|
||||||||||||||||
Press Conference by the U.S. Delegation MR. BELLINGER: Thank you all for coming. The United States Delegation is delighted to be here for the 30th Conference of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement. We brought a large delegation here today of people from the State Department, Defense Department, AID. We’ve got a large group which demonstrates our continuing affirmation and support for the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, and of course we sit beside our colleagues from the American Red Cross. I have just come from giving the U.S. opening statement, and one of the things that I emphasized is just how appropriate it is that at the 30th International Conference we are welcoming for the first time two new national societies, the Magen David Adom, Israel’s national society; and the Palestinian Red Crescent society here for the first time as members in the conference. It’s appropriate that they are here together, but it’s particularly appropriate that they are together today as the Annapolis Conference opens in just a few hours outside of Washington as governments around the world gather to try to forge a way ahead for peace in the Middle East and the creation for a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. The United States was very pleased at the 29th diplomatic conference to be able to work for the admission of both of those two societies, despite opposition in the past to having the Magen David Adom enter into the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, and we’re very pleased to have both of those societies here today. We support the themes for the diplomatic conference this year, “Together for Humanity”, and the various sub-objectives for the conference. We’re going to be working hard on each of the issues for partnership amongst national societies and governments to address the current humanitarian challenges to clarify the role between national societies as auxiliaries to public authorities; reaffirmation of international humanitarian law; and strengthening of the legal framework for responding to natural disasters. Speaking of natural disasters, I mentioned a few minutes ago again the tremendous appreciation that the United States has had for the international support for relief in Hurricane Katrina. It shows that natural disasters afflict both large and wealthy countries as well as poor and less developed countries. The outpouring of international support in Hurricane Katrina even from some of the smallest and less financially well off national societies and governments really overwhelmed us, and I repeated again this morning our appreciation for that. We have an outstanding relationship with the International Committee for the Red Cross. Secretary Rice in particular meets regularly with President Kellenberger as do I, and of course Ambassador Tichenor sees him here all the time, as does Secretary Sauerbrey in Washington. The relationship between Secretary Rice and President Kellenberger is really a wonderful personal relationship. She respects him as a truly good humanitarian. We’ve been working very closely with the ICRC on international humanitarian law issues. One issue that obviously has confronted the United States is the appropriate way to respond to challenges from international terrorism and the new kinds of challenges that faced us after September 11th. The International Humanitarian Law Framework and particularly the Geneva Conventions continue to have relevance today. The United States is absolutely committed to their implementation and it’s particularly important for our military and for our Defense Department. At the same time these conventions were designed in 1949 for different sorts of circumstances and they don’t provide easy answers in all cases to how to deal with international terrorism who may come from a number of different countries, who may not respect the laws and customs of war, and that’s been a growing recognition internationally of the need to work together to clarify the rules applicable to dealing with international terrorism, and that continues to be something that we are in dialogue with the ICRC about. With that I will stop and take your questions, unless Ellen or Warren you want to add anything at this point? No? Okay, over to you. QUESTION: How are you? It’s nice to see you again. You say that the United States is reaffirming its allegiance to the International Humanitarian Law and you spoke specifically about the Geneva Conventions. In regard to the Geneva Conventions, how do you correspond the U.S. allegiance to the Geneva Conventions to what appears to be an ambivalence toward certain practices such as water boarding which most of the world seems to believe is torture, amounts to torture. Both that as one practice of torture, and other practices of torture. And even if we’re not in 1949 and we’re into a so-called war on terrorism, torture is torture and is absolutely forbidden by international conventions which the United States has ratified. MR. BELLINGER: The United States in fact has repeatedly said that we are opposed to torture, we are a signatory to international conventions that prohibit torture. We have domestic legislation that prohibits torture. The President has made very clear that he is opposed to torture. We have new laws on the books that have gone beyond that. This has been, obviously the times after September 11th have been challenging for the United States, and like any country that has faced a threat from international terrorism, has not always gotten everything right from the first day as we face these challenges, and there has been an evolution in our laws, in our practices. We have new laws on the books that our Congress has passed. The McCain Amendment, the Military Commissions Act -- these are all new laws. The United States is well aware of our traditional leadership role in the area of international law, international humanitarian law in particular. We are continuing to work hard to get these issues right. QUESTION: May I just follow up, please? Regarding water boarding, do you believe that water boarding is torture? The new Attorney General has not come out and definitely said that water boarding is torture. What do you say? MR. BELLINGER: The new Attorney General has said personally that the practice is repugnant and that he is reviewing the practice, as he had said in his confirmation hearing. That he did not want to be