March, 1992
US Department of State Daily Briefing #32:
Monday, 3/2/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 2 19923/2/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Jordan, Libya, Russia
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process,
State Department, Science/Technology,
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Human Rights, Terrorism
12:05 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Announcements]
MS. TUTWILER: I have three housekeeping matters, most
of which I think you know. Secretary Baker will be appearing
before the Subcommittee on Commerce, State and Justice of the
House Appropriations Committee at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 3.
The subject is the FY '93 budget. The room is 2360 Rayburn.
In addition, on Thursday, March 5, he will testify at
10:00 a.m., same subject, before the Subcommittee on Commerce,
State and Justice of the Senate Appropriations Committee. As I
said it's the same subject. And that room is S-146 in the
Capitol. And, as you all know, there will not be State
Department briefings on those two days.
In addition, Secretary Baker will attend the NATO NAC-C
meeting in Brussels that's being held on March 10. Our current
plans are to depart on Monday morning -- I don't have a time for
you yet. I anticipate it will be pretty early because of the
time change -- and return to Washington on Wednesday, March 11.
Right now there's only one stop: Brussels.
And, as you know, the Secretary and the Foreign
Minister of Russia said they would be meeting around the fringes
of this meeting, and I would steer you towards looking
tentatively for them to meet on Wednesday morning, and then we
return.
Q What would be the venue for that -- the location?
MS. TUTWILER: Where?
Q The location would be the Russian Mission or the
U.S. Mission or --
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea. I don't know yet. I'll
get it to you as soon as we have it.
Q Who besides the Russian, Margaret?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, NATO -- the NAC-C meeting will be
Tuesday. On additional bilaterals, I don't have any yet. And
then Wednesday, right now, is the meeting that they discussed --
what was it? -- two and a half weeks ago -- in Brussels. As to
Ralph's question, I don't know where, so far.
Q In that connection, will Secretary Baker be back
in Washington for the meeting between President Bush and King
Hussein on Thursday, the 12th?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, he will. That's Thursday, as I
recall, at around 11:00 a.m., but check with the White House.
We get back on Wednesday. That's it.
Q That's it for housekeeping?
MS. TUTWILER: That's all my housekeeping, and there's
nothing else going on, so do you want to call it a day?
[Laughter]
Q Margaret, do you have any reaction to Libya's
offer to try the two Libyans who are wanted in a neutral
country?
[Libya: Offer for Pan Am 103 Bombing Suspects]
MS. TUTWILER: About the same reaction that we have
had, to be honest with you, on other various suggestions they
have made. As you know, Libya has repeatedly suggested the
possibility of trying the Pan Am and UTA suspects in a neutral
country. This is nothing more than another attempt by Libya to
delay complying with United Nations Security Council Resolution
731.
Libya knows well what it must do. It must comply with
all the provisions of Resolution 731. Those provisions are
clearly inconsistent with turning the suspects over for trial in
a third country. The resolution also requires that Libya
terminate its support for international terrorism.
It's interesting to note, in my opinion, that by
offering to turn the suspects over to a third country, Libya
recognizes that it does have mechanisms for surrendering Libyan
nationals.
[Iraq: UN Report of Human Rights Abuses Against Kurds]
Q May I ask about Iraq and the new revelations about
mass killings of Kurds that have come out? First of all, do you
have any reaction to those reports?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is, Alan -- and correct
me if I'm wrong -- that this was an overall human rights report,
if that's what you're referring to, that covered the whole
spectrum. It was not specific -- just targeted on Kurds, is my
limited understanding. It was something that was mandated
before the war. It's my understanding that it was mandated, I
think, in either 1988 or '89.
This Ambassador has just recently been in Iraq and
carried out his mission, it's my understanding, in about the
last three or four weeks and has submitted a report, and the
report is something -- what is contained in the report is
something that revolts the United States.
It is horrifying to us what is going on on a human
rights scale there in Iraq. But, as many or all of us know --
and you, yourself, know who've covered this -- we have been
saying that there are -- I don't want to use the word
"atrocities" -- human rights abuses that are going on in Iraq,
and this just, in our opinion, highlights it by this report.
[Iraq: Effectiveness of Safe Havens for Kurds and Iraqi Embargo]
Q Margaret, one of the dramatic aspects of this
report, in a long litany of human rights abuses, is the fact
that apparently thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Kurds
have been slaughtered wholesale, and this is in the time since
the Gulf War, as I understand it, when a safehaven policy, or
something akin to that, was in operation. Do you have any
observations about that fact?
MS. TUTWILER: No, because I don't know the report that
thoroughly. It's a very valid question. I'll be happy to take
it. It's my understanding, Alan, and maybe I have incorrect
information this morning, that this report, as I said, was
mandated before the war, and it covers everything from the
atrocities that we know about -- about the chemical gassing --
that it covers everything. I'm just not that familiar with the
report to address myself to the specific you just asked me. But
I will definitely look into it and familiarize myself more with
the report.
