There The National Interest: There are those who assert that the world "changed" after 9/11; that the international system of the 21st century is defined less by nation-states and increasingly by new elements-substate actors, transnational movements and so on-the implication being that the U.S. experience of the Cold War era is increasingly becoming irrelevant as a guide for formulating foreign policy today. What would be your assessment?
Henry Kissinger: It is true that entirely new elements have entered into international affairs, but the first question one has to answer is whether there are general principles of foreign policy capable of being applied all over the world, simultaneously and in the same manner. I would question that. Different parts of the world are at different stages in their internal development and at different stages in the structure of the units that are composing it. Our convictions about what we are trying to achieve should be constant, but their application has to be adjusted to specific conditions in different regions.
TNI: What would be your response to those who argue that the domestic nature of any given regime is now the most relevant factor in assessing its relationship with the United States?
HK: The domestic nature of a regime is a factor that has to be considered. I would question, however, whether this can be the sole benchmark. The proposition also implies that we have an unlimited ability to affect the internal structure of regimes. And I would have my doubts about that, too. The difference between the realist and the theoretical or idealistic school is usually not over objectives. The objectives are usually fairly parallel. The difference is in what can be done in a specific period of time; whether a concept is its own legitimacy or whether practical limits should be adapted to culture and circumstances.
