TRANSCRIPT: INDYK AUGUST 21 BRIEFING FOR MIDDLE EAST PRESS
USIA
24 August 1998
TRANSCRIPT: INDYK AUGUST 21 BRIEFING FOR MIDDLE EAST PRESS
(Asst. Sec. State on reasons behind strikes on Sudan, Afghanistan)
(3460)
Washington -- Following is the transcript of Assistant Secretary of
State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk's remarks, as recorded at
the August 21 briefing for the Middle East press at the Department of
State:
(Begin transcript)
SECRETARY INDYK: Thank you very much for coming in. I've wanted to
have an opportunity to answer your questions about our response to the
terrorist bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I think you
have a lot of details of what has happened there from President
Clinton, from Secretary Albright, and from National Security Adviser
Berger. I don't want to repeat what you already know. Let me just
emphasize a couple of points before I take your questions.
In bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the chemical weapons
factory in Sudan, the United States was exercising its right of
self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. We were acting in
self defense because, as President Clinton has said, we not only had
conclusive evidence of Usama bin Ladin and his associates'
responsibility for the bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, but we also had
strong information from many sources of his associates' intentions to
attack more American embassies and other interests around the world.
And we, of course, had his open, on-the-record threats to kill
Americans in a war against Americans and 'Crusaders.'
It was because of that information and the known public threats and
the clear indication that he was going to attack again that we
exercised our right of self-defense. The targets chosen were very
specific for their connection to Usama bin Ladin and his associates.
This was an attack on terrorist training bases in Afghanistan and this
chemical factory in Sudan. We had tried for a long time to get the
Taliban to get rid of Usama bin Ladin from Afghanistan.
You will recall that Ambassador Richardson made a special trip to
Afghanistan; and that was part of the purpose. We have worked with
governments that have influence over the Taliban to try to get them to
use their influence to get the Taliban to produce Usama bin Ladin and
his associates. All of this was to no avail. In fact you will have
seen the Taliban statement saying they would never give him up. So, it
is not as if we did not try other means. But in the circumstances,
with the knowledge both of these terrorists' involvement, and the
certainty that they were going to strike again, the President ordered
this action.
The attack on the chemical factory in northeastern Khartoum was
selected because of clear evidence we have of its involvement in the
production of chemical weapons -- physical evidence. The factory was
producing a precursor for VX nerve gas. The factory was associated
with Usama bin Ladin and we have clear knowledge of his efforts to
acquire chemical weapons. This was not an attack on Sudan, it was an
attack on a part of Usama bin Ladin's operation, which was this
chemical factory. And if you think for a moment about the consequences
of Usama bin Ladin and his associates getting a hold of chemical
weapons, I think you will understand the importance of targeting this
factory, as well as the terrorist training bases in Afghanistan.
And here is my third point: Usama bin Ladin and his terrorist
associates did not distinguish between Americans, Arabs and Africans.
His terror was, of course, indiscriminate. He made clear that he
intended to kill American civilians, and through his actions and the
actions of his associates, he has also sought to kill, and in some
cases succeeded to kill, Arabs. Whether it be Saudis in the National
Guard Building that was attacked in Riyadh, which Usama bin Ladin was
involved in; whether it be Egyptians killed in the attack on the
Egyptian embassy in Pakistan, which again Usama bin Ladin was involved
in; or whether it be the attempt to assassinate President Mubarak,
which (Ladin's) Egyptian Islamic Jihad associates were involved in.
So it should be clear that his targets are not just Americans, that
his targets are very much innocent people in the Arab world, because
he is an extremist with an extremist agenda, and he does not care who
he kills in the process. So in that sense we are in the same trench in
this war as all of those governments and people in the Middle East who
have suffered from terrorist extremism, whether it be in Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, on the West Bank of Gaza, Algeria, and other places in
the Gulf. With that I will take your questions.
Q: You said we are in the same trench. Are you really concerned that
they (Arab governments) are silent, not supporting...what happened?
INDYK: I think we should wait and see. The Secretary, President, Vice
President and myself have spoken to a lot of our friends in the Arab
world in the last 24 hours, and we found them to be understanding and
supportive of what we've done. And I think that we will have to wait
and see what their response is. Criticism has come from the usual
people: Qaddafi. As we say: it takes one to know one. And Saddam. So I
think that it is very clear that the vast majority of Arab governments
are on the record as condemning terrorism, and working together to
combat terrorism, and working with us to do so. So, I think that's
what's important in this regard.
Q: Does this mean, Mr. Ambassador, that they are showing more
understanding on the record in private conversations than they are
showing in public ? And are you asking them to show it in public as
well?
INDYK: As I said, I think it's a little too early to judge the
reaction. We should wait and see. All I would say is that in our
conversations they have made clear their understanding and support for
what we have done.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, yesterday we heard a lot about this Usama bin Ladin
network. What is the name of this network? Nobody told us anything
about it. Another question about what you just mentioned, that there
was a statement by one of the organizations saying that they will
attack Crusaders, and I don't know what. I have never heard of this
organization. Do you know anything about it before this statement came
out?
INDYK: This is the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and
Crusaders.
Q: Is this a new thing, or what?
INDYK: In February of this year this organization declared its
intention to attack Americans and our allies, including civilians
anywhere in the world. Part of the Usama bin Ladin network is the
Egyptian Islamic Jihad, as I mentioned before. It's one of the key
groups in the network. It was responsible for the attack on the
Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan in 1995 that killed over 20 Egyptians.
Part of his network operates in Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure if we have
a name for it, but we refer to it as the Usama bin Ladin network, and
we associate it with him. Many terrorist organizations receive support
and training in his camps in Afghanistan.
Q: Do you know its whereabouts? Where did it start? Who is responsible
for it?
INDYK: What we know is that Usama bin Ladin brought together a group
of disparate terrorists and organizations for a kind of meeting that
had taken place taken that led to this announcement of this World
Islamic Front that appears to have been established back in February.
And, as you may have heard, the National Security Adviser said they
had information that this group was meeting again yesterday (near)
Khost in Afghanistan, which was a reason for the timing of the attack.
Q: So you think it's a genuine organization? Do you think it's
genuine?
INDYK: Is that a serious question?
Q: Yes.
INDYK: We wouldn't be engaged in this if we didn't think it was a
genuine organization.
Q: Because we don't know anything about this. Only when the statement
came out.
INDYK: We have a great deal of information and many of the Arab
governments also have a great deal of information about the activities
of this network. Obviously, the Egyptian government has a lot of
knowledge about Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Gama'at (al-Islamiyya), and
so on.
Q: Oh, yes.
INDYK: These are all people who are associated with Usama bin Ladin.
Q: Is it believed that bin Ladin was in one of the camps when the
meeting was taking place at the time of the attack? Do you know
anything about his fate?
INDYK: We don't know whether he was in the camp. And we don't have
anything definitive about his fate. We heard claims from the Taliban
that he is alive, but that's all that we have heard about that.
Q: Today's New York Times attributed to a U.S. official that Ayman
Zawahery of Egyptian Islamic Jihad was there and he was killed. Do you
have any information?
INDYK: I don't have confirmation. As I said we had the expectation
that he amongst others would be there, but we don't have confirmation.
Q: What do you expect now? What is the next step?
INDYK: We fully expect that this will be an ongoing effort to counter
the terrorists. We started fighting them yesterday, and we certainly
are not going to end our fight against them today. As the Secretary of
State has said we expect it going into the 21st century, that this is
going to be one of the biggest threats to our civilization. And as far
as whether we're going to keep on conducting attacks, that will depend
on the circumstances. In some cases, as in the case of Libya, we seek
to bring terrorist perpetrators to justice through United Nations
resolutions in an effort to get Qadaffi to give up two terrorist
suspects for trial in an American or Scottish court.
