22 June 2002
Transcript: Rumsfeld Praises Strength of Coalition Against Terror
(Says more than 180 nations supporting war against terrorism) (6790)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld cited the size and impact of the
contributions of the global coalition against terrorism in a briefing
at the Foreign Press Center in Washington on June 21.
Rumsfeld stated that more than 180 nations have provided assistance
and cooperation, and that 69 countries "are contributing direct
support to Operation Enduring Freedom." More than 30 countries have
representatives with the U.S. Central Command, based in Florida, he
said.
"Coalition forces have supplied a vast amount of humanitarian
assistance and medical assistance," Secretary Rumsfeld said,
"including more than a million pounds of wheat and assorted food, just
to cite one example. More than 90 countries have arrested or detained
some 2,400 individuals, terrorists and their supporters."
Rumsfeld noted that on June 21, Philippine military forces intercepted
a small boat, and killed or captured six suspected members of the Abu
Sayyaf terrorist group. "We commend the government of the Philippines
for their continued battle against the terrorist problems," he said.
On his recent travels to the Gulf, South Asia, and Europe, the
secretary said, a central theme was that "all of those nations are
very active in their support of the effort that President Bush has
been leading in the global war on terrorism."
Rumsfeld said that modern unconventional weapons -- such as chemical,
biological, and radiological devices -- means that "our margin for
error as people, as human beings living on this Earth, has declined."
He added: "We have an enormous responsibility to recognize that we
have to be wiser, we have to be willing to think with a sense of
urgency that we did not have to have in an earlier period."
With regard to India and Pakistan, the secretary expressed hope that
tentative indications of a reduction in tensions would continue,
pointing our that the threat of conflict was damaging the economies
and prospects for growth of both countries.
Rumsfeld criticized Iran for providing a haven or transit point for
some al Qaeda forces fleeing Afghanistan, supporting terrorist
activities against Israel, and continuing to develop weapons of mass
destruction and longer-range ballistic missiles.
Iran is an important, educated, and industrious nation, the secretary
said, which unfortunately is being ill-served by a government "that's
engaging in those kinds of activities which are harmful to peace and
stability in the world."
Secretary Rumsfeld said that the recent nuclear arms treaty between
Russia and the United States would result in deep reduction in
strategic offensive weapons, "from many thousands down to the 1,700 to
2,200 level over a period of a decade. It is a healthy thing. It
reflects a significant adjustment in that relationship."
He praised Turkey for replacing Britain as the new head of the
International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF): "I'm
confident that Turkey will do an excellent job during their period in
the leadership."
Following is the transcript of Secretary Rumsfeld briefing at the
Foreign Press Center in Washington on June 21:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense
News Transcript
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Foreign Press Center
Washington, D.C.
June 21, 2001
Rumsfeld: Thank you very much. I might make a few remarks before
responding to questions.
First, good morning. I'm pleased to have a chance to meet with the
representatives of the news media from so many countries, countries
that are making important contributions to the global war on
terrorism. Needless to say, September 11th was not simply an attack on
the United States, it was -- citizens from dozens of countries lost
their lives that day. And today, of course, the armed forces of a
great many nations are participating in helping to deal with the
problem of terrorism across the globe.
More than 180 nations have offered and provided assistance in the war
on terrorism. Some 69 countries are contributing direct support to
Operation Enduring Freedom. Thirty-three countries have
representatives down at the combatant commander's headquarters,
CENTCOM, General Tom Franks, in Tampa, Florida. Coalition forces have
supplied a vast amount of humanitarian assistance and medical
assistance, including more than a million pounds of wheat and assorted
food, just to cite one example. More than 90 countries have arrested
or detained some 2,400 individuals, terrorists and their supporters.
In the United States in Yemen and in Georgia and in the Philippines
are training people to help those countries do a better job in dealing
with their terrorist problems.
I should note that earlier this morning, the armed forces of the
Philippines intercepted and sank a 25-foot boat that was reported to
be carrying an Abu Sayyaf leader and six other members of the
extremist group. Four members are in Philippine custody. The remaining
three are reported to have been killed, and the search is underway for
their bodies.
