Interview by Maxine McKew Of Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline

MS. MCKEW: Rich Armitage, welcome to Lateline. Nice to talk to you again.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Thank you, Ms. McKew. Glad to be here.

MS. MCKEW: This has been a week, I suppose, when one could say that there have been these historic bookends. The week began with the 60th anniversary celebrations of the D-Day and it will end with an extraordinary funeral here in Washington for President Reagan. You served, of course, in both Reagan administrations. Are you surprised by the reaction of the country?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I have to say, I am a little surprised. As I was saying, my wife, who happens to be a Democrat, was calling me and telling me how moved she was by this. And I think, in the countryside of ours is a huge wellspring of affection for a man who represented, above everything else, optimism.

MS. MCKEW: You think that's what it is?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: That's a good -- yeah, I think it is. He was a man who often disagreed with but never disliked, and he didn't dislike others. And he always had a great, sort of, wellspring of optimism and I think that's what it's about.

MS. MCKEW: There's a continuum, as many of the commentators have said, between the Reagan era, his a brand of conservatism, up to the present era now with the second President Bush. How do you – I mean, I suppose they both advanced the notion of America as a leader and a promoter of leadership throughout the world. How do you think President Reagan differed? How do you think he saw, if you like, the use and the limits on American power?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, I think that there's much more similarity than differences. There is a great chapter in the Bible, in Isaiah, where the phrase is, "Who should we send and who will go for us? Here I am, send me." And I think Mr. Reagan certainly had that view. It embodied leadership, and that's the same view that George W. Bush has. We have, whether we like it or not, to accept responsibilities of bold leadership. We are not protected any longer behind our two great oceans and we must not act as if we were.

MS. MCKEW: I suppose the big question now is, 24 years after President Reagan was first elected, we've got the U.S. fighting wars on three major fronts -- Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Is that sustainable?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Listen, wars are only sustainable in a democracy so long as they have the support of the people. Right now, George W. Bush does have the support of the people. They believe that we are safer for having engaged in this, after being wantonly attacked September 11th. So this is sustainable.

Now, it's only sustainable in a democracy to the extent that you can also get international assistance and international support for what you're doing. And if yesterday's vote in the UN Security Council, 15-0, on Iraq is any indication, we're getting more international support. And that will help here at home to keep support for this effort.

MS. MCKEW: I'll come to the UN resolution, but, of course, as you know, plenty of America's friends, and I'm thinking of people, I suppose, who are describing themselves as conservative realists, do take the view, in the wake of Iraq, and perhaps even before, that America has taken on too much, that it's trying to obtain, to achieve unrealizable goals.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Our President was not going to sit back flatfooted -- or on his back foot, I guess, as you'd say -- and wait for someone to hit us again. He wasn't willing to take the chance. And he stepped forward and he believed that this would ultimately make us safer. Many other neighbors, actually, agreed with him, many other friends agreed with him, and 31 nations are joining us in this coalition. And if yesterday's vote in the Security Council is any indication, others will be joining, whether with troops on the ground or with political or reconstruction needs. So the President, I think, will be shown to be right.

MS. MCKEW: Do you think Iraq has made us safer?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I think it certainly has, in terms that the neighbors are free right now from trouble and harm emanating from Iraq. We are involved in a very deep struggle there; there's no question about it. We believe we're prevailing, and there is no question that if the Iraqi people are able to stand up the first democratically elected government in the Arab world, then the whole region will begin to change for the better, and therefore we will all be safer.

MS. MCKEW: That will be a significant achievement. But let me ask you --

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I'm glad to see you've noticed that.

MS. MCKEW: Yeah, of course, of course. I mean, everyone, I think, wants to see a free Iraq. I guess the question is, I want to ask you the same thing --

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: A free Iraq's not free, Ms. McKew. That's the point. You don't get a free Iraq free.

MS. MCKEW: Well, let me ask you about the cost. And it's a repeat of a question I asked you in Sydney the last time we talked, before the intervention in Iraq. And that was, this question: Has the removal of Saddam Hussein been worth the death of one American soldier, and as we now know, it was 827 is the latest count, (inaudible), then you (inaudible) many thousands of Iraqis dead. Has it been worth it? Has it been worth the high cost?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: The cost, in my own view, as I probably said to you when we last spoke, is that any time any loss of life of an American soldier occurs, then we all feel it. And I don't like to put numbers on what an individual or what a crusade is worth.

