US Department of State Daily Briefing #53: Tuesday, 4/7/92

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Washington, DC Date: Apr, 7 19924/7/92 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe, Caribbean, South America Country: Israel, USSR (former), Russia, Ukraine, Haiti, Peru, Yugoslavia (former), Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Iran, Iraq Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid, Regional/Civil Unrest, OAS, Nuclear Nonproliferation, Arms Control, Trade/Economics, State Department 12:31 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MS. TUTWILER: I don't have any statements. I'll be happy to try to answer any of your questions.

[Former Soviet Union: Commitments by Ukraine on Nuclear/Security Issues and Monitoring of Russian Destruction of Nuclear Weapons]

Q Margaret, could you help a little bit in elaborating on what the Secretary said about -- essentially to the Ukraine -- about fulfilling its obligations. MS. TUTWILER: What he said? Q No, no. Wait a minute. I know what he said. I'm just sort of -- MS. TUTWILER: I thought you said could I elaborate? Q -- asking you to elaborate to this extent. I'll ask you a couple of questions, please. MS. TUTWILER: O.K. Q He said that they would be -- you know, they should abide by, adhere to their commitments and pledges and all. Could you tell us what the U.S. actually has in the way of formal commitments from Ukraine in the nuclear area? All I know of is the START Treaty which sort of Ukraine inherited, as the others did, from the Soviets. But what can you hold them to that you actually have in writing? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware personally, Barry, of something that is in writing, but let me check with Reggie's [Bartholomew] shop. You're aware, as I'm aware, of verbal statements that have been made, not only to the Secretary of State by their President but by other officials. We have an Ambassador, as you know, there on the ground, etc. And I believe that Reggie has had a number of meetings with their representative. I just can't remember right now at what level his counterpart was -- if it was the Foreign Minister, whomever. Q But could you check if there's anything in a legal way -- MS. TUTWILER: Yes. I haven't heard of anything in writing. Q Well, Baker's a lawyer, of course, and usually treaties -- treaties, you know, have a special force, and when a guy whispers in your ear that, "We're going to be nice," that doesn't have quite the force -- MS. TUTWILER: That's right. Q -- of a formal document. The other thing would be, as I understand it, Ukraine is hesitating to deliver the remaining 43 percent of its tactical weapons, because it says it isn't sure they're being orderly dismantled and destroyed. Does the United States support any sort of -- any different procedure, any international monitoring procedure? Would it like to have Ukrainians there at the disassembling site? Do you have any suggestions to get over Ukraine's fears or allay their concerns? MS. TUTWILER: We've had at least two conversations, that I can remember, at Reggie's level on this subject in quite some detail. I am not -- because I can't pull it out of my memory right now -- if he had a specific. But it is something that we are, obviously, very concerned about, we're going to continue to watch, we're going to continue to work on, and I can't -- and I know it would probably be better to give you a specific that Reggie has proposed to them. But it's something that -- when was it? -- three weeks ago that he last met with these people, or a month ago? Q Yeah. Well, it's sort of -- I forgot if he or Baker went there first, but it was about the same time. Well, you know, I didn't expect you to necessarily have it right here, but if you could later in the day tell us what it is the U.S. backs to allay Ukraine's concerns, it would be helpful, because I understand that they simply don't like the procedure. MS. TUTWILER: They definitely have some concerns. This and other issues, as you know, are contentious issues. You know that we have said that we hope that this can be worked out peacefully among the states of the former Soviet Union -- all of these issues. This is not just the only one. As you're aware, there are two different statements, I think, in the last 36 hours, concerning the Black Fleet. The Secretary addressed himself to that this morning. So we are all well aware -- I mean, they're not making any secrets of it -- that there are contentious issues that have got to be worked out. We believe, to be honest with you, from what they say to us, whether it's these two parties or others, that they are sincere in trying to work this out. They have all restated -- concerning your question about tactical nuclear weapons -- that they would hope to have them destroyed, as I remember, or off their soil by July of 1992. That's the last statement I'm aware of that they have made. I'm not aware of any changes that they've either stated publicly or have told us internally.

[Peru: US Suspension of Aid During Policy Review and Related Issues]

Q Margaret, do you have a more detailed breakdown on aid to Peru which would tell us exactly what is being suspended, what's still going forward, etc.? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Let me state overall, and I'll try to break down the numbers for you. O.K. What I'm not going to have for you -- AID was just simply unable this morning to pull it all together for us -- is humanitarian aid, which you know we have not stopped, that goes from humanitarian organizations to humanitarian organizations. That's not trying to be stopped nor is it stopped, but I don't have a dollar amount. As you know -- if you didn't see the statement we issued last night -- we said in light of the present situation in Peru, the United States is examining all assistance to Peru and is immediately suspending delivery of all new aid to the Government of Peru. This action will not affect humanitarian aid distributed through non-governmental and private voluntary organizations, such as nutrition and child health programs. Our plans for further assistance will be determined as we review our policy in conjunction with developments in Peru. My understanding is that from Fiscal Year 1991 funds, we will withhold $30 million in economic aid and $15.4 million in military aid. Any obligation of unspent 1991 money or 1992 money yet to be allocated under the continuing resolution will follow the guidelines we announced last night. My understanding of how much United States aid Peru gets, Alan, is for Fiscal Year 1991, $237 million in U.S. aid was approved for Peru, $193 million in economic aid, and $24.5 million in anti-narcotics related military aid, and $19 million for other anti-narcotics programs. Approximately $30 million in economic aid and $15 million in military aid remains to be distributed. We requested $275 million in aid for Peru for Fiscal Year 1992. Q Is there anything else you can say about the steps that the Administration is taking to bring pressure to bear on the Peruvian Government? MS. TUTWILER: I can't tell you specific steps, other than, as you know, we're working very closely with the OAS. They had a meeting last night. I believe they issued a statement. They have called for, in that statement, a Ministerial meeting this week. They have not announced a time. That's for them to announce. I can tell you what Assistant Secretary Aronson did while he was there -- some of which is in the press, some of which is not -- and state that he is enroute back here to the United States right now. The overall situation in Peru, George -- as we have it as of this briefing -- is that the constitution remains suspended following the President's actions Sunday night. Troops remain on the streets. Legislators have been prevented from meeting, and legislative leaders are under house arrest. Censorship is still in place, although today's press in Lima is reporting the international criticism of the President's action. President Fujimori swore in a new cabinet last night. We have no information or any threat to United States citizens in Peru, though we advise caution. Our current travel advisory recommends U.S. citizens defer all non-essential travel to Peru. As far as what all Bernie [Aronson] did: Assistant Secretary Aronson, as I stated, is returning today. He arrived in Lima, Peru, Sunday night, leading an interagency team that was to have consultations with the President and Peruvian officials. The team was to discuss ongoing issues in our bilateral relationship, including counter-narcotics and alternative development, human rights and the threat posed by the Sendero Luminoso. In light of events, those consultations did not take place. Yesterday, Mr. Aronson held a meeting with the Foreign Minister. He told the Minister our view of Sunday's actions, called for a return to democracy and a release of all detained. Assistant Secretary Aronson sought a meeting with the Senate president, who is under house arrest, but the authorities would not permit the meeting, but he did speak with him by phone. He also met with Peru's Human Rights Coordinating Council, a private council of human rights organizations, to discuss human rights issues in Peru and to express our view of the situation. He also intervened repeatedly with the Foreign Ministry for the release of Mr. Gorriti, a journalist who was arrested. The Foreign Ministry told our Embassy that Mr. Gorriti would be released last night. However, our latest information, as of this morning, is that he has not yet been released. As I said, the OAS met last night. It passed a resolution "to deplore" Sunday's events in Peru, "to urge the authorities in that country to immediately reinstate democratic institutions and full respect for human rights under the rule of law." The resolution also instructed the Secretary General to convoke a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs to further consider this situation, which I told you I don't have a date for you yet. And in our view -- the United States' view is that we have reiterated our view that the President's actions were unjustified actions against democracy, and we renew our call for a prompt return to constitutional order. Peru has severe problems which can only be addressed through the democratic process and with international cooperation. We have worked to help Peru solve its economic crisis and combat drug trafficking, but our cooperation can only continue if democracy is restored. We call for: (1) immediate freedom for those detained and full respect for human rights; (2) immediate restoration of a free and independent press and civil liberties; and (3) immediate restoration of independent legislative and judicial branches of government. Q Margaret, is the United States ending any of its present anti-narcotics