Q I think the question is whether the
Western-arranged safehaven policy that followed the Gulf War has
had -- whether the U.S. feels that policy has had adequate --
has provided adequate protection for the Kurds?
MS. TUTWILER: I understand, and I do repeat, it's a
very valid question. But since I'm not that familiar or I'm
definitely not familiar with that aspect of the report, I can't
address myself to it. I don't know if the report says these
atrocities happened in our safehavens, or if they happened in
places where we weren't anywhere near. I just am not that
familiar with it.
Q (Inaudible) a relevant question? I mean, you
determined --
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to take it.
Q But whether it happened in the safehaven or
whether it happened outside the safehaven, what actual
difference does that make? I mean, you determined where the
line --
MS. TUTWILER: It doesn't make any difference to the
people who died, but I thought Ralph's question was saying,
"Margaret, Alan's asking you: Were your safehavens effective or
not?"
Q Right. But that's not the same as what you said
about whether it occurred inside the safehaven or not.
MS. TUTWILER: I said I can't --
Q The safehaven policy was a policy which set a
location for the safehaven --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q -- and the question is not whether they occurred
inside or outside that location, but whether the whole policy of
establishing that location was adequate to provide the Kurds,
anywhere in Iraq, appropriate access to a safehaven. But we --
MS. TUTWILER: I think the Kurds that are in the
safehavens -- unless this is where all these thousands of people
Alan has mentioned have been killed -- although, I can't speak
for them, would probably say they have appreciated and benefited
from these safehavens.
But I don't know -- I'm not dodging you -- I just
simply don't know enough about this report or where these
thousands of people that Alan refers to -- Kurds -- were killed
in Iraq. I just simply don't know.
Q Margaret, there have been requests for some
follow-up U.N. action on the basis of this report. I believe
they've come from Britain and France. Do you have anything on
the American view about that?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. It's my understanding that the
report suggests -- the Ambassador does -- that there be some
form of continuing international monitoring of the situation of
human rights in Iraq, and we, the United States, support that
suggestion.
Q I was simply going to ask you if in taking the
question, you would also ask -- add the possibility of -- see if
there is a possibility that just as we're pressing the U.N.
resolutions on nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction,
whether the United States might consider going back into those
safehavens in the way we did just after the war, in order to
provide them again, if the safehavens did work?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct me if my memory's failing me,
but the safehavens are still there, right? And there are
humanitarians, as had always been envisioned -- I've forgotten
-- I believe the U.N. at the time called for five or six
hundred. I believe that number was attained, and I haven't
heard of all those people leaving that area, and they are our
eyes and ears and our monitors in the safehavens, unless I've
missed something and it's changed.
Q But isn't it correct that the Iraqi authorities
have imposed an embargo on the Kurdish areas?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q And what is the world community and the United
States intending to do about that?
MS. TUTWILER: That is something that I'll also take,
just because I'm familiar with it, but I don't have it at my
fingertips, what the world community is doing about it. But let
me ask you a question: Are these thousands of people -- when we
started all this -- that you asked me about reported in this
report to have been killed in the safehavens? Is that what this
is?
Q No, no.
MS. TUTWILER: Does it say where they were killed?
Q They were killed in the Kurdish area.
MS. TUTWILER: So it does not say it was specifically
in the safehavens?
Q No. But, I mean --
MS. TUTWILER: O.K. I was just curious. I'm just
asking for my own curiosity.
Q The other point is this action, this killing, is
being called genocide by some people, and in light of that would
the United States be willing to reopen the question of war
crimes trials of Iraqi leaders, which was actually mandated by
U.N. Security Council Resolution 688.
MS. TUTWILER: That's something that I have not heard
raised, to be honest with you, Alan, in a long time. It's,
obviously, a Presidential decision. As I recall, during the war
we said that the Pentagon was the depository of all this type of
information; that we were collecting it and keeping it. As I
recall, at the end of the war, the United Nations Security
Council itself, in its 25-page report of things that Iraq must
and must not do -- they dropped the war crimes language, as I
recall, from an earlier draft. So it hasn't been on my scope in
quite awhile.
Q O.K. But since then, evidence is now coming out
about genocide. Doesn't that change the situation in some way?
MS. TUTWILER: It's something that maybe people are
looking at, but this morning, no, I don't have a new policy for
you.
Q Can the U.S. verify this human rights report in
any way, and that's a question for you to take.
MS. TUTWILER: All right.
Q Margaret, there are new reports from -- the latest
from Tehran Radio -- about a major offensive by Iraq against
rebel positions, I believe, in northern Iraq. Do you have
anything on that?
MS. TUTWILER: You've got a later wire copy than when I
came out here. I haven't heard about that, no.
