April, 1992
US Department of State Daily Briefing #50:
Thursday, 4/2/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 2 19924/2/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, East Asia
Country: Israel, USSR (former), China, Libya
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
Regional/Civil Unrest, Security Assistance and Sales,
State Department, Terrorism, Trade/Economics
12:12 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I have three statements, and what we've done in
the past -- it seems to me, it's the most efficient use of your time
and mine -- is that I'll say each statement. Then I'll answer
questions, if you have any concerning that particular area. If you
don't, then we'll move on.
[Statement: Middle East Peace Process--
Bilateral Talks Begin April 27]
My first statement concerns the fifth round of the Middle East
peace talks. The United States as a co-sponsor of the Arab-Israeli
peace process is very pleased to be able to state that we have
received word from all the parties to the bilateral negotiations that
they will attend the next session in Washington on April 27.
We have also received informally from all the parties, lists of
acceptable venues for the following round. There is some commonality
between the Arab and Israeli lists. We are therefore in a position
today to announce that the fifth round of the bilaterals will take
place in Washington starting April 27, and that the following round
will be held in a venue closer to the region.
We will announce that venue prior to the meeting this month in
Washington. The date of that sixth round will be subject to
agreement between all the parties to the bilaterals and ourselves.
Q (Inaudible) --about the announcement now.
MS. TUTWILER: Because we're not going to today. We're not in a
position to do so today. I said that these lists we're received --
if that's what you're referring to -- we have received informal
lists.
Q Are you expecting to receive formal lists?
MS. TUTWILER: At some point, sure.
Q I notice you said again that it's "closer to the region" and not
"in
the region."
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q That excludes the Middle East, does it -- what we've known as the
Middle East?
MS. TUTWILER: Sir, we have always said -- the United
States' position has been known for many, many weeks and months
-- that at some point in our view we've agreed that it should
move closer to the region. We have never defined what "closer"
means.
Q Is Cyprus "closer to the region"?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to play the city game with
you.
Q Margaret, were the Arab countries a little bit
slow in responding? It's my understanding this request -- it
was the United States' request for suggestions for venues which
the Israelis met, and the Arab countries did not meet.
MS. TUTWILER: And I answered that all last week. I
refer you to the record.
Q Will you be able to make the announcement about
the sixth round -- where the venue will be before or during this
time -- the 27th -- or before the 27th of April?
MS. TUTWILER: I just believe that what I tried to
enunciate is we will be announcing the venue prior to the fifth
round which begins April 27th in Washington, D.C.
Q Margaret, do you have a duration for this fifth
round?
MS. TUTWILER: No. We haven't for any of the others.
Q It's open-ended to the parties themselves.
MS. TUTWILER: All of them have been that way. Yes.
This one will be the same way.
Q Have you selected a venue yet, or you haven't
gotten that far?
MS. TUTWILER: All I have to say on venue is that we
have received Arab lists. They're informal lists, and that in
our view -- or that's not even view -- there is commonality
among the lists -- some commonality.
Q Excuse me. Has the U.S. consulted with potential
host countries or host cities to explore their interest or
willingness in --
MS. TUTWILER: This morning? No.
Q I didn't ask whether it was done this morning. I
don't know when you received this.
MS. TUTWILER: We just got this word last night.
Q Margaret, when you say "some commonality," just to
be absolutely clear, you're saying that there's at least one
city on earth that all the Arab lists and the Israeli list agree
could be a possible venue? Or are you saying there are some
lists that the Arabs submitted that have that?
MS. TUTWILER: Your first question I'm answering,
"Correct."
Second -- are you all ready?
Q One city is correct?
MS. TUTWILER: I answered Mary's question exactly the
way she phrased it -- it's what I responded to. Her words, her
question.
Q Is there more than one city in common?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to play this city game.
Come on.
Q (Multiple comments)
[Israel: US Finds No Evidence of Transferring Patriot Technology]
MS. TUTWILER: Are you ready? Patriots. I have a
short statement on the recent Patriot mission. First, we would
like to express our appreciation to the Israeli Government,
especially the Defense Ministry for the superb cooperation it
gave to our team.
Secondly, the United States Government would have
preferred to pursue the Patriot missile question through
diplomatic channels.
Third, as I said last week and the Secretary repeated
this morning, those who leaked intelligence reports owe both the
United States Government and the Israeli Government an apology.
Fourth, our team found no evidence that Israel had
transferred a Patriot missile or Patriot missile technology. We
plan no further action on this question with Israel and consider
the matter closed.
Fifth, as far as we are concerned, based on the results
of this mission, the Israeli Government has a clean bill of
health on the Patriot issue.
Q Margaret, can you say what you mean by "would have
preferred to pursue this through diplomatic channels"?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know that I can make it any
clearer than what it is. We have all types of diplomatic
conversations with many, many close allies and friends that we
are not having a gigantic public airing of and public debate on.
I understand that is our preference of how we would prefer to
do business. I'm not at all commenting on your rights to have
unnamed officials and people who, for whatever reasons, want to
give you information that they may or may not have.
We have stated what our opinion is of that. We have
found this to be irresponsible. We've stated it all last week
and again today.
Q Margaret, can you say whether --
Q The point is if there was nothing to it, what use
would it have been to have pursued it through diplomatic
channels?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to do all this.
Q You will not say that there was nothing to it,
unless I misheard something. Are you able to say at this point
from the podium that the United States knows Israel did not
transfer Patriot technology?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll read this again to you, because
this is exactly and literally what I'm going to continue to say.
Our mission was there, as you all know. Our mission
returned. I have today -- which you have asked me for every day
running and asked the Secretary and I believe the President
yesterday for -- I have told you what the mission found -- the
team:
"No evidence that Israel had transferred a Patriot
missile or Patriot missile technology. We plan no further
action on this question with Israel, and we consider the matter
closed."
Q Did the State Department consider, and do you have
an opinion on, whether the allegations hinged on matters of
interpretation and definition? In other words, what may appear
to be a violation to someone -- perhaps leaking this, never mind
that it was unauthorized -- may not to someone else. Is this a
question of opinion and interpretation?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm really going today to stick to the
question that is relevant in our opinion and at hand. A mission
went out. A mission came back. They have had an oral briefing
with the Deputy Secretary of State. They had a written report
which we said they were writing that was
presented to the Deputy. He in turn presented it to the
Secretary, and the conclusions speak for themselves. The matter
is closed.
Q Margaret, I'll give you an opportunity to say that
one more time --
MS. TUTWILER: O.K.
Q -- by asking --
MS. TUTWILER: I figure I'll probably get it 25 more
times.
Q -- are you saying that there was nothing to these
alleged intelligence reports?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll repeat exactly what I have been
continuing to say. O.K.?
Q O.K. You don't have to now.
MS. TUTWILER: O.K.
Q Margaret, (inaudible) -- Israeli Government
officials have said that if in fact there was no evidence, then
the Government of Israel is owed an apology by the U.S.
Government. Is such an apology forthcoming?
MS. TUTWILER: I did a lot of this last week, Jim, but
since I guess you weren't here and the Secretary answered this
last night and again this morning, I'll do it again.
