US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #73:
Thursday, 5/2/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 11:58 PM, Washington, DC
Date: May 2, 19915/2/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, South Asia, E/C Europe
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Iran, USSR (former),
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Israel
Subject: Democratization, Immigration,
Regional/Civil Unrest, State Department,
Development/Relief Aid, Arms Control
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything, if you all do.
(Laughter) Every day it's getting slower and slower.
[US Middle East Peace Initiative]
Q Has the Administration decided to scale down its
ambitious program for peace in the Middle East?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't even remember where I saw this one
report this morning. As you know, we have refrained from
characterizing in any way what the Administration's literal
program is. But, without characterizing "scaled down," "scaled up,"
I leave it where it is.
I would not steer you in that direction at all. I would steer
you in the direction that both the President and the Secretary of
State plan to continue to work on this very important issue and
believe that work should continue on this issue, and they want to do
what they can to promote peace in the region.
Q But have they made any decisions about how they're going
to proceed from this point, given the fact that the Secretary seemed
to have such little success on his last trip?
MS. TUTWILER: Without buying into your second
characterization, I would just report to you that, as we mentioned
yesterday, the Secretary of State was going to meet with the
President. He did. He gave the President a full and thorough debrief
of his trip to the region. And, which will not come as a shocking
surprise to you, I will not have any specifics of any decisions that
they may or may not have taken in that meeting.
They will determine when and in what fashion they want to
publicly proceed. But I do want to leave you with the thought
coming out of that meeting, as I just expressed earlier, that both
the President and the Secretary of State agreed that the United
States should continue to do what it can to promote peace in this
region.
Q Does that mean the two-track policy is alive and
well?
MS. TUTWILER: As far as I know.
[Iran: US Visa for Former President Bani Sadr]
Q Has the Administration decided to give a visa to
Bani Sadr, the former President of Iran?
MS. TUTWILER: No. That's under review. And it is my
understanding -- let me get you the specific technical language
on this. Bani Sadr is ineligible for a non-immigrant visa under
Section 212(A)28(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
which precludes the issuance of visas to aliens who advocate the
use of violence against officials of the Government of the
United States.
As I said, the Department is currently reviewing
whether or not to recommend a waiver of that ineligibility to
the Department of Justice which, as you know, is the lead agency
concerning visas and has the ultimate responsibility for
deciding whether to grant a waiver or not.
Q Does that mean he advocated violence at some
point?
MS. TUTWILER: That who advocated violence?
Q Bani Sadr.
MS. TUTWILER: The main reason for this, Bill, as I'm
sure that you're aware, is, as has been done in the past, that
anyone associated with the Iranian government at the time when
they were holding United States hostages in Tehran, has to be
looked at carefully.
Q Well, he was due in the United States the
beginning of next week. I mean, he's got some appointments next
week. So --
Q He was due in today.
Q Today.
MS. TUTWILER: I've heard yesterday, I've heard today.
Q Well, when do you think a decision might be made?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't really know, to be honest with
you. I mean, I'm aware, just as you said, next week. I've
heard his private schedule a number of different ways. To be
honest, I don't think they'll make a determination based on
someone's personal, private schedule. I think that they will
make the determination, as they have in the past, concerning
former Iranian government officials who were in office at the
time the United States hostages were being held, and that is
the determining factor. This matter is before the Department,
and it could be they will make a decision today. I'm not
exactly sure when that decision's going to be made.
Q (Inaudible) -- the application --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me?
Q When did you get the visa application?
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea. I'll be happy to ask
Consular Affairs for you.
Q (Inaudible)
Q This waiver --
MS. TUTWILER: Saul says the 23rd. I don't know.
Q I'm sorry. The waiver decision is strictly for
Secretary Baker to decide eventually?
MS. TUTWILER: This is not, it's my understanding,
before the Secretary of State at this moment. I believe it's
before the Deputy Secretary of State.
