And he said something that everybody wanted to hear in the Middle East, which is that he wanted Lebanon to be an independent country with a peace with Israel. So I was quite pleased with that. So from now on, the question of the differences between Syria and the United States, which we spent about an hour on today, spent a significant portion of our meeting on it, because I thought it was important that neither one of us be under any illusions about the differences that are still there and because I think it is important in this peace negotiation that we both have absolute credibility with each other. So we thought we had to spend some time on it. We agreed to try to get beyond sort of a general and accusatory level by letting the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of Syria develop a process to specifically identify these things that trouble the United States so much and to give them a chance to specifically identify things about our policy toward them or the Middle East in general that trouble them and to try to set in motion a process for working through it. Because every report I have gotten over the years of the encounters and you know, Asad's spent a lot of time talking to Westerners because of the Middle East issue things always stop, in my judgment, at a level that is too general, where people are charging and countercharging and there is no real effort to lay the kind of factual basis that has to be laid if you are going to really argue that people should change their policies. So I feel pretty good about it. Were you satisfied, sir, that there was no Syrian involvement or complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing? First I raised that, and he raised it again. I can tell you that we have absolutely no evidence of it and that he flatly denied it. And he reminded us and me that a Syrian was killed on Pan Am 103 who was the only son of a woman from his home area. And he said it was a he characterized it as a cruel and senseless thing had no point, killing all those students. If you ever have any evidence that any Syrian is involved, you just let me know, and we will take the appropriate action. Back on Russia, when were you told about that Mr. Gaydar was going to resign? Who told you that, and how serious do you think it is? Yeltsin told me that here is how he characterized it.


I was not quite sure exactly how to he told me that he thought there was a strong possibility that Gaydar would decide that he needed to devote all of his time to leading the party that he took into the Duma and building his political strength both in the Parliament and out in the country and that he was concerned about building it up politically and making it effective in the Duma. He said the reason, you see you say when I am trying to remember. I think it was sometime during the first day as opposed to the second day's conversations that he said it. What are your impressions of Asad? Let me answer the question. He also went out of his way to tell me, though, he said, We are not going to reverse our reform course, and we do not want to slow it down, but we do want to cushion the impact of it better. We want to have a better sense of how it affects people. And he said, We also want to try to demonstrate the successes more clearly. We want to be able to show people that this has been done. And in that connection and you know what he asked? He was very pleased with a lot of the initiatives that I told him we worked on, like we were working to get the G-7 to make sure that the countries that buy oil from Russia, for example, that buy energy from Russia, could pay for it in a timely fashion so they can use that money to help them build their country. That is a big deal to them. He was interested in getting his next IMF money in a timely fashion. He was interested in making sure that the accumulated debt, once he is making payments on it, can be rescheduled. In other words, he did not want to slow down reform. He wanted to make it work better, and he wanted to make sure that they had some strategies for cushioning the impact on ordinary people. He also said that he would keep a team that was reform oriented, and it would be a good, competent team. Gaydar left the government once before, and the reforms did not stop. So the only thing I encouraged him to do was, I said, You proved you are committed to democracy. You have stayed with this reform. You have still got some tough decisions to make. I told him, I said, I contacted the G-7 before I came up here.

Interview With Reporters Aboard Air Force One


We want to help cushion the impact of reform, and we want to help make sure the people of Russia know what you are doing to help the economy. And if you are going to keep on the reform path, it'll be easier for us to do that, because then we will be able to make sure that the IMF and the World Bank support you as well as these individual countries. You know he is in some the political situation over there is not free of difficulty. I mean, you just only have to look at the makeup of the lower House of the Parliament to draw that conclusion. But I think he will try to hang in there, mostly because if you look at the go-slower approach, you look at Ukraine and you see they are in worse shape than Russia. And one of the things and let me just say that this is something I did not even talk about on the trip but one of the things I want to spend a lot more time doing when I get back, and have our people try to be helpful on, is trying to dissect what we mean by reform, because there are at least three big elements to it. There is the privatization of government-owned companies, which Russia is doing very, very well, better than anybody else. There is the management of fiscal and monetary policy, which means you have got to keep inflation down at a reasonable level to get private investment, which means you cannot just keep on printing money to pay for subsidies in a dying industry. They are having trouble with that, although they are doing better than they were last year. Then the third area is making sure you have got the infrastructure, if I can use that much-maligned word, that will attract investment from outside the country and will permit the markets to work. That means you have got to have a system of laws relating to private property, contracts, bankruptcy, clear, unambiguous taxation laws, that sort of stuff. If you look at Czechoslovakia, which is the most I mean, the Czech Republic, which is the most successful of the former Communist countries, they are behind Russia on privatization but ahead on the infrastructure.


So the one thing that I think we need to focus on is now that they have got a constitutional democracy, and all of them, even the ones who want to slow down reform, want more investment, which is interesting they all want more investment, even the ones that think, Well, reform has gone too fast they might be for the first time in a real position now to write some of the laws in such a way that will attract a lot more investment. For example, if you want to make an energy investment in Russia, you may not care what the rate of privatization of small companies is, but you do want to know if you put the money in there and who you are investing with, is your investment good, what do you do in case of breach of contract, what are your tax obligations if you make money? Just clear, simple, straightforward stuff that we take for granted, that I think they now have to do a little more work on. How concerned was Yeltsin about the rise of ultranationalist sentiment? And did you give him any counsel on how to alleviate those feelings of humiliation? Well, let me see how I should answer that. I do not want to talk in great detail about our conversation, because I think he should be able to answer that. I do not want to read his mind for you. I think that he believes that the more the voters know about some of the positions taken by the ultranationalists, including Zhirinovsky, the more likely they will be to pull away from them. And he believes that the promises which were made by the ultranationalists could not reasonably be expected to be kept. So I think that his view is that what he needs to do is try to do the best he can with his job, turn things around, show some successes, and that that is the best way to dampen them down. One thing I did say to him was that just following the campaign from afar, as we all did, that the ultranationalists seemed in some ways in some ways the Communists did, too to lay too much of an uncontested claim to the feelings of national pride. That is, the reformers, we all know, did not run in a coherent bloc and did not present a coherent message. And as the Democrats know in the United States I kicked him on purpose because he is talked about this it is sort of like the problems that the Democrats had for the last 20 years winning the Presidency.


You could say, here is a problem and here is my four-point solution to the problem, but if all you get is the good government vote, that is never going to be a majority, especially when people are hurting. So the only counsel I gave him was that Yeltsin cut through all the traditional barriers when he stood up on that tank, or even earlier when he became Gorbachev's successor. He embodied the change and the pride of Russia. You saw the pride of Russia and the change in a person. And by his actions he did that. And what I suggested to him was that his group, they needed to find spokespersons, and they needed to find ways of saying what they were about that also says, We are pro-worker, we are pro-family, we are anticrime, and we are for bringing the pride of this nation back. And our plan will make the . Because I think to be fair to them, their task has been so daunting that they would naturally become absorbed in the overwhelming burdens of just doing the details of it. These other guys were never in government, you know; they had the freedom of just going out and making speeches. And the only thing I cautioned to Yeltsin, I said, Look, I saw the Democrats in America get killed for years because they go out there and they talk about problem X, Y, and Z and have a four-point program for every one. And they might be right, but if it did not resonate with a larger concern to the voters, it could never be translated into a national mandate. And I think we had a great conversation about it, and I think he was interested in it, because he understands that that is how he got to be ENTITY in the first place, change and pride. But in the last election, keep in mind, he put all of his prestige and effort into passing the Constitution. So a lot of people voted for Boris Yeltsin and his constitution and also voted for the Communist candidate, the agrarian candidate, Zhirinovsky and his crowd. And he needs to win the overlap. He cannot let them win the overlap if he is going to govern the country and move it forward. He is very smart and very tough and has a very clear view of what he thinks has happened in the Middle East in the last 25 years and what he thinks ought to happen.


