NATIONAL INTEREST Interview 4/24/06

Q. There are those who assert that the world "changed" after 9/11; that the international system of the 21st century is defined less by nation-states and increasingly by new elements—substate actors, transnational movements, and so on—the implication being that the U.S. experience of the Cold War era is increasingly becoming irrelevant as a guide for formulating foreign policy today. What would be your assessment?

A. It is true that **entirely** new elements have entered into international affairs, but the first question one has to answer is whether there are **there** general **principals** **principles** of foreign policy that you can apply **capable of being applied** all over the world, simultaneously **and** in the same manner. And I would question that. I **think** Different parts of the world are at different stages in their internal development and at different stages in the structure of the units that are composing it.

These new elements are more dominant in some areas of the world than others. So the worst mistake we could make is to say that there is one set of principles that we could apply everywhere in the same manner.

Let me make another distinction. [no ¶] Our convictions about what we are trying to achieve **can should be universal and constant**, but their application has to be adjusted to specific conditions in different regions.

Q. What would be your response to those who argue that the domestic nature of any given regime is now the most relevant factor in assessing its relationship with the United States?

The domestic nature of a regime is a **benchmark factor** that has to be considered. I **think** I would question, however, whether this can be the sole benchmark. **It** **The proposition** also **is** implies that we have an unlimited ability to affect the internal structure of regimes. And I would have my doubts about that, too.

The difference between the realist and the theoretical or idealistic school is usually not over objectives. The objectives are usually fairly parallel. The difference is in what **you** can **get be done** and **in what a specific** period of time; —and what you can meaningfully attempt to accomplish. That is a **significant difference**, whether a concept is its own legitimacy or whether practical limits should be adapted to culture and circumstances.

2

*Q. One of the issues of concern is whether a rising China will "buy into" the existing international system, as opposed to overturning it, as its power increases.*

A. The question is how do we define the international system. What does it mean to "buy into" the international system; what aspects do we want them to buy into?

I question the wisdom of basing *our* policy toward China on the assumption that *China it* is determined to overthrow the international system *by the use of military force*. and even more on the *A more accurate* assumption *is* that *it is* determined to do so by use of military force. China will seek to play a larger role within the international system, China will insist on playing a greater role, politically and economically, *because of its rapid growth*. And that is a challenge-of competition-to which we should pay attention.

In assessing the ultimate evolution of China, I think it is a mistake to look at China by The frequently made analogy of China to Imperial Germany is wrong. Imperial Germany provoked a war because, in a ten-year period prior to 1914, it challenged Britain's command of the seas with its naval buildup, and its diplomatic strategy was to humiliate most of the countries of Europe-France and Russia, in order to demonstrate to them that they were too weak to coalesce against Germany. And As a result they drove them closer together into an alliance eventually joined by Britain.

I have seen no indication that For the foreseeable future, China intends is unlikely to use its military forces as the principal element of its foreign policy. And I don't see why any theory it would predict be rational to expect that a China that is surrounded by major countries with significant military budgets would challenge the United States militarily in any way in the foreseeable future, over the next fifteen years, and exhaust itself in a military rivalry while it is doing so well economically.

China will insist on playing a greater role, politically and economically, because of its rapid growth. And that is a challenge-of competition-to which we should pay attention.

*Q. What should the United States be doing to enhance its global leadership?*

A. I would mute claims of hegemony.

Any international system that has ever lasted rested in part on an equilibrium of *between* powers and in part on consensus *among* powers. You cannot rest it on one or the other exclusively.

Q. Is there a danger that other major powers, including China and Russia, may decide to work more closely together to frustrate U.S. interests?

A. In purely military terms, it is very hard to construct a counterbalancing coalition to the United States. At the same time, the number of issues susceptible to a military solutions in military terms is also shrinking.

The existence or nonexistence of a balance Equilibrium has to be seen in terms of who lines up with whom on international issues. Looking at In the Iran negotiations we certainly cannot say that we have had an easy time achieving unanimity from our point of view consensus. There is a sort of counterbalancing-not in direct confrontation-but in mitigating toning down what we are proposing.

