US Department of State Daily Briefing #44:
Tuesday, 3/24/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 24 19923/24/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, Southeast Asia
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Georgia, Libya, Cambodia,
Armenia
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process,
State Department, Terrorism, Trade/Economics,
Nuclear Nonproliferation
12:10 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Georgia: US Establishes Full Diplomatic Relations]
MS. TUTWILER: I'd like to do two things first, if I
can. One's concerning establishing diplomatic relations with
Georgia, and the second, telling you what we know about the
situation concerning Libya releasing these two individuals.
On Georgia: As you know, the White House today, Marlin
[Fitzwater], announced that the United States is establishing
full diplomatic relations with Georgia. We will immediately
begin working on getting a U.S. team on the ground in Tbilisi to
establish an Embassy, obviously taking into account the security
situation for personnel who would be posted there.
Yesterday, Secretary Baker received a formal letter
from the Chairman of the State Council of the Republic of
Georgia. Based on the developments in Georgia itself and on the
new assurances in this letter, late yesterday afternoon the
Secretary recommended to the President that we grant full
diplomatic relations, which the White House has done today.
The assurances that were in this letter meet the same
commitments which we sought from the other new states throughout
this process, and those are basically the ones which are
contained in our five principles.
Q Is Alabama next?
MS. TUTWILER: Is what?
Q Is Alabama next? [Laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: Alabama? No.
[Libya: Offer to Turn Over Suspects in Pan Am 103 Bombing]
Libya: We have been in touch with the Secretary
General of the United Nations, other delegations in New York,
and officials of the Arab League over the last 24 hours. They
tell us that the Libyans have made the same proposal which
they've stated publicly -- to turn over the two suspects to the
Arab League.
However, to our knowledge there is no written proposal
or a lot of details on this one proposal beyond turning them
over to the Arab League. We have no information on whether the
Libyans intend to have the people then turned over to the courts
or what next.
In addition, no one appears to have any information
that Libya intends to comply with the other three requirements
endorsed in resolution 731. As you know, they are to cooperate
in the investigations, including the French investigation of the
UTA bombing, to pay appropriate compensation to the victims, and
to cease all support for terrorism.
Abdel Meguid, Secretary General of the Arab League,
it's our understanding, is traveling to Tripoli to discuss the
proposal. If the Arab League does succeed in obtaining full and
prompt Libyan compliance with all the terms of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 731, we would view that, obviously,
as a positive step.
However, Arab League action is not an alternative to
full compliance with the terms of the Security Council
Resolution. History would suggest that we should be skeptical
that this is an indeed a good-faith offer. We suspect that
Libya is once again trying to find another way to buy time and
avoid complying with its obligations to the international
community.
The U.N. Security Council is continuing to discuss
actively a proposed resolution on the UTA and Pan Am bombings
because of our determination that state-sponsored terrorism be
eliminated. Contrary to a report that I saw the last hour,
there is no pause in our U.N. activity.
Our bottom line is that Libya must comply fully with
all the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 731 which was
adopted unanimously by the Security Council.
Q Margaret, when you -- I wish you could elaborate a
little bit on when you talk about "Arab League action." You
know, in your statement that Arab League action is no substitute
or no alternative for what you want, I'd like to pursue it with
you.
I mean, I don't understand. If the Arab League is only
a way station to the suspects being turned over, isn't that
satisfactory? Or, alternatively, are you concerned that the
Arab League would not be a channel, would not be sincere, that
they would somehow try to deflect any punishment of these
people? This has happened before.
MS. TUTWILER: It's not a concern about the Arab
League's actions, Barry. It is a concern, number one, a lack of
knowledge. Number one, all we have is a public statement that
they are going to release these two individuals to the
Arab League. Well, then what? Then what is the Arab League
supposed to do?
What we are saying is that not only would we like to
understand what in the world are they talking about here, but
there are three other "must do's" contained in Resolution 731.
So to the Arab League, to the world, we all are in unison,
saying that this resolution passed unanimously, and that Libya
knows what it must do, and it must abide by all four things
called for in the resolution.
But we honestly don't have -- and we have tried to get
in 24 hours from the United Nations Secretary General's office,
from other governments who have been having conversations, and
from the Arab League itself -- you know, exactly what is this
proposal, what's involved, what are you going to do, what's
going on. And the extent of it at this moment in time is
basically what I have told you, what we know.
