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.)