US Department of State Daily Briefing #68:
Tuesday, 5/5/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: May, 5 19925/5/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, East Asia,
South America, Subsaharan Africa
Country: Israel, USSR (former), China, Argentina, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Sudan
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
Arms Control, Security Assistance and Sales, Human Rights,
State Department, Science/Technology, Trade/Economics
12:13 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have any statements. I'll be
happy to try to answer your questions.
[China: Visit of Under Secretary Kanter/Compliance with UN
Sanctions/Reports of Beatings Around Embassy/Other]
Q Margaret, can you tell us a little bit about Under
Secretary Kanter's trip to China?
MS. TUTWILER: It's not only China, it's my
understanding, Carol, and his office will, every day, be putting
out exactly what his itinerary is. This is his first
opportunity as the Under Secretary of the Department to go to
this region. He will be going to China, to Seoul, to Bangkok.
He will end up some time in May, the end of May, in Germany for
the G-7 Political Directors meeting. And I think there's one
other place he's going. Wait one second. I can't remember. I
learned it this morning. He's left. He left this morning on
his trip.
I was right -- Beijing, Bangkok, Seoul and Tokyo. I
forgot Tokyo, sorry. Specifically, in each of these countries,
he will meet with a broad range of officials and discuss a full
spectrum of global, regional and bilateral issues.
Specifically in China, it is my understanding that
Under Secretary Kanter will stress the importance we attach to
progress on human rights, non-proliferation and trade in
advancing our bilateral relations, and also to continued
cooperation in international issues in the U.N. and elsewhere.
He will be in Beijing from May 6 to 9, and he will be meeting --
I don't have yet the names of the Chinese officials that he will
be meeting with. We'll try to get that for you daily.
Q Well, specifically, is he going to raise this
issue of the reports last week that China was violating the U.N.
sanctions against Libya?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I haven't been into that
level of detail concerning his trip. I don't know if that's on
his agenda or not, to be honest with you, and I'll be happy to
ask his staff.
Q Is that the sort of thing that you mean when you
say you're going to be talking with China about cooperation in
international organizations such as the United Nations?
MS. TUTWILER: That could well be. I'll plead
ignorance. I did not spend a lot of time this morning -- the
trip just started. I haven't seen his briefing papers. I
haven't talked to his staff. I just don't know what his agenda
is. I will be glad to -- I think tomorrow's the first day he's
there -- try to do a daily, if not readout, for you here at the
briefing, give you who he met with, where he is, what did he
discuss, what was the agenda. I just don't have it today at the
beginning of a trip.
Q Does the State Department still believe -- take
China at its word that it's not shipping missile technology to
various players in the Middle East? You're about to have a
conference on proliferation, and I wondered if you could give us
some notion of their behavior to date?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to ask some experts.
Q Please.
MS. TUTWILER: I have not looked at this, and I'll be
happy to ask them if they have an update for you.
Q Yes. And you can throw in the mix how they stand,
how many political prisoners are they keeping now, and, you
know, what they --
MS. TUTWILER: We've never, as I recall, given -- if
you're talking about China -- given a number, remember.
Q Well, there was once, I think, where you credited
them with releasing a batch and said --
MS. TUTWILER: Releasing some, but we never gave an
overall number that I recall. Certainly, I don't believe I did
from the podium, because at the time we said it was impossible
for us to get, across that vast country, an accurate number in
our opinion.
Q Are they sending somebody here in return, so this
would be an exchange of high-level visitors?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of. They recently just
had a high-level visitor here and, as you know, last November
the Secretary of State was there.
Q So how does this -- are there still sanctions? I
can't recall anymore.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, there are. I don't have them with
me of which ones still remain. I'll be happy to get those for
you. And, if you'll recall, his -- the person who served in
this job prior to him -- Under Secretary Kimmitt -- made a very
similar trip.
