US Department of State Daily Briefing #50:
Wednesday, 3/27/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:06 PM, Washington, DC
Date: Mar 27, 19913/27/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, South Asia, Eurasia
Country: Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, USSR (former), Pakistan,
Jordan
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Refugees,
Military Affairs, United Nations, State Department,
Human Rights, Democratization, Regional/Civil Unrest
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: One housekeeping matter is: in
observance of the various religious holidays going on this
weekend, we'll have no State Department briefing on Friday.
[Iraq: Update on Civil Unrest]
An update, as I do for you daily, on the situation as
we see it in Iraq. In the north, the government seems to be
massing forces for a major effort to retake Kirkuk. But at
present, that city still appears to be in the hands of dissident
elements.
Meanwhile, dissidents have been clashing with
government troops who are defending the approaches to the city
of Mosul.
In the south, clashes have continued in the vicinity of
Basra and along the lower Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Through
the use of large, heavily equipped occupation forces, the
government seems to have secured greater control over most major
cities in the south in the past few days, including Basra and
the Shi'a holy cities.
Nonetheless, government forces still appear unable to
establish effective and lasting control over a number of other
smaller cities, towns, and rural areas.
As you know, yesterday I had a number of questions to
characterize the phrases that some of you used concerning
slaughters. I said that, yesterday, we were not in a position
to confirm such a statement that was made to me. And today, I
do not have any additional information that addresses these
specific claims.
However, which many of you know, forces loyal to the
government have frequently used heavy artillery, tanks,
multi-rocket launchers and helicopter gunships against entire
cities and towns throughout the country. In some cases, no
attempt has been made to target specific dissident
concentrations. Entire cities and towns have been subjected to
indiscriminate bombardment. This has undoubtedly resulted, as
we said yesterday, in heavy civilian casualties and widespread
destruction.
Q Margaret, on those four or five forms of weapons
you cited, which are illegal, from the U.S. view, for them to
use?
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, in General Schwarzkopf's
first military-to-military meeting and in the subsequent
meetings, they have not addressed themselves to tanks and heavy
artillery. The only thing that the Pentagon has said repeatedly
that was specifically addressed was fixed-wing aircraft. As you
know, we have followed through on what we had said we would do
concerning those. The other areas were not addressed in those
military-to-military meetings.
Q Well, considering the situation now, was that sort
of a slip? Would it have been better either to, as General
Schwarzkopf is quoted as telling David Frost, "Prosecute the war
a little more and beat up on the Iraqi military a little
better?" And/or was it a lapse not to proscribe some of these
additional weapons?
MS. TUTWILER: What I'm not going to do is get in a
debate concerning the military-to-military meetings. I think
that would be best handled at the Pentagon.
Q I'm asking too many questions.
Q Margaret, can you tell us anything about what the
U.S. -- you talked a great deal about what Iraqi forces are
doing, what kinds of equipment they're using, and so on. Can
you tell us anything about whether the U.S. in any way has
become involved in events in southern Iraq at anyplace other
than the place where the U.S. forces are occupying?
MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge. But, again, you
could maybe have your colleague ask that question at the
Pentagon. I know nothing of any such type of United States
involvement. And, as I understand it, Ralph, the President has
been extremely clear in our policy of what those troops are
doing there. You know we have been involved twice concerning
fixed-wing aircraft. Those are the only two instances I'm aware
of.
Q Also, you used the phrase -- I think you used the
phrase "occupying forces -- occupation forces," I think you
said, when referring -- I think you were referring to Iraqi
forces, were you not, at that time? And if so, in what way are
they occupation forces? Who's occupying who?
MS. TUTWILER: "Heavily equipped occupation forces,"
I'm referring to government forces. They are in these areas,
it's my understanding, with this heavy equipment. It is their
equipment.
Q So the Iraqi government, in your view, does not
have any right to deploy its military inside its territory in
areas not proscribed by the United States?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't think that I made a comment
concerning whether it was right or not. I simply used an
adjective to describe a situation where they have, it's my
understanding, moved in tanks, moved in heavy artillery, have
been occupying -- I think is a fair characterization -- cities
in their own country.
