US Department of State Daily Press Briefing #145, Monday, 9/30/91

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: 12:14 PM, Washington, DC Date: Sep 30, 19919/30/91 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, E/C Europe, Europe, Central America, Subsaharan Africa, East Asia Country: Iraq, Yugoslavia (former), Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia-Montenegro, Israel, USSR (former), Zaire, Philippines, Cyprus, Haiti, El Salvador Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Regional/Civil Unrest, Democratization, Arms Control, Travel, NATO (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything. I'll be happy to try to answer any of your questions. Q Margaret, when -- and I suppose it's soon -- will the Secretary meet with the Palestinians? MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me? Q When, please -- and I expect it would be soon -- would the Secretary be meeting with Palestinians here in Washington? MS. TUTWILER: Here in Washington? There are no such plans for a meeting here in Washington or anywhere else. Having said that, you know he's met with -- if you're speaking of the two Palestinians -- met with them any number of times and other Palestinians. He has said all last week in New York, when asked this question, that he would continue those meetings, and he would expect to meet them again soon to finalize details on the assurances exercise. Q Right, but that was last week and now it's this week, so -- MS. TUTWILER: There's only been one day since I last saw you -- on Saturday night in New York. Q No, I didn't say -- there was very little access Saturday. It's earlier in the week that we were asking the Secretary and he said he's happy to meet with them whenever they wish, or something. I'm just trying to see if you've lined it up yet. I mean plans -- if you leave the word "plans" out -- MS. TUTWILER: A literal specific, we have not lined up. But, again, I would point you to that he would expect to meet them again soon to finalize details on the assurances exercise. Q On that subject, Margaret, have you had a chance to analyze what came out of the PLO meeting and whether their apparent acceptance of going to the meeting is unconditional? Or do you see any fine print? MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a further characterization for you, Jim, than the one the Secretary gave up in New York which, to quote him literally, said that "we see support for the prospect of trying to create a peace process in the Middle East. Any place we see it and any time, we're very glad to see that." Q He said that when there was just a preliminary report. Presumably, he and other experts have now looked at what the National Council did. He said that, I think, probably Thursday -- maybe Friday. There have been several days since. Have your experts looked at the fine print? And by now, can you go beyond what was simply an off-the-cuff -- MS. TUTWILER: If I could have, I would have responded to Jim in a different way. For today, that's what our answer is. Q You're giving us an off-the-quote response, that he was kind enough to give us off the top of his head, not even having a text or anything to work with. You've had several days now to look at what they've done. Can you do anything more elaborate than to quote an old quote? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q On a similar point. Given that the PLO has now booted Abu Abbas, is there any review of the prospects for resuming a dialogue with the PLO? MS. TUTWILER: No. Restoration of the U.S.-PLO dialogue is not an issue that we're addressing at this point. When the dialogue was suspended, the President made very clear that the PLO would need to take a number of steps, including condemnation of the terrorist attack for which Abu Abbas was directly responsible, disassociation of the PLO from that operation, and steps to discipline Abu Abbas. We've certainly noted Abu Abbas' departure from the Executive Committee but that does not satisfy all of our concerns. Q Margaret, the Soviet Foreign Ministry -- a different subject. The Soviet Foreign Ministry announced that -- Q Can we finish on that one? MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Q What specifically do you want them to do beyond what has been done already? MS. TUTWILER: Number One, we do not think this is the time, as I said, to be discussing -- and this is not the issue we are going to address right now -- changing the status, which is the suspension of the U.S.-PLO dialogue. At this time -- and I believe it was a Presidential statement made in Alabama in June laying out exactly what our views were of this and what steps had to be taken. For starters, as I recall, Number One, condemnation of the terrorist attack; I don't believe I've ever seen that condemnation. Q My recollection was that they did criticize it. I don't know whether that means -- MS. TUTWILER: Not that specific one, as I recall. Remember, they had a very general statement, as I recall, but not specifically condemning that specific terrorist attack on the beach. Q In terms of -- and I realize that you feel this is politically an inopportune time to pursue it -- MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Q -- but, at least, it would seem that the PLO should know what more has to be -- MS. TUTWILER: They do know. In my personal opinion -- honest, I'm not being cute or funny with you -- they know very well. The goalposts have not been changed. They know what those are, and that hasn't changed. Now, having said all of that, I'll repeat again that it is our view -- and I would say that it is our strongly held view -- that this is not the time to publicly debate or discuss changing the status of the suspension of the U.S.