Interview with Henry Kissinger: 'Do We Achieve World Order Through Chaos or Insight?'
Interview Conducted By Juliane von Mittelstaedt and Erich Follath
Der Spiegel, November 13, 2014
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?
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.
-----------
