I’d like the opinion of an expert. I’ve always thought that Kissinger’s policies in the Third World failed on their own terms because the Realpolitik costs of supporting corrupt, incompetent, and unpopular dictators exceeded any actual national security benefits. You look at the Shah, Marcos, Pinochet, not mention Southeast Asia and it seems like the costs of supporting such regimes wax high particularly the cost of popular resentment in e.g. Iran. and in the end they had no effect on the end of the Cold War. I would love to know your thoughts.
Thank you for the references. They were both interesting threads but I’m not sure they exactly address my question. Radchenko talks about Kissinger’s negotiations vs. Russia and China rather than assessing his support for dictators from other countries and Rothkopf criticizes his support for dictators on moral grounds (correctly I would say) but doesn’t address whether it might not have served US interests in terms of realpolitik.
There are critiques of K on realpolitik grounds. Some, according to ChatGPT.
William Blum, "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (2003): Blum's book provides a critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy, including Kissinger's role in supporting dictators. He argues that these alliances often led to blowbacks and long-term negative consequences for the United States.
Gary J. Bass, "The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide" (2013): This book focuses on Kissinger's role during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War and the subsequent genocide. Bass argues that Kissinger's support for Pakistan's military regime in the conflict undermined U.S. interests by disregarding human rights concerns and fostering anti-American sentiment in the region.
A more positive assessment from the very distinguished historian Sergey Radchenko. Yes, his affiliation … But he’s one of the most knowledgeable people:
I’d like the opinion of an expert. I’ve always thought that Kissinger’s policies in the Third World failed on their own terms because the Realpolitik costs of supporting corrupt, incompetent, and unpopular dictators exceeded any actual national security benefits. You look at the Shah, Marcos, Pinochet, not mention Southeast Asia and it seems like the costs of supporting such regimes wax high particularly the cost of popular resentment in e.g. Iran. and in the end they had no effect on the end of the Cold War. I would love to know your thoughts.
I’d suggest looking at tweet threads I posted above pro and con on K.
Two guys who really know their stuff - and him.
Thank you for the references. They were both interesting threads but I’m not sure they exactly address my question. Radchenko talks about Kissinger’s negotiations vs. Russia and China rather than assessing his support for dictators from other countries and Rothkopf criticizes his support for dictators on moral grounds (correctly I would say) but doesn’t address whether it might not have served US interests in terms of realpolitik.
Fair point.
There are critiques of K on realpolitik grounds. Some, according to ChatGPT.
William Blum, "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (2003): Blum's book provides a critical analysis of U.S. foreign policy, including Kissinger's role in supporting dictators. He argues that these alliances often led to blowbacks and long-term negative consequences for the United States.
Gary J. Bass, "The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide" (2013): This book focuses on Kissinger's role during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War and the subsequent genocide. Bass argues that Kissinger's support for Pakistan's military regime in the conflict undermined U.S. interests by disregarding human rights concerns and fostering anti-American sentiment in the region.
Thank you very much. This is helpful I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
A more positive assessment from the very distinguished historian Sergey Radchenko. Yes, his affiliation … But he’s one of the most knowledgeable people:
https://twitter.com/drradchenko/status/1662539222677323781?s=61&t=EUEPNorcS2G_uwppF61fMQ
Contra, thoughtful from David Rothkopf:
https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1662117824830099456?s=61&t=EUEPNorcS2G_uwppF61fMQ
Great and balanced piece on Kissinger! I'm somewhat neutral on him and bemused by the intense debate over his ideas and policies.
Chief Blob or just another product of the Blob? For certain he has deep insights and carries lots of influence.