 Henry Kissinger is dead and the interwebs are overjoyed, but behind the online humor and anger, what was the disastrous legacy of this US official? The 28th COP summit has begun in the United Arab Emirates. What's to look forward to or be worried about for this meeting? This is the Daily Debrief. These are your stories for the day. And before we go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit the subscribe button. Former US Secretary of State and Diplomatic Don Henry Kissinger is dead. Kissinger for many was an iconic representative of the crimes of US imperialism. The direct death toll under his watch was, of course, in the millions even according to one estimate, but he also epitomized a foreign policy that continues to this day and which continues to take lives across the world. No wonder his legacy continues to be hailed by certain sections of the Diplomatic Corps or foreign policy establishments, etc. We go to Anish to understand the bloody legacy of Kissinger. Anish, thank you so much for joining us. Now we've talked about in previous episodes over the months, we've talked about the death of prominent personalities who had to put in very politely a problematic past. But I think the responses to Henry Kissinger's death, especially online, have been at another level altogether. And I think that really kind of shows the extent to which people recognize his dangerous, his disastrous contributions across the world. So before we go into some of those aspects, maybe I think it might be good for our viewers to sort of, you know, to go through some of those, you know, who he was and what he did basically, which has made him such a wild figure. Well, yes, if you look at the trajectory of his career, it was pretty much marked by a certain support, not just support, but like overwhelming help to the American Empire. If you look at him becoming like his career during the, as the NSA, or the National Security Advisor under Nixon, and then later, obviously, the Secretary of State under both Nixon and Ford, he was one of the most pivotal figures in moving US foreign policy in a manner that actually made it one of the most violent years of American imperialism. We must remember that he was quite an important figure in actually delaying Paris peace accords while, as the NSA, and there are some papers talking about how he was also, you know, important as a prominent figure in actually delaying it before Nixon came to power during the election season, prompting South Vietnamese government to actually delay the peace talks or even, you know, the conclusion of the peace talks until after the election. But that aside, even if you look at his time as the NSA and obviously the State Secretary, he actually pushed for the US to quote unquote, not abandon South Vietnam, which actually not only prolonged the war, but also expanded it into throughout the Indochina region and actually, you know, led to the bombing of Cambodia, also roped in layers into the entire war schema. And that clearly shows how that was just the tip of the iceberg of his entire foreign policy has his time during with Nixon, especially was marked with certain kind of not just secrecy, but also the bringing the the whittling down of the roles and responsibility of the State Department at the cost of these two running an entire, you know, spy network of their own both domestically and elsewhere, which was obviously, you know, exposed not just in the Pentagon Papers, but also later very clearly during the Watergate scandal. So all of these clearly shows that he was somebody who, you know, not just I wouldn't say supported, but he actually enacted a large part of American foreign policy. As we know today, the kind of, you know, aggressive imperialism that we had seen the worst of it was under his time in office under both Ford and Nixon presidencies. And obviously, we must remember his support for different kinds of right wing dictatorships, not the East in Chile, where, you know, his support and his attempt to actually derail the IND government and its, you know, ascendancy to power. And he was he's now turns out to be one of the key figures behind the murder of the general there, during before the coup even happened before even I and they became the president. And obviously his attempt to his support for the coup that actually killed thousands in the years that followed. So he pretty much was this pivotal figure. And you obviously see that being sugar coated by such terms like the detente or his attempt, a supposed attempt to bring down the Yom Kippur war through is what is what they call the shuttle diplomacy. But this is these are not really achievements. These are pretty much some level of compromises that the US was forced to do at certain point, because of, you know, of pressures, not just from within the US, but also around the world. So these are not really achievements, but that are those are being used as achievements to in all the obituaries that we usually see in the mainstream media where he's being presented as the statesman. But obviously, as you pointed out, the people are not blind to the kind of damage that he has wrecked. And all over social media, you pretty much see that being reflected. There's hardly any word of support you see from, you know, be it Americans or people outside of America, regarding his term, and he was in power, what about five decades ago. So the anger that comes through it. And also, obviously, many people do not know about his time outside of government and what he did during that period. But nevertheless, that anger that that is generated by the very bird Kissinger clearly shows that his legacy is marked by blood and not really just being problematic. Even however mildly put it at this point of time. Certainly. Anish, in this context, of course, important one point you said we want to sort of elaborate on a bit further is the fact that, you know, at least in sections of the foreign policy establishment in the United States and some of these countries, there's been an attempt to paint him as some kind of a statesman. And a point I think a lot of people have made is the fact that, you know, while Kissinger has been identified very rightly so with a lot of, you know, a lot of the crimes of the previous century, the policy framework, which he executed, which he, you know, elaborated maybe which he executed has not really changed even in those times. So it's not that he was an exception at all in the larger scheme of things, especially when you look at US imperialism and we're talking in the context today in the context of the war in Gaza as well. So in that sense, really not much has changed. Definitely, definitely. I mean, obviously, US foreign policy in the post World War Two period was pretty much just marked by imperialist agenda. But there was a certain brazenness that was quite evident during his time in office. And that pretty much continues to this day. And it has only gotten worse. It hasn't really, you know, hasn't toned down at any level, to be very honest, but it has just gotten worse to the point where we see some of the worst attempts of war crimes being sugarcoated as attempts to, you know, intervene for whatever human rights, democracy, whatever keywords that the US would want for us to take up and believe in. But on the other hand, we also should talk about how this perception of him as a statesman is just marked by certain ignorance of how things worked, or if not ignorance, but a deliberate attempt to mask facts or history altogether. Obviously, the detente and everything happened. But, you know, the so called opening of China opening up of China, which is basically just we as establishing relations with China. But all of that did happen. But these were, as I said, pressure results of pressures being put on the