THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 24, 2000
PRESS BRIEFING BY
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SANDY BERGER
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
11:13 A.M. EDT
MR. CROWLEY: It's been a while since we've done this, a couple
of weeks, anyway. Sandy Berger has reminded all of us on the NSC staff
that we have a sprint to the finish line. And, certainly, the President's
schedule for the next couple of weeks from a foreign policy standpoint,
reflects that -- today, receiving President-elect Vicente Fox of Mexico.
Tomorrow, he departs for Nigeria and Tanzania; next week, a trip to
Colombia, and right on the heels of the Labor Day holiday, a trip to New
York for the Millennium Summit.
Joined by members of the national security staff -- Gayle Smith,
Susan Rice of the State Department, Arturo Valenzuela -- Mike Hammer now is
not a spokesman, but a man of substance, as responsible for our Colombia
policy -- a pleasure to introduce our National Security Advisor and our
White House candidate for "Survivor," Sandy Berger. (Laughter.)
MR. BERGER: Before you said that, PJ, I was going to vigorously
reject the distinction between spokesman and people of substance. But
since -- (laughter) -- since you made that comment at the end, I'm not
sure.
Let me speak briefly about the two trips that PJ has mentioned,
which the President will be taking in the next week. First, to Nigeria and
Tanzania, and then to Colombia.
The visit to Nigeria signals our strong support for the most
important democratic transition in Africa since the collapse of apartheid
and underscores the opportunities opened by Nigeria's shift from pariah to
partner. Two years ago, the President last went to Africa. Nigeria was at
that time ruled by a general who stole more than $5 billion from the state,
protected drug cartels and crime syndicates, arrested his adversaries,
including the now-President Obasanjo murdered others and turned Nigeria
into the poorest oil-rich country in the world.
After a generation of mis-rule, daunting challenges remain for
President Obasanjo: rebuilding trust in government, fighting corruption,
managing ethnic and religious diversity, making sure the oil wealth of the
country benefits all of its people. But for the first time in 20 years,
Nigerians are truly addressing these challenges. Of course, only the
people of Nigeria and the government of Nigeria can undertake these
challenges. But we have a significant interest in their success and,
therefore, a significant interest in assisting them.
This is a make-or-break transition, not just for Nigeria, but for
Africa. If Nigeria succeeds, this can help lift the whole region to
prosperity and peace. If it fails it can swamp the whole region in turmoil
and misery.
During the visit the President will convey tangible U.S. support
for Nigeria's democratic transition. In two years our assistance program
in Nigeria has increased from $7 million to $108 million, and the President
will announce some additional support, particularly in the areas of primary
education and the fight against infectious diseases. He'll stress the
importance of supporting Nigeria's leadership in West Africa and beyond,
for democracy, against infectious diseases, against crime, against drugs,
and most importantly, for peace.
Nigeria has spent $10 billion on peacekeeping in the last 10
years. We have an interest in helping Nigeria bear this burden and to do
it in a way that helps to build a professional army for Nigeria,
not a political army. Therefore, this week the United States will be
commencing training and equipping five Nigeria battalions who will
eventually serve in Sierra Leone, which, by the way, is the 27th
peacekeeping mission in Nigeria's history.
So we consider this to be a very important visit, even though a
brief one. Now, let me quickly go over our itinerary. We'll be leaving
tomorrow afternoon and arriving in Abuja Saturday morning. President
Clinton will meet with President Obasanjo at noon and then do a joint press
statement. That will be followed by a speech to a joint session of the
Nigerian National Assembly that will express our support for the democratic
transition, address the challenges that Nigeria faces, encourage them to
take the long view, recognize that this transition requires time and
patience, as well as determination, and speak about the partnership that we
are seeking to build. That evening he will meet with the 36 Nigerian state
governors before attending a state dinner.
On Sunday morning we'll leave Abuja for the village of Ushafa.
Seventy percent of Nigerians live in villages such as this. This provides
the President a chance to talk informally with the residents of a Nigerian
village about the day-to-day challenges of their lives and of rural
development.
With President Obasanjo, President Clinton will then visit the
Abuja Women's Center where he'll meet with and talk to representatives of
several health NGOs and talk about efforts to fight and delegitimize
infectious diseases, particularly AIDS. And I should note that President
Obasanjo is a leader in Africa in this life or death battle.
On Sunday, the President will attend a reception with American
and Nigerian business people and speak about the potential for increased
trade and investment following passage by Congress this year of the Africa
Growth and Opportunity Act, which the President spoke about when he was in
Africa two years ago and proposed.
