But there was a time when, as I say, we were faced with declarations of the need to take over and expand. And on the part of, in this instance, of the communist philosophy, I think, as I have said earlier here, just this normal competition and find out which system is best. And then we have this one thing in which possibly we differ. And that is that we believe the people of a country have the right to determine what form of government they will have. You have a constitution; we have a constitution. The difference between our two constitutions is very simple; it is contained in three words. Both of the constitutions announce things for the people's benefit and so forth. Your constitution says, these are the privileges, rights that the government provides for the people. Our constitution says, we the people will allow the government to do the following things. And the government can do nothing that is not prescribed by the people in that constitution. And so, where we run into conflicts sometimes in countries where there is a stirring and a division in trying to determine a government, our view is, the people must have the right to say this is the government we want. It must not be imposed on them. ENTITY, in that connection I'd like to say that democracy is, of course, a great goal for all peoples. But if you take a specific situation now-social opinion in the United States, the polls and Congress and so forth-Congress is against actions that are being taken in Nicaragua. And despite that, the administration is acting in a somewhat different fashion, despite some of the opinions expressed in Congress. Of course, you must remember that each Congressman is elected only by a district-his congressional district. This is the only job in our country that is elected by all of the people. And the responsibility that the people have laid on this office in the Constitution is that the President is responsible for our national security, and that is a duty he cannot shirk. And so, he is the final word as to what is essential to that national security. You were going to say something. Yes, I wanted to say, going back to our conversation about coexistence-the coexistence of capitalist and socialist governments-I wanted to remind you that Lenin, our first leader-it was his idea to have peaceful coexistence. But I'd like to talk about another question. the human rights question.


As a rule, you talk about the human rights situations in other countries. I'd like today to ask you-you, as ENTITY of the United States, as a citizen of the United States-are you satisfied with the situation concerning human rights in your own country? Individuals are going to have prejudice and so forth. But we have laws in our country that make it law-breaking to implement those prejudices and to try to do things unjustly to other people. You have to remember one great difference about our country. A man put it to me in a letter once. And that is that you could leave here and go to France to live, but you could not become a Frenchman; or you could go to live in Germany or Turkey or-name any country-you could not become one of them; this is the only country in the world in which anyone from any corner of the world can come here and become an American, because that is our history. We came from every corner of the world. If you meet with a group of Americans-if we went around this room for the Americans present and asked them their background, their ancestry and so forth, you'd have quite a collection. As a matter of fact, my own background, going back to grandparents and great-grandparents, covers four different countries-but here in this melting pot. So, the result is that the people that came here came not only with the desire for freedom, but they also brought with them many of the prejudices that existed because of national differences between various countries. People may have and do have-there are people who have a prejudice against someone of another faith, someone of another background or race. But if they do anything to hurt that person because of that prejudice, the law takes care of them. I think that in terms of human rights, lately, a lot has been said. Therefore, I'd like to ask you a question and return to your upcoming visit to Moscow. ENTITY, I do not want to try and pry any secrets out of you, but could we find out what you are taking to Moscow in your diplomatic briefcase, so to speak, and what you hope to bring back from there? Well, as I said earlier, the same things that we have talked about before and tried to come together in a meeting of the minds-basically, those four major areas. Yes, that is what we will talk about.

Interview With Soviet Television Journalists Valentin Zorin and Boris Kalyagin


Now, I recognize that one country cannot dictate to another as to how they must run their own affairs, and maybe some of the things that we will talk about are things that I believe maybe we could be-based on our own experience-be helpful; for example, among human rights. I was quite interested recently when the General Secretary, meeting with the leaders of your Orthodox Church, lessened some of the restrictions that government had imposed on the practice of that religion. Well, I have wondered if a further expansion of that-you see, our country came into being because people were being denied, in other countries, the right to worship God as they saw fit. And so, they left those countries and came to this new land as pioneers in order to worship. Well, I have just wondered if there is not a field there in your own country for more openness and the allowing of people to practice religion in the ways they chose. And here we call it separation of church and state. The government cannot deny people the right to worship, but by the same token, the churches cannot impose on government their beliefs. I think that really the question of human rights deserves lots of discussion. In that connection, I'd like to ask you, recently in Washington-I read about this in the U.S. press-General Stroessner was here in the United States. He is a dictator from Paraguay. When you meet with the Soviet leaders-or met with them in Geneva and Reykjavik and Washington, you always touched on the question of human rights. Do you talk about that question with General Stroessner, with the leaders of Chile, South Korea, South Africa? In your conversations, do you discuss with them the question of human rights? Oh, yes, there is no question but that we believe in our getting along with these other countries, that this is an issue, for one reason, because of the background of all of our people. Government is influenced by public opinion. We are supposed-as you mentioned earlier, we are supposed to do in the Congress and here in this office basically what-meet the needs of the people, what the people want. And so, when we are seeking to be neighbors and friends of another country and that country is jailing people for just their expression of political difference or wanting to practice religion and things of that kind-we have a great many people whose heritage is in those countries.


And you have to remember that even though we are all Americans-a man does not give up love for his mother because he is taken a wife. And so, the people in our country all still feel a kind of heritage and relationship with the countries of their ancestry, or maybe their own if they are new immigrants who are here in the country. One out of eight of our people have our background in your area. And those people can rise up and oppose us in some agreement that we may want to make of friendship if they feel that the country of their ancestry is being unfair in denying what they consider a human right. Now, maybe your country, you do not place that much importance on public opinion, but here in our system, it is the very basis of our system. And so, we can get along and make treaties much better with each other as governments if our people are not rebellious about something that your government is doing to what they consider their ancestry. Soon you will be in Moscow, and I think that you will have the opportunity to get acquainted with the influence of public opinion in the U.S.S.R. and about freedom of religion in the U.S.S.R. Excuse me, I'd like-our time is sort of running out, and in conclusion, I'd like to ask you a personal question, ENTITY. The majority of Presidents in this country, when they left office, write memoirs. Are you getting ready to write your memoirs when you leave office, and if so, when are we going to get a chance to read your memoirs? Well, I have been thinking very seriously about writing a book. In view of the fact that several people who have left government have written some books, I think maybe I better straighten out the record and tell things as they really are. People, not government, voluntarily provide money and funds and build what is called a Presidential library and museum, and this is happening with me. There is a group in the country; they have raised the millions of dollars. In California will be built this structure. Now, in that building will be the millions of papers from this administration. They will be open; scholars can come and study them and research and so forth. And there will be also many things that will be of interest to the people-memorabilia that we have accumulated here. And this has happened with all the Presidents in the recent years. So there, too, will be a record that is open for public view.


But I will probably get around to writing a book. I do not look forward to it. I wrote a book once and found it was quite a chore. Since time is up, more or less, I'd like to thank you for this interview, and I'd like to wish you huge success in your upcoming mission. May I just say one thing also-in going to your country, and I would relish the opportunity, if I could, to say a few words here-that is never discussed very much. I have a great admiration for the women of the Soviet Union, particularly in the Russian area. From the outside looking in, they seem to be a great bulwark of strength and solidity in the maintaining of the home and the things that they stand for-the standing in lines to bring home what is necessary for the family and all of that. And I just wonder if they are getting the credit within your country that I think they deserve. They deserve it. They do not just stand in lines, but the majority of them work together with men. They teach, they take care of children, they work in administrative posts, and so forth And I hope that with your own eyes you will be able to see all of that when you come to our country. Well, you have said it better than I did, but, yes, I recognize all of those things and just wondered if they get the recognition they deserve within their country. Well, I am pleased, and I welcome you and enjoyed it very much. And I appreciate greatly the opportunity to speak to your people. They were telling us all the time that we should finish up, but I guess we ran over our schedule. Tell ENTITY there is an interpretation coming through, so I guess you understood what I said. But I want to say to you that this interview will be broadcast on the eve of your arrival-I think the 27th of May. I have the impression that you will be able to see it, because the 27th, I think, you are going to be in Helsinki, and you can see Soviet television in Finland very well. And it is going to be on one of our channels. There are going to be about 200 million Soviets that will see this interview, and it will be broadcast all over Eastern Europe, as well. So, everything that you said will reach all the Soviet people, and I think it will be a good beginning for your visit to the Soviet Union. I appreciate this very much.


