*EPF304 11/24/2004
Transcript: Powell Sees International Commitment to Support Iraq
(Secretary speaks to journalists following Sharm el-Sheikh conference) (7060)

The international community has demonstrated its commitment to help Iraq move toward democratic elections and to prevent the country from slipping into the hands of the insurgents, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"What we are trying to do is to defeat an insurgency, have all the neighbors come together, and vow, as they did today, to not allow terrorists and terrorist financing and weapons to come across the border, to help with humanitarian aid and to assist the Iraqi people in this difficult time," Powell said in an interview after the Iraq Neighbors Conference November 23 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

A primary goal of the conference was to obtain commitments from Iraq's neighbors to tighten their border controls in order to prevent insurgents and foreign fighters from passing into or out of the country. This is a major concern as Iraq prepares for January 30, 2005, elections to create a new national assembly.

"It will be a moment of high tension because there are still these insurgents who don't want to see elections, who don't want the Iraqi people to decide how they will be governed," Powell said. "They want to do the governing. They want to go back to the past. They want to go back to the great old days of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people don't want to go there, and the international community isn't going to let it happen. That's one of the messages that came out of the conference that we're finishing here in Sharm El Sheikh."

Powell said that the Iraqi authorities are making progress in getting people to register for the elections and encouraging parties to form candidate lists. He said that he was encouraged to see the Iraqis preparing themselves "to compete, not on the battlefield, but to compete at the ballot box."

The secretary said that the best way to build stability and security in the country is to stand up more Iraqi security forces. He said that coalition troops need to stay in Iraq until the Iraqi forces are capable of protecting their institutions and their citizens, but he declined to speculate how long that might be.

"We want our troops to leave as quickly as possible. But what we want to leave in place is a government that is resting on a foundation of democracy, that has had elections, that has a constitution in place, that has a government that represents the people," he said.

Powell laid the blame for the confrontation in Fallujah squarely on the insurgents who had taken over the city. He characterized them as criminals and murderers.

"And what were they doing in Fallujah? Were they rebuilding hospitals? Were they picking up the trash? No. In Fallujah, they were sending out people with car bombs, and people to go to other cities in Iraq and cause trouble," he said.

Following are transcripts of three Powell interviews:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Shannon, Ireland)
November 23, 2004

INTERVIEW

SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL
WITH HUSSEIN ABDEL GHANI OF AL JAZEERA

QUESTION: Thank you very much Mr. Colin Powell for receiving us and giving us this interview.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you. It's a pleasure.

QUESTION: Do you, the U.S. administration, aim through this conference to enforce international legal legitimacy for the results of a war for which you were not able to win international legitimacy for waging in the first place?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. This conference was for the purpose of bringing all of Iraq's neighbors together and the international community to help Iraq continue down the path that was laid out in UN Resolution 1546. UN Resolution 1546, last June, set out a legitimate path to where the Iraqis could achieve their democracy. And what we have been doing since then is bringing the international community together. Remember that the resolution passed unanimously? So there is legitimacy to this process. The Iraqi interim government is legitimate. Now we want to make it more legitimate with a real election in January. What we are trying to do is to defeat an insurgency, have all the neighbors come together, and vow, as they did today, to not allow terrorists and terrorist financing and weapons to come across the border, to help with humanitarian aid and to assist the Iraqi people in this difficult time.

QUESTION: Why are you constantly rejecting all attempts to set a definite deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq? And are you willing to make this definite framework after the election in Iraq or even before it?

SECRETARY POWELL: The issue of troops in Iraq, coalition troops in Iraq, is dealt with in UN Resolution in 1546. It says that a year after the Resolution, in June of next year that matter will be reviewed but it will also be reviewed when the new transnational government takes over after the election in January. And we have said all along. If the legitimate government of Iraq ever asks us to leave, we will leave.

But it is not reasonable to set an artificial timelines and say coalition troops will be gone by next June or be gone by next February. You have to see what the situation is on ground. We want our troops to leave as quickly as possible. But what we want to leave in place is a government that is resting on a foundation of democracy, that has had elections, that has a constitution in place, that has a government that represents the people, and we want to see Iraqi forces built up so that they can protect their country and protect their new democracy and protect their people. And then it will be time for the coalition to leave. We will be there for as long as the Iraqi people, the Iraqi Interim Government, says they need us. We hope it won't be long, but we're not going to leave until the job is done.