In other cases, as I say, we are working to bring terrorists to
justice at some recent renditions (as heard). But where we face a
situation like this, where there is imminent danger and our efforts to
deal with the situation through diplomatic means has borne no fruit,
we will act again as we have acted yesterday.
Q: Are you sending a delegation to the area, or to Islamic countries
or to other contacts?
INDYK: No. We have briefed all of our friends in the Arab world.
Q: Did you bring them into here (the State Department)?
INDYK: Yes, I briefed them (Middle East Ambassadors) yesterday. As I
say we have a number of high-level....(inaudible) in the Arab world.
Q: We understand that you want to share this ...(inaudible) But did
you share any of this evidence in your high-level consultations with
these countries?
INDYK: I believe that we will be (inaudible) some evidence. In our
high-level discussions we didn't need to show them the evidence. In
many cases, with not just leaders in the Middle East but elsewhere,
they are very much aware of the evidence. Some of our allies and
friends helped to provide the evidence themselves of association with
Usama bin Ladin ...(inaudible). And we're not talking about one or two
implications. We're talking about a lot of cumulative evidence. But I
think in the meantime, people should just look at the public record.
They declared their intent to attack Americans. They made that very
clear that they were going to do it. They issued clear threats and
then they did it. And you can see from the press reports of
...(inaudible) that the evidence is already coming out in press
reports of their involvement.
So, it's not as if this is all being handled in secret or in the
intelligence channels. There's plenty of information in the Arabic
press about their involvement in terrorism in general and their direct
responsibility for the embassy bombings.
Q: I want to get this right. You said some allies provided evidence to
you. Is that right?
INDYK: That's right.
Q: From the Middle East?
INDYK: I said from all over.
Q: You mentioned Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Is this going to be
like a justification for any coming operations without consultations
or without taking care of the... (inaudible)...
Afghanistan...(inaudible) Sudan...? Is it going to apply to the region
in general?
INDYK: I think it really depends on the circumstances. As I said
before, there are times when we exhaust all remedies that we can. As a
general principle we would seek to exhaust other remedies before we
resort to force. But in circumstances where we have clear evidence,
not just previous attacks, but the imminence of additional
attacks...(inaudible) our right to self-defense.
Q: What role do you see the Arab countries playing in this and
fighting terrorism? Have any expressed concern (inaudible)....?
INDYK: The answer to that question is no. But it's also -- and I don't
accept your characterization that it's a qualitative change. We
have....
Q: (inaudible comment)
INDYK: That may be. But I think that in cases where governments are in
control of territory and they are harboring terrorists, and we have
information, we go to those governments. We put them on the terrorism
list that they are actually supporting those terrorist organizations.
And, in the case of governments that don't necessarily have control
over their territory, we work with them to the extent that they would
work with us to deal with these problems. As I said before, in the
case of the Taliban we went to the Taliban. We went to governments
that have influence over the Taliban. And we tried to get them to take
action. But they refused.
Q: But what role would you like Arab governments to play now in the
wake of the embassy bombings and (inaudible) ?
INDYK: As I said before, I think we have a common interest with
governments in the Middle East to root out this terrorist scourge.
Because we're not the only targets. Arabs and Muslims are targets of
this terrorism, too. Look what's happening in Algeria. Look what's
happened in Egypt. I think that there has been a very strong
commitment shown by many governments in the Middle East to this war on
terror. And in recent years we've worked very closely with many
governments in the region to deal with this problem, which is a threat
to them as much as it is a threat to us. All we would expect from them
now is to continue that campaign. And I have every reason to believe
that they will because it is a threat to them.
Q: (inaudible)
INDYK: I characterized their response as supportive and
understanding... (inaudible). You were asking me why we have not seen
it in public, a public reaction. And I said we should wait and see.
Q: And how would you characterize the public reaction?
INDYK: Muted.
Q: You said public reaction, but most of these countries' press is
more or less a mouthpiece for the government. I think you are
following all this.
INDYK: Some of the rat-bag press is being predictably rat-baggy. We
have that element in our country, and you have it your countries, too.
I'm excluding all of your papers of course! (laughter)
Q: But Ambassador I'm not talking about Babel and all these things.
(laughter)
INDYK: A good name for a newspaper.
Q: I'm talking about the others, the rest of the newspapers, UAE, Gulf
countries. I mean, we are following it and there is a kind of summary
of what is said there and I don't think they are out of control from
their governments.
INDYK: I don't know. I can't answer that question. Maybe you can
answer it better than I can. But I think that there is a tendency
amongst pundits in the Middle East to immediately criticize the United
States and jump to the defense of Arab countries. And I think in this
case it's very important that they should understand that we have the
right of self-defense here. Every nation has the right of self-defense
and we acted in self-defense. Our people were killed. And more people
were going to be killed. We know who was responsible. We acted in a
pinpoint way at the source of the threat. We acted to minimize
civilian casualties. As far as I can see, there have been very limited
civilian casualties. It's not clear that, unless you have other
information, we don't have information, but it's not clear that
anybody died in Sudan. And that's because of the way that we have
taken this target. We did it at night, it was in a sealed off
industrial area, and it was very accurately done -- so it was only the
factory that was hit.
The terrorist training bases are in deserted areas of Afghanistan. And
people in the Middle East should surely understand the point that
these people have been killing your people. Not just Americans.
They're killing Arabs, too. How many Muslims were killed among the 250
people that (died) in Kenya? How many were Muslims? I don't know, but
I'm sure a fair number. Did they deserve to die?
So, I think that the pundits should take into account the full
circumstances, and not just have a knee-jerk reaction to Uncle Sam
using force. We don't use it very often. We use it very discriminately
and that's what we did in this case to defend our interests.
Q: Ambassador, President (Boris) Yeltsin was very angry that he was
not consulted about this in advance, while the Prime Minister of
Britain, (Tony) Blair, was consulted. Also the U.N. Secretary General
expressed some concerns and he asked for more information about this.
So, why wasn't there an orchestrated international effort to support
this?
INDYK: This is purely an operational issue of how it's possible to
maintain the element of surprise so as to have an effective strike. If
we consulted with everybody and wanted an international effort, there
wouldn't be any terrorists in the training camps. So I think that
while as a matter of principle we always seek to consult with our
friends and allies, in this particular case it wasn't possible to do
that. There were a lot of people that might feel they should have been
consulted, but I hope that they would understand that simply wasn't
possible in this case.
The fact that we achieved surprise was a function of the fact that
very, very few people knew that this was going to happen -- in
Washington as well as elsewhere.
Q: Is there anything in your mind between the fact that the peace
process is dead now for a long time and the situation
(inaudible...laughter)... does it make conditions more conducive, more
(inaudible) Is there any linkage?
INDYK: Usama bin Ladin has been waging war against the United States.
He wants the United States out of the Middle East -- that's his
premise. No doubt he doesn't like Israel, either. His focus is on us,
because he feels that we represent a challenge to his objective, which
is...(inaudible) to overthrow all the Arab governments as well, and to
establish a government that will follow the rule of (inaudible).
So I don't see that lack of progress in the peace process is directly
related to that. Having said that, as you know we have been working
very hard, and in recent months very quietly, to try to get an
agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, which would move the
process forward toward the Final Status talks, and serve as a spring
board to the resumption of the negotiations on the other tracks -- the
Syrian and Lebanese tracks.
We are now close to an agreement. The differences between the parties
are minor and I think can be resolved. I hope that that will be done
quickly. But there's no lack of commitment on our part to try to
achieve that agreement. As far as we are concerned we will wage the
battle for peace with the very same resolve as we will wage the war
against terrorism.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, are you ready to go back to the Taliban with this
convincing evidence you have in order to finish up this problem with
uh...
INDYK: To get them to act?
Q: Yes. Because they said if you get convincing evidence they can
negotiate with the United States about bin Ladin.
INDYK: Yes, and then they said they would never give him up. We'll
have to see. I don't know. Thank you.
(End transcript)