US Department of State Daily Briefing #60: Wednesday, 4/22/92

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Washington, DC Date: Apr, 22 19924/22/92 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia Country: Israel, USSR (former), Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Peru, Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Libya, Algeria, India, Saudi Arabia Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid, Refugees, Security Assistance and Sales, Regional/Civil Unrest, United Nations, Democratization, State Department 12:00 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

[Afghanistan: US Humanitarian Aid/Refugee Assistance]

MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything, but I would like to start -- apparently a number of you all called several of us yesterday, wanting to know what our aid was to Afghanistan, and Ambassador Djerejian asked the Bureau this morning to pull this together for you since we had a number of inquiries. So I'll give you what we've pulled together. Since 1985, we have provided nearly $400 million through our bilateral humanitarian aid cross-border program for Afghanistan. The programs, administered across the border from Pakistan, are in agriculture, health, education and general relief services. In addition, since 1988, we have provided about $50 million through the United Nations Humanitarian Organization for Afghanistan. For FY-92, we have requested $60 million for cross-border assistance and $6 million in P.L. 480, Title II, to be provided through the World Food Program into Afghanistan. We have also requested over $20 million for assistance to three million Afghan refugees living in Pakistan and for the reconstruction of the Afghan countryside in anticipation of their return home. On April 8, we announced we will provide 10,000 metric tons of wheat for needy people in Kabul in response to an appeal from the U.N. Secretary General's Special Representative for Afghanistan. We are in close touch with the U.N. and its humanitarian aid agencies, World Food Program and other bilateral donors so that we will be able to respond to the most pressing humanitarian needs inside Afghanistan. So I hope that answers some of your questions that we were being asked yesterday. Q Margaret, while we're on Afghanistan, does the State Department have any preference for the type of representation of the various groups that should be in a new government in Afghanistan? MS. TUTWILER: Not particularly. I think that's for the Afghani people to decide, Barry. We should not be here deciding what types of representation or new government that these people decide. Obviously, those that aspire to human rights, to democracy, to respect for other individuals -- those types of general principles. Q I meant nationalities and ethnic groups and viewpoints. MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that we -- Q Do you support a broad-based government with the diverse nationalities represented, or do you have any preference or -- MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard anyone express their preference, but, obviously, [those] espousing to those values that I've just said. And, as you know, we are strongly supporting the U.N. Representative's efforts and the United Nations' efforts, and that we are for whatever can be worked out that is worked out peacefully. And we are strongly supporting Mr. Sevan's efforts there in Kabul. Q Isn't this a somewhat misleading summary of aid since we sent them billions of dollars worth of military assistance during this period, and it's not mentioned in any way, shape or form? MS. TUTWILER: I would never mislead, and you know that we never discuss anything here that is classified. Q But, Margaret, in December, I think it was, when the United -- maybe it was before that -- the United States and the Soviet Union -- the former Soviet Union announced that they were ceasing -- MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Q -- military aid to their respective clients. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q I mean, that was an acknowledgment -- public acknowledgment that aid had been given, and aid was being halted. So why can't you now then talk about numbers? MS. TUTWILER: Retroactively go back and say what it all was? Q Right. MS. TUTWILER: I didn't realize, nor do I think Ambassador Djerejian was aware, that that was your specific question yesterday. He thought the question was more, "You are not there supporting these people on the humanitarian level." "You've cut them loose," I believe one person mentioned to him. And so that's why we've pulled this together. I believe the Secretary himself has been asked that very question in testimony a number of times. I'm not aware that he has ever gone into that level of detail. I will be happy to see if -- in today's world -- people should wish to do so. I don't know what the answer will be. Q Is there a reason to hide what the aid levels had been during that period, although it was widely reported what they were. Is there a reason for the government -- MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that anybody's hiding anything. It was classified for a long time. Q If you're not acknowledging what the dollar figure is, then what is that called? MS. TUTWILER: Classified. Q Classified. [Laughter] Q Margaret, do you know the level of detail? I mean, is it -- MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I didn't ask. [Laughter] Q If it turns out that the aid you just outlined turns out to be a mere tiny fraction of the total U.S. funds spent on Afghanistan during the 1980s, you wouldn't consider that a "level of detail," would you, or, I mean -- MS. TUTWILER: I don't know what those levels were I can honestly. I don't know what the policy is of this Government right now of going back and declassifying that information. I simply don't know. I came down here believing that there were questions that had been asked yesterday by some of you sitting in this very room of Ambassador Djerejian, to be specific, and members on his staff of -- like I've characterized it -- "You're just cutting these people off. You're not doing a thing. You've got all these refugees." And Ed [Djerejian] and his staff pulled together what I've given you this morning on the humanitarian side. So that was the extent of my involvement in this this morning. Q Just as a matter of record, though, since Secretary Baker and the former Soviet Foreign Minister made their announcement on ending lethal aid -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- have there been any further shipments of U.S. lethal aid that have reached the Afghan rebels since the time of that announcement? MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of. As far as I know, and as far as our Government knows, that agreement has been honored. The agreement, as you know, went into effect on January 1, 1992. It was announced, as you point out, on September 13, 1991, by the two Foreign Ministers, and, as far s we know, that agreement has been honored. Q Margaret, one of the groups that, from somewhere or other, got hundreds of millions of dollars worth of U.S. aid -- the group headed by Hekmatyar -- is now threatening to use those weapons to march on the Afghan capital within, I think, two days. He's given an ultimatum unless certain conditions are met. Do you have any words or response to his ultimatum? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. To please do what the United Nations Representative is there on the ground right now working with all the different factions, all the different groups, to try to hopefully avoid bloodshed, and to have this transition transpire smoothly and peacefully. And we are strongly supporting that effort. And, as you know, there are any number of factions. There are any number of views that are being floated around. Some may be correct; some may be incorrect.74444 Q Margaret, are you -- is the United States worried that some of this U.S. weaponry which the guerrillas got somehow or other could be turned on each other or unleashed in a new phase of ethnic conflict? Does this particularly concern the United States, since it is U.S. weaponry? MS. TUTWILER: It is a concern of ours, Alan, since we have -- as we have been expressing since late last week, that everyone there not resort to force, not resort to the use of weaponry, and that people please work with the United Nations Representative who is there on the ground. It is my understanding he has been working this issue for over four years. He is very well known to everyone there. That is our policy. That is what we're supporting and calling for it as strongly and as loudly as we possibly can. Q Margaret, in your rundown on humanitarian aid, you mentioned three million refugees in Pakistan are getting, I believe, you said $20 million. MS. TUTWILER: I said we've requested over $20 million. Q Requested. Fine. There are another two million in Iran, I believe. Are they not receiving U.S. assistance? MS. TUTWILER: I'll ask. I don't know. Q Margaret, about refugees -- Q Could I follow Alan's question? Specifically on military aid, does the United States have any plan to regain control of the surface-to-air missiles which were supplied to the rebel groups? MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer you too specifically, Jim. I can tell you that, as you know, we don't comment on specific weapons which may have been supplied to the Afghan resistance. I have stated previously that we are honoring the agreement that we made in September that went into effect in January, and both the Russian Foreign Ministry and the United States Government undertook to work toward withdrawal of major weapons systems from Afghanistan. Q Margaret, would the -- Q (Inaudible) MS. TUTWILER: We both also undertook to work toward withdrawal of major weapons systems. Q I take that to mean that they decided at that point that's what they should do. How have things gone since that undertaking was undertook? MS. TUTWILER: I knew that I would be asked that, and I tried very diligently on your behalf this morning to be able to flesh that out for you, and I'm unable to. It's a very classified, sensitive matter. I can't say any more. Q Will we know when it has been accomplished? MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer that, because there are -- I can't get into it. I tried. Q Margaret, you publicly announced they were withdrawing weapons. MS. TUTWILER: No. I publicly said we both also "undertook to work toward." Q To work toward. MS. TUTWILER: To work toward. Q Am I missing something? MS. TUTWILER: No. I guess -- Q I think that means that they think the weapons ought to be taken out of the hands of the people they gave them to, and the question is, are they being turned against each other? Are they being taken out of these folks' hands? Could you see if that is possible to be answered? MS. TUTWILER: I tried. Q And about the refugees. Remember, that's one of your cardinal aims is the return of the refugees. MS. TUTWILER: Uh-huh. Q Is the U.S. planning to do anything to assist in bringing them back or taking them back to Afghanistan? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll ask. That one I haven't asked. The other one I did explore for you this morning, and I basically got nowhere. Q Also on the refugees, you've given the figures of three million in Pakistan, two million in Iran, which has -- MS. TUTWILER: No. I didn't give that figure. George did. Q Well, whatever. Anyway, the refugee report which was published, I think, last week by your Department says that the number of Afghan refugees totals seven million. MS. TUTWILER: Well, I apologize. I'm not familiar with that particular report. I will get myself very familiar with that report, and with George's question, this afternoon and try to square it for you this afternoon. Q Margaret, would the Administration seek to establish diplomatic relations with whatever regime comes to power in Afghanistan? MS. TUTWILER: It's too speculative for me. Q Even if it was a fundamentalist regime with strong ties to Iran? MS. TUTWILER: Just too speculative for me.

