U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman For Immediate Release April 30, 2001 ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING BY ACTING COORDINATOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM EDMUND J. HULL ON "PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM: 2000" REPORT Washington, D.C. MR. REEKER: As advertised, we now have our Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism Edmund J. Hull here to take your questions. He may have some additional comments. So we will turn it straight over to Mr. Hull. Thanks. MR. HULL: I would like to make a few comments. First, I would like to thank Secretary Powell for kicking off this year's Patterns of Global Terrorism, as well as Deputy Secretary Armitage and Under Secretary Marc Grossman. It is strong support from our 7th floor that makes my job a lot easier. Secondly, I would like to point out that although this report details a lot of successes, and it is coming out of the US State Department, these successes by no means are the exclusive responsibility of the State Department. We have very strong partners throughout the US Government, including in the White House, Justice, the FBI, CIA, DOD, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Treasury, and really one of the great strengths of counterterrorism, as it is done by the US Government, is this interagency cooperation and teamwork. Without that, we would not have the kinds of successes that we can report to you today. Finally, I would like to say a word of thanks to my staff and our partners around the building and in other agencies that work so hard on this report, pulling it together and making it available to you, and we hope that it is useful to you as you go about your coverage of this important subject. I would be happy to take questions. QUESTION:You have some critics of the report who say there are some countries, such as Cuba and North Korea, which are on the list, and countries not on the list that should be there, Pakistan among them. And what is your response? MR. HULL: I think we can go down that case by case. I would be happy to do that. You mentioned Cuba. Cuba does remain on the list of state sponsors. Our problems with Cuba relate to its continuing provision of safe haven to wanted terrorists. This is a very important point for us because one of the principles of our counterterrorism policy is we will pursue terrorists for their crimes as long as it takes. We have a very long memory and we have as long an arm as possible. So that is an important point for us with Cuba. They also have some associations with terrorist groups, like the ELN and the FARC in Colombia. Then finally I would point out that Cuba's position on terrorism is just very equivocal. In the Ibero-American conference that took place last fall, Cuba was the only country participating that declined to join a consensus in condemning the ETA and the upsurge of terrorism in Spain, and that, quite frankly, is not a position that is helpful in terms of the international counterterrorism effort. QUESTION:Can you tell us if you are likely to take measures against the Real IRA and (inaudible) IRA in the near future? And secondly, can I ask you if you have any evidence that since the Good Friday Agreement, the provisional IRA has bought weapons in the US? MR. HULL: I would like to answer the question on designations, really not only in terms of the Real IRA, but also a number of other speculations that exist. We have a designation process and, by virtue of that, we keep under close watch any number of organizations that are accused of engaging in terrorism. And that is a continuing undertaking. We designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations according to a law. It is a very, very rigorous process. It requires a legal basis, because they can be challenged in court. Now, we have recently moved away from a set schedule for those designations to rolling designations whenever we believe the case is made and we go forward on that basis. We did it last fall with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. We will proceed with other organizations when and if they meet the requirements of the law. QUESTION:There was some recent reporting out of Tehran during the summit that there is a new agreement or working relationship between Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. Can you tell us, how accurate is this, and what are the ramifications if it is accurate? MR. HULL: What we have seen in the Middle East over the recent period is continuing very high involvement by Iran in promoting terrorism against the Middle East peace. This is a longstanding activity by the Iranian Government. They have used as their surrogates in this, not only the organizations that you have mentioned -- Hamas, Hezbollah -- but also the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I believe it is clear that Iran is encouraging these organizations to act individually and to act in concert. QUESTION:And how big a threat is this renewed activity, if you will? MR. HULL: I think it is a significant threat. We have seen an upswing in terrorism in the Middle East, particularly in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and in "Patterns" we characterize that situation as grim. QUESTION:In the report about Israel and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, you