US Department of State Daily Briefing #5:
Thursday, 1/9/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Jan, 9 19921/9/92
Category: Briefings
Region: Eurasia, MidEast/North Africa, Caribbean, East Asia,
E/C Europe
Country: Russia, USSR (former), Israel, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Serbia-Montenegro, Yugoslavia (former), Haiti, Japan,
United States, Cuba, Iraq, Kuwait, North Korea
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Nuclear Nonproliferation,
Arms Control, CSCE, United Nations, Immigration, OAS,
Regional/Civil Unrest
12:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Middle East Peace Process:
Statement on Multilateral Negotiations]
MS. TUTWILER: Sorry for keeping you waiting. But
Secretary Baker was expecting a call from the Russian Foreign
Minister, and I knew that they would be discussing something
that, hopefully, I would be able to tell you, which I'm in a
position to do. So that's the reason for the delay.
They discussed, again today as they did yesterday, the
upcoming Middle East multilateral conference that we're
co-hosting in Moscow -- the multis -- and just basically more
details on that. They also discussed again today the mission
that you all have been asking me about about Under Secretary
Reggie Bartholomew's upcoming mission to the former Soviet Union
-- to Russia, to other places.
This is, as you know, following up on Secretary Baker's
trip at the end of December.
Under Secretary Bartholomew and his interagency group
will be going over next week. I don't want today to announce
the exact day, but it's next week. He will be taking his
interagency team. They are going, and they will be prepared to
discuss a wide range of subjects, much of which -- the vast
majority of which is a follow-up to the agenda that the
Secretary raised in December on the questions of nuclear safety
and security, disabling and dismantling, proliferation --
particularly with an eye toward establishing strict export
controls -- and legal obligations under international
agreements.
Under Secretary Bartholomew will be going to all of
those states that, as you know, have nuclear weapons, in
addition to going to Moscow. So there will be four former
republics that he and his delegation will visit. I do not --
since this was just decided -- have all of the details: How
long will he be there? What's the makeup of his group? When is
he going to return, etc.? But he is definitely going. That's
now set, and that will be next week.
Q Does the delegation include any scientists? Are
they --
MS. TUTWILER: Scientists?
Q The question is, are they just going to be talking
or are they going to begin to dismantle?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't think that Reggie Bartholomew
and the people that will be going at his level from the other
departments and agencies of our government are the literal,
technical people who do that type of work. I believe they
obviously are going to be engaging face-to-face. There have
been on-going discussions since the Secretary was there in
December. This was a suggestion that we had made, as you
recall, in December, and this is just the follow up to this.
Q Have the other people not gone yet? Will they go
after this group?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have every answer you would like
to all of this. Reggie's group -- this is just literally --
this mission has just been decided. How Reggie is going to
flesh it out, when the technical people will actually be on the
ground, I just don't have answers for all that.
Q This is not a fine point or a footnote. We didn't
originate this. When the Secretary went to what you call the
former -- what is now, I suppose, the former Soviet Union, there
was a lot made of the fact that Congress had approved some money
that could be used by sending technicians there to help disable
nuclear weapons, which was in the U.S.'s interest to do as
quickly as possible.
Now, it was never thought then that those technicians
are different from the negotiating team headed by Bartholomew;
that it was a distinctive, discreet operation. Then, when we
ask if they've gone, we're told that we don't know about that,
that's kind of technical. It isn't. It's kind of a major
undertaking the Administration either has decided to delay or
must wait the result of Reggie finding out who to negotiate
with.
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, Barry, the $400 million,
which the President announced he intends to use -- and I am not
the congressional representative here -- there is a
congressional process that must be gone through to acquire that
money. That's one step. To my knowledge, that step is not
complete.
The President has stated his intention. I know of no
objections, but those wheels are in motion.
Number two, I am not personally aware that Reggie
Bartholomew, as the Under Secretary of State and a very senior
Foreign Service Officer, would be the person who will be on the
ground literally, technically, with the expertise to help
dismantle and destroy nuclear weapons. If I'm wrong, please
correct me.
Q No, nor are we. We never --
MS. TUTWILER: Can I finish? When Reggie's mission
follows up on Secretary Baker's mission, which was what now --
three and a half weeks ago? -- I don't think that's a great
lapse of time, taking into account we had Christmas and New
Year's.