Let me start off by talking about my speech yesterday. The purpose of the speech is to remind our allies and those who are wondering as to whether or not the United States is firmly committed to democracy that we are. I strongly believe that we are in a war with a group of ideologues and that we can eventually win this war by promoting an alternative ideology. And so the speech yesterday was to speak clearly to people around the world that the United States is committed to this freedom agenda, that there is a realistic reason why we promote freedom, that it is for our own security. There is a moral imperative to promote freedom, and that is to recognize that there are people who live in societies that are still repressive and that free nations have an obligation to work to secure their liberty. I made it very clear that democracy takes time, that it takes different forms in different places, but nevertheless, there are underlying principles which are essential to free societies. I pointed out that freedom has made great progress over 20 years. The reason I did that was, one, to express my optimism about the future. But, two, make it clear that things-the freedom agenda just does not bloom overnight; it takes hard work. And then, as you know, I went around the world and talked about different spots around the world. And I think it is very important for the G-8-nations in the G-8 to recognize the power of liberty to transform societies. And so I will be talking, of course, about that here. I think it is important for nations that are free to recognize they have an obligation to help others. I was moved by the people I met. It was just very heartwarming to meet with heroic souls that do have the capacity, with proper support, of changing their societies and, therefore, changing the world. It is always important for the American President to keep setting an agenda based upon values. And those of you who followed me know full well that I believe that liberty has transformed Europe, liberty has transformed the Far East, and I believe liberty can transform the Middle East. And I am determined to advance that cause. One, it is going to be very important for us to continue to discuss climate change in a way that actually accomplishes an objective, which is the reduction of greenhouse gases over time and the advancement of technologies, which will yield to better environmental policy as well as energy security.

Interview With Members of the White House Press Pool in Heiligendamm, Germany


The United States can serve as a bridge between some nations who believe that now is the time to come up with a set goal, as well as a-I said, the remedy, and those who are reluctant to participate in the dialog. So I laid out an agenda that can move the process forward within the framework of the United Nations, that, in essence, says that we will be setting a goal at the end of 2008-that we being the major emitters-within the framework of the U.N. In other words, this will fold into the U.N. framework. And that enables us to get China and India at the table to discuss how we can all move forward together. Secondly, in my speech, I said we will come up with our own policies to meet an interim goal for our country as well as a national goal-or international goal for the rest of the world. And I will be talking to Angela about that at lunch. I think it fits into her desires to see the process move forward. One of the concerns was, is that there would not be a constructive result of this meeting that basically announced that there should be a post-Kyoto framework. And we will achieve that objective here at the G-8 because we will have set a post-Kyoto framework. I also hope we spend an equal amount of time on ENTITY/ ENTITY on the continent of Africa or reducing malaria on the continent of Africa or helping feed the hungry. So it is a-and finally, it is going to be important for us to continue to discuss vital cooperation on fighting extremists and radicals who still pose a threat to our respective nations. The temptation is to sit back and say, well, maybe they are not dangerous anymore because they have not launched an attack on our respective homelands. They are dangerous, they do want to attack, and the best way to deal with it is to work closely together. Anyway, I am looking forward to this. I think some of you came with me- nice and relaxing. Can we ask some questions? That is all I wanted to tell you. I feel so good about life, I am not going to answer questions. What kind of military response would the United States take if Russia retargeted its missiles on Europe, as President Putin has threatened? There needs to be no military response because we are not at war with Russia.


You know, my first meeting with Vladimir Putin, I told him, I said, What we need to do is get the cold war behind us and work constructively on how to deal with the threats of the 21st century. Russia is not a threat; nor is the missile defense we are proposing a threat to Russia. So I am going to talk to Vladimir about that. I have already talked to him about it once on the telephone. I sent Bob Gates to talk to him. And we will have a good dialog about how we can constructively work together to deal with-modernize our capacity to deal with the threat to the-the true threats. Russia is not going to attack Europe. The missile defense system is not aimed at Russia. As a matter of fact, I believe it would be in Russia's interest to participate with us, and have made that offer and will continue to make the offer. Do you take that threat seriously, though? I do not think Vladimir Putin intends to attack Russia-I mean, Europe. So I will talk to him about it, but it is -if he is saying, The missile defense system is a threat to us, our-the need, therefore, is to make clear there is not. By the way, a missile defense system that is deployed in Europe can handle one or two rocket launchers. It cannot handle a multiple-launch regime. Russia has got an inventory that could overpower any missile defense system. The practicality is, is that this aimed at a country like Iran, if they ended up with a nuclear weapon, so that they could not blackmail the free world. What do you make of his motivation for all-- I have not had a chance to talk to him about it. Right, and say, this is just some sort of misunderstanding that he does not -you do not see any political purpose behind what he is doing? I have not had a chance to visit with him about that. As you know, I have got a visit here, and then I will visit with him in Maine. Do you think it might be an effort to obtain bargaining chips for negotiating over other issues, like Kosovo? I talked to him about Kosovo the other day, and I do not recall missile defense coming up. In other words, it was not a quid pro quo. So, he is got deep concerns about Kosovo, and so do we. It is an issue that we are just going to have to continue to work with him on.


We believe we ought to move the Ahtisaari plan forward through the United Nations, and he is got reservations about it. Garry Kasparov, who you met with yesterday, has said that Russia is now a police state, and he said the West should stop giving Putin democratic credentials. I think there are-as I said yesterday, society has advanced a long way from the old Soviet era. It is interesting you would ask the question. Do you think he is trying to position himself at home? Thereby meaning that he is concerned about public opinion, which is a sign that there is a- when public opinion influences leadership, it is an indication that there is involvement of the people. I think what you are referring to is the upcoming elections. Is he trying to say something about the upcoming elections? I frankly have not talked to him about that aspect. But if, in fact, he is concerned about the upcoming elections, it does say something about the state of the political scene in Russia. And as I said yesterday, we have got a friendship with Russia, and there is a lot of common interest in Russia. But I expressed concerns about what were Western expectations and what has now happened inside Russia, for example, rule of law or some press decisions he is made. I have had these discussions with Vladimir frankly over my time as President. I remember our meeting in Slovakia. It was a good, frank discussion about decisions he is made, and he asked me about decisions I made. Now, the fundamental question is, does it make sense to have relations with Russia? Do we agree on everything? And that is why I call it a complex relationship. China has got a-we have got an economic interest in China. We have got interest with China in working with North Korea, just like we have with Russia. And yet we disagree with China's reluctance to advance the democratic process. On the issue of climate change, are you frustrated at always being portrayed as the odd man out? And what do you make of the portrayals of the U.S. trying to upstage Merkel with your climate announcement last week? Well, Angela Merkel and I have had a lot of discussions about this issue. And as I told you, she was interested in whether or not there should be a- whether or not we agree there ought to be a post-Kyoto framework. And my announcement clearly said there should be one and that the United States will be directly involved in developing that framework.


I have got a very substantial record when it comes to advancing technologies to make the air cleaner in the United States. We have actually had a reduction of greenhouse gases and-in spite of the fact that our economy grew. In other words, it is hard to reduce greenhouse gases in the face of economic growth, but we were able to do so. We have laid out a substantial initiative when it comes to tailpipe emissions, and that is the reduction of our usage of gasoline by 20 percent over a 10-year period. So I am looking forward to telling people exactly what we have done here in the United States. Will you give any ground on the two-degree target that she wants? No, I talked about what I am for-remember? I said I am for sitting together with the nations, to sit down and discuss a way forward. I think when people really look at what I have said, they say, well, that is an interesting way to bridge the difference between what China has said, for example, and what others in Europe have said. And in order for there to be-first of all, you are not going to have greenhouse gas emissions that mean anything unless all nations, all emitters are at the table. And if China is not a part of the process, we all can make major strides, and yet there will not be a reduction until China and India are participants. And what I have said, is, here is a way to get China and India at the table. Can I go back to your democracy speech? Did you like it? I loved it. I will say it anywhere. What did he say? I will say it anywhere. That may be taking it too far. How do you square your commitment to democracy and as a priority for your foreign policy with what we are seeing in Pakistan now, major ally in the war on terror, but also a place where a core leadership of Al Qaida has found some sanctuary in tribal areas. The Government has been taking a repressive attitude toward a free press; it is got into this conflict with the judiciary, firing the chief justice. Have you had conversations with Musharraf about democracy in his country? Do you want to see free and fair elections in Pakistan? I do, and said that in Pakistan the time I was there, standing right next to President Musharraf.


And we do discuss democracy, as well as routing out foreigners in his country who are an equal threat, a threat to America and a threat to him. It is a very-Pakistan is an important ally in this war against these extremists. As you mentioned, there are some in his country, and I am convinced that he would like to rout them out. But it is not easy territory in which to rout people out. We have had some successes inside Pakistan, thanks to his leadership. And in terms of the democracy issues, he is going to have to deal with it. And the interesting question is, is the issue about uniform, and he addressed that at the last-only time I have been in Pakistan. He said he would seriously consider-I do not want to put words-you will have to pull up the press conference. But if you think democracy is the best way to confront radicals and terrorists, should not we be pushing hard for democracy to really get established in Pakistan? Well, democracy is-it is a lot more established in Pakistan than some of the other nations I mentioned. And what you are seeing is a lot of posturing about the election process, and it is not perfect. Neither was our democracy perfect for 100 years when we enslaved people. And so it is -we do push for democracy. We push in the context of the reality on the ground as well. I mentioned Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a close ally in the war on terror. His Majesty has done and his services have done the world a service, a good service by bringing people to justice. And he is also making some incremental reforms. He will go at a pace slower than some would like to see; nevertheless, he is moving. We live in a world where people expect things to happen overnight, and that is just not the way it works. I think it is going to be important for whoever is President to take a long-term view of the ability of democracies to progress and, therefore, change. I mentioned South Korea as an example of what I am talking about. I am sure-I suspect that if a President were having this conversation with a press corps in the sixties and seventies, they'd say, well, we are for democracy; therefore, how come you are not? How come it had not happened yet in South Korea? And yet it did eventually happen in South Korea.


The process and progress move at different paces and different places, and the role of the United States is to help encourage them along, while at the same time achieving certain national objectives. It just so happens that the key national objective in the beginning of the 21st century is to make sure we do not get attacked again and innocent people get murdered. And so we can do both. We can say that in the long run, the best way to secure your society is through liberty. In the short run, let us work collaboratively to protect ourselves. Can I go back on missile shields for a second? Vladimir Putin says that you are building a shield for weapons that do not exist now-- Does not he have a point? Do you see why he might be suspicious of that? I mean, if somebody pops up with a weapon and says, Hands up, people will say, well, how come we did not have a shield? And so it is -I think we need to do both. I think we need to protect ourselves of what might happen and then work collaboratively to make sure it does not happen. If there is a misunderstanding between President Putin saying that this is a threat towards Russia and the U.S. saying it is not, what is more important, pushing the system through or maintaining a solid, good relationship with Russia, especially since he is leaving office? I think it is important to make sure we have a system to protect ourselves against the threats of the 21st century, the true threats. And that would be the threat of rogue regimes using a weapon of mass destruction to either blackmail and/or attack allies and friends, cells moving through our societies with the intent upon killing, radical forces undermining young democracies. Those are the threats, and therefore, we need to address them. And I will continue to work with President Putin-Vladimir Putin-to explain to him that this is not aimed at him. And there is all kinds of ways you can do that. One is total transparency between our militaries and scientists-military people and scientists, which I am more than happy to do. Do you see this as hurting the relationship between you and President Putin? We have had issues before. I think if you look at the history of our relationship, there is been some moments where we have agreed and moments where we disagreed. That is just the way-that is what happens when you have got nations that are influential. And we have had our disagreements with different allies, had disagreements with France over


We have had disagreements with other nations, but that does not mean they are not friends, or that does not mean we cannot work with them. Are you at all concerned, though, that this current state of the relationship between you and President Putin might have some implications for the outcome with regard to Iran? You have sort of relied on his-- Well, we have been working very closely with Russia on Iran, and I do not think that this-first of all, my comments yesterday were very realistic in the sense that said, we are friends; we have got a complex relationship; we can work together, but we have had some disagreements. I just do not see how-why that, those kinds of statements are going to prevent the United States and Russia from working closely together on key issues like Iran or proliferation, areas where we can get along. You mentioned Kosovo. No question, he does not agree with our position. And so we have got to work together and see if we cannot understand each other on a lot of issues. But it is an interesting question about, well, should not you just scrap the system? And the answer is, is that the system exists in the first place to deal with threats. Can I ask about Darfur? Have you expressed your frustration with why the international community has not been moving on Darfur? You obviously introduced sanctions. Would you be prepared to see a no-fly zone over Darfur to have some direct interaction? We would consider that. And, yes, I have expressed my frustrations. You would consider it in what context? Look, I want to see other people helping Darfur and-by joining us and sending clearer and stronger messages to President Bashir. It-because there are still people suffering, and yet the U.N. process is moving at a snail's pace. As you know, I gave this speech at the Holocaust Museum and caveated it because the Secretary-General asked for a reasonable period of time to see if he could not get the process moving. That is why I gave my speech. And I do not know if you noticed, but Sudan is now headed to peacekeeping at the U.N. Sir, will you pardon Scooter Libby? And the second in charge is Iran. I cannot give you all the tactics on it yet, but I understand the principle and said so in my speech that we would consider such.


Listen, that was a sad day for-yesterday was a very sad day for Scooter and his family. But there is an ongoing process, and it would not be appropriate for me to discuss it until the process has run its course. Do you think it says something about you and Vice President Cheney, that you continue to embrace a man who has been convicted and sentenced? No, it is a sad day for him, and my heart goes out to his family. And it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the case until after the legal remedies have run its course. Well, there is a lot of speculation that you are going to pardon-- You seemed to have carefully calibrated your response to some of the comments that you made-- Well, I think what you ought to do-look, I would suggest going back and looking at a series of my responses. And I think in terms-if you want to really figure out how I conduct relations with Russia, it would be helpful for you-if you are interested in writing a genuinely-I know you are-an indepth piece about how I have conducted relations with Russia to look at different comments I have made relative to different moments of drama or moments of discord or moments of agreement. It is an important relationship because when we work together, we can solve problems. You asked why- I have not had a chance to talk to him about it. The insinuation was that he is doing this for internal political reasons. I cannot make that the case, and it would be unfair for me to put words in his mouth, and so therefore, I will not . I have also said it is important for there to be a personal relationship between me and President Putin so that we can have frank discussions in a way that enables us to more likely deal with the problems we face. That is why I will visit with him here, and that is why I am looking forward to welcoming him to my dad's house in Kennebunkport. It is an opportunity to continue to have a serious dialog with serious players in trying to keep the peace. And-but that does not necessarily lend itself to speculation that somehow the relationship between me and ENTITY is not a positive relationship. It is a positive, and I am going to work to keep it that way. There are some who say we should not have any relations with Russia. I strongly disagree with that.


I think it is important for us to maintain relations with Russia and-on a variety of fronts, whether it be- you know, look, I want him to join the WTO for a reason. I believe it is -I think if trade increases between Russia and the United States, it is important to have some structure and ways to resolve the inevitable disagreements that will arise. And that is what happens not only with a nation like Russia; that is what happens all the time in Europe. And that is one of the things that the WTO provides. You talked about the need to prevent extremists from getting their hands on oil in the Middle East or anywhere else. How would you characterize how Vladimir Putin manages his country's energy resources? Well, first of all, he is- he has got the opportunity to really develop the greatest asset of Russia, and that is her brainpower. He is inherited a very difficult situation in Russia. The demographics indicate that it will be a shrinking society for a variety of reasons. One, it is health care system is good in parts of the country and not so good in other parts. They have got a needle issue; they have got ENTITY/ENTITY issues. They have got a series of issues that he knows he has to deal with. They have got an old pensioner system. So that cashflow from oil will enable him to modernize his society, and he is making steps to do that. Secondly, it is a-obviously, it creates tensions with Europe. His being a sole source of natural gas for certain countries creates a degree of tension, and that is why the European Union and Russia are continuing to work through their issues. The fundamental question is, will he make enough investment in his oil infrastructure to take advantage of these cashflows and, at the same time, make an investment inside his country? And he believes he is committed, enhancing human capital. It looks like it has grown substantially in the past. This country, again, is certainly not perfect in the eyes of many Americans. On the other hand, if you consider where it is come from, it has made substantial progress toward a freer society in the sense that there is a middle class that is growing and will eventually make more demands. Now, having said that, there is been-as I said yesterday, there is been some backtracking. We had expectations, and those expectations were not met. Can I ask about Iraq?


The idea of the surge seemed to be to buy some time for the political leaders in Iraq to make progress on reconciliation. Have you seen any real, meaningful progress on that front? It is -it had not been the closure on certain issues, but they are working hard to get it there. Is that-I mean, they have been talking about that for a long time. It does not seem that they-the increased security operations have moved them to speed-- Well, I think on certain fronts, they have made progress. They have got a budget that is now moved out. They have got a-I know they are working on an oil law. They are working on different-discussing whether or not they have Provincial elections, and we hope they get-hope these issues come to fruition. But you are right, that is what the surge is intended to do, plus provide enough time for these Iraqi forces to step in, prevent the sectarian violence from spilling out of the capital. And it frustrates the Iraqi people, and it should frighten the American people that Al Qaida is active in Iraq looking for a safe haven from which to launch further attacks. And they are the primary-they are the ones primarily responsible for these EID and suicide bombers. Can I go back to Brendan's question for a second? I guess my question is, are you concerned that Russia's enormous energy wealth is going to kind of create a situation where its leaders are vulnerable to the arrogance of power? In other words, they have got an immense amount of wealth concentrated in their hands, and inevitably that tends to make people act in aggressive ways, does not it? I think what-one reason why I promote rule of law throughout the world is to make sure that that very scenario does not accelerate. A second initiative that we all have got to take is to diversify away from hydrocarbons, and that is what will eventually yield to national security and economic security for countries that are dependent upon hydrocarbons from other places, such as ourself. You know, there is-there are mechanisms in place to basically enable nations to protect themselves; the EU is a mechanism. If you noticed, there is constant jockeying here in Europe with Russia about security. No question, some nations are concerned about their supplies of gas being used for political purposes.


And therefore, all of us need to work collaboratively to convince nations not to do that, whether it be Russia or any other nation that is supplying hydrocarbons to the world. You have heard me say, we import oil from places that do not necessarily like us. Oil is fungible, by the way. And therefore, it is in our interest, just like it is in the interest of other countries, to diversify. And that is really going to be the interesting challenge here as we move forward in this 21st century. One of the dividends of diversification through new technologies is better environmental quality. And that is why this issue is-it is got a real poignancy, as far as I am concerned. One, I know we can be better stewards of the environment. But also, at the same time, it ends up making us less dependent on crude oil from overseas, in our case. It is coming, and the question is, how do you stimulate new technologies? What is the most effective way to get technologies to the market that will enable the world to control greenhouse gases, for example? And that is really where the-see, once you get people to agree to a goal, then the next question that needs to be answered is, how best to achieve that goal? We have taken the lead in achieving that goal by spending billions of dollars on new technologies. We have got new technologies being advanced in cellulosic ethanol. That will help nations once that becomes able to compete in the market. But nevertheless, it is -will have the beneficial effect of enabling people to drive without the use of gasoline. Clean coal technologies are going to be a really important part of a strategy to deal with what will be an international goal. And so the question is, how best to stimulate that type of investment? And that is an important discussion to have here at the G-8. It is also an important discussion to have at home. Therefore, let us build a missile defense system. And, yes, we are going to work to stop him. That is why we are constantly working through diplomatic channels to continue to apply pressure. And I mentioned the other day, I think we need to go back to the U.N. Security Council. You mentioned South Korea earlier. Do you think South Korea could be a model for Iraq? I think that-first of all, the situation inside South Korea is different-or was different than it is in IraENTITY


ENTITY, this has been a bitter, nasty campaign season across the country in which Republicans have made you the issue of local races in commercials linking you directly to the local Democrats. While many Democrats have held open arms to campaign with you, some have kept their distance. Well, they have worked hard on this for a long time. The Republicans tend to be a Presidential party, and they are unfortunately now very extremist, very negative, and that is what they have tried to do. First of all, the American people see that I am keeping the commitments I made to them in 1992. In 21 months, we have moved the country forward. We are making the Government work for ordinary Americans with things like family leave and college loans. We have reduced the debt. We have reduced the size of the Federal Government. We have got more jobs coming into this economy. The world is safer and more prosperous than it was when I took office. People are feeling that, and I do not believe they are going to buy these Republican promises in this contract, this $1 trillion worth of hot check promises to go back to the 1980's and trickle-down economics. I also would point out, ENTITY, you know, there is beginning to be some division within the Republican ranks. People are recoiling; good Republicans are recoiling from this extremism and this negativism. That is why former First Lady Nancy Reagan hit Oliver North and, of course, Mayor Giuliani supporting Governor Cuomo I think a very statesman-like decision Mayor Riordan out in Los Angeles supporting Senator Feinstein, Mrs. Heinz in Pennsylvania attacking the Republican candidate for Senator up there. There are a lot of good Republicans who do not like what has been happening in our country, and they do not like seeing the Republican Party being so negative, so bitterly partisan, and so extremist. So I think we have got a chance in the last 8 days to get a real vote for the future and not a vote for the past. ENTITY, you touched upon a couple of topics that I want to get to, but just yesterday you were campaigning for Democrats in Pittsburgh, and we are told that you are headed to New York once again to campaign Thursday for Mario Cuomo. How do you explain him being in the tough battle against George Pataki? Well, I think, first of all, he has been Governor.

Interview With Dominic Carter of New York 1 Television, New York City


ENTITY, considering the violent and abrupt manner of your succession to the Presidency, I think everyone agrees that the transition has gone remarkably smoothly. Did this just happen, or did you start to plan these things, say, in those first few hours in Air Force One as you flew back from Dallas? Well, we had a lot of help in the planning, Mr. Lawrence. A lot of thoughts went through my mind, as I left the hospital, and on the way to Air Force One, and while we were waiting for Judge Hughes and Mrs. Kennedy to come aboard. I was sure that the whole Nation had been shaken and the world would be in doubt. As I rode back, I recognized that our first great problem was to assure the world that there would be continuity in transition, that our constitutional system would work. I realized the importance of uniting our people at home and asking them to carry forward with the program, so I immediately planned to have the bipartisan leaders come to the White House upon my arrival. I asked the members of the Cabinet who were then in town, the Director of the National Security Council and Mr. McNamara and others to meet me at Andrews.1 And I appealed to all of those men to work with me on the transition and to try to so conduct ourselves as to assure the rest of the world that we did have continuity and assure the people of this country that we expected them to unite. Very shortly thereafter, President Eisenhower came down and spent some time with me exploring the problems that he expected to arise confronting a new President. President Truman came in and gave me his counsel, and we started off with the help and plans of a good many people and substantially well organized. I do not know how well the Government did its part of the transition, but the people's part was well done. The first priority was to try to display to the world that we could have continuity and transition, that the program of President Kennedy would be carried on, that there was no need for them to be disturbed and fearful that our constitutional system had been endangered. To demonstrate to the people of this country that although their leader had fallen, and we had a new President, that we must have unity and we must close ranks, and we must work together for the good of all America and the world. Well, did you have any concern about the international posture that you must adopt so that, one, all of our allies would be reassured, and our potential enemies would not get any wrong ideas?

Lyndon B. Johnson Transcript of Television and Radio Interview Conducted by Representatives of Major Broadcast Services.


And I spent the first full week meeting with more than 9 representatives from the nations of the world, and trying to explain to them our constitutional system, and what they could expect under it and how we would carry on the program that we had begun. And that I had been a part of the Kennedy-Johnson ticket that won the election in 1960; that we had a Kennedy-Johnson program, that I had been a participant in the formulation of that program and that we would carry it on, maybe not as well as the late President could have, had he lived, but as best we could, and they need have no fear or no doubt . What was the image that you wanted the potential enemy to get? That we were sure and we were confident, that we were united, that we had closed ranks, and not to tread on us. ENTITY, on November 22 both the President and you, the Vice President, were in the same city, and six Cabinet officers were in the same airplane, going to Tokyo. Yes, I do not think that we realized at that time that so many Cabinet officers were on this trip to Tokyo. And of course in retrospect we can see a good many things that took place that we wish we had made better plans for. But immediately upon returning to Washington, I made it clear to the Cabinet that we did not want any goodly number like that leaving town at the same time, and that when the President and the next in line of succession were out of town, that we wanted most of the Cabinet here. And the President since that time has not been out of town with any appreciable number of Cabinet officers absent. Is there anything that can be done, sir, to afford better physical protection for the President when he travels? Not that I know of. I am not an expert on security, but we have very dedicated and faithful men in the FBI and in the Secret Service. Do you always follow their instructions, sir? And occasionally, they prefer to have two or three policemen between me and the crowds, and I ask them to move out so I can see some of the people. I want to be a people's President, and in order to do so, you have to see the people and talk to them and know something about them and not be too secluded. I think they would feel better if the President kept 100 yards distance from every human being, but that is not practical.


Well, when you got back here, one of your--obviously one of your immediate jobs was to keep the Government going as a matter of effective politics and leadership. How, specifically, did you think you would go about that? How did you let it be known in Washington that there was a new man here, that things are going to continue more or less as they had been, and how did you think was the best way to make it as smooth as possible? First, to ask the very unusually talented individuals that had associated themselves with the Kennedy administration to stay at their posts of duty during this critical period, and without exception they answered the call. Second, I called the Governors together and made an appeal to them to help me in every way they could in establishing this confidence and letting the people of the country know that their Government was going on and functioning, and was strong, and that it would work. And hour after hour, day after day, that first week, I--while I was preparing my message to the Congress, preparing to go on television to the people, and the Thanksgiving message, I was spending my days and nights, and way into the mornings, talking to the leaders out in the States and trying to instill confidence in them and to ask them to help me with the awesome responsibilities that were mine. ENTITY, is there any one particular memory that is more vivid than the others for you, from those 4 horrible days? I have rarely been in the presence of greatness, but as I went through that period, I observed Mrs. Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, I saw her greatness, her gallantry, her graciousness, her courage, and it will always be a vivid memory, and I will always appreciate the strength that came to me from knowing her and from associating with her. Did you send any kind of private messages to Chairman Khrushchev soon after you became President? We had representatives from all the nations here. I spent 2 or 3 days speaking to those representatives. Mikoyan was here, and I had a long visit with him, and I talked to him about the visit that Premier Khrushchev had paid me when I was leader in the Senate, and we exchanged views for a period of time here in the office, just about the time of the funeral. Did the subject come up of a possible exploratory, get-acquainted session with Mr. Khrushchev?


