US Department of State Daily Briefing #41:
Thursday, 3/19/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 19 19923/19/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia
Country: Iraq, Israel, Libya, Argentina, Egypt, Syria,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process,
United Nations, Security Assistance and Sales, Terrorism,
Democratization, Regional/Civil Unrest,
Media/Telecommunications, Travel, Immigration
12:02 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Israel: Reported Transfer of US Patriot Technology]
MS. TUTWILER: I have one housekeeping matter. The
team of U.S. experts that will discuss Patriot issues with the
Government of Israel will leave for Israel today. The team will
consist of three State Department, one Defense Department, and
13 U.S. Army experts. It will be led by Sinclair Martel, who is
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military
Affairs here at the Department.
I do not have the exact time of the team's return. As
I said the other day, though, we expect that they would be there
a few days and then return.
Q Could you spell his name, kindly?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Sinclair, S-I-N-C-L-A-I-R;
Martel, M-A-R-T-E-L.
Q The fact that the team is led by a State
Department official, and the Department is, of course,
responsible for monitoring and enforcing export regulations,
would indicate, would it not, that what you're looking at,
really, is the possibility of the improper transfer of material,
not just counting the Patriot missiles, and so forth?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to get into that. I have
said what the team is doing. We've told you why they're going
out there. They'll be there a couple of days and they'll be
back. When we first announced that Israel had agreed to such a
team, we said that it would be headed by the State Department.
It, indeed, is.
Q What have the Israelis told the U.S. that this
team would be welcomed to see? Can you go into --
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea because I haven't asked.
As I told you, this is something -- or maybe you weren't here
that day -- that was discussed by the Deputy Secretary of State
and Ambassador Shoval, and I haven't asked. I don't know. We
put out a statement, as you know, I think, on -- I don't know --
Monday or Tuesday of this week. I didn't
bring it with me. I could read it to you again. It says that
Israel has agreed and it said the purpose of it, and I just
didn't bring it.
Q There's a purpose to my question, too, as there is
a purpose to all these questions. We're trying to determine --
MS. TUTWILER: There always is.
Q Yes, indeed. We're trying to determine -- we
don't have you every day to ask the question either -- we're
trying to determine what the U.S. expectation is. So one way to
get it is to say, what have the Israelis told you they could
look at, which might be slightly different from a welcoming
statement that's put out in the press.
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, I can't answer something I
haven't asked about. Number two, I believe, in our statement
that we put out that we did two days in a row -- correct me if
I'm wrong -- we said that they were going, obviously, to discuss
this. They will be discussing it.
Q Your description of what they would go to discuss
is different today from the one you gave yesterday and the day
before.
MS. TUTWILER: Not in my mind.
Q Previously -- well, it is in my mind. The text is
out there. It can be reviewed.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q The text previously said that the team would deal
with technology transfer issues including the Patriot issue.
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q Today you said it will discuss the Patriot issues.
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q Do you mean to be limiting the delegation now to
that one issue?
MS. TUTWILER: Maybe you weren't here on Wednesday --
Q I was here. I was here on Wednesday.
MS. TUTWILER: Remember, we went through this, and I
was asked that question. Your statement says one thing; why are
you telling us another? I said I would steer you towards my
verbal explanation of our statement. I recall after the
briefing I explained to you how we had worked out this
statement. So I have been totally straight about it, that this
is a specific mission. It is to discuss Patriot issues. A
team's going. We've announced who the team is today. The team
will be back in a few days. I just don't know when.
Q Can you tell us when the -- the statement, as you
pointed out one day from the podium, was carefully worded.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q Can you tell us when it was decided that the other
issues would be dealt out of the mission, and for what reason
they were dealt out?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I haven't asked.
Q Margaret, on another subject. Can you --
MS. TUTWILER: Can I do my statement, please?
Q Oh, sure.
[Libya: US/UK/France Propose UN Air Embargo/
US Advises Americans to Depart]
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks. The statement concerns Libya.
On November 27, 1991, the United States, the United Kingdom, and
France announced the conditions the three governments require
Libya to meet concerning its responsibilities for international
terrorism, including the bombings of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772,
which together took the lives of 441 men, women, and children
from more than 30 countries.
