with Iraq, or are you telling us here that the United States has
stopped its enforcement actions with regard to the economic
embargo against Iraq?
A I think that, Ralph, as of January 16th, we've
moved beyond our total concentration on the enforcement of the
embargo. I, for instance, am unaware if commerce is business as
usual in the country of Iraq right now, and I certainly am not
aware of any countries that are breaking the embargo.
I'm not exactly sure how people would even be
attempting to do that, to be honest with you, right now.
There's such disruption, obviously, in that country. I'm not
aware that their commerce has the capacity right now with the
air assault that that country is receiving to proceed on as
business as usual.
Q So you don't see any of those convoys in any way
as being economic or trade related?
A What are you asking me? If one of the trucks gets
through, is it something that we're going to really lose a lot
of sleep over?
Q No, no. I guess I'm trying to figure out. I'm a
little surprised to hear you say that you're not enforcing the
economic embargo against Iraq. I don't have the text of your
opening statement in front of me, but I think it made reference
to oil trucks in the convoy, and wouldn't that constitute
economic exchange of --
A I said, Ralph, that "coalition military operations
in the Kuwait/Iraqi theater are not designed to enforce the
embargo." What we are there doing, and what they are designed
to do, is to implement U.N. Resolution 678. Maybe you weren't
here on Friday, but the question came very legitimately to me:
"Are we purposely bombing these oil trucks that are on this
highway?"
As I said earlier, I did not feel that I had an
adequate response for you. I feel that I do today, and I've
given it to you.
Q Margaret, how urgent is the concern about getting
Americans out of Jordan? In other words, do you expect
Americans who would follow this travel advisory to simply get on
commercial flights -- whatever commercial flights might be
available, even though those are severely restricted by the war
situation -- or would the United States under any circumstances
consider evacuating people, as you did from Kuwait and Iraq?
A I'm not aware of any evacuation plans, Mary. I
don't know how to put an adjective on for you whether it is
urgent or not. As you know, the United States does not view
these types of announcements lightly. We realize they're
serious announcements.
And, thirdly, just as many Americans chose to stay in
Iraq, we cannot order private citizens to do anything. We can
merely inform them and make suggestions.
So I don't know, Mary, how many Americans will even
choose to leave or not to leave.
Q But as far as you know, the United States is not
planning any evacuation out of there? They would be taking
commercial flights?
A I have not heard of any evacuation plans of either
embassy personnel or private American citizens out of Jordan.
Yes, Saul.
Q Do you have any clarification of a statement of
the President's over the weekend in which he says that in this
war we are going to prove that what we say goes in this new
world order?
A I'll be honest with you, I, like I hope many of
you all, enjoyed this gorgeous weather we had here this weekend.
I haven't seen the President's comments and so I would just
have to --
Q I'll be glad to give you a copy.
A OK. I'll have to duck it and call Marlin and see
if they have any amplification of what he said. I hadn't seen
it.
Q Do you have any comment on the Prime Minister of
Pakistan's new peace initiative which he has been talking to his
government about and beginning to float to various places?
A I haven't heard about that, John.
Q Apparently, there is not a White House briefing
today. The President has been on the phone to lots of different
foreign leaders, including the Prime Minister of Pakistan. How
about Baker? Has he been talking to any of his counterparts
over the last several days?
A Over the last several days? I can't speak to the
weekend because I didn't ask him. He has spoken this morning, I
believe it was, with the Foreign Minister of Canada. We were
told by our bureau that the Foreign Minister of France would be
calling him. As of the last time I talked to the Secretary,
that call had not come in. I'm unaware of any other Foreign
Ministers that he's spoken to this morning.
Q Have you gotten word of any advancing forward of
the joint statement or the message in the joint statement by the
Soviets to the Iraqis?
A As I said for two days last week, I don't know if
their intention was to forward it onto the Iraqis. I don't
know. I hadn't heard.
Q On Jordan -- just a variation on Bill's earlier
question. It's my understanding that there was discussion in
this building on Friday about issuing the advisory. What took
from Friday until Sunday for it to actually be done?
A Again, it gets into the internal workings of this
building. A number of bureaus and a number of officials get
involved with every one of these travel advisories, travel
warnings, drawdown of dependents, drawdown of non-essential
staff, forced evacuations -- there are all types of categories.
I don't know what took -- if you're correct, they started
discussing it on Friday. But I am aware, in any number of
cases, even apart from the Gulf situation, these decisions do go
through many different discussions and conversations and through
many people putting in their two cents on it. So I don't find
that, to be perfectly honest with you, unusual.
