Kissinger, the Realist
The Economist reviews Henry Kissinger’s latest book, a 586 page analysis of China (On China) and says it is a “no go,” which means it misses the mark. My impression is that what they object to most is Kissinger’s multi-culturalism. He overstates the importance of culture. Even more annoying is his conceit. He thinks he has an insight into Chinese culture that mere mortals cannot grasp. China’s foreign policy emphasizes strategic flexibility based on wei, says Kissinger. Wei means avoiding encirclement.
Anatoly Dobrynin, in his autobiography (In Confidence), writes about receiving a dinner invitation from Kissinger after Ronald Reagan was elected. He says he soon discovered why Kissinger wanted to speak with him. He wanted a job in the Reagan administration. Dobrynin was supposed to make it clear that America’s relationship with the Soviet Union would suffer if Kissinger was no longer involved.
Reagan was a universalist who wanted nothing to do with Kissinger. Reagan believed people in all cultures wanted to be free. He detested detente, because it meant accepting the permanence of the cold war. He was an idealist, and Kissinger was a realist who believed peace was dependent on maintaining a balance of power. He was a disciple of Metternich. This, of course, meant he did not believe democracy was a universal idea.
The Economist writes that Kissinger does not tell the full story of America’s evolving relationship with China. Initially, it was meant to be an alliance against the Soviet Union. Now it is an interdependency that could become a more direct conflict. It could be a repeat of Germany’s rise, which inevitably led to a confrontation with Great Britain.
The Economist believes Kissinger should have explained the thinking behind the communique signed after Richard Nixon’s first visit to China, whereby America acknowledged that all Chinese, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, believed there is only one China. Clearly, there are many people in Taiwan that does not accept this. The Economist says it shows that China’s leaders, and Kissinger, do not let public opinion get in the way of grand geopolitical designs.
Kissinger contrasts the Chinese wei with the Western preference for chess. This means a single-minded effort to destroy the opponent’s pieces. It is confrontational, not flexible. But the Economist says Kissinger is unable to show that China’s foreign policy is always flexible and subtle. Its involvement in the Korean war meant twenty years of isolation. It is hardly a triumph for wei. Kissinger also admits that China’s recent foreign policy has more in common with Bismarck than Mao.
Kissinger rarely admits an error, but he writes about the time foreign minister Chou En Lai “lost his serenity.” Chou had been attacked by Mao’s supporters for being too Confucian. Kissinger must not have been aware of this, because he said at a dinner that China today was Confucian, in that it believed in a single, universal truth. That truth was Marxism. The Economist says this was an extraordinary gaffe.
The distinction between realism and idealism is not clear, and it is wrong to place culture ahead of human nature. China’s foreign policy today is not dictated by its history. It is easy to shift from Mao to Bismarck. Our own Barack Obama demonstrated his flexibility when he abandoned his Cairo speech and adopted Bush’s freedom agenda. America’s culture today changed in the 1960’s, when we laminated personal freedom to a commitment to political causes. But our nature is the same. We are just as selfish now as we were before the 1960’s. All we did was shift our intolerance away from personal behavior to political beliefs.
One Response to “Kissinger, the Realist”
Leave a Reply
[...] Originally Posted by Cael I thought the bit about how China took control of the US economy was very ironic. Mind you, they seem to have made a bollix of it. But, the Chinese play a long game. Maybe they know what they're doing. Particularly as it seems the US is going to be forced to withdraw from Africa and South America, and leave them to the Chinese to exploit. Well known, the deficits are funded by recycled Chinese money, which is made by selling to the US. The Chinese always play the long game. They ingratiated themselves with Clinton (when the Neo Cons were savaging him they funded his campaign) then as Bush trashed the economy (the twin deficits, the tax cuts helped his plutocrat chums & family) with help from the neo con loopers & the Randian Greenspan. Here's Kissinger on them – he writes about Wei- encirclement of another, looks like that's what they are doing to the West, especially the US. Kissinger, the Realist | The Hagar Review [...]