WSJ Kissinger Inteview - Diplomacy in the Post-9/11
 

Interview with Henry Kissinger

Diplomacy in the Post-9/11 Era

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.
November 17, 2007

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195...red_stories_hs

This is an excellent article, see some excerpts below

• "Whoever the next president is, the new administration will be extremely disappointed if it believes that our relationships will mend because its leader has a different name . . . . Personal diplomacy and relationship-building, although important, are rarely the paramount drivers of global affairs. These are shaped importantly by the long-term national interest."

• He also emphasized some profound changes in today's geopolitical environment. He pointed out that the world we have known for 300 years now -- the "Westphalian" international system that arose after Europe's wars of religion and is based on the nation-state -- is "collapsing." This may be a much more profound shift than the move from dynastic to national motivations following the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna (about which Mr. Kissinger has written) and a more serious challenge to international stability than that posed by states such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The nation-state is weakening in Europe, he observed, and has met with mixed success in other parts of the world. "Only in Russia, the United States and Asia can it be found in its classic form."

• The real difference, Mr. Kissinger interjected, lay in "what government[s] can ask of their people." It is because "European governments are not able any more to ask their people for great sacrifices," he argued, that they have so readily opted for a "soft power" approach to so many foreign policy issues. This will, of necessity, make it harder for Europe to reach a consensus with the U.S.

• "What you mustn't do," he cautioned, "is to identify diplomacy with escalating [Western] concessions." Right now we are "sliding into a position that we neither negotiate enough nor put out enough red lines." Mr. Kissinger added, however, that the use of force against Iran cannot be ruled out. Diplomacy not backed by the potential use of force is impotent. This was part of our problem in dealing with Iraq for many years.

• By the time I left Mr. Kissinger's office, I had a genuine feeling of unease about the future. But had I raised this with Mr. Kissinger, I suspect he would have simply said that this goes with the territory. Great states have great responsibilities. They must expect great challenges, and they must be prepared to meet them.

Nice article - I went to the WSJ link and read it in its entirety.

The point about European nations being unable to ask their people for great sacrifices is interesting. I think we are entering an era when our various societies will face substantial threats and challenges; and I wonder if Europe will be up to the challenge. If not, the world may be a rather lonely place for the U.S.

European nations unable to sacrifice
 

Exactly - This point jumped out at me as well.

This is a huge issue...Bigger than global warming, an upcoming recession or immigration reform.

The U.S. may have to underwrite most if not all of the defense of the West in coming years and decades - Europe, NATO, the G7 as well as most if not all of Western interests in the Middle East.

My question is - How can we possibly do it?

I'm not sure it is possible. And, on top of it all, we are despised by many IN THE WEST for this very leadership. History teaches us that when nations and civilizations lose their tough robust nature - their hardness - when they go soft on their willingness to sacrifice for their own defense - they perish. The West seems to be undergoing an unrelenting feminization - a softening. There are virtues to softness, but those virtues can never be realized without hardened toughness to balance it - Overt softness eventually leads to impotence....which leads to extinction.

It concerns me. Freaking scary.


Three Soldier Dad...Chuck