Rightshelf

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Henry Kissinger's defense of Realpolitik and his effort to reconcile Realpolitik with the Wilsonian tradition that has been triumphant in America (in rhetoric more than in works) is a serious, comprehensive, engaging and brilliant contribution to the field of international relations studies. It was written over a decade ago and yet remains quite relevant in its discussion of the evolution of foreign policy and its outlook for the nature of American diplomacy.

Kissinger's sympathies--naturally--lay with the practitioners of Realpolitik. Whether discussing the diplomatic approach of Theodore Roosevelt on the American side, or the work of Cardinal Richelieu, Metternich, Bismarck and Disraeli on the European side, the former Secretary of State barely restrains his respect and admiration for those who have a clear, cold-eyed view of the ebb and flow of international events. On the European side, Bismarck is clearly portrayed as the paramount practitioner of diplomacy but Richelieu is given great credit for having pioneered the use and implementation of raision d'état in enhancing French influence. Specifically, Kissinger is full of praise that a Cardinal of the Catholic Church would ally himself--and France--with Ottoman Turks in order to counter the spread and influence of the very Catholic Holy Roman Empire. This sublimation of doctrinal affinity with the Holy Roman Empire and a similar sublimation of doctrinal differences with the Ottoman Turks--all in the defense of French interests--plainly captures Kissinger's admiration.

Of America, Kissinger writes with apparent regret that Theodore Roosevelt's own brand of Realpolitik was rejected in favor of Wilsonian interventionism. To be sure, Kissinger accepts that America is a Wilsonian country and understands that American Presidents must pay at least a form of rhetorical homage to Wilsonianism in explaining their own foreign policy goals. At the same time, Kissinger reserves his highest praise for American Presidents who understood and implemented Roosevelt's foreign policy vision and platform. Including, of course, Roosevelt, this included Richard Nixon (naturally) and Ronald Reagan, who Kissinger praises for having had the ability to blend the practice of Rooseveltian Realpolitik with the rhetoric of Wilsonianism in discussing America's status as an exceptional country. To be sure, Reagan believed what he said and he deserves praise for his beliefs. What caught Kissinger's attention and admiration, however, was just how much the practice of a Reaganesque foreign policy owed to Realpolitik. Kissinger is right to praise Reagan on this score; the 40th President's foreign policy was never restricted to the Wilsonian rhetoric just about any President mouthes while in office. Quite the contrary; Reaganism lent itself to the crafting and implementation of a highly sophisticated foreign policy, one that would have seemed familiar in many ways to Richelieu, Metternich, Bismarck and Disraeli. No, the United States will never go fully towards the side of Realpolitik. But Reagan did more than any other President to blend the rhetoric of Wilsonian idealism with the hard-edged policies of (Theodore) Rooseveltianism.

It should be noted, of course that it is entirely within Kissinger's own self-interest that he closely identify himself with--and praise--a President like Reagan who put the decisive boot into a decaying communist empire. One might therefore doubt his praise as a result. But the manner in which Kissinger marshals his arguments in favor of Reaganism on the foreign policy stage appears to demonstrate that his praise is indeed genuine. Additionally, it should be noted that Kissinger traces the effort to blend Realpolitk with Wilsonian idealism back to Richard Nixon (who actually kept a picture of Woodrow Wilson in the Oval Office) and that he praises the other Roosevelt for having skillfully and masterfully guided America towards a position of involvement in World War II when every American instinct was to remain isolationist.

For foreign policy aficionados like me, Diplomacy is a godsend of a book. Written in a clear, engaging and brilliant fashion, it is a tremendous contribution to the field. Its description of seminal events in the conduct of international diplomacy is as welcome as it is gripping. Students of international relations will find much to admire in its treatment and analysis of historical events and those who want to understand where America and the world are headed will do well to get this book. Very highly recommended.