I answered Mary by saying, there wasn't something
urgent that happened; and, Bill, by saying, I didn't have a
specific, credible threat against Americans. It's just a review
of the overall situation.
Q Margaret, you mentioned the other day briefly that
the thrust of Foreign Minister Esmat Abdel Meguid's visit, was
to do with their negotiations with the IMF. You didn't
characterize what the United States response is or what the
Egyptian request is. Other officials have said ON BACKGROUND
that the Egyptians were asking for help in negotiations with the
IMF on the standby agreement which they've been hung up on for
months, if not years. What's the U.S. position on that?
A That's not unusual, Mary. When I worked at the
Treasury Department and the Egyptian Finance Minister would come
see our Finance Minister, it's always seeking our help in their
negotiations with the IMF. So this was no different than any
number of meetings, going back to my days at the Treasury
Department.
Q Do you know of any commitments we made to help
them?
A That's not how the meetings go, Mary. You don't
make commitments. After all, the IMF is its own entity.
Rather, at such meetings they may state, "Here is what we need
to do; here is what we're willing to do; any help you can be to
the IMF would be appreciated." It's along those lines.
Q Margaret, one more on Jordan. Jordanian officials
are saying that Jordan has an exemption on the embargo for the
specific purpose of importing fuel from Iraq and that this fuel
was going to refugee camps of which they're not receiving
promised funding for, both from the U.N. and other sources.
Are you disputing their contention that this is a legitimate
transport of fuel into the border with this?
A I'm not aware, specifically, that it is going to
refugee needs. On Friday we addressed that government officials
in Jordan were saying that they had a specific exemption from
the United Nations Sanctions Committee and that there was a
document to this effect. I said there was not a document and
there was no such exemption.
Q Let me try it one more way. You say it is not
coalition policy to use military force to enforce the sanctions
against Iraq. But it also appears that some oil trucks
belonging to Jordan have been bombed on that highway.
Are you saying that the coalition pilots who carry that
out were disobeying their orders --
A No.
Q -- or that it was accidental collateral damage, as
the phrase goes, or what?
A Basically what I said is that it is difficult when
materiel that is in other trucks is co-mingled. In other words,
mixing military materiel with civilian materiel. I said that it
is not our policy to bomb civilian targets, civilian materiel,
etc. But I said that we have credible information war materiel,
including some related to Scud missiles, has been transported in
convoy with civilian oil trucks.
Such materiel contributes to Iraq's occupation of
Kuwait and is a legitimate military target.
Q Do we know that it was in the convoys which were
hit, specifically? Or do we simply now target convoys because,
on some occasions, they carry war materiel?
A I don't know how to be more clear than to say that
we have specific, credible evidence that war materiel is
co-mingled in a convoy and that, in our view, war material going
to help Scud missiles is a legitimate military target.
Q Understood. But my question is, are we targeting
specific shipments or, because we know that this happens, are we
targeting every convoy in case there might be war materiel in
it?
A That would be better asked at the Pentagon because
that gets me into specific targeting, which you know I don't do.
Q Yes, but it has --
A I don't know the answer, Bill. I'd be happy,
honestly, to call Pete (Williams) and see if they're going to
answer that specific a targeting question. My instincts would
be they would not.
I have, -- and I think you all would admit -- been
pretty forthcoming on what exactly was going on concerning, at
least, one convoy. I can't tell you how often this is going on.
I can't tell you that the military is targeting every convoy.
Q The question is simple. Do we target convoys now
on the suspicion that they may be transporting war materiel, or
we do we only target them when we have information about a
particular convoy?
A Again, I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon,
because that gets into their operations in targeting and I don't
do that.
Q Have you received complaints from Jordan about
this shooting-up of these convoys?
A About the convoys? I'm not aware of that. But to
be honest with you, John, I haven't asked. I am aware of
complaints concerning the travel advisory this weekend but I am
not aware of complaints concerning the convoy.
Q Could you take the question, please?
A Sure.
Q What kind of complaints in the travel advisory?
A I understand that it's very difficult, and I know
that you do. In any number of these countries, when we issue
warnings and travel advisories, whether it is in this particular
situation or other situations around the world, it is something
that is not necessarily welcomed and embraced.
Q Margaret, up to recently, the indications by
statements both from the Jordanian Government and from the U.S.
Government were that relations were improving between the two.
In fact, President Bush was saying while he didn't agree with a
lot of the things that Jordan had been doing in the Gulf crisis,
they were a friend and he understood some of their problems.
Now, the thrust of events in the last few days seems to
be pointing toward some kind of a downturn. Is that so? And if
it is so, why?
