*EPF409 05/22/2003
Transcript: Counterterrorism Chief Says Terrorist Attacks Fell Sharply in 2002
(Says 2002 marked beginning of international counterterrorism network) (6730)

State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Cofer Black said the number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2002 -- 199 -- was 44 percent lower than the preceding year and the lowest level of terrorism in more than 30 years.

Speaking from the State Department in Washington with journalists in Cairo via a satellite connection May 14, Black said 2002 marked the beginning of an international network to fight terrorism, with enhanced communication and mutual support.

He told the Egyptian journalists that thousands of lives have been saved, terrorist attacks have been thwarted, and more than 3,000 operatives and supporters of al-Qaida have been jailed.

"The overall trend is good," he said.

Black said the recent terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia shows every sign of being an al-Qaida operation, but there was no proof yet that al-Qaida is responsible. He said U.S.-Saudi cooperation in fighting terrorism is excellent.

Black said that the Bush administration is intent on confronting states that support terrorism.

"If you're the Iranians and you're the Syrians and you're the Sudanese and you're the Libyans, ... the President of the United States has a problem with you," Black said.

Regarding the collection of intelligence, Black said the U.S. government cooperates with a wide range of countries but it conducts its analysis and reaches its conclusions independently.

Black said effective counterterrorism requires good relationships and interaction with other countries. He said Egypt has been a strong partner with the United States in fighting terrorism.

Following is the transcript of Black's satellite press conference with Egyptian journalists:

(begin transcript)

INTERVIEW
AMBASSADOR COFER BLACK
PHILIP GREEN
CAIRO DVC
MAY 14, 200

As you know, the Department of State has put out a publication -- 2002 The Patterns of Global Terrorism. Perhaps you can get that or have that from the Embassy itself, in that I think there's some key points, and I think they're particularly poignant in view of the tragic loss of human life that we just recently had in Saudi Arabia.

I think there should be an appreciation that at least in 2002 there were 199 international terrorist attacks. This represents a significant drop from the previous year, of 44 percent fewer attacks. In fact, this is the lowest level of terrorism in more than 30 years.

The last time the annual total fell to below 200 attacks was in 1969, and that was shortly after the advent of modern terrorism.

A lot of people, I think, around the world, at least in the West, are used to immediate gratification, you know. They like it, they want it, and they want it resolved immediately. Terrorism doesn't work like that.

I think the key point to remember is that the success that we enjoy and the ability to protect our citizens is dependent upon the ability to build political wealth, to fight, to fight terrorism, to protect innocent men, women, and children, and on top of that is, those that have knowledge and capacity to help those who are willing to fight but do not have the capacity.

So I think in the year 2002, you had the beginning of true international, the develop of an international network to fight terrorism, enhanced communication, mutual support.

You had the beginning of the building of coalitions, which has really begun to be kind of realized in 2003, and you have the beginnings of rationalization of provision of capacity to countries that really, you know, want to fight back but really don't have the capability to do so, and I think that's important from before.

I think all countries are at a higher state of alert than they were, certainly before what was for the United States a significant event of 9/11. Attacks have been thwarted.

I always that I spent most of my life in counterterrorism. Whenever I retire from this work, I want to go into something far easier and simpler, like in the American context, hitting home runs on a baseball team where, if you bat 300 out of 1,000, you're a hero and they keep giving you more and more money, where in the counterterrorism business, the only thing that really is acceptable is 100 percent defense.

100 percent defense is, as you know with your experience in Egypt, very, very difficult, and it is -- what one can work towards is the development of an international program and relationships that are increasingly effective.

So I think the trend is good. Here in the West, if you look at the editorials in the papers today, you know, the Washington Post and the New York Times, you know, they can be very fixated on the day, on the moment, you know, and they sort of have amnesia of where we've been and where we've come and where we've gotten to.

You know, thousands of lives have been saved, you know, and if you just look at al-Qaida, which, as you know, has close to your concerns, has subsumed Egyptian Islamic Jihad, you know, you're talking about half of their key senior operative personnel that know how to do these attacks have been put out of business.

You're talking about more than 3,000 al-Qaida operatives and their supporters that are in jail. You're looking at an organization that is under stress, that has a harder time to mount coordinated operations, the tragedy of yesterday notwithstanding.