US government, both by the people and the anti war movement within the United States, and also people around the world and countries around the world who did not see that sort of belligerence as producing any results. So definitely that was just a logical step as a manner to, you know, save face for the US empire, but didn't really cannot be seen as achievements. But the other hand, we also must remember his time outside of government, where he has been one of the most influential lobbyists in in Washington DC. And not just Washington DC, in fact, his footprints are there around the world. We forget about his role in representing Union Carbide in India, which pretty much is marked as the biggest industrial disaster killing, you know, thousands, tens of thousands of people in India in Bhopal in 1984. And he represented a company like that, because obviously he supported the company's establishment in India to begin with. And apart from that, his advocacy for the Gulf War, the Iraq War, or pretty much any war that US has presented, and he has been there, and he has supported those wars very overwhelmingly. But obviously, these are, you know, results of his lobbying career that he pretty much held and the connections that he held within outside of government as well. And pretty much he continued to influence US foreign policy, however small or big way we might see, but he definitely continued to influence it. And his footprints are pretty much there even in the decades, leading up to his death right now. So that clearly shows that the legacy was pretty much far longer and far bigger. And much of it is shrouded in secrecy. So we really do not know how bigger a damage he might have right around the world at this point in time. Thank you so much, Anish for the analysis. And we'll come back to you for later issues as well. The 28th Conference of Parties of COP 28 has begun in the United Arab Emirates, where climate change will be discussed. Over the past few years, COP summits have become an important moment to take stock of where we are in our attempt to prevent the rapid warming of the planet. A lot of terms which are restricted to experts have become common usage. As the impact of climate change, this includes floods, droughts, heat waves and fires, are affecting millions. So what can we expect in this summit? We go to Anna Rachar for more. Anna, thank you so much for joining us. So eagerly awaited conference, COP meets have now become something that's really part of our day-to-day media discussion, day-to-day thinking for a lot of people. So first of all, what does COP 28 look like? It's being held in the UAE, which itself is subject to a bit of controversy. But what are the broad outlines so to speak? So yes, to begin with, COP has become this event where people expect that the big climate talks are happening and that big breakthroughs can happen if governments want it. But many of the climate justice activists who have been building up towards this COP, but also towards other climate action, have warned that essentially it's decreasingly a space where this kind of key decision-making can be expected to happen. And in this case, of course, a lot of the discussion will be building upon where the previous COP 27 left off in Egypt. And two or three things are probably going to jump out a bit, including, there have been widespread concerns about the future of the climate target of reducing or at least limiting the increase of temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which again, climate justice activists have been warning that it's going further and further away. We're not nowhere near reaching that target. There is no indication that things will change significantly. And many of them are actually concerned that this specific COP might be the COP where we see that target being let go off, although it might not be explicit. So on the other hand, what they're saying is that what we would all hope to happen, and that significant and serious talks about phasing out fossil fuels will not happen at this COP. In short, it's probably going to be the COP where we see one of the important targets being sidelined or being dismissed. On the other hand, we're not going to see any significant negotiation on things that could actually help improve where we stand. Then there is the talk about the loss and damage fund, which is also one of the outcomes of the previous COP, which is essentially a fund that should facilitate climate response for low and middle income countries. This should be significant because it would allow the countries which are most exposed to the effects of climate change to cope better. But what we have seen until now, and then again, what the warnings that have been coming out from the climate justice community, is that first, so the talks about the specifics of this fund have been ongoing since the last COP for the past year. And then it's still not sure how the implementation will go. Will the World Bank be responsible for the administration of the loss and damage fund, which of course, low and middle income countries have already denounced as something that's hardly imaginable to have this kind of international financial institution being responsible for this kind of mechanism? Or will it be something else? So these are some of the key elements that delegates at the COP will be discussing. Right, and also specifically for health activists, I believe a very significant meeting as well, a moment to push a particular set of demands. Some days ago, we did discuss how climate change and health are actually very intricately connected. So from the perspective of health activists, how are they seeing this summit and what are the kind of demands they're looking at? Well, again, feelings are a bit split over this. It's an important COP because since the last one, it's the first time that health has actually been explicitly mentioned as an area which is so intrinsically connected to climate change that it cannot be overlooked. So this brings in important elements. We will have health ministries taking part at the talks during the COP. We'll have the World Health Organization along with other health organizations coordinating health actions and health days and health discussions at the COP. But again, what some of the climate justice activists are saying also the health activists is that what we are seeing is not nearly enough. So the ministers are going to be there. It's a very important space for them because of not only because of the damage that some health systems contribute to climate change, but also because climate change is certain to impact health more and more over the next few years. But on the other hand, there is no expectations again that there will be a serious tackling of fossil fuels and how the whole setup of the industry and of industries related to that are impacting health and are driving ill health factors in numerous ways. So in the next issue of the People's Health Dispatch we have this interview with a great climate and health activist from the Netherlands who labeled this as some sort of health washing. Essentially that you know you're saying that yes of course health is connected to climate change, but at the same time you're not ready to go into the details of that and explicitly state how health is being undermined by the current industry. Thank you so much for talking to us. Of course along many, many more days coming full of discussions, full of some of the usual contestations around key issues of climate change and we'll keep tracking that. Thank you so much for speaking to us. And that's all we have in this episode of Daily Debrief. We'll be back tomorrow with another episode. In the meanwhile, please visit our website peoplesdispatch.org and follow us on all the social media platforms.