*EPF403 01/15/2004
Transcript: Powell Says Results of Foreign Policy Efforts May Be Seen in 2004
(Suggests negative attitudes toward U.S. will change over time) (3060)

Secretary of State Colin Powell says 2004 may be the year that some of the foreign policy seeds laid out in the earlier years of the Bush administration will be harvested leading to a more peaceful world.

As the fourth year of President Bush's term unfolds, "you are starting to see the results of what we have been doing in foreign policy," Powell said during a January 14 radio interview co-produced by the BBC, Public Radio International and WGBH TV in Boston.

He said administration officials no longer face "the same kind of crisis situation at the beginning of 2004 that we did at the beginning of 2002, after 9/11, facing Afghanistan; as we did in the beginning of 2003, facing the Iraq crisis."

He said that the new year "has every possibility of being a year when we harvest some of the seeds we have laid out there which will lead us to a more peaceful world, a world with more freedom in it, a world where people understand that the United States and our foreign policy constitutes a force for good ... freedom ... for human rights. And I think that people will see that as this year unfolds."

While 2003 witnessed "a bad time in public diplomacy with respect to Iraq," Powell expressed confidence that the tide will "start turning." While acknowledging the need to do a better job presenting America's message to the world, he also suggested that negative attitudes toward the United States will change "in due course."

As people see that the United States is working hard around the world with partners and allies "to deal with situations such as in Libya ... Iran ... North Korea ... Sudan ... Afghanistan ... Iraq," he said, "I think people will understand that the United States has been acting on the basis of principle, we're interested in freedom, democracy, [and] human rights."

Asked about Iraq, Powell said the United States and the United Nations will help as the Iraqis determine the kind of democracy Iraq should have. The United States does not want to stay in Iraq, he continued. "And, as soon as they're able to stand on their own two feet, have their own government that they have decided upon and ... selected, and ... their own security forces, we'll be leaving," he added.

Asked if Iraq should be a model for the Persian Gulf and Middle East, he said: "there's a lot happening in that part of the world, and I think there's no reason that Iraq, with our assistance and the assistance of the international community, especially with [the] U.N. could not turn out to be the kind of democracy we would be proud of having helped create, and could serve as an example ... of what is possible."

Powell also discussed Russia's strategic weapons. He said the Russians "are not anxious to see any of their weapons turned loose on the world or put in the hands of a terrorist." They are behaving responsibly, he said, and the United States is helping financially to ensure the security of nuclear materials.

Following is the transcript of Powell's remarks:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
January 14, 2004

INTERVIEW

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
On World Radio with Lisa Mullins

January 14, 2004
Washington, D.C.

MS. MULLINS: OK, first off, it was a couple of years ago when you had said, and others have also said it, that Iraq -- I want to talk about that first -- that there will be not be a Jeffersonian democracy, and we shouldn't expect that.

I'm wondering now, after the war in Iraq, how sanguine you are about the level to which we can expect Iraq to become a democracy. At what level would you say is sufficient?

SECRETARY POWELL: I sense that the Iraqi people want to have a democracy. They've seen what a dictatorship is like, and it brought them nothing but mass graves, and a country that once was the most wealthy country in the region was reduced to bankruptcy. And so they want a democracy.

Now, it'll be up to the Iraqi people to determine the nature of that democracy. We're going to help them. We're going to talk to them about representation. We're going to talk about elections. The U.N. is going to help them. We're going to help them. And we should not expect it to be exactly like the Jeffersonian model, but there is no reason why the Iraqi people can't have a democracy where all of the different ethnic parts of Iraq are integrated into a whole, where all feel that they are adequately represented in their government.

MS. MULLINS: OK, let me give you what they may see as a couple of reasons. One is, I'm not sure what the -- what the calendar is like for the removal of U.S. troops, but with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops there now, soldiers in uniform, it's hard to believe that you're living in a democracy.

Also, I mean, it's a place, obviously, that was under the thumb of Saddam Hussein for so long. Is it important to you that Iraq be seen, eventually, as a model, as kind of a beacon in the Middle East for democracy?

SECRETARY POWELL: I would certainly hope that that turns out to be the case, and it can be the case.

Now, the reason we have such a large troop presence right now is that there are remnants of the old regime who don't want to see that happen. They want to deny the Iraqi people democracy. And we're going to stick with the Iraqi people, build up their own military and police forces so they can protect themselves.

