Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy
June 2023
The circumstances of history place each society into the contesting forces of the inherited past, forming its memory, and a vision for the future that can lead to evolution or destruction. Philosophers speak of a destiny, so powerful that no individual could possibly defy it. The six leaders described in Henry Kissingers new book transcend these limitations and prove that by willpower and strategy, the impossible can become a new reality.
Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher all experienced the "Second Thirty Years War" and played key roles in the transformation of their countries during the 20th century, creating a transformative Post War order. For the first time, aristocracy gave way to a merits based social structure which made their middle class background an asset rather than a liability. Although intellectual in nature, their religious upbringing (except for Lee) instilled in them secular values such as self-control and taking the long view that proved crucial on their journey.
Kissinger differentiates between two kinds of leadership styles: the statesman and the prophet. While the former tries to retain order and political structures, prophets want to overturn those. By having absolute standards and a clear vision based on truth instead of utility, great changes can be made. There is however the risk that an individual is reduced to a gear wheel in the grand machine of their vision. Combining both qualities and not risking a loss in momentum or absolute chaos is a balancing act.
Another difficulty lies in the decision making. The more data becomes available to a leader, the less margin of manoeuvre one has. Many big decisions have to be made quickly with insufficient knowledge of the outcome. Therefore a good leader also incorporates qualities of an artist, using intuition to sculpt a future with the materials at hand and absorbing life in all its complexity. Because statecraft is not a science, history might be the best teacher.
One of those historical leaders, Konrad Adenauer cautioned the author "never to confuse energy with strength." Having experienced Germanys intransigent rhetoric and military potential that provoked external coalitions to war, as well as the Weimar Republic impoverished by economic crises, made clear that the country was either too strong or too weak for the peace in Europe. With all dignity lost and in the least secure position in 1945, this mayor of Cologne set out to restore his crushed society.
Meanwhile in France, Charles De Gaulle emerged after having led the Free French movement against the occupiers and building a new republic that implied continuity. His commitment to the national interest often came at the cost of recognising foreign help and constantly shifting alliances. To everyones surprise, he resigned from the government after France was liberated, only to return twelve years later and "amputate" Algeria from his country. By creating a vision and implementing it in a calculating, statesman style, De Gaulle followed no one strategy, placing inspiration of his people over doctrine. The republican values of the revolution can still be seen in “Gaullist” french foreign policiy today. His aloof leadership style which often went against the advice of contemporaries made his death in 1970 even more symbolic when he played his last game of solitaire.
"At his best in crisis. Cool. Unflappable." is Richard Nixons self assessment, written in the third person and handed to Kissinger before a press briefing. It shows both his self-promotion and insecurity that would determine many of the decisions during the Cold War. Turning the bipolar conflict between east and west into a three dimensional one with the opening to China, the two communist giants would be closer to America than to each other. This way Nixon was able to exploit their adversities through the concept of linkage. To remain credibility on the world stage and prevent communism from spreading across South-East Asia, Nixons hardline approach on Vietnam draws controversy to this day. Paradoxically, his critics opposed the absence of US intervention in a faraway crisis when it came to the Pakistani War of 1971. It came out later however, that Nixon and Kissinger did get involved by supplying F-104 fighter jets and more weapons illegally to military dictator Yahya Khan of West Pakistan in what would cost 500,000 East Pakistanis their life. This was done because Khan served as the intermediary between the White House and Mao Zedong. When India got involved and help create the independent Bangladesh, Nixon became furious as his tapes reveal. Refering to the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as “the old bitch”, he said that what the country needed was a “mass starvation”. Recognising that attitude affected policy, the author admits that some conversations “did not reflect moral elevation”.
While most leaders had inherited their countries long spanning history, Lee Kuan Yew started with a blank space that was to become the modern Singapore. Tension between three ethnic groups threatened the very future of this once British port ridden by corruption and tuberculoses during the late 1940s. Free voting was not an option as he feared, demographic divisions would express themselves in identity politics like democratic Sri Lanka where one majority suppressed the weaker party. Instead of just surviving he envisioned a flourishing city state based on excellence for its people. By making english the official language and manufacturing more efficient, Singapore transformed in one generation to become one of the wealthiest countries attracting multinational companies and scoring high in education. Lee improvised constantly by borrowing ideas from around the world to see if they worked on the island, as well as by locking up opponents without trial as he later remarked. The man who once narrowly avoided death by Japanese troops, invented Singapore's nature from his vision of the future and, by being respected on both sides of the Pacific assumed the unofficial role of "world conscience" in later years.
At the age of 100, Kissinger had the opportunity to meet all leaders described at the height of their power thereby giving the reader a more personal recollection of events than most history books would allow. In the case of Margaret Thatcher this is especially revealing.
By acting as if her country was equal to the US, the White House suspended disbelief even though Britains natural resources, economic performance and military, which was deployed during the Falkland War, were far from superpower status. While being forceful in public, the fact that she wrote handwritten letters to all families of fallen soldiers of said conflict gives her a more human and less iron dimension. The historical scope of the author also allows for observations that are more remarkable when viewed retrospectively. Such as her warning of the dangers of climate change in 1988, the foundations she lay for Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997 and the perilous issue of Europe that cost three more Conservative leaders (lastly Theresa May in 2019) their premierships. Speaking at the College of Europe about the continents future, Thatcher said that if they believed what is said about her, "it must seem [...] like inviting Genghis Khan to speak on the virtues of peaceful coexistence."
As the world changed from aristocracy to meritocracy we would expect more great leaders to emerge in the 21st century. The fact that this is not the case can be attributed to various factors. Driven by technology, the visual culture discourages deep literacy and reflection. Lee Kuan Yew observed in 2000 that "Winning an election becomes in large measure, a contest in packaging and advertising." Instead of leaders, todays "influencers" promote immediacy, intensity, polarity and conformity. The intellectual elite disregards their obligations to society in place of self-expression. But never has there been a time when guidance was more urgent and complacency more dangerous which is why tomorrows leaders (who hopefully show more regard for human life than the author) shall reveal themselves.
