:00:00. > :00:10.Now on BBC News it's HARDtalk with Stephen Sackur.
:00:11. > :00:20.Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Stephen Sackur. Donald Trump embraces
:00:21. > :00:23.disruption. What does that mean for America's national security and
:00:24. > :00:28.foreign policy? At first glance it seems to herald a new era of
:00:29. > :00:33.confrontation from the Korean Peninsular to the Mexican border.
:00:34. > :00:38.But are there limits to the President's break with convention?
:00:39. > :00:44.Well, May guest is veteran diplomat and adviser to a host of Republican
:00:45. > :00:46.members, John Negroponte. Does this Presidency marked a permanent shift
:00:47. > :01:19.in America's global while? -- role? John Negroponte, in Washington, DC,
:01:20. > :01:23.welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Let me start with some words if I may
:01:24. > :01:28.that you wrote or at least you co- site in a very public letter during
:01:29. > :01:35.the presidential campaign last year. It was a grim warning about Donald
:01:36. > :01:39.Trump as future president. You said then, he in your view could be the
:01:40. > :01:44.most reckless president in American history. You had eight months to
:01:45. > :01:48.judge him. How do you feel about it now? Let me just put the letting
:01:49. > :01:53.context. I didn't write those words but I did sign the letter. And I
:01:54. > :01:58.also came out in favour of Hillary Clinton, which is a somewhat unusual
:01:59. > :02:01.thing for a Republican to do. But that was in the context of a
:02:02. > :02:06.political campaign. I guess my short answer as to how things have come
:02:07. > :02:10.out now, I think, and to the question that you asked at the
:02:11. > :02:16.beginning of the show, I think that there are limits to what he can do.
:02:17. > :02:19.He is constrained by the Congress, by the Constitution, by our courts
:02:20. > :02:24.and by the reality out there, which makes itself more evident every day.
:02:25. > :02:28.So he, like everybody else in the past, has to deal with events and
:02:29. > :02:32.the circumstances that he confronts. In terms of the style of this
:02:33. > :02:36.Presidency, do you think he is listening to his key advisers in the
:02:37. > :02:41.foreign policy and national security machine? Well, that is a great
:02:42. > :02:45.question because it is hard to tell whether and when he is listening,
:02:46. > :02:52.and whether... Even if he does listen, how long it takes hold. But
:02:53. > :02:58.I think in a number of instances we've seen pragmatism takeover after
:02:59. > :03:03.initial bluster. Example, some of the comments he has made about our
:03:04. > :03:08.alliances. Originally, both in the campaign and in his initial days in
:03:09. > :03:12.office, and now of course it has reaffirmed our Nato alliance, he is
:03:13. > :03:17.fast friends with the Prime Minister of Japan, the most important
:03:18. > :03:23.alliance that we have in east Asia, Pacific region, along with South
:03:24. > :03:28.Korea, Australia. He was going to cancel North American Free Trade
:03:29. > :03:35.Agreement and now we are busy holding serious negotiations with
:03:36. > :03:39.both Mexico and Canada. Yes, but John Negroponte, on those issues,
:03:40. > :03:43.that maybe today's statement or policy, though it could change
:03:44. > :03:47.tomorrow, which comes back to a fundamental point which a whole host
:03:48. > :03:53.of important people have raised over the last few months, including James
:03:54. > :03:56.Clapper, from national intelligence, and other veterans, they have said
:03:57. > :04:01.this guy is simply not fit for office. What do you think? I mean, I
:04:02. > :04:08.am a little bit disappointed in Jim's statement. I am surprised that
:04:09. > :04:12.a former director of national intelligence would make a statement
:04:13. > :04:17.like that. I don't think he is in a position to judge the fitness of the
:04:18. > :04:19.President. And, secondly, I don't think that is the whole...
:04:20. > :04:23.CROSSTALK How can you say that when this
:04:24. > :04:28.letter that we started the interview with said, you know, "Most
:04:29. > :04:32.fundamentally, Mr Trump lacks the character, the values and the
:04:33. > :04:40.experience to be president? " he questioned his mental fitness,
:04:41. > :04:44.I believe, to hold office, and I would never go that far and I would
:04:45. > :04:49.never say that. I did not say those words. I associated myself with that
:04:50. > :04:53.letter, no doubt, and I won't take it back. And I supported Hillary
:04:54. > :04:57.Clinton, though I want to point out that was in the context of a
:04:58. > :05:01.political campaign. We only have one president at a time. He has been
:05:02. > :05:06.elected now. We've got to want him to succeed. I don't think the best
:05:07. > :05:11.way to support him in carrying out his role is to make a pronouncement
:05:12. > :05:14.that he is unfit for office. That is not the judgement of a retired
:05:15. > :05:19.government official to make. If anybody does that, it is gonna be
:05:20. > :05:22.people in the Congress, and the vice president and so forth, according to
:05:23. > :05:27.the procedures of the 25th amendment. I've got you. Well, in
:05:28. > :05:32.that case, let's drill down into actions and judge him on those. So,
:05:33. > :05:35.let's start in the Korean Peninsular. I know it is something
:05:36. > :05:38.that you have been following very closely, along with everybody in the
:05:39. > :05:43.foreign policy establishment in Washington. Let's just look at the
:05:44. > :05:50.Trump rhetoric, a gamba style, it is let's face it, bellicose, the phrase
:05:51. > :05:55.is "Locked and loaded, fire and fury like the world has never seen".
:05:56. > :05:59.Clearly implicit in that is a threat that the United States, if North
:06:00. > :06:03.Korea doesn't change policy, change direction on its nuclear programme,
:06:04. > :06:10.the United States could contemplate a first strike military option. Do
:06:11. > :06:18.you believe that is a real option? No, I do not. And the reason I do
:06:19. > :06:24.not is, first of all, it would wreak havoc on the peninsular and the
:06:25. > :06:27.first people to suffer, or the next people to suffer after any kind of
:06:28. > :06:34.attack on North Korea would be South Korea and Seoul, which is only 35-
:06:35. > :06:37.40 miles from the border with North Korea, is a complete hostage not
:06:38. > :06:41.only to North Korean nuclear weaponry, if it were to choose to
:06:42. > :06:46.use it, but to conventional artillery. So it would just be some
:06:47. > :06:50.kind of a Holocaust and it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
:06:51. > :06:56.And it has been one of the fundamental conundrums of our policy
:06:57. > :06:59.towards career throughout the years, is this hostage type situation that
:07:00. > :07:04.exists on the peninsular. So, political and diplomatic means of
:07:05. > :07:09.solving this must be found. OK, well. And that is the right
:07:10. > :07:13.approach. You couldn't be clearer with me. But explained the absolute
:07:14. > :07:18.incoherence in Washington that we outsiders here on a daily basis. I
:07:19. > :07:23.met Lindsey Graham the other day. We had a great conversation. We talked
:07:24. > :07:29.about Korea. This is a direct quote. "I Am 100% certain that if Kim
:07:30. > :07:33.Jong-un continues to develop missile technology that can hit America, and
:07:34. > :07:39.if diplomacy fails to stop him, they will be an attack by the United
:07:40. > :07:43.States". Well, that is a senator speaking. He is not the one who is
:07:44. > :07:46.going to pull the trigger. Only the President can decide to do that. Let
:07:47. > :07:51.me say something about this conversation regarding Korea and
:07:52. > :07:59.these types of conversations, which disturb me. We always sought or
:08:00. > :08:01.start out almost as if it is the United States that bears
:08:02. > :08:06.responsibility for the attention of the peninsular. And to my way of
:08:07. > :08:11.thinking this is a little bit like standing the truth on its head. It
:08:12. > :08:17.was North Korea that invaded South Korea in June of 1950, with, by the
:08:18. > :08:22.way, the encouragement of the Soviet Union, it now Russia, and China. And
:08:23. > :08:25.I think those two countries bear some responsibility for the
:08:26. > :08:31.situation of the peninsular. And it is Kim Jong-un in violation of
:08:32. > :08:34.myriad resolutions and of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty who
:08:35. > :08:41.has just exploded a hydrogen bomb. So where is the outrage? We focus
:08:42. > :08:47.all of our energy... We focus all our energy on some of the rhetorical
:08:48. > :08:48.blemishes of the president of the United States.
