Press Conference
First press conference offered by newly accredited Ambassador William Brownfield
September 12, 2007
A million thanks Mr. Marshall, regrettably my staff has still not been intimidated by my normal size as new Ambassador. Ladies and gentlemen of the media and press, as Mr Marshall has just informed you, my name is William Brownfield and since 11 this morning today, Wednesday 12th September, I am the new United States ambassador accredited to the Republic of Colombia. The distinguished President Uribe accepted my credentials this morning.
Ladies and gentlemen, today and this week are not the first time I have been to and visited Colombia, calculating last night, and I think I arrived here a week and half ago, more or less, this has been fourteenth visit here in Colombia. I visited Colombia the first time in 1979 when I acted in the position of U.S.vice-consul in the more or less border town in what was then the Republic of Venezuela.
Ladies and gentlemen, some things have changed in the last 28 years, but one thing which has not has been the importance of the bilateral relationship between Colombia and the United States. Ladies and gentlemen, for Colombia, as well as for the U.S.; this relationship counts. We have a lot of shared vision in some traditional aspects as everyone knows, such as matters of drugs and the security of the Colombian people as well as the American people. But we also have important links in matters of economics, commercial, shared investment, social issues, and development, humanitarian issues. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a wide, deep, and absolutely positive vision between our two governments, peoples and countries. I look forward, with much anticipation and satisfaction, to working here in Bogotá and Colombia as the representative of the United States attempting to strengthen and better this important relationship.
And finally, ladies and gentlemen, before handing over to you, I would like to make one more comment. During my more than quarter of century’s worth of experience in this diplomatic arena, I have concluded that there is nothing more important than in a democratic society than a free and independent, and occasionally very active, press. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that this is the first of many encounters and meetings we are to have. I imagine that on occasion in the future we will not agree 100%, but I assure you whilst William Brownfield is here as the US ambassador we will have mutual access. Thank you very much and I hand-over to you.
CMI televisión, Juan Adrian Alera;
Mr Ambassador, good afternoon and welcome. The question relates to the following; your predecessor Ambassador Wood before leaving said it would be very serious if the director of our intelligence and security corps were involved in the para-political scandal. That case has been added to so many others that have proven that they are in effect linked. What is the policy and the message the United States brings to the Uribe government regarding the developments this subject has undergone?
Ambassador Brownfield: Look, of course my opinions often agree with my good friend William Wood, my good friend for nearly 26 years. He participated at my wedding 25 years ago or more. I will tell you that indeed the matter of the so-called para-political scandal is essentially a domestic matter for the Republic of Colombia, its government, its legal system and its people. After all, it is Colombia which will decide Colombian matters and issues. The Government of the United States has an interest, of course, in knowing that the cooperation we have is a cooperation that shares a vision and the principles we have as a member of the international community and we offer you the opinion of an ambassador that has been accredited for a mere two hours at the moment. And that would be that in this moment we are entirely satisfied with what we understand to be the manner in which the legal and judicial system of Colombia has dealt with this matter.
Armando Rojas, de Caracol Radio. Mr. Ambassador, good day, welcome.
The journalists of Colombian radio have convened on asking you the following: it deals with extradition, the powerful and conclusive hits dealt by the authorities to drug-traffickers, the capture of aka Don Diego, all these results in the battle against drug trafficking that have been coming about. Do you believe that with such precedents the road will be paved, firstly for the U.S. Congress to approve, give way to the FTA and secondly to avoid the lowering of resources which the U.S. gives to our country through Plan Colombia? I believe that the nonconformity that exists in some government officials, such as Vice-President Santos, who has been very critical of the difficulties which the FTA has encountered, might improve those perceptions with the results in the battle against drug trafficking (sic)?
The radio media in Bogotá has incorporated six questions into one presentation, but each one good and excellent. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge, publicly, openly and, to an extent, strongly the results produced by the armed and security forces in the last ten days, beginning, perhaps, with the operation against the command of a man called “Negro Acacio”, secondly, the arrest a few days ago of Diego Montoya. This is effectively fruit of the efforts, of the seeds sowed a few years ago in this a most cooperative bilateral relationship, so positive, so operational but also so wide and deep, and I believe the armed and security forces and their commanders here in Colombia deserve the gratitude and congratulations of the all who resist and fight illegal drugs and terrorism and crime, not only in Colombia, but in the whole region and the whole world.
