When Henry Kissinger was U.S. secretary of state in the 1970s, he was often criticized for ignoring (and even being ignorant of) economic factors in foreign policy. -- And if, as the Financial Times (UK) suggested in an article on Thursday, he has only now come to the conclusion that “The amount of energy is finite, up to now in relation to demand, and competition for access to energy can become the life and death for many societies,” there may have been some truth to the charge. -- Speaking to the U.S.-India Business, Council, Kissinger held put the prospect of extended 21st-century resource wars: “It would be ironic,” he said, “if the direction of pipelines and locations become the modern equivalent of the colonial disputes of the 19th century.” -- Given the fact that from in the mid-1970s neoconservatism came to self-consciousness as a political movement by “questioning not only Kissinger’s policy toward the Soviet Union but his broader assumptions, his worldview and his interpretations of history” (James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet [Viking, 2004], p. 75; the quoted passage refers to Paul Wolfowitz but applies equally to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, etc.), it should come as no surprise that the former secretary of state is willing to criticize the U.S.’s present neoconservative foreign policy as he did on Jun. 1, warning that its policies on energy, nuclear proliferation, democracy promotion, and East Asian geopolitics are all dangerously flawed. -- (Sniping at Kissinger from neoconservative redoubts has never really ceased; Philip Zelikow, the mysterious sorcerer’s apprentice of the Bush administration, sneered at Kissinger as a self-deluded “Man of La Mancha” when he reviewed the final volume of his memoirs in Foreign Affairs in 1999.) ...
KISSINGER WARNS OF ENERGY CONFLICT
By Caroline Daniel
Financial Times (UK)
June 2, 2005
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/76aea598-d302-11d9-bead-00000e2511c8.html (subscribers only)
Henry Kissinger, former U.S. secretary of state, yesterday warned that the global battle for control of energy resources could become the modern equivalent of the 19th century "great game" -- the conflict between the U.K. and Tsarist Russia for supremacy in central Asia.
"The great game is developing again," he told a meeting of the U.S.-India Business Council. "The amount of energy is finite, up to now in relation to demand, and competition for access to energy can become the life and death for many societies. It would be ironic if the direction of pipelines and locations become the modern equivalent of the colonial disputes of the 19th century."
His comments come amid tensions over the building of a $4.5bn (£2.5bn) gas pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan, which has become a critical part of the two-year India-Pakistan peace process. In March, Condoleezza Rice, U.S. secretary of state, expressed objections, reflecting concern about Tehran's development of nuclear weapons.
The two nuclear superpowers, the U.S. and Soviet Union, navigated the cold war because they made "the same calculations," Mr. Kissinger said. "When nuclear weapons spread to 30 or 40 countries and each conducts a calculation, with less experience and different value systems, we will have a world of permanent imminent catastrophe."
Mr. Kissinger called on India to join a dialogue on energy and proliferation and suggested "a global conference among the nuclear powers on how to do it. It has to be one of the top priorities of a US administration."
In a clear rejection of George W. Bush's advocacy of democracy, he argued: "I do not believe India will join a crusade to spread democracy. For the U.S. to crusade in every part of the world simultaneously to spread democracy may be beyond our capacity."
While he noted that U.S.-India relations had improved considerably over the last 30 years, he disagreed with suggestions that India should be built up as a counterweight to the growing strength of China in the region.
"India will be concerned with its own security and independence and should not be part of an American desire to counterbalance China," he said. "It is not a situation where good relations with one country have to be aimed at another."
|
