by Dhruva Jaishankar
The following article originally appeared in The Hindustan Times on November 30, 2023.
It is unlikely that history will remember Henry Kissinger kindly. Kissinger, who passed away this week at the age of 100, certainly achieved fame and renown well beyond his field. An American academic who served as United States (US) national security adviser and secretary of state in the 1960s and 1970s, he remained revered by many in Washington policy circles. But his policies in the pursuit of the Cold War, his engagement with China, and his post-political business dealings also sullied his reputation, particularly with younger generations.
Kissinger’s admirers often describe him as embodying the ideals of statesmanship and realpolitik, in the manner of a Metternich in the 19th century. That reputation was carefully cultivated by Kissinger himself, including through his own voluminous writings and memoirs. Ironically, he later made a belated attempt at rewriting that legacy somewhat. For example, Niall Ferguson’s relatively recent and rather flattering biography, recounting Kissinger’s early life, was subtitled “The Idealist”.
The diplomatic achievements of Kissinger that are most regularly touted include the United States’ engagement with China in a bid to balance against the erstwhile Soviet Union in the second half of the Cold War. He was also involved in détente negotiations with Soviet leaders. And he played a role involving “shuttle diplomacy” in West Asia, the subject of a recent book by Martin Indyk.
Even in these instances, however, the outcomes were hardly unequivocal successes. The major diplomatic breakthrough in West Asia – the Camp David Accords – occurred after his tenure. Despite détente, the Cold War grew hotter, particularly across the developing world. The opening to China may have initially appeared as a strategic coup, but subsequent events have led historians to ask what exactly the US got in return. The growing rivalry between the US and China has persuaded more and more US policymakers that continued engagement with Beijing – of which Kissinger was among the greatest proponents – may have been a strategic mistake.
While his major accomplishments have been increasingly questioned, criticism of his other actions has grown. In India, of course, he is remembered for his role in supporting Pakistan during the massacres in what was then East Pakistan, which resulted in a massive refugee inflow into India and the Bangladesh liberation war. Kissinger’s private insults of India and Indira Gandhi in particular are well documented, as is his overall role in enabling the Pakistan army to carry out its atrocities. But Kissinger was also involved directly and indirectly in supporting brutal authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and his decision to extend the Vietnam War, including into Cambodia, had horrifying consequences.
Even in official Washington, there are indications that Kissinger’s reputation has transformed. In a quiet repudiation of Kissinger’s decision on Bangladesh, the US state department last year named a conference room after Archer Blood, the diplomat who protested against Kissinger’s support for the Pakistan army’s atrocities. (Also, a little note: Joe Biden may have been the first US president since Nixon to have not publicly hosted Kissinger for a consultative meeting at the White House.)
Kissinger’s other great innovation involved his post-governmental career. Upon leaving office, he established Kissinger Associates to offer advice to clients in the corporate world. This allowed him to capitalise on his public profile and diplomatic contacts and ensured his continuing relevance in the corridors of power in Washington and on Wall Street. Kissinger also managed to retain contacts in China and other countries and blazed a trail for many subsequent former US officials who launched lucrative private sector careers upon leaving public life.
His consulting and business interests both extended and furthered his advocacy of engagement with China. Indeed, when doubts were raised about its wisdom – as after the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989 and again in the mid-2000s – Kissinger was often among the most vocal advocates of reverting to normal US economic and business relations with China. As China adopted an increasingly hostile and competitive approach to the US, critics began to question the degree to which Kissinger had been motivated by strategic or private interests. China’s official flattery of Kissinger – extending to his receiving high-level meetings earlier this year – did little to abate such criticism.
But whether by those who revered him or reviled him, there is no question that Kissinger achieved a popularity in the public sphere that has been unmatched for a policy wonk. In less than a decade, he went from a bespectacled author of books on nuclear strategy at Harvard to dating Bond girls. From the 1970s onward, he was ridiculed by Monty Python, parodied in a Pink Panther movie, and name-checked by the Muppets.
But it was not all comedic. The chef and food writer Anthony Bourdain excoriated Kissinger in typically colourful language after visiting Cambodia. The late Christopher Hitchens argued that Kissinger had been guilty of war crimes in Indochina, Bangladesh, Chile, and Timor-Leste, among other places. Kissinger may well be remembered as the last American diplomatic celebrity. But it is equally likely that his critics will have the last word in defining his legacy.
Dhruva Jaishankar is executive director, ORF America. The views expressed are personal