It is my understanding from briefly discussing this
with Arnie [Kanter] yesterday, that that is exactly what this
is. It is his first opportunity, as the third ranking person in
this Department, to visit this region, ending in Germany for the
G-7 Political Directors meeting.
Q Margaret, if I'm not mistaken, this is the highest
level U.S. official to go to China since the Secretary was there
in November, and that trip, I think, most experts felt had mixed
results. And I was wondering if you thought -- if your
expectations were any higher for this trip. There have been
some reports that the Chinese might --
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, the Secretary of
State's visit, in my mind, was an action-forcing trip and was
originally envisioned that way. There were specific things, if
you'll remember, in three different baskets that the Secretary
of State worked very hard to achieve.
Arnie Kanter's visit, on the other hand, in my mind, is
no different than Bob Kimmitt's previous visit or Reggie
Bartholomew's visits or any other senior high-ranking State
Department trips; that this is the first one where he has gone
to the region. I am not aware that he is on a specific mission
to China or to Seoul or to Bangkok or to Tokyo.
But is it an opportunity for him as the third ranking
person here at the Department -- I'm sure he will make other
trips to other regions, as Mr. Kimmitt did. But I'm not aware,
personally, but I will be glad to ask his staff who's here, if
there's something specific that Arnie is going to negotiate with
the Chinese. I don't think that's the case. But will he bring
up --
Q Margaret --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me -- a number of the issues
that, as you know, Secretary Baker himself described as falling
short, as I recall, specifically in the human rights area? I'm
absolutely positive he will continue to pursue that dialogue as
Ambassador Schifter did here and others.
Q On human rights, have you seen the report that the
Chinese have told several people -- Westerners in Beijing --
that they intend to release some political prisoners?
MS. TUTWILER: I have not seen that.
Q Have they informed the State Department directly
or the Embassy directly of --
MS. TUTWILER: If they have, Jim, I haven't heard about
it last night or this morning. I haven't -- I just don't know
anything about that.
Q Also on human rights, Margaret, did China ever
respond to us about the people who were dragged from the U.S.
Embassy into the guard booth and beaten about a month ago?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. (TO STAFF) Do you
remember, Richard [Boucher].
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
MS. TUTWILER: I don't remember.
Q If there was a response, could we --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q In fact, exactly, the trips have been so
commonplace, can we put to rest the notion that there's some
prohibition on U.S. officials going to China? Isn't it pretty
well, you know, kind of a well-trod path now?
MS. TUTWILER: Barry, you can characterize it any way
you would like. As you recall, the sanction that was in effect,
as I recall it, was "delegations" were suspended, and I remember
those were like trade delegations. I believe there was a
specific one at Commerce at the time of Tiananmen Square. I
believe there was a specific one that Secretary Brady from the
Treasury Department was going to head.
There are other types of interagency -- government
types of delegations, as I recall. I believe that the Secretary
and the President have adequately answered this hundreds of
times, in my mind. We have -- never, that I recall, did the
President of the United States say -- in fact, quite the
opposite -- in fact, his policy has been the opposite of what
you're saying of suspending or cutting off contact with China.
And the State Department -- and whether high level or
at other levels -- is the place where the vast bulk of that
takes place and transpires, and it does.
Q I thought there was -- I'm sorry, maybe I was
reading his lips -- I don't know. I thought there was a ban on
high-level exchanges, and, if a Chinese official came here last
month and Kanter is going there this month, this looks like an
exchange. And isn't he taking any people with him? What makes
it a delegation?
MS. TUTWILER: Right. We debated this at the time.
Q He's not traveling alone, is he?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know who's with him.
Q He's got somebody with him.
MS. TUTWILER: He's on a commercial airplane. I don't
know how many people are going with him.
Q Well, that's nice.
MS. TUTWILER: He is not out on a big Presidential
delegation on a Presidential White House mission with a
designated aircraft.
Q I get it.
