Transcript: NBC Berger Interview on Mideast Peace
(NSC Director says violence must stop)

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said the immediate objective of the United States in the Middle East is to stop the violence so that negotiations can resume eventually.

He appeared on October 15 on NBC's "Meet The Press" and was interviewed about the situation in the Middle East and the fatal attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

"I believe it is important for the parties to find a negotiating solution.  The alternative to a negotiated solution is what we are seeing now being played out in the Middle East," he said. "It is instability and conflict."

Turning to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, Berger said, "I think that it is quite clear that this was a terrorist act, but we, at this point, have no conclusions about who is responsible."

Berger noted that the government of Yemen is cooperating with the investigation of the attack on the U.S. destroyer.  He said that the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice are involved in the effort to find out who is responsible.

Following is the transcript of the Berger interview:

(begin transcript)

MR. RUSSERT: But first, here with the very latest on the crisis in the Middle East is the president's national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Mr. Berger, welcome.

MR. BERGER: Good morning.

MR. RUSSERT: What can you tell us? Are we any closer to knowing who blew up the U.S.S. Cole?

MR. BERGER: We have a very large team on the ground now -- F.B.I. and Justice Department and other military people. They're now very actively engaged in an investigation, forensic and otherwise.  I think it is quite clear that this was a terrorist act, but we, at this point, have no conclusions about who's responsible.

MR. RUSSERT: What is concerning to many Americans is why this ship refueled in Yemen.  The State Department -- I'll show you here on our screen -- last year put out advisories saying, "Lax and inefficient enforcement of security procedures and the government's inability to exercise authority over remote areas of Yemen continue to make the country a safe haven for terrorist groups." Why would we refuel a U.S. Navy ship in a country that the State Department says is a safe haven for terrorists?

MR. BERGER: Well, first, there's a geography element here. As you take ships from the Mediterranean to the Gulf, they have to refuel. There are a limited number of places where they can refuel. This entire area is a high threat area. The military has taken substantial steps in this area. Twenty-five ships refueled here in the last 18 months without incident. Obviously we'll have to find out what, if anything, happened in this particular case. But this entire area is an area I think would be described as a high threat, high risk area.

MR. RUSSERT: Will we continue to refuel in Yemen?

MR. BERGER: I think this will be part of the inquiry that the Defense Department has -- has undertaken, and those judgments will have to be made.

MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, the chief of naval operations was speaking and (was) asked why we did this in Yemen, and he gave an interesting answer. I want to give you a chance to look at it and talk about it. "I can just say this: We've been working to improve our relations with Yemen for some time, and I'm sure that that was at the heart of the motivation of the unifying commander as they were improving our relations in that part of the world." Could someone say, is it worth losing 17 American sailors to improve relations with Yemen?

MR. BERGER: It's not worth losing one sailor or soldier for anything, so let's start off with that premise. Since 1998, there has been some improvement in relations with Yemen. General Zinney (ph), who is the unified commander, believed in that context that refueling in this port should be resumed. As I said, it's been done frequently within the last 18 months at a high state of alert. But the specific facts here I think was we need to wait, do a very thorough review, and determine whether anything more could have been done or should have been done.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, the president of Yemen said this was not a deliberate act, it was not terrorism, it was an accident.

MR. BERGER: No, he's now said that he believes that it likely is a terrorist act. He said that yesterday. He has been cooperative with us. You can imagine in a city of 100,000 in Aden suddenly flooding in of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of relief, investigatory, press, and others is a logistical challenge. He's providing good support. I understand actually they've begun to arrest some people generally; I don't know whether they are suspects or not, but he is cooperating.

MR. RUSSERT: He also said if he -- his country bordered Israel, he'd send his troops to fight Israel. Are we in bed with someone we shouldn't be in bed with?

MR. BERGER: No, but -- of course not. That's an outrageous comment. But, again, we have strong national interests in this region. We have interests in Israel's security, we have an interest in peace, we have an interest in oil, we have an interest in stopping Saddam Hussein. As a result, for well over a decade, we've had a strong military presence in this region. Now, if you're going to have a strong military presence, that means you're going to have to be dealing with some countries with whom we don't agree in all respects, and in this case, as I say, our cooperation with this country has been limited, but the commander in that area felt this was an appropriate place to refuel and took measures, and we'll have to see whether or not anything more could have been done, should have been done to prevent this.

MR. RUSSERT: The president heads to Egypt. You'll be with him for the summit meeting tomorrow. What are your expectations?

MR. BERGER: Well, it's obviously a very tense and dangerous time in the Middle East. I think the most important objective here is to try to break the cycle of violence which has broken out over the last two-plus weeks and to try to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree to measures of security cooperation, disengagement, ultimately a bit of a cooling-off period here that would defuse the tension.

MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton, the first lady of the United States, said that Mr. Arafat bears responsibility for the violence in the Middle East. Do you agree?

MR. BERGER: Well, I don't think it's useful for me, as we head off to this meeting in an effort to try to defuse the situation, to allocate or ascribe responsibility. I think it's incumbent on Chairman Arafat to do everything in his power to try to stop the violence. He doesn't control everything, but I believe there's more he can do.

MR. RUSSERT: Is he responsible for the violence?

MR. BERGER: Again, I would say that there is more that he can do. He does not control everything.

MR. RUSSERT: The United States abstained last week on a United Nations Resolution which, in effect, condemned Israel. Will we continue to abstain or will we start exercising our veto?

MR. BERGER: Well, we made a decision last week, and it was a difficult decision, but we made a decision that, having been able to get a number of the worst revisions of this resolution out, it was still unacceptable. We couldn't support it, but to veto it at that point would have been, in the judgment of people in the region, an explosive thing to do. But the U.N. has now done what it's going to do. There is no purpose whatsoever any further U.N. action, and we have made it clear that we will veto any resolution in the United Nations, even if we write it.

MR. RUSSERT: The Russians have said this morning they would like to participate in the summit in Egypt. Will President Putin of Russia be included?

MR. BERGER: Well, President Mubarak is convening the summit. It is his invitation. I'm not aware that President Putin will be present. That is not something we've been informed of.

MR. RUSSERT: Realistically, will it be possible to have a comprehensive Mideast peace put in place anytime in the foreseeable future?

MR. BERGER: Well, our first -- first objective here is to defuse the situation, to stop the violence, to get a cooling-off period. Now, at some point, whether it's a week or month or year, I believe that it's important for the parties to find the negotiated solution. The alternative to a negotiated solution is what we're seeing being played out in the Middle East now. It is instability and conflict. So I think it will be difficult to resume negotiations for a peace agreement. I think quickly the most important thing here is to break this cycle of violence, but ultimately I think the only alternative to a negotiated resolution of how these two people live together in the region is instability and conflict.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you optimistic you can break the cycle of violence at this summit meeting?

MR. BERGER: I have no illusions, Tim. This is a very difficult situation. The emotions and frustrations are very high on both sides. I think it's encouraging that President Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan and other moderate Arab countries have initiated this meeting, and that we'll do our very best.

MR. RUSSERT: Another foreign policy matter that arose in recent days was a New York "Times" article about an agreement between Vice President Gore and former prime minister of Russia Chernomyrdin regarding the transfer of Russian weapons to Iran. The Russians had agreed to end that transfer by December of 1999. They continue to transfer arms to Iran, including some helicopters that weren't even on the original list that Gore and Chernomyrdin had agreed to. Why is the United States tolerating the transfer of weapons from Russia to Iran?

MR. BERGER: Well, let's back up a step. What this agreement did in 1995 was to say that Russia would sign no new contracts beyond the ones that they'd already signed for conventional arms for -- to Iran. And the fact of the matter is as far as we know they've signed no new contracts. So we were able, through that agreement, to limit future sales to Iran. The fact that they've stretched this delivery pipeline out longer than they agreed to is something obviously we're not happy that they violated what they said they would do, but in a sense, it's better for this to take longer than for those -- for it to take -- to be done more quickly. I believe this has served America's national interests.

MR. RUSSERT: But should we not apply sanctions against the Russians, which is what the Gore-McCain legislation said we'd do?

MR. BERGER: Well, this does not -- the Gore-McCain legislation does not apply in this situation for two reasons. Number one, these were not the kind of advanced weapons that are covered by Gore-McCain, and, number two, the contract here involved preceded the enactment of Gore-McCain.

MR. RUSSERT: John McCain said the submarine that's transferred should be classified as advanced.

MR. BERGER: Well, my -- that's not my understanding. All -- this list was reviewed at the time by the Pentagon, which said that it would not upset the balance of power or balance of forces in the region. What we were able to do by this agreement is to prevent future -- further contracts for conventional arms from Russia to Iran, and I think that's a useful step.

MR. RUSSERT: Another issue that is playing out in the campaign in New York is the spy Jonathan Pollard, the American who was convicted of espionage for transferring secrets to Israel. As you know, Mr. Pollard requested clemency in the past. He's requesting it again. This is what the president said in 1996, and I'll put it on the screen: "After carefully reviewing the matter, the president had denied the application by Jonathan Pollard for executive clemency. The president agreed with Attorney General Reno's judgment that the enormity of Mr. Pollard's offenses, his lack of remorse, the damage done to our national security, the need for general deterrence, and the continuing threat to national security that he posed made the original life sentence imposed by the court warranted." Has anything changed?

MR. BERGER: We've made no judgment that is contrary to that. I know this is a controversial matter. People have different views, but I believe that the judgment the president made in 1996 was the correct one, and I believe it still is the correct one.

MR. RUSSERT: In the year 2000?

MR. BERGER: That's my judgment, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Sandy Berger, we thank you, as always, for joining us this morning.

MR. BERGER: Thank you.

(end transcript)

NNNN