An Interview with Claude Cheysson

We are new boys. We can say that the king is naked.

A professional diplomat with some 30 years of experience abroad, including long stints in France's former colonies and eight years as a member of the Brussels-based European Commission, Claude Cheysson, 61, is expected to have a strong hand not only in explaining but in shaping Mitterrand's foreign policy. Cheysson took an hour last week to outline his views to TIME Correspondents Henry Muller and Jordan Bonfante. Excerpts:

On differences with Giscard's foreign policy: We shall certainly be much clearer in our statements of foreign policy than the previous government. There won't be double language about those countries that we criticize but with which we are so anxious to do business. Look at what just happened with that research reactor in Iraq. I am convinced that the reactor in itself was not dangerous. But the lack of clarity on nuclear policy may have led to some suspicion. If we had been much clearer on our policies with regard to the supply of nuclear equipment to Iraq, maybe such unjustified suspicion would not have existed.

On the Atlantic Alliance: It is the basis of our foreign policy. Not only because we are committed to it but also because we stand for the basic principles that protect man and the humanistic development of the kind of society in which we believe. It's the way to oppose any totalitarian progress. With that goes a defense commitment. We are not members of [the military structure of] NATO. We do not intend to change the former policies. We are not going to be a part of the integrated NATO system. But we'll keep on building and modernizing our defense forces, in particular our independent deterrent [nuclear] power.

On the Soviet missile threat in Europe: For us the very rapid installation of SS-20 missiles on the Russian side means a change in the balance. That we cannot accept; that we should not accept. We feel there should be negotiations as soon as possible, not to freeze but to reduce that additional power that has been built up. And we are afraid, since negotiations cannot take place immediately, we must be in a position to counter that [Soviet buildup]. By we, I mean NATO and mostly the Americans with their Euromissiles.

On the appeal of Communism. Traveling in the Third World, I wonder if in eight years I have met ten people who really believe that the Communist structure was the best one for their development. That is a fantastic change from the years after the war.

On the effects of possibly having Communist ministers in the Cabinet: If our allies tell us something about it, we shall answer, "It's none of your business." That must be very clear. But the fact that they have fear concerns us, of course. It would be an important question if we were dependent on the Communists for a majority. Then they would be in a position to--blackmail may be too strong a word--but to put pressure on us. If we have the absolute majority [in parliament], Communists in or out make no difference.

On improving relations with the Third World: For part of the new American Administration, this is marginal. That is not our opinion. We need to have secure, promising relations with the Third World. We depend on them much more than you do.

On U.S. policy in Latin America: There will be cases where there will be differences because you will be tempted to jump to the conclusion that, because a country has relations with Cuba, or because its Prime Minister has a beard and dresses in a funny paratrooper commando uniform, we should not be on speaking terms with them. We don't accept that. That is much too simple.

On his view of Israel following the raid against Iraq's nuclear reactor: We are proud to be the friends of Israel. We shall do everything we can to help Israel to live in peace within the borders recognized by the international community.

This cannot be affected by one act. But that act--which also killed a Frenchman--was against international law. Israel must be in a position to live one day with open borders, with normal cooperation with its neighbors. The more such acts occur, the more difficult it will be to progress along such lines.

On the Palestinians: We also support the rights of the Palestinian people. In history each time the rights of a people have been ignored, there has been rebellion after rebellion--and no peace.

We are guilty in a way because we felt in 1948 that if we could give a decent life to Palestinians in refugee camps, that would be the answer. This was a most shortsighted perspective.

On U.S. policy in the Middle East: Your involvement in the peace process is vital. For example, if it had not been for the Habib mission, there would probably now be an open conflict between Syria and Israel. Camp David is a fact. And Camp David was progress. You see, we are new boys. We can say a number of things that are obvious but that could not be said by those who have been in the picture for so long. We can say that the king is naked. We can say Camp David is progress.

On the importance of human rights in foreign policy: For us the fundamental principles, the rights of man and the rights of the people will be our rule. It's difficult to stick to great principles, but we shall.

Take Poland. What is happening in Poland is fantastic. It is one of the great hopes, born from the determination of a few men, that we respect deeply. Therefore you won't hear a word of criticism from us against the regime. One must not lose sight of the most important fact, which for Poland is the possibility for those people to express themselves more freely. Of course, we could go and stoke the fire and find that there are still people in jail who should immediately be liberated. What is happening in Poland on the whole is far more important. Yes, we will be inspired by human rights. But not in a kind of neurotic manner bearing on every individual. We are not Amnesty International [an organization dedicated to fighting for human rights and for the release of political prisoners]. We are very pleased that there is indeed an Amnesty International, but we are not Amnesty International.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.