Henry Kissinger’s Principles for Great Statecraft
Henry Kissinger is a fascinating figure. Born in Bavaria, Germany in 1923 to Jewish parents, his family fled their native homeland shortly before Kristallnacht when young Henry was just 15 to avoid Nazi persecution. His family initially went to London but eventually settled in the Big Apple: New York City. It should come as no surprise then that one of his biographers said he took a “dim view of humanity” but he definitely made the most of the opportunities presented in the US.
At that point I wouldn’t have put my money on Kissinger emerging as one of the most influential political figures in modern American history and one of the key architects of US Cold War foreign policy but he did and remained a wise old guru that president’s still often consult to this day. His impact was so far reaching that he is still quoted as an axiomatic figure by the British establishment.
Kissinger initially joined the US army where he fought in WWII, then got himself a Harvard education and eventually wound up in the White House. He emerged on the scene as a National security advisor to President Richard Nixon, after which he was promoted to Secretary of State, a position he held under Nixon’s successor Gerald Ford.
He had his fair share of foreign policy blunders (to put it lightly), but his Harvard academic background and voracious reading make him a mind to contend with. More so given he spent much of his time thinking about what makes a great statesman and an effective foreign policy.
In a recently published book titled World Order, Kissinger trained his mind on the question of how different societies conceive of the way international politics should be conducted, and the histories of how these ideas about international relations develop in those contexts. I personally think the book is a decent introduction to a broad topic but anyone with more than a baseline reading will cringe at some of the clichés in the book.
For instance, Kissinger says the “crusading spirit subsided in the Western world” because Christians came to understand the distinction between that which is Caesar’s and that which is God’s which permitted an “eventual evolution towards pluralistic, secular-based foreign policies within a state based international system.” Muslims on the other hand, “remain in a condition of inescapable confrontation with the outside world.”
I’m not really keeping count, but I’m sure over the last 500 years the number of Christian countries which have invaded Muslims ones is way higher than vice versa. Yes, that is an understatement. Perhaps Somalia and Ethiopia in 1977 and even then, Ethiopia’s population is almost half Muslim. But never mind. I also think a man of his political maturity and who has been involved in disastrous foreign adventures should be able to admit that conquest has unfortunately been a persistent feature of human history and all our religious and political dogmas have too often been marshalled to justify it.
Thus, whether an individual is fighting to expand the Islamic realm, propagate Communist ideals, or promote free markets and democracy, their reasoning ultimately rests on a new way to rationalise their decisions and generate public enthusiasm. In a breathtaking demonstration of this exact point, then president Donald Trump, who almost always lies, told Fox News journalist Bill O’Reilly who said Vladimir Putin is a killer, “there are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?”
In any case the book has an interesting reflection on the career of a French chief minister called Armand-Jean du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu. This is what Kissinger had to say about Richelieu:
“Maintaining the role for nearly two decades, the “red eminence” (so called because of his flowing red cardinal’s robes) became France’s chief minister, the power behind the throne, and the charting genius of a new concept of centralized statecraft and foreign policy based on the balance of power”
He was charitable. Pope Urban VIII was less so and when Richelieu died the Pope was reported to have said, “if there is a God, the Cardinal de Richelieu will have much to answer for. If not … well, he had a successful life.”
Kissinger will probably have a lot to answer for too but he takes three key lessons from the life of Richelieu about what it takes to be a great statesman which he summarises in a short, clear but wide-ranging passage:
“First, the indispensable element of a successful foreign policy is a long-term strategic concept based on a careful analysis of all relevant factors. Second, the statesman must distill that vision by analysing and shaping an array of ambiguous, often conflicting pressures into a coherent and purposeful direction. He (or she) must know where this strategy is leading and why. And, third, he must act at the outer edge of the possible, bridging the gap between his society’s experiences and its aspirations. Because repetition of the familiar leads to stagnation, no little daring is required.”
Originally published at https://noenchantedpalace.substack.com.
