| BRIEFINGS | |
| 1 | No Briefings planned for the rest of the year. |
| TERRORIST THREATS | |
| 1-12 | Worldwide caution announcement issued. Americans are being informed to exercise caution during the holidays. Americans are not being told to avoid specific locations. US Posts are on an heightened state of alert. What is the status of US embassies? Phnom Penh have reduced services. Amcit was detained by US Customs in Bahamas. Quito embassy has reopened. Consulate in Guayaquil remain closed. Diplomatic Security assessment team is assessing the security situation. Groups that have committed terrorist acts are being watched. Secretary Albright has an ongoing dialogue with governments around the world to counter terrorist threats. Is the GIA group a part of the Usama bin Ladin operation? What security adjustments are being taken in the State Department to defend against terrorists attacks? |
| PAKISTAN | |
| 7,15,16 | Detainment of alleged terrorists. Is there any specific threats against religious activities in the Holy Land/Israel or Vatican? People should enjoy themselves and mark the celebrations. Information has been provided that there is a possibility that attacks are being planned around the world. Ambassador Sheehan met with Taliban representative. US will hold Taliban responsible for terrorists acts that are committed by Usama bin Ladin's group. |
| NIGERIA | |
| 7 | Ban on direct flights from Nigeria to US has been dropped. |
| SUDAN | |
| 8-9 | President Bashir has taken steps against Hassan el-Turabi. US has no embassy in Sudan. |
| JORDAN | |
| 11 | Arrest of 13 individuals. US has ongoing obligation to inform about terrorist information, and is keeping the information we have under review at the highest levels. |
| CANADA | |
| 11 | US have a very close and cooperative working relationship with Canadian authorities on counterterrorism matters. |
MR. FOLEY: I don't have any announcements to make. Welcome, however, all of you, to the State Department. This may be the last briefing before the New Year. Don't rule anything out for next week, but we're not planning, though, to brief from the podium. Phil Reeker will be here and available throughout the week to answer the questions of those of you who may be here, and I'll be back sometime in the middle of next week. We're not planning to brief tomorrow but we will be available here to answer your questions tomorrow.
So let me go to your questions.
QUESTION: There's been another travel caution worldwide put out, again cautioning Americans to avoid crowds, holiday festivities, millennial events. I wondered what the US Government is doing itself as far as its own personnel. Are there any holiday parties or any other events involving crowds that American embassy officials overseas will be attending?
MR. FOLEY: As you know, we have a very rigid no double-standard policy in terms of the dissemination of information that we have internally and that we must share with the American public, information that may impact on their security overseas. So all of our employees are aware of the information that has been shared with the American public, obviously - the need to exercise caution, the need to avoid large crowds and gatherings, and cautionary tips of that nature.
In terms of what specifically embassy employees are doing around the world, obviously I'm not in a position to answer what their holiday plans are. You weren't here yesterday, but I stated yesterday that all of our posts are in a heightened state of alert around the world. That has to do with the security of the US Government installations overseas and the security and vigilance of our employees. They, too, must bear in mind the worldwide caution that we've put out on December 11th and updated yesterday of the need, therefore, to exercise caution, to be vigilant, aware of their surroundings, and to avoid large crowds and gatherings.
QUESTION: Let me break it down a little bit. So far as the embassies initiating any parties either at the embassy or in the home of perhaps the ambassador, initiating any New Year's Eve parties, initiating any Christmas celebrations, having a tree lighting ceremony - and I'll leave to you to decide what a large crowd is, but using common sense - are you saying that nothing like this is being done because US employees overseas read and heed, at least are expected to heed, the same warnings that other folks, other Americans, are?
MR. FOLEY: No, and yes. Yes, they are to heed the same warnings as other Americans should heed those warnings. No, they are not hunkering down in their homes and in their embassies. I think all of the leadership in the United States Government, including President Clinton and Secretary Albright, have made it crystal clear that we expect Americans to enjoy the holiday season, to go forward with their plans but, at the same time, to bear in mind that we do have information that terrorist groups may be planning attacks.
