US Department of State Daily Briefing #48
Monday, 3/30/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 30 19923/30/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, Subsaharan Africa,
Southeast Asia
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Russia, Angola, Libya,
Thailand, Cambodia
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process,
POW/MIA Issues, Nuclear Nonproliferation,
Science/Technology
12:10 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Former Soviet Union: US Assistance Update/Technology Exchance/
International Science Center]
MS. TUTWILER: I want to do two things. One, as you know, this
is Monday, and on Mondays I do an update on where we are on
assistance to the former republics of the Soviet Union. So I'm going
to do that today, and I'm going to then have a statement on the
Middle East peace process.
As is customary, as I've said, I'd like to begin with where we
are. Today you'll notice that I've included other baskets, other
than humanitarian and technical assistance, and I'll start with the
security and defense cooperation area.
I would like you to note the two statements issued by the White
House on Friday regarding our policy with regard to technology
exchange with the former Soviet Union. As you'll see in those
statements, we have moved ahead with purchases of the Topaz space
nuclear reactor, Hall thrusters and Plutonium 238. We have also made
clear we will consider future import and export license applications
on a case-by-case basis with a presumption of approval.
In addition, as part of our effort to eliminate bureaucratic
impediments to increased cooperation between the United States and
the former Soviet Union, we have disbanded the GOSSAT Review
Committee, determining that it represents an unnecessary bureaucratic
layer. Its functions will now be taken up by the higher level Policy
Coordinating Committee in this area.
I would also like to note that with regard to the science center,
Dr. Gallucci is in Moscow where he is working to finalize the
agreement to establish the center, to survey sites for the center and
to discuss initial projects for the center that will focus on nuclear
reactor safety. He will also be meeting with weapons scientists. On
Thursday, he will go to Kiev where he will be discussing with
Ukrainian officials and scientists their participation in these
activities.
We have also initiated a $1 million program to provide three to
six month internships for 150 defense scientists from the former
Soviet Union. The Department of State, in conjunction with the
Department of Commerce, has contacted
American scientific and research companies to ask them to host
these interns. The United States Government will pay the
airfare and a small stipend for each scientist and ask that the
American companies cover any other costs, including insurance
and training.
Scientists will begin arriving shortly, and all 150
will have arrived by September 1992. Although the initial
funding for the program is $1 million, we are prepared to add
additional funds as needed. An agreement to transfer
$1 million from the Agency for International Development to the
Department of Commerce for this activity was signed Friday,
March 27.
In addition, we will begin another program that will
place at least 150 scientists as visiting scholars at American
colleges and universities for one to two years. The schools
will provide the bulk of the funding for these entry-level
teaching and research positions. The United States Government
will award small grants to cover a portion of the stipend and
relocation costs. The program will cost $1.5 million. The
first scientists should arrive by fall semester of this year.
In the diplomatic area, the U.S. delegation to the
United States-Russian Commission on POWs held successful talks
in Moscow on March 25-27. The delegation, as you know, was
headed by Ambassador Malcolm Toon and included representatives
from the Executive and Legislative Branches.
The American delegation obtained documents providing
the names and burial sites of eight U.S. nationals who died in
the Soviet Union during World War II. According to the Russian
side, the eight had previously been unaccounted for. The Joint
Commission agreed on priorities for ongoing research and
procedures for facilitating an exhaustive investigation of
relative archives. Commissioners established contact points for
both sides to follow up on outstanding questions and agreed in
principle to a second Commission meeting in May.
In the economic area, a delegation of U.S. experts
headed by USTR will hold talks in Moscow,
March 30-April 7. This delegation will meet with delegations
from a number of states that the Secretary has visited in the
former Soviet Union to finalize trade agreements with the United
States.
Today, because Ambassador Armitage gave me so much that
went on last week, I have a six-page statement that I will give
to you. I would ask that you do take an opportunity to please
review it. It has additional new flights. It has additional
new seavans. It has such things as an effort to help stem
pollution from an oil well explosion near Tashkent. The
Seattle-Tashkent Sister City Committee, with assistance from the
Departments of State and Defense, located oil well control
equipment in Houston, Texas, and it is on its way right now to
Tashkent.
So other than make you sit through all of this, as much
as I know you'd like to, that full statement -- which is six
pages of activities just covering last week and what's moving
and what's going -- is available right after this.
Unless you have any questions, I'll go to my Middle
East statement.
Q Would you make your opening statement available
also, please?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure. It's in a mess right now, so I'll
-- it has to be retyped.
[Middle East Peace Process: Bilateral Negotiations]
Q Margaret, do you have a date for this follow-up
meeting to the meeting held here in January, that's supposed to
happen in Lisbon?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure that -- the EC is hosting
that meeting -- that they have announced the date. We have an
idea, yes. They've privately told us what they're looking at,
but I'm not sure that's been publicly announced by the EC.
On the Middle East: The United States and Russia, as
co-sponsors, have proposed to the parties that they resume the
bilateral negotiations.