We commend the government of the Philippines for their continued
battle against the terrorist problems.
Last week I went to visit U.S. and coalition forces around the world,
in Europe, the Gulf and in South Asia. If there is a single thread
that ran through those 10 countries, and the many more countries that
we met leaders from, it is that all of those nations are very active
in their support of the effort that President Bush has been leading in
the global war on terrorism. In the process of fighting that war --
and let there be no doubt, it will be a long war -- and because of the
broad coalition support that we've received, relationships in the
world are really being reshaped in ways that can, I believe,
contribute to peace and stability over the coming decades.
In Brussels I met with our NATO allies. Two-thirds of the NATO
countries have forces directly involved in the war. More than half
have forces on the ground in Afghanistan. And at the NATO meeting, we
provided our allies a detailed briefing of the efforts of terrorist
networks to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The allies have
agreed to pursue new capabilities that will be necessary to deal with
the threats of the 21st century and this new security environment that
we're in.
In Estonia we met with the defense ministers of Iceland, Norway,
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania
and Estonia. All are making important contributions in the war on
terror. I visited in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, in nations that are
also being helpful in the war on terrorism.
And last, I stopped in India and Pakistan. The military situations on
the ground and the respective levels of alert in India and Pakistan
are improving modestly. Both nations have taken some initial steps
that while not definitive and not fully tested as yet, are indeed
having a positive effect. Both sides are aware that the risks of war
discourages international investment, they discourage travel in the
region, and as a result, it damages the economies of each of those two
countries as well as the people of each of those two countries. During
my trip, both India and Pakistan indicated a desire for continued U.S.
involvement and expressed appreciation of the efforts of President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair and other world leaders on behalf of
peace. The United States will continue to work with them to try to
find additional ways to further reduce tensions.
Before turning to questions, let me say that while the soldiers and
reporters have different jobs and different duties, many reporters
indeed share the risk of war. In recent years, a number of journalists
have been killed on assignment. So let me say that we appreciate the
work you do, the responsibility you carry to bring the story to the
people back home.
Simply by doing your jobs professionally, objectively and without
bias, you can help defeat the evil of terrorism because your job is,
indeed, to spread the truth, the light of truth, and we're fighting an
enemy whose greatest asset is darkness and lies.
And I'd be happy to respond to questions. Yes, sir?
Q: This is -- (name inaudible) -- with Turkey's -- (inaudible) --
Television. Two brief questions. First, Turkey -
Rumsfeld: Where are you from?
Q: Turkey.
Rumsfeld: Turkey. Good.
Q: Turkey yesterday took over ISAF command. Do you think they will do
fine? Will you be helping them? And there is a bill waiting
congressional approval about assistance to a number of countries,
including Turkey, for the help in the war against terrorism.
The second thing is, Turkey signed a $1 billion contract with Boeing
recently for the sale of four AWACS aircraft to Turkey, and it's close
to signing another contract for attack helicopters. Will you be
supporting congressional approval for the sales? Thank you.
Rumsfeld: With respect with the last question, I would have to be
better informed to respond.
With respect to the first questions, you're quite right, Turkey has
taken over responsibility for the International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan. We are very pleased that they are doing so. The
British contingent did an excellent job during their period in the
leadership and I'm confident that Turkey will do an excellent job
during their period in the leadership. It's important -- the ISAF is
an important stabilizing force in the Kabul area.
And in answer to your question as to whether or not we assist them, we
do indeed. We have had a memorandum of understanding or a letter of
agreement with the Brits, and we will certainly have one with the
Turkish government with respect to ways that we can be of assistance
to them in their responsibilities as the leader of the ISAF.
You're also correct that there is a bill pending in Congress with some
assistance for various countries that have been helpful to us, and
we're hopeful that that -- I believe it's the '02 supplemental bill,
and I hope it will be passed soon. It's important that it be passed
soon, both from the standpoint of other countries' assistance, but
also from the standpoint of the funds that are needed to complete the
fourth quarter of 2002 for the men and women in uniform.