So I think the overall trend is good. The terrible part about it is that, you know, people like this, you have to get them all to stop them from killing innocent men, women, and children.

So I'll stop there. I just wanted to get that out. I think it's important. It's a theme that we repeat here. But I'd be happy to try and answer some of our questions.

Over to you.

MR. GREEN: Good morning, Ambassador Black. My name is Philip Green. I'm the press attache here at the Embassy in Cairo.

I wanted to thank you in advance for agreeing to speak with a couple of our good friends here today.

We have with us today two distinguished journalists from the magazine "Rozel Yusef" (phonetic) and they have several questions for you today, partly concerning what is the definition of terrorism, why do we put some groups on the terrorism list and not others, questions about what happened in Riyadh, and I will let them go ahead with their questions.

We have given them the Patterns of Global Terrorism book. They have looked at that, so they are well briefed, and I'll turn it over to Ms. Monabaker (phonetic) or Dahlia Halal (phonetic) sitting here to my left, for the first question.

Thank you.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Good. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

QUESTION: First of all, welcome here, Mr. Ambassador, though we meet only via satellite.

My question, or the first question is concerning the Riyadh explosion.

Can your excellency give us the latest estimates about the casualties and how will your government deal with that terrorist attack, I mean, if there is any coordination between the US Government and the Saudis?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Okay. The -- I'm cautious in discussing specifically the numbers of fatalities and casualties, only because, as you will appreciate, they change, so I think we should look upon these as estimates.

Not all of the -- I think these listings are imprecise and not complete, but I would say at this point we're talking about 194 wounded, 16 American citizens wounded, and in the dead category, we're talking approximately 29, we can account for 29, and of those 29, eight are Americans.

I think we can say, certainly, listening to the Secretary of State's comments as well as the comments from the authorities in Riyadh, it's clearly -- you have to forgive me for smiling, but this clearly appears to be an al-Qaida operation.

It's very -- it conforms to how they do these high-value attacks in the past. It shows a continuation of capability. It was executed well, obviously based upon very good information, good casing information, a good plan, ruthlessly executed.

And ma'am, what were your other questions? You had a couple other questions that you wanted me to answer.

QUESTION: The second question -- but first, I want to ask another one.

You made reference to al-Qaida in Riyadh. We can say that this is the first, maybe the first large operation, al-Qaida operation, in Riyadh. Can't you see any connection between transporting the American Army forces from Riyadh to Qatar, can't you see any relation between such movements and the latest operation? Is there any connection between --

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I've seen -- yeah. I mean, there could be, because I have imperfect knowledge, but I don't think so. I would be surprised if there was.

I think it's just a strange quirk of fate, you know, and we've noticed that here. I mean, you know, Usama bin Laden and al-Qaida's objective is to get the United States out of the Kingdom, off the Saudi Arabian Peninsula, so that their brand of, radical brand of Islam can come to the fore, and from that center, they can attempt to destabilize the surrounding countries.

So, you know, their objective was to get the Americans out. The Americans, you know, for their own objectives, had redeployment plans, and so it's kind of odd, is it not, that as the Americans take one action in its own interests, this happened to conform to the objectives of al-Qaida.

But no, there's no relationship, and I just think that the vagaries and the complications of executing attacks like this make its exact execution time imprecise.

We know that they have wanted to initiate numerous actions around the world, many of which we have, with our partners, been able to stop.

QUESTION: So in other words, you're saying that the attack is against the Saudis, but the objective is against the Americans?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: No, I didn't say that at all. I'll repeat again what I said.

What I said was the objectives of al-Qaida are to get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, to influence the political and religious orientation of Saudi Arabia, you know, get the heathens, the crusaders, people like me off the Saudi Peninsula. In fact, get them off the Middle East, and I think, in the end, they'd like us off the Planet Earth, but, you know, that's the way that trend is going.

So they would -- that is their objective, and I think they initiate actions with that objective in mind, whether it be the World Trade Center or Riyadh.

MR. GREEN: She had a question earlier about cooperation with the Saudi Government.

QUESTION: Oh, yes.

MR. GREEN: How is the cooperation going?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah. I have been personally involved in this cooperation. I've been dealing with senior Saudi officials in the area that I'm looking at, in particular the financial links to terrorists.

