Richard Boucher Commenting on the Interim Government for Afghanistan [audio clip transcript][audio] MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here, and I will start off by wishing a merry Christmas and happy holidays to everyone. Since we won't be briefing for a while, I wanted to make some comments today on the events that will take place tomorrow in Afghanistan, and that is the installation of the interim administration, the governing authority for Afghanistan. This has been the product of a lot of effort by Afghans and by the international community, and it is a very welcome event in terms of bringing stability and peace to a region that has long been troubled. The UN Security Council has now given a mandate to an interim security assistance force. That is in Resolution 1386 that was passed yesterday. The British have offered to lead such a force, and have already got some elements of that force on the ground. The international community has also pledged to supporting the interim administration financially, and we have, as you know, had several conferences of potential donors. There is a meeting of the Afghan Donor Steering Group that has gone on yesterday and today in Brussels, and they continue to plan for our support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and then that will lead to another conference in January in Japan to work even more and plan even more specifically how the international community can continue to support the interim authority in this whole process, leading back to a representative and broadly based government for Afghanistan. So this government starts off with strong international support. For the United States, we look forward to working with the interim administration as the government of Afghanistan, and we have our diplomatic representation there. Ambassador Dobbins will attend the ceremonies for us tomorrow, and we have a team in Kabul that will be there to work with the government as it goes forward. Even more than that, I think, for the Afghan people, the installation of this interim authority, with the full support of the international community, it offers them a chance to pursue their lives, to pursue normal lives in an atmosphere of peace and stability for the first time after many, many years of trouble, and that perhaps is the most welcome of all the effects of this event. So I will stop with that and take your questions on this or other things. QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: But there was never any question of that support. QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: So that effort continues. That is always dangerous. I'm sure there are many, many dangers in Afghanistan, but whether it's financial support, security support, humanitarian support, diplomatic support, political support, we are prepared to offer them every possible support, and we are sure other members of the international community are as well. QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: The Indian Government has released certain evidence linking two militant groups, the Lashkar-e Tayyba and the Jaysh-e-Mohammed, both of which have bases in Pakistan, to the terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament. As you know, we have listed both those organizations on the executive order that freezes assets of terrorist organizations. We do know that those groups have committed terrorist acts and they intend to sabotage efforts at Indo-Pakistani reconciliation and to undermine President Musharraf. So we see each of these governments as important allies in our fight against terrorism. We will be working with each of them to address terrorism. And as I think Ari Fleischer just said, we look forward to seeing President Musharraf take steps against these groups. QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: At the same time, I would make clear that we have urged to both sides, to both India and Pakistan, to try to avoid any further escalation of tensions, and to stress to them again the need to remain focused on fighting the war on terrorism. QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: So as I have said here, we have urged them to avoid any further escalation of tensions. But the specific decisions on what the Government of India has to do, we have always said, the Government of India has to investigate and has to decide what to do in terms of appropriate action. And we will leave those decisions to India. QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: The assembly will meet again on late December 22nd to vote on who will succeed President de la Rúa, either until elections are held or for the remainder of de la Rúa's term. President Puerta has confirmed the current Cabinet on an interim basis. We are pleased with the orderly transition to date. We have confidence in the strength of Argentine institutions, which is a reflection of Argentina's standing as one of the Western Hemisphere's leading democracies. We want to see Argentina working with the international financial institutions to be able to work through this difficult situation in ways that lead toward sustainable economic growth. We and the Treasury Department have worked closely together throughout the crisis in Argentina and we will continue to work with other Departments of the US Government, the international financial institutions, and the other members of the international community to try to support a solution that can lead the country back to sustainable growth and prosperity. QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: QUESTION: MR. BOUCHER: QUESTION: Can I ask you about Somalia? And, frankly, we thought the State Department might have something to say about the level of terrorism, and the concern there. The Pentagon has had things to say, at least General Meyers did. I mean, so far it seems you're combating it with financial measures, but is -- well, I guess the hard question, although it's easy not to answer it, is whether Somalia is the next on the list?December 21, 2001 I will check on the status of the Ambassador and see what there is to say. I am not aware of any other envoys going down, no. Has the Ambassador been in to see the new president? Thank you. But no one from this building, which is clearly what I meant, I think. We have diplomatic representatives down there. Do you have anybody going down there? As I said, we will work with other people in the international community to support a solution that can lead the country back to sustainable growth and prosperity. But no cash? We understand that the Argentine legislative assembly has just accepted President De La Rúa's resignation and sworn in Senate President Pro Tem Ramón Puerta as the acting president. This is what Argentine law provides. Can we hopscotch the world and go to Argentina, please? And can you tell us what you think of the moves down there and the moves announced by the government and what you are doing? We remain heavily