One of the towering figures in the history of US Foreign Policy has passed away. Whatever you think of him, there is no arguing that Henry Kissinger and, just as importantly, those he trained and influenced in the realpolitik school of thought, were dominant in our Foreign Policy for the late Cold War era (1960’s through early 1990’s). Although I had some distant interactions and recently had the opportunity to speak with him, unfortunately I don’t have any real personal stories or interactions that I can share. He was a hero to some, villain to many, and I’m sure there will be a flood of electrons spewed across the intertubes over his passing, fawning praise as well as lots of condemnations and hand wringing over his “mixed” record.
I feel the need to rant on this a bit. Those who want to clutch their pearls and talk about “War Crimes” over policies such as supporting dictatorial regimes around the world are, in a purely technical sense right, but I would argue many if not most of those doing so are hypocritical and are often supporters of US politicians who are objectively worse. Every US President, SecState, SecDef, most of their deputies and a heck of a lot of other officials since the Nuremberg era would be in jail or worse if the standards and norms of international law were applied fairly. Don’t pontificate about Kissinger unless you are going to damn Clinton over his policies in the former Yugoslavia, or Obama over Syria and Libya. In fact, if you want to be honest and you really care about morals, global stability, and the innocent victims of US Foreign Policy, Clinton (both of them) and Obama should be on a lower level of hell than Kissinger, stewing on level nine of Dante’s hierarchy with Bush and his Dad.
For the record I didn’t agree with some of Kissinger’s policies or recommendations. But I deeply respected them. There was no doubting they were formed out of a coherent worldview and analytical framework that took in to account history, the perception of the parties of that history, and held stability as key elements in addition to what was advantageous to the US. They were never simplistic. This is in stark contrast to the way the current generation of Foreign Policy “professionals” such as SecState Blinken, NSC Advisor Sullivan, much less psychological train wrecks like Victoria Nuland approach problems. They tend to be rather myopic in viewing the world through the prism of their beliefs rather than the world as it is, and often lack the nuance needed for a complex world.
If you look at many of problems in the world today, especially with China, Russia, and Near East Asia, they are worse because the leaders of the 2000’s ignored his approach and in some cases direct advice. Do things like ideology or ethics have a place in Foreign Policy? Of course, and it is grossly unfair to characterize Kissinger or realpolitik as amoral. There were lines he would not cross. However, his worldview was that ideology and strict adherence to unrealistically high moral standards (especially if you yourself do not live up to them) should never be at the ultimate expense of practical matters and – vitally – stability. I would perhaps weight ethical considerations higher than he or his more devoted acolytes would, but agree There needs to be a balance. Therefore, sometimes, you have to make hard compromises, some of them pretty unpleasant. An adult recognizes that fact.
Sadly, in America’s foreign policy, we have very few adult voices left.
So in conclusion, he made mistakes (some grievous) and we should learn from them, but he did a lot of things right, his approach to Foreign Policy was for the most part sound even if we reach different conclusions. He should be rightly honored for his service to this country and the world. I think that historian Robert Kaplan’s assessment is probably a good one: “Henry Kissinger’s classical realism—as expressed in both his books and his statecraft—is emotionally unsatisfying but analytically timeless.“
Additional Note: This obituary in Foreign Affairs does a nice, nuanced job.
That is a fine tribute to Dr. Kissinger. He was and remains a profoundly misunderstood public figure. He served bravely for the US in Europe during WWII only a few years after becoming a citizen. And his realist foreign policy accepted the limits of military power and the fact that foreign policy, as his mentor Hans Morgenthau often observe, is often the choosing of the least bad option. He served his adopted nation bravely and well. May he rest in peace.
Well said. The term “word salad” is overused but aptly describes what is called foreign policy today. I can’t think of one officeholder who hasn’t put his or her own re-election or re-appointment over the best interests of the country time and time again. The leadership vacuum is growing larger. As nature abhors a vacuum, the space gets filled with the dregs or the bullies – sometimes being one and the same.
This is excellent. This morning, I have been reading some really childish and irrational comments (IE, “ding dong the witch is dead.”) in other forums.
The Richard Nixon Foundation YouTube channel has some good presentations on Kissinger perspectives.
It is disappointing that we can’t have nuanced conversations about complex historical (much less contemporary) individuals.
Describing the world “as it is”-powerful. Disagreed, but deeply respected”-such a rarity nowadays. A bit proud you call Savannah home.