The fact of the matter is, though, if we are successful in Iraq, and the President fully intends to be, then the families of those who have sacrificed will know this was a noble endeavor. It won't be easy, it won't erase their pain, but it will ease their pain. And if we can see this through to the end, and do see it through to the end, every diplomat, every politician and every soldier, be they U.S., GI, or digger*, will look themselves in the mirror and know that they have made a change, an effect, in the world. That seems to me a very worthy goal, and worthy of some sacrifice.

MS. MCKEW: Has the nobility of the goal been marred, do you think, by things like Abu Ghraib, the fact that no WMD have been found, even the fact it would appear now that the wrong man was backed*, in Ahmed Chalabi?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I can't think -- well, Ahmed Chalabi was a very divisive person back here in our own body politic, as you well know. No question that Saddam Hussein had programs of weapons of mass destruction. But the question of Abu Ghraib is one that gets me personally. I think it's this nation, personally. It is, as the President has said, a stain on our honor. It is corrosive to our soul. That's why it is an absolute necessity to get to the total bottom of the horror and make sure that it never happens again.

MS. MCKEW: How did it happen? I mean, you're a military man. This is the best-trained military in the world.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, I accept what Major General Taguba said. He said there was a command climate there that was unacceptable, that wasn't taking care of soldiers and making sure they were doing the right things. And I accept that. And I think the command climate must have been bad.

But there's a point here. And I think we can be judged, as a democratic society, by the way we resolve Abu Ghraib. And it has started. How many other countries would have their Secretary of Defense, their top military leadership, stand in front of the whole world publicly for two days to be grilled by people who felt this corrosion in their souls? That's a good start to getting out of this problem and resolving it. And I was quite proud of the way that the Congress and our Department of Defense personnel performed in that hearing, in those hearings.

MS. MCKEW: As you say now, a new interim government, a new UN resolution. How much of a new beginning is this? Or is it a new set of problems?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, it's the first sovereign government of the new Iraq and that seems to be a pretty good beginning. I met yesterday with the President, Ghazi al-Yawer. He knows what he's about. He's no stooge of the United States, I can assure you of that. He knows just where he's going to go. I must say, I was quite pleased to have him publicly say, along with Prime Minister Iyad Allawi in Baghdad, how much they appreciate what the coalition had done by removing the murderous Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party.

And that's a good way to begin a relationship, I think, with an expression of appreciation for those, whether they're Australian or American, who sacrificed so much.

MS. MCKEW: The resolution allows for the government to dictate the terms of the occupation or the extent of American troops there.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, the term "occupation," by that very resolution, 1546, has ended. There is no occupation. We are there now at the invitation of the sovereign government.

MS. MCKEW: How likely do you think, then, it is, that U.S. troops will go on being required in Iraq?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, I'm willing to take the sovereign government at its word. They say they want to transition to the ability to provide their own security as rapidly as possible. They couldn't give a time period how long the U.S. forces and coalition forces would be needed, but they were grateful for them and the security cooperation that they get right now. The resolution itself calls for a review of the mandate of the multinational force within 12 months of yesterday's date in the resolution.

MS. MCKEW: But given the state of the insurgency around the country, would you anticipate that, in fact, more of a military effort will be required, certainly in the short-term?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I anticipate more violence, certainly as we lead up to the elections by December, or no later than January of 2005, and I think that's generally accepted. In fact, the sovereign government representatives, with whom I met yesterday, even thought that was the case.

MS. MCKEW: (Inaudible.)

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: We're going to be required there -- yes, it will be worse, but simultaneously, Iraqi police and Iraqi military forces are coming together. We saw the agreement to disband nine militias, which is a pretty good start. Those militias will be doing some part -- part of the new Iraqi army, and they will be able to accept responsibility.

The key here is that we believe, and, of course, (inaudible) believe that Iraqis will be willing to fight for Iraq because those insurgents are not fighting Americans now, they're fighting their own government and their own people.

MS. MCKEW: But if things get worse before they get better, how do you gauge, I suppose, the tolerance of the American public to sustain the casualties?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Our fate, I think, is in our own hands. We have to be seen at every turn and be transparent and truthful to the American public, that we have to be able to lay out, as we did in 1546 resolution, have a path to success. We've got to be seen as engaging with partners on the Iraqi side who want the same end as we do, and thus far we're off to a good beginning.