The Israeli Government to my knowledge has not
officially as a government asked the United States Government
for an apology. There are various named and unnamed Israeli
officials who have said that is their opinion. There is no
Israeli Government request in here for an apology.
The United States Government's view on this is that we,
the United States Government -- since we didn't do this --
whoever did do this owes not only our Government but the Israeli
Government an apology.
Q Have you found out who leaked? Are you
investigating the leak?
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea who did this, and I'm not
aware of an investigation that is going on.
Q Margaret, on the question of an apology, U.S.
Ambassador Harrop in Israel was quoted last week, I believe, as
saying there might be room for an apology. Does the United
States -- does the State Department disagree with these views?
Has he been repudiated in any way?
MS. TUTWILER: I answered those questions the morning
after the Ambassador gave that interview on Israeli TV. And, if
you check the transcript, which I did, he said in his opinion
that, "I would recommend," and we have characterized that that
was, as he clearly states, expressing his personal view.
Q Which you don't agree with.
MS. TUTWILER: I have said what the United States
Government's view is. I have also clearly said the Israeli
Government has not asked for an apology.
Q Is it usual for U.S. Ambassadors to go around
expressing personal views at variance --
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q -- with that of the -- at variance with that of
the State Department?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, Alan, I'll have
to check and see if at the time that the Ambassador gave that
interview, which he himself will tell you, he was expressing a
personal view, if we had at that point ever even responded --
because it had not come up yet -- what the United States
Government's view was.
But, absolutely, I many times here -- I try to the best
of my ability to rarely ever express a personal opinion from
this podium, because this is not my podium in my opinion.
Sometimes I fall off my discipline, and I'll say, "Well, O.K.,
I'll tell you my personal opinion." That was the Ambassador's
personal opinion.
Q And did the Secretary contact the Ambassador and
rebuke him for expressing that opinion?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q He didn't?
MS. TUTWILER: Absolutely not.
Q Margaret, Defense Secretary --
Q Did they talk?
MS. TUTWILER: Has he what?
Q Did they talk at all?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of. But the United
States' Ambassadors around the world usually work through the
Assistant Secretaries for their Bureaus here, and they, as I
understand, talk all the time.
Q Is this customary for U.S. Ambassador to speak --
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: Rebuke him? Not that I'm aware of. I
am aware that Mr. Djerejian, because at that time we had indeed
answered it, you know, had a conversation -- it's not a rebuke
-- to say, "Bill, this is your personal opinion." He said,
"Well, of course, it's my personal opinion."
Q Margaret, was this customary or is this customary
at the State Department that Ambassadors -- U.S. Ambassadors in
foreign missions, will they speak of their mind personally and
comment on such things?
MS. TUTWILER: Will who?
Q Is it customary that U.S. Ambassadors, generally
speaking, they have been making such statements, personal
statements, like Mr. Harrop?
MS. TUTWILER: United States Ambassadors in large
measure, and certainly in this Administration -- I believe the
figure is up to 80 percent of all Ambassadors are Senior Foreign
Service officers. These gentlemen are very well briefed in
foreign policy. They also are human beings. They have
opinions. All the time they are asked questions. They give
speeches. Of course, they give their opinions. We all do.
People ask us. We say. It's not a big deal.
Q Margaret, Defense Secretary Cheney offered an
opinion earlier this week in which he said the United States had
"good reason" to believe the intelligence reports on the Patriot
missile issue.
Is that still an operative fact that the U.S. had "good
reason" to believe, or has the "good reason" been put to rest at
this point?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to continue to tell you what I
have to say concerning a mission that was sent -- for whatever
reasons the mission was sent, the mission was sent. And, if you
recall, the Israeli Government agreed to this.
I have complimented today -- and it's sincerely meant
-- I met briefly with the head of the mission, who's a gentleman
who works here. He said the cooperation was extraordinary at
every level, and they were there for many, many days. And this
was not any fun, to be honest with you, for the United States
Government or for the Israeli Government, and we have dealt with
it. We have said the mission is back.
We have -- probably not as promptly as you would have
liked -- but we did want to have a time, an opportunity -- this
was two agencies that I know of that were on this team, 17-man
team, to have a full, written report. The Secretary this
morning said due to his schedule yesterday which was just
chock-a-block and never stopped -- he had only had an
opportunity to briefly scan it and have a brief oral report. He
thoroughly did. He said we'd have something to say today. I've
said it. The matter is closed.
Q You have no comment on Cheney's assessment of
having --
MS. TUTWILER: I rarely ever comment on what other
Cabinet officials in an Administration that I serve in have to
say.
Q Margaret, would you do the favor and perhaps a
public duty to make that statement public so that -- public -- I
mean issue it as a statement from the Department, make it
available to everybody in the press, so that all these
suspicions that -- because some of the reporters who accepted
some fraudulent information think that Israel is culpable, and
the State Department says plainly it was not.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, sir, the only public forum that I
know about that is on camera, that is on the record, that I
believe goes immediately on a Federal wire and a Reuters wire.
I have just stated, I think about three or four times now, in
entirety, this statement. I don't know what other forum you're
suggesting.
Q Just make your statement available in print, so we
can just put it on a bulletin board so everybody in the news
room can see it.
Q Margaret, was Israel -- was there any official
notification of Israel about the results?
MS. TUTWILER: Prior to my statement today?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Has Israel seen the report, or will it be shown
the report?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't see how they could see the
report. The report was written here when they returned.
Q I know. That's why I'm asking. Has Israel been
shown the report, or will it be shown the report?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't asked that question. To be
honest with you, my instincts would tell me since the report was
just prepared here -- I know of one copy of this report that
exists -- the recipient of that is the Deputy Secretary of State
and his office. I don't know if he has shared a highly
classified report like that, but let me tell you that there are
not a whole lot of secrets here. The Israeli Government, as I
said, was there working with us in tandem, hand in hand on the
ground. And without going into any more elaborate details than
that, they worked with us, and that's why I'm really being
serious about the extraordinary cooperation that we had.
Q IF there were not a lot of secrets in it, we would
be remiss if we didn't ask if we could take a look at the
report.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, no, the report is extremely
classified, and there are a lot of secrets in it, and there is a
lot in there that is highly classified information.
[Department: Inspector General's Report on
Defense Trade Controls]
Q Margaret, can we put this in the context of the
Inspector General's report that came out yesterday? If I read
it correctly, he said that a major recipient of U.S. arms
technology for at least eight years had been -- at least there
had been evidence that they had been transferring this
technology to countries not permitted to receive it, and that in
fact obtaining government-to-government promises, they wouldn't
do that, was ineffective to stop it.
Is there any concern that the Patriot team was misled
in the way that the Inspector General indicates that the
Department has been misled over the last several years?
MS. TUTWILER: If you want to go to my third statement
-- my third statement is on the IG report -- I will point out to
you that the mission of the Patriots was a stand-alone, separate
mission which we've said since Day One. So that the two should
not be confused. And that mission is finished, complete,
closed.
The IG report is a separate matter which is an ongoing
process. And, as you all know, the Office of the Inspector
General conducted an audit of procedures related to the control
of items on the munitions list, copies of which -- of the
unclassified portion of this, I believe it's 69 typed pages --
were made available to you late yesterday afternoon. At the
same time they were made available to the Hill with a classified
annex.
This audit is part of the continuing effort to improve
our management practices. This is an ongoing process. Several
management improvements in the areas of licensing and compliance
monitoring were made before and during the period covered by the
report. Many of these reforms are documented in the report
itself, which I'm sure you all have familiarized yourselves
with.
The report contains recommendations for other changes
-- additional changes. The relevant bureaus and officials will
be providing their responses to these recommendations within 45
days. That is, back to the IG. This is a normal procedure.
You all have copies of the report. As far as I'm
concerned, to be perfectly honest with you, it speaks for
itself. I don't have a lot to tell you about the public portion
of the report. The report was not written to draw conclusions.
I'm not going to stand out here and draw these conclusions for
you. If you've looked at the report or even scanned it, you can
see -- and it's no exaggeration -- that there are different
views concerning this matter. That's what an audit is about.
People have had an opportunity, as you've seen through the
report, to give their recommendations, their views, their
comments, as though it's a whole part, and it is not meant to
serve as a conclusion type of thing. It's an ongoing process.
Q Margaret, if could I renew my question, the report
does seem to be fairly specific about the fact that at least one
major recipient of U.S. weapons had lied to the U.S. Government
about what it was doing with them. This is mentioned on several
occasions.
Is there any concern that this lack of candor is
continuing?
MS. TUTWILER: The IG in this audit examined how well
the Department conducted its licensing responsibilities. This
was not a report on any foreign country. The recommendations
relate primarily to how we, the Department of State, can improve
that process.
Examples of specific cases and countries are not part
of the unclassified section, so you can obviously understand I
will not be getting into specific cases or countries. You know
that there are a number of countries in the report -- the
unclassified report -- that are named as places that were
visited. And I'll be happy to -- I have a compilation of those,
but I'm sure you've already done it yourself. But they were
visited.
Q But the report does in fact deal with examples of
specific countries. It doesn't name the countries, but it deals
with them, so can --
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q One in particular.
Q One in particular, a major recipient of U.S.
technology and military equipment --
MS. TUTWILER: That I believe you will agree with me is
not named in the unclassified public portion of this report
which is 69 pages.
Q Of all the places -- it's not named, but of all
the places they visited, only one is the place of a major
recipient. And you're saying there is no evidence on the
Patriot, and what Norman is trying to ask, and I'd like to renew
and ask you is how do you send a team to Israel, talk to the
people who give you assurances that nothing has happened, and
then take those assurances, even though the IG report which
deals with a major recipient, said such assurances should not be
relied on because they were false in the past.
MS. TUTWILER: And you'll acknowledge with me, I
believe, that you're expressing pretty much -- and I don't want
to put words in his mouth -- the IG's view in this report.
There are other entities represented --
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: Wait a second, Saul.
Q I don't think anybody quarreled with that
conclusion.
MS. TUTWILER: -- in the report who had a different
idea about this, and that is contained in the public report.
There is more than one opinion in that report.
Q I understand, but I don't think anybody quarreled
with that particular conclusion that government assurances were
not enough -- I don't think anybody specifically quarreled with
that specific conclusion, and that's what we're talking about.
MS. TUTWILER: And the report has pointed out publicly
steps that were taken before that were in train, steps that are
taken now. I will quote you the Deputy Secretary in this report
says -- I don't have the page number -- "We will continue out
efforts to insure that the major recipient discussed in the
classified annex is handled properly. The report recommends and
takes note of a number of steps we are taking to improve
understanding of our regulations and monitoring of our defense
exports worldwide."
Q Margaret, can I ask -- it says in the report that
this country is also a recipient of U.S. aid and used weapons
procured through U.S. aid -- resold them. Now, since the U.S.
aid is U.S. taxpayers' dollars, why is the Department not
willing to tell the U.S. taxpayer how its dollars are being
misspent in this way by actually unmasking the culprit?
MS. TUTWILER: The U.S. Government or the State
Department is doing the appropriate thing by making sure that we
are doing our job for the American taxpayer by -- an audit
has been going on, as you know, for months. Some changes have
already been made by the Deputy Secretary of State and by PM.
There are further recommendations that are suggested -- those
they have 45 days to respond to.
So I would argue that this is a management tool that is
being used; that we are being responsible. We are doing our job
to enforce the laws and the arrangements that are made. We have
acknowledged in this report -- as Saul says, no one disagrees
that there were some problems. We're addressing those problems.
Q But I, as a U.S. taxpayer, want to know how my tax
dollars are being spent, and if some of the tax dollars that
were appropriated for aid for a particular country were then
misused, I want to know about it.
MS. TUTWILER: O.K. I honestly --
Q What do you reply to people who make that
argument?
MS. TUTWILER: I would invite them to say that the
State Department is being responsible. The State Department has
already taken measures to insure this. There are other
recommendations that are being looked at. I don't know how
those will come out, and I personally don't know -- I sincerely
do not know -- under what rubric classification was determined
on the classified portion of this report. I honestly do not
know.
Q Margaret, you've gone to great lengths to clear
Israel in the Patriot situation.
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q Can you also tell us that -- clear Israel in terms
of any other transfer of technology to any other country?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not addressing country specifics on
this IG audit. On the Patriot -- wait a minute, Carol -- on the
Patriot, that mission, in my mind, was a unique mission -- a
beginning and an end. This audit has been going on -- what is
it, two and a half years or two years -- and hasn't concluded,
has not finished itself.
Q But also in the case of the IG's report, a single
country has been fingered as being a violator.
MS. TUTWILER: But not named.
Q It's been named in news reports --
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: Not in the public report.
Q No. But the State Department --
MS. TUTWILER: So you want me to lose my job.
Q No, no. But --
Q (Inaudible) -- what about the major recipient.
MS. TUTWILER: I just did. I said what Larry said.
Q What's the rationale of not naming the country, if
it's --
MS. TUTWILER: Carol hasn't finished.
Q No. It's just that clearly Israel is out there
and allegations have been made -- allegations that were made by
unnamed officials -- and this has not been challenged at all by
the U.S. Government. And now here comes an IG's report which
seems to undergird all of these allegations, and you're
unwilling to clear Israel as you had with another case, namely
the Patriot missile.
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, to my knowledge, other than
it is in the unpublished report, it is one of a number of
countries that we acknowledge was visited. I do not believe in
the unclassified portion that Israel is listed. I am not about
to stand here -- whether it's Israel or Italy or France or any
other country in the world -- and divulge on the record
classified information. I just won't do it. I love you all to
death. I am not willing to do that. I'm sorry.
I'm doing the best I can under rules that have been
followed here. Whether it's me doing this job or other people,
I am not going to start down the road of being tempted to
discuss on the record classified information. I just simply
will not do it. I hope you understand where I have to draw the
line. I have to.
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. And I have said, Carol,
which is true and is factual, that this is a management problem
that we have, and it is something that was addressed, is going
to continue to be addressed, and I have said -- using your
phraseology and that that is in the unclassified report -- in
the report the Deputy Secretary of State says, "We will continue
our efforts to insure that the major recipient discussed in the
classified annex is handled properly."
One other small point: When you look -- and I will be
totally honest, I have not -- did not have time, and I'm not
planning to today or over the weekend -- have not read word for
word 69 pages of this unpublished, unclassified report, and I'm
not planning to do the same with the classified.
But it is clear, even if you just scan it, there is a
big difference of opinion over certain interpretations within
our own system. Do you see what I'm saying? So I am not -- nor
is this audit about conclusions. That is not why it was kicked
off or started to find conclusions. It is a management tool to
help us, as Alan says, do a better job for the American
taxpayer.
Q Margaret, you make the difference of opinion sound
as though it were widespread. In fact, according to the
published report, the difference of opinion exists between the
man who is primarily being accused of malfeasance and the
Inspector General. That's the only difference of opinion in the
report. It's only the reply of the head of PM -- that's the
only difference of opinion in this report.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I --
Q And he is the man that the IG recommends be
censured or disciplined, and the Deputy Secretary says, "I don't
think so," and the IG comes back and says, "Yes, by all means."
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q And this is a difference of opinion? It's one
man's difference of opinion.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I haven't taken a poll. [TO
STAFF] In fact, Richard [Boucher] how many people work in PM.
MR. BOUCHER: (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. 100 or 200, if it's the
size of most Bureaus. I don't know. And I don't (inaudible)
people working in the Inspector General's office. I will
guarantee you, there's a lot of difference of opinion here on
this subject matter --
Q That's the only one in the report.
MS. TUTWILER: And there are a lot -- whether they're
in that report or not -- I can assure you, all over this
building concerning this subject. So I'm telling you there are
-- in the report, it is pointed out, differences of opinion on
matters, and I can tell you outside of the report there clearly
are.
Q But, Margaret, what's the Secretary's view on
this? What's the Secretary -- how does he read this report?
Does he feel that in fact there is a major recipient of U.S. aid
who has in the past and maybe even today continues to violate
U.S. regulations on transfer?
MS. TUTWILER: He stands by my statement of today and
my handling of this, and he's very pleased at how we're trying
to deal with this. In all seriousness, he has said, I believe
as early or recently as yesterday, that throughout this,
obviously, the measures that have been taken -- I'm sorry I
don't have them at my fingertips -- the Deputy Secretary has
obviously discussed those with the Secretary.
So he is very pleased that we are taking whatever steps
we've taken. And we have to -- under the system here -- 45 days
is the next, my understanding, normal routine course of how
these things go for the PM Bureau that Bill points out to
respond to the additional recommendations that the IG is making.
Those responses go back to the IG.
It is my understanding that is not the end of it,
because then the IG, it is my understanding, can again issue
more recommendations, or this can continue on. That's why I
started by saying, you know, this could take a very long time
here, in a -- for lack of a better word -- bureaucratic process
within the State Department.
But we have addressed it -- Deputy Secretary
Eagleburger did -- and we will continue to pay attention to it
and to address it.
Q Margaret, there was one specific recommendation by
the IG that was shot down by both Eagleburger and the Legal
Adviser, and I wanted to know, if as far as you're concerned and
the Secretary is concerned, is that now a dead letter? And that
specific recommendation was that there be an effort make to
recoup the losses from the recipient country for the arms that
had been transferred, that may have been originally purchased
with U.S. foreign aid.
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, I don't know.
[TO STAFF] Richard [Boucher], do you know?
Q Could you take that question, because it's fairly
significant.
MR. BOUCHER: Three or four different --
MS. TUTWILER: Richard has had more of a chance than I
to skim both of these reports. He neither has had time to read
every bit of this, and he says that -- what -- there are various
views on this too.
MR. BOUCHER: There are various views on this.
MS. TUTWILER: There are various views on this.
Q Margaret --
Q Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. I'm
not done. As far as you're concerned --
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't read it.
Q As far as you're concerned, from what Richard is
saying, that is still a possibility that there will be an effort
made to go after this country and ask them to pay back the
money.
MS. TUTWILER: I stand by what Richard just said. He
said there are various views on this subject also. I don't know
the conclusions.
Q That means that it's still being discussed, right?
MS. TUTWILER: Who knows?
Q It's still a live issue.
MS. TUTWILER: Is it? I don't know.
MR. BOUCHER: The IG reworded his recommendation, I
think, after the comments. I forget how exactly it turned out.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, Mary.
Q The IG still recommends that you try to recoup the
money within the limits of the law.
MS. TUTWILER: But under our process here, it is my
understanding of an audit, the IG has also got recommendations
that are to be looked at by PM over the next 45 days. Then PM
is going to send their recommendations back to the IG. That
does not mean that there is an agreement then at the end of 45
days. I don't know if this is one of them or not. I really
don't know.
Q Margaret, is Secretary of State Baker aware of a
systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers of
military technology by Israel since 1983?
MS. TUTWILER: Is he aware of this report? Are you
reading language from the report?
Q I'm asking whether he's aware of a systematic and
growing pattern of unauthorized transfers of military technology
by Israel since 1983? And is he aware that that systematic and
growing pattern continued between 1989 and June 1991 under his
Administration?
MS. TUTWILER: This is something I believe someone
mentioned to him yesterday. Let me help you here.
In 1989, the IG review was a routine inspection of the
bureau. These things, I can speak from first-hand knowledge,
are done approximately every five years. Since I have been
here, it was time for the Public Affairs Bureau to have an
inspection. We had one.
It chiefly criticized PM for continuing delays in
issuance of licenses for arms exports, noting that the Bureau
still had insufficient resources to deal adequately with the
problem.
The inspection -- that one, Ralph -- did not focus on
compliance, nor did it discuss the reporting requirements of the
Arms Export Control Act.
The IG's audit report of March 31, 1992 not only did
not repeat the above criticism but, to the contrary, commended
PM for "The significant improvements made in its licensing
operations and its initiatives aimed at meeting the compliance
requirements" of the Arms Export Control Act.
Q If I may pick up on some things you didn't choose
to mention from the 1989 report, you didn't --
MS. TUTWILER: Probably because I hadn't read either
one of them.
Q It did refer to a continuing lack of proper
oversight. It said "End-user checks are only sporadically
conducted." And it referred to "Inattention to important
munitions control regulations." It said, "The licensing process
is void of the checks and balances that should exist." And
said, again, "End-user checks are seldom performed."
Now, you said a moment ago the inspection did not focus
on compliance. Maybe it didn't focus on compliance, but,
clearly, the report made repeated references to the compliance
issue on the end-user thing. So my question is, was Secretary
Baker aware before -- you said someone mentioned it to him
yesterday.
Was Baker aware between 1989 and 1991, under his
Administration, of a growing and systematic pattern of
unauthorized transfers?
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea. You, obviously, are
much more familiar with these these two reports that I am. One,
I have pointed out is an inspection, a routine inspection of the
Bureau.
