Interview by the South African Broadcasting Corporation

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: This certainly has been a high-profile visit. A lot of meetings have taken place, but what tangible results can South Africans expect in the foreseeable future from this visit?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, perhaps the most important result was already here before and that was that the United States and the Republic of South Africa enjoy a very strong bilateral relationship. And what the President's visit did was demonstrate that to the world.

I think we have a strong trade relationship. The President wanted to particularly focus on trade opportunities for greater trade between our two nations; the impact that Angola has had on the South African economy. That's also why the President went to the Ford plant, to show our interest in trade and not just aid.

I think the President also wanted, by his visit to South Africa and to the continent, to demonstrate his commitment to this war that we all must participate in, and this is the war against HIV/AIDS.

And the United States is not just speaking rhetorically about this campaign, we're putting large sums of money to this campaign and he wanted to demonstrate that as well. Africa is a priority for this President, a priority for this administration.

QUESTION: We'll talk more about those issues later. What do you say to criticism that the United States is using this visit as a PR exercise to save face after going unilaterally into Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: It's nonsense. Why would we want to do that? We don't need to save face. We have not lost any face. We went to Iraq and we removed an awful person from power. We removed a dictator, and now we are seeing the mass graves being opened up. We are seeing what he did to the infrastructure of his country. We have seen how he has suppressed the Shias in the south.

This was a terrible, tyrannical regime and we have not lost any face and we have no apologies to make for working with likeminded nations in pursuit of authority with authority in UN Resolution 1441, and so we did not come as a PR exercise. The President came here to demonstrate his commitment to the future of Africa.

Africa is an important place in the American agenda, on the American priority list. The President has felt that way from the very beginning of this administration. That's why he has pursued expansion of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the HIV/AIDS program that he is pushing, the Millennium Challenge Account -- all of these are not PR exercises. We are taking hard-earned American taxpayer money and using that money to invest in the future of Africa; and not just aid for aid's sake, but aid to help Africans develop their infrastructure, educate their people, make themselves more attractive to outside investment so that trade will then follow.

And so we have a great deal to be very, very proud about and of with respect to our relationship with South Africa and other countries in Africa. We want to do more. And that's why the President is here. This is not a PR exercise by any stretch of the imagination.

QUESTION: Well, talking about trade, some issues still remain: the agricultural subsidy that the United States gives to its farmers and there have been calls for the United States to phase it out. Is that a possibility?

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes, we want to phase out subsidies. One of the problems that we have is that you have to have a level playing field, and the subsidies that are provided by the European nations are much larger than those provided to American farmers. But we realize that subsidies of this kind distort the marketplace, and the President is committed to doing everything he can to break down barriers to trade and to move to a world, some years from now -- it will take time, where African farmers and African producers do not fact this kind of disadvantage in the marketplace.

He also made the point everywhere he has been so far on the trip that it's important for African nations to break down trade barriers between themselves so that --

QUESTION: Is that happening?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I think more could be done. When you look at what we're trying to do now with the Southern African Customs Union and a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, that's an opportunity to open up trade within Africa and with Africa and the United States.

It's issues like this, our desire to enter into free trading agreements with African nations, and particularly SACU that should be seen as a priority for America, not issues such as PR trips. This is serious. This is real, this is real business we are here to conduct -- the President is here to conduct. Why? Because he believes that the kinds of programs we offer Africa will help Africa lift up its people, get on the ladder of economic opportunity and defeat the pandemic that's facing the whole world.

And so we are here to show Africa that the United States, and especially this President, is a good partner of Africa and wants to do more for Africa.

QUESTION: One of its major criticisms of AGOA is the Rules of Origin whereby the beneficiaries can only source raw materials from other beneficiaries and the United States. And of course, there have been calls for the Rules of Origin to be more permissive so that the rest of Africa does, indeed, benefit. What is your response to that particular argument?

SECRETARY POWELL: We're constantly looking at ways to improve AGOA as we move forward. One has to realize that there are other textile manufacturers in the world, and the United States has its own textile industry. And we have our own Congress that we have to answer to and our own textile manufacturers and growers -- cotton growers.

