John Negroponte - US Deputy Secretary of State, 2007-2009 HARDtalk

Now on BBC News it's HARDtalk with Stephen Sackur.

Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Stephen Sackur. Donald Trump embraces

disruption. What does that mean for America's national security and

foreign policy? At first glance it seems to herald a new era of

confrontation from the Korean Peninsular to the Mexican border.

But are there limits to the President's break with convention?

Well, May guest is veteran diplomat and adviser to a host of Republican

members, John Negroponte. Does this Presidency marked a permanent shift

in America's global while? -- role? John Negroponte, in Washington, DC,

welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Let me start with some words if I may

that you wrote or at least you co- site in a very public letter during

the presidential campaign last year. It was a grim warning about Donald

Trump as future president. You said then, he in your view could be the

most reckless president in American history. You had eight months to

judge him. How do you feel about it now? Let me just put the letting

context. I didn't write those words but I did sign the letter. And I

also came out in favour of Hillary Clinton, which is a somewhat unusual

thing for a Republican to do. But that was in the context of a

political campaign. I guess my short answer as to how things have come

out now, I think, and to the question that you asked at the

beginning of the show, I think that there are limits to what he can do.

He is constrained by the Congress, by the Constitution, by our courts

and by the reality out there, which makes itself more evident every day.

So he, like everybody else in the past, has to deal with events and

the circumstances that he confronts. In terms of the style of this

Presidency, do you think he is listening to his key advisers in the

foreign policy and national security machine? Well, that is a great

question because it is hard to tell whether and when he is listening,

and whether... Even if he does listen, how long it takes hold. But

I think in a number of instances we've seen pragmatism takeover after

initial bluster. Example, some of the comments he has made about our

alliances. Originally, both in the campaign and in his initial days in

office, and now of course it has reaffirmed our Nato alliance, he is

fast friends with the Prime Minister of Japan, the most important

alliance that we have in east Asia, Pacific region, along with South

Korea, Australia. He was going to cancel North American Free Trade

Agreement and now we are busy holding serious negotiations with

both Mexico and Canada. Yes, but John Negroponte, on those issues,

that maybe today's statement or policy, though it could change

tomorrow, which comes back to a fundamental point which a whole host

of important people have raised over the last few months, including James

Clapper, from national intelligence, and other veterans, they have said

this guy is simply not fit for office. What do you think? I mean, I

am a little bit disappointed in Jim's statement. I am surprised that

a former director of national intelligence would make a statement

like that. I don't think he is in a position to judge the fitness of the

President. And, secondly, I don't think that is the whole...

CROSSTALK How can you say that when this

letter that we started the interview with said, you know, "Most

fundamentally, Mr Trump lacks the character, the values and the

experience to be president? " he questioned his mental fitness,

I believe, to hold office, and I would never go that far and I would

never say that. I did not say those words. I associated myself with that

letter, no doubt, and I won't take it back. And I supported Hillary

Clinton, though I want to point out that was in the context of a

political campaign. We only have one president at a time. He has been

elected now. We've got to want him to succeed. I don't think the best

way to support him in carrying out his role is to make a pronouncement

that he is unfit for office. That is not the judgement of a retired

government official to make. If anybody does that, it is gonna be

people in the Congress, and the vice president and so forth, according to

the procedures of the 25th amendment. I've got you. Well, in

that case, let's drill down into actions and judge him on those. So,

let's start in the Korean Peninsular. I know it is something

that you have been following very closely, along with everybody in the

foreign policy establishment in Washington. Let's just look at the

Trump rhetoric, a gamba style, it is let's face it, bellicose, the phrase

is "Locked and loaded, fire and fury like the world has never seen".

Clearly implicit in that is a threat that the United States, if North

Korea doesn't change policy, change direction on its nuclear programme,

the United States could contemplate a first strike military option. Do

you believe that is a real option? No, I do not. And the reason I do

not is, first of all, it would wreak havoc on the peninsular and the

first people to suffer, or the next people to suffer after any kind of

attack on North Korea would be South Korea and Seoul, which is only 35-

40 miles from the border with North Korea, is a complete hostage not

only to North Korean nuclear weaponry, if it were to choose to

use it, but to conventional artillery. So it would just be some

kind of a Holocaust and it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And it has been one of the fundamental conundrums of our policy

towards career throughout the years, is this hostage type situation that

exists on the peninsular. So, political and diplomatic means of

solving this must be found. OK, well. And that is the right

approach. You couldn't be clearer with me. But explained the absolute

incoherence in Washington that we outsiders here on a daily basis. I

met Lindsey Graham the other day. We had a great conversation. We talked

about Korea. This is a direct quote. "I Am 100% certain that if Kim

Jong-un continues to develop missile technology that can hit America, and

if diplomacy fails to stop him, they will be an attack by the United

States". Well, that is a senator speaking. He is not the one who is

going to pull the trigger. Only the President can decide to do that. Let

me say something about this conversation regarding Korea and

these types of conversations, which disturb me. We always sought or

start out almost as if it is the United States that bears

responsibility for the attention of the peninsular. And to my way of

thinking this is a little bit like standing the truth on its head. It

was North Korea that invaded South Korea in June of 1950, with, by the

way, the encouragement of the Soviet Union, it now Russia, and China. And

I think those two countries bear some responsibility for the

situation of the peninsular. And it is Kim Jong-un in violation of

myriad resolutions and of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty who

has just exploded a hydrogen bomb. So where is the outrage? We focus

all of our energy... We focus all our energy on some of the rhetorical

blemishes of the president of the United States.

