SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC
75–843PDF
2001
U.S. DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS IN THE
WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 24, 2001

Serial No. 107–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/internationalrelations

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
JIM DAVIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
GRACE NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director

KRISTEN GILLEY, Senior Professional Staff Member
LIBERTY DUNN, Staff Associate

C O N T E N T S

WITNESS

    The Honorable Colin Powell, Secretary of State

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared statement

    The Honorable Colin Powell: Prepared statement

    Letters submitted for the record by the Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Answer submitted for the record by Secretary Powell to question asked by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California

    Information submitted for the record by Secretary Powell as requested by the Honorable Howard Berman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California

    Information submitted for the record by Secretary Powell as requested by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida

APPENDIX
    The Honorable Ron Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statement

U.S. DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2001

House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room H–140, The Capitol, Hon. Henry J. Hyde (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Secretary, it is my understanding that in about 10 minutes or so, the gentlemen of the press will file out, and I just want you to know that is prearranged, it is not in response to your statements.

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir.

    Chairman HYDE. Well, good afternoon. I wish to extend a very warm welcome to our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

    Mr. Secretary, we greatly appreciate your appearance before the Committee and the opportunity for you to share with Members of the International Relations Committee your views and insights on the military, diplomatic, and security challenges confronting us today.

    I apologize for the somewhat unusual ambience of our room, but we are making do in the best traditions of western democracy. We understand the many priorities that you and the President must balance not only for our own country but for nations around the world. These challenges include conducting a military campaign in a country of legendary difficulties, building and sustaining an international coalition against terrorism, undertaking an extensive humanitarian assistance effort, and planning for a post-Taliban government in Afghanistan.

    Although the immediate task at hand is the defeat of the Taliban regime and the destruction of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, our long-term goal must be to eliminate this threat permanently.

    That includes the creation of an Afghanistan in which the al-Qaeda network and other terrorist groups no longer have the freedom to organize their murderous activities. It is clear that objective can only be accomplished by freeing the long-suffering Afghan people from the brutal rule of the unelected Taliban regime.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    As we work to achieve these objectives, it is important that the people of Afghanistan understand that we are not their enemies. For the truth is we share common enemies, namely the barbaric al-Qaeda terrorists and the repressive Taliban regime. I commend you on appointing Ambassador Richard Haass as your Special Representative to Afghanistan, and I know that among his priorities will be to convey this message to the Afghan people.

    As the President has said on numerous occasions: we will pursue the terrorists until they have no safe havens in which to hide. We in the Congress fully support this approach and stand ready to assist you in that effort, however long and difficult it may be.

    Now, in the interest of time, I ask my colleagues to forego making opening statements, other than Mr. Lantos, the Ranking Democrat on the Committee, who will make an opening statement and then we will ask you, Mr. Secretary, for your remarks.

    So, again, we thank you for your appearance here today and I am now pleased to recognize Mr. Lantos, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hyde follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

    Good afternoon. I wish to extend a warm welcome to our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Mr. Secretary, we greatly appreciate your appearance before the Committee and the opportunity for you to share with Members of the International Relations Committee your views and insights on the military, diplomatic, and security challenges confronting us today.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We understand the many priorities that you and the President must balance, not only for our own country but also for other nations around the world. These challenges include conducting a military campaign in a country of legendary difficulties, building and sustaining an international coalition against terrorism, undertaking an extensive humanitarian assistance effort, and planning for a post-Taliban government in Afghanistan.

    Although the immediate task at hand is the defeat of the Taliban regime and the destruction of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, our long-term goal must be to eliminate this threat permanently. That includes the creation of an Afghanistan in which the al-Qaeda network and other terrorist groups no longer have the freedom to organize their murderous activities. It is clear that objective can only be accomplished by freeing the long-suffering Afghan people from the brutal rule of the unelected Taliban regime.

    As we work to achieve these objectives, it is important that the people of Afghanistan understand that we are not their enemies. For the truth is that we share common enemies, namely the barbaric al-Qaeda terrorists and the repressive Taliban regime. I commend you on appointing Ambassador Richard Haass as your Special Envoy to Afghanistan, and I hope that among his priorities will be to convey this message to the Afghan people.

    As the President has said on numerous occasions: we will pursue the terrorists until they have no safe havens in which to hide. We in the Congress fully support this approach and stand ready to assist you in that effort, however long and difficult it may be.

    In the interest of time, I have asked my colleagues to forgo making opening statements this afternoon. Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary for your appearance here today.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. America is extremely fortunate to have such an able diplomat and an experienced soldier at the State Department's helm during these trying times.

    For your tireless efforts in waging the war on international terrorism, this Congress and the American people salute you. And I am proud to be one of those who salute you with pride and joy.

    Mr. Chairman, I applaud your determination to forge ahead with the important business of this Committee despite the terrorist acts that have been vested upon this Congress. By convening today, we send a clear signal to the Nation and to the world that the United States Congress will not be held hostage to terrorism.

    The terrorists who laced our congressional mail with anthrax, just as those who orchestrated the abominable acts of September 11th, sought to instill fear in our hearts and sow doubts in our minds and our institutions of government. They failed on both counts. By attacking the United States Congress, these criminal cowards succeeded only in strengthening the resolve of all of our Members.

    The anthrax attacks targeting this institution have not paralyzed us, Mr. Secretary, they have galvanized us.

    The terrorist choice of targets betrays their evil intentions. Osama bin Laden would have us believe that the United States' continued presence in Saudi Arabia, our sanctions policy against Iraq, or even our posture in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, a cause to which he only recently converted, provoked and justified these terrorists attacks. Let no one be deceived by the cynical and hateful rhetoric. It is our open, democratic, inclusive free way of life that is the true object of his hatred. The terrorists hate America not for what we do, but for who we are.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In his excellent address to our joint session a month ago, the President deemed in no uncertain terms the threat we face and the means we must employ to defeat it. He summoned America's massive military, economic, and moral strength to deliver swift, severe justice to Osama bin Laden and to his al-Qaeda network.

    As the President said, and I quote:

''Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.''

    Mr. Chairman, the order of battle therefore is clear. First we must destroy the enemy where he hides in the camps and caves of Afghanistan. On this score, Mr. Secretary, I commend our military conduct of the war, and I salute our brave servicemen and women fighting in the skies and on the ground in Afghanistan.

    Second, we must amputate the many tentacles of Osama bin Laden's terrorist hierarchy. As we have seen, the al-Qaeda terrorist network is global in scope, with cells operating in Indonesia, in Malaysia, in Pakistan, the Sudan, Germany, the United States and countless other countries.

    We must target these criminal parasites with the same intensity as we do the cave-dwelling terrorists in Afghanistan. And we must make clear that those nations that fail to cooperate with us in casting this international dragnet will themselves be considered co-conspirators in the terrorist crimes.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Finally, we must set our sites on eradicating all terrorist organizations of global reach: Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups. Although they may not fall under Osama bin Laden's chain of command, they share his evil designs because they too seek to demoralize democracy and target civilians for violence. These terrorist organizations should be held to a no less stringent standard and they deserve no less severe justice than Osama bin Laden himself.

    Mr. Secretary, I commend you and the President for successfully marshaling international support and prosecuting the war in Afghanistan with admirable focus and impressive skill. I have no doubt that the United States will succeed in accomplishing our objectives in this war against terrorism. But when we achieve this first phase of our goal, as we shall, we must not lessen our resolve to prosecute this war against terrorism to its bitter but necessary end.

    I urge you, Mr. Secretary, with great respect, to take the steps now, as I know that you are, to prepare for this longer struggle against all terrorist organizations of global reach. If we fail to do so, we risk winning the battle in Afghanistan but losing the war against terrorism worldwide.

    I look forward to hearing your views on these and other issues. I want to welcome you again, Mr. Secretary.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Anyone who has a statement they wish to be entered in the record, without objection, it will be entered in the record.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. Secretary, would you proceed?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE

    Secretary POWELL. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your opening remarks. And, Mr. Lantos, I thank you for your kind remarks as well. I have a long statement for the record that I would present for the record, Mr. Chairman, and it covers a number of the things that we have been doing since the 11th of September to prepare for this campaign. But I would just like to shorten all of that with a brief opening statement so I can get to your questions.

    Chairman HYDE. Without objection, the full statement will be made part of the record. And I hope, Mr. Secretary, you notice for the first time in my political career, we have real back-benchers here.

    Secretary POWELL. Members are double-decked in a way I have never seen before.

    Chairman HYDE. Please proceed.

    Secretary POWELL. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate you and the Members of the Committee for this hearing to show that the people's House is at work, the peoples' Representatives are at work, the American Government is solid and at work. We are cautious; we are taking necessary precautions, but we will not be frightened, we will not be afraid to do the business the people have sent us all here to do. And I can assure you that is also the attitude within the Administration and especially the attitude within your State Department.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I have been traveling around a little bit, as you know—India, Pakistan, Shanghai, and a number of other places. I can also report to you that the men and the women of the Department of State are hard at work, serving under rather arduous circumstances these days, with the same kind of threat that we see here on Capitol Hill and other parts of town, and I think I just need to report to you that you should be proud of the great job that your diplomats in action are doing for the American people.

    Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank this Committee, and frankly the entire Congress, for the support that you have provided to the President's efforts since the 11th of September. It means a great deal to us. And not only that, it sends a signal to the world that we are unified. We are unified under President Bush's leadership. We are unified to pursue those who are responsible for the tragic events of September 11th. That day is seared against all of our souls. It is a day that we will never forget. But we came out of that day with a deep resolve to make sure that those who are responsible for that day will pay for it and be brought to justice. As the President said, they will have justice brought to them.

    To that end, the President has undertaken a campaign to go after them. It is a campaign that has many dimensions to it: financial attacks, law enforcement attacks, intelligence attacks, military attacks. It is a campaign that is being waged not only by the United States but by the broad international coalition that has come together. And the reason this coalition has come together so quickly and so successfully is that everybody who has joined this coalition realizes that what happened in the United States on the 11th of September, and especially what happened in New York, was not just an attack against America, it was not just an attack against New York, it was an attack against civilization, it was an attack against the world community.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Some 80 nations lost citizens in the World Trade Center. And all of those nations have joined us in the counterattack, the campaign to go after those responsible.

    But the President understood right away, within 24 hours, that it could not just be a campaign against the perpetrators, who are clearly the al-Qaeda organization led by Osama bin Laden, it had to be against all forms of terrorism. It had to be a broad-based campaign that brought all of the Members of the international community together, once and for all, to go after this scourge that exists on the face of the Earth, this scourge that is targeted against civilization, this scourge that is targeted against the democratic way of life, the democratic way of doing things.

    As Mr. Lantos said, it has nothing to do with Muslims. It is an attack against who we are, our value systems, our belief in the dignity of the individual, our belief in democracy, our belief in the free enterprise system. That is what it is an attack against.

    It is not an attack that was delivered against us in the name of faith. It is a violation of the faith of Islam, it is a violation of every known faith that any man or woman believes in. We must not let Osama bin Laden make this false claim. We cannot also let him make the claim that somehow he is doing it in the name of the Palestinian people or Muslims. He lifted not a finger, he gave not a dollar of the wealth that he had to help his fellow Muslims or help the people who are suffering in the Middle East. Instead, he used his money for the worst sorts of purposes: to go out and murder innocent civilians. We must not let him get away with delivering a message that is different from that simple message.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As the President has said, he is an evil-doer. He must be punished as an evil-doer. And there are many terrorist organizations around the world that are similarly motivated, and we have to go after them wherever we find them.

    The first phase of this campaign against terrorism is Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and wherever al-Qaeda exists throughout the world, not just in Afghanistan.

    And I now come to the fact that we put this rather incredible coalition together. There are some who said, well isn't the coalition a burden? Doesn't the coalition in some way contravene the President of the United States? The answer? The coalition does not constrain him in the slightest. As we pulled this coalition together, we made sure that the President retained all of his constitutional authority. Obviously, when you have a coalition, you have to be considerate of all of the interests of all of the members of the coalition. But in being considerate of the interests of all of the members of the coalition, the President in no way gave away any of his authority to act as he saw fit and may see fit in the future to protect American interests.

    Second point with respect to the coalition. Without this coalition, we wouldn't be able to wage this campaign, we wouldn't be able to conduct this war. If we are to go after the financial systems of these organizations, you can't do it just by yourself. You need all of the nations that have financial systems that are relevant to come into this coalition so we can work together. If you are going to go after the intelligence infrastructure that he uses and get inside of that intelligence system, then you have to use all of the intelligence systems of the coalition members.

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    If you want to deliver a military strike against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime, you need a coalition to do that. You need people who will go into battle with you. You need people who will give you overflight. You need people who will support you. And the President has been absolutely marvelous, in my judgment, in pulling such a coalition together.

    I will make one final point on this coalition. It was hard to stop it. Once people saw what happened on the 11th of September, they weren't just sitting around waiting for us to beg them to come into a coalition arrangement. Within 24 hours they had acted, invoking Article 5. Within 48 hours the U.N. had acted, passing a Security Council resolution, and then a General Assembly resolution.

    As we really got ourselves mobilized, they came in one after the other, the Washington Treaty invoked, the Rio Pact invoked, organizations around the world wanting to be a part of this, the OAS, and recently the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 56 Islamic nations coming together just 2 weeks ago.

    We were worried about whether the Islamic conference would come out with something that might be troublesome for us. Instead they came out with a strong powerful statement that said what Osama bin Laden's associates did on the 11th of the September was wrong, was representative of no faith, was not representative of the faith of Islam, was a desecration, and they understood the necessity for action against such terrorists and such kinds of activity.

