US Department of State Daily Briefing #62:
Friday, 4/24/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 24 19924/24/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe,
Southeast Asia
Country: Israel, USSR (former), Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Serbia-Montenegro, Yugoslavia (former), Syria, Burma,
Afghanistan
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
Military Affairs, Security Assistance and Sales, Terrorism,
Travel, Human Rights
12:00 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Discussion of Procedures for Background Briefings]
MS. TUTWILER: Okay, I have one housekeeping matter
which is for your information only, not for camera or on the
record, a background briefing will take place here at 2 o'clock
today on the subject of Yugoslavia.
Q Just on a technical point, when you get back to
this Catch 22 business, that if we should ask you about what was
said here at 2 o'clock on Monday or some other date, you respond
that you can't answer questions about statements made by
nameless officials.
Why does he have to be on background?
MS. TUTWILER: Because that's what you requested and
that's what we agreed with.
Q Well, background can be used several different
ways. Background doesn't necessarily have to mean anonymous.
MS. TUTWILER: It normally does. In my 12-year
experience here in Washington, when someone does a background
briefing that's on background, it's on background. My
understanding is that a number of your colleagues requested, not
only this backgrounder, but a number of them, and we are trying
to arrange them for you.
So when your request comes forward, if it comes forward
as "on background," that's what we honor. If you want to talk
with your colleagues and change your request -- not for the one
today -- then just send them forward in the way that all of you
all unanimously agree, and we'll try to honor those.
Q Margaret, can we on this occasion, ask for -
MS. TUTWILER: Sure, Barry.
Q -- an on-the-record news conference from the
Secretary of State. You know, we had an experience -- I can't
name --
MS. TUTWILER: From who?
Q I can't name the senior official because we play
by the rules, but we were taken upstairs -- about 25 of us --
and given a background session and we were barely down in the
news room when that same official was on the MacNeil/Lehrer
saying everything on the record --
MS. TUTWILER: I believe that --
Q -- precisely the same stuff. And it wasn't hot
secret stuff.
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q So, you know, this is the first Secretary of State
in my memory, which is 19 years, who hasn't, you know, had
regular -- I don't say frequent, but at least regular news
conferences. He has them overseas. Why not here? Is there --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I believe that the same exact
senior official that you are discussing had a press conference
that was 45 minutes in length, prior to any senior official
backgrounders that were held here on the same day at the
Department.
I will acknowledge to you that, yes, the Secretary
does, from time to time, do broadcasts. He will continue to do
so. I personally think that he has -- I know we walk in
different moccasins -- an excellent record of accessibility to
you all; has done more press since he has been Secretary of
State than in any other job he has had in Government.
I will see -- if you have a specific request for him to
do another press conference this week -- I think he just did one
-- when was it? -- last week. I'll see if he would like to do
one next week.
Q That would be nice.
MS. TUTWILER: Okay.
Q Can we ask you on Yugoslavia, since you are on the
record and you are Margaret Tutwiler --
MS. TUTWILER: On the record, unfortunately.
Q -- does the United States support sending UN
peacekeepers to Bosnia?
MS. TUTWILER: That is something that we have been
deferring, as you know, Alan, to the United Nations, to their
judgment. I believe that there are observers -- in fact, I
believe the UN Headquarters is in Sarajevo. I believe there are
observers that are already there operating, and I'm not sure
that the United Nations itself supports at this time sending
peacekeepers.
As you know, there is a distinction in their minds --
and we agree with them -- over peacekeepers and peacemakers.
The United Nations personnel, who are peacekeepers, are not to
be sent in -- in any situation in the world -- where there is an
active, ongoing battle that is in process.
And so I'm not aware that the Secretary General or the
Security Council is in disagreement with that longstanding
policy.
Q Well, the truce apparently has broken down
already.
MS. TUTWILER: I've seen two reports, to be honest with
you. How we have it this morning, when we were preparing and
pulling together all of our information, is that there was calm
there. I have since seen, in the last l5 minutes, two different
wire stories, one of which says that battles are raging; another
says things are calm. So I think it is hard for us to stay on
top of it.
We will grant you that this morning -- excuse me, Barry
-- the cease-fire is extremely shaky.
Q Well, the version I saw is that the leaders are
still supporting a truce, but people are breaking away, which,
you know, is not a surprise given the chaotic situation.
MS. TUTWILER: Uh-hum.
Q I guess what Alan and all of us are driving at is
whether the United States has any plan of action particularly in
this area. I mean, we know there is a distinction between
peacemakers and peacekeepers, but the Secretary just made a
speech ticking off, you know, a dozen or so active US
accomplishments in the foreign field and taken a couple of bows
for it.
What about Yugoslavia? What is the U.S. -- can you
give us now, or at some point, some game plan -- what is the
U.S. diplomatic approach -- obviously it is not military --
approach is to Yugoslavia?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I can repeat for you the game plan
-- your characterization -- that we announced last week. It had
three parts, one of which has already been adopted, which was
calling for an emergency meeting at the experts level of the
CSCE on April 29 -- that is five days from now, Wednesday. We
also announced -- and then a resolution was passed within 24
hours, as I recall, unanimously by over 40 nations that were
there, to support our suggestion that they would at that time
consider suspending Yugoslav's membership in the CSCE. We said
that we would also look at admitting, on an emergency basis,
Bosnia.
Now I said yesterday, and nothing has changed
overnight, there is nothing additional that I know of that the
United States has to announce at this time.
Q The United Nations Security Council had an
informal discussion on Yugoslavia yesterday, I believe.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Can you give us a flavor?
MS. TUTWILER: No, because they are still continuing
those discussions. Yesterday, I think it was Barry or Patrick
who asked me about Germany and the Netherlands, they had heard
had asked for an emergency meeting. My understanding is that
that is still just there -- that they decided instead, it is my
understanding, for the Security Council to have informal
consultations which are continuing today. But I don't have
anything specific out of them.
Q Would the United States support some kind of
resolution to the Security Council on the situation in Bosnia?
MS. TUTWILER: It is just too speculative for me. As
you know, the United States, in the person of the Secretary of
State, has attended one Security Council meeting at a
Ministerial level.
I don't know, Alan. I don't want to just freelance on
what they may or may not come up with at the UN. I just don't
know.
Q Well, it is not just a question of them coming up
with things. Does the United States --
MS. TUTWILER: The language, as you know, is important
to each nation. I just don't know what the text would say. I
cannot stand here and on behalf of our Government or the White
House say yes, whatever they pass, we'd say yes, we endorse it
-- whatever they table, or what the draft would be. I can't do
that.
Q Margaret, have the peace regional talk invitations
gone out yet?
MS. TUTWILER: No, they have not. I checked for you,
and they will be oral presentations by our staff on the ground,
and they will probably -- those oral invitations -- will
probably start happening at the first of next week, the week
coming up.
Q Will there be -- I hesitate to use the word
"script" coming from the business I'm in -- but will there be
some scripted language that deals with the issue of
representation, or will that be a matter that might be up for
some misconstruction, perhaps by people in the field?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't think we would leave any
room for misconstruction. As we have for many of the
bilaterals, these are obviously instructions to post from
headquarters, from the State Department, and obviously there is
specific language in your instructions. These are then
delivered. Some ambassadors, to be perfectly literal with you,
leave points; some ambassadors don't. Some ambassadors just do
the whole thing verbally; some don't. It is really kind of up
to post.
But, overall, it is to handle it exactly as we did the
bilaterals, which were oral presentations.
Q Margaret, are the invitations to all five working
groups going out at the first of next week?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is that that has not
been resolved yet.
Q And which --
MS. TUTWILER: And there is a possibility that they
would not be.
Q Is it the case that it is possible that the
invitations to the working group in Washington on arms control
will be delayed because there is dispute over who to invite
between the United States and Israel?
MS. TUTWILER: That's one of the possibilities that
I've heard about, but my understanding is there is no final
decision concerning that.
Q So when you say the invitations will go out the
first of next week, you must have an idea in your mind of the
working groups to which you are certain the invitations will go
out. Maybe you could share that with us?
