 Good morning, Excellencies, Ladies, Gentlemen. This is a session I was particularly looking forward to, because Dr. Kissinger, it's such a special pleasure to welcome you back here to Davos, and of course for me it's a special pleasure because I had the honor to meet you in the 60s when I was a student at Harvard University. The session which we have today should be a kind of framework for our geopolitical discussions which we have here in Davos, and it's entitled, The State of the World, a Strategic Assessment. And I couldn't think of anybody better to provide us with the insights to understand what's really going on in the world. I don't want to list, Henry, all your achievements as a national security advisor, as a secretary of state, as a professor. What's much more important, I think, is the influence which you have had on international politics over so many decades. Henry, your first trip to Davos dates back to more than 30 years. In 1980, you delivered actually the opening address of this annual meeting. And it's very interesting, I read again your speech, and you spoke at that time about the constantly changing world, and I quote, and the age of global interdependence. You warned of a delusion of confidence in classic economic models, a challenge to the capitalist system. But you also noted, and I quote again, a demoralization of the socialist systems which nowhere have produced the satisfaction of human personality. As we will have many discussions the next days on the geopolitical and geoeconomic affairs, your insights shared this morning will certainly be of a kind to enlighten us all. So please welcome Dr. Henry Kissinger. Dr. Kissinger, we will run this session as a dialogue. And my first question to you, we will look at all the different regions in the world. But my first question starts with the region which is probably of utmost concern at this moment. It's the Middle East. It's the Middle East essential for global security, essential for global energy supply. We were all of great hope two years ago with the Arab Spring. But now we see the whole region moving more to extremism. You have three different kinds of Islam competing each with another, the Saudi Arabians, the Iranians, the Muslim Brotherhood. What is your assessment and how worried do you feel about this development which we see in the aftermath of the Arab Spring? Well, Klaus, first let me thank you for your very friendly introduction. And when I think back to my first visit to Davos, which was just a CEO meeting of maybe the two front roads, and when I see it today, it is a triumph of vision because there are many CEO meetings, but there's only one Davos and that's a tribute to Klaus. The second point I want to make, since you will ask me probably about different regions of the world, not realizing that I probably will take all the time with the first question. I want to say a few sentences about how I look at the world. Because in the American public discussion, there's often the argument, should one look at the world from a realistic point of view or from an idealistic point of view? I think that is a false dichotomy. One has to begin with an assessment of the situation as it is. If one cannot do that, one cannot make any predictions about the future. But one cannot rest on the situation as it is because what happens, especially in times of turmoil, is the challenge of moving the world from where it is to where it has not yet been. And that requires vision and idealism. And my answer to all these questions will be characterized by that attitude. Now, of course, we could spend the whole hour on the Middle East and I'll confine myself to an analysis of the situation as it now appears. The Middle East, for one thing, is a system in which the states, many of the states, were artificially created at the end of the First World War. So the borders of these countries were not chosen by historical evolution and by a shared national experience. They were drawn by the victors of the First World War, none of whom were Middle East countries, for the strategic convenience of the countries concerned. So therefore the nation, as it exists in Europe and Asia, has a different significance in the Middle East. There are exceptions in Iran and to a large extent in Egypt. But the other borders are permeable. Secondly, the Islamic religion that is professed by all these regions has in its history the notion of the unity of all religious believers. And so therefore it makes the national borders, at least to those who believe in this principle, much more transitory. Third, there has emerged in that region the most current issue and the most urgent issue of nuclear proliferation in the case of Iran. And a key element in this is that for 15 years the members, the permanent members of the Security Council have declared that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. But it has been approaching. And so within a foreseeable future, people having advanced that view will have to come to a determination of how to react or about the consequences of nonreaction or abandoning in substance this policy. And I believe this point will be reached within a very foreseeable future. Fourth, there is the competition to which clouds refer of the various Islamic radicalisms. With each other. Fifth, there's the evolution of the Arab Spring which was greeted with enthusiasm by the outside world and was interpreted as the emergence of pluralistic democracy but has in fact produced as the dominant party in every country, political organizations that are difficult to reconcile with pluralism and that have in their history affirmed a very universalist position. Sixth, there has been the experience of Libya which the western countries dealt with as an affirmation of high moral principle and those principles were accurate. But they are now