    This is a coalition that is in the interest of our goals and objectives and activities. It is a coalition that people have suggested will fray and break up. Well, it has been 6 weeks now; it is getting stronger. The President just came back from a trip to Shanghai where he met with APEC, the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation organization. And 21 Asian Pacific nations came together and in their final declaration gave the President a strong show of support, all united. All want to cooperate with the financial piece, the economic piece, the intelligence piece, the law enforcement piece, securing our borders, how do we look at visas, how do we look at people traveling around.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    A number of them came forward and said we want to be a part of the military organization. In fact, my colleague, Don Rumsfeld, is having much difficulty figuring out how to use all of the military support that has been offered to him as he has in applying those who are already in the field.

    We have also had a number of nations that have come forward and said, look, we are with you in the whole strategy that you have laid out, not just to get al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but what happens after that; after the Taliban is defeated and they are no longer there. We want to be a part of that effort that puts in a new system, a new government for the Afghan people, a broad-based government representing all elements of Afghan society. We want to be a part of that.

    The U.N. wants to be a part of that. We know that may require some peacekeepers or others to go in to help this new government get up and running and started. And we are working with the U.N. and all interested nations in that regard. We are working with the different elements of Afghan society in the great Diaspora that is around the world, working with the king in Rome, working with others, talking to all of the countries that are in the neighborhood, to make sure that we have a sense of what everybody would like to do.

    Nations are coming forward with humanitarian aid to make sure that we get what we need to get into Afghanistan as the winter approaches. That is perhaps one of our most difficult challenges at the moment. Nations are also coming in and saying, once we get a new government in place that is representative of all of the people of Afghanistan, we want to stay there in order to help build the country, perhaps for the first time. Not just rebuild,but build for the first time to give hope to the people of Afghanistan.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We are also working hard, Mr. Chairman, to deal with the public diplomacy aspects of this crisis. We want to get the message out that Osama bin Laden is evil, his action is evil. One of the problems we have is that out in the street, as they say, below the level of government, there are a number of citizens and Muslim countries who look at us as the aggressor. We are not the aggressor. We have never gone to attack any Islamic country. We have never gone to invade any Muslim people. We have never gone to subject them. We went to the Gulf to rescue Kuwait from Iraq. We are there as a force for stability, a force that protects the people of the region, and we have to do a better job of making our case, and we are hard at work doing that.

    I also must say, Mr. Chairman, that even though I am now a diplomat, no longer Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I cannot help but view what my colleagues in uniform are doing, and do it with the greatest of admiration. We all should be so proud of what the wonderful men and women are doing in tending to our care, which the American people are doing over the skies of Afghanistan and some on the ground. And we must also be very thankful for the forces of other nations that are participating with us in all of this.

    The humanitarian challenge, as I touched on earlier, is a difficult one. And we are working with the United Nations, the World Food Program, and all of the neighboring countries to make sure that we can do everything possible to get the tonnages in. And also as you noted, Secretary Rumsfeld and my colleagues in the Pentagon are also hard at work, dropping in supplies from the air in order to provide some emergency support. And as we get further into the system, we might find that air bridge has an even more important role to play.

    I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this is a noble cause that we are all embarked upon, and it is a cause that we must prevail on. We must be persistent. We must be patient. This isn't a battle that is going to be won suddenly one day. It is going to be a campaign, a battle, a war that is going to continue.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    People have asked me, how will we know when we have been successful? How will we know when we have won? We will have won when we are living in security again, when we are being cautious about how we travel and the other things we do in our daily lives, but when we are once again secure in our homes, secure in our cities, secure in our official buildings here in Washington and elsewhere around the country, and when we get back to that America that we all know and love so well. We are not threatened by this kind of terrorism, and when we also help our nations around the world to get rid of the terrorist threats that they face, that is when we know that we will have been successful.

    I believe that we will be successful because the cause is just, it is the correct battle to fight at this time, and because I know that under President Bush's leadership we will apply the resources, the will, and the determination to that challenge. And I am quite confident that we will enjoy the support of the American Congress, the American people, and the members of our coalition as we move forward.

    I would like to stop at this point, Mr. Chairman, and invite your questions and the questions of your Members.

    [The prepared statement of Secretary Powell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE

    Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lantos. Members of the Committee.

 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I am pleased to appear before you today to update you on our nation's diplomatic response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, as well as to report to you on my recent trip to Pakistan, India, and China.

    Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to commend you, Mr. Chairman, along with this Committee and, indeed, the entire American Congress, for your courageous response to this national tragedy. I was deeply moved, as I believe the nation was deeply moved, at the sight of our elected representatives standing on the Capitol steps the evening of the tragedy, singing ''God Bless America.''

    The spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation which has emerged, on Capitol Hill and throughout our government, has sent a powerful signal of America's resolve to the American people, to our friends around the world, and, just as importantly, to our foes.

    Mr. Chairman, the perpetrators of what President Bush has described as ''evil, despicable acts of terror'' struck not only at the United States, they struck at the world. They struck at all who believe in tolerance and freedom.

    Citizens of some 80 countries died that day in New York, in Virginia, and in the Pennsylvania countryside. Citizens of all countries recoiled in horror at the magnitude of the atrocity committed on American soil.

    We have responded to these attacks with a campaign directed against the perpetrators of September 11, and the nations and organizations that help them—al-Qaida, its leader Usama bin Laden, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbors and supports them.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But our fight does not end with al-Qaida and the Taliban regime. As President Bush told a joint session of Congress September 20:

    ''Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.''

    In our campaign, we are deploying every tool we have—political, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, and financial, along with appropriate military means.

    Because terrorism is a global problem, the response to terrorism must be global. We need the cooperation and support of a broad coalition of nations to use these tools effectively. Under President Bush's leadership, we have assembled a remarkable international coalition to do just that.

    The coalition we have built does not tie President Bush's hands. It magnifies his efforts. The coalition is a force multiplier in our campaign—for all the tools we are using.

    I am here today, Mr. Chairman, to update you and the Committee on the diplomatic aspects of our campaign.

    We have a good story to tell. Almost every civilized country has joined our effort—our European and Canadian allies, Western Hemisphere neighbors, and Asian and Oceanic partners, as well as our Middle Eastern, Gulf, and African friends. Russia and China have been remarkably forthcoming as active supporters of the campaign.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    NATO for the first time in its history invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty, declaring the 11 September attack an attack on all members. The Rio Treaty signatories and Australia also invoked collective defense articles of our treaties.

    Less than 48 hours after the attacks, the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the attacks, and supporting action against those responsible and the governments that aid them.

    The OAS, ASEAN, APEC, and regional and religious organizations representing the vast majority of Muslims—including the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Organization of Islamic Conference, and the Organization of African Unity—have condemned the attacks and offered assistance.

    Leading Muslim clerics, such as the Sheikh of al-Azhar, have joined in the chorus of condemnation.

    Mr. Chairman, I can only name a few of the many supporting nations and organizations, but the message is clear. The world rejects Usama bin Laden's vile effort to cloak his crimes in the mantle of Islam. The world rejects his efforts to hijack a great religion in the name of murder.

    So the coalition has come together, and the work has begun across a broad front.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The effort to stanch the flow of money to terrorists is one vital front in our campaign. Here, we are making good progress.

    Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, requires members to act against terrorists' movements, financing and operations. The Security Council has also formed a counterterrorism committee to implement 1373, chaired by the British, and with expert advice from the United States and others.

    President Bush has issued an Executive Order freezing the assets of 27 individuals and entities. On October 12 an additional 39 names were added to this list. The total list of 66 names includes 17 groups and 49 individuals. We anticipate adding additional names in the future.

    We have frozen approximately $4 million dollars in assets since September 11 and more is under review. Hundreds of additional accounts are presently being examined.

    Over 140 countries have voiced their commitment to the campaign against terrorist financing, and over 70 countries are actively working to detect and freeze assets related to terrorists identified in the Executive Order, Security Council Resolutions, or their own files.

    Another front is the intelligence and law enforcement component—making sure that all the nations of the world that have information about these individuals start to share it in a more effective way. After little more than a month, we are seeing success.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I must also say a word about our brave men and women in uniform, as they take the battle to al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan. I am not here to testify on the military aspects of the campaign, but I must salute their bravery and commitment to duty.

    Mr. Chairman, we are not only combating al-Qaida and the Taliban. We are also acting to ease the suffering of the Afghan people. We estimate five to seven million Afghans are at risk due to drought, famine, Taliban misrule, and the onset of winter. The United States was the largest donor of assistance to the refugees before September 11, and in response to the increased need we have announced $320 million, in cash and commodities, to aid Afghans. Other countries have pledged an additional $466 million. We have also air-dropped some 500,000 humanitarian daily rations.

    We are working with UN agencies such as the World Food Program and with private voluntary organizations to make sure this assistance gets to the people who need it, in Afghanistan and in surrounding countries where millions of refugees have fled.

    While we are waging today's campaign, we are also looking ahead to the future of Afghanistan. We are working with coalition partners and with the United Nations, including Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, the Secretary General's Special Representative for Afghanistan.

    The goal is the formation of a broad-based Afghan government that represents all geographical and ethnic backgrounds, not just one party or one group, and that will end Afghanistan's role as a haven for terrorists, permit reconstruction, and make refugee return possible.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    To secure these goals, we are working with Afghan groups and the international community to address key political, reconstruction, and security issues. Afghan groups—including the Northern Alliance, Rome Group, Southern Pashtuns, and others—must come together to form a broad-based coalition capable of assuming administrative functions. There is, however, no place in a new Afghan government for the current leaders of the Taliban regime.

    We are also working to get our message out, that our campaign is against terrorism, not Muslims. American officials are appearing daily in relevant media, including on al-Jazirah television. We are ensuring that the President's statements and speeches are transmitted world-wide, within six hours of delivery.

    To give you a flavor of what we are doing, let me take one ''day in the life.'' On October 20, Deputy Secretary Armitage was interviewed by the Indian national daily Hindu; Under Secretary Grossman, USAID Administrator Natsios and Acting PRM Assistant Secretary Kreczko took questions from Arab journalists in London via DVC; Under Secretary Grossman was interviewed by N–TV of Russia; EB Assistant Secretary Wayne was interviewed by MBC, LBCI and the Abu Dhabi Satellite Channel; EUR Assistant Secretary Jones appeared on Turkish Star TV; and NEA officials met Palestinian and Israeli journalists in the U.S. on the ''Peace Partners'' program.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to describe the efforts we are pursuing to ensure the security of our people abroad.

    We have added special agents to posts under critical and high threat, increased local and host government protection, and temporarily drawn down staff at certain posts under critical threat.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We have increased our vigilance toward chemical and biological threats, and initiated a chemical and biological threat program with first responders and security professionals at embassies and consulates that have countermeasures training and equipment.

    We have also provided awareness material under the authority of the chiefs of mission, with additional equipment delivery in process.

    Our Fiscal Year 2002 budget request for some $1.3 billion is essential to fund secure new embassies, increase perimeter security, and add to our worldwide security readiness. We look forward to working with the Congress to secure this critical funding.

    Mr. Chairman, it was in the pursuit of these counterterrorism objectives, as well as other important foreign policy interests, that I traveled to Islamabad, New Delhi, and Shanghai.

    In Pakistan, I thanked President Musharraf for his bold and courageous actions since September 11. I emphasized America's support, and the support of the international community, for Pakistan's role in the campaign against terrorism. I also assured him that American support would extend to the financial and economic measures needed to help Pakistan get back on its feet again, and that those measures would come not just from America but from other coalition members as well.

    President Musharraf's commitment to the campaign against terrorism is steadfast, but he also raised the Pakistani public's concerns about extended bombing operations in Afghanistan. I assured him that targeting has been judicious, with every effort made to reduce civilian casualties.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In India, I thanked Prime Minister Vajpayee, FM Singh, and other senior officials for India's prompt offers of unconditional cooperation, and for all the support that India has provided and continues to provide to the campaign. Both the United States and India were quick to realize the attacks of September 11 were attacks on the world, and we have stood shoulder to shoulder in this fight against terrorism.

    In both countries, we discussed how to ease the plight of the Afghan refugees and shared thoughts on how to begin the process of rebuilding Afghanistan.

    Mr. Chairman, the campaign against al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden, and those who harbor them is our top priority, and it was largely in order to better wage that campaign that I traveled to the subcontinent.

    But, even while we pursue this campaign, we cannot allow our foreign policy to be hijacked by terror, to the exclusion of other important interests, including our enduring interests in South Asia.

    In that spirit, my talks in Pakistan and India also covered ways to expand cooperation and deepen our relations, as well as ways to enhance stability between those two great countries.

    I assured President Musharraf that our improved relationship is not just a temporary spike but, as a result of the actions taken by Pakistan over the previous five weeks, the beginning of a strengthened relationship that will grow and thrive in the years ahead.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    On the domestic front, President Musharraf stressed that improving economy is his priority, reaffirmed his commitment to hold elections in October 2002, and pledged cooperation on nonproliferation issues.

    Regarding economic and commercial issues, we agreed on the importance of continued economic reform, and the U.S. reaffirmed our commitment to work both bilaterally and multilaterally to address Pakistan's enormous debt burden.

    In New Delhi, my conversations with Prime Minister Vajpayee and Foreign Minister Singh covered the broad range of our relationship and the steps we are taking to transform it even further. Well before September 11, President Bush made it clear that putting our relationship with India on a higher plane is one of his highest priorities. As two great, multi-cultural democracies that believe in a common set of values, we are natural allies.

    With the strong support we have received from the Indian government since September 11, we are seizing the opportunity to accelerate the pace of change. I am pleased that, during my visit, PM Vajpayee accepted an invitation to visit Washington next month.

    In both countries, I urged restraint in their nuclear and missile programs and the need to avoid onward proliferation.

    My trip occurred amidst the highest tension we have seen in almost a year along the Line of Control in Kashmir. I emphasized to both sides the need for military restraint and the resumption of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan on all issues, including Kashmir.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I concluded my trip in Shanghai, where I attended a meeting of APEC foreign ministers and, later, joined President Bush at the APEC Leaders Meeting.

    Our overriding focus in Shanghai was to bolster the international response to the events of September 11, both in the President's bilateral meetings and in the APEC context. We met with solid success.

