30 MAR 1993 18:53 GMT

(212) 447-1454/5

L.A. TIMES SYND. INTL.

Page 01 of 04

TMI 8216120A001.027

ATTN: SUZANNE MCFARLANE/KISSINGER ASSOCIATES

FROM L.A. TIMES SYNDICATE INTL
AVAILABLE BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT ONLY
WORLD RIGHTS

FOR RETRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT BETH BARBER,
L.A. TIMES SYNDICATE INTL

TEL: (212) 447-1450; FAX: (212) 447-1454/5

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, April 3, 1993<

(c) 1993, Los Angeles Times Syndicate<

<

NOTE TO EDITOR: This interview with Henry Kissinger was conducted by Manfred Geist, chief editor of Welt am Sonntag. <

<

Q: Let's talk about the development of democracy in Russia. <

KISSINGER: There is only a very weak democratic tradition in Russia, and no tradition at all of operating a democracy. No doubt there have been many noble individuals who believed in democracy and fought for it. Yet throughout history, the great institutions of the state have all been outside the realm of democracy. Many Russian writers have been hostile to democracy as well. <

Secondly, Russia has not experienced the same evolution as the West. She did not have a church like the Catholic Church to insist on independent appointments and independent standards of justice; nor did she have a church like the Protestant Church, which proclaimed freedom of conscience. She did not participate as a country in the Age of Enlightenment. And capitalism, if it ever touched Russia, did so quite late and in a very fragmented way. Those are the realities. <

I do not consider the present Russian system democratic. It is better by far than the previous system and it has certain democratic features, such as an elected president. But it is still essentially run as a government by decree, mitigated by inefficiency and chaos. <

Comparing Russia to China, one finds that China did have a tradition of capitalism. Its people are essentially

30 MAR 1993 18:53 GMT

(212).447-1454/5

L.A. TIMES SYND. INTL.

[L.C]

Page 02 of 04

entrepreneurial. Communism has only been in place there for about 40 years. There are, for instance, still people today running the Chinese economy who count themselves as practicing capitalists. And Chinese farmers prefer private to collective farming. None of this is as yet true in Russia.<

Our own government must be very careful not to present to our people a picture of Russia based on wishful thinking. It may cause terrible disillusionment.<

Q: What is going to happen in Russia?<

KISSINGER: I have great sympathy for Yeltsin. And I believe that the most likely outcome in Russia -- whoever wins -- will be some type of authoritarian regime or rule by decree. This is, after all, if I understand him correctly, what Yeltsin wants. He would like to do away with the Parliament and to call a Constituent Assembly.<

Q: That's not democratic.<

KISSINGER: But it may be necessary. The probable outcome is some sort of autocratic regime which then tries to reform the economy, probably along market lines. It would be a heroic effort. Nor will the reform of that economy produce a market economy in our sense very rapidly. In China, where the preconditions were much more favorable, it took about 20 years to get that accomplished.<

We should deal with Russia not as a charity case but as a great nation possessed of a history which is quite different from ours. We should concentrate on Russia's foreign policy for we can influence her domestic policy only in a very marginal way.<

The big problem in the next 10 years will be Russia's relations with the other republics of the former Soviet Union. There we see an anomalous state of affairs. Russian armies are stationed on the soil of every republic even though each is a member of the United Nations. And, if I observe it correctly, these Russian armies are keeping every local institution going, though they are not yet fully interfering. And the mood of nationalism in Russia is rising according to all reports.<

There, therefore, always exists a potential for later Russian intervention. That is the reality. But if that should happen, it would restore some of the historic tensions between Europe and Russia while forcing Russia back onto the treadmill of endless expansionism. One could make a good case for the proposition advanced by George Kennan -- that Russia simply exhausted herself with her ceaseless expansion. I would not want the Western powers to recreate that situation by ignoring the danger to ease their own domestic politics.<

It is said that President Clinton is above all concerned with not being accused of having 'lost' Russia. Well, Russia is hardly ours to win or lose. It would be better for the West to ask itself where it wants to be in, say, 1995. Clinton will then be judged, above all, by whether Russia stayed within her borders and whether, for example, Ukraine and other states still exist in their present form or whether Yugoslav conditions prevail.<

In terms of economic assistance, we should concentrate on a

30 MAR 1993 18:53 GMT

(212) 447-1454/5

L.A. TIMES SYND. INTL.

[LC]

Page 03 of 04

few specific projects which are of direct benefit to the Russian people and use these as the focal points of interaction and aid. One example would be enhancing the safety of the former Soviet nuclear power plants; another would be helping with the extraction of oil. In addition, we might lend a hand with one or two humanitarian projects. However, to think that we can somehow repeat the Marshall Plan is wrong. <

We should stay out of macromanagement of the Russian economy. It will make Western advisers a domestic issue. Russia has enough experts who know what it takes to control the money supply and to get their Central Bank under control. These are political, not technical, problems. <

In the Marshall Plan, we were dealing with countries which had well-established bureaucracies and well-established market economies. American resources therefore permitted the pre-existing institutions to assert themselves. This is not the case in Russia. <