We both expressed desire in our discussion that we understand each other better and that we would be glad to meet at some time when we felt that the agenda was such that would give promise of reaching some solution to the many problems that confront the two countries. But no definite plans were made for a meeting. None were proposed, but it was accepted as a possibility. You mentioned, ENTITY, part of the reason for the transition being so smooth was that your predecessor's Cabinet and staff stayed or In fact, they are still here almost intact. Each Cabinet member stayed, most of the Under Secretaries are here, most of the Assistant Secretaries. We have brought in about three young men who have been associated with me through the years, and we have lost Mr. Schlesinger and Mr. Sorensen. ENTITY, I wonder if you could talk a moment about this problem of Presidential succession. I think you have not endorsed any of the specific proposals that are up for discussion now. Yes; and I think the Congress is giving attention to that, and I think it is quite proper that they do, and I have no doubt that in the next few months when we select the Vice President--but what is very likely is that the Congress will take some action, I do not know just what kind of action, to make it possible to replace the Vice President if he becomes President. I think it is important that we do that. I do not have any deep-set views on just how that should be done. I participated in passing the measure that establishes the line of succession now, and I think that that is very good. President Kennedy sat down with me in the early days of his administration and discussed the possibilities of a takeover, a transition, if the President became disabled. We had an oral agreement on what should be done under those circumstances. The first--one of the first things I did was to ask the distinguished Speaker of the House to come to my office, and I made an agreement with him exactly as President Eisenhower had made with Vice President Nixon, and as President Kennedy had made with me, and that is now in writing and in existence if I should become disabled. But the Congress should consider replacing the Vice President when they have one no more. They are doing that now. I rather doubt that they will explore all the angles of it and make any realistic progress toward constitutional amendments or the necessary statutes this year, but I am sure once we have a Vice President that they will face up to it and take prompt action.


Have not we really reached a point in the history of this country where the selection of a vice presidential candidate must be nothing but his competence for the highest office? Is this the best equipped and best trained and best fitted man to serve as President should he be called on to do so ? Yet it is a choice which is peculiarly that of the presidential candidate, is it not, sir? I think that the delegates are always interested in getting the recommendations of the President, and in most instances, not all instances, but most instances, the presidential nominee makes his recommendation. I recall one or two instances where the President chose not to make any recommendation. But the Vice President is very close to the President. They have to agree on the same platform, they have to run on the same ticket. In order to be prepared for what might happen the President must have great confidence in the Vice President, and make known to him his thoughts, his views, and all of his secrets, so that he can have the background for taking over if it becomes necessary, so the President's recommendation should not be treated lightly. There have been reports, ENTITY, that you have become displeased with Attorney General Kennedy because efforts have been made in his behalf to have him nominated for Vice President. I think most of that is newspaper talk. I would be less than frank if I said that I thought that it was wise at this stage of the game for either the President or the Vice President to be carrying on a campaign for the office. The Attorney General and I have talked about that, and I think he understands my viewpoint, and I take his word that he has done nothing to encourage those efforts, and all of this stuff that you read about is newspaper talk. Well, speaking of newspaper talk, ENTITY, it is widely believed among the reporters around town that you object rather strongly to being criticized in the papers and on the air. Would you give us what your true feelings on that subject are? How do you feel about it? I assume that almost anyone is human and would rather have approval than disapproval. ENTITY, Kennedy once said in a similar conversation about a year ago or more that he thought the press ought to be as tough as it could be on any administration, so long as it was after truth and not merely a political operation. Is that a good definition of your views? I would have no objection to that.


I would agree to it, and I do not think--it is not the toughness of the press that any President objects to. I think it is sometimes their inaccuracies and--I frequently see stories from 10 or 15 papers that I think are quite accurate, very well done. On occasion, you will see something that is reported as a truth that you never heard of, where you are the principal participant. And if you call attention to it, then you become sensitive. How many papers do you read a day, sir? I guess about 10 or 15. ENTITY, during these 100 days there has been one persistent political issue, which is the investigation of Bobby Baker in the Senate, aimed at you because he was your protg and your friend. As a political animal, sir, what is your estimate of this as a campaign issue in 1964? Well, without agreeing with your assumptions about why the investigation or who it is aimed at, I would say that one of the finest committees in the Senate made up of Members of both parties have been conducting this investigation of an employee of theirs--no protg of anyone; he was there before I came to the Senate for 10 years, doing a job substantially the same as he is doing now, he was elected by all the Senators, appointed by no one, including the Republican Senators--and I think that their investigation will be a just one, and a fair one, and that they will make recommendations to the Senate that will be proper, and whatever they recommend I am sure the Senate will carry out. Well, quite apart from what the Senate committee may recommend, sir, have you formed a personal judgment, a judgment for yourself? I have not seen him since he resigned from the Senate or have not talked to him since he resigned from the Senate, and I think every man is entitled to a fair trial and I would like to see what conclusion is reached and what the evidence shows with which I am not familiar before I would make a judgment. ENTITY, if I could make you a self-critic for a moment, what, if anything, that has happened in these last 120 days would you do differently were you to do it again? Well, I do not know about that. I am sure that we have made a good many mistakes, but I do not know of any recommendation I have made that I would change. I would favor the same measures that I have recommended to the Congress.


I would handle the developments and the foreign policy fields such as Panama and Guantanamo and Zanzibar, Cyprus, just as we have handled them. So while I am sure that we could improve on them if we had more time, in the light of what developed I would not change any. I believe the first big problem you had to tackle was the budget, the time for making final decisions, and you devoted nearly all of the first month to this Because I think it told the people of the country and the people of the Congress what you are willing to pay for. And if I had it to do over again, I would much prefer to have 68 days than to have 38 days to make a budget of $98 billion. We have been adding to our budget about $5 billion a year. We had about $3 billion in built-in increases. So my big problem was to find ways and means of cutting money out of the budget that we did not need, and we did not need to appropriate, and we could save in order to have some money available to meet the many untilled needs we had--particularly in the welfare field, in the poverty field, in the training of manpower field. During the budget cutting, ENTITY, you made one little talk which caused some controversy in which you said that to meet the untilled needs of the people you would take from the haves and give to the have-nots. Now, just how did you mean that? Well, we have a budget of $52 billion in the Defense Department. They have the money. We say to them that we are going to take from this picture 69 bases that you now have, we are going to close those bases, we are going to take some of these overseas employees and cut them 15 percent, and have some people double-up on our jobs, and squeeze out additional productivity. And out of that money that we save, money that we have, and have used for these purposes, we are going to take it over here and take the young boys that have dropped out of school and have nothing to do, and no job and no work, and unemployed, and we are going to try to train them to be good citizens. You meant, ENTITY, to redivide the money amongst the Government agencies, not some kind of a new soak-the-rich scheme as some interpreted this take from the haves and give to the have-nots ? No, we made no recommendations on soaking anybody.


We are reducing taxes, not increasing them. Our tax reduction is in excess of $11 billion, $9 billion plus for individuals, everyone is the beneficiary of that already, and corporation taxes have been reduced some $2 1/2 billion, so we were not soaking anyone. But we were taking money that was being used for things that we did not need, or that we could avoid, and taking that money and applying it to meet the untilled needs of our poverty-stricken people. President Roosevelt talked about the third that were ill clad, ill fed, and ill housed. Thirty years we have worked on it but there is still one-fifth of the people that earn less than $3,000 a year. So out of the billion three that we cut from the Defense Department budget we will add almost a billion in the new budget for a poverty program. So it will come from those who have it, to those do not have it. Have you had any second thoughts, ENTITY, about erecting another agency to deal with root causes of poverty--health is one, education and other things--on top of the agencies and departments that already exist that have been dealing with these things? No, we are going to have a very small staff to coordinate the poverty program. the Agriculture Department; the Justice Department in the dealings with the juvenile delinquency; the Health, Education, and Welfare Department in health and education; the Labor Department in training manpower. And we do not want to create more agencies, we want to use the ones we have. So the President is going to have as his chief of staff, a poverty director, administrator, and through him his orders will be carried out through existing agencies. Could you give us an idea--not necessarily specific, unless you care to--what direction you would say your administration would take hereafter? What new approaches or ideas or philosophies we might see? Well, I think a message going to the Congress on Monday will indicate one approach.2 We are determined, and we have a group of dedicated men that are going to try to get at the roots and the causes of poverty that cause 20 percent of our people to live off of less than $3,000 a year. We are going to try to get at the roots and the causes and find the solution to doing something about half a million men that are rejected each year because of mental or physical reasons for service.


