Interview of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

By Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts of ABC's "This Week"

Transcript
U.S. Department of State
Office of the Spokesman

Ms ROBERTS: Welcome to the program. We have a very special program on store for you today.

MR. DONALDSON: Absolutely. The Secretary of State Colin Powell in his first interview since taking office. Welcome, Mr. Secretary, nice to see you.

SECRETARY POWELL: It's good to see you, Sam. Cokie, good to be here.

DONALDSON: Well, most of us have called you "General" all these years. It's quite a change, and for you, too?

POWELL: Yes, indeed. I mean, you can call me anything you wish, Sam.

DONALDSON: As long as we smile?

POWELL: Yes.

DONALDSON: Well, Mr. Secretary, let's look at some of the problems on your plate now, and let's begin with the Mid-East. In three days, the elections. Does it matter to the peace process which one of the major candidates is elected Prime Minister of Israel?

POWELL: I think what matters to the peace process is that we enter the selection period and come out of it with violence kept down. I would encourage both sides, both the Palestinians and the Israelis, as they go into this period of transition, as we see what the Israeli people want in the way of a new Prime Minister, that there be no provocations, that all leaders at this time in the history of the region encourage their followers to not undertake any acts of provocation or violence. And then we can see what the people of Israel have indicated they wish in the form of a new leader, and we can begin to see how we can move toward peace again. The only thing that will matter in this region, at the end of the day, is these two peoples coming together to live in one land, and it begins with stability, peace and no provocations.

DONALDSON: Well, The Jerusalem Post, in a front-page story this weekend, suggests that you fear that if Ariel Sharon is elected, there will be more violence.

POWELL: I don't know where they got that from. I think we have to wait and see what happens after the election. I know that Mr. Sharon has indicated that he will try to do nothing that will provoke violence, and I think all sides have to wait for the election to be held, and then we will see what happen. It will take Mr. Sharon some time to form a government, and Mr. Barak will be the caretaker if he loses in this case. If Mr. Barak wins, we have a different situation. So I am not prejudging the election. We will wait and see what the Israeli people want to have happen in the future by their actions on Tuesday.

DONALDSON: All right. You're not making a preference, but former President Clinton clearly made a preference in doing an interview on television. He prefers that Mr. Barak be reelected. Was that helpful?

POWELL: Mr. Clinton is free to make any judgment he wishes. We will not make a judgment. We believe it is up to the Israeli people to decide who their Prime Minister will be; and as you have noticed so far in the Bush Administration, we have elected not to show a preference to the Israeli people. We believe it is up to them to decide that, and not our place to make book on one or the other candidate.

DONALDSON: President Clinton was very activist when he came to the Mid-East. What is the role that the Bush Administration will take? Will you be as activist, or will you be an honest broker waiting for the parties to call you in?

POWELL: We will be as active as is appropriate. We will be an honest broker. We will always be committed to the security of Israel. But we also will be anxious to see what we can do, in every way possible, to achieve the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. It begins with low violence, preferably no violence if that is possible. It begins with people of good will coming together after this election to move peace forward toward resolution. What that is going to look like, we don't know yet, because we will have to see the results of the election. But President Bush will be involved, I will be involved, as appropriate, to keep this moving forward toward peace.

DONALDSON: Let me show you one of the things that President Bush said during the campaign. You will recall he said that, "As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the U.S. Ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital," meaning Jerusalem. Have you begun the process?

POWELL: Well, process is a word that has different meanings to it.

DONALDSON: Sometimes it means "stall."

POWELL: We are studying it. Sometimes it means "stall"; sometimes it means "move right ahead."

DONALDSON: What does it mean in this case?

POWELL: In this case, it means that we are examining the process, and in due course we will make a judgment. But at this time of tensions, at this time of considerable level of violence in the region, at this time where a new election is about to unfold, we will continue to examine when that process will begin.

DONALDSON: And so it hasn't begun yet?

POWELL: We are always examining it, but there is no move yet to move the Embassy, although that remains the goal of the United States, and it remains a commitment made by President Bush.

DONALDSON: All right. While we are talking about President Bush's commitments, let's move now to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Unfinished business, you have said. And President Bush said, "No one had envisioned Saddam (at least at that point in history) no one envisioned him still standing. It is time to finish the task." And he also said, "And if I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out", meaning take out the weapons of mass destruction. First, do you think he has been developing weapons of mass destruction? Do you have any evidence?