Reggie is now going, I have said, next week. For all I
know he will be taking those type of people. All I'm able this
morning to tell you is that he will be taking his normal
interagency team. I'm assuming, in addition, because conditions
are so different, he will be taking additional types of people
on this mission. Whether some set up an office in these former
republics, whether some are already in Moscow, I just of my own
knowledge don't know. But are we actively pursuing this? You
bet we are.
Q Do you have some problem -- does the
Administration have some problem in sorting out how to address
this situation because of the breakup and the fact that you have
four republics with nuclear weapons? Is this the reason
technicians haven't gone there yet?
MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge. I think it's
nothing more than a simple case of, number one, as you know,
there have been -- what now? -- one major meeting in Alma-Ata
after we left. I believe there has been another meeting in
Minsk and another meeting in Moscow. They themselves are not
only dealing with this issue -- these 12 new countries --
they're dealing with a host of other issues.
So we had Christmas, as I just stated, which most
people take a short break for. We had New Year's here in this
country. Everyone knows this has basically been a break in our
country. This is the fourth day we've been back, and I've
announced for you the follow-up to what the Secretary said in
December.
Q Not to beat it to death, but when the Secretary
went there, he said his number one priority was to address the
problem of nuclear weapons strewn through four republics.
MS. TUTWILER: And I would argue with you we are.
Q And even before then, Reggie had a mission to
negotiate with -- whoever -- the follow-up to START, the
unilateral pledges by the Soviets. We didn't -- the press --
originate the notion that these two missions had blended. When
we asked about technicians, we were told Reggie will be dealing
with that when he goes there. So that is why we keep asking --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not saying that he's not.
Q -- if the technicians are going there to help take
these weapons apart, and the answer is, "Congress hasn't given
us the money yet so we're not ready to do it."
MS. TUTWILER: That's an unfair characterization, in my
opinion, of what I just said.
Q Okay. Then why aren't they on their way?
MS. TUTWILER: I will repeat what I just said to you,
Barry. I delayed the briefing in order to give you a piece of
information that you have asked for for 3 days running since
we've been back. Okay? Well, for the 3 days I've been back.
I now have that piece of information which I've given
you. I have said now -- this will be the third time -- I
personally, in the rush to get down here, since you all -- I
understand and appreciate -- like me to be here at 12:00 noon, I
came straight down here.
I said that, when talking to Reggie this morning,
Reggie told me that he will be anticipating taking his experts
-- interagency experts. I said that I would imagine that
because it's a new day here -- has been a new day since
December; a lot has changed -- that he would, in addition, be
taking people to meet the situation that is different today.
I've said it three times.
I don't have, which I acknowledged, a list of who all
is going. I will try to get that for you by maybe tomorrow.
They're putting this together. But I don't see what the big
deal is, to be honest.
Q Margaret, do you have -- have you received any
kind of indication that the commonwealth military command is
less enthusiastic than the political leaders of the four
republics in having outside help in destroying nuclear weapons?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q Will this mission be dealing both with strategic
nuclear and tactical nuclear equipment and facilities, or only
one or the other?
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding, Ralph -- I'll be
happy to take your question -- in speaking with Reggie this
morning and in speaking with Ambassador Ross and Secretary Baker
that he will be -- his mission will be covering, as I tried to
briefly outline, an entire wide range of subjects, one of which
I mentioned was export controls. That feeds into what Johanna
had asked me yesterday. I said a particular eye toward that.
I talked about proliferation; I said, to make sure that
we are watching that we are living up to our international
obligations. Under that basket falls CFE and falls START. So
it's a very broad, in my mind, mission.
Just as when the Secretary was there in December in
these republics, he discussed a wide range. He did say that he
thought it would be prudent and wise -- and no one objected --
if his senior person, who manages the interagency process on
this, would return very shortly after the first of the year to
follow up on the detail. That's what I believe Reggie will be
doing.
Q Secretary Baker, and obviously Reggie, are
concentrating their efforts on the four republics with the
strategic weapons and the bulk of the tactical weapons. But can
you tell us what's being done about the other republics, some of
whom do have tactical weapons? What kind of discussions there
are with them?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll be happy to ask for
you.
