Tweet
Interview recorded on Wednesday 21 march in his office of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Interesting.
After Bob Woodward quoting Bush I "Rice was a disappointment", "She seems to be ignorant of the fact that horizon is an imaginary line, that recedes as you walk toward it… It not that reassuring." is devastating.
About the "joint assomption of responsibilities" I can only agree, but remembering the openness to discussion offered by the Bush administration after September 11, it was difficult, to say the less.
On Irak
- You were this morning in Congress trying to convince the democrats to vote the supplemental on Iraq
ZB: The speaker (Nancy Pelosi) asked me to convey to the democratic members of Congress the reason why I think the legislation that the proposes should be passed.
And I gave them 3 reasons. The first is that it is very important for Congress to convey a message to the president that a war which is no longer a war of national interest but a war of presidential hubris cannot go on and on and on.
The second point was if the war is allowed to go on and on and on, it will probably escalate and maybe even expand through some incidents with Iranians into a wider regional war that could involve America in a conflict in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan all at the same time.
And the third reason said, is that it is also important to send a signal to the world that a US Congress will no longer support unilateral use of force by the United States unless of course if national security is imminently threatened by somebody’s act.
An for these reasons, even those in Congress who may be critical of some of the provisions – some think it does not go far enough ; some think it goes too far – it’s important they vote for it.
- You don’t advocate the use of the “power of the purse” ?
ZB: I did not discuss specifics at this stage. I support what she has put on the table because that is what is on the table. At this stage, I think, getting involved in an internal debate whether there should be tougher restrictions, or looser restrictions, is simply self-defeating”….
- “Condoleezza Rice is returning to the Middle east. In your book, you say that the Middle East will be a “make or break test” for the US. Does the Bush administration have enough time left to do anything” ?
ZB: Obviously, they have the time to start doing something even not everything is finished by the time they leave office.
I’m not so sure she has yet formulated a comprehensive approach to the problems of the Middle East, especially since some of her slogans on the subject have been very maladroit. For example, in the midst of the recent Lebanese conflict, she described what was going on as “the birth pangs of a new Middle east”. The bombardment of civilians in Lebanon by the Israelis and of Israelis by the Hezbollah doesn’t strike me of the birth pangs. Lately, she has talked about defining the settlement of the “horizon”. She seems to be ignorant of the fact that horizon is an imaginary line, that recedes as you walk toward it… It not that reassuring.
However, events are moving in the direction of increased pressure even within the United States for one, some sort of serious regional discussion regarding security in Iraq after the US leaves. Secondly, I think there is growing recognition that a policy of ostracizing the Hamas and collective punishment of all of the Palestinian people is counter-productive.
Third, I think there is some awareness that the Israeli public opinion and the Palestinian public opinion is becoming ready for a serious compromise.
Last, there is perhaps the possibility of having a multi-layered dialogue with the Iranians about Iraq specifically, about regional security more generally, meaning not only on Iraq but Afghanistan etc.. And along that, on the nuclear issue.
Now not all these issues can be resolved in the next 20 months. Some might be. And certainly, significant progress could be made in all of them with a little more determination and strategic vision.
On Iran:
- When you appeared in Congress a couple of weeks ago, you issued a serious warning against the temptation of a military confrontation with Iran.
ZB: In the absence of these things moving forward, I think there is some real risk, and I repeated that today. Not necessarily even of an intentional war with Iran. But a war that nonetheless is produced by the absent of an intelligent alternative policy.
- You talked about a possible provocation ..
ZB: I saw people in the administration that probably would like that ! And we also know that there was some discussion of a possible provocation as an excuse to start the war with Iraq back in early 2003. So that cannot be excluded entirely.
But I fear more a series of unintended collisions, incidents, acts of violence, perhaps escalating, eventually culminating even perhaps in some terrorist act in America which then can be credibly presented as requiring a defensive response. I don’t think that’s either in America’s interests or in Iran’s interests.
- Do you see an evolution in the Israel-United States relationship ?
ZB: I don’t think there is going to be any separation between the two, but I think there is a sense in the United States that American policy in the Middle East should not be set in Jerusalem. And there is a growing public willingness to discuss on a more balanced basis the complexities of the Palestinian-Israeli relationship. Note for example that (Jimmy) Carter’s book after being attacked became number one seller. Note the fact that my own book, one week after its publication, was number 1 of the Amazon list.
- You see that as a vindication of your positions before the war ?
ZB: Not necessary vindication, but the sign that the American public is interested in having a more rational presentation of the issues that simply demagogy about a war on terror, or jihadist terrorists or whatever other islamophobic slogans are deployed in support of one or another ongoing policy
On the superpower
- In your new book (Second Chance – Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower) you discuss the performance of what you describe as a new category of US presidents, the first “Global leader presidents” (George H. Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush). How would you describe the moment right now in the United States ?
ZB: It’s a period of confusion. And as I argue in my book a period in which American global leadership which emerged supreme 15 years ago is now viewed in many parts of the world as not credible, not legitimate as an object of distrust and antagonism.
There was a BBC poll a week or so ago taken around the world asking people to identify the countries that played the most positive and the negative role in world affairs.
The 3 countries that were viewed as most negative were in the sequence: Israel, Iran, United States. With almost identical ranking, in terms of pro and cons opinions. That’s very damaging.
My book is designed to bring home to Americans the fact that America has been mishandling the opportunities that it has had for the last 15 years and that after 2008 it may have a second chance but that it is absolutely essential that it, then, be more successful. I try to outline how that can be done.
On the Global Leader IV
- In your book, you say: “Bush I was the policeman, relying on power and legitimacy to preserve national stability. Clinton was the social welfare advocate, counting on globalization to generate progress. Bush II was the vigilante, mobilizing domestic fears to pursue a self-declared existential struggle against the forces of evil”. Who could be “Global leader IV”. Do you see any possible candidates ?
ZB: It has to be someone in the Republican party who opens up a serious debate about the Iraqi war because so far the principle candidates supported it.
And in the democratic party, it has to be someone who was clearly against the war and who can project and personalize a new American face towards a world that is dramatically different from the days of the Cold War.
- That looks like Barack Obama …
ZB: I’m not mentioning names. People can draw their own conclusions.
- About France, now. How is France’s standing 4 years after the beginning of a war it opposed ? Did it benefit from its position ?
ZB: Not really. France was right on the war. But sheer negation is not enough for a major power. The problem of France is that France thinks, or at least French leaders thought, that negation from France was enough because France was such a powerful and important country. In fact, while negation was right, it originated from a country which by itself is not that powerful and globally that important. And hence, what is needed is more affirmative and not just negative position formulated jointly with other key European countries. Then that voice America will have to respect and under that kind of a partnership can evolve in a serious fashion joint decision making, and joint assumption of responsibilities.
Fin
Corine Lesnes
Le Monde
- You were this morning in Congress trying to convince the democrats to vote the supplemental on Iraq
ZB: The speaker (Nancy Pelosi) asked me to convey to the democratic members of Congress the reason why I think the legislation that the proposes should be passed.
And I gave them 3 reasons. The first is that it is very important for Congress to convey a message to the president that a war which is no longer a war of national interest but a war of presidential hubris cannot go on and on and on.
The second point was if the war is allowed to go on and on and on, it will probably escalate and maybe even expand through some incidents with Iranians into a wider regional war that could involve America in a conflict in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan all at the same time.
And the third reason said, is that it is also important to send a signal to the world that a US Congress will no longer support unilateral use of force by the United States unless of course if national security is imminently threatened by somebody’s act.
An for these reasons, even those in Congress who may be critical of some of the provisions – some think it does not go far enough ; some think it goes too far – it’s important they vote for it.
- You don’t advocate the use of the “power of the purse” ?
ZB: I did not discuss specifics at this stage. I support what she has put on the table because that is what is on the table. At this stage, I think, getting involved in an internal debate whether there should be tougher restrictions, or looser restrictions, is simply self-defeating”….
- “Condoleezza Rice is returning to the Middle east. In your book, you say that the Middle East will be a “make or break test” for the US. Does the Bush administration have enough time left to do anything” ?
ZB: Obviously, they have the time to start doing something even not everything is finished by the time they leave office.
I’m not so sure she has yet formulated a comprehensive approach to the problems of the Middle East, especially since some of her slogans on the subject have been very maladroit. For example, in the midst of the recent Lebanese conflict, she described what was going on as “the birth pangs of a new Middle east”. The bombardment of civilians in Lebanon by the Israelis and of Israelis by the Hezbollah doesn’t strike me of the birth pangs. Lately, she has talked about defining the settlement of the “horizon”. She seems to be ignorant of the fact that horizon is an imaginary line, that recedes as you walk toward it… It not that reassuring.
However, events are moving in the direction of increased pressure even within the United States for one, some sort of serious regional discussion regarding security in Iraq after the US leaves. Secondly, I think there is growing recognition that a policy of ostracizing the Hamas and collective punishment of all of the Palestinian people is counter-productive.
Third, I think there is some awareness that the Israeli public opinion and the Palestinian public opinion is becoming ready for a serious compromise.
Last, there is perhaps the possibility of having a multi-layered dialogue with the Iranians about Iraq specifically, about regional security more generally, meaning not only on Iraq but Afghanistan etc.. And along that, on the nuclear issue.
Now not all these issues can be resolved in the next 20 months. Some might be. And certainly, significant progress could be made in all of them with a little more determination and strategic vision.
On Iran:
- When you appeared in Congress a couple of weeks ago, you issued a serious warning against the temptation of a military confrontation with Iran.
ZB: In the absence of these things moving forward, I think there is some real risk, and I repeated that today. Not necessarily even of an intentional war with Iran. But a war that nonetheless is produced by the absent of an intelligent alternative policy.
- You talked about a possible provocation ..
ZB: I saw people in the administration that probably would like that ! And we also know that there was some discussion of a possible provocation as an excuse to start the war with Iraq back in early 2003. So that cannot be excluded entirely.
But I fear more a series of unintended collisions, incidents, acts of violence, perhaps escalating, eventually culminating even perhaps in some terrorist act in America which then can be credibly presented as requiring a defensive response. I don’t think that’s either in America’s interests or in Iran’s interests.
- Do you see an evolution in the Israel-United States relationship ?
ZB: I don’t think there is going to be any separation between the two, but I think there is a sense in the United States that American policy in the Middle East should not be set in Jerusalem. And there is a growing public willingness to discuss on a more balanced basis the complexities of the Palestinian-Israeli relationship. Note for example that (Jimmy) Carter’s book after being attacked became number one seller. Note the fact that my own book, one week after its publication, was number 1 of the Amazon list.
- You see that as a vindication of your positions before the war ?
ZB: Not necessary vindication, but the sign that the American public is interested in having a more rational presentation of the issues that simply demagogy about a war on terror, or jihadist terrorists or whatever other islamophobic slogans are deployed in support of one or another ongoing policy
On the superpower
- In your new book (Second Chance – Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower) you discuss the performance of what you describe as a new category of US presidents, the first “Global leader presidents” (George H. Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush). How would you describe the moment right now in the United States ?
ZB: It’s a period of confusion. And as I argue in my book a period in which American global leadership which emerged supreme 15 years ago is now viewed in many parts of the world as not credible, not legitimate as an object of distrust and antagonism.
There was a BBC poll a week or so ago taken around the world asking people to identify the countries that played the most positive and the negative role in world affairs.
The 3 countries that were viewed as most negative were in the sequence: Israel, Iran, United States. With almost identical ranking, in terms of pro and cons opinions. That’s very damaging.
My book is designed to bring home to Americans the fact that America has been mishandling the opportunities that it has had for the last 15 years and that after 2008 it may have a second chance but that it is absolutely essential that it, then, be more successful. I try to outline how that can be done.
On the Global Leader IV
- In your book, you say: “Bush I was the policeman, relying on power and legitimacy to preserve national stability. Clinton was the social welfare advocate, counting on globalization to generate progress. Bush II was the vigilante, mobilizing domestic fears to pursue a self-declared existential struggle against the forces of evil”. Who could be “Global leader IV”. Do you see any possible candidates ?
ZB: It has to be someone in the Republican party who opens up a serious debate about the Iraqi war because so far the principle candidates supported it.
And in the democratic party, it has to be someone who was clearly against the war and who can project and personalize a new American face towards a world that is dramatically different from the days of the Cold War.
- That looks like Barack Obama …
ZB: I’m not mentioning names. People can draw their own conclusions.
- About France, now. How is France’s standing 4 years after the beginning of a war it opposed ? Did it benefit from its position ?
ZB: Not really. France was right on the war. But sheer negation is not enough for a major power. The problem of France is that France thinks, or at least French leaders thought, that negation from France was enough because France was such a powerful and important country. In fact, while negation was right, it originated from a country which by itself is not that powerful and globally that important. And hence, what is needed is more affirmative and not just negative position formulated jointly with other key European countries. Then that voice America will have to respect and under that kind of a partnership can evolve in a serious fashion joint decision making, and joint assumption of responsibilities.
Fin
Corine Lesnes
Le Monde
After Bob Woodward quoting Bush I "Rice was a disappointment", "She seems to be ignorant of the fact that horizon is an imaginary line, that recedes as you walk toward it… It not that reassuring." is devastating.
About the "joint assomption of responsibilities" I can only agree, but remembering the openness to discussion offered by the Bush administration after September 11, it was difficult, to say the less.