Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
Print
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is best known for instituting the concept of "detente" with the former Soviet Union, which began the thaw of the Cold War between the United States and the U.S.S.R. He is credited with helping to open relations with communist China during the Nixon administration, and his many accomplishments include being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his role in the Vietnam issue. He will be at Heinz Hall tonight for "A Conversation with Paul O'Neill and Henry Kissinger" to benefit Gilda's Club of Western Pennsylvania. For tickets call 412-392-4900. It starts at 7:30.
How has globalization changed the job of secretary of state?
In the political world, the word globalization didn't exist, but one of the principles we tried to carry out when I was in government was the idea of linkage, which meant the same as globalization, that events are related in different parts of the world. What has changed, of course, are two factors: the economic world is more globalized than it had been say 20 years ago, and the political world has become more fragmented. Asia has become a much more active participant. The developing countries are generating at a faster rate of growth than the developed world.
See the You've said the G-8 should be expanded. In some ways isn't that what the G-20 is?
Well, that's exactly right. It happened in Pittsburgh. The G-8 to all practical purposes was abolished. The G-20 is taking its place. The G-20 includes the G-8 plus countries like Brazil, China and India that are technically still part of the development process but in reality are probably economically stronger over a period of time than many of the G-8 countries.
Sanctions and military solutions seem to be ineffective unless applied indefinitely, so does that mean diplomatic solutions must take center stage in this precarious world?
Conceptually it is an American tendency to try and isolate diplomacy from other factors. But in practice diplomats are affected by the economic relationships, power relationships of the world. So yes, force can be used less. It also depends on which countries you are talking about. For the major countries, the use of force has become more complicated. For the sub-state organizations that have no territory to defend, like the terrorist groups, that is not the case. They are more prone to use force and that creates a sort of imbalance. On the one hand you have states with overwhelming power, but they find it difficult to bring it to bear on specific issues like Afghanistan. Sanctions against a country like Iran can work if they are severe enough, but the difficulty that arises is that some countries do sanctions primarily for symbolic reasons.
Can a diplomatic solution be found when it comes to Iran and its nuclear ambitions? And if not, then what?
Well, that's what they elected Obama for and not me. I think the diplomatic solution will be very difficult under the best of circumstances. It will take awhile although it's beginning to look as though the Iranians have at least taken another consideration. It doesn't mean they will do anything. Whatever is agreed to on the nuclear issue will require very detailed verification. It is now apparent they have built a new plant that they have officially acknowledged and must have been built over a period of many years. It was not discovered until fairly recently. So any agreement will have to have very strict verification. Then what do we do if we cannot come to an agreement? Then we have to have severe sanctions. Iran is vulnerable to severe sanctions on the financial side and with respect to the import of gasoline because they have very few refineries.
Isn't China one of Iran's big suppliers of refined gas?
I don't actually know. I am not sure about that quite frankly, but your question really leads to will China participate and to what extent? In the long term China has the same interests as we do about the spread of nuclear weapons. But they need oil because they are producing none or very little themselves. They will be torn, but China's participation in the sanctions if sanctions become necessary will be a key element.
In some ways isn't it better if Osama bin Laden dies in obscurity somewhere rather than being caught and turned into some kind of martyr?
I think if he disappeared from the face of the Earth that would be the best outcome. Of course, I would like it to be demonstrated that when you attack the United States there is a severe penalty and that we know how to penalize our mortal enemies. But I am not eager to have him in prison in America.
Do you think we have demonstrated that?
Well, it's always easy to say we haven't done enough, but if you compare our record with that of any other country in the world, we've really been pretty persistent. I often think we could have done more, but I also recognize that almost all resistance to aggression in the last 20 years, 50 years has been organized from America.
You've learned over the years how to deal with inflated egos. So how do you do that, and how do you keep yours in check?
Some people argue that I don't have my ego under perfect control. I have studied a lot of history, so when you study history you learn something about the fragility of human desires. So when you think about yourself you keep that in mind. On the other hand when you represent your country, you have to represent its strengths and its purposes. So in the nature of things that leads you to certain assertiveness. In the final analysis, I have found to be a good diplomat, you need a number of qualities. One is patience. Second, you need to understand where you can rationally go.
[Finally, you need] A realistic assessment of your own possibilities and a realistic assessment of what the other side is attempting to do and what they can reasonably accept. When the gap is so wide about what can reasonably be accepted (this might be the case with Iran), one pattern I like to think I always followed when I conducted negotiations was to tell my opposite number exactly what I wanted and what I was after so he could assess my proposals in terms of his requirements, and we didn't have to waste too much time testing each other out. Some people think the best way to proceed is to state your maximum conditions. I don't think that works. When you do that and then you start cutting back, the other side never knows what your stopping point is, and it goes on and on and on.
So you start with the bottom line.
I start with close to the bottom line.
How do you think Hillary Clinton is doing?
It's the first year so you can't tell yet in terms of results. I think she is handling herself well. She's very intelligent. Very self-possessed. We are at the beginning phases of a lot of things. The Palestinian issue, the Iranian issue and the arms control issue. But on the whole I am well disposed to what she is doing.
Mackenzie Carpenter's video program, "Omnivore," is available exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.