Yes?
Q: First of all, welcome back from South Asia.
Rumsfeld: Thank you.
Q: Raghubir Goyal, from India Globe & Asia Today. Mr. Secretary, you
said that your visit or the deputy secretary's visit did reduce
tensions in the area, but -
Rumsfeld: I don't think I did. I think I said that the -- President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair and the various international leaders
who have been working with India and Pakistan, are working towards
peace. Full stop. And that India and Pakistan have taken a series of
preliminary steps that have had the effect of reducing tensions
somewhat. I did not draw a direct tight linkage there. Above all,
precision.
Q: Sir, do you agree that tension is still there and chances of war
are still there? So, what kind of additional measures you are going to
take that tension will be forever not on the border, but -- and that
they will have some development in their country for their people?
Now, what I'm asking you is that military is still on the border, and
Pakistan is saying that we will not fight or we don't want to fight
with India, but India is saying, I'm sure you've heard the same
message from both sides, that the infiltration from the border, across
the border, from Pakistan to India must stop. So, how can you stop
this forever?
Rumsfeld: Well, it is a -- the problem between India and Pakistan is
not a new one. It dates back, I think, to my recollection maybe 50
years. And it is deeply felt. There are armed forces on each side of
that border, and that is always a situation that causes concern to the
countries as well as to the rest of the world. And I think that what
will need to be done is for each side to recognize the damage that is
done, that the level of tension -- the damage that that causes to
their respective economies and to their people, and keep looking, as
they are, for opportunities to take steps that will reduce those
tensions.
A number of things have been done by both sides. The Pakistani side
has, by all reports, significantly reduced infiltration across the
line. They can't probably know everything that's taking place, because
it's very rugged land, just as the area between Afghanistan and
Pakistan is very rugged terrain. But I think, from my knowledge of
those two countries and my relationships with the leadership in each
of those countries and the work that President Bush and Secretary
Powell are doing, I'm hopeful that we'll see continued release --
easing of those tensions in the period ahead. Yes?
Q: Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Rumsfeld: Good morning.
Q: Sir, there's a widespread perception in this town that when it
comes to the Iraqis and the Palestinians, you are -
Rumsfeld: You're not going to identify yourself?
Q: Oh, I'm sorry. (Laughs.) (Laughter.) The Middle East -
Rumsfeld: Are you shy? Are you shy?
Q: -- (inaudible) -- tried to hide. (Laughs.) Mohammed Alem (ph) with
Abu Dhabi Television. Sir, there's a widespread perception in this
town that when it comes to the Iraqis and the Palestinians, you are a
hard-liner. Are you comfortable with that? (Laughter.) And -
Rumsfeld: Look at me! I'm sweet and lovable.
Q: (Laughing.) And sir, do you believe it is possible to widen the war
to include Iraq while the Palestinian-Israeli issue is not resolved?
Thanks.
Rumsfeld: Why did you have to begin your question with that preface?
(Laughter.)
You know, anything anyone says on this subject ends up getting hyped.
I have no interest or desire to have anything I say on this subject
get hyped. Therefore, I don't think I'll say anything about this
subject. (Laughter.)
Next question.
Q: (Off mike.)
Rumsfeld: (Laughs.) Yes? Standing up in the back. That's impressive.
(Laughter.) Everyone else is seated.
Q: Alfa Husseinin, Middle East Radio Network. In fact, it's the new
Voice of America Arabic. Sir, this morning in the local media -- may I
refer you to USA Today -- more than 59 percent of Americans are in
favor to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. What are you feeling
now? Are you going ahead with this now that there is support for the
action, if any action in the future? And also -
Rumsfeld: I don't think you heard my answer to the last question.
(Laughter.)
Q: But sir, that's the subject of the day for the area. We are trying
to cover those subjects, that matters too much in the Middle East.
Rumsfeld: I see. Yeah. Those kinds of -- that subject is something
that -- it's a matter for presidents and countries to decide those
things. I don't decide those things. I'm -
Q: (Off mike) -
Q: (Off mike) -- the back?