providing a legal answer with respect to any interrogation techniques before he had had a chance to review them. I have made clear that I stand ready as the legal advisor for the State Department to contribute to that review. I have views on these various issues which I will be providing to the Attorney General as part of his review. QUESTION: What is your stance on water boarding? MR. BELLINGER: I have said that I will provide my views to the Attorney General in response to his review. I do have some strong views on a number of these practices. It would not be appropriate for me to be commenting publicly in advance of the review that he is conducting, but I can tell you I will be providing my views on the law, on the practices, to the new Attorney General as he conducts his review. QUESTION: I have a question to you, Mr. Bellinger, and then to the Assistant Secretary of State. My question is, did you have time for bilaterals? And if you did, did you meet with the Iraqi Red Crescent? Do they have particular demands noting the severe serious situation in Iraq? And for the Assistant Secretary of State, do you have any comment on what the Iraqi academicians are saying about the flee of Iraqi academicians in the thousands, and that Western universities have no open doors for them? There are visa complications. Professors are fleeing in the thousands, students cannot find places abroad, et cetera, et cetera, including in the U.S.. MR. BELLINGER: For my part of the question I’ll simply say I have not yet met with the Iraqi Red Crescent Society. I have seen our good friend the Iraqi Ambassador, but the conference is still early, there are still three more days left, and I’m expecting to be talking to a number of different delegations and national societies about a number of different issues over the next few days. ASSISTANT SECRETARY SAUERBREY: I would just say that as I’m sure you're aware, there was a congressional earmark for the purposes of assisting Iraqi scholars. We are very concerned that we provide the opportunity, not only the United States but the international community, provide the opportunity for Iraqi scholars to have a place to be located with the recognition that it is very important that Iraqi scholars be able to return to Iraq. So to the degree that we can provide assistance in the short term with the recognition that these are minds that are very critical for the rebuilding of Iraq and for the peace of the region, we will do our part. QUESTION: May I please have a follow-up? Could you just elaborate on the size of the assistance, the volume of the assistance? How much do you allocate for that assistance? ASSISTANT SECRETARY SAUERBREY: If I remember correctly, the specific congressional earmark was $5 million. QUESTION: [Inaudible] briefly to the water boarding issue. I’m just wondering, could you tell me your opinion, legal advisor, why is it that it seems to be taking such a long time for the United States to work out its position, its legal view, on what is a fairly straightforward and basic procedure? And second, a very different subject, the Red Cross Movement has climate change in its overall declaration and I have heard that the United States is not entirely comfortable with that wording. Could you elaborate on that, please? MR. BELLINGER: Let me take the second question first. The United States does take climate change seriously. You have seen the statements made by the President. We will be supporting the Bali Conference that is coming up and we have expressed our concern about climate change. In the resolution there is a, we believe, an over-emphasis on climate change as the only form of environmental degradation that poses challenges to the planet, and we just think that it’s important, in fairness, that one be balanced in recognizing in fact that the natural disasters that in fact continue to befall most countries and that kill most people are things like earthquakes, cyclones, tornadoes, hurricanes, and that while we support the reference to climate change that we should not over-emphasize it and rush, in fact, to this important form of environmental degradation to the exclusion of some of the traditional kinds of natural disasters that at least so far have claimed the majority of lives and natural disasters. On the first question, the United States review is ongoing. Attorney General Mukasey has made clear that it’s something he is going to turn to, as a high priority. I look forward personally to contributing in that process as legal advisor for the State Department. I think it is a concern that the United States cannot be clearer on issues like these that are raised. It makes it more difficult for the United States to reaffirm our commitment to international law in the world. The reason is that like any country, including Britain in particular, we do not comment on intelligence matters as a general rule. On the other hand, because of the continued emphasis on questions that have been raised about our intelligence practices, including interrogation techniques, I think there is a growing recognition and certainly I personally believe this about the need for greater clarity about what is permitted and what is prohibited. I would note with appreciation that the Defense Department in issuing last year an Army Field Manual, it issued very clear guidance on what is permitted and what is prohibited for our troops everywhere around the world. It took some time for that to be done. As you recall, there were questions that were raised about different practices in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, other places. It took some time for those procedures to be issued. Those have been issued. There’s now a long list of prohibited procedures including a prohibition on water boarding which I personally welcome. QUESTION: [Inaudible] Zeitung. You said in your statement today that the U.S. will continue to encourage all sides on the full implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding of the Israeli and Palestinian organization. I would like to know what you are doing and if the conference here is planning any concrete decisions because several people died, and it’s of urgency. MR. BELLINGER: Thank you for that question. Yes, I did emphasize that in my opening statement. It was in the first paragraph of my opening statement this morning, was in addition to welcoming the presence of the Magen David Adom and the Palestine Red Crescent