• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence

• Security Menu                     

• Systems
• Industry
• Operations
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Space

16 May 2003

Transcript: Powell on Russian TV Discusses Chechnya, Iraq

(May 14 interview with Russian Television NTV in Moscow) (5060)
Terrorist organizations that kill innocent people say they are acting
to achieve a political end, "but very often I think it is nothing but
a criminal end," Secretary of State Colin Powell said May 14 in Moscow
during an interview on Russian Television NTV.
"Is this to be in any way tolerated? Is this to be in any way
justified?" he asked rhetorically. "What kind of world do we become?
What sort of future will there be for the civilized world if we don't
come together and fight this kind of terrorism where it exists?"
Powell explained that when the United States designates a group as a
terrorist organization, it has to be "very careful to make sure that
when we identify, at least in our system, organizations that are
conducting these kinds of attacks that we can justify with information
and intelligence that they are terrorists, that they are using
terrorist financing, and that they have no interest in the political
process." This includes several groups in Chechnya that he said the
United States has identified "through our own information and through
our own resources."
Asked why it took so long for Washington to designate Chechen
guerrillas as terrorists, Powell replied that the legal process used
to make the determination is a lengthy one: "It is not a matter of
just snapping your finger one day and the next day saying I designate
you as a terrorist organization. It is because of the record of
terrorism and information that I can present to our Congress or to a
court that justifies my placing the name of that organization on our
terrorist list."
On the subject of Iraq, Powell spoke of the dispute that arose between
the United States and Russia over using force against Saddam Hussein.
"President Putin felt very strongly that the United States should not
undertake military action," he said. "He worked both in the UN
Security Council to make that position well known and he talked
directly to President Bush about it. Foreign Minister Ivanov, my
colleague, he and I had the most intense discussions about this issue.
We had strong disagreement here. And I would not expect either
President Putin or Foreign Minister Ivanov to say that they didn't
have that strong view and it's all behind us."
The dispute did not, however, "break up the partnership," according to
Powell, and he pointed out several areas of cooperation including
Russia's desire to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the
fight against HIV/AIDS.
"And so, there are so many things that pull us together, and so many
mutual interests that we have, that those things that pull us together
will cause us to have a strong partnership," Powell said. "I'm
absolutely confident of that and I'm sure that will be demonstrated to
the world when our two Presidents meet in St. Petersburg in the near
future. And, it was also demonstrated when the Duma ratified the
Treaty of Moscow reducing the number of strategic nuclear weapons on
both sides."
On the issue of whether United Nations weapons inspectors [UNMOVIC]
should return to Iraq, Powell said, "This is something they'll have to
examine. I'm aware that some of our Security Council partners,
including the Russian Federation, believe that there is a role for
UNMOVIC. We believe that that may not be the case any longer. But it's
an area that we'll have to debate."
On one point the Secretary of State was firm -- the justification for
using force against a brutal dictator.
"We're now finding mass graves, full of innocent people who were
murdered by this regime. And, so the United States is not going to
apologize. Nor are our coalition partners going to apologize for
undertaking this military operation which will determine whether there
are any remaining weapons of mass destruction and bring the truth out
in due course," he said. "[T]he world will be better off for it, is
better off for it, and the people of Iraq will be better off for it."
Powell rejected the notion that what happened in Iraq presages a
"domino theory" whereby the United States would do the same thing in
another country.
"Not at all," he said. "But, what we might have is an example to the
region of what can happen when you don't have dictators around and
when you're willing to use the wealth that you have in the ground,
your oil, for good purposes."
Following is the State Department transcript of the interview on
Russian Television NTV:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State 
Office of the Spokesman 
(Berlin, Germany)
May 16, 2003
INTERVIEW
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL WITH RUSSIAN TELEVISION NTV
Marriott Grand Hotel 
Moscow, Russia
May 14, 2003
INTERVIEWER: Welcome to Russia.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much. It's good to be back.
QUESTION: Well, you were not unanimously welcome to the two countries
you came last. There were suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia and Russia,
Chechnya. President Putin said that these two series of terrorist
attacks actually had the same origins. You agreed with him. In that
case, do you suppose, do you think that the Chechen guerillas, Hamas,
Hezbollah, and Al Qaida guerillas are all the same?
SECRETARY POWELL: They're all the same in that they are terrorist
organizations that that [sic] are determined to use violence, the
killing of innocent people to achieve an end. They say it is a
political end, but very often I think it is nothing but a criminal
end. And, so to the extent that we all have to go after terrorists,
these are all linked as terrorist organizations, and we have to find a
way to direct the anger of people, the anxiety of people, the
frustration of people, the hopes of people into a political process
and away from any suggestion that criminals who call themselves
terrorists have a place in the civilized world.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary. There are two extreme opinions. The Chechen
fighters in the mountains say they're fighting for national liberation
and say in Moscow, most of the political leaders, I would say absolute
majority, are convinced that it's international terrorism. Where is
the truth?
SECRETARY POWELL: The truth is for someone else to decide, not me. I
know that there are terrorist organizations in Chechnya. We have
through our own information and through our own resources identified
several of them that we have put on our list of terrorist
organizations and have taken sanctions against them. We have to be
very careful to make sure that when we identify, at least in our
system, organizations that are conducting these kinds of attacks that
we can justify with information and intelligence that they are
terrorists, that they are using terrorist financing, and that they
have no interest in the political process. They have no interest in
anything but killing innocent people. Often cloaked in the context of
a political objective, but very often not in that cloak. And, as a
result, it is important for people to reject this as a way to find a
solution.
What we saw in Saudi Arabia yesterday when I was there. It wasn't
directed at me. I only recently announced my visit, only for a week.
They'd been planning it for a long time. They were going after
American interests. They were going after a partnership between Saudi
Arabia and Americans that benefits both Saudi Arabians and Americans.
How dare they? Why should they? Who are they? Where do they get the
right to use bombs to kill innocent people sleeping in their beds?
They don't have such a right. And, what we are seeing throughout the
world now: two attacks in Chechnya in the past two days, attack in
Saudi Arabia, attack in Yemen, attacks elsewhere in the world. Is this
to be in any way tolerated? Is this to be in any way justified? What
kind of world do we become? What sort of future will there be for the
civilized world if we don't come together and fight this kind of
terrorism where it exists?
QUESTION: Two questions follow from what you have just said. Is why
did it take the United States such a long time to list the Chechen
guerillas in the terrorists list? It took September 11 to happen so
that the United States realize that Chechnya is a place of
international terrorism. Why so long?
SECRETARY POWELL: We realize that Chechnya is [a] place where there
are terrorist organizations, but we have a system of laws, a system of
regulations where we are required under our law to make an examination
of information provided to us, intelligence we can gather. And we go
through this because we are a nation of law and we apply the laws in a
very, very careful way. It is not a matter of just snapping your
finger one day and the next day saying I designate you as a terrorist
organization. It is because of the record of terrorism and information
that I can present to our Congress or to a court that justifies my
placing the name of that organization on our terrorist list. It takes
time, and in this instance it took some time.
QUESTION: And, the second point. The terrorist attacks in Saudi
Arabia. Do you think this is a response to American victory in Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: I think it is Al Qaida. We can't be absolutely sure,
but my judgment it is Al Qaida. And Al Qaida has been targeting
American interests for years. They targeted our ship in Yemen when
they blew a hole in it and killed a number of our young sailors. They
targeted our embassies in Africa. They targeted New York City and
Washington and they brought another plane down in the countryside of
Pennsylvania, one of our states. And, so the Al Qaida organization has
been attacking America across a broad front over many years, and this
was a continuation of that attack, not directly linked to what we did
in Iraq.
They have this view that somehow the Saudi government should not be
free to invite the American presence in Saudi Arabia because it serves
the interests of both Saudi Arabia and the United States. They do not
approve of that, they don't like that, so they've been trying to drive
us out [of] Saudi Arabia and out of that part of the world but [sic]
for a number of years. But, we have friends and we have interests in
the Gulf Area, in the Middle East and we will represent our interests
and we will defend our friends and to the extent that our friends want
our presence in the area, either our political presence, our
diplomatic presence or, on occasion, our military presence. We will be
there to help our friends. What's interesting is, the Iraq war has now
been concluded, the active combat phase, and we have just announced
that most of our troops will be leaving Saudi Arabia. So, what basis
was there for an attack on that rationale? None whatsoever. It is just
part of this terrorist, criminal, murderous organization reaching out,
and nobody should try very hard to find some way of justifying their
action by saying that, well, Americans shouldn't be in Saudi Arabia.
Americans should be doing more here or other nations should be doing
more there. And, if you don't do so, then this one organization, Al
Qaida, led by we don't know who right now, has the right to go get
bombs, to go get guns, to go get all kinds of terrible weapons to kill
innocent people who might be sleeping in their bed. Not going after an
armed enemy, but going after targets where they know they can get
access.
