US Department of State Daily Briefing #104: Tuesday, 7/14/92

Tutwiler Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler Description: Washington, DC Date: Jul, 14 19927/14/92 Category: Briefings Region: E/C Europe, MidEast/North Africa Country: Yugoslavia (former), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, USSR (former), Russia, Iraq, Israel, South Africa Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Military Affairs, Development/Relief Aid, United Nations, Democratization, State Department, Mideast Peace Process, ASEAN 12:33 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

[Former Soviet Union: Status of $400 Million Nunn-Lugar Appropriation]

MS. TUTWILER: I have several things I'd like to do. In yesterday's background briefing here at the State Department you asked many questions, but two of which I'd like to give you the answers to today. The first was the status of the Nunn-Lugar appropriations -- the $400 million that's been appropriated. I'd like to give you a readout on where we are on that. The Administration is now in the process of committing the $400 million to specific projects in the former Soviet Union through discussions with Russia, Ukraine, Byelarus and Kazakhstan. To date, we have signed or initialed six agreements with Russia that authorize assistance for a total of $115 million in aid. The first shipment of assistance, which is armored blankets, arrived in Moscow on June 23, 1992. Negotiations are going on with Russia and the other three republics to identify additional projects. The specific projects in Russia to which we have committed money include: (1) The International Science and Technology Center which will receive $25 million. (2) Manufacturing in the United States of up to 45,000 containers for the transport and storage of Russian nuclear material at a cost of up to $50 million. (3) Immediate provision of 200 armored blankets from U.S. Army stocks and the manufacture of an additional 250 sets of ten blankets apiece at a cost of $5 million. (4) Fabrication and manufacturing in the United States of a large quantity of accident response equipment and clothing at a cost of $10 million. (5) Development of a concept plan for Russian chemical weapons destruction for $25 million. In addition, discussions with Russia continue in the areas of upgrading Russian rail cars, ultimate disposition, safe and secure storage of nuclear material, and materials control. Byelarus and Ukraine have forwarded proposals which the Administration is now considering. Because Kazakhstan's status under the Non-Proliferation Treaty was only recently decided by the Lisbon Accords, it has just been certified under the Nunn-Lugar legislation, and talks on SSD assistance are just getting underway. The Administration is dedicated to committing the $400 million as soon as projects can be agreed upon. We are engaged in additional discussions through diplomatic channels, and a delegation of experts plans to visit the four recipient nations in August. The only question you might ask me is why I didn't mention the $10 million that is for the Science Center in Ukraine. The reason is that our experts are still discussing the technicalities of that, and so we're not in a position to put it in the category of totally finalized. The second question that we were unable to answer at yesterday's background briefing has to do with the United States financial contributions to the IAEA. A question was asked, "Wasn't the United States in arrears?" The answer is the United States is not in arrears to the IAEA. The U.S. assessment for the IAEA's regular budget for calendar year 1992 is $46.6 million. U.S. payments for 1992 will be made from appropriations which will become available after October 1. The United States also makes separate voluntary contributions to the IAEA to support technical cooperation, safeguards improvement, training and other kinds of technical support. These contributions will amount to $27.1 million in 1992. The third thing: The Secretary -- Q Could we ask about the second one? MS. TUTWILER: If you want. I'm not sure I know a whole lot. I'll try. Q Well, what the Administration, beginning with the Reagan folks, did, is instead of paying what they were due in January was to wait until October so that the budget they submitted to Congress was that much lighter. The question isn't arrears really, because ultimately the U.S. pays up. The question is: is the United States still delaying for ten months each year what it owes the IAEA? MS. TUTWILER: O.K. Well, maybe we just did not get your -- I don't know who asked the question yesterday. Q Don asked the question. I don't know what he had in mind, but I subsequently -- MS. TUTWILER: O.K. Well, we've got a new question on that. Q -- did some checking on that, and that seems to be what the U.S. -- what the Administration is up to, to make its budget look better to Congress. MS. TUTWILER: O.K. Well, the substance of it, from my understanding, is that we are not in arrears. I've told you what we pay, and what we additionally pay. But I'll ask the new question. Q While you taking these questions, what's an "armored blanket"? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not the expert on that. We've explained it before when we were dealing with this in some detail, and I'll just refer you to the record where the experts have technically explained what they are.