POWELL: Well, we have to assume that he has never lost his goal or gone away from his goal of developing such weapons. And that is unfortunate because, as long as he pursues that goal, the United Nations has to remain engaged. He made a commitment at the end of the Gulf War that he would not develop these weapons and he would demonstrate to the international community that he was not doing so. He has failed to meet those obligations. And as a result, the people of the region are threatened; the children of the region are threatened by Saddam Hussein and his potential possession of these kinds of weapons. And so I think the UN has to remain steadfast and demand that he do what he said he was going to do.

We should find a way to do this that does not hurt the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are not suffering as a result of what the UN is doing; they are suffering as a result of what Saddam Hussein is doing. He has got more money available to him now through the Oil-for-Food program than he ever had before the Gulf War. If he would use that money properly, if he would use it to educate children, if he would use it take care of the health needs of the Iraqi children, there would be no problem. But instead, he continues to find ways to direct this money into inappropriate purchases.

DONALDSON: What you seem to be suggesting to me that, at the moment, you don't have enough evidence to believe that you should follow through on President Bush's words to take out those weapons.

POWELL: We reserve the right to use whatever means may be necessary if we had a specific set of targets, or something occurred to us, or we found something that we think would be appropriate to go after.

DONALDSON: All right. The Iraqi National Congress, which is a group outside of Iraq, which wants to overthrow Saddam Hussein, has now gotten a license to use $4 million of U.S. Government funds in its work. And it wants two other licenses: one it has applied for and one it hasn't. Should the other two licenses to step up its efforts inside of Iraq be granted?

POWELL: Well, we will have to see. I will have to take a look at those licenses. The license that they just received from the Treasury Department was in response to a request that has been made during the previous administration, and it is a very, very solid request, and nothing wrong with what they are getting ready to do. But we will examine everything they are planning to do in light of our overall policy with respect to Iraq. But I'm not here today to say what we might or might not do in a particular request, especially one that has not yet been made.

DONALDSON: I don't want to beat around the bush. It's widely held that you and Secretary Rumsfeld are on opposite sides to some extent of this question. That he wants to be much more aggressive in trying to oust Saddam Hussein, and you want to go a little slower. What's the fact?

POWELL: The facts are that we are in the process of discussing what our policy with respect to Iraq should be, and there is no disagreement at this point that I am aware of between Secretary Rumsfeld and myself.

DONALDSON: All right. Let's go to the ABM Treaty, and let's go to Europe. Secretary Rumsfeld has just been there. He has called the ABM Treaty "ancient history." He has told the European allies that the United States will continue to develop it. And let me now remind you of what President Bush said before he became President. He said, about the ABM Treaty, "If Russia refuses the changes we propose, we will give prompt notice, under the provisions of the Treaty, that we can no longer be a party to it." Will you scrap the ABM Treaty, if necessary?

POWELL: At the moment, we are pursuing, I think, a deliberate course of action with respect (to) missile defense, with respect to our offensive strategic weapons, with respect to nonproliferation of weapons, and with respect to the ABM Treaty. We are consulting with our allies. That's what Secretary Rumsfeld was doing in Europe over the past couple of days at the Wehrkunde Conference.

And we are committed to go forward with missile defense because we think it is in our national interest, and we think it is in the interest of our allies and the interest of the world. And at some point we will bump up against the limits of the ABM Treaty. At that time, we will have to negotiate with the Russians what modifications might be appropriate, and we have to hold out the possibility that it may be necessary to leave that treaty if it is no longer serving our purposes, or if it is not something that we can accommodate our programs within. But it's not something that is going to happen tomorrow, and it's not something that is going to happen without full consultation with our friends and allies and full consultation with the Russians and, beyond that, full consultation with other nations that have an interest in this, in Asia, Japan, Korea and China.

DONALDSON: Well, does full consultation simply mean informing them at some point?

POWELL: No, no, no.

DONALDSON: Because our allies oppose it, China opposes it, Russia opposes it. If we find the world is basically against this, would we then have, in the words of the famous phrase, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind"?

POWELL: We will have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, and full consultation means that. It doesn't mean we dictate to anybody. You know, President Bush has been quite clear that he wants to hear from others. He wants to take what others say to us into account in all of our actions. But they also have to understand that as we take their views into account, we are moving from a position of principle. We believe that theatre missile defense and national missile defense is in our interest, and in the interest of our allies in the world. And in these consultations, we hope to persuade them of that.

DONALDSON: All right. China has just taken possession of two Russian destroyers that are meant to hunt and kill aircraft carriers. It has four more destroyers on order that will be there. What is China up to?

POWELL: China is up to, I presume, modernizing its forces. Their forces are really quite behind the times. So they are doing force modernization. It is nothing that surprises or shocks...