The cooperation has been excellent; progress has been made; and I think there's a lot of room for improvement, there's no doubt about it.

Very simply, whenever you do have an attack where live is lost, improvements can be made. We're talking much more than that.

I think Saudis are aware that there are financial links to terrorists coming out of the kingdom. There are terrorists in the kingdom. We all have to do a better job to identify them and make sure they don't kill innocent people.

But I think that their cooperation, certainly, with the United States and their determination to effectively deal with this problem is increasing, and I fully expect after this incident whatever inhibitions there were will probably be lost.

QUESTION: Again, concerning the Riyadh explosion, do you think that there is any relation between al-Qaida and the recent explosions in Riyadh?

MR. GREEN: Did you hear the question?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I think the question was is there any connection between al-Qaida and the explosions in Riyadh; is that correct?

QUESTION: Yes. Do you have proof, conclusive proof?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: No, I would not say that we have proof. I would say that we have every indication. The comments of the Secretary of State when he was in Riyadh were that this attack had clearly all the signs of an al-Qaida operation. The Saudi authorities have stated that it was an al-Qaida operation.

We have -- we, the United States, have investigators that should, by now, have arrived in the kingdom. FBI investigators, forensic investigators will have to collect the evidence and make absolutely sure.

But I would agree at this stage with the Secretary that the Saudi authorities that this operation shows every sign of being an al-Qaida operation, and I think it will prove out to be such, but at this stage, I would not say that there is proof that we would be prepared to go forward with the medium.

QUESTION: That would lead us to another point.

You know, as a journalism expert, you know, that the term "terrorism" is widely confusing, specifically globally misinterpreted.

So my question is, what is the accurate definition, if you can give us one, of the term "terrorism"?

And the second part of the question is, how can you guarantee that the definition, that this definition is globally accepted?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: You, madam, are a very good journalist. I will attempt to answer your questions.

QUESTION: I'm not a madam. I'm a miss.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, miss, you're very formidable. Those are very good questions. Let me try.

As we see the term "terrorism," it means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

Just for completeness, the term "international terrorism" would mean the terrorism involving citizens or the territory or more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" would mean any group practicing or that has significant subgroups that practice international terrorism.

What was your next question?

QUESTION: The second part of the question is, how can you guarantee that this definition is globally accepted, and specifically, I'm thinking about the Palestinian Territories and what's happening, and the enlistment of Hamas and Jihad organizations, and the list of the terrorism organizations, the US list of the terrorism organizations.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, first of all, the answer to your question is no, I cannot guarantee it. I can really not guarantee anything.

In fact, I think it's very interesting that the United Nations, the community of nations so far, despite all these years and all this terrorism, has been unable to agree on a definition of terrorism. Isn't that interesting?

So you have all these countries in the United Nations -- Syria and the Russians and the Americans and the Egyptians and all these countries -- and they've not ever been able to all raise their hand and vote positively on a definition of terrorism that is acceptable to everybody.

So --

QUESTION: Can't you relieve that to the -- the difference between the point of views between the countries that you have mentioned -- Syria and Egypt, for example, such as the Arab countries -- and the point of view of the US, or the West's point of view, or the West's look at the terrorist organizations?

I mean, we look, we look a little bit different --

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, I guess that's true. I know what you're saying, and I spend a lot of my life in the Arab world, and I know that, and I'm very sympathetic to these issues.

But from the American perspective, if you go back again to terrorism, we're talking about it's premeditated, thinking ahead, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.

So if you go through all that, you know, you come up with a definition of terrorism, and on top of that, you probably won't like this either, but on top of that, we would include military personnel at rest. We would include attacks upon the Marines in Beirut. Even though they were Marines, they were not in a combat situation. They were in their barracks, so we would consider an attack of that to be terrorism.

I personally, since I spent a lot of my life in counter-terrorism, my approach to this is actually even more simple, and that is that, you know, we can all have political issues and aspirations and the rest of it. What we're talking about here is the protection of innocent women and children, and after that, let the political interaction, negotiation, and competition begin.

The essence of counterterrorism is the absence of civilians being blown up where they sleep at night or blown up in cars, and the whole rest of it.

You know, once you take that away, then everything is open. What we're talking about is just (inaudible) that level by whomever, and it comes as a bit of a surprise that -- I don't know if you're familiar with this issue.

