US Department of State Daily Briefing #25:
Wednesday,2/13/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:18, Washington, DC
Date: Feb 13, 19912/13/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe,
Central America, East Asia
Country: USSR (former), Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Poland,
Japan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
Subject: Military Affairs, NATO, United Nations,
Arms Control
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything, Jim.
Q What are you hearing about the Primakov mission to
Baghdad?
A We don't have a readout yet. My understanding is
that he has left Iraq. As I've told you previously, for the two
previous visits he made in October of last year, we had full
readouts after those meetings. And we have no reason to believe
that we would not after this one.
Q And from the public statements which have emerged,
do you see anything encouraging or anything different coming out
of this?
A Not really.
Q But they say there's reason for hope here.
A I saw one wire copy this morning out of Moscow. I
can't remember who they were attributing that to. They saw some
reason for hope, and our reaction to that would be, just based
on that, that we, too, hope that Saddam Hussein will choose to
abide by 12 United Nations sanctions.
As you know, we have welcomed any and all envoys and
individuals who have made an attempt to try to get through to
him about what he must do in order to abide by these
resolutions.
Q It's the Soviets who are saying they have reason
for hope --
A I saw that, but I can't remember the exact Soviet
official.
Q Ignatenko.
Q It was Ignatenko, the Presidential spokesman, who
said that, so --
A The same reaction. We hope so, too. And, as
Secretary Baker said on Sunday, "More power to them, if they can
get through to Saddam Hussein, and he abides by the 12 United
Nations resolutions."
Q Do you see anything of particular value in Mr.
Gorbachev's invitation to Tariq Aziz to come to Moscow to
discuss matters further?
A Of value?
Q Yes.
A I think that it would be irresponsible to prejudge
it, Ralph. If it results in Saddam Hussein abiding by 12 United
Nations resolutions, we would certainly welcome that.
Q Is the United States prepared to refresh or renew
the guarantees which the U.S. gave to Iraq publicly prior to the
beginning of hostilities about Iraq's, you know, pledges not to
attack any further, and so on, once a withdrawal takes place --
essentially guarantee Iraq's borders, Iraq's future existence,
and so on? Is the U.S. prepared to do any of that?
A That hasn't changed.
Q I'm sorry?
A That has not changed. I don't know why you'd need
to restate it. It's out there. Secretary Baker spent six and a
half hours with their Foreign Minister in Geneva -- went through
every bit of it. I mean, you couldn't have a more direct
channel.
There is nothing that I know of that would lead them to
believe that the United States has changed its mind on any one
of those points.
Q Would the United Nations play a useful role in
that regard in the U.S. view?
A Would the United Nations play a useful role? What
do you mean?
Q A useful role in refreshing or renewing those
guarantees which you say are still out there?
A I would just again have to say, "Why would the
Foreign Minister need to be refreshed?" I don't quite
understand. He had it direct from the United States Secretary
of State. There has been nothing that I am aware of by any
official -- background, off-the-record, any other way -- to lead
anyone to believe that has changed. So why in the world would
you need to?
Q Only the fact that there's a war on. I mean, the
situation has changed, and maybe the Iraqis feel that because
the situation has changed on the ground, they might need
refreshment of those.
A But the situation has not changed, Ralph, on the
substance of the five points the Secretary of State made, and I
don't believe that anyone has led the public to believe that
that situation has changed.
Q Why do you say "not really" when you're asked if
you're encouraged? I mean, is there something lacking that
you'd like to see there to be encouraged? It's kind of a --
A What?
Q Well, it was kind of a diffident response. Jim
asked you --
A I'm not sure what you're asking me.
Q Well, I'll try again. You were asked if the State
Department found anything encouraging in what is going on, and
your answer was, "Not really." I wondered what's behind the
"not really"? Is there something more you wished were there, or
you don't know enough yet, or what?
A Well, obviously, Barry, we would like to see --
the world would like to see Saddam Hussein say that he is going
to abide by 12 United Nations resolutions. I believe that Jim
Anderson's question to me was referring to basically one
sentence out of a two-page Iraqi Radio broadcast last night.