[Former Yugoslavia: Status]

Q Margaret, I'm confused about the country of Yugoslavia. Is there a Yugoslavia or isn't there? MS. TUTWILER: No, sir, not that we used to know it. Q Well, that's not the same thing. Is there legally a Yugoslav country or federation, because it -- MS. TUTWILER: I don't believe even the Yugoslavians would tell you they had a Yugoslavian federation. Q Oh, yes, yes. They do. MS. TUTWILER: No. We went into this at quite some length last week. Q Yes, they do. There is a President and an Acting Foreign Minister. MS. TUTWILER: No, sir. I believe you'll find, if you delve a little deeper into it, is that the Serbian government and the Montenegron government are discussing right now whether to form a federation. To my knowledge, that decision has not been made. Q Is Yugoslavia -- MS. TUTWILER: There are -- as you know, the United States has recognized three new countries there, and most of the rest of the world has also. And you recognize -- I'm sure you're familiar with -- we have a unique situation concerning Macedonia, and we have said that we are working towards that very rapidly, as is the EC. Q Well, as of now -- as of now -- is there a Yugoslavia in the United Nations? MS. TUTWILER: I can't speak for the United Nations. We have said, sir -- Q Or support -- MS. TUTWILER: -- If you ask me point blank, head on -- "Is there a Yugoslavia?" -- last week I answered no. Certainly not as we know it. Q Let's pick up from last week -- MS. TUTWILER: And I also said -- excuse me, Barry -- that this is, obviously, a situation that is in a great deal of flux. You are aware of a great deal of disorder and tragedy in some areas of the former Yugoslavia that is going on. We said, to be quite honest with you, that it was really irrelevant to us whether Ambassador Zimmerman is accredited to Yugoslavia; that he is working there on the ground with lots of different people, as he has been. And that those types of questions you're asking me, in time, will all be worked out. But that's not what we're focused on right now. Q I understand that. But as of now, the United States has said there is -- Yugoslavia no longer exists. It's no longer on the map. MS. TUTWILER: As we know it. Q Is this right, or am I wrong? MS. TUTWILER: There are three new countries -- if you got a map out right now -- in Yugoslavia that we have recognized. So, obviously, Yugoslavia as you and I grew up knowing does not exist. So it's not there. We have recognized three parts of it as new countries. Q Well, but it -- Q Can we move on. Q The Soviet Union as it existed in 19 -- MS. TUTWILER: That's changed, too. That's right. Q That changed too, but we were talking about the Soviet Union even when the countries like the Baltic states were being recognized, and so on and so forth. Why is Yugoslavia now found to be non-existent when there are officers in charge of the Yugoslav federation. Yugoslavia is a member of the United Nations. There is a legality here, and it's a question of whether or not the State Department can say a country does not exist because we recognize some part of it as a separate identity. I mean, this is what I'm trying to get at. MS. TUTWILER: Well, I understand what you're trying get at, and I can only deal with the facts and reality. The reality is that the territory -- and I apologize, I don't know geographically what that was, exactly in square miles -- right now, today, the United States of America, our Government, has recognized portions of that territory are three new countries. So it's just kind of logical, in my mind, that then you couldn't say that Yugoslavia, as we knew it, still exists. Q Margaret -- MS. TUTWILER: It doesn't. Q (Inaudible) recognize Yugoslavia -- is Zimmerman -- MS. TUTWILER: Have we what? Q Is Zimmerman the Ambassador to Yugoslavia? What is he the Ambassador -- MS. TUTWILER: We did this all last week. Q I know we did, but by inches, you're de-legitimatizing a country, and at some point -- MS. TUTWILER: A country that doesn't exist. Q Part of it is shattered; part of it says it still exists. The question is at some point there has to be a declaration or you have to pass -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- transition. You can't keep saying you're focusing on the barbarities in Bosnia. We're asking you another question. We're asking you, does the United States still have diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia? MS. TUTWILER: And I answered this last week. I said that, to be honest with you, it is irrelevant if Ambassador Zimmerman is accredited under a situation that existed four months ago, which was Yugoslavia, today. That all that would work itself out. I, for instance, I believe, said last week, Barry, I'm not aware that the Serbian government and the Montenegron government have decided what they want to call themselves. Do they want to be called Yugoslavia? Do they want to form a federation? Those people have not yet determined that. Do we still have an Embassy there? Yes, we do. I guess under legalese, do we call it the Embassy to Yugoslavia? I'm sure we do. Do we have today -- Q Let me use a parallel -- MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. I also said, when we announced weeks ago -- you all asked; it may have been you -- When are you setting up your Embassies in these new countries? I said by early summer. So, our Embassy personnel in Belgrade has been and will continue during this transition to go to these other countries and do the work they've been doing. Q (Inaudible) -- Soviets. Wait a minute. Use the Soviets as a parallel. You supported Russia taking over the Soviet seat in the United Nations. Do you have a plan? Is there somebody you support that should have Yugoslavia's seat right now? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that we have taken a position on that. I'll check and see. Q Do you have an assessment of Ralph Johnson's visit and talks with President Milosevic? MS. TUTWILER: Not really. He has visited with him twice is my understanding, and we have gotten quick readouts from him, but we do not have a lot right now. We're waiting for him to return. He's en route back right now. Q But so far, would you agree that the signs have not been encouraging, in that the fighting in Bosnia has not slackened in any way and in fact seems to be intensifying? MS. TUTWILER: That would be a fairly accurate characterization. Yes. Q Margaret, on Peru -- Q Margaret, can we finish this up? Do you have an update on the fighting around Sarajevo? MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a lot of details for you. Not really. I mean, I could go through cities and stuff, and I'll post it for you afterwards. But there was not, other than Alan's general characterization, it has not ceased. We're very concerned by it. We have indicated on numerous occasions our serious concerns about the behavior of Serbia -- Serb irregulars in Bosnia and the JNA. Nothing has occurred in recent days to alleviate our concerns. At the same time, no party is blameless for the current situation. This includes Croatia and Croatian irregular forces in Bosnia. Moreover, Muslim -- the third nationality in Bosnia, as defined by Yugoslav law -- irregular forces also are now involved in actions contrary to peaceful resolution of the crisis. The United States position is and has been that the shooting and violence must stop, and serious negotiations must be resumed immediately. All parties, without exception, have the responsibility and obligation to bring this about. Q But we still consider the Serbs to be the aggressors. Is that correct? Or has that changed? MS. TUTWILER: The most egregious aggressors, I would think, yes, would be a fair characterization. We have said all along, in every one of our statements, that the Serbs, the Serbian irregulars, the JNA -- we have called on very strenuously to please halt. We have -- in the same statements on different days -- have said the Croatian Government we have discussed this with, Croatian irregulars. I am now, today, also calling on those in Bosnia. Under their law, it's my understanding, the way they divide their country, one group is called Muslim. We are calling on Muslim irregulars also. So we are saying that there are a lot of people here who are taking the law into their own hands. And, as Alan points out, a lot of violence is continuing -- a lot of tragedy. We're all witnessing and reading about it, and we're calling on everyone to please do whatever they can or to use whatever influence they can to halt this. Q And do you have a scenario for April 29, which the United States has set as more or less of a deadline in terms of the CSCE and recognition for Serbia and/or Bosnia-Hercegovina? MS. TUTWILER: Not recognition. Q What happens then? MS. TUTWILER: Not recognition. April 29 was the emergency meeting of the level for -- Q I'm sorry. I misspoke. MS. TUTWILER: That's O.K. We all do it. Q Their accession into the CSCE. MS. TUTWILER: Correct. No, no, no. It's not accession into CSCE. You'll remember it was about Serbia -- whether they could continue in CSCE; that we would be willing to discuss that at the April 29 meeting, and the consideration of Bosnia joining the CSCE on an emergency basis. Q That's what I'm saying. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q What happens now on April 29? Do you have a scenario for that, or is there going to be a meeting? MS. TUTWILER: Is there going to be a meeting? Q Yes. MS. TUTWILER: Yes, there will be a meeting. Yes. Q And it will still be at the senior official level? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q Baker is not going? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Is Yugoslavia a member of the CSCE? MS. TUTWILER: Last time I checked, yes, sir, it was. Q As of now? MS. TUTWILER: And they have also admitted Slovenia and Croatia and we are considering, as you know, an emergency acceptance of Bosnia as a member. Q Margaret, in view of the reference to the Muslims in Bosnia -- MS. TUTWILER: Muslim irregular forces. Q -- has the United States discussed these republics or these new nations with Saudi Arabia, for example? Has the U.S. had discussions with Saudi Arabia on the subject of what to do about the former Yugoslavia? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll check with some of the experts and see if they have. I don't know. Q Margaret, do you have anything about Eagleburger's meeting with the Slovene representative today? MS. TUTWILER: No. I believe that's taking place this morning, and I don't. Q (Multiple questions) Q Let me finish here. What about Eagleburger's meeting with Vance yesterday? Is there any readout from that? MS. TUTWILER: The Deputy, obviously, gave the Secretary a full debrief. I briefly talked to the Deputy this morning about that. He said it was a very useful meeting. He appreciated very much the former Secretary of State coming here. He expressed the President's and the Secretary's appreciation for his efforts there, and he gave him a very thorough overview of how he sees the situation there. Q Margaret, what role will Mr. Baker play in the Mideast peace talks next week? Is he planning a warm-up session? Q Can I ask one more question on Yugoslavia, please? I'd like to know whether or not the government -- the Federation of Yugoslavia -- has a legal right to enter -- to attempt to maintain law and order, or whatever they want to call it, in the area known as Bosnia-Hercegovina? MS. TUTWILER: Let me check with the lawyers. Barry. Q The Mideast folks -- the Mideast talks, they're Monday morning, I assume? Monday, there is -- MS. TUTWILER: April 27, Washington, D.C. Q In the morning, 10:00, bright and early? MS. TUTWILER: I haven't checked the time. I don't know. The parties themselves usually announce their own times. Q Okay, but I wondered what -- you know, what Mr. Baker's role would be; would he see the delegation heads at the outset -- sort of a warm-up session? Anything you have to tell us about his involvement, if any, at this point? MS. TUTWILER: It will be the same as it has been in the other previous -- Q A catalyst? MS. TUTWILER: -- meetings that have been held here in Washington, two of which, as you know, it was requested that he see the delegation heads at the conclusion of the meeting. I'm not aware of that request yet, and I'm not aware of a request to meet previously. In fact, I'll try to check for you overnight when the various delegations are arriving. I haven't heard. I don't know.

