US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #97, Thursday, 6/13/91

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: 12:24 PM, Washington, DC Date: Jun 13, 19916/13/91 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe, Caribbean, East Asia, South Asia, Pacific, Polar Regions Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, USSR (former), Lebanon, Sudan, Philippines, China, Fiji, Antarctica, Czechoslovakia (former), Cuba, Pakistan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Development/Relief Aid, Arms Control, Military Affairs, Terrorism, State Department, Trade/Economics, CSCE, United Nations, Nuclear Nonproliferation, Environment, Mideast Peace Process (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MS. TUTWILER: I have one brief statement I'd like to make.

[United Nations: US Contribution to Special Commission]

The United States is making an immediate $2 million contribution to the U.N. Special Commission charged with eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The commission is encountering serious financial problems in carrying forward its important work and will not be able to do so unless a number of countries step forward quickly to support its vitally important program. That's it. Q Do you have anything on the Secretary's meeting -- Q Excuse me, on your announcement. Is this in any way occasioned by the suspicion that there may have been a lot of nuclear weapons sites missed? MS. TUTWILER: No. This was, it's my understanding, in the original U.N. resolution. It was always anticipated that this would be voluntary contributions, and this is the contribution the United States has made -- I believe we're making today -- and we also have called on, as the U.N. does, other countries to make contributions. And we have been having those conversations with other countries through our normal diplomatic channels. This is just simply an announcement of our contribution. This is the United States contribution as of today. It could be envisioned that the United States and other countries have to give more, and it's an effort to highlight that this is extremely serious with us. And, as I said, the U.N. resolution calls for this to be done on a voluntary basis. Barrie? Q Margaret, is there a danger that this commission could go out of business and won't be able to do its job? MS. TUTWILER: I don't think they're at that point yet. I just think that we're highlighting today that they have serious financial circumstances, and so we wanted to make it public and visible. Q Has there been a reluctance of countries to contribute to this effort in the past? MS. TUTWILER: I can't characterize it as a reluctance. Again, I have said that we, in our statement, urge other countries to also make a contribution as we have done today by announcing our $2 million. But I am not aware that anyone, Norm, has been reluctant. But I think that we are highlighting that this is a very serious subject. It needs immediate attention, and that's why we're making immediately $2 million available. Q Margaret, how much money are you looking for in total right now to do this job? MS. TUTWILER: They don't have that. Q And why are you having trouble? I mean, this seems to be a task that the world community has highlighted as very important. Why wouldn't they contribute to it? MS. TUTWILER: The United States has just today, Carol, in fairness to others, announced our contribution of $2 million. And other nations, as far as I know, may be doing the same in their capitals today, may be doing it tomorrow. And what was the first part of your question? I can't remember. Q How much money overall do you need? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. Let me ask. I'm not sure that there is a figure on that, to be honest. Q Margaret, will the United States be ready to pay more for the committee's work in case other countries are not forthcoming? MS. TUTWILER: I can't commit the United States to paying more without being able to -- that's something that I would be answering in a vacuum, to be honest, for you. I don't know what other countries' contributions are going to be. I think I'm correct in saying that we're not sure that we have an overall total figure of what is needed. This is a figure -- the $2 million the United States has given today, our contribution -- that is based on our estimate of what we think will be needed. And so it's hard for me to prejudge or to look into the future for you to see what in addition the United States may or may not be willing to do. Let's just see how this goes. Q Another way: Is this a final payment, or is it a kind of first payment or down payment? MS. TUTWILER: That's a little bit the same question in my mind asked in a different way. I cannot answer for you "what if" and "tomorrow" type questions. This is what the United States is doing today. Q Margaret, what about these reports that Iraq has more nuclear weapons materials that we thought and, specifically, a report last night that the United States is urgently asking the United Nations to investigate these reports and that the U.S. reserves the right to take independent action, if necessary. MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen any of those reports. I saw a report last week concerning a specific individual, and we refused to comment on it. And I'll be happy to take the other parts of your questions. I'm just not aware of those parts. Q Margaret. Q (Inaudible) Q Margaret, where's the money coming from? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll ask. Q Margaret. Q Is the United States the first country to contribute to this fund? MS. TUTWILER: I'll have to check for you. Q Do you have anything on the Secretary's meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister this morning? MS. TUTWILER: More than what the Secretary said at his photo opportunity? Q No. (Laughter) Q (Inaudible) MS. TUTWILER: All right. That's right. That was before the meeting. And I believe Foreign Minister Levy spoke to you all afterward. I've seen a brief transcript. I don't have a lot to add. As you know, the Secretary and the Foreign Minister met for almost 2 hours. We characterized the meeting almost exactly as the Foreign Minister himself did, as a good meeting and a good discussion. It will come as no surprise to anyone here that I cannot go into the details of the meeting. I can say that a number of issues were discussed, but the majority of the time was spent on the peace process. The Secretary took the occasion to go over a number of points that are contained in Prime Minister Shamir's letter to President Bush, and the Secretary said, as I believe he said this morning to you all in his last question, that we will continue our efforts so long as we believe there is a basis and reason to do so. Q Margaret, the Israeli Foreign Minister described the process as not being stuck or deadlocked. Any comment on that? MS. TUTWILER: I think that everybody, comparing adjectives -- we haven't said that it is "stuck," "deadlocked." As you know, the President has not had responses from all of the leaders that he has written to, so I don't think that you could say that something is finished, complete, stuck, deadlocked, until you have back all parts of the puzzle. Q Margaret, can you say whether, in their discussions today, they narrowed any of the differences that are well known about the modalities of convening a peace conference? MS. TUTWILER: That wasn't really the purpose of this visit, Owen, and the Foreign Minister, as you know, is here on a private visit. They discussed, as I said, portions or parts of Prime Minister Shamir's letter to President Bush, some of which dealt with the modalities that you're well aware of. Yes, those two modalities were discussed, but I cannot say that this was ever envisioned as any type of decision meeting between the two Foreign Ministers. Q What was the purpose? You said this wasn't officially -- MS. TUTWILER: The purpose was, as Secretary Baker does any number of times, as Foreign Ministers do, the Foreign Minister of Israel is in this country on a private visit, and it is quite natural that he would visit his counterpart here in Washington, D.C. Q Margaret, did the Israeli Foreign Minister request assurances from Secretary Baker, and did Baker give the Israeli Foreign Minister assurances, that Israel would not be caught unaware by an initiative by the United States in the peace process as it moves forward? MS. TUTWILER: What I don't want to do, Ralph, as the Secretary himself refrains from doing, is going into a level of detail concerning the discussion they had this morning. That would put me, in my mind, across the line of a level of detail that he would not want me to discuss. Q You're not steering me away from that type of analysis. Or I'll say you are choosing not to steer me away from that type of analysis. MS. TUTWILER: You could interpret it that way. Q A follow-up to the same question. Mr. Levy said Israel will not be surprised by any new development not to be acceptable to us beforehand. Do you share the same kind of characterization of agreement between the two countries? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure, sir, with that translation -- I believe our staff did this on a very fast track -- that I would feel comfortable -- because they've told me this is just their first rough draft -- in answering the question until I've seen exactly what the Foreign Minister has said here in the State Department. Q Margaret, I gather that the Secretary ruled out the possibility of issuing invitations to the Foreign Ministers in the Middle East. How definitive was that? Is that definitely not under consideration at all? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know who could have possibly told you that. Q I'm going by wire accounts. MS. TUTWILER: Where did they get that from? I mean, I haven't seen that yet this morning, but -- Q Isn't that one of the things he said no to this morning? Q He was asked whether or not President Bush had invited or was considering inviting the Foreign Ministers of the Middle East to a special summit which had been reported in the Israeli press. MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of him saying or considering. It would be perfectly logical for him to say, "Has the President made a decision to invite X." I can well understand why he would answer that in the negative. I'll be happy to go back and check the record. I'm not aware of a Presidential decision that has been made to invite anyone anywhere at this moment in time. Q Is it still an option then? MS. TUTWILER: Sure. The President has any number of options.