That's how I interpreted your question.
He asked me if I saw anything new. I assumed that's
what he was --
Q New or encouraging.
A -- addressing himself to, and I said, "Not
really."
Q Margaret, are you at all concerned about the role
the Soviets are playing in terms of perhaps changing their
policy toward Iraq? Do you still believe that they're a solid
member of the alliance?
A Absolutely, and no, we are not concerned, and I
would refer you to President Gorbachev's spokesman yesterday.
He said that they fully support 12 United Nations resolutions;
that Envoy Primakov was not going with any new Soviet proposals,
and I would just refer you to them on the record.
Q Margaret, on that point --
A Excuse me. And I believe if you check the
transcript with the Foreign Minister of France, Minister Dumas,
last night after meetings in Moscow said things that are very,
very similar. And I refer you to the record.
Q There have been reports that Gorbachev is coming
under pressure from hardliners within his own government,
questioning his support of the U.S. and the coalition. Do you
feel in any way this could undermine his commitment to the
alliance?
A Owen, what we're going by is their public
statements. I believe you were here; it hasn't been two weeks
since we just issued a joint U.S.-Soviet statement which once
again enunciates their policy. We have no problems whatsoever.
Q Margaret, they're not saying that they're backing
away from the resolutions, but they are saying that they find it
hard to justify the bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi sites.
Primakov himself said it was terrible, and the Soviet Press
Counselor of the Embassy here in Washington this morning has
given an interview on TV in which he says, "The main message of
Mr. Primakov is 'Stop this aggression; liberate Kuwait
immediately,'" and his other message is, "Stop the bombing,
because of the grievous number of civilian victims as a result
of this bombing."
A This is someone saying what Mr. Primakov said?
Q Yes.
A I can't respond to that, Alan. I said we have not
had a readout of what Mr. Primakov did say. I can only continue
to tell you, just as you said, our understanding from the
Soviets themselves yesterday is that Mr. Primakov did not go
with any new peace initiative. As you just read to me, he went
saying that they must withdraw from Kuwait. They must abide by
12 United Nations sanctions.
We have twice this week addressed ourselves to what
President Gorbachev said: that he "may have" or "could have" or
"might have" concerns. That is all that I am aware of that
their leadership is on the record of saying, and what their
policy is concerning this.
Q Does the State Department feel that the currents
in the Soviet Union are changing dramatically and forcefully in
what is both in the media and what members of the Soviet
parliament are saying, People's Deputy, and in what various
officials throughout their government are saying? They are a
lot less on board than they were when this whole thing started.
A That is definitely not our interpretation. You
were with us, I believe, and I'd remind you to go back to August
3 to then-Foreign Minister Shevardnadze's statement when he and
Secretary Baker made a joint statement there in Moscow. He said
this is a very difficult decision for us to make. There has
never been any doubt about that.
We have addressed ourselves to this over six months.
We recognize that this has been a difficult decision for the
Soviet Union, and we acknowledge that. At the same time, the
Soviet Union has voted for all 12 United Nations resolutions,
and has as late as yesterday said once again that those United
Nations resolutions must be enforced.
Q Margaret, when do you plan to get -- when do you
expect to get the readout from the Soviets? How will that come
about.
A It's usually handled, Mark, through our Embassy.
As I said, all I have for you that we are confident of is that
he has left Iraq. I do not have his onward travel plans. It is
my understanding that he is going back to Moscow, but I don't
know if he's stopping somewhere else. You'd have to get that
from the Soviet Embassy.
Q Will you make anything public today if you get a
readout?
A If we get it. But, I mean, I don't know when he's
arriving in Moscow. I don't know if that's the first place he's
going. But there is no concern on our part that we would not
somehow have a full debrief of his meeting.
Q Margaret, what is the status of events at the
United Nations as far as the U.S. is concerned? Has there been
an informal meeting? Should there be a Security Council
meeting, and, if so, should it be an open meeting?
