US Department of State Daily Briefing #28:
Tuesday, 2/19/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:17, Washington, DC
Date: Feb 19, 19912/19/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, East Asia, Eurasia,
Central America, South Asia
Country: India, USSR (former), Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Georgia, Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Tunisia,
Philippines, Nicaragua
Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Military Affairs,
Terrorism, Trade/Economics, NATO,
Regional/Civil Unrest, Security Assistance and Sales
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: The President has answered this morning
the questions that I know are foremost on your minds. I, as I
know you can understand, will have absolutely, positively
nothing further to say on how the President addressed himself to
this this morning.
As many of you know, because you called me at home
yesterday, the Secretary of State spoke with the Foreign
Minister at his residence yesterday. He then received later in
the afternoon a fuller brief of the Tariq Aziz meeting in
Moscow. He then met with the President and his senior advisors
at the White House and spent many hours there yesterday. He
came back to the Department last night around 7:30, and I think
left here some time after 10:00.
This morning, he has been spending a great deal of his
time back at the White House. As you know, we have, as the
President said, communicated our views to the Soviets.
Q How have these views been communicated?
A Last night, they were communicated to the Charge
here, which is the normal system, Jim, and then he goes on and
sends it to his government.
Q Margaret, why did the United States feel that it
had to reply to this offer which was not made to the United
States?
A I guess I could ask the other question: Why did
the Soviet Union feel a need to send to the President a very
detailed brief of their meeting with Tariq Aziz?
Q He asked you first. (Laughter)
A He asked me first; that's correct. But for the
same reasons that they felt a need, which I don't know what
their thinking was, to send us a full readout and brief of their
meeting with Tariq Aziz.
Q I guess they feel --
Q The proposal was not made to the United States.
It was made to the Iraqis. Was the U.S. trying to pre-empt the
Iraqi reply?
A Not that I'm aware of, John. But the United
States, as you know, has stayed in full and close contact with
the Soviet Union over the last six months concerning this crisis
and they continued doing so last night.
Q Are the Soviets trying to stall the beginning of
the ground offensive?
A Not that I'm aware of. But, again, that question
might be best asked to the Soviets.
Q Is there any daylight between the United States
and the Soviet Union on this issue of whether to put forward
this proposal and whether to accept any sort of conditions, even
down the road?
A I can't answer those questions, Jim. I have to
refer you to what the President said this morning.
Q Does it not seem somewhat incongruous that the
United States is perfectly willing to be critical of the Soviet
proposal in public but is not willing to say what it's being
critical about?
A Well, the Soviet Union, at least since I came out
to the briefing this morning, I don't believe has given out the
full context, much less even a quarter of the context of their
message to President Bush, or have they given out, that I've
seen yet this morning, any of the details of the conversations
that they had with Tariq Aziz.
I saw the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations
refraining from giving out any details this morning. So I'm
just not aware, John, to be honest with you, of anyone who is
discussing this at that level of detail, including the Soviet
Union.
Q So, if I understand this correctly, the
governments are passing back and forth all the details and our
government and now the British Government has basically rejected
whatever it is that has been offered to the Iraqis? We've
rejected it but the peoples of all these different countries
have no idea what anybody is talking about. Is that sort of the
way it works?
A That's kind of the way it is.
Q Margaret, just to follow that up a bit.
A Yes, Ralph.
Q When you say "That's the way it is," are you
agreeing with the characterization that President Bush rejected
the Soviet proposal?
A No. Those were John's words. The words that I
have, that the President used this morning, are: "It falls well
short of what would be required."
Q And can I ask you on that subject what would be
required in order to satisfy U.S. requirements or U.N.
requirements, or someone else's requirement?
A That, unfortunately, is a question that I simply
cannot address myself to. That gets right into the details of
this, and I have absolutely no authority at all to discuss any
portion of this.
Q Does the U.S. have any requirements that are other
than the U.N. requirements?
A I'm sorry, Ralph. What?