[Iraq: Terms for Compliance/Visit to UN by Iraqi Delegation]
Q Still on Iraq, Margaret: Does the U.S. believe
there should be a deadline set by the U.N. for when this
high-level delegation from Iraq is supposed to come to the U.N.
and do whatever it's supposed to do, or is there sort of an
open-ended situation going on there?
MS. TUTWILER: One, I would refer you to the United
Nations on whether they have or have not set a deadline. Number
two, based on what the United Nations has told us this morning,
as you've seen reported, it is Tariq Aziz that the Iraqis are
sending.
On another question you might have for me: "Would we
somehow not grant him the appropriate visa to come here?" The
answer is, of course, we will grant his visa so that he can come
here.
The Security Council, it's my understanding, is very
anxious that that happen as soon as possible; and that the
Iraqis, whether it's Tariq Aziz or whoever they want to send,
get over here.
Q Do you have some indication as to when that
exchange should take place from the U.S. point of view?
MS. TUTWILER: If I do, I just can't get into it.
Q Well, was the U.S. consulted when the Security
Council set what amounts to a deadline -- said no later than the
week of March 9?
MS. TUTWILER: That's another indirect way for me to
kind of confirm that there is a deadline. I've been asked --
those types of questions would be more appropriately answered at
the United Nations, and they, so far, have not yet answered that
question. But I've answered it honestly, that the United
Nations -- the Security Council -- has strongly suggested that
this is an important subject, it's an important matter. If the
Iraqis want to send someone over here, okay, fine, but let's get
them over here.
Q Will the U.S. meet with Tariq Aziz for any reason?
MS. TUTWILER: No. Other than, as you know, Ambassador
Pickering sits on the Security Council as the United States
representative. But outside of a Security Council meeting, no.
[Libya: Pan Am 103 Issues Continued]
Q Going back to Libya.
MS. TUTWILER: Libya?
Q Yes, to the two suspects who were indicted: Where
do you go from here? They offer a neutral court; we are saying
that they must be tried in a U.S. court or a British court,
perhaps.
MS. TUTWILER: Or French.
Q Or a French court. Is there any room for
negotiations on this issue at all?
MS. TUTWILER: We're quite clear, as is the United
Nations resolution, on what the Libyans must do. It hasn't
changed. All those demands are out there, public. It's all in
the United Nations public resolution and it's all out there.
Q There was talk a couple of weeks ago about a new
resolution that was going to put various sanctions on Libya,
including the closing down of Libyan-Arab airlines, cutting off
of air links with Libya, and downgrading of diplomatic
representation around the world. What's happened there? Is
there a problem? Is there a lack of consensus?
MS. TUTWILER: There are a lot of different ideas that
are being discussed, none of which am I in a position to
announce or elaborate on with you.
Q Is there a deadline on this?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of a deadline.
[Russia: Recruitment of Nuclear Scientists]
Q Margaret, back to Iraq for a second: German
newspapers apparently are reporting that Iraq has recruited some
50 Russian scientists and names -- quotes two of them actually
-- one a laser expert and the other an expert on multiple
warheads, saying they were paid $10,000 a month, etc. Anything
new on the "brain-drain" problem?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, let me start by saying I was
given a wire before I came out here that my counterpart, Vitaly
Churkin, has given a press statement this morning -- and I'm
quoting him -- saying, "We have checked and double-checked that
matter and what we ascertained is that no nuclear scientists
have left the country." He goes on and on, so I'd refer you to
his comments.
I can tell you that we, ourselves, cannot confirm this
report. As you know, throughout this period there have been
various -- numerous reports. I can remember one report saying
that scientists had left for Libya, and I believe they were paid
$2,000. There have been reports of submarines, as I recall --
another report.
So, as of today, we cannot confirm this report. As in
all the previous reports, we take these seriously. We
investigate each one. As you know, to partially address this
problem, Secretary of State Baker and the German Foreign
Minister, and others -- the EC -- are working towards and have
announced the international center and the United States
pledging $25 million towards that and the EC pledging -- I can't
remember the exact amount they've pledged.
So on this particular one this morning, we're aware of
the report. We're investigating it, and we treat them all
seriously.
Q Does the U.S. have a mechanism now since Baker's
visit to talk with the scientists, for exchanging information on
this topic and perhaps others, directly with the scientists at
perhaps a lower level on a continuing basis?
MS. TUTWILER: I understand. I know that internally --
and I'm pretty sure multilaterally -- we have had at the
experts' level our internal meetings. I'll have to check for
you on whether there has been direct follow-up with the
scientists.
This is also, Ralph, something that the Secretary will
probably be addressing in more detail in Brussels.
Q With Kozyrev or with --
MS. TUTWILER: I just don't want to get into a lot of
specifics. It's a subject matter that he will be addressing
while he's in Brussels.