Then, too, those were European governments with a history of friendly relations with the United States. Here we are dealing with a society possessed of none of the above preconditions, on top of which it has a history of tensions with its environment. <

Q: Let's have a look at the Western states of the former Eastern Bloc, like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and so on. Should we take them into the European Economic Community? <

KISSINGER: Yes. I believe it is very important to define the frontiers of Europe as rapidly as possible by including especially countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. For there is no possibility, however strong they become, of their taking actions hostile to the tranquillity of Europe. <

Q: What about NATO? <

KISSINGER: Well, to me NATO is a purely practical problem. I could imagine people saying that making the East European countries formal members of NATO is too provocative. Yet the end result should be the equivalent of their having membership in NATO. <

Russia has to understand that an attack on Poland or Hungary, for example, would have the same practical consequences as an attack on NATO, whether or not these countries are technically members of NATO. <

Q: How long will these things take? <

KISSINGER: The NATO issue should be addressed immediately, for it requires no preparation. The European Community point involves technical provisions which may make it more difficult. But I would, at the least, give the East European countries de facto economic benefits of belonging to the European Community. <

Q: Should Germany join international peacemaking and peacekeeping operations? <

KISSINGER: It depends entirely on where. I am against military intervention in the former Yugoslavia by anybody. And German military intervention in particular would be unfortunate. The use of German military force on territories

30 MAR 1993 18:53 GMT

(212) 447-1454/5

L.A. TIMES SYND. INTL.

(C)

Page 04 of 04

occupied by Germany during World War II presents special problems. I cannot say that it might never happen, but it does represent special problems. On the other hand, German military participation in, say, the Gulf War, would have posed no such problems.<

Q: What about Somalia?<

KISSINGER: German participation would present no problems in Somalia either.<

Q: What is the impact of all these changes on the United States?<

KISSINGER: At any rate, we in America are now left with a distinct problem. We have never before lived in a world which we could neither dominate nor withdraw from. For the first time we are locked into an environment in which we are still the only superpower (though that distinction really now only applies to nuclear weapons and not to economic power) but in which there is no longer any central ideological conflict.<

So, in a sense, we are being forced to think about foreign policy in almost European terms, that is, in terms of balance of power, of equilibrium, and along other, similar, lines. Yet there is no intellectual tradition for that kind of thinking in America. No President except Theodore Roosevelt and perhaps Richard Nixon has thought that way, and hardly any professors in the academic community either. So we must now pass through a period -- and it will coincide with the Clinton Administration -- of redefining our purposes.<

NN-NN

DR. KISSINGER INTERVIEW

A: There is only a very weak democratic tradition in Russia, and no tradition at all of operating a democracy. No doubt, there have been many noble individuals who believed in democracy and fought for it. Yet throughout history, the great institutions of the state have all been outside the realm of democracy. Many Russian writers have been hostile to democracy as well.

[c]

2

I do not consider the present Russian system democratic. It
is better by far than the previous system and it has certain
democratic features, such as an elected President. But it is
still essentially run as a government by decree, mitigated by
inefficiency and chaos.

Comparing Russia to China, one finds that China did have a
tradition of capitalism. Its people are essentially
entrepreneurial. Communism has only been in place there for
about 40 years. There are, for instance, still people today
running the Chinese economy who count themselves as practicing
capitalists. And Chinese farmers prefer private to collective
farming. None of this is as yet true in Russia.

[c]

3

A: I have great sympathy for Yeltsin. And I believe that the most likely outcome in Russia - whoever wins - will be some type of authoritarian regime or rule by decree. This is, after all, if I understand him correctly, what Yeltsin wants. He would like to do away with the Parliament and to call a Constituent Assembly.

Q: That's not democratic.

A: But it may be necessary. The probable outcome is some
sort of autocratic regime which then tries to reform the
economy, probably along market lines. It would be a heroic
effort. Nor will the reform of that economy produce a market
economy in our sense very rapidly. In China, where the

[c]

5

There, therefore, always exists a potential for later
Russian intervention. That is the reality. But if that should
happen, it would restore some of the historic tensions between
Europe and Russia while forcing Russia back onto the treadmill
of endless expansionism. One could make a good case for the
proposition advanced by George Kennan - that Russia simply
exhausted herself with her ceaseless expansion. I would not
want the Western powers to recreate that situation by ignoring
the danger to ease their own domestic politics.

It is said that President Clinton is above all concerned
with not being accused of having "lost" Russia. Well, Russia
is hardly ours to win or lose. It would be better for the West
to ask itself where it wants to be in, say, 1995. Clinton will
then be judged, above all, by whether Russia stayed within
her borders and whether, for example, Ukraine and other states

6

In terms of economic assistance, we should concentrate on a
few specific projects which are of direct benefit to the
Russian people and use these as the focal points of
interaction and aid. One example would be enhancing the safety
of the former Soviet nuclear power plants; another would be
helping with the extraction of oil. In addition, we might lend
a hand with one or two humanitarian projects. However, to
think that we can somehow repeat the Marshall Plan is wrong.

We should stay out of macromanagement of the Russian
economy. It will make Western advisers a domestic issue.
Russia has enough experts who know what it takes to control
the money supply and to get their Central Bank under control.
These are political, not technical problems.

[d]

7

Then too, those were European governments with a history of friendly relations with the United States. Here we are dealing with a society possessed of none of the above preconditions, on top of which it has a history of tensions with its environment.

Q: Let's have a look at the Western states of the former Eastern Bloc, like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and so on. Should we take them into the European Economic Community?

A: Yes. I believe it is very important to define the frontiers of Europe as rapidly as possible by including

especially countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. For there is no possibility, however strong they become, of their taking actions hostile to the tranquility of Europe.

**Q: What about NATO?**

**A:** Well, to me NATO is a purely practical problem. I could imagine people saying that making the East European countries formal members of NATO is too provocative. Yet the end result should be the equivalent of their having membership in NATO.

**Q: How long will these things take?**

**A:** The NATO issue should be addressed immediately, for it requires no preparation. The European Community point involves

9

A: It depends entirely on where. I am against military
intervention in the former Yugoslavia by anybody. And German
military intervention in particular would be unfortunate. The
use of German military force on territories occupied by
Germany during World War II presents special problems. I
cannot say that it might never happen, but it does represent
special problems. On the other hand, German military
participation in, say, the Gulf War, would have posed no such
problems.

Q: What about Somalia?

A: German participation would present no problems in Somalia either.

[Tony - You need to insert some sort of question here]

A: At any rate, we in America are now left with a distinct problem. We have never before lived in a world which we could neither dominate nor withdraw from. For the first time we are locked into an environment in which we are still the only superpower (though that distinction really now only applies to nuclear weapons and not to economic power) but in which there is no longer any central ideological conflict.

MAR-27-1993 04:32

FROM KENT

TO

1 212 421 3934

P.02

1

DR. KISSINGER INTERVIEW

A: I've said consistently that there is no democratic tradition in Russia, nor any tradition of operating a democracy. No doubt, there have been many noble individuals who believed in democracy. Yet throughout history, the great institutions of the state have all been outside the realm of democracy. Many Russian writers have been hostile to democracy as well.

Secondly, Russia has not experienced the same evolution as the West. She did not have a church like the Catholic Church to insist on independent appointments and independent standards of trust; nor did she have a church like the Protestant Church, which insisted on freedom of conscience. She did not participate in the Age of Enlightenment, except at

MAR-27-1993 04:32 FROM KENT

TO 1 212 421 3934 P.03

2

the periphrasy. And capitalism, if it ever touched Russia, did

realities.

I must say that I do not consider the present Russian system
democratic. It is better by far than the previous system and
it has certain democratic features, such as electrical voting,
the President. But it is still essentially run as a government by
decrees, mitigated by inefficiency and chaos.

Comparing Russia to China, one finds that China did have a
tradition of capitalism. Its people are essentially
entrepreneurial. Communism has only been in place there for
about 40 years. There are, for instance, still people today
running the Chinese economy who count themselves as practicing
capitalism.

Capitalism in China, and Chinese farmers prefer private to
collective farming. None of this is as yet true in Russia.

MAR-27-1993 04:34

FROM KENT

TO

1 212 421 3934

P.08

American 7
This is not the system. Our adding resources therefore permitted the pre-
existing institutions to exert themselves.

Then too, those were European governments with a history of
friendly relations with the United States. Here we are dealing
with a society possessed of none of the above preconditions,
on top of which it has a history of tensions with the
international environment.

A: Yes. I believe it is very important to define the
frontiers of Europe as rapidly as possible, especially in
countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. For
there is no possibility, however strong they become, of their
taking actions hostile to the tranquility of Europe.

MAR-27-1993 04:34

FROM KENT

TO

1 212 421 3934

P.09

Q: What about NATO?

A: Well, to me NATO is a purely practical problem. I could imagine people saying that making the East European countries formal members of NATO is too provocative. Yet the end result should be the equivalent of their having membership in NATO.

A: The NATO issue should be addressed immediately, for it requires no preparation. The European Community point involves technical provisions which may make it more difficult. But I would, at the least, give the East European countries de facto economic benefits of belonging to the European Community.

MAR-27-1993 04:35 FROM KENT

TO 1 212 421 3934 P.10

9

A: It depends entirely on where. I am against military intervention in the former Yugoslavia by anybody. And German military intervention in particular would be unfortunate. The use of German military force on territories occupied by the German during World War II presents special problems. I cannot say that it might never happen, but it does represent special problems. On the other hand, German military participation in, say, the Gulf War, would have posed no such problems.

Q: What about Somalia?

A: Not in Somalia either.

MAR-27-1993 04:35 FROM KENT

TO 1 212 421 3934 P.11

10

So, in a sense, we are being forced to think about foreign
policy in almost European terms, that is, in terms of balance
of power, of equilibrium, and along other, similar, lines. Yet
there is no intellectual tradition for that kind of thinking
in America. No President except Theodore Roosevelt and perhaps
Richard Nixon has thought that way, and hardly any professors
in the academic community either. So we must now pass through
a period - and it will coincide with the Clinton
Administration - of redefining our purposes.

TOTAL P.11

TOTAL P.11

1

<u>DR. KISSINGER INTERVIEW</u>

A: I have said consistently that there is no democratic tradition in Russia, nor any tradition of operating a democracy. No doubt, there have been many noble individuals who believed in democracy. Yet throughout history, the great institutions of the state have all been outside the realm of democracy. Many Russian writers have been hostile to democracy as well.

She did not participate in the Age of Enlightenment except at

[L]

2

the periphery. And capitalism, if it ever touched Russia, did
so quite late and in a very fragmented way. Those are the
realities.

I must say that I do not consider the present Russian system
democratic. It is better by far than the previous system and
it has certain democratic features, such as electing the
President. But it is still essentially run as a government by
decree, mitigated by inefficiency and chaos.

Comparing Russia to China, one finds that China did have a
tradition of capitalism. Its people are essentially
entrepreneurial. Communism has only been in place there for
about 40 years. There are, for instance, still people today
running the Chinese economy who count themselves as practicing
Catholics. [?] And Chinese farmers prefer private to
collective farming. None of this is as yet true in Russia.

[c]

3

Our own government must be very careful not to present to
our people a false picture of Russia. Because we will be
terribly disillusioned.

A: The most likely outcome in Russia - whoever wins - is
some type of authoritarian regime or rule by decree. This is,
after all, if I understand him correctly, what Yeltsin wants.
He would like to do away with the Parliament and to call a
Constituent Assembly. A Constituent Assembly would meet for
two years and implement his proposals for another year. So,
regardless of what is in the Constitution, that amounts to
three years of rule by decree.

Q: That's not democratic.

A: No. But it may be necessary. The probable outcome is some
sort of autocratic regime which then tries to reform the
economy. It would be a heroic effort. Nor will the reform of

[c]

4

that economy produce a market economy in our sense. In China,
where the preconditions were much more favorable, it took
about 20 years to get that accomplished.

I may be wrong, but I think we should deal with Russia not
as a charity case but as a great nation possessed of a history
which is quite different from ours. We should concentrate on
Russia's foreign policy for we can influence her domestic
policy only in a very marginal way.

The big problem in the next 10 years will be Russia's
relations with the other republics. There are now Russian
armies on the soil of every republic. And, if I observe it
correctly, these Russian armies are keeping every local engine
going, though they are not yet fully interfering.

There, therefore, always exists a potential for later
intervention. That is the reality. But if that should happen,
it would restore some of the historic tensions between Europe

[lc]

5

and Russia while forcing Russia back onto the treadmill of
endless expansionism. One could make a good case for the
proposition advanced by George Kennan - that Russia simply
exhausted herself with her ceaseless expansion. I would not
want the Western powers to recreate that situation for reasons
of their own domestic politics.

I read today in the paper that President Clinton is above
all concerned with not being accused of having "lost" Russia.
Well, Russia is hardly ours to win or lose, so that should not
be a principal consideration. It would be better for President
Clinton if he asked himself where he wants to be in 1995, when
he is getting ready for reelection; whether he lost or won
Russia will not be as important then as whether we end up
having in Ukraine the same conditions we now have in Bosnia.
Then, he will really be in trouble.

[c]

6

We should also stay out of the macromanagement of the
Russian economy. If the Russians do not know by now what it
takes to control their money supply and need lectures from us
about getting their Central Bank under control, then they have
no management experts at all. We should concentrate on a few
specific projects which are of some benefit to them as well as
to us, and use these as the focal points of interaction and
aid.

One example would be enhancing the safety of the former
Soviet nuclear power plants; another would be helping with the
extraction of oil. In addition, we might lend a hand with one
or two humanitarian projects. However, to think that we can
somehow repeat the Marshall Plan is entirely wrong.

In the Marshall Plan, we were dealing with countries which
had well-established bureaucracies and well-established market
economies. They already knew, for instance, what a banking

[c]

7

system was. Our adding resources therefore permitted the pre-
existing institutions to exert themselves.

A: Yes. I believe it is very important to define the
frontiers of Europe as rapidly as possible, especially of
countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. For
there is no possibility, however strong they become, of their
taking actions hostile to the tranquility of Europe.

[L]

8

Q: What about NATO?

9

[L]

A: It depends entirely on where. I am against military intervention in the former Yugoslavia by anybody. And German military intervention in particular would be unfortunate. The use of German military force on territories occupied by the Germans during World War II presents special problems. I cannot say that it might never happen, but it does represent special problems. On the other hand, German military participation in, say, the Gulf War, would have posed no such problems.

Q: What about Somalia?

A: Not in Somalia either.

(X)

10

03/25/93 17:06

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 001

Q. Let's talk about the development of democracy in Russia.

A. I've said consistently that there is no democratic tradition in Russia, and there's no tradition of operating a democracy. No doubt there were many noble individuals who believed in democracy. But the great institutions of the state have all been outside the democracy throughout history. And many of the writers have been hostile to democracy. Secondly, Russia did not have the same evolution as the West. Did not have a church like the Catholic Church, that insisted on independent appointments and independent standard of trust; did not have a church like the Protestant Church that insisted on freedom of conscience. It didn't participate in the Age of Enlightenment except on the periphery. And it and capitalism came if it ever came to Russia very late and only in a very fragmentary way. Those are realities. And I must say I do not consider the present Russian system democratic. I think it is better by far than the previous system, and it has democratic features like the election of the President. But it is essentially government by decree, mitigated by inefficiency and chaos.

Compare it with China: China has a tradition of capitalism. It has an entrepreneurial people. Communism has been there only 40 years. There there are still people today running the Chinese economy who count vote? themselves practicing Catholics.

A. And the Chinese farmers prefer private farming. None of this is as yet true in Russia.

03/25/93 17:06

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 002

[c]

INTERVIEW 03-25-93

PAGE 2

I think our government should be very careful not to present to our own people a false picture of Russia. Because we will be terribly disillusioned.

Q. But they are, if you listen to their u sometimes think.

Q. What is going to happen in Russia?

A. I think the most likely outcome in Russia -- whoever wins -- is some form of authoritarian regime --- rule by decree. And this is after all if I understand what Yeltsin wants. He would like to do away with the Parliament and call a Constituent Assembly. A Constituent Assembly would meet for two years. And implement his proposals for another year. So regardless of what is in the Constitution it means three years of rule by decree..

Q. That's not democratic.

A. No. It may be necessary. I think the probable outcome is some sort of autocratic regime that will then try to reform the economy. Nor will the reform of that economy produce a market economy in our sense. It would be a heroic effort. In China there were much better preconditions. It took about 20 years to get it done.

I may be wrong, but I think we should deal with Russia, not as a charity case, but as a great nation that has a different history from ours. We should concentrate on their foreign policy. We can influence their domestic policy only in a very marginal way. The big problem in the next 10 years will be the relation of Russia to the other republics. There are now Russian armies in on the soil of every republic.

03/25/93 17:07

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 003

## INTERVIEW 03-25-93

A. It's if I observe it correctly, the Russian armies on the soils of these republics are keeping every local engine going. They are not yet fully interfering.

Q. No.

A. Therefore there exists an action for later intervention. Now that is a reality. If that happens, it will be restoring some of the historic relations of tension between Europe and Russia, but it will also be force Russia back onto this endless cycle of expansionism. I could make a good case for the proposition that George Kennan has advanced. That Russia has exhausted itself with its endless expansionism. And I don't want the Western powers often for reasons of domestic politics, to re-create that situation. I read today in the paper in the American newspapers that President Clinton is above all concerned not be accused of having lost Russia. Well Russia is not ours to lose. And therefore that should not be a principal consideration. He should worry about, in fact it would be better for him if he asked himself where do I want to be in 1995. When I'm getting ready for reelection and whether he lost or won Russia it will not be important. But if we in the Ukraine we have Bosnian conditions, then he will be really in trouble.

I think we should stay out of the macromanagement of the Russian economy. If the Russians do not know by now what it takes to control their money supply, if they need a lecturer from us that they have to get their Central Bank under control, then they have no management experts at all. We

03/25/93 17:07

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑004

INTERVIEW 03-25-93

should concentrate on one, two, three projects that are of
some benefit to them, and of some benefit to us --

For example the safety of their nuclear power plants,

For example oil extraction.

Then we can do one or two humanitarian projects. But I
would think we this idea that that we can with our advice
repeat the Marshall Plan is totally wrong. In the Marshall
Plan we were dealing with countries that had a
well-established bureaucracy. They had a well established
market economy. They knew what a banking system was.
Therefore, adding resources permitted pre-existing
institutions to exert themselves.

A. Secondly, those were European governments with a history
of friendly relations with the United States. Here we are
dealing in a society that has none of the preconditions and on
top of it has a history of tension with its environment.

Q. Let's have a look at the Western states of the former
Eastern Bloc like Poland, three Czech Republic, Slovakia and so
on. Should we take them into the European Economic Community?

A. Yes.

A. And especially countries like Poland, the Czech
Republic, Hungary.

There's no possibility that no matter how strong they get
that they will take actions hostile to the tranquility of
Europe.

03/25/93 17:07

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 005

INTERVIEW 03-25-93

Q. What about NATO?

A. Well NATO to me is a purely practical problem. I could imagine that people would say that making them formal members of NATO is too provocative. But the end result should be as if they were members of NATO.

Russia has to understand that an attack on Poland for example or Hungary would have the same practical consequences as an attack on NATO whether or not they are technically members of NATO.

Q. How long will these things take?

A. The NATO point we should come to immediately, that requires no preparation. The European Community point there may be technical provisions that make it difficult. But I would at least give them the defacto economic benefits of the European Community.

Q. Should Germany join international peacemaking and peacekeeping operations?

A. It depends entirely where. I'm against military intervention in Yugoslavia by anybody.

A. So but I think that German military intervention would be particularly unfortunate. I think German the use of German military force on territory which was occupied during World War II presents special problems. And I can't say it can never happen, but it represents special problems. Now, the use of German participation in the Gulf War -- I would have no problem with that.

Q. Somalia?

03/25/93 17:08

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE →→→ KISSINGER

☑ 006

INTERVIEW 03-25-93

A. Somalia certainly not.

Q. (?)

So we in America have a particular problem now. We have never lived in a world which we could neither dominate nor could we withdraw from it. It is the first time where we are locked into a world in which we are still the only Super Power -- but it only applies to nuclear weapons really. It doesn't apply to economics.

And where there's no ideological conflict. So therefore we would should be driven to think about foreign policy in almost European terms, And in terms of balance of power equilibrium and similar things.

A. There is no intellectual tradition for this in America, whatsoever. You can find no President except Theodore Roosevelt, and maybe Nixon who thought this way, almost no professor. So we will go through a period -- which in a way will have to happen in this Administration-- of redefining our purposes.

I PROPOSE TO END THIS HERE.--tony

03/25/93 14:32

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 001

Henry Kissinger tape for syndicate.

A. And I get a chance to edit this right.

Q. You get it tomorrow, you get a transcript and edit so you can edit whatever you want, I mean it's as usual. OK, now, talk to you about democracy in Russia, and the private union states. There's one question you sometimes mention in earlier articles years ago. Where do you think they should get the knowhow the democratic knowhow and the personnel to implement this (?).

A. I have said before and I've said consistently that there is no democratic tradition in Russia, and there's no tradition of operating a democracy. No doubt there were many nobles, individuals who believed in democracy. But in the great institutions of the state have all been outside the democracy throughout history. And many of the writers have been hostile to democracy. Secondly, Russia did not have the same evolution as the West. Did not have a church like the Catholic Church, that insisted on independent appointments and independent standard of trusted did not have a church like the Protestant Church that insisted on freedom of conscience. It didn't participate in the Age of Enlightenment except on the periphery. And it and capitalism came if it ever came to Russia very late and only very fragmentary. Those are realities. And I must say I do not consider the present Russian system democratic. I think it is better by far than the previous system, and it has democratic features like the election of the President. But it is essentially government by

03/25/93 14:32

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑002

[c]

KISSINGER 03-25-93

PAGE 2

Q. And another point of view is I mean you know understanding is together with free market. So what about the free market tradition free market knowhow.

A. Right. I don't take it as a criticism of what goes on, the same is true incidentally in all of the republics except possibly the Baltic states.

Q. Yeah. (?) both they are (?).

A. But if you compare it with China, China has a tradition of capitalism. It has an entrepreneurial people. Communism has been there only 40 years. There there are still people today running the Chinese economy who vote? themselves practicing Catholics.

Q. Yes.

Q. And but I mean what towns as this area (?) concerning the (?) as it is. What does it tell us, what can we hope from from people at the end of the decade.

A. I think this, I'll answer this in a minute, but I think our government should be very careful not to present to our own people a false picture of Russia. Because we will be terribly dissolutioned.

A. You can get you think there is democracy and there's a free market and there is neither democracy nor a free market in any of the republic.

03/25/93 14:33

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 003

KISSINGER 03-25-93

Q. And you think there is a Democrat now who is challenged by the forces of the undemocratic Parliament and he's elected by the people but that's all you as you say and that's all.

A. Yeah. You've seen my article, I mean you published it.

Q. Yes we printed.

A. Yes, I saw it very nice bit of.

Q. So but just they teach us I mean it comes to the shaping of (?).

A. I think I think first of all the most likely outcome is a in Russia whoever wins some form of authoritarian regime. That will rule by decree. And this is after all if I understand what Yeltsin wants, more or less a proposal. He would like to do away with the Parliament.

Q. Yeah.

A. Call a Constituent Assembly. A Constituent Assembly would meet for two years. And implement his proposals for another year. So regardless of what is in the Constitution it means three years of rule.

Q. By decree.

A. By decree, without Parliament.

Q. Yes.

A. That's not democratic.

Q. No.

A. It may be necessary. I think the probable outcome is some sort of autocratic regime that will then try to reform the economy. Now will the reform of that economy produce a market economy in our sense. It would be a heroic effort. In

03/25/93 14:33

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑004

[Lc]

KISSINGER 03-25-93

China there's much better preconditions. It took about 20
years to get it done.

Q. In terms of years, I mean how long do you think we have
to in which terms do we have to think I mean this century next
I mean next.

A. Next century.

Q. Next century.

A. But of course, I have a different view of this whole
situation. And I may be wrong, but I think we should deal with
Russia, not as a charity case, but as a great nation that has
a different history from ours. We should concentrate on their
foreign policy. We can if influence their domestic policy only
in a very marginal way. We should not be paid off for whatever
we do by Russian leaders saying we are democrats and we and
giving us our liturgy. And that is in effect what is
happening. The big problem in the next 10 years will be the
relation of Russia to the other republics. There are now
Russian armies in on the soil of every republic.

Q. Yes.

Q. No.

03/25/93 14:34

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑005

KISSINGER 03-25-93

endless cycle of expansionism. I could make a good case for the proposition that ~~Kennan has advanced~~, That Russia has exhausted itself with its endless expansionism. And I don't want the Western powers often for domestic politics, to re-create that situation. I read today in the paper in the American newspapers, that President Clinton is above all concerned not be accused of having lost Russia. Well ~~Russia~~ is not ours to lose. And therefore that should not be a principal consideration. He should worry about, in fact it would be better for him if he asked himself where do I want to be in 1995. When I'm getting ready for reelection and whether he lost or won Russia it will not be important. But if we in the Ukraine have Bosnian conditions, then he will be really in trouble.

Q. Yeah, what I mean what does it mean shaping our foreign policy should we or the West try to create some sort of linkage between aid programs and troops pulling out and something like that.

A. Well I think we should at least get into the Russian consciousness that it is not a normal condition.

Q. Yeah.

A. For Russian troops to be on the soil of foreign countries.

Q. Yeah.

A. It isn't a main thing situation. Where there are Russian troops on the territory of 14 republic.

Q. Everything's fine.

03/25/93 14:34

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 006

KISSINGER 03-25-93

PAGE 6

A. Nobody complains about it.

Q. No.

A. And therefore, sooner or later the temptation of doing something with these troops may arise.

Q. Yeah.

A. I'd link it to some extent.

Q. Yeah.

A. At least by raising the issue.

Q. Yeah.

A. Secondly, I I favor a I favor aid of a different kind than what bigger thing. I think we should stay out of the management of the Soviet economy. If the Soviet of the Russian economy. If the Russians do not know by now what it takes to control their money supply. If they need a lecturer from us that they have to get their Central Bank under control, then they have no management experts at all. We should concentrate on one, two, three projects that are of some benefit to them, and of some benefit to us.

Q. Producing bill curr.

A. For example the safety of their nuclear power plants.

Q. Yeah.

A. For example oil extraction.

Q. Right.

A. Then we can do one or two humanitarian projects. But I would think we this idea that that we can with our advice repeat the Marshall Plan, is totally wrong. In the Marshall Plan we were dealing with countries that had a

03/25/93 14:36

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑001

KISSINGER 03-25-93

Q. Yeah.

A. Secondly, those were governments with a history of friendly relations with the United States. Here we are dealing in a society that has none of the preconditions and on top of it has a history of tension with its environment. Never mind the United States.

Q. So perhaps let's have a look at the Western states of the former Eastern Bloc like Poland, Czechoslovaks, and so on. What would you, what would you what would you suggest. Should they in the lighted of what you said.

A. I believe it is important.

Q. Should we take them into the Economic Community?

A. Yes.

Q. Into EC.

A. I believe it is very important to define the frontiers of Europe. As rapidly as possible.

Q. Yeah.

A. And especially countries like Poland, Czech republic Hungary.

Q. Hungary Hungary.

A. That have a tradition of of democracy and all these nations about whom for 40 years we were saying, that they were victims of foreign aggression.

03/25/93 14:36

☎️213.237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑002

KISSINGER 03-25-93

PAGE 8

Q. Because for all of them it's partly true what you said to the countries which you (?) out of them they got to (?) they got for me.

A. Oh no. In Eastern Europe, I think not as much as in Western Europe, but basicconditions of the Marshall Plan apply.

Q. Yes.

A. And there's no possibility that no matter how strong they get that they will take actions hostile to the tranquility of of Europe. So I believe that a major if we do a ma (?) it would be really a contradiction of the whole post-war history. If all the resources now went to the imperial power and nothing went to the victims.

Q. So should we take them into the European Community?

A. I would favor it.

Q. You would favor it. What about NATO? Should.

A. Well NATO to me is a purely practical problem. I could imagine that people would say and making them formal members of NATO is too provocative. And but the end result should be as if they were members of NATO.

Q. Because they want it.

A. Russia has to understand that an attack on Poland for example or Hungary would have the prac same practical consequences as an attack on NATO whether or not they are technically members of NATO.

Q. In again the question, I mean in terms of years, I mean how long do we need to come to this point.

03/25/93 14:37

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

003

[c]

KISSINGER 03-25-93

PAGE 9

Q. Yes.

A. And open the market.

Q. And that should also be done.

A. Within the next year.

Q. Within next year. But what does what would that mean for the EC? Those countries the cohesion of the EC move but (?) waker probably.

A. Yes, but weaker then it is through the inclusion of Greece.

Q. Now coming aga to Germany what do you what should Germany, I mean there's a debate in Germany. Should Germany join (?) operations. Which (?) we talked together a year ago I think you mentioned (?) they shouldn't but now we hear (?) they. I mean they are not despised would be the the wrong word but they always standing.

Q. By anybody.

A. So but I think German let's put it, that German military intervention would be particularly unfortunate. I think German the use of German military force on territory which was occupied during World War II, presents special problems. And I

03/25/93 14:37

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑004

KISSINGER 03-25-93

can't say gladly it can never happen, but it represents special problems. Now, the use of German participation in the Gulf War I would have no problem with that.

Q. Somalia.

A. Somalia certainly not.

Q. (?) I mean to the United States what should the United States I mean do to put these points you just made in a concept. I mean they are now.

A. Well the first thing the United States has to do is to develop a concept. Which doesn't exist now.

Q. No.

A. I mean the great danger in all our countries is that every issue will be handled as if it were domestic politics. And domestic politics is handled as if it is judged by tomorrow morning's newspaper or this evening's television news. So that you get no long-range ideas. In this country we have a special problem because as a result of the early '70s, of Watergate and other things, our political process became needlessly divided and we're still paying for that. When I talk to my conservative friends, here, Americans are great believers in conversion. So they say they think Russia has changed.

Q. Which it (?).

A. Well, I think to some extent it may probably has but when a nation acts in a certain way for a few hundred years, it must reflect the fact that its people and its leaders consider that reasonable. And certainly based on my

03/25/93 14:38

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE →→→ KISSINGER

005

KISSINGER 03-25-93

PAGE 11

experiences in Russia, most of the leading I don't know what their leading, most of the intellectual people that I know are proud of the Russian empire. And uneasy at this new constellation. So we in America have a particular problem now. We have never lived in a world which we could neither doinate nor could we withdraw from it. It is the first time where we are locked into a world in which we are still the you say the only Super Power in a way true but it only applies to nuclear weapons really. It doesn't apply to economics.

Q. No.

A. But we'll be a very powerful but not alone. And where there's no ideological conflict. So therefore we would should be driven to think about foreign policy in almost European terms, And in terms of balance of power equilibrium and similar things.

Q. Yeah.

A. There is no intellectual tradition for this in America, whatsoever. You can find no President except Theodore Roosevelt, and maybe Nixon who thought this way, almost no professor. So we will go through a period which in a way will have to happen in this Administration of redefining our purposes.

Q. But that sounds quite a little bit I don't know a little pessimistic but nobody knows nothing on it.

A. No I'm not saying, nobody knows anything. There are many people who know a lot.

Q. Yeah, but nothing is done. I mean there's no conception

03/25/93 14:38

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑ 006

KISSINGER 03-25-93

work on the way I mean at least you don't see.

A. Yeah, but in fairness again the Europeans aren't doing
any better.

Q. No no no no.

A. I mean all the Europe, the Europeans are not saying
anything more conceptual than we are, they're saying that
democracy that market economic.

Q. Yeah, but you are the the leading still the leading
Western power though a lot of people are looking to Washington
and expecting some hint in which direction they see.

A. Yeah. It's a problem at this moment, in America, and
it's particularly a problem with an Administration that has
just come in, which is composed of people whose formulated
experience was during the Vietnam War.

Q. Yeah. OK, but in Germany you can say that they are still
occupied the (?) reunificate, I mean there's a lot of which
takes.

A. I think we have the rest of the Clinton Administration
to come up with a concept.

Q. Yeah.

A. Some things will not work very well as a result. But,
you see in Russia things are going to work out one way or the
other, it's somewhat, I think whoever wins there are really
only two ways it can end, either with some additional chaos,
which will then be followed by the reestablishment of
authority or the moreorless reestablishment of authority. Then
sooner or later we will then have to come to grips with the

03/25/93 14:39

☎213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑007

KISSINGER 03-25-93

proposition that this government will not be like Western pluralistic Parliamentary governments. Because there's no pluralistic base for it and because there are no parties, there's no Parliament, of this kind, so we are almost back to the confronts role. There'll be perpetual peace added through human insight or through endless conflict.

Q. In this country.

A. And I think we will have a period of confusion, but not of disaster.

Q. How do you envisage the role of the military in Russia?

A. In Russia.

Q. Could they bag some authority.

A. Certainly. I believe what the military will try to construct is something in which in a period of chaos, there is to order on behalf of an authority they declare constitutionally, they will not do it for themselves.

Q. Yeah. It would be what's called the the.

A. It's a possibility that Rotskoy and Pulsky for example.

Q. Yeah yeah yeah yeah.

A. Emerge together.

Q. How should we (?) ask you how should we behave or what should we do with the Azerbaijan.

A. First of all, we have a particular interest in those that face the West. In Central Asia, we actually have some comparable interests with the Russians in that we don't want fundamentalism to spread. And the Russians don't have the same

03/25/93 14:39

☎️213 237 3769

LAT SYNDICATE

→→→ KISSINGER

☑008

[c]

KISSINGER 03-25-93

emotional ties to Central Asia that they have to the West
European. So there, I think even some practical arrangement
some possible in Central Asia. The further west you go, the
more complicated the situation becomes. I think in the
caucuses, well, I think in the caucuses the Russians really
have the intention of reestablishing at least a military front
here. Then of Ukraine (?) Baltic states. We in the West should
conduct ourselves in such a way to indicate that we take the
independence of these countries seriously. And it is therefore
necessary that we get some greater visibility and greater
encouragement. We should also make clear to the Russians that
we don't look at them at both countries as military bastions
for the West. But that an impairment of the independence of
these states, would have an unfortunate effect on the
relationship between Russia and Western countries. Right now
much of Russian diplomacy is geared to creating the impression
the defender for this area Moscow and that the others really
have no true independent status, none of our leaders ever view
Kiev, nor do we invite Ukraine, you know Pella Rose (sp?)
leaders nor do we do symbolic exchanges or do trade treaties
all of which we could do, and all of which would be cheaper
than Russia. But I'm not saying that we should give preference
to the republics over Russia. I'm just saying we should put
them into an overall concept.

Q. OK, I think that's it, thank you.

A. Oh very good.

Q. An interesting.