RICHARD ARMITAGE: I don`t think I`d quite agree with the word `impotence`, but certainly we became extraordinarily aware of our vulnerabilities as a free and open society, and we`ve had to take some rather drastic steps to try to tighten up our own borders as many other countries have had to do around the world in the wake of 9/11.

JANA WENDT: On a personal level, how did you make sense of what happened on September 11?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: It wasn`t a matter of making sense, it was a matter for me of just going about my business and doing my duty. A lot of people much brighter than I spent all their time trying to figure out why things happened, I`m just trying to deal with the reality of what happened, and to do my utmost, along with my colleagues, to make sure it doesn`t happen again, to ourselves or to our friends.

JANA WENDT: You are clearly an eminently practical person and all sorts of things have been written about those cataclysmic events. It`s been seen by some as a fundamental breach of civilisation - do you come close to agreeing with an expression like that?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, in my lifetime, unfortunately, I`ve had to witness a lot of man`s inhumanity to man. This was a further example and of course a much more personal example for most of my countrymen, and I do think it is a pivotal point in history, and I think that countries right now are having to rethink some of their basic assumptions about their own security and what makes one secure in this 21st century?

JANA WENDT: Your own President, in response to the attacks, declared war on terrorism, not on a nation or on a leader, but on terrorism, which after all is a tactic. How does one win a war on terrorism?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think that many think tanks in Australia and the US have killed a lot of trees and poured a lot of ink trying to figure this all out. I think it boils down to the necessity to deal with transnational organisations, who don`t have recognised boundaries, and don`t have recognised limits to their power or their ability to project their own brand of evil. And I think it clearly takes a multilateral approach to bring these perpetrators to justice.

JANA WENDT: Sir, let me just look at a benchmark, would failure in this war, would defeat be signified by a collapse into chaos of Afghanistan, for instance?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, Ms Wendt, defeat is not an option. The President has said it and I think 122 nations have joined with us in this global coalition. It`s not an option. If Afghanistan descends back into chaos, the chaos that we saw in the `90s, clearly this would be a terrible, terrible thing. The President, and I think the international community is united in our view that this must not happen.

JANA WENDT: Right now, how do you rank the achievement in Afghanistan? Do you view it at the moment as a victory, or is the jury still out?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think 23 million people in Afghanistan probably view it as a victory. If what I`m told is true, and I think it is, women coming back to work, 3 million children in school, refugees returning from Pakistan and from Iran in numbers far greater than that anticipated by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, so I think that`s all witness to the fact that we are winning.

JANA WENDT: Be that as it may, there is a strong feeling of disappointment on the part of many Afghans that the US abandoned them after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from their country. Is the US prepared for a very long-haul commitment to Afghanistan?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, it is the case that in 1990/91 after the Soviet war, that we did turn our back on Afghanistan, we and many others. I think we`ve learned from that mistake and the President has spoken quite eloquently of the need to stay engaged, not just the US, but the entire international community, and for all of us to live up to the pledges we made at the Tokyo conference in January.

JANA WENDT: The US talks a great deal, too, about the urgency of promoting democracy throughout the world, and yet the linchpin of your war against terrorism is a military dictator in Pakistan. Do you see an inconsistency in that?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, it`s quite clear to us that democracy is the only path to the future. I think it`s quite clear to all observers, that both military and democratic governments in Pakistan historically have not served the 140 million people of Pakistan very well. President Pervez Musharraf has outlined a path to democracy, we expect him to have some further things to say, when he comes to New York on Thursday, both in his address to the UN and his meeting with President Bush, and we continue to urge President Musharraf to get back on the democratic path, and a recognisable democratic path, as soon as possible.

JANA WENDT: When you say he`s going to have further things to say, do you expect him to loosen his non-democratic grip on his country?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: I think that a closer examination would show that some of the instruments of the government are to be elected democratically, I believe on October 10. I do expect either in his comments to the UN General Assembly, or in the more than 11 international interviews he`s going to give while he`s here, to spend a good deal of time talking about his view of how to return Pakistan to a civilian-controlled democracy.

JANA WENDT: The word on everyone`s lips at the moment is, of course, Iraq. The President is soon to address the UN to make a case, I believe, for action on Iraq, on the basis of Saddam`s capacity to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Will he then make a case for the return of weapons inspectors?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: First of all, the better part of wisdom is allowing the President to make the news and to await his words to see just what he calls for, but as a general matter, I believe he will make the case against Iraq. I think he`ll also point out the fact that the UN Security Council has some responsibilities in the matter. After all, there are any number of Security Council resolutions, that refer to Iraq and the responsibilities Iraq has under those resolutions. And every single one of those resolutions has been flaunted by Iraq as she thumbs her nose at the international community, and more particularly the US Security Council. So, if the UN is not to go the way of the League of Nations, then it`s time for the Security Council to accept some of these responsibilities.

JANA WENDT: And if the Security Council does not accept some of these responsibilities would the US go it alone on this?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: The US always has that right, but our preferred option is to move forward with like-minded friends and allies.

JANA WENDT: Vice-President Cheney has recently said that weapons inspections would give, in his words, false comfort that Saddam was back in his box. Is that still the administration`s view?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, I think the Vice-President was referring to weapons inspectors as they existed in the mid-90s, where they found themselves thwarted, restricted, kept out of various locations - that indeed would give false comfort. But I think an unrestricted inspection regime would be another matter entirely.

JANA WENDT: But does the Administration`s view remain that there is a need for a regime change, with or without inspectors, as a White House spokesman put it?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: The position of the Bush Administration is that a regime change is called for.

JANA WENDT: With or without inspectors?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Absolutely. The inspectors would help aid in identifying the status of the programs of Saddam Hussein regime`s attempts to garner weapons of mass destruction or to further develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. But over time, it`s quite clear that Saddam Hussein and his top henchmen are the ones responsible for subjugation of their own population and the mischief that is created in the area.

JANA WENDT: Secretary, as someone with a particular knowledge of this area, do you have any fears that a US strike on Iraq may destabilise this region as clearly Dr Mahathir of Malaysia fears?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, we are very attentive to the implications of any activities in Iraq. You are making the assumption in your question that a military attack is the only answer, and I don`t quite hold that. I don`t think the President believes that it is an option. The President has not made that decision. But on the question of destabilisation in your region, or in the Middle East at large, these are matters that are very carefully pored over by the Administration and discussed at great length. And I think we will do our absolute utmost as we more forward, to make sure that destabilising activities are kept to a minimum, and indeed the area is left in a much better condition post-Saddam Hussein than it is now.

JANA WENDT: If we then hypothesise for a moment, as you say, a military strike on Iraq is one option, let`s say you take up that option, Dr Mahathir, for instance, is saying that that would crystallise a view in the Muslim world that this was indeed a clash of civilisations. Now, strong talk, what do you think?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, we reject first of all the notion put forward several years ago of the clash of civilisations. Second of all, with all due respect for Dr Mahathir, it`s quite clear that what has been going on in Iraq, among other things, has been a Sunni domination over the Shi`ite inside Iraq and that`s not a clash of civilisation, that`s a clash of religious cultures inside of Iraq itself. So, I think that if the administration and hopefully the international community proceeds with care, then we will obviate the suggestion of a clash of civilisations.

JANA WENDT: Finally, let me put this to you. Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger says that if the US takes up this right of a pre-emptive strike, that it may well be used then by India, as justification to act against Pakistan. Now, what moral authority would the US have to argue against that, if it had itself struck Iraq?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Well, we`ve had several discussions, I myself have had many discussions with the Indian Government on just this matter, and I think one has to think through carefully, the outcome, the possible collateral course of action. For instance, I think if I were an Indian leader, I`d have to think to myself, "Is it better to have a Pakistan whom I recognise and which I recognise, rather than a failed state on my border." Number two, as Pakistan is a neighbour of India, a massive attack like that might mean an attempted occupation, which would bog India down for a long, long time. So, I think there are plenty of reasons for our friends in India to be very cautious. They will not, of course, give up their right of self-defence, nor will any nation, but I think they`ve got very thoughtful leadership and that they`ve gone about this business very thoughtfully.

JANA WENDT: And when you talk to the Indian leadership in this way, are you confident that they`re hearing you?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: You know, I go to work every day and I`m not confident of very much other than I`m going to do my best to assist my Government to do what we think is best for ourselves and our nation. I`m confident that I`ll continue these discussions, I`m confident that both leaders in Pakistan and India want the good offices of the US to continue to be exerted. At the highest levels in both countries, they`ve told me just that. That`s all I`m confident of.

JANA WENDT Well, Secretary Armitage, thank you very much for your time this evening.