24 October 2001
Transcript: Grossman on War Against Terrorism
(Digital interview with London-based journalists of Arab dailies)
(4840)
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman explained
in a trans-Atlantic digital interview with London-based journalists of
Arab newspapers October 19 that the U.S. policy in waging a war on
terrorism is based on four premises.
-- The September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were
not just attacks against the United States, but rather were attacks
against the entire world, killing people from 81 countries including
predominantly Muslim countries.
-- An international coalition with participation by Arab states and
supported by Muslim and Arab international organizations has emerged
to fight global terrorism.
-- The United States is helping the Afghan people survive the
disasters of Taliban rule and drought, having contributed a total of
more than $1 billion. President Bush announced the latest U.S.
installment of aid to the Afghan people, $320 million, on October 4.
-- The United States deeply respects the Islamic faith and its
members.
Grossman also made other points about U.S. policy during the question
and answer portion of the interview.
-- The U.S. military is going to great lengths to avoid civilian
casualties, and when the military aspect of the struggle is over, it
will be clear that the number of civilian casualties is "very, very
low."
-- Usama bin Laden, his al Qaida terrorist organization and the
Taliban have committed crimes against the Afghan people such means as
starvation and oppression of Afghan women.
-- The September 11 attacks were planned long in advance and were not
linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
-- The Bush administration supports the establishment of a Palestinian
state and believes the Mitchell Committee proposals are the path to
achieving that.
-- The United Nations has provided a legal basis for waging war on
terrorism.
-- There is no evidence linking the anthrax attacks in the United
States to anyone right now, but the matter is being pursued by the FBI
and the U.S. Postal Service.
Following is the transcript of Grossman's interview:
(begin transcript)
INTERVIEW OF UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE MARC GROSSMAN DIGITAL VIDEO
CONFERENCE
October 19, 2001 Washington, D.C. (11:30 p.m. EDT)
MR. GROSSMAN: Hi, my name is Marc Grossman. Could you all just be nice
enough to just introduce yourselves now before we get started? It
would be easier for me, I think, and more agreeable.
QUESTION: My name is (inaudible). I am the political (inaudible) Arab
newspaper in London.
MR. GROSSMAN: Nice to meet you, sir.
QUESTION: Hello, my name is (inaudible). I'm (inaudible) Hayat
newspaper based in London.
MR. GROSSMAN: Nice to meet you.
QUESTION: I am (inaudible) from Al-Sharq, Al-Aswat, the international
Arabic newspaper based in London.
MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, thank you all very much. I certainly appreciate
your taking time out of your schedules, and I hope this is an
agreeable format. It certainly is good for me, and I see and hear you
all extremely well. As Matt said, we don't really have so much time,
and that is my fault, for which I apologize, so let me make a couple
of introductory comments and then I'd be very glad to answer any
questions anybody might have or any comments that people would like to
make.
First of all, for me anyway, I think the first thing that I would like
to say is to step back for a moment and to re-recognize, if I could
use that word, that the attack on the 11th of September was not just
an attack on the United States, but really was an attack on the world.
And I know we have said this again and again, but I think as
journalists, and also as people who work in government, it is very
important to recognize again that 81 countries lost nationals in that
attack and that 9 of those countries, maybe more, countries that were
predominantly Muslim and that the number of people of the Islamic
faith who died in New York, in Washington, in Pennsylvania, is
actually, I think, quite large.
The second thing that I would like to say is that since the 11th of
September, I must say that from our perspective anyway, from the
perspective of the United States, we have been extremely pleased and
extremely gratified by this coalition that has come together to focus
on international terrorism.
And I think as the President and Secretary Powell have said, every
country in this coalition has a role to play. Some will play a role in
ratifying the 12 international conventions of the United Nations
against terrorism. Everyone, I hope, will work to implement UN
Security Council Resolution 1373 against terrorist financing. These
are things that all countries should do. Other countries will do more
than that.
So we believe that these are important aspects and that we very much
appreciate the international effort that has gone into this. If I
might say specifically to this group of journalists also, we have also
been very pleased by the expressions of support from Arab states, from
Muslim states, from organizations like the OIC and from the Arab
League. And I think in particular, again for the group that I have the
good fortune to address today, actions from countries like Saudi
Arabia, for example, which broke relations with the Taliban and are
working now to shut down terrorist networks; countries like Egypt
where President Mubarak, I think, has taken a leadership role in
talking about this coalition against terrorism, and also has approved
transit rights and other useful things for US military operations.
