Page 1 of 8

FINAL

Theresa Cimino

From: Editor Staff [resends@latsi.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:44 PM

To: opinion@iht.com; ajohnston@iht.com; insight@uniontrib.com; maricela@interclan.net; vittorio.sabadin@lastampa.it; Gary.Neeleman@latsi.com; Ryan.Stephens@latsi.com; jahan salehi@latsi.com; Pia.Inngberg@latsi.com; jessica.napoli@latsi.com; eric mcpherson@latsi.com; josip_horvat@eph.hr; robert.caldwell@uniontrib.com; cbehren@wams.de; gabe.gutierrez@latsi.com; harry.mount@telegraph.co.uk; jskorzyn@rp.pl; darkr@bellatlantic.net; wkaserer@wams.de; mhollstein@wams.de; john.simpson@latsi.com; constance.pollock@latsi.com; tcimino@kmaglobal.com; sue.horton@latimes.com; wkaserer@wams.de; mhollstein@wams.de; cbehren@wams.de; annabel.martin@latsi.com; eva.palomino@latsi.com; katherine.yuen@latsi.com; tmsi@lidovky.cz; itta3071@yomiuri.com; akir2100@yomiuri.com; dy@yomiuri.com; nasu4044@yomiuri.com; shim9075@yomiuri.com; oroyant@hfp.fr; l.daza@mi.cl

Subject: Henry Kissinger 05/06/03

FROM TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES INTERNATIONAL.
Available by Special Arrangement Only.

For retransmission, please contact Gabe Gutierrez in Los Angeles.
Phone: 213-237-7903 or e-mail: gabe.gutierrez@latsi.com
HENRY KISSINGER
5/6/03

KISSINGER: A NEW CHALLENGE POSED BY THE PRIVATIZATION OF FOREIGN POLICY IN THE HANDS OF NON-GOVERNMENT GROUPS; THE NEED FOR LONG-RANGE THINKING IS ENORMOUS

EDITORS, CAUTION: The following article is strictly embargoed. Its use is authorized only by subscribers of the HENRY KISSINGER column. With the exception of these paid subscribers, its contents must not under any circumstance be quoted, excerpted, summarized, paraphrased or in any way published, in whole or in part. Precautions should be taken to prevent the disclosure of the contents of this material to third parties prior to publication.

(This interview with Henry Kissinger was conducted by Waltraud Kaserer, foreign editor of Welt am Sonntag. It appeared May 4.)

QUESTION: The great German philosopher Jurgen Habermas recently wrote that due to its preemptive strike against Iraq the United States lost its normative authority in the world. Do you agree?

HENRY KISSINGER: I greatly respect Jurgen Habermas. But his criticism takes no account of the dominant fact of our period: the change from the international system created (in 1648) by the Treaty

5/6/2003

Page 2 of 8

[1c]

of Westphalia to a new system in process of gestation. The Westphalian principles based order on the sovereignty of states and defined aggression as the crossing of international borders by organized units. But Sept. 11 introduced a new challenge posed by the privatization of foreign policy in the hands of non-government groups tacitly or directly supported by traditional states. And proliferation of weapons of mass destruction brings about a threat of global devastation.

Q: But what is the link with Iraq?

KISSINGER: In the thinking of those who were responsible for the decision, the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction merged with the issue of terrorism in the region from which the Sept. 11 attacks originated. Intellectually, I agree with that. Those are both problems that need in some respect a preemptive solution in the sense that one cannot wait for the act of aggression having actually taken place.

Q: You mean a preemptive strike?

KISSINGER: Only in the sense that the threat must be dealt with before it has been implemented. But I do not agree that in the long run one nation can alone define the nature of the threat and the content of preemption. Therefore, there should be discussion between America and especially our allies as well other countries under what principles preemption is justified and plausible. In the case of Iraq, it was an emergency situation that had a long history and required a more short-term answer. Therefore, I supported the Bush administration. I would not support the principle as a general rule, without additional efforts to establish it on an international basis.

Q: Can peace be brought along by war?

KISSINGER: That depends on what you mean by peace. The idea to have peace without tension is a philosophical construction that has never existed in history. Have there been periods of peace that were produced by wars? For 100 years after the Napoleonic, there were no major wars. Can war settle all problems? Certainly not. Should war be the first resort? No. But it wasn't in the case of Iraq, either. Can war never settle anything? Germany knows from its own history that wars for better or worse have brought many changes.

Q: Do you think it was right that the United States started war against Iraq without a U.N. mandate?

KISSINGER: I fundamentally supported the Bush administration on the war against Iraq. Most Cold War crises -- for example, over Berlin -- were handled without a U.N. mandate. Only two of the wars since the end of World War II had a Security Council mandate, and one of these resulted from the accident of a Soviet boycott of the Security Council.

Q: For the points you stated there is not much evidence in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction have been found so far, and the link with Al Qaeda is very weak.

KISSINGER: I have talked to intelligence people from the United States and Britain and from the previous U.S. administration. I have

5/6/2003

Page 3 of 8

[Lc]

never heard it questioned that there were weapons of mass
destruction. I have never heard any contrary evidence than the basis
on which the president operated and on which President Clinton almost
went to war in 1998.

Q: If the administration is so sure that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why did (U.S. Secretary of State) Colin Powell then present information on a nuclear connection with Nigeria in the Security Council and other information that was proven by the weapons inspectors to be false?

KISSINGER: It was certainly the honest opinion of Colin Powell, who is a man of great character.

Q: Then the mistake lies with the intelligence people.

KISSINGER: I do not accept your premise.

Q: Do you think that the United States is right to send its own weapons inspectors to Iraq?

KISSINGER: After a war fought over the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, it is inevitable that the United States would start looking for these weapons. This sort of question implies some sort of moral wrong by America.

Q: What will happen if the U.S. inspectors cannot find anything, either?

KISSINGER: If they do not find anything, one has to analyze what mistakes were made. But I do not think this will happen. In any event, one should not question the good faith of the people who made the decisions. Since you imply that U.N. inspectors should be used, what is the purpose for using a method designed to deal with Saddam Hussein?

Q: They can gain information from Iraqi scientists and other experts now.

KISSINGER: So can the American search teams. The U.N. inspection teams were created to supervise whether Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. With him gone, what conceivable functions do they have? Explain to me: Why does one now engage in these needling exercises, which cannot produce any conceivable results other than to establish some kind of moral divide?

Q: Because the other countries want to be heard.

KISSINGER: There are better means to be heard, and other countries have found theirs. Germany and France are taking a special position.

Q: And Russia?

KISSINGER: Don't you think it is an odd combination: Germany, Russia and France, six months after NATO expansion? It will not last as a permanent weapon aimed at America.

Q: The United States won the war against Iraq, will it win peace?

KISSINGER: Peace is a relative term. It will certainly improve on the situation under Saddam. It will be very difficult, and it would be easier with better Atlantic relations.

Q: What will be the most difficult issues?

KISSINGER: To get stability, to get a government that produces order and at the same time gives responsibility to the majority of the population. Given the different nationalities and religions, this

5/6/2003

Page 4 of 8

[lc]

is difficult to achieve.

Q: Who should be in charge of the interim government and the one thereafter? U.S. soldiers, (Ahmad) Chalabi ... ?

KISSINGER: Whoever it is has to be able to demonstrate that he can gain public support. Chalabi can be one of the contenders. But I think the nature of the leader of Iraq can only crystallize after a political process has started. In 1945, I was a U.S. soldier in the occupation of Germany, but I had never heard of (Konrad) Adenauer. And I never saw Adenauer's name mentioned in 1945 in the context of who would be head of state.

Q: In Germany there weren't so many different ethnic and religious groups.

KISSINGER: I don't think the occupation in Germany can be compared with the situation in Iraq. It was an entirely different problem.

Q: There is substantial opposition against a military interim government.

KISSINGER: One cannot tell what the mood is because, at this point, the people who are organized best are likely to attract the most attention. But I would not have been surprised if there were opposition to the United States. One cannot maintain a military government in Islamic countries for an indefinite period of time.

Q: Is it the only possibility at the moment?

KISSINGER: There has to be a period of some months for order to be restored and weapons of mass destruction to be looked for. Then there has to be a period in which other countries are given the opportunity to participate in the governance of Iraq. I would start with members of the coalition, but I would not confine it to members of the coalition, so that gradually there will be some organization that provides a broader basis.

Q: What role should the United Nations play?

KISSINGER: Ironically, a lot of this depends on how our relationship with Europe develops. It would be fairly easy to achieve some degree of U.N. legitimization were the historic Atlantic partnership still intact. What makes no sense is to repeat the process which preceded the war because this would simply introduce all these debates in the middle of Iraqi reconstruction.