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. But not to rehash this
entire subject that we did many, many times preceding Tiananmen
Square, nothing has changed concerning what the President said
at the time, what the facts are, and how we have conducted
ourselves and answered these questions many times.
Q Margaret, just to follow up on what Barry's
saying, are you basically saying that this is a routine visit,
and that visits at the level of Kanter are routine? There's
nothing special. It's a routine visit. You said it's time for
him to make this kind of visit, and he's going to Seoul and to
Beijing and to Tokyo because --
MS. TUTWILER: We could, I guess, sit out here and
debate the meaning of "routine." Since this is Arnie Kanter's
first visit as the Under Secretary of this Department, I'm only
aware in three years of his -- the person who occupied the job
before him, Under Secretary Kimmitt -- of making one visit. So
I don't know how you could really say routine.
Routine, in my mind, is like this daily briefing. We
do this every day. It's a routine. Arnie Kanter is making one
trip to five countries, four of which are in this region -- I
haven't asked him does he intend to go every six weeks or every
eight weeks or once every three months or once every three
years. I just don't know.
Q Margaret, if I recall correctly, Kimmitt's visit
led to the Secretary's visit ultimately in November.
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q Is Kanter preparing the way for another visit by
the Secretary or perhaps the President?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I know of. And you're right to
point that out. It was just a little bit before that, if you
recall, the Chinese Foreign Minister was here at the State
Department. And at that meeting, with the Secretary and the
Foreign Minister, they agreed upon three meetings, one of which
was Under Secretary Kimmitt's, which was the last one. One --
the first meeting -- was in the human rights area by Assistant
Secretary Schifter. The second was in the arms control area by
Under Secretary Bartholomew, and the last was by Under Secretary
Kimmitt. So all that was worked out in a meeting with the
Secretary of State.
I am not aware that -- Arnie Kanter's trip, again, is
not just to China. He's there two days -- two and a half days.
It is one part of a trip to this region. I have not read his
agenda, but I have not heard of any type of follow-on by the
Secretary of State.
Q Margaret, there was a time when the Bush
Administration sent visitors of Kanter's level and above to
China secretly. That, obviously, is not the case with Kanter's
visit.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q Have there been any other high-level visits that
have not been revealed to date?
MS. TUTWILER: That's a very broad question, Ralph.
None that I have any knowledge of, that pop into my head. But
if some individual has gone to China at any level in the United
States Government that we have not announced, I'm just not aware
of it.
Q Margaret, do you know whether we're still
operating those listening posts in northeast China?
MS. TUTWILER: No, I don't.
Q Is that something you can find out?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to check it out for you.
Q Can I try on another aspect of U.S. policy --
non-proliferation of weapons. For two days now there have been
reports that the Administration is removing restrictions on
sales of jet aircraft and other military equipment to Argentina.
Can you help us with that?
MS. TUTWILER: Sorry, Barry. I haven't heard about
that. I don't know anything about it. I'll be happy to ask.
[Former Soviet Union: START Treaty and Negotiations with Byelarus,
Ukraine, Kazakhstan]
Q On another subject: Can you bring us up to date
on the status of U.S. attempts to proceed with the START treaty
and complete negotiations with Byelarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan?
MS. TUTWILER: There's really nothing additional to
report today. The Secretary of State had another conversation
yesterday with his counterpart from Ukraine, the Ukrainian
Foreign Minister. He will be seeing -- as you all know, it's on
his public schedule -- the President of Ukraine this afternoon.
I believe it's around 5:00 or 5:30 when he arrives and he's
escorting him over to Blair House. He will meet with him later
at the official opening of the Ukrainian Embassy, I believe it's
around 7:00 p.m.
So he will have a firsthand opportunity to continue
this discussion with those two gentlemen, but there is nothing
to report either on those conversations or the other three that
he's continuing to have.
Q Does the Secretary feel he's making progress on
that score? He's been working at that for maybe four to six
weeks now.
MS. TUTWILER: He has.
