US Department of State Daily Briefing #34: Friday, 3/6/92

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Washington, DC Date: Mar, 6 19923/6/92 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, Southeast Asia, East Asia Country: Israel, USSR (former), Armenia, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process, Science/Technology, Security Assistance and Sales, Democratization, Terrorism 12:10 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a statement. I'll be happy to try to answer any of your questions that you may have. Q Do you have anything beyond your brief comment about the column by former Mayor Koch with respect to alleged remarks by Secretary Baker? MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't. And I'll be happy, for those of you who have not seen my earlier comment, to repeat it for you here. The article is false, it is outrageous, and it's garbage. Q Did Secretary Baker not say those words? MS. TUTWILER: Did the Secretary? Q Yes. MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary's view is no different than my own. Q Did the Secretary not use the words? You said the article was false. Did the Secretary not use those words? MS. TUTWILER: Of course not, Ralph. The article is false. Q Was he criticized at a meeting of high-level White House advisers for his supposedly belligerent attitude toward Israel? MS. TUTWILER: Since I have no characterization of the article other than it's garbage, I'm not going to sit here and go through an article that I view and I believe most people view as garbage -- Ralph just held up a headline -- and dissect an article that I, to be perfectly honest with you, don't think deserves or is not -- I'm not going to dignify by dissecting paragraph by paragraph, statement by statement, of unnamed official after unnamed official in alleged meetings that did or didn't happen. It's just not worth it. Forget it. Q Do you know if the Secretary contacted Mayor Koch at all to discuss the subject? MS. TUTWILER: No, he has not, nor has the Mayor called him. Q This morning Ambassador Shoval -- let me ask you two questions on this -- this morning Ambassador Shoval suggested that the delay on the loan guarantees may have given Arabs the perception that the United States is sort of weakening in its support of Israel and has led to what he called a "hardening" of the Arab attitudes at this last round of negotiations. He also said that there was -- he had no scheduled meeting with Secretary Baker, did not know when one was scheduled, and appeared to be puzzled as to when he would next see the Secretary. Could you respond to what he said? MS. TUTWILER: The first part I would rather refrain from responding to, since I haven't seen nor heard what Ambassador Shoval said and, to be honest, as you know, throughout all of these rounds, we have not engaged ourselves in coming out after press conferences and characterizing what we think it means or does not mean. The Secretary and the Ambassador do intend to meet. There is nothing -- it's true -- scheduled at this time. As you know, the Secretary is leaving for a NATO meeting and a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister in Brussels and returns some time Wednesday night. So I know that the meeting -- because the Secretary won't be here -- will not be next Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. And, as soon as something is scheduled, I will certainly get it right to you. Q Well, might it be today? MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge. Q Does he have a meeting with Jewish representatives today -- the Secretary? MS. TUTWILER: He did this morning, and I believe that meeting was at 11:00 or 11:30, and I have not had an opportunity -- the Secretary left the building immediately after that -- to see him and have a debrief. So, I have nothing on it for you. Q Does he have further sessions -- negotiating sessions with members of Congress on loan guarantees -- members of the Senate or anybody else? MS. TUTWILER: Yes, he does. And our policy has been, in consultation with the Hill, not to announce those. As you all know, they are leak immediately afterwards, so I'm not in a position to tell you when those are or are not going on. But, yes, he is continuing to discuss this with the Hill. Q Is the Secretary concerned that the legislative timetable now appears to leave little time left to settle this issue one way or another? MS. TUTWILER: I think the Secretary is well aware of what the legislative calendar is -- he has been throughout -- and he will continue to work with the Hill. Q Margaret, is it an inaccurate reflection of the Secretary's feeling that the Palestinians are making a mistake by focusing too much on publicity and not enough on actual negotiations during these talks? MS. TUTWILER: As I have, Jim, refrained from doing for the three years I've occupied this job, I'm not going to comment on statements attributed to unnamed officials, either American or foreign. And I am not going to, as I declined the other day, to come out and say what the Secretary -- other than broadly, as I try to do -- says in any private meetings that he has, with whomever it may