US Department of State Daily Briefing #65:
Wednesday, 4/29/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Apr, 29 19924/29/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, Caribbean, E/C Europe
Country: Israel, USSR (former), Albania, Cuba, Afghanistan,
Iraq
Subject: Terrorism, State Department, Development/Relief Aid,
CSCE, Mideast Peace Process, Trade/Economics,
Regional/Civil Unrest
12:07 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I have one housekeeping matter and one statement.
The statement's going to be on Albania.
Housekeeping: Secretary Baker's testimony before the House
Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday, April 30, 1992, has been
rescheduled again. The new time is 2:00 p.m. We had informed you
all yesterday afternoon it was 1:00. It's now 2:00. The meeting
will be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The
subject of the testimony, as you know, will be the Freedom Support
Act.
Q Why does it keep slipping?
MS. TUTWILER: They keep changing it on us. I mean, it's the
same day.
Q They say you keep changing.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, maybe it's a little of both. I didn't ask
Janet [Mullins]. I thought that they wanted to change it. I don't
know.
Q Do you know how much time he has penciled in for them this
time? Remember, last time when he had two hours, as he usually has,
some of them thought that was a little short for all the questions they had.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. And as --
Q Is he planning to stay for the whole afternoon?
MS. TUTWILER: As I recall, many times -- as I'm sure you
observe, as I do -- many of them have very pressing, demanding
schedules and are unable, themselves, to stay for the entire length
of the Secretary's testimony.
Q Well they drift in and out all the time. But when they
have a question, they --
MS. TUTWILER: He stays the whole time.
Q I know he can't drift in and out, but they kind of
like to have him there when they have their questions to ask. I
just wondered, is he going to give them the rest of the
afternoon from 2:00 to --
MS. TUTWILER: He's probably going to. He usually
stays. As you've observed every time he's had a previous
engagement, including with the President, when they have
requested, he has said, "Of course, I will stay." He has never
left, that I've observed, in all the testimonies he's done
without everyone at least having one round of questions, no
matter what he has on his schedule. I don't envision him
changing that practice tomorrow.
Q Margaret, will the publication of the terrorism
report be affected by the Secretary's testimony in any way?
MS. TUTWILER: An honest answer is yes. And I don't
know -- I discussed this with Janet [Mullins] this morning, I've
been unable to get back to her this morning -- exactly when the
terrorism report will be released.
Q But you expect that it will be later than
previously advertised because of the change in the Secretary's
schedule.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Is that because the Secretary doesn't want to be
questioned about the report?
MS. TUTWILER: No. It's because we wouldn't want to
force you all to have to try to cover two stories at once. And,
since most of you will all be on the Hill, I would assume,
covering the Secretary's testimony, we wouldn't want you to feel
forced to be back down here reading a terrorism report that's
released at the same exact time that the head of the Department
is up testifying on a subject, to be quite honest, that's very
important to us and the Administration at this time -- not that
terrorism is not.
Q That could be resolved by releasing the report
today or tomorrow morning before the Secretary's testimony.
MS. TUTWILER: Janet's never considered or discussed
with the Hill, to my knowledge, releasing it today or tomorrow
morning. It was always for Thursday afternoon, as I said
yesterday. That is still the case, it is my understanding, but,
yes -- I gave you an honest answer -- we are looking at -- I've
discussed with Janet this morning -- the exact timing.
Q If you would like the input of at least some of us
on that thing, I think most of us would vote for putting it out
as soon as you can rather than delaying it, so we can have it.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand.
Q Regardless of where the Secretary of State is, put
it out.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand.
Q And since your justification is consideration for
our needs, which we're most grateful for --
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you.
Q -- I think on behalf of my organization and
probably several others, that we'll be able to manage. We have,
many of us, more than one person.
MS. TUTWILER: I recognize some of you do.
Q I'd like to second what my colleague from Britain
says.
MS. TUTWILER: We're going to take all of this into
consideration in making our decision. And, as soon as it's been
made, I will certainly let you know how it went.
Q This, of course, has nothing to do with not
wanting Secretary Baker to have to answer questions about the
contents of that.
MS. TUTWILER: I promise you it does not.
Q O.K.
