Kansas State
University
and M. Landon
Lectures on
Public Issues

In December 1966, Kansas State University inaugurated a lecture series honoring a most distinguished Kansan and elder statesman, Alfred M. Landon, and exploring the areas of his lifelong interest—public issues. The lectures are a tribute to the late Governor Landon, not only as a governor of Kansas and a nominee for the presidency of the United States, but also as a spokesman of unusual spirit and dedication on public issues.

Jon Wefald, President, Kansas State University
Charles E. Reagan, Chairman, Landon Lecture Series
Debra A. Van De Velde, Secretary, Landon Lecture Series

Kansas State University, 1996
All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
1430-8924-696-750

Histories,
Different
Conceptions:
The New World
and Our Role
in International
Relations

Dr. Henry Kissinger

Thank you. The president, ladies, and gentlemen, whenever I hear such an eloquent and fulsome introduction, I am reminded of a reception that I attended once. A lady came up to me and said, "I understand you are a fascinating man," she said. "Fascinate me." It was one of the least successful conversations I have ever had. Sometimes when my various accomplishments are listed I like to point out that for a period of time I was both national security advisor and secretary of state simultaneously. I mention that only because never before and never since have relations between the White House and the State Department been as harmonious as they were in those days.

I asked one of the trustees of this university last week what he thought I should talk about, and he said, "You should talk about the food situation in the world." But I am not foolish enough to talk about a subject that most of the audience knows better than I do, so I will talk to you about the international situation as I see it, from the point of view of the adjustments that are necessary in the thinking of, I would say, all countries in the world, but especially of our own in the new world in which we find ourselves.

Ill prepared
by history

People talk about a new world order as if it were already here, but a world order emerges only if most of the major countries—and by countries I mean those countries that are capable of threatening the peace or promoting general

knowledge
important as
standing of
tical forces
the world.

welfare—if most of the major countries are satisfied enough with the conditions so that they will not try to upset them by force, when there is some standard of what is considered reasonable and some consensus on permissible aims and methods. Such a condition does not now exist. And it does not now exist because almost every country finds itself in a world for which little in its history prepares it.

I was talking to your president before I came here, and I made the point that in an understanding of politics, technical knowledge is not as important as an understanding of the historical forces that shape the world. The German statesman, Bismarck, once said: "The best a statesman can do is to listen carefully to the footsteps of God as he marches through history, try to get a hold of his cloak, and walk with him a few steps of the way." And I believe this to be true.

If we go around the world, the United States was brought up in an environment in which we have never had a powerful name, where we were protected by two great oceans, in which really until 1945 we did not have to conduct any foreign policy. Americans thought that whether they participated in international affairs was entirely their choice, and that they could participate and withdraw as they saw fit. The experience of almost any other nation in the world, which is of an environment that could be potentially hostile, in which decisions are imposed and not selected, has never been, in foreign policy, an American experience.

About 15 years ago at the height of the Cold War, I gave a speech at Omaha to a business group, and I talked about the dangers of the Cold War. And in the question period somebody got up and said, "You can talk about the dangers of the Cold War, but what would anyone want from us here in Omaha?" Now the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command was just down the road, and the one city in America guaranteed to be attacked on the first day of the war was Omaha. That had not penetrated into the consciousness of the local leaders of the community.

So America at the end of World War II had close to 50 percent of the world's gross national product, and it had a nuclear monopoly. If you read carefully what we were thinking and saying at the time, we really conducted foreign policy almost like domestic policy, that is to say it was a question of allocation of resources. Any problem we recognized as a problem we could overwhelm with resources, and we had dominant military power. Today we have some 20 to 22 percent of the world's gross national product. We are still the most powerful nation in the world. We still

4

Maintaining a
balance of power

have the largest economy. We still have the most powerful military force, but mathematically, with 22 percent of the world's gross national product, we cannot do everything. Which means we have to be selective. Which means we have to know what matters and what does not matter to American security.

When I see statements by our administration that we have an obligation to bring peace anywhere where it is threatened in the world, it is a violation of the reality in which we live. We can only do it where it affects our security or the security of indispensable allies. We cannot go all over the world slaying dragons, and this is one fundamental change in our environment.