Rumsfeld: Wave your hand.
Q: Thank you.
Rumsfeld: Yes? You have the floor.
Q: Thank you, sir. It's an honor to finally be here. (Laughter.)
Rumsfeld: You (are/aren't ?) here. You're back there. (Laughs.)
(Laughter.)
Q: Finally. My name is Matta Farid and I work for Voice of America in
the Farsi section. We cover mostly Iran and the region around Iran.
There's been a lot of, you know, media lately like how they are
sponsors of terrorism, they're giving refuge to al Qaeda, acquiring
weapons of mass destruction and Karine A ships. What is exactly United
States doing to combat against this country with the terrorism?
Rumsfeld: It is correct that Iran has served as a haven for some
terrorists leaving Afghanistan. And it is also true that it has
permitted transit of terrorists and supporters of terrorists through
Iran out of -- to the south. It is also true that Iran has been
involved in working with Syria and moving materials and people down
into Damascus and then down through the Beirut road, through the Bekaa
Valley and involved with terrorist activities in Lebanon and Israel.
It is also true that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction
and increasingly longer-range ballistic missiles to deliver them.
Iran is an important country. It has a population that's educated and
industrious and, in many respects, repressed by the leadership of that
country. And it's unfortunate that that's the case, it seems to me,
which is, of course, why the president attempted to point a spotlight
on the difficult situation in that country for those people, and
expressed the hope that people would fare better than they're
currently being served by the government that's engaging in those
kinds of activities which are harmful to peace and stability in the
world.
Q: Sir?
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld?
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: The young lady back there. She's got a terrific smile!
(Laughs; laughter.)
Q: Thank you. (Cross talk.)
Rumsfeld: You do too! You're next! (Laughter.)
Q: This is -- (name and affiliation inaudible) -- Azerbaijan. Mr.
Secretary, after waiver of Section 907, Azerbaijan got a chance to be
more involved in anti-terrorism coalition. I believe you paid a visit
to Azerbaijan several months ago. The question to you is, Section 907
has been waived by not cancelled. Considering this, how do you see the
future cooperation with this country in this long-term war? Thank you.
Rumsfeld: Well, with respect to the section -- the waiving of the
section, that's really things that are involved with the State
Department and not the Department of Defense, so I'll set that aside.
The United States, of course, has been developing relationships with a
number of the former Soviet Republics. And Secretary Powell and the
president and I, and Vice President Cheney have all had meetings here
and in my case, in the region, as in the case of Colin Powell. And
these are important countries that we value those relationships. Any
-- a number of them have developed a relationship with NATO in what's
called Partnership for Peace. And so, that linkage between the United
States and the NATO allies and a number of the former Soviet republics
has been, I think, a helpful thing, a stabilizing factor in the
region. And as to how we see those relationships evolving, we see them
becoming stronger and valuable and mutually beneficial.
Yes?
Q: Andrei -- (last name and affiliation inaudible). Staying in the
region, we are interested in your ideas on the future negotiations on
cutting nuclear weapons, maybe not only strategic, but also tactical,
what are the prospects for that, do you think?
Rumsfeld: On doing what to nuclear weapons?
Q: Cutting. Cutting down.
Rumsfeld: Cutting down.
Q: Reducing, yes. And staying with the region, have you found any
evidence in the war on Afghanistan of the link between al Qaeda and
the Chechens? And can you share with us the nature of that evidence?
Rumsfeld: The -- as you know, the United States and Russia, because of
the leadership of President Bush and President Putin, have fashioned
an agreement which is pending before our respective legislative
bodies, to make deep, deep reductions in strategic offensive weapons,
down from many thousands down to the 1,700 to 2,200 level over a
period of a decade. The
-- which is a good thing. It is a healthy thing. It reflects a
significant adjustment in that relationship.
The subject of theater nuclear weapons, which I believe you raised, is
an interesting one and one that gets raised in the discussions on a
fairly regular basis. There -- it gets raised, not from the standpoint
so much of control or reductions, but from two standpoints. One is
transparency, the value that would accrue to each of our countries to
have a better understanding of our respective capabilities with
respect to theater nuclear weapons, non-strategic nuclear weapons. And
the second way it comes up, of course, is through the issue of safety.