I just had one two years ago here because PA was due
for one. It was the 5-year rotation. That is a routine
inspection. I have just told you what it did not focus on nor
did it discuss.
An audit --
Q Could you take the question on whether --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. Can I finish? An audit is
what we're discussing this morning. It is a completely
different deal.
Q Could you take the question on whether Baker was
aware of this --
MS. TUTWILER: Of course, Baker is aware of what's
going on in the Department, Ralph. He's aware of the audit. Is
he aware of routine inspections? I'd take a wild guess and say,
I bet not.
Q The question, Margaret --
Q Was he aware of the diversion of U.S. weapons
technology to unauthorized countries, which is reported in the
inspection? Was he aware of the act that the Inspector General
was reporting?
MS. TUTWILER: I am not aware if he is aware of a
routine inspection in 1989. I've never asked him. I don't want
to venture a guess.
Q We're not asking you either.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand.
Q Would you allow us to phrase the question --
MS. TUTWILER: Knowing about the inspection addresses
your two questions because you're saying what's contained in
that inspection. I just have never asked him.
Q No, we're not asking that. There are things in
the report that says that the Secretary --
MS. TUTWILER: In the inspection --
Q Was informed; that's right.
Q -- in the audit.
Q --repeatedly.
Q In the audit, the Secretary was informed --
MS. TUTWILER: The audit, he knows about.
Q -- of the violations. And we're just asking if
that's correct.
MS. TUTWILER: O.K. So you're asking about the audit?
Q Yeah.
MS. TUTWILER: Not the inspection?
Q If he was informed of the violations that are
covered in the audit. Not of the audit itself, but of the
violations?
MS. TUTWILER: Got it. In order to know about the
audit, it seems to me that the Deputy Secretary would say, "Hey,
Jim, here's what they're auditing and here's what's going on."
Now, that's just a wild guess on my part. So I would guess that
Larry did have a conversation along those lines with the
Secretary of State.
There's an audit going on in PM, and here's what
they're looking into. That, I would guess, probably did
transpire. What I don't know is a routine inspection that went
on in '89. I, for instance, never bothered to tell him, that I
recall, hey, there's an inspection going on in my bureau. I
just don't remember that.
Q The point Mr. Clark quoted in the current audit --
this is not according to the IG, but according to Mr. Clark's --
MS. TUTWILER: The audit.
Q -- according to Mr. Clark's comments in the audit.
O.K.? He's not part of the auditing group.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, he's part of the audit.
Q A pattern of activity had been established in
1991, according to Mr. Clarke.
The question that Norm and I were asking is, was the
Secretary aware that a pattern of activity had been established
at that point?
MS. TUTWILER: Whether Larry Eagleburger went into Jim
Baker's office and used the exact language you're reading to me
from that document, I cannot answer.
Did Larry Eagleburger probably go to the head of this
Department -- the Secretary of State -- and say, "Mr. Secretary,
there is an audit in the Political-Military Affairs Bureau."
When you make that statement, the natural -- if you don't say
what it's about -- the Secretary would say, "Well, gee, Larry,
what are they auditing? What is it about?" That's just a
natural to me.
I believe yesterday that the Secretary, or earlier, has
answered this question. He knew this was going on. He also
knew all along -- and I don't have the dates and times -- that
the Deputy Secretary has taken certain steps that are in the
public report, unclassified, that was released yesterday.
There are additional recommendations that are there, that we
will be addressing in our process here over the next 45 days.
So we took action.
Q Are you declining to answer the question of
whether the Secretary of State was aware of activities --
MS. TUTWILER: I've answered it.
Q -- of transfers reported repeatedly to senior
officials in this Administration?
MS. TUTWILER: I've answered it. I've answered it
twice now.
Q No. You keep talking about inspections and
audits. I'm not asking about inspections and audits. I'm
asking about the pattern of activity. Was he aware of the
pattern of activity?
MS. TUTWILER: You're reading me literal language from
somewhere. I don't know from where. I just answered this. I
don't know much clearer I can be. I have no personal knowledge,
nor have I ever asked, if the Deputy Secretary of State used the
language, verbiage, that you are reading to me in front of the
Secretary of State.
Q That's not the question.
MS. TUTWILER: I'm answering the question, Ralph.
Q The next question, if I may, please?
MS. TUTWILER: Great.
Q Did the Office of Political-Military Affairs send
a delegation to Israel last month to meet with government and
industry officials and brief them on --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, we did, and it's all on the record.
I refer you to the record. We've talked all about that.
Q Margaret, you said that some changes have already
been made.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. They're in the report. I --
Q Okay. That's what you're referring to. Let me
ask specifically on one. One of the most notable points in the
audit is that no end-user certificates were performed for this
particular major recipient; that none were performed; that there
were countervailing orders, and these things weren't done.
Can you tell us now, have end-users checks now been
done for this major recipient?
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea. I'll take the question.
Q And another question is: Have any officials in
the State Department been disciplined as a result of this audit?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of. You're aware, in
the unclassified portion, what the IG recommends. You're aware
of the Deputy Secretary -- what the Secretary of State's
recommendations back to the IG. I'm aware of nothing that's
been done.
Q So no officials have been disciplined ?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q When you explore the question of whether end-user
checks had been done, could you add to that -- if you choose to
respond to it -- if they have been done --
MS. TUTWILER: It's not me, it's others.
Q -- when they began?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q In a public record, Chairman Funk, in an interview
two weeks with the Washington Jewish Week, he named Israel as
this country which the whole report was centering around.
What is the rationale of the State Department that they
use the semantics of "major recipient" while there is another
major recipient of U.S. aid in the Middle East, which is Egypt?
Does Egypt have anything to do with such things, if you cannot
name the country which is the subject of this report?
MS. TUTWILER: I've heard about an interview that the
Inspector General did. When was it -- last week or sometime,
two weeks ago? I haven't read it and I haven't seen it.
So I would like to -- before I respond to your question
that he did such a thing -- have an opportunity to see myself.
I know what I'm not going to do, and I am not going to discuss
classified information up on this podium today or any other day.
Q The Israeli newspapers this morning say that there
were four recommendations which Mary alluded --
MS. TUTWILER: There were what?
Q The Israeli newspapers say this morning that there
were four recommendations, and Mary alluded to one -- the first
one -- about imposing sanctions on Israel and possibly
recovering the money.
Are these recommendations put into this report as
recommendations to be accepted, or already accepted, or what is
the fate of these recommendations?
MS. TUTWILER: Number One, I don't know -- and I
apologize for being unable to read 69 pages of this last night
and dissect it all myself. I just hadn't had time. I don't
know if there are four recommendations or 24 recommendations or
484 recommendations. I don't know.
But, on Mary's question, I do know that certain
recommendations -- it's my understanding -- or initiatives were
taken by the Deputy Secretary of State; have been put in place,
have been implemented, or operating. There are additional
recommendations -- I don't have a number for you -- of things
that are going to be aired out and reviewed and looked at by the
Political-Military Bureau. Then whatever their decisions are,
they're going back to the IG in 45 days. That does not mean in
45 days that anything happens other than they keep discussing
it.
