The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Michael A. Sheehan Acting Coordinator for the Office for Counterterrorism Press Briefing on Release of "Patterns of Global Terrorism 1998" Washington, DC, April 30, 1999

Michael Sheehan: Thank you. Good afternoon. It's good to be here on the publishing of our 18th annual terrorism report prepared by the Department and submitted to the Congress, as required by legislation.

Let me go through a little bit of the description of this report to set the framework. This is an examination of terrorist trends for the calendar year of 1998. It's used as a reference document for many organizations around the government and elsewhere. It has several parts to it. The text, which is divided into several regional areas, includes a section on state-sponsors of terrorism. Actually, the perception of this report is often that it's a mechanism for designating state sponsors. Actually, it's not. We are simply reporting their activity during 1998.

We can designate, or remove a designation, at any time during the year. The current list of the seven state sponsors that are in this report are the same as they have been for last year. There is also a chronology in the second part which contains summaries of the most significant terrorist attacks that took place in 1998. There is also a description of terrorist groups. This listing contains background information on these groups that are discussed in the report. It includes all of those terrorist groups that we formally designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations in October of 1997, what we call the FTOs. They are all in there.

Those designations that we started in 1997 are valid for 2 years. Some of these groups will be re-designated when we do that again in October. But the report also includes other groups that don't fully meet the criteria of that designation, and those are in there, as well, which we may be considering designating and can be designated at any time. But normally, we reserve that until October.

So basically this is an annual report of counterterrorism. It includes the seven state sponsors that were the same as the year before. It includes a report on terrorist organizations, all the 30 foreign terrorist organizations we designated in October of 1997. So that's a little bit of context.

You should have a copy of the Secretary's remarks. Have you had that? I just want to highlight a few things in that. This is the year--we cannot forget the terrible bombings of Nairobi and Dar last summer. We never let that leave our minds for one moment within the Counterterrorism office, or in the Secretary's office, as well.

The trend of terrorism this year is very apparent. Fewer incidents, higher lethality. What we require of the state sponsors is the same as we always have: stop planning, stop financing, stop supporting terrorist acts, stop providing safe haven and shelter for those who are involved in terrorist activities.

I would also like to say that we have two Presidential Directives made in the last year that go beyond the immediate efforts of this office on international terrorism, PDD-62 and PDD-63, which organizes our whole government for weapons of mass destruction and other threats against critical infrastructure, both at home and abroad. But those authorities and the strengthening of the terrorism community within the government also have strengthened our hand in dealing with international terrorism. I thought that was worth noting.

I would like to also note the success we had and our long policy to bring the two suspects in Pan Am 103--although that was not covered in this report because it is 1998--but I would just like to also note that, we continue to have success in bringing back those suspects of criminal activity back to justice. We have a long memory--you'll see also in the report--back there, we brought back another person for criminal, terrorist activity back from 1982 in this year.

So at that point, I think I'll close my opening remarks and open it up for your questions.

Q My memory should be long, too, but I'll be darned if--I couldn't find it in here, and if you happen to know what are the two or three major implications of being on a terrorism list? In other words, what are you denied? I can't recall--but more specifically and more controversially, how can you keep maintaining Cuba on a terrorism list? You have two paragraphs here. You say they don't actively--you say they have connections to countries that sponsor terrorists. The United States has connections to Syria. The President of the United States meets with the President of Syria. Frankly, I think this is probably politically motivated, rather than factually motivated. However, can you tell us--can you respond to those two things?

Michael Sheehan: First, what are the impacts of the counterterrorism designation? The primary impact is the political pressure, the designation calling them the pariahs that they are. That's what's more important to me. It's that political designation of them as a state sponsor, and that we're able to isolate them, bring political pressure on them, and to try to change their behavior. That is the primary value to me.

Now what does it mean in terms of the legalities? It requires--it blocks financial transactions, prevents fundraising on their behalf, the ability of their people to operate in the United States, things along those lines. Those are important--the financing, the ability for them to operate within the United States. But primarily it uses--it coordinates our effort to bring political pressure on these organizations and these countries to isolate them and change their behavior. In fact, I think it has worked. I would like to say that of the seven state sponsors, we have continued the trend--a clear trend over the past years--really going beyond the Clinton Administration back to the end of the Reagan Administration and during the Bush Administration, the amount of directly sponsored terrorism by state sponsors continues to go down. This is a very clear trend. I think our policies of designating state sponsorship and isolating countries for their bad behavior is working and continues to work.