On the other hand, I think that he has reached the conclusion that it is in the interest of his people, his administration, and his legacy to make a meaningful and lasting peace. I believe that. Well, he said, first of all, that he thought that he agreed with me that there ought to be a peace in Lebanon agreement that operated and was developed in parallel with the Syrian track and that the end of it ought to be a fully independent Lebanon, an accord consistent with the Taif accords, which then therefore, the inevitable answer is yes. Did he ask you, if there was peace between Israel and Syria, we would follow through on our commitment to commit U.S. troops to the Golan Heights in order to keep the peace? He did not ask it just like that. He said that there needed to be mutual security guarantees, that Israel's security was not all that was at stake, that Damascus was closer to the Golan than Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, and that artillery would go up the hill quite nicely. That is what he said. He said, We are not talking about rifles here. He said, Rifles all the advantage goes to the people on top of the Golan. When you are talking about artillery, it is a mixed bag. He did not breach that. What he said was that both sides would need security assurances. We would be willing to commit our troops if there was a serious peace agreement? What I said to him and what our country has said repeatedly for years now is that, obviously, if both sides made an agreement and both sides wanted this, we would have to give it serious consideration; that is something I would have to talk to the Congress about, do other things, that I could not make any kind of commitment, particularly in the absence of an expressed decision by Israel and Syria, but we would certainly give it consideration. You certainly think you pushed the momentum on this. We have pushed it forward. It is clearly the biggest step forward since September 13th. Maybe in some ways a bigger one because we all knew on September 13th that in the end the only way to hold this thing together was to get the rest of it done. Did you bring up the issue of the Syrian control of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that are operating through Syrian-controlled Lebanon in attacks upon Israel? I brought up Hezbollah, the Jibril group, and the PKK specifically, as I said in my press conference that I did.


And he gave his view that he is stated many times. He stated his position; I restated mine. I said, Look, we are not going to resolve this today, but that we cannot have normal relations between the two of us, as opposed to what is going on in the Middle East, until they are resolved. And so I suggested that we give the Secretary of State and the Syrian Foreign Minister the opportunity to develop a mechanism to try to honestly and openly deal with these issues and let us bring our concerns in real specificity to them, let them respond, and see if we can work through it. What will be the thing that you truly remember, sentimentally, emotionally, spiritually? Well, the sentimental highlight was walking across the bridge in Prague for the first time in 24 years with Havel with this enormous sense of pride I had at the freedom that he had brought to the country and what I remembered from all the young people when I was there in Czechoslovakia 24 years ago, how deeply anti-Communist they were 24 years ago, how desperately they wanted to be free. And just walking across the bridge with me, this guy who had gone to prison for his beliefs and who so completely represented the best of his culture, you know, was the ENTITY of the country. And then we walked across the bridge, and then had dinner in that little pub with the couple that I stayed with 24 years ago. The emotional highlight was going into that cathedral that has just been resanctified that Stalin tore down and turned into a public restroom and being invited by the priest to light a candle for my mother. I still think we have got to I would not call it a disappointment because to be disappointed it has to fall short of your expectations but I think we have got some work to do within NATO in defining this whole area of out-of-area missions. Is NATO going to have a military mission beyond protecting the security of its members and the Partnership For Peace? I am more convinced than I was when I went there that the Partnership For Peace is the right idea at this time and that we are giving Europe a chance to have a different history than its past, and it is enormously significant. But we do not have the NATO NATO was never organized or set up for out-of-area missions. They have done a terrific job with the airlift. I talked to some of our personnel today in Switzerland who were working with the airlift. They have done a great job with the mechanics of the embargo.


It was never conceived that NATO would use force in any way, even in a very limited way, outside guaranteeing the security of its members. And I just think that, not only in terms of Bosnia but just generally, that whole thing has to really be thought through. Did you expect it to take off, the whole question of partnership, like it did? And, two, who thought of the idea first? Was this an NSC saying we have got to go there with something positive? The answer to the first question is, I did not know what to expect. But it is taken off; it is exceeded my expectations. And I knew that I had to work through in my own mind, sort of; it was one of those things that the more I thought about it, the stronger I felt about it. It is not something, as you all know, that just knocks you off your feet once you hear about it; we all know that. But the more I thought about it, the stronger I felt about it. And I think what is happened was there began to be a consensus in Europe that this was what made sense; that we had to try for a better future, not just a better division than we had before the cold war but a future without division; and that if we could do it in a way that would permit us if circumstances turned against that dream to still do the responsible thing by those that clearly were part of the West that wanted to be part of it, then we ought to do it. Tony would have to answer the other question in terms of the label and all that, but it was an American idea. We started by consulting all the allies; we realized that there were a whole range of reasons for reservations for immediately expanding membership. And then there were some who had some question about whether NATO had any role at all. And we talked through what our objectives were independent of NATO. What would you like to have happen in Europe in 10 years? And then all of our folks went back together and came back with that idea. I have no idea who thought of it, who labeled it or who I got it through the NSC and State and Defense. We all talked it through before I got there, because it was essentially a military training and planning concept. And I am sure somebody knows the answer to your question, but I do not .


You are about to travel to Lima, Peru, again. You are going to the APEC. And this is your last trip as ENTITY How would you like to remember both trip and APEC? I will first of all, I remember Peru fondly from my last visit in 2002, and I am looking forward to going back. I think it will be said, when people analyze the relationship between the United States and Peru, that during my time in office and the time of President Toledo and Garcia, we worked hard to put a good relationship in place. And so, on the one hand, I will be able to go and confirm the importance of the bilateral relationship, and then I will go to a very important meeting. And APEC is an important meeting this time, particularly given the financial situation in the world. APEC comes right after the economic summit we had here in America. So it means that it has the chance to embrace the principles, but it also has a chance for countries that did not participate in the summit here in Washington to express their views. So I am looking forward to it. ENTITY, you built a relationship with Peru because you have a close friendship with President Toledo with former President Toledo, which held the negotiations in favor of FTA Si. Now we have President Garcia in Peru, and elected President Obama in your country. Do you think this new situation is going to change the relationships between the two countries? First of all, President Garcia is muy amable. And so I anticipate and believe that bilateral relations with Peru and the United States will continue to be vibrant and strong and respectful. It is important for the American President and I know President Obama will be this way is to respect the leaders, the culture, and the people of the different countries. Let us talk about Latin America, ENTITY. Sometimes it is said that at the beginning of your administration you were very interested in building up a strong relationship with Latin America, but 9/11 changed the priorities for the United States. I understand that. I mean, a lot of my well, you know, when I was on TV, for example, after 9/11, I was talking about securing the United States and the war on terror. And so I am certain a lot of people in the neighborhood, Central and South America, said, Well, he is only focused on the Middle East; he does not really seem to care about us. I have been to your country twice.

Interview With Raul Tola of America TV


And secondly, more important than trips, though, is policy. Free trade agreements with nations in the region are important for development. Social justice programs focusing on health and education for citizens in the region are indicate our desire to help improve the human condition; the Millennium Challenge Account for countries in the region. So in other words, the record speaks about our deep desire to be good neighbors and to have friends. But some pundits said that the lack of policies in foreign affairs gears through Latin America empowered some political tyrants, like President Chavez. No, I strongly disagree with that. I can understand pundits. There is a lot of pundits everywhere, but I believe that our policies have obviously set a different example of what is available for people. I mean, ours is a country that believes strongly in social justice. We believe good societies must have educated people. And finally, ours is a country that promoted free and fair trade, which is the best way to help nations develop their economies. I mean, in other words, you are a Peruvian farmer, you'd like to be selling into U.S. markets, and because it is a big market. But also, it gives you an option to sell into U.S. markets. And that is the best way to help people make a living. And we have obviously, there is a philosophical difference of opinion. And the only thing the United States tries to do is to show the human side of the philosophy that most leaders embrace, which is freedom, free markets, free trade, and social justice. ENTITY, elected President Obama said that at the very first day of his administration, he will withdraw troops from Iraq in a period of 18 months. It also is obvious that we are all in a middle of a huge global financial crisis. Do you think that this marks the end of an era which started with president Reagan and highlighted the United States hegemony with both military and economically? It is going to be important for whoever the ENTITY is, whether it be obviously, ENTITY-elect Obama, but ENTITYs following that the United States builds close alliances and friendships. That is exactly what this administration does. I mean, the classic case is with Peru. We have worked hard to have a good, strong, bilateral relations. And the ENTITY-elect is going to be facing difficult decisions. My job, as the sitting ENTITY, is to help him as he transitions into the job.

Interview With Raul Tola of America TV


We are very appreciative, as always, of this opportunity to be with you, and we know it is a very tight day, so were going to dispense with any formalities and get right with it. We have here a representation of Hearst Washington personnel and a representation of our editors from around the country. Unfortunately, time and room would not accommodate all, but we appreciate the group that is here. As a first question, ENTITY, I know that you are very carefully avoiding talking about a very major victory despite the fact that I am sure you are confident of one. But my question has to do with, assuming that election and assuming it to be of significant proportions, what is your number one priority for a new administration? Well, it has a few parts to it. If there is a new administration-I mean, mine, for me. That is what I meant, too. If there is, I want to continue with what we called a new beginning back when we started this last 4 years-the economic recovery that we have had. And I want to continue on the road that we started in the international scene, which is aimed at peace. Everyone seems to have overlooked in this campaign the fact that when we set out to rebuild our defenses, we said there was a second track of equal importance, and that was to engage the Soviet Union in legitimate talks to reduce weapons, particularly the strategic weapons. And while they have walked away from the table at this time, I cannot believe they are going to stay away. I think its in their own interest to join us at that table again. But the program that we started, which was based on the tax cuts to provide an incentive to get the economy growing again, the reducing of, first, the increase in Federal spending, which was at a rate of about 17 percent and is down around 6 percent now, to continue getting that down. And we have almost 2,500 recommendations by the Grace commission that we have a task force working on-we have implemented some already that we have been able to do administratively; others would require legislation-but to put those in place. And I-you know, I have a memory of-we did that in California with the State and when the State was in a situation akin to what the present government of the United States has been.