And we worry greatly about the proliferation of these technologies,
whether it's chemical or biological or nuclear strategic or nuclear
theater, and the ability to deliver those weapons. The -- if you think
about it, the world has had a lot of conflicts in my 70 years. I
suspect we're going to be fated as members of the human race to see
additional conflicts in the period ahead. People seem to be prone
towards conflict from time to time.
But what's gone before, for the most part, has been of a conventional
nature, and we're now moving into a period where the lethality of the
weapons, whether biological or chemical or nuclear or radiation, is
distinctly different, of a different order than in earlier periods.
And what that means is that our margin for error as people, as human
beings living on this Earth, has declined. It is a much smaller margin
for error than was the case in earlier -- for earlier generations.
That is not to say that whoever is killed has not suffered greatly and
died, but we've in the past been talking about numbers that
conventional capabilities can kill. And going forward, we as a people
have to recognize that we're not talking about conventional, we're
talking about unconventional. And it's not going to be thousands, it
could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
Now that imposes an enormous responsibility on all of us, it seems to
me, to recognize that and to recognize that because of that smaller
margin for error, we have to be wiser, we have to be -- have better
foresight as to what might take place, we have to be willing to think
with a sense of urgency that we did not have to have in an earlier
period. A mistake in an earlier period was of this order. A mistake
because of a failure of a sense of urgency during this period could
lead to a mistake of enormous -- multiples of the previous period.
So our work about -
Q: (Off mike.)
Rumsfeld: -- with respect to nonproliferation is enormously important.
With respect to Chechnya -- and thank you for the prompting -- (soft
laughter) -- what the -- intelligence is imperfect. It tends to be
scraps of information that then gets pieced together into a picture
that one man develops some degree of confidence about. There is no
question but that there have been some connections between terrorists
in Afghanistan coming from a variety of different countries. We have
-- we've seen weapons and Chinese Uighurs. We've seen intelligence
information about Chechens, as you mentioned. We've seen people from
-- I don't know -- 15, 20, 25 different countries that have been
involved in one way or another in terrorist activities in Afghanistan
or connected to Afghanistan.
And in -- but in terms of direct, hard information, I do not have
anything that I could cite that would draw a direct connection between
the -- with respect to the question you posed.
(Cross talk.) Yes?
Q: Wei Jing, Phoenix TV of Hong Kong. Mr. Rodman is going to China,
and you are also viewed -- sorry -- as a hard-liner of the
administration in China. (Laughter.) What -
Rumsfeld: I hope my grandchildren aren't watching. (Laughter.)
Q: Well, you have the opportunity to change that. (Laughter.) But what
methods he is going to bring and to what extent you want the
military-military exchange to resume within China? And are you -- do
you have any plan to go visit China at all?
Rumsfeld: I do not currently have any plans to visit China. I did meet
with the -- Vice President Hu when he was here. We had a discussion.
I've been to China a number of times, dating back to 1974 -- was my
first trip there. After President Ford met with Secretary- General
Brezhnev in Vladivostok, Henry Kissinger and I went into Beijing and
met with Deng Xiaoping and some other folks.
You're right; Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman is going to
be going to the People's Republic of China next week. He will be
discussing the military-to-military relationships between our two
countries, and he undoubtedly will be discussing things that I've
discussed which we feel are interesting and important and potentially
mutually beneficial -- such things as transparency and consistency and
reciprocity with respect to the military-to-military relationship,
things that I discussed with the vice president.
Now who -- yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary -
Rumsfeld: Nope, nope, the lady right here with her hand up, on the
right. Good. And then I'll go back over there in a minute. There you
go.
Q: (First name inaudible) -- Kasserin (sp). I'm from Georgia 24 Hours.
So, Mr. Secretary, what can you tell us about the train- and-equip
program in Georgia? And it's -- I know it's too early to make some
kinds of evaluations, but still -- and what kind of backlash this
program can have?
And also -
Rumsfeld: What kind of what? Benefit?
Q: Backlash.
Rumsfeld: Backlash.
Q: Yes.
Rumsfeld: What kind of backlash? From where?
Q: From this program. I mean problems with Russia and so on.
Rumsfeld: No. (Laughter.)
Q: Yeah, that's a real problem for Russia to -
Rumsfeld: Nooo. (Laughter.) Go ahead.
Q: And also, duration of this program is six months. And what kind of
relationship can be formed after this program between -- military
relationship between the United States and Georgia? And also, the last
question, what about the same program in Azerbaijan and Armenia? Is
Washington planning to help these countries to train and equip their
armed forces in terms of the strength of -- (inaudible) -- security?
Thank you.
Rumsfeld: We have no other plans for training programs at the moment.
With respect to the situation in Georgia, the presidents -- two
presidents have discussed it. I've discussed it with Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov. They have no problem with it at all. They've said so.
We are involved in a relatively short period of time, period of
months, helping to train a number of people in Georgia so that they
can do a better job with respect to their police work and their border
work and their anti-terrorist work. That is in everybody's interest.
It's in Georgia's interest; it's in Russia's interest that the border
area not be a haven for terrorists. So it has not been a problem, not
withstanding the fact that some people would wish that it were.
(Cross talk.)
Rumsfeld: Right here, yes.
Q: This is Tilling Dado from Turkey's Star TV. I know you don't want
to answer any questions about Iraq, but recently, there has been some
news reports referring to some anonymous Iraqi-Kurdish opposition
groups, that during their visit in Washington, they have discussed the
future of Kirkuk, the oil-rich town, with the Bush administration. And
reports do say that in case if they do give support to the United
States, when and how the President Bush decides to push the button to
topple Saddam Hussein, they want Kirkuk in return for this support.
Has Pentagon -- Rumsfeld: They want what as support -
Q: Kirkuk, the oil-rich town -- Kirkuk.
Rumsfeld: Oh, I see. I see.
Q: Okay. Has Pentagon, under your authority, been involved in such
negotiations?
Rumsfeld: Wow! (Laughter.) Any time we begin a question with
"anonymous reports say," then I ask myself, "Goodness, anything's fair
game if we begin with 'anonymous reports say.' I know nothing of that.
I've heard nothing of that. To my knowledge, Pentagon people have not
met with folks. I know -- have heard that some folks were here from --
Kurdish people were in the United States meeting with some people from
the government, probably the State Department. That's been going on
for a long time. And
-- but the -- that kind of a question I am sure totally
unintentionally can be enormously mischievous. You realize that.
(Laughter.) She nods -- for the record, she's nodding she does
recognize that. (Laughter.) I knew you did.
The only things that have ever been considered -- first of all, it has
been, as you know, a policy of the United States, including the
Congress, that the world would be a safer, better place if the regime
in Iraq were not there. So, immediately, questions like that come up,
well, what's that mean, if they were not there? And the only things
I've ever heard about what that would mean if they were not there, is
that there seems to be an interest that if they were not there, that a
regime that was there would be a regime that would not develop weapons
of mass destruction, that would not invade its neighbors, that would
not threaten and try to undermine the governments of the neighboring
countries, that would be a single country, and that would behave as a
responsible citizen in the world. But this speculation that anonymous
reports say, I think, is inaccurate and unhelpful.
Q: (Inaudible.)
Rumsfeld: Well, of course. (Cross talk, laughter.)
Rumsfeld: Who's got the microphone? Would you please give it to
somebody? (Laughter.)
Q: Hi! Priscilla Hough, Channel News Asia.
Q: (He's ignoring hands up ?).
Rumsfeld: Are they?
Q: Yes.
Rumsfeld: Life's like that. (Laughter.)
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, I'd like to ask about Philippines. With
President Arroyo announcing that the U.S. will leave on time and the
possibility that the Abu Sayyaf leader has been killed, is this enough
for the war on terrorism? Will the U.S. military continue its
Balikatan exercises past the July deadline?
