The OAS Response to Terrorism

MR. MONBLATT: Thank you, Jeff.

I came here from a lunch that the State Department gave in honor of a group of Ecuadorian security officials. And as is often the case in a luncheon where security officials sit down with a counterterrrorism person, the talk turned to terrorism and what we in the hemisphere could do about it. And I was struck once again by how closely those of us in the hemisphere who concern ourselves with security issues have come in our conception of the security problem, the terrorism problem, and the approaches that we have developed in order to meet it.

This is a real success story for the OAS. The OAS was the first international organization to condemn the bombings of September 11th. They did it on September 11th, when they were meeting in Lima. They invoked the Rio treaty and followed up immediately by asking that CICTE energize itself and organize itself to take some effective and practical measures to deal with a problem that has troubled -- historically has troubled our hemisphere for some time but the perception has become more acute in the last few weeks and months.

I'm very pleased and proud for what we've been able to accomplish in the very short time since September 11th, and most particularly since October 15th.

What we are going to present tomorrow to the second special CICTE session is a collaborative, concrete, pragmatic menu of recommendations to enhance the hemispheric security against terrorism.

I think it's also noteworthy that we're talking about an area that is traditionally, for nations all around the world, one of the most sensitive areas of national sovereignty, which is the security realm. Terrorism is a threat that has united us all. Our perceptions of the threat have united us all and our sense of what needs to be done to meet that threat has united us all. And I think that's terrifically significant for the OAS. It's a remarkable achievement that we've come this far, and we're going to make additional achievements in the weeks and months to come.

These achievements were made possible by the work of many people, but I especially would like to single out my CICTE vice chair, Ambassador Ricardes of of Argentina, and our subcommittee chairs, Ambassador Escobar of El Salvador and Ambassador Ferrero Costa of Peru. Ambassador de la Calle of Colombia is not with us today, but certainly he deserves his fair share of praise for this too. It was their diligence, vision and diplomatic skills that made -- that are in such large measure responsible for the success and the progress that we've made to date.

I also want to thank those delegations whose tangible voluntary support, which is diplomatic-speak for "money," have made possible the initial organizational activities for this coming year. Antigua- Barbuda, Chile, El Salvador, the United States, Italy's permanent observer mission to the OAS, and OAS Secretary-General Gaviria have all contributed substantially to make possible a program -- a work program for next year that will show visible and concrete results.

That's pretty much all I'd like to say at this point. I'd like to turn the floor over to Ambassador Ricardes and our colleagues. As Jeff said, we'll be happy to take your questions after these initial brief remarks, and we will do them in Spanish, English, or some combination that seems fit at the time. Thank you all.

AMB. RICARDES: Thank you, Steve.

First of all, I would like to underline, as Ambassador Monblatt said before, that this is not, you know, the action of a group of countries, this is a multilateral action. This is a collective action that has been taken by 34 state(s) of the hemisphere within the framework of the Organization of American States.

In a way, we have all been suffering terrorism, all the consequences of terrorism. A committee on terrorism was really an idea and a draft introduced by Argentina years after -- exactly two years after we suffered a true terrorist attack, in 1992 and in 1994. There was mass terrorist acts against the embassy of Israel and the Jewish community of Argentina.

Now we are facing a new situation, and I think that the only way how we are going to be successful is through a collective action. And this is the collective action of the Organization of American States and its 34 members.

The committee will gather together, as Ambassador Monblatt said, in order to implement a number of measures. These measures are going to be practical measures in order, in a way, to improve the action against -- (preventive/preemptive ?) and concrete action against terrorism in the hemisphere.

And secondly, the one additional decision that probably the committee will adopt is to reinforce the structure of the organization in the area of terrorism, reinforcing the structure of the committee, and probably in this way we will have better skills, better, you know, human and financial resources, in order to implement new decisions on terrorism.

This is all I would like to say. This is -- (inaudible). Thank you.

AMB. ESCOBAR: Thank you very much. I would also -- would like to complement a little bit on what the ambassador has just said. For the 34 democratic countries of our hemisphere, September 11 marked a turning point in our view about security. At the same time that the terrorist attacks were occurring, our ministers of foreign affairs were in General Assembly adopting the Democratic Charter for our hemisphere. On one hand we were reaffirming our values on democracy, on freedom, on prosperity, while on the other hand, these very same values were being attacked almost simultaneously. The result was that we got out united, more constructive, more clear about our beliefs. And I would say that has been the inspiration of the new work plan against terrorism in our hemisphere; that has been -- like was said before -- it's been the result of all the delegations. And I would say that they have been very productive, basically going in three directions.

