US Department of State Daily Briefing #77:
Friday, 5/18/92
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: Washington, DC
Date: May, 18 19925/18/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, E/C Europe,
Southeast Asia
Country: Israel, USSR (former), Armenia, Turkey,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Thailand, Serbia-Montenegro, Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine
Subject: Mideast Peace Process, Development/Relief Aid,
Security Assistance and Sales, Regional/Civil Unrest,
Narcotics, Arms Control, EC
12:23 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Former Soviet Union: Update on US Assistance/Condemnation of
Fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh/US Discussions with Russia/EC/Turkey]
MS. TUTWILER: Our weekly CIS update, as we do every
week. I will be very brief in what I have to highlight. We
have very lengthy fact sheets or statements on each of these
things.
The Export-Import Bank has taken action in two areas of
benefit to Russia and U.S. business. Ex-Im has reached
agreement in principle with the Russian Energy Ministry and
Central Bank for a $1 billion five-year facility for the
purchase of U.S. oil and gas equipment and services. Ex-Im has
also proposed two lines of credit of $100 million each for the
purchase of U.S. equipment and services in the areas of
environmental cleanup and nuclear power plant safety.
Secondly, the United States based Soros Foundation has
promised a grant of $5 million to the Russian Ministry of
Education. The grant will help reform curricula and teaching
methods away from Marxism-Leninism.
The Deputy Minister of Education for Russia is here
with us today at the briefing, and, if any of you should have
any questions, she will be glad to answer those for you
afterwards. And I have a more lengthy statement concerning this
agreement between this foundation and the Russian Ministry.
Three: In the area of humanitarian aid, U.S. Air Force
cargo aircraft delivered shipments of vaccines and medical
supplies to four Central Asian states last week. During the
next four months, more than 500,000 infants will be immunized
with the vaccines. As you know, this and many other subjects
will be discussed this weekend when Secretary Baker is in Lisbon
for the second Coordinating Conference on Assistance to the
Former Soviet Union.
The third thing I'd like to do is make a brief
statement. Over the past weekend, there have continued to be a
number of very unfortunate distortions and misinterpretations of
United States' policy on the peace process. For that reason, we
feel it is important to respond today.
Issues related to the peace process are highly nuanced
and can all too easily be distorted when reduced to simple
headlines. As we've said repeatedly, what's important here is
the process of direct negotiations between the parties
themselves. That process has clear terms of reference, agreed
by all the parties, which are incorporated in the invitations
sent to the parties before the Madrid peace conference.
The agreed terms of reference specifically name only
two resolutions -- 242 and 338. It is these resolutions, not
the many, many other resolutions passed by the United Nations
over the years that constitute the agreed terms of reference for
the peace process.
Because this historic negotiating process is underway
and particularly in the midst of a heated political campaign in
Israel, henceforth I will not be responding to every comment or
question on the peace process or on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I'd like to remind you that there was a similar time when we
took the same position during this Administration, and to the
best of my ability I am going to try to follow my own rules.
Q Margaret, are all these distortions coming from
the Israeli side or the Palestinian side? Can you name the
parties?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I don't want to name.
Q Can you give us any example of the distortions?
MS. TUTWILER: No. They are easy to find. You can
find them.
Q What was the other example?
MS. TUTWILER: What?
Q What's the other example of --
MS. TUTWILER: The other times in this Administration
when there has been an upcoming election, if you'll recall -- I
don't believe you were here at the time -- we did a very similar
-- took a very similar step for these very reasons, and this is
the same step we're going to take this time.
Q Margaret, has the Secretary been in touch with the
Israelis --
Q Which election?
MS. TUTWILER: In Israel.
What?
Q I'm sorry. Sid, are you still talking?
Q Go ahead.
MS. TUTWILER: He got it.
Q Has the Secretary been in touch with the Israeli
Government on their concern about the reaffirmation of U.S.
support for the Palestinians' right to return and the hullabaloo
this has caused?
MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge. To my knowledge,
Barry, they have not at his level called him nor has he called
them. Obviously, staff, as they do on any number of subjects --
that's why we have a full-blown Embassy there, etc. -- continue
to discuss any number of things.
