The 2001 Patterns of Global Terrorism Report

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045, USA.   For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202) 824-0520.

       MR. TAYLOR: Thank you very much. It's my honor to be here today to have an opportunity to discuss our 2001 report, Patterns of Global Terrorism.

       This year's report is quite unique, as the year 2001 was unique in terms of world terrorism. The events of 9-11 were so horrific, so evil, that no one could imagine such an activity could occur involving the planning by human beings against other human beings.

       In response to that, our president announced a global coalition against terrorism, and called on the world to join. And we are quite pleased to chronicle in this report the efforts of the world community as we responded from and to terrorism -- the terrorism that we saw on 9-11 in this coalition -- and use the diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, intelligence and economic power of our nations collectively to take on the threat of terrorist groups with global reach to defeat them.

       The report makes it very clear also that this is a long fight, that the complicated nature of terrorism in the world is such that it is not something that is going to be finished very quickly, and not something only that is going to be finished using military means. Indeed, it will use all of the elements of national power to defeat effectively, if we are to remove this as a political tool for the future.

       With that brief introduction, I am prepared to take your questions.

       Q This is Uhmet Enginson (ph) with Turkey's NTV Television. Like in previous years, the Turkish Kurdish PKK terrorist group is included in this year's report, the traditional way. The thing is that group recently changed its name to KADEK. Apparently in my understanding I assume that the report covered last year's developments so this was not reported in this specific report.

       Now, my questions are: Am I right in my assumption that this is the reason that it is not in the report? And, secondly, if so, do you see KADEK, which is the PKK's continuation in their own words -- do you see them as a terrorist group, or can such groups evade U.S. sanctions by simply changing their names?

       MR. TAYLOR: Shall I first say -- (inaudible) -- and certainly as you point out PKK has been a terrorist group on our list for some years, and simply changing a name does not change one's colors or one's creed. And we are working, waiting to see if indeed the commitment made under the banner of the new group is real or not real. We don't know yet is the basic answer. So we will continue to carry the PKK, as well as successor groups, as terrorist organizations until they indeed refute the use of terror and demonstrate that they will not use that at any time in the future. We have not seen that yet in the successor organization.

       Q Parasuram of the Press Trust of India. Let me ask you, sir, for some clarification of the last sentence on page 12. My question is whether the -- you state here that the question is about Musharraf's get-tough policy with local militants, and you state plans to oppose terrorism anywhere would be fully implemented and sustained. I take it the word "anywhere" refers to -- that includes Kashmir and also is -- (inaudible) -- lack of ability of Musharraf or lack of willingness to stop the terrorism in Kashmir that it is continuing?

       MR. TAYLOR: You really challenged me to ask me a specific question about a specific line or a specific page, but I'll try to answer that. Certainly we believe that the January 12th speech by President Musharraf and his commitment to move Pakistan away from extremist violence and associate with extremism within his country was a watershed. We believe he is committed to that. But like anything in this campaign, you can announce -- but then it takes the hard work to make it happen. And certainly that doesn't happen overnight. But we do believe that President Musharraf is a man of his word and is committed as a leader of Pakistan to challenge extremism and to remove it as a way -- as an activity within Pakistan.

       The notion of where does terrorism -- where do we mean no terrorism? That means everywhere. That means everywhere. Terrorism that indiscriminately kills innocent civilians in the name of freedom fighters, or whatever you want to call it, is unacceptable -- anywhere in the world, be it New York, be it Kashmir, be it Tel Aviv, Jerusalem. That's not acceptable. And the world -- this campaign is about the world coming together to build the capacity and the political will to stop that. We believe that the political will exists in Pakistan.

       Q May I ask you about another part of the country, of South Asia? This year I read for the first time there's a reference to a terrorist organization in Bangladesh. Is it the first time it's happened, or was it there before? That is to say UDB (ph).

       MR. TAYLOR: I don't know. Since I've only been in this job nine months, I don't know what has happened before. What we have tried to do in this report is to be as honest as we can be in identifying those groups that we believe are involved in terrorism. And the group from Bangladesh is one of those groups, and that's why it's included.

