Explaining why he’s against the war, Chirac said that he doesn’t analyze the situation the way the U.S. and U.K. do.

“A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens. Muslims and Christians have a lot to say to one another, but war isn't going to facilitate that dialogue. I'm against the clash of civilizations; that plays into the hands of extremists,” he told the magazine.

Several times throughout the interview he stressed that it is important to give the inspectors time to do their job and to come up with their own conclusions.

“There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right to be disturbed by this situation, and it's right in having decided Iraq should be disarmed. The inspections began, and naturally it is a long and difficult job. We have to give the inspectors time to do it,” Chirac told Time magazine.

He stressed that France is not a “pacifist” country and that it is not anti-American but is a “true friend” of the United States. “It is not France's role to support dictatorial regimes in Iraq or anywhere else. Nor do we have any differences over the goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction,” Chirac said in the interview.

He said that pressure could be put on the Iraqi regime to cooperate more. “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,” said Chirac, reported Time.

Chirac denied that he is anti-American and said that it makes him sad, not angry to hear people say that. He said that he has studied as well as worked in the United States and that he knows the U.S. more than most French people do.

“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,” he said.

Prior to the U.N. inspectors’ report last week, Chirac told Time that he has received phone calls from several heads of state, both members and non-members of the Security Council, all saying that a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis must be reached.

“The consequences of war would be considerable in human terms. In political terms, it would destabilize the entire region. It's very difficult to explain that one is going to spend colossal sums of money to wage war when there may be another solution yet,” he told the magazine.

He said that the world having one dominant power is dangerous and “provokes reactions.”

“I favor a multipolar world, in which Europe obviously has its place,” Chirac told Time magazine, adding that he predicts that world will not continue to being a unipolar for long and that 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,” he said.

However, Chirac said that if the inspectors say that there are no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there would be two advantages of President Bush pull back his troops.

“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,” Chirac told Time magazine, adding that his friendly advice would be to counsel against a war.

Meanwhile, U.K. newspaper the Independent reported Monday, February 17, that that the U.S. rejected a French proposal to give inspections in Iraq four more weeks before allowing consideration of a new UN resolution on the use of force, saying that that would amount to appeasing the regime of Saddam Hussein.