traduza com linguagem fácil destacando assuntos mais importantes abordados good evening everyone
my name is <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> on the former chair
of the board of trustees of the free
library and I currently am a member of
the board of directors of the free
library foundation it is my true
pleasure to welcome all of you here
tonight for a very special evening first
as always some administrative
announcements please take a moment to
silence your cellphone's I'd also like
to remind you that there is no flash
photography permitted during tonight's
event following the lecture a book
signing will take place upstairs in the
lobby and obviously don't forget that
most of our author events including
tonight's are offered as podcasts at
free library org
it's also important to remember that
we're able to enjoy this evening
together because of the generosity of
the Horace W Goldsmith Foundation which
has endowed this lecture the chair of
the foundation is Bill slaughter a
distinguished litigator with Ballard
Spahr and we're so appreciative of the
foundation support and making tonight's
event possible
also we never miss the opportunity to
make a pitch from our wonderful author
event series to our innovative new
culinary lectures and literary Center to
our preschool reading programs to our
fifty three branches in every
neighborhood in Philadelphia the free
library is dedicated to providing people
of all ages with excellent programming
and transformational resources we change
lives and many of our most beloved
programs and services are made possible
only with the help of private support
for people like you I ask you to please
consider making a gift and
ever amount you were able if you haven't
already done so to support the important
work of the free library you can learn
more about the opportunities for making
a gift at free library org slash
support now obviously to the main event
it's been said that no one can lay claim
to so much influence on the shaping of
foreign policy over the past 50 years
the Secretary Henry Kissinger a vital
presence in international and national
politics since the 1950s and named one
of the Foreign Policy Magazine's top 100
global thinkers dr. Kissinger served as
the 56th Secretary of State under
presidents Nixon and Ford and as the
national security adviser for six years
during that time he pioneered the policy
of day tant with the Soviet Union
orchestrated the opening of relations
with China and successfully negotiated
the Paris peace accord which
accomplished the withdrawal of American
forces from Vietnam for which he won the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 and
parenthetically the gratitude of this
young lieutenant in the United States
Army Thank You mr. secretary as
countless other honors include the
Presidential Medal of Freedom the Medal
of Liberty and the National Book Award
for history for the first volume of his
memoirs the White House years his new
book World Order is a shrewd and
comprehensive analysis of the challenges
of building international order in a
world of differing perspectives violent
conflict burgeoning technology and
ideological extremism in it you'll learn
about the Westphalian peace and be led
on a fascinating exploration of European
balance of power from Charlemagne to the
present time Islam in the Middle East
the u.s. and Iran
the multiplicity of Asia and the
continuing development of US policy in
my business the questions are often more
important than the answers and secretary
Kissinger has some brilliant ones such
as what do we seek to prevent no matter
how it happens and even if we have to do
it alone what do we seek to achieve even
if not supported by anyone
what should we not engage in even if
urged by a multilateral group and most
importantly what is the nature of the
values we seek to advance you will be
intrigued and challenged by this book I
can't finish without mentioning probably
one of secretary Kissinger least known
but as a transplanted native New Yorker
I think most wonderful honors in 1976 he
was made the first honorary member of
the Harlem Globetrotters
and mr. Kissinger will be interred dr.
Kissinger will be interviewed this
evening by Jeff Greenfield and acclaimed
television commentator and author in his
own right who lectured here last year
about his book if Kennedy lived it's an
honor and a privilege to have both of
them here with us and I'm only sorry
there wasn't able to arrange the playing
of Sweet Georgia Brown but please join
me in welcoming senri heck Henry
Kissinger and Jeff Greenfield
[Applause]
when Henry Kissinger was named Secretary
of State the press asked him what should
we call you professor Kissinger dr.