On January 21, 1992, the United Nations Security
Council unanimously adopted a resolution deploring the Libyan
Government's lack of an effective response to the tripartite
requests regarding Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 and urging Libya to
provide a full and effective response to those requests.
Today is March 19. The Government of Libya has not
complied with the requirements of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 731. Instead, Libya has attempted to delay and
divert attention from the fundamental issues. The three
governments have decided to submit a second resolution to the
United Nations Security Council asking that it impose mandatory
sanctions on Libya, including an air embargo, until Libya
complies with the provisions of Resolution 731.
Since 1981, United States passports have not been valid
for travel to Libya, unless they are specially endorsed by the
United States Government. Similarly, all financial transactions
with Libya have been prohibited.
Although there are no new travel restrictions on
foreigners in Libya, we cannot predict Libya's response to U.N.
Security Council sanctions. In any event, once airline links
are broken, it will be, obviously, more difficult to leave the
country.
The United States Government strongly advises American
citizens who may be present in Libya to depart immediately.
If you needed to know, I asked, "What would be the
approximate number of U.S. citizens there?" We think it could
be as many as 500 to 1,000. And they -- our estimate, because
we don't know, as you know, they don't have valid passports --
would be predominantly oil workers.
Q Margaret, besides cutting air links, what other
practical implications will this embargo have?
MS. TUTWILER: What are the practical --
Q I mean, besides cutting air transportation, what
else would this embargo affect?
MS. TUTWILER: Are we looking at in these sanctions?
Q Right. I mean, will we --
MS. TUTWILER: In the second sanction?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: I can't today go into the draft that is
up there. But we felt -- as the French have done today and the
British -- that it was important, if, indeed, there are
Americans in Libya and if this second resolution passes -- and
we have no reason to believe it will not -- it goes into effect
quite rapidly, and for American citizens that are there, we felt
it only fair to give them forewarning that this is what we are
working on.
The second resolution does contain other measures also.
We're just not announcing those today.
Q Can you give us a broader definition of what the
air embargo is?
MS. TUTWILER: A broader definition?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: It's an embargo. I don't understand
what you mean.
Q Well, including, presumably, passenger airlines,
cargo airlines. What other --
MS. TUTWILER: Right. That's an embargo.
Q Would this also include a cut-off of oil shipments
from Libya? Certain countries get a huge percentage of their
oil from Libya.
MS. TUTWILER: What I'm not going to be able to do
today is to go into the other aspects of the draft resolution
that we are right now working up in the Security Council that
could contain -- does contain -- other suggestions that we, the
French and the British have for the Security Council in its
second resolution.
This one, specifically, we felt an obligation, as did
the French and the British, to let citizens of our respective
countries know who were there that, yes, we are working on a
resolution that does contain an air embargo. It would, when it
passes -- if it passes -- go into effect quite quickly, and you
could be trapped there.
Q What is the timing on this? When do you expect to
take it to the Security Council, and when do you hope to get
passage?
MS. TUTWILER: We're working it in the Security Council
right now -- the draft resolution. I don't know when they will
vote.
Q You don't happen to have a list of airlines that
travel regularly to Libya, do you?
MS. TUTWILER: Do I? No.
Q No U.S. airlines are scheduled?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q This resolution, is it going to close down
Libyan-Arab airlines completely?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know.
Q Is the intention of this embargo to prevent the
airlines of other countries, for example, Italian airlines or
anybody else who has flights in and out of Libya, from --
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding.
Q So it would be to close down all air traffic to
and from Libya, is that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: It's an air embargo.
Q So, how do you enforce it?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, if the members of the Security
Council vote -- how did you enforce the embargo that we just
successfully did against Iraq? This is a United Nations
resolution. The first resolution was voted on unanimously.
It has been my observations that most members of the
United Nations adhere to United Nations Security Council
resolutions. I can't stand here and tell you what various
countries may or may not do in light of -- if such a resolution
is passed. But, obviously, this is something that has been
discussed -- our Government has discussed with any numbers of
governments over the last several weeks or even months. So this
is not something that has not been fully discussed, but I can't
speak for what other countries are or are not going to do.
Q Will the resolution include some kind of provision
for penalties imposed on countries that violate the embargo?
You may be talking about civilian airlines, so what do you do if
countries with civilian airlines fly civilian airplanes into
Libya in violation of the embargo?