Q Margaret, I think what you're saying is that
Security Council Resolution 194 has nothing to do with the terms
of reference of the peace process. Is that correct?
MS. TUTWILER: That is very correct. It was never,
ever suggested that it did -- never has. And, if you are --
which I know you are -- aware of eight trips that the Secretary
of State took to the region, you're aware of a public document
that was negotiated over -- I think it was approximately eight
months. That was never, ever in the document that you have
possession of.
So the distortion is to somehow -- unfairly -- to
misrepresent that the peace process somehow now has or is built
on or terms of reference include other resolutions. It simply
does not, never has, and is not going to in the future.
Q Margaret, when you talk about the peace process
and, you know, it's a very specific question I'm trying to put
to you. It is a two-track process. When you talk about these
resolutions being the basis and the only basis for the peace
process, you mean the multilateral talks as well as the
bilateral talks? Because it's afterall at the multilateral
talks that the refugee issue is being dealt with more squarely.
MS. TUTWILER: And your question?
Q My question is, does this -- is this resolution in
the U.S. view -- the one we're talking about, the controversy
provoking one -- is this resolution part of the framework for
the multilateral talks, especially insofar as refugees are
discussed?
MS. TUTWILER: That falls, unfortunately, Barry, into
the category of the questions that henceforth I'm simply not
going to deal with, because of the very reasons that we felt
compelled to make a statement today. And I will be happy at
some point in the future to delve into any and all of this with
you or the various groups or the various entities, but today and
henceforth I simply am not going to be able to -- much as I'd
like to -- engage with you on any number of comments or
questions that may arise or you may have concerning this.
Q Maybe I muddied it up a little bit.
MS. TUTWILER: That's O.K.
Q You were very straightforward. Jim asked you a
very straight question; you gave a very straightforward answer.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q You ruled anything but those two resolutions out
of the peace process as a basis for discussing the peace
process. Now, the peace process has two parts -- bilateral
peace talks and multilateral discussions of other issues
including the refugees.
Does your answer apply to both phases or both tracks or
both arenas of the peace process?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to do this. I'm going to
continue to tell you --
Q Ah! What you're doing is you're leaving it open
that what the U.S. is holding -- is co-sponsoring peace talks on
the basis of 338 and 242, but you won't say if the U.S. thinks a
discussion of refugees should be based in part on this
resolution.
MS. TUTWILER: It is for this very reason of what you
are, yourself, with all due respect, doing right now to a
statement that I just made that we -- and it's our judgment, and
you have every prerogative to disagree with it -- are not going
to engage with you or with anyone else concerning this subject.
And that is why, because of exactly what you were doing, we felt
and compelled to come out here -- and I know that you, as much
as anyone in this room, are very familiar with the Madrid
invitation.
I know that you know that there are two resolutions
that are mentioned in that invitation -- 242 and 338 -- and that
is what I have responded to this morning. And some of these
stories that are all distorted in our personal opinion -- I
think you're nodding you would agree -- and view of
misrepresentation of what are the agreed-upon terms of reference
-- two resolutions.
Q Margaret, you keep talking about distortions.
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q Are you referring to stories in the American press
or things that are being said or done outside of the United
States?
MS. TUTWILER: Well, I was asked that a little earlier,
and I refrained out of a sense of graciousness, for nothing
else, not to name who is distorting and who is misrepresenting.
I think we all -- you weren't here last week; we went over this
a little bit -- were -- you can go find it out for yourself.
Q Margaret, does this suggest in any way that the
U.S. position on 194 is any different than it was last week when
you were asked about it?
MS. TUTWILER: I have a very few words for you,
Johanna, on 194. What is important here is the process of
direct negotiations. The agreed terms of reference for that
process specifically name only two resolutions -- 242 and 338.
It is these resolutions -- not the many, many other
resolutions passed by the United Nations over the years -- that
constitute the agreed terms of reference for the peace process.
Beyond stating that, I am not saying anything else.
Q Last Thursday you reaffirmed the support of the
statement you made last Tuesday on 194. Will you do so again
today?
