Kissinger's controversial legacy in Latin America
Academic Antonio Hsiang examines the evidence and concludes that Henry Kissinger probably knew more of what was going on in Latin America - specifically Chile - than he let on. Seen in that light, some may surmise that the former US secretary of state was just as culpable as former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet.
Henry Kissinger - the only person in US history to have served as secretary of state and national security adviser at the same time - died in his Connecticut home at the age of 100. The New York Times carried an obituary that both praised and criticised the statesman, describing Kissinger as "the architect of the Nixon administration's efforts to topple Chile's democratically elected Socialist president, Salvador Allende".
Kissinger served as secretary of state during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Prior to that, as national security adviser, he supported Augusto Pinochet's military coup due to concerns that Chile's left-wing Allende government would follow Cuba in becoming another hotbed for socialism in America's backyard. Following the success of Pinochet's coup in 1973, due to the US's anti-communist stance, it never made any demands on Chile's domestic politics, allowing Pinochet to boldly eliminate all who opposed him.
According to official statistics, over the 17 years of Pinochet's reign, more than 3,000 people were killed, including former Chilean ambassador to the US Orlando Letelier and his American secretary Ronni Moffitt, who were both killed in Washington on 21 September 1976 in a car bombing. But if we were to talk about transitional justice, who should we seek it from? Pinochet? The US? In the Oscar-winning movie Missing, Jack Lemmon plays a father who seeks accountability from the US government.
Kissinger cited Pinochet's extradition case as an illustration of the controversiality of universal jurisdiction.
The controversy over universal jurisdiction
Pinochet's arrest by the UK in September 1998 refocused attention on the truth behind US involvement in the 1973 political coup. Even as former US President Clinton decided to declassify certain files related to Pinochet in a show of support for the Chilean government's quest for the truth, the CIA was unwilling to declassify all files in the interest of national security.
Though the US later adopted similar measures towards Argentina, Uruguay and so forth, those in political and academic circles all felt that if immunity was to be removed easily, it might cause other dictators or rebels to be unwilling to hand over power or cease violence. Amidst this debate between law and politics, what is most noteworthy is Kissinger's expression of deep interest in the case.
The July/August 2001 issue of the bi-monthly Foreign Affairs magazine carried an article by Kissinger titled "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction", containing excerpts from his book Does America Need a Foreign Policy? and laying out the blind spots of universal jurisdiction.
In international law, the phrase "universal jurisdiction" refers to the idea that some specific crimes, like genocide, are fundamentally harmful to the interests of humanity and, as such, fall under the jurisdiction of all states regardless of where the crime is committed or which country's citizens commit it.
But Kissinger felt that universal jurisdiction would subject the accused to a judicial system that they are unfamiliar with, making it difficult for them to gather the necessary evidence and violating their rights in the judicial process. Kissinger cited Pinochet's extradition case as an illustration of the controversiality of universal jurisdiction.
Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth ruthlessly criticised Kissinger's sophistry.
Kissinger wrote the piece primarily because in the course of the UK's handling of the Pinochet case, some felt that if not for the US's indulgence, Pinochet would not have committed such crimes, and so Kissinger should also be subjected to judicial sanctions. Christopher Hitchens, who authored The Trial of Henry Kissinger, felt that in the eyes of the world, Kissinger and Pinochet should be viewed equally.
In fact, anyone with a discerning eye can tell right away that one of the reasons Kissinger wrote that piece was to acquit himself. In a piece carried by Foreign Affairs in their September/October 2001 issue, Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth ruthlessly criticised Kissinger's sophistry. Kissinger felt that universal jurisdiction was a new idea; Roth countered that since 1970, US courts had already sought to include terrorism and aircraft hijacking under their jurisdiction - what was "new" was not the concept of universal jurisdiction, but the willingness of some governments to fulfil this duty.
Kissinger also felt that the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was not operational then, had a vague definition of war crimes; Roth pointed out that the ICC treaty's definition of war crimes closely resembles that found in the Pentagon's military manuals and is derived from the widely ratified Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols adopted in 1977.
Kissinger criticised universal jurisdiction as using the ICC to assert jurisdiction over Americans even in the absence of US accession to the treaty; Roth fired back that when the US prosecuted Manuel Noreiga, it did not obtain the consent of Panama. Kissinger suggested that it should be the UN Security Council that decides if there is a violation of human rights; Roth objected that by exercising their vetoes, citizens belonging to countries of the five permanent members of the Security Council could be exempted from universal jurisdiction.
... an article carried by Foreign Affairs titled "Judging Henry Kissinger," which asked: "Did the ends justify the means?" This is probably an inevitable conundrum for political and academic circles in assessing Kissinger.
Does the end justify the means?
Towards the end of his article, Roth said straight out that Kissinger was selective in using the Pinochet case to attack universal jurisdiction, hitting on a sore point for Kissinger. Kissinger felt that international justice had interfered with the democratic Chilean government's decision to forgive Pinochet, but Roth counters by arguing that he was forgiven because Pinochet's imposition of a self-amnesty at the height of his dictatorship limited Chile's democratic options; such imposed "impunity" is different than democratically chosen impunity.
Former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet unveiled the Museum of Memory and Human Rights on 11 January 2010, not only as part of commemorations for the bicentennial of Chile, but more so as the architectural symbol of Chile's transitional justice. The biggest draw is that visitors can pick up a telephone and listen to a crucial recording of Kissinger's involvement in the coup. This fully demonstrated that a key international factor influencing Chile's transitional justice was the US.
The day after Kissinger passed, Harvard University Emeritus Professor Joseph Nye wrote an article carried by Foreign Affairs titled "Judging Henry Kissinger," which asked: "Did the ends justify the means?" This is probably an inevitable conundrum for political and academic circles in assessing Kissinger.
This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as "基辛格的拉美遗产".
