Colin Powell: At the Policy Helm

Soldier. Statesman. Best-selling author. Winner of an unprecedented two presidential Medals of Freedom. Sought after by both parties as a presidential candidate. Colin Luther Powell, the son of Jamaican immigrants, personifies the American dream. Powell has also made a deep impression abroad, as kings, presidents and foreign ministers vie for his ear. Despite his stature, however, it hasn’t been smooth sailing for America’s 65th secretary of State.

Question: You’re increasingly portrayed, even by some inside the administration, as the odd man out. Are you? If not, why do you think people think that way?

Answer: I can’t explain the various stories that are out there, but I am not the odd man out. My source for that is the president. I have a very close relationship with Vice President [Dick Cheney] and with National Security Advisor [Condoleezza Rice]. We coordinate closely. Now, there are those who think I should be more public, but that’s not my style. My style is to put my head down to get the job done.

Over the last several months, we have given the president good options from which to formulate policy .... So, I have no concerns about being the odd man out. It’s a cute phrase. It just isn’t accurate.

Q: But you’ve conceded there are some “serious” internal disagreements. Some insiders cite North Korea, Iraq and different levels of enthusiasm for missile defense.

A: I have never been in an administration in which there weren’t disagreements and debates. The question is, does this process of debate and disagreement and controversy lead to the president being able to make sensible choices?

Q: Despite your enormous national and international stature, Rice is increasingly depicted as being closer to the president, as a front person for conservatives in the administration, as the ascendant star. More than eight months into the administration, who has more influence in shaping the president’s thinking?

A: This is a story that consumes people, but there is no story here. We all have influence. I’ve been national security advisor; I know the role. Condi Rice does a great job of it, and she is very close to the president, and has been for several years. The secretary of State doesn’t live in the West Wing, nor does this secretary of State want to. So, Condi and I talk all day long. It is now 9:10 a.m. [on Sept. 6], and we have spoken four times in the last hour and a half.

Much has been made of Condi [going] to Russia to deliver a paper. Well, I was in Asia, [so] I couldn’t go to Moscow to deliver this paper that the president had promised [President Vladimir V.] Putin. This was a sensible division of labor. I have met with my Russian colleague at least seven times. I will be seeing him again here on the 19th. So, I am the person responsible to the president for our policy with respect to Russia.

Q: How difficult is it to sell missile defense, especially to allies that criticize and question it?

A: The allies are getting a better understanding [of] what we have in mind, the nature of the offensive cuts we’re talking about and what we want to do defensively. They can see that we’re really talking about limited defense.

Q: Do you have no fear that abrogating the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, or walking away from it to pursue missile defense, will trigger a new arms race?

A: I cannot predict what the Russians and the Chinese might do. [But] why would the Russians suddenly start investing huge amounts of money into trying to overcome a system they can already overcome with what they have? And they will know exactly every single thing we’re doing because of the transparency we’re going to give to [missile defense] and the transparency the media and Congress will give it. The Chinese, quite interestingly, issued a statement [last] Tuesday that said “Let’s talk.” So, the Chinese seem interested. They have always had a countervalue deterrence theory--not going after our missiles, but they had a few missiles that could do terrible damage. That remains their strategic theory and policy, and as long as they can do that, they will be safe and comfortable behind their nuclear shield.

Q: Some in the administration have called China a strategic competitor. During your Asia-Pacific tour in July, you called it a friend. Which is it?

A: I don’t think they’re necessarily inconsistent. I have been trying to move away from single label terms. There are things with respect to our relationship with China where we are friends. We’re moving forward in a friendly way with the World Trade Organization, with respect to trade. We accept 40% of its exports, [which] are a very important part of the average American’s budget. When [Americans] are in Kmart or Wal-Mart, and they purchase low-priced quality goods, they’re glad goods come from China. Our businesses have opportunities there.

But when it comes to things like human rights or [weapons] proliferation, we have stood up for what we believe. We believe strongly in universal human rights, that it is not in the best interests of the world for China to sell missiles and other weapons. When that is the case, we say so. It upsets them, but that’s the nature of a mature relationship.

