4:00 P.M. EDT
Real Audio of Briefing 
MR. BALLARD: Good afternoon and welcome to the Foreign Press Center, and welcome to all who are watching on the American Embassy Television Network as well. This afternoon we have -- we are pleased to have with us Ambassador Cofer Black, who is the State Department's Coordinator of Counterterrorism and he will be discussing the release today of the annual publication, "Patterns of Global Terrorism."
This is a publication that the State Department is required to compile and distribute every year. It is required by Congress to do that, and he will make a short opening statement about that, and then will be happy to answer any of your questions on the report or our counterterrorism efforts. Thanks very much.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Good afternoon. I'll just make some brief remarks and then we'll move on to your questions.
Terrorist attacks took place throughout 2003 in every region in the world, but there is some good news as well. Last year, we saw unprecedented collaboration between the United States and foreign partners to defeat terrorism. We also saw the lowest number of international terrorist attacks since 1969. That's a 34-year low.
There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003. That's a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred the previous year, and a drop of 45 percent from the 2001 level of 346 attacks.
There were also fewer casualties caused by terrorists last year. A total of 307 persons were killed in last year's attack[s], far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.
There were 82 anti-U.S. attacks last year, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year.
I'd like to clarify one point for you. Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding U.S. definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, i.e. American and coalition forces on duty.
Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel, who, at the time of the incident, were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged as terrorist attacks. The very low level of terrorist attacks last year certainly does not mean that the problem is fading away; indeed, we are currently at war with terrorists, with major fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where terrorists are working with other elements to launch attacks against coalition targets.
Whether they target combatants or civilians, terrorists must know that we, and our partner nations around the world, will not relent in our global effort to defeat them. Moreover, numbers do not tell the whole story. Terrorists, last year, carried out attacks that were indiscriminate and intended to cause mass casualties. They went after soft targets such as: places of worship, commuter trains, hotels, police stations and crowded markets.
There is every indication that al-Qaida continues to plan mass casualty attacks against American and other targets worldwide. Although the group poses as the defender of a great faith, they've hijacked Islam as a cover for their violence. Numerous Muslims have died in al-Qaida attacks, and much of the Islamic world stands with the United States in fighting this great evil.
In 2003, we saw less state sponsorship of terrorism: Saddam Hussein no longer presides over a regime that served as a lifeline and sanctuary for the terrorists; Libya has renounced terrorism. Sudan has taken significant steps to be a cooperative partner in the global war on terrorism; and Afghanistan is no longer a breeding ground for terrorism as a result of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Despite this progress, state sponsorship remains an unprecedented advantage for terrorists that enables them to acquire the weapons, training and logistical support they need to commit terrorist atrocities and afterwards to enjoy safe haven and freedom from the prosecution of their crimes.
Iran and Syria are especially culpable in this regard. They should immediately cease their sponsorship of terrorist murderers. Along with our likeminded foreign partners, the United States continues to pursue the global campaign against terrorism on five fronts: diplomatic, military, economic, intelligence and law enforcement. On that score, it's important to recognize what the record clearly shows America's most effective counterterrorism strategy is building the will and skill of indigenous forces to fight terrorism on their own turf and in their own self-interest.
This report discusses what nations are doing in all these areas, and in some cases what more they should be doing. It is vital that nations sustain the political will to wage this war as effectively as possible for as long as is necessary. Many nations have greatly improved their capabilities fight terror and the United States will help wherever possible to build and further expand international counterterrorism capabilities.
With the international counterterrorism coalition's enhanced intelligence sharing and law enforcement cooperation, we're seeing more terrorist plots thwarted, more terrorists identified, tracked and arrested, and more perpetrators brought to justice for their crimes.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make these brief introductions, and I'll have my colleague call on you for some of your questions. Thank you.
MR. BALLARD: Three quick things, please: Wait for the microphone before asking your question; please identify yourself and your news organization; and if anyone still has a cell phone on, please turn it off.
