A number of them have conducted airdrops; Canada, for instance, as well. So we will be exploring with individual NATO members what contributions they can make to a broad effort to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, which, again, will cover many different aspects. At the dinner tonight, which is a wide-ranging discussion, I would expect the threat from ISIL to be subject, as well as tomorrow as NATO is discussing the current threat environment more generally. So I think there will be additional opportunities for the President to engage the leaders on the issue. And they will be able to have discussions with their counterparts on this issue. So that is an essential area of cooperation. Although, again, when we talk about a more --a broader, multi-faceted effort to confront ISIL, clearly different member states would bring to the table different resources. And so those will be discussions that we will be having individually with different heads of state and foreign and defense ministers. But, ENTITY, I do not know if you want to add anything to that. The only thing I'd add, ENTITY, is that this is an Alliance where summit after summit for the last 10 years or so the discussion has been very much focused on Afghanistan. And as that mission is about to transition over completely to Afghan lead, while we are prepared to continue in Afghanistan, what you see the Alliance doing at this summit is looking in more than one direction at a time. So it is looking east to the challenges presented by Russian aggression, but it is also looking to its southeast, where Syria and Iraq border the Alliance immediately with the international border with Turkey. So you have got NATO doing more than one thing at a time and looking in more than one direction at a time. So this is a pretty intense discussion as we move through the agenda. I think the diagnosis of those problems will really culminate at dinner tonight. I will just add one thing to that. I know there was a lot of talk last week about sort of the President's comprehensive strategy for confronting ISIL. And a core component of that strategy was engaging in conversations with our allies and with regional governments, all of whom have a role to play in confronting this threat. And, obviously, the kinds of conversations that are happening at the presidential level over the course of today and tomorrow are a core component of that aspect of the strategy. Thanks, we will take the next question. Let me ask you a little bit more about the idea of a diagnosis.


I do not think there is any question, as we have heard expressed from everybody -- from the President to David Cameron and throughout many of the leaders -- about the problems and how they exist. But when you talk about a diagnosis, what are you sort of drilling down on? I think as a general matter, across a range of issues today, we are looking at challenges and threats. And the nature of the summit is then tomorrow there is focus on outcomes associated with that threat. And the diagnosis of the current threat from terrorism has clearly shifted. NATO has been focused on Afghanistan. That tracks with our focus over the last decade on al Qaeda core in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we have been able to significantly degrade al Qaeda core in Afghanistan and Pakistan, decimate its leadership ranks, reducing the threat that they pose. At the same time, we have seen the threat of terrorism evolve as different groups emerged in places like North Africa. And then, with ISIL, you have an organization that is the legacy of the al Qaeda and Iraq organization, which changed to ISIL. And they represent an acute threat in Syria and Iraq today. So essentially, we have to step back and make decisions based on threat assessments and where the threat is coming from. And we have been able to dramatically reduce the resources dedicated to Afghanistan and Pakistan as our troops have come home. That brings up additional resources as necessary to deal with other threats. But the Alliance has to weigh a variety of demands. They, too, have removed a lot of resources from Afghanistan, so a lot has been freed up. But there is a need to reassure eastern allies, and we have done that through our own initiative to have more rotational deployments and have a continuous presence in the frontline states. They have to look south to the threat of terrorism, as well. So, I mean, ENTITY actually said it well. This is really an inflection point for the Alliance. So after 10 years of doing basically the same fundamental big chore, which was Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda -- which, by the way, NATO went to Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, and it is the only time in the 65-year history of the Alliance that its mutual defense clause, Article 5, has been invoked. So NATO has been all about that now for more than a decade. But as that mission winds down, this is a step back and a reflection and a diagnosis of opportunity for the Alliance, because it faces new challenges.

Barack Obama On-the-Record Conference Call by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, and U.S. Ambassador to NATO Doug Lute on the President's Meetings at the NATO Summit


Six months ago, we were not worried about Crimea and Ukraine in the way we are today. ISIS, obviously, has gained prominence. And instability across North Africa continues, sustained. So this is a bit of a point of, step back, look at what is happening immediately on NATO's borders, and then let us figure out what we can do about it. There will be a series of -- we believe leaders will take a series of concrete decisions about what is next for the Alliance. And you saw a bit of a preview of that several months ago when the President was in Warsaw, but then most prominently yesterday in Estonia. And this is going to feature NATO taking on these challenges that it now faces and adapting to new realities. And it will have something to do with the way NATO postures itself; something to do with how responsive NATO is; something to do with how NATO deals with its partnerships, and how it deals with these problems immediately on its periphery. This is a summit where NATO really has to do some reflection, look at new realities, and adapt. ENTITY was talking earlier on the call about how different NATO nations may be able to bring different resources to dealing with ISIS. That kind of suggests that you are getting sort of a receptive attitude when it comes to dealing with that broadly, with NATO partners. Are you feeling that these NATO partners are receptive to this type of mission? Yes, Jim, I think the evidence for that is what has already been done in Iraq because of the threat from ISIL. So, for instance, you have seen NATO countries join us in humanitarian airdrops, you have seen NATO countries join us in providing arms and equipment to Kurdish and Iraqi forces. That includes a range of countries, even Germany, for instance, which has not been as involved in Iraq over the last decade as, say, the United Kingdom has stepped forward to do that. So I think when you look at the bigger NATO countries, they are seized with the threat, in part because there is a foreign fighter flow that has led many European citizens and passport holders into Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIL, and then that could, of course, put a threat back into Europe if they return home. So we do believe that there is a receptivity of nations that provide support and to play a role in efforts to confront ISIL. We believe that is manifested in what is already taken place in Iraq.


And as we are working to build a broad coalition to set in place a type of effort that will shrink ISIL's space; take the fight to them, including partners on the frontlines like the Iraqi security force and the Kurds; degrade their capacity; and then ultimately defeat them -- that is a project that is going to require regional buy-in from the neighbors and international buy-in from some of our key allies. And so I think that that is the message that is well understood here at NATO. At the same time, different countries are going to make different types of commitments, and that is very clear. So there are some NATO member states who will be focused on intelligence and law enforcement support. There are some who can do more in working in coordination with us on efforts to go after ISIL, or to do the type of humanitarian airdrops that we have done in Iraq which require military coordination, because obviously that is dependent on intelligence, ISR, and aircraft. So these are all conversations that we will have over the next couple of days. Again, importantly, you have Secretary Hagel, Secretary Kerry, and Susan Rice all here. Then you are going to have Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel traveling on to the region for discussions with key partners there. Lisa Monaco, the President's counterterrorism advisor, is also going to be traveling to the region. So there is a significant amount of consultation that is taking place. And all of that will inform the President's approach to building the type of coalition that can confront this threat not just in the coming days, but as is necessary going forward beyond that. We have got time for a couple more questions. On the subject of airstrikes in Syria, this time last year Prime Minister Cameron and the President were on the same page before the House of Commons vote forced the Prime Minister to sort of back away. So I am wondering now if you think the U.S. and the U.K. are back in sync, or maybe moving back in sync on the question of the way forward in the region. And I know you get asked this question periodically, but it seems like a good time for a check-in. There is no country that we are more in sync with in terms of our values and our foreign policy and our security cooperation around the world than the United Kingdom. And I think that is the spirit that illuminates the discussion that the President had with the Prime Minister.


And that is why coming into this summit hosted by the United Kingdom, the President and Prime Minister staked out the agenda for the summit in that op-ed this morning. With respect to the subject of last year versus this year, first of all, I will leave it to the United Kingdom to define their efforts in this space. Clearly, Prime Minister Cameron has engaged his parliament in discussions of the threat. And so you saw him put forward a presentation about the threat that ISIL poses. He has not made decisions about things like airstrikes. That is something that they will have to review as they consider the different ways in which they can contribute to this effort. But clearly, he is engaged in that discussion here. And I think that there is a unique nature to this situation given the fact that you have foreign fighters from -- including from the United Kingdom, who have been with ISIL in Syria and in Iraq. And tragically, you have heard the Brits confirm that they believe a British national was involved in these barbaric beheadings of the two Americans that we tragically lost. That speaks to the fact that this is a threat that could potentially impact them, as well as the people of Syria and Iraq, just as it could potentially impact U.S. interests and the United States. In terms of last year, it is always worth noting that, look, the United States made clear our willingness to use military force. On the specific issue of chemical weapons, the United Kingdom and France joined with us in that determination. But at the end of the day, with that threat on the table, the Syrian regime went from denying it had chemical weapons to agreeing to remove them, and their declared weapons have since been destroyed. This is a different beast because it is been a threat of terrorism that crosses two borders -- it is Syria and Iraq -- and that could pose a threat beyond those countries. And that is what illuminates the discussion here at NATO. ENTITY could I just add on that one -- on ISIL. One thing that is amazed me as an American living in Europe is that they are seized with this question of the potential of returning foreign fighters from ISIL and other extremist groups in the Syria-Iraq theater back to Europe.