Q: The United States is portrayed, even by some of our allies, as the odd country out because of its unilateralism--walking away from new international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and old ones like the ABM treaty. Why is the Bush administration so willing, so often, to defy the world and go it alone?

A: Let me give some evidence for our multilateralism, and the fact that we are playing an important role on the world stage. President Bush has now made two trips to Europe, both showing our commitment to the [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]. We’ve got a continuing [military] presence in the Balkans, [and have pledged to stay] in together [and go] out together [with NATO]. We are playing a useful role in Macedonia. We have U.S. troops participating in that mission. That shows solid cooperation. Where we think something doesn’t serve our interests, such as the international criminal court or a flawed protocol to the biological warfare convention, we have an obligation to act accordingly. So, I think we have been showing in a number of ways that we are not withdrawing [behind] our great oceans.

Q: Do you ever get frustrated about having to defend what the United States is doing in terms of walking away from conferences and treaties? Take Kyoto as an example.

A: The only regret I have about that point, and I think the president shares that regret, is the manner in which we did it. We could have done it in a smoother manner ....

Q: Are we likely to come up with an alternative to Kyoto by the time of the environment summit in Marrakech, Morocco, as a number of our allies seem to expect?

A: I would like to see us do that. If we don’t have something that we can put down at Marrakech, then the next opportunity is a year and a half away. The question is, this is very difficult work and will we really have something. We’ll be meeting on it in the next few days to see what we can have ready and when. Maybe we can, and maybe we can’t. We’ll have to see.

Q: You also decided not to go to the U.N. conference on racism in South Africa. What’s your take on the outcome, and do you have any regrets, as the first African American secretary of State, that you could not participate?

A: I have a deep regret that I could not participate. The president has deep regret that I could not participate. He knew I wanted to go. I wanted to take a message to that conference [about] what we can achieve in a democracy such as ours--with a Constitution that said people like me were three-fifths of a citizen for representational purposes and zero-fifths of a citizen for voting purposes. ... But we made it clear that we were going to have great difficulty participating in a conference that singled out one particular country [Israel] with the most vicious, hostile, destructive kind of language. And we also said with respect to slavery, let’s find a way to recognize the past, but let’s not do it in a way that creates problems in the future. Let’s make this a forward-looking conference.

Unfortunately, all the opportunity, all the energy has been spent on these two issues. We’ve been warning for seven months that this was going to be the outcome. For those who have suggested that Colin Powell doesn’t have the independence needed to have gone to such a conference, it is my judgment that I couldn’t attend under the circumstances.

Q: On the way back from your last trip to the Middle East [in June], you told reporters on the plane that you had no fall-back position from the plan by an international committee led by former Sen. John Mitchell. But you also said that if it didn’t work, you were going to have to come up with something else. Is it time to come up with something else?

A: We are always looking for alternatives. The Mitchell plan is still there, and it still enjoys the total support of the international community. I had a number of conversations [on Sept. 5] with Foreign Minister [Shimon] Peres and Chairman [Yasser] Arafat, hoping to get this first meeting between them started. If that meeting does take place and produces some movement, then perhaps we may be on the way to the Mitchell plan. But I’ve seen hopes dashed too often.

Q: Getting Peres and Arafat to agree is a lot different than getting the guys on the streets with guns to agree.

A: True. But we haven’t seen enough done yet to get the guys with the guns off the streets. So, we have to keep moving forward. There is not a peace negotiation out there waiting for me to shuttle back and forth.

Q: You attained heroic stature in the 1991 Gulf War. But 11 years after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein is still in power. Do you really believe that he can be toppled, especially by the current opposition groups?

A: Eleven years later Kuwait is safe. Iraq is a sad, desperate place; its infrastructure is collapsing. I do know he will pass in due course, because he is on top of a failing way of running a country. Whether or not he can be toppled is not something I can predict.

Q: Is it still the U.S. goal?

A: It is the U.S. goal to see a change in regime.