Q I don't understand where the Justice Department
fits in. Does the Justice Department make a determination, and
then it's before the Deputy Secretary of State, or how does that
work?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding of this, Saul -- I
believe how this works is that we're reviewing it. We make a
recommendation to the Justice Department. The Justice
Department is the ultimate lead agency on visas, waivers of
visas, etc., and for deciding whether or not a visa is waived.
So I guess there are instances of -- I have not done a lot of
research on this. The State Department could make X
recommendation, and Justice could decide not to do that.
Q But Bani Sadr has a reputation for being one of
the Iranian moderates during that period who was forced out of
office and fled to Paris where he now lives. Why does he come
under this section of the U.S. Code that you mention, advocating
violence against --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, he is -- according to United
States regulations -- ineligible for a non-immigrant visa.
That's a fact of life.
Q Because he advocated violence against --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. What we can do is -- it's my
understanding there are any number of examples of this -- that
many people are not eligible under this specific code in our
law. We can choose to grant a waiver or not grant a waiver.
That is what is being reviewed. There is no argument over
whether he is eligible under our law to have this type of visa.
Q What I'm trying to put together, Margaret, is the
advocacy of violence against American nationals: Did that come
during the seizing of the hostages? Is that what you're
referring to?
MS. TUTWILER: That is my understanding of this. And
what I read at first is verbiage from the actual code and gave
you the code number of what determines the first part of this
puzzle. There is no argument or questions that he is ineligible
for this non-immigrant visa.
Q As is --
MS. TUTWILER: We are reviewing -- excuse me, John --
whether to waiver this or not, which, it is my understanding,
has been done in the past.
Q As is frequently the case in this sort of
instance, there is the stated reason by the State Department for
denying a person a visa, and then there is the political reason,
as has been the case with the Nicaraguans in the past and
various other governments. Are you willing to comment on the
political problems which may surround this man's visa?
MS. TUTWILER: No. Because my understanding of this is
this is honestly -- and I attended a meeting this morning where
this was discussed. I didn't hear, which I think you're
referring to, other considerations that people might think are
going into this. What I heard was straight out: An individual
who was in the Iranian government at the time that our United
States hostages were being held. This, it is my understanding,
has been done in the past. And there are some people here who
served at that time who feel quite strongly about this.
Q Margaret, has the United States received a protest
from the Government of Israel?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I saw that one wire copy
reporting that Elie had mentioned this to Ambassador Brown, but
I can't find in the building that there is, to use the phrase
that you used a quote/unquote "protest."
Q Have you heard from the Government of Israel in
any way since --
MS. TUTWILER: Not as of this briefing.
Q Margaret, the Secretary was due to talk to the
Kuwaiti Ambassador this morning. Do you have any readout on
that meeting?
MS. TUTWILER: No. The meeting began at -- it was
scheduled to begin at 11:30. The Ambassador had requested this
meeting with the Secretary last week when we were on the road,
and when I came downstairs, the meeting hadn't concluded. But
I'll get you one.
[Iraq: War Reparations/Embargo]
Q Is there an effort by the United States to try and
find a way in the Kurdish refugee situation for the U.S. to be
reimbursed for its out-of-pocket expenses, the humanitarian
expenses, through the sanctions mechanism to get money back from
Iraq to help pay for the aid effort?
MS. TUTWILER: There is not a mechanism that I can
point you to, but our view is that Iraq should help pay for the
cost incurred by the international community in assisting the
refugees whose plight was caused by Iraq's repressive acts.
Q But you --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a mechanism yet. This is
something, it's my understanding, that has recently come up. It
is something that is being discussed at the United Nations, and
the only thing I can report to you today is this is our
position, and this is what we're obviously presenting in those
discussions.
Q So although there is not a formal mechanism, what
you are saying --
MS. TUTWILER: There is not even agreement yet about
that.
Q What you are saying is the U.S. position is that
some mechanism should be worked out whereby Iraq would pay and
one could logically assume that that mechanism would have to
somehow piggyback on the sanctions mechanism which is in the
process of being developed now. Is that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: You got it.
Q I got it? Thank you.
Q Margaret, are you saying that they should pay
everything or simply part?