And they actually cite very prominently the attack on May 25th at the Jewish Museum in Brussels as the first solid example, proven example of a European fighter who went to Syria, gained his -- had his training, gained his sort of street cred, returned and committed an act of -- at least a crime -- act of terror on European soil. They are very seized about this because they understand there are thousands more who are on that path. Now, it does not mean they will all come back and commit acts like this, but even if a fraction of them do, they know they have got a serious security threat. I just wanted to clarify -- one thing you have not mentioned in trying to get deliverables is trying to get direct military action from NATO partners to fight ISIL in Syria or Iraq, and I wanted to see if tomorrow you are hoping for some concrete commitment from the countries here for direct military action against ISIL? So, look, on that question, we are engaged in discussions with different countries about what role they can take. Direct military action is obviously the far-end of that spectrum in terms of engagement. I think this is something that is going to be ongoing over the next several days as we talk here and we talk to countries in the region. So in terms of those types of pronouncements, that is not something we are seeking as an outcome of this summit. This summit I think is more a chance to get a sense of the commitments countries will make. They will then have the ability to make decisions and announcements about their own commitments. But we also feel like it is a very important piece of this puzzle to talk to the countries in the region. We have been consulting with them, but with Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel and Lisa Monaco all traveling to the region, that can also give us a sense of additional countries that could contribute in a variety of ways. And then we can get a sense of what is the picture across this coalition of what nations are prepared to do. And again, that spectrum includes direct action, it includes arms and equipment and training for security forces on the ground -- including Iraqi security forces, Kurdish forces, the moderate Syrian opposition. That includes support to the Iraqi government and its government formation process, and diplomatic support for an inclusive Iraqi government, which is essential to getting a buy-in from Sunni tribes and others inside of Iraq to work to evict ISIL from a territory that they have claimed.


ENTITY, you are going to Italy very soon. What are your aims, your expectations, visiting our country? Well, first of all, I am very excited about going to Italy because of the great reception and hospitality that has been extended to the members of my family who have been there, both on official visits and just visits to meet with friends. Secondly, we will be having extensive discussions with the Italian leaders and with some of the representatives of the Italian private sector, to strengthen the bilateral relationships between our two countries and also to prepare for the conference in Venice involving seven international leaders. Third is that we consider the relationship between our Nation and Italy to 'be extremely important to us and to world peace and to economic stability and to future progress. This will give me a chance to follow up on the meetings that I have had already this year with your Prime Minister Cossiga and also, of course, with your Foreign Minister, who was here just this week. And I look forward to paying my respects to President Pertini, who is a close friend of my mother's and whom I admire very much. And I will be visiting again with the Pope at the Vatican to discuss international matters and also matters of morality and the spirit. ENTITY, then it will be on to Venice, and Venice will be a summit meeting of the Western Alliance. I wonder if I can ask a question about the state of the Western Alliance as seen by you, by the White House? There have been in recent months quite a few misunderstandings-at least that is what the papers have written-we sometimes get it wrong; sometimes we get it right. We Europeans complain of not being consulted enough by America, not being listened to enough. Americans-sometimes we read they complain about being betrayed by their allies. Do you feel that is the state of affairs, the state of the Alliance? Is that as bad as all that? In my judgment, the Alliance is much stronger now than it has been in many years, perhaps even since the Alliance was first formed. We have initiated in the last 3 years, a long-range defense program to revitalize the NATO Alliance. This will extend over 15 years. It is a common commitment that all of us have made over very difficult obstacles. We have also pledged ourselves to strengthen the defense commitments in our nations. We have agreed among ourselves, again in a difficult way, to meet the growing Soviet threat, with their SS-20 missiles, with the theater nuclear force commitment.

Interview With the President Question-and-Answer Session With Amigo Levi of La Stampa and Sergio Telmon of RAI-TV.


And in my judgment, we have got a very fine interrelationship among us in close consultation, not only on matters that relate to defense but also economic progress. The attendance and the achievements in London in 1977, in Bonn in 1978, in Tokyo last year, and now this year in Venice, in my opinion help to bind us together in a very strong, structured fashion. We recognize that in a conference of democracies that there must be a recognition and an honoring of individuality, of national commitments and priorities. This is not a Warsaw Pact where there are dominant forces there from the Soviet Union; this is a matter of free exchange. Obviously, in a democracy an open discussion of issues quite often creates the impression of disharmony. We are extremely forceful in our own Nation in condemning and working to oppose the present and the future possibilities of Soviet aggression, exemplified in the invasion of Afghanistan. Some of the allies in Europe have not been quite so forceful as we in imposing sanctions against the Soviet Union and in moving to boycott the Olympics and so forth, but we recognize that there are reasons for them not to pattern their actions specifically after ours. What you mean is that you do not share the feeling which sometimes is voiced in America, that the allies are betraying America? Sometimes they do not support us strongly enough, as judged from our perspective, but we recognize the difference that must exist between us. I am sure sometimes some of our actions are not completely pleasing to our allies. But that is inevitable in an alliance of free and independent nations who are democratic in nature and who do not conceal differences with suppression of the press and suppression of free speech. Obviously, we have nations that are attractive-there are no walls built around West Germany to keep people from escaping that nation. And if you look at the 4 million, roughly, refugees around the world, three-fourths of them are trying to escape from Soviet-inspired Communist domination. So the attractiveness of a free world is patently obvious, and the disharmonies that exist within a free world are because we believe in free speech and the importance of individuals. So that will not be one subject for discussions in Venice? You will not be discussing improvements in methods of consultation- We do not claim that the Alliance is perfect, and we also probe for ways to strengthen the Alliance and to create more harmony and better consultation.


But one of the reasons for that commitment is my visit to Rome and also the subsequent meeting of the Alliance leaders, some of them in Venice. The European Community is considering an initiative and, on the other hand, the United States is trying to get together again the Israelis and the Egyptians. What do you think at this point the situation will be? It is important, very quickly, to look at this Mideast effort in perspective. Two years ago, it was inconceivable that Israel and Egypt would be sitting down together working on ways to alleviate tensions between them, with open borders and diplomatic recognition, exchange of ambassadors, tourism, trade being established. The Camp David accords have brought that progress into being. Both Israel and Egypt will be meeting with us shortly, here in Washington, to resume the talks. The Camp David accords outline a way to resolve the Palestinian issue, to give the Palestinians a voice in the determination of their own future, to resolve the Palestinian question in all of its aspects. These phrases that I have just quoted to you have been approved specifically not only by myself and President Sadat but also by Prime Minister Begin and, subsequently, ratified by the Israeli Knesset. So, we have a basis here for progress. It is obvious to everyone that the relationship between Israel and her neighbors is crucial to the stability and the maintenance of peace in the Mideast. And this Camp David process is the only one in the last 30 years that has made any progress in guaranteeing to the Palestinians the realization of their own rights. So, I am committed to the Camp David process. If the European nations-the Community wants to take actions that are constructive, we will welcome this. But to subvert or to cancel or to bypass the Camp David process, we believe, would be a very serious mistake. Do you really hope in a breakthrough at this time? We have had them before. When we went to Camp David there was no prospect then of an assured success, but almost miraculously, the Egyptians and the Israelis reached an agreement on basic principles, under which we are presently working. And later, when I went to the Mideast, it was to salvage what seemed to be a hopeless breakdown in their relationships, and from that came the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt with the return of the Sinai to Egypt and the establishment of these good relationships.


Now we do face difficulties and I cannot guarantee success, but I guarantee that we will continue to work for success with the best possible avenue being the use of and the building upon the Camp David accords. Will you personally be involved again in it? I am personally involved almost on a daily basis in directing the Secretary of State and our negotiators and in dealing directly with the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Egypt. And I will be meeting with other leaders from time to time. We have a good correspondence with the Saudis, for instance, who have a beneficial influence on occasion. The King of Jordan will be here to meet with me for 2 days prior to the time that I come to Italy. So, we are exploring every possible avenue of success in the Mideast and trying to provide stability there while the nations involved search for peace. Do you expect a meeting with Sadat and Begin? Not any time soon, but they are always willing and eager to join me in discussions when it is necessary to meet at that highest level. ago, 12 months ago, in Vienna, you met Chairman Brezhnev and restated the principles of detente. There is a general feeling that detente in the meantime is more or less over-rightly or wrongly, I do not know. That is what most people say. They feel there is a new cold war fear and an unlimited arms race, and some people fear war. Do you still believe in detente? Do you still believe there will be peace in the nuclear age? And what are you planning to do-I mean, to improve the sort of relation with the Soviet Union-these two superpowers having such a heavy responsibility for maintaining peace in the world? Are you planning some initiative? We are still at peace. We have a continuing, deep commitment to the control of nuclear weapons. The SALT process is still a viable process which we will continue to pursue. The problem is that the Soviets have interrupted the arms control process and also have damaged the progress in detente by their unwarranted and vicious invasion of a peace-loving nation, of Afghanistan. The Soviets have made a serious mistake. One hundred and four members of the United Nations have condemned the Soviet Union's aggression and have demanded that the Soviets withdraw. The Afghan people, heroically, are still fighting for their own freedom against the Soviet invading forces.


