Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, under secretary of state for political affairs, and Peter Romero, acting assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, briefing, August 18, 1999

Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, under secretary of state for political affairs, and Peter Romero, acting assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, briefing, August 18, 1999

Foreign Press Center Briefing Transcript
Copyright (c) 1999 By Federal News Service, Inc. 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045
No portion of this Transcript my be copied, sold or retransmitted without written authority of Federal News Service.
For information on Federal News Service, please call Jack Graeme at 1-800-211-4020 or e-mail jack@fnsg.com.
For information on Legi-Slate, please call 202-898-2300 (800-877-6999 outside Washington, DC) or visit www.legislate.com on the Internet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. State Department Delegation's Trip
to Colombia and Venezuela

Thomas Pickering, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Peter Romero, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 4:43 P.M. EDT

MR. PICKERING: Thanks, Charles, very much. I like your new word "contruded." I think it adequately explains our visit. (Laughs.) (Laughter.)

Frankly, just let me say a few things to open up, and then Pete and I will attempt to work with you on your questions.

We had some very successful meetings last week in Colombia and in Venezuela. We had the opportunity and the pleasure of meeting with President Pastrana and President Chavez to share some ideas on strengthening and defending democracy, working against narcotics production and trafficking, and discussing various economic issues of importance to both countries, including foreign investment and a serious emphasis on socioeconomic development.

I come back from my trip sobered by the challenges, which both presidents face. Both countries are extremely important to the United States, both in positive and negative terms: Colombia because, unfortunately, it has now become a large producer and trafficker in narcotics finding their way to the American market, but also because of long-standing traditional friendships of an historically strong and robust economy, of trade relations; and Venezuela, in large measure because, as you all know, it is at one time or another during the year, the largest single source of petroleum for the United States.

The U.S., thus, has a powerful incentive to assist Colombia to fight the scourge of narcotics production and trafficking. Colombia produces, unfortunately, the bulk of the cocaine coming into this country and a large and growing percentage of heroin.

And a central element of our counternarcotics strategy is stopping narcotics production and trafficking at its source. And I'm pleased to note that we have strong congressional support for our various programs conducted with Colombia.

Colombia's multiple problems are interrelated. One reason for the FARC, the major guerrilla organization's, military strength is their close connection to drug cultivation. Guerrilla activities and the social conflict which they engender take a heavy toll on the economy and lead to violations of human rights and the displacement of populations.

Pastrana is developing a comprehensive national strategy to deal with these interrelated issues, and this was one of the key subjects of our discussion. President Pastrana is also showing real toughness by refusing to resume peace talks with the FARC as long as they continue to renege on their May promise to him to allow international monitoring of the demilitarized zone. I share his disgust and his deep concern with the FARC's brutal murders of civilians in and out of the zone, and obviously, in particular, for the American victims.

Colombia has paid a heavy price for its valiant efforts to stop narcotics production and trafficking, and President Pastrana has been steadfast in combatting this scourge. The U.S. government, with the help of the Congress, will support Colombia along with the other countries in the hemisphere who wish to help to combat narcotics production and trafficking.

In Caracas, I spoke with President Chavez, several cabinet members, and the president of the constituent assembly, and the president of the supreme court. I left these meetings impressed with the Venezuelan government's commitments to fight corruption and to undertake needed reforms in its public institutions. President Chavez also made clear his determination that these changes and reforms would remain within a democratic and pluralistic framework that incorporates a role for minority voices. We also held good discussions on the needs for the government of President Chavez to define its future economic plan and to continue to attract foreign investment.

And let me now stop and open this up to your questions for responses and discussion, please.

MR. SILVER: Let me remind everybody, please wait for the microphone and identify yourself and your news organization. You had a question?

Q Yes. Henry Raymont (ph) of Panama America.

MR. PICKERING: I'm sorry. I chose Henry, and I --

MR. SILVER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. PICKERING: -- I jumped out of my pay grade. So I'll let you pick them from now on.

Q You used the term "strengthening democracy" in your talks in Colombia, and it seems that a number of commentators have seized on that controversial concept to suggest that that may be paving the way intellectually to a multilateral intervention in the Colombian situation. This has been a persistent drumbeat now for about a month, I believe. I think it started in an Argentine newspaper on the 22nd of June. Would you care to explain your interpretation of this phenomenon?