Q But you would presumably not describe the U.S. and
allied forces that are inside Iraq as being occupying forces,
would you?
MS. TUTWILER: We are not there to occupy, as you know.
We have no designs on the territory of Iraq. We are there
until the United Nations completes their ceasefire agreement.
Q Margaret, since yesterday's briefing, has there
been a policy decision by this government to -- a formal policy
decision not to intervene in this internal dissidence in Iraq?
MS. TUTWILER: It isn't since yesterday. I would say
throughout the entire crisis, that has been the policy. I know
of no deviation or change in that policy. I would simply refer
you to any number of statements by the President expressing our
policy, so I couldn't characterize it as a change.
Q Has it been reconfirmed? Has it been reviewed and
reconfirmed since we talked yesterday?
MS. TUTWILER: Did someone review the policy since the
briefing yesterday?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of. I expressed
consistent United States policy at this briefing yesterday.
Marlin Fitzwater expressed the same consistent United States
policy at his briefing yesterday, and Pete Williams expressed
the same thing at the Pentagon. So I don't know what there was
to review.
Q Is there any intention to review it --
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of.
Q -- in light of, as you describe it, the fact that
government forces appear to be dominating?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I am personally aware of, Jim.
[United Nations: Resolution on Cease Fire]
Q Margaret, can you give us an update on what's
happening at the United Nations? What is this resolution likely
to contain? Are the other members of the Perm Five signed on?
And what happens if Iraq refuses to accept its terms?
MS. TUTWILER: We discussed how much we wanted to
discuss today at the briefing, David, this morning prior to a
resolution finally being adopted, and decided to follow our
normal practice which is not to comment on the specific contents
of a proposed resolution until you have a final resolution.
Concerning where we are in the Perm Five process, we
are very near agreement among the Five on a resolution. It is
hoped that today you would begin the process of circulation to
the other members of the Security Council. It is still our
policy that we would hope to see this resolution adopted by the
United Nations Security Council. We would hope this week. But,
again, we don't hold ourselves to "that it must be this week."
On a very hypothetical question that you asked me,
recognizing that it's hypothetical, concerning Iraq -- I believe
your question is "Iraqi acceptance of this?"
Q If they don't accept it, what then?
MS. TUTWILER: If they don't accept it? Acknowledging
that that's a hypothetical, we would say that that would be very
interesting. Iraq refused to accept 12 other resolutions and
has paid a very significant price for that.
Some day the Iraqi leadership will learn to respect the
will and the mandate of the United Nations and the international
community.
It would be the position of the United States that
these resolutions, if adopted, should be implemented regardless
of whether Iraq accepts it or not. As many of you know, Iraq,
like all other United Nations Security Council members, is
obligated to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security
Council in accordance with Article 25 of the United Nations
Charter to which they are signatory to.
Q Margaret, still on the U.N. resolutions. Is it
the U.S. view that Iraq assets elsewhere, other than in Iraq,
should have a lien put on them, in effect, to repay reparations
to Kuwait and environmental damages, so on and so forth?
MS. TUTWILER: This is one of the things, Ralph, that
is being discussed. Unfortunately, I cannot answer the
specifics today of what all the United States' positions are.
This is, as you've seen -- I think it's a Reuter's report this
morning -- a very, very long list that someone has put out that
says what they're dealing with. This is a very long and
complicated resolution. We really, honestly did have an honest
discussion this morning about how much we wanted to put out as
of this briefing, and decided that it would probably be wiser
just to wait until we actually have an accepted, adopted
resolution.
Q Margaret, did I understand you to just say that it
is the United States position that even if the Iraqis -- given
that you've open the hypothetical Pandora's Box -- even if the
Iraqis do not accept the ceasefire, it would be the United
States position that the terms should be implemented?
MS. TUTWILER: This is a total hypothetical on David's
question on "If the Iraqis do not accept."