This is a general warning that may apply to different parts of the world. We do not have specificity aside from the fact that, obviously, arrests were made in Jordan and we learned details about what had been planned in that operation. But we have been very clear that these words of caution are indeed a cautionary light, a yellow light and not a red light, and that Americans, be they official Americans overseas or American citizens traveling overseas, ought to enjoy the holiday season.
At the same time, we have urged them to avoid large crowds and gatherings. I don't think that applies to people's plans to celebrate the New Year in their homes and residences and privately among themselves. So, I anticipate that there has been no change in people's plans to celebrate the holiday season.
QUESTION: Well, how about going down -- speaking of Washington, how about going down to the Ellipse like seven or eight of us are planning to do New Year's Eve? If I were a State Department employee, the admonition would be, "Don't go down there." Right? "There are too many people down there. Stay in your home and tear the December31 page off the calendar, have a beer and go to sleep." Right? Is that the advice? You see, I'm trying to test the sincerity of what you've suggested.
MR. FOLEY: Are you questioning the sincerity of our announcement?
QUESTION: I'm trying to find out if this is as you say, a yellow light, also, the US taking out insurance in case anything happens they can say, "We told you to be careful." Or if, indeed, it is to be taken quite literally and avoid crowds. It's fairly clear this is, "avoid crowds."
MR. FOLEY: I think there is a misunderstanding here. It surprises me coming from you because you have been here longer than anybody.
QUESTION: Yes, but I can read English. It says, "avoid crowds."
MR. FOLEY: Nevertheless, having been here for many years and being, in effect, the de facto dean of our Press Corps --
QUESTION: No. No, I'm not, but go ahead.
MR. FOLEY: -- you would know that the State Department speaks to the situation overseas. We do not have domestic responsibility. We do not dispense information or advice to Americans as to what they should or should not do within the United States. So I can't answer your question about New Year's celebrations within the United States. You would have to refer that to other domestic agencies of the federal government.
I would note, however, that administration leaders have urged Americans to enjoy themselves and to participate in holiday celebrations. But the specific worldwide caution that the State Department has issued and reissued yesterday involves tips and advice to Americans traveling overseas.
QUESTION: What if I said the Eiffel Tower instead of the Ellipse? Would your answer be the same? Because that's in France.
MR. FOLEY: What's the question?
QUESTION: Is the United States telling Americans in France, official Americans as well as private Americans - I don't know if the Eiffel Tower is the scene of a year-end celebration normally - "Don't go there. There will be crowds there"?
MR. FOLEY: That is a legitimate question. It is an echo of a question that your colleague has been asking for sometime in reference to specific locations overseas.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. FOLEY: I have to be very careful about that. We are not telling Americans to avoid specific locations. We believe that is a judgment that American travelers themselves have to make. We urge them to consult with the American embassy and consulate in a given country for up-to-date information about local circumstances.
But what we are telling Americans, though, is to be aware that we have information about the possibility of terrorist attacks in different parts of the world. We are urging them to be cautious, we are urging them to be vigilant and to be mindful of their surroundings, and we are urging them to avoid large crowds and gatherings. They will have to make their own decisions.
I've also stated on numerous occasions that if we have specific information about a specific targeting of a specific place or location, we would have to come forward and share that with the American public.
QUESTION: Last one. I've asked too many questions already, but the statement last night speaks - and I was going to ask you this but your point leads right into it - speaks specifically of Jordan. It speaks of having, with the arrests, having discovered that tourist places were targeted. So the same question but narrowed to Jordan: Is the US especially warning Americans, official and otherwise, to avoid crowds, to avoid buses, to avoid whatever, in Jordan in this season until mid-January?
MR. FOLEY: Let me be very clear. It's a good question. This statement that we issued last night is a worldwide caution. It is certainly not Jordan-specific and, therefore, we are urging Americans to be cautious and to do the things that I mentioned in all places, in all countries of the world.
We have stated in the last days - and let me reiterate today - that we have a lot of confidence in the ability of Jordanian authorities to counter any terrorist threats. We note that Jordan has enjoyed success in combating terrorist groups, as evidenced by the recent arrests in Jordan, and we have, as I said, a lot of confidence in the professionalism of Jordan's security services. But this update that we issued last night was a worldwide caution; it was not country-specific; it was certainly not Jordan-specific.
QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the various US embassies abroad - what's open, what's closed? And I understand there was an incident in the Bahamas this morning. Is that embassy open now, not open? Quito, et cetera?
MR. FOLEY: Let me try to remember what I know about the situation involving our posts worldwide. In Phnom Penh, we have reduced services. The embassy remains open and we have suspended our visa operations, essentially our immigrant visa operations, but the embassy remains open and continues to be available to provide services to Americans.
In the Bahamas, what I can tell you is that an American citizen who was acting suspiciously and found to be carrying wires, magnet, coils and other items was detained by US Customs in Freeport while attempting to board a plane for Miami. At least that's the information that I have. As you know, in all of these cases and all of these incidents around the world, you get preliminary reports and they need to be updated and sometimes you find that the information changes, but I wanted to share with you what I have learned so far.
QUESTION: By whom, did you say?
MR. FOLEY: By US Customs in Freeport.
QUESTION: Freeport? Why are -- (inaudible)?
MR. FOLEY: Because in certain countries of the world where we have heavy numbers of people traveling to the United States, as a facility we provide US Customs officials at the airport of the host country to sort of pre-clear people who are going to be entering the United States.
If I can continue, this person has since been moved to Nassau and he is being questioned by local and FBI officials. I would have to refer you to the FBI for any further questions on this matter.
As a result or connected to this detention of this person, the embassy undertook a thorough search inside and outside of the embassy facility and turned up nothing suspicious. During this search, embassy operations were temporarily suspended and they will resume this afternoon. So, in other words, Embassy Bahamas is back to normal.
Now, I believe you asked me about our embassy in Quito and - I'm sorry?
QUESTION: And the consulate in Guayaquil.
MR. FOLEY: Yes, and I can update our information for you on that. The embassy has reopened in Quito, I believe, as of noon today. Subsequent to the closing of the embassy or the suspension of operations at the embassy on Friday, we have received excellent cooperation from the government of Ecuador. Local authorities have closed all streets immediately around the embassy. Additional police protection will also be provided until permanent security solutions are in place.
As I indicated to you, we had a Diplomatic Security team in Quito to assess these enhancements, and they determined that the embassy was now safe to reopen. We are very pleased with the cooperation we've had from the government of Ecuador and, of course, we're very pleased to be in a position to reopen the embassy.
Now, the Diplomatic Security assessment team has now moved to our consulate in Guayaquil and that remains closed until steps have been taken to improve the security of the facility, personnel, and visitors to the consulate, and we'll have to await the assessment of the Diplomatic Security team in Guayaquil.
QUESTION: Are these road closures, those are permanent?
MR. FOLEY: Well, they could be. Certainly they are going to be closed on an ongoing basis, is my information. They do provide the embassy with the kind of setback - you're familiar with that term from the period of the bombings of our embassies in Africa - and you know how critical it is for us to have some distance from the street. Around the world, our posts, in conjunction with host governments, have done a number of things to improve the security of the perimeter to create additional setback. Closure of streets has been one element in some countries, and that is what has been effected in Quito.
QUESTION: All this panic and fear is really going on around the world and in the US because of only one man, Usama bin Ladin, who is enjoying his empire wherever he is in Afghanistan or wherever. He is taking advantage of all these announcements, number one.
Number two, if Secretary is in touch with the world leaders about these terrorism attacks on Americans around the world, especially in any country near South Asia.
MR. FOLEY: I would have to reject most of the premises contained in your question. First of all, on the contrary, I think this is not a time for excessive emotion. We believe that law enforcement in this country is being extraordinarily vigilant in terms of working against possible threats and making arrests and investigating leads. Overseas, we have issued a caution to American travelers; we are cooperating with host governments; we have excellent cooperation; and we have very effective counter-terrorist policies and operations in place.
So we have continued to urge Americans to be calm and to enjoy themselves in the holiday and to exercise caution at the same time. So your sentence in which you include words like "panic" are not in our vocabulary.
Your second premise about one wanted terrorist being the center of all evil and of all terrorist activity is absolutely untrue. We're watching a number of groups that have committed terrorist acts in the past. We continue to watch them and follow information that we have about their possible intentions.
