OFFICE OF
HENRY A. KISSINGER

26 November 1991

Dear Mr. Lellouche:

Attached is the interview with the changes which
Dr. Kissinger wished to have made. Please note that
I have myself entered the changes in black ink in
order to make them legible and have indicated in the
margin with a small check mark where changes occurred,
to alert you to the exact spot. As we are faxing this,
I want to make sure that you are able to read everything.
Please call me at our office before Wednesday, afternoon,
tomorrow, as we leave on our Thanksgiving Holiday and
will not be back in the office until Monday next. If
you have trouble reading anything at all, please call
and I will tell you what the word(s) are. Dr. Kissinger
is quite precise about wishing the changes he made
adhered to, as you well know.

We hope that all is to your satisfaction.

Kind regards,

Gina Goldhammer (Mrs.)
Assistant to Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

13-11-1991 12:45

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

1

New York, October 21st, 1991

Henry KISSINGER

Interview by Pierre LELLOUCHE

Pierre LELLOUCHE (PL)

Sitting now at the end of 1991, after the defeat of communism, what do you see as the key future challenges of the world system in the decades ahead ? What kind of a world system do you envision ? And how does America fit into it ?

Henry KISSINGER (HK)

I think that several power centers will emerge in the world : Europe-or Germany, Japan, the Russian Republic or "something" on the territory of yesterday's Soviet Union, China, probably India at some point, and of course the United States... This means that diplomacy will be more similar to XIXth century diplomacy than to the Cold War diplomacy in the sense that you will have to think in terms of Balance of Power and legitimacy, and elements of traditional equilibrium. This is something with which the United States has no experience, nor has China, nor has Japan. And I think the Europeans have lost their touch.

On the other hand, the manner in which this diplomacy is conducted will be quite different from the XIXth century : communications are instantaneous, publics are democratic ; even in autocratic states, there is the need for a lot of public support. Even in the XIXth century, the most bellicose states were those that were autocratic with a strong nationalist public opinion, namely Germany and Russia.

In a world where foreign policy will be global, and everything will be so speeded up, decisions will have to be made under much pressure.

This means that whole new categories of problems will appear that have never existed before. In the past, we did have genuine situations and policies of equilibrium. But in those days, one could encapsulate the foreign policy of each country and have it more or less self-contained, and then bring it into relation with other foreign policies. But now, you will have global problems such as environment, population, nuclear - that can only be dealt with on a more or less global basis. In a nutshell, this is the sort of world that I see emerging.

13-11-1991 12:46

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P. L.

The so-called New World Order, Bush's New World Order.

H. K.

Yes

P. L.

Let us talk about this New World Order for a moment.

What would be its guiding principles ? In 1918, we had a system based on the principle of nationalities, that is how we destroyed ourselves. In 1945, we had the reverse : the sanctity of borders and non interference in domestic affairs. What will come next ?

H. K.

I think this is up for grabs. This is one of the big issues. On the other hand, you have a reassertion of nationalism partly caused by the fact that in the communist countries it was the only one way to cling to an identity other than communism. On the other hand, when these countries will have achieved their national objectives, you may well see them groupings. So that in the Danube Basin for instance, we may see something that will look suspiciously like the Autro-Hungarian Empire. Except that this time it will be voluntary. And you could in Southern Russia for example see a reassertion of Turkish relationships with the Moslem Republics, or Iran, or both.

P. L.

So we may have a strange mixture of principle of nationality and federations of groupings ?

H. K.

Yes, I think the Soviet Union could become a regional grouping.

P. L.

Now, this leads me to the next point about the position of America in all this. Some people say today that we are in a unipolar world.

13-11-1991 12:46

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

4

H. K.

I don't think that ☞ is true at all. I think what we have seen is a glorious sunset of American unipolarism, and We are coming into a quite new world very difficult for Americans to understand.

P. L.

Yes. A world in which you will withdraw militarily massively.

H. K.

Well a world in which we have to withdraw considerably. Because what is the objective of foreign deployment ? Properly conceived, our relation to much of that world could be like that of Britain in the XIXth and late XVIIIth century, or that of France towards Central Europe during the XVIIth and XVIIIthe century. That is to say : maintaining the equilibrium, and being desinterested in territory, resisting hegemonies. And that will take a totally new way of thinking for us.

P. L.

Isn't there a danger now that you are moving back, that you leave behind major strategic vacuums in Europe, in the Middle-East, in Asia ?

H. K.

Absolutely, that is the big danger.

P. L.

But before we discuss this vacuum, or this risk of vacuum, how do you judge the state of the American mood today ? Is America really up to the task of rebuilding itself inside ? Does it still have a consensus for reaching outside or is it completely desinterested and falling apart into things like Judge Thomas's business ?