Q Do you have an assessment at this point, on behalf
of the U.S. Government, as to how much of the nuclear warhead
material remains scattered among the four republics and how much
has been, in fact, moved into the Russian federation?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have an assessment for you.
I'll be happy to see if the experts want to give you that type
of information at this time. I'm not sure that they will, but
I'll ask.
Q President Yeltsin is going to the United Nations
the end of this month. Did they discuss his meeting with
President Bush?
MS. TUTWILER: Whether President Yeltsin is or is not
going to attend the United Nations meeting at the end of this
month is up to the Russian Government to announce, not for me.
So I will refrain from discussing whether or not the Secretary
and the Foreign Minister discussed that broad subject or not.
As far as whether as whether President Bush is or is
not going, I'll leave that, again, up to the White House.
Q Margaret, on the first subject -- the multilateral
regional conference --
MS. TUTWILER: On the first?
Q -- is it still firm for Moscow as a venue?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Does anybody know how many countries are actually
going to show up?
MS. TUTWILER: On that one, Jim, I have not seen a list
since I've been back. I'll be happy to look at it, but it will
probably be the same type of posture we're taking concerning our
coordinating conference. I doubt we would put out a list until
we are actually at the conference type of thing.
Q Together with that -- following that, will the
Secretary and, presumably, the President then go on to London
for the summit?
MS. TUTWILER: To London?
Q Yeah.
MS. TUTWILER: It's New York.
Q New York. I'm sorry.
Q Or Prague?
MS. TUTWILER: The President, to my understanding -- no
heads of state will be going to the conference in Moscow. I'm
unaware that's how that's envisioned. It's at a ministerial
level.
Q He has a State of the Union address at the same
time?
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q Is the Secretary's plan to go to Prague for a CSCE
meeting which is January 30-31? Or will he go to New York to
assist the President in the summit meeting that Jim is asking
about?
MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary's current plans are to
still attend the CSCE meeting in Prague.
[Israel/Occupied Territories: US Policy on UN Resolution 726/
Meaning of Reference to "Palestinian"]
Q Margaret, do you have any further interpretation
on the question we raised yesterday about the U.N. resolution?
Any precedents in that? Any explanation for why we supported
that resolution with the language it contained?
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding, Tom, that this is
not a new issue; that the United States has abstained or voted
in favor of U.N. Security Council resolutions containing this or
a similar formulation, "Palestinian and other Arab
territories" since 1979. Such references to occupy Palestinian
territories have appeared in the following United Nations
Security Council resolutions, which I will not list for you. I
will be happy to post -- there are about 20 of them here which
we have either abstained on or voted in favor of. I have the
entire list.
So my understanding is that phraseology, from the U.N.
experts and the experts here, has been used since 1979.
Q Just to clarify, then. The reason that we accept
that phraseology is because the United States position is that
the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem are, demographically speaking
and geographically speaking, Palestinian territories.
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding -- and, of course, you
can recognize that I will not veer from the language that the
United States has followed since 1979 -- is that in addressing
this issue, the United States has explained its vote along the
following lines: The United States regards the phrase, "All the
Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including
Jerusalem," as being merely demograhically, as you point out,
and geographically descriptive and not indicative of
sovereignty.
The United States believes that the final status of the
occupied territories is a matter for direct negotiations between
the parties concerned, and we will not support any other
alternative.
The term "Palestinian," as we have noted earlier, is
only used for descriptive purposes only. Thus, we are willing
to accept resolutions containing this formulation if they are
otherwise acceptable with the clearly stated caveat expressed in
our statements explaining our vote.
Q Can I just follow that up, Barry? I just want to
understand this, then. Although the West Bank, Gaza, and East
Jerusalem are populated by 225,000 Jews and 1.7 million
Palestinians, it's the U.S. Government's position that these
are, demographically speaking, Palestinian territories?
MS. TUTWILER: You can well understand -- I'm sure you
won't appreciate -- that I am not going to open up and debate
this many years of long-standing United States policy. I'm just
simply not going to do it. Obviously, in my personal opinion,
from my moccasins, it doesn't serve any useful purpose.
This is, in our opinion, not a new issue. It is how we
have, it's my understanding, provided everything else in the
bill or resolution is correct, is how we've consistently voted.
That is our standard explanation of vote as was put in
Ambassador Pickering's explanation of vote on the vote that was
taken, I believe, last Friday.
Q What I don't understand is, how we can -- since
it's precisely the demograhpic and geographic evidence, which
Palestinians and Israelis marshal to support their claims to
sovereignty, how we can sign a resolution that says that these
territories are demographically and geographically Palestinian
and then say that we are taking no position on the sovereignty
question.
MS. TUTWILER: I know that it would be really a lot of
fun and entertaining for me to sit here and open up a debate
that I bet was very, very contentious back in 1979. That has
not been an issue that has been raised, to my knowledge --
certainly, in the 3 years I've been here -- of an explanation of
vote and why the United States takes the position that it does,
which I just restated, which is the exact one that Ambassador
Pickering did.
So I'm going to really refrain from engaging with you.
I think it would be a very interesting conversation, but it's
one that I don't think from my position here would be very wise
of me to engage in.
Q Margaret, games aside, there are Mideast peace
talks going on now. Tom is right, the future of the West Bank
and Gaza are very much at issue now.
When you say East Jerusalem, you even said Jerusalem.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't believe I said that.
Q You said "Jerusalem" is demographically
Palestinian. By that, do you mean it's majority Arab instead of
Jewish?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm just going to do to you the same
thing I just did with Tom. This is the phraseology that any
number of Administrations -- Republican and Democrat -- have
used -- it's my understanding here -- since 1979. I am simply
not going to engage in opening up analyzing parts of
long-standing United States policy. This is what the language
says. It's said it since '79.
In our view, there is nothing new or a new issue
concerning this. It's something that we, on this vote, as we
have -- and I will post for you every resolution, Barry, that
this is contained in by number and date and how the United
States voted since 1979. It has this exact explanation of vote
and language.
Q History did not stop in 1979. I'd simply like a
statement from the State Department explaining how
demographically Jerusalem is Palestinian --
MS. TUTWILER: I will be happy to ask the State
Department.
Q -- since Jerusalem is predominately Jewish.
MS. TUTWILER: I will be happy to ask the State
Department. I'm not sure that you're going to get one. This is
our policy, long standing, and this is how we -- it's my
understanding, through all these many resolutions -- have
continued to have the explanation of our vote.
Q If it's a long-standing policy, why wasn't the
word "Palestinian" used in Security Council Resolution 338,
which was adopted, or in 242 which underpins the current peace
process?
MS. TUTWILER: I do not know, and I'll be happy to ask
somebody for you.
Can I give you an update on the Middle East, since
we're on that subject? The joint Jordanian-Palestinian
delegation left Amman this morning and is expected to arrive in
Washington later today.
The Lebanese delegation has informed us that it will
arrive in Washington Friday afternoon.
The Syrian Government has informed us that the Syrian
delegation will depart tonight and will arrive in Washington in
the morning.
We have urged, as you all know, all parties to promptly
set a starting time for the continuation of these bilateral
negotiations. We hope that these talks will begin as soon as
possible.
As I have said, on any number of occasions from this
podium, the facilities here at the State Department are open,
and we are ready for business.
Q Will it be open Sunday, by the way?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. They will be open as they were the
last time. There is no end on the end. So they will be open
throughout the weekend.
Q Do you have any words of advice to the delegations
about proceeding at this point? Whether or not the United
States is urging them to move beyond what the U.S. has called
procedural issues and get into the substance? Are you making
that point to them at this point, or are you just sitting back
and being quiet?
MS. TUTWILER: We made that point when they were all
here, continuously. We have made it since they have departed.
I am sure once they all arrive, we will be making it here in
person.
The only meeting that Ambassador Djerejian has today
and Ambassador Ross are their meeting at 4:00 p.m. this
afternoon with the heads of the Israeli delegation.
Q What for?
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't ask them what for. They meet
all the time. This is just another meeting. I get asked every
day here, "Could I please say what meetings are going on?" So
I'm telling you when it's going on.
Q Will this PLO person who has been granted a visa
be allowed to enter the premises of the U.S. Government
property? Or will the U.S. officials meet with him anywhere at
all?
MS. TUTWILER: I answered that the other day.