Interview With Editors of the Hearst Corporation


And we found that the advice that we got and the program that was put forward by all those volunteers-leaders, business leaders throughout the State-well, the same thing has happened here, only we have had 10 times as many at the Federal level, which is fitting, because California is only about one-tenth the population of the Nation-recommendations that are simply based on putting modern business practices to work for government. So, this is what we are going to do. ENTITY, we want to save your time, here. When you came into office, let us say you had 10 problems. I would say that you have certainly gone a way to solve them, if not solve at least half of them. Employment and lower taxes and-well, you know what they are, the things that you have done well. On a scale of one to five, of the remaining things, where would you put the deficit? They have put a lot of stress on it, and you hear some people stress it. What do you think about it? I could not say it was unimportant, because for 30 years, out on the mashed-potato circuit, and long before I ever thought I'd be in public life, I'd been complaining about the deficit. But for 50 years, the group and the philosophy that has dominated our government for most of that time has continued to tell us it does not mean anything and that-well, my opponent right now in the campaign, if you look at his past, he upheld the deficits when he was a part of government. He said they stimulated the economy; they worked against having too much unemployment. He even advocated once doubling the deficit. But I also am not going to panic in believing that the deficit right now-when you see the growth of the economy, when you see the way unemployment has gone down even while the deficits are going up. They talk about interest rates. Well, interest rates were coming down at their steepest drop at the same time that the deficit was going up. But I believe that you get at that deficit by bringing government, as I say, back into government's proper functions and running it in an efficient manner so that it is not running away out there beyond your revenues, and at the same time, practicing things like the tax policies that have brought about the growth. And we look at that and how did it happen.


And it has come about partly, some, because we never did get all we wanted in cuts, but mainly in the growth of the economy, the improved receipts, even with the cut in the tax rate, the amount of revenues are up. And we just-we have to continue on that path and do more of it so it comes down faster than 20 billion a year. You have resisted repealing the indexing and the third year of the tax cut. Would you consider those as possible remedies if the deficit did not come down as fast as you would like? I would have to say-and, of course, you know, I always get in trouble with this, because no matter how I try to hedge it and say I am talking about if-a real hypothetical if and a thing that I do not believe is going to happen. But I do not see anything where tax rates, increasing tax rates and the threat they are to economic growth-where that can be looked at as a legitimate solution. In the 5 years before we came here, taxes doubled in this country, and we had $318 billion worth of deficits. So, I think that there were two things about the sudden increase in the level of deficits. It is been built-in over these 50 years in the Government, where the Congress would sit there and did not have to increase the amount. It was already in law that it would increase. The second half of it was the recession that we went into. Well, that had started in 1979. And when you hit bottom in that, you have got unemployed to take care of, and that increases government expenses. And you have lost the revenues that government was once getting from those people when they were employed. ENTITY, you have a vision of the future in which the American people could be defended against offensive nuclear weapons. Critics contend that if we develop an antimissile system, the Soviets will strive to catch up, and there'll be another costly arms race. To avoid that, to relieve the concern of our allies that the superpowers may control the skies, would you be willing to consider having all of the existing nuclear weapons powers-that is, our allies, China, and Russia-participate with us in joint research and development of a defense system that could conceivably save mankind from a nuclear holocaust?


Well, I have not suggested such a thing as that, but I know that it was my decision here and around this table with the Joint Chiefs of Staff-the nuclear missile is the only weapon in the history of man that has never automatically created a defensive weapon against it. And I said, certainly, there must be a better answer than a deterrent, which is all we have now-granted, it is worked for 40 years-in which we say, if you do it to us, our strike against you will be more than you can afford. But it seems to me much more practical if you could find something that kills weapons instead of kills people. In other words, we are sitting here-if you really analyze it, we are saying that someday, if the Soviets attacked-and we always say that, because I do not think there is anyone in America or there is ever been an administration in this country that has ever contemplated that we would make war-start a war, make war on them. We look-and I told this to Mr. Gromyko-that we look at them as the threat to us. And we think in terms of deterrence. But that deterrence is based on that someone would sit here where I am now sitting and have to give the order that slaughtered millions of people on the other side. So, we were all in agreement that it was worth us starting out to find if we could find a weapon that could intercept those missiles, and intercept them thoroughly enough, not just like having antiaircraft guns. Some of the bombers always get through. And this was why on the debate the other night I said I could see-whether it is me here or someone else-I could see if we were successful and came up, with all of our technology-and there is no one in the world who can match it-with such a weapon, then I could see saying to the Soviet Union, telling them, and saying, Now, will you sit down with us and do the practical thing, which is to get rid of those weapons? Because we can prove to you that they will not work anymore. We have got a Department of Defense without a defense. We have got a Department of Defense without a defense. ENTITY, the Kissinger commission, as you know, on Central America, said there were two basic underpinnings of the permanent state of unrest in that part of the world and that the Communists are sure to exploit.


And one of these was the high population growth rate, which it said-triple population in something like 30 years. And the other one was the decline in commodity prices and the continuing instability of commodity prices. Beyond trying to put into place such free-market elements as can be put into place in the region to address those questions, what specifically would your administration in the next 4 years do to address both problems; namely, the high growth of population in Central America, and the instability in commodity prices? Well now, we are talking Central America? Well, here again, I believe that that bipartisan Kissinger commission gave us a very workable program. Three-fourths of that program was aimed at the social reforms and economic reforms that are needed in so many parts of Latin America, particularly now, in this instance in Central America; and one-fourth to help them with their security so that-such as El Salvador, where they are trying as desperately as they are to have a democracy, and to have an improved living for their people. You have got to protect them from the guerrilla forces, or provide them with the means of protecting themselves, is what we are doing, while they institute these reforms. But it is akin to our Caribbean initiative. What we have to do is not just go there with aid-which has been too much of our practice in the past. What we have to do is restore their economies, or restore-I do not think they have ever had good ones-give them a basic economy in which they can become self-sustaining and where they can, by their own efforts, begin to improve the quality of living for their people. Yes, the poverty down there is what makes them subject to subversion from outside-the kind that Cuba exports and the Soviet Union. And most of their revolutions in the past have simply exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. So, we are very serious about that plan, and we want to proceed with it. But it will be aimed at helping them. In the Caribbean plan, it grew out of a thing that we just started kind of, you might say, ad hoc, with the Caribbean, and that was-I called some people in New York who've always been willing to participate in public affairs, and people of means in industry and so-forth, about looking at the Caribbean for investment-to meet some of their problems by private investment in those areas. And they did a great deal of this.


And from that we then came forth with the Caribbean initiative plan. Now, this other is similar to that-but for Central America-and we want it implemented, we want to go forward. The difficulty that is holding you back is the violence that is going on. But I think this is the answer-they have got to-and then, well, the other adjunct to that, the birth rate-we have been helping all over the world with information on family planning and so forth, trying to help other countries where they have this problem, which, once again, they can do it themselves. ENTITY, I have a question about your age. We have heard rumors about various problems that you have based on your age. We heard some very clever one-liners during the debate that I thought were some of the high points of the debate, as a matter of fact; but without resorting to one-liners, do you see age as an issue? And are you willing, at any point in the next 4 years, to undergo any kind of competency testing or anything like that? How do you feel on that issue of age? Let us put it this way I think an issue of health is important. And I have been ready, and will continue to be ready anytime, to hand over any medical records. Having had a father-in-law who was a noted surgeon and a president of the American College of Surgeons-Loyal Davis-he was the one that started Nancy and myself on annual physical checkups. And we are going to continue those and make them available. I'd be the first one-if my health were a factor-that I could not fulfill the requirements. But some of the things that have been bruted about are just not true. I have not had any more tendency to drop off to sleep in a dull meeting- since I have been in this job than I used to have sometimes when I was in college listening to a dull lecture. Physiologically, all the doctors that examine me-even the strangers-tell me that physiologically I am a lot younger than my years. Now, if that ever changes, then that would be, as I say, a matter of health. And I would not want to be sitting in a rocking chair while things were going on around me that I could not participate in. ENTITY, I'd like to pick up on Harry's question for a minute and get back to Central America.


Even your harshest critics, at this date, going into the election, are conceding that your policy in Central America is working. Duarte has turned out to be a courageous leader for pluralism. Even in Nicaragua, where Commandante Ortega will undoubtedly be reelected, there is a resurgence of interest on the part of the people that is notable, through the efforts of Arturo Cruz and others, toward pluralism. And the atmosphere seems to be shifting dramatically, in large, due to your efforts. Would you envision-or do you envision circumstances, therefore, in your second term, where it might be possible that you might open negotiations and seek for a renewal of friendship with Cuba? Might Cuba be to you what China was to Richard Nixon? I have to tell you that early in my administration we thought that we were hearing some signals from there-that that was wanted. And we did make a move, and nothing came of it. I recall that. It would take them, or him-he is still in charge-it would take him being willing to divorce his marriage partner, the Soviet Union. And I have long dreamed of what it would be like to indicate to him that rejoining the family of the Americas could probably offer him far more, and his people far more, than he is getting in this partnership with the Soviet Union. No, we will not close the door to that-just as in Central America now, with Nicaragua. We have had a man meeting the Nicaraguan Government representatives and talking what is needed-we are not-this whole thing-let us make it plain, and this involves the contras, too-it is not overthrow of a government. It is getting that revolutionary government to return to the principles of revolution that it enunciated when it was fighting the revolution, which was democracy, human rights, free press, free labor unions, and so forth. Now, the election is not going to mean anything, because, as we all know, he is made it impossible-even if somebody in one of those splinter parties lets his name go on the ballot-we know that it is not a legitimate election. It reminds me of the little joke about the Kremlin. There was a break-in in the Kremlin one night, and someone stole next year's election results. That is what we are seeing down there.


But, yes, I do not know, when they are that indoctrinated and they do not change or give up very easily, I think that what we are seeing is a government very similar to that of the Soviet Union, where they are not about to make any changes that are going to eliminate their hold on all the power. And one thing out of this election-the very fact that men like Cruz will not run, I think, has brought out into the open how much dissatisfaction there is among the people of Nicaragua with the present regime. But, yes, if there is -we will keep watching for any hints or signs from Castro's Cuba, because that is one of the great tragedies of all time. ENTITY, the last couple of days Mr. Mondale has been advocating that something he would do would quickly move towards direct sea and airlift to relieve the starvation situation in northern Africa. Do you see any opportunity whereby the U.S. will be able to-despite the Marxist regime there-that we can do something about aiding more directly in that situation? We have been the single biggest contributor to Ethiopia-$19 billion last year, but we have upped that to $45 billion this year. We have -the total for Africa is about $173 billion dollars. The problem I do not think has to do with-that they are Marxists so much, as just the inability of their bureaucracy to function. Much of the food that we have sent there is still sitting on the docks. And we are working all the time, and holding meetings-our people with theirs-on trying to get them to assign more vehicles for transportation of this food and to get it moving better. We have done some of our help through some of the groups like Catholic Aid that do seem to be able to get to certain areas with this help. I talked on the phone the other day to Mother Theresa. She has four locations where her nuns are there-in Ethiopia-and talks of the people that are coming there, and they just cannot get the food. And I have called our aid group here and put them in touch with her about the location of those, and where-how we can do this. But we are working every minute trying to break this logjam. We have provided gasoline for their planes; we have done things of that kind. So, that is what has to be broken-is just-they do not have the infrastructure; they are not distributing what they are getting.


ENTITY, would you assess the impact of Geraldine Ferraro, first, in this election, and secondly, on the future of politics? Well now, I-first of all, from the standpoint of a woman being a candidate-high time. I wonder, though, if it cannot be called a great breaking point, because if you look at-well, in our own administration, here, the positions, the gains that have been made in our country. I think it was inevitable that we are going to see, and see a Presidential candidate. I think the problem was here that in the selection, it was someone who had not gone out and-well, for example, suppose there had been a woman candidate for the Presidency in their primaries and contesting, and then would be a logical choice, having presented herself before the whole electorate for the nominee as the Presidency-to say that is who I want to be my running mate. This kind of was reaching out, and I think it looked to too many people as if they were simply reaching just for that reason. The other way it would be-say, here is a woman that came up to the place where she is accepted in the eyes of the people as being under consideration for the top spot. You cannot look at a Margaret Thatcher and a Golda Meir and, for that matter, an Indira Gandhi and say, why should we be so different. But we have made such gains. I think part of them-the Supreme Court now-I think the Cabinet members that we have here. I think right now there are an awful lot of people in this country that would be ready to mark the ballot if Jeane Kirkpatrick ran for anything. She has become so respected and so popular throughout the country. But you do not think that Geraldine Ferraro had hit quite that mark. I do not think it hit quite that hard because of the factors that I just mentioned here. First of all, it was not that big a move. It was-to an extent, it was a logical thing that is going to happen and-whether this was the time or not. I guess what I am saying is that that movement must be based not just purely on the sex of the candidate, but must be based, also, on the qualifications of the candidate. ENTITY, we have had a long tradition in this country of diplomats not getting involved in politics.


And yet more than 20 Ambassadors appointed by you, including personal friends, have come out for Senator Helms, not for Senator Percy or not for other Republicans. Does not that bother you? Well, I am not going to let myself be bothered by it. I was as surprised as anyone. I did not know anything like that was going on or how it came about. Traditionally, I do not know whether-I have never looked it up to see whether there was any politically appointed Ambassador before that ever participated in a campaign or not. We know that traditionally the Secretary of State does not , and the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General. Other Cabinet members have always been accepted as legitimate campaigners. But there is no restriction, actually, or anything legally that binds them from doing such a thing. Well, I think the thing that I guess I am getting at, the question that Mary Ann Dolan was raising about Central America and so Senator Helms- We do not have time. If we are going to do one final, ENTITY, we have all been judging you and your opponent as the campaign has gone. Why do not you take a moment and judge us? What issues, if any, have not been articulated clearly to the American public during this campaign? I will tell you one. I said it in the debate the other night. I never said, and I never ever thought, and I would have thought anybody was crazy who did think that you could turn a nuclear missile around and call it back. I was talking about the submarines and the airplanes. And the funny thing is, since my opponent rushed forth with a quote from the press conference where that subject was discussed, I have had more people-and I have seen more letters to the editor in papers on campaigning around the country that are saying, well, it is perfectly apparent seeing that he was talking about the submarines and the airplanes, not the nuclear missiles. And the thing I have also wondered-and maybe you want to ask some of your people about this-that took place at a press conference, the whole discussion and so forth, and what I was talking about as to why we wanted to begin the START talks on the ground-based missiles first. If anyone there had thought that I was talking about turning missiles around, why was not there a question? Why did not they say, Do you mean that you think you can recall the missiles?


I am looking forward to my trip. This is the seventh APEC summit that I have been to. I find them to be important for the United States in the following ways. One, it is an opportunity to stress the importance that we place upon basic values, basic value of liberty, basic value of open markets in order to enhance prosperity. It is a chance to remind people that we are linked together. It is an interesting setting, when you have people from different cultures, different languages come together for a common purpose. It is also a chance for me to remind our country how important it is to have constructive ties in Asia. Asia is a place where we have spilt a lot of blood in the past, and now it is a place of peace. Asia is a place where the United States was engaged militarily, and now we are engaged culturally and socially and economically in a way that is constructive for our peoples. It will be an opportunity for-remind me that it is possible for enemies to be allies and for enemies to be friends. It is a lesson for a lot of us to think about when we think about the Middle East, that forms of government matter and hopeful societies yield peace. I am looking forward to the discussions about trade. The first priority for trade for me at the meeting will be on Doha. I am a firm believer in free trade. I believe the Doha round is the best opportunity for us to accomplish a couple of objectives. One is to fight off protectionism and trade freely, and secondly is to help eliminate poverty. This will be an opportunity for the leaders of the APEC summit to express their desire to see the Doha round succeed. We will take the lead in that, along with other nations. There is also an opportunity for us to start talking about a free trade agreement of the Pacific region. And I am looking forward to having that dialog, begin the dialog. It would just be kind of an interesting opportunity to have the dialog on this aspect of our strategic partnership there and to move forward. We have got a lot of-we have got some free trade agreements with people, and that will be at the table. Opportunity for me to continue to talk about the struggle between radicalism and reasonableness, between extremism and people that want to live in peace. I happen to believe-I am sure you have heard me say this-that we are in a major ideological struggle-a struggle we will win, by the way.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