A Ralph, what's going on at the United Nations is
that they are in informal session right now as we're in this
room. The thinking is that there will probably be a formal
session some time this afternoon. They have not set a time.
They're meeting right now.
The third part of your question concerning our views on
whether this should be opened or closed, the United States has
had a preference that this meeting be a closed meeting for a
simple reason: You do not want somehow inadvertently for Saddam
Hussein to get any type of mixed signal. If, say -- and I'm
hypothesizing here -- the Cubans or the Yemenis get up and start
making speeches that somehow could cause Saddam Hussein to
misinterpret this and believe that somehow the United Nations is
not united -- as we all know that it is -- in support of 12
United Nations resolutions.
Having said that was a preference of the United States,
I will tell you that we are basically happy if the meeting is
closed or open. Those consultations are going on right now in
informal session, and I don't know what the outcome will be, but
either way the United States, as we said yesterday, is very glad
and welcomes the Security Council meeting on this subject.
Q And what in your view should -- what in the U.S.
view should be accomplished by such a meeting?
A I don't know, to be honest with you, since they're
discussing this, what it is that the Security Council or the
people who are requesting the meeting -- what their agenda is
and what they wish to accomplish in this. I can't answer that.
Q What does the U.S. think?
A Well, the United States has not called this
meeting. We would have an agenda if we'd called it.
Q When you say you'd be happy if it's open or
closed, does that mean the United States is no longer trying to
get the meeting closed?
A I didn't say that. I said what our preference --
Q Was.
A -- was. I said they are in consultation right now
in an informal session, discussing this. And if the majority of
the members, Barry, want the meeting open, that is fine with the
United States. If the majority of the members want the meeting
closed, that, too, is fine with the United States.
Q What is the United States position at the moment?
Does the United States want the meeting open or closed?
A The United States is in these consultations and in
this meeting right now discussing this very subject, and I am
not going to get into what specific instructions Ambassador
Pickering has. They are right now working on this subject among
the members of the Security Council. I have told you that our
original preference was for it to be a closed meeting for the
reasons that I stated.
Q The U.S. has been intensively lobbying to keep it
closed, has it not? It has been very intensively lobbying.
A I said that was our original preference.
Q And what are you doing now?
Q Your strong original preference.
Q We're still asking you, are you trying to get the
meeting closed?
A It was our original preference.
Q We're still asking you the same question --
A I understand that.
Q -- which you've been asked four times now --
A And I'm going to give you the same answer.
Q -- and you keep telling me what your preference
used to be, and how happy you'd be to go along with the
majority. But evidently you are at least one of the nations on
the Security Council.
A That's correct.
Q Some might even say with some influence over other
nations.
A I'd agree with that.
Q Are you trying to get that meeting closed so the
world won't hear what dissent there might be from the Security
Council judgments, or are you sort of neutral now?
A I'm going to continue to answer it the way I have.
Ambassador Pickering is right now and has been for the last --
I think it's almost been an hour and a half now -- in
consultations bilaterally and in group meetings in an informal
session discussing this subject.
Q So you won't tell us what your current position
is?
A No.
Q Right?
A You got it.
Q Are you concerned that maybe not only the Cubans
or the Yemenis who already have voted against many of these
resolutions would speak up, but perhaps people representing
countries that have signed on to the resolutions might stand up
and express concern about bombings that have killed and injured
civilians in Iraq?
A If there are any, Owen, I am unaware of any.
Q Well, can you tell me --
A That has not been a concern in our thinking of
this, and I have not heard of any of the coalition partners that
would be wishing or pursuing such a path. I'm unaware of it.
Q Margaret --
Q What about in the wake of --
A Wait a minute.
Q -- the reports out of Baghdad --
A Excuse me.
Q Surely you know about the reports out of Baghdad
--
A Yes, Owen, I do.
Q -- the claim about a civilian bomb shelter being
destroyed with hundreds of civilian casualties. Have you gotten
any reaction, response, from coalition members about that --
A This morning?
Q -- and what are you telling them?
[US Regrets Civilian Casualties]
A If we have, I'm unaware of it, and what we're
telling them, I would say that Marlin Fitzwater made a very
eloquent statement this morning on behalf of our Government.
I would tell you from the State Department, to parallel
what Marlin himself has already expressed, that we deeply regret
any civilian casualties that results from our actions. It is
not the policy of the United States Government to intentionally
target civilians. It is the policy of Saddam Hussein.
For our part, we've gone to extreme lengths, often at
risk to our own pilots, not to target civilians or areas where
they live. Indeed, any civilian casualties are a result of a
war that Saddam Hussein imposed. Had he complied with the will
of the international community, ended his aggression and
withdrawn from Kuwait, there would be no war.
Unfortunately and tragically, the Iraqi people are
paying the price for his aggression. The United States did not
invade, annex or destroy Kuwait. Saddam Hussein did. It is
Saddam, not the allied coalition, who continues to put his
narrow ambitions above the well-being of his people and the
welfare of his country.
It is Saddam Hussein, not the allied coalition, who
continues to purposely attack civilian targets in Israel and
Saudi Arabia. It is Saddam Hussein, not the allied coalition,
who abuses prisoners of war and destroys the ecology of the
Gulf. It is Saddam Hussein, not the allied coalition, who
continues to defy the will of the entire international
community. And it is Saddam Hussein who has the ability to stop
the violence by immediately withdrawing from Kuwait. But once
again his personal, ruthless ambition makes him indifferent to
the cost to his own people.
Q Can we have a copy of that, please?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us also whether the United States is
prepared, if necessary, to present to the U.N. Security Council
evidence of the U.S. contention that the site in Baghdad was a
military target -- a military site?
A I don't know, Ralph. The military briefers this
morning on the coalition have addressed themselves to that in
depth and at length. To be honest with you, I don't know if
it's come up that there's a need.
Q Can you take the question as to whether the U.S.
is prepared to do that, if necessary?
A Sure. But, as you know, the Pentagon -- Pete
[Williams] will have a briefing this afternoon at 3:00. I'm
sure he will do another hour's worth, as he does every day, of
questions on this and other things. And again I said, I've seen
this morning myself Brigadier General Neal with a briefing in
Riyadh, answering all of the press questions on this, and I saw
-- and I cannot remember the gentleman's name -- a British
official who was giving a briefing on this in Riyadh.
So I just don't know if the United Nations or if the
Secretary General is asking for additional information. I don't
know.
Q Is Secretary Kelly in New York for the U.N.
Security Council session?
A Yes. He is up there.
Q What is his role there today?
A He went up this morning -- or last night, and he
is having a meeting with the Secretary General of the United
Nations.
Q Can you tell us what the purpose of that is?
A The purpose of it, is my understanding, is just an
updated briefing on the situation in the Gulf.
Q Margaret, on this issue of the Security Council
meeting in either open or closed session and what the U.S.
position is on that, since the original position, as you said,
was that it would be better --
A Preferred position.
Q -- preferred position was that it would be better
to have a closed meeting to avoid sending mixed signals to
Saddam Hussein --
A Uh-huh.
Q -- why would it be fine to have an open meeting?
Are you no longer concerned that there would be mixed signals?
A We definitely would still be concerned, but, as I
have said, Ambassador Pickering is right now discussing this
with other members of the Security Council. I have said, I
think quite clearly, if the vast majority of members of the
Security Council want this to be in open session, that is fine
with us.
But, as we do in any number of instances, at the United
Nations, we make our preference known. If that is not the
majority view, then we are still not going to change what we
think, and we do still believe that there is that definite risk
or down side, but the meeting then will be open.
Q Margaret, a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee
wants April Glaspie and Assistant Secretary Kelly to come and
testify, and they're complaining that the State Department is
basically stiffing them on that. Do you know anything --
A I don't know, Alan. I know that many committees
of the House and Senate ask for State Department officials all
the time. I'll just have to check with Janet [Mullins]. I
don't know.