MS. TUTWILER: What I don't want to do today -- and I
apologize because I know it's frustrating for you -- is to get
into all of what we are working on right now in our draft
resolution. I've explained why we thought it was necessary to
publicly state what a portion of it is.
I don't know when the vote is going to come. When it
does, obviously, the resolution is made public, and I will be,
hopefully, prepared and more than glad to answer all of those
types of questions. But in advance of that, I just can't do it.
Q Who is allied in this resolution -- the United
States and Britain? Anyone else?
MS. TUTWILER: And France.
Q Is this announcement being made simultaneously in
London and Paris?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. That's what I just mentioned.
Q What effect, do you think --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, "simultaneously," I can't tell
you. But today, yes. I think the French have already made
theirs and the British are in the process of making theirs.*
But, yes, it was agreed upon that all three of us would do it
today.
Q What effect is this air embargo intended to have
on Libya?
MS. TUTWILER: I guess, Ralph -- I don't know how they
will interpret it. We're obviously --
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: -- trying. We -- the United Nations
* Check with individual countries as to when they will issues
their statement.
has already passed one United Nations resolution. If you don't
recall, I will refresh your memory on what that has called for
them to do, which they have not yet done, which was to surrender
the bombing suspects for trial, cooperate fully in the
investigation, pay appropriate compensation, and cease all
support for terrorism.
As I just pointed out, that resolution was passed, I
believe, on January 21, 1992. Today is March 19. So the United
Nations Security Council is now going for a second resolution.
Q Margaret, can I try -- if we're still on Libya, I
want to move to Iraq.
Q Margaret, I'm sorry to ask again but for months
now it's been talked about cutting air links to Libya by which
you would go around to other countries and all these countries
would agree to decline landing rights, so, effectively, Libya
couldn't have an airline.
When you talk about an air embargo, to me, that means
quite a different thing. That is saying it's something you
enforce, as you said, in the same way that the air embargo on
Iraq was enforced, which is by threat of military force, for one
thing.
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't say that.
Q That's how the air embargo on Iraq was enforced.
The other thing is that it wouldn't just apply to regularly
scheduled airlines, it would basically apply to -- it's putting
an air blockade on a country. Is that what you're talking about
when you say "air embargo?"
MS. TUTWILER: Chris, I take issue with that: That the
embargo from the United Nations was enforced by air power. From
August to January 16, I'm not aware, except for a couple of
instances that you're aware of, that the world community was not
voluntarily enforcing an embargo -- a total embargo -- against
Iraq. So I would just not accept, which is my prerogative --
you can argue with me -- the premise of your question, that
that's how we enforced it for those months -- an embargo.
Sorry. The embargo was voluntary by all countries that I can
recall except for --
Q Those would apply to the other countries.
However, it might not apply to the country against whom the
embargo is instituted -- in this case, Iraq. I mean, in this
case, Libya.
So if Libya wants to do something -- when you say we're
going to enforce an air embargo as we did on Iraq, I
think there is an implicit threat of military force, if they
attempt to just fly planes out to do their own whatever they
want to do.
MS. TUTWILER: By no stretch of the imagination in what
I have just said have, in my mind, led you to that conclusion.
Q Can I follow up on that, please, for just a
second?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q Is it your intention -- the three nations -- to
prevent Libyan airlines from operating any place other than in
Libya? For example, if a Libyan corporation, or a Libyan
aircraft were to fly from -- I don't know; it doesn't matter --
from Country A to Country B but neither one of them being Libya,
is this provision intended to prevent that from occurring or
only from flights coming and going to and from Libya?
MS. TUTWILER: Until we have a provision, I am simply
not going to be able to get into all of the details of what will
eventually -- since they're working on it right now -- come out
in the provision.
What we had an obligation to do, in our opinion, is to
let -- as we have said, there are possibly 500 to a 1,000
Americans, we believe, may be in Libya. We are publicly saying
that one of the things we are pursuing, we are looking at, we
are actively working on right now in the United Nations, in a
potential second resolution, is an air embargo.
I will definitely flesh all of this out for you, to the
best of my ability, once you have a second resolution. But we
felt it's an obligation to do this to let people know -- that's
why we've said, "leave immediately."