[Peru: Update]

Q Margaret, on Peru: President Fujimori announced a 12-month plan to restore democracy. Do you have any reaction? MS. TUTWILER: Not a whole lot, George. As you know, that timetable was shorter than the previous proposals that he had announced. But in our opinion it would still leave Peru without constitutional processes for nearly a year. We will continue to consult with the OAS about this latest proposal. It's my understanding that the OAS mission is in Peru right now, and I don't have for you yet when they will be returning. Q Fujimori is still recognized by the United States as President? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q (Inaudible) MS. TUTWILER: A fuller answer to Jim, which is he controls the government in Peru and we deal with him and the government institutions on that basis. Q Is that the same basis on which the U.S. deals with a government that controls the government organization in Haiti? Or is there some distinction between the way you deal with Fujimori and the way you deal with the Haitian regime? MS. TUTWILER: As you know, we don't do comparisons, so I'm not exactly clear what you're question is. But each of these situations are quite different, and you know what the differences are. I got asked a question concerning this specific situation. They last night -- their legislature -- or sometime yesterday, as you know, their legislature voted their Vice President as their President now. I'm asked, "Who is the United States Government dealing with?" I've answered that question. In Haiti, as you know, they have had a different set of steps they have taken and a different scenario. Q I have another question on Peru. Is there any plan to deal with the new President that was sworn in before the Congress -- San Roman? Is the U.S. Government having any contact or -- MS. TUTWILER: Any contacts with him? That's a good question I should have asked. I will ask that question. I'm sorry, I forgot this morning. I don't know the answer to that one.

[Middle East Peace Process]