Kissinger secretary Kissinger he replied
no your excellency will do this is not
my plan for tonight this book World
Order covers roughly 400 years of
diplomatic geopolitical and military
history and four or five continents we
have a little less than an hour when we
finish dealing with the whole book we'll
talk about tax policy but what I want to
do is to take dr. Kissinger what you
have written and see its application
today I think anybody looking at the
headlines would look at your book and
say what world order the Westphalian
piece that you talked about where states
respect each other's and territorial
integrity balance each other out don't
interfere you look at ISIL which crosses
national boundaries you look at the
United States bombing in Syria to stop
ISIL to which helps protect the Syrian
dictator we want out you have
Afghanistan which you describe really
less as a country than a group of tribes
whose central mode of power is
resentment and vengeance can you look at
the world today and actually say yeah I
something like a world order is either a
possible or still extant or is that an
old concept that is simply not
applicable today well first of all I
agree with you that there is no world
order today and perhaps if I tell you
what induced me to write the book I was
having dinner with a friend professor at
Yale and I would discuss him
various ideas I had for adding a book
most of its had to do with historical
episodes purples and melodies and he
said you've written a lot of history why
don't you write something about what
concerns you most at the moment and what
could turn me most at the moment it's
the absence of world order the fact that
for the first time in history different
regions of the world interacting with
each other
in the Classical period the Roman Empire
and the Chinese Empire existed without
any significant knowledge and acted
without any reference to what the other
were doing so the reality of the present
period is that different societies with
different histories are now parts of a
global system because but that they
don't have an agreed concept of world
order
so I began with the Italian piece for
two reasons because that it's the only
formal system of world order that has
been devised and because it was the
dominant system in Europe and because
the Europeans as part of the imperialism
prodded around the world as a concept
but there was a unique aspect to the
European experience in most in
every other part of the world whatever
order existed was part of an empire in
China the idea that states balance each
other didn't exist and in the Islamic
world it didn't exist in in in in that
sense Europe it's the only Society where
the where the sovereignty of states and
the balance of their actions with each
other was believed to produce
international order and international
law so that's why it started with that
and then attempted to apply it to many
contemporary circumstances but this is
not a cookbook you can read to say what
the international order will be it is an
attempt to tell you this is what we are
up against now this is the challenge we
have and here are some ways of looking
at it but it does not say that I know
what the end result of all these
conflicts and these ambiguities some of
it you described will be what I'm
getting at is this the Westphalian piece
which is 1680 1648 after a thirty years
war is a by the way those of you who
like to believe that history repeats
itself you remember the fight over the
shape of the Paris Peace Corps table
1648 the sensibilities of the various
diplomats were such that they had to
build an endless number of doors so that
everybody could enter by the same
important door and I believe you
described they had to walk the same day
the same moment yeah walk didn't so it
was like so that some things don't
change
but I think the more relevant the more
relevant part though is is it folly to
look at a three hundred and sixty year
old set of conferences involving one
small
part of the globe and think that it
somehow has applicability to what we
need in the 21st century where you have
an Islamist power that believes that is
destined to rule the world you may not
have a Chinese Empire but you have a
China that that is reaching across the
globe for resources you have a
international banking system that knows
no national borders the question is in
this age of the question for me is is
that even a model worth thinking about
as as relevant no but the reason I
started with availing system misses
Europe had undergone a 30 years were
very similar to what is now going on in
the Middle East of every fraction
fighting every other and some of them
using their religious convictions for
geopolitical purposes and at the end of
the period which in which maybe a third
of the population of Central Europe were
killed with conventional weapons so
that's a massive effort the then leaders
got together and on a number of
principles which was that the basic unit
of international relations should be
this state that it stayed that countries
should not intervene in the domestic
affairs of other states and then the
borders
of that that international affairs began
by attempting to have an impact on
another societies and that some kind of
international laws would be created and
that diplomats should be should be
called into existence its permanent
ambassadors in each other's country that
had never happened before
and so the interesting thing is none of
these people were overwhelming statesmen
but out of a suffering they did still a
number of principles which then for
several hundred years governed European
relations and were brought by the
Europeans and by us throughout the world
now some of them still of great
consequence namely that the basic unit
of international relations repeated
state and that if you conduct foreign