activities there? MS. TUTWILER: That right now is under review. Q Did Aronson -- did you say he met with the human rights organization representatives or he spoke with them or tried to and was unable to? MS. TUTWILER: He met with them. Q He did meet with them. So they didn't prevent -- the authorities didn't prevent him from doing that -- MS. TUTWILER: Apparently not. Q -- but prevented him from meeting with the Senate president? MS. TUTWILER: Apparently not. Q And also, back on the money for just a second -- MS. TUTWILER: The money. Q -- I'm just unclear in light of the continuing resolution, isn't the U.S. funding for FY '92 limited to the same level as it was for FY '91 or -- in other words, it wouldn't be 275, it would be 237, wouldn't it? Your request is 275, but that's -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- that's irrelevant since the request didn't pass, and the CR is in effect. MS. TUTWILER: Is this not in the CR? I haven't checked on that. Q Well, the CR by definition is a continuing resolution, not -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. So then I guess it's at the other level. I'll check with Janet [Mullins]. I don't know. Q I guess the bottom line on my question is really what's effective here is there's no suspension of any aid that hasn't been -- I mean, what's been suspended for next year? You weren't sending any anyway. You haven't even sent all of last year's. MS. TUTWILER: $30 million in economic aid and $15.4 million in military aid. Q Right. So I guess my point is you hadn't even spent all of last year's money yet, so there's really no suspension of next year's money -- at least not at this point. I mean, next year's money wasn't going to go until last year's money was done, right? MS. TUTWILER: I guess we could be technical and when we made our announcement of a governmental decision have said that, but what we've said is we're suspending everything. I don't know, for instance, how long this is going to last. Why would you want to send a signal? We're only going to limit this little, little bit, and then we'll review it. My instincts are -- I don't know how long this will go on -- we're sending an opposite signal of, "No, at the end of this fiscal year we're not going to review the next year. It is all suspended." Now, maybe I'm incorrect in my analysis, but that would be my thinking on that. Q Margaret, when you say the United States is reviewing its anti-narcotics assistance down there -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- does that mean the money for those programs, or they're also reviewing whether the trainers that are down there right now will be brought back? MS. TUTWILER: All I have from the counter-narcotics people here in the building is that we're reviewing our programs and will make determinations whether to continue them. Q Margaret, what about the U.S. attitude to international organizations -- financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank -- which have programs in Peru? Does the United States believe that those programs should go forward or that they should also be suspended? MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, Alan, I'm personally not familiar enough with those programs -- if they're humanitarian or what they are -- to be honest with you. I don't know. I'll be happy to ask if we have expressed an opinion on all of their programs or a portion of their programs. I just don't know. Q Margaret, the money figures that you gave us, is that all the U.S. money that is being spent there, or is there some DEA money that finances the trainers who are there, perhaps coming out of another pocket? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I've said that $19 million -- I believe what I said -- I'm sorry -- I said $24.5 million in anti-narcotics related military aid and $19 million for other anti-narcotics programs. I don't know if DEA falls in those baskets or not. I'll be happy to ask. Q Margaret, has there been any communication with -- between the United States and the President of Peru since this -- MS. TUTWILER: Not that I have any knowledge of. Q Margaret, for a time the Administration took as one of its foreign policy achievements the spread of democracy in the hemisphere -- MS. TUTWILER: That's right. Q -- and cited only one country that was the exception to that. Now you've had backtracking. You've lost ground on two and, if you count Venezuela, almost three. Do you see a broader trend here? Is something going -- MS. TUTWILER: I certainly hope not. Q Well, if something's going seriously wrong, are there factors that are common to this that seem to be undermining what progress you have claimed in the past? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know how I could do that type of analysis for you. Obviously, as you so correctly point out, situations have changed. Obviously, we would certainly hope and are working very hard that there not be a pattern, as I stated, to that. But that anyone has had an opportunity yet to make that type of analysis for you out into the future or why did each one of these instances happen -- some of them have happened before -- I'm sure that there is. I don't have it at my fingertips. It is, obviously, something that is of concern to us. You are absolutely correct, we're very proud that in our tenure here that you did have democracy throughout our region, and we are working very hard to do everything we can to make sure that we are back to that standard. Q At a time when you're trying to marshal a lot of financial resources for Eastern Europe and for the former Soviet Union, do you see the interests of, for example, countries in this hemisphere, the poorest countries in this hemisphere, being short-changed, and that that, thereby, is undermining what progress has been made? MS. TUTWILER: I'm sure that we would