We have proposed that the next round take place in
Washington, D.C., beginning April 27, and that the subsequent
round take place at a venue outside the United States closer to
the region.
We have asked the parties to provide us with lists of
alternative sites. Israel has provided such a list, and we hope
the Arabs and Palestinians will provide a list as well.
Before April 27, we will announce the venue of the
subsequent round of talks, whether we have received the list or
not. This proposal, as has been reported over the weekend, was
delivered over the weekend. We do not have replies from anyone
yet. We are waiting for those replies, and that's where we are,
and that's what's contained in the new proposal.
Q A tiny technical question: Do you have some idea
of how much -- or when that subsequent round would be held? Do
you have some --
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Well, at least roughly --
MS. TUTWILER: Roughly, we don't.
Q -- would you want to hold it before the Israeli
elections?
MS. TUTWILER: Roughly, we don't. We're trying right
now, Barry, to get agreement to this fifth round, and, as I've
just announced, it is a different proposal than those in the
past. You have been one person who has consistently asked me
when the United States thought it was appropriate to move closer
to the region, and I told you that we believe that time is now.
Q Well, I've been one of the people who have asked
you whether you had heard from the Arabs yet on your request --
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q -- for ideas and --
MS. TUTWILER: And I've answered that question today.
Q Yes. Now you have finally acknowledged --
MS. TUTWILER: Finally.
Q -- that the U.S. has. Are you coming forward now
after some six, eight weeks -- I don't know -- because of some
impatience that the Arabs have not given you any suggestions,
despite the Secretary's longstanding request?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure that it's been six weeks
since they were here.
Q It's a long time.
MS. TUTWILER: It's certainly not eight.
Q Well, no, it's not six weeks since they were here.
It's --
MS. TUTWILER: They all left here --
Q -- twenty-two days. But the point is even before
the U.S. was asking for ideas.
MS. TUTWILER: That's correct, as we have been
throughout the entire process, starting back many months ago.
The Secretary, as you will recall, had a meeting personally with
each of the heads of delegations prior to their leaving. Those
were private conversations. Much of what I've just announced
was discussed there, and this is where we are. So they've had
the 22 days -- if that's what it is --
Q Twenty-four, actually.
MS. TUTWILER: Twenty-four -- whatever it is -- to mull
this over. And, as you recall, one other time we issued a
proposal and we've decided that now is the time -- or over the
weekend -- to do a second proposal, which we've done.
Q A quick follow-up: When you ask for places, do
you ask for time -- suggested dates or just suggested places?
MS. TUTWILER: No. Places.
Q There is not the same deadline. You've said that
you're going to make the announcement on the venue, regardless
of whether you receive suggestions from the other parties or
not. Have you made that same statement to the parties with
regard to the time?
MS. TUTWILER: The time?
Q That you will announce a time --
MS. TUTWILER: For the sixth round?
Q For the sixth round. That you will announce --
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q You have not made that same statement.
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q So then let me just come back. You said you
thought -- you said that the time is now for the talks to move
closer to the region.
MS. TUTWILER: For the fifth round.
Q What you mean is the time is now to say that they
should move closer to the region. You haven't decided when the
time is for them to move closer to the region, right?
MS. TUTWILER: No, no. What we've said is that, in our
view, they have had, as Barry points out for me, at least three
weeks to mull over, discuss with their governments, the
suggestions the Secretary of State made when they left here. We
have now -- as you know, we've done this once, to my knowledge,
in the past -- issued a new proposal. It is: Fifth round
begins, Washington, D.C., April 27.
At the same time, we are saying we will announce where
the sixth round -- city/location, not timing -- will be prior to
the April 27 fifth round beginning. So the United States has
now, as we've always said, at some point we would say when we
thought the time was ripe or correct to move closer to the
region. We now feel that time for the sixth round is here, and
we want it decided before the fifth round.
Q And does the new proposal contain any changes in
the nature of delegations or the rules about who participates,
or anything like that?
MS. TUTWILER: No. None.
Q A clarification: Are you saying the parties are
hearing for the first time today that you're going to announce
the venue for round six?
MS. TUTWILER: No. They all had messages at the end of
last week. To be perfectly honest, I don't know if they were
received on Saturday or Sunday. So this is all contained in
their messages, some of which has leaked over the weekend, all
of which had not. And so we want to be straightforward with you
on it's not just April 27, Washington, D.C. This is a new
approach, new proposal, and it contains new information for you.
Q Margaret, why "closer to the region?" Why not
"the region"?
MS. TUTWILER: It has always been our view, "closer to
the region."
Q Well, the Israeli view has been that they wanted
the talks moved to the region, and my impression was that the
United States agreed that at some point they should be moved to
"the region."
MS. TUTWILER: No. If you check the record, Johanna,
we have always said "closer to the region."
Q Well, does that mean just generically Europe, as
in the realm of --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to get in --
Q What do you consider "closer to the region"?
