Background Briefing: United Nations General Assembly Scenesetter

 10:00 A.M. (EST)

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Let me begin with the president's schedule. The president goes up to the United Nations Saturday. He will be meeting with Secretary General Annan and the president of the -- separately with the president of the General Assembly, who is the Korean foreign minister, Mr. Han.

The president will speak to the General Assembly on Saturday morning. He has on Saturday and Sunday then a series of bilateral meetings. The one which has already been announced to the press is the meeting with President Musharraf of Pakistan, which is in the latter part of the day, and is followed by a dinner between the two presidents and their parties.

More broadly, what is the United States attempting in this year's General Assembly? We are committed to an effective and capable United Nations and we're trying to demonstrate that by our presence and activity in the U.N., a certain amount of leadership in U.N. activities, and not least by paying our bills. As you know, the $582 million payment was approved by Congress a couple of weeks ago, and the check should actually be there within the next few days.

We want, in addition to the more general goals we have in the U.N., to advance international cooperation in the key United Nations role in the fight against terrorism. In our view, the ideals of the United Nations and those of terrorism are exactly contrary, and this is something that will be covered when the president speaks to the General Assembly.

It is not an accident, surely, that really in a period of about a week, the United Nations is labeled as a, quote, "tool of crime" and the secretary general is called "the criminal Kofi Annan" by bin Laden within a week of the time that the United Nations and its secretary general receives the Nobel Peace Prize.

Let me talk about what the United Nations has done about terrorism for just a moment. I think it's important to note, first of all, that the U.N. is not just coming to the issue of terrorism. It didn't discover it on September 11th. There are 12 conventions and protocols that the U.N. and specialized agencies had adopted prior to then dealing with various aspects of terrorism and terrorist financing.

The question of terrorism and countering terrorism has been on the General Assembly agenda since 1972. There was an important declaration on terrorism in 1994. Even prior to September 11th, the Security Council had passed three resolutions aimed at sanctioning the Taliban and shutting down the activities of al Qaeda, including an arms embargo on the Taliban, and a call for the freezing of al Qaeda assets.

Within a day of the attack on September 11th, the General Assembly acted to condemn those events and to condemn terrorism more generally. The Security Council went farther and voted unanimously for a resolution that termed terrorism "a threat to international peace and security," reaffirmed the right of the United States to react militarily in its self-defense, and vowed that members would bring the perpetrators of terrorism and those who support them to account.

Different specialized agencies of the U.N. have also been acting, organizations such as the civil aviation organization, the IPU, the postal union, the maritime organizations. So there's been a tremendous amount of activity.

I think the most important single thing is U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which compels member states to take action to freeze terrorist assets, criminalize terrorist acts, limit the ability of terrorists to cross borders and acquire weapons. And there is an implementation mechanism already established to monitor compliance and to assure compliance.

There is also very strong leadership, I think we would say, from the secretary general in the fight against terror. Many of you will have seen the New York Times op-ed piece that the secretary general did shortly after September 11th, making clear his own very strong views on the need for the United Nations and for the entire world community to take a strong stand.

The U.N. role in Afghanistan is obviously something that's going to be under discussion throughout the General Assembly, and in particular this coming week, the week of the general debate, when there is the high-level presence of presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers.

We are particularly interested in the work in this area of Lakhdar Brahimi, whom the secretary general appointed as his leading representative to organize U.N. efforts with respect to all of the U.N. work in Afghanistan, political and humanitarian, and the work of Kim Zoloshima (ph), the head of humanitarian affairs for the United Nations, and as well all of the work being done by the U.N. agencies -- World Food Program, UNHCR for refugees, other agencies.

The United States is committed to helping those agencies work on the current relief needs and the future reconstruction needs in Afghanistan. The humanitarian situation, as you know, is very bad as a result of years, two decades of civil war, four years of drought, and the actions of the Taliban, which have been directed not only against the people of Afghanistan but against international relief workers.

We have many reports of Taliban officials stealing U.N. and NGO supplies and equipment. We have reports from several cities of Taliban military officials using that equipment, driving around in U.N. vehicles. We know that the Taliban forces are taking refuge in relief facilities, including U.N. facilities. There is the continuing detention of eight international aid workers from Shelter Now.