DONALDSON: Does that threaten us or Taiwan?

POWELL: I think we have to make sure that we remain strong in the region. I think there should be no question that we will maintain a military presence in the region because we think it is U.S. military presence in the region that is sort of a flywheel that keeps the whole region in a rather stable situation. But a nation such as China that has the wherewithal to improve its military, I would expect it to improve its military. I'm more interested in what kind of policies it adopts that might be disturbing or threatening to the region. And that is why I am looking forward to having good, solid conversations with the Chinese, and I have started that. One of my first visitors was the Chinese Ambassador, and I look forward to greeting other Chinese visitors in the very near future.

DONALDSON: President Clinton put on hold the sale of two Aegis-class destroyers to Taiwan. Will this administration sell those destroyers and/or other advanced weapons systems?

POWELL: In the course of the spring we will examine what the Taiwanese have asked for, and we will make our decisions on individual weapons systems in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act that you are well familiar with, the various communiqués that have come from that Act, as well as what the Congress has said with respect to enhancement of Taiwan's defense capability. But it will be done in a way that is deliberate, with full understanding of the implications of each one of these weapons systems for relationships between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China.

DONALDSON: Let me show some of the words from one of those communiqués, the third one in 1982, the joint communiqué issued by the United States and the People's Republic of China on the question of arms sales to Taiwan. And here is what it says: "The United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan; that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years; and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan." The plain reading of that language suggests that Aegis destroyers would be off-base.

POWELL: The plain reading of the language of the TRA and the various communiqués over time would suggest that we have an obligation to Taiwan to make sure that their level of defense capability remains constant over time and they are in a position to defend themselves against any threats that might come their way. And so we will always be looking for that balance in our arms sales policy with respect to Taiwan.

DONALDSON: When you said goodbye to the outgoing Chinese Ambassador, you read him the riot act (my words, not yours) on human rights. And on the 19th of March, the United Nations Human Rights Commission meets in Geneva. Traditionally, the United States supports a condemnation resolution. But there is some suggestion that, this year, this Administration would not. Will we?

POWELL: Well, I wouldn't say "read him the riot act." We had a good businesslike discussion of human rights, and I made it clear to him that the Bush Administration would measure all of our relationships with other countries dealing with human rights, as well as all other issues that might exist between the two of us. And I didn't want there to be any mistake with our Chinese interlocutors that we were interested in human rights. And you are quite right, there is a conference coming up. And the question will be which nations will we try to introduce or have introduced a resolution of disapproval, of condemnation.

DONALDSON: Would we support it?

POWELL: Well, we haven't made a decision yet. We have started to examine it. I talked to our Ambassador in Geneva yesterday, and we have begun the process of coming to a conclusion as to how we will proceed in Geneva next month.

DONALDSON: Secretary Powell, if we don't now, the United States, support a resolution of condemnation, isn't that a great victory for China on the very subject that you say you are so concerned with, human rights?

POWELL: We are concerned with human rights, and we will make a judgment as to whether we will or will not support in due course. But I would think you will find that whatever we do or do not do in Geneva will be consistent with the principles of human rights and our support for human rights throughout the world.

DONALDSON: Muammar Qadhafi is angry at the United States. One of the Libyans was convicted in a Scottish Court; one was freed. Qadhafi said the other day, "Who is going to pay for this?" He is standing in front of that ruined portion of his compound that in 1986 the United States bombed. He says, "What compensation for these innocent lives?"

POWELL: We bombed that place because he had taken innocent American lives, and so let's not deceive ourselves as to the nature of that regime or the nature of that gentleman. And one of those two men up on trial was found guilty; the other was not found guilty. It was in a court of law that he agreed to participate in. And so now he has to come into compliance with the remaining elements of the UN resolution under which all that was held. And the remaining elements are compensation and acceptance of responsibility. This was a Libyan official who was found guilty for this dastardly act against that airplane, and the Libyan Government, in the form of Mr. Qadhafi, the government and Mr. Qadhafi are one and the same, have to accept responsibility. This isn't a U.S. position; this is a UN position. The U.S. has another set of sanctions and issues with Mr. Qadhafi.

DONALDSON: Secretary Powell, my time is up, but you are not off the hook. Cokie Roberts, in just a moment or two. And folks, I hope you'll stay with us for more with Secretary Powell and Cokie, right after this.

(Commercial break)

ROBERTS: We're back with Secretary of State Colin Powell. The President's first trip is scheduled to be to Mexico. Will that be the first trip?

POWELL: That will be the first trip on the 16th of February, and the President is looking forward to it very much, to visit President Fox's ranch.

ROBERTS: And is that your first foreign trip, as well?

POWELL: Yes.

ROBERTS: And President Fox has said that an open border, eventually, should operate between the United States and Mexico. Is that a reality, a possibility?

POWELL: I think in the long term one should hope that we reach a situation in this part of our world where there would be open borders, but I think that's far in the future. There are a number of issues with respect to the border, and these issues will be discussed at the meeting on the 16th. We've already had some discussions. I've met with the Mexican Foreign Minister, as has National Security Advisor Dr. Rice. So this will be an issue for discussion, clearly.

ROBERTS: Of course, one of those issues is drugs.

POWELL: Yes.

ROBERTS: And something else that President Fox has said is that we should just drop the whole drug certification question. And there are a lot of people in this country who think that it should be dropped as well, that it's just "phonied up," basically, every year to say that countries we like are meeting it and countries we don't like aren't. Should we keep it?

POWELL: Well, at the moment, it is the law of the land so we don't have a choice. But there are some in Congress who think that perhaps there are ways to make this a less onerous issue with respect to our bilateral relationship with Mexico, and I am discussion with members of Congress who think that might be a good idea. But, at the moment, it's the law of the land, and we have to act consistently with the law of the land. But I'm also sure this will be a subject for discussion on the 16th. And as I'm sure you know, in the drug war, as it is often called, it is not just supply and interdiction coming from south of us and through Mexico; it is the demand that we create for this, not only in the streets of our cities but in the Hamptons and lots of other places where U.S. citizens use drugs. If we could ever get that demand under control, we would solve problems in Mexico and Colombia and lots of other places.

ROBERTS: In Colombia, you have said that you would keep in place President Clinton's $1.3 billion aid package. What about American troops? There are American troops training in Colombia now.

POWELL: No, there are American troops who are helping Colombians, but there...

ROBERTS: Training Colombians.

POWELL: Training Colombians, right. And of course we have provided the helicopters as part of that $1.3 billion expenditure, and we do support that. What we have to look at now is a broader Andean strategy that includes more than Colombia, but all of the other nations around Colombia, because we don't want to push this problem from that particular valley into other countries.

ROBERTS: And is there a role for U.S. troops in there?

POWELL: I don't see a role for U.S. troops except in an advisory capacity from time to time. And we do have other resources that we could use to help our friends in the region, but not troops on the ground.

ROBERTS: And U.S. troops in the Balkans. That caused a lot of contention during the campaign. Do you plan to leave them there or get them out?

POWELL: As Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday at his meetings in Europe, we plan to discuss with our allies the proper balance of troops, both in Bosnia and Kosovo. There already are plans to gradually draw down the number of troops there...

ROBERTS: By a date certain?

POWELL: Well, no, not by a date certain. There were different levels, different tranches, but there is no exit date for the whole force, either in Bosnia and Kosovo. Those will be long-term commitments. Now, we're not...

ROBERTS: Long-term commitments, meaning...?

POWELL: Long-term commitments of NATO. The question is, what is the proper U.S. role, how many troops should remain for what...

ROBERTS: Is there a long-term U.S. commitment?

POWELL: We are committed to peace in the Balkans, both in Bosnia and Kosovo. And although we would like to see all the troops come out, ours and others, that is not going to be the case in the immediate future. The question is, do we need the kinds of troops we have there now, U.S. troops we have there now, in the numbers that are there now, or can we start to shift the kinds of troops...

ROBERTS: And what is the answer to that question?

POWELL: Well, that's what we're studying, and that's what Mr. Rumsfeld was doing in Europe yesterday, discussing with our allies. But we're going to do it in consultation with our allies. We're not cutting and running. We don't have a date certain where all U.S. troops come out. We understand that we went in with NATO and we can't simply walk out of NATO. We are part of a great alliance that we believe is still the bedrock of security in Europe, both politically and militarily. So we're going to consult with our allies. We also know that NATO already has plans to bring down the level of troops over time, just as they have from when they first went in. So there's no cut and run; consultation with our allies. We went in together, we understand our obligations, but we want to look at the right mix of troops and the overall level of troop presence in the Balkans.

ROBERTS: And when you say "long-term commitment," are you talking years, or are you talking months?

POWELL: I think NATO is going to be there in both places for years. The situation does not seem to indicate, to me anyway, that in the near future we can simply pull out all of the NATO troops and things will be fine.

ROBERTS: What about our troops in the Sinai? There have been recent reports that they are useless, bored, not trained.

POWELL: They've been there for, I guess, it's over 20 years now, and I think that's another area we should take a look at because they are essentially part of that original agreement which returned the Sinai to Egypt, and they are part of an observer force. And the size and composition of that force has changed over time, but it's another one of these missions we ought to take a look at, but we're not ready to cut and run there either. They may occasionally be bored (and I've been out there, I know how boring it can get) but they're performing a useful mission even if they are bored, and we have to be sure that that mission is fully accomplished before we talk about pulling them out. In a broader sense, we have to look at all the places where our troops are deployed, and that's what President Bush said he would do. Look at all of our deployments to see how many of them are really necessary and in what quantities of troops, to see if we can sort of reduce the number of troops that are churning through the system all the time, which gives us, subsequently, recruiting problems and other kinds of problems, retention problems, that Secretary Rumsfeld is working on.

ROBERTS: On another subject, your predecessor, Secretary Albright, called AIDS a national security problem. Do you agree with that?

POWELL: AIDS is a national security problem; it's an economic problem; it is a devastating problem, especially in Africa, in sub-Saharan Africa. Millions of people are at risk. Millions of people will die no matter what we do. And this creates a major problem for Africa and other parts of the world where AIDS is spreading. So it is a pandemic and it requires our attention. And the Congress has been generous. I will do everything I can to continue getting that support from Congress to fight this pandemic, and I think we all need to do more. It's not just a medical problem; it's destroying families; you're leaving children without providers.

ROBERTS: You talk about it being particularly horrendous in Africa, and during the campaign, when candidate Bush was asked about Africa, here is what he said. He said, "While Africa may be important, it doesn't fit into the national strategic interests as far as I can see them." Is that bad news for Africa in this Administration?

POWELL: No, quite the contrary. And I think the real context of that comment had to do with national security in its narrowest military sort of sense and where we have troops and where we have threats. There are no particular threats coming to us from Africa and no need for troops. But Africa will be important. I spent a pretty good piece of time during my first two weeks as Secretary involved in African affairs, and I've...

ROBERTS: Do you feel a particular connection here?

POWELL: Yes, yes, I am African. My roots are Africa. But my roots are mankind and womankind, so we cannot ignore any place in the world. And Africa is a huge continent in great need. There are some pockets of success and promise such as South Africa, now Nigeria and Senegal and Ghana and Burkina Faso, and there are terrible, terrible situations like the Congo and Sierra Leone. So we have to be engaged.

ROBERTS: Speaking of mankind and womankind, the President put back in place the ruling (the Mexico City language, it's called) that international family planning agencies' accounts for abortion are cut off from money. Some international health agencies say that this can hurt with AIDS education, STDs education. Do you have a concern about that?

POWELL: No. President Bush was consistent with his campaign pledge on this issue to go back to the Mexico policy that existed up until 1993, which essentially says that we're going to spend over $400 million a year on family planning, but we do not wish any of that money to go to organizations that advocate abortion or educate abortion.

ROBERTS: Do you agree with that?

POWELL: It is the policy. I have other views that are my personal views, but this is the policy of the Government. And it is consistent with President Bush's campaign promises, and it is consistent with the principles of the party that he represents.

ROBERTS: In the party that he represents, this past week we've had the confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General, and lots of conversation there about his views on race. Did you have views of that?

POWELL: I think John Ashcroft is a very distinguished gentleman, and I'm confident he'll do exactly what he said he would do during the confirmation hearings, and that is to apply the law in a fair, honest manner as appropriate.

ROBERTS: Now, you have come in as Secretary of State. You had a rousing acceptance at the Department, but you told people that if they didn't shape up, you were a general. And what would they have to do?

POWELL: They'd have to do push-ups.

(Laughter)

POWELL: I'm looking at Sam, you notice.

(Laughter)

ROBERTS: Was that well received by these diplomats?

POWELL: I've had a great opening two weeks. We have dedicated men and women in the State Department. The Foreign Service, the Civil Service, our Foreign Service Nationals, they're doing a terrific job for the American people, and I believe it's a privilege to have the opportunity to...

ROBERTS: And now you're still wearing your little red wagon. We have one here, America's Promise. You say you're going to still be pulling this wagon as Secretary of State?

POWELL: Yes. I can no longer be chairman of America's Promise, but I'm still the founding chairman so I will keep an interest in America's Promise. It's been very successful over the last three years, and it will continue to do great work, and there are some dedicated people who will make sure that continues to happen.

ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Thanks so much for being with us, Secretary Powell.

POWELL: Thank you.

Washington, D.C.
4 de febrero de 2001