U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–760PDF 2001

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST

AND SOUTH ASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 17, 2001

Serial No. 107–45

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

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

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

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

PETER T. KING, New York

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

HILLEL WEINBERG, Subcommittee Staff Director & Counsel

DAVID S. ADAMS, Democratic Professional Staff Member

DEBORAH BODLANDER, Professional Staff Member

PAUL BERKOWITZ, Professional Staff Member

MATTHEW ZWEIG, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

WITNESS

The Honorable William J. Burns, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................................ 10

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the

State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East

and South Asia: Prepared statement ................................................................. 4

The Honorable William J. Burns: Prepared statement ........................................ 11

(1)

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIDDLE

EAST

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m. in Room

2172 House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman [Chairman

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. I regret the

delay. We had a Russian delegation who may be joining us later

on that we had to meet with, and it is appropriate that the Ambassador just returned from Moscow.

All of us are shocked and saddened by the loss of Rehevam

Ze’evi, Israel’s Minister of Tourism, whose murder yesterday was

perpetrated by a radical Palestinian group, the Popular Front for

the Liberation of Palestine, which operates in the West Bank. We

extend our condolences to his family and friends on behalf of the

Committee.

The United States’ recognition of the Palestinian leadership as a

partner for peace has always been predicated on an absolute and

unconditional cessation of the use of violence by the Palestinians

as a means to resolve their conflict with the State of Israel. Once

again, in the wake of the murder of Rehavam Ze’evi, we must reiterate the primary American condition for a real dialogue with the

Palestinians: an end to violence, no violence today and no violence

tomorrow, no violence in Israel, and no violence in the West Bank

and Gaza, and no ties to terrorists operating anywhere in the

world.

I again strongly urge the Palestinian Authority to expend a 100

percent effort to implement a true cease-fire and to extend their

control over radical elements within their midst, to allow for a resumption of progress toward a peaceful settlement. A cessation of

the violence is the only way that a negotiated settlement can be

achieved, and continuing the violence will not bring the peace and

stability that both the Israelis and Palestinians desire. Violence

only breeds more violence.

I would like to welcome today’s witness, Assistant Secretary of

State for the Near East William Burns. He just returned from a

visit to Moscow. Since assuming his post earlier this year, Assistant Secretary Burns has been dealing with one crisis after another,

including the ongoing violence between Israel and the Palestinians,

2

and, since September 11, helping build our antiterrorism coalition.

Of course, none of those tasks are easy.

I appreciate the willingness of Secretary Burns, who, as I just indicated, returned from a demanding trip to Moscow and, this morning, a meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—and

I hope they treated you well—to meet with us and to answer as

many questions as possible in public. We believe it is necessary

that the Administration explain its positions to the Congress and,

through them, to the American people on a periodic basis. Your cooperation, Mr. Ambassador, in this endeavor is important and welcome.

I keep saying Ambassador. It is Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, we

do not expect you to discuss any issues that are overly sensitive or

are classified. Obviously you cannot speak to any military operations or any sensitive agreements, and I will ask our Members to

understand and respect those limitations.

The September 11 events should cause us and the key actors in

the Middle East to rethink many of our assumptions about that region. We should not forget that many members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, including Osama bin Laden himself and his top

lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are opposition figures in the societies they come from—Saudi Arabia and Egypt respectively. The

lack of democracy in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and other countries

in the Middle East seems to have created fertile ground for the development of terrorist movements in these countries.

In addition, as noted by a Washington Post editorial on October

11, countries in the region encourage state-controlled clerics and

media to promote the anti-western, anti-modern, and anti-Jewish

propaganda of the Islamic extremists. The editorial goes on, the

Washington Post editorial goes on to state the policies of these governments, ‘‘serve their purposes of deflecting popular frustration

with the lack of political freedom or economic development.’’ Our Nation has generally not pressed the issue of democratization over the past 5 years or so. It seems to me that the considerations that led our Nation to curtail its democratization efforts

should be rethought. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other nations in the

region say in response that our Nation should change its policy,

meaning that it should back away from our strong support for

Israel. It seems me that this is an attempt by those governments

to deflect attention from their own internal political and economic

problems as factors facilitating the rise of radical Islamic terrorist

attacks. If the United States starts changing the Middle East policy

because of terrorism, then I would think that the terrorists would

be encouraged to continue their evil deeds on the ground that doing

so will result in policies more to the terrorists’ liking.

For the past year Palestinian Authority President, Yasser Arafat,

has assumed that he could unleash radical Islamic groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as a vehicle, a means of

pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians using terrorism to his benefit. A pro-bin Laden demonstration on the West

Bank in early October in which Palestinian police clashed with the

demonstrators should show Mr. Arafat that radical Islamic activities are no friends of his. Ignoring their terrorism does really not

further his objectives and, in fact, they represent a threat to the

3

Palestinian administration. We hope that Arafat will now finally

move to arrest the Islamic activists that he has allowed to roam

free for more than a year.

Administration assumptions about Iran over the past 4 years

have also been brought into question. We in the Congress have

been told that Iran is moderating and that its view of the United

States was softening to the point in which Iran might enter into

a political dialogue with the United States. Even though the

United States is taking down the Taliban regime that Iran nearly

clashed with militarily 3 years ago, Iran has become the most vocal

critic to our response to the September 11 events. Iran’s leadership

has equated U.S. military action against Afghanistan with the terrorism of September 11. Why is this happening?

Only our assumptions about Iraq have appeared to be borne out

by the September 11 attacks. Even before September 11 we knew

that Saddam Hussein was seeking revenge against our Nation.

Whether or not Iraq was directly involved in September 11, it is

clear from Iraq’s statements that Baghdad is quite pleased and

supportive of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Iraq has sided with the terrorists, not with the civilized community of nations that oppose terrorism. One wonders why our allies in the fight against terrorism, including some of our European

allies, can square their soft policies on Iraq with Iraq’s record.

Secretary Burns, I assume you are familiar with the testimony

in last week’s Full Committee hearing, our Committee, on public

diplomacy and our war on terror and the gaps that have been revealed in our ability to reach people throughout the Islamic world.

This is a critical lapse, and I wonder what you are now proposing

that we do in our public diplomacy program to try to close those

gaps.

For example, we would like to know if the American Embassy in

Saudi Arabia can take out informational ads expressing its point

of view in the Saudi press, just as the Saudi Embassy in Washington expresses its point of view in many ways here in our own

Nation.

But it is not just a simple public affairs effort. We need the help

of governments in the region to reinforce our message. American

diplomats should press our Arab friends on why they have been so

unwilling to speak out for us in a public way before their own people. Frankly, I think I know the answer, that they are afraid of

their own problems in their own countries, amongst their own constituents. Why is that?

In an effort to retain power, the leaders have focused the attention of their people on America and Israel rather than responding

more fully to their needs. This lack of political space prevent governments from making required policy adjustments. This leads to

more unrest, and that unrest can only be dealt with by more and

harsher rhetoric and government repression. And, of course, when

we ask for their support, the Arab governments claim that they

can’t do so because of public opinion, the very same public opinion

that they have helped to create. We need to help those governments break that cycle of anti-Americanism.

Mr. Secretary, I am afraid that our diplomats do not seem ready

to take an in-your-face attitude toward anti-Americanism and toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Dec 17, 2001 Jkt 075760 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\101701\75760 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
4

ward promoting our values, even if it makes them unpopular with

their host governments. A senior American official in an Arab country told a member of our staff before September 11 that, and I

quote, ‘‘mainly we talk to host country people about things we can

agree on,’’ closed quote.

I don’t think that is good enough, certainly not today, and certainly not a proper attitude by our diplomats. We need to engage

Arab people in all levels about things we and they will be uncomfortable talking about if we are really going to make progress. So,

Mr. Secretary, we look forward to hearing your views.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

The Committee will come to order.

All of us are shocked and saddened by the loss of Rehavam Ze’evi, Israel’s Minister of Tourism, whose murder yesterday was perpetrated by a radical Palestinian

group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which operates in the West

Bank. I extend my condolences to his family and friends.

The U.S. recognition of the Palestinian leadership as a partner for peace has always been predicated on an absolute and unconditional cessation of violence by the

Palestinians as a means to resolve their conflict with the State of Israel. Once

again, in the wake of the murder of Rehavam Ze’evi, we must reiterate the primary

American condition for a real dialogue with the Palestinians: an end to violence. No

violence today and no violence tomorrow. No violence in Israel and no violence in

the West Bank and Gaza. And no ties to terrorists operating anywhere in the world.

I again strongly urge the Palestinian Authority to expend a one hundred per cent

effort to implement a true ceasefire, and extend their control over radical elements

within their midst, to allow for a resumption of progress towards a peaceful settlement. A cessation of the violence is the only way that a negotiated settlement can

be achieved, and continuing the violence will not bring the peace and stability that

both the Israelis and Palestinians desire.

I’d like to welcome our witness today, Assistant Secretary of State for the Near

East William Burns. Since assuming his post earlier this year, Asst. Secretary

Burns has been dealing with one crisis after another, including the ongoing violence

between Israel and the Palestinians, and, since September 11, helping build our

anti-terrorism coalition. None of these tasks has been easy.