be, in this instance or in others. But I know that the Secretary -- we characterized the other day -- at the time I was here at the podium, he had only had two meetings. That afternoon he completed three more; that he felt that all of the meetings he had, the debriefings afterwards, were good meetings, were constructive meetings. They were honest and candid and frank meetings with all five of them. And, as I stated the other day -- it remains true today -- we are satisfied that all sides remain committed to this process. It is our view that all sides have now put their positions on the table, and it is now time for them to engage in serious negotiations aimed at defining possible areas of agreement and working toward narrowing the gaps where disagreements exist in order to make real progress as soon as possible. This is the fundamental essence, after all, of negotiating and of this negotiating process which the parties embarked on at Madrid. Q Margaret, to follow up Jim's question, do you know of any disagreement between the Secretary and senior officials of the Department in their appraisals of the negotiations? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to play that game. Q It's not a game. MS. TUTWILER: It is to me, and I can't do that. I'm not going to get into commenting from this podium in this setting, in this forum, on unnamed officials -- our own senior level or not -- who have backgrounders with members of the press. And I am not going to do that. I'm not going to start today. I have characterized for you the Secretary's views of his meetings, not only with the Palestinians but, to be quite honest, with all of the delegation heads that he met with. And I further have characterized for you our general view of what these negotiations should -- as we've said all along, there's really no news in this -- should get themselves to. As you know and remember at one point we had the "couch" sessions, and we kept saying, "Let's stop this wrangling in this process and get to substance." And that still very much is our view. Q Let me ask you -- wait a minute -- Q Let me ask a question. You just asked one. The official's name is Edward Djerejian. Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian gave a background briefing yesterday morning, in which he said that the Palestinians were more interested in propaganda than in whatever -- than in substance. Now, was he expressing the Administration's position, or was he expressing Secretary Baker's position, or was he just going off on his own? MS. TUTWILER: I do not comment on unnamed senior, junior, mid-level officials -- Q He is not an unnamed official. His name is Edward Djerejian. MS. TUTWILER: -- who do background briefings with your colleagues, whether in this building or other places, and I will not start today. Q Let me go back to your second point which was that they should get on with it. Could you tell us what the Administration is doing or will be doing now? There's no agreement on where or when. MS. TUTWILER: Timing and venue. Q There's no agreement on timing and venue -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- and only Israel, as far as I understand, has suggested possible places. Are you going to get into that, or are you going to depend on them -- MS. TUTWILER: We've been into it. Q -- to work it out themselves? As you know, there have been times you've depended on -- you're relied on them. Other times you've stepped in. What's your game plan? MS. TUTWILER: We've never totally been out of it. As I said the other day, this is something that, unfortunately -- or depending on whose moccasins, I guess, you're walking in, fortunately -- has not resolved itself. It is something that the Secretary brought up in each and every of the debriefing meetings he had the other day. It is something that -- you're correct -- we've always encouraged the parties themselves to please try and work this out, to get it behind them. And, you're right, we have stayed engaged with it, we're going to stay engaged with it, and the Secretary expressed these views to all of the five groups that he met with, and we'll have to see where we are. As of today, to my knowledge, it isn't resolved. Q Can I ask one last thing: The Israeli view seems to be on this issue, as on other issues, the Arabs don't respond to them, and they lay back, and sometimes the Americans come in and intervene, and sometimes they don't. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q On the issue of venue, the Israelis say they are not getting an answer from the Arabs as to where and when to meet next. Does the United States think the Arabs and Israelis should work this out, or will it -- MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q You do. MS. TUTWILER: That's our first choice. It always has been our first choice is for the parties to work this out. And the United States, Barry, may or may not have proposed or suggested formulas for trying to work it out, which to my knowledge we have not discussed on the record. So we are quietly and diplomatically trying to help the parties work this out. Yes, we always have the option, as the co-sponsors, to -- should they be unable to work this out -- to make a proposal of our own. But you're not at that point yet, but that option, of course, is always there. Q Margaret, if I could follow my own -- Q (Inaudible) Q Could I follow up my own question -- MS. TUTWILER: Sure, Jim. Q -- now that Barry and others are done. You answered the question in reference to not discussing what unnamed officials talked about. That was not what I asked you. I said, "Is it an accurate description of the Secretary's beliefs that he believes that the Palestinians, in particular, are devoting too much attention and energy to public relations and not enough to actual negotiating?" MS. TUTWILER: And I will answer it the same way again is that it is our view -- which means it's the Secretary's view, the Department's view, the Administration's view -- that all the sides have now put their positions on the table, and it is now time for them to engage in serious negotiations aimed at defining possible areas of agreement and working toward narrowing the gaps where disagreements exist in order to make real progress as soon as possible. That's our view, and that obviously encompasses the head of this Department. Q Does he put the onus on any particular party in these negotiations? MS. TUTWILER: We haven't played, again, that game throughout this. The co-sponsors are trying -- and have been, in my opinion -- with good faith, to help all of the parties when there are problems or when there are glitches, as I believe he said we would expect to encounter, to resolve those, to get over them -- just as we are on this venue/timing type of issue. So we are engaged. All the parties, I think, would certainly agree with that and tell you that we are. We will continue to be engaged. No matter where these talks are held, the United States presence will be there. And, as you know, we're willing to -- provided both parties want us to -- to actually come into the room. To date, a situation like that has not arisen. Q Margaret, a follow-up on the timing and venue thing: Is it the U.S. view now -- since it's been through this debate over place and time several times now -- is it the U.S. view that some agreement on a procedure for resolving this issue ought to be settled before the next round convenes, or is it the view that, well, we'll just deal with it each time as it comes up? MS. TUTWILER: That is asking me to kind of crystal ball it. We have liked or wished each time, Ralph -- Q I meant what the U.S. position is. MS. TUTWILER: -- since Madrid that the parties had been able to resolve this. Each time they haven't. I don't know if next time is the time that they do, or between the end of this one and the next time that they do. I can't predict that for you. But it has been our view, throughout, that this is something that we would like to see the parties themselves be able to work out. They, as you're well aware of the history of this, have not yet been able to do so, and so the rounds have gone as they have gone. But I can't predict that, you know, between now and whenever the next round is, that they do indeed get this behind them. Q Margaret, Secretary Baker's had an interesting time in his testimony on the Hill this week in that several members have expressed themselves very forcefully on the question of the increased budget for U.N. peacekeeping. And they seem to be also reflecting in their comments a sentiment that's somewhat widespread in the nation of concern about increased spending on U.N. peacekeeping. Are you at all concerned about at what appears to be an isolationist trend in the United States, and what, if anything, can be done to combat that? MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary and the President -- the President mostly this week -- has spoken out about an isolationism view that is expressed by some Americans here in our country, and has expressed very forcefully and strongly what our view is towards that and why -- the Secretary himself has. So this Administration, in my mind, is well on the record as to why we do not think that is in America's best interest, and the Secretary has said it, as you point out, in public testimony. What we're doing about it is continuing to -- through whatever medium you have -- not only the President and the Secretary, but other members of this Administration and, to be honest, other members of the other party and members of the public who speak out, who think that isolationism is not in our national security interest or in our nation's well-being. Q Margaret, can I come back to the issue of the criticism -- the reported criticism of Palestinians? Do you want to refute the reports -- I mean, it's major media reports -- that, using the terms, "Secretary blasts officials," "harshly criticize." Are you saying that all of these reports are incorrect? MS. TUTWILER: Many afternoons when I call some of my very good friends here in this room and others and say, "I just don't understand how this headline could possibly have been written." The answer I always get is, "We don't write the headlines." And, if you look at the piece, we didn't write the piece. So I am not about to start talking to you about headline writers. They are people that you all know very well, and many times you will write pieces, and you will call me and say, "The headline doesn't reflect anything about what I wrote." So I have not read all the headlines you're referring to, and I'm not going to start commenting on headlines. Q O.K. Can I just follow up, please? Q Margaret -- Q Can I follow up, please? Can you then tell us if the Administration is critical, particularly, of the Palestinians' performance, proposals that they have advanced, their overplaying the media? Is there any frustration -- MS. TUTWILER: If the Administration was, I can assure you this is not the forum where the Administration would choose to discuss that. And I have answered the question of the Administration's view. I have answered it as fully and as thoroughly as I'm going to at this session. I don't believe I have anything else to add to this story. I'll be happy to continue trying to answer your questions, but I believe that I have, to the best of my ability, expressed the Administration's views on the last round that has just concluded. Q Margaret, I'd like to go back to the loan guarantees for a minute. You said earlier that the Secretary was well aware of the legislative timetable. There seems to be some sort of a crescendo building on these things that may be complicating the peace process one way or the other. I just wonder if you have any kind of timetable at all for some sort of resolution of this issue on the Hill or anywhere else between now and, say, June or when the Congress leaves? Is there any sort of timetable? I'm not holding to you specific days, but -- MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer timetables for you, Saul. Q Is there one? MS. TUTWILER: If there is, it's just not something that I am going to put out here in a public briefing. I'm not leading you to there is or there isn't. That all, obviously, is tied up in the Administration's strategy in negotiating. He believes -- and I don't know anyone who disagrees with him, other than maybe you all -- is that he is going to negotiate this in private, or at least attempt to or try to. Q I understand that. But the reason I ask is because, in a sense, Ambassador Shoval today, this morning, agreed with Nabil Sha'ath at a luncheon yesterday in which they both suggested that there was a perception, anyway, on the part of the Arabs that the delays on the loan guarantees, and what is seen as the conditions the Secretary has given, has affected the peace process and the Arab stance -- excluding the Palestinian stance -- during the talks. I'm wondering if you believe that there may be a perception upon the Arabs' part that the delay on the loan guarantees is to their advantage in these negotiations? MS. TUTWILER: I can't put my mind into their minds for you and tell you what they believe or if they've got this perception or which ones of them do or don't. I can't do that for you. I'm not privy to and have not, unfortunately, had time to read all of the transcripts. I know that these delegations -- I believe it's everyday -- do briefings. I believe there's one today, or at least there had been one that was scheduled -- I believe the Lebanese. I don't know if that still took place. I just can't keep up with every bit of it as much as I try. But I know that I'm not going to sit here and try to say, "Yes, I believe that the Arab perception is ...." I can't do that. Q Margaret, from the Secretary's viewpoint, would it be helpful if, at the next round, the Palestinians brought experts to the table? This is regard to your statement, "It's time to get on to substance." MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q Should the Palestinians bring experts as the Israelis did to the next round of talks? MS. TUTWILER: That's something for the Palestinians to determine, Barry. Q You have no -- the State Department has no position on that? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to get into publicly saying what various parties, whether it's the Palestinians or the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Jordanians, or whoever, should or should not do in their private negotiations. I'm just not going to do that. Q Well, it's not the most outrageous question that has been asked. You're saying that you want them to get to substance. MS. TUTWILER: I didn't say it was outrageous. Q I'm just asking you if, from Baker's viewpoint, it would be helpful in getting to substance if they brought experts along? MS. TUTWILER: I understand. And you know very well -- Q And you say you think that's a private matter for them to discuss? MS. TUTWILER: You know very well that the particular negotiation that this came up in, that those parties have differing views and those parties are discussing that issue. It would be highly inappropriate for me to sit here and tell, or suggest or dictate, what we think they should or should not do. It's just not how we're going to handle this. Q Margaret, there's a report that U.S. aid to Armenia is being curtailed. I didn't know that there was any. If there is, is it? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know if there is any either, Jan. And if there is, is it being curtailed. I appreciate your changing the subject, but I, unfortunately -- like with Alan the other day -- I know nothing about this report. Sorry. Q I have a second report that's also out there somewhere, and that is that the U.S. is very seriously considering or about to recognize Bosnia? MS. TUTWILER: On that, I would refer you to Secretary Baker's public testimony concerning Bosnia, which I believe he answered yesterday to Senator Cranston. He answered it a number of times, really, over the last four testimonies in two weeks. I don't have anything new to say to that. It's all lumped in our overall Yugoslavia thing. Nothing has changed. Q On another new subject: Can I ask about the North Korean ship? Where does it stand now in the U.S. view? Where is it going? What does it contain? And what plans, if any, does the U.S. feel are appropriate to prevent it from going where it might be going? MS. TUTWILER: My response will definitely help lob us right out of this subject because my response is, I have no comment on those press stories. So does anybody else have another subject we can try? (Laughter). Q No, no, Margaret. Let me ask you a broader question. MS. TUTWILER: I know. I'm telling you. Q No, no. This is serious stuff. MS. TUTWILER: It is, and I have no comment. Q You've lifted sanctions against China. I know this is Korea. I have a 2-part question. Is China still providing dangerous weapons to Middle East countries? And is Syria -- which you have part of this Mideast peace process -- is Syria importing dangerous weapons, or weapons that you would rather not have in the region, from Korea or any other source? MS. TUTWILER: I'll take both of your questions. It's my understanding, didn't the Chinese just last week say they were signing the MTCR? And isn't that included in there, shipment -- Q Does that end the discussion, that they say something and that's the end of it? MS. TUTWILER: I didn't say it ends the discussion. Q They said all along that they're not arming these people. MS. TUTWILER: I'll go back to what I originally said. I'll be happy to take both of your questions. Q Also on the question of aid and military supplies. Has the United States been making exceptions to the arms embargo vis-a-vis Pakistan, particularly on spare parts? MS. TUTWILER: On that one, it's my understanding, Jim, according to the article this morning -- and let me get you the exact -- I want to be literal here. This is the Pressler Amendment, and I want to make sure we understand. The Department of State has continued to license the commercial -- that's the key word -- export of spare parts and maintenance items to Pakistan. The United States has not made any government-to-government sales since the President was unable to make the requisite nuclear certification pursuant to the Pressler Amendment in October 1990. The Department has issued licenses for commercial military exports based on a case-by-case review and only for items to support equipment already in the Pakistani inventory. The Department has not licensed the export of new military equipment, new technology, or upgrades to equipment in the Pakistani inventory. It is my understanding of the Pressler Amendment that the Pressler Amendment addresses itself to government-to-government sales, not commercial sales. I will be happy to state for you literally language from the amendment. Q Without going into the specific language, there's also a spirit involved in that and an intention involved in that, which is to withhold military equipment in retaliation for a continued development program of a nuclear weapon. Do you think that those commercial sales, which were allowed on a case-by-case basis, conform to the spirit of the intention of the Pressler Amendment? MS. TUTWILER: I would refer you to what the Secretary said in public testimony this week concerning that, and I quote: "This policy does not contravene either the letter or the spirit of the Pressler Amendment which we are implementing fully." Q Margaret, two quickies again on peacemakers or peacekeepers. First is, can we be confident that the Secretary will stick with the figure that was in the budget, both supplemental and the next year? I ask that because you may remember -- I think it was Congressman Rogers made the point, not very heatedly -- that the U.S. pays for 30 percent and the Secretary said, well, our GNP is 25 percent. There seemed to be a little room that he might come down. I wonder if he's going to come down or stick with the request? And the second, quickly, is -- and I don't expect you to have it here -- in going back to the subject -- I got back to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report in January about peacekeepers, American peacekeepers in the Western Sahara being in terrible, you know, very tough situations -- living conditions. I wonder if -- not now -- at some point -- MS. TUTWILER: If I know about their living conditions? Q Yeah. Things improved? Is it still a lousy place for an American peace-keeper to be? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. That one, I'll obviously have to look up for you. The other one, as I remember that exchange with the Secretary and the Congressman, I think that the Secretary said, "I will go back and look at that." Q (Inaudible) leadership, and we have to maintain leadership. MS. TUTWILER: I don't remember him saying that our percentages would change, but -- Q No, he didn't. MS. TUTWILER: -- that he would be more than glad to look at it. Q He said he would look at it, and I wonder if having looked it you're going to stick with 30 percent or come down to accommodate -- MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, I don't know if the experts that he tasked to look at this since Tuesday have gotten back to him. I'll ask. Q Margaret, does the United States believe North Korea is violating the U.S. effort to prevent arms proliferation in the Middle East? MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to take your question, Ralph, because it's a very broad question; and I just, at my fingertips, don't know what the United States' view on that is. Q Margaret, do you have any comment on the political evolution in Saudi Arabia? They have announced some steps in the last few days and we hadn't got a chance to ask you about them? MS. TUTWILER: I think I was asked the other day. If I wasn't, then we had given an answer on March 2. But no problem, I'll repeat it here. We believe the values of democracy are universal. Increasing political participation and pluralism are important steps. We regard the Saudi announcement as a step forward. King Fahd earlier had previewed publicly the nature and scope of these measures that have been announced, and we view his pronouncements as an important step forward and we continue to encourage protections for wider political participation globally and throughout the Middle East region. Q Is that a step forward toward democracy, or are you characterizing -- when you say that the values are -- MS. TUTWILER: We're calling it a step forward. Q When you say that the values of democracy are universal, are you suggesting that any of those democratic values have actually begun to be implemented in Saudi Arabia? MS. TUTWILER: My understanding, Ralph -- and I'd have to go break it down for you -- there are a lot of specifics that are contained -- I just don't have them at my fingertips -- within this report that has been put out that addresses itself to specific, what I would call, human rights concerns. I just apologize. I don't have them here at my fingertips with me. Q Has the United States and Russia made any progress on setting up this joint scientific institute? And I would like to ask two specifics about reports that have appeared. There's a report about Russian scientists working on fusion, I believe, that was in the New York Times. You obviously have something about that. There's also a report, I believe, in Aviation Week about some joint project on space defense which has been mentioned. I wonder if there's anything on that? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not familiar with the piece in Aviation Week. I am familiar with the Energy Department -- I believe it was an announcement -- on this fusion research. It's, obviously, something we support. As far as -- and the details, please, get from the Energy Department -- and as far as where we are on our effort -- overall Administration effort -- the Secretary will be discussing that while he's in Brussels. But prior to that visit, he -- as you know, the White House announced Mr. Gallucci, who is in charge of our "brain-gain" efforts in the scientific center. He has had, it's my understanding, a number of interagency/intergovernment meetings here, and has been dealing bilaterally with people who are very interested in this. As you know, the EC is; as you know, the Japanese are. There are a number of nations that are very interested in the scientific center. He has not, to date, it's my understanding, as of two days ago, when I asked, have we yet re-engaged actually with scientists. Q Is this the same Mr. Gallucci who was involved in the dismantling of unconventional weapons in Iraq? MS. TUTWILER: I believe it's the same gentleman, yes. Q So he's no longer engaged in that? MS. TUTWILER: We made a White House announcement several weeks ago of his new duties and responsibilities here in the Administration. Q Who's taking his place? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll check and see if it was in the announcement. I don't know. Q I'm just a little confused about the relationship between the scientists employment center, for lack of a better phrase at the moment, and the fusion announcement by DOE. Does the Administration believe that governments and private firms around the world ought to be able to sort of just go ahead and make their own deals with whoever they can make their deals with in Russia at the moment, and then if anybody is left over in the scientific community, they'll fall under this coordination of the science center? Or will the DOE project be coordinated through the science center as well? And will the same scientists be sort of up for grabs for other potentially competitive offers through that center? MS. TUTWILER: I believe that Secretary Baker expressed, in his final press conference with the Russian Foreign Minister, the United States' view that we are encouraging cooperative arrangements -- both governmental and private -- between the United States and the scientific community in the former Soviet Union in order to give weapon scientists and engineers the opportunity to redirect their talents to non-military endeavors. As you know, our science center is an example of this cooperation. Q So these offers, these deals that are cut are separate? They're not to be coordinated through the science center? MS. TUTWILER: Some probably will be, Ralph. Some won't. You're asking me a finite question on an institution that the experts are still working on and evolving. Q I'm asking whether the good guys are going to be gotten to first, and the dregs will be left essentially to be dealt with through the science center? (Laughter) Q A follow-up on that same question. In both the DOE thing and, I think it's Sun Micro Systems is the other one -- they seem to have taken the approach of essentially hiring an entire lab intact rather than picking off individual people. Is that the pattern that the Secretary thinks things should follow? Is it better to keep them intact in Russia than -- MS. TUTWILER: One, Chris, you know more details about the fusion center than I do. I don't have that level of detail, and I haven't read Aviation Week this week and don't know about the other part. All I can tell you is, this is something that is of great interest to this Administration -- the overall situation. It is something we are addressing. We have put $25 million towards it. We have a person who has been designated and named to be responsible for this, and he has been working, it's my understanding, daily with people in our government who have various expertise and bilaterally and multilaterally at this point. I can't answer all of the level of questions that you're asking me concerning how is the final product going to look. I would, in my own judgment, not steer you towards, there's going to be one finite model. After all, this is a new world for us, too. This is something that I'm sure -- maybe you would think this idea would be very, very good today and someone may have one that you can either add to or detract from three or four weeks from now, or in six weeks come up with a different idea. But the general thrust of it, and the importance of it, is not something that is being ignored or diminished by the Administration. In fact, it's something I'd say we've taken a leadership role in, and that there is an enormous amount of bilateral support by a number of countries for this type of effort. Q Margaret, has any progress been reported -- or has any progress been made about extraditing the two Libyan bombing suspects? And, if not -- MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of. Q -- any progress being made about imposing sanctions; perhaps freezing assets? MS. TUTWILER: We're not going to characterize it as progress or non-progress. Those types of quiet discussions are going on and continuing about what next. Q Margaret, the Gulf war has been over now -- what? -- it ended about a year. At the time there were large estimates of numbers of Iraqis killed. Are you aware since then of any more accurate accounting of the number of dead within Iraq? MS. TUTWILER: No, but I haven't asked. I'll be happy to. Maybe the Pentagon has a number. I don't know. Q Are you aware of any policy within this Government of suppressing any estimates that have been -- MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Margaret, I think when we asked on Monday you said -- MS. TUTWILER: What? I'm sorry, Jim. Q When we asked on Monday, you had said that the Secretary had not yet had a chance to see this working draft of a paper on reorganization of the USAID. MS. TUTWILER: That's right. I don't think this week he has. This has been a really busy week. If he has, I don't have any knowledge of it. I believe, to be honest with you, the Deputy Secretary is also taking a look at this. In fact, I'm positive he is. Q Coming back to the Russian scientist deal, this arrangement announced by the -- MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry. The what? Q The Russian scientist deal -- this arrangement announced by the DOE and the amount of $90,000, those would be paid to the scientists out of those $25 million which have been allocated to the center, or is it separate? MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding this is a separate initiative or -- "initiative" is a good word. My understanding is, it is separate. It is not part of the $25 million set aside for the science center. Q Does it mean that if some other separate dealings are there, they would be covered by the separate money? MS. TUTWILER: I have to judge each one as it comes. I can't answer that broad-gauged question. Some may come out of money from the science center; some may not. But we are, overall, encouraging, as I said, both government-to-government and private sector to government initiatives to help on this very serious situation. Q Thank you. MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all. (Press briefing concluded at 12:45 p.m.)