*EPF304 09/05/01
Transcript: U.S. Backs Megawati's Efforts to Restructure Economy
(September 1 Kelly press roundtable in Jakarta) (4630)
The United States strongly supports Indonesian President Megawati's economic restructuring effort, according to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly.
The United States, he added in a September 1 news conference in Jakarta, supports "the territorial integrity of Indonesia and peace and stability of all of its regions."
Kelly reiterated President Bush's invitation for the Indonesian leader to visit America later this month and meet with him in Washington.
Responding to a reporter's question regarding the murder of a U.S. citizen working for the United Nations in Timor by local militia members supported by the Indonesian military, Kelly said he had spoken out on that issue when he was in East Timor.
"I made very clear that the terrible crime against protected persons of the United Nations, including, in this one case of Mr. Caceres, a U.S. citizen, is a very serious matter," Kelly said.
The trial that was held, he added, was "not a suitable action of accountability."
Questioned whether a resumption of U.S.-Indonesian military ties would be more difficult if Indonesia failed to adequately prosecute human rights crimes dating from the referendum in East Timor, Kelly responded, "I think that's fair to say."
Following is a transcript of Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly's September 1 press roundtable in Jakarta:
(begin transcript)
PRESS ROUNDTABLE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS JAMES A. KELLY
September 1, 2001
Aryaduta Hotel
Jakarta
PAO Greta Morris: I'm pleased to welcome all of you here today and I especially want to welcome Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly. Assistant Secretary Kelly will say a few words at the beginning and then he will take your questions. He has been in East Timor for a couple of days and in Indonesia for a couple of days also.
A/S Kelly: Thank you, Greta. I arrived on Tuesday so I've essentially had four days, about half of which was in Dili in Timor. I have been beautifully treated and very fortunate to have quite a series of meetings with members of the government of Indonesia, including President Megawati, Vice President Hamzah Haz, Foreign Minister Wirayudha, Coordinating Minister Bambang Yudhoyono, Defense Minister Matori, and Minister for State Owned Enterprises Laksamana Sukardi. Also, thanks to the great hospitality of Ambassador Gelbard, I was able to meet other people at a couple of social events at his residence, including Coordinating Minister [for the Economy] Dorodjatun, Finance Minister Boediono, Trade Minister Rini Soewandi, and General Sutarto, Chief of staff of the Indonesian Army. And then yesterday, I went to the American Embassy and met with our wonderful staff there, as well as having plenty of chances to meet with Ambassador Gelbard and Minister Steve Mull, our Deputy Chief of Mission. The purpose of coming here was because my responsibilities for Secretary of State Powell involve Indonesia as well as a number of other countries of East Asia and the Pacific. Since I took office in May of this year, after some 12 years out of the U.S. Government, I had not had a chance to visit Indonesia, which, as everyone is aware, is an extremely important country of East Asia.
Second, I wanted to repeat the welcome that President Bush's representative, Ambassador Bob Zoellick, had given to the President (Megawati) earlier, that she has of course been invited by President George Bush to come to Washington D.C. and meet with him on September 19th.
I also came to visit East Timor for the first time in my life. I have visited Jakarta before, often in 1980's, and occasionally over the last 10 or 11 years, but I had never been to East Timor before. So I visited there on Wednesday and Thursday and a little bit of Friday and was able to observe the elections and travel a little bit around the area of Dili and meet with Timorese people, and also our own staff there in Dili, and also members of the United Nations Transitional Assistance effort there.
Fourth, I wanted to express the strong support of the United States for the economic restructuring which President Megawati has made a part of her plans for this country; to note that the IMF agreement concluded not long ago is a very useful document, and at the same time with members of the government, not with the President, to discuss that there are all these provisions in this agreement and that the implementation of them probably can be more difficult than negotiating them in the first place. And then, too, I wanted to repeat the position that I have taken before on behalf of the U.S. government that we support the territorial integrity of Indonesia and peace and stability of all of its regions.
So with that little introduction, I will be happy to take your questions.
Question: Daniel Cooney from Associated Press. Did you bring up in your meeting with President Megawati about the killing of the UNHCR staff at Atambua in September last year?