MS. TUTWILER: I said "help."
Q How much has been spent on this effort, do you
know, so far?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't. Do you mean by just us or
by everybody or --
Q Either way.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have those figures. I'm not
sure, to be honest with you, where I would even go to compile
them. I could try.
Q Could you ask, because it is a lot of bodies out
there, and, if it's only $200, then one would --
MS. TUTWILER: It's more than 200.
Q Well, one would suspect if it's --
MS. TUTWILER: I'll see if I can pull it together for
you. You know what the President has allocated -- the various
amounts of money that we have done as emergency funding. I'll
try to get that all pulled together for you. I obviously would
have to talk to the Pentagon to see if they are keeping a tally
on what their costs are. I'm just not sure, to be honest with
you, if anybody's pulled that together yet.
Q As a form here, tomorrow the Secretary General and
the U.N. are issuing a report to the Sanctions Committee to
begin to set up a mechanism -- percentages and a mechanism
whereby money for other things would come out. Does this mean
that the U.S. is now going to lobby very strongly to add this to
the other burdens, if you will, or the other responsibilities
that Iraq now has from the flow of oil from the --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know how to characterize for you
how strongly. That is something I would obviously have to ask
the White House without my prioritizing for you which is more
important. But I have expressed for you today our view that
however this mechanism is worked out -- which is not worked out
yet, including even percentages of oil compensation. There is a
lot of conversation and different views on this. Our view,
though, is that the Iraqi government should help to pay for the
costs incurred by this refugee situation.
And I know that concerning percentages of Iraq oil for
the compensation fund, those are not even worked out yet -- the
percentages.
Q Margaret, a follow-up on that: It's been reported
that the United States view is that a figure of 40-50 percent
should be earmarked from the oil revenues to go to pay the total
reparations, compensation, anything that's claimed from Iraq.
Can you give us any response on that?
MS. TUTWILER: The United States does have a view,
Mark, on what the percentages should be. That view or that
number to my knowledge has not been made public. This is being
discussed up in the United Nations, and so I don't think that I
today can give you a figure that our Government is discussing up
in New York. But, yes, we have an idea of what we think would
be an appropriate percentage.
[Iraq: Destruction of Chemical Stores]
Q Margaret, most of us now have got copies of the
letter from Iraq to the IAEA --
MS. TUTWILER: You do?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Very good, Alan.
Q Yes. I have one on my desk. Do you have anything
--
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen it.
Q You haven't seen it.
MS. TUTWILER: I really haven't. And in fact I asked
today. As I believe I said yesterday, the Board of Governors is
meeting on May 6 to discuss this. Today I don't have any
further elaboration for you than what we had said yesterday,
which is, as I recall, paraphrasing myself, was that this
certainly appeared to be more in line with reality. That's how
I remember we described it. But, honestly, I have not seen it,
and we don't have anything new to add today to it.
Q 687 sets out mechanisms whereby the IAEA will take
charge of nuclear material in Iraq, and also somebody -- it's
not clear who -- has to take charge of chemical --
MS. TUTWILER: There's a Special Commission that the
Secretary General set up, it's my understanding, dealing with
chemicals.
Q That's to go in and check it out, but it
doesn't --
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q Who is actually going to take charge of destroying
those chemical weapons?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding as of being in this two
days ago -- I believe this is called a special commission and
comes under this resolution and the Secretary General is working
this out. I'm not sure exactly how the mechanisms work or if
they have all been finalized and worked out. I know that as of
two days ago they were still working on this up at the U.N., and
I just don't know where they are today on it.
Q Is the United States prepared to assure Iraqis and
others that no environmental risks or damage will be caused by
the destruction of those chemical weapons?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding, Alan, is that the
Secretary General's intentions are -- and check with the U.N. --
to name, or either has named, to this Commission, experts in
this field who have an enormous amount of knowledge on how to
deal with this type of arms situation.