[USSR: Early Election Returns]

Q Do you have anything on the Yeltsin election? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. We have seen only preliminary results so far. Initial figures indicate that Yeltsin will achieve a first-round victory, as will Mayor Popov of Moscow and Mayor Sobchak of Leningrad. I would stress, however, that these results are unofficial and incomplete. We have not yet seen any official tallies of the ballots which are still being counted. TASS has also reported that Leningrad voters approved a non-binding resolution to restore the name of their city to St. Petersburg. We do not have sufficient information at this time to state whether the elections were free and fair, but we would like to note that there have been no allegations of major improprieties. This election, the first of its kind in Russian history, is an important step forward for Russia and the Soviet Union as a whole. It is part of a historic transition away from dictatorship and toward a system based on peaceful, free expression, and the legitimacy derived from popular consent. We believe that the stated commitment of both President Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin to cooperate in addressing their country's problems is a hopeful and positive sign. Q Do you think that Yeltsin's election puts greater pressure on Mr. Gorbachev to institute economic reform? MS. TUTWILER: You'd have to ask the Soviet Union for that type of analytical work. Q On the basis of the referendum to which you referred in Leningrad, will the United States refer to that city from now on as St. Petersburg, or what process does it take for the U.S. to make its decision? MS. TUTWILER: I guess that we have to wait, Ralph, for all of the ballots to be counted and for the official results to be declared official. And at that moment -- I'm assuming here; I would like to obviously check with the lawyers -- I would have to assume, as the majority of a number of citizens in a city determined to change the name of the city that, you know -- Barrie's shaking his head. No -- we don't recognize that? MR. DUNSMORE: No. I think it actually has to be ratified by the Russian Federation before it -- MS. TUTWILER: By the Russian Federation? O.K. That's why I said I wanted to check with the lawyers. Thank you for helping me. Q I was just going to say the question is not entirely frivolous, because, as you may know, President Gorbachev recommended against the change, and it may turn out to be one of those small ways in which the United States will have to make a choice between adhering to what the center's leader decides and what the republics or even the parliament and legislature decides. That's why I was asking whether the U.S. had decided how it was going to make that decision. MS. TUTWILER: What I'll do is go back to my original formulation, which was a duck, and say that I am waiting for official results. And Barrie has graciously helped me and pointed out to me that this is something that would have to be ratified by the republic -- MR. DUNSMORE: Russian Federation. MS. TUTWILER: By the Russian Federation. And so I will get all this pulled together for you tomorrow, and we'll seek counsel here in the Department on how we're going to approach this. Q In the meantime it's Leningrad, right? MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Q Margaret, do you have any reaction to Prime Minister Shamir's statement in reaction to President Bush's statement made yesterday? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of which -- to be honest with you, I took the day off. I'm not aware of what statements you're referring to that the President made that the Prime Minister reacted to. I have been made aware this morning that there was one news story that was misreported, and that my understanding is that news service has corrected itself. That's the only thing I'm aware of from yesterday. And, if you want to help enlighten me -- Q Prime Minister Shamir just said that Israel will continue building new settlements. No change in his policy. He is not responding in any way to appeal of the U.S. President. MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen that particular statement by the Prime Minister, but, as you know, we have had a long-standing disagreement concerning this, and good friends can agree to disagree agreeably. Q Can I follow up on this? I think one of the stories was that the President said last week that he would freeze loan guarantees if settlements are not frozen. MS. TUTWILER: And I believe that is the story that I'm referring to that a news organization has since said that someone was, I believe, quoted out of context. I believe that story has taken care of itself. Q So you're actually saying that the President didn't say that? MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge. My understanding is that this was a news story that was reported that an individual, I believe, who either received a letter from the President or talked to the President or received something was inadvertently misquoted and since then the news organization has said such, and so there was not a story that I'm aware of. Q (Inaudible) MS. TUTWILER: It what? Q Apparently an Orthodox Rabbi, if that helps any. (Laughter) MS. TUTWILER: I don't know who it was. Q Margaret, on the