Deliver to SUZANNE MCFARLANE at HON. HENRY KISSINGER
Customer # 00094504

Article #2

FROM L.A. TIMES SYNDICATE. AVAILABLE BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT ONLY.

FOR RE-TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT JOYCE AUSTIN IN
LOS ANGELES TEL: 213-237-7901 OR FAX: 213-237-4616

CAUTION: This material 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 circumstances 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.

HENRY KISSINGER INTERVIEW<

For release Sunday, November 20, 1994<

(c) 1994, Los Angeles Times Syndicate<

<

NOTE TO EDITOR: This is the last of a two-part interview. It considers Germany's place in a new and radically different world.<

<

<

(ital) In an interview with Manfred Geist, editor-in-chief of Welt am Sonntag, Henry A. Kissinger talked recently about Germany and its place in Europe and the world. (unital)<

<

<

GEIST: Germany is always tempted to say, ''We are the bridge between East and West.''<

KISSINGER: Many Germans think this. I believe that Germany should build an Atlantic association and a European association. Within those, it should always advocate friendly relations with Russia.<

But the real problem of Russia is: Can Russia stay within its national borders? If we have a buffer area -- Ukraine, Belarus, Moldava and so forth -- in which the Russian influence will be great and probably greater than ours -- but in which there is no Russian strategic deployment -- then Europe will be free of that danger. Europe would not have to arm against Russia so much. Then one could emphasize the political component of cooperation with Russia. This should be the German role. There are not that many German statesmen who I can imagine doing it. (Chancellor Helmut) Kohl will do it.<

There are three questions: Where does Europe begin and where does it end? What is the relationship of Europe to America? What can Europe and America do together?<

I believe that Europe must include most of the former Soviet satellites. I can imagine that Romania and Bulgaria might want to stay out, countries that were Russian Orthodox and had historical ties to Russia, but certainly Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia should be an organic part of Europe.<

It should be a two-tiered Europe, with a core Europe that moves faster toward integration than the rest. This core

NOV-15-1994 14:38

LA Times Syndicate

96%

P.01

should be France, Germany, the Low Countries, possibly
Italy. I would be open to having Great Britain in it, but I
think they will not want to be part of it. The core Europe
should be more advanced in its internal organization than
the rest of Europe.<

Any country that insists on watering it down too much
should not join. I think British public opinion is moving
against Europe, and British leadership is not comfortable
with an integrated Europe. The decline in Britain's global
position is identified with the two wars with Germany.<

For 300 years, the danger to Britain has come from the
continent. The salvation for Britain has come from across
the seas. So for Britain to rethink its role and to become a
European power with European-type problems would
require a shift in mental attitudes quite different from what
France and Germany and the Low Countries have to do.
For better or worse, France, Germany and the Low
Countries have been mirror images of each other.<

This core Europe I envision should be the partner of the
United States.<

So Europe as I see it begins at the Ukrainian-Polish
border. Russia can be in the European security conference,
but not in Europe.<

GEIST: How does President Clinton's Partnership for
Peace fit in? Should it be identical with this Europe you
have defined?<

KISSINGER: I do not believe that the military field is the
way to integrate Russia with the West. The way to
integrate Russia is through the European security
conference or through any other political organization. The
partnership for peace is an absolute dead end. It doesn't
lead anywhere, except to dissolve NATO.<

The United States and Europe are not doing anything
together now. The statesman's task is to ask the right
question. Then you have a chance at perhaps finding the
right answer. But if NATO, if the nations of Western and
Central Europe and the United States never do anything
together, never have a common problem or a common goal,
they will fall apart under the impact of nationalism here,
nationalism there.<

GEIST: What do you think of Clinton's foreign policy?<

KISSINGER: The problem with American foreign policy
is that every new Administration, especially every new
Administration from a different party, begins as if from
scratch. They pull up every tree to see if the roots are still
there.<

This Administration came in with all the ideas of the
radical movement of the '70s. If you were part of the peace
movement of the '70s, you thought American foreign policy
was immoral, and friends of America didn't have such great
judgment either. This explains the obsession with Russia.<