I believe Richard [Boucher] addressed himself to this
last week, and said obviously it is always of concern to us when
these types of weapons are destroyed or moved. As you know,
there's been previous experience with this -- I believe it was
last year -- when materials were moved, as I remember, out of
Germany. But I don't have for you a literal process yet that
I'm aware of that has been totally developed. But I do know
that the Secretary General's intentions had been to name experts
in this field.
Q Margaret, back to the compensation question again,
all this talk of percentages and so on presupposes that they are
being allowed to sell oil again, or they would be allowed to
sell oil again.
The U.S. has in the past taken a dim view of this. Are
you now saying that if arrangements could be made to fund these
various things, including the refugee aid, that the U.S. might
lower its objections to Iraq selling oil?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be a Presidential decision,
and he spoke out on this subject most recently, and I'd just
refer you to what he said. The percentages aren't worked out
yet, and that would be something for the President to determine
once you see what these final percentages are, what the
mechanisms are, etc., etc. And he spoke on this the other day,
as I remember. I did not bring his words with me. They're on
the record. And he spoke, in my opinion, as I recall, very
forcefully about the United States view of the Iraqi government
being able to resell their oil. As I remember, they were asking
for one billion to be able to sell and to unfreeze one billion
in assets.
Q He was against it.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q But now you're saying that if these various
arrangements could be worked out, he might not be against it.
MS. TUTWILER: I did not say that. I specifically --
or was attempting to refrain from saying what the President
might do, based on your hypothetical question of "once these
percentages are worked out."
Q Why would you be working out percentages if they
weren't going to be allowed to sell oil?
MS. TUTWILER: Because we're part of an international
coalition and a member of the United Nations, and that is where
the world community has deemed that this will be determined.
Q New subject. Margaret, there are some leaders of
the Baltics coming next week for meetings in Washington.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Could you say who they are and who they're going
to be meeting?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Marlin gave a full readout of this
this morning in his announcement at the White House. I would
refer you to his record. They are, it's my understanding, the
three heads of the Baltic states. They are here, as Marlin said
this morning, on a private visit. They will be meeting with the
President, and it's my understanding -- I believe Marlin said --
other individuals within our own government. I don't have that
list for you. He just announced this this morning.
Q Are they coming here?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, I'm not sure if
they're on Secretary Baker's schedule or not, or if he will be
attending the President's meeting.
[Bangladesh: Update on Cyclone Damage and Relief]
Q Margaret, do you have any assessment on the scale
of the disaster in Bangladesh, and any U.S. aid that might be
forthcoming?
MS. TUTWILER: We had one this morning. Ours is
probably behind what continues to come out on the wires. I just
saw a wire copy recently, about an hour ago, saying the
estimated official death toll was now 47,000. We could not get
a call through to our embassy to verify that one report.
I can tell you that, as of this morning, the Bangladesh
government confirmed that there were 3,000 dead but estimates
the final toll will exceed 30,000. One government report
believes the death toll in the Chittagong District alone will
reach 25,000. The total number of persons affected by the
cyclone could be as high as 10 million in 16 districts.
The Bangladesh government estimates it will take 2 to 3
more days to adequately assess the cyclone's impact and relief
needs. The government's immediate priority is to provide safe
water supplies, deliver food to affected areas, and restore
communications.
In addition to the measures that I had mentioned
yesterday that our government was doing, the State Department's
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance is authorizing a grant of
$100,000 to be used by relief organizations to meet some of
their immediate needs, pending further assessment.
As I mentioned yesterday, our Ambassador was going to
be out for 48 hours doing an assessment. I don't have a readout
yet from the Ambassador on his return, and we do not have a
readout of the A.I.D. team that also was out doing an
assessment. So that's really where we are.
Q On Iraq again. Correct me if I --
MS. TUTWILER: On what?
Q On Iraq. Correct me if you addressed this before
I came in. There are reports citing Western diplomats as saying
that Saddam Hussein has offered, in the settlement with the
Kurds, to give them control of the city of Kirkuk?
MS. TUTWILER: I've seen that report. I simply have no
way of confirming it.