QUESTION: Thank you. Javier Gaza from Monitor in Mexico City.
In reading through the report, and this is an area that concerns mostly North America, we've all heard a lot about how Mexico is cooperating with the United States in terms of keeping terrorists from entering the United States through the border, for example, and other measures.
But I'd like to look at the opposite of this and then ask you this question. What is the United States doing, if something, to help Mexico prevent attacks on Mexican territory, and whether the United States sees vulnerabilities in Mexico to terrorist attacks?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Okay, I think the best way to answer that question, first, is to refer to a statement made by the President of the United States, George Bush, where he tells the American people there are no rear areas; every place is the front line. The President recently, when asked, you know, is there something to be concerned about? American people are concerned about the approaching election in November, the President of the United States says, you know, your concern is justified.
The United States, its security organs, its law enforcement, and it's led by its Department of Homeland Security, is looking at these threats, countering them and doing all that we can. Mexico is a great partner in this effort, as are the vast majority of countries in the world. We share a special relationship with Mexico that's longstanding. We share a common border; and it is a relationship of cooperation.
I think I said in my remarks that it is cooperation that will be successful in protecting innocent men, women and children. First of all, we enjoy a great relationship with Mexico. It's a two-way street; each supports the other. Also, Mexico plays a key role in the inter-American counterterrorism committee, CICTE, as you would refer to it, and then the Organization of American States.
They play a leadership role in this, and they are facilitating communication, not only between the United States and other countries in this hemisphere, but also assisting and encouraging the exchange of information by other countries in this hemisphere. So it is one of enhancing communication; it is one of exchanging information that is actionable and real; and I want to tell you that I did not have a Christmas holiday.
Usually, I don't have any holidays. That's what happens in counterterrorism. Well, at Christmas, specifically, I will tell you that threat intelligence was driving the United States. We had specific threat intelligence that indicated that specific aircraft were of concern as a terrorist threat.
We turned to our Mexican colleagues and their response was awe-inspiring. They came through for us when we needed it, and we will come through for Mexico when they need it. It is ours as a common risk. We share a common border. We have very good interaction between law enforcement agencies on the border itself, between respective intelligence services, national law enforcement; it is good and cooperative. And I think it plays a key part in our being able to make the statement that this hemisphere, in terms of terrorism, if you exclude indigenous terrorism like Colombia, is unarguably the safest hemisphere in the planet. That's because people are pulling together and working cooperatively. And I'd like to think that the relationship between the United States and Mexico is a key part in that.
MR. BALLARD: Let's go to Radio Varda in the middle.
QUESTION: Hi, I'm with Mahtab Farid. I'm with VOA TV. Ambassador, once again, Iran has been called as one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism. But the example mentioned in the report is not any different than what we've been hearing from Secretary Rumsfeld, or, for instance, Secretary Powell.
Could you elaborate more on their action? And if you could, probably tell us for how many the number of years that Iran has been on that list?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Okay. I'm one of those people that will admit their ignorance when they don't know the answer, because I wouldn't want you to file a false report. I don't know how long they've been on the list and I will have to check and then we'll have to get back to you.
But, you know, one doesn't really have to refer to their notes when you talk about a subject like Iran. There are seven state sponsors. Iran and Syria top the list. Iran, arguably, is the one that has the greatest room for improvement.
Here are the facts. The security organs of the Iranian Government, like the Revolutionary Guards, the Quds Force and Iranian intelligence, the MOIS, these people, as the normal course of what they routinely do is much more than just collect information. They have and develop relationships with terrorists and terrorist groups to be in a position to command and control terrorist actions in response to national command authority.
The United States has a lot of experience with this, you know? I will bridge no criticism or questioning since I have personal experience with this. These guys are very dangerous. They operate globally. They have killed people. They take actions that are --directly impact innocent men, women and children.
