US Department of State Daily Briefing #74:
Wednesday, 5/13/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: May, 13 19925/13/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe,
South Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia, Subsaharan Africa
Country: Israel, USSR (former), Lebanon, Qatar, Afghanistan,
Russia, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Azerbaijan,
United Kingdom, Thailand, Angola
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
United Nations, State Department, Regional/Civil Unrest,
Military Affairs, Arms Control
12:10 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything. I'll be happy to try
to answer your questions.
Q Your comments yesterday about the 1948 U.N. Resolution,
do you have any elaboration on that? I understood you were
supposed to get back to us with a posted answer late last night.
I don't know whether you ever did.
MS. TUTWILER: We did.
Q You did.
MS. TUTWILER: That was in response to Carol Giacomo's
question, which was not on Resolution 194. I believe it was on
Resolution 237. I'll be happy to state for you what we did post
last night.
On June 14, 1967, the United States joined the Council in
unanimously adopting Resolution 237. We continue to support it.
However, just as I said yesterday, with respect to U.N. General
Assembly Resolution 194, we will not get into any interpretation
of the terms and elements of either resolution.
The issues raised in both these resolutions, like those
raised in many other U.N. resolutions relating to the
Arab-Israeli conflict, can only be resolved through a process of
direct negotiations among the parties themselves. Outside
parties are not going to resolve those issues. Clearly, the
process of negotiations must take into account the needs and
requirements of the parties themselves. What they determine
through their negotiations is what matters.
That's what we stated last night.
Q Should those issues be dealt with -- the question, for
example, of -- just to pick one -- of Palestinian right of
return -- should that be dealt with, in the U.S. view, in the
multilateral discussions on refugee issues?
MS. TUTWILER: No. We've clearly said that we did not,
and that's what I believe I just stated -- that it is not to be
handled in the multilateral fora; that we believe that is for
the parties to discuss among themselves, not in the
multilaterals.
Q If the session on refugee issues is about refugee
issues, what's the rationale behind the U.S. feeling that this
type of refugee issue ought not to be discussed there, or do you
not consider it a refugee issue?
MS. TUTWILER: Our strong position has always been,
which is well-known to all parties, that it was not to be
discussed -- our strong position -- at the multilaterals.
Obviously, we cannot prevent sovereign nations, should that be
their choice, of bringing up anything they want to bring up --
whether in that fora or any other fora. But that's our strong
position. It has always been our position.
In our opinion, as I just stated, it is an issue that
can only be dealt with in final status bilateral negotiations,
and we will not support any follow-up on this issue in the
multilaterals if it is raised. We've made this position very
clear to all the parties.
Q Margaret, were those two resolutions mentioned
between Israel and Washington during the -- you know, before the
peace talks started when you were negotiating the format of the
peace talks? Was that issue popped in? I mean, was it was
mentioned by Israel or by you during those --
MS. TUTWILER: Was the issue or were these two
resolutions?
Q The two resolutions.
MS. TUTWILER: The first I'd ever heard of the second
resolution was yesterday when Carol raised it, and Alan raised
the last one last week. I'm not aware of these two resolutions,
but I'm not the expert or the negotiator who is attending all
these hours and hours and hours of meetings that are going on.
So I don't know that I can answer your question for you: "Has
anybody ever raised these two resolutions in any meeting over
the last eight or nine months?" I don't know.
Q But, Margaret, these -- I mean, you said you're
not familiar with them. Do they call for direct talks between
parties in order to bring their resolution?
MS. TUTWILER: That is very similar to a type of
question that Mary Curtis asked me yesterday, which calls for an
interpretation by us of these two resolutions, which I declined
to do yesterday. I am declining to do so today.
Q But, I mean -- what I mean is these resolutions
were adopted by the Security Council. If I remember, 194 at
least was. I don't --
MS. TUTWILER: On December 11, 1948.
Q Wouldn't it be up to the Security Council to
interpret them then rather than the United States Government or
any other government for that matter?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm really not going to engage in this
debate. I have said that I was not going to yesterday. I'm not
going to today. I will not be doing so tomorrow. We've given
our reasons why, which I just have restated again twice today.
Q Margaret, have you heard from the Israelis on
this? Have they expressed concern?
