30 October 2001
Transcript: Defense Official on Relations with Coalition Partners
(U.S. sensitive to internal situations, Quigley says in Tashkent)
(2630)
Many countries are "providing concrete solid assistance to the war on
terrorism who do not feel that they wish to take a high profile stance
in that regard. We are going to be as sensitive to their ... internal
needs as we can be," Rear Admiral Craig Quigley told journalists in
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, October 30.
Briefing informally after the press conference of General Tommy
Franks, the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, Quigley,
the deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs,
explained some of the political sensitivities affecting press coverage
of the coalition, emphasizing that the United States is trying to be
"responsible and sensitive" to the concerns of its partners.
"It's a coalition of nations. It's dozens of nations around the world,
but in each case, with the United States, it really ends up being a
bilateral relationship at the end of the day. And so we discuss what
sort of support the nation can provide and how high a profile, if any,
is that nation willing to accommodate internally for its own political
needs," Quigley said.
It is up to host nations to decide whether or not to acknowledge the
presence of U.S. forces on its soil, he added.
Regarding cooperation with Afghan opposition groups, Quigley said that
two criteria are applied before engagement with a particular group:
"'Are your objectives what my objectives are?' and 'Do you have the
capability to make good on your commitment to help?'"
If the answer to those questions is affirmative, then the United
States will try to provide "weapons, ammunition and things of that
sort," Quigley said.
Quigley also discussed the humanitarian assistance the United States
has tried to provide.
The United States will "keep going with the airdrops as long as we
must, but we'll continue to try to seek a more effective way of moving
really larger volumes of humanitarian assistance to the people of
Afghanistan" -- food, clothing, and medicine, he said.
Following is a transcript provided by American Embassy Tashkent:
(begin transcript)
INFORMAL PRESS OP FOR JOURNALISTS WITH REAR ADMIRAL CRAIG QUIGLEY
FOLLOWING GENERAL FRANKS' 10/30 PRESS CONFERENCE
INTERCONTINETAL HOTEL
TASHKENT, UZBEKISTAN
October 30, 2001
Question: Did you use in any way Soviet experience of fighting in
Afghanistan?
Admiral Quigley: Would you say that again?
Question: Experience of Soviet Union in war in Afghanistan. Did you
take into consideration ...
Admiral Quigley: I think many nations in the world have studied very
closely the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. The United States is
certainly one of them. Many other nations as well have done that.
There's a lot to be learned from the Soviet experience in fighting in
Afghanistan. I'd like to think that the United States military took
those lessons aboard and continues to take those lessons aboard and
will not repeat mistakes made by the Soviet military.
Question: I guess the answer is obvious, but with regard to his
question (previous off-mike discussion on access to U.S. military
presence in Uzbekistan) what is the rationale for that, for the
position you're taking?
Admiral Quigley: Which? I'm sorry?
Question: No access. What is the rationale for the no access position?
Admiral Quigley: I said this before we got going, but not to nearly
this many folks. It's a play off on what General Franks said during
the press conference. Each of the nations that has agreed to
participate and support in some way, shape or form the war on
terrorism has a unique, and I mean that word in its literal sense -
unique to their nation, a set of circumstances they confront. Now
they've offered to provide a variety of assistance, whether it's
diplomatic support, financial support, military forces, it runs the
gamut over a variety of support. But then they take the calculus as to
what are the political initiatives within their country, and some
countries feel they are in a position to be very overt about the
assistance they are providing.
The United Kingdom would be an example of that. Australia would be
another example. But there are many other nations that are providing
concrete solid assistance to the war on terrorism who do not feel that
they wish to take a high profile stance in that regard. We are going
to be as sensitive to their needs, internal needs, as we can be. At
the end of the day this is all about the provision of support to
achieve a common objective. We think that's very, very important.
Question: So the issue is not operational security and safety of the
US forces in those areas. It has to do with the countries themselves.
Admiral Quigley: That is an element of it. It is a mixture of
elements, and you really can't divorce one from the other.
Question: The General said earlier about possibly getting a
land-bridge (re humanitarian aid). Was there any discussion with
President Karimov about opening the borders here? There is a bridge
that humanitarian aid workers say would help them tremendously in
getting aid to, how does (inaudible)?