Q I didn't hear it.
MS. TUTWILER: The answer remains the same. The United
States Government will not be meeting with this gentleman or
having conversations.
Q When you answered the question before, you did not
know at that point if he could be a member of the advisory
committee. Do you know now?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't, to be honest, looked into it
for you. My understanding -- well, not my understanding -- I
know his visa was granted --
Q To make a speech.
MS. TUTWILER: To make a speech; right.
Q While he's making the speech, can he hang around
here and sort of pipe advice to the delegation?
MS. TUTWILER: We're not policemen, Barry.
Q I didn't ask you if you're policemen.
MS. TUTWILER: When people come to town, they can talk
and meet with whomever they want to.
Q [Inaudible] discussion. The two other PLO-linked
people that you let in were permitted to be members of the
advisory committee. So we're simply asking if, under the same
waiver, this gentleman will be permitted to be in the advisory
committee -- policemen or not? It's a policy matter.
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me, Barry. We have never, to my
knowledge, put out -- the United States Government as co-host --
a list of advisers. We didn't in Madrid. We didn't in the
first round. We're not going to in this round.
We are not the last say on who are advisers. And so if
you would like to know if this gentleman is serving as an
adviser, I would suggest you ask the Palestinians.
Q No. He came here. Look, you have issued -- the
U.S. Government --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q -- is the party that sets the terms and conditions
when a waiver is granted --
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q -- from the law.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q You have granted a waiver. I am asking the U.S.
Government if the conditions are such that this fellow can be a
member of the advisory committee. That's not for the
Palestinians to decide. You're the folks who were granting the
waiver.
MS. TUTWILER: We do not --
Q What are the terms? Make a speech or make a
speech, and you already told us he's not going to meet with the
U.S. You've set that condition. Is he a member of the advisory
group or not? If you don't know, please ask.
MS. TUTWILER: It's not whether I know or do not know.
As you know, there is only an -- under the terms of reference --
an official Palestinian delegation. As you will recall in
Madrid, there was only an official accredited Palestinian
delegation as part of the joint Jordanian delegation.
As you, yourself, have pointed out to me, in Madrid,
there is a PLO headquarters, and I believe at one point you used
the phrase to me, "There were just hundreds of PLO all over
town."
Q I never said that at all.
MS. TUTWILER: In this case, this person --
Q I never heard that.
MS. TUTWILER: -- has said and did factually apply for
a waiver for a visa to give a speech. I have said to you that
we do not have an official adviser's list. We never have. We
did not -- it is not part of the terms of reference.
Do I believe that this gentleman will probably talk to
the Palestinians that are in town? Yes, I do. But do I know if
they have named him as an adviser, to use your term, I honestly
do not.
Q Can you tell us now --
MS. TUTWILER: I will be happy -- you should do your
own checking, as I'm sure you will, with the Palestinians. I
will be happy to ask the experts here who will be talking to the
Palestinians when they arrive, if that is what they intend. I
just don't know that, Barry.
Q Can you --
MS. TUTWILER: But do I believe they're going to be
having -- or seeing him or talking to him? That would be my
assumption, yes.
Q And, if he does, it doesn't violate the terms of
the waiver. Correct?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Can you tell us now to whom and when and how long
this fellow will be in the United States?
MS. TUTWILER: I unfortunately answered that yesterday
also, and I said that I did not know.
Q Can we -- look, the State Department has granted a
waiver, waived the congressional legislation signed by the
President into law --
MS. TUTWILER: Which we do all the time.
Q -- about the PLO, and we waived this in order to
permit this fellow to come in. Some people are saying the
United States is being more PLO than the PLO.
Now, tell me, why doesn't the State Department say this
man is coming at this date, he will leave at this date, he will
address these people, and then leave the country? Why can't the
State Department say that?
MS. TUTWILER: Because I'm unaware, under this visa
waiver that he has, if that is how, legally by rules that are
our law, it is handled.
Q I have been asking this question for 3 days. Why
doesn't the State Department know this, and, if it does know it,
why doesn't it say it publicly?
MS. TUTWILER: I just answered you.