QUESTION: How would you allow international legitimacy, represented by the United Nations, to play the main role in supervising the elections and political processes in Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, first of all, the political process right now is in the hands of the Iraqi Interim Government So the Iraqi people are in charge of their own political process in accordance with the transitional administrative law that Iraqi leaders passed and in accordance with UN resolutions.

The United Nations is present in Iraq now, and it's growing in size -- its presence is growing -- in order to help the Iraqis conduct an election in January. But it is the Iraqis, their election commission, that is passing out the registration material now, getting people to register, getting parties to register, creating voting party lists. All of that is being done by the Iraqi government, the Iraqi election commission, with the assistance of the U.N. So the UN is playing a vital role. But the UN helps nations to go through these elections; it's the nation itself that arranges them and conducts them and I am pleased at the progress that the Iraqi Interim government is making in getting ready for these elections.

QUESTION: Do you feel victorious because the conference followed the American scenario by eliminating all representations of the Iraqi opposition?

SECRETARY: Not at all. This isn't an American scheme. It wasn't an American design and plan. The Iraqi Interim government represents the people of Iraq, so they are here representing all the people of Iraq. You don't have an international conference of this type and have opponents to the government or opposition leaders come to such a conference.

Now one of the things that was discussed at this conference is the need for the Iraqi Interim government to reach out to opposition forces inside Iraq and bring them together and talk about the election coming up.

But you can't talk to opposition forces who have taken to the use of arms or using car bombs and other sorts of weaponry to defeat the Iraqi Interim government or to kill innocent civilians. This is not a legitimate opposition. So the Iraqi Interim government, and this was discussed at the conference, will be seeking ways to talk to all segments of Iraqi society, to talk to all opposition leaders. There is a great deal of debate going on in Iraq now as different parties put together the lists of candidates for the national assembly. It is very exciting for me to see the Shias organize themselves to create party lists, to see how the Sunnis are approaching it, and how the Kurds are approaching it, and how other groups in the country are coming together to determine how they will participate in the election. We should be happy about the fact that Iraqis are interested in this election and they are registering, and they are forming themselves politically in order to compete, not on the battlefield, but to compete at the ballot box at the end of January.

QUESTION: Is it possible that you would agree to the demands put forward by the Iraqi opposition? For example, postponing elections for six months, allowing major political figures like the Sunnis to participate and a fact-finding mission about what is going on in Fallujah and other cities of Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: There is no point in delaying the election. The UN Resolution calls for the election to be held no later than 30 of January 2005. The Iraqi electoral commission has announced that elections will be held on that day, January 30th, 2005. Everybody at the conference today believes it is important that we try to move forward and have elections at that time. Mr. Zebari, the foreign minister representing the government, made clear today that the government is committed to going forward to elections on January 30th, 2005.

With respect to Fallujah, this was a difficult situation. Insurgents had taken over the town. There was no civil control. The government could not control the town. Criminals had taken it over. Murderers had taken it over. And what were they doing in Fallujah? Were they rebuilding hospitals? Were they picking up the trash? No. In Fallujah, they were sending out people with car bombs, and people to go to other cities in Iraq and cause trouble. We tried to find a political solution. Prime Minister Allawi worked for weeks trying to find a peaceful, political solution to the problem of Fallujah. But no nation can act as a nation if you have a city like Fallujah that is totally in the hands of criminal elements. And so finally it was necessary to use military force. And our troops went into Fallujah with Iraqi troops, and they broke this insurgency up in Fallujah. Some of the insurgents have gone elsewhere. Many of them were killed in the battle.

We regret any damage that was caused to civilian facilities and especially to mosques. But the tragedy with respect to mosques is that these insurgents were using these sacred places, mosques -- as sacred to Islam as a church might be to me as a Christian -- they were using these places to store weapons, to conduct ambushes, to keep people hostages. This had to be dealt with. And now that the insurgents have been removed from these mosques, we've found some 60 mosques that had weapons inside of them. But now that that has been dealt with, we're going to do everything we can to assist in the repair of the mosques and correct any damage that was done as a result of this effort. But the blame should be placed where the blame belongs, and that's upon the insurgents, the former elements of Saddam Hussein's regime who are trying to take the Iraqi people back into the past and not into a brighter future.