MS. TUTWILER: We obviously heard from the Israelis
once, much to our amazement and especially my own, since I was
the briefer yesterday and many of you were here, and no one who
attended this briefing yesterday, who was in this room, had any
trouble understanding what the guidance was. No one who reads
the transcript could possibly have any trouble, nor did we see
anyone who did except, to be quite honest, members of the
Israeli press.
And I read this morning any number of Israeli press
stories that said I had made an announcement yesterday. I made
no such announcement. If you will recall, I responded to a
question which the transcript clearly shows. The transcript, in
my opinion -- is there for all to see -- clearly shows that I
said I would not be giving any interpretation on the terms and
elements. When posed an example by one of your colleagues here
in this room, I declined to engage on that subject.
So I don't blame the Israeli Government for calling and
saying, "What in the world is going on," when you're reading
wild and amazing reports of what went on in this room.
[Laughter]
Q Wild and amazing.
MS. TUTWILER: They were pretty wild when I heard about
them.
Q Is that the first time you've seen wild and
amazing reports from that part of the world -- [laughter]
MS. TUTWILER: No, it's not.
Q -- about what goes on in this room.
MS. TUTWILER: That's correct. But it's a weird way, I
think that you all would agree with me -- to be a little bit
serious, I know that the only commodity I have is my
credibility, and I know that you all operate that way also. And
it's a little different way to operate, and you all certainly --
you know, I'm not here to lecture you to do your own jobs -- but
credibility, I think, does matter on both sides of this
business.
And to go out and say that I came out here and made
this announcement -- I didn't make any such thing -- and to
somehow say, as you all have read, that -- and I don't know who
these people are. I have seen -- the Embassy sent me some press
reports this morning, and it's comical to read. There is no way
you could get from the facts, as we all -- and many of you were
here yesterday -- know them to some of the -- that's why I
called them "wild interpretations" of what I said. It's just --
yes, it was kind of amazing.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the reduction of
food aid to Lebanon?
MS. TUTWILER: Food aid to Lebanon? Yes.
There's a story today -- and I can't remember where it
is -- that the United States has stopped or reduced --
Q New York Times.
MS. TUTWILER: Was that where it was? -- food aid to
Lebanon. The truth is that we have not stopped food aid. The
program is continuing at its normal pace for now, and the Save
the Children Fund continues to act as the agent for importing
and distributing food aid to Lebanon.
The program will continue at least through 1993. There
are reserves in country. Ships arrived in Lebanon with U.S.
food on March 6 and March 13. Another ship with vegetable oil,
rice and lentils is scheduled to arrive on June 12.
After a one to two-year evaluation, the Save the
Children Fund recommended cutting the program by 25 percent in
1993. We have been working on a phase out plan by the end of
1993; however, we will be taking into account the economic
conditions in Lebanon when making decisions about the future of
the program.
Food aid has been a major component of our assistance
program to Lebanon, but we have been looking at ways to shift
our assistance from disaster relief and food aid to
reconstruction.
The United States Government has asked for an increase
in other types of assistance funds to Lebanon in FY-1993, and
those fall into the area of economic and reconstruction.
Q An AID spokesman told me this morning basically
the same thing, but that the United States had decided to reduce
aid by 25 percent this year and is considering cutting it off in
'93.
MS. TUTWILER: I can only answer you with the
information the experts gave me this morning. That's not my
understanding, but I am not at AID and I'm not an expert on
this. I did get -- I have the '91 numbers. We asked for the
'92 numbers prior to the briefing, and I was unable to get them
for you. I'll try to get them this afternoon.
Q Margaret, just to clarify something you said, I
think I just wasn't able to write it fast enough.
MS. TUTWILER: That's O.K.
Q You talked about a phase out plan, and I may be
missing words here -- phase out plan by the end of --
MS. TUTWILER: By the end of 1993.
Q Now, does that mean that you're going to work on
having such a phase out plan -- such a plan available by the end
of 1993, or does the United States intend to phase out -- does
the United States plan to phase out aid by the end of 1993?
MS. TUTWILER: My limited understanding of this is that
the United States is in agreement with the organization Save the
Children; that there needs to be a review or a look at the types
of assistance that Lebanon needs now, and that that is what the
United States is doing.
It's my understanding that Save the Children themselves
have said that a 25 percent reduction in food aid is what they
believe is needed. The United States, it's my understanding, is
that we are looking at new and different types of aid to Lebanon
that will fall in the category -- if this is what is adopted --
of economic and reconstruction types of aid.
So I'm not sure, Ralph, that there's a definitive
answer right now for you.
Q What is the rationale for the recommendation that
need is diminishing, or is this just impossible to distribute in
a chaotic situation?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. Maybe Save the Children
can give you what they base their criteria on. I don't have
that with me. Or maybe AID can, which, obviously, has been
dealing with this more than I have.
Q Margaret, can you give us an update on the arms
control talks today -- what the groups were doing and --
MS. TUTWILER: The multis?
Q Yes. The multis. Is there anything you can say
at all about the content?
MS. TUTWILER: Basically I can give you the schedule,
as I did yesterday. There's no, as you know, real substance --
not substance that I can say. They're obviously doing
substance.
[Laughter]
I want to be careful. I don't want to have a wild
story about this. Yesterday's talks -- I only spoke briefly
this morning with some of the people -- they again were very
serious and businesslike. The morning session consisted, as I
believe you're aware, of presentations and discussions on the
political setting for U.S.-Soviet arms control experiences
together.
There was also a presentation on the communications
arrangements, both bilateral and multilateral, that facilitate
our arms control and confidence building efforts. The afternoon
session started with a presentation on the evolution of the
confidence and security building process and was followed by
presentations of two specific U.S.-Soviet agreements -- the
Incidents at Sea Agreement and the Dangerous Military Activities
Agreement.
Today, it's my understanding, at 9:00 a.m., they will
visit the On-Site Inspection Agency, which is my understanding
is somehow connected to the Department of Defense. They will
have a presentation by Major General Robert W. Parker, who is
the Director, and by General Vladmir Medvedev --
Q Medvedev.
MS. TUTWILER: Medvedev, General Head of Russian NRRC.
At 12:30 p.m., there is a luncheon and discussion for heads of
the delegations hosted by OSIA. At 3:30 p.m., there is a
session for regional delegations and co-sponsors at the State
Department. I don't have the specifics of that one yet. And at
6:00 p.m., there's an informal reception with members of the
academic community hosted by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
Q Margaret, the way you describe it, it sounds
pretty much like, as you said the other day, a seminar or a
lecture seminar almost.
MS. TUTWILER: That's what it was intended to be.
Q Is there no communication between the other 19
parties?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, sure. I mean, they're spending
all day together every day.
Q I mean, are they engaged in a dialogue with
themselves in addition to responding to the United States and
the Soviet Union?
MS. TUTWILER: Have they broken off into separate
groups? Not that I'm aware of.
Q Well, during the course of the group therapy --
whatever you're calling it these days -- [laughter] -- do they
discuss things among themselves? In other words, do the
Israelis and whatever Arabs are there talk about the
possibilities of Middle East arms control?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't been attending these sessions.
It's a very good question. My understanding is, for instance,
yesterday I said Ambassador Ross gave the opening presentation,
followed by, he said, a little over two hours of other
individuals taking the floor and speaking. It's not my
impression that this is set up in a rigid fashion where there
cannot be a free flow of dialogue and conversation.
So I would be venturing a guess, but I would assume
that, yes, they have had discussions. That's how it was always
envisioned and set up, that discussions would follow speakers.
It would be a pretty limited discussion if it was just the
United States and the Russians who were discussing this. There
are a lot of people here. My understanding is they are, but
I'll ask those who are in the room. I'm not.
Q All the speakers are either Russians or Americans.
MS. TUTWILER: That's right.
Q I mean, there are no speakers from the region.
None. Nobody.
MS. TUTWILER: Those are the "presenters." They're
making the presentations. Afterwards, Ralph asked me, I believe
yesterday, did anyone else take the floor and speak, and I said
yes, they did.
Q They speak in terms of commentary or ask questions
or ask for clarifications, but, I mean, from the schedule, no
speakers -- no formal presentation or even lengthy official
presentations by the various parties such as occurred in January
in Moscow. I mean, this is really a series of lectures being
given by American officials, Russian officials, with the
participants in the region asking questions, clarifications,
making passing comments, but that's it. I mean --
MS. TUTWILER: Well, it may be a great deal of concern
to you, and that's understandable, but the participants knew
very well what they were coming to. We said all along, we've
said it publicly, it was a seminar with discussion. I have read
any number of comments by gentlemen that are attending these
sessions, and they have been very positive about them. And, you
know, I haven't personally heard internally or seen publicly
complaints about the format, the structure, what has gone on.
And so I don't know how to respond to your question,
other than this was not some surprise that was sprung on the
participants when they got here, and it is my clear
understanding that there is indeed, sir, discussion. There are
identified categories, which is not unusual for a meeting of
this type, and that when a presenter finishes his presentation
in that area, people are free to voice their opinion of it, take
the floor and discuss that.
Q Margaret, will the classes continue or --
MS. TUTWILER: The "classes"? [Laughter] And then
Jim's got his "group therapy," and we keep calling this a
seminar --
Q Right.
MS. TUTWILER: -- with discussion and multilateral
talks.
Q Will the seminar with discussion -- we haven't
seen the evidence of multilateral talks yet, but anyway will it
--
MS. TUTWILER: They're all here.
Q Will the discussion and seminar continue?
MS. TUTWILER: We had a beginning and an ending date
which we announced, as you know, weeks ago on this one. At the
end of this, I feel certain that you will see an announcement
from this group and from the other four groups of their next
meetings and where those will be and the dates.
Q Will there be final exams or papers due by the
participants, or anything like that? [Laughter]
Q Can we give a pop quiz?
Q That's asked only partly
facetious, actually.
MS. TUTWILER: I understand.
Q My question really is, will the participants -- is
part of this seminar process to get the participants to
respond, either later at another session or in writing or some
way by drawing up papers on how these U.S.-Russian agreements
might apply to their situations, or anything like that?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't asked that specific question,
Ralph. I'm not sure that they've been tasked or been asked or
thought about writing papers. I don't know that anything would
prevent them from doing so.
But I think -- I know, at least from the United States'
point of view, and again from just reading comments that people
have made to you all, that all I have seen is positive
commentary, that this is a worthwhile exercise -- exactly what
it was intended to be when we started discussing this, what,
over a year ago. And we still subscribe to, and I don't know
anybody that doesn't, that this is constructive, that this is
useful, and the best model.
Jim had asked me, I believe, why do you just have -- or
someone did -- Russian and American speakers -- is that it is a
very good model, in most people's estimation, of how did you
start your talks. You know, how did this work. The types of
things that the people in this region are very interested in, we
are a good model for the good and for the bad, and here are
experts who have dealt with this for years. That would be, in
my mind, a learning experience.
Q Margaret, is there any chance that we might give a
pop quiz at the end of this in the form of a press conference?
MS. TUTWILER: A press conference? All of the working
groups, it's my understanding, are handling it differently. My
understanding -- in fact, I read that the economic group in
Brussels -- I read the Portuguese, I believe, made a statement
afterwards, or maybe had a press conference.
The group here has not decided to do it that way. I
have asked on your behalf in advance of this meeting, and daily.
They did agree yesterday, once all the parties got here, to the
photo op with reporters of their tour of a facility here at this
building; and I will re-ask again, at the end of this if they
will -- either the host or the group -- meet with you all.
Q And when is the end of this?
MS. TUTWILER: Don't they stop tomorrow? Mid-day
tomorrow.
Q Before the sessions stop, is there any possibility
the world might actually see one of these sessions take place?
MS. TUTWILER: We asked on your behalf, and we asked
when all the parties were here and there was no agreement by the
parties that they wanted to be filmed. Sorry, we asked.
Q There was an Israeli air raid this morning over
south Lebanon. Would you see that type of action as being
consistent with the spirit that prevail here at the peace talks?
MS. TUTWILER: One, I only have press reports of that
raid. We don't have any independent information about it. We
have said in the past that anybody, anything that would or could
be viewed as disruptive, obviously, we would call on those not
to do so. There have been any number of examples and instances
throughout this entire process where we have called on everyone
to use the same type of philosophy.
Q One other thing in that region, Margaret.
MS. TUTWILER: On what?
Q In that very area. There are reports from Qatar
that the government there is arresting citizens of Qatar because
they are -- arresting them -- denying them access to their
passports and denying them the right to leave their country
because they reportedly asked for more public participation --
democracy and voting -- in Qatar. Are you aware of that, and do
you have any comment?
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard about that. I'll be
happy to look into it for you.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on reports that Mr.
Kozyrev is going to Afghanistan?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, I do. Not only are there reports,
it is true. It is something that he and the Secretary have
discussed.
The United States sees the visit by the Russian Foreign
Minister to Kabul as a positive step.
We share with Russia the goal of a peaceful, political
solution to the Afghan conflict and a peaceful transition to a
permanent, broad-based government. We also hope that the
Foreign Minister's visit will contribute to a humanitarian
resolution of the prisoner of war issue, which has tragically
affected people on all sides of this conflict.
The United States urges all Afghan factions to work
constructively for a final, political resolution of the Afghan
conflict.
Q We would be remiss if we didn't ask whether, since
Baker and Kozyrev had discussed this, whether the United States
would consider a similar visit to be a useful thing?
MS. TUTWILER: The United States has made no decisions
-- do you mean by the Secretary of State?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: By the Secretary of State, there is no
suggestion or option that I'm aware of concerning a Secretary of
State visit.
As I said yesterday, obviously, we are in the process
of reviewing the situation there concerning United States
representatives.
I would point out that the Russians have
representatives there on the ground. We do not, as you know.
So one of our main concerns is safety, as you know, and they are
in a much better position with men there on the ground to
facilitate their Foreign Minister's visit.
But concerning U.S. representation possibly going back,
that is something that, obviously, we are looking at, but
there's nothing to announce and no decisions have been made.
Q How close is that decision to being announced?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know that -- a decision has not
been made, so I don't know when there's an announcement. It is
something that we are moving ahead on, that we are looking at.
Obviously, security is the major concern, but there's just
nothing to announce yet. There's no decision.
Q Margaret, as you say, they have people there on
the ground.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q How helpful are they being to you, with giving you
an assessment of what's going on?
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me?
Q How helpful are the Russians being in giving you
an assessment of the day-to-day situation in Afghanistan?
MS. TUTWILER: I've never asked. I don't know.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on Yugoslavia and
the U.N. report that peacekeeping ought to be suspended in
Bosnia?
MS. TUTWILER: The report, it's my understanding, is
expected to be made public today. There is not -- before I
briefed -- scheduled a Security Council meeting yet to present
the report. We do not literally have a copy of the report down
here. So that's all I know on the report and what they will
decide.
Q And the situation in Bosnia, do you --
MS. TUTWILER: I have an update. Last night, joint
Serbian forces continued heavy shelling of Sarajevo. The JNA
continues to control the airport. Joint Serbian forces continue
to widen their control of the city in intensive street-to-street
fighting.
We understand that in Sarajevo food supplies are
desperately short to non-existent. In some districts even bread
is unavailable. There is nothing to feed small children, with
no milk or baby formula. The city has also run out of medical
supplies.
Elsewhere, very heavy Serbian shelling and fighting
continues in Mostar. We understand that that city is without
water or electricity. Reports indicate that for want of better
alternatives, residents have begun burying their dead in the
town park.
Sometimes intensive fighting and shelling continues in
several other towns in Bosnia-Hercegovina, reportedly causing
many thousands of additional displaced persons. As you know,
yesterday, we had the refugee number at over a million -- the
United Nations number. In recent days, fighting also increased
in eastern Croatia, including Serbia and JNA attacks on several
towns.
I also would like to let you know that Ambassador
Zimmermann is still there. The reason he is still there is that
he is working on an urgent basis, desperately to help the UNHCR
and other international relief organizations which are hoping to
send two convoys of emergency aid to Sarajevo from Zagreb and
Belgrade over this weekend. He is there helping these
international organizations; and the United States contribution
to this effort will be food.
But, again, as I said yesterday, even humanitarian
relief convoys are finding it, if not impossible, next to
impossible to get into these areas. But he is, yes, leaving. I
knew you would ask, "Why is he still there?" This is the reason
he is still there. But, yes, he's coming out.
Q Yesterday, the Foreign Minister of Bosnia
testified on the Hill and called for the international community
to make the airports in his country international zones so that
food aid might be delivered. Is that something the United
States could support?
MS. TUTWILER: It's something, Johanna, that I'd have
to take. It's something I'm not familiar with legally, all the
ramifications, etc.
