US Department of State Daily Briefing #58:
Thursday, 4/16/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 16 19924/16/92
Category: Briefings
Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, Europe,
South Asia, East Asia
Country: Israel, USSR (former), Georgia, Russia, Afghanistan,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Croatia, Libya,
South Korea, Turkey
Subject: Development/Relief Aid, Regional/Civil Unrest,
Nuclear Nonproliferation, Arms Control, Immigration,
Trade/Economics, Military Affairs, Human Rights
12:00 NOON
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Former Soviet Union: Nuclear Weapons Transfers from Georgia to
Russia/Related Arms Control Issues]
MS. TUTWILER: I have two things I'd like to do. The
first concerns the Presidential mission that returned last
night. As you recall, that consisted of Under Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, Ed Hewitt at the White House, and Dennis Ross from
the State Department. Their trip was very useful. They met
with a wide cross-section of Ukrainian Government officials and
other individuals and felt the discussions were very good and
helped bring a basis to further promote strong bilateral ties.
The mission is part of an ongoing dialogue and was organized, as
you know, to help prepare for President Kravchuk's visit.
On the subject of tactical nuclear weapons: I spoke
about the agreement on procedures for the dismantling and
destruction of tactical nuclear weapons yesterday which was due
to be signed by Russia and Ukraine. During the visit, President
Kravchuk told our team that he had signed the agreement, and he
expected resumption of the withdrawal very, very soon.
This morning, Foreign Minister Kozyrev spoke by phone
with Secretary Baker about a number of subjects, and during that
conversation the Foreign Minister relayed the news to Secretary
Baker that President Yeltsin had signed the accord as well.
The United States is very pleased to learn that this
agreement has been signed by both Presidents. Our understanding
is that transfers of tactical nuclear weapons from Ukraine to
Russia will resume immediately. Both Ukraine and Russia have
indicated that they believe that they can meet the July 1, 1992,
deadline for those transfers to be completed, and we hope that
deadline will be met.
Q Do they have an arrangement now that would satisfy
Ukraine about overseeing the destruction of the weapons,
because, you know --
MS. TUTWILER: They must.
Q Well, the agreement doesn't necessarily require
destruction of the weapons.
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is that this is their
agreement, obviously, Barry, and that both Presidents have now
in the last 24 hours signed this. It must satisfy both of them.
And it is my understanding this resolution does address what
happens to these weapons when they get on the Russian territory.
Q The other day when we asked the Secretary about
this, he said if, you know, all parties wanted the U.S.
participate, he'd be amenable -- probably amenable to that.
Will the U.S. have any role in seeing -- overseeing the
destruction?
MS. TUTWILER: We haven't been asked, and so I'd refer
you just to the response the Secretary gave the other day.
Q Well, but does this agreement provide for any
international supervision or international participation?
MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge, but I'll be honest
with you, I am not at all totally familiar with all of the
details and nuances of this agreement. After all, it's an
agreement between them. I will see if an expert can answer that
question for you. I know that I can't.
Q O.K. I guess what I was trying to get at was
Baker obviously talked with Kozyrev about it this morning, and
your team has just gotten back from talking with Kravchuk about
it, and you at this moment say the United States has not been
asked to participate.
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q I thought that perhaps in that series of
discussions the United States had been briefed on how this
process will work and whether other nations, if not the U.S.,
would --
MS. TUTWILER: The United States, it is my
understanding, prior to these two meetings, was familiar at the
expert level with the nuance and the details that are in this
agreement that these two countries were working on. I just
particularly am not -- what we were talking about yesterday and
what I believe most of you have been interested in is the
resumption of the tactical nuclear weapons, and I was very
careful yesterday to say that, yes, they say they had agreed but
had not signed.
What I am saying now is both presidents have signed
this, and both countries have said this resumption is going to
begin immediately.
Q Margaret, did they -- did Dennis [Ross] and the
others discuss the START Treaty, and has there been any
resolution to that?
MS. TUTWILER: They did discuss it, and this is
something -- another subject that the Secretary discussed again
this morning with the Foreign Minister of Russia, and the
Secretary is continuing to work the issue.
Q Do you feel that you've made any progress? Are
you any closer to resolution?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to do predictions or
characterizations at this moment. He is actively very involved
in this at his level, himself, as we've said, evidenced by again
this morning he is working on finding a way to resolve this, and
I don't want to do predictions for you.
Q Are there any plans for the Secretary to meet
Kozyrev in the next couple of weeks?
MS. TUTWILER: Anything is possible. There is nothing
that is firm or definite.
Q Can you tell us specifically now, if you know, why
Ukraine did stop shipping them, what their concerns were, or
what specifically they were --
MS. TUTWILER: I would really rather refer you to the
Ukrainian Government for that.
Q Has Baker been -- when you say he's been "working
this issue," has he been in touch with the leaders of the other
nuclear or former nuclear republics on the question of the START
Treaty recently?
MS. TUTWILER: Our experts have. He personally has not
as of this briefing.
