Book Review: ‘The Trial of Henry Kissinger’- Christopher Hitchens

Henry Kissinger, claims the late Christopher Hitchens, is a war criminal. He sanctioned the illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos, he was complicit in the murder of Chilean general Rene Schneider and he sabotaged the Geneva peace talks of 1968. He abused his power to augment his reputation, and his foreign policy ran contrary to liberal American values. 

Indeed, evidence suggests he condoned Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor and the Greek junta’s plan to kidnap and murder an émigré journalist, Elias P. Demetracopoulos. 

 

Quite the list. But are the claims true? Well, Cambodia and Laos were certainly bombed and the peace talks of ‘68 did collapse. General Schneider was murdered and East Timor did suffer at its neighbours hands. Kissinger’s foreign policy was avowedly realist and Mr Demetracopoulos did have reason to fear for his life. But how central was Kissinger’s role?

At the moment it is impossible to judge. Largely this is because Kissinger’s private papers are still under lock and key (he cut a deal with the archives to preserve the material until his death). To the mind of Hitchens, in itself this suggests illegality. It certainly does raise eyebrows. Nevertheless, until these records are opened, and until historians get access to all the facts, it remains difficult to disassociate evidence from assertion. 

Put simply, this means I’m not convinced. In all likelihood there exists a middle ground between the accusations of Hitchens and Kissinger’s denials. It’s here, in this grey, where truth most probably resides. 

As an example of modern polemic alone, The Trail of Henry Kissinger deserves to be read. Beautifully crafted, each chapter seethes with rage. Politics has become a civilised discourse, and this book makes you wonder why. Hitchens goes straight for the jugular, and while this may be too violent for some tastes, it is a refreshing, honest approach to argument. 

More broadly, I was left contemplating three points. First, can human rights and realpolitik be reconciled? Many of Hitchens’ claims stem from the fact that Kissinger failed to value human life over geopolitics. In other words, in order to advance American strategic interests, Kissinger was prepared to incur collateral damage, which often took the form of men, woman and children. While I don’t think he took such decisions lightly, he sought to continue a tradition which was embodied by Metternich and Bismarck. He was first and foremost a strategist. Could such a policy be pursued today? 

Second, does the fact that some nations are above international reproach impact negatively upon foreign policy decision making? For instance, while it has become relatively common to see a rouge ex-head of state from Africa or South America before a criminal tribunal, or a truth and reconciliation committee, no such fate would befall an ex-leader of the ‘West’. Does this encourage risk taking?

Finally, is the any way to bring some accountability into diplomacy? Is there a way to police decisions or at least open them up for public scrutiny? If we could, the record of men like Kissinger would certainly be clearer.