Q But you opened this.
MS. TUTWILER: You're right. It would be the position
of the United States that these resolutions, if adopted, should
be implemented regardless of whether Iraq accepts it or not.
Q Then my question is, does that mean that -- given,
in the past, you'd said on a ceasefire acceptance, U.S. troops
would withdraw. Just following this one further step, what
would then be the position of the United States Government
vis-a-vis troop withdrawal?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't think that the two, to be honest
with you, are intertwined. It has always been our position that
once the United Nations passes and adopts a resolution -- as you
know, part of this that is being discussed and Secretary Baker
discussed it on his trip is a United Nation Observer Force there
on the border.
It has always been our policy, in our view, that once
the U.N. resolution is passed and adopted, the U.N. Observer
Force is moved into place, that we would proceed with our
withdrawal of United States troops. That is still our policy
today.
Q Margaret, on that subject of Iraqi acceptance, in
this liberally leaked draft proposal, which is being circulated,
one of the first items is that a formal ceasefire comes into
effect only when Iraq officially accepts the resolution. Is
that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: What I'm not going to do is get into
today -- that is a leaked version of a -- whoever did it --
someone's version of how a formal resolution will look. Until
this is completed, not only on this subject but many other
subjects that we anticipate will be contained in a final
resolution, today, we just want to refrain or duck from
answering specifically what is going to be in the final
resolution.
Q But, Margaret, there seems to be an inconsistency
between what you said about it coming into effect whether or not
Iraq accepts it and this provision which has been circulating.
MS. TUTWILER: You're asking me, Jim, to acknowledge
and accept that what is running on a wire copy is what the final
document will look like. I'm not in the position to do
that for you today. It's a totally valid question which I
totally understand. If we had an agreed-upon, adopted
resolution, then I would understand and say to you, sure, let me
answer your question for you. But right now, what we've got, I
cannot tell you or confirm or deny for you that every word of
one wire copy I've seen is exactly correct and is exactly what
is going to be the final document that comes out of the United
Nations.
Q Is there support within the Perm Five of this U.S.
position?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, it's not
something that I am aware of that if we polled everybody on. I
don't know. I'd would just be totally winging it on that.
Q But you said you're in agreement on this?
MS. TUTWILER: We're near agreement on a very, very
lengthy, detailed United Nations resolution. I do not believe I
said that there was agreement or debate or discussion concerning
the hypothetical question that David asked me, "Should Iraq not
accept."
Q No, no. You were talking about the text of the
resolution, I thought, and you said that "we" -- I suppose --
well, didn't you mean the United States and the other members of
the Security Council are near agreement on a draft of a
resolution?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. On that, yes, we are. But I
thought that you were asking me concerning this answer: What
would our position be concerning "if Iraq did not?" Right?
Q Right. That's what I was asking.
MS. TUTWILER: You asked me if our position, I believe,
had been discussed by the other four. I said I'm not aware of
that.
Q Margaret, as long as we're talking hypothetically,
it seems likely that some sections of this resolution will
require destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Would
it be the United States position that that would be done by
force if the Iraqis refused to permit it to be done peacefully?
MS. TUTWILER: I have never heard the second part of
your question mentioned by anyone in our government.
Q (Inaudible) implementation. If the U.S. says the
resolution would be implemented, and if the resolution contains
something about destruction of weapons, your position, then,
stated today is that the United States believes that destruction
should proceed anyway whether Iraq accepts it or not?
MS. TUTWILER: Obviously, Ralph, the United States has
been -- even before this crisis -- very concerned about weapons
of mass destruction that are in Iraq. You know what our feeling
is about this. You know what many of the countries in the
region feel about this. It's a subject that's being discussed
and debated in many capitals right now concerning weapons of
mass destruction.
That is not what I was addressing myself to concerning
Norm's hypothetical question: "Would the United States use
force to implement this?" I just simply said, I've never heard
that type of conversation going on, using force to go in and
destroy these weapons, by any official in our government.
