Henry Kissinger -- November 16, 1978 Interview

Since he left office, Dr. Kissinger has raised on a few occasions the problem of human rights and foreign policy. In an address at New York University last fall, he noted in particular that "the world needs to know what the United States stands for. But we cannot rest on this; we must know how to implement our convictions and achieve an enhancement of human rights together with other national objectives...." "Morality without security," the Secretary added then, "is ineffectual; security without morality is empty. To establish a relationship and proportion between these goals is perhaps the most profound challenge before our government and our nation." In a brief interview with Dr. Kissinger in November, 1978, we focussed again on some aspects of this challenge. Dr. Kissinger's major points:

**What are the merits and chances of success of a vocal human rights policy on the part of the U.S. administration?**

It has some merit for the United States to stand for its principles; the United States should definitely do so -- and, indeed, we tried to do this also in the administrations with which I was associated. However, I think that making this an objective of our foreign policy involves great dangers: You run the risk of either showing your impotence or producing revolutions in friendly countries, or both...

**Iran?...**

Clearly, yes. Current developments in Iran are one of the results of such a vocal policy.

**Doesn't this policy help promote within the country a much needed national consensus?**

I do not think this has happened. I cannot accept the proposition that those who break the national consensus can restore it later with their own proclamations. There already existed a fairly substantial consensus, and I do not think that these proclamations have restored it in any way. As a

Henry Kissinger Interview

Page Two

leader, you have to make a distinction between writing a brilliant article and proposing something that gets implemented...I want to make it clear, however, that I am not against a human rights policy *per se*, on the contrary; I am simply against some of its manifestations.

**The U.S. is often criticized for being comparatively more lenient towards rightist types of regimes. Should there be such a "selectivity"?**

This selectivity does exist, and I think it should be so. There is an enormous difference between authoritarian regimes which do not observe all democratic practices, and totalitarian regimes with universal ideological claims. There would be no difference, in my view, between what our attitude should be toward fascism and what it should be towards communism. But between authoritarian military regimes which are trying to produce a gradual evolution, and totalitarianism, the difference is fundamental. In recent times, no totalitarian regime has ever evolved into a democracy, while several authoritarian regimes -- e.g. Spain, Greece, and Portugal -- have done so. Our human rights policy must maintain this crucial distinction.

**What about "linking" human rights with other policies -- East-West trade, for instance?**

I believe that East-West trade ought to be linked to basic American foreign policy objectives. But I would not have recommended that human rights be made so vocal an objective of our foreign policy. In fact, I think we achieved more by making it a *non-vocal* objective than those who have been talking so much about it. More generally speaking, I believe in linkage -- I think that fundamental goals of American policy, no matter how they are defined, should be linked to other elements of interest to the Soviets. Either a policy has relevance to other areas of national strategy, or it has no meaning whatsoever. Linkage, therefore, is synonymous with an overall strategic view. It is inherent in the real world, and if we ignore it, it is only at our peril. What of the silence of the Final Communique of the Belgrade Conference on

Henry Kissinger Interview

Page Three

## human rights?

Frankly, now that Helsinki's Basket III is an integral part of European security, and when human rights are a basic objective of American foreign policy, I have great difficulty understanding why human rights are not mentioned in the Belgrade Communique. I would rather not have signed this document.

Do you see any possibility of a joint approach on human rights between the U.S. and other trilateral countries -- Western Europe, for instance?

In a forum such as the Trilateral Commission, I think it is extremely useful to discuss the significance of human rights policy; its relationship to other aspects of our policies; and how societies which, after all, are built on human rights, can act on this. At a more official level, however, I believe that the Europeans have a totally different approach to foreign policy, and to human rights in particular.

Trialogue

A Bulletin of North American • European • Japanese Affairs

FALL 1978, No. 19

A Dimension of
North-South, East-West, and Trilateral Relations

THE POLITICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Henry Kissinger

p. 3

"... Making [human rights] a vocal objective of our foreign policy involves great dangers: You run the risk of either showing your impotence or producing revolutions in friendly countries-or both ..."

