FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:47PM P2

First of all, what do you think of the two presidential
candidates, Al Gore and Georges W Bush ? Is electing one or
the other a fundemantal choice?

- You have to know that I'm a supporter of Georges W Bush and
my
answers has to be interpreted from that point of view. I think
there is an important difference. To me, Gore would be a kind
of continuation of the Clinton approach in foreign policy
which is sort of sociological and psychiatric. In the sense
that he
believes that personnal relationships with world leaders are
of principal importance. And secondly, that the
transformations of the social structures of the countries he's
dealing with is a guarantee for good international relations.
In my view, the republican approach would be something more
oriented with a definition of the national interests. And to
an understanding of the geopolitical elements. Of course, no
american president can be indifferent to the future of
democracy or human rights. But it is a question of the
relative priorities given to various elements. But I'm not
speaking for Governor Bush. I speak for myself.

In other words, Gore has more a « wilsonian » approach and
Bush is more inspired by Teddy Roosvelt principals?

- Yes. And also, a difference bebetween a wilsonian approach
and a more orientated one towards domestic politics. Bush
would have a more international approach, just like Teddy
Roosvelt had indeed.

What do you think as Georges Bush as a leader.

- Georges W Bush is a man whose capacity to lead is more
comparable to Reagan than say to Clinton or Jimmy Carter. That
is to say, he will understand the big issues and he will
concentrate on them. He doesn't pretend to master every

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:47PM P3

details of every foreign policy issues. But he will be
surrounded by people of considerable abilities.

At the dawn of this new century, America has more power,
military and economically, than any other country in the
history of humankind. Still, the USA doesn't seem to have a
clear vision of what their role should be in today's world.
What should be american policy for the next 10 or 20 years?

- One has to remember that any country is a product of his history. Even France.

Specially France!

- The United States has been a country which until world war I really did not have to deal with foreign policy. Indeed in the european sense at all. There was no country capable of threatening the USA, there was no economic situation that directly affected the USA. Then we entered world war one for a variety of reasons. But what America was thinking of herself was they were fighting to make the world safer for democracy and that they would end the european approach to foreign policy by spreading democracy and self determination around the world. Then, America entered the second world war again this time in response to what appeared to american as unprovoked agression and overwhelming danger. So until the end of world war II, America has never had experience with a permanent foreign policy. For the cold war, foreign policy was conducted in response to what appeared as an overwhelming danger from the Soviet Union. There is only in the last 20 years that the USA had to face what every european nation has always faced, namely that there is no escaping in foreign policy. That One is permanently involved and that there is no final solutions to every problems. That every problem resolved is an admission ticket for an other problem. And of course, in that manner, that means facing rebellion in the american psyche. In this sense, the issues are unresolved. For instance, what are we trying to do with China? Are we trying to make it democratic

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:48PM P4

or do we want to build it into an international system? Or,
are these problems identical ? Is Russia a strategic problem
or is Russia a problem simply of changing structures to free
elections? What is the significance of the European community?
Can you have European unity and permanent cooperation with the
USA or will european unity lead to increased tensions ? These
are the questions that need to be dealt within the next decade
and to which that does not now exist clear answers. Nor can
one ever expect to ever clear answers to it.

You've mentionned it: One of the major problem today seems to
be the relationships with China. On one hand, it's a soon to
become super power with whom America has to deal with on a
pragmatical level but at the same time, their political system
is far from our democratic views and is more or less in
contradiction with our moral values. Therefore, what should be
american approach towards China?

- First of all, one has to put a time frame on it. China will not be a superpower for a generation. You are talking of a gradual increase of China's power. And that is assuming that the present state of growth continues uninterruptedly which is also unlikely. Secondly, China is not a democracy but it's also not as totalitarian as the Soviet Union. Its ideology make no universal claim. They do not claim to control communist factions around the world. And it is more similar to Mexico before the reforms than it is to the Soviet Union under Staline. Then, we deal with a lot of governments around the world that are not democratics. And we deal with a lot of governments that claim to be democratics that are not really democratic. So the question is, America's foreign policy and over that matter, european's foreign policy, should be driven entirely by the domestic structures of the countries concerned, independant of what the country does abroad? There is no doubt there are violation of human dignity that are so offensive to our principles they must affect our foreign policy. But I believe that the evolutionnary factors in China are potentially quite positive. I believe our relations with China should be based on the proposition that a country of the magnitude of China, that is going through huge changes domestically, changes that

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:48PM P5

are about to affect its domestic structures must be related to
the international system in a constructive way. A policy of
isolating China and making it believe it is facing an other
species of western intervention, for which they have had
unfortunate experiences for 150 years, would be counter-
productive.

