US Department of State Daily Briefing #23:
Monday, 2/11/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:00 Noon, Washington, DC
Date: Feb 11, 19912/11/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, USSR (former), Iran,
Syria, Lithuania
Subject: Arms Control, Military Affairs, United Nations,
Democratization, Terrorism, Travel
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I thought I'd do two things. Since a
number of you asked me questions concerning Under Secretary
Bartholomew's working session in Geneva, I thought I'd give you
an update on that, and then give you an update on terrorism.
And, Jim [Anderson, UPI], the Department has been able to do
some analytical work for you on specific questions you had asked
that I would like to give to you.
[START/CFE Talks: Status Report]
Under Secretary Reggie Bartholomew originally was
scheduled to return to D.C. on Sunday night. He did so. His
meetings in Geneva were scheduled for four days. They lasted
those four days, which were February 7 through 10. They met
basically two times a day in very, very lengthy sessions, as he
described them to me.
The talks overall were useful, but some important
issues still need to be closed out, and work will go forward in
Geneva. Ambassador Burt will remain in Geneva, and he will
continue these discussions.
The Under Secretary has fully briefed the Secretary on
his discussions there. Predominantly, as you all know, he went
there to discuss START. That is indeed what they did. Yes,
they touched a little bit on CFE, but predominantly it was on
START.
As the Secretary said in testimonies, the issues that
are remaining, that are outstanding, are in the verification
area. They are data denial, downloading and new types. My
understanding is that "new types" refers to missiles.
Q May we ask some questions on that now?
A If you want. There's not a lot more I can say.
Q What's going to happen with the CFE deadline of
February 17, by which time both sides or all sides were supposed
to have reconciled their data discrepancies, or whatever?
A I guess you're asking me, "what if we don't make
the deadline," and I can't assume that, since today is February
11. I have to assume that we are still working towards that
deadline. I would definitely, obviously, have to respond should
that deadline not be made or we don't get there. But to be
honest with you, I'm assuming that we are still operating under
the premise that we're trying to make that deadline. I don't
have an answer for you of "what if."
Q Can you say anything about your assessment about
the willingness of Gorbachev to take some of the hard decisions
on arms control following these meetings in Geneva? Did you --
A I asked that question for you this morning,
because I knew you'd ask me, and the only characterizations I
have for you are that these talks were in depth, were very, very
lengthy and were useful. The Department wants to refrain from
characterizing "made progress," "didn't make progress," and for
today wants to leave it there. I tried.
Q You said one of the problems is new missiles. Are
those the new modifications, new mods, of the SS-18 that they're
talking about?
A I don't know that level of specificity, Jim. I'll
be happy to ask for you. This morning when I talked to Reggie
[Bartholomew], I asked, "What is "new types?" He said basically
it's missiles, and I just, to be honest with you, didn't get
into a further level of conversation with him. I'll be happy to
ask.
As you know, the Secretary has said any number of times
in the last two weeks that these are very, very technical
issues; very, very specific. So I'll be happy to see if I can
get for you that level of detail.
Q There were some issues which the U.S. felt the
Soviets had come back in January to the talks last -- a couple
of weeks ago -- with positions that weren't as forthcoming as
those that the Soviets had had last fall when the Secretary had
the talks with Shevardnadze in Houston.
Do you know -- can you say at this point whether any of
those issues were returned to their previous state or whether
they stay where they were a couple of weeks ago?
A This gets into exactly what I tried to get for you
all this morning, which they would prefer at this time not to
do. As you know, we said when the Foreign Minister of the
Soviet Union was just recently here, that the two Ministers had
succeeded in getting back to Houston and a little bit beyond the
Houston agreements.
So I would leave it that that is what they were working
on in Geneva, since that's where they were not, you know, ten
days ago.
Q Margaret, you said there were brief meetings on
CFE, but --
A He said they briefly touched on it.
Q Right. But they predominantly talked about START.
But when next will they talk about CFE? Have they set any
place or time where they're going to try to resolve the
interpretation difference?
A Not that Reggie mentioned to me this morning, to
be honest. I'll ask him if he's having a specific CFE meeting.
I know it's a subject that he is working very hard on. At
present he does not have plans to return to Geneva, but, if
required to do so, he's more than prepared to fly back over
there.
