US Department of State Daily Briefing #53:
Tuesday, 4/2/91
Tutwiler
Source: State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler
Description: 12:35 PM, Washington, DC
Date: Apr 2, 19914/2/91
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, South Asia, E/C Europe
Country: Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Albania
Subject: Regional/Civil Unrest, Development/Relief Aid,
Refugees, Security Assistance and Sales
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
[Iraq: Civil Unrest Continues]
MS. TUTWILER: I thought I'd begin by giving you an
update on the situation overall in Iraq. Scattered fighting
continues in northern Iraq between government forces and
dissidents. Government forces appear to have retaken the town
of Zakho. Kirkuk and Dohuk remain in government hands, but some
fighting may be continuing in those areas. The current status
of Irbil is unclear. The government continues to send
additional reinforcements into northern Iraq.
The government seems to be in the process of leveling
substantial portions of the Turkoman town of Tuz Khurmatu, which
is located approximately 40 miles south of Kirkuk. This area
was the scene of heavy fighting between dissidents and
government forces last month.
My point in telling this to you and bringing it to your
attention is, if true to past form, the Iraqis may well start
claiming that the damage was done by the coalition or in the
fighting.
In the south, clashes between government forces and
dissidents have occurred in several locations along the lower
Tigris River. We believe there has also been some limited
unrest inside the city of Basra.
George.
Q What do you mean "leveling?"
MS. TUTWILER: What do I mean by "leveling?" I cannot,
unfortunately, get into how we know this or what methods are
being used or the specifics. But "leveling" means in the truest
sense of the word, leveling.
Q Taking it over?
MS. TUTWILER: I've asked honestly and I was told that
that would not be something we could be forthcoming on today.
Q For clarity, could you spell the name of that
town, please?
MS. TUTWILER: Which town?
Q The one being leveled.
MS. TUTWILER: The first word is spelled T-U-Z; second
word is spelled K-H-U-R-M-A-T-U.
Q You mean "leveling" as in "flattening?"
MS. TUTWILER: I mean leveling.
Q Are they using fixed-wing aircraft to do that,
Margaret?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Margaret, the French today say they will support a
call for intervention in the fighting there on behalf of the
United Nations. Does the United States have a view on this?
MS. TUTWILER: To set the record correct on that, we've
seen one press report on it, and we have checked. We know of no
such proposal to bring this issue to the United Nations Security
Council by the French Government. So it doesn't exist.
[Iraq: US Policy on Intervention]
Q But U.S. views on intervention in the fighting
have not yet changed?
MS. TUTWILER: Our views have not changed on that at
all.
Q Have you checked with the French?
MS. TUTWILER: Have I checked on the French views? If
their views have changed?
Q Have you checked with the French to ascertain if
such a proposal does not exist? You said it doesn't.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. And we've checked at the United
Nations and there's no such proposal.
Q In a broader sense, what's the United States view
of the Security Council taking up the issue of the brutality
against Iraqi rebels, either the Kurds or Shi'ites?
MS. TUTWILER: It's totally speculative for me, Mark.
I think that the United States' views on this subject are very
well known. There is no such draft or resolution or proposal at
the United Nations now, that I'm aware of, that has been brought
forward by any nation.
I believe that all nations of the coalition have
expressed how appalling this situation is, how tragic it is, how
heart-wrenching it is. But that is quite different from any
nation, including our own, saying that you're going to send in
your armed forces to do something about it.
Q How about aid to the refugees as they flee Iraq?
Is that under --
MS. TUTWILER: General assistance from the United
Nations?
[Iraq: US Relief Efforts/Planning for Withdrawal]
Q Not from the United Nations but from the United
States. Is there any thought about helping the refugees once
they get out of Iraq? (Inaudible) Turkey.
MS. TUTWILER: Well, let me just refresh your memory of
what the United States has done since January.
In January, the United States took part in planning for
refugee flows under the U.N.'s regional plan of action for
dealing with refugees and displaced persons created by the Gulf
crisis. The United States has contributed $2.75 million to U.N.
agencies and the ICRC to assist overall relief efforts under the
plan.
The United States contributed another $250,000 to the
Turkish Red Crescent Society for its planned activity in Turkey.
In southern Iraq, United States forces and other
coalition forces are providing care and maintenance to displaced
persons and determining how best to provide support for these
people when coalition forces withdraw. We are having
discussions right now with the ICRC on its taking over those
responsibilities when coalition forces withdraw as a
transitional measure until U.N. agencies can provide for them.
Also in Kuwait, we support the efforts of the Kuwaiti
Red Crescent Society in providing what help and assistance they
can there.