Q What about your campaign to impose an embargo, an
international embargo, sanctions? Do you want that to proceed
even while you're trying to find out?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. I just said there was a report in
the last 45 minutes on some -- I think it was a wire story
before I came down here, saying that there had been a pause at
the United Nations working on this second resolution. I've said
that's not the case, there is no pause, and that we are actively
working as we have been last week and -- what -- two days into
this week on this second resolution at the United Nations, which
includes in part an air Embargo which we discussed last week.
Q Isn't the State Department concerned that this may
be a divisive initiative? I mean, the French and the British
and others seem to be less skeptical of the offer. Are you sure
all the allies -- hasn't Libya played -- now succeeded in
splitting the "Big Three"?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Well, they're not as skeptical as Ambassador
Pickering, Marlin Fitzwater and Margaret Tutwiler.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, you must have a more thorough
reading of the French Government and the British Government than
I do. I'm not aware of any difference in -- at this moment in
time, Barry, based on what we know -- the conclusions that we
have come to, which is basically what I've enunciated: That we
basically suspect that they are buying time and avoiding
complying.
Q The Foreign Office said yesterday that when they
first heard about this, that they would in fact be prepared to
wait a while and see what happened. They held quite an unusual
briefing and said that -- indeed that they had received the
Libyan offer, and that they were prepared to wait a while at the
United Nations to see what happened. So it is a different
position than the one you have.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, you have different information
than the information that I have, and my information is that
there is no pause in our deliberations at the United Nations
right now. I will be more than happy to stand corrected to a
briefing that you're aware of yesterday that I'm not. But,
having checked this morning with our officials that are working
today at the United Nations, they said there's no truth to the
story that there is a pause at the United Nations. So I'll be
happy to go back and re-look, Jan.
Q What are they waiting for? I mean, you've had the
resolution out there for a number of days now.
MS. TUTWILER: It's a draft resolution. We're still
working the language in the draft is my understanding.
Q And is there general support for this resolution
in terms of the consultations you've had so far?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't like to do predictions for you
or vote counts. We'll wait and see, and there's not a time yet
-- that's my understanding -- for an actual vote.
Q Margaret, since the Arab League has requested or
appealed to the United States and the United Nations not to
undertake this step of sanctions and wait for implementation of
what Libya has said, are you entertaining the thought of giving
a deadline, for instance, for the Arab League to receive the two
accused Libyans in order to possibly find an interim period?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't --
Q It's not buying time from one side, but to avoid
any confrontation, because I think the Arab League now is
sincere about what they were talking about -- to avoid any
confrontation between the West and Libya on this matter.
MS. TUTWILER: That may well be, but the Arab League
also knows that there are four conditions contained in United
Nations Resolution 731. The only information that we have --
that I believe is the same information that you have -- is a
public statement concerning itself with one portion of
Resolution 731, and that is even not fleshed out with a whole
lot of detail, other than turning two individuals over to the
Arab League.
Q But my understanding is that --
MS. TUTWILER: And I've never heard -- excuse me -- the
first part of your question. I am not aware of anyone who's
discussing a deadline, but I'll be happy to check for you.
Q Please. My understanding is that there are two or
three stages: To give them to the Arab League, then to the
United Nations, and --
MS. TUTWILER: It's all in the rumor mill. I've read
all those rumors. But in our conversations with the United
Nations, with the Arab League, the Secretary General's office,
with other governments, none of us know from Libya that those
indeed are the next steps. And so that's why I've characterized
it as we know one portion of a resolution, and even that one
portion we don't know what in the world they have in mind for
next steps. I've read all those types of rumors, but in our
view that is all just speculative rumors.
Q Margaret, what does the U.S. want on the fourth
point -- stop sponsoring terrorism? What is the U.S. looking
for -- a statement, a declaration, or acts? I mean --
MS. TUTWILER: That would be a nice beginning, and I
know that our counter-terrorism people -- the people who are
experts in watching people who obviously support state-sponsored
terrorism -- have their ways and means of verifying, if indeed
such a statement were made, that indeed they weren't just idle,
empty words, that they indeed were ceasing and desisting. I
don't have a laundry list for you. The experts may well have
one. I just don't.
Q But, I mean, it sounds like -- you know, it sounds
like until you have evidence that -- and you couldn't get it in
one day -- until you had evidence that Libya's done a turn-about
in its support of terrorism, you would go ahead with the
sanctions. The other things can be -- presumably they'll either
meet or not meet those conditions, but this condition is kind of
a generalized condition that would take --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, again --
Q -- quite a bit of showing to prove that it's been
met.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. Again, I don't know what the
United Nations criteria or standards are going to be -- have you
or have you not met them. Just on my own, it would seem for
starters a public statement would certainly, you know, be
appreciated. I'm not aware of any such public statement that
has been made since this United Nations resolution has passed.
But, again, that would be a United Nations Security Council
decision; not mine.
Q Well, wouldn't the minimum condition be the
expulsion, for instance, of the Abu Nidal office in Tripoli --
the closure of that office and --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know again if the United Nations
has spelled out the specifics of what it is it would take to say
they were in compliance with that portion of the resolution.
I'll be happy to see if there's further language in the
resolution that I personally am just not up to speed on.
Q Could you check specifically whether that includes
the closure of Abu Nidal's office in Tripoli?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q And Abu Nidal himself is believed -- I still think
he is believed to be in Tripoli.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Can I ask one question about this issue? Since
this is a different situation from the allies and the Alliance
against Iraq, it looks like that what I see or what I heard or
read, that there is a consensus among the Arab League members
that they really don't want any confrontation between the West
and Libya.
And one big ally, you know, very, very strong ally of
the United States, which is Egypt, which is almost, if I can
interpret what they are saying, they want to vouch for Libya to
do this and to deliver and to go through with this whole process
of delivering these suspects.
Do you have any concern that you are going to possibly
create an atmosphere between your allies in the Arab world over
not extending the time and saying that there is more period of
time and possibly setting a deadline for this matter?
MS. TUTWILER: No. And we don't view the Arab League's
statement as one that changes the facts of our position on
Libya, nor does it change the fact that I believe it's 441 men,
women and children were killed, and they represented, I believe,
over 30 nations of this world. And I'm not aware of anyone in
the Arab League -- obviously, with the exception of Libya --
that does not agree with the unanimously supported U.N.
resolution that was passed; that we have said here many times we
have in our view irrefutable evidence that these two men did
this barbaric act, and that they should be brought to justice.
Q Well, let's approach it the opposite way then:
why don't you simply say that you don't need the Arab League to
be some sort of a channel or a vehicle or a clearing house who
should be brought to justice or not?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know what you're trying to --
Q I don't know how the Arab League got to be the --
you know, some sort of a gatekeeper for prosecution of people
who are suspected of causing those deaths? Why are you willing
to wait and see what Abdel Meguid can find out? I mean, why
don't you just demand that they be turned over to the proper
authorities and --
MS. TUTWILER: I just did today. I said it twice.
Q But it looks like you're going along with the Arab
League as a possible arrangement. You're skeptical --
MS. TUTWILER: That's your interpretation.
Q No. My interpretation is that you think Libya is
playing around. That's fine.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you.
Q Right.
MS. TUTWILER: We got that right. We're in agreement.
Q We got that right. But why are you playing around
with the Arab League? Why don't you simply say: "Forget it, we
just want these folks directly. We don't need anybody to clear
suspects for us."?
MS. TUTWILER: Barry, I think I have said what it is
that Libya is supposed to do. I do not know that the Arab
League solicited this offer yesterday. So why in the world
would I come out here and say something negative about the Arab
League if this came as news to them yesterday and was lobbed
across their transom? What are we supposed to do?
Somebody made a public statement yesterday.
Q (Inaudible) if Fairfax County (inaudible) wait to
see if Albania says it's all right to --
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't say we are waiting.
Q -- bring them before a grand jury.
MS. TUTWILER: Where have I said today that we're
waiting?
Q You haven't.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you. We agree on that. I have
not. I have said we're actively working it at the United
Nations. We haven't stopped that effort.
As you know, as was just pointed out, that is an effort
that some very much wish would stop. We haven't stopped it.
We're up there working on this second resolution, which
includes a number of things, one of which we have publicly
stated which is this air embargo. So we're well aware that
Libya is not too interested in us pursuing what we are
continuing to pursue, regardless of their offer yesterday to
give these two people to the Arab League, and we have
characterized what we think of it.