CROSSTALK I don't think for a moment he will

pull the trigger. Your point is well taken. If I am invited to Pyongyang

to have a conversation with Kim Jong-un I guarantee I will put him

on the spot. Well I hope so! Yes, but right now I am talking to you. I

wish you would go there. So do I but right now with you need to talk

about the way the US is candling this because this is what the

insight you have into. Let me talk to you about a couple of things on

how Trump is handling it. You have to let me ask you the question. I am

simply asking you what is the long-term consequence of Donald

Trump, and some talk to him about this, like Lindsey Graham, and you

know this, Lindsey Graham says that Donald Trump said to him that if

there is going to be a walk to stop Kim Jong-un it is going to cost

thousands of lives but those lives are going to be lost over there.

They are not going to die here. Now that seems to be the mentality

Lindsey Graham is portraying as Trump's mentality. My question to

you is, if you are saying, you know what, ignore the words we are not

going to launch and military strike against North Korea, what does it do

to American long-term credibility? All of the threat and no action. Let

me say first of all, I consider that a rhetorical response to the setting

off of a hydrogen bomb. But at the same time the President is pursuing

diplomatic avenues. He just had an extensive conversation with Xi

Jinping, the president of China. He constantly talks with Prime Minister

Abe of Japan. All the key stakeholders in the Korean situation

besides ourselves, China, Japan, South Korea, we are in constant

contact with all of these people. The President himself is leading

that diplomatic effort. He has just accused the South Koreans, I am

using the word he used on Twitter, appeasement. He has had a

conversation with the President of South Korea since and I think the

South Korean president has come around to taking a pretty stern line

vis-a-vis North Korea. He has asked for the additional deployment of the

so-called thermal altitude, the THAAD devices, to protect against

incoming missiles, and we are enabling greater military

capabilities for the South Koreans, citing we are in pretty good harmony

with South Korea about how to confront this situation -- so I

think. But Ambassador John Negroponte, you seem to say what

low-to-mid -- Vladimir Putin has set and Jim Clabo has set, which is what

the administration won't say, if North Korea is absolutely intent on

continuing its nuclear programme and developing the ballistic missile

capability with the bomb, in the end there is nothing we can do to stop

them. No, I don't think I would say that. I would say that we've got to

revitalise some of the diplomatic efforts that we undertook in the

past. I was involved in the Bush administration when we had six party

talks on the Korean question. I think that would be a good

initiative. I think more sanctions. I think one of the things that's

before the UN Security Council at the moment is to stop oil exports to

North Korea. The Chinese and the Russians are baulking at this. But I

think if we are not going to use military force, then we have to use

more effective economic and diplomatic pressure. And I think

that can be done. And talking of coherence, you know, your time with

me is very measured. But when you heard the woman who has one of your

previous jobs, that of the US ambassador at the United Nations,

when you heard Nikki Haley talk about the United Nations looking at

every country that does business with North Korea giving aid to North

Korea's reckless nuclear ambitions, and implying that there could be

"Secondary sanctions" to put an embargo on all of those nations,

presumably starting first off with China, did you see that as realistic

and helpful? Some of that, the devil is in the details. Clearly we can't

stop trading with the People's Republic of China. We have more than

$500 billion worth of trade a year. We would have to stop importing

iPhones. That would be hard to get the Americans to do. You might apply

secondary sanctions against specific Chinese firms. Those upon and we

might have information that they are doing business with North Korea and

better enabling the economy. Something to that effect. In other

words, very specific, targeted targeted words, that is not the --

beyond the realm of imagination whatsoever. Let me see if your tone

continues into the next region that want to get to you, that is Donald

Trump policy on his own backyard if I can put it that way, Mexico and

Latin America. A whole host of policies, starting with the wall,

which he still seems intent on building, and he is having to battle

with the Congress about getting the money for it, and a host of other

things. In recent days the signal he has sent by saying that these

so-called macro -- Dreamers, the miners that Obama protected from

deportation, Donald Trump has effectively ended that protection, a

host of signals which suggest he doesn't mind riding up Mexico and

indeed other near neighbours in Latin America because he doesn't

care about that relationship and that sphere of American sort of

foreign policy-making and influence. What do you make of that? Because

you have spent a lot of your career in Latin America. Not only did I do

that, I was in Mexico when we both conceived and negotiated Nafta. It

is a subject near and dear to my heart. It was a major accomplishment

of the United States government. Trade with Mexico since we signed

the Nafta has quadrupled, I think. The export from Mexico to the art of

states has United States content in it. That is much better than only 5%

content if the product is coming from China, for example. That is

number one. Number two, Mr Trump was about to renounce the Nafta a couple

of months ago. Then his secretary of agriculture came to him and said to

him, by the way, do you realise, Mr President, that Mexico is the

largest or the second largest market for agricultural exports from every

single state in the United States, and we just can't possibly stop

trading with Mexico. It is going to be disastrous. In the State

Department, the desire is to modify the Nafta, modernise it, updated,

but not subjected to any radical changes, and certainly not to

discard the agreement. What do you think America's traditional allies,

you know, in this conversation we have referred already to traditional

allies in Asia like South Korea and Japan, we've just addressed Mexico,

we could talk about European allies in Nato starting with Angela

Merkel's Germany, what do you think they believe is happening in

Washington right now? I think they probably think, just like I do, that

we have elected quite an unusual person to be president of the United

States, and that he is kind of an original number. But at the same

time he is president. And he will be president three at least one term in

office, and so they have to figure out how best to deal with that. I

think they probably also have some competence, as do I, that both

events on the one hand and fundamental national interests on

the other hand will cause us to ultimately behave more or less the

same way we have been in the past years and decades. And I think we

are seeing some of that playing itself now. And it has only been

eight months. But I think if we have this conversation think you will see

that patent reinforced. we have this conversation one year

from now, I think we this conversation think you will see

that patent reinforced. will see that pattern be reinforced.

Interesting that you say that. And in your comments about Allies

perceptions. They will have to live with that. Frankly, right now, you

don't know whether you will be living with his president for the

next 3.5 years because he lives under the shadow of a very serious

investigation and, frankly, no-one knows where the special prosecutor's

investigation will end up. As best I can tell they have so far identified

two or three people, his former National Security adviser and Mr

Manor fought and possibly a couple of others, none of whom are in his

administration right now. I will wait and see before rate rush to

judgement. On whether this investigation will produce a

significant outcome. I haven't seen anything yet that causes me to think

it will. But obviously the special prosecutor will explore the facts

and do a good job. When Donald Trump spoke about this he simply says the

whole rush investigation is fake news, a hoax. He blames the

mainstream media whom he has dubbed terrible people on the whole. Others

have looked at the reaction of Donald Trump and they worry about

it. I am talking about people in the establishment in Washington, like

the former director of National counterterrorism Centre. He says it

is worrisome for our democracy. We are at risk of breaking the bonds of

trust between the public and, for example, our security services. When

people loosely used phrases like fake news, the deep state and allude

to Nazi Germany, many Americans now believe there is an act of war being

fought against the elected representatives, possibly including

the president. Is a threat to America's democracy, do you think?

No. You have now sighted yet another intelligence officer who worked

under my general supervision when I was director of National

intelligence. I think getting off into the political realm they don't

have as much qualification to talk about... But it is interesting...

Interesting that these guys feel so passionately and so alarmed by what

they see that they are speaking out in this way, suggests a fundamental

breakdown of trust. The founding Fathers wrote this Constitution with

the assumption that people who in government are not necessarily

Angel. Power has to be restrained. Basically, the people should govern

themselves and they are only limited functions that us a central

government. We have a system of checks and balances that are

designed to compass that. I think we have seen the system of checks and

balances working in spades in few months. We have seen the courts

challenge the immigration orders that were initially issued.

Repudiated them. We have seen Congress that has not changed Obama

can. You can cite numerous examples of where the system of checks and

balances is at work. One element of institutional Washington that is

clearly not functioning is the place, perhaps you know best, the

State department. One third of this job is, see new jobs in the State

Department have not been filled since Donald Trump came in to power.

Has ever been a time when the US was less well equipped to play a

leadership role in the world? Well, you make the assumption that by

filling those subordinate jobs in the State Department that that will

significantly enhance our ability. Call me naive but I assume those

posts are there because they have some sort of important function.

They do. They do. Not all of them are vital but it is not a good way

to run the State Department. I could not agree with you more on that. I

do not hold Mr troll responsible for that. I things that Ellison himself

has been far too cautious about moving forward with feeling these

positions. He has wanted to conduct some kind of study of reorganisation

of the State Department and he said until that study is completed and

completed the reorganisation, we will not fill a lot of key jobs.

That is not the right thing, especially with respect to regional

assistant secretary should. My bigger point, that was the detail,

my bigger point is what you perhaps conclude that right now there is

something of a vacuum in terms of American leadership in the world.

Big beneficiaries of that are China and Russia. Something of a vacuum

but I still think... First of all, we are blessed to have a good career

foreign service and they are filling a lot of these jobs on an acting

basis. But the notion that China and Russia are the big beneficiaries of

what we see unfold in Washington day by day, would you agree? I would

say, I would say it this way. I think China in particular has been

the beneficiary of some of the policies we have carried out. I

think that is more important. Woodside most specifically with the

drum's decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the big

economic agreement that would have brought together 12 countries in the

East Asia Pacific reason. Withdrawing from that on his first

day in office he gave China a huge gift and a huge opportunity to make

inroads into the various economies of the East Asian Pacific region.

There was a huge mistake. I wish we had more time but we are out of

time. Thank you very much for joining me from Washington, DC.

Would you invite me back in one year, please? We can talk about

this.