|
|
|
|
|
MR. CROWLEY: '...many of the issues that have been raised by these documents have actually been incorporated into the revised strategy that is supported not only by the United States , but Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries.'
[...]
QUESTION: So the United States is still a trustworthy nation in terms of keeping classified information classified?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think if you look on balance, we are the most trusted country in the world and with good reason. We're in these countries to help Afghanistan, Pakistan, other countries develop, prosper, and remain peaceful and stable. And this is part of a responsibility that we bear that, quite honestly, no other country in the world bears the same responsibility as the United States.
QUESTION: So, P.J., we're a bit confused. Which is it? First, the Administration said there is nothing to that, right? They said there was nothing to the substance or the content of these documents. Then you come out and say it's very serious. We take it seriously. So do these really compromise the security of the United States? Do they compromise the troops on the ground? Which is it?
MR. CROWLEY: Any time you have an unauthorized
QUESTION: And I have a follow-up.
MR. CROWLEY: -- release of classified information, it does potentially put operations and lives at risk even if we're talking about historical documents that from years ago, we it's important that the United States has sources so we understand the world and events as they occur. We do our best to protect these sources and I do respect that media organizations that were involved in this process said they went to some lengths to try to protect these sources. But there's always this risk. There's a reason why we have a classification system. It's not necessarily the information itself. You look at some of these documents, the information may be mundane, it may no longer be current. But behind those documents, there are important sources and methods of collecting intelligence information and these are vitally important to the United States and other countries so that we can make sure that our policies are relevant to events as they occur anywhere in the world.
QUESTION: Again, we make a follow-up
MR. CROWLEY: All right. Hold on. Hold up
QUESTION: Just a follow-up quick follow-up.
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: WikiLeaks are making claims that they still have 15,000 documents that they want to release or post shortly. Are you trying to prevent them from doing that or anything has been taken to sort of guard against the posting of such documents?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, say, unlike the news organizations that opened up a dialogue with elements of the United States Government to understand these documents and to work to protect our legitimate security concerns, we've had, as far as I know, no contact with WikiLeaks. Their approach has been, in our view, quite irresponsible and we obviously have concern about the documents that have been released. We would not like to see any further release of documents. Again, these releases jeopardize the national security interests of the United States.
QUESTION: The question of this that came out yesterday from your Afghan counterpart, he was reacting in the sense that these were active documents or actionable documents today; they're not just historical documents. For example, his call that the U.S. needs to do something about Pakistan intelligence, that doesn't sound like an old historical document, but rather an action item that the Afghan Government wants the U.S. to act upon.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me separate two things. I mean, first of all, one of the risks in some of these documents is that they reflect field reports that are uncorroborated. Somebody talked to somebody and somebody wrote it down, sent it up the chain, and the information in these documents may or may not be true. As we said yesterday, notwithstanding our ongoing concern about the release of these documents to the extent they raise questions, certainly the relationship among Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the tensions that have historically existed in the region, this is these are not this is not a startling revelation. It's been central to our revised strategy over the past year.
We don't look at Afghanistan in isolation. We look at Afghanistan in the context of other countries in the region. We have conversations with each of these countries. Each of these countries we consider to be strategic allies in a vitally important region of the world. One of the reasons why we pushed hard, as the Secretary said last week pushed hard for the transit trade agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan to try to change the basis of the relationship between two important allies of the United States. And that transit trade agreement does, in fact, have the potential ability to transform relationships with countries in the region.
So we're very conscious of the history among these countries in the region. We've worked hard to try to help each understand the interests and needs of the other. There is communication going on across these countries that we think is very important, very valuable not just to the United States, but there it is important for Afghanistan and Pakistan to have a stable relationship. They are going to remain neighbors in perpetuity.
It is important for Pakistan and India to have a stable relationship. They, likewise, will have to have a relationship going forward, and if it is stable, then the world, including the United States, benefits. So we are very, very conscious of the complexity that involves these overlapping relationships, and we've worked hard in our dialogue with each country to try to make this a more regional approach to a common challenge.
[...]
QUESTION: You have told us that the U.S. Government spoke to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan about these leaks. Have --
MR. CROWLEY: And other governments as well.
QUESTION: Yes. Have the U.S. addressed the issue of involvement of ISI in particular with these governments to clarify with especially with Pakistan?
MR. CROWLEY: I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean --
QUESTION: Has the U.S. Government has spoken to Pakistani Government, Islamabad about the role of ISI in Mumbai attacks and in other which have come out from these leaks?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have talked to Pakistan about our mutual concerns on terrorism many, many times going back months and years.
QUESTION: No, since the leaks.
MR. CROWLEY: I can't say that we've had a substantive conversation about this, but there are concerns about making sure that we bring that Pakistan bring to justice those responsible for the Mumbai attack. We've had that conversation with Pakistan and India many, many times. And our concerns about elements within Pakistan and connections that those elements have with the Pakistani Government, we've had that conversation with Pakistan many times.
Yeah. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Phillip J. Crowley |
| |
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/weFGV |
|
Title: |
Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, July 27, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Phillip J. Crowley |
|
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
State Department Daily Briefing, Jul 27, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Philip J. Crowley |
|
Title: |
Assistant Secretary of State |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
|
