News

 

DATE=  OCTOBER 18, 1997



TYPE=ON THE LINE



NUMBER=1-00575



TITLE=DEFUNDING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM



EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037











CONTENT=



THEME:           UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE



ANNCR:           ON THE LINE -- A DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES 

                 POLICIES AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES.  THIS WEEK, 

                 "DEFUNDING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM."  HERE IS 

                 YOUR HOST, ROBERT REILLY.



HOST:            HELLO AND WELCOME TO ON THE LINE.





                 THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT HAS DESIGNATED THIRTY 

                 EXTREMIST GROUPS AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.  

                 TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FREEDOM IN AMERICA, 

                 GROUPS SUCH AS HAMAS HAVE USED FRONT 

                 ORGANIZATIONS TO RAISE MONEY IN THE UNITED 

                 STATES.  LAST YEAR, CONGRESS PASSED A LAW 

                 DESIGNED TO  PREVENT TERRORIST GROUPS FROM 

                 RAISING FUNDS IN THE U.S.  SECRETARY OF STATE 

                 MADELEINE ALBRIGHT SAID, "OUR MESSAGE TO ANYONE 

                 WHO COMES INTO OUR COUNTRY TO RAISE MONEY FOR A 

                 TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IS, YOU RISK GOING TO 

                 JAIL.  AND OUR MESSAGE TO ANYONE WHO IS PART OF 

                 A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND WHO WANTS TO ENTER 

                 THE UNITED STATES IS, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE."





                 JOINING ME TODAY TO DISCUSS U.S EFFORTS TO 

                 DE-FUND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ARE TWO EXPERTS.

                 GORDON GREY IS DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL AFFAIRS FOR 

                 THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF 

                 COUNTER-TERRORISM.  AND HILLARY MANN IS AN 

                 ASSOCIATE FELLOW AT THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR

                 NEAR EAST POLICY.  WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.





                 MR. GREY, LET ME BEGIN BY ASKING YOU WHAT THE 

                 STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HOPES 

                 TO ACCOMPLISH BY ISSUING A LIST THAT DESIGNATES 

                 THESE THIRTY GROUPS AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS?





GREY:            WELL, THERE ARE THREE MAIN LEGAL CONSEQUENCES 

                 THAT FLOW FROM THESE DESIGNATIONS. AND I WOULD 

                 LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS THE WHOLE U.S. 

                 GOVERNMENT THAT HAS MADE THIS DECISION. STATE 

                 DEPARTMENT WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE 

                 DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND TREASURY, THE F-B-I 

                 AND WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AS WELL. THE

                 FIRST LEGAL CONSEQUENCE IS THAT MEMBERS OR 

                 REPRESENTATIVES OF A FOREIGN TERRORIST 

                 ORGANIZATION ARE INADMISSIBLE FOR VISAS TO COME 

                 TO THE UNITED STATES. SECOND ASPECT OF THIS LAW,

                 THE SECOND LEGAL CONSEQUENCE, IS THAT PROVIDING 

                 MATERIAL SUPPORT INCLUDING FUNDRAISING IS A 

                 CRIMINAL OFFENSE.  AND THE THIRD IS THAT THE 

                 TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS 

                 CONTROLS IS EMPOWERED TO REQUIRE FINANCIAL 

                 INSTITUTIONS TO BLOCK ANY ASSETS THAT ARE 

                 CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. 

                 THAT'S THE LEGAL SIDE OF THE EQUATION, IF YOU 

                 WILL, AND THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCES.

                 AT THE SAME TIME I THINK IT SENDS A VERY 

                 POWERFUL SIGNAL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT 

                 THE UNITED STATES IS VERY SERIOUS ABOUT 

                 COMBATING TERRORISM AND THAT WE ARE WILLING TO 

                 IMPLEMENT OUR POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS.  WE ARE NOT 

                 JUST GOING TO TELL OTHER COUNTRIES WHAT TO DO. 

                 WE ARE GOING TO TAKE CONCRETE MEASURES 

                 OURSELVES.





HOST:            HILLARY MANN, WAS THIS THE RIGHT STEP FOR THE 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT TO TAKE?





MANN:            THIS WAS THE RIGHT STEP AND THIS WAS MANDATED BY

                 CONGRESS IN APRIL OF 1996. IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT

                 AND IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL REPORTS OF CONCERN 

                 THAT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES LEADERS OF SUCH 

                 GROUPS AS HAMAS, ISLAMIC JIHAD WERE RAISING 

                 MONEY RIGHT HERE IN THE U.S. IN ORDER TO FUND 

                 THE TERRORIST OPERATIONS ABROAD THAT KILLED 

                 HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE INCLUDING AMERICANS. SO THAT 

                 WAS VERY IMPORTANT, IN THAT RESPECT, IN TERMS OF

                 FUNDRAISING, AND ALSO IN TERMS OF, AS MR. GREY 

                 HAS POINTED OUT, VISA ISSUANCES. IT WAS VERY 

                 IMPORTANT, I THINK, AT THIS TIME IN PARTICULAR, 

                 TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT, NOT ONLY THE LAW WAS 

                 BEFORE THAT IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN 

                 A TERRORIST ACT YOU COULDN'T COME TO THE US. 

                 THIS BROADENS THIS, SO THAT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER 

                 OF ONE OF THESE GROUPS, YOU CAN'T COME HERE AND 

                 SPEW YOUR VITRIOL AND RHETORIC IN ORDER TO 

                 INCITE ANY SORT OF TERRORISM ABROAD THAT COULD 

                 BE AGAINST U.S. CITIZENS.





HOST:            WHAT ELSE HAS THIS LEGISLATION CHANGED? HILLARY 

                 MANN JUST MENTIONED THE VISA THING. IT EXPANDS 

                 IT IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION, YOU

                 CAN'T COME INTO THE UNITED STATES. ON THE 

                 FUNDRAISING ASPECTS HAVE THERE BEEN ANY 

                 PROHIBITIONS PRIOR TO THIS LEGISLATION THAT 

                 PREVENTED A TERRORIST GROUP FROM RAISING MONEY 

                 HERE.





GREY:            IN JANUARY OF 1995, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED AN 

                 EXECUTIVE ORDER, UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL 

                 EMERGENCY EXECUTIVE POWERS ACT, WHICH BLOCKED 

                 FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS FOR TWELVE GROUPS WHICH 

                 SPECIFICALLY EITHER USED VIOLENCE OR THREATENED 

                 TO USE VIOLENCE TO DISRUPT THE PEACE PROCESS. 

                 THAT'S AN ANNUAL EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT'S BEEN 

                 RENEWED EACH YEAR. SO, FOR TWELVE OF THE GROUPS 

                 THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE DESIGNATED ON 

                 OCTOBER 8TH, THERE WERE SOME RESTRICTIONS 

                 ALREADY IN PLACE.  BUT THIS IS A STATUTE THAT 

                 WAS ENACTED ON APRIL 24TH, 1996, AND IT'S GOT 

                 BROADER CONSEQUENCES. 





HOST:            AND THOSE TWELVE GROUPS HAVE BEEN FOLDED IN.  

                 THEY'RE PART OF OF THE THIRTY THAT ARE ON THE 

                 LIST.





GREY:            EXACTLY.





HOST:            HOW BIG A PROBLEM WAS SUPPORT FROM WITHIN THE 

                 UNITED STATES FOR SOME OF THESE TERRORIST 

                 ORGANIZATIONS TO BEGIN WITH?  HOW SUCCESSFUL 

                 WERE THEY IN FINDING FUNDS?





MANN:            IT'S HARD TO MEASURE IN TERMS OF EXACTLY HOW 

                 SUCCESSFUL THEY WERE.  THERE WAS ABOUT 

                 SEVEN-HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS' WORTH OF FUNDS 

                 FROM TERRORIST GROUPS FROZEN HERE AS A RESULT OF

                 THE JANUARY 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER.





HOST:            AFFECTING THOSE TWELVE GROUPS.





MANN:            I THINK THE EXACT FIGURE WAS SEVEN-HUNDRED 

                 THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT WAS FROZEN 

                 HERE.  SO IN TERMS OF A DOLLAR AMOUNT, WE'RE 

                 TALKING ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS.  BUT WHAT IT 

                 GAVE TO TERRORIST GROUPS WAS IT GAVE THEM THE 

                 POSSIBILITY OF USING A COUNTRY LIKE THE UNITED 

                 STATES WITH OUR FREEDOMS AND OUR DEMOCRACY AND 

                 OUR OPENNESS TO COME HERE AND TO USE NOT ONLY 

                 OUR BANKING SYSTEM, OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH 

                 RIGHTS, THAT WHOLE PANOPLY OF A FORUM THAT THEY 

                 WOULDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE ABROAD.  IT 

                 WAS A HUGE CONCERN HERE AND WE FEARED IT WOULD 

                 GROW WITHOUT SOME SORT OF EFFORT TO COUNTERACT 

                 IT.





HOST:            WHY THESE THIRTY GROUPS?  HOW WAS THE 

                 DETERMINATION MADE WHICH ORGANIZATION WAS A 

                 TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE 

                 MORE THAN THIRTY TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN THE 

                 WORLD, AND WHY DO WE HAVE THIRTY?





GREY:            THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS ENACTED HAS THREE 

                 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.  ONE IS THAT ANY 

                 DESIGNATED ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE A FOREIGN 

                 ORGANIZATION.  THE SECOND IS THAT THIS 

                 ORGANIZATION ENGAGES IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY.  SO 

                 FOR GROUPS THAT HAVE PERHAPS BEEN ACTIVE BUT ARE

                 NOW DEFUNCT, IN SOME CASES WE LOOKED AT THEM AND

                 DIDN'T FEEL THAT THEY WERE CURRENTLY ENGAGING IN

                 TERRORIST ACTIVITY.  AND THE THIRD ASPECT OF THE

                 LAW REQUIRES A DESIGNATED ORGANIZATION SHOULD 

                 EITHER THREATEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE 

                 UNITED STATES OR THE SECURITY OF U.S. NATIONALS.

                 AND THE CONGRESS DEFINED NATIONAL SECURITY OF 

                 THE UNITED STATES IN BROAD TERMS, TALKING ABOUT 

                 ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN POLICY ASPECTS OF OUR 

                 INTERNATIONAL POLICY.  AND OBVIOUSLY THREATS TO 

                 UNITED STATES NATIONALS MEANS IF SOMEONE GETS 

                 INJURED OR KILLED IN A TERRORIST ACTIVITY.  SO 

                 THERE ARE MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE CONSIDERED 

                 THAT PERHAPS MET TWO OUT OF THE THREE CRITERIA, 

                 BUT DIDN'T MEET ALL THREE OF THE CRITERIA THAT 

                 WERE SPELLED OUT IN THE LAW.





HOST:            BECAUSE I KNOW ONE CONCERN, OR QUESTION RAISED 

                 WHEN THIS LIST WAS JUST ISSUED IS WHERE IS THE 

                 I-R-A?  WHY ISN'T THE IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY ON 

                 SINCE IN YOUR OWN PUBLICATION ISSUED BY YOUR 

                 OFFICE ON "PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM," YOU 

                 HAVE PICTURES OF TERRORIST ACTS CONDUCTED BY THE

                 I-R-A.  YET THEY'RE NOT LISTED AMONG THE THIRTY.

                 WHY IS THAT?





GREY:            AS THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC 

                 AFFAIRS SAID ON OCTOBER 8TH WHEN HE WAS ASKED 

                 THIS QUESTION, THERE IS A VERY STRONG BODY OF 

                 EVIDENCE THAT DOCUMENTS HISTORIC I-R-A 

                 INVOLVEMENT IN ACTS OF TERRORISM.  AT THE SAME 

                 TIME, IN MAKING HER DECISION ON WHICH GROUPS TO 

                 DESIGNATE, THE SECRETARY TOOK NOTE OF THE JULY 

                 19TH UNEQUIVOCAL CEASE-FIRE BY THE I-R-A AND THE

                 BRITISH ACCEPTANCE OF THAT CEASE-FIRE AS GENUINE

                 IN WORD AND DEED.  NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE 

                 INCLUSION OF SINN FEIN IN THE ALL-PARTY TALKS IN

                 BELFAST -- BASED ON THAT THE SECRETARY DECIDED 

                 TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE QUESTION.  AGAIN, AS 

                 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY SAID, ANY RESUMPTION OF 

                 VIOLENCE BY THE I-R-A WOULD HAVE AN IMMEDIATE 

                 AND DIRECT IMPACT ON THAT REVIEW.  AND THE STATE

                 DEPARTMENT WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE I-R-A'S 

                 ACTIVITIES VERY CLOSELY.





HOST:            DO YOU THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION, 

                 HILLARY MANN?





MANN:            I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS IS A LIST 

                 THAT IS NOT STATIC.  IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN STONE. 

                 THESE THIRTY GROUPS ARE NOT THE BE ALL, END ALL 

                 OF WHO CONSTITUTES TERRORISM FOR NOW AND INTO 

                 THE NEXT CENTURY.  SO I THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE

                 FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE CERTAIN 

                 DECISIONS THAT EVEN THOUGH A GROUP HAD A 

                 HISTORICAL PATTERN AND THERE WAS SERIOUS 

                 EVIDENCE OF TERRORISM, IF THERE HAS BEEN A 

                 CEASE-FIRE AS WITH THE I-R-A AND IT'S ACCEPTED 

                 BY THE BRITISH THAT PERHAPS NOT TO INCLUDE THEM 

                 NOW WAS THE RIGHT THING -- THOUGH I DO THINK THE

                 STATE DEPARTMENT WILL FOLLOW IT CONTINUOUSLY AND

                 IF THE SITUATION CHANGES HOPEFULLY WILL PUT THEM

                 BACK ON THE LIST.





HOST:            WERE YOU DISAPPOINTED THAT ANY OTHER GROUPS WERE

                 NOT INCLUDED ON THIS LIST AT THIS TIME?





MANN:            I THINK A SIMILAR ARGUMENT WAS MADE VIS-AVIS THE

                 P-L-O [PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION], WHICH

                 ALSO HAS A VERY SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT 

                 HISTORICAL BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE 

                 PARTICIPATED IN TERRORISM.  BUT AFTER THE 

                 HISTORIC HANDSHAKE ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN WHERE

                 THE P-L-O BASICALLY RECONCILED WITH THE 

                 GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, THAT CHANGED THE 

                 SITUATION, CHANGED THE DYNAMIC OF THE SITUATION.

                 THOUGH, WITH THE FLUIDITY OF THE SITUATION IN 

                 THE MIDDLE EAST I THINK THAT WILL ALSO NEED TO 

                 HAVE THE FOCUSED ATTENTION OF THE STATE 

                 DEPARTMENT AND SHOULD BE REASSESSED, AND THAT 

                 NOBODY SHOULD BE SITTING BACK AND RELAXING 

                 BECAUSE THEIR NAME ISN'T ON THE LIST NOW THAT 

                 THEY WON'T BE ADDED LATER.





HOST:            I THINK ONE REASON GROUPS WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN 

                 RAISING FUNDS IS BECAUSE THEY HAD FRONT GROUPS 

                 OR THEY HAD POLITICAL WINGS.  YOU MENTIONED SINN

                 FEIN, THE POLITICAL WING OF THE I-R-A. WHERE YOU

                 TAKE SUCH A GROUP AS HAMAS, WHICH HAS CHARITABLE

                 ORGANIZATIONS, RUNS SCHOOLS, AND SO FORTH, AND 

                 CAN MAKE APPEALS BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU'RE 

                 HELPING CHILDREN AND SO FORTH. DOES THIS NEW 

                 LEGISLATION PREVENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SOCIAL 

                 AND POLITICAL WINGS OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE 

                 DESIGNATED AS TERRORISTS?





GREY:            YES, IT DOES. IT MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO PROVIDE 

                 MATERIAL SUPPORT TO ANY DESIGNATED FOREIGN 

                 TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. THE ONLY TWO EXCEPTIONS 

                 IN THE LAW ARE MEDICINE AND RELIGIOUS MATERIALS.

                 BUT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE MANY 

                 LEGITIMATE CHARITIES OUT THERE IN THE PRIVATE 

                 SECTOR THAT HELP, THAT PROVIDE SOCIAL BENEFITS 

                 ALL OVER THE WORLD.  AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE 

                 SURE THAT THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS GO TO HELP PEOPLE 

                 IN NEED, AS OPPOSED TO HELPING TERRORISTS, THERE

                 ARE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT. 





HOST:            THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT YOUR WORK IN THE 

                 OFFICE OF COUNTERTERRORISM OVER THE YEARS IS 

                 THAT YOU HAVE NOT ONLY DOCUMENTED TERRORIST ACTS

                 VERY CAREFULLY, BUT YOU HAVE DESIGNATED STATE 

                 SPONSORS OF TERRORISM, OF WHICH, I BELIEVE, 

                 THERE ARE SEVEN TODAY.





GREY:            THAT'S RIGHT.





HOST:            WHAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU WAS WHAT IS THE 

                 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE STATE SPONSORS OF 

                 TERRORISM AND THESE THIRTY TERRORIST 

                 ORGANIZATIONS?





GREY:            JUST AS BACKGROUND, JUST TO SPECIFY, THERE ARE 

                 TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STATUTES. THERE ARE TWO

                 DIFFERENT PROCESSES. BUT THAT BEING SAID, THE 

                 SECRETARY OF STATE HAS DESIGNATED SEVEN 

                 COUNTRIES AS STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM. THOSE 

                 SEVEN COUNTRIES ARE IRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, NORTH 

                 KOREA, SUDAN, SYRIA, AND CUBA. AND, IN MANY 

                 CASES, THESE ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDE DIRECT 

                 SUPPORT FOR SOME OF THE FOREIGN TERRORIST 

                 ORGANIZATIONS THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

                 DESIGNATED. PERHAPS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF A STATE 

                 SPONSOR IS IRAN, WHICH VERY ACTIVELY FUNDS 

                 HEZBOLLAH AND SOME OF THE OTHER PALESTINIAN 

                 REJECTIONIST GROUP. IT' NOT JUST A QUESTION OF 

                 PROVIDING FUNDS, IT'S ALSO A QUESTION OF 

                 PROVIDING ARMS, TRAINING, ECT.





HOST:            NOW, I DID NOTICE IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS 

                 LIST A MEMBER OF THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE 

                 STATEMENT THAT THIS LEGISLATION AND THE 

                 ENFORCEMENT OF IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT 

                 BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME 

                 LESSENING IN THE STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM 

                 SUPPORT FOR GROUPS LIKE THIS. IS THAT THE CASE?