Q On the same subject, the question was asked
yesterday if the Secretary would meet with members of the
opposition, and you took that question?
MS. TUTWILER: I certainly did.
Q Is there an answer?
MS. TUTWILER: There certainly is.
Q May we have it?
MS. TUTWILER: As I said yesterday, that's another
hypothetical. But having stated that it is a hypothetical and
having restated that there is no such request here for the
Secretary or any other senior official of this Department, I
would say that of course we would meet with -- if you are
talking about opposition leaders in this country or opposition
individuals, that, of course, we would.
Having said that, however, I would like to restate, so
there is no confusion, that our policy, as enunciated by myself
yesterday at least a dozen times, is that we are not for the
dismemberment of the country of Iraq. We are for the
territorial integrity of Iraq.
Our policy has not changed. Having stated that should
such a request come in, of course, it would be given every due
consideration.
Q Is it safe to assume that once this resolution is
passed, whether or not Iraq agrees to it, the U.S. and its
allies are going to have substantial naval and air forces in the
region to enforce whatever remains of the sanctions?
MS. TUTWILER: That is a little bit different version
of what Norm just asked me, and I have not heard that by any
official in this government addressed in the way that you're
asking the question.
As you know, part of Secretary Baker's recent trip, he
spoke many times to the fact that the United States has had a
naval presence here in the Gulf since 1949; that we would be
looking at, under the general topic of regional security,
various different things in consultation with our allies. One
which he has mentioned could be enhanced naval presence. I
believe the President has mentioned the same thing. But that is
quite different from saying that that enhanced naval presence,
which is being considered and discussed, would be used for
implementation of this type of thing. I've never heard the two
linked or discussed like that.
Q Margaret, earlier you said that after approval of
the U.N. resolution you would expect deployment of a U.N.
observer force and withdrawal to begin of American forces. Is
there also a triggering mechanism there for deployment of the
Arab peacekeeping force of which Secretary Baker has spoken
before? Would that begin at the same time?
MS. TUTWILER: It's a level of detail, Ralph, that I
don't have an answer to, and I'm not even sure that all of the
mechanics have been worked out. Since, Number 1, the resolution
hasn't passed, it hasn't been adopted, I'm not sure that the
mechanism is to that level worked out yet.
Q So at least initially, the U.S. believes that the
U.N. observer force would be adequate military force to allow
the removal or the withdrawal of U.S. forces, and at some later
time the level of detail of how to deal with the Arab force
could be dealt with?
MS. TUTWILER: I believe that the Gulf Arab force that
has been discussed in the March 8 Damascus meeting had to do,
again, in the general area of their looking at their own
regional security.
I do not believe that I have seen that the Damascus
Group -- or I believe they issued a declaration -- addressed
themselves specifically to a border patrol or to a peacekeeping
force. I believe it is under regional security that the Gulf
countries are discussing.
Q There seems to be a lot of confusion about --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry, excuse me.
[Pakistan: US Policy on Kashmir]
Q There seems to be a lot of confusion about what
the U.S. policy is in Kashmir in light of the statements made by
the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan. I wonder whether you have
anything on that?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not exactly sure that I understand
your question. Our policy concerning what?
Q Kashmir.
MS. TUTWILER: Kashmir? I'll be more than glad to look
into it. I'm not aware of what our United States Ambassador has
said. Let me just take your question for you. Okay?
Q Margaret, about the meetings with the Jordanian
official that the Secretary has had, can you give us any readout
at all? Is it the position of the State Department that the
proposal King Hussein raised last week is not helpful to the
peace process now?
MS. TUTWILER: Jan, I don't have a further readout for
you than the one that I've given you. I'm not aware of a
specific peace proposal that King Hussein raised last week.
Q Last week you --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. That was not raised, to be
honest with you, by the King's official that was here. I
attended the Secretary's meeting, and he did not raise a
specific proposal by King Hussein to Secretary Baker. As I have
said -- I believe it was yesterday and the day before -- this
meeting was generally a meeting to discuss the peace process
since Mr. Odeh had spent several hours with Ambassador Kelly and
Ambassador Ross dealing with the other three subjects that
Secretary Baker had discussed with other countries while he was
in the region.
