default header
12 January 2004
2004 a Time to Build on Alliances, Powell Says
Secretary outlines foreign policy prospects in January 8 interview
Now that the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars are over and those countries are in a rebuilding phase, the United States has a chance to use its partnerships and alliances to greater effect to deal with other regional problems, Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a January 8 interview at the State Department with U.S. News & World Report magazine.
President Bush believes that military force should be used only after diplomatic efforts to solve problems have failed, Powell said. "The President's preference, always has been to solve problems peacefully and diplomatically," Powell said, adding that Bush took "the Iraq problem to the U.N. in the hope that it could be solved without a war.
"It couldn't be, so we had a war, and that war's over. But he's continuing to pursue diplomatic solutions with respect to North Korea, Iran, Libya," and Syria, Powell pointed out.
Asked about efforts by the State Department to counter anti-Americanism around the world, Powell said "No amount of public diplomacy could compensate for the fact that people were not seeing a solution emerge in the Middle East, and there were strong views in the Muslim World, and strong views throughout Europe, public views, not necessarily the views of governments, but public views, that we should not go to war in Iraq.
"Well, we did, and that's behind us. And as Iraq improves, as the people, you know, get their sovereignty back, I think the anti-American attitude associated with that will change. And if there was one thing I could do to improve the overall situation, it would be to get something moving on the Middle East peace process, the roadmap," Powell said.
Following is a transcript of Powell's the January 8 interview:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
January 10, 2004
INTERVIEW
Secretary of State Colin Powell
US News & World Report
January 8, 2004
Washington, D.C.
QUESTION: Well, thank you for inviting us in. Our first question would simply be this: What do you think is going to be distinctive about U.S. diplomacy in 2004?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think you'll see a continuation of the President's commitment to the values and principles that he's spoken of: democracy, freedom, human rights, prosperity for all people, open trading, the dignity of the individual. And I think now that Afghanistan and Iraq, the two wars, are behind us and we're in a reconstruction, rebuilding, security phase, we have a chance to use our partnerships and our alliances to greater effect in solving other regional problems.
For example, six-party work on North Korea, the work we're doing with Sudan, the work we're doing with the Indians and the Pakistanis which produced a breakthrough over the last several days but there's more work to be done, and we offered our good offices to the Indians and the Pakistanis over the last couple of days; consolidation in places like Georgia, Liberia and a number of other places where it isn't just the role of the United States but the United States working with partners and friends around the world.
So I think you'll see U.S. diplomacy far more active in resolving these kinds of regional problems, in putting in place the Millennium Challenge Account, the HIV/AIDS program, and you will see U.S. diplomacy taking over from the work of the CPA in Baghdad as we create an embassy.
And so a lot of the things with foreign policy -- and forgive me for being a little long here -- with foreign policy, it takes time for ideas and programs to germinate and start to grow, and we're starting to see a number of the things we started doing at the very beginning of the Administration now starting to bear fruit.
We've been working on Sudan from the beginning. We inherited a very difficult problem there. We've been working with the Indians and Pakistanis for almost two years, from a period of, "We're going to nuclear war this weekend," to, you know, this is a historic change. And so I think a lot of these seeds that were planted are now germinating and you'll see harvesting crops.
QUESTION: Let me -- handoff of the CPA, June 30th date, is that, that cast in stone? Is that as firm as firm can be or is there some question?
SECRETARY POWELL: Right. No, June 30th, July 1st, is when we are hoping that we'll see an interim assembly created, an interim government created for the people of Iraq. It isn't necessarily the exact date that the CPA will go out of existence and the embassy will take over.
What I expect to see over the next six months is increasingly State Department and other government agencies start to present themselves in Iraq, their cells start to grow in Iraq and we begin to stand up an embassy; and then at that moment when Jerry Bremer's work is done and the work of the Coalition Provisional Authority is done, the embassy will be ready to take over and have normal diplomatic relations with a country that now has its own sovereign leadership.
