US Department of State Daily Briefing #31:
Monday, 2/25/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:32 pm, Washington, DC
Date: Feb 25, 19912/25/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe
Country: USSR (former), Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Albania,
Iran
Subject: POW/MIA Issues, Military Affairs,
Democratization, Security Assistance and Sales
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I guess it's you, George.
Q Pass.
MS. TUTWILER: Anybody?
Q Perhaps you can tell us --
MS. TUTWILER: We can go home.
Q -- what the Secretary has been up to. As a
beginning point, has he been making phone calls to various
Foreign Ministers around the world? And if he hasn't, why not?
MS. TUTWILER: He has not. He has received one call
today from the Foreign Minister of France, Roland Dumas.
Obviously, it was to share their view on the situation in the
Gulf and to talk about the future.
The Foreign Minister will be coming here to D.C. and
meeting with the Secretary some time later this week. As a
result of this conversation, it's one of the things they
discussed. I don't have for you yet a date or time. As far as
what he's doing today: He's attending the President's Cabinet
lunch, and then I believe Marlin will be announcing -- he's
briefing right now -- that the President is having a briefing on
the Gulf. I believe it's at 1:15, and the Secretary will be
attending that.
He has not, as I've been asked many times today, talked
again to the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. He talked to
no Foreign Ministers or Ambassadors yesterday.
Q Do you have anything by way of reaction to
official Soviet media criticism in Tass and on Vremya of the
U.S. failure to grasp the Soviet peace initiative?
MS. TUTWILER: No. What I've seen, to be honest with
you, was Vitaly Churkin -- I think it was yesterday --
expressing regret. I didn't see him, in my interpretation of
what he said, criticizing the United States.
As you know, the Secretary and the President have both
said that they feel the Soviet role has been very useful and
they appreciate the efforts that the Soviet Union made.
Q The critical comments were in print and on
television, not attributed to official figures. But I wondered
if you would have some opinion as to their sudden appearance in
what are, in those two instances, still state-controlled media?
MS. TUTWILER: Not really. I would be guided by the
conversations that the President had with the President of the
Soviet Union and the Secretary of State had with the Foreign
Minister. They have certainly not expressed -- I haven't read
the sentiments you're expressing. The views of our President
have been articulated very publicly by him.
Q Margaret, I think the Secretary said yesterday on
television that the United States would welcome a continued
Soviet role in dealing with the Middle East. Can you give us
any indication of what kind of -- how that's envisioned; what
they would be doing and how they would be involved in the
conferences?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I don't have a lot of specifics,
Susan, when you say the "various conferences." I'm not even
aware that there's a conference that's set yet. I'm not aware
if it's one that the United States will even be going to.
I think it was just a general, broad statement. I
think he said before that they have played a useful role and
that he would hope that they would continue to play a useful
role in the region. I think that, as he has also said, he was
predominantly addressing himself to post-crisis issues that must
be addressed. He said at the same time that, obviously, the
countries of the region will be the lead, which is very similar,
almost exactly what he said in his own testimony.
Go Mark.
Q Following on that, the U.S.-Soviet communique says
that "In the aftermath of the crisis, mutual U.S.-Soviet efforts
to promote Arab-Israeli peace and regional stability." Is that
still American policy?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, Mark. Just as I know you know,
because I think you were there both days, the Secretary
testified and elaborated further, especially concerning the
United States, his views concerning addressing many issue, one
of which is the one that was articulated there after this. None
of that has changed.
Q Margaret, another aspect of the Baker-Bessmertnykh
communique -- I'm curious whether it is
still U.S. policy -- and that has to do with the cessation of
hostilities. Now that we are in a ground phase, is it still
U.S. policy that Saddam Hussein could stop the hostilities by
raising his hand and saying, "I make an unequivocal commitment
to withdraw," followed by immediate concrete steps? Or is there
a new standard as enunciated by the President Friday?
MS. TUTWILER: Obviously, Johanna, the terms under
which this would be acceptable were laid out by the White House,
by the President, and his Spokesman, Mr. Fitzwater, on Friday
afternoon. They were very detailed and very explicit.
Q Yeah, but we're past that now. How does the war
end? Does Saddam Hussein still need to make an authoritative
comment to the United Nations, or is it over when their troops
are pushed back across their border, considering there are now
apparently thousands of coalition troops inside Iraq cutting off
their retreat? How do you end this now?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure, John, that I have an
explicit answer to, "How do you end the war?" That will
obviously depend on many factors which we don't know at this
particular moment.