Q O.K. So as far as his working on it is concerned,
he's been dealing with it with Ukraine and with Russia?
MS. TUTWILER: As far as, as of this briefing, his
having a personal phone conversation -- which is what I referred
to with the Foreign Minister of Russia -- as of this briefing,
that's the only phone conversation that I know of -- if you want
to stop the clock -- as of say the last several days.
There are cables that can go from the Secretary of
State, and the day doesn't end today at 12:05. He may well be
intending, Ralph, to talk to others about this, and I just want
to keep continuing to say -- which I know doesn't help you and
is frustrating -- that he is actively working on this, as he has
been for a number of days, really, over the last two weeks.
Q Margaret, while you're looking into this, could
you throw another question at the folks? There are none in
Byelarus, but I don't know what the situation is in Kazakhstan
now. Is there a problem there? Are the tacticals gone? Are
they -- you know, are they shipping? Any problems? And what's
the status? I mean, are they all gone or what?
MS. TUTWILER: O.K. I'll ask. May I do Yugoslavia if
we're through with this?
Q Can I just finish this?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q Are discussions continuing on going beyond START
-- you know, the proposals that were exchanged in February -- or
is the Secretary and all the experts now concentrating on
implementing START first?
MS. TUTWILER: I would have to say that the bulk of his
focus right this moment is on START, because, as you know, we
have a legislative clock running here in the United States. But
that doesn't mean that he has forgotten going beyond START. As
you know, he was in Brussels and had -- I can't remember how
long that conversation lasted, what was it, about four hours --
discussing those proposals. But right now, yes, trying to
specifically and literally find a way so that we can begin our
ratification process here on START.
Q Since Brussels the issue has been not forgotten
but put aside for the moment.
MS. TUTWILER: That gets me into a problem and is an
unfair characterization. That doesn't mean that the experts or
that even he cannot at the same time be having these
conversations. But because we have a calendar and a clock
that's ticking on START ratification that they say is important
to get done -- we've said is important to get done -- that is
something that is immediate and a specific. The other is, of
course, yes, he still discusses.
Q Margaret, does Baker think that anyone other than
Russia at this point needs to sign anything with the United
States -- co-sign something with the United States --
MS. TUTWILER: That's a level of --
Q -- before the Administration sends the START
Treaty up to Congress?
MS. TUTWILER: That's a very legitimate question, but
it goes to a level of detail that I'm just not at liberty to get
into.
Q Yugoslavia?
MS. TUTWILER: May I do what?
[Yugoslavia: Civil Strife in Bosnia/Ceasefire/Update on
Fighting/Other]
Q Yugoslavia.
MS. TUTWILER: Are you talking about me?
Q No, no.
MS. TUTWILER: Yugoslavia. As you know, we are having
extensive contacts with our allies regarding the crisis in
Bosnia. The Secretary, as I mentioned, has talked personally to
a number of his colleagues. We discussed the situation in
Bosnia intensively yesterday in a priority -- as a priority item
at the CSCE meeting in Helsinki.
At that meeting, representatives of the participating
states unanimously adopted a statement on the crisis in
Yugoslavia and the situation in Bosnia in particular. We are
very pleased with the results.
This statement, written and adopted by the participants
working very quickly, is an indication of the success that is
possible through cooperative effort and demonstrates the
beginning of a process and the willingness of the world
community to begin isolating Serbia if it continues on its
present course in Bosnia.
The statement condemns the violence in the region,
expresses support for the territorial integrity of Bosnia and
for peace efforts there, including those of the EC and the U.N.,
and condemns those responsible for the violence -- in particular
Serbia and the Yugoslav People's Army, JNA.
The resolution warns that continued CSCE participation
requires full respect for CSCE commitments. A meeting of the
CSCE committee of senior officials has been scheduled for April
29 in Helsinki to review the situation in Bosnia. We believe
the CSCE action puts those responsible for the violence in
Bosnia on notice that they face real consequences, such as
ostracism, by the international community if their campaign of
aggression and destabilization continues.
Overall on the update, militant Bosnian Serbs backed by
the JNA say their aim is to take control of Sarajevo. Yesterday
evening, Sarajevo was hit by tank fire. This morning there was
sporadic sniper fire, apparently intended to prevent people from
going to work.
We also understand that Serbian forces have set up
barricades within the city in an effort to partition it.
Serbian forces outside of Sarajevo continue to maintain their
blockade of the city. Food shortages there are becoming very
serious. However, the airport is open at the present time.
Low intensity fighting continues throughout much of
Bosnia. Much of the fighting is concentrated in towns along the
Drina River in Eastern Bosnia.
We are also concerned about reports that Croatian
paramilitary forces from Croatia continue to cross into Bosnia.
All such efforts to destabilize Bosnia are totally unacceptable.
Yesterday I spoke of our concern about the refugees who
have been forced from their homes in Bosnia by the fighting
there. We have more information for you today on this which
shows the extent of the tragedy and which heightens our concern.
We estimate that as many as 160,000 people have been made
homeless by the fighting in Bosnia during the past ten days.
