US Department of State Daily Briefing #57:
Wednesday, 4/15/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 15 19924/15/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe, East Asia,
South America
Country: Israel, USSR (former), Libya, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Serbia-Montenegro, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Peru, Mexico,
North Korea, Iraq
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
Military Affairs, Trade/Economics, Immigration,
Regional/Civil Unrest, Nuclear Nonproliferation,
State Department
12:22 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Libya: Overview/Update on Effect of Sanctions]
MS TUTWILER: What I would like to do -- I've tried to pull together as
much asI could this morning concerning the Libyan sanctions. Let me go
through that which I think touches on a number of questions you may
have; then I will try to answer any additional questions. If not,
then, as you know, there will be a senior expert who will be giving
you a briefing this afternoon at 3:30.
It is our understanding from both press reports and diplomatic
reporting that there are significant numbers of foreigners leaving
Libya. We've heard that some Americans have departed, but at this
point I don't have the numbers involved.
We have been in contact with our protecting power, the Belgians,
regarding the status of Americans who still may be in Libya. Bear in
mind, as we have said many times, that some of the American citizens
believed to be in Libya may be spouses of Libyan citizens or dual
nationals who have not intended to leave.
Our most recent information has not changed. It is still the 131
Americans that we've spoken of previously that are the only ones that
are currently registered at the Belgian Embassy in Tripoli.
While air service to and from Libya is being cut off under the
U.N. sanctions regime, it is still possible -- we have to assume, if
you wanted to -- to leave overland or by sea routes. United Nations
Security Council Resolution 748 has no affect on the land borders of
Libya. The borders were closed by Libya yesterday, and as far as we
know they're open today.
There is full agreement that by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
tonight all international air flights to and from Libya must cease.
Any violations would be referred to the United Nations Sanctions
Committee for possible action.
I should also, or would like to point out that the
Libyan Arab Airlines continues -- if it continues to fly, in our
opinion it will have a great deal of difficulty finding places
to land.
The United Nations has formed just this morning a
committee to monitor compliance with mandatory sanctions against
Libya. As you know, these sanctions are in effect today, April
15. We would estimate that Libyan Airlines has offices in about
three dozen countries worldwide. There are about 50 scheduled
international flights a week by Libyan Arab Airlines. Other
foreign carriers have in our estimation about 55 scheduled
flights a week. We expect all flights to be cancelled.
I do not have precise numbers of Libyan diplomats. As
you know, the resolution addresses itself to that also. The
resolution calls on all member states to significantly reduce
the number of Libyan diplomats at their missions, and we also
expect all states to comply with this requirement.
In accordance with the provisions of the Resolution,
paragraph 6a, the United States is consulting with the United
Nations today regarding the reduction of the size and level of
the Libyan diplomatic presence at the United Nations.
Currently, there are 12 Libyan diplomats at the United Nations
mission, and we expect that that reduction will be carried out
promptly.
The sanctions, with the weight of the international
community behind them, are designed to secure Libyan compliance,
as you know, with Resolution 731, and we certainly hope that
Libya will do so.
The sanctions are narrowly focused and are appropriate
to Libya's responsibilities for the barbaric bombing of Pan Am
103 and the French UTA flight. They are not designed to cause
hardship to the Libyan people.
The United Nations Resolution 748 is mandatory and
binding on all U.N. member states. All states are required to
report to the U.N. Secretary General by May 15 on the measures
they have taken to implement the resolution.
The U.N. Security Council Libyan Sanctions Committee
will review those reports, monitor implementation and recommend
appropriate measures in response to violations.
It is my understanding that Marlin -- whom I believe is
going to be briefing, if he has not already started -- has told
a number of your colleagues at the White House and will be
restating it in his briefing, that the President will be signing
an Executive Order later today that will go into effect
at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time concerning the sanctions
against Libya. The White House will be issuing a written
statement providing details on the Executive Order.
Q Margaret, on a technical point, you say there's
full agreement that the sanctions will begin at 11:59 tonight.
Some people in Europe and the Middle East think it began at
11:59 last night.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right. And in our opinion, the
point is that this is effective today. We've said that the
United States -- it begins for us at 11:59 p.m. tonight. The
actual time when other countries have decided -- it's obviously
up to those countries to decide. And we really think that the
exact precise time, to be honest with you, is irrelevant. We've
said when our portion or our membership -- as we view it, it
kicks in for us at 11:59 tonight.
Also, I must remind you there are different time zones
around the world, so people are, you know, doing what they're
doing. But it's not a problem for us.
Q But it's 11:59 New York time.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Eastern Standard Time for the
United States. I'm well aware that others who are in different
time zones -- and I've read wire copy, but they will speak for
themselves -- have already put these into effect. I can't speak
to what time it is, for instance, right now in Egypt or in other
parts of the world. You're reading the same copy that I'm
reading about what they right now are doing.
Q Standard or Daylight?
Q Is that 11:59 Eastern Standard or --
MS. TUTWILER: What?
Q Standard or Daylight?
MS. TUTWILER: When --
Q Eastern Standard or Eastern Daylight? We're in
daylight time now.
MS. TUTWILER: When it's 11:59 p.m. tonight in New
York. It's 11:59 p.m.
Q That would be Eastern Daylight Time.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you. Eastern Daylight Time is the
United States' view, in New York -- New York time.
Q Margaret, some of the Americans in Libya are not
in the category you described. They're workers. They're people
who have good jobs.
MS. TUTWILER: Who are there illegally.
Q Yes. Well, that's the point of my question.
They're there, and they're there for their own economic
interests, and they don't care to take your advice and leave.
MS. TUTWILER: It's their business.
Q Is that the end of it? It's their business?
There's no -- you're not going to try in some way to prosecute
these people or do something about them?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, Barry, what the rules are,
to be honest with you, for -- this isn't the only country where
we don't give visas or recommend strongly -- validate their
passports for Americans to go to. I'll be honest with you, I
don't know. I can certainly ask the Consular Affairs Officers
when an American comes out and says, "Hey, I was just in a place
I wasn't supposed to be," I don't know what our country does
about that.
But you're absolutely right that we believe there are
-- we're guessing, and we've said this for weeks, anywhere from
500 to 1,000. From the first time I came out and talked
publicly about the United States supporting and trying to get an
air embargo, 131 Americans have registered at the Belgian
Embassy. But that's all, so, I mean, our numbers could be wrong
that there are a thousand there. We don't know.
Q To get really technical, people at the Belgian
Embassy are looking after American interests. If Belgium draws
down its diplomatic staff there, doesn't -- don't you lose
something by that?
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding, I believe, in the
1970s our buildings were basically burned to the ground, so we
haven't had any buildings, it's my understanding, since I
believe, it was either '73 or '77. I can't remember the exact
date.
Q '79.
MS. TUTWILER: '79. Thanks. Sid says '79. It's the
70s, as I remember.
Q But so far as looking after American interests,
there won't be anybody there to do it, right?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, number one, it's a hypothetical.
I don't know that the Belgians are drawing down. Number two, if
our estimates are right that there are 500 to 1,000
Americans there, I think it's close to four weeks ago when we
publicly said that 131 have let the Belgians know they are there
in that country.
Q Margaret, are there any meetings of the U.N.
Security Council scheduled on this matter before the May 15
re-evaluation deadline?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of, but that might
better be asked at the U.N. I haven't heard of such a thing. I
don't know. I mean, the Sanctions Committee, which I believe I
was told right before I briefed, they have formed this morning
-- I believe, Joe, who did you tell me is in charge of it?
MR. SNYDER: The Hungarian.
MS. TUTWILER: The Hungarian has been appointed and is
in charge of that. I don't know how often they meet. I just
don't know.
Q Do you anticipate, though, that there would be no
further U.N. formal action toward Libya until the May 15
deadline for everyone to comply fully?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be my guess, but it's only a
guess on my part.
Q Margaret, I know this is probably going to be
classified as a hypothetical, but it's not without being in the
realm of possibility that Qadhafi would send one of his aircraft
to try and break the embargo. Are there contingency plans for
that eventuality? I mean, say, or example, he sent a Libyan
Arab Airliner packed with Libyans to Rome, and he's not allowed
to land.
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding from wire copy this
morning is that that very situation has existed in some
countries, and it's my understanding that those countries'
towers have turned the planes back.
Q And the planes have gone back voluntarily.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know where they are. I've only
just read this this morning, and I'm prefacing it by saying I
have had no independent confirmation here in the building. This
I've only seen in the last 90 minutes, and it's all been wire
copy. I'm not doubting the wire copy, but I'm not confirming
it.
Q Margaret, are U.S. actions regarding Libya limited
to enforcing the sanctions -- the U.N. sanctions, or are there
other actions the U.S. is taking with regard to Libya that go
beyond or outside the U.N. sanctions?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I have any knowledge of.
Q And do you have any comment on Libya's
announcement that it would ask other -- ask the nations who have
required a drawdown of Libyan diplomats in their capitals to
withdraw diplomats from Tripoli?
MS. TUTWILER: It's their business.
Q And also, you said earlier that these sanctions
are not designed to cause hardship on the Libyan people. It
sounds a little almost like you're making a virtue out of a
necessity. The sanctions don't seem as though they would have
very much effect on most Libyan people. Most Libyan people
don't travel anywhere. They still will be able to get food
shipments, they'll still be able to trade their oil, their
valuable oil?
MS. TUTWILER: That's right. And we think that it is
important that we point that out: That this is not, as you
know, many times -- we can take Haiti as an example. Many of
the questions that we received is that, "You were hurting
innocent people across the board in Haiti." This is very
narrowly focused. After all, this is about a barbaric terrorist
act: 441 people -- men, women and children -- are dead from
blowing up two airplanes, and this is very narrowly focused.
There are -- I just pointed out -- whether it's 50 or
it's one, the international community is making a statement --
has made a second resolution that is tougher than the first
resolution of what it expects Libya to do. And, you know, I
have just told you our estimates of -- counting both Libyan
flights and international flights, there's 105 right there. I
don't know what kind of economic impact that has to the Libyans.
I don't know if all those flights are full. I don't know if
there are more flights.
Q Would you expect -- do you think the United States
could expect to receive support even from some of its closest
allies for imposing stiffer sanctions against Libya, such as a
reduction or cutoff in its oil exports?
MS. TUTWILER: Secretary Baker answered that question
yesterday when it was asked, I believe, by Barry, about if the
United States was going to go further and have an oil embargo.
I have nothing really to add to his response of yesterday.
Q Margaret, Qadhafi is putting his defiance of the
order that he surrender the -- the demand that he surrender the
suspects in Arab terms. Do you have -- does the State
Department have any accounting of how loyal the Arabs will be to
this embargo? Is there any waffling in the Arab world? Do you
expect them to be as --
MS. TUTWILER: We expect all U.N. members to abide by
this, and I can only -- I am not going to go down a list of all
the countries, whether Arab or European or Asian, etc.
Obviously, we are getting lots of information of what people are
doing, and various countries today have spoken out.
One Arab country that I'm aware has spoken out is --
President Mubarak this morning has spoken of what Egypt will be
doing. I don't have a complete rundown of every country. But,
yes, we expect them to.
Q Have any of them said to the State Department, "We
wish you wouldn't do this. You're being too tough." Is there
any buckling reported back to you?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of. It's my
understanding that Egypt has halted all air traffic to Libya as
of the end of the day, April 14. There's one.
Q Yes. I know Egypt has.
Q Can we -- just to follow on that, give us a sense
of the Secretary's phone work on this, if any?
MS. TUTWILER: There hasn't been any that I'm aware of.
Q But there has been at a lower level, just sort of
routine consultations on it, or is it all going on in New York?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, this passed, as you know, two
weeks ago, and at that time said it would go into effect April
15. The Secretary weeks ago, I'm sure, did have involvement, if
nothing more than sending instructions to our representatives at
the Security Council on language, etc.
Over those two weeks, these two weeks, to be honest
with you, there hasn't been a whole lot for anybody to do other
than those who have relations with Libya to try to convince them
the U.N. is deadly serious. This is going to happen. You have
a two-week lead here. They, as you know, have floated a number
of unacceptable proposals, and here's where we are.
Q But there was no sort of attempt at a coherent
strategy -- let's pull all our diplomats at a certain time or --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, we don't have any.
Q Well, I know you don't, but usually you do
spearhead coalition efforts.
MS. TUTWILER: We were very involved, which is no
secret, in the garnering of support for this second resolution,
in the crafting of this second resolution. The resolution, we
were very pleased, passed. And since that point, Johanna, I
just can't say once everybody signed on to it -- and this
morning there seems to be quite a bit of evidence people are
indeed going to abide by this resolution. And it's what,
speaking for the United States, we expect all United Nations
members to do.
Q Margaret, could you say whether Libya's friends in
the Arab world -- countries like Sudan, Iran -- while not
technically in the Arab world -- are complying with this U.N.
resolution?
MS. TUTWILER: As of this briefing, I cannot. I just
don't have that information. Probably by tomorrow, but again I
want to preface, we're not going to every day come out and do a
country list. I mean, we'd spend 30 minutes going through that.
This is the United Nations -- a hundred and -- it used to be
157. Now there are what -- 19 new countries? I mean, it's a
large number we'd be dealing with.
I would guess that there is going to be -- hopefully
not -- but an instance where I will probably be answering
questions. But right now, this morning, this is just now going
into effect, I don't know of anyone who has notified the United
Nations or notified the United States, "Under any and all
circumstances, we will not abide by this resolution." I'm
unaware of any situation like that.
Q Margaret, what steps does the United States have
to take to comply -- does the United States as a member of the
U.N. have to take to comply with this resolution? The U.S. has
no flights to Libya --
MS. TUTWILER: Right. And the President's Executive
Order that is being issued at the White House will address what
the United States will be doing. He has not, as I came to the
podium, yet signed that, and there's a White House, it's my
understanding, paper that will be sent out with it. So can I
leave that to the White House?
Q Well, but I guess I don't understand --
MS. TUTWILER: We don't have a lot. You're absolutely
correct. But the President --
Q He's going to issue an Executive Order that --
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q -- maybe doesn't do anything. I mean --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, let's judge it by when we see it,
when they release it. And I grant you, you know, we do not have
by any stretch of the imagination normal relations with Libya.
The United States has recognized that from the beginning. We
have no personnel. Barry spoke to our assets.
They basically burned to the ground in the 70s. So I
acknowledge to you that's correct.
But the United States also feels very, very strongly
about Pan Am 103 and did an extensive investigation to ferret
this out.
Q I guess I was trying to get at the fact that for
the United States anyway, complying with this resolution is a
relatively cost-free situation. It doesn't really cost the U.S.
anything to comply with this resolution. Some other countries,
it costs them business, it costs them income, it costs them
perhaps some tourism, and so on. Isn't the U.S. sort of asking
other people to take on the burden here that the U.S. doesn't
have to bear simply because there isn't anything to bear?
MS. TUTWILER: With all due respect, I would argue that
it was not cost-free to the people who were flying on Pan Am
103, and I am aware that there are other countries that, yes,
there is probably more of a direct economic hit to their people.
But let's not forget what this is about, and that was a very
incredible, barbaric, terrorist activity, and many Americans
have suffered a great deal because of it.
Q Could we move on to something else?
MS. TUTWILER: It's fine with me.
[Former Yugoslavia: Update on Fighting in Bosnia/Related
Subjects]
Q Yugoslavia, or what used to be Yugoslavia. Can
you give us a rundown on U.S. diplomatic activities over the
last few days in Bosnia?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. And in fact I can do as recently
as this morning in a meeting in Helsinki of the CSCE. As you
all know, Secretary Baker yesterday characterized the situation
in Bosnia as extraordinarily tragic and outrageous. It remains
so today.
In Sarajevo, intensive gun battles and sporadic
shelling by Serbian forces have continued overnight and into
today. Militant Bosnian Serbs say their aim is to take control
of Sarajevo. Serb forces have encircled it for a week, cutting
off all outside commerce. Sarajevo, a city of over half a
million people, is beginning to run short of food.
The Yugoslav military is now overtly siding with
Serbian paramilitary forces. Fighting continues throughout
Bosnia. Much of it appears concentrated in towns along the
Drina River in eastern Bosnia.
International relief agencies report that tens of
thousands of refugees, mainly Bosnian Moslems, are fleeing from
areas affected by the fighting.
This morning the Deputy Secretary of State underscored
our grave concern and our condemnation of Serbian aggression
against Bosnia to the Yugoslav Ambassador.
The Deputy Secretary made the following points to the
Ambassador:
(1) The conduct of the Serbian leadership in Belgrade
and of Serbian armed forces is completely outside the bounds of
civilized behavior.
(2) We need to see immediate and concrete steps to
reverse this behavior and not lip service to peaceful principles
while Serbian aggression continues.
(3) The United States is consulting closely with the
EC and other friends and allies on further steps to bring the
international community's strong concerns to bear on Belgrade.
Our message to Serbian civilian and military
authorities is that if they continue their aggression against
Bosnia and to deny human rights to Serbia's own citizens, Serbia
will very quickly become an international pariah.
The United States delegation to the CSCE Helsinki
follow-on meeting, which is meeting right now in Helsinki, is
working with EC and other delegations to put Belgrade on notice
as to the consequences of its behavior in the CSCE context.
Today the United States representative to the
conference, Mr. Kornblum, made the following comments during a
session on Yugoslavia:
"The United States joins with the EC and other nations
in calling on the Serbian leadership to take clear and concrete
steps to correct flagrant violations of CSCE principles in its
dealings with Bosnia.
"If the Serbian authorities, Serbian military and
Serbian paramilitary, have not taken such steps by April 29,
CSCE senior officials will meet, and they will consider stronger
action such as full membership for Bosnia in the CSCE on an
emergency basis.
"Continued refusal of Serbian authorities to live up to
its CSCE commitments would raise serious questions about their
presence in CSCE. We will consult with our EC and NATO partners
about the continued legitimacy of the Serbian delegation at
CSCE. If the situation has not improved by April 29, careful
consideration should be given to the possibility of a decision
to suspend their participation at that time."
Q Can you give us a little bit about Secretary
Baker's direct activities?