Q Did you get from that meeting a feeling that the
Jordanians were willing to be part of the peace process, that
they want to play an active role?
MS. TUTWILER: I think that that is best asked to the
Jordanian Government. As you know, our policy is that we
welcome the views of the Government of Jordan concerning the
peace process, and we have said that they have a role to play.
Q Can you confirm that the Crown Prince was told
that a trip to Washington at this time was not a very good idea?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I cannot.
[MIddle East Peace Process: Meetings with
Palestinians]
Q Margaret, have there been any more meetings or
telephone calls in regard to the peace process, specifically a
meeting between a Palestinian and Dennis Ross yesterday?
MS. TUTWILER: Dennis Ross, throughout this
Administration, has met with Palestinians, and he had such a
meeting yesterday.
Q Can you say anything more about the meeting and --
MS. TUTWILER: I really would rather -- not to be --
Q Can you identify the Palestinian?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q But it was about the peace process?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q And you say "throughout the Administration."
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q So when's the last time he did it?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I don't keep a running
record of Dennis' schedule; but, as you know, Secretary Baker
met with Mayor Freij when he was here. Any number of people in
this Administration, throughout the Administration, have met
with various Palestinians.
Q I know. But it's a little more sensitive than all
that. I mean -- you know. Could you find out when he met with
him last, because you've opened new talks with Palestinians when
Mr. Baker went on his trip. He opened -- that cliche -- a "new
dialogue" with Palestinians and --
MS. TUTWILER: That's your phrase. I don't believe the
Secretary ever used that phrase.
Q Well, it's hard to find the right phrase, because
they say they're from the PLO and you say you're not talking to
the PLO. It's almost impossible to put a question in this murky
policy that you're pursuing.
But if Dennis is following up the Secretary's meetings,
that is sort of a new chapter. The Secretary began a new
chapter.
MS. TUTWILER: He has followed up with Osama el-Baz.
He has followed up with --
Q No. I mean Palestinians --
MS. TUTWILER: -- the Saudis. He has followed up with
the Israelis.
Q I mean the Palestinians.
MS. TUTWILER: And the Secretary of State has followed
up with any number of people. So, I mean --
Q Those are governments. But I'm talking about --
MS. TUTWILER: As we said, Barry, there are no secrets
here that we are pursuing this; that we are talking and going
to, the Secretary said, continue to follow up with, on the one
hand the Palestinians that he met with, whether it's those
distinct individuals or not, and the governments. So I don't
think there are any surprises in this.
Q So who's move is it then -- the Palestinians?
MS. TUTWILER: For what? Move for what?
Q Well, now that they've met with Mr. Ross who
follows up on everybody, what's the next move? Is it the
Palestinians?
MS. TUTWILER: As we said yesterday, the phase we're in
today is a phase of looking for convergent points to move
forward.
Q Well, who's due to converge?
MS. TUTWILER: There are a lot of people that are going
to continue to be talked to. This, as we said, is the early
stage of this process; and we have said, as you know, that we
are there -- the United States -- to act as a catalyst to take
advantage of this opportunity if the parties themselves want to
move forward.
Q Well, just one more try.
MS. TUTWILER: Go for it.
Q Are you waiting for an answer from the
Palestinians?
MS. TUTWILER: We are going to continue our
conversations with all of the players, Bill. The ball is not in
any one individual's court. As you know, our position or our
thoughts concerning this is to go the two-track approach.
Now, as you know, that meant certain things that have
been discussed with the Arab nations. It is certain things that
have been discussed with the Israelis. It is certain things
that have been discussed with the Palestinians.
Q Margaret, can you confirm at least that the person
that Dennis met with --
Q Margaret --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry.
Q Can you confirm that the person that Dennis met
with yesterday was one of the Palestinians with whom the
Secretary met in Jerusalem?
