PRESS CONFERENCE BY MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CANADA

The most important contribution that could be made to Afghan people was the removal of the Taliban, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, John Manley, said this afternoon at a United Nations Headquarters press conference.

In response to a question, he said that the military objectives in Afghanistan must be met.  Meanwhile, Canada was monitoring closely the humanitarian situation in that country and urging border States to help refugees.  It was also maintaining close contacts with United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations.  Humanitarian aid would be important to wining the long-term conflict, that was, winning the hearts and minds of the people.  Although the focus now was on the conflict, it was not impossible to pursue other issues, such as disease and poverty, at the same time.  The international community could not allow such important work to lapse.

A correspondent said President Bush had made it clear that one could not pick and choose terrorist friends and not reap the consequences.  That remark seemed aimed at the Palestinians.  Did the Foreign Minister support that statement? he asked.

Yes, Mr. Manley said.  He supported President Bush’s statement.  Terrorists only spoke for themselves.  They undermined the causes they purported to support.  Groups that engaged in terrorist activities risked having their assets seized.  He noted that the military wings of Hamas and Hezbollah had been listed as terrorist organizations.

What was his vision of the post-Taliban period? a correspondent asked.  Mr. Manley said that yesterday there had been some progress in the military campaign in Afghanistan.  The best thing that could be done from a humanitarian standpoint was to remove the Taliban, who had generated many humanitarian problems.  More than 4 million people had already become refugees before the conflict broke out.  The military objective was important.  One could not allow the Taliban to regroup and obtain reinforcements.  The allies must win the conflict.  It was not too early to talk about the post-Taliban period, and there had been a great deal of discussion between heads of government about the post-conflict period.  The United Nations would have to play an important role, and neighbouring States would have to cooperate.  The cooperation and influence of a number of States and non-governmental organizations would be necessary, and they should begin now to plan for that period.  They needed to discuss how to set up civil institutions and how Afghanistan should be governed.  Much had been destroyed during the Taliban regime.  The international community might do some forward planning, something along the lines of Kosovo.

Had President Bush’s speech had the right tone? a correspondent asked.  The audience seemed to be silent.  Moreover, the President had not agreed to meet Yasser Arafat.  Could the Minister comment?

Mr. Manly observed that he had not been in the general debate before, so he would not know what was a silent audience.  There was certainly clarity about the nature of the terrorist threat and the resolve needed by governments to attack it. 

Establishing order in a society was essential to maintaining the rule of law.  It had been right for Bush to emphasize that.

As to whether the President had met with Arafat or not, he said representatives of a number of governments had been to the region -- all trying to deliver essentially the same message, including to Arafat.  There was an absolute necessity to reduce the level of violence and address the issue of incitement.  Israel needed to withdraw and stay out of areas it had recently occupied.  Moreover, there was international disapproval of targeted killings.  Those messages were not well received, but they had been consistent.

A correspondent called attention to anti-terrorist measures recently instituted in the United States and asked if Canada had the same kind of laws.  Mr. Manley replied that his Government did not have exactly the same laws but there was a bill before Parliament that gave police authority to detain persons suspected of terrorist activities.

Had his Government given thought to what kind of force might be necessary in Afghanistan and whether Canada would be willing to participate? a correspondent asked.  He said his Government had welcomed the appointment of Lakhdar Brahimi as the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Afghanistan.  No one was in a better position to understand the situation than Mr. Brahimi, who had valuable experience in the area.  In contemplating a peacekeeping force, however, it would be necessary to take into account the existing forces on the ground and what role they could play in the post-conflict situation.  Those nations that had historically provided peacekeeping forces would want to fully understand the situation before making further commitment.  Canada would look carefully at who else would be there before sending forces in.  He could not say Canada was committed or not committed.

Outlining his activities so far this morning, he said that in addition to attending the general debate, he had signed the optional protocol on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  He had met with his Russian counterparts with whom Canada had positive ongoing dynamic relations.  Regarding the question of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the current state of play between Russia and the United States surrounding the ABM treaty, he said that Canada maintained that the ABM Treaty played an integral part in the arms control structure.  Making structural adjustments to the Treaty might be preferable to abrogating it.

He went on to say that the key theme of his statement in the general debate would focus on sustaining political will and leadership to fight terrorism.  Commitment must be transmitted into action.  Expressions of outrage would not be enough to defeat terrorism.  The commitment that countries had made to each other over the past eight weeks must be sustained.

Regarding the conflict in the Middle East, he would say that there was no alternative to the Middle East peace process.  The conflict could not continue.  The leaders must return to the negotiating table and work to end a conflict that was purposeless.  His statement would also refer to the need to move forward to reduce poverty and human rights abuses.

* *** *