MS. TUTWILER: The parties are giving -- one party has
-- we are asking the other parties to give us their list, their
suggestions. I'm not going to define "closer" for you.
Q Margaret, on the other hand, you've got -- all the
parties except Israel seem to be content with leaving it here
and haven't come up with any other proposals. Why has the
United States, and why, in consultations with the former Soviet
Union, now decided that now is the time that it should move
closer to the region when obviously the vast majority of the
parties have no interest in it moving closer to the region?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, that's your deduction.
Q We haven't given any ideas?
MS. TUTWILER: Ours may be a different deduction, and
we have decided at this time, this is the United States' view.
Again, Mary, no one has to pick up on it. No one has to come.
Q Could you tell us why, Margaret, why now? Why is
the time ripe now?
MS. TUTWILER: Why not today. It could be in three
months. It could have been six weeks ago. Because the
Administration, based on its intelligence -- it may be a little
different than yours -- in their private, diplomatic
conversations with all of the parties has decided at this time,
for our reasons -- all of which I'm not going to get into with
you -- that this is the proposal we were going to make. We've
made it. It's out there. We certainly hope that everyone picks
up on it.
I have to leave it to them to respond to their
characterizations of this proposal. They have all received it
over the weekend.
[Israel: Reported Transfer of US Patriot Technology/
US Team Returns]
Q Margaret, do you have any feedback on the team
that went to Israel to check the allegations that they were
illegally exporting Patriot technology to China?
MS. TUTWILER: The Patriot team mission?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Right, Alan?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: The team leader, as you know, was Deputy
Assistant [Secretary] Sandy Martel. He returned to Washington,
D.C., on Saturday night. Other team members returned yesterday,
which was Sunday. And there are two things that are happening
here, at the Department, now that the team is back.
Deputy Secretary Eagleburger will receive an oral
briefing, if he has not already this morning, from Deputy
Assistant Secretary Martel. He will receive a written report on
the mission that will probably not be done today.
Deputy Secretary Eagleburger will then brief the
Secretary and obviously pass on the report, and we will have
something to say to you later this week.
Q Why not the Secretary? Why not brief the
Secretary? Does the State Department not consider it that
important a mission?
MS. TUTWILER: This is how most things, Johanna, work
through the building. The Secretary will have a brief. For all
I know, if Deputy Secretary Eagleburger has already had a brief,
then he has done a preliminary brief of the Secretary. But
there is no written report yet, so there's nothing -- no
statement. As we have said, we would have something to say.
Today, with most of the team, it's my understanding, just
arrived back here yesterday, I'm not in a position to do that
for you.
Q Margaret, has Richard Clarke been briefed, and
will he be briefed in this connection, or does Martel go
directly to Eagleburger, skipping Clarke?
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea, because I haven't asked.
But I cannot imagine that the Assistant Secretary for the shop
that Deputy Assistant Secretary works in would not be briefed.
Q I can't either, but you didn't mention it, so --
you were very specific about how the briefing process would
occur.
Q Do you have an initial reading on the allegations?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Is there cause for an inquiry into reports in the
Telegraph in London that missile technology was given by Saudi
Arabia to China? Is that something the State Department has to
look at?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything to add to what
Defense Secretary Cheney said on that subject yesterday. He
answered the question yesterday.
Q Margaret, what about the IG's report?
MS. TUTWILER: The IG report is going to the Deputy
Secretary today or tomorrow. The Deputy talked to the IG this
morning. The Deputy will review it and send it on to the
Secretary for his information. The Inspector General will send
his report to Congress as required and release the public
portions of his report at the same time, sometime later this
week. I don't have a complete timeframe for you.
Q Margaret, this is going to be -- sound a lot like
hair-splitting, but let me ask you --
MS. TUTWILER: That's O.K.
Q -- because that's the way the Middle East is. Is
it a package offer that the Secretary is making? What I'm
trying to say is, can you get acceptances to the 27th of April
and people still say "no" to the next round or simply not come
forward with suggestions? Or are you looking -- obviously,
you're looking for a two-part answer.
MS. TUTWILER: A package proposal.
Q It's a package proposal.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Is it so much a package proposal that he would not
proceed with the 27th of April, if he can't nail down the next
round after that?
MS. TUTWILER: It's a hypothetical for me. We've
presented it. I've given you the absolute guts of it, the
substance of it. That's how it was presented to the parties,
and that is what we've asked for a response to.
Q It's kind of early to have gotten one, but have
you got one yet?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I said --
Q From any of the parties?
MS. TUTWILER: I said we hadn't.
Q No. Any of them?
MS. TUTWILER: None of them. I said that earlier.
Q Margaret, do you anticipate any more hands-on
action by the United States in the fifth round? Do you think
there will be bridging proposals? Do you think there will be an
American policy on the table? Anything like that?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I've never heard that the
Americans can put an American proposal on the table. These
parties are negotiating between themselves. I can't anticipate,
number one, is there going to be a fifth round. Number two,
whether the parties themselves will call the United States and
Russia into the room, which is what the rules are, that so far
has not happened.
But, as you know, around the margins, the United States
has been very instrumental and helpful. We will continue, as we
have throughout, to make suggestions. We have ideas, but we're
not in the room, and no one's asked us yet in the room.
Q The United States is essentially making the rules,
so that was what I was asking, if there was any plan on changing
the procedure this time, or if it's going to be essentially as
it was in the first four rounds?
MS. TUTWILER: The United States, I would argue, is not
making all of the rules. The United States got the parties to
the table after a great deal of negotiations. But, if you'll
recall, in the Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian negotiations, they,
themselves, have decided to make their own rules in some areas
and have changed some of the ways they chose to operate, which
was, obviously, perfectly agreeable with the United States and
Russia.
Q Margaret, what do you have to say about the
resignation of David Levy and his putting that in the context of
the Israeli Government's failure in U.S.-Israeli relations and
the peace process?
MS. TUTWILER: Secretary Baker was very sorry to hear
of the Minister's announcement yesterday. As you all know, they
have had a very good working relationship. He knows that the
Minister is dealing with a very tough decision. It's my
understanding he has eight days before this is actually final or
not final.
Secretary Baker is very appreciative of Minister Levy's
commitment, support and contributions to the process of
peacemaking.
Q Did he call Levy? Has there been any contact
between the Secretary and Levy?
MS. TUTWILER: No, he has not. He felt that that would
be intrusive. This is, obviously, something that is very
personal with the Minister. It's something that is very -- I'm
sure on a personal level -- tough to wrestle with, and the
Secretary thought that that would be intrusive at this time.
Q Margaret, two more -- I was trying to get some
follow-ups on the missile inspection team. Will their report be
conclusive, because Cheney yesterday implied that it won't be.
MS. TUTWILER: I can't characterize it yet for you,
Connie.
Q Now, is that the only missile inspection team
contemplated -- just Patriots -- because there have been reports
of other types of technology transfer? Will anything else be
investigated?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer that either.
Q Margaret, has the United States established that,
in fact, Patriot technology ended up in Chinese hands regardless
of the source?
MS. TUTWILER: That's something that I also can't
answer. That would, obviously, fall right smack-dab in the
middle of an intelligence classified matter, and I can't deal
with that for you.
Q Margaret, I'm just curious on the invitation that
went out on Friday to the Middle East --
MS. TUTWILER: I think on Thursday night or Friday.
Q O.K. Is there any kind of deadline on a response?
Did you ask them to get back to you by a certain date?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q (Inaudible) -- invitation.
MS. TUTWILER: No, it's not an invitation, as Barry
points out. I believe the only word I used today is "proposal."
Q Well, no, because I would ask -- I'm not trying to
help you --
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q -- but, if it's an invitation, you could set new
terms, couldn't you?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. And I believe that I have
refrained from using that term today.
Q Proposal --
MS. TUTWILER: Proposal. Right. We'll have to
remember this.
Q Margaret, the United States is hosting a round of
regional Middle East talks in May on arms control here in
Washington. This was one of the things that was agreed in
Moscow. Do you have any dates for --
MS. TUTWILER: We're hosting what?
Q -- multilateral Middle East talks on arms control?
MS. TUTWILER: Sorry. I haven't looked into that,
Alan, in a long time. I'll have to ask. You're right.
Q It was supposed to be in May, so --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, today's March -- what? -- 30th?
Q Could you look at it and see if --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. I said I would.
Q -- if the invitations, or whatever they are, have
gone out this week?
MS. TUTWILER: To that --
Q For all those subcommittees.
MS. TUTWILER: O.K.
Q And there is another part of that. There was a
report in the Israeli press that the talks, which I think are to
be held in Canada on refugees, that the Israelis have notified
the United States officially that if Palestinians from
the Diaspora are invited, they, the Israelis, would not attend.
I wonder if you know anything about that or can you --
MS. TUTWILER: I hadn't heard about that.
Q Can you take the question and find out?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure. I'll look into it.
Q Margaret, for the sake of being accurate, did you
actually accept the gist of Barry's question that the delay was
due to the Arabs' delaying tactics or refusal to answer or --
MS. TUTWILER: Delay on what?
Q On the next meeting and the venue, because the
implication was that the Arabs were the reason for the delay.
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't characterized yet that there
has, in our view, been a delay. As Barry points out, I think
it's only been three weeks since these various delegations
reported back to their countries, to their governments. So I
can't characterize that we think there's been some gigantic
delay that we did not, when they left town, envision and discuss
with them probably the end of April would be a good time.
If you'll recall, there are a number of religious
holidays that are in this timeframe, so I can't say that we
think this has been any big delay.
Q And just to follow up, please --
Q (Inaudible) April 27th meeting, if there's no
agreement on the venue for the meeting to follow that, is that
correct?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't be this categorical. It's the
same question Barry asked. We've put out a proposal that we've
asked for responses to the entire proposal.