argue -- and I am not familiar with each of these appropriations for each one of these countries -- I can get you an expert from this bureau who would be more familiar with it than I am -- that we do not feel that we are short-changing these individual countries. We are doing what has been recommended by the bureaus, what is appropriated by Congress. I just don't have at my fingertips -- if, for instance, a number of times we will have a recommendation to the Congress -- and I'm not ducking this -- and they will sometimes have a different view of it. Or, to be honest, internally, Assistant Secretary Aronson will have a certain view of a level of assistance, and other Assistant Secretaries have equally competing views, and sometimes Bernie wins, sometimes he loses. But that goes on throughout this process, and I don't think, though, that we would ever characterize that we have short-changed our efforts in this hemisphere. Right, Norm? Q: An example of OAS action recently, which is Haiti, which is something we haven't heard of for awhile. Is there any hope of this deal of getting Aristide back actually taking place? It seems to be totally stalled. What's happening there? MS. TUTWILER: It is stalled, and it's something that we continue to press for -- it's our policy, as you know -- and something that we will continue to try to see that is effected. But there's nothing new to report on that front. Q Aren't you concerned that after six months or more of sanctions that they haven't had the required effect, and that the sanctions seem to be flouted with great ease? MS. TUTWILER: What do you mean "flouted with great ease"? Q I mean, that people manage to get oil through to Haiti despite the sanctions that - MS. TUTWILER: Humanitarian oil, it is my understanding, was always going. I only know of one instance that was at the end of last week -- Q No. MS. TUTWILER: That was true. It's not true, George? I thought that oil for humanitarian purposes was always excluded from it. Q They've received seven shipments from European suppliers, and the United States is very unhappy about that. MS. TUTWILER: I know that one ship -- I think it was a -- I can't remember -- that we arrested or seized late last week. That's the only one that I'm aware of. Q Was George on or off the record? [Laughter] MS. TUTWILER: I'll check into the seven that George has thoughtfully mentioned to me. Q He's not making it up, I'll promise you. MS. TUTWILER: I know he's not. He knows a lot about this. Q Can I ask you about -- Q What about sanctions? I mean, is the United States going to press for sanctions in the case of Peru? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. That's ahead of where we are. Q In view of the evidence of success or lack of it in the case of Haiti, what -- you know, what argument could you possibly use for imposing a regime of that sort in the case of Peru? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that we're going to go argue that. Q Well, what I'm trying to get at is you're reviewing things, but what is there to review? It seems as though there's -- MS. TUTWILER: Why is the OAS having a meeting? I mean, you do what you can, and you do and use the things that are available to you. To have a Ministerial meeting of the OAS is an important signal. I can understand that you would say, "Well, it's just a meeting." But I don't know what type of communique or declaration will come out of that. I don't know if it makes a hill of beans difference or not in Peru, but I would argue with Alan that most Haitians and certainly the people who are in the leadership right now would probably all vote in the affirmative to have the embargo lifted. So it must be doing something. It has not had the absolute desired results that of course we all want, including all the members of the OAS. But that is not a rationale, in my opinion, for saying, "Well, it didn't work," and pulling it off, because then what levers do you have at your disposal. Q I guess what we're trying to get at is what kinds of things are you thinking about to deal with this situation? MS. TUTWILER: The Peruvian situation? Q With the Peruvian situation. MS. TUTWILER: On the Peruvian situation, the only things that are concrete that I can report to you this morning, that you're well aware of, are an OAS meeting; it's my understanding some time this week at the Foreign Ministers level. I've told you what the United States Government has done, which is suspending aid. And at this moment, there's nothing else that I have to tell you that we're getting ready to do or did last night. Q Are the options essentially limited in Peru because, unlike Haiti, it has a very nasty and organized insurgency underway? Therefore, the kinds of things you might do like sanctions could, in the long run, be counterproductive by encouraging the insurgents? MS. TUTWILER: I do not know what further possibilities the United States Government may or may not do. Mr. Aronson arrives back here sometime today. He may have some suggestions for the senior policy makers of our government. I don't know. I do not know what's coming out of an OAS meeting. I don't even know the date of it other than we've been told this week. If you recall -- as I recall, out of the Haitian situation, I believe the embargo came out of an OAS meeting where a vote was taken, something was tabled, and I believe that was about 48 hours after Haiti happened. The record could correct me. So I don't know if they're going to do a similar thing or not. I just don't know. Q Is Aronson going to meet with Baker right away when he gets back, or how does it -- MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, I've heard that he's getting back very late tonight, so I would doubt it. Q What's taking him so long? MS. TUTWILER: He's flying commerical. (Laughter) It's a long way from here. Q Touche.

