MEET THE PRESS

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Welcome again to "Meet the Press." There wasn't much talk of it in the campaign, but the world is still a dangerous place.

Are there foreign policy crises awaiting Bill Clinton? We'll ask our guests: Later in our program, the former ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick; and soon to be chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Lee Hamilton.

But first, joining us from Kent, Connecticut, is the former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger, good morning. Welcome to "Meet the Press."

**Mr. KISSINGER:** Glad to be here.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** And joining me this morning, Washington columnist Elizabeth Drew, and John Dancy, who covers the State Department for NBC News.

**Dr. Kissinger, what is the most important foreign policy challenge facing Bill Clinton?**

**Mr. KISSINGER:** Actually I think the most important foreign policy challenge is philosophical. That is to say, the United States throughout the Cold War period had a clear-cut enemy, and more or less a two-power world.

Now we have had a spectacular success. And that has graduated us into a world which we have never had to conduct foreign policy in before: a number of countries, more or less equal strength, no clear-cut enemies, friends with which we have many rivalries, and an opportunity at the same time to construct new relationships, as we are doing in the Western hemisphere.

So the chess board is wide open for opportunities, and the dangers are somewhat different from the ones we are accustomed to.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** A few weeks ago in Tokyo, you said that if Bill Clinton was elected, China may face big trouble. What did you mean by that?

--1--

[L]

**Mr. KISSINGER:** No, I—simply—this was said during the campaign, and I said that from the public statements that were made, it was possible that Bill Clinton and his administration would bring more pressure on China than had been done in the Bush administration. But I also hope that the new administration will recognize that China, with a population soon to be of a billion, three hundred million, is an absolutely key element in Asian policy, and that we will get into a position through concessions on their side and through understanding on our side where we can have a permanent dialogue with the Chinese.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Well, should we link trade and human rights in our dealings with China?

**Mr. KISSINGER:** To some extent the United States has to stand for its principles that have made it great. The question is to what extent we should link it. We should not in my view bring such pressure on China that the whole relationship goes down the drain. We have to determine the margin within which improvement is possible.

We should tell the Chinese, as I have told privately to the Chinese, that they have to make some move that will enable the new administration to show that their message has been heard.

On the other side, I hope the new administration will keep in mind that the Chinese, for the last 150 years, have not had such brilliant experiences with foreign intervention that they want to seem to yield to foreigners telling them how to organize their domestic affairs.

And on that basis, I believe that a new relationship between China and the United States is possible. And I think it's essential, considering there are also Japan, Russia, Korea, and other nations in that area. You cannot have a constructive Asian policy that excludes China.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Kissinger, Walter Isaacson does point out in his book that some of your clients do have business dealings with China.

**Mr. KISSINGER:** My clients have very minor—I have a very minuscule relationship with respect to that. I advise them on my judgment on political conditions in China. I do not intervene with the Chinese government, and I believe that anyone who looks at my record over 30 years will find that my position has been absolutely consistent.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Let me ask one last question in this round. Leslie Gelb of *The New York Times* wrote a column recently which said that

--2--

[cc]

Republicans were undermining President-elect Clinton either before or after the election, citing you in particular, saying that you were telling foreign diplomats and foreign business people that he was inexperienced, his staff was inexperienced in terms of dealing with foreign policy, that he came from a small state, and that this did not bode well for the future foreign policy of the United States.

Have you been critical publicly or privately of Bill Clinton?

Mr. KISSINGER: It was an extremely hysterical column. There was a letter in *The New York Times* by me that answered this. I made no—I left no question during the campaign that Mr. Clinton was many second choice for election. Since the campaign, I have been meticulous in expressing what are my views.

My views are that now that Mr. Clinton is elected, we owe him bipartisan support. It is in our interest that his foreign policy succeed. I have not told any foreign diplomat any reservations about Mr. Clinton. Quite the contrary. I left for Latin America the day after the election, and I told every leader in Latin America that I met that I thought the basic foreign policy of the United States was bipartisan, that they should give Mr. Clinton every opportunity to cooperate with them.

And that will be my attitude. I do not think we have anything to gain from a presidency that fails in foreign policy. And that will be my attitude towards Mr. Clinton and towards foreign leaders, and I will do nothing to weaken his position and everything I can to strengthen it.

Ms. DREW: Dr. Kissinger, following up on your answer to Tim's first question, you said it was a philosophical question as to what the new foreign policy crises are, but obviously, a whole group of them have to do with ethnic wars, tribal wars, even genocide. What do you think the United States' responsibilities are in such circumstances?