MS. TUTWILER: I believe that was a question that you
asked me on Thursday and today I will tell you that henceforth I
am not going to respond to every comment or question on the
peace process or the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Q But has your position changed from last Thursday,
or does that answer stand in the record?
MS. TUTWILER: Henceforth I am just not going to
respond to every comment or question on the peace process or the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
Q Not even to subscribe to a comment you made
earlier?
MS. TUTWILER: I know that you don't want me to repeat
this a third time.
Q Margaret, what is the source of the
misunderstanding? Should we understand from your earlier
statement that you are practically putting a kind of a media
blackout on the peace talks because of elections in Israel?
MS. TUTWILER: We're not putting anything other than
what we have done previously, which is for the very reasons that
I've stated, we are stating and taking the position that
we are not going to respond to every question and comment that
we get at this particular time concerning this. We did this
once before. It is not unusual. This is not some abnormal step
we have taken. I understand that it is frustrating for some of
you who would like to have a debate here -- an engagement.
That's perfectly natural. But I simply will not be able to
engage with you.
Q For the record, when did you do it before?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't remember the exact dates. I'll
get them for you. The last time that I recall doing it was
about, I think, 14 or 18 months into this Administration. I'll
just have to get the dates for you.
Q When you were trying to arrange the peace process,
you think?
MS. TUTWILER: It was all wrapped up in a lot of
things, yes, and we just decided that it was really healthier
not to, and so we're not.
Q Margaret, to couch it in a little broader terms,
is it the United States' policy to selectively distance itself
from its international obligations when it sees that that is
what best suits its purposes? (Laughter)
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure I understand what your
question is.
Q It's pretty clear.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, not to me.
Q For instance, as in this case, to set aside other
guarantees we've made in the United Nations in this case for the
purpose of the peace talks. Are we going to expand that in
broader terms when it may suit our needs to distance ourselves
from other types of obligations?
MS. TUTWILER: As much as I'd love to engage with you,
Sid, I'm not going to. I've said I think, as clearly as humanly
possible in English, concerning the peace process over a
negotiated document that you have a copy of, there are two
resolutions that are named in that document. Those are the
terms of reference -- 242 and 338.
Q Right. But the broader question is whether we
stand by documents we've signed -- all the documents we've
signed in the United Nations.
MS. TUTWILER: That's just another way, I believe, of
asking me Mr. Plante's earlier question.
Q Margaret, surely this position you're going to
take now just gives the irresponsible ones among us more
opportunity to distort things. (Laughter)
MS. TUTWILER: Well, then you ought to maybe, you know,
have a little talk with yourselves and say, "We're only going to
go by what the record says."
Q Surely, the less information we have, then the
more --
MS. TUTWILER: Then you'll be on your own.
Q Margaret, new subject. Can I ask you what the
status of U.S. aid and U.S. exercises in cooperation with
Thailand is at this point, in light of the rather violent
demonstrations --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q -- and the arrest of the opposition leader in
Thailand over the weekend?
MS. TUTWILER: Exercises, Ralph, are under review.
Aid, as you know, had already been suspended. I want to be
straight with you, though, and say that, as you know, following
the 1991 coup, we suspended most forms of assistance. However,
given the importance of the counter-narcotics effort, we
continued counter-narcotics assistance. That aid was
$4 million in FY-91, and the same amount is budgeted for FY-92.
Q Is that assistance under review at this time, or
does that continue to be exempt from review?
MS. TUTWILER: That's still going.
Q So there's no review of that even as well?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q And what about diplomatic contacts with the Thai
Government? You obviously had a senior official there last
week. Is there anything that the events of the past couple of
days, few days, will do to U.S. relations with Thailand?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure that I can give you that
quick of an analysis. The situation there is still tense. It
is ongoing. We will be issuing today a travel advisory, warning
Americans or recommending that American citizens stay away,
obviously, from the demonstrations and to avoid areas where the
protests have occurred.
There are about 16,000 American citizens who are
registered in the Bangkok area. As for our information as of
right now, we have no information of Americans being injured.
We understand that one AP photographer, whose nationality has
not yet been determined, was injured. We're following up on
this, but we don't have any other specific details involving
Americans.