But it is going to require resolve and dedication. And this will be an opportunity for me to remind our friends at the table that this is the call of our time and that we have an opportunity to write a hopeful chapter here in the beginning of the 21st century and to thank people around the table for understanding this is the call of the time, because there is been a lot of constructive engagement and good work, all aimed at protecting ourselves from short-term attack-in the short term from attack and recognizing that changing conditions of life in the long term will enable us to live in peace. And finally, I am looking forward to reminding people that I take the climate change issue seriously; that we recognize that there needs to be international-an international accord to get people at the table who are the major emitters to set a goal. Step one to solving a problem is to set the goal on what we ought to achieve. If you want somebody to be a part of the problem-a part of the solution, you need to let them be a part of defining what the goal ought to be. So many of the people at the APEC table are going to come to the major economy conference that-those of us who are emitters will be there, including China, which will be at the table. I do not want to single China out, but China has got a major role to play. Any agreement without China is not going to be an effective agreement. So my strategy has been to get China at the table. We will further the dialog. John Howard has got some very interesting ways to further the dialog in a constructive way, particularly talking about energy usage. So we will be looking forward to his leadership on the issue. When I told him I was looking forward to coming, we discussed this issue. He is concerned about greenhouse gases. And so he will take the lead here at the conference, and the United States will play a constructive role. We have got a big agenda. It is my second trip to Australia. I remind people that Australia-parts of Australia reminds me of Texas--and there is no higher compliment. I think on behalf of all of us, I can say thank you very much for this opportunity today. As you have just analyzed, ENTITY, obviously Iraq and the Middle East, the war on terror is an overarching policy issue for the Bush administration. Nonetheless, there has been a perception in the region that this has distracted Washington from engagement in Asia.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


Some people are calling this the Pacific century. You are cutting short your trip to Sydney because of the Iraq issue. I am just wondering, do you think that is warranted, that criticism, and do you see China, for instance, playing the role-the driver in the Pacific century, not the U.S.? No, it is interesting, first of all, this administration has got good bilateral relations with Japan, good bilateral relations with China, good bilateral relations with Korea. Our relationship with the ASEAN countries are as strong as America has ever been, and of course our ties with Australia are tight, really tight. And the reason I say that is, is that this just does not happen without work. And I have worked hard to develop bilateral relations in such a way that we can achieve strategic objectives. I believe the relations with the United States and the Asian-Pacific region have never been better, and as a result, we are addressing problems and creating opportunities. One problem, of course, is North Korea. When I came into office, the world was expecting the United States to solve the North Korea issue alone. To me-and the North Korean leader had basically not honored the bilateral agreement that had been struck, and therefore, felt like we needed to put this issue in a position in which others were speaking besides the United States-and have started the six-party talks. Five countries were convinced to come to the table on one side to convince the North Korean leader to give up his nuclear weapons ambitions. That would not have happened without engagement and good, solid relations. Another issue obviously is our bilateral relations with China. It is the same-you are in a little different position in that you have got a nice trade surplus with China. We have got a trade deficit with China. And it is important for us to have a-given the complexity of our relationship, that we have got a strategic relationship that allows for engagement and for us to help deal with a major trade deficit, for example, and/or product safety or a SARS outbreak. Secretary Paulson-I empowered Secretary Paulson to develop this special working relationship with China. And it requires a lot of engagement. It requires engagement at the top, with President Hu Jintao, who I respect, as well as people in my Cabinet. For those who argue that, they really have not -frankly have not followed how engaged we have been. Is China an issue for the world?

Interview With Foreign Print Media


But I do not view it as a negative issue; I view it as an opportunity to work with a-one of the really significantly growing economies in the world. First, I view that a growing middle class in China is good for U.S. exporters. It provides opportunity. And it is -by the way, it is not only good for U.S. exports; it is good for Australian exporters, and it is good for Japanese exporters, and it is good for Singaporean, Malaysian. Anybody who is making a product somebody wants, it is just a good opportunity. And so as a part of our engagement with China, we have worked with Hu Jintao to convince him to help convert his economy from one of savers to one of consumers, which means-and by the way, that takes a lot of effort and work to get in a position where you can even make those kind of constructive suggestions-which means the development of a pension system or health care, so that people do not feel like they have to hoard their money to save for a rainy day, but in fact, there is some kind of safety net that is predictable, which then would convert a Chinese person who is beginning to realize better income into a consumer. And then all of a sudden, you have got consumers, which provide opportunity. Huge economic opportunity-you see China as the big grower of the economy in the Asia Pacific? No, I see the United States as the big driver for trade. At APEC, people ought to be wondering whether or not George Bush is going to keep taxes low to make sure our economy continues to grow, because we are a significant trading partner. I view China as an opportunity. I think the United States is going to drive a lot of the trade. That is why we conducted-now, having said that, I think China will provide opportunity for Australian producers, but we also provide the same opportunity. I do not view it as a zero-sum game, let me put it to you that way. I view it as an-I view-all of us contribute, so long as the world does not slip into protectionism. And part of the reason one goes to APEC is to promote trade and opportunity. And how do you plan to win the hearts and win the markets in the world, including in Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia? Well, I think, first of all, we have a complex relationship with China. The United States strongly supports markets.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


On the other hand, we also support open societies, transparency, where people are allowed to express themselves in a free society. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe in basic freedoms. So our relationship with China is, on the one hand, we welcome trading opportunities. And what makes the relationship even more complex is, at the same time, we believe in human rights and human dignity. And we worked with the Chinese leadership to promote human rights and human dignity. So it is not-it is hard to define the relationship in kind of a simple, one-sentence structure. As I told you, I view China as a positive opportunity. I like him; I like to talk to him. We can share issues together. And he can say to me, What are your problems? In other words, we have got a personal relationship. And that is the way I try to do with all leaders because the best diplomacy is when you can sit down with somebody one on one and speak candidly about issues and problems. See, that is what leaders do. You see problems and you anticipate problems and work together to accomplish something. I have also got a very good relationship with your leader. And so bilateral relations-first of all, in the Muslim world, it is very important for people to understand that the war on terror is not a war against Muslims; it is a war against murderers. I do not believe religious people, truly religious people kill the innocent. And therefore, it is important for leaders and countries to work together to prevent the murder of the innocent and, at the same time, make sure that we respect-America, in my case, respects religion, values the right for people to worship, and, in the case of Islam, values Islam as an important part of the international scene in the world we live in. Yes, well, I am better for it. I have a question on North Korea. Is it possible that North Korea will give up nuclear weapons program by the end of your term? And to help achieve it, are you ready to remove North Korea from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, even without the resolution of Japanese abductee issue? As to the first part of your question, I certainly hope that North Korea honors its agreements. They-in September of 2006, they made a substantial agreement to disclose and dismantle all aspects of a nuclear weapons program. And here we are in 2007, nearly 2 years later, where we are still reminding them of that agreement.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


On the other hand, a lot has happened in the last couple of months that would lead me to believe that we are on- we are making progress. And we will continue to push toward the full disclosure and dismantlement. Secondly, we have-different aspects of our relationship are on the table, but it is performance based. In other words, we expect people to honor their agreements. Finally, as I assured Prime Minister Abe, that we are not going to forget the abductee issue. He and the Japanese people are very concerned that once certain aspects of the agreement are achieved, that we will forget the fact that Japanese citizens have been abducted. ENTITY. I will never forget the meeting I had with the mother-it is very important for your readers to know that that had a deep impression on me- the mother whose daughter was abducted by North Koreans. I cannot imagine what that would mean. I guess I can imagine what it would mean; I just cannot understand, fully understand the pain that she felt-still feels. And I will never forget her coming to the Oval Office with the picture of that little girl, picture of her daughter who got abducted. She sat right there in the Oval Office. And my point to you is, is that I am not going to forget the mother or forget the fact. And so we will work with the-continue to work with the Japanese to make it clear to the North Koreans that we also expect there to be resolution to this issue. In other words, I understand, as well as I possibly can, the emotion that people attach to this issue. But now that I am over 60, it is not that old. It is all in your mind. Sir, your administration has indicated interest to appoint a special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, or the OIC. Have you identified the person? And what will he or she do to bridge relations with the Islamic countries in the Muslim world, in light of the war in Iraq and in light of the detention of extremists from Muslim countries? First of all, we have not identified the person yet. We are working toward that end. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the Secretary of State about this this morning, coincidentally enough. Anyway, we are working the issue. Secondly, the reason why I suggested- or announced that we are going to do this is because I am concerned about the perceptions in the Muslim world that the United States views the war on terror as a war against a particular religion.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


