Non-fiction: The Trial of Henry Kissinger

Overview

Christopher Hitchens mounts a sustained, forensic polemic arguing that Henry Kissinger should face legal accountability for a range of controversial U.S. foreign-policy decisions from the late 1960s through the 1970s. The book frames Kissinger not simply as a politically consequential figure but as one whose strategic choices and behind-the-scenes interventions had lethal, often unlawful consequences for civilian populations and democratically elected governments. Hitchens combines moral outrage with a legal vocabulary, insisting that the balance of documentary evidence makes a credible case for criminal scrutiny.

Main argument

Hitchens contends that Kissinger's role as national-security adviser and secretary of state implicated him in policies and covert actions that violated international law and basic standards of human conduct. The central claim is that Kissinger knowingly assisted, authorized, or covered up operations with foreseeable and widespread civilian harm, and that his influence helped enable coups, bombings, and support for repressive regimes. Rather than treating these episodes as mere policy errors, Hitchens presents them as actionable wrongs for which an individual can and should be held personally responsible.

Evidence and case studies

The book walks through several high-profile case studies, Cambodia and Laos bombing campaigns, U.S. policy toward Chile before and after the 1973 coup, the U.S. response to atrocities in Bangladesh and East Timor, and support for Indonesia's actions in 1975, using declassified memos, contemporaneous cables, press reports, and eyewitness accounts. Hitchens highlights specific documented moments, conversations, telegrams, and minutes, that he argues show Kissinger's knowledge, complicity, or active encouragement. The narrative emphasizes cause-and-effect links between policy directives and human suffering, seeking to convert political culpability into criminal culpability.

Legal and moral framing

Hitchens borrows legal precedents and moral language to make his case, drawing on concepts of crimes against humanity, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. He invokes the spirit of Nuremberg and argues that powerful state actors cannot be exempted from international legal scrutiny simply because they wore the mantle of national interest. The prosecution-style approach is deliberately provocative: Hitchens imagines how a tribunal might assemble counts and witnesses, and he presses readers to weigh evidence against legal standards of foreseeability and intent.

Style, reception, and legacy

The tone is combative, lucid, and often theatrical; Hitchens writes as a polemicist and public intellectual rather than as a dispassionate legal scholar. The book galvanized debate: supporters praised its moral clarity and willingness to confront impunity, while critics faulted selective reading of documents, rhetorical excess, and insufficient legal precision. Despite disagreement over every conclusion, the book helped revive public scrutiny of Kissinger's tenure and provoked broader conversations about accountability for state violence. It remains a polarizing but influential intervention in the literature on U.S. foreign policy and human-rights responsibility.