MR. PICKERING: Well, I would first like to use this opportunity for the hundredth time to deny as crazy, loco, whatever words you want to use, this particular concept, which seems to have a life of its own. And I'm not sure, frankly, in the tone of your question and in the focus of your question, why it continues to have a life of its own; except that, as we all know, interventionism is of great concern to Latin Americans, which is one of the reasons why we have hastened to add that our focus in our efforts has been to work very closely with Colombians and President Pastrana on his plans, on his new integrated strategy, building on the building blocks of the strategies that he has already created in the area of the peace process, in the area of fighting the narcotics scourge, in the area of economic development, in the area of social development and human rights. So this has been very important, and the emphasis that we have put on democracy, I think, should be broadly understood to represent a long- continued American foreign policy interest not only in the hemisphere, but globally, and should represent nothing more than that.

This is not, as your question might imply in the mind of anybody who hasn't yet understood this, a kind of contrived excuse for use of military force; quite the contrary. It is, in fact, a celebration of the fact that in the hemisphere, with one exception, we have a very broad commitment to democratic government and we want to work with the countries who are so committed and have so developed their electoral processes and their democratic institutions to move further down that path; nothing more.

MR. SILVER: Okay, let's go over to this side.

Q Jesus Esquivel from the Mexican news agency Notimex. Sir, two days ago you mentioned, when somebody asked you about President Chavez, you said the United States is going to judge on his acts. Who is the United States to make a judgment in other presidents?

MR. PICKERING: I think that we all have responsibilities -- Mexico, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia -- with respect to our relations with other countries to make judgments which inform our foreign policies. And so, I was not in any way at all attempting to set us up as an international court of justice, but rather to say -- only because the question came in the context of What policies will you pursue with Venezuela or with Colombia and how will you know that your policies are moving toward the right objectives? to say, as I said to President Chavez, the United States, in getting together and working with you, will judge the results of how we can work together and the areas in which we can work together on the basis of not only what he has been saying, but obviously, the actions he's been taking to meet the commitments that he has pledged himself to in the area of democracy, of civil rights, and of human rights and so on. So it has been nothing more than that.

MR. : (Inaudible.)

MR. SILVER: (Inaudible.)

Q Paulo Sotero from O Estado de Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Mr. Secretary, you explained for the 101 time -- first time -- (laughter) -- that what a regional cooperative approach to the crisis in Colombia is not; it should not lead to military intervention by the countries in the region, et cetera. And my country has made absolutely clear that we -- want no part of that.

Now, could you explain, detail more, elaborate on what a regional effort would include besides the obvious things like more cooperation or sharing information in real time for drug interception, intervention, et cetera?

From your discussions there and from your consultations, we, the representatives of the regional governments, what can the region collectively do to help democracy, to help stability, in Colombia?

MR. PICKERING: I think that it's a good question. And I wouldn't in any way want to minimize the point that you assume, which I think is correct, that it does involve, obviously, serious efforts to deal with a major and growing, unfortunately, problem in the region. And I think that's taking place.

I would say that obviously regional activity cannot take place without, first and foremost, the desire of the country involved to work within the region. It cannot be forced upon a country.

Secondly, working with the country in the region, it is the country's responsibility, I believe, to set some of the goals and some of the patterns, and to open up obviously, some of the opportunities.

Now whether this is in the economic area -- for example, increasingly, trade in the region plays a very significant role in the prosperity of local economies. And so increased trade, reduction of trade barriers is one of the issues that I think needs to be focused upon. And we heard this when we were down there, that Colombia would like to trade more with Venezuela, would like to find ways to have had border activities, institutions, and regulations. Many of the countries in the region have bilateral border regulation and monitoring institutions. They would like to have those vigorous. Venezuela would like to have a situation where guerrilla activity in Colombia does not come across its borders. And so these are important kinds of things.

Well, those are some examples of how regional working together can move ahead. And I think that those are important, as well as those steps that you outlined -- exchange of information, working together on interdiction of narcotics trafficking, and so on, which are the traditional focal points for what's going ahead. This is a broader approach, and it recognizes that in each of the countries, there are interrelationships of economic, political, diplomatic, social questions that obviously need to be looked at. This is not a new concept; it's been around for a long period of time. But there is, I think, a new effort in the region to meet some of the crises in some of the countries, some of the emergency situations in some of the countries, to reinvigorate, expand, and enlarge some of this thinking. And we would welcome that against the principles or the parameters that I outlined for you.

MR. SILVER: Let's go to the back.