Q Could I go back to the Middle East talks a minute? MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Q The ones beginning on Monday. Can you say on the record what the United States would like to see these talks accomplish? Specifically, the Israeli-Palestinian talks? MS. TUTWILER: No. To be more honest with you, that is for the parties to decide. Obviously, we would like to see progress made but that's for the parties to decide themselves. I don't know, for instance, what each delegation is coming here with instructions to do or not to do, so I can't answer you. But, obviously, we think that these are, or should be treated as serious talks. We have no reasons to believe that they would not. We would like to see that you continue to make progress. I know that your question is going to be to me -- "Well, we can't see any progress?" -- but we've said in the past that even the fact that a fifth round is beginning -- many people were very skeptical that that would ever happen. All the delegations themselves, in their debriefs with the Secretary, have said that, in and of itself, just these meetings have been beneficial. So we don't have a specific goal in mind for the fifth round that I have any knowledge of. Q A senior official said -- MS. TUTWILER: Told you something differently yesterday? Q A senior official suggested yesterday that it was time for the Israelis and the Palestinians to begin narrowing their differences on the specific question of self-government. MS. TUTWILER: And was that senior official on the record? Q But you wouldn't say that on the record; is that right? MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to follow the lead of the senior official that spoke with you. I believe he was probably speaking on background to you. Q That's why you refer to a senior official. MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q Have all the delegations committed to Rome? MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me? Q Have all the delegations committed to Rome for the sixth round? MS. TUTWILER: As far as I know. Q They've responded back to you and said they will all be in Rome for the sixth round? MS. TUTWILER: I don't think that was necessary. That wasn't how it was set up. Q Well, you announced it -- that there was a commonality in the list. MS. TUTWILER: Right, but -- Q But don't they have to respond back to you, yes, we will all go to Rome? MS. TUTWILER: I guess, as a formality, they do. But they all signed up to the system; and the system was, when you hand in your list that -- commonality of lists -- you have agreed to go to any city on your list. So I'm not sure, technically, anyone has to get back to you because you wouldn't have put a city on your list had you not accepted the fact that that may be the city you're going to. Q Margaret, have you specifically heard from the Israelis that they will not attend the Ottawa meeting on refugees or the meeting on economic development -- MS. TUTWILER: Formally? Q -- if diaspora Palestinians are there? Have you heard formally from them of this? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Have you yet -- just checking -- I know you're getting invitations ready, is the last time I heard. Have you sent those invitations yet? MS. TUTWILER: Very shortly. Very, very shortly. It's my understanding they will be sent. Q And will the invitations be sent to diaspora Palestinians who are not part of the PLO? Which Palestinians -- or have you decided which Palestinians they will be sending? MS. TUTWILER: I think they've been delivered as all the others have. Q What? MS. TUTWILER: I would assume -- I'm assuming here that they would be delivered as all the others have. Q But the others were delivered to -- MS. TUTWILER: We don't send them to individuals. Q But the others were delivered to Palestinians who had nothing to -- who were not diaspora Palestinians. Would it be up to them to decide which diaspora Palestinians will be invited? MS. TUTWILER: It would be my guess, but I'll be happy to ask the experts. I've never heard someone suggest that we would start choosing or determining and sending individuals invitations. Q They would have to choose under the Madrid -- MS. TUTWILER: Well, they've chosen their delegates, too. They chose their advisors. We didn't do that. Q You've set certain guidelines, as I understand it. The Secretary said, back there in Moscow, that it would be appropriate for diaspora Palestinians who were not members of the PLO to turn up at these meetings the next time. MS. TUTWILER: In two meetings: Refugees and economic development. Q How do they get the invitations, and from whom? Do they get -- MS. TUTWILER: It's a mechanic I have not asked -- a mechanism I hadn't asked about, Saul. I'll be happy to ask. But I'm well aware that we have not, to my knowledge, throughout this entire process, sent invitations to individuals, or chosen people's delegations. We haven't done that. Q Your role wasn't quite passive, though, by your regulation of visas. You were able to screen out people you wanted to screen out and let through PLO-oriented people you decided could come through as advisors. In Rome, there won't be any such screening process. Is the State Department acknowledging now that it will not attempt to exert any control on PLO officials taking part in the multilaterals? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Well, how are you going to keep the PLO out of it, or aren't you going to try? MS. TUTWILER: Barry, I will refer you to the literal quote of the Secretary of State in Moscow, which I'm sure you're very familiar with. Q It doesn't deal with the PLO. MS. TUTWILER: Yes, it does. It says -- I'll only read you the second sentence, which is what you're interested in: "However, the terms of reference for this meeting, as reflected in the original invitations, call for Palestinian representation based on the Madrid formula, and they should not be changed at the last minute if this entire process is to continue having credibility with all of us." Q That was the Moscow meeting. MS. TUTWILER: That's right. That's what it said. Q But in the post-Moscow meeting, you changed it. MS. TUTWILER: He's addressing this. Q I'm sorry. MS. TUTWILER: In the post-Moscow meeting? Q There were two statements in Moscow. One was that the Madrid rules apply from Moscow -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q And the Madrid rules never were meant to apply post-Moscow, which opened the door to what is being referred to as diaspora Palestinians. MS. TUTWILER: So you're question to me is, "Are we going to allow the PLO; if that is what we're trying to do? The answer is no. Q How are you going to stop them? MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a technical, mechanical answer to that question either. Q You did have a way here is what I'm saying. You had a visa way here. MS. TUTWILER: And maybe somebody has dreamed up a way. I don't know. We don't even have a date yet for this meeting. Q Is there a disagreement, Margaret, at this point between the U.S. and Israel over interpretation of the Madrid rules' application to the Ottawa and Brussels sessions of the multilateral talks? MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of. They have, as they have stated, but we have nothing official from the Israeli Government. Many of their officials, as you know, have been quoted. Many officials have spoken to our officials. This goes on all day long. They definitely have a view about this. The Secretary of State has stated what our view is. It is, obviously, up to that government to decide what, if anything, they want to do, but we have nothing official. Q I'm just trying to find out mechanically. Is it up to the Palestinian delegation, that will come here next week, to decide which Palestinians will come -- which diaspora Palestinians will be invited to Ottawa and Brussels. That's all I'm trying to find out. MS. TUTWILER: That is my instinct. But I said I have not gotten to this level of detail with the experts. I will be happy to afterwards, but there is a whole team here, as you know, that do this all day long, who get into every little nuance and detail of this. I recognize your question. I didn't anticipate it today. I just have not focused on it myself. I'll be happy to ask them. I don't know.

