27 September 2001
Transcript: State Official Sees No Need to Talk to Taliban
(Deputy Secretary Armitage says U.S. terms non-negotiable) (1420)
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said September 27 that he
views the Taliban's request to meet with the Reverend Jesse Jackson in
Pakistan as only a delaying tactic.
Interviewed by Matt Lauer on NBC's Today Show, Armitage said he
personally would not make such a trip, but that it was Jackson's
decision to make. Armitage noted that Jackson had told Secretary of
State Colin Powell on September 26 about the Taliban's request, and
that Powell "had informed Jackson that the demands laid on the Taliban
by our president are not negotiable.... We are not interested in a
dialogue; we're interested in action and no negotiation. The demands
are not subject to dialogue."
Asked why the United States is not interested in overthrowing the
Taliban regime, since it apparently was not going to comply with
President Bush's demands, Armitage said the question of who governs
Afghanistan was for the Afghan people to decide. He added that perhaps
the Taliban themselves would decide to change their own leadership.
Touching on the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, Armitage
acknowledged that in spite of the fact that the United States is
spending $174 million this year for humanitarian aid to Afghan
refugees, there is more that needs to be done. The United States is
"looking for other partners who are willing to step up and alleviate
this problem," he said.
On the topic of other governments breaking off ties with the Taliban,
Armitage said the decision to sever relations by the United Arab
Emirates and Saudi Arabia constitutes "a great victory for President
Bush and this coalition."
As for Pakistan's continuing diplomatic relations with the Afghan
regime, he said they are "welcome to continue talking to the Taliban,
as long as they are sending the same message the president sent.... I
think it is becoming increasingly difficult for Pakistan to hold to
that relationship. And it will be another case of a country having to
make a choice in the not-too-distant future."
Following is the transcript of the Armitage interview:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
September 27, 2001
INTERVIEW OF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE RICHARD ARMITAGE BY NBC'S MATT
LAUER ON THE TODAY SHOW
Washington, D.C.
QUESTION: Secretary Armitage, good morning to you.
DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Good morning, Mr. Lauer.
Q: Let me ask you about something that's happened in the last 24
hours. The Reverend Jesse Jackson says that a representative of the
Taliban has contacted him, asking him to come to Pakistan on a peace
mission.
What do you make of the Taliban reaching out to Reverend Jackson?
A: It seems to me they're trying to delay making a decision on their
own. Reverend Jackson informed Secretary Powell yesterday that he had
this invitation, and Secretary Powell informed Reverend Jackson that
the demands laid on the Taliban by our President are not negotiable,
and Reverend Jackson will now have to make a decision whether he wants
to go or not.
Q: Well, would you encourage him to make the trip?
A: I personally wouldn't, but I don't think it's my decision. I think
he will make his own decision.
Q: And if he goes, just to reiterate, he is not there going to make a
deal. The demands of the President -- he says his demands are not open
for discussion or negotiation. Those still stand?
A: We are not interested in a dialogue; we're interested in action and
no negotiation. The demands are not subject to dialogue.
Q: Secretary Armitage, in the last couple of days, it seems,
administration officials have been tripping over themselves trying to
say that our goal is not to overthrow the Taliban. Why don't we want
to overthrow the Taliban?
A: I think the President has made it quite clear that the Taliban has
a choice. They can either render Usama bin Laden and his lieutenants
to us and dismantle the camps and free detainees, or suffer the same
fate. They still have a choice. We are hopeful they will make the
right choice. But I think, as time goes on, it becomes less and less
possible for them to get out of this.
Q: The President asked them to turn over bin Laden, to close the
terror camps and allow US inspection of those camps. Their response,
if I remember, was one word, it was "no." So having given us that
response, now why don't we want to overthrow them?
A: I think the question of who governs Afghanistan is something that
is going to have to be decided by Afghanis themselves. There are
divisions in the Taliban. The Taliban themselves may decide to change
their own leadership. I don't know that it's necessarily something
that we have to decide right now.
Q: There is a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. People are on the
move, trying to flee the country. Other people are dramatically short
of food. Is there any more that we can do, the United States can do --
and I know we do a sizeable amount already. But is there anything more
we can do to end the suffering of the Afghanistan people, now?
A: Well, you're right, we do a lot. We have provided $174 million
worth of humanitarian assistance this year. The President has ordered
us to be prepared to alleviate the suffering of the new refugees who
will be arriving in Pakistan and other neighboring states. We have to
do it in a manner that does not allow this food to fall into the hands
of the Taliban.
But, yes, there is more we can do and there is more the international
community can do. And we are looking for other partners who are
willing to step up and alleviate this problem.
Q: But given the scope of the humanitarian crisis brewing right now,
Secretary Armitage, don't you think if we strike Afghanistan with our
military, we run the risk of making conditions even worse for the
people there?
A: I don't know how it could be made much worse. The Taliban
themselves have been repressive of their own people. And as far as I'm
concerned, they have been using food as a weapon against other
Afghanis. I think if it becomes necessary to use military action, and
the fact that we're also providing for the sustenance and, indeed, in
some cases the shelter of Afghan citizens makes the point, that we're
after terrorists and murderers and not interested in waging a war on
the Afghani people.
Q: In the past day, the Saudi Government has announced that they are
cutting off diplomatic ties with the Taliban. How important was that
for the administration?
A: I think the combination of the UAE and latterly the Saudis cutting
off the ties was a great victory for President Bush and this
coalition. And I think slowly the Taliban is seeing the noose
tightening and they will have to make a choice soon.
Q: Pakistan has withdrawn its people from Afghanistan but they
continue diplomatic ties. Is it the administration's position that we
want Pakistan to continue talking to the Taliban?
A: Well, Pakistan is welcome to continue talking to the Taliban, as
long as they are sending the same message that the President sent.
Pakistan is the last country to have relations with the Taliban. I
think it is becoming increasingly difficult for Pakistan to hold to
that relationship. And it will be another case of a country having to
make a choice in the not-too-distant future.
Q: I guess what I'm asking, though, would complete isolation of the
Taliban be counterproductive?
A: I think they are a self-isolating government right now, and I don't
think it would be counterproductive.
Q: Finally, do we have any more idea today than we did, say, two weeks
ago where Usama bin Laden is?
A: I don't think it would be for me to comment publicly. We get a lot
of information. A lot of countries are pooling their information on
his whereabouts and the whereabouts of his lieutenants. And I think,
ultimately, we will be successful in this hunt for Usama bin Laden and
the al-Qaida network.
Q: Secretary Richard Armitage. Mr. Secretary, thanks very much.
A: Thank you, Mr. Lauer.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
