Copyright 2003 Agency WPS  
What The Papers Say (Russia)
September 17, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: PRESS EXTRACTS

LENGTH: 1090 words

HEADLINE: HENRY KISSINGER: IRAQ IS AN EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

SOURCE: Nexavisimaya Gazeta, September 17, 2003, EV

BYLINE: Yevgeny Verlin, Dmitry Suslov

HIGHLIGHT:
FORMER US SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER HAS VISITED MOSCOW. AFTER THE MEETINGS IN MOSCOW, KISSINGER GAVE AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, ADMITTING THAT THE US WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DEMOCRATIZE THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA BY MEANS OF MILITARY OCCUPATION.

BODY:
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is the most authoritative advisor to President George W. Bush. Recently he visited Moscow, where he met with a number of Russian authorities, including the foreign minister and defense minister. On the eve of the Russian-American summit, Kissinger will be received by President Vladimir Putin. This will happen next week in the US. After the meetings in Moscow, Kissinger gave us this exclusive interview.

Question: You've met with Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Did you touch on the possibility of participation of Russian soldiers in military operations in Iraq?

Henry Kissinger: Sergei Ivanov is a very clever person. We met in private. I can't open some details, but I'd like to say that this was an extremely interesting talk for me. We discussed conceptual problems.

Question: Do you think that Russia and the US may become strategic allies in the future? What do you expect from the upcoming summit between Bush and Putin?

Henry Kissinger: I guess the upcoming summit is extremely important. It is important as the basis, on which the personal friendship between the two presidents may be transformed into a good program of cooperation, which could work for a long time. I think that views and positions of the US and Russia will become increasingly more compatible. This may encourage our countries to move toward strategic cooperation.

Question: Is it correct to assert now that since no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the main aim of the US has been "modernization" of the Middle East implying liquidation of the very ground, on which terrorism grows?

Henry Kissinger: To begin with, I was shocked by the way media covered the problem of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: as if there had never been such weapons there. I'd like to mention that back in 1998, then president Clinton made a report, in which he enumerated all the weapons of mass destruction that he thought were in Iraq at that moment. These estimates were confirmed by UN inspections in 1998. Five years have passed since then, and there have been no inspections over these five years. Thus, it was not serious to suppose that Iraq had destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction it possessed during the inspections. In this case, the really important question is what happened to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Was it given to other countries? Was it destroyed and hidden on the territory of Iraq? How many weapons were there in Iraq? These are the main questions, and I don't think that all intelligence services put together were mistaken. I attended many closed hearings in Washington, and it is impossible to imagine that representatives of the US administration constantly lied to each other at such hearings when they were talking about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The second question concerns the US' goal in Iraq. I don't think the US can democratize the entire Middle East and Central Asia by means of military occupation. First of all, the American nation won't let the troops dwell there for a long time. What we can do is to leave a more effective and democratic government in Iraq than the one we've overthrown. This task is quite fulfillable. Everything else should be done by Iraqis themselves. We can't repeat our experience of occupation of Germany after World War II in Iraq.

Question: In you book "Does American Need Foreign Policy?" you advise to US presidents to observe the balance between the goals of America's foreign policy and real abilities to gain them following American values. Was this balance observed in case of Iraq?

Henry Kissinger: First, everyone should understand that it is too early to make conclusions. The military operation against the regular troops finished in May, and now it is only September. In conditions of such a complicated country as Iraq, where three different ethnic groups are living and where the society is split into a great number of small groups, the situation could not be resolved quickly. Second, I'm convinced that the means applied by the US to Iraq were relevant and correct. However, deeper issues are as follows. How long should we continue this colonial operation in Iraq having gained the aim of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime? Can we ever be satisfied with restoration of the order in Iraq and foundation of a capable government there, and when should we expect it if we can?

Question: Some experts are sure that there will never be sufficient international support of America's opinion about the new world order. Would you agree that the "unilateral approach" will keep for another few decades?

Henry Kissinger: It is not fair to state that the US is acting unilaterally on the basis of its own principles and convictions. Let's return to Iraq. In autumn 2002, the US appealed to the UN to get multi-lateral support of its policy regarding Iraq. The US got the UN adopting the resolution, which was almost unanimously supported. And if in November 2002 you had asked any high-ranking American official what America intended to do about Iraq, he/she would have answered that America was planning to do its best to have a multi-lateral military operation performed.

However, in January, Europeans unexpectedly made up their minds to challenge the US and threaten its Iraqi policy. In late January, France announced that it would veto any resolution even before it learnt the content of this document. When someone faces such a situation, any country, not only the US, will act unilaterally. I believe that what happened to Iraq was an exception but no a rule. And I certainly do not expect the Iraqi experience to be repeated in the future, e.g. concerning such countries as Iran and North Korea.

Question: What is your view of Putin's Russia? Many foreign observers are concerned about the current internal trends in Russia, first of all attacks on media, pre-electoral blows on tycoons who are not loyal to the Kremlin, etc.

Henry Kissinger: I've known Russia since the 1960s. It's even difficult for me to count how many times I've been to Moscow since then. The changes taking place in Russia now really seem enormous and astonishing to me. They are of excessively great political importance. Of course, the process isn't over yet, and the things that should be done are more numerous than those that have been done already. But in general, my attitude toward the Putin Russia is positive. (Translated by Kirill Frolov)

ORIGINAL-LANGUAGE: RUSSIAN

LOAD-DATE: September 17, 2003