[Former Soviet Union: Congressional Consideration of US Aid Package]

Q A couple of questions on Russia. Yesterday, in his speech in Chicago, the Secretary made reference and warned against killer amendments. Specifically, what was he referring to? Do you know? MS. TUTWILER: The same thing he was in public testimony last week before the Senate. Many Senators themselves, I remember Senator Cranston, specifically, was one who said, "Let's not get this bogged down and kill it." I would just refer you to the transcript. The Senators themselves and the Secretary were acknowledging, as you know, you can put on amendments to a bill that kill it. It gets bogged down. I believe Senator Cranston was saying, we agree with the Administration; this is a bipartisan effort; this is something that needs to move rapidly, not as business as usual, because the things we're asking for need to be done now. He was not the only one. He's the only one that pops in my memory. Q There's a new issue which seems to have come up -- MS. TUTWILER: There is? Q Well, it seems to have come up in accordance with the letter sent to the Hill on April 9 by the President on arms control violations by the former Soviet Union. Would you consider the calling to light of those alleged violations to be a killer amendment? In other words, is there any link between the Administration's definition of arms control violations by the former Soviet armed forces and the Russian aid bill? MS. TUTWILER: Number one, I'm not familiar with what you're speaking of, an April 9 letter from President Bush to the Hill -- Q It's the one -- MS. TUTWILER: Well, I'm sorry. I've been out of town. I don't know, so I can't answer your question intelligently since I'm totally unaware of what you have just brought up. I'll be happy to ask. I don't know. Q Specifically, the question is, is there any link in the Administration's mind between the Russian aid package and the former Soviet Union clearing up these alleged violations of arms control treaties? MS. TUTWILER: And I said I'd be happy to ask for you. Q Have you ever bought into the Biden formula for a one-year waiver on all the Cold War legislation not to interfere? Do you know what I'm talking about? MS. TUTWILER: Yes, but I -- Q Biden had a proposal: How about a one-year blanket waiver, and then specify for us, please, which particular pieces of Cold War legislation you think stand in the way and that we ought to nullify or whatever? MS. TUTWILER: Right. Since that testimony, I have not followed up with Janet (Mullins). As you know, the Congress is on recess, I believe, for two weeks. I'll be happy to ask Janet what follow-up there was after testimony. Q The Democratic Whip of the House -- Congressman Bonior -- circulating a letter asking people in the House not to vote for the Russian aid bill until the Administration takes action -- or agrees to take action, I guess -- on unemployment insurance extension and some other matters such as a jobs -- public works bill. Do you have any position or a comment on it? MS. TUTWILER: I first learned of that -- I believe it was your article this morning -- where I read of the Congressman surfacing this. As I said, they're on recess, and maybe -- you know, Janet is working on this. I don't know, Don. Maybe the White House is. I don't know.

[Indonesia: Senators Barred/Diplomatic Actions]

Q Margaret, do you have any reaction to the barring of two Senators from East Timor by the Indonesian Government? MS. TUTWILER: It's the same two Senators, as you know, that are on a trip where their visas were not granted for China. Like in the China case, this is something we have raised. It is something that we have strongly suggested to the Indonesian Government, that they please allow them to do this. We believe these types of trips are very helpful, and we have raised it but it is not resolved as far as I know. As you know, they did go, or are in Indonesia. It's East Timor that they're being denied entrance to. Q How was it raised? MS. TUTWILER: How was it raised? By our Ambassador, it's my understanding. Q Do you know if the New Foreign Minister of Thailand has called on the United States to clarify their allegations against Narong Wongwan? There is a government formed there now. Do you intend to do so, since he's the Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know that we would have anything additional to say than what we said previously on the record. Q Is aid going to be released now? MS. TUTWILER: I haven't asked. (TO STAFF) Richard (Boucher), have you checked up on Thailand aid? I don't know. I'll be happy to ask for you.

