以下是美国之音专访总统国家安全顾问麦克马斯特将军的英语原文：
Q: “General, nice to see you, sir.”
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, GENERAL H.R. MCMASTER: “It’s great to be with you, thank you.”
Q: “Thank you for doing this interview.”
MCMASTER: “It’s a privilege to do it, thanks.”
Q: “Well, let’s start with Iran. A lot’s going on there, what’s your reflections on it?”
MCMASTER: “Well the Iranian people are expressing frustration, frustration about a regime that pays more attention to exporting terrorism than it does to meeting the needs of its own people. So, the President has been very strong in his support of the Iranian people, and their rights to express themselves. And I think what’s most important now is for the whole world to tell Iran that they have to respect the rights of their citizens and allow them to demonstrate peacefully and to not engage in the kind of violence against the demonstrators that we saw back in 2009, and that we’re starting to see now as well.”
Q: “Well, in 1956, we had a similar situation in Hungary and the West didn’t support the protestors there. We’ve seen it in the early 90s with the Kurds in Iraq, and again the United States voiced its support but didn’t do anything, and we, as you mentioned, 2009 when President Obama was President, in green room, right after the election. Is this administration going to do anything more than voice verbal support for the protest, or can they?
MCMASTER: “Well, we’ll see what options are available. But I think what we need are strong voices across the world, on behalf of the Iranian people. This is a dictatorial regime that is oppressing its own people, that is using the resources that this great nation with this rich culture and rich history needs, to form that hatred and violence across the greater Middle East area. They are a driving force behind this fitna, behind this sectarian civil war that has caused so much pain and suffering and death in Syria and Iraq and Yemen. They pose a continuing threat to Israel, and within Lebanon to its stability, and this regime has to be held to account and it seems as if the Iranian people are expressing their displeasure about the behavior of this regime and prioritizing this kind of violence over the benefit and welfare of their own citizens.”
Q: “I was comparing and contrasting in my own mind, the 2009 which was provoked by an election and that the people, they were unhappy with the election, they thought it was unfair. This one is a little bit different- almost spontaneously the number of cities that there’s been a protest. At first, the suggestion was as a result of an economic situation, that any sort of the economic benefits that they anticipated from the Iran view, didn’t trickle down to them. Why do you think, do you think this was provoked by economics, or by Western influences? Why do you think the protests were sparked in the first place?”
MCMASTER: “I think what’s key is to let the Iranians speak for themselves on this. I think it’s dissatisfaction with this dictatorial regime. It was over economics to a certain extent, and the skyrocketing of prices, the very high rate of unemployment, especially among young Iranians. And these are people who know the great potential of their country and are frustrated to not be able to take advantage of that potential. But it’s also been about the external behavior of the regime, and how this is a regime that gives safe haven to Al-Qaeda terrorists who target Shia, Christians, anybody who doesn’t do, and any Muslim who doesn’t adhere to their narrow and irreligious definition of Islam. And so this is a regime that is dishonest, fundamentally, and a regime that has helped drive violence and hatred across the whole region.”
Q: “I don’t pretend to know what the solution is, it’s not my job, but even for my job I don’t know what the solution is. But if we do no more than to say ‘We’re with you,’ you know, with the protestors, how is the result going to be any different than ’09 or even any of those other examples? I mean, aren’t we just going to expect that the Iranian, that it will probably be the protestors would be put down in more violence? How do we expect a different solution if our reaction is the same?”
MCMASTER: “Well, we’re already doing more than that. As you know in recent years there was a hope, a hope that the pursuit of this nuclear deal that is fundamentally flawed would change the behavior of this regime, that it would moderate its violent behavior, and of course that hasn’t been the case at all. So what the United States has been doing, along with allies and partners around the world, is sanctioning that violent, that malign Iranian behavior. And so it’s important, I think, that this regime be denied the resources it needs to continue its murderous campaigns. And so it’s diplomacy, but it’s also sanctions, and we see actually that the Iranian people are expressing their displeasure about the nature of this regime, how it treats them, but also how it treats the rest of the world.
