[Y]

and the reality that, if it goes back to its historical policies, it will launch another cycle of tension. The dialogue between China and the United States has been complicated by the fact that Americans find it difficult to understand Chinese chronology. If you ask a Westerner when something has occurred, he will give you a precise date. When you ask a Chinese when something occurred, he will name a dynasty. Most of those dynasties have lasted longer than the entire history of the United States, and it is therefore not self-evident to the Chinese why the United States should lecture to them about domestic arrangements which have evolved over 5,000 years.

In the economic field, we have recently witnessed a bank employee in Singapore generating a loss in the billions over a three-day period. And while people say it was due to inadequate controls, it also tells us a great deal about the computer age. I listened the other day to the computer assessments of a major financial institution and they listed 26 categories which they were taking into account. I could not help wondering about the

6

fellow at the other end of their computer: does he have the same
26 categories? Does he interpret them the same way? On top of
which, it turns out that there are about 100,000 similar
transactions going on simultaneously. How does one prevent chaos
in such a situation? And if everybody adheres to the same risk
criteria, how to prevent everybody from running to the same side
of the boat and tipping it over? What is to happen to our
societies if there is a really major crisis in the economic
field?

All these complexities are compounded by an enormous shift
in the human consciousness. I suppose the older generation
always finds the younger generation different. And it has to be
since it has so much less experience. We are now witnessing a
period of fundamental change in the human consciousness. My
generation was brought up on books. The new generation is
brought up on computers, in which I am illiterate. My
ten-year-old nephews know more about computers than I do. And
when you were brought up on books, you have to form concepts

7

[Y]

which relate ideas to each other in a way that helps you find
your way through what you know for there is an inadequate amount
of empirical knowledge. When you are brought up on computers,
knowledge is ever just at your fingertip, but is there a true
understanding of what it means? What my generation had to spend
months digging out of libraries, my secretary can get from her
computer programs.

The problem is, can we relate the increase of knowledge to a
shape for the future? If you look at great statesmen in history,
you will probably agree with me that the difference between them
and their contemporaries was very rarely intelligence. The
difference was that they had a vision of the future and the
courage to walk alone for part of the way. The task of any
national leader is to move his society from where it is to where
it has never been. That requires an inner strength and a
conviction that is beyond mere knowledge. When you look at the
cathedrals of Europe, it is not easy to remember that they were
built by peasant societies with very small populations over

8

CYD

hundreds of years; because they had, primitive as they were, a
vision of the future - which is precisely the task before us
today.

I keep hearing that the Cold War is over and that, because
there is no imminent danger, we do not know what to do anymore.
It is true. The Cold War is over. And my generation, which had
the task of avoiding a general war, discharged that
responsibility with greater or lesser success. In the
contemporary world which I have sketched, some integrating
principles are very much needed. The next generation has to
build the peace in a way that goes beyond avoiding danger. In
America, there is endless debate between the idealists and the
pragmatists. But the greatness of America is that it has always
represented both. Idealism by itself can lead to posturing and
self-righteousness. But pragmatism by itself can lead to a
celebration of the status quo. Somebody once said, "If you don't
know where you are going, any road will get you there."

We are now at the beginning of a period in which the United

9

C Y J

States has a truly unique opportunity. Whatever our shortcomings, we have better relations with all of the key nations of the world than they have with each other. There isn't a crisis in which people do not come to us or that is beyond our capacity. But we cannot solve every crisis. We have to decide which issues might have to be handled alone, which we can do only together with others, and which we cannot settle at all. But whatever we decide, none of these solutions is possible without a major American contribution. In the world which I have described, the absence of an overriding danger ought to free us to come forward with ideas about how to shape the world. We cannot do this if our political debates are as bitter and as nasty as they have come to be, or in a nation where people celebrate credibility gaps and derelictions as if government were some sort of conspiracy.

Almost all persons in high office that I have known have sought to do the best for their country. They may make mistakes but these are made in the service of their country and in the

10

service of the ideals of their country. We have to keep this in
mind as we seek national reconciliation because, at the end of
the day, it is America which will play the decisive role in
shaping a world in which the just can be free and the weak can be
secure.

11

May 23, 1995

HAK -

Claremont McKenna has sent a copy of your speech for any edits you might want to make before they reprint it, in its entirety, in a "Commemoration Journal" of the Ceremony and in the College's magazine which is sent to parents, alumni, and prospective students.

