Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico HARDtalk

Now on BBC News,

it's time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk. On Stephen

Sackur. We will be presented with

foreign policy choices that could

define, from's presidency. A meeting

with Kim Jong-un is looming, so to a

decision on whether to dump the

nuclear deal with Iran. Never far

from the surface, how to handle

relations with Vladimir Putin's

Russia. My guest is one-time US

North Korea emissary Bill

Richardson. What is trump's brand of

disruption doing to US foreign

policy?

Bill Richardson, welcome to

HARDtalk. Thank you, nice to be with

you. I want to tap into your wide

experience in Washington, inside and

Administration and as a congressman

and a former UN ambassador for the

United States. When you look at

foreign policy-making in America

today, how are the big strategic

decisions being made?

Well,

unfortunately, I think they are

being made on the flight, on the

spur of the moment by the President,

by tweets, and I don't like the

disarray. I am a traditionalist. I

think diplomacy is a very important

statecraft and I worry that we don't

have a national security team in

place that the President, while

making a right decision to meet with

Kim Jong-un, might not be prepared,

that he is listening to his

political instance as opposed to

what is in the best foreign policy

of the United States. I am very

unsettled, yet, at the same time, on

this North Korea issue, I think the

right approach was a face-to-face

meeting, but I wonder if we will be

prepared.

I am intrigued that you

actually approve of the notion that

too many people, shocking notion of

a trump Kim Jong-un summer. Before

we get there, tell me in your

experience, what does it say that

Rex Tillerson for example only

learnt of that summit, we

understand, by reading it on

Twitter, he only learned of his own

dismissal by reading about it on

Twitter. What does that say about

the way the President operates?

Well, it says that it is an

undisciplined approach. It says that

the sleek, Tillotson and the

President did not have personal

chemistry. I think Tillotson was

more moderate, he wanted to stay in

the Iran nuclear deal, he wanted

diplomacy with North Korea a lot

earlier, he wanted to be tougher on

Russia, and they just didn't mesh.

The chemistry wasn't there. It's

very important for a president and

his chief foreign policy adviser to

basically have confidence in each

other. That didn't happen. But I

just think the unceremonious way

that Tillotson was dumped, the in

ceremony is way decisions are made

on personnel, White House staff,

there are reports that the National

Security adviser may be next. I know

him, he is a capable man and I worry

that the President just wants to

have around him individuals that

will not disagree with him, that

will just reinforce his views, which

in many cases, I believe are not

internationalist views, not the best

in the interest of the United

States.

We are going to talk plenty

about North Korea. I want to start

the substance with Russia, partly

because it is a huge issue in the

UK, as a result of the nerve agent

attack on a former Soviet agent, Sir

J Scrip in a town in the UK along

with his daughter. -- Sergei

Skripal. It has accused -- was used

tension. Going back to Tillotson and

his firing, he chose, after his

firing, to brew pointedly made these

remarks about Russia. He said, much

work remains to respond to the

troubling behaviour and actions of

the Russian government, and he

warned that Russia could face yet

greater isolation. Do you think that

Tillotson was pushing Donald Trump

to confront Britain in a way that

Donald Trump simply doesn't want to

do?

Yes, I do think he was trying to

push the President in the right

direction, which was to stand with

you guys, you are our main ally, and

the evidence is overwhelming, that

this nerve agent was deposited by

the Russians. You have concrete

proof. And we stand behind you. Yes,

the press secretary should, the

Secretary of State should, but I

haven't heard the President himself

say, we stand with Great Britain,

with the Prime Minister, with the

enormous evidence, and Russia should

stop. They have interfered in our

election, there has been substantial

demonstrations of that involvement,

certified by our intelligence

agencies, so Russia, you should stop

doing this. You should stop doing

this to our allies, to the United

States, stop getting involved in

elections throughout the world,

which they are doing. I didn't hear

that from the President. So I think

Tillerson was nudging him and

obviously we still haven't heard it.

I want to see the President. I want

to see him succeed. I want him to

stand behind our allies like you

guys, that are facing this real

dilemma in your foreign policy with

an important state actor.