Q: “Is there-this interview is likely to be seen in–because of the Persian service in Voice of America. Is there a specific message that you want to get to people of Iran–you know they want to tell you Iranian people, what America is going to do if they do change the government?”
MCMASTER: “Well I think the first thing to note is the American people and this American government has grown great respect for the Iranian people, the Iranian culture. There are tremendous history and the tremendous potential they have. And it breaks our heart to see Iranians not be able to realize their dreams. Also we have to recognize it’s up to all of us across the world to confront Iran’s behavior that is causing so much suffering, their support for terrorist organizations and illegal militias that are perpetuating violence. And so they have our emotional support, they have our sympathy, and we’re grateful I think to see them exercising their right to voice their displeasure with this dictatorial regime.”
Q: “President Trump has said that he’s not going to certify the agreement, the nuclear agreement. What’s the message to American’s and as well to the Iranians? What can we expect on that nuclear agreement?”
MCMASTER: “Well I think the main message is how can you trust this regime that treats its own people the way we see its treating its own people. That foments violence.”
Q: “That agreements definitely going to be decertified?”
MCMASTER: “Well it might be, we’ll bring options to the President. The President declined to certify that the Iran nuclear deal was in the interest of the United States. And but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t continue to–adhere to the agreement in terms of extending waivers on sanctions. He’ll make that decision I think in the next few weeks to the next month. And so we’ll see what the President decides, but it’s really hard–it’s really hard to trust this regime.”
Q: “Are the protest in any way linked to the President’s thinking on the nuclear deal?”
MCMASTER: “No, not that I’ve been aware of, I mean I don’t think so. I think the world is watching very closely to see how this regime treats its own people. And I think that this Iran nuclear deal doesn’t cover everything right? It doesn’t cover the Islamic revolutionary guard’s corps destabilizing behavior in the region. It doesn’t really fully cover their missile programs and so it doesn’t cover their behavior and how their treating their own people in connection with these–in connection with these protest. And so I think the United States, other nations have to take action not just based on this very narrow and flawed nuclear agreement, but have to look at the broad range of Iran’s behavior.”
Q: “There’s a flawed agreement and there’s violating the agreement. And I know that the Republican’s from the very beginning or many of them said it was a flawed agreement, what about a violation? Have the Iranians violated that agreement that the United States signed with them?”
MCMASTER: “It’s really impossible to tell whether or not Iran is violating that agreement. What we have seen is them step up to the line and crossed the line on how many centrifuges their spending. How much heavy water they have in stock.”
Q: “Is there anything wrong coming up to the line?”
MCMASTER: “And no but–is the verification mechanism in place to make sure this agreement doesn’t just give this dictatorial regime cover for developing a nuclear capability that threatens the world. And so that’s what we have to be confident of and we can’t be confident of that right now cause the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are anemic, there not very strong. And so those need to be strengthened. You know there are sunset clauses to all this and so we have to block all paths to a nuclear weapon by this dictatorial regime, not just for the next few years but we have to be able to do that in the long term because think about what happens? If Iran gets a nuclear weapon–who gets a nuclear weapon next? Is it Saudi Arabia? Is it United Arab Emirates? Think about the breakdown of the non-proliferation regime and how that places so many people at risk of the most destructive weapons on Earth.”
Q: “In the event that the Iranian goes up the line but doesn’t cross it, and it is not recertified by the President, does that send the message around the world for decades about cutting a deal with the government–with the United States government. Does that indicate that–we don’t keep recognizing that obviously the administration’s change, but does that send a signal?”
MCMASTER: “I think it does send a powerful signal.”
Q: “Not an adverse one.”
MCMASTER: “No it’s a powerful, positive signal. You know what the adverse experience has been, the negative experience has been, is the 1994 agreed framework with North Korea. How did that work out? It was a weak agreement that was not monitored effectively. It was not enforced. Where are we now? You know we’re at the cusp of a North Korea, another rogue regime that might threaten the world with nuclear weapons. And of course that’s unacceptable now and we can’t let the situation with Iran get to that level as well.”