MS. TUTWILER: I could tell you that I don't, because I
didn't ask or delve into that level of detail this morning. I
just didn't get into it. I mean, I'll be happy to ask the
experts.
I am aware of a situation that you have pointed out. I
am aware of, through unnamed and named various officials, that
the Israelis have a view on certain things about this. I've
told you we do not have an official Israeli Government response.
We still don't. So I'm hesitant to -- to be honest with you,
until you are dealing with something that is real -- delve into
this level of detail.
Q Just to paraphrase your answer to Ralph's
question, what you actually meant to say was that the
invitations to some of the working groups, but possibly not to
all of them, will go out next week.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, since I know, to my knowledge,
there are no final decisions, Alan, that could be construed as
starting a problem that I'm not positive exists right now. I am
aware that those conversations are going on. I'm personally not
aware that there's a final determination that, indeed, what you
have painted will happen early next week. If it does, then
obviously I would be out here saying three sets of invitations
went, four didn't, five did. I would be totally straightforward
about it. I just am not sure that that final determination has
been made.
Q Margaret, what is the U.S. position on the
participation by the United Nations in each of the five types of
talks?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, it's again a
level of detail I have not gotten into. I'm aware that there
are various different views on it, and in each of the different
five working groups, we have an entire set of experts who work
this full time. That's what they're doing, and it's their job.
It's not my job. And I'll be happy to take your questions on
it.
Q Margaret, did the Secretary of State write to
Israel recently, trying to persuade them once more to attend the
working groups on refugees and economic development?
MS. TUTWILER: I honestly don't know. I'll check for
you.
Q He almost pre-empted my question, but the
Palestinians would like to have that working group on refugees,
and my understanding is that Israel objected to the idea of
having refugees discussed in any of these working groups.
What's the State Department's position on that?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that Israel has objected
to having a working group on refugees, if that's your question
to me. If your question is, "Has Israel officially objected to
diaspora refugees in this meeting," I will say again today, as I
have every day this week, we have no official Israeli Government
decision on that. We are well aware of Israel's concerns about
this, but they have not given us an official decision.
Q Maybe another similar area: Hanan Ashrawi said
over the last couple of days that the Palestinians from the
diaspora will be taking part in the bilateral talks, either here
or possibly in Rome. What was the position -- or what is the
position of the State Department?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen a statement by Hanan
[Ashrawi] to that effect, and the bilateral talks -- the terms
of agreement have not changed at all.
Q And the last one on this: Early this week you
made the statement about Rome being the venue for the sixth
round.
MS. TUTWILER: Last week, I think.
Q Yes. Last week. Do you have a date for that?
MS. TUTWILER: No. When we made that announcement in
our statement, and in questions here, we have said that timing
of that, a date for that, is still being reviewed and discussed.
Q Margaret, are there any waivers in the works for
this current round?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. The same ones that have attended
the previous rounds -- it's the same universe -- and it is four
people. They're the same exact four, it's my understanding, who
attended round four. Two of them, as you know, have attended
all rounds, and three of them, I think, have attended three
rounds. Right now, authorization for a waiver of those visas is
en route to post.
Q The four people.
MS. TUTWILER: The same four people who were here for
round four.
Q For convenience, could someone give us the names?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to. I have them all with
me.
Q And I'm trying to remember what the -- you need a
reason, don't you? I mean, I think you used a speech or
something as a reason.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know what the individual
determinations are that will be made at the post, but I know
that authorization for the waiver has gone.
Q Have you been only asked for four? I mean, are
there -- were there --
MS. TUTWILER: To my knowledge, yes.
Q So you didn't find yourself rejecting any request?
Whatever they asked for, you gave them.
Q Let me restate this, so that the record reflects
it. Two of these individuals have been at all previous four
rounds. One of the individuals has been at all previous three
rounds. One of the other individuals was at round four. So
these are not new names, Barry. These are not people who have
not been here, and I assume -- I didn't check what each person's
waiver request was -- they will be granted it for the same
reasons they were previously over the last four or five months.
Q Margaret, another subject --
Q (Multiple questions)
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. When I asked this --
Q Why don't you go ahead and give us the names since
--
MS. TUTWILER: I'll post it, if you don't mind.
Q All right.
MS. TUTWILER: I can't pronounce each of the names.
I'll be happy to spell them individually, if you'd like.
Q That's all right. No. I think it's important
that the United States Government make that announcement rather
than having us --
MS. TUTWILER: It's not a secret. It's just the lack
of my correct pronounciation of all of these names. I'll be
happy to -- they are the same names that have been every single
time, and I'll be happy to -- Barry, I was going to tell you
something else. When I asked this morning your question on,
"Are there additional requests," we know of no additional
requests. So there aren't any, as of today, that I know
anything about or that the Bureau does.
Q Margaret, Afghanistan?
Q Still on this subject: Why is it necessary that
the invitations for the regional talks go out through the posts,
if you're going to have all the key players, and certainly the
ones who would have objections, present in Washington,
potentially for a very high-level discussion of these issues?
MS. TUTWILER: The Madrid invitations went out to
capitals.
Q But they were written.
MS. TUTWILER: The bilaterals went to capitals. And
the multilaterals are going to capitals. If nothing more, I
would assume, for a courtesy. These people who are here are
delegates. They're not head of their governments.
Q Will these invitations have new -- I know -- you
say they're going to be orally or verbally delivered? Are they
going to have new terms of reference, different from Madrid?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of. I'll be happy to
ask.
Q Please.
Q Margaret, do you have any comment -- the United
States Government have any comment on Israeli proposal for
municipal elections in the territories --
MS. TUTWILER: I did that yesterday. I'm so sorry you
weren't here. That was Mr. Dancy's question. And, basically, I
said that in principle, of course, we agree with elections, but
that specifically we're not going to interject ourselves at this
time into various proposals that are being floated around --
Q Margaret, but the Palestinians rejected --
MS. TUTWILER: By anybody.
Q The Palestinians rejected the proposal today.
MS. TUTWILER: On any proposals, we're not going to
specifically get ourselves into.
Q Margaret, on the same subject, just in case this
person is on your list of waivers, there's a report that
Mohammed Hourani has been stopped by the Israelis, prevented to
go to Jordan and then on to Washington.
MS. TUTWILER: He's not on my list, and we saw that
this morning, and our Embassy can get absolutely no information
about it, so we don't know if it's true or false. We looked
into it. We had zero on it.
Q There are press reports in the Middle East and in
Europe about growing strains in Syrian-American relations, and
the Syrians did contact the American side and express their
concerns and dismay for what they see as inspired leaks that
would point the finger at their involvement in the Pan Am 103.
Can you confirm these contacts? Can you confirm what --
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard about the press reports
you're commenting on to me. I don't know of any contact at the
State Department to express concerns, and so it's a subject I
have no knowledge of.
Q Were you asked about this -- I was out this week
-- were you asked to comment on the Time magazine's report about
the possible involvement of --
MS. TUTWILER: No, I was not.
Q Well, can I ask you about that?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't normally --
Q Do you have anything to say about -- because DEA
was dragged into this thing as part of the scheme. I mean, the
Pan Am bombing was part of a DEA scheme, in which a Syrian
citizen was allegedly involved. I mean, can you comment on this
on the record?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, I haven't read the article.
Number two, I am vaguely familiar with the contents of it from
others here in the building. Number three, we make it a policy
not to specifically comment on either columnists or specific
articles. And, number four, I would refer you to extensive
briefings our Government has had on the record, on camera, when
all of this information was made [available]. Nothing has
changed concerning our views about our extensive investigation
and our conclusions, and that's really all I have on that.
Q Margaret, the Syrian Ambassador was -- I'm sorry.
Q Same thing. He was here yesterday -- the Syrian
Ambassador.
MS. TUTWILER: Well I'm sorry, Jan, I didn't know.
Q Anyway that we could get whether or not --
MS. TUTWILER: Who did he see? I don't know.
Q Well, would you ask Mr. Djerejian if he would let
us know if this came up in his conversation with the Syrian
Ambassador?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to ask him.
Q In a related thing, is the United States
considering lifting travel restrictions to Syria as part of --
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is that travel
advisories are -- there's a certain process here. They're
reviewed, I believe, every three months or six months, and at
the end of a year, some are pulled or changed. I believe the
one on Syria has -- the current one that is in place -- has been
up for a year, and in that review -- I believe it was put up for
a specific reason. I can't remember what it is. The specific
reason has expired or has gone away, and so I believe that is
exactly what the Consular Affairs people have determined to do.
Q Couldn't the specific reason be that Syria is on
the terrorism list and --
MS. TUTWILER: No. It wasn't.
Q What was the specific answer? A little tiny
incident -- that was your reason for discouraging Americans?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't remember, Barry. There are over
90 travel advisories that are up right now. I'm not intimately
familiar, obviously, with each one of them.
You had asked this question, I believe, this morning of
one of my colleagues. I literally learned in 60 seconds walking
down the hall what was going on, and that's the limits of what I
know. I'll be happy to have Consular Affairs give you a
specific. My understanding is that it is nothing more than a
routine matter.
Q Margaret, do you have a response to the
appointment of the head of the ruling military council as --
MS. TUTWILER: Of the what?
Q The head of the ruling military council has been
appointed Prime Minister in Burma. Do you have any comment on
that?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not familiar with that, Jan.
Q They've also said that they are proposing to
release some political prisoners. Could you check into this?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll look at what's going on in Burma.
Q Apparently, there's even word that Aung San Suu
Kyi might be one of them.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I haven't checked on
Burma in a while.
Q Does the State Department have a view on the
developments in Afghanistan in the last 24 to 48 hours?
Apparently, a council is in the making.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q What is the view of the U.S. Government?
MS. TUTWILER: We have reports that some sort of
agreement has been reached among resistance parties and
commanders on forming a government. Whatever agreement that is
arrived at peacefully, we would obviously strongly welcome.
The U.N. Secretary General's Special Representative,
Mr. Sevan, is in Peshawar meeting with resistance leaders. We
applaud his efforts, and we have very few details on this
agreement. To be quite honest with you, this morning, the first
that had seen of this was when it was flashed across the wires.
We hope that it is true. We applaud the efforts of any
people who are trying to contribute to this. We just don't have
a lot of details right now.
Q Apparently, one major figure left out of that
meeting was Hekmatyar, the fundamentalist leader. Is that all
right with the U.S. Government? Is the U.S. Government -- there
are more questions to ask you about him as well. He apparently
is the only one who hasn't agreed not to march into Kabul and
also there's apprehension that the dam that controls electricity
to the city, which has never been affected during the long war,
may be in danger now. Can you address any of those questions?
You evidently have contact with various factions, including him.
MS. TUTWILER: We do. Your information is news to me.
It is also quite different, Barry, than what I have seen of Mr.
Hekmatyar -- quoted by your colleagues and news organizations
over there within the last two days -- saying. So I don't have
the characterization that you have.
Q About the capital or about the council?
MS. TUTWILER: About what his intentions are, what he
is going to do, etc. So I don't have that characterization that
you have. It doesn't mean it may not come true, but I don't
have that right now.
Your other thing about the dam -- I have seen nothing
this morning on the dam. I'll be happy to ask.
Q If you can ask -- in this area generally -- a
question I wish you would try to get an answer to is whether, in
your request for a broad-based government -- or your support for
a broad-based -- you think his group should be part of that
broad-based government? And are you seeking a commitment from
him to not cause any problems in Kabul?
MS. TUTWILER: We're seeking commitments from everyone
not to cause problems in Kabul, if you're talking about
resolving this transition in a peaceful way. We've said that
every day.
As far as whether or not our Embassy personnel speak to
his representatives, my understanding is that we're speaking to
everyone -- for everyone to use any influence that they have to
try to manage this situation in a peaceful way.
Q Yesterday, you said it would be prudent of the
U.S. Government to remove certain American-made weapon systems
from Afghanistan. Why would it be prudent to remove them? Are
you afraid that the folks will use them on each other, or what?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I don't have a much fuller
explanation today for you than I had yesterday. But it is our
view that limiting or removing weapon systems that can cause
large-scale destruction is a natural outgrowth of our objective.