Society was to emphasize that the United States is fully committed to implementation of the MOU between the two societies. We have been concerned that the MOU has not been fully implemented and we have been providing as much support as we can both to the societies, but also to the governments and national authorities that have been involved. We have been urging, in particular, that Israel fulfill the commitments that it made in connection with the MOU. I would note that before we got here, the governments got here, that the national societies have adopted a resolution expressing their concern about the lack of implementation and calling for full implementation. I don’t know what this conference will do at this point. Again, it is early in the process. QUESTION: You said in your opening statement to us that there were difficulties with the Geneva Conventions in the current climate of what you might call the war on terrorism. I was wondering whether you could elaborate a little bit on which aspects of the Geneva Conventions are limiting in this context and how they can be changed, particularly while there is no internationally accepted definition of what terrorism is. MR. BELLINGER: Thank you for that question, and I really do thank you because I think there is often lack of clarity about what the United States is suggesting when we say that the Geneva Conventions are not fully suited or fully developed to address the challenges of international terrorism. Critics have suggested that means the United States is backing away from the Geneva Conventions or ignoring them, and I want to be crystal clear, the United States remains absolutely committed to the Geneva Conventions, reaffirms them. We support them, we apply them. But one does have to read what they say. They do not apply to every situation. They in fact apply to conflicts between states. So therefore the Geneva Conventions do not give you the answers about who can be held in a conflict with a non-state actor. They do not tell you how long you can hold someone in a conflict with a non-state actor. They do not tell you what countries to return people to. In a normal conflict where one is fighting one or maybe two countries, at the end of the conflict you return the combatants to those countries. In fighting al-Qaida we’ve found that we have detained individuals from more than two dozen countries around the world. The Geneva Conventions do not provide answers to those questions so they don’t provide sufficient guidance to countries as to what law to apply. The United States is firmly committed to the law that applies. We’re also committed to working with other countries around the world to develop new legal norms in cases where existing law does not give one the answers. But what we do think is problematic is to simply suggest that the Geneva Conventions provide all of the answers in fighting international terrorism, and that countries simply need to follow the Geneva Conventions and that is the end of the matter. I do think as a result of a dialogue that I and my colleagues have been having now for several years with governments around the world, but particularly in Europe, that there’s a growing recognition now that in fact the framework for combating terrorism is in fact hazy and not as well developed as people thought. You see more and more international conferences, academic conferences, governmental conferences, being set up to address this very question of not whether the United States is implementing the applicable law, but is the law sufficiently well developed to answer these questions. So thank you seriously for that question. QUESTION: Thank you. That was a general answer to a general question. If I could follow that up with a specific question to a specific situation, the Geneva Conventions addressed the situation of journalists in war zones. And there is a case currently making its way before an Iraqi Tribunal involving an AP photographer who was detained about 19 months ago by U.S. forces on suspicion of collaborating with terrorists. Would you say that is a situation where the issue of combating terrorism means that the very clear rights that a civilian photographer has in a combat zone as defined by the Geneva Conventions, don’t apply any more? MR. BELLINGER: I will tell you what is my understanding of this case, and I do know the case that you are referring to. Of course we are absolutely committed as a government to protection of journalists in conflict zones. We recognize the dangers that they face. They are often embedded with our forces and we do everything we can both to support their journalistic work and to protect them and see it as a great tragedy when journalists who are covering these important conflicts around the world are injured. At the same time there is not absolute immunity for journalists who may have participated in some way in hostilities. I say that as a general principle. With respect to this particular individual, the AP photographer, it is my understanding that the MNFI operating under UN mandate believes that there is substantial evidence to believe that he had participated in staging attacks. I simply state that that is my understanding of the evidence that the MNFI has and that that is the reason for his continued detention, and that they do plan to take the information that they have and to refer the case to the Iraqi criminal court for its review. Whether the Iraqi court decides to prosecute him or not will be a decision for the Iraqis. QUESTION: Just getting back to the Israel and Palestine Red Crescent, that issue. You singled out, you said you were urging Israel in particular to fulfill its commitments. Can you spell out exactly what shortcomings there have been and what you would like to see change and what sort of response you might have had when any bilaterals? MR. BELLINGER: There has been a monitor who was appointed with the agreement of the two national societies and the International Committee for the Red Cross who has recently reviewed the implementation of the MOU and found that there was lack of full implementation in a number of different areas. In particular, ambulances that would be able to travel into Jerusalem to be operated by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. The two societies are very close in working out arrangements for the ambulances to begin operation. The question of the licensing, registration of vehicles, drivers, and medical