H. K.

The American people is a good people. I don't say this as a jingoism, but having travelled a lot and knowing many countries, I really think there is no people that has as much good will and principle, as the traditional American people. However, they don't understand foreign affairs because all their experience has been domestic. So it requires a certain inspirational leadership. Now we are quite lucky that Bush understands foreign policy and he can therefore be a good

13-11-1991 12:47

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

5

president for this transition, even if inspiration is not his forte. But he can help guide America.

What worries me is what will come after Bush, in either party. There is a danger that America will be torn between two groups that are really together: one that thinks that our only task in the world was to defeat communism, and now that communism is defeated we have no interest in the world; and another group that thinks that our only interest in the world is Human Rights, and that if we promote democracy we have no other problems, and that if we have a problem, we will handle it by democracy.

P. L.

And the two groups lead therefore to a massive desengagement...

H. K.

Well the actual groups (between them could achieve a majority. Take the current case of China. I got the proof of what occurred at Tien An Men Square. On the other hand, Japan will be driven by reality to become more nationalist and self-reliant. The reality being the same as for Europe, that when the security guarantee is no longer as important, and no longer so reliable because you don't know what the threat is, you will have to conduct a more autonomous policy.

The Russian Republic (or Soviet Union) will shift its center of gravity towards Asia, at least for a while. South-East Asia is developing. Then, not to have China play, with a billion people, and not to talk about it is impossible. It isolates us, not them. And we may have similar problems like this in other parts of the world.

P. L.

Are you concerned by a potential Canadian scenario for the United States. That is the US breaking apart into groups ?

H. K.

Well, I'll tell you. No American can even conceive this. It is absolutely beyond the imagination of any American ...

P. L.

That is a multi-cultural society in effect destroying the core of American values in the end.

13-11-1991 12:47

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

H. K.

I don't see this happening for twenty years. But it could happen. I am very bothered by the bitterness of the debate which is as yet confined only to our elites and has not yet noticeably reached the public that I see. But the Thomas hearings really showed a tension between women and men, and between races. That really was worrysome.

P. L.

There is some element of that in the coming 1492 debate of the various groups and races. So you ...

H. K.

And this whole movement of political correctness of the cadres is really very out of character.

P. L.

Which actually destroys the founding ideas of the United States, since each race and culture is equal, what are the true values of America ? It means calling into question the very reason why America was created, don't you think ?

H. K.

Well, I don't think each race being equal, I think that is desirable. But what is not desirable is that each race claims its values are superior. That is what undermines the values of America.

P. L.

In other words, the real scenario is in any case what we see now, despite all this talk about a unipolar world, a massive American military withdrawal from the three key regions : Asia, the Middle-East, Europe.

Now, I'd like you to, if you may, just look at each of the three.

Let us take the Middle-East first. Has the Gulf war essentially changed the geostrategic map of the region or not, or is it just a temporary reprieve ?

H. K.

13-11-1991 12:48

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

7

The Gulf war has just given us a temporary reprieve against the most radical state in the region. It has however also created a vacuum in which Iran can see many opportunites and in which our allies in that war are compelled to prove their regional loyalties. So, I think the situation there is up for grabs.

P. L.

Is there a security order for the moderate Arab monarchies without somebody taking the lead ?

H. K.

No. I think, if there were another assault, if there were one on Saudi Arabia, one would have to repeat what happened, except that.

P. L.

You won't have the forces ?

H. K.

The United States cannot do it alone. It would have to be done jointly by the United States and Europe.

P. L.

Except that Europe does not show any sign of building those forces.

H. K.

No, that will really be a debacle. Because after all, in all fairness, even during the last crisis, the Europeans, even those who joined us in the end like France, maintained an option for jumping the other way, if it hadn't worked.

P. L.

What would have happened if Saddam Hussein had accepted Mitterrand's offer, do you think ?

H. K.

It would have been a catastrophe, because we would have left, if he had accepted the UN offer.

13-11-1991 12:48

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

8

P. L.

Which was engineered by France which two times was proposed by France - in September, and in January.

H. K.

It would have meant that Algerian forces would have been in Kuwait; Iraqi forces would have withdrawn 30 miles, American forces would have withdrawn 5,000 miles. The whole area would know it took 500,000 Americans to balance the Iraqis and the Iraqis had maintained their entire military arsenal. It would have been a debacle.

P. L.

How useful is it to think of this region in terms of giving some regional responsibility to a country like Egypt or Turkey? Or should we just leave it as it is?

H. K.

You know, you can't give responsibility to countries that are not willing to assume it. And certainly, there has to be a greater devolution of responsibility. I think Europe, some key countries in the Middle-East together with the United-States... But it will not be possible in the future either technically or psychologically for the United States to fight a war with foreign money. We cannot act as mercenaries for others.

P. L.

One last point about Turkey: do you envision a scenario of a much bigger Turkey, A recomposition of the Ottoman Empire?

H. K.

Not expanding its frontiers technically, but I can see a Turkish influence radiating out, yes...

P. L.

To the Soviet Turkish Republics and to the South towards Irak ?