repeated a lot of the Israelis' accusations. Now, you have people on the ground there. You could have collected this information for yourself, yet you haven't mentioned any accusation by the Palestinians, like PLO, of targeted killing of activists, et cetera, and is rich with accusation. Many people think that it was unbalanced. MR. HULL: I think the report includes some Israeli reports, but it also includes a lot of independent judgments on our part. What I would say about the situation is this. Really, if you look at Israel and the Occupied Territories, it breaks into two very distinct periods. In the early part of this year, there was very little terrorism -- successful terrorism -- being conducted in that region, and that was largely because of very effective counterterrorism cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Since September 28th and some setbacks to the peace negotiations and to a reduction -- a significant reduction -- in that counterterrorism cooperation, we have seen an upsurge in terrorism in that area. We have made clear the responsibilities of both sides in that regard. Secretary Powell, as recently as April 17th, spoke to that. With regard to Israeli actions, I think you have to understand that Patterns of Global Terrorism, as we explained in the introduction, deals with phenomena that meet a specific definition; i.e., that is terrorism. Other phenomenon of concern and certainly worthy of attention are addressed either in bilateral statements that we make, or many of them, such as the issue you raised about extra judicial killings, are addressed in the Human Rights Report, and they are addressed at some length in those documents. QUESTION:You mentioned when you were answering George's question about certain countries, the other side of the question was Pakistan. I noticed in your report you say that those who kill people will be held responsible regardless of when. Well, there were a number of Americans killed in Pakistan three or four years that I don't think have been brought to justice. Why, again, would Pakistan then not be on the list? MR. HULL: You are talking the list of state sponsors, as opposed to foreign terrorist organizations, because we're dealing with two lists here and I think we ought to keep that straight in our minds. As regards state sponsorship, though, we designate a country as a state sponsor based on the totality of its actions in the area of counterterrorism. Pakistan is in many ways a challenging case for us because, on one hand, the Pakistanis do provide significant assistance in the area of counterterrorism. They have been instrumental, for example, in some of the legal prosecutions and renditions for crimes against Americans. As recently as I think last month, they cooperated in making officials available that were important in the ongoing trial in New York of some of those accused of bombing our embassies in East Africa. They also provide a considerable amount of security for our embassies and other presence in Pakistan. That is all to the good. But as "Patterns" makes clear, we have a number of areas in which we have problems with Pakistan's position, their support for groups engaged in terrorism in Kashmir, the HUM and other groups that we are watching. I think probably most significant in terms of US terrorism problems is the Pakistanis' traditional support for the Taliban and the result that has in Afghanistan. In this regard, I would note, as we do in "Patterns," that Pakistan has formally undertaken to respect Security Council Resolution 1333 and the sanctions imposed on the Taliban. I think that is an important commitment on Pakistan's part, and we want to do everything we can to encourage Pakistan to fulfill that commitment. QUESTION:Actually, my question was the same as Nick's on Pakistan. But in the area of state-sponsored terrorism, you seem to indicate that Pakistan and Lebanon, for instance, are a stone's throw away from being put on the list. Was that your intention? MR. HULL: I don't think we characterized it as such in the report. QUESTION:I want to go back to the question of the Palestinian and Israeli comments. What goes into the decision to cite comments of one of the participants in the struggle? And why not -- it seems to me just to be a backhanded way to criticize the Palestinians without saying that you're criticizing the Palestinians. So why would it even be included in that way if you wanted to be critical of their actions, and the Administration has, you know, many times. Why don't you just say that instead of bringing in Israeli comments? It seems a bit cowardly to me. MR. HULL: Again, I think if you read the section of the report, there is a lot of independent information that is put in there. As I remember it, there is one report that is attributed to Israel. By including that, we obviously indicate that it has some credibility. It may be that we are not able to address the question or resolve it, but we think it is worthwhile to at least raise the issue. QUESTION:Keeping in mind that it would be unbalanced by not providing one from the other side? I mean, that all goes into the equation, right? MR. HULL: Well, if it is appropriate, we would provide material from the other side. QUESTION:You welcome the increased cooperation on Greece between Greek and US authorities, and you also talk about meaningful