[To staff] Richard [Boucher], do you know if there's a
time limitation on this waiver? I don't think there is. I
can't remember.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure. [Inaudible]
MS. TUTWILER: That's right. I will get you a legal
and congressional, under our laws, explanation of this type of
visa that he's under. I apologize if you've asked the Press
Office. I haven't seen you for 3 days. And we will make sure
that you get this answer immediately this afternoon. We'll get
you all the documentation.
Q Margaret, is it --
MS. TUTWILER: On visas in general. Not this
gentleman's.
Q No. I want it on this gentleman, please.
MS. TUTWILER: This gentleman's has been waived under
the laws that I'm going to give you.
Q But there are conditions, aren't there?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, Ralph.
Q Do you know if the Israeli delegation chairman who
will be coming to meet with U.S. officials today -- whether they
have begun discussing this week or will begin today discussing
the loan guarantees issue?
MS. TUTWILER: I would not envision that they would,
but I can't tell you what their agenda is that they're coming to
discuss.
Q Aren't you skirting the issue in saying that, not
on this gentleman but on the congressional role? We know about
the law.
MS. TUTWILER: That's what I'm going to give you -- the
law on waivers of visas.
Q No. We don't need that. What we need is what are
the conditions under which this fellow is coming to the United
States.
MS. TUTWILER: I've answered that every day this week.
He's giving --
Q No, you haven't.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I have.
Q I haven't seen it.
MS. TUTWILER: He's giving a speech. I told you that
yesterday.
Q Yes. But where and when and how and under what
circumstances?
MS. TUTWILER: I told you yesterday that our
information was, I believe, January 17 through 19. I told you
that it's my information it was an Arab-American group, and
other than that I do not know.
Q Does he come on the 16th of January and leave the
20th? Is that the arrangement?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't been as interested as you are,
to be honest, and I don't have that type of information.
Q This is very strange that you're not interested,
when you waive a congressional edict. But let me ask you
another question about principles.
A U-2 plane has flown over North Korea, and the North
Koreans have complained, and the United States says, as Mr.
Scowcroft said, that, "We're going to do this as long as we feel
it's necessary."
And yet when the Israelis flew over Iraq, we blew up
and said, "Israel can't do that. It's interfering with the
peace process."
Isn't this visa being granted interfering with the
peace process? Is there any difference in the principle between
flying over North Korea and flying over Iraq? Why can't we get
a sentence on that?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll look into it for you.
Q Oh, yes. Thank you.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the Yugoslav's
change of Defense Ministers? Apparently a hard-line Serbian is
the new Defense Minister, and I suspect you're not crazy about
that.
MS. TUTWILER: On the new Defense Minister, Barry. My
understanding is that he has been named acting, and that our
policy -- our position on this is that we expect the new Acting
Defense Minister and anyone who may be named subsequently to
replace the current Defense Minister to fulfill the Yugoslav
military's obligations under the ceasefire agreement and peace
plan brokered by Mr. Vance, as well as the commitments made to
the EC regarding the safety of its monitors.
Q And do you have an update on that -- on the
general situation?
MS. TUTWILER: On the general situation? Our general
update today is the cease-fire is holding, and that it is being
generally respected.
Q Margaret, do you have any readout on yesterday's
planning meeting on the Soviet aid conference?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I have a brief -- the Secretary got
a debrief last night from Under Secretary Kanter, and basically
they felt very good about the meetings that had taken place.
It's my understanding that they met as a big group yesterday,
approximately 40 to 60 experts, and then broke into the various
working groups.
They all acknowledge up front, and have for many weeks,
this is an enormous task. They've got a lot of work to do, but
they're very energized and ready to tackle it.
Q Margaret, do you have anything further you care to
say now about how the conference itself will be conducted, or
whether those six groups that you -- six topics that you
mentioned yesterday would, in fact, turn out to be subcommittees
of the conference when it convenes?
MS. TUTWILER: There's always been envisioned that you
have the ministerial meeting, but at the same time you will have
the six working groups. We will have our experts here, with
expertise in each one of the areas. The other countries that
are coming are bringing their experts who are specialists in
those areas.
Q And is it expected that this coordinating
conference will produce a report of some sort that spells out
how aid will be provided, or is this the beginning of a process,
I guess? Is this the beginning and end of a process or the
beginning of one?
