Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:46:27 +0100
Interview with Henry Kissinger: 'Do We Achieve World Order Through Chaos or
Insight?'
Interview Conducted By Juliane von Mittelstaedt and Erich Follath
* November 13, 2014 – 05:47 PM
Henry Kissinger seems more youthful than his 91 years. He is focused and
affable, but also guarded, ready at any time to defend himself or brusquely
deflect overly critical questions. That, of course, should come as no
surprise. While his intellect is widely respected, his political legacy is
controversial. Over the years, repeated attempts have been made to try him
for war crimes.
>From 1969 to 1977, Kissinger served under President Richard Nixon and Gerald
Ford, first as national security advisor and then as secretary of state. In
those roles, he also carried partial responsibility for the napalm bombings
in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos the killed or maimed tens of thousands of
civilians. Kissinger also backed the putsch against Salvador Allende in
Chile and is accused of having had knowledge of CIA murder plots. Documents
declassified just a few weeks ago show that Kissinger had drawn up secret
plans to launch air strikes against Cuba. The idea got scrapped after
Democrat Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976.
Nevertheless, Kissinger remains a man whose presence is often welcome in the
White House, where he continues to advise presidents and secretaries of
state to this day.
Little in Kissinger's early years hinted at his future meteoric rise in
American politics. Born as Heinz Alfred Kissinger in Fürth, Germany in 1923,
his Jewish family would later flee to the United States in 1938. After World
War II, Kissinger went to Germany to assist in finding former members of the
Gestapo. He later studied political science and became a professor at
Harvard at the age of 40.
Kissinger recently published his 17th book, a work with the not exactly
modest title "World Order." When preparing to sit down with us for an
interview, he asked that "world order" be the topic. Despite his German
roots and the fact that he reads DER SPIEGEL each week on his iPad,
Kissinger prefers to speak in English. After 90 minutes together in New
York, Kissinger says he's risked his neck with everything he's told us. But
of course, a man like Kissinger knows precisely what he does and doesn't
want to say.
_____
SPIEGEL: Dr. Kissinger, when we look at the world today, it seems to be
messier than ever -- with wars, catastrophes and chaos everywhere. Is the
world really in greater disorder than ever before?
Kissinger: It seems that it is. There is chaos threatening us, through the
spread of weapons of mass destruction and cross-border terrorism. There is
now a phenomenon of ungoverned territories, and we have seen in Libya, for
example, that an ungoverned territory can have an enormous impact on
disorder in the world. The state as a unit is under attack, not in every
part of the world, but in many parts of it. But at the same time, and this
seems to be a paradox, this is the first time one can talk about a world
order at all.
SPIEGEL: What do you mean by that?
Kissinger: For the greatest part of history until really the very recent
time, world order was regional order. This is the first time that different
parts of the world can interact with every part of the world. This makes a
new order for the globalized world necessary. But there are no universally
accepted rules. There is the Chinese view, the Islamic view, the Western
view and, to some extent, the Russian view. And they really are not always
compatible.
SPIEGEL: In your new book, you frequently point to the Westphalian Peace
Treaty of 1648 as a reference system for world order, as a result of the
Thirty Years' War. Why should a treaty dating back more than 350 years still
be relevant today?
Kissinger: The Westphalian Peace was made after almost a quarter of the
Central European population perished because of wars, disease and hunger.
The treaty was based on the necessity to come to an arrangement with each
other, not on some sort of superior morality. Independent nations decided
not to interfere in the affairs of other states. They created a balance of
power which we are missing today.
SPIEGEL: Do we need another Thirty Years' War to create a new world order?
Kissinger: Well, that's a very good question. Do we achieve a world order
through chaos or through insight? One would think that the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, the dangers of climate change and terrorism should create
enough of a common agenda. So I would hope that we can be wise enough not to
have a Thirty Years' War.
SPIEGEL: So let's talk about a concrete example: How should the West react
to the Russian annexation of Crimea? Do you fear this might mean that
borders in the future are no longer incontrovertible?