QUESTION: But that June date --
SECRETARY POWELL: So to some extent, to some extent, it's geared to political change on the ground and we are pushing for 1 July, and we have every hope of meeting 1 July, but I can't tell you that the flag will go up on 1 July.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, as you've heard many times, critics think that it's soft-headed to think that the United States can negotiate meaningful arms control deals, nuclear deals, in particular, with the remaining members of what's called the "axis of evil", Iran, North Korea. What's your own view of the utility of that?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, it's happening, you know, if you look at the original axis, and add a couple of others to it, Libya, and, say, Syria. But one could not be dealt with diplomatically, it was dealt with by force, Iraq, and it's gone. Changes are occurring in Iran. They have been more forthcoming with respect to the additional protocol for the NPT, with respect to the demands placed on them by the European Union 3. And clearly, they are responding to the international pressure that we generated. The Russians have taken a much more objective look at what the Iranians are doing, so diplomacy is working there.
Libya decided this game isn't worth the candle. What do we get for this? What have I gotten for this?
I'm not scaring anybody; I don't have any political benefit from this expenditure, and all I get is political ostracism; nobody will invest in my country; I'm still sanctioned, I'm giving it up; and then North Korea has been making statements and been participating in the dialogue that we started at six-parties, and I expect that dialogue to continue.
So sometimes it's, "Sorry, time's up, military force." The President's preference, always has been to solve problems peacefully and diplomatically. He took it, the Iraq problem, to the U.N. in the hope that it could be solved without a war. It couldn't be, so we had a war, and that war's over. But he's continuing to pursue diplomatic solutions with respect to North Korea, Iran, Libya, we have found, and, of course, Syria is a country of concern as well.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, do you think that you can -- at the end game, I mean, is it -- at the end game, if you can negotiate binding credible agreements with a country like North Korea?
SECRETARY POWELL: Sure. I mean, yes, but they have to be binding and they have to credible, and to be binding and credible they have to be verifiable. So verification is an important point. And it's one of the areas that we're in such an intense discussion now, because we're saying an agreement that is not verifiable is not a useful agreement. We want you to be able to verify our security assurance to you. We have to be able to verify that you have permanently ended these programs. And that's -- it takes time.
But, I mean, we entered into similar agreements with the Soviet Union over and over a period of 40 years, never trusting it. My old beloved boss and dear friend and somebody I respect very highly -- and you know what's coming -- Ronald Reagan, "Doveryay, no proveryay," you know, trust but verify. Trust your mother, but count the cards.
QUESTION: One area where I think you, you've lost ground in the last couple of years has been in the area of public diplomacy around the world, and how the U.S. is viewed around the world. Are you troubled by the direction that it's taken, and are you personally going to use your own credibility, you know, and standing in the world, which is obviously very high, to try and somehow more effectively deal with that problem?
SECRETARY POWELL: We've had two problems I think. One is that we may not have -- we might not have used the tools, and may not have had as good a process as we should have had to communicate our positions.
The other problem we had was with, especially with respect to Iraq and the difficulty of making progress in the Middle East. No amount of public diplomacy could compensate for the fact that people were not seeing a solution emerge in the Middle East, and there were strong views in the Muslim World, and strong views throughout Europe that we should -- public views, not necessarily the views of governments, but public views, that we should not go to war in Iraq.
Well, we did, and that's behind us. And as Iraq improves, as the people, you know, get their sovereignty back, I think the anti-American attitude associated with that will change. And if there was one thing I could do to improve the overall situation, it would be to get something moving on the Middle East peace process, the roadmap.
And as I said earlier, and I will continue to say, we need more from the Palestinian side on dealing with terror and violence. We are going to be investing -- and to complete the answer, I'm sorry -- I am spending more and more time on the airwaves with media, hopefully, traveling more and spending more time with foreign audiences to convey our positions. And we now have a new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, who is great, greatly skilled in these matters, and she will be putting together plans and programs.
QUESTION: You didn't always travel very, travel very quickly due to demands on your time. Are you suggesting that you are going to get ready to slow down a bit and incorporate more of a public diplomacy --
SECRETARY POWELL: I wouldn't say that means slowing down. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Adding more into the schedule, adding more into schedules.