Recently, it's come out in the press, of the Mujadeen (inaudible) in Iraq. You know, when you had the Iranians talking about, "Oh, well, the Americans are going to be very selective here. You know, there are good terrorists and there are bad terrorists, and good terrorists are the ones that are aligned with the United States" -- what nonsense.

We have a list of terrorist organizations, foreign terrorist organizations. There's 36. Every one of those 36 are my enemies, and I don't care what country that come from or what they're doing.

When they're on that list, they're killing innocent men, women, and children,, our mission is to go stop them, and I don't care what their ideology and I don't care what their religion is. I don't care if they're from Ireland and they're Catholics like me. We don't care.

We -- our objective is to stop them from killing people like you, your relatives, my relatives. After that, sit down, negotiate, compete. That's fine.

That's our definition of terrorism, and I think it is a noble one. I think it is a -- it's one that can be defended.

QUESTION: That would lead us to the next question that (inaudible) was going to ask you (inaudible) the policy of conflict or the policy of war that the UN tried to adopt now.

So the question is, go ahead (inaudible)?

QUESTION: How can we work to change the American concept of terrorism?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I'm not going to change any of it. I think it's pretty good the way it is right now. Why would I change it?

QUESTION: Well --

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I just explained to you why -- how we defined it and why we define it in the way we do and what actions we take. Why would I change it?

Listen to our President. He's going to confront states, those specific states that support terrorism. There were seven. Now, if you take away Iraq, there are six. We're not letting them get off the hook. They don't get a pass.

If you're the Iranians and you're the Syrians and you're the Sudanese and you're the Libyans and a lot of it, the United States, the President of the United States has a problem with you. Why? Because these states support terrorist groups who their stock in trade is killing innocent people.

QUESTION: Don't you agree that it would be better for the American side, for both sides to adopt a policy of dialogue and understanding?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Dialogue and understanding among whom?

QUESTION: Among the (inaudible), among those that you described, that they are terrorists among the (inaudible) --

QUESTION: We don't negotiate with terrorist groups. We don't negotiate with Hezbollah. We don't negotiate with Hamas. We don't negotiate with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. We don't negotiate with the real RRA. It's the policy of the United States not to negotiate with terrorist groups. We make no deals.

The state sponsors of terrorism, those countries that support them are in the process of being confronted by the United States through political means to try and encourage them to renounce their support for international terrorism.

QUESTION: But you have negotiated already with Syria, and I think they (inaudible) some action.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah, no. But see, please don't get confused. I just want to make very clear, our approach to this is pretty simple. And it amazes me -- I must not communicate well, because I get the same questions all over the world.

Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. It is a nation state, a country. We're happy to negotiate with them.

Our Secretary of State, Honorable Colin Powell, just went to Syria on his own initiative to meet with the Syrian President, to talk to Syrian leaders, to try and establish a dialogue so we can communicate and improve the situation to reduce tensions and to reduce the possibility of acts of international terrorism.

There's a difference between seven state sponsors of terrorism and the 36 foreign terrorist organizations. You know, the foreign terrorist organizations, we don't negotiate with them, we don't cut them any deals. They either give it up or they will be engaged.

QUESTION: You had (inaudible --

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, the difference between Syria and Iraq is that Iraq was pressured by the United Nations for 12 years.

There are 12 Security Council resolutions expressing, you know immediate concern and immediate action is required on the part of the Iraqi government. They did not comply. Everybody gave them more than enough time.

There was tremendous concern about weapons of mass destruction possessed by the Iraqi regime, the threat that they represent to their neighbors, support for international terrorism.

The coalition went in against this nation state, and this issue now has been resolved.

So the difference between Iraq and Syria is there were international sanctions, international issues placed against Iraq. There has not been the same international action vis-a-vis Syria. That would be the main difference.

QUESTION: Still, Syria has a relationship, let's say, that it sponsors Hezbollah, which is a terrorist group, according to your definition.

So are you going to apply the same pattern that you applied before in Iraq with Syria?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I think we should make a differentiation, that if you say the same pattern, I would submit to you that coalition action in Iraq was supported by an outgrowth of actions in the United Nations and a long list of UN Security Council resolution that left as the last recourse coalition military action.

In Syria, there's a different situation, where the President of the United States has said that states that support these terrorist groups will be confronted. The President of the United States said that on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

So the confrontation is clearly defined. The preferred arena for that is political interaction, diplomatic pressure, and negotiation, so that is what is underway now.

The Secretary of State went to Syria and that interaction is already underway.

MR. GREEN: Ambassador Black, if I could intervene here just for a second?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Please.

MR. GREEN: I know from having spoken with many of my journalistic contacts here, and it's generally true amongst all of our friends here, that they have trouble understanding why we list acts of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist acts and not legitimate resistance, but the United States does not list Israeli reprisals as terrorist acts, when on the television screens here, they see innocent women and children perhaps losing their lives and their houses blown up things like that happening.

A lot of people here have trouble with what they consider to be a double standard, listing what they see as legitimate resistance as a terrorist act, whereas Israeli reprisals are not listed as such.

And maybe you could explain a little bit why we make that distinction.

QUESTION: There is another point that I wanted to add to my colleague's (inaudible), if you allow me.

You know that Hamas and Jihad never, ever committed any terrorist attack in the US against the Americans.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: And I'm very grateful for that.

QUESTION: And we are, too.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah. I mean, you know, I think you've raised very good questions, but that question, sir, is different from the other ones that we were speaking about.

The other answers that I gave here are very cut and dried from the American standpoint. If you bring in the Israeli thing, now, of course, this all gets a bit more complicated, and that's a different question.

MR. GREEN: Right, but it's a primary --

AMBASSADOR BLACK: No, and I would like to try and answer it. I will try and answer it, with the understanding that my business is counterterrorism. You know, my job, in various forms, is to find terrorists, to stop terrorists, or to facilitate my policy.

Now, you're talking about a political interaction here that is not necessarily my preserve, but I can try and address this question.

I would say that we certainly have urged the Israeli Government to take all appropriate precautions to prevent the death or injury of innocent civilians and damage to civilian and humanitarian infrastructure.

You know, we understand the need of everyone to protect themselves, and even for Israel to defend itself against ongoing violence and terror. We continue to press the Palestinians to do all they can to end immediately all such targeting of Israelis.

As the President has said, terror and violence have gravely undermined the hopes of the Palestinian people for a better future.
We are very concerned about civilian casualties, and we've urged the Israeli Government to take all appropriate precautions.

We've also been pretty clear in our policy regarding the practice of demolitions, particularly of civilian structures, which deprive Palestinians of shelter and the ability to peacefully earn a livelihood, exacerbate the humanitarian situation inside the Palestinian areas, and make more difficult the critical challenge of bringing about an end to violence and restoring calm.

It is all a tragedy, and I think all the participants of it can see it's a tragedy. It's been going on my entire adult lifetime. I can remember being in graduate school in the United States, being with fellow Arab students, and I recall the emotion of these issues then, and we haven't really gotten too far since then in reducing these, the emotion, and in the interim, there has been tremendous loss of life on all sides.

You know, the Palestinian people have their rights and their aspirations, which the United States supports, and, you know, we abhor all loss of innocent life, you know, as a professional, as a human being, and it personally, it pains me.

It also pains me at the other side, to know that last year, something like 360 Israelis were blown up, you know. These were not troops in the field. These are men and women like us.

So the whole thing is one that I think, you know, there is logic to it. There's a lot of emotion. There's a lot of history, and tremendous hatred. But there is logic to it.

If we are able to stop the killing on both sides, particularly the killing of innocent women and children, and get to, you know, communicating like real adults, we'll b a lot better off.

QUESTION: But, sir, don't you see that there is -- there might be some sort of bias when you count -- I mean, your Government counts -- basically Israel as a Middle Eastern country on the issue of collecting and exchanging information or intelligence?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I'm sorry, ma'am. Could you repeat that again? I -- it's my fault.

QUESTION: Don't you see that there might be some sort of bias, when you count only or basically as a Middle Eastern country, on the issue of collecting and exchanging intelligence or information (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Okay. Now, you're in an area -- yeah. Let me tell you something. Now, you're in an area that I really know quite a bit about.

You know, if you have my biographic history, I spent a career in the CIA. I was in the CIA for 29 years as the head of counterterrorism, and I know everybody in the security establishment of every country in the Middle East well. Okay? First name kind of basis, I know these people intimately.

