Patterns of Global Terrorism

2:15 p.m. (EDT)

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. DENIG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Foreign Press Center in Washington. A special welcome to journalists in our Foreign Press Center in New York City, as well. As you know, today the Department of State has issued its annual report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, for 2002. This morning the Secretary unveiled that at the State Department along with Ambassador Cofer Black, the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Department of State.

We're delighted this afternoon to have with us Ambassador Black to brief us on this unveiling of the report. He'll have an opening statement to make and after that, we'll be delighted to take your questions.

Ambassador Black.

MR. BLACK: Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be with you here today. I would like to make particular mention of the presence here today of six Hungarian counterterrorism experts. Welcome, and we thank you for your good works.

There were 199 international terrorist attacks during 2002. That represents a significant drop from the previous year -- 44 percent fewer attacks. In fact, it is the lowest level of terrorism in more than 30 years. The last time the annual total fell below 200 attacks was in 1969, shortly after the advent of modern terrorism. That is a remarkable achievement.
There are several reasons for the decrease.

First, there was a sharp drop in the number of oil pipeline bombings in Colombia. There were 41 such attacks last year, down from 178 the year before. Second, there were increased security measures in place in virtually every nation. They are most noticeable at airports and at border crossings. Third, a large number of terrorist suspects were not able to launch an attack last year because they are in prison. More than 3,000 of them are al-Qaida terrorists and they were arrested in over 100 countries.

Lastly, I would credit the overall post-9/11 worldwide security environment. Nations are on the guard against terrorism. They are sharing intelligence and law enforcement information. They are arresting suspects. They are thwarting attacks. Governments and financial institutions are drying up terrorist sources of revenue. Regional security organizations are steadily improving their counterterrorism capabilities.

Coalition military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has chased terrorists out of those countries and removed the safe haven that terrorists once enjoyed and upon which they had relied. Nations worldwide are fighting terrorism energetically, and they should take some measure of pride in the historically low number of attacks recorded last year.

That is not to say that we have turned the corner. Horrific attacks did occur in 2002, such as the bombings in Bali and Mombassa, and the hostage taking in Moscow. Additional attacks are likely. We cannot lower our guard. Indeed, the worldwide counterterrorism coalition must maintain the political will to keep up the fight. The United States remains ready to assist nations to improve their capacity to fight terrorism on various fronts. The State Department and many other departments and agencies of the U.S. Government are deeply committed to helping those willing to fight terrorism, to strengthen their capacity to do so.

During the past year, we have enhanced old programs and developed new ones aimed at helping interested countries develop or update needed counterterrorism legislation. We have helped countries strengthen information-sharing procedures and tighten border security and immigration controls. We have assessed countries’ antiterrorism finance requirements and helped them develop tools to ensure greater financial transparency and accountability in the modern banking sector, and greater regulation of nontraditional remittance systems, such as halawas. We have encouraged other countries to develop sound inter-ministerial crisis management and consequence management plans and practices.

The year 2002 underscored the importance of international commitment and cooperation. As we move forward and international activity becomes better organized, coordination, especially among the donor states, will be our next challenge.

The threat of international terrorism knows no boundaries. This fight must be global. We have made real progress, but we cannot rest until terrorism is defeated.

Thanks very much. If you have some questions, I would be happy to try and field them.

QUESTION: Ivanov Lebedev for the Russian News Agency, TASS. There are two lists in the report of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The first one is the list of the Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The second one is, maybe I should call it just the list of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations. They are in the Appendix B and C. Could you tell us, what is the difference? There are 36 names in the first one and 38, if I am not mistaken, in the second one. Could you tell us what's the difference between these two groups of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations, in particular, from the practical point of view, and there are three Chechen groups in the second list that were designated by the President for asset freeze on February 28, if I'm not mistaken.

And my second question is, do you have under consideration any other Chechen groups or organizations that could be included in future in this list because, as far as I know, Russian authorities provided you some information not only on these three groups, but on some other Chechen groups. Thank you.

MR. BLACK: Okay. Thank you. That's -- you're asking quite a bit. It's going to take me quite a while to answer all those questions. I will try and keep it reasonably brief; otherwise we'll be here all afternoon.

The designation of terrorist organizations is a powerful tool for seizing funds, blocking material support and stigmatizing terrorists and their supporters. We take an active and thorough approach to utilizing all the legal means available to combat terrorism. We use two main designations, sir. The first is Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationalization Accept for designating Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The second, primarily, is the Executive Order 13224 on Terrorist Financing, signed by President Bush on September 4, 2001. Both have provisions for very serious criminal penalties for anyone who provides material support for a designated person or entity.