On a hypothetical, I can't deal with today. What if
five parties come back and say, "We want to do the fifth round
but we don't want to deal with the other part." Are we going to
say, "Oh, no, you can't have a fifth round until you do this."
I can't answer that for you.
Our proposal is a package proposal. That's what we've
asked for a response to.
Q In the invitation, did you include a proposal --
MS. TUTWILER: It's not an invitation. It's a
proposal.
Q In the -- whatever -- package, deal, proposal,
whatever. In that, did you recommend a venue for the sixth
round?
MS. TUTWILER: No. They know that we have asked them.
And I have said that the Israelis have given us a list of
alternative sites that is satisfactory to them. The Arabs and
the Palestinians have not yet.
Q Did you inform them of what the sites are that the
Israelis would agree to?
MS. TUTWILER: No, not to my knowledge. I want to be
careful. If some official in this building has done that, I
don't know.
Q (Inaudible) in the document?
MS. TUTWILER: No. Absolutely not.
Q Margaret, in a previous round you announced from
the podium that you would be open and ready for business
regardless of who showed up. You're not making that same
statement with regard to the fifth and sixth rounds, are you?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, Mark, I hadn't
thought about it. This is a serious proposal. We think it's
important that the fifth round begin. I can't imagine why we
would not, to be honest with you, treat this one like all
others. We're open and ready for business on April 27.
I said earlier, we haven't had any responses -- it's
understandable; they received this in -- it's a weekend -- and
that we hope that everyone comes to the fifth round.
Q What about for the sixth round?
MS. TUTWILER: The sixth round -- I've just said, we're
working on. We don't have lists from the Arabs. There's not a
lot we can do right today when we don't. We have a list from
the Israelis.
We've asked the Arabs and the Palestinians to give us
their list to try to bridge the gap, get over this venue
problem.
Q And if they don't?
MS. TUTWILER: If they don't, we'll deal with it when
we get there. We're not there today. We've got a proposal
that's out there. I've given you everything that's in the
proposal.
I've said it's understandable that over the weekend
that people have not yet responded. That's where we are.
Q Margaret, in proposing the venue for the sixth
round, will the United States limit itself to sites on
somebody's list, or is it possible that you might come up with a
site that hasn't been proposed by any of the participants?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, since I've only got one list right
now, and I've said that we would be announcing this, it wouldn't
be on -- what? -- five other lists.
Q No. You say you want other lists. If you get
them, presumably, if there's an overlap, that would probably be
the logical place.
MS. TUTWILER: That might help.
Q But if you don't get other lists --
MS. TUTWILER: Right. That's our thinking.
Q If you don't get other lists, or if their lists
have no overlap, would you pick a spot that is not on any of the
lists or would you pick a spot --
MS. TUTWILER: You got it.
Q -- from one of the lists?
MS. TUTWILER: We've said that if we have not received
all of these lists -- whether we've received them or not --
we'll name an alternative site.
Q But you're not bound by the lists? That's what
I'm asking.
MS. TUTWILER: We only have one list. I can't be bound
by things I don't have. They know, and they've known for weeks,
that the Secretary of State has requested -- we've been
requesting -- give us your list, for the very rationale that you
just point out. Maybe two cities on all lists, or one city, is
on everybody's list. Bingo! You'd be home free, wouldn't you?
We're saying, if we don't have all those lists, we're
prepared and we're going to name a site.
Q I guess what I'm asking is, if it turns out that
you only have the Israeli list, would you take one of the cities
off the Israeli list or might you pick something else?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't gotten to that level of
detail, but we will name a city.
[Angola: Secretary Baker's Letter to Dr. Savimbi ]
Q Is there a Baker letter to Savimbi you can tell us
about?
MS. TUTWILER: Not a lot. I can tell you that he did
send a message to Dr. Savimbi. I think it went out over the
weekend.
You know our practice is that we don't discuss his
diplomatic correspondence. The letter was delivered to UNITA
representatives here and in Luanda. They assured us that the
letter would be immediately transmitted to Dr. Savimbi.
Without commenting on the contents of this specific
message, as you know, I believe I said on Thursday, the issue of
alleged UNITA human rights abuses has been a part of our ongoing
dialogue with UNITA officials.
We have called upon UNITA to address these allegations,
including the welfare and whereabouts of the two former UNITA
officials, in an open and public manner.
Q Margaret, since, as you say, this has been an
ongoing theme of your discussions with UNITA, why was it
necessary to send a new letter to Savimbi?
MS. TUTWILER: Why did we send a message over the
weekend to the Arabs and the Palestinians saying once again,
please send us lists?
Part of -- a lot of what we do is repetitive. It's
just like any ongoing dialogue you have with any number of
friends and other countries, etc. Things do tend, as you know,
not to just clean themselves up immediately, and so you continue
to press and continue the dialogue.
[Libya: UN Proposal on Sanctions]
Q Margaret, is the U.S. hoping for a sanctions vote
at the United Nations today?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding, Bill, is that they
tabled a resolution over the weekend. They are right now, as
I'm briefing, in informal session. My latest guidance is not to
look for a vote today.
Q Let me follow up, if I may, please. Can you talk
at all about what sort of sanctions the U.S. seeks?
MS. TUTWILER: No, other than, as you know, the air
embargo.
Q A follow-up: If these reports of torture and
disappearances are true, what practical effect will it have on
U.S. relations with UNITA?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to speculate, Connie. The
Secretary, as I've said, without going into the content, has
sent a message as the Secretary of State to Dr. Savimbi, who, as
you know, he has known for many, many years. It was delivered
to their representatives. I don't even know if Dr. Savimbi has
yet received it.
Q Margaret, the President of Cyprus will be seeing
the President of the United States in about three and a half
hours. And deep down in that book, when you deal with small
countries, do you have anything on Mr. Ledsky's trip there?
Anything on Mr. Kanter's trip there? Anything you could say --
the President spoke on the subject during the Greek Independence
Day.
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't think Arnie went to Cyprus.
Q No. He went to Greece and Turkey.
MS. TUTWILER: Greece -- Greece, Turkey, and Germany.
Q Yeah, which hold the key, probably.
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, Barry -- and I
guess I should have known -- I haven't seen the President's
schedule today. And, so, no, I don't have anything on Cyprus.
Q On Thailand, do you have anything --
MS. TUTWILER: Additional?
Q Yeah.
MS. TUTWILER: No. From what we said on Thursday and
Friday, I do not. It's my understanding that they're still in
the process of forming that new government. It has not been
formed.
Q Margaret, there are specifically people on the
ground who would like you to produce evidence that the leader in
question had been a drug trafficker. Is the State Department
prepared to open the files of that visa request, or in any way
--
MS. TUTWILER: I doubt it.
Q -- release it?
[Department: Secretary to Remain Removed from Politics]
Q In a big country -- do you want to comment today
on the reports that Secretary Baker is giving President Bush
advice? And does Secretary Baker have any plans to get involved
in the campaign? [Laughter].
MS. TUTWILER: There are no plans that I have any
knowledge of. The Secretary of State is a friend, as you know,
of 35-plus years, I think now, and he and the President talk
quite frequently and I'm sure they discuss a number of subjects.
Q Is there any rule against him getting involved in
politics as Secretary of State?
MS. TUTWILER: There's a gentleman's agreement, as you
know, that, it's my understanding, has existed for decades in
both Democrat and Republican administrations that the Attorney
General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and I
believe CIA, as a gentleman's agreement -- there is no
legislation -- do not involve themselves in partisan politics,
i.e., signing fund-raising letters, going to campaign events,
giving campaign speeches -- those types of partisan activities.
Q But, Margaret, I thought the Secretary enjoyed
politics.
MS. TUTWILER: You will recall that very early into
this Administration, right here in this room, the Secretary of
State -- I believe many of you will remember -- made a remark
that was wildly interpreted as "partisan" politically. Since
then, in deference to your sensitivities, he has refrained from
ever making another political statement.
Q Couldn't he think of a better reason than
deference to our sensitivities?
Q Does that gentleman's agreement extend to
communications with the campaign organization?
MS. TUTWILER: Look, I'm not going to stand here and
tell you that Bob Teeter, for instance, who has been a friend of
Jim Baker's for -- what? -- eighteen years -- they go fishing,
they go hunting, their families are friends -- that he has never
talked to Bob Teeter since Bob has gotten in town. That would be
a ludicrous statement for me to make. But that is quite
different from saying that he is receiving every night from the
campaign the overnight tracking; that he and Bob are somehow
huddled every morning on the phone or having breakfast. That
just doesn't exist.
Q How about something between those two extremes,
however?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, I cannot
personally -- but, of course, I'm not a watch-keeper of
Secretary Baker's phone logs -- I can't remember the last time
that they have spoken. They're friends, so it's normal that
they would talk.
Q Margaret, specifically, the New York Times
reported on Sunday that the President views -- that the
Secretary of State views the President's campaign team as
running a 3-ring circus and that he views it with horror. Is
that true, Margaret? Is he horrified by the state of the
President's campaign apparatus?
(Laugher)
MS. TUTWILER: I woke up yesterday morning and read
that piece, and I found parts of it interesting.
Q Does that mean you agree with it?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to leave it like that. I
found parts of it interesting.
Q Which parts?
Q In your list of the gentleman's agreement, did you
include private advice to the President? I didn't catch all the
delineations?
MS. TUTWILER: Look, the President of the United States
and the Secretary of State have been long-time personal friends,
going way back. Way back. Of course, they talk. It is
ridiculous to assume they do not, but they talk on any number of
subjects. A close family friend has an illness in Houston. Do
they talk about that? Of course, they do.
I'm not going to stand here and say that the Secretary
of State and the President have never had a political
conversation concerning -- this is an election year. I have to
assume, as I know you all do, that, of course, they do. But
those are private conversations, as friends.