Q: “Alright speaking about North Korea, I think there is ample evidence that Pakistan through (AUDIO) basically their architect of their nuclear weapon program. Was very helpful to North Korea developing their nuclear program, do you have any suspicion that Iran and North Korea have worked together? Even with the development of missile technology, anything at all?”
MCMASTER: “Yes I mean I think that–“
Q: “And are they doing it now?”
MCMASTER: “Well I’ll leave that to our intelligence professionals to answer that question but if you look at North Korea’s track record, North Korea has never met a weapon that it has not proliferated. I mean it was building a nuclear reactor in a clandestine site in Syria for example. North Korea is selling weapons across the world to all sorts of regimes and bad actors. And North Korea has stated that it would be willing to proliferate nuclear weapons for the right price. And so you have a regime that could possess nuclear weapons that could engage in extortion, blackmail, and then sell those most destructive weapons on earth to the highest bidder and anybody willing to meet their price.”
Q: “Well it’s pretty evident that they have an aggressive program and they’ve been developing it for decades, both missile and nuclear warheads as well. Is there–and the agreed framework as you noted didn’t work because they cheated and the program has gone on and on and on. We’ve tried sanctions, we’ve engaged the world. We’ve done a lot of different things to try to deter this nuclear program in North Korea. Is there anything short, do you see anything short of war at this point? And I’m not saying I’m advocating for war or anything against it but what are the solutions? What are the possibilities?”
MCMASTER: “Well the possibility is that North Korean regime recognizes that the continued pursuit of these nuclear weapons and missiles is a dead end. And the only way to do that really now short of war is through coercive economic power. Power that rest mainly in the hands of China but with others as well. And the trend has been extremely positive. The trend has been positive and that more and more countries are stopping all trade with North Korea. Vietnam for example, the Philippines, the list really is quite a long one.”
Q: “Illicit, they just stopped–there are two ships with Petroleum that products in violation of sanctions that have been stopped in the last 2 weeks, so it’s getting in there–some of it.”
MCMASTER: “That’s why everybody needs to do more. You seen South Korea just interdict 2 ships and impound 2 ships and the new UN sanctions will allow even greater sanctions on shipping companies that allow this illicit trade to continue. But really as everybody knows, China has the vast majority of the coercive economic power over the North and it’s our hope that China will act in its interest and we can’t ask them to do more than act in their interest.”
Q: “Well hope but China hasn’t and long before he became President, I used to interview him, the business man in New York, he would talk about China and how they didn’t deal fairly with the United States. What makes you think that China now is going to be, is gonna change to use their economic muscle and try to get a result out of North Korea? Is it just the fear that they’ll be 26 million people over the borders into North Korea and that Japan and South Korea want to be nuclear powers? Is that the only thing that’s gonna change China?”
MCMASTER: “No, China recognizes that the situation has changed fundamentally and China recognizes 3 fundamental shifts in their own thinking and 3 fundamental shifts we all have to do together. The first shift is denuclearization of the peninsula is the only acceptable answer. It used to be–you hear a lot of talk about freeze for freeze, suspension for suspension. There’s a recognition, that’s no good anymore because their programs has progressed too far. The second thing is China recognizes that this is a problem really between North Korea and the whole world including a problem between North Korea and China. There used to be old talk about, while this really a problem between the United States and North Korea, China recognizes that it is in China’s interest to denuclearize the peninsula, and that’s because of the threat of a breakdown in the non-proliferation regime. What if South Korea, what if Japan can conclude they have to arm in similar ways to North Korea? And the 3rd thing is that China recognizes that it does have coercive economic power to resolve this situation and it will be up to China when it makes those decisions–as you know, the US Security Council has come up with more and more restrictions on North Korea. More and more sanctions against North Korea, those have to be rigorously enforced. But we also have to acknowledge that’s not going to be enough, I think you read about this. North Korea–unless more pressures applied will not conclude that it’s in their interest to denuclearize.”
