HENRY KISSINGER – THE NOSTRADAMUS OF THE 20TH CENTURY: The Shadow Play in the Chess Game of World Order! He Predicted Events That Shaped Our World
A philosopher of power, who deeply understood the mechanisms that drive history. His realpolitik, often criticised, proved to be exceptionally accurate in predicting future conflicts and crises. His legacy reminds us that history and politics are cyclical processes, and that nations' behaviour patterns repeat throughout the centuries. He was the Nostradamus of the 20th century. His predictions were so precise that it seemed as if he had access to some secret knowledge. From the breakup of Yugoslavia to the rise of China, Kissinger foresaw the events that shaped our world.
Henry Kissinger, a name indelibly etched into the annals of world politics, is often described as a brilliant mind who shaped the course of the 20th century. His role in ending the Vietnam War, opening relations with the People’s Republic of China, and easing tensions between superpowers during the Cold War made him an icon of realpolitik. However, while his name is synonymous with complex geopolitical moves and diplomatic successes, a question often posed is: who was Henry Kissinger really? Was he an architect of peace, dedicated to stability and cooperation, or was he, on the contrary, a cold-blooded player on the geopolitical chessboard, willing to do whatever it took to achieve his goals, regardless of the cost?
His philosophy of international relations, rooted in the balance of power, shaped all of his key moves. Kissinger believed that global stability could only be maintained through a delicate balance between the world's major powers. His pragmatic approach relied on understanding political realities, where sometimes, he believed, moral principles had to be adapted to achieve a broader goal – a stable and predictable world order.
However, what set him apart was not just theory, but his ability to translate that vision into real political moves. Through negotiations, behind-closed-doors agreements, and often unpopular decisions, Kissinger helped shape the end of the Cold War. Yet, his pragmatic approach was always under scrutiny. Critics accused him of being overly realistic in his approach, neglecting moral issues and placing national interests above human rights.
Kissinger’s visit to the People’s Republic of China in 1971, which led to the opening of relations between the two largest world powers, is considered one of his greatest achievements. At the time, relations between China and the United States were at an exceptionally low point. After the Korean War and the Chinese Revolution, the West viewed Maoist China as a dangerous enemy. However, Kissinger recognised an opportunity – in a world divided between the United States and the Soviet Union, China could become a key partner in balancing influence.
Kissinger’s secret visit to Beijing, organised in cooperation with President Richard Nixon, changed the course of history. This diplomatic move not only led to the restoration of relations between China and the US but fundamentally altered the geopolitical order. China emerged from isolation and entered the international stage, and the relations between the two countries opened doors to future economic and political partnerships. This move is considered by many to be one of the most significant diplomatic successes of the 20th century.
However, despite the widespread recognition of this success, there were those who criticised it. Kissinger’s moves toward China were met with opposition from US allies, particularly in Asia. Taiwan, which had until then been officially recognised as the legitimate Chinese government, found itself in an unenviable position. Kissinger’s rapprochement with Mao Zedong’s regime led to the severing of formal relations with Taiwan, sparking outrage in the island’s political circles.
A Moral Dilemma or Necessity?
One of the most frequent criticisms of Kissinger concerns his philosophy of “realpolitik” – a policy based on pragmatic rather than idealistic principles. Kissinger believed that international relations could not always be governed by ethical norms. Instead, he argued that stability was the key goal, even if achieving it required compromising moral principles.
Kissinger’s flexibility and willingness to adapt to changing circumstances were key to his success. He was aware that the world was constantly changing and that national interests needed to be redefined to adapt to those changes. His ability to understand complex geopolitical games and find compromises made him an indispensable negotiator on the world stage.
However, that same flexibility was often the subject of criticism. His critics accused him of inconsistency and being too pragmatic. His policy of balancing the interests of great powers sometimes led to completely contradictory policies. For instance, while on one hand, he worked to open relations with China, on the other hand, Kissinger was accused of supporting authoritarian regimes and dictators across the world, often sacrificing democratic values in favour of a broader geopolitical strategy.
The Most Controversial Episode
One of the most controversial episodes of Kissinger’s career was his role in ending the Vietnam War. Although some praised his diplomatic skill, which led to the signing of the Paris Agreement in 1973, formally ending US involvement in Vietnam, others accused him of prolonging the war and causing unnecessary bloodshed.
While Kissinger’s role in ending the Vietnam War brought peace, the price of that peace was high. His policy of bombing drew global condemnation and left lasting scars on Southeast Asia. Kissinger often justified his decisions by claiming that it was necessary to "raise the cost" for the Viet Cong to bring them to the negotiating table.
Kissinger’s legacy still sparks divided reactions. On the one hand, his diplomatic successes, including the opening of China, arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union, and ending the Vietnam War, place him among the greatest strategists of the modern era. His ability to foresee global changes and adapt to them made him one of the most influential politicians of the 20th century.
Kissinger remains a figure who cannot easily be placed into simple categories. His legacy is complex and contradictory. While some see him as a brilliant strategist and architect of the world order, others view him as a cold-blooded politician willing to sacrifice moral values in the name of pragmatism. His legacy will continue to inspire debates, and his role in shaping the world as we know it today remains indisputable.
The Dark Side – Ethical Dilemmas and Controversies
Behind the brilliant facade of Kissinger’s diplomacy lie numerous controversies and ethical dilemmas. His role in bombing civilians in Vietnam, support for authoritarian regimes, and disregard for human rights are just some of the dark stains on his reputation.