       Q Elbashir from Sudan. The two paragraphs about Sudan on page 68 are confusing. I read them carefully. While the first acknowledges the Sudan government cooperation with the American government; the second denies the government recognition as a state that is cooperating. And we find this very hard because it -- whatever justification, definitely this report strengthens the hawkish anti-American group in the government and weakens the liberal group. I don't know why you're doing that, but maybe --

       MR. TAYLOR: Well, we have no intention to create a fissure within your government. As I mentioned earlier, we are trying to be truthful in our assessment. And indeed Sudan, even before 9-11, began excellent cooperation with our country on counterterrorism. We don't think it's complete yet. And in order to be removed from the list of state sponsors, our government has to assess that that commitment is long term and will remain so over time. We are not there yet. But that doesn't in any way diminish the accolades that we give to your country for its work with us and with its partners in the region against terrorism. I for one am convinced we are going to get there.

       But we are not there yet. And that's why Sudan remains on the list, and that's why we've made indications within the report of other improvements I think we need to move on in order to get moving where we want to go, and get to the end line that I know members of your government want to move to.

       Q Mary (?) Mackenzie (ph), Southern News. Two questions, if I may. There seems to be in the statement about Canada a fair amount of praise. And yet obviously there have been a lot of questions about Canada's involvement in terms of the border, people coming across the border -- what the U.S. has called Canada's lax immigration laws. And I just wondered why -- what else is behind this, rather sort of sweet talking statement.

       MR. TAYLOR: Oh, I don't think it's sweet talking at all. Canada is one of our strongest partners on counterterrorism. We have a very strong bilateral relationship with Canada on counterterrorism. Indeed, the work that Mr. Manley and Governor Ridge have been working on is testament to how strong that relationship is. Our border with Canada is the longest undefended border in the world, which again bespeaks of our partnership with Canada. Do we have challenges in light of 9-11? Absolutely. But we have worked very closely and very positively with the Canadian government in working on those issues, and I am convinced we are going to solve them. So I don't -- there's not just sweet talk in there -- that's reality, from my perspective.

       Q Secondly, if I may, do Palestinians have any right in the American government's opinion to fight for a homeland, as arguably the Israelis, the Jewish people did prior to 1948? I.e., where is the distinction between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, both looking back to what the Jewish people did in terms of fighting for a homeland, and now arguably --

       MR. TAYLOR: Well, this isn't 1948. This is 2002. And in 2002 people who strap C4 to their bodies and walk into markets and detonate and kill themselves and innocent people is terrorism. It is not freedom fighting. We are convinced that the only way we can resolve the situation in the Middle East is through dialogue, through negotiation. Violence undermines negotiation. Violence keeps the two parties away from any sort of meaningful discussion about an Israeli state and a Palestinian state living in peace together. So I don't think this is 1948, and the comparison is not a valid one given the circumstances that we find ourselves in in 2002, and what the world is willing to accept as acceptable behavior in pursuing a legitimate political goal, which is the right of the Palestinian people to have their own state, to live within secure borders, as is the right of the Israelis.

       Q Greg Rayome (ph), CBC News. A question about Canada. In the paragraph you mention in the report that Canada records one hit per week of known or suspected terrorists from the State Department's visa look-out list. I wonder if you can tell me sort of what that means and what the significance of that is.

       MR. TAYLOR: Well, it just means that, like Canada, we are concerned that people would exploit the great relationship we have with Canada to go into Canada and then to come to the United States, sort of diverting themselves through. In working with the Canadian authorities, we are hoping to shore that up so that doesn't happen. And I think the indication is with the one hit per month is that we are sharing information with Canada on individuals that the Canadians may not know about that we know about are involved in terrorism, and therefore they're able to interdict those individuals successfully.

       STAFF: (Off mike) -- consular or visa officers who are processing this. Every applicant is compared to a database. And if there is a derogatory data on a person, it's called a hit. It comes up -- that person's name and the date of birth matches the name and date of birth of someone about whom we know something negative, and if it's terrorism it has a certain numbered code, that then implies there is some terrorism information. So what it means is that those who are applying for visas in Canada, that the names come up in that manner. And then --

       Q (Off mike) -- Canada?