You know that, after we met with him, we did send in
six airplanes, and our concern there was, obviously, safety, and
Ambassador Zimmermann had to work very diligently. As you
remember, the airport at that time could be open by those who
were controlling it. They did, indeed, open the airport, not
only for our humanitarian relief, but for former Secretary of
State Vance's visit, etc.
I don't know about this idea. I'll be happy to ask.
Q Margaret, what about the general issue of -- the
option of an airdrop of supplies; not landing but, as was done
with the Kurds, just parachuting it in or something?
MS. TUTWILER: That's another suggestion I just haven't
heard anyone discuss yet. I'll see if anyone is looking into
that.
Right now, what I know we're looking at are these two
convoys. I would assume that the UNHCR and these international
organizations are working with those who control these access
routes to see if you can have a safe passage for this
humanitarian relief.
Q Just out of curiosity, in view of Mr. Baker's
interest -- after talking with the Bosnian Foreign Minister, I
guess, three weeks ago or so, whenever he was here, why didn't
the Secretary see the Foreign Minister this time?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I don't know if the
Foreign Minister requested to see him. I believe, on this
visit, that I did see that he saw Deputy Secretary Eagleburger.
I don't know if it was a scheduling conflict, and I honestly
don't know if he even requested to see the Secretary.
The last time he had requested to see the Secretary on
an emergency basis and we were involved in altering the
Secretary's schedule to accommodate his. He had that afternoon,
I recall, a commercial flight that he had to get to get of here,
to get back. So I just don't know, Ralph, if he even asked this
time.
Q Margaret, is the Macedonian leader coming to
Washington for consultations here?
MS. TUTWILER: I've heard something about that. I'm
not sure if there's -- I'm not sure what the answer is.
Q Do we have any comment on the Philippine
elections?
MS. TUTWILER: Not yet.
Q You're preparing to do something, but just not
today; is that it?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is that it's still
unofficial and it's unofficial until May 18.
Q Do you have any sort of assessment as to how fair
it was, how --
MS. TUTWILER: Not yet.
Q Margaret, in view of the cease-fire, U.N. efforts
in Yugoslavia are sort of coming to a standstill, where do
things stand on NATO expanding its responsibilities into this
situation? There's talk at that level about --
MS. TUTWILER: There had been talk. I don't know where
that stands. It's something -- there's nothing new that I know
of.
Q In light of developments, there's nothing new on
that?
MS. TUTWILER: There's nothing new that I'm aware of.
Q Margaret, since the Chilean President has been
here, has the Administration and Chile sealed their deal for
aircraft sales?
MS. TUTWILER: I would leave that, or any types of
Chilean announcements, to the White House. That's where they
are right now meeting.
Q The U.S. Government has shown a very strong
reaction to Serbs attacking Bosnia-Hercegovina. A similar
attack is occurring in Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenians are trying
to capture and annex the Azerbaijani territory to Armenia.
It has become common knowledge that the attacks are
waged from the Armenian territory by tanks and actually with
Armenian air support.
What would be the reaction of the U.S. Government in
face of this serious situation?
MS. TUTWILER: Sir, we have spoken out equally as
forcefully concerning that situation. The Secretary of State
has had any number of meetings with the various Foreign
Ministers. That is something that we have continuously and
consistently called for, just as we have in Yugoslavia, a
cease-fire, a dialogue, negotiations, and for whatever is
resolved, for it to be resolved peacefully.
We call on all of those who have the authority, or the
leadership to influence, going that route versus a violence
route to please support, obviously, the peaceful route in that
situation.
Q Do you have anything on the attacks being --
MS. TUTWILER: Which attacks?
Q -- mounted from Iran?
MS. TUTWILER: From Iran?
Q Yeah.
MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard about attacks from Iran.
Attacks from Iran, is what you said?
Q The air support from Armenia.
MS. TUTWILER: Okay. Sorry. Bill and I both
misunderstood.
I can't speak to a specific attack. As you know, we
have, I think, consistently spoken out on that situation. It's
a situation that is obviously of concern to us as it is to many
others.
The Secretary spoke most recently -- I believe it was
last week -- with the Foreign Minister of Armenia, and he has
spoken, I believe recently, with other Foreign Ministers
concerning the situation. Our policy has not changed on that
anymore than it has on the Yugoslav situation.