I appreciate the willingness of Secretary Burns, who has just returned from a demanding trip to Moscow and, this morning, a meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to meet with us and to answer as many questions as possible in

public. We believe it is necessary that the Administration explain its positions to

the Congress and through them to the American people on a periodic basis and your

cooperation in this endeavor is important and welcome. Mr. Secretary, we do not

expect you to discuss any issues that are overly sensitive or are classified. Obviously, you cannot speak to military operations and sensitive agreements, and I will

ask the Members to understand and respect the limitations you operate under.

The September 11 events should cause us, and the key actors in the Middle East,

to rethink many of our assumptions about the region. We should not forget that

many members of the Al Qaida terrorist network, including bin Ladin himself and

his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri are opposition figures in the societies they

come from—Saudi Arabia and Egypt, respectively. The lack of democracy in Saudi

Arabia, Egypt, and other countries in the Middle East seems to have created fertile

ground for the development of terrorist movements in these countries.

In addition, as noted by a Washington Post editorial of October 11, countries in

the region ‘‘encourage state controlled clerics and media to promote the anti-Western, anti-modern, and anti-Jewish propaganda of the Islamic extremists.’’ The editorial goes on to say that the policies of these governments ‘‘serve their purposes

by deflecting popular frustration with the lack of political freedom or economic

development...’’

The United States has generally not pressed the issue of democratization over the

past five years or so, and it seems to me that the considerations that led the United

States to curtail its democratization efforts should be rethought.

5

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries in the region say, in response, that the

United States should change its policy, meaning that it should back away from

staunch support for Israel. It seems to me that this is an attempt by these governments to deflect attention from their own internal political and economic problems

as factors facilitating the rise of radical Islamic terrorist networks. If the United

States starts changing its Middle East policy because of terrorism, then I would

think that the terrorists would be encouraged to continue their evil deeds on the

grounds that doing so will result in policies more to the terrorists’ liking.

For the past year, Palestinian Authority president Yasir Arafat has assumed that

he could unleash radical Islamic groups, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic

Jihad, as a means of pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. A

pro-bin Ladin demonstration on the West Bank in early October, in which Palestinian police clashed with the demonstrators, should show Mr. Arafat that radical

Islamic activists are no friends of his. Ignoring their terrorism does really not further his objectives and, in fact, they represent a threat to his Palestinian administration. I hope that Arafat will now, finally, move to arrest the Islamic activists that

he has allowed to roam free for more than one year.

Administration assumptions about Iran over the past four years have also been

brought into question. We in Congress have been told that Iran is moderating, and

that its view of the United States was softening to the point at which Iran might

enter a political dialogue with the United States. Even though the United States

is taking down the Taliban regime that Iran nearly clashed militarily with three

years ago, Iran is becoming the most vocal critic of the U.S. response to the September 11 events. Iran’s leadership has equated US military action against Afghanistan with the terrorism of September 11. Why is this happening?

Only our assumptions about Iraq have appeared to be borne out by the September

11 attacks. Even before September 11, we knew that Saddam Husayn was seeking

revenge against the United States. Whether or not Iraq was directly involved in

September 11, it is clear from Iraq’s statements that Baghdad is quite pleased and

supportive of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Iraq has

sided with the terrorists, not with the civilized community of nations that oppose

terrorism. One wonders how our allies in the fight against terrorism—including

some of our European allies—can square their soft policies on Iraq with Iraq’s record.

Secretary Burns, I assume you are familiar with the testimony in last week’s Full

Committee hearing on public diplomacy in war on terror and the gaps that have

been revealed in our ability to reach people in the Islamic world. This is a critical

lapse, and I wonder what you are now proposing that we do in our public diplomacy

program to close those gaps. For example, I would like to know if the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia can take out ads expressing its point of view in the Saudi

press, just as the Saudi Embassy in Washington can express its point of view in

many ways here in the United States.

But it is not just public affairs. We need the help of governments in the region

to reinforce our message. American diplomats press our Arab friends on the question of why have they been so unwilling to speak out for us in a public way before

their own publics.

Frankly, I think I know the answer: they are afraid of their own publics. Why

is that? In an effort to retain power, the leaders have focused the attention of their

people on America and Israel, rather than responding to their needs. This lack of

political space prevents governments from making required policy adjustments. This

leads to more unrest, and that unrest can only be dealt with by more and harsher

rhetoric and government repression. And, of course, when we ask for their support,

the Arab governments claim that they can’t do so because of public opinion—the

very same public opinion they created. We need to help these governments break

this cycle of anti-Americanism.

Mr. Secretary, I am afraid that our diplomats do not seem ready to take an ‘‘in

your face’’ attitude toward anti-Americanism and toward promoting our values even

if it makes them unpopular with host governments. A senior American official in

an Arab country told a member of our staff—before September 11—that ‘‘mainly we

talk to host country people about things we can agree on.’’ That isn’t good enough,

certainly not today. We need to engage Arab publics at all levels about things we

and they will be uncomfortable talking about, if we are to get anywhere.

We look forward to hearing your views, Mr. Secretary, but first I will turn to the

ranking Member of our Subcommittee, Mr. Ackerman, for a statement.

Mr. GILMAN. And before I call on our Ranking Minority Member,

Mr. Ackerman, let me welcome to our hearing a distinguished delegation from Russia who are here to welcome you back from Russia,

6

and leading them is Chairman Dmitry Rogozon, Chairman of the

State Duma Committee on International Affairs and a member of

Peoples Deputy Function, and he is accompanied by our good

former Ambassador Ule Larnzov who is now a part of the RussianAmerican Business Council, and—I hope I am going to be pronouncing these names right—Gleb Prolovski, the General Director

for the Center for Effective Policy and the key advisor of the Presidential administration; Aleksei Pushkov, a Senate TV anchor and

commentator; and Alexander Chabinov, the Chairman of the State

Duma Commission on Geopolitics and a member of the communist

faction; and Mikhail Zadornov, Deputy Chairman of the State

Duma Committee on the Budget and Taxes, former Minister of Finance. I welcome the delegation.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Welcome to our guests and colleagues. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman, for convening what I know will be another excellent hearing, and I want to express my thanks as well to Secretary Burns for returning to our witness table. Apparently our

previous meetings haven’t had the usual effect that they do on

some of our witnesses. So thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming

back.

Mr. Chairman, we are all aware that our Nation is working its

way through a crisis. Every day we receive new word about threats

to our Nation, our people, and our system of government.

But today with Secretary Burns, I would like to focus on what

I believe is a developing crisis in our commitment to wage a real

war on terrorism because there are already signs that some in the

Administration would like to artificially circumscribe this conflict

or even pull the plug on it before we have achieved our aims, those

aims that President Bush set out so clearly in his address to the

Congress and the Nation.

As we heard the President say, our war on terror begins with alQaeda but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated,

said the President. The President got this exactly right. I know all

of us are prepared to do everything we can to help them achieve

that objective.

Naturally I am very pleased that Secretary Burns is here, and

I am hoping that he will be able to resolve a number of particular

concerns of mine. First, I am curious about the exclusion of Palestinian terrorist groups from the tool lists of groups and individuals

whose assets have been or will be seized. Surely these groups

threaten American foreign policy interests in this time of crisis,

and yet they appear to have been deliberately overlooked.

Is there some foreign policy objective that we are trying to

achieve by not openly and explicitly targeting Hamas, Palestinian

Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation

of Palestine, which just hours ago killed a government official, albeit not an official of our government? Why are we protecting them

against seizure of their assets in foreign branches of American

banks?

And on the subject of the Hezbollah, which the State Department

has classified as a foreign terrorist organization for several years,

what are we doing to make clear to Damascus and to Tehran that

7

their continued support for this group will have serious consequences?

We all understand that there is a need to concentrate our efforts

on the immediate task at hand in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, but

don’t we also need to put down some markers when it comes to

other terrorist threats to American foreign policy interests?

Moreover, I have heard from others that the Secretary of State

has personally asked some Senators not to support legislation that

I drafted with Chairman Gilman and the Ranking Member of the

Full Committee, Mr. Lantos, to impose sanctions on the Palestinians for participating in or allowing acts of terror against Israel. I

have to admit I have great difficulty seeing how this request

squares with the President’s very clear statements about the absolute unacceptability of terrorism and our insistence that, as the

President said in his own words, every nation in every region now

has a decision to make.

Does the Palestinian Authority as a proto-government get special

dispensation from the President’s charge? Is terrorism against

Israel punished with a wink and a nod? Why is it wrong or, in

State Department terms, counterproductive for Israel to target the

terrorists who blew up the Sbarro Pizzeria in Jerusalem and the

Dolphinarium Discotheque in Tel Aviv, but right for us to target

the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in New York

and the Pentagon in Virginia? Why is that? Is it hypocrisy or just

inconsistency?

I am also concerned about reports that the Administration is preparing some sort of momentous announcement concerning the resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Indeed I think it was concern created by these reports that prompted Israeli Prime Minister

Sharon’s warning that Israel would not play the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Certainly the Prime Minister’s remarks were excessive and a bit shrill, but the speed and intensity of the Administration’s response to them made some of us wonder if they hadn’t

struck a nerve.

Is the Administration looking to give away a piece of Jerusalem

in a futile attempt to buy someone’s affection? Haven’t we learned

that the people we go to bed with don’t always love us in the morning? Nothing could further energize extremists, terrorists, and fanatics than proof that a massive attack on the United States can

force a change in U.S. Policy regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict or

stimulate some sort of new initiative. So I am hoping that Secretary Burns will be able to refute suggestions that the Administration is considering some bold new stroke in the peace process as

a component of our coalition-building efforts.