13-11-1991 12:49

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

9

H.K.

✓ Yes, and I do not assume that Turkey is forced to be pro-West for all eternity.

P. L.

If we look now towards the European situation, which of course you are an expert in, how do you view the current debate in Europe about enlarging or deepening Franco-German forces? How do you view the ideal architecture of Europe, given the kind of problems you outline? If you were to redesign it, would you keep NATO, would you change NATO, would you build up the EEC?

H. K.

I would keep NATO, because it is the only institutional link between Europe and the United States and because it would be impossible to design a new institutional link. And it would therefore be important to give it some functions that can be sustained over a period of time.

Secondly I favor the idea of a European force. I don't understand the argument that NATO becomes less important if there is a European force. This would assumes that the Europeans having their own force would rather defend themselves alone against the only realistic threat which comes from the East. And in those respects that Europe would want to defend itself alone, like say in the Middle-East, I'd rather it have them does it with a force than from a posture of neutrality. NATO won't keep them in the Middle-East.

Third, I think it is absolutely essential to get the countries of Eastern Europe related to Western Security. As soon as whatever emerges on the Russian, on the Soviet territory, reintegrates in whatever fashion, it will start pressuring Eastern Europe. It always has. I do not know of any Russian leader since Peter the Great who didn't do it. If they don't do it fine. But if they do do it, I would like Eastern Europe to be an intricate part of the political structure of Western Europe. And if we don't do it now, it will become almost impossible later. I think that is imperative. The most important thing the Europeans have to do.

I am very disturbed by concepts such as Europe from Vladivostok to Vancouver. Because that marries Europe to a turmoil that has its own rythm. And in fact it is the best formula frankly for German nationalism: if everybody is allied with everybody, nobody has any special obligation to anybody, and then the specific weight of each country will be only thing that really matters. And so I think there should be a political construction of Europe West of wherever the border is with Russia or the Soviet Union. And then, there should be the best possible relations with what emerges on the territory.

13-11-1991 12:50

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.L.

What has never happened ?

H. K.

A German-Russian long term cooperation

P. L.

I don't really worry about that. Isn't there however a risk that in effect Germany will dominate the entire Continent now, through larger demography and economic power.

H. K.

No, because
Yes, but German demography is declining.

P.L.

Demography is declining all over Europe, but relatively speaking a United Germany is going to represent a quarter of the Community's population, with a GNP equal to Britain's and France's combined.

H. K.

Well, why don't Britain and France combine ?

I mean it is nonsense wringing your hands about Germany without being willing to draw the consequence. What is not possible is the illusion that France can dominate Germany with its superior psychology or culture or whatever it thinks it is superior in.

P. L.

Nuclear weapons ?

H. K.

Yes, that will not work.

13-11-1991 12:51

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

H. K.

By Germany

P. L.

So that it will be equal to a German control of Europe

H. K.

So that a Confederal structure might be better.

P. L.

I totally agree with that

H. K.

My personal view is that America should be silent on that topic. We should certainly not push it

P. L.

Doesn't it have an impact though on the type of relationship between Europe and America in the long term ? If it is a Confederation or if it is a Federation ?

H. K.

If I were a Western European, I would try to keep America in Europe, because if it was necessary in two world wars, it is even more necessary now. I really think the liberties of Western Europe depend on a continued American interest in Europe. Now how to stay in Europe ? We don't need to be there with 200.000 forces, but we need to be emotionally in Western Europe and we need to think that it matters. And if you create a psychology here that the Europeans are constantly obstreperous, then people will say "the hell with it".

P. L.

Would you favor the kind of ideas to the reform of NATO which you proposed in 1984, about changing the nationality of the SACEUR, and making him a European.

13-11-1991 12:51

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

14

H. K.

✓ Yes, Well, first of all I think we need a new strategic
doctrine, Secondly, I would prefer a European SACEUR, third, I
do not mind a European force at all.

P. L.

Double-hatted, WEU-NATO ?

H. K.

Yes, and I don't see the problem ! So many people say "if the
Europeans have their own force", they will do what ? They will
tell us if there is an attack from the East, "we would rather
do it ourselves"? What exactly will they do ? They will be
neutral in a Middle-East war ? They have been neutral in every
Middle-East war. I don't see the problem. We have been so used
to dominating the structure that we identify with substance.
That part of it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is this
constant manoeuvre of classical European balance of power
politics which treat the United States as a sort of a foreign
body because it will undermine the long term commitment to
Europe in America. I don't say that we should be treated as a
part of Europe, but we should be treated as having some sort
of a special relationship. When you say Europe goes from
Vladivostok to Vancouver, you say that there is no difference
between the East and the United States.

P. L.

You are alluding to Mitterrand's Confederation idea ?

H.K.

Mitterrand, Genscher, and now our Secretary of State has
swallowed it. It is great for isolationists and nationalists !

P. L.

So what's the model then ? It is really a Europe of 500
million from the Atlantic to Poland ?

