US Department of State Daily Briefing #99: Monday, 6/29/92

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Washington, DC Date: Jun, 29 19926/29/92 Category: Briefings Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa, Subsaharan Africa, South Asia Country: Algeria, Yugoslavia (former), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, South Africa, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Military Affairs, United Nations, Democratization, Development/Relief Aid, Security Assistance and Sales 12:02 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MS. TUTWILER: Normally, as you know, every Monday I do a CIS update. Today, we have a statement for you with more details, but I'll just post it, if it's okay with you all. I'd like to start -- before we get to Yugoslavia, which I'm sure you have questions on -- with a statement on Algeria.

[Algeria: Statement on the Assassination of President Boudiaf/US Regret]

Algerian President Boudiaf was shot and killed in the eastern Algerian city of Annaba at approximately 11:30 a.m. Algerian time. We deeply regret the assassination today of the High State Council President. This senseless murder underlines our belief that violence cannot be the solution to Algeria's problems. We call on all parties to avoid further bloodshed. We extend our deepest condolences to the President's family and to the Algerian people. At this time, there has been no claim of responsibility on this assassination. On to Yugoslavia? Q Yes. MS. TUTWILER: I don't really have a statement. I'm sure you have questions. I'll be happy, if you want, to begin with giving you an update on where we are on the ground, at the U.N., on convoys, etc., if that would be helpful. Q Sure.

[Former Yugoslavia: Update]

MS. TUTWILER: Okay. Let's start there. Let me preface this by saying it's humanly impossible, in my estimation, for us here to stay totally on top of what is going on on the ground. Three minutes before I came to the briefing, there's another wire story that says there's heavy shelling. So, my information is only as good as we are physically able to gather ourselves and try to confirm, so bear with me. It's constantly changing. Serbian shelling and fighting in Sarajevo appear to have been significantly abated. The United Nations tells us that the situation around the airport is quiet. We are awaiting word whether the United Nations has officially assumed control of the airport from Serbian forces. My most recent piece of information is, according to the U.N., they are saying that they are in the process of getting control of the airport. We note several reports that Bosnian forces are responsible for the most recent outbursts of fighting. We also have reports that Serbian forces have shelled Dobrinja. We do not have clear information regarding all of these various reports. The United States position is that all sides must cooperate to the fullest with the United Nations efforts to establish a cease-fire. The shortage of food remains critical. We understand that Serbian shelling and fighting continues in other areas throughout Bosnia. We note with concern continuing reports of Croatian military units from Croatia active in Bosnia. With regard to outside military intervention, as you know, we have said in the past, the United States view is that all forces in Bosnia must come under the authority of that state's legitimate government or have its permission to remain. The United States continues to oppose all outside intervention aimed at destabilizing the democratically-elected and legitimate government of Bosnia. We continue to emphasize the principle of no changes in borders through force. Concerning convoys: The two French aircraft, which were to accompany French President Mitterrand to Sarajevo, were unable to land there. Instead, they landed at Split, which you know is in Croatia. Our information is that they are still in Split. We understand that an additional three French planes are in the pipeline. UNHCR continues to move supplies from Split to a staging area near Sarajevo. When conditions permit, these supplies are ready to be delivered to Sarajevo. We understand that some new UNHCR convoys are planned for tomorrow, but I don't have any details yet for you. Concerning our view of the overall effect of the sanctions: The U.N. sanctions, in our opinion, continue to bite into the Serbian economy. Out of 2.5 million officially employed workers, over 30,000 are now on paid leave. A Belgrade think tank estimates that over the next few months an additional 800,000 will join the ranks of the unemployed. The Belgrade regime is avoiding making public statements about the effects of these sanctions. But Belgrade newspapers report that in its internal meetings, the regime is considering emergency government intervention in the economy within a month. This Sunday, as I think many of you know, an estimated 60-to-100,000 people demonstrated in Belgrade against the government. The demonstration was peaceful. This demonstration, in our opinion, indicates that many in Belgrade do not support their regime's current policies. The United States supports democratic forces in Serbia and Montenegro. We hope the Serbian and Montenegrin people will bring the policies of their governments into harmony with the rest of the international community, including compliance with all U.N. Security Council resolutions. Q Margaret, what do you mean when you say the Croatian military units are active in Bosnia? What does that mean? Are they fighting? Whose side are they on? Are they beating up on the Bosnians? Are they allied with Serbs? Are they freelancing on their own? And what does "active" mean? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know that I have an analysis for you. As you know, Barry -- Q Tell me what active means to begin with? MS. TUTWILER: Active -- they're participating in uses of force. As you know -- I think it was about two weeks ago -- we had reports of, I think it was called a "military pact" between Croatia and Bosnia. We said at the time we were trying to get the details of that pact. We have not yet gotten the details of that pact; and that's why our policy is that anyone that is on Bosnia's soil has to, obviously, have the permission of the legitimate government of Bosnia. One other point: As you know, throughout this crisis in the former Yugoslavia, at any given time we've called on six different entities or parties to please not use force -- to whatever they're going to do, do it through peaceful negotiations. Today is another time when I not only have called on the Serbs, I've called on the Bosnians in Bosnia and I've called on the Croatians who might be possibly contributing. Can I just do one thing on the U.N., where we are, because that constantly changes, too? Q The U.N. is the most important part of this thing. But, still, just to -- are you saying that the Croatians are there in behalf of the Bosnians but in an unauthorized way and therefore -- MS. TUTWILER: I don't believe I'm in a position to flesh it out for you. I am saying that we have reports of Croatians who, I guess, you would characterize as not conducting themselves in a peaceful manner aimed at negotiations; just as I'm calling on -- and you've seen many reports this morning -- of Bosnians in Sarajevo who also were using force. We are calling on all parties, all sides, all entities, whoever is using violence versus negotiations or peaceful means, to cease. Can I just do the U.N. -- what's going on -- because I just got a call from John Wolf. The Security Council has just gone into informal session. That will be followed today, it's our understanding, by a formal session to adopt another resolution on Yugoslavia. Let me be clear here what this resolution will deal with. The current resolution that we are operating under had four phases: Phase 1 said to send approximately 60 observers into Sarajevo or to Bosnia. Phase 2 was to send a Canadian battalion -- approximately 1,100 people. Before you went to Phase 2, under the old resolution, you had to have a vote of the Council. What has changed today is the Council determined this morning to make Phase 2 of the current resolution we're in a resolution. It is not the resolution that has been speculated all weekend. It will be a resolution to authorize the deployment of the Canadian battalion. Obviously, the United States will support that resolution. Q If the airport is not secured, then will that battalion be deployed? MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer that for you. There are so many conflicting reports this morning on the airport situation. As I mentioned, when I came here, we had from the United Nations -- that was, say, at 11:45 -- that they believe that they were in the process of getting, with everyone's agreement, control of the airport. Three minutes before I walked out here, there's a wire story that says there's heavy shelling, so I can't answer that. Q I'm not asking you to tell me about what the situation on the ground is. I'm asking you to tell me if the airport is not secured, will these additional forces go in? MS. TUTWILER: And I can't answer that for you as of this briefing. Q Because the resolution itself says that the Secretary General has secured evacuation and reopening of the airport as one of the conditions of authorizing the deployment of additional forces. MS. TUTWILER: And I've just said that moments before I came here, they began their informal meeting on this resolution. I don't know what that debate is going to -- how that debate is going to evolve. What I do know is the process change of a resolution for the Canadian battalion. Q Is that the one and only resolution you're talking about, or is there another one later on? MS. TUTWILER: There's not one later on that I formally know of. Q This is the one -- MS. TUTWILER: This is the one -- Q -- formal bit of business today that you're -- MS. TUTWILER: Today; correct. Now, in this meeting that's going on right now, I can't prejudge them nor should I. Who knows what will come out of that particular meeting? But this is my most current information of what they have decided this morning to deal with in informal session that has begun, followed by a formal, and change this into a resolution. Q Margaret, in the U.S. view, is a cease-fire necessary before humanitarian assistance can be brought into Sarajevo? MS. TUTWILER: I think that what I'll do for you is refer you to what the President said last night when he returned from Camp David and tell you that setting aside this resolution, which I've explained to you, should there be a type of resolution that Barry is talking about, it would be totally hypothetical for me right now to speculate on what we would or would not do. I understand your question. I can't answer it for you, and I will have to continue to refer you to what the President said last night. Q That suggests a change of U.S. policy, because the U.S. has previously said that a cease-fire would be necessary before assistance could be brought into Sarajevo? MS. TUTWILER: Let me help you out this way, on a hypothetical. If the United Nations votes on a resolution to take all necessary measures to facilitate provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina, it would be an action that we would support. And as the President said last night, "The United States will do its part." Q When you say "do its part," are you talking about U.S. troops? MS. TUTWILER: The President declined last night to flesh that out. He said, "We're not saying what we will or won't do. I'm not ruling anything in or out, and we will work in concert with our allies." My queue today will continue to be his words of last night. Q Is the U.S. suggesting such a resolution as the one that you just spoke of? MS. TUTWILER: No. I said I was totally doing a hypothetical with you to address your question. What the U.S. has been doing all morning is working within the Security Council and the United Nations on the resolution that, it's my understanding, they are going to vote on, I assume, today. Q But you regard that as an interim measure, do you not? If it does not succeed in securing the airport, there are other measures which the U.S. is now gaming with its fellow Security Council members which include the necessary measure language, do they not? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, John, that there is any either informal -- well, I'll put it this way: I know of no informal meeting all weekend at the Security Council on going to that type of resolution at this time. I know that there have been extensive consultations all weekend long. I know that the first informal meeting began approximately 15 minutes ago, and it was determined or decided through all these consultations that this is what they would do today -- vote on this resolution. Q Margaret, earlier you mentioned, I think in your original summary of the situation, that a certain number of French planes were in the pipeline and additional ones were standing by, and things like that. What is the U.S. prepared to do when humanitarian aid assistance actually begins flowing? Is there anything in the pipeline? MS. TUTWILER: Let me refer you to what the President of the United States, again, said last night: "We are not saying what we will or won't do. Im not ruling anything in or out." The President also said, "The United States will do its part. We always have." Q You can't be anymore specific about planes being loaded, what kinds of equipment or supplies or assistance is standing by ready to move in? MS. TUTWILER: Humanitarian? Q Humanitarian assistance. MS. TUTWILER: We did before, Ralph, but I don't have it for you today. I cannot remember, but we had prepositioned -- I think I'm right -- either five or seventeen tons -- please, we'll have to look back at the transcript. I believe, at the time, I said there were about 15 sea vans that were en route and due to arrive at the end of June. So we have been prepositioning medical supplies, food, blankets -- those types of things. I just don't have it with me today, but it's out in the public record and I'll try to see if I can dig it up for you. Q Margaret, can you tell us about any contacts that the Secretary may have had on Yugoslavia with other Foreign Ministers, if he has had any? MS. TUTWILER: Over the weekend, he talked with the Foreign Ministers of the U.K., of Turkey, and there's one more. Wait a second. I can't remember. Q France? MS. TUTWILER: No. He didn't talk to the French. In fact, President Bush has had a call into President Mitterrand. As I came to the briefing, that call had not yet been completed, but you might check with Marlin (Fitzwater). I think they're up in New York. He talked to three, and I just can't remember who the other one is. Q Do you have a formal reaction to President Mitterrand's mission? MS. TUTWILER: Wait a minute. I'm really sorry I can't find it. Q Okay. We'll live without that. MS. TUTWILER: Oh, Germany. Thanks. It was the U.K., Germany, and Turkey. Those are the only Foreign Ministers he's talked to. Q Do you have any reaction to Mitterrand's visit? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. We thought that it was obviously a very courageous mission. It highlights the great need that we have, ourselves, been highlighting -- if you recall, the Secretary's testimony just last week; the President's strong words. Everyone is doing what they can and saying that, basically, enough is enough; that these people -- you are facing the potential of massive starvation. So we applaud his mission. We thought that it was a very courageous thing for the President of France to do. Q When you said the U.S. is prepared to support this Canadian 1,000-man force, I presume you were speaking -- MS. TUTWILER: Vote. Q Diplomatically? MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q Is there any willingness of the U.S. to provide physical support in the event that that 1,000-man force needs it? MS. TUTWILER: I'll only be able to answer you in the way we have in the past, which is, we have offered to the United Nations any number and variety of capabilities that we have. The United Nations, as you know -- we have military planners that are in New York. The United Nations -- that I'm aware of as of this morning -- has not asked for anymore specific United States support than that which we are currently giving. Q That was all, as I understand it, logistical -- prepared to fly in supplies if a cease-fire was established and maintained. I'm talking about some sort of steps to protect the Canadian force? MS. TUTWILER: That's way too hypothetical for me to deal with. Q What about this offer, Margaret? Would you call it a standing offer, or is it -- MS. TUTWILER: What offer? Q The logistical offer. MS. TUTWILER: Well, sure. Q It's a standing offer. Is there any new discussion? Is the mix changing? Is it a live topic of recomposition? MS. TUTWILER: Is it a live topic? Q Well, it's a live situation. MS. TUTWILER: I'd say it's a very live topic. Q But I mean, is the U.S., or these military planners, as they're described, are they actively discussing the mix, the type of U.S. logistical support that would be given to the Canadians? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know specifically to the Canadians, Barry. I'm not that in-depth with what the military planners -- they're in New York and they're elsewhere, as the Secretary has said. I'm just not a military planner. Maybe the Pentagon can do a better job of that. My understanding is that they were lending our types of expertise and things like air traffic controllers, logistic planning, that type of thing. I can't tell you if that's changed, if their mandate has changed. I don't believe that it has. Q Is any of that support already operational? MS. TUTWILER: What do you mean? Q Are any of those logistical support elements that you've just mentioned, and perhaps others that you didn't mention, operational? Are they in use at the moment? MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge, because the airport is not open and humanitarian assistance is not moving. Q How quickly would -- would they go into use? Is that logistical support operative at the time, before humanitarian aid moves? Or does that logistical support go into effect at the time of humanitarian assistance? MS. TUTWILER: I think that we have been -- I don't think, I know we have been lending -- we offered -- the U.N. took us up on our offer -- military planners that addressed themselves to their expertise for weeks. This is my summation; I'm not a military planner. I'm not in New York, and I don't work at the Pentagon. I would assume, Ralph, that part of their mission was to anticipate the airport is opened; now you need to do X,Y,Z with their expertise. I would say that those plans are relevant, if the airport opens this afternoon or next week. Q I thought you said earlier that you're awaiting word of the U.N. -- from the U.N. that it had taken over control or adopted control of the airport -- assumed control of the airport. If that word arrives, will U.S. logistical support be operational almost immediately? Will there be air traffic controllers or other technical aspects -- MS. TUTWILER: Are you asking me, "Will U.S. personnel be on the ground in Sarajevo?" Q Well, I don't know that it necessarily requires U.S. personnel to be on the ground in order to exercise air traffic control. MS. TUTWILER: Then, I'm not clear on what you're asking me. Q I'm not enough of an expert to know the answer to that question. MS. TUTWILER: I'm not either, but I -- Q In the Middle East, for example, it's possible to exercise air traffic control from AWACS aircraft, but I don't know enough about how that operates over there. MS. TUTWILER: I don't have any idea. But I would assume -- I mean, General MacKenzie