The one message that is clear is no terrorism in our hemisphere will be allowed or tolerated. The second message is we will cooperate and coordinate with each other. We will exchange information. We will identify a practical plan of fighting terrorism wherever or whenever it could happen. Cooperation, sharing of information. The next conference on security, that has been called by our president, also will be an issue. And also, in the new work plan we are anticipating the new role of CICTE, in relationship with the Inter- American Convention to Prevent and Combat Terrorism. So those are the big, broad areas. And I will be happy to get into more details, if there are any questions.

Thank you.

AMB. FERRERO COSTA: I would also -- would only like to add in this brief presentation, after what was said by my colleagues, that this is a multilateral approach in the fight of the hemisphere against terrorism, and not only in the fight, but in the cooperation between countries, in the coordination of activities between the countries of the Americas in several issues. Among these issues that are going to be worked in the near future, there is a working group on border control. That means cooperation between the states of the -- (inaudible) -- in order to have more strict regulations for transit between persons -- of persons between our countries in order to see if there are terrorists going on.

And therefore there are several issues we're going to discuss on cooperation, on border control, also related to exchange of information and different missions that the American countries will carry on with reference to -- over this transit between people within our borders, and also of course take into account the framework -- the framework of certain basic principles of international law that are basically -- (inaudible) -- for instance, to have cooperation in all what is related border controls in the framework of the principles of non-discrimination in the statement of human rights.

Another point that is important in this common task of the OAS is the work we are beginning to do since two days ago in deliberation of a draft of an inter-American convention in order to prevent and to eliminate terrorism in the Americas. There is also a working group on this issue that is having their first meeting -- substantive meeting during these days. They are finishing today. And they will continue with more meetings beginning next year in order to follow a mandate approved by our ministers of foreign affairs in the meeting they had in September -- that is to have a broad and comprehensive inter- American treaty in the fight against terrorism.

In the case of Peru, there was a Peruvian proposal. Peru, as you know -- as all the countries in the Americas, Peru is firmly committed in the fight against terrorism. And we are also collaborating with OAS, with CICTE, with a small amount of also -- and our contribution, economic contribution as an indicator of our commitment in this endeavor in this fight against terrorism.

That's what I would like to say in the first.

MODERATOR: Thank you all very much.

With that we can take your questions. We'll start with English questions, if there are any, and then we can go to Spanish.

Okay, we'll start in the middle. Please, as always, wait for the microphone and identify your name and news organization.

Q Parasuram, from the Press Trust of India. Can you discuss the extent of terrorism in Latin America? And also, because you already have some, like the Shining Path and all that. But to what extent is there a link to international terrorism like the al Qaeda?

MR. MONBLATT: Let me try that.

There are, of course, two kinds of terrorism, if you like, in the hemisphere: indigenous terrorism of one sort or another, where a particular group's aspirations or political agenda is essentially restricted to one country; and groups with international links. Both kinds of terrorism are present and have been present in the Americas.

I would be overstating the case were I to say to you categorically that there are al Qaeda cells in Latin America. We have seen many indicators, but nothing that I could say was proof that I could bring forward and say "A-ha."

On the other hand, I'm quite confident in saying that there have been -- that exist within the hemisphere support cells, fund-raising activities, transit routes that a number of terrorist groups from outside the hemisphere have used and continue to use in support of their operations. And of course, as Ambassador Ricardes has pointed out, the bombing in Argentina in the '90s was clearly tied to groups with links to outside the hemisphere.

MODERATOR: Yes?

Q (Name off mike) -- with Notimex, Mexico.

I have a question for Mr. Monblatt and a question for the three ambassadors. For you, Mr. Monblatt, you say that tomorrow you're going to present something -- I guess some kind of recommendations about how to fight terrorism in the hemisphere. And I was wondering if you can elaborate a little bit more about that.

And for the ambassadors: Ambassador Escobar mentioned that one of the ways that you're going to look in order to have a better cooperation between countries in this issue is sharing information. What I was wondering -- I mean, if -- we have not heard anything about an increase in the use of force against terrorist organizations in Latin America. And I was wondering if any of you could give us details on this issue, because most of the talk has been focused in how to have a better cooperation. But it seems like the use of force has been an element that none of the countries wants to talk about that. And I guess that certainly that's an issue that -- it's part -- essential of any effort against terrorism in the hemisphere.