Finally, let me say that I remain concerned about some of the

smaller Arab states that face the threat of Islamic extremism on

a daily basis. While the media has been focusing on trouble in

Pakistan, I am wondering what we are doing to help Jordan beyond the enactment of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement.

Shouldn’t we be looking at Lebanon and the possibility of ending

serious military occupation of that country and isolating

Hezbollah? What are we doing to strengthen relations with Qatar

which has been forthcoming in response to our requests for assistance?

8

Our Nation’s war on terrorism is at a critical juncture, and we

need to be clear and specific and consistent about what our policy

and objectives are. The President has asked our Nation to join him

in a great quest to rid ourselves and all Nations—and all Nations— of the threat and horror of international terrorism. I fully support

this mission, and I am prepared, as I know my colleagues are, to

assist in this to the fullest extent of our abilities. But from the outset, we must ensure that our policy in this campaign will be wholly

consistent with our rhetoric. We can and we must prevail in this

war on terrorism, but we will only be able to do so if every Nation

and every group around the world knows that there will be no exceptions, no special cases, no secret codicils, and no carve-outs.

We must be absolutely clear, after September 11, we all live in

the same neighborhood and there is no space anywhere in this

neighborhood for terrorism, period. Again I want to thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for convening this hearing and I look forward to our exchange with Secretary Burns.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. Cantor.

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud you for

holding this hearing and I would like to welcome Secretary Burns

as well, and I am glad you are able to be here with us.

In light of the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister,

Rehevam Ze’evi, the United States now more than ever must stand

by our only reliable democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. I applaud President Bush and Secretary Powell for their statements

that Israel’s security will not be compromised by any U.S.-led

antiterrorism coalition and that Israel has no better friend than

the United States of America.

Make no mistake, we must protect and support our friend. In

that vein I too share the concern and am troubled by recent leaks

out of the State Department regarding the creation of a Palestinian

state under Yasser Arafat.

Many in the United States and Israel question whether Arafat

is really a true partner in peace. He has a long history of going

back on freely made agreements. In 1993, in an exchange of letters

with then-Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, Arafat committed to the

recognition of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. But his

actions since then have done everything to undermine that commitment. Over and over again, elements of Arafat’s personal leadership actively participate in terrorist organizations such as

Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. In fact, members of Arafat’s

own bodyguard troop, Force 17 and Tanzim, have taken part in terrorist activity perpetrated against innocent Israeli civilians.

Israel has also found cells of Osama bin Laden working freely in

the West Bank in close cooperation with Hamas. As we know, these

organizations have historically operated within the international

terrorist network with the active support of states such as Iran,

Iraq, and Syria, all of whom the State Department lists as terrorist

nations. These nations have been directly linked and responsible

for the 1983 suicide truck bombing in the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing hundreds of U.S. Marines, the bombings of the Khobar

Towers and the USS Cole—all of whom were identified as being

linked with Iran.

9

Terrorists are glamorized in these countries. Portraits of suicide

bombers line the streets of Beirut in places where such portraits

are usually reserved for visiting dignitaries. Children are taught to

strive to be suicide bombers at an early age. Israeli and American

flags are used as doormats.

At Camp David, Israel demonstrated its willingness to work for

a lasting peace, and the Palestinian response was outright rejection

and violence to further their agenda. Stopping the violence must be

in conjunction with an end to the inciteful climate fostered by

Yasser Arafat. Only then will the opportunity of a lasting peace be

possible.

Once again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome Mr. Secretary.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have an opening statement.

I look forward to listening to the Secretary’s statement. He has had

a great deal of experience in the Middle East and I may have some

questions after his testimony.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you Mr. Berman. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a formal

opening statement, but I would like to raise a few issues and ask

our distinguished guest to respond to them. I want to welcome him

to this hearing. The first——

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Lantos, if you could hold the questions until

after the Secretary——

Mr. LANTOS. I would prefer, Mr. Chairman, to use my time that

you were kind enough to grant me, to use it as I see fit.

Mr. GILMAN. Please proceed.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you. I would be intrigued to get your reaction, Mr. Secretary, to the concept of targeted assassination. It

seems to me that if an American pilot with our very smart weapons

would succeed through targeted assassination to kill Osama bin

Laden, he would get the Congressional Medal of Honor and a ticker

tape parade down Fifth Avenue. And I am wondering what degree

of hypocrisy prompts a State Department spokesman to criticize an

Israeli sharpshooter for successfully putting an end to the life of a

man who planned, organized, and directed the assassination of 22

Israeli teenagers. I have rarely seen a more hypocritical, uncertain

trumpet emanating from the State Department offices, and I would

be grateful if you could explain to us the difference.

Secondly, I would be grateful if you would deal with the issue of

what constitutes a terrorist organization of global reach. I find myself in full agreement with President Bush, who stated,

‘‘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.’’

Hezbollah, as has been made very clear by the Department of

State over 20 years, has been involved in terrorism in the Western

Hemisphere and in the Middle East for some 20 years and is responsible for the death of American civilians and soldiers ranging

from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 to the more recent bombing of Khobar Towers. So some of us have difficulty understanding

10

why a terrorist organization of global reach, as Hezbollah so palpably is, does not appear on the State Department list which was

just recently prepared. And several of us have already objected to

this at various hearings, open and closed.

My final question relates to the relationship between Hamas and

al-Qaeda. The recent Time Magazine states as follows. I quote: ‘‘the

top of al-Qaeda is a rigid hierarchy. Lower down the organization

becomes murkier. Cells of terrorists belonging to groups like Islamic Jihad or Hamas train in bin Laden’s camps, then carry out

operations.’’ I am wondering whether this statement reflects the views of the

State Department.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. We now proceed with Secretary Burns’ testimony. Please proceed. You may put your full

statement in the record and summarize what you deem may be appropriate.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BURNS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and

the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear once

again before you to review the Administration’s policies in the Middle East. The focus of our attention clearly has been sharpened as

a result of the events of September 11, and my remarks this afternoon will center on what we have done in the region in the campaign against terrorism and on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Let me emphasize at the outset that the attacks of September 11

on the United States have not altered our fundamental policy objectives in the region: achieving a just, lasting, and comprehensive

peace between Israelis and Palestinians and indeed with all Arabs;

ensuring Israel’s security and qualitative military edge; maintaining strong and constructive relations with our Arab partners; and

securing peace and stability in the region.

Our efforts to pursue these goals have deep roots in American interests and American values over many years. They began long before the 11th of September, and we must not be deterred or diverted by anyone in pursuing them.

In our campaign against terrorism, we have been able to count

on very effective cooperation and support in words and deeds, some

of which are not well publicized. As Secretary Powell has stated,

Arab states have been very responsive to our requests. We are getting law enforcement cooperation and good information-sharing in

the investigation of those we believe are part of the al-Qaeda network, and support for blocking financial flows to terrorists. Egypt,

Jordan, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and the states of the Gulf

Cooperation Council have been especially supportive. Important

steps were taken by the governments of Saudi Arabia and the

United Arab Emirates in severing ties to the Taliban.

We have advised all of these countries that we will need to continue this level of cooperation. The President and the Secretary

have repeatedly emphasized that this is not a battle against Islam

or against Arabs; rather, it is a broad international campaign

11

against terrorists who seek to destroy peace, foment instability,

and sow hatred. In doing so, these terrorists are prepared to target

anyone and everyone not on their side. We and our friends and allies in the region are in full agreement that we cannot permit this

to happen.

Israel is very much our partner in this fight against terrorism.

As President Bush has made clear, Israel has no better friend than

the United States. Our commitment to Israel’s security is

unshakeable. Nothing about the events of September 11 has

changed our position. As Secretary Powell said publicly last week,

Israelis should have no concern that the U.S. Would trade away

Israel’s security. This Administration continues to work intensively

to bring an end to the violence between Israelis and Palestinians

and to move toward implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations as a bridge back to political negotiations.

I want to offer our deepest condolences to the government and

people of Israel over the assassination of minister Ze’evi today. We

condemn this act of terror in the strongest possible terms.

The Palestinian Authority has spoken out against this attack

and to bring those responsible to justice, but words are not enough.

There must be strong action against all terrorism and violence.

This is essential if Palestinians and Israelis are to continue the

positive steps they recently embarked upon to improve the situation and begin to restore some measure of cooperation. They must

not allow the terrorists to shape their agenda or declare victory.

They must both seize the moment to put an end to violence, implement the Tenet and Mitchell plans, and resume direct political dialogue. And as they do so, the United States will be engaged for as

long as it takes to bring about a just, lasting, and comprehensive

settlement to the Arab/Israeli dispute.

Before concluding, I want to comment on the extraordinary work

of our missions abroad at this critical and difficult time. The American and Foreign Service nationals who staff our embassies, your

embassies, are carrying out their duties to build a coalition, stop

terrorism, encourage movement on the peace process, enhance our

bilateral relationships, and pursue all the other U.S. objectives

with which I know you are very familiar.