       STAFF: No, to get from Canada into America. And then we and the Canadians try to synthesize those databases completely, so that we share all that information -- so that anyone we have on our list about whom something negative is known, the Canadians have the list, and vice versa. And that's where the cooperation as you mentioned before is unprecedented, and it makes Canada an excellent partner.

       MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Tom.

       Q Hi -- (inaudible) -- from Radio Netherlands, Latin American branch. In your report you mention lists with countries that sponsor terrorists. What's the situation of Colombia in terms of terrorists?

       MR. TAYLOR: Certainly within the Western Hemisphere no country has a similar experience to what Colombia is going through with the narcoterrorists, the FARC, the ELN and the AUC. And our country is committed to working with the Colombian government to help stem that very, very significant threat of the FARC. Since President Pastrana has ended the "despeje" and begun operations, we have made it very clear that we want to expand our cooperation in helping improve the capacity of the Colombian military law enforcement forces to take on, and hopefully eventually defeat, the FARC, the ELN and the AUC, which we believe truly do threaten Colombian democracy, and if not taken care of can threaten other democracies in the region. So it's very, very important to us.

       Q Dimitri Durasan (ph) of Russian News Agency Tass. In this new report you tell that there is at least one -- there is on group operating in Chechnya, consisting of Chechens and foreign citizens, predominantly Arabs, which use terrorist tactics. I wonder if you acknowledge this why in this case this group is not in the list of designated terrorist organizations. And the second question, if I may: What is going to happen with the U.S.-American bilateral working group on Afghanistan? I remember Foreign Minister Ivanov saying a couple of days ago that it is going to be transformed into something new with broader responsibilities and broader power.

       MR. TAYLOR: With regard to why a group is or is not listed in patterns, certainly we go through a process that is internal to our own department that determines at what level of highlight that we will make of groups. I think it's important in this year's report that we recognize that there is an Afghanistan-al Qaeda connection to some of the terrorism that has been witnessed in Chechnya. That's not the total problem. Indeed, there are Chechens who have legitimate human rights and other concerns with the government of Russia, the Russian Federation, that need to be handled politically. But there is a counterterrorism aspect to that, and that's what we highlight in this report.

       With regard to the U.S.-Russia Afghan working group, certainly you are aware of the fact that that group just met. Both our foreign ministers, Secretary Powell and Foreign Minister Ivanov have made recommendations to our leaders about how that group should continue to operate. Our leaders will make a statement on that when they meet later this week. And given the fact that I am a very good soldier -- I never liked to upstage my leaders in what they are about to say. But I think there will be something announced in the summit on the future of our cooperation with the Russian Federation on terrorism.

       Q Hi, Pierre Stein (ph), Media 24, South Africa. There's a great deal of worry in this country about weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biowarfare. In March on testimony in the Hill mention was made of South African, Soviet Union, Yugoslavian scientists biowarfare experts that might be susceptible to recruitment. How credible is that threat? How worried are you about it? And what can be done to counter it?

       MR. TAYLOR: Well, we are very worried about chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear expertise falling into the wrong hands. And when I say wrong hands, I mean the hands of people who could calculate the kind of evil that we saw on 9-11 what an ultimate terrorist weapon as a weapon of mass destruction would be. And so we are working very diligently in the non-proliferation community and our discussions around the world with countries to, one, sensitize them to the threat; and, two, to work collectively in ensuring that people with that kind of expertise are not being used in nefarious ways to build capacities to use these kinds of weapons for terrorist groups.

       CBN, non-proliferation, is as much a challenge to us from a counterterrorism point of view as is improving our immigration system.

       It's the totality of how the nations of the world control these weapons, how we control the transit of people around the world that could be up to nefarious things. It's important to be successful overall in the campaign down the road.

       Q (Off mike) -- Zeitung. Please, ambassador, do you feel a growing resistance from banks against not only freezing assets but against tougher controls of suspect money?

       MR. TAYLOR: I don't feel greater resistance. I think we have been at terrorist financing for about eight months now, and we are getting better at it -- we in the United States, and the world is getting better at it. And sometimes it's not useful to publicly declare an organization -- sometimes you work in quiet, like law enforcement does, to work with banks, work with financial intelligence organizations of countries around the world to like a laser go after groups and organizations. So I don't sense a lot of push back by banks. Banks want information -- more information. We are providing that information as we designate. But the financial war on terrorism is really picking up steam. The report indicates that at the end of the year we had 63 million; I believe we are now in excess of 100 million around the world that has been located and frozen using terrorism financing. But, more importantly, the capacity of countries around the world to effectively use financial intelligence, money laundering and other sorts of tools and techniques is growing exponentially as we speak. And a major focus of where we are trying to work with our partners around the world is to improve that capacity in other places, so that banks get what they need to protect their customers; law enforcement and Treasury and financial officials have the tools that they need to ensure that legitimate transactions go without being scrutinized, but bad transactions do get located and do get interdicted.

       MODERATOR: Any more questions? A quiet bunch.

       MR. TAYLOR: You must have head the good news conference on the other side, and got all of your stuff there. (Laughter.) Well, again, it's my --

       Q (Off mike) -- I am from Indian Public Broadcasting -- (inaudible) -- is my name. Well, it's a follow-up of the question which my colleague had asked you. A section of public opinion in India is quite sensitive to the fact that despite the 12 January speech and commitment and the continued canonization and the beatification of General Musharraf to the level of sainthood -- you know, on the ground we don't see any difference. The infiltration from across the borders continue unabated. Just today one moderate leader who is an anti-Indian moderate leader, was in favor of the elections, Abdul Ghani Lone, has been gunned down just a few hours back. So that kind of infiltration of -- massive infiltration across the border continues. So on the ground we don't find this speech is compatible with the deeds.

       MR. TAYLOR: Certainly we have been in dialogue with both sides, both the Indian and the Pakistani side, in this very, very serious master involving terrorist activity that is ongoing in Jammu and Kashmir.

       We have -- we want to make sure that there's no miscalculation on either side and that both sides work to tamp down the tension so that miscalculation doesn't lead to a confrontation that I don't think either side wants to have.

       We've also made it very clear to President Musharraf that it's very important, in lessening the tension, that there be no infiltration across the line of control that had been a problem in the past. We've not gotten where we want to be.

       We're not as skeptical, I guess, is the right word to use, about President Musharraf's intentions. We believe he's a man of his word and that he is making efforts to improve the circumstance. We just haven't gotten the total results we're looking for, but we're nevertheless going to continue to work with both sides towards a dialogue that we believe to be the ultimate resolution of the situation between the two countries.

       MODERATOR: Last chance.

       Q Because you were so forthcoming, I couldn't resist the temptation. (Laughter.)

       MR. TAYLOR: (Laughs.) Not too forthcoming, I hope. Go ahead.

       Q You mention the need for dialogue, but -- (inaudible) -- has made it very clear that before dialogue, the Pakistanis have to hand over the 20 people on the wanted list and also stop the infiltration. I'm also very intrigued when the United States says periodically -- restraint on both sides when -- restraint on both sides -- when there is terrorism is only one side, in what way is the restraint to be on the other side.

       MR. TAYLOR: Again, not to be too forthcoming -- no, that's not quite true. It's important for both sides to engage in dialogue. Right now there's not a lot of that going on. And that's not helpful, in our view, in easing the tension between both sides in ratcheting that tension down.

       I take your point in terms of conversation. I think India and Pakistan need to talk about terrorists on either side of the border and how you can work jointly together to do that. But that can't happen if you're not talking. And that dialogue is not occurring right now. And that's what we seek to have happen in the future.

       Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time today and for the opportunity to speak to you and to have this news conference. And I commend Patterns to your reading pleasure. I think it's quite a publication. Thank you very much.

       MODERATOR: And thank you, Ambassador Taylor.

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.