[Former Yugoslavia: US Recognition of Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia]

Q Can we -- if we're through with that, I can ask you about the former country called Yugoslavia? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q The Secretary was on that subject today. I wanted to ask you a couple of things. Even as he was signaling that the U.S. recognizes the -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. The White House did that this morning at 10:30. Q He foreshadowed that announcement. MS. TUTWILER: Right. He was plugged in on what they were going to do. Q Yeah, he took the lead on that one. But even as he was doing that, the Serbs in Bosnia were asserting their independence from Bosnia. MS. TUTWILER: That's correct. Q So, I was wondering if the U.S. Government has a position on whether Serbs in Bosnia have a right to independence as Bosnians have a right to independence from Yugoslavia? MS. TUTWILER: Right. And I'd rather group this all under one basket because, as you're aware, this is not the only place in Yugoslavia -- former Yugoslavia --that has what I would like to call minority enclaves. We expect Croatia to fulfill the commitments it has made in the context of the EC Conference to extend strong constitutional and legal protections to the human rights of Serbs and considerable autonomy to Serbian majority areas. In Bosnia, we expect all three major national groups to remain engaged in the EC-sponsored talks on Bosnia's future constitutional structure. These talks include the issue of human rights and the rights of members of each national group. We also expect the Bosnian Government to remain committed to open and friendly relations with both Serbia and Croatia and to the goal of reconciliation among the parties to the Yugoslav crisis. In the same context, we have made it clear that the Serbian Government should extend to national minorities in Serbia the same kinds of protections it seeks for Serbs outside Serbia. Q The United States will continue dealing, though, with whatever remains of Yugoslavia, I take it -- country-to-country? I mean, it's still a country. MS. TUTWILER: This morning we recognized three new countries. Q Yeah, but there's still Serbia and Montenegro? MS. TUTWILER: Right. And they, it's our understanding, they're trying to work out some type of federal -- Q And Macedonia. Q Let her finish this. Go on. MS. TUTWILER: Which country did you say? Q You're right. Continue. There is a country that remains. It includes Serbia, Montenegro -- MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Q Macedonia is on the fence, and there's part of Bosnia. MS. TUTWILER: Right. In the President's statement this morning, it addressed itself to Macedonia. As you know, Serbia and Montenegro are in the process, they say, of working out some type of federal arrangement. Q Will the U.S. deal with that federal arrangement? MS. TUTWILER: When it's worked out? Yes. Q Can I just follow quickly? The Secretary used the phrase "collective engagement" so far as what he prefers in dealing with the problem in that country, as it splinters. But he didn't get a follow-up question. The question on my mind is whether the United States would join any collective force to end the fighting in that country? Or does it think the Europeans should do that, or what does he mean by it? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. Q Because there's violence. That used to be what you were trying to -- now we're talking about legalisms. MS. TUTWILER: We've got the U.N. peacekeeper troops in there. Maybe that's what he was referring to. Q I just don't know. Q I think he was using "collective engagement" in an answer to a question about aid to those countries. What about -- MS. TUTWILER: I haven't had an opportunity to read what he said this morning. Q What is the status of -- having made the recognition -- what is the status of U.S. decisions on assistance to the new states of the former Yugoslavian republic? MS. TUTWILER: Number one, I'm not aware that this morning, since 10:30, there's such a request in; and, Number two, I'm not aware that I have -- I know I have nothing to offer you today such as, "We are voluntarily, this morning, going to announce the following." I'm really not aware of any requests that are in. They may be coming over the transom this afternoon, but I don't know about it. Q If this was in the White House announcement, forgive me, but -- MS. TUTWILER: No problem. Q -- has there been a decision made on the sanctions that were imposed against all of the Yugoslav republics? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. It is in the White House statement, but I'll help you out on it. As part of our recognition, and in light of these republics' readiness to cooperate in the EC peace conference, we are lifting our sanctions against Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia. This will allow restoration of Generalized System of Preferences benefits and resumption of U.S. assistance under the Support for East European [Development] program. Our intention is also to move forward with restoration of GSP benefit for Macedonia and with assistance under the SEED Act as soon as this is feasible. We will, however, retain our restrictive measures on Serbia and Montenegro contingent upon Belgrade's lifting its economic blockade directed against Bosnia and Macedonia. That's lifted almost verbatim from the White House statement. Q (Inaudible) the question. You're going to assist directly republics that are now independent and that you recognize as independent. MS. TUTWILER: Well, I'm sorry, I thought -- Q No, no, I'm just saying, isn't that, in effect, direct assistance to new countries? MS. TUTWILER: If GSP is the type of assistance Ralph meant. I meant, Ralph -- Q You said resumption of aid under the East European program. It wasn't the GSP reference. It was the second part of the reference. MS. TUTWILER: I thought you meant assistance as in grants, as in -- Q I did. MS. TUTWILER: That's what I thought. Q And you made reference to it right there. When you said in addition to GSP, you talked about resumption of aid under the -- I forget what you call it. MS. TUTWILER: SEED. If you'll recall, when this Yugoslavian situation began, I believe that our aid -- the Secretary of State pointed out, and you all knew -- was minuscule to former Yugoslavia. I believe it was less than $5 million. Q It was really tiny. But what you're saying -- MS. TUTWILER: Tiny. Q -- now is that will resume? MS. TUTWILER: Correct. I stand corrected. I don't know at that level. I have no earthly idea because we don't have requests, and these are now three new countries. Q Margaret, what was the United States policy a year ago toward the former Yugoslavia now stands pretty much in shambles, and you have been forced to back-and-fill and, in fact, change policy almost 180 degrees. I'm just curious as to why that came about and what kind of discussion there is here in the State Department about the events that brought it about? MS. TUTWILER: There's been on-going discussion, as the situation there has evolved. A year ago, I would argue with you, that you did not have people going around saying you had the potential of five states. A year ago people were talking about the potential of six states or maybe even more states. The Secretary of State has articulated our policy, and the President throughout, by saying that we were, number one, as you know, following the EC lead. The EC, until very recently, has recognized, as I recall, Slovenia and Croatia. They just yesterday recognized Bosnia. They stated their policy yesterday on Macedonia. We stated ours today. They're very similar. This has been an evolving situation. You will also recall that former Secretary of State Vance had said publicly, many times, that moving precipitously or too quickly could, in fact, cause loss of life and cause the opposite effects. We took very seriously what the former Secretary of State said; after all, he's been there on the ground. There's also Lord Carrington, who has been echoing similar thoughts. So we don't have any hindsight or regrets or look back. We have done this in a careful, prudent, coordinated way with our allies and on the basis of our own policies. Q Margaret, nice try, but three, four weeks ago -- MS. TUTWILER: Thanks. Q -- when you folks were explaining the shift in policy as not being a shift in policy, you underscored the fact that -- accurately -- your original intention was not to give any encouragement to violence. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q And three or four weeks ago, you were able to sneak in there and join with the Europeans by saying, "Hey, the ceasefire is in effect; things are pretty quiet now." Things aren't quiet today. There's a lot of fighting going on in that country; and I think Dancy is correct, you've shifted policy and now what can you say about violence? You're recognizing these countries even as violence persists. So you're not -- you know what I mean? You're moving now in a violent -- MS. TUTWILER: I could have the done the peace-and-violence thing. That still exists. It's true. It does still exist. Q It didn't work. MS. TUTWILER: I'm not a computer. I cannot state for you every single, solitary word of everything we've ever said on Yugoslavia over the last year. I'm just not a computer. Q Isn't it true that -- MS. TUTWILER: If you want one, roll one out here and push the