A/S Kelly: I did mention briefly Atambua as an example of the accountability that is necessary. I did not bring up that or other incidences to the President herself in great detail but there were a number of other occasions to raise this with other officials.
Question (Daniel Cooney): Could you say which officials you brought it up with?
A/S Kelly: I think I would prefer not to get into the details, if only because I'm not sure. We've had a lot of discussions and this has been regularly touched on.
Question (Daniel Cooney): Can I just follow up on that question? The killing of the UNHCR staff was by militiamen who were trained by Indonesia's army. Would you say that this is possibly an example of state-sponsored terrorism and why is the U.S. Government, and through yourself, in your visit here, not taking a stronger stance on this?
A/S Kelly: I don't know how, Mr. Cooney, it would be possible to take a stronger stance on this, unless I took a placard and marched outside of an office here. In the press briefing I had in Dili, I made very clear that the terrible crime against protected persons of the United Nations, including, in this one case of Mr. Caceres, a U.S. citizen, is a very serious matter. And, that the trial that was held is not a suitable action of accountability.
Question: Don Greenlees from The Australian. What are the conditions that the United States would stipulate for the resumption of military contacts and military aid with Indonesia?
A/S Kelly: I didn't go into any particular conditions because I don't think we have any. I made clear though that the reports -- some of which I have seen -- that there is some sort of a complete business as usual, and that we forget everything from the past, is not a viable option for us. But, in my view, it's a lot more effective with any friendly country, and certainly with Indonesia, to merely suggest the problem, then make clear this is a problem, and then leave to the counsels of this government exactly how it is they are going to solve it. And there are some very excellent and very impressive officials involved here. Then, when the action is taken, we can have discussions among ourselves in Washington and see if we can reach a judgment as to adequacy, according to the range of actions that we may find it necessary to take. But I wouldn't want to stipulate, and it's not, in my view, an appropriate thing to set a whole series of steps. It's one of these things that when accountability has been served, and impunity is understood to be not something that those who violate laws and human rights can get away with, then we'll all know it.
Question: Jonathon Thatcher from Reuters. In the past, the United Nations in East Timor has been concerned that there may be pressure on them, with what they see as [as heard], to rush out of the territory after independence. After you have been there and you have seen how the elections work, do you have any strong view on that, any particular view on how the process should go?
A/S Kelly: I didn't get from the United Nations officials that they were under pressure to rush out. They were certainly taking a look at what their necessary strength would be and, apparently, that will be the subject of a report to the Secretary General of the United Nations somewhere in the next five or six weeks. When that report comes out, the U.S. Government, and many other governments, will want to take a good look at it and see if it fits their assessment of the situation in East Timor. The good news is that this United Nations activity and the actions of thousands of Timorese themselves have brought about a situation that is very significantly better than the one that was there before. Obviously, sudden actions are probably not warranted, but some sort of an adjustment of the UN presence is probably going to be necessary. So, I don't know what the special representative of the United Nations of the Secretary General is going to recommend and I am looking forward to seeing it later on.
Question: Ahmad Patony from AFP. Some time ago, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta issued a warning of possible threats to American interests in Indonesia. Do you see that the threat is imminent, and did you raise the issue with President Megawati?
A/S Kelly: Well, I certainly didn't complain to President Megawati. I did thank several officials for responding to our request for help by augmenting the police protection that we have at our embassy. Around the world, it is a sad fact that terrorism is a real element. (Referring to) those who suffer the most from this terrorism -- and I am referring really to the bombings of American Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania -- there was great damage and loss to Americans, but there was even greater loss of life to the people of those particular countries. As we see with all of these people from the Middle East who manage to appear in Indonesia far from their homes and are out in this Norwegian ship, it is very easy for all kinds of people to move around the world. So, we had some reason to be concerned and we are still concerned to a degree about that. That is why we made the statement we did because we have the duty to share our concerns with other American citizens that may be traveling around. My only dealing with the matter with the Indonesian government was to thank them for their understanding and trouble that they have gone to, to provide augmented police protection for us. So, I don't think I would use the word that you did, as imminent, but I'm not sure how long it is that we will need to have extra protection. This really doesn't have anything to do with conditions in Indonesia. It has to do with the status of world terrorism around the world, and essentially that.