But the first part of your question is, it's definitely
still relevant. The Iraqi government -- the terms that were set
out on Friday afternoon are still very relevant. There has, to
my knowledge, not been anything that would come anywhere near an
authoritative, public statement followed by -- I believe there
were 7 or 8 things that were specifically listed; I could
restate them for you.
I've seen, to be honest with you, quite the opposite.
I believe since noon on Saturday, there have been as many as
five Scud launches from the Iraqi government. They continue not
to do anything concerning our POWs.
They have now set fire to over 500, it's my
understanding, wells or installations in Kuwait. There are
other reports that are coming out that buildings such as banks
are even being destroyed or harmed. So I can't say that I've
seen anything that would lead anyone to believe they have made
any type of authoritative or public statement.
I might point out one other thing they've done since
then. He has once again, on Baghdad Radio, called for
terrorism.
Q Is the war over when Iraqi troops have been driven
from Kuwait?
MS. TUTWILER: Our war aims have not changed. That is
a complete and total withdrawal from Kuwait and the
implementation -- I'm sorry, the restoration of the legitimate
Government of Kuwait. Those are war, military aims, as the
Secretary said yesterday.
Q But he also distinguished them from political
aims. I repeat the question: When Iraqi troops are driven from
Kuwait, is the war over? It seems to me there are many
scenarios by which the war will not be over.
MS. TUTWILER: That is correct. As the Secretary of
State said yesterday, a lot depends on what position the Iraqi
government takes after its forces have been ejected from Kuwait.
On a totally speculative hypothetical, what if they
say, OK, we'll get over the border but they keep firing; they
keep shooting? Is that the "legitimate" end of the war? Are
they really serious? Have they stopped?
That's why I think you would understand, we think that
it is premature to speculate on how the war ends. Our war aims
are those two that I've just enunicated.
Q You said restoration of "a" legitimate government.
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't mean to. I meant "the".
Q The one that was announced in August?
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks for correcting me. I did not
mean to say that.
Q Margaret, the U.S. and other coalition troops that
are in Iraq, how long will they stay there? Will they leave
Iraq once Kuwait is liberated?
MS. TUTWILER: To my knowledge, Alan. That might be
better asked at the Pentagon. The reason they are there, as you
know, is to cut supply lines, which are obviously vital to the
troops that are in Kuwait, and we have said throughout, to help
degrade, if not destroy, their military control and command. So
that is why our military troops are on Iraqi soil, and I think
that has been, always, anticipated in order to liberate Kuwait.
Q You have just laid out a possible scenario in
which the firing doesn't stop, even after the liberation of
Kuwait and those troops, presumably, might have a role in what
happens after that.
MS. TUTWILER: What I cannot do today, and I know that
it is understood, is go through a number of "what if's." That's
why we do not have a crisp, concise, definitive answer for you
-- no one in the coalition does -- on how the war ends. We do
not know the answers to these questions because, obviously, it's
going to be determined by a number of factors, including the
position of the Iraqi government.
Q Margaret, what can you tell us about Israel's
request for an additional billion dollars in aid?
MS. TUTWILER: That request came into the Department, I
believe it was on Friday. As we had said throughout, up until
that point, any official request that we got, would be given
full consideration, and that's what's being done today.
Q You don't have an answer for them?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, Jan.
Q Have they asked for aid or have they asked for
loans or loan guarantees? What have they asked for?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is, this is
specifically in the military area. It is for -- I believe I
read they characterized it as "emergency military additional
assistance."
Q That's one billion dollars; right?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Another obscure question for you, Margaret. There
are tanks and soldiers in Tirana. What do you know about the
situation in Albania this morning?
MS. TUTWILER: In Albania? Not a whole lot for you,
Jan. As you know, we don't have an embassy there.
We basically have to rely on news reports. As you
know, we don't have representatives there. These news reports
indicate that students ended their hunger strike after the
government conceded to student demands that the university be
renamed. The present situation in our estimation is calm but
tense.
Concerning what is going on in Albania, we support the
process of democratization underway in that country and the
efforts of the Albanian people to build a more open and
prosperous society.
Q Margaret, what's the status of U.S. conversations
with Albania about normalizing relations?
MS. TUTWILER: The most recent conversations were held
in Washington, D.C., last week. They were, again, represented
on the United States side by Curt Kamman. I think it's the
fifth such meeting. We believe that we have made significant
progress, but no final decision has been reached concerning the
restoration of relations.