Q So, Margaret, what are you going to do if you find
out who leaked all this stuff to the Times?
MS. TUTWILER: What stuff? Yesterday's article?
Q No, the interesting stuff.
Q And will he have to apologize, or her?
MS. TUTWILER: Come on.
Q Well, you said the team --
MS. TUTWILER: A lot of unnamed irresponsible
officials, some of whom have no idea what they were talking
about.
[Department: Foreign Aid Budget]
Q On another subject? Are you preparing for our
foreign aid to come to a halt Tuesday night, or do you think
Congress will act in the nick of time to pass another CR?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to leave where the President
left it yesterday in his chat with some of your colleagues
coming back from church. I don't have anything to add to that.
The President said that he may have something for you later this
week on --
Q Not on --
MS. TUTWILER: I know, but it's all tied up -- the CR
is definitely tied up with whatever the President -- he said he
was going to have something for you later this week -- is
planning to do, concerning aid to the former Soviet Union.
Q Is the Secretary at this point consulting actively
on the Hill about (a) the CR and (b) the Soviet aid plan? Is he
meeting with leaders on that? Is he talking on the phone over
the weekend with them?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Is there any groundwork being done on his part
with people on the Hill?
MS. TUTWILER: On which thing? You're asking me about
both --
Q On both; on each of them.
MS. TUTWILER: On CR, I believe he had a few
conversations last week with some of the relevant Congressmen.
I know of none over the weekend.
He has no scheduled meetings today or tomorrow that I'm
aware of. Obviously, he is extremely well briefed on the plans
the President is making for later this week, and the substance
and contents of that. But I don't know of anything in the next
48 hours that he has planned on the CR.
Is he being kept abreast of where they are in the CR
process? Absolutely, from staff here, from Janet Mullins and
others.
Q Let me follow up on one other, which is, people on
the Hill say it will be very difficult, in the current political
climate, to get a CR through, particularly in the House. How do
you view the possibility of there not being a new CR on a timely
basis?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to do predictions for you.
The House is dealing with this right now. I don't want to
prejudge our view of what may or may not come out of that.
Q Has the FSU aid program --
MS. TUTWILER: On the what?
Q The FSU aid program. You've answered it for the
CR: No consultations in the next 48 hours. Is he actively
consulting on the FSU aid program?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Has that been completed -- the consultations been
completed on that subject?
MS. TUTWILER: No. The consultations have not been
completed. Again, the President -- I will leave you to what he
had to say about this yesterday -- that he would have something
later for you in the week.
I don't have anything to add to what the President
said. The Secretary, obviously, as I believe has been reported,
has finished his internal deliberations here and, indeed, has
finished -- which we said his next step would be --
his high-level consultations with his colleagues in the
Administration from the relevant bureaus and departments.
Q So it would be accurate for us to conclude that
the state of play right now is, the President wants to spring it
without consultations before -- or at least without
consultations via the U.S. Secretary of State on this subject?
MS. TUTWILER: You can conclude whatever you want.
What I'm not going to do is pre-empt a Presidential plan that,
for all I may know or that you may know, could, indeed, have a
Congressional component. That is not my job. That is not what
I'm here to do.
The President said he would have something for you
later this week. He will.
Q But, Margaret, when you say that the Secretary is
very well briefed on what the President will have, there were
reports, of course, last week that the Secretary submitted a
proposal to the President on Thursday. That did happen? He did
submit a proposal?
MS. TUTWILER: He has been working, all along, on the
avenue, etc., and where we go. He has definitely been in very
close contact with the White House. He has submitted what his
views are, and is continuing to discuss it as he did over the
weekend.
Q What his views are on the substance of what should
be offered and how to offer it? I mean, the vehicle, the policy
--
MS. TUTWILER: The whole ball of wax.
[Thailand: Denial of Visa for Narong Wongwan]
Q Margaret, can we go back to Thailand just for one?
MS. TUTWILER: Thailand?
Q Yes. Back in July, Mr. Wongwan was a
Cabinet-level official in Thailand. This is when his visa was
denied for alleged drug-dealing.
Just recently the Administration certified that
Thailand -- there's not a pattern of drug corruption in the Thai
Government. I don't see how those two fit together. Are they
saying that the case of Mr. Wongwan is isolated and there's no
connection between him and any other Cabinet officials in those
allegations?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, I don't have anything to add
to what I've said concerning that gentleman; that I believe I
did last Wednesday or Thursday. I just have nothing else for
you.
I don't have it with me. I believe, as I recall -- it
was in response to Bill Plante's question -- I said specifically
what the law says concerning -- I believe it was in July -- a
visa denial. I'm not aware of the additional report you've just
brought to my attention concerning the Thai Government. I'll be
happy to look at that.
Q Every year the President certifies that countries
are --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm just not familiar with it.