Question (Jonathon Thatcher, Reuters): May I follow that up for a moment? How serious, in your view, is the penetration of international terrorism into Indonesia and into Southeast Asia in general?
A/S Kelly: Well, it's there, and it is pretty obvious to everybody and to all the governments that are here. The line is sometimes a little hazy between criminal activity and terrorist activity. The Philippines, I think, has some examples of that. It's bad news and it's of concern. Now, how much of that is coming from the Middle East, I'm not sure that I can judge, but some of it is.
Question (Donald Greenlees, The Australian): Some Indonesian officials have said that they believe that they will confront an increased terrorist threat over the next three years. Do you have any information to support that assessment? And secondly, does the sort of criminal activity that you are talking include people smuggling, for instance? Is that potential a potential conduit for terrorist activity?
A/S Kelly: Well, it certainly is. I certainly share the caution of the officials that you refer to. This is a big problem around the world, not just in Indonesia, in terms of people smuggling, in terms of terrorists and terrorist actions. So, it's something that is there. Whether it is getting significantly worse, it's hard to say.
Question: I am Renee Alexander from Sinar Harapan: Yesterday I got the news that the Pentagon planned to move some of its troops based in Europe into the Asia Pacific. Do you think it's connected with a security threat in the Asia Pacific?
A/S Kelly: I'm not sure of the basis of the report that you're talking about. Our Congress requires the Department of Defense every four years to do what's called the quadrennial review. It's also a part of our process we have this year, of course, with a new administration at the Department of Defense, just as we have a different administration at the Department of State. So, Secretary Rumsfeld is going through a large number of reviews, most of which I'm not a first-hand expert about, so I'm not willing to accept the premise of your question, the assumption of your question, that U.S. troops are being moved from Europe to East Asia. I suppose nothing is impossible but it's my view that that's probably not particularly likely, but I suppose it's not impossible. I think what we find is that these studies are going on and that we are not really near the conclusion of them yet. We are going to have to wait and see. So the assumption behind there is something of which I'm not aware and, in fact, have some doubts [about].
Question (Renee Alexander): So do you think that plan is a sign that Washington is more concerned about the security threat in Asia Pacific than in Europe?
A/S Kelly: Well, there's very different kind of security threat in Asia. Once again, I don't necessarily accept the premise of your question, but I must say that East Asia is the place where without warning major hostilities could conceivably -- I'm not saying they're likely, they are not likely. But major hostilities could begin in this region in a way that is not comparable to Europe. You know, in Europe there are certainly serious security problems and even bloody situations as we see in Macedonia and other parts of the Balkans, even Northern Ireland. But I don't think that that is comparable to what we see for example along the demilitarized zone in Korea where almost a million troops on one side and about 600,000 on another, extremely well armed, are facing each other across a narrow border. Or the situation on either side of the Taiwan Straits as well. So these are of a different dimension. I'm not saying that we should be alarmed about this but I think we ought to note that this is a more serious matter and therefore may require a different sort of concern. Now, how that will play into the results of the U.S. Defense Department's reviews and then how that will play into American budgets and the approval of our Congress is yet to be determined.
Question: Jason (Tedjasukmana) from Time magazine: You mentioned that you spoke with the Army Chief of Staff. I wonder if you touched on the subject of Aceh. On the question of Aceh, does the U.S. have a particular approach that they are advising in handling the conflict there?
A/S Kelly: We do not have a particular approach to the problem of Aceh. This is a problem for Indonesia. It's a difficult and delicate problem and it turned out I did not have an opportunity for the Chief Staff of the Army to explain that particular approach. But I did have discussions with a number of other officials about their views and determination of how to maintain security and stability, of how to resist threats to the territory and armed actions by some, and do so in a way that preserves the human rights of the people of Aceh. This is a very difficult question but I was repeatedly struck that it's a matter in which senior officials here in Jakarta are very well aware of how difficult the problem is. They are determined to come up with a resolution of this dilemma that is good for the people of Aceh and the people of the western part of Indonesia, and also true to the principles of this nation.