Q Margaret, there have been new reports over the
weekend of atrocities in Kuwait. Have any preliminary or
tentative decisions been made about war crimes? What kind of
court would have jurisdiction? Whether any American courts
would? Can you shed any light on that at all?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have any further answers for you
concerning which mechanism, what process would be used. I would
only state that international law establishes clearly the laws
for dealing with war crimes.
The United Nations resolutions reaffirm that fact.
This is something, I believe I have mentioned a number of times,
that we are working on in our government. The depository for
such information, as we've said, that is being collected is the
Defense Department, but I do not have an answer for you on the
mechanism or the process.
Q How about the overall planning that the United
States Government, or the State Department, is doing for the
post-war era, which the Secretary was very fond of alluding to
repeatedly in the days and weeks before the war? Where does
that stand? Is there definitive work being done now, and what
kind?
MS. TUTWILER: Not really. I would refer you back to
the Secretary of State's two testimonies where he laid out four
areas which would be obviously areas for discussion of the
coalition and people in the region, one of which addressed
itself just to the United States which was that we need to
develop a sound energy policy ourselves.
The areas, as you remember, included security
arrangements, arms control, a peace process, and economic
issues. Those are the areas that anyone would anticipate that
will be discussed. He anticipates having discussions but it's
very difficult, John, to have meaningful discussions on many of
these subjects until we see how the war terminates, how the war
ends.
Q That doesn't foreclose planning, though?
MS. TUTWILER: It doesn't foreclose planning, Bill, but
you have to plan at a certain level, which we have done on any
number of the various options. I would envision, at the point
that the Secretary of State begins what I call "meaningful"
discussions on this subject, that you will no longer be dealing
with various numbers of options or scenarios.
As we have said, the countries in the region will be
the lead on these issues, as they rightfully should be. We are
sure, just as they have got many meetings going on and
preliminary planning themselves, that there are going to be
various and different views on many of these subjects.
Q But, Margaret, have you already determined a
mechanism for dealing with these various issues? I mean, I know
you can't plan specific programs, but, obviously, with the
ground war underway, going better than expected, it is becoming
much more of an imminent challenge that you'll have to face.
Has the United States, in discussions with the
countries in the region, come up with a way of dealing with the
specific things?
MS. TUTWILER: No. The only one that I would say that
is very familiar to you, that the Secretary addressed himself to
yesterday, is that we have all said in one form or another that
if Saddam Hussein is in power, that we would, obviously -- the
international community -- look at some type of continuing arms
embargo.
But as far as whether a meeting is being contemplated,
whether there is more fleshing out on the detail level, no,
Susan, at this point there is not.
Q Still on the --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. But, obviously, that could
evolve very, very rapidly, but I do not have any details for you
today.
Q Still on the post-war scenario --
MS. TUTWILER: The what?
Q The post-war scenario. The Secretary, when he was
testifying on the Hill, talked about the development -- the
setting up of a development bank, and a piece in The New York
Times yesterday, Tom Friedman, alluded to the fact that that
plan had been scotched. What's the basic lay of the land on
that?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not familiar with the plan being
scotched, and, furthermore, the Secretary of State said this is
an idea that will need to be discussed -- could be discussed
with many of the states in the region. Obviously, they would be
the lead on it.
So I'm unaware that the Secretary has changed his
thinking on it since, I believe, Jan -- and I think you were
there at the testimony -- he said, "This is a thought. These
are our preliminary thoughts. It's something we will be
exploring and discussing with the countries there in the
region." I'm not aware that those discussions have gone forward
yet.
Q And what about food aid to Kuwait, AID and their
involvement?
MS. TUTWILER: I just saw, to be honest with you, 30
seconds before I came out here, an AID official saying something
concerning this. I'm just not familiar with it. I'd refer you
to the AID.
Q Two quick questions: Do you have anything on the
status of the Iraqi diplomats left here, the four --
MS. TUTWILER: There are three. One was asked to
leave, remember, Saturday.
Q But is there a -- I mean, they could be there for
the duration of the war, in other words. The bottom line of
Iraq cutting off relations is that they're still here.
Q They can't get reservations before the war is
going to end. (Laughter)
MS. TUTWILER: But, as we've said, they broke relations
with the United States under normal international law and
procedures that guide these types of matters. The ball's in
their court to come back to us, to suggest to us, if they want
to -- it's up to them -- have a third party where they would set
up an interests section.
