The Trials Of Henry Kissinger

A few hours before I watched "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" the evening of December 6, veteran peace activist Phillip Berrigan had died of cancer in Baltimore. Born a half a world apart in the year 1923, it would be difficult to find greater contrast between the way two men of the World War II generation led their lives than German-born Henry Kissinger and Minnesota-born Phillip Berrigan. Just as Berrigan will forever be remembered for the fervor in which he pursued trying to stop the awesome violence of the federal government of the United States outside its borders, Kissinger will forever be remember for the fervor in which he pursued wielding that violence. Perhaps no one individual ever had more personal influence over United States government policy outside its borders than during Kissinger's eight-year reign as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State from 1969-77.

The occasion for this long overdue documentary is the publication of Christopher Hitchens' two-part Harper's article in February and March 2001 and his subsequent book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. The articles and book led to subpoenas for questioning Kissinger by judges in several countries. Kissinger soon found his ability to travel around the world more constricted than ever.

Based on Hitchens writings, the documentary film "Trials..." focuses on three major Kissinger policy initiatives in three different regions of the world: Cambodia, Chile, and East Timor, and comes across as an indictment of Kissinger before a grand jury. All three policies had destructive consequences, one leading to the death of Chilean democracy and the other two leading to Cambodia and East Timor getting burned to the ground. Some critics are likely to characterize this documentary as an unfair roasting of Kissinger. Roger Ebert, in his Chicago Sun-Times review of the film argues that "Kissinger's defenders are seen and heard, but hardly given equal time (with his critics like Hitchens and Seymour Hersch). It feels somehow as if the filmmakers have chosen just the words they want, and the context be damned; sophisticated media watchers will note the editing tricks and suspect the films' motives."

I simply can't agree with this assessment. Here Ebert is blaming somebody else for Kissinger's own actions and the feeble reasoning of his defenders. The problem with this kind of criticism is Kissinger's complete unwillingness to debate these matters publicly with his detractors. Ebert fails to mention that Kissinger refused to be interviewed for this documentary. When asked by NBC's Brian Williams about Hitchen's book, Kissinger refuses to comment and then falsely accuses Hitchens, who is part Jewish, of being a "Holocaust Denier." I've learned in my short adult life that a good way to determine how badly a Jewish person with real political power is behaving is when they start slinging the charge of "anti-Semitism" and Holocaust Denier" at their critics. It's not the fault of the writer Alex Gibney and Director Eugene Jarecki that Hitchens' writings about Kissinger brought out the demagogue in the celebrity statesman. The Brian Williams interview was all the filmmakers had to go with. Henry Kissinger definitely gets roasted in "Trials..." and the viewer sees the lead roaster is Kissinger himself.

What are we to make of the performances of Kissinger's defenders? It's hard to look good when your leading defender is that great moral philosopher, former Kissinger aide and Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig. Hark Haig's answer to the question of whether or not kidnapping and murdering Chilean General Rene Schnieder in 1970 was a criminal act. When asked by the interviewer whether or not kidnapping is a crime, Haig gives the relativistic answer: "It depends on your objectives." Haig knows he is being interviewed in front of a camera, clearly understands the questions he is being asked and makes hand gestures to indicate the sincerity of his position on this matter.

My ringing endorsement of this movie comes with reservations. My main reservation revolves around the longtime warmongering of Kissinger's leading detractor, Hitchens. Hitchens pro-war advocacy has only become more belligerent since September 11. I find it intellectually impossible to decry Kissinger for his past violent record as a statesman while simultaneously cheering on the dumping of bombs on defenseless Afghans and Iraqis today and in the future. In this sense, Hitchens' writings calling for Kissinger's indictment as a war criminal come across as personal, not principled.

I highly doubt we'll ever see Kissinger made to answer for his past actions. Just the fact that Kissinger's ability to travel the globe has been severely constricted is reason enough to celebrate. However, the instrument of violence Kissinger wielded with such zeal during his career as a statesman is still alive and well, and this government will continue to carry on with its violent ways after Kissinger dies. Only more of the principled activism of Phil Berrigan, one of the greatest weapons inspectors the United States ever had, will eventually make it impossible for another Henry Kissinger to come along and use the federal government of the United States as an instrument of violence against defenseless people outside its borders.