And, yes, when Mr. Kanter was there last week, he
expressed the United States' view that the situation obviously
that was building at that time, you'll recall, be dealt with in
a peaceful way. We don't know specifically what triggered the
events last night -- what precipitated the violence on Sunday
night. We don't have that information for you yet.
Q What about the arrest of the -- the taking into
custody of the opposition leader -- I think the former Mayor of
Bangkok, if I'm not mistaken. Does the U.S. have any view of --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anything on that.
Q Do you have any judgment about the way the
military and the security forces behave themselves?
MS. TUTWILER: Let me just give you, which would be
easier, exactly what we have on the situation there on the
ground. I've said that Under Secretary Kanter, when he was
there, repeatedly expressed our hope that issues and disputes
would be resolved peacefully.
We are concerned over the reports, obviously, George,
of the loss of life and injuries. We have expressed our
concerns to senior Thai civilian and military officials over the
last 24 hours. We continue to monitor the situation closely and
hope the issues in dispute can be resolved without further
bloodshed.
Q So you say you have been back in contact with them
in the last 24 hours? Did I hear you correctly?
MS. TUTWILER: We've expressed our concerns to senior
Thai civilian and military officials over the last 24 hours.
Q Did the Secretary make a call?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Margaret, does the aid to the cross-border refugee
operation -- is that affected by all of this?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, Jim. I'll have to ask.
Q You said "exercises were under review." What are
you referring to?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure if we named them by name,
so I'll be happy to take your question.
Q Operation Cobra something it was named.
Q Operation Cobra Gold.
Q Margaret --
Q (Inaudible) -- joint military operation.
[China: Harrassment of Reporter]
Q Same general area, Margaret: Do you have a
reaction to the harassment of a Washington Post reporter over
the weekend, and what effect does this have on China's MFN
status -- the certification which has to take place, I think,
fairly shortly?
MS. TUTWILER: The second part of your question, I
can't analyze it for you that quickly and tell you what effect,
if any. On my own, I couldn't imagine that it would have a
positive effect.
Let me go through what we can tell you about the event
concerning this reporter. On Sunday afternoon, May 17,
Washington Post Beijing Bureau Chief Lena Sun's office and
residence were searched by officers of the Beijing Office of the
Ministry of State Security.
The search lasted three and one-half hours. Ms. Sun
was permitted to make and receive brief telephone calls during
the course of the search and investigation. Her husband and
33-month old child were held in their separate apartment on
another floor of the same building under similar circumstances.
Two U.S. Embassy officials came to Ms. Sun's office
during the incident but were denied entry by a Chinese official.
The Chinese officials confiscated various documents,
including personal papers and two notebooks related to stories
Ms. Sun had written.
Ms. Sun was told by these officials that she had
engaged in activities incompatible with her status as a foreign
journalist.
Ms. Sun has requested an appointment with the Chinese
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Information Department to seek
clarification of this incident. As of Monday evening, May 18,
she had been unable to secure such an appointment.
When advised by phone call Sunday afternoon, May 17, by
Ms. Sun's husband of the situation, our Embassy's political
counselor-minister, together with the Consul General, proceeded
immediately to the Washington Post Bureau. They were denied
entry to Ms. Sun's office but remained outside the door
throughout the course of the three and one-half hour search.
Another Embassy officer met with Ms. Sun after the
search and subsequently raised the incident with Ministry of
Foreign Affairs press spokesmen.
Yesterday, the State Department protested to the
Chinese Embassy over this incident, and we are following up
today with another protest at a higher level. We are also
instructing our Embassy to deliver a similar protest.
May I also point out, just generally speaking, press
conditions in China. There have been a number of incidents over
the past several months directed against foreign journalists
serving in China. We deplore any actions taken by the Chinese
Government intended to harass foreign journalists and interfere
with their ability to report openly on events in China.
The United States Government has no specific guidelines
for journalists going to China. Generally, through an informal
network of reporters in Beijing and the Foreign Correspondents
Club, journalists are apprised of recent trends in PRC
Government-media relations. The Embassy also maintains a wide
range of professional and social contact with foreign
journalists and reports, as in this case, incidents of
harassment to the Department.
Q Margaret, do you believe, or does the State
Department believe that the Chinese Government's reaction at
this point to the incident is sufficient -- is what?
MS. TUTWILER: We're not in the best position to judge
that. We've obviously said that we deplore this type of thing,
but we don't have right now, Don, all of the facts contained in
this. I have said that we have protested it; we're going to
protest it at a higher level today, so that, obviously, is our
view of it. But the specifics, I can't get into what the
Chinese say about what it is, etc. But, obviously, we have
expressed our view.
Q Is their answer satisfactory to the U.S.? What do
they say? Do they just --
MS. TUTWILER: We don't have an answer yet, Ralph.
Q Have they accepted a protest note, or have they
rejected it, at the lower level?
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't ask about it. I don't know the
answer. No one expressed that they had rejected it, if that's
your question.
Q Given the fact that this is the latest in a
pattern of acts of harassment against journalists living there
-- both American and other nationalities -- is the United States
taking under review the MFN situation?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q The certification has to be done periodically, and
I just wondered if it has come under review?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I have any personal knowledge
of, John. I'll be happy to inquire for you. But no one raised
that this morning.
Q When Mr. Kanter was there -- what? -- last week --
MS. TUTWILER: Right.
Q -- we were told this was one of the issues he
raised with them. Not this specific instance, but this type of
instance. Did he, indeed, raise that with whoever he spoke
with, and what did they say last week -- the Chinese say last
week about it?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have that detail. I'll be happy
to get his staff to give this to you. I'm not ducking you. I
just don't have it.
Q Margaret, a follow-up to John's question, when he
asked you about whether there was a review of the MFN
certification, and you said not that you're aware of. Why not?
What's the --
MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer something that I'm not
aware of. If the Administration has made such a determination,
I'm just personally not aware of that. I will be more than
happy, as I said, to inquire.
Q But you came out, for example, prepared today to
say that exercises with Thailand are under review as a result of
an incident. Why is the U.S. Government not reviewing MFN
status for China in light of this pattern of harassment against
journalists?
MS. TUTWILER: I am not aware of a determination made
by this Administration to review their policy on MFN as of this
morning's briefing. I was aware of an exercise that is under
review as of this morning.
Q How about about any other economic relations or
political relations with China? Is anything under review aside
from the protest note that we are going to make at a higher
level?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I am personally aware of. I'll
be happy to ask if anything concerning U.S.-China relations,
because of this incident and, as John says, a pattern of
incidents which we've pointed out, is under review.
Q When you say there's a higher level protest, could
you be more specific?
MS. TUTWILER: No. They didn't want to be.
Q Margaret, another area.
MS. TUTWILER: I asked your question.
Q Six days ago the situation -- the subject is the
embassy in Kabul: Will it be reopened? Six days ago we had an
answer that said, among other things, somebody is going to go to
take a look at it.
MS. TUTWILER: Who said that?
Q I mean, there was a printed response. I'm trying
to find out if the situation has moved at all since May 12.
Have you sent somebody to Kabul? Are you going to reopen the
embassy? Are you still concerned about security, etc.? Can you
bring us up to date?
MS. TUTWILER: There's really nothing to update you on,
number one. I'm not aware, Barry, that we put out a statement
that said someone is going. I believe we put out a statement
that said we are making preparations for someone to go when we
have determined, first and foremost, that it is a safe
situation. That determination has not been made, to my
knowledge.
Q Does that mean it's not a safe situation yet?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be my deduction, yes.
Q You mean, you're not uncertain? You know the
situation is unsafe?
MS. TUTWILER: I think I would know that -- if I would
be announcing someone's going, then we would have determined it
was safe.
Q The question: It's possible the situation is --
the State Department is uncertain whether it's safe enough to
send somebody, (a); or the State Department has concluded it
simply isn't safe enough to send somebody, (b).
MS. TUTWILER: I think, it's a combination of both,
because we also pointed out, we don't have someone there on the
ground. So I believe it falls in both categories.
[Kazakhstan: Status of START Discussions]
Q The Foreign Ministry of Kazakhstan, yesterday,
released a statement saying that it received assurances from
Washington that in case it becomes a target of aggression, it
would receive some help.
So, question number one: What kind of assurances were
given by Washington to the Kazakh Government? And question
number two, what is the Administration agenda for the trip by
the Kazakh President to the United States?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have the entire agenda for you.
Maybe the White House can give you that since it is a visit here
and he's seeing President Bush. I can tell you that Secretary
of State Baker received a call from the President of Kazakhstan
on Saturday morning.
In that call, he told him much of what you have seen,
later released by their Foreign Ministry. The Secretary of
State will obviously continue his discussions with the President
this afternoon when he greets him on his arrival, I believe,
around 3:00 or 3:30.
The United States welcomes Kazakhstan's announcement
that it will sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a
non-nuclear weapons state.
This reaffirms previous commitments made by the
Government of Kazakhstan.
On security assurances, the United States has not
considered any new security commitments to Kazakhstan or any
other state.
On START, we look forward to confirming final
arrangements for Kazakhstan's ratification of the START Treaty.
We believe that strong support by Kazakhstan for START and other
nuclear non-proliferation, as well as its integration into
multilateral structures, such as CSCE and the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council, will serve the security interests of
Kazakhstan as well as its neighbors and the world community.
Since 1968, the United States has been committed to
seek immediate action by the U.N. Security Council to provide
assistance to any non-nuclear weapons state party to the
non-proliferation treaty that was the object of nuclear
aggression or threats. We reaffirm that commitment.
And, specifically, on START, which I feel sure is where
the bulk of your questions may well be, that is something that
the Secretary of State is going to continue, as I said this
afternoon and throughout this visit, and he is also continuing
those discussions with the other three countries involved.
Q So by saying, Margaret, that Secretary Baker did
not release any new assurances -- I mean, the old ones which
were released in back 1968 are still in force and nothing new in
the discussion?
MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Nothing new. The same thing
we went through -- if you recall, a few weeks ago, there was a
little bit of confusion concerning the statement made by a
Ukrainian Government official about security assurances. We
came right out here and said it was the same thing as 1968.
Q Were there any questions raised at all about some
kind of new assurances from the Washington Administration by the
Kazakhstan President, similar to what Kravchuk was planning to
get here and didn't get?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know the answer to your
question.
Q Margaret, can I ask a quick one on CODESA, please.
I've been trying --
MS. TUTWILER: Whether he raised it or not, I don't
know.
Q On the same subject. Did Kravchuk get that
reassurance that you just said is due Kazakhstan, too?
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, Barry, I don't even know
that he asked either the Secretary of State, or his staff has
asked our staff. If anyone had asked, they would have gotten
this answer, which is the same answer.
Q I know. But could you put in the question, just
whether -- because it sounds like --
MS. TUTWILER: Have they specifically asked?
Q -- it's exactly the same procedure you're going
through with this visit as with the other.
MS. TUTWILER: It is. Well, sure.
Q But I just don't know if the other fellow got that
-- because he didn't get anything special on security, and
you're very clear today what the approach is. The question is,
did he get that assurance about assistance in the event of,
etc.?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sure, because it's something that is
our policy since 1968. I will find out for you, if he asked.
If he asked, I can't imagine that someone did not state exactly
what our policy and position are. But, yes, I will ask.
Q Does Secretary Baker plan --
Q Does the Administration now feel that the START
protocol is essentially wrapped up, or will be wrapped up with
this visit?
MS. TUTWILER: I would not go out on a limb and
characterize that in that fashion for you. That's why I
specifically said, not only are there things that remain to be
discussed during this Kazakhstan visit but with the other three
countries as well.
Q Anything on the rupture of the CODESA talks in
South Africa?
Q Hold on a second. Could we stick with this one?
MS. TUTWILER: Sure.
Q Does the Secretary intend to discuss this in
Lisbon with the Foreign Ministers of the other principals this
weekend? And is the situation such that you would expect the
protocol to be initialed by the principals during the Lisbon
visit this weekend?
MS. TUTWILER: I can't imagine him not discussing it in
Lisbon this weekend, and I cannot prejudge for you whether there
will or will not be any type of initialing.
Q Is that your intention, if you are able to wrap it
up with the President of Kazakhstan here?
MS. TUTWILER: That would be terribly unfair from my
position to prejudge what the Secretary of State is or is not
trying to accomplish -- whether it's Lisbon or next weekend.
He is, as you know, working on this issue. He has been
working on it for weeks. It has been very time consuming, in
some instances; it's been very difficult; it's been very
technical, and he is going to continue doing what he can, which
is the ultimate. As you know, what we are interested in is
trying to have a START ratification process, and he's going to
do what it takes to try to accomplish that.
Q In addition to the conversation with President
Nazarbayev on Saturday, has Secretary Baker discussed this
issue, or these issues, with other former Soviet leaders in
recent days?
MS. TUTWILER: The Secretary, personally?
Q Yes.
MS. TUTWILER: Over the weekend, the Secretary
personally has not. Others in this government at what I would
call senior level have discussed it with other senior level
individuals either by cable through embassies, or on the phone
with other officials and other governments, but he had not. He
had one phone call.
Q Could you say who these others are? Are they
State Department people?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes, State Department.
Q Who are they?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't want to get in the habit of
going through everyone's weekend phone calls. I said at a
senior level. As you know the Under Secretary here, Reggie
Bartholomew, works quite diligently in this area. Ambassador
Ross works in this area, Jim Timbie works in this area,
Assistant Secretary Clarke. There's just a whole host of people
who work under this big umbrella, but I don't think I'm going to
start coming out here and going through everybody's daily cable
traffic or phone logs. I'm just not going to do it.
Q The conversation Saturday --
Q Hold on Barry; just a second. Does the Secretary
plan to have a substantive discussion this afternoon with
Nazarbayev, or is it just a meet-and-greet operation to greet
him?
MS. TUTWILER: I've never known him to have a frivolous
meeting with another head of state. I can't imagine him not
taking the opportunity to discuss substance, whether it will be
this substance or other issues that he has to discuss with the
President to go ahead and discuss those this afternoon.
As you know, he has a scheduled one-on-one breakfast in
the morning; but I've just never known him not to use every
opportunity.
Q With another head of state?
MS. TUTWILER: What?
Q With another head of state?
MS. TUTWILER: He is a head of state. Right? I said
Secretary Baker with a head of state.
Q With another head of state?
MS. TUTWILER: Oh, sorry.
Q In Saturday's non-frivolous conversation with
Nazarbayev, did the Secretary offer or raise the possibility of
going onto Alma-Ata, to other places, if necessary, to wrap up
this agreement?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know whether he discussed that
on Saturday or not. That option has always been out there.
Q Do you have any comments on the breakdown or the
interruption of the CODESA talks?
MS. TUTWILER: Not particularly, Connie. It's our
understanding that they are still talking; that there have been
some problems, but overall our Embassy has reported to us that
they feel that there has been significant progress and we
applaud it.
Q Is the United States offering any sort of
assistance, or behind-the-scenes assistance?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know of any specific assistance
that we are offering. Obviously, if anyone asks any types of
questions at our Embassy, I'm sure people feel free to discuss
it. But actually involved there in the negotiations, no.
Q Also on Mozambique: Will the U.S. become formally
involved in Mozambican talks? There was a report yesterday.
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I've heard of, but I'll be
happy to ask the African Bureau for you.
Q Margaret, how did the elections in the Kurdish
area go off over the weekend? Have you heard? Was there any
attempt to interfere by the Iraqis?
MS. TUTWILER: I have not heard. We don't have
anything -- excuse me?
Q They were postponed.
MS. TUTWILER: They were postponed, George says.
That's why I haven't heard anything about them.
Q On Bosnia: On Sunday, the Turkish media was
saying that the Turkish President suggested to President Bush
that an international strike force be engaged in Bosnia and that
Turkey would be prepared to contribute Turk troops.
This morning, the Italian Premier called on President
Bush to take the lead in helping civilians caught in the
fighting in Bosnia. Does the U.S. have any reaction on that,
or what are you looking at for Bosnia?
MS. TUTWILER: Neither of your two statements am I
personally familiar with. They're both White House questions,
in my mind. We've stated here what the policy is concerning
U.S. troops or U.S. military in this situation, and the answer
has been, no. I'm not aware of any change in our policy.
Q Or in any effort to help the U.N. relief effort
that begins tomorrow?
MS. TUTWILER: That does not begin tomorrow. It's my
understanding, there is a postponement. One of the convoys, as
you know -- the 35-truck convoy -- was scheduled to leave
yesterday, which was Sunday. One was originally scheduled,
about a dozen trucks, to leave on Tuesday. Both have been
postponed until this Friday.
Q Another question on Iraq?
MS. TUTWILER: Iraq? Yes.
Q Is the United States helping to gather and
transport documents detailing the treatment of Kurds by Saddam
Husayn -- helping to transport them from northern Iraq back to
the United States?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a lot of specifics for you,
Sid. We are obviously interested in any information which
reveals and chronicles the atrocities committed against the
Iraqi people by Saddam Husayn's regime.
As I said, I cannot get into or comment on specific
operations aimed at furthering this objective.
I would remind you that the U.N. Human Rights special
rapporteur on Iraq submitted a report to the U.N. Human Rights
Commission in February. That report details extensive and
ghastly Iraqi human rights abuses against the Iraqi people,
particularly against the Kurds and the Shi'a.
Q Did we ask Ankara's permission to use U.S.
military assets at Incirlik Air Base?
MS. TUTWILER: I have absolutely nothing further to
comment on this subject.
Q The diplomatic side with Turkey?
MS. TUTWILER: No specifics.
Q Still on Iraq. Could I ask you to go back in your
memory to 1990, I guess, just before the -- or just after the
invasion of Kuwait by Iraq? Can you tell us whether Secretary
of State Baker either sought or otherwise obtained or was given
a waiver of U.S. Government conflict of interest regulations so
he could participate in decision-making on Iraq policy,
notwithstanding his general proclivity to recuse himself from
oil-related matters? Did he receive a waiver at that time?
MS. TUTWILER: I believe the entire Cabinet did, Ralph,
if you check back at the White House. Obviously, he would fall
under that category. I believe it was a general Cabinet-wide
waiver. It's all been part of the record, it's my
understanding. I am pulling this back out of my memory, and
I'll be happy to recheck the facts, but that's how I remember
it.
Q Do you know whether Baker himself ever saw or
signed or reviewed, or anything, that waiver?
MS. TUTWILER: Why would he do such a thing? This is a
White House directive.
Q I'm just asking whether he did. I don't know
whether --
MS. TUTWILER: I have no idea. I've never asked, but
that seems highly unlikely. The White House function, from our
own job going back -- you asked me to go to 1990. I'll go back
to the early Eighties when he was Chief of Staff, those types of
functions are done at the White House, not at the State
Department. So I don't know why he would.
Q Although in the past he has -- well, I think. I'm
not sure of this, but for example, when he deals with
Kazakhstan, he recuses -- he makes his own decision on not
taking a waiver or not seeking a waiver to discuss oil-related
matters.
MS. TUTWILER: But there's a big difference. This was
a directive from the White House. A White House waiver, it's my
limited memory of this -- please let the record show if I am
incorrect. I believe it covered the entire Cabinet and senior
government officials at the time.
Obviously, he knows what he is recused from on specific
cases. Kazakhstan, I do not believe is a similar situation to
the situation you had concerning Iraq and Kuwait at the time.
He does not engage, nor has he, whether it's Kazakhstan
or any other country, specific subjects concerning energy
because he knows full well he is recused from them. But if you
are then presented and basically a lead-up to a war, a very
unusual situation in our country and the world, it would be, I
think, a little unusual for the Secretary of State to be recused
at such a time in our nation. It doesn't make any sense.
Q And just out of curiosity, is there any reason, do
you know at this point, in terms of the history of that
conflict, why such a directive would not be made public?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that it wasn't. I
remember that everybody made perfect knowledge of it. I don't
know what the legal office rules are at the White House. Maybe
your colleague over at the White House could ask and inquire for
you.
But just guessing, I would assume that someone at the
White House said to someone that we have a number of people who
have recusals in this matter, one of whom is the Secretary of
State. So the White House probably did say, yes, that would
present us with quite an unusual problem, so they did something
about it.
Q Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:03 p.m.)