MS. MCKEW: Okay. I'd like to ask you now about the price paid by America's key allies: the loss by Aznar in Spain, certain reversal of fortunes between Blair and the U.K., and Australia, as you know, a complete loss of bipartisanship on this issue.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: And the question is?

MS. MCKEW: There is a lot of shattered pieces.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: There is a lot of what?

MS. MCKEW: Shattered pieces.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I don't accept, first of all, that Mr. Aznar -- one of the finest leaders I've ever met -- loss was a result of his activities in Iraq. I think one could make the argument -- in fact, I will -- that the government of Mr. Aznar lost because of the way they handled their great terrorist event, and they were not seen as having been transparent and on top of it with their own people.

Regarding Mr. Blair's fortune and Mr. Howard's fortune, they're perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. (Inaudible) one thing about elections, let's count the ballots on election day and see who is left standing.

MS. MCKEW: Okay. Well, you know, certainly, in Australia, this is going to be quite a contentious point in the lead up to the election. Do you agree with President Bush, as he said last week, that the withdrawal of Australian troops, if a Latham government were to come in, would it represent a disaster?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Of course I agree with the President, but I would say, even since the day that he and Mr. Howard stood in the Rose Garden and the President, in answer to a direct question, gave a direct answer, as our President is one to do -- I would say, given the fact that we have a UN Security Council resolution, which puts the international community squarely on the side of Iraq, and, I think, clearly, makes the point that bygones are bygones, I think to walk away now would be almost unthinkable.

MS. MCKEW: In reply, of course, Mark Latham has said that the -- all of the policies, in relation to Iraq, have failed. He talks about the consequences. He said it's meant the diversion on resources from the fighting and the capture of bin Laden. He has pointed to the prisoner atrocities scandal, as providing great propaganda for a more vigorous recruitment campaign. What do you think of that?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I saw a rather interesting press release from the ALP. I think those were some of the points to which you refer. They also seem to think that Australia was made a target by having participated in the war in Iraq, and as I have said before, I was under the impression that Bali happened prior to the invasion of Iraq.

MS. MCKEW: You don't think we're a greater target then?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Pardon me?

MS. MCKEW: You don't think we're a greater target --

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I don't think you (inaudible) --

MS. MCKEW: -- as a result of Iraq?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I don't think you know where the Bali attack emanated from, and whether it was from Afghanistan or whether it was planned somewhere else. You can't pick and choose, I think, with a transnational threat like terror and just limit it to one corner of the earth like Afghanistan. And God knows, the people in Morocco, people in Turkey, people in Thailand, and the Philippines, in Uzbekistan, Spain, they certainly know that, and there are cells all around and we can't limit ourselves to prosecuting a global war on terror in one small corner of the earth.

MS. MCKEW: Mark Latham, of course, separates the alliance issue, or separates Iraq out from the alliances issue. He says it's -- the alliance is bigger than just this one thing. Is that a point that Washington would agree with or not?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, I think our alliance, having existed since 1951, is huge and much bigger than any individual issue. Having started down the path together and being within, at least, in reasonable sight of a goal, an Iraq which has a representative government, it would seem to me this is not the time to turn around.

I also noticed in this press release, to which I think you were referring, some of the comments Mr. Latham made about the alliance. I agree, alliance is, is bigger than a lot of things, but he also says it was apparently limited to strategic, whatever that means, and intelligence and cultural, and my own view is it's much more than that. It's about policy, politics and about the economy.

MS. MCKEW: So you're saying you can't separate it out.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I have said it before. You can't pick and choose. You don't have to agree with us. And, by the way, we don't have to agree with Australia. We can have differences of opinion. We can disagree without being disagreeable, and we've done that in the past. But I don't think you can pick, like, an ala carte menu: I like the intelligence-sharing, but I don't have to talk about global policies; or I like a strategic relationship, but I don't want to be involved in it economically. The world doesn't work that way now.

MS. MCKEW: That would seem to suggest, with both sides locked into these kind of positions -- let's say President Bush is reelected, let's say Mark Latham becomes Prime Minister after the election -- that this could be, if not an alliance-buster, something that will certainly cause a lot of disharmony.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Well, I can't speak for our Australian friends, but I can speak for Americans. And I can tell you whether Mr. Bush wins or Mr. Kerry wins, that our view of the alliance with Australia is going to be the same. It is not a partisan issue, and it won't be allowed to become a partisan issue. I can't speak for Australians. It takes two to have an alliance. And as much as we want it, and as much as we want to nurture it and have it grow and develop, we can't do it alone.