Should american soldiers die for Taiwan?

- I believe the Taiwan problem should be solved and can be solved without war on the basis of three principles. One, that United States should adhere to the principle of one China. Two, that the chinese should takes seriously the american concern for a peaceful solution. Three, that the taiwanese behave with restrain in that context. And if these three principles are maintained, as I believe they can be, there will not be a war on Taiwan.

What do you think of Madeleine Albright at the head of the
State department?

- When you've been secretary of state, you don't overanalysed
your successor. She does a competent job in a difficult period
and she's a personal friend of mine so I will not comment
more than that.

Wasn't the intervention in Kosovo which has been called
Madeleine's war, what you don't like in Foreign policy namely
motivated by moral reasons rather than strategic necessities?

- You can't blame Kosovo on the United States because after
all the negociations that led up to it were conducted in
Rambouillet. And there was no compulsion of the french
government to conduct the negociations. In fact, technically,
Vedrine and Cook were the chairmen not Albright. There was a
moral issue here. There was a great amount of human rights

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:49PM P6

violations taking place in Kosovo. But I have also believed
that the Rambouillet approach was the wrong way to deal with
this. And I believe also it was contrary to the principles of
NATO. And I finally believe that more lives could have been
saved and less ethnic cleansing would have taken place with a
more nuanced approach, such as those proposed by Ambassador
Holbrook that gave a larger role to UN observers.

Then, under what circumstances should America send troops
abroad?

- When America goes to war, it must be for a cause which is willing to explain to the mothers of the soldiers who get killed. To go to war without being willing to get casualties indicates you don't consider it a vital interest. Otherwise, you would be prepared to die for it. There is a dichotomy with saying « we're going to war but we don't want to suffer any casualties ». I would think that for issues in which the fundamental interests are involved, we should be prepared to go to war. Like the defense of Europe certainly, the gulf war in which I was a strong supporter of military action but I didn't favor military intervention in Kosovo especially not on the Rambouillet basis.

Would Taiwan be a vital interest?

- It must be the objective of the United States not to let it come to this point. As the chinese have to understand that whatever may be the abstract view of the national interest, american public opinion would not accept the military conquest of Taiwan. That is a fact of life. But it is also incumbent to United States to understand that this is an issue of profund historical and sociological significance to China. And therefore, it's not an issue that should be turned into a test of strength.

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:49PM P7

How do you think the Clinton's administration has handled the
middle east Problem, especially at Camp David, a couple of
weeks ago? It may not have been a failure since Yasser Arafat
said recently he may reconsider the date of 13th of September
as the declaration of a palestinian state?

- Actually, I don't think there will be a declaration of
independence on September 13. I believe that negociations are
still continuing with some possibilities of success. I think
it's dangerous to schedule a summit with a fixed deadline. One
remembers that the first Camp David summit took twelve days
for the Sinai which was its simple issue. To schedule the
whole complex of the palestinian question for nine days was a
daring move. It's a difficult negociation if you conduct
negociations in such a way that the issue left concerns
something of the most fundamental principles for both sides.
Then you ask them to compromise. That is very difficult to do
if there is no bargaining space left.

It is not always clear what the United States think of the
European community. They regard the unity of Europe as a
partnership but also as a threat somehow?

- We don't quite know but neither the europeans. We don't yet know how the european have decided to organize themself. How large it is, how integrated it is. There is no doubt that the America has gotten used to Europe under the impact of its fear of Soviet Union as being very ready to accept american leadership. There is also no question that a unified Europe and no longer threaten by the Soviet Union developps its own ideas more systematically. That doesn't bother me and in the long run, that is desirable. What worries americans, serious americans, what worries me is the tendency to base european identity on opposition to the United States. Or on the preposition that it is Europe mission to limit the hyper power of the United States. It's one thing to say inevitably the strengling of Europe will limit the united states range. That's a reality. It's an other to say it's the purpose of Europe. And too many European leaders are saying the later.

