News

USIS Washington File

18 October 1999

Transcript: Albright Interview on CNN Sunday on Foreign Policy

(Says U.S. will continue to abide by the terms of the CTBT) (3970)

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in an interview on CNN
October 17 that "President Clinton has made very clear" that the
United States will continue to abide by the terms of the nuclear
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and "that we will not be testing
unilaterally" even though the Senate failed to ratify the treaty.

Asked about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and press reports that
the United States is now asking Russia to revise the 1972 ABM Treaty
in return for modernization of Russian radars, the Secretary said, "We
are very concerned about the development of missile technology,
nuclear weapons, by the rogue nations and consider that to be a threat
to us and to the Russians."

As a result, she said, the United States believes it is time to take
another look at the ABM Treaty and "the possibility of adjusting it
slightly in order to be able to have a National Missile Defense,
because we are concerned about the potential threat from some of the
rogue states."

Albright said the Russians are "obviously concerned, as are we, about
what the future holds. And so what we are talking to them about is
some cooperative action and looking at various technologies and ideas
and making very clear to them that any National Missile Defense system
that we would have would not be directed against them but against
these rogue states - Iran, North Korea - that are our concern."

She said that she and Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov discuss the ABM
Treaty issue "fairly frequently."

On the new regime in Pakistan, Albright said "what we would like to
see is for Mr. Musharaff to take the steps that would return" the
government "to a constitutional system that would allow for civil
liberties, that would do something about the very serious economic
situation and the corruption that takes place in Pakistan."

On the matter of her current trip to Africa, the Secretary said "the
reason I've cut my trip" to Africa "short a little bit is because we
are really having a financial crisis as far as my budget, the State
Department budget, is concerned. Congress has cut $2 billion out of
what the President has requested because they think it's a giveaway
program.

"Our budget isn't a giveaway program," said Albright, "it's the first
line of defense.

"We can't lead on the cheap," the Secretary of State said.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
October 18, 1999

INTERVIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
ON CNN'S "LATE EDITION" WITH WOLF BLITZER

Washington, D.C.

October 17, 1999

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT:  Good to be with you all.

BLITZER: Let's start off with the headlines in today's major
newspapers. The New York Times, The Washington Post, say the United
States is now formally asking Russia to revise the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty; the US would help Russia in certain radars; the United
States would therefore be able to go forward and develop some sort of
anti-ballistic missile system in this country.

How far along the road have you gone in discussions with Russia on
revising the ABM Treaty?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me put this into some context. We are very
concerned about the development of missile technology, nuclear
weapons, by the rogue nations and consider that to be a threat to us
and to the Russians. And so we believe it is time to re-look at how
the ABM Treaty, which is really the cornerstone of our whole arms
control process and a treaty that we value greatly, at the possibility
of adjusting it slightly in order to be able to have a National
Missile Defense, because we are concerned about the potential threat
from some of the rogue states.

BLITZER: How receptive are the Russians to this proposal by the United
States?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, we have begun some discussions with them and
they are obviously concerned, as are we, about what the future holds.
And so what we are talking to them about is some cooperative action
and looking at various technologies and ideas and making very clear to
them that any National Missile Defense system that we would have would
not be directed against them but against these rogue states -- Iran,
North Korea -- that are our concern.

BLITZER: Have you discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Ivanov?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT:  Yes, I talk to him about it fairly frequently.

BLITZER: And what do they want from the United States in exchange for
revising the ABM Treaty?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: They are concerned, as are all of us basically,
about not undoing the ABM Treaty because it is so important. And so,
basically, they are -- we're just in the preliminary stages of this
trying to make sure that the START II is ratified, that we move
forward generally on some of the ideas that President Clinton and
President Yeltsin have raised at Helsinki and Cologne but, at the same
time, we want to work together on dealing with what this major threat
is from the rogue states.

BLITZER: The stories suggest that this is going to cost U.S. taxpayers
money to pay for some modernization of Russian radars in exchange for
their going along with the revision of the ABM Treaty. How much do you
anticipate this might cost in terms of US dollars?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: We are not anywhere near anything like that. I
mean, basically, one of the things we are trying to get now is money
for threat reduction generally from the former Soviet Union, so we
believe that it is money well spent if there is any way to lessen the
threat of weapons of mass destruction being widely spread.

BLITZER: All right, let's talk about another treaty, the nuclear
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was defeated by the US Senate
this past week. Senator Mitch McConnell earlier today, he said that
President Clinton knew that there were not enough votes -- two-thirds
of the Senate, 67 votes -- necessary to ratify the treaty. He could
have gracefully exited from that entire debate but decided not to.

Listen to what Senator McConnell had to say earlier today:

"We asked him to do two things: number one, ask that it be withdrawn
and; number two, that it not be brought up again during the remainder
of his tenure. Had he been willing to meet those two rather modest
requests, this treaty would not have been voted on. He insisted on
having a vote when he knew the votes were not there."

Well, what do you say about that?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I hate to say this about Senator McConnell
but he's not telling the truth on this. First of all, -- the Senate
Democrats made an agreement with the Senate Republicans to bring this
agreement forward for -- we weren't so much calling for a vote. We
were calling generally for consideration of this landmark treaty. And
what happened was, as a result of parliamentary action on the Hill, it
went to a vote when there were basically almost a -- well, an almost
two-thirds of the senators who wanted a delay. But President Clinton,
we were all -- wanted to have a delay because this is a very important
treaty and should have been considered properly. And you can not ask
any President, any time, to simply decide that he's not going to bring
something up in his Presidency. I think that is going beyond what is
necessary to ask a President.

But let me just make one thing very clear. This is a very important
treaty. I think that what happened here was that the Senate kind of
took a casual look at it. I'd call it a drive-by consideration of a
major treaty. And what we were calling for and had been for a long
time -- I'd given speeches on it and testified to it -- the importance
of serious consideration of this treaty.

BLITZER: But a lot of people say that there was some serious
consideration, mostly the Republicans generating opposition over a
long period of time; the White House, the Clinton Administration, by
and large neglecting this treaty. It was signed by the President in
'96 but only submitted to the Senate in '97; '98 the investigation of
the President seemed to sort of dominate everything. It was neglected
by the Administration, bad management, where the Republicans upstaged
the President.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, the Republicans defeated a major landmark
treaty that would really have helped generally in controlling nuclear
weapons and our whole nonproliferation agenda. We have, obviously,
negotiated this treaty. We are very proud of it. The President was the
first world leader to sign it. We have all spoken about it at great
length in speeches. We tried to have hearings on it. It was refused to
have hearings on it.

So I believe that what has to remain here as a point of fact, this
treaty was defeated for no good reason after a very cursory look at it
by the Senate.

BLITZER: Well, Senator Trent Lott, the Majority Leader, says that is
simply not the case. He says there were very substantive reasons why
this treaty was rejected. In fact, listen to what Senator Lott said on
Thursday on this specific issue:

"To vote against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was
not a vote involving personalities. It was not about politics. It was
about the substance of the treaty, and that's all it was."

There were six former Defense Secretaries, and Henry Kissinger, a lot
of serious foreign policy experts saying this treaty was flawed.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, look, I think every treaty that comes before
the Senate there are questions about, and I have been involved in both
sides of it when I was working on the Hill or other treaties that the
White House has presented. The reason that you have hearings and that
you have a debate on the floor is in order to be able to put in -- if
you want to call them improvements to the treaty that then secure it
for each individual country. That is acceptable. That is what happened
on the Panama Canal Treaty. It's happened on many, many treaties.

What I'm saying is -- and I'm not going to get into the personalities
or the motivations -- I'm just telling you that even if there were
substantive problems, which there well may have been from the
perspective of some of the senators, there is a way to work it out.
The President himself had put forward six kind of ways to secure the
treaty better that could have been part of an amendment process. They
didn't allow any of that. The debate, which was very shortened, did
not allow for any of that -- and that's what we're arguing about.

QUESTION: So what happens right now? For all practical purposes, this
treaty is dead until the President leaves office.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me just say this: The President has made
very clear that we will continue to abide by it, that we will not be
testing unilaterally. What we've lost for the time being is the real
international leadership in terms of trying to make others live up to
the CTBT. And I've gotten calls all week, Wolf, about countries trying
to -- from my fellow foreign ministers -- trying to figure out what
has happened here.

And it's very serious. It has hurt us internationally and this kind of
casual approach to a major treaty, for whatever the reasons were, has
hurt us, hurt our leadership position, hurt us in trying to get India
and Pakistan to do what they're supposed to. And I really believe that
it is unfortunate that there was not more serious consideration, but I
want to assure all your viewers around the world that the United
States is going to live up to the conditions of the treaty.

Q: One sort of curious footnote to all of this was the role taken by
Senator Jesse Helms. He is the chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, someone you have worked closely with, developed a
special relationship with. But yet, at the end, he used this treaty to
take a personal swipe, once again, at President Clinton.

Now I want you to listen to what Jesse Helms said on the floor of the
Senate this week:

"After all, the President could pick up the phone and say, `Look,
Tony, I got a problem over here and got a hat full of words; how about
sending me a little ol' letter?' And I know Tony said, 'Oh, yes, I'll
do that. I'll do that. And give Monica my regards.'"

He's referring to the President's conversations with Tony Blair, the
Prime Minister of Britain, and then he says, "And give Monica" --
Monica Lewinsky -- "my regards." How do you feel when you see the
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee say that kind of
thing on the floor of the Senate?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I guess he felt -- I have heard that he
wanted it expunged from the Congressional Record so maybe he thought
about it again. But let me --

Q: It was expunged from the Congressional Record but not from the
videotape.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, but I believe the following thing, is that
there is no -- Senator Jesse Helms has never seen an arms control
treaty that he liked. We have diametrically opposed views as far as
arms control is concerned. We have managed to cooperate on other
issues but we have diametrically opposed views, and I regret very much
that he did not allow a full hearing of this treaty to go forward.

Q: All right, Madame Secretary, we have to take a quick commercial
break. A lot more to talk about when we return. We'll go around the
world with Secretary Albright and ask her whether domestic US politics
is undermining her international agenda. Late Edition will be right
back.

(Break.)

Q: Madame Secretary, there was a military coup in Pakistan this past
week, as you know. The United States had tough sanctions against
Pakistan ever since the nuclear test that they engaged in last year,
and the US was warning the Pakistani military against a coup for three
or four weeks before it actually occurred.

What does this say about US power in Pakistan at this point, US
influence as a result of this coup?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that obviously we do not favor
military coups. What we would like to see is for Mr. Musharaff to take
the steps that would return this to a constitutional system that would
allow for civil liberties, that would do something about the very
serious economic situation and the corruption that takes place in
Pakistan. But I believe here that Pakistan is in a very serious
decline in terms of what is happening to its people. We would like to
see this government, as I said, take some measures that would return
it as soon as possible to a constitutional form of government.

Q: Well, they're watching you in Pakistan right now. Is it your
message to the people of Pakistan that the democratically elected
leader of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, should he be restored to power?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: What we're saying here is that the people of
Pakistan should have the right to have a democratic or a
constitutional government; that they also need to be able to be a part
of the international system economically; that they should not have
corruption there; that they need to have their civil liberties. And as
I understand it, Mr. Musharaff is going to be speaking shortly. We
expect that he should make clear to the people that these are the
kinds of things that we want to see.

And as far as Mr. Sharif is concerned, we believe that it's important
that his security be guaranteed.

Q:  But not necessarily that he restored?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, it's very hard for us to get involved in
that kind of managing of this, but the main problem here is that it's
very important for Musharaff's government to really do everything it
can to restore civil liberties and go to a constitutional form of
government.

Q: General Pervez Musharaff, being the military commander who took
control of Pakistan in the aftermath of the coup.

There are also watching you all over the world right now, but also in
Iran -- and I want to refer to a story on the front page of the New
York Times, "Arrests Shake Ancient Roots of Iran's Jews." The Clinton
Administration for some time has been trying to establish a dialogue
with President Khatami of Iran to improve US-Iranian relations. Now 13
Iranian Jews have been arrested on spy charges, spying for Israel.

Can you go along with that effort to improve the relationship with
Iran at a time when some are accusing the Iranian Government of simply
trying to project a show trial against these 13 Jews?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me say as far as our overall relations with
Iran are concerned, we have talked about laying out a road map for
potential ways of having a better relationship with them. And we are a
long way from that because the conditions were that they would support
the Middle East peace process, they would not try to acquire weapons
of mass destruction and they would eschew any form of terrorism or
supporting terrorism. So we're a long way from that.

This particular case about the Iranian Jews is something that has
concerned us for a long time. From everything that we know, there is
absolutely no reason for them to be brought up on espionage charges.
We have sent messages through a variety of channels and other -- I
have spoken to foreign ministers about this, all of them do have
contact, those who do have contact with Iran, to say that this is
completely unacceptable. There is nothing about these people that
would make this a case.

And I think that story in the Times makes it very clear about the long
history of the Jews in Iran. It talks about somebody who could have
left. A lot of them could have left but they stayed because they
consider themselves a part of Iranian history, Persia. And so we have
made this very clear that this is an unacceptable trial.

Q: All right, on another issue. The British newspaper, the Observer in
London, has a story today quoting sources as saying that NATO
deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the
fighting in Kosovo because the Chinese were providing assistance to
the Yugoslav military.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, to use a fine diplomatic term, that's
balderdash. Basically, that was a bombing by accident. We've said
that. It was a tragic accident. We have spoken to the Chinese about it
many times. I've sent delegations there to deal with them. I, myself,
have spoken to the foreign minister. It's simply not true.

Now, what the Chinese were doing at that embassy, clearly there is
information that they were carrying on intelligence activities but we,
in no way -- and I want to make this absolutely clear -- that that
story is wrong.

Q: Okay. You're leaving later today for a trip to Africa. Some are
saying that the President and the Secretary of State have neglected
Africa. The President was there last year; you're going now; but
there's almost a double standard; when terrible things are happening
in Africa the US really doesn't step in with the financial assistance,
the aid, as was the situation in Kosovo, for example.

I'm sure a lot of Africans are going to be saying that to you on this
trip. What will be your response, especially in Sierra Leone where
there have been some major atrocities, as you know, over the past few
years?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, let me say generally that we try to
give assistance where we can and take a role according to what
instruments are available, so that in Kosovo we were part of NATO and
that was a NATO operation and, obviously, we have to choose different
instruments in different places.

But as far as Sierra Leone is concerned, we have in fact contributed a
great deal, 100 million just in this last year, and also we were
instrumental in getting this peace process going. We are also now
consulting with Congress about voting for a peacekeeping operation
which the United Nations is putting together.

I believe that we need to use a variety of African organizations as
there was -- ECOMOG is being -- that's one that comes of Nigeria --
was being used in Sierra Leone. I'm going to meet with the commander
of that when I'm there. But the whole purpose of this trip, Wolf, is
this is my sixth trip to Africa in seven years. The President went. We
will be talking about how to integrate Africa economically into the
world system to try to develop some of their security arrangements,
have them work with us on transnational problems such as terrorism and
HIV-AIDS.

Our real problem, if you want to know why we don't do enough for
Africa, we don't have money. The reason I've cut my trip short a
little bit is because we are really having a financial crisis as far
as my budget, the State Department budget, is concerned. Congress has
cut $2 billion out of what the President has requested because they
think it's a giveaway program. Our budget isn't a giveaway program;
it's the first line of defense. And if you ask me why we aren't doing
enough in Africa or other places, it's because Congress is not
providing us with the money that the President has asked for, and I
believe it is necessary for us to carry on leadership. We can't lead
on the cheap.

Q: You know, later on this program the House Majority Leader Dick
Armey is going to be on. He'll argue that at a time of need for
domestic programs, why go ahead with foreign aid?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: This is not foreign aid. This is in America's
national interest and we need to support our diplomats abroad, put
them into secure embassies, and we need to have programs to help
countries, not just in Africa but the former Soviet Union, about
reducing the threat of nuclear weapons and getting their scientists so
that they are not selling their brains to rogue stages. We need it in
order to be able to work on all our proliferation issues.

This is not foreign aid, and I think that there is a way of making
people understand we have a defense, a very strong military. They
can't do everything. The President has made clear that the defense
budget is overfunded and diplomacy is underfunded, and I think it is a
real error to believe that this is a giveaway program. This is in
America's national interest.

Q: All right. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about that entire issue
upon your return from Africa. Have a very, very safe trip and good
luck over there.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT:  Thanks a lot, Wolf.

Q:  Always great to have you on Late Edition.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT:  Good to be with you.

Q:  Thank you so much.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT:  Thanks.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State)