H. K.

To Poland, with a special relationship to the United States
for which NATO in the short term, mainly the next 10 years,
has to be the framework, but a NATO which moves forward in the
political area. Within that, there will be a European
Community, either confederal or federal, for the Europeans to
decide.

13-11-1991 12:52

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215 P.18

17

This means a sort of a residual nuclear defense, somewhere in
the background ?

H. K.

Yes.

P. L.

What do you do with the South-South defense ? You by anti-
missile defense and a lot of space weapons

H. K.

Yes

P. L.

And preemptive strike

H. K.

Yes.

P. L.

We should be ready to go for preemptive strikes ?

H. K.

Yes, We should have the capability, Let us put it this way, We
should have the capability for militarily significant
operations and go as far away from populations structures as
we can.

P. L.

We haven't talked about Asia and Japan. Do you see Japan
emerging with some kind of idea of where it stands in the
world ? I tend to think, you see, in long term I see two major
problems in terms of inserting two foreign cultures. One is
Islam : reconciling Islam with the Western way of doing
business and organizing society and the other country that is
really problematic is inserting Japanese power. Because they
are extraordinarily within our economic game, and at the same
time a foreign culture. Is there any chance that the Japanese

13-11-1991 12:53

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

18

can be a contributor to the system, or will they continue to be a parasite system ?

H. K.

I don't say they'll be necessarily a parasite system, but the Japanese culture is uniquely adapted to dealing with Japan as if it were a family surrounded by strange people, and Secondly it has essentially feudal cultural values. So Japan found quite possible to be subordinate in the occupation, and it was found that it quite possible to be superior to what it does not find easy to do is to be equal.

P. L.

Is there any chance that you see Japanese society evolving towards us ?

H. K.

No. But what I think is possible is that in a world of equilibrium, the Japanese using their own cultural values, will fit into the equilibrium. What is not possible in my view is to give the Japanese lectures on the abstract value of cooperation and expect that to have an impact beyond what the balances of trade, military and other power anyway suggest.

P. L.

Are you concerned by the fact that they have already the third defense budget in the world, and the rebirth of nationalism that you read and sense everywhere ?

H. K.

I think that the Japanese will be one of the main players in the world, and extremely difficult to deal with,

P. L.

Including militarily ?

H. K.

Including militarily.

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:53

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

So do you think given the relationship they have with their neighbours, do you think that this will lead to what ? Tension, or may be an alliance with China ?

H. K.

An alliance with China, only if the United States totally mishandles its Chinese relationship

P. L.

So can we say that the conclusion of all this is that, as we say in French, "we have eaten our white bread" and defeated the easiest of the possible threats

H. K.

Absolutely, I think we are now and especially America in a world which it has never had to deal with: less threat of nuclear wars, but much greater complexity

P. L.

And a much poorer economic situation

H. K.

Much more complicated economic situation.

13-11-1991 12:45

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

1

New York, October 21st, 1991

Henry KISSINGER

Interview by Pierre LELLOUCHE

Pierre LELLOUCHE (PL)

Henry KISSINGER (HK)

On the other hand, the manner in which this diplomacy is conducted will be quite different from the XIXth century : communications are instantaneous, publics are democratic ; even in autocratic states, there is the need for a lot of public support. Even in the XIXth century, the most belligerent states were those that were autocratic with a strong nationalist public opinion, namely Germany and Russia.

This means that whole new categories of problems will appear that have never existed before. In the past, we did have genuine situations and policies of equilibrium. But in those days, one could encapsulate the foreign policy of each country and have it more or less self-contained, and then bring it into relation with other foreign policies. But now, you will have global problems-such as environment, population and nuclear- that can only be dealt with on a more or less global basis. In a nutshell, this is the sort of world that I see emerging.

13-11-1991 12:46

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

3

P. L.

H. K.

Yes

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:46

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

4

H. K.

I don't think that it is true at all. I think what we have seen is a glorious sunset of American unipolarism, and we are coming into a quite new world very difficult for Americans to understand.

P. L.

H. K.

Well, a world in which we have to withdraw considerably. Because what is the objective of foreign deployment ? Properly conceived, our relation to much of that world could be like that of Britain in the XIXth and late XVIIIth century, or that of France towards Central Europe during the XVIIth and XVIIIthe century. That is to say : maintaining the equilibrium, and being desinterested in territory, resisting hegemonies. And that takes a totally new way of thinking for us.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

13-11-1991 12:47

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

5

What worries me is what comes after Bush, in either party. There is a danger that America will be torn between two groups that are really together: one that thinks that our only task in the world was to defeat communism, and now that communism is defeated we have no interest in the world; and another group that thinks that our only interest in the world is Human Rights, and that if we promote democracy we have no other problems, and that if we have a problem, we will handle it by democracy.

P. L.

H. K.

Well the actual groups (between them could achieve a majority. Take the current case of China. I got the proof of what occurred at Tien An Men Square.) On the other hand, Japan will be driven by reality to become more nationalist and self-reliant. The reality being the same as for Europe, that when the security guarantee is no longer so important, and no longer so reliable because you don't know what the threat is, you will have to conduct a more autonomous policy.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:47

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

H. K.

I don't see this happening [for twenty years]. But it could happen. I am very bothered by the bitterness of the debate which is as yet confined only to our elites and has not yet noticeably reached the public that I see. But the Thomas hearings really showed a tension between women and men, and between races. That really was worrysome.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

Well, I don't mind each race being equal, I think that is desirable. But what is not desirable is that each race claims its values are superior. That is what undermines the values of America.

P. L.

H. K.

13-11-1991 12:48

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.08

The Gulf war has just given us a temporary reprieve against the most radical state in the region. It has however also created a vacuum in which Iran can see many opportunites and in which our allies in that war are compelled to prove their regional loyalties. So, I think the situation there is (up for grabs.) *fluid at best*.

P. L.

H. K.

No. I think, if there were another assault, *if there were one on Saudi Arabia*, one would have to repeat what happened, except that.

P. L.

You won't have the forces ?

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

No, that will really be a debacle. Because after all, in all fairness, even during the last crisis, the Europeans, even those who joined us in the end like France, maintained an option for jumping the other way if it hadn't worked.

P. L.

H. K.

It would have been a catastrophe, *because we would have left*. *The same*. Or if he had accepted the UN offer.

13-11-1991 12:48

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

8

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

You know, you can't give responsibility to countries that are not willing to assume it. And certainly, there has to be a greater devolution of responsibility. I think Europe, some key countries in the Middle-East together with the United States... But it will not be possible in the future either technically or psychologically for the United States to fight a war with foreign money. We cannot act as mercenaries for others.

P. L.

H. K.

Not (expanding its frontiers technically, but I can see a Turkish influence radiating out, yes...

P. L.

To the Soviet Turkish Republics and to the South towards Iran?

13-11-1991 12:49

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

H.K.

P. L.

H. K.

Secondly I favor the idea of a European force. I don't understand the argument that NATO becomes less important if there is a European force. This would assume that the Europeans having their own force would rather defend themselves alone against the only realistic threat which comes from the East. And in those respects that Europe would want to defend itself alone, like say in the Middle-East, I'd rather have them do it with a force than from a posture of neutrality. NATO would keep them in the Middle-East.

Third, I think it is absolutely essential to get the countries of Eastern Europe related to Western Security. As soon as whatever emerges on the Russian/ on the Soviet territory, reintegrates, in whatever fashion, it will start pressuring Eastern Europe. It always has. I do not know of any Russian leader since Peter the Great who didn't do it. If they don't do it, fine. But if they do do it, I would like Eastern Europe to be an intricate part of the political structure of Western Europe. And if we don't do it now, it will become almost impossible later. I think that is imperative. The most important thing the Europeans have to do.

13-11-1991 12:51

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

13

H. K.

By Germany.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

I totally agree with that

H. K.

My personal view is that America should be silent on that topic. We should certainly not push it.

P. L.

H. K.

If I were a Western European, I would try to keep America in Europe. Because if it was necessary in two world wars, it is even more necessary now. I really think the liberties of Western Europe depend on a continued American interest in Europe. Now how to stay in Europe ? We don't need to be there with 200.000 forces, but we need to be emotionally in Western Europe and we need to think that it matters. And If you create a psychology here that the Europeans are constantly obstreperous then people will say "the hell with it".

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:51

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

14

H. K.

Well, first of all, I think we need a new strategic doctrine, secondly, I would prefer a European SACEUR, third, I do not mind a European force at all.

P. L.

Double-hatted, WEU-NATO ?

H. K.

Yes, and I don't see the problem ! So many people say "if the Europeans have their own force", they will do what ? They will tell us if there is an attack from the East, "We would rather do it ourselves" ? What exactly will they do ? They will be neutral in a Middle-East war ? They have been neutral in every Middle-East war. I don't see the problem. We have been so used to dominating the structure that we identify with substance. That part of it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is this constant manoeuvres of classical European balance of power politics which treat the United States as a sort of a foreign body, because it will undermine the long term commitment to Europe, in America. I don't say that we should be treated as a part of Europe, but we should be treated as having some sort of a special relationship. When you say Europe goes from Vladivostok to Vancouver, you say that there is no difference between the East and the United States.

P. L.

H.K.

P. L.

H. K.

13-11-1991 12:52

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P. L.

Between each other ...

H. K.

First of all I think arms control is a thing of the past, because it will now be imposed by economic conditions and by the absurdity of an all nuclear strategy. So that will certainly put certain limits on it.

I think that with the increasing accuracy of conventional weapons, with the high-tech of modern war, it doesn't make all that much difference for the kinds of military actions you can undertake, whether you use conventional or nuclear weapons.

And nuclear weapons will become an act of despair or of blackmail.

P. L.

So they are much more important in a North-South sort of context, rather than East-West ?

H. K.

Probably,

P. L.

So what does it mean concretely for NATO doctrine, does that mean we move to massive retaliation again ?

H. K.

Well, no. In 1988, I was part of a study group that published a report - it was a defense department/White House study group - which I think was quite accurate. We applied it in the Gulf. High accuracy weapons and high-tech weapons for defense. Massive retaliation as a permanent strategy is impossible, it will demoralize our own people.

P. L.

13:11-1991 12:52

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.18

17

H. K.

Yes.

P. L.

H. K.

Yes

P. L.

And preemptive strike

H. K.

Yes.

P. L.

H. K.

Yes. We should have the capability, let us put it this way, We
should have the capability for militarily significant
operations and go as far away from populations structures as
we can.

P. L.

13:11-1991 12:53

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

18

H. K.

I don't say they'll be necessarily a parasite system, but the Japanese culture is uniquely adapted to dealing with Japan as if it were a family surrounded by ~~strange people~~, and, secondly, it has essentially feudal cultural values. So Japan found quite possible to be subordinated in the occupation, and ~~it was easy to do~~ it quite possible to be superior, what it does not find easy to do is to be equal.

P. L.

H. K.

No. But what I think is possible is that in a world of equilibrium, the Japanese, using their own cultural values, will fit into the equilibrium. What is not possible in my view is to give the Japanese lectures on the abstract value of cooperation and expect that to have an impact beyond what the balances of trade, military and other power anyway suggest.

P. L.

H. K.

I think that the Japanese will be one of the main players in the world, ~~and extremely difficult to deal with~~,

P. L.

Including militarily ?

H. K.

Including militarily.

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:53

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

H. K.

An alliance with China, only if the United States totally mishandles its Chinese relationship,

P. L.

H. K.

Absolutely, I think we are (now) and especially America is in a world which it has never had to deal with: less threat of nuclear war, but much greater complexity,

P. L.

H. K.

10-11-1991 12:45

PARIS MARIE P. LELLOUCHE

CO 1 42766215 P.02

1

New York, October 21st, 1991

Henry KISSINGER

Interview by Pierre LELLOUCHE

Pierre LELLOUCHE (PL)

Henry KISSINGER (HK)

I think that several power centers will emerge in the world : Europe or Germany, Japan, the Russian Republic or "something" on the territory of yesterday's Soviet Union, China, probably India at some point, and of course the United States... This means that diplomacy will be more similar to XIXth century diplomacy than to the Cold War diplomacy in the sense that you will have to think in terms of Balance of Power and legitimacy, and elements of traditional equilibrium. This is something with which the United States has no experience, nor has China, nor has Japan. And I think the Europeans have lost their touch.

On the other hand, the manner in which this diplomacy is conducted will be quite different from the XIXth century : communications are instantaneous, publics are democratic ; even in autocratic states, there is the need for a lot of public support. Even in the XIXth century, the most belliguous states were those that were autocratic with a strong nationalist public opinion, namely Germany and Russia.

In a world where foreign policy will be global, and everything will be so speeded up, decisions will be made under much pressure.

This means that whole new categories of problems will appear that have never existed before. In the past, we did have situations and policies of equilibrium. But in those days, one could encapsulate the foreign policy of each country and have it more or less self-contained and then bring it into relation with other foreign policies. But now, you will have global problems such as environment, population, nuclear - that can only be dealt with on a more or less global basis. In a nutshell, this is the sort of world that I see emerging.

13-11-1991 12:45

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

00 1 42766215

P.05

P. L.

Given this background, what will be the main threats arising in such a world system ? Are they going to be military, economic, religious ? Is there going to be a successor to the Soviet Union as a State with a universal kind of view that it wants to impose on the rest of the world or will you have a sort of combination of problems at the regional level ?

H. K.

It is not apparent to me that there will be a state imposing its views on the rest of the world. There is some temptations in the Congress for the United States to do it, but without its military force. But that is not serious.

P.L.

Is Islam something that could ...

H. K.

Wait, wait. I don't think it will happen out of the Soviet Union. But what I think will happen is that regional hegemonies become much more possible because now you could have hegemonial powers emerging unrestrained by the two-power world. Say IRAN promoting a fundamentalist challenge. And at this moment none of the superpowers, or none of the great powers, are hooked into this.

What produced World War I ? A trivial incident, in what has become a doomsday machine.

As late as 1908, the French had declared during the then Bosnian crisis, that this was not a matter for which the French people would understand going to war. By 1914, the French went to war for Serbia, and the German went to war for Austria on an issue of surpassing triviality that had already been 9/10th settled.

Now, it took the world about 30 years to manoeuver themselves into that position. But I think there is a danger of hegemonial aspirations within regions. I could imagine that the Russian Republic will do that after a while. I could imagine certainly that fundamentalist Muslims either out of Iran, or out of some other place could do it, and that this would draw in - I don't even want to say superpowers, the other great powers. What I do not believe will happen is what everybody talks about : a world in which everybody lives with a consciousness of harmony and all problems are settled on the basis of legal principles.

13-11-1991 12:46

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33'1 42766215

P.64

3

P. L.

H. K.

Yes

P. L.

H. K.

I think this is up for grabs. This is one of the big issues. On the other hand you have a reassertion of nationalism partly caused by the fact that in the communist countries it was the one way to cling to an identity other than communism. On the other hand, when these countries will have achieved their national objective, you may well see them groupings. So that in the Danube Bassin for instance, we may see something that will look suspiciously like the Autro-Hungarian Empire. Except that this time it will be voluntary. And you could in Southern Russia for example see a reassertion of Turkish relationships with the Moslem Republics, or Iranian, or both.

P. L.

H. K.

Yes - I think the Soviet Union could become a regional grouping.

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:46

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

JJ 1 42766215

P.05

H. K.

I don't think that it is true at all. I think what we have seen is a glorious sunset of American unipolarism and we are coming into a quite new world very difficult for Americans to understand.

P. L.

H. K.

Well a world in which we have to withdraw considerably. Because what is the objective of foreign deployment ? Properly conceived, our relation to much of that world could be like that of Britain in the XIXth and late XVIIIth century, or that of France towards Central Europe during the XVIIth and XVIIIthe century. That is to say : maintaining the equilibrium, and being desinterested in territory, resisting hegemonies. And that takes a totally new way of thinking for us.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

The American people is a good people. I don't say this as a jingoism, but having travelled a lot and knowing many countries, I really think there is no people that has as much good will and principle, as the traditional American people. However, they don't understand foreign affairs because all the experience has been domestic. So it requires a certain inspirational leadership. Now we are quite lucky that Bush understands foreign policy and he can therefore be a good

13-11-1991 12:47

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.06

5

What worries me is what comes after Bush. In either party. There is a danger that America will be torn between two groups that are really together : one that thinks that our only task in the world was to defeat communism, and now that communism is defeated we have no interest in the world ; and another group that thinks that our only interest in the world is Human Rights, and that if we promote democracy we have no other problems, and that if we have a problem, we will handle it by democracy.

P. L.

H. K.

Well the actual groups between them could achieve a majority. Take the current case of China. I got the proof of what occured at Tien An Men Square. On the other hand, Japan will be driven by reality to become more nationalist and self-reliant. The reality being the same as for Europe, that when the security guarantee is no longer so important, and no longer so reliable because you don't know what the threat is, you will have to conduct a more autonomous policy.

The Russian Republic or Soviet Union will shift its center of gravity towards Asia, at least for a while. South-East Asia is developing. Then, not to have China play, with a billion people, and not to talk about it is impossible. It isolates us, not them. And we may have similar problems like this in other parts of the world.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

10-11-1991 12:47

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

CC'1 42766215

F.07

6

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

10-11-1991 12:48

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.08

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

You won't have the forces ?

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

No, that will really be a debacle. Because after all, in all fairness, even during the last crisis, the Europeans even those who joined us in the end like France, maintained an option for jumping the other way if it hadn't worked.

P. L.

H. K.

It would have been a catastrophe, because we would have left. Or if he had accepted the UN offer.

13-11-1991 12:48

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

8

P. L.

H. K.

It would have meant that Algerian forces would have been in Koweit; Iraqi forces would have withdrawn 30 miles, American forces would have withdrawn 5.000 miles. The whole area would know it took 500.000 Americans to balance the Iraqis and the Iraqis had maintained their entire military arsenal. It would have been a debacle.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:49

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

03 1 42766215

F.10

H.K.

P. L.

If we look now towards the European situation, which of course you are an expert in, how do you view the current debate in Europe about enlarging or deepening Franco-German forces ? How do you view the ideal architecture of Europe, given the kind of problems you outline ? If you were to redesign it, would you keep NATO, would you change NATO, would you build up the EEC ?

H. K.

Secondly I favor the idea of a European force. I don't understand the argument that NATO becomes less important if there is a European force. This would assume that the Europeans having their own force would rather defend themselves alone against the only realistic threat which comes from the East. And in those respects that Europe would want to defend itself alone, like say in the Middle-East, I'd rather have them do it with a force than from a posture of neutrality. NATO won't keep them in the Middle-East.

I am very disturbed by concepts such as Europe - from Vladivostok to Vancouver. Because that marries Europe to a turmoil that has its own rythm. And in fact it is the best formula frankly for German nationalism : if every body is allied with everybody, nobody has any special obligation to anybody, and then the specific weight of each country will be only thing that really matters. And so I think there should be a political construction of Europe West of wherever the border is with Russia or the Soviet Union. And then there should be the best possible relations with what emerges on the territory

13-11-1991 12:49

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

10

of the Soviet Union. There could be an associated membership
with some of these Republics. This is not something that can
be decided until we see what happens there

P. L.

Are you concerned by this coincidence in time between the
tremendous increase in German power and the desintegration of
Russian power ?

H. K.

Well it is a reality that we have to face, but it needs a
clear strategy to deal with it and while there are Germans
around who are not eager for nationalist domination, you know
that number may decline.

P. L.

Yes. I mean if we are moving towards the world you were
describing, Balance of Forces again, how does one deal with
this problem, this eternal European problem of balancing Slav
and German power ?

H. K.

Well I think that in the end German and Slav forces will
balance themselves because there is too many Slavs and they
have too many nuclear weapons. I mean even if it breaks down
into 15 Republics, which I don't believe, I think Bielorussia,
Kazhakstan and Russia will certainly stay together, and that
is already 200 Million

P. L.

And Ukraine ?

H. K.

Ukraine, I am not so sure, but may be the Ukraine too. But the
Ukraine will certainly associate itself in some way. So then
you have over two hundred million and 25.000 nuclear weapons,
and that is not so easy to dominate. Now then the question
will they unite ? Well against whom ? And for what purpose ?
It has never really happened. It has always been sort of "sort
of". And it has never really...

13-11-1991 12:00

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.13

12

P.L.

So what is left ? What is the option left for a country like France ? To play the integration mechanism ? The Community to the hilt ?

H. K.

Together with improving its relations with Britain, Italy, Spain.

P. L.

Is it wise for Europe, for France in particular, to go into a Federal structure ? And to submit its defense and foreign policy to a majority vote at the Council ?

H. K.

The strange thing is that as time goes on, Margaret Thatcher looks pretty good.

P. L.

And de Gaulle too...

H. K.

And de Gaulle

P. L.

Especially so in a Parliament which will be dominated by German political parties

H. K.

You know, people say you have to get a Federal structure to contain Germany. You can also say that a Federal structure will be so dominated ...

P. L.

By Germany,

10-11-1991 12:01

PARIS MAIRIE F. LELLOUCHE

03 1 42766210

F.14

13

H. K.

By Germany

P. L.

H. K.

P. L.

I totally agree with that

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

If I were a Western European, I would try to keep America in Europe because if it was necessary in two world wars, it is even more necessary now. I really think the liberties of Western Europe depend on a continued American interest in Europe. Now how to stay in Europe ? We don't need to be there with 200.000 forces, but we need to be emotionally in Western Europe and we need to think that it matters. And if you create a psychology here that the Europeans are constantly obstreperous, then people will say "the hell with it".

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:51

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.15

H. K.

Yes, well, first of all I think we need a new strategic
doctrine, secondly I would prefer a European SACEUR, third, I
do not mind a European force at all.

P. L.

Double-hatted, WEU-NATO ?

H. K.

Yes, and I don't see the problem ! So many people say "if the
Europeans have their own force", they will do what ? They will
tell us if there is an attack from the East, "we would rather
do it ourselves". What exactly will they do ? They will be
neutral in a Middle-East war ? They have been neutral in every
Middle-East war. I don't see the problem. We have been so used
to dominating the structure that we identify with substance.
That part of it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is this
constant manoeuvres of classical European balance of power
politics which treat the United States as a sort of a foreign
body because it will undermine the long term commitment to
Europe in America. I don't say that we should be treated as a
part of Europe, but we should be treated as having some sort
of a special relationship. When you say Europe goes from
Vladivostok to Vancouver, you say that there is no difference
between the East and the United States.

P. L.

You are aluding to Mitterrand's Confederation idea ?

H.K.

P. L.

H. K.

13-11-1991 12:52

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

P.17

16

P. L.

Between each other ...

H. K.

I think that with the increasing accuracy of conventional weapons, with the high-tech of modern war, it doesn't make all that much difference for those kinds of military action you can undertake, whether you use conventional or nuclear weapons.

P. L.

H. K.

Probably

P. L.

H. K.

Well, no. In 1988, I was part of a study group that published a report - it was a defense department/White House study group - which I think is quite accurate. We applied it in the Gulf. High accuracy weapons, high-tech weapons for defense. Massive retaliation as a permanent strategy is impossible, it will demoralize our own people.

P. L.

15-11-1991 12:52

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

JJ 1 42766215

F.18

17

H. K.

Yes.

P. L.

H. K.

Yes

P. L.

And preemptive strike

H. K.

Yes.

P. L.

H. K.

Yes. We should have the capability, let us put it this way. We
should have the capability for militarily significant
operations and go as far away from populations structures as
we can.

P. L.

13-11-1991 12:53

PARIS MAIRIE P. LELLOUCHE

33 1 42766215

H. K.

P. L.

H. K.

Absolutely, I think we are now, and especially America is in a world which it has never had to deal with : less threat of nuclear wars, but much greater complexity

P. L.

H. K.