MS. TUTWILER: As far as will there be a continuation
coordinating conference, I have said the conferees will
determine that during the meeting. And as far as what or how we
are planning to work the conference, I'd really rather not
comment on this far in advance.
Q Margaret, about Kuwait: There's a report that
Kuwait has had a new round of deportations into Iraq. Have you
any comment on it?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard about that. I'll be
happy to look into it.
Q Margaret, can we do Haiti?
MS. TUTWILER: Haiti? I don't have anything new for
you today as far as numbers. There's no --
Q [Inaudible]
MS. TUTWILER: I know the other part. No one was
picked up yesterday, so we still have had no individuals picked
up since December 30. I do have new asylum numbers for you --
561 of the 2,226 who have been found to have a plausible claim
to asylum have now been flown to the United States.
Concerning what I know is the other part of the Haiti
story today concerning the new Prime Minister, the United
States' views of this is that we welcome this development and
hope that it will lead to further steps to end Haiti's crisis.
We have long stated that Haiti's crisis must be
resolved by Haitians negotiating among themselves, consistent
with their constitution. We hope that the dialogue which led to
the choice of a new Prime Minister will continue and produce
other measures to restore constitutional rule.
We hope Haiti's parliament will give prompt
consideration to President Aristide's nomination of Mr. Theodore
as Haiti's next Prime Minister.
Q You're not troubled by the fact that he is the
head of the Communist Party of Haiti?
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding that we understand
that this is a position he took in opposition to the Duvalier
dictatorship. It is further my understanding that he says that
he is a democrat and is committed to sound economic policies.
The United States is prepared to work with any Haitian
Government that is formed by constitutional means and committed
to democracy.
Q Do you have anything on the embargo or -- well,
try that one -- the embargo?
MS. TUTWILER: The embargo.
Q Yes. You know --
MS. TUTWILER: Has there been any change?
Q They're making progress toward a democratic
solution, and I just wondered if you had some language there
about lifting the embargo.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't think anyone is on to that point
yet, George.
Q Margaret, can we mop up on the President's
illness, meaning now that 24 hours later, were there any
assurances or any contacts with foreign governments given by the
State Department that it was, as it's been described, I suppose,
as a routine flu or --
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q There was no need for any action, no --
MS. TUTWILER: No. Because the White House was
instantly communicating to the world, in our opinion, that the
President was fine. Marlin Fitzwater, the President's
spokesman, was -- I believe it was 40 minutes, I've heard -- out
on live TV on a network that is very capable of broadcasting
around the world and stated the facts.
So we were very, very forthcoming. The Secretary of
State, as I said yesterday, was informed of the situation
between 6:20 and 6:30 is what he told me, and there was further
follow-up. So there was, in our opinion, never a need.
Q Did anybody -- did any foreign leaders express --
any inquiries, any questions?
MS. TUTWILER: No foreign leaders called the Secretary
of State yesterday. I said that he had spoken yesterday with
the Foreign Minister of Russia. He obviously expressed his
hopes that the President felt better. He at that time knew that
it was nothing more than flu.
So other than people that the Secretary's actually
meeting with, I haven't seen a single cable, or Ambassadors
didn't alarmingly start calling in here. The Secretary did
speak with the President last night in Tokyo, and it's nothing
more than what Marlin has said and what the President himself
has said occurred.
Q Did he say, "Cut down your traveling. I'll do a
little more myself, because I don't get out of town much."
[Laughter]
Q Anything new on --
MS. TUTWILER: On the what?
Q -- the three Miami residents arrested in Cuba?
And, secondly, if I could get your reaction; the Cuban Interior
Minister, I guess, today turned out a statement, saying that the
U.S. has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to anti-Castro
terrorist groups working out of Miami.
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen that statement, and
concerning the three individuals is that we have asked, as I
said we were going to yesterday, through our Interests Section,
for information about these three people, and so far we have
received no response.
If any of the three are United States citizens, the
United States Interests Section in Havana will request
immediately that a United States Consular Officer be allowed to
visit them. And I stated yesterday United States law concerning
United States citizens and terrorist activities abroad, should
they engage in that.
