--begin--
"John Kerry can hope for a good victory."
Le Monde, July 17, 2004, 1:32 PM
In an interview in Le Monde, the former head of state of the United States details the qualities of the Democratic candidate John Kerry.
LM: You were a popular President abroad. Today, the image of America is at its lowest in large sections of world opinion. Does this worry you?
BC: It's true, it's important and it's worrying. But that can be quickly changed. If one refers to the most recent news people can say this phenomenon can be largely explained by the conflict in Iraq. Truthfully, it's more complicated. In fact, we attacked Iraq prematurely even though Hans Blix, the chief of the UN weapons inspectors, had not completed his mission. There has been the brutality with which we have treated Germany and France as well as those who did not agree with us. This can be reversed rapidly.
More deeply, the unpopularity that the United States suffers comes from the unilateralist behavior they have demonstrated since the George Bush Administration: refuting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, rejected the International Criminal Court, denounced the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, etc.
LM: This behavior won't go away easily?
BC: No, that can be reversed. Already, the United States went back to the UN concerning Iraq. The disagreement with Europe, for its part, will not withstand the unavoidable reality that we share a long history together. There are so many problems in the world that require our collaboration.
LM: This would be facilitated by a President Kerry?
BC: Yes, a Kerry presidency would allow more quickly getting over transatlantic differences and misunderstanding. It would show the world that American prefers cooperation to unilateralism.
LM: Would you say that the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq gives reason to the position that France defended?
BC: The US has used Resolution 1441 - which launched a new UN inspection mission for disarmament in Iraq, directed by the Swede Hans Blix - to prevent a premature military operation against Baghdad. They didn't wait for the end of the Blix mission. They refused the three or four weeks of supplementary inspections that Hans Blix wanted. We know why. There was inside the Bush Administration the school of thought that promoted the war in Iraq for the motives that had nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction. This is the school of Paul Wolfowitz - number two at the Pentagon - and of the neoconservatives.
America, according to them, had to use its power to eliminate the dictator of Baghdad, to facilitate the birth of a reform movement in the Middle East, which in turn would allow an easier solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those people didn't want to go through the UN. I understood the position of France and Germany, but I have an objection. For those two countries, even if Blix came back to New York to say that Saddam was not cooperating, that did not authorize the beginning of a war against Iraq - whatever the results of the UN mission. That was also the position of President Jimmy Carter.
However, given the political scene in America at the time, this position resulted in helping those inside the Bush government who were saying that there was no point going through the UN. In the American context it was like giving a green light to the neoconservatives!
LM: What is the best scenario for Iraq today?
BC: There are steps in the right direction: the transfer of sovereignity to an Iraqi government; the return of the UN to Baghdad. Obviously, the journey to go is long. However, it seems increasingly clear that the US is looking to disengage from the position of responsibility in Iraq. The UN must be able to play a more important role, maybe also NATO, with some of its members sending troops under the UN banner. Whatever one thinks about what has been done in that country, the entire world will feel better with a pluralist and peaceful Iraq.
LM: What lesson do you take from your extensive effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
BC: Let me tell you what has prompted me to call the Israelis and Palestinians to Camp David in the summer of 2000. Ehud Barak - the Labor Prime Minister at the time - wanted to put a proposal on the table. Yasser Arafat had warned me that he was not ready. But at the same time Arafat had told me several times that he was inclined to come to a peace agreement before I left the White House. Without that, he assured me, we would never be forgiven if we take five more years to arrive at a solution.
In December I put a very precise proposal on the table: 97% of the West Bank had to go back to the Palestinian state, as well as East Jerusalem and the control of the esplanade of the Mosques, etc. Barak was accepting, Araft was less positive. In the meantime, Ariel Sharon had visited the mosque Esplanade - which we had strongly advised against. Again, contrary to our advice, Arafat, if he hasn't launched it has encouraged the intifada as retaliation. The intifada and the rejection of my proposals have demolished Barak. Arafat, in a way, has acted as an electoral agent for Sharon who won the election with a large majority. One year later, Arafat would say 'now, I accept the Clinton plan'.
LM: Since then, it's an impasse...
BC: For two years at least, the Bush administration has done nothing in the Middle East, and is happy just supporting Sharon. Then President Bush offers a "road map" - a proposal for a new peace process. The problem is that the US have given the impression that they want to humiliate Arafat who is still the living symbol of the long fight of the Palestinians. So, we are at an impasse again.
LM: There is this plan to unilaterally pull out of Gaza.
BC: I'm sure that the Palestinians find it difficult to believe whatever comes from Sharon. And yet he has finally qualified the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza as occupation; he announces a withdrawal plan from Gaza and dismantling of the settlements in the territory as well as some others in the West Bank. And he again wants again to include Labor into his government. The Palestinians should take all this seriously. It's the first time there's been hope in the past three and a half years.
LM: What do you forecast for the American presidential election?
BC: It should be very close. It seems to me that bush, barring an unforeseen event, cannot win with a strong majority; as for John Kerry, he can still hope for a beautiful victory. What is most likely to happen is a very tight result. There is the economy, Iraq, the debate on values of course. But it is the voters who decide which problem is at the center of the election.
If they consider that what is important is the experience and the determination of Kerry to fight terrorism, the situation is to Bush's advantage. If they take the view that the election is a judgement of unilateralism and dogmatic conservatism practiced by Bush, then the advantage is to Kerry. I think Kerry has a good chance. He is very well prepared, and he is leading an intelligent campaign.
LM: How do you see the relationship between the US and Europe at the time of EU enlargement?
BC: I didn't perceive the enlargement and the deepening of Europe as a threat to the United States. It's the prism of the Iraqi matter which gives that impression of transatlantic estrangement. I know that some Europeans were shocked that President Bush called for the EU to welcome Turkey. Well, I share his point of view and I've been working in that direction for the past ten years without trying to impose my point of view on the Europeans. Turkey's joining the EU would be a good thing, so long as Ankara fills the criteria. It would be a blow to Islamic fundamentalism, and for Europe a fantastic overture to the Middle East.
Interviewed by Jean-Marie Colombani and Alain Frachon. Published July 18, 2004.
--end--