Q Does the U.S. have any requirements that are other
than the U.N. requirements?
A Without addressing ourselves to the Soviet
proposal, has the United States' policy changed concerning our
objectives?
Q That's not my question. My question is whether
the United States has any requirements that are different from
the requirements established by the United Nations resolutions?
A No.
Q So if the President didn't actually reject this,
then is this his opening position?
A I only can work with today -- and I know that you
can appreciate it -- what the President said that it falls well
short. He also said that "There are no negotiations. The goals
have been set out. There will be no concessions."
Q Margaret, two things. First, is this proposal by
the Soviets have that awful thing called "linkage" wrong with
it?
A I have absolutely no characterization of what the
Soviet proposal has in it or what the United States has sent
back in response to the message they received from the Soviets.
Q With dozens of proposals -- can I continue? There
have been dozens of proposals before and after the war. And
without seeing them at all, the United States -- most of them --
the United States, with alacrity, junked and said, "If there's
linkage in it, we wont' go for it." Does that apply to this
proposal, too?
A I have no characterizations of this proposal,
Barry. Overall, generally, generically speaking, our policy
concerning linkage has not changed. But I'm stating that
without connecting it to whatever the Soviets have sent to the
United States.
Q Can you comfortably -- the other thing is, would
you be prepared now, with comfort, to just reiterate what you
have been able to say or felt you were able to say all along?
Would you make your little speech and say that the Soviets are
with the United States every step of the way; there's no
disagreement between the two powers; they're working on this in
concert; their aims and objectives are the same; there's nothing
the Soviets are doing that we disapprove of, and vice versa?
Could you make that speech today?
A I will refer you to the President of the Soviet
Union's spokesperson this morning who has addressed himself to
this question. He was quite clear in stating the Soviet Union's
position concerning this crisis. If you don't have a transcript
of that, I'll be happy to supply one for you.
Q I would like your statement and not his. I would
like to know if the U.S. Government feels that the Soviets and
the United States are moving along parallel tracks here and
working in concert to bring about the U.N. resolutions?
A The United States, certainly, Barry, sees no
change as enunciated this morning by the President's spokesman
on the Soviet Union's views on an unconditional withdrawal. I
believe he said, "Adherence to U.N. resolutions." But, again, I
think it's best if their spokesman speaks for their President.
He's just done so this morning, and I'll refer you to that
record.
Q Did the United States, when it responded to the
Soviet message, explain what the U.S. view was about how the
Soviet proposal could, in fact, meet the requirements that
President Bush was referring to? Did it offer suggestions as to
what else would be needed in order to meet the requirements and
not fall far short?
A I would love to be of help to you but that is
going beyond what my directions are. I have absolutely a
promise -- nothing that I am at liberty to say concerning the
full brief that Secretary Baker received from the Soviet Union
or the response that was sent back from our government. I just
can't do it. I'm sorry.
Q How detailed was the U.S. response? Was it a very
brief response, similar to what the President said? Or did he
outline any of the aspects of this proposal which the U.S. finds
falls short?
A Do you mean, was it as brief as the President's
statement this morning at the Congressional meeting?
Q Was it a detailed response or was it a brief
response?
A It was a very thorough response.
Q And do you know anything about the travel plans
for Tariq Aziz?
A No. But I just heard before I came out here -- I
believe on CNN -- maybe Ralph knows -- it was reporting that
there was some type of answer that they were expecting out of
Baghdad in an hour or so. I don't know.
Q The U.S. Government doesn't know anything all by
itself?
A "All by ourselves" -- no, we do not.
Q Our policy hasn't changed, has it, either on what
would constitute an Iraqi withdrawal and a cessation of
hostilities on our part?
A Not at all.
Q That has not changed?
A Not at all.
Q Margaret, can you tell us who the Secretary of
State has spoken to today in terms of his counterparts? The
White House said that the President had spoken to world leaders.
Has the Secretary of State had phone conversations about the
plan?
