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.)