Connect with us

DIPLOMACY

A short portrait of Kissinger: Smart, realistic, ruthless

Published

on

“In September 1974, Mário Soares, foreign minister of the interim government and leader of the Portuguese Socialist Party, met with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Washington. Kissinger rebuked Soares and other moderates for not acting more decisively to prevent a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship.

‘You are a Kerensky,’ Kissinger told Soares, ‘I believe your sincerity, but you are naive.’

To which Soares replied: ‘I certainly don’t want to be a Kerensky.’

And Kissinger shot back: ‘Neither did Kerensky.'”

The conversation between Henry Kissinger, now turned 100, and Mário Soares, who after the Carnation Revolution in 1974 feared that his country would fall into the hands of revolutionaries led by the Portuguese Communist Party and officers sympathetic to communism, is narrated by Samuel Huntington, author of the infamous ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis. Europe looked set for another October 1917, not only in Portugal, but also in Greece and Italy in those years. Outside Europe, in the ‘third world’, especially in Vietnam, the US, the leading power of the world capitalist system, was being defeated; imperialism as a whole seemed to be in the process of collapse. On top of that, the economic depression shook all the developed countries in the 70s. Not only the optimistic and rational revolutionaries, but also the administrators and ideologues in charge of the system’s functioning thought that the end was imminent.

Huntington says with a sigh of relief that in 1974 the revolutionary crises all along the Southern European line ended with the ‘victory of the Kerenskys’. With this period, the ‘third wave of democratization’ had begun. At the intermediate stop, the world socialist system, headed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was also dissolving.

Henry Kissinger certainly had the lion’s share in this ‘liberation’ of imperialism. Kissinger’s name should be inscribed among the likes of George Kennan, the sharp ideologue and practitioner of the Cold War, and perhaps even higher. Kissinger was a brilliant imperialist administrator and ideologue who managed to be both realistic, calculating and cold-blooded, and at the same time sneaky, ruthless and above all anticommunist. In any case, without the combination of all these things, it would have been much more difficult for imperialism in crisis in the 1970s and seemingly doomed to collapse to emerge victorious from a new period of aggression, even though it is not possible for individuals to change the course of history on their own.

Kissinger, known today, and rightly so, as the architect of China’s integration into the world system, was also one of the architects of the atrocities in Cambodia and Vietnam. And these were not mutually exclusive: Anyone who has read Kissinger’s Diplomacy cannot conceal the imperialist arrogance of an eternal belief in the intertwining of American national interests and ‘global’ domination. Realism is the complementary element of this arrogance.

In fact, this ‘realism’ explains how the imperialist doctrine of ‘manifest destiny’, as passed down from the American founding fathers, has also turned into a support for fascist dictatorships. Chilean documents from the US National Security Archive provide us with evidence we do not really need: In a meeting in Santiago in June 1976, Kissinger praised the head of the military dictatorship, Augusto Pinochet, saying exactly the following: “We want to help, not undermine you. We are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here. You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende. My evaluation is that you are a victim of all left-wing groups around the world, and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government which was going Communist.”

Later, however, he informed the general that he had postponed a speech he was to deliver at a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Chile, in which he was to address ‘human rights violations’ under Pinochet. Kissinger explained that he had to do this to prevent the US Congress, which had ‘problems’ with human rights, from approving sanctions against Chile, saying: “I wanted you to understand my position. We want to deal in moral persuasion, not by legal sanctions.” Kissinger adds that ‘announcing’ the measures taken on human rights would indeed ‘help’, and Pinochet replies that Chile is ‘returning to institutionalization step by step’. And that’s it.

There is no need to recall the role played by the same Kissinger in the covert operations and acts of violence launched to overthrow Allende. It is only necessary to know this to illustrate the moral standards of the American foreign policy gurus who believe that they have been given the right to remake the world in their image. Kissinger also deserves attention for his mastery of the ‘diplomatic virtuosity’ and ‘global values’ of protecting the imperialist hierarchy through military means and defending American interests by going on the offensive at a time when US hegemony was showing signs of decline.

Indeed, this shrewd administrator himself frankly admits this in his book cited above:

“Had America not organized resistance when a self-confident communist empire was acting as if it represented the wave of the future and was causing the peoples and leaders of the world to believe that this might be so, the Communist Parties, which were then already the largest single parties in postwar Europe, might well have prevailed. The series of crises over Berlin could not have been sustained, and there would have been more of them. Exploiting America’s post-Vietnam trauma, the Kremlin sent proxy forces to Africa and its own troops into Afghanistan. It would have become far more assertive had America not protected the global balance of power and helped to rebuild democratic societies. That America did not perceive its role in terms of the balance of power compounded its pain and complicated the process, but it also served to bring about unprecedented dedication and creativity. Nor did it change the reality that it was America which had preserved the global equilibrium and therefore the peace of the world.”