We have had to strengthen security, close operations to the public at times, stagger work hours, and enhance security awareness

of American citizens in these countries. But I want you to know

that they are continuing the work that you, the President, and the

Nation want them to do. They and we will need your continuing

support to get the job done.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated in my previous appearances before the Committee, we have our work cut out for us in the Middle

East. That work, of course, took on added significance on September 11. We will look for the continued counsel and cooperation

of the Congress as we pursue our vitally important interest in the

region. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BURNS, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear once again before you to review the AdminisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Dec 17, 2001 Jkt 075760 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\MESA\101701\75760 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
12

tration’s policies in the Middle East region. The focus of our attention clearly has

been sharpened as a result of the events of September 11, and my remarks this

afternoon will center on what we have done in the region in the campaign against

terrorism and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Let me emphasize at the outset that the attacks of September 11 on the United

States have not altered our fundamental policy objectives in the region: achieving

a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and indeed with all Arabs; ensuring Israel’s security and qualitative military edge; maintaining strong and constructive relations with our Arab partners; and, securing

peace and stability in the region. Our efforts to pursue these goals have deep roots

in American interests and values, over many years; they began long before September 11, and we must not be deterred or diverted by anyone in pursuing them.

In our campaign against terrorism, we have been able to count on very effective

cooperation and support—in words and deeds, some of which are not well publicized.

As Secretary Powell has stated, Arab states have been ‘‘very responsive’’ to our requests. Many countries have provided overflight, landing and bed-down facilities to

our forces. We’re getting law enforcement cooperation and good information sharing

in the investigation of those we believe are part of the Al-Qa’ida network, and support for blocking financial flows to terrorists. Governments in the region are also

looking to improve their financial monitoring capabilities in order to help dry up the

terrorists’ financial resources.

Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have been especially supportive. The Organization of the

Islamic Conference (OIC) has issued repeated statements, offering condolences, condemning terrorism and repudiating any conceivable connection between acts of terrorism and the teachings of Islam. Important steps were taken by the governments

of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in severing ties to the Taliban. We

have advised all of these countries that we will need to continue this level of cooperation.

We understand that political sensitivities exist in some of these countries, and the

U.S. must take this into account. But bin Laden’s extremism also threatens them,

and they are well aware of the need to confront this challenge firmly and jointly.

The President and the Secretary have repeatedly emphasized that this is not a battle against Islam or against Arabs; rather, it is a broad international campaign

against terrorists who seek to destroy peace, foment instability and sow hatred. In

doing so, these terrorists are prepared to target anyone and everyone not on their

side. We and all of our friends and allies in the region are in full agreement that

we cannot permit this to happen.

Israel is very much our partner in this fight against terrorism. As President Bush

has made clear, Israel has no better friend than the U.S. Our commitment to

Israel’s security is unshakable. Nothing about the events of September 11 has

changed our position. As Secretary Powell said publicly last week, Israelis should

have no concern that the U.S. would trade away Israel’s security.

This Administration continues to work intensively to bring an end to the violence

between Israelis and Palestinians and to move into implementation of the Mitchell

Committee recommendations, as a bridge back to political negotiations. And in this

regard, I want to offer our sincere condolences to the Government and people of

Israel over the assassination of Minister Zeevi today. We strongly condemn this act

of terror.

The Palestinian Authority has also spoken out against this attack and pledged to

bring those responsible to justice. Words are not enough; there must be strong action against all terrorism and violence. This is essential if Palestinians and Israelis

are to continue the positive steps they have recently embarked upon to improve the

situation and begin to restore some measure of cooperation. They must not allow

the terrorists to shape their agenda or declare victory. They must both seize the moment to put an end to violence, implement the Tenet and Mitchell plans, and resume direct political dialogue. And as they do so the U.S. will be engaged for as

long as it takes to bring about a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement to the

Arab-Israeli dispute. As you know, Secretary Powell is in virtually daily contact

with Prime Minister Sharon, Chairman Arafat, and Foreign Minister Peres in support of their efforts to end violence, rebuild trust and resume a political process.

Before concluding, I want to comment on the extraordinary work of our missions

abroad at this critical and difficult time. The Americans and Foreign Service nationals who staff our Embassies—your Embassies—are carrying out their duties to build

the coalition, stop terrorism, encourage movement on the peace process, enhance our

bilateral relationships, and pursue all the other U.S. objectives with which I know

you are familiar. However, in many cases, they are doing so having to hunker down

against threats of terrorist attacks. We have had to strengthen security, close operVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Dec 17, 2001 Jkt 075760 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\MESA\101701\75760 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
13

ations to the public at times, stagger work hours, and enhance security awareness

of American citizens in these countries. But I want you to know that they are continuing the work that you, the President and the nation want them to do. They and

we will need your continuing support to get the job done.

As I stated in my previous appearance before the Committee, Mr. Chairman, we

have our work cut out for us in the Middle East. That work, of course, took on

added significance on September 11. We will look for the continued counsel and cooperation of the Congress as we pursue our vitally important interests in this region.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I join you in your salute

to the Foreign Service staff, both here and abroad, and would add

our thanks to your own colleagues in Washington who are working

so diligently and trying to find some answers to all of the problems

we are confronted with.

Mr. Secretary, what is the current state of the Administration’s

thinking with respect to a possible major speech on the Middle

East—following President Bush’s comments on October 2, that the

idea of a Palestinian state has always been part of a vision so long

as the right to Israel exists and is respected?

Mr. BURNS. Well, Mr. Chairman, as the President made clear, a

long-term vision for an enduring peace between Palestinians and

Israelis includes the emergence of a Palestinian state through a

process of negotiations. It must include, of course, acceptance of

Israel’s right to exist as a legitimate state in full security in the

region as well. Those are elements of a long-term vision.

Prime Minister Sharon himself last month addressed the issue of

a Palestinian state as well. But in order to get from here to a serious negotiating process, which is the only way in which any parts

of that vision can be realized, what is essential first and foremost

is to stop the violence, and that is why we have devoted the full

measure our efforts, long before the 11th of September, to ensuring

a Palestinian recommitment and a maximum effort—as you said,

a 100 percent effort to stop violence and terrorism. That, as a way

of beginning, first, the painstaking process of rebuilding some level

of trust between the parties after the violence of the last year, and

that means that the tools for doing that, I think, are already available to us.

The Tenet security work plan provides a way to restore security

cooperation. The Mitchell Committee recommendations provide a

basis for moving beyond security cooperation to rebuilding confidence. They can serve if they are implemented fully as a bridge

back to a serious negotiating process. But there is no magic formula, no shortcuts around those steps. And first and foremost what

that means is stopping violence. In terms of publicly articulating

that kind of approach, there are not any decisions on a particular

speech right now. As I said long before September 11, this Administration, as you know, sir, has been working very hard to begin

that painstaking process of making possible real negotiations between the parties, and that can only start with a serious effort,

with a 100 percent effort, to stop violence.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Secretary, there are many who question whether Mr. Arafat has the ability to stop violence. What are your

thoughts about that?

Mr. BURNS. I think there has been demonstrated, especially in

recent weeks, an ability to exercise a significant degree of control.

14

Some of the steps that have been taken by the Palestinian Authority in the last couple of weeks, which President Bush has publicly

welcomed I think, are a step in the right direction. The arrests of

certain members of Palestinian extremist organizations; steps, difficult steps taken by Palestinian security services against extremist

Palestinian forces are very important. They are a step in the right

direction, but much more needs to be done to exercise that measure

of control.

Mr. GILMAN. The recent assassination of one of the cabinet members will not help that situation one iota.

What is your assessment of that Washington Post editorial that

I commented on, that said moderate Arab states are deflecting public attention from their own problems by focusing on our policy in

the Middle East?

Mr. BURNS. I think, Mr. Chairman, first I think it is obvious that

the Middle East is a region that faces an enormous number of pressures right now, whether it is Arab regimes or peoples, and those

pressures include unresolved conflicts like the Palestinian/Israeli

conflict, but they also include a variety of economic pressures, pressures for greater political participation, and a whole range of issues

which those governments and peoples are going to have to wrestle

with. And I think we also have to be forthright in acknowledging

and doing everything we can to support our friends and the peoples

of the area as they come to grips with those challenges.

So I think we have to understand as the starting point for sensible policy, the complexities in the region and the reality of all of

those challenges and the way that they can fuel frustration and

anxiety and anger in the region, and steps are going to have to be

taken to address all of them.

The second comment I would make, sir, is that with regard to

some of our friends in the region, I think it is also important to

acknowledge the importance of those partnerships demonstrated, I

think in the current effort against terrorism, through the steps

that the Government of Egypt has taken in terms of security cooperation, access, overflights, public statements that President Mubarak has made after the beginnings of military action in Afghanistan in support of the President, and steps that others of our

friends in the region have taken, not as a favor to us, but in their

own self-interest as well; because as you rightly said, the terrorists

who not only carried out the horrible events of September 11, but

who exist in other parts of the region, threaten not only our interests but, more importantly, the interests of governments, friendly

governments and peoples in the region. And it is important for us

to stand together in that fight and also to demonstrate not just

what we stand against, which is violent extremism and terror, but

also what we stand for in helping to resolve regional conflicts and

helping to address some of those economic and political pressures

that you mentioned before.

Mr. GILMAN. What about our goals in the area? Shouldn’t that

include democratization of some of the Arab nations?

Mr. BURNS. I think the goal of helping governments and peoples

to expand political participation, to deepen respect for the rule of

law and for individual dignity, is something which is very deeply

rooted not just in American interests but also in American values.

15

I don’t think there is any kind of cookie-cutter approach for applying that in any part of the world, but I think that has to be an important part of our approach to a region which, as I said, is undergoing an enormous number of challenges right now.

Mr. GILMAN. What did you hear from your counterparts in the

Russian Government about Russian willingness to sign an agreement on a targeted sanctions plan for Iraq?

Mr. BURNS. We had a good—the discussions I had with my Russian counterparts were part of a regular set of consultations, and

so we talked about a range of Middle East issues. On Arab/Israeli

issues, I think we coordinated and cooperated in a quite effective

fashion with the Russian Government in recent months, and I am

confident that we will continue to do that. We do continue to have

some differences over the issue of moving, as the British have proposed and the Security Council, away from civilian sanctions and

the burden that they impose on the people of Iraq, and toward a

system which strengthens an arms control regime and focuses very

clearly on the obligations of the Iraqi regime and also on the behavior of the Iraqi regime, and we are trying to sort through those

differences and questions.

Mr. GILMAN. How about Iran? What about the recent agreement

with Iran to sell that country new, advanced conventional weaponry?

Mr. BURNS. We have made very clear our concern about those reports and that aspect of the relationship, and I am sure we will

continue to in the upcoming meetings over the next few days.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opening remarks I raised several issues, as did Mr. Lantos, who among others

shares those very strong concerns. And I would like you to respond

at this time to just three of them on my time, if you would.

First with regard to—and you addressed this in your statement.

You said that there is no concern that this Administration will

trade away Israel’s security. The timing to many of us was very curious, that after having so many Presidents since the State of

Israel was formed, American Presidents, nobody publicly, none of

them publicly stated that there was going to be a Palestinian state,

but left that up to the parties.

The timing of this seems to be at the same time that we were

under attack, and the Administration is looking for Arab allies, and

it seems to many at least curious that you are carving away a piece

of Jerusalem, a piece of Israel, in order to complete that alliance.

Despite the rhetoric, the timing stinks. And maybe you could address that.

The second one was on the various groups that are not on the

list, the Hamas, the Palestinian—the Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Hezbollah. I asked you that question last time, and the answer was they

were on other lists, but so was al-Qaeda. The lists we are talking

about are the new lists that everybody is looking at, which means

the seizing of assets of individuals and entities. These groups are

not on that list. Why the special carve-out for those groups who

consistently kill Israelis? Is there a difference between killing

Israelis and killing other people of other nationalities?

16

And the third question I would like you to address is that of targeted assassinations. When the Israelis have targeted assassinations and they go after the miserable SOBs who blew up those little girls going to a dance, or the grandmothers and little kids going

out to eat pizza, and they have every bit as much evidence as we

have as to who did the terrorist attacks in Virginia and New York,

why suddenly—and I have heard everybody talking about this, including the State Department, we are going after specific people.

I mean, there is a specific cleric we are going to kill over there if

we can bomb where he is; and the head of the group, we are going

to kill him. Forget about collateral damage, because we are doing

a lot more than they did.

The question I raised was, is it hypocritical or is it inconsistent?

And if you turn the question around on me, I would say it is both.

It is rather hypocritical and it is rather inconsistent, and I don’t

understand why this special carve-out. And maybe you could address those three issues.

Mr. BURNS. I would be glad to, Mr. Ackerman. On the first question, just to reemphasize—— Mr. ACKERMAN. I don’t mean to be mad at you, Mr. Secretary,

I am just frustrated.

Mr. BURNS. I understand, sir. With regard to a Palestinian state,

I think what President Bush made clear is that as part of a longterm vision which can only be reached through negotiations of

what an enduring settlement might look like, that we envisage the

emergence again through negotiations of a Palestinian state. Before

President Bush made that comment on the 24th of September,

Prime Minister Sharon had acknowledged the same issue. But the

important point to stress I think, sir, is that this can only emerge

in the context of a negotiated settlement worked out between

Israelis and Palestinians with our active support.

Mr. ACKERMAN. There is no connection with the timing of this in

trying to find Arab allies for our coalition?

Mr. BURNS. Sir, our policy hasn’t changed with regard to the

peace process as a result of September 11.

Mr. ACKERMAN. But the President never said that before. He said

it now.

Mr. BURNS. President Clinton had made reference to this—— Mr. ACKERMAN. If an employee asks for a raise and you don’t say

anything, and 2 days later he puts a gun to your head and you say,

by the way, I am giving you a raise, there is no cause and effect

to that. Let us be honest.

Mr. BURNS. Sir, I think the point is as part of a long-term vision,

I think as Prime Minister Sharon has acknowledged, so long as

Israel’s right to exist and its security is ensured, it is reasonable

to envisage the emergence of a Palestinian state, but that——

Mr. ACKERMAN. We have all said that except for the President

of the United States. Everybody said that. I will say it. There will

be a Palestinian state at the right and proper time. The President

said it under specific circumstances, and that is what is upsetting

and unnerving to a lot of people.

Mr. BURNS. I understand, sir, but all I can do is emphasize again

that there is nothing that has changed about American policy, and

again the point is that the only way in which you can ever come

17

close to realizing that kind of a vision is through a process which

starts with ending violence, and that is something on which we

have worked very hard over the course of this Administration and

the prior Administration, especially in recent months, and that is

something to which we continue to be entirely committed to doing.

There is no other pathway to realize any of that vision or to even

begin a serious process of negotiations, and that is something we

have made very clear.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I understand. Let us deal with the other two.

Mr. BURNS. With regard to the organizations on the Executive

order, financial controls, as you know, Hamas as well as Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been listed on a 1995 Executive order

which imposed a number of financial constraints. The Executive

order, which was—— Mr. ACKERMAN. And al-Qaeda was on that list, too, was it not?

Mr. BURNS. No, sir. It was connected to the peace process. This

was something which singled out those groups because of the

threat they posed to the peace process at that time. So in a sense,

they were singled out for that kind of concentrated attention at

that time. But the more recent Executive orders focused on alQaeda and their network.

As the President and Secretary Powell have made clear, we are

continuing to look at additions to those lists. This is by no means

the end of the process, and we will continue to look at a whole

range of foreign terrorist organizations who could be added to those

Executive orders over time and who deserve that kind of focus in

terms of rolling up their financial assets, including overseas.

The third issue, sir, that you raised on targeted killings. As I

said, the starting point here is to try to find a way to end violence,

to ensure the security of the Israeli people as well as ordinary Palestinians. That can only come about as the result of a 100 percent

Palestinian effort by the Palestinian Authority to bring that about.

That is the starting point. At the same time—— Mr. ACKERMAN. I don’t understand. Why aren’t we asking for 100

percent cooperation of the Afghani authorities to bring this to order

without bombing them and trying to kill people over there? I don’t

disagree with that policy, by the way. What I disagree with and fail

to understand, except if it is hypocritical or inconsistent, that the

Israelis aren’t allowed to do the same thing to the SOBs who are

killing their people as we are allowed to do to the SOBs that are

killing our people. Why are we handcuffing them? Why are we having this inconsistency?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Ackerman, it is not a question of handcuffing

anyone or standing in the way of anyone’s right of self defense. The

challenge as we see it, and we have worked very closely with the

Israeli Government on this, is to try to bring about a situation in

which violence is ended and the situation is calmed, and what we

have called upon——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Are we calling upon ourselves to do that? I am

trying to set up a parallel situation here, and I think I am not

wrong in saying they are rather parallel. You have got terrorists

that are killing innocent civilians and governments that are going

after those terrorists, and we are telling them that it is not an opportune time for them to be doing that, that they should be peaceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Dec 17, 2001 Jkt 075760 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\MESA\101701\75760 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
18

ful and negotiate and talk common sense to these people, and everybody should hug and kiss each other and that would be wonderful.

Why are we doing that? Why do we suddenly have this great understanding of how we as a civilized society can respond and they

are not allowed to do it; in our view it is wrong, unhelpful? It is

our policy, I heard the Secretary say on International TV the other

day, that we are against, still against these targeted assassinations

for someone else to defend their family when we can defend our

family in this way.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Ackerman, there is no excuse for the acts of violence and terrorism we have seen.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you.

Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mrs. Davis.

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Mr. Secretary, for being here. You stated in your opening statement that the President and the Secretary of State have repeatedly

emphasized that it is not a battle against Islam or Arabs, but rather a broad international campaign against terrorists who seek to

destroy peace. We understand that on October 3 you met in London

with Mousa Khousa, the Chief of Libya’s Foreign Intelligence Service.

Does this mean that we take Libya off the hook on the Lockerbie

bombing or the Berlin disco and off the terrorism list? And if yes,

what are we getting in return? Is there any change with their

weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles programs, and so

forth?

Mr. BURNS. Mrs. Davis, ‘‘absolutely not’’ is the answer to the

question of whether we are letting anyone off the hook. The purpose of the meetings which we and the British had with the Libyan

delegation in London recently was part of a series of meetings

which we have had over the course of the year, and the purpose

was very clear, and that was to make clear that there were no

shortcuts around Libya’s meeting the obligations of the existing

U.S. Security Council resolutions, especially the imperative of accepting responsibility for what happened, and also for paying appropriate compensation. And the purpose of our discussion, as the

purpose of previous discussions over the course of the last year,

was to make that crystal clear, and that was the only purpose of

the discussion. There is no question of letting anyone off the hook

on those issues.

Mrs. DAVIS. We are not bringing them on as allies in this war

against terrorism?

Mr. BURNS. The point we stressed is what they need to do with

regard to their Security Council obligations on the Pan Am 103

tragedy, and that is what we will hold to them.