policy on a purely ideological basis and
try to undermine the existence of the
state that then the structure of
restraint that could be created
disappears now of course we are entered
so non-intervention set of principles of
conduct these were useful instrument the
dilemma of the present period is that
several things happening simultaneously
the state is a political organization is
attacked in many parts of the world and
non-state actors are appearing that have
power
that used to be associated with the
statement secondly the economic
organization of the world and the
political organization of the world are
not comfortable anymore the political
organization it's based on the nation
the economic organization of the world
attempts to achieve globalization which
means it transcends borders so there
very many profound challenges today so
what I'm attempting to do in the Pope is
to say here is where this idea of order
started sooner or later we will come to
some concept of order because without it
there will be no principles to govern
conduct and there will be no restraint
on the exercise of power now how we get
there that it's the big challenge
because for us in America we have
believed that our principles are the
universal principles that everybody must
accept and I as an individual belief
that their universal principles but how
to relate this to other societies who
have comfortable views that is one of
the great challenges we face but if you
point out in your book there are some
forces that reject fundamentally the
premise you just out one the one that
you point to with most alarm is Islamism
and particularly as the Iranian folks in
charge practice that you if I read your
book correctly the people who really run
around the theocrats homini believe that
Islam is destined to rule the world that
it is the only legitimate way so the
idea of saying to Iran if I
read your book right well you won't
interfere here we won't intervene there
that's at a basic level that's on
Islamic I mean doesn't that pose a
rather difficult challenge that is a big
internal debate that is now going on
inside Iran and the point I'm making
it says Iran at this moment has three
historic models before it in its own
history the experience of being a
nation-state pursuing normal or
traditional nation-state actions which
is more or less what they did under the
Shah and for a hundred years before that
second model they have in there it's
said of an empire because for a great
part of it just of its history Iran was
a great Empire extending from the
borders of what is today India and even
into India well into what today we
covered most of what we today call the
Middle East and extending to the edge of
F of Africa and so that's the experience
of Khomeini which you have correctly
described which in which it's the view
of the present theocracy which is that
the Islamic faith if the governing guide
should be the governing guide of Iranian
policy and it therefore of the United
States it's a permanent enemy and the
view I express here and if that Iran has
to make a choice
I mean it doesn't have to announce the
choice but it has to make a perceptible
choice which of these three models it is
following if it infer next to remember
one other thing about Iran of all the
countries that were conquered by is Iran
it's the only one that did in the Middle
East
anyway the only one that did not give up
its language know its culture and that
it maintained the Iranian culture and
language it did not adapt adapt Arabic
so there is always a distinct feeling of
something special about Iran so at the
end of November we are going to be
confronted we as a country the end of
the culmination of the negotiations
about the nuclear weapons and they will
have to be touched by once assessment
about what the ultimate purpose of the
Iranian government group is so here's an
argument I have heard about the
optimistic way to look at Iran now
Fareed Zakaria has made this point that
over time leaders and countries that
once seemed really ominously threatening
change you mention in your book
forgotten part of history the 1957
mounts a tone goes to Moscow and he
makes the speech I guess and what she
says you know this fear about nuclear
war we can lose several hundred million
people or a big country and if we wind
up with a communist world so be it
I gather the Soviet Union was
unimpressed by this argument and then
they were if they took notice of this so
then fourteen years later you're in
Beijing and things change and the
question is when you hear
the Iranians talk as they do is it
useful to point to an example like the
evolution of China the fact that
longtime enemies now are at peace with
each other that even in Northern Ireland
eight hundred years of violence has at
least been eased should we take those
examples and say all right let's see
what happens in a run maybe they will
evolve out of there out of their current
theories and come to a more Westphalian
view of the world well you know with
failure with failure section was only to
describe how came in to be no serious
person things that you can apply exactly
the same principles what you can apply
is to ask the question what are the
basic units that are in touch with each
other and by what method it shouldn't
they be in touch with each other and how
do they communicate with each other and
what is it they should try to achieve
together now it's of course possible
that this evolution occurs and but it
it's not possible that as an American
leader you'd say because everything
evolves why don't we just sit back and
let it evolve and we'll see what happens
with respect to some issued said if may
be permissible in the case of China the
transformation of the conduct of China
which started out by Mao as to be billed
as a model of revolution for the