Q Regarding the citizens who are present in Libya --
French, British, and U.S. citizens -- is there any threat to
them, in your view, from someplace other than the Libyan
reaction, as you put it, to the embargo?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know what other threats they may
or may not be under. They're there without United States
passports, except for those special cases where the United
States grants permission. As you know, sometimes journalists go
there and interview individuals. We then -- the U.S. Government
-- give you a visa, or whatever it is we have to document for
you to travel there.
But these people are there. Keep in mind, I said since
1981 we have not been issuing passports to Libya. So these
people are there, Number 1, not at the sanction of the United
States Government.
But even having said that, there are American citizens
we believe that are there. Since we're working on something
that could -- we said we did not know what Libya's reactions
would be to this second resolution. We felt an obligation, as
the French did and the British, to inform those who were there
that, yes, we are working on an air embargo.
Q But the question is whether there is any danger to
those people from some source other than what you described as
Libya's potential reaction to the air embargo?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, who knows? I don't know.
Q Margaret, on another subject.
Q (Inaudible) with the other two members of the
Security Council, specifically with Russia, which seems to be
the only country which has any kind of air links with Libya?
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding it's not the only
country that has air links with Libya.
Q Among the big five on the Security Council?
MS. TUTWILER: It's not my understanding either. You
wanted to know if we have discussed this with the Russians? I'm
quite sure that we have.
Q And what was their position on that?
MS. TUTWILER: You would have to ask them.
[Iraq: US Working to Intensify UN Inspection Regimes]
Q Margaret, on the Iraq situation, if I may?
MS. TUTWILER: Iraq?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Got it.
Q First of all, whether the United States' view is
that no further resolutions are required to force Iraq, even by
military means -- if that turns out to be the option -- to
comply with the resolutions?
MS. TUTWILER: Barry, I haven't, to be honest with you,
heard that particular question addressed. What I would tell
you, contrary to some news reports this morning, what the United
States is doing -- which is public information -- is we are
working to intensify the United Nations inspection regimes. I
listed the other day the number of the regimes that are there
now. One came out yesterday. I've listed the number of regimes
that are going in. That is what we have been working very hard
on and will continue to have our focus on.
Q Why do you say "contrary?" You mean, because the
news accounts are focused on military measures? Is that what
you mean?
MS. TUTWILER: I read some reports this morning from
unnamed officials and unnamed sources along those lines. So
what I'm saying is, what I am aware the United States Government
is working on -- that we have all clearly said -- is that our
focus is on intensifying the United Nations Security Council
inspection regimes.
Q At least two Arab leaders seemed to have taken the
notion of a military option seriously enough to register the
disapproval of that approach: The President of Syria and the
President of Egypt. I wonder if they've communicated their
reservations of that to you -- the State Department -- or
whether the State Department has tried to dissuade them -- tried
to persuade them to stand with the coalition, whatever the
decision is?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sure the State Department -- I don't
know if they have communicated those views to us through
diplomatic channels. I saw a wire copy this morning where they
had said what you've said.
Q (Inaudible) made a statement, clearly.
MS. TUTWILER: I've seen it, through the wires. So I
don't know the answer, if they have done it through diplomatic
channels. But I know that they know very well what the United
States views are on intensifying the inspection regimes that are
either currently in Iraq or going to Iraq. So that I know is
well-known to them.
Q Margaret, are you denying or are you prepared to
deny that there is no such thing as a list of options prepared
by the State Department and the Pentagon and other agencies and
given to the President that is now under consideration that
includes both economic measures that can be taken against Iraq
if it fails to comply with the inspection teams and military
options? Are you denying that such a thing exists and that
there's been any discussion of that in the Administration?
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, Mary, we never discuss
options, and I'm not going to begin today.
Q Margaret, throughout --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to answer you the same way the
President of the United States answers when asked this question,
whether in this situation or others: We never discuss options.
Q Margaret, since --
Q Are reports by unnamed officials irresponsible?
MS. TUTWILER: I think all leaks are irresponsible.
Q Including the ones on these subjects you referred
to this morning?
MS. TUTWILER: If you ask me a general question on
whether I think leaks are irresponsible, yes, I think leaks are
irresponsible.
Q Including those being hurled against Israel?
Q (Multiple comments)
Q Could we go back to Iraq? Could we stick to the
Iraq -- do you want to go, Alan?
