On February 7th, 1999, Henry Kissinger was interviewed as part of a retrospective series that CNN did on the Cold War. Near the end of the session, the interviewer asked Kissinger for a broad view of where things stood in the present. Here’s that exchange:
INT: Looking at the world then, looking at the world now, a new world order… is there a new world order? Is there a constant theme: what should be the purpose of United States foreign policy? What is the object of United States foreign policy?
HK: The object of United States foreign policy today is the big issue we are facing. In the Cold War period it was really an application of traditional American convictions; that is to say, it was the application of the New Deal and our experiences in two world wars to a global scene. The New Deal taught us that if you narrow the disparity between social classes, social stability will occur. And at least… particularly the Second World War taught us – “taught” in quotation marks – that resisting aggression was the preeminent goal of American foreign policy, and that more or less was adequate to the conditions of that period. At the present time we have this dilemma: American foreign policy without idealism is inconceivable, because this is what America has represented to itself in that society of people who turned their back on Europe and settled here on the basis of conviction. On the other hand, we do not have a clear-cut ideological enemy, and we are now no longer able to present foreign policy to ourselves as a series of solutions to specific problems. Whether we like it or not – and many don’t like it – we are now part of the system, which means there’s no exit, that every solution is an admissions ticket to another problem. And it’s something that Europeans and Chinese have no difficulty at all – it doesn’t even have to explained to them – but for Americans it evokes great rebellion, and it therefore is obviously believed that there is something out there, and now they’re sort of looking for an enemy in China or somewhere, a rallying principle of policy that can be given a terminal date. This is our big challenge right now, whether we can marry American idealism to some degree of…We keep talking about “world order” – there is no world order as such now. Any international system represents some system of order in some abstract sense, but the world of the Eighties has been totally transformed in the Nineties, and at the end of it some order will emerge, in the sense of some principles by which disputes get settled – or not settled. But we are not there yet, and we don’t have a precise blueprint and we can’t have a precise blueprint.
The setting here is the late Clinton years, after the al-Qaeda embassy bombings in Africa and before the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. At this point, for Kissinger, terrorism has not yet stepped into the breach to provide a rallying principle for U.S. foreign policy. He talks of a “great rebellion” in American foreign policy circles against the idea that we have to work as part of an international system, and that people are always trying to drum up a new enemy (often China) to provide focus.
Notice, also, what he said at the beginning, that, “The New Deal taught us that if you narrow the disparity between social classes, social stability will occur.”
Now, step back for a minute. Try to forget the debate about Kissinger being buddy-buddy with Clinton. Ignore Kissinger’s deplorable record in many areas. Just look at the substance and merits of what I’ve quoted above and how it can be applied to the current presidential campaign.
You have, on the one hand, Bernie Sanders arguing vociferously that income inequality is not just wrong but that it’s tearing this country apart. It’s undermining social stability.
You have, on the other hand, Donald Trump arguing that we can be great again if we focus on a few rallying principles, including the threat of terrorism (ISIS) and the nefarious and double-dealing influence of China.
China actually represents a bogeyman to both candidates, but with Sanders it’s more about American decisions (e.g. granting most-favored nation status and outsourcing) than Chinese ones (e.g. currency devaluation).
You can hold, simultaneously, that Kissinger is a war criminal and that he has much saner worldview than the neocons and Donald Trump.
I’m pretty sure he’s more sympathetic to what Sanders is saying about income inequality than he is to the foreign policies of Donald Trump or any of the other Republicans.
That doesn’t mean he should be accepted in polite company or that people are wrong to object when Hillary Clinton cites him as a job reference.
But it’s worth noting, I think.