You indicated that it is OK for the school to publish your remarks, but now that we have a copy of it for your review (attached), we wanted to confirm your decision.

'MAY 19 '95 10:29 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLL. P.R.

P.27

CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

FORTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL COMMENCEMENT

Address by
Dr. Henry Kissinger,
Former U.S. Secretary of State

Sunday, May 14, 1995

Ladies and gentlemen, before you get too carried away by this introduction, let me tell you, it puts me in the position in which I once found myself when a lady came up to me at a reception and said, "I understand you're a fascinating man. Fascinate me!"

It turned into one of the less successful conversations I have had. I came here because of the chairman of your board, [Robert A. Day '65] who is being honored today. President De Gaulle once said, "We go through life looking for hidden treasures, only to find at the end that there are no hidden treasures, and only friendship is left to us." Of course, De Gaulle didn't know Robert Day. If there are any hidden treasures, he'll find them. But I have had the great honor to be his friend and to see his dedication to this college and the warmth with which he treats all those close to him, and it means a great deal to me to be able to be here on this occasion when he is awarded an honorary degree.

Now, one reason I have been reluctant to be a commencement speaker in the past is that when I was of the age of the present graduating class, I used to think that people, like myself, were offering great advise about the future who were not really older editions of myself but a different species who had been put on this earth just about the way they presented themselves, and

R-97%

909 621 8100

05-19-95 02:29PM

P002 #23

'MAY 19 '95 10:30 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLL. P.R.

P.3/7

[LC]

that the relevance of their advice to me was relatively limited. I will talk about something that I know about and let you figure out for yourself what it means to you.

I have spent much of my life studying international affairs. Having come to this country as a refugee in the '30s, I have felt a special obligation to this country. When the validity of much of what America stood for was constantly being challenged, I could never forget what America meant to my family, to myself, and to all those in a similar position. I had lived in a totalitarian state and, therefore, I was somewhat impatient with many of those who would downgrade what America represented, even when I didn't agree with government policies. When I graduated, the Korean War had just started. Germany and Japan were occupied countries. We had no contact whatever with China. The Soviet Union was considered a basic enemy. Nobody could have predicted then, or certainly nobody predicted, that a few decades later Germany and Japan would be considered economic rivals of the United States, that China and the United States had friendly relations, that the Soviet Union would have ceased to exist, that about 100 states which were then colonies had become independent.

I mention this because we must never forget that almost all of the foreign policy problems we have today are the results of our successes. I don't know any other nation that can say that what it dreamt of in 1950 became a reality in 1990. If you compare what American leaders of both parties were stating as American objectives around 1950, you will find an amazing correspondence with the world that we have today. It, however, faces us with a problem described by George Bernard Shaw as follows: "There are two tragedies in life. One is to fail to

2

R=96%

909 621 8100

05-19-95 02:29PM

P003 #23

P.4/7

[LC]

fulfill your heart's desire, and the second is to fulfill your heart's desire." We are in a position now where we face a world for which very little in our history prepares us. At a moment when all other nations in the world also are facing an environment with which they have no experience, the United States is unique among the nations in the world in being populated almost entirely by immigrants, in never having had a powerful neighbor, in always being protected by two great oceans, and, therefore, the United States developed a style of foreign policy that made it believe that it could intervene or withdraw at its own discretion. That it had the choice of conducting foreign policy or retreating into isolationism. The United States never had to make the calculations of rewards and penalties that characterize the foreign policies of almost every other nation in the world.

Now we live in a world in which the immediate danger of annihilation in nuclear war has passed. On the other hand, economics have become global. Communications are now instantaneous. Events can be witnessed in real time all over the world and all of this happened in the past 15 years. With the decline of the danger of nuclear war, more and more local rivalries have commanded attention. The problem we face is that the moment technology has become global human loyalties in many parts of the world have shrunk into ethnic and regional quarrels. There is no necessary relationship any more between the political loyalties, economic necessities, and communications technology. Historically, when the various strengths of human consciousness have been out of pace with each other, a period of considerable turmoil was ahead of mankind. Now, in such a world, what is the United States supposed to do? Moreover, we can't get much help from other countries. Russia now lives in borders it has not known since

3

R-97%

909 621 8100

05-19-95 02:29PM

P004 #23

MAY 19 '95 10:31 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLL. P.R.