Second, when you have 22 percent of the world's GNP, you are in a situation where if all the rest of the world, or even all the industrial rest of the world were to unite against us, they could, over time, threaten our economy and our security. So we have an interest in maintaining a balance of power in the world. That is a new experience for Americans.

We used to sneer at the British who did this with respect to Europe. We now have to have a concern with respect to the global situation. I repeat, all this is new to Americans. We have tended to believe that we could bring peace by spreading democracy all over the world, and we equated foreign policy with a kind of missionary work. And we have tended to divide our approach between those who thought foreign policy was a subdivision of psychiatry and others who thought foreign policy was a subdivision of theology, and neither of them is adequate to the present situation.

5

Now when we go around the world we find other countries all in similar positions. The European nation-state dominated world affairs until 1945. It is now too small to play a global role, and it is trying to form a unified Europe, and then raising all the questions, "Where does Europe begin, and where are the borders of Europe?"

Russia finds itself now in borders that it has not had since Peter the Great, for 400 years. It was composed of 15 republics that were really subjugated colonial regions, all of which have now become independent. Russia is by far the largest of these and has the vastest territory. But if you observe the Russian domestic discussion, it is really about regaining the empire, and the foreign policy problem we have with Russia is not the domestic politics of Moscow, which is what too many of our journalists and too many of our political figures say. The foreign policy problem we have with Russia is whether it can be kept within the borders that were established internationally after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

And you have to remember that is still a vast territory. St. Petersburg is closer to New York than it is to Vladivostok at the other end of the country. Vladivostok is closer to Seattle than it is to Moscow. So you would think the Russians should not be claustrophobic. But last week I came home from China on a private plane, and we landed at the Siberian city of Kaveric, and an unbelievable haggle developed about whether we could get fuel there, which led me into a discussion with the local head of the customs department. And his basic concern was, when will Russia reacquire Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and all these other countries that are now independent, and this is at the

6

furthest corner of Russia you can almost be. So this is the adjustment Russia has to make.

Japan was isolated for 400 years, an empire for about 90, an economic institution for 50 after the end of the war, but is now coming back to playing a national policy. And China, humiliated in the 19th century, isolated until 1971, has the fastest growth rate of any country in Asia and in the world. And India is also emerging as a major player. So those are the key countries about which I want to say something.

Now Americans have a tendency to believe that all foreigners are a species of misunderstood Americans. I have a friend who is of the view that there is no such thing as an English accent. He thinks the English put this on to intimate Americans, and that if you only can catch an Englishman unaware, like waking him up at 4 o'clock in the morning, he will talk like a normal human being. That is a little bit our attitude towards foreign policy, and we find it very hard to understand that different histories produce different conceptions.

Take Russia. Russia has never been a democracy. Russia has never had a market economy. Russia has always been an empire. Russia has always dominated or tried to dominate its surrounding state. Russia has never had a separation of church and state, so that the church has really been a state institution. And all of these factors have produced a tremendous tendency towards a totalitarianism and towards conquest. And when a nation behaves in a certain way for 400 years you have to assume that it has a certain proclivity in that direction or they would not be doing it.

I believe the outcome of the Russian election is marginally important. But we should stop being obsessed with domestic politics in Russia. We have for too long been obsessed with Gorbachev, and now with Yeltsin. There is no magic cure for Russian foreign policy by America selecting a favorite candidate and then campaigning, in effect, on his behalf.

What Russia is doing now is trying to regain great power status. The Yeltsin foreign policy is not significantly different from what alternative foreign policies will be, maybe a little less strident. The key in our relationship with Russia for the immediate future is to get across the proposition that in that vast territory that I have described they have a huge challenge to build up their own society, but that if they keep bringing pressure on all of their neighbors, sooner or later some version of international tension will reappear. And we have not gotten that across, because

## Russian conduct and the status of power

When a nation behaves in a certain way for 400 years you have to assume that it has a certain proclivity in that direction.

7

China:
1000-year-old
civilization

we have acted as if the relationship was an essentially
psychiatric one between our president and the Russian
president, rather than an objective one based on Russian
conduct.