When Henry Kissinger took on the role of National Security Advisor in Richard Nixon’s administration, the Vietnam War was already deeply embedded in America’s collective consciousness. Endless images of soldiers in the jungle, napalm explosions, and the smell of inevitable defeat hung over the White House. Kissinger, a cold and calculated strategist, realised that the war could not end the way it began – with the hope of a quick victory – but through merciless realpolitik.
Kissinger quickly recognised Vietnam as a chess game, but it involved more than just two players. Behind the scenes, neutral Laos and Cambodia provided logistical support to the Viet Cong, using territorial advantages in a cross-border war. Kissinger proposed something that to many would seem politically immoral – the secret bombing of Cambodia.
Operation “Menu”, named after dishes from military operations, was brutal. B-52 bombers of the US Air Force descended upon Cambodian jungles, aiming to destroy Viet Cong supplies and shelters. Kissinger justified this action by claiming it was necessary to shorten the war and protect American interests. However, the number of innocent victims grew.
Although Kissinger and Nixon kept the campaign secret, information slowly leaked to the media, causing outrage and protests worldwide. These dark chapters of Kissinger’s career raised questions about the limits of power in international relations and the price humanity is willing to pay for global stability.
Critics accuse Kissinger of being willing to sacrifice moral principles to achieve his political goals. His support for dictators like Pinochet and Suharto sparked outrage among the international public.
Kissinger’s policy was based on the principle that national interests were primary, and moral considerations secondary. In the context of the Cold War, Kissinger believed that maintaining stability and preventing the spread of communism was more important than the internal affairs of other countries. This approach led to the US administration, under Kissinger’s guidance, supporting authoritarian regimes in Chile and Indonesia.
Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, was the first Marxist president in a freely elected government in the Americas. With the support of the CIA and the US administration, General Augusto Pinochet staged a military coup in 1973, overthrowing Allende and establishing a bloody dictatorship. Kissinger publicly supported Pinochet, claiming that his government was necessary to maintain stability in the region.
In Indonesia, General Suharto, with American support, overthrew President Sukarno in 1965. Suharto’s regime was known for mass executions of communists and leftist activists. After the annexation of East Timor in 1975, the Indonesian army committed genocide against the Timorese population. Kissinger was aware of these crimes, but continued to support Suharto’s regime due to its anti-communist stance and strategic position in Southeast Asia.
Kissinger’s support for Pinochet and Suharto had severe consequences for the peoples of Chile and Indonesia. Tens of thousands of people were killed, tortured, and disappeared, and democracy was crushed. Additionally, Kissinger’s policy damaged the reputation of the United States as a champion of democracy and human rights.
Kissinger’s legacy is complex and controversial. On one hand, he was a brilliant diplomat who played a key role in ending the Cold War. On the other hand, his support for authoritarian regimes left a dark stain on his reputation.
The question of how to assess Kissinger’s role in history remains open. Was he a genius of realpolitik or an amoral politician who sacrificed human lives to achieve his goals? The answer to that question depends on which values one considers most important.
Kissinger’s policy of realpolitik has often been called into question due to its pragmatism. His assertion that “moral superiority is a luxury that great nations cannot afford” sparked heated debates about the role of ethics in international relations.
Another controversy surrounding Kissinger was his involvement in secret operations. His role in overthrowing democratically elected governments and supporting terrorist organisations cast a shadow on his reputation. Despite his achievements, Kissinger remains a controversial figure. His policies continue to be the subject of fierce debate, and his legacy will likely be discussed for a long time.
Kosovo’s Illegal Independence
Milošević and the Demons
Kissinger was not a fan of Milošević, but he believed that his demonisation had been excessive. "Everyone saw Milošević as a devil, but few tried to understand his motives and fears," Kissinger remarked. He believed that a solution should have been sought through negotiations, not bombings.
In 2008, when Kosovo declared independence, Kissinger stated that Kosovo’s independence was a precedent that could have far-reaching consequences in international relations. He emphasised that supporting Kosovo’s independence represented a dangerous precedent, as it could encourage separatist movements worldwide. He warned that recognising Kosovo without Serbia’s consent could destabilise other regions with similar separatist aspirations, such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia.
Kissinger believed that Kosovo’s independence had been declared unilaterally, without sufficient cooperation and compromise, further complicating relations in the Balkans and with Russia, which strongly opposed Kosovo’s independence.
Kissinger was an old-school player, where moves were calculated in decades, not in electoral cycles.
The Power Play on a Fragile Stage
Kissinger and the Balkans
Henry Kissinger, the great chess player of international politics, was not a direct player on the Balkan chessboard, but his moves were certainly felt. His approach to the world, based on realpolitik, left a deep mark on the West’s understanding of this turbulent region. During the Cold War, Yugoslavia was Tito’s independent ballet troupe, dancing between East and West. Kissinger saw that dance as elegant and useful. Yugoslavia served as a buffer zone, and Tito was a master of balance. As an advocate of balance of power, Kissinger supported this game, seeing it as a chance to limit Soviet influence.
However, when the music stopped and the curtains fell, the stage turned into a bloody battlefield. The breakup of Yugoslavia and the ensuing wars caught Kissinger by surprise. He was critical of Western intervention, believing that it had only worsened the situation. "The West thought it could reshape the Balkans to its liking, but it only succeeded in deepening the divisions," Kissinger said.
Aleksandar T. Panić