Q: You would not work with the United Nations directly, nor its Security Council?

KISSINGER: So long as the allies are so divided, the Security Council process would simply repeat its divisions. I don't think this would be good for anybody. It would lead again to a potential rupture of the Western alliance. But I believe the rupture should be overcome.

Q: When should the sanctions on Iraq be lifted? Immediately?

KISSINGER: The sanctions were imposed to oblige Iraq under Saddam to observe his undertaking after the Gulf War of 1991 to destroy his stocks of weapons of mass destruction. They were to be lifted when Saddam had carried out these obligations. Now Saddam is no longer in office. Those who govern will possess no means to build weapons of mass destruction and every incentive to destroy those which exist.

5/6/2003

Page 5 of 8

[Lc]

What, then, is the purpose of maintaining the sanctions?

Q: Can democracy be brought from outside to a country, to the Arabic world in particular?

KISSINGER: There is no Muslim state that has yet produced a pluralistic democracy as we know it in the West -- except Turkey, after a period of autocratic government. Part of that reason is that democracy in the West really evolved after the Reformation, after the separation of church and state, the introduction of pluralism of religion, the Enlightenment and capitalism. These conditions do not exist in the Islamic world. Therefore, the evolution of democracy in the Muslim world will be different. As a general rule, I do not believe that democracy can be imposed from the outside. But by removing a dictatorship, one can create conditions in which democracy can evolve organically. I would not argue that the United States has an obligation or a necessity to overthrow every government with which it disagrees by force.

Q: What does this mean for Syria? There is a lot of pressure now on it.

KISSINGER: The American problem with Syria is not regime change but terrorist organizations on Syrian soil and of Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, there is room for a Syrian peace process. It is in that context that one should talk about Syrian-American relations and not as a continuation of the war in Iraq.

Q: Should Syria be included in the ``road map'' that will be presented soon?

KISSINGER: Actually, the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations do not need a road map; they were very close to success at one point. They need a solution to riparian rights in the Sea of Galilee and to the terrorist problem from Lebanese soil. Intellectually the Syrian-Israeli negotiations seem to be simpler than the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Q: Would not Syria have to give up its influence on Lebanon and Hezbollah?

KISSINGER: Syria would have to give up its influence on Hezbollah and would probably have to reduce its military influence in Lebanon, but geography is a fact of life also, as is the change in Iraq. Syria will always have some influence in Lebanon.

Q: Do you think that in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the current situation is similar to the one after Gulf War I? Will it be the start of a new peace process as in Madrid and Oslo almost 10 years ago?

KISSINGER: It is different now. A peace process between Israel and the Palestinians can and will start. Both sides have suffered enough from the intifada to provide an incentive for negotiations. The major problem is how one gets it started. In the past, I had preferred more limited steps than comprehensive schemes like the road map. But I do not want to prejudge this before the talks have even started.

Q: There is a lot of distrust against the United States in the Arab world. How can this be changed?

5/6/2003

Page 6 of 8

KISSINGER: There is certainly. It can be changed only by performance, not rhetoric. But on the whole, the Arab world was calmer than the media in Germany and France.

Q: Are you sure?

KISSINGER: (laughing) It is useless to debate this. We are now at a point where the administration can put forward its view of a positive evolution in various parts of the world. I think there is a great opportunity. I would prefer to do this in dialogue with traditional friends. But this also requires that our friends show some understanding for the American psychology and American convictions and some confidence in American purposes.

Q: In your foreign policy, one of the main goals was to have ``stable countries'' and not necessarily democratized countries.

KISSINGER: A gross oversimplification. There are limits to what any one country can do in changing the world. Especially, it should be modest in attempting to intervene in the domestic situations of other countries.

There are extreme situations in which we should. I supported the intervention in Bosnia, for example. And I would have supported intervention in Rwanda. On the other hand, there cannot be real progress without stability. The more order is destroyed, the more force will have to be used in re-establishing some order. I do not see stability and progress as standing opposed to each other, but rather as conditions to one another. One thing is sure: We are now in a period of extraordinary global change.

Q: Does this mean a new world order?

KISSINGER: At any point in time, there is an international system that represents a kind of world order. The world is now in the process of building a new world order which grows from the collapse of communism, the weapons of mass destruction, the privatization of foreign policy, the globalization of the economy and the gap between economic and political globalization. These are all huge problems. And it has never happened before that foreign policy had to be conducted on a global basis. It has also never happened before that the public could observe everything as it happens. You have a condition in which the need for long-range thinking is enormous, and the capacity for long-range thinking has been limited by the pressures of domestic politics and the nature of modern communication.

Q: What do you mean by privatization of foreign policy?

KISSINGER: The terrorist groups are essentially private groups and not governmental groups. They are financed by existing states, but their purposes are not identical to those of states. Some of the existing principles of foreign policy cannot apply to them. Deterrence does not work with groups that have nothing to defend. Diplomacy does not work with groups that do not want to compromise. Therefore, the principles of the Westphalian system cannot work, when you have either private groups conducting a revolutionary foreign policy or when you have a threat of a magnitude in which you cannot wait for the threat to become real. You have to act on the assessment

5/6/2003

Page 7 of 8

of the threat. That's a problem the world will face with North Korea and almost certainly with other states.

**Q:** How does the new world order affect U.S. foreign policy?

**KISSINGER:** We will without doubt, as every other country, undergo significant debates on foreign policy in the next five years. In Europe, especially in Germany and France, there is a view that America had a sort of an illegitimate government, that this is a government with which you can't communicate. That is wrong. There has to be a serious dialogue with the people who actually make American foreign policy, which happens to be the president.

**Q:** Started by Germany and France?

**KISSINGER:** After what has happened, I think it would help, if the first effort -- or at least a symbolic effort -- were made by Germany and France. But the United States should respond constructively and magnanimously. The alliance will fall apart unless an effort is made. The Western world, which has had great achievement in civilization, has had one organic failure. It has destroyed itself through its internal rivalries. The question is: Can the Western civilization find some common definition of the world it finds itself in and of the opportunities and dangers it must deal with?

**Q:** And the answer is?

**KISSINGER:** On the basis of recent performance, you can make a negative case. I would hate to accept that. I hope that we can have a dialogue on issues like proliferation, globalization, terrorism. We have to come to common positions. We won't be identical at all times. I was extremely distressed by what happened in recent months. My generation believed in the Atlantic world. Now it threatens to fall apart. Now much of European policy defines itself by creating structures to challenge the United States.

**Q:** Do the problems relate only to communication or is it also philosophy?

**KISSINGER:** It is partly philosophy. There has been, above all, too much playing to short-term opinion. The more one now emphasizes the distinctive views of Germany and America, the more difficult one will find it to find the way back to a constructive relationship. Both sides have to decide whether 50 years of close association should be thrown away and whether one should focus on demonstrating the faults of the other side. I would hope that we will find a basis for a more conciliatory dialogue, without (ital) Rechthaberei (unital) (dogmatism) on either side.

**Q:** What role does Russia play in all this?

**KISSINGER:** Russia should be welcomed as a constructive partner in the international system. I would prefer if the traditional Atlantic group came to some understanding and then have Russia join it. The worst thing to do is to encourage Russia to try to play balance-of-power politics within the Western world, because this may reawaken traditional Russian nationalism that used to be a disaster for Russia, too. It's better for Russia to join existing structures than for it to try to force its way into the gaps left between the existing institutions.

5/6/2003

Page 8 of 8

[Lc]

Q: The European Union will soon have a foreign minister. Will this be the single phone number you always wanted to have?

KISSINGER: From a technical viewpoint, yes. But it will depend on the content of this European foreign policy.

(c) 2003, Welt am Sonntag. Distributed by Tribune Media Services International.

For immediate release (Distributed 5/6/03)

END

5/6/2003

Page 1 of 2

## Theresa Cimino

**From:** Jessee Incao [jincao@kmaglobal.com]

**Sent:** Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:59 AM

**To:** 'Theresa Cimino'

**Subject:** FW: Interview and Editorial

Jessee:

Everything is settled now concerning the interview. Thank you very much for your time and help with this.

Please forward this email with my editorial of last week to Dr. Kissinger. We discussed it on the phone. It is a small sign that not everyone in Germany tries to prove that the US-policy is wrong.