same area, can you confirm reports, I think today somewhere, that the U.S. informed the Lebanese Government or asked the Lebanese Government to disarm PLO guerrillas in south of Lebanon, and supposedly there was a complaint by the Lebanese President that the U.S. promised to pressure Israel out of south Lebanon. Any comment on either of these two stories? MS. TUTWILER: On the first part of your story, we dealt with this last week, and, as you know, the Lebanese Government has made it very clear themselves that they are in the process, and in fact have been successful, with a number of militias in demilitarizing them, taking their weapons, etc. As far as my knowledge of this, I have not heard them say that this does not apply to all militias in Lebanon, but I would refer you to the Lebanese Government. And, as you know, the United States' policy is for all foreign forces to leave Lebanon, and our policy has not changed on that. I can restate for you verbatim, literally our policy, but that is the extent of what I know about the current play on this subject. Q But there is no particular statement about the PLO fighters in south Lebanon from the U.S. Government. MS. TUTWILER: If you're talking about the 3 days -- I believe it was last week -- of attacks in south Lebanon, that we have raised here at this podium, and you have to assume that the United States Ambassador has raised it also. We spoke to that. Q What about the other reported Lebanese President's complaint that the U.S. promised to get Israel out of south Lebanon? MS. TUTWILER: I'll only restate for you what the United States policy has been -- it's long-standing policy. We have consistently supported the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon. That is certainly the message that we have conveyed to all parties involved in Lebanon and that the Secretary repeated just yesterday in public testimony on the Hill. Q Margaret, on a separate subject. Do you have a readout on the Kimmitt-Bartholomew meetings with the Czechoslovak Defense Minister today? MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't. I'll see if I can get it for you. Q Margaret, on another subject. In view of the volcanic action and the evacuation of Clark Air Force Base, is this government having second thoughts about the wisdom of negotiating a long-term lease on Clark Air Force Base? MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of, Jim. But I'd like to check with the Pentagon and make sure that I'm correct; but I have not heard any such conversation. Q Could it be that this is nature's way of saying that maybe Clark Air Force Base (Laughter) is not such a hot spot on Earth? MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Let's see, today is Thursday. Pete [Williams] briefs on Thursday, so maybe one of your colleagues can ask Pete at his briefing. He routinely does them at 3:00 at the Pentagon, but I'll be happy to call him myself and see if anybody has got these type of conversations going on. Q Still, on another subject -- two broadcasting operations. Does the State Department take any view about a Radio Free China? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Deputy Secretary Larry Eagleburger expressed our view yesterday in public testimony. I'd just refer you to his record. Q And do you have any views about the USIA Advisory Commission saying that TV Marti is not cost-effective and therefore should be ended? MS. TUTWILER: I haven't dealt with that subject in quite some time. I'll be happy to look into it for you. Q Margaret, on another matter. The Congress is still beating around, trying to figure out what to do about our Embassy building in Moscow. I know that there was a closed hearing on it up there yesterday. Are we still pressing the Soviets to pay compensation for the problems in that building? MS. TUTWILER: On compensation, I'm not sure. I'll have to check for you. That's one part of this puzzle, to be honest with you, I've never heard discussed. As you know, this Administration -- we've been into this -- what?-- almost 30 months -- has been trying to get the Congress, as the Secretary expressed yesterday in testimony, to agree on a solution to the situation there on our Embassy. I'll be honest with you, I'll have to look into it. Q Would we like them to pay for the damage? MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to check before I just wing it for you. Q One of the oddities of this whole thing is that to this very day -- and I had a discussion with them a few days ago -- they don't admit to this very day that they ever put bugs in that Embassy. Does that surprise you at all? MS. TUTWILER: Again, since I've been here in this job, I have really been involved with the internal discussions and the conversations between the Administration and the Hill concerning resolution of moving forward, moving into the future, getting our Embassy employees there adequate housing, adequate office space. That is what I have seen, since I've been here in this Administration, concentrated on. I am sure that there are experts, and there are people at our Embassy who are dealing with the subject matters that you're raising. I just have not been in meetings where those types of questions have been discussed. Q Margaret, can I go back to the Middle East for a second? Secretary Baker indicated