Morality and Politics
He perceived the world not as a place for affirming values but as a space for maneuvers.
Diplomacy, for him, was a game. And politics, in general, was a game of calculation. He knew that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and did not believe in miracles of altruism, selflessness, sacrifice, etc. Perhaps, it was a trauma, explainable for the descendant of German Jews.
While President John F. Kennedy remained in history as an idealist advocating the ideals of a free world, Henry Kissinger became the embodiment of unscrupulousness and relativism in the name of tactical success—a talented political strategist, a seasoned diplomatic player.
President Richard Nixon, under whom he reached the peak of influence, suited him well—pragmatic, cynical, and career-oriented. But Nixon long ago and deservedly fell. Kissinger, the expert and advisor, did not lose his touch over decades.
He could say:
"I don't understand why we should stand aside and let a country become communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people".
"A country demanding moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security."
Kissinger's mystical triangle (USA-USSR-China: flirt with one partner at the expense of another) turned out to be ephemeral. Friendship with the USSR (détente) that prolonged the sluggish agony of the Soviet regime raises doubts. The rapprochement with Communist China also fails to convince in the long run.
Such is the nature of political tactics. Rarely are they loved by the descendants of those they benefited.
Could the politics of the second half of the 20th century have been more farsighted?
Theoretically, yes.
Practically, perhaps the nuclear sword of Damocles distorted proportions too much and created risks that required maneuvering.
On the right side
This sophisticated cynic, however, took the right side in the global confrontation.
Few in their right mind would prefer the ingloriously setting USSR or the Eastern despotism—China. And where to find something else? The success of the USA in the second half of the 20th century was a factor that generally ensured some semblance of order. The development of democratic institutions, the maturation of the idea of rights and freedoms as the main social norm.
Kissinger worked for the USA and aimed, in theory, at "pacification." Yet, it might be tempting, as he is laid to rest, to dismiss some (at least) of his decisions and means. Cambodia, Bangladesh, Argentina, Chile, Cyprus... Such was the century. Such were the people.
But we can also choose not to dismiss. Our time has a particular, delicate bias. And, I think, there will be more ready to condemn Kissinger than those ready to understand and accept him. Including in the USA, where neocons sharply criticized the departed, then very much alive and well.
Kissinger has passed away. The 20th century is archived.
Can we say that in the new century, humanity will more often choose principles over interests if the choice presents itself?
Easy to ask, hard to answer.
Related topics:
In the context of global conflicts, Kissinger aligned himself with the successful USA, viewing other options as less desirable.
Despite his actions in various countries, it remains debatable whether the politics of the 20th century could have been more principle-driven, considering the pressures of Cold War tensions.