Rumsfeld: I'm sorry. I was distracted. What is this?
Q: He's running out of blank pages.
Rumsfeld: Oh, okay. (Laughter.) I thought he was giving me the cut.
(Laughter.)
Q: Not yet.
Rumsfeld: Try me again.
Q: I'm Priscilla Hough (sp). I'm with Channel News Asia. I'm asking
about the Philippines, the Balikatan exercises. President Arroyo today
promised the U.S. military is going to leave on time. Is this enough?
Does the U.S. military need to spend more time to continue its work on
the war on terrorism?
Rumsfeld: The -- I've not seen the announcement by the president of
the Philippines, but her position and our position have been identical
from the outset, and that was that we would go in, do a discrete task
and end that task. At that stage, we would discuss a phase two and
determine, A, ought there be a phase two, and if so, what ought it to
include. There have been two things that have been outside of the --
what I've just said. One was some assistance we're providing with
respect to roads and water and various things on Basilan Island. A
second thing that went on was an exercise in a different part of the
island, and they tended to be disconnected from what you're
discussing.
My guess is that some point in the days ahead, the Philippines
government will announce whatever it is they've decided and we've
decided ought to follow on, in the event that we and they decide
anything ought to follow on. And I think it's really a judgment for
the Philippine armed forces to make as to whether or not and when they
feel they have the kind of training and assistance that would enable
them to do their task. You're right, the reports indicate that a
leader, one of the leaders, one of the senior leaders of the Abu
Sayyaf group, is reported to be killed early this morning. There are
other leaders and there are other members of the group, and terrorism
is terrorism. And what the president of the Philippines will decide
with respect to that is really for her to say. (Cross talk.)
Now -- no! I've got to have a man! I've got to have a man! (Laughter.)
I'd rather not -- (Cross talk.)
Oh, here's a mike. You've got one. Go.
Q: Mr. Secretary -
Q: (Off mike.)
Rumsfeld: We're going to come right back to you.
Q: Frank Caller from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Why is it
so important for the Bush administration that American troops involved
with peacekeeping be granted immunity from the International War
Crimes Tribunal?
Rumsfeld: There is a thing called the International Criminal Court,
and there was a treaty, and it was signed by a number of nations, and
it's going into effect later this month or the 1st of July, I believe.
It is an unusual court in this sense. Historically, international
courts have been for a discrete purpose for a discrete period of time,
and often under the umbrella of the U.N. or some other organization
that created it. For example, there's been one in the Balkans, which
we all know about. The International Criminal Court is distinctive in
several respects. Number one, it is not limited by time. It is not
limited by subject or focus. It is not under the umbrella of any
organization that could manage it from the standpoint of
responsibility and behavior.
Another thing about it that's distinctive is that it attempts to take
jurisdiction over the people of countries that have not signed it,
which is a difference in how this has usually been handled. The U.S.
position on it was that this administration -- that President Clinton
signed it and said he would not send it to the Congress for
ratification, which is kind of an unusual technique. The president
looked at it and decided that it should be unsigned, if there were
such a technique or a process, and it appears there isn't, so instead,
notification was given to the appropriate people that the United
States did not consider it effective for the United States.
Now, why would we care? The reason we would care is that if you think
about it, it is very easy to make a charge or an allegation of
wrongdoing, and the defense against that then falls to the person
accused and you then have to spend a pile of money and a pile of time
defending yourself against a politicized allegation or charge of
wrongdoing which never happened.
We have looked at this and made a judgment that it would cause the
United States pause to be willing to participate and put U.S. forces
in countries where they could become subject to the international
court and you could end up with a politicized prosecutor or people
making allegations or charges, and then people would -- U.S. military
forces would be subject to those kinds of allegations.
If you think back to what happened during the Afghan conflict, there
were a number of instances where the Taliban and the al Qaeda -- their
training books tell them how to do this, how to lie, how to misinform
people, how to claim that civilians have been killed, innocent men,
women and children, when in fact it was al Qaeda and Taliban being
killed or bombed. And they have put their -- they systematically put
their command headquarters and their radars and their artillery and
their command centers in close proximity to mosques and to hospitals
and to schools and in civilian areas.