Q Do you have an address yet for this institute
which the U.S. has announced?
MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge, but I'll ask.
[Middle East Peace Process]
Q Margaret, on another subject: Since his return,
has the Secretary had a chance to review the bidding in the
Arab-Israeli bilateral talks that have been taking place here?
MS. TUTWILER: He had a brief debrief this morning by
Ambassador Djerejian and Ambassador Ross. That's been about the
extent of it this morning -- just where we were over the
weekend, but that happens all the time. It's not unusual.
Q Any further maturing of the possibility of the
United States intervening as a catalyst?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that the United States has
been formally asked to intervene as a catalyst. If they have, I
haven't heard about that.
As you know, the United States, if asked, has to be
asked by both parties in the room.
Q Oh, but think bridging proposals.
MS. TUTWILER: Offering suggestions and ideas and
talking to delegations and delegates that are in town goes on
all the time. That certainly goes on. It went on all weekend
long. But a formal request, on the mechanism that everybody
agreed to for the United States and Russia to be invited into
the room, I'm not aware of such a request.
Q Will Baker be meeting with delegation chairmen
this week?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of, but I don't ever
want to lock myself into "never." If somebody asks, he would
see them. But there are no requests right now.
Q Margaret, have you received from each of the
delegations a list of sites for the talks to be continued that
would be acceptable to each delegation, as requested?
MS. TUTWILER: I know that the United States and Russia
and many people are working on trying to resolve the venue
question, and I will refrain from getting into the specifics of
how we've been working that.
Q Is there anything new on the loan guarantee
controversy? Any possible compromise? They're talking on the
Hill about a possible compromise on that.
MS. TUTWILER: Nothing new that I know of.
Q Senator Leahy is due here this afternoon to meet
with the Secretary, I understand. Will there be any readout
from the State Department about that meeting?
MS. TUTWILER: If I'm to judge by the last two meetings
that he's had, I'd steer you towards no. But I'll be happy to
ask if they want to handle this one differently.
Q Has any meeting been scheduled with Ambassador
Shoval?
MS. TUTWILER: No, it has not.
Q Is it the Secretary's view at this point that if
Leahy and others perhaps on the Hill work out some kind of --
their own policy on the loan guarantees, that the
Administration's policy has been stated and it's out there and
Congress can do essentially whatever it chooses to do with this
issue? Or is the Administration still negotiating with Leahy
and others over the terms of such a compromise?
MS. TUTWILER: I think that I'll continue to let
Secretary Baker work this quietly and diplomatically, and that
it would be highly inappropriate for me to prejudge or pre-empt
what he may or may not be thinking, especially when he's meeting
with Senator Leahy in just a couple of hours.
Q You mean "quietly and diplomatically" as he did
last Monday?
MS. TUTWILER: Last Monday was laying out a quite
different question than what you just asked me. That was laying
out United States policy and views on this. Senator Leahy has
laid out his. Congressman Obey has his. We can name lots of
people that have. But that's quite different, I think, than
asking me what, in a way, is the Secretary's approach to this
and what are his next steps and what is his follow-on.
I just don't feel comfortable, in advance of his
meeting with the Senator this afternoon, saying, "Well, I
believe, or I think he's going to be heading in this direction."
I just don't feel comfortable doing that.
Q I guess the question really was intended to
determine whether the policy laid out by Baker last week
publicly --
MS. TUTWILER: Has changed?
Q -- is a policy -- is the view of the
Administration, or if it was a snapshot of the view of the
Administration at that particular moment in time?
MS. TUTWILER: To my knowledge, since Secretary Baker
publicly testified last -- I believe it was Wednesday and
Thursday -- no, Tuesday and Wednesday?
Q Monday and Tuesday.
MS. TUTWILER: Monday and Tuesday. I'm unaware of any
change in United States policy as articulated by the Secretary
in, I think, over four hours of public testimony.
Q But I think Ralph's question is: Is it still
being negotiated with Shoval, or is that phase over?
MS. TUTWILER: As the Secretary said in that public
testimony on both days, he had conversations that were on-going
with the Israeli Government. That still is the case.
Q So that's not a take-it-or-leave-it?
MS. TUTWILER: That was never his characterization.
That was some of your colleagues' characterizations.
Q A lot -- in what ways have those discussions with
the Israeli Government continued since Baker testified?
MS. TUTWILER: At Secretary Baker's level -- as you
know, he attended the drug summit in San Antonio for two days
with the President and then took a private weekend in his home
0state of Texas. So I'm not aware that he, himself, this weekend
has, personally at his level, been involved.
I feel quite certain -- as has been the case since we
returned in January -- that there are experts who discussed this
situation with the Israeli Government, but I don't have any
names for you. The Secretary does intend, as he and Ambassador
Shoval have both stated, to meet at some time. I just don't
have a scheduled time for you today.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:27 p.m.)