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:50PM P8

What do you think should be the american policy towards the
nuclear proliferation and should USA prevents by any means
necessary the emergence of new nuclear countries?

- It depends on the country. There are some countries where I would be very sympathetic to prevent the proliferation but in concert with other countries that are concerned. In the case of the indian nuclear program, it is hard to make the proposition that India is not permitted to have nuclear weapons. Especially

when Indian neighbors have nuclear weapons. There are some
categories of country where it should be important to build
into an international regiment for nuclear weapons. But there
is no doubt that the unrestrained spread of nuclear weapons
into

less and less responsible answers represents a danger for
humanity that will have to be dealt with.

You are thinking of countries like Iran for instance?

- We can not be indifferent to the development of nuclear capabilities in Iran. But Europe will be threatened before we are.

What is the future of Russia?

- Putin looks like a return to a tsarist regime with some democratic in paraphernalia. If he succeeds in reestablishing authority and if he can manage to impose a legal system, I believe the economy will recover very quickly and will attract a fair amount of investment. It will then be somehow more difficult to deal with. But the real political question is: For the first time in his history, will Russia be contempt with living in the borders of Peter the Great, which still gives

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 06:51PM P9

them 11 time zones from St petersbourgh to Vladivostock. So
there is no reason for claustrophobia... BUT if they try to
reconstitute the old tsarist strategic frontier, its relations
with Europe and ultimately with us will again achieve historic
proportions. If it accepts its present limits, then I believe
its relationships with Europe and with USA can systematically
improve. But I believe even today Russia should be made part
of consultative processes so that it is clear to its leaders
that
it's being treated like a great power. Even when it is not yet
a great power.

Shouldn't the United States change their political approach
with Cuba and how do you explain Castro has been able to
survive the fall of communism?

- It's on an island, he's bold. I think this is basically
an american domestic debate issue that will be discussed after
the elections. I have publicly recommend the creation of a bi
partisan commission to take it out of politics and make
recommendations.

Should USA lift the sanctions against Cuba?

- It's an issue that bi partisan commission should examin. I wouldn't have recommend a bi partisan commission if I wasn't open to the idea.

If Georges Bush was elected, would you accept a post in his administration?

- As a general proposition I have always believed one should respond to a president's request. If I were to define my own strong preference it is to act as an elder statement adviser on the outside, available for crisis but not for a permanent position.

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:15PM P2

First of all, what do you think of the two presidential
candidates, Al Gore and Georges W Bush ? Is electing one or
the other a fundamental choice?

- You have to know that I'm a supporter of Georges W Bush and my answers has to be interpreted from that point of view. I think there is an important difference. To me, Gore would be a kind of continuation of the Clinton approach in foreign policy which is sort of sociological and psychiatric. In the sense that he believes that personal relationships with world leaders are of principal importance. And secondly, that the transformations of the social structures of the countries he's dealing with is a guarantee for good international relations. In my view, the republican approach would be something more oriented with a definition of the national interests. And to an understanding of the geopolitical elements. Of course, no american president can be indifferent to the future of democracy or human rights. But it is a question of the relative priorities given to various elements. But I'm not speaking for Governor Bush. I speak for myself.

- Yes. And also, a difference between a wilsonian approach
and a more orientated one towards domestic politics. Bush
would have a more international approach, just like Teddy
Roosvelt had indeed.

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:16PM P3

Specially France!

- The United States has been a country which until world war I really did not have to deal with foreign policy. Indeed in the european sense at all. There was no country capable of threatening the USA, there was no economic situation that directly affected the USA. Then we entered world war one for a variety of reasons. But what America was thinking of herself was they were fighting to make the world safer for democracy and that they would end the european approach to foreign policy by spreading democracy and self determination around the world. Then, America entered the second world war again this time in response to what appeared to american as unprovoked aggression and overwhelming danger. So until the end of world war II, America has never had experience with a permanent foreign policy. For the cold war, foreign policy was conducted in response to what appeared as an overwhelming danger from the Soviet Union. There is only in the last 20 years that the USA had to face what every european nation has always faced, namely that there is no escaping in foreign policy. That One is permanently involved and that there is no final solutions to every problems. That every problem resolved is an admission ticket for an other problem. And of course, in that manner, that means facing rebellion in the american psyche. In this sense, the issues are unresolved. For instance, what are we trying to do with China? Are we trying to make it democratic

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:17PM P4

You've mentioned it: One of the major problem today seems to
be the relationships with China. On one hand, it's a soon to
become super power with whom America has to deal with on a
pragmatical level but at the same time, their political system
is far from our democratic views and is more or less in
contradiction with our moral values. Therefore, what should be
american approach towards China?