personnel has very complex and involves a number of different agencies in the Israeli government. We have been urging the Israeli government at the highest levels to cut through the red tape still in accordance with their laws, but to try to move as quickly as possible to help the societies work out the agreement for the operation of these ambulances under the MOU. QUESTION: Regarding again the general question of journalists. The ICRC has put forward what they call the pledge which it’s hoping that countries will sign which involves them committing themselves to promoting the safety of journalists in combat zones and also educating soldiers in what the rights and obligations of journalists in combat zones are. Will the U.S. be taking this pledge? I know it’s non-binding, but it has a symbolic significance. MR. BELLINGER: I saw the pledge for the first time today. I will tell you, candidly, it seems reasonable to me and I will take it back to make sure that we take a very serious look at it and see if it is something that the United States can agree to as a non-binding pledge. The principles in it for protection of journalists seem to be reasonable. QUESTION: Back to the Geneva Conventions. You feel that these things drafted in the ‘40s are not necessarily entire suitable for today’s world. You said the laws are very hazy. What steps are you taking to bring greater clarity? And would you welcome a new set of international regulations? Or do you prefer it on a national level? How does that work? MR. BELLINGER: It’s a good question and I note actually that the former British Defense Minister, John Reed, had made some of the same, exactly the same comments that the British government, while not backing away from the Geneva Conventions, I think used almost exactly those words saying that not well suited for dealing with modern terrorism. What we have done is to engage our friends and allies around the world, particularly in Europe but also in other places -- Australia, Canada -- to focus more on what areas the Geneva Conventions doesn’t cover. Again, bearing in mind that the very second article of the Geneva Convention says these apply to conflicts between high contracting parties, so it’s limited there by its terms. So what do they provide answers to? What don’t they provide answers to? There is now I think much greater clarity amongst legal experts, government officials, academics. You’ll see reports now coming out, including a significant one issued by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee saying exactly this, that the Geneva Conventions are not well, perfectly suited to the challenges of international terrorism. A report issued by the OSCE used the words “undoubtedly legal haziness” in the current legal framework. So we have been working with allies to identify where the shortcomings are. As far as what to do about the shortcomings, I’m often asked, well should we immediately negotiate a new Geneva Convention? That would clearly be premature. And again to emphasize, we’re absolutely committed to the current Geneva Conventions, but what we need to do is begin to work with other governments to first identify where there are gaps or lack of answers, and then to start developing some principles about how one would respond at least as a matter of policy. What should be the answer? And then one can begin to think later on about whether one should try to turn it into something that might be binding. But it’s a question of first identifying where the problems are, then what as a general matter are the solutions, and then how do you agree on the solutions. QUESTION: I’d like to go back to the issue of climate change and the environment. I’m at a disadvantage because I haven’t read the resolution, I don’t know how it goes, but I got the impression from what you said that there is too much emphasis on climate change itself and not enough on natural disasters. The Red Cross has been dealing with natural disasters forever and ever and ever and will continue to do so. Isn’t there an interaction between climate change and natural disasters? A belief that climate change in fact does trigger many of the natural disasters that we are seeing now. So how can you really say there is an over-emphasis? Maybe a lot of the emphasis or the balance has been on natural disasters for so long that the Red Cross feels that more attention should be paid to what appears to be the most stunning environmental change in the world. MR. BELLINGER: I am no scientist so I am not about to opine on the scientific connection between climate change and all natural disasters, whether all earthquakes and all tsunamis and all hurricanes are all caused by climate change, it seems to me to be unlikely. But what we are simply saying is that a focus and concern on climate change is entirely appropriate. It is, though, we need to be careful that it is not a rush to focus on climate change to the exclusion of the traditional kinds of disasters that have caused the deaths and suffering of so many people around the world. QUESTION: My question is to Mr. Bellinger. What is your point of view on using contractors for enforcing law and order? Especially that the Iraqi government was so much against the mess-up that happened lately in Iraq because of this kind of usage? Do you have a specific view on that? Thank you. MR. BELLINGER: There is a role for private security contractors, particularly in certain modern conflicts where the military is performing the traditional roles that the military performs, but one also needs protective functions for one’s embassy, for people engaged in humanitarian, political, health work. Those would not be traditional roles for the military but particularly in a situation like Iraq, but in other situations -- Afghanistan. Those individuals doing their jobs are going to need protection so there is a role for private security contractors. If private security contractors overstep the bounds of either not following their rules or otherwise violating applicable law, we believe that they need to be held accountable for that. If there are gaps in the law for holding them accountable then we favor filling those gaps. The United States government in fact currently is supporting legislation that would cover more crimes and create a framework for holding accountable of security contractors in war zones, and we hope that will pass. So thank you for that question. VOICE: Thank you very much. # # # #
|