FEUILLETON Henry Kissinger, America, and Kosovo (20): Kosovo was a centuries-old civil war

Writing for Kosovo Online: Dragan Bisenic

Summarizing the end of the 20th century, Kissinger told the Chinese newspaper "People's Daily" on December 24, 1999, that in the 21st century, economic issues would become increasingly important, and the stability of the international financial system would impact every country.

The population issue is also important. In 1900, the world's population was only 1.6 billion, and by 2050, it will be around 9 billion. This will bring a heavy burden to the entire world. In the next 10 to 20 years, the international situation will change.

The importance of European nation-states will diminish, and Europe may create a "federal state"; Russia will either develop a strong government or disintegrate; China will become industrialized. However, war between major powers is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Iraq had global consequences

"The new millennium will have a truly global society in which all countries are connected to each other", Kissinger said.

Regarding the anniversary of the attack on Serbia, on March 26, 2000, Kissinger gave an interview with the German newspaper "Welt am Sonntag". He said that there was a "difference between America that favors human rights as a part of its tradition and America that undermines a friendly leader in the name of a radical movement and, ultimately, America that goes to war as in Kosovo".

During Jimmy Carter's time, there was talk of moral pressure. In the 1980s, there was talk of economic sanctions, and now there is talk of military intervention in the name of human rights.

Iraq had global consequences, and Kosovo was a centuries-old Balkan civil war. It is very difficult to define a strategy as long as we deal with general matters. Kissinger emphasized that he particularly wanted to say something about hegemony.

"American dilemma is that we are the most popular country that has ever existed - in every aspect: military, economic, and cultural attractiveness. American culture is imitated everywhere in the world. On the other hand, the Americans do not consider themselves imperialists. While American political leaders intervene everywhere, they act in the name of what they believe are universal principles. This could be called a deception. One must understand the structure of what people generally think when they say America and Germany. I have written elsewhere – and I will delve into this topic more extensively in the book – that I do not think hegemony is good for America. If a country practices hegemony, every problem becomes a domestic issue. In domestic politics, at least in democracies, there are balancing elements. If domestic policy is applied to other countries, there are very few balancing elements. This leads to the impression that we must solve every problem ourselves. It is beyond our capabilities, both physically and morally", Kissinger emphasized.

Kissinger concluded that "it's not about the arrogance of power, but the arrogance of righteousness". It is about a 20-year internal American debate on realpolitik and the role of moral attitudes.

"This is a generation that grew up in the Vietnam era and really does not believe in history", Kissinger added.

The book announced by Kissinger was published a year later under the title "Does America Need a Foreign Policy: Towards a Diplomacy in the 21st Century". It was perceived as a comprehensive critique of Clinton's foreign policy, especially the ideology of humanitarian intervention. The book was translated and published in Serbia, but it was not received in an adequate manner. Madeleine Albright's spokesperson, James Rubin, wrote a review of this book and summarized Kissinger's criticism in the following way:

“Here is an example of how he sees Mr. Clinton's achievements: the famous 1994 agreement that prevented North Korea from developing nuclear material equivalent to dozens of bombs was the result of wrong diplomacy. The President's significant involvement in establishing peace in the Middle East is the main cause of the collapse of the peace process and the outbreak of the worst violence in decades. The administration should never have wasted our prestige and power responding to ethnic conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. Chinese military intimidation of Taiwan in 1996 was a direct result of Clinton's decision to provide the Taiwanese President with a transit visa to the United States. In Iraq, the administration worsened the bad situation by using limited instead of massive airstrikes. In Indonesia, the crude economic pressure from the United States and global financial institutions was the main contributor to the economic collapse and destabilization of this strategic ally. There is one partial compliment: Mr. Clinton was right to advocate a free trade zone for Latin America; he was simply too weak to implement it".

Kissinger reiterated that he had opposed the Rambouillet process because it had been a misuse of NATO, but when the war had started, he had been in favor of a quick victory because he believed that the cohesion of the Atlantic alliance had depended on it.

"The Europeans were at least as eager as we were to get involved in Kosovo and at least as unwilling as we were to pay a significant price for it. Where it could have been said some time ago that the Europeans had a more limited goal of national role, the moral claim of the Europeans is now similar to ours. If the British Foreign Minister can say that they no longer conduct foreign policy based on national interest but ethical foreign policy, and then the Germans more or less say the same, what is the difference between Washington and Europe, except for power?" Kissinger observed.

Russia has the right to be taken seriously

In an interview with " Welt am Sonntag", Kissinger predicted that Putin would establish a regime similar to what Salazar created in Portugal in the thirties, with democratic elements but fundamentally authoritarian.

"I also believe this will lead to Russia's economic recovery. Russian foreign policy will probably become more nationalist, and tougher, but also perhaps more calculated. I have never favored a psychiatric approach to Russia and the belief that we can solve our problems by meddling in Moscow's domestic politics. I would hope that after a period of stabilization, democratic elements in the Russian constitution will play an increasingly larger role. Russian NATO membership is an idea used as a symbol that could be the end result of a very long process. If Russia were in NATO, NATO would completely lose its meaning and become a kind of multilateral security organization like the UN. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened at some point. But it's not something that makes sense in the foreseeable future. And in my opinion, these games should be stopped. Russia has the right to be taken seriously. Western countries should carefully consult Russia, and I would welcome any political mechanism established for consultations, and I would prefer it to be outside of NATO. Because NATO simply cannot deal with this and still be NATO. The key question now, as Russia regains a sense of itself, is whether it will try to rebuild the Russian empire or seek security within existing borders. If the latter happens, a very constructive coexistence between Russia and the West is possible, even inevitable. But if Russia's strategy is to undermine Ukraine and all other former republics, then sooner or later, the historical Russian problem of Russia's excessive weight compared to Europe will reappear. This is a crucial question that Russians must ask themselves, and we will have to try to facilitate it. And I believe that if we have a more sober approach to Russia if we stop this endless psychoanalysis and return to balancing our interests, it will be easier for Russia and ourselves", Kissinger concluded.

The end of the feuilleton