engaged in this process, trying to work with each of them, and we will stay that way. I am trying to get an idea of whether you are more concerned today than you were yesterday. I am not going to try to characterize it every day. You are asking me to say -- to go back; I have discussed before what we think of these two steps. I will leave it at what I said before and not adopt any other characterization. So you can't answer the question about whether you think the situation has worsened since yesterday with these two steps? As we have always said, we think it is important for India and Pakistan to avoid fighting each other. At this point, they have avoided fighting each other. Richard, yesterday a senior official in this building said that despite the heated rhetoric, the United States was pleased that there hadn't actually been any action taken. Well, now there has been action taken. I mean, they may be diplomatic and transportation steps, but they are actions. Has it escalated in the last 24 hours, in your opinion? Again, that is sort of asking for what kind of information we have and, given the fact that we have a variety of kinds of information, I'm not going to try to do briefings on the military situation. Do you think there has been anything beyond a diplomatic escalation of tensions, though? I can't give you a take on that. I can't confirm any particulars of military movements, just because we are not in a position to provide that kind of information to you. So I would just go back to what I said before. We would urge both sides -- we are urging both sides to avoid any further escalation of tensions. There has been some substantial troop movement or accusations of substantial troop movements in the area in the last 24 hours. What is your take on that? I don't think you can answer a question like that in a very broad and generic sense. I think you have to look at the groups involved. And we have made quite clear that these two groups, specifically, have carried out terrorist acts and we see them as such. And just a follow-up? Specifically, do you regard the separatist movement in Kashmir, either to join Pakistan or to get independence or whatever, as a terrorist struggle or as a freedom struggle, as Musharraf says? I would invite you to look at what the United States has done, as opposed to just reading the newspapers. We have listed these two particular groups under the financial -- the executive order that mandates the freezing of assets of terrorist organizations. We have noted in our Global Patterns of Terrorism Report that these two groups have carried out terrorist acts. We have noted that the Indian Government has now released information and evidence that links these two groups to the terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament, which we have condemned, which President Musharraf has condemned. And we think the fact that these two groups carry out terrorism is quite clear at this point. You mentioned that President Musharraf is taking steps against the organizations, but President Musharraf has said that the struggle in Kashmir is a freedom struggle. Today there is an article in the Washington Times calling to strike for calm, the United States does not regard the separatist moments in Chechnya, (inaudible) and Kashmir as terrorism struggles, as terrorism, and that you regard them as freedom struggle. Can you clarify that? Do you regard -- the specific question is -- I haven't checked, actually, to see. Our ambassadors in each capital are very, very active right now. I'm sure. Has Armitage made any phone calls? What? Under Secretary Armitage? No. Has the Secretary made any calls to the region since his chat with President Musharraf on Wednesday? Again, those specifics are decisions for the governments to make. I'm not going to go beyond what I have said. Okay, well, is dialogue helped or hindered by recall of ambassadors? We have always made clear that we think it's important for them to resolves issues between them through dialogue. We have made quite clear in recent days the importance of each of them taking appropriate steps to fight terrorism, and to remain focused on that fight. But you (inaudible)? So you don't think it would be a good idea for their cooperation in the war on terrorism, which they are both allies in the coalition, fighting against? Right? You don't think they should keep their ambassador there? You don't think -- Okay. We have -- we are certainly quite aware of these reports. We are quite aware of the decisions that India has decided to recall its high commissioner to Islamabad and to halt rail and bus links to Pakistan. We see these as internal matters for the Indian Government. They are responsible for deciding what is in the best interest of the Indian people. I'm asking you now. And the decision to cut off the transportation links. I don't make the questions. What do we make of the recall? Well, I'm sorry. I thought that if you were talking about India and Pakistan in general, that you might want to mention the fact that -- so what do you make of the recall of the Ambassador -- He asked about the terrorism end, and I answered the terrorism end. I asked about the terrorism end of it. Well, I would say that your colleagues, first of all, neglected to ask. And if they want to ask about it, I'm happy to answer it. So let's start with a question. Richard, just as you did yesterday, though, you have given a great -- the great kind of gloss-over in the glass-half-full department. Isn't it a fact that, just like Mother Nature ignored your call yesterday for more snow, the Indians are completely ignoring your calls for cooperation? You just neglected to mention completely that they have recalled their ambassador to Pakistan, that they're severing all their bus and train links with the Pakistanis. We have made clear in our statements that we have not seen anything that would indicate the Pakistani Government was somehow behind these attacks. We know these groups have bases in Pakistan. We know how they operate. President Musharraf has made clear his commitment to address extremism within Pakistan. He has made clear -- he has begun to take steps to address extremism in Pakistan. He has proved to be a capable and reliable partner in the fight against terrorism. And we are confident that he will continue to take steps in the fight against terrorism and, in that context, we have urged Pakistan to take action against these groups. Let me ask you a quick question on that. I don't know if the view -- the policy here is to describe them almost as if they're autonomous groups. But the terrorism report, which I must have memorized by now, said Pakistan hosts training for terrorism groups that operate in Kashmir. So is there any -- at this stage, at least, any link between the Pakistani Government and what happened in the Indian parliament? Because India, of course, thinks there is a strong, clear link. India-Pakistan is an area of continuing concern. We