Heinz Albert Kissinger was born into a Jewish family living in Germany in 1923. He and his family migrated to America in in 1938, when he was 15, to escape the repression, bigotry and murder of Nazi Germany. He initially had to work part time while going to school and did not complete his education before he was drafted into the Army in 1943. He was soon assigned to the intelligence division because of his fluency in his native language. Although he mastered the English language as well, he always retained his German accent. He served in Germany during the Battle of the Bulge, and was awarded the Bronze Star for his work in identifying Gestapo officers and Saboteurs.
Following his discharge from the Army, Kissinger resumed his studies, receiving his B.A., M.A., and PhD. Degrees at Harvard University. He was known as a brilliant student, who was always most interested in international affairs. His PhD thesis was on statesmanship. In 1957, he published his book, “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.” In 1958, he cofounded the Center for International Affairs, and rapidly became known as an expert in foreign relations. He was often a participant in think tanks on knotty international problems. There was no one more qualified, when was chosen to serve as National Security Advisor by Richard Nixon in 1968.
The relationship between Kissinger and Nixon was volatile. Neither completely trusted or liked the other. Although Kissinger had genuine regard for Nixon, considering him a brilliant politician, he chaffed at the constant flattery that Nixon required. Nixon was pathologically insecure. Unless Kissinger constantly praised him and agreed with whatever action Nixon had taken, or direction he was given, he knew that he would not keep his job as National Security Advisor and later as Secretary of State. The problem was that Kissinger had his own ego to feed. He wanted both those jobs badly. So he made, as he said in his own words, “a pact with the Devil.” Kissinger was no kinder toward Nixon’s closest associates. He said that he had never met such a gang of “self-seeking bastards,” or “real heels.” Nixon was even more derogatory towards Kissinger: He called him “Jew boy,”, and said that sometimes he had to “kick him in the nuts,” in order to get him to do what he wanted, rather than what Kissinger wanted to do. He advised Gerald Ford that he would have to keep a close eye on Kissinger. Ford later stated that Kissinger “had the thinnest skin of any man he had known. “
The only difference between these two flaming egos is that while Nixon appeared to operate in a completely amoral frame of reference, Kissinger seemed to have a degree of conscience. Nixon did not care about right, wrong or justice. All his decisions were made on the basis of how they would affect him politically. Anything he could do to further his political career was the right decision, as far as he was concerned. While telling the American public that he was opposed to the Vietnam War, and was doing what he could to end it, he was actually prolonging and worsening that war, because it was to his political advantage to keep it going. He did not want to be seen as a weak president, who admitted defeat. Nixon can be said to have been responsible for 26,000 American soldier deaths, because he prolonged this conflict 5 years longer than necessary. Kissinger, on the other hand, was, without defying Nixon, doing what he could to end that war. He was able to negotiate the Paris Peace Accords for Vietnam in 1973. He received the Nobel Prize for Peace for that effort. When that accord broke down, soon thereafter, Kissinger returned the prize money, and offered to return the Peace Prize itself.
Kissinger did so many things that were noble. He continued to do what he could to end the Vietnam War, even though his boss was prolonging that war. He crafted prolonged arrangements with the Chinese in order to set the Nixon trip to China, and establish a new dialogue with that powerful nation. He developed a personal relationship with Andrei Gromyko, the Russian ambassador, as he forged a new degree of détente with that formidable antagonist, Russia. He was instrumental in ending the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt. For all these efforts, he is considered by many to be one of the greatest statesmen of all time.
On the other hand, Kissinger did just as many things that were not only unjust, but at times evil. He willingly fostered, supported and promoted the military coup in Chile, which overthrew the democratically elected President of Chile, Allende, who had communist leaning. There is no greater hypocrisy than this: a man who is the champion of freedom, democracy, and self-governance is doing his best to destroy that process in another country. He sided with Pakistan in their conflict with India, even though Pakistan was committing genocide, and he knew it. He did not plan the Watergate break-in, but he knew about it from the start, and did not protest, but acquiesced in that criminal act. He knew that Nixon was prolonging the Vietnam War without just cause, killing thousands of American soldiers, and yet acquiesced in that foul act. For these reasons, he is considered by some to be a war criminal.
We can understand why Kissinger made these immoral decisions, as a premier American statesman, only by going back early in his career. He was asked by one of his closest colleagues which he would choose, if forced to make that choice: a revolutionary state that was seeking justice, but unstable; or a state that was unjust, but orderly. Kissinger replied, “If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter.” Kissinger, in other words, followed to the Nth degree that mantra that is taught in law schools ad infinitum: when faced with a choice, always seek that agreement which is most efficacious. Justice, right and wrong, all become secondary goals.
Almost all lawyers I have known throughout my life believe that they are champions of justice, whereas, in fact, virtually all of them have followed the example of Henry Kissinger to a “T”. All decisions virtually all lawyers make, in my experience, are based not on justice, but on what will give them the most profit, power or prestige. In a sense, they don’t know any better; this is what they have been taught. On the other hand, attorneys are very smart people; they should know better. Democracy is messy. If it is not messy, seeking justice, then we are not doing our job to produce an ethical society.
I issue this challenge to the entire legal profession: always make your primary goal Justice. All other goals are secondary, if not evil. If you do not seek justice first, rather than what is most efficacious, you are not ethical. You are, like Henry Kissinger, subverting those most precious rights which all of us have, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.