We have seen numerous reports that the Taliban have stolen food from NGO and U.N. warehouses, some reports that they're selling that food for a profit to raise funds in an effort to get around the U.N. cutoff of financing for terrorism.

Meanwhile, what we and other donors have been doing is working through the U.N. system and the Red Cross movement to try to assist the people of Afghanistan now particularly that the winter has begun. Last year -- I want to make this point by way of saying that the efforts of the United States to help the people of Afghanistan did not begin in September. Last year the United States provided $184 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan, which made us the largest donor.

When the World Food Program appealed for food assistance to help Afghanistan just weeks ago, the U.S. responded and is providing roughly 80 percent of all the food that is pledged. We've also been core supporters of UNHCR, of IOM, of the Red Cross, ICRC, and other U.N. agencies. You may recall that on October 4th President Bush pledged $320 million of aid to the people of Afghanistan. The largest piece of that goes to the U.N.'s World Food Program. We've also pledged $10 million in support for UNHCR.

But just to give some of the other figures, $9 million of that money for the Red Cross -- ICRC, that is; $5 million to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, IFRC; $6 million -- this is all additional amounts coming out of the $320 million -- $6 million for UNICEF, 13 and a half million dollars cash support for WFP in addition to the food we are giving to WFP; two and a half million dollars for the International Organization for Migration, IOM.

In addition to the money and food we're giving, we're also working on the ground with the relief agencies. We have U.S. humanitarian personnel now on the ground in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and soon Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, where they work closely with U.N., U.N. agencies, with NGOs, with the Red Cross movement.

We announced yesterday that we will be supporting an airlift of food for northern Afghanistan -- this is USAID working with WFP -- to airlift about 40 flights of U.S. wheat, U.S.-donated wheat, from Pakistan up to Turkmenistan, where WFP believes it can get -- (inaudible) -- access down into northern Afghanistan.

WFP -- excuse me, USAID announced last week that it was going to be, in addition to assisting WFP to get more food into Afghanistan, by providing cash; that is, USAID cash to the World Food Program to buy wheat in Kazakhstan, to be moved into Afghanistan.

I have focused on Afghanistan for obvious reasons, but the usual menu of U.N. activities is on the agenda as well -- human rights; in the last couple of years in particular, the fight against AIDS; questions of debt and debt relief; U.N. peacekeeping operations in many countries around the globe.

This General Assembly was to have been dedicated to the goals of the millennium declaration of last year. And in a sense, it certainly still is, because those goals are, in our view, the antithesis of terrorism. They are freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, shared responsibility for the world community. Those are still the goals of the U.N. and certainly the goals of U.S. actions within the U.N.

With that, let me stop and see if there are any questions.

MODERATOR: Okay. (Inaudible.)

Q I'm Niyochi Nishiro (ph) the Japanese daily newspaper called Sankei. I understand that the United States and some key members of the Security Council are drafting the resolutions on the transitional government of Afghanistan. Could you kindly elaborate on that?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: The United States is not forming a transitional government for Afghanistan. Certainly the question of what follows the Taliban is a very important one in which we have a great interest. The key responsibility at the moment lies with Mr. Brahimi, who is now on a trip to many of the relevant countries around Afghanistan. He's been to Washington, been to Europe. And he, I guess, will come back with impressions and perhaps thoughts about how to proceed ahead.

But the formation of a follow-on government is not the responsibility of the U.S., really. It's something that obviously will require a lot of cooperation. But Mr. Brahimi has the lead on this, not the Security Council.

Q I understand that you are planning to adopt a resolution on that, together with permanent members.

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: No, I don't believe that's right that the United States is currently working on a resolution. We are -- the first thing that has to happen is Mr. Brahimi has to come back and tell us what he thinks. Until we know what he thinks and what he wants and how he likes to proceed ahead, we would really not be able to do that.

Q (Inaudible) -- Le Monde. Colin Powell had said that there would be a bridge period between the fall of the Taliban government, or so-called government, and the arrival of a new Afghan government. For this bridge period, can you tell us what are the preferences of the United States to fill the gap?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I would say we do not, at the moment, have an answer to that question, because we are waiting to see what Mr. Brahimi suggests before we come to a conclusion about what the best path to take is. We're not trying -- I mean, to put it another way, the secretary general has asked him to take the lead on this. And so the first thing we need is to hear from him on what he thinks we ought all to be doing. What does he think the right path is to form a follow-on government?

Q Mr. Powell had referred to Cambodia and East Timor as examples of what the U.N. was able to do in such situations. Are these references still valid?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, all the references are valid in the sense that there are a lot of models out there for a very large U.N. role or for a much smaller U.N. role. Timor would probably be the example of the largest U.N. role. I think it's fair to say that in his initial pre-trip thinking, Mr. Brahimi had thought and spoken about a smaller U.N. role. I don't know what he's going to come back with from his trip. Maybe he thinks at this point that it needs to be far larger; maybe not. But we don't have a report from him.

Q Andrey Sitov from TASS. Just to try and clear one point about that, does the United States government still believe that there is a moderate wing of the Taliban that can be represented in the future government into this position?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I don't want to make any news on that question. I don't know that I have the exact quotation here of what we've been saying about that. But there's nothing new to say about that. The question in part is one of definition. Who is the Taliban? I mean, a conscript soldier is really not the Taliban.

But I think it would be our position that certainly the Taliban -- certainly the Taliban leadership could not form part of a future government. I believe we've said that. But that's a question, you know, really -- there's a briefing tomorrow by Dr. Rice, who is the person to whom that question should be addressed.

Q On a separate issue concerning the U.N. and maybe made more relevant by the upcoming summit visit of President Putin, the U.N. keeps adopting those resolutions in support of the ABM Treaty for the past two or three years, at least, this year included. I'm really not sure what the position of the U.S. government is on that. Do you try to oppose those or do you just let them go the way the majority votes, or what's your position?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I don't remember how we -- do you know how we voted on those?

MR. : No.

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: No. I don't either. We've --

MR. : (Off mike.)

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: No is how -- I'm sorry, that's the answer. We have voted no on those resolutions.

Q (Inaudible) -- Agence France Presse. Do you have a confirmation that a six-plus-two meeting will take place on Monday at the U.N., the six neighboring countries of Afghanistan?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I do not have a confirmation on the timing of such a meeting. I don't.

Q One of the bilaterals -- Maria -- (inaudible) -- with La Nacion from Argentina. One of the bilaterals Bush will be having on the weekend is with de La Rua, president from Argentina.

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: So you say. I have nothing to --

Q Yeah. Well, my point is, obviously Argentina is in the middle of an economic crisis. And one of the arguments the Argentinians have been making in the plea for help is that one of the big problems in a democracy like Argentina would be big problems for the whole hemisphere, and they could -- what do you think? I mean, you know the region well.

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: This question was asked yesterday in a briefing of another senior administration official. And I would think the best thing is if we supply you with the answer that was given to that question, which I thought was perfectly adequate.

I mean, and let me just say -- this is getting a little bit off- topic -- I can just say the United States has been and remains actively supportive of democracy in Latin America and in Argentina, and we have spent, I think, a great deal of time and effort in consultation with the international financial institutions and the government of Argentina to both consult about and be active in addressing the financial problems that Argentina faces, which is, I think, what the other senior official said yesterday.

Q (Inaudible) -- TV of Hong Kong. With Pakistan's role in the later Afghanistan government, what does the U.S. think? And also, is there any plan for peacekeeping forces in the country?

SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, on the latter, the question of security arrangements in Afghanistan after the Taliban is a very important question. It is one of the questions that Mr. Brahimi is thinking about. We have discussed it with him and I know a number of other governments have discussed it with him, and he has obviously been talking to people about it during his trip.

What is the appropriate way of going about that? Afghans, an international force, a U.N. force -- those are the obvious options. He has not -- again, we don't have his readout from this trip. And the first thing we want to do is to talk to him and hear his report to us and other members of the Security Council on what he recommends. We have not formulated a final position as to what we think is the best kind of security arrangement possible.

