Henry Kissinger held influential roles as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser during the Nixon and Ford administrations, shaping American foreign policy for many decades.
His realpolitik approach downplayed the significance of the rule of law, human rights, and democratic norms in favor of prioritizing power. It excused aggressors, justified the actions of bullies and invaders, and demanded smaller nations to submit.
Despite Hans Morgenthau, the renowned father of modern realism, openly criticizing realpolitik and power politics in 1978 and warning of their potential harm to humanity, Henry Kissinger and many supporters continued to uphold and advocate for these ideologies. They clung tenaciously to their beliefs, adamantly convinced that fundamental change in human nature is unattainable, resisting alternative viewpoints and exploring different possibilities.
The ramifications of doggedly adhering to this international relations approach were severe. Kissinger orchestrated the overthrow of democratic governments, supported dictatorial regimes, and devastating policies, resulting in the deaths of millions. Subsequently, his evil deeds earned him the title of a notorious war criminal.
Jussi M. Hanhimaki, a professor in Geneva, Switzerland, labeled Kissinger a “war criminal” in a scathing book review. Christopher Hitchens, in 2001, placed Kissinger on a hypothetical trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, exposing his involvement in conflicts across Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, East Timor, Chile, Argentina, Cyprus, and beyond. He urged governments, including the United States, to bring Kissinger to justice. Kissinger’s “a thug, a crook, a liar, a pseudo-intellectual, and a murderer,” Hitchens stressed on another occasion.
In his book “A Cook’s Tour,” Anthony Bourdain expressed a visceral response to Kissinger’s actions, asserting that as soon as you’ve witnessed the consequences in Cambodia, the desire to hold Kissinger accountable becomes overwhelming. In Bourdain’s own touching words: “Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands... Witness what [he] did... and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević.”
Bernie Sanders found it insulting to receive advice from Kissinger and, in his 2018 book, also branded him a “war criminal.” A recent investigative piece by The Intercept alleged Kissinger’s responsibility for three million civilian deaths.
In 1972, to appease the Shah of Iran conflicting with Saddam Hussein, Kissinger supported a Kurdish uprising against Iraq. However, when Saddam reconciled with the Shah, Kissinger abandoned the Kurds, leaving them vulnerable to the mercy of the Iraqi dictator. When he appeared before the House Intelligence Committee in 1975, committee members asked him how he could justify his betrayal. He sarcastically responded, “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official, denounced Kissinger for green lighting the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and asserted that Henry Kissinger should apologize for serving Turkish imperialism. Gene Rossides (2014), a Republican who, like Kissinger, served under Nixon, wrote that Kissinger encouraged the Greek military regime in 1974 to overthrow President Makarios of Cyprus and later Turkey’s aggression on the island. He called for his indictment as a “war criminal,” holding him responsible for Greek-Cypriot deaths, missing individuals, rape, looting, pillaging, and ethnic cleansing.
In 2016, William Mallinson, a former British diplomat, exposed Kissinger’s detrimental realpolitik strategy, providing substantial evidence of his extensive involvement in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
A striking demonstration of Kissinger’s evil character is in the 1973 conversation with President Nixon, where he callously remarked about the Jewish population in Russia. He stated that if they were to subject Jews to gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not a matter that pertains to America, showing a lack of empathy even as a Holocaust survivor.
The above actions and behavior negate any purported successes credited to Kissinger in dealings with the Chinese or the Russians or during the 1973 Middle East war. The notion that the United States could not have adeptly managed its relationships with China or Russia without resorting to Kissinger’s harmful policies and entertaining speculations of hypothetical Superpower wars—which some of his supporters argue might have resulted in even more severe consequences—is unfounded. Embracing diplomatic strategies aligned with the rule of law is possible and essential for fostering peaceful and constructive international relations.
Kissinger stood in stark contrast to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a paragon of integrity and an extraordinary leader who staunchly opposed wars, championed international law and justice, and rejected the notion that human nature is inherently unchangeable and malevolent. An approach that could serve America’s interests best but is also in line with America’s core values.
Contrary to what Kissinger believed, promoting the rule of law is a fundamental imperative and ethical prerogative for the United States. It is essential that the country steadfastly upholds this paramount interest, refraining from compromising or undermining it in favor of less crucial considerations or short-term strategic goals. History attests to the disastrous consequences when nations deviate from international legal norms.