The second part of this trip is a stop in Arusha, in Tanzania.
The President is going there at the invitation and request of Nelson
Mandela, who has been facilitating, shepherding talks to seek a settlement
to the conflict in Burundi. The President will be going to support
President Mandela, to urge the parties in Burundi to work toward an
agreement and to show that engagement with the world can be one of the
dividends of peace if such an agreement is actually reached. While in
Arusha, the President will also meet with President Mkapa of Tanzania, and
express our appreciation for the role that he has played by Tanzania's
leadership and example as a force for peace in central Africa.
We'll be back home quite early Tuesday morning. And on
Wednesday, the President will travel for the day to Cartagena, Colombia.
The purpose of this trip is to underscore America's support for Colombian
democracy, for President Pastrana, and for his Plan Colombia. He'll be
accompanied by Speaker Dennis Hastert, Senator Joe Biden and a bipartisan
congressional delegation who were critical to the passage of U.S.
assistance this year to Plan Colombia.
Colombia's people are engaged in a life-or-death struggle to
preserve their democracy in the face of kidnappings -- 2,500 in this
past year -- extortion; massacres by paramilitaries and insurgents; drug
trafficking that funds a conflict, insurgent conflict and feeds crime; an
economy in recession with unemployment at 20 percent.
President Pastrana, who has fought drug traffickers for decades,
was kidnapped, as many of you know, by the Medellin Cartel in the 1980s,
ran for president after other candidates have been assassinated, was
elected on a platform of peacemaking. He has launched an approach he calls
Plan Colombia, a blueprint for seeking peace, fighting drugs, building the
economy, protecting human rights, and strengthening democracy.
The cost of Plan Colombia is roughly $7.5 billion. President
Pastrana has proposed that the government of Colombia undertake $4 billion
of that. The balance will be made up by the international financial
institutions, by other donors, some of whom have already made commitments
in a donors' conference that was held in Europe recently, and by the United
States. And as you know, with strong bipartisan support, we have
appropriated or committed $1.6 billion over two years to support this
Colombian plan.
Our contribution includes a tenfold increase in our funds, from
$20 million to over $200 million, to promote democracy, judicial reform,
human rights and economic development. It includes funds to help farmers
make the transition from illegal to legal crops, and it will help train
Colombia's counterdrug battalions to assist Colombia's national police
fight the drug trade. It will not support a counterinsurgency effort. It
is designed to help defeat the traffickers whose profits fuel the conflict.
This is a plan that is pro-peace and anti-drugs. The President
is going to Cartagena to deliver a message of solidarity to the Colombian
people and to make clear to them that as they struggle, at tremendous cost
to make peace, build their economy, fight drugs, promote human rights and
deepen democracy, the United States will stand by their side.
The President will have a chance to express that message directly
in a televised address that will run in Colombia the evening before we
leave -- that is Tuesday, August 29th, the night before he arrives -- and
certainly will be made available to you all. The visit itself will begin
with a tour of the Port of Cartagena, where the President will be briefed
on drug interdiction efforts, meet some members of the Colombian National
Police, talk with others involved, including some widows of police officers
who have been killed in the line of duty.
The President then will have a meeting with President Pastrana,
and he will be joined for most of that meeting by the congressional
delegation, Speaker Hastert and others. And there will then be a press
availability.
After lunch, hosted by President Pastrana, the two Presidents
will go to a low-income neighborhood to tour the new Casa de Justicia in
Cartagena. This is one of 20 Plan centers, funded by USAID, that gives
low-income people greater access to the justice system. People can walk
into these centers, get access to ombudsmen, social workers, public
defenders, public mediators and others who can help address the problems
that they face in both civil and criminal matters. This is part of the
general effort to strengthen the rule of law in Colombia, which is
ultimately the purpose of this entire effort.
Let me just conclude by saying that this is a pivotal moment in
Colombia's struggle to defend and preserve its democracy, just as it is a
pivotal moment in Nigeria's effort to build its democracy. In both cases,
more is at stake than the fate of one country. At stake are the prospects
for entire regions and important American interests. And our support, both
moral and financial, can, we believe, make a difference.
Now, let me take your questions.
Q Sandy, how big a military operation is envisioned here? I
understand like 15 troops arrived this week in Nigeria to help train. How
large is this going to be, and how much American involvement militarily
there?
MR. BERGER: There will be -- I don't know what the numbers will
be, there will just hundreds, not more than that, of Americans involved.
We'll be training seven battalions in all in West Africa, five in Nigeria,
one I believe probably in Ghana, and the seventh as yet to be determined.
The purpose in the short-run -- these training programs will last roughly
four months. The purpose really is twofold, perhaps even threefold
--number one and the immediate purpose is to develop a stronger
professional military that will be able to deploy to Sierra Leone and
strengthen the U.N. mission there. This is extremely important, obviously.
Second of all, in the course of doing this we will be
professionalizing Nigerian military. To the extent the Nigerian military
becomes a professional military, not a political military, it is good for
stability and democracy in Nigeria. And obviously, over the long-term, the
extent to which Nigeria has a capable professional capacity to continue to
participate in peacekeeping missions, that will be important for stability
in the region.
The last thing I would say is all of these units will be fully
vetted for human rights abuses. No units will receive any -- no units
where there are credible allegations of human rights abuses will receive
any American assistance.
Q -- American trainers -- will the President meet with the
American trainers?
MR. BERGER: No, not now while were in Abuja.
Q The President meets with the governors of the states in
Nigeria. Is he going to discuss in any form the introduction of sharia,
Islamic law, by the state governors in several of the states that has
threatened to split the whole Nigerian country apart?
MR. BERGER: I don't know that he will address is specifically.
I'm sure that he will address the importance and challenge of diversity in
a country as much a quilt as Nigeria. There's something like 260 different
tribes in Nigeria; there are hundreds of languages; there are regional
differences; there are religious differences. And I would be surprised --
I have not discussed this with him -- I would be surprised if he didn't
talk about strength from diversity, obviously a theme that he's talked
about in the context of the Balkans and other places -- the Nigeria can be
enriched by that diversity.
And in spite of all these differences, Nigeria has managed to
stay together as a country, with some tensions, obviously, over quite some
time.
Q One other question about the oil. Is he hoping to increase
imports, U.S. imports of oil from Nigeria?
MR. BERGER: Well, that's not the purpose of the trip.
Obviously, bringing a greater degree of efficiency to the Nigerian oil
sector is quite important. This is a huge oil producing country that
imports energy. This is a pretty good, I think, reflection of the plunder
of previous regimes. So I'm sure he will talk to Obasanjo about how to
address that, how to make the oil sector work better.
There are, obviously, also equity issues in that region, and how
the people of the oil producing areas can benefit more directly in the
wealth of the nation.
Q Sandy, what's your response to this new GAO analysis of the
President's foreign travel that shows that over the last three years he ran
up nearly a quarter billion dollars just in travel expenses alone? Are the
expenses ever considered when you plan these trips, and is the President
conscious of this and do you think this is an accurate reflection of the
expense of his travel?
MR. BERGER: Well, there's always attention to trying to hold the
numbers of these trips down. There's a kind of irreducible minimum number
of people that go with the President.
I think the United States has benefitted enormously from the
President's travel over the past seven years. I think that those of you
who were with us in India, for example, I think would recognize that that
trip transformed, I believe, the relationship between the United States and
India. And all of the data that I have seen, both anecdotal and
quantitative since show that that trip has brought about a sea change in
the way the largest democracy in the world views the United States. I
think that was a valuable trip.
I think the President's travels -- last trip to Africa, the first
trip -- extended trip the President ever made to the continent of Africa --
to say to Africa, we want a new partnership with Africa, not based upon
dependency, but based upon partnership -- I think was enormously valuable
to the United States.
So I think that these are considered travels. I think they're
worthwhile. Obviously, there is an effort to keep the costs down. I don't
know how, for example, the cost of a trip by President Clinton compares to
the cost of a trip that might have been taken by previous Presidents when
adjusted for inflation. There's obviously the security involved, but I
think we've benefitted very substantially from those trips.
Q On the trip to the Arusha section, apparently Mandela hopes
to have a final agreement to sign when President Clinton is there, but it
looks like there are a lot of problems still finding an agreement, a peace
deal. Is the President worried that this may fall through and there won't
be any peace to witness?
MR. BERGER: Well, there continue to be issues that need to be
resolved among the 19 Burundi parties. This has been an undertaking that
President Mandela took over from President Nyerere. He's gone about it in
a very determined way, as only President Mandela can do. And I think when
President Mandela asked the President to come, knowing that he would be in
Nigeria, I think the President felt that that was important for him to do
that.
We recognize that this problem is not going to be solved in a day
or a week, but I think it's important that we support what President
Mandela is doing, that we support the peace process in Burundi, and we
demonstrate that the international community cares about what happens
there.