Now let me say a few words about China. I understand that there are some Chinese students here, and they know how much I like their country and how often I have visited it. But I always say in China, as I do here, President Nixon did not open to China because he is sentimental, and the last thing anyone has ever accused Mao Tse Tung of [is that] he was sentimental. We dealt with each other across a vast ideological government for the reason that Mr. Landon mentioned in the inaugural Landon Lecture: "It is not possible to imagine a stable nation and a peaceful world without some effort to deal with China, and hopefully with a good relationship between China and the United States."

China is a totally different society from ours. First of all,
they have been around for 5,000 years, and, of course,
we have to remember for more than 200 of those we did
not exist, so they had to manage without American advice.
There have been 22 Chinese dynasties; seven of those
have lasted longer than the entire history of the United
States. Six of them have lasted as long as the entire
history of the United States. So you are talking about a
different rhythm. If you ask an American or a European
when something happened, he gives you a date. When
you ask a Chinese when something happened, he gives
you a dynasty. Now you are within 300 years of when it
happened.

So the problem
we have in relations
with China is . . . to
separate the desirable
from the important.

Other major players
and issues

The United States . . .
must learn a more
sophisticated
approach and a more
nonpartisan approach
to foreign policy.

When you travel in China you rarely come to a province
that does not have a larger population than the largest
European country. So one has to understand that govern-
ing 1.2 billion people, who on top of it are madly individual-
istic, is a complicated process. When Nixon met Mao,
Nixon began the conversation by saying, "The chairman's
teachings have changed a great civilization." Mao said,
"No, I have not changed a civilization; I have changed
Beijing and a few of its suburbs." So in China, how to
make the wick of the central government run in that vast
territory, with that huge population, has been a historic
problem.

I mention all of this because we have had a tendency
to deal with China as if our basic objective with respect
to China should be social reform, to change its govern-
mental institutions, to bring about a different perception
of the role of plebes, women, and other worthwhile objec-
tives. But, of course, the Chinese do not consider it self-
evident that we should tell them how to run what they
consider their domestic affairs. And the reason they want
to talk to us is because of concerns with Japan, Russia,
India, and other neighbors.

So the problem we have in relations with China is to go
back to fundamentals, to separate the desirable from the
important, and to recognize that if we want to take on
China, as so many heroes of our domestic debate in both
parties seem to be eager to do, this is not the same as tak-
ing on the Soviet Union. No other Asian country will sup-
port us. We will be alone, and we will be right back to the
situation that Governor Landon deplored, and President
Nixon overcame, namely, that a foreign policy in which we
lose contact with China will undermine the flexibility of our
American foreign policy around the world. It has nothing to
do with whether one likes China or does not like China.

Now I have mentioned China and Russia as examples,
but one could apply this around the world. Within the next
15 years India will emerge as a major player, and it will
apply some of the experiences of the colonial period when
the foreign policy of the British Empire was run from New
Delhi and not from London, east of Suez, which means that
India will try to exert its influence towards Singapore and
toward Asia. Now I could go around the world, but to talk
about individual policies [is not my point]. My point is that
the United States, given the situation I have described,
must learn a more sophisticated approach and a more
nonpartisan approach to foreign policy.

8

9

We are in the position, especially in Asia, where we have fewer quarrels with any of the nations than they have with each other. And, therefore, we have the basis for a foreign policy in which we can maintain tolerable relations with everybody, and commit ourselves only after we know which is the real threat, the stability. We do not have to be in the front line of every confrontation. We have to be in the front line of an overall design that we understand.

Things are changing, not only nationally, but economically. Within ten years we are bound to have an energy shortage. As China and India and Brazil and Indonesia industrialize, the existing energy resources will not be adequate, and, therefore, energy reserves in areas that most Americans have never heard of—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan in the center of Asia—become of great importance, and the direction of the pipelines will become potentially as decisive as what happens to Middle East oil.

Five years ago I saw studies that food would be in permanent surplus and that agricultural companies would have great difficulty unless they consolidated. Now in this year for sure, there is going to be a global food shortage, and it may become congenital if certain weather conditions persist.

So we need a really much more general and sophisticated approach, and I must stress that while the existing administration would certainly be my second choice in this election, the approach should be evolved into a nonpartisan approach. And the problem we have as a nation is that we feel too secure. In a place like this it is hard to believe that what happens in so many different parts of the world can affect and will affect our well-being.