Q Would there be any move to bring them -- under
what circumstances will we try to bring them back here, or would
we just allow them to go through the Cuban court system?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, that's a hypothetical for
me, because we still can't confirm that there are three United
States citizens who are in Cuba. We're trying to be able to
confirm or deny that. The only reports that are out there that
we have seen are Cuban reports.
Q The Interior Ministry also said that an unnamed
female American journalist was accompanying these men.
MS. TUTWILER: That's the first I've heard of that.
Q Do you know anything about that?
MS. TUTWILER: First I've heard of that. The only
thing we saw was, I believe, yesterday one or two Cuban reports
about this alleged terrorist activity by three Americans.
Q The Cubans are being very specific today. The
Interior Ministry is saying that these people were training
openly in Miami, for instance -- part of a terrorist
organization training in Miami.
MS. TUTWILER: We stated yesterday, and I'd be happy to
state again for you today, what the United States law is. But
before we get to the United States law, I can't even confirm for
you -- we have tried, and we've had no response through our U.S.
personnel in the Interests Section in Havana -- that there are
three Americans in Cuba. We just can't confirm that.
Q Margaret, could we go back for a moment to the
peace talks? Does the U.S. Government have any preference or
feeling about where the next round should take place?
MS. TUTWILER: The United States Government's general
feeling, Jim, as you know, is that it's our opinion that at some
point -- we've never defined what that point is -- these talks
should be moved to the region.
Q And would this be a convenient logical point for
them to be moved to the region?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't defined when that point would
be in the past, and I cannot begin doing that today. Our
general view of the United States is that at some point these
should be moved to the region. It makes sense to us.
Q Margaret, has the U.S. heard anything in these
meetings, such as the one Mr. Djerejian will hold today, that
the procedural disagreement between Israel and the Palestinians
can be resolved this time around?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to predict whether it can
or cannot. What I have heard Ambassador Djerejian and
Ambassador Ross and Mr. Kurtzer and others say throughout this
week and over Christmas -- and you all have seen much of it in
public -- all of the parties that I'm aware of have said that
they want to get beyond procedural issues and to substance.
Whether, indeed, they actually do or not, it's
certainly our hope that they will, but I don't have a crystal
ball for you to predict whether it will happen or not. We
certainly hope it will.
Q They may want to, and they may sincerely want to,
but if they have this problem and there's no face-saving way out
of it, they may have trouble, which raises the question whether
the U.S. is prepared to exercise that catalytical role that it
has taken.
Is the U.S. going to put forward any way out of this
procedural problem?
MS. TUTWILER: The United States has -- when they were
here before, over the break and this week -- has continuously at
our experts level been in any numbers -- hundreds probably -- of
conversations with various members of all of the parties about
how do you get to substance.
We've said and made no secret of the fact that we make
suggestions; we have conversations -- that's ongoing. But it is
also our view that we state constantly, it's up to the parties
themselves to work this out to make their own decisions. We
can't make decisions for them.
Q Margaret, also on the talks, forgive me, at the
beginning I wasn't clear when you said that they discussed the
details of the multilateral talks to be held in Moscow --
MS. TUTWILER: Some of the specifics.
Q Did you say or not that it's still planned for the
same dates? Is there any slippage on the date?
MS. TUTWILER: I answered yes, it is.
Q During that conversation, did the subject of
Georgia come up?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Do you have anything on reports that in Iraq some
military officers have been executed for plotting a coup?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't. I apologize. I briefly
saw something on that this morning on some news account, and
it's just something I haven't had an opportunity to get into
today.
Q Do you have any comment on news reports this
morning that the United States and North Korea rescheduled the
nuclear talks?
MS. TUTWILER: Have rescheduled nuclear talks?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: No. I haven't seen that.
Q The schedule has not been set?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know whether the schedule has or
hasn't been set. I just haven't seen that particular report.
Q Scowcroft in Tokyo said that -- he was quoted that
the talks will be held later in the month.
MS. TUTWILER: On the United States' talks is what
you're asking me?
Q [Inaudible] North Korea.
MS. TUTWILER: I misunderstood the first part of your
question. The only thing I have for you is, yes, I am aware of
what General Scowcroft said. He said that there are now
discussions about when that meeting would be held, but there's
nothing set at this time. I have nothing further than what the
General said.
Q Thanks a lot.
(The briefing concluded at 1:10 p.m.)