-1-

NEW YORK TIMES

The fundamental problem as I see it is that this is the most blatant case of 1930's style agression in the entire post World War II era. In the midst of a period of peace and without any particular provocation except its own desire for more territory, Iraq has annexed Kuwait. If that is permit-ted to stand, it will lead to a whole cycle of conflicts and revolutions in the region.

I refer to Germany in the 1930's and not to Soviet expansionism in the 1950's because the Soviet Union did not actuallly annex those countries. Rather, it insisted on the right to impose puppet governments on unwilling populations. Saddam Hussein is abolishing a state that has existed for 70 years and a dynasty that has ruled Kuwait for 250 years.

If Saddam Hussein succeeds, particularly on the basis of the arguments he has used - that Iraq has an implicit right to supplant Arab states by military action - all the principalities in the Gulf will be put at risk because virtually every country in the area, including Jordan, fits Hussein's criteria for justifying the overthrow of Kuwait with the possible exception of Egypt.

[Y]

-2-

If Hussein succeeds, a cycle of conflicts in the Middle East is absolutely inevitable and will probably culminate in an Arab-Israeli war.

At the same time, the pressure on the industrial democracies would also be entirely in Hussein's hands. The price of oil is determined by production levels, so he will determine the price of oil and will surely do so without regard for the economic well-being of the industrialized states.

If Saddam Hussein can make his coup stick in the face of unanimous opposition from the United Nations, a worldwide embargo and U.S. military deployment, we cannot now but enter a period of growing chaos. This is not a matter of the U.S. getting involved in an Arab problem. In my view, if the crisis ends in any way other than Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, it will be a major set-back for the cause of peace.

AUG 10 '90 10:11 KISSINGER ASSOCIATES N.Y.

P. 1

-1-

NEW YORK TIMES

Saudi Arabia has been a friend of the United States since its inception, and has generally been supportive of moderate policies in the Middle East.

The fundamental problem as I see it is that this is the most latent case of 1930's style aggression in the entire post World War II era. In the midst of a period of peace and without any particular provocation except its own desire for more territory, Iraq has annexed Kuwait. If that is permitted to stand, it will lead to a whole series of conflicts in the region.

I refer to Germany in the 1930's and not to Soviet expansionism in the 1950's because the Soviet Union did not actually annex those countries. Rather, it insisted on the right to impose puppet governments, which was still one whole step removed from what Saddam Hussein did. I am not defending the Soviet Union, but what it did was to create a security belt by imposing on unwilling populations, governments that were compatible with Soviet ideology. Saddam Hussein is abolishing a state and a dynasty that has ruled Kuwait for 250 years. This is not the result of the

AUG 10 '90 10:11 KISSINGER ASSOC (HIES N.Y.)

P.2 000

-2-

negotiation of a conflict, but quite simply the pursuit of
Hussein's perception of Iraqi interests.

If Saddam Hussein succeeds, particularly on the basis
of the arguments he has used - that the fragmentation of the
Arab world is unnatural; that Kuwaiti monarchies have no
right to exist; that Iraq has an implicit right to supplant
~~Arab states~~ international borders by military action - all the princi-
palities in the Gulf will be put at risk, including the
~~Emirats which preserve 2/3 of the oil. In the region, because~~
virtually every country in the area, including Jordan, fits
Hussein's criteria for justifying the overthrow of Kuwait
with the possible exception of Egypt. And all the other
~~in the region must know that they would have to adapt to~~
dictates from Baghdad.

At the same time, the pressure on the industrial
democracies would be entirely in Hussein's hands. The price
of oil is determined by production levels, so he will
determine the price of oil and will surely do so without
regard for the economic well-being of the industrialized
states. Rather, he will do what is necessary
to bolster his own aggrandizement.

B

AUG 10 '90 10:12 KISSINGER ASSOC

P.3

-3-

If the principle is established that it is possible for a nation to arm itself and by sheer force engulf larger neighboring territories and thereby gain a stronghold on the world economy - a nation, moreover, governed by a man who used poison gas against his own population - then the moral and practical consequences will be clear indeed. If Saddam Hussein can make it stick in the face of unanimous opposition from the United Nations, a worldwide embargo and U.S. military deployment, we cannot now but enter a period of growing chaos.

For all those reasons, this is not a matter of the U.S. getting involved in an Arab problem. Nor do I accept the argument that the Arabs can settle this among themselves. This is a matter of vital interest for Europe, for Japan, and for the U.S. In my view, if it ends in any way other than Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, it will be a major set-back for the cause of peace.

AUG 09 '90 18:04 NY TIMES OUTBOUND FAX

P.2

PTR SYSTEM 7 PRINTER 1 TAKE NO. 075268 TIME 17:31 DATE 08-09-90

{ 075268}for/experts -kissinger/stanley(SY1 086591 08-09 W0579 <)

Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to Richard Nixon from 1969-75, Secretary of State 1973-77. Now a consultant with the firm he founded, Kissinger Associates, Inc.

Saudi Arabia has been a friend of the United States for all of its existence, and it has generally been supportive of moderate policies in the Middle East.

The fundamental problem, it seems to be, is that this is the most naked case of 1930s-style aggression in the entire post-war period. In the middle of peace, without any particular provocation except the desire to annex a country, Iraq has annexed Kuwait. If that is permitted to stand it will lead to a whole series of conflicts in the region.

I referred to Germany in the 30s and not to the Soviet expansionism in the 1950s because the Soviet Union did not actually annex those countries. It insisted on its right to impose puppet governments, but that is one step removed from what Saddam Hussein is doing. I am not defending what the Soviet Union did, but it had to create a security belt by imposing on unwilling populations governments that were compatible with Soviet ideology. Saddam Hussein is actually abolishing a state and a dynasty that has ruled Kuwait for 250 years. This is not the result of a negotiation of a conflict, this is the simple pursuit of his perception of Iraqi interests.

If Saddam Hussein succeeds, in particular with the arguments he has used -- that the fragmentation (of the Arab world) is unnatural, that these monarchies have no right to exist, and that Iraq has the right to overturn international borders by military action -- it puts at risk all the principalities in the Gulf. Not just Saudi Arabia, but also the Emirates, which produce 2/3 of the oil in the region. Virtually all the countries in the area fit the criterion he established for overthrowing Kuwait, with the possible exception of Egypt, but including Jordan. All of these countries in the area will know that they will have to adapt to the dictates from Baghdad.

If he succeeds, a cycle of conflicts in the middle east is absolutely inevitable, probably culminating in an Arab-Israeli war.

At the same time, the pressure on the industrial democracies will be entirely in his own hands. The price of oil is determined by production levels. He can determine the price of oil, and he will surely do it without regard for the economic health of the industrialized states. He will do it to suit whatever is necessary for his own aggrandizement.

If the principle is established that a nation, simply by arming itself can engulf territories larger than itself, and thereby obtain a stranglehold on the world economy, a nation, moreover, governed by a man who used poison gas against his own population, the consequences will be dire. If Saddam Hussein can make it stick, in the face of the

unanimous opinion of the United Nations, a worldwide embargo, and a
U. S. deployment, we will enter a period of growing chaos.

For all of these reasons, this is not a matter of the U. S. being
involved in an Arab problem. I don't accept the argument that the Arabs
can settle this amongst themselves -- this is a matter of vital
interest for Europe, Japan, and the U. S. In my view, if it ends in any
other way except Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, it will be a major
set-back for the cause of peace.

NEW YORK TIMES

The fundamental problem as I see it is that this is the
most blatant case of 1930's style agression in the entire
post World War II era. In the midst of a period of peace and
without any particular provocation except its own desire for
more territory, Iraq has annexed Kuwait. If that is permit-
ted to stand, it will lead to a whole slew of conflicts in
the region.

I refer to Germany in the 1930's and not to Soviet
expansionism in the 1950's because the Soviet Union did not
actually annex those countries. Rather, it insisted on the
right to impose puppet governments, which was still one
whole step removed from what Saddam Hussein has done. I am
not defending the Soviet Union, but what it did was to
create a security belt by imposing on unwilling populations
governments that were compatible with Soviet ideology.
Saddam Hussein is abolishing a state and a dynasty that has
ruled Kuwait for 250 years. This is not the result of the

[Y]

-2-

negotiation of a conflict, but quite simply the pursuit of
Hussein's perception of Iraqui interests.

If Saddam Hussein succeeds, particularly on the basis
of the arguments he has used - that the fragmentation of the
Arab world is unnatural; that Kuwaiti monarchies have no
right to exist; that Iraq has an implicit right to supplant
international borders by military action - all the princi-
palities in the Gulf will be put at risk, including the
Emirats which produce 2/3 of the oil in the region. Because
virtually every country in the area, including Jordan, fits
Hussein's criteria for justifying the overthrow of Kuwait
with the possible exception of Egypt. And all the countries
in the region must know that they would have to adapt to
dictates from Bagdad.

At the same time, the pressure on the industrial
democracies is also entirely in Hussein's hands. The price
of oil is determined by production levels, so he will
determine the price of oil and will surely do so without
regard for the economic well-being of the industrialized
states. Rather, he will do it to suit whatever is necessary
to bolster his own aggrandizement.

[y]

-3-

If the principle is established that it is possible for
a nation to arm itself and by sheer force engulf larger
neighboring territories and thereby gain a stronghold on the
world economy - a nation, moreover, governed by a man who
used poison gas against his own population - then the moral
and practical consequences will be dire indeed. And if
Saddam Hussein can make it stick in the face of unanimous
dissentation from the United Nations, a worldwide embargo and
U.S. military deployment, we cannot now but enter a period
of growing chaos.

For all these reasons, this is not a matter of the U.S.
getting involved in an Arab problem. Nor do I accept the
argument that the Arabs can settle this among themselves.
This is a matter of vital interest for Europe, for Japan,
and for the U.S. In my view, if it ends in any way other
than Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, it will be a major
set-back for the cause of peace.