[LC]

styles with their political patterns.)

He went on to become Harvard's most famous and controversial professor of history and political science. By then, his Ph.D. dissertation, only slightly reedited, had become an all-time best-seller as *A World Restored*. It lays out his basic theories, based on the rivalry for power between Britain and Germany in the mid-nineteenth century.

Richard Nixon, for all his flaws, was a president with a feel for foreign policy, and it was he who brought Kissinger into government, where he could practice what he taught.

A made-for-media personality with a confidently self-deprecating humor, he made the media work for him. As national security adviser, he suddenly disappeared from sight on several occasions to go to China, with the assistance of Pakistan's Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at a time when the United States did not even recognize the largest nation in the world. While the two countries were still "incognito" to each other, he took President Nixon there on, of all things, a state visit.

He borrowed a plane from President Pompidou of France to disguise an arrival in Paris to meet with North Vietnamese representatives and try to solve the Vietnam war.

When Egypt's President Anwar Sadat rejected the Soviet Union in 1972, and a year later crossed the Suez Canal to liberate a symbolic portion of the occupied Egyptian Sinai, Kissinger started the process which led, half a decade later, to Camp David—virtually by juggling diplomatic and arms assistance to both sides and bringing them together at Kilometer 101 for a process that began Israel's withdrawal from Egypt.

One of his most famous aphorisms came when the late Golda Meir, then prime minister of Israel, said that all Israel wanted was "total security." Said Kissinger, "Total security for one country, Madam, means total insecurity for all the others." Obviously, the former Milwaukee teacher hadn't read *A World Restored*.

**Penthouse:** Would the Washington-Moscow conflict have existed even if Russia had not become a Communist country? Is it just the inevitable clash of giants?

**Kissinger:** Yes, to some extent it would have existed. Russia and Britain were always in conflict. Throughout history, Russia was expanding into some of its neighbors. But without Communism it would not have had the same burden; it would certainly have been more easily resolved.

**Penthouse:** How will the East-West conflict be resolved?

**Kissinger:** Well, it will be solved, for two reasons. Either one or the other of the two superpowers will become relatively weaker, not so much in military power but in overall performance, or both will get weaker in relation to their environment. For comparison, the relative positions of

Germany, France, and Britain to each other have become essentially irrelevant to the balance of power in the world. In the nineteenth century, their relationships controlled the world; after 1945, whether one or the other was stronger, it did not have the same local significance, and moreover they had exhausted each other. If there was a war, the conflict would be solved, even if there were no victors.

**Penthouse:** And if there's no war?

**Kissinger:** If there is no war, I believe the Soviet system is suffering a systematic crisis, and the emergence of China, Japan, and India as major powers in the twentieth century will put the whole thing into a new perspective. Now, before that point is reached, it is conceivable that a war will occur, or a heightening of conflict. As the choices become narrower, temptations to break out of this dilemma

who feel that they are at least as busy as he is can catch up on reading.

"Among the publications on Kissinger's coffee table, however, was a Hong Kong gossip magazine with numerous pictures of my host taken during a recent visit. These showed him with a lot of people he obviously didn't know, but who knew him.

"Three of the waiting-room walls are blank. The only three pictures are curiously boxed together on the fourth. They are Chinese polychrome woodcuts. Two of them show short-legged Mongol ponies cantering in opposite directions. Both are saddled but riderless, and one has five arrows in its rump. Like my host a decade ago, they are making a hasty exit from a distasteful battlefield. The third woodcut is of full-size Asian, but not Mongol, horses. They seem to speak of the elegance of life beyond the White House.

"On the sofas, an extravagance of cushions is arranged with some apparently feminine imagination. Otherwise, it could be any dentist's waiting room in Tenafly. If you really didn't know Kissinger before you came, you can't afford him.

"The actual study of the twentieth century's most famous civil servant is relatively small and Spartan. If H. K. behaved like the common run of Washington's polis, his pictures with the famous would cover not only the walls but the ceiling and the floor as well. Those with mere three-term congressmen would be draped on bamboo and used as shower curtains. Kissinger limits his office display to a select few, and one steals the same glance at them that one would steal at T. Boone Pickens's own personal investment portfolio. The second faces in the photos belong to Nixon, Ford, King Hussein of Jordan, Sadat, his successor Hosni Mobarak, Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the Pope. There are also two photos with Reagan, so he must still be President; one wonders which of the two will be consigned to the stacks in January 1989."

will also become greater. In other words, I'm not saying it will automatically work itself out.