steps by the Greek Government to combat terrorism. Could you elaborate a little bit? MR. HULL: Yes, I can. I think we have seen in Greece over this period some steps forward in counterterrorism. Tragically, I think the catalyst for many of those steps was the murder of the British Defense Attaché. But in the wake of that event, the Greek authorities did, I think, speak out more clearly than they have in the past in condemning these kinds of actions. Mrs. Saunders, herself, was given opportunities to address the Greek people, with great effect I believe. So you can see the beginning of, I think, popular questioning of a phenomenon that has been remarkably un- criticized for many years. Beyond that of course, you have a strengthening of the counterterrorism unit, and the Greeks have under consideration right now some tougher counterterrorism laws. I think all of that is to the good. I think we have to keep our eye on the ball, however, and in this case it is very much arrests, convictions, putting these people in jail. Therefore, until we get those kinds of results, I don't think we and I don't think the Greek Government should rest. QUESTION:Last year, we were told that there were some countries on the list that were fairly close to getting off the list; that, for example, North Korea, was a couple of rather straightforward steps away. Would you agree with that assessment this year, and which countries would you name that are now on the list of being basically close to getting off, and the most willing to work with the United States in getting off this list? MR. HULL: I guess I better be careful about predictions, based on past record. I think there are a couple of interesting relationships there. You have mentioned North Korea. We did have a number of meetings with the North Koreans, and we did come to a joint declaration of principles regarding counterterrorism, which was an important step. We are now watching to see how those are put into practice. I think the report makes clear there are a number of areas where more needs to be done, concerns about the JRA terrorists who continue to have safe haven in North Korea, and some contacts with various terrorist organizations. But I would add with regards to North Korea we do have an ongoing policy review on that subject, and as part of that, we will be addressing next steps in this area, and when and as appropriate, be in a position to reengage. I think the other area that is of interest is Sudan. Again, we have had since last June a counterterrorism dialogue with Sudan. I think they have evidenced a serious interest in getting out of the terrorism business. That is something that we want to encourage, and we have had a long series of exchanges with them to define exactly how we see the problem and to point them in the direction of steps they can take to resolve it. So I believe that is perhaps the most active area in which we have a state sponsor striving to get out of the terrorism business. QUESTION:Going back to the Middle East for a moment, the reference that you do have in the report citing Israeli accusations that Palestinian Authority security officials and Fatah members facilitated and took part in shooting and bombing attacks. Does the United States have any independent evidence that would confirm those Israeli accusations? MR. HULL: I think what I would like to do on this is really reiterate what the Secretary said on April 17th, and that was to call on both of the parties to fulfill their commitments, and with regards to the Palestinians, those are commitments to implement their renunciation of violence and terrorism, to control elements and to punish violators of those. I will leave it at that. QUESTION:In this report, you highlight international cooperation. You also highlight the resolution of imposing sanctions against Taliban. On that resolution you worked very closely with the Russians. The Russians now at the UN are considering drafting a resolution that would put sanctions on Pakistan for its links with the Taliban, which you also highlight in this report. Is this something the US is discussing with Russia, and would you in your expertise recommend such a move? MR. HULL: I think I would have to disagree with your premises. To my knowledge, the Russians are not considering sanctions on Pakistan. I think the key there is to listen to what Islamabad itself has said about the resolution, that they are pledged to respect the resolution, pledged to implement the resolution, and then to have the international community follow that issue of implementation very carefully. QUESTION:Can you tell us what is the practical effect of this report and of these terrorism lists? Is there any country that has ever stopped terrorism because of this list, or any terrorist organizations that have sort of decided to go straight because of this list? MR. HULL: I don't think it is a question of the list itself, being on the list effecting that kind of change. I think it is a more subtle phenomenon than that. What is clear to me in my position is that most of these governments are extremely uncomfortable with the stigma that comes attached to being accused of sponsoring terrorism, and they will over time often seek ways to escape that stigma. I think Sudan is one case in point. But it is not as simple as putting someone on a list and shaking a finger at them. With