The second part of the question, also an excellent question, is the manner in which these achievements and successes will affect the stage with regards to other important elements in this bilateral relationship such as the matter of the FTA. Ladies and gentlemen, I will offer you two or three specific points, but they are important when considering the situation. One: a few months ago, the Colombia government and the American government agreed upon a new free-trade agreement, not as a present from Colombia to the U.S., nor as a present from the U.S. to Colombia, but because the agreement represents the national interest of the respective countries. That is why they signed and agreed upon that text. And that is an important point to keep in mind whilst we think what is going to happen with this issue in the coming days, weeks and months. Second point, and it is rather important and this is that the two executive governments of both Colombia and the U.S. are looking for the mechanism, the most efficient way to ratify these agreements. In other words, any action, any decision, any suggestion that comes from both governments has as its purpose the eventual ratification of the FTA between Colombia and the U.S. and we must not forget this during such a sensitive or complicated a process in terms of ratification in both capitals. Without a doubt we have to accept, and face to a certain extent, the political realties in both capitals, in both countries. In the U.S., undoubtedly, there was a national election in November of last year which brought about changes in the U.S. Congress. I am the ambassador of the U.S. I represent the Government of the United States. According to the constitution of the United States, the government has three organs, exactly like here. Article 1 creates the legislative branch, the Congress of the U.S. The 2nd article creates the executive branch, the president, and the presidency of the U.S. The third article produces the judicial branch of the United States. I am the representative of each one of these three. It is not Colombia’s responsibility to explain how the FTA represents the future to the North American people, offering benefits. That is my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Colombian government to explain to its own people how it is that the FTA will be beneficial to them. Hopefully we will have the ratification of this FTA as soon as possible, because that is the intention, the desire and the hope of the government and the president whom I represent.
Luis Forero; El Nuevo Siglo:
Very good afternoon to you Ambassador. The printed press journalists have convened to ask about the differences you experienced with President Chavez and, in actuality, the growing cooperation between the Colombian and Venezuelan governments for the sake of achieving a humanitarian exchange. What would be the position of your office and the U.S. government should this greater cooperation for an exchange lead to the liberation of the three Americans kidnapped by the FARC? And on the same subject, we would like to know if you or your office would recommend the government in Washington to issue a presidential pardon for the guerilla members Simon Trinidad and Sonia if this should lead to the liberation of the three kidnapped Americans.
Some complicated questions. I will begin with a declaration. Ladies and gentlemen, I am the ambassador and a diplomatic representative of the United States in Colombia. Period. The function I served in the past remains in the past. My responsibility is the bilateral relationship between Colombia and the United States. We have an excellent ambassador in Caracas, his name is Patrick Duddy. He too is an old friend of mine, and the one responsible for all aspects related to Venezuela and the United States. Not now, nor in the future will I issue comments in that direction.
There is one exception, and that is precisely related to your question. There are three US citizens held hostage by the FARC organization for more than four years and a half. As you well know there are many more Colombian citizens who are hostages of the same organization and the organization of that character here in Colombia. I refer to, of course, the ELN. And I will tell you with reference to that specific point, that I see through good eyes the participation of any leader, functionary, official, politician or person of importance from any country in the world helping with efforts to bring about the timely and safe liberation of the three American hostages, as well as the multiple Colombian hostages held by the FARC and ELN. In this sense the government which I represent has the right to an opinion, and that opinion is positive. In terms of all other matters those, of course, are matters particular to the Colombian and Venezuelan governments.
Patrick Markey. Reuters
President Uribe said that extraditions in the United States should be reciprocal and by the evidence that was found linking Chiquita brands to the paramilitaries, would you agree with extradition of Chiquita executives? Should Colombia demand it?
Look, the United Stated and Colombia have a positive, excellent and very productive relationship on matters of judicial cooperation. The truth is that I believe this relationship has served the interest of the Colombian people as much as the American people. It has produced the elimination of the activities of many criminals who affected in a negative manner both the people from Colombia and the American people. We have an open dialogue, fluid and positive on this matter. At the same time, the American government respects Colombia’s judicial and legal processes on matters of extradition, exactly as we expect the Colombian government to respect the legal and judicial processes of the United States. If we have a specific extradition matter, we will talk and eventually clarify the legal systems’ position. Other than that, I think I prefer not to respond to hypothetical situations and we shall wait for a more concrete event.
Guillermo Tovar, EFE:
Good afternoon. I wanted to ask you what your opinion is regarding the creation of a tripartite summit between Colombia, the United States and Mexico dealing with the countries most involved in drug trafficking and who have the greatest responsibility when it comes to its trafficking and consumption.
You know, of course, that this question goes beyond the response capacity of your humble servant. But I will say without a shadow of a doubt that some of the common issues those three countries, U.S., Mexico and Colombia, have are the traditional issues. Let’s say, with regards to the matter of illicit drugs, and to a certain extent, the security of the three countries’ people, but there are also some more positive issues in the sense of relationships in the areas of economics, commercial and investment activities, humanitarian activities, social activities and the support for positions in international organizations, which represent the values of democratic societies throughout the world. The truth is that some mechanism for communicative consulting, obviously, is a good idea. I would not like to limit my comment to only those three countries. Of course I believe there are other countries in the world, in the region and in the hemisphere that also coincide and share many of the same values and principles. I believe that any consultative process must be inclusive and not exclusive, and must deal as much with positive issues as negative ones. But at the end of the day, it is the three national governments, in their three national capitals of Bogotá, Mexico City and Washington who must decide upon such a question or suggestion.
New York Times, Lina Carolina Gonzalez.
I would like to insist on the question from my colleague from el Nuevo Siglo?, Specifically what would be necessary to reach a humanitarian agreement? And I also wanted to ask you, the Colombian government wants to emphasize manual eradication because it has realized that aerial fumigation has not worked as hoped. Would the government of the U.S. be in agreement to direct more resources to manual eradication?
Let’s see if you get a better answer the second time around. Firstly, on the matter of an exchange related to the liberation of FARC and ELN hostages; ladies and gentlemen, I think it is a rather dangerous thing to offer speculation based upon a hypothetical question. As far as I know, up to this moment, no leader, functionary, official, of any of either organization, the FARC or the ELN, has declared clearly that if they receive these conditions they would set the hostages free immediately. In other words, your question, in my humble opinion, is totally speculative and as for myself, it is my first day as accredited U.S. ambassador in Colombia and I do not think it a good moment to speculate on possibilities based on a hypothetical situation.
The second part is more concrete because, without any doubt, authorities, representatives and officials of the Colombian government, as well as the American government, have issued opinions on the matter of eradication and the best manner to go about eradicating illicit drugs, specifically in Colombia, coca and poppy. I think it is an excellent question and a matter that deserves more study, dialogue, communication, opinion and exchange because we eventually need to decide with the resources that we have, us from the United States and the Colombian government, how is it that we can reach better results with those resources. Undoubtedly, some are in favor of aerial eradication, others support the manual eradication process. I think that at this moment in Colombia we have examples of both types of eradication. And as a the newcomer, I tell you precisely what I told my Senate a few months ago: I think I have an obligation as the U.S. diplomatic representative, but also as the one responsible for the management of all of this Embassy’s resources, to study, reconsider and decided exactly which would be the most efficient way to provide resources for this project. I think that everyone agrees upon one thing: that we want to see the reduction and, eventually, the elimination of illicit drug crops here in Colombia, in the whole of the rest of the region and the rest of the world. So the debate is not over a fundamental point, we agree upon that. The debate is which would be the best way to reach that achievement, that objective, and on that I believe we are going have a fluid dialogue during the coming weeks and months between the two governments.
El Tiempo, Edulfo Peña.
You said you would not make any statement on President Chavez, but the problem of liberating the hostages in Colombia has gone beyond our border. You know that there is President Sarkozy, there is President Chavez. Do you know if your government, President Bush, and you and your office in Bogotá would be willing to push forward and support President Chavez’s work today as he has proponed it?
Look, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know exactly what entrance you used to come into this Embassy today. If you came in through the main entrance, through there, you would have passed, at the main door, a showcase with photos of the three U.S. citizens, their flag, in which they had a lot of pride, and I still hope they do, and the hope that the whole community of this Embassy, 100% of the employees of this Embassy, dedicate themselves each day when they get to the Embassy, to this building, to the soon and safe liberation of our fellow country-men. Of course that, to a certain extent, is my mission. Every day of the week, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And I tell you, I tell the family members of those three American citizens, I tell all the citizens of Colombia, the 99.9999% who behave like honest citizens, and the 0.00001% who dedicate themselves to activities such as the kidnapping of Colombian and other citizens. I repeat, it is my position, and the position of the government whom I represent; we look on positively at any effort, any activity, any attempt, on behalf of any citizen of this planet, any of the 6 billion, more or less, of human beings on this planet, any effort to bring about the timely and safe liberation of these three citizens. For us, of course, the relationship between Colombia and the US is incredibly important. That is why we are here, that is why the citizens now hostages here in Colombia were here four and a half years ago. Of course, the bilateral relationship is an incredibly important relationship, as are our efforts to free our countrymen. And I tell you in conclusion, that I hope that one day, hopefully even today, I hope to be able to stand here before you and announce that we have achieved the freedom of the three hostages, as well as the hundreds and hundreds of other hostages, who are Colombian citizens.
(Inaudible)
President Alvaro Uribe has refused to recognise the existence of an armed conflict in Colombia. You have spoken of ‘hostages,’ and if we consider the Geneva Protocols, the use of the word ‘hostage’ would admit the existence of an armed conflict in Colombia. When you refer to that, do you recognize that there is an armed conflict in Colombia and that the FARC are a belligerent and not a terrorist group?
My God, I am going to conclude with a lawyer’s question. Look, when I use Spanish, and I admit I don’t know how many, 500 million people who speak Spanish all over the world, and I am only one of those 500 million, but when I say ‘hostage,’ I am not thinking of a specific situation, a conflict situation, or a peaceful situation. In my opinion, utterly personal, there are hostages in a bank robbery when people find themselves in the midst of one and cannot leave. To a certain extent they are hostages. That has absolutely nothing to do with an armed conflict and the Geneva Conventions. At the end of it all, I think the decision to declare a conflict as an armed conflict or not depend effectively on the government of the sovereign country where that situation is found. Yes, there are differences. There are international organizations, but I, your humble servant, William Brownfield, did not want to put forward, didn’t put forward and will not put forward an opinion on this legal point when speaking of hostages. If there is another way, if there is another word better to use in this situation, I am prepared to do it, but I use the word solely to indicate persons held against their will, involuntarily, under horrible conditions, like, shall we say, pawns, game pieces, by some people who wish to receive something in return. It is an activity that in any country, any society, and any legal system since the beginning of human history over 3000 years ago, is considered as reprehensible and repulsive, and for me, this is not a legal issue, but a moral issue.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I hope to have many opportunities for more encounters.