TIME: But without Iraqi cooperation, even 300 inspectors can't do the job.
Chirac: That's correct, no doubt. But it's up to the inspectors to say so. I'm betting that we can get Iraq to cooperate more. If I'm wrong, there will still be time to draw other conclusions. When a regime like Saddam's finds itself caught between certain death and abandoning its arms, I think it will make the right choice. But I can't be certain.

TIME: If the Americans were to bring a resolution for war before the U.N., would France use its veto?
Chirac: In my view, there's no reason for a new resolution. We are in the framework of (U.N. Security Council Resolution) 1441, and let's go on with it. I don't see what any new resolution would add.

TIME: Some charge you are motivated by anti-Americanism.
Chirac: I've known the U.S. for a long time. I visit often, I've studied there, worked as a forklift operator for Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis and as a soda jerk at Howard Johnson's. I've hitchhiked across the whole United States; I even worked as a journalist and wrote a story for the New Orleans Times-Picayune on the front page. I know the U.S. perhaps better than most French people, and I really like the United States. I've made many excellent friends there, I feel good there. I love junk food, and I always come home with a few extra pounds. I've always worked and supported transatlantic solidarity. When I hear people say that I'm anti-American, I'm sad—not angry, but really sad.

TIME: Do you think America's role as the sole superpower is a problem?
Chirac: Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions. That's why I favor a multipolar world, in which Europe obviously has its place. Anyway, the world will not be unipolar. Over the next 50 years, China will become a global power, and the world won't be the same. So it's time to start organizing. Transatlantic solidarity will remain the basis of the world order, in which Europe has its role to play.

TIME: Haven't tensions over Iraq poisoned transatlantic relationships?
Chirac: I repeat: Iraq must be disarmed, and for that it must cooperate more than it does now. If we disarm Iraq, the goal set by the Americans will have been fulfilled. And if we do that, there can be no doubt that it will bex due in large part to the presence of American forces on the spot. If there hadn't been U.S. soldiers present, Saddam might not have agreed to play the game. If we go through with the inspections, the Americans will have won, since it would essentially be thanks to the pressure they exercised that Iraq was disarmed.

TIME: Don't you think it would be extremely difficult politically for President Bush to pull back from war?
Chirac: I'm not so sure about that. He would have two advantages if he brought his soldiers back. I'm talking about a situation, obviously, where the inspectors say now there's nothing left, and that will take a certain number of weeks. If Iraq doesn't cooperate and the inspectors say this isn't working, it could be war. If Iraq is stripped of its weapons of mass destruction and that's been verified by the inspectors, then Mr. Bush can say two things: first, "Thanks to my intervention, Iraq has been disarmed," and second, "I achieved all that without spilling any blood." In the life of a statesman, that counts—no blood spilled.

TIME: Yet Washington may well go to war despite your plan.
Chirac: That will be their responsibility. But if they were to ask me for my friendly advice, I would counsel against it.

Get the Magazine — Try 4 Issues Free!

	L A T I N    A M E R I C A The Next Terror Nexus?: Colombian leaders fear the I.R.A. and ETA may be using the country as a base for weapons testing and training M U S I C The Brits Are Alright: U.K. pop gets a life after export E N V I R O N M E N T Coming Unstuck: London's controversial experiment with congestion charging could lead the way for other cities plagued by the tyranny of traffic B U S I N E S S More Hang-Ups: From health to privacy, a fear of mobile phones