today he's not planning to go back to the Middle East. He also indicated that the President is not planning to invite Middle East leaders to Camp David. Where does this process go from here? Waiting for the Syrians to reply to the letter? MS. TUTWILER: That would be a good deduction. Q But besides that? MS. TUTWILER: That's a logical next step. You know where we left the process. The President has written to any number of leaders there in the region. We have heard back from a number, and we're waiting to hear from others. Q Yesterday, the House -- MS. TUTWILER: Carol's next. Q Should I defer? MS. TUTWILER: No. It's okay. Q The House Appropriations Committee linked renewal of MFN for China with resumption of U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund. Do you have any reaction to that? MS. TUTWILER: Is this the Senator Dole letter where there were five conditions? Q No. This is -- MS. TUTWILER: Then I'm not aware. I'm aware of a Dole-Bacchus letter on MFN for China. Q That's just on MFN. If you want to respond to that, that's fine, too. But I was asking about the House Appropriations Committee. MS. TUTWILER: I'm not familiar with it. I'll be happy to look into it for you. Q Can you respond to the Dole-Bacchus letter while you're -- MS. TUTWILER: We are aware of the proposed letter. We have not seen a final version. Obviously, when we receive the final letter, we will want to study it carefully. That is basically where we are on this, and we will not have a further, more elaborate response until we've seen the final text. Carol. Q Do you have any readout about the meetings between the Pakistani delegation and senior State Department officials? MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't, but I'll get them for you. Q One other question, while I have you. The Secretary is going to a fairly important meeting on the CSCE next week. What, specifically, can you tell us about what he wants to get done in this meeting? Is he going to support independent membership for the Baltics, for instance? MS. TUTWILER: What I've seen on that, Carol -- and I don't want to speak because Germany, as you know, is the host country and CSCE operates on consensus. As I recall, when we hosted the CSCE in New York, the Baltic delegation, as I remember under the rules of CSCE, I believe was an official guest of an official delegation. Check me on the terminology. I have not heard how this is going to be handled at this particular CSCE meeting, but it's quite possible that it could be handled in the same fashion. Q But can you not tell us anything about how the United States would like it to be handled? MS. TUTWILER: As you know, the United States -- and I believe we have spoken to this before as a member of CSCE -- recognizes that it operates on consensus. Secretary Baker, when he has met with the various Baltic leaders, has said that if it was up to the United States, "...of course, we would like for you to be able to participate, but we all have to deal in a real world." Practically speaking, it is done by consensus. You know that you will not get consensus at this time. Q Margaret, speaking of that trip, have you decided yet -- has it be set yet -- when he'll meet Bessmertnykh? MS. TUTWILER: No. I asked him that this morning, and it has not been determined. Q But he's still planning to do so? There is still a plan for that? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q The Czech Defense Minister -- MS. TUTWILER: On the what? Q The Czech Defense Minister met with Kimmitt and Bartholomew, I think, this morning. MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. Q You said you would take the question before. MS. TUTWILER: I thought she asked me about the Pakistani delegation. Q Wasn't there an earlier question about the -- MS. TUTWILER: OK, sorry. Q I think you agreed to take it. If you could answer specifically the question of what was said about the proposed Czech tank sale to the Syrians? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q Margaret, was there any response from Bessmertnykh yet to the letter that President Bush sent President Gorbachev? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q May I have three questions, three different topics, which probably will be taken questions for our friends upstairs in the South Pacific Bureau? First of all, do you have anything on a pending coup in Fiji? Apparently, there's quite a bit of unrest there -- don't you dare laugh. It's very serious to Fiji. MS. TUTWILER: No. In fact, the other day, Connie, I did have something on that. But since it wasn't on my radar screen this morning, I didn't bring it so I will be happy to have the press office give it to you. Q Do you remember vaguely what it was? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to try to wing it. Sorry. Q All right. Next one. This Greenpeace story that the U.S. is bending on nuclear port calls to Sweden. Has the U.S. changed its NC/ND policy in any way? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Do you have anything on it? MS. TUTWILER: I don't even know about it, but I know our policy hasn't changed. Q Is the U.S. about to change its policy on the Antarctic, on a mining ban? Could you look into that perhaps as a taken question? MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I'll take that question.

