Henry Kissinger on Europe's Falling out with Washington (Der Spiegel's interview with Kissinger)

Der Spiegel ^ | October 10, 2005 | Georg Mascolo and Gerhard Spörl

[REactor]

Henry Kissinger on Europe's Falling out with Washington

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, 82, talks about the risks of the war in Iraq, clashes with Europe and China's future role in global politics.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Secretary, Iraq has become a great problem for the global power America. What, in your opinion, has to happen in order for Iraq to achieve stability and remain united?

REUTERS

Former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: "Iraq is no longer a problem for America alone"

Kissinger: Iraq is no longer a problem for America alone. Whatever people may think about earlier decisions, if radical Islamists were to win, the effects would be felt by every country with a large Muslim population. In regions like South East Asia, even in India, it would be seen as a victory for the jihadists over the technically superior world which they have declared war on. In Iraq right now we are just about to have elections. After that we should sit down together with our allies, as well as with all the other countries involved, and look at how the political situation can be stabilized. International recognition is an important part of this stability.

SPIEGEL: But America seems to have run out of optimism. The majority of its citizens think that military intervention was a mistake. Has the war at home in America been lost?

Kissinger: I've got special experience of this sort from the Vietnam war. It is from this perspective that I am now looking at the war in Iraq. Nixon's government, which I belonged to as National Security Advisor, inherited a war which they had not begun. Leading members of the government which had started the war later joined the peace movement. Our main wish was to finish the war. And we wanted to finish it in such a way that international stability wasn't threatened. We also didn't want to damage the role that America played in defending its allies.

SPIEGEL: How is it possible to achieve both these aims in Iraq?

AP

A destroyed mosque in the Iraqi city of Hilla: "Today's statesmen to not allow their thinking to be directed by fear."

Kissinger: Of course, you can't compare every aspect of the situation in Iraq with that in Vietnam. But to bring the Iraq war to an end, we need a proper dialogue in America and the good will of all those involved. It doesn't make any sense right now to set a time frame for pulling troops out of Iraq. Is it possible for Iraq to be destroyed as a result of our domestic political situation? I have experienced something along those lines already. Everyone should do their utmost to end the war in a responsible way, in a manner which we and the rest of the world can live with.

SPIEGEL: You criticized the Europeans because they didn't help enough in Iraq. What should they do now?

Kissinger: We should talk about that as soon as Iraq has gone to the polls and Germany has a new government. Looking at America first, the neo-conservatives developed a great distrust of Europe. In the past, such points of view were cleared up by talking to each other. But the German elections in 2002 exacerbated the problem still further. Chancellor Schröder made Iraq, along with a type of anti-Americanism, the central aspects of his campaign. As a result, German foreign policy lost all flexibility in its relations with America.

SPIEGEL: But France attracted the anger of America more than Germany.

Kissinger: From my point of view that was more about a personal conflict between the leaders of both countries which ruled out all forms of compromise. Originally our people in Washington were convinced that, in the end, during the UN Security Council talks, France would agree. just as they had done in the Gulf War in 1991. Possibly with a few extra conditions. A French aircraft carrier was, after all, already on its way to the Red Sea. But after Germany staked out its position, France was forced to decide whether it should leave its neighbors isolated in the middle of the continent -- which would have meant that the role of leader against America's unilateralism would have fallen to Germany. I am not interested in criticizing anyone here, I am just analyzing how the behavior of Germany, France and America has led to this crisis.

SPIEGEL: What were the deeper causes of this severe falling out?

Kissinger: The very core of Europe has changed drastically. After all, the nation state has its roots in Europe. The state saw the sacrifice of its citizens as a legitimate way of achieving a global foreign policy objective. In the period after the Second World War, there were still leaders in Europe who represented weak countries, but possessed a sense of global foreign policy. Nowadays, on the other hand, there are politicians who represent pretty powerful countries, but whose citizens are not prepared to sacrifice themselves for the state. Europe is allowing the classic nation state to be sacrificed without having a community logistically and emotionally organized enough, such as a United States of Europe, to take its place. America on the other hand is still a traditional nation state.

SPIEGEL: In Europe there is a school of thinking which would like to see the old continent as a counterweight to America.

Kissinger: Yes, this trend does exist. I have read various remarks in SPIEGEL indicating that German foreign policy aims to meet America eye to eye. That may well be necessary in certain situations but confrontation with America should not be the determining factor in Germany's foreign policy.

SPIEGEL: In 1989, Bush senior generously said that Germany was a "Partner in Leadership."