- First of all, one has to put a time frame on it. China will not be a superpower for a generation. You are talking of a gradual increase of China's power. And that is assuming that the present state of growth continues uninterruptedly which is also unlikely. Secondly, China is not a democracy but it's also not as totalitarian as the Soviet Union. Its ideology make no universal claim. They do not claim to control communist factions around the world. And it is more similar to Mexico before the reforms than it is to the Soviet Union under Staline. Then, we deal with a lot of governments around the world that are not democracies. And we deal with a lot of governments that claim to be democratics that are not really democratic. So the question is, America's foreign policy and over that matter, european's foreign policy, should be driven entirely by the domestic structures of the countries concerned, independant of what this country does abroad? There is no doubt there are violation of human dignity that are so offensive to our principles they must affect our foreign policy. But I believe that the evolutionnary factors in China are potentially quite positive. I believe our relations with China should be based on the proposition that a country of the magnitude of China, that is going through huge changes domestically, changes that

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:17PM P5

- You can't blame Kosovo on the United States because after
all the negociations that led up to it were conducted in
Rambouillet. And there was no compulsion of the french
government to conduct the negociations. In fact, technically,
Vedrine and Cook were the chairmen not Albright. I will grant
the

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:18PM P6

fact that there was a moral issue here. There was a great amount of human rights violations taking place in Kosovo. But I have also believed that the Rambouillet approach was the wrong way to deal with this. And I believe also it was contrary to the principles of NATO. And I finally believe that more lives could have been saved and less ethnic cleansing would have taken place with a more nuanced approach, such as those promised by Ambassador Holbrook that gave a larger role to UN observers.

What about what happened in Rwanda? Facing such atrocities, with no vital interests, what should be the American attitude?

- I'm not expert on Africa but I think in a situation like Rwanda or Sierra Leone where you have slaughters where it is a conflict between power groups and not a long historical ethnic conflict and where the slaughters could be stopped relatively easily, I would actually be more sympathetic to intervention there than in something like Kosovo that has a long historical basis which is very hard to understand unless you understand the history of the ottoman empire, the austrian and other empires that have dominated in that area. And above all it was unprecedented for NATO to make a demand that a country should permit free transit through its territories, to take over the administration of the province of that country, is so contrary to anything NATO was designed to do that I do not believe it was the appropriate way of dealing with it. I would have prefered to strengthen the UN observers, to threaten if there had been massive violation and to do it more on a case by case basis.

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:18PM P7

- Actually, I don't think there will be a declaration of independance on September 13. I believe that negociations are still continuing with some possibilities of success. I think it's dangerous to schedule a summit with a fixed deadline. One remembers that the first Camp David summit took twelve days for the Sinai which was its simple issue. To schedule the whole complex of the palestinian question for nine days was a daring move. It's a difficult negociation if you conduct negociations in such a way that the issue left concerns something of the most fundamental principles for both sides.

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0146601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:19PM P8

- We don't quite know but neither the americans. We don't yet know how the european have decided to organize themself. How large it is, how integrated it is. There is no doubt that the America has gotten used to Europe under the impact of its fear of Soviet Union as being very ready to accept american leadership. There is also no question that a unified Europe and no longer threaten by the Soviet Union developps its own ideas more systematically. That doesn't bother me and in the long run, that is desirable. What worries americans, serious americans, what worries me is the tendency to base european identity on opposition to the United States. Or on the preposition that it is Europe mission to limit the hyper power of the United States. It's one thing to say inevitably the strenghing of Europe will limit the united states range. That's a reality. It's an other to say it's the purpose of Europe. And too many European leaders are saying the later.

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0116601763

Aug. 25 2000 03:19PM P9

- We can not be indifferent to the development of nuclear capabilities in Iran. But Europe will be threaten before we are.

What is the future of Russia?