Q Margaret, in the past most of the breakthroughs on
these talks have been made at the Ministerial level. The
negotiations have plowed on for months, if not years, and then
in very intense Ministerial sessions, the major breakthroughs
have been achieved. Are there any plans for a Ministerial
meeting?
A No.
Q Would you disagree with my characterization that
preceded the direct question?
A I do not disagree with your characterization, and
I would remind you that the senior deputies that were sent to
Geneva were sent at the direction of the Ministers with explicit
instructions from the Ministers.
But I do not disagree with your characterization, but
there are no such plans for any such get-together or meeting
right now.
Q I think both sides have set a target for the end
of February to --
A I said they had hoped.
Q Do they still --
A Hope?
Q -- feel the same way they did about it?
A They still hope. That's right.
Q So there is still hope then as well --
A Hope is alive.
Q -- that the summit meeting which was postponed but
only into the first half of this year could still be used as an
occasion to sign the START treaty?
A Sure. I think that's always been a possibility.
And again, our Foreign Minister, Secretary Baker, had said -- I
believe it was out on the White House driveway -- that they
hoped that they could complete this work in February, and that
was what they were going to try to do, but he made no guarantee.
Q When is the next session to deal with the Soviets
on the question of the CFE treaty?
A I said I don't know. Susan asked me. I just
don't know. I'll have to ask for you.
Q But the deadline remains, correct?
A That is correct, as we're sitting here on February
11. To Carol's question, I said I have to go on the premise
that we are still working towards that deadline.
Q Margaret, are other issues getting in the way of
the START treaty -- other things that the Soviets are doing,
causing the Administration to sort of back off from solving
these issues?
A I'm not aware that the Administration is backing
off from solving these remaining outstanding technical issues.
I've never heard that expressed.
Q You never heard that it takes two sides to make a
deal? That if the U.S. gave a little and the Soviets gave a
little, you'd have an agreement?
A I've heard that, Barry, but that wasn't the first
question you asked me.
Q Well, then I'll ask it again.
A You asked me if the United States is backing off.
Q Is the United States allowing other issues --
concern over the Baltics, for instance, concern over Gorbachev,
concern over what the Secretary called "return to
decentralization" -- you see, for the longest time he was part
of that tradition that you kind of tried to move ahead on arms
control, even if you have problems in other areas.
And now I'm asking if he's been converted to the view
that if the Soviets aren't forthcoming in other areas, let's
slow down on START too.
A So your question this time is do we have evidence
of the Soviet Union's slowing down on trying to get START.
Q No. I'm not talking about Soviet motives. I
would ask the Soviets that. I'm asking if the United States,
the Bush Administration --
A Is slowing down?
Q --is allowing its concern or its interest in other
issues, other Soviet areas, to affect what the United States is
doing at the table in START?
A I think I just answered that for you and said not
that I'm aware of, or have I ever heard anyone express those
sentiments. In fact, the Secretary of State just last week, I
believe, expressed the absolutely opposite sentiments, and I'd
just refer you to the record of what he has said concerning
this.
Q I'm also confused, because when he testified, he
said the problems in CFE are affecting progress in START. And
Reggie goes there for four days, and you focus on START and only
touch on CFE.
So if the problems on CFE have affected START, why
wouldn't you spend a lot of time on CFE and try to get that
settled, so it wouldn't affect START any more?
A I didn't ask Reggie Bartholomew how they decided
to divide their time. Their clear mission, as you know -- as
was announced here by both Foreign Ministers -- was for them to
go to Geneva to work primarily on START. That is exactly what
they did, as instructed to do.
Q And CFE didn't get in the way?
A CFE -- I said that they had briefly spent some
time on CFE, but the vast majority of their time was spent on
START issues.
Q Do you have anything --
A I have another statement on the terrorism thing,
unless you're still on this.
Q Well, related to it. President Gorbachev's
statement the other day raising questions about the war strategy
of President Bush, and perhaps he's going beyond the mandate of
the U.N. Security Council. Do we have any reaction to that?
A I don't have anything further for you than what
the Secretary of State said yesterday in response to this
question when he was asked on a network news show.
Q Can we do the Soviet Union and then do the Gulf?
There's other things in the Soviet Union.
A Can I do terrorism for you, please, and then we
can go to the other stuff.
[Terrorism: Update]
The number of terrorist incidents against the United
States and other coalition interests now stands at roughly 100.
As you know, on Friday -- you remember the number we gave you
was 95. Jim Anderson had asked, if we have any way of doing any
analytical work on whether this constituted a great amount of
terrorist incidents or not.
The Department now is prepared to say that the rate of
terrorism incidents is significantly higher than for a
comparable period last year. And I'm not going to be able to
break down for you percentages, but you've been after me for a
number of days to give you some type of comparison. We would
characterize it as significantly higher.
As you know, the vast majority of these incidents have
been property damage, and, as you know, the vast majority of
these incidents have been local terrorist groups, and we have
only -- and it remains the same today -- been able to point to
one that we say is clearly connected with the Iraqis, and that
is the Manila incident of January 19.
Jim Anderson, I believe, also asked on Friday, how many
people in these incidents overall had been killed. We gave this
information to you on Friday, but in case you missed it: Since
the outbreak of hostilities with Iraq, the Department of State's
preliminary statistics show that five people have been killed in
terrorist incidents and approximately 50 more have been wounded.
Q Margaret, I would assume that since last year
precautions against terrorism are significantly higher, because
the United States --
A Right.
Q -- is taking ever increasing -- so is there any
theory floating around this building why terrorism is so much on
the rise even though you're checking passes, so to speak, every
place?
A Not a theory that I have to put forward to you.
We have, as you said, been extraordinarily vigilant in making
sure that our public is aware of specifically Saddam Hussein's
threat for a call to worldwide terrorism. Because you all have
asked, we have tried to keep up for you with terrorist
incidents, but most of them have been property damage.
But, no, I do not have an analysis for you of why Dev
Sol in Turkey and November 14 in Greece and the group in Peru
are escalating their type of terrorist activities and property
damages.
Q You keep thinking of the Iraqis, but, you know,
there have been theories -- Claire Sterling, for instance --
that there's some sort of a network of terrorism. That the IRA,
for instance, and the PLO are not exactly unfriendly to each
other.
Is there any feeling here that this is part of some
network, or I guess there is no theory at the moment?
A There is nothing, Barry, right now that would link
all of these groups as communicating with each other and having
a master plan that's directed by some group or some individual,
and that they are all in concert acting as one. No. We do not
have that for you.
Q On a related question, a number of European
countries -- Italy and Britain spring to mind, but I'm sure
others have expressed similar concerns -- have in recent weeks
suggested that the U.S. public is somehow overly concerned with
terrorism to the extent of damaging European-American business
relationships, specifically travel.
A number of airlines have drastically cut their fares
in order to lure travelers again to Europe, and so on. There's
even been an editorial in a British paper that suggested the
U.S. was applying indirect sanctions against its closest allies
by trumpeting the terrorism problem to the extent that Americans
cut back their travel.
My question is, has the U.S. Government consulted with
its friends and allies in Europe, and perhaps elsewhere, to
discuss ways of alleviating the economic impact of the public
concern about terrorism?
A It's also, Ralph, an economic impact to American
companies. As you know, we have stated that Ambassador Busby,
who is head of counter-terrorism here at the State Department,
has been working in close consultation not only with our
European allies but those around the world.
And I would tell you based on his briefing me of those
meetings and actions that other governments are taking, there is
no question that any number of governments -- our close friends
and allies, etc. -- are taking very similar measures that the
United States is.
After all, you have to take these public threats of
worldwide terrorism for your public very, very seriously. And
we do, and we make no apologies about taking these threats
seriously.
Q Margaret, on the economic front, Busby doesn't
deal with that, does he, or does he?
A I think I answered that when you said that
European companies and tourists and that type of thing were
suffering. I would point out to you that there is probably an
impact also on American companies. I haven't done a study or
analysis of this, but I have seen that travel is down by
Americans. They travel on American carriers also.
Q The answer from the State Department is there are
no consultations with the Europeans and other friends and allies
regarding the economic impact of this terrorist --
A The only person that I know whose office might be
doing such a thing -- but it's never occurred to me to ask -- is
Gene McAllister. The reason it hasn't occurred is because I'm
not aware of any country that has not gone to extraordinary
lengths to keep their public informed, keep their public aware,
protect their airports, protect their train stations.
I mean, everybody has been acting, it is my clear
understanding from the counter-terrorism people, very, very
closely and cooperating to extraordinary lengths.
Q Margaret, do the experts you spoke with believe
that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government are holding back on
carrying out their previous threats of large-scale terrorism
around the world, and what are they waiting for?
A Mark, I don't have a way of answering that
question for you, other than to say we consistently view these
threats as serious threats. We're taking them seriously. We're
doing whatever we can to disrupt or confuse any type of
terrorist activity that is going on, and beyond that I'm just
not going to be able to get into it.
Q Margaret, on Friday when the figure was 95 --
A Where are you? Yes.
Q You used the phrase that this number was a slight
increase over normal, and today you cited it as significantly
higher. The difference in that language, is that simply that
you're analyzing it differently or what?
A We have asked, Jim. I believe you were the person
who kept asking me on Friday. We have asked people to go back
and do comparisons, to look at comparable levels of these types
of incidents in the same time frame. Having now completed that
work, we now are in a position to use "significantly higher,"
with a comparable amount of time from last year.
I do not know if they went back 12 years or 15 years,
etc. And so just as like in anything else, you do updates --
this is our update -- and the work that was done over the
weekend on this.
Q Margaret, are there any plans for Secretary Baker
to see Mr. Arens, Defense Minister of Israel?
A Yes. And we're still working on a specific time.
It will be some time probably today after he has seen the
President and has seen Defense Secretary Cheney.
Q You literally mean that after he sees Cheney,
because Cheney's 4:30. So it will be late today?
A It will be very late today is my understanding.
They're still working on schedules. I don't have a specific
literal time for you, but it will definitely be after the Bush
visit and the Cheney visit.
Q Margaret, was the United States advised in advance
of the Primakov mission to Baghdad?
A Yes.
Q And was the United States informed what Primakov
will be saying to the Iraqis, and is he carrying any message
from the United States?
A Is he carrying a message from the United States?
Not to my knowledge. Yes, we were informed of his visit -- the
Secretary of State was -- in the same phone conversation where
he was informed of the Gorbachev statement that he would be
making. And as far as what he is going with, I would just have
to refer you to the Soviet officials here -- Soviet Embassy.
There are wires this morning that are saying the
Soviets have said that the Primakov visit has no special
initiative to present to Saddam Hussein. That had named Soviet
officials that I read on the wires this morning.
As far as a readout, which I know you'll ask me after
he leaves: On the previous two visits he made, I believe they
were in October, the United States had full readouts of those
meetings. I have no reason to believe that we will not after
this one.
Q What's the level of U.S. hope, if there is any,
that Primakov might be able to convince Saddam Hussein to get his
troops out of Kuwait?
A I think the Secretary answered that yesterday by
saying "more power to him" if he can get Saddam Hussein to abide
by 12 United Nations resolutions.
Yes, John.
Q I was just going to ask you, what is the reaction?
Do you welcome the visit? Do you dislike it? Are you neutral
about it?
A We have welcomed any initiative and all
initiatives that people are taking. So far as you know, none
have succeeded in getting Saddam Hussein to move one square inch
toward implementation of 12 United Nations resolutions. There
have been any number of foreign ministers, heads of state, that
have been on missions.
So far none of them have produced the results that the
United Nations wants and that the world wants of a complete and
unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.
Q Margaret, if you --
A Wait. Carol.
Q It's not just the Soviets that are conducting a
peace mission now. The Chinese, I think, are going in, and
there have been a couple of other overtures as well. I mean,
are you at all worried that this confuses the debate; that it
shows that the international political will to this war, which
has only been in prosecution for three weeks, is really eroding?
A I would say that you would have reason to worry if
these various officials from various governments were going in
saying there must be an unconditional cease-fire. That's not
what people are saying. That is not what the Soviet Union has
said is the Primakov mission. I read that there was a Chinese
official that was going. The Algerians last week. The French.
Any number of people that have been in this area and
traveling, I personally on the substance have not seen a
specific plan. There is no plan that has been put forth, for
instance, to the United Nations, and there has been nothing new
on the substance, and in fact most all of these individuals have
said that they fully support the United Nations resolutions.
Q Margaret, you're coming awful close to the theory
that people are reading into pre-notification. You made a point
of not only did they tell us that Gorbachev was going to make
this statement, the Soviets told you about Primakov in advance.
You're coming close to the theory that this is a lot of domestic
-- that these missions are for domestic consumption; that the
Soviets and everybody else is solidly on board with the United
States but they're going through some ritual because there are
people in their country who would like to see some further
effort made to negotiate.
Why do you think they tell you in advance of these
missions? Is it to assure you that there's no departure from
U.S. policy? Elaborate on that a little bit?
A There are many things, Barry, that we tell many
governments, including the Soviet Union, in advance. I don't
find that unusual.
Q You don't find it unusual that they would tell you
in advance that Primakov is going there?
A Not at all.
Q It's not to allay any concerns that they're
jumping off the train?
A You'd have to ask them.
Q Well, there's another possible reason why you're
being notified in advance, and I wonder if Secretary Baker was
asked by the Soviets to make arrangements so that Mr. Primakov
would be safe on the way in?
A If he was, he has not mentioned that to me. I'll
be happy to check for you.
Q Margaret, on the question of initiatives by
various --
A Wait one second. Mark, Saturday, wasn't it? I
think it's Saturday. It was a message that the Foreign Minister
passed through his Embassy here to the Secretary of State.
Q On the question of initiatives by various states,
have you gotten any readouts from any Western diplomats or your
own Embassy in Amman about what exactly was Iraq's response to
Iran's overture? We've all seen the reports and heard the
Iranians say that it was not what they had hoped for.
A Our readout is basically the same as what you've
seen in public of what they've all been saying. There's not a
lot of difference.
Mark? I'm positive it was Saturday.
Q That they were -- in other words, your readout is
that the Iraqis rejected the overture?
A Our private understanding is the same as you've
seen them say publicly.
Q What about Hammadi's statement? Do you have
anything on that? The Deputy goes to Amman and speaks
contrarily to what they've been saying, that they're ready for a
ceasefire, they're ready to negotiate. Is there any substance
to that? Are they ready for a ceasefire?
A We didn't see anything, to be quite honest with
you, that was new and different in his statement, if you take
the statement in its entirety.
Q Margaret, could you give us any idea what the
State Department believes Iran is up to by beginning this
so-called peace initiative which many people don't think is a
peace initiative at all? What is there hidden in that agenda?
A I don't know. I'm not sure that I'm the best
person to analyze that for you. I don't have any way of
answering that question.
Q I thought maybe the State Department may have done
sort of an analysis and they might have told you what it was?
A Not that I know of, John.
Q The Iranians may have told you. You said last
week that the contacts with Iran continued after February 4,
which was the day, I believe, that President Rafsanjani made his
statement.
In those contacts, has the United States discussed with
the Government of Iran what he meant in his statement regarding
either mediation with Iraq or contacts with the U.S.? Did the
U.S. discuss anything other than the aircraft issue?
A Number 1 -- and this also gets back to John
Dancy's question -- my understanding is that President
Rafsanjani has not made public at all what his proposal was to
Saddam Hussein. It is my understanding that any Iraqi official
who is aware of what this proposal is, has also not said
anything about it or made it public. So I'm not sure we're in
the best position to analyze something that both sides are
saying absolutely nothing about.
Your other question, as you know, is related to a
long-standing policy that existed before we got here. We do not
discuss the specific substance of our messages with our third
party to the Iranians. So, no, I cannot get into responding to
questions like, "Did they bring up, literally, the following
things?"
We have told you that our assurances in private are the
same as what everyone has gotten concerning the planes and the
pilots, and it is no different than what they have said
publicly.
Q Is it fair for us to draw the conclusion that
since you are unable to analyze Iran's alleged peace effort --
A I'm not sure we've seen the specifics.
Q Well, that's what I was getting -- my question is,
can we assume that since you're unable to analyze it, you have
not heard about the specifics of it through the indirect channel
that the U.S. has with Iran?
A If we have received or heard about the specifics
contained in this, I personally have not seen it and am not
aware that we have.
Q Margaret, speaking of channels closing down, do
you have anything past the weekend guidances to closing up shop
with Iraq?
A No. Are you familiar with all of what went on
this weekend?
Q Yes. We saw what --
A I cannot advance it any further for you. There
are no answers to all those details and arrangements yet.
Q Margaret, in his testimony on the Hill, the
Secretary said, when people were asking him about taking Saddam
Hussein out of power, that the coalition does not want to expand
the war goals beyond what is already mandated in the Security
Council resolutions. However, a coalition member -- Syria --
has now called on the people of Iraq to assassinate Saddam
Hussein. Was that done with prior notification to the other
coalition members? And is there any response from the United
States about the idea of inciting the Iraqi people to
assassinate Saddam Hussein?
A Number 1, Mary, I haven't seen that statement.
Who made the statement -- an unnamed official or was it made in
some official government document?
Q This was al-Thawrah, the official Syrian
newspaper.
A I haven't seen it, so I won't comment on that.
But I will tell you that our policy is the same as the
international community's. My understanding is we do not want
to expand or enlarge the 12 United Nations resolutions. And, as
you know, they do not call for the removal or elimination of
Saddam Hussein.
Q Well, they don't call for a lot of other things
the U.S. is doing but they're all rationalized by the
Administration as affecting the implementation of the
resolutions. In other words, when you bomb bridges and other
facilities, they're explained as part of the fulfillment of the
resolution to force them to pull out of Kuwait.
Secretary Baker has come awful close to saying the
removal of Saddam Hussein wouldn't cause a lot of unhappiness.
Wouldn't the removal of Saddam Hussein help implement the U.N.
Security Council resolutions, just like bombing a bridge or
hitting a milk factory?
A He has said that, as has the President, he doesn't
know of anybody who would weep any tears. That is quite
different from saying that that is a goal and an objective of
the United States or of the coalition.
Q I'm just picking up on the enlarging the war,
which is the answer to any --
A Which we are not interested in doing. That
clearly, Barry, would set a new goal, a new objective, and a new
mission. That is not what the United States and the U.N., in
these resolutions, has called for.
Q Margaret, how would you --
Q There's a lull in the storm before the ground war
begins, and the State Department is in the business of
diplomacy. Do you see this as a good time, perhaps, to revisit
the idea of having some kind of diplomatic contact with Iraq to
go back and try one more time before the ground war begins and
with it, the large number of casualties which we assume will
occur?
A No.
Q There's no attempt at all, or any thought,
suggestion, in the building to --
A No. As you know, our firmly held view is he had a
45-day pause for peace; there were 45 days from November 29 to
January 16. And, no, we are not, as you know our policy,
interested in some type of unconditional ceasefire or pause for
peace. We're not.
Q Margaret, how would the U.S. Government assess
Saddam Hussein's threats using terrorism as a form of warfare?
If it is a form of psychological warfare, which seems to be
agreed, it seems to be working because people are running
scared. They're not getting on planes. They're not doing the
things that they normally do. He has effectively disrupted
people's normal lifestyles. So would you say that he had been
effective in carrying out his threats?
A I would say that the world has been very
responsible, Jan, in taking threats from Saddam Hussein very
seriously. Another threat: He said that he was going to dump
all this oil into the Gulf. He did it, didn't he? You have an
ecological disaster there in the Gulf.
So it would be extremely irresponsible for our
government and other governments to not take these threats
seriously. How do you know what in the world is going to happen
in the future? I would hate to think of the type of questions
that we all would be answering in this government and other
governments had we not done everything in our power to take
these threats extremely seriously.
Q And therefore he's been successful in what
(inaudible) to do?
A You can call him successful. I'm not going to do
that. I am going to say that we have taken these threats of
terrorism against innocent people in your country, in my
country, in any number of countries very seriously and have
acted upon it accordingly.
Q Margaret, do you have any comment on King
Hussein's remarks yesterday? He says he's misunderstood. He
says that the speech that the U.S. was so unhappy about was not
designed to take one side. He says that he's trying to find a
way towards peace and that he's not an ally of Iraq -- a friend
but not an ally.
He also said regarding the idea that aid to Jordan was
being reviewed here -- I forget the quote now, but it was --
A I don't know it because I didn't see the
interview.
Q That "We are not that cheap." Any reaction to his
comments?
A The only reaction I would have for you, David, is
that we were pleased to see that he once again said that he
fully supports the 12 United Nations resolutions and that it was
basically -- it's my understanding and I did not see the
interview -- not his intention not to have mentioned the
invasion of Kuwait. But I have not this morning studied his
interview on an American television network, so I don't have a
full readout for you of our reaction to everything he said.
Q Also, on yesterday's television, Marshal
Akhromeyev said that Primakov -- that the Presidential emissary
was carrying a proposal for a ceasefire. Is that your
understanding?
A I don't have that information.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on -- totally
different area -- on Yugoslovia and developments there over the
weekend?
A No, I don't.