Kissinger: For my generation the relationship with Europe was the central point of American foreign policy. Even during my time in government there was disagreement, sometimes very strong disagreement. But they were all like arguments within a family. We knew how painful a decision it was in the 50s and 60s to accept the division of Germany, so that one half could stay in the West. That was how George Bush Senior had thought as well. That was why it was easy for America to welcome the unification of Germany. I am not sure if the generation which doesn't have these experiences has the same view of things.

SPIEGEL: Many people in Germany think the chaos in Iraq is clear proof that the war was a mistake.

DPA

Kissinger on Gerhard Schröder and George W. Bush: "German foreign policy lost all flexibility in its relations with America."

Kissinger: Germany managed to keep out of the military phase of the war. It would be only fair to the American government to ask what the alternative might have been. After Sept. 11 it was hard to imagine that Saddam's regime should remain untouched. The UN confirmed numerous infringements of the ceasefire agreement of 1991. Saddam possessed oil, he had the region's largest army and there was the well-founded worry that he could have weapons of mass destruction. The decision to do something was based on good reasons. Whether you can still say that today, is another question. But I have also thought, right from the outset, it is false to believe the occupation of Iraq would be as free of problems as that of Germany or Japan.

SPIEGEL: Is democracy in Iraq and in the Middle East the solution to the problem?

Kissinger: The Western concept of democracy is based on the idea that the loser of an election has the possibility next time round of being the winner. But in the case of an ethnically or religiously divided country, in which minorities don't live peacefully together, this necessary balance can't be properly guaranteed by democracy. When each ethnic group arms itself, it is not surprising that the army of a new state is viewed by part of the population as an ideological militia.

SPIEGEL: You are known as the most prominent advocate of the realistic school of thought which lays great importance on stability in international relations. You are also skeptical of major changes, such as what the neo-conservative have in mind for the Middle East. Are politicians like you enjoying a comeback?

Kissinger: For me realism in foreign policy means careful consideration of all aspects pertinent to the issue, before taking a decision. This is the only way you can move from where you are to someplace else. Realists aren't focused as much on power as people like to believe. Realism is made up of a clear set of values, since difficult foreign policy decisions are often decided with the narrowest of majorities. Without any sense of what is right and wrong, one would drown in a flood of difficult and pragmatic decisions. Even Bismarck believed, the best a politician can do is "make sure that you see the Lord marching through world history. And then to jump and hang on to his coattails, so that you are carried along as far as possible."

SPIEGEL: At the moment you are writing a book in which you want to lay out the basic differences between statesmen and prophets.

Kissinger: Yes, statesmen think in terms of history and view society as an organism. Prophets are different since they believe absolute aims can be achieved in the foreseeable future. More people have been killed by crusaders than by statesmen.

SPIEGEL: One of the prophets was Mao who, in a new book, which has attracted a lot of attention, is portrayed as the 20th century's mass murderer.

Kissinger: It is true that he caused his people an incredible amount of suffering, and he is an example of the prophets I write about. When Richard Nixon met Mao in 1972 he told him that his teachings had transformed China's culture and civilization. Mao answered: All I have changed is Beijing and a few suburbs. It was a nightmare for him that after 20 years of fighting and all those efforts to found a communist society, he had achieved so little of lasting value. That is what led him to sacrifice more and more lives to his achieve his work within his lifetime. He believed that otherwise his legacy would be destroyed.

SPIEGEL: The irony of history is that in the end the prophets bring about their own failure.

Kissinger: By attempting to prevent their own failure they flee more and more into violence and in this way, hopefully, bring about their own downfall.

SPIEGEL: To which statesman do you accord most the respect -- Bismarck, Churchill?

Kissinger: I have a lot of respect for Charles de Gaulle as well. Bismarck I value, but conditionally. He brought about German unity, which none of his predecessors managed. However he also left those who came after him with a task which was beyond their means. For Bismarck foreign policy was primarily about the balance of power. Those who came after him lacked the restraint which he possessed.

DPA

Kissinger on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il: "we have to ask ourselves how much energy we want to put into fighting the problem of further proliferation of nuclear weapons."

SPIEGEL: Getting back to today's leaders: American foreign policy has changed in the last few months. A member of the "axis of evil," North Korea, is now meant to receive aid deliveries worth billions in return for not continuing with its military nuclear program. And in the case of Iran, despite all the setbacks, Bush's government is resorting to diplomacy. Is this change of direction a result of conviction or pure necessity?

Kissinger: From what I can see the government does not feel under as much pressure as the media reports. And besides, American politics are normally a result of pragmatic and not philosophical reasoning. No one in Washington has said we now prefer multilateralism. In the case of North Korea, I am optimistic. That is not an American problem. The spread of weapons of mass destruction is something which affects all of us. Neither Japan, China nor Russia want to see another atomic power in Asia. These joint efforts will lead to a result. There will be a bit more to and fro as far as the details are concerned, but the basic decisions have been made.

SPIEGEL: Are you similarly optimistic about the situation in Iran?

Kissinger: At some point in Washington the most important decision will have to be taken. The question is who will get the upper hand: those who believe in regime change or those who favor negotiations? But let me make one important point: I was involved in decision-making processes when there were two superpowers. At that time one could be pretty sure that both sides would exert the same amount of restraint before starting an atomic war. And on top of that just imagine what complicated thought processes both went through trying to work out the opponent's possible behavior. The whole system of international relations is going to have to change. We have to bear this in mind when looking at Iran. The democratic countries have to keep an eye on the consequences of the spread of nuclear weapons and ask themselves what they would have done if the Madrid bombs had been nuclear. Or if the attackers in New York had used nuclear weapons, or if 50,000 people had died in New Orleans in a nuclear attack. The world would look very different than it does today. So we have to ask ourselves how much energy we want to put into fighting the problem of further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

SPIEGEL: At what point should the UN Security Council start dealing with Iran's atomic program?

Kissinger: We should avoid another confrontation in the Security Council until we know exactly what we want to and are able to achieve. Iran is more important than North Korea. It is a more significant country and there are more options.

SPIEGEL: Is there a military option?

Kissinger: Tactically speaking it would be unwise to rule out a military option. But every time someone says America should have this as an option, all hell breaks loose. It is important that we agree on the dangers of proliferation. And by this I don't mean just having another meeting of foreign ministers. We should see what pressures and incentives we have at our disposal. But Iran must also understand that we all mean it seriously. Naturally nobody wants another crisis in this region.

SPIEGEL: In the Middle East everything always revolves around strategic interests and oil. "Access to natural resources can become a question of survival for many states," you once wrote. "It would be an irony of history if oil became the modern equivalent of the argument over the colonies in the 19th century." Has the new "great game" already begun?

Kissinger: Yes, to a certain extent it has. Access to energy is today not only a purely economic but also political problem. As long as resources are limited and demand is still increasing, consumerist countries should come to an agreement before the competition leads to serious tensions.

SPIEGEL: Is the conflict driven by China's hunger for energy?

Kissinger: Compared to other countries China actually has a conceptional foreign policy. China drives the need to develop itself economically. Globalization will in turn create more industrialized countries. This will lead to further competition for resources.

SPIEGEL: In America there is a political camp that would like to behave just as ruthlessly to China as it did to the Soviet Union. Would this be a good idea?

Kissinger: The challenge is that China is a country with an enormous population which is systematically working on its economic development and aiming for unparalleled growth rates. This means that the center of gravity of global politics is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But this is not a challenge which can be answered with military or ideological confrontation.

SPIEGEL: China has learned from the fall of the Soviet Union that it must develop itself economically and become stable, without giving up its communist doctrine.

Kissinger: China is a one party state and the party calls itself communist. But the system is not based on central planning. This means people can develop themselves in a manner which was never possible in the Soviet Union. The Soviet system was always Stalinist, even during phases of reform. Nevertheless, sooner or later China will get to the point when the new social classes, which have emerged thanks to economic success, will have to be integrated into the political system. There is no guarantee that this process will run smoothly.

SPIEGEL: Is nationalism as a replacement ideology a massive temptation for China.

Kissinger: I am against portraying China as the demon of the global community. China has grasped more quickly than other countries what globalization means and what it demands. The country has learned how to use other people's innovations for itself. India, incidentally, is not far behind China in this respect. Both are not nations in the European sense, but rather cultural communities with enormous markets. The challenge of the future is to work out how to deal with that.

SPIEGEL: In America people hope to be able to oversee China's rise, and therefore control it somewhat.

Kissinger: I've often said that the desire to lecture China on how it should behave in the world is wrong. China was around for thousands of years even before America existed. It could even be that China's growing power will allow itself to be slowed down. But as long as this immense empire doesn't fall apart, it will become an important factor in global politics.

SPIEGEL: When you talk about China, it's clear you have a lot of respect for the country.

Kissinger: I have been observing China for more than 30 years and am impressed how logically and wisely it tackles its problems. Obviously the international system could be unbalanced by China's rising power -- if we don't prepare ourselves for the new competitive situation, that is. But it is an economic challenge, not aggression on the level of Hitler.

SPIEGEL: Do you find the world more peaceful now, or in the days of the Cold War?

Kissinger: Oh, you know, people are now starting to explain the Cold War. Even in the crises at that time the survival of millions of people was at stake. And we had to threaten the other super power with retaliation to prevent it from doing something to us. No, those were not happy times. We were lucky because the Soviet Union was weaker than we thought. Today we live in a world in which a lot of things are in flux. That creates a lot of fear. But it is also a time of great opportunity. And I would call on today's statesmen to not allow their thinking to be directed by fear.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Secretary, thank you for this interview.

The interview was conducted by Georg Mascolo and Gerhard Spörl in New York.

Translated from the German by Damien McGuinness

[samadams2000]

Hey Spiegel what about Hitler?? You know...your Hitler? Any questions on your country spawning..you know Hitler?? Or just questions on how America saves the world all the time??

[MNJohnnie]

Hey Spiegel what about Hitler?? You know...your Hitler? Any questions on your country spawning..you know Hitler?? Or just questions on how America saves the world all the time??

Funny how it is always US who have to make nice with THEM. Hey Old Europe, maybe you all better worry that WE are fed up with YOU. Frankly the Poles and other Eastern Europeans are more important to us then the Berlin-Paris-Brussels Axis of Wussies is.

[RKV]

A couple of off the cuff reactions - 1) When Kissenger says "I've often said that the desire to lecture China on how it should behave in the world is wrong." I just don't buy it. The Chinese people live in a dictatorship. Period. They know it, and their leaders should hear from us that we know it too. Chinese leaders of various sorts attempt to lecture us regularly, and I see know reason why we don't return the favor. 2) "China was around for thousands of years even before America existed." This is factually incorrect, Doctor, the whole world is the same age. Human nature has not changed significantly in the 4000+ years of recorded history either.

[MNJohnnie]

When Kissenger says "I've often said that the desire to lecture China on how it should behave in the world is wrong."

Kissenger if the father of the Realist school. In his mind a regimem stablity is more important then Human Rights. I personally think 9-11 showed the infeasablity of that view but it IS his world view.

[RKV]

Well said. I am of the school that believes that human rights produce stability. States run on the basis of fear are not to be trusted by Republics. In some cases we can ignore them. In others our own interest is best served by challenging them. In a world where ideas can travel at the speed of light, such a confrontation doesn't necessarily have to be military. American TV shows leaked into the Soviet Union had as much to do with the fall of that empire as did our military might. When the average Chinese gets wind of the corruption of their leadership, they don't like it. Especially since the Chinese media still preaches the old virtues - its a pretty tough act and getting harder with the net.

[Dog Gone]

Very excellent interview. I always find what Kissinger thinks to be thought-provoking at the very least.

[jwpjr]

re: Iraq has become a great problem for the global power America

What do they mean "has become" a great problem. They have been a problem for 20 years or more! That whole area of the world is a problem. We are FINALLY doing something concrete to solve the problem and it's not pretty. But we let it go on for way too long while we listened to the wussies in Europe and gave Iraq chance after chance. We are on the verge of making the same mistake with Iran.

Face it, there is NOTHING we can do that would get the Islamofacists off our back. They hate us, they consider it their mission from Allah to destroy us. We could withdraw out support for Israel tomorrow and it would not diminish by one whit their desire to destroy us.

No matter how ugly or unsightly or undesirable the thought of military action against Iran is it pales in comparison to what the scene will be when they have access to nuclear weapons. Period. No if's, and's or but's. They have declared war on us, a HOLY war in their minds, and if we don't do WHATEVER it takes to con vice them that they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of defeating us then we are in for a long, long fight that will just grow worse with time.

The sad part is that once an American city evaporates in a mushroom cloud we will suddenly find our willingness to deal with them, but by then a hundred thousand or more Americans will have died and their death will do nothing more than prove once and for all that preemptive, aggressive action against these animals is all that works. If those who practice the religion of 'peace' are too scared to separate themselves from the violent ones in their midst then they too will suffer.

[jwpjr]

re: Iraq has become a great problem for the global power America

What do they mean "has become" a great problem. They have been a problem for 20 years or more! That whole area of the world is a problem. We are FINALLY doing something concrete to solve the problem and it's not pretty. But we let it go on for way too long while we listened to the wussies in Europe and gave Iraq chance after chance. We are on the verge of making the same mistake with Iran.

Face it, there is NOTHING we can do that would get the Islamofacists off our back. They hate us, they consider it their mission from Allah to destroy us. We could withdraw out support for Israel tomorrow and it would not diminish by one whit their desire to destroy us.