It is undeniable that bin Ladin is a force for evil in the world, that he is responsible for killing innocent people. He killed hundreds of Africans in the embassy bombings in August without any care or concern. It was clear to the perpetrators of these acts of terrorism that they would kill, and their acts were designed to kill a maximum number of innocent civilians. And there is no denying what this person is like and what his capabilities are and what his intentions are, and this is recognized not only by the United States but by the entire international community which, in a Security Council resolution, has sanctioned the Taliban for harboring this wanted terrorist.
In terms of your last question about the Secretary, certainly we have an ongoing dialogue with all governments around the world to counter terrorist threats and she is apprised of developments on a daily basis; is involved in the decision making and, to some degree, has been in touch with counterparts on a range of issues, and that remains unchanged.
QUESTION: If I could follow along the lines of my colleague's questions and ask you: There were alleged terrorists detained in Pakistan, a cell in Jordan perhaps broken up - we hope at least. Can you tell us any more? And, of course, we have a couple of guys caught on the US borders here. Can you tell us any more about what you've learned of the plans of these particular terrorists? Is there any more detail you can give us?
The second part of my question would have to do with is there any threat specific toward religious activities in the Holy Land, in Israel, or perhaps at the Vatican - those two particular spots?
MR. FOLEY: First of all, I'm not in a position for obvious reasons to stand up here and unveil piecemeal bits and pieces of investigative work that is occurring in this country and around the world. That would be irresponsible; it would also be premature. As I indicated earlier, there is all kinds of information that is stated or leaked or speculated upon concerning ongoing investigations. Much of it turns out to be needing amendment or refinement as time goes on, and it is certainly not responsible for a government spokesman to get into those kinds of details.
In terms of the second part of your question, it was?
QUESTION: It referred to specific areas.
MR. FOLEY: I think in answer - maybe it was to your colleague's question earlier - I indicated that if we have specific information about planning for a specific attack in a specific location, we have a responsibility to bring that to the attention of the American public and American travelers. We have not done so in those areas that you mentioned and we would do so if we had that information.
QUESTION: Related to this whole terrorism thing, today the US has announced that it is going to drop its ban on direct flights between Nigeria and the US which was imposed six years ago because of big security concerns at the airport in Lagos. I'm just wondering if the State Department has any thoughts about the timing of this announcement given the great concern worldwide for terrorist attacks.
MR. FOLEY: Of course not. The timing is, by definition, unrelated to events that may or may not be happening elsewhere in the world. It was decided on its merits. Secretary Slater made this announcement today. I believe there was a statement from the President noting and congratulating the Nigerians on this announcement. It was decided precisely because the government of Nigeria under President Obasanjo took significant measures to overhaul Nigeria's airport security system; in other words, the concerns in the security area were addressed. So there is no reason to try to time this announcement in relation to other events and developments.
QUESTION: Is this an outgrowth of Under Secretary Pickering's visit last week? Was that the main purpose of his trip there?
MR. FOLEY: I'd have to take that question. I don't know the answer.
QUESTION: Don't you think it would have made - perhaps not. Wouldn't it have made a little bit more sense to wait a week or so before making this announcement?
MR. FOLEY: So, you are implying that if we made a judgment that Nigeria had successfully overhauled their security system that, despite that fact that we had confidence in that system, that we withhold it? That would have been an action that would have bespoken a lack of confidence in their system. As I said, we made the decision on the merits. We felt that they had significantly overhauled their security system.
QUESTION: I wonder if you could clarify your disclosure policy. If you all develop information that may be specific, but you have concerns either about sources or methods or about your ability to react in sort of a law enforcement way, would you still then tell the public about your information? Which comes first?
MR. FOLEY: We have an obligation to inform the American public of information that bears on their security. There is no wiggle room there. If we have reason to believe that a threat has been countered, is being effectively countered, and it is important to allow that countering to go forward and succeed, that could be taken into consideration. But the yardstick is precisely the same. The yardstick is the security of American people, of American travelers.
This is only hypothetically because I want to stress that we take this obligation extremely seriously. I can't tell you how seriously it is taken in this building and in the government that we inform Americans about information that can affect their security, so this is only a hypothetical answer that, if in the interest of security of American travelers we were in a tactical position to see a threat countered, we would perhaps take that into consideration, but the obligation to inform Americans about information they need to know is extraordinarily important.