Mrs. DAVIS. Recently, the Emir of Qatar visited with several of

us here in Washington, and I along with others questioned them

about the role of the al-Jazeera television station in running videos

of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Is the Administration doing

anything to prevent the al-Jezeera from becoming a bin Laden

mouthpiece or platform?

Mr. BURNS. We have had conversations about the importance of

ensuring a balance in the way in which issues are presented, and

19

it is certainly not in anybody’s interest to serve as a mouthpiece

for extremists or those who would encourage violence against

Americans. Al-Jezeera, I think, has become a very important outlet

in the region. I appeared on al-Jezeera myself several days ago,

and I think it is important, given the significance of al-Jezeera in

the region, to try to get America’s point of view across, and that

is what we will continue to do in the interests of ensuring that peoples in the region get a balanced picture and at least hear the perspective of the United States.

Mrs. DAVIS. So the answer is we are not doing anything to try

to take him off of al-Jezeera?

Mr. BURNS. It is a very complicated situation in the sense that

the United States has always stood for free speech. What we don’t

stand for is hate speech and creating opportunities for people to

spread malevolence or to encourage acts of violence. And it is very

important to ensure that issues are presented in a balanced way,

and again that is why I have appeared on al-Jezeera, Dr. Rice appeared a couple of days ago, and we will do everything we can to

make sure we are active in public diplomacy in the region and in

the Arab and Islamic worlds.

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

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Just first to pursue a specific question that Mr.

Lantos raised in his opening statement, I think sometime late last

week there was a targeted assassination which the Israelis took responsibility for against a Hamas leader who they claimed was responsible for the planning and the implementation of the suicide

bombing at the discotheque in Tel Aviv; is that right?

Mr. BURNS. That incident did occur; yes, sir.

Mr. BERMAN. Is there a reason to believe that the Israelis were

wrong in implicating this individual in that?

Mr. BURNS. I don’t know all the details of that particular issue

of the evidence that is involved but——

Mr. BERMAN. You don’t? I mean, didn’t the Israelis ask the Palestinian Authority to arrest him? Let us put it this way: to your best

information, do you have reason to believe there is a connection between that individual and the bombing at the discotheque?

Mr. BURNS. I don’t know about that particular individual. I am

not—I just don’t.

Mr. BERMAN. And do you know about our criticism of Israel for

undertaking that act?

Mr. BURNS. Sir, I do know that what we have done consistently

is tried to call first for an end to violence, which means first the

Palestinian Authority has to do much more than it has done to

clamp down on violence. We have begun to see some steps in that

direction but more needs to be done. We have also called, not in

any way to impinge on the right of self-defense of Israel, but just

as a matter of trying to create a set of circumstances in which we

can sustain a serious effort to reduce violence and return to political dialogue, to try to avoid acts which make it harder to do that.

And that is something that we have said as a general proposition

consistently for some time.

20

Mr. BERMAN. Can you understand why some think there is an inconsistency between that position and the position we are taking

about Osama bin Laden dead or alive?

Mr. BURNS. I do understand the argument, sir, but we continue

to approach the situation between Israelis and Palestinians first

and foremost in an effort to do everything we can to bring about

an end to violence, and that is the context in which we have made

the statements that we have consistently tried to make, for no

other purpose than that.

Mr. BERMAN. I am curious, moving to another subject, the coalition of the willing. The Saudis are part of this coalition?

Mr. BURNS. The Saudis have made a number of contributions

which are helpful in that effort, yes, sir.

Mr. BERMAN. Have the Saudis refused to do things that we have

asked, or things that have been helpful to our effort?

Mr. BURNS. The Saudis in general have provided a good deal of

cooperation across a range of issues, whether it is overflights, they

are beginning to make an effort with regard to financial assets. So,

yes, I think in general we are satisfied with the effort. Is there

more that needs to be done and that we will continue to work with

not just the Saudis but with others to do? Yes, of course.

Mr. BERMAN. Is it fair to say you don’t want to speak publicly— and I can understand why—as to the issues where you find the

Saudis yet at this point not fully cooperative with our requests?

Mr. BURNS. What I would say is I think we are satisfied in general with the level of cooperation. If you want to talk about some

specific issues, especially on the security side, I would be glad to

do that, but I can’t do it in public.

Mr. BERMAN. Is it fair for me to draw the conclusion that pretty

much on a bipartisan basis, Reagan, Bush, certainly Carter, Clinton, and President Bush now, that the promotion of democracy,

pluralism, free press, free elections, is a fundamental part of our

foreign policy?

Mr. BURNS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BERMAN. Is it fair for me to conclude that we have been more

public in promoting those policies in our dealings back in the

eighties with authoritarian or military regimes in South America,

in the nineties with the former republics of the Soviet Union in

central Asia, in areas in the Far East, than we have been with the

Arab countries? Is that an unfair conclusion to draw; that whatever

we have done, the public imploring and pushing on elections, on

free press, on ending censorship, on allowing opposition parties to

have a free role, is less public in the Arab world in terms of our

diplomatic efforts than in these other areas of the world?

Mr. BURNS. I think there have been other places where we have

been more vocal and clear, but I do think it is an important part

and it needs to be an important part, as I said, of our approach in

the region.

Mr. BERMAN. Is there some communique, some statement that

has been made public, which raises these issues, that demonstrates

that American diplomats have raised these issues with leaders of

Arab governments?

Mr. BURNS. I know from my own experience that I have in countries in which I have served, and also more recently in the job that

21

I am in, in the sense that when you talk about the rule of law,

human rights, the importance of pluralism and opening up avenues

for political participation, I think as I said before, those are issues

which are not just rooted in American values but also in our interests in the region and in the interests of the peoples of the region.

There is no doubt about that.

Mr. BERMAN. I am no expert, but I have followed this stuff over

the years. I see the complications of that part of our policy in these

areas and perhaps the extent to which it conflicts with other interests, but to me it is a deafening silence. That may have happened,

but not in a context which publicly has pierced my thick skull, as

opposed to the very active and forceful public role we played in

many other parts of the world in promoting this, and I am just

wondering if that policy should be reexamined.

Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I regret I am

being called to the White House for a meeting, and I am going to

ask the Vice Chairman of our Committee, Mr. Chabot, to continue

with the hearing, and I want to thank Ambassador Burns for being

with us once again. Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being

here today. Just a couple of questions. First, what specifically are

you planning to do now to move Arab public opinion to understand

and perhaps to come around to the American point of view on our

policy in the Middle East?

Mr. BURNS. Well, I think, sir, as I started to try to explain before, I think the Middle East and the Arab world in particular is

a region which faces an enormous number of challenges. As Mr.

Berman was saying, some of those are pressures for greater political participation. Some are economic. This is a region which in

many ways has fallen further and further behind the global economy, and some is connected with unresolved regional conflicts, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And I think it is very important to make clear just as we emphasize what we stand against

in the campaign against terrorism, a campaign in which I think we

share an important interest with many peoples in the Middle East

and in the Arab world and with many governments in that area,

it is also important to make clear what we stand for, and that is

efforts which open up economic opportunities for the peoples of the

region which begin to reduce over time the gap between the haves

and the have nots, which address issues like corruption, efforts

which as I said open up greater avenues for political participation

and deepen respect for the rule of law. And at the same time, it

is very important for us to continue, as previous Administrations

have tried to do, to make a very serious effort to support a negotiated resolution of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

So I think in all of those areas, we share interests with many

peoples in the region, both Israeli and Arab, and it is something

that we have to continue to stress and work very hard on.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I think Chairman Hyde has said recently, the country that can sell to the world McDonalds and CocaCola ought to be able to sell ourselves a little bit better, and I think

I agree with Chairman Hyde in that respect.

My next question, the Emir of Qatar recently visited Washington

and met with some of the Members, and what are they specifically

22

contributing to the antiterrorism campaign? Many Members raised

with the Emir the issue of al-Jezeera, and their running videos of

bin Laden and al-Qaeda. What is the Administration doing to prevent al-Jezeera from becoming a bin Laden mouthpiece? And I

have seen some of the call-in shows that they have on there and

some of the public opinions relative to who is actually responsible

for September 11 and the wild allegations that go unchallenged

and seem to be accepted by many in that region of the world, almost incomprehensible that it would be, but it does seem to go unchallenged and maybe even encouraged by some of the folks that

are on there. Could you comment on that?

Mr. BURNS. I think it is very responsible, as I said, for there to

be a greater sense of balance, whether it is on al-Jezeera or on any

media outlet in that part of the world, and we have tried very hard

to get our point of view across. As recently as a few days ago, I appeared on al-Jezeera, and we are going to continue to do that because that is the best way to make sure that our policy and our

convictions and our approach gets across clearly.

It is also important for moderates in the region to also speak out,

whether it is with regard to the fact that the acts of terror that

have been committed are antithetical to Islam or whether it is in

response to some of the wilder allegations that are made, and I believe that is the responsibility of the majority of the region who I

think are moderate in their views, to make sure they get across.

Mr. CHABOT. Would you agree that governments in that region,

particularly moderate governments, need to do a better job to get

that point of view across and perhaps to the extent they ought to?

Mr. BURNS. I think it is in the self-interest of our friends in the

region to make sure that those viewpoints are expressed, not as a

favor to us, but in the interests of the peoples of the region, because I think that the agenda of people who carried out the horrible acts of the 11th of September is a purely destructive one and

it is important for moderate governments, for moderates in the region in general, to speak out about what a constructive agenda

might include and to use media outlets to do that.