Q Could you see --
A As you know, we've been very concerned. We
expressed that concern, I believe it was about 7 days ago from
this podium, Jan. We are continuing to watch that situation and
monitor it closely.
Q Margaret, any comment on the referendum on
Lithuania?
A Yes. I don't know if you all have these
percentages of votes. I'll be happy to share them with you.
[Lithuania: Independence Plebiscite]
As you know, residents of Lithuania voted
overwhelmingly in favor of independence. 84.4 percent of the
2.65 million eligible voters went to the polls; 90.4 percent of
them answered yes to the question: "Do you agree that the
Lithuanian state should be an independent democratic republic?"
6.5 percent voted no, and the remaining ballots were declared
invalid. Thus, 76.38 percent of all eligible voters voted for
the proposition. All indications are that the voting took place
without fraud or interference.
The United States had two observers from our consulate
office in Leningrad who were present in Vilnius during the vote.
Some 30 foreign observers also monitored the voting in
Lithuania.
The Latvian government reportedly is considering
staging a similar referendum in early March. Estonia has
already scheduled, as you know, their referendum for March 3.
Our position on this is that referenda carried out in a
democratic manner are one of the internationally accepted means
for the expression of the popular will. The people of
Lithuania, thus, will have the right to use such a device to
express their will. We hope that the results of such a poll
will play a role in the upcoming negotiations between Moscow and
Vilnius that the Soviet authorities have announced, even though
Soviet President Gorbachev issued a decree February 5 stating
that the Lithuanian poll has no juridical standing.
Q Margaret, what about the fact that the vote took
place without little hindrance on the part of the Soviet
authorities? What do you read into that?
A Without what?
Q Without hindrance on the part of the Soviet
authorities?
A We are pleased that this vote and this amount of
participation was able to go forward and to take place.
I would also tell you, as we do fairly frequently for
you all, that the situation in the Baltics overall remained calm
over the weekend.
Q Margaret, yesterday, Secretary Baker in his
appearance gave a hint that there is some movement toward
dialogue between Moscow and the Baltic states. Do you have any
details, or can you flesh that out a little bit?
A I don't think that he was giving you a hint. I
think he was stating what was said, basically, in the
President's State of Union on -- what was it? -- Tuesday,
January 29. So I don't think there was any new message he was
saying yesterday. He was just restating what he believed were
the representations made to us concerning it.
Q Do you have anything on Angola today?
A Angola?
Q Yes.
A No. What's going on? What are you asking about?
Q The talks broke down in --
A The talks did break down. I know the talks broke
down on Friday and I don't know, to be honest with you, George,
where they are today, on Monday. I'll be happy to ask for you.
Q Back to Iraq, if I may?
A Excuse me?
Q Back to Iraq, if I may? You stated very clearly
so many times that the elimination of Saddam Hussein from power
is not a goal; it's not an objective. The question is not if it
is a goal. If it is a means to the goals you are looking for;
and, on the other side, if the staying of Saddam Hussein in power
is taken into consideration for the aftermath of the war?
A The Secretary has addressed himself to that
question any number of times. Most recently in testimony last
week. It is not United States policy to expand or enlarge the
U.N. mandate and what is set out in those 12 United Nations
resolutions. If you were at his testimony -- I don't know if
you were or not -- he said, as he has said any number of times,
how the war ends and whether Saddam Hussein is or is not in power
is something that will obviously determine our actions at that
point in time.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the attack on
the opposition newspaper in El Salvador on Saturday?
A Nothing more than we condemn this attack.
Q Margaret, on the $9 billion -- the Japanese $9
billion. You gave a new statement last Friday -- late Friday --
about Jim's question, the meaning of the logistics.
A We just fleshed out -- Jim asked me on Friday,
"What are the logistics?" I said what my instincts are; it's
the type of things like food, transportation, medical supplies.
I said, let me check, and we posted it. That's exactly what it
is.
Q So I want to ask about the meaning of the
transportation. The transportation is including transporting
the bullets and tanks and such armament?
A I did not get a thorough fleshing-out of what we
mean by "transportation." I'll be happy to once again ask the
experts to give you an explanation of what type of
transportation we are talking about under logistics.
Q Do you have anything on the Philippines bases
negotiation?
A No. My understanding is that Mr. Armitage did a
full press conference -- that was either last night or this
morning -- and I'd just refer you to his characterization of
those talks.