    The APEC Leaders assembled in Shanghai put APEC squarely on the record against terrorism, with their Statement on Counterterrorism. This was remarkable step, given APEC's traditional reluctance to venture outside the economic realm, and a strong signal of the unity of the international community.

    APEC Leaders called for the early signing and ratification of all anti-terrorist conventions, including the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and pledged to implement UN Security Council resolutions 1368 and 1373. They also mandated cooperation against terrorism encompassing finance, customs, immigration, transportation, energy and infrastructure activities.

    APEC's importance as an economic forum was also increased by the September 11 attacks. Since its founding, APEC has been an important vehicle for encouraging the adoption of market-oriented trade, investment, and financial policies by countries that together represent two-thirds of global GDP and over half of world trade. Now more than ever, these policies are critical for ensuring the economic vitality needed to restore confidence in the global and member economies, and to support our goals of fostering stable, prosperous democracies in the region.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    APEC Leaders sent a strong signal of support for the global economy with their commitment to launch a new round of WTO talks next month and their adoption of the Shanghai Accord, an American initiative to revitalize APEC's role in promoting trade and investment liberalization.

    President Bush and I also held a series of bilateral meetings in Shanghai.

    In our meetings with the Chinese, including President Bush's meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, we sought Chinese commitment to increased cooperation against terrorism, including the long-term law enforcement effort to eradicate financing of terrorist organizations and the need for immediate humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees.

    We also discussed ways to honestly address our differences so that our areas of difference do not prevent us from cooperating on other issues of mutual importance. I am confident that as we advance our counterterrorism cooperation with China we will be in a stronger position to sustain meaningful consultations with the leadership in Beijing on subjects such as Taiwan, nonproliferation, and human rights.

    Russian President Putin's reaction to September 11 marked the beginning of a new period in our bilateral relationship, one in which a new spirit of cooperation on counterterrorism may also make many of the tough issues on the agenda more resolvable. Indeed, in the wake of 11 September, it has become clear that not only is the Cold War over, but the post-Cold War period is also over.

 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In President Bush's meeting with President Putin, and mine with Foreign Minister Ivanov, we discussed the future of post-Taliban Afghanistan. We also had a good discussion on the new strategic framework.

    The President's meeting with Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi, while focused primarily on the campaign against terrorism, also covered global economic developments. President Bush urged the Prime Minister to remain steadfast in his ambitious reform agenda for Japan's faltering economy. He emphasized the importance of Japanese economic recovery to both our nations, and the world.

    Also in Shanghai, President Bush had an excellent meeting with President Kim Dae Jung of Korea, who was very forthcoming about South Korean support and pledged to provide all necessary cooperation and assistance. The two Presidents also discussed our two nations' continuing readiness to seriously engage North Korea to bring about North-South reconciliation and peace on the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. remains prepared to resume dialogue with the North Koreans any time, any place and without any preconditions.

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to commend the men and women of the State Department who are serving in Washington and, often in harm's way, in our Embassies abroad.

    Our people have helped secure landing and overflight rights from more than 50 nations that are vital to our military operations. They have pressed host governments to choke off the financial lifeblood of terrorist organizations and deny them safe haven. They have helped generate and distribute humanitarian aid to the Afghan people and the frontline states. And they are working to maintain international cooperation on the full range of counterterrorism initiatives ranging from fighting money-laundering to improving airport security.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    In Islamabad and New Delhi, I met with the skeleton staffs who are working under extraordinarily difficult conditions to wage this vital campaign against terrorism.

    The President, the American people, and I are counting on them to do their duty, and, in the finest tradition of service to our nation, they have risen to the challenge. I am immensely proud of these dedicated men and women, and I believe our country should be proud of them too.

    Mr. Chairman, our record is strong, but we have only begun. This is a campaign that will be measured in weeks, months, and years, a campaign that we will pursue with patience and perseverance, in close consultation with our friends and allies. As President Bush told the nation on October 7:

    ''Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will and purpose.''

    Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, we will be patient, we will be persistent, and we will prevail.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I wish people here who have cell phones would be foresighted enough to turn them off if you can. It is a disturbance. Secondly, I don't want to embarrass you, Mr. Secretary, nor myself by saying extravagant things, but I must say in this time of terrible angst, it is a cosmic reassurance to have you as Secretary of State. And I mean that sincerely.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Secretary, we all look forward to a prompt and successful conclusion of our military operations in Afghanistan. Many of us would like to know, however, whether our military objectives include removal from power of the Taliban regime; and, if so, what your thoughts are about the type of government we hope will replace the Taliban and how our country can facilitate that transition.

    Secretary POWELL. The President made it clear from the very beginning if the Taliban regime did not turn over Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organization resident in Afghanistan, that they had essentially designated themselves as a terrorist regime. They did not. And so they have to pay the consequences.

    The Taliban government must now go, because they are part and parcel to al-Qaeda. We believe that once that regime has gone, it is necessary to find a successor regime that represents all the people of Afghanistan. We are working hard now, and you mentioned Ambassador Richard Haass, the Director of Policy Planning for the State Department. He is working with Mr. Brahimi, the Secretary General's representative in New York, Ambassador Haass has also met with the king in Rome. And as you may have noted in our daily newspaper, meetings are taking place in Pakistan, in Peshawar, and also meetings are starting to take place in Turkey. So there are a lot of things starting to happen. And we hope that we will be able to cause all of this to gel in the very near future. I don't have the exact model as to how it will all come together, whether it will be the Supreme Council coming together or some smaller councils initially meeting. The king will play an important role, not that I would expect him to become the chief executive of the next regime, but he brings a certain authority to the process and he will be able to rally all of the elements together. And he has certainly indicated he is willing to play that role, and an important role it will be.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    My own view is that as this process unfolds, as we begin to see what the Afghans want—as opposed to what we want them to do—but what they want and what we are able to help shape along with them, that the U.N. will play an important role. And my own personal view, and I present it as personal view, is that there will probably be a requirement for some kind of significant U.N. presence in Kabul in a governmental, administrative capacity to help the new government get started, because they will be coming in without any existing institutions in place, without any real experience in government.

    The U.N. has performed this role successfully in other places, not that those places are perfect models of what we maybe need in Afghanistan, but the U.N. experience in East Timor, in Cambodia, suggests that they do have a body of experience that is relevant to this kind of challenge. And I think after a period of time performing that role, hopefully the Afghan government will get its sea legs and be able to take over and take over in a way that people can look at this new government, look at Afghanistan as a nation that is no longer harboring terrorists, as a nation that can accommodate itself to its neighbors with no one neighbor having veto power or dominance over the new government.

    It is a very interesting neighborhood: Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, China. It is a very interesting country, surrounded by many interesting countries, and all of those interests have to be dealt with. Russia, India, are a little bit further away, but nevertheless interested.

    We have been in touch with all of those countries to get their thoughts, to get their ideas as to how we should move forward. We will need all of them to come into this process in order to move forward in a successful way.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Lantos.

    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I knew that I had to rely on you for supplying the right adjective. You are giving us cosmic feelings of security.

    Secretary POWELL. Scary.

    Mr. LANTOS. And all of the American people are grateful to you, Mr. Secretary. A few days ago, the Republican whip, Tom DeLay, and I wrote a letter to you. And I want to publicly express my appreciation for the excellent response that Secretary Armitage sent us. I would like to read a brief paragraph from his response. I would like to ask permission, Mr. Chairman, to include our original letter to Secretary Powell and the response in total.

    Chairman HYDE. Without objection.

    [The information referred to follows:]

75843a.eps

75843b.eps

75843c.eps

75843d.eps
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

75843e.eps

    Mr. LANTOS. We were dealing with the issue of how we treat other countries which have been victims of terrorism, and how we treat countries which are havens to terrorists. Our letter outlines our position very clearly, and I couldn't be more pleased with your deputy's response.

    This is what he says:

  ''You are correct that al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization with global reach. All 28 terrorist groups designated by the Secretary as foreign terrorist organizations maintain networks of varying international scope and use these networks to facilitate violence against innocent persons to further their political designs. The foreign terrorist organization list includes groups from every corner of the world. We have been attacking these groups for years, are going after these groups now, and will continue to do so until they no longer represent the threat to the United States, our citizens, our interests, and our friends and allies.''

    I say amen to that.

    The second comment that your deputy says in his excellent response is also interesting, and I want to share it with my colleagues:

  ''One of the most important elements of the campaign against terrorism, regardless of the target, is ending state support for terrorism. We have long sought to move states that sponsored terrorists groups to get out of the business. The tragic events of September 11 may provide the United States more room to do this through hard-headed diplomacy combined with multilateral pressure. As with our ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Sudan, any diplomatic efforts to engage state sponsors will include rigorous requirements.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

  ''Rhetoric alone will not suffice, and rewards must be fully earned. We are not contemplating actions which might constitute, quote, rewards to Iran, Syria, or the Palestinian authority absent satisfactory action on the longstanding conditions and concerns we have regarding their policies and activities.

  ''We will not allow them to cherry-pick some terrorist organizations while ignoring or, worse, aiding others. In short, state sponsors must definitively act to satisfy our counterterrorism concerns before we will consider removing our unilateral sanctions.''

    Now, this is an excellent letter. Unfortunately, it is in disharmony with some of the statements State Department spokesmen officially have uttered with respect to this issue. And I wish during the briefings there would be your statement on a huge banner. When you said you don't get to pick your terrorist, that was an excellent statement, Mr. Secretary. But some official State Department spokesmen have attempted to justify some kinds of terrorism and trying to make the phony case that some kind of terrorism is justifiable while other kinds of terrorism are not justifiable.

    This hypocrisy or inconsistency also carries over into the realm of what is called targeted assassinations. Now it seems to me, Mr. Secretary, that if an American pilot were to, using our smart weapons, kill Osama bin Laden in his cave, which would clearly be targeted assassination, he would get a Congressional Medal of Honor, and the next week a ticker tape down Fifth Avenue.

    Now, Israel targets terrorists who are responsible for the murder of large numbers of innocent private citizens, whether it is in a disco or in a pizzeria or elsewhere. I think it is the ultimate hypocrisy when the State Department spokesmen criticize our democratic allies for actions we ourselves engage in.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    My question is a simple one. Is the State of Israel, a democratic ally and friend, a country which has been the target of more terrorism than any other country in modern history, entitled to pursue the terrorists who act against them exactly the same way we are entitled to pursue Osama bin Laden and his ilk?

    Secretary POWELL. Very difficult question, and one we struggled with within the Department for a long period of time. We have been trying to get the peace process underway in the region, and we have been trying to get the violence down on both sides. It is a terrible cycle, and I have spent almost every day since I became Secretary of State working on this problem. And what I have found is that in the daily response to provocation, rather than things getting better as a result of the responses, things are getting worse.

    All you have to do is look at the events of the past several days to see that things get worse. And so the Department for a long time before this Administration has always viewed that kind of activity of targeted assassination as not being a useful strategy to pursue and has spoken out against it, because, in an effort to get the peace process moving, we have found that that kind of activity does not move the process forward. And so we have spoken out against it.

    Mr. LANTOS. Could you expand a bit? What does the state of Israel do in the face of terrorist attacks? It merely accepts them? Or does it have the right to use its sovereign self-defense authority to defend itself?

    Secretary POWELL. It is a democratic state. It has a right to defend itself in the way that it sees fit and appropriate. But we have felt that targeted assassinations, however much the state of Israel believes they are appropriate and uses their forces to conduct such activities, we believe that those kinds of activities are hurtful to the overall process. We are trying to reach a point where such terrorism is stopped, such violence is stopped, and the need for such kind of response is no longer present.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Gilman.

    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Permit me to once again welcome the Secretary before our Committee. I wanted you to know that you have the support not only of the Congress, but of the entire Nation, for the manner in which you are carrying on the work of the State Department and in which you have reached out to the world to bring together an extraordinary coalition.

    Mr. Secretary, throughout the years, we have seen a string of efforts by Pakistan to try to create a government in Kabul: the Afghan interim government in the late 1980s, Peshawar Accord in 1992, and then the 1993 Islamabad Accord. But all of those failed.

    I am concerned that Pakistan is once again trying to decide who is going to rule Afghanistan. And indeed we understand there will soon be a gathering in Peshawar, that the Pakistan Government is encouraging, which will attempt to do just that. Are we in favor of that attempt, or should we tell the Pakistanis to keep their hands off? Do you believe that it is time that we work with the U.N. on helping the Afghans put together a government—through the Loya Jirga process with the king's efforts—which will truly be representative of all of the ethnic groups, all of the tribal groups in Afghanistan? I would welcome your thoughts.

    Secretary POWELL. I support the latter part of your statement. I believe it is time to use the U.N., and especially the offices of Ambassador Brahami, to bring them all together. I was in Pakistan just last week, as you know, Mr. Gilman, and had extensive conversations with my Pakistani colleagues as well as President Musharaff on this specific point; the point being that the next government of Afghanistan cannot be dictated into existence by Pakistan or any of the other neighbors. It has to come into existence because of the will of the Afghan people. And the king has a role to play and the Loya Jirga will have a role to play in due course. Pakistan, of course, has more than a passing interest in what that government may look like, because it is so proximate to it. And so many, a couple of million Afghans are in Pakistan in camps, so they cannot be indifferent to what that government will look like, and what the future holds for Afghanistan.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But I got the clear impression in my conversations with President Musharaff that he recognizes that he can't—Pakistan cannot do it the way that it did it before. It has to be an internationally blessed process. And it has to involve the U.N., and it has to involve all of the Afghan people, not just who they might favor at a particular moment to put in power in Kabul.

    We talked about the meeting in Peshawar, and there was a great deal of interest in having it there. We made the point that we are not sure that Pakistan was the best place to have the overall meeting, but there was some interest in doing it, and apparently some representatives have gone to Peshawar—to Pakistan, to Peshawar, for that meeting. Others are meeting in Turkey. So there is a lot going on, and we are trying to get it all corralled—Ambassador Haass is trying to get it all corralled by working with Ambassador Brahami and Secretary General Kofi Anan. It won't work if any one country dictates what the future government of Afghanistan will look like, even if that were the United States. They have to figure this out using their system, their tribal processes and traditions, the authority of the king, and the use in due course of the Loya Jirga.