Russia may be tempted to pursue tactical rapprochement with China. For China, there can even be situations of strategic rapprochement. I don't think that the latter is the case for Russia because But any meaningful strategic rapprochement with China would be to move Russia further away from the United States and to give up the option of close ties with the United States. And if Russia moved itself into a position of long-term dependence on Chinese support. it This would run counter to the strategic realities Russia faces on its Far Eastern border given the decline in its population and negative demographic trends.

We cannot be fixated by things that are in the power of Russia and China to do. The right wise American policy is to establish close relations with both Russia and China. And we should conduct it on the basis that whenever possible, there should always be at least equal-if not greater-incentives or prospect of risks to cooperate with the United States than with each other. I think that should be relatively doable.

Therefore I do not see any sense in speculating how we should keep these two countries from working with each other two countries who have the power to do so and who believe it is in their benefit to do so. That should not be our concern. Our concern should be, what is our relationship with these countries.

Q. What is your assessment of the new U.S. approach to India?

A. It is an important and positive relationship. But we must understand what it is about. The common purpose is converging national interests, not an alignment against China. India will not be manipulated by us as a foil to China. That is not what brings them to closer relations with us. On the other hand

same time, if as India gets stronger it will become a more important factor in
the balance--that's a fact of life not as a favor to the United States but in pursuit
of its own interests. But, the purpose strategic goal of any U.S.-India
rapprochement, and how it is carried out, should not be aimed against China.
We cannot sign up India on an anti-Chinese course. have many important other
shared purposes.

I imagine that India will try to have close relations with China and Russia. That
is also a fact of life. Our option challenge is whether at any one point the
advantages of cooperating with us on what matters to us outweighs other
temptations. That is, after all, the meaning of foreign policy. And we are making
good progress on that.

Q. How does this approach play out with regards to Iran?

We have big decisions to make on Iran in the next year -- how far we will press
the anti-proliferation strategy as far as Iran is concerned and by what means.
and We cannot succeed diplomatically against Iran unless India, Russia, and
China and other powers are sympathetic to what we are trying to do.

The first thing we should do is to get a catalog consensus of what constitutes
the nature of the Iranian program. Do we have one year or ten? And Then
one would have to see what we need consensus on pressures we can bring to
bear other than military and incentives available by diplomatic action. I cannot
a priori exclude Military action is the last resort. and I think The Bush
Administration is right to keep it on the table.

Q. You were an architect of the international system during a period when the danger to the United States was apocalyptic in nature, but when there was a mechanism in place for managing the threat. Is the world safer today than during the days of the Cold War?

A. Today, I do not think there is a consensus on whether there is one overriding
threat. I think that The international system is less dangerous but less organized
then it was in that period. Now, it is less immediately dangerous but it is more
structurally dangerous. The threat, say, of a nuclear attack on the United States
may be less apocalyptic now, but it can come today from many more sources
today than twenty years ago.

NATIONAL INTEREST Interview

Q. There are those who assert that the world "changed" after 9/11; that the international system of the 21st century is defined less by nation-states and increasingly by new elements--substate actors, transnational movements, and so on - the implication being that the U.S. experience of the Cold War era is increasingly becoming irrelevant as a guide for formulating foreign policy today. What would be your assessment?

A. It is true that **entirely** new elements have entered into international affairs, but the first question one has to answer is whether there are **there** general **principals** **principles** of foreign policy **that you can apply capable of being applied** all over the world, simultaneously **and** in the same manner. **And** I would question that. **I think** Different parts of the world are at different stages in their internal development and at different stages in the structure of the units that are composing it.

The domestic nature of a regime is a **benchmark factor** that has to be considered. **I think** I would question, however, whether this can be the sole benchmark. **It** **The proposition** also **is** implies that we have an unlimited ability to affect the internal structure of regimes. And I would have my doubts about that, too.