FROM : CLERGEAT ANDRE

PHONE NO. : 0145501753

Aug. 23 2000 03:20PM P10

AUG 1 7 2000

1633 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10019

Attention to: Rebecca

From: Romain Clergeat (Paris Match)

Dear Rebecca,

here's the transcript of the interview. Remind Mr Kissinger that it will be
translated in french (A language I'm much more comfortable with...) and the
mistakes or mispelling won't remain in the edited version.

Could you fax it back, once corrected, at my NY office (Fax No: (212) 489
56 20) no later than next Thursday (the 24th of August)?

Thank you

Romain Clergeat

TELEPHONE: (212) 767-6328 FAX: (212) 767-5621

First of all, what do you think of the two presidential candidates, Al Gore or
Georges W Bush ? Is electing one or the other a fundamental choice?

- You have to know that I'm a supporter of Georges W Bush and my answers have to be interpreted from that point of view. I think there is an important difference. To me, Gore would be a kind of continuation of the Clinton approach in foreign policy which is sort of sociological and psychiatric. In the sense that he believes that personal relationships with world leaders are of principal importance. and secondly, that the transformations of the social structures of the countries he's dealing with is a guarantee for good relations. In my view, the republican approach, I'm not necessarily speaking of Bush, would be something more oriented with a definition of the american interests. And to an understanding of the geopolitical elements. Of course, no american president can be indifferent to the future of democracy or human rights. But it is a question of the relative priorities given to various elements. But I'm not speaking for Governor Bush. I speak for myself.

In other words, Gore has more a "wilsonian" approach and Bush is more inspired by Teddy Roosevelt principals?

- Yes. And also, a difference between a wilsonian approach and a more orientated one towards domestic politics. Bush would have a more global approach, just like Teddy Roosevelt had indeed.

What do you think as Georges Bush as a leader?

- Georges W Bush is a man whose capacity to lead is more comparable to Reagan than say to Clinton or Jimmy Carter. That is to say, he will understand the big issues and he will concentrate on them. He doesn't pretend to master every detail of every foreign policy issue. But he will be surrounded by people of considerable abilities.

At the dawn of this new century, America has more power, military and economically, than any other country in the history of humankind. Still, the USA doesn't seem to have a clear vision of what their role should be in today's world. What should be American policy for the next 10 or 20 years?

Specially France!

- The United States has been a country which until world war I really did not have to deal with foreign policy. Indeed in the european sense at all. There was no country capable of threatening the USA, there was no economic situation that directly affected the USA. Then we entered world war one for a variety of reasons. But what America was thinking of herself was they were fighting to make the world safer for democracy and that they would end the European approach to foreign policy by spreading democracy and self determination around the world. Then, there was an other period where America ended the war again this time in response to what appeared to

americans as unprovoked aggression and overwhelming danger. So until the end of world war II, America has never had experience with a permanent foreign policy. Then the permanent foreign policy that was conducted was in response to again an overwhelming danger from the Soviet Union. There is only in the last 20 years that the USA had to face what every european nation has always faced, namely that there is no escaping in foreign policy. That One is permanently involved and that there is no final solutions to every problems. That every problem resolved is an admission ticket for an other problem. And of course, in that manner, that means facing rebellion in the american psyche. In this sense, the issues are unresolved. For instance, what are we trying to do with China? Are we trying to make it democratic or do we want to build it into an international system? Is Russia a strategic problem or is Russia a problem simply of changing structures to free elections? What is the significance of the European community? Can you have European unity and permanent cooperation with the USA and if it isn't cooperative what else is it? These are the questions that need to be dealt within the next decade and to which that does not now exist clear answers. Nor can one ever expect to ever clear answers to it.

You've mentioned it: One of the major problem today seems to be the relationships with China. On one hand, it's a soon to become super power with whom America has to deal with on a pragmatical level but at the same time, their political system is far from our democratic views and is more or less in contradiction with our moral values. Therefore, what should be the american approach towards China?