It is all the more significant that the two countries that this brilliant and brutal imperialist administrator never concealed his disgust, contempt, fear and, surprisingly, his crush when describing their representatives were the Soviet Union and Vietnam. ‘Good bargaining’, which should be one of the most important qualities of a diplomat, is ‘tiresome’, ‘retail bargaining’ (whereas the Chinese ‘want to reassure their counterparts’) in the case of Molotov and Gromyko; when it comes to Xuan Thuy and Le Duc Tho, speaking on behalf of the Vietnamese during the negotiations, they either explain the Vietnamese position in ‘a long speech that everyone knows’ or ‘with impeccable politeness, cold demeanor to show moral superiority, and words taken from a Marxist lexicon incomprehensible to ignorant imperialists,’ while it is a blessing for the Vietnamese to even negotiate with the US for their country.

There is no need to recount Kissinger’s entire career, which is now well documented. The reader who wishes and has the time to search the archives in English can access the declassified documents here. Moreover, this brilliant and conversely ‘class-conscious’ executive has more to say to his enemies than to his friends. “He confuses politics with intrigue,” a biographer wrote some thirty years ago, quoting Napoleon as saying of Metternich: “Kissinger was a master of both.” He was a child of the imperialist epoch, when capitalist politics became intrigue. It is not therefore unfair to this master diplomat to characterize him in the same biography as a tactician who planned the necessary steps to fulfill a mission rather than a strategist who formulated grand goals. In an age when economics is shrinking into international relations, politics and military preparations, it corresponds to his lack of understanding of the international economy. “This is a minor economic issue,” Kissinger said in a debate with Nixon’s Secretary of Commerce, Peter Peterson, to which his interlocutor had to reply, “Henry, that’s verbiage for you because you despise any economic assessment.” Nixon himself admits that he never thought Kissinger could fill that role because they were planning to put someone with economic expertise in the State Department.

Thus, eternal and unconditional commitment to the national and world domination of his class is the clay from which this resourceful man is formed. Those who know him and those who have negotiated with him (including his enemies) acknowledge his intellectual capacity. If saving the world from communism and doing it in a way that suited American interests is the greatest achievement of a US diplomat in the 20th century, Kissinger should be at the top of the ‘honor list’.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

Chinese satellite company to challenge Musk’s Starlink in Brazil

Published

14 hours ago

on

21/11/2024

By

A Chinese state-backed company is set to launch a satellite internet service in Brazil, aiming to rival Elon Musk’s Starlink.

Spacesail, a developer of high-speed internet services via satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO), made the announcement during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Brazil. The visit marked the signing of an expanded partnership with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

This development follows ongoing tensions between Musk, owner of SpaceX and its Starlink subsidiary, and Brazilian authorities over allegations of misinformation on his X social media network.

According to Chinese state media, Spacesail has partnered with Brazil’s state-owned Telebrás to deliver satellite communications and broadband internet to underserved areas.

A spokesperson for the Brazilian communications ministry stated that the companies would assess demand in regions lacking fiber-optic infrastructure, with plans to launch the service by 2026.

“Spacesail is committed to being Brazil’s long-term partner,” CEO Jie Zheng told reporters on Tuesday.

Musk-Lula tensions highlight Starlink’s market dominance

Brazil is actively encouraging competitors to Starlink, which controls nearly 50% of the satellite internet market in Latin America.

Earlier this year, Musk faced legal challenges in Brazil after refusing to comply with court orders to remove accounts allegedly promoting extremist content on X. This led to a temporary ban on the platform and fines for Starlink, further straining Musk’s relationship with Brazil’s left-wing government.

Tensions resurfaced recently when Brazil’s First Lady, Rosângela Lula da Silva, addressed Musk during an event on social media regulation.

Spacesail’s announcement aligns with concerns over waning U.S. influence in South America, often regarded as Washington’s “backyard.”

During his diplomatic tour, Xi Jinping attended the opening of a Chinese-built mega-port in Peru before traveling to Rio de Janeiro for the G20 summit. In Brasília, he and Lula upgraded their bilateral relationship to a “Sino-Brazilian community with a shared future”, emphasizing a fairer, more sustainable world.

The two leaders signed 37 agreements spanning agriculture, trade, infrastructure, technology, and industry. However, Brazil declined to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), signaling confidence in securing Chinese investments without full membership.

Operating under the name Shanghai Spacecom Satellite Technology, Spacesail plans to accelerate satellite deployment with a target of 15,000 LEO satellites by 2030. The company launched its first rounds of satellites in August and October this year, showcasing its rapid growth and potential to disrupt the market.

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

China refuses to meet with U.S. Defence Secretary

Published

2 days ago

on

20/11/2024

By

China has reportedly refused to meet with the United States Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin at the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting-Plus in Laos this week.

According to CNN, Austin sought a meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Dong Jun, during the event as part of ongoing efforts to maintain military communication channels between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. However, a senior defence official traveling with Austin in Laos revealed that China rejected the offer, citing the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan as a key factor.

Three weeks ago, the United States approved a $2 billion arms deal with Taiwan, which included the provision of advanced surface-to-air missiles—marking the first time Taiwan has received such systems. China condemned the sale and vowed to take “resolute countermeasures” to protect its sovereignty.

China’s decision to decline the meeting in Laos follows just days after U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping held what the U.S. described as a “cordial and constructive” meeting in San Francisco. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan emphasized that the dialogue was “wide-ranging” and not focused on mediating between Beijing and the incoming U.S. administration.

Relations between the two nations have remained strained since then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, which prompted China to sever multiple lines of communication with the United States, including those related to military and climate cooperation. While military-to-military communication had recently resumed following the Biden-Xi meeting, this latest refusal highlights continued tensions in U.S.-China relations.

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

G20 calls for more aid for Gaza, two-state solution and peace in Ukraine

Published

3 days ago

on

19/11/2024

By

The leaders of the world’s 20 largest economies issued a joint statement on Monday calling for a global deal to fight hunger, more aid for war-torn Gaza and an end to hostilities in the Middle East and Ukraine.

The joint statement was approved by members of the group, but not unanimously. It also called for a future global tax on billionaires and reforms to the United Nations Security Council to allow it to expand beyond its current five permanent members.

At the start of the three-day meeting, which officially ends on Wednesday, experts doubted that Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva would be able to persuade the assembled leaders to reach an agreement at a meeting fraught with uncertainty over the new administration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and heightened global tensions due to wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.

Argentina objected to some language in early drafts and was the only country not to endorse the entire document.

Still, the fact that a joint statement was issued was a ‘success’ for Lula.

The declaration condemned wars and called for peace, but did not condemn any crimes.

Gaza and Ukraine on the agenda

Referring to the ‘catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and the escalation in Lebanon’, the declaration stressed the need to increase humanitarian aid and better protect civilians.

“We reaffirm the Palestinian right to self-determination and reiterate our unwavering commitment to the vision of a two-state solution, with Israel and the state of Palestine living side by side in peace,” it said.

Israeli attacks have so far killed more than 43,000 Palestinians in Gaza and more than 3,500 in Lebanon, according to local health officials.

Biden, who met with G20 leaders before the statement was issued, suggested that ‘Hamas is solely responsible for the war’ and called on other leaders to ‘increase pressure on Hamas’ to accept a ceasefire agreement.

Biden’s decision to ease restrictions on Ukraine’s use of longer-range U.S. missiles, allowing it to strike Russia, was also on the agenda for the meeting.

“The United States strongly supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. I think everyone around this table should do the same,” Biden said at the summit.

Russian President Vladimir Putin did not attend the meeting, sending Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov instead. The G20 statement highlighted the ‘humanitarian suffering in Ukraine’ and called for peace, without mentioning Russia.

Billionaire tax and the fight against hunger

The statement called for a possible tax on global billionaires, which Lula also supports. Such a tax would affect about 3,000 people worldwide, including about 100 in Latin America.

The declaration also included a clause promoting gender equality.

Argentina signed the G20 declaration but had problems with references to the UN’s 2030 sustainable development agenda. Far-right President Javier Milei described the agenda as a ‘supranational programme of a socialist nature’. He also objected to calls to regulate hate speech on social media, which Milei said violated national sovereignty, and to the idea that governments should do more to fight hunger.

Much of the declaration focuses on Lula’s priority of eradicating hunger.

The Brazilian government stressed that Lula’s launch of the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty on Monday was at least as important as the final G20 declaration. As of Monday, 82 countries had signed the plan, the Brazilian government said. The plan is also supported by organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Call for United Nations reform

Leaders have pledged to work for ‘transformative reform’ of the UN Security Council to ‘adapt it to the realities and demands of the 21st century, making it more representative, inclusive, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable’.

Nearly eighty years after the founding of the United Nations, almost all countries agree that the Security Council needs to be expanded to reflect the world of the 21st century and to include more voices. The main dilemma and the biggest disagreement are how to do this. The G20 statement did not answer this question.

“We call for an expanded composition of the Security Council that improves the representation of underrepresented and under-represented regions and groups, such as Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean,” the declaration said.

Shortly before the UN summit in September, the United States announced its support for two new non-permanent seats for African countries and a first non-permanent seat for small island developing states. But the Group of Four – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – prefer each other’s proposals for permanent seats. The larger Uniting for Consensus group of a dozen countries, including Pakistan, Italy, Turkey and Mexico, wants additional non-permanent seats for longer terms.

Xi backs calls for reform and equality

Speaking at the summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized the interests of the so-called global south, which includes emerging economies, and called for reform of international institutions and consensus on how to achieve parity in finance, trade, digital technology, and the environment.

The Chinese leader said artificial intelligence should not be ‘a game of rich countries and the rich’ and stressed the need to improve digital governance for inclusive economic globalization.

Xi reiterated host Brazil’s call for greater economic equality, including poverty eradication and reform of institutions such as global creditors for developing countries.

Xi called for reform of the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism to return to normal operation “as soon as possible”. The mechanism remains in limbo as the U.S. has blocked appointments to the Appellate Body over concerns of judicial activism.

China had filed a dispute settlement case at the WTO after the European Union imposed new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles last month.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey