| ANNOUNCEMENTS | |
| ECUADOR | |
| 4-6,7 | US Embassy Quito's closure related to specific security concerns: suspicious activity, physical security. An assessment team from Diplomatic Security is there making an inspection. |
| TERRORISM | |
| 9-10 | US media has been very responsible in reporting this issue. US has ongoing obligation to inform about terrorist information, and is keeping the information we have under review at the highest levels. |
...................
QUESTION: You all announced on Friday that the US Embassy in Ecuador had been closed temporarily for reassessment of security.
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Do you have anything more on that situation and can you speak to why it was closed?
MR. FOLEY: I think you were sadly missing from our briefing yesterday and had larger fish to fry, if I may say so, and you will get no quarrel from me on that decision that you made. But I did speak about this issue yesterday and the situation really hasn't changed.
We, as we told you on Friday, had some concerns for the security of our personnel and the Ecuadorian personnel in our embassy, and this was related to some suspicious activity that had been observed. But we also had, at the same time, concerns about the physical security of the embassy and, as a precautionary measure, the embassy suspended operations. So did the consulate in Guayaquil and that matter has been under review.
In the meantime, Diplomatic Security sent a team down to Ecuador that, I believe, arrived yesterday and that has been assessing the situation, and I think we stressed on Friday that this was a temporary measure; the embassy and the consulate would be reopened when our security experts deemed it prudent to reopen, and I do expect that to happen. I can't tell you exactly when; they are assessing the situation. But in the meantime, there have also been some improvements, thanks to the cooperation of the Ecuadorian authorities in terms of reinforcement of our security posture.
QUESTION: Can you tell me if DS or if Ecuadorian officials have been able to assess more clearly the nature of the threat that you all felt there?
MR. FOLEY: I am not aware that conclusions have been reached. Obviously, that is a matter that is under current investigation. I would stress, however, though, that no links have been made between the security concerns that our embassy developed in Ecuador and any larger or wider security concerns worldwide.
QUESTION: Has the Diplomatic Security team that is down there now come to any conclusions? Is the embassy - how soon is it going to be -
MR. FOLEY: To be honest, I don't have a report. They arrived yesterday and I don't know if they finished their assessment. Nevertheless, it is true that there have been improvements, thanks to the cooperation of the Ecuadorian Government, and I'm sure our Diplomatic Security experts will be able to assess those improvements and arrive at a determination whether it's prudent now to reopen the facilities.
QUESTION: Do those improvements include stationing of additional police since --
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to, for obvious reasons, get into what security measures we undertake in our missions overseas to enhance security.
QUESTION: The only reason I mention it is because if you walk - apparently, if you walk by the embassy in Quito, you can see that there are a lot more Ecuadorian police around it than you could see a week and a half ago. I'm just wondering - it seems to me that's not blowing any big top secret security precaution, I mean, if that's one of them.
MR. FOLEY: I have not been down there to make that assessment myself. We have Diplomatic Security officials down there making that assessment and I understand that Agence France Presse may also be helpfully doing similar assessments and I'm not here to quarrel with those if there is additional security presence on the perimeter of the embassy. I think we would be very pleased with that.
QUESTION: Jim, it's the holiday season. Do you think the embassy could remain closed the rest of the week?
MR. FOLEY: I don't know. As I said, Diplomatic Security is making their assessment and they'll report back here to Washington. If I learn the results of that report, I'll share those with you. You'll, obviously, learn very quickly if the embassy has reopened and when it reopens.
I couldn't comment as to whether the onset of the holidays will have an impact on when they reopen. I think, rather, the decision will be made on the merits of whether it is prudent to reopen. The embassy has a lot of important business to do, including on behalf of would-be visitors to the US and American citizens, as well as the range of diplomatic activities, so they would be eager to reopen as soon as our security people feel it's prudent to do so.
.....................
QUESTION: Did you see Muammar Qadhafi's remarks on CBS This Morning?