Concerning the ICRC, I obviously would have to point
out that, of course, their ability to do work in Iraq will
depend on the Iraqi leadership cooperating with the
International Committee of the Red Cross.
[Iraq: US Contacts with Dissident Groups]
Q Margaret, on any level at all, are we talking with
any of the Kurdish leaders or Kurdish representatives, or any
representatives of the Iraqi dissident groups?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. Assistant Secretary Kelly and
members of his staff will be meeting tomorrow with a group
representing a cross-section of Iraqi opposition groups. So
far, we have received about 10 requests. That number changes on
us daily since we made the statement last week -- I did -- that,
of course, we would be willing to meet with opposition Iraqi
groups, or people.
We will be meeting with about 10 Iraqi opposition
figures in 4 separate meetings in the next 3 days. These
figures are from a wide range of Iraqi opposition groups,
including representatives of Kurdish groups.
The first group will include 6 Iraqi Muslim
intellectuals, both Sunnis and Shi'as. Two of the group are
American citizens. We will be meeting with Kurdish
representatives later in the week.
We will not necessarily be disclosing the names of all
or maybe any opposition figures with whom we meet, including
this group, in order to safeguard members of their families that
are still in Iraq.
Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly will be the
senior U.S. representative in this first meeting. This group
had not asked -- should you ask me -- to meet with Secretary of
State Baker. Other groups have, and those requests are being
evaluated now.
Q Margaret, while we're talking about meetings, has
the United States --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me?
Q Where are the meetings going to take place?
MS. TUTWILER: They'll be here at the State Department.
Q While we're talking about --
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: I do not.
Q While we're talking about meetings, you know the
oft-stated -- in fact, it goes back two years with the Bush
Administration -- willingness of the U.S. Government to meet
with an authoritative representative of the Iranian Government.
Has such a meeting taken place?
MS. TUTWILER: Not that I am personally aware of. If
one has taken place, I don't know about it.
Q With a U.S. official; an Administration official?
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't ask, Barry. I've been on
vacation since Thursday morning. I did not think to ask that
question this morning. Prior to leaving town on Thursday at
8:00 a.m., I knew of no such meeting. I'll be happy to ask
after the briefing if such a meeting has taken place.
Q And do you have some reflections on the release of
the businessman in Iran?
MS. TUTWILER: Some reflections?
Q Cooper? Well, I mean, does the State Department
have any comment on it? It's one of those --
MS. TUTWILER: Not particularly, no.
Q Will we be able to know anything about these
meetings -- when they take place -- so that we can talk to some
of the participants? And will we be getting a readout on it?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes. But having just stated publicly
that we are, at their request, not going to be publicizing their
names, I don't know what these individuals views will be
concerning talking to you. It is due to the fact that they have
family members still in Iraq and are very concerned about them.
This is a request from them. Not something that we are making
the rules on. Obviously, we would honor such a request.
John's meeting -- Ambassador Kelly's meeting -- the
last I checked was tentatively scheduled for tomorrow afternoon.
I just don't have a specific time for you yet.
Q Getting back to the question I asked earlier, do
you know if, on another level outside the State Department and
in the field, whether any American officials have been meeting
with Kurdish representatives, say, in the Middle East or
wherever?
MS. TUTWILER: Throughout the whole region? I have
never asked that broad a question. My impression is that
different people have, but let me get a specific for you -- if
we can. I'm sure we can't say with whom -- but when these
meetings took place and how many there were and where they were,
etc.
Q Margaret, these Kurds have been careful not to
declare for statehood. When the State Department, through you
and Richard (Boucher), continually speak of the territorial
integrity of Iraq, presumably, you're saying you're not for a
Kurdish state. But there's something in between that. There
are various things in between that. One is some identification
of Kurdish autonomy, or some identification of -- what is the
phrase you use for Palestinians: legitimate political rights,
or something?
Does the State Department recognize the Kurds of Iraq
as being a people who are entitled to some legitimate
recognition of their rights?
[Iraq: US Policy on Leadership]
MS. TUTWILER: The State Department recognizes that the
Iraqi people have a right, as in any other nationality, to
determine who their leadership is. The State Department
recognizes that this is an internal civil war that is going on
inside of Iraq.
We have not changed our policy over the last 8 months,
and we're not changing it today as far as our consistency in
what the policy was, what the goals were, what our mandate is,
why we are there. But that is quite different, as I said I
believe to Mark, of putting American lives at risk by going in
and recognizing either this group, Barry, or, as you know -- I
think you yourself just said -- this is not the only group that
is fighting the current leadership there inside of this country.