Q Margaret, can you give us an update on the $41.5
billion pledged by the various other countries -- Japan,
Germany, etc. -- whether any of that has arrived and how much?
A No. What do you mean?
Q It's been pledged. Has any of that money been
transferred to the United States yet?
A I believe -- didn't Mr. Darman do a full testimony
and briefing on this up on the Hill? Sorry. He is the person,
as Secretary Baker said in testimony, that has all of these
facts and figures. I would also say, as the Secretary did in
testimony, that the amounts pledged for 1991 were pledged for
the first three months of 1991. Today is only February 11. But
I think if you check with OMB, they've got all that for you.
Q He is the collector?
A Correct. He keeps that. Yes, Ralph.
Q Can I come back to Gorbachev for a moment, please,
his statement over the weekend?
A Yes.
Q Just so I understand what happened over the
weekend, I think over the course of this briefing you've said
that it was a message sent to the U.S. which notified the U.S.
both of his speech and of the Primakov visit. Is that correct?
It was not a dialogue; it was a message, information coming --
A It's a message from the Foreign Minister of the
Soviet Union.
Q So my question is, does the U.S. -- how does the
U.S. respond to -- when it finds out that Gorbachev is going to
make a statement such as that, does the U.S. say, "Great, we
think you're right on board, no problem?" Does the U.S. offer a
differing interpretation of what the alliance is doing in the
Gulf? Is there a dialogue with the Soviets going on on this
issue?
A The way it works -- and I know you're more
familiar with it than I am because you've been covering this for
much longer than I have -- you simply, in many diplomatic
exchanges, pass a message. There is no conversation.
Secretary Baker was dealing with some Embassy employee
who is passing a message on behalf of his government from the
Foreign Minister to the Secretary.
Q Did you get a response?
A I feel certain, Ralph, that should the Secretary
of State feel it was needed or necessary, he would have then
placed a call to the Foreign Minister or passed a message back
from one of his employees here through our Foreign Ministry to
their Foreign Minister. He didn't feel such a need. He did
pass on, during the day, to the President the message that he
had received from his counterpart.
Q By the way, (inaudible) Bessmertnykh's last State
of Union, they said goodby?
A Speak to him? I'm not aware that he has spoken to
him since he left the States.
Q The Secretary and Mr. Bessmertnykh apparently had
discussed a similar issue at the time the Foreign Minister was
here. The Foreign Minister made a number of statements which
sounded a lot like the one the Soviet President made on
Saturday. The U.S. did not seem to feel as though that was a
problem after Bessmertnykh left.
A We don't, after Gorbachev.
Q You don't feel it's a problem now either?
A Baker answered that yesterday and said that he
didn't see any change in the Soviet policy. He specifically
pointed out sentences in the entire text of the Gorbachev
statement that clearly say they support unconditional
withdrawal, 12 United Nations resolutions. So he didn't see it
as a change.
Q But there's a different issue here. The Soviet
President, if he agrees with the United States on issues A, B,
and C, it appears, at least in his public statements, to
disagree with perhaps the U.S. and perhaps the alliance on
issues D and E, let's say, without regard for what those issues
are. The point is, the Secretary makes it clear that they're
still on board on A, B, and C, and it's good to know his opinion
on that.
A Which is the crux of the matter and the substance.
Q But what does he think about the other ones?
A Which one? Which one is different from a United
Nations resolution? Which one says they're not supporting the
coalition? Which one says that they have left the coalition?
Which one points those things out? So on the substance --
Q None of the things you just said were my question,
though.
A That's what he would be concerned about.
Q He would not be concerned about Gorbachev's
warning that the military conduct of the operation in the Gulf
might be threatening to or going beyond the mandate of the
United Nations?
A My understanding is that President Gorbachev did
not say that it had or that it would, and that the Secretary of
State pointed that out yesterday on a network TV show. He said
as clearly as I can possibly say, he did not view this as a
change in Soviet policy concerning the Gulf.
Q What does the Secretary think the Soviets are
trying to accomplish by making those kinds of statements,
regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the U.S.?
A He answered that yesterday. His direct quote was,
"Their position has not been popular with many segments of
Soviet society. Some in the Moslem republics, some of the
military are very much opposed to the position they are taking,
but they are sticking with that position." I'd just refer you
to his record of yesterday.
Q Thank you.
A Thank you, Barry. That's it.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:42 p.m.)
(###)