Q Margaret, following up on John's question about
intense lobbying for a preferred preference -- about a closed
meeting. A lot of third world diplomats have been privately
concerned that the U.S. has been strong-arming them about its
preferred preference and many ambassadors have been called up
and told about it. Is this correct?
A I would never characterize Ambassador Pickering as
strong-arming other members of the United Nations. I have said
there is no secret of what the United States preferred position
of this is and the reasons why. So if a third -- as you've
described them -- a third world country calls and asks the
United States Mission, "What is your view of this," of course,
we would tell them.
Q Do the phones ever go in the other direction?
Does the U.S. ever call a third world country and say, "Hi,
today is Wednesday, and if you'd like to know what our position
. . ." --
A If they're on the Security Council, Barry, I'm
sure he's talking to them all the time. I don't know which
countries he's referring to.
Q I'm sure he's talking to them all the time. You
keep slipping out of the subject. Look, let's leave out the
word "strong-armed." You don't like "strong-armed." Pickering
is too polite a diplomat to strong-arm anybody.
A He's a gentleman.
Q He is. He's tall, too. (Laughter) The question
is whether the United States has approached other countries and
asked them to support the United States, in its preferred
position, that the Security Council meeting be closed. Can you
answer the question?
A It's simple to answer. If that is our preferred
position, it is quite obvious that with members of the Security
Council -- I cannot address myself to nations that are not on
the Security Council. I don't know what they would have to do
with this. But the members of the Security Council, I am quite
confident, without even asking, that Ambassador Pickering, when
called, has said what our preference was and has probably called
others to say the United States' preference is as follows for
these following reasons. It's how it works on every issue up
there.
Q Margaret, I'm not referring only to a polite Mr.
Pickering. I'm referring to Mr. Bolton, for instance, summoning
ambassadors to the Department here and explaining the preferred
preference.
A What is so unusual about that? I don't know if
John (Bolton) has done it, but I don't find that unusual. He's
the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations. That's
just not something that's highly unusual to me.
Q Isn't that an implied message?
A Members of the Security Council?
Q Yes.
A It's the same thing I just said with Ambassador
Pickering. If we have a position, of course, we would make the
position known -- our preferred position.
Q The implied message here being "Don't get any
smart ideas to try and introduce something in the U.N.."
A I didn't say that. I said -- we didn't lead this
parade. OK? This was not our idea. We have said what our
views of this are once it was raised, what our preferred
position was and our reasons why.
Many have asked us -- whoever started this, and I
cannot remember -- which member it was. So it's a natural. I
don't understand what the big deal is.
Q Can I ask about another one of the United States
allies -- Syria? A delegate at a United Nations Human Rights
Commission in Geneva last week -- a Syrian delegate -- made a
speech in which he alleged that Jews had engaged in the ritual
murder of Christians, and he quoted from a book by a Syrian
Defense Minister, Mustafa Talas, saying that Jews used the blood
of Christians in the preparation of unleven bread for the
Passover feast. Did you know about? Do you have any reaction?
A No, I don't.
Q Do you want to --
A Let me look into it.
Q One more on Kelly, please, at the U.N.
A Kelly?
Q Yes. Did the Secretary General kind of request an
update on the situation in the Gulf, or did the United States --
A To be honest with you, Ralph, I don't know.
Q Does the United States feel that an update in the
Gulf was something that it ought to offer to the Secretary
General at this moment?
A This morning in the staff meeting I heard an
individual talking about -- because John's usually there at our
8:00 a.m. meeting. Where John was, to be quite honest with you,
I didn't find anything unusual about this. He's been up there
any number of times, so I didn't stop what I was doing and ask
the level of questions that you're asking me. He's done this
any number of times for the 25 months I've been here.
Q The reason for the question is because there are a
lot of questions being raised by a lot of people about the
bombing in the last 24 to 48 hours, and I wondered whether
perhaps the Secretary General might have asked the United
States, "Why don't you come in and sort of fill us in on what's
going on?"
A My understanding -- and I certainly will stand to
be corrected -- is that John Kelly went up last night. I
believe the bombing was this morning, so I can't draw the
comparison for you.