Q: “I don’t see North Korea because it’s really two different people–there’s leaders of North Korea and people. I don’t–I don’t see North Korea worried enough about–I don’t see anything that makes them want to give up their nuclear weapons. I don’t think there’s enough care about feeding their people, about famine or anything else.”
MCMASTER: “We have–you have different portions of the population. North Korea obviously, you have the elites in Pyongyang who live very comfortable existence at the expense of the rest of the North Korean population who are part of– ”
Q: “Those are the ones who make the decision.”
MCMASTER: “They are but those are the people who have to be affected by these sanctions. These are the people who have to conclude that it is not in their interest to continue on this path. That it is a dead end for them. And of course this regime hasn’t been without dissent, I mean this is a regime, this is leader–Kim Jong Un whose killed members of his own family in the most egregious ways with a bad nerve agent in a public airport in Malaysia, with anti-aircraft guns in front of their military academy in a stadium. And so– ”
Q: “So how do you get–okay I’ve changed my mind, I want to protect my people from war with the United States, or economic sanctions in the world, and I’m going to give up my nuclear weapons, when he’s bragging about it?”
MCMASTER: “Well I mean–you can’t fire a missile without fuel can you? And North Korea is wholly dependent on external sources for fuel. So there are options available in short of war if all nations conclude that it’s in their interest to act in a more aggressive manner in terms of economic sanctions and to actually follow through.”
Q: “If we cut off visibility to launch a nuclear weapon, he doesn’t have the fuel to do it, he still has all these artillery weapons on the southern part of North Korea pointed right at South Korea, how potent or what’s the strength that he has there?”
MCMASTER: “Well this is what North Korea has done, right? Over the years, has held the South Korea population at risk. Also it’s been clear since 1953 that the South – South Korea that the United States poses no threat to North Korea, every provocation has come out of North Korea. And so the only reason why North Korea could be pursuing this weapon is to do what? It’s actually to coerce or blackmail or extort the United States to leave the peninsula and North East Asia. And – and – to – what they’ve been saying for years, I mean, how many times in his latest speech did Kim Jong Un use the word unification? What kind of unification does he have in mind? He has unification under the domination of the North and its failed system. I mean this is – so, what’s important to recognize is that North Korea is pursuing this nuclear weapon, not for just defensive purposes that you hear some people argue about, but really for coercive purposes, for offensive purposes, and the world has to recognize that.”
Q: “You know it’s interesting, I don’t think – I’ve been to North Korea three times, I don’t have a sense, and this is just a random sampling, it’s no way a scientific study, I don’t have any sense that the people of North Korea, themselves, don’t think they have the best place on earth to live. Except for those who may get some sort of information from the west, but I think that’s a problem to, is that the people aren’t with us, you know, the people are not against their leadership, at least not right now. ”
MCMASTER: “Well, it’s been three generations now of leadership, who’ve systematically brainwashed their own population, who deny them access to outside information. Once information can penetrate that society, I mean, this is what he probably fears the most, I mean, right. So, there’s some who argue, well what we need to do is open the gates to this misunderstood regime in the north, of course that’s one of the things the north fears the most, because it will expose all the lies, it will expose all of the hypocrisy.”
Q: “Which is why they prevent the information from coming in.”
MCMASTER: “Absolutely.”
Q: “Kim Jong Un in a recent speech talked about making a gesture to South Korea, said maybe they’ll send athletes to participate in the Olympic games, and maybe they’ll have negotiations and also threatened that he has a button – I think he say he has a button on his desk to launch a nuclear weapon against us. What are your thoughts about that, his gesture to South Korea?”
MCMASTER: “Well, anybody who thought that speech was reassuring was drinking too much champagne over the holidays. And essentially what he said is what you just summarized, that he is building a hair trigger nuclear force that would – that can place the world at risk. So this is a great cause for concern and I think the speech is pretty clear what the purpose was, it was – it wasn’t a – an unsophisticated approach to try to drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States, of course, that’s not going happen. His provocative actions, what he’s been doing is driving our alliances closer together.”
Q: “One last question on this, if the economic sanctions don’t work, for whatever reason, either they do not respond to it, or China doesn’t stiffen them, or North Koreans can cheat around them, if those sanctions don’t work, then what? And what’s our time table?”
MCMASTER: “Well, what we have to do is prepare for a broad range of options for the president, and those include military options and we’ve made no secret about that. And we’ll work closely with our allies as we develop and refine those options and essentially, if we have to compel the denuclearization of North Korea, without the cooperation of that regime, we’ll bring those options and our assessment of risk and consequences to the president for a decision.”
Q: “What’s the range in military options? What do you see as the far end and the light end?”
MCMASTER: “Well, of course I’m not going to discuss military plans, but those plans exist.”
Q: “Hypothetically, I know - but hypothetically what’s the-”
MCMASTER: “I’m not in a hypothetical position, so I can’t.”
Q: “Fair enough. Alright, alright, so, I’ll make that the last question on that. Let me turn now to Pakistan, and the president tweeted that the United States, this is one of his first tweets of the new year, ‘the United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools, they give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help, no more.’ So he has upped the pressure on Pakistan. Why? And to what end?”
MCMASTER: “Well, I think the tweet speaks for itself. I mean, the president’s frustrated, and he values what we’d hope would be a partnership with Pakistan, but he’s frustrated at Pakistan’s behavior and that it continues to provide support for these groups and it goes after terrorist insurgent groups, really, very selectively, and uses others as an arm of their foreign policy. The president has great sympathy for the Pakistani people, in particular how much they’ve suffered at the hands of terrorists who have victimized so many Pakistanis with mass murders, with that horrible mass murder in a school few years ago. I mean, so, he empathizes with the Pakistani people and he wants to see the Pakistani government go after these groups less selectively. This is not a blame game as some would say, this is a – this is really our effort to communicate clearly to Pakistan that our relationship can no longer bear the weight of contradictions and that we have to really begin now to work together, to stabilize Afghanistan and in a way that would be a huge benefit to Pakistan as well. What’s frustrating at times is we see Pakistan operating against interests of its own people, by going after these groups selectively, by providing safe havens and support bases for Taliban and the Haqqani network leadership that operate out of Pakistan as they perpetuate hell in portions of Pakistan and in Afghanistan.”
Q: “I traveled with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Pakistan years ago when she was delivering news of an aid package about $7 billion, a significant amount for Pakistanis. I remember that the Pakistanis were upset because we wanted to know how the money was going to be spent, they were very upset. You have that incredible sort of disconnect, that did not seem to me to be outrageous that we wanted to know how our money was going to be spent. On the other hand, when you don’t give money to these countries, someone else steps in, so that’s the risk.”
MCMASTER: “Well, I don’t think – who’s going to step in now, I think, and want Pakistan to continue its support for terrorist groups like the Haqqani network, for groups like the Taliban. I mean, certainly it’s not in China’s interest, China has a terrorist problem on its southern border, a terrorist problem that does have a connection back in to Pakistan. It’s not going to be any other country in the region, certainly, who want Pakistan to continue really this pattern of behavior that we’ve seen where it goes after these groups selectively, while it sustains and supports others, who act as an arm of its foreign policy. So, I think we’re confident that – I mean, Pakistan doesn’t - Pakistan doesn’t want to become a pariah state, Pakistan is a country with tremendous potential, human potential, economic potential. So what we really would like to see is Pakistan acting in its own interest and to stop going after these groups only selectively, and to stop providing safe havens and support bases and other forms of support for leadership.”
Q: “How do you put into equation the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear country and they have also pal’d around, at least historically with North Korea, on nuclear weapons, do they hold some sort of almost, I don’t want to use the word blackmail, it’s too strong, but they do have that as a lever.”
MCMASTER: “Well, I think it would be unwise for any Pakistani leader, I can’t imagine a Pakistani leader using nuclear weapons to extort or for blackmail. That’s when, that’s day when Pakistan –”
Q: “That’s what North Korea is doing.”
MCMASTER: “Well, I mean, does Pakistan want to become North Korea? Doesn’t look too appealing a model to me. So, I think, Pakistan could be on a path to increase security and prosperity, or it could be in a path to replicating North Korea. I think that’s any easy choice for Pakistani leaders.”
Q: “You know, when you look at foreign policy, you move one little piece on this chess table and it effects so many other parts of the world.”
MCMASTER: “None of these problems are disconnected from others, I mean there are many connections between all these problems, that’s what we’ve discussed.”
Q: “Is there a way to describe the president’s foreign policy. I’ve heard one quote where you said that, where it says, ‘the way Trump handles foreign policy moves us out of our comfort zone, me include.’ First of all, what do you mean by that, and secondly is, how do you describe the president’s foreign policy?”
MCMASTER: “Well, I would describe it as principled realism, and you can read more about it in the highly readable page turning national security strategy, which is available now.”
Q: “Which I did read. It’s a lot to it, it is quite long.”
MCMASTER: “ But It’s clear it’s a succinct statement of his policy of his guidance to all of his departments and agencies and a clear description to our allies and partners and rivals of what we value as a nation and how we want to go about protecting and securing the vital interests of the American people and to do so in a way that really emphasizes cooperation with others around the world.”
Q: “By out of the comfort zone you weren’t saying in any way disagree with the president?”
MCMASTER: “No, what the president does is he challenges fundamental assumptions. He always says well why do we have to do it this way? I mean, and he makes a lot of our implicit assumptions explicit as we explain these to him. I would say that he’s made some very wise policy decisions across the (sp.) and significant ones. And I would point to the August speech on the South Asia strategy. Every clear articulation of a winning strategy – not just for Afghanistan and Pakistan but for the whole region, for the whole region of South Asia. The Indo-Pacific strategy which he really laid out in terms of its security dimensions but really its economic dimensions in 2 speeches – one in South Korea and one in Dinah APEC Summit. And of course the Iran strategy which is a fundamental shift from strategy in recent years and reflects a determination to confront Iran’s malign behavior and to choke of the financing to this dictatorship that it’s using to destabilize it’s whole Middle East and to perpetuate violence and human suffering there.”
Q: “Alright, Putin, Russia and National Security. First of all, do you believe that , you may have said this a million times, that Russia interfered with our election?”
MCMASTER: “Yes of course. President’s been on record on that as well.”
Q: “Okay, what do we do?”
MCMASTER: “Well what we have to do is come up with a way to deal with this very sophisticated strategy. This new kind of threat that Russia has really perfected in a lot of ways and that’s the use of disinformation and propaganda and social media tools to really polarize societies and pit communities against each other. To weaken their resolve and their commitment. We cover this quite a bit in the National Security Strategy – talk about how important it is for every time we talk about what divides us as country. We have to talk about what unites us and that’s our common commitment to our values. We value individual rights and rule of law and we value our democracy.”
Q: “It’s insidious when someone creeps into your election and debate or puts false information out there. It just permeates every community in the country.”
MCMASTER: “No insidious is the right word. So one of the most important remedies is to pull the curtain back on it to show this activity, to show what the source of this activity is - what the purpose of this activity is. And so doing this you’re going to undercut a lot of their ability to exert that kind of negative influence on our society or others. You know, as you know, the Russians were very active in Europe as well in the French election recently – in the Spanish Referendum in regards to Catalonia. You see them active in Mexico already. I mean what they did in Montenegro and try to (sp.) a coup···as well as this sophisticated campaign. And so pulling the curtain back on Russia’s destabilizing behavior I think is a very important first step because once everybody sees what they’re up to they lose a lot of their power to foment lack of confidence and to put communities against each other”
Q: “Alright I take it your counterpart in Russia denies this – denies in doing this?”
MCMASTER: “Well I think Russia’s moved from what you might call plausible deniability to implausible deniability. These are the same people who said ‘oh no we didn’t shoot down that airliner or murder all those people. Oh no we don’t have soldiers in Crimea or in western Ukraine. It’s just not credible anymore. We’re not providing cover for Syrian regime that’s committing mass murder of its own people with chemical weapons. And so it’s just not credible anymore and so what we need to do I think with Russia is confront their destabilization behavior. As I mentioned, pull the curtain back on it.”
Q: “But doesn’t Putin deny?
MCMASTER: “But we also have to deter further conflict with Russia and we want to do is find areas of operation. What we have seen recently, it seems as if Russia will actually act against its interest to spite the United States, West or European allies.
Q: “If you don’t have any self-preservation that’s a terrible enemy in some ways – our opponent.”
MCMASTER: “Well what we’d like to do is find areas where we can cooperate with Russia in areas where our interests overlap. Open of those is an area we’ve been talking about which is in North Korea and other is in Iran. I mean how can it be in Russia’s interest to help empower Iran from the Middle East. They’re going to pay a huge price for that.”
Q: “But Iran is helping in Syria and so is Putin helping in Syria. They have a common goal there.”
MCMASTER: “So every Arab state certainly should recognize what Russia’s been doing and Russia should pay the price in terms of its reputation – its access to the region, for what it’s doing to enable Iran and Iran’s very destructive activities perpetuating this (sp.) civil war across the greater Middle East and Russia shouldn’t give cover and support to Iran so it can continue its nefarious designs across the region. I mean not only has Iran continued to support terrorist groups like Hezbollah, all these illegal armed groups – about 80% of the fighters of the side of the Assad Regime in Syrian are Iranian proxies and in Yemen. And what they’re doing is (sp.) these networks with long range missiles as well. And so again, I think pulling the curtain back on it. Really asking Russia how can this be in your interest to aid and abet this Iranian regime.”
Q: “I thought they responded a lot to shame but I think the term that’s been used by the Trump administration is a strategic competitor in the past and not just in the past year since President Trump took office and the years passed he said that Putin has gained strength. This is not someone who seems to have been shamed away – sorry to have been involved in the US election (sp.)?”
MCMASTER: “Well he’s also become now one of the most sanctioned countries on Earth. I mean that can’t be in Russian interest so I think it’s important that Russia conclude that it’s in its interest···Russia is not going to act against its interest. We don’t expect Russia to act against its interest or to do the United States a favor. What we want to do is to be able to find areas of cooperation so we can help convince Russia it’s in its interest to work together on some of these key priority threats to the world. How could it be in Russia’s interest to have the non-proliferation regime break down in Northeast Asia? To see other nations in Northeast Asia armed with nuclear weapons. It’s not in Russia’s interest. You already see South Korea and Japan and they’re alliance with us strengthened. South Korea and Japan arming at a break neck pace and so this is not in Russia’s interest and the way to resolve this is to resolve the problem with North Korea. And really allow Northeast Asia to enjoy a new era of prosperity. Can you imagine without that threat from North Korea how Russia, China – everyone would benefit from that?”
Q: What surprises you most about the job now you’ve been in the seat?”
MCMASTER: “Well what surprised me the most is the high quality people I get to work with. These extremely dedicated civil servants and officers from across our government on this National Security Council are tremendous. It is a great privilege to work with them and then I guess what surprised me as well is the degree to which we are working together based on our common interest with so many nations around the world. I mean we have great relationships with our counterparts between National Security Council Advisors. It’s maybe part support group but it’s also a group of likeminded nations. They’re trying to advance and protect the interest of our citizens and we have some – as you were talking about we have a lot of problems we’re working on but we’re also working on opportunities. Opportunities to increase the security and prosperity of all our peoples and the world.”
Q: “General, thank you very much, and good luck. We’ll be watching and I hope you come back.”
MCMASTER: “Thanks Greta, it’s a pleasure to be with you.”
评论 (0)