And I just explained to you that this is a war of extremists and radicals, ideologues driven by a vision that is not-that hijacks religion in order to justify their position. And any chance we have to dispel false notion and to reinforce the realities is helpful to the United States and frankly others as well. And so that is the reason to name the envoy. It also is a clear signal that we respect nations and that we treat the Islamic world seriously. And you can do that all different kinds of ways. It is another moment for people to see the seriousness of intent. In terms of-murder is murder, and murder to achieve political objectives is-needs to be stopped. People murdered Americans to achieve a political objective. There is a debate in our country whether that is true or not. I have made up my mind. I believe it is absolutely fundamentally true because I am listening to what the enemy says, the enemy of freedom, what they are saying. They say, We want a caliphate, we want to spread our vision. It took a military action, by the way, to liberate people from that vision in Afghanistan. This was not an attack on Islam; this was an attack for liberty. Think about a society in which you two could not function in what you are doing because of your gender. Because the vision of these people-who murder the innocent, by the way, to achieve their vision-is that women are not equal. And it just so happened that, given the way the world is today, that that kind of ideologue provided safe haven for people who plotted and killed people in our country. One, I am not going to stand for it; I am going to protect America, just like any other leader would protect their own country. And two, one way to achieve long-term peace is to help people realize forms of government that give hope. And so whether it be in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are helping people realize the blessings of freedom. Freedom yields peace. Forms of government matter. And so the ambassador to the OIC or the President or any other representative of America will be expressing this deep desire to work together to achieve peace. ENTITY, what do you think you have achieved with regards to U.S. ties with Asia during your time in office? In other words, we are making progress. The first step was to get people to the table, to remind people that it is just not the United States with responsibility.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


The purpose of the-getting all five of us to the table is so that if North Korea tried to say, Well, I am really-I said I was going to do it, but I am not going to do it, then there is somebody else also saying, And here are the consequences. And now it is beginning to work because they are verifiably beginning to shut down the reactor. And so we have got more to do. Unfinished is kind of a loaded word, in a way. But I am not-we are not in control of- we are in control of putting the process in place and making sure it is consequential if somebody does not go forward. But it is the leader of North Korea who gets to the make the decision. I have made my choice. Let me reiterate a little bit of what I said earlier. The definition of successful foreign policy is to be in a position to work with others to solve problems. And this administration has worked hard to be in a position to convince others to work together to solve problems. I have just outlined some of the problems, some of the problems-whether or not trade is open and people are treated fairly. One classic example of this is intellectual property rights. I know that is a deep concern to your Government, just like it is to all our governments, that if you are trading with a country, you want to make sure that those intellectual property rights are treated respectfully. And in some societies, it is difficult. And therefore, we have to be in a position to work collaboratively and bilaterally to convince countries that in order to be a part of the international world, you have to honor contract. And one contract is, you do not steal somebody else's intellectual property. But nevertheless, those kind of relationships exist now; we are able to have those kind of dialogs. There is been a lot of cooperation on the security front in remarkable ways since I have been President. The leadership of your country knows full well the dangers of extremism prevailing and have been very strong in working, for example, on the Proliferation Security Initiative. This is an initiative where many APEC nations have agreed to help find and stop the shipment of materiels which could end up in the hands of extremists and radicals that could harm us. And it took a while to get this relationship in place. But it is a relationship that is necessary to help prevent weapons of mass destruction from being moved.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


And here is a classic case of a successful collaborative effort. The biggest danger we have, it seems like to me, is isolationism and protectionism becoming prevalent philosophies. One of the things that this administration has done in working with our friends is to work hard to explain to people the beneficial nature of trading together. And therefore-and that is manifested, by the way, in, for example, the free trade agreement with Australia, which was not a given. And there were some difficulties to overcome in Australia and in the United States, but nevertheless, we got it done. And entering into free trade agreements with other nations, such as Singapore, has been good ways of making sure that we codify the benefits of open trading relationships. And so there is been a lot of progress made, and the North Korean issue is the issue that we are spending a lot of time on and, hopefully, we can get completed. Just to the domestic scene, we have got Federal elections, as you know, coming up in Australia. Last time around, you had some comments with regards to the then opposition leader's policies on Iraq. You described his policy of withdrawal from Iraq as disastrous. You have a one-on-one meeting with the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd; he is ahead in the polls. He is also got a policy in Iraq which talks about withdrawal, albeit with caveats. I am just wondering, what is your view of the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd? What will you discuss in the meeting? And what do you make of his Iraq policy? Yes, first of all, I think it makes sense for me to reach out to leading political figures when I go to other countries. And so I am looking forward to this meeting. I do not know much about him, frankly. Obviously, I have not -maybe I met him; I do not remember meeting him. When I spoke to the Parliament-- I am going to remind him that, one, the stakes in Iraq are very high for peace; that the liberation of a country-that country was important for peace; and that a democracy-Iraqi-style democracy in the heart of the Middle East is part of winning this ideological struggle. So the first thing I am going to do is explain to him my views about this-the world in which we live. And I will remind him that, as far as I am concerned, that leaving Iraq before the job is done will cause an enemy that attacked us before to become emboldened.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


And as John Abizaid put it, to think the enemy will stay there and not follow us here is- in other words, we leave before the job is done, they will follow us home. That-I will remind him that the best way to conduct policy is based upon conditions on the ground; that success is important; that conditions ought to be driving troop deployments. And that is how-I will tell him how-what I would hope all our coalition partners would view the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having said that, I do appreciate very much the fact that the Australians have sacrificed and have served. And I am looking forward to seeing some Australian troops with Prime Minister Howard to thank them and, as importantly, thank their families for joining America and a lot of other countries in the great cause of liberation and peace. It is going to be an interesting trip, and what is interesting about these trips is that the time around the table with leaders is important, but also the time sitting down with individuals is important as well. It is a good opportunity to conduct foreign policy. And as I told you, a lot of foreign policy, for me, is the capacity to just look at somebody in the eye and tell them what I think and listen to what they think. It is finding that common ground, if possible, to solve problems. And sometimes you can solve problems by anticipating them and putting the conditions in place so that they will not arise in the first place. And sometimes they just show up, and you better be in a position to deal with them. Can I just clarify something? Rudd is-his theater-he is talked about the importance of Afghanistan, talking about withdrawing our troops from Iraq. That he is determined to-he has determined that the issue on Afghanistan- to keep troops in Afghanistan. I view both Iraq and Afghanistan as theaters of the same war against radicals and extremists and look forward to sharing my views with Mr. Rudd, of course, and continue our discussions, strategic discussions with John Howard. My next question would touch on Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir. As you might know, since he was released from jail, has been exercising activities like any other citizens, including recently-last weekend he inaugurated a long march participated by about 1,000 of his followers, in connection with that commemoration, or welcoming the Ramadan, Islamic fasting month. Actually, how close has your Government monitored the activities of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir?

Interview With Foreign Print Media


First of all, I did not know he led a parade of a thousand people. So that may answer your first question. I am sure our Embassy is aware of the activities that take place in your country. I mean, you are a free country where people are allowed to express themselves in the public square, which is a sign of a healthy society. I am concerned, however, about anybody who preaches violence and extremism and radicalism in a world in which innocent people just get simply murdered for ideological purposes. There were some terrible murders in your country, as you know, just like in mine, and I am confident that by far the vast majority-all of Indonesia rejects that kind of behavior. Innocent people were killed in Bali for no other reason than they just happened to be vacationing and because somebody wanted to send a political message because they are involved with this ideological struggle. And those of us who want there to be peace have got to reject this kind of behavior. And so your Government is a government of law; your Government will conduct itself according to your laws. But anybody who preaches that kind of violence in the name of what I would call a dark political vision needs to be taken seriously. My next question is about the U.S.-Japan relationship and the war on terror. The opposition party in Japan is threatening to cut the extension of Japanese participation in the antiterrorism operations in the Indian Ocean. Are you concerned about that? And will you be-will you raise this issue when you will meet Prime Minister Abe in Australia? First of all, Japan has been a positive contributor to dealing with the extremists in this ideological war. And I thank the Japanese Government and the people of Japan for their contributions. And I would hope that they would continue to maintain this-their positive influence. And of course, my conversations with Prime Minister Abe, whom I respect a great deal, will center on the war on terror, as well as a lot of other key issues. Japan has played a significant role in many of the things we have discussed here, like Proliferation Security Initiative, six-party talks. They have been a constructive partner in peace, and I will-we will talk about all aspects of our relationship. ENTITY, tomorrow, August 31st, Malaysia celebrates its 50th-- Fiftieth-make sure my congratulatory remarks get in your article. Bush Congratulates Malaysia. Do you think that is what it will say?