MS. TUTWILER: Secretary Baker had a number of phone
calls late yesterday afternoon after his meeting with the
Foreign Minister, and again early this morning. He asked me to
refrain from saying with whom. They are with our strong
European allies, and he just didn't want me to get into the
specific names. But he, himself, yes, is personally involved in
this.
Q Basically, the anonymous official who is quoted in
the Washington Post with all the material, could we assume all
that material is correct? Can you substantiate --
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, I read that this
morning before 7:00. I can't tell you everything that's in any
article because I read them so fast.
Q Just the front page of it.
MS. TUTWILER: I read it --
Q They managed to get some --
MS. TUTWILER: I read seven newspapers this morning. I
cannot remember.
Q It's a very informed piece, as if they had access
to a very senior official. I wonder if --
MS. TUTWILER: They may have.
Q I wonder if we could have equal information here a
day later?
MS. TUTWILER: I've just given you information that the
Washington Post did not have this morning on what our official
was instructed, this morning, to say and has said at a CSCE
meeting that is going on right now. I just gave you --
Q Well, maybe someone in Helsinki (inaudible) --
MS. TUTWILER: Well I think that what we just did --
Q This building is what I'm interested in.
MS. TUTWILER: -- had some very fresh and new
information that I have just given you.
Q Margaret, in the past, the United States has
seemed content to sit back and let this be an EC show. You're
joining in with the EC in these calls for actions by Serbia --
does that indicate that the United States is now willing to take
a more involved role than it has in the past?
MS. TUTWILER: Let me tidy up one thing. The statement
I just read to you -- parts of -- is what the United States
representative, this morning, said at the Helsinki meeting. I
cannot speak for the EC or other member countries,
but this was what we said that we felt we should all do in the
CSCE context.
Q Could you clarify --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to answer the rest of --
Q I wanted to clarify the position of this official.
Who exactly is it?
Q She's answering my question.
Q When we were on the question of who said it --
sorry to interrupt. Could you just say who the official is?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I will never do that.
Q No, the official that spoke at CSCE?
MS. TUTWILER: Oh, Mr. Kornblum. I said that.
Q She did. John Kornblum.
MS. TUTWILER: I said that. I believe John Dancy's --
the first part of his question was that the United States
previously had not been as basically involved and the EC was
taking the lead, I believe was along the lines you were asking
me.
That is correct, and I'm not saying that the United
States today is in the lead. Obviously, the EC is. As you
know, we strongly support the EC Ambassador, who has just been
in the region. We also strongly support Secretary Vance's
mission. But we've also pointed out -- and we issued a very
strong statement yesterday.
We have sent over the last two weeks two very strong
demarches, that I am aware of, to President Milosevic, and we
have now done this at the CSCE. We have pointed out each time
that Bosnia did exactly what CSCE principles call for in their
seeking their independence, if you recall. That was done
peacefully. There was no unilateral decisions or unilateral --
for instance, remember, the incidents with border posts being
seized, etc., etc.
So we have pointed out, in all of our statements, that
here is a country, a new country, that followed to the letter
every single thing that the international community and the
principles subscribed to. And yet what is going on there today
-- and I can't recall if you were there or not -- but if you
listened yesterday to the Foreign Minister of Bosnia, that was a
very powerful statement of what is going on in this small area
on this planet Earth. It's something the United States, yes,
cares very much about. If nothing more, on a humanitarian
level. This is just wrong.
Q In your statement, the last sentence says, in
effect, that if the Serbians don't shape up by April 29, their
participation should be suspended. You're saying participation
in CSCE?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Well, so what? Since they're acting as outlaws
already, what do they lose?
MS. TUTWILER: Some countries, Jim, care about
legitimacy. I'm not here to judge whether Yugoslavia is one of
those or not. Maybe you could call their Ambassador and ask him
if he would care or not.
But we know that many countries do care, and this is
why we said that consideration should be given to suspending
their participation.
Q And "their," in this case, refers to Yugoslavia if
there, in fact, still is such thing?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Not Serbia?
MS. TUTWILER: Basically, we have three new countries,
as you know: Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia. Yugoslavia -- because
that's what we all continue to call it -- basically, as you
know, is that portion of former Yugoslavia which is Serbia.
Yes, I'm well aware there are others in there; but, basically,
that's what it is today.
Q Margaret, do you know what the Ambassador's
response was to these requests by the Deputy Secretary of State?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I really don't. It's a good
question. I forgot to ask Larry (Eagleburger). I'm sorry.
Q Was that a meeting at the U.S. request, or at the
Yugoslav --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q At the U.S. request.
Q Margaret, does the U.S. view that what the army
and the Serbian nationalists are trying to do is to partition
the country?