Q Margaret, are some Kuwaiti opponents of the Amir's
government coming to visit the State Department?
MS. TUTWILER: What do you mean?
Q On a coming date?
MS. TUTWILER: It's a hugh Department.
Q No. What I mean is, some of these people are in
town and they say they have an appointment here, and I was
wondering if you could confirm that?
MS. TUTWILER: With who?
Q That's what I don't know.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't either. I don't know (1) people
are in town; (2) it's an enormous building. It covers 4 city
blocks. I don't have any idea. I'll be happy to check for you.
[USSR: US Embassy Fire Update]
Q Margaret, can you bring us up to date on that fire
and whether any documents were stolen?
MS. TUTWILER: Moscow Embassy?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Yesterday, Assistant Secretary
Sheldon Krys, who heads, as you know, the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security, returned and reported back on his trip to Moscow.
Immediately after the fire, a team was sent to our
Embassy to conduct an assessment of the extent of damage caused
by the fire and to determine what extent, if any, security
systems and sensitive classified equipment had been compromised.
That team is not back yet, even though Sheldon has come back
and given us his preliminary and initial report.
Firemen did, indeed, have unescorted access to the
Embassy for a time. The fire began at 10:15 a.m. Moscow time.
Soviet firefighters were immediately called to the scene.
Embassy Marine Security Guards were issued respirators and
assigned to escort firemen into the building. After about 30
minutes, the Marine escorts were forced to withdraw because
their respirators were depleted and the heat and heavy smoke
posed a serious risk to their lives.
Marine Guards and security personnel re-entered the
building about 2 hours later, although even then the intensity
of heat and smoke was such that they could not access some
areas. By 3:30 p.m., the building was totally secured. No
sensitive operations have been conducted in the Old Embassy
Building since then.
Preliminary findings indicate that the most sensitive
areas were appropriately locked and these first examinations
show that those areas were not breached. A small number of
offices had to be abandoned before all safes could be secured.
These were not in the secured areas. And though we consider the
material and equipment compromised, we do not believe it was
national security sensitive.
Contrary to some reports, we found no evidence that
cryptographic or secure communications equipment was removed
from the building. A number of computer disks were taken from
open offices, most of which were unclassified. All equipment
throughout the building, however, will be thoroughly examined
and tested before it is used again. In addition, further
forensic tests are being conducted on a number of items.
Because of the damage to the building and the access to
offices by Soviet personnel, it will be used for unclassified
purposes only at this time.
Ambassador Matlock, as I believe I've mentioned earlier
this week, has strongly protested efforts to misuse this tragic
event. It is a shame that the real courage shown by some Soviet
firefighters, in battling this serious blaze, has been blemished
by such actions. There were Soviet firemen who, at considerable
risk to themselves, effectively fought this fire, and we greatly
appreciate their efforts.
Q Margaret, did you say that most of the computer
disks that were taken were unclassified?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q That suggests then that there were some classified
disks that --
MS. TUTWILER: Right. What I cannot do is get into how
our embassies are physically set up, which you can understand.
It's an intelligence matter. But I would also key you back to
the phrase I used, that we do not believe it was "national
security sensitive".
Q Magaret, I believe you also said that there are no
sensitive operations now going on in the Old Embassy Building.
As the new building is also compromised, does this suggest that
people are working out of their homes in sensitive areas?
MS. TUTWILER: I cannot answer this for you. This gets
into, obviously, intelligence matters. We're doing the best
that we can, and we have ways and means of dealing with this.
Q But you can assure us there can be work done,
sensitive work, safely?
MS. TUTWILER: It has been. It will continue to be,
and it is being done. What I obviously cannot get into is how
that's carried out.
Q How does this affect the plight of the Embassy as
a whole, which even beforehand you've been complaining for years
-- you, collectively, have been complaining?
MS. TUTWILER: It makes it double tough. I talked to
Jim Collins briefly about this when we were recently in the
Soviet Union. His office was destroyed. He's operating now in
one of the offices that we use when we go there for ministerials
and meet. It has obviously put added strains on our Embassy
personnel there. We were working in cramp quarters, to begin
with. Now, it's even obviously more difficult for them.