Q Margaret, can you tell us, is the Secretary today
willing to express his full confidence in Mr. Clarke, given what
the IG --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. We've done that before. We did it
last week.
Q I know you did it before when you were telling us
about the irresponsible leaks that could tarnish a man's
reputation.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q However, the IG has now put it on the record and,
in response to Mr. Eagleburger, did not back down at all in his
claims that this person -- this official should be disciplined.
MS. TUTWILER: Because I know that you, too, would not
want to hurt anyone's reputation. Let's be perfectly clear.
Mr. Clarke's name is not in this report that you have read, and
that is an unfair statement. No officials are named in the
report that you have.
Q Is the IG not referring to Mr. Clarke? Do you
want to tell us he's not referring to Mr. Clarke?
MS. TUTWILER: Mary, there are no officials that are
named in the public, unclassified report that you possess.
Q Can you say that Mr. Clarke is not referred to in
that classified section of this report?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not discussing the classified part.
I'm going to tell you that there's ample room for disagreement,
as you can see since you've read the report, about virtually
every subject covered by the report. There is, in fact,
disagreement about whether any disciplinary action is warranted
in the present case.
As you know, from the public part of the report --
because the Inspector General recommends it -- the Deputy
Secretary has stated why he does not. But no individuals are
named.
Q Who will decide whether disciplinary action is
taken?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding of how this works under
the State Department rules and regulations is that this goes to
Mr. Perkins. I can't remember his title right at this second.
What is it? Right. Thank you. Right. -- head of the Foreign
Service, and then he either makes a decision -- it's a personnel
matter, to be honest with you, is where it goes. They, it's my
understanding, make a decision. That's where that is handled.
Q Margaret, PM replies that this has been going on
since 1983, and there's a general feeling that the Reagan
Administration -- the previous Administration sort of turned a
blind eye to that which now has been stopped.
MS. TUTWILER: Who says this?
Q Clarke suggests that this is -- the Secretary was
Chief of Staff during the Reagan Administration when a lot of
this allegedly began. Was he aware of -- was he aware then or
now that this is -- can he say whether he was aware then that
this was the policy practiced by the Reagan Administration?
MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary?
Q Yeah. The Secretary was Chief of Staff during the
period when, according to Clarke, the policy began of --
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea.
Q -- allowing a major recipient to do this? Was he
aware of that?
MS. TUTWILER: I hadn't asked him, Saul. And, as you
recall, because you covered us, when he was Chief of Staff in
the Reagan Administration -- as you will recall, just as we
right now work through the National Security Council, when in
the position as the Secretary of State, the Chief of Staff at
the White House -- and I'm not ducking your question -- but that
is not what his primary thing was that he did at that time.
If you recall, I remember his statement when he first
went in as Chief of Staff was to make the trains run on time for
the President, etc. Most things that I recall went through the
NSC as, indeed, is how we operate here today.
Obviously, as Chief of Staff, you can say he was
responsible. I just don't know. I haven't seen this particular
statement by Assistant Secretary Clarke.
Can I answer Bill? I am correct, and I apologize for
blanking out on Perkins title. The normal procedure is to send
any recommendations for disciplinary action to the Director
General, and that's what will be done in this case.
But when?
MS. TUTWILER: When? Do you know when, Richard
(Boucher), this goes? Is it before the 45 days or after?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's been sent.
MS. TUTWILER: I think it's been sent. I don't know
how many days he has to mull it over. I do know that this is a
personnel matter, and he is who will handle it.
As you know, he, I believe just this week, has had his
own testimony for his new post. So I don't know if that affects
when they can look at this, or when the new person will be in
place.
Q Can we have a filing break?
MS. TUTWILER: It suits me.
Q Wait a minute --
Q During the period of time that this inspection --
Q Let's not go off on a half-cocked story.
(Chorus of comments)
Q I know, but they're going out to file a story on
--
[China: US Policy on Arms Transfers]
Q Margaret, during the period of '82 to the present,
at least during a period of that time the Soviet Union -- the
former Soviet Union -- was not a friend of the United States.
During one period of time, the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan.
Also, there were border conflicts between China and Vietnam.
Was it ever the State Department's policy -- the policy
of the United States Government -- to look with favor on arm
sales or transfers by friendly countries to China --
conventional transfers?
MS. TUTWILER: Sir, I can hardly keep up with what's
going on for the last three years and four months that we've
been here. I cannot tell you all the way back to 1982 what the
policy of the State Department was.
I have just told you, concerning this -- without that
specific instance -- a problem was brought to our attention. We
have dealt with the problem; we will continue to deal with the
problem, and that is what this audit has been all about -- to
help us do a better job.
Q This is a very general statement, not necessarily
dealing with the United States arm transfers.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, maybe to you, but I'm not going to
make a statement on something back to 1982. Sorry.
Q Well, go back to your time in the State
Department. I'm asking whether the United States Government
ever looked with favor on any arm sales or transfers either by
the United States, Israel, NATO countries, any country friendly
to the United States -- transfers to China?
MS. TUTWILER: It's a terrific question. I have no
idea. I'll be happy to take it.
Q One area that there does not seem to be ample
disagreement between Mr. Clarke and the audit -- in fact, Mr.
Clarke talks about this himself -- is that for a long period of
time -- Mr. Clarke says it's ten years; Mr. Funk says it's since
'83 -- this is the way things were done with this major
recipient. In other words, it happened well before his watch;
that he just kept doing the same thing, so what's the problem?
There doesn't seem to be any disagreement between the
two sides that this was happening. So I'd like to ask again,
what is the Secretary's view of this systematic and widespread
practice that was occurring for at least ten years that nobody
seems to disagree about?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not buying into the premise of your
question. You've reached a conclusion. I'm not reaching
conclusions on an audit.
We have sent the audit to the Hill. We've given you
the public portion of it. I've told you what the next steps
are. I am not out here today, nor will I be tomorrow or next
week, drawing conclusions for you. You've read the public
portion of it. That's a conclusion that you have drawn
yourself. That's your business. That's fine. That's not what
I'm doing.
Q Margaret, I'd like to go back to Alan's question.
MS. TUTWILER: Which was it? I've forgotten now. I'm
sorry.
Q Alan, "the taxpayer."
MS. TUTWILER: Taxpayer. Okay. (Laughter)
Q You said, in answer to his question, that the
State Department was being responsible not to name the country
involved. My question is --
MS. TUTWILER: No, no, no, I didn't say that. I said
responsible in that we have addressed this problem. We have
looked at the problem.
Q It's a management audit. It's an internal audit.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. That's what I was responsible
about.
Q I deduce from that that you took it to be -- it
would be irresponsible to disclose the name of a country,
whether --
MS. TUTWILER: For me? Yes.
Q My question is, is there a point -- is there a
point after the 45 days? Is there a point at which this report
takes a dust bin on the shelf next to other reports of audits of
your office and so forth --
MS. TUTWILER: Mine was an inspection.