A No. I would tell you that if you're referring to
this travel advisory, no, it does not. Again, we do this in any
number of countries, and have. You could just as well be asking
me about any number of countries. I read recently a list that
had to include at least other 20 countries, where we have pretty
stern warnings and travel advisories up.
This is not a reflection of our government's beliefs of
the inability of the Jordanian Government to protect Americans.
It certainly is not. But it is an assessment of the overall
situation there concerning, as I think you would admit, some in
their population who are not necessarily sympathetic to what we
are doing under U.N. 678.
Q But you took an initiative the other day in taxing
them on using Iraqi oil when it's been an open secret -- not
even a secret. It's just been a well-known fact that this has
been going on for some time.
A I didn't address myself to that question, to be
perfectly honest, John. However, the Jordanian Government
officials said two things: One, there was a specific document
at the United Nations that exempted them from this, and (2) the
United Nations Sanctions Committee had given them an exemption.
On those two pieces of substance, yes, you're correct. I did
say that's not exactly correct.
Q But overall, we're still friendly?
A Sure.
Q Margaret, you just said a moment ago that there
were some complaints about the travel advisory. Can you tell us
what level those were?
A I don't know, Johanne, to be honest with you.
Again, I wouldn't make too much out of this. This happens all
the time in any number of countries in any number of different
circumstances. We will always first and foremost do, based on
our assessment, what we think is best for the American official
community and private community in any type of circumstances.
That's what we did in this circumstance.
Q But, I mean, is the King ticked off?
A I have no earthly idea. I haven't heard.
Q Margaret, coming back to the Jordanian trucks for
just a second. You said there was credible information
suggesting co-mingling of military and civilian equipment.
A Right.
Q You mentioned specifically Scud equipment. Since
you have specific and credible information on that, is it the
U.S. allegation that Jordan is in any way, shape, or form
supplying Scud-related equipment to Iraq?
A No, Ralph.
Q So what is the allegation -- that the equipment
was coming from Baghdad in the direction of Jordan?
A That's always been the case and that's how all the
questions have come to me. I don't know where these Scud
missiles are located in this part of Iraq. If they're using
this highway/freeway, whatever it is to move a certain distance
up, no one has ever said they're going into Jordan. That has
never been asked or never certainly been implied by myself.
You get off the freeway and you start giving war
materiel to build a Scud; the Scud goes into Israel -- I think
it's perfectly legitimate, as we are, in many cases, to target
these things.
Q Margaret, can you tell us -- here you have a
situation where you're saying On-the-Record that these convoys,
which are not exempt and should not be happening, according to
the U.N. Security Council, are actually providing cover for the
transport of war materiel in Iraq.
A I said "some."
Q Some of them. So has the United States Government
protested to the Jordanian Government that these convoys, which
they feel are illegal under the U.N. sanctions, are providing
cover for war materiel?
A Let's be clear on this, OK? These convoys are
originating in Iraq. They are on a highway going this way. If
they get off and some have war-related materiel, yes, the
coalition views that as a legitimate target.
Q I don't think that answers my question. What I'm
saying is, are you saying --
A You're assuming, which I am not, that this war
materiel is going to Jordan. Why are you assuming that?
Q I'm not assuming anything, Margaret. I'm asking
if the U.S. Government has protested to the Jordanian Government
that inadvertently, or on purpose, war materiel is going in
convoys that go to Jordan and are driven by Jordanians in the
oil trucks.
A They're Iraqi convoys, it's my understanding,
originating in Iraq, moving materiel around Iraq. Why would we
protest that to Jordan?
Q I understand it was Jordanian drivers who were
killed --
A I don't know what nationality the drivers were.
Q -- and the Jordanian government protested about
five Jordanian drivers who were killed.
A To my knowledge, Mary, we have not protested this
to the Jordanian government.
Q So on the question, we're talking about Jordanians
who are carrying oil across the border in violation of one of
the Security Council's resolutions. The question is whether
you're protesting that.
If there are no Jordanian oil truck drivers, then the
Iraqis wouldn't have any cover.
A We've dealt with Jordanian oil before. We have
said that there has been a small percentage of seepage. That
has always been the case throughout this, if you all remember
back to the Port of Aqaba. We have also said, in the same
breath, that Jordan has complied with the U.N. sanctions,
including oil. We have always, though, said, I cannot tell you
that it is an ironclad, hundred percent, not a drop of oil has
gotten through. But it has been such percentages that has not
been an issue with us.
Q But it now becomes a particular problem, not just
seepage. It now becomes a kind a seepage that's covered for war
materiels from Iraq. Therefore, it seems to me there would be a
greater reason to protest to Jordan about this seepage?