QUESTION: Thank you, your Excellency.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Shannon, Ireland)
November 23, 2004

INTERVIEW

SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL WITH CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR OF CNN

Hyatt Hotel
Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
November 23, 2004

QUESTION: Thank you for joining us.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, Christiane.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about Iraqi elections first? If the idea is to create a democratic truly representative government that will also help quell the insurgency, and if the Sunni part of the country, for whatever reason, cannot participate, does that not defeat the purpose of the elections?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are working on the assumption that we can bring control to the Sunni parts of the country; that's why we were determined to free Fallujah from the insurgency. And so there are still sixty plus days to go before we get to the election, and it is our intention to create conditions throughout the whole countryside so that all parts of Iraq can participate in the election. Fifteen of the eighteen provinces are OK now. And so we want to keep moving down that road to give everyone the opportunity to participate in the election. And that's the purpose of our military strategy as well as our political and diplomatic strategy.

QUESTION: What happens if they can't? If despite your best efforts, the Sunni dominated areas can't?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the Iraqi government and election commission will have to make a judgment at that point, but we're going under the assumption that we're going to be able to, and I think that that's a safe assumption to go on right now. We have significant forces over there and the Iraqi forces are growing larger and stronger by the day and hopefully we'll be able to impose order in the Sunni triangle so the Sunni people, the Sunni citizens, have the same opportunity as all the others.

QUESTION: Given the doctrine that bears your name of overwhelming strength, and given how difficult it's been the postwar phase, to stabilize Iraq, how difficult that's proven to be, would the US not have been better off to listen to the army chief of staff, General Shinseki who said that it needed hundreds of thousands of troops in the postwar phase.

SECRETARY POWELL: Well I don't know the deliberations took place in the Pentagon. General Shinseki made his statement before a congressional committee in response to a question. I'm not sure what the actual process was within the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the office of the secretary of defense.

The issue right now though is to get more forces in places, and the best way to do that is to build up the Iraqi forces as quickly as possible. So once we realize that it's going to take a higher density of troops to deal with the whole country, we put in General Petraeus, one of our best generals, to take sole charge of the build up of the Iraqi forces. And the Iraq battalions, who are the active army for the National Guard, they're coming along at a much greater rate now, and you will see a significant increase in the Iraqi presence. The solution to the problem of security, ultimate, are the Iraqi forces, police forces, border patrol forces, the lines of communication protection forces, and the army imposing order on the country. Also, bringing down the insurgency: The insurgency I don't think can afford many more battles like Fallujah. They lost a lot of people. They lost a lot of weapons. We've got into their command and control system; we know a lot more about this insurgency. So they're paying a price for their activities.

QUESTION: And yet the insurgency is still active, Mosul, we've seen that it is active elsewhere, there's still been violence. Also the Iraqi forces are nowhere near the forces that are required yet. Experts now are calling for more U.S. troops now. Since stabilizing Iraq for the elections and quelling the insurgency is obviously so important, is now not a good time, do you think, to add more U.S. troops right now?

SECRETARY POWELL: There are many experts who offer many expert opinions. I will leave it up to our commanders on the ground to make a judgment as to what they think they need in the way of forces. General Casey is over there. He's a very skilled commander and I'm sure he is making his assessment on the ground, talking to the Iraqis, and talking to General Petraeus. He knows the rate at which those Iraqi battalions are coming out of training, and if he needs more forces then I'm sure he'll communicate that to Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary Rumsfeld will take it to the president. At the moment, I think they believe that they have taken the right decisions with respect to force levels all the way through the election period.

QUESTION: So, I'm drawing on now your experiences as a general, as a commander, of the former Joint Chiefs, I know a lot gets put on the back of the commanders there. But looking back, do you think General Shinseki was right when he said it would be, from your perspective...

SECRETARY POWELL: From my perspective, the insurgency took on life faster than anyone had anticipated and it became more aggressive than we anticipated. The reasons for that I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, once it became clear that was what was happening, then we started to adjust to it. Remember, we thought we'd be down to a hundred thousand by sometime in the Fall. But we didn't go down to a hundred thousand, we stayed up at about a hundred and thirty-eight thousand. So in effect, we adjusted our plans last fall in light of the insurgency. We just didn't keep marching out. We stopped and turned around and faced the insurgency. And then as you recall, we also added to our force strength, and then went about expediting the training of Iraqi forces.