in the process of learning that every action has strategic consequences and that one cannot just choose a part of the action and then abdicate from the remainder. Then there is the problem of Syria which at first was interpreted as a fight of democracy against the dictatorship but which has transformed itself into a conflict between various ethnic groups and in which the outside world finds itself in the position that if it intervenes militarily it will be in the middle of a vast ethnic conflict and if it doesn't intervene militarily as I have urged it not to do it will be caught in a human humanitarian tragedy and so the outcomes are conceivable there and I'm doing it purely analytically would be an asset staying in office, a total Sunni victory or an emergence of a loose federation of various ethnic groups each of which has its own consequences as for the outside world to the degree that it competes with each other it makes the situation worse and so I have always advocated a Russian American understanding which would then probably be backed by all the other permanent members of the Security Council as the first step towards defining what the objective is. Then there is the by now historic Palestinian problem and the issue of the survival of Israel. It is a strange situation in this sense that a consensus has developed in the world of a outcome but nobody has yet been able to determine how to get there and the element of uncertainty with respect to this is that is how to get a negotiation started but also how to define its parameters and I would like to state a personal view in that connection. There's no doubt that any settlement will require significant sacrifices on the Israeli side from the position they now hold whatever the details of this are but I would like to appeal to the Arab people present here that there has to be some reciprocity on the Arab side other than just declaring the word peace without defining it. There has to be something that changes in their conduct other than uttering the word peace. Some concrete arrangements so that Israel which now finds itself in the position of surrounded by absolutist Islamic states can justify to its own people that a peace that is emerging has some concrete content and the final point is this of course is an issue that has essentially organically internal dynamism but the relation of the outside powers to each other is crucial in determining the volatility of the system and in that respect changing energy patterns will produce a necessity of reevaluating the strategic role of various countries in the region not as a question of choice but as a question of the inherent changing of various ways that emerge. Dr. Kissinger if you look you you provided us with a comprehensive analysis now says in President Obama has been reelected what are the policy options he has I think everybody expects the United States to take a more active role in the region but what are actually the policy options which are open. President Obama first of all I mean the audience knows that President Obama was not my first choice in the in the last election but it should also know that I believe that foreign policy has to be non-partisan and that I will do my best to support the policies unless a huge ideological objection would arise which I don't know the challenge we face is twofold. First the United States has to draw some lessons from its recent experiences and from that point of view some of the previous involvement in the region in the military field will diminish and the capacity the willingness to intervene in local issues of balance will be altered. The second is that when America learns the lesson that it is still probably the most powerful country in the world and certainly an indispensable country in preserving order it will redefine those things it can do but it will also learn to do better the things that remain for it to be done. So I would expect that the administration will deal in its early period with achieving some clarity about its objectives of relating non-proliferation to the region. So I would expect Iran to be high on the agenda. The President has also repeatedly stated that he favours a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem in the form of a two-state solution. So I would again expect some activism in that respect. I have also already indicated that the Syrian problem would best be dealt with internationally by Russia and America not making it a contest of national interest. Now when I say I expect this is not a direct if I, it's my analytical expectation and I would hope that the undertaking of the United States in foreign policy will not be characterized by the divisions that we have seen on domestic policy. I would like to come back to one issue because it's such a dangerous element in global affairs. I refer to the so-called red line to which Prime Minister Netanyahu referred in his speech to the United Nations and what you said before we are getting closer to the red line. What can the world community do to avoid that we slip into a kind of unwanted tragedy? Now one has to decide two things. What one means by an Iranian nuclear capability? At what level does one assess it to be so close to military option that it has to be done with as a military option? And the second thing is who should deal with it? I believe unilateral action by Israel would be a desperation last resort. So one should give these negotiations a real chance and conduct them flexibly. But the Iranians have to understand that if they keep using the negotiations simply as a means to gain time to complete a nuclear program that the situation will become extremely dangerous because the consequences of an Iranian nuclear program will be that other countries in the region will feel impelled to adopt similar programs that the credibility of the