Let's talk a little bit about the Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This year there are a total of 36 and we added five: the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, 'Asbat al-Ansar, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army, and the Jemaah Islamiya organization. So there's 36 of these and there are five new ones added.

Under the Executive Order 13224, the U.S. Government has designated 250 entities and individuals so far. Both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury can designate under this authority, depending on the nature of the designee's activities. Essentially, I would say that the State Department will do a designation of the terrorist groups, and Treasury, essentially they designate the supporters.

To date, also, we have 48 organizations on the Terrorist Exclusion List. This has been created by the USA Patriot Act, which makes their members inadmissible to the United States. So under the Terrorist Exclusion Accept we have organizations anyone associated with or supporting is excluded from coming into the United States.

We have the Foreign Terrorist Organizations, which requires a very significant investigation [and] collation of information. It takes a lot of work to put entities on, and it takes a lot of justification to remove them.

Specifically talking about the three Chechen groups, the three involved are the -- and if I mispronounce the Russian, I hope you'll bear with me here, but I shall try -- the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment. The second is the Sabotage and Military Surveillance Group of the Riyadud-Salikhin Martyrs, and the third is the Islamic International Brigade, and since has been designated as terrorist groups, again, under the Executive Order 13224.

The information that the Americans were able to collect from various sources was analyzed. There is a classified holding to this as well as an unclassified holding. It needs to be complete and correct. It is very exacting.

In the case of the three Chechen groups, it took us six months of investigation and compilation to assure ourselves that we clearly had three groups that were appropriate for the designation under the Executive Order. The issue here also for us, let me make it very clear, is that we don't consider all Chechens to be terrorists. We're in the counterterrorism business, and it is also, I would add, the belief of the United States that there is no military solution to the current situation to fighting in Chechnya. It is the policy of the United States Government to underscore and to encourage that it is negotiation between Russia and the Chechens that is most likely to produce an equitable and a lasting peace.

QUESTION: It's Riccardi, Italian News Wire ANSA. I've seen that you put the New Red Brigade in your list of 36 FTO, if I am correct. I have two questions. First, do you feel that Italy could live again the same situation we knew in the 70s and, or in the 80s with a lot of terrorism? And the second question, do you know if the New Red Brigade have links with Islamic groups active in Italy? Thank you.

MR. BLACK: I'm just trying to check to make sure that the Red Brigade is one of our designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. I will just check for a bit -- let me, let me run down here. Are you sure that it is?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BLACK: Okay, well, I don't see it on the list. It is not. It is not. Well the answer to your first question is, it's not on the list. The answer to the second question is that the Italian Government and its security organs, I think, do a terrific job in counterterrorism. They have made tremendous strides, certainly recently. They are a reliable partner and a highly valued partner in the war on terrorism. They have made significant contributions to Operation Enduring Freedom. Italy has also frozen assets of individuals and organizations supporting terrorism, including funds controlled by al-Qaida financiers.

Italy has taken the lead on judicial reform in Afghanistan to build the capacity there, so I would just underscore that Italy's role in the global war on terrorism is extremely important. They are very effective and they make great partners.

MR. DENIG: Okay, here in the middle. Sir.

QUESTION: Parasuram from the Press Trust of India. There are some questions I want to ask you with the report. One is can you assure, can you show countries like India that the fight against terrorism is seamless? In other words, there's no distinction made between terrorism against U.S. and terrorism against countries like India? Secondly, you just mentioned the need to negotiate and find political solutions. Doesn't it amount to something to be the man with gun? How do you negotiate with a guy with an AK-47 who wants to annex your state? He just want to split the state, partition the state and create a new state. How do you negotiate with such people? I'm quite sure the United States did not negotiate even with Iraq, which is a state when there is terrorism you go and get them. And then, there's another problem that has surfaced, which is that when you, a national government, brands a certain organization as terrorist, they will only change the name, withdraw the money from the bank and get a little bit business. Now what happens when they change the name? Does it go off the list or it remains? Because some method by which you, you see what happens in those cases?

MR. BLACK: Okay, let me -- there may be more questions in there than I remember. Let me take the last one, first. We devote considerable time and attention to keep up with all of these various terrorist groups, whether they are classified as a Foreign Terrorist Organization or whether they are under the Executive Order. Terrorist groups do change their name with some frequency and we stay with it and we update our holdings and recommendations as soon as we identify that names have been changed. You've identified something very important, sir. We spend a lot of time keeping track of what they are calling themselves today. Many of these organizations, if you look at The Patterns of Global Terrorism, if you look at the book, you will see numerous terrorist organizations that will have behind them "aka," which in English stands for "also known as." And there are a lot of different names. So yes, sir, we do keep track of that for purposes of counterterrorism.

I do counterterrorism. I don't pontificate upon my views of political interaction. I will say that it's important to appreciate that India continues to be victimized by terror and maintains a strong commitment to the global war on terrorism and to bilateral counterterrorism cooperation.

The United States and India have a joint working group. It is the oldest counterterrorism joint working group that the United States enjoys and it predates 9/11. It is a platform through which we see a wide array of counterterrorism cooperation. Additionally, last year we launched with the Indians a forum for cyber-security. Fighting terrorism doesn't always mean using military means. If you look around the world, the U.S. fights terrorism in various ways, whether it's military or law enforcement or intelligence; there are other approaches to problems than military action, [which] should certainly be the last.

We have always expressed strong concerns about the potential for conflict between India and Pakistan. We believe that the encouragement of dialogue is most important and that conflicts are resolved through productive interaction -- communications and negotiation -- and that is the position of the United States and something that we encourage at every opportunity at the highest levels of the United States Government when we deal with representatives of both Pakistan and India.

QUESTION: Reha Atasagan from Turkish Public Television TRT. In the report it says for PKK, now named KADEK, that they have 4-5,000 people, their people, trained fighters in northern Iraq. Now that the U.S. military is responsible for northern Iraq, what is the policy there for the PKK group?

MR. BLACK: Well, currently, again, we go back to our lists, the Foreign Terrorist Organizations and the Executive Orders. Currently it is under administration of United States military. If you're looking for a definitive position in terms of the handling of groups inside of Iraq, I would refer you to Central Command, and they would be able to elaborate on that.

QUESTION: Yeah, Bashir from Sudan. April has been a very good month for Sudan. On the 16th it was removed or upgraded in Human Rights Commission in the United Nations and on the 22nd President Bush recommended the Congress that Sudan and SPLM are negotiating in good faith. And today I read on page 81 the best account that I have read in your reports about Sudan. Does this mean that Sudan's name is going to be removed from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism, international terrorism? Thank you.

MR. BLACK: Yes, sir. For this publication for the year 2002 and currently, Sudan remains on the State Sponsor list. That having been said, I think it's very important to underscore that the United States is pleased with their counterterrorism cooperation with the Government of Sudan. The Sudanese have granted the Americans access to terrorists and associates. They have offered access to financial institutions and records. They have ratified all relevant international counterterrorism conventions -- currently there are 12 -- Sudan has ratified all 12.

Sudan has also publicly foresworn support for terrorism. We leave the revelation and discussion of sensitive aspects of their contribution to the global war on terrorism to Khartoum. It's their preserve to raise and address those things. We do remain concerned about some issues that we need to work with our Sudanese partners to work through. There are offices of the Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Sudan. Someone suggested these are political offices. We take exception with that. They are offices of terrorist organizations, and we encourage the Government of Sudan to continue cooperation and to move forward together. So the sense I would like to leave you with, sir, is from where we were on the issue of terrorism to where we are now represents significant progress. I am greatly encouraged, and we look forward to working with our Sudanese partners in the coming year to change their status.

QUESTION: Would you say, because, you know, when I read Sudanese press in the Internet, the question is, "What does the United States specifically want so we'll do it and our names will be removed." And I understand from what you are saying, these organizations, as long as they have their offices in Khartoum, that will be a problem. Otherwise it seems like everything's okay. Would I be right?

MR. BLACK: Yeah. I would say everything's heading in the right direction. Tremendous progress has been made, certainly from the mid 90s, early-90s, mid-90s, when it was not a good story. What I'm saying now is tremendous progress has been made. We're heading in the right direction. As a result of our interaction with the representatives of the Sudanese Government, we will work out exactly what needs to be done bilaterally, and I'm just noting, because you asked for an example, we do note the presence of the Hamas office as well as Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Our recommendation would be that those be closed. Between those and other factors, we would consider the potential for change in the relationship, but that's between us and the Government of Sudan.

QUESTION: Yes, Patrick Gardner from Tokyo Shimbun. Much attention has been given to al-Qaida in U.S. media, almost to the exclusion of other terrorist groups in the world. And my question is are there other terrorist organizations or groups other than al-Qaida, which present an equal or greater threat to the United States and the international community?