Several

points come out of what you've just

said. It should be said newly

re-elected Vladimir Putin described

allegations that the Russian state

was behind the attack on Sergei

Skripal of nonsense. We need to put

that on the record. Also, are you

being fair to Donald Trump? He did

ultimately come out and issue a

joint statement alongside the UK,

Germany and France, condemning the

outrageous attack in the UK. Just

last week, the US expanded its

sanctions against targeted

individuals in Russia. When you

compare trump with Obama, is trump

doing so much less on Russia than

Obama did? Well, in my view, he's

not doing enough. Yes, he made that

joint statement. But I want to hear

him also with our election. It is

very strong evidence by our

intelligence agency of enormous

involvement in the election. Maybe

he didn't decide the US presidential

election. I have yet to hear the

President in very strong terms

condemn what Russia did. The

President himself. And, yes, all

right, we are making joint

statements, but I want to see that

outrage because Vladimir Putin was

re-elected, some say with 107% of

the vote. I saw that. Maybe he will

now recognise that he has got to be

a world leader again, that it's

responsible in the next six years.

But their continued interference in

family activities around the world

and elections, it is

incomprehensible. Yes, Russia wants

to get restored as a major power

again, but not at the expense of

human rights and people and possible

nerve agent killings and Syria,

conspiring with Assad. Maybe now,

Putin will change. I doubt it, but

that is my hope. Don't you think

Democrats need to be careful right

now? The way they are pushing the

notion that Donald Trump stands not

just accused, but in many democratic

rights, guilty of collusion with the

Russians over the last potential of

election, -- presidential election,

isn't that hamstring in the US

administration's ability to really

direct a coherent Russia policy

right now?

Well, what is important

here is this muller investigation

needs to keep its course. Let him

come up with whatever the facts are.

Two, I think it is important that

we, as Democrats, not just attack

the President. Let's find the facts,

but at the same time, let's, with a

message that eluded us in the last

election. And I think elections in

the United States are moving our

way, in Pennsylvania, we won an

election in a district that

President Trump won by 20%. We won

that. So the public is turning

towards a Democrat slowly, but we

have to just be positive about our

vision. We need an economic message.

People want to make more money, they

want higher wages, they want the

working class to do better. I think

that escaped us. But I think on this

Russia issue, I don't think the

Democrats are wholesale saying there

was collusion. I think there is

enormous suspicion about it, this is

why this investigation, Mr Muller

needs to be concluded. The present

needs to stop attacking that

investigation.

After some extremely

strong condemnation by tweet from

Donald Trump about investigation

over the weekend, there are any

speculation that the President might

even fire Robert Muller. If he did,

what would that produce in

Washington?

One senator said it

would start the end of his

presidency. I don't know. I think it

is up to the Republicans who, I

would hope, looking at our past

history, Watergate, would say this

is untenable. This shouldn't happen.

And that this would read contested

enormously. Democrats would, but

remember, Republicans have a

majority in the house and Senate.

Also, the American people I think

would find this enormously troubling

and it would be demonstrations in

the streets like you've never seen

if this happens. I'm not sure it's

going to happen. I don't know what

the President is going to do, but is

of the earthly in a very contested

fight with Robert Muller, not just

publicly, but I hope he is not

plotting to terminate him. I think

that would be a huge mistake for

him, a disaster.

I tell you what is

weird. We are talking about this and

it will unfold. At the very same

time coming back to foreign affairs,

the very same time that Donald Trump

is going to make to make key

decisions. Let's get to North Korea,

you are one of the very few

Americans who knows what it is like

to negotiate with North Korean

officials in Pyongyang. It intrigues

me that you say you approve of

Trump's decision to go one-on-one

with Kim Jong-un. Why do you think,

given Trump's character, that is a

good idea?

Well, I have been

involved with this issue for many

years. I have been there eight

times, negotiating with the North

Koreans. I have never seen the

Korean peninsular so tense, so

troubled, soap potential of the

conflict, either missile. He threw a

game changer, which hopefully will

reduce tensions. My worry is that we

are setting unrealistic expectation

that we are going to expect North

Korea to Dean regularised. They are

not going to do that. That doesn't

mean we don't have these talks to

talk about freezing or slowing down

the missiles or nuclear activities

or conventional warfare are finding

ways to defuse tension. So I commend

him for the trip will stop what I

worry is that we are not ready with

a strategy.