Q That it becomes --
MS. TUTWILER: There's a difference.
Q -- not irresponsible but responsible for the State
Department to disclose to the taxpayers what country was
involved?
MS. TUTWILER: Since I don't know what classification
criteria was used for classifying the classified portion annex
of this report, I really can't address myself to that. But I am
dead positive that it will be irresponsible -- and I would
probably lose my job which I certainly hope you do not want me
to do -- to stand up here and discuss classified information.
I don't know, Johanna, if the reviewers or the
classifiers ever review their own classification to determine we
want to declassify something. I just don't know that. I don't
know.
Q Could you take the question? Could you find out
for us, in other words, what is the justification for keeping
this -- for keeping this from the American public when you're
actually saying in this report that this is a widespread pattern
which presumably involves millions and millions of dollars?
MS. TUTWILER: Which we are addressing.
Q So why -- just because you're addressing it, why
does that mean the American public is now allowed to know which
country is involved?
MS. TUTWILER: I told you, I don't know what criteria
was used for the classification, but I can't leave your
statement like that.
It would be extremely irresponsible -- you say it has
gone on for ten years; I don't know how long it's gone on -- but
if it was ten minutes -- and we were not addressing ourselves to
it. We are. We have taken measures -- the Deputy Secretary of
State has -- to address this issue.
It would be a disservice to the taxpayer if knowing
about it you didn't, and we have.
Q Margaret, there are a lot of Congressmen on
Capitol Hill who wrote bad checks who would just as soon that
their names not be disclosed. I'm sure the Speaker would say
that he is taking care of the problem. He's closed the House
Bank; he's disciplined the people involved. Why ruin their
careers?
MS. TUTWILER: And I believe --
Q I would submit to you that the current mood in
Washington is such that the committee that originally had
intended to disclose the names of just several dozen of these
people was forced, by public opinion, to disclose everyone.
MS. TUTWILER: It's fine with me.
Q And my question, it could take it --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't make these rules.
Q The question is, can you take the question?
MS. TUTWILER: This is my job. Okay?
Q I'm not asking you --
MS. TUTWILER: This is a classified document, so I
cannot answer it.
Q I don't want you to lose your job. I'd really
like you, Margaret --
MS. TUTWILER: I hear your appeal. I will make sure
the powers that be know, if they're not listening through these
magic little microphones, what this debate is about. I do.
But, today, standing here, that would be worse than
irresponsible for me and I would agree with the decision -- be
fired. So as long as it's classified --
Q You're not being asked to disclose --
MS. TUTWILER: I understand, Ralph.
Q -- what's in the document.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I am.
Q You're being asked to comment on what James Baker
thinks about things and what James Baker's view is of things.
MS. TUTWILER: I told you.
Q And that includes whether James Baker is prepared
to say whether there's been this --
MS. TUTWILER: To declassify this?
Q No. That's not the question.
MS. TUTWILER: Sure, it is.
Q I'm sorry, that's not the question.
MS. TUTWILER: Johanna says so, too.
Q That's my question. I would like to know on what
basis it isn't and whether it's being reviewed?
MS. TUTWILER: I understand. I don't even know who
classified and decided which portion. Their criteria in here,
as you know, this building has, as I recall, hundreds of
declassifiers who work on the foreign affairs series. I just
don't. But I am very clear on what's classified as of this
briefing, so that's why I'm in the position I'm in.
Q Margaret, let me ask you, this is one report by
one office --
MS. TUTWILER: This is an audit.
Q An audit by one office in this government --
MS. TUTWILER: An audit, right.
Q You said earlier, which is obviously true, that
there's disagreement, or differences of opinion, all over this
building about what's in that audit?
MS. TUTWILER: About a lot of things, including this.
Q Including this. There's disagreement on almost
every subject. There may be other reports --
MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Welcome to government.
Q -- other statements, and we can't go off
half-cocked that, oh, we've got the culprit, and the State
Department is covering up for some reason. This is false. It's
poor reporting. Am I right in that? Is that a fair assessment?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure I even understand what your
assessment is.
Q I don't understand why Joe is angry since we don't
know whether it's Israel or not. (Laughter)
Q I'm angry about it because we take the opinion of
somebody on an off-the-record basis and use it as fact.
MS. TUTWILER: Off the record in this forum?
Q Not here but outside.
Q I would like to ask --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, Saul.
Q -- as Johanna and others have asked, why would the
name of a country be a secret?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know.
Q Most secrets are kept as a result of national
security. Why is it a secret, especially since the Congress has
now considering a continuing resolution which will spend another
-- billions of dollars to major recipients for arms and the
American public does not have a right to judge who should and
who should not get the money, and who was, in the past -- for a
dozen years perhaps -- selling this aid to other countries to
make a profit?
MS. TUTWILER: I have heard all of your questions. I
will take your questions. I had nothing to do with the audit.
I have nothing to do with how it was determined which portions
are classified, which portions are not. But it's a fact of life
that we've said from Day One we would make the public portion
public. We did so simultaneously yesterday when it was
delivered to the Hill. It is 69 pages. It contains a lot of
views.
We said from Day One there would be a classified annex.
I do not know who had even decided which portions, which parts
were going to be classified. But it's a fact of life it is.
That's what I have to deal with, and that's real and it's
classified. So that's all the help that I know that I can be to
you.
Q I have a request. Can you avail Mr. Funk at a
later date, possibly after the 45 days, for a briefing here in
this room or anyplace in this building?
MS. TUTWILER: Since the process doesn't, it's my
understanding, end in 45 days, I doubt it. I have raised -- I
think Ralph raised it earlier this week about "Would we produce
him for a briefing?" I discussed it with him, and his
strongly-held views are, he has, in his entire career as an
Inspector General, I believe done one briefing when he was at
the Commerce Department in the Seventies. He does not wish to
do a briefing.
But it is also further my understanding that -- you
reported to me some interview that he's already done. Call his
office. I cannot tell you whether he is or is not speaking with
members of the media. That's his call, but call his office.
Q Secretary Eagleburger says in his comments in the
report that certain licenses have been -- that the Department is
holding up licenses to this major recipient on a number of
requests, and says that a strong message was delivered to an
appropriate official of the recipient.
Can you tell us who delivered that strong message; when
it was delivered?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know anything about it.
Q What licenses are being held up?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll ask. I doubt it, but I will
definitely ask.
Q The question is, is the United States Government
withholding permission for U.S. --
MS. TUTWILER: I got it.
Q -- transfer of technology to Israel?
MS. TUTWILER: I understand your question. I'll be
happy to look at it.
Q And, finally, I'd like to ask, if I may, why
hasn't the Secretary of State chosen to address these questions
at all?
MS. TUTWILER: What do you mean?
Q The only forum in which he has addressed them has
been forums in which he's not identifiable or forums in which he
talks about apologies required to the U.S. Government rather
than addressing the specific questions about the pattern of
activity reported in this report?
MS. TUTWILER: Because, as I believe he has explained
-- he did it most recently this morning at 7:05 on American
networks -- he had not, himself, personally had an opportunity
until very late yesterday and again then this morning to
personally review in the depth and the extent to which he felt
he would like to do. That's a judgment call he made.