:08:49. > :08:52.CROSSTALK I don't think for a moment he will
:08:53. > :08:56.pull the trigger. Your point is well taken. If I am invited to Pyongyang
:08:57. > :09:00.to have a conversation with Kim Jong-un I guarantee I will put him
:09:01. > :09:05.on the spot. Well I hope so! Yes, but right now I am talking to you. I
:09:06. > :09:09.wish you would go there. So do I but right now with you need to talk
:09:10. > :09:13.about the way the US is candling this because this is what the
:09:14. > :09:17.insight you have into. Let me talk to you about a couple of things on
:09:18. > :09:21.how Trump is handling it. You have to let me ask you the question. I am
:09:22. > :09:24.simply asking you what is the long-term consequence of Donald
:09:25. > :09:28.Trump, and some talk to him about this, like Lindsey Graham, and you
:09:29. > :09:32.know this, Lindsey Graham says that Donald Trump said to him that if
:09:33. > :09:37.there is going to be a walk to stop Kim Jong-un it is going to cost
:09:38. > :09:41.thousands of lives but those lives are going to be lost over there.
:09:42. > :09:46.They are not going to die here. Now that seems to be the mentality
:09:47. > :09:50.Lindsey Graham is portraying as Trump's mentality. My question to
:09:51. > :09:53.you is, if you are saying, you know what, ignore the words we are not
:09:54. > :09:57.going to launch and military strike against North Korea, what does it do
:09:58. > :10:02.to American long-term credibility? All of the threat and no action. Let
:10:03. > :10:08.me say first of all, I consider that a rhetorical response to the setting
:10:09. > :10:13.off of a hydrogen bomb. But at the same time the President is pursuing
:10:14. > :10:17.diplomatic avenues. He just had an extensive conversation with Xi
:10:18. > :10:23.Jinping, the president of China. He constantly talks with Prime Minister
:10:24. > :10:29.Abe of Japan. All the key stakeholders in the Korean situation
:10:30. > :10:34.besides ourselves, China, Japan, South Korea, we are in constant
:10:35. > :10:37.contact with all of these people. The President himself is leading
:10:38. > :10:42.that diplomatic effort. He has just accused the South Koreans, I am
:10:43. > :10:45.using the word he used on Twitter, appeasement. He has had a
:10:46. > :10:48.conversation with the President of South Korea since and I think the
:10:49. > :10:52.South Korean president has come around to taking a pretty stern line
:10:53. > :10:58.vis-a-vis North Korea. He has asked for the additional deployment of the
:10:59. > :11:04.so-called thermal altitude, the THAAD devices, to protect against
:11:05. > :11:06.incoming missiles, and we are enabling greater military
:11:07. > :11:10.capabilities for the South Koreans, citing we are in pretty good harmony
:11:11. > :11:13.with South Korea about how to confront this situation -- so I
:11:14. > :11:21.think. But Ambassador John Negroponte, you seem to say what
:11:22. > :11:25.low-to-mid -- Vladimir Putin has set and Jim Clabo has set, which is what
:11:26. > :11:30.the administration won't say, if North Korea is absolutely intent on
:11:31. > :11:36.continuing its nuclear programme and developing the ballistic missile
:11:37. > :11:42.capability with the bomb, in the end there is nothing we can do to stop
:11:43. > :11:47.them. No, I don't think I would say that. I would say that we've got to
:11:48. > :11:52.revitalise some of the diplomatic efforts that we undertook in the
:11:53. > :11:56.past. I was involved in the Bush administration when we had six party
:11:57. > :12:00.talks on the Korean question. I think that would be a good
:12:01. > :12:04.initiative. I think more sanctions. I think one of the things that's
:12:05. > :12:11.before the UN Security Council at the moment is to stop oil exports to
:12:12. > :12:15.North Korea. The Chinese and the Russians are baulking at this. But I
:12:16. > :12:18.think if we are not going to use military force, then we have to use