MS. TUTWILER: I am, for reasons that I think are very
valid, not going to discuss anything about the individual that
Dennis met with yesterday. And I will be more than glad to
explain to you my reasons, which I think you will accept as very
valid, later.
Q The Secretary, when he met with these
Palestinians, said he was meeting with individuals.
MS. TUTWILER: That is what Dennis Ross did yesterday.
Q Margaret, on a related subject, have you seen the
order, the shoot-to-kill order, given to Israeli security
forces?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I read an article in the newspaper
and, to be honest with you, that's not something that we can
confirm. We do not have the facts on this, and it's one article
that we've seen.
Q Did you ask the Israelis to clarify it?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know if we have or not. I would
imagine that our Embassy has. But since I asked this morning, I
would assume they then in turn asked; and we haven't seen it.
Q Margaret, is it the U.S. Government position that
Israel should accept 242 and 338?
MS. TUTWILER: The President, I believe in his speech
before Congress, addressed himself specifically to that issue
and it was in his speech. Our policy hasn't changed since then.
I've forgotten what date that was.
(TO STAFF) When was that? Do you remember?
MR. ANDERSON: January 31.
MS. TUTWILER: It was the 31st?
Q You say U.N. resolutions should be implemented
towards Iraq regardless of whether Iraq accepts them or not. Is
it the same thing with 242 and 338?
MS. TUTWILER: What I'm going to do is refrain from
getting into a debate with you concerning this, and I'll refer
you to the President's statement -- Jim [Anderson] helps me by
saying it was January 31 -- to the United States Congress
concerning this issue.
Q Can we go back to the Iraq thing, because --
MS. TUTWILER: Which Iraq thing?
Q Well, the whole notion that we're supposed to
carry some message, that the U.S. Government expects this
resolution to be implemented, whether or not --
MS. TUTWILER: I said "should be." I did not say
"expects."
Q "Should be."
MS. TUTWILER: "Should be."
Q All right. Is there a distinction between
"expects" and "should be."
MS. TUTWILER: There is in my mind.
Q Well, I don't know what the distinction is. But
could you --
MS. TUTWILER: "Expects" could kind of fall into the
category, in my mind, of the United States demands. "Should be"
is a different adjective in my opinion.
Q Oh, you mean it's just an opinion? A preference?
Sort of an opinion?
MS. TUTWILER: I have said what the United States
position is, and I have said that it should be implemented.
Q All right. But you've also said nobody's talking
about force, and the only part of implementation that you
specifically spoke of carrying through is the U.N. observers
and, you know, the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
MS. TUTWILER: I said if that passes. The resolution
hasn't passed.
Q Oh, of course. We're all talking in terms of "if
this passes." So how can this be -- how should this be
implemented if not with force? Or is it just a wish?
MS. TUTWILER: How should what be implemented?
Q The resolution. Even if Iraq --
MS. TUTWILER: Which part of the resolution?
Q The whole darn thing.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, do you need force to enforce an
economic embargo?
Q You may need force to destroy lethal weapons, and
you may need force to interdict ships coming in.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, why don't we wait and see what
comes out --
Q You might need force to stop Jordan from helping
them again.
MS. TUTWILER: -- in the resolution, and then we will
discuss what type of mechanisms will be in place to enforce what
is in the text and body of the resolution, as it is when it's
finally adopted.
Q Well, I have the same question about 242 in my
mind. In that sense you're just saying, whether Iraq likes it
or not, it should be implemented. That's all you're saying.
MS. TUTWILER: That's what I said.
Q All right, because it carried the implication of a
threat that the U.S. will do something to force implementation.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know how in the world you could
get that there's some type of threat. When I'm answering a
hypothetical question --
Q With a prepared response.
MS. TUTWILER: -- saying that it is the position of the
United States that it "should be," I don't find the term "should
be" necessarily threatening. Maybe you do. I just don't.
There are other words that I can think of that would be a lot
more threatening.