rest for the rest of the world
this couldn't continue this pattern
continued until there was a
confrontation the ideological Catholic
practical an ideological country
conflict with the Soviet Union cause the
Soviet Union to move 42 divisions to the
Chinese border and then Mao looked at
this as a practical problem of
statecraft
how do you to have protect my state
against this and the United States was
the only available partner it may be
made to do it this is I don't know
whether I put this in the book or not
the persistence of traditional ways of
thinking it's shown by this episode
Nixon and some extent I from the first
day in office had concluded that an
attempt must be made the print China
into the international system as I
recall he wrote a piece of foreign
affairs before he was ever elected that
hinted at that Nixon wrote a piece in
foreign affairs magazine called Asia
after Vietnam and there was the hint in
the midst of the normal and China was in
the middle of the Cultural Revolution so
it was very hard to know at what door do
not even to get it that get a do to get
a dialogue started but the what the
incident of one dimension it says the
CIA wrote periodic reports about what
random I do and they published a report
and this is no avail
they published a report in early July
1971 while I was on my way to China
which they didn't know which said which
said which listed all the arguments I've
just made of white China should look to
the United States but they concluded
with saying this cannot happen while
Maya was alive so one has to wait till
till my oh it's dead today we know that
it couldn't have happened so fast
unless he was alive that's reassuring
that the CIA hasn't changed all that
much well it was understandable because
at any rate then China and the United
States had to deal with each other it's
great powers and if you read and they're
all available now the early conversation
say on my trip to China
Chou Enlai and I were talking like two
college professors discussing abstract
concepts of international relations we
didn't go through any of the technical
issues of tactical issues they divided
us why because both of us decided
independently that at this point the
most important quality to be achieved
was can we understand what the other
side is doing so as we go into this
world of three countries China Russia
and the United States maneuvering
against each other
cooperating with each other so we were
building a kind of international system
at and I would say it was about three
years before we really got to grips with
the day-to-day issue you know there's so
many areas to cover and so little time
but you raised one of the areas that I
want to say that the critical the
critical step was to understand what the
other person was how the other person
was thinking it's a point that was made
I know during the Cuban Missile Crisis
that the points that are given to John
Kennedy were that against the impulses
of some of his advisers he kept trying
to put himself in Khrushchev's shoes so
the question that this raises is it
seems to me that some of the United
States is biggest misstep so I'll use a
polite word in foreign policy have come
from precisely the fact that we haven't
understood the terrain or the people in
which we were trying to act I mean most
recently I mean I'm not trying to be
partisan because I can think of both
parties but certainly it seems to me
that the decision to go into Iraq which
from your point of view are you you say
nice things of that Bush I mean you did
serve Republican presidents but it seems
pretty clear to me that that you regard
that kind of notion that we would go
into Iraq build a democracy it would
spread through the Middle East like a
virtuous circle it's kind of really
naive if not worse but I thought about
Bush he did me the honor of inviting me
to discuss long-range international
affairs with him without any publicity
it very in his second term
and so I developed a personal affection
for him and I was and I was impressed by
his concerns and
there was some criticism that I recorded
my personal view of perch which I
normally did not do in the other
chapters well anyway now about the
decision to go into era from a security
point of view after the United States
had been attacked from by terrorists
faced in the Middle East
it was quite rational for the President
of the United States to focus on a
country that he genuinely believed was
building nuclear weapons it was turned
out to be wrong but it is also wrong to
say that this was fake they genuinely
believed this that had violated and
ceasefire agreement with us on many
occasions certified by the United
Nations and which might be a place of
which might encourage a terrorist
activities in the region and when it's
if it's also worthwhile to remember that
in the Clinton administration in 1998
the Senate voted in a none finding
resolution 98 or noting that Saddam
should be removed and the Clinton side
this so this was not a novel idea that
Bush introduced and I supported that
part of it yeah I disagreed with with
Porsche was in the belief but didn't
they believe that after Saddam had been
overthrown that we had to capacity
to make a democracy out of a country
during military of you Peyton that not
only was Islamic and therefore of a
different approach to the notion of
pluralism but also in which the there
was a profound division between this
year and the Sony part and a profound
division between the Kurds and the
Sunnis in this year so I think that that
is where where it went wrong with
respect I mean it does seem to me that
the vain why I think that well it does
seem to me that what the history has
shown is that that yes there was a lot
of rhetorical notion that Saddam has to
come out when the decision was made it
seemed to me that the history shows that