Many of the refugees are women and children and most are fleeing
on foot.
At least 50,000 Croats have taken refuge in Croatia.
Serbian attacks along Bosnia's eastern border have displaced
thousands within Bosnia and prompted about 30,000 refugees to
cross into Serbia, many seeking to join Muslim communities in
the south.
U.S. officials say that one town on the border with
Serbia has become a ghost town. According to our Embassy, many
people have also fled the town of Visegrad which is near the
border with Serbia. Montenegro now hosts 15,000 refugees from
the fighting in the areas of Bosnia near its border with
Montenegro. Yesterday, 6,000 Bosnian refugees arrived in
Slovenia.
We, the United States, are working to provide emergency
humanitarian relief on an urgent basis. We are going to airlift
this aid over the coming days. We are planning to send two
United States Air Force airplanes -- a C-5A* and a C-141 -- to
Sarajevo with food and blankets. We are now discussing the
timing and the security situation with our Embassy in Belgrade
and Bosnian authorities. We are reviewing on an urgent basis
other emergency humanitarian relief measures that we as a
government can take.
Q Margaret, Croatian regulars are attacking Bosnia?
You've made some reference to Croatia.
MS. TUTWILER: We've said that they are -- in many of
our statements that they are a lesser problem in this particular
situation, but they have also, as you know, been guilty of some
violence, yes.
*A total of three C-141s will probably be used due to
limitations of the airport.
Q Those are the folks you just recognized last week.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Are you planning any action at CSCE against
Croatia? As you look back on it, was the breakup of Yugoslavia
such a great idea after all?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I don't think, Barry, that we had
a vote or a say so. I mean, that's for the people of the former
Yugoslavia to decide.
Q Well, eventually you came around to the European
view that these break-aways should be recognized. I don't know
if it changed the course of history, but you did go with the
flow, and I wondered if, on reflection, the Administration
thinks maybe things were better when there was one country
called Yugoslavia.
MS. TUTWILER: That is for the Yugoslavian people to
decide. The Administration has never changed its policy
concerning our policy, which was whatever the people decided
should be done peacefully.
Q Margaret, on part of your statement, you said
you're pleased at the reaction. Have you seen the quite defiant
statements issued this morning by the Serbian leadership, saying
that they simply don't care whether in fact they're expelled
from the CSCE?
MS. TUTWILER: Serbian leadership in Belgrade?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: I have not seen that. Their
representative was in Helsinki yesterday. It's my
understanding, understandably, that he left the hall when the
actual vote was taken, but I understand that he did come back
after the vote, and the vote was unanimous.
Q And are there any implications that go along with
the expulsion from CSCE? In other words, do they lose anything
other than prestige?
MS. TUTWILER: Legitimacy, prestige. Those are things,
as I answered you yesterday, that only they can determine. It's
my understanding that this has never been done before. And
again, so the record is correct, I am not saying this is indeed
what is going to happen. That is not what we said yesterday or
today.
Q But what leads us to believe that they would care,
particularly in light of today's statements?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, again, I can't judge what
motivates the leadership in Belgrade. Maybe they could answer
that better for you. Jim says they've responded to this.
Q I guess what I'm asking is, is this not a somewhat
empty threat? "We'll read you out of CSCE if you don't stop
killing people."
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I'll answer the same way I
answered Jim yesterday. Some nations care about legitimacy.
Some nations want to be viewed as the successor to former
states. That's the only leverage that -- I can tell you that
many people must be of the opinion that nations do care.
I've just said what we, the United States, are going to
do concerning sending in two of these aircraft on an emergency
basis on the humanitarian side. Many of you had asked me
yesterday -- "This is all just empty talk. You're not doing
anything." I told you today in -- what -- less than 24 hours,
here is what we're doing.
Q Margaret, the Center for Security Policy, which is
a conservative think tank here in Washington, put out a release
yesterday, describing the U.S. approach to this as
"limp-wristed" and suggesting that Secretary Baker resign --
MS. TUTWILER: Really!
Q -- his post. I'm not sure what you think about
the Center for Security Policy --
MS. TUTWILER: I've never heard of it.
Q -- but it is out there on the record. Does the
United States plan --
MS. TUTWILER: For the Secretary to resign?
Q -- any further and perhaps more stringent actions?
Are you, for example, calling for a meeting of the NAC-C to
consider military action? Would the United States be required
to provide security for the C-5 and the C-141 that are going
into Sarajevo if the airport is not secure at the time?
MS. TUTWILER: As I said, the reason I could not today
-- and we really -- some people here worked very hard on this
yesterday afternoon and last night -- I cannot give you a
specific time for touchdown for that very reason. We obviously
are not going to send our people into a situation that we don't
feel is safe or secure.
But we are confident enough as of this briefing to
announce that we indeed have identified these two airplanes that
we indeed are saying we're going to send them. But,
obviously, if they close the airport or the situation totally
deteriorates, we would have to delay.