- First of all, one has to put a time frame on it. China will not be a superpower for a generation. You are talking of a gradual increase of China's power. And that is assuming that the present state of growth continues uninterruptedly which is also unlikely. Secondly, China is not a democracy but it's also not as stiff as the Soviet Union. Its ideology make no universal claim. They do not claim to control communists by his outside. And it is more similar to Mexico before the reforms than it is to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Then, we deal with a lot of governments around the world that are not democratic. And we deal with a lot of governments that claim to be democratic that are not really democratic. So the question is, America's foreign policy and over that matter, european's foreign policy, should be driven entirely by the domestic structures of the countries concerned, independent of what the United States of America does abroad? There is no doubt their level of violation of human dignity that are so offensive to our principles must affect our foreign policy. And I am not saying that any country has the right to have concentration camps, gas chambers but what that point is: each country has to consider it carefully. And I believe that the evolutionary factors in China are potentially quite positive. I believe our relations with China should be based on the proposition that a country of the magnitude of China, that is going through huge changes domestically, changes that are about to affect its domestic structures must be related to the international system in a constructive way. A policy of isolating China and making it believe it is an other species of western intervention, for which they have had unfortunate experiences for 150 years, would be counter-productive.

- I believe the Taiwan problem should be solved and can be solved without war. I have said three principles with Taiwan. One, that United States should adhere to the principle of one China. Two, that the Chinese should take seriously the American concern for a peaceful solution. Three, that the Taiwanese behave with restraint in that context. And if these three principles are maintained, as I believe they can be, there will not be a war on Taiwan.

- When you've been secretary of state, you don't over analyzed your successor. It's a tough job in a difficult period and she's a personal friend of mine so I will not comment more than that.

- Things are divided here. You can't blame it on the United States because after all the negotiations that led up to it were conducted in Rambouillet. And there was no compulsion of the French government to conduct the negotiations. In fact, technically, they were chairman, Vedrine and Cook, but the chairmen, not Albright. Secondly I will grant the fact that there was a moral issue here. And that there was a great amount of human rights violations taking place in Kosovo. I have also never believed that the Rambouillet approach was the right way to deal with

this. And I believe also it was contrary
finally believe that more lives could have
would have taken place with a more nu-

*promised* by Ambassador Holbrooke
*recognized*

- I'm not expert on Africa but I think in a situation like Rwanda or Sierra Leone where you have slaughters where it is a conflict between power groups and not a long historical ethnic conflict and where the slaughters could be stopped relatively easily, I would actually be more sympathetic to intervention there or in situations like that I would be to intervene in something like Kosovo that has a long historical basis which is very hard to understand unless you understand the history of the ottoman empire, the austrian and other empires that have *dominated* in that area. And also for NATO to make a demand that a country should permit free transit through its territories, to take over the administration of the province of that country, is so contrary to anything NATO was designed to do that I do not believe it was the appropriate way of dealing with it. I would have preferred to strengthen the UN observers, to threaten if there had been massive violation and to do it more on a case by case basis.

this. And I believe also it was contrary to
finally believe that more lives could have
would have taken place with a more nu-

*promised* by Ambassador Holbrooke in
*recognized*

What about what happened in Rwanda?
interests, what should be the American at

this. And I believe also it was contrary to the principles of NATO. And I
finally believe that more lives could have been saved and less ethnic cleansing
would have taken place with a more nuanced approach, - Such as Those
promised by Ambassador Holbrooke that gave a larger role to UN observers,
perceived
What about what happened in Rwanda?

- I'm not expert on Africa but I think in a situation like Rwanda or Sierra Leone where you have slaughters where it is a conflict between power groups and not a long historical ethnic conflict and where the slaughters could be stopped relatively easily, I would actually be more sympathetic to intervention there or in situations like that. I would be to intervene in something like Kosovo that has a long historical basis which is very hard to understand unless you understand the history of the ottoman empire, the austrian and other empires that have, in that area. And also for NATO to make a demand that a country should permit free transit through its territories, to take over the administration of the province of that country, is so contrary to anything NATO was designed to do that I do not believe it was the appropriate way of dealing with it. I would have preferred to strengthen the UN observers, to threaten if there had been massive violation and to do it more on a case by case basis.

being willing to get casualties indicates you don't consider it a vital interest. Otherwise, you would be prepared to die for it. There is a dichotomy with saying "we're going to war but we don't want to suffer any casualties". I would think that for issues in which the fundamental interests are involved, we should be prepared to go to war. Like the defense of Europe certainly, the gulf war in which I was a strong supporter of military action but I didn't favor military intervention in Kosovo especially not on the Rambouillet basis.

- It must be the objective of the United States not to let it come to this point. As the Chinese have to understand that whatever may be the abstract view of the national interest, American public opinion would not accept the military conquest of Taiwan. That is a fact of life. But it is also incumbent on United States to understand that this is an issue of profound historical and sociological significance to China. And therefore, it's not an issue that should be turned into a test of strength.

How do you think the Clinton's administration has handled the Middle East Problem, especially at Camp David, a couple of weeks ago? It may not have been a failure since Yasser Arafat said recently he may reconsider the date of 13th of September as the declaration of a Palestinian state?

- Actually, I don't think there will be a declaration of independence on September 13. I believe that negotiations are still continuing with some possibilities of success. So I don't want to comment too much on that. I think

it's dangerous to schedule a summit with a fixed deadline. One remembers
that the first Camp david summit took twelve days for the Sinai which was a
simple issue. To schedule the whole complex of the palestinian question for
nine days was a daring move. And it didn't work. It's difficult if you conduct
negotiations in such a way that the issue left concerns something of the most
fundamental principles for both sides. Then you ask them to compromise.
That is very difficult to do if there is no trade left, bargaining space left,

It is not always clear what the United States think of the European
community. They regard the unity of Europe as a good thing but also as a
threat somehow?

- We don't quite know but neither the europeans. We don't yet know how
the european have decided to organize themselves. How large it is? how
integrated it is? There is no doubt that the America has gotten used to Europe
under the impact of its fear of Soviet Union as being very ready to accept
american leadership. There is also no question that a unified Europe and no
longer threaten by the Soviet Union develops its own ideas more
systematically. That doesn't bother me and in the long run, that is desirable.
What worries americans, serious americans, what worries me is the tendency
to base european identity on opposition to the United States. Or on the
preposition that it is Europe mission to limit the hyper power of the United
States. It's one thing to say inevitably the strengthening of Europe will limit the
united states range. That's a reality. It's an other to say it's the purpose of
Europe. And too many European leaders are saying the later.

What do you think should be the american policy towards the nuclear proliferation and should USA prevent it by any means necessary the emergence of new nuclear countries?

- It depends on the country. There are some countries where I would be very sympathetic to prevent the ignition of nuclear weapons in concert with other countries that are concerned. In the case of the Indian nuclear program, it is hard to make the proposition that India is not permitted to have nuclear weapons. Especially when Indian neighbors have nuclear weapons. There are some categories of country where it should be important to build into an international regiment for nuclear weapons. But there is no doubt that the unrestrained spread of nuclear weapons into less and less responsible answers represents a danger for humanity that will have to be dealt with.

- I don't have come to a clear point about what we should do. But we can not be indifferent to the development of nuclear capabilities in Iran. But Europe will be threatened before we are.

What is the future of Russia?

- Putin looks like a return to a zarist regime with some democratic in paraphernalia. If he succeeds in reestablishing authority and if he can manage to impose a legal system, I believe the economy will recover very quickly and will attract a fair amount of investment. It will then be somehow more difficult

to deal with. But I believe even today Russia should be made hard of
consultative processes so that it is clear to its leaders that it's being treated
like a great power. Even when it is not yet a great power.

- It's on an island, he's courageous. I think this is basically an american
domestic debate issue that will be discussed during the elections. I have
publicly recommend the creation of a bi partisan commission to take it out of
politics and make recommendations.

- It's an issue that bi partisan commission should examine. I wouldn't have
recommend a bi partisan commission if I wasn't open to the idea.

- I have not addressed this question. As a general proposition I have always
believed one should respond to a president's request. If I were to define my
own strong preference it is to act as an eldest statement adviser on the
outside, available for crisis but not for a permanent position.

Aug 21 00 11:09a

P·D

- Georges W Bush is a man whose capacity to lead is more comparable to
Reagan than say to Clinton or Jimmy Carter. That is to say, he will understand
the big issues and he will concentrate on them. He doesn't pretend to master
every detail of every foreign policy issues. But he will be surrounded by
people of considerable abilities.

Specially France!

- The United States has been a country which until world war I really did not
have to deal with foreign policy. Indeed in the european sense at all. There
was no country capable of threatening the USA, there was no economic
situation that directly affected the USA. Then we ended world war one for a
variety of reasons. But what America was thinking of herself was they were
fighting to make the world safer for democracy and that they would end the
European approach to foreign policy by spreading democracy and self
determination around the world. Then, there was an other period where
America ended the war again this time in response to what appeared to

americans as unprovoked aggression and overwhelming danger. So until the end of world war II, America has never had experience with a permanent foreign policy. Then the permanent foreign policy that was conducted was only in the last 20 years that the USA had to face what every european has always faced, namely that there is no escaping in foreign policy. That is permanently involved and that there is no final solutions to every problems. That every problem resolved is an admission ticket for an other problem. And of course, in that manner, that means facing rebellion in the american psyche.

In this sense, the issues are unresolved. For instance, what are we trying to do with China? Are we trying to make it democratic or do we want to build an international system? Is Russia a strategic problem or is Russia a problem simply of changing structures to free elections? What is the significance of the problem? Is there an European community? Can you have European unity and permanent cooperation with the USA, and if it isn't cooperative, what else is it? The questions that need to be dealt within the next decade and to which does not now exist clear answers. Nor can one ever expect to ever clear answers to it.

what
appeared
as

Or are these
two problems
identical?

increased
weakened?

Aug 21 1990 12 3:09AM

americans as unprovoked aggression and overwhelming danger. So end of world war II, America has never had experience with a permanent foreign policy. Then the permanent foreign policy that was conducted only in the last 20 years that the USA had to face what every eurozone has always faced, namely that there is no escaping in foreign policy is permanently involved and that there is no final solutions to every problems. That every problem resolved is an admission ticket for an other problem. And of course, in that manner, that means facing rebellion in the american psyche. In this sense, the issues are unresolved. For instance, what are we trying to do with China? Are we trying to make it democratic or do we want to build an international system? Is Russia a strategic problem or is Russia a problem simply of changing structures to free elections? What is the significance of that? Is there a problem in the way that the questions that need to be dealt within the next decade and to what does not now exist clear answers. Nor can one ever expect to ever answers to it.

You've mentionned it: One of the major problem today seems to be the relationships with China. On one hand, it's a soon to become super power with whom America has to deal with on a pragmatical level but at the same time, their political system is far from our democratic views and is more or less in contradiction with our moral values. Therefore, what should be the american approach towards China?

Aug 21 00 11:09A

americans as unprovoked aggression and overwhelming danger. So until the end of world war II, America has never had experience with a permanent foreign policy. Then the permanent foreign policy that was conducted was in response to again an overwhelming danger from the Soviet Union. There is only in the last 20 years that the USA had to face what every european nation has always faced, namely that there is no escaping in foreign policy. That One is permanently involved and that there is no final solutions to every problems. That every problem resolved is an admission ticket for an other problem. And of course, in that manner, that means facing rebellion in the american psyche. In this sense, the issues are unresolved. For instance, what are we trying to do with China? Are we trying to make it democratic or do we want to build an international system? Is Russia a strategic problem or is Russia a problem simply of changing structures to free elections? What is the significance of the problem in the European community? Can you have European unity and permanent cooperation with the USA, and if it isn't cooperative, what else is it? These are the questions that need to be dealt within the next decade and to which that does not now exist clear answers. Nor can one ever expect to ever clear answers to it.

Aug 21 1990 12 20:06

- First of all, one has to put a time frame on it. China will not be a superpower for a generation. You are talking of a gradual increase of China's power. And that is assuming that the present state of growth continues uninterruptedly which is also unlikely. Secondly, China is not a democracy but it's also not as strong as the Soviet Union. Its ideology make no universal claim. They do not claim to control communists by his outside. And it is more similar to Mexico before the reforms than it is to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Then, we deal with a lot of governments around the world that are not democratic. And we deal with a lot of governments that claim to be democratic that are not really democratic. So the question is, America's foreign policy and over that matter, european's foreign policy, should be driven entirely by the domestic structures of the countries concerned, independent that this country does abroad is no doubt their level of violation of human dignity that are so offensive that it must be regarded as anathema to our principles must affect our foreign policy. And I am not saying that any country has the right to have concentration camps, gas chambers but what that is: each country has to consider it carefully. And I believe that the evolution of factors in China are potentially quite positive. I believe our relations with China should be based on the proposition that a country of the magnitude of China, that is going through huge changes domestically, changes that are about to affect its domestic structures must be related to the international system in a constructive way. A policy of isolating China and making it believe it is an other species of western intervention, for which they have had unfortunate experiences for 150 years, would be counter-productive.

8:01 11 00 12 PM

p.5