Kissinger: Crimea is a symptom, not a cause. Furthermore, Crimea is a
special case. Ukraine was part of Russia for a long time. You can't accept
the principle that any country can just change the borders and take a
province of another country. But if the West is honest with itself, it has
to admit that there were mistakes on its side. The annexation of Crimea was
not a move toward global conquest. It was not Hitler moving into
Czechoslovakia.
SPIEGEL: What was it then?
Kissinger: One has to ask one's self this question: Putin spent tens of
billions of dollars on the Winter Olympics in Sochi. The theme of the
Olympics was that Russia is a progressive state tied to the West through its
culture and, therefore, it presumably wants to be part of it. So it doesn't
make any sense that a week after the close of the Olympics, Putin would take
Crimea and start a war over Ukraine. So one has to ask one's self why did it
happen?
SPIEGEL: What you're saying is that the West has at least a kind of
responsibility for the escalation?
Kissinger: Yes, I am saying that. Europe and America did not understand the
impact of these events, starting with the negotiations about Ukraine's
economic relations with the European Union and culminating in the
demonstrations in Kiev. All these, and their impact, should have been the
subject of a dialogue with Russia. This does not mean the Russian response
was appropriate.
SPIEGEL: It seems you have a lot of understanding for Putin. But isn't he
doing exactly what you are warning of -- creating chaos in eastern Ukraine
and threatening sovereignty?
Kissinger: Certainly. But Ukraine has always had a special significance for
Russia. It was a mistake not to realize that.
SPIEGEL: Relations between the West and Russia are tenser now than they have
been in decades. Should we be concerned about the prospects of a new Cold
War?
Kissinger: There clearly is this danger, and we must not ignore it. I think
a resumption of the Cold War would be a historic tragedy. If a conflict is
avoidable, on a basis reflecting morality and security, one should try to
avoid it.
SPIEGEL: But didn't the annexation of Crimea by Russia force the EU and US
to react by imposing sanctions?
Kissinger: One, the West could not accept the annexation; some
countermeasures were necessary. But nobody in the West has offered a
concrete program to restore Crimea. Nobody is willing to fight over eastern
Ukraine. That's a fact of life. So one could say we don't have to accept it,
and we do not treat Crimea as a Russian territory under international law --
just as we continued to treat the Baltic states as independent throughout
Soviet rule.
SPIEGEL: Would it be better to stop sanctions even without any concessions
from the Russians?
Kissinger: No. But I do have a number of problems with the sanctions. When
we talk about a global economy and then use sanctions within the global
economy, then the temptation will be that big countries thinking of their
future will try to protect themselves against potential dangers, and as they
do, they will create a mercantilist global economy. And I have a particular
problem with this idea of personal sanctions. And I'll tell you why. We
publish a list of people who are sanctioned. So then, when the time comes to
lift the sanctions, what are we going to say? "The following four people are
now free of sanctions, and the other four are not." Why those four? I think
one should always, when one starts something, think what one wants to
achieve and how it should end. How does it end?
SPIEGEL: Doesn't that also apply to Putin, who has maneuvered himself into a
corner? Does he act out of weakness or out of strength?
Kissinger: I think out of strategic weakness masked as tactical strength.
SPIEGEL: What does that mean for any interaction with him?
Kissinger: We have to remember that Russia is an important part of the
international system, and therefore useful in solving all sorts of other
crises, for example in the agreement on nuclear proliferation with Iran or
over Syria. This has to have preference over a tactical escalation in a
specific case. On the one hand it is important that Ukraine remain an
independent state, and it should have the right to economic and commercial
associations of its choice. But I don't think it's a law of nature that
every state must have the right to be an ally in the frame work of NATO. You
and I know that NATO will never vote unanimously for the entry of Ukraine.
SPIEGEL: But we cannot tell the Ukrainians that they are not free to decide
their own future.
Kissinger: Why not?
SPIEGEL: You're speaking like a superpower that is used to getting its way.
Kissinger: No, the United States cannot dictate, and the US should not try
to dictate. It would be a mistake even to think it could. But in regards to
NATO, the US will have one vote in a decision based on unanimity. The German
chancellor has expressed herself in the same sense.
SPIEGEL: America is very polarized. The level of aggression in the political
debate is extremely high. Is the superpower still even able to act at all?
Kissinger: I am worried about this domestic split. When I worked in
Washington, political combat was tough. But there was much more cooperation
and contact between opponents of the two big parties.
SPIEGEL: In last week's elections, President Obama lost his majority in the
Senate as well.
Kissinger: Technically correct. At the same time, the president is freed to
stand for what is right -- just as President Harry Truman did between 1946
and 1948, when he advanced the Marshall Plan after losing Congress.
SPIEGEL: The next presidential race will soon begin. Would Hillary Clinton
make a good candidate?
Kissinger: I consider Hillary a friend, and I think she's a strong person.
So, yes, I think she can do the job. Generally, I think it would be better
for the country if there were a change in administration. And I think we
Republicans have to get a good candidate.
SPIEGEL: In your book, you write that international order "must be
cultivated, not imposed." What do you mean by that?
Kissinger: What it means is we that we Americans will be a major factor by
virtue of our strengths and values. You become a superpower by being strong
but also by being wise and by being farsighted. But no state is strong or
wise enough to create a world order alone.
SPIEGEL: Is American foreign policy wise and determined at the moment?
Kissinger: We have the belief in America that we can change the world by not
just soft power, but by actual military power. Europe doesn't have that
belief.
SPIEGEL: The American public is very reluctant to be engaged and would like
to focus on domestic affairs. Obama himself talks about "nation building at
home."
Kissinger: If you look at the five wars America has fought since World War
II, they all had large public support. The present war against the terror
organization Islamic State has large public support. The question is what
happens as the war continues. Clarity about the outcome of the war is
essential.
SPIEGEL: Shouldn't the most important objective be the protection of
suffering civilians in Iraq and Syria.
Kissinger: First of all, I don't agree that the Syrian crisis can be
interpreted as a ruthless dictator against a helpless population and that
the population will become democratic if you remove the dictator.
SPIEGEL: But the civilians are suffering, however you define it.
Kissinger: Yes, they are, and they deserve sympathy and humanitarian
assistance. Let me just say what I think is happening. It is partly a
multiethnic conflict. It is partly a rebellion against the old structure of
the Middle East. And it is partly a sort of rebellion against the
government. Now, if one is willing to fix all these problems and if one is
willing to pay the sacrifices for fixing all these problems and if one
thinks one can create something that will bring this about, then one can
say, "We will apply the right to interfere," but that means military
measures and willingness to face the consequences. Look at Libya. There's no
question that it was morally justified to overthrow Muammar Gadhafi, but we
were not willing to fill the vacuum afterwards. Therefore we have militias
fighting against each other today. You get an ungoverned territory and an
arms depot for Africa.
SPIEGEL: But we are seeing a similarly unbearable situation in Syria. The
state is falling apart and terror organizations are ruling large parts of
the country. Wasn't it perhaps wrong not to intervene in order to avoid
chaos that now represents a threat to us as well?
Kissinger: In my life, I have almost always been on the side of active
foreign policy. But you need to know with whom you are cooperating. You need
reliable partners -- and I don't see any in this conflict.
SPIEGEL: As in the Vietnam War. Do you sometimes regret your aggressive
policy there?
Kissinger: You'd love me to say that.
SPIEGEL: Of course. You haven't spoken much about it all your life.
Kissinger: I've spent all my life studying these things, and written a book
about Vietnam called "Ending the Vietnam War" and many chapters in my
memoirs on Vietnam. You have to remember that the administration in which I
served inherited the war in Vietnam. Five hundred thousand Americans were
deployed there by the Johnson Administration. The Nixon Administration
withdrew these troops gradually, with ground combat troops being withdrawn
in 1971. I can only say that I and my colleagues acted on the basis of
careful thought. On the strategic directions, that was my best thinking, and
I acted to the best of my convictions.
SPIEGEL: There is a sentence in your book, on the last page, that can be
understood as a kind of self-criticism. You write that you once thought you
could explain history, but that today you are more modest when it comes to
judging historical events.
Kissinger: I have learned, as I wrote, that history must be discovered, not
declared. It's an admission that one grows in life. It's not necessarily a
self-criticism. What I was trying to say is you should not think that you
can shape history only by your will. This is also why I'm against the
concept of intervention when you don't know its ultimate implications.