Don't let anyone every tell you that the United States relies upon or is unduly influenced by information from the Israelis. Don't you believe it.

The American intelligence collection system is comprehensive, it is global, and it is not only second to none, it is unbelievably effective. If anything, their problem is they have so much information, they have to process it and keep track of it.

Yeah, whatever we get from the Israelis is put in and is analyzed and scrutinized, and is a very, very small percentage in terms of the vast amount of information that the Americans collect on their own or they get from their other friends in the Middle East. It's just another source of information.

We consider all information provided to us gratis, like every other country in the world, to be somewhat suspect. We don't believe what anybody tells us, unless it's cross-checked and we can have some confidence in it.

So, you know, this idea that we're somehow victimized by the Israelis, don't you believe it.

QUESTION: But you look at Hezbollah and Hamas and Jihad, specifically seems to be based on Israeli intelligence.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: No. No, that's not true, either. That's not true, either. The Americans consider Hezbollah and Hamas among their highest intelligence collection priorities in terms of counterterrorism. We do our own work, thanks very much. We have a pretty good idea of how it's going.

I mean, you know, look at me. Do you think we'd rely upon the Israelis on something as important like that? I mean, look at my face. Do I look like that kind of a guy? I mean, I can't take the chance of relying --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR BLACK: -- we can't take the chance of relying on anybody. We don't on Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Russians, nobody. Every country has got to -- you know, has to do its own things, and ours is international. You know, we accept and take as much as we possibly can. We do as much as we can on our own. We put it all together. We scrutinize it, analyze it, and come up with a solution. And that's, you know, that's the truth.

Obviously, with your smile, you may not believe me, but that's the way it is. I mean, think about it logically.

Don't you think it would be really remiss -- would you be doing your job if you were in the CIA and you said, "Okay, let's take what the Israelis give us, and that's coming from the burning bush, you know. Those guys know what they're talking about"? Come on.

QUESTION: I just wanted to say, bad things like those don't ever show up on the face.

Anyway, considering the issue of Jerusalem and global basis, Your Excellency, President Mubarak referred many times to the (inaudible) of the UN umbrella.

Question A, can you classify the US-led war against terrorism as a global war launched under the UN umbrella, putting into consideration that the international -- I'm sorry -- putting into consideration the international (inaudible) specifically in the Iraqi case? Can you classify your led war, the US led war against terrorism as a war launched under the UN umbrella?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: The President of the United States's announcement, public announcement of the global war on terrorism is an outgrowth of the UN Security Council Resolutions 1441 and the like, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the like, that was put out by the UN Security Council on September the 12th of 2001, which basically, you know, to summarize it, essentially says it declares war on international terrorism, that, you know, the perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11 should be brought, and the Hall of Nations should cooperate and, you know, all those good things all added up.

So the United States is in full conformity with the wishes of the UN Security Council Resolution.

We just, we base our approach on having relationships with as many countries as we possibly can, which essentially is everybody, and as productively as possible, exchange information and coordinate capabilities so that the people of the world, the citizens of the world are protected.

The United States is in no way at variance at all with the UN.

MR. GREEN: Just to clarify, I think the September 12th UN SER resolution was 1413, not 1441.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: 1413. thank you very much.

QUESTION: Question B. There have been some media reports adopting a new trend that encourages your country to break away of split from the UN. For example, an article entitled, "Get Out of the UN" published in (inaudible) News (inaudible).

So the question is, how can you estimate such claims and do they -- I mean the claims -- reflect a true official tendency among the US Government?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I don't know if I'm qualified to estimate the US Government's, you know, composite view of the United Nations.

I can tell you that from what I have seen, the United States highly values United Nations as a forum for coordination among countries, as well as to be an entity that is responsive to its membership.

I -- you know, since the history of the United Nations, you will find articles in the media expressing, you know, objection to actions of the United Nations or how it goes about its business, you know.

It is frustrating when one would expect actions to be taken and they are not, but, you know, that's what happens when you have an organization that's based upon principles of, you know, democracy, where people have an essentially equal say and equal vote, and, you know, you may not get what you want.

But, you know, it is a forum upon which -- that has served the world and served the United States, I think, very well.