    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. I hope that you would consider sending a permanent representative over to be with the king as he tries to put together an interim government. I know Mr. Haass is doing an outstanding job, but I think it needs a person on the job permanently.

    One other question, Mr. Secretary. In post-Taliban Afghanistan, it is going to be essential for the world community to face up to the illicit drug production that has been hanging over Afghanistan for so long, which has made Afghanistan a processor of more than 70 percent of the world's opium—for deadly heroin production. Those illicit drugs in turn have largely helped finance the terrorism that we are facing today, and the long civil wars in that troubled region. Alongside the UNDCP, we must control the precursor chemicals that come from abroad. Those precursor chemicals are essential for that illicit drug production in Afghanistan.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We must also find alternate development crops for the poor farmers there. The world community has neglected Afghanistan link to drugs long enough with its meager support for the UNDCP. Either we are serious about illicit drugs or will face the problem, again and again, of international terrorism financed with the proceeds of this deadly and equally destructive business as we find around the world.

    Mr. Secretary, our military knows where Afghanistan is warehousing its mammoth supply of narcotics, millions of dollars of illicit drugs. We urge you to help the world eliminate those illicit drugs and give proper instruction to our military with regard to that.

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Gilman. I certainly agree with you that this has to be an essential element of whatever future development work we do in Afghanistan, alternative crops, and not let them slide back into growing illicit drugs. We are aware of these stockpiles. I used to be able to give such orders, but now I will pass your request on to Secretary Rumsfeld.

    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Ackerman, would the gentleman yield to me for 30 seconds?

    Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be delighted to yield.

    Chairman HYDE. I just want to share with you, Mr. Secretary, we had a marvelous meeting with Shimon Peres yesterday and he volunteered the remarkable statement that as a good Jewish boy, he never thought he would go to bed at night praying for the health of the President of Pakistan.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary POWELL. He said the same thing to me when I visited with him.

    Chairman HYDE. It is remarkable. Mr. Ackerman.

    Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for the job you are doing for our country, and on behalf of all of us we appreciate it. Just briefly I want to state that I share the concerns that my colleague from California, Mr. Lantos, raised.

    And part of your response I think was very important and telling, at least to me, in which you said that at the State Department you are struggling with this great concern. And that was in response to how do we tell the Israelis that they should not be having targeted assassinations while we are having targeted assassinations, or at least we are attempting to.

    And if I could suggest that the reason that the State Department is struggling with this is because the policy is very inconsistent. We are telling the Israelis to do as we say and not do as we do. The differences between the Israeli policy and our policy, as I see it, at least at this point, is that their targeting is really targeted and they have been successful in hitting their targets, and we have been less successful in reducing collateral damage.

    So I think that this is highly problematic. I mean, what would we think if the Israelis said to us, or anybody else said to us, as some have, we should seek a political solution to this; why don't we sit down at the table with Osama bin Laden or the people he represents, and why don't we work out our differences? I think the answer to that would really be laughable. But yet that is what we are suggesting to Israel as they have been going through this for some 50 years.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    That being said, I want to ask a question on Pakistan, from which you have just recently returned. Does General Pervez Musharaff think that he can oppose terrorists in Afghanistan while he supports terrorists in Kashmir?

    Secretary POWELL. President Musharaff condemned the 1 October event in Trinigar as being the act of terrorists. He opposes that kind of terrorist activity in Kashmir, which takes the life of innocent people.

    He makes the distinction—I am passing on his distinction, not my distinction. He makes a distinction between that and other kinds of activity within Kashmir that he believes are legitimate responses to the situation and to the need to defend Pakistani against the region. That is the distinction that he makes.

    Mr. ACKERMAN. I hear you.

    You mentioned, or at least Mr. Lantos cited your deputy's response to a question where you said that Hezbollah and other organizations were on the international terrorists' list. That list is complete with 28 entities, but incomplete as far as organizations or incomplete with respect to others: Hamas, Hezbollah and the PFLP, which most recently proudly took credit for killing a member of Parliament.

    Even though these groups are on the international terrorist list, they are not on the most recent list that the President and the State Department has put out, saying that the groups that are on that new list, that we will be able to go after the assets of those organizations even if they be in foreign countries, if they are in an American institution. So an American bank in some other country having an account, we can freeze those assets. We haven't put these terrorist organizations that primarily commit acts of terrorism in Israel, but certainly elsewhere on that list. So it would seem that we are not as serious with organizations that commit acts of terrorism in Israel.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, Hezbollah, as you know, is doing money laundering throughout South America. They are the suspect in the bombing of both the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Center in Argentina. They have been accused of blowing up some American interests, as we are all aware. Why aren't they on that new list?

    Secretary POWELL. As you note, sir, they are on the foreign terrorist organization list, and they are on other executive orders that already exist.

    Mr. ACKERMAN. As are all of the other groups.

    Secretary POWELL. The reason they are not yet on this list is because this list was created recently. And in the first instance, as we organized ourselves to use this list in an effective way, we focused on al-Qaeda organizations that had a direct link to al-Qaeda. It is a living list. It has now had two tranches, first tranche and a second tranche, and there will be a third tranche. And all of the organizations that are on the foreign terrorist organizations list, and other terrorist organizations as well, will be considered for addition to the list as we move along. But it is just something that we started.

    Mr. ACKERMAN. Does Hezbollah have any connection to al-Qaeda?

    Secretary POWELL. Not by the standards in which the list was created.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, again welcome to the Committee. Thank you for your outstanding leadership. You have to know that—both you and certainly the President—there is a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for the job that you are doing. We want to thank you for that. I do have three specific items I would like to bring up very quickly. First, there is a profound concern—but I am happy to say no panic yet in my own district and elsewhere—over the recent spate of anthrax cases.

    My district, especially the postal facility in Hamilton Township, has a case of inhalation anthrax—a development that has certainly ratcheted up the concern. While many public officials and individuals, labor unions, the postal authorities, have all stepped up and they are doing their level best, but there is one nagging question that seems to be growing. Is this just the beginning? And, secondly, is this in any way related to the horrific events of 9/11 and the international terrorist efforts—organizations, I should say?

    Second very brief question—and as I read your testimony, it is outstanding. You pointed out that we discussed ways, talking about the meeting in Shanghai, to honestly address our differences with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) so that our areas of difference do not prevent us from cooperating on other areas of mutual importance.

    I have been working the human rights issue, vis-a-vis China, for 21 years—since I have been in Congress. When I was Chairman of the Subcommittee, Cynthia McKinney was our Ranking Member. Time and again, we focused on specific egregious abuses by China. Last week, the Full Committee had a hearing on forced abortion in China. It is a crime against humanity and a Taliban-like crime against women—and was so construed at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal as a crime against humanity as well. It is commonplace in China.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Uygurs. I am concerned, and I think others are concerned, that under the pretext of cracking down on extremists, the PRC will make a move against those Muslim Uygurs in Xinjiang Province. Many of these people are peace-loving and very devout and have been subjected to tremendous amounts of oppression over the years.

    And we have had Uygurs testify time and again before our Committee, and they tell appalling tales of abuse. There is the religious persecution in China as well. Our hope is that this doesn't get glossed over, and especially as it relates to the Uygurs, that China doesn't use this as a pretext to go after them.

    And, finally, you make a very profound statement that I wish you had led with. Indeed in the wake of 11 September, it has become clear not only that the Cold War is over, but the post-Cold War period is also over. That is one of the most remarkable and hopeful statements that I have heard regarding our relationship with Russia.

    Secretary POWELL. I make two points. First, on the People's Republic, the President in his meetings with Jiang Zemin was very clear that human rights remains an important part of our agenda with China. No amount of trade, no amount of economic cooperation, no amount of WTO accessions and all of the other things that we are doing with them in a positive vein will cause that to go to the side.

    He specifically raised in the meetings Tibet, relations with the Vatican, human rights in general, religious persecution. The Chinese leadership took it all aboard. We didn't get much of a response, but we keep pressing. And there has been improvement over the years, but an improvement that has got a long, long way to go. They don't meet any standards that we have with respect to individual freedom or human rights.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Now, they are masters of their own destiny at the moment. But if they want to keep moving into a world that offers them economic benefit, if they want to keep moving into a world that is ruled by international law, if they want to keep moving into a world where the dignity of the individual is sacrosanct, they are going to have to keep moving in a direction of improving their human rights record. We have made that clear to them. And nothing that has happened since the 11th of September should give them any reason to believe that we have fallen off that standard in any way.

    Thank you for picking up that line. You are right, I should have used it. It is not a bad line. And it allows me to segue, if I may, Mr. Smith, to say that sometimes out of great tragedy, great opportunities arise. And when you look at what happened on 9/11, as we call it, the 11th of September, and the pain we went through—but as we deal with this pain, we can't ignore the opportunities.

    Russia came forward rather quickly. Mr. Putin was the first one to call the President. Imagine that: the first one to call the President. And the President also likes to tell the story that even before he said anything to Mr. Putin, Mr. Putin said, I was having a military exercise, but I am going to stop it because I don't want to give you any false signals while you are trying to figure out what happened. I used to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I used to watch Russian subs 12 minutes off the coast.

    He then said, here are the things that I will do for the war on terrorism, and I have got my own little problem in Chechnya, so I have got to go after terrorists there. We have a little debate about what is a terrorist and what is not a terrorist, not unlike the other conversation that we have had.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So new opportunities have been created. Nobody has called us unilateralists in the last few weeks. We are showing that we know how to pull a coalition together. We suddenly have relations with the Central Asian republics and have potential for the future as well. And Russia is not bent out of shape, because suddenly we are doing things with the Central Asian republics, because we are talking to the Russians about that.

    I have no illusions about the nature of the regime in Syria and Iran. Yet Iran is willing to provide search and air rescue if any of our pilots should be downed over there. It is not likely to be the case, not flying over there. And I have no illusions about Syria. But Syria has indicated that they want to at least talk to us about some things. We will talk, but you get nothing for talk.

    You know, there will be an improvement in our relationship only if there is a change in their behavior. The President has made it clear.

    The Sudan, we have no illusions about the nature of that regime. But they have been very cooperative on exchanging intelligence, on allowing our people in, and other things going on with them. But we don't let them get away with anything. We immediately let them know, no further. We are not going to let things get any better unless you stop that.

    And so I think new opportunities have come on to the stage for us to take advantage of as a result of the tragedy of September 11th.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Menendez.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me thank you as well as my colleagues for your service to the country.

    Let me just say that I would be happy with good terrestrial vibes beyond any cosmic ones. So let me ask you, though—you know, I understand extraordinary times sometimes call for extraordinary actions. I would like to follow up on Mr. Smith's questions.

    I would like you to help us respond to some of the criticisms that I have heard from my constituency and in other quarters. What message are we sending to the world when, for example, Deputy Secretary Armitage is quoted as saying, a couple of weeks ago, that he doesn't consider Syria as part of the anti-terrorism coalition. Yet they end up with a seat at the United Nations Security Council. When we drop sanctions on Pakistan, we are ready to give them an aid package. When the Sudan, a rather brutal regime, we dropped sanctions there; and when the timing of President Bush's endorsement of the Palestinian state might be construed as in effect saying that violence pays, and that there are consequences therefore that flow from that.

    How do you respond to the view of those who are looking at our actions and say, yes, extraordinary times call for extraordinary actions; but aren't we sowing seeds for the future in terms of a policy that we will regret? That is one question.

    The second question: Do you expect the Administration—I have been reading a lot about the possibility of the Administration unveiling its vision on the Middle East peace process. Do you expect that we will know anytime soon as to what their plan would be?

 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And lastly, I just want to raise the question and I would like to hear your responses. You know, I read news reports that two suspected Afghans were arrested in the Cayman Islands after transiting through Cuba. I read about the arrest of our defense intelligence analyst spy who was arrested for spying for Cuba—and giving not only us the wrong information but also giving them information.

    I read of the guilty pleas that were issued in the Southern District of Florida by Cuban spies. Part of what has come out of that record is that they gave detailed information to the Cuban regime about the U.S. Mail system that has been in the public record. And, lastly, I look at Castro's recent visit to Iran—as well as the interchanges that have existed between scientists in Cuba and Iran—and, of course, know terrorists have sought harbor there and been able to achieve it.

    And I say, are we looking outside of the box here and looking at these items as to what extent does any of this have any connection to the recent set of events? What does it speak to, in terms of our assessment of the Cuban regime, in the context of challenges that this country faces? Challenges such as harboring terrorists and transiting of individuals who obviously could offer harm to the country?

    Secretary POWELL. With respect to Syria's seat on the Security Council, I think as you may know, Mr. Menendez, that that was ordained just by the nature of the voting process. There was no way to stop it or lobby against it. It was going to happen.

    With respect to Pakistan, I think that President Musharaff, in response to calls we made to him right after the 11th of September, we said are you with us or not with us on this? He took 24 hours, consulted with all his leaders, commanders, made a decision to be with us, at considerable risk to himself. We already had in process staff working to remove some of the sanctions on Pakistan, and we have done so now I think to encourage him to move in this correct direction. Also he has started to take action against some of the fundamentalist elements within his society to encourage that and to encourage him to move in this positive direction. So I think that has frankly been a good thing to do.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With respect to the Sudan, we removed some of the sanctions, not all of them. We were also considering removing the sanctions that we did remove before the 11th of September, but we were encouraged to do it after the 11th by the forthcoming that Tuesday that we saw from the government in Khartoum. And it also was related to the fact that we have appointed the Special Envoy, Senator John Danforth, to work with the account for us and also Andrew Natsios as humanitarian coordinator. And both Senator Danforth and my staff and Mr. Natzios will be working with all of the people interested in the Sudan—the religious organizations, opposition leaders—to make sure that we have a coherent approach to the Sudan. They are not being rewarded for lack of performance; they will be rewarded for performance. And if performance stops, then nothing else good will happen.If they start going in the other direction, then we are quite prepared to take additional action against the Sudan.