And so we try to balance all of these issues, and we hope that as we move forward with AGOA, we'll be able to make it not only easier to participate in AGOA, but open up new opportunities with respect to the Rules of Origin and other similar restrictions. But the fact of the matter, which is undeniable, is that AGOA and Expanded AGOA has done wonders for the economies of those nations that have actively participated in AGOA, such as South Africa.

QUESTION: Let's move on to Zimbabwe. In their respective interviews with the SABC, President Bush spoke about his stand on Zimbabwe, that he would like to see more democratic reform but that he wouldn't want to put pressure on Mr. Mbeki. Mr. Mbeki subsequently reiterated his stance that it's up to the Zimbabweans to find a solution. But at yesterday's press briefing, there seemed to be a convergence in their respective approaches. What do you attribute that to?

SECRETARY POWELL: I think both presidents have a deep feeling for the people of Zimbabwe who we believe are suffering so much now with the collapse of their economy, with the political turmoil that the country is experiencing, with the inability of the government to deal with the opposition. And so in that respect, the two presidents were saying the same thing.

We have, perhaps, been more outspoken than President Mbeki and a little sharper in our commentary and criticism. I, particularly, have been, perhaps, rather clear spoken about this issue. And one can have a different emphasis on an issue while still agreeing on how to go about solving the issue. Both presidents said yesterday that they are committed to democracy in Zimbabwe and the sooner the government works with the opposition in a free, open, fair manner and allows the media to speak up, and allows people to assemble, allows people to do all the things that are essential elements of a democracy, the better off we will be and the better off the people of Zimbabwe will be.

And as the President also said yesterday in the press conference, he will continue to speak out on this subject, and he certainly has said that I will continue to speak out on the subject.

QUESTION: But both presidents said they would like to see the situation being resolved as soon as possible. What, exactly, does that mean? Did they agree to any timeframe?

SECRETARY POWELL: One can't put a timeframe on something that's going to happen within Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans have to deal with this. And what we would like to see is serious, open, full discussions between the government and the opposition; and not suppressing the opposition or detaining opposition leaders. That's not the way one finds a political solution. And we should continue to press all parties in Zimbabwe to engage with one another and find a solution.

The people of Zimbabwe are suffering right now. Their currency is collapsing. Their economy is collapsing. They used to be a great exporter of food. Now they are receiving food from the international community. We want to see that situation reversed and it can be reversed with a modification of the current policies that are being followed.

QUESTION: Well, there's confusion as far as the talks are concerned. The opposition leader in Zimbabwe has literally called our president an honest bloke, saying that there are no talks between the MDC and Zanu-PF. What does the United States understand to be the position?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I'm not here to speak for the position of the leader of the opposition. I heard what he said and I will let that be a discussion between President Mbeki and the leader of the opposition.

We know that there are conversations that are taking place and there have been efforts to have talks. What the current status of those talks may be and how intense the discussions are, or what kind of quiet diplomacy might be going on, I am not familiar with.

QUESTION: I want to go back to Iraq. President Bush still maintains that the United States did the right thing. You have just echoed that. But at the same time, Prime Minister Blair is under pressure. He has been accused of misleading the nation, that he may have exaggerated the need for the war, and that he should apologize to the public.

Would the United States do the same if it had found that the need for the war was exaggerated?

SECRETARY POWELL: There is nothing to apologize for. This regime, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction, maintained those programs despite resolution after resolution from the United Nations, maintained those programs. They forced the inspectors out of the country in 1998. President Clinton, President Bush's predecessor, was so concerned about this that for 4 days he bombed these facilities after the inspectors came out.

When all of the nations of the world represented through the Security Council of the United Nations last fall -- 15 to 0, the Security Council voted for Resolution 1441 -- it was with the belief and the understanding of the part of all of them that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

And all Saddam Hussein had to do to avoid a conflict was to come clean, to bring us a full declaration of what he has done over the years, or what he had done over the years. He did not do that. And he kept thwarting the will of the inspectors so that they couldn't do their job, and it was for that reason that this conflict began.

He was given a way to get out, but there is no doubt in my mind that he had weapons of mass destruction, that we will find evidence of continuing possession of weapons of mass destruction up until we went in and removed the regime, and we have nothing to apologize for.

The Iraqi people are free. They are now practicing their freedom. We are trying to help them stabilize the country. And we are going to give the country back to the Iraqi people as soon as things have been stabilized and we have put in place a representative form of government or helped them put in place a representative form of government.