Q Jose Carreno with El Universal of Mexico. Going back to Colombia-U.S. relations, there is a number of ideas floating around Washington in terms of U.S. help, U.S. aid to Colombia. And I'm wondering if you can tell me if the U.S. government is willing or will support any movement to create an exception or go around the Leahy amendment.

MR. PICKERING: To go around -- I'm sorry?

Q The Leahy amendment.

MR. PICKERING: The Leahy amendment. No, I believe not. I think the Leahy amendment is the law of the land. And it would be, in my view, a serious mistake in the struggle against narcotics to foster laxity, if I could phrase it this way, in the struggle against human rights abuses.

And let me just be more specific, because I think it's worth one more specific point. I think it's an important question, and I thank you for answering (sic) it, because if there's any misunderstanding on this, it misses a fundamental point. One of the activities that we are talking about, that we have undertaken jointly with the Colombians, is the training within the Colombian military ground forces of a counternarcotics battalion. And we have observed the Leahy amendment by working with the Colombian authorities in a process of reviewing the records of the individuals involved in that battalion, so that in fact either by mistake, inadvertence, or laziness, we are not engaged in having people in that training program who have had, as far as we know, a record of human rights abuses.

Q Excuse me. A follow-up. In Congress, some people in Congress claim that the Leahy amendment has become an obstacle to have the Colombian (paramilitaries ?) fighting against guerrillas. So my question would be in that sense.

MR. PICKERING: I have heard that expression for many years. It goes back to my time in El Salvador 15 years ago. It was a mistake then; it's a mistake now.

MR. SILVER: Let's go to Los Angeles and see if we have a question.

Q (Inaudible) -- thank you for coming. We're represented by -- (inaudible) -- News, Asahi Shimbun, and El Universal from Mexico -- (inaudible) -- Al Ahram from Egypt, and -- (inaudible) -- Jordan. (Inaudible) -- Al Ahram has an unrelated question. Go ahead.

Q A question for Mr. Pickering. I have two questions, if you have time.

MR. SILVER: One question.

Q One question? Okay. It can be the same. Prime Minister Barak committed himself to (15-month ?) timetable to achieve peace with all the neighboring countries. Do you think that this is enough to -- (inaudible) -- problems of settlements, of the refugees, of the future of Jerusalem, the other problems? I think as I see from the latest meetings of the Palestinian and the Syrian and the Lebanese, that they have some problems. If so, what America can do? What is the role of America to hasten, to really make this peace in the area within the timetable?

MR. PICKERING: (Hebrew phrase.) I never knew a journalist who couldn't get two questions into one. (Laughter.) Let me just say this, because I think the question really relates to the Middle East peace process and the timing. I believe that we now have an important opportunity in the Middle East before us with the election of Prime Minister Barak, with his efforts now to move ahead and with the commitment to move to the final status talks very quickly and to try to bring them to closure against a tight time deadline. I've been involved in the Middle East for a long period of time, and we do need, clearly, to find in the region an ability to face up to these problems and move ahead. Any further delays are going to make problems more difficult, rather than easy. I agree with you on your judgment and estimation of the problems that are faced by the negotiating partners. The United States will play a role, we hope, of assisting the partners to move on.

At this particular time, it appears to me, as opposed to in the more recent past, both parties are willing to sit down and negotiate with each other and intend to do so, and this is an important and positive sign and it means, in fact, that both parties -- Palestinians, Israelis, we hope, fairly soon, Syrians, Lebanese, Israelis -- are willing to meet with each other and there is, therefore, a lessened role, perhaps, for the United States as that process goes ahead. But nevertheless, we will watch this carefully, follow it carefully, and attempt, as we have over the past more than 15 years, to make a positive contribution to bringing to a successful conclusion these very important negotiations which we hope will begin very soon.

Q I have just one more question. Mrs. Albright -- she said that she would postpone her visit to the Middle East until she -- (inaudible) -- solve the problems -- (inaudible word) -- problems. Now she is on her way to the Middle East, she's planning to the Middle East. That means we have something solid?

MR. PICKERING: No, she actually said that as a result of her conversations with Prime Minister Barak and with President Arafat, Chairman Arafat and others, she would delay for two weeks going to the Middle East. She's now announced that she's going, I believe, on the first of September.

And the delay was not predicated on the resolution of any problems. It was only predicated on the fact that Prime Minister Barak thought that he could be more effective to have a little more time to talk with Chairman Arafat and his people before she came out. That's now underway, and I believe her going will represent an important new step in the process and it does not represent any signification of any prior achievements or any prior conditions.

MR. SILVER: Okay, let's return to Washington and maybe a question on Latin America.

Q Thank you. Marcela Sanchez with El Espectador from Colombia. Ambassador, your talk about needing a national strategy, or national comprehensive strategy, from Colombia has triggered some criticism against Pastrana back in Colombia, with people saying that they've been talking about the need of a strategy and they had to be -- it had to be coming, the message had to come from the U.S. in order for them to listen, or whatever. I mean, that's kind of the criticism that's coming out of Colombia against the president. I wonder what your response is to that?

And I also wanted to ask you what exactly you expect from this strategy? Are we talking about more global concepts, or are we talking bout actually more details on how to implement it?

MR. PICKERING: I'm glad you asked me that question. I thought, in my prior answer, I attempted to get at some of what I understand have been some of the criticisms. And certainly, the visit of mine and the approach was designed quite the contrary, to first make it clear that the United States already understood, from all its past conversations with President Pastrana, that he had a series of approaches and strategies in various areas; that out of our conversation, he made it clear that he was now going to move to integrate those; and that we welcomed that because they provide a basis for us in our own review, coming up with budget preparation in mind, and with the role of the United States committed to help President Pastrana, to provide a base line for us, a reference for us, to make decisions on our side as to how we would complement his strategy by our training, by our equipment assistance, by our development assistance, by programs of social development and so on. So we welcomed this very much, and we believe it's important.

I think that a strategy at this stage, which is integrated, which reflects the new dimensions of the difficulties and the new dimensions of the opportunities in Colombia, is perfectly understandable; is, in my view, perfectly attuned to the times and represents an opportunity to build on all the great work that President Pastrana has already done.

Q Do you want more details on -- (inaudible)?

MR. PICKERING: Do you mean in terms of what's happening? I think this is President Pastrana's strategy. So he will have to tell us what it is he believes is important here. But we believe, in fact, that this is a time for synthesizing and integrating what has already been done on the basis of the evolving conditions in Colombia.

MR. SILVER: Let's go here.

Q Fernanda Castajon (sp) from CNN Spanish.

According to Cuban officials, the Cuban government has been willing to establish some kind of cooperation with the U.S. in the war against drugs. Can you tell my the U.S. position in that and how this position can affect the war against drugs?

MR. PICKERING: Yeah. We are of course interested in cooperation, if that can be achieved, in the struggle against narcotics. There appears to be at least one incident; 7.5 tons of heroin discovered in Cartagena, which seemed to be destined for Cuba and beyond. I am not sure --

MR. ROMERO (?): Coca.

MR. PICKERING: -- cocaine -- coca -- and that, therefore, this raises in high profile the possibility of cooperation. And we have undertaken conversations to try to develop such cooperation. We would welcome it. We think it would be an important effort and particularly directed at a scourge, which unfortunately doesn't spare any country.

Q What kind of cooperation are you talking?

MR. PICKERING: Cooperation in discovering trafficking and ending it.

MR. SILVER: We have time for maybe two more questions. Let's take one here, and then we'll go here.

Q Mr. Pickering, I am intrigued by the apparent --

MR. SILVER: Would you identify yourself, please?

Q Sorry. Jonathan Wright from Reuters. I'm intrigued by the apparent contradiction between your emphasis on the threat from narcotics and your simultaneous assertion that all the problems of Colombia, including the guerrillas, are interrelated. And I wondered if you could try and separate them out and tell us to what extent you see the war, the guerrilla movement in Colombia, as a threat to U.S. interests, and what the United -- whether you thought it would be appropriate for the United States to give military assistance of any kind solely to counter the guerrilla threat.

MR. PICKERING: No, I think that I should make clear, and was remiss in not having done so prior to this, that our policy is not to provide counterinsurgency assistance, but counternarcotics assistance. And we will continue to provide counternarcotics assistance.

Unfortunately, there is enough of an area of narcotics development in both production and trafficking to absorb a lot of Colombian effort and a lot of American assistance.

Now to be clear, it is increasingly clear to us, as I said in my opening statement, that Colombian guerrilla organizations are depending upon and protecting and perhaps even participating and taxing narcotics trafficking and narcotics production in areas that are under their control or close to their control. So this represents a source of funding. And efforts against narcotics will, in that sense, inevitably affect the guerrilla organizations.

But the focal point, the center pivot of American policy, the spear point of American policy, is to work together with Colombia to deal with its narcotics trafficking. That will, I think, inevitably affect some of the guerrilla organizations, but it is directed at the narcotics effort.

