Bill Clinton, former president of the United States
"John Kerry can hope for a good victory"
LE MONDE | 17.07.04 | 13h32 • MIS A JOUR LE 20.07.04 | 09h41
In an interview in "Le Monde", the former head of state sizes up the assets of the Democratic candidate.
To foreigners, you were a popular president. Today, the American image is at its lowest in large sectors of world opinion. Is this disturbing?
It is true, it is important and disturbing. But there may be a rapid change. If one dwells on the most recent events, one will say that this phenomenon explains itself largely by the conflict in Iraq. It is true to say that it is more complicated. Certainly, we attacked Iraq in a premature fashion, since Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector, hadn't completed his mission. Then there was the rudeness with which we treated Germany and France, as well as all those who were not in accord with us. That can be reversed rapidly.
More profoundly, there is the unpopularity which the US can suffer holding to its unilateralist stance, which it has proven since the Administration of George Bush: abrogating the non- proliferation treaty, rejecting the International Penal Court, denouncing the Kyoto treaty on global warming, etc.
Attitude which will not disappear easily?
No, those also can be reversed. Already, the US has returned to the UN, on matters concerning Iraq. The difference with Europe, for its part, will not resist the unavoidable reality: we share too long a history together; we have many problems around the world which require our collaboration.
Would it be easier under the presidency of Kerry?
Yes, a Kerry presidency would permit us to overcome more quickly transatlantic differences and misunderstanding. It would show the world that, on the whole, America prefers cooperation to unilateralism.
Would you say that the absence of WMDs in Iraq gives strength to the position which France defended?
The United States used resolution 1441, which relaunched a UN inspection regime to disarm Iraq, directed by the Swede Hans Blix, to unleas a premature military operation against Baghdad. It did not wait until the end of Blix's mission. It refused the three or four weeks of supplementary inspections that Blix recommended. One knows why. There is, in the inner sanctum of the Bush Administration a school of thought which advocated the war in Irak for reasons having nothing to do with WMDs. It is the school of Paul Wolfowitz, number two in the Pentagon, and those called neoconservatives.
America, according to them, should use its power to topple the dictator of Baghdad, facilitating the birth of a movement of reform in the Near East, which in its turn would permit an easier solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Such people did not want to pass through the UN.
I understood the position of France and Germany, but I have an objection. For these two countries, even if Blix returned to New York to say that Saddam hadn't cooperated, they would not have authorized going to war against Iraq, which might have been the result of the UN mission. That was also the postition of Jimmy Carter.
Only, taking into account the American political scene at this time, that position had for its result reinforcing those who, in the heart of the Bush government, said that it served nothing to go through the UN. In the American context, that turned out to give a green light to neoconservatives!
What is the best scenario for Iraq today?
There is some progress: the transfer f sovereignty to the Iraqi government; the return of the UN to Baghdad. On the evidence, there is still a long way to go. Meanwhle, it seems more and more clear that the US seeks to disengage from the preponderant position it has assumed in Iraq.It is necessary that the UN play a more important role, perhaps Nato as well, with certain of the members sending troops placed under the banner of the UN. Whatever one thinks of what has been done in that country, the entire world will be better off with a pluralist and pacific Iraq.
What lesson did you draw from your attempts to settle the Israeli- Palestinian conflict?
Let me tell you that I decided to convoke Israelis and Palestinians at Camp David in the summer of 2000. Ehud Barak, the Labour Prime Minister of the time, wanted to put a proposition on the table. Yasser Arafat had warned me that he was not ready. But, at the same time, Arafat had declared several times that he was disposed to conclude a peace accord before I left the White House. Without that, he assured me, they will not pardon us if we put five more years in to arrive at a settlement.
In December, I put on the table a very precise proposition: 97% of the West Bank should revert to a Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem and the control of the mosques, etc. Barak accepted, Arafat was less positive. In the meantime, there was the visit of Ariel Sharon to the mosque, which we had formally advised against. Against our advise, Arafat, if he didn't launch it, certainly encouraged the Intifada in reprisal. The Intifada and the rejection of my propositions demolished Barak. Arafat, in some way, acted as an electoral agent for Sharon, who carried the elections with a large majority. A year later, Arafat siad: now I accept the Clinton plan.....
Since, it is an impasse....
For at least two years, the Bush administration did nothing in the Near East, contenting itself with the support of Sharon. Then President Bush proposes the "road map", the proposal for a new peace process. Only, the US and Israel have given the impression of wanting to humiliate Arafat, who is ever the living symbl of the long fight of the Palestinians. Thus, there will be a new impasse.
There is the plan for the unilateral retreat from the Gaza Strip.
I am sure that the Palestinians are loathe to believe that this is coming from Sharon. Yet, he has finally qualified the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza; he announces a plan of retreat from Gaza and the dismantling of all the settlements of that territory, as well as of certain others on the West Bank. And he wants anew to integrate Labour into his government. The Palestinians should take all of this seriously. It is the first time in three and a half years that there is hope.
Your prediction on the American presidential election?
Cela devrait être très serré. Il me semble que Bush, sauf événement inattendu, ne peut plus l'emporter avec une forte majorité ; John Kerry, lui, peut encore espérer une belle victoire. Mais le plus probable est un résultat très serré. Il y a l'économie, l'Irak, le débat sur les valeurs, bien sûr. Mais ce sont les électeurs qui décident du problème qui est au centre de l'élection.
It should be very close. I seems to me that Bush, except for unanticipated events, can no longer carry a strong majority; Kerry could still hope for a good victory. But the most likely is a very close result. There is the economy, Iraq, the debate on values, certainly. But it is the electorate who decide the problem at the center of the election.
If they judge that the question is one of experience and of the determined character of Kerry in the matter of the fight against terrorism, the situation is to the advantage of Bush. If they figure that the election is a judgment of unilateralism and the dogmatic conservatism practiced by Bush, then the advantage goes to Kerry. I think that Kerry has a good chance. He is very well prepared, and he runs an intelligent campaign.
How do you see relations between the US and Europe at the time of the enlargement of the Union?
Je n'ai jamais perçu l'élargissement et l'approfondissement de l'Europe comme une menace pour les Etats-Unis. C'est le prisme de l'affaire irakienne qui donne cette impression d'éloignement transatlantique. Je sais que certains Européens se sont offusqués que le président Bush ait récemment appelé l'Union à accueillir la Turquie.I have never perceived the enlargement and deepening of Europe as a threat to the US. It is the prism of the Iraq affair which gives this impression across at a transatlantic distance. I know that certain Europeans were put off when President Bush recently called for the reception of Turkey into the EU. I share his opinion, and I worked in that direction for six years, without trying to impose my point of view on the Europeans.
The joining of Turkey to the Union would be good thing, if Ankara fulfills the criteria. It would be a blow against Islamicism, and, for Europe, a formidable overture to the Near East.
lemonde.fr@2-3222,36-372917,0.html |