button for Yugoslavia. I'm not it. Q But the truth of the matter seems to be the United States didn't choose to stand independent of Germany and the other Europeans who wanted to recognize these countries. You couldn't buck the trend. MS. TUTWILER: Back then? Q You had to back down. MS. TUTWILER: Look, situations change all the time. I don't know anything other than our country's basic fundamentals: human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, that don't change. Events change. A year ago, you and I could have been having a debate about the Soviet Union. It doesn't exist today. We have now recognized 12 new countries there. There are now three new countries that we've recognized in Yugoslavia. In all fairness to whoever is standing here, or whatever Administration, things on the ground change. Saturday night we all went to bed and you didn't have a coup in Peru. Sunday morning you wake up, you've got a totally different situation. But our fundamentals don't ever change; and we are still concerned about the violence there. I can go through pages here if you'd like on violence. But today I only knew of a sporadic violence in Bosnia. Right now, when we're talking, there could be violence in Serbia. I don't know. Q What are you plans for diplomatic representation in these countries? MS. TUTWILER: Probably by early summer. Q Margaret, can I follow up on your last answer? MS. TUTWILER: Which one? Q To Barry. MS. TUTWILER: Okay. Q What is the U.S. Government feeling about what recognition will do to the violence on the ground? Is it your view that it may widen it, which was your fear at one point? Or are you now of a mind that it might have some calming effect? MS. TUTWILER: We would certainly hope the latter of your questions. Obviously, it's something, as I stated -- and you're correct -- that we took very seriously -- the comments, both public and private, that people made. People who are intimately involved with this situation on a day-to-day basis gave their best advice to us. Obviously, we hope that this does not contribute to violence. We've seen no evidence today other than Barry points out, yes, there's still pockets of violence in these various places. The one I particularly know of today is in Bosnia. That this would contribute to that is certainly not any of our intentions -- the EC or the United States. Q Margaret, could you clarify the U.S. policy to Macedonia? What is the position on Macedonia? MS. TUTWILER: Macedonia: I'll be happy to. It's also contained in the White House statement. In light of concerns expressed by Greece, which is a close friend and ally, we have sought and received assurances from the Macedonian President that Macedonia has no territorial claims against any neighboring states; considers the borders of those states inviolable and is fully committed to the values and principles underlying the CSCE and the EC peace conference. We are working intensively with the European Community and its member states to resolve expeditiously the outstanding issues between Greece and Macedonia, thus enabling the United States to formally recognize Macedonia as well. The last paragraph is contained in the White House statement that was released this morning. Q Can you say in what way are you working intensively with Greece as well -- with your good friend and ally, Greece, to persuade them -- MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Q -- that these assurances the United States has received ought to be persuasive in Athens? MS. TUTWILER: We have been working with Greece for many, many weeks. The Secretary of State personally discussed this issue with the Greek Foreign Minister when he was in Brussels three weeks ago. As you recall, there was an EC meeting. The Greek Foreign Minister was there. Q Those efforts did not appear to bear fruit. MS. TUTWILER: How do you know? Q Well, it's obvious. The United States today had the opportunity, if it wanted to, to recognize Macedonia. It chose not to do so, apparently, for -- I guess it was very sensitive to Greece. MS. TUTWILER: How do you know this is -- I won't do it. Never mind. I won't do it. Q Why did the United States not choose to recognize Macedonia today? MS. TUTWILER: I've answered it. It's in the White House statement. I can restate for you a little bit further elaboration from the State Department. Q How have you answered it? I don't think the question was even asked. MS. TUTWILER: I believe that Jan just asked me that. We are working intensively with the European Community and its member states. Q Don't re-read the same language. I heard the statement you made. MS. TUTWILER: That's my answer. Q But you didn't explain why the United -- if the United States -- MS. TUTWILER: I did.