Q (Inaudible) -- Iraq -- inaccurate -- the report
that you referred to?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to answer you the same way:
That we do not -- those reports -- or a generalization of those
reports, from what I read -- and I only skimmed them -- was that
there are certain options. Your question back to me. What I'm
going to continue to answer you is the same way the President,
the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, whether this
instance or others, always -- in this Administration and others
that I have served in, always say we never discuss options. I
have nothing more to say about it.
Q You say leaks are irresponsible. I assume that
you mean by that, even --
MS. TUTWILER: I understand why you don't think they
are.
Q No, no. I'm trying to give you an opportunity to
deal with this thing --
MS. TUTWILER: I've dealt with this.
Q -- if leaks are irresponsible, I assume you mean
leaks that are factually true as well as leaks that are not
factually true. You say leaks are irresponsible.
MS. TUTWILER: From my moccasins. I understand why
they're not from yours, but from my moccasins --
Q I have no moccasins on.
MS. TUTWILER: The press corps --
Q Just regular shoes.
MS. TUTWILER: From your shoes.
Q No. I'm sort of --
MS. TUTWILER: Leaks are irresponsible.
Q Just think of us, if you would, as sort of, you
know, asking the questions the public would have if they had an
opportunity to come to a briefing. This isn't a journalism
thing. We're just wondering -- Mary's asking if you're trying
to knock down the reports.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand.
Q I don't think you are. I think you just say you
don't like leaking.
MS. TUTWILER: I am going to just continue -- those
reports that I saw, generally speaking -- I apologize to the
authors. I did not read them; I skimmed them -- in my mind I
skimmed them and said, "Ah ha, this is about options."
Q Right.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have to delve into this because
I know what my answer is. We don't discuss options.
Q No, no. Not publicly --
MS. TUTWILER: So that's the depth of my getting into
it.
Q Margaret, one last thing, and I'll pass. I'm
sorry. But your coalition which was put together with great
care -- and it took a lot of work and a lot of travel by the
Secretary of State --
MS. TUTWILER: It did.
Q I would like to ask you in a general sense, if you
-- because I don't suppose you'd answer in a specific sense --
is the Administration confident that it has the same firm
coalition for its policy on Iraq that it had in attacking Iraq
for the invasion of Kuwait?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware, Barry, of any change in
the international coalition.
Q Margaret, can I ask you, since August 2, 1989,
when Iraq invaded Kuwait --
Q 1990
Q When was it?
Q 1990.
Q It seems like only three years ago. [Laughter]
Since whenever the hell it was that the United States -- that
Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States has acted multilaterally
through the United Nations, can one assume that it will continue
to act in that way?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Second --
Q Margaret, I know I'm late, but I wonder if I could
get some of these questions in. Has the team been named that
will go to Israel to look --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, sir. I just did it.
Q That's all taken care of. O.K. What about the
$300 million issue that you raised yesterday? I think there's
been some misunderstanding, at least as I read the papers. The
$300 million, if I'm correct, is not tied to a deduction from
any of the $2 billion or whatever. This is where the compromise
offered by the Secretary comes in, I believe, but I may be
wrong, instead of having a deduction made, as he told the
Congress two weeks ago. Is that right?
MS. TUTWILER: What I really would like to do today is
refer you to the record of yesterday. I spent over an hour on
this subject -- I'm sorry you weren't able to be with us -- but
I really honestly do not want to replow old ground. So I'm
going to be really disciplined today and leave it with: Senator
Leahy spoke yesterday, the Administration spoke yesterday.
Everybody's aware that we're unable to bridge the gap,
and I really will get you a very thorough, the best I could do,
explanation yesterday of our proposal and the specifics, and I'm
going to really refrain today, if it's okay -- and I beg your
indulgence -- of just not replowing this old ground.
Q No. I didn't want to replow it. I just want to
--
MS. TUTWILER: We plowed it very thoroughly yesterday.
Q I have the transcript, I read it, and I
understand, of course, that there was a lot of confusion
according to the transcript.
MS. TUTWILER: That's unfortunate.
Q O.K. You say we're unable to bridge the gap as of
today, and we'll go from there.
MS. TUTWILER: That's what we said yesterday.
Q All right. What about this thing in Buenos Aires?
I understand that the President of Argentina has asked for CIA
assistance to investigate. Do you have something on that?