is on the ground. General MacKenzie has people that talk to the U.N constantly. Our people are at the U.N. I don't know, but I have to surmise, that our people, when they have meetings, say, "Well, there are 36 potholes out on this runway, you can't land a plane," and maybe one of our guys is a specialist in that and says, "Well, here's what you need to do to fix that." Here's the weight of the airport. You only can send this type of aircraft in there, or you'll damage the runway. I mean, they're there to lend assistance, and my view is and opinion, they've been doing it all along. Q Has U.S. equipment or personnel been moved to places, for example, like Germany or been designated in places like Germany where the U.S. already has substantial forces that could be moved quickly once the airport -- once the U.S. receives word that the airport is under U.N. control in Sarajevo? MS. TUTWILER: I'll answer it this way, because it's such an open-ended question: I'm not aware of any United States' orders of anything to move. Q Margaret, do you anticipate that there will be any U.S. forces on the ground there in the next few days? MS. TUTWILER: That's something that is totally speculative for me. I can't deal with it today. Q Even 24 hours? MS. TUTWILER: I cannot deal with something like that today. Q All right. Then if you can't deal with that, maybe you can deal with a sub-heading of that. MS. TUTWILER: I'll try. Q Let's see how much of what the Secretary said last Wednesday is still operational. He said last Wednesday that if force is used, if the U.S. gets involved in a multilateral military -- whatever it is -- operation, it would be directed only to getting the aid through. MS. TUTWILER: Correct. Q And then he went through the whole -- how the Germans couldn't hold Yugoslavia during World War II. MS. TUTWILER: Uh-huh. The policy has not changed over the weekend. Q That hasn't changed. MS. TUTWILER: It positively has not. Q So you can't tell Bob Toth if U.S. military action will be required, but, if it is, it will be limited to humanitarian assistance. Is that correct? MS. TUTWILER: I can assure you that the United States policy -- nor, to be honest, no one else's policy that I'm aware of -- has changed over this weekend concerning what the United Nations effort is about here. It is humanitarian. When I did a hypothetical with Ralph, I used -- and specifically did it for a reason -- specific language that if the United Nations votes on a resolution to take all necessary measures to facilitate provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Bosnia, it's an action that the United States would support, and the United States will do its part. I didn't say a single word, nor have we ever to my knowledge from this podium, about solving Yugoslavia, solving the political situation. That is not what this is about. You have a potential for approximately, U.N. numbers, 300-350,000 people starving to death -- massive starvation. Q Ralph also asked you the basic threshold question -- MS. TUTWILER: Oh, I know. I understand it. Q -- which is a big policy question, and now you -- and, you know, the State Department, through you, will not answer that question. MS. TUTWILER: In my mind, I did answer it. Q He asked you, the U.S. policy was that there has to be a cease-fire before this operation could proceed effectively, because unless there's a cease-fire, it's a mess. MS. TUTWILER: It's in the U.N. resolution too, Barry. Q Correct. So I guess his question was, is that still -- you're still waiting for a cease-fire before you would support any use of -- again I don't want to say force -- MS. TUTWILER: I understand. Q -- but it is force or threatened force to get humanitarian assistance through, and you can't say that anymore. MS. TUTWILER: I have done, which you know me very well, I rarely ever do. I have dealt with a hypothetical. In fact, I would characterize it as I served it up on my own. And so I have, in my mind, answered your question. Q I think Ralph helped -- I mean he asked -- MS. TUTWILER: He did. Q Margaret, could I ask you about the question of U.S. national security interests in Yugoslavia? A few weeks ago that question came up in this forum, and you answered it the way you answered it. Has anything changed about the U.S. view of the U.S. national security interests in Yugoslavia over -- since President Bush had his meeting with the security advisers on Friday? MS. TUTWILER: Not that I'm aware of. As you know, General Scowcroft gave an interview, I think, a week or ten days ago where he said that there could be -- I'm paraphrasing; check the record -- basically what he alluded to was should this thing continue to spill out of control in Europe, that, yes, there could be an increased United States national security interest. I'm paraphrasing. Again, check his record. But I'm not aware of any changes over the weekend concerning what the United States' concerns in this situation are -- they're humanitarian -- or anybody else's. Q Margaret, trying to get one quick one on the consultation with Congress, just the angle of whether the U.S. is talking to Congress. Wednesday, remember, Biden and Baker had an exchange -- MS. TUTWILER: Uh-huh. Q -- and one or the other said maybe this isn't the forum to discuss this, you know, suggesting they might go into closed session or at least one on one. And the issue was, again, as Biden said, you can't get the aid through unless there's a threat of force. The Serbs won't let us through. Has the Secretary followed that up by talking to Biden or Lugar or any of the other people who are interested in some show of force as a way to get aid to the -- MS. TUTWILER: Not to my knowledge. But Senator Biden, Barry, is not the only one that I'm aware of that has been speaking out. I saw Senator D'Amato this weekend on TV, and I know of other members that are also deeply concerned about this situation. I would remind you that Secretary General Boutros-Ghali sent a message in on Friday to the Security Council, basically laying down a time frame of 48 hours of, you know, this has got to cease. And so, I mean, a lot of people are -- and organizations -- are saying basically humanitarian aid is going to get to these desperately -- to these people who so desperately need it. Q We know the Administration has been on the defensive as to whether they're going to do something muscular to get it through, and the question is, have consultations begun -- MS. TUTWILER: No. Q -- in any way that isn't public? MS. TUTWILER: That I have any knowledge of, no. Q Margaret, could you ask -- could you just walk through this rare hypothetical that you offered up? MS. TUTWILER: No. Q Will you walk through it again? MS. TUTWILER: Read it again? Q Yes. MS. TUTWILER: I'll be happy to read it again. It's a total hypothetical based on Ralph's question to me. If the United Nations votes on a resolution to take all necessary measures to facilitate provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Bosnia, it's an action the United States would support, and the United States will do its part. The President of the United States last night said, "The United States will do its part. It always has." He declined to elaborate or give any specifics to that response that he gave. Q Margaret, are you ruling out the involvement of American military force in solving the overall political problem of Yugoslavia? MS. TUTWILER: I know of no one in our government who is suggesting, recommending that the United States Government try to solve the political problem in Yugoslavia. Q Involvement of American force -- MS. TUTWILER: I have never heard that even raised. Q -- even in a multilateral context. MS. TUTWILER: I've never heard of a multilateral -- multinational organization who wants to solve the Yugoslav problem. I'm not aware of anyone, either an independent nation, the U.N., the E.C., the CSCE, the WEU. I'm not aware of anyone who is saying, let's go solve Yugoslavia, militarily or diplomatically. Q So once the humanitarian mission is complete, that ends the American military involvement, if there will be any. MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to answer your question because you slung in there, "American military involvement." No one has said there's going to be or not be American military involvement. The President, himself, last night declined to answer that question. But I will point you to the record of the United States and everyone else: No one is claiming that they are out or about to solve Yugoslavia. Q Margaret, when the 1,100 Canadians go in, are they going in with a specific mission, or is it a general sort of peacekeeping mission? MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer that. That's being discussed right now at the U.N., and I can't freeze-frame action that's going on right now up there. Q So they're not -- they haven't set on a mission. They're hashing out what they will be doing once they get on the ground, how they're going to get there and -- MS. TUTWILER: I can't answer that. That's best answered at the United Nations. It's also best answered at the United Nations under what rules will they be operating -- rules of engagement. I don't know. Call the U.N. Q Margaret, perhaps this is a fine point, but you said -- MS. TUTWILER: That's O.K. Q You talked about how American military planners may be advising them on how to fix potholes. MS. TUTWILER: I just made that up. Q Yes, I know. MS. TUTWILER: As an example. Q I know. But you seemed to put us in an advisory -- you seemed to put our planners in an advisory role. Aside from military forces -- MS. TUTWILER: They are. Q Aside from military forces, might there be air traffic controllers on the ground? I'm not talking about forces, but American personnel, experts, military experts, who happen to be in uniform, perhaps not in uniform, taking part in the logistics as well as fixing the potholes if necessary. MS. TUTWILER: I understand. That's the same question I was asked just a little bit earlier, and I'll just refer you to my own record. I basically -- Q These are not military forces, but these are people -- MS. TUTWILER: I basically decline to answer the question today, "U.S. forces" -- whether they're pothole fixers or they're air control fixers, they're logistics experts -- on the ground in Sarajevo. I'm just not answering that. Q Margaret, about your hypothetical which doesn't sound all that -- MS. TUTWILER: I know. Poor guys. They're experts. Please don't go out of here calling the planners "pothole fixers." It was just an example. Q No. We'll use your name with it. (Laughter) MS. TUTWILER: I'll be very popular with them. Q Just, you know, checking off the caveats, all the conditions for this non-hypothetical hypothetical. The U.S. will do its part -- is that multilaterally only, or is it possible that the U.S. will do its part unilaterally? MS. TUTWILER: The two things the President said last night: "The United States will do its part. We always have." Second: "We will work in concert with our allies." That's all in quotes also. And I believe you know the White House over the weekend put out probably eight different individuals that the President has spoken with. He was obviously very involved this weekend in this situation. We're all obviously very concerned. Q Can I ask you something kind of semi-hypothetical? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q What happened to the notion that European problems, the Europeans would be in the forefront. Canada isn't in Europe and, of course, the U.S. isn't either. Is this -- this is not the situation where you would look to the Europeans to take that first leap in trying to achieve a -- you know, a humanitarian goal in a trouble spot in Europe? MS. TUTWILER: You know the EC had a meeting this weekend also, and to paraphrase what they came out with in their communique, it basically says that other measures must seriously be looked at. So I would say that the EC this week -- over the weekend or Friday did address themselves to the changing situation there on the ground. And another thing to remember is that we have been talking about -- in fact, I think Alan questioned me at first when we came out and mentioned the possibility of starving people. There is no question about that right now, and if no assistance is getting in, if your water is contaminated, if you cannot operate in operating rooms with no electricity, there obviously is a limit to how long this can continue before you have this massive starvation. Q All right. What is the U.S. view then of the Europeans' response in Lisbon, very thinly veiled language by the Secretary that suggested that, you know, problems aren't being addressed with all the vigor they might be. He had some very dramatic language I don't happen to have memorized. MS. TUTWILER: Without buying into your characterization of it, you are correct that -- my characterization of it is that the Secretary of State made a very forceful and impassioned plea in Lisbon. I would say, in my own analysis, that shortly after that were followed up by very tough United Nations sanctions, and that since then there has been a steady move by the international community to say this basically won't stand, and that we are going to do everything we can to try to prevent, as the Secretary has so aptly described, this humanitarian nightmare in Europe. Q Margaret, over the weekend when the EC met, my recollection is that they said that if the airport isn't opened and you're not able to go ahead with this humanitarian effort, that they favored a 48-hour deadline before taking military action to open the airport. Has that 48-hour clock started to run? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not sure they were on the 48 hours. Correct me, if I'm wrong. I thought the United Nations was on 48 hours. The EC, I'm not sure, to my knowledge, adopted the same 48 hours. I don't know when the United Nations' 48 hours expires. It's some time today. Q 8:00 a.m. MS. TUTWILER: When was it? John says it's 8:00 a.m. this morning. So, the United Nations deadline has obviously expired. They are right now voting on a resolution to deploy this battalion. My knowledge of the EC meeting is that they basically -- words to the effect said that additional measures will have to be looked at. Q Margaret, something of a political question -- I know you don't do political questions -- MS. TUTWILER: If it's domestic, we don't. Q No. It's not domestic. But speaking of clocks running, wouldn't it be kind of embarrassing for President Bush and the other leaders of the wealthiest nations in the West to get together next weekend -- next week in Munich and have this stalemate still going on in Yugoslavia? Is there a clock running relative to the G-7 summit on this? MS. TUTWILER: The only clock running that I'm aware of is the desperate situation on the ground where there is no new food getting in. I recall that probably close to three weeks ago I came out here and announced that people were eating nettles, which I described as a type of dandelion weed, in their yards. Now, there has not been any gigantic relief for those people that I'm aware of since we described a situation that was that dire. Q That clock's been running, as you pointed out, for weeks, some might say months. Is there -- has there been a decision or some consultations at the sherpa level, pre-G-7 that people have said, look, we can't have our leaders coming here and celebrating the largess and "richess" of the West while this situation is going on? MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard anyone be that, to use your word, political, honest. This is a serious situation. It's a humanitarian situation. It is a nightmare. And there is no crass, for lack of a better word, politics of, "Let's hold it for the summit." There is a desperate need there today, and the United Nations Security Council is dealing with it today, and we will all continue to deal with this. Q Margaret, do we know what kind of shape the airport in Sarajevo is in? MS. TUTWILER: Do I? Q Do you? MS. TUTWILER: I really don't. I've read various reports. I don't have anything for you. Q Margaret, the EC leaders decided over the weekend not to recognize the former republic of Macedonia unless it changes its name. MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry. Who did? Q The EC leaders. Does the U.S. agree with that decision? Is it going to follow that decision? MS. TUTWILER: It's something I'll have to look into for you. Q New subject? Q Can we take a filing break? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Q Margaret, on South Africa, do you have anything on the continuing violence or the work stoppages today or the ANC call to boycott the Olympics? Anything you want to discuss I'll be happy to take. MS. TUTWILER: I don't know anything about the work stoppage today. We understand the the U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Ghali met this weekend in Nigeria with the South African Government and was scheduled to meet today in Senegal with Nelson Mandela concerning violence and negotiations. We have not yet received a readout of those meetings. Q Anything else? There was something last week. Did you have anything else you wanted to add? Apparently there was some guidance last week which I didn't get. MS. TUTWILER: I don't, Connie. Sorry. Q Can we get it later, do you think? MS. TUTWILER: Sure. No problem. Q You no doubt will have read outgoing Prime Minister Shamir's frank interview last week in which he said that his intention was to continue negotiations for ten years and in the meantime pour half a million settlers into the territories. What's your view? MS. TUTWILER: You no doubt were probably not present last week at my briefing when I said that during this particular time when the Israeli Government is forming and putting together a government, we will have no comments on any subject. Q File that one away, though, for future comment. (Laughter) MS. TUTWILER: Until we make little exceptions. Q Can you talk about Jordan at all? Is that acceptable? MS. TUTWILER: Assistant Secretary Djerejian talked quite extensively in open testimony on Thursday. I don't know what additional I can add to his testimony. Q Are we back to square one in terms of any kind of monitoring of the borders since the Jordanians have turned it down? MS. TUTWILER: I'll just refer you to his testimony. I don't have anything further to add to what he said on -- I think it was Thursday, Mary. Q Wednesday. MS. TUTWILER: Wednesday. Excuse me. Q Margaret, there was a transfer of power in Afghanistan over the weekend from one -- MS. TUTWILER: We are pleased that there has been a peaceful transfer of power from Professor Mojaddedi to Professor Rabbani. We urge the Afghan factions to continue a peaceful political process which will lead to a government acceptable to the Afghan people. The Afghans also need to honor the cease-fire in Kabul where there have been sporadic outbreaks of fighting over the past weeks. It was a peaceful transfer is my understanding. Q Has the United States made any decision about opening its Embassy? MS. TUTWILER: No. We continue to look at that. Obviously, our first concern will be safety, and there have been no decisions, and there's been no staff that has been sent back. Q Anything to add on the Stinger situation? MS. TUTWILER: No. Actively working on it, as I recall, is where we left it. Q Margaret, on Israel, I didn't hear Mary's question. Did she ask about the $10 billion, because that Djerejian talked about, and have the talks now reopened on that? MS. TUTWILER: I'll just refer you to the Assistant Secretary's testimony. Q Or about to. So have they? MS. TUTWILER: I'll refer you to his testimony. Q Thank you. MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all. (The briefing concluded at 12:40 p.m.)