It then is the United States' responsibility or
decision to say, "Yes, we accept your protecting power that you
suggested," or "We don't." Late last week, I believe that they
came in with a suggestion of a protecting power. We have not
yet gotten back to them, and I cannot make public at this time
who they suggested as a protecting power. But the three are
still in town.
[Warsaw Pact: Agreement to Dissolve]
Q One more: Do you have anything on the Warsaw Pact
decision of today?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Press reports indicate that Warsaw
Pact foreign and defense ministers meeting today in Budapest
have signed a formal document that dissolves the organization's
military structures as of April 1.
Those reports also say that existing secret military
agreements between the defense ministers of Pact members will be
annulled, although it is unclear whether those arrangements will
be made public.
As you know, Johanna, we've stated before the decision
to dissolve the military structures of the Warsaw Pact is a
significant step in the efforts being made to reduce military
tensions and increase cooperation throughout Europe.
As we come closer to a Europe whole and free, we will
continue our joint work to enhance confidence-building measures
and pursue further arms control dialogue in Europe.
Q Margaret, on reparations, the Kuwaiti Ambassador
to Washington -- I think it was yesterday -- said that Kuwait
would seek reparations from Iraq regardless of whether Saddam
Hussein is toppled. What are the American thoughts on that?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure, Mark, that I know off the
top of my head. This is another of these "what ifs" concerning
what would, in my mind, fall under how the war ends, termination
of the war. But I know that compensation is
contained -- I believe it's in Resolution 674, if I'm not
misspeaking, and that has not changed, our position on
compensation. I just will have to duck answering you on "if
someone else is in power, etc."
Q In the walk-up to this war, there was great
concern expressed by the Administration about the potential of
mass Arab demonstrations in the streets of the Arab world,
number one, and the outbreak of terrorism, number two.
It does not appear that either of those have
materialized. Do you have a thought about why they haven't, or
an expression of glee that they haven't, or --
[Terrorism Update]
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know why they haven't. As I
said earlier, Saddam Hussein again called yesterday for terrorist
attacks on the interests of the United States and other
coalition partners.
You all haven't asked in a number of days, but as of
Friday -- and it still is true today -- there have been
approximately 150 terrorist incidents around the world. The
vast majority are property related. There have been no other
individuals, other than the five we named previously, that have
unfortunately died.
And as far as demonstrations around the world, since
Saturday there have been very, very few and far between. For
instance, the one in Jordan only had 150 females that were
demonstrating outside of our Embassy. So you're correct. They
haven't materialized.
Q Why is that? Because the world suddenly thinks
that Saddam Hussein was marching down the wrong road, and George
Bush is marching down the right road, or "back a loser," "back a
winner?" What do you suppose is going on here?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to analyze this, John, and
then all of a sudden this afternoon, things will look very, very
different. I'd rather deal with what's real and what the facts
are. I would say that the demonstrations that we have seen so
far in various countries have been what we described as pro
forma, and the best one I can give an example of where you might
have anticipated that something would happen -- and I certainly
hope nothing does, and don't want to lead you to believe I think
something will -- is in Amman, Jordan, where only 150 women
showed up outside of the Embassy .
I don't know why they are not, but it obviously is
encouraging, for lack of a better word, that they are not. And
maybe they do see that Saddam Hussein is terribly arrogant, as we
have said before, to put his country and his people through what
he continues to put them through.
Q What about Niger? What happened at the Cultural
Center there?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is that there were some
student demonstrations. The targets included the United States
Cultural Center where vehicles have been burned, and the
building has been stoned. The Cultural Center has been
evacuated. There are no known injuries.
Q Is it still true that of the 150 incidents, there
was only one in which there was a direct Iraqi hand -- the one
in Manila on --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. January 19.
Q Margaret, there have been some suggestions
emanating from the Saudi government about somehow indicting and
trying Saddam through an Islamic court. Does the United States
have any opinion on such a maneuver?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen anything like that, and,
as you know, our policy does not contain a provision for the
removal of Saddam Hussein. That is not a war aim.
Q Margaret, in your conversations with the Kuwaitis,
do you have any indication about when they will -- or how they
will determine when it is safe for the Amir to go back? Will
they rely on U.S. military officials to tell them that, or will
it be a judgment --
MS. TUTWILER: Those conversations, yes, Susan, have
gone on at many levels of the Kuwaiti government and our
government and, to be honest with you, with other coalition
forces. I'm not sure that I'm in a position to elaborate on
them, but, yes, it is something that has continuously been
looked at and is being addressed.