I am not aware of this group that you've mentioned to
me. What did you call it -- a think tank? I'm not aware of it,
and, yes, you're correct, I obviously am not going to respond to
something that I haven't seen. And I would say --
Q Frank Gaffney.
Q And we'll give him your FAX number. Then you'll
get it too.
MS. TUTWILER: Great! That would be wonderful. Then I
can come to the briefing informed. [Laughter]
Q Margaret, a follow-up on the security of the
aircraft on the aid delivery. I just want to make sure I
understand this right. The U.S. for months declined to send
humanitarian aid into Georgia, even after Tbilisi was quiet --
certainly quieter than Sarajevo is in the last couple of days --
because the U.S. felt the security situation was inadequate to
guarantee the security of U.S. officials and U.S. personnel
involved in the aid delivery.
But in Sarajevo the U.S. thinks that even with the
gunfire you reported and so on in the city, that it wants to
announce aid flights there now?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't normally do comparisons, but I
believe it will refresh your memory, that at the time of
Georgia, we had information that was very reliable through our
sources that the airport was mined, and that we could not assure
our pilots or the crews that those mines had been removed. And
a judgment call, which I think was a very common sense one, was
as long as your -- I'll say the word -- intelligence tells you
that this airport has mines on it, you're certainly not going to
land an airplane.
We have no such information concerning the Sarajevo
airport. Former Secretary Vance is there right now. He landed
in an airplane. I've said the airport is open. Obviously,
Ralph, if intelligence came in or reports that the airport has
been mined, we would not land an airplane there.
Q Margaret, you mentioned legitimacy and the fact
that Serbia wants to be regarded as the heir to Yugoslavia and
--
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I said "some countries." I did
not say "this country."
Q All right. But we know that Serbia wants to be
regarded as the heir to Yugoslavia, and we know also that Serbia
at the moment is de facto the heir to Yugoslavia. They
occupy the Yugoslav Embassies around the world. They occupy
Yugoslavia's U.N. seat.
In CSCE itself, they don't sit there as Serbia. They
sit there as Yugoslavia --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q -- to the best of my knowledge.
MS. TUTWILER: You're right.
Q Is it under consideration to deprive Serbia of
these assets which are in fact Yugoslav assets?
MS. TUTWILER: I have not, Alan, heard anyone discuss
that. I don't know how this situation is going to evolve. As I
said yesterday, what the United States and even the Foreign
Minister of Bosnia said is the time for politics is not right
now. People are dying as we're standing at this briefing. He
used the phrase with the Secretary many times when he met with
the Secretary and said, "Sir, all politics should be put aside.
People we we speak are dying."
And so I can't answer whether the leadership in
Belgrade is going to halt this, is going to on a humanitarian
basis stop this, talk your differences out in a peaceful way.
We reported today, and I've seen in a number of your reports --
people on the record -- officials saying what they're trying to
do is claim this territory -- I saw a phrase: "take this
territory." There's a preferred way, if you're going to have
differences, and it is a peaceful discussion versus the type of
activity that we've been trying to describe, and that your
colleagues are reporting every day that's going on there.
Q Margaret --
Q Can I follow up on my question? I mean, with the
greatest of respect, you described to us moves that you've done
in the CSCE, which are political moves, to suspend Serbia or
Yugoslavia actually within two weeks. And my question is, why
don't you also -- is it under consideration to take similar
moves in other bodies like the United Nations where they are
sitting and talking --
MS. TUTWILER: That's correct.
Q -- about similar political moves --
MS. TUTWILER: I understand.
Q -- that you have described in CSCE.
MS. TUTWILER: And you asked me that question
yesterday, and I answered it by saying there is no
recommendation at this point for that. There are any number of
things -- Ralph mentioned one to me yesterday and someone else
did -- that are all floating out there. But I don't know.
Hopefully, it would be the case this afternoon this stops. Then
you wouldn't have to go that route, Alan.
And so I can't prejudge for you what's going to happen
on the ground there and where we go from here. I can -- and I
think it's been probably less than 48 hours since the Foreign
Minister of Bosnia was here, and you heard him and many of you
all did -- the United States Government, the CSCE, which I
believe is composed now of 51 nations, have moved with -- my old
phrase -- with lightning speed to try to alert the world
community and bring attention to this humanitarian situation
that is apparently ongoing there on the ground.
Q When the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, though, the United
States called for an immediate session of the Security Council
and brought this up as an urgent matter before the Security
Council. Why is there no such action here?
MS. TUTWILER: All future options aren't precluded.
Everything is open. But right now this is what we've done in
the last 30-something hours -- what the United States
unilaterally has done -- and what we have done as part of a
51-nation group that is meeting in Helsinki.
Q Does that mean you are considering asking for an
emergency session of the Security Council.
MS. TUTWILER: No. I've answered that. It's Alan's
question. There is no recommendation that I have any knowledge
of as of this briefing for future, further what-ifs and steps.
It doesn't say that they aren't going to be considered at some
point, but I don't know at what point, or if you get to a point
where they need to be. I can't -- it's too hypothetical and
speculative for me.
