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.)