    With respect to the President's reference to a Palestinian state, I think it is important to remember that he was asked about that after a newspaper story about his speech that I may have given but didn't give—but I may have given—and he responded that it has always been an American vision that we would reach a point where there could be a Palestinian state, but it had to be a state that was clearly going to live in peace with its Israeli neighbor and had abandoned all efforts to push Israel into the Mediterranean. It had to be part of a mutually-agreed agreement between the two sides.

    Two days before the President made that statement, Prime Minister Sharon made a similar statement about the vision of a Palestinian state. It has been a position that has existed in previous American Administrations. And just last week, before the Israeli Cabinet Minister was tragically assassinated, Mr. Sharon again made reference to a Palestinian state. It has always been there at the end of the 242/338 process.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With respect to your comments about Cuba, I am not familiar with most of the items that you mentioned. But just let me say that we keep a close eye on Cuba. I have no illusions about the nature of that regime as well. It means us no good. It is a spent regime. It is a busted regime. It has wasted close to 50 years now under a dictatorial leadership. I don't know that we have seen any linkages that would cause us to believe that the events of 11 September in any way trace back to Havana, but I am sure our intelligence agencies are keeping their antennae up. It was interesting that last week, President Putin announced that he was removing the Lourdes Station from Cuba, which produced a five-page letter from President Castro raising bloody heck about it.

    And this was the source of enormous satisfaction and amusement to me personally. Mr. Putin realizes that the Cold War is over and the post-Cold War period is over. And this kind of investment in a regime such as Cuba is no longer worth Soviet money, Russian money.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher.

    Mr. MENENDEZ. Timetable.

    Secretary POWELL. Vision. We had been looking at putting down a comprehensive statement of American policy and events interceded, and we don't yet have a date set where we might lay down such a statement. It is not going to be as revolutionary a statement as some suggest. I think it will be just a clear comprehensive statement of American views that have been held over a long period of time to make sure what everybody knows what this Administration stands for with respect to the Middle East peace process. Mitchell plan, getting into the Mitchell plan, confidence-building measures all leading to negotiations on the basis of 242 and 338.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Rohrabacher.

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. General, good to see you again. During the last Administration—and this is nothing new to the folks in this Committee—I repeatedly asked the State Department for documents, faxes, memos and books and tables, that would help me and this Committee to understand what policy the Administration has toward the Taliban. On two separate occasions while under oath and in front of this Committee, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright agreed to provide me these documents. Chairman Gilman joined me in that request for the documents. We have been stonewalled. They made a sham out of our ability. In fact, I was belittled by several people for even suggesting there was a need to really get into this area, because I had my suspicions of what our policy was.

    I am asking you now, since you are here with us, I would like to have those documents. I would like to find out what American policy toward the Taliban has been. And I think you are clearly stating it now. But what I need is the documents from the past 4 years on the Taliban. I think this Committee has a right to know what American policy has been, what are those cables, what premises we were operating from? I would hope this Administration thinks higher of Congress than to create the farce that we had the last time that I asked for this. Because this is our job. We are supposed to oversee American foreign policy. With that, you have that request. Is that possible?

    Secretary POWELL. I wasn't aware of your request. But let me take it back to the Department and find out why it was not responded to, and then we will get back to you.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The information referred to follows:]

FOLLOWING THE HEARING, SECRETARY POWELL SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION POSED BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

    The Department has fully complied with Chairman Gilman's request of May 21, 1999. On Sept. 26, 2000, then Assistant Secretary Larkin wrote Chairman Gilman that we had collected the sixth and final installments of documents for Chairman Gilman in full compliance with his request of May 21, 1999. That installment was made available on that date. Earlier installments had been made available in July, September, and November 1999 and in January and June 2000.

    The State Department made arrangements for the review of the classified documents, and they were indeed reviewed. One set of classified documents was for review by Members and cleared staff. An additional set, comprised of ''NODIS'' material was to be reviewed only by Committee Members and a designated senior staff person from the Majority and Minority.

    Note: The request, as transmitted in Chairman Gilman's letter of May 21, 1999 was for:

  ''all classified and unclassified cables, transcripts, notes, e-mails and memo relating to any communication with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan concerning Afghanistan dated during one of the time periods below.''

 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
1. April 1, 1996 to August 30, 1996—(Taliban's conquest of Kabul, Congressman Rohrabacher's visit to Afghanistan)

2. April 1, 1997 to August 30, 1997: (Taliban invasion of the North, suspension of operation of Afghanistan's Washington Embassy)

3. January 15, 1998 to September 15, 1998 (Taliban blockade of the Hazarajat, Richardson/Inderfurth visit to Afghanistan, Taliban capture of Mazar and Bamiyan, bombing of UBL training camp)

4. February 1, 1999 to May 15, 1999 (former king's call for a peace plan—request for all notes and memos related to State Department personnel visiting the former king in Rome)

    Attachments:

1. Chairman Gilman's May 21, 1999 letter to Secretary Albright

2. Asst. Secretary Larkin's September 26, 2000 letter to Chairman Gilman.

75843f.eps

75843g.eps

75843h.eps

 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
75843i.eps

    Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was shown some documents. I was handed newspaper clippings and other things that made a mockery of the request that I made.

    Let me just commend you for, you know, bringing back Secretary Haass and Mr. Brahimi. You are trying to put together as many old hands as possible. I would recommend you might try Peter Tomsen, who is an old Afghan hand. He is available. He is now at the University of Nebraska. You know, the Congress is moving forward with a task force to help rebuild the agriculture system in Afghanistan to be headed by Collin Peterson and Butch Otter, who are Republican and Democrat people from our agricultural areas. I think that is something that perhaps the State Department would like to work on with these fellows.

    And just an admonition, don't be afraid to lead a coalition. The coalition needs a leader. I think we are the leader. And if I have any criticism, I think that we have been bending over too far to try to make sure Pakistan's feelings don't get hurt. Pakistanis and the Saudis created the Taliban. And what you just expressed about Russia is one of the most hopeful things that I have heard in probably 5 years on this Committee.

    Russia—which 5 years ago was in the middle of chaos, controlled by gangsters—is heading in the right direction and they want to be our friends and we are entering into another era with them. And instead of trying to be friends with Pakistan, we should make sure that we are very good friends with Russia and Turkey—who has really played a positive role here as well.

 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    One last thing. I see my yellow light is on. We can build a new world on the ashes of the World Trade Center. There is no doubt about it. We have got to be honest. I would recommend that we get together and set a standard of what terrorism is. A standard that includes, I might add, if the Israelis suffer a casualty and then they indiscriminately shell a Palestinian village where women and children are killed in retaliation for some sort of an attack—that has to be labeled terrorism right along with people who bomb Pizza Huts in Jerusalem. We can't have a double standard and expect that we are going to be taken seriously in most of the world. And I think that right now there are people in Israel and there are people in the Arab world, if we got together with them and tried to define terrorism, that they might really take it seriously. We might be able to have a real step forward if we try to do this now during this time of crisis.

    Thank you very much Mr. Secretary.

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach.

    Mr. LEACH. I think the Democrat side.

    Chairman HYDE. We are going to call you. I understand you are upset that we are using the system that was established by Mr. Gilman, that when people get here, that is when they are called and not seniority. I personally prefer seniority. But I am easy to get along with, and that is what——

    Mr. GILMAN. I will abide by your wishes.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. LEACH. I would rather you go to the Democratic side, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. I want to accommodate you.

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Mr. Gilman knows I want to say something about that system.

    Mr. GILMAN. We will have a system meeting some time. Systematically.

    Mr. Wexler.

    Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to act on the joint chorus of praise for you. Quite frankly and even more importantly, in my limited travel since you have become Secretary of State, it has become quite obvious to me that the morale of the people serving in our State Department overseas has taken an extraordinary turn for the better. I most especially want to thank you for some of the extraordinary people you have elevated within the State Department.

    I think it is not only a statement about them but a statement about you. And I praise you for it. If I could, I would like to follow Mr. Lantos and Mr. Ackerman's questions and statements to you. I ask this with the greatest amount of respect. Foreign Minister Peres was here the last 2 days or so, and he defined for us the pattern in which he personally engaged Chairman Arafat with respect to the individuals that were associated with the variety of terrorist activities perpetrated by the Palestinians. And if Mr. Peres' assertions are accurate, I don't have any reason to believe that they are not, in each of the instances, the foreign minister went to the Chairman and said, ''Chairman, arrest this man.'' If you can't arrest him, extradite him to us, give him to us. And in one even stance, Chairman Arafat said, ''yes, I will arrest him.'' He didn't.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If I understand it, in two other instances he said he wouldn't do anything or effectively said he wouldn't do anything, and in fact, he didn't. It seems to me the Israeli position is not only similar to what President Bush said to the Congress the Thursday after September 11th, but exactly the same. The President said to the Taliban, give us bin Laden. If you do, then the score is even and we will take care of it. If not, we will go in and get him. So it seems the Israelis have taken that position.

    When Chairman Arafat either doesn't arrest a suspected terrorist or extradite him, Israel did what they had to do. In this instance, the most recent instance, they had to go into a zone A area. According to the foreign minister, this was for the purpose of dismantling the very terrorist cell that perpetrated the assassination on their cabinet minister. What I would like to ask is, what is it specifically that we object to that the Israelis are doing in the so-called category of assassination?

    Secretary POWELL. With respect to going into zone A, the Israelis have gone into zone A. I think it would be the best interest of everybody to come out of zone A as quickly as possible. We can go over this at considerable length, Mr. Wexler. You heard how Mr. Rohrabacher said that others could make the same kind of claim when you see mosques get shelled or something of that nature. The problem is we have got to find a way to move forward. And not just continue to have discussions as to what is terrorism, what isn't terrorism, what is a target, what is a nation, what is murder, what is provocation, what is retribution.

    It is a vicious cycle. As a result of this cycle, there has been no improvement in the region in the almost 9 months that I have been Secretary of State. I heard all the arguments, I know how awful it is. I know how tragic it is. I know how it must feel to be the Israeli Prime Minister who has to deal with this. Sharon is a dear friend of mine. We talk almost every other day, at the least, very often every day. I know how tough this is for him. I know his determination to protect the people of Israel. I understand that. But the situation hasn't gotten better. So you have got to find a way not to find justifications for what we are doing, but to get out of what we are doing and to break the cycle.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    What we have been trying very hard is persuade both sides to break out of their patterns of behavior. If one does, then the other has an easier time of doing it. And we have just got to get on to the Mitchell Plan and not simply debate whether something is correctly categorized or not.

    I understand the justification of Mr. Sharon and Mr. Peres and the government and the people of Israel make for going into zone A and trying to wipe out these bases of violence and terrorism against Israel. And when they do it and they come out, the question I have to ask myself is, fine, is this situation better? Are we any closer to preventing it from happening again? So far, the answer has been not yet. And so you have got to find a way to break out of this. And that is what I am spending most of my time and energy on.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Burton.

    Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, nice seeing you again.

    Secretary POWELL. Dan.

    Mr. BURTON. In 1993, I believe we got a wake-up call when terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Not enough was done to respond to that. And 8 years later, we saw what happened on September 11th. We have received a wake-up call now with anthrax. I don't know where it came from. I don't think we yet know that. But one of the facts we do know is that Saddam Hussein has been trying to produce chemical and biological weapons as well as nuclear weapons. And I would like to first start out with a comment that we can't be reticent. We need to go after those production sites now with our spy satellites and our intelligence capability. We may not know all of the sites, but it seems to me that even though we are involved in a military operation in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, that we ought to also be looking very seriously at knocking out some of these sites before they use those against the United States and our allies.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I would just like to ask you, it may be a difficult question to answer right now, what about those production sites in those other countries? Do we have a plan to take them out and if so, can you give us some kind of a time frame?

    Secretary POWELL. There is no doubt that the Iraqi regime has been pursuing this kind of terror weapon. And that is why, after the Gulf War sanctions were put in place, sanctions have been spotty, but for the most part, have worked. They have not rebuilt their conventional military capability. They have fewer tanks now than they had at the end of the Gulf War. We watch carefully their nuclear weapons development. And I am sure they are trying that too, but they have not had any more success with it.

    I can't tell you how much our intelligence community might know about specific facilities in Iraq at this time. If I did know, I probably shouldn't divulge it at this hearing. I can tell you that it is watched very, very closely. And when the President makes a judgment that we should go after them, he can make that judgment. But it shouldn't, at this point, in any way be necessarily linked to what happened on the 11th. He could have done it before, he can do it after, he can do it at a time of his choosing. Nothing prevents him from that if he thinks it is an appropriate thing to do.

    Mr. BURTON. Thank you. I didn't expect you to give me an exact time frame. But the fact is we don't have observers on the ground there now. We did have U.N. observers some time ago. We know what kind of a fellow this guy is. We know that he is probably right along Osama bin Laden as far as his capability and his attitude. It just seems to me, since we now have this terrorist attack in the United States that is scaring Americans all across this country, that they may be looking at other biological or chemical weapons right now as we speak. If we have any idea where these targets are—these production plants are—it seems to me I would recommend that the President seriously consider going after them as quickly as possible.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, sir. I will make sure word gets back from you.

    Mr. BURTON. Thank you.

    Secretary POWELL. I will make sure the message is conveyed.

    Mr. BURTON. Could I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Smith?

    Chairman HYDE. You have no time.

    Mr. BURTON. Sorry. I have no time.

    Chairman HYDE. I hate to be abrupt, but you have no time. Mr. Delahunt has some time, though.

    Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, for one, Mr. Secretary, want to applaud you on what I perceive to be your enthusiasm for new opportunities. I think that is a phrase I have heard from you several times. And I think maybe with the tragedy that has occurred, we might be at a moment in our history where there are opportunities to look again, and possibly the potential to reconfigure our relationships all over this world.