MS. TUTWILER: And you would have seen yesterday in the
transcript that you mentioned you just read where I answered
that we have been asked for or that we have offered assistance,
and we declined yesterday to say specifically what type of
assistance that was.
Q You're still not --
MS. TUTWILER: A number of questions I got on that
yesterday.
Q You're not saying any more than --
Q Can I ask about Iraq for just a moment, please?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Could you tell us if there is a deadline in your
mind for this team to finish its inspection there and to either
be successful or to be turned down?
MS. TUTWILER: In one of these irresponsible leaks,
someone has misled -- one of your colleagues -- into that there
is somehow a March 26 United Nations Security Council deadline.
No such deadline exists.
We have said that if Mr. Ekeus has had any types of
private conversations with Iraqis, we would refer you to his
office. But there is no official United Nations Security
Council deadline. I have seen it printed as March 26, and I
have seen it printed as March 29, neither of which are real.
Q But you're not prepared to let this just drag on
indefinitely.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I mean, the Security Council deals
with this. We are dealing with it. I've told you where our
focus is right now -- on intensification of these inspection
regimes, and that's where we are right now.
Q Margaret, can I take you to another area and ask
if you have any response to Najibullah's offer to resign?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I do. A political settlement in
Afghanistan is what everyone needs. The United States continues
to give full support for the United Nations Secretary General's
peace plan which includes formation of a transition mechanism.
Najibullah's departure would be a contribution to this.
As the Secretary General has said, the transition or
interim government needs to assume full authority from the time
it has been formed.
Q Margaret, back to the loan for a minute, even
though I think you're a little tired of this subject. Two
questions: First, has the United States -- because most of the
negotiations, all the negotiations really over the weekend, was
with the Hill -- has the United States made this proposition to
Israel as an offer to Israel? Not as an offer to Congress.
MS. TUTWILER: As I said yesterday, we have stayed in
very close contact, much of which is public and through normal
diplomatic channels with the Government of Israel, and I am
really not going to delve into this subject matter today.
Q The question simply is --
MS. TUTWILER: I've answered it. We have stayed in
contact with them.
Q I understand. You didn't answer the question,
and, if you don't want to answer the question, that's your
prerogative. The question is, has this proposal been made to
the government that requested the loan?
MS. TUTWILER: The United States Government, through
the Secretary of State and the Israeli Government designated
their U.S. Ambassador -- Ambassador Shoval -- have stayed in
very close contact throughout this entire process at their
levels and at our expert levels throughout this building, their
Embassy here, and with their officials in Jerusalem.
Q The second question: You gave an unclear answer
yesterday, and I want to try -- maybe we can get it a little
clearer today -- whether this proposal for freezing settlements
applies to Jerusalem? You said it applied to the Occupied
Territories.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. And what I am not going to do
today is go back through -- I was asked that yesterday. I
answered it yesterday. I'm really not going to do it. I did an
hour on Monday. I did a little bit over an hour yesterday.
Where we are in the process, which is important, is Senator
Leahy said it on the floor yesterday, and we have said it: We
are unable to bridge the gap.
Q I get that point --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm just not going today --
Q That's crystal clear that --
MS. TUTWILER: -- through all of these many questions
that I did yesterday.
Q Well, I'm sorry. I'm still going to ask you --
MS. TUTWILER: O.K.
Q -- and it's going to go like this.
MS. TUTWILER: O.K.
Q I'm asking you if the Administration is insisting
on a freeze on settlements -- what you call "settlements,"
simply people living, Jewish people living in East Jerusalem.
And, if you are, how does that square with the letters that the
President wrote to Rudy Boschwitz, wrote to Mel Levine, wrote to
the Mayor of Jerusalem two years ago when this issue first was
stirred up by the President at that point, that he supports the
right of Jews to live any place in that city -- East and West,
as he put it.
MS. TUTWILER: And I'm going to refer you to the
record, because I answered this question yesterday, and continue
to say that for today my answer on any and all questions on this
subject is, we are in a position right now where we are unable
to bridge the gap.
Whether something develops here, Barry, or people put
forward proposals or we go somewhere else, I don't have a
crystal ball, and I can't predict that for you. But for today
that's really all I have to say about this.
Q Does the State Department favor or disfavor the
passage of a continuing resolution on a foreign aid bill as
adopted by the House as of now?
MS. TUTWILER: This is something that the
Administration is looking at right now, and I don't have an
answer for you at this briefing.
Q All right. The other question is, is it an
obstacle to peace for Jews to live in Hebron?
MS. TUTWILER: That's something that I personally want
to look at only because I am not an expert in this area, and I
want to get you an experts' answer.
Q Is it an obstacle to peace for the Government of
Syria to say that it was not involved in either bombing and not
express a word of regret at the killings in Argentina?
MS. TUTWILER: I think that would be best addressed to
the Government of Syria, and I believe John has a question for
me.
Q Do you have any reaction to Senator Leahy's
statement yesterday that he was not going to move a foreign aid
bill this year?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Do you have any plan to proceed on aid to the CIS
and U.N. peacekeeping if there is no foreign aid bill?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. And it's not one that I'm going to
be in a position to discuss here at this briefing. It's
obviously something that the Administration knew all along could
be one of the ways this thing resolved itself, and it's
something that the Secretary is working on right now.
Q Margaret, one of the other things that Leahy did
yesterday was to basically accuse the Administration of
negotiating in bad faith, and I wondered if you had any comment
on that? He said it appeared to him that the Administration had
no intention of compromising. That they weren't interested in
compromise, they were interested in --
Q (Inaudible)
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't, because that falls right
into the category of a subject that I am only going to discuss
today in one way, which is to say we're unable to bridge the
gap.
Q Margaret, (inaudible) described it as a
"take-it-or-leave-it" proposition that the Administration had
made. Is that a proper characterization of the Administration
proposal?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm just not going to get into this
today.
Q Can you say whether -- when you say "the
Secretary's working on the issues of former Soviet Union aid and
peacekeeping," is he working on it in talks with members of the
Congress?
MS. TUTWILER: He's working on it internally right now.
Q Margaret, can I go back --
MS. TUTWILER: But I don't want to mislead you, Ralph,
that there's never been a conversation between him and a member
of the Hill over these many months of this or weeks of this
concerning "what if." I mean, I want to be careful.
Q But now we're no longer in a "what if" situation
--
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q -- so that's why I'm asking whether now --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know since yesterday of a
specific meeting or phone call that he has specifically had
concerning that. I am aware that, yes, he has had internal
conversations.
[Pakistan: US Document on Capability of
Producing Nuclear Material/Arms]
Q What about Pakistan? Have you been able to verify
the letter that was released --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I was. We got that done for you.
And my answer today is that the document appears to be part of
an internal State Department working document. It's my
understanding, Johanna, that the request for information on
Pakistan's nuclear program was made by a private organization
called the National Security Archive in 1988, and under this
request the document in question was released in part in March
1992.
Q Well, that doesn't really answer the question,
which is --
MS. TUTWILER: Yesterday I couldn't even tell you about
the document.
Q O.K. But the question is the document seems to
suggest that this State Department knew for some years before it
publicly admitted that Pakistan was developing nuclear
capability, and the question is, what is your response to that?
MS. TUTWILER: O.K. Our response to that is what it
has always been, which is that it's not our interpretation. The
Pressler Amendment which was in -- my interpretation of your
question, okay? The Pressler Amendment, which was enacted in
1985, requires that the President certify that Pakistan does not
possess a nuclear explosive device, and that the United States'
assistance will reduce the risk significantly that it will
possess one.
The statutory standard was whether Pakistan possessed
nuclear weapons, not whether it was seeking nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the legislation acknowledged that there was a role
for security assistance in reducing the risk that Pakistan would
possess nuclear weapons. The United States has consistently
opposed proliferation in south Asia for decades, and we remain
actively engaged in high-level dialogue with Pakistan and India
on non-proliferation issues.
The Administration has fully complied with all
requirements of U.S. law governing the Pakistan nuclear issue,
and I'd refer you to Secretary Baker's most recent testimony
where he addressed this question and said that we -- this
Administration -- certainly has lived up to the letter and the
spirit of the law.
Q Just to follow that up, where does India come in?
This is Pakistan. Where does India come in?
MS. TUTWILER: What do you mean, where does India come
in. She's asking me about a specific document.