MS. TUTWILER: That is what many of them claim. I
can't stand here and speak for them either because, as you know,
you get contrary statements from government officials there.
But what is quite clear, not only from our meeting with the
Foreign Minister -- and I believe he did a press conference with
many of your colleagues yesterday afternoon -- but from
many of your colleagues on reporting in this morning's
newspaper, including the article in the Washington Post, where
someone is there on the ground and is reporting what is going
on.
It is really something that is very difficult to
comprehend how you could do this to fellow former citizens, or
just human beings. It is awful.
Q The U.S. does not have information independently
to confirm that this is the aim of the Serbian nationalists --
that is, to partition the country?
MS. TUTWILER: We have various Serbian officials who
have made comments to that effect. I can't tell you at any
given moment -- as you know, things are not exactly routine and
normal there -- who is speaking for whom. But it is not
something that we are not aware of.
I can't tell you that there are not some people,
especially people who are out there on the ground, that that's
not in their minds. The way -- it's my understanding -- and,
again, some of your own reporting is educating people about this
-- what is going on, as the Foreign Minister described it, is
fairly barbaric.
Q Margaret, the Foreign Minister mentioned the
possibility of an aid flight going in. Do you know anything
about that?
MS. TUTWILER: A United States aid flight? Or just a
humanitarian aid flight?
Q Just a humanitarian aid flight. He didn't specify
where it was going to come from.
MS. TUTWILER: He mentioned to the Secretary of State
that a general humanitarian aid flight would, in his opinion, be
helpful. He did not have any more specifics for us, or asked
the United States to do such a thing.
The Secretary said that he would be more than glad to
look into that, and there's nothing on that today.
Q Sarajevo is running short of food, as you say --
MS. TUTWILER: They've cut it off.
Q -- you're going to have to address it at some
point, presumably?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. The Secretary said to the
Foreign Minister, "Do you specifically mean the United States
sending in a humanitarian aircraft?" He said, "I am not. But
the situation is such that we are surrounded, our airport is
surrounded." Yesterday, I believe, the airport was closed, and
food is becoming a problem. That's why I wanted to point out
how many people live there.
I don't know what the international community will do
if this situation continues. But we are aware of the situation;
and, yes, he did raise it with the Secretary.
Q Margaret, another one: Now that you've recognized
Bosnia, this is an international conflict. You have one country
-- Serbia -- sending its army into another. Why not take that
up at the U.N.?
MS. TUTWILER: That may be something that we look at.
Q Peacekeeping forces: Did they discuss that?
MS. TUTWILER: They did discuss that. And the
Secretary pointed out that the United Nations peacekeeping
forces and peacekeeping observers are just that. They are not
peace-makers, which they are not in any country where they are
sent.
You have -- for lack of a better word -- certainly a
large conflict going on there. The United Nations peacekeepers
do not have a history of and are not in this case -- the Foreign
Minister was very well aware of that policy. He had just spoken
the day before with former Secretary of State Vance, and I
believe he told us he had just met at the United Nations with
the Secretary General. So he knew that.
Q So what is the U.S. position?
MS. TUTWILER: The U.S. position is, we agree.
Peacekeepers are peacekeepers, not peace-makers.
Q I mean there are options. So let's see what the
U.S. -- does the U.S. think that peace -- limited as their
powers are -- does the United States support, as a matter of
policy, having the peacekeepers in Bosnia, too? Does the United
States --
MS. TUTWILER: At this particular time when there's no
cease-fire? No. They are not peace-makers.
Q Do you support the idea of a European force going
in?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be something that, to be
honest with you, I have not heard us give an opinion on, and
something that I believe the Europeans have all expressed
themselves on.
Q The U.S. seems --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have an opinion for you on that.
Q The U.S. is taking a lead on this. When there was
trouble in Serbia and Croatia and Slovenia, the United States
was off on the side there and the Europeans were in the lead.
MS. TUTWILER: I answered that question. That was John
Dancy's question.
Q Well, your answer was that it's more horrible than
the situation.
MS. TUTWILER: That was not my answer.
Q There's another reason.
MS. TUTWILER: That was not my answer.
Q The reason is that it's cross-border, and that's
probably what's gotten you into --
MS. TUTWILER: That was not my answer. My answer was,
Barry -- and if you'll go back and look at the record --
Q That they followed the letter of the law.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Then the question I was going to ask you, then,
is, did Slovenia and Croatia follow the letter of -- whatever --
principles?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q They didn't?
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, they took unilateral
actions. And if you will recall, they seized their border
posts. It was exactly what the Secretary of State had stood
there and said would happen and, indeed, happened. He has
spoken to this many, many times when asked the very question
you're asking me.
