- First of all, one has to put a time frame on it. China will not be a superpower for a generation. You are talking of a gradual increase of China's power. And that is assuming that the present state of growth continues uninterruptedly which is also unlikely. Secondly, China is not a democracy but it's also not as strong as the Soviet Union. Its ideology make no universal claim. They do not claim to control communists by his outside. And it is more similar to Mexico before the reforms than it is to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Then, we deal with a lot of governments around the world that are not democratic. And we deal with a lot of governments that claim to be democratic that are not really democratic. So the question is, America's foreign policy and over that matter, european's foreign policy, should be driven entirely by the domestic structures of the countries concerned, independent that this country does abroad is no doubt their level of violations of human dignity that are so offensive that they must affect our foreign policy. And I am not saying that any country has the right to have concentration camps, gas chambers but what then is: each country has to consider it carefully. And I believe that the events in China are potentially quite positive. I believe our relations will be based on the proposition that a country of the magnitude of China, that is going through huge changes domestically, changes that are about to affect its domestic structures must be related to the international system in a constructive way. A policy of isolating China and making it believe it is an other species of western intervention, for which they have had unfortunate experiences for 150 years, would be counter-productive.

Should american soldiers die for Taiwan?

Aug 21 1990 12 30AM

5-0

- First of all, one has to put a time frame on it. China will not be a superpower for a generation. You are talking of a gradual increase of China's power. And that is assuming that the present state of growth continues uninterruptedly which is also unlikely. Secondly, China is not a democracy but it's also not as strong as the Soviet Union. Its ideology make no universal claim. They do not claim to control communists by his outside. And it is more similar to Mexico before the reforms than it is to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Then, we deal with a lot of governments around the world that are not democratic. And we deal with a lot of governments that claim to be democratic that are not really democratic. So the question is, America's foreign policy and over that matter, european's foreign policy, should be driven entirely by the domestic structures of the countries concerned, independent that this country does abroad? There is no doubt that human dignity is a level of violation which are so offensive to our principles must affect our foreign policy. And I am not saying that any country has the right to have concentration camps, gas chambers but what that point is: each country has to consider it carefully. And I believe that the evolutionary factors in China are potentially quite positive. I believe our relations with China should be based on the proposition that a country of the magnitude of China, that is going through huge changes domestically, changes that are about to affect its domestic structures must be related to the international system in a constructive way. A policy of isolating China and making it believe it is an other species of western intervention, for which they have had unfortunate experiences for 150 years, would be counter-productive.

8:0:11 00 12 30H

5-0-9

- I believe the Taiwan problem should be solved and can be solved without war. I have said three principles with Taiwan. One, that United States should adhere to the principle of one China. Two, that the Chinese should take seriously the American concern for a peaceful solution. Three, that the Taiwanese behave with restraint in that context. And if these three principles are maintained, as I believe they can be, there will not be a war on Taiwan.

What do you think of Madeleine Albright at the head of the State department?

on the basis of

- When you've been secretary of state, you don't over analyzed your successor. It's a tough job in a difficult period and she's a personal friend to me so I will not comment more than that.

Wasn't the intervention in Kosovo which has been called Madeleine's war, what you don't like in Foreign policy namely motivated by moral reasons rather than strategic necessities?

- Things are divided here. You can't blame it on the United States because after all the negotiations that led up to it were conducted in Rambouillet. And there was no compulsion of the French government to conduct the negotiations. In fact, technically, they were chairman, Vedrine and Cook. But I will grant the fact that there was a moral issue here. And that there was a great amount of human rights violations taking place in Kosovo. I have never believed that the Rambouillet approach was the right way to deal with it.

Aug 21 00 11:10a

g.d

- When you've been secretary of state, you don't over analyzed your successor. It's a tough job in a difficult period and she's a personal mine so I will not comment more than that.

- Things are divided here. You can't blame it on the United States because after all the negotiations that led up to it were conducted in Rambouillet. And there was no compulsion of the French government to conduct the negotiations. In fact, technically, they were chairman, Vedrine and Cook. But Secondly I will grant the fact that there was a moral issue here. And that there was a great amount of human rights violations taking place in Kosovo. I have never believed that the Rambouillet approach was the right way to deal with it.

g.d

Aug 21 00 11:10a

- I believe the Taiwan problem should be solved and can be solved without war. I have said three principles with Taiwan. One, that United States should adhere to the principle of one China. Two, that the Chinese should takes seriously the american concern for a peaceful solution. Three, that the Taiwanese behave with restraint in that context. And if these three principles are maintained, as I believe they can be, there will not be a war on Taiwan.

- When you've been secretary of state, you don't over analyzed your successor. It's a tough job in a difficult period and she's a personal friend of mine so I will not comment more than that.

- Things are divided here. You can't blame it on the United States because after all the negotiations that led up to it were conducted in Rambouillet. And there was no compulsion of the French government to conduct the negotiations. In fact, technically, they were chairman, Vedrine and Cook. But I will grant the fact that there was a moral issue here. And that there was a great amount of human rights violations taking place in Kosovo. I have never believed that the Rambouillet approach was the right way to deal with this issue.

g.d

Aug 21 00 11:10a

this. And I believe also it was contrary to the principles of NATO. And I
finally believe that more lives could have been saved and less ethnic
would have taken place with a more nuanced approach... such as
perpetrated byrerasedHolocaust that for a i
UN observers?

What about what happened in Rwanda? Facing such atrocities, with
interests, what should be the American attitude?

observers
was unprecedented

- I'm not expert on Africa but I think in a situation like Rwanda or Sierra Leone where you have slaughters where it is a conflict between power groups and not a long historical ethnic conflict and where the slaughters could be stopped relatively easily, I would actually be more sympathetic to intervention there, or in situations like that I would be to intervene in something like Kosovo that has a long historical basis which is very hard to understand unless you understand the history of the ottoman empire, the austrian and other empires that have upgraded in that area. And also for NATO to make a demand that a country should permit free transit through its territories, to take over the administration of the province of that country, is so contrary to anything NATO was designed to do that I do not believe it was the appropriate way of dealing with it. I would have preferred to strengthen the UN observers, to threaten if there had been massive violation and to do it more on a case by case basis.

Then, under what circumstances should America send troops abroad?

- When America goes to war, it must be for a cause which is willing to explain to the mothers of the soldiers who get killed. To go to war without

Aug 21 00 11:10a

P.7

this. And I believe also it was contrary to the principles of NATO. And I
finally believe that more lives could have been saved and less et
would have taken place with a more nuanced approach— see
permitted by Ambassador Holbrook that year
UK Observers?
What about what happened in Rwanda? Facing such atrocities
interests, what should be the American attitude?

- I'm not expert on Africa but I think in a situation like Rwanda or Sierra Leone where you have slaughters where it is a conflict between power groups and not a long historical ethnic conflict and where the slaughters could be stopped relatively easily, I would actually be more sympathetic to intervention there, or in situations like that I would be to intervene in something like Kosovo that has a long historical basis which is very hard to understand unless you understand the history of the ottoman empire, the austrian and domestic民主的 and other empires that have upgraded in that area. And also for NATO to make a demand that a country should permit free transit through its territories, to take over the administration of the province of that country, is so contrary to anything NATO was designed to do that I do not believe it was the appropriate way of dealing with it. I would have preferred to strengthen the UN observers, to threaten if there had been massive violation and to do it more on a case by case basis.

Aug 21 00 11:10a

P.7

What about what happened in Rwanda? Facing such atrocities, with no vital interests, what should be the American attitude?

Aug 21 00 11:10a

P.7

being willing to get casualties indicates you don't consider it a vital interest. Otherwise, you would be prepared to die for it. There is a dichotomy with saying "we're going to war but we don't want to suffer any casualties". I would think that for issues in which the fundamental interests are involved, we should be prepared to go to war. Like the defense of Europe certainly, the gulf war in which I was a strong supporter of military action but I didn't favor military intervention in Kosovo especially not on the Rambouillet basis.

Would Taiwan be a vital interest?

- It must be the objective of the United States not to let it come to this point. As the Chinese have to understand that whatever may be the abstract view of the national interest, American public opinion would not accept the military conquest of Taiwan. That is a fact of life. But it is also incumbent on United States to understand that this is an issue of profound historical and sociological significance to China. And therefore, it's not an issue that should be turned into a test of strength.

How do you think the Clinton's administration has handled the Middle East Problem, especially at Camp David, a couple of weeks ago? It may not have been a failure since Yasser Arafat said recently he may reconsider the date of 13th of September as the declaration of a Palestinian state?

- Actually, I don't think there will be a declaration of independence on September 13. I believe that negotiations are still continuing with some possibilities of success. So I don't want to comment too much on that. I think

8·d

2011-11-00 12:00:08

it's dangerous to schedule a summit with a fixed deadline. One remembers
that the first Camp david summit took twelve days for the Sinai which was a
simple issue. To schedule the whole complex of the palestinian question for
nine days was a daring move. And it didn't work: It's difficult if you conduct
negotiations in such a way that the issue left concerns something of the most
fundamental principles for both sides. Then you ask them to compromise.
That is very difficult to do if there is no trade left.

It is not always clear what the United States think of the European
community. They regard the unity of Europe as a good thing but also as a
threat somehow?

- We don't quite know but neither the europeans. We don't yet know how
the european have decided to organize themselves. How large it is? how
integrated it is? There is no doubt that the America has gotten used to Europe
under the impact of its fear of Soviet Union as being very ready to accept
american leadership. There is also no question that a unified Europe and no
longer threaten by the Soviet Union develops its own ideas more
systematically. That doesn't bother me and in the long run, that is desirable.
What worries americans, serious americans, what worries me is the tendency
to base european identity on opposition to the United States. Or on the
preposition that it is Europe mission to limit the hyper power of the United
States. It's one thing to say inevitably the strengthening of Europe will limit the
united states range. That's a reality. It's an other to say it's the purpose of
Europe. And too many European leaders are saying the later.

e11:11 00 12 3n0

6.p

What do you think should be the american policy towards the nuclear proliferation and should USA prevent it by any means necessary the emergence of new nuclear countries?

- It depends on the country. There are some countries where I would be very sympathetic to prevent the ignition but in concert with other countries that are concerned. In the case of the Indian nuclear program, it is hard to make the proposition that India is not permitted to have nuclear weapons. Especially when Indian neighbors have nuclear weapons. There are some categories of country where it should be important to build into an international regiment for nuclear weapons. But there is no doubt that the unrestrained spread of nuclear weapons into less and less responsible answers represents a danger for humanity that will have to be dealt with.

You are thinking of countries like Iran for instance?

- I don't have come to a clear point about what we should do. But we can not be indifferent to the development of nuclear capabilities in Iran. But Europe will be threatened before we are.

What is the future of Russia?

- Putin looks like a return to a tzarist regime with some democratic in paraphernalia. If he succeeds in reestablishing authority and if he can manage to impose a legal system, I believe the economy will recover very quickly and will attract a fair amount of investment. It will then be somehow more difficult

p.10

Aug 21 1990 12 20H

to deal with. But I believe even today Russia should be made hard of
consultative processes so that it is clear to its leaders that it's being treated
like a great power. Even when it is not yet a great power.

Shouldn't the United States change their political approach with Cuba and
how do you explain Castro has been able to survive the fall of communism?

- It's on an island, he's <u>courageous</u>. I think this is basically an american
domestic debate issue that will be discussed <u>during</u> the elections. I have
publicly recommend the creation of a bi partisan commission to take it out of
politics and make recommendations.

Should USA lift the sanctions against Cuba?

- It's an issue that bi partisan commission should examine. I wouldn't have recommend a bi partisan commission if I wasn't open to the idea.

If Georges Bush was elected, would you accept a post in his administration?

- I <u>have not addressed this question</u>. As a general proposition I have always believed one should respond to a president's request. If I were to define my own strong preference it is to act as an <u>elders</u> statement adviser on the outside, available for crisis but not for a permanent position.

P.11

Aug 21 00 11:11a

First of all, what do you think of the two presidential candidates, Al Gore or Georges W Bush? Is electing one or the other a fundamental choice?

- You have to know that I'm a supporter of Georges W Bush and my answers have to be interpreted from that point of view. I think there is an important difference. To me, Gore would be a kind of continuation of the Clinton approach in foreign policy which is sort of sociological and psychiatric. In the sense that he believes that personal relationships with world leaders are of principal importance. and secondly, that the transformations of the social structures of the countries he's dealing with is a guarantee for good relations. In my view, the republican approach, I'm not necessarily speaking of Bush, would be something more oriented with a definition of the american interests. And to an understanding of the geopolitical elements. Of course, no american president can be indifferent to the future of democracy or human rights. But it is a question of the relative priorities given to various elements. But I'm not speaking for Governor Bush. I speak for myself.

In other words, Gore has more a "wilsonian" approach and Bush is more inspired by Teddy Roosevelt principals?

- Yes. And also, a difference between a wilsonian approach and a more orientated one towards domestic politics. Bush would have a more global approach, just like Teddy Roosevelt had indeed.

What do you think as Georges Bush as a leader?

T-600 P 002/011 F-018

From-PARIS MATCH

Aug-17-2000 11:44am

- Georges W Bush is a man whose capacity to lead is more comparable to
Reagan than say to Clinton or Jimmy Carter. That is to say, he will understand
the big issues and he will concentrate on them. He doesn't pretend to master
every details of every foreign policy issues. But he will be surrounded by
people of considerable abilities.

At the dawn of this new century, America has more power, military and economically, than any other country in the history of humankind. Still, the USA doesn't seem to have a clear vision of what their role should be in today's world. What should be american policy for the next 10 or 20 years?

- One has to remember that any country is a product of his history. Even
France.

Specially France!

- The United States has been a country which until world war I really did not have to deal with foreign policy. Indeed in the european sense at all. There was no country capable of threatening the USA, there was no economic situation that directly affected the USA. Then we ended world war one for a variety of reasons. But what America was thinking of herself was they were fighting to make the world safer for democracy and that they would end the European approach to foreign policy by spreading democracy and self determination around the world. Then, there was an other period where America ended the war again this time in response to what appeared to

T-600 P.003/011 F-018

From-PARIS MATCH

Aug-17-2000 11:44am

americans as unprovoked aggression and overwhelming danger. So until the end of world war II, America has never had experience with a permanent foreign policy. Then the permanent foreign policy that was conducted was in response to again an overwhelming danger from the Soviet Union. There is only in the last 20 years that the USA had to face what every european nation has always faced, namely that there is no escaping in foreign policy. That One is permanently involved and that there is no final solutions to every problems. That every problem resolved is an admission ticket for an other problem. And of course, in that manner, that means facing rebellion in the american psyche. In this sense, the issues are unresolved. For instance, what are we trying to do with China? Are we trying to make it democratic or do we want to build an international system? Is Russia a strategic problem or is Russia a problem simply of changing structures to free elections? What is the significance of the European community? Can you have European unity and permanent cooperation with the USA and if it isn't cooperative what else is it? These are the questions that need to be dealt within the next decade and to which that does not now exist clear answers. Nor can one ever expect to ever clear answers to it.

You've mentionned it: One of the major problem today seems to be the relationships with China. On one hand, it's a soon to become super power with whom America has to deal with on a pragmatical level but at the same time, their political system is far from our democratic views and is more or less in contradiction with our moral values. Therefore, what should be the american approach towards China?

T-600 P.004/011 F-018

From-PARIS MATCH

Aug-17-2000 11:45am

- First of all, one has to put a time frame on it. China will not be a superpower for a generation. You are talking of a gradual increase of China's power. And that is assuming that the present state of growth continues uninterruptedly which is also unlikely. Secondly, China is not a democracy but it's also not as stiff as the Soviet Union. Its ideology make no universal claim. They do not claim to control communism by his outsides. And it is more similar to Mexico before the reforms than it is to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Then, we deal with a lot of governments around the world that are not democratic. And we deal with a lot of governments that claim to be democratic that are not really democratic. So the question is, America's foreign policy and over that matter, european's foreign policy, should be driven entirely by the domestic structures of the countries concerned, independent that this country does abroad? There is no doubt their level of violation of human dignity that are so offensive to our principles must affect our foreign policy. And I am not saying that any country has the right to have concentration camps, gas chambers but what that point is: each country has to consider it carefully. And I believe that the evolutionary factors in China are potentially quite positive. I believe our relations with China should be based on the proposition that a country of the magnitude of China, that is going through huge changes domestically, changes that are about to affect its domestic structures must be related to the international system in a constructive way. A policy of isolating China and making it believe it is an other species of western intervention, for which they have had unfortunate experiences for 150 years, would be counter-productive.

T-600 P.005/011 F-018

From-PARIS MATCH

Aug-17-2000 11:45am

- I believe the Taiwan problem should be solved and can be solved without war. I have said three principals with Taiwan. One, that United States should adhere to the principal of one China. Two, that the chinese should takes seriously the american concern for a peaceful solution. Three, that the taiwanese behave with restrain in that context. And if these three principals are maintained, as I believe they can be, there will not be a war on Taiwan.

- Things are divided here. You can't blame it on the United States because after all the negotiations that led up to it were conducted in Rambouillet. And there was no compulsion of the french government to conduct the negotiations. In fact, technically, they were chairman, Vedrine and Cook. Secondly I will grant the fact that there was a moral issue here. And that there was a great amount of human rights violations taking place in Kosovo. I have never believed that the Rambouillet approach was the right way to deal with

T-600 P.006/011 F-018

Aug-17-2000 11:45am From-PARIS MATCH

this. And I believe also it was contrary to the principals of NATO. And I
finally believe that more lives could have been saved and less ethnic cleansing
would have taken place with a more nuanced approach.

- I'm not expert on Africa but I think in a situation like Rwanda or Sierra Leone where you have slaughters where it is a conflict between power groups and not a long historical ethnic conflict and where the slaughters could be stopped relatively easily, I would actually be more sympathetic to intervention there or in situations like that I would be to intervene in something like Kosovo that has a long historical basis which is very hard to understand unless you understand the history of the ottoman empire, the austrian and other empires that have upgraded in that area. And also for NATO to make a demand that a country should permit free transit through its territories, to take over the administration of the province of that country, is so contrary to anything NATO was designed to do that I do not believe it was the appropriate way of dealing with it. I would have preferred to strengthen the UN observers, to threaten if there had been massive violation and to do it more on a case by case basis.

T-600 P 007/011 F-018

Aug-17-2000 11:46am From-PARIS MATCH

T-600 P.008/011 F-018

it's dangerous to schedule a summit with a fixed deadline. One remembers
that the first Camp david summit took twelve days for the Sinai which was a
simple issue. To schedule the whole complex of the palestinian question for
nine days was a daring move. And it didn't work. It's difficult if you conduct
negotiations in such a way that the issue left concerns something of the most
fundamental principals for both sides. Then you ask them to compromise.
That is very difficult to do if there is no trade left.

T-600 P 009/011 F-018

From-PARIS MATCH

Aug-17-2000 11:46am

What do you think should be the american policy towards the nuclear proliferation and should USA prevents by any means necessary the emergence of new nuclear countries?

- It depends on the country. There are some countries where I would be very sympathetic to prevent the ignition but in concert with other countries that are concerned. In the case of the indian nuclear program, it is hard to make the proposition that India is not permitted to have nuclear weapons. Especially when Indian neighbors have nuclear weapons. There are some categories of country where it should be important to build into an international regiment for nuclear weapons. But there is no doubt that the unrestrained spread of nuclear weapons into less and less responsible answers represents a danger for humanity that will have to be dealt with.

- I don't have come to a clear point about what we should do. But we can not be indifferent to the development of nuclear capabilities in Iran. But Europe will be threaten before we are.

What is the future of Russia?

T-600 P.010/011 F-018

From-PARIS MATCH

Aug-17-2000 11:47am

- It's on an island, he's courageous. I think this is basically an american
domestic debate issue that will be discussed during the elections. I have
publicly recommend the creation of a bi partisan commission to take it out of
politics and make recommendations.

- I have not addressed this question. As a general proposition I have always
believed one should respond to a president's request. If I were to define my
own strong preference it is to act as an eldest statement adviser on the
outside, available for crisis but not for a permanent position.

T-600 P.011/011 F-018

From-PARIS MATCH

Aug-17-2000 11:47am

August 16, 2000 Continued

Wednesday

2:30 PM - 3:00 PM

Meeting with Robert Day -- @ Office

Contact: Marie @ Office TF (212-771-4029)

3:30 PM - 4:00 PM

Meeting with Dan Mosley and Dennis Gish -- @
Office

Contact: Meeting scheduled by Dennis

4:00 PM - 4:10 PM

Howard Toepfer -- @ Office

Contact: Toepfer @ TF (599-3661)/@ Home (718-624-2745)

4:30 PM - 5:10 PM

Interview with Paris Match Magazine [includes
photo to be taken-photographer will describe
photo possibilities] -- @ Office

Contact/Interviewer: Romain Clergeat @ Paris Match
TF (212-767-6387)

5:30 PM - 5:40 PM

UN Ambassador Peter Chkheidze [Georgian
Mission][Sign YOR] -- @ Office

Contact: Nina @ Georgian Mission TF (759-1949)

Attendees: Batkin is traveling; unable to join

Note: Amb. would like to receive in person signed YOR

Pres. of Georgia arrives NY on 9/5 and Amb. would like
to present book to him upon arrival

HAK provides copy of YOR

KAINY

2

8/25/005:01 PM

OTHER

Newer requests:

**Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin** Christie tried to schedule this interview, for a series called "Kinder fragen - Nobelpreisträger antworten", in Europe before your plans changed. They've agreed to let you approve the final text and now have a crew in NY who could come to the office whenever convenient.

Contact Andrea Creyc 212.941-8163

**Paris Match Magazine** You said to ask the LATS if you could grant an interview to this weekly magazine, for a piece on the role of the US in today's world and the issues America is facing at the dawn of the new century. They would send a crew to NY and would also like a few minutes to take a photograph to accompany the article. *The LATS says there is no client in France, so you are able to do it, if you wish.* (40 mins.)

**BBC Radio "Nicky Campbell Programme"** Producer Jim Lumsden hopes for 30 mins. to discuss, among other topics, the paperback edition of *YOR*. The live interview would air on the BBC's 24-hour news and sports channel, "Radio Five Live". Would be done in a NYC studio.

**Kenneth Asch** The last time Asch was in NY, you had said you didn't want to see him. He is doing a major Dresden feature in Atlantic Monthly and various news reports for *The Sunday Telegraph* and the BBC. Both Günter Blobel and Win Späh suggested he speak to you for his story on Dresden's Frauenkirche.

KAINY

To: RClergeat@aol.com
Subject: RE: Interview with Dr. Kissinger

Thank you for your prompt reply. We shall be in touch with you shortly.

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

From: RClergeat@aol.com [mailto:RClergeat@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 4:09 PM
To: kainy@compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Interview with Dr. Kissinger

absolutely. We are still very much interested to have an interview with Dr Kissinger. may I just remind you that in case he would agree, we would also like to do a portrait before or after the interview.

Thank you

To: Dr. Kissinger

From: Jessee

## INTERVIEW REQUESTS

3/30/00

The following are interview requests we have received. Please indicate which ones you are interested in doing. Theresa will then add them to the list of others to which you have agreed in principle, so that you may prioritize them in context.

### BBC News

Anna Parkinson is producing a series of radio programs, which she hopes will assess the kind of political leadership needed for key economies of the contemporary world. Yale historian, Paul Kennedy, will present the series. He will do an analysis of political leadership in Japan, Russia and the USA showing how the nature of leadership has changed over the twentieth century. Series will start running May 8. Asks you to meet with Paul Kennedy for about an hour the week between April 13 and April 20.

Agree in principle

Not interested

### Elizabeth Hanly

Simon & Schuster forward this request from free-lance writer Elizabeth Hanly. She has done work for *The New York Times*, *LA Times*, *Vogue*, *Elle* and other publications. She is working on a book on what people believe or what important cultural figures think and feel about God, redemption, spirit, karma, etc. Would like to examine what these cultural figures regard as sacred. Is willing to send questions before you consent to an interview.
No deadline specified.

Agree in principle

Ask her to send questions first

Not interested

### Rainmaker Productions

Max Lewkowicz is producing/directing "Crossing the Bridge", a film slated to be shown on PBS, The History Channel and German Television in the fall (during the 10th Anniversary of German Unification). Would like to interview you about the historical implications of the American military presence in Germany during the last 50 years and in particular, its effect on The Cold War. Will be in DC until April 14. After that, he is willing to come to the office at your convenience (hopes to complete during the next few months).

Agree in principle

Not interested

Interview requests

Page 2/4

WorldNet

Mike Bromberger, Producer/Director of WorldNet Television in DC, asks you to participate on one of two programs. The programs are "Washington Window" to broadcasters in Russia, and "Global Exchange" to broadcasters in the Middle East. Both programs are Russian/Arabic language, live programs that address a variety of issues of interest in Russia and the Middle East. Former guests include Sen. Lugar, Sandy Berger, and Richard Holbrooke. Both shows are only broadcast on a weekly basis between 10-11am. Bromberger prefers you appear on the "Washington Window" one Monday this spring to discuss Russian-Sino relations but would be happy to have you on either program. A producer *would* meet with you for 15 minutes before the one-hour program, which will be done remotely from a studio near the office.

Agree to do in principle

Prefer "Washington Window" (Russian program)

Prefer "Global Exchange" (Middle Eastern program)

No preference

Not interested

Expresso (Portugal's best selling newspaper)

Anthony Jenkins would like to interview you on Indonesia. Explains that because East Timor is a former Portuguese colony and Lisbon led the campaign at the UN for Timorese self-determination it now wants to assume the role of protector of the state.
Writes that this encourages Washington to be cautious about embracing Jakarta before a stable and democratic future are assured. Sends possible questions (attached). Jenkins has covered Suharto's fall, the recent election campaign and claims he was one of the few western journalists to interview Wahid prior to his election. If possible, would also like to ask your views on Angola. Asks for 30 minutes in person. No deadline is specified.

Agree in principle

Not interested

To: Dr. Kissinger

From: Jessee

April 11, 2000

## Interview Requests

## Point du Jour

Luc Martin Gousett, Producer, requests an on-camera with you for a two-hour documentary being co-produced with ARTE and Point du Jour. Will be broadcast simultaneously in France and Germany the first week of Nov. 2000, before the US presidential elections. The documentary, "Foreign Affairs," will include interviews with 30 key contributors including three former Presidents, six Secretaries of State, five Defense Secretaries, two CIA directors, etc. (Jim Baker, Robert MacNamara, Alexander Haig and William Rogers are the only participants named). Each person will discuss their period in office, as the documentary is called, "The story told by those who made it."

The production team will be in the US from Fri, April 28 to Mon., May 8 but will be flexible with your schedule at a convenient time for you. Requests one-hour.

Dominique Moïsi writes personal note explaining that ARTE is the Franco-German equivalent of PBS and hopes you will find the time to participate in this program.

Agree in principle ✓

Not interested __________

## Paris Match (2^nd^ time raised)

This weekly magazine would like to interview you in person on the role of the US in today's world and the major issues America has to face such as; the relationships with Taiwan and China after the recent elections, the Middle East peace process, the tension between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and the attitude toward the rising European community. **When this was originally raised you noted "ask syndicate". You are permitted to grant this interview since there is no client in France (as per Tim Lange).**

Deadline is this week but can be postponed if it is more convenient for you. __*

Would also like to photograph you before or after the interview.

Agree in principle ✓

Not interested __________