:12:19. > :12:23.more effective economic and diplomatic pressure. And I think
:12:24. > :12:26.that can be done. And talking of coherence, you know, your time with
:12:27. > :12:30.me is very measured. But when you heard the woman who has one of your
:12:31. > :12:33.previous jobs, that of the US ambassador at the United Nations,
:12:34. > :12:38.when you heard Nikki Haley talk about the United Nations looking at
:12:39. > :12:43.every country that does business with North Korea giving aid to North
:12:44. > :12:50.Korea's reckless nuclear ambitions, and implying that there could be
:12:51. > :12:53."Secondary sanctions" to put an embargo on all of those nations,
:12:54. > :12:57.presumably starting first off with China, did you see that as realistic
:12:58. > :13:02.and helpful? Some of that, the devil is in the details. Clearly we can't
:13:03. > :13:07.stop trading with the People's Republic of China. We have more than
:13:08. > :13:11.$500 billion worth of trade a year. We would have to stop importing
:13:12. > :13:15.iPhones. That would be hard to get the Americans to do. You might apply
:13:16. > :13:20.secondary sanctions against specific Chinese firms. Those upon and we
:13:21. > :13:25.might have information that they are doing business with North Korea and
:13:26. > :13:32.better enabling the economy. Something to that effect. In other
:13:33. > :13:39.words, very specific, targeted targeted words, that is not the --
:13:40. > :13:43.beyond the realm of imagination whatsoever. Let me see if your tone
:13:44. > :13:47.continues into the next region that want to get to you, that is Donald
:13:48. > :13:51.Trump policy on his own backyard if I can put it that way, Mexico and
:13:52. > :13:56.Latin America. A whole host of policies, starting with the wall,
:13:57. > :13:59.which he still seems intent on building, and he is having to battle
:14:00. > :14:03.with the Congress about getting the money for it, and a host of other
:14:04. > :14:11.things. In recent days the signal he has sent by saying that these
:14:12. > :14:14.so-called macro -- Dreamers, the miners that Obama protected from
:14:15. > :14:18.deportation, Donald Trump has effectively ended that protection, a
:14:19. > :14:23.host of signals which suggest he doesn't mind riding up Mexico and
:14:24. > :14:27.indeed other near neighbours in Latin America because he doesn't
:14:28. > :14:31.care about that relationship and that sphere of American sort of
:14:32. > :14:36.foreign policy-making and influence. What do you make of that? Because
:14:37. > :14:42.you have spent a lot of your career in Latin America. Not only did I do
:14:43. > :14:45.that, I was in Mexico when we both conceived and negotiated Nafta. It
:14:46. > :14:49.is a subject near and dear to my heart. It was a major accomplishment
:14:50. > :14:51.of the United States government. Trade with Mexico since we signed
:14:52. > :15:28.the Nafta has quadrupled, I think. The export from Mexico to the art of
:15:29. > :15:32.states has United States content in it. That is much better than only 5%
:15:33. > :15:37.content if the product is coming from China, for example. That is
:15:38. > :15:42.number one. Number two, Mr Trump was about to renounce the Nafta a couple
:15:43. > :15:48.of months ago. Then his secretary of agriculture came to him and said to
:15:49. > :15:52.him, by the way, do you realise, Mr President, that Mexico is the
:15:53. > :15:56.largest or the second largest market for agricultural exports from every
:15:57. > :16:03.single state in the United States, and we just can't possibly stop
:16:04. > :16:25.trading with Mexico. It is going to be disastrous. In the State
:16:26. > :16:34.Department, the desire is to modify the Nafta, modernise it, updated,
:16:35. > :16:38.but not subjected to any radical changes, and certainly not to
:16:39. > :16:42.discard the agreement. What do you think America's traditional allies,