Andrei Sakharov

"The Carter policy responds to the demands of our time, and it is very important that it receive even broader support. ... At the same time, lessening the danger of nuclear war carries an absolute priority, ... and the limitation of strategic arms must be considered separately ..."

p. 4

Claude Cheysson

"... The main target of cooperation (between the European Community and its partners in the Lomé Convention) must be to serve man and ensure respect for his dignity ... This sums up our common aim in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, as well as in Europe, which is by no means above criticism ..."

p. 2

<table><tr><td>Ali A. Mazrui</td><td>8</td><td>Romesh Thapar</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Ribot Hatano</td><td>11</td><td>Mihajlo Mihajlov</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Horst Ehmke</td><td>12</td><td>Jean-Marie Benoist</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Tom Farer</td><td>14</td><td>Gordon Fairweather</td><td>24</td></tr></table>

Published by: THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION

FRANCOIS SAUZEY
Editor

C. KATIN | J. DAVENPORT
Associate | Assistant Editors

Henry Kissinger

Since he left office, Dr. Kissinger has raised on a few occasions the problem of human rights and foreign policy. In an address at New York University last fall, he noted in particular that "the world needs to know what the United States stands for. But we cannot rest on this; we must know how to implement our convictions and achieve an enhancement of human rights together with other national objectives. . . . Morality without security," the Secretary added then, "is ineffectual; security without morality is empty. To establish a relationship and proportion between these goals is perhaps the most profound challenge before our government and our nation." In a brief interview with Dr. Kissinger in November 1978, we focussed again on some aspects of this challenge. Dr. Kissinger's major points:

### What are the merits and chances of success of a vocal human rights policy on the part of the U.S. Administration?

It has some merit for the United States to stand for its principles; the United States should definitely do so—and, indeed, we tried to do this also in the administrations with which I was associated. However, I think that making this a vocal objective of our foreign policy involves great dangers: You run the risk of either showing your impotence or producing revolutions in friendly countries, or both...

### Iran? ...

### Doesn't this policy help promote within the country a much needed national consensus?

I do not think this has happened. I cannot accept the proposition that those who break the national consensus can restore it later with their own proclamations. There already existed a fairly substantial consensus, and I do not think that these proclamations have restored it in any way. As a leader, you have to make a distinction between writing a brilliant article and proposing something that gets implemented. . . . I want to make it clear, however, that I am not against a human rights policy *per se*; I am simply against some of its manifestations.

### The U.S. is often criticized for being comparatively more lenient towards rightist types of regimes. Should there be such a "selectivity"?

This selectivity does exist, and I think it should be so. There is an enormous difference between authoritarian regimes which do not observe all democratic practices, and totalitarian regimes with universal ideological claims. There would be no difference, in my view, between what our attitude should be toward fascism and what it should be towards communism. But between authoritarian military re-

gimes which are trying to produce a gradual evolution, and totalitarianism, the difference is fundamental. In recent times, no totalitarian regime has ever evolved into a democracy, while several authoritarian regimes—e.g. Spain, Greece, and Portugal—have done so. Our human rights policy must maintain this crucial distinction.

Dr. Kissinger with Trialogue Editor

### What about "linking" human rights with other policies—East-West trade, for instance?

I believe that East-West trade ought to be linked to basic American foreign policy objectives. But I would not have recommended that human rights be made so vocal an objective of our foreign policy. In fact, I think we achieved more by making it a *non-vocal* objective than those who have been talking so much about it. More generally speaking, I believe in linkage—I think that fundamental goals of American policy, no matter how they are defined, should be linked to other elements of interest to the Soviets. Either a policy has relevance to other areas of national strategy, or it has no meaning whatsoever. Linkage, therefore, is synonymous with an overall strategic view. It is inherent in the real world, and if we ignore it, it is only at our peril.

### What of the silence of the Final Communiqué of the Belgrade Conference on human rights?

Frankly, now that Helsinki's Basket III is an integral part of European security, and when human rights are a basic objective of American foreign policy, I have great difficulty understanding why human rights are not mentioned in the Belgrade Communiqué. I would rather *not* have signed this document.

### Do you see any possibility of a joint approach on human rights between the U.S. and other trilateral countries—Western Europe, for instance?

In a forum such as the Trilateral Commission, I think it is extremely useful to discuss the significance of human rights policy; its relationship to other aspects of our policies; and how societies which, after all, are built on human rights can act on this. At a more official level, however, I believe that the Europeans have a totally different approach to foreign policy, and to human rights in particular. ■

3