Anthony Lake _ Former aide to Bill Clinton on National Security and advisor to Obama:
«The option of a non-united party would be terrible for the democrats»

 Lake, in a photo taken during the interview, says that Obama is not against war; just «against stupid wars such as Iraq»

TEXT MANUEL ERICE
PHOTO JAIME GARCÍA

MADRID. From Clinton to Obama. A strange path for this foreign policy and security veteran with a doctorate from Princeton. Always in democrat territory, his progression within the US Government took him from Carter to Bill Clinton, whom he would guide towards successful intervention in Bosnia. Now, as advisor to the senator for Illinois, he analyses for ABC the hotly-contested primaries and the global solutions put forward by Obama.

-Is the war on terrorism being won or lost?
-This is not an easy answer. The intelligence services admit that, especially on the Pakistan –Afghanistan border, Al Qaida is defending itself better than we would like. The various analyses of the terrain reveal that the nature of Al Qaida is changing and this means that the struggle is more difficult. In fact, the central groups are in turn creating new small local groups, in northern Africa and elsewhere, and this in turn generates new leaderships supporting it. All this makes Al Qaida stronger and more dangerous, and the answer to this more complicated. There are areas in which it is difficult to enter into contact.

-Is the United States safer now than seven years ago?
-Fortunately, there have been no terrorist attacks in the USA since 11-S and in this sense we are safer. However, we must make a greater effort to comprehend what is happening in other parts of the world, standing strong against radicalism, but with greater sensitivity when problem-solving. For example, I don’t believe the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, the limitation of civil rights in the USA, have been good decisions…

-The NATO crisis is not helping in Afghanistan. How responsible are European countries which are reluctant to send more troops, as the USA is requesting? Is there a lack of commitment?
-One of the reasons why the policy towards Iraq must be changed is that this would help European countries such as Germany or Spain to place more emphasis on Afghanistan. It is clear that distractions such as Iraq have led these countries to refusing to follow the leadership of the USA, and this affects Afghanistan. If we are not capable of acting together, we will not solve the problems we have in Afghanistan.

-Returning to Iraq, a simple withdrawal of troops, as Obama proposes, doesn’t seem very realistic…
-Well, we believe we have to bring the troops back from Iraq, but maintaining a residual military presence. We don’t know what the exact situation is, which is why we would have to see what is needed to respond to Al Qaida. But what Obama does say, and this is highly significant, is that until the violence ends, military presence must remain, always in accordance with international law, depending on the responsibility the USA should hold in the world.

-What do you think of the decision by Zapatero to withdraw the troops as soon as he came into power?
-I wasn’t active within the diplomatic world at that time, so I’m unable to answer.

-Should Obama become President of the USA, he will also have to make certain compromising decisions…
-Well, Obama has already said he’s not against all wars. What he is against is stupid wars, such as the one in Iraq. The stance on war is not so much an ideological question as a practical one. Just like capturing terrorists: this must be done with all severity and efficacy, while respecting civil rights.

-How do you rate Hillary Clinton and McCain?
-They are all good candidates, in truth. One of the reasons why I’m supporting Obama has been his insistence from the outset on all moving forward together, something which should form part of modern politics. This is extraordinarily important in order for America to be united. It is the most efficient way to combat terrorism and for our country to maintain its position of leadership, also in the realms of climate change and any other.

-Don’t you think the extending of the Obama-Hillary fight until the August convention gives McCain too many options?
-There are two very clear answers. In principle… I insist, in principle, if we have to support Clinton, this would be something good for the democrats because there would be unity around one candidate, people would be listening to one single Democrat Party message… But in the end it would be logical to support the candidate who obtains most delegates prior to the convention. This would be a way of reducing McCain’s arguments.

-The problem might be that in the end the loser in the democrat primaries doesn’t support the winner. Would an Obama and Hillary ticket be essential for you?
-That’s the question. It could happen if they (Hillary’s team) do things badly. They can’t. It would be a terrible option.

-But, when the time comes, it seems easier for Obama to back Hillary than the other way round…
-I have no idea.

-Going back to foreign affairs, do you believe a risk of war exists between Colombia and Venezuela, and, in any event, do you back Uribe and those who claim Chávez and Correa have helped the FARC?
-And Ortega… I have no evidence that this is the case… In any event, things have gone too far, and I hope the American and European leaders take control of the situation. The FARC is a terrorist organization and it is understandable that Colombia has also pursued them beyond its borders… I hope everything returns to normal.

-You advised President Clinton on the intervention in Bosnia. Were you already sure then that the conclusion had to be the independence of Kosovo?
-Yes, totally. Independence has always been an irreversible objective. They have sufficient memory in the Balkans. The vast majority want to live in peace with Serbia, and this is the only way. While protecting the minorities, of course.