Q You mentioned also India. She mentioned a
document about Pakistan, and the Pressler Amendment lists
Pakistan, and you mentioned that the talks are going on in
India. Where does India come in?
MS. TUTWILER: I have said that we have engaged in
high-level dialogue with Pakistan and India on non-proliferation
issues. Sir, we're engaged in non-proliferation issues with
many different countries.
Q But every time from the podium a spokesperson is
asked about Pakistan's behavior on nuclear weapons, somehow the
answer comes back "Pakistan and India." I guess we're trying to
find out why you're dragging India again in by the heels on
this.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I know that in this full
explanation to Johanna's question that she asked me yesterday,
asked me today, it's just an aside of what the Administration is
doing. Non-proliferation does matter to us. They're neighbors.
They're right there. Reggie [Bartholomew] is talking to them.
I believe there are -- correct me, if I'm wrong -- five
countries, as I recall that are involved in these talks. Maybe
next time I'll list all five.
Q But the allegations are about Pakistan.
Q Margaret, can I ask you, despite the Secretary's
denials, which we all noted and reported, this story, this
allegation, which includes his alleged use of an "F" word, seems
not to be going away. Are you disturbed at the fact that the
Secretary's denials seem not to be totally believed, and that
eminent columnists writing for distinguished newspapers continue
to spread these lies? And how do you account for that?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't ever comment on columnists
writing. I haven't done it for three -- over three years. I'm
not going to start today. And I'm not aware of anyone that does
not believe the Secretary's flat denial of the incident that you
have raised by an unnamed official for a meeting that there is
no record of, that never happened.
Q But, I mean, my question didn't question his
denial. My question asks if there was concern or anxiety or if
he were upset --
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q -- at the fact that his denial has not been
accepted. It has been repeated -- the allegation has been
repeated. It has been repeated in The New York Times, not in
the New York Post this time.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, the Secretary has been around this
town for many years. He knows as well as anybody, once
something -- even something as outlandish and, as we described
it, garbage that was written in a publication, you know as well
as I do that people then write it.
But that's quite different than what I thought you were
saying is that people do not believe the Secretary's denial.
I'm not aware that anyone doesn't believe his denial.
Q Except for what it's worth, William Safire
obviously doesn't believe it. He wrote in his column today that
he has information to believe that the Secretary made the
comments not once but twice.
Q And that they would be in his memoirs.
Q And they will appear in memoirs, he said.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I don't comment on columnists'
reports, and I've been asked many times about many reports by
that columnist, and I've never responded to one. I'm not going
to today.
Q You didn't comment on the Koch column only a
couple of weeks ago?
MS. TUTWILER: I said on that day, Ralph, that I would
make an exception to the rule that I've had for over three
years, because it was such an outlandish, outrageous statement
that was made about the Secretary of State. So, yes, I said at
the time, I acknowledged, I am breaking my own rule, but this is
a case that requires it, and so I did.
Q So in this case, though, you're choosing not to
make an exception. You're --
MS. TUTWILER: That's correct.
Q Margaret, there's another thing one hears --
Q Let's go.
MS. TUTWILER: John says let's go.
Q Wait a minute.
Q I'm sorry. Excuse me. Can I --
Q One more on Bangladesh.
MS. TUTWILER: Bangladesh?
Q Do you have anything on the visit of the Prime
Minister of Bangladesh? She mentions that one of the things she
is raising is the large number of refugees and also the
concentration of Burmese troops on the (inaudible) border.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right. And I would refer you to
the White House. The President, as you know, has a meeting with
the Prime Minister this afternoon. It's my understanding that
there is a White House readout after that meeting, and I feel
quite sure that those issues will be discussed between the Prime
Minister and the President.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks.
Q Wait a minute. One more on the Libya thing, if I
could, just a detail: Can you give us -- offer us an
explanation as to why Assistant Secretary Clarke is not heading
this delegation?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I didn't even think --
Q Israel. You mean Israel.
MS. TUTWILER: It's not Libya.
Q I'm sorry. The Israel delegation. I'm sorry.
MS. TUTWILER: It didn't occur to me to even ask. The
DAS, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, is, and this is the
delegation. I don't know what the levels are at the other
Departments. I have no idea.
Q Is the DAS the point person on the subject of this
inquiry in a broader way than just this one delegation?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't now.
Q Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 12:42 p.m.)