The third theme that I would like to raise with you today -- and
again, I would be very glad to talk to you about this -- is the help
that the United States is giving to the Afghan people. I know that
after me you'll have a chance to visit with the AID Administrator
Andrew Natsios, but I just want to emphasize to you how important the
aid to the Afghan people is to the President of the United States, to
the Secretary of State, and to all of us who work in this
administration.
We, of course, have been the largest donor of aid to Afghanistan for
many, many years. In fact, that total is now up over a billion
dollars. And you all know, because I'm sure that you covered it, that
on the 4th of October the President announced an additional $320
million in humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. And I can tell you
without fear of contradiction that every single day in every meeting
that I go to, people want to know what progress we're making in
feeding Afghans, what progress we're making in getting in the kinds of
supplies that we will need to keep those people fed.
And finally, an obvious point perhaps, but a point that, like the
first one, is worth mentioning, and that is the continuing theme that
we have great, great respect in the United States of America for
Islam. And I think this is not surprising for a country like ours
where between 5 and 7 million people follow the Islamic faith. I
believe it was very important that one of the very first visits and
actions that the President took after the 11th of September was to
visit a mosque. And so I think that in the United States these
feelings of respect and tolerance for people of the Islamic faith have
been very important to us.
Also in that regard has been the large outpouring of statements and
others from Islamic leaders outside of America and inside of the
United States about the attacks on the 11th of September. And those
are something, I think, that have again reflected very well both
inside the United States and outside.
So I hope that you won't think that I've taken up too much time, but
even though these are themes that you probably hear a fair amount, I
really believe that they are worth re-stressing because they really
set the foundation and the principles for how we are proceeding.
And so, with that, I would be glad to answer any of your questions or
take any of your comments.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your time. I would like to
start (inaudible) about your comment about respect of Islam and what
repeatedly heard from the American administration that this is not a
war against Islam.
My question is: Do you expect this message to be seriously accepted
among the Muslims when civilian casualties are happening every day?
Even the UN and the Red Cross facilities have been destroyed in
Afghanistan.
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, when you say "accept" I mean I would say that I
hope that this message will be accepted by people, and that is why we
are working so hard to try to put it out. Let me try to respond as
specifically to the message that you have just put out.
One is I think that the military campaign here, as identified by the
President and our military leadership, has really gone out of its way
to keep the number of civilian casualties limited. And I believe, sir,
that when there is a fair and accurate representation when this
campaign is over, we will find that the number of civilian casualties
actually has been very, very low.
Secondly, on the question of UN or ICRC buildings, I mean, all I can
say is that we will have to wait and see what the facts are. For
example, yesterday everybody was saying that the Taliban had taken
over a World Food Program warehouse. In fact, it was given back today
and it appears that all the food is intact. There is some question, I
think, in terms of this ICRC building of what was in it and whether it
was still a part of the International Committee of the Red Cross. So
we need, I think, to get the facts here before we run off and say that
there has been some kind of terrible damage done.
Finally, I would say that from our perspective anyway -- and again,
this is something that you all have to decide for yourselves -- you
know, what is the crime here? The crime here, I believe, is really
perpetrated by al-Qaida and by Usama bin Laden and by the Taliban on
the Afghan people. I mean, you have again, from my perspective anyway,
another invasion of Afghanistan by al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden and
these Arab forces, and you have in the Taliban a group of people that
has so far starved a large number of people in Afghanistan. Look at
the role of women in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a country that needs
a whole new way of life. I don't say it has to be our way of life, but
I think, if given a free choice, people in Afghanistan would not
choose to continue the way of life the Taliban has tried to impose
upon it.
QUESTION: Just a quick photo opportunity. You said that the civilian
casualties are low. Have you actually verified that?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, no, sir. As I said to you, sir, I believe this is
one of those things that is going to have to wait until there is an
honest observation on the ground. All I was asserting to you is I
expect that they will be lower than some of what I would consider to
be the propaganda figures that are pushed around today. And that is
something that independent journalists like yourselves, and I hope
independent journalists from the United States and other countries,
will someday be able to go in and verify.