Mr. KISSINGER: Well, it's an extremely difficult question to answer in the abstract. There are abhorrent things going on in the world at this moment.

Ms. DREW: Well, let's take some specifics. Yugoslavia, Somalia—or former Yugoslavia—those aren't abstract. They're happening.

Mr. KISSINGER: No, the question is abstract. What is going on is realistic. The United States cannot by itself solve every crisis that exists in the world, painful as these crises may be. And one of the philosophical

--3--

[L]

questions that has to be answered is where we engage ourselves beyond moral condemnation and to what effect.

As a general principle, I do not think we should physically engage ourselves unless we know what the outcome is that we want and unless the outcome is within our capabilities.

Now, in Yugoslavia, I think several mistakes have been made. First, we treated Yugoslavia as if it were one coherent country and may have encouraged the beginning of the civil war there.

Then when it started breaking up, we recognized every republic, which was also probably a mistake because Bosnia is not a nation. Bosnia is a collection of nationalities that were thrown together by history and destiny there and that can't live together in larger Yugoslavia, and now surely can't live together in Bosnia. So the question has to be what it is that we want to accomplish.

On the specific issue of Yugoslavia, I believe that we have to make it absolutely clear that if the so-called ethnic cleansing spreads to Kosovo, which is the area, the southern area, in which there are about 80 percent Muslims and 20 percent Serbians, if it spreads into this area, there will be a United Nations intervention to stop it. And we should organize ourselves for that contingency now because if that does not—it's not done, we're going to see a religious war in the center of Europe. I do not believe that the Muslim world will accept another ethnic cleansing.

In Bosnia, the situation may be out of control at this moment, but we are getting to the edge of what is tolerable, and the Serbs must be told that another move will produce intervention.

Ms. DREW: President Bush is reported to be ready to intervene militarily in the circumstances you describe—if there's more ethnic cleansing in Kosovo—and there's also the possibility this whirls over into Macedonia.

What kind of military action? I assume you mean with the U.N., but what should the United States be prepared to do?

Mr. KISSINGER: Well, this has been the problem all along. I have sympathy for those of our military commanders who do not want to get into a military situation again where they're asked to start something that they're not permitted to finish.

One would hope that it could be confined to air action and that one would undertake a punishment of Serbia of a nature that will make it too costly for it to continue. But one also has to remember that Serbia has fought the Turks, the Austrians, the other nationalities for a thousand years, and they may be fairly impervious to pressures, and it may be that some

--4--

[L]

international force will have to be introduced. And when that happens, the American people must be told ahead of time that there will be casualties, and that has been the issue all along. We cannot say we will only do X and if that doesn't work, we will quit, because in that case, we may be encouraging ethnic cleansing.

**Mr. DANCY:** Dr. Kissinger, you spoke of the new world and the new opportunities facing Bill Clinton. How should a Clinton foreign policy differ from the Bush foreign policy?

**Mr. KISSINGER:** Well, it isn't a question of how it should differ from the Bush foreign policy in the sense—I think President Bush conducted an outstanding foreign policy within the conditions that prevailed at his time. He managed the transition from the Cold War to the post-Cold War period with consummate skill, but now we're in the post-Cold War period. There is no longer a communist monolith. In fact, there's no longer a major communist country except China, which is really proclaiming a philosophy that it is not really practicing.

So now we have, say in Asia, we have countries like China, Japan, Russia, Korea, and on a global basis we have Europe, and within Europe, Germany. Latin America is growing.

So I believe that we have some of the principles of 19th century diplomacy, where the United States has to deal with a number of countries simultaneously, and become more sensitive to nuances than needed to be the case when we had a two-power world. Secondly, we have an extraordinary opportunity in the Western hemisphere, where what has been started with the treaty with Mexico can now be expanded to the rest of Latin America, and would give America a tremendous opportunity for creativity.

**Mr. RUSSERT:** Let me give you a specific instance, for example, Vietnam. The United States has said that it would not begin to recognize Vietnam until it was forthcoming, particularly on the POW and MIA issues, among others. Senator Kerry's committee is just finishing up a visit there, coming back to the United States. They found the Vietnamese to be very forthcoming.

Is it now time to lift the trade embargo on Vietnam?

**Mr. KISSINGER:** One also—it's sort of strange to reward a country for doing finally after 22 years what it promised to do 22 years ago, and then say it has to be rewarded for that.

On the other hand, I believe we will be moving into a world in which some recognition of Vietnam will be necessary. I would think that this is

--5--