And we believe that when and if the Soviets do make any contribution toward the restoration of international stability by withdrawing their forces, that we can continue to make good progress on arms control and on the enhancement of detente. There will always be a relationship of competition between the Western World and the Soviet-dominated or influenced nations, but there'll also be a commitment on our part for maximum cooperation in building on detente, on controlling nuclear weapons, and in cooperation with the Soviet Union every time they are willing to join with us in the maintenance of peace. We will see a new embrace between President Carter and Chairman Brezhnev as we saw in Vienna? That is up to the Soviet Union. I would welcome nothing more than peace and harmony between us, as leaders, and between our nations. I am convinced that the Soviet people do not support the war-like activities which the Soviets have demonstrated in their invasion of Afghanistan, and I am convinced the Soviet people do not support the war by surrogates which the Soviets are encouraging through the use of Vietnam forces in Kampuchea, and also the Cuban forces in several places in Africa. ENTITY, I know that your most important preoccupation is the release of the hostages from Iran. No, we have tried, in every way since the hostages were taken, to protect the lives and the safety of the hostages and also to protect the principles of our Nation and to secure the hostages' release. We have explored in every way, direct relationships with the Iranian Government officials and others. Now, I think the best avenue is through a multitude of diplomatic and economic efforts, being made through the United Nations and through other countries, to convince the Iranians that it is counterproductive for them to continue to hold these innocent people. This is an act of international terrorism, and it is condoned and supported by the official Government of Iran. And for other nations like Italy and the Europeans allies, Japan, and others, to join in with us to convince the Iranians that they are making a mistake and that the bringing of Iran back in to an acceptable position with other nations of the Earth, with an end to this act of terrorism, is very important. That is why we consider a peaceful approach to Iran, but with some economic sanctions being imposed to encourage them to act is important.


Well, I think Merrick Garland is one of the best judges, not just in the country, but of his generation. And it is a testimony to how good he is that, you know, he has cropped up as a potential Supreme Court justice for a very long time. I have always been a huge admirer of his. I have always felt that the way he approaches cases the intellect, the care to follow precedent, the consensus building were qualities that would make him an outstanding Supreme Court justice. This moment in our history a time when judicial nominations have become so contentious, a time when our politics is so full of vitriol I think particularly benefits from a man who by all accounts is decent, full of integrity, is someone who tries to hear the other side's point of view, and can build bridges. And so although I have always believed that he would make an outstanding Supreme Court justice, it is my belief that now more than ever his voice would serve the court well, would help to burnish the sense that the Supreme Court is above politics and not just an extension of politics, and would set a good tone for restoring or at least increasing the American people's confidence in our justice system. Did you talk to him about being a piata, as Sen. Cornyn put it? We had a very candid conversation. He is chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, so I assume that he either reads The Washington Post or listens to NPR, and I think had a pretty good sense of the posture that Majority Leader McConnell took immediately after Justice Scalia's passing the notion that the Republican senators would not consider any nominee, no way, no how . I am sure that he is aware that, these days, massive advertising campaigns are mounted in opposition to candidates not just for Supreme Court, but for appellate court judges. And so we discussed that, and I wanted to make sure that not only he felt comfortable with it, but his family felt comfortable with it. You know, for those of us who are more often in, you know, the scrum of politics, we are we call folks like Judge Garland civilians. And so suddenly being placed in a war zone like this is something that you want to make sure they are mindful of. But, you know, I think the way he described it and I will let him, as he makes the rounds with senators, describe it himself the way he described it is that he has loved the law for a very long time.

Interview with Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio


He has loved being a judge for a very long time. He occupies the most honored position in what is often considered the second most powerful court in the land. He is got a great job. And he is at a stage in his career where, given his confidence in his record, given the reputation that he is built in the legal community, that he is prepared I think to take on whatever unfair or unjust or wildly exaggerated claims that may be made by those who are just opposed to any nominee that I might make. And I think he is convinced that he can do a really good job, partly because he has relationships with the judges that are already on the court, and he is shown himself to be a consensus builder. And he believes, rightly, that we are at a time where the more consensus we can forge, the better off we are going to be. By the way, when did you offer him the job? Well, he is a very good actor because I had dinner with him Sunday night , and he looked like he kept just was saying he was not going to get it. Well, you know, I I that just shows his wisdom once again, because when it comes to things like getting being nominated for the Supreme Court, it is probably always wise to not count your chickens before they are hatched. But you just told me they were hatched. Well, I am not sure about that. I might have called him right after dinner. ial campaign, how do you keep this nomination front and center, alive and prominent in the face of Republicans saying that they will not give your nominee a hearing? They clearly do not want to look rude, so they will meet with him and tell him that they do not want to meet with him. But but how do you keep it up there? When the Supreme Court, frankly I have written more pieces in my life saying, This year it may be an issue, and then it never really is. In fact I think it is, in part because of the circus that has been ENTITY ial campaign season so far. I think people already are troubled by some of the extreme rhetoric that we have seen in ENTITY race. I think people already are troubled by the extreme gridlock in Washington. I think people already are concerned about excessive obstructionism that goes beyond principled disagreements, but becomes a systematic no to everything.


And when you then have add to that a situation in which for the first time in anyone's memory you have the head of the Senate saying, I will not meet with a nominee; I will not provide a nominee a hearing; I will not provide a nominee a vote, and that, if, in fact, was maintained, would be the first time in the modern court where we would have a seat unfilled for over a year. That matters to people. And so, you are right, Nina, that generally speaking, people are not closely following Supreme Court cases unless you have a big seminal case like same-sex marriage come down. But people are following the fact that, increasingly, our political institutions are broken and it troubles them. And this becomes I think a symbol of a process that, if Republicans stick to their current posture, promises a tit-for-tat process in which we will never have a clean nomination process on the merits, and ENTITY whether they are Democrats or Republicans are only going to be able to get their nominees through when they have their own party controlling the Senate. At that point, the judiciary becomes a pure extension of politics. And that damages people's faith in the judiciary because everybody understands that there is some politics involved in appointing judges, but we also expect that the judicial system can rise above the political process. And so I we have seen already the surveys that say, number one, people are paying attention to this; and number two it is not just Democrats, but a sizable number of Republicans who vote against me, have said this is this cannot be the way we run our government. And what is particularly ironic is the degree to which a number of people who say they are not going to nominate somebody, claim to be people who want fidelity to the Constitution, respect for our founders' intentions. There is nobody who would suggest that our founders anticipated that a new rule is read into the Supreme Court nomination process in which for an entire year, we do not do that because there is an election going on. George Washington nominated a couple of Supreme Court justices in his last year. And obviously George Washington had better poll numbers, I am sure, than I did, but nevertheless if you care about original intent, I think, you know, you do not want to see this becoming degenerating into just a pure political battle.


OK, if you appoint Merrick Garland, we we still will oppose him now, but we would confirm him in the lame-duck session after the election if there is a Democratic ENTITY. Did that play any role in your decision? I have not had conversations like that. What I have seen are the public statements of leading Republicans like Orrin Hatch broadly complimenting Judge Garland as a brilliant, fair jurist, who should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. So did that play a role in your choosing him, the fact that Republicans really do like him? Well, there is no doubt that what played a role, as I said earlier, was that, number one, I think he is the best person for the job. And the court would benefit from that at the moment. Justice Scalia was a larger-than-life figure, and he helped to shape the dialogue and the debate. But if you think about when the Supreme Court has been held in the highest esteem and has moved the country forward in the most powerful of ways, generally it has not been divided just along 5-4 votes. And Judge Garland, if you look at his work on the D.C. Circuit, has been able to bring together conservatives, liberals and move them to find common ground. And I think that is a valuable quality that has been reinforced by the statements that were made by Republicans. It certainly told me that this is somebody who is widely respected. And I said at the outset I would not use this appointment as a political symbol, as a way to score points, as a way to gin up my base. I said I would play it straight that my goal was to actually confirm a justice who I thought could do an outstanding job. And Merrick Garland fits that bill. Your base, some of them quietly said, you know, everybody on that list, except Merrick Garland, was a minority or a woman; some of them were both. You picked the oldest person by far, the only white guy, and he is sort of a centrist liberal. He is not, you know, he is not going to this is, this is our shot to really change the debate at the Supreme Court. What do you say to that those folks? Well, first of all what I would say is take a look at the appointments I have made since I have been ENTITY of the United States.


I have appointed as many African-Americans to the Circuit Court as any ENTITY ever; more African-American women on the federal courts than any other ENTITY; more Hispanics, more Asian-Americans, more LGBT judges than any ENTITY in history. We actually now have a majority of women and/or minorities on the Circuit Courts, something that is never happened before. So my record of appointing a judiciary that reflects the country is unmatched. When it comes to the Supreme Court, I have appointed two women, one Hispanic. And in each case, the good news is that I appointed the person who I absolutely thought was the best person for the job. In this case, Merrick Garland is the best person for the job. And I have confidence that without knowing how he is going to decide any particular case he is going to be somebody who understands the law, understands precedent, understands the Constitution; and possesses the values that recognize the unique role of the court in preserving our rights, preserving our liberties; and making sure that the powerful get a fair hearing, but that the powerless also are heard and have access to justice. What do you ask these folks in your interviews? I mean, you cannot say, So, what do you think of Roe v. Wade? I do not do that. So, I am Judge ENTITY I am here for my interview. What are you going to ask me? What kinds of things do you ask? Well, sometimes I just ask about family and background and what made you want to be a judge. You learn a lot just by talking to people about what their story is. And when you hear Judge Garland's background when you hear that story about him as a valedictorian speaker standing up for a fellow student who was about to be censored by the parents, when you hear about the care with which he dealt with the victims and the families who had been affected by the Oklahoma City bombing you get a sense of who that person is. And I spent a lot of time on that. With respect to judicial philosophy, I have the advantage of having taught constitutional law, so I do not need to get into the weeds on their thinking on a lot of these cases because I can just read their opinions and the quality of their work and I have a pretty good sense of how they approach cases. One thing I, I do ask them is how do they generally approach a problem where the text of the Constitution might be ambiguous.


What do they do to to understand either the meaning of the text, to what extent do they draw on historical data, to what extent do they draw on their sense of how society is dealing with that problem today? You know, so you will get some sense of their judicial philosophy. But most of the time, by the time they get to me, you know, they have probably gone through a confirmation process before. And they have a pretty good sense of what they can talk about and what they should not talk about. Let me conclude by asking you sort of a devil's advocate question. You have said that neither party comes to this process clean. And you voted to not end debate on the Alito nomination. And if I understood you correctly at your press conference, what I thought I heard you say was, You know, I knew that it was a meaningless vote. You got a pass from the leadership. You can do this. But can you blame the Republicans who look at this nomination and say, There is going to be a shift in the court if we approve this nominee, and we do not like that shift in the court. ial nomination. And if the shoe were on the other foot, would not the Democrats do the same? They called they are all already calling it the Biden rule. First of all, this speech that they continually quote from Joe Biden when he was on the Judiciary Committee if you actually read the speech, number one, he was speaking hypothetically. Should we start that one over? Yeah, let us do that. Wow, ENTITY You are supposed to turn off your phone. I am assuming you can just splice the question and I will just answer it, so ENTITY does not have to answer ask it again. Well, first of all, if you look at what Joe Biden actually said many years ago, he was saying if, hypothetically, there were to be a Supreme Court opening, then his advice to a ENTITY in his last year would be to not make the nomination unless he had consulted widely and arrived at a consensus candidate. That is exactly what I have done. And so there is no contradiction between what I am doing and what Joe Biden suggested a ENTITY in my circumstances should do. Number two, with respect to my actions when I was a junior senator, you will recall that I never said that a nominee should not get a hearing. I never said that a nominee should not get a vote.


And what I also said at the time was that I was concerned about some of Judge Alito's views that I considered more troubling. But in the case of Merrick Garland, we have not seen a substantive argument against his jurisprudence. We do not want somebody who is been nominated by a Democrat a claim that I would have never made at the time. Now what is true, ENTITY, is, is that, you know, we have a divided court on a lot of important issues. Justice Scalia was a big figure who was viewed as providing a majority on conservative positions on some of the cases that came before the court. And so I understand the politics that Republican senators are dealing with, and the price they would pay if in fact they confirmed a nominee. If in fact we have gotten to the point where they cannot confirm somebody because a Democratic ENTITY is nominating them, what is to stop them from saying next year, We have got another excuse for not confirming a Democratic ENTITY's nominee ? And at that point the process has broken down. Democrats have not been blameless in this process. You cannot point to me a circumstance in which Democrats have left a seat open when a Republican ENTITY was in office simply because they did not like the possibility that it would change the makeup of the court. Justice Kennedy was confirmed by Ronald Reagan, and I am quite certain that there were a whole lot of Democratic senators who understood at the time that he was unlikely to favor their positions on a number of issues. And he was confirmed in the last year of ENTITY Reagan's office. So we actually have evidence we have proof, not that Democrats are perfect, but that they do at a certain point recognize that the process and the sanctity of the Supreme Court, and the integrity of the institution, not just the Supreme Court, but the integrity of the Senate, and the office of ENTITY, requires them to do their job. And my simple pitch to them is, be fair not to ignore politics. I am not demanding that Republicans vote for Merrick Garland, but do not stop the process in its tracks because if you do, then the ever-escalating, ever-worsening problems behind not just judicial nominees, but nominations generally, are going to continue to make our government more and more dysfunctional. And at some point, it is got to stop.


A good place for it to stop is when we are talking about a Supreme Court seat, and we have an impeccably qualified candidate who the Republicans themselves have acknowledged is deserving of being on the court. Are you taking this on the road? Well, you know, I am going to make the case I am going to make the case for a fair process. That is what the American people expect. And, you know, one of the most puzzling arguments that I have heard from Mitch McConnell and some other Republicans is this notion that the American people should decide we should let the American people decide, as part of this election, who gets to fill this seat. Well in fact, the American people did decide, back in 2012 when they elected me ENTITY with sufficient electoral votes. And they also decided that the Republicans would be in the majority. They did not say, We are going to decide that you are in charge for three years, and then in the last year you all take a break. They said, No, you are ENTITY for four years, and Mr. McConnell, you are going to be the leader, because we have given you a majority in the Senate. They will have another opportunity to weigh in, so that if there is another vacancy that comes up, the next ENTITY will fill that vacancy. The real argument is the one that you made, Nina, which is that they do not want a Democrat filling the seat, and they are worried and scared about their political base punishing them if they allow a Democrat to fill the seat. But one of the things that is broken down in our politics is a recognition that you do not always get your way 100 percent of the time. And sometimes in the integrity of the institution and the process and governance, and the interests of the American people actually matter more than your short-term politics. And there have been a number of times where, as ENTITY, I have had to do things that I knew were bad politics but I understood were important to the country or important to the institution of the presidency. And I would expect that the senators who've been elected by their constituents will find in themselves the kind of respect for this incredible democratic experiment that our founders crafted, that they are not going to want to see it continue to degenerate into just a bunch of poll-driven, negative-ad-driven, polarized name-calling, because that is not what made us the greatest country on Earth. We appreciate it.


You are going to Tokyo at a time when there is been some signs of division and strain in the Western alliance, I think over Libya and, certainly, over trade and other foreign policy issues. And I was wondering if you see that there will be a need at Tokyo to make some sort of fence-mending with your European allies to keep the alliance in good shape. Well, I am confident-after having gone to several of these summits and having now a long, relatively long relationship with the people involved, I am not concerned that we have any serious differences between us or anything that we cannot work out. That is really the purpose of the summits, is to see that we meet regularly and are able to talk out any problems that arise. And I do not think the differences between us are all that great. So, I am optimistic that when we get there we are going to talk about, as we have before, the things that we believe can be mutually beneficial-better understandings. I know that some of the things that'll be discussed is the need for another GATT round of talks to see how we can improve that tariff arrangement. And I think very definitely we will be talking about terrorism and how we can, cooperatively, work closer together to rid the world of this menace, this plague. ENTITY, are you going to press the allies for further sanctions against Libya? Also, you did not follow very strictly through with your own oil companies. I think that what we are going to do is take the subject of terrorism and all that we all know about it-we have made great progress with regard to our sharing of intelligence information, and that resulted last year in the aborting worldwide of 126 known, planned terrorist actions. And so, I think we are going to start with what can we find that we can all agree upon as a means of dealing with this problem. The American oil companies still in Libya. Yes, there is a problem there that I have seen some critics now in the media saying, How can this go forward? The alternative would simply be that Qadhafi would confiscate them, and then he'd be better off than he is now. He'd own the whole thing instead of simply getting a royalty from oil being produced there. ENTITY, the Prime Minister of Italy, Mr. Bettino Craxi, disagreed with the American bombing on Tripoli. But at the same time he condemned the Libyan state-sponsored terrorism.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Craxi said, We need a cease-fire in the Mediterranean Sea. Otherwise, the situation gets out of control. What do you think about this statement? And I have noticed-if he is been quoted correctly-I will be looking forward to talking to him there about this. He has made it plain that if Italy is the victim of such terrorism, Italy will respond. So, we seem to have something in common there. ENTITY, we Japanese people are very, very honored and we look forward to welcoming you and other leaders to Tokyo for the summit. But actually, we are very much interested in your visiting Indonesia and meeting the ASEAN leaders before coming to Tokyo. And we feel that it is going to be somewhat of a historic summit in the sense that you and Mr. Nakasone had talked about this summit quite recently. And Mr. Nakasone has said that he and you share the view that you two work together to send the message of bright future for the 21st century in the coming summit. Could you share some of your views or some of these messages to us? Yes, I do, and will, because he and I have discussed this, and it is true. I think that the new frontier, the next frontier in the world is the Pacific Basin. And having been a Governor of a State that for 1,500 miles borders on that Pacific, I have long been interested in the development there. And they have made more gains in development than any of us. They are coming along faster in their economic growth than any other part of the world. So, I think it is most important that all of us should be looking there for how we can cooperate with them and be of help in their further development and so forth. ENTITY, for France, as you know, there would be President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister, Jacques Chirac. Will you consider the Prime Minister as an equal, as someone you can talk with, or will you just as before-the other summit-will you talk and speak with and negotiate with Mr. Mitterrand? I think that that is something to be decided by the French Government, that the manner in which they come and how they have arranged their own place in government will be accepted by the rest of us; and certainly we will cooperate with however they have chosen to do this. If it is separately or together or however, that is, we will respect France's right to determine that.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