In the case of New York City, people who came from 90 different
countries, who just went to work in the World Trade Center -- ninety
different countries represented in the World Trade Center. Should they
have all been sent to their death because this one organization,
outside all the rules of law, outside any norm of civilization,
decides that they have some misbegotten cause, and they should have
the right to do such a thing? No. We must strike back. We must
respond. To these kinds of organizations or similar organizations,
wherever they appear. And no country is invulnerable. No country is
safe from this kind of attack.
QUESTION: When you say you don't know who runs Al Qaida now. You mean
that you don't know what the fate of Bin Laden is?
SECRETARY POWELL: I do not know whether he is alive or dead.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary. My colleague journalists describe a rather
troublesome situation in Iraq. It's chaos in Baghdad. It's chaos in
the countryside. And Basra, for instance, as well. And somebody talks
about the possibility of a domino effect, in a sense that we can get
this chaos spreading in the Arab world. Now, connecting to that [sic]
President Putin, before the beginning of the war, always said,
"America and us are partners. And because we partners, I must warn
them they are making a mistake." After your meeting on Wednesday with
President Putin, did you have a feeling that he's changing his mind?
SECRETARY POWELL: No. President Putin felt very strongly that the
United States should not undertake military action. He worked both in
the UN Security Council to make that position well known and he talked
directly to President Bush about it. Foreign Minister Ivanov, my
colleague, he and I had the most intense discussions about this issue.
We had strong disagreement here. And I would not expect either
President Putin or Foreign Minister Ivanov to say that they didn't
have that strong view and it's all behind us. We did have a
disagreement, but because we are partners we can talk to one another
directly. In the most heated way. And now that that matter has been
resolved, we did what we felt we had to do, Russia felt the need to
criticize our actions, but that does not break up the partnership.
There are so many other things that pull us together. The desire now
to work together in the United Nations for a new resolution that will
help the Iraqi people and not to fight old battles. And the United
States and the Russian Federation are pulled together by our economic
interests, by our common commitment to democracy, and to the opening
up of markets. We want to help Russia with accession to the World
Trade Organization. We have delegations going back and forth talking
about agricultural issues and commercial issues, trade issues, and
investment opportunities. I, earlier this week when I was in Moscow,
also here in your city [sic], I also talked to a group of leaders who
came together to talk about a new problem, HIV/AIDS. And, we have some
experience and we can help Russia with our experience. And so, there
are so many things that pull us together, and so many mutual interests
that we have, that those things that pull us together will cause us to
have a strong partnership. I'm absolutely confident of that and I'm
sure that will be demonstrated to the world when our two Presidents
meet in St. Petersburg in the near future. And, it was also
demonstrated when the Duma ratified the Treaty of Moscow reducing the
number of strategic nuclear weapons on both sides.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary. You talked about this a second ago. The
resolution to allow to lift sanctions on Iraq. Now, Russia has a
different point of view. You have threatened the world, the United
States, for a year and a half that there are [weapons] of mass
destruction in Iraq, and so far nobody has found them. So, if the war
was carried out because of weapons of mass destruction, so maybe let's
let the inspectors go back and make us all sure in the world that
there aren't -- or there are, but the fact that they're not found yet,
the weapons of mass destruction, isn't it troublesome?
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we have started to identify some vehicles that
are very suspicious in nature and look quite similar to some of the
vehicles that I presented in my speech to the United Nations on the
fifth of February. So we'll continue to examine those vehicles to see
whether they are mobile biological laboratories. We are going through
a great deal of documentation that our troops have picked up, and we
have thousands of experts and soldiers who will be examining the
entire country and look at suspected sights [sites]. Whether or not
there is a role for UNMOVIC to play in the absence of the Saddam
Hussein regime is an entirely different situation. This is something
they'll have to examine. I'm aware that some of our Security Council
partners, including the Russian Federation, believe that there is a
role for UNMOVIC. We believe that that may not be the case any longer.
But it's an area that we'll have to debate.
I don't subscribe to the domino theory, that what we have done in Iraq
will necessarily bring down regimes all over the area. What we have
done in Iraq is get rid of a terrible dictator. A dictator who we know
was developing weapons of mass destruction. You tell me why he didn't
let the United Nations have full access. You tell me why he didn't
turn over the documentation, why he didn't account for all the things
he has been doing for the last 12 years. For 12 years, he ignored the
UN. We also know that he had such weapons. He has used such weapons in
the past. And, on top of that, he terrorized his population, he wasted
the revenue of the people on weapons and on building up a military
force to threaten his neighbors. He killed people. He murdered people.