the people within that administration
were determined to go to Iraq she helped
shape the evidence to it the notion that
they were involved with 9/11 was was
never close to being accurate and to
take your point that they that they
would I mean you're appointed that is
throughout this book is they were they
were at best the victims of delusions
about what they could do but we are so
pressed for time that they're about 25
other things I'd like to talk to you
about but the point is not that that the
US government or the President and that
misunderstand the situation the point is
what the larger purposes of the United
States in the construction of the
regions yes we and there are some things
be able to do and the other things we
cannot do this is why before I ask your
last question I have to make this
observation it's nowhere in your book
George Bush the george w bush's second
inaugural address proclaim that it will
be the policy of the united states to
spread freedom and end tyranny
everywhere in the world and i actually
thought of you when i heard that
because I thought if you were watching
that at home you were throwing something
at the television set because it's so
exemplifies what you think is a
dangerous miss apprehension of how the
world works the United States has to
have three levels in three levels of
understanding of the world one
objectives or definitions of security
that are so vital to us that we will
defend them or try to achieve them
even alone if necessary the second is
objectives and security concerns which
are important to us but which we will
try to achieve ornamental eyes and the
serratus objectives and security
concerns which we should not do because
they beyond our either capabilities or
value friendly so this it's the sort of
discussion we need to have your turn we
have when you if if you have a question
raise your hand we will get a mic to you
and please as I said a year ago I'm sure
you all remember we have to come to a
common understanding of what a question
is
this is very important and I will be
exceedingly undiplomatic like dr.
Kissinger in making sure that we have
questions so mics to the people with
hands raised oh I get to call I'm sorry
let's start the front row because I can
see that I'll get back to you I promise
thank you both for enlightening evening
dr. Kissinger if you were National
Security Advisor what would you advise
President Obama to do with regard to
sending troops to the Middle East you
know it's very hard to give tactically
right let me tackle the question in in
another way
I now live so long that I have witnessed
and in a way participated in five Wars
some as an active participant some as an
observer who knew the key players and if
you look at the five wars that the
United States conducted since 1945 we
have achieved our stated objectives in
only one the Korean War was sort of a
draw and the other city was we withdrew
from but each of them started like this
one now is with great enthusiasm great
public support and then at some point
the only key debate was how do you get
out of it and withdrawal became the only
strategy accepted as a
no consensus so what I would say to the
president that security advice and what
I'd say to him but said to you is tell
me how it's going to end and tell me how
let's get a plan I think it was correct
that when Americans are murdered on
television for the purpose of
intimidating regions and ourselves I
think it is right for us to respond but
we also need a strategy of how it will
end and what we're trying to achieve and
I would tell him that it's internally
not with great public speeches yet
should be the most important thing that
he can do yes
could you stand up back in the 60s the
u.s. supported the removal of some of
the Latin American governments and
establishment of non democratic
governments in the region and in some
countries dictatorships that we would
consider barbarian by all means nowadays
when you look back today do you think it
was the right policy for the u.s. to
support the establishment of those non
democratic governments I can't answer
the question in the abstract until I
know what government you're talking
about and whether what you consider the
American establishing of them whether
that the correct description of it Chile
Argentina Brazil Uruguay
the trouble with that sort of debate is
that but when these ideas were first
debated of any charges were first made
partly as a result of the Vietnam War it
had become axiomatic that the United
States was conducting immoral foreign
policies and therefore one need not to
consider what serious people conducted
serious policies might might do the
chilly thing many books have been
written on this and there's no possible
way we can come to a a conclusion about
it when they but there is one incredible
incontrovertible fact it's that when the
revolution that they'd over overthrew a
lien they occurred every Democratic
Party in Chile supported it and every
Democratic Party welcomed it
then when Pinochet whom we did not put
update because we didn't even know him
when Pinochet established a autocratic
regime that's when the Democratic
parties in in Chile sonship and then the
practical problem for any American
president faced with the situation is
can you get involved in trying to
overthrow any government which does not
follow American preferences and what are
the consequences for the United States
well it's not as though we hadn't done
that at the past I mean we you know in
Iran in Guatemala we tried to overthrow
Castro it's it's not as though the
United States said have whatever system
you want when it got to be tricky for
the season of American companies it
seemed to me that America was well okay
it was before my time it was very easy
it's very easy to sit in judgment after
the event if you start from the
assumption that people in high office
generally are there because they think
there's nothing more important they can
do with their lives except to improve
the security and the values of of our
country they can then still come to
wrong conclusions
but its idea that the United States
likes it it faces a practical problem
let me give you an experience I know
about in 1973 Egypt was showing signs of
wanting to move out of the Soviet orbit
into relationship with the United States
and from the point of view of stability
in the Middle East and peace in the
region
we strongly encourage it of course we
knew that said that was also basically
autocratic ruler but I've thought of him
I drew to think of him as a great man
who contributed tremendously to the
peace process in the region and I wish
we had another said that with whom one
could deal as when they'll Griffith then
he was succeeded by Mubarak I I was not
in office at that time so I this is not
a defense of any particular position but
in any one year the American president
and security advisor and Secretary of
State have a finite number of problems
that it is possible to deal with and to
stir up the Middle East when you don't
know what the outcome will be and when
the outcome may be not at all
democratic it happened after Tahrir
Square which we did support this is a
question one should reflect the part
that doesn't say that or every decision
was correct but one cannot
simultaneously say the United States
should not be involved everywhere and
say however they should overthrow the
democratic anti-democratic governments I
understand what you are saying there
it's I'm not saying that America has
always acted consistently I've laid out
what I think the lazy principle should
be but I've seen enough of it to know
that that the in the operation about the
security and survival of the United
States one has to make some allowance
for the contingent and for circumstance
someone on the side
sir I do regret that you know this is
after 30 years in television you know I
think the thought we'd come here we have
all this time but we're down to our last
question or two sir dr. Kissinger the
separation of church and state is the
fundamental principle of Western
democracies and one can argue really
fueled their rise and their success yet
in most troubled regions of the world it
seems to be a heresy punishable by death
in some cases do you think that this is
a fundamental gap a fundamental problem
that is a long-term barrier to their
true global world order that it is if
it's if it could well I agree with you
as a correct definition of American
fundamental principles in the Islam in
the Islamic religion it is not possible
to separate church and state because
they are considered to be part of the
same overriding philosophy and you see
even in Turkey in which they attempted
to create a secular state it is now
drifting back towards the Islamic
concept it isn't so much decades in
relations with China because China has
no concept no national concept of
religion it also has no no national
concept of pluralism but it's a
different issue as in China than it is
in with respect to the Muslim world or
to any order in which religion and the
state are merged
let me see if we can get somebody all
the way back the very last room yes
thank you Berta cost you five hundred
dollars or Derek Jeter's last game
whether this will be very short but I
wanted to thank his Excellency for all
of the all the wonderful things that he
had to say over his career on the
importance of statesmanship and and
statesmanship wasn't really mentioned
tonight and I wonder and answered the
question that where can can we learn how
to be better statesmen whereas
statesmanship being taught any place in
our country that you could signal out as
as fulfilling that role that that was
developed in your own mind and in your
writing over the years we have
particularly reflected in this book I
think that it's a very important
question because statesmanship consists
of helping to lead your society from
where it is to where it hasn't been so
it needs a combination of courage and
character and above all and sense for
the trends of the period and if you look
at the great statesmen they have
generally had to call it it squatted it
now in our society is extremely
pragmatic and considered problem solving
rather than reflection about historical
evolution as its principle
objective and secondly they do to other
obstacles or to are the problems we face
our electoral process is getting so
complicated and so expensive that the
leaders have to spend so much of their
time on the process and on raising money
and on answering questions on television
shows that it's not there's not enough
time to reflect about the direction of
the future if you look at prison in the
nineteenth century they had a succession
of prime minister Thomas Disraeli that's
Salisbury for almost a century
all of whom whatever differences they
had had some basic convictions about the
role of Britain the actions Britain
should take and the reason for it was
that they came from they lived in an
environment in which these values were
sort of thinking for granted and
therefore provided the basis for for
creative thinking I'm very worried and I
expressed that in this about the impact
of the the way history is taught and
conceived on the ability to develop
these quarters you know what a cursory
if you do if you tried to go to Pakistan
and through to China with today's
technology somebody would have taken a
own picture of you and tweeted it out
and the whole secret would have been
blown before you ever got to Beijing and
I'm sure you know you think about that
it's a different it's a different world
we have time for a couple more questions
nope we're done okay
look I'm I'm sorry folks but can we
thank
[Applause]