So even though we all were taken aback by the extent of the insurgency last year, we have been adjusting to it ever since. But it is a difficult problem. Insurgencies are not easy to put down. But I'm confident that the gifted commanders we have over there, and the political strategy we have, and the determination of the Iraqi interim government to deal with it, will lead us to success in the end.

QUESTION: On the Middle East peace process, if the Palestinians take the steps that you and others say are vital for them to take, do you think it's necessary for the Israelis to do things like free settlements, dismantle illegal outposts, release prisoners, in order for them to show that they're serious for these upcoming elections.

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. I think that both sides have obligations under the Road Map. I came away from my visits in Jerusalem and Jericho yesterday, with the Israelis and Palestinians, encouraged that both sides know that they will have to take steps. We want to make these modest steps initially. A lot of trust has to be rebuilt. But Chairman Arafat is not there any longer. He's no longer an obstacle on either side.

And so the key is to focus on the election on nine January to make sure the Palestinian people and Palestinian candidates are able to move around in order to present their candidacy to the electorate and then to have an election on the ninth January where people are free to go vote and to deal with the problem of Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

So I sense that both sides want to move forward. And I'm confident that if they have good cooperation and a good election on the ninth of January, then conditions will be created- assuming that there's also no increase in terrorism- conditions will be created that they can start to move more aggressively down the Road Map. Now down that Road Map, we're talking about ending settlement activities, removal of the outposts, which, frankly, we would have hoped, would have been removed by now and the issue of prison releases I'm sure will be back on the table too. It's an important issue for the Palestinians.

QUESTION: So very briefly, because I know we don't have too much time, but you don't think that things like freezing settlements, prison release, have to be done as sort of confidence building measures before the elections.

SECRETARY POWELL: I would like to see this kind of activity take place, but I'm not sure we'll get everything that people would like before the election. We're just starting a new relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis. They're talking to one another. They're coordinating. I was impressed by the way in which they handled the Arafat funeral, that they were able to come to agreement as to where he should be buried. They were able to put in place a security arrangement with the Israelis standing back and letting the Palestinians handle the security at Ramallah. This built up some trust between the two sides. We want to build that trust so that we have this election on the ninth of January in a successful manner, and from there many other things can happen. But we don't want to rush the process or place too many demands on either side that can't be met and we once again face total frustration and no progress.

QUESTION: On Iran, you said last week, I believe, that you had seen intelligence that showed you the Iranians were, quote, "working hard to achieve a nuclear tipped missile." We asked the Iranian foreign minister last night, and he said that America needs to be very sure of what its saying in terms of its intelligence, mindful of your presentation at the Security Council on Iraq WMD, which didn't turn out to be the case. Are you any more confident about what you've just accused Iraq of than you were about what you accused- rather Iran.

SECRETARY POWELL: It's not so much about a matter of an accusation. It's a matter of fairly common knowledge that Iran has worked on long-range missiles for a long period of time. It is also a matter that I think is generally accepted that they have tried to improve the capability of their missiles to reach further and further away from Iran. Now, you don't build an expensive missile with that kind of capability just to shoot a high explosive warhead, which has limited accuracy.

And so I think that over time the kinds of missile development that Iran has been involved in and some recent information that I have seen, suggest to me that it is part of a broader program that could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. They don't have it yet. But if, as we suspect, they have been working on nuclear weapons' development. And I mean the EU-3 is engaged with Iran because they had the same suspicion. The IAEA found out things that they didn't know about and they had the same suspicion. That's why such a spotlight is being put on Iran right now. But if it is the fact that they were working on this capability to have a warhead, then it seems to me quite logical to assume they were working on a means to deliver such a warhead. With respect to Iraq, the information that we presented with respect to missile developments, and what they were trying to do with missiles turns out have been accurate. It's the stockpile presentation that we made that turned out not to be accurate.

QUESTION: Do you think that if this uranium suspension, do you think that if it turns out to work, the Iranian commitment right now to suspend enriching uranium, will the U.S. get fully behind the European effort?

SECRETARY POWELL: We're fully behind the European effort now. I had...

QUESTION: Your spokesman said you were agnostic on it.

SECRETARY POWELL: I have been involved with it from the very beginning. I know every position they've taken. They've shared with me all of their presentations to the Iranians, and they've told me directly and my associates what they heard in return. So we followed it. But we thought it best to let the Europeans do it, and we stand back to see how the Iranians responded. I'm not sure the Iranians would have welcomed us to be a part of that anyway.

We also had to be somewhat agnostic because the Europeans got a similar deal, in the Fall of 2003, and got a suspension, only to see the Iranians back away from that when we got into 2004. So now the European Union has another arrangement with the Iranians, with tougher verification regime associated with it. The IAEA will be going in to monitor all of this. That's good. We support it. But, keep in mind it's still just- in the eyes of the Iranians- a suspension. And a suspension means that they can turn it back on. We want it to be turned off permanently. And hopefully with more time and discussion we can come to that point.

QUESTION: Can I ask you one last question?

SECRETARY POWELL: Sure.

QUESTION: You are and have been one of the most popular figures in the United States. Certainly many leaders around the world are doing the diplomatic equivalent of wailing and gnashing of teeth right now at your departure, seeing you as the moderating voice in foreign policy over the last four years. If, even you couldn't moderate the instincts of, lets say, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who can do it?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well the only one I've tried to advise is the president of the United States, along with Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney and Dr. Rice; we all have responsibility to advise the president. And the decisions that the president makes constitutes our foreign policy. And if you look at what he has done, it has been a foreign policy of reaching out to allies, it's been a foreign policy of partnership- the expansion of NATO, the expansion of the European Union that we worked on. The multilateral approach we're taking to Iran. We don't want American armies marching on Tehran. We're working with the EU-3, we're working with the IAEA. ...

QUESTION: Will there be?

SECRETARY POWELL: The approach...of course not. The approach we took- we never take any option off of the table- but, you see, why would you suggest that? You don't know of any....What we're doing is, we're multilateralizing this, the thing we're often accused of not doing. And then when we work within a multilateral framework, we're sometimes accused of not doing it unilaterally. Korea. President decided that he would engage all of Korea's neighbors, North Korea's neighbors, in this nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula. And that's what we've done. China, South Korea, Japan, Russia the United States all working with North Korea. That's the president's approach: Try to find diplomatic solutions, political solutions.

The Iraq problem, we took to the United Nations and got a powerful resolution, 1441. Seven weeks of negotiations, seven weeks of my life, arguing over language. And unfortunately, the UN would not subsequently act on the consequences associated with that resolution so we took action with a coalition of the willing.

So the president really has reached out with his HIV/AIDS programs, with what he's done on development assistance, with what he's done with free trade agreements, and WTO activity. This has been an administration that has reached out to partners, allies, friends. We've gotten Libya to de-nuclearize itself. We have worked to get Charles Taylor out of Liberia. We are helping with the UN effort in Haiti. And I could go on and on, but you don't want me to go on and on....

QUESTION: I could to. I could ask you many many more follow up questions...

SECRETARY POWELL: ....We could go on and on. But the fact of the matter is, when people talk about American unilateralism or the unilateralism of this administration, there's only one real good example of that, in the eyes of these people, as they would define it and that is, Iraq. But Iraq was a case where there was U.N. instructions with respect to behavior of Iraq, and we did go in with a coalition of like-minded nations. But in all of the other challenges that we have faced, the president has tried to reach out to friends and allies, and I think he has done that rather successfully and he hasn't gotten enough credit for it. And he does that as a person in charge of our foreign policy with a broad range of advice that he receives from all of us. And I'm confident that when Dr. Rice becomes secretary of state and works with all of our friends and allies and other institutions around the world, she'll be giving her advice to him from that perspective, and the president will continue to be served by a broad range of advice from people who have strong opinions.

QUESTION: Thank you for joining us.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, Christiane.

Interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Hyatt Hotel
Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
November 23, 2004

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, thank you for doing this interview. You had dinner last night with the Iranian foreign minister, how was that?

SECRETARY POWELL: Very pleasant. We just happened to be seated next to each other, at the instigation, I suspect, of our Egyptian host. And we made polite dinner conversation.

QUESTION: Talked about anything substantively at all?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, it was mostly polite dinner conversation. It was pleasant.

QUESTION: The Egyptians...

SECRETARY POWELL: No reason to be discourteous, even though sometimes you disagree about some issues.

QUESTION: The Egyptians say that both of you agreed to it. Did they seating assignments to both of you?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, I never was aware of the seating arrangement until I walked in there, and I saw that he was going to be sitting next to me and that was fine by me. And then he showed up a few minutes late and saw where his place was and sat down, shook hands and enjoyed dinner and made polite conversation.

QUESTION: Now, the United States stands virtually alone in the world as a country that has no diplomatic ties with Iran. Is it time at some point to re-think that?

SECRETARY POWELL: In due course, but I think there is a history here, a twenty-five year history of difficult relations with Iran. I think many nations in the world recognize that Iran presents problems to the international community. Its nuclear weapons development program which we think they have working on all of these years. Their support of terrorist activity and other activities that we have found to be inconsistent with their obligations as a member of the international community. And the United States has not turned away or shied away from pointing out the problems that we have seen in Iranian behavior. I think it's appropriate for us to do so. Many nations agree with us. Many nations do not, they think we are overreacting. They thought we were overreacting during the first couple of years of this administration when we called attention to their nuclear programs. Finally, the International Atomic Energy Agency got evidence of it and dissidents started providing information that made it clear the Iranians were doing things that the world did not know about and were troubling. That is why the European Union got involved and the three foreign ministers got involved. They didn't get involved because there was nothing else to do that day. They got involved because they realized there was a problem with Iran's programs.

QUESTION: But you think, in due course, it would make sense to revisit the idea of talking directly to Iran?

SECRETARY POWELL: In due course, that might turn out to be the case. But I am not predicting anything at this point. We will have to see changes in behavior. It is not in the best interest of international relations for there to be a permanent enmity or animosity between two states. But conditions have to be present before you can simply walk away, not only the twenty-five year history, but current behavior that we believe is inconsistent with their obligation with respect to terrorism, support of organizations such as Hizbollah and their nuclear programs.

QUESTION: After all we do have relations with other countries with which we have grave concerns about?

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. Some we do. Some we don't. We don't have relations with North Korea. We have concerns about their program there. We have relations with Syria and we have some differences with Syria. So it's not a cookie cutter world that we live in. And I have found in my career as Secretary of State, before that as Chairman and as National Security Advisor, that each one of these presents a different set of circumstances, a different set of political issues, diplomatic issues that you have to work with, each one bringing its own history to the situation.

QUESTION: The United States has said that a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable. So what's the tipping point? At what point does the U.S. need to consider military action to stop Iran from getting the bomb?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the United States has all of its options open. We are not considering any military action. We think that the last several years, as a result really of the United States' prodding, the United States' nagging the international community, we have put a spotlight and a heat lamp on Iran's programs. The EU-3 -- and I support what they have done- have now come forward with a new agreement from the Iranians that they will stop all of this effort. After running through a quick batch of yellowcake to produce [inaudible] in a hurry before they had to stop running the programs and that IAEA will verify that. That's good. That's a spotlight, the heat lamp that puts some restraints on what they are doing.

But they've made commitments in the past that they would suspend. Remember this is only a suspension, which means that it's at their choice as to whether they will start these enrichment and conversion activities again in the future. So I think that's a way of bringing international attention to this.

And so we're looking for a diplomatic solution, we're looking for a political solution. We hope that Iran will realize in due course that it is not in their interest to move in the direction of a nuclear weapon or a program that could lead to a weapons. I am pleased that the EU-3 is involved. I'm pleased that the IAEA is involved. I am pleased that the Russians have realized that it is best to provide fuel for the reactor at Bushehr, to make sure that all the spent fuel coming out is recovered and sent back to the Russian Federation, so it doesn't become misused, shall we say. So the international community is seized with this problem and is applying pressure on Iran. And hopefully, ultimately, Iran will discover, decide, in its own time that it is best not to move forward with this matter.

QUESTION: Moving to the Palestinian and Israeli issue. Marwan Barghouti, you talked a little bit about while you were in the region, some people see him as a Palestinian Nelson Mandela, a popular Palestinian leader. The Israelis say he is a murderer, who is responsible for the deaths of twenty-six Israelis, at least. Who is right?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, he has been convicted by the Israeli government, and he is serving a sentence. He is esteemed in the Palestinian community, but at the moment he is serving a sentence in jail. It is not clear to me if that he is interested in being a candidate in the first place. And so the Palestinians are going to have to make their judgment as to who they wish to see offered a candidacy for president of the Palestinian Authority.

I am pleased that they and the Israelis are working together now to see that there is a good election on the 9th of January and the Israelis have said that they would allow movement to take place within the territories so that people can campaign, so people can get out and vote when the time comes. I am also pleased that Palestinians and Israelis have found a way to deal with the problem of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem so that they have an opportunity to express their will at the ballot box.

QUESTION: If Barghouti runs, many people think he will win because he is a popular with the Palestinians. Could the United States deal with somebody ...?

SECRETARY POWELL: You choose to focus on Mr. Barghouti. I don't even know that he is a candidate. I am focusing on those who are, now, offering themselves up for candidacy and are members of the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian governing body and political parties who are now examining what the possibilities of their winning such an election are. Mr. Barghouti who, as I said, is in the custody of the Israeli government.

QUESTION: OK, moving to Iraq then. Some Pentagon officials are saying that they believe that the Iraqi security forces simply will not be ready to do what they are supposed to do in terms of providing security for the election. What do we do if that is the case, and how did we get into this situation where the Iraqi security forces are still so inadequate?

SECRETARY POWELL: It takes time to build a force normally. And in the case of Iraq, you're building an army at the same time you're building a police force at the same time you're building up border patrols and a lot of other security institutions that are needed for a country. And it isn't just a matter of giving somebody two weeks' training in a rifle and you have an army. So it will take time to build this force up.

We fully expect at the time of the elections, the 30th of January, there will be a significantly larger number of Iraqi troops in the field, Iraqi battalions in the field. But there will still be a need for coalition forces, for the multinational force, to be present. So between the multinational force presence and the ground strength and the growing size of the Iraqi security forces, hopefully that will be enough to provide the security that the countryside is going to need to have elections on the 30th of January, 2005.

QUESTION: Pentagon officials are also saying that they may need a larger troop presence in time for the elections.

SECRETARY POWELL: That's a judgment they'll have to make and maybe they will. I don't know. There is always a Pentagon official somewhere and there is always a State Department official somewhere who has a point of view. But I know that the commander on the ground, General Casey, is examining with somebody on a regular basis and he will provide his recommendations to General Myers, who will then provide them to Secretary Rumsfeld, and he to the president. And they will make their judgment as to what troop strength they need there at that particular time.

It will be a moment of high tension because there are still these insurgents who don't want to see elections, who don't want the Iraqi people to decide how they will be governed. They want to do the governing. They want to go back to the past. They want to go back to the great old days of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people don't want to go there, and the international community isn't going to let it happen. That's one of the messages that came out of the conference that we're finishing here in Sharm El Sheikh. And so I am sure that our military commanders, working with Ambassador Negroponte, and providing recommendations back to Washington, both to Defense and to State, will determine what the proper force level is to make sure they can have this election safely at the end of January.

QUESTION: But do you think we made a mistake early on in terms of not acting decisively in stopping the insurgents right after the war? I mean, many were saying we need more troops. We need more and more decisive action.

SECRETARY POWELL: There is a great deal of looking back as to what might have been done differently. I will say that we did not anticipate the insurgency growing as large as it has or as active as it has. But it is always easy to look back and to see those things in hindsight.

It was a decisive win on the battlefield by the coalition forces, led by American forces, and with British, Australian and Polish forces involved, actually defeated this enemy in Iraq at the time. But the actual occupation of the whole country was a much more difficult proposition. And we didn't anticipate, perhaps, the total collapse of the civil and security administration forces that took place.

QUESTION: Finally, I saw you say earlier this year: Colin Powell will not write a tell- all book. So, what do you say? Will you write a book?

SECRETARY POWELL: I have no plans to write a book. I want to retire and get a little rest and then examine what my options are. I intend to be seen in public life in some capacity and not necessarily in government. But I intend expect to remain in public life, but also have a private life as well. I'm looking forward to it. Maybe at some point in the future, I will write a book, but I can assure you I am not in touch with any publishers at the moment.

QUESTION: All right, Secretary Powell, thank you very much.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thanks, Jonathan.

(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