MANN:               I WOULDN'T USE THE WORD "LESSENING" OF 

                    SUPPORT. I THINK THAT TERRORIST GROUPS IN THE

                    NINETIES HAVE BECOME MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED 

                    AND THAT THEY HAVE NOT CHOSEN TO RELY ON A 

                    PARTICULAR STATE AS THE ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT 

                    SOURCE OF THEIR SUPPORT. THEY HAVE FOUND THAT

                    THEY NEED MORE ROOM TO MANEUVER. THAT THERE 

                    ARE MORE INDEPENDENT FINANCIERS, LIKE ONE OF 

                    THE MOST NOTORIOUS IS USAMA BIN LADIN, WHO IS

                    BASED IN AFGHANISTAN, A SAUDI NATIONAL. AND 

                    THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS FOR THEM TO GET 

                    THEIR FINANCIAL AND ALSO TRAINING KINDS OF 

                    SUPPORT. AND THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO BE AND 

                    SHOULDN'T BE RELYING ON A PARTICULAR STATE. 

                    BUT I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY THERE HAS BEEN

                    A LESSENING. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A 

                    SOPHISTICATION, MORE, IN TERMS OF THE GROUPS 

                    AND THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO WIDEN THEIR BASE OF 

                    SUPPORT.





GREY:            I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I'D ALSO POINT OUT THAT

                 A VERY TROUBLING PHENOMENON THAT WE ARE SEEING 

                 IN THE WORLD TODAY IS THAT STATE SPONSORS AND 

                 COHERENT GROUPS, IF YOU WILL, ARE NO LONGER THE 

                 SOLE PRACTITIONERS OF TERRORISM TODAY. YOU 

                 MENTIONED USAM BIN LADIN AND THAT'S A PRIME 

                 EXAMPLE, I THINK, OF A LOOSE KNIT GROUP OF 

                 PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT TERRORISM. OFTENTIMES THEY 

                 FORGED A FRIENDSHIP TOGETHER IN THE RESISTANCE 

                 AGAINST THE SOVIETS IN THE EIGHTIES. AND THESE 

                 GROUPS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO TRACK BECAUSE THEY 

                 DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE STRONG LINKS WITH EITHER 

                 STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM OR WITH A SPECIFIC 

                 GROUP.





HOST:            I WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IF THIS IS THE CASE AND 

                 FOR REASONS OF DIVERSIFYING SOURCES OF SUPPORT 

                 THEY HAVE TO RAISE MONEY PRIVATELY IN VARIOUS 

                 COUNTRIES, THAT'S ITS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT 

                 THAT, NOT JUST OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT THAT 

                 OUR ALLIES HAVE MEASURES SUCH AS THIS TO STOP 

                 THESE GROUPS FROM RAISING FUNDS IN THEIR 

                 COUNTRY. ARE THERE SUCH LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES 

                 OR ARE WE ENGAGED IN ANY EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE 

                 THEM TO . . .





GREY:            I THINK THE UNITED STATES IS REALLY IN THE 

                 FOREFRONT OF THIS SPECIFIC LEGAL BATTLE, TO TRY 

                 AND LIMIT THE ABILITY OF TERRORISTS AND 

                 TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS TO RAISE FUNDS. BUT THAT

                 BEING SAID, WE HAVE MADE, IN OUR BILATERAL AND 

                 MULTILATERAL CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES,

                 WE HAVE MADE A POINT OF EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR

                 STRICTER NATIONAL LEGISLATION. WE'VE DONE THIS 

                 BOTH PRIVATELY, AS I MENTIONED, IN OUR 

                 DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES, BUT IT'S ALSO A GOAL THAT 

                 HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY THE COUNTRIES OF THE EIGHT 

                 [INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACIES AND RUSSIA]. SO I 

                 THINK THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR SOME ACTION THERE.





MANN:            I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT. IN 1996, AFTER THE 

                 WAVE OF SUICIDE BOMBINGS IN THE SPRING OF '96 IN

                 ISRAEL, COUNTRIES FROM ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST,

                 INCLUDING ISRAEL, ARAB COUNTRIES, TURKEY, 

                 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, JAPAN, THE UNITED STATES, 

                 CAME TOGETHER AND VOWED THAT THEY WOULD WORK 

                 PRECISELY ON THIS QUESTION OF COMING TOGETHER 

                 AND LOOKING AT WAYS THAT THEY COULD FORMULATE 

                 LAWS AND TAKE A MORE GLOBAL EFFORT. I THINK, 

                 WHILE WE HAVE SEEN SOME BILATERAL MOVEMENT THAT 

                 HAS BEEN VERY POSITIVE, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT IS CONCERNED BY SOME BILATERAL 

                 WORK THERE, THERE REALLY HAS BEEN A DROPPING OF 

                 THE BALL. THAT THE COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY IN 

                 THE MIDDLE EAST, HAVE DECIDED NOT TO COME 

                 TOGETHER, IN CONTRAST TO THEIR WORDS THAT THEY 

                 WOULD AFTER THAT SUMMIT IN THE SPRING OF 1996. 

                 SO, INSTEAD OF HAVING A LOT OF THE ARAB STATES 

                 AND ISRAEL AND TURKEY WORKING WITH THE U.S. AND 

                 THE G-7, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. AND I THINK 

                 THAT'S ONE OF THE MORE UNFORTUNATE HAPPENINGS IN

                 THE MIDDLE EAST IS THAT THAT EUPHORIA THAT THERE

                 IS A SOLUTION DOWN THE ROAD HAS REALLY 

                 DISAPPEARED.





HOST:            WHAT HAS THE REACTION BEEN TO THE PUBLICATION OF

                 THIS LIST SO FAR, FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND ALSO 

                 FROM THESE GROUPS THEMSELVES?





GREY:            THE REACTION HAS BEEN PRETTY PREDICTABLE. MANY 

                 OF THE DESIGNATED ORGANIZATIONS AND, I'M 

                 THINKING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, OF HAMAS AND 

                 HEZBOLLAH, HAVE DENOUNCED IT, SAYING IT'S 

                 UNFAIR, NOT WARRANTED, ETC. CONVERSELY, SOME OF 

                 THE GOVERNMENTS OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE AFFECTED 

                 BY TERRORIST ACTIVITY, FOR EXAMPLE, SRI LANKA, 

                 HAVE WELCOMED THE DESIGNATIONS AND HAVE 

                 EXPRESSED THEIR HOPE THAT OTHER COUNTRIES WILL 

                 FOLLOW SUIT AND WILL ENACT STRICTER NATIONAL 

                 LEGISLATION.





MANN:            I AGREE WITH THAT. THERE HAS BEEN ANGER FROM 

                 SOME OF THE GROUPS. LIKE I WAS READING A REPORT 

                 THAT HEZBOLLAH REACTED VERY ANGRILY AT BEING 

                 DESIGNATED ON THE LIST. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, I

                 THINK IT HAS BEEN CITED AS ENORMOUS HELP TO SOME

                 OF THE COUNTRIES LIKE ISRAEL AND TURKEY AND SRI 

                 LANKA. THAT THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT 

                 THE ONLY ONES THAT RECOGNIZE THE THREAT. THAT 

                 THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STANDS BEHIND THEM IN THEIR 

                 FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM.  



HOST:            THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  I'M AFRAID THAT'S ALL THE 

                 TIME WE HAVE THIS WEEK.  I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR 

                 GUESTS --  HILLARY MANN, OF THE WASHINGTON 

                 INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY, AND GORDON GREY,

                 DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL AFFAIRS OF THE OFFICE OF 

                 COUNTER-TERRORSIM AT THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

                 -- FOR JOINING ME TO DISCUSS DE-FUNDING 

                 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.  THIS IS ROBERT REILLY 

                 FOR ON THE LINE.











17-Oct-97 4:16 PM EDT (2016 UTC)

NNNN



Source: Voice of America

.