We're now finding mass graves, full of innocent people who were
murdered by this regime. And, so the United States is not going to
apologize. Nor are our coalition partners going to apologize for
undertaking this military operation which will determine whether there
are any remaining weapons of mass destruction and bring the truth out
in due course. And also have the effect of bringing down a dictator,
and the world will be better off for it, is better off for it, and the
people of Iraq will be better off for it. And they now have an
opportunity to use their oil wealth to build a better country that
will be a democratic country.
That's not a domino theory meaning the United States is going to go
somewhere else and do the same thing. Not at all. But, what we might
have is an example to the region of what can happen when you don't
have dictators around and when you're willing to use the wealth that
you have in the ground, your oil, for good purposes.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I would like to clarify one detail, which is
very Russian. Because on the eve of war, now we know about it,
Yevgeniy Primakov, a former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister
had his last mission to Baghdad. He was asked by The Kremlin to go to
that mission. He told Mr. Saddam Hussein, that if he wants to save his
country from a tragedy, if he wants to avoid a war, he must go. Saddam
Hussein did not, as we know, agree, and the war started. Now, did you
know about this initiative in the United States?
SECRETARY POWELL: I knew about a number of initiatives to include Mr.
Primakov. Mr. Primakov wasn't the only one who was conveying this
message to Saddam Hussein. Many of the Arab leaders were conveying
this message to him. Others in the world, other leaders in the world
were saying to him, "Why are you bringing us to the brink of
destruction?" But, Mr. Hussein thought that he could stop the will of
the international community. He got certain comfort and certain
confidence from debates we were having in the Security Council, where
it was clear that some members did not want to support the use of
force. But, he misunderstood the determination of a number of the
members of the Council and a large, willing coalition led by the
United States and the United Kingdom to actually take military action.
And, so he had an opportunity to come clean. What was he hiding? What
would have been -- if he wasn't hiding something, why didn't he just
say, "I'll give you everything, I'll show you everything, you can send
in anybody you want, anywhere you want to go. I will no longer stand
in the way. I will no longer make these little moves to make it look
like I'm cooperating when I'm not really cooperating." He had his
chance. He had his opportunity.
It was the United States that went to the United Nations last
September and presented the case and said to the United Nations,
here's a dictator, here's a regime that for 12 years has been ignoring
this international body, and what are we going to do about it? And, we
worked for seven weeks. We passed a resolution supported by the
Russian Federation, 15 to 0. And, everybody said they're guilty.
That's what the resolution said. Iraq has been doing this. Now they
have to come clean. And, if they don't come clean, and if they don't
show the inspectors everything they have then serious consequences
must fall. Everybody agreed to that. 15-0. We then had a serious
debate as to whether or not they were really cooperating. And we could
not resolve that disagreement. Some said give the inspectors more
time. The United States and a number of other nations said no. All
they are doing is trying to stretch it out and make sure that nothing
happens. And so, they are using the United Nations against itself and
we did not believe that that could continue. So we used the authority
of that Resolution 1441 and earlier UN resolutions to undertake
military action.
QUESTION: Secretary. There is a strategic problem now. Because the
United States, the West, NATO, and Russia as well in a certain sense
have two fronts. Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a threat that -- or
danger, if you want -- that Afghanistan is going to be forgotten
because Iraq is going to draw more and more resources and needs and
Afghanistan will remain overlooked. We know that it is an enormous
drug production place and that this narco money is sponsoring
international terrorism. So, how to solve this?
SECRETARY POWELL: I'm not aware of the Afghan government in any way
sponsoring international terrorism.
INTERVIEWER: No, no.
SECRETARY POWELL: I do know that we have a drug crop problem in
Afghanistan.
INTERVIEWER: That's right.
SECRETARY POWELL: And we are working on that. We are trying to find
crop substitution measures that we can use to convince Afghan farmers
that they ought to invest in something that benefits their country and
not grow a crop where all the money flows out of the country. So, it
is a major problem and I recognize that. But, we haven't forgotten
Afghanistan. There are still American soldiers in Afghanistan. NATO is
now getting ready to send a force into Afghanistan and a headquarters
into Afghanistan. We're putting hundreds of millions of dollars into
Afghanistan. One of the last things I did before leaving Washington to
come on this trip, was to meet with our assistance officials to make
sure that the construction of the road, a major road that will connect
all the major cities, that the paving of that road, the construction
of that road is well underway. So, I spend time during my week on
Afghanistan, on Iraq, on relations with the Russian Federation and all
the other many challenges that face a Secretary of State. So we have
not forgotten Afghanistan.