Q Is the U.S. keeping the Iranians informed of
developments on the front? After all, I would think that Iran
has more than a passing interest in the fact that there are half
a million soldiers on the warpath right next door to them.
MS. TUTWILER: Other than, George, the meeting that
Under Secretary Kimmitt had Saturday night at 11:45 p.m. here at
the Department with the Swiss Ambassador to pass a message on to
the Iranian government for us. That message was very similar to
the messages we were sending around the world that evening.
I'm not aware of another additional message that has
been sent, but I would remind you that even though we refrain
from giving out the number and substance of messages we have
passed throughout this crisis, we have been passing messages
back and forth with the Iranians.
Q Did you get any reply to the Saturday night
message?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't think that it was the type of
message, Mark, that needed a reply.
Q Margaret, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday
that the Soviet initiative was actually a hybrid proposal cooked
up by the Soviets with the Iranians. Do you have any knowledge
of that?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard that the Soviets, your
quote -- "cooked it up with the Iranians." I think they would
be best to answer that than me. I haven't heard anything like
that.
[Iraq: Access to Coalition/Iraqi POWs]
Q Any progress on prisoners of war, trying to get
the International Red Cross to visit American or coalition POWs
in Baghdad?
MS. TUTWILER: Zero as far as our POWs are concerned.
As many of you may remember, on Friday I mentioned that the
Middle East representative of the ICRC had been in Baghdad just
last week, and had come out and was rebuffed on even having a
meeting at the Foreign Ministry concerning the alliance's POW's.
Concerning their POWs, it might be helpful to remind
everyone that the United States is obligated to provide Iraqi
prisoners of war the protections of the Third Geneva Convention
of 1949 which deals with prisoners of war.
The Third Geneva Convention only deals with POWs, and
there are over 100 articles in the Convention. Some of the main
points contained in there are: (1) it prohibits public display
of POWs. It says prisoners of war must at all times be
protected, particularly against acts of violence or
intimidation, insults or public curiosity; prohibits physical or
mental torture or any form or coercion; says prisoners of war
shall be evacuated as soon as possible after their capture to
camps situated far enough from the combat zone for them to be
out of danger.
It prohibits sending prisoners to areas where they may
be exposed to the fire of the combat zone. It provides that
POWs may be transferred only to other signatories to the
Convention. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention. And I
have been told this morning that in our contacts with the ICRC
in Geneva, that they are working on sending additional staff to
Saudi Arabia to deal with the -- obviously, the last number I
think the Pentagon put out this morning is --
Q 20,000.
MS. TUTWILER: It's now 20,000? I'd heard 18,000.
Q But then one of the coalition partners said they
had another 2,000-3,000 in the pipeline.
MS. TUTWILER: Also, what we have done, which is very,
very obviously in contrast to what the Iraqi government has
done, is notify the International Committee of the Red Cross of
the identities of the Iraqi POWs and will, obviously, as we
have throughout and all along, allow the International Committee
of the Red Cross to visit the camps and to conduct interviews
with the POWs to assess how they are being treated.
The same courtesies, as I say, continue to be denied to
the coalition.
Q A quick question on the Middle East bank: You
said that it was an idea that the Secretary --
MS. TUTWILER: As I remember -- I mean, get his record
in the testimony. It was something that he said that "could be
looked at" or "might be looked at." Just get the record.
Q Would you care to try if the U.S. is committed to
the idea or not?
MS. TUTWILER: I would characterize the United States
as where the Secretary was when he announced it -- again, I'll
refer you to the record. If you don't have it, our
Congressional Affairs Office can get it for you. One of the
things that could be looked at would be such a bank. So I don't
think that he said the United States is locked in concrete on
this as an absolute, must do thing that the United States
absolutely must have. That's not how it was presented in open
testimony.
Q Margaret, when Bessmertnykh was here, the
Secretary said he hoped that START would be wrapped up by the
end of February. It's three days away. Is there any chance of
that?
MS. TUTWILER: I guess, Mark, you can always hope. To
be honest with you, over the last 72 hours, it's just a subject
I have not heard a thing about or asked about. I'll be happy
after the briefing to ask the arms control expert where they are
on it.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all.
(The briefing concluded at 1:00 p.m.)