Waltraud Kaserer
Foreign Editor
WELT am SONNTAG
Tel. +49 30 2591 77873
Mobile +49 171 761 51 00

# Leitartikel: Den Frieden gewinnen

Der Erfolg im Irak hängt nicht nur davon ab, ob die Politiker der alten Saddam-Garde gefasst werden

von Waltraud Kaserer

Erst 18 Tage ist es her, dass US-Soldaten die erste Statue des irakischen Diktators Saddam Husseins von seinem Sockel gestürzt haben. Es war der Anfang vom Ende des Krieges, aber auch der Auftakt zur Schaffung eines stabilen Friedens. Dabei stehen die Amerikaner vor einer schwer lösbaren Aufgabe. Sie müssen das Vertrauen der Bevölkerung gewinnen, um das Land zu stabilisieren und in der Weltgemeinschaft wieder Glaubwürdigkeit zu erlangen. Viele Iraker wollen von den Befreiern nichts wissen, sind von den chaotischen Zuständen verunsichert und können mit dem Begriff "Demokratie" nach fünf Jahrzehnten Autokratie und Terrorherrschaft wenig anfangen. Sie wünschen, dass die Einzigen, die Ruhe herstellen könnten, das Land sogleich wieder verlassen.

Um das Chaos zu bändigen, müssen die Amerikaner daher so schnell wie möglich sichtbare Verbesserungen schaffen: durch Bereitstellung von ausreichend Wasser, Strom, Nahrung und Gesundheitsversorgung sowie die Auszahlung längst überfälliger Gehälter. Nur wer spürt, dass es ihm gut tut, öffnet auch das Herz und nicht nur die Hand.

Dass die US-Soldaten bisher weder Saddam Hussein noch Massenvernichtungswaffen finden konnten, ist dabei zweitrangig. Der Regimewechsel hängt nicht nur davon ab, ob die 55 gesuchten Top-Politiker gefasst werden. Wichtiger ist, dass der neue US-Administrator sich nicht im Netzwerk von Privilegien und Vetternwirtschaft verfängt, in dem die wirkliche politische Macht im Irak verankert ist. Er darf nicht den Eindruck erwecken, sich zu sehr einzumischen. Strukturen sind vorhanden, nicht nur bei der sunnitischen Baath-Partei, sondern auch bei den jahrzehntelang unterdrückten Schiiten. Wie sonst hätten wie zu Wochenbeginn so kurz nach dem Krieg 1,5 Millionen Menschen zum Pilgerzug nach Kerbala mobilisiert werden können.

Die Schiiten stellen die größte Bevölkerungsgruppe im Zweistromland und leiten daraus Ansprüche ab. Unterstützung erhalten sie dabei aus dem Iran, den die USA zur "Achse des Bösen" zählen. Nun bräuchten sie ihn als Freund, der die Ostgrenze stabilisiert und sich dabei nicht einmischt.

Über die Aufhebung der UN-Sanktionen werden die Staaten der "Koalition der Willigen" und der "Koalition der

5/21/2003

Page 2 of 2

[Y]

Verlierer", wie die Achse Paris-Berlin-Moskau in Washington süffisant genannt wird, als Nächstes reden müssen. Zwar war die Kommunikation der Bush-Regierung, der es in erster Linie nicht um die Entdeckung von Massenvernichtungsmitteln im Irak, sondern um den Sturz des Diktators Saddam und seiner Garde ging, im Vorfeld des Krieges nicht überzeugend. Washington dies aber weiter vorzuhalten, wäre töricht.

Es ist Zeit, dass sich alle an einen Tisch setzen, die Sanktionen gegen den Irak zum Wohle der Bevölkerung aufheben und über weitere, konkrete Zusammenarbeit sprechen. Um erneuten Streit innerhalb der UNO zu vermeiden, wäre ein Gipfeltreffen ratsam.

Die Apokalyptiker müssen einsehen, dass sie - zumindest bisher - Unrecht hatten. Der Krieg war kurz und hat in der arabischen Welt keinen Flächenbrand ausgelöst. Die Amerikaner müssen nun bei der Schaffung des Friedens zeigen, dass sie einen Vertrauensvorschuss verdienen.

Artikel erschienen am 27. Apr 2003

5/21/2003

Page 1 of 2

Theresa Cimino

From: Jessee Incao [jincao@kmaglobal.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:23 AM

To: 'Kaserer, Waltraud'

Cc: 'Theresa Cimino'; 'Elizabeth'

Subject: RE: Transcript of the Interview

We tried to reach you on your mobile phone today at 9:15AM. Unfortunately, there was no answer and we were not able to leave a message. Please call Theresa or me when you get this message so we can try to arrange for you to speak to Dr. Kissinger.

Best,
Jesseee

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

From: Kaserer, Waltraud [mailto:wkaserer@wams.de]

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:09 AM

To: 'Jessee Incao'

Subject: AW: Transcript of the Interview

Jessee:

You can call me today as well. I am available till 1.30 p.m. your time and again starting from 5 p.m. My mobile number is +49 171 761 51 00.

Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best,
Waltraud

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Jessee Incao [mailto:jincao@kmaglobal.com]

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. April 2003 16:58

An: Kaserer, Waltraud

Betreff: RE: Transcript of the Interview

Dr. Kissinger is in NY as we e-mail, working on the edits of this transcript. However, tomorrow morning he goes out of town again. What is your mobile number?

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:34 AM

To: 'Jessee Incao'

Jessee:

Thursday is fine. I will be available all day. Do you want to call me on my mobile? Do you already know, when he will mail the edited interview?

Best
Waltraud

5/21/2003

4/30/03-Final

Transcript of Dr. Henry Kissinger's Interview

with WELT am SONNTAG

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

New York

WELT am SONNTAG: The great German philosopher Jürgen Habermas recently wrote that due to its pre-emptive strike against Iraq the US lost its normative authority in the world. Do you agree?

Henry Kissinger: I greatly respect Jürgen Habermas. But his criticism takes no account of the dominant fact of our period: the change from the international system created by the Treaty of Westphalia to a new system in process of gestation. The Westphalian principles based order on the sovereignty of states and defined aggression as the crossing of international borders by organized units. But September 11th

[Y]

WamS: But what is the link with Iraq?

Kissinger: In the thinking of those who were responsible for the
decision, the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction merged with the issue of terrorism in the region from
which the September 11th attacks originated. Intellectually, I agree
with that. Those are both problems that need in some respect a pre-
emptive solution in the sense that one cannot wait for the act of
aggression having actually taken place.

WamS: You mean a pre-emptive strike?

Kissinger: Only in the sense that the threat must be dealt with before
it has been implemented.

2

[Y]

But I do not agree that in the long run one nation can alone
define the nature of the threat and the content of pre-emption.

Therefore, there should be discussion between America and specially
our allies as well other countries under what principles pre-emption is
justified and plausible. In the case of Iraq, it was an emergency
situation that had a long history and required a more short-term
answer. Therefore, I supported the Administration. I would not support
the principle as a general rule, without additional efforts to establish it
on an international basis.

WamS: Can peace be brought along by war?

Kissinger: That depends on what you mean by peace. The idea to have
peace without tension is a philosophical construction that has never
existed in history. Have there been periods of peace that were
produced by wars? For 100 years after the Napoleonic, there were no

3

[Y]

major wars. Can war settle all problems? Certainly not. Should war be
the first resort? No. But it wasn't in the case of Iraq either. Can war
never settle anything? Germany knows from its own history that wars
for better or worse have brought many changes.

WamS: Do you think it was right that the US started war against Iraq
without a UN mandate?

Kissinger: I fundamentally supported the Bush Administration on the
war against Iraq. Most Cold War crises—for example, over Berlin—
were handled without a UN mandate. Only two of the wars since the
end of World War II had a Security Council mandate, and one of these
resulted from the accident of a Soviet boycott of the Security Council.

WamS: For the points you stated there is not much evidence in Iraq.
No weapons of mass destruction have been found so far and the link
with Al Qaida is very weak.

4

[Y]

Kissinger: I have talked to intelligence people from US and Britain and
from the previous US Administration. I have never heard it questioned
that there were weapons of mass destruction. I have never heard any
contrary evidence than the basis on which the President operated and
on which President Clinton almost went to war in 1998.

WamS: If the administration is so sure that there are weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, why did Colin Powell then present information on a
nuclear connection with Nigeria in the Security Council and other
information which was proven by the weapons inspectors to be false?

Kissinger: It was certainly the honest opinion of Colin Powell, who is a
man of great character.

WamS: Then the mistake lies with the intelligence people.

Kissinger: I do not accept your premise.

5

[7]

WamS: Do you think that the US is right to send their own weapons inspectors to Iraq?

Kissinger: After a war fought over the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, it is inevitable that the United States would start looking for these weapons. This sort of question implies some sort of moral wrong by America.

WamS: What will happen if the US inspectors cannot find anything either?