Q Oh, sure. Like we'll open fire if you don't, for
instance. (Laughter)
[ Q Speaking of the U.N. Security Council, this may
seem like a silly question --
MS. TUTWILER: That's okay.
Q -- but the U.N. Security Council issued -- but I
ask them all the time -- issued a statement on Israel yesterday.
MS. TUTWILER: Who did?
Q The U.N. Security Council.
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding, Ralph, is that that
was being still worked on this morning, and it is a statement --
if you're talking about the one concerning deportation --
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: It is my understanding from John Bolton,
the Assistant Secretary here, they are still working on that
today; and it is a statement -- or the one they're working on is
a statement by the President of the Security Council, not a
resolution. It's never been a resolution.
Q Right. I said statement by the Security Council,
but maybe it's a statement by the U.N. Security Council
President.
Did the U.S. -- well, if you think it hasn't been
issued yet, I guess you can't say whether the U.S. endorses the
language of it.
MS. TUTWILER: As we said yesterday, we would be
prepared to support such a resolution, provided it had the
correct wording -- not a resolution; a statement by the
President of the Security Council. Since the wording was
debated for, it's my understanding, several hours yesterday,
they are still at it today. No, I can't say what we would
support, because we haven't seen the final text.
Q If it includes references to 242 and 338, does the
U.S. think it's appropriate for those issues to be raised in a
statement on deportation?
MS. TUTWILER: This is just all too hypothetical for
me.
Q Don't you have anything prepared? (Laughter)
MS. TUTWILER: Too hypothetical.
USSR: Demonstrations and the Decree on Control of
Moscow]
Q Another subject? Could I ask about the Soviet
Union?
MS. TUTWILER: Soviet Union?
Q President Gorbachev's government has apparently
decided to take over control of Moscow from the Moscow police
and prevent all demonstrations. What's your reaction to that?
MS. TUTWILER: We have heard about a decree that has
been made, I believe, by the Soviet Ministry of the Interior,
saying that they intended to take over responsibility for law
enforcement in Moscow. We do not have a text as of this
briefing of the decree, and our position on this is that it is
an internal judgment of the Soviet Union as to what powers
should be held by a given level of government. These issues
should be the product of a democratic political process.
Q Well, if you get away from the question of which
level of government is implementing these things, what does the
U.S. Government think about the idea of banning demonstrations
for three weeks?
MS. TUTWILER: On banning demonstrations, I would
remind you that as a member of CSCE the Soviet Union has
reaffirmed the right of peaceful assembly and demonstrations.
Peaceful demonstrations have been a hallmark of the movement
towards Soviet openness and democratization.
Restrictions on time, place and manner of assemblies
and demonstrations are sometimes necessary for public safety or
other legitimate grounds. We would hope that in making a
determination about adopting restrictions on demonstrations in
Moscow or elsewhere in the Soviet Union, Soviet officials will
carefully balance concern about order with the need for public
opinion to be heard in a public setting. Any restrictions
placed on demonstrations should be as narrow as possible.
Q Does that mean that you support them under the
current context?
MS. TUTWILER: That we support what?
Q The restrictions on demonstrations which are said
to be for the purpose of keeping order --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q -- during the assembly meeting.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. It's part of what we're saying,
Bill. It's no different than in our own country. If a group
wants to have a demonstration here in Washington, D.C., they
have to apply for a permit. They have to do certain things;
that there are laws here in the city that we all live with.
Having said that, we also make a point of pointing out
that they are signatories to the CSCE. They have allowed, as
you know when you were on the trip with us with Secretary Baker,
I believe they had, or it was reported they had, 500,000 people
peacefully demonstrating in Red Square, I believe it was.
So we are pointing out also that they have a tradition
-- or they have over the last several years -- of having
peaceful demonstrations.
Q Then what are you pointing out about this
particular instance?
MS. TUTWILER: What instance?
Q Does it meet the "narrow test" or not?
Q Is the three-week ban "as narrow as possible"?
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me? What?