A No. He spent almost the entire morning at the
White House. He just returned around 11:30. I'm not aware if
he's talked to anyone since 11:30. But prior to that, he had
not, Mary.
Q Margaret, does the United States still feel that
the Iraqis must pay reparations for what they've done to Kuwait
and other countries?
A Yes.
Q Margaret, does the United States -- the State
Department -- feel that Iraq's initiative is some attempt to
forestall the ground offensive? Is it some sort of a trick or
is it a sincere --
A Iraq's initiative?
Q I'm sorry, the Soviet initiative, which is -- is
there some play here to try to keep the war from reaching the
ground stage? Is that the U.S. impression of what's going on?
A Bill asked me that question a few minutes ago and
I said that I didn't think that I was in a position to judge if
that was a case or not a case. I did not have a comment for
that on the question that he had asked me.
Q Margaret, one more try. Can you say whether the
Soviet proposal comports to the standards of the
Baker-Bessmertnykh communique?
A No.
Q Are the Soviets living up to the criteria laid
down in that communique, in the opinion of the State Department?
A I understand it's frustrating for you. It's much
more frustrating for me. I really, honestly cannot get into any
characterizations at all on the Soviet briefing to us and our
response back. I just cannot.
Q As far as the United States is concerned, the
Baker-Bessmertnykh --
A To be honest with you, Johanna, that is having me
go one step further than the President has gone this morning,
and that is our response today. I believe you'll find that Mr.
Fitzwater is in the exact same position that I am in. I don't
think that you're going to find, to my knowledge, anyone in the
Administration, that I'm aware of, going further than the
President's own characterization this morning.
Q But the follow-up question is whether -- excuse me
-- the follow-up is whether the United States still considers
that the standard?
A The United States' policy concerning the Gulf
crisis has not changed one iota. There's no difference in that
in any area.
Q Has the Soviet policy changed?
A I've just answered that. That was Barry's
question, and I'll refer you to the President of the Soviet
Union's Spokesman this morning who said very clearly that they
fully support the U.N. resolutions; that there must be an
unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait -- is the gist of
it, George.
Q Do we consider the joint communique still in
force?
A Yes.
Q Margaret, sticking with the language that the
President used, did the Soviets give any indication of why they,
as a co-author of these U.N. resolutions, would propose a
settlement that falls well short of the U.N. resolutions that
they're co-author of?
A I don't believe that the Soviet Union has come out
-- correct me if I'm wrong -- and said that what they have
proposed falls short of the U.N. resolutions.
Q The President said it did. So what I'm trying to
find out is, did the Soviets intentionally put in something that
falls short, or is there a disagreement between Washington and
Moscow about what's required?
A The President characterized this morning, without
calling it a disagreement, what his reaction is to what he
received last night. I cannot take this further for you. If I
could, I'd be happy to.
Q Margaret, can you tell us, since the Secretary was
with the President when the President was talking to people in
the coalition -- we know that the Brits agree with the U.S.
assessment, apparently, of this plan. Have any other coalition
members also said that they believe this falls short or that
they have problems with this plan?
A I'm not aware, Mary, this morning of any coalition
partners who have cabled in or sent through our Ambassadors,
etc., feelings that it either falls short or doesn't. I haven't
seen, to be honest with you, every coalition member's public or
private reaction this morning.
I can say that I heard a little bit of Marlin's
briefing before I came out here. He was asked the question, "If
the President" -- it had been reported -- "had spoken to Prime
Minister Major?" He said that he had not. So I'm not sure who
all they talked to this morning. I don't know.
Q Margaret, what does the United States think the
Soviets are up to here? Is this an honest attempt to bring
about a peace agreement in the area, or do you believe the
Soviets are perhaps meddling, trying to carve out a position for
themselves in some future Middle East power dynamic? Or is
there some other formulation that I hadn't thought of?