[Former Yugoslavia: Macedonia Recognition]

Q Wait a minute. If the United States has received these assurances, why couldn't the United States go ahead and recognize Macedonia? MS. TUTWILER: Here's the answer: In light of concerns expressed by Greece, which is a close friend and ally, we have sought and received assurances from the Macedonian President that Macedonia has no territorial claims against any neighboring states concerning, etc., etc. I won't bore you with re-reading it to you. -- in light of concerns. That, in my mind, would say, why? Because then we follow with what we're doing about it. Q It says that in light of the concerns you sought the assurances. You then received the assurances. MS. TUTWILER: I thought -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that Jan asked me, if I'm mistaken, you certainly have: "Margaret, why are you not recognizing Macedonia today?" Ralph: "In light of concerns expressed by Greece, our close friend and ally" -- it was point number one. Then, I explained what all the assurances are we've received from Macedonia. Number two, I read directly from the White House statement this morning which says what we are currently doing. It's what we've been doing and what we will continue doing. I say, "Thus, enabling the United States to formally recognize Macedonia as well," which would lead me to believe we are working towards that end. Q Is there anything that stands in the way of recognition today for the United States? MS. TUTWILER: In light of concerns expressed by Greece, which is a close friend of ally, and we are intensively working on this. Q But, Margaret, to clarify from your statement, you imply very strongly that those concerns of Greece, though they have prevented the United States from recognizing Macedonia today, cannot prevent the recognition of Macedonia in the long run? MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to stick by the statement that I have. I'm not going to do future predictions for you. The EC has a very similar statement that they made yesterday. Q Have the Greeks given any indication that they will accept assurances that Macedonia doesn't have designs on Greek territory? Or do they insist that Macedonia call itself something else? MS. TUTWILER: I am well aware that there are a number of things that the Greek Government is interested in and has been discussing not only with the EC; has discussed it with us, and I'm sure, I guess, is discussing it with others, one of which is a name change. Q What's the U.S. position on that? MS. TUTWILER: That is something that is for the parties themselves to work out. Q New topic. Iraq, please. MS. TUTWILER: Where? Q Iraq: How would you characterize the Iraqi response to the Iranian raid? Did Iraq violate the terms of the ceasefire in the Gulf War when they sent their airplanes to intercept the Iranians? Is it a technical violation? How would you characterize it? MS. TUTWILER: It's not a technical violation that I'm aware of. Q Administration officials were quoted as saying that it's a technical violation. MS. TUTWILER: Who was it that quoted? Q Administration officials, and the press, were quoted as saying it's a technical violation. MS. TUTWILER: We saw those. Q Do you have a characterization of it? MS. TUTWILER: It is not a technical violation. As you know -- and Pete Williams just did a very lengthy briefing this morning from the Pentagon. I'd refer you to his transcript. He talked at length about this subject. But, as you know, under the agreements of the ceasefire, what is out there is that no flights of any kind are permitted north of the 36th parallel. Q That's south of the -- Q This is south of the 36th parallel, though. MS. TUTWILER: I said "north." Q But this occurred south of the 36th parallel. MS. TUTWILER: Right. The reports this morning were unnamed Administration officials saying that they had technically violated the ceasefire. What I am saying is technically, on the record, they have not, and you will find that Pete said the same thing. No flights of any kind are permitted north of the 36th parallel. Iraqi air operations south of the 36th parallel, while not technically prohibited by the ceasefire, are a matter of serious concern because they carry with them a potential for dangerous incidents and confrontations. Among other things, the U.N. Special Commission flies both helicopters and UT aircraft in this area. We expect Iraq to ensure that these aircraft, which operate in support of U.N. Security Council resolutions, are able to operate safely and without any interference or restriction throughout Iraq. Q You made reference to agreements of the ceasefire -- under the agreements of the ceasefire. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q What agreements are those? Are those the agreements that were reached in the tent right after the war? MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding. Q They're not United Nations -- they're not commitments by Iraq to the United Nations, are they, or are they? MS. TUTWILER: I'll have to check. Q Thank you. MS. TUTWILER: Thanks. (Press briefing concluded at 1:10 p.m.)