We took on a responsibility to help Afghans build a new society, and
we are meeting that responsibility. We help put in place a democratic
government, women are now back in the workplace, in education, in the
health care system. We're building hospitals, we're building schools,
we're building a new army that will protect the nation from the
warlords, and from outside influence. We are able to do that and at
the same time deal with our responsibilities in Iraq. We picked up the
same kind of responsibilities when we conducted our military operation
in Iraq, and we knew the challenges we would be facing. It's been
difficult. We have a lot more work to do with respect to security,
stability, rebuilding the infrastructure. But, we understand the
challenge and we will meet the challenge as we have in the past.
QUESTION: So, Mr. Secretary, the United States, according to
interviews that you gave in the recent past is taking a new
responsibility, the Middle East crisis, the Palestinian and Israeli
crisis, and you said that it's President Bush's priority now, and the
roadmap is the road to peace as outlined. Given that the Palestinian
side seems to be accepting, at least the new Prime Minister, seems to
be accepting the roadmap. On the Israeli side you have conditions and
resistance. How far is the United States ready to go to force this
peace -- this road to peace -- on Israel?
SECRETARY POWELL: You can't enforce something on a democratic nation.
What we can do is try to create conditions where both sides see it is
in their interest to come together and follow a particular path to
peace. We have had very candid conversations with the Palestinian side
and with the Israeli side this week. We hope that a meeting will be
coming up soon between the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. Mr.
Sharon will be coming to Washington in the next few days in order to
discuss these issues with President Bush. And so this is the beginning
of the process. There are strong feelings on both sides. What makes
this situation new is that we have an elected Prime Minister of the
Palestinian people, not Mr. Arafat, who was not an effective leader.
He may still be seen as the leader of his country, but he did not lead
his country toward peace or toward a Palestinian state. We now have a
Prime Minister with authority, Abu Mazen. And President Bush has been
waiting for a responsible interlocutor and Prime Minister Sharon has
been waiting for a responsible interlocutor. So, we will find a way
forward. President Bush is determined to find a way forward.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said that Yassir Arafat is not anymore a
leader, that you don't consider him a leader. He is not a partner for
peace. You said in previous interviews. Now, is that position of the
United States shared by say President Putin? Does he agree with you
that Arafat is no more somebody you can have, you can deal with?
SECRETARY POWELL: No, I would not presume to speak for President
Putin. And he can speak for himself. I know that he -- as we --
recognize that Yassir Arafat is the elected president of his people
and his people look to him as their leader. What I was saying, what we
have said previously, is that he is a failed leader, in that for all
these years, that he has been the head of the PLO and the head of the
Palestinian people, the leader of the Palestinian people, he has not
brought them closer to peace, he has not brought them closer to their
dream, which is a Palestinian state. And so we felt strongly that new
leadership had to emerge and we now are seeing that new leadership
emerge. Not because the United States put in that new leadership but
because the Palestinian people through their legislature decided that
they needed new leadership and so they created the position of Prime
Minister. Not the United States. They brought forth Abu Mazen, named
by Mr. Arafat and approved by the Palestinian legislature to be their
Prime Minister, and to be given authority as Prime Minister to begin
discussions with the Israeli side and with the American side so that
we could find a way to move forward to the goal that we all have, and
that's a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel.
QUESTION: In Moscow, among the very influential politicians, there is
a view that the Quartet, which is working in the Middle East, is a
very effective way of solving complicated situations. Now, if you
don't say agree on something, like the figure of Arafat, is it not
going to make it one plus three instead of four?
SECRETARY POWELL: No. The Quartet agreed on the roadmap. Each member
of the quartet has a different view with respect to Chairman Arafat,
but the Quartet agreed on the roadmap. We are trying to use the
roadmap as a way for Palestinian leaders to emerge and to represent
the interests of their people. You can have more than one leader in a
movement or in a government. We feel strongly that we have seen Mr.
Arafat's leadership over the years. And, I personally have worked with
Mr. Arafat for a year and a half before we formed the Quartet. And,
frankly, he was not getting the job done or needed to move the peace
process along and get closer to the day when the Palestinian people
would have a state of their own. The Russian Federation has a
different view. The UN, a different view. The European Union, a
different view. I respect their views. But, where we found common
cause, was the creation of a roadmap that shows the way forward to
these two states. One state and one state to be -- the state of Israel
and hopefully, a Palestinian state which will emerge -- and they can
live side by side in peace. Thank you very much.
INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)