Interview With Foreign Print Media


It also marks the 50th relations between the U.S. and Malaysia-- So what are your outlook and hopes for U.S.-Malaysia relations, and especially with Malaysia being the 10th largest trading partner? First of all, I do believe we ought to have-take this notion of trade and have meaningful discussions with a potential free trade agreement with Malaysia. Secondly, I respect Prime Minister Badawi, admire his leadership. When his wife died, I tried to call him early just to let him know I cared about him. I will congratulate him. Do not put that in the article, that you had to tell me that. You can put it in there if you want. I will be glad to-I am going to congratulate him. You did congratulate him. I am going to congratulate him again. I will double the congratulations. That is right; I did write him a note. Did I call him or write him a note? You wrote him a note. Anyway, Malaysia is an interesting example of how a free society can deal with movements that could conceivably change and alter the nature of the free society. And I respect the way the Prime Minister has used freedom and used the openness of society to kind of deal with frustration. I mean, all societies have frustrated people. And the question is, will the outlet of that frustration lead to violence or lead to peace? And Malaysia is an example of a country where frustrations have been channeled in a constructive way. And therefore, he is a leader, as far as I am concerned, and a very constructive force for Southeast Asia. By the way, I am going to meet with the ASEAN leaders, which is an important meeting as well. It is an opportunity for the United States to stay very much engaged with ASEAN. I unfortunately will not be there for the 60th, but look forward to having an event that would kind of recognize the importance of ASEAN as far as the United States is concerned. So this is a side meeting with the ASEAN leaders after APEC meeting, sir? I try to do that every time. So they will have somebody like-I will sit down and meet with the ASEAN nations as well. The other thing that is interesting about Malaysia is, they are going to be one of the leaders on alternative fuels. I believe that it is in our interests that we develop the technologies necessary to deal with energy dependence as well as greenhouse gases.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


Back to the climate changes-the way-if you are truly interested in dealing with greenhouse gases, people need to focus on the development of technologies that will enable us to, on the one hand, grow our economies, on the other hand, be good stewards of the environment. Just for the record-and this probably will not be a headline, although I have tried to make it one a lot-when it comes time to climate change, there is one major industrialized nation that actually grew its economy and reduced greenhouse gases; that would be the United States of America- that actually had greenhouse gases go down and the economy go up. So something is working here, and it is technologies, use of technologies. And so I am going to be reminding people about-that we can come up with a strategy that does not impoverish our people and, at the same time, takes advantage of technologies. And we are going to need to share some technologies with newly emerging economies in order to achieve this objective. Anyway, I forgot to make that point. I am not making the point to you, as you can tell. That is why I am kind of looking over your shoulder. There appears to be a perception in Southeast Asia that this administration has neglected the region. How do you plan to convince them otherwise when you meet in APEC? Well, I-do you want to ask another question, because I already answered it. I will be glad to answer it again- which is, we have got strong bilateral-first of all, the number of trips I have taken- I have gone to every APEC meeting. I have spent a lot of time with leaders both here and in your respective countries-that we have got relations to a point where we can work together to solve common problems. PSI is one such example of a strategy we have implemented to deal with the realities of the world. And so it is -the truth of the matter is, I spend a lot of time working on Asian matters. And all I will ask you to do is look at the results of the individual relationships and the ability to put processes in place to deal with the threats we live in and the capacity to work together to solve problems and to create opportunities. And to me, that is a sign of a healthy, robust relationship with an important part of the world.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


We begin on a Tuesday morning with the disaster in the Gulf, now in its 50th day, and our exclusive interview with ENTITY, We sat down on Monday before his commencement speech at a high school in Kalamazoo, Michigan. And I began by asking ENTITY if the oil spill in the Gulf has made this the toughest point in his ENTITY to date. This is tough, no doubt about it, because, you know, when you watch television or you go down to the Gulf and you see birds covered in oil and you talk to fishermen who are on the verge of tears big, tough guys, but, you know, their livelihoods are being smothered by this oil that is coming into the estuaries and marshes it gets you frustrated. Do you feel at this stage, 50 days or so into this, that your administration has been damaged by this oil spill? First of all, I am not concerned about my politics right now. What I am concerned about is what is happening down in the Gulf. And I guarantee you, the folks in the Gulf have been damaged by this oil spill. And livelihoods are at stake. This is the largest federal response to an environmental disaster in history. From day one, we understood that this was going to be a major disaster. We have put unprecedented resources to deal with it. Then why do you think there is so much frustration aimed not only at BP right now but at your administration? There are people who are starting to wonder out loud if the oil spill in the Gulf could be could do to you what Katrina did to President Bush or even what the Iran hostage situation did to Carter. You know, I have to tell you, some of this is just the nature of the 24-hour news cycle. You have got a camera showing oil spilling out in the Gulf, and people are understandably frustrated and they are upset, and they have every right to be. But here is what I can say, that we have responded with unprecedented resources. And when you look at what most of the critics say, Matt, and you ask them, Well, specifically what is it that the administration could or should have done differently that would have an impact on whether or not oil was hitting the shore? you are met with silence. And the fact of the matter is there has not been an idea that is mentioned out there by any of the critics that we have not evaluated. And if it was going to work, we would have done it.

Interview With Matt Lauer on NBC's Today


But it happened under my watch that you still had these oil rigs out there that we thought could deal with this kind of situation and they have not been able to deal with it. I spoke to Rear Admiral Mary Landry of the Coast Guard who was speaking on behalf of the administration. And I asked her I said, We are seeing an oil slick in the water. Where is that coming from? And she said, There is no evidence that that is coming from this wellhead. That is residual oil coming from the rig itself. A day later, she echoed those same comments. Was the administration misled, in your opinion? Were you relying too much on information from BP? And from the start, did BP try to downplay the situation? Initially the thinking was that, in fact, the rig had sunk but the blowout preventers had shut down the well, because that is what they were supposed to do. As soon as people understood that the blowout preventers were not working, that the valves that were supposed to shut down in the event of a blowout like this had not functioned properly, then I think people understood right then that this was going to be a significant emergency. Have you spoken directly to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP? I have not spoken to him directly, and here is the reason, because my experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he is going to say all the right things to me. I am not interested in words. I am interested in actions. And we are communicating to him every single day exactly what we expect of him and what we expect of that administration. In all due respect, that feels strange to me; that here we have got the CEO of a company that is responsible for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, and I think I am just curious why you did not pick up you would not pick up the phone and in some ways just give him a piece of your mind. Well, the look, this has sort of been this has been the main critique of the administration is giving a piece of my mind to these guys. I would love to just shout and holler, because I am thinking about this day in and day out. But my main job is to solve the problem. To solve the problem, you have to have a reliable partner. Let me read you some of the things that Mr. Hayward has said over the course of this disaster. He said, The Gulf of Mexico is a big ocean.


The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume. The environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest. I'd like my life back.  The family members of those 11 people who died on the rig and the people whose lives are going to be changed for years want their lives back too. He does not work for you. But if he did, would you want him out? He would not be working for me after any of those statements. First of all, we are going to have to find out why this thing went in the first place. And the fact of the matter is that there is going to be a thorough review. And I do not want to prejudge it, but the initial reports indicate that there may be situations in which not only human error was involved, but you also saw some corner cutting in terms of safety, and that BP is a multibillion-dollar corporation. It is talking about paying $10.5 billion in dividends just for this quarter. We are going to have to make sure that not only do they shut down the cap, we are not only going to have to make sure that any deepwater drilling process that is out there is, in fact, fail-safe and oil companies know what they are doing, but we also have to make sure that every single person who is been affected by this is properly compensated and made whole. Can BP do that? Can they do all that? They can afford it. If I start seeing BP nickel and diming folks down there, then they are going to have to answer to us. We have heard time and time again throughout this crisis, as BP has tried and failed with all their fixes, that this technology is untested at this depth. And it just raises a question. If this is where we are drilling for oil, at 4,000 and 5,000 feet under the surface of the ocean, where is the oversight in that? Why are they allowed to drill there if the worst-case-scenario methods to prevent disaster are untested at that depth? It does not help to test them at 100 feet. When it comes to how we were operating in overseeing and taking the word of the oil industry generally, not just BP in terms of the fail-safe nature of what they could do, I think we have to completely review that. And that is why I have assigned this bipartisan commission.


I want them to report back to me, because you obviously cannot take the word of oil companies when they say they have got a bunch of redundancy and backup plans, when something like this happens and it turns out they have no idea what they are doing. So even as the oil is spewing into the Gulf, would you consider halting all drilling below a certain depth right now? Well, keep in mind what is happening. On new drilling. The production wells that are already pumping oil, those do not seem to be the problem. The problem has to do with actually drilling and starting a new well. So we have put a moratorium on new wells. Shallow wells are not a problem because the risers essentially come up above the water. So if something like this happened in a shallow-water well, then folks would just get up on the platform and they would start fixing it and it would be shut down fairly quickly. that we can actually handle a crisis like this. Have you allowed yourself to even imagine what the Gulf region will look like if oil continues to spew until August, what it will smell like, what the economic situation will be like down there? And here is what I will say. There are going to be marshes, for example, where the oil goes in and the sea life that is there is decimated for a season, maybe two. But potentially we can preserve those estuaries and those marshes so that three years from now things have come back; things have bounced back. Critics are now talking about your style, which is the first time I have heard that in a long time. Right. that this is not the time to meet with experts and advisers. This is a time to spend more time in the Gulf and -- I never thought I'd say this to a ENTITY but kick some butt. And here is what I am going to push back hard on this, because I think that this is just an idea that got in folks' heads and the media has run with it. I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I do not sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick, right?


