First, let me say that I know Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under President Nixon, can be a conservative asshole, and that he is perhaps the staunchest ideologue/ practitioner of Realpolitik. He is wanted in several countries on charges of abetting genocide. Further, His
Diplomacy is written in a sometimes sickening supercilious tone.
Diplomacy is nonetheless extremely insightful. The 800 page, 900 pound tome chronicles the art of diplomacy from the seventeenth century to the early nineties post Cold War era. It is really a great history lesson for me to learn about all of these important European and American figures.
It seems the central theme of the book that is recapitulated at each analysis of events is that Realpolitik works, whereas idealism only foments more complicated problems. The heroes of the oeuvre include Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Cardinal Richelieu, Chancellor Bismarck, and even Stalin to a certain extent, all shrewd calculators of their respective countries' national interest. The villains, who were either completely inept or too reliant on concepts such as international law or public opinion to be practical, include Woodrow Wilson, Napoleon III, and Eisenhower.
It is no coincidence that many of the leaders disdained by Kissinger are American. He describes America as the first country to consistently overlook its national interest in the name of law and morality. He credits America's oceanic barriers as the reason for this - European countries never entertained that possibility because a misstep in regards to the national interest most certainly would lead to lost territory.
While Kissinger concedes that WWI was a result of Realpolitik turning in on itself, WWII was definitely a failure of
collective security. (a framework in which should any member country be attacked by any aggressor, all countries must come to the aid of victim nation. For instance, NATO is an organization of collective security. While it is unlikely, had Russia attacked a NATO member instead of an aspiring NATO member like Georgia, all NATO countries would have declared war. )
The problem was that France and Great Britain were pretending to adhere to collective security vis a vis Germany, except that Germany crossed many lines before either country actually committed themselves to upholding the principles of collective security; this was the policy of appeasement. The result was exponentially worse than had both countries acted in their national interests, which would have required Great Britain and France to align themselves against Germany at the first breach of the Versailles treaty. Thus, in most circumstances, it is safest to act in one's national interest as opposed to some far flung ideal like collective security or human rights.
I suppose I agree with the guy to a certain extent. The US would exhaust itself it went to war with every country that violated its ideals. Hell, we'd be at war with ourselves. Indeed, Kissinger mentions briefly that where the US rebuked the use of force as an ideal in most circumstances, like the Suez Canal crisis, it had no problem having leaders of unfriendly regimes killed or deposed secretly. Does Panama ring a bell anyone? I guess our ideals only cover what is seen by the public at the time.
The implications of Realpolitik can be frightening though. Kissinger views the War in Iraq as justified by American national interests to secure oil for energy security, though he does have qualms with the way the war was managed after Hussein's regime was toppled.
One might question if the world could ever know peace if every government practiced realism. I imagine Kissinger responding that there will never be peace anyway, and not fighting for the sake of not fighting is what led to the disastrous Second World War. Cruel it may be, but thus is the inner workings of a great Jewish mind of the twentieth century.
Posts