Unfortunately, we have a different threat today. That is the threat of nonstate-sponsored terrorist groups--like the Bin Laden organization, his associates; the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Gama. These organizations do not have as tight a link to governments or states. Although, they have some. But they are much more independent. They have independent means of raising financing, of recruiting people, of finding areas to train, plan, and launch their operations. This is a troubling trend. We're aware of it, and we're designing strategies to bring pressure to bear on them, as we have in the past with those organizations that were more directly supported by state sponsors.

Cuba?

Q How does it maintain its notoriety?

Michael Sheehan: Cuba, quite bluntly, continues to provide safe haven for terrorists, period. They will remain on the list while they continue to provide safe haven for a number of terrorist organizations. It is true, in fact, that Cuba and several other states on that list could take what we would consider not difficult steps to move them off the list of state-sponsorship. But they haven't done so to this day. We encourage them to do so. There are others in that list. They need to take those steps, or they will remain on the state-sponsorship list indefinitely.

Q To go on to some of those other states, I mean, with North Korea, the last incident you cite is 1987, and on Libya you say, Libya has not been implicated in any international terrorist act for several years. So--I mean, it seems--

Michael Sheehan: That's correct.

Q Plus, then you cite all these things with Afghanistan--with Usama bin Laden and what not--and you don't put Afghanistan on the list. So there really seems to be quite a disconnect that's very difficult to understand.

Michael Sheehan: Let me address that. First of all, that's why I made the pitch on why the nonstate-sponsored is the bigger issue. The traditional state sponsors have moved away--clearly--from the direct sponsorship of terrorist organizations. However, that does not absolve them from their state sponsorship. They are harboring groups that are still conducting terrorist acts. If you look at the numbers, as I said, the lethality was up last year--although the numbers were down. Terrorism is still a major problem around the world today. It remains a major problem to a large extent because countries are allowing groups to operate and give them sanction-safe haven. So although their direct linkage is less, the combination of allowing groups to operate within their borders and providing them direct and indirect support prevents us from closing the chapters on these terrorist acts.

That's why they remain on it. But as I said before, the threat is much more of the nonstate-sponsored.

Q That doesn't explain North Korea, though. I mean, you don't make any--

Michael Sheehan: North Korea still harbors--still needs to take certain clear steps to get itself off the list, and they have refused to do so. We have laid out a road map for North Korea on what they need to do to get off the state sponsorship. You really should direct your question to their officials. Why they haven't taken those steps to get off of the state-sponsorship list, for both--for all seven of them. It's a very clear path for them to get off.

Q Why isn't Afghanistan on the list?

Michael Sheehan: Afghanistan, we do not recognize as a state. Bin Laden who has an organization--it wraps around the world but has many of his headquarters in Afghanistan--was designated with an Executive Order. We're putting tremendous pressure on the Taliban right now regarding the presence of Bin Laden within areas of their control, and we're examining other means to put more pressure on the Taliban. But Afghanistan, we don't recognize as a state. They don't have a seat in the UN. They don't have those, so that's why they are not on it.

Q On the impact--you say they can't raise--these organizations listed can't raise money in the country and can't operate here. How is it that the Mujahedin-e Khalq continues in business here?

Michael Sheehan: Which Mujahedin?

Q Mujahedin-e Khalq.

Michael Sheehan: Which one is that?

Q The People's Mujahedin.

Michael Sheehan: What's the question about them?

Q How do they continue to operate in this country?

Michael Sheehan: There are many terrorist organizations in this country--that operate in this country. The FBI is acting vigorously against them. I suggest that if you have questions about specific groups, to talk to the FBI about it. I can tell you that the efforts the FBI has made against groups like that and the Hizballah and others in the United States have been very significant. They have made great progress against many of those organizations within the United States, in arresting people, of running cases against them, and clamping down their activity. If you notice, yet again, this year there were no acts of international terrorism conducted within the United States. I commend the efforts of the FBI and other law enforcement communities for continuing to put pressure on organizations that reside within the United States, including that one.

Q The U.S. Ambassador in Nairobi, Kenya, has said several times--it's been reported that she has said that they tried to get the State Department on a number of occasions to improve security at the embassy in Nairobi before the bombing. I think this applies largely--or talking about a larger scale--to many U.S. embassies that are vulnerable. So how would you reply to those who say our embassies are inviting targets?