I don't know how we, as a government or a country,
should, on a total hypothetical, the President of the United
States makes such a decision. If you take it to its logical
conclusion, are we supposed to decide which group is to be the
leadership? How does this evolve?
Q I neither raised the issue of who's to be the
leader nor did I speak of bringing in troops or anything of the
sort. Obviously, the Administration is not going to send -- I
guess not -- send troops into the West Bank to establish -- to
foster Palestinian rights, but you do speak of Palestinian
rights.
So I'm asking you -- you talk about Iraqis; I asked you
about Kurds. The question is, does the State Department
recognize Kurds as a distinct nationality entitled to certain
rights, political rights?
MS. TUTWILER: The State Department supports the
legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people, which includes Kurds
who are living in Iraq, to choose their own leaders. We are in
touch with people representing opposition groups in Iraq.
I've just told any number of meetings we're having, the
first of which meeting, I said, will include Kurds but
represents a broad cross-section of opposition groups in Iraq.
Q How were the 4 meetings decided? In other words,
did you --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know, Johanna.
Q Did the Department decide to split the
representatives up in this --
MS. TUTWILER: I believe, Johanna, I'm just totally --
Q Or is that how the requests came in?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm assuming here. I said there were 10
different requests; that the requests change daily, 4 of which
are going to happen this week. So I assume they're all separate
requests.
Q What would be the official purpose of these
meetings?
MS. TUTWILER: No different than any other times, as
Barry pointed out when I left town last Wednesday, when we meet
with opposition groups in any number of countries around the
world. That does not, however, as I stated last Wednesday,
change in any shape, fashion, or form our policy. But do we
meet with people? Of course, we do. It is for us to state and
articulate in person our policy concerning this situation and to
listen to their concerns and what their points of view are.
Q Have these people asked to meet with U.S.
representatives to ask for help in their cause, or just to talk
about what's going on whether the --
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have that level of detail about
their specific requests. I don't know if they came by phone; I
don't know if they came in writing. I haven't seen a written
request. I don't know.
Q Margaret, you say that there is no change in
policy. But isn't it a fact --
MS. TUTWILER: Excuse me, Jim. Can I do one thing?
May I point out, as I tried to earlier, these 10 requests were
not non-existent before last week's briefings, to be perfectly
candid, when I believe it was Barry who asked me if there were
any such requests and were we going to meet with people. I said
there were not. I said that on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, we said, of course, we would meet with
them. So these requests have all come in since we have said
that, of course, sure, we will meet. Yes, Jim.
Q You said there's been no change in policy. But
isn't the fact of the meeting at the policy level, in itself a
change of past policy in the State Department?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know if the State Department had
an iron-clad policy, Jim, of never meeting with opposition
groups from the country of Iraq. I will check that out for you.
My impressions are that there have been not just one group but
other people at lower levels in our embassies, etc., who have
met from time to time, but I will double-check that fact to make
sure I have it correct.
Q Margaret, without giving names, can you identify
the group or groups that asked to meet with Secretary Baker?
MS. TUTWILER: No. I think I did as much as I could
today by saying that two were intellectuals. I will try, but it
is their request and I certainly, myself, and I know that you
don't either, want to be in a position of doing anything that
would cause someone's loved one harm. So if they all request
it, we're going to honor it. If they don't, then, of course, we
would give it to you.
Q But I think you indicated earlier that the Kurds
have not asked to meet with Baker?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't think I said that. I think I
said the first group, which will be meeting with Ambassador
Kelly, represents a cross-section of Iraqi opposition groups,
including 6 Iraqi Muslim intellectuals, both Sunni and Shi'a;
two of the group are American citizens, and we will be meeting
with Kurdish representatives later in the week. So that will be
a separate meeting.
Q How many are in that first group?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a number.
Q It's not inclusive, then?
MS. TUTWILER: What?
Q You've talked about 6 intellectuals of whom 2 are
American citizens; is that right?
MS. TUTWILER: There is the first meeting tomorrow of a
cross-section of Iraqi opposition groups. It's happening with
John Kelly. I do not have a number.
I have told you 8 people who are going to be in that.
I don't know if more will be added.
I have said that this week we have scheduled 4
meetings. One of those meetings will include Kurds but I don't
know how many in each group or when those meetings are scheduled
or who is going to be seeing these various groups. But overall
so far, we have 10 requests.
Q Margaret, does Ambassador Kelly, or other people
who may meet with these people, hope to persuade them of the
validity of the American view concerning intervention in the
Iraqi civil war?
MS. TUTWILER: Since I don't know that they will be
coming in here -- not subscribing to the United States' policy
-- I don't know what their specific agenda is.
Q If in the remote possibility that they do not
support the American view, will you try to persuade them of
that? Or is it possible that they could be persuasive and
change the American position?
MS. TUTWILER: I believe that -- we spent a lot of time
on that last week, myself -- the President's policy is very
clear, it's very concise. I have no reason to believe that the
President's policy is going to change.
As far as Ambassador Kelly persuading, I wouldn't
characterize it that way. I would say, as in any number of
these meetings, that he will be articulating America's policy
concerning this situation, which I am sure is very well known --
I would assume -- to the individuals who are coming.
Q On clarification on policy, you say the State
Department supports the legitimate aspirations, etc. What do
you mean by "support?" By word, by deed, by both?
MS. TUTWILER: It's no different than in any other
situation where you're like this. In the United States, our
model -- the one that we think is the best that has ever been
created on the face of the earth -- is democracy; a democratic
model.
We recognize in the real world that's not how the world
is. So we are for, as a nation -- one of the pillars of our
country is people's fundamental rights, their human rights. So
by saying we support someone's aspirations for freedom to vote,
freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to choose their
own leadership -- those are all encompassed, in my mind, when we
say we support the aspirations of -- in this case -- of the
Iraqi opposition and in many other cases around the world.
Q Does support mean U.S. help to achieve those
goals?
MS. TUTWILER: It does not mean United States military
intervention.
Q No. But there's a big gap between them.
MS. TUTWILER: I just gave you this morning United
States support in the form of humanitarian support for refugees
who are deciding to leave their country and who are escaping.
Q What about things like Stinger missiles?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know of any arms sales that the
United States is contemplating in this situation. I've never
heard of that being discussed. I have said that in southern
Iraq, where we are, where our troops are -- and you've seen it
yourself; I just saw it this morning -- some military individual
helping a young boy who had been terribly burned.
We, in southern Iraq, have been helping with food, with
medical care, of Iraqis who are coming into the region where we
are.
Q Margaret, a technical question. Is this a State
Department group, or does Mr. Kelly --
MS. TUTWILER: Is what?
Q No, the U.S. group -- is it drawn from other parts
of the government or is it all State Department people?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm sorry, I've lost you. What?
Q The U.S. group that will meet with the Iraqis, are
these all State Department personnel --
MS. TUTWILER: I think it's just State Department.
Q -- or are you drawing from NSC and the Pentagon?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't know. I'll ask. I didn't think
to ask this morning. I just assumed that since Kelly's hosting
the meeting that it was State, but I'll ask if NSC is coming.
Q Have they travelled here from Iraq, or are these
dissident groups that are exiled groups? Can you tell us
anything about that?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have anymore detail on them
other than what I've already said. I'll try to get more for
you.
Q Margaret, I'd like to find out exactly what is it
that does not exist as a French proposal. They're not calling
for a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss the
Kurdish situation?
MS. TUTWILER: That is my understanding.
Q Speaking of the Security Council, how is the
resolution coming?
MS. TUTWILER: The resolution. As you know, they met
in informal session last night. They're having informal
consultations today. A text was formally inscribed with the
U.N. Secretariate last night. They were supposed to start --
and I just didn't check before the briefing -- at 11:30 today.
We're hoping that we can move forward to a vote.
Q (Inaudible)
MS. TUTWILER: Well, yes, but we always say we hope. I
left here on Wednesday saying we hoped we'd have it last week.
As you know, things sometimes don't exactly come out the same at
the U.N.
[Afghanistan: Arms Transfers]
Q Moving next door or thereabouts, Mr. Kimmitt was
on a government-sponsored telecast yesterday speaking of the
fall of the (inaudible) Afghanistan town and he hoped it would
remind Najibullah that he's not really securely in change. Can
you bring us up to date so far as where does the United States
stand on weapon shipments to the rebels? And what is your
understanding of the Soviets supply?
MS. TUTWILER: No. Can I --
Q Is it still going on? He referred -- you see, the
reason I bring it up is because --
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't see it and I haven't had a
transcript. Sorry.
Q That's all right. Maybe you can get it later on.
But he referred to the U.S.-Soviet agreement. You remember that
era of good feelings, regionally, with Gorbachev and all sorts
of nice things were going on? The two sides decided to
transition Afghanistan to democracy, or to some popular choice.
MS. TUTWILER: I believe that when we were in Moscow --
when was it? When were we last there?
Q July.
MS. TUTWILER: I believe that we said that Afghanistan
was one of the regional issues that the Foreign Minister and the
Secretary talked about. As I remember it, I don't believe that
either Minister had a lot to say about what they had discussed
when they came out and did their briefing for you all.
Q I'm trying to find out if they capped -- if
there's still enough cooperation to cap arm shipments, or if the
two sides are still fueling a bloody civil war?
MS. TUTWILER: Let me just talk to Bob Kimmitt and see
what he said yesterday and where we are.
[Iraq: Un Discussions on Cease-Fire Resolution]
Can I mention one other thing on the U.N. that I forgot
to mention that I think is important to point out. As most of
you know, the vast majority of the Council supports this very
lengthy, very detailed proposal. I should say that Cuba remains
the sole obstructionist on the Council with some 34 proposed
amendments designed to block the key elements of his resolution
which, as I've just said, is stated by the vast majority of the
Council members.
Q Margaret, the Italian Foreign Minister is
apparently on his way to Tehran and has been talking publicly
about an economic agreement between Iran and the EC. Is this
something that the United States is aware about, and is this
kind of cooperation within the bounds that Washington thinks is
appropriate?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have what our policy is
concerning EC contributions to Iran. I think I saw this
morning, early on the TV, that he's already there in a meeting
-- being welcomed there. I saw him in a meeting with their
Foreign Minister. So I don't have anything specific on his
trip, but I'll be happy to ask, if he is going with such a
proposal, what would our views be on such a proposal.
Q Margaret, do you have anything more than Richard
did yesterday about Brent Scowcroft's trip to the Mideast?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Margaret, do you have anything beyond what Richard
had to say yesterday about the proposed Israeli restrictions on
Palestinians? He gave an abbreviated answer because he didn't
have anything more than press reports, and so forth.
MS. TUTWILER: We really don't have a whole lot more to
add to that today. It is something that, obviously -- as I
believe Richard said yesterday -- we have raised, and we are
looking into. And we have raised it, obviously, with the
Government of Israel yesterday. Israeli officials have said
that Israel had approved these measures in the face of
increasing attacks by Palestinians on Israelis over the past
several months.
As you point out, Richard said yesterday we strongly
believe that Israel should be looking for ways of promoting and
developing dialogue and trust with the Palestinians, not
imposing new restrictions. But I don't have any other specifics
for you.
Q What measures, specifically, did they confirm that
they have invoked?
MS. TUTWILER: I asked for that this morning. I don't
have that detail for you yet. We're trying to get it. It's
through verbally, but I didn't have it. They were comfortable
enough to give it to me, to say: "Here, put this out."
[Albania: Elections]
Q Margaret, do you have any comment on the post-
election violence in Albania?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have a lot on the violence.
What I can tell you is that the Albanian people on Sunday voted
for members to the new 250-person parliament in the nation's
first multi-party elections since l945. According to official
accounts, 96 percent of Albania's l.9 million eligible voters
cast ballots.
Our official delegation in Tirana, headed by David
Swartz, reported that Albanian TV news announced Monday evening
that the Communists had won 66 percent of the seats, the
Democrats 27 percent, and the Greek Party three seats. A few
candidates reportedly face run-off elections next Sunday, and
until the official count is announced, we here at the State
Department do not have a comment on these elections.
We are aware that there have been some reports from our
advance team in Albania that there were some isolated incidents.
It appears that observers have not identified any pattern of
systematic abuse in the voting process.
As you know, there were over, I believe, 250 observers
-- international observers -- who were there observing these
elections. And on our brief and initial look at this, we
believe that the electoral law procedures were generally
followed; and we are aware that opposition leaders have spoken
out about irregularities and intimidation. It is something
that, obviously, our team on the ground will look into; but we
are not in a position today to characterize this election as
either fair, unfair, totally free and fair. We're just not
there yet.
Q There are reports of the police opening fire on
people. They say they have seized --
MS. TUTWILER: I have reports of one gentleman that was
killed. That is the only report that I'm aware of as of this
briefing.
Obviously, we condemn the use of violence against
peaceful demonstrators.
Q (?) ... $9 billion contribution.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Prime Minister Kaifu is repeatedly saying that
Japan will not make up for the shortfall from the exchange rate;
and they will explain to the U.S. why they care, if there is any
misunderstanding.
MS. TUTWILER: I think it would be best just to leave
that question. As you know, the two heads of state are meeting
in -- what is it? -- about 48 hours. And so I would rather, if
that is something that will be addressed in that meeting, leave
it to Prime Minister Kaifu and President Bush to address in
California.
