Kissinger is a pro who is expected to hit the numbers of any jersey on any three-step drop, Tim Kirby writes.
When someone speaks Russian, they are opened up to a new competing version of history and reality. For Russian speakers with at least even a passive interest in politics it is very likely that they have heard the expression “the end of history”. This is in reference to Francis Fukuyama’s book The End of History and the Last Man that claimed that with the victory of Liberalism in the Cold War, the tale of humanity in the political and ideological sense had come to an end. However, the rise of China, the birth of political concepts not yet thought of in 1992 like “Illiberalism”, and the Democrat-led Cold War 2.0 with a non-Communist Moscow, have turned this strong statement of Western triumph into an ironic jab for Russians to use while meme making. But now one of the key players who was partially responsible for “the end of history” has just declared that history is back on. And not only that he also thinks that this is now for the best interests of all.
It seems hard to really believe, but Henry Kissinger, the “Flawed Architect of American Foreign Policy” has publicly stated what looks to be the grand waiving of a white flag over the idea of maintaining a Monopolar Order. His words were…
“if you imagine that the world commits itself to an endless competition based on the dominance of whoever is superior at the moment, then a breakdown of the order is inevitable. And the consequences of a breakdown would be catastrophic.”
These statements are connected with the rise of China as a threat or counterbalance to the American order through global dominance that was described in Fukuyama’s famous book. This “let’s agree to disagree” or “can’t we just all get along” sort of logic is very strange coming from the quintessential Cold Warrior. The other now famous recent Kissinger quote is as follows…
“if we don’t get to an understanding with China on that point, then we will be in a pre-World War One-type situation in which there are perennial conflicts that get solved on an immediate basis but one of them gets out of control at some point.”
WWI has very often been used as an argument for the Monopolar World Order that is familiar to us who are alive at the moment. With there being only one world policeman, the big bad global hegemon, then there is no way for another World War to come to pass. Essentially, if there is only one real actor then said actor will not punch themself in the face out of boredom or by accident. This seems like a great plan when at an upper-middle class barbeque in Illinois, but for the rest of the world who doesn’t want to simply exist as non-actors in the service of a Pax Americana that has been high on America and low on Pax, this doesn’t exactly sound particularly thrilling.
Here Kissinger does not seem to be using this typical, “if Multipolarity, then WWI all over again” algorithm, but instead he acknowledges that China is already an actor with the ability to bring in partners, allowing a web of alliances to grow leading to a 1914 catastrophy. This implies that history is very much alive and that in his opinion there are at least two actors in it.
Furthermore, the “entangling alliances” of the like seen in WWI were between various powers who worked out deals, not just two Superpowers and their vassals as we saw during the Cold War. Meaning, the implication is that there are many actors at present, which again is strange coming from someone who is partially responsible for the Monopolar World Order.
Although all human beings misspeak or at times choose poor comparisons, it is hard to believe Kissinger would be so sloppy as to throw out these words without much concern for their greater context. After living a long life of very careful positioning of every phrase that came out of his mouth Kissinger is a pro who is expected to hit the numbers of any jersey on any three-step drop.
Perhaps, he could have been playing to the audience, or was trying to send some sort of false or confusing message to spark certain writers into grabbing at quotes that sound appealing to them. Maybe his words were consciously disingenuous, but this really does not seem to be the case. Very often especially in more comfortable surroundings even politicians can be shockingly straight forward at least in the undertone of what they have to say. Too often the Alternative Media falls into the trap of searching for 3D chess, where it simply isn’t, and this is one of those cases. He probably honestly meant these very non-traditional views of the state of international affairs.
We cannot exclude the fact that next week, Kissinger may say something contradictory but hearing this from someone with his background seems to be an acknowledgment that Multipolarity is the new reality that needs to be accepted and dealt with accordingly from a Washington perspective. This is a big deal. If he is thinking this way and beginning to use this type of rhetoric then it begs the question as to how many people within the Beltway may actually see things in a similar fashion and how close are they to reaching a critical mass in numbers?