Q There have been quite a few accusations of
civilian deaths --
A I thought he meant the bunker bombing.
Q The last 24 to 48 hours, the criticism on civilian
bombing has been very intense. I think it would be useful to
know whether the United Nations requested an update from the
U.S. or whether the U.S. felt it was important to update the
Secretary General. I guess we can draw our own conclusions as
to why the U.S. might think it's important, but it would be
helpful if you let us know why it would be useful.
A I would be glad to, but I would also keep it in
the context of -- Mr. Bolton was in New York earlier this week.
He's up there all the time meeting with the Secretary General.
I don't find it highly unusual that an Assistant Secretary for
this region would be up on a general brief of the Secretary
General of the United Nations on our views of the situation in
the Gulf.
Q I thought you just said that we thought it was
unusual; we just wanted to know what it was about.
Q Interesting.
Q On another subject? Lithuania's vote on Sunday
which you, the State Department, described as valid. Can you
tell us if, in any other way, the United States has done
anything or made any presentations to the Lithuanian
independence people? In other words, has there been formal
congratulation? Have any steps been taken? It's not supposed
to be a binding vote. What else have you done about the vote
except to hear say it's a valid vote, and give us the count?
A I don't know a specific, Barry, that we've done
about the vote. As you know, we have consular officials from
our Leningrad Consulate Office that are in all three Baltics and
have been almost consistently. I don't know what they have said
to the Lithuanians.
I don't know a specific of anything, in addition, that
the United States has done. As you know, there's
a Congressional delegation that is in Vilnius today and they're
going on to the other Baltics. I don't know.
Q If I may, have you a comment about the statement
of the Soviets of keeping the forces in Poland until the mid of
'94?
A And your question is?
Q If the State Department has any comment about this
fact?
[Poland: Negotiations on Soviet Troop Withdrawal]
A Our statement is our restatement of our policy by
the President which is that we see no reason for the continued
presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe and hope that they
can be withdrawn as soon as possible.
The timetable for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from
Poland is a subject of on-going negotiations between the Polish
government and the Soviet government. Four rounds of talks have
been held, and it's my understanding that more are expected.
Czechoslovakia, which you did not ask about, or
Hungary, already have reached agreement with the Soviets on the
complete withdrawal of Soviet troops from their countries by
July 1, 1991. Our understanding is that these withdrawals are
proceeding on schedule.
Q But the Soviets are now saying that they're not
going to pull their troops out for several years.
A I understand that.
Q Is that all right with the United States?
A As of this morning, having just seen this report,
I don't have a further reaction, characterization, for you other
than to refer back to what the President has said which states
our overall policy, and to point out that it is our
understanding that these discussions are continuing and
on-going.
Q You make it sound like it's a kind of bilateral
negotiation; as if Poland agreed that these troops should be
there in the first place when we all know that these troops were
foisted on them when they were a satellite of the Soviet Union.
So what right does the Soviet Union have to advance any kind of
position in these negotiations? Surely, they should just accede
to the Polish government's request and get out.
A I don't know who else you would have discuss this
issue. And your characterization -- obviously, we know the
history of this -- is absolutely correct. But who else would
you have them talk with? These two people have to talk.
Q But surely all they should be talking about is the
arrangements for them leaving. Not a 3-year or 4-year
timetable. They're saying --
A Again, Alan, how can I interject myself into that?
When interjecting myself into it, what good is that going to
do? It's these two people who have to continue these
discussions. I've told you what our policy is, as enunciated by
the President.
As I've said, they've had four rounds. I have not been
told this morning or led to believe that they have broken off
these discussions and the discussions are not going to continue.
We've stated what our policy is, which I agree with you in your
characterization: It should be done as soon as possible.
Q Some people might regard the Soviet statement,
that they're not getting out for 3 or 4 more years, as
outrageous. One might expect the United States to express a
view that is somewhat more forceful than that the negotiations
are continuing and we really don't want to talk about it.