Now, the United States believes that its role in the world, along with
other like-thinking countries, in contributing to peace and stability
is important, and I believe it's important and the president believes
it's important. And we argued against the treaty on the basis that, to
the extent it puts people that we would put at risk for their lives
also at risk legally, in a process that's not controlled by any
organization, that is assuming jurisdiction over people that had not
participated in the treaty, that has no time limit and no supervision
whatsoever, it seemed to us a bad idea. And I worried that we -- the
United States, if that happened, we could become cautious, more
limited, some would say isolationist, unwilling to participate in
things to the extent I believe it's useful to the world to have -- for
us to participate.
So there is a portion of the treaty that says that a country can
exempt a nation from the treaty. So, for example, in the case of East
Timor, we have a very few number of people there. We want to be there
because we're working with the Australians, we're working with the
Indonesians, we think that's a -- with the East Timor people -- it's
been a good thing. And it's been working so far. They've had an
election. And -- - but when the subject comes up for renewal and we
look at it and we see that -- what we'd like to get is their agreement
that we would be exempted. Now, the same thing is coming up in the
U.N. very recently with respect to one of the countries in the
Balkans, as I recall. And we have forces there.
And -- but all we would say is that we would like that government to
say that our people would be exempt from this court which, I believe,
we ought to be exempt from so that there isn't that kind of political
harassment that can take place unfairly, particularly when you know
you're fighting the global war on terror and you know the terrorist
training books are encouraging people to make those kinds of charges
and allegations, and you know the press prints them instantaneously.
They are right there in the press; the minute the charge is made, it's
out there. And then the world says, "Aha!" And six weeks later when
you finally get on the ground and look what happened, it did not
happen that way at all, and that story is not very newsworthy. And
that's a shame.
And all -- if you think about, Dr. Kissinger recently was -- they
attempted to serve a subpoena on him for something that happened 25
years before in Chile, and something he was not aware of or
knowledgeable about. And the effect of it could be that people
wouldn't want to travel, they wouldn't want to go into another
country. The United States and other countries wouldn't want to put
their people on the ground where they could be subject to
irresponsible and inaccurate challenges and lies.
So it is -- it is -- I'm trying to make the case that it is not a good
versus bad. It is -- the motive is certainly appropriate, and other
international tribunals are certainly appropriate. But I personally
think they ought to be for a purpose, with a time frame, with some
supervision over them by responsible, accountable nations, as opposed
to free of that accountability.
(Cross talk.)
Staff: One more, sir.
Rumsfeld: I'm told I can take one more question, and you're it.
Q: Mr. Secretary, it has been told in the recent papers, some East
European countries, despite the difficult periods they are in, makes a
lot of effort -- I am -- (name inaudible) -- from Radio Romania.
Romania, for an example, took some decisions and made some efforts in
helping the international forces in Afghanistan. Can you make some
comments about that?
Rumsfeld: Well, there's no question but that a number of Eastern
European countries have been enormously helpful. They've been helpful
with, in some cases, troops; in some cases medical assistance, in some
cases sharing intelligence, in some cases helping to block bank
accounts of terrorists. There are a host of ways that these countries
have stepped forward and said, "We want to participate in this; this
is a serious problem in the world."
And if you were going to -- as I say, if you dropped a plumb line
through all the countries I went through and all the countries I met
with, a number of them being NATO aspirants, the one thing that was
common -- in the Gulf, in South Asia, in Europe, in Estonia, in
Germany -- was the fact that they are sensitive to the threat of
terrorism, they appreciate the fact that a single country alone can't
deal with it, that we have to cooperate together. And there's no
question but that we are deeply appreciative and grateful for the
wonderful support and cooperation we've received.
Now, I am going to excuse myself, and I want to say that it's been a
delight being with you -- (laughter) -- even though -- even though a
couple of you folks -- (laughter, cross talk) -
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you, friends of the
Foreign Press Center.
(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
|
|
|