Michael Sheehan: That are embassies are inviting targets?

Q That our embassies--many of our embassies are inviting targets to terror?

Michael Sheehan: Well, our embassies clearly are targets to terror. They have been in the past. That's clear. Certain terrorist groups have decided to attack our embassies in the past, all around the world, and other countries' embassies. The issue of embassy security--I don't want to completely punt your question, but that's really more in--our Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security is involved in that. But I think we've taken enormous steps. I work very closely with him on a daily basis to improve the security of our embassies around the world. The Secretary has moved on a path to get the types of appropriations required to provide more protection for our embassies. But they remain a target out there. We're very aware of that, and go through extraordinary measures every day here within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security coordinating with our office and other agencies to try to prevent and to provide them the protection they deserve.

Q So many U.S. embassies are inviting targets?

Michael Sheehan: I don't know what you mean by "inviting" but all our embassies--

Q All the embassies are targets?

Michael Sheehan: All our embassies are targets, absolutely. All the embassies and consulates around the world are very much aware that they have to have a security posture to protect them from terrorist attacks, absolutely. But I don't know what you mean by--they are "inviting targets."

Q I mean some of them, the security is such?

Michael Sheehan: No, I think we've made tremendous strides to improve the security. Be sure of that. Our security has improved greatly. Again, direct your question to Diplomatic Security. But I can tell you that I am very satisfied with the steps we've taken to enhance the security of our embassies and consulates. We need to do more. We have a plan to do more. I think we're on track.

Q Sir, two questions, please.

Michael Sheehan: Yes, ma'am.

Q Just to follow up Barry's earlier question. Beyond the political pressure, what are the other implications in terms of aid and trade--aid from the U.S. or trade with the U.S.--for the state sponsors?

The second question is: does Saudi Arabia provide any money to terrorist organizations--either directly--like to Hamas or Islamic Jihad--or via Islamic charitable organizations?

Michael Sheehan: Let me answer the second question. We have not determined that the Government of Saudi Arabia provides financial support to terrorist organizations. So that's the short answer to that one.

On the second question regarding aid and trade, I went through the specific legal aspects of what the state sponsorship does on trade, such as some of the issues that Under Secretary Eizenstat mentioned the other day. That's on a case-by-case basis. We have a variety of policies that regard each of the seven on different aspects of it. There's also other unilateral sanctions, so it's a more complicated answer.

Q You said that state-sponsored terrorism means training, safe haven, financing and political support, so on. Indian state of Kashmir (inaudible) said today in a National Press Club press briefing that Pakistan is sponsoring--Pakistan falls in the same category as what you said, but that in Kashmir they are sponsoring terrorism and there is a safe haven for the terrorists but the U.S. is not doing anything or have not recognized yet and we have been providing 22 places of terrorism training centers in Pakistan. Any comments on that?

Michael Sheehan: I think you should look in the report on India and Pakistan--we really address that question straight up. We're very concerned about violence in Kashmir; we're concerned about the terrorism in Kashmir; and the report really addresses your issue and how we've talked to both the Pakistani and the Indian Governments about that issue.

Q I want to follow up on something earlier with--in the state sponsorship, most of the entries are very specific; they mention which particular groups are being harbored by which countries, but again, when it gets to Cuba, it's nothing except vague harboring terrorists. Who's being harbored there that we're concerned about? And the point about terrorist groups--the Colombian maintaining--

Michael Sheehan: FARC and ELN.

Q --they have representatives in Europe, as well so I'm not sure how that makes Cuba any different from Western Europe?

Michael Sheehan: The relationship that Cuba has--and it's a pattern of--it's not just whether you have one representative somewhere, but it's the pattern; we take a broader look at it--their relationship with terrorist organizations such as the FARC, the ELN and others is such that we've kept them in the category of state sponsorship.

Q Who's being harbored there then by way of terrorists?

Michael Sheehan: I mentioned two of them--the FARC and the ELN.

Q Well you mentioned that they have ties; you didn't say that they were being harbored there--I'm confused.

Michael Sheehan: They have people there and the relationship is such that we've put them on the state sponsorship list.