Their decision making of why they do what they do is flawed. They see threats where there aren't any. They have ongoing relationships with significant established groups. They work to develop localized groups, essentially to respond to their decision-making and their interests to be able to preempt, deter or retaliate against an actual or perceived enemy.
They are the ones that provide the weapons and armament that are funneled to Hezbollah to kill innocent people, sent through Syria. They provide safe haven to leadership elements of the al-Qaida organization who, very likely, are in contact with their operatives overseas that are planning and attempting to execute attacks against innocent men, women and children, including Iranians.
You know, it's real tough to come up with something positive to say, and they need to consider their future and what it is that Iran is going to stand for.
MR. BALLARD: Okay, let's stick on this side and do three in a row right here, all three of them, and then we'll move over to this side.
QUESTION: Khaled Abdel al-Kareem with Middle East News Agency for Egypt.
Ambassador, let me have a two-part question, if I may. The first one is about events that took place -- attacks that took place a couple of days ago in Syria -- in the Syrian capital. I'm sure you are aware of them.
And my question is about what you call the longstanding definition of terrorism that the U.S. have -- that the U.S. has. We failed actually to get a clear definition from the State Department deputy spokesman yesterday about calling them acts of terror.
So if you may shed light a little bit. What do you consider them to be, acts of terror or not, if that's the case? If we have consistency of what's an act of terror for a friend or for a foe. And I have, just, another question I may have after this.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Okay. Let me start first with the situation in Damascus. It is currently, to my knowledge, unclear. We are looking for additional details. We know there has been loss of life. I understand that three of the perpetrators have been killed. A policeman was killed as well as an innocent civilian or a civilian.
I know that there were explosions and much shooting. And we don't know too much more than that. Most importantly, at least I am not aware, perhaps someone in the United States Government, they know, although I doubt it -- I'm unaware of the affiliation or the sponsorship of this action. I know that the security organs in Syria and particularly in the capital are quite formidable, which makes such an action like this all the more surprising.
So we will have to -- we'll have to see. We'll have to wait for more information. And it reverts back to our constant theme, which is the, you know, the loss of innocent life.
In terms of terrorism, I would -- and how to define it, I would say that from our perspective, it would be -- terrorism would be premeditated, not accidental -- premeditated as an act of commission -- planned, premeditated. It has to be politically motivated violence; it has to be perpetuated against non-combatants, non-combatants. And it has to be conducted by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. And it is usually intended to influence an audience.
Again, from our perspective, we would consider, just to complicate things a little bit for you -- and this is not an easy subject -- but as an example, the Marines that were killed, if you recall, in Beirut -- now these are, you know, these are United States Marines, they're extremely tough troops -- we'd consider it an act of terrorism because there were not in combat, they weren't on alert. They were at rest and they were asleep in their barracks, so we'd consider that an act of terrorism.
Armed combat in Iraq, per se, let's say -- when you have troops on either side that are on alert, armed in combat would not be terrorism, so from our perspective, when there's an unfortunate loss of American life of troops in the field, that would not be considered terrorism.
In fact, the other day, someone asked me -- this gets very complicated. I'm sure you can find some daylight here somewhere -- but someone says, oh, you know, the USS Cole, that attack, was that an act of terrorism? We would say yes, it was. Now you take the USS Cole and you put it in the blue water, it's a formidable fighting machine with a well-trained crew -- missiles, anti-submarine warfare, torpedoes, you know, the whole nine yards. But when it's in harbor, its crew is asleep, they're at rest, they're tied to the berth; it's terrorism.
So we have that type of a sliding scale of trying to identify exactly what we mean by this. And I think the constant -- at least in my career when I look at terrorism -- the constant always comes back, you know, to the protection of innocent life. And we all, here in this room, can be innocent at some point. When we wear the uniform of our country, we're in combat with a weapon -- that is not terrorism. What we're talking about here is the protection of innocent life, regardless of nationality, regardless of religion. That's our standard and we do the best we can to hold to it.