And we have another problem, which is getting to be a global problem, and it is this: there is no doubt that computers and television have expanded the range of available knowledge in an extraordinary manner, but they also have made it so easy to acquire it that the ability to form contacts is being destroyed, and the imagination is being threatened. When you read a book you have to imagine it. When you see a television production it is handed to you and all you have to do is register it. So when you look in every country the type of person that was so dominant, say 50 years ago, under the older educational system, the number of people are shrinking. And the modern politicians are quick, flip, and picture-oriented, but can they hold together in their minds all of the elements that are necessary, and can they acquire the inward

Great leaders are not great technicians or intellectuals; they are the people who have a view of the future and the courage to go there.

## Gauging the size of the problem

assurance to act like the great presidents have, before it was obvious to everybody. Because great leaders are not great technicians or intellectuals; they are the people who have a view of the future and the courage to go there.

I have a Chinese friend who claims that there exists the following Chinese proverb. I say claims, because I, frankly, do not believe that as many Chinese proverbs [exist] as they lay upon us. But at any rate he says the proverb goes something like this: "When there is turmoil under the heavens, little problems are dealt with as if they were big problems, and big problems are not dealt with at all. When there is order under the heavens, big problems are reduced to small problems, and small problems will not obsess us."

Our big challenge is first to learn what is a big and what is a little problem. Second, to reduce the big problems to manageable problems. And with all the things I have said, do not misunderstand me, there is no other nation in the world, that with all the changes, nevertheless has the capacity to bring about order, to expand prosperity and to preserve the peace as the United States does. In fact, we are probably the only nation of which it can be said that the future of international relations depends largely upon ourselves. Thank you very much.

10

11

v. Landon Lectures on issues

(L)

Landon
Lenges in International Relations

Gill
ging South: Politics and Issues

Ronald Reagan
ucation: Its Role in Contemporary

George Romney
ange of International Development

tobert F. Kennedy
Vietnam and at Home

Nelson A. Rockefeller
try's Problems, Solutions

hlesinger
Election: An Historical Perspective

like Mansfield
perspective

V. C. Westmoreland
of the U.S. Army in Today's World

Edward W. Brooke
security: Dollars, Demands, and

Humphrey
an Make Our Government Work

op Fulton J. Sheen
ms of Love

Walter J. Hickel
the Solution: Not Part of the

Richard M. Nixon
Stand Up and Be Counted

tice Earl Warren
ative is Chaos

lugh Scott
is of Foreign Policy

neth Galbraith
policy: The Next Reform

Voodcock
omic Game Plan

Elliot Richardson
reeds and Government—A Realistic
nt

William D. Ruckelshaus
The Crisis of Trust and the Environmental
Movement

Secretary Earl L. Butz
The Future Belongs to Those Who Prepare
for It

Dan Rather
Reporter's Notes

1973
Rear Admiral Alan Shepard
How Do We Stand in Space?

General Alexander M. Haig
A Strategic Overview

William F. Buckley
The Assault on the Free Market

1974
Anne Armstrong
Crisis and Challenge

Billy Graham
The Divine Answer to the National Dilemma

Walter H. Heller
The Energy Crisis and the Economy

1975
J. William Fulbright
Energy and the Middle East: Interests and
Illusions

Secretary William E. Simon
Restoring Our Prosperity

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The World in the Year Ahead

1976
Senator Henry M. Jackson
America and Freedom's Future

Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.
The Alternatives to Detente

Carl T. Rowan
What Jimmy Carter's Election Will Mean

Senator Thomas F. Eagleton
1977: Year of Opportunity in the Middle East?