Most of the decisions that I make on a day-to-day basis, I make because I have gathered the best information possible in very difficult situations, and my job is to figure out how can I move the federal government, the private sector, all the various players who are involved, to perform some very, very difficult tasks? And I do not always have time to perform for the benefit of the cable shows. What I do have is dedication and commitment to make sure that the people who are actually being affected by this are going to get the best possible service from me. And as long as I am ENTITY, that is the approach that I am going to take to this job. to have you give the commencement address. Why'd you pick Kalamazoo Central? This school is a great example of what is possible when you have got a public school, it is not in a wealthy community, it is diverse, and yet, because the community decided to invest by guaranteeing college tuition for any graduate here, you have got teachers and a principal who are dedicated and are willing to think out of the box, so they are not just bound by It is not in my contract, but they are doing all kinds of extra stuff. You are not going to find a more friendly audience than you are going to have when you give this speech tonight. I watched their enthusiasm when they met you a few minutes ago. Your job is to inspire them What are you going to say to them? Well, I have to say, first of all, high-school audiences are the toughest, right, because Well, you know, when you are a teenager, you think you know more than just about anybody. But my main message to these kids is, number one, internalize a sense of excellence. You know, I think most of these kids have had a lot of support, telling them, Do well. But as soon as you get out of here, nobody's telling you, and you have got to want that on your own. The second thing I am going to tell them is, No excuses. And one of the things I am going to remind them is that guy, you know, shagged a lot of grounders to end up being the captain of the Yankees. And then the third one is I also want kids to internalize the lesson of their community here, which is give back.


We are in the White House in Washington, DC, the residence of the head of the American Government. This is the place where the Presidents of the United States do their work. ENTITY is receiving us in order to give an interview for Soviet television. And since our time is very limited, I think that we will get down to questions right away. This will be your first trip to our country. What feelings are you traveling to the Soviet Union with, and what do you anticipate from this upcoming summit meeting? Well, this will be the fourth meeting between the General Secretary and myself. I am obviously looking forward to the trip for one reason, because I have never been there. And I am looking forward to seeing your country-well, as much as possible with the meetings that will be going on. And we have discussed in the previous meetings with your General Secretary such matters as arms reductions, and we have been successful on the one treaty. such things as rescue-at-sea agreements, fisheries agreements, things of that kind in which we have made great progress. At Geneva, in Reykjavik, in Washington, you and Mr. Gorbachev took steps which have great significance. Thanks to that, the threat of war has been reduced and cooperation has increased between our countries, despite the different social systems we have. What kind of opinion do you have about future prospects for movement in this same direction? Well, I have to be optimistic about it. I have read Perestroika cover to cover, and the goals that were outlined there for your own country and by your present leader were such that I think it would reduce some of the differences between us further and make it possible for future leaders of our countries to eliminate-well, what I called for in our first meeting in Geneva, when just the General Secretary and I were talking to each other, I pointed out that we did not mistrust each other because we were armed, we are armed because we mistrust each other, and that we had a unique opportunity, the two of us, to go to work not just to try and reduce arms but to reduce the causes of the mistrust. And I think we have carried on in that manner in the succeeding meetings. the power-muscle power, so to speak, or the power of reason? What is more important in today's world?

Interview With Soviet Television Journalists Valentin Zorin and Boris Kalyagin


But I think that can be achieved more quickly if we show our mutual desire for a peaceful world by eliminating some of the most horrendous of the weapons, such as the nuclear weapons. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Well, I would think that once-I think the weapons that are the most destabilizing are the nuclear weapons, the idea in the minds of people that once those weapons are fired devastation is going to follow and there is no way to halt them. They are more destabilizing than the people's concern about weapons that we are familiar with-airplanes, battleships, things of this kind, artillery. But then if we continue to work out our differences and a better understanding, then I think we engage in the reduction of conventional weapons. ENTITY, since we have already touched on the question of nuclear weapons, I would not like to seem pessimistic, but I get the impression that in Moscow there will hardly be an opportunity to sign a treaty about 50-percent reductions of strategic nuclear weapons while observing the ABM treaty. Still, despite that, what are your attitudes about the prospects of concluding such a very, very important treaty for the world? Well, I still think it can be concluded, but it would be, I think, overly optimistic, with the time limitations, to believe that it could be ready for signature as the INF treaty was here in the previous meeting. It would be nice if we could have achieved a signing ceremony there on this visit, but this treaty is far more technical and complicated than the treaty we did sign. And so, the experts on both sides who have been working on this in Geneva have not been able to make the progress that was made in the earlier treaty. And I think that perhaps we can advance it in our conversations, discussion, in Moscow on this. But we must-the idea is to continue until we have the treaty that is correct, and not simply try to meet a date and sign a treaty that might not be all that we would desire. I do not think either of us have gone this far with the idea that it was not a good idea. ENTITY, I'd like to ask you a sort of personal question. Could you, in the beginning of your Presidency, when you just came into the Oval Office, could you have imagined the possibility of your upcoming visit to Moscow?


Probably not, because very frankly, I have to say I think there is a difference between this General Secretary and other leaders of your country that I had met with in the past. I do not think they had any dreams of perestroika. And yet, I felt that we had to exist in the world together. Our systems are different, we are going to be competitive in a number of ways, and that'll continue, but we can be competitive without being hostile to the point of conflict with each other. And I think this is what we are aiming at. And no, I could not have foreseen your present leader. Well, new times bear new leaders, bring about new leaders. So, we can conclude that you think that your successor will continue stabilizing Soviet-American relations, that there will not be a pause in the dialog between our countries? Well, if the next President is the President I would like to see there, the present Vice President, I know he would continue on this track. But I think that our people want this. I have had a visit, just the other day, here in the White House with 78 young teenagers, and half of them were from the Soviet Union and half were students of ours. They had been holding a conference in Finland, then in Moscow, and now here in the United States. And you looked out at those young people and you could not say, well, those are Russians and those are Americans. You just saw young people who had learned to know each other, exchange ideas, get acquainted. And I found myself saying to them, if all the young people of the world could get to know each other, there'd never be another war. ENTITY, I cannot help but ask you a question which is very interesting to Soviet people, many ordinary people in our country. You, in your speeches, many times have quoted the works of Lenin; you have made reference to his works; you quoted him about expansionistic aims of Soviet Communists. Soviet specialists, insofar as I know, in the U.S. press and people who work in the Library of Congress have studied all of the compositions of Lenin's, and they have not found one similar quotation or anything that is even close to some of those quotations. So, I would like to ask you what works of Lenin did you read, and where were those quotations that you used taken from?


But I am old enough to have had a great interest in the Soviet Union, and I know that in the things I studied in college, when I was getting my own degree in economics and sociology, that the declarations of Karl Marx, for example, that Karl Marx said your system, communism, could only succeed when the whole world had become Communist. Now, as I say, I cannot recall all of the sources from which I gleaned this, and maybe some things have been interpreted differently as in modern versions, but I know that Lenin expounded on that and said that that must be the goal. But I also know-and this did not require reading Lenin-that every leader, every General Secretary but the present one had, in appearances before the Soviet Congress, reiterated their allegiance to that Marxian theory that the goal was a one-world Communist state. This man has not said that. So, I was not making anything up; these were the things we were told. For example, here in our government, we knew that Lenin had expressed a part of the plan that involved Latin America and so forth. And the one line that sounded very ominous to us was when he said that the last bastion of capitalism, the United States, would not have to be taken; it would fall into their outstretched hand like overripe fruit. I'd like to say that, as it says in the Bible, everybody wants to go to paradise, but nobody is proposing to do that-anything for us or to hurry up the process. Everything has to go by in its own time; that is our point of view. Well, would not you think, though, that these two systems obviously were competitive in the world with each other in the economic situation-industry and so forth, the difference between private ownership and government ownership of the sources of material, industry and so forth, agriculture-well, would not you think that it would make the most sense to compete legitimately, as business firms compete with each other, and see which does the better job? Without question, when we talk about the fact that we think that sooner or later that the world is going to come to socialism, we are just talking about a historic process. Every country has to decide for itself. And we think that capitalist countries and socialist countries have to coexist peacefully on our very small planet and to cooperate with each other. Well, yes, we believe that also.