You had one more question --
QUESTION: Yeah, it's just a -- yeah just one more question and it's really related to the same topic about definition. And that, I don't know, it's difficult to go to the nitty gritty of definitions, but would you consider, for example, the Palestinians fighting Israeli occupation forces, do you consider them while doing or carrying out attacks against Israeli, Israeli soldiers, is that a definition of terror, or is that an act of self-defense or resistance? How do you see it?
Thank you, sir.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, I think, you know, we could go -- we could go onto this. You and I could have a long discussion about this over a cup of tea, but I would go back to the basics of it. You know, the loss of life is very regrettable on all sides. The engagement, the attacking of people who are at rest and indiscriminate we believe to be terrorism. And that's our standard and we apply it as evenly as we possibly can.
MR. BALLARD: Right next to Khaled, and then in the front row, and then we'll move over here.
QUESTION: Nadia Charters from Al-Arabiya Television. Ambassador, you're saying in your report that Iraq now is the front stage for global terrorism, and some will argue that, in fact, the war in Iraq has complicated the U.S. efforts to fight global terrorism and made it easier for groups like al-Qaida and its supporters to recruit more people. Do you think this is a valid criticism?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Actually, I think people who aren't professionals might think that this -- that point has some validity. As a former practitioner, I would say not, from a few standpoints. One is you find that terrorist groups are very competitive to get recruits. They compete with each other. There is a limited pool of people that are interested, and a small percentage of people that are interested in joining these groups.
So you will find active competition among the various groups, particularly localized groups for recruits to their side. So I think that the -- that is a fact of life. There is internal competition. I think the universe is essentially limited, the potential pool of candidates for these groups.
Do I think that the job of counterterrorism is harder? My answer -- my response to that is, no, I don't.
The essence of the approach is to be in union with the community of nations. The object is to protect innocent life, innocent men, women and children. We think this is a standard that is sustainable over time. We are the enemy of all, regardless of religion or nationality that violate that, whose objective it is to hurt innocent people.
Remember, this is a very important point because one can wander off from this. Now I'm ethnically Irish. You know, when you go to Ireland, when we talk about British and all that, and that's fine. Let the politicians talk about that.
In terms of counterterrorism, there are ways that adults truly of goodwill can discuss and reconcile their differences and murder should not be a part of that. The global coalition of the world's law enforcement agencies and security services is cooperating at a more efficient rate as every day goes by. Information is being exchanged quicker, faster. Relationships are more transparent. The decision cycle is getting smaller and smaller. Information from one side of the planet is being used on the other.
So I think that, clearly, it is this community of nations that has the advantage and the edge. I do not think that Iraq has slowed down this global effort, and I think that -- I think history will show that there will be an Iraq that is more representative, where people have the right to choose their leadership, to choose which form of Islam they wish to follow.
And, whereas, there are elements of this that can be confusing for an audience, I think we have to have, we should look at this in a equitable way, and I think that the people of Iraq will be the winners in this and that will reinforce the advantage the community of nations has in engaging terrorists. Competition will continue, but it will be encouraging the political discussion among people of goodwill.
MR. BALLARD: Okay. This gentleman, and then we'll move over here to the woman right next to you, Doris.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. Dmitry Kirsanov, Russian News Agency, TASS.
If I remember -- I'm sorry, I'm here.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: I was looking for you. I said this man is invisible.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, I'm here.
If I remember correctly, the report essentially says that intelligence sharing between Russia and the United States in the year 2003 was robust. I understand you can't go into details on that subject. But can you simply was it one-sided or mutual? How is the situation in this year in this sphere?
And as a follow-up to that, do you think the level of trust between the two countries is such that the special forces of United States and Russia will be able to carry out doing antiterrorism operations in the near future? Are we there yet?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah, a very good question. The leadership of this country of the United States is very positive and very -- I'm optimistic about the future of the relationship to the United States and Russia, particularly in the area of counterterrorism.