Q A follow-up on the technicality of the thing about
the CSCE meeting. You said the vote was unanimous.
MS. TUTWILER: For those members that were present.
Q I had not followed that vote yesterday, so I may
be in the dark on this, but for those members who were there,
how many voted for it? Do you know? I mean, were there others
who were not present, or was it 50 to one essentially? Fifty
with one abstention.
MS. TUTWILER: Under CSCE rules, it's my understanding,
as you know -- I know they vote on consensus, but they have an
exception for, Barry, when there is a resolution about a country
who's a member. That country, obviously, does not have to be
part of the consensus. I don't
have how many people were actually there. I don't know that
they weren't all there. I will be happy to find out for you.
Q I guess it would be interesting to know, there's
some question about how consensus is going to work in the CSCE.
MS. TUTWILER: That's the current rule before this even
came up.
Q I know. But there's some question as to whether
this will have any -- whether they'll be able to actually
operate under consensus and how it's going to work. So I'd be
interested to know whether others were not present, but I can
look -- I can follow that up.
MS. TUTWILER: And what the rules are if you aren't
present. I don't know.
Q Margaret, a quick point.
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. Wait a minute. But, Ralph,
I believe, at least when we do, we travel -- we have a permanent
representative, and we travel with a big delegation. So I'm
just guessing -- I would assume if their appointed person who's
Mr. and Mrs. CSCE wasn't there, someone else can sit in the
chair, just like they can for the United States. So I'll find
out if there were empty literal delegations who, for whatever
reasons, couldn't be at that meeting. I'll just find out for
you.
Q You were asked about this yesterday, but I'm going
to try again. The statements that are put together here keep
referring to Serbia. It sort of makes believe there's no
Yugoslavia anymore. I realize Yugoslavia's fallen apart, but
there is a Serbia. Montenegro remained in and maybe enclaves of
the others who will remain in.
Is there some point besides politics for the fact that
you use Serbia to describe a country? Is the United States
going to withdraw recognition of Yugoslavia? Will it simply
call Yugoslavia "Serbia" from now on? I don't understand what's
going on. I understand, you know, you have a rhetorical reason,
but is there anything else behind all this?
MS. TUTWILER: It's not only rhetorical, Barry. It's
that Yugoslavia, as we all knew it, just does not technically,
literally exist anymore. So I could interchange the terms, if
you want, except that Serbia, as you know, and Montenegro, we
have been told the route they want to go is to form a -- I
believe it's called --
Q It's called Yugoslavia.
MS. TUTWILER: No. But it's called a federal --
confederation, is, I think the term they're thinking about
using. I don't know what they're going to choose to call
themselves.
Q (Inaudible) -- what the U.S. is aiming to say.
Maybe you --
MS. TUTWILER: But Yugoslavia -- if you ask me point
blank, "Does Yugoslavia exist," my answer to you point blank
would be no, it doesn't.
Q All right. Since you raise that, then you earlier
talked about reports from the U.S. Embassy.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Those reports came from the U.S. Embassy where?
MS. TUTWILER: The U.S. Embassy --
Q In what country?
MS. TUTWILER: It's the same question, Ralph.
Q I know. So I was trying to get the answer. Was
it the U.S. Embassy in Serbia?
MS. TUTWILER: The U.S. Embassy -- Yugoslavia as we all
know it does not exist. It is common knowledge that our
Ambassador and all Ambassadors are in a very fluid situation
there. They were accredited to the former country of
Yugoslavia.
We have said, for instance, that we will, hopefully, be
opening Embassies in the new country of Slovenia, the new
country of Croatia, by this summer. So then you'll have
Embassies in those two countries.
Right now we think it's wiser to not get hung up on, to
be honest with you, semantics; that it's very important to have
Ambassador Zimmerman there on the ground. He is extremely
helpful and extremely knowledgeable on all of these issues, as
is his staff. They not only, as you know -- and have throughout
this enormous change that's gone on in the former Yugoslavia --
they have been in contact with all of these countries -- new
countries, and, to be quite honest with you, he right now is
wearing many hats, if you want to describe it that way.
For instance, when we were talking to the Bosnians, it
is Ambassador Zimmerman and his staff. It's just a natural.
So, it will all sort itself out, but it's really not what we're
most focused on or concerned about right now. It works.
Q So you will have access to the Serbian -- in view
of the statements this government has issued in the last 24 or
48 hours, does Ambassador Zimmerman still have access to the
highest levels of the former Yugoslavian Government?
MS. TUTWILER: As far as I know. He met with the
President -- what was it -- two days ago? I hadn't asked this
morning, but --
Q (inaudible) U.S. statements --
MS. TUTWILER: He delivered one of our demarches, which
was what, yesterday. So I'm not aware there's any problem.
[Afghanistan: Update]
Q Let me ask you about Afghanistan.
MS. TUTWILER: Okay.
Q Now that Najibullah has apparently surrendered
power, does the U.S. remain concerned that the situation could
deteriorate into anarchy and bloodshed?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, we do. I would refer you to our
statement yesterday, which clearly pointed out that we call on
all parties to support the United Nations efforts there. We
called for all parties to do whatever they can to ensure that
this is a peaceful transition.