MR. SILVER: (Off mike.)

Q Mr. Pickering, Yena Molinares (sp) from Caracol Colombia Television. Out of all your experience, what is the biggest mistake the government of Colombia has made up to now in the peace process during the whole year that President Pastrana has been dealing with?

And the second question would be, is there still hope from the U.S. that the FARC is actually going to respond sometime soon to the negotiations that Pastrana has been putting on the table?

MR. PICKERING: Well, you know, first, I didn't go to Colombia to criticize the government of Colombia, and I'm not going to do that here. I believe that the issue of mistakes or not mistakes -- President Pastrana took an important initiative in opening a process of dialogue and negotiation to try to seek peace. And he made a genuine offer, in effect, that if the guerrillas would accept to participate in an open democracy in an open and democratic way, as has happened with other insurgencies in the hemisphere, then he would work to find the space to permit that to happen.

The biggest mistake, in my view, in the negotiations up till now, is the intransigence of the guerrillas with respect to the space and the opening that is being offered to them to participate in a democratic future for Colombia. And my view is that Colombian citizens in general recognize that.

According to public opinion polls which I have been made familiar with, less than 3 percent, or 3 percent, of the people of Colombia are prepared, in private public opinion polls, to express any sympathy with the guerrilla cause. That, in my view, represents a sense that the guerrillas themselves ought to keep in mind. And so if there are mistakes, I think they lie over on that side.

Q And about -- (off mike)?

MR. PICKERING: I'm sorry?

Q Is t here still hope that --

MR. PICKERING: I think that, you know, as long as peace processes can stay alive -- and I've seen some pretty bad ones -- but they did result often, after long periods of time, in success when each party recognized, as I think is inevitably true in Colombia, that there isn't a military solution to this problem -- that there is a negotiated solution to this problem, and that a negotiated solution, obviously, is something that requires that both sides negotiate.

President Pastrana has said that he is willing to do so. He has made some outlines of some offers and some ideas that are on the table in the context that I have said. He's committed to democracy and, obviously, he and we are all waiting to see if the guerrillas are prepared to accept that. So far, they haven't shown any interest, but we wait.

MR. SILVER: Okay. Well, I'd like to --

Q Charles, is it possible, one more question from Los Angeles for El Universal?

MR. SILVER: We have time for one more question from El Universal.

Q Thank you very much.

Q Thank you very much. I would like to know is, of Latin American countries who are near Colombia, they are complaining that the narcotraffic is growing in Colombia and is causing the war there. And maybe these countries have asked the United States to do something about it because they are scared that it seems that the narcotraffic is crossing the boundaries near Colombia?

MR. PICKERING: Well, I think that's right. I think that in -- a very distinguished journalist from Brazil here a minute ago asked me about cooperation in the region and he assumed, I think, quite rightly, that cooperation in the first instance would take place against narcotrafficking because it does cross borders. It tends to try to find its way around barriers, interdiction efforts, and move into other countries.

And so I am afraid, in a sense, with the success that has been had in Peru and in Bolivia in dealing with both the reduction of production and the reduction in transport, particularly by air, of narcotics, which I think have been important, positive steps, there is a move to go to Colombia. When it gets difficult in Colombia, unfortunately, we have seen going toward Venezuela, trying to fly around Colombia, through Brazilian territory, Ecuador and so on. And so I think there is an impetus -- Panama -- there is an impetus to see whether in fact as this problem, unfortunately, is growing, whether a regional effort can make sense.

And it was certainly my impression when I was in Venezuela that Venezuelans were concerned by this, they were ready to work to deal with the problem, they wished to do so taking the lead themselves but working with others. And we encourage that. And clearly, obviously, more integration between the two countries is required so that the people moving the narcotics do not have the advantage of the absence of coordination and the development, if I could put it this way, of holes in the surveillance system to move narcotics through in order to take advantage of lack of cooperation.

So we're very much in favor of cooperation. We think it makes sense. We will work with others to do it. But it has to take place with the willingness of the countries in the area in the first instance to participate.

MR. SILVER: I'd like to express our appreciation to our two guests.

I also want to call your attention, on Friday at 2:00, Buddy Mackay, the president's special envoy for the Americas, will brief on his plans for a trip to South America's Southern Cone; and tomorrow, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Marc Grossman, and a representative of AID, will be talking about emergency assistance to Turkey.

Thank you.

END

As of March 13, 2000, this document is also available at http://www.usia.gov/regional/ar/colombia/fpcpick899.htm