Q Does he feel --
MS. TUTWILER: I really try to refrain from setting him
up for adjectives. His own characterization is that he's
continuing to work the problem.
Q Margaret, is there any value in getting the four
nuclear states together? I mean, the Secretary meeting maybe
with the Foreign Ministers or the Presidents of these four
countries and addressing the thing in unison. Has any thought
been given to that?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, thought's been given to that, and
it's any one of a number of options that have been discussed.
But there have been no decisions.
Q Margaret, does the Department have a view of the
announced declaration of independence of the Crimea today?
MS. TUTWILER: That's another subject -- we must have
really fallen down on our job this morning -- that I haven't
heard about either. Argentina and the Crimea, I haven't heard.
Sorry.
Q Coming back for just a second to the negotiations
over START, Secretary Baker will have a chance to meet the
President of Ukraine, as you mentioned, for the first time since
he saw him in December, I think, was the last time they saw each
other.
At that time, I think Baker was fairly proud of the
promises he thought he had from Ukraine and Kazakhstan,
particularly, on this subject. Does he feel somehow those
promises haven't upheld or that he's been let down by these
leaders?
MS. TUTWILER: I would characterize his views, not only
in that meeting, but in the other meetings we had on that trip,
as rather pleased than proud. After all, these were decisions
that other countries took.
What I want to really refrain from doing, Ralph, since
he is in the middle of these discussions, is characterizing
whether he, to use your phraseology, feels let down or that --
obviously, without saying this about Ukraine or anyone in
particular, people would certainly appear to have a different
view of this subject maybe today than they did back in December.
If they did not, then we wouldn't have something that we were
working on.
As you know, since his visit in December, there has
been a White House high-level mission that not only discussed
this, but discussed the whole basket of issues. The President
of Ukraine, as I said, will be here today, and we have a Charge
there on the ground, Ambassador Gundersen, who has been working
this issue with us here and Reggie Bartholomew daily.
Q Does the Secretary feel that something needs to
get done about this anytime soon or there's no particular --
they could do it anytime soon?
MS. TUTWILER: As we've said all along, we're working
against our -- this is "our" -- legislative calendar, which we
have made very clear to the parties involved that, at some
point, you run out of rope here.
Q Why is that important to the Bush Administration?
MS. TUTWILER: In order to get it ratified.
Q Sorry, just one last one. And why is that
important?
MS. TUTWILER: Ralph, you have the President of the
United States and the President of the former Soviet Union sign
something that our governments had spent, I believe it was over
nine and a half years negotiating and working on. Most people
at the time applauded that as an accomplishment -- if not an
accomplishment, certainly, a step forward -- to closing out an
account that had been painstakingly negotiated through two
Administrations.
As you know, in our system here, if you do not have
that ratified, then you have not completed the process. So it
was assumed then, it is still our desire of this Administration,
and I would venture of most people, to get the START treaty
ratified.
Q Margaret, what happens if you don't meet the
legislative target? What happens if May comes and goes, June
comes and goes, and you don't have some sort of agreement on
START? Is this Administration prepared to put it on a shelf and
wait until the next Administration? Or would you consider
perhaps implementing it on a bilateral basis with Russia, as the
SALT II treaty was implemented?
MS. TUTWILER: What I'd rather do is not answer your
question. It's really speculative for me, because the Secretary
of State right now is not dealing with "what if you don't get
May, what if you don't get June, would you consider."
I'm sure that there are probably experts here who have thought
along those scenarios. But what he's actively involved in is
trying to get something done now.
So until we know that that is going to be the scenario,
I just think it would be unfair to the current work that he's
involved in.
Q Is it accurate to say that the weapons would not
be -- that the United States would reduce the strategic nuclear
weapons mentioned in the START treaty without the START treaty
being ratified?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, Ralph, I haven't
heard that personally addressed. I'll be happy to ask someone
what our policy is concerning that "what if."
