2nd December 2023 – (Hanoi) With Henry Kissinger’s passing, Southeast Asia lost one of the most monumental diplomats of the modern era. As an architect of realpolitik foreign policy, Kissinger profoundly shaped the region’s history through his pivotal role during the Cold War’s tumultuous years. While his controversial record elicits polarised appraisals, Kissinger’s outsized regional influence is indisputable.

From the Vietnam War’s darkest days to rapprochement with China, Kissinger put his indelible mark on Southeast Asia’s trajectory. His unsentimental pragmatism sought stability through power balancing, aligning national interests over moral ideals. This approach defined his diplomatic legacy, for better or worse.

To extract America from the Vietnam quagmire, Kissinger employed hardline tactics like carpet-bombing Cambodia to pressure North Vietnam into negotiations. This destabilized the country, boosting the Khmer Rouge’s rise. Kissinger’s critics condemn such ruthless means, while allies consider difficult trade-offs inevitable. Either way, the war’s scars persist across Indochina.

Concurrently, Kissinger orchestrated the Nixon administration’s monumental outreach to China after decades of hostility. This tacit Sino-American alignment against the Soviet Union fundamentally altered Southeast Asia’s geopolitical landscape. The effects still reverberate today.

Beyond global realignments, Kissinger cultivated close regional friendships that advanced American interests. His affinity with Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew reflected a kindred strategic pragmatism. Both men grasped interests superseded ideals in international affairs, creating mutual affection and trust. This personal relationship bolstered Singapore-US ties.

Of course, Kissinger’s controversial legacy elicits more revulsion than respect in some quarters. His involvement in Indonesia’s brutal 1975 invasion of East Timor, which killed over 200,000 people, remains condemned by critics as enabling atrocities. Rights advocates accuse Kissinger of greenlighting genocide by the Suharto regime there.

But even harsh critics acknowledge Kissinger’s role stewarding difficult trade-offs during a complex period of upheaval. His adherence to realpolitik principles aimed at stability through power balancing, however distasteful, reflected the dominant paradigm of his era.

Regardless of one’s perspective, Henry Kissinger’s towering presence indelibly shaped Southeast Asia’s trajectory. For better or worse, the region grapples with his lasting imprint today. Love or loathe his legacy, Kissinger’s influence will endure as a touchstone for future generations.