A Again, John, I think that it is probably more
appropriate to ask the Soviets that line of questioning than to
ask me. I have stated what they have said, through their
spokesman this morning, is their policy concerning the situation
in the Gulf. They have been quite open on numerous times --
many times -- On the Record saying that they would like to find
a peaceful solution to this.
So I can't tell you, of the two you gave me, and you
said you didn't if there were any more, what is the Soviet
thinking.
Q So you take them at their word, then, that this is
an honest attempt to find peace in the Middle East?
A Yes. Why wouldn't I?
Q What about the U.S. thinking on this? That's sort
of what he was getting at. It's not what we think about the
Soviets; what does the U.S. think about them?
A Think about what? What the Soviet proposal is?
Q That's it.
A The President answered that this morning. It
falls well short of what would be required.
Q But what does he think they're trying to do? What
is the opinion of the United States government -- of the State
Department, of the Secretary of State, or of your own good self
-- as to what it is the Soviets are trying to accomplish?
A We've done this. I have said that the Soviets
have said that their policy concerning this crisis is a complete
withdrawal from Kuwait. That's been consistent for six months.
Q That wasn't the question.
A They have also been consistent -- and, again, we
stated it this morning -- on complying that Iraq must comply
with 12 United Nations resolutions. That is exactly what the
United States and the coalition is saying and the U.N. is
saying.
Q Is the Soviet proposal consistent with that?
A I'm not going to comment on the Soviet proposal.
Q Do we still welcome such efforts on the part of
the Soviets --
Q (Inaudible)
A I'm sorry, Saul, what?
Q Do we still welcome -- we used to welcome such
efforts on the part of people who try to bring peace. Do we
still welcome such efforts on the part of the Soviets?
A We welcome the efforts of anyone who can get
Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait and to abide by 12 United
Nations resolutions.
Q That, of course, is still the only American
objective.
A Correct.
Q Margaret, the President has said in the past that
Saddam Hussein would be brought to justice. Is that still
American policy?
A My understanding of this, Mark, to be honest with
you -- are you talking about war crimes and the war tribunal?
Q I'm talking about his statement that Saddam Hussein
would be brought to justice.
A I don't remember this particular statement. I'm
usually pretty good on remembering what he said. I don't
remember that particular statement. Let me look it up in the
context of how it was said and when it was said, and I'll give
you a response.
Q Margaret, if there were an unconditional
withdrawal from Kuwait, the Soviets seem to be saying that
sanctions against Iraq would no longer be necessary. What is
the U.S. view on that?
A Our view is that the United Nations resolutions
should be adhered to, and one of them, as you know, has to do
with that.
Q Well, the sanctions, obviously, were put in place
at a time when certain things existed. If those things no
longer existed, if Iraq was no longer in Kuwait, you still think
the sanctions just go indefinitely into the future?
A Secretary Baker has addressed himself to this as
recently as Sunday in an interview with Ralph [Begleiter, CNN],
and he said that those are the types of things that he will be,
and the coalition, etc., will be addressing itself to. If your
question is, "Should Saddam Hussein still be in Baghdad," he
addressed himself to that and said that you would probably, as
he has said publicly, have to look at some type of arms embargo.
Q Margaret, can you tell us, please, given what the
President said this morning, if Saddam Hussein accepts this
proposal in toto, that means it's not good enough?
A It's a hypothetical for me.
Q Margaret, just before we came out here, the
Iranian Foreign Minister, Velayati, said it was his
understanding from the Iraqis that they had every intention of
withdrawing from Kuwait, and that the attachments to the offer
on Friday which the United States rejected as conditions and
linkage, were in fact simply issues to be discussed.
Has the U.S. thinking on this changed at all? You
still believe those are conditions and linkage.
A As to my recollection of Radio Baghdad's report on
Friday, I believe they used the word in paragraph 3, "linked
to." So that couldn't have been, I think, any clearer in
English to us of here are the following, I think it was nine or
ten, conditions that they say are "linked to," which was
paragraph 1 and 2, which "we will withdraw from Kuwait."