countries who have talked about unacceptable will be severely damaged. And that if nuclear weapons keep spreading into regions where the technical sophistication with which they were handled during the Cold War period is very difficult to implement across the broad range and where the political passions are so great that we could then be approaching a point where nuclear weapons become almost conventional and certainly some sort of nuclear conflict might arise that I believe would be a turning point in human history. And so the issue should be a subject of intense negotiation over the next months undertaken seriously by both sides and the possibilities of finding a solution one to the definition of what a nuclear capability is. And secondly what its consequences are should then be seriously explored and that Iran should ask itself this question for the United States and I think for all Western countries. There is no challenge to Iranian national identity or Iranian development. If Iran acts as a nation and not as a revolutionary cause there is no reason for America or any other permanent member of the Security Council to be in conflict with it nor should there be for any regional country. And on that basis I would hope that a negotiated solution will be found in a measurable time. Now Henry when we talk about nuclear powers you have actually in the region you have Pakistan and the political situation in Pakistan is not the most stable one to express it let's say diplomatically. How much are you worried about Pakistan in the long term? I'd be in deep trouble when I leave here. Look I have great respect for Pakistan in 1971 was accused of being too sympathetic. I'm worried about Pakistan because the trends that I have described of Islamic fundamentalism are gaining ground and the difficulty of establishing a civilian government have not been overcome partly because of the differences between the regions. Pakistan has demonstrated enormous sophistication in developing nuclear weapons unexpectedly and could become a source of proliferation in the region and when that happens then the issues with India and over Afghanistan what one should hope to achieve is at first Pakistan is now being left under conditions which will produce a political vacuum and I believe it is imperative for the surrounding countries which of course Pakistan is an enormously important part and Russia and China and India and Iran and India because it is so affected by it to come up with some notion of how to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a center of disturbance in the region and in that context with Pakistan being given a respected place in it and it being made clear to Pakistan that its security concerns are understood it may turn out that that some progress can be made but I right now one has to say the challenge for Pakistan stability is of course in the first instance a Pakistan problem but also a world problem and so with straw from Afghanistan will it have a positive or negative effect the withdrawal from Afghanistan became a necessity in terms of the American situation and one of the lessons we have to learn is that our capacity to change domestic structures deep in other continents in far from the United States may is not sustainable by American public opinion so I have understanding for the presidential decision to withdraw but one cannot act as if ten years of history leave no requirements for a legacy and so I believe that it is necessary to create a political framework which we should encourage in which the surrounding countries address the challenge of how to prevent another terrorist center from being directed at surrounding countries which given the history could really be any of the surrounding countries I often use the example which is much simple if I in 1830 when Belgium became independent from the Netherlands the question was how what to do with what had been the battlefield for over a century between the European great powers and the idea was then developed of Belgium neutrality guaranteed by surrounding countries neutrality is not the word we are looking for here and it would be much more complex because we are not concerned with armies marching in and out but some concept like this ought to be elaborated by surrounding countries some of which have conflicts with each other but which might unite on this and if that were established then Afghanistan could develop internally by its own by its own maximums and in this sense I the American military withdrawal which it's inevitable should be coupled with a political arrangement to prevent the same situation from realising if return and this week of course has seen the 57th inaugural ceremony of US president and the US the United States was always known as the country which was integrating people from all over the world and now there's a big concern about polarization in the US not only politics but also society do you feel Henry this is just a political phenomenon which will go away or do we have here deep fundamental societal change as far as the American population is concerned of course I'm an American who was integrated and I came to America not speaking English and it was from that point of view a very coherent society now I would say the polarization has a number of causes one is the complexity of the issues that are involved I was on the board of a company that fell under some regulations and even its lawyers couldn't figure out what these regulations meant and they went to Washington and the congressmen who had voted had to refer to their stats so when the public finds when when documents are 2,500 pages long and out of such enormous consequence and the public has no possibility of understanding the issues about which the fight goes on this leads to a certain frustration with democracy on one side secondly the way