[Secretary Baker: Trip to Middle East/ASEAN Conference]

On Secretary Baker's trip: As you know, the White House announced yesterday from Kennebunkport that the Secretary is leaving this weekend for a trip to the Middle East. In addition, he will be attending the ASEAN meeting in the Philippines. A signup sheet has been posted in the main Press Office for those of you wishing to apply for a seat on his aircraft. The sheet will be taken down at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15. And, when applying, since many of you have expressed an interest or non-interest in doing the entire trip, would you please indicate where you would like to get off the trip, if indeed you want to get off. I can tell you as of today that the following countries have been confirmed: Israel, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi, the Palestinians; and the only question I cannot answer for you today -- it's just a matter of working it out -- is the Secretary's meeting with the Lebanese. I can tell you that we will be leaving at approximately 10:00 p.m. Saturday night from Andrews. We will be returning from the Philippines on the following Sunday night very late. We will conclude the Middle East portion of this trip on Thursday in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, and he will arrive in Manila in time for the ASEAN opening session on Friday morning in Manila. Q Do you have any order or anything for the other stops, Margaret? MS. TUTWILER: I can -- as long as you don't hold me to this, I can tell you that Sunday night we will be overnighting in Israel. Monday night, overnighting in Israel. Tuesday night, overnighting in Syria. And, to be honest with you, I think we're still overnighting Wednesday night in Jidda, and then Thursday, because you lose and gain a day going across the ocean, Thursday night is basically in an airplane. Q Will he probably go to Jordan Tuesday? MS. TUTWILER: We can go through all that literal detail the staff can give it all to you -- the overnights, what I think are going to hold up. I didn't mention that we can overnight in every place, so right now that's not what it looks like. Obviously, this can change, but this is our first draft of this. Q You have, which we could get from you afterwards, I suppose, a sort of itinerary as to which stops -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. We're doing the best we can. We learned of this yesterday. We worked overnight. We were working, obviously, in the middle of the night in those capitals. Today is Tuesday. We're leaving Saturday night. I will do the very best I can, but, no, I do not have a complete and total itinerary -- typed out schedule for you that they've been able to pull together. But I thought the overnights at this point might be helpful, and it might be helpful to know where we were launching off from for the Philippines. It's already changed on us twice this morning, John. So I'll try. Q Can you give us a little bit about Baker's this week schedule? MS. TUTWILER: This week, he is -- Q He left already, did he? MS. TUTWILER: Yes. He left this morning early from Kennebunkport. I've talked to him a number of times myself on the airplane enroute to California with the President. He was able to reach the new Foreign Minister of Israel. He described that conversation to me as a very good conversation. He will accompany the President with -- the President, as you know, is meeting President Salinas of Mexico. I believe it's San Diego. I believe they then very late this evening transit to the Secretary's ranch in Wyoming, and he will stay at the ranch with the President fishing until Friday at some point, Barry -- I don't have the White House schedule -- they leave. He parts from the President in Salt Lake City, and the Secretary returns to Washington, D.C., Friday night very late. We leave Saturday for the Middle East. Q Commercially? MS. TUTWILER: Commercially. Yes. Q Margaret, could you flesh out for us, Marlin said yesterday that this was to "get the ball rolling" -- the Secretary's trip. Could you give us any more details on what he hopes to accomplish and why he's going now to the Middle East? MS. TUTWILER: The purpose of the trip was briefly in a White House statement yesterday put out by Marlin. I would only add to that to say that it is to give new emphasis to the pursuit of peace. We see this as an opportunity, and it is a time to inject a new momentum in the process of negotiating peace. Obviously, Mary, in different capitals he will discuss some bilateral issues. Q Why Saudi? MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me? Q Why Saudi Arabia? MS. TUTWILER: We have almost on every trip, as you know, included Saudi Arabia on our itinerary. Sometimes, yes, we have not been able to and this time we were able to, and the Secretary feels it's important to also go to Saudi Arabia. They have been very helpful, as you know, in the multilateral context of this and in supporting the overall peace process initiative. Q Why not Lebanon? MS. TUTWILER: Why not Lebanon? Q Is it still unsafe? MS. TUTWILER: That would be my most obvious answer to you, yes. Q Also on Israel, will the Department have a text of Mr. Kurtzer's speech this afternoon to Hadassah? MS. TUTWILER: I didn't realize that Mr. Kurtzer was giving a speech. I don't know anything about the forum or what arrangements were made with that group that he's addressing. I'll be happy to inquire for you. Q Margaret, the Secretary yesterday said or indicated a willingness to contemplate continuing the process inside or outside the process that he helped create. Meanwhile, the PLO also wants to meet with Rabin, and they say they're happy to go to Jerusalem and sit in the Knesset and talk. What do you think about that? MS. TUTWILER: That is not something that I, number one, have any knowledge of, and so I'm not going to comment on it. And as far as what our view is of these statements, some of which have been highlighted in the press, that Prime Minister Rabin made yesterday concerning various -- he suggested he would be willing to meet with various Arab leaders. The Secretary answered that yesterday by saying that any time Arab nations and Israel can sit down face to face and talk peace, it's a very good thing. Whether it's done in the context of the peace process which we have developed or whether it is done outside of it, I -- meaning the Secretary -- think it would be a very, very good thing. We should not exclude anything that can lead to peace, and we ought to be as forward leaning as we can be. Q Do you think the Israelis should -- does the U.S. think that Israel should talk to the PLO about this process? MS. TUTWILER: As you know, we don't have a dialogue with the PLO. The Israeli Government should express their views on whether they should or should not, Barry. That's not up to me to be sitting here and saying what the Israeli Government should or should not be doing. Q But he said that anything forward looking -- does he include Israeli-PLO talks as a forward looking thing that he would like to see happen? MS. TUTWILER: Again, that is a decision that would be something that would be appropriately determined by the current Israeli Government. You know what the United States Government policy is on a dialogue with the PLO. You know we do not have one. You know the PLO is not part of the peace process. But I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question like that. Q He brought it up. He said that -- MS. TUTWILER: Who brought it up? Q The Secretary said that the parties should do -- you know, whatever is forward looking is fine with him. He even -- Howard's right, I think, in his interpretation, because we tried him three times on it. It sounds like he doesn't particularly care if the process he set up is -- you know, is discarded and some other useful mechanism is adopted. He says whatever will get them going, you know, is terrific, because the goal is peace. MS. TUTWILER: That's a pretty interesting stretch. I read the transcript of what the Secretary of State said yesterday, and I don't believe in the entire two-minute Q∧A out here on the sidewalk he was even asked about the PLO. So it is a wild leap in my mind to -- Q Well, if we had a news conference we could get into those things, but he doesn't hold them. MS. TUTWILER: Well, he just had one, and I remember -- Q Overseas. Always overseas. Not in Washington. MS. TUTWILER: Overseas. And I remember hearing your voice ask him all the first questions, as it appropriately should be. Q He holds news conferences overseas. MS. TUTWILER: Most Secretaries of State travel a great deal overseas. That's part of their portfolio. Q Every Secretary of State since I've been here has held news conferences regularly at the State Department. MS. TUTWILER: Really? Q Yes. MS. TUTWILER: Well, I'll look into that. That's news to me. Q Margaret, I'd just like to go back to what I asked earlier, because I still don't understand. Did I miss something here? Was the peace process not going -- I mean, wasn't there a meeting that's supposed to be taking place in Rome that was a continuation of the process you put in place? Therefore, what is the need to get the ball rolling again? If you have the process in place, if you have the next meeting already set for Rome and everyone's agreed to go there, what exactly does the Secretary need to do? You said the pursuit of peace. That's pretty broad. MS. TUTWILER: That's right. Q Can you be a little more specific about, did you feel that it had stalled? Did you feel it was going nowhere? What is the problem here? MS. TUTWILER: Well, Mary, I can only answer you, without any sarcasm intended, as you know, we have had an Israeli election. There is a new government in Israel that -- they can speak for themselves -- is expressing new ideas concerning the peace process. You can get those ideas yourselves from their public statements. I think you're aware that since the fifth round there has not been a sixth round. The only thing that's been agreed upon is the venue which was difficult to get agreement on which is Rome. There is no agreement, contrary to your statement, on a sixth round date and when that will begin. So there are definite things to discuss in this area, in this context, in this process, and the Secretary and the President -- first and foremost, obviously, the President -- felt that it was important that the Secretary of State go, now that there is a new government. Prime Minister Rabin in his conversations yesterday with the President -- and he then talked later with the Secretary of State -- equally felt it was important and welcomed this visit. Q Margaret, in the past you've characterized these trips before he goes over there as "he's going to be in a listening mode," or "he's going to take proposals of his own." Is he going to be in a listening mode, or is he going to be taking proposals? Are you saying he wants to hear what the new ideas are from the Israeli Government, or is he going with some new ideas? Is he going and asking them, "What date are you prepared to show up in Rome, and what are you prepared to say?" MS. TUTWILER: He's going, as he always does, in a combination of roles as Secretary of State, Mary. He will be obviously listening. He will obviously be exploring. He will obviously be -- have maybe some ideas of his own, which I don't know of a trip he's taken tha he hasn't, even when he's in a listening mode. So this trip, his preparation and his -- I guess "preparation" is the best word -- prior to going is no different than any other trip, whether it's to the Middle East or any other region of the world. Yes, he has ideas, and, yes, he will be obviously listening. Q Well, Margaret, is Rome the next place to -- is he going to? MS. TUTWILER: As far as I know. Q I mean, you're sort of minimizing all the work that went in to get -- MS. TUTWILER: No, I'm not. You all are. Q Well, I mean -- all right, you're not responsible for what Fitzwater says when he uses a cliche like "get the ball rolling." But the point is you have a process going, and you have rules -- MS. TUTWILER: Nobody has said it stopped. Q -- and you've excluded the PLO, or at least from a formal presence in the room -- MS. TUTWILER: Right. Q -- and you have a city picked out, and it took a lot of work to -- MS. TUTWILER: It sure did. Q -- get a compromise on that, and you simply didn't have a date because Israel was having a new election, and you were waiting for the new government to get together on a date. Now, is that all overboard now? Are you going to do something new? MS. TUTWILER: You all are the ones who are insinuating that somehow the process already started had been thrown out. Nothing's been thrown out. I was asked that because of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, was he saying that we're now not going to do this process? That's not my interpretation at all. I'm not aware of one single thing the Secretary said yesterday that could possibly lead anyone to believe that this process is not relevant. Of course, it is relevant. Q Up until now in the peace process, the United States has more or less stayed out of the actual negotiations, waited to be invited in. Does the Secretary feel the situation is such now that he needs to personally get involved and push this thing forward; that it is so stalled at this point, that that would be beneficial? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware of anyone in our Government -- or really, to be honest with you, other governments -- who have used your phraseology, "this thing has stalled." There has not been -- what has it been? -- a five or six week break since the fifth round to the sixth round. So I'm not aware that that has -- it was understandable, I believe, to all, because you had an Israeli election going on, why there was not a sixth round. I don't know what date will be determined for the sixth round, and I can't remember now the first part of your question. Do you remember? Q I remember, but that's basically the answer. MS. TUTWILER: What was it? Q That you have been -- that you've stayed out of these -- MS. TUTWILER: Out of it. I know what it was. No, no. I remember it now. Is that, no, we are not -- the Secretary has not removed himself throughout the process since we were in Madrid. Quite the contrary. He has been very involved, as have his senior experts here in the Middle East peace process. What we have not done, which were the rules that all agreed upon, was that the United States, unless all parties agreed, would not be in the room while the parties were negotiating. So that is the only thing that I could see that would say the United States wasn't involved. But there are all types of involvement, as you know, and, yes, I would venture that you would not have had agreement finally over -- which was a tough issue for all the parties -- over Rome had the United States not been a catalyst and not been involved and not tried to find a way to bridge the differences. Q Margaret, is it the case that the rules that were in effect in Madrid and thereafter