The difference between the realist and the theoretical or idealistic school is usually not over objectives. The objectives are usually fairly parallel. The difference is in what **you can get done** and in what a **specific** period of time; —and what you can meaningfully attempt to accomplish. That is a **significant difference**. **Whether a concept is its own legitimacy or whether practical limits should be adapted to culture and circumstances.**

2

I question the wisdom of basing our policy toward China on the assumption that China **it** is determined to overthrow the international system **by the use of military force.** and even more on the **A more accurate** assumption is that **it is** determined to do so by use of military force. China will seek to play a larger role within the international system.

In assessing the ultimate evolution of China, I think it is a mistake to look at China by The frequently made analogy of China to Imperial Germany is wrong. Imperial Germany provoked a war because, in a ten-year period prior to 1914, it challenged Britain's command of the seas with its naval buildup, and its diplomatic strategy was to humiliate most of the countries of Europe - France and Russia, in order to demonstrate to them that they were too weak to coalesce against Germany. And As a result they drove them closer together into a Triple Alliance, eventually joined by Britain.

China will insist on playing a greater role, politically and economically, because of its rapid growth. And that is a challenge - of competition - to which we should pay attention.

Any international system that has ever lasted rested in part on an equilibrium of between powers and in part on consensus among powers. You cannot rest it on one or the other exclusively.

The existence or nonexistence of a balance **Equilibrium** has to be seen in terms of who lines up with whom on international issues. **Looking at** In the Iran negotiations we certainly cannot say that we have had an easy time achieving unanimity from our point of view **consensus**. There is a sort of counterbalancing—not in direct confrontation—but in mitigating toning down what we are proposing.

Russia may be tempted to pursue tactical rapprochement with China. **For** China, there can even be situations of strategic rapprochement. I don't think that the latter is the case for Russia because **But** any meaningful strategic rapprochement with China would **be to** move **Russia** further away from the United States and **to give up** the option of close ties with the United States. And if Russia moved itself into a position of **long-term** dependence on Chinese support. **It** **This** would run counter to the strategic realities Russia faces on its Far Eastern border, **the** decline in population and negative demographic trends.

We cannot be fixated by things that are in the power of Russia and China to do. The **right wise** American policy is to establish close relations with both Russia and China. And we should conduct it on the basis that whenever possible, there should always be at least equal—if not greater—incentives **or prospect of risks** to cooperate with the United States **than with each other**. I think that should be **relatively** doable.

Therefore I do not see any sense in speculating how we should keep these two countries from working with each other **two countries** who have the power to do so and who believe it is in their benefit to do so. **That should not be our concern.** Our concern should be, what is **our** relationship with these countries.

Q. What is your **assessment** of the new U.S. approach to India?

A. It is an important and positive relationship. **But** we must understand what it is about. The common purpose is converging national interests, not an alignment against China. India will not be manipulated by us as a foil to China. **That is not what brings them to closer relations with us. On the other hand** same time, **if** as India gets stronger it will become a more important factor in the balance—that's a fact of life **not as a favor to the United States but in pursuit**

of (A) But, the purpose of any U.S.-India rapprochement, and how it is carried
out, should not be aimed against China. We cannot sign up India on an anti-
~~Chinese course. have many important other shared purposes.~~
chall

I imagine that India will try to have close relations with China and Russia. That is also a fact of life. Our option whether at any one point the advantages of cooperating with us on what matters to us outweighs other temptations. That is, after all, the meaning of foreign policy. **And we are making good progress on that.**

We have big decisions to make on Iran in the next year -- how far we will press the anti-proliferation strategy as far as Iran is concerned and by what means. We cannot succeed diplomatically against Iran unless India, Russia, and China and other powers are sympathetic to what we are trying to do.

The first thing we should do is to get a catalog consensus of what constitutes the nature of the Iranian program. Do we have one year or ten? And Then one would have to see what we need consensus on pressures we can bring to bear other than military and incentives available by diplomatic action. I cannot a priori exclude Military action is the last resort, and I think The Bush Administration is right to keep it on the table.

NATIONAL INTEREST Interview

Q. There are those who assert that the world "changed" after 9/11; that the international system of the 21st century is defined less by nation-states and increasingly by new elements—substate actors, transnational movements, and so on — the implication being that the U.S. experience of the Cold War era is increasingly becoming irrelevant as a guide for formulating foreign policy today. What would be your assessment?