-PLO dialogue. So there isn't any kind of discussion going on along those lines. Q Margaret, are you suggesting that if the PLO were to do the three things you just mentioned -- discipline, disassociate, and so forth -- that the U.S. would say this is not the time? MS. TUTWILER: I'm suggesting that this is not the time to discuss this. It's not being discussed; it's not being reviewed. The President, if you go back and look at his statement -- if you don't have it, I'll give it to you in the Press Room afterwards -- is very clear. It's approximately a three-page statement that he made in Alabama saying what would have to happen in order to change the status from where it is now. All I'm saying is that --and I mentioned one to Carol -- condemning the terrorist attack is something that was contained in that. There were other steps that were mentioned in that that just haven't been taken. Q My question is, if they do that this week, is the U.S. going to say -- MS. TUTWILER: If they do that this week -- Q -- let's talk in November about whether resuming? MS. TUTWILER: Number One, that's a total hypothetical for me; and Number Two, that would obviously be something that would be decided at a higher pay grade than mine and probably being decided by the President, not me. Q What do you mean "talk at the proper time"? What's wrong with the time? MS. TUTWILER: In our view, I think for very obvious reasons, Barry, this is not the time to be discussing this, to be reviewing this. It is the time, which is what we are doing, for putting our emphasis and priorities on trying to get a peace process going, as you're well aware, and that is where our priorities lie right now. Q But I don't understand what's wrong with the timing. Will it interfere with that -- the peace effort? MS. TUTWILER: We just do not think that this is the proper time, and it's not an issue that we're addressing right now. Q I know. You've said at least a half dozen times, it's not the proper time. MS. TUTWILER: That' right. And I think it's perfectly clear why. Q But what's -- you used to say, Malone would undercut, and you never explained that until you had to. What is wrong with the timing here? Do you think some parties might object if you resumed your discussions with the PLO? MS. TUTWILER: That's probably an understatement. Q Then why don't you state it? MS. TUTWILER: Because, Barry, I'm going to continue to state it the way that I've chosen to state it. I have said clearly what our priorities are right now. I think they're well known. There are no secrets. I have said this is not even an issue, because they have not done what we had asked at the time of the terrorist attack to even suspend the dialogue. So it's really irrelevant because they haven't done what is needed to even suspend the dialogue. Q No. What you're saying here is hardly irrelevant. You are holding out the possibility to the PLO that at another time, if they do certain things, you would be happy to talk to them again, and that's sort of an inducement and an enticement. MS. TUTWILER: That's been there since the President suspended the dialogue last June. If you go look at his statement, it's -- Q He never spoke of proper times and improper times. MS. TUTWILER: No, sir, he said -- Q He spoke on matters of principle and you're speaking on matters of pragmatism, aren't you? MS. TUTWILER: The President, in his statement -- and I'll get it for you; I didn't bring it to the podium -- said, "If these things were met" -- this is his statement of June, not today. I'm speaking on September 30 -- "that they would promptly" -- it's in the word "promptly" -- "resume." So I refer you back to that statement of what the President said when this dialogue was suspended. I just am sorry I didn't bring it with me, but we have it in the Press Office. Q Does the State Department -- MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me, I do have it. I'm sorry. Q Does the State Department share the assessment that most analysts are using, that this is a victory for Arafat and that Arafat is a moderate? Do you consider Arafat a moderate? MS. TUTWILER: I don't put labels on people, Barry, and I'm not going to start today doing that. The President's statement that we'll have for you, is in Huntsville, Alabama, on June 20, 1990, on page three, Barry, he said -- and I won't read the whole two first pages to you -- "We are prepared to promptly resume the dialogue. In the meantime, we would hope and expect that the peace process would proceed." That is what he stated in June. You need to ask the White House what their policy is today, September 30. Q Margaret, the point being, of this whole discussion, is the PLO has done something for you. They've sort of pushed -- what is your expression? -- the envelope, or something? MS. TUTWILER: Pushed the envelope? Q Yeah, whatever that means. They've done something to help your efforts to get the Palestinians into talks, and I wondered if there's any payoff coming? And you say, "Not this time, not at this time." MS. TUTWILER: I'm saying what are facts. The facts are, when the dialogue was suspended, the United States Government, in the form of a Presidential statement, laid down very clearly what it would require to resume a dialogue. That is fact. That's factual. I am saying that those conditions, to my knowledge, have not changed this morning or since the ending of that meeting. They're still there. I've stated that. Then, on the hypothetical, "what if" on a U.S.