All I know is what's real and what is today and, as you point
out, has been going on at a pretty steady clip at the Secretary
of State's level for a number of weeks now, trying to
painstakingly pull this together and get this agreement so that
we can go forward here in our country, which we believe is a
prudent policy, to begin the START ratification process.
Q Margaret, when you say "a pretty steady clip," are
you saying or are you trying to communicate to us that there has
been some progress in these efforts by the Secretary? Or do you
think that things are just kind of standing still right now?
MS. TUTWILER: I've refrained from personally putting
adjectives on this or characterizing it. What I mean by "pretty
steady clip" is almost daily, the Secretary of State, including
weekends, speaks to either one of his counterparts -- the
Foreign Ministers or the head of state -- some days as many as
three or four of them.
I have almost every day been reporting who he has
spoken with and that's what I mean by steady involvement --
moving along at a steady clip. Not whether there's progress or
non-progress; but personal involvement, as I've said, almost
every day here by him with his counterparts or, in many
instances, the head of state, trying to help the parties work
this out.
Q Margaret, the Secretary came back from his last
trip to Kazakhstan relatively pleased with what he had been able
to extract in the way of promises from President Nazarbayev.
Yesterday, you put out a statement here indicating that
there's now some ambiguity about Kazakhstan's position on giving
up its nuclear weapons. Does this indicate a rising level of
concern here about what's going on in Kazakhstan?
MS. TUTWILER: No. The reason that I put out -- it
wasn't necessarily a statement. It was in response to a
question concerning Sid's question on the $400 million. If you
recall, we had said at the time -- I believe this has to do with
certification -- that when Deputy Secretary Eagleburger sent the
other certifications forward, we were unable at that time to
certify for Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan is one of the nations that has been very
involved in Secretary Baker's current efforts. I believe that
the President of Kazakhstan -- check with the White House -- is
due to come for a visit here to our country. I believe it's in
the month of May. Secretary Baker will continue working with
him.
But if we had not had concerns, then we would have --
it's my understanding -- been able to go forward with four
certifications.
In all of this, John, for loftier or a generic answer,
obviously, we are concerned. Our focus has been even larger
than START of four or potentially three new nuclear states in
our whole emphasis, in this Administration, over proliferation.
Q Does the Secretary, on a personal level or the
State Department, on an official level, feel that it has somehow
been deceived by Kazakhstan?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, that's similar to Ralph's question
about Ukraine. It is clear, is the most State Department
diplomatic way that I can phrase this, that had -- what all that
we were, as a government -- expressions that were made back in
December -- had those not had to have a few things ironed out,
we would not, probably, be in the position that we are in today.
That is why the Secretary continues to talk with the various
parties to try to help them resolve their differences in order
to allow us to go forward with our ratification over START.
Q Margaret, does the Secretary have a sauna? And if
so, will he be inviting the President of Kazakhstan or Ukraine
into the sauna to discuss this issue, to reciprocate?
MS. TUTWILER: To my knowledge, he does not have one.
Q Margaret, I want to make sure I'm understanding
this correctly. You're saying that the problems here are all
among these states; it's not that any of them have any problems
with us, because, you know, some of them have said, well, we
want to be involved directly in arms control negotiations. We
consider that's something they need to work out with Russia.
Not something they would work out with us?
MS. TUTWILER: As you know, what has evolved is they
have -- again, diplomatically -- in looking at their own fine
print, perhaps of statements they had made, or as things were
evolving in their own new nations, with their own parliaments,
with their own publics -- we are continuing to try to help them.
As you know, they have all made various public statements
concerning their country's views on either previous statements
that were made or on positions that should today be taken.
We are trying -- not necessarily to be a facilitator or
a mediator -- but we are trying to help the parties, to use a
familiar phrase, bridge their differences. That is what the
Secretary has been involved in. I've tried to express what our
reasons for doing so are, why we think it is in our national
security interest to do so, and he will continue to plug along.