Q Margaret, can we move along a bit?
MS. TUTWILER: If you want.
Q There's a report that's been carried, I believe,
on Radio Monte Carlo and picked up by some Middle East media,
that the Secretary -- to the effect that the Secretary is
planning another visit to the region, beginning April 10.
MS. TUTWILER: Really? That is something that I have
heard about this morning from one of your colleagues. It is
something that is made up out of whole cloth. There is
absolutely no planning right now for a Secretary of State visit
to -- where did you say? -- the region on April 10. So I don't
know -- again, it's one of these irresponsible leaks, I guess,
or people. I don't know where this came from, but there's no
truth to it.
Q There's no truth to the -- irregardless of the --
MS. TUTWILER: Seriously, there's not. I heard about
it from you all this morning.
Q Irregardless of -- I just want to make it clear --
irregardless of the date?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not playing games here. I'm not
being cute with words. Obviously, I'm not going to stand here
and say the Secretary of State will never, ever go to the region
again. That's a totally different type of question.
But I am not playing games --
Q "Irregardless" isn't in the dictionary.
MS. TUTWILER: -- with words here at all. There is
absolutely, positively no idea being floated, no secret plan.
Nothing. Whether it's April, May, June, it just doesn't exist.
Q How about -- can we move and ask -- move ahead and
know now if the report of the Patriot inspection team will be
made public? And aren't they -- don't they have about a day or
two to go and will come back?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know how many days they're going
to be there. We said, when we announced their visit, that it
was agreed upon that they would be there a few days. I asked
this morning. They're still in Israel working. I do not have a
return time for them.
So that I am clear, I do not know, as I said yesterday,
if the report that comes back from -- what is it, 14 or 16
individuals? -- is going to be in a classified form, if it's
going to be in an unclassified form. I just don't know that
right now.
I am positive that there will be something that we will
have to say. I just don't --
Q I was going to say, can the conclusions be made
public, presumably?
MS. TUTWILER: I got asked this yesterday. I'm not
trying to cause a problem. I don't know. As you know, many
times -- because you've covered this place a lot longer than I
have -- you get extremely frustrated, and I understand why,
about what whoever stands here can or cannot say. I just don't
know what we're going to say.
Q I just wondered if it's going to be a public --
MS. TUTWILER: But "say something?" Yes, I am positive
we will be saying something, as I said yesterday. But whether
that "something" is what you want is what I tried to explain
yesterday. I just have no way of knowing. I don't know yet.
[Cambodia: Visit of Prime Minister and Funding for Peacekeeping
Force]
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the visit of the
Cambodian Prime Minister?
MS. TUTWILER: No, but I believe I saw that he's seeing
Arnie Kanter today. Sorry, no, I don't, but I'll get you
something, isn't it this afternoon?
Q This afternoon.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I'll get you something.
Q Margaret, to follow up on that. He specifically
is expressing concern that countries, including the United
States, aren't moving quickly enough to fork over their
contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping operation.
MS. TUTWILER: Peacekeeping.
Q Whatever taken question you sort of return to us,
could you address that issue?
MS. TUTWILER: It's something that you know the
Secretary spent a great deal of time on recently in testimony.
We are committed to paying our fair share. We recognize the
increase. We recognize it's a large amount of money, but it is
something that the Secretary made quite clear how committed we
are to paying our share of this and that it's important to pay
our share of this peacekeeping.
But the specifics of where we are, to be honest with
you, gets a little bit wrapped up in our legislative strategy
right now on several matters --
Q Speaking of that --
MS. TUTWILER: -- and there are no answers on that
today.
Q -- doesn't the Secretary testify this week?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of.
Q Not this week.
MS. TUTWILER: I wish it were true because then we
wouldn't all be here. If there's such a testimony, I don't know
about it.
Q Next week maybe?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't think there were any future --
Reggie (Bartholomew) is testifying today. I'm not aware of a
Secretary testimony.