A. It is true that **entirely** new elements have entered into international affairs, but the first question one has to answer is whether there are **there** general **principals** **principles** of foreign policy **that you can apply capable of being applied** all over the world, simultaneously **and** in the same manner. And I would question that. **I think** Different parts of the world are at different stages in their internal development and at different stages in the structure of the units that are composing it.

Let me make another distinction. [no ¶] Our convictions about what we are trying to achieve **can should** be **universal and constant**, but their application has to be adjusted to specific conditions in different regions.

The domestic nature of a regime is a **benchmark factor** that has to be considered. **I think** I would question, however, whether this can be the sole benchmark. **It** **The proposition also is** implies that we have an unlimited ability to affect the internal structure of regimes. And I would have my doubts about that, too.

The difference between the realist and the theoretical or idealistic school is usually not over objectives. The objectives are usually fairly parallel. The difference is in what **you can get be** done **and** in what a **specific** period of time; —and what you can meaningfully attempt to accomplish. That is a **significant difference**. whether a concept is its own legitimacy or whether **practical limits** should be adapted to culture and circumstances.

2

I question the wisdom of basing our policy toward China on the assumption that China **it** is determined to overthrow the international system by the use of **military force.** and even more on the **A more accurate** assumption is that **it is** determined **to do so by use of military force.** China will seek to play a larger role within the international system.

In assessing the ultimate evolution of China, I think it is a mistake to look at China by The frequently made analogy of China to Imperial Germany is wrong. Imperial Germany provoked a war because, in a ten-year period prior to 1914, it challenged Britain's command of the seas with its naval buildup, and its diplomatic strategy was to humiliate most of the countries of Europe-France and Russia, in order to demonstrate to them that they were too weak to coalesce against Germany. And As a result they drove them closer together! into a Triple Alliance.

I have seen no indication that For the foreseeable future, China intends is unlikely to use its military forces as the principal element of its foreign policy. And I don't see why any theory it would predict be rational to expect that a China that is surrounded by major countries with significant military budgets would challenge the United States militarily in any way in the foreseeable future, over the next fifteen years. and exhaust itself in a military rivalry while it is doing so well economically.

China will insist on playing a greater role, politically and economically, **because** of its **rapid growth.** And that is a challenge-of competition-to which we should pay attention.

Any international system that has ever lasted rested in part on an equilibrium of **between** powers and in part on consensus **among** powers. You cannot rest it on one or the other exclusively.

3

*Q. Is there a danger that other major powers, including China and Russia, may decide to work more closely together to frustrate U.S. interests?*

A. In purely military terms, it is very hard to construct a counterbalancing coalition to the United States. At the same time, the number of issues susceptible to **a military solutions in military terms** is also shrinking.

**The existence or nonexistence of a balance Equilibrium** has to be seen in terms of who lines up with whom on international issues. *Looking at In* the Iran negotiations we certainly cannot say that we have had an easy time achieving **unanimity from our point of view consensus**. There is a sort of counterbalancing—not in direct confrontation—but in **mitigating toning down** what we are proposing.

Russia may be tempted to pursue tactical rapprochement with China. **For** China, there can even be situations of strategic rapprochement. I don't think that **the latter is the case for Russia because** But any meaningful strategic rapprochement with China would **be to move Russia** further away from the United States and **to give up the option of close ties with the United States. And if Russia moved itself into a position of long-term dependence on Chinese support. It** This would run counter to the strategic realities Russia faces on its Far Eastern border—the decline in population and negative demographic trends.

We cannot be fixated by things that are in the power of Russia and China to do. The **right wise** American policy is to establish close relations with both Russia and China. And we should conduct it on the basis that whenever possible, there should always be at least equal—if not greater—incentives **or prospect of risks** to cooperate with the United States **than with each other**. I think that should be **relatively doable**.

**Therefore** I do not see any sense in speculating how we should keep these two countries from working with each other **two countries** who have the power to do so and who believe it is in their benefit to do so. **That should not be our concern**. Our concern should be, what is **our relationship** with these countries.