Q What is holding up any kind of solution of the
various kinds that you have suggested?
MS. TUTWILER: You would have to talk to the various
committees up on the Hill about that, Alan. As you know, the
Administration has put forward -- I believe it was at least a
year ago; the Secretary of State did in his testimony before the
subcommittees with oversight of this -- the Administration's
position -- view and position on this. So far, there's no
closure. We've stated what our view is.
Q Is there any progress towards closure?
MS. TUTWILER: Not the last time I checked into this
with Ivan [Selin] and Janet [Mullins].
Q Progress?
MS. TUTWILER: Not really. It is something that Ivan
Selin, as the Under Secretary of Management, continues to work
strenuously on. It is something that Janet works on a lot. But
I cannot characterize for you that there is an agreed-upon
decision.
Q Speaking of testimony by the Secretary of State,
anything to tell us about scheduled testimony?
MS. TUTWILER: I have nothing to announce at this time.
Q Next week maybe?
MS. TUTWILER: I just have no announcements to make
concerning future testimony by the Secretary.
Q Has the Secretary made some special pleas since
this happened for more progress on the embassy business, aside
from Janet and Ivan Selin?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, we were on the road, Saul,
remember, when the fire happened. Since he's been back --
yesterday, I think, was his first day back. I'm not aware that
he has called any Congressmen or Senators. I do know that Ivan
gave him an update yesterday of where we are concerning this
situation -- yesterday morning.
Q Does he have any plans to ask him to get a move-on
to solve this problem?
MS. TUTWILER: The Hill is very well aware of the
Secretary's interest in this subject. His taking a position --
I believe it was a year ago -- and if you remember, up to that
point, the Administration -- the previous one and this one --
had a difficult time saying what their actual final decision
was. He did that. He did it in public testimony.
He is very anxious for this to be resolved, to get
moving. It is something that was needed before this fire. It
is even needed more so now. It is something that he would, yes,
like to see resolved, come to closure, get going, make a
decision.
Q I'm just asking -- your arguments are all very
articulate and good. Why doesn't he tell that to the Hill?
MS. TUTWILER: They're very well aware of his views on
this.
Q Margaret, what does this say about the state of
U.S.-Soviet relations? After all, you've moved from
confrontation to cooperation. The Cold War is officially dead
and buried. What does this tell us about the kind of relations,
the kind of trust between these two countries?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, Alan, until the final report is
back and we know who these individuals were, etc., etc., I'm not
going to jump to a conclusion that this was X authorized by here
or that Gentleman Y knew about this, etc. I have said, which is
very strongly felt by the Diplomatic Security people here, that
it is felt by our Ambassador and the personnel who were caught
in this fire, that there were many, many brave Soviet
firefighters, at great risk to themselves, who went in and
helped.
Yes, we have said that there were some that were
unescorted. I have been forthcoming this morning and honest and
said, yes, there are some things that we have strongly protested
there but I cannot take it further than that until I know the
extent of what was done and who was responsible.
Q If you protested it, you must know something.
What did you protest? What did you say in the --
MS. TUTWILER: We protested the evidence or the
material of what we found to be missing. Again, go back to my
descriptions. The offices where the safes were left open, what
areas they were in, we do not even, in our preliminary findings,
believe that this was a national security sensitive breach.
And, understandably -- I don't know how all of you would
reaction, but I would guess it would be the same way I would
react -- if I'm in a room where smoke is coming in, in a really
bad fire, I'm going to leave. A lot of people did, and that's
understandable.
Q You protested missing computer diskettes, in
particular. Were you that specific or were you not that
specific? I mean, if the Soviets --
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen Jack's [Matlock] actual
protest that he made. We are aware that, again, some things
were missing. I've explained out of what areas, to the best of
my ability, without compromising our own security and structures
at embassies. I have also given you a realistic
characterization of what this material may have been.