-PLO resumption of the dialogue, I've answered it, what our views are on that. Q Now, on the Palestinians, "soon" was the word. MS. TUTWILER: What? Q Can you fill us in -- I say the likelihood that a meeting would occur. MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Q Tell us, please, about the other parties. You remember, while we were up in New York, there were talks here -- continuing with the Israelis -- on the letters of assurance. I'm trying to figure out -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- how you're progressing with the Israelis and the Arab governments. MS. TUTWILER: It's still being worked at the experts' level. There were phone conversations at the end of last week, and there will be meetings, probably, today and through this week. Q Here -- at what level? MS. TUTWILER: Experts' levels. Q Experts? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q Do these phone conversations involve the Secretary talking to any Foreign Ministers? MS. TUTWILER: No. All at expert level. As the Secretary had said, that's how it would be handled. Q New subject, Margaret. The Soviet Foreign Minister announced today that Minister Pankin will be seeing Secretary Baker. MS. TUTWILER: That he will be seeing Secretary Baker? Q Yes, on the U.S. Presidential initiative on the new strategy. How soon will the Secretary be meeting with Mr. Pankin? MS. TUTWILER: I am unfortunately am not aware of that statement, and I'm not aware of any scheduled or proposed meeting between the two Foreign Ministers. So that's all I have. Q Can you check that out later today, please? MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I'll check it out. But I also saw -- excuse me -- a wire copy that I saw before the briefing that said President Gorbachev's spokesman had said that they expected President Gorbachev to be responding sometime in the middle of this week. That's what I saw this morning. Yes, John. Q Margaret, do you have anything to say about the report in the Washington Times today that a meeting at the summit -- a four-power summit -- is being considered to discuss the President's initiative, or possibly a ministerial-level meeting? MS. TUTWILER: That is an idea, as you know, that President Mitterrand proposed -- I think it's some time ago. It is something that is being discussed. The United States, at the time President Mitterrand issued this statement, said that we supported the idea. Before any such meetings, consultations among all NATO allies are required, since the issue of nuclear control is of concern to all allies. We have not yet decided at what level this meeting will take place, when or where, and we will be consulting further on this question. Q You say it's been discussed -- discussed with them or discussed internally or both? Your first sentence says, this blah, blah, blah is something that is being discussed. Discussed with others or among the -- MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to speak for the White House, but I would assume that President Mitterrand and President Bush have had a discussion about this. We're aware of the idea in here. People at the experts' level in here have discussed their pros and cons, or their views on this, but there are no decisions on when, where, at what level, etc., and these consultations or discussions are continuing. Q And, Margaret, can you clear up whether or not -- when Baker met with Pankin last week in New York, did he brief him on the President's speech? In other words, have they had a preliminary discussion about what was in the President's speech? MS. TUTWILER: As you will recall, we originally had a 2-hour meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union and at the conclusion of that meeting, said they would be getting back together the next morning. That was, I believe, Friday morning. That was approximately a 30- or 40-minute meeting. At that time is when the Secretary of State pre-briefed the Foreign Minister. As I think you all know now, President Bush had talked to President Gorbachev. So when the Minister saw the Secretary, he had an idea of what this was going to be about. But the Secretary went through it in quite some detail with the Foreign Minister at that time. Q In New York, the Secretary of State also briefed the NATO ministers. MS. TUTWILER: He did. Q Did he authorize the Danish Foreign Minister to reveal the content of the President's speech at that moment, around noon, Friday? MS. TUTWILER: I didn't attend the meeting. The meeting was principals only at that time. As I recall, the meeting was at 11:30 a.m. in New York. It was with Foreign Ministers and with Perm Reps. At that time, I believe the White House plan was to have the President speak at 1:30. So it could well be with the knowledge that the Secretary said at that meeting at 1:30, the President will say this. When we then were informed that the President would be speaking at 8:00, obviously, at the experts' level -- yeah, address at 8:00 p.m. Friday night -- the change was notified to other countries. Q On this possible summit -- just to pin it down -- you say it hasn't been decided where. The Washington Times story says it will be in Rome in early November. You say that's either premature or wrong? MS. TUTWILER: Number One, I hadn't read the Washington Times story; and