[Terrorism: Achille Lauro Convict Released]

Q I have one, too. This is a couple of days old, Margaret. I think it was on Monday in Italy that a court allowed one of the Achille Lauro suspects -- or convicts -- to go out on parole. Is the U.S. satisfied with the conditions on which he'll be kept in touch with the Italian Government? MS. TUTWILER: You hit pay dirt. Bassam al-Ashker, who was 17 when he participated in the Achille Lauro hijacking, was tried, as you point out, as a juvenile and sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment. He has been incarcerated since October 1985. We understand that on June 4, Genoa's juvenile court sustained the petition for "conditional freedom under probation" -- similar, it's my understanding, to parole -- of Bassam al-Ashker. The court finalized this decision on June 10, and he was released from prison. We understand that he will have to register with the local police each day and that further restrictions may be applied. His release was based on the court's view that he had been rehabilitated by his time in prison. United States policy is to prosecute and punish terrorists. We follow developments in this case continuously and remain in close touch with Italian authorities. The Government of Italy has consistently applied the rule of law to the defendants in the Achille Lauro case. We believe that a lengthy period of conditional freedom in Italy is necessary for this gentleman to demonstrate the sincerity of his statements against terrorist activities made in the course of his petition for conditional freedom. Q He has to stay in Italy for how long a period of time? MS. TUTWILER: Richard [Boucher], are you familiar with this than I am? It doesn't say, Connie. I'll be honest, I did not spend a great deal of time on this this morning. Q The court didn't say either how long he would be on this parole either. That's why I was asking whether the U.S. is satisfied with it. It sounds to me like what you're saying is, the U.S. doesn't know either but you'd like to let the Italian Government know it ought to be a long time. That's what that last sentence says. MS. TUTWILER: Right. It says, "We believe that a lengthy period of 'conditional freedom' in Italy is necessary." Q Are there any other conditions that the U.S. -- would the U.S. like to know more about the conditions? You said that there were some other -- I think you used the phrase "unspecified restrictions" or something. Would you like to know more about what those restrictions might be and see whether they satisfy the U.S.? MS. TUTWILER: If we would, I'll be happy to ask the experts for you. Q Margaret, has the United States received anything from the Sudanese Government regarding its offer -- that is, the U.S. offer -- to mediate an end to the civil war? MS. TUTWILER: I'll have to check for you.

[Iraq: Compensation to USS Stark Victims]

Q Margaret, one more subject. Can you tell me the current status of injury claims against Iraq relating to the Stark? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. After the Stark was attacked in May 1987, we immediately began to gather the information that would be necessary to prepare and present the wrongful death and personal injury claims. We gave priority to preparing the wrongful death claims, which involved the most significant losses to U.S. nationals. This involved extensive investigation of the beneficiaries circumstances of each victim and complicated factual and legal analyses. These claims were presented to Iraq in April 1988. Our efforts then focused on settling those claims which was achieved in March 1989. So those are the death claims of, it is my understanding, the 37 who died. In adopting this priority, we kept in mind that the immediate medical expenses of injured sailors were borne by the Navy and those with permanent disabilities were eligible for appropriate military and VA benefits. While there were several seriously injured sailors, most injured sailors on the Stark had relatively minor physical injuries. It's my understanding there were approximately 65 physical injuries. With regard to the preparation of the personal injury claims, they involved review of the claims with Department medical experts and consultations with the claimants as well as factual and legal analyses. To assess the level of eventual permanent injury or disability took time. By May 1989, we were able to present the injury claims. We made repeated efforts to get Iraq to settle the claims. Immediately prior to the invasion of August 2, 1990, it appeared that the injury claims would be settled and payment would be received and distributed. This did not, however, occur. The claims, as I believe you were interested in knowing, are on the United States agenda. However, since attack on the Stark occurred in 1987, it has not been considered in the current context of invasion and occupation-related war crimes. Rather, since 1987, it has been dealt with as an illegal isolated attack on a U.S. naval vessel for which Iraq is responsible and liable under international law. Right now, the United States Government remains determined to resolve the outstanding Stark claims. The United States Government has conducted a survey of all private and government claims against Iraq that arose prior to January 16, 1991. The Department of State has included the Stark claims. U.N. Security Council resolutions only cover claims arising from Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. However, the United States will also consider how to resolve claims against Iraq not covered by these resolutions. In developing a program for dealing with such claims, we will be cognizant of the outstanding Stark claims. Basically, the bottom line is, we are looking at various ways to get this compensation to these individuals, on the injury side. Q Are you saying there's no way that they'll be made part of the war claims? MS. TUTWILER: Part of the U.N.? Q UN/U.S. MS. TUTWILER: What I've stated is that right now that is not what is in the United Nations package. But I said, however, that is something that the United States will consider on how to resolve these claims. It's a possibility, but I'm not telling you that is the only possibility. We're looking at a number of ways, a variety of ways. Q Thank you. (Press briefing concluded 12:55 p.m.)