1977
Senator Charles H. Percy
Does the United States Have a Responsibility
to Feed the World?

Senator Mike Mansfield
Best of Times—Worst of Times

Secretary Bob Bergland
Toward a National Food Policy

David S. Broder
American Politics in the Carter Era

1978
Malcolm S. Forbes
Where We're At and Where We're Headed

President Gerald R. Ford
The War Powers Resolution

Milton Friedman
Free Trade: Producer versus Consumer

Charles Collingwood
Reflections on Power (and Influence)

1979
Senator Howard Baker
Toward a New Republic

Dr. Norman Borlaug
Civilization Will Depend More upon Flourishing
Crops than on Flowery Rhetoric

Shirley Temple Black
It's All Perceptions Now

Vice President Walter F. Mondale
SALT II: An American Decision

1980
Senator Barry Goldwater
The World Today

Governor John Connally
America in the 80s

Hugh Sidey
Power and the Media

James R. Schlesinger
American Security and Energy Policy

Secretary Edmund S. Muskie
Longer-Term Issues

1981
George Gallup, Jr.
The Mood of America

Paul A. Volcker
Dealing with Inflation: Obstacles and
Opportunities

Sir Harold Wilson
Western World: Economic Crisis

Secretary John R. Block
Clearing the Road for Tomorrow

1982
Senator Mark Hatfield
Foreign Policy in a Transition Era

President Ronald Reagan
Rebuilding America

Charles Kuralt
America: The Long View

1983
Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani
Control and Decontrol in the Oil Market

1984
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
The Changing Relationship Between Politics
and Public Policy

Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder
Great Expectations: From Abigail Adams to the
White House

Hodding Carter III
Whose News Is It?

Mayor Tom Bradley
There Are No Impossible Dreams for
Possibility Thinkers

Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger
Arms Reduction and the SDI

President Jose Napoleon Duarte
The Democratic Process in El Salvador: The
Meeting at La Palma

Lesley Stahl
The Press and the President

1985
Senator Bob Dole
The Dream of America

Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip"
O'Neill, Jr.
Half a Century of American Achievement

Vice President George Bush
Looking Forward to the Summit Conference

1986
Tom Brokaw
Television News in a Changing World

Secretary of State George P. Shultz
Moral Principles and Strategic Interests: The
Worldwide Movement toward Democracy

Secretary of Education William J. Bennett
Once More, A Plea for History

1987
George F. Will
The Right to Pay Taxes

Franco Modigliani
What We Have Learned from the Reagan
Economic Experience

(L)

**Nancy Landon Kassebaum**
lenge of Change

**t Oscar Arias Sanchez**
Ours to Write

**Court Justice Sandra Day**
ng Justice

**of the House Jim Wright**
/ Is Not Our Destiny

**Tuchman**
e the Progressive Republicans?

**Idor Vernon Walters**
s of the United Nations

**Clayton Yeutter**
isticated in Your Education

**Colin Powell**
ure What It Used to Be

**dor Abba Eban**
for Peace in the Middle East

**of Labor Elizabeth Dole**
s on the State of the American

**richard H. Truly**
ration of Space

**tor Bill Bradley**
World Challenges America Faces

**Jimmy Carter**
the White House: Global Issues and
East

**tor David L. Boren**
Century: Is America Ready for It?

**Lawrence Douglas Wilder**
for Change

**Violeta Chamorro**
the State of History in Nicaragua

**of Education Lamar Alexander**
in Transition

**eney**
Back to Teaching Truths

**ishaw**
Playing Field in America

**rauss**
ing in the Promise of Spring in

**Pat Robertson**
The Turning Tide

**Jesse Jackson**
Trapped in the Tradewinds of Our Times:
Violence and Crime in America

**1994**
**Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy**
Promises Made, Promises Kept

**1995**
**H. Ross Perot**
Career Advice for the 21st Century

**Secretary of Defense William Perry**
The Consequences and Choices of Alternative
Security Policies in Bosnia

**William Raspberry**
A Crisis of Community

**Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman**
Securing Our Place in the Global Economy

**Attorney General Janet Reno**
Our Children, Our Communities

**1996**
**Dr. Harold Varmus**
Gene Research: A Biological Frontier

**General Wojciech Jaruzelski**
Moving Poland Toward Democracy

**Dr. Henry Kissinger**
Different Histories, Different Conceptions:
The New World and Our Role in
International Relations

Patrons of the Landon
Lecture Series
1995-1996

Jay and Beth Alloway
Joye Ansdell
Mariellen J. Appleby
Maurice Arnold
Roger and Gaye Badeker
Mark and Beverly Bahr
Shirley Baker
Dean and Donna Bark
Ross and Marianna Beach
Daniel and Lois Beatty
Ray and Rachel Bert
Ray and Maxine Blanchard
Sylvia J. Blanding
John and Della Blythe
Jarold and Barbara
Boettcher
Jim E. Boyer, Jr.
Jim and Margie Braden
Darrell D. Brensing
Ben and Eleanor Brent
Helen Brockman
Tom and Christine Buchanan
Bruce and Jacque Buehler
Joseph F. Bunk
Orville and Edith Burtis
Bernard and Sharon Butler
Jean F. Caul
Chuck and Georgia Chandler
Leo and Irene Chapman
Robert and Virginia
Chapman
Agnes M. Chartier
Ruth E. Clifton
Richard P. Coleman
Edgar and Doris Cooper
Maynard and Helen Cox
Chris and Nancy Curtin
Bob and Tracey DeBruyn
Timothy and Nancy
Donoghue
Lucille M. Duffy
John and Fran Dunbar
William R. Durkee
Louise Ellis
Howard and Ann Erickson
Hervey and Ellen Feldman
Louise H. Ferguson
Lois L. Fink
Barry Flinchbaugh
Jerry Frieman
Holly and Beth Fryer
Diane Gaede
Ordella I. Geisler
Winnifred J. Geissler
Ellsworth and Luella Gerritz
Bill and Frances Glasscock

James E. Good
Arch and Shelley Gothard
Earlene Faith Gould
John and Mary Lee Graham
Helen Graves
Elizabeth Greer
Mary Jo Griffith
Robert J. Gutru
Dick and Joan Hahn
George and Kathryn Halazon
Irene Harlan
Orval and Mildred Harold
Claude and Marilyn Harwood
Margaret Hay
Stan and Helen Hayes
J. Randall and Cathy
Hedlund
Robin and Barbara Higham
Joleen Hill
Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.
Ruth Hoeflin
William and Virginia
Honstead
Charles and Julie Hostetler
Philip and Marilouise Huff
Cleve and Sallie Humbert
Clair and Rachel Hutchinson
Ching-Lai Hwang
J. Harold and LaVerne
Johnson
Robert and Barbara Johnson
C. Clyde and Margaret Jones
Orris and Charlotte Kelly
Dan Kershaw
Howard and Sharon
Kessinger
Chloris Killian
Gretchen King
Maxine Kroeplin
Robert and Jan Kruh
Earl Kvasnicka
John and Joleen Lang
Katherine L. Langton
Eugene J. Laughlin
Jim and Marilyn Legg
Jim Lindquist
Mildred Loeffler
Art and Marge Loub
Mr. and Mrs. Emerson Lynn
Ernest and Betty Mader
Bedford and Lois Magnus
Joyce Marr
Sherry McCrory
Dean McNeal
Fred and Virginia Merrill
Merle Miller

Orpha J. Milbradt
Mary Molt
Mark Moore
Florence E. Morehouse
Richard and Marjorie Morse
Frank and Joan Mosier
Virginia Moxley
David Mugler
Leon and Eva Mugler
William L. Muir
Keith and Marian Mull
Charles and Deanna Munson
Wayne Nafziger
G. Kathleen Newell
Bob and Lou Newsome
Charles and Pat Niemberger
Charles and Audrey Norton
Phyllis Nungester
Carol E. Oukrop
Laurence and Eunice Pacey
Caroline Peine
John and Karen Pence
Karen Penner
Bill and Doris Phillips
Grant and Miriam Poole
Donald and Lynne Rathbone
Dale V. Reed
Willa Regnier
Sandra Lee Reilly
Leland Reitz
T. Russell Reitz
Amy Button Renz
Dea and Pat Richard
Verlyn D. Richards
Rosalys M. Rieger
Faith R. Roach
Dixie Roberts
Mr. and Mrs. Edward Rolfs
Bernice Ruddick
Lee and Lea Ruggles
Mike and Nancy Ryan
A.J. and Jane Sajo
Sam Samarrai
Lew Jene Schneider
Robert and Evelyn Schoeff
Mr. and Mrs. Marlin Schrader
Mary Schroeder
Leonard and Florence
Schruben
Florence Schwab
Pat Schwensen
Edward and Karen Seaton
Jay and Ned
Roger and Connie Sink
Thomas and Susan Skinner
Marian C. Spears