MS. TUTWILER: It absolutely does not. To my
knowledge, that I can recall, any time this report in our tenure
here has been released, I can't really recall you all asking him
a question about it. It has absolutely, positively, nothing to
do with that. It's two State Department stories, to be honest,
which you all know, stepping on top of each other. I'm
obviously going to come down on the side of voting on the head
of the Department versus a report.
Q Hypothetically --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm one vote. I've got your vote now.
We'll get Janet's, we'll get the Congress's, then we'll see
where we come out.
Q Margaret, it also has absolutely nothing to do
with not wanting Syria to be branded as a terrorist state on the
last day of the Middle East talks. No connection whatsoever.
MS. TUTWILER: I think I have a pretty good track
record here of being totally honest with you. I'm being honest.
For whatever reason -- John says that he's heard that it's us
-- I didn't know it was us; I was told it was the Hill --
testimony that was scheduled for 10:00 was changed to 1:00, and
has now been changed to 2:00. To my knowledge, it has
absolutely nothing to do with the terrorism report.
I knew about the terrorism report, because you all have
asked me, and I went and did the research. From my moccasins,
in order to do my job and give my best advice to my principal, I
personally will vote, "It is crazy, when you are on the Hill
testifying, to be releasing down here a report." No matter what
the report is about, it doesn't make sense. I would feel that
way regardless of the report. I'm one vote. I've now heard
your very valid concerns and wishes.
Janet [Mullins] is right now -- this morning I
discussed it with her -- she's talking to the Hill, and I just
don't have an answer on it. But that's what motivated me. I
started this. It is all me.
Q How many votes does it take, and do they all have
equal weight? (Laughter)
[Albania: US Assistance Update]
MS. TUTWILER: Oh, come on. I've got a statement on
Albania.
In a letter delivered by our Embassy today, Secretary
Baker informed recently elected Albanian President Sali Berisha
about plans to provide assistance for Albania. The United
States intends to assist the Albanian Government by continuing
to support the country's reform efforts.
Since last August, we have committed approximately
$28 million in assistance to Albania. About $26 million has
already been delivered. Today, the United States is announcing
a supplementary assistance package totaling approximately
$35 million which will include:
- A $23 million agricultural development program;
- A $10 million Food for Progress program which would
supplement the existing FY-92 food aid program of $17 million;
- And, a $2 million technical assistance program,
including $850,000 for a management training and economics
education project.
We have also recently engaged the new Albanian
Government in discussions regarding requirements for a
Jackson-Vanik waiver and negotiations for a bilateral trade
agreement as preliminary steps to consider Most Favored Nation
status for Albania and to facilitate U.S.-Albanian economic
relations.
In addition, the United States is strongly supporting
assistance to Albania in several multinational fora, including
the Group of 24, the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The United States congratulates the citizens of Albania
on their historic achievement and joins the international
community in welcoming Albania to the family of democratic
states.
Q Margaret, sliding along the map of Europe just a
little bit from Albania to what used to be called Yugoslavia,
can you fill us in on the dramatic events in Helsinki that we've
been waiting to hear about for so long?
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, we, as part of a United
States initiative, had asked for, and there is going on right
now, a meeting of the CSCE at the official level. And right now
I don't have anything to report on that meeting, Alan. They are
and will be discussing the question of membership for
Bosnia-Hercegovina. As you know, we asked for that to be done
on an emergency basis.
Normally membership is done, it is my understanding, at
a Ministerial level, and that is under review right there right
now. And I don't have anything for you concerning the question
I think you're most interested in -- the question of Belgrade's
participation in the CSCE. That is being discussed.
Q Margaret, do you have any -- does the United
States have any response to Cuba's request of the United Nations
Security Council for extradition of two Cuban exiles whom Cuba
accuses of blowing up a Cuban passenger plane in 1976?
MS. TUTWILER: Not a whole lot, Ralph. Number one, we
recognize that any country can request a meeting of the Security
Council. Number two, I think it's fair to point out that Cuba's
request is something that has happened -- an event that happened
15 years ago, and the specifics of this case, to be quite honest
with you, I have to refer you to the Justice Department. They
have all of the facts concerning this. We just simply don't.
Q What's the relevance of how long ago it occurred?
Does that mean you don't think it bears any resemblance to the
U.S. request to extradite two Libyans who are accused of blowing
up a passenger plane more recently?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I just think that it's important to point out to the public,
should they not be aware of this fact, that Cuba's request is
factually 15 years after the fact.