Our objective that was stated on September 13 was to further a
political settlement in Afghanistan and stop the bloodshed.
Q And can you tell us today if you're succeeding in
this --
MS. TUTWILER: No. No, we don't have another sentence
today. We struck out.
Q Margaret, not too long ago Najibullah, to the
U.S., was a despot, a tyrant and what have you. The U.S. was
quite irritated when India gave him the red carpet treatment.
How will the U.S. feel, since his family is in India --
how will the U.S. feel if India affords him asylum and he goes
to India?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to comment on possible
asylum concerning him. We said many days ago that we are aware
that a number of countries have expressed an interest or are
willing for him to come there, and we refused to say which
countries they were or a further characterization.
Q Did he apply to the U.S. for asylum, by any
chance?
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me?
Q Has he applied to the U.S. for asylum, by any
chance?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of.
Q You were unwilling the other day also to say
whether you agree with all the factions he should be brought to
trial. You called it a "sensitive matter."
MS. TUTWILER: We answered that later in the day for
you.
Q You did say whether you're in favor of having him
tried or not?
MS. TUTWILER: No. We answered it by saying that would
be up for the Afghan people to determine.
Q Most everything is.
Q Margaret, this September 13 agreement, there's a
certain implication when you say that it was agreed to retrieve
these major weapons systems. The implication is that these
major weapons systems were supplied, in the first place. Are
you confirming, or can you confirm now that, in fact, was the
case?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I can't do anymore than what the
Secretary of State has done and other government officials
throughout this, in my discussions of it. Again, I have also
said that this is something that we discussed with the Russians.
So you may be just focused on American, but there is
also Russian, which are, I believe, also well-known major
weapons systems that were supplied there.
Q Margaret, any progress in getting the American
Government to acknowledge how much it spent in providing and
arming the mujahideen over the course of the 14 years that we
supported them?
MS. TUTWILER: Any progress, since the answer that we
gave after one of the briefings this week? None that I know of.
Q There's yet to be a dollar figure? That's what
I'm looking for.
MS. TUTWILER: I know that. I believe that we gave you
the -- after one of the briefings this week; I can't remember
which -- our rationale for that, and the policy just hasn't
changed.
Q Margaret, in the interest of openness and the
accountability to the American taxpayer, of whom I am one,
although I don't hold your citizenship --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm one, too, Alan.
Q There was a laugh the last time I mentioned "the
taxpayer" because of my accent, but I resent very deeply --
MS. TUTWILER: Come on, you all.
Q Okay. My question is this: Do you accept the
principle that at some point you should reveal, disclose, what
was spent on arming the mujahideen on a policy which ultimately
proved to be successful, which was driving the Soviets out of
Afghanistan and getting rid of the communist government?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be a decision, in my mind,
that the American taxpayers, who elect our President and vote
for him, that's a decision that he would make; not me. I don't
know what his view is concerning that specific and literal
question. But maybe your colleague could ask Marlin (Fitzwater)
over at the White House. I just don't know. But that, in my
mind, is clearly a Presidential determinate as the person who
sets our country's foreign policy.
Q Margaret, some of the groups, as well as the U.N.
Secretary General's representative, have said that Najibullah's
fate and survival seems to be getting in the way of this
political solution. Would the U.S. look favorably upon a quick
exit wherever he decides to go so that it can expedite the
political process?
MS. TUTWILER: I really don't have anything to add to
this subject other than what I've said all week long concerning
it, which has been very little.
Q Is he still in Kabul?
MS. TUTWILER: To my knowledge, yes.
Q Margaret, can I take you back to Yugoslavia?
Maybe you have something on the decision by Serbia and
Montenegro to proclaim themselves as a new federation -- a
Yugoslav federation?
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't know they had done that. I
know that's what they were considering and what they have said
publicly they were doing. They did this this morning?
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: Sorry. No, I wasn't aware that they
had.
Q Could you take the question whether the United
States acknowledges Serbia and Montenegro as the successor to
the old Yugoslavia which naturally takes over their membership
of international organizations and their assets as well. Could
you take that question?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all. Have a nice weekend.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:28 p.m.)