Q Does the United States think that this is
something that the North Atlantic Cooperation Council should
take up? Does it put it in a category, as the Secretary did in
Brussels last month with Nagorno-Karabakh, for example, that
it's something the NAC-C might consider involving NAC-C/NATO
forces in?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware, Ralph, that -- I've heard
various officials here discuss such things, but it's just
totally hypothesizing. I'm not aware of, point blank, what our
position would be should we be asked. I'll be happy to take
your question.
Q Do you have an update on what Cyrus Vance is
doing?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding -- and this is
information as of late yesterday afternoon -- is that he would
be in Yugoslavia today. For security reasons, they had
requested that we not give his schedule.
Q Another area?
Q Without giving us his schedule, can you tell us
what he's going to do?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, that would pretty much --
Q We don't want a minute-by-minute blow. Just what
type of people he's going to meet with and --
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, the Secretary General
announced last week that he had asked the former Secretary to go
back on a fact-finding mission concerning the situation in
Bosnia. I'm not aware that there's been any change in his
mission.
Q Can you discuss the warning that was delivered to
Iraq?
MS. TUTWILER: The warning that was issued to Iraq?
The demarche, you're talking about yesterday? I can't discuss,
to be honest with you, a lot of it -- the contents of it.
Yesterday, as I remember, I recall that it happened. I
believe that the United States consulted with our coalition
partners -- Turkey, Britain, and France -- on our ongoing
concerns about Iraqi behavior in northern Iraq. They made a
demarche -- those three countries -- to the Iraqi
representative. I believe it was at the United Nations. I
believe the United States, as I recall, was represented by
Ambassador Watson.
The demarche covers, generally speaking, the Iraqi
deployment of surface-to-air missiles north of the 36th
parallel, the continuing prohibition on Iraqi flights north of
the 36th parallel, and the use of military forces to repress
civilians in all parts of the country in contravention of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 688.
I do not have for you a specific readout of the Iraqi
response. All I can say is that we, and the people, obviously,
who made the demarche, look for and believe that what counts is
Iraqi actions and not words.
[Afghanistan: Reports of Resistance Advancing on Kabul]
Q Margaret, do you have an update on the situation
in Afghanistan where the government of Najibullah seems to be
crumbling?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. There are reports over the past
few days of rapid advances by Afghan Resistance forces toward
Kabul. The situation remains very unclear, but it appears that
some regime strongpoints have fallen.
These developments do not alter our conviction that
only a political solution to the Afghan conflict will be an
effective one. There is a danger that current military
operations will only lead to more fighting and bloodshed.
The Afghan Resistance has fought a long and bitter
struggle for self-determination which won admiration and support
from around the world. They are now on the verge of achieving
their goal of self-determination for the Afghan people, but
would risk a prolonged and pointless conflict if they pursue a
military option which will not bring resolution and
reconciliation.
We urge all parties involved, and particularly the
forces of the Afghan Resistance, to use this opportunity to
pursue a final settlement through political means with the
assistance of the U.N. Secretary General and his special
representative for Afghanistan.
The United States strongly supports fully the U.N.'s
key role in bringing the Afghan people together.
My understanding, on a literal update on the ground, is
that the situation is fluid. We don't have a lot of details at
this time. We're aware of what I just said is going on.
It is my understanding that the U.N. Secretary
General's special representative is working very hard in putting
together the Council of Notables, and he's working on that right
now.
Q Are you saying --
Q Are you calling on the rebels to stop their
advance on Kabul?
MS. TUTWILER: We're calling on people to work through
a political mechanism and not use one of the military and
violence, to be honest with you. That's our statement.
Q Isn't that the same thing? Are you calling on
them to stop their military actions?
MS. TUTWILER: I think our statement is fairly clear in
what we have just stated is the United States' view.
Q It would be clearer if you said, "Stop your
military advance on Kabul." But you're choosing not to say
that. Is there some difference?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm choosing to stand by our statement
which addresses ourselves to the current situation on the ground
and says what the United States Government view is.
Q Have you relayed that view to the Resistance
leaders -- the Resistance groups?
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't ask Ed Djerejian this morning.
I'll be happy to ask him. I didn't ask the question.
Q So the Administration still considers them freedom
fighters, which is what the Reagan Administration called them
all the time?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q New subject?
MS. TUTWILER: It's fine with me.
[Former Soviet Union: Ukraine]
Q Do you have any comment on the reported remarks --
the reported announcement by the Ukraine Foreign Minister that
shipments of nuclear warheads will resume soon to Russia?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. What we have, to be honest with
you, are press reports that the Ukrainian Foreign Minister said
yesterday that Ukraine will resume the movement of tactical
nuclear weapons to Russia for elimination.
