Committees suffering from bows and arrows. This book came about, and many of my friends have heard me give this origin story. This book came about because of the review i did that mention the series that was used biography to teach history. It would hit biographical topics or would use a representative biography to get at a broader subject of history. They had just published their first volume, it was on pocahontas because of the issues regarding native American History. They were looking for someone to do something on American Foreign relations. He offered me the opportunity to put together a perspective. These were supposed to be short and concise books. That was the idea. The topic i debated and consulted with some people about which biographical figure might serve that purpose in the american context. I kept coming back to hendry to Henry Kissinger. A long career of american and foreign relations. He really does represent something about 20thcentury American Power. When i did get the chance to tell kissinger this was the goal of the series, a short, concise book and using him as a representative and a look at u. S. Relations. He looked at me and said and i dont cover everything. Its not as short and concise as i had hoped. It got longer. It was even longer when i submitted the manuscript. There were a lot of things that had to be left out. Another question that i have heard, and i have two other kissinger books, is why another book on Henry Kissinger . Thats a legitimate question. I think theres a scholarly contribution. I am trying to write the book to reach a broader audience, but also to reach scholars. The argument is to look at kissinger in a new way. Most accounts of kissinger look at him as a Foreign Policy intellectual. He said the realpolitik, the pursuit of a pragmatic or Foreign Policy that is disregarded more for ethical considerations, and that was geared towards the promotion of American Security and interest, with interest defined narrowly. That is the usual approach to kissinger. I think it is incomplete. What my book seeks to do is to look at kissingers desk kissinger as a political actor, even a politician. This is insight i got from the French Foreign minister, a comment that he thought kissinger was far more of a politician in the way he acted. I think the basis of this is to understand, and this is illuminated the history of American Foreign policy, the American Foreignpolicy shapes and determine the struggles and battles of domestic politics. It determines the politics. This is the goal i want to convey in you in looking at Henry Kissinger. Kissinger always portrayed himself some of you may have seen the interview he gave to mike wallace when he was talking about his book, even then he portrayed himself as someone above politics, independent and not be partisan. There was a original source of studying kissinger at it recorded the 1972 Republican National convention. At one point during the national convention, dan rather comes up to kissinger, asked him about the vietnam peace settlement in august of 1972, whether it will help president nixons chances in an election. Kissinger said, the president never talks to me about politics. We know this is nonsense. They understood political importance of Foreign Policy. The tapes combined the television material and other material, it gives insight into how nixon and kissinger approach Foreign Policy. The book is essentially although there is one chapter that tries to give the essentials of kissingers career and to talk about his connection to political ideas and thoughts before he becomes National Security advisor the book is essentially about his governmental career lasting from january of 1969 to january of 1977. In the second chapter, after a sloppy start, i entitle you cant lose them all. Things did not go well the early period of the nixon presidency. They organize what they call the trifecta or trifecta. They talked with the soviet union, the paris Peace Agreement in agreement and vietnam. Ultimately it would help contribute to the landslide electoral victory of Richard Nixon in 1972. There is a wonderful tape of a conversation when nixon calls kissinger up after kissinger has given his piece of hand press conference in october of 1972. Nixon calls kissinger up and says, henry has notice on all three networks. They were watching the Television News as well. He remarked, on all three networks there is an interesting story. Kissinger says, we have wiped mcgovern out. There is this political sensibility about their understanding of Foreign Policy that i think is something that i think is a large part of the first nixon term. Not to say that there arent other considerations, but it comes up in the discussion. It certainly is there. The next part of the book gets into, you might say, the happy period of nixon, but a successful time for Henry Kissinger. Nixon wanted to keep kissinger doing the same thing for the second term, the watergate would destroy his political credibility and power, and effectively reverse the roles, kissinger became the indispensable man. In 19731974, he was the most admired american, particularly for his role in the middle east, where he would play a role for settling the yom kippur war, but also in developing and negotiating the first agreements between israel and egypt and israel and syria. It was pursuing his own goals. Richard nixon had difficult views, but kissinger could manipulate and avoid what nixon was talking about as he negotiated this engagement. Kissinger would become, after the syrian agreement went into news greet newsweek, and they put him in a superman outfit. Of course what goes up must come down. Kissinger had a much more difficult final few years and the administration dealing with a much more Hostile Congress an investigation. Certain events and not go very well. Frustrations in the