Q -- and Thailand was certified. And a follow-up to
that: Has there ever been a Cabinet-level official that was
denied a visa to the United States -- a Cabinet-level official
in another country?
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea.
Q Can you take that, please?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll see if someone has the time to do
that type of research for you. What year, period? You said the
world? Come on.
Q You can limit it to the last five years, even.
MS. TUTWILER: I probably could, but my colleagues
would probably kill me. So I'd have to be honest with you, I'm
not sure somebody can do that kind of research for you. I'll
look at it and see how time-consuming that would be.
[Cambodia: UN Reports Low-Level Fighting/
US Mechanism for Contacting Khmer Rouge]
Q Margaret, do you have any comment on the state of
the ceasefire, and so on, in Cambodia -- the state of fighting
and politics in Cambodia right now?
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding, Ralph, is that
the UNTAC commander has characterized this, basically, as
low-level fighting.
At this point, our information on the situation, to be
quite honest with you, is sketchy about what is currently
happening. We did urge Hun Sen, during his visit here last
week, to exercise restraint. We have also asked the governments
in contact with other factions, including the Khmer Rouge, to
make similar requests.
We urge all the parties, as you know, to adhere to the
ceasefire, cooperate with the U.N. commanders, and permit the
full deployment of U.N. troops.
Q There's no judgment on whether the Khmer Rouge is
trying to seize advantage, as some analysts seem to believe?
MS. TUTWILER: Not at this point.
Q You're not blaming anybody particularly, are you?
MS. TUTWILER: No. At this point, our information is
sketchy, and our characterization -- the only characterization
we have this morning is from the U.N. commander in the region
who characterized it as low-level fighting.
Q Is it your view then, on the basis of both that
characterization and your urging to allow the deployment -- is
the deployment of the peacekeeping force in jeopardy at this
point?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I've heard anyone mention.
Q Margaret, are there any tentative plans for the
Secretary to testify on behalf of whatever bill --
Q Can we stay on the subject for a moment? Through
which third country do you talk to the Khmer Rouge?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll have to ask.
Q Are there any tentative plans for the Secretary to
testify in behalf of whatever bill is submitted by the
Administration on foreign aid?
MS. TUTWILER: There's no request that I'm aware of for
the Secretary right now to testify on any subject.
Q As you know, members of Congress have suggested
that it would be very, very difficult to get a foreign aid bill
at all --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q And, certainly, with not -- almost impossible to
get it without some support, active support from the
Administration. That active support, it would seem to me, as it
has in the past, would be testimony from the Secretary of State.
MS. TUTWILER: That's one avenue that's available. But
to be honest with you, the pattern is that the Hill requests the
Secretary to testify. I'm not aware that we have put up a
request in the past, "Hey, can we come testify?" But you are
absolutely correct.
Q Unless, of course, there's an aggressive campaign
to get something passed. Then you do suggest that -- testimony.
Is there any suggestion that --
MS. TUTWILER: There are a lot of things we're looking
at right now. But the first thing that's going to happen is,
the President, in his choosing his timeframe and his forum, is
going to announce whatever it is he may or may not have to
announce.
Q And how about the START testimony -- is there any
target for him going up and starting that?
MS. TUTWILER: Not yet, no. We're working the issue.
Not here. Overseas.
Q I know you work it, but I just wanted --
Q Back on the Patriots for just a second. You
indicated that something would be said later on this week. The
Israelis seem to make a big deal about asking for an apology or
some kind of statement to clear their name, and so on. You
don't seem to be in very much of a hurry to get out the word
even though Eagleburger obviously has the word this morning from
the delegation. Is there some reason for that?
MS. TUTWILER: That's your characterization. We think
also, as I think it was Johanna or Mary pointed out, what a
very, very serious mission this was; that to do a very thorough
report, Ralph, some of these people -- it's my understanding,
about half the team just arrived in town yesterday. I know you
have flown that distance yourself a great many times. I don't
believe they were asked to stay up all night long to get this
written report ready for Larry Eagleburger.
Q They just complete their work at the last minute
just before leaving there? They were unable to --
MS. TUTWILER: Ralph, they've been on a mission. They
fly commercially.
Q Right.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't it lends itself to working with
classified documentation. These men -- I believe it was all men
-- have just, basically, returned. This is Monday. It's five
of one, and I think it would be -- most people here do --
irresponsible to not give a thorough report of what was found.
After all this is -- or was -- a serious, irresponsible leak by
someone.
Q On the IG's report, the timeframe is no longer by
the end of this month; is that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: I told you that originally, Sherman Funk
told me -- this was weeks ago -- he thought it would be about
two weeks. Then last week, I started saying the IG thought by
the end of the month, which I said, I was taking, could mean
Tuesday, March 31. I was very careful to say the IG had never
point-blank said that to me.
Larry has talked to Sherman this morning, and that's
what we're telling you -- later this week.
Q Is there some of kind release together --
MS. TUTWILER: Together? Not in my mind.
(Press briefing concluded 12:52 p.m.)