Q But you feel strongly enough about it to protest
to the Soviet government. And therefore my question is -- and
you apparently do not have the answer this morning -- what is it
you're protesting? They know about it. Our government knows
about it.
MS. TUTWILER: I've told you, some things that are
missing.
Q So you say. OK. We're protesting some things
missing?
MS. TUTWILER: Right. I would not characterize them as
furniture.
Q Have you asked for them to be returned?
MS. TUTWILER: Have we asked for them to be returned?
I don't know if Jack did that or not.
Q Margaret, what is "national security sensitive?"
Is that a level of classification? If it's not, can you
describe or give a level of classification to the material that
was taken?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm trying, within the obligations I
have to our intelligence and to our national security, to
explain this in the best way I can. What I am not going to do
is be able to, either today or in the future, go through and say
the way our embassies are set up; X operates here; they have X
type of classification, so this type of safe -- I just cannot do
that for, I think you would understand, obvious reasons. So I'm
not going to be able, other than to keep referring you back to
the direction I'm trying to say, without being, I'm sure, as
clairvoyant and clear as you would like, what types of things
may have been missing out of some of these open safes.
Q We're talking about papers in addition to the
computer disketts?
MS. TUTWILER: We well could be.
Q We're not talking about the safes themselves, are
we?
MS. TUTWILER: No. There was a fire going on, a bad
fire.
Q Was the fact that safes were left open, was that
found to be a security breach on the part of Embassy personnel?
MS. TUTWILER: Under the circumstances, I haven't heard
anyone raise that. As I've described, this was a very serious
fire. I've even said that firefighters and our Marine Guards,
their respirators gave out, had to step outside. There were
employees in this building who were -- and I think some of you
have seen much of the film footage -- trapped in a very, very
dangerous situation.
I'm not aware of -- I could be mistaken --someone comes
back and says this person is going to be severely reprimanded.
People stayed as long as they could stay. People did everything
they could do. At some point, you have to make a fundamental
decision, and those decisions were, I'm getting out of here and
save my life.
Q Does the Department have any reason to believe
now, after having looked into this, that the origins of the fire
were anything other than accidental?
MS. TUTWILER: I have not heard anyone say that; no.
It's my understanding, as I remember this, we believe this fire
began with a welder's torch. I haven't heard anything different
on that yet.
Q Accidental with a welder's torch?
Q Accidentally or --
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding, yes.
Q Who was welding?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know.
Q Margaret, you've said that the sensitive areas of
the Embassy did not appear to be breached; that they appeared to
be locked, but --
MS. TUTWILER: I said the most sensitive areas were
appropriately locked.
Q Were appropriately locked. And I think you also
said, did not appear to be --
MS. TUTWILER: I said preliminary findings indicate
that the most sensitive areas were appropriately locked and
these first examinations showed they were not breached.
Q Right. But you have decided just out of caution,
even so, not to carry out the normal activities that would go on
in those areas until a more conclusive finding is made; is that
correct?
MS. TUTWILER: It's not only those areas. It's my
understanding it's the entire building.
Q Right. But those areas would be the only areas --
MS. TUTWILER: That's been done since the first day.
Q -- that would be used?
MS. TUTWILER: The whole building.
Q Were you asked about the former Iranian President
and his visa application?
MS. TUTWILER: You got it, George.
Q Can't I ask -- don't say "thank you."
MS. TUTWILER: What, Connie?
Q I haven't bugged you about New Zealand for a few
days.
MS. TUTWILER: You haven't. That's true.
Q For weeks, actually. Anyway, the Foreign Minister
is on his way over. He says he hopes to meet with Baker. And
also the Prime Minister of New Zealand is saying there is a
loophole in which American ships can return to New Zealand. Do
you have any comments on either of those?
MS. TUTWILER: Number 2, I know nothing about and
haven't seen the Prime Minister's comments on that part of your
question. Number 1, I believe I have seen, since I've been
back, a request for the Secretary to see the Foreign Minister of
New Zealand. I don't know what the answer is to that.
Q Do you mind looking into that second question?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:33 p.m.)