Q Do you think there's a statute of limitations on
such requests?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know whether there is or is not.
I started this by saying we recognize every nation has a right
to bring things to the Security Council. I think in the --
Q Were they tardy?
MS. TUTWILER: -- spirit of information, which is what
this briefing is about, to our public, it is important when
we're talking about a specific case, we think, to point out that
this is something that happened 15 years ago.
Q Does the U.S. have a position on whether these two
individuals would be -- would fall under extradition
proceedings?
MS. TUTWILER: It's my understanding, to be honest with
you -- and we tried to get information for you this morning --
this is something that has been handled for these many years,
it's my understanding, at the Justice Department. The State
Department, because it's not a foreign policy matter, Ralph,
simply does not have a great deal of information. We couldn't
find any this morning or pull it out for you concerning this
specific case about these two individuals. It's at the Justice
Department.
Q Did the U.S. -- is there going to be a U.N.
Security Council meeting on this subject? What --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I hadn't heard.
Q What position will the U.S. take on the question
of whether there should be a meeting to discuss this issue?
MS. TUTWILER: Total hypothetical for me. I don't
know.
Q Margaret, on the Middle East talks, the various
sides have been giving conflicting accounts of how things are
going. Does the State Department have any overall impression of
how things are going?
MS. TUTWILER: Not one that we're going to be
discussing at the briefing today. As you know, we've refrained,
through the previous four rounds, of not discussing or not
turning this podium into the official briefing for the parties
in the discussions that are going on.
Ambassador Djerejian met this morning with the heads of
the various Israeli delegations that are here. He is scheduled
throughout the afternoon to meet --
Q There is only one Israeli delegation here.
MS. TUTWILER: But they're heads of all the different
delegations. He met with Yosi [Ben-Aharon], he met with Elie
[Rubinstein], he met with all the heads. He is going to be
meeting with the heads of the other delegations that are here
throughout the afternoon. Ambassador Ross does not have any
scheduled meetings today, but as far as an overall
characterization, no, we do not have one of this specific round.
We're obviously pleased they're here. We encourage them to
continue at their work at the negotiations.
Q Has there now been official notification by the
Israelis that they're planning to leave Thursday afternoon?
MS. TUTWILER: No, there is not. To be candid with
you, as we stated, I believe, yesterday, Foreign Minister Levy
and Secretary Baker discussed this subject, as the Secretary
said in his brief meeting with you all yesterday afternoon.
The Secretary said, when asked the question: Did he
receive an official Israeli response? He said he did not. This
morning, in Ambassador Djerejian's meeting, the Israeli
delegation did come in with a suggested approach on the
Palestinian representation issue.
Q Have we got crossed wires?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry, Jim.
Q The question was whether --
Q Whether there has now been official notification
by the Israelis that they plan on leaving Thursday afternoon?
MS. TUTWILER: Oh, I'm sorry. No, not that I know of.
Q Now, go on with your answer on the multilateral
talks.
MS. TUTWILER: You want me to start all over or start
where I was?
Q No. You were doing fine.
Q Basically, what's happened is this morning the
Israelis have come back in with a suggested approach to the
Palestinian representation issue. I cannot characterize it for
you. It's something that Ambassador Djerejian received.
The Secretary, as you know, has been at the White House
all day, and Ambassador Djerejian has not had an opportunity to
discuss this with the Secretary, which he will do, shortly after
the Secretary's official lunch here today.
Q Can you say a little more? Is this an approach
that would make it possible for the Israelis to attend the
talks? Is that what you mean?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't characterize it. This is
something that Foreign Minister Levy said to Secretary Baker
yesterday: He would like to go back and have some further
discussions with his government. I have to assume, with the
delegates. They could answer this better than I. We were
expecting them this morning, as he had told the Secretary, to
come in with something. They did. We're characterizing it, as
I believe they themselves will, as a suggested approach.
Q Margaret, diplomats have been reporting that the
invitations to the arms control session here in Washington did
not go to the European states or the EC. Can you confirm that?
MS. TUTWILER: No, because, as you know, I have
refrained all week from, at this moment in time, getting into
who all was specifically sent invitations. We said we would
handle that as we have other meetings, and we would be glad to
give it all out once it's all in.