I can tell you that our latest information is that the
situation on the ground is fluid, but regime control is rapidly
collapsing. It appears that major population centers outside of
Kabul are, for the most part, calm.
In Kabul itself, resistance forces have moved closer to
the city. We understand that armed Mujahidin are in Kabul, but
we have no reports of fighting.
We understand that President Najib has resigned and
remains in Kabul. We know that there are countries where he
could seek asylum, but we are not going into any details at this
time.
A council of senior regime military and militia leaders
has been formed in Kabul. Its exact membership and the extent
of its authority we just don't know at this moment.
There are ongoing negotiations under U.N. auspices
between resistance and regime forces and militias on
establishing a new transition authority in Kabul.
We understand that the U.N. Secretary General's Special
Representative is in Kabul. He is working with all factions to
try to arrange a peaceful resolution and agreed upon mechanisms
for a transition process.
His efforts continue to have our full and total
support. We urge again today all factions to cooperate with the
U.N. efforts.
Q Why did this government embrace Najibullah for as
long as it did?
MS. TUTWILER: Which government?
Q The United States.
MS. TUTWILER: Embrace him?
Q Yes, so to speak?
MS. TUTWILER: That's a new one for me. We have, as
you know, worked since January very closely with the Russian
Government. We ended, as you know -- as they did, at the same
time, I believe, effective January l -- all of our military
assistance.
We, as you know, welcomed the former Soviet Union's
withdrawal of all of their arms and weapons and people. We have
been working very hard and very closely with the United Nations
to have a peaceful transition there, and our goal has been for
peace for the Afghan people.
Q So you are not glad -- you are not pleased that he
left, resigned?
MS. TUTWILER: What we are most interested in today --
Q I know what you are concerned about, but I mean --
MS. TUTWILER: That is what we are very concerned
about.
Q But what about the action he took? What does the
U.S. think? I mean, that are things lately that the U.S. has
been delighted about and other things that you have no position
on.
MS. TUTWILER: Right. As you know, we have stated
publicly, many times, that in order, we felt, for this to be
peacefully resolved and for the people to be able to have
self-determination for themselves, Najibullah would, indeed,
have to step aside.
He has decided to do that. We have told you that.
What we are most concerned about is, in this creation of -- I'm
sure a lot of, on the ground there -- confusion and disruption,
that this does not spin into what Bill was referring to as blood
and violence, and for everyone to please -- all people, all
factions -- to please handle this in a way the U.N. is
suggesting, and they are on the ground for a peaceful
transition.
Q You don't think that you have waited too long to
-- I mean, you don't think that you supported him for too long?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know where you keep saying we
supported him.
Q All right, not supported --
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you.
Q But you waited a long time to be sure, as you say,
that there was no violence. There are those who think the cord
could have been cut sooner.
MS. TUTWILER: Again, we have made no secret of our
view that in order for this transition to go to its logical
conclusion -- have free and fair elections, which is what we
want; we want self-determination for the people of Afghanistan;
we want a broad-based government at peace with its neighbors; we
want the safe return of over 5 million refugees -- that
Najibullah would have to step aside.
Q Margaret, do you --
MS. TUTWILER: He made this decision either early this
morning or whenever. That's his decision.
Q You know there was a wire service report just
before we came in here that he had now been arrested. Do you
know whether he is under arrest or not?
MS. TUTWILER: It's not my understanding before I came
here, but we were not going to discuss -- I have not heard that.
We were not going to discuss, for obvious security reasons,
what information we do have concerning him. But I had not heard
that.
Q Margaret, can I ask you about something else
unless --
Q No. I have a couple more on this. Isn't it --
there are other reports not attributable to the United States or
anything, there are reports from Afghanistan that Najibullah is
under the protection, shall we say, of the independent U.N.
personnel there. Isn't that somewhat of a difficult situation
for the U.N. to be in, if they are trying to broker an agreement
among, what you described as an agreement among the factions,
for them to be providing asylum, or I don't know how you would
describe the protection, for this guy?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm just really not going to be able to
comment on the situation concerning Najibullah.
Q Is it accurate to say that the United States now
considers the situation to be that the U.N. is no longer
negotiating between the Kabul government and the Mujahidin
rebels, but is now negotiating among the factions of the rebel
forces? Is that an accurate description?
MS. TUTWILER: The U.N. -- I've said that the regime is
rapidly collapsing. I'm assuming -- and I don't want to speak
for the United Nations -- that they are one of the factions that
is involved in moving this country toward peaceful transition.
I'm not aware that they have, all of a sudden, not been
discussing with members of the regime that are there. I mean, I
believe that they are, and have been throughout, and will
continue to discuss with all the parties, factions, whatever you
want to call them, involved in Afghanistan in trying to move
this towards a peaceful resolution.
Q You've talked about -- many times you have
mentioned today this business about moving toward peaceful
resolution when you described the rebel forces being, armed
rebel forces being in the capital.