We are going to try to recognize and proceed on the basis that illiteracy and ignorance and disease cost this Government billions of dollars per year, and make for much unhappiness. And the program of poverty this year is one example of what I would like to think will be carried on, and grow in the years to come. I want this Government first of all to be dedicated to peace in our time, and do everything that we can conceivably do, any place, any time, with anyone, to resolve some of the differences that exist among mankind. In order to do that, this Government must be prepared and we must maintain strength and power that would insure our safety if attacked. In order to have peace, and to be prepared, we must be solvent and fiscally responsible. So for that reason we have tried to eliminate waste at every corner. I do not believe that we are going to make the Treasury over by cutting out a few automobiles or turning out a few lights. But I do think it is a good example when you walk through the corridor and you see the closets where lights burn all day and all night just because someone did not turn them off. So we have tried to set that example and we want a Government that is seeking peace, that is prepared for any eventuality, that is fiscally solvent and that is compassionate, that meets the needs of the people for health and for education, and for physical and mental and spiritual strength. And our Government-that is the kind of a Johnson administration I would like to have and that is the kind that we are working towards. ENTITY, administrations come to have rather handy labels, New Deal, or Fair Deal, or Crusade, or New Frontier. Has any ever come to your mind for the Johnson administration? I have had a lot of things to deal with the first 100 days, and I have not thought of any slogan, but I suppose all of us want a better deal, do not we? ENTITY, I do not want to overdo the business of labels, but many of us have long been a little baffled watching your career in the Senate and now here as to whether to call you a conservative or liberal, or Southerner or Westerner. How do you think of yourself if you apply those labels at all to yourself? Well, I do not believe in labels. I want to do the best I can, all the time. I want to be progressive without getting both feet off.


I want to be prudent without having my mind closed to anything that is new or different. I have often said that I was proud that I was a free man first and an American second, and a public servant third and a Democrat fourth, in that order, and I guess as a Democrat, if I had to take--place a label on myself, I would want to be a progressive who is prudent. While we are talking about Democrats, ENTITY, what is your timing on your election year effort? I would hope that we would not have to--we would not have to begin an active campaign--the Democratic Party--until around convention time, after the Congress disposed of its business. I am going to carry out some commitments that President Kennedy made for fund-raising dinners from time to time, but I think after the convention we will have ample time to give our views to the people. In the meantime, I would like to have the cooperation of the members of both parties in carrying out a program that is best for America. I am the only President this country has, and I would like to be as free from partisanship as possible, at least until the convention. Well, ENTITY, in this interim between now and the convention, do you think we might see a few old-fashioned, nonpolitical conservation tours or inspection tours of that kind? We will see them before and after the convention. They are part of the work of the President. I think part of the President's job is to get out and see the people and talk to them about what the Government is doing and make reports. That is why I am on this--having this little visit with you fellows this afternoon, so that the people may know something about my views and how I feel and my approaches, and may know how much I need them and need their help in the job that I am trying so hard to do. ENTITY, some people have thought that you put in too long and hard a day, that you might endanger your own health that way. How do you protect your health from day to day? We do have long days, and the problems that require attention require time. And you never have as much time as you want to spend before making these decisions, but you must make decisions. The first 100 days were filled almost to the breaking point.


But I have adjusted myself to the schedule and with the help of the most competent people that President Kennedy surrounded himself with, I am now able--I wake up in the morning and read my papers and read the documents that were left over from the night before that I need to pass upon and have my briefings, and my breakfast, and come to the office between 9 and 10 o'clock. 30 or 2. And I have a swim and take out 15 or 20 minutes. Then I go and have a lunch or--usually a business lunch, working lunch, and about 3 I take a little nap of 20 or 30 minutes, and that breaks the day for me, and then I am good until 8 or 9 that night, and have my dinner. After dinner I see TV news, and then I engage in my night reading, and I usually read until about 1. I do not require too much sleep. But I am never in better health. I enjoy the work that I am doing, and the people with whom I am working. I never felt better in my life. ENTITY, you did manage to quit cigarette smoking some years ago. Have you any advice for those of us who have not managed? I gave up cigarette smoking because the doctor recommended that I do so, and I have missed it every day, but I have not gone back to it, and I am glad that I have not . ENTITY, I gather from what you say that we need not expect any kind of political announcements from you until very close to the convention. I would not want to preclude one. Unless I--there is substantial consideration involved--I see no reason to make any now, and I do not anticipate it, but if the circumstances indicated that one would be fruitful or necessary, I would not hesitate to face up to it. While we are on politics, I wonder--we have heard everybody else's analysis of what happened in New Hampshire. Would you give us yours? I think that we always incline to put too much emphasis on the actions of one primary. But it seemed to me that the people of the State heard all the candidates and decided to select one of their neighbors that apparently they knew and approved. I have very high regard for Ambassador Lodge myself, as I do for some of the other candidates. Has his serving in Viet-Nam during a political campaign been at all awkward or embarrassing for the administration?


So far as I have been able to detect from his actions, he has been doing nothing but the job as ambassador, and doing it as best he could, and I have seen nothing that has interfered with that work. Did Secretary McNamara bring you any new word from Mr. Lodge just recently when he returned, about Mr. Lodge's future plans, how long he might stay on the job, and so forth? I have had no indication that he plans to leave the job at all, and if he did, I am sure he would let me know, Secretary McNamara brought me some recommendations concerning the situation out in Viet-Nam, in which Ambassador Lodge expressed his views, and in which they were in general agreement with Mr. McNamara and other members of the team, but nothing political. Is it your opinion that Mr. Lodge has behaved properly and within the scope of his role as an ambassador, considering that he has been injected into the political arena? You have had reports in the last day or two from the Ambassador to France and from Secretary McNamara. Can you tell us anything of what he reported to you from Viet-Nam? Yes, he made a very lengthy report and I think a responsible and constructive one. We are going to consider it in the Security Council further the early part of the week. We have problems in Viet-Nam as we have had for 10 years. We are very anxious to do what we can to help those people preserve their own freedom. We cherish ours and we would like to see them preserve theirs. We have furnished them with counsel and advice, and men and materiel to help them in their attempts to defend themselves. If people would quit attacking them we'd have no problem, but for 10 years this problem has been going on. I was reading a letter only today that General Eisenhower wrote to the late President Diem 10 years ago,3 and it is a letter that I could have well written to President Khanh and sent out by Mr. McNamara. Now, we have had that problem for a long time. We are going to have it for some time in the future, we can see, but we are patient people, and we love freedom, and we want to help others preserve it, and we are going to try to evolve the most effective and efficient plans we can to continue to help them.


President Kennedy said, on the subject of Viet-Nam, I think, that he did believe in the falling domino theory, that if Viet-Nam were lost that other countries in the area would soon be lost. I think it would be a very dangerous thing, and I share President Kennedy's view, and I think the whole of Southeast Asia would be involved and that would involve hundreds of millions of people, and I think it is --it cannot be ignored, we must do everything that we can, we must be responsible, we must stay there and help them, and that is what we are going to do. ENTITY, during the New Hampshire primary campaign, Governor Rockefeller criticized what he called divided counsel that was going out from Washington to the leaders of Viet-Nam. He said that while you and Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara were committed to winning the war and defeating the Viet Cong, the Senate majority leader, Senator Mansfield, seemed to find favor with the idea of neutralization advanced by President de Gaulle of France. What is your reaction to Governor Rockefeller's criticism? Well, I think the Governor should know that Senator Mansfield is very experienced in the field of foreign relations, and serves as a distinguished member of that committee, and when he made his speech in the Senate,4 he spoke for himself, and so stated. He was not speaking the administration viewpoint and he did not leave any such impression. From time to time he has given me his counsel over the years in this general area of Southeast Asia, but when he made this speech he spoke for himself entirely, and there is no division in the administration between Secretary Rusk and Secretary McNamara and myself. We all feel alike on the matter. I think that there could even be some division between Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Lodge, judging from what you have said. Lodge sees things pretty much as we do, and we are going to continue with our program, and it is going to be a responsible one, and we think a fruitful one. Do the recommendations that Secretary McNamara brought back from his last trip envisage a continuing role for Mr. Lodge in handling policies in South Viet-Nam? Yes, he has a very important role. He met with me in my office 2 days after I became President, and I said to him at that time that You are my top man there, and I want you to have the kind of people you want, and I want you to carry out the program you recommend and you will have our support here.


He has worked very hard at that job and we have sent him some new people from time to time, and we will be sending more. He has command of the full resources that we have out there, and he works very well with our people. One of your speeches at the University of California in Los Angeles indicated a kind of hint to me that we might carry the war to the North Vietnamese if they did not quit meddling in what you call a dangerous game. Are there any such plans that you can talk about at this time, sir? No, and I made no such hint. I said it was a dangerous game to try to supply arms and become an aggressor and deprive people of their freedom, and that is true, whether it is in Viet-Nam or whether it is in this hemisphere, wherever it is. ENTITY, do we face the decision on Viet-Nam of the order of magnitude of Korea, for example? I think that we have problems there. We have difficulties there. We have had for 10 years, and as I told you, a good many things have come and gone during that period of time; as long as there are people trying to preserve their freedom, we want to help them. Well, ENTITY, not only do we have a new administration in this country, but we also have what might be described as a new world, since it is said now that the postwar world is over, and the American leadership is challenged and questioned both by friend and enemy alike in many places now. What is your view and assessment of it ? How do you see the American role from here on, now that we are no longer the unquestioned leader of the entire West? Well, I think that as long as we are living in a world with 120 nations, that we have got to realize that we have got 120 foreign policies. And we are living in a world where we recognize 114 other nations, and some that we do not recognize, and so I think at this time that our Nation is held in high esteem and respect and affection generally among the peoples of the world, the free world. I realize that we have discouraging incidents from time to time, and we have problems, and because we try to help with those problems, sometimes the role of the peacemaker is not a very happy one.


And so, for that reason, we have to do things that we do not want to do sometimes, and are rather irritating--and sometimes we are abused because we do them, and sometimes we are misunderstood. ENTITY, about 10 years ago an American Secretary of State termed neutrality as something immoral. Not long ago President Kennedy talked about making the world safe for diversity. Is a more and more diverse world, with the diminishing of the importance of great alliances, a trend toward a safer world? that we are having all the new nations that are emerging, and they are coming in without experience, and they have their pride. A good many of them have the feelings that--pent-up feelings, that they have nurtured for years and years. And they have an opportunity to express themselves, and sometimes it looks a little odd for the Prime Minister of a new country to come in with a pistol in his hand and arrest an American charge d'affaires. But that does happen, and we have to be prepared for those developments and try to understand them and try to provide leadership that will keep us from getting in deeper water or more trouble, and that is what we are doing. They cut the water off on us in Cuba, and I got a good many recommendations from all over the country as to how to act very quickly. Some of them said--some of the men wanted me to run in the Marines, send them in immediately. Well, upon reflection and evaluation and study, realizing not many people want more war, and none of them really want more appeasement, you have to find a course that you can chart that will preserve your dignity and self-respect, and still bring about the action that is necessary. So instead of sending in the Marines to turn the water on, we sent one admiral in to cut it off and arrange to make our own water, and we think things worked out as best they could under those circumstances. But there are going to be these demands from time to time, from people who feel that all we need to do is mash a button and determine everybody's foreign policy. But we are not living in that kind of a world any more. They are going to determine it for themselves, and that is the way it should be. And we are going to have to come and reason with them and try to lead them instead of force them.


And I think, I have no doubt but what for centuries to come that we will be a leading force in molding opinion of the world, and I think the better they know us the more they will like us. We have been very close to agreement several times. I have no doubt but what agreement will be reached that will, in effect, provide for sitting down with the Panamanian authorities and discussing the problems that exist between us and being guided only by what is fair and what is right and what is just, and trying to resolve those problems. We are anxious and willing and eager to do it any time it suits their convenience. I think first, they have an election on, and I think translating our language into their language, that some of the agreements that we have to discuss these matters, they perhaps feel that they would want stronger language than we are willing to agree to, and we want a different expression from what they want. It is largely a matter of trying to agree on the kind of language that will meet their problems, and that we can honestly, sincerely agree to. We are not going to agree to any preconditions to negotiate a new treaty without knowing what it is going to be in that treaty and without sitting down and working it out on the basis of equity. We think that that language can be resolved and will be resolved in due time. ENTITY, what is your assessment now of General de Gaulle's behavior in the last year or two? What do you think about it? In relation to us, sir? My conversations with him have been very pleasant. I would like to see him more in agreement on matters with us than he is, such as recognizing Red China. We did not think that was wise for France or for us or for the free world. That is not ours, and in his wisdom he decided he would follow that course, and that is a matter for him to determine. What do you hear from the people at the United Nations, ENTITY? Has the fact of French recognition now increased the prospect that the Red Chinese may be voted into membership at the U.N.? The situation changes from time to time, but we do not think that they will be voted into membership, and we hope not. What would be our reaction vis-a-vis the U.N. if they were admitted? Well, we will have to cross that bridge--I do not want to admit that they are going to be admitted and do not think they will.


Senator Goldwater, for example, has argued that we should withdraw at once if the Red Chinese are admitted. Well, that is Senator Goldwater's view, and I do not think they are going to be admitted, and I do not think we will have to face that question. One you do have to face soon, ENTITY, is to say something to Congress about foreign aid. That seems to have reached a peak of opposition. It seems to have reached some kind of peak last year. What do you think the future of it is? I think it is going to be very tough to get a good foreign aid measure through the Congress this year. Last year President Kennedy asked for $4,900 million. He later had that request carefully studied and he reduced it to $4,500 million. He got a $3 billion appropriation--after I came to office. I signed the bill and there was reappropriated about $400 million unexpended balances, $3,400 million. Now, I have conferred with the leaders in the House and Senate on that matter, and they all admit it is going to be more difficult this year than it ever has been before, although I do not think that is justified. Nevertheless, I request--we are not going to pad our request. We got $3 billion 4 this year, and we will ask for something in the neighborhood of that for next year, and we will ask only what we need, and we hope we get what we ask, but it will be appreciably under what was asked last year, and approximately the same that we got this year. We think that we are justified in spending 3 or 4 cents of our tax dollar to protect the million men who are in uniform, our men, scattered throughout the world, and to keep them from going into combat, and this is the best weapon that I have. It is very difficult to get 21 nations to all agree and get their Systems changed and their reforms effected and to blend into their governmental philosophy the modernization that is going to be required to make the Alliance for Progress a success. We are distressed that it has not been more successful, but we have not lost faith. We are having a meeting Monday with all of the Ambassadors from the Organization of American States. We are having a meeting Monday with all the Ambassadors from the Western Hemisphere.


We are calling in all of our own Ambassadors, and the three groups are going to meet, and we are going to point out the weaknesses and the slowness of certain reforms that are required and the cooperation that we must have from their countries because there is no use of making big investments and taking our taxpayers funds unless these reforms are effective. And we are going to make an appeal for a united attack that will give new life to the Alliance for Progress and we have hopes that it will be successful. ENTITY, are you terribly disturbed about the resort to street protests and demonstrations on civil rights and other things that are taking place now almost all over the country? I think that when the Senate acts upon the civil rights bill, that we will have the best civil rights law that has been enacted in a hundred years, and I think it will be a substantial and effective answer to our racial problems. The Negro was freed of his chains a hundred years ago, but he has not been freed of the problems brought about by his color and the bigotry that exists. And this bill goes a long way to taking the battle from the streets into the legislative halls and into the courthouses, and into where these differences should be settled. Of course, we have a right to petition, and we should petition when we have grievances, but I think the most effective thing that can be done--and I think great progress has been made under the leadership of President Kennedy and the Attorney General and others in the last year is getting all the people of the Nation to accept their moral responsibility and take some leadership in this field where there has been so much discrimination. And I know of nothing more important for this Congress to do than to pass the Civil Rights Act as the House passed it. And I hope that can be done after due deliberation. I think it will be a great step forward for the Nation. I think it will make us much more united, and I cannot think of any single thing we can do to strengthen American foreign policies more than to pass the house civil rights bill in the Senate. You are confident that you can get a civil rights bill substantially like the House bill without major modification? We want to very much, and we are going--the Senate will have to work its will and we believe that a substantial majority favors the House bill, and we believe in due time it will be able to work its will.


Well, are you concerned, ENTITY, at what might happen if this filibuster is still going in the late spring when the schools are out and the kids are out and have idle time on their hands? I do not want to predict that the Senate will be--how long it will be discussing this bill. I am hopeful and I am an optimist and I believe they can pass it and I believe they will pass it and I believe it is their duty to pass it, and I am going to do everything I can to get it passed. ENTITY, you have now been President for something over 100 days. You have been around Washington for more than 3 years. How is the view from the inside as compared with the view from the outside? Well, it is a much tougher job from the inside than I thought it was from the outside. I have watched it since Mr. Hoover's days, and I realize the responsibilities it carried and the obligations of leadership that were there, and the decisions that had to be made, and the awesome responsibilities of the office. But I must say that when I started having to make those decisions and started hearing from the Congress, that the Presidency looked a little different when you are in the Presidency than it did when you are in the Congress, and vice versa. ENTITY, Thomas Jefferson referred to the office as a splendid misery. Harry Truman used to talk about it as if it were a prison cell. Do you like it? I am doing the best I can in it, and I am enjoying what I am doing. Thomas Jefferson said the second office of the land was an honorable and easy one. But I found great interest in serving in both offices, and it carries terrific and tremendous and awesome responsibilities but I am proud of this Nation, and I am so grateful that I could have an opportunity that I have had in America that I want to give my life seeing that the opportunity is perpetuated for others. I am so proud of our system of government, of our free enterprise, where our incentive system and our men who head our big industries are willing to get up at daylight and work until midnight to offer employment and create new jobs for people, where our men working there will try to get decent wages but will sit across the table and not act like cannibals, but will negotiate and reason things out together.


If we could begin with the issue of Liberia, President Charles Taylor in particular. You said he needs to step down; he needs to leave the country. The U.S., along with other west African countries, are busy negotiating the whole issue. What are the discussions and options that are being put on the table? Well, I am glad you brought up the departure of Charles Taylor. In our judgment, he needs to go in order to create the conditions necessary for a peaceful solution to this difficult situation occurs. You know, look, we are talking to ECOWAS countries right now to determine whether or not the-what the nature of a peacekeeping force might look like. I am the kind of person that likes to know all the facts before I make a decision. We have got special ties to Liberia. That is why we are involved in this issue, and I am going to look at all the options to determine how best to bring peace and stability. That is Mr. Taylor needs to leave, and I have been outspoken on that. Colin Powell has been outspoken on that. And I think most of the people involved with this issue understand that that is important, that he do leave. Does that mean that if those negotiations fail and President Charles Taylor refuses to go, that you will send troops to remove him from office and-- Well, first of all, I refuse to accept the negative. I understand it is your job to try to put that forth. And until he does not listen, then we can come back and talk about the issue. In other words, I hope he does listen, and I am convinced he will listen. No, you-I am convinced he will listen and make the decision-the right decision, if he cares about his country. Let us talk about, then, your trip to Africa. It has not necessarily- it has only recently become more apparent, this particular administration's interest in African affairs and involvement in what is going on in the country. Yes, can I stop you there? As a matter of fact, from the very beginning of my administration, I have been very much involved with African affairs. I have met over 22 African leaders. And I just want to make-correct the record before-- disabuse you of that misinformation, because Africa has been a very important part of my administration's foreign policy.

Interview With CNN International


However, many people will say that has only become more apparent to them, perhaps not necessarily to the administration, but more apparent, outwardly, that this administration is becoming involved in African affairs. My question to you, then, is if that is the case and looking at the history which you have pointed out, why now? I thought it was important to go before my first term was over to show the importance of Africa to my administration's foreign policy. And besides going on a trip- I mean, trips are fine, but what is more important is policy. And I proposed a Millennium Challenge Account, which will, in my judgment, affect the lives of African citizens in an incredibly positive way, which says that in return for aid-and we are increasing the amount of aid available-governments actually have to make decisions which will be positive on behalf of their people, such as educating their people or providing health care for their people, not to steal the money; in other words, do not focus on elite but focus on the people themselves, create the conditions necessary for market growth. I promoted AGOA. Now, I did not invent AGOA; that happened in my predecessor's time. But I promoted the extension of AGOA, which was the trade agreements between the African Continent and the United States, which has been incredibly beneficial for a lot of countries and a lot of people on the African Continent. I proposed an ENTITY initiative because I believe it is very important for the United States to not only show its muscle to the world but also its heart. And the ENTITY initiative, in our judgment, when implemented, will help affect the lives of thousands of people who are suffering from an incredibly-a pandemic that is actually destroying life. And it is-it is sad for us. And so my administration is not only, you know, good on trips and meetings but more important, fundamental policy. One policy that your administration has not necessarily agreed on with many African countries is the question of Iraq and the war in Iraq. Can you give us a sense of how close the administration feels you are to finding those weapons of mass destruction and banned weapons? Yes, there is no doubt in my mind he had a weapons program. He was-he used them. Remember, he was the guy that gassed his own people. Those were weapons of mass destruction he used on his own people. We found a biological lab, the very same lab that had been banned by the United Nations.

Interview With CNN International


ENTITY, my first question is, I would like to know, what is the importance of the development of this new ethanol market, regional market, in political and economical terms? And how is that going to strengthen U.S.-Brazil relations? I can remember my first visit with President Lula. He was not sure what to expect when he came to the Oval Office, and frankly, I was not sure what to expect when he came. You know, people have reputations that precede them in life. And yet, after we spent a brief period of time, we both came to realize, we share the same concerns, particularly for the poor, and we both represent big, influential nations; and that we can work together to achieve common objectives. And one such objective is human rights and rule of law, a civil society that empowers individuals; that we believe government ought to respond to people and that people ought to have the ultimate say in the fate of government. We came from different political directions-I readily concede-but nevertheless, when we listened carefully, we found common ground. And that puts us in a position where we can work in practical ways to address significant problems. One such problem is trade, and President Lula and I will spend time on the Doha round to determine whether or not we are able to advance Doha in a constructive way that benefits our nations and, equally importantly, the world's poor. The best way to alleviate poverty is for there to be prosperity, and one way to enhance prosperity is through a world that trades freely and fairly. The other area-another area of common ground is changing our energy uses. My last trip to Brazil, I was briefed extensively on Brazil's capacity to use its raw materials to develop a vast ethanol industry. And I was impressed by the progress Brazil has made. It reminded me of-the progress Brazil has made has reminded me of the vast potential that agricultural can make on the energy front. So I now return to Brazil with a robust domestic agenda on ethanol. We had already had an agenda on ethanol, but it is now even more robust as a result of a mandatory fuel standard I laid out that said, the United States will be consuming about 35 billion gallons of ethanol. The political implications of that, at least for the United States, are profound, in that we become less dependent on oil, which is good for our national security, as well as it helps us be good stewards of the environment.

Interview With Foreign Print Journalists


I happen to believe that the United States and Brazil can work together to, for example, share technologies with others in the region, which will help them become less dependent on oil. And that is important, because dependency on oil exposes economies to the whims of the marketplace. As China's demand for oil continues, if there is not a corresponding increase in international supply, what happens in China affects the ability of someone in Latin America to be able to keep more money- in other words, the gas prices go up. And we live in a global economy, in which global economics-I mean, live in a global world in which global economics affects the lives of a lot of people in our neighborhood. And so becoming less dependent on oil will enhance the economic security of the region, and that is important because prosperity in the region is important for the United States. Recently, Uruguay and the United States signed a framework agreement on trade and investments. Now, how far do you think the United States and Uruguay can advance towards a free trade agreement? As antiimperialist? Fine, that is -I would hope he would define my Government as profreedom. I think that-first of all, there are countervailing pressures in my own Government. People should not take for granted that the United States wants to have trade agreements. I strongly resist those temptations. It is in our interests to be a nation which treats others the same way we want to be treated in the marketplace. I know it is in the interest of the poor to have markets open for their products. And so I will go to Uruguay as a strong defender of trade. I fully understand that there are pressures on leaders regarding trade and that sometimes, it takes a period of time for people to get comfortable with different types of trading agreements. And therefore, I will make my case about why I hope we can continue what has been a constructive relationship with Uruguay without pressing the case beyond that, which is politically possible. And again, I will assure the ENTITY that I will be-we want to listen to concerns, we will work closely as friends. And I will remind him that here at home, it is not an easy sell, necessarily, and that if he believes trade is in the interests of his country and I believe it is in mine, we have both got to work constructively to achieve common objectives. As to characterizations of the United States, I will remind him that we are a generous, compassionate nation that believes in peace.


And that on the one hand, we will protect ourselves from attacks that I am convinced the enemy wants to launch on America again. But at the same time, I will remind him that the advance of liberty, the advance of human rights and human dignity is in our national interests. Anyway, I am looking forward to the trip. I have never been to Uruguay, and I am looking forward to it. In the last few months, Colombia has been shocked by scandal of possible links between paramilitary groups, which are terrorist organizations, and members of Congress as well as public officials. Given the fact that until now only close allies and collaborators of President Alvaro Uribe have been involved in this scandal, can this scandal affect the support that your Government is giving to the Government of Colombia? President Uribe has made it very clear that he is going to-he promotes and expects there to be a full investigation of any allegations. And as a result of strengthening the prosecutorial offices, he has sent a signal that if, in fact, there are allegations that are worthy of further investigation and the facts lead to prosecution, he will fully prosecute. And to me, that gives me great comfort in seeing his strong leadership. And I believe that that leadership will stand him in good stead with our Congress. The budget I have submitted is one that is a little less than last year but, nevertheless, is a strong commitment to a Plan Colombia II. One of the reasons why the budget is a little less than last year is, it goes to show the progress that Colombia is making. In my judgment, President Uribe has done a fabulous job for leading that country. Secondly, the economy is improving, as you know, and therefore, Colombia can carry more of the load of II. But nevertheless, the commitment is a significant commitment, and I will work very hard with Congress to get that commitment passed in the budget. ENTITY, a lot of people in Guatemala and in Central America is worried about the violence that might be generated by organized crime, gangs, and drug trafficking. And how the Government of the United States can work together with Guatemala and the other Central American countries to fight this problem? Well, that is a common issue that we have with our very important friend to the south. It is an issue that concerns both Mexico and the United States. The issue of crime in Central America concerns both Mexico and the United States because, oftentimes, that crime can be exported into either country.