QUESTION: And, Mr. Under Secretary, I would like to put to you a
question which I think is being currently asked widely in the Arab
world, which is this: Israel has reoccupied many Palestinian cities
and it has been carrying on a campaign by which Mr. Sharon is
comparing the Palestinian leader Arafat to bin Laden and the
Palestinian Authority to the Taliban when, in fact, what the
Palestinians are doing are resisting a nightmarish, long occupation
which, according to your resolution, must end.
How do you view that?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, sir, let me try to make a couple of points. The
first point I would make is one of the things that I think is not
helpful in the dialogue that has been proceeding after the 11th of
September is somehow this idea that these terrorist attacks on the
United States and these attacks on the world on the 11th of September
somehow would never have happened if there had been peace in the
Middle East or that this is somehow the fault of the United States for
not being more aggressive in the Middle East peace process. I think
that is completely wrong. Maybe that doesn't surprise you, obviously,
from where I sit, but I believe that that charge is an incorrect one.
I believe that the attacks on the 11th of September were long planned.
I think they don't have anything to do with the Middle East peace
process. Indeed, if you go back and take a look at the other things
that Usama bin Laden and his compatriots have done over the past few
years, it didn't matter to them whether the peace process was in a
high or a low point. Look at the attacks on our embassies in Africa,
the attack on the USS Cole, other attacks that have been perpetrated.
Totally irrelevant to the question of pluses or minuses in the Middle
East peace process. So I think that's one thing we ought to debate
and, from my perspective, be quite clear about.
The second thing, sir, is the question of the Middle East peace
process. I believe that we can not be any more clear -- the President
and the Secretary -- about how important this peace process is to the
United States. Both the President and the Secretary have talked about
this extensively. We are great supporters of UN Security Council
Resolutions 242, 338 and the principle of Land-for-Peace, as you know.
I think that the work that the President and the Secretary have done
since the beginning of this administration -- and very much, I would
emphasize, sir, before the 11th of September -- shows that we have
been on a track to try to reduce the violence in the Middle East, move
on to the Mitchell Commission Report, implement the Mitchell
Commission Report which, as you know probably better than I do,
contains inside of it the beginnings, the re-beginnings, if you will,
of negotiations for final status. And what the President and the
Secretary have said over the past few weeks about a Palestinian state
I think show where the United States stands.
So both sides in this question need to take steps to end the violence
and to reduce these levels. I think that can be done. I think we need
to continue to emphasize that it should be done, and then move on to
the implementation, the full implementation, of the Mitchell Report.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up question.
MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower gave an ultimatum to
Israel to vacate the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Dessert, which it has
occupied, and Israel pulled back without delay. The Israeli occupation
of that land has continued since 1967, and Israel is armed and
financed by the United States.
Why is it that since 1967 no American president has put pressure on
Israel to obey international law?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, with all respect, I would just have to say that I
don't accept the premises of your question. We are dealing here in the
year 2001. President Bush is the President, and he obviously will make
the decisions that he wishes. But what we're trying to do, as I say,
is lower the level of violence in the area, move on to the
implementation of the Mitchell Report.
What I find kind of disturbing, I guess, in all of this debate is the
constant, constant, constant feeling in the Middle East that
everything there of someone's gain is someone else's loss. I think
that we need to get over that and recognize that there is more that
can be done.
For example, if we could realize, I think, that movement on the Middle
East peace process would open up any number of opportunities for us in
the area -- and I don't mean "us" the United States, but people. And I
actually don't think that September the 11th or the activities of
today or tomorrow or the next day really should keep us from the kind
of vision that we want to have for people in the Middle East, which is
a democratic vision and a vision where people can live in peace with
their families, and live also in a place that is economically growing.
So with all due respect, and I certainly appreciate your question, but
I really can't accept the premises of it, sir.
QUESTION: Mr. Under Secretary, (inaudible) of countries who
(inaudible) the coalition against terrorism. Almost (inaudible) is
taking part in the coalition.
Can you hear me?
MR. GROSSMAN: I missed the first part of your question, sir.