York position leaves me

puzzled because we know that the

North Koreans regarding meeting

President to president as on the

ultimate prizes for their diplomatic

strategy, so why give them a rise

when you say to me, look, we can't

expect them to eliminate the nuclear

weapons programme and they won't be

nuclear right. In essence, you are

saying we give them the prize and we

get really nothing substantial in

return.

Well, we did get something

in return. We got them to agree that

we will continue our military

activities with the South Koreans.

They are not shooting any missiles

or any kind of nuclear activity.

They have made concessions to. I

agree. Meeting President President

is a major concession because it

legitimises what Kim Jong-un has

been doing, but at the same time, it

shows a boldness by our president.

My point is that the negotiations

should not just be about

denuclearisation. They should be

about freezing missile activity.

They should be about three Americans

detained in North Korea. They should

be about the remains of soldiers

from the Korean War, about

conventional weapons pointed out

South Korea, about chemical weapons

in North Korea sent into Syria,

about missile exports and you clear

exports that North Korea sent to

Pakistan and other world states. So

I think there is a lot more and

denuclearisation, if it happens,

should be a goal, but it has to be

very long-range. It will take a long

time.

Here is a question that taps into

the wave that your experience of

government works. If they happen, we

are expecting by the end of May,

which side you think is better

equipped to conduct the highly

complex, detailed negotiations? Is a

Trump administration which currently

has no ambassador in South Korea,

the Undersecretary of State

responsible for arms control and has

just lost the top State Department

North Korea expert, or is that the

North Koreans who had been thinking

about little else but how to get

into this place where they have

talks with the US President on the

other side? Which side is better

equipped?

Well, I think we are

better equipped because we have

Japan on our side, we have South

Korea on our side, we have China

most of the time on our side, but

yeah, I do worry that we are not

prepared in terms of our personnel,

our strategy, but we do have 60

days. Now I have negotiated with the

North Koreans, they are disciplines,

they do not think like us, they do

not believe in quid pro quo, they

believe in the cult of personality

and everything they believe in,

everything they say has to happen.

So there are going to be so very

tough negotiations but we do have

time. What I worry about is this

opening that you made about Iran,

May 12 is the deadline that the

President has to say whether we stay

in the deal. I hope we do the

because I think Iran has complied on

the nuclear agreement. It has been

terrible on terrorism, it has been

terrible on getting involved with

Syria and Yemen, but I do think that

if we pull out of it May 12 and we

are negotiating with the North

Koreans, the North Koreans are going

to say well, how can we negotiate

with an American president is an

ex-president might pull out of

another nuclear deal? So I am very

concerned about that too.

Well,

let's talk about that Iran decision

because it seems to me again the

Democrats had to face a difficult

question here. The problem with the

deal going back to 2015 was that

Barack Obama, in pushing the deal,

and it was a signature policy for

him, he never got a truly national

consensus around the deal. The

Republicans in the Congress almost

to a man and woman opposed it

vehemently. All of the Republican

candidate to run for president in

2016 said that they would trash the

deal, so in many ways it is no

surprise that Donald Trump, with a

mandate, it has to be said, is

following through on his promise to

undo what he says is the worst deal

in America's history.

Well, I

believe that it makes sense to

preserve the nuclear deal, which is

15 years. Iran does not have a

nuclear weapon, serious deterrents

on their enriched uranium. Now, the

possible compromise might be a

missile deal that Europe, your

country, European allies, push Iran

that to limit or reduce that

terrible activity that they do with

their missiles.

So... We did not

take my points, Bill Richardson, did

not take my point that Donald Trump

does have a mandate for this

particular element of his foreign

policy?