Mr. CHABOT. I think the Administration has a real challenge of

getting our point of view out to the rest of the world. It is somewhat surprising we keep our own people on our side. For example,

in the coverage yesterday, I saw over and over again the picture

of the smoking building of the Red Cross facility that had some

food there, and apparently one person was injured. I don’t think it

has been confirmed that we were—it was one of ours. But if it was,

that seemed to get a tremendous amount of coverage. And certainly

I think it would be nice if the media perhaps would have a little

balance, and I think in that they went overboard.

What is your overall assessment of Iran’s position on the U.S.

War on the Taliban and bin Laden?

Mr. BURNS. Well, sir, as you know very well, we have a very

complicated relationship with Iran. The truth is there is nothing

inherent about tension between the people of Iran and the people

of the United States. Iran is an important country. It occupies an

important place in a part of the world in which we have important

interests. But the truth also is we have serious differences and

have had for some time with the government of Iran over issues

23

like support for terrorism, over the pursuit of programs of weapons

of mass destruction.

At the same time, with regard to Afghanistan, it has also been

clear that there may be some common interests or interests that

intersect there. It is also true that the Iranians before September

11th have taken some positive actions with regard to counternarcotics, with regard to support for Afghan refugees along the Iranian border. But at the same time I think we have to keep in perspective the broader range of differences that we continue to have

with Iran. It is a very complicated relationship.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.

My time has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, is recognized.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, allow me a personal word. Because you are at a

very early stage of your tenure; and, as you know, I think very

highly of your abilities and knowledge and understanding. But let

me offer a word of caution.

I have been sitting on this Committee for 21 years, and some of

the assistant secretaries of state who appeared before us earned

our respect and admiration because of their candor and because of

their willingness to treat the Members of the Committee with a degree of intellectual respect that I think Members are entitled to.

Larry Eagleberger comes to mind, who ended up his career as Secretary of State, fully deserved.

Other assistant secretaries of state just danced around the

issues. They never responded to questions but tried to slip away

and, sooner or later, people failed to attend the meetings with

those secretaries.

I can only express my earnest and very genuine hope that you

will take your model from the Eagleberger formula where you understand that we are your intellectual equals. When we ask questions, we know what we ask. We know you know the answers to

what we ask, and we ask you to give us the respect of answering

the questions and not dancing around the questions.

Let me in this spirit raise some additional issues.

Secretary of State Powell said, and I quote, you don’t get to pick

your terrorists. But the State Department spokesperson the other

day tried to differentiate between terrorists and terrorists. Do you

subscribe to the notion that you don’t get to pick your terrorists,

that the terrorists in Afghanistan are sent by Osama bin Laden,

are terrorists no less than Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists are terrorists and that the President of the United States declared global

war on international terrorism? Can we expect that the Department recognizes that terrorists are terrorists?

Mr. BURNS. Yes. There is no such thing as good terrorists or bad

terrorists. That is absolutely true.

Mr. LANTOS. Now, Mayor Giuliani rejected a sickening $10 million offer by a Saudi potentate who, to everybody except the blind,

made a connection between our policy vis-a-vis the Middle East

and his $10 million check to the suffering people of New York. Do

you agree with Mayor Giuliani’s rejection of this sickening bribe?

Mr. BURNS. Yes. I think it was a very unfortunate statement

that was made afterwards. I don’t think there is any connection beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:21 Dec 17, 2001 Jkt 075760 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\MESA\101701\75760 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
24

tween those issues. I don’t think you can explain, let alone justify,

what happened on September 11th because of people’s anger, frustration over other issues.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much. I appreciate the answer.

Now, I would like to sort of draw a theme between Pakistan and

Syria. Pakistan clearly is in large measure responsible for the

emergence of the Taliban. Pakistan, the military, participated in

building up the Taliban. Large numbers of Pakistani forces fought

with the Taliban. They provided them with tremendous assistance,

along the whole spectrum. But, the President of Pakistan made a

decision, and he made the right decision. Yesterday, it was my

privilege on the Democratic side to manage the bill lifting sanctions

on Pakistan, and I will be supporting additional aid to Pakistan.

Now, Syria has a very tenuous position in, quote, unquote, the

coalition, and you will have to explain to me what the word coalition means in this context. I have no objections, as I believe the

President did, to draw a line and say, while we are not happy with

previous actions of many governments, this is a new era and you

now have to make a choice. You are either with us or against us.

And when you are with us, you are not with us only rhetorically—you are with us not only rhetorically but you take action.

You close down the terrorist offices in your country. You stop supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. You don’t act as a

conduit between Iranian military shipments and the terrorists in

the south of Lebanon.

It is my impression that Syria has done none of these things so

far, yet we are sort of nebulous as to whether they are part of the,

quote, unquote, coalition or not. Do you believe, number one, that

Syria, like Pakistan, has made a choice?

Mr. BURNS. I think what Syria has done is make a statement,

as the President drew attention to, in which the Syrian leadership

said that they not only condemn the acts of September 11th but

pledged support for international efforts against terrorism. As you

rightly said, Mr. Lantos, the President also made clear—and this

isn’t just with regard to Syria, it is with regard to any country—

that we will judge by results, not just rhetoric, and that is what

we will need to see.

Mr. LANTOS. Has Syria closed down the terrorist headquarters

operating in Damascus?

Mr. BURNS. No, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. Has Syria closed on the flow of arms via Damascus

to Hezbollah?

Mr. BURNS. No, we still have concerns about this.

Mr. LANTOS. What are we doing about this, Mr. Secretary? What

do we tell the Syrians?

Mr. BURNS. We have continued just as we have for many years.

Mr. LANTOS. But I am talking about post September 11. The

President of the United States with great wisdom drew a line, and

he said, we know what you did in the past. You were a criminal.

You were a host of terrorists. You supported terrorists. You supplied them. You were a handmaiden to terrorists. But now this is

a new era. And if you choose to be with us, not with words, with

actions, you can be part of the coalition. What has Syria done—not

25

what has Syria said, what has Syria done since September 11th to

be accepted into the coalition?

Mr. BURNS. We are still watching for the results. We have heard

the rhetoric. We are still watching for the results.

Mr. LANTOS. Am I correct in interpreting your statement to say

they have done nothing? You were——

Mr. BURNS. We are still watching for the results, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. What have they done, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. BURNS. As I said, we have seen some statements that were

made.

Mr. LANTOS. Apart from the statements.

Mr. BURNS. We are still waiting to see.

Mr. LANTOS. Final issue is one that I raised earlier on and that

is the training of Hamas and Hezbollah cells by bin Laden’s organization in Afghanistan. Are these news stories, such as the one that

I quoted from Time Magazine, September 24 issue, accurate?

Mr. BURNS. Sir, to be honest I don’t have all the information to

answer that question fully, but I would glad to come back to you

and talk to you outside of a public session about whatever information we do have on that.

Mr. LANTOS. My concluding remark relates to a time issue. I had

this discussion with another member of your State Department

staff with respect to the speed with which a congressionally originated item was responded to. It was excellent, 4 days. On October

12, the Republican Whip, Tom DeLay, and I wrote a letter to the

Secretary of State. Have you seen that letter?

Mr. BURNS. I haven’t, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. We will be happy to give you a copy.

One of the things that we say in this letter is, I quote,

‘‘We urge you to maintain the most rigorous set of requirements for states such as Iran and Syria and entities such as

the Palestinian Authority who may wish the political benefit of

association with the international coalition. This should include at a minimum severing all the ties official and unofficial

in the political, diplomatic, financial and military realms with

all terrorist groups, closing down the facilities, training camps,

political offices and information bureaus of all terrorist groups

on their soil and in territory under their influence and cooperating with U.S. authorities on outstanding investigations of

past terrorist attacks involving U.S. citizens.

‘‘If states that have heretofore sponsored terrorism undertake these and related steps, it would reflect the change in behavior that merits a positive U.S. response, although other key

goals such as nonproliferation must continue to be taken into

account. Short of these moves, however, we caution against

any premature reward for these problematic states. This is especially the case as you consider various waivers regarding legislative restrictions on commerce with assistance for an armed

sales to a variety of sanctioned states. Only clear, verifiable actions, not mere rhetoric, merit reward.’’

I would be most grateful if the Republican Whip, Tom DeLay,

and I could have the same courtesy that other Members of Congress have in getting a 4-day response to our request.

26

Mr. BURNS. I understand, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. If you could look into this.

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Engel, the gentleman from New York, is recognized.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I first want to associate myself with everything that Mr. Lantos

just said, and I want to come back to some of the questions of Mr.

Ackerman before.

I am absolutely furious that we seem to have a double standard,

one for ourselves and one for the state of Israel, when it comes to

combating terrorism. Does anyone doubt that if we today could

take out Osama bin Laden and, as President Bush said, wanted

dead or alive, and the only way we can get him is dead, do we have

any doubt that we wouldn’t make that choice?

Mr. BURNS. No.

Mr. ENGEL. Then why, when the Israelis find the person who

masterminded the bombing in the disco that killed 14 children,

why are they somehow doing something wrong when they take out

that person?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Engel, as I tried to say before, what we are trying to do between Israelis and Palestinians, and we have worked

very hard at this and will continue to, is to try and create a situation in which violence is brought to an end in which we can move

back to a political process. And that involves, first and foremost,

the Palestinian Authority taking the steps that it must take to stop

violence.

