‘Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets fly.’ When the English writer Jonathan Swift wrote this in 1707, he was referring to the age-old truth that the judicial system functions well to catch relatively small offenders, but that it is much harder to prosecute the big ‘bad guys’. They use their connections and diplomatic immunity to stay out of trouble and get away with serious atrocities, even in these days of international Law and the ICC.

TEXT: Goos Hofstee
PHOTO: Marion S. Trikosko

One of the most famous of these powerful criminals is Henry Kissinger, former Nobel Peace Prize winner and real life model for Dr. Strangelove, Peter Seller’s famous portrayal of the evil realist in the likewise named movie. While Strangelove and Kissinger might seem like relics of the Cold War and times past, Kissinger is in fact currently promoting his newest book ‘On China’. It entails Dr. Kissinger’s own shamelessly essentialist interpretation of what constitutes ‘the Chinese philosophy’ and what makes it different from ‘the American philosophy’. The book is, just like the 1994 literary masterpiece ‘Diplomacy’, an obvious attempt to bring his own house in order and burnish his political legacy. And God knows, there is a lot that needs burnishing.

While Kissinger was officially the number two man under Richard Nixon, he has in fact been the primary architect of many of Nixon’s policies in Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile and East-Timor. For instance, Kissinger reportedly persuaded Nixon to expand the Vietnam War with secret strategic bombing of Cambodia and Laos. While the estimated casualties vary between several thousands and hundreds of thousands civilians, the secrecy and non-discriminatory nature of the bombings would surely merit a thorough investigation. But how?

In his book ‘The Trial of Henry Kissinger’, Christopher Hitchens has systematically and convincingly argued why and how Kissinger should be brought to trial for his part in the aforementioned crimes. However, Hitchens also stresses that his indictment is aimed at an entire administration. It is exactly this point that makes the issue legally so complicated.

Getting Kissinger convicted for war crimes might legally be impossible, as trying the entire Johnson or Nixon Administration (or what’s left of it) is hardly possible. Noam Chomsky, who is a renowned critic of US foreign policy, argues: ‘Kissinger observes, correctly, that he was conducting the foreign policy of the US. The US is a powerful state. It follows that its leadership can make mistakes, but it cannot commit crimes in the technical Orwellian sense. Only enemies, or those who are weak and defenceless, can commit crimes in the literal sense. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that there would be an effort to bring Kissinger to trial, and even if it were done, he could correctly plead selective prosecution.’

Kissinger himself is very much aware of this legal loophole, and is able to live a relatively undisturbed life in New York.  The American government is not prepared to take the accusations against the former Secretary of State very seriously, and the official response to the accusations has always been silence. The fact that former president Bush thought it fitting in 2002 to appoint the man- also a powerful international political consultant- as chairman of the 9/11 commission illustrates not only the rather limited mental capabilities of the former President, but also exactly how much Kissinger is still part of the political establishment. For those with dirty hands, being part of this establishment and having friends in high places can make the difference between jail time and a mere public shaming.

 Apart from the old debate about accountability of the state and the personal responsibility of politicians, Kissinger’s case raises the question of what international law should be and what it is supposed to accomplish. Getting the man convicted might be legally impossible, but a court hearing could do more for the international image of America than his actual punishment. Every grown up nation has to acknowledge its own past at some point, as truth commissions have done for some African nations. Bringing Kissinger to trial would give the US the chance to acknowledge the crimes of the past, to come clean on who had been responsible, and finally, to distance itself from those involved.

Throwing Henry Kissinger in jail might be pushing it, but the least we can do is stop falsifying history, stop consulting him on political issues, and stop pretending that Henry Kissinger is an innocent man, a good citizen and a welcome guest.In the words of the Howard Zinn: ’We should hold them up to the world, shame them, and ban them from dinner parties.’


This blog was inspired by an article in Village People.