QUESTION: Do you have any information on reports that Usama bin Ladin has a sister who is also involved in training militants in Afghanistan?
MR. FOLEY: I've not heard that, no.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question on the Armed Islamic Group? It is usually described as a network, or at least that's maybe a journalism phrase, maybe it's a State Department phrase, maybe both. Do you know if the Armed Islamic Group is part of that network or if it is connected to Usama bin Ladin's operation? GIA, it's called.
MR. FOLEY: It is interesting you asked that because I have before me a quotation from some testimony that our Counterterrorism Coordinator, Ambassador Mike Sheehan, gave in November when he was up on the Hill. I think it would be useful if I quote from it. This was before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said, quote: "Today's terrorist threat comes primarily from groups and loosely-knit networks with fewer ties to governments."
That is characteristic of the new kind of terrorist threat we face. There are discrete groups that have their own names, have their own organizations, maybe have to some extent particular goals, aims and purposes; but, increasingly, we are seeing interconnectedness and cooperation and ties of different natures between such groups. So it is really impossible to simply treat them separately. We have to address them separately, but also address them as a whole.
QUESTION: I appreciate that. He has said that, made that point, on several occasions. It is the changing face of terrorism. But, specifically the GIA, is the GIA known to be part of bin Ladin's even loosely-knit network or is there some cooperation between them, or is it something you just don't know off the top of your head.
MR. FOLEY: Well, it is a fair question, but it is a question requiring expertise in the counterterrorism field I don't have. I think it is safe to say that there are linkages, that there is communication, but the extent of the ties is not something I'm in a position to be able to give to you.
QUESTION: Now that some days have passed since Sudanese President Bashir took steps against Hassan el-Turabi, are you now in a position to make a judgment on whether this might help rehabilitate Sudan? I notice that the Sudanese rebels seem to think it's a good thing.
MR. FOLEY: I think the answer to that question is extraordinarily premature. As I stated I think last week when the question was first posed, number one, our information about that power struggle is imprecise; we don't have an embassy in the Sudan. Secondly, this power struggle apparently has not played itself out. Thirdly, we would not be looking to adjust our policies or even our judgments on the basis of shifting power relationships in the Sudanese authority.
What we are looking for is a fundamental shift or change in the way Sudan does business, the way it treats its own people, the way it acts regionally and, particularly, its support for terrorist groups and other areas of major concern that we have. This is not, for us, a question of personalities.
If you asked me a hypothetical question: Should a leader emerge who changes Sudan's policies and allows Sudan to rejoin the community of nations that uphold civilized norms and did some concrete things to end the civil war, to end human rights abuses, to foreswear and sever ties with terrorism, that of course would be something we would welcome very much. But we are so far from that prospect at this point that I couldn't possibly answer the question.
QUESTION: Are you aware of a report that there may soon be direct talks between Khartoum and the SPLA?
MR. FOLEY: I have not heard that last report, no.
QUESTION: Would you agree with the description of Turabi as the nation's premier Islamic fundamentalist?
MR. FOLEY: I think we're in the business of talking about our policies, explaining what we're doing in the world, why we're doing it, and not in sort of name-calling or affixing names or monikers to other personalities.
QUESTION: Domestic, very domestic - like here. You said that "panic" is not in our vocabulary. Well, I'll accept that, but there is a certain jitteriness. You certainly can see it on the journalism side because you see big --
MR. FOLEY: Yes, I would agree with you.
QUESTION: Based on rather a prosaic cautionary notes - not even called "warnings," by the way, just "messages/statements." But that being the case, can you bring us up to date what is being done, to the extent you can, in this building specifically in the State Department, to defend yourselves, to protect yourself, to whatever; what precautionary moves - additional, perhaps - are being taken in this season as you're advising people overseas to be careful? What are you all doing here?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to talk about that. I will check with our security authorities to see if there is any information that they're willing to let me share in the public domain about any security adjustments we're taking.
I think we had a briefing about the Y2K rollover earlier in the week and Mr. Carpenter did speak about security in a general sense. He wasn't giving out tactical information about how we may be seeking to enhance our security here. I'm not in a position to do that.