The first part of the question I think I won't answer because it's really a bilateral U.S.-Pakistan question that should probably be addressed to Dr. Rice.

Q On terrorism, could you explain what is the relationship between the decisions made by the U.N. on fighting specifically what concerns the financial assets of terrorism, and the decisions made by the U.S. government, when the U.S. government puts an individual or an organization on its list, does it become mandatory for all members of the United Nations to freeze the assets of those people? And what happens if they don't?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It does not. The U.S. and the U.N. have separate enforcement mechanisms. One question is U.S. law and another is the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. Now, under 1373, there is a committee that's been appointed and is being chaired by the British perm rep -- Sir Jeremy Greenstock -- to follow- up and to try to ensure that the resolution, which is mandatory on all member nations not just Security Council members, on all member nations, is in fact followed. I don't believe they have yet addressed the question of what happens in the case of member countries who do not comply, but that's the kind of thing they're thinking about now, how do we get people to comply?

In a number of cases -- in fact, I think the largest number of cases, what they have heard from member countries is, "We would like to comply, and we need help. We need help in devising the domestic legislation that the U.N. resolution essentially requires about, for example, blocking terrorist financing. We may need to change our banking laws. Can you give us this help? We may need to beef up certain security forces inside the country. Can you give us this help?"

So, that committee becomes, in the first instance, a clearinghouse for means of getting assistance to governments that want to comply with 1373 but will find it difficult. They will, perhaps, have to deal with the question of countries that are refusing or failing to comply, but they're not there yet.

Separately, the United States has our own legislation, which is we believe in complete compliance with 1373. We are reviewing our own compliance to make sure that we are. We actually have a committee within the U.S. government whose purpose to make sure that we are doing everything we need to do in 1373, and there is a 90-day, if I remember correctly, reporting requirement to the U.N., so we want to meet that requirement and report back, as all nations are required to, as to how we have implemented 1373.

Now, in a bilateral sense, yes, then we had our own list of organizations. The fact that the United States considers -- puts an organization on that list, does not mean that it is -- that is a binding decision on all member nations. It's binding on us, and it will have an impact on bilateral relations if the United States has an organization on the terrorism list and we find other governments are assisting that organization.

Q Could I just follow-up on that question? The president said yesterday those countries that are inactive will be accounted for. Is the U.S. drawing any plans to sort of punish those countries who are not providing enough cooperation?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, there are a variety of way in which the United States already does that under our domestic legislation -- that is, we have for some time had sanctions on a number of countries. There are also U.N. sanctions on countries -- have been U.N. sanctions for years on countries. Just to take on example, there were U.N. sanctions on Sudan until a couple of weeks ago on grounds of support for terrorism. But again, these are two separate though related things. I think it's clear that the United States will act in various ways against countries that continue to harbor terrorists. There are a number of ways to do that -- some diplomatic, some economic and financial, in the case of Afghanistan today, military -- and we will continue to do that in the coming years. What is the appropriate way to react in a given situation, the president will decide.

Q What is the -- I am Sandra Figara (sp) from Colombia. I would like to know if the United States is going to change its position about what is going to happen with the terrorism organizations in Latin America, particularly in Colombia? So, it is going to say something different, something to change anything on the U.N.?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I don't think that's going to be addressed in the United Nations. I mean, we've obviously had a -- what we view as a strong and active program of helping the government of Colombia deal with terrorist organizations in Colombia. But, I don't think that will be addressed in the General Assembly. It would -- it will be addressed bilaterally, certainly in conversations between the U.S. and the government of Colombia.

Q Do you have any information about the meeting there is going to be between President Bush and Colombian president?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think I would leave the question of what bilaterals there will be and what -- I mean, in terms of who and what will be on the agenda, to Dr. Rice, tomorrow, isn't it?

MODERATOR: Sure, one more and then we go to -- (inaudible) --

Q Okay. I promise this is the last one. Why does the U.S. have the justification to sort of punish those other governments but not the U.N.? You said the president will decide who to punish and when. Why is not the U.N. to punish, because this is government to government, and I understand governments are all equal, right?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the U.N. does, first. And resolution 1373 of the Security Council was adopted as a mandatory resolution, and if governments do not comply with it, sanctions by the United Nations are possible. And there are counter-terrorism sanctions by the United Nations, and there have been for years and years sanctions against governments, against national airlines, economic sanctions, arms embargos, trade embargos of various kinds by the United Nations. So, the United Nations does have that responsibility and has exercised it, and no doubt will do so again.