P.57

Peter the Great, and it is torn between and imperial tradition and present realities, between the fact that it has always expanded and the reality that if it goes back to its traditional policies, it will start another cycle of tensions. The dialog between China and the United States is complicated by the fact that Americans find it difficult to understand the chronology of China. If you ask a Westerner when something happens, he will give you a date. When you ask a Chinese when something happened, he will give you a dynasty. Most of those dynasties have lasted longer than the entire history of the United States, and it is therefore not self-evident to the Chinese why the United States should lecture them about their domestic arrangements, which have evolved over 5,000 years.

In the economic field, we have seen somebody, a bank employee in Singapore, generating $27 billion in a three-day period, and while people say it was due to inadequate controls, it tells us something about the computer age. I listened the other day to the computer assessments of a major financial institution and they gave me 26 categories they were taking into account and I said: "How about the guy at the other end of the computer? Does he have the same 26 categories? And does he interpret it the same way? As on top of that, there are about 100,000 similar transactions going on simultaneously. How can one prevent chaos in such a situation? Or how can one prevent everybody from running to the same side of the boat if they follow the same risk criteria, then tip the boat over? And what will happen to our societies if there is a major crisis in the economic field?" All the complexities that we face are compounded by a huge change in human consciousness. I suppose the older generation always says that the younger generation is different. They have to be since they have less experience. We now live during a real change of

4

R=97%

909 621 8100

05-19-95 02:29PM

P005 #23

P.6/7

[LC]

consciousness. My generation was brought up on books. The new generation is brought up on computers, in which I am an illiterate. My ten-year-old nephews know more about computers than I know now, or probably will ever know. When you are brought up on books, you have to form concepts that relate ideas to each other in order to help you find your way through what you know. There is an inadequate amount of empirical knowledge. When you are brought up on computers, knowledge is at your fingertips, but is there understanding of what it means? What my generation had to spend months in libraries to dig out, my secretary can get from computer programs. The problem is, can one relate to the increase of knowledge to a shape of the future? If you look at great statesmen in history, you will probably agree with me that the difference between them and their contemporaries was very rarely intelligence. The difference was that they had a vision of the future and the courage to walk alone for part of the way. The task of any national leader is to move his society from where it is to where it has never been.

That requires an inner strength and a conviction that is beyond merely knowledge. When you look at the cathedrals of Europe, it is not easy to remember that they were built by peasant societies of very small populations that were building for hundreds of years, because they had, primitive as they were, a vision of the future and that is the big task we have today.

I keep hearing that the Cold War is over and that, therefore, there is no danger and that, therefore, we don't know what to do. It is true. The Cold War is over. And my generation, which had the task of avoiding general war, discharged that responsibility with greater or lesser success, but in the world that I have sketched, some integrating ideas are needed. The next

5

R-97%

909 621 8100

05-19-95 02:29PM

P006 #23

MAY 19 '95 10:32 CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLL. P.R.

P.77

generation has to build the peace. That goes beyond avoiding danger. In America there is an endless debate between idealism and pragmatism. But the greatness of America is, that it has really represented both. Idealism by itself can lead to posturing and self-righteousness. But pragmatism by itself can lead to a celebration of the status quo. Somebody once said, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."

We are now at the beginning of a period in which the United States really has a unique opportunity. Whatever our shortcomings, we have better relations with all of the key nations of the world than they have with each other. There isn't a crisis in which people do not come to us, that is beyond our capacity. We cannot solve every crisis. We have to decide those issues we might have to do alone, those issues which we can do only with others, and those issues which we cannot settle at all. But whatever we decide, none of these solutions is possible without a major American contribution. The world that I have described is a tremendous opportunity, the absence of an overwhelming danger should free us to come forward with some ideas of how to shape the world. We cannot do this if our political debates are as bitter and as nasty as they have come to be or in a nation where people celebrate credibility gaps and derelictions as if government were some sort of conspiracy. Most people in high office, almost all people -- I would say all people in high office that I have known -- have wanted to do the best for their country. They may have made mistakes, they have truly made mistakes, but they were mistakes in the service of their country and in the service of their ideals of the country. This we ought to keep in mind--to find again a national reconciliation, because at the end of the day, it is America which will play the decisive role in shaping the world in which the just can be free and the weak can be secure.

6

R-96%

909 621 8100

05-19-95 02:29PM

P007 #23