You know, you mentioned though - it reminds me something slipped that I intended to say when you asked one of your first of many questions about the embassy posture during the New Year. The fact is that our employees are going to be very much focused on the Y2K rollover. They have some very important obligations in terms of tracking the local situations during the rollover and reporting to us, and so they are going to be very much geared as we get into the end of December period in monitoring and reporting back to us on the Y2K rollover.
QUESTION: You don't suppose this is getting blurred somehow, just generally speaking; that the anxiety over Y2K is somehow an anxiety over terrorism, both reasonable, are somehow creating sort of a large mass of - not panic because this is not in your vocabulary, but some sort of super-anxiety with every 11 days you're warning Americans to avoid crowds on Christmas and New Year's Eve?
MR. FOLEY: You know, super-anxiety sounds like --
QUESTION: Well, real anxiety.
MR. FOLEY: In the lexicon from which I've abolished the word "panic," very much a synonym and so I don't acknowledge the word.
QUESTION: Anxiety is a psychiatric term.
MR. FOLEY: But there has been a lot of reporting. I don't think there is an amalgamation of the Y2K anxiety because I think our briefers indicated on Monday that given the tremendous amount of work that's gone into preparing for the rollover over the past year, that we're feeling optimistic that the problems that may arise in countries around the world will be manageable. We'll have to see, but I think the anxiety level has gone down if you look at the last year on that.
On the terrorism issue, again, I don't accept those words but vigilance, caution, concern are legitimate ways to describe how we in the government and how the American public ought to approach the end of the year. We want people to enjoy themselves and to mark the celebrations, but we have information that leads us to conclude that there is a possibility that terrorists may be planning attacks around the world. And for that, we have to take that very seriously and people have to exercise caution and follow the tips that we've provided to them.
QUESTION: When the 13 people were arrested in Jordan earlier, you told us that that was a localized Jordanian operation, the arrest. But now, as it's moved on and they're looking for people in different places, for example, a 31-year-old California man we heard yesterday, how does the search process go from there? Is it Jordanian authorities in connection with US authorities? Has it become more internationalized since those arrests?
And in that context, have you received any word about extradition requests from Jordanian authorities to people in other countries, maybe suspects that aren't any longer in the Middle East region?
MR. FOLEY: No, I don't have any information on that. Clearly, law enforcement in the United States is working very aggressively to counter any possible threats. I can't speak to that because it's not in the purview of the State Department but, as you know, arrests have been made in different states and leads are being followed.
In terms of our counter-terrorism cooperation around the world, I can't get into the particulars of that because that's obviously very sensitive, but I'm not aware of any further developments, at least in terms of arrests.
QUESTION: Are you all concerned with the way that Canada is handling its immigration or monitoring possible terrorists since a couple of the suspected - the folks who were carrying weapons or so forth come through Canada? And, also, the one guy - I believe the Algerian, was being monitored by the French Government. Do you all feel that Canada is not really scrutinizing folks as much as they should?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I think spokesmen in Canada have been frank, themselves, in describing the fact that they face competing priorities between effective law enforcement and pursuing their immigration goals in an open society. Certainly, the US and Canada are continually looking at ways to improve border operations including security.
I can't give you a scorecard or an analysis of Canada's laws and regulations in this area but I can say what I've been saying for several days, which is that we have a very close and cooperative working relationship with Canadian authorities on counterterrorism matters. This is a long-standing relationship. It has obviously been intensifying in recent days, but this is largely a law enforcement matter. It is not something that I here in the State Department can comment on.
QUESTION: Back to the GIA and the arrests in Jordan. What more can you tell us about these people? Who are they? What's their agenda? Why are they targeting Americans?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not in a position to describe details of an investigation that is continuing. That would be imprudent and irresponsible. We have informed the public in terms of what they needed to know; that there was a cell that had been planning attacks, that Americans would have been among the targets. There have been a number of arrests made in Jordan. I have been very clear that we have the utmost confidence in the capability, the professionalism, of Jordan's security services to counter any terrorist threats there. But their investigation is ongoing and I am not going to comment on the details of that investigation.
QUESTION: I'll be really brief. I wanted to change the subject as well.
MR. FOLEY: You wanted to, but you couldn't bring yourself to? You wrestled with yourself and lost?