political debates are now conducted in all countries but especially in the United States it's moving democracy from an effort of persuasion to an effort of manipulation uh the great debates in England were addressed to individual voters at mass meetings where candidates debated the same in the United States in the debates prior to the civil war and right up to the new a new deal now technicians are running campaigns files are kept of 40 million people in which it may be possible that the headquarters of these campaigns know more about the total habits of the people than certainly their neighbors and maybe the families that introduces an element of rigidity into the system because it results in a statement that are geared to producing a a motion through it the even I the longest period I served was in the Nixon Ford period and we thought we had it pretty enough but at that time there was still a a kind of understanding between the Congress and the executive branch that on some key issues one could act on most of them in a united way this is now much more precarious if it inevitable that this continues I'm worried about the way the debate is now evolving and of course there has been a demographic change in the United States and so that many of the new immigrants do not have the ties to Europe that the previous ancestors had so these are all worrisome phenomena on the other hand at least the America that I see which may not be cover all aspects it's still a country that believes in itself it is still a country where the government in the end will be able to have sacrifices of its people and the conditions that I have described are a challenge to our leaders they are not an organic necessity that needs to continue indefinitely but couldn't you coming back to your basic philosophy couldn't you say the US becomes more and more a pragmatic realistic legalistic society missing the normative the value-based the idealistic dimension and I think this dimension was so important to provide the US with credibility in international leadership now I think the idealistic element of America is inseparable from the American role in the world and you cannot justify foreign policy in America in the long term simply by a balance of power approach or a purely legalistic approach and indeed I would say that the that the that a very significant element in the United States is distorting things by an acceptable I wouldn't say idealistic approach but an excessively moralistic approach I think the neo-conservative element would certainly be that and then there are many people with whom I sympathize from my own experience who believe that America has a moral duty to intervene militarily wherever human rights are seriously violated that is a very significant element in the American debate the present debates are about finances and they of course have a major legalistic element but they will come down to one question in the name of what can America ask sacrifices of its people it will have to ask sacrifices and I think it will after it works through the present process so that it's really an idealistic debate another legalistic debate but Henry if you would address the the American people and you would ask for sacrifices to reduce the debt load to bring the house in order what would you tell the American people you know I to addressing let's say the more idealistic dimension of it you see the problem is that the mechanics of virtual the mechanics of the presidential election now means that candidates have to debate in ever in 50 states on the basis of local state issues and that the people who come out to vote in these primaries are the activists so the presidential selection system and this is I would apply that across the board which is the debate does not bring before the American people a an appeal on on general principles on the other hand I think that if the present debate continues in this on this level some rebellion will arise I don't know what form it will take I'm no expert on domestic issues anyway I'm sad saying that as an observer but I would predict that when it is resolved it will be resolved by somebody emerging to appeal to something higher than the purely financial issues that are now being put forward. Henry one of the most impressive books I have read and I have been probably 70 times in India in China over the last 35 years 34 years is your book on China and the people speak now about the so-called chi too as really what matters in the world how do you see the evolution of US-Chinese relations particularly now where you have a transformation of leadership in China and I should include into my question also see more assertive role which apparently Japan will play in this context the US-China relations plays now have will be in my view at least acquiring a certain symbolic character for this reason they are the two countries that will be developing the most active economic relations around the world they will interact with each other everywhere they provide the classic example of an emerging country and the status quo country working out their coexistence and what history would teach one about this is that these countries will conduct an increasing rivalry and that this will lead to constellations and to some kind of at least diplomatic conflict but I think also that we are living now in a world where this traditional pattern of which I've written a lot and which I understand very well where this traditional pattern has to be superseded there are issues like energy proliferation environment that can only be dealt with on a global basis if the United States and China fall into a Cold War pattern every country in the world will be asked to choose in some fashion will therefore be split in some fashion and at the end of this process one doesn't learn from history any achievement other than when