**Penthouse:** Pierre Mendes-France, former prime minister of France, got France out of Indochina, with United States approval. Kennedy and Johnson got the United States in, as deeply as the French ever were. Was our involvement in Vietnam a mistake, or was it justified?

**Kissinger:** The depth of our involvement was a mistake, and surely a mistake if we were not prepared to win. Was it justified? I think the fundamental analysis was wrong, that this [the Communist challenge in Vietnam] was the cutting edge of the world revolution.

It was quite a moral war in the sense that America wanted nothing for itself except the independence of these people who were truly menaced by an aggres-

Washington reporter Russell Warren Howe conducted this interview with Kissinger earlier this year in New York. He subsequently told us what it is like to be granted an audience by the former secretary of state: "Today, from an office in a bank building on New York's Park Avenue, Henry heads Kissinger Associates. A couple of blocks away, an escort service advertises itself as the 'most expensive' in New York. Kissinger may not be quite as blatant in stressing that high fees are synonymous with quality, but he is clearly not your average foreign business consultant.

"The fact that he is better known than any of his successors, that more Americans recognize his name than could tell you who now occupies the seventh floor of the State Department, lends a certain aura to the premises. A reporter enters with the thought that, even sick or dying, Kissinger would always have something interesting to say, and know how to say it interestingly.

"Fortunately, he responds to questions with concision, speaking in paragraphs with no 'uh's,' and managing to say as much in a few sentences as most American-born politicians say in a few decades.

"Waiting for Henry gave me a half hour in his waiting room. You can tell a great deal about people from the rooms where they make their visitors wait, for they know that it is not handshakes or plastic smiles that create the first impression. Washington super-lawyer Clark Clifford, for instance, makes sure that all the magazines are current issues, so that people

80 PENTHOUSE

[LC]

sive neighbor. Now, did we have an obligation to protect anyone being menaced by an aggressive neighbor? That is the question that was not adequately analyzed.

**Penthouse:** Short of an attack on the United States, would Americans respond to the draft again, willingly?

**Kissinger:** In case of an attack on Europe, yes.

**Penthouse:** How about an attack on Japan?

**Kissinger:** In the case of any major strategic attack, yes. For a Vietnam-type war, I think not.

**Penthouse:** What about the Middle East?

**Kissinger:** Borderline. It would depend on the scale of the Soviet attack. If it's a war between Middle Eastern countries in which we're supposed to be drawn, it would be tough to decide. If the Soviets marched into Iran, I think probably yes.

**Penthouse:** While we're on the Middle East, it had been said by Prime Minister Mendes-France that Israel would only survive if it ceased to be a European colony in Asia and made itself acceptable to its neighbors. Do you think Israel will survive?

**Kissinger:** What Mendes-France said—that Israel could survive by making itself acceptable in the Middle East—was probably true in the fifties. I have jokingly, but only half-jokingly, presumed to say that Israel ought to offer to join the United Arab Republic as one of its constituent states. I repeat that it was said half-jokingly, but the philosophy was correct.

Now, there is no way that Israel will be acceptable to some of its neighbors, no matter what documents they may sign.

How should this issue be resolved? It is conceivable to me that if [Iranian] Shiite fundamentalists were to score a huge victory in Iraq, then moderate Arabs might make de facto peace with Israel in order to protect themselves against greater dangers; and if that happened, and if Israel acted wisely and with the spirit of Mendes-France, I think that a cooperation might emerge that could survive Middle East turmoil. But I think there is a high possibility of an extended conflict before that happens, between moderate Arabs and fundamentalists, with Israel backing the moderate Arabs, but without fighting. Another way would be an ad hoc agreement between Israel and some of its neighbors; but fundamental changes in history rarely happen without a cause.

**Penthouse:** You don't think that Jordan will simply become Palestine?

**Kissinger:** I think if Israel was able to expel the rest of the Arabs from what is now Israel, perhaps.

**Penthouse:** If I understand Ariel Sharon correctly, he is not thinking about what is now Israel. He thinks that life will become so intolerable for Muslims and Christians in the West Bank and Gaza that they will flee the occupied territories into Jordan, where they will become an even vaster

AT JACK DANIEL'S DISTILLERY we never have to go too far to find our Christmas tree.

The woods around our part of the country are full of them. So getting a good one is never a problem. We hope you won't have to go to too much trouble getting ready for the holidays either. So you can sit back and enjoy this happiest of all seasons with your family and good friends.