Q When the President meets with Obasanjo, will he address
human rights abuses, either with regard to what's happening in the south?
MR. BERGER: I'm certain that that will come up, both in Nigeria
and in Colombia. In both cases, to the extent we're engaged in training of
military, this is a cornerstone, a centerpiece of what we want to do. We
want to train battalions that have a greater degree of professionalism and
a greater degree of respect for human rights. But generally, both
President Obasanjo and President Pastrana have committed themselves to
programs of improving human rights in the two countries, and that's
something we'll talk about.
Q To follow up on that, Sandy, the Secretary of State was
unable to certify that the human rights problem in Colombia have been
cleared up, so the President had to sign a waiver. Did the President have
to hold his nose when he did that, because we do feel that human rights
abuses really are somewhat intolerable? And can you explain the national
security interests that he invoked?
MR. BERGER: Well, let's understand here that this legislation
just passed two months ago. And as part of the legislation, it requires
certification of certain undertakings or certain performance by the
Colombians.
In one instance where the issue was whether the government of
Colombia would issue a directive saying that members of the military who
are accused of human rights abuses would be subject to trial in the
criminal courts -- President Pastrana has done that -- we are able to make
that certification.
In some of the others, there just has not been time, even though
President Pastrana has been deeply committed to human rights, to meet the
performance requirements of a law that just passed two months ago. So I
don't think that we have to hold our nose. I think that we will be talking
-- I believe President Pastrana is deeply committed to human rights. He
has manifest that. The complaints against the Colombian military are way
down. When there have been instances, allegations, he's fired people.
He's fired four generals who were accused of human rights abuses -- most
recently, this terrible incident; he dismissed -- suspended 30 people from
a unit that might have been involved in some behavior that was
unacceptable.
I think that he -- let me put it this way. President Pastrana
does not object to the requirements that are set up under this law. I
think we simply need to have a little time, he needs to have a little time
to meet the performance requirements that are established by those
requirements.
Q Do you think that President Obasanjo shares that same
strenuous commitment? I mean, he's accused of essentially ordering his
military to raze a town in the oil fields that he felt wasn't cooperating.
MR. BERGER: Well, I think it is important that as he undertakes
what is really an extraordinary challenge, given the abuse of government
over the last 30 of 40 years in Nigeria, the thievery, the thuggery, the
divisiveness that has been fostered by government -- he inherits a pretty
tough situation.
Now, he has been the victim of that. He was imprisoned by the
military government, so he's not oblivious to the consequences of human
rights abuses. And I think that he has to, as he builds a democracy,
rebuilds a democracy in Nigeria, it's extremely important that he does so
in a way that is respectful of fundamental human rights. I think he
understands that. I think that it will take time to completely turn around
a pretty devastated situation in Nigeria.
Q There have been criticisms in this country and abroad, even
inside Colombia, that the U.S. aid is quite tilted to a military component
and less toward the social component.
MR. BERGER: I think that's not correct. First of all, Plan
Colombia, which was developed by the Colombians and developed by the
Pastrana government, provides for a range of activities -- economic
development, human rights, democracy building, institution building,
antidrugs. Our package, our assistance package of $1.6 billion over two
years, increased the assistance that we're providing for human rights, for
democracy building, for institution building, for alternate economic
activity tenfold, to $240 million.
We probably would have increased it more had AID said that they
could have absorbed the capacity to do more. That is, we basically took it
up to the level that AID said they could use without throwing money at the
problem. So we're deeply committed to that. Others will also assist that.
A lot of the money from the international financial institutions and others
will be for economic develop, institution building, et cetera.
But it's very difficult to sustain a democracy in the middle of a
guerrilla insurgency and a corrosive drug problem. We have had experience
in Peru and in Bolivia where we have worked with the Peruvian government
and the Bolivian government to train the military to go in and provide the
kind of security that police need to confiscate or to destroy crops and to
destroy these labs. And drug production has gone way down in Peru, way
down in Bolivia.
And now we're going to try to help the Colombians do the same
thing. It's very hard to imagine democracy surviving over the long-term in
Colombia unless there can be both some, A, reversal in the grip of the drug
traffickers and, B, a peace with the insurgents.
The last thing I would say is we don't think there is a military
solution to the guerilla war in Colombia, nor does President Pastrana.
That is why he has embarked upon such a vigorous peace initiative. He has
taken risks in doing that. There's a deeper level of dialogue and
engagement than there has been before. It's going to be a long process.
