Some years ago, in an article about unwritten books that people would like to read, someone selected the yet-to-be-written “Prison Memoirs of Henry Kissinger”. Now aged 90, the chances of Kissinger being tried for his war crimes, much less sent to prison, are rapidly diminishing. However, he has outlived Christopher Hitchens, one of his accusers, who died in 2011 aged only 62. After 9/11 Hitchens quickly became a supporter of the Iraq war and, before his death, intervention in Libya. His volte face even prompted a book by Richard Seymour which he called “Unhitched: The Trial of Christopher Hitchens”.But in early 2001 Hitchens’ vitriol against US intervention – or support for military interventions by others – in Vietnam, in East Timor, in Bangladesh, and most notably in Chile – was acute, and it focused most intensely on one man, Henry Kissinger. In “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”, published that year, he set out why, rather than receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as of course Kissinger did, he should have been put on trial for his war crimes. The evidence for KIssinger's knowledge of – and often direct involvement in – bombings, assassinations and coups, is pretty compelling. In the case of Chile, Kissinger was clearly behind the plans that led to the kidnapping and then murder of General Schneider, the army leader who stood in the way of a pre-emptive coup against the elected incoming president, Salvador Allende, in 1970. He was part of the group that made Chile’s economy ‘scream’ during Allende’s government and who set the policy that he should be overthrown. After the subsequent coup, he turned a blind eye to Pinochet’s atrocities and tolerated or encouraged Operation Condor, in which opponents of Latin American dictators were hunted down and captured or killed, including in the most blatant case the murder on the streets of Washington DC of Orlando Letelier, one of Allende’s ministers who had survived the coup.The problem is that much of the evidence is about Kissinger facilitating or permitting crimes rather than directly commissioning them. He was the quintessential man in a suit who rarely takes part in or perhaps even knows the details of the atrocities he tolerates or encourages. The classic case is the bombing of Cambodia, done by B-52s flying so high they could barely see the villages on which they unleashed their bombs, let alone the guerrilla forces camped in the jungle who were the supposed targets. Kissinger seems to have been indifferent to or even pleased by the scale of death and destruction he unleashed, an attitude which Hitchens correctly describes as racist (quite apart from its being a terrible crime).What is obvious is that indulging and often arming dictators, and hiding the truth not only from people in the US but their elected representatives, was commonplace while Kissinger was National Security Adviser. Those who, years later, were surprised about the Bush government’s manipulation of the evidence against Saddam Hussein, the CIA’s secret torture flights or Obama’s use of drones to summarily kill people who have never been put on trial, can’t have known about (or may have forgotten) what was done in their name by Nixon and Kissinger. Nixon was brought to task, at least for his domestic crime, while Kissinger continued to advise future presidents and to develop his global business for decades afterwards. Even at the age of 90 he offers words of wisdom on Ukraine and other issues. We may wonder whether the person once heralded as the Time magazine “Man of the Year” will be fairly judged by his obituaries. We can be pretty sure, however, that he won’t now be put in the position where he has to fill his remaining years by writing his prison memoirs.
1.5 stars. This was a very frustrating book to read. In each of the chapters (except chapter 8 on East Timor), Hitchens makes his allegations against Kissenger and then proceeds to layout a seeming plethora of information to support the allegations.The problem is, the information presented does not confirm or, in the case of the Kissenger's alleged involvement in the murder of Greek journalist Elias Demetracopoulos, even support the allegations made. I kept finding myself saying "ok, then what...finish the argument." He never did. It was like 2 out of 3 parts of a syllogism that was never completed. In my opinion, the one exception to this lack of "closing the logical argument" occurred in Chapter 8 dealing with the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia. Here I think hitchens makes a credible case to support his allegations that Kissenger knew about the invasion of East Timor before it happened and was actively against to any action by the U.S. in opposition to the invasion. That said, even though the incident certainly confirms the commonly held opinion of Kissenger as a cold, calculating practitioner of realpolitik , if Kissenger's actions in that matter constitute war crimes then you would likely have to include many other U.S. administrations including both Bill Clinton's for the atrocities committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and Reagan's administration for its support of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s despite what they knew he was doing to his own people (i.e. the Kurds). I am just not willing to go that far even when the actions, on their face appear to lack a moral center.Don't get me wrong, Kissenger may have done everything he is alleged to have done in this book and, if true, he should certainly be held accountable. I just did not see the evidence presented in this book.
Do You like book The Trial Of Henry Kissinger (2002)?
Henry Kissinger is a bit of an open secret in U.S. politics. No one really bothers denying anymore that he was the prime mover behind a lot of ugly moments in our foreign policy: the Paris Peace talks, the illegal bombing of Cambodia, Pinochet, Suharto, etc. Indeed it's a big part of his Strangelovian mystique -- that "frisson of power" as Hitchens calls it. But for whatever reasons, he has rarely been challenged by anyone with real power in the media or the establishment and has been allowed to fade into eminence. Blame flows, as it ever has, downhill. So it's undeniably bracing the way Hitchens states his case. Unlike a lot of other lefty commentators he doesn't indict the system. Instead he makes it personal. This is a bad man who broke the law and should go to jail.
—Tim
Covers all of Kissingers mass murdering greatest hits from east Timor, southeast Asia, Chile, Bangladesh and more. Hitchens intentionally puts this book together as if he was putting forth a case for Henry Kissinger to be tried for war crimes. Of course Kissinger will never be tried and in fact when he finally dies he will be hailed as a great man even though he is an incredibly evil sociopath. Really if you study history you can find numerous characters like Kissinger, quite often they were Jews, whispering in the ears of Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc. They remind me of, if you've ever read Tolkien and remember the Wormtongue character. But like Wormtongue they also are usually doing the bidding of someone else and act as agents to this higher power. In Kissingers case he was an agent of the Rockefellers. If this book has a fault Kissingers role as a Rockefeller lackey is glossed over but overall its a good read and makes the obvious case that Kissinger should be tried for mass murder.
—Cwn_annwn_13
This book is simply a must read specifically for every american and generally for all humanity, in order to come to grips with reality. Very well researched, it really severely indicts Nixon and Kissinger for their genocidical campaigns or support thereof in vietnam, cyprus, east timor, bangladesh , chile etc. Without being sensationalist, the book tackles all these controversial issues ruthlessly, admitting from the outset to be a case against Henry Kissinger and his war crimes. As good as Investigative journalism gets. Its a shock that no action was taken despite the many evidences which this books presents, plus the ones that are locked away in the Library of Congress. A real eye opener for anyone wishing to know more about the superpower called USA and its hypocrisy, especially under Nixon.
—Harshit Sahay