Q Does the three-week ban constitute "as narrow as
possible"?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to characterize for you if
that is too narrow or narrow. We have stated, as you know, what
our policy is concerning freedom of assembly in any nation in
the world. It is one of the pillars of our country and of our
beliefs.
Obviously we have not changed on that. We want to be
fair here, though, and recognize that even in our own country
you have to have permits, you have to notify, I believe it's the
local police, or whatever you have to do here. I'm not that
familiar with what you have to do to get a demonstration permit
in our own capital.
And we have pointed out that they have had peaceful
demonstrations. This obviously is, as we have said, even
concerning this new police rule -- this is an internal matter of
the Soviet Union, and there is just so far that I can go as far
as delving myself into, Johanna, legitimate decisions that a
sovereign government is making concerning it, whether we agree
with those decisions or not.
Q Excuse me. The reports are that they're expecting
500,000 people tomorrow at the pro-Yeltsin demonstration, and
that there are artillery and tanks gathering
in Moscow today, and that troops are massing. Is the U.S.
Government concerned that --
MS. TUTWILER: Of course, we're concerned.
Q And are you concerned about a Tiananmen Square
type of event, or what communications have there been to the
Soviets about what our policy is?
MS. TUTWILER: I think the Soviet Union is very clear
about what our feelings are concerning the use of violence,
whether it's in the Soviet Union or any other nation. That is
no secret. And, of course, the United States is concerned. We
are concerned. As we have said, we have not seen a text of this
latest announcement saying that they are going to move police
functions to the Ministry of Interior.
We're concerned, but we haven't seen the text of the
actual document, the decree. So I can't tell you that it is
something that we today are prepared -- not having seen it -- to
go on the record and tell you that it is exactly as it has been
portrayed in various press reports.
And I think that I have -- or I have certainly tried to
adequately answer for you our policy concerning peaceful
assemblies. And yes, we are aware of some of the reports that
you mentioned concerning tanks, I believe is the word that you
used, and troops. And yes, we are watching this situation very
closely and of course we are concerned about it.
Q Would you answer the last part of his question
which was: has the U.S. Government conveyed this point of view
about restrictions being sometimes necessary, but signature of
the CSCE...? Has the U.S. conveyed that to the Soviet Union
very recently?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer "very recently." I
haven't checked who at our Embassy has been in to see who in the
Foreign Ministry. But I don't believe, Ralph, that any of what
I have stated today comes as any surprise.
Q No. But I'm asking whether the U.S. has conveyed
that point of view to the Soviet Union since it announced these
decisions, both the ban and the transfer of power.
MS. TUTWILER: The ban, to be honest with you, I would
doubt, since we haven't even seen a text. What we're probably
in the process of doing there is our Embassy is probably in the
process of trying to obtain a text so that we know what we're
dealing with there.
On demonstrations, if it has been raised at all, I'm
sure it has been raised in the same way that the Secretary has
raised it when he has raised peaceful demonstrations, peaceful
assembly -- those types of ways of raising it. I'm not sure
that someone has specifically raised this issue, but I'll be
happy to check.
Q Just to try to get back to this question of the
actual action, the comparison to the U.S. sort of is strained in
the sense that we don't blanket ban demonstrations. In fact,
we've even lifted the restrictions on demonstrations in front of
foreign Embassies.
And when these restrictions are put on, they're put on
by the lawfully elected local city governments; and here
Gorbachev has overruled, apparently the Moscow government. So
it's a decree. So I don't see where it meets any of these tests
that you've set out as --
MS. TUTWILER: I believe several months ago he also
issued a decree that was then, as I remember, over-voted or
overruled by the Supreme Soviet. Now, I don't know if they have
a vote scheduled on this particular decree or not, but I believe
that happened in the last six months. You may have a different
time frame for me, but I distinctly remember the incident where
a decree was issued and the Supreme Soviet took a vote, and they
overrode it.
Q Still on the Soviet-American -- has there been a
response from the Soviets to the U.S. communication about arms
control?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I've heard.
That's it?
Q That's it.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you very much.
(The briefing concluded at 12:45 p.m.) (###)