No matter how ugly or unsightly or undesirable the thought of military action against Iran is it pales in comparison to what the scene will be when they have access to nuclear weapons. Period. No if's, and's or but's. They have declared war on us, a HOLY war in their minds, and if we don't do WHATEVER it takes to con vice them that they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of defeating us then we are in for a long, long fight that will just grow worse with time.

The sad part is that once an American city evaporates in a mushroom cloud we will suddenly find our willingness to deal with them, but by then a hundred thousand or more Americans will have died and their death will do nothing more than prove once and for all that preemptive, aggressive action against these animals is all that works. If those who practice the religion of 'peace' are too scared to separate themselves from the violent ones in their midst then they too will suffer.

[MNJohnnie]

Especially since the Chinese media still preaches the old virtues - its a pretty tough act and getting harder with the net.

The other problem for us is China is a pretty conformist society. During the Democracy rising period of the 1990s, only China was successful in crushing it's pro-Democracy movement. That in the interim China has had to move so far toward Capitalism is a sign that all is not well for the Commies. Since they do not pose an immediate threat, we have time to wait and see if their rising entrepreneurial class combined with the die off of the Old Guard will force political reform as well. I personally am hopeful. Freedom IS on the march everywhere. Not all battles can be won right now

[Dog Gone]

Your second objection is silly. Kissinger wasn't talking about land masses. He was talking about functioning countries. Asia is the same age as North America, but China is clearly older than the USA.

[MNJohnnie]

No matter how ugly or unsightly or undesirable the thought of military action against Iran is it pales in comparison to what the scene will be when they have access to nuclear weapons. Period. No if's, and's or but's. They have declared war on us, a HOLY war in their minds, and if we don't do WHATEVER it takes to con vice them that they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of defeating us then we are in for a long, long fight that will just grow worse with time

VERY well said. Funny how no one in the Establishment ever seems to learn the lessons of Munich and 1930s Appeasement of Nazidom.

[MNJohnnie]

but China is clearly older than the USA.

Depends on how you look at it. The current form of Govt ruling China as only been in power since 1948. The fall of the Chinese Emperor and rule by Bureaucrats did not happen until 1912. China as geographic identity is older but it form of Govt is MUCH younger.

[jwpjr]

The enemy we face in the war on terror is quite different from the enemy we faced in the Soviet Union or now with China. The enemy we face now is unlike any we have ever encountered. They live in a completely different world from the one we live in. I agree wholeheartedly that "American TV shows leaked in the Soviet Union had as much to do with the fall of that empire as did our military might." But in the Soviets were were facing an enemy that did not want to die. In their own paranoid way they felt nuclear weapons were a deterrent to attacks. Today's enemy does not see it that way. They want nuclear weapons for one reason and that is to use them. Regardless of how badly the people of Iran want a change their leaders are hell bent on having nuclear weapons.

I could be wrong, goodness knows I've been wrong as often as I've been right in my life, but I sense we are facing an enemy that will be not be stopped or contained by any method we've used on other enemies in our history.

Scary, isn't it?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Which China are you and Kissinger talking about?

Communist China is 56 years old.

The Republic of China is 93 years old.

[Dog Gone]

I'm not talking about the current flavor of government. China has been a civilized country for a very long time. We haven't.

Same with Japan, or any number of other nations that have at least a thousand more years of history, culture, and governance.

[Brilliant]

Kissinger's problem is that he sees things from the European viewpoint, but he's trying to rationalize the American viewpoint for the benefit of the Europeans. He can't tell them what we're actually thinking because he doesn't know.

The truth is that the Americans view the Europeans as allies who take, but don't give. For sixty years after we defeated Hitler, they were on the receiving end of American assistance, and then when we had just one occasion to request their assistance, they were no where to be found.

[Sam the Sham]

The political culture of a nation is a constant.

The political culture of China has been quite constant for millenia. From empire thru Kuomintang thru Maoism to now. That is why the Singapore of Lee Kuan Yew or current Taiwan isn't that terribly different from China now.

Leaving aside brief periods of aberration like the Chin Dynasty or the Cultural Revolution (which was an attempt to reengineer the political culture of China and failed completely).

[Yardstick]

The Chinese I've talked to have said the same thing -- that most Chinese see the present Communist government as being essentially, though not quite literally, a continuation of the ancient dynastic succession. They don't draw a line between ancient China and modern communist China.

[MNJohnnie]

China has been a civilized country for a very long time. We haven't.Same with Japan, or any number of other nations that have at least a thousand more years of history, culture, and governance.

So? Your point would be? "governance" is exactly what we WERE pointing out to yu.