:16:43. > :16:46.you know, in this conversation we have referred already to traditional
:16:47. > :16:52.allies in Asia like South Korea and Japan, we've just addressed Mexico,
:16:53. > :16:55.we could talk about European allies in Nato starting with Angela
:16:56. > :17:03.Merkel's Germany, what do you think they believe is happening in
:17:04. > :17:09.Washington right now? I think they probably think, just like I do, that
:17:10. > :17:13.we have elected quite an unusual person to be president of the United
:17:14. > :17:19.States, and that he is kind of an original number. But at the same
:17:20. > :17:24.time he is president. And he will be president three at least one term in
:17:25. > :17:31.office, and so they have to figure out how best to deal with that. I
:17:32. > :17:35.think they probably also have some competence, as do I, that both
:17:36. > :17:40.events on the one hand and fundamental national interests on
:17:41. > :17:46.the other hand will cause us to ultimately behave more or less the
:17:47. > :17:51.same way we have been in the past years and decades. And I think we
:17:52. > :17:56.are seeing some of that playing itself now. And it has only been
:17:57. > :17:58.eight months. But I think if we have this conversation think you will see
:17:59. > :17:59.that patent reinforced. we have this conversation one year
:18:00. > :18:00.from now, I think we this conversation think you will see
:18:01. > :18:03.that patent reinforced. will see that pattern be reinforced.
:18:04. > :18:07.Interesting that you say that. And in your comments about Allies
:18:08. > :18:15.perceptions. They will have to live with that. Frankly, right now, you
:18:16. > :18:19.don't know whether you will be living with his president for the
:18:20. > :18:24.next 3.5 years because he lives under the shadow of a very serious
:18:25. > :18:28.investigation and, frankly, no-one knows where the special prosecutor's
:18:29. > :18:33.investigation will end up. As best I can tell they have so far identified
:18:34. > :18:39.two or three people, his former National Security adviser and Mr
:18:40. > :18:43.Manor fought and possibly a couple of others, none of whom are in his
:18:44. > :18:49.administration right now. I will wait and see before rate rush to
:18:50. > :18:53.judgement. On whether this investigation will produce a
:18:54. > :18:58.significant outcome. I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to think
:18:59. > :19:03.it will. But obviously the special prosecutor will explore the facts
:19:04. > :19:07.and do a good job. When Donald Trump spoke about this he simply says the
:19:08. > :19:14.whole rush investigation is fake news, a hoax. He blames the
:19:15. > :19:19.mainstream media whom he has dubbed terrible people on the whole. Others
:19:20. > :19:24.have looked at the reaction of Donald Trump and they worry about
:19:25. > :19:27.it. I am talking about people in the establishment in Washington, like
:19:28. > :19:32.the former director of National counterterrorism Centre. He says it
:19:33. > :19:37.is worrisome for our democracy. We are at risk of breaking the bonds of
:19:38. > :19:42.trust between the public and, for example, our security services. When
:19:43. > :19:48.people loosely used phrases like fake news, the deep state and allude
:19:49. > :19:53.to Nazi Germany, many Americans now believe there is an act of war being
:19:54. > :19:58.fought against the elected representatives, possibly including
:19:59. > :20:02.the president. Is a threat to America's democracy, do you think?
:20:03. > :20:07.No. You have now sighted yet another intelligence officer who worked
:20:08. > :20:10.under my general supervision when I was director of National
:20:11. > :20:19.intelligence. I think getting off into the political realm they don't
:20:20. > :20:27.have as much qualification to talk about... But it is interesting...
:20:28. > :20:30.Interesting that these guys feel so passionately and so alarmed by what
:20:31. > :20:35.they see that they are speaking out in this way, suggests a fundamental
:20:36. > :20:42.breakdown of trust. The founding Fathers wrote this Constitution with
:20:43. > :20:49.the assumption that people who in government are not necessarily
:20:50. > :20:55.Angel. Power has to be restrained. Basically, the people should govern
:20:56. > :20:59.themselves and they are only limited functions that us a central
:21:00. > :21:04.government. We have a system of checks and balances that are
:21:05. > :21:08.designed to compass that. I think we have seen the system of checks and
:21:09. > :21:14.balances working in spades in few months. We have seen the courts
:21:15. > :21:18.challenge the immigration orders that were initially issued.
:21:19. > :21:24.Repudiated them. We have seen Congress that has not changed Obama
:21:25. > :21:31.can. You can cite numerous examples of where the system of checks and
:21:32. > :21:35.balances is at work. One element of institutional Washington that is
:21:36. > :21:38.clearly not functioning is the place, perhaps you know best, the
:21:39. > :21:44.State department. One third of this job is, see new jobs in the State
:21:45. > :21:49.Department have not been filled since Donald Trump came in to power.
:21:50. > :21:54.Has ever been a time when the US was less well equipped to play a
:21:55. > :21:58.leadership role in the world? Well, you make the assumption that by
:21:59. > :22:05.filling those subordinate jobs in the State Department that that will
:22:06. > :22:08.significantly enhance our ability. Call me naive but I assume those
:22:09. > :22:16.posts are there because they have some sort of important function.
:22:17. > :22:20.They do. They do. Not all of them are vital but it is not a good way
:22:21. > :22:24.to run the State Department. I could not agree with you more on that. I
:22:25. > :22:29.do not hold Mr troll responsible for that. I things that Ellison himself
:22:30. > :22:36.has been far too cautious about moving forward with feeling these
:22:37. > :22:40.positions. He has wanted to conduct some kind of study of reorganisation
:22:41. > :22:44.of the State Department and he said until that study is completed and
:22:45. > :22:48.completed the reorganisation, we will not fill a lot of key jobs.
:22:49. > :22:54.That is not the right thing, especially with respect to regional
:22:55. > :22:58.assistant secretary should. My bigger point, that was the detail,
:22:59. > :23:03.my bigger point is what you perhaps conclude that right now there is
:23:04. > :23:08.something of a vacuum in terms of American leadership in the world.
:23:09. > :23:15.Big beneficiaries of that are China and Russia. Something of a vacuum
:23:16. > :23:21.but I still think... First of all, we are blessed to have a good career
:23:22. > :23:26.foreign service and they are filling a lot of these jobs on an acting
:23:27. > :23:30.basis. But the notion that China and Russia are the big beneficiaries of
:23:31. > :23:35.what we see unfold in Washington day by day, would you agree? I would
:23:36. > :23:38.say, I would say it this way. I think China in particular has been
:23:39. > :23:43.the beneficiary of some of the policies we have carried out. I
:23:44. > :23:47.think that is more important. Woodside most specifically with the
:23:48. > :23:51.drum's decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the big
:23:52. > :23:57.economic agreement that would have brought together 12 countries in the
:23:58. > :24:01.East Asia Pacific reason. Withdrawing from that on his first
:24:02. > :24:06.day in office he gave China a huge gift and a huge opportunity to make
:24:07. > :24:11.inroads into the various economies of the East Asian Pacific region.
:24:12. > :24:14.There was a huge mistake. I wish we had more time but we are out of
:24:15. > :24:19.time. Thank you very much for joining me from Washington, DC.
:24:20. > :24:21.Would you invite me back in one year, please? We can talk about
:24:22. > :24:24.this.