MS. MCKEW: Of course, the worst scenario would be for Australia to be, say, left out in the cold like New Zealand. Are you saying that's just not remotely possible?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I would have said --

MS. MCKEW: That you could work together with the future Latham government, if that happens?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: In 1981, I would have said it was virtually impossible to consider that we'd be in an AUS alliance and not in an (inaudible) alliance. So I can't see the future. I can only say that for our part we will always sit down and try to be the most reliable, forthright, and transparent partner that we possibly can, but I'll let Australians make their own decision on how they view the alliance and what affection they may hold it in.

MS. MCKEW: There is the question of how we speak as allies. And someone you know very well, Kim Beasley, has said in recent weeks that, in fact, post-Iraq, Australia needs to be the kind of ally that the U.S. needs, as opposed to the one it might want, but we need to find a way to engage in a very meaningful dialogue, even if that's a dissenting dialogue, on some of these big issues. Has he got something?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: I don't know. I, for years, sat in on some of these dialogues with Kim and it seemed to me that's exactly the kind of ally we had in Australia. You know, it seems to me that Australians pride themselves in speaking straight, in speaking candidly and frankly. It's almost a national trait and a national treasure, and when Americans speak that way somehow this is not fair. It's not fair to anyone.

MS. MCKEW: Oh, c'mon.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: We've had the most in-depth, sometimes neuralgic discussions with Australians over the years that one could possibly imagine. We are much better for it. I'll let, as I say, the Australians, successive Australian governments decide if they're better off for it.

MS. MCKEW: Let me ask you why -- let me tell you why I ask that question, and that is, there are a fair number of political junkies in Australia all wading through Bob Woodward's book, Plan of Attack. And what comes through is that, in fact, some of the dissent within the Administration was not necessarily heeded. I mean, one reading of the book would be the fact that you and Colin Powell were seen as voices in the wilderness.

Now, if that's a correct account, what chance* do allies, such as Australia, have of putting a dissenting view?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Nobody -- first of all, nobody forced Australia to participate with us. It's a coalition of the willing. First of all, we didn't drag Australia into this. John Howard made his decision based on what he felt was best for Australia. It wasn't because the Americans were pushing, pushing, pushing.

Regarding the question of what's accurate or not in the book, I think it's fair to say that President Bush is a guy who wants strong voices and strong opinions. This would be a hell of a government if all of us got up in the morning and thought the same thing about every issue. It would be kind of like a mom and dad getting up and always having similar views about how to raise their children without ever discussing them, without ever having differences of opinion. That is not the way the world works, and it's certainly not the way George Bush wants his government to work.

MS. MCKEW: So the book's slightly got it wrong?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: No, the book's a bestseller. That's all I'm saying. (Laughter.) You can decide for yourself whether they've got it right or wrong.

MS. MCKEW: Okay. Just a couple of other points. There has been talk recently between Senator Robert Hill and Donald Rumsfeld about a joint military facility in northern Australia. How do you envisage that?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: That's something that's more correctly addressed to our colleagues in Defense, but this is not something that just popped up. We've had discussions like this for some number of years. At one point in time, we were talking about the possibility of having carriers (inaudible). But the (inaudible) distance made it rather undesirable.

I can't speak to where these discussions are. I can just note that if found favor with the Australian Government and it was a fiscally responsible thing to do and it benefited both nations, then it's something that they should be considering. But I can't speak to just where those discussions are.

MS. MCKEW: Okay. Just one final issue, if I can, and one that's very, important to our region; that is North Korea. In the same week that we've seen this decision by the U.S. to pull some of its troops out of South Korea, equally Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan is saying that he feels Kim Jong-Il is sincere when he stresses the need to dismantle some of the nuclear programs. Do you accept his word*?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: We've had those discussions with Prime Minister Koizumi, and we'll see at the end of June when we have our meetings with North Koreans if the alleged words of Kim Jong-Il are translated into actions by his colleagues at the parts -- at the talks -- excuse me. I'm willing to certainly take the Prime Minister of Japan's words at face value and hope it's the case.

But we are, as we've discussed, we're moving a brigade from Korea because of our needs in Iraq. We have likewise, over the past several years, put in $13 billion of weapons improvements into (inaudible) to make sure that we can fulfill our responsibilities to another ally,

MS. MCKEW: Rich Armitage, for that, thank you very much, indeed.

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Thank you, Ms. McKew.