Q Can you just restate the U.S. policy on this? And
are you getting any explanation from Japan, how this --
MS. TUTWILER: Number one, you have said to me this
morning that these are statements made by Prime Minister Kaifu.
When I left here last week, I had not seen the Prime Minister
making these statements. I had seen many unnamed officials in
the Japanese government, and I believe there might have been one
Japanese official. We clearly stated what our policy was and
said that if this was an issue -- which we at that time last
week were not sure that it was -- that it was something that our
two governments would discuss.
Q Margaret --
[Iraq: Discussion of US Policy Non-Intervention
Policy]
Q Getting back to Iraq for a minute, isn't there a
contradiction in Washington's hands-off type of policy? First,
the President wanted the Iraqis to rise up and oust Saddam.
And the Kurds and the Shi'ites did rise up and now they are
being massacred, and the U.S. is now taking a sort of hands-off
policy. Isn't there a contradiction in this policy now?
MS. TUTWILER: Not in my mind. As I have said -- that
this is appalling; it is tragic; it is heart-wrenching, what is
going on inside of this country.
You know, as well as I do, that for eight months we
have had a consistent United States policy. That happens to be
the same policy of the international community, and certainly of
the coalition. It was a policy that was supported by the
American people, the American Congress, the United Nations, and
the international community. We never, ever, stated as either a
military or a political goal of the coalition or the
international community the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Yes, many leaders -- including our own -- expressed the
sentiment, the emotion, that they would not shed any tears
should Saddam Hussein be removed and the Iraqi people have a new
leadership.
Our policy has been consistent. We support the
territorial integrity of the nation of Iraq. We do not support
the dismemberment of Iraq.
We have said a hundred thousand times it is up to the
Iraqi people to decide their future leadership, not for
outsiders.
The President has stated, as recently as last Saturday,
that it will be next to impossible to have normal relations with
Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is there.
Having stated all that, it is quite different from
saying, "You are going to interject yourself." I would assume
that you might be suggesting as a solo nation -- or are you
suggesting you go back to the United Nations and try to get yet
another resolution on this, or are you suggesting: "Well, you
decide. Let's just shoot helicopters down"? Well, once you
make that decision, then why aren't you taking on tanks; why
aren't you taking on artillery?
How are you going to determine who is going to leave
this country, should you decide to go in militarily?
But the very most important thing, I would think, in
the minds of all Americans: Why would you be putting American
lives at risk, to interject yourself in something that was never
a stated goal or objective -- either militarily or politically
-- to somehow change the Iraqi leadership?
And so I would say that we have been totally consistent
for eight-plus months now on what our policy is while we were
there, what our mandate is. None of that has changed.
Q The President specifically said for them to rise
up, so aren't they paying in a sense dearly for taking the
President seriously?
MS. TUTWILER: The President has said, that I am aware
of, that he would not shed any tears should the Iraqi people
choose to -- I believe he said -- push aside Saddam Hussein. I
do not believe that the President went out and made a policy
speech calling on Iraqi people to put their lives on the line to
overthrow their current leadership. I personally do not
remember that the President did that.
Q Do you remember -- I assume that the President did
warn Saddam not to use his helicopter gunships against the
rebels, which also could have been taken as a warning that he
would follow it up with some action since U.S. troops occupy
about 20 percent of Iraq. Why did he make that statement and
then decide not to follow it up?
MS. TUTWILER: That --
Q Isn't that an inconsistency?
MS. TUTWILER: That question would be best answered, in
my opinion, by Marlin.
Q Can we take a filing break?
MS. TUTWILER: It's fine with me.
Q Margaret, the Pentagon indicated today that much
of the fighting in Iraq -- at least, on a large scale -- may be
over, that the Iraqi troops control Kirkuk and now two other
Arabic cities in northern Iraq. They control the population
centers. And the Kurds have now -- many of them -- fled to the
mountains. If, indeed, all guerrilla action is over now, what
impact might that have on the diplomatic resolution of --
MS. TUTWILER: Pat, I think you came in a little bit
late. And we did our assessment of the overall situation in
northern and southern Iraq, and I'll just refer you to the
record. It doesn't exactly match exactly what you were
characterizing to me that the Pentagon has said, but I'm sure
there's no difference between the two of us.
Q I'd like to get a clarification of one thing. You
seem --
MS. TUTWILER: I'll try.
Q -- to indicate that supporting the rebel groups would
be inconsistent with the U.S. policy on preserving the
territorial integrity of Iraq.