I can tell you from personal experience, I don't
believe that he had ten minutes to call his own yesterday, and
we've hardly seen him today. He is a busy person.
Q That's really wasn't --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, let me tell you something.
Q That goes back to the earlier question about how
many times this has been reported and for how long it's been
going on to him.
MS. TUTWILER: Let me tell you what you need to do.
The Secretary of State is, in my opinion, one of the most
accessible Secretaries of State I have ever seen, and I would
strongly suggest that if and when you have the first available
moment that you ask him.
He was asked this morning about the Patriot report. He
gave a very candid answer. He said that he only had a skim
report. Yesterday, he did about a 45-minute press conference at
the White House. He answered the question on both of these
reports. They're valid answers.
Why report on something that you have not had an
opportunity to thoroughly review yourself? So you're, in a way,
implying that he might be somehow ducking this. I say that
that's simply not fair. He doesn't have a press -- well, that's
not true, Ralph. In fact, I think he's got a signing ceremony
this afternoon, so I would suggest that you run and ask him at
the signing ceremony.
Q Just for the record, he has been asked. He's been
asked by me and you know it.
MS. TUTWILER: And he answered it. He answered it.
Q The question is not whether he's been asked to
respond to this report. The question is whether he's been asked
to respond to the issues about which he has had reports over at
least three years?
MS. TUTWILER: Then you're aware of a question he's
been asked that I'm not aware of. I was aware -- yesterday and
this morning, he was asked specifically about the reports. If I
could find it, in fact, so that the record here is correct, this
morning what the Secretary of State said verbatim, "I got the
report briefly yesterday evening after a very, very full day of
dealing with this new package for the former Soviet Union. I
have looked at it. I have scanned it. I have not gone over it
in the depth that I want to. We will have a statement today
with respect to that. I don't want to pre-empt that this
morning." That was this morning at I believe 7:05 a.m. Check
the transcript for yesterday.
I believe in yesterday's press conference, he was maybe
asked once or twice. It was basically along these lines, which
happen to be the facts on both of these reports.
Q Those are non-responsive responses, I note for the
record.
MS. TUTWILER: You can call them non-responsive, but
it's irresponsible if you haven't read a report. What is he
supposed to do -- get out here and just freelance and guess?
Come on.
Q Margaret, I'd like to try one more time on the
Patriot. One last question.
MS. TUTWILER: Patriots? Okay.
Q One last question. You seem to be suggesting,
since the leaks on intelligence included the possibility that
pictures were being taken of manuals and there would be no
evidence of such pictures taken if people then went to the
scene.
What you seem to be saying, or I get the impression
that what you're saying is that there is not enough evidence to
indict.
MS. TUTWILER: That's not what I said.
Q And what I would like to ask you is, whether there
was any basis at all for those intelligence reports that were
leaked by these irresponsible individuals?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't discuss intelligence matters.
Q Can you say whether there was any basis for it?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be discussing intelligence.
Q Okay, thanks.
Q Can we move to some other questions?
MS. TUTWILER: Quickly.
[Libya: Venezuelan Embassy Ransacked/Demonstrations]
Q Libya: What's your reaction to the attack on the
embassies of Security Council member countries -- the burning of
the Venezuelan Embassy?
MS. TUTWILER: We've seen the reports of mobs
ransacking the Venezuelan Embassy and of demonstrations outside
the Austrian, French, and Belgian Embassies.
We have heard through diplomatic sources in Tripoli
that peaceful demonstrations took place today in front of
several Western embassies. The crowds were non-violent and the
police were in full control.
Those sources cannot explain how a mob was able to
ransack and destroy the Venezuelan Embassy.
Obviously, we are concerned. We are inquiring about
the situation through all available channels to us. We deplore
mob violence on diplomatic facilities.
Under the Vienna Convention, Libya has an obligation to
protect diplomatic missions against intrusion or attack, and we
expect Libya to live up to these obligations in the fullest
possible manner.
Incidents such as the attack on the Venezuelan Embassy
demonstrate Libya's continuing disdain for the basic principles
of international law.
It's my understanding, sir, that this morning in an
informal meeting there was an informal discussion at the
Security Council in New York. I don't have anything further on
that at this time.
Q Margaret, do you have any comment on the violence
in Gaza yesterday where five Palestinians were killed and over a
hundred were wounded and six had been seriously wounded?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. There are a number of conflicting
reports on the events in Gaza yesterday in which -- it's my
understanding, four Palestinians were killed.
We regret the tragic loss of life and offer our
sympathies to the victims and their families. Because there is
no clear picture of what happened, we do not want to comment on
the event. However, our Embassy is obviously going to continue
to look into this.
The United States Government condemns senseless acts of
violence and calls on all parties to exercise restraint.
Q There was a call by the Palestinians yesterday on
the Security Council, and the United Nations Secretary General,
to send an investigation team, or to send a team to protect the
Palestinians under Israeli occupation. They called for a
meeting of the Security Council. What is the position of the
United States regarding this request?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of such a call. I haven't
heard about it.
Q Can you please take the question?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll look into it.
Q In view of these latest outrages in Libya, is the
United States willing to consider oil sanctions against Libya?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be something that would be
totally and purely speculative for me. We're operating right
now, as you know, on a second United Nations resolution that
just this week passed concerning Libya. But that would be a
White House question. That's not for me.
Q Any further information, Margaret, on whether
foreigners are able to get out of the country?
MS. TUTWILER: Nothing further than what we told you
the other day. We have no evidence of Americans who are unable
to get out and nothing further than reports we had the other day
concerning others.
Q On the Libya-U.N. resolution, what's the
enforcement mechanism for that? Does the United States take on
-- or does the United States, Britain, and France, as the
interested parties, take on some role of enforcement of the arms
embargo, for example?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure, Ralph. I believe that
Richard dealt with this at length on Tuesday, and I'll be happy
to review that record and get back to you. I just don't have it
at my fingertips.
Q Well, does the United -- if the airline embargo,
or the air embargo obviously deals only with air shipments, if
there were other methods used to provide weapons or ship weapons
to and from Libya, does the United States Government feel a
responsibility or have the right to act to prevent those
shipments from taking place?
MS. TUTWILER: I do not know, which is basically
another way in my mind of answering the question: "What are
your enforcement mechanisms?" This is a resolution that passed.
Most nations have a track record of enforcing United Nations
sanctions.
My understanding, Ralph, is that U.N. Resolution 748
bans all air traffic into and out of Libya; bans the operation
of Libyan Airlines offices worldwide; bans the provision of
aircraft and related service parts to Libya; bans all arms
supplies and related material of all types and licensing
arrangements for arms Libya. And then you know it has several
other things that go into it.
But the enforcement mechanism, a literal one, if you
wanted to give it to me, other than members of the United
Nations, abide by United Nations resolutions voted on by the
Security Council -- I don't have a literal, specific for you.
Q Can I have a copy of the statement on the Gaza
Strip, please?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:27 p.m.)