QUESTION: But still, the United States' decision to go into Iraq has almost created what has been termed "anti-U.S. sentiment." In fact, our former President, Mr. Mandela, criticized and, indeed, attacked President Bush. Were you surprised by that, or are you unphased by the anti-U.S. sentiment?

SECRETARY POWELL: First of all, we expected that there would be anti-war sentiment. Nobody likes war. The United States doesn't like war. I hate war. I know more about war than most people, and it should always be a last resort. And, in this case, I believe it was a last resort.

We have the utmost respect for President Mandela. He is more than just a great leader in my mind. He is a friend of mine. I was here for the inauguration, and he will always be a hero in the minds of all Americans.

On this issue, we had a disagreement. And, as I would expect Mandela to do, he spoke out strongly when he has a disagreement with someone. And we respect him, but we still felt that for the security of our nation and the security of the world, it was necessary for us to take the action that we did.

QUESTION: I want to move on to the issue of the International Criminal Court. The United States has been very vocal in its defense of democracy and some international oppressors. How then does it justify its decision to punish about 35 African leaders, including South Africa, for refusing to exempt it in terms of the ICC?

SECRETARY POWELL: The United States is not a participant in the Rome Statute -- the treaty that came out of the Rome Statute. But we have no reason to apologize for that because we hold our soldiers and our public officials to the very highest levels of accountability and responsibility. And we also have a constitutional system that says when one of our individuals who is serving overseas has done something wrong, we expect that individual to be dealt with under the Constitution of the United States.

QUESTION: But the ICC does provide for that.

SECRETARY POWELL: The ICC still provides, says you can do that, but it also says if we don't like the results of that, then an international tribunal will speak up and try to bring an American soldier or an American official before the tribunal. The tribunal answers to no parliament, to no legislature, and we found this to be an unacceptable situation for us.

Because we, more than any other nation in the world, find ourselves with troops deployed around the world with peacekeeping missions and rescue missions, and we tend to become a target for this kind of charges -- this kind of charge against us, and so we did not enter into the ICC. And we asked the countries in which we might have troops serve, if they would be willing to sign one of these Article 98 agreements.

It is not something that is outside the Rome Statute. Article 98 is provided for in the Rome Statute. So we use the Rome Statute to say, "If U.S. troops are in your country, and they're responsible for something that is improper, or they are charged with something, we will deal with them under U.S. law. And you, as a condition of us working with you, we ask that you not in any way try to put them before the ICC."

And our Congress felt so strongly about this because of our democratic constitutional system that they passed a law, the American Serviceman's Protection Act that says, "Look, if there are friends of ours who cannot go along with this Article 98 agreement, then, as a matter of law, you will have to take another look at the assistance that's being provided to them -- military assistance."

In this case, there is nothing on the table that is heading in the direction of South Africa right now, so there is no penalty that South Africa is paying at the moment. But it is a problem for the future.

QUESTION: You dispel positions that the United States is afraid of something?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are afraid of something? We are not afraid of the ICC. We are not a party to the ICC. And we will only put our troops in places where we believe that they will be subject to U.S. constitutional procedures and U.S. military discipline and the laws of our land. And we recognize that there are needs for other kinds of courts.

We support the tribunal of Yugoslavia, of Sierra Leone, and other places, but the ICC was so sweeping in nature and without any legislative underpinning to it, that we believed it was inappropriate for us to subject our personnel to the court.

QUESTION: Lastly, if there is enough time, there is a widespread perception that Republicans are white conservative. Clearly, you don't fit that category as also Condoleezza Rice and many others. What is it like, firstly, to be an African-American in the Republican administration?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, it's not the first time I have done it. I was -- I had Condi Rice's job 15 years ago in the Reagan administration, and then I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the number one military officer in the Armed Forces of the United States, for 4 years under President Bush 41, as we call him. And now I am privileged to serve under this President Bush as Secretary of State. And I have felt comfortable in my role as National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State in a Republican administration.

Not all Republicans are white and conservative. I am well known as a fairly moderate individual, and the Republican Party covers a rather broad spectrum of political thought in the United States as evidenced by my presence in the Cabinet, as well as Dr. Rice's presence in the White House.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Powell.

SECRETARY POWELL: You're quite welcome.