CHARCOAL MELLOWED FOR SMOOTHNESS

[L.C.]

majority than now, and take over the
kingdom, which would become the re-
public of Palestine.

Kissinger: Well, if all the Arabs were
thrown out of Gaza and the West Bank,
and the territories became colonel-
ized—without that, Israel becomes like
South Africa. Such a vast population
transfer [from the occupied territories to
Jordan] probably would be impossible.

Penthouse: Now that the western rim of the Pacific looks as if it's becoming the economic epicenter of the world, how will this affect the future of North America and Europe?

Kissinger: The emergence of China, de-
pending on what form it takes, will have
a huge effect. If you combine that large
population with advanced technology,
then it could lead to a relative reduction
of Western influence.

Penthouse: Does it mean a diminution of our standard of living, or does a rising tide lift all boats?

Kissinger: I think it would lead, in time, to a slower rate of growth in Europe and probably in the United States—not an absolute reduction, but a relative reduc-
tion.

Penthouse: Culturally, what will be the ef-
fects of the Orient setting the pace on an
equal basis with the West; e.g., will we
see more Japanese influences here?

Kissinger: I think we will see more Japa-
nese influences in East Asia, not in Amer-
ica. I think the Japanese culture does not
export easily.

Penthouse: How would you compare de-
velopment in India to that in China?

Kissinger: India has, in many respects, at least as many of the requisites for devel-
opment as China; in terms of technology,
probably more.

Penthouse: In terms of technology, isn't it about a generation ahead of China?

Kissinger: I would think so. India will be a major player in the Indian Ocean. Even while India was governed by Britain, the balance of power between Malaysia and Indochina and as far away as Hong Kong, and in the Indian Ocean, while exercised by Britain, came more from Delhi than from London. While the thinking may have been done by Britain, it is astonishing how much more it came from Delhi than from London.

Penthouse: Although English-speaking and a democracy, have we ignored In-
dia, even during your tenure in office, be-
cause unlike China it does not have a
border with the Soviet Union?

Kissinger: We have very special necessi-
ties with China. Whether you give atten-
tion to a country depends on the scope
open for diplomacy. In the time I was in
office, it was in India's cold-blooded in-
terest to build itself up with the aid of the
Soviet Union. Its industry was rudimen-
tary enough to be able to use Soviet
technology. It could buy weapons
cheaply from the Soviet Union and only
with difficulty from the West.

We patrolled the Indian Ocean and we

were in fact fighting in Southeast Asia. So India did not have the scope for a natural foreign policy. There was almost nothing we could do to deflect it from its course or its priorities. But India in the twenty-first century could become a high-technology country. The Indian Ocean balance of power will be up for grabs, in a way that it was not in my day, when India was much more obsessed with Pakistan than with playing a larger role.

Penthouse: Our allies, including our regional allies, recognize Hanoi. Iran and Iraq still exchange embassies, despite the war. Isn't it time we behaved more professionally and had relations with any country prepared to have relations with us?

Kissinger: I think there is a good case for the proposal you make—for recognizing whoever has de facto control, rather than using recognition to express more approval.

Penthouse: Is the American educational

> I have jokingly, but
> only half-jokingly, presumed
> to say that Israel ought
> to offer to join the United
> Arab Republic as
> one of its constituent states.

system—as a whole, not just at the uni-
versity level—good enough for the role
Americans play in the modern world?

Kissinger: No. It never was good enough, for a number of reasons. France, and to some extent Britain, have erred too much on the side of elitism. We have erred too much on the side of egalitarianism. We do not have an adequate fast track. In my own field, which is the one I know best, there is really no concept of inter-national relations which is adequately taught, never mind the substance.

Britain had an idea of the balance of power, and France had an idea of the *raison d'état*. In Britain, in its high period, whatever the political program, philosophy, history, and economics were core curricula, and these happen to correspond to what best trains the mind for politics. Our political scientists as a group act like surgeons in a medical college who have never conducted the operations they teach. They don't know how decisions are made.

I believe that the study of history is ex-
tremely important for the understanding
of cultural differences. I believe that, in
the end, certain patterns keep getting re-

peated by nations because of their char-
acter and geography. Americans never
developed a feel for this, not even toward
Mexico, our next-door neighbor.

Penthouse: What are the prospects for our times? What do you see as the direc-
tions in which we are going?

Kissinger: The broad prospects for our times are that there is an unusual opportu-
nity to shape new international order,
with some of the countries that we've
mentioned—Japan, China, the Soviet
Union, even the United States—and with
it a change in information technology.