MR. MONBLATT: Well, let me start.

Our recommendations will speak to two issues primarily. And they will, broadly speaking, deal with certain kinds of activities. The two issues that we will be speaking to, primarily, are terrorist financing and border controls, which includes, of course, documentation and identity cards and such.

The kinds of recommendations we will be making have to do -- will be essentially in the areas such as training; provision of information -- for example, best practices; creation of databases; and information networks. By that I mean networks of experts and authorities within the hemisphere who work on these issues, and providing them with means to exchange rapidly -- computer-based, essentially -- means of exchanging information on them.

And then the problem with the network is always that it's a nice piece of machinery, unless there's some energy moving through it. And what we intend to do in CICTE is provide that energy, provide information, practical information, for authorities in the member states to use in attacking these issues. Those are the sorts of recommendations we will be making.

There's also the structural issue of CICTE. What is the best form that -- of CICTE, which is an OAS committee, should take in order to make permanent these changes?

So one of the basic sets of recommendations we will be making will be on the structure of CICTE, so that we can develop a budget and staff, and use it for these purposes to the greatest extent possible.

MODERATOR: Any other questions --

AMB. RICARDES: Regarding the point of cooperation, it's true that, you know, the main object of the actions of that the 34 countries are developing now is to increase cooperation. But what do we mean by "cooperation"? Perhaps this is something that -- it is not publishing papers every day. It cannot be publishing papers every day, because in fact the cooperation -- there was already cooperation. What we are doing now is to improve or to make that cooperation for the better aim to preempt or fight the terrorism.

In the case of my country, for instance, of Argentina, we have already developed a number of mechanism(s) of cooperation. In the case of, you know, in the -- what we call the triple borders between Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina, we have been cooperating thoroughly and quite well.

And immediately after the -- you know, the attacks of September the 11th, there was, you know, an increasing number of people, of security forces and police forces, in order to reinforce the control on borders.

So the mechanisms are -- were already there. Even the -- I would say the model -- (inaudible) -- mechanism of CICTE. What we are doing now is to reinforce reactions in a way to make that action more dynamic and more efficient.

MR. MONBLATT: This is how you will judge whether CICTE is successful or not, down the road a bit. This is our goal. We want to break up the terrorist cells. We want to put them in jail or expel them from the hemisphere, and we want to discredit their tactics. That's how you'll be able to judge whether or not we're successful. To the extent that we're able to accomplish those three goals -- and you can say about the governments in the hemisphere as a whole, yes, you've been successful. Yes, this is not a place that's hospitable to terrorism. And that's how we want to be judged and that's what -- the whole purpose of this exercise.

AMB. ESCOBAR: I think that this fight against terrorism has different faces, different forms. We are having a multilateral approach. That's number one. Number two, it's multi-disciplinary. Now, you fight terrorism preventing it, also, so a lot of the war plan is addressed to identification of terrorist cells, identification of activities, identification of individuals or groups that may be contemplating acts of terrorism in our hemisphere. So that's why the sharing of information will be essential. In other words, mobility would not be easily accomplished, and that's where cooperation among states becomes crucial to this end.

The other side of the cooperation is the training and the capacity to detect on time where they are, who they are, if or not they're planning activities, and how we will respond to that.

The other way to combat terrorism is legally, and that's why the OAS is working on a new legal instrument to combat terrorism, which is the Convention to Prevent and Combat Terrorism in our hemisphere. All of these were mandated by our foreign ministers who met almost immediately.

One more about Central America, for example. In the -- the presidents of our region met four or five days after September 11, and they gave clear mandate to all of the authorities -- national authorities, intelligence authorities, security authorities -- to develop war plans to work in our subregion to combat terrorism. Now, that is an added-value to the hemispheric approach. And the same thing, like Ambassador Ricardes was saying, is happening in the south, in the Caribbean, and in the north. So I think we need -- when we put all these activities together, we will have a coherent, practical plan against terrorism in the hemisphere.

MODERATOR: Next question -- (inaudible.)

Q Jose Carrena for El Universal, Mexico City.

I'm wondering, if I may, is there any difference, or have you reached any kind of definition of terrorism, the international terrorism as opposed to domestic terrorism? Who defines terrorism in this sense?

MR. MONBLATT: Well, you know, an American Supreme Court justice said some time ago, "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

The fact is, even within the United States government, within our laws we have three different definitions of terrorism which are applicable or relevant depending on what law is at stake.