Question (Jason Tedjasukmana): Do you think that the U.S. will be as insistent in bringing to justice those who have violated human rights in Aceh as maybe Atambua, for example?
A/S Kelly: I don't know. If the U.S. is asked to assist in bringing someone to justice and if we have any information to that end, we will certainly provide it. But Atambua is, I think, a different case than Aceh. I think these things happened in Indonesian territory. The explanations and the investigations have to be done by those here. The U.S. doesn't have any capability to do anything like that and we haven't been invited to do so.
Question: You mentioned international terrorism. Could you identify who has come into Indonesia? Who is bombing, for example?
A/S Kelly: Could you rephrase your question?
Question: Have you identified international terrorists who have come into Indonesia?
A/S Kelly: No, because if we could, we would ask the Indonesian authorities to arrest them and I am certain that the Indonesian authorities would arrest them. But we do have the concern that such individuals may be trying that [terrorism] here. But I don't think we know specifically and probably if we did know specifically, I wouldn't be able to say so here.
Question: (Jonathan Thatcher, Reuters) You said you - as the United States has said very often - that you support the territorial integrity of Indonesia. With the arrival of a new Government and a new President and your discussions with them, do you think that territorial integrity is more or less likely to be maintained?
A/S Kelly: I think it is more likely to be maintained.
Question: Why?
A/S Kelly: Because this government is determined to maintain that balance of firmness and concern for the rights of especially ordinary citizens, who are just trying to live their own lives, in my view, than may have been the case at some time in the past. But it's not easy and everybody here knows that better than I do.
Question: (Susan Sim, Straits Times) Following Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to Australia, there's been speculation of some sort that an Asian "NATO" is in the works and even though that may be some years off, conventional wisdom would suggest that it would be in the strategic interest of the United States to involve Indonesia in such a grouping. The Leahy Amendment notwithstanding, Washington would eventually have to engage Jakarta, especially in building up military ties again. Are these notions that you want to disabuse the Indonesian military of? That the pendulum will swing back again and that the two countries are going to be "best buds" in terms of soldiering again?
A/S Kelly: The U.S. has never been an ally of Indonesia and has no plans to ask Indonesia to undertake any alliance. We also have no plans to ask anyone else in East Asia who is not already our ally. For those who wonder, our allies in the region include Japan, Korea, Australia, Thailand and the Philippines. These stories that you referred to I think are way exaggerated, and the plans and talk about some sort of a "NATO" of the Pacific out here are wild speculation which was not stimulated by Secretary Powell in Australia. But there was an answer, I think primarily by Australian officials there, that led to a lot of extrapolation, of taking what was said and going way beyond it and the imaginations of, I think, some scholars and maybe even some members of the media, it seems to me have been running very strongly on this matter. I'm here to say that there is not much to this. It is not the task of the United States to either form or replace ASEAN. It is the task of the United States to respond to ASEAN because the ten countries that are its members have found it in their interest to come together. We do respond to ASEAN; that's why Secretary Powell went to Hanoi in July for the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Post-Ministerial Conference. But new alliances with Indonesia, or you name anybody else, are not in the cards.
Question: (Don Greenlees, The Australian) Could I ask you to comment on Australia's handling of this refugee boat, the Tampa? Some officials. . .
A/S Kelly: You can ask, but I won't.
Question (Greenlees): Some Ministers in this country have said that the proper humanitarian thing to do would be for Australia to accept the refugees. You have no comment at all on that?
A/S Kelly: No, this is a matter that everybody here. (inaudible). . All I know about it is what I see in the papers and as far as I know it is a matter among Indonesia, Australia and Norway. So I don't have any suggestions for anybody there.
Question (Greenlees): Just to clarify something you said earlier on. . . I asked you two separate questions earlier and one of them was whether people smuggling was a conduit to terrorism and you've answered it certainly is. That was a reference to people smuggling when you phrased it that way.