Is the United States asking the rebel forces to lay
down their weapons and negotiate a solution here?
MS. TUTWILER: We're asking everyone to use the utmost
restraint, to let the U.N. work this out in a peaceful way. And
whatever it takes for this to be handled peacefully is up for
individuals and leaders to decide.
Q You are asking them to stop fighting?
MS. TUTWILER: Of course, we are. Fighting is
violence. Fighting is death and that usually happens with guns.
And we are asking everyone -- we said it yesterday, we are
saying it today. I don't know who all is armed there. But
people who are armed, please, in this situation where the
leadership has just resigned, stepped down -- whether it is in
Afghanistan or anywhere else -- you have an instant vacuum. You
could have chaos. You can have confusion. Please do not resort
to violence. That, in my mind, means guns. Killing people.
Q Margaret, how do you expect the Mujahidin to take
what you are saying seriously when this is the very moment --
MS. TUTWILER: Why not?
Q -- that they have been armed and --
MS. TUTWILER: So does that give you an excuse to go
kill people?
Q --primed for by the United States? Armed and
primed for --
MS. TUTWILER: Is that a reason to open fire and kill
people? I mean, really. We have a U.N. system that --
Q But they are your freedom fighters. Not yours,
more the Reagan Administration's, but this Reagan/Bush
Administration, freedom fighters that you've been -- you are six
months late -- I mean six years late -- not you, but I sort of
blend the two administrations together.
MS. TUTWILER: That's OK.
Q I hope you won't object.
MS. TUTWILER: I served in both.
Q Right, and so did Mr. Baker, and so did Mr. Bush,
and --
MS. TUTWILER: Right, right.
Q -- and so did a lot of the people who make policy,
and you know, six years ago, they were predicting the imminent
collapse of Najibullah.
MS. TUTWILER: I remember that.
Q Now he's out --
MS. TUTWILER: You have never heard me say that in the
three years and four months I have been here.
Q No, that's true, I have not. There has been a
marked change on Contra policy and Afghan policy, but these are
your freedom fighters, and Sid's question is well taken. Why
aren't you delighted that you have gotten rid of this
Communist/Marxist dictator, whatever you called him all those
years, and now you've got freedom fighters in there, some of
them kind of fundamentalistly inclined, but you call them
freedom fighters. I would think you would be kicking up your
heels.
MS. TUTWILER: You have a situation where, I've just
explained, innocent people could -- you say why aren't we, you
know, jumping up and down. Barry, why not be responsible, and
why not say we strongly support whatever it takes to have this
transition go peacefully. And that should apply, in my personal
opinion, to everyone. And I think that all people would
subscribe to that.
Why go on a rampage and start, what, killing people
because you are happy? I mean, come on.
[Libya: Reported Threats Against Americans]
Q Margaret, have you seen the rather angry remarks
from the Libyans today threatening some -- vaguely threatening
some kind of retaliation perhaps against Americans?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen that, and I --
Q Well, have you seen any of the statements and is
the United States taking any special precautions about its
installations or its citizens overseas?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware, number one, Jim, of a
specific threat the Libyans or I don't know -- who is it? --
Qadhafi -- don't know. I'm not aware of a specific threat
against Americans.
Obviously, if we knew of such a threat and we took it
as a credible, substantial threat, you know that we instantly,
not only notify our posts, but at the same moment, we notify the
public at large.
I have heard of absolutely nothing along those lines.
We'll take what you say, and I'm sure that people who
listen to the briefing upstairs will see what it is -- try to
find out what it is you've got that maybe we don't. But, of
course, we would take it seriously, but I'm just not aware of
one.
[South Korea: Status of US Troops]
Q Margaret, on another subject, the President of
South Korea in an interview, said he would like -- it's an AP
interview you may not have seen it -- it's not on the front page
of the Post yet, but he does --
MS. TUTWILER: I read as much as I possibly can.
Q Our foreign editor went there and saw him, and he
said that --
MS. TUTWILER: Was he on background?
Q I think he was on the record, but we didn't get
the North Korean President yet. He said that he would like
American troops - this doesn't surprise me -- to stay in South
Korea, to stay in Korea even after unification.
Do you happen to know if the U.S. has a position?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, but I think that Secretary
Cheney very recently spoke to this, and can I just refer you to
his record?
Q Sure, delighted to have you do it.
MS. TUTWILER: I think he was on the record.
Q Thank you.
Q Margaret, a technical question: Are you briefing
tomorrow?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I won't be.
Q Nobody?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Richard will be.
Q Back to Libya: Yesterday, the background briefer
was asked about how a country whose air space was getting ready
to be invaded by Libyan planes --
MS. TUTWILER: How countries what?
Q Countries where a Libyan plane was approaching
their air space --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q What the ground rules would be, whether they would
scramble jet fighters, were they free to shoot down, whatever.