Q Margaret, can I try a couple of subsidiary things?
I think I heard after your last briefing some time during the
weekend that India no longer would permit refueling. I wondered
if that irked the State Department? And should I save the
second until you answer the first, if you have an answer?
A Did it hurt the State Department?
Q Irked is the --
A Oh, irked. I'm sorry.
Q Yes.
A Yes. You are correct. The United States
Government decided to make other arrangements for refueling. We
appreciate the Indian government's cooperation and assistance in
providing Indian facilities to us. The United States Government
made this decision in consultation with the Indian government.
We have stayed in close contact with the Government of
India since the beginning of this crisis, and we appreciated
their support, and we will continue to stay in close contact.
Q Did you make these other arrangements after the
Indian government told you they didn't like the current
arrangement?
A I characterized it for you by saying that the
United States Government made this decision after consultation
with the Indian government.
Q Is that a diplomatic way of saying the Indian
government chose not to cooperate any more, and you had to find
another arrangement?
A It's the diplomatic way that I'm going to continue
to answer the question.
Q All right. And diplomatically last week you said
that --
Q Still on that one. Is Sri Lanka where the planes
will now be refueled?
A You'd have to ask the Pentagon. I honestly don't
know. Or I'll ask here if they know.
Q On the other thing, the Israeli situation: I
think last week you spoke of -- well, of course, Israel is now
considered a front-line state by the Secretary of State, and I
think you said last week you're asking the --
A No. I believe he said it was a front-line state.
Q Yes. I say. Indeed. It now has the official
designation of "front-line state." And as a result, I think you
said last -- I know you said last week that the Europeans and
others were being asked if they could help Israel out. From
Israel the word is they haven't received a penny from anybody,
including the United States, and, of course, there's been some
irritation on both ends.
Where do things stand now? Can you give us a box score
on whether you were able to raise any contributions for Israel,
and whether the United States has any contributions for Israel?
A Number one, Barry, I'm not aware of a specific
Israeli request from the United States. I am aware of two
Patriot deliveries the United States has given to Israel along
with American crews.
I am not aware -- you say not one penny has been
received. Maybe you could check with the German Embassy since
they made a public pledge of what they were going to do. As I
mentioned to you, the Secretary of State raised this issue with
the current head of the EC, the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg,
when he was here, and to be quite honest, I haven't asked or
checked. I'll be happy to for you.
Q I'm just curious. Remember all the accounts we
were given of aid to Jordan and aid to Turkey and aid to Egypt?
Did they make specific requests for this aid, or was it a matter
of the United States recognizing they were being hurt by the
war, and the United States dug down and forgave
$7 billion in Egyptian debts, etc.?
Were they specific requests, or was it the United
States appraising a situation and doing something?
A On the Egyptian debt question, I know that there
definitely were consultations with the Egyptian government.
Concerning other governments, as you know, the United States has
under review right now all of its aid to Jordan. And I am not
aware of any aid that the United States has increased or been
giving to other front-line countries, but I will certainly go
back and check with the Economic Bureau and make sure that I am
correct.
Q Last point --
A I believe what we were doing, Barry, was
soliciting from other Arab coalition partners on behalf of other
states of them to give to their Arab neighbors.
Q Right. I wonder if you were -- when the Secretary
brought the Ambassador in last week to complain about --
A Which Ambassador?
Q The Israeli Ambassador. -- to complain about what
he had said in an interview, was there any discussion of aid
which would take the form of the kind of consultation you're
talking about?
A In that particular meeting?
Q Or in any other meeting?
A No.
Q Margaret, has aid to Tunisia been cut because of
Tunisia's position on the -- on support for Iraq?
A I have no idea, Jan. I'll be happy to check.
Q Would you ask, please?
Q Is the country-by-country aid list ready yet?
A I haven't checked today. I don't know. We
checked last week, and -- oh, I know what it was. We checked
last week, and Congress is in recess. It goes to the Hill first
before you give it to the public, and Congress doesn't get back
until when? I can't remember.