ENTITY, I think you expect me to talk about free trade today with this in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And it is been postponed, I gather, until tomorrow morning, but still chancy. Some of us think this is historic, an example for the world in terms of trade and liberalizing trade. But I think many people have the impression that the White House has not been very-it is not been a high priority for the White House. So, I'd like to ask, you know, how important is it to you? It is extremely important, and we have been-I have been on that telephone a great deal. And I will be very frank with you and tell you that I am concerned that the possibility-well, that some of the negative votes are not aimed at Canada but are based on certain political differences here within our own country and our government. And I have been urging and will continue to do everything I can. This delay of the vote was a part of our struggle to see if we cannot be successful. But do everything I can to see that we work this out, because here we are-we are the greatest trading partners of each other in the world. And I think that this is all-important and that we should continue this and go forward with these negotiations that the Prime Minister and I have talked of. And I regret very much that there are some in-house differences that are threatening this arrangement. Could I go back to Libya again, ENTITY? Maybe you can give me a ride. Your spokesman this morning said that-I think in your name-that the United States welcomed the action that the Europeans took yesterday in restricting Libyan diplomats further And I was wondering what sort of more that meant? Does it mean economic sanctions still? Is that the sort of thing you are going to ask in Tokyo? Again, as I say, I hate to dwell on one thing or another. We know that this is going to be discussed, and I want to see what we can all come together on. As a matter of fact, they have called it a war. And, granted, that they have aimed the war, according to Qadhafi's words, more specifically at us. But right now-and one of the things that we knew before we took our action against them was that we have definite information on at least 35 planned terrorist actions. And they are particularly aimed at Americans, but they take place in all of the other countries.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And, therefore, the violence is not going to be confined to just a target. For example, we know that in France the expulsion of those Libyan diplomats was because we knew of an action that had been planned and even the weapons distributed. And what that was going to mean was that when people-the only place where America was the target was the locale-our Embassy. But outside the Embassy where the people line up to come in to get visas-now, those will not be Americans, they do not need visas to come to America; so those would be citizens of France and other countries that would be there. And that action was simply to mow down with grenades and small arms fire these people-men, women, and children that would be lined up there seeking visas. So, there is not any one of us that is free from the threat. In the Rome and Vienna airport slaughters, which I think Mr. Qadhafi called a noble deed, well, there was only a minority of Americans there. They happened to be in front of American Airline ticket offices, but-or ticket counters, but these were people of several other countries. And I think that we can continue the cooperation we have had and enlarge upon it and bring this to an end. ENTITY, concerning economic policy, the main issue of the Tokyo summit should be, perhaps-the German economy grew faster than the American last year and is expected to be the fastest growing among the big industrial countries this year. So, do you have still any complaints about German economic policy? We are delighted to see this. We are pleased about our currencies coming more into line with each other. I think it is fair to say, and true to say, that in the economic recovery, which all of us were suffering-or the economic decline, we seemed to take off first, and we were the first in bringing about the recovery and the expansion that we have had. And so, we are delighted to see now that the recovery has spread around to the other nations in the world and to our other trading partners. And I think it is all to the good. Would you like to see the deutsche mark and other European currencies arising still further in comparison to the dollar, because you just told us they are now coming in line? And if it is done as the result .

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Yes-so, yes, you would like the rise Yes, if it is done as just the result of the economic growth and the recovery of the economies of the other countries. I do not think anyone can predict where it will come to, but I know the same thing has happened with the yen in comparison to our dollar. It, I believe, now is at the highest point it has ever been. But this makes for better trade for all of us. ENTITY, again on terrorism, Italy is, as you know, on the frontline in the Mediterranean. This morning in the New York Times, in the column, someone said that the Italian Government, before the strike on Tripoli, was saying, and Mr. Craxi was saying, strike harder; we cannot say it publicly, but do it. Well, I do not think I should be commenting on what someone might have said confidentially or not. And, as I say, I think that we probably will find in Tokyo that we all are in more agreement than some of the impressions that have been given. ENTITY, we have produced a huge problem, the so-called Japan Problem, in a form of nearly $50 billion current account surplus, balance-of-payment surplus. And maybe there are some disagreements even among the Western allies-I mean, between the United States and Europe about the efficacy of the policy, new policy which is now being propagated by Mr. Nakasone and his Cabinet. And what would you expect the Tokyo summit-deal with this huge current balance-of-payment surplus problem, so-called Japan problem? And on the other hand, you see, there is another huge problem in the form of the accumulating deficit-or rather debts in the Third World countries. So, I would rather, you know, expect, or I would even hope, that you, ENTITY, have some nice sort of Reagan Plan up your sleeve- -to solve these sort of things- I think we are all better off if we go forward with helping the lesser developed nations, and they are the debtor nations now. But the manner in which they should be able to pay their debts is to have, again, an increase in their economy and have them become more self-sustaining, self-sufficient.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And I think that your Prime Minister and I are agreed on the need for the nations like those in the summit to help-and not help just in the old way of hand-outs but to help them develop their economies so they can be more self-sufficient. And I think we are very much agreed on that. Now, the other part of your question, if I understood correctly, were you talking about the plan for Japan to become more an importing nation? And, also, in a form of the, you know, financial aid and something like that to the Third World countries who are suffering from the accumulating debts? Well, Japan has been in the forefront as a nation in, say, such help. And I think all our nations have tried to do this. And to the other problem about more of an importing nation, yes, I think this makes for, actually, better economics for your country as well to do this. Because as it is now, and probably as a result of some of your taxing policies, the incentive is more to saving than it is to consuming. Well, as the standard of living goes up and there is more consumption and more need to consume, then there is more industry both ways. And you have to remember that if that means Japan buying from outside and importing, but then that makes those they import from better able to buy in turn, and we all benefit. Going on, ENTITY, on those trade matters, how do you see the trade talks with your European partners in Tokyo, with this trade war starting here in the States against European Community? On this trade issues, you know, U.S.A. has started, since 2 or 3 months now, a kind of war against EC countries on trade issue. And I really wonder how you can be really optimistic on the trade issue in the Tokyo summit with this background between European Community and U.S.A. Well, the thing that we believe in and were trying to sell worldwide is the need for free trade and open markets. If you are trading with a trading partner who has protective tariffs or limits and quotas and so forth-that is not free trade, because it is not fair trade. And we had an experience-the world did, as a matter of fact, due to us. Back in the thirties, the 1930's, in the Great Depression-and some in our country here thought that a great protective tariff was the answer to our Depression.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


So, a thing called-for the two authors of it-the Smoot-Hawley tariff was put into effect. And it spread the Depression worldwide. And we never want to make that mistake again. I am opposed to protectionism. Now, it is true the European Community does practice some; for example, by Spain and Portugal's entry into the European Community. What happened there was under their rules. Their rules violate the GATT agreement, because those rules say that now Spain and Portugal must buy the agricultural products they have been buying from the United States, they must buy them from other members of the Community. Well, this is like taking $1 billion in trade away from our American farmers. And we feel there is got to be some compensation for this so that we can-and the best way would be for us to all review, and that is what we keep trying to do at the economic summit-to all review where we are restricting trade; at the same time that we want to sell, we do not want to buy. And much of this-we have made a number of bilateral agreements, we are working bilaterally with Japan on this. But I think-I just-my own feeling is that every bit of economic history shows that free and open commerce is beneficial to all. And when you get in trying to adjust it and restrict it with various agreements, that is when you get in trouble, because protectionism is a two-way street. You may say, well, like I vetoed a bill that our Congress passed. And it was a bill that would have had some protectionism here in our country for two or three different products. And they were trying to say that, Well, this would mean more jobs in those industries for Americans. But nobody counts the jobs over here in the other industries that you lose when the other country retaliates. So, that is why I vetoed the bill; and they did not override my veto. But this is what we need to talk about with the European Community, and we are going to be discussing with them. What do you hope to accomplish in Tokyo? And specifically, if you cannot get a free trade agreement with Canada, how can you hope to have this kind of liberalization that you have just been talking about? Well, I am not going to quit on one vote. We are going to keep trying for this. It is the right thing to do, and we will keep after it.

Interview With Foreign Journalists


And I will be pleased if you will quote me correctly on that to your people. Give it to me and I will quote it. No, I mean we are not going to give up on it. ENTITY, by supporting you on the attack on Libya, Mrs. Thatcher has got herself into quite a lot of domestic political problems. In fact, one of the opposition has accused her of turning the British bulldog into a Reagan poodle. And I was wondering what you would have to say to her if you can help her in any way on that in Tokyo-for example, by discussing the future, possible use of American bases in Britain? Oh, yes, you bet I will be discussing it. But you know something? I have to tell you that I have never known of a time when the English bulldog is safer than it is with Margaret Thatcher where she is. And she is not allowing anyone-anything in England to become an American poodle. I remember one of your countrymen said something and I have come to agree with it above all, and that was on my last trip there, when he very enthusiastically hit his fist in his hand and said to me, Margaret Thatcher is the greatest man in England. I do not mean that to offend the ladies. But, no, I have the greatest respect for her. And I am sorry that her very courageous action caused her the problems that it did. But at the same time that she has my sympathy, she also has my conviction that she is well able to take care of herself and her country. ENTITY, this morning's Wall Street Journal reported that you would like to encourage kind of a Marshall fund for the Middle East in Tokyo. Is that correct, and who should come up with the money in your opinion? I do not know that we actually call it that, but in all the efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East, this idea that Prime Minister Peres broached to us of why do not we enlarge the circle. And why do not we bring in all the countries of the Middle East-all the moderate Arab States themselves-and look at the underlying problems there, economic and otherwise And

Interview With Foreign Journalists


Well, Mr. ENTITY, we know you are busy, so perhaps if we could just go ahead with a few questions. It is been suggested you have only 6 to 18 months to accomplish your agenda before your postelection honeymoon with the Congress ends. What is your strategy to capitalize on your victory with an even more recalcitrant Congress, particularly after the 1986 congressional elections? Does not this threaten the completion of the ENTITY revolution? Well, I have never thought that the completion of what we have been trying to accomplish is going to be easy, particularly as long as there is in the House a definite majority of the other side. On the other hand, we have accomplished, I think, a great deal. We'd be much further ahead if we'd gotten all that we'd asked for from the very beginning, but we are going to keep right on with those things and see what we can do. First of all, I think we have to go after some budget reforms. The budgeting process is just a kind of a chaotic thing and, finally, you get a package of appropriation bills. Until we can have a budgeting process where you start out and set a figure as to what overall can be spent and, then, within that, negotiate out as to which program gets how much and arrive at a consensus on that, we are going to be in trouble. We need to do that. We need the balanced budget amendment; we need the line-item veto if we are to do those things. We need economic growth for that. We have got to have the tax simplification program that we have been studying and working on. We have got to have such things as enterprise zones-everything that will help stimulate the growth of the economy, because that is the sure way back to sensible running of the Government. And we have got the-it goes without saying-the defense and the security assistance measures and so forth. That we have to have. That is the top priority of government in the sense that that is the main constitutional requirement, is the security of the people. And then there are social things that I think we want, having to do with abortion, school prayer, tuition tax credits, things of that kind. And what we are going to do is try to work with the leadership of the Congress. If it is, and if it simply tries to throw roadblocks, then, yes, we take our case to the people.

Interview With Representatives of the Washington Times


ENTITY, the deficit has been described as a debt that the people, the American people, owe themselves. As such, does the deficit really matter, or has the slowdown in the economy forced you to reconsider whether growth can substantially reduce the deficit? Well, of course, we had this example this year in which some $20 billion came out of the deficit as it had been projected by ourselves for this present year, and that was almost entirely due to the economic growth. But when you say the deficit and does it really matter, well, for 50 years that is what the Democrats have been telling us, that it did not , that we owed it to ourselves. I think to look at just the deficit ignores the real problem. What you have to get at is the problem, and that is government is spending too much, and it is spending too big a share of the private sector-that is why my opposition to those who think that the only answer to deficit spending is higher taxes. Well, we have done that in the past, and all it did was take the burden off the backs of those who wanted to spend more, so they could just go ahead and spend more. If you look at about the 5 years before we came here, taxes just about doubled, and the deficit came to over something like $318 billion. In fact, just a little while ago I was citing some figures. If you go back to '65-and in the years following '65 was when the Great Society got underway-'65 to '80, in those 15 years, the budget, the overall spending, increased about 4 1/2 times. So, we go back to what the classical economists used to say at the turn of the century, that when we had, as they put it, business cycles and hard times, it was usually when government spending crept up to above-they never told you what the percentage was, but above a certain percentage of the gross national product, took that much more money out of the private sector. That is when you had hard times. Well, I think that is what we have been seeing. ENTITY, how far are you prepared to go to support the Treasury's modified flat-tax plan, and are you fully committed to pushing a comprehensive tax reform through Congress in this year? And if you want a balanced budget, why do not you submit one? I have not been able to get the budget I wanted as low as I wanted it without going that far.


I do not think there is anyone that would suggest that at this point you could suddenly come back and say, Here, we are -not without hurting an awful lot of people. What I think you have to do is look down the road and say, Let us aim at a target here that we are going to get this budget on a declining pattern. And then maybe you cannot exactly foretell the day at which it would happen, but if you can get the spending level, the share of private level coming-or even if it is not coming down, if your budget continues to increase to meet needs and whatever inflation there is, but if it increases at a lower rate than it has been and if the growth of the economy you can bring up, those two lines are going to meet someday, and when they meet, you have balanced the budget. And as this one goes on past, you begin to get the surplus that you should use to reduce the national debt. And this is what we are trying to do. Excuse me, but the earlier part was, how far are you prepared to go to support the flat tax? Well, you kind of got me. There on my desk is the printed version of the whole study of the Treasury Department. We have just had a briefing of the Cabinet on it; everyone is now studying it. I think it has come with a recognition that there are some options in there, that it is not a hard and fast plan. And so, I want to study this. And then, when you say about Congress-we have got two tax proposals in Congress, and one from the Democratic side, one from the Republican side, not too far apart-as I do not think this one is too far apart. Well, I think that it shows that the climate is there, that if we get going-and we want to take this up with the Democratic leadership; we also want to make it available to the public, to all the various groups out there, so that they understand what it is we are trying to do. And I think that with all of that pot there of three, you might say, proposals, I think we can come up with a plan that calls for simplification and lower tax rates in the areas that will make it more fair than the tax system is; certainly simplified.


And I know that there are some very interesting proposals the Treasury Department has come up with to do that with regard to easing the burden at the bottom, lowering the rates for everybody, and simplification, making it far more simple. Now it looks like there is not a senior foreign policy post in the White House for a woman who dazzled them in Dallas, Jeane Kirkpatrick. How can you let her leave the Cabinet, and what will you offer her to induce her to stick around? Well, she and I are scheduled for a talk this week. We have talked off and on, and I have known about her feelings now about the U.N. job. But I do not know when she talks whether she is determined that she wants to return to her previous profession in the academic world or whether she is still interested in government. And believe me, I want to find something for her in government if I can, because I count on her a great deal, and I value her abilities and her great intelligence too much to just sit there and let her go if there is a way to keep her. So, I am going to try to keep her. She is turned us around at the U.N, our position in the United Nations, and she did it. But there is not any way she can function in the White House, is there? I do not see anything there that would be worthy of her. So, I am going to-but it depends, first of all, on what are her desires-what is it, how strongly does she feel about whether she wants to leave entirely. But you would like her to stay on up at the U.N.? You would like her to stay on up at the U.N.? Well, except that I cannot ask her to do that. That assignment has a way of kind of burning people out, and I think she is - I think she is had about all of that that she wants. Are you above a little arm-twisting to keep her? I did that to keep her there as long as she has. But I have to-no, it is difficult for me, when someone really has served and done the job and you know that they have kind of had it, it is very difficult for me to try to persuade them to do it. ENTITY, why, after an overwhelming electoral victory, has arms control become such a high priority for you and that there is now a rush to the negotiating table?


Is not the evil empire evil any longer, or are not you still concerned about the Soviet disdain for treaty obligations? I have been as critical as anyone of previous agreements in many instances where I thought somebody just made an agreement to have an agreement. I have all the quotes of Brezhnev and others with regard to detente and what they thought of it. I do not know whether you are aware that Mr. Brezhnev said that detente was serving their purpose and that by 1985, they would be able to get whatever they wanted by other means. So, I have no illusions about them. But I do believe that the Soviets can be dealt with if you deal with them on the basis of what is practical for them and that you can point out is to their advantage as well as ours to do certain things. Now, I think they have seen that if it is to be an arms race, if we are determined that we are not going to let them maintain or enlarge their superiority in weapons-and they know our industrial power and might-and they see that we are determined to not let them maintain or continue that lead, then, rather than an arms race, I think there is an advantage to them in saying, well, maybe we'd better find a different way. And believe me, I would not hold still for a deal that simply makes a deal. Evil empire, the things of that kind, I thought-I was not just sounding off; I figured it was time to get their attention, to let them know that I was viewing them realistically. They-you know, everyone says about the horrible relations between the two of us, but they have not gained an inch of territory in these 4 years. And in the 4 years before, there was Afghanistan and there was Ethiopia and South Yemen, and there they were, advancing down through Africa. Why do you think they have dropped the preconditions to the arms talks at this time? Well, I think they were kind of stalling until the election, also, and then decided, well, now they know who is going to be around for a while longer. They have made a proposal, and we have said fine. ENTITY, Congress has prohibited support for the contra forces fighting against the Government of Nicaragua. How can you live with this restriction? And does not it send a message to the world that it might be risky to be a friend of the United States, as it was when ENTITY Carter was here?


Well, this is one of the things where I think the Congress, up till now, has been shortsighted and, in fact, irresponsible with regard to that situation down there. And we know that there was a kind of a consensus of feeling just recently among them, when they believed, as we all did, that possibly that ship was bearing high-performance planes, Mig's, to Nicaragua. We cannot prove that it was; we cannot prove that it was not , because of some maneuverings that went on. But there are six more Russian ships, as nearly as we can count, that are on their way to Nicaragua now with more arms. I think that maybe, if they remember that feeling that they had with regard to the possibility of high-performance planes, that they will see that there is value in our carrying on. What we have are revolutionaries that only a short time ago they and the Sandinistas were all on the same side, fighting the same revolution-and fighting it ostensibly, and by their own claim, for democratic processes. Now, they got in and, a la Cuba under Castro, the one faction took over, has created a totalitarian Marxist state, and the others are still in the revolution, still trying for the democratic principles that they'd fought for in the beginning. And the very fact that the Sandinista element is continuing to support revolutionaries who are trying to overthrow a duly elected government, this is of itself of great interest to us. Sir, have you drawn a line that says if there are high-performance aircraft introduced into this theater, that there will be a reaction from us that- Well, we have let them and we have let the Soviet Union know that this is something we cannot sit back and just take, if they do that, because that is so obviously, then, a threat to the area. Their whole military is greater than all the combined countries of Central America put together, and it is so obviously offensive in nature that we cannot ignore that. And that would be just the crowning thing to have those high-performance planes representing a threat to the area and to the hemisphere. And we have made it plain that we are not going to sit by quietly and accept that. Do you think, sir, that the Mig crate episode and the six ships that are believed on their way now is any way an attempt by the Soviet Union to test your resolve on this issue? I know they do things like that.


And so, we are keeping watch on what is there. We are not going to raise Cain over a purely domestic type cargo, or anything of that kind, but we are in contact with the Soviet Union. Do you know if weapons, or Mig's specifically, are on any of those six ships you mentioned? We do know that in several of the ports where those ships have touched down, there have been evidence of those aircraft and crates that could contain them. I would be guessing now, because my memory does not tell me. Of all the reports we have had, I do not know whether-I could not tell you specifically. Speaking of Libya, Mr. ENTITY, your administration's taken a strong rhetorical line against state terrorism. What are you going to do about Colonel Mu'ammar Qadhafi of Libya, the world's most prominent practitioner of terrorism? Well, again, it is one of those things that you can know and he can talk, but you could not go into court and prove that actually they were responsible for it, anymore than you could've a couple of other governments that we feel are apparently supporting terrorist movements. Can you, in some way, find or get access to information that would let you know where and when operations are planned. Can you get information that really ties a terrorist group to a certain force or a certain government. Among the things that we are trying to do is if-and we are having some reasonable success with getting together with the other nations to do what we did some years ago with regard to hijackings, so that we all pool our information; we all inform each other of everything that we know. And we take action so that there are no safe harbors for terrorists, that they cannot cross a border and find that they will not be troubled. Excuse me, sir, I would have thought there was overwhelming evidence that Qadhafi was involved in terrorism everywhere, from Northern Ireland to Mindanao. Yes, sometimes you get those phone calls of somebody claiming credit. But when you get two or three different outfits claiming the credit, you say, Well, which ones are just bragging? The other thing is when it comes to if you cannot intercept-punish, to retaliate, there again, you have got to be able to get some evidence as to where are the bases from whence come these terrorists that you could strike at.


And at the same time, you have to recognize that you do not want to just carelessly go out and maybe kill innocent people. Then you are as bad as the terrorists. Well, if the terrorists are in a village living amongst people who are innocent, are they then safe from retaliation? Well, you know, that is a decision that I think you have to make on each particular case. I do know of one instance in which we thought we had pretty good evidence of the locale. You would have wiped out a lot of innocent people who had nothing to do with it. Well, if you ever get a clear-cut case, where you know exactly where the terrorists came from and that there is no question of their responsibility, what, then, is the nature of the retaliation? I think there what George Shultz said in his speech-that caused a little hoopla for a time-what he was saying to our people was that you must recognize that in this whole thing, if you are going to try to defend against terrorism, there are going to come some times when military action will be called for. And you need the public understanding of that and their awareness so that they will know it is necessary if you are to conquer this problem. ENTITY, why is Assistant Secretary of State Chester Crocker negotiating with all sides in the Angola crisis to get the Cubans out and reach a settlement, except for Jonas Savimbi, who is one of the strongest anti-Communist leaders in the region there? And will you recognize Marxist Angola if the Cuban troops leave? What Secretary Crocker's been doing is actually having to do with Namibia-Namibia and its independence. Now, South Africa is willing for Namibia to become independent, but not while on the northern border of Namibia sits Angola with the Cubans and the possibility remains of Namibia becoming another satellite of the Communist bloc. So, what he is back and forth negotiating is that-for to create Namibia, for Angola to agree to remove the Cuban troops, and South Africa has agreed that they will move out, and they will be helpful in making this a state. And he is made quite a bit of progress. For the first time, Angola has made a declaration that they are prepared to bring about the withdrawal. They want to phase it, and they have some conditions on doing this. And at least that is the first time in all the years that this has been going on that Angola has said, yes, they will remove Cuban troops.


If the negotiations are successful, would you then recognize Angola, the Government of Angola, if the Cuban troops leave? I think that that would be a part of the negotiations that are going on. Does not that risk throwing someone like Jonas Savimbi to the wolves, in effect, though? Well, this is another problem, and I cannot talk about that. No one wants to do that. But certainly that has to figure in the whole negotiations. No, we are not going to turn on him. But, somehow, there has to be a negotiation that involves that situation domestically in Angola. ENTITY, the Syrians seem now to have become the serious focus in the Middle East, and with your September 1982 peace plan at least grievously wounded, if not dying, do you think it can be revived, or, if not, do you have another initiative that you are going to pursue there? Well, no, I think that was the proper course to take, and I think that it is a little closer than it is been for some time. The very fact now that King Hussein has recognized Egypt, which kind of strengthens Egypt's position as being accepted back in the Arab community even though it has the peace treaty with Israel-the recognition the other day or the restoring of relations with Iraq is a step forward. I think that there has been some trust built up by the moderate Arab States in the United States as an intermediary in trying to bring about-see, we are not trying to negotiate the peace. They have to negotiate the peace. So, I think that some things are coming together now which, if anything, including the fact that the PLO held its meeting in Amman instead of Damascus-I think these things are all leading toward the possibility again of getting the Arab States to agree to negotiate. You see, they have been sitting there with the position that they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a nation. Well, you cannot negotiate with someone until that is removed. Well, Egypt did it. And now I think the attitude of Hussein shows that-Jordan cannot be alone in doing that, but I think that what they are saying is that if the others can come together on this and enter into negotiations-the PLO; we now see them taking on the radical faction in their own midst that was pro-Syrian. And we are going to do everything we can to hopefully encourage this. And I want to thank you for being so generous with your time to us.


As of this moment, any sign Gadhafi wants out? Well, I think what we are seeing is that the circle around Gadhafi understands that the noose is tightening, that their days are probably numbered and they are going to have to think through what their next steps are. But, as I have been very clear about throughout, there are certain things they can do that will send a signal that he is ready to go. Until that time, we are going to keep on applying pressure and hopefully he is going to be getting the message soon. If Gadhafi ends up in a villa someplace in Zimbabwe with no war crimes trial, is that okay with you? I will tell you, though, that the first step is for Gadhafi to send a signal that he understands the Libyan people do not want him ruling any more, that 40 years of tyranny is enough. Once he makes that decision, I think the international community will come together and make a determination as to what the most appropriate way of facilitating him stepping down will be. Have you made any - or would you make any calls to say, take him? We have not gotten to that stage yet. The U.S. must send munitions. You know, I would not speculate on that. I think that it is fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We are looking at all our options at this point. But keep in mind what we have accomplished. We have instituted a no-fly zone that can be sustained for quite some time because it is an international effort. Can we say that we could have it in there in a day, in two days? Well, I am not going to talk about operations like that at that level. I want to try to clarify what you are saying today to the people of Syria. We specifically asked ENTITY, is he saying to the protesters in Syria that if they meet the five criteria he laid out last night - Are you saying to them, we will be there for you as we were there in Libya? I am not saying that. What I am saying is that those are the criteria that I consider in making a very difficult decision about whether to apply military force. Those are the kinds of criteria that I examine, but I am not going to start - right as we are in a very complex operation in Libya, start projecting out about all the other countries in which this would apply.