continue to stay in very close touch with India and Pakistan. We are going to maintain our interests there, as we have made quite clear. We look forward to working with each of these governments in terms of the fight against terrorism. We are confident that President Musharraf is going to take steps against extremism. And I think the White House had a bit more to say about that today. And India-Pakistan? You are asking me to speculate on a lot of different hypotheticals. We do more than keep our fingers crossed. We work very hard to make sure that things turn out the way we'd like to see them turn out. So we are actively supporting the new government in Afghanistan. We worked very closely with the parties on the agreement that they reached in Bonn. We will be working -- we and other members of the international community will be supporting the new interim authority financially, with the security presence that is provided. Of course, the United States military is still actively working to pursue al-Qaida members and Taliban members, who -- and that may still take some time. What -- is there anything people in this building are keeping their fingers crossed about? And secondly, if it isn't India-Pakistan, could the stress in India-Pakistan spill over into poor old Afghanistan, which seems to be vulnerable to everything in the region? Go ahead. So still, in spite all the good wishes, not to be a spoiler, but this has been a troubled country -- It has all been worked out for the moment. We are on the way, and we are confident that it will work well in the future. Everybody is very committed to supporting the new government, and we are very committed to making sure that stability and peace can be brought back to the lives of the Afghan people. Let me ask the concern question -- No. No concern at all? No. If I could just follow up on that. Can you just comment generally what the US view is? I mean, are you at all in any way concerned that because the leadership of this force may turn over, it looks like there could be people coming in, stepping in, that there could be problems in terms of the continuity of -- and the importance of having a stable presence? We talk to them quite a lot. Yes. Well, you talk to them about these things? That is a question you will have to ask Turkey, wouldn't it be? Has Turkey proposed taking the leadership role -- It's not for us to choose at this point. These are going to be matters that we will discuss with the international community. We have always welcomed Turkey's willingness to participate in this arrangement, and we will have to see after consultations with all the others that are involved in the force or involved in Afghanistan. We will have to see how these arrangements are going to be worked out over time. Would the United States support an idea which seems to be growing in currency, that Turkey will lead the force once Britain's leadership expires? But other days, yes? (Laughter.) I haven't seen what he said this morning. I am not going to try to tell you what news is and what news isn't, frankly, today. Okay. So in other words, what he said this morning is really nothing new? No, we have always fully supported the arrangements that were reached in Bonn. We have already fully supported the installation of this government that will take place tomorrow. I suppose there is some importance to be attached to the fact that when the government is installed, we and others will recognize them as the Government of Afghanistan and work with them in that capacity. So that is another sign of the international support that we are offering to this government. Can I go back to recognition of Afghanistan? Ambassador Dobbins' comments this morning seem to have inspired some people to think that they were news. And was there every any question -- was there ever a question that the US was going to not recognize this government? I would go back to the mandate of the Security Council resolution that provides an initial mandate for six months. So that is certainly longer. How long it stays beyond that will be a question for the Security Council and other people involved to address. If I can follow up with one more on that one, is it the US view that there will probably be a need for this force after that 60 to 90 days of some sort, without getting into who leads it or who is in it? I think that is a question you are going to have to ask the British, since they are in the lead on this force. They are there to support the interim authority in Afghanistan. How exactly it is worked out in terms of their presence of turning over the lead to somebody else, that will be questions for the British and the international community to work out. And another question regarding the international security force led by the UK, what is your understanding of how the time frame will work, particularly for the British? They have said 60 to 90 days. Do you expect that they will be re-upped after that period? How do you think that is going to work? You can call it a donors conference because the Donors Support Steering Group is planning it. So we are steering towards a donors conference in Japan. Pledging? I'm sorry -- That would be a pledging conference. That's another wrinkle. But you expect countries, including the United States, to make formal pledges at that point? I would have to look it up and see exactly what it's called. I have two questions. Can we call the conference in Japan a donors conference? No, I can't at this point. I am sure there will be a lot of supportive and generous offers for the new government. I am sure the United States will want to do its part. As the Secretary has noted before, we know that there are many international donors who will be prepared to support the reconstruction of Afghanistan. So I can't at this point estimate any particular amounts. But the international community has been working hard to prepare. We have been trying to identify the things that need to be done through these donors group conferences and meetings that we have been having. And I am sure when the time comes to fund them that there will be no lack of support. Money. Can you give us a clue about what portion of the funding in January will come from this country? Same thing, another wrinkle. Yes. Another subject? On the same thing but another -- Without trying to make a legalistic declaration which, if it's appropriate, we'll make at the appropriate time, I said we look forward to working with this new government as the government of Afghanistan. In normal terms, we recognize that this is the government of Afghanistan and we look forward to working with them. Well, a tedious question. I apologize in advance, because you know what I'm going to ask you, but this recognition has cropped up again. I understand what you have said in the past, but is there a new wrinkle on this? Is this, indeed, what Mr. Dobbins has been saying out there? Is this recognition in a traditional sense? |
 | |||
|