MR. BLACK: Okay. We're concerned about all terrorist groups and we consider the scourge of terrorism to be an international issue. That's why the President of the United States has called it a global war on terrorism. The United States is as concerned about the Japanese Red Army as they are the al-Qaida organization. The American practitioners of counterterrorism have spent tremendous effort and time in the identification of Japanese Red Army personnel and working with their Japanese counterparts to protect innocent lives. And I would like to note -- you haven't asked the question, but it would be good for you to relay to your readership in Japan -- that America's security ties with Japan have never been stronger. They are a truly valuable partner in the global war on terrorism. They also have exhibited great willingness and eagerness to help in the building of capacity among some of their neighbors so that for those that need help, the Japanese have been there. They've also played a key role in Operation Enduring Freedom, and we have established a joint counterterrorism working group with the Japanese. We meet regularly and we're very pleased with that relationship.

QUESTION: Yes, my name is Jyri Raivio. I work for Newspaper Helsingin in Sanomat, in Finland. Lucky I don't have a question about Finland.

MR. BLACK: I'm very grateful, thank you.

QUESTION: I have a question about two other countries that are on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and they are Cuba and Libya. How active is Cuba, actually, as a state sponsor of terrorists? I mean how many of these 199 acts was Cuba involved? And in Libya they have, actually, I think today, announced a solution to the Lockerbie -- some kind of offer, anyhow. Is that the stumbling block for them to get rid of the list or are they active on other fronts as well?

MR. BLACK: Sure. The answer to your question can be summed up for both countries with the statement: the United States has a long memory. We don't forget.

Cuba remains on the State Sponsored list because it simply belongs there. It has never renounced terrorism as a legitimate means of expression. Cuba has actively tried to subvert the post-September 11th investigation -- this is worth writing down -- by sending agents to U.S. missions to provide false leads. You really have got to wonder, you know?

Cuba offers safe haven to members of the Colombian terrorist groups, the FARC and the ELN, and members of the Basque terrorist group, ETA, reside in Havana as privileged guests. IRA terrorist Nial Connolly lived in Cuba for five years before he was arrested in Colombia for providing explosives training to the FARC.

Numerous American fugitives wanted by the U.S. are living as guests of the Castro regime. I hope that answers your question. I've been practicing counterterrorism, and there is a standard of interaction that's practiced even at the security level, and at the height of the Cold War, things like that never happened -- basically, actively taking intelligence agents and feeding them in to mislead an investigation where thousands of people have lost their lives. What are they thinking? I leave that to you.

In terms of Libya, I would just like to point out that it is my understanding that the press has been reporting about the Libyans' use of the term, or the phrase, "civil responsibility." Libyan officials have made a variety of statements over the years to the press. Frankly, we're not sure what any individual statement might be intended to say. What is important is whether Libya meets the United Nations' requirement, not what their officials might say to the press. U.S. policy has not change vis-à-vis Libya. There can be no change in U.S.-Libyan bilateral relations until Libya complies fully with its UN Security Council resolution obligations on Pan American 103. As we've said many times, Libya's obligations relate to acceptance of responsibility, payment of compensation, renunciation of terrorism and disclosure of information.

We've told Libya that we will not seriously discuss bilateral relations until it has complied with its obligations under the U.S. [sic –UN] Security Council resolutions. There are no shortcuts for any state sponsor, and there are certainly no short cuts for Libya.

QUESTION: Emak Mekay with Inter Press Service and also with the (inaudible) in London. Sir, you talked about the -- how you verify your information, and I notice that many of the groups listed on the terrorism list come from the Middle East and particularly those who have targeted Israel. I would like to know on your -- on the sources of information, how much of the information you have on these groups come from the Israeli side or the Israeli intelligence.

Also, we have some international officials on the record saying that intelligence supplied by the U.S. to the Security Council on Iraq was not accurate and at times, quite faulty. What does that say about the credibility of this report in light of also some, some similar misinformation coming from Iraq on whether the U.S. troops have found chemical weapons or not, whether Iraq uses SCUD missiles …

MR. BLACK: I think you'd better stop. I'm having a hard time remembering all of your questions. Look, why don't we get down to some realistic basis here? [Regarding] the presentation of intelligence material by Secretary Powell in front of the United Nations, the Secretary of State has repeated himself, he spent four days and four nights with the American intelligence community to make sure they got it "just right." So anyone who tells you that this information is incorrect or incomplete is wrong. We stand by the presentation of the Secretary of State. It is well founded.

The other point I would say to you is that in terms of the sources of information for these terrorist groups, the President of the United States, George Bush, has said to the American people, "In this global war on terrorism there are some things that you will see, there are some things that you will not see." And the United States enjoys excellent relations with the law enforcement agencies and international services and police forces of so many, many countries; the exceptions are just basically a very, very small number.

We have very good relationships with virtually every country in the world, minus some that we have been speaking about here, and the commonality of interest in counterterrorism is an issue to which all men and women of good will can respond to and cooperate. So it is seriously misguided and misleading to think that America's view is somehow dependent on the Israelis'. We have relationships with most countries of the world. We have excellent relationships. We exchange information, and our determinations are the result of having an international view, compiling everything that we're able to collect, putting it together, scrutinizing it and coming up with the best judgment at the time that we can.

QUESTION: I'm Khalilur Rahman from the Associated Press of Pakistan. And I would like to know exactly as to how you will view Pakistan's contribution to the fight against terror?

MR. BLACK: It's very interesting because I received a press report today that had no firm confirmation, but it suggests -- and I do not know if this is true because I've not received it officially -- I hope it's true -- but that the government in Islamabad is reporting the arrest of six al-Qaida individuals, and we certainly hope that to be the case.

Pakistan has been a vital partner in the global coalition against terrorism. President Musharaff has demonstrated leadership and courage in meeting this challenge and has made an essential contribution to the world's efforts to counter the terrorism threat. The Government of Pakistan has arrested and transferred hundreds of suspected al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists to U.S. custody, including such leaders as 9/11 architect Ramzi Binalshibh and al-Qaida operational commander Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In 2002 we, the United States, established a joint working group on counterterrorism and law enforcement cooperation with Pakistan. On April 12th of this year, we had our latest meeting of the joint working group. We continue to work with Pakistan on eliminating tensions along the line of control that could lead to a wider conflict.

Pakistan has also been a victim of terrorism. It's no stranger to it. It plays a key role. It has also been involved in Operation Enduring Freedom and is very important to everyone's global efforts.

QUESTION: Satoko Kogare, JIJI Press, Japanese Foreign Service. Could you tell us your idea about dealing with North Korea nuclear power? And secondly, could you mention any connection between North Korea and any terrorist organizations?

MR. BLACK: Okay, so essentially you're interested in North Korea specifically. North Korea was placed on the State Sponsors list following the 1987 bombing of a Korean Air Boeing 707 in light of the 1983 bombing in Rangoon. A clear element of the North Korean support for terrorism remains Pyongyang's provision of safe haven to the Japanese Red Army hijackers of a JAL airliner to North Korea in 1970.

North Korea has admitted to abducting Japanese citizens as part of operations to infiltrate and gather intelligence. A full and complete accounting is still pending.

The Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Rich Armitage, has described these abductions as terrorist-like acts. Certainly, the situation with these abductees is of great importance to us. We are heartbroken at the effect this has on people. The abductees that have returned have been unable to return with their families, and the United States in every contact has tried to communicate our displeasure with this and our support of the Japanese.

Essentially, in terms of North Korean support for terrorism, again it comes down to the United States having a long memory. It is also important to appreciate that North Korea is aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. They have publicly suggested that they would be willing to proliferate these weapons.

We have a report from the year 2000, also citing public statements from Philippine officials, that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front of the Philippines had purchased weapons from North Korea with funds provided by Middle East sources. So I would leave it at that.

QUESTION: I have a question not so much on the report, but recent events. There were experts who said that after the war in Iraq there's going to be a huge increase in terrorism, that there would be millions of Usama bin Ladens. Have you noticed anything like that, increased activity, in your field?

MR. BLACK: Well, I don't know who this expert is. There are, you know, varying opinions in counterterrorism, as there is in Finnish cuisine. I mean, I don't know. Everyone --

QUESTION: There’s only one opinion on Finnish cuisine.

MR. BLACK: There's only one opinion. Well, there you go. And I share that opinion, sir.

Yeah, I think that basically from the optic of Washington, the global war on terrorism had to include Iraq because of the threat that it represented. We were very concerned about weapons of mass destruction, the threat of their proliferation, and the worst concerns have not materialized. The United States, with the support of its partners around the world, at least to this date, have been able to cauterize and to protect us all against the activities of the Iraqi Intelligence Service overseas and their surrogates. Gratefully, and I personally find great pleasure in this, those in the region are beginning to see Saddam Hussein for what he is, and there has not been the development of the responsive terrorist threat that some people expected.

QUESTION: Bashir from Sudan. I note twice you said that the United States has a long memory.

MR. BLACK: Yes, it does.

QUESTION: You don't forget. Do you forget?

MR. BLACK: Unfortunately, my wife says sometimes I do -- but not in counterterrorism. No, sir, I don't forget.

MR. DENIG: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

MR. BLACK: You bet. Thank you.