[Trade: US Ambassadors to Promote US Goods and
Services in Southeast Asia]
Q Continuing in southeast Asia. What's the new
initiative, or the heightened emphasis on commercial relations
that American Ambassadors seem to be briefed with or instructed
to do vis-a-vis southeast Asia and this swing through the United
States to look at shoe factories and things like that? Could
you give us something on that?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to -- I'm aware of the
mission that the Ambassadors are on. I'm not sure exactly what
your specific question is. I believe it's the Economic Bureau,
to be honest with you, that has organized this mission. I'll
see if they can you some more fleshed-out detail.
Q A more specific question then: What is the
mission? Why the increased attention to --
MS. TUTWILER: I believe we've put all that out. But
if we have not, then I'll be happy to see that we do for you.
But I believe it's all been announced, and I believe they're all
having press conferences in the very cities they're in.
Q Margaret, there was a story last night on Israeli
television that the team, which is in Israel now -- the American
team -- will finish their work or their investigation by
Thursday?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, they know something, then, that I
don't know, and that would fall very similarly in the question
Alan asked me: If the Secretary of State is going to the region
on April 10. I would tell you if I knew. I don't know. I
asked this morning and there's no answer to when the team is
returning.
Q That's the report? The results of the
investigation will be kept secret? It will not be made public?
MS. TUTWILER: I've never said they would be secret. I
just answered that question with Barry. I have said we will
have something to say, but I do not know how or what shape or
what classification this mission's report -- I don't even know,
for instance, if they will put something in writing. I don't
know if it will be a verbal report. If so, to who? I just
don't have those answers. But that we will say something, of
course, we will say something. I just don't know what it will
be.
Q So, Margaret, will what you say be classified?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. Or I'll probably come out
here and say it's an intelligence matter and it's classified,
and so I don't have anything to say. I just don't know. But I
am well aware of the interest, obviously -- and it's a natural
interest and it's a fair interest -- in what were the
conclusions of this mission.
Q So if you don't find any violations, it's really
hard to classify that, isn't it?
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q There's nothing to keep secret?
MS. TUTWILER: Right. I'm not saying that we are.
I've never said that.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the meeting with
Antonio Lacayo?
MS. TUTWILER: With who?
MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary's meeting with Lacayo?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
[Former Soviet Union: St. Petersburg Nuclear Reactor's
Stage 3 Incident]
Q Margaret, on the nuclear scare in the plant near
St. Petersburg -- first of all, I see you shuffling through your
papers.
MS. TUTWILER: I have something, Alan. I have a lot.
Q After that, maybe I can have a follow-up.
MS. TUTWILER: I won't need to tell you all this if you
don't want to know it. What is it that you want to know.
Q Everything.
Q I want to know what you know.
(Laughter)
MS. TUTWILER: Then I'll tell you what I know. The
incident took place in the third unit at a reactor located
approximately 60 kilometers from the center of St. Petersburg.
The reactor is an RBMK reactor. That is the same
design as the Chernobyl reactor. The incident took place at
2:37 a.m. local time. As we understand it, the automatic
shutdown system was triggered when a hermetic seal to one of the
fuel channels ruptured. This created an area of low pressure
and allowed inert gases and some iodine to escape into the
reactor building. The gases were eventually vented to the
atmosphere through filters in the reactor building. We have no
reports that the release constituted a radioactive hazard to the
local population.
As of 1:00 p.m. local time, the U.S. Consulate in St.
Petersburg reported that Russian officials had declared that the
radioactive situation in the area was normal. The Consulate is
monitoring the situation and has distributed a notice to
American citizens informing them that there is no known health
risk resulting from the incident.
This was what's characterized, Alan, as a Stage 3
incident. I will explain what a Stage 3 incident is.
The Russian authorities reported the incident to the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The IAEA has
issued a statement declaring this as a serious incident, Level 3
on their international nuclear event scale. According to the
IAEA, a Level 3 incident means there is contamination at the
site but there is only a very small release off-site. Their
scale -- the IAEA scale -- runs from 1, which is the lowest
level incident, to 7. The Three Mile Island accident was a
Level 5 on their scale. Chernobyl was a Level 7. Got this,
Alan?
In 1989, there was a reactor accident in Spain which
did not result in an external release of radioactivity, nor
damage to the reactor core, and that also is classified as a
Level 3 incident.
Q Did the Consulate go on vacation?
MS. TUTWILER: Go on vacation?
Q Did anybody apply for vacation?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of.
[Former Soviet Union: US Assistance to Strengthen Nuclear Safety]
Q Margaret, my question is this: The United States
-- the Congress has allocated $400 million for the dismantling
of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Several experts
say that the danger presented by civilian nuclear plants is even
greater in terms of their sloppy maintenance which is
deteriorating -- bad training, low motivation, lack of spare
parts, etc.
Would the United States be prepared to consider
allocating some of that $400 million, or finding other funds,
for the purpose of enhancing nuclear safety in the former Soviet
Union?
MS. TUTWILER: In fact, we've already had those
discussions. And just for the record, can I give you -- there
are four areas where we are working on this. One is the most
recent one, which you address yourself to.
The United States has recognized the severity of
nuclear reactor safety problems in the former Soviet Union for
several years and has been cooperating both bilaterally and
through international organizations in an effort to help reduce
those problems and avoid future Chernobyls.
Number One: Since 1988, the United States has
participated in an extensive joint program on nuclear reactor
safety with the former Soviet Union. The U.S. side, led by the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and supported by the
Department of Energy, has pursued such goals as improving
operator-training, modernizing aging facilities, and
strengthening safety regulations.
Number Two: We have supported the International Atomic
Energy Agency's safety evaluation of nuclear reactors in the
former Soviet Union. We have participated in IAEA safety review
missions to two -- Soviet -- Russian reactors, and will be
sending a representative to meetings in April on the safety of
RBMK reactors.
Number Three: At the recent Washington Coordinating
Conference, there was broad support for providing further
assistance to the former Soviet Union in the area of nuclear
reactor safety, and we are following up with other concerned
parties.
Finally, Number Four: The United States recently
co-sponsored the creation of an international science and
technology center that will give weapons scientists, in the
former Soviet Union, opportunities to redirect their efforts to
non-military endeavors. We have held discussions with the
center's founding parties, and there is broad agreement that the
first projects funded by the center will include projects in the
area of nuclear reactor safety.
Q May we have copies of the --
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q Margaret, can we go back to --
Q No, no. I'm not finished. There's particular
concern about a reactor in Armenia which was shut down after the
earthquake in 1989, and which I'm told is actually sitting
on the juncture point of two geophysical faults, and the
Armenian Government has apparently announced it wants to reopen
it and put it back on line, especially in light of the fighting
in Nagorno-Karabakh and the possible danger of terrorism
affecting that reactor.
Is the United States making any representations to
Armenia about not reopening that reactor?
MS. TUTWILER: It's a situation I'm not familiar with,
and I'll be happy to ask.
Q Margaret, could we go back to the Georgia thing,
if there's a little more there --
MS. TUTWILER: Georgia?
Q Yes. You spoke of being satisfied that they'll
make the necessary affirmations -- you know, a free market
democracy.
MS. TUTWILER: And things that had happened on the
ground.
Q That's what I was going to ask. Can you give us
examples? Do you have anything that builds your confidence?
MS. TUTWILER: I do. In recent weeks, the new Georgian
Government, headed by Eduard Shevardnadze, has taken steps to
restore civilian rule, begin a dialogue on national
reconciliation, and committed itself to hold parliamentary
elections this year.
Restrictions imposed by President Gamsakhurdia on the
press and on the creation of political parties have been lifted.
The government has acted to quell ethnic violence by sending
representatives to south Ossetia and other regions of ethnic
unrest to begin a dialogue with the ethnic communities in those
regions.
Q Has Baker been in touch Shevardnadze in this role,
by the way?
MS. TUTWILER: Other than the formal letter that we
received yesterday in his capacity as Chairman, no.
Obviously, the Secretary, after talking to the
President, we have officially responded.
Q One little follow up on the team in Israel. The
reports out of Israel are saying that when the team is
inspecting these sites, they actually posted guards, I think,
overnight at the sites. That the U.S. --
MS. TUTWILER: Who did? We did?
Q Yes. I thought this was very strange because
whose missiles are they, anyway, and --
MS. TUTWILER: Where did we get the guards? I thought
the team was only 14 or 16 people.
Q Just 17 people, I think. But I wonder whether you
knew anything about that, whether --
MS. TUTWILER: I really haven't heard of it; and where
would the guards come from?
(Press briefing concluded at 12:40 p.m.)