    I was also pleased to hear you speak about involving the United Nations in the aftermath of what will undoubtedly be a success for us in Afghanistan in terms of the multi-lateral approach. It is good to see that multi-lateralism and nation-building has survived. At the same time, to pick up on an observation by Mr. Rohrabacher, when he talked about definition, I think there is confusion among the American people about what constitutes terrorism. I think there is confusion, as you can probably infer from the questions that you get from Members. We speak of Iran and Syria and Sudan.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Again, I want to encourage initiatives, new openings, new opportunities. But at the same time, clearly we have had long history with so-called moderate Arab nations, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. I would like to know if you can describe to me what is the difference between a moderate Arab regime and a so-called hard-line regime? I certainly would not describe the Saudi Arabia government as one that embraces democracy or that reflects many of our values.

    Clearly in Egypt, we have had a long-term alliance, a relationship. Yet, I think it is a stretch to call Egypt a genuine democracy. But again, when we hear and read in our popular news outsets that the moderate Arab world is aligned with us, what does that really mean in effect? Are these regimes that are close to imploding because they certainly don't seem to have widespread popular support. I know this is rambling, and maybe it is not even a question.

    I think I am articulating concerns that I have about being clear about our definitions, about what is a terrorist state and what does ''harboring'' mean. I am not going to ask you to respond to that, but let me also just conclude, I see I have some more time. Maybe I can give some to Mr. Smith. We left Afghanistan in 1989—we walked away basically. And we left it there. And we left millions of people in deplorable conditions, either as internally displaced persons or as refugees. We made a mistake. We made a mistake. And I would hope that we continue to not just spend humanitarian money, but stay engaged in a real and legitimate way. It is going to cost money, Mr. Secretary. We are going to be spending well over $350 billion in defense this year. I think the appropriations bill for foreign assistance is around $15 billion much of which goes to Egypt and Israel.

    It is time—and I would look to you for your advocacy and leadership in this regard—to educate us and the American people about the need to stay engaged in a very productive way, in a constructive way to nurture democracy, and that it is going to cost money, but in the end, it is a cheap investment. We learned on September 11th.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary POWELL. May I?

    Chairman HYDE. Please.

    Secretary POWELL. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, countries that would generally be called moderate and others are friendly to the United States. Their systems are not like ours. Some of them are in different forms of evolution. Some are trying to move from monarchies to constitutional monarchies to representative democracies. They are all in various stages of development. I would also put Kuwait in that category. But basically, they are friendly to us. And even though they may have difficulties, internally you might actually find terrorists who can find some comfort in those states, they are not state sponsors of terrorism as, say, Syria and Iran and Iraq are state sponsors of terrorist organizations, with the permission and the wittingness of the state.

    And I think that is one distinction we can make. And it also comes back to the questions that Mr. Berman and Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Lantos raised with respect to this situation in the Middle East, because the Palestinians are also partners for moving forward with the peace process sooner or later. So you have this situation where you are trying to work with the group. At the same time, you are having these vital exchanges with the group. Both sides trying to get—do what they can, we hope. We are putting all the pressure we can on them to try to get the violence down so that they can stop exchange of violence and get back to trying to find a path to peace, path that they were on last year at the declining months of President Clinton's Administration, and President Clinton did all he could to try to bridge those final gaps and he was unable to. And it is a problem that has been a terrible tragedy for that part of the world for the last 50-odd years, and for many years before that, but especially the last 50-odd. We will continue trying. But while we are trying, we have to see them not just as enemies, but as potential partners for peace. Otherwise, we will never get there.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Leach.

    Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask about the international legal circumstance, and we all realize in response to New York and the Pentagon attacks, that we have every right to respond in all sorts of ways. But with the new biological usage, I am surprised that there isn't greater reference to the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention of 1972. I raise it from several different perspectives. One is that that convention prohibits the development, production and stockpiling, as well as use, of biological weapons in war. This is the first time in modern history that such has ever been contemplated. But based on that convention, not only do we have the right to respond in various kinds of ways, but that makes it more firmly an assault on the international order. Not simply an attack on the United States or civilized values—it is a very definitive international legal attack that makes this an attack on every other Islamic state as well as the United States. And so I would recommend reference to that.

    Secondly, the background of that convention—which as a young foreign service officer I worked on in Geneva—was that in 1969 the President of the United States, Mr. Nixon, conducted, or put together, a scientific panel. This panel came to the conclusion that it was far too dangerous in the most sophisticated scientific country in the world—that being the United States—to even experiment with the development of these weapons because they might get out.

    And so, they are a great threat to any society that attempts to experiment with them. I think that is a point we ought to be making at every turn in the road.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thirdly, there has been some discourse in international relations in the last several years and recently within the Administration, about whether we should upgrade verification techniques of those conventions. I haven't been real happy with our government's response in this, but I would only ask that you review that situation in the light of September 11th, and whether this country wants to take a different approach on that.

    Finally, I would just think that as we look at all the ramifications of all of the events of September 11th, if there isn't a case, for also reviewing the weapons of mass development issue itself? And that means a comprehensive test ban (CTB) as well as others. All of the emphasis has been on whether the ABM treaty should be breached, and we note the arguments have been pro and con. But it strikes me the case for a CTB has truly been strengthened.

    I would hope that this Administration would conduct a review of our verification capacities, et cetera, in light of possibly moving in that direction. I just put this on the table for your consideration.

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Leach. On the Biological Warfare Convention, as you know, there is a protocol to it that is being examined. When I came into office, I discovered that there was unanimous view in the United States government, a view that has been reaffirmed in the 9 months since, that the protocol, as it was emerging, was not something we could support. We are now working with our friends and allies to see if we can get modifications that we can support. But it is a tough one. The inspection procedures are such that they might provide too great a burden for us and not really help with the whole process of verification that the protocol was intended to further.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    With respect to CTBT, I will take your thoughts aboard, as you know. The Administration not planning to ask for that treaty to be brought back up for ratification, since the Senate voted it down a couple of years ago, concerns about our ability to safeguard our stockpile, its safety and reliability. And we haven't satisfied our concerns to the extent that we would consider sending the treaty back up for ratification, although we are examining the report that General Shalikashvili wrote in the aftermath of the treaty.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. We expect a vote very shortly. The Secretary can give us until 4. So that we utilize the time while the vote is pending, I will ask Chris Smith to sit in the Chair. I shall run up and vote and run back as best as I can. I would suggest you take turns so some of you stay here and avail yourself of asking the questions. And then shift to the vote.

    So, Mr. Hoeffel is next.

    Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Chairman HYDE. Can we confine to 3 minutes instead of 5?

    Mr. HOEFFEL. I knew that was coming. I will.

    Chairman HYDE. I wish you would.

    Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes, sir. Mr. Secretary, congratulations on the great job that you are doing. After the Second World War, we initiated the Marshall Plan. As everybody knows, $13 billion of aid over 4 years to 14 countries. That $13 billion would be the equivalent today of about $100 billion. Do you think that a similar undertaking should occur to try to reach the disadvantaged of central Asia and the Middle East and other areas to offer some hopes, some alternative to this message of hate that they are hearing from a handful of lunatic clerics? And how would you do it? Would it be economic aid, would it be educational aid, if you think it is worthy at all? Could you give us some of your thoughts?
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary POWELL. I think it is worthy. Whether it quite fits the Marshall Plan or not, I think it is very worthy. And in Afghanistan, we are certainly thinking of how to move in that direction. The Marshall Plan had to rebuild industrial nations. Afghanistan is not an industrial nation. Much lower investment can produce tremendous results for those people or opportunities for those people. And so I am looking at that. With respect to the Middle East, it is an excellent point. I have been in touch with Jim Wolfanson of the World Bank and my colleagues at the European Union, and there is great interest in providing that kind of assistance to the Middle East as part of the comprehensive settlement. Once we get a situation where such investment can make sense and pay off, then I think you would find people willing to participate in such investments.

    Mr. HOEFFEL. Is the United States willing to lead that effort?

    Secretary POWELL. I think there will be lots of leaders, the United States World Bank, IMF, European Union. By lead, I don't think that we have to be the biggest contributor. I think there are a lot of people willing to contribute to provide hope to these countries in the form of economic assistance, and especially educational assistance, to teach a new generation of youngsters coming up not how to throw stones, but how to get an education so they can participate in a 21st century economy.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Cooksey.

    Mr. COOKSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you Mr. Secretary, for being here. It is great, it is wonderful to have a great man and great leader of your caliber in your position. It has been my experience, or it is my feeling that there are many groups out there—there is not one side or two sides, or I think there are four or five sides. They are either terrorists—terrorists of present, terrorists of the 1980s, the 1990s—or they are the terrorist supporting states, like Israel and there are many factions with Israel.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    We met with Mr. Peres last evening. There are also the Arab states. And then there are the non-committal states, the ones that I call the swishes that won't take a side either way. We give a lot of these people past and present aid; humanitarian aid; military aid; and we give them direct aid. Then these different factions fight each other with our money, with our military, and with our aid. They get mad and blame us for our aid being used to help whatever other side—the four or five other sides. Should some consideration be given to us stopping aid, all aid to everyone—stopping the military aid, the humanitarian aid, the direct aid—and just try to be everyone's friend?

    I am not proposing that we become isolationists but at least they would not be able to use our aid as an excuse to attack Americans to kill 6,000 Americans in New York in the Pentagon, and wherever else they carry out their terrorist acts, whatever states they are.

    Secretary POWELL. We use our military aid to further our military objectives, to create a good climate with nations that we might want to cooperate with militarily, or to bring them closer to our way of thinking. One of the most important programs that does that is IMET, International Military Education and Training, which, if I had my way, I would double or triple or quadruple as a way of teaching young soldiers and officers in foreign armies around the world a little bit about the democratic process. Bring them to our schools, let them see what America is like. Send our instructors to their countries and give them the wherewithal to start building military organizations that are committed to democracy by bringing up a new generation of leaders. That kind of aid I think serves our purposes.

    With respect to aid that allows them to buy weapons, we make that aid pass certain tough standards with respect to self-defense and not fueling arms races or giving access to weapons that go beyond legitimate needs of self-defense. Every nation has a legitimate right to self-defense, and where it serves our interest and we should do so, same as some of the new nations of NATO that used to be members of the Warsaw Pact and are now integrating into NATO.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    It seems to me it is in our interest to assist them and there are other nations that fit in that category. Economic and other aid should go to those nations that are not antagonistic toward us. We should not be funding those who would attack us all the time, but at the same time, you can't buy their minds, you can't buy their populations. So we can't expect a perfect record from them in the sense they will never say an ill word about us because we have given them some kind of financial aid.

    Then there is another kind of aid, food aid, we are a great Nation, we have given away food to some of the worst regimes on earth because their people are starving. We are the biggest single provider of food aid to Afghanistan, $170 million in the last year. We provide food to North Korea. Not that we are trying to keep that regime in power, but because their people are starving. We have tried to always keep that kind of aid a little separate, quite a bit separate from our political agenda so that it can be seen for its true purpose, and that is to help people who are starving to death who are part of mankind along with us.

    I think we try to do a good job of using aid to relieve suffering wherever that suffering might be, to relieve hunger wherever that hunger might be, but at the same time, to serve our foreign policy interests and not the interests of the particular government. It should also serve their interests, but ultimately it has to serve our interests. That what we use our aid for.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Blumenauer.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Secretary, thank you for your patience and your thoughtful reactions. I would like to make a brief comment and then follow up on a question that my colleague, Mr. Hoeffel, gave a moment ago. In your statement, you referenced the $1.3 billion for building up the security of our embassies overseas. I would hope that some of that money would find its way to building up the human infrastructure. When you testified before us previously, you talked about the overworked, understaffed people. I think one of the threats to our own security is the consular corps that simply don't have the resources, some of the most junior people, have the most amazingly difficult job. Every embassy that I visit I look at these folks—I talk to them—and I am stunned at the job they do. I hope some of that $1.3 billion finds its way to help them along. And I hope that you will flog us in Congress that it is the right thing in that regard.

    Secretary POWELL. Can I respond to that one?

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. I only have 3 minutes. You can have as much time to respond.

    Chairman HYDE. We will give you a minute extra.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would like to ask my question. Because I could not agree more with what Mr. Hoeffel was talking about, dealing with desperately poor people around the world, particularly in the broad swath from the Middle East through Southeast Asia. We find that we are not just rebuilding Afghanistan, we see desperately poor cities, metropolitan areas, Jakarta, Manila, Karachi, that are cities that don't function, where we have millions of people dying from water-borne diseases unnecessarily.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I wonder if your vision of where we are going to go has the United States making a commensurate investment to help rebuild these cities. To work with these people so that they function, and maybe even yes, why shouldn't we be the number one investor if we are the richest country. We are investing less now proportionately than many of our allies. Shouldn't this be part of our grand vision to try and help solve some of these problems in the long run?

    Secretary POWELL. Yes. First one, the $1.3 billion is for embassy construction. I think we have brought a program that was out of control under solid control. General Chuck Williams, who now runs that for the Department, is doing an absolutely terrific job. I will be getting all kinds of plaudits coming back in from our missions around the world that we finally got the program squared away.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. He was very patient also. He was right on the money.

    Secretary POWELL. Right on the money. Running like a real construction company, a business now. But Congress has also been generous with respect to funding our request for more people within the State Department. So that we can get more consular officers so that we can also have a reserve of people so that I can train them and not take them away from jobs. I was astonished to get to the State Department to realize they didn't have what the military had, a 10 percent factor for training, for people who are ill, people who are not available otherwise so you are not always robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is all the State Department did.

 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Congress has helped us reverse that. We had 23,500 people apply for the foreign service exam last month, 3,000 African American youngsters, three times more than ever applied before because you are giving us the wherewithal to start hiring these folks. Give me more. Because they are doing a great job. The consular officers are overworked.