QUESTION: I think those reports are based on the idea that the US now tries to be bigger than the UN.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: You know, I would ask you to put this in perspective, really. People say a lot of things in the United States. You know, my wife is always saying to me, "You know, you can't read an American newspaper without shaking your head all the time, you know, obviously not agreeing with a lot of what you read."

That's not true. You know, and all this business about the United States being so big and so powerful and all that, you know, the leadership of this country is very mindful that we are one country and that our security and our effectiveness in the world is contingent upon the relationships we have with other countries, the degree of the interaction.

And, you know, there is no sense of -- that we have or would wish to take actions on our own as US policy.

MR. GREEN: For one more question to Mona (inaudible) (phonetic).

QUESTION: Concerning the cooperation between the United States Government and other governments, has your Government, the United States Government, ever asked either the Egyptian Government or any other Government for confiscating bank accounts belonging to certain suspected terrorists?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, if I may, let me just look at my answer book here, because you asked a very specific question.

And Egypt has passed anti-money laundering legislation, and that have deepened their information sharing with the United States.

I'm not going to talk any more about what Cairo has or has not done further. They are a very strong partner of the United States in the international community and in the global war on terrorism, and our interaction is good. Our cooperation is excellent. They are colleagues of long standing.

And I would have to refer you to the Government in Cairo for outlining of the elements of our cooperation, since that's normally how we do it, rather than presume to outline areas that some countries may consider to be sensitive.

QUESTION: That would lead us to the next question, or the last question.

Can you give us detailed information about the number of arrested Egyptian terrorists either in the US prisons or in Guantanamo, and is it true that your Government wanted to deliver the terrorist Omar ab-Rahman to Egypt, but Egypt refused to do so, to be the (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I have been to Guantanamo. I have seen the prisoners, in general, and their housing condition, and I must say that I have been very well pleased. I mean, you know, you and I would be very lucky to be housed that way by our enemies.

I don't know the exact numbers of the prisoners. They have numerous nationalities, and the specific mechanics of this I am just not familiar with. This is the preserve of our human rights people and the Department of Defense.

MR. GREEN: There was a question about Omar ab-Rahman (phonetic).

QUESTION: Uh-huh. Omar ab-Rahman. Is it true that your government wanted to deliver the terrorist, Omar ab-Rahman, to Egypt, and that Egypt refused?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: I do not know. I just don't know the answer. I'd have to look the check. What we can do is look and check, and we can communicate to the Embassy and relay it to you, if that's okay. I just don't know what the answer to that is.

QUESTION: Do you have in mind, or the states, do the states have certain Egyptian names that are requested to be arrested now., certain Egyptian terrorist names are not arrested yet, and your state, your country wants to be arrested?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Yeah. We'd like to arrest everybody in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, because they're part of al-Qaida. Any Egyptian who is with any terrorist group who threatens innocent people, we'd like to have them arrested. So if you could do for us, we'd be very grateful.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) do that for you. Okay.

MR. GREEN: Ambassador Black, do you have time for one more question?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: One more, if that's okay, and then I better get back to work, sir.

QUESTION: Another, just last question, concerning the democracy plan that US wants to apply in the Middle East generally, the Syrian Government so far started -- I'm sorry -- the Syrian Government so far stated that they agreed with the major US points, yet the Syrians don't show actual action.

On the other hand, Qatar people are Qatari Government showed true action toward applying this plan, this democracy plan, the new constitution, or the first constitution, and the appointment of a woman as a minister --

AMBASSADOR BLACK: (Inaudible) terrorism?

QUESTION: Yes. Do you think that this democracy plan specifically may show a little bit different or a little bit of change towards the policy of fighting terrorism?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well (inaudible), I don't know what your question has to do with counterterrorism, the added on. I don't know. I'd have to check. I haven't spent much time looking at it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. GREEN: Ambassador Black, thank you very much for taking your time. I know you're very busy, today especially, and we appreciate very much your taking the time to be with us today.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Thank you very much. I appreciate it very much. It's a real pleasure to meet these ladies. They asked very hard questions, and maybe I should be coming to Cairo in the future, and if you could remember, if they're free, I'd love to meet with them face to fact, and they can ask some more questions.

QUESTION: It will be a pleasure. I will be honored.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Well, I would be honored to see you both again. Thank you very much, and hope to see you soon.

MR. GREEN: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Good luck.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents