SANCTON: Do you support the French position on Iraq?
KOUCHNER: I did not support the French veto threat. I believe it was a mistake, and that the only possible way of triumphing over Saddam Hussein, a well-known murderer, would have been collective action. The latter is indispensable. Even if not everything is resolved in the Balkans, we won, and that victory is Europe’s and America’s. Had we done the same in Iraq, we would have won. Of course, not by following Mr. [Paul] Wolfowitz, Bush and Co., who were so convinced about being right on everything.
So you disagreed with their approach as well?
For 28 years now, I have been asking the international community to use what I call “the right of intervention” to get rid of Saddam. Couldn’t we have waited a bit longer, what was the rush? What madness! George W. Bush really sees the world in black and white. Human rights are foreign to him, and he gives the impression he doesn’t even know where countries lie on the map, and then patronizes about good and evil. No doubt Saddam Hussein was evil. But Bush, unfortunately, is not the incarnation of good. Yet one must be careful not to judge too quickly. A peace mission cannot be assessed in six months. Even a failed mission, if I may say so. After six months in Kosovo, I was still dealing with 40 assassinations per week. Today there’s only one or two. A peacekeeping mission takes years.
You support the right of intervention. Isn’t that what the United States did in Iraq?
In the present case, we are 25 years late in acting against Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, the right of intervention must lie with the international community. If the international community refuses to exercise that power, it can always be convinced otherwise. The Americans did not respect even the most elementary rules.
When you say “international community,” who and what is it?
The U.N. There is no other. I admit the decision-making mechanism is not ideal, but it worked in the Balkans. Not all is solved as we await a final status in Kosovo. But there is no more war.
WMD were not found in Iraq. What, then, was the goal of the operation?
The goal was to oust Saddam Hussein. I wrote an article in Le Monde last February called “Neither War Nor Saddam.” In one paragraph, concerning WMD, I stated that I didn’t believe there were any and that that was not the problem anyway. Human-rights violations and Saddam’s crimes were the real problem.
Why oust Saddam and not other dictators?
Absolutely, why not another half a dozen? It should be done.
How should all this have played out at the United Nations?
Betraying Colin Powell was a political error. Why did de Villepin, our minister of Foreign Affairs, threaten the use of a French veto at the press conference? After, we were doomed. Powell was our ally.
We had [another] essential ally: Tony Blair. Blair was uncomfortable about being constantly portrayed as pro-Bush and being accused of lacking personal reasoning. I believe that with a bit of diplomatic shrewdness and the military pressure that already existed, we could have succeeded.
In place of human rights, Bush talks about good and God. Is it dangerous to exercise power while brandishing such concepts?
Yes, that is grotesque. It’s dangerous. The days of [religious] hallucinations are over. To do good, one must be capable of it. And you do not create good at the expense of people. You do not create democracy at the expense of people.
How do you see the Iraq issue evolving?
I believe a widened U.N. mandate is needed, but American troops must stay. They must assure a presence and even a threat, but not political elements nor daily-life matters. The transfer of power to this provisional council must be done quickly, but above all, dignity and confidence must be returned to the population, something they have lacked for 35 years, if not a century. Iraqis are at home, they will reconstruct their country; in any event it is with them that we will start, and they’ll follow through.