SECRETARY POWELL: Adding more to the schedule.
QUESTION: Okay.
SECRETARY POWELL: You know, it's amazing, and this is an aside, you won't need for your interview, but when you look at what a Secretary of State has to do, so much of your time is allocated. I've got to go to eight hearings every spring for my budget. I'm the leader and manager of this outfit, and I've got to defend my budget. There are meetings you must go to -- NATO, European Union, APEC, ARF -- and you do have to spend some time in Washington. As George Kennan, the great old man of foreign policy reminded me with a beautiful letter when I first came in, the purpose of the Secretary of State is to advise the President, not necessarily to fly around in airplanes all over the world; that's why you have ambassadors.
So I'm trying to use our ambassadors more effectively. Those are the folks who can carry out the message of America's values and principles and public diplomacy, not just the Secretary of State dropping in for a day or two here. And we've got to do a better job of using all of our team members out there to carry our message forward, and I think we're getting better at it.
QUESTION: You know, it's often said that Pakistan now is one of the wild cards for the year 2004. Given the considerable personal effort that you have made to develop a relationship with President Musharraf, what would be the consequences for the war on terror and the stability of the South Asian region if he were suddenly no longer in place?
SECRETARY POWELL: I would be greatly concerned because I don't know what might come after him. He is a good friend and partner of the United States. We support him. He has been an ally in the war on terror. He has been helpful in Afghanistan. He is doing more now in Afghanistan. As I noted earlier, he has started new military operations along the border areas. And we believe that he has a good agenda that deals with the education of his people and deals with anti-terrorism.
As you may have noted, there have been some concerns expressed about nuclear proliferation from Pakistan. Earlier this week he indicated he was going to look into this thoroughly, make sure that is not the case.
So he is taking steps and riding a difficult political horse, but we are going to support him and we believe he is doing a good job.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, what do you want your legacy to be seen as?
SECRETARY POWELL: I served this President well and this Administration well; and that as a result of my efforts on behalf of the President and behalf of the American people, the world is a little more peaceful, there is a higher level of prosperity for the poorest people of the world; and that we have done something about some of the terrible illnesses that are affecting the people of the world, principally HIV/AIDS.
And so if I leave after serving this President and serving the American people and we have achieved peace and stability in parts of the world where that peace and stability didn't exist previously, that's pretty good.
QUESTION: Where should we look for breakthroughs in 2004?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think we will -- breakthroughs -- I'm not quite a fortune teller. But I hope we will see progress in North Korea. I hope we will see progress with Iran. I hope -- and I'm going to be working for progress with Syria. Syria has to live in a good relationship with its neighbor, Iraq. We'll continue to encourage the Syrians to change aspects of their behavior that we think are inappropriate. And the place that I most hope to see a breakthrough is in the Middle East.
QUESTION: Well, this is a little off topic but it will help us to write a subsequent story, which is our White House correspondent, Ken Walsh, who I think you know, will be doing a walk-up in advance of the State of the Union Address, and he asked me to ask you what sort of theme or what thought, I mean, some context as to -- going into the State of the Union.
You obviously touched on your own agenda, but in terms of the President and the world, what -- I mean, what would be a good thing to take note of or take -- put into context of the President's State of the Union Address as he presents the State of the Union?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, one thing I've learned is it's best to let the State of the Union speak for itself and not background until the night before it's given. But I'm quite sure the President will speak about his vision for the world. I'm sure he will -- you know, I'd be surprised if he didn't speak about democracy throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East.
I think he will take note of the progress we have made in some of these most difficult areas that we inherited. And I think he will talk about development, the Millennium Challenge Account, things of that nature. I haven't seen the speech yet, and so I'm just telling Ken these are the kinds of things he might want to be on the lookout for as leaks come his way.
MS. MILLER: One more question.
QUESTION: Okay. Mr. Secretary, how are you feeling?
SECRETARY POWELL: Physically? Fine. I'm recovering from major surgery, and so I'm not going to overstate how fine fine is, but my energy has returned. It takes awhile to recover fully from the surgery, but so far this week I've done rather well, put in several, several full days. So I'm back.
QUESTION: Are you still calling aides at 5:30 in the morning?
SECRETARY POWELL: That's a lie. (Laughter.)
MS. MILLER: Four, yeah. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Excuse me. The record stands corrected.
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah. No, I'm up at 5:30, and I'm usually on e-mail by, before six, usually reading and sending out messages to Emily or Richard. They're both on my e-mail.
QUESTION: Let me have one more quick question, which is --
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, and 11 o'clock at night.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: E-mail is an awful thing.
SECRETARY POWELL: I know.
QUESTION: You're obviously a prime consumer of intelligence, and a sophisticated consumer of intelligence over the years. Are you -- I guess, has your confidence in the intelligence you're just seeing now diminished in the aftermath of Iraq? Are you a more skeptical consumer of intelligence than you were before? Is there a problem with the intelligence community that needs to be addressed, as we hear from people both on the left and on the right, ironically enough?
SECRETARY POWELL: I have always been a skeptical consumer of intelligence. That's not that I'm skeptical of the people doing it, but I just learned over the years, take it all with a grain of salt, and then apply what we call in the military, a commander's judgment to it. And I've given many lectures to our intelligence people, and I say, "Tell me what you know, and I'll hold you to account for that." Tell me what you think, and if I act on what you think, then I hold myself to account for that.
Intelligence is not a pure science where all secrets are revealed. People are hiding stuff from you; people are deceiving you; people are throwing you head fakes; people are covering up things; people are doing everything they can to keep you from getting intelligence, and we have some superb individuals, many superb individuals throughout our intelligence community who work very hard.
And the folks who worked on the Iraqi account to try to find out the truth about weapons of mass destruction, I think did solid, honest work and gave it their best judgment. And I think they presented that best judgment to the Congress in the form of briefings and in the form of a national intelligence estimate. And when the President asked me to present our case to the world, I went to the U.N. that day mindful that the whole world is watching, and mindful that Iraq would do everything they could to discredit me that afternoon, before sundown, before the next news cycle.
And so I spent a heck of a lot of time, four straight days and nights, with the CIA to put together a case that was supportable and multi-sourced and was stood behind by the whole intelligence community. I didn't add any political spin. We didn't cook any books, and George Tenet was there with me all of those days and nights, so was John McLaughlin, and, George, my New York buddy, went with me to the UN.
Why? Because it was his product I was presenting.
QUESTION: At the end of the day, while they have many things right, and many things wrong and things right, as far as we know now, the actual fielded weapons of mass destruction --
SECRETARY POWELL: We have not, have not discovered it, we have not discovered the fielded weapons.
QUESTION: And what is the public to make of that?
SECRETARY POWELL: The public is to make the fact that we haven't discovered a fielded weapons. We knew and can reaffirm that the intention to having, have such weapons -- I mean, that's -- don't dismiss intention. I mean, if this guy was ever released from the constraints of the U.N. or inspectors, if anybody thought he wasn't going to go develop these weapons now that he was under any -- no longer under any international constraint, I think they were absolutely wrong. There was also no doubt that he was retaining the capability, so that he could react to those intentions.
Now what we didn't know, and if you read my testimony very carefully, very often what I was saying is what happened. We know they made this much. We know they had the capability to make this much. We don't know what happened. Why won't they tell us? And very often, it was that kind of argument we were making which the Iraqis could have answered if they wanted to answer it
Now why they didn't want to answer might be the source of a very interesting book. The fact is they didn't answer, and there was no basis upon which the President should have trusted that lack of answer for being a by for them, a pass for them. They had a chance to avoid the war. The very fact that the President took it to the UN, gave them a chance to avoid war, they did not take that chance, the President did not wish to take a chance, and based on what he had been told by the intelligence community, President Clinton acted on the same intelligence four years earlier.
The international community believed in that intelligence. Congress was briefed on it. And so I think the President took the right action.
MS. MILLER: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you for your time.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thanks, guys, and see you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