QUESTION: Indeed. Your answer to the Canadian question, does the US agree with these Canadian spokesmen and think that there are difficulties that --
MR. FOLEY: Well, we are an open society too, so I think all of us in democratic open societies do face competing needs or at least parallel needs in terms of effective border control, effective immigration policies, effective law enforcement and the need to maintain our values as open societies.
QUESTION: So you think the Canadians are doing a good job of balancing these competing goals?
MR. FOLEY: I was very clear that I was not going to try to scorecard Canadian efforts. I think I will leave it to Canadian spokesmen, themselves, to describe whether they believe there is need for improvement.
QUESTION: Let me just make sure. So you won't say that the Canadians are doing a good job?
MR. FOLEY: I have answered your question.
...................
QUESTION: Does the State Department have a reaction to the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan's remarks today reading a letter saying that the Taliban have assured the United States that bin Ladin has no plans to attack Americans?
MR. FOLEY: I have not seen that report. We don't take seriously, I'm afraid to say, statements that have emerged from the Taliban concerning bin Ladin. We have seen a recent statement, I think yesterday, by the Taliban claiming that bin Ladin does not any longer have a telephone or fax and is no longer able to communicate with his terrorist network. We have reliable information that bin Labin is in frequent contact with terrorists and his supporters in various parts of the world. The group, indeed, uses modern communications.
But these statements that continue to come out of the Taliban are laughable on their face. The Taliban is willing to say anything that sounds positive or reassuring; they are unwilling to do anything which actually gets to the heart of the matter which is that this man who is responsible for killing hundreds of people last year and perpetrating other terrorist acts is enjoying their hospitality, enjoying their protection, is living in territory that they control and that the Taliban, itself, is in flagrant violation of a Security Council resolution reflecting the will of the international community that he should be brought to justice for his crimes.
QUESTION: You told us a week or so, maybe more, ago after Ambassador Sheehan met with the Taliban representative in New York that there would be serious consequences if bin Ladin or his accomplices actually carry out an attack?
MR. FOLEY: Right.
QUESTION: Or if they are caught red-handed, as it were, trying to carry out an attack?
MR. FOLEY: Well, I'm not going to give the Taliban a pass here. Obviously, they continue to harbor a wanted terrorist, an organization that continues to plot and plan terrorist acts around the world in an organization that has already killed hundreds of civilians and killed Americans and destroyed a couple of American embassies.
But what Ambassador Sheehan told the Taliban was very clear: If the bin Ladin organization commits terrorist acts, we will hold the Taliban - which is providing bin Ladin hospitality, harboring him - responsible and they will face serious consequences. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to spell out circumstances or conditions or specific consequences, but I think that the Taliban understand what we mean.
QUESTION: In your answer to the question just before that one, were you trying to imply that the US, through its national technical means, has intercepted or found bin Ladin to be using, you know, modern satellite phones or something like that?
MR. FOLEY: I'm not going to explicate the words that I used. They are carefully crafted. We have reliable information, is what I said. I'm not in a position to describe the sourcing or methodology by which we came to that information.
..............
QUESTION: If I could follow up on that Taliban matter, you didn't really answer that question, which can I put it slightly more clearly? Do the arrests in Jordan amount to an act for which the Taliban are responsible; in other words, do the Taliban face any consequences for the planning activities of this cell in Jordan which has been linked to Usama bin Ladin?
MR. FOLEY: We were very clear about - I'm not going to give you a fully satisfactory answer. As I said, I don't want to give the Taliban a pass. I'm not going to state the circumstances that we will consider in all of their detail and refinement. I'll only reiterate what Ambassador Sheehan told the Taliban, which is that if the bin Ladin organization does commit terrorist acts, they will be held responsible because they are harboring him. I'm not going to refine the answer further, for obvious reasons.
The fact of the matter is that the Taliban are at risk on an ongoing basis simply because this terrorist with his global network is enjoying their protection and, therefore, things can go wrong from their perspective at any time simply because this wanted terrorist who continues to plot terrorist attacks is enjoying their hospitality on territory that they control. And it would certainly behoove them to bring bin Ladin to - to transfer him to a country that will bring him to justice - again, in accordance with a Security Council resolution.
.............
(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 P.M.)
[end of document]