A My understanding, as of this briefing, is that we
do not have a full text of what has been said. As you know, and
I think it is appropriate, we are cautious when we do not know
for a fact exactly what has been said and what has transpired,
and I think that is a responsible position to be in.
Q The position seems to be that they don't want to
pull out until their troops are out of Germany. Do you think
that these two issues should be in any way connected?
A I think, Alan, that each of these nations is
discussing, as you know, with the Soviet Union the removal of
Soviet troops from their countries.
Q Margaret, staying with the Soviet Union, have you
got any comment on the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?
A Basically, no, Jan, we do not. That is something
for the nations who are members of that Pact to decide for
themselves.
Q So what happens in Vienna? Does it have any
bearing on the talks tomorrow?
A No, Barry.
Q The talks are between two alliances and one is
going out of business.
A That's not my understanding. My understanding is
that 22 nations are there as nations. They are not there as
Pact-to-Pact.
Q I didn't know that. They're there as nations so
that there will be no affect, you think, on the negotiations
come April?
A My understanding, Barry, is that NATO is not there
as NATO. They are there as individual nations. So I don't know
how else to answer you. Each one of these nations that are
represented in Vienna on CFE are there representing their
nation, not a Pact.
Q Margaret, are we considering any new or additional
assistance of any kind to any of the Baltic republics? There
have been reports that we are.
A Right. When the original announcement was made,
Lisa, concerning aid to the Baltics, in that same announcement
it was said we would envision making additional aid available.
That is correct.
I don't have for you a timetable or an amount. But in
the initial statement, it had said we would envision that this
would be on-going.
Q (Inaudible) has it already all been sent, as far
as you know, and distributed?
A I don't know. I'll have to ask.
Q Do you have any reaction to the recognition of
Lithuanian independence by the Republic of Iceland?
A Not really, no. Again, it's a sovereign nation.
We know that Iceland has done this; and, no, we don't have a
specific reaction for you.
Q Are they both sovereign nations?
A You know our views on this. Probably you do, too,
Barry. Our policy --
Q You changed it Sunday. The Secretary used the
word "independence."
A We've changed our policy on the Baltics?
Q Excuse me. The Secretary, Sunday, for the first
time, used the word "independence." You are supporting self --
whatever it is -- determination and we support (inaudible)
independence.
A We support the desires and aspirations of the
Lithuanian people and the peoples of the Baltics.
Q Right, and the Secretary also supported
independence on Sunday. So I'm happy -- we're all happy -- to
take down what the U.S. view is of the status of Lithuania. Is
it an independent, sovereign nation?
A You know very well that it is not, Barry. You
know very well that our policy on the Baltics has not changed
and that we support the desires and aspirations of the peoples
of the Baltics -- the Lithuanians, the Latvians, and the
Estonians.
Q Margaret, a new subject?
A Excuse me. In case you've forgotten, so that we
get it right, you know that for over 40 years now we have never
recognized the forcible incorporation of the Baltics.
Q I've heard that before.
A You said you didn't remember the policy.
Q No, no. I didn't say I didn't remember the
policy. I said the way you enunciate the policy has been
maturing. Sunday, you began to speak of independence. I know
no policy ever changes here. (Laughter) But Sunday, Mr. Baker
threw in the word "independence," and I think -- some of us
think -- that that's a significant nuance.
A I'll ask him if he's changed the policy.
Q If we ever get to see him, we'd ask him, too, by
the way. Is there any change he might have a news conference or
should we keep watching television?
A There's not one scheduled, and I'm only aware that
he's been on TV, I think, twice in the last three weeks.
Q Twice this week alone. He was on Sunday and he
was on Connie Chung's feature program.
A He's on a roll.
Q Aid to Kenya: There's been quite an opposition to
the fact that the U.S. has released $5 million in aid to Kenya,
because of Kenya's human rights abuses. Could you explain why
the decision was made to release that aid?
A No, because I'm not even aware of the decision.
So I'll be happy to take your question.
Q How about reviewing Jordanian aid?
A I hadn't asked in a number of days. My
understanding is it's still under review.