There is no international consensus on the definition of terrorism. The approach that my government has taken nearly de facto on this is, rather than trying to define terrorism, look at specific acts and criminalize those acts. Say, for example, you don't need to have a definition of terrorism to outlaw aerial hijacking. You don't need to have a definition of terrorism to outlaw bombings of civilian or non-combatant places -- public places. And so on.

We have found, and the U.N. has found it much more likely you can achieve an international consensus to criminalize discrete acts than to find a global definition.

This is not to say that it's not worth the effort to try to come up with a global definition. I know that right now in the U.N., the government of India is leading an effort, which we support, to come up with a comprehensive antiterrorism treaty. But I believe this effort is running into the same problem that others have run into before, which is the difficulty in coming up with a consensus definition. We support the effort, but it's -- up until now, on the part of many countries from different viewpoints, it's not proven possible to find a definition that everyone can accept.

AMB. FERRERO COSTA: I fully agree with Ambassador Monblatt, knowing in history -- not now, in history it has been almost impossible to define terrorism. What -- even the United Nations., it has been an exercise for many years to try to define terrorism, and that is why United Nations does not have a convention on terrorism.

So I think that we in the hemisphere -- we must take that into consideration and try to see whether we can, you know, have a convention.

Making references to terrorist acts which are a real -- these are crimes which provoke -- I mean, the additional element is to provoke terror in population.

Now, the convention that is being drafted now by a working group, as Ambassador Escobar said, is -- or will be very important if it is mounted because it will give the legal framework to the practical measures that the committee will recommend tomorrow to the ministers of interior or to the security ministers that will get together at the end of January. And something that we must say (in the West ?), in a way, is in the hemisphere, we are in a better position to reach an agreement on a convention, not only because we are 34, in the case of United Nations, 188, but what is true is that we are also sharing values. This is the first time in history that the hemisphere has 34 democratic regimes. In spite of all problems we can have or face now or in the future, the truth is that we have democratic regimes. And that is a very important political framework, favorable, and it is really very favorable to be able to develop an action, an efficient action against terrorism.

Q Ambassador Escobar said that September 11 was a turning point in the view of many countries about terrorism. I wonder if you would like to expand a bit of that.

AMB. ESCOBAR: Sure. For one thing, it made us more united. It reaffirmed our values on liberty. If freedom and liberty is the most precious thing a human being can have, terrorism is the opposite to that. Freedom to choose, freedom to elect and have democratic countries -- (inaudible), freedom to think, freedom to walk, freedom to live. All of those values that were in that charter -- democracy, human rights, prosperity -- were, in a way, reaffirmed. Now, terrorism pretended to -- how do you say in English -- undermine these values, but the result was the opposite. It made us stronger. It made us more united. It made us more determined to defend those values.

And it was a turning point because we will not -- these 34 countries -- depart from defending our systems and our way of life. That's the bottom line, very simple. It's the way we live.

AMB. FERRERO COSTA: I think there is an additional element. When governments are saying now in the Americas that this change -- a structural change is related also with a new concept of security, that original concept of security of a state has been related to problems between states and to the use of conventional armament. Now that case is different. There's a new global threat to security that is carried out not by states, but by individuals, organizations, not states, and with all sorts of arms, as the case of the plane used, or -- and such and so on.

So there are new challenges for international security, new global challenges to security. And the solution is now seen as a new sort of challenge to an historic, an international -- global security. So in this sense, there is a turning point in the conception of security within the hemisphere.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question is here.

Q I'm Mamoud Hamgani (sp) from Pakistan Observer. My first question is that after September 11 and after the formation of OAS committee against terrorism, has there been any apprehension of any terrorist?

And my second question is that terrorists and drug traffickers, they are interlinked. And is OAS, you know, working on these lines, that they're also trying to find some link between the terrorists and the drug traffickers?

MR. MONBLATT: Let me respond to your second question. I'm going to pass on the first one because I don't want to speak for everything that's gone on in 33 other countries, where there have been apprehensions or not.

But regarding your second question, I can say most definitely yes. The OAS has an organization whose acronym is CICAD, which is the Inter-American Commission Against Drugs. I'm not sure if I got that in the right order, but that's what they do. And one of the operational decisions that we've made about CICTE is to work as closely as we can with them.

For example, one of the activities of CICAD is to offer a number of courses on money laundering to banking officials throughout the hemisphere. One of the things that we want to do, then, is prepare a modual on terrorist financing, which is related to money laundering, but it's not quite the same thing, that they can add to their courses. Because the same officials who will be doing bank regulation to prevent money laundering are going to be the same people who are doing regulation or supervision to prevent terrorist financing. So if we can add something to CICAD's program, we can increase the value of both programs.

We're going to be looking very specifically for ways that we can work together with those in the hemisphere who work on drugs, without duplicating each other's efforts, which would be -- obviously would be counterproductive. And in bureaucracy, there is a fine art in doing that. But that's what we're trying to do.

AMB. ESCOBAR: If I may just add another point in which the OAS is coordinating itself with CICTE and drugs, the fight against drugs, is in the area of illegal weapons through the CIFTA convention, which is precisely another legal instrument that our hemisphere has to combat illegal trafficking of weapons, explosives and small arms. Because all these links are important to establish them from a central coordinated body, which is CICTE. So I just wanted to add that other element of the drug trafficking.

AMB. RICARDES: I would like only to add, I think his question really was a very good question because it would be the emphasis on the different links among the -- what we call the transnational crimes, like drug trafficking or, as Ambassador Escobar said, the illegal transfer of weapons or explosives and drugs. I mean, these are on terrorism. These are three of the transnational crimes with which all countries will have to deal in the future.

Now, something that I -- really I would like to underline is we are developing a collective action because these are transnational crimes, and in a way, they must be put in the wide framework of globalization. Unfortunately, globalization is having good consequences and also evil consequences, so the reaction must be also collective, must be global. And that is why I think that the action of the Organization of American States will be global, will be a multilateral action. This is why I think that, in a way, we will be able more efficiently to prevent or attack terrorism.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

The next question, over here?

Q Yes. I'm Jose Puertos (ph) from France Press. Is there a way that you distinguish between what is terrorism and what is the position of the guerrilla movements? Because terrorism somehow is kind of a evolution from the old guerrilla wars, and -- but we in Latin America have two very talented ministers or members of parliament that were former guerrillas. And -- but in the case of the United States, you don't distinguish between guerrillas and these terrorist groups. As a matter of fact, the -- what Colombia considers a domestic guerrilla is for the United States a international terrorist organization. So is there any way that you are attempting to distinguish between these in your work?

MR. MONBLATT: Yes. We recognize a right of insurgency. The problem with that is, what do you say next, once you've said you recognize the right of insurgency?

Every nation has created laws that outlaws murder. There's no nation that -- whatever their political regime, that does not criminalize the act of murder. Every nation with an organized armed forces has a code of military conduct, and soldiers that cross over -- that transgress against that code are subject, in organized militaries, to punishment. When you get to the area of insurgency, you're in a gray area. There is no law of insurgency. There's no code of permissible and impermissible behavior in an insurgency. So we look at certain acts. While we accept in the abstract the idea of an insurgency, we say, for example, it is an act of terrorism to blow up a bus load of civilians. We don't look at the cause. We look at the action that's committed in the name of the cause.

Now, the other answer to your question is, when you talk about the FARC and other organizations, we keep in the State Department by law a list of what we call our foreign terrorist organizations, and I think, the last time I counted, there were 28. But that list is not permanent. For example, when the IRA agreed to enter into peace talks with the Northern Irish government and the Irish government and the British government, we took them off the list.

When the PLO signed the Oslo Accords, we took them off the list. When an organization says that they will no longer indulge or countenance the kind of violent acts that we call terrorism, we take them off the list when we see that they're serious about it. So, yeah, we do distinguish that way. But our whole focus -- and this is part of the problem why -- and I freely acknowledge that our focus is not universally accepted, but our focus is on the act. You're a terrorist in Africa if you chop off the hands of children in order to make a political point. That's the RUF in Sierra Leone. You're a terrorist if you blow up a busload of civilians or a dance hall full of civilians. We don't ask why you did it. We just look at the act, and that's where we put our emphasis.

MODERATOR: We'll take our next question here. Time for just two or three more. And we'll try to get everyone in.

Q Yes. (Name and affiliation inaudible) -- from Argentina. I want to talk first of what we know about the fierceness of the presence of fundamentalist cells and fund-raising organizations inside Paraguay, whether al Qaeda or Hezbollah. How high is this on the CICTE agenda, the question of Paraguay? And lastly, how willing has the government of Paraguay been to cooperate, to accept foreign support in the kind of internal policing operation that will have to be taken against the cells, as opposed to border controls?

AMB. RICARDES: Let me say first of all that those are questions that should have to be answered by the ambassador of Paraguay, not myself. But second, what I can only say is that we have been working very closely with the government of Paraguay and the government of Brazil, and I think that the position of the government of Paraguay has been to give full cooperation to the action we develop. And there is an agreement that has been fully implemented and that is -- you know, it's an obligation for the three governments. So I would say that, you know, this is the best action that the government of Paraguay can hold for the moment.

MR. MONBLATT: I know that -- because we received the invitation -- that the government of Paraguay next month is sponsoring in Asuncion an international conference or workshop on the tri-border area, and the nations of the Southern Cone are all invited and I believe other South American nations are. And I know that we were invited as well. My boss, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, will attend, which is, I think, an indication of the degree of seriousness that we place on the issue. But it's important to note that this was the Paraguayan government's initiative, and they recognize it as a regional issue and they are treating it that way.

AMB. FERRERO COSTA: I would like to make out a clarification. (Inaudible) -- for national issues in CICTE, in the OAS. It is natural for journalists who are strictly doing -- (inaudible) -- doing it in a regional, in a multilateral basis. CICTE is not discussing the internal cases of any country. If CICTE discusses, it discusses ways and means for the states -- all the countries, all the states of that -- of the Americas, in order to collaborate and cooperate in the fight against terrorism.

That's the role of us as a whole. But this -- national positions is something different, really. It has not been discussed today within the framework of CICTE. Really, each ambassador will answer that giving the position of his own country. But that's not the focus in which we are working together now. The focus is a regional, multilateral approach to tackle this common problem that is terrorism.

MODERATOR: We're nearly out of time, so I'll take these last two questions in English -- the people who have been waiting longest -- here and here, and then we'll do one final question in Spanish from Colombian television.

Q Yes -- (name inaudible) -- from the Associated Press.

President Fox of Mexico has termed the pact of Rio as an obsolete one just the day before this September 11 event. And after the September 11 event, would you please tell us what is the feeling inside the OAS about this president's proposal?

MR. MONBLATT: I can't speak for the OAS on that issue, and I'd really not like to get into a discussion of the specific policies of individual nations. My suggestion is speak to the Mexican authorities and get their view on their position. I can't -- I can't really speak to that. I know how the OAS is proceeding on counterterrorism, and I know that we as a group are very satisfied with the way the OAS is proceeding on counterterrorism. And if you want a Mexican reaction, I'd suggest you ask the Mexicans for it.

Q (Off mike.)

AMB. RICARDES: Let me say that, at this moment, the proposal made by the president of Mexico is being discussed on the Committee on Hemispheric Security. And no decision has been taken for the moment. I mean, this is something that will be discussed in some more meetings. The idea is that there should have to be -- there should have to be a conference on hemispheric security, probably -- not as the head of states in Quebec said, in 2004, but perhaps before.

It could be perhaps in 2003. And then, once we discuss probably -- or have a consensus regarding the date and regarding the site, we also -- we will begin to discuss the substance. I mean, to say, what are the instruments that will be considered by the minister of foreign affairs in 2003, perhaps.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And now we'll take our final question in English.

Q Thank you. Bettie Brannon-Hang (ph) from La Prensa of Panama. My question is, I think it was Oppenheimer who wrote a couple of weeks ago that the Bush administration was unhappy with the level of cooperation it was getting in the war against terrorism from the Latin American countries. And he described a certain impatience with nothing but hot air coming out of the OAS. Could you respond to that please?

And I have a second question. And it's, can we please have more specifics on these measures that are going to be presented tomorrow, particularly with regard to terrorist financing?

MR. MONBLATT: On the first one, I can say -- and here, I speak authoritatively -- we are quite pleased with the reaction of the hemisphere, specifically in the OAS after September 11th. That's precisely the point that we're most eager to get across to you all. Not at all. I can't speak to Andre's column in any great detail except to say that my government is very pleased with the reaction, the response that we've seen.

Now, regarding financing, once again, our recommendations are going to be in the area of training of financial officers, of sharing mechanisms -- developing mechanisms to share information about terrorist financing, about, for example, terrorist financing techniques. We're also very interested in compiling and distributing best practices by way of financial regulation. In this, we want to work very closely with CICAD, as I mentioned, because they have a lot of stuff that they do on money laundering. We are also very interested in implementing the recommendations of the financial action task force group. And we're going to be looking to work with individual financial intelligence units that have already been established, helping them improve their capabilities.

Those are the sorts of recommendations that we'll make.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. That will conclude the English portion of the program, and now we will take a question in Spanish.

 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.