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Is it the understanding of the Administration that
support for these groups would lead to the dismembering --
MS. TUTWILER: What I am --
Q -- of Iraq?
MS. TUTWILER: What I am trying to point out is, as
many of you asked me last week -- I remember vividly John asking
me -- "Why aren't we doing something? We have troops there in
southern Iraq."
What is it, when you literally sit down and think this
through and go from step to step -- what is it that we are
supposed to be doing? We have this manpower there; we have
these weapons. Every question, I have to assume -- and maybe
I'm assuming wrong -- is: "Why aren't you using the power that
you have there?" And I am saying that it has never, ever, been
any of our goals, intentions. It was never stated in a single
-- I think there are l4 now United Nations resolutions. There's
no mandate for doing this.
That does not take away or detract from that this
tragic, that it is heart-wrenching. It is a terrible, terrible
situation.
But to say we're going to go do something about it --
there is no authority to do that.
Q I wasn't asking that. I was really stepping back
a bit just to a policy question.
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q And that is: We support a lot of people in a lot
of places that we don't intervene --
MS. TUTWILER: Correct.
Q -- in and we don't give arms to, or anything like
that.
Is it that we don't support, as a matter of policy,
these rebels because we think that they're going to interfere
with the goal of territorial integrity -- or that they're going
to dismember the country?
MS. TUTWILER: It is we are not going to interject
ourselves in a civil war that happens to be going on in Iraq.
For instance -- you yourself brought it up -- there is
fighting in the last three weeks in Mali, in the Sudan, in
Ethiopia. I could probably go upstairs and get an enormous list
of people who --
Q (Inaudible.) (Iraq?)
MS. TUTWILER: I didn't say that one. -- people who
are fighting and that the United States of America is not
interjecting themselves in it.
Q Margaret --
MS. TUTWILER: Wait a minute.
But I have said that, to the best of our ability -- and
I've listed specifics of what we're doing for refugees; what we
are doing in southern Iraq where our troops are to help people
with medicine, with food, with water, with essentials, to be
kind to these people. But that is very different than somehow
changing the goalpost here nine months into this and saying,
"Now our goal and our policy is ... And are we going to decide
this by ourselves, the United States of America lose the entire
coalition? No other nation in the world -- we don't know where
they would support."
And so I mean it's very, very --
Q Margaret --
MS. TUTWILER: -- much more complicated than just going
in.
Q Margaret, let me back up. Wait, let me back up
one.
Can I try one more time?
MS. TUTWILER: Yes.
Q Would we like to see the rebels currently fighting
the Baghdad regime win?
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not going to answer that question
because we have said that it is up to the Iraqi people to
determine their own leadership.
Q Or is it the policy of the Bush Administration and
this State Department not to intervene ever in a civil war,
internal fighting within a country?
MS. TUTWILER: I learned a long time ago in this
business never to say "ever" or "never," so I'm not going to say
that for you. I'm not going to make a categorical statement
like that, and then we get into another situation l8 months down
the road and circumstances are quite different and somehow the
United States does something different and you come back and
say, "But, Margaret, you told us 'never.'" So I won't do that.
Q Well, then in your mind -- then in your mind --
this is a peculiar circumstance in Iraq --
MS. TUTWILER: By definition.
Q -- with a peculiar set of conditions which make it
incumbent on the United States not to intervene, and the fact
that we do not intervene in Iraq does not necessarily set a
precedent for future action by the United States; is that
correct?
MS. TUTWILER: I am, John, in my limited time here at
the State Department -- which I think we're now at 26 months --
I am not aware of the United States interjecting themselves with
military troops, hardware and equipment, into a civil war where
we have got troops going in there since I've been here.
Now, I can't tell you what's gone on for the last 200
years.
Q I don't really understand your answer.
MS. TUTWILER: We've got American troops there fighting
--
Q You said "hardware." We have lots of hardware in
Angola and in Afghanistan.
MS. TUTWILER: I said "troops, hardware," et cetera.
And I also have said a hundred times -- that's why I did not use
the example; I think it was Saul that mentioned to me -- I don't
do comparisons. And every situation is different.
But I would say -- I think you would agree -- by and
large, the United States' policy, throughout administrations,
Democrat and Republican, is not to interject ourselves in civil
wars that are going on in countries.
Q How can you say we're not interjecting ourselves
in the internal affairs of Iraq when we got over a hundred
thousand troops in the country?
MS. TUTWILER: We are there, as you know, on a mandate
to liberate Kuwait -- there's no cease-fire -- and we have said
as soon as that cease-fire is adopted by the United Nations,
which it has not been as of l2 Noon today, in the United Nations
Observer Force -- which is part of this resolution, provided it
is still in there, our troops would, as they're going in, be
coming out -- out of Iraq.
Q The other reason we went into Iraq and what we
wanted in that resolution -- 678 -- is also to protect the peace
and stability --
MS. TUTWILER: Of the region.
Q -- of the region. Is our non-involvement, while
at the same time tacitly encouraging a civil war -- is that
conducive to restoring peace and stability in the region?
MS. TUTWILER: We have said, as recently as last
Saturday by the President, that it is going to be next to
impossible -- it was his exact words -- to have normal relations
with Iraq with Saddam Hussein in power.
I think you will see, if the United Nations resolution
passes, as I believe that it will -- I think that you will see
that there are an enormous amount of restrictions, for lack of a
better word, that are going to be placed on this nation for that
very reason, if he's in power, to do everything the world can do
to assure that he does not build back up his arsenal -- have his
weapons of mass destruction, build back up his army, to do all
over again, maybe to some other innocent neighbor, what he's
just put the world through.
Q I'm going to suggest that what the gentleman
pointed out in his question was that we did, whether we like it
or not, encourage this uprising; and we encouraged it further by
threatening to shoot down planes that attacked the people who
are doing the uprising, and we encouraged it further in
statements of support, basically, of the Iraqi opposition to
Saddam Hussein. And then when based on getting clobbered, for
good or sufficient reasons perhaps, we then wash our hands of
it. And it seems to me that policy is not very consistent.
MS. TUTWILER: I beg to different on that somehow the
United States of America or the coalition caused the situation
that is there in Iraq. I would argue that Saddam Hussein, with
his policies of terror, his policy of arrogance and total
disregard for his population -- after all, he led his population
on his own arrogance get into a war that was very destructive to
his people -- to real people who have real families, who saw an
incredible amount of unnecessary suffering because of this man's
policies for his nation.
So I would not say that we or the coalition is
responsible in any way for people who finally had it with their
leader and living the type of lives they have lived.
Look at the economic suppression over the last eight
years. Here it is a wealthy nation, and what has he done?
Build up this arsenal that had no rhyme or reason. His people
have suffered because of that. I would say this is a
manifestation of his people who are saying they've had it.
Q If this is the official -- and we've been talking
now for quite some time on this -- and I assume that when Kelly
and folks meet with the opposition, if this is the policy of the
United States I assume that that's what these people are going
to be told.
MS. TUTWILER: Of course.
Q All right. Then I really don't understand what
the purpose of the meeting is.
MS. TUTWILER: They have requested the meeting. We
have said publicly -- as we did last week -- that should such
requests come in that of course they would be looked at
seriously and that those that were serious requests would be
honored. They are being honored.
Q But under no circumstances, as near as I can see
-- under no circumstances would we be willing to be forthcoming
in helping these people get rid of the fellow we want to get rid
of.
MS. TUTWILER: Helping them how? Do you mean
militarily?
Q Whatever ways they may ask. I don't know.
MS. TUTWILER: I have expressed -- I'll do it again --
this morning ways that we are helping the Iraqi people on a
humanitarian basis. Interjecting ourselves militarily in a
civil war in Iraq is not the policy of the United States
Government. And, again, I would point out I am personally
unaware of any nation in the coalition -- or who is outside the
coalition -- who is saying they're going to.
Q Margaret, do you believe like in Cambodia, some
boots --
MS. TUTWILER: I'm not aware that our country is doing
anything like that.
Q No. What I mean is: Is that to be included in a
list of not doing things? Are you talking about lethal aid, or
--
MS. TUTWILER: It's a total hypothetical. I don't even
know if anybody's requested it.
Q Margaret, does the United States believe that
vastly increased humanitarian aid will be necessary to stem the
refugee problem once the American troops withdraw, indeed?
MS. TUTWILER: I don't have an analysis of that for
you, Mark. I don't know what the refugee problem, for instance,
is going to be. I don't know if the money that our nation has
given and other nations have given are taking care of the
situation adequately.
As I remember, isn't it Japan that gave $38 million
recently? The Japanese gave $38 million. I just told you about
our $2.75 million.
I don't have a breakout of how much money is in the
pot, how much has been spent, and how much is going to be
needed. I don't have a way of doing for you right now.
Q Margaret, the Soviet Union has instituted its new
effort to make its prices more sensitive to market forces. Do
you have any comment about them?
MS. TUTWILER: No.
Q Thank you.
Q Thanks.
MS. TUTWILER: Thanks.
(The briefing concluded at l:l8 p.m.)