Q Also related to Colombia--I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. I wonder if at any point while you were working on the report you considered taking the FARC out precisely because the government is trying to deal--have a peace process going with the FARC and also because some officials from your State Department met with them last year, which of course lead to a lot of criticism reminding you that they are a terrorist group that you shouldn't be dealing with. So I wonder if at any point throughout the process you thought of dropping the FARC from the list? And I had a second question--I wonder if, or why, it is that groups like the paramilitary groups in Colombia that commit a lot of atrocities also, why they're not included as one of the terrorist organizations in the world?

Michael Sheehan: On the FARC first--I never considered taking them off the list during this process. When I took over this job there were three unaccounted for missionaries that we hold the FARC responsible for and recently, of course, they are responsible--we hold them responsible for the murder of three others. So they're on the list and they're going to stay on the list.

Regarding paramilitary groups, I'm beginning to take a look at that and see whether they fall into a category, but I can't give you any answer further than that. But I'm very aware of those organizations and the violence they represent and I'm looking at it.

Q You said these are the same seven that were designated last year. How many years have these same seven--do you have any sense of--

Michael Sheehan: When we had the seven?

Q (Inaudible.)

Michael Sheehan: Since August '93 we've had the same seven. And my goal, as I've said to others, my goal is to get all seven of them off the list and that's what I'd like to do by the time I leave here, and we've laid out a path for them to get off the list and I hope they do. But they've got to do it; they're not going to get a free pass.

Q To clarify, Afghanistan would be eight if it were a state and had a regular government?

Michael Sheehan: I'd rather not comment directly on that because it's a moot--I don't want to hypothesize, but we're dealing with that issue. But they're not a state so it's a hypothetical.

Q At any time in the last year did you consider putting the KLA on this list?

Michael Sheehan: The KLA--interesting, because I used to work on Kosovo before I came here. People ask me what is the value of the designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It's important because for organizations that are involved in types of activities such as the KLA is involved--that they're involved in an insurgency of such--we make the point to organizations like that--don't use terrorism or you will get on international terrorism or you will be suspect or vulnerable to be put on our list. The KLA has not fallen into the category of a foreign terrorist organization. But, in fact, we have raised that with them--make sure you do not have a relationship with terrorist organizations--I know that that's been raised with the KLA repeatedly in the past--and also, do not use international terrorism as an instrument. And so far they have not been designated a foreign terrorist organization because they haven't met the criteria.

But this is important--this is why it's an important instrument for our American policy to make clear that the use of international terrorism will be condemned by our government by any organization.

Q You seem to put the emphasis on mechanical--I mean, the definition--people have been struggling for decades to define terrorism--but everything today seems to put the emphasis on links rather than targeting. I asked about the KLA, for instance, the targeting civilians; acts against civilians--it attempts to force political change by terrorizing populations. That's not reason enough to be labeled a terrorist group?

Michael Sheehan: We have a definition that's agreed upon for our purposes with the State Department and Justice and others that are involved in this and it's fairly specific. It doesn't mean we don't condemn other types of violent behavior as war, criminal activity, or other means, but for terrorism--international terrorism we do have, we are restricted by the laws that we're required to report on. But that doesn't limit our government from criticizing other types of behavior.

Q Is Cuba on the list of states that sponsor terrorism?

Michael Sheehan: Yes.

Q Just because of their ties with the FARC and the ELN from Colombia?

Michael Sheehan: And other organizations. I'm not going to get further into it right now. This report stands for what it is. We don't get into the--all the depth of research that's done by professionals within the intelligence community with members of my staff. We've made a judgment that there's enough linkage and safe haven of terrorist organizations to keep them on the list. They know what they need to do to get off the list.

Q Is Bin Laden still as dangerous as he was last year, so to speak? And is there the possibility of breaking up his terrorist organization and apprehending him?

Michael Sheehan: Usama bin Laden remains a major threat to American security interests. His--he and his associates--his organization--continue to plan and threaten United States interests and he remains a major threat and we have taken a--as the Secretary said in her remarks, a "full-court press" of finding ways to restrict and to pressure his organization; break it up; arrest members of his cells. And it's not just Usama bin Laden and his associates, it's associates with other organizations and it's a broader problem than just him. But we have a full-court press, as the Secretary's statement says: first, to bring him to justice and secondly, to disrupt, break apart and neutralize his organizations that remain a threat to us.

Q (Inaudible.)

Michael Sheehan: I don't want to comment directly on where his exact location is--that's an intelligence issue I'd rather not get into.

Thank you.

[end of document]