Has that been worked out, how countries should respond?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I honestly don't know. I
have seen various reports and read internally of how various
countries reacted yesterday to some Libyan flights that were
attempting to land in their countries. In each one of those
instances, I believe, that country, as a sovereign nation,
decided to handle it differently. I don't know. I'll be happy
to, you know, see if the Sanctions Committee or somebody is
working on this, but I haven't heard.
Q Well, they said they were going to establish
ground rules yesterday in a four o'clock meeting.
MS. TUTWILER: The gentleman that you are referring to
is obviously much more familiar with the subject matter and in a
much deeper level of detail than I am, and I'll be happy to see
if he has something further for you.
Q Margaret, on Libya, Sudan has said they won't
observe the embargo.
MS. TUTWILER: That's correct.
Q Do you have a reaction?
MS. TUTWILER: Not really. So has Iraq.
Q Then, on another subject: I'd like to go back to
Yugoslavia. You said that Croatian paramilitary forces are
moving into Bosnia. Do you believe the Croatian government has
control over those forces?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know whether they do or don't.
I'll be happy to ask. But, certainly, if they have any
influence over them -- and we have spoken in our statement two
days ago about Croatia, but said to a lesser extent --
Q At the time, you were talking about Croatian
nationalist leaders in Bosnia, not coming from Croatia, as far
as I understood it.
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to ask somebody who is
more familiar with the details than I am.
Q Margaret, about Israel, where we haven't been for
a couple of days.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Over the last two or three days, there have been
at least two reports by Israeli human rights groups alleging
major incidents of torture and human rights abuses by Israeli
military or military and civilian guards in the occupied
territories. Have you seen the reports, and do you have any
comment on them?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen them, but we had one of
these reports, I believe, several weeks ago, and I referred you
to our annual human rights report where this subject is
addressed.
Q Still on a related subject: Has the Secretary
considered yet how he is going to handle the question of whether
he will continue to meet with Palestinians who met yesterday in
Cairo with Yasser Arafat?
MS. TUTWILER: He's going to have the same reaction
that Prime Minister Shamir's spokesman had for you yesterday,
which basically said it was irrelevant.
Q So the U.S. is going to continue to say it has no
dialogue with the PLO --
MS. TUTWILER: Of course, we don't.
Q --because it considers the meetings to be
irrelevant to whether there is a dialogue or not.
MS. TUTWILER: We have the same reaction the Prime
Minister did. We agree completely with --
Q But that is different.
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to answer it, if you will wait
a second. Particularly, they pointed out in their statement,
the importance of the peace process. We couldn't agree more.
The PLO, as you well know, is not part of these
negotiations and it is not relevant to us whom the Palestinians
do or don't meet with. The PLO, furthermore, as you know, is
not an intermediary. They don't have a role. They are not --
we don't have a dialogue with them.
Q The question still is different though. I'm glad
to hear your comment on the peace process, but the question is
not about the peace process. The question is about the PLO's
relationship with the United States.
MS. TUTWILER: We don't have a relationship with them.
Q Except through these people with whom Baker meets
regularly --
MS. TUTWILER: That's your interpretation. We do not
have a dialogue, a relationship with the PLO.
Q Because they are not relevant to the United
States, you said a moment ago.
MS. TUTWILER: We said that our reaction to -- I
believe your question is, these people who met yesterday -- our
reaction is the same --
Q That's not my question.
MS. TUTWILER: That's how I think you started.
Q No, I was not asking for your reaction. I asked
whether Baker had considered how he would deal with the
situation of continuing to meet with people who met with Arafat
yesterday. I didn't ask anything about the peace process. The
question is about the US/PLO relationship.
I think you answered the question when you said the PLO
is not relevant to us.
MS. TUTWILER: Let's have the record --
Q The record is there.
MS. TUTWILER: -- the record correctly reflect -- I
believe what you asked me was how was the Secretary going to act
now that these people have said they had this meeting yesterday.
And I believe I responded -- the record -- if it is incorrect,
I want to correct it. I said our reaction is the same as the
spokesman for the Prime Minister of Israel.
This meeting -- which is what we are all talking about
-- was irrelevant in our view, as it is with the Prime Minister
of Israel.
I further said, when you asked me, I believe, as you
well know, we do not have a dialogue with the PLO. And I would
further comment to you -- you, yourself, I believe, at one time
asked me, "Isn't it true, Margaret, in Madrid, that there were
just "hundreds of PLO there?" People meet with people, etc. We
at the time said we are not schedulers. We do not control who
people do and do not talk to. That's not any different in this
instance, in my mind, than what has been going on.
Q Would you describe the individuals with whom Baker
meets regularly as not being representatives of the PLO?
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q Margaret, thank you.
Q Not yet.
Q Yes, I have one question. The Turkish Minister of
Interior is paying an official visit to Syria in face of the
concern of Syrian support of the PKK terrorists.
Do you have any comment on this visit and Syrian
support for the PKK terrorists?
MS. TUTWILER: We have answered the second part of your
question a number of times, and your first one, I'm unaware of a
visit of the Interior Minister of Turkey. I just don't know
anything about it.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all and goodbye.
(The briefing concluded at
12:45 p.m.)