Why does the United States have the right to do it? The answer is September 11th. On September 11th, something like 5,000 Americans were murdered. And in our self-defense, the president has taken a number of actions designed to disable and destroy the terrorist organizations that committed those acts of murder. Now, this is a large and continuing program, but we view it as one, and the resolutions of the United Nations and the words of the secretary- general have also said that we are authorized by the charter to act in our own self-defense. And I don't think you could have a clearer case of acting in self-defense and acting against a network of terrorist organizations that murdered 5,000 Americans in one day.

Q Ben Bangoura, Washington Guinea News. What do you see as this stumbling block in terms of your military campaign in Afghanistan?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What do I see as the --

Q Stumbling block -- for the success of your military operation right now in Afghanistan? And secondly, how many organizations -- I know you listed it -- financial organizations, dealing with terrorism, have you been able to identify them? And have you also been able to freeze their assets?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: For the first part, that's really a question that needs to be addressed to the Defense Department -- how is the war going, what stumbling blocks may there be. Certainly from an humanitarian aid point of view, it is crystal clear what the stumbling block is. It's the Taliban. In fact, the Security Council issued a statement yesterday repeating that the Security Council noted the misrule of the Taliban is the underlying cause of the dire humanitarian circumstances in the country. They noted the continued obstruction of the Taliban to the provision of humanitarian assistance. They deplored the looting of United Nations offices and the Taliban's takeover of humanitarian aid sites, including food and supply warehouses. That's not the United States, that's the United Nations Security Council speaking.

So, on the humanitarian side, it's very clear. I would ask you to address the military question to the Defense Department.

The second part of the question was --

Q What are the financial --

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, the aid --

Q -- institutions?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have -- we have released a list of terrorist organizations. And the question of financial groups linked to them, in some cases, we're released names, in other cases I think we're still working on it. And there's a huge effort to discover the various ways in which terrorist financing takes place, the routes that are used. And in some cases, of course, we would not announce that because we are trying to freeze assets before the assets get away. But, I think there will be a continuing series of announcements of terrorist organization and financial organizations that help them or are used by them.

Q Thanks again. To follow-up on the question -- (inaudible) -- the reason some of the countries in the world, including my country, used to be suspicious of the motives of the U.S. government was this appearance of double standards in some instances, including on humanitarian things. And one of those instances is the International Criminal Court. So, the question is of this, has the position of the administration changed? Will it be supporting the International Criminal Court? Will it be willing to submit American citizens to judgment of an international body, maybe in a situation similar to the one that's not prevailing in Afghanistan?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm glad you began by saying that Russia used to be suspicious of the United States. The answer is no. First, let me say the International Criminal Court has not retroactive jurisdiction, so that if it were to come into existence in, you know, March, or June, or something of next year, it would have no ability to act with respect to situations that existed before, such as now.

No, our position on the International Criminal Court has not changed. We do not think that it is the right mechanism to use. We have supported, as you know, ad hoc courts in a number of cases when the Security Council has acted to establish them. We continue to do that. But our position on the International Criminal Court has not changed.

Q To follow-up -- but aren't you concerned with the appearance that it creates a double standard that it's good enough to judge other countries, citizens of the other countries, but somehow the Americans are above this international law?

SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There is no double standard because we don't think anybody should be judged by the International Criminal Court. We do not think there should be an international criminal court. We think that when situations arise the United Nations should take cognizance of them and make a decision as to what mechanism is appropriate in this case. And in some cases it will be an ad hoc tribunal. In some cases it will not be necessary because the country in question has been able to form some kind of truth commission or tribunal, or its own national courts are working well. But we do not favor, for all the reasons that we've stated over the years, we continue to think that having a permanent international criminal court, independent of the Security Council, is a recipe for trouble.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

END.

Copyright (c)2001 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.