Mr. ENGEL. I am sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt you. But you

see, Mr. Secretary, that is the point. I don’t disagree with what you

just said, but when we admonish Israel for taking care of what it

needs to take care of to protect the security of its citizens, we don’t

bring Yassar Arafat to the bargaining table. We send a very dangerous message to him that he is gaining by inciting violence. That

is the message we send.

When President Bush calls for a Palestinian state, we send a

very dangerous message in this context, in these difficult times, of

terrorism and a year of the Intifada. We send a very dangerous

message to Mr. Arafat that violence works. You know, we cannot

go back to a time when Arafat walked away from Camp David from

a very generous agreement and walked away and pretended nothing has happened in the year since then. So it seems to me that

when we make these statements we are encouraging continued acts

of violence because we all know that Arafat only reacts to pressure.

And when he reacts to pressure that is when he clamps down on

the terrorists. If he thinks he is gaining from it, as he obviously

does, he stands back, he doesn’t clamp down, and therefore he lets

these things continue.

So by our statements from the State Department, from the Secretary of State, talking about Israel being unhelpful when they go

after someone that they know planned the terrorist attack that

killed the kids at the disco, we are, in my way of thinking, encouraging him to continue these terrorist activities, not being evenhanded in terms of peace. That is my problem.

Mr. BURNS. Could I add one comment to that? We have made absolutely clear in the bluntest terms possible to Chairman Arafat,

27

to the Palestinian leadership that neither violence nor incitement

are going to get anybody anyplace. They are not going to bring Palestinians any closer to the realization of their aspirations. We have

to see a 100 percent effort to stop them. And we have begun to see

in recent weeks the beginning, some steps in that direction. We

have got to see more. That is the only pathway which is going to

bring about anything productive for Palestinians.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Secretary, if the Israelis had Osama bin Laden

and were able to take him out, would we say that was unhelpful

or would we commend them for it?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. Engel, we will continue, as I said, to stress in

the strongest possible terms to make clear, not just in our words

but in our own actions, that violence is not going to bring about

anything positive for anyone.

Mr. ENGEL. Are we committing violence by bombing Afghanistan?

Mr. BURNS. In the context of the situation between Israelis and

Palestinians there is a possibility of putting together a political

process. But there is only one way in which that can happen and

that is going to be by ending violence.

Mr. ENGEL. Why aren’t we attempting to put together a political

process with the government of Afghanistan? Why are we not saying—which I support, I support the President 100 percent in what

he is doing in Afghanistan, but why are we not saying to the

Taliban, let’s sit down. The President has said time and time again

there is no negotiation. You are either with us or you are not. You

either turn Osama bin Laden over to us or you don’t. Why are we

not sitting down with them and why do we expect the Israelis to

do what we are not willing to do? Why do we deny them the right

to protect their people that we demand for ourselves? It is totally

inconsistent and totally unfair and, frankly, I am sick of it.

Now, I would like to continue along the line with Syria. Syria

has just ascended to the Security Council. I and 37 of my colleagues wrote a letter to President Bush, colleagues on both sides

of the aisle, urging our government to try to prevent that from happening. Once it got down to the U.N., it was a fait accompli. But

when we wanted to block Sudan years ago we went to the regional

grouping and we made sure that there was someone that we could

put in instead of Sudan. We didn’t do that this time. We let this

happen.

The Security Council passed resolution 1373 which calls on all

countries to take steps to get after terrorists, to round up terrorists, to do all those things. Syria has done none of that, and yet

now they are sitting on this Security Council that—in violation of

resolution 1373. Could you explain to me why we didn’t take action

to try to prevent them from going to the Security Council?

Mr. BURNS. Well, sir, with regard to the situation with regard to

Sudan, that was a little bit different in the sense that, with regard

to Syria, it had the unanimous backing of the regional grouping.

And there has never been an instance in the history of the U.N.

Where a unanimous candidate didn’t get on the—— Mr. ENGEL. You don’t think with our diplomacy behind the scene

we couldn’t have prevented that? I think we could have.

Mr. BURNS. In this case I think that is the reality that emerged.

28

But in response to the second part of your question, sir, that

membership on the Security Council obviously puts a much brighter spotlight on a member’s responsibilities. In this case, there is a

higher standard of behavior that is going to be not just expected

but also insisted upon.

Mr. ENGEL. Let’s take Hezbollah, which couldn’t exist without

Syrian help. They bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon.

The U.S. Embassy annex was bombed, TWA flight 847, the Israeli

Embassy in Buenos Aires, the Israeli Cultural Center in Buenos

Aires. This is Syria. Again, Mr. Lantos pointed out quite aptly

there has been a lot of talk, but there has been no real action.

I find it ludicrous that the President lists a bunch of terrorist

groups, which I agree with, and freezes their assets and does all

kinds of things; and Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic jihad are not

listed. I mean, again, it shows that there is a total inconsistency,

that we think that protecting our people is more important than

Israel protecting their people. And again I think that as long as we

are going to have that moral inconsistency, as long as we are going

to try to equate—have a moral equivalency of terror and self-defense I think we are being intellectually dishonest with ourselves

and intellectually dishonest with the world.

Mr. BURNS. With regard to the Executive orders, the initial focus

of the countries and organizations listed on them has been the alQaeda network. But we have made very clear that is not the end

of the road. This is a process in which we are going to look at adding other foreign terrorist organizations over time in addition to

the existing restrictions which already apply to those organizations.

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. Does the gentleman have an additional question or so?

Mr. ENGEL. If I might. I have a couple of questions. I will try to

speed it up.

You know, Prime Minister Sharon a few weeks ago made a remark saying, don’t liken Israel to a 1938 Czechoslovakia. And he

was rebuked for that. I happen to feel his remarks were right on

target. Because I happen to believe that all the actions that we are

showing by turning a blind eye when Syria doesn’t clamp down on

terrorists, by criticizing Israel when they try to protect their own

people, we are in essence sending out a message that somehow violence or terrorism in Israel is somehow going to be tolerated for the

greater good for building this coalition. That disturbs me greatly.

Because I do think that we ought to have the broadest based coalition we can to fight terrorism. We ought to make every effort to

include as many Arab states as we can to fight terrorism. But

when you take a country like Syria, which by the State Department’s own words has been a country which has aided and abetted

terrorism; or Iran, which has aided and abetted terrorism; or the

Palestinians, which have aided and abetted terrorism and have

done nothing to stop it as far as I am concerned, when we talk

about those three entities those countries, being part of a coalition

against terrorism to me it is like letting the fox into a chicken coop

and makes a farce out of what we are trying to do. It is done because we want to placate certain Arab nations that may be a little

bit uneasy. You know, I think it is time that some of these countries have some responsibility.

29

I would recommend you—if you haven’t—to look at the New York

Times editorial this past weekend where they talked about Saudi

Arabia and how the Saudis have been literally getting away with

murder, having it both ways. Maybe it is time in our policies that

we look at morality and we say what it really is instead of turning

a blind eye.

Ten years ago in the Persian Gulf War, when Scuds were raining

down on Israel, we told Israel not to retaliate. It is the only time

in their history that they did not retaliate. I was one of the Democrats that broke with my party and supported President Bush in

the Gulf War and voted that way on the House floor.

But I want to tell you I think we have no right to tell the government of Israel to operate with both hands tied behind their backs.

We ought not to sacrifice the government of Israel in protecting its

citizens and fighting terrorism because we are trying to appease

certain Arab states whose behavior has been reprehensible.

Mr. BURNS. First, we are not going to do anything, as the President and Secretary has made clear, that is going to undermine

Israel’s security. There has been no country in the world that has

been more deeply committed to that that the United States.

Second, we are not going to turn a blind eye to anybody’s support

for terrorism. As I made clear before and as the President and Secretary have made clear, there is no such thing as good terrorists

and bad terrorists. This is part of a long-term global campaign that

we are absolutely determined, as you are, to pursue; and we are

going to do that.

Thirdly, the United States has worked harder than anyone in

support of the effort to end violence and end terrorism against

Israelis and to end the violence that makes it impossible to restore

any kind of political process between Palestinians and Israelis. We

have been working very hard at that long before the 11th of September, and we are going to continue to work hard at that in the

interests of the people of the region and in the interests of Israel

and in our own interest.

Mr. ENGEL. I want to reiterate what I said before. Everyone who

knows how Arafat operates knows that he only reacts under pressure. I think you take the pressure off him when you criticize

Israel for everything they do. I think it proves to him that terrorism works or that violence works. I think it is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to put a copy of

my letter with regard to Syria in the U.N. Security Council in the

record.

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

30

31

32

33

34

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Let me ask one final question if I can, Mr. Ambassador.

In your last appearance you said that the Administration is looking at ways to post on the State Department or other U.S. Government Web sites the reward for the capture of any terrorist involved

in killing Americans in Israel. What has been done on this issue

since your last appearance and do we post the Beirut Marine barrack truck bomb information in Arabic on our Web site?

Mr. BURNS. I have to check on the last point, sir. I just don’t

know.

On the first point, we have come up with a plan the way in

which it would appear on the Web site. It should be appearing very

shortly. I will double-check on that as soon as I get back.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. We thank you for your appearance here

this afternoon.

With that, the Committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