But I think they're beginning to learn now. Not yet
ideally, from my point of view, but I do think that the
Clinton Administration is moving into a greater
appreciation of geopolitical realities. Ambassador Richard
Holbrook, having been in Germany for a year, is a good
influence on the Administration's European policy. And
while I will not vote for Clinton in '96, I have in fairness to
say that his policy is moving in a better direction.<

GEIST: What do you mean by the Administration's

NOV-15-1994 14:38

LA Times Syndicate

98%

P.02

obsession with Russia?<

KISSINGER: I think they believe, as in fact some Germans believe, that salvation is in Russia. You make Russia democratic and market-oriented and it will suddenly become a normal international state. You cannot make Russia democratic from the outside. And what is a normal international state? Russian foreign policy for 400 years has followed a certain pattern. Can they change it completely? Not really, because it's dictated by geography. It's dictated by national convictions. I do not know a single Russian who accepts the independence of the Ukraine.<

Russia is part of Europe, but it's also different from Europe. It's a huge country. It has interests in Asia and the Middle East. I would not say that America should be part of Europe, because we have too many different interests, and I don't think Russia should be part of Europe. We can be friends with Europe. And the Russians should be friends with Europe. GEIST: One more question about Germany. Should Germany take part in out-of-area missions of NATO?<

KISSINGER: Absolutely. In military missions, I would keep in mind the impact of Germany. In the Gulf War, I would have had no problem. In Bosnia I would have big problem. But we Americans have to be compassionate about this.<

NOV-15-1994 14:39

LA Times Syndicate

98%

P.03

11/08/94 10:37

☎213 237 3698

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER HENRY

☑ 001

Article #1

HENRY KISSINGER INTERVIEW

For release Sunday, November 13, 1994

NOTE TO EDITOR: This is the first of a two-part interview. The first is chiefly about Germany; the second, about its place in a new and radically different world. The second installment will move Tuesday, November 15, for release Sunday, November 20.

GEIST: Would you talk about Germany and its position in a world in which everything is turned upside down? KISSINGER: I think Chancellor Helmut Kohl is the most significant statesman in Europe today. While he is not a great theoretical thinker, he has tremendous instincts. I was in Germany when the wall came down. I talked with many German leaders. Kohl had the clearest vision of what the next steps had to be when the wall came down.

So I think he could be the leading figure in Europe.

France will be in state of uncertainty next year because of its election. Britain will have an election in '96 or '97. Italy has its problems. So once his government is formed Kohl will be in the key position.

France will have a major problem of adjustment. As long as Germany was divided, it made sense for France to be the political leader of Europe. It gave West Germany legitimacy vis-a-vis East Germany. Now Germany can play a leading role, but it has to do it with great tact, which in the past has not always been the German specialty.

It was not wise for President Clinton to express the idea that the United States will be a partner in leadership with Germany. It's one of those slogans that doesn't do any good. The notion gets everyone's back up, because two world wars were fought precisely to prevent Germany from being dominant. Germany and the United States should be close friends. But one does Germany no favor to designate it as the leader. The German role should be as part of Europe. And within that it will have a huge role.

In practice, Clinton was describing the reality. But for Britain, which thought of itself as having a special relationship with the United States, such rhetoric is very painful to hear. And the idea doesn't have support in the United States among intellectual and media people. So one should not emphasize the German national role. In fact, we should be very close, but not as an architectural device.

GEIST: How do you see the concept of the "national state" at the end of this century and, indeed, at the end of the millennium?

NOV-08-1994 12:33

213 237 3698

96%

P.01

11/08/94 10:37

☎213 237 3698

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER HENRY

☑ 002

[LC]

KISSINGER 11-08-94

PAGE 2

KISSINGER: I think actually that the "national state" is recovering. Yes, it is in Eastern Europe, but also in the West to some extent. East Germany is the more "national" part of Germany in the traditional sense.

GEIST: Why? Is it the old Prussia?

KISSINGER: I'm not anti-Prussian. I think that in America the Nazis were considered the product of Prussia. In fact, they were the product of South German Romanticism; the Prussians were not totalitarian.

I think the idea of the national state persisted because, under communism, if you wanted to retain any identity, nationalism was the normal way. In East Germany and all the satellites of Eastern Europe, the curious thing about communism was that it created a petty bourgeois mentality wherever it was. When I go to East Germany it reminds me more of Fuerth in the 1930s -- minus the Nazis -- than of Frankfurt in the 1990s. GEIST: The British have their tradition of thinking about their foreign policy, the Russians have theirs. Can this be a matter of genetics?

KISSINGER: It's a matter of reality. Geography affects their thinking, experience affects their thinking.

There has been a big change, a huge adjustment, in Europe: It is absolutely inconceivable that the states of Central Europe and Western Europe will ever fight a war against each other again. So whatever disagreements they have will have to be settled in a way they have not been settled in the past. That's important.

GEIST: What does history teach us about German foreign policy?

KISSINGER: People forget that until 1871 Germany was more pacific than the other European states. It was usually France that was the disturber of the peace. Germany had a tragic history for nearly 100 years. First it was led by a great man -- Bismarck -- who had no successors. Then in the first empire it conducted one of the most foolish foreign policies. The Germans wanted to be absolutely secure, which meant that every other nation had to be absolutely insecure. So they brought about an opposing coalition of all the non-German-speaking states, which felt they had to protect themselves. So the Germans got thrown into a war, which they thought would be a brief and victorious replay of the Franco-Prussian war, but which turned into the four-year First World War.

And then they lost another war.

It's a country that was unified so late and has fewer roots in foreign policy than, say, Britain, Russia or France.

NOV-08-1994 12:34

213 237 3698

96%

P.02

11/07/94 08:50

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 001

Henry: Here are the two articles drawn from your interview with Manfred Geist. I am assuming you know that he insisted on having two articles from one interview. You will see what I have done. Cheers, tony.

In an interview with Manfred Geist, editor-in-chief of Welt am Sonntag, Henry A. Kissinger talked recently about Germany and its place in Europe and the world. That conversation has been edited into two articles. The first is chiefly about Germany; the second, about its place in a new and radically different world.

Geist: Would you talk about Germany and its position in a world in which everything is turned upside down?

Kissinger: I think Chancellor Helmut Kohl is the most significant statesman in Europe today. While he is not a great theoretical thinker, he has tremendous instincts. I was in Germany when the wall came down. I talked with many German leaders. Kohl had the clearest vision of what the next steps had to be when the wall came down.

So I think he could be a leading figure -- a leading figure, maybe -- in Europe. In a way that's too bad, because ideally it shouldn't be a German who trics to organize Europe. But I don't see anyone else.

11/07/94 08:50

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

002

[LC]

INTERVIEW 11-04-94

PAGE 2

It was not wise for President Clinton to express the idea
that the United States will be a partner in leadership with
Germany. It's one of those slogans that doesn't do any good.
The notion gets everyone's back up, because two world wars
were fought precisely to prevent Germany from being dominant.
Germany and the United States should be close friends. But one
does Germany no favor to designate it as the leadership in
partnership with the United States. The German role should be
as part of Europe. And within that it will have a huge role.

In practice, Clinton was describing the reality. But for
Britain, which thought of itself as having a special
relationship with the United States, such rhetoric is very
painful to hear. And the idea doesn't have support in the
United States among intellectual and media people. So one
should not emphasize the German national role as a partner of
the United States. In fact, we should be very close, but not
as an architectural device.

Geist: How do you see the concept of "the national state" at

11/07/94 08:50

☎️ 213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 003

INTERVIEW 11-04-94

the end of this century and, indeed, at the end of the
millenium?

Kissinger: I think actually that "the national state" is recovering. Yes, it is in Eastern Europe, but also in the West to some extent. East Germany is the more "national" part of Germany in the traditional sense.

Geist: Why? Is it the old Prussia?

Kissinger: I'm not against Prussia. I think that in America the Nazis were considered the product of Prussia. I think they were the product of South German Romanticism; the Prussians were not totalitarian.

I think the idea of the national state persisted because under communism, if you wanted to retain any identity, nationalism was the normal way. In East Germany and all the satellites of Eastern Europe, the curious thing about communism was that it created a petty bourgeois mentality wherever it was. When I go to East Germany it reminds me more of Fuerth in the 1930s -- minus the Nazis -- than of Frankfurt in the 1990s.

Geist: The British have their tradition of thinking about their foreign policy, the Russians have theirs. Can this be a matter of genetics?

Kissinger: It's a matter of reality. Geography affects their thinking, experience affects their thinking.

There has been a big change, a huge adjustment, in Europe: it is absolutely inconceivable that the states of Central Europe and Western Europe will ever

11/07/94 08:51

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 004

## INTERVIEW 11-04-94

PAGE 4

**Geist:** What does history teach us about German foreign policy?

**Kissinger:** People forget that until 1871 Germany was more pacific than the other European states. It was usually France that was the disturber of the peace. Germany had a tragic history

END PART 1

KISSINGER INTERVIEW WITH MANFRED GEIST, PART 2:

11/07/94 08:51

213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

005

INTERVIEW 11-04-94

PAGE 5

Germany is always tempted to say, "We are the bridge between East and West."

Kissinger: Many Germans think this. I believe that Germany should build an Atlantic association and a European association. Within those, it should always advocate friendly relations with Russia.

But the real problem of Russia is: Can Russia stay within its national borders? If we have a buffer area, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and so forth, in which the Russian influence will be great and probably greater than ours -- but in which there is no Russian strategic deployment -- then Europe will be free of that danger. Europe would not have to arm against Russia so much. Then one could emphasize the political component of cooperation with Russia. This should be the German role. There are not that many German statesmen who I can imagine doing it. Kohl will do it.

I believe that Europe must include most of the former Soviet satellites. I can only imagine that Romania and Bulgaria might want to stay out, countries that were Russian Orthodox and had historical ties to Russia, but certainly Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia should be an organic part of Europe.

11/07/94 08:52

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑006

INTERVIEW 11-04-94

Any country that insists on watering it down too much
should not join. I think British public opinion is moving
against Europe, and I think British leadership is not
comfortable with an integrated Europe. The decline in
Britain's global position is identified with the two wars with
Germany.

Geist: How does President Clinton's Partnership for Peace
fit in? Should it be identical with this Europe you have
defined?

11/07/94 08:52

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☎️007

INTERVIEW 11-04-94

Kissinger: To me the Partnership for Peace dissolves the Atlantic relationship. It doesn't strengthen it. I do not believe that the military field is the way to integrate Russia with the West. The way to integrate Russia is through the European security conference or through any other political organization. The partnership for peace is an absolute dead end. It doesn't lead anywhere, except to dissolve NATO.

The United States and Europe are not doing anything together now. I do not have the answer to every question. The statesman's task is to ask the right question. Then you have a chance at perhaps finding the right answer. But if NATO, if the nations of Western and Central Europe and the United States never do anything together, never have a common problem or a common goal, they will fall apart under the impact of nationalism here, nationalism there.

Geist: What do you think of Clinton's foreign policy?

Kissinger: The problem with American foreign policy is that every new Administration, especially every new Administration from a different party, begins as if from scratch. They pull up every tree to see if the roots are still there.

11/07/94 08:52

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 008

[L.C.]

INTERVIEW 11-04-94

from my point of view, but I do think that the Clinton Administration is moving into a greater appreciation of the role of power. I think that Ambassador (Richard) Holbrook, having been in Germany for a year, is a good influence on the Administration's European policy. And while I will not vote for Clinton in '96, I have in fairness to say that his policy is moving too slowly but anyway moving in a better direction.

Geist: What do you mean by the Administration's obsession with Russia?

Kissinger: I think they believe, as in fact some Germans believe, that salvation is in Russia. You make Russia democratic and market-oriented and it will suddenly become a normal international state. You cannot make Russia democratic. And what is a normal international state? Russian foreign policy for 400 years has followed a certain pattern? Can they change it completely? Not really, because it's dictated by geography. It's dictated by national convictions. I do not know a single Russian who accepts the independence of the Ukraine.

Geist: One more question about Germany. Should Germany take part in out-of-area missions of NATO?

11/07/94 08:53

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 009

INTERVIEW 11-04-94

Kissinger: Should Germany take part in out of area political missions? Absolutely. In military missions, I would keep in mind the impact of Germany. In the Gulf War, I would have had no problem. In Bosnia I would have big problem. But we Americans have to be compassionate about this.

ENDIT