countries like this have played out their roles like Germany and with the rest of Europe they face exactly the same problem with which they entered it so in that sense I believe the Sino-American cooperation is extremely important and in a certain kind of and a close cooperation should be attempted but I don't think there should be a G2 in which China and the US try to run the world this has to be in the context of a broadening of the base of international cooperation away from the in which emerging in which countries like India Brazil the concept will play an increasing role the relationship between China and the United States will be inhibited to some extent but differences in culture China thinks more strategically America thinks more programmatically China has lived with a sense of constant danger from its neighbors America has never had neighbors that were an immediate threat to it both countries are now undergoing transformations domestically but that is the fundamental challenge of the relationship when you have said this you go into then you get to read to details the injunction I would urge on both sides is of course being great powers they have to work on settling their disputes but they have to find something they can do jointly so that there is some experience on uh on both sides now Japan in this will play a key role being a major country in the region Japan is undergoing a transition now from being primarily an economic country which was an unnatural result of world war two to becoming more active in international affairs and sorting out in the Japanese way the various options it has and one can see in Japan elements that want to continue the association with the United States which would have to be modified however by the qualifications I put on the American role in the earlier part of our discussions by others who are arguing even in the face of many storms for a closer association of Japan with some northeast Asia block and the third group which would pursue a more national policy this Japanese debate is carried out in a manner that is more elusive and less uh programmatic than debates are carried on in the United States and in other western countries uh but it it has to be understood and one has also to understand that the decision China may Japan makes in its options will affect it be affected importantly by what kind of Sino-American relationship will develop and uh by the assessment in Japan of how the various parts of the world are really evolving and we are in a week we're based also on the speech of Prime Minister Kameron who will join us any moment and um the future of Europe is very much I would say debated I I don't say in question now how you are such a European specialist you you followed the in-depth European um uh history how would you define the ideal Europe in five to ten years from now one underlying problem it's the one I described also for the United States which is what sacrifices can be asked of the public and the reason it's an underlying question it's because every country and this is also the American problem has to adjust its public expenditures in relation to its capabilities uh and it will also affect the evolution of Europe because the cohesion of Europe and its solution of its existing problems depends on the willingness to make sacrifices uh on the part first of the people immediately concerned but on the part of the other European I would think as an observer the issues that need to be solved it's the relationship between austerity and growth to what extent necessary sacrifices may however do be hard to translate into growth because they go beyond the sustainability of the political systems and if there is no growth then the economic cohesion uh of europe will suffer the second question is to what extent those countries that have the capacity to do so can be asked indefinitely to pay pay the burdens of uh helping uh the countries that have slid into uh these difficulties and if answers to these two questions emerge to be negative which I'm not predicting uh then the question will be what happens to Europe and there I would say whatever happens the idea of European unity needs to be preserved and it may be that for a while and maybe for the next phase one has to shift from the great idea of the 50s and 60s which was to approach unity by economic construction to approaching unity by political construction and I would not accept the proposition that if these other questions cannot be answered creatively that that has to be the end of Europe uh the Europe should be maintained as an idea even if the ideal solution does not emerge so if I if I understand you we have at the moment in the political discussions the conflict between Europe as a economic unity or as a political unity so you would argue Europe has to bring his own its house in order but the end game has to be the political union that's based on the historical process and that's the only way how Europe can survive perhaps the ingenuity that brought European economic unity to this point should now be transferred to the political field and maybe it may be that for a while the political field has to be given a high priority and when we speak about Europe you would speak not only about the continent but you would I would include uh I would include the UK of course that's uh I think that's a great transition to the next session where Prime Minister Cameron will will address us but I would like um you always have been my mentor Henry and I think today you shared your insights with us let me just say we are very grateful for your presence because I know it was not easy for you to come to the States and to be back so I hope that you can we know all of your age but we wish you said we still and we wish us that we still have other opportunities to see you back in Davos thank you so much