SPIEGEL: In 2003, you were in favor of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. At that
time, too, the consequences of that intervention were uncertain.
Kissinger: I'll tell you what I thought at the time. I thought that after
the attack on the United States, it was important that the US vindicate its
position. The UN had certified major violations. So I thought that
overthrowing Saddam was a legitimate objective. I thought it was unrealistic
to attempt to bring about democracy by military occupation.
SPIEGEL: Why are you so sure that it is unrealistic?
Kissinger: Unless you are willing to do it for decades and you are certain
your people will follow you. But it is probably beyond the resources of any
one country.
SPIEGEL: For this reason, President Obama is fighting the war against terror
from the air using drones and warplanes in Pakistan and Yemen and now in
Syria and Iraq as well. What do you think about that?
Kissinger: I support attacks on territories from which terrorist attacks are
launched. I have never expressed a public view on drones. It threatens more
civilians than the equivalent one did in the Vietnam War, but it's the same
principle.
SPIEGEL: In your book you argue that America has to make its decisions about
war on the basis of what achieves the "best combination of security and
morality." Can you explain what you mean by that?
Kissinger: No. It depends on the situation. What is our precise interest in
Syria? Is it humanitarian alone? Is it strategic? Of course, you would
always want to achieve the most moral possible outcome, but in the middle of
a civil war you cannot avoid looking at the realities, and then you have to
make the judgments.
SPIEGEL: Meaning that for a certain amount of time, for realistic reasons,
we could be on the side of Bashar Assad fighting Islamic State?
Kissinger: Well, no. We could never fight with Assad. That would be a denial
of years of what we have done and asserted. But frankly, I think we should
have had a dialogue with Russia and asked what outcome we want in Syria, and
formulate a strategy together. It was wrong to say from the beginning that
Assad must go -- although it is a desirable ultimate goal. Now that we are
locked into that conflict with Russia, a deal regarding the Iranian nuclear
program becomes more difficult.
SPIEGEL: Are you in favor of a more assertive role for Europe, especially
for Germany?
Kissinger: Yes, certainly. A century ago, Europe almost had a monopoly in
creating world order. Today, there is a danger it is just busy with itself.
Today, Germany is the most significant European country and, yes, it should
be much more active. I do have very high regard of Ms. Merkel, and I think
she is the right person for leading Germany into this role. By the way, I've
met and been sort of friendly with every German chancellor.
SPIEGEL: Oh, including Willy Brandt?
Kissinger: I have very high regard for Willy Brandt.
SPIEGEL: We're a bit surprised here because a few months ago, a conversation
between you and Nixon was released in which you call Brandt a "dangerous
idiot".
Kissinger: You know, these phrases out of context confuse the reality. Here
are people at the end of an exhausting day saying things to each other,
reflecting the mood of a moment, and it probably was during some difference
of opinion which I don't even remember. We had some doubts about Brandt's
Ostpolitik at the beginning, but later, we worked very closely with him. Ask
Egon Bahr, he will tell you: Without the Nixon Administration, Brandt's
Ostpolitik would not have achieved its objective, especially on the issue of
Berlin.
SPIEGEL: In Germany, you are a very controversial politician. When the
University of Bonn wanted to name a chair after you, the students protested.
Were you disappointed, or at least irritated?
Kissinger: I appreciate the honor. I didn't ask for the chair, and I only
became aware of the chair after it was established. I don't want to be part
of the discussion, it's entirely up to German agencies. I think Germany
should do it for itself or not do it for its own reasons.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Kissinger, we thank you for this interview.
<http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-henry-kissinger-s-world-ord
er-fotostrecke-120950.html> Photo Gallery: Henry Kissinger's World Order
<http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-henry-kissinger-s-world-ord
er-fotostrecke-120950.html> Photos
DPA
Henry Kissinger is the most famous and most divisive secretary of state the
US has ever had. In an interview, he discusses his new book exploring the
crises of our time, from Syria to Ukraine, and the limits of American power.
He says he acted in accordance with his convictions in Vietnam.
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)
(image/png attachment: image002.png)