Admiral Quigley: I think I'll repeat the General's answer. Here I
won't be specific as to which elements he discussed with the
President. But it is very important to General Franks that there be a
means, I mean the United States has tried very hard since the
beginning of the campaign over Afghanistan to do two things
simultaneously, and one is on the military side, the taking out of Al
Qaeda targets, of Taliban targets. But also to provide humanitarian
assistance in the way of dropping food from C-17s.
Question: (Inaudible) ... using airports here to drop food?
Admiral Quigley: Same answer. We're approaching the one million mark,
point, on the provision of humanitarian daily rations to the people of
Afghanistan. And that's a big number, but, there's a much more
effective way of doing that, and that is somehow finding a way to
providing tons at a time of aid via any of several ways to approach
Afghanistan by land. So we'll keep going with the airdrops as long as
we must, but we'll continue to try to seek a more effective way of
moving really larger volumes of humanitarian assistance to the people
of Afghanistan. That'll be food, that'll be clothing, that'll be
medicines, things of that sort.
Question: You can't even tell us if that was discussed today?
Admiral Quigley: No. That would be something for President Karimov to
acknowledge, if that's what he wishes to do.
Question: In which country will visit Mr. General?
Admiral Quigly: I'll tell you where he has been. I won't tell you
where he's going.
Question: Is that an objective of the US military at this point, to
open a land bridge?
Admiral Quigley: To find a more effective way to get larger volumes of
humanitarian assistance in to the people of Afghanistan.
Question: Admiral, when you just mentioned opening a land bridge to
get aid into the (Afghanistan). Naturally, the place to do that is
Mazar-e -Sharif. Both the Pentagon and civilian leadership in the
United States have stated they want to see the Northern Alliance take
Mazar e Sharif in order to get this kind of aid into Afghanistan. Uh,
but it doesn't seem that our coordination with them as being very
robust in achieving that goal. Can you tell us why?
Admiral Quigley: I would tell you that there are a lot of other places
in Afghanistan that would be as perfectly suitable as Mazar-e -Sharif.
So I think your thinking is too limited. There's a lot of other cities
and areas within Afghanistan that would be perfectly suitable and the
world does not center on Mazar-e -Sharif.
Question: Is it true the US is air dropping weapons to the Northern
Alliance outside of Mazar e Sharif?
Admiral Quigley: We're providing weapons and ammunition to a variety
of opposition groups in a variety of ways, but I won't be more
specific than that.
Question: The General said that he spoke with some opposition leaders.
Could you tell us who and where?
Admiral Quigley: No.
Question: The opposition leaders in Tashkent?
Admiral Quigley: Again, I won't say who and where. But he has talked
and will continue to talk with opposition leaders in both the north
and the south. And I think that, you know, he really meant what he
said on the, on the criteria by which we continue to engage the
opposition groups. It's an understanding of "Are your objectives what
my objectives are?" and "Do you have the capability to make good on
your commitment to help?" And you're going to end up with a very
different panoply of answers depending on the circumstances of each of
the opposition groups.
Question: You mentioned you flew over Afghanistan. Did you stop
anywhere in Afghanistan?
Admiral Quigley: No. We flew right over.
Question: The general (inaudible) ...still counting on the Northern
Alliance to take some of its territory, are they not?
Admiral Quigley: The Northern Alliance is one of the opposition groups
within Afghanistan on which we count as, as a solid supporter of our
objectives. They want to get their country back. They do not recognize
the legitimacy of the Taliban government any more than any other
civilized group of people on earth. So in that we can agree and I
would take that one step further, Doug, and you have a lot of
agreement amongst a variety of nations on earth that have at times
different political objectives and different political motivations,
but on this - the war against terrorism - you really tend to find a
common denominator there where you can put differences aside and say,
yes, on this, at least, we agree.
Question: But they're the ones on the ground. They're the ones the US
has to rely on to achieve some of its goals.
Admiral Quigley: Well, again, it's a variety of opposition groups.
Certainly, up north the one that is preeminent is the Northern
Alliance. But you really do find a variety of capabilities and needs
amongst the various groups. Some, it's ammunition and weapons as we've
discussed. Others, a communications capability. And as we can
understand what their needs are, and we make sure that their
objectives are the same as ours, we will provide that assistance as
best we can.