[Libya: Mubarak-Qadhafi Meeting and Related Subjects]

Q Has the U.S. had any communication from the Libyan Government, since the imposition of sanctions, of the airlift -- of the air embargo, I mean? MS. TUTWILER: You know we don't have relations with Libya. But if something has come through the Belgians, I haven't heard about it. Q How about the Egyptian Government? The various things that Mubarak -- they simply shade in one direction or another every other hour: They will comply, they won't, they'll compromise, they won't compromise. Have you been working with Mubarak, and what has he told you about the likelihood of -- what have you got from the Egyptians? MS. TUTWILER: He hasn't told us in private. His most recent meeting, I believe, was yesterday. According to the Egyptians, we don't have anything more in private than what you've seen in public. Basically, their meeting produced no breakthroughs. Q Margaret, do you have a reaction to the Islamic Salvation Front's call in Algeria for people to take up arms now that they say that democracy, or dialogue is not working and therefore the people must move from the word to the gun? MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry, Jan, I'm not familiar with that. I hadn't seen that. Q It happened this morning. Could you take the question, please? MS. TUTWILER: A lot happens every morning. I try to keep up with it all. I haven't heard about that. Q Margaret, did the U.S. put pressure on the Shi'a to cancel technology transfers -- the rocket technology transfer deal with India? MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry. Excuse me? Q Did the U.S. put pressure on the Shi'a to cancel the rocket technology transfer deal with India, signed in 1991? There was an uproar in the Indian Parliament last week. MS. TUTWILER: Let me ask the experts and see if I can look into that for you. Okay? Thanks.

[Former Soviet Union: US Reaction Russian Parliament Session/START]

Q Margaret, do you have any comments on the Russian Congress that finished its work yesterday? MS. TUTWILER: Not really. We obviously welcome that President Yeltsin's economic reforms stayed intact. We are very appreciative of the fact that this is democracy at work in Russia, and we know that it is a difficult process. We are basically just very pleased overall, generically, generally speaking, with the outcome of -- how long did that last? It was almost two weeks. Remember, they kept extending it. Q A follow-up on that one, please. What is the status of -- has the Russian Government communicated with the U.S. about the status of its willingness to commit to the START treaty and other arms control commitments already signed by the former Soviet Union? MS. TUTWILER: That's something that Secretary of State Baker is continuing to work. He has had any number of conversations with the Russian Foreign Minister. If he has not spoken with him today, I believe that he may be, and that is definitely one of the subjects they will continue discussing. Q In the wake of the Congress, is there some fresh doubt in the U.S.'s mind over commitments to adhere to previous U.S.-Soviet arms agreements? MS. TUTWILER: No, there's never been any doubt in our minds. As you know, Ralph, this was a bilateral treaty that was worked out with the former Soviet Union. You now have four nuclear states that we are trying to not mediate but help them work out how to resolve this in light of our ratification process here. Secretary Baker has personally, as I've mentioned a number of times, over the last two weeks, been working this at his level. He continues to, but there's nothing that I have to announce today. Q How about previous agreements? Without reference to the present START treaty, what about previous arms control agreements -- other arms control agreements between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union? Is there any doubt in the U.S. mind now, following the Congress, about Russia's commitment to adhere to those? MS. TUTWILER: Not that I've heard anyone raise, but I would like to take the question to the lawyers here. Q Along these lines, if I may -- MS. TUTWILER: Yes, Saul. Q -- I wonder if you have reviewed this report that is circulating on the Hill and was used as the basis for this April 9 letter alleging that the Soviets have violated a series of arms control agreements? Are you familiar with it? Are you studying it? MS. TUTWILER: I honestly am not. I apologize on one hand and on one hand I don't. I left town. I took some time off. I didn't spend my entire vacation trying to stay up with everything that was going on, and maybe since I've been back I've failed in doing an adequate job. I just literally know nothing about what Jim Anderson had asked me, which is an April 9 letter, apparently, from President Bush to the Hill. I just don't know about it. Q There is a periodic report which is required assessing Soviet compliance or Russian compliance with past arms control agreements. Some Senators on the Hill take that report to indicate that the former Soviet Union is not complying with some of these agreements and they're using that as the basis for their suggestion that maybe aid shouldn't be granted. I'm wondering whether you're familiar with that report? MS. TUTWILER: I'm just not. Q Whether you've gone over it and happen to agree with that characterization? MS. TUTWILER: No, but I'll be happy, after the briefing, to talk to Reggie (Bartholomew), who is in town, and arms control experts and familiarize myself with this and try to get you something early this afternoon. Q Thank you. MS. TUTWILER: Thanks, Barry. (Press briefing concluded at 12:43 p.m.)