*Q. What is your assessment of the new U.S. approach to India?*

A. It is an important and positive relationship. But we must understand what it is about. The common purpose is converging national interests, not an **alignment against China**. India will not be manipulated by us as a foil to China. **That is not what brings them to closer relations with us. On the other hand** same time, **if** as India gets stronger it will become a more important factor in the balance--**that's a fact of life** not as a **favor to the United States but in pursuit**

4

of (?). But, the purpose of any U.S.-India rapprochement, and how it is carried
out, should not be aimed against China. We cannot sign up India on an anti-
Chinese course. have many important other shared purposes.

I imagine that India will try to have close relations with China and Russia. That
is also a fact of life. Our option whether at any one point the advantages of
cooperating with us on what matters to us outweighs other temptations. That is,
after all, the meaning of foreign policy. And we are making good progress on
that.

A. It is true that new elements have entered into international affairs, but the first question one has to answer is whether there are general principles of foreign policy that you can apply all over the world, simultaneously, in the same manner. And I would question that.

I think different parts of the world are at different stages in their internal development and at different stages in the structure of the units that are composing it.

These new elements are more dominant in some areas of the world, than others. So the worst mistake we could make is to say that there is one set of principles that we could apply everywhere in the same manner.

Let me make another distinction: Our convictions about what we are trying to achieve can be universal and constant, but their application has to be adjusted to specific conditions in different regions.

3

(D)

I question the wisdom of basing our policy toward China on the assumption that China is determined to overthrow the international system and even more on the assumption that it is determined to do so by use of military force.

at

the international system

In assessing the ultimate evolution of China, I think it is a mistake to look at China by analogy to Imperial Germany, Imperial Germany provoked a war because, in a ten-year period prior to 1914, its diplomacy with France & Russia strategy was to humiliate most of the countries of Europe, in order to demonstrate to them that they were too weak to coalesce against Germany. And as a result they drove them closer together with a Triple Alliance. For the foreseeable future is unlikely

I have seen no indication that China intends to use its military forces as the principal element of its foreign policy. And I don't see why any theory would predict that a China that is surrounded by major countries would challenge the United States militarily in any way in the foreseeable future, over the next fifteen years.

it would

and extend

in a military way while it is doing well economically

H

(D)

China will ~~insist on playing a greater role, politically and economically~~, and that is a challenge—of competition—to which we should pay attention.

Any international system that has ever lasted rested in part on an equilibrium of powers, and in part on consensus among powers. You cannot rest it on one or the other exclusively.

A. In purely military terms, it is very hard to construct a counterbalancing coalition to the United States. At the same time, the number of issues susceptible to a solution in military terms is also shrinking.

The existence or nonexistence of a balance has to be seen in terms of
who lines up with whom on international issues. Looking at the Iran
negotiations we certainly cannot say that we have had an easy time
achieving unanimity from our point of view. There is a sort of
 counterbalancing—not in direct confrontation—but in mitigating what
 we are proposing.

Russia may be tempted to pursue tactical rapprochement with China;
for China, there can even be situations of strategic rapprochement. I
 don't think that the latter is the case for Russia because any
 meaningful strategic rapprochement with China would be to move
 further away from the United States and to give up the option of close
ties with the United States. And if Russia moved itself into a position of
 a long-term dependence on Chinese support, it would run counter to the
 strategic realities Russia faces on its Far Eastern border—the decline
 in population and negative demographic trends.

The right American policy is to establish close relations with both
Russia and China. And we should conduct it on the basis that

whenever possible, there should always be at least equal--if not
stronger—incentives to cooperate with the United States. I think that
should be relatively doable.

or properly risks

Therefore I do not see any sense in speculating how we should keep
these two countries from working with each other, who have the
power to do so and who believe it is in their benefit to do so. That
should not be our concern. Our concern should be, what is our
relationship with these countries.

It is an important and positive relationship, but we must be careful not to overestimate what is at stake. India will not be manipulated by us as a foil to China. That is not what brings them to closer relations with us. On the other hand, if we can maintain a strong and positive relationship with India, that is a favorable thing for both countries and in our interest, then in some time we can consider starting a similar relationship with China. We cannot sign up India on an anti-Chinese course.

India gets stronger it will become a more important factor in the
balance--that's a fact of life. But, the purpose of any U.S.-India
rapprochement, and how it is carried out, should not be aimed
at us. We have many impacts at our disposal, and we cannot be
against China. We cannot sign up India on an anti-Chinese course.

I imagine that India will try to have close relations with China and
Russia. That is also a fact of life. Our option whether at any one point
the advantages of cooperating with us on what matters to us
will be lost.

⑦

NO

We have big decisions to make on Iran in the next year. How far we will press the anti-proliferation strategy as far as Iran is concerned – we cannot succeed against Iran unless India and China and other powers are sympathetic to what we are trying to do.

The first thing we should do is to get a catalog of what constitutes the Iranian program. And then one would have to see what pressures we can bring to bear (other than military action). I cannot allow us to be kept in the last resort; we have to keep it on the table.

A. Today, I do not think there is a consensus on whether there is one overriding threat. I think that the international system is less dangerous but less organized then it was in that period. Now, it is less immediately dangerous but it is more structurally dangerous. The threat, say, of a nuclear attack on the United States may be less apocalyptic now, but it can come today from many more sources today than twenty years ago.

Jody Williams

From: Jessee LePorin [jleporin@kmaglobal.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:14 AM
To: Jody Williams
Subject: This one you should have: Revised text
Attachments: Kissinger 4_17.doc

Kissinger 4_17.doc
(55 KB)

-----Original Message-----

From: Nikolas Gvosdev [mailto:gvosdev@nationalinterest.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 2:08 PM
To: jleporin@kmaglobal.com
Cc: Dimitri Simes
Subject: Revised text

Dear Jessica:

Enclosed is the revised text. Questions have been italicized and designated by a Q.; answers are in regular font and preceded by an A. This is our standard interview format (use of q and a, italic text for questions, regular text for answers).

The heading in the magazine will clearly designate this as an interview and can include the date and location if that is desired (e.g. Dr. Kissinger took questions from the publisher and editor of TNI). That will be done as part of the page proofs process.

At your request I have re-broken down several of the questions (the first into two, the third into three, the fourth into two).

Dr. Kissinger's replies are taken directly from the tape recording. We have edited out repeats, clarifications and extraneous material, at the beginning and end such as greetings. Bold text represents suggested clarifications when the transcript alone would be confusing, and in one case we have moved intact an aside on realistic versus idealistic policy upward.

If you could confirm receipt, I would appreciate it,

Jody Williams

From: Jessee LePorin [jleporin@kmaglobal.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:14 AM
To: Jody Williams
Subject: FW: Dr. Kissinger interview text
Importance: High

Original e-mail (without text as it has since been revised).

-----Original Message-----

From: Nikolas Gvosdev [mailto:gvosdev@nationalinterest.org]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 3:35 PM
To: jleporin@kmaglobal.com
Subject: Dr. Kissinger interview text
Importance: High

Dear Jessica:

Enclosed is the text of Dr. Kissinger's interview with The National Interest (from last Thursday).

We are very grateful for his time and his candor and for giving us this interview, and I'd appreciate it if you could convey to him the magazine's gratitude.

The text that is enclosed is based on the transcript; italicized text are our questions. Bold text is suggested text that has been added to clarify and is not original language.

We would be happy to accommodate any changes or additions Dr. Kissinger would like to make.

In addition, we did have a follow-up question, if Dr. Kissinger would be interested in providing his thoughts.

Q. What motivates the loose coalition grouped under the rubric of "radical Islam"? Is it hatred of Western values and freedoms, a desire to reduce U.S. Geopolitical influence, anger at American support for Israel, or a combination of all three? Is radical Islam "containable" in the same way as Communism?

So as to stay on schedule, Monday, April 24th would be the last day we could accommodate any major changes to the text.

With kind regards,