I asked this morning, because I saw on the wires, that
some individuals are now saying whether they've accepted or not
accepted. It is our view we're going to handle that the same
way as we are who all we invited; but that all five invitations
went out, including the one you're concerned about -- arms
control. Yes, they did.
Q Margaret, on a different subject. Can you tell us
whether the Secretary sees any conflict of interest in Mr.
Eagleburger's participation in the Administration's debate over
CCC credits for Iraq in the late 1980s -- '88-'89?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, to my knowledge, I don't
even know, because I haven't asked, if Larry [Eagleburger] and
the Secretary have even discussed that subject, Ralph.
I would like to point out that I am aware of stories
that continue to be written concerning the Deputy Secretary and,
I believe, it's BNL. One of the stories today, it's my
understanding -- I did not read it thoroughly -- discusses the
fact that cables go out, or went out under Deputy Secretary
Eagleburger's name.
Just so the record shows -- which all of you I know are
familiar with, but maybe others who read this transcript are not
-- whoever is Acting Secretary, whether it is the Deputy
Secretary, the Under Secretary, it could be an Assistant
Secretary, every cable that goes out of this building, 24 hours
a day, during the time that that person is acting, goes out
under the Acting's name. No one, I can assure you -- and I
think that you would agree with me -- could possibly see, know
about, read all cables during a 24-hour period that go out under
the name of either the Secretary or the Acting. It's a State
Department system that has existed, it's my understanding, for
decades.
So I wanted to make sure that that portion of the part
concerning cables was out there.
Concerning Deputy Secretary Eagleburger's association
or affiliation or meetings or conversations concerning BNL, I
would refer you back to his own confirmation hearings, which I
think you're very familiar with. He produced for the committee
in advance of and answered all questions. It was an extensive,
normal confirmation hearing. There's really absolutely nothing
new that we have to add to what he himself has already said
publicly concerning his "involvement" with BNL.
Q Has there been any discussion in the State
Department, either in the Legal Department or perhaps even
between Eagleburger and Baker over the question of appearance of
conflict of interest?
MS. TUTWILER: There can't be any appearance of
conflict.
Q President Bush often speaks of wanting to keep his
Administration free of even the appearance of conflict of
interest.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. But there can be no appearance
of conflict if you have a gentleman's word in public that he has
never worked for BNL on any matters related to BNL while he was
previously employed with Kissinger ∧ Associates.
There's also, in my opinion, a standard of fairness.
If someone has testified -- if the relevant committee that
confirms you -- and you all recall back during the transition --
went through and had a number of questions concerning Larry's
previous employment, I have to assume that those staffs and
those Senators were adequately satisfied or they would not have
confirmed him.
Q So it would be the Administration's point of view
on this, that because Eagleburger claims not to have done any
work for BNL during his employment with Kissinger Associates,
the appearance of conflict of interest doesn't exist merely on
the basis of his association with Kissinger? The fact that
Kissinger was associated with BNL and that Eagleburger was
associated with Kissinger, in the Administration's view, does
not represent a conflict of interest or even the appearance of
one; is that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: If the gentleman in question who you're
asking me about is the Deputy Secretary of State, three years
ago -- more than three years ago -- answered all of these
questions, either questions that the committee submitted to him
and you submit answers in writing, or in testimony. I can't
recall how long his confirmation hearing lasted. I just don't
remember.
But I do remember that at the time, during the
transition period, I, myself, of my own knowledge, can recall
some questions that were raised in the press concerning things
that Kissinger ∧ Associates did. The Deputy Secretary of State
has said publicly that he never worked for BNL, or any matters
related to BNL.
I personally have not read all of these articles. I
don't know what other questions you're asking me. But I am very
confident that I am answering the question that seems to me to
be relevant; that if there was something that he had refused to
answer or was declining to answer or had somehow ducked, you
would be correct to continue to ask me to please get an answer
or to answer this. He has.
Q Just one more. Without regard to Eagleburger or
any specific individual, I think I asked the other day -- and I
think you said you would look into it -- the question of why the
Administration -- we discussed the fact that the Administration
had continued to argue for, or support, additional CCC credits
for Iraq. But the question that remained unanswered was, why
did the Administration do that immediately after learning,
through its own government investigation, of the possible
diversion of that food and money to the purchase of weapons by
Iraq?