A/S Kelly: Yes, but my answer was based only on basic logic. If it's easy to move people under strange identities around, that's a capability that terrorists who we know exist can then use. So the answer was general and not specific.
Question: (Renee Alexander Kawilarang, Sinar Harapan) Many believe that the Fretilin Party will gain a majority support after this election (in East Timor). Do you feel that the ruling party will impose the socialist style or communist style (system)?
A/S Kelly: I don't know. I don't think so. I met with the General Secretary of the Fretilin Party, Mr. Alkatiri , and he didn't give any indication of that. The world of 1975 and the world of 2001 are very, very different. First of all, we don't have the results of the election and so we don't know which parties did well or poorly in that election. Second, we also have this situation of apparently Mr. Gusmao after there's a constitution, after there is a country, may offer himself to be President. We'll see how well that (inaudible). And I think everybody else is going to be happy about the results of a democratic process in which the people of East Timor are going to express their views. If you weren't there in East Timor, ask people who were. It's one thing to see a picture of a lot of people in a line, but it's another thing to be out there and see just how early in the morning all these people of East Timor came to their polling places: how lots of people put on their best clothes to come and perform this civic duty, how few people thought the better idea was to go to the beach or go fishing, how many people were out there. And the atmosphere was not of threat or compulsion or violence, but of people taking very seriously a democratic option that has not been open to them in the past. I was impressed.
Question: (Nini Syarikin, VOA) You were meeting Indonesian leaders to express your support for Indonesia's democratic transition. I'd like to ask you how much truth there is to the allegation made by former President Gus Dur that actually the U.S. Government gave a fund of $4 million in order to topple him, in order to "smooth" Megawati to take over the Presidency. And the fact that he was saying in the newspapers also that he was not willing to meet four (sic) Ambassadors, among others Robert Gelbard and the Palestinian Ambassador, who were too quick to welcome Megawati. How much truth is there to this allegation?
Question: ( John McBeth, Far Eastern Economic Review) . . .And I'd also like to throw in the six American submarines.
A/S Kelly: I'll take on the six American submarines, which weren't here and very well couldn't be here. That said, your question is a serious one, but I don't think it's helpful for me to challenge these things that former President Wahid has been saying. I'll just say that I don't agree with most of the things that he's been saying and that everybody has seen for themselves the constitutional process which certainly did not unfold in any sudden way and which was [a process of] Indonesians themselves acting in support of their own country. And I think that Indonesians can be pretty proud of themselves for the way that this went on. It seems to me that it's an insult to Indonesians to say that some foreigners came in here with four million dollars or six submarines and had some substantial impact on what was going on.
Question: (Susan Sim, Straits Times, Singapore) You've talked a fair bit about accountability trials for crimes committed in East Timor. I don't know if you have met the new Attorney General,
A/S Kelly: No, I have not. . . .
Question: (Sims). . . but I'm sure you've heard a lot of bad things about him. One of the Indonesian magazines, Tempo, in fact, called him a captive of the Indonesian military. If all that is true, and we don't know for sure yet, but if it is true, are there concerns in your mind now about how serious the Megawati Administration might be in pursuing crimes against humanity?
A/S Kelly: I think only time will tell. It's not my task to judge how these things will go. This process of transition to democracy in Indonesia and in any country is not an easy one and there are all kinds of steps and all kinds of institutions that have to be built and the judiciary and the prosecutors are all part of that effort, and it's the nature of human undertakings that you can't do everything at once. So I'm pretty impressed with the efforts here that are being made and I'm not willing to characterize or criticize what efforts remain to be done. I just tried to explain to the Indonesian officials that I met what we consider important in terms of results and on the accountability-- that is something that we do consider important.
Question: (Don Greenlees, The Australian): Earlier you said you couldn't lay down conditions for the resumption of military ties. Notwithstanding that, would the resumption of military ties prove that much more difficult if Indonesia fails to adequately prosecute human rights crimes from the referendum in East Timor?
A./S Kelly: I think that's fair to say.
A/S Kelly: Thank you very much for coming in on Saturday afternoon.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN