Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is well known for his uncompromising commitment to realism in foreign policy matters. Whether in academia or during his days as a practitioner of foreign policy, Kissinger wanted all of us to know that realpolitic dictates fundamental adherence to certain rules, namely serving national interests of the United States, without regard to any values or principles.
In his practice as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, he had ample time and conducive conditions to employ his realism, be it in US-China relations, in the Middle East conflict, in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and in US-Iran relations, to name a few concrete examples. However, many changes have taken place in the world arena and the winds of change kept strongly blowing in the direction of another version of realism, that would somehow, not necessarily serve the interests of the United States in their definition of economic control and military superiority to the disadvantages of many, if not all others.
That is why we have recently seen an article written by Henry Kissinger in the Washington Post of June 2, 2012, in which he expressed fears of the collapse of the so-called post–Westphalia international order of 1648.
Kissinger characterized the Arab Spring movement as replacing Westphalia principles of equilibrium with a generalized doctrine of humanitarian intervention. In a nut shell, Kissinger expressed concern over seeing the world slipping away from an order based on the sovereign state as a unit that guarantees peace, toward an order similar to that of war and chaos of the pre-Westphalia Treaty days in Europe.
In fact, the Kissinger article, according to him, has been prompted by the crisis in Syria and the questions raised by many on the wisdom and effectiveness of foreign military intervention in that country. Even though there is continued talk of peaceful means being favored over military means to address the Syrian crisis, it is rapidly being seen that the world must not continue to argue forever over intervention, if the Syrian people are to be saved from further untold misery and suffering.
The thesis advanced by Kissinger in his article looks at interventionism as, perhaps a recipe for chaos and disintegration of sovereign states in the region.
Hence, he seems to insist that the wheel of history should be reversed, and absolute adherence to the principle of sovereignty as laid down in the Treaty of Westphalia is re-practiced and upheld!
I must say that certain questions have to be asked in challenging the Kissinger article. First of all, where was the post-Westphalia talk of sovereignty when Iraq was invaded in 2003? Again, was it appropriate to invoke that principle when Afghanistan was invaded by the then Soviet Union and later the United States in response to the terrible acts committed by Al-Qaeda in September 2001?
Moreover, could one employ that principle in a hypothetical question during the genocide crimes in Rwanda in 1994 when the world failed to stand up to its moral and political responsibilities? And one more question: Is it foreseen by Kissinger that the intervention in Syria will work against the interests of Israel? Perhaps, the last question needs ample reflection, while I should not continue with pausing more questions but rather try to come up with some reasonable statement.
One inescapable conclusion from Kissinger's article is that it defies his own US interests' logic. He ironically now stands with Russia and China in one camp, by advancing his post-Westphalia theory, while the current US administration is strongly pushing for regime change in Syria! However, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, interventionism has been practiced in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, in areas of vital strategic importance. The taste of interventionism by those who can afford to intervene, led to virtual collapse of the post-Westphalia over a decade ago. Indeed, the powers that be in the international scene, could be selective in their timing, location and mode of intervention, in order to match their actions with their own interests, and they exempt themselves from limitations of any so-called moral-based international politics.
I know, and as Kissinger stated that his article came within the context of the developments of the so-called Arab Spring movements in the Middle East and North Africa. Meanwhile, I must testify to the fact that our Arab Spring did not envision interventionism, perhaps naively or unwittingly, as the masses poured into the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Libya and Damascus. Accordingly, analysts of the Arab Spring found themselves overtaken by events and engaged in some post-facto analysis, and to date no one could definitely tell us what would the Spring be followed with... summer or perhaps another Spring? But one fact remains undoubted, which is the far-reaching process of change in the body politic of the Arab World. That body and its sole have crossed some conventional lines that seem to be irreversible. The Westphalia sovereign state model, seems also to have left us to some new model, that might not be to the liking of some of us, in the day and age of globalization and interventionism, even if on selective grounds.
Ahmed Abdelwahab Gubartalla is a former ambassador and former senior UN official.