This has been very pleasing to me personally. It has been a pleasure to watch the two sides come out of their conflict of the Cold War, appreciate a commonality of interest. Again, we say this over and over again. It's what this is all about: to protect innocent people from violence.
The Russians are very capable. We have, on each side, have encouraged a relationship that with each passing year is enhanced. The vehicle that I think has been significant in encouraging this has been the Russia-U.S. Counterterrorism Working Group that is chaired by Minister Trubnikov and Secretary Armitage. We alternate in venues between Washington and Moscow. We meet. We have established a spectrum of subgroups. We are concerned about issues of mutual concern: weapons of mass destruction, the potential access of such by terrorists; how to cooperate more efficiently and effective among our law enforcement agencies and security services.
When we meet, it is on each side, it's an interagency meeting where you have the various elements from the Russian side and the American side, where the police, the intelligence people and those that do financial activities against terrorists; many flows coming together. We just recently had a meeting here in Washington. We'll be having another one in the fall. There are follow-up meetings. We have meetings regularly between the main plenary sessions. It's a growth industry and it is becoming increasingly effective.
The answer, do I think that we will do joint work such as putting our special forces together to operate against terrorists that are a mutual threat? Absolutely.
MR. BALLARD: Okay, we're over here, and then let's go to the gentleman in the yellow tie in the back there.
QUESTION: Margery Friesner with ANSA, the Italian News Agency.
In the Statement of Principles at the beginning of the report of the strategy against terrorism, the very first principle is no concessions to hostage-takers. The chapter on Italy in the report was very complimentary, very positive.
The last video of the Italian hostages, in the last video of the Italian hostages, the kidnappers said that they will release the hostages if the Italians demonstrated against the -- Italy's participation in the war. And today, just today, there were massive demonstrations all over Italy with the aim of obtaining the release of the hostages.
Do you make a distinction between the Italian Government and the Italian people in your judgment of Italy? And anyway, what would your comment be about these demonstrations today?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Let me speak -- I recently had a meeting with a group of Italian parliamentarians that came to Washington and I'll tell you what I told them. I said I hold Italy, the Italian people and the Italian Government in the highest regard. The United States relationship with Italy on counterterrorism goes back a long way, way before 9/11. Their -- and their willingness to accept the threat of a scourge of terrorism, in my recollection, has always been there. Their actions have been courageous. They have been steadfast. I'm a great admirer of the Italians, and that's what I told them.
Look, I will tell you that with terrorism there is no one to negotiate with. There is -- there is no utility in making concessions. This is something that has to be confronted head on. The Americans have learned this the hard way. We don't make concessions to terrorists.
It is heartbreaking to see the images of hostages on TV, regardless of the nationality. It is heartbreaking, and I can fully understand how the Italian people would be moved to express their horror and to do something to seek their release. And you know what? Emotionally, I'm with them, you know? I'm definitely with them.
Unfortunately, and this is something I really know something about, terrorists need to be confronted. They have to know that there will be no concessions and it plays a key part in putting the threat into a box that is really manageable. Concessions to terrorists create more terrorists; create more hostages and more horror.
You know, all our prayers are with these hostages and, you know, I certainly hope they are to be released. I can tell you the coalition forces are doing everything possible to locate them and find them and free them. And, you know, that's the condition of the world that we're in now. And, you know, we, the Americans, have great empathy not only for the hostages, but for their families; and it is most unfortunate.
MR. BALLARD: That gentleman, and then we'll come to the front row.
QUESTION: My name is Nobu with Asahi Shimbun, Japanese Daily. Ambassador, I'm simply wondering why, on the overview of North Korea, did you decide to omit the missile export issue that I think you had last year? Thank you very much.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, I commend you. That's an excellent question and I don't know what the answer is. So I'll have to check and get back. Generally, we confine ourselves to terrorism. Missile export issue is -- would classically be considered in the area of proliferation of weapons. We stick generally to terrorism and those aspects of terrorism.
