The Pragmatic Mind Of Henry Kissinger: A Distinctive Takeaway

Last year, I had the opportunity to participate in a conference at Ditchley Park, a stately mansion in Oxfordshire, England, which has gained recent recognition as the setting for the residence of the Foreign Secretary in Netflix’s ‘The Diplomat.’ During my stay, I was assigned to the ‘Henry Kissinger room’—a space that once hosted the eminent diplomat as he debated the intricacies of nuclear deterrence with former Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1963. Pausing to read a framed letter written by Kissinger on the room’s wall, I found myself reflecting on the profound and enduring legacy left by this late statesman.

Numerous biographies have dissected Henry Kissinger’s life, offering a wide spectrum of perspectives. From glowing appraisals to harsh critiques carrying accusations of war crimes, these accounts will undoubtedly fill the pages of countless opinion pieces and eulogies in the days and weeks to come. Among them, one of the most interesting I’ve read is Niall Ferguson’s ‘Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist.’ This biography, capturing a phase of Kissinger’s life before he assumed the role many would come to know him for, challenges the prevailing perception of him as the quintessential pragmatist in politics and diplomacy. Perhaps he was, at best, a kind of ‘pragmatic idealist.’

Regardless of one’s personal feelings toward him, there are surely also lessons we can glean from his pragmatic approach to diplomacy. One such lesson that I’ve endeavored to incorporate into my advocacy was his counsel to engage with diverse stakeholders and personalities on all sides of an issue or debate. When visiting a country or state, this can be extended to opposition parties and legislators. After all, opposition figures often have more time to meet than those in government. They will likely remember the goodwill extended to them if they later assume positions of power. It stands to reason that people remember those who show interest in them during challenging times instead of those who seek engagement only when they’re at their peak. Engaging with opposition parties and legislators allows for more meaningful interactions and lays the groundwork for lasting relationships anchored in the goodwill extended to individuals and their causes.

This approach finds resonance in contemporary analysis, drawing parallels with the organizational psychologist Adam Grant’s concept of the Binary Bias. According to Grant, individuals tend to perceive the world in black and white, often overlooking the fact the world is nuanced and better characterized by shades of grey. When applied to diplomacy and advocacy, the ‘binary bias’ inclination can result in a reluctance to engage with those perceived as on the opposite side who we deem as the enemy, hindering collaboration on potential common ground. Taken to extremes, this aversion may impede the potential for a positive impact on shared issues both parties care about.

In my more than a decade of advocacy experience, I have endeavored to build relations with both opposition and government parties, actively meeting with members of parties from various political spectrums and not solely those in power. This has been part of a concerted effort to foster bipartisan support for the issues I campaign on. It is particularly effective in parliamentary democracies where individuals in the opposition often retain their parliamentary seats even after leaving government, with the potential to return to government. For causes championed by Global Citizen, ranging from polio eradication to supporting smallholder farmers on the front lines of the climate crisis, this strategy has proven instrumental in maintaining ongoing support even through changes in government, as they inevitably occur. At the very least, opposition figures can play a crucial role in holding governments accountable for the promises they’ve made.

I’ve seen the impact of this approach upfront. Entire budget line items for global health vaccination programs, for instance, were protected in Australia following the change of government in the 2013 Federal Election because of the time we took to nurture bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle.

Of course, like all advocacy approaches, this degree of ‘pragmatic idealism’ can be employed for noble and questionable purposes. Critics of Kissinger label him as acting amorally during his time in office with horrific consequences. In contrast, others contend that his foresight on geopolitical issues, such as China and other global powers, played a pivotal role in reshaping the world and fostering peace. Given the controversy surrounding his legacy, it’s perhaps not surprising that one accolade frequently omitted from Kissinger’s top-line biography was his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. This award may have been overshadowed by the debates surrounding his alleged involvement in the horrors of the Vietnam War and the associated bombings in Cambodia during the same period.

And yet, making matters more complicated, this pragmatic approach—engaging with diverse stakeholders, including perceived enemies—led Kissinger to the historic meeting with then-Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in the early 1970s. This interaction was considered one of Kissinger’s most significant and far-reaching achievements – paving the way for China’s re-entry into the international order in the 1970s. Even until his passing, Kissinger maintained a relatively less hawkish stance on U.S.-China relations when compared to the latest bellicose rhetoric on the hill in Washington, believing that such antagonistic relations would be bad for both superpowers and the world.

Whether remembered as a controversial figure akin to a war criminal or the 20th Century’s equivalent of Bismarck, dedicated to preserving peace through balance-of-power diplomacy, Kissinger’s diplomatic toolbox offers enduring lessons. The qualities associated with pragmatic idealism, such as engaging with opposition political figures and fostering outreach to our perceived enemies, have a heightened relevance in our contemporary world. Today, marked by the urgent need for global cooperation and solidarity, both at home and abroad, these principles are more crucial than ever to confront the formidable challenges of our time and usher in peace and prosperity for future generations.