Q Margaret, the Indian government has been under
mounting --
Q Excuse me. On Jordanian aid, and aid in general,
it has now been ten days since the budget went up and your AID
people still have not put out an itemized list of -- a
country-by-county list of aid programs. It strikes me as
unusually long --
A Tardy? I'll find out, Jim. My understanding of
the way the process works is that normally we notify the Hill, I
believe, before we publicly release this. I will ask Janet
(Mullins) where we are on our notifications to the Hill.
Q And what the hang-up is in the country-by-country
listings?
A Sure. I'll find out.
Q Margaret, the Indian government has been under
tremendous pressure to revoke the refueling rights being
afforded to U.S. military transport aircraft. And, in the
meantime, Sri Lanka, after some initial reticence, has agreed to
afford the U.S. these rights. Is it an option that made the
U.S. go to Sri Lanka?
A You'd have to ask the Pentagon. I don't do
refueling; and if it's operational, you'll have to ask them.
Q But this is not an operational question, Margaret.
It's just about the --
A Number 1, I'm not aware that Sri Lanka is now a
place where we are refueling. I answered the question last
week. I believe the gentlemen, two weeks ago, asked me if it
wasn't -- New Delhi, didn't he say? -- and I said the next day
it was Bombay. That's the extent I've gotten into refueling. I
view that as operational and a Pentagon question.
Q Margaret, can you tell us what the Turkish
Ambassador was doing here? Did the Secretary of State meet with
him today, or did he --
A Not to my knowledge. I didn't know he was here.
I'll find out.
Q Has any progress been made on the -- or have you
heard from the Iraqis on the question of how they intend to
implement their decision to cut relations with the U.S.?
A No. We checked on that this morning and we have
not.
Q Do you have anything on the visit here by the
Kuwaiti Ambassador this morning?
A No.
Q Margaret, a question --
A That's not unusual, George. He's in here all the
time. I'll find out, if I can for you, who he saw.
Q He saw Eagleburger. That was on the schedule.
A He did?
Q Was that to discuss future aid or whatever?
A I didn't even know he was here, so I'll find out.
Q Sorry, Margaret. A question on El Salvador: The
head of the Catholic Human Rights Commission there now contends
that she did not qualify those killings of the Americans as a
mercy killing, as she was quoted as having said. I'm wondering
if -- she also wants you to retract the statement you issued the
other day. Any comment, or are you aware of this problem?
A I haven't talked about El Salvador in months. The
only thing I've been asked was, the other day, a reaction to, I
believe, a bombing of a newspaper, and I said we condemned it.
So, Number 1, I haven't seen the statement that you're referring
to.
Q No. You issued a statement saying, or criticizing
this woman for calling these killings "mercy killings." It was
put out in your name.
A Unfortunately, I haven't done my homework as
thoroughly as I should have, and I will check that statement and
see.
Q Can you take my question, please?
A I'll look at it, sure.
Q Do you have an answer today about the meaning of
the transportation?
A No, and to be quite honest with you, it's a level
of detail that I'm just not going to get into. I'm going to
refrain from getting into that. As you know, we are very
appreciative of Japan's generous offer of $9 billion to Desert
Storm. We have told you, I think, four days running now that we
have absolutely no problems with their wanting this to go to
logistical support. We have said that includes such things as
medicine, as food, as transportation. And beyond that, no,
we're just not going to get into that level of detail.
Q That answer won't get your picture in the paper
again.
A That's fine with me. Answering it in a different
way could assure I did.
Q Margaret, it now appears that that $9 billion,
none of it will come to the United States during the first three
months of this year; that it will have to be until April. Is
that satisfactory?
A You know something that I don't know. I'll be
happy to check with Jean McAllister and take your question.
I've never heard that.
Q Margaret, just one more. Have you anything on a
report that a high-ranking Soviet delegation went to Pakistan
and made the offer to dump Najibullah in exchange for his party
being allowed to participate in the elections?
A I haven't heard a thing about that.
Q Can you look into that, Margaret?
A I'll look at it.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:55 p.m.)