This has been a 40-year insurgency. But we don't see there being a
military solution.
So I don't think that we should -- I understand why the issue is
raised, but it is not either the intent or purpose or will be the way in
which this program operates.
Q You said the United States is not going to be involved in
the counterinsurgency effort, as I think you've also indicated, the two are
tied in the drug trade because the rebels -- and there's more than one
outfit, but particularly the big outfit -- they're collecting taxes on the
coca crop there, that's how they sustain their existence. So once you
attack the coca crop, you're obviously involved in the counterinsurgency.
And you say a military solution doesn't work. Didn't it work in Peru?
They went in there and just the beat --
MR. BERGER: After 40 years, I think our judgment, President
Pastrana's judgment is that there is not likely to be a military solution
to the insurgency in Colombia, that there needs to be a negotiated
solution.
Listen, here's what we're going to do. We're going to send a few
hundred trainers to Colombia. They are going to train two battalions.
They're going to vet them for human rights, they're going to train those
two battalions. Those two battalions will be used to go into areas where
there are -- particular areas where the drug crops are most intense and
most pervasive. They will try to create security so that the Colombian
national police can go into those areas, destroy the crops and destroy the
lavatories. That is the purpose of our support.
Q Sandy, what do you make of these reports that the Colombian
NGOs are refusing some of the money because they've been threatened by
their rebels as being military targets?
MR. BERGER: Well, I mean, I think it's -- it will be important
to have dialogue with the NGOs. I think that's something that the
government of Colombia intends to do. There is a risk in Colombia every
day -- 35,000 people were killed in Colombia in the last 10 years. This is
a very tough place. I think we can either help Colombia try to come to
grips with that, help Colombia in its effort to deal with that problem, or
stand back and let Colombian democracy collapse. Obviously, it will be the
responsibility of the Colombian police and the Colombian military to
protect the human rights organizations.
Q In sort of that same spirit, there is this sort of
escalation that appears to be happening. You've heard the comparisons to
the Vietnamization of Colombia. What do you make of that notion that this
is happening that seems to be comparable in some ways?
MR. BERGER: I think that you can get paralyzed by the foreign
policy of analogy. You should learn from what happened before, but the
fact is this is nothing similar whatsoever. We're talking about a few
hundred American people going to train some -- going down on a one-day trip
which was all that was really possible. I think it's something the
President wanted to do as soon after Congress acted as possible to manifest
to the Colombian people and express to the Colombian people our solidarity
-- the United States, Republicans and Democrats -- with their fight to save
democracy, defeat drugs and to gain peace. I think this was just the
easiest place to go.
MR. CROWLEY: One more question.
Q Sandy, to what extent is corruption seen in Nigeria as an
obstacle to the rooting of democracy?
MR. BERGER: There has been a serious corruption in Nigeria over
the years of military rule. And I think President Obasanjo understands
that extremely well. He's taken some actions early on to deal with this,
but this is going to take a sustained, systematic effort on his part to
change -- to not only hold people accountable, but to change a culture
particularly in the government that has very often lived off corruption.
Q Since Plan Colombia was approved, it seems like the war in
Colombia has been intensified. As a matter of fact, since the President
announced the visit, the guerrillas have launched more and more attacks.
They say that with the implementation of Plan Colombia, things are going to
get worse, because they're going to respond to a plan that they reject.
On the other hand, they are stating that if President Pastrana
backs off from the Plan, they might be willing to negotiate a cease-fire.
Is there room for a modification of the plan if the peace negotiations
start showing --
MR. BERGER: I'm not going to get in the middle of a dialogue
between, or an exchange between President Pastrana and the FARC. We
support President Pastrana.
Q On the Fox visit, just one second, about this open borders
plan. Is the United States interested in this, or is it just impractical?
MR. BERGER: Let me say that -- we first have an obligation to
enforce to the laws of our land, including laws against illegal migration.
And we have undertaken strong efforts to do that. What I understand
President-elect Fox to be talking about -- and we will be interested to
hear him discuss this today -- is something that is very long-term in his
mind. That is that as the wage levels in Mexico rise to a level that is
more comparable to the United States over 20 years or 30 years, it may
enable there to be a different kind of economic integration than exists
today.
But we certainly are in favor of efforts to raise the wage levels
in Mexico. We will enforce our laws against illegal migration, but I'll be
very interested -- I'm sure the President will be -- to hear his ideas.
Thanks.
END 11:54 A.M. EDT
President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress | The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House | White House for Kids
White House History | White House Tours | Help
Privacy Statement