Well, it is not exactly a

mandate. I think there were

Republican supporters, Rex Tillerson

wanting to keep it. Most of the

American foreign policy

establishment and Republican

senators think it should be kept. --

wants him to keep it. You know, it

is divided, there is no question and

I wish that we had gotten more with

Iran on their subversive activity,

their terrorism support, what they

are doing in Yemen and Syria, their

threats on Israel. Look, it could

have been maybe a better deal but

still, Iran has been complying with

the nucleoside and we do not want

two nuclear act is, North Korea and

Iran, on the world stage and that is

my worries is a van Zyl is

terminated.

I understand that you

are saying that you know better than

I do that the deal, in terms of its

long-term outcome, it allows Iran to

begin again its nuclear enrichment

programme a full-scale, but in the

period between six and 13 years from

now, so it is not a finite and to

the large-scale uranium enrichment,

and at the same time, the Iranians

are allowed to continue missile

testing. So the many people in the

United States, and indeed the key

allies like those in Israel, it

looks like a deal that at best

simply kicks the can down the road.

Well, the problem, Stephen, is in

the midst of a possible negotiation

with North Korea, you have to admit

that the North Koreans are going to

say why should we make a deal with

the United States is on one

president to another they pulled the

plug on this deal? The timing is

very unfortunate, May 12. So... And

there is no possibility of delaying

that decision, as I am very

concerned. I just think that the

North Koreans, I know how they are.

They think of every avenue, they are

going to find a way to use this

potential disruption of the Ah Van

deal. And I am not a fan of Iran, I

did not openly support President

Obama's deal. -- Iran deal. I worry

now, at the timing and this

colossal, important decision to meet

with Kim Jong-un, but these two

decisions are going to hit each

other and it is not going to be

resolved in our interest, that is my

worries the President terminates the

deal.

OK, I want to change tack a

bit and ask you something is very

personal to you. You are by Aung San

Suu Kyi in the unmarked to be part

of an advisory committee looking at

what had happened to the Mahindra

people and the exodus of so many of

those people across the border into

anger --. You agree to be part of

the committee, then it seems you had

a stand-up row with Aung San Suu Kyi

herself about some of the activities

of the Myanmar government and you

quit your post. -- Rohingya people.

How disappointed are you in Aung San

Suu Kyi right now?

Well, I am very

disappointed in her. She has not

fulfilled, I think, her commitment

as a champion of human rights. I

have supported her for 30 years as a

public official with my foundation.

I did everything, we had a good,

strong relationship, and I'm

disappointed she is not speaking out

against own military on the human

rights situation with the Rohingya,

and this commission she set up, I

found out that she did not want any

frank advice. I wanted two

journalist released, I said you

should release them, this is

important.

We do not have much time,

I want to be clear about one thing.

Do you believe she has become an

apologist for State ethnic

cleansing?

Well, I will not say an

apologist. She has become an

accomplice because she has become a

politician that wants to stay in

office, she does not want to upset

the military that is extremely

powerful in the unmarked, but she

should because she is the head of

state.

Final thought, and this takes

us away from foreign affairs to your

country. The president, and fail, it

has to be said, I do not know if you

are interested in running again, but

a lot of people are speculating

about whether Democrats are going to

find candidates capable of hitting

Donald Trump in 2020. He is a man

who liked him or loathe him dominate

the political scene. Frankly, there

does not seem to be anybody on the

Democrat side. How and where the

Democrats going to find someone to

beat Donald Trump?

Well, the good

news is we have three years. The

good news also is I believe that it

is, Donald Trump is not doing well

with voters. He is going to be

fermentable but I think the

Democratic Party realises it cannot

just be a progressive, Liberal

Party, that we have to talk about

economic issues, like we did in

Pennsylvania, we are moderate,

conservative Democrat one, and we

have been winning in a lot of

elections recently. It is either

going to be candidates like Joe

Biden, or a new face, but the good

news is we have three years and I

believe that we will find a strong

candidate and Count me out. I am

done, but I think at the same time,

we have a real opportunity to win

short-term in these congressional

elections, I think within the house

of representatives, maybe not the

Senate, and then we recapture the

presidency. I believe that is what

is going to happen but we will see.

We will see indeed, but Will

Richardson for now, thank you very

much for being on HARDtalk.

Thank

you, Stephen.