middle east, the soviet involvement. Questions about the frustrations with the peace treaty. Much of this also let kissinger into thinking and arguing that Foreign Policy needed the domestic the domestic Foreign Policy needed to be different. A quote from him in 1975. When he argued, in history we can either escape from the world we are dominated. We must conduct with flexibility, imagination in pursuit of our interest. We must be thoughtful and be prepared for the contingency. We must pursue limited objectives simultaneously. Kissinger, in some ways, in 1970 was attacked from the right and the left. From the right it was for insufficient anticommunism. From the left, insufficient attention to human rights issues. Kissinger by the end of the time in office is talking about the limit of what the United States can do and the necessity to recognize that. At the same time it was in kissingers on makeup. In his role as secretary of state he is pursuing initiatives for certain powers of the United States and the world. Henry, for all of the sensible limits, having to assert that power. I have a last chapter, which talks about kissingers retirement. At all think anyone thought that 53yearold Henry Kissinger would not be back in power in some form. There was the fear of president s, that he would outshine them or preempt their own authority, as he seemed to have done with gerald ford. The interesting thing about that chapter is i cannot really use the types of sources a historian would like to. I had a moment when my copy editor said, a there is another book you know there is another book in the slapped in this last chapter. Kissinger did become in those 1970s, 1980s, 1990s elite commentator a lead commentator. He became a symbol and exercise of American Power. I think i will close here and leave it open for comments. Thank you very much. We now have a we are very fortunate to have a very distinguished panel of experts, colleagues, friends to provide some initial comments and questions for comments. We want to set this up really interactively. I have asked our commentators to be short entrees. Really focus on a couple of key questions that will draw on the main arguments of the book. We will start with professor barbara, who shares in u. S. And International History at a university in the u. K. She received her degree from harvard university. She is the editor of three books. It was published by harvard in 2013. In dozens of articles and book chapters, including one entitled Henry Kissinger the emotional statesman. And the second book was published in diplomatic history. After finishing a book manuscript, she is writing a book currently on the relationship between Henry Kissinger she is the most recent president of society of historians. We are delighted to have her with us. You have the floor. Thank you for having me. We congratulate tom, that was clearly a major achievement. It occurred to me last night that for the field of u. S. Foreign history, writing a book about Henry Kissinger is a bit like climbing mount everest. There is a small but sizable number of people who undertake the challenge because it is such a challenge. One of the things that makes it such a challenge is that they are in a large party a large waddy of scholarship and kissinger. A number of things contribute with kissinger. I want to touch on a few things and post two questions. The two things that stand out about the book is, first, its quite brief. He manages to cover the nixon years and about 200 pages. There is so much going on in some a different parts of the world, and to do it without over simplifying and losing nuance is a perfect achievement. The second thing i think is useful about toms book is the last chapter that he mentions kissinger after 1977. Tom covers that quite extensively, more so than any other works. I can only think of one other recent work that does that at all. I think it is an important part of kissingers career. One of the things that troubled me is why it is that no enterprising journalist has journalist has yet undertaken to write a book about kissinger after 1977. There is so much to say. Even though the sources are hard to find i think they are there. Its not that he is just a media talking head, but he is a businessman. I think the fact that we know so little about kissingers role as a businessman in the last 40 plus years as the head of kissinger associates, its part of our understanding of foreign relations, particularly in regards to china. I have two questions for time. They are very big questions. I will let tom responds. The first is a very obvious question. Its about the relationship between nixon and kissinger. A big question for anybody who writes about kissinger is that when we accept his role we have to acknowledge it was nixon who was the president and who made the ultimate decisions. In your conclusions you write, kissinger was a dutiful agent of nixon. You suggest that kissingers role is really important, both in providing an intellectual framework, and in selling nixons policies. I think you did a really terrific job at outlining how well, how kissinger cultivated the press to sell those policies. That is that suggest your position in 1994 when nixon reconsidered when it was written that kissinger was a geopolitical follower rather than a leader. Its a contrast to jeremys assessment in jeremys book, that kissinger was a genius as a strategist. Tom, you portrayed kissinger as a tactician. Want to pressure you press you on the points of what you covered. I think there are a number of interesting points you make. You suggest that kissinger triggered nixons reaction in ways that kissinger would then later regret. Kissinger played on nixons anxieties, often to enhance his own power. Kissinger played a key role. The secretary of state, who i dont think anyone has ever written a single book on, but rogers opposed it in present ways. Its one example of the many times that kissinger pushed nixon in many directors. Typically, in many cases towards the use of force. Let me ask this question. Is an o policy are never just dutiful agents, but rather advisors of the perspective, analyses, support and opposition to various policies . It sometimes also gives them causal responsibility. At particular moments, are there not times when kissinger does have a high degree of personal responsibility, and was the decisive factor . I feel like you walked up to this conclusion a couple of times and always had a caveat. Like there was also a National Security reason for what kissinger was pushing. My second question is a very big picture. Im sure you field as many questions on these lines over the years. I think a lot about this quote that jeremy pulled out of kissinger during one of the interviews. Jeremy asked kissinger, what are your core moral principles . Kissinger answered, i am not prepared to share that yet. Which is pretty remarkable, considering he is happy to share opinions about pretty much anything. Her conclusion, you do fault kissinger for working against democracy in chile, which undermined u. S. Interest in 1970 to 1973. And you describe it as ignorant about argentinas dirty war. You also defend the bombing of cambodia and even were default kissinger in the case of argentina, your language is tepid. You say its hard to justify. The defense that you offer seems to be in part that everyone did what nixon and kissinger did, kennedy, eisenhower, wishing that america stayed in the cold war. Im not suggesting that what you needed to do to satisfy me here is not to offer a more vigorous condemnation of kissinger or a more robust defense, the cousin can understand that you are trying not to deed not to do either. To the extent that you wade into the debate, i was left uncertain about your position. Let me frame this in terms of this question. Do you think that kissinger had a moral compass . And if he did not, or if it was not well articulated, shouldnt we expect statesmen to health to have well articulated moral principles . Prof. Schwartz thank you to your excellent questions, that also draw the setting of toms books but very the floor is yours. Prof. Schwartz excuse me. Im sorry. Still have a landline. These are hard questions, needless to say, and i guess i expect that. The Nixon Kissinger relationship, i do use the term dutiful follower. In that sense i do think the Foreign Policy in the first nixon years was nixons Foreign Policy. I think kissinger, to borrow the argument, i think he tuned himself into nixon and it advocates more forceful measures that he did on the korean shoot down of an american spy plane in 1969. I do think that is something about, particularly in the first years, in which kissinger did and often times to read nixon as a part of enhancing his own prestige and importance. Unlike the secretary of state it was a constituent of one president and i think kissinger was very aware of that. To a certain extent he did advocate policies that played into some of nixons own inclinations towards the use of force. Specifically on laos, i do think that was one where kissinger was persuaded that some type of use of force could strengthen the negotiating situation that was still and his memoirs was for that. How much responsibility . I think its there. I think that kissingers role on a number of these issues does give him a certain level of responsibility. Kissinger learned not to doubt himself. Kissinger love to use the analogy of his life. Kissinger learned to follow that and also came to enjoy it greater prestige and a better relationship with nixon because of that i think kissinger had a moral compass. The older i get, the more reluctant and get. I am probably more reluctant to make that case. I think he did in some measure. I think it was one that he could ignore at times, but it think is larger one of the things that i think that did drive him was this notion of keeping be United States from nuclear destruction, and that one way that would be achieved would be a Foreign Policy. Preventing disasters that could lead to a situation where the United States might engage in such aggressive behavior. I think this meant that he was willing to make calculations about decisions such as chile and argentina that were wrong, and that ended up causing greater harm i think harm. I think it was one of the things that would lead to destruction. That was one of the things that he did advocate. Trying to balance judgment on Henry Kissinger is tough. The carelessness sometimes he could express. Sometimes in his macabre wit is what he said about chile, its so irresponsible to vote for a marxist. I think it brings out the greater hostility among writers and analysts. I think trying to build on kissinger is essential. I think people who built this over time and it is one thing very much around 2020 and im sure in 50 years it might strike a different balance. Nevertheless i do think he had a moral compass and had a place that he tried to adhere to. Thank you. We will now turn to dr. Diane, who is the executive director of the center first option policy for children and adoption and family issues at duke university. Dr. Diane has worked with centers for disease control. He was the architect for the humanitarian parole project, which brought over thousands of children to the adoptive parents after the 2010 earthquake. She also helped the haiti act of 2010, which granted u. S. Citizenship to these adopted children. After practicing law and in her career she went on to study the economic history of yale university. She went on to teach their and since 2010 has been in various capacities at duke universitys. While at yale she worked extensively on 20thcentury history and wrote price winning books. We are de