It is hard to sum up Henry Kissinger: a refugee turned soldier turned scholar who became the US’ chief diplomat and ended up being lauded as a peacemaker and derided as a war criminal – no mean feat.
Yet, after a life spanning just over a century and occupying such crucial roles, his legacy is bound to be mixed. In his last interview, just weeks before his death, looking frail but serene and sharp, he said: “When you reach my age, a certain serenity descends on you because you can have no ambitions for the future, so you have to do the right thing. You can’t damage yourself very much.” Old age, he said, “frees you from how your actions might concern your future”.
This starkly contrasted with his 1972 interview with Oriana Fallaci, which Kissinger described as his most “disastrous decision”. Then one of the most sought-after interviewees, the interview was constantly interrupted by phone calls and aides before Kissinger was whisked away to speak to President Richard Nixon.
Fallaci turned down an opportunity to re-schedule: “What would have been the point of confirming a portrait I already had in my hands? A portrait made up of conflicting lines, colours, evasive answers, reticent statements, irritating silences.”
The interview established her as the most feared interviewer in the world.
Kissinger’s beginnings were far removed from the hallowed halls of Washington. Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1923, the young Kissinger was not athletic but loved football; he was an introverted bookworm yet incredibly competitive. In the 1920s and 1930s, however, Germany was not a place where he could thrive. In 1935, his father lost his job. In 1938, the family fled Germany and settled in the United States. Thirteen of his family members were killed in the Holocaust.
In the United States, he studied at night and worked during the day. In 1943, he became a naturalised US citizen and enrolled in the army. His intellect was immediately apparent. In 1944, he was back in Germany as an interpreter. He left the army in 1946 with a Bronze Star for his service and the rank of sergeant.
After the army, he joined another hallowed American institution – Harvard University. He read for his BA, MA and PhD. His doctoral dissertation, a study on the statesmanship of Castlereagh and Metternich, was published in 1957. He introduces the concept of legitimacy: “an international agreement about the nature of workable arrangements and about the permissible aims and methods of foreign policy.” If all major powers accept an international order, it is perceived as “legitimate”.
There seems to be a singular purpose in achieving this aim throughout his career as national security advisor (1969 – 1975) and secretary of state (1973 – 1977). In his seminal book Diplomacy, he comments on the world order prevailing after the Cold War: “In every century, there seems to emerge a country with the power, the will and the intellectual and moral impetus to shape the entire international system in accordance with its own values.”
He posits that two schools of thought prevailed in the United States throughout the 20th century, which saw the country as both a “beacon” and a “crusader” of a “global international order based on democracy, free commerce and international law”. This placed the US in a position where it could “neither withdraw from the world nor dominate it”.
The post-World War II scenario he inhabited was one where “the United States was so powerful (at one point about 35 per cent of the world’s entire economic production was American) that it seemed as if it was destined to shape the world according to its preferences”.
The US carpet-bombing of Cambodia remains a major stain on Henry Kissinger’s record- André DeBattista
To say that Kissinger had some role in this is an understatement.
Kissinger was not an ideologue but a pragmatist. He laid the groundwork for opening the world to the People’s Republic of China. He explained his reasoning: “In its new approach to foreign policy, America was not about to back the stronger against the weaker in any balance-of-power situation.”
“As the country with the greatest physical capacity to disturb the peace, the Soviet Union would be given an incentive to moderate existing crisis and to avoid stirring up new ones… and China, which had its own capacity to upset the Asian equilibrium, would be restrained by the need for American goodwill in setting limits to Soviet adventurism.”
He became associated with the policy of détente which led to breakthroughs including “the end of the Vietnam War; an agreement that guaranteed access to divided Berlin; a dramatic reduction of Soviet influence in the Middle East, and the beginning of the Arab Israeli peace process, and the European Security Conference”.
Some of his actions often eclipse this. The US invasion and carpet-bombing of Cambodia remains a major stain on his record. He was also accused of ruthlessly pursuing American interests, thus giving a bad name to realism. He is accused of conspiring to prop up regimes with aid and weapons, of usurping democratically elected governments and of encouraging human rights abuses in pursuit of American interests.
When he died, Rolling Stone magazine celebrated his death as that of a “war criminal”. Others on social media were equally jubilant. The Chilean ambassador to Washington called Kissinger “a man whose historical brilliance could never conceal his profound moral wretchedness”.
Congressman Jim McGovern expressed bafflement at why Kissinger was so revered and accused him of “terrible violence” in countries like “Chile, Vietnam, Argentina, East Timor, Cambodia and Bangladesh”.
He became singularly associated with a certain kind of hypocrisy, preaching democracy and human rights while respecting them in their breach.
In his interview with Fallaci, he famously credits his popularity to always acting alone: “Americans like that immensely. Americans like the cowboy who leads the wagon train by riding ahead alone on his horse, the cowboy who rides all alone into the town, the village, with his horse and nothing else.”
Perhaps so. The cowboy is heroic and thrives in unfavourable conditions and against most odds. Yet, the cowboy is no stranger to slaughter. Statesmen – no matter how consequential – should baulk at the thought of this.
André DeBattista is an academic and political writer.