I don't know -- as in Carol's question -- when you run
out of string, or when you are told categorically "no." We're
not at that point yet.
Q But there are some things we do have a view on.
For instance, Kazakhstan saying, gee, we'd like to be a
temporary nuclear power. That sort of thing we've expressed
views on -- right?
MS. TUTWILER: We have expressed our view on this whole
situation through any number of messages, at the highest levels
of our government, over the last months since December; messages
from the Secretary of State, and almost daily phone
conversations with the Secretary of State, as I said, with one
or the other or all, etc.
What I'm refraining from doing, which I know is
frustrating for you, is to say, we're almost there; there's only
one more little part of the puzzle to put to bed, or expressing
what the Secretary's views have been concerning this situation
at the very time when he is talking to these people. That, I
just can't do for you.
Q Margaret, is the United States still convinced
that Russia has launch control over all of these missiles?
MS. TUTWILER: As far as I know, yes.
Q There's been no change in that?
MS. TUTWILER: There has been no change in that since
the last time we addressed this. Chairman Powell has addressed
it; Secretary Cheney has addressed it. That issue is, to my
knowledge, not even on the radar screen. I have not heard it
raised again in weeks.
Q Has President Bush been engaged in messages --
exchange of messages on this subject with any of these four
nuclear republics?
MS. TUTWILER: Since December?
Q Since December, yeah?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q Another area: Do you have any comment on the
announcement made by the Israeli Government that Israel is not
responsible for the conditions and the practices in the Khiam
prison camp?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't seen that particular
statement. So, no, I don't have a comment. I haven't heard
about it.
Q Will you please take the question?
MS. TUTWILER: I'll look at it. Sure.
Q Have you anything further on the Russia-India
booster rocket thing since yesterday?
MS. TUTWILER: No. In fact, there were several reports
this morning that we had officially been told this; some reports
saying that the Indian Government had officially told us, some
saying that the Russian Government had.
I've checked in a number of potential offices here that
could have gotten that official confirmation. They say they do
not have such confirmation.
Q Is that about the program itself?
Q The deal, whether --
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, whether they're going to cancel it
or go forward.
Q The Indian Embassy said that several months ago
when the Indian Defense Minister was here, that this was
discussed.
MS. TUTWILER: I said yesterday, we've had lots of
discussions.
Q Right, but that was when they got -- he says that
you all said it was fine with us; we have no problems with the
deal?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know what official you're
speaking of or what State Department official has said that.
That is clearly not our policy.
I said yesterday, at the highest levels of
our government, this subject matter has been discussed. I said,
as Barry points out, that we are very close to making a
decision.
I just don't have the decision for you, but I said what the
penalties or sanctions would be and those are all going to be
implemented. They are implemented, it's my understanding,
against the companies or the organization.
Q Margaret, there's a report today -- on the same
subject -- from Russian Deputy Prime Minister Burbulis that
Russia would go ahead with it.
MS. TUTWILER: We saw that. We have absolutely --
other than one news report, which we then saw later in the day
and called back to the various offices -- we only have it
through a news report.
Q Margaret, on that same subject. The Indian
officials who are involved with this space research program say
that in order to use this launcher, it would take 90 days to
fuel it before a launch, which doesn't strike me as being very
useful militarily. Why then -- since there's a such a long lead
time -- why then is it regarded as potentially dangerous within
the Missile Technology Control Regime?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I know that our view is
that it is. I'm not a technical expert on the missile control
technology regime nor on this specific rocket engine. I'll be
happy to ask a scientist or an expert here if they can get you a
fuller answer. I just know that it's our view that it does.
Q Dr. Turabi is arriving next week here.
MS. TUTWILER: Who?
Q Dr. Hassan Turabi is arriving here from Sudan.
He's arriving here next week. Do you know if he's scheduled to
meet any U.S. officials?
MS. TUTWILER: No, but I'll be happy to check various
officials' schedules here at the State Department. I don't have
any idea.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:39 p.m.)