An Interview with Claude Cheysson

• Share

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.