Interview With Diane Sawyer on ABC World News Tonight


What are the ground rules here, ENTITY, in terms of the American press? It is all on the record, but cannot be used until after these fine folks are able to publish. Yes, so delay your stories, will you? A couple of things-one, I am excited about going on the trip. I have never been to Saudi Arabia. I have never been to Bahrain. I have never been to Kuwait. I have been to Egypt. I have not been to the Palestinian Territories or Israel as a sitting President. one, the United States commitment to the peace process; that what happened in Annapolis is the beginning of serious discussions, a serious attempt by the United States to encourage the Israelis and the Palestinians to develop a vision of what a Palestinian state will look like. And I am very optimistic that such a vision will come into being by the time I leave office. And the reason I am is because I know the two leaders well, and I believe both are committed to a two-state solution, and both understand that in order for that state to come into being, subject to the roadmap, that there has to be more than just words; there has to be clarity in what a Palestinian state will look like. one is the vision; two is the implementation of the road-map-in other words, the United States chairs a committee with the Palestinians and the Israelis to deal with roadmap issues; and three, a commitment by the United States and others to build the institutions necessary for a Palestinian democracy to thrive. In other words, there is got to be a recognition that we need institution-building; there needs to be work. For example, the United States is very much involved in helping modernize their security forces and create a chain of command, so that when good men like President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad see a security situation needs to be taken care of, they can give a command and something happens, for the good of the Palestinian people. In other words, a state, in order to be credible and viable, must be able to provide security for its people. The EU is very much involved with institution building and basically enhancing the entrepreneurial spirit of the Palestinian people, which is very strong. So I will be visiting with Tony Blair, for example, when I am there to see the progress he is making.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


My only point is, is that it is going to be very important for the nations that I visit to be active participants in not only helping the Palestinians, but recognizing that a two-state solution recognizes Israel's right to exist. Thirdly, I will be also talking to our friends and allies about our strong commitment to regional security, that the United States is engaged and will remain engaged in the security of the region. And as I say, I am looking forward to it, I really am. We will start-Joyce, why do not you crank her up here? We will go a couple of rounds. If I can open up by asking you about Lebanon. The country is entering the second month, and the Presidency is still void over there. Who do you think is responsible for creating this situation and maintaining it? And what is your administration and maybe the French-Mr. Sarkozy, good friend of yours-doing to end this stalemate? First of all, the United States is strongly committed to Lebanese democracy. We believe that a Lebanon that is democratic and peaceful is in the interests of world peace. I have been very impressed by Prime Minister Siniora, by the way, as a man who is committed to the well-being of all the Lebanese people. Secondly, I am disappointed that the Presidency has not been selected and believe very much that Syrian influence is preventing the selection. Thirdly, part of my trip is to remind our friends and allies how important it is for Lebanon to succeed and how important it is for all of us to work to free that Government from foreign interference. My position has been that the March 14th coalition, if it had mustered a majority plus one, 50 percent plus one, should be allowed to go forward with the selection of the President. We are working with not only our friends in the region who share the commitment for Lebanon to be free of foreign interference, but also the European countries. And so there needs to be a clear message to the Syrians from all us that you will continue to be isolated, you will continue to be viewed as a nation that is thwarting the will of the Lebanese people. There needs to be a focused voice, and so our efforts diplomatically are to convince others that they must continue to pressure Syria so that the Lebanese process can go forward. Yes, again, Mr. President, I'd like to reiterate the remark of Joyce of thanking you for giving us this-- You talked about the regional security.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


And back in the Gulf States, the number-one issue nowadays, in terms of security of the region, is the Iranian nuclear profile and issue. And we'd like to know your position on that now, the development of that. The region is nervously-nervous about having another war, confrontation, on the one hand; yet they are also very nervous about the Iranians possessing the nuclear weapons. And I'd like to follow up on that. One, the Iranians had a covert military nuclear weapons program, and that international pressure caused them to suspend the program. one, the ability to enrich uranium that can be converted into the basis of a bomb; secondly, the know-how to be able to assemble that enriched material into a bomb; and third, the capacity to deliver the weapon through rocketry. As far as we know, two of those programs still are ongoing. And the danger of a civilian enrichment program is, once that knowledge is gained, that it could be easily transferred back to a covert military program. And therefore, the NIE should be a clear signal to all of us that Iran is a threat to peace. And they are a threat to peace because they have been nontransparent. They have not lived up to their obligations under the IAEA. They have not been truthful about their program. And so one of my messages is that I, too, take the Iranian issue seriously, and that we have a plan to deal with it in a diplomatic way. It is important for the people in the region to know that while all options remain on the table, that I believe we can solve this problem diplomatically. And the way to do that is to continue to isolate Iran in the international community. My message to the Iranian people is that there is a better way forward for you, that your Government has made decisions that have caused you to be isolated from the world, have caused there to be economic deprivation, because they refuse to be transparent and open about their enrichment programs. And so I understand this is an issue, and it is going to be an agenda item on my travel. It is not going to be the only item, of course. The Middle Eastern peace process is something that will be on the leaders' minds. The commitment of the United States to remain active in the region will be on their minds. I am sure that these leaders fear that the United States may become isolationist and basically throw up its hands and say, who cares what happens.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


I will remind them that what happens in parts of the world matters to the security of the United States of America, and that we look forward to being a constructive force and working with allies like allies should do. And so I am sure the subject will come up, and I am looking forward to clarifying once again our position. The American press feels the same way when they talk to me. You might want to clarify that. Some of them are very serious this morning. King Hamad of Bahrain has launched democratic reforms that included a new Constitution, and Bahrain now has an elected Parliament. How do you assess this experiment, especially in light of your drive to spread democracy in the region? I have complimented His Majesty on recognizing that Bahraini-style democracy, a democracy that reflects the traditions, customs of Bahrain, is a important part of dealing with real threats that we face in the world, which is extremism based upon hopelessness; and that there is a true threat to peace, and that is radicals who prey upon frustrations of people in order to convince them to become suicide bombers and to kill in the name of an ideology. And the best antidote to that is democracy. And I applaud his efforts. And we are very active in helping nations, if they so choose to receive our help, in moving forward through the MEPI program, for example. And it is a way to help people build the institutions necessary for a-I repeat- a democracy that reflects their traditions and history of the respective countries. And people go at different paces. And I do not expect Jeffersonian democracy to break out instantly, nor do I expect the forms of government to reflect that which we have in the United States. But I do hope that people recognize that popular sovereignty, that listening to people and responding to people, is how to build a stable and peaceful world. And so I applaud His Majesty. I am looking forward to bringing up the subject with the Amir of Kuwait as well. You know, women are now very active in the Kuwaiti Parliament. My friend King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia does not get enough credit for beginning to reform his society. It is important for the American President not to insist that countries do it our way. Extremists prey upon hopelessness, and forms of government can create hopeless people, people who are frustrated, people who do not feel like the government is responsive to their needs. The people that we-that kill the innocent have no positive vision.

Interview With Foreign Print Media


The only thing they can do is prey upon frustration-and that a way to deal with this ideological conflict is to defeat the ideology of hate with one of hope. And that is what is happening in the Middle East. And I am looking forward to discussing that with the various leaders. Sir, you are talking about the Middle East peace. I just would like to see, how do you see the role of King Abdallah in promoting the peace process and stability in the Middle East? And also, how do you evaluate the SaudiAmerican-comparing the terror in the region? First of all, I admire King Abdallah. I admire him because he is a man who commands a lot of respect from me personally and a lot of respect in the region. It is not to say that other people do not listen as well, but Saudi Arabia is geographically important, is the guardian of holy sites, and he is a well-respected man. And so in terms of the Middle Eastern peace process, the fact that he sent his Foreign Minister to Annapolis sent a very strong message that Middle Eastern peace is going to require the participation of more than just the United States and Israel and the Palestinians, that a true peace is going to require a commitment in the neighborhood of supporting two states living side by side in peace-two democratic states living side by side in peace. So he has laid out his own initiative in the past. It commanded great respect. It is a commitment to a process. And so I value him as-I view him as invaluable in the process. Secondly, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia recognized that murderers threaten not only other parts of the world, but threaten the Kingdom's own security. And the security forces there have done a magnificent job of using intelligence to find the few that would murder the many. I have been impressed-and any objective observer would be impressed-by Saudi Arabia's commitment to finding those people that use murder as a weapon. And so I-to answer your question, I am satisfied with our cooperation. I am appreciative of the efforts that the intelligence community inside Saudi has been making to deal with these extremists, some of whom conduct murder in-within the Kingdom, some of whom leave the Kingdom to conduct murder. And the King is fully aware that this is a-such a presence is a threat to his own internal securities, as well as recognizing an obligation to prevent those from going outside the country to murder.

Interview With Foreign Print Media