Now the Koreans, you know, have been engaged in terrorism in the past. There haven't been many recent examples. But we have a long memory and we do not allow simply the passage of time to clean the slate clear. The North Koreans need to work with us. They need to show that they are no longer in contact with any terrorist groups, they repudiate it and they have no contacts, and they're wishing to be a productive member of the international community.
MR. BALLARD: Okay, we're going to go this gentleman here and then the gentleman in the yellow tie.
QUESTION: Parasuram with Press Trust of India. This year I find that one word is missing in your report, which has been there in all the previous reports. And that is cross-border terrorism.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: I'm glad to see that everyone reads these things. I'm very impressed, sir.
QUESTION: And the question I want to ask is, whether it is because cross-border terrorism from Pakistan into Jammu and Kashmir has stopped, or is it because the -- because Pakistan is not such a key ally, it is considered impolitic, not really polite, when it's cooperating against, you know, terrorism against America to also refer to cross-border terrorism against India?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah. Okay. The answer to this is -- the U.S. position on this is very simple. We're against all violence. We repeatedly use our good offices with both India and Pakistan to encourage them as much as we possibly can to get together and to negotiate a settlement to these issues that will result in the protection of innocent life. This is a complicated issue. I do counterterrorism.
We do think that our strategy and our approach to the problem is a good one, which is to -- we think, we have good relationships with both India and Pakistan, and we use these relationships for the benefit of both to encourage them relentlessly to get to the negotiating table and to resolve these issues through diplomatic exchange.
QUESTION: What about the missing word?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: I'd have to look. I don't know about the missing word. I'd have to check. You've got me there, sir.
MR. BALLARD: Yeah. And then I'd like to call on another Asian journalist, if there is somebody with an Asian medium who would like to --
Okay, this gentleman after, please.
QUESTION: African, how about Africans, Africans, right?
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, it's Tim Harper from the Toronto Star.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Regarding your section on Canada, you cite Canadian privacy laws, limited Canadian resources, and a criminal -- or a judicial system in Canada that is more favorable to the defendant as concerns. And you say that some potential supporters of terrorism may be being excluded because of this.
Can you give me an idea of the depth of the -- your concern over these factors in Canada and where there is room for improvement?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah. I mean, we have a robust relationship with Canada on counterterrorism. Like in Mexico, a lot of our security is dependent upon Canada. We have very good contacts ongoing regularly between law enforcement and security services between the two countries. It is robust and strong. The Canadians have been instrumental in the provision of information that has actually saved American lives. They are strong partners.
There are some elements that we think that we can work on that we would encourage the Canadians to look at in terms of immigration and their legal system, which is their preserve and we can only make commentary on it -- and I would reserve further discussion -- but in our regular meetings with our Canadian counterparts, both in Ottawa and here in Washington.
MR. BALLARD: Okay, this gentleman here; and then this gentleman here, on the right.
QUESTION: Sung Kim of the SBS, Korea. Was there any particular reason why the Japanese abduction issue was included in the North Korea section for the first time this year, despite the fact that the issue was ongoing for like several years? Was there any request from the Japanese Government or anything like that?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: The United States, the Department of State thought it was important; it was a key issue; and that's why we included it. We also -- we feel great sympathy for those that were abducted, for their families. It's a tragic, sad story of heartbreak, and we thought it was important to put in there also as a vehicle that we would use in our interaction with the North Koreans to continue to press them for -- to make a complete accounting in terms of the relatives of these abductees that remain behind in Korea.
MR. BALLARD: Okay, this gentleman, then we will take a question from Pakistan and let's --
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Yeah. Ahmed Elbashir from Sudan.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Sir.
QUESTION: More Sudan-U.S. News.
The section about Sudan on page 92 is no doubt the cleanest bill of health your office ever presented about Sudan. Would it be within reason for the Sudanese Government to expect normalization of relation?
That's the opening of the embassy, and the lifting of the economic sanctions because they were there basically, because of its sponsoring terrorism. And it seems like now they are -- they have come a long way.
Thank you.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah. First of all, it's a pleasure to have you here. You're exactly right. They have come a long way, a very, very long way, and it's a pleasure to watch. In the early to mid-'90s, where, you know, you were -- you could risk your life being in that environment with the terrorist groups, to now seeing the change has been fundamental. It's profound. It's very good, and I would say that the Sudanese Government is so very close to being in the position where I could recommend to the Secretary of State that, you know, we should consider removing them from the list. There are some things yet that need to be done. They've been communicated to the Sudanese Government and we're working with them to make these last fixes, but, as they say, you know, the ball is in their court, and we're looking for them to go the rest of the way to -- so that we can recommend they be removed from the list and everything that goes with that.
I am optimistic. I mean, because they've come some way, and there are a couple things left that they need to do and the we can, you know, we can welcome Sudan back into the community of nations that, you know, believe in countering terrorism.
MR. BALLARD: Okay, in the front row. And I'm afraid this will have to be the last question.
QUESTION: Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan.
Ambassador Black, I have two short questions. One, what is your basis or your evidence for asserting that Saddam Hussein provided a lifeline and sanctuary to terrorism? One.
Two, how close you are or how close you are not to apprehending and hunting down Usama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Mullah Mohammed Omar?
Thank you.
AMBASSADOR BLACK: You remind me of some of my former superiors that used to ask me that every day, so I'll answer you the way I'd answer them. We're on it. Very soon. Any day now. And I always tell them, you know, it could be we get all of them in one day, and won't that be a great day for all of us.
The community of nations, their law enforcement agencies and intelligence services are after these guys probably -- I mean, I don't know what the comparison would be in history, but, you know, no measure has been spared in terms of putting the resources to locate them and to render them to justice.
In terms of Usama bin Laden and Zawahiri and the rest, that leadership of the al-Qaida organization, the 9/11 period, more than 70 percent of that leadership has been arrested, detained or killed. We're after these guys. The clock is ticking. And it's likely to be not much longer before we have them.
I would like to say something else, speaking about Pakistan. When I use the "we," you know, people seem to think this is, you know, the Americans. Well, you know, the fact of the matter is this global coalition against counterterrorism, you know, it's usually not. It's usually the law enforcement and security services of other countries. And your country, sir, is a leader in terms of identifying and rendering to justice terrorists. More than 450 al-Qaida operatives have been arrested or detained in Pakistan. Their cooperation has been vital in the global war on terrorism. So that's where that is.
And you had a first part of the question. I'm sorry, and I've forgotten. What was it?
QUESTION: I had asked what is your basis, what evidence do you have for asserting that Saddam Hussein provided a lifeline and sanctuary to terrorism?
AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah, well, you know, I'll answer that with an anecdote. I mean, I could go in chapter and verse. We don't have enough time. But I'll give you a personal anecdote of Saddam Hussein and his relationship to terrorism.
I spent a lot of my life chasing Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. Remember Abu Abbas, who pulled the poor man, who pushed the poor man in the wheelchair off the ship? It didn't matter what religion you are or what country you're coming from, that's what I'm talking about.
So after spending years chasing this guy, where does he turn up? Iraq. It's no accident. The relationship between Iraq and terrorism has been longstanding. A lot of it has been quite clandestine. I think over time when all the information is reviewed, I think it will be shown to be a truly robust relationship. I mean, you know, we're talking about Sudan and, I mean the Iraqi intelligence used to come into Sudan all the time to meet with al-Qaida and UBL. And so they were in it up their eyeballs.
MR. BALLARD: All right. I'd like all of you to join me in thanking Ambassador Black for spending some time with us today and giving us such comprehensive answers. Thanks very much.