MS. HOGGARD: Today.
MS. TUTWILER: Today. So I'll check with Janet
[Mullins]. That was the reason last week.
Q Margaret, following up on the Israeli Ambassador
and the situation involving him, does the United States feel
that Israel should withdraw Ambassador Shoval? That he has
damaged his credibility to such an extent that the United States
Government can no longer work with him?
A If the United States Government, John, had held
that position, I believe the United States Government would have
enunciated that position. We did not.
Q So there is no problem in the future then working
with Ambassador
Shoval?
A Not that I know of.
Q Margaret, can I come back for a second to your
discussion of Mr. Ignatenko's comments earlier today. By citing
those publicly and even offering to provide a transcript, you
seem to be endorsing them. I don't know whether you are or not,
but you leave the impression anyway that you are endorsing those
comments as the United States Government's understanding of the
Soviet position on those issues.
By refusing to comment on the Soviet private proposal
-- or the secret proposal, let's put it that way -- you leave
the impression that there's a difference between what the
Soviets are saying publicly, which you are glad to endorse, and
what the Soviets are saying privately, which you decline to
comment on.
Is there a difference between the public and private
statements without commenting on what the substance of those
proposals might be?
A No. The clear impression, Ralph, that I,
obviously, am trying to leave with you -- that I don't think
there's much misunderstanding over -- is that I take my lead and
my instructions from the White House and from the Secretary of
State. And the President has addressed on behalf of all of us,
our nation today, the United States official response to what
they received from the Soviet Union.
I would again point out that the Soviet Union itself --
unless it has done so since I began the briefing -- has not
itself put out its own details of its own proposal.
Q Right. But that wasn't my question. I was not
asking what the details of the Soviet proposal was; I was asking
you whether the United States perceived a difference between
what the Soviets are telling the U.S. in its secret proposal and
what the Soviets are saying publicly -- comments which you have
quoted from and --
A And that gets me into commenting beyond where I am
able to go on the contents of a Soviet proposal, which I simply,
unfortunately, am unable to do for you at this briefing.
Q Also, can I ask whether the U.S. has had any
contact, directly or indirectly, with the Government of Iraq in
recent days?
A I didn't ask this morning. I assume the answer is
no. I'll be happy to check it out for you.
Q Do you know what the status of the Embassy
personnel is at this point?
A No. On Friday when we left -- I recognize it's
been a three-day weekend -- we still had not had any word back
from the four Iraqi officials that are here on how they want to
handle their breaking of relations with the United States.
Q A senior cleric in Lebanon, Shi'ite cleric,
commented that the U.S. hostages could well be released as a
result of diplomatic activity surrounding the Gulf war. Have
you any comment on that? Have you heard anything about that?
A I haven't heard anything about it, Bill. I
haven't seen that particular statement or comment. And, as you
know, whether there is a Gulf crisis or not, our government
feels very, very strongly that all of those held against their
will, all Americans, should be released, unconditionally and
safely.
Q Has there been communication with the Government
of Iran in the last 24 hours on the issue that's before us now?
A I didn't ask. I'll be happy to ask for you.
[Phillipines: Status of Bases ]
Q Margaret, can you tell us where the negotiations
on the Philippine bases stand as of today?
A Yes. They basically concluded, Jim. It was the
fifth round. They concluded on February 16. The two panels
resolved many differences on technical issues, including most
status-of-forces agreement issues.
Our technical committees remain in Manila to work out
final details in these areas. Discussions were also held on
compensation and duration, but final agreement has not been
reached on those two issues.
The Foreign Minister of the Philippines may visit
Washington before the end of the month. Discussions on
compensation and duration will continue then. We believe that
final agreement can be reached soon.
Q What you're saying, I gather, is that on the issue
of compensation you are within negotiating range. In other
words, you're not at two ends of the scale. You're getting
closer.
A I don't know, Jim, to be honest with you. Mr.
Armitage did a full briefing when he concluded this meeting
before he left Manila. He's back here. I'll be happy to ask
that level of detail for you on the negotiations. I do know
these are two issues that are not resolved. I also know that a
great deal was resolved.
Q Margaret, as we stand -- as the situation stands
today, it looks as if the United States will continue to have
the use of those bases in the Philippines.
A If you resolve the outstanding issues. Yes.
Q Has there been formal or informal agreement to
extend the 90-day deadline which expired on the 17th for
clearing up the CFE loose ends?
A You didn't have to have formal or informal. As I
had mentioned before, that was a deadline that -- I believe it
was February, what was it? 18th?
Q 17th.
A 17th. A deadline that they set, but that the
deadline -- the work continues beyond the deadline, and they do
not set a new deadline is how it has been explained to me.
Q With automatic extensions?
A Correct. It just goes on without another date
certain.
Q Margaret, has there been any movement on any of
those substantive issues on CFE or START?
A No.
[USSR: Situation in Georgia]
Q Margaret, do you have any comment on the situation
in Soviet Georgia, and do you have any comment/update on the
situation in the Baltics?
A I don't have a situation in the Baltics for you.
It has remained basically calm and tense over the last eight or
ten days, and I don't have a specific other than that
characterization.
Concerning Georgia, Soviet army units stormed the camp
of an unofficial pro-independence nationalist militia group
known as the "Horsemen" yesterday outside the Georgian capital
of Tbilisi.
According to press reports, the attack came after
members of the militia fired on Soviet army tanks and other
vehicles near the camp. The troops arrested approximately 30
militia members and seized 30 guns, a ton of explosives and
other military equipment. Two Soviet soldiers were wounded in
this incident.
The leader of the "Horsemen" said the Georgia Republic
government was responsible for the attack. Authorities in
Tbilisi have not yet commented on the action.
Georgian Republic authorities have tried to disband and
disarm the unauthorized militia group on several occasions in
the past. The United States believes that the future of Georgia
and the other republics of the Soviet Union should be determined
peacefully and democratically by the parties involved.
Q Just a quick follow-up on the CFE question: When
you say there's been no movement, have the Soviets come forward
with any additional information on -- or revised positions or
anything like that, and they don't satisfy the U.S., or have
they not even come forward with anything new?
A Last Thursday in Vienna, the Soviet Union
submitted new data on its equipment holdings, as they had
indicated they would do prior to February 17, and we and the
allies are studying this data. I do not have any other comments
on it.
Q Do you have anything on a call by Yeltsin to
Gorbachev to resign unconditionally?
A I haven't seen that. When was that? Today?
Q Just this morning.
A Sorry. I hadn't seen it.
Q Margaret, there's also been a new proposal in the
Soviet Union for an increase in basic prices, and I was
wondering how the U.S. assessed this in terms of efforts toward
economic reform?
A I'm not sure, Carol, if we have even a thorough
readout of what exactly the new proposal is. I'll be happy to
ask Bob Zoellick, if he will, if he'll take a look at it when we
get it here and get you an answer.
Q Margaret, re the question that you're taking on
Tunisia, could I ask when it comes down, that perhaps we could
have some information as to funding levels for Tunisia over the
past couple of years rather than the response to the question
last week which was a one-word "yes."
A I'll ask.
Q Margaret, does the Department have any comment on
the killing of Enrique Bermudez in Nicaragua over the weekend?
A We strongly condemn the brutal assassination.
Like many other Nicaraguans, he had returned home peacefully
from exile after a long civil war. This assassination is a
crime against the national reconciliation which President
Chamorro has called for and which is indispensable to the
peaceful reconstruction of Nicaragua.
We hope this death will make Nicaraguans more
determined to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. The
Government of Nicaragua is investigating this crime, and we call
on anyone who may have information to turn it over to the
Nicaraguan authorities.
Q Thank you.
A Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:49 p.m.)