Number Two, to my knowledge, there are no decisions on this of where and at what level or when. Q And would it -- MS. TUTWILER: And that was in coordination, obviously, this morning, Jim, with the White House, so I -- Q And in the discussions that are taking place, if such a meeting were to take place, would it be in conjunction with a NATO group meeting -- a nuclear planning group, or something? MS. TUTWILER: I just don't think that anybody is that far along in those types of logistical detailed types of decisions. If they are, I'm not aware of it, and I asked this morning for you. Q Margaret, is it anticipated that these cuts the President is discussing, and hoped for reciprocal cuts from the Soviet Union, would have to be negotiated out at some new arms control negotiation, or is it hoped that this might be done through unilateral cuts, reciprocal unilateral cuts? MS. TUTWILER: Some of, and I am not the expert to go into an enormous amount of depth on this with you, some of the proposals that the President made, as you know in his statement, he said will need to be negotiated; some, he said, will need to be discussed; some, he said, "I'm taking a unilateral action." Another way, if you'll allow me to formulate your question, is, what are our next steps in follow-up, and I don't have an answer for you on that today -- on at what level, again, what forum, and where these talks will take place, or the talks and discussions. It's being worked on right now. Q Margaret, do you have anything on Cyprus? MS. TUTWILER: What do you mean, anything on Cyprus? Q For any movements [inaudible] summit between Greece and Turkey? MS. TUTWILER: As you know, the Secretary met just this week in New York with the Greeks, the Turks, and the President of Cyprus. He spoke, I believe, after each one of those meetings. I don't have a lot to add to what he said. Q Margaret, do you have anything on -- MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me? Q People are getting killed in Yugoslavia again. The Secretary was very strong in condemning what is going on. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q But then again you are deferring to the Europeans mostly to get this solved. Any new approaches? Any new ideas? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Do you have anything on the situation in Haiti? MS. TUTWILER: In Haiti? Yes. The United States strongly condemns the attack on Haiti's constitutional order and on President Aristide carried out by renegade elements of the Haitian Army. We urge all personnel involved to return to their barracks immediately and urge all elements of the Haitian military to respect the constitutional order and obey only the legitimate orders of their civilian and military superiors. We also urge all parties to refrain from further violence. The United States Government reaffirms its unequivocal support for constitutional rule in Haiti and for the democratically elected government of President Aristide. During the night, some 50 to 80 renegade enlisted men of the Haitian armed forces surrounded the President's residence while he was inside. There was some firing. Loyal security forces remain in place at the residence. Our Ambassador has been in contact by telephone with the President, who is reported to be well and protected at this time by Presidential guards. There was sporadic firing in Port-au-Prince through the night. There are reports that the renegades fired on a large pro-government crowd outside the Presidential palace, which is separate from the residence. The state-controlled radio station was not broadcasting as of this morning, and we have no information that United States citizens are in danger. The warden system was activated, and they have been urging American citizens to stay inside. Q Margaret, you said he was in touch with the U.S. Ambassador. Does that refer to last night, or is that more recent than last night? MS. TUTWILER: I didn't literally ask that. He has been in touch with him by phone. Q Margaret, on another unpleasant situation, in Zaire -- MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q Have you seen the reports of negotiations on a coalition government? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q And what do you think of it? MS. TUTWILER: On the overall situation there, Jim, at present remains calm. Our Ambassador met with President Mobutu on Friday, and the Embassy continues to maintain appropriate contact with government and opposition leaders. Concerning our view of the establishment of this new coalition government, we view the establishment of a new transitional government as essential to the process leading to free and democratic elections. The transitional government should be structured in such a way that it earns the confidence of the majority of the population of Zaire and thus leads to a restoration of calm throughout the country. Another thing you might want an update on is, I think Richard last week kept you informed of all of the evacuations and the numbers of Americans, etc., and, as you know, several hundred Americans chose to stay there. Most Americans, it is my understanding the vast majority who wanted to leave, have left. Q Is there any holdup in the departure of Americans or other foreign nationals? There was a suggestion yesterday that there may have been. MS. TUTWILER: If there is, I'm not aware of it. Three civilian charter planes landed at Andrews Air Force Base, I believe it was Saturday, carrying 96l passengers, 830 of which were Americans. If that's true, Bill, I'm not aware of it, but I'll be happy to look into it. Q Do you have a more precise number on how many Americans are still there? MS. TUTWILER: Several hundred chose not to leave, as I have said. We don't have a number of how many have never been in touch with the Embassy, and on the exact number of official government personnel that are there, official Embassy personnel is at 41, but I must say there are some temporary people who are there who are helping on this evacuation, and so I don't have a total number for you, but they are temporarily there. Q Margaret, are the evacuation flights finished now? MS. TUTWILER: I think so. Is that right? Pretty much so, yes. Q Margaret, are you still doing Zaire? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. I just want to make sure. There have been, as I count here, Carole, about ll military flights, three civilian charters, and also I understand that some groups, some missionary groups, have been sending in their own airplanes getting people out that were very successful in doing that. Q Do you have any formal reaction to the verdict in the Jesuit case in El Salvador? MS. TUTWILER: In our view, this trial and conviction is a historic achievement. If there is further evidence that others may be involved in this crime, we would urge that any evidence be brought forward for investigations by Salvadoran judicial authorities. The conviction of an active duty army colonel, a member of the "Tandona," a senior graduating class of the Salvadoran military academy, on eight counts of murder is a historic achievement for the Salvadoran judicial system and the cause of human rights. This is the first time a Salvadoran military officer has been tried for a human rights violation, and the conviction sends an important signal that violations of human rights by the security forces will not go unpunished. Q I take the State Department doesn't subscribe to the view that he is taking a fall for higher authorities? You are satisfied justice has been served? I mean, you have cited his military background and his standing, and I suppose you are doing that partly to rebut the notion that they picked a fall guy and that the higher authorities have gotten off the hook. MS. TUTWILER: But I am also saying, Barry, that if there is evidence that is brought forward that others were involved, then, of course, we would expect the others to be prosecuted as these people were. Q Is the United States aware of any such evidence? MS. TUTWILER: No, we're not. Q Could you respond to what Congressman Moakley and his committee says that there is substantial evidence that other people are involved in both the murder and the cover-up? He issued a report about 4 months ago to which the State Department never reacted, because they said they didn't have a copy at the time. I was wondering if the State Department could give a reaction to the report. MS. TUTWILER: I'll check into it for you. Q Thank you. Q Margaret, do you know the status that the State Department now, or the requirements that the State Department now has, for East European and Soviet journalists to travel freely in this country and to get State Department and other credentials in this town? MS. TUTWILER: No. As I remember, and Jim Anderson asked me about this a number of times, while we've been here, we changed -- help me remember, Jim -- Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary -- there were a number of them -- I'll look for what the status is -- Q Not the Soviet Union. Q No, the East bloc. MS. TUTWILER: Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll look back into it, but I know we have worked on this, and Jim has raised it a number of times, and we did change it for those countries, I remember. And then we had the East German situation. So let me just say -- Q Just for the record, American journalists in the Soviet Union now have pretty much free rein to go almost anywhere in the country they want without restrictions, and they have free access -- MS. TUTWILER: Open lands. Q -- to the Foreign Ministry, etc., which is not the case for Soviet journalists operating here. And if there is a hold-up, bureaucratic, security, or otherwise, can we get that on the record and find out? MS. TUTWILER: I'll find out. To be honest with you, I know we looked at the countries I have mentioned. I can't tell you that anyone has looked at the Soviet Union recently. Q I think it has gotten stalled sort of in the flow of events. Q Margaret, there is a U.S. Government restriction on the moving of Ferdinand Marcos' body out of the United States, as I understand. I think that expires tomorrow or today or something. And I wondered what the U.S. Government policy on -- whether that would be continued, or what would happen? MS. TUTWILER: We have been in very close contact with the appropriate Philippine authorities regarding this issue. As part of that dialogue, the Philippine Government asked the United States to cooperate concerning a l989 Philippine order that bars aircraft with Marcos' remains on board from entering Philippine air space or landing in the Philippines, either by extending the FAA order or by advising aircraft operators of the Philippine order. The Department of State advised the Government of the Philippines that we would ask the FAA to notify aircraft operators that the Philippine order remains in effect. Q Do you have anything on the opening of an Angolan Embassy or an Angolan Mission, the announcement of the opening here in Washington during Mr. Savimbi's forthcoming visit here? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Back on Marcos? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q You simply have asked the FAA, right, but the final decision is theirs? Is that the idea? MS. TUTWILER: Uh-hum. Q There was a story yesterday to the effect than an airline carrying his remains would be decertified if it took off carrying those remains. MS. TUTWILER: I talked to the lawyers this morning about this, and this is the formulation that I have for you on the State Department's policy and position on this, and I am reluctant, because it is a legal matter, to change any of the wording or to try to go further with you. And that's how I have to leave it with you. And this is what they told me, where the situation is, and how it is being handled. Q Margaret, you imply that he can be transported without penalty. It is just something we would rather they didn't do. MS. TUTWILER: No, it doesn't say that to me. It says the Department of State advised the Government of the Philippines that we would ask the FAA to notify aircraft operators that the Philippine order remains in effect. And I have stated what the 1989 Philippine order was. Q Margaret, that would cover airlines, but what if the charter -- they charter a -- I don't know -- any other kind of airplane? MS. TUTWILER: Don't charters have to go under FAA rules as others do? Q Yes, but so you decertify them, so what? They are not going to fly into this country again anyway. Q They may never want to come back. Q Margaret can they go by boat? Q In other words, is there any penalty -- yes, it's a good question -- MS. TUTWILER: By boat? I'll check with the lawyers about by boat, and I will check -- I don't understand, though. I mean, FAA regulates charters, too. Q For example, if the supporters of Ferdinand Marcos purchased an aircraft and were perfectly willing to have it decertified, if they put the body in the plane and fly it away, so what if they get decertified? They just won't come back. I think what we are asking is what really is the U.S. Government prepared to do to prevent the remains from leaving Hawaii? And you have said that there has been a recommendation to the FAA, but there are a lot other ways to move a body. Q Margaret, do you have any reaction -- MS. TUTWILER: Also, if it's any help to you, I stated what the Philippine l989 order was. Q Margaret, can I please follow up on that? Margeret, you are saying tomorrow when this FAA restriction that has been in effect for some time expires, there will be no U.S. Government regulation that bars Ferdinand Marcos' body going elsewhere. MS. TUTWILER: I am going to continue to answer it legally the way I have been asked to answer it today. You can draw your own interpretations and conclusions. I can't help you to do that. Q Regulations? What are they? MS. TUTWILER: I will check into that for you. Q Margaret, is there any reaction to the news announcement this morning that President Aquino has apparently given up her efforts toward rallying support for the continuation of the presence of the Americans in bases in the Philippines? MS. TUTWILER: Our policy has not changed as we have enunciated it throughout the last month. Our position remains as we have consistently stated it. We would prefer to remain at Subic under the terms which we negotiated over the course of last year, but if the Filipinos ask us to leave, then we will leave. We have received no formal notice to this effect and, therefore, are continuing to await the outcome of the Philippine political and legal process. There is no change today. Q Margaret, what is the status of the Iraqi helicopter overflights by the United Nations? Last week, late last week, the U.S. said that it could not support those overflights as long as those detainees were being detained in the parking lot. MS. TUTWILER: Uh-hum. I'm not sure. Isn't it the -- it's the middle of the week that the helicopters -- yes, middle of the week when the helicopters are due to start their inspections. Let me give you what the other inspection teams are doing. A ballistic missile team is scheduled to enter Iraq this week. The next nuclear team is expected to enter Iraq in early October, and the next chemical team later in October. A biological team is currently in Iraq and is expected to depart the first week in October. And on helicopters, I'm pretty sure I'm right, we expect the first helicopter inspections will be conducted this week. That's right. Q That will have an Iraqi navigator aboard? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, Jim. Do you know, Richard? I don't know. Q That's what the U.N. said last week. MS. TUTWILER: That's what the U.N. said? I don't know, Jim. I'll ask for you. Q Margaret, can we try one more on Haiti? You say the United States supports the President and the constitutional government in Haiti. Is there any thought of supporting that President and that constitutional order with military force or other tangible means, or is it only a verbal support? MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard of any scenarios like you are suggesting, but I'll be happy to recheck it. But this morning, I met with Bernie Aronson, and nothing like that was discussed. And, again, as I said, this was just a small number of military people, it is my understanding from Bernie, that were are in the residence. Q Thank you. MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all. (The briefing concluded at 12:44 p.m.)