The cake that this May 28th Henry Kissinger will cut on his centenary birthday is a poisoned cake. The reverence that someone, with full reasoning and an elemental sense of justice and human values, can feel before a centennial existence, vanishes when he listens to the judgments that the old statesman spreads to the four winds.
Receiving a journalist from The Economist newspaper, who wanted his opinion on the volatile situation in Ukraine, he declared that “it is better to have this country in NATO where it cannot make national decisions on territorial claims.”
As the main argument of an indefensible thesis, but one that paints his character very well, he said that this was the most viable way to ward off the dissatisfaction of the parties in conflict, one of them, belligerently assumed by him, the Atlantic Alliance. In the same line of adding fuel to the fire, he transferred an envoy from the German media Die Zeit: “Before, I thought that Ukraine should have remained neutral, as Finland was. Today I am absolutely in favor of accepting Ukraine into NATO.”
There are those who believe that Kissinger’s vocation for performance is due to his irrepressible vocation to appear under the reflectors of current news. Others grant him the benefit of what they consider to be a controversial record but based on his supposed gifts as a political visionary. They talk that he deserves attention because of his long experience and place on his head the hallowed halo of the man who supposedly dampened the explosiveness of the Cold War, brought the United States and China closer together during his tenure as Secretary of State between 1973 and 1977, and negotiated the end of the occupation of Vietnam by his country, and now, in a life-forgiving pose, he considers it a mistake to submit Putin to the International Criminal Court while calling for Washington and Beijing to find a balance, yes, without renouncing that “the United States defend their vital interests”.
When in recent days he blew out the candles at a ceremony that was given to him in an elitist New York club, he declared: “We have to be stronger to resist any pressure.”
You should not miss the truth or memory. In an article published by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada, on the occasion of Kissinger’s centenary, analysts David Brooks and Jim Cason describe him as “perhaps one of the darkest figures of the American superpower,” despite having been invested with the Nobel Peace Prize and emblazoned with an academic record at Harvard University, since “he has also been accused of being the mastermind of crimes against humanity, coups d’état and illegal military actions around the planet.”
If it signed the Paris Agreements on January 27, 1973, it was because Vietnam had resisted and defeated the aggression. Vietnamese public and secret diplomacy, the latter channeled with absolute discretion and firmness, did not allow any technicalities or dalliances on the part of the United States to frustrate the strategic objectives of achieving full sovereignty and national unity. Together with Vietnam the towns lined up and against that the White House, and Kissinger of course, could do nothing. This lacked the decency of the Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho, who resigned the Nobel Peace Prize because after the signing the aggressive war continued until April 1975.
In Latin America, his interference in the Chilean case was notorious. He maneuvered to overthrow the Popular Unity government and its president Salvador Allende and his support for the military junta headed by the notorious Augusto Pinochet. In case there was a silver lining in his actions, the US National Security Archives have just published transcripts of Kissinger’s meetings with the dictator. To one of his team, present at one of the secret conclaves, who dared to suggest scolding the military to improve his image as a human rights violator, the politician replied: “We want to help him, not harm him.” . Go how he helped him, turning a blind eye to the plan to assassinate former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier in the United States. The falcon showed his fur in those days, justifying, as proven by declassified documents, the repressive methods of the dictatorships of the Southern Cone involved in Operation Condor.
A hawk that wanted to fly against Cuba in 1976, although it masked its plumage a little earlier when it advised Gerald Ford to try to reach an understanding with Havana, in order to apply the principles of the Monroe Doctrine with anesthetics. The internationalist mission in Angola, a sovereign decision of the Cuban Government and people, was out of control, to the point that he devised plans for a naval blockade and bombardments of ports and economic objectives.
“For me there is no doubt that his policy caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and destroyed the democracy of various countries,” said Reed Kalman Brody, an expert on Human Rights recently, who denounced the make-up with which Kissinger intends to present himself to the world. Musassir Mamoon, a Bengali professor, recalled how Kissinger encouraged genocide in that Asian territory in 1971. “If not his hands, his soul is stained with blood.”
Cover photo: Taken from The Confidential
#Kissinger #falcon #disguised #dove