MR. FOLEY: I didn't see the remarks myself. I'm told that he had made some comment about wanting to seek an apology in the event that the suspects who are going to be on trial in The Hague are acquitted. I don't think we've had a chance to thoroughly analyze the remarks but certainly Qadhafi has a long history of saying many things. I would note that the United Nations Security Council sanctions that were imposed against him had the backing of the world community as expressed in Security Council resolutions.
The fact of the matter is suspects were indicted in this case; today is the 11th anniversary of the horrible, unspeakable terrorist attack that took the lives of so many on Pan Am 103, and it is a significant milestone that the two suspects in the case have been transferred to The Hague and that they will stand trial for the crimes of which they are accused in the coming year. We think that is a very significant development. We have always stated that that is a trial whose integrity we believe in and a trial that we believe will help to shed the light of truth on what happened and bring some measure of justice to the victims, to the families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 tragedy.
And let me add that we have every confidence in the evidence that led to the indictment of these two suspects.
QUESTION: That comment that he made about seeking the apology, it was a kind of minor part of that. His -
MR. FOLEY: I've not seen the interview, though.
QUESTION: Surely someone in the Department must have because he basically said that the US deserved to be afraid of terrorist strikes against it because of its worldwide policies, which he called hegemonistic and imperialistic. And I'm wondering if you think that that's a fair assessment. Should the US - do Americans deserve to feel frightened of terrorist attacks?
MR. FOLEY: You're asking a hegemony question or a -
QUESTION: That was the reason that he gave, that the entire world hates the United States and so that should be no surprise that there are terrorist threats against US interests and American citizens.
MR. FOLEY: I think, on the contrary, the United States is seen as a beacon of liberty around the world and as an example of an extraordinarily dynamic and just, free society. And that elicits a lot of jealousy and even hatred in some quarters.
But I think you and many of your colleagues who've traveled with Secretary Albright around the world understand the great hope that so many countries around the world place in the United States, be they important industrialized allies of the United States who continue to look to us for leadership around the world or be they countries in transition, former communist countries or developing countries that look to the United States for all kinds of support and assistance and political support, not only and not necessarily mostly financial support, but the kind of support that they need to help undertake a transition to modern, functioning, democratic, free market countries.
And it's indisputable that a lot is expected of the United States around the world and, at the same time, certainly there are those who do not believe they have a stake in the system of free and open market democracies that has increasingly characterized the world in the last 10 years. These are enemies of that kind of open and free society, and they see in the United States the opposite of what most of the world sees in the United States. They see the US as the beacon of a kind of freedom and respect for human rights that they oppose, and so it is not an accident that there are terrorist groups that target the United States.
Terrorism also has its origins in particular regional circumstances. In the Middle East, it is obvious that there are enemies of the peace process, those that do not want to see a final reconciliation and peace agreement between Israel and Israel's neighbors, and the enemies of peace have been known to act when they saw that there were prospects for a resolution of many of the political problems in the Middle East.
So we play a unique role in the world. We're very proud of it. The aim of terrorists is precisely to prevent us, to intimidate us, from playing such a role in the world, and we are not going to be intimidated. I think we made that clear in the wake of the terrible bombings of our embassies in Africa last year. Secretary Albright and the President made clear that to pull back from our engagement, to pull back from our leadership around the world, would be to award a victory to the terrorist forces that oppose our role in the world.
QUESTION: The newspaper USA Today reported today that Secretary Albright and the DCI and the Attorney General met last night to discuss possible updating of the terrorism warning, of the warning that you issued last weekend or maybe another warning. I wonder if you could bring us up to date since you do have to sort of strike a balance between your obligations but not wanting to really alarm people. I wonder what your thoughts are.
MR. FOLEY: I think you put it very well. If I can make a point in this respect, I think that the media, the American media and international media, have been very responsible in the way you have reported this very important issue. The fact is, we are dealing with the potential for terrorist action in connection with the end of the year, with the New Year celebrations and into the early New Year, and yet I think the media have understood that the US Government is doing what it must do: acting responsibly by informing the American public about the information that we have but, at the same time, not seeking to hype the story to alarm people. I think that the American press has gotten it just right.
As you point out, we have an obligation, given the no double-standard policy, to inform American citizens, the American public, of information that we have that could impact on their security overseas, and domestic agencies have the same responsibility here at home. It is because of that obligation that we issued the worldwide caution to American travelers about 10 or 11 days ago. It was based largely on information developed upon the arrest of and the closing down of the terrorist cell in Jordan. It was based on our understanding of possible activities by other groups. It was based on our understanding of the nature of the Bin Laden organization, which is an organization that has demonstrated an ability to undertake attacks in different parts of the world.
So we felt it was the prudent and responsible thing to inform the American public about this information that was derived especially from the successful closing down of a terrorist cell in Jordan. At the same time, though, we have told the American public that this is a yellow light. It is not a red light. We are urging Americans to be vigilant and cautious as they travel, but we are not recommending to Americans that they change their plans and that they not travel overseas. We believe that is a judgment that every traveler has to make, consulting with the State Department, looking at our consular information sheets, contacting our embassies about local security conditions. We've given, in the meantime, tips to travelers about the kind of caution and vigilance they should perform when they're traveling.
But to answer your specific question, this is an ongoing responsibility of the State Department to keep this situation under review. I can't comment on any particular meetings that may or may not have occurred within the administration, but I can assure you that, at the senior-most levels of the State Department and of the US Government, to include Secretary Albright, we are constantly keeping the information we have under review. We don't have further specific information beyond the Jordanian situation that we believe has been effectively dealt with. But we have an obligation, nevertheless, to come forward if we do develop new and specific information and we have an obligation to continue to let the American people know what they need to know about the kinds of things they should be looking for and the kinds of precautions they should take when they travel overseas.
QUESTION: So is there another type of more specific alert under consideration and would it be new information? Or is it to try to make sure that people know they can travel and be safe and not to harm other tourist economies of other countries, obviously, because a lot of countries are depending on tourism on the New Year?
MR. FOLEY: We have a lot of sympathy and understanding for other countries' needs in the tourism sector, but let me be emphatically clear in this regard: This will not be a factor in our approach to describing publicly what Americans need to know about the risks or the dangers that might be involved with overseas traveling. That has never been a factor. And often we issue, as many of you in this room know, particular cautions or information about particular conditions in given countries that are not appreciated by the host government. And the fact is, our number one concern has to be the security of Americans.
As I said in response to the previous question, we are keeping this situation, the overall threat assessment, under review every day and that will continue to be the case. Certainly, if we develop specific information about a new threat in a new location, we will share that with the American people, and we have not done that. It is also possible, though, that we may, if we continue to refine the information available to us, if we have more in the way of tips or guidance to American travelers, we will share that as well - they're not necessarily the same thing, but we'll just have to see. We're going to take this day by day.
QUESTION: Last Friday [inaudible] after the G-8 meetings, the Secretary or someone asked the Secretary some question, asked her to compare the terrorist leader Ocalan and the former South African President Mandela. She answered the question in French, but her answer is not enough clear to understand for us if she approved if this terrorist someday became a president or not.
MR. FOLEY: [Speaking French.] So you can understand exactly what I'm saying. I'm not familiar with the question and answer so I wouldn't want to comment about what the Secretary may or may not have said. Clearly, we have an enormous amount of respect for Nelson Mandela, who was a freedom fighter who suffered greatly for what he believed in prison for so many years and then emerged to lead the new South Africa.
In terms of Mr. Ocalan, we have been crystal clear all along that we believe he was a terrorist who heads a terrorist organization. There is no comparison there.
....................
(The briefing concluded at 2:30 P.M.)
[end of document]