11/13/2014 05:47 PM
Interview with Henry Kissinger
'Do We Achieve World Order Through
Chaos or Insight?'
Interview Conducted By Juliane von Mittelstaedt
and Erich Follath
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.
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?
'The War Against IS Has Wide Public Support'
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.
URL:
Related SPIEGEL ONLINE links:
Unlikely
Heir: Obama Returns to Kissinger's Realpolitik (05/22/2013)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/realpolitik-of-henry-kissinger-making-a-comeback-under-obama-a-901195.html
From the
Archive: SPIEGEL Interview with Henry Kissinger (07/06/2011)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-interview-with-henry-kissinger-mao-might-consider-modern-china-to-be-too-materialistic-a-772292.html
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2014
All
Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet
GmbH
In last week's elections, President Obama lost his majority in the Senate as well.
ReplyDeleteKissinger: Technically correct. At the same time, the president is freed to stand for what is right