MS. TUTWILER: And I'll answer it the same way we
continue answering it, which is, the Secretary of State said, as
we gave you the other day in public testimony, at the time in
question the Administration was seeking, if possible, to improve
relations with Iraq and thereby moderate Iraq's international
conduct. This policy was embodied in a National Security
decision directive that had been the subject of interagency
discussions. That was the Secretary's answer in response to a
question posed by Senator Leahy.
Q You mean a directive provided for the use of --
for the trade-off of weapons?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't read the directive. I don't
know what it says.
Q Well, the question is about their behavior in
taking this and turning it into weapons.
MS. TUTWILER: I honestly --
Q And you say there was a directive.
MS. TUTWILER: I'm going to do what I did the other
day.
Q So why are you quoting the directive if it doesn't
deal with the question -- or does it?
MS. TUTWILER: In my mind, I'm going to continue to do
what I have done, which is to say, the Secretary of State has
answered this question. This is the exact answer that he gave,
and I have nothing further on the subject.
Q Did the directive order the Secretary of State or
other U.S. officials to advocate, or to attempt to improve
relations, as you said, with Iraq in spite of the
Administration's knowledge of the investigation about diversion?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one --
Q Or were they not related, or did one not know
about the other?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, I believe that National
Security directives are classified; and number two, I'm positive
I've never read it. So I will be more than glad -- the
Secretary didn't go into, in his answer to Senator Leahy, the
contents of the directive, other than the way he characterized
it.
I will be happy to see if the Department has a further
elaboration after, of course, checking with the White House,
concerning the contents of this National Security directive.
Q I guess the bottom-line question is not so much
what was the Administration's goal vis-a-vis Iraq at that time,
which we've heard the Secretary speak about, including in the
testimony you quoted. But our interest is in, why did the
Administration pursue that policy as distinct from one that
might have been pursued if it were aware of the possible
diversion of funds?
MS. TUTWILER: Right --
Q I hear you saying that you'll look into it.
MS. TUTWILER: I think you were there yesterday
afternoon. It might be helpful if you just re-ask the Secretary
of State yourself.
Q I'll try, at the next available opportunity.
MS. TUTWILER: Okay.
Q Do you have any response or reaction to the
situation in Afghanistan, and how that appears to be settling
out or not settling out?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. In Afghanistan, there appears to
be some fighting that is still going on in Kabul, but at a lower
level than over the weekend.
Most areas of the city are under the authority of the
new interim council.
The situation concerning the formation of a new
government remains, as we described it yesterday. It's a very
fluid situation.
The interim council has been formed to hold power
temporarily in Kabul. We welcome this development. The
temporary part of this, it's my understanding, was under the
formula agreed to by the Mujahidin leaders on April 24. This
would be a step toward formation of a new government.
We wish the interim council well in its efforts to
establish peace and stability through a transitional political
process.
We understand that the various parties continue their
negotiations, and we are hopeful this process will lead to a
broad-based government.
I did correctly hear Jim Anderson's question of
yesterday, even though I didn't today. You asked me
concerning what is our policy on recognition. I had forgotten
and not recalled that we never broke diplomatic relations with
Afghanistan -- with Kabul.
As you know, we did in 1989, and have since, restricted
our dealings to solely administrative and consular matters.
Concerning technically, which I believe is what you
were asking me, recognition, I said yesterday it was a
complicated matter. I checked with the lawyers. Indeed, it is.
It is an extremely complicated issue.
Generally, as you probably are well aware, we formally
recognize countries. We recognize the state of Afghanistan.
That has never been an issue since we never said we didn't
recognize them.
There is no international legal requirement to give
formal recognition to any government. Whether to establish or
continue diplomatic relations with a government is solely a
policy decision.
Q So then, in the formula that the State Department
generally uses, the question of recognition does not arise under
the present circumstances?
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q Is it time for the U.S. to send diplomats back to
Kabul now?
MS. TUTWILER: That's something that we will continue
to look at, Ralph, as we assess the situation there on the
ground.
Q So it's not time yet?
MS. TUTWILER: It's something that we're going to
continue to look at.
Q Anything new on Peru?
MS. TUTWILER: New on Peru? No. The investigation is
continuing, and we don't have any conclusions or anything that's
final.
Q Thanks.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:32 p.m.)