will also be in effect in Rome? MS. TUTWILER: It would be a wild guess on my part. I've heard no one say anything to the contrary, so I assume that they are. Q And just one of the new ideas the Secretary -- does the Secretary support the concept of continuous talks as opposed to talks that run for ten days and then adjourn? MS. TUTWILER: We support whatever the parties support that is serious and that gets you seriously negotiating peace. Q But you're obviously saying that the United States still has to play the catalyst role, not only in getting the venue but now in getting a time. And I assume that's what you're saying, that whether they're stalled or not, the United States nevertheless remains the catalyst because the feeling is that the parties will not do it themselves. Even though they have a venue, they're not going to get a time unless we intervene. I assume that you're saying that. MS. TUTWILER: The United States -- I'll put it this way: I read any number of wires this morning from reactions all around the Middle East region. Almost every capital to a wire copy that I read said they want the United States involved. They anticipate the United States' involvement, so I don't think there's any question about the United States' involvement until and unless everyone just says, "Butt out." But that is not the case. Never has been, and I don't anticipate that's going to happen. Q I'm just saying they don't seem -- Q I think what we're trying to get, Margaret, is a straight answer as to what the Secretary is -- MS. TUTWILER: I always give straight answers. Q Which are hard to come by here. MS. TUTWILER: Not by me. What you'd like -- all right, let's be honest -- what you'd like is an agenda. Q What I'd like to know is what he's going to do there. MS. TUTWILER: Correct. And you know I'm not going to answer six days in advance of a trip -- a literal tick-tock sheet for you of literally the specific ideas he might be taking, what his talking points are, what he hopes to accomplish. We don't do that, and you know we don't. Q I know that some of my colleagues, who are much more cynical and skeptical than I am, think that he's doing this for domestic political reasons, and I thought that you might like to comment on that. MS. TUTWILER: That is an awful cynical suggestion. Of course, he is not. And in all seriousness, the President of the United States -- I believe I'm correct -- was, if not the first one, one of the very first world leaders to call the new Prime Minister of Israel yesterday. The Secretary of State, very shortly after that, also spoke with the new Prime Minister. This Administration and this Secretary of State, you know as well as anyone, have spent untold hours and energy and effort and have a process that had never been before -- that Israel had waited, or said they wanted for over 40 years. It is something that is taken very seriously and should be taken seriously and is a very serious subject with us. And, yes, we do believe there is a new opportunity, and the Secretary is going to be on the ground in that region on Sunday afternoon. Q Is there an opportunity to get the talks going right away in Rome? And isn't he prepared to send Larry (Eagleburger) or somebody else to Manila, if he can do that? MS. TUTWILER: I haven't heard -- do you mean this next week? To be honest with you -- Q Since the rooms are reserved in Rome for July 28, I wonder -- MS. TUTWILER: Then you know something I don't know. Q Well, they've been reserved for some time, but that doesn't matter. MS. TUTWILER: Do you know what hotel? I don't. I have no idea. (Laughter) Q No, but the Rome police do. This was done in Lausanne, too. MS. TUTWILER: You have much better contacts than I do, if you're talking to the Rome police. Q No, no. It's very simple. On a contingency basis, reservations have been for Rome. But let me not get off on reservations. The point is that I have a hunch that he's willing to skip, as excited as he is about an ASEAN meeting. I have a hunch, like Latin America, he's willing to let it go by the boards if he has something more significant to do. MS. TUTWILER: I'll answer it this way, as I'd have to. It is a wild hypothetical. Anything is possible. And, sure, the Secretary has always said that he would do whatever it takes. But let me just be careful with you here. I have just announced all our overnights. I have told you they are confirmed with capitals. So don't book your room, prior to Thursday, out of Jidda. Okay? Q Yesterday, there was no trip at all. Things do change with lightening speed. Yesterday -- MS. TUTWILER: We like to keep you on your toes. Q -- you didn't even know where Baker was going. Now he's going to 11 countries in three minutes. (Laughter) How incredulous do you expect us to be? MS. TUTWILER: We work at lightening speed. Remember? Q You don't work with lightening speed. You have plans and you have contingency plans. MS. TUTWILER: Always, we have options, and I said that yesterday. Q And you have goals, and you even have other motives as well.

[Former Yugoslavia: Update]

MS. TUTWILER: Okay. Can I do a Yugoslavia update? Update: Serbian forces continued their shelling attacks against Sarajevo last night. This morning, some Serbian shelling on the outskirts of the towns continued. Yesterday, Serbian attacks destroyed Sarajevo's main electrical power relay system. Power is down throughout the city. Some facilities, however, such as hospitals, are running emergency generators with their remaining fuel supplies. We do not know when power could be restored. The lack of electricity cuts back the city's water supply, but has not completely shut it off. Many areas have working wells; some water is still flowing in the main system. Yesterday evening, a mortar barrage near the U.N. Headquarters killed one civilian and wounded many others. Some reports indicate the individual killed was a child. The airport remains open, but the situation there is quite fragile. Serbian shelling, machine-gun fire, and fighting continues in the suburb of Dobrinja. Serbian forces are continuing to try to capture the strategic residential area adjacent to the airport. Major offensives by Serbian forces are underway in three areas in Bosnia: In the north-central Bosnian corridor linking Serbia and Serb-controlled areas in Croatia; on the eastern front along the Drina River, including the town of Gorazde and in Hercegovina. Radio reports indicate that some defenders of Gorazde are still holding out against the Serbian assault but Serbian forces have taken at least some of the town. We estimate that Gorazde has a population of about 60,000, mainly Muslims, plus about 30,000 refugees forced out of the Drina River Valley by Serbian "ethnic cleansing." According to Bosnian officials, Gorazde has been besieged since mid-April and lacks food, medicine, water, and electricity. The only information we have directly from the city comes from ham radio operators who report that Serbian heavy weapons are inflicting significant casualties. We are particularly concerned about reports we have heard that Serbian units from Serbia are participating in this assault. We remain concerned that Serbian forces are increasing their campaign of forced expulsions of non-Serbs from the areas where fighting is going on. We, obviously, strongly condemn these intensified attacks by Serbian forces in Bosnia. On convoys: On July 13, the U.N. coordinated humanitarian assistance airlift delivered about 190 metric tons of relief supplies to Sarajevo. There were 17 flights by nine countries. Unfortunately, bad weather caused the United States to cancel its flights. Concerning, which I know many of you have either read about or seen, on these flights that land, evacuations of very desperately-ill individuals is something that the United Nations is addressing, trying to deal with there on the ground, and they are going to continue, obviously, to address that situation. Q Does that mean they're doing it? MS. TUTWILER: You have to be really very careful here. To be honest with you, the airport, as we have said, is in a very fragile state. You have read of the situation there and seen for yourselves the sniper fire. What you do not want is people who are already in a desperate situation coming to the airport and possibly getting hurt. There were some very close calls yesterday, without going into specifics, of individuals who were doing just that. The U.N. is addressing this problem and will continue to address it, but we have to urge extreme responsible caution versus signaling for people who, as I say, are already desperate, to possibly get into a situation seeking relief where they get killed. Q Margaret, can I ask you about two next steps here? First of all, Secretary Baker said during his trip last week that he anticipated within the next few days there would be a meeting of military officials to discuss the naval observation, or whatever you're going to call it -- MS. TUTWILER: Monitoring. Q monitoring activities to coordinate and determine the terms of reference and other things. Is anything happening on that front? MS. TUTWILER: My understanding is the military authorities of NATO and WEU are still discussing the practical details and modalities for the two forces on an on-going priority basis. I don't have a lot of detail, but the Pentagon -- Pete (Williams) briefs today. He may. Q Secondly, with regard to land convoys, the thought was, as I understand it, that in order to undertake a more concerted and active land convoy role, including the defense of these land convoys, it probably will be necessary to go to the United Nations Security Council and get further authority. Is anything happening in terms of planning or discussing, in a preliminary way, going to the U.N. and asking for such authority? MS. TUTWILER: No. I checked this morning -- if you're talking about the possibility of a draft resolution on use of force, the United States is not currently, for lack of a better phrase, "shopping" that at the U.N., nor is any other nation that I have any knowledge of, and we checked this morning, at this particular time. As you know, our policy is that should the situation get to such a point, we will support a use of force resolution to provision humanitarian assistance. But today, the United States is not at the United Nations, in an informal way at all, with a use of force draft resolution, shopping it around. Q The way you described Sarajevo, it would seem to be at that point, if basic services such as water and electricity and now the convoys are being cut off. It appears to be a matter of days before it will be strangled. MS. TUTWILER: I have refrained throughout this crisis of many, many months from doing predictions, and I'm not going to start today, either on timing or how long people can or cannot hold out. We all know that it is a very serious situation. We all are aware of the dangers that are involved today and have been for the 13 or 14 days that this humanitarian relief has been trying to go in there. I don't have a crystal ball for you on when the United Nations will determine or recommend that they need an additional resolution. Q Do you quarrel with the suggestion that Bosnia is disappearing while the U.N. is considering what to do next? MS. TUTWILER: I don't take an opinion on that nor do the President or the Secretary. As you know, we are not injecting ourselves into the political problem. The EC -- Lord Carrington has called for a meeting, in my understanding, of all the factions; at least the Foreign Ministers level have agreed to attend in London on July 15, which is two days from now. Back on Jim's question, yesterday, I had mentioned that the Secretary General was recommending to the Security Council an additional 500 peacekeepers in Sarajevo. That was approved yesterday. They are being sent. So that puts the number there on the ground at Sarajevo up to 1,600 people. Q The Bosnian President, when he spoke at the CSCE, was warning that humanitarian efforts were not enough; and that while the humanitarian efforts were sort of focused on Sarajevo, his country was being taken over by the Serbs. And now we're talking about what I understand is the last major town, which is a Muslim town, being overrun, whereas you say, forced expulsion. Doesn't that suggest to you that while the next steps are being considered, that the Serbians are continuing to swallow up Bosnia and the Muslim population? MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to concede that to you. As you know, that question was asked any number of times just last week by yourself and your colleagues of the President and the Secretary of State. We, as you know, recognize the country of Bosnia. We have stated what our policy is. Our immediate concern, as you know, is the provisioning of this humanitarian assistance. At the same time, we strongly have supported, and continue to support, the EC political negotiation mediation efforts. I've just announced another meeting that, as of today -- at least the Foreign Ministers level of the factions involved in Bosnia have agreed to attend. And, as you know, we have supported former Secretary of State Vance's missions. So we have been -- Q Margaret -- MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me. -- very supportive on the political negotiations' side and have consistently had a policy of "sit down and negotiate and handle this peacefully." I recognize the facts on the ground -- people's behavior is quite different. Q Margaret, could I just ask you a question? Please understand, this is not an attempt to debate you, but I don't understand U.S. policy in this regard. The United States is a member of the U.N. The U.N. Charter clearly envisions that one country does not run over and swallow up another country. There are clear provisions in Chapter 7 for the use of military force, if necessary, if sanctions don't work, to prevent that happening. The United States subscribes to the U.N. Charter. Why isn't the United States doing something, before the U.N., pushing a course of action that would prevent this happening? The United States continues to hide behind the idea that it is providing humanitarian assistance but is doing nothing under the U.N. Charter to prevent Bosnia-Hercegovina being swallowed up by the Serbs. MS. TUTWILER: Obviously, I would agree with you. This is not the forum to debate this. Having said that, I would say -- when you say the United States is not doing anything, I would, with all my bias hanging out, say that Secretary of State Baker's pronouncement in Lisbon, Portugal, in front of a host of nations of Europe, had a great deal to do with the United Nations passing -- certainly in this tenure -- the second toughest set of sanctions that the United Nations has unanimously passed against another country. I have purposely and intentionally come out here on given days to tell you what we know of the effects of those sanctions. We know they definitely are having a bite. They are causing pain. I am not saying that we have any predictions or can say that economic sanctions alone or diplomatic isolation alone can do this. I also, in fairness, John, which I know that you recognize, this is a country and we have recognized this country. But if you're totally candid about this, this was quite recently a republic of a former country. So when you try to paint a picture of two countries invading each other, in Chapter 7 of the United Nations, each situation is different and unique. A year ago, there was a Yugoslavia with six republics. As in all of these evolving new countries, obviously, this is the worse possible model of how to do it and has caused the most unbelievable suffering. But there has also, as you know, been some violence associated with some of the evolutions in these other republics. I can't answer for you why the United States has not, as a U.N. member, chosen Chapter 7 in this instance, nor did they choose that route in the Iraqi instance. If you recall, a number of countries were suggesting you go the Chapter 7 route. Right now, it's my understanding at the United Nations -- I know what our policy is -- we are not looking at Chapter 7. We are -- the United States -- prepared and ready to support, should it be needing, a provision of all necessary means -- a new resolution. Q Are you saying that the United States feels it does not have a duty to Bosnia-Hercegovina -- MS. TUTWILER: No, I didn't say that at all. Q -- under the U.N. Charter because of the circumstances of its birth, that it came out of the former Yugoslavia? MS. TUTWILER: No, I'm not saying that at all. I am trying -- when you pose a question to me that is, understandably, set up as two countries, I think it's only fair to point out, these are two very new countries. This is not what you or I, a year ago, traditionally thought of as countries. I am not denigrating -- at all -- that. We have recognized them. You know that 51 nations of CSCE, on an emergency basis, recognized Bosnia. But I am saying, on the way you posed the question to me, for a larger public at-large, we have to, in my mind, recognize, as in some of these other republics, that this is not some country that was a country for the last 17,000 years. It is a very new, fledgling country that, yes, indeed, we do recognize. Q Margaret, on the sanctions, do you have anything on the status of Slobodan Milosevic? MS. TUTWILER: On the what? Q Status? MS. TUTWILER: No. I've heard these rumors, and I don't have anything for you. Q Have we heard anything back from Panic? I know it's only been a couple of days. He went back there, but have we heard anything from him? MS. TUTWILER: Not really. I'll tell you that our Charge in Belgrade spoke with him by phone, but it was concerning the situation in Gorazde. Our officials there in Belgrade -- our Embassy officials -- meet, as you know, with all types of representatives of the various entities. Generally, the Embassy, under these conditions, has been avoiding contact at senior levels of the Belgrade Government. But, yes, indeed, some do happen and go on. Q Has he been installed as Prime Minister? MS. TUTWILER: Yesterday, I said that was supposed to happen today. I don't know if it's happened. Q Yesterday. MS. TUTWILER: It did? You all say it happened this morning. Q The out-going Prime Minister said "Not one inch" -- it sounds familiar -- but "not one inch of territory would be yielded back by the Serbians." Do you expect Panic to come out with something different? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know what he's going to come out with. I don't have a preview of that. Q We're apparently hoping that he comes out with something different; that he would moderate the Serbian Government. Isn't that the reason he's there? MS. TUTWILER: You would have to ask him for the reason why he is there. Q Do we have -- when does the 30 days run out before Treasury decides that he's giving up his citizenship if he remains? MS. TUTWILER: That's not the issue. It's not citizenship. It is, he has got a waiver under the U.N. sanctions. It is not the citizenship issue. Should he determine that he wants to extend his stay, he will have to ask at that time for an extension under the U.N. sanctions in order to stay. I believe the clock started running -- I'd have to ask the lawyers or the Treasury Department -- when he actually arrived. So 30 days from then. I'll get the act for you. Q How about his citizenship? I'm not clear on that, whether the United States is continuing to permit him to retain his American citizenship. MS. TUTWILER: Can I do this for you, because it is so legalistic? May I just refer you to the record? I did deal with this a number of times and give you the actual legal language. Q Another subject? MS. TUTWILER: Sure. Q One last question, Margaret. I completely understand your sensitivities relating to the evacuation of sick Yugoslavians. But the question remains, has the United States evacuated sick Yugoslavians out of these besieged areas? MS. TUTWILER: To my knowledge, the U.N. -- who is running this operation, not the United States -- has only evacuated one child, a baby, yesterday. I don't have any additional evacuations for you, and I have tried to answer the question concerning the policy of evacuations. There is enough to deal with in a very dangerous situation at that airport right now. I've just said that the U.N., yesterday, voted an additional 500 people just to help on the actual landing of these air planes under terrific situations, in many instances -- the offloading of these humanitarian supplies, the distribution of these supplies. The only thing I can tell you is that the U.N. has been and will continue to address this issue. Q South Africa: The debate that is to take place tomorrow at the U.N., what is supposed to happen there? Are we looking for a resolution or a statement, or are we looking for the U.N. to take this matter up? MS. TUTWILER: Let me tell you what I know about this meeting. Following requests from the African National Congress, the Pan-Africanist Congress and the Organization of African Unity for the U.N. to discuss the situation in South Africa, the Security Council tomorrow will hold a formal session to consider how the U.N. can help to foster a more positive atmosphere in South Africa for the resumption of talks on the transition to a democratic, non-racial government. Nine African Foreign Ministers representing the OAU will attend the session, as well as Nelson Mandela and other members of the ANC. The PAC will attend, as well as Chief Buthelezi of Inkatha and other South Africans. Foreign Minister Botha of South Africa will also attend. We -- meaning the United States -- welcome the forthcoming Council discussion on South Africa. We believe the Council should seek to reduce tensions in South Africa and do all it can to get the parties back on the negotiating track. We do not believe it would be constructive for the Council to make judgments about the causes of violence or indulge in harsh recriminations. Rather, the goal must be to encourage the negotiating process as the only path to the goal we all seek: a democratic, non-racial government in South Africa. Q Will Ambassador Perkins speak tomorrow? MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll be happy to ask for you. I don't know. Q Margaret, on a different topic. Do you have anything on two United States MIA experts being expelled from Vietnam? MS. TUTWILER: No. I'll be happy to take it for you. I don't have anything on it. Q Please. Q Thank you. MS. TUTWILER: Thank you all. (Press briefing concluded at 1:15 p.m.)