Q Margaret, once our Ambassadors -- I mean the EC
and the American Ambassadors are gone from Belgrade, what will
be our capacity of maintaining some kind of dialogue with
authorities in Belgrade?
MS. TUTWILER: Our Number two man in charge, the DCM,
will be there. He will have that capability. There is no, at
this time, decision to pull down Embassy personnel there, and
they will continue doing their work, as they have.
And as you know, in this unique situation, they were
all either accredited or sent to the country of Yugoslavia.
Obviously, Yugoslavia, as we all know it, no longer exists, and
the situation has evolved. Their duties and their contacts
throughout the former Yugoslavia have obviously changed also,
and they will continue those.
Q Margaret, what's the status, by the way, of U.S.
review of the issue of recognition for Macedonia?
MS. TUTWILER: Still under review.
Q Would you say that there's coordination going on
with the EC on that subject?
MS. TUTWILER: We stay in close contact with the EC
concerning that subject. I'm not aware that the EC made a
decision at their most recent meeting where this was discussed,
which I believe was Monday,
May 11.
Q And which model should we look to, those of us
from the press, should we look to the model of the U.S.
recognizing at the same time as the EC, or looking to the one
where it recognizes it shortly after it learns of the EC's
decision?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure which model we're going to
follow on this particular decision. We like to keep a variety
of ways that we deal with different situations, and I'm not sure
that decision has been made.
Q Margaret, the families of --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. But I am positive that it
will be closely coordinated. If not at the exact simultaneous
moment, as in all the other majority of decisions, it will come
very close to it.
Q Margaret, the families of the British who were
killed in the friendly fire incident have asked repeatedly for
the pilots to testify at the inquest. What's the position of
USG on that?
MS. TUTWILER: I would refer you to the Pentagon --
Pete (Williams) did an extensive briefing on this yesterday and
spoke on behalf of the Defense Department and the Administration
concerning our policy. Ambassador Seitz, as you know, met with
two of the families yesterday. He was already scheduled to be
-- it's my understanding -- in Birmingham, England, for some
speech, and that he met with two of the families there
privately. He took that occasion to restate to them what our
policy is.
Generally speaking, as you will find when you see the
briefing, our policy is that, no, we are not going to send the
pilots for this.
Q The reason I ask is that Pete's briefing came
before a meeting with Mr. Cheney with our Secretary of Defense,
and I was wondering if the situation had changed following the
meeting with Mr. Rifkin?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of, but the Defense
Department could best answer that instead of me.
Q Margaret, do you have an update on Arnold Kanter's
visit to Thailand? And as a follow up, any decision yet on
whether to release aid?
MS. TUTWILER: There's no decision on aid; and I don't
have a lot of follow up on Arnie's visit. I can post for you
who all he met with, etc., and characterize his visit to
Thailand. It has been a very good and constructive visit. But,
no, I have nothing new for you on aid.
Q But can you say anything about what message he
delivered to Suchinda? The United States had said initially
that it accepted Suchinda's accession to the Prime Ministership
as constitutional. I just wondered whether you still thought it
was constitutional and whether you said anything to Suchinda
about how relations between the United States and Thailand might
evolve with him in that position?
MS. TUTWILER: To be honest with you, I don't have that
level of detail of Arnie's visit. I'll be happy to ask his
staff that's here if they could fill it in for you.
Q Margaret, any reaction to North Korea's following
through on their promise to turn over U.S. war remains?
MS. TUTWILER: Our reaction is the same as the one the
Pentagon gave yesterday. I would refer you to them. They did
an extensive briefing on this subject also. I really don't have
anything to add to what the Pentagon has already said on this.
Q Margaret, do you have anything on the fact that
one of the two deserters from UNITA, who is supposedly or
alleged to be responsible for the murders of two senior UNITA
officials, over which there has been some concern, and Mr. Baker
wrote to Mr. Savimbi, is actually in Virginia? Is the State
Department aware of it, and do you have any comment?
MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is that we are aware of
it. I don't know what particular comment we would have. I
believe the man's name -- we had all of this yesterday -- is
General Puna.
Q Puna.
MS. TUTWILER: Puna. Right. I just don't have a lot
of specifics on it. But yes, my understanding is we're well
aware that he's here.
Q Thank you.
MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all.
(Press briefing concluded at 12:45 p.m.)