    With respect to your final point, yes of course we should be. We are the richest country in the world. But I have to kill myself to get less than 1 percent of the budget for foreign aid. We really should be taking a tough look at that. Most Americans think over 20, 30 percent of our budget is going to foreign aid. You ought to double it, triple it. Now, don't let OMB hear me say this. But we can do a lot more. We shouldn't just dump it and waste it. Not rebuild their cities, show them how to rebuild their cities. Invest in their infrastructure, invest in the human capital, invest in their entry level industries, invest in their societies so that they can figure out how to rebuild their cities.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. I really appreciate your comment. I hope that there is a way that you can train your laser focus on USAID urban programs. I think the investment is the equivalent of four cruise missiles, half of what we invested a few years ago, that might help give a boost that you are talking about.

    Secretary POWELL. I will do that. I am doing it. And Director Natsios, Administrator Natsios, is hard at work on it to sort of refocus AID.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Cantor. Would the gentleman yield to me for 30 seconds.

 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CANTOR. I don't think I have a choice.

    Chairman HYDE. Yes, you do. I agree with Mr. Blumenauer, but there have to be reforms that accompany the donations. Otherwise, it is down the rat hole. You cannot send enough money to Karachi—but you can change a system, an economy, a culture if you can. And that is tougher to do. But then your money is not wasted. But to just send it over there without reforms, I think is a mistake.

    Secretary POWELL. May I ask Mr. Cantor if he will yield to me for a moment?

    Mr. CANTOR. Once again, I have no choice.

    Secretary POWELL. Mr. Chairman, every country I visit, I give them the same message. If you want to get more from the United States, if you want a better relationship with us, if you want us to help you, economic development, all the rest, we have to start seeing a democratic system. We have to see you get on top of corruption. You have got to create a society where capital is welcome. Have you created a society where investment is safe? If you do know things, we are going to help you. If you don't do those things, no more. The Cold War is over. I don't have to buy you. I don't have to buy you as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. It is gone. So if you want to play in this 21st century, if you want the kind of money that is being talked about, we can't send it in there to have a bunch of government officials rip it off and send it to Swiss banks.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much. Mr. Cantor, you get a little extra time.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary thank you very much. Thank you for your leadership and your model of patience here with us this afternoon. I will try and be very succinct. My question has to do with Iran. This year, the State Department issued its report on terrorism, and Iran was the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Obviously Iran shares our desire to see the downfall of the Taliban of Afghanistan, although I would suggest for very different reasons. Once we move beyond Afghanistan, our interests in regard to Iran certainly diverge. And if Iran is indeed the world's leading state sponsor of terror, and if we are committed to draining the swamp, how are we going to deal with Iran, given its involvement in sponsorship of terror? I would like to hear your views on how we would approach doing something about getting rid of that state sponsorship.

    Secretary POWELL. As we have in the past, they remain on our list of states that sponsor terrorism. We will continue to keep sanctions in place and hold them at arm's length and not have diplomatic relations, no matter what they do for us with the Taliban, they are not going to get—they are going to have all of this removed. The President, in his speech to the Congress, made a very important point. Those states that continue to support terrorism, we will view as hostile to our interest. The word ''continue'' was put in there for a very, very specific reason.

    11 September changed everything. Before 11 September, after 11 September. The whole world is going after terrorism. So states such as Syria and Iran continue on after, say, we deal with the al-Qaeda problem, and Taliban, continue to sponsor terrorism, then they can not expect to gain anything from the fact that they joined us in this coalition. We are putting them on notice. It is time to give it up. It is time to stop taking action of this nature which destabilizes neighbors, which causes suffering in the Middle East, actions which are simply out of pace with the 21st century world.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Here is your chance. Start moving away from this. Get away from it. And we are open to discussions with the Syrians. We have contacts with the Iranians at an interesting level and we are receiving signals. And we will explore opportunities with them.

    Mr. CANTOR. Follow up question, Mr. Chairman. If that is the case, when and we are committed to seeing the draining of the swamp, is there going to be, in your view, a time at which we will not stand for inaction and try and act ourselves?

    Secretary POWELL. If you mean a military action, the President reserves all his authority and his ability to do whatever he thinks might be necessary in the future. But right now, we are focusing on Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban.

    Mr. CANTOR. Thank you.

    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Schiff.

    Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Secretary, again, I very much appreciate your being here, on the phenomenal job that you are doing. We don't envy the difficulty of your task. At the same time, I do want to take issue with a position that the Administration has taken that you have discussed today. I think it is very important to distinguish between act and reprisal, between crime and justice, between terrorism and the response to terrorism. I had a town hall meeting in my district this week, and I had people equate our military campaign with terrorism, which I think is an affront and as wrong as you can get. But I think our failure to distinguish whether it is, in the case of Israel or anyone else, not only undermines that democratic ally in the Middle East, but also undermines our own credibility. And while it is true, as you point out, that Israel cannot point to enhanced security today, it is also true that, had Israel done nothing, it would have long ago ceased to exist.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I make that point not to beat a dead horse, because many others have made it too, but because I think it is important that the Administration recognize that sentiment runs far and deep in this Committee. I assume within the Congress as well. My impression is we have a short-term and a long-term strategy.

    The short-term strategy is al-Qaeda, Taliban, Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan. That has meant we could have a very broad coalition with each partner providing as much as they could, given their internal situation. Do you see us heading into a second stage when that first mission is accomplished? Where we will, in fact, have a narrower coalition because there will be states like Syria, Iran, and Iraq who are not willing to renounce the terrorists or fail to support them? Do you see a two-tier strategy where we are in part one now, but where we need to continue, we are going to lose some of the coalition partners in the future?

    Secretary POWELL. I think it is a function of what you believe you will have to do in the future. I think we have every likelihood of being able to retain the coalition for a long period of time. We will have difficulty if, as we go down the road, we decide there are certain actions we have to take that some members of the coalition just feel they can't be a part of. And we may find some members bleed off at that time. But I think we can keep the overall coalition intact for a fairly long period of time, if it is focused on terrorism. And in response to different actions we might have to take, there may be some members who would not want to be a part of that action.

    So I think that is one of the reasons the President is approaching this very, very carefully. I mean it is no secret that there are a number of nations that are with us in this instance but would not with be with us if we were doing something else in the Persian Gulf area, for example.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I think we have to be sensitive to those needs. Does that preclude us from doing something we have to do? No. If we have to do it, we will do it, wherever we have to do it. The President has that authority. But it does suggest that we have to at least be sensitive to the nature of the coalition. Coalitions are not cost-free. They give you great leverage. There are quite a force multiplier, but you then have to at least take into account the views of the coalition members. If those views do not comport with ours, then we have to move independently, then we will move independently, but we may lose those members. But we can't give you a direct answer to your question without knowing what specific step 2 or step 3 action might be required.

    Mr. SCHIFF. I would only add very briefly, Mr. Secretary, that I think if we are serious about establishing a world order free from terrorism. A world, as we spoke of some time ago, that is safe for democracy, those goals are going to be have to be clearly set. And that means that those who are not going to support these goals, those the President referred to in his address to the Congress will have to be cut loose from this coalition.

    Secretary POWELL. I understand. Don Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld, put this very well. These may be shifting coalitions that may change from time to time. But I think it is in our interest to try to keep it together for as long as we can. But it will shift as interests change and as different things come along that we find ourselves a force to do or have to do to defend ourselves.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. [Presiding.] The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, Mrs. Davis from Virginia.

 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How did the current Israel military actions threaten to undermine the coalition and do our concerns with the coalition——

    Mr. SMITH. Would you turn on your mike, please.

    Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Mr. Secretary, could you tell me how the current Israel military actions threaten to undermine the coalition and do the concerns for the coalition outweigh our concerns for Israel's right to protect itself?

    Secretary POWELL. We are Israel's greatest friend and supporter. We recognize Israel's right to defend itself and we will never take a position that undercuts Israel's security. We have differences from time to time, and because we are so close to Israel, we express those differences. I stay in close touch with Israeli leaders and think we have if candid discussions on the various issues that are before us. The actions that Israel has to take to defend itself have, so far in recent weeks, not undermined the coalition. But to the extent that the whole Middle East continues to bubble as a result principally of actions coming from the other side, Palestinian actions which then generate Israel responses has been not helpful to the coalition, has been part of the background noise that we have had to deal with. And it is something that Osama bin Laden has tried to use, saying see, that is why I am doing this, which is just an absolute lie. He has never cared a whit about the Palestinian cause. Suddenly he is trying to make himself the champion of that cause and he cannot be seen as the champion of that cause.

    Mrs. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Several of the other members have alluded to it, I guess I am still looking for an answer to it. How does what Israel is doing to protect itself differ from what the United States is doing in Afghanistan?
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Secretary POWELL. Well, I have tried to talk to that. Israel is trying to, at the same time that it defends itself, try to enter into a process of discussion that will allow the two sides to come together and find common ground so that they can then embark on confidence building measures, and from confidence building measures then into negotiations that will bring peace to the region. And to the extent that at the same time we have this violence that is in the region with action against Israel, Israel responds in self-defense. But at the same time, it is against individuals and an organization with which you are also trying to get a process started, makes it a little bit different than what we are doing with respect to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

    Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you Mrs. Davis. Mr. Berman.

    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are with you in this noble cause, Mr. Secretary. You have been praised for the cosmic and terrestrial and other aspects of your performance. I just want to say one thing. I have never heard a Secretary give concise and brief answers that join issue with Members' questions like you do generally and today—instead of spending 5 minutes in the diplomatic dance.

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you Mr. Berman.

    Mr. BERMAN. I don't like all your answers, but I like hearing an answer. And also, my dislike for some of your answers is mitigated by the fact that we are in a noble cause and that requires some prioritization. Certain issues that I have strong feelings about and that other Members of the Committee have strong feelings on have to be put into the context of the need for prioritization.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I don't want an answer now, but I would like you to check on the $320 million that the President proposed for humanitarian relief for Afghanistan. We understand OMB is messing that up. And at some point if the Department can get back to us about the status of that.

    Secretary POWELL. I will, Mr. Berman.

    [The information referred to follows:]

FOLLOWING THE HEARING, SECRETARY POWELL SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD L. BERMAN

    Since the President announced $320 million in humanitarian support for the Afghan people on October 4, OMB has notified the entire amount, and apportioned $267 million as of November 26. OMB has not received apportionment schedules for the remaining $53 million.

    Of the $320 million:

 $125 million went to the Department of State's refugee and migration accounts, which is the full amount requested to date, by the Department to respond to the needs we face in the region. This amount is comprised of the $25 million drawdown from the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) Fund that the President authorized on September 29, and $100 million from the supplemental funds appropriated by Congress to respond to the events of September 11.

 $3 Million went to the Department of State for demining through the Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, and Related Programs account.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

 $192 million went to USAID and USDA. This amount is comprised of $95 million for PL 480 Title II (food) purposes, $96 million for the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), and $1 million for AID operating expenses.

    As of November 26, the Department has obligated $32.7 million of the $125 million in refugee assistance funds to international organizations in response to their appeals for the current crisis. To date, USAID has committed $40.5 million in Title II food aid through the World Food Program for Afghanistan, $20 million through the World Food Program for Tajikistan, and $49 million through AID/OFDA for emergency relief programs.

    Mr. BERMAN. I spent the weekend with some people on these issues, including some Egyptians, and I just want to tell a vignette and get your response, because it deals with the issue of the moderate Arab world. They told me the story of the hatred in the street for America. The people of the street believe that, for example, America is killing, through starvation, tens of thousands of Iraqi children because of our sanctions policy. We all know that the money for the export of Iraqi oil is enough to feed all of the children of Iraq, and in the areas where Saddam does not control, there is no such starvation.

    It is a big lie. These Egyptian high officials, you know them, and former officials, say you have to do something about this, America, because the people in the street hate you. But in countries like Egypt, the leaders don't speak to this. The press that they control perpetuates these lies. There is no effort by the civic community, business or governmental leadership or the media to tell the truth about what is going on. And they all know the truth about what is going on.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Yes, they don't harbor terrorists. Yes, they work with us. Yes, we have important commercial relationships. But somewhere in our diplomatic efforts, we have to let them know that the swamp that is created by poverty and by hatred from people who have contempt for us—then turn them into terrorists—is perpetuated by the policies of those governments to spread actively and do nothing to disabuse the people of these lies about American policies.

    And I do want to raise that issue. I also want to say it seems to me some of the money that we are now appropriating needs to go into public diplomacy. Create a more active Voice of America in the Middle East or a Radio Free Afghanistan, some of the important things to spread the word that these governments, in their control and media, aren't willing to spread.

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Berman. I fully support that. And we have got a new Under Secretary, Charlotte Beers, who comes from the advertising and marketing world, who is going to help us advertise and market better than we have done in the past. We are doing a great deal with respect to the use of the Internet and putting out our message to the masses, and I think we are getting better at turning around, turning around commentary more quickly.

    When we get attacked, we are responding much faster to those attacks and putting the truth out. Truth doesn't always seep down to where it needs to get.

    Chairman HYDE. Mr. Royce.

    Mr. ROYCE. Secretary Powell, you recently returned from India and Pakistan. Addressing these important countries concerns about the situation, one of the things that I wanted to call attention to in terms of the difficulties we are having with the region are the Madrass schools that exist in Pakistan and in India. One of the things that we have been discussing today and what we might be able to do in order to try to offset some of the propaganda in the region.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The return of the public school system to Pakistan is key here. In 1996, I organized a hearing here on Afghanistan and what was happening on the dissemination of disinformation in that society.

    And I said at the time that Afghanistan will become a national security threat to the United States if we don't take steps to offset the lies and disinformation. Now, we have just heard from Congressman Berman about a strategy to get information out. There are now 4,000 Madrasses in Peshawar. We know from what is being taught daily in those schools, the students are learning very hateful lessons. The disinformation there is infecting the societies. The Nation Magazine in Pakistan reports, without any criticism, the lie that 4,000 Jewish workers did not go to work on September the 11th because they has been informed by Mossad that the attack was impending.

    Then you have the information that the United States let this go in order to falsely blame Osama bin Laden. These lies are repeated ad nauseam through the region via Shari'ah Radio, the radio used by the Taliban.

    So what I would like to suggest as a solution to this disinformation is Radio Free Afghanistan. Congressman Berman and I introduced legislation for a template of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that worked in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. We would like to see Radio Free Afghanistan functioning for the purpose of giving the U.S. perspective in the Middle East.

    Secretary POWELL. I think you are absolutely right. In my discussions with President Musharraf this came up. And he made the point that he had to put in place a public education system. And one of the reasons he was so interested in debt relief help from us was not to buy weapons, but to invest in his human capital and to put in place proper schools that are teaching kids to read and write and get ready for the 21st Century, and not to hate.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And when the Saudis give the money, part of the requirement when they set up the Madras, is that it be a Wuhabi Mula that comes and then instructs, they are actually changing the culture of Pakistan and of Afghanistan after changing it radically through this Saudi demand that the instruction changes and the type of Islam taught becomes this confrontational version, which is frankly something new to Islam.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentleman's time has expired. All of these questions are similar in their potentiality, and I hate to cut—Mr. Secretary, you have to leave. Can you take one more question?

    How about two more quickies? Would you do that?

    Secretary POWELL. I will do three more very quick.

    Chairman HYDE. Ms. Lee.

    Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary. I do want to thank you for being here also for your leadership in defining the real multi-dimensional strategies involved to combat terrorism.

    Very recently, our Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, Charlotte Beers, testified, I believe it was in early October, regarding her views on the importance of public diplomacy. You mentioned today that we are doing a better job at making the case.

 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now several of us during the hearing with the Under Secretary mentioned that diversity is one of America's greatest strengths, and that we should really build upon diversity as a strength in our public diplomacy initiative. So my first question then and now to you, Mr. Secretary, is does the State Department utilize the Arab American and Muslim community in our public diplomacy efforts in the Arab world? And secondly, do you see our coalition strong enough and solid enough to ensure that destabilization of the region is really not now nor should be a concern at some point? And is public support in the region supporting the leadership in backing the coalition?

    Secretary POWELL. I am not worried about destabilization at the moment. But there is no question that these leaders are having challenges in controlling the passions that exist within their countries on this issue. Because over the years we have been seen as the enemy in many cases, and because of our military actions, there are demonstrations in the streets. They are not as large as some had predicted, they are all manageable. So I don't see destabilization, but there is turmoil. You get high numbers of people who are opposed to our military action. But their governments are still able to support us in what we are doing.

    On your first point, I am not sure what answer Charlotte may have given with you respect to these.

    Ms. LEE. She was just, I think, 5 days on the job.

    Secretary POWELL. I would have to look at that, because we would not be taking advantage of a great opportunity if we failed to tap into our Arab and Muslim communities to help us put out the message. We are working that in the sense that we are trying to get more Arab American and Muslim American leaders to speak out that Osama bin Laden is practicing a false faith, and make sure we at least get that message out, not only to our young Muslim kids here, but take their voices across the ocean as well.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    One of the most telling arguments against the Osama bin Laden argument is that if America is such a horrible place, if we are so anti-Islam, if we are so anti-Arab, then why do we have such a significant Muslim American population here in the United States? Why do we have some people by the tens of thousands who want to come here every year, not just to visit, but to live, to become Americans? That is because we are a place and land of opportunity. And there are far more people who are coming here than who are going into the mountains to fight us in Afghanistan.

    Ms. LEE. Utilizing that experience and understanding from our community here in America, I think would go a long way in our State Department policy on public diplomacy.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady's time has expired.

    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. My press release will read, Ros-Lehtinen does quickie with Secretary Powell. So I am ready.

    Secretary POWELL. One of us is not going to survive this press release.

    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That can only help me. I don't know what it will do for you. Since this hearing does affect the broader topic of terrorism, I thought I wanted to follow up with Mr. Menendez' Cuban-related question. Recently Ana Belen Montes, the Defense Intelligence Agency's senior analyst for matters relating to Cuba who had access to the most top classified information, was arrested for spying for the Castro regime. Incredibly enough, it actually made the front page of the Washington Post. Her arrest was precipitated by the fact that the Castro regime does, in fact, share U.S. intelligence with Iraq, with Libya, and with other supporters of Osama bin Laden, and by fears that the classified data that she had had access to and had provided Cuba might then be turned over to terrorist supporters.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Dr. Ken Alibek, former head of the former Soviet Union and Russia's offensive biological weapons program, recently confirmed that the Castro regime has offensive biological weapons capability that it could use against the United States. There have already been a series of arrests and convictions of Cuban spies operating in the United States, including penetrations of U.S. military installations.

    Thus, in the aftermath of these and other grave developments are you reconsidering the statement which you made earlier this year before the Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Subcommittee that Cuba does not constitute a threat to the United States?

    Secretary POWELL. I am not familiar with the kind of capability that you have suggested that Cuba has. What I would like to do is go back and take another look at our intelligence holdings. But I still, having said that, when I compare the threat that Cuba was to us and to the whole hemisphere some 12 or 13 years ago when I was in the Reagan Administration, how we fought against that and prevailed over that kind of threat by the election of democracies throughout our region, when I watched the Soviet Union and Russia just pull away from Cuba, it is not the same kind of threat that it used to be, and short of the item you mentioned about them having a biological capability, which I would like to check, but in terms of the kinds of things that they were doing, I don't think that they present that kind of threat to us now. I will have to look at this unique unconventional threat that you mentioned.

    If what you have said is actually the case, then, yes this is a very serious matter and a threat to us.

 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. For example, there have been reports that Cuba has sold to one of the states that are listed on the U.S. terrorist states, a shot that can be used for good purposes. But with an additional—a little supplement added to it can be turned into a biological weapon against our own people. And I would appreciate it if you would get back to us on the recent multi-million dollar sale of such vaccines of Cuba to one of those terrorists states.

    [The information referred to follows:]

FOLLOWING THE HEARING, SECRETARY POWELL SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

    Cuba is not the same kind of threat it was to us and to the hemisphere a decade ago. We fought and prevailed over that threat with the elections of democracies throughout our region. In addition, first the Soviet Union and now Russia have walked away from Cuba, greatly diminishing its ability to threaten the region.

    Nevertheless, Cuba is still a concern to the United States. While its still potent capabilities may have diminished, its lack of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law remain. It is clearly in the interest of the United States that we encourage a transition to democracy and freedom in Cuba. We maintain vigilance in watching the Cuban regime.

    Chairman HYDE. The gentlelady's time has expired. And one last——

 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It was a quickie, but good.

    Chairman HYDE. It was good for you.

    Secretary POWELL. I am not going to say a word.

    Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to share my time with Mr. Payne. So I am going to make a statement basically. I think that the Administration policy is designed very well in Afghanistan. I just want us to stay the course and keep the coalition together. After the battle is won, we must stay there and help organize the government by keeping this same coalition together. We need to settle the problem in the Middle East. I think that the Administration has the right idea with the creation of a Palestinian state on the table. If the Administration stays the course, we can solve a lot of future problems.

    Mr. PAYNE. With the coalitions that have been called, and people visiting the U.S. since September 11th, I notice the absence of the African leaders. President Obasanja of Nigeria, who is having a big problem with Christians and Muslims. More Nigerians have died in fighting between Christians and Muslims this year than within Palestine and Israel together. I think that we need to take a look at that and also at the growing Islamism. Elections are coming up in South Africa and there have been tremendous demonstrations by Muslims in Cape Town. I think that we are going to have another problem there. My final point is I certainly don't like the policy in Sudan, but I know that everything is changing. They have bombed people in the south since they have joined our coalition. I hope that we have Senator Danforth let them know that we do not condone slavery, et cetera.

 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Lastly, I have concerns about issues that may have pushed us away from our friends around the world, for example, our opposition to land mines when most of the world was for it and our opposition to the treaty for child soldiers. We are just talking about 17-year-olds. Our opposition recently to the small arms convention—when we sold $18.5 billion of 36 billion in the world last year. Our quick Mexico City announcement. Our withholding and reducing of dues in the U.N., our breaking off of our discussion with North Korea and making South Korea feel that there is a new policy or scrapping SALT or new SDI. I mean, we can go on and on. I think that as we move and shake the new policy, we ought to take a look at some of our past policies. For example, our being voted out of the U.N. Human Rights Commission—it was wrong, but our European friends voted us out, by and large. That shows that perhaps we need to take a look at some of our policies, our affirmation with Turkey and Greece—which is not totally right—and our affirmation with Morocco and Western Sahara. I believe that as we move into the new policy and as we look at trying to increase some of our foreign aid, I hope that there can be changes so that the world takes a different look at us—Kyoto. We forgot that. But you get the drift, I guess.

    Chairman HYDE. I am glad that was a quickie. Thank you.

    Mr. Secretary, you have been very generous with your time, and very instructive with your testimony. We thank you and wish you great good luck.

    Ms. MCKINNEY. May I have permission to ask one question that hasn't been put to the Secretary all day?

    Chairman HYDE. Well, you have to ask the Secretary.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. MCKINNEY. I understand and thank you very much. I just want to say that we are very proud of you.

    The one question that hasn't been asked is about the role of women in post-Taliban Afghanistan. And of course, you know the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan has advocated a broad-based government that includes civil society and that also would include them and include women.

    And so I would just make the comment that in addition to including women in the government itself—in important positions within the government also—that no human rights abusers or war criminals be allowed to exist in this post-Taliban government. According to the women, the Northern Alliance is just as bad to them, as the Taliban is. And we certainly don't want that kind of a government to have the endorsement of the United States.

    Secretary POWELL. Thank you, Ms. McKinney. Of course that should be our goal.

    Chairman HYDE. Thank you.

    [Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Chairman: It is an honor to have Secretary of State Colin Powell here to brief the Committee on the progress of the war on terrorism. I strongly support the Administration's efforts to seek out and punish those who attacked the United States on 9/11 and those who supported and assisted them. I fully recognize the difficult challenges inherent in this effort, and that no real solution will be easily attained. With that said, I must admit that several of the secretary's points have troubled me.

    Secretary Powell has stated that ''our fight does not end with the al-Qaida and the Taliban regime,'' going on to quote President Bush, that ''our war begins with the al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.'' Mr. Chairman, that is a tall order. Does this Administration really mean to undertake eradicating terrorism from every nation before we can declare victory? Every war must have an exit-strategy, a point where victory can be declared and our troops can be brought home. I fear that the objectives as defined are sufficiently vague as to prevent us from doing so in the foreseeable future. In fact, the secretary's statement suggests that once our immediate objectives—ridding the world of the al-Qaida network and the Taliban government—are met, we intend to actually widen the war.

    Because I am concerned about winning this war at the least possible cost in American life and treasure, I have introduced legislation to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal. This legislation would give the president a powerful tool to root out Osama bin Laden and his supporters. The legislation would allow the United States to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties, thus providing a political as well as military victory. It would also address the increasingly complex problem of asymmetrical warfare using a solution that had been employed successfully in the past against a similar threat. I am disappointed to see that this legislation has not been considered by Congress, and that the Administration has not yet expressed its support for this bill.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I am also concerned about the emerging ''nation-building'' component of our activities in Afghanistan. If, as it appears, our military action in Afghanistan is to benefit the Northern Alliance opposition group, what assurances do we have that this group will not be every bit as unpopular as the Taliban, as press reporting suggests? Not long ago, it was the Taliban itself that was the recipient of U.S. military and financial support. Who is to say that Afghanistan might not benefit from a government managed by several tribal factions with a weak central government and little outside interference either by the U.S. or the UN? Some have suggested that a western- financed pipeline through Afghanistan can only take place with a strong and ''stable'' government in place—and that it is up to the U.S. government to ensure the success of what is in fact a private financial venture. Whatever the case, my colleagues in Congress and those in the administration openly talk of a years-long post-war UN presence in Afghanistan to ''build institutions.''

    The problem with nation-building is simple: it does not work. From Bosnia to Kosovo to Somalia and points beyond, have we seen even one successful example of UN nation-building? Foreign nation-building results in repressive, unpopular regimes that are seen by the population as Western creations. As such they are inherently unstable, which itself leads to all the more oppression. Indeed, many of our problems in the Middle East began when the CIA placed the Shah in charge of Iran. It took 25 years before he was overthrown, but when it finally happened the full extent of Iranian resentment toward U.S. nation-building exploded into the headlines with the kidnaping of more than 50 American citizens. It is a lesson we seem to have forgotten.

    Mr. Chairman, many Arabs believe we ''saved'' Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in order to justify our continued presence there—to, in turn, keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ''safe.'' In a recent interview, President George Bush's father, President Bush, told CBS that he did not regret not going after Saddam Hussein because ''what would have happened if we'd done that is we would have been alone. We would have been an occupying power in an Arab land . . . And we would have seen something much worse than we have now, because we would have had the enmity of all the gulf.'' These are thoughtful words from the former president, however it appears to many that this is exactly what we have done. And the result has been as President Bush warned: we have earned the enmity of many on the Arab ''street'', who regard our military presence on what they consider sacred ground in Saudi Arabia as an open wound in the Middle East. Those who say our policies have somehow justified the attacks against us are terribly mistaken. It is a fact, however, that our policies have needlessly alienated millions in the Arab world.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Our interventionist policies have not only made enemies around the globe. Our own troops are spread so thin defending foreign peoples and foreign lands, that when a crisis hit our own shores we were forced to bring in foreign AWACs surveillance planes to defend our country. That, more than anything else, underscores the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: our own defense establishment is unable to protect our citizens because it is too busy defending foreign lands. We must focus our efforts on capturing and punishing those who committed this outrageous act against the United States. Then, if we are to be truly safe, we need a national debate on our foreign policy; we need to look at interventionism and the enmity it produces. We need to return to the sadly long-lost policy of peaceful commerce and normal relations with all nations and entangling alliances with none.