ollowing is a transcript of an interview with President Jacques Chirac of France. The interview was conducted in French and translated by The New York Times.Advertisement
| |
|
Q: Mr. President, following Sept. 11 you were the first to go to Washington and declare your total solidarity with the United States. It was a touching moment for Americans, and for you too. Le Monde ran the headline "We are all Americans." Since then, over the course of this year, we've heard many expressions of concern regarding America, and in New York and Washington, there's a sense that feelings toward the United States in Europe and elsewhere have changed. How do you explain that? Do you agree with this analysis?
A: I would like to start by saying that personally, I'm very attached to the United States. It's a country that I love, that I admire, that I respect, naturally, and it's a country that I know rather well. Indeed, as Ms. Sciolino said earlier, when I was young I lived there several times. I stayed in the U.S. for extended periods on several occasions. I studied there; I worked there as a soda jerk and a forklift driver; I was a chauffeur; I was a journalist; I had a press card, which I still have. It's a country that I know well and that I love, and I always go back with pleasure, although I always have plenty of regrets that I'm bound by official obligations and can't simply wander around.
In this context, talking about the days following Sept. 11, when I had the privilege of meeting you, I want to say that my first thoughts when that tragedy struck were for the victims and their families. And they were strong thoughts. It's true that when the tragedy took place, my first reaction was to say: "We are all Americans." And I want to say today that those feelings haven't disappeared; on the contrary, they've grown even stronger with the anniversary, and that my feelings of admiration - naturally for all those who were directly affected but also for all the civilian and military authorities, beginning with President Bush - those feelings of admiration for the courage and determination we saw remain very strong today.
Now, you certainly watch French television and read French papers, but beyond that, something inside the French people was touched, and that hasn't changed. And that feeling goes far beyond any criticism - a subject we will of course get back to later. It demonstrates once again that when the chips are down, the French and Americans have always stood together and have never failed to be there for one another. That's been the case since Yorktown and it still holds true today. That's the reality.
I would add that all this is framed by the context of terrorism and its changing face, and that France is utterly and unreservedly determined to fight against terrorism and the proliferation that facilitates modern terrorist initiatives. Let's be completely clear about this. So you say to me: "Yes, but what about the criticism?" Well yes, of course, there has always been criticism, thank goodness. In life, you know, one must not confuse friends with sycophants. It's better to have only a few friends than to have a lot of sycophants. And I'm telling you that France considers itself one of the friends of the Americans, not necessarily one of its sycophants. And when we have something to say, we say it.
Q: Sept. 11 led the United States to formulate a new doctrine over the past year that differs quite radically from the previous doctrine. Mr. Bush and his administration have declared that to fight against the threat of terrorism that you mentioned, Mr. President, a doctrine of pre-emption must be adopted. In other words, sometimes it might be necessary to take preventive action, for example in the case of Iraq. What do you have to say about this doctrine, which some consider very dangerous and destabilizing?
A: I'll be very frank with you. As I've already told President Bush, I have great reservations about this doctrine. As soon as one nation claims the right to take preventive action, other countries will naturally do the same. And what would you say in the entirely hypothetical event that China wanted to take preemptive action against Taiwan, saying that Taiwan was a threat to it? How would the Americans, the Europeans and others react? Or what if India decided to take preventive action against Pakistan, or vice versa? Or Russia against Chechnya or somewhere else? What would we say?
I think this is an extraordinarily dangerous doctrine that could have tragic consequences. Preventive action can be undertaken if it appears necessary, but it must be taken by the international community, which today is represented by the United Nations Security Council.
In any case, regardless of the initiatives and changes in doctrine that could conceivably be instituted by the United States, we must not forget that prevention and dissuasion still remain the motivating factors for peace in the world.
Q: In the specific case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, today, how would you like to proceed, Mr. President? What is the best way to be sure that Saddam Hussein doesn't develop further weapons of mass destruction, and to achieve the stated goal of the administration, which is a change of regime in Iraq? And do you share that objective?
A: I don't need to tell you that I condemn the Iraqi regime, naturally, for all the reasons we know, for all the dangers that it puts on the region and the tragedy it constitutes for the Iraqi people, who are being held hostage by it. It is my great hope to see a regime in Iraq that would be democratic, humane and concerned with maintaining good relations with its neighboring countries. From that to the particular problem of the reaction regarding Iraq, we're always talking about evidence, but I still haven't seen any. People talk to me about it, but I still haven't --
Q: You haven't seen any?
A: I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I'm simply saying that I haven't seen any.