QUESTION: Syria's name doesn't appear on the list I have in front of
me of countries around the world supporting the coalition against
terrorism. We know from the news coming out of Damascus and statements
and so on that Syria has offered to help in every way possible.
Now, the second part of my question is that certain elements in the
American administration, as you all know, have been pointing fingers
to Damascus and have expressed voiced concerns, to say the least,
about its statements.
What is the official American position on Syria, and can you rule out
any attack against any other country, specifically Syria and Iraq?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, let me say, sir, I don't know where the list you
have comes from because one of the things, I think, that is important
here is that this coalition, as everyone describes it, is not a
coalition in which, you know, people are signing up to go to some
diplomatic meeting in Geneva and then issuing learned communiqués.
And I think that's one of the things that's very important to
understand, that we use the term "coalition" and as you have used the
term "coalition," but what this is really about, as President Bush, I
think, has so well said, is it's about countries who wish to take the
basic steps to be opposed to terrorism.
And as President Bush has said and as Condi Rice said one afternoon in
a briefing, I thought extremely well, every country will have to
choose what level of effort that it puts in. Some countries will wish
to participate openly; other countries will wish to participate maybe
covertly or clandestinely; some countries will provide information;
some countries will provide intelligence. And so how people act in
this coalition is much, much more important, sir, I think, than
whether their name is on this list or that list.
You can say this is a simplistic view, but I think about it really
perhaps as a triangle in which, at the base of the triangle, is a
very, very large number of countries, I would hope, that are taking
the basic steps against terrorism. And what would I consider them to
be? I would consider them to be the ratification of the 12 United
Nations conventions against terrorism, and there are a number of
countries who still have not done that, including the United States.
We have only ratified 10 of the 12, but we have asked the Senate now
to ratify the other two.
Other things in that base of activity would be people pursuing UN
Security Council Resolution 1373 to stop the harboring of terrorism or
the financing of terrorism. Up from that, I think will be people who
will take more active measures against terror to disrupt networks and
to move people along out of their countries. And then some countries
will also be prepared to take some military action, as we are today,
against terrorism.
So this is really a question not to me, but to Syria. And the question
for Syria, as the question for lots of other countries, is where on
this list do you wish to be. What is your level of effort? What are
you prepared to do? And so I think to the specific Syrian case
Secretary Powell has said on a number of occasions we recognize
President Assad's letter of condolence and support. That is something
I think that should be tested by level of effort for Syria. Obviously
we've got some serious concerns about Syria. We were talking before
about the Middle East peace process. You have issues with the PFLP,
for example.
But we want to work with whatever countries will take these minimum
standards. I would also say -- and I don't mean to go on too long --
is there will be another testing time coming here as Syria was
elected, I think 10 or so days ago, to be a non-permanent member of
the UN Security Council. And to be a member of the Security Council
means that you have to follow all Security Council resolutions, and I
think act and behave in such a way that makes one part and parcel of
the international community.
So we look toward countries, including Syria, to take these minimum
steps, to take levels of effort and to be part of a coalition, as you
and I have just defined it, against terrorism.
QUESTION: A brief follow-up, if I may.
MR. GROSSMAN: Of course.
QUESTION: You rule out an attack on Syria and you hardly mentioned
Iraq. Is Mr. Armitage right when he suggested that Iraq should be
attacked, or not?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, I don't think Mr. Armitage said anybody should be
attacked. I think that is an unfair, completely unfair, interpretation
of what he said -- a completely unfair interpretation of what he said.
What people have said in Washington is that it's time to choose and
that countries should show by their level of effort what it is that
they are doing to combat terrorism. But as the President has said on
any number of occasions, and I think what Mr. Armitage said, is that,
you know, information, intelligence will come, and then we will have
to figure out how to combat terrorism wherever it appears in this
world. And as the President has said, there are many, many ways to do
that -- financial and diplomatic and through information and through
operations as well.
QUESTION: Dr. Grossman, I am wondering actually and have other
diplomatic and defense voices, especially in Europe, are about under
what sort of mandate internationally is the United States conducting
its war in Afghanistan. I mean, you mentioned the 1373, but it doesn't
specify any military action against a particular country.