Kissinger: If they will not find anything, one has to analyze what mistakes were made. But I do not think this will happen. In any event, one should not question the good faith of the people who made the decisions. Since you imply that UN inspectors should be used, what is the purpose for using a method designed to deal with Saddam Hussein?

6

[4]

WamS: They can gain information from Iraqi scientists and other experts now.

Kissinger: So can the American search teams. The UN inspection teams were created to supervise the 1991 cease-fire agreement with Saddam. With him gone, what conceivable functions do they have?

WamS: Because the other countries want to be heard.

Kissinger: There are better means to be heard, and other countries have found theirs. Germany and France are taking a special position.

WamS: And Russia?

7

[Y]

Kissinger: Don't you think it is an odd combination: Germany, Russia and France, six months after NATO expansion? It will not last as a permanent weapon aimed at America.

WamS: The US won the war against Iraq, will it win peace?

Kissinger: Peace is a relative term. It will certainly improve on the situation under Saddam. It will be very difficult, and it would be easier with better Atlantic relations.

WamS: What will be the most difficult issues?

Kissinger: To get stability, to get a government that produces order and at the same time gives responsibility to the majority of the population. Given the different nationalities and religions, this is difficult to achieve.

8

[Y]

WamS: Who should be in charge of the interim government and the one thereafter? US soldiers, Chalabi ...?

Kissinger: Whoever it is has to be able to demonstrate that he can gain public support. Chalabi can be one of the contenders. But I think the nature of the leader of Iraq can only crystallize after a political process had started. In 1945, I was a US soldier in the occupation of Germany, but I had never heard of Adenauer. And I never saw Adenauer's name mentioned in 1945 in the context of who would be head of state.

WamS: In Germany there weren't so many different ethnic and religious groups.

Kissinger: I don't think the occupation in Germany can be compared with the situation in Iraq. It was an entirely different problem.

9

[Y]

WamS: There is substantial opposition against a military interim
government.

Kissinger: At this point one cannot tell what the mood is because, at this point, the people who are organized best are likely to attract the most attention. But I would not have been surprised if there were opposition to the US. One cannot maintain a military government in Islamic countries for an indefinite period of time.

WamS: Is it the only possibility at the moment?

Kissinger: There has to be a period of some months for order to be restored and weapons of mass destruction to be looked for. Then there has to be a period in which other countries are given the opportunity to participate in the governance of Iraq. I would start with members of the coalition, but I would not confine it to members of the coalition, so

10

[Y]

WamS: What role should the UN play?

Kissinger: Ironically, a lot of this depends on how our relationship with Europe develops. It would be fairly easy to achieve some degree of UN legitimization were the historic Atlantic partnership still intact. What makes no sense is to repeat the process which preceded the war because this would simply introduce all these debates in the middle of Iraqi reconstruction.

WamS: You would not work with the UN directly, nor its Security Council?

Kissinger: So long as the allies are so divided, the Security Council process would simply repeat its divisions. I don't think this would be

11

[Y]

WamS: Can democracy be brought from outside to a country, to the
Arabic world in particular?

Kissinger: There is no Muslim state that has yet produced a pluralistic
democracy as we know it in the West—except Turkey, after a period of
autocratic government. Part of that reason is that democracy in the
West really evolved after the reformation, after the separation of
church and state, the introduction of pluralism of religion, the
enlightenment and capitalism. These conditions do not exist in the
Islamic world. Therefore the evolution of democracy in the Muslim
world will be different. As a general rule, I do not believe that
democracy can be imposed from the outside. But by removing a
dictatorship, one can create conditions in which democracy can evolve

12

[Y]

organically. I would not argue that the US has an obligation or a
necessity to overthrow every government with which it disagrees by
force.

WamS: But the attacks were mainly conducted by people with a Saudi
Arabian passport. Will there be a new policy of the US toward this
country after the war?

Kissinger: Saudi Arabia's government is in a complicated situation,
governing as it does a population with significant segments of religious
fanaticism and a degree of populist radicalism. The immediate
alternative to the present government is likely to be less attractive.

The US and the whole Western world should use its influence in the
direction of improved human rights and more benign institutions. But I
do not agree with those who think we can start revolutions all over the
world as an overriding objective for our policy.

13

[Y]

WamS: What does this mean for Syria? There is a lot of pressure now
on them.

Kissinger: The American problem with Syria is not regime change but terrorist organization on Syrian soil and of Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, there is room for a Syrian peace process. It is in that context that one should talk about Syrian-American relations and not as a continuation of the war in Iraq.

WamS: Should Syria be included in the "road map" which President Bush wants to present?

Kissinger: Actually, the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations do not need a road map; they were very close to success at one point. They need a solution to riparian rights in the Sea of Galilee and to the terrorist problem from Lebanese soil. Intellectually the Syrian-Israeli

14

[Y]

WamS: Would not Syria have to give up its influence on Lebanon and
Hezbollah?

Kissinger: Syria would have to give up its influence on Hezbollah and
would probably have to reduce its military influence in Lebanon, but
geography is a fact of life also, as is the change in Iraq. Syria will
always have some influence in Lebanon.

WamS: Do you think that in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the current
situation is similar to the one after Gulf War I? Will it be the start of a
new peace process like in Madrid and Oslo almost 10 years ago?

Kissinger: It is different now. A peace process between Israel and the
Palestinians can and will start. Both sides have suffered enough from
the Intifada to provide an incentive for negotiations. The major

15

[Y]

problem is, how one gets it started. In the past, I had preferred more
limited steps than comprehensive schemes like the road map. But I do
not want to prejudge this before the talks have even started.

WamS: There is a lot of distrust against the US in the Arab World. How
can this be changed?

Kissinger: There is certainly. It can be changed only by performance,
not rhetoric. But on the whole, the Arab World was calmer than the
media in Germany and France.

Question: Are you sure?

Kissinger: (laughing) It is useless to debate this. We are now at a
point where the administration can put forward its view of a positive
evolution in various parts of the world. I think there is a great
opportunity. I would prefer to do this in dialogue with traditional
friends. But this also requires that our friends show some

16

[Y]

WamS: In your foreign policy, one of the main goals was to have "stable countries" and not necessarily democratized countries.

Kissinger: A gross oversimplification. There are limits to what any one country can do in changing the world. Especially, it should be modest in attempting to intervene in the domestic situations of other countries. There are extreme situations in which we should. I supported the intervention in Bosnia, for example. And I would have supported intervention in Rwanda. On the other hand, there cannot be real progress without stability. The more order is destroyed, the more force will have to be used in re-establishing some order. I do not see stability and progress as standing opposed to each other, but rather as

17

[4]

WamS: Does this mean a new world order?

Kissinger: At any point in time, there is an international system that represents a kind of world order. The world is now in the process of building a new world order which grows from the collapse of communism, the weapons of mass destruction, the privatization of foreign policy, the globalization of the economy and the gap between economic and political globalization. These are all huge problems. And it has never happened before that foreign policy had to be conducted on a global basis. It has also never happened before that the public could observe everything as it happens. You have a condition in which the need for long-range thinking is enormous, and the capacity for

18

[Y]

WamS: What do you mean by privatization of foreign policy?

Kissinger: The terrorist groups are essentially private groups and not
governmental groups. They are financed by existing states, but their
purposes are not identical to those of states. Some of the existing
principles of foreign policy cannot apply to them. Deterrence does not
work with groups which have nothing to defend. Diplomacy does not
work with groups which do not want to compromise. Therefore the
principles of the Westphalian system cannot work, when you have
either private groups conducting a revolutionary foreign policy or when
you have a threat of a magnitude, in which you cannot wait for the
threat to become real. You have to act on the assessment of the

19

[Y]

WamS: How does the new world order affect the US foreign policy?

Kissinger: We will without doubt, as every other country, undergo
significant debates on foreign policy in the next five years. In Europe,
especially in Germany and France, there is a view that America had a
sort of an illegitimate government, that this is a government with
which you can't communicate. That is wrong. There has to be a serious
dialogue with the people who actually make American foreign policy,
which happens to be the President.

WamS: Started by Germany and France?

Kissinger: After what has happened, I think it would help, if the first
effort—or at least a symbolic effort—were made by Germany and
France. But the United States should respond constructively and

20

[Y]

The Western World which has had great achievement in civilization has had one organic failure. It has destroyed itself through its internal rivalries. Let's take as an example World War I: Why were so many people killed? For what objective? World War II was a different issue.

WamS: And the answer is?

Kissinger: On the basis of recent performance, you can make a negative case. I would hate to accept that. I hope that we can have a dialogue on issues like proliferation, globalization, terrorism. We have to come to common positions. We won't be identical at all times. I was extremely distressed by what happened in recent months. My

21

[Y]

WamS: Do the problems relate only to communication or is it also
philosophy?

Kissinger: It is partly philosophy. There has been, above all, too much
playing to short-term opinion. The more one now emphasizes the
distinctive views of Germany and America, the more difficult one will
find it to find the way back to a constructive relationship. Both sides
have to decide whether 50 years of close association should be thrown
away and whether one should focus on demonstrating the faults of the
other side. I would hope that we will find a basis for a more
conciliatory dialogue, without "Rechthaberei" (judgmentalism) on
either side.

22

[4]

WamS: What role does Russia play in all this?

Kissinger: Russia should be welcomed as a constructive partner in the international system. I would prefer if the traditional Atlantic group came to some understanding and then have Russia join it. The worst thing to do is to encourage Russia to try to play balance of power politics within the Western World, because this may re-awaken traditional Russian nationalism that used to be a disaster for Russia too. It's better for Russia to join existing structures than for it to try to force its way into the gaps left between the existing institutions.

WamS: The European Union will soon have a foreign minister. Will this be the single phone number you always wanted to have?

Kissinger: From a technical viewpoint, yes. But it will depend on the content of this European foreign policy.

Additional question:

23

[4]

WamS: When should the sanctions on Iraq be lifted? Immediately?

Kissinger: The sanctions were imposed to oblige Iraq under Saddam to observe his undertaking after the Gulf War of 1991 to destroy his stocks of weapons of mass destruction. They were to be lifted when Saddam had carried out these obligations. Now Saddam is no longer in office. Those who govern will possess no means to build weapons of mass destruction and every incentive to destroy those which exist.

END

24

4/30/03

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

New York

brings about a threat of devastation.

global

 attacks

in the region from which

the proliferation

destruction merged with the issue of terrorism. Intellectually, I agree with that. Those are both problems that need in some respect a pre-emptive solution in the sense that one cannot wait for the act of aggression having actually taken place. I have been saying for years

that I agree with the principle of pre-emption, but also that

some

2

[4]

But I do not agree that in the long run going one can alone define the nature of the threat. And therefore, there should be discussion between America and specially our allies as well other countries under what principles pre-emption is justified and plausible. In the case of Iraq, it was an emergency situation that had a long history. Therefore, I supported the Administration. I would not support the principle as a general rule, without additional efforts to establish it on an international basis.

Kissinger: That depends on what you mean by peace. The idea to have peace without tension is a philosophical construction that has never existed in history. Have there been periods of peace that were produced by wars? For a 100 years after the Napoleonic, there were no major wars. Can war settle all problems? Certainly not. Should war

3

[4]

Kissinger: I fundamentally supported the Bush Administration on the
war against Iraq.
Most cold war rises were handled without a UN mandate.

Over Berlin - were handled without a UN mandate.
Only two of them were until the end of World War II. Led
a Security Council mandate

and one
of these resulted from
of a Soviet long-range
of the Security

Kissinger: I don't agree with this. I have talked to intelligence people
from US and Britain and from the previous US Administration. I have
never heard it questioned that there were weapons of mass
destruction. I have never heard any contrary evidence than the basis

with Al Qaida is very weak.

4

[Y]

5

[Y]

Explain to me: Why does one now engage in these needling exercises,
which cannot produce any conceivable results. ~~Established and proven~~
~~some kind of moral example~~

WamS: And Russia?

Kissinger: Russia is a political thing. Don't you think it is an odd

combination: Germany, Russia and France, six months after NATO
expansion? It will not last as a permanent peace
arisen at America.

7

[Y]

Kissinger: Whoever it is has to be able to demonstrate that he can gain ~~some~~ public support. Chalabi can be one of the contenders. But I think the nature of the leader of Iraq can only crystallize after a political process had started. In 1945, I was a US soldier in Germany,

8

[4]

9

[4]

Kissinger: There has to be a period of some months for order to be restored and weapons of mass destruction to be looked for. Then there has to be a period in which other countries are given the opportunity to participate in the governance of Iraq. I would start with members of the coalition, but I would not confine it to members of the coalition, so that gradually there will be some organization that provides a broader basis than simply American military occupation.

10

[Y]

Kissinger: So long as the allies are so divided, the UN would simply repeat its divisions. It would not begin with the Security Council after the experience we have had. I don't think this would be good for anybody. It would lead again to a potential controversy of the Western Alliance. But I believe the联盟 should have a voice in all matters. The over-all

nations.

Kissinger: There is no Muslim state that has yet produced a pluralistic democracy as we know it in the West. Part of that reason is that

democracy in the West really evolved after the reformation, after the

11

[4]

separation of church and state, the introduction of pluralism of religion, the enlightenment and capitalism. These conditions do not exist in the Islamic world. Therefore the evolution of democracy in the Muslim world will be different. And as a general rule, I do not believe that democracy can be imposed from the outside. But by removing a dictatorship, one can create conditions in which democracy can evolve organically. I would not argue that the US has an obligation or a necessity to overthrow every government with which it disagrees by force.

In Iraq it was not just the internal structure of Iraq, it was the combination of the disregard for the cease-fire agreement, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction—as we perceived it in two of both parties administrations—and the attacks against the US.

threats & the stability of US again.

12

Kissinger: Saudi Arabia's government is in a complicated situation, characterized by a population with significant segments of religious fanaticism and a degree of populist radicalism.

immediate
The alternative to the present government is likely to be less
attractive

democratic. The US should use its influence and the whole West to
use its influence in the direction of improved human rights and more
benign institutions. But I do not agree with those who think we can
start revolutions all over the world as an overriding objective for our
policy.

13

[Y]

but

Kissinger: The American problem with Syria is that it tolerates terrorist
organization on Syrian soil, not regime changes. In the negotiations
[Land of Helghollah in Lebanon.]
between the Palestinians and the Israelis, there is room for a Syrian
peace process. It is in that context that one should talk about Syrian-
American relations and not as a continuation of the war in Iraq.

Kissinger: Actually, the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations do not need a
road map; they were very close to success. You need a solution to one
problem, that of riparian rights in the Sea of Galilee, and to the
fear of Lebanon soil.
terrorist problem. Intellectually the Syrian-Israeli negotiations seem to
be simpler than the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

14

[Y]

Kissinger: Syria would have to give up its influence on Hezbollah and would probably have to reduce its military influence in Lebanon, but as is the case in Iraq, geography is a fact of life also. Syria will always have some influence on Lebanon.

Kissinger: It is different now. A peace process between Israel and the Palestinians can start and will start. Both sides have suffered enough from the Intifada, so we need an incentive for negotiations. The major problem is, how one gets it started. In the past, I had preferred more limited steps than comprehensive schemes like the road map. But I do not want to talk about this before the talks have even started.

15

[Y]

notyet

It can be changed only by performing

Kissinger: There is certainly. But on the whole, the Arab World was calmer than the media in Germany and France.

Question: Are you sure?

It is unclear & debate this. wait

Kissinger: (laughing) We are now at a point where the administration can put forward its view of a positive evolution in various parts of the world for the remaining period before the election. I think there is a great opportunity. I would prefer to do this in dialogue with traditional friends. But this also requires that our friends show some understanding for the American psychology and American convictions,

and some unforgiveness in American premises

16

[Y]

A few over simplifications.
Kissinger: I have believed that there are limits to what any one
country can do in changing the world. It should be modest in
attempting to intervene in the domestic situations of other countries.

There are extreme situations in which we should. I supported the
intervention in Bosnia, for example. And I would have supported
intervention in Rwanda. You cannot have real progress without some
stability. The whole world is in revolutionary turmoil. The more order is
destroyed, the more force will have to be used in re-establishing some
order. I do not see stability and progress as standing opposed to each
other, but rather as conditions to one another.

17

Kissinger: The world is now in the process of building a new world order which grows from the collapse of communism, the weapons of mass destruction, the privatization of foreign policy, the globalization of the economy and the gap between economic and political globalization. These are all huge problems. And it has never happened before that foreign policy had to be conducted on a global basis. It has also never happened before that all the major countries were very sensitive to their public opinion and that the public could watch everything as it happens. You have a condition in which the need for long-range thinking is enormous, and the capacity for long-range thinking has been limited by the pressures of the public and the nature of modern communication.

18

[Y]

Kissinger: The terrorist groups are essentially private groups and not governmental groups. They are financed by existing states, but their purposes are not identical to states. Some of the existing principles of foreign policy cannot apply to them. Deterrence does not work with groups which have nothing to defend. Diplomacy does not work with groups which do not want to compromise. Therefore the principles of the Westphalian system cannot work, when you have either private groups or when you have a threat of a magnitude, in which you cannot wait for the threat to become real. You have to act on the conjecture of the threat. That's a problem the world will face with North Korea and almost certainly with other states.

Kissinger: We will without doubt, as every other country, undergo significant debates on foreign policy in the next five years. So it's very

19

[Y]

is not the case, but it is true that the US would do precisely what is being said. In Europe, especially in Germany and France, there is a view that America had a sort of an illegitimate government, that this is a government with which you can't communicate. That is wrong. There has to be a serious dialogue with the people who actually make American foreign policy, which happens to be the President.

Belgium, the United States should respond constructively to France. It is not a question of stigmatizing individuals for what has happened. The alliance will fall apart unless an effort is made. The

20

[4]

killed? For what objective? World War II was a different issue. The

must deal with?

WamS: And the answer is?

Kissinger: On the basis of recent performance, you can make a
negative case. I would hate to accept that. I hope that we can have a
dialogue on issues like proliferation, globalization, terrorism. We have
to come to common positions. We won't be identical at all times. I was
extremely distressed by what happened in recent months. My
generation believed in the Atlantic world. Now it threatens to fall apart.

21

[Y]

Western World, because this may ~~redirect~~ traditional Russian

aspirations that used to be a disaster for Russia too. It's better for

~~ subjects ~~ of this European foreign policy.

END

23

4/30/03

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

New York

Henry Kissinger: I greatly respect Jürgen Habermas. But his criticism takes no account of the dominant fact of our period: the change from the international system created by the Treaty of Westphalia to a new system in process of gestation. The Westphalian principles based order on the sovereignty of states and defined aggression as the crossing of international borders by organized units. But September 11th introduced a new challenge posed by the privatization of foreign policy in the hands of non-government groups tacitly or directly supported by

M

traditional states. And proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
brings about a threat of devastation.

Kissinger: In the thinking of those who were responsible for the
decision, the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction merged with the issue of terrorism. Intellectually, I agree
with that. Those are both problems that need in some respect a pre-
emptive solution in the sense that one cannot wait for the act of
aggression having actually taken place. I have been saying for years
that I agree with the principle of pre-emption.

2

[4]

But I do not agree that in the long run one can alone define the
nature of the threat nation. And therefore, there should be discussion
between America and specially our allies as well other countries under
what principles pre-emption is justified and plausible. In the case of
Iraq, it was an emergency situation that had a long history. Therefore,
I supported the Administration. I would not support the principle as a
general rule, without additional efforts to establish it on an
international basis.

3

[4]

be the first resort? No, But it wasn't in the case of Iraq either. Can war
never settle anything? Germany knows from its own history that wars
for better or worse have brought many changes.

4

[4]

5

[Y]

Kissinger: If they will not find anything, one has to analyze what mistakes were made. But I do not think this will happen. In any event, one should not question the good faith of the people who made the decisions with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. Since you imply that UN inspectors should be used, what is the purpose for them, other than to needle the US?

6

M

Explain to me: Why does one now engage in these needling exercises,
which cannot produce any conceivable results.

WamS: And Russia?

combination: Germany, Russia and France, six months after NATO
expansion? It will not last.

7

[N]

Kissinger: Whoever it is has to be able to demonstrate that he can gain some public support. Chalabi can be one of the contenders. But I think the nature of the leader of Iraq can only crystallize after a political process had started. In 1945, I was a US soldier in Germany,

8

Y

9

[Y]

Kissinger: Ironically, a lot of this depends on how our relationship with Europe develops. It would be fairly easy to achieve some degree of UN legitimization were the historic Atlantic partnership still in tact. What makes no sense is to repeat the process which preceded the war

10

Y

Kissinger: So long as the allies are so divided, the UN would simply
repeat its divisions. I would not begin with the Security Council after
the experience we have had. I don't think this would be good for
anybody. It would lead again to a potential controversy of the Western
nations.

11

[Y]

In Iraq it was not just the internal structure of Iraq, it was the
combination of the disregard for the cease-fire agreement, the
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction—as we perceived it in two
administrations—and the attacks against the US.

12

[Y]

The alternative to the present government is likely to be less
democratic. The US should use its influence and the whole West should
use its influence in the direction of improved human rights and more
benign institutions. But I do not agree with those who think we can
start revolutions all over the world as an overriding objective for our
policy.

13

[4]

Kissinger: The American problem with Syria is that it tolerates terrorist organization on Syrian soil, not regime changes. In the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, there is room for a Syrian peace process. It is in that context that one should talk about Syrian-American relations and not in a continuation of the war in Iraq.

Kissinger: Actually, the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations do not need a road map; they were very close to success. You need a solution to one problem, that of riparian rights in the Sea of Galilee, and to the terrorist problem. Intellectually the Syrian-Israeli negotiations seem to be simpler than the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

14

Kissinger: Syria would have to give up its influence on Hezbollah and would probably have to reduce its military influence in Lebanon, but geography is a fact of life also. Syria will always have some influence on Lebanon.

Kissinger: It is different now. A peace process between Israel and the Palestinians can start and will start. Both sides have suffered enough from the Intifada to make some agreement possible. The major problem is, how one gets it started. In the past, I had preferred more limited steps than comprehensive schemes like the road map. But I do not want to talk about this before the talks have even started.

15

[7]

Question: Are you sure?

Kissinger: (laughing) We are now at a point where the administration can put forward its view of a positive evolution in various parts of the world for the remaining period before the election. I think there is a great opportunity. I would prefer to do this in dialogue with traditional friends. But this also requires that our friends show some understanding for the American psychology and American convictions.

16

[Y]

17

M

18

[Y]

19

[4]

hard to say what the US would do precisely. In Europe, especially in
Germany and France, there is a view that America had a sort of an
illegitimate government, that this is a government with which you
can't communicate. That is wrong. There has to be a serious dialogue
with the people who actually make American foreign policy, which
happens to be the President.

Kissinger: After what has happened, I think it would help, if the first
effort—or at least a symbolic effort—were made by Germany and
France. It is not a question of stigmatizing individuals for what has
happened. The alliance will fall apart unless an effort is made. The
Western World which has had great achievement in civilization has had
one organic failure. It has destroyed itself through its internal rivalries.

20

[y]

WamS: And the answer is?

21

[y]

Kissinger: It is partly philosophy. There has been, above all, too much playing to short-term opinion. The more one now emphasizes the distinctive views of Germany and America, the more difficult one will find it to find the way back to a constructive relationship. Both sides have to decide whether 50 years of close association should be thrown away and whether one should focus on demonstrating how wrong the US was and how right Germany was. I would hope that we will find a basis for a more conciliatory dialogue, without "Rechthaberei" (judgmentalism) on either side.

Kissinger: I would prefer if the traditional Atlantic group came to some understanding and then have Russia join it. The worst thing to do is to

22

[Y]

encourage Russia to try to play balance of power politics within the
Western World, because this may redirect traditional Russian
aspirations that used to be a disaster for Russia too. It's better for
Russia to join existing structures than for it to try to force its way into
the gaps left between the existing institutions.

Kissinger: From a technical viewpoint, yes. But it will depend on the
subjects of this European foreign policy.

END

23

APR-29-2003 09:47

KMA

2127590042 P. 03/22

4/28/03

# Welt am Sonntag Transcript from April 22

Henry Kissinger: I don't agree. One has to understand what the US did in the context of the attack of 9/11, which was a combination of the privatisation of foreign policy and supported hastily or directly by ??? states.

(Dr. Kissinger: I did not understand on the tape, what you said)

It also was a breakdown in the sense of the Westfalian principles of international order, which were based on the sovereignty of states and the crossing of international borders by organized units. The efforts of the US have been to break the link between the terrorists and the states which host them and to demonstrate that an attack on the US in this manner bears exorbitant risks.

APR-29-2003 09:48

KMA

2127590042

P. 05/22

Kissinger: That depends on what you mean by peace. The idea to have peace without the absence of tension is a philosophical construction that has never ended in history. Have there been periods of peace that were produced by wars? For a 100 years after the Napoleonic there were no major wars. Can war settle all problems? Certainly not. Should war be the first resort? No. But it wasn't in that case either. Can war never settle anything? I would disagree with that as well.

Kissinger: I fundamentally supported the Bush-Administration on the war against Iraq.

3

APR-29-2003 09:48

KMA

2127590042 P.06/22

Kissinger: I don't agree with this. I have talked to intelligence people from US and Britain and from the previous US-Administration. I have never heard
that weapons of mass destruction were challenged that there are any contrary evidence

that the basis on which the president operated and the
on which President Clinton almost went to war in 1998 was the
conviction that the weapons were there.

Kissinger: It was certainly the honest opinion of Colin Powell that a man of great character

4

APR-29-2003 09:48

KMA

2127590042 P.09/22

WamS: Who should be in charge of the interim government and the one
thereafter? US-soldiers, Chalabi ...?

Kissinger: I have no precise view of Chalabi, because the people who support him have a very strong opinion and the people who oppose him have very strong opinions. I have only met him once in a big group. But whoever it is has to be able to demonstrate that he can gain some public support. Chalabi can be one of the contenders. But I think the nature of the leader of Iraq can only crystallize after a political process had started. In 1945, I was an US-soldier in Germany, but I had never heard of Adenauer. And I never saw Adenauer's name mentioned in 1945 in the context of who would be head of state.

7

APR-29-2003 09:48

KMA

2127590042 P. 10/22

Kissinger: At this point one cannot tell what the mood is, because at this point, the people who are organized best, are likely to attract the most attention. But I would not have been surprised if there were opposition to the US. One cannot maintain a military government in Islamic countries for an indefinite period of time.

Kissinger: I think there has to be a period of two or three months for order to be restored and weapons of mass destruction to be looked for. Then Iraq will have to be largely under the control of the people. There has to be a period in which other countries are given the opportunity to participate in the

8

APR-29-2003 09:49

KMA

2127590042 P.11/22

governance of Iraq. I would start with members of the coalition, but I would
not confine it to members of the coalition, so that gradually there will be
some organisation that provides a broader basis than simply American
military occupation.

Europe and others develop. It would be fairly easy to achieve some degree of

UN-legitimisation. What makes no sense is to repeat the process which

preceded the war in order to get a governing authority because this would

Kissinger: I would not begin with the Security Council after the experience

again to a potential division of the Western nations.

9

APR-29-2003 09:49

KMA

2127590042 P. 12/22

Kissinger: There is no Muslim state that has yet produced a pluralistic democracy as we know it in the West. Part of that reason is that democracy in the West really evolved after the reformation, after the separation of church and state and, the introduction of pluralism of religion. Certainly the evolution of democracy in the Muslim world will be different. And as a general rule, I do not believe that it can be imposed from the outside. But by removing a dictatorship, one can create conditions in which its own organic evolution can grow. I would not argue that the US has an obligation or a necessity to overthrow every government with which it disagrees by force.

In Iraq it was not just the internal structure of Iraq, it was the combination of the disregard for the cease fire agreement, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction - as we perceived it in two administrations - and the attacks against the US.

10

APR-29-2003 09:49

KMA

2127590042 P.13/22

WamS: But the attacks were mainly conducted by people with a Saudi-Arabian passport. Will there be a new policy of the US towards this country after the war?

Kissinger: Saudi-Arabia's government is in a complicated situation in which it floats on half of a certain degree to resist fanaticism and a degree ofandelized by a population with predominant segments ofreligionistpopulist radicalists.

(Dr. Kissinger: Please complete this sentence, I cannot properly understand it on the tape)

Therefore the alternative to the present government is likely to be less democratic. I think the US should use its influence and the whole West should use its influence in the direction of human rights and more benign institutions. But I do not agree with those who think we can start revolutions all over the world as an overriding objective for our policy.

11

APR-29-2003 09:49

KMA

2127590042

P. 14/22

Kissinger: We are at the very beginning, the war has barely ended. The American problem with Syria is that it tolerates terrorist organisation on not a regime change

Syrian soil. I would be surprised if the American Administration would make a regime change in Syria its principle objective, since we are at the beginning of a process in the Middle East in which an effort will be made to start negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That is a process in which Syria can also find its place. It is in that context that one should talk about it and not in a continuation of the war in Iraq.

In the here is room for a Syrian peace process

~~In the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That is a process in~~

~~which Syria can also find its place. It is in that context that one should talk~~

~~~~Squ离American relations~~

~~about it and not in a continuation of the war in Iraq.~~

WamS: Should Syria be included in the "road map", which president Bush wants to present?

Kissinger: I am not too enthusiastic about the road map. I have never seen these comprehensive schemes lead to a conclusion. Actually the Syrian-

do not need a road map; they

Israeli peace negotiations were very close to success. Therefore in Syrian-

Israeli peace negotiations you would not need a very complicated road map, one you need a solution to that problem and to the terrorist problem.

That is Israeli rights in the sky of Jerusalem

12

APR-29-2003 09:49

KMA

2127590042 P.15/22

[Y]

WamS: Would not Syria have to give up its influence on Lebanon and
Hesbollah?

Kissinger: Syria would have to give up its influence on Hesbollah and would
probably have to ~~give up~~ reduce its military influence in Lebanon, but geography is a
fact of life also. Syria will always have some influence on Lebanon.

WamS: Do you think that in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the current
situation is similar to the one after Gulf war I? Will it be the start of a new
peace process like in Madrid and Oslo almost 10 years ago?

Kissinger: It is different now. A peace process between Israel and the
Palestinians can start and will start. Both sides have suffered enough from
the Intifada to make some agreement possible. The major problem is, how
one gets it started. In the past, I had preferred more limited steps. But I do
not want to talk about this before the crisis is even condemned.
Talks have even started

13

APR-29-2003 09:50

KMA

2127590042 P. 16/22

Question: Are you sure?

Kissinger: (laughing) I believe that it is possible, but I think we are now at a point where the administration can put forward its view of a positive

dialogue with traditional friends. But this also requires that our friends show some understanding for the American position.

Kissinger:

Kissinger: That's what people say. I have believed that there are limits to what any one country can do in changing the world. It should be modest in

14

APR-29-2003 09:50

KMA

2127590042 P. 17/22

attempting to intervene in the domestic situations of other countries. There
are extreme situations in which we should. I supported the intervention in
Bosnia, for example. And I would have supported intervention in Rwanda. It's
a general proposition. I argue that you cannot have real progress without
some stability. The whole world is in revolutionary turmoil. The more it is
destroyed, the more force will have to be used in re-establishing some order.
I do not see stability and progress as standing opposed to each other, but
rather as conditions to one another.

Kissinger: The world is now in the process of building a new world order
which grows from the collapse of communism, the weapons of mass
destruction, the privatisation of foreign policy, the globalisation of the
economy and the gap between economic and political globalisation. These are all
huge problems. And it has never happened before that foreign policy had to

15

APR-29-2003 09:50

KMA

2127590042 P.18/22

be conducted on a global basis. It has also never happened before that the major countries were very sensitive to their public opinion and that the public could watch everything as it happens. You have a condition in which the need for long range thinking is enormous and the capacity for long range thinking has been limited by the pressures of the public and the nature of modern communication.

WamS: What do you mean by privatisation of foreign policy?

Kissinger: The terrorist groups are essentially private groups and not governmental groups. They are financed by existing states, but their purposes are not identical to states. Some of the existing principles of foreign policy cannot apply to them. Deterrence does not work with groups which have nothing to defend. Diplomacy does not work with groups which do not want to compromise. Therefore the principles of the Westfalian system cannot work, when you have either private groups or when you have a threat of a magnitude, in which you cannot wait for the threat to become real. You

16

APR-29-2003 09:50

KMA

2127590042 P.19/22

WamS: How does the new world order effect the US foreign policy?

Kissinger: We will without doubt in every country undergo significant debates
on foreign policy in the next five years. So it's very hard to say what the US
would do precisely. In Europe, especially in Germany and France, there is a
view that America had a sort of an illegitimate government, that this is a
government with which you can't communicate. There are some elements in
that you may communicate with. That is wrong. There has to be a serious
dialogue with the people who actually make American foreign policy, which
happens to be the president.

Kissinger: After what has happened, I think it would help, if the first effort
- or at least a symbol or effect -
were made by Germany and France. But it is not a question of stigmatising
individual
unless an effort is made
people for what may have happened. The alliance will fall apart and the
it

17

APR-29-2003 09:50

KMA

2127590042

P. 20/22

[4]

The Western World which has had great achievement in civilisation has had one organic failure. It has destroyed itself through its internal rivalries. Let's take as an example World War I: Why were so many people killed? For what objective? WW II was a different issue. The question is: Can the Western civilisation find some common definition of the world it finds itself in and of the opportunities and dangers it must deal with?

WamS: And the answer is?

Kissinger: On the basis of recent performance, you can make a negative case. I would hate to accept that. I hope that we can have a dialogue on issues like proliferation, globalisation, terrorism. We have to come to common positions. We won't be identical at all times. I was extremely distressed by what happened in recent years. My generation believed in the

Atlantic world. Now it is about to fall apart.

terrains
Now much of
European policy defines itself by creating
opposing structures to challenge the United States

18

APR-29-2003 09:51

KMA

2127590042

P. 21/22

Kissinger: It is partly philosophy. But there was too much playing to short-term opinion. I believe that it was reasonable, but it was surely not so unreasonable, that it had to lead to such a confrontation. The more one now employs draws on the distinctive views of Germany and America, the more difficult one will find it to find the way back to a constructive relationship. Both sides have to decide whether 50 years of close association should be thrown away and whether one should focus on demonstrating how wrong the US was and how right or how wrong Germany was. I would hope that we will find a basis for a more conciliatory dialogue, without "Rechthaberei" (judgmentalism) on either side.

Kissinger: I would prefer if the traditional Atlantic group came to some understanding and then have Russia come in. The worst thing to do is to encourage Russia to try to play balance of power politics within the Western World, because this may redirect traditional Russian aspirations that used to be a disaster for Russia too. It's better for Russia to join existing structures,

19

APR-29-2003 09:51

KMA

2127590042

P. 22/22

[Y]

END

20

TOTAL P. 22

Page 2 of 6

[u]

Kissinger: Yes.

(Dr. Kissinger: I do understand you correctly? You mean with pre-emptive solution in the context with Iraq a pre-emptive strike? I hope, yes. This word would fit perfectly in here and point it out much clearer.)

But I do not agree that in the long run this can only be defined by one nation. And therefore, there should be discussion between us and specially our allies as well other countries under what principles pre-emption is justified and plausible. In this case, it was an emergency situation that had a long history. Therefore, I supported the Administration. I would not support the principle as a general rule, without additional efforts to establish it on an international basis.

Kissinger: I don't agree with this. I have talked to intelligence people from US and Britain and from the previous US-Administration. I have never heard it challenged that there are weapons of mass destruction. I have never heard any contrary evidence that the basis on which the president operated and the basis on which President Clinton almost went to war in 1998 was the conviction that the weapons were there.

Kissinger: It was certainly the honest opinion of Colin Powell.

Kissinger: I don't know.

Kissinger: The US has occupied the whole country and did not find anything so far. Why should the inspectors be able to find these weapons.

Kissinger: If they will not find anything, one has to analyse what mistakes were made. But one will not be able to question the good faith of the people who made the decisions with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. What can the UN weapons inspectors do? What is the purpose for them, other than to needle the US?

Kissinger: It seems extremely implausible for me that the inspectors which did not find anything before, are going to find anything now. And I don't know what measures they could use, which the Americans could not use.

5/21/2003

Page 3 of 6

[ic]

Kissinger: No, with the other countries you mean Germany and France

WamS: and Russia.

Kissinger: Russia is a political thing. Don't you think it is an odd combination: Germany, Russia and France, six months after Nato-expansion? It will not last.

Kissinger: Peace is a relative term. One just can bring in stability and progress. I think it can, but it will be very
difficult.

Kissinger: I think there has to be a period of two or three months for order to be restored and weapons of mass destruction to be looked for. Then Iraq will have to be largely under the control of the people. There has to be a period in which other countries are given the opportunity to participate in the governance of Iraq. I would start with members of the coalition, but I would not confine it to members of the coalition, so that gradually there will be some organisation that provides a broader basis than simply American military occupation.

Kissinger: Ironically, a lot of this depends on how our relationship with Europe and others develop. It would be fairly easy to achieve some degree of UN-legitimisation. What makes no sense is to repeat the process which preceded the war in order to get a governing authority because this would simply introduce all these debates in the middle of Iraqi reconstruction.

5/21/2003

Page 4 of 6

[L]

Kissinger: I would not begin with the Security Council after the experience we have had. I don't think this would be good for anybody. It would lead again to a potential division of the Western nations.

Kissinger: There is no Muslim state that has yet produced a pluralistic democracy as we know it in the West. Part of that reason is that democracy in the West really evolved after the reformation, after the separation of church and state and the introduction of pluralism of religion. Certainly the evolution of democracy in the Muslim world will be different. And as a general rule, I do not believe that it can be imposed from the outside. But by removing a dictatorship, one can create conditions in which its own organic evolution can grow. I would not argue that the US has an obligation or a necessity to overthrow every government with which it disagrees by force.

Kissinger: Saudi-Arabia's government is in a complicated situation in which it floats on half of a certain degree to resist fanaticism and a degree of populist radicalists.

Kissinger: We are at the very beginning, the war has barely ended. The American problem with Syria is that it tolerates terrorist organisation on Syrian soil. I would be surprised if the American Administration would make regime change in Syria its principle objective, since we are at the beginning of a process in the Middle East in which an effort will be made to start negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That is a process in which Syria can also find its place. It is in that context that one should talk about it and not in a continuation of the war in Iraq.

Kissinger: I am not too enthusiastic about the road map. I have never seen these comprehensive schemes lead to a conclusion. Actually the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations were very close to success. Therefore in Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations you would not need a very complicated road map, you need a solution to that problem and to the terrorist problem. Intellectually the Syrian-Israeli negotiations seem to be simpler than the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Kissinger: Syria would have to give up its influence on Hesbollah and would probably have to give up its military influence in Lebanon, but geography is a factor of life also. Syria will always have some influence on Lebanon.

5/21/2003

Page 5 of 6

[c]

Question: Are you sure?

Kissinger: (laughing) I believe that it is possible, but I think we are now at a point where the administration can put forward its view of a positive revolution in various parts of the world for the remaining period before the election. I think there is a great opportunity. I would prefer to do this in dialogue with traditional friends. But this also requires that our friends show some understanding for the American position.

Kissinger: That's what people say. I have believed that there are limits to what any one country can do in changing the world. It should be modest in attempting to intervene in the domestic situations of other countries. There are extreme situations in which we should. I supported the intervention in Bosnia, for example. And I would have supported intervention in Rwanda. It's a general proposition. I argue that you cannot have real progress without some stability. The whole world is in revolutionary turmoil. The more it is destroyed, the more force will have to be used in re-establishing some order. I do not see stability and progress as standing opposed to each other, but rather as conditions to one another.

Kissinger: The world is now in the process of building a new world order which grows from the collapse of communism, the weapons of mass destruction, the privatisation of foreign policy, the globalisation of the economy and the gap of economic and political globalisation. These are all huge problems. And it has never happened before that foreign policy had to be conducted on a global basis. It has also never happened before that the major countries were very sensitive to their public opinion and that the public could watch everything as it happens. You have a condition in which the need for long range thinking is enormous and the capacity for long range thinking has been limited by the pressures of the public and the nature of modern communication.

Kissinger: The terrorist groups are essentially private groups and not governmental groups. They are financed by existing states, but their purposes are not identical to states. Some of the existing principles of foreign policy cannot apply to them. Deterrence does not work with groups which have nothing to defend. Diplomacy does not work with groups which do not want to compromise. Therefore the principles of the Westfalian system cannot work, when you have either private groups or when you have a threat of a magnitude, in which you cannot wait for the threat to become real. You have to act on the conjecture of the threat. That's a problem the world will face with North Korea and almost certainly with other states.

Kissinger: We will without doubt in every country undergo significant debates on foreign policy in the next five years. So it's very hard to say what the US would do precisely. In Europe, especially in Germany and France, there is a view that America had a sort of an illegitimate government, that this is a government with which you can't communicate. There are some elements in it that you may communicate with. That is wrong. There has to be a serious dialogue with the people who actually make American foreign policy, which happens to be the

5/21/2003

Page 6 of 6

[lc]

president.

Kissinger: After what has happened, I think it would help, if the first effort were made by Germany and France. But it is not a question of stigmatising people for what may have happened. The alliance will fall apart and the Western World which has had great achievement in civilisation has had one organic failure. It has destroyed itself through its internal rivalries. Let's take as an example World War I: Why were so many people killed? For what objective? WW II was a different issue. The question is: Can the Western civilisation find some common definition of the world it finds itself in and of the opportunities and dangers it must deal with?

WamS: And the answer is?

Kissinger: It is partly philosophy. But there was too much playing to short-term opinion. I believe that it was reasonable, but it was surely not so unreasonable, that it had to lead to such a confrontation. The more one now draws on the distinctive views of Germany and America, the more difficult one will find it to find the way back to a constructive relationship. Both sides have to decide whether 50 years of close association should be thrown away and whether one should focus on demonstrating how wrong the US was and how right or how wrong Germany was. I would hope that we will find a basis for a more conciliatory dialogue, without "Rechthaberei" (judgmentalism) on either side.

Kissinger: I would prefer if the traditional Atlantic group came to some understanding and then have Russia came in. The worst thing to do is to encourage Russia to try to play balance of power politics within the Western World, because this may redirect traditional Russian aspirations that used to be a disaster for Russia too. It's better for Russia to join existing structures, than for it to try to force its way into the gaps left between the existing institutions.

END

5/21/2003