A If we have, I have certainly never heard it raised
here, and I am not aware that our government has done that.
Q Jordan is saying that it isn't seepage; that it's
a deliberate policy, that there's an arrangement between Jordan
and Iraq on this particular issue. You deny it, but they claim
that they have a specific exemption, and so on. So it's not
seepage. They're claiming that it's a conscious policy and that
it's something that is open and, in that sense, debatable. I
still don't see that you've progressed --
A They have also said throughout this -- I couldn't
give you a specific moment in time but back in October or
November they were fully -- if you'll get the King's quotes and
the Foreign Minister's and the Crown Prince's -- abiding by the
U.N. sanctions, by the embargo.
Q They claim that they're abiding by the U.N.
sanctions in this case because they claim that the oil they're
importing from Iraq does not violate the embargo. That's where
the argument comes?
A I don't know how else to answer this question. I
have said that there are some convoys. I have said that we have
said throughout this that Jordan has a very difficult situation.
We've said Jordan and their government officials have said that
they fully support the sanctions.
I've told you that there is no exemption at the United
Nations Sanctions Committee, and I've told you that there is no
document specifically dealing with this at the U.N. So I just
can't debate this anymore.
Q Let me just put it this way. Maybe you can wrap
it up.
A That would be great.
Q The U.N. Sanctions Committee is a committee of the
whole, of the 15 members of the Security Council. Since the
United States is a member of the Security Council, have you
ascertained both from our Mission there and from the current
chairman of the committee whether or not the Sanctions Committee
has given such an exemption to Jordan? Have you made that
request?
A Yeah, on Friday.
Q And they have told you, no, that Jordan doesn't
have --
A On Friday, and that there is no document that
exists.
Q So have we told Iran -- I mean, Jordan, this?
That's our point.
A They have an Ambassador at the U.N. just like we
do.
Q I'm saying, maybe we've winked until now at the
seepage. But now the seepage is being used for military
purposes by Iraq. I just wonder whether we have told Jordan
this and that if they want this bombing of their drivers to
stop, they ought not be there?
A I'll ask.
Q On a diplomatic front?
Q On another issue. On Japan's $9 billion, there is
a controversial issue in the Japanese Diet, in the Japanese
society.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Kaifu and the Japanese
Government said the $9 billion, we'll use for establishing the
peace. Let me give you a short explanation.
At the beginning of this controversy, one week ago
Secretary Baker said $9 billion will be the cost to the United
States. Many of the Japanese media reported that the meaning of
the cost to the United States is buying -- attacking arsenals --
the airplanes or tanks. After that, this issue -- now, it's
controversial. Do you have any comment, or could you explain
the meaning of the cost of the United States -- the $9 billion?
A I'm not sure that I've exactly heard your question
correctly. I will try to respond. As you know, we've said many
times here -- the President has said it, the Secretary of State
has -- that we appreciate the Japanese Government's pledge to
provide an additional $9 billion.
The Government of Japan has said that it would like its
contribution to be used for logistical support of our forces in
the Gulf. We anticipate that our needs for logistical support
will exceed the additional funds made available by Japan.
Therefore, we do not expect that the issue of restrictions will
be a practical problem.
Q In other words, you'll spend it all on logistics?
A Correct.
Q Another different diplomatic front, Margaret. Has
the Secretary of State -- has the United States had any
discussions with the Government of Saudi Arabia, either recently
since the war started, or perhaps even before that time, on the
question of timing of the military campaign to avoid the
religious Ramadan season?
A If he has, I'm unaware of any such conversation.
Q On Secretary Baker's conversation with the French
Foreign Minister, the French had a high-level envoy in Iran over
the past couple of days. Is it expected that his mission will
be the subject of discussion?
A I don't know, Mark. As I said, the bureau this
morning had said that they had information that the Foreign
Minister was going to be calling the Secretary. The gentleman
who was in Tehran, it's my understanding, just arrived back in
Paris late last night. I don't know, Number One, if our
information is correct, if Foreign Minister Dumas is, indeed,
planning to call Secretary Baker today, and I don't have a
heads-up of what that would be about.
Q Margaret, the independence movements in
Yugoslovia, in different parts of Yugoslovia -- your policy
statement of October is still unchanged where you have declared
that the U.S. firmly supports unity?
A Yes. Our policy has not changed. I've given a
more recent statement, probably in the last ten days. You
should check in the Press Office.
Q Thanks, Margaret.
A Thanks, Jim.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:46 p.m.) (###)