As you know, the Defense Minister was here yesterday
and had a very lengthy meeting with the Secretary of State where
they discussed, in quite some detail, this subject, START and
other subjects. We were very pleased yesterday to see this
report of what the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said. And, as
you know, we encourage the Ukrainians and Russians to continue
with this process.
We understand that an agreement on this has been
reached between Ukraine and Russia, but that it has not yet been
signed. It would be inappropriate for us, in our opinion, since
this has not been signed, to have any other comments. As you
know, I've told you the Secretary of State has personally been
working on this.
Our view -- and it's been consistent -- is that we hope
that this agreement will be signed and implemented promptly.
One of you -- and I can't remember who -- asked me
yesterday, since there's been basically a 6-week delay, if we
thought if they started today, could they, indeed, move all
these weapons by July. In the same statement yesterday, where
the Foreign Minister said they reached agreement, the Foreign
Minister said, yes, they believe that they can. Russia has said
they believe that they can. Our opinion right now is that we
hope that they will reach that goal.
Q Does that mean that the Defense Minister made no
mention of this announcement? Or does it mean that he discussed
it in terms of an agreement that hadn't been signed?
MS. TUTWILER: Not only has the Secretary of State met
personally with the Defense Minister, he had quite a lengthy
conversation on Saturday with the Foreign Minister of Russia.
So what I'm trying to steer you toward is that we are well aware
that the Ukrainians and the Russians say that they have an
agreement. But there is not yet -- there is a document, and
that document has not been signed.
Q How will that agreement, if it comes about, how
does that schedule and so on work with regard to helping the
U.S. get the START treaty ratified, or does it impinge upon it
at all in your view?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure that the two are entwined.
[Peru: US Suspension of Aid during Review/OAS Mission]
MS. TUTWILER: Peru?
Q What's the situation of the anti-narcotics program
in Peru now? Is the United States pulling some people out?
MS. TUTWILER: I am in the position today of continuing
to tell you that that is an extremely sensitive security matter
with us, and I have no details for you nor will you find that
the Defense Department does. I think it's understandable that
we do not.
There was one report -- and I can't remember where it
was -- this morning that we have stopped delivery of all
military assistance to Peru. That's not true. There was one
order of urgently needed aircraft safety equipment for the
Peruvian air force.
As far as our State Department and DEA
counter-narcotics programs in Peru, those are still under
review.
Q Another subject -- on the Middle East?
Q Can I follow up? The Secretary of State spoke
with the Mexican Foreign Minister this morning. Did they
discuss the situation in Peru, and can you tell us something
about it?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I was unable to attend
that bilateral. I was preparing for the briefing. I'll be
happy to ask someone who was in the meeting to give you a
readout.
Q I know that someone asked the same question
yesterday, but could you tell us something about what you expect
of the OAS mission traveling to Lima probably next week? Do you
expect them to get any positive results there due to the soft
approach that many people say that the OAS has taken?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a time yet for the OAS
mission, when they're departing and when they will be there.
Obviously, we are very supportive of the mission. It was a
unanimous vote, as I recall -- 32 to zero. They have with them
their marching orders from the OAS, and they are obviously going
to try to resolve this situation according to what was decided
in the document -- the resolution -- of the OAS. We certainly
fully support them and hope that they will be able to.
Q Margaret, on the Middle East, this morning in
Cairo, Yasser Arafat was visited by Faisal Husseini and Hanan
Ashrawi along with about a dozen or so other Palestinians.
Arafat is there recuperating, as you know.
Does the U.S. have any view as to whether the United
States will continue to meet with those officials with whom it
has met before, now that they have openly met with Arafat?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of a meeting in Cairo this
morning. And to be honest with you, I wasn't aware that Arafat
was in Cairo.
I haven't seen anything about this, and I'm not going
to speculate on something I don't know about and whether it does
or doesn't affect the Secretary or other U.S. officials meeting
with individuals. I really have heard nothing about it.
Q But the status of the U.S. policy, as of today,
still is the U.S. does not have a dialogue with the PLO; is that
correct?
MS. TUTWILER: We do not.
Q But could you check the facts? Because --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. I just heard of this. I don't
know anything about it.
Q I understand. Could we hear later in the day
whether --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I said I would.
Q -- the United States will still consider these two
folks to be legitimate advisors to peace talks if they're having
meetings with Arafat?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Margaret, do you have any reaction to the
interview in the Washington Times today by Kim Il Sung in which
he calls for better relations with the United States?
MS. TUTWILER: Not particularly. I can restate for you
what it takes to have better relations with the United States.
Our policy hasn't changed. We can't judge this morning if this
is, indeed, a shift in North Korea's attitude towards the United
States.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:07 p.m.)