My children live in a different world from
mine, in a very different world. My gen-
eration, and those before it, had to read
books, which meant that our pace of
learning was slower but it became more
a part of us, and our imagination had to
be richer because, whatever you read,
you had to imagine it. Now they learn from
display, so they absorb more quickly at
the cost of imagination and probably at
the most perspective.

On the other hand, this gives opportu-
nities to include people in perceptions
that no amount of education could have
done before; so there is a great oppor-
tunity; at the same time, if you look at the
political systems, and regretfully, I in-
clude the democracies, the require-
ments of gaining power outweigh the in-
centives to reflect on what to do with
power when you get it. A man like
Mendes-France, or de Gaulle, or Chur-
chill—it's hard to conceive of them
emerging out of the present American
system, or of course, even more, out of
the totalitarian systems. Where you get
people with enough self-confidence and
vision to shape the future, I can't tell you;
but I think the opportunities are there.

Penthouse: What is the difference be-
tween politics and statesmanship?

Kissinger: Politics, relatively speaking, is the art of gaining and holding power. Statesmanship is the art of shaping power toward ends.

Penthouse: Who in the twentieth century would you say has earned the right to be called statesmen?

Kissinger: I think Churchill had a vision of the future. De Gaulle was a statesman. I think, from the [limited] scope he had, [German Chancellor Konrad] Adenauer was a statesman. Truman, funnily enough. And Stalin was one.

Penthouse: But Churchill didn't even re-
alize that the empire was dead. Are you
thinking purely in terms of foreign affairs?

Kissinger: No, I'm thinking in terms of people who transform things—someone who makes a difference in terms of policy itself, in terms of goals he himself sets.

Penthouse: You don't include Mohandas
Gandhi and Nakasone?

Kissinger: Oh, Gandhi, I would. Naka-
sone? You mean the current [Japanese]
prime minister? I wouldn't exclude him.
It's hard to include Japan because their
system is so geared to anonymity, so that
you can't easily tell.

82 PENTHOUSE

THE WASHINGTON POST

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1986 B3

Personalities

By Chuck Cononi
Washington Post Staff Writer

Henry Kissinger, like all academics, loves to be published. But he draws the line at Penthouse magazine. Simon Rifkind, the former secretary of state's lawyer, says he will file legal papers attempting to stop publication of the December issue of Penthouse because it contains an unauthorized Kissinger interview. The issue already has been printed and sent to distributors.

The Kissinger article comes out of a lengthy interview writer Russell Warren Howe conducted for his forthcoming book, "Statesmanship." Kissinger contends he does not give interviews to magazines, "least of all Penthouse." Kissinger especially objects to the magazine cover that describes the interview as "exclusive." Rifkind said Kissinger told him to "do whatever we could to stop the magazine from saying he granted the interview."

Publisher Bob Guccione, accustomed to battles with celebrities, shot back at the threatened suit in a prepared statement: "What can you expect from a man who believes Vietnam was a moral war?"

HENRY KISSINGER

RUSSELL WARREN HOWE

November 1, 1985.

Dr. Henry Kissinger
Georgetown Univ. Center for Strategic & International Studies
1800 K Street N.W.
Washington D.C. 20036

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

In politics, there are people who deal, well or badly, with each
wave as it comes, and there are those who make their own waves. After
four decades of foreign reporting, I have decided to do a book on the
wavemakers of our time, which I suppose is just another way of separating
"statesmen" from "politicians".

I have not made a final selection, but I have decided on Pierre Mendes-France, Harold Macmillan, Mohandas Gandhi, Yasuhiro Nakasone and yourself. (Gandhi is as far back as my own professional experience goes, and I am only writing about people I've reported on.) I would be most grateful if you could spare an hour or so to talk one day, and if you are interested in looking at the chapter on yourself before it goes into print, I would welcome your comments.

As you will probably know, I was for many years a correspondent
for The Washington Post and The (Baltimore) Sun, and before that for The
(London) Sunday Times. More recently, I was, first, the defense correspondent,
then the diplomatic correspondent, of The Washington Times, leaving in April
this year after Arnaud de Borchgrave and the ideologues seized the palace.

I am the author of eleven books, mostly on foreign affairs and defense.

Naturally, I would prefer an appointment when you are in Washington,
but of course I am at your disposal and I can come to New York.

I look forward to hearing from you,

P.O. BOX 32221, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007

TEL. 202-337-1560