Number two, as a follow-up to that, under what circumstances or what
should be contained by Afghanistan in order for this war or the
bombing to stop?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, let me try to answer both your questions. On the
first, I believe that Security Council resolution 1368 that was passed
on the 12th of September , offers all of the legal basis and
requirement that we need, in addition to Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter, which is the right of self-defense. And we believe
the United States was attacked on the 11th of September and that we
have a right of self-defense in this regard.
So, sir, I think in terms of a legal basis for what we're doing and
the moral basis for what we're doing, the combination of the swift and
sure United Nations Security Council resolution action on the 12th of
September, the United Nations General Assembly action, the very first
General Assembly resolution of the 56th General Assembly, and the
right of self-defense more than covers this. And I believe that that
is an accepted fact around the world.
The second thing is, in terms of Afghanistan, I would have to go back,
sir, to President Bush's statement to a joint session of Congress. And
I apologize, I don't have that date, and perhaps we can help you there
in London. And in that, what did President Bush say? He laid out, one
after another after another, the requirements for Afghanistan. And it
was a number of days after the attack and he talked about turning over
Usama bin Laden for justice. He talked about taking Usama bin Laden's
major associates to justice. He talked about closing up the network of
al-Qaida in Afghanistan. And he talked about the destruction of the
terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, subject to international
verification. And very importantly to us, sir, he also talked about
the release by the Taliban by the hostages -- I'm sorry, the detainees
-- that are in Afghanistan -- Americans, Germans and Australians.
And so these requirements -- I think that he called them ultimatum --
were laid out. And I think if you will count the days from when that
speech took place to the time of the beginning of our military
campaign, I think a fair person would conclude that plenty of time
went by for the Taliban to have met those requirements.
QUESTION: I would like to ask about the ground troops which are
already operating now in Afghanistan. Can you confirm the number, the
nature of the mission and the duration of these missions of ground
troops?
MR. GROSSMAN: No, I can not -- not only can I not confirm any of that,
but as the President said in Shanghai this morning, I think none of us
should be talking about those kinds of things. Those are military
operations and certainly those of us at the State Department are not
informed of them in any useful way and certainly should not be
commenting on them.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. Why ground troops in Afghanistan
shouldn't be seen in the Muslim world as occupation (inaudible)?
MR. GROSSMAN: Well, again, I think to go back to the conversation we
were having before, what we are doing in Afghanistan, our military
campaign in Afghanistan, is designed to meet the objectives the
President laid out in his joint session of Congress, which is to deal
with Usama bin Laden. We want him brought to justice. We want his
senior associates brought to justice. We want those camps destroyed.
And so we are on a military campaign to do that.
And again, I would say to you that the occupation of Afghanistan is an
occupation of Afghanistan by Usama bin Laden, al-Qaida and his
associates -- non-Afghans all.
I'll take one more, if I could, and then I apologize, I'll turn you
over to AID Administrator Natsios.
QUESTION: What about the investigation so far concerning the vicious
anthrax attacks? Have you been able to point the finger in any
direction, or not yet?
MR. GROSSMAN: No, not yet. But I think, again, as the President said
in -- I said Singapore before, but of course it's Shanghai. I
apologize. As the President said in Shanghai this morning, this is
something that is continuing. The FBI, the US Postal Service, are all
working on this, and I think people are going to continue to pursue it
seriously.
I know sitting in London you probably are seeing headline, headline,
headline about anthrax. I guess what I can tell you is that here in
Washington, anyway, people are going about their business very, very
calmly. Many of us go to Capitol Hill a lot. There are a number of
people up on the Hill. I am sure your journalistic colleagues are
there as well.
But I think the way that people have stepped in to get medical tests,
people have stepped in immediately to have medical treatment for those
number of people who need it, have given everybody quite a big sense
of confidence. And so we are trying to do the best we can, and I hope
that you won't think by reading headlines in our paper that we're in
some kind of panic here, because we're not.
QUESTION: It can't be linked to United States or any particular state?
It can't be linked to any particular state so far?
MR. GROSSMAN: That is correct, sir. Again, I think the President and
Governor Ridge said yesterday that this investigation continues, but
we have no evidence linking it actually to anybody right now. But we
will obviously pursue the leads as they come up.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you all very much. I hope from time to time you
might be prepared to do this again. Thanks a lot.
(12:00 p.m. EDT)
(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
|
|
|