Question: How do you respond to their complaints that they're not
getting that stuff?
Admiral Quigley: Well I would tell you that that's not what General
Franks has been hearing in his discussions with the leadership of
those opposition groups. So I've heard the same voices that you've
heard - they're usually unnamed - but at the leadership level, that's
not what the general has heard. Now it's not to say the discussion's
done or they have everything they need. Far from it. That's why we
continue to talk to them to make sure we can coordinate as best we
can. I don't want to provide them something they don't need, but if
they're in desperate need of something I'm going to do whatever I can
to provide that most critical need.
Question: Will the US supply ammunitions, communications, all of the
sort of basic military supplies that they've been asking for, in
addition to food?
Admiral Quigley: Well, we will try to provide weapons, ammunition, and
things of that sort to the various opposition groups. Again, you apply
that yardstick initially to make sure that their objectives are the
same as ours and if it's within our ability to do so, then we will
move on to the next step and try to find a way to do that, and do that
effectively.
Question: You said the Northern Alliance was one group. Now, what
other groups have you been dealing with?
Admiral Quigley: Well, the Northern Alliance does not encompass the
tribes of the south, for instance, around the Kandahar area and
Pashtun tribes, so it's very important that this be a multiparty
dialog because you will not find all parties in any particular
geographic area. You've got a different group out in the west around
Herat and down in the south around Kandahar. Up in the north we are in
contact with a variety of opposition group leadership.
Question: Is it safe to say you are in contact with groups in those
areas that are, you know, pazaras, people from Kandahar?
Admiral Quigley: I think I'll leave it just as I said it.
Question: How has Abdul Haq's assassination or execution affected your
relationship with the southern tribes?
Admiral Quigley: I don't know.
Question: Sir, when the general was asked by a local journalist how
many American (military) there are in Uzbekistan, the answer he gave
was he saw that as the prerogative of (the government of Uzbekistan)
... I can understand that as an answer to an Uzbek journalist, but
when American journalists are asking how many American troops are
here, is it sustainable to keep saying that we should ask the Uzbek
government?
Admiral Quigley: Well, every circumstance where you have a nation that
has agreed to provide some sort of support to the overall coalition
effort to fight terrorism around the world, they provide support in a
variety of different ways. But they all have particular political
sensitivities internally that they must be sensitive to. We are going
to do our darndest to try to be responsible and sensitive to their
concerns.
So in each case you have a partnership, if you will. It's a coalition
of nations. It's dozens of nations around the world, but in each case,
with the United States, it really ends up being a bilateral
relationship at the end of the day. And so we discuss what sort of
support the nation can provide and how high a profile, if any, is that
nation willing to accommodate internally for its own political needs.
And as you heard General Franks say, we are very satisfied with the
results on that, but it ended up being a partnership at the end of the
day for a host nation to acknowledge or not acknowledge whether or not
there are US forces on its soil. And if the answer to the first part
is yes, then it comes back to the Defense Department on how much to
acknowledge and still retain the level of operational security that
we're comfortable with. So it's always two parts to the equation.
Question: Will the US presence continue in Afghanistan after the end
of the anti-terrorist operation?
Admiral Quigley: Our military cooperation with Uzbekistan started
before September 11th and it will not end for the foreseeable future.
It is a very rich, good relationship that grows and improves all the
time.
Question: You said that there are many countries where there are
American troops and they have not even acknowledged that?
Admiral Quigley: Correct.
Question: There are countries in this region where there are American
troops (inaudible)...
Admiral Quigley: There are countries around the world that are
uncomfortable with that for internal political reasons. They provide
the support that contributes to the overall effort against terrorism.
We'll live with that.
Question: But the Uzbeks are saying that the Americans are here (to
provide?) humanitarian aid. No one believes that in Uzbekistan. At
least no one around the (inaudible) believes that. I mean I'm just
wondering why there (inaudible) ...
Admiral Quigley: I think the words that the president (President of
Uzbekistan) used were "in the first instance for the provision of
humanitarian assistance." Were those not the words?
Question: None of which is ...
Admiral Quigley: I'll leave it there.
Thank you all very much.
(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
|
|
|