We don't want to stay there as a -- and be seen as an occupation force. We went there to liberate the country. And as soon as they're able to stand on their own two feet, have their own government that they have decided upon and they have selected, and they have their own security forces, we'll be leaving.

MS. MULLINS: Will it be a model? Is that what you're hoping for?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, why wouldn't I want it to be a model? I mean, it is --

MS. MULLINS: I guess I should say, do you expect that?

SECRETARY POWELL: Sure. I would -- why -- we should work toward that end. We believe that lots of things are changing in the Persian Gulf and Middle East region. Libya has decided to give up its weapons of mass destruction. You can see a great, a large amount of churning taking place within Iran as the government is debating the nature of the next parliament with the religious leaders. Syria is measuring where it wants to be when this is all over.

So there's a lot happening in that part of the world, and I think there's no reason that Iraq, with our assistance and the assistance of the international community, especially with [the] U.N., could not turn out to be the kind of democracy we would be proud of having helped create, and could serve as an example, not a model to be copied, but an example of what is possible.

Democracy is not just something that a Western-oriented nation can have. There's no reason you can't have a democracy in that part of the world. There are democracies in that part of the world; Turkey, for example.

MS. MULLINS: The military victory in Iraq was decisive. The search for the weapons of mass destruction has not been -- at least not until now. When you spoke to the Security Council one year ago, you told them that based on the evidence, not on conjecture, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons stocks and biological weapons capability to rapidly produce more. That's not an exact quote, by the way.

What was wrong with the intelligence that you were given?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know that there was anything wrong with the intelligence. We are still looking. We are still searching. The one thing that was absolutely clear is that he had the intention to have such weapons and he had programs to develop such weapons.

What we weren't sure about is how many such weapons he actually had. But we had every reason to believe that he had such weapons, and so did every other intelligence agency among the major nations of the world, and so did the previous administration, and so did the United Nations for many years as they kept passing resolutions telling him to come clean.

MS. MULLINS: So are you convinced that we did not go to war on faulty assumptions?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, we went to war because this was a despotic regime that had weapons of mass destruction, had programs to have more, never lost the intention to have such weapons; and if they ever got out from under U.N. sanctions, there could be no doubt that they would have rebuilt those stocks; and have used such weapons.

I mean, people say, "Well, how bad were they?" Well, they gassed 5,000 people on a March day in 1988. Now, if you want to leave that same person in charge and go along in the naïve belief that he wouldn't do it again or create that capability again, or try to maintain such a capability, you could do so. But we gave him a chance. The resolution that we fought for and got out of the United Nations in the fall of 2002 said turn it all in, make a declaration of what you have, and then let us check it. And he did not give an honest declaration, and he signed his own warrant at that time.

QUESTION: Yeah. I think a lot of people have questions as to why Saddam Hussein acted the way he did, if he did not have weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the search is still on for them.

Has the intelligence so far, though, that has -- that some see as being faulty, has that hurt you as the nation's top diplomat, probably as the world's top diplomat, as you talk with other world leaders?

I mean, China, this week -- I don't know if you saw the article in The Washington Post -- was quoted as saying, basically, we're not even sure that U.S. intelligence on what North Korea has in terms of enriching uranium is accurate. Do you feel as though U.S. intelligence now will be more rigorously scrutinized?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we are always rigorously scrutinizing our intelligence. And the Chinese, what they have said, with respect to North Korea is that the United States believes, and I still -- correctly -- we still believe correctly, that the North Koreans were pursuing highly enriched uranium programs. And they acknowledged it to us when we have said to them, "We think you're doing this." And they said, "Yes, we are."

Now, they have backed off since then, but whom would you rather believe: the North Koreans or our intelligence? I suggest you want to believe our intelligence. The Chinese don't have independent intelligence on the matter, which is what I think the Chinese representative was saying.

No, I don't find that my credibility has been undercut by this. The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein had the intention, he had the capability, he had the programs. Many of the charges we have levied against him was that he did not account for what we knew he had, what he could have, and there were a lot of differences. There were a lot of unknowns that he refused to account for.

And the President of the United States said we cannot go into the future with this kind of unknown; if he doesn't account for it, then he's in violation, a material breach of the resolution.

QUESTION: But we said he had the weapons, though.

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, yeah.

QUESTION: Not just that he once did and -- or VX gas, I guess. I mean --

SECRETARY POWELL: We think he had weapons. We have not been able to find those weapons, and we'll continue to look at our intelligence. But let us not suggest that because we haven't found a huge stockpile in a particular warehouse that we are operating on faulty assumptions. The assumptions were that this was a regime with intention, capability and with programs and, we believed at that time and still have reason to believe, weapons.

QUESTION: There is very good news on two fronts on proliferation. You mentioned them both. Iran has agreed to intrusive inspections of nuclear facilities. Libya has even pledged to scrap its nuclear weapons program. We do know, though, that there exists in Russia, in Kazakhstan and other places, at least, just specifically in Russia, 20,000 nuclear weapons, 1,000 tons of nuclear bomb material stored in Russia alone. Of course, the worry is that they could be accessed by a terrorist.

The U.S. is safeguarding them by spending -- correct me if I'm wrong -- $650 million a year on that. Compare that, which is obviously a real threat, to the $1 billion on Iraq that the U.S. is spending this year. Is the U.S. doing enough to secure what seems to be a terrifying threat?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I don't know that it is a terrifying threat. I have worked with the Russians for many years, both as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as the National Security Advisor in President Reagan's administration. They understand the importance and the seriousness associated with protecting their nuclear weapons stockpiles, and we are assisting them through our Nunn-Lugar programs and other similar programs. It's a good investment to make sure that that material remains under tight control.

And the Russians are not anxious to see any of their weapons turned loose on the world or put in the hands of a terrorist. So they are acting responsibly, we are helping them, and we are helping them with financial support.

Ultimately, we want to see all of those stockpiles removed and go down. And that's one of the reasons we entered into the Treaty of Moscow with the Russian Federation that will significantly reduce the size of those stockpiles.

QUESTION: So when you say you're not sure that it's a real threat, you're saying because you think the stockpiles are sufficiently safeguarded?

SECRETARY POWELL: I have seen nobody to suggest that the stockpiles are not safeguarded. I have not heard of a single -- I have not heard of a single Russian nuclear weapon that has left their stockpile and gotten in the hands of anyone. There are occasional reports of such things, but the Russians view this seriously. Why would any Russian leader not do everything he could to protect those stockpiles? They're doing that. And where they lack capability to do it or need help, we have been working with them.

QUESTION: When we spoke to you last year, you had said that the U.S. is working hard to improve our public diplomacy efforts. We've heard from a Pew poll -- you've probably heard this as well -- Indonesia, one of the countries represented there, which we are counting on in the war on terror, we've gone from a 61 percent favorable rating to the United States now down 15 percent. Just one example. You know the others.

Does that worry you?

SECRETARY POWELL: Sure it worries me, but I think it's going to start turning. We had a bad time in public diplomacy with respect to Iraq last year. There are a number of countries that did not think we were doing the right thing. Many more countries thought we were and joined us in that coalition.

And I think as people see that the United States is working hard with partners and alliances around the world to deal with situations such as in Libya, in Iran, in North Korea, the work we're doing to bring peace to the Sudan, when they see that Afghanistan is now -- has a constitution, is heading toward democratic elections, when they see the same sort of process unfold in Iraq, I think people will understand that the United States has been acting on the basis of principle, we're interested in freedom, democracy, [and]human rights. And I think we will change those attitudes in due course. At the same time, we have to do a better job of presenting our message to the world.

QUESTION: There are a lot of people here I talked to at the State Department who -- you are very well admired here. They want you to stay. There are some Americans who feel as though you are the voice of reason in the administration. Are you going to be staying?

SECRETARY POWELL: The only answer to that question is that all of us in government serve at the pleasure of the president. It is my pleasure to serve this president, to serve my country once again. The president is doing a magnificent job, and as we enter this fourth year of his first term, you are starting to see the results of what we have been doing in foreign policy.

We don't face the same kind of crisis situation at the beginning of 2004 that we did at the beginning of 2002, after 9/11, facing Afghanistan; as we did in the beginning of 2003, facing the Iraq crisis.

So now I think 2004 has every possibility of being a year when we harvest some of the seeds we have laid out there which will lead us to a more peaceful world, a world with more freedom in it, a world where people understand that the United States and our foreign policy constitutes a force for good, a force for freedom, a force for human rights. And I think that people will see that as this year unfolds.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, nice to speak to you.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents