World Order

Review on "World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History" published by Henry Kissinger on September 9th 2014.This book offers great insight into the inner-workings and need-to-know basics of the concept of "World Order", human politics, history and our future. I wont go into extreme detail as there is simply too much information in the book itself to comment on in an review, but I will try to elaborate on a few issues I was left with, but make no mistake, this is a brilliant book written by a man with vast experience and intellect on the workings of global politics.Henry Kissinger's "World Order" is a great book for everyone interested in world history, politics and the concept about "World Order" based on the relation between power and legitimacy. Throughout history every great empire has sought to impose it's culture and values upon the world known to them, and rigidly trying to balance it's powers and legitimacy at the same time. Kissinger describes every great European, Middle-East, North-American and Asian empires who have since their conception strived towards fulfilling the inevitable conquest for an impending "World Order" where human beings are brought under an umbrella of global culture, values, economics and civil-rights.The book also focuses a lot on the relations between the Unites States of America and it's "nemesises"; Iran, Soviet Union (Russia), and China - and also goes into detail about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam. The concept of "World Order" is so complex and often perscribed to an already established set of principles: The United States' democracy and capitalism, The Europeans "Westphalian System", the Islamic world's order based on religious legitimacy, China's history of isolationism, and mixture of communism and "confucian culture emphasizing harmony" and Soviet (Russias) "deconstruced" concept of international order through communism. The book does not deviate from these political ideologies, it merely relies on them to be the guiding principles of a future "World Order" where there is political hegemony, peace, harmony and prosperity for all. Whilst there must be some great nation(s) that "imposes" it's values upon other nations and that strives to balance the geo-political scene with values deemed to be important and invaluable to the human species, there will always be competing values, cultures and distinctly indifferent views on how to integrate these into our daily lives.There is also a great detail on each of the post-WWII presidents thoughts on the concept of "World Order" and what it contains, what it restrains and obtains, how it could and should be implemented and how it should be dealt with on the political scene. The reader should and would benefit from remembering that all these political insights and thoughts are products of the times they were constructed in; The Cold War, China's "Cultural Revolution" and "Great Leap Forward", USSR's fall, Middle-East conflicts and Central and East-Asian conflicts. There is also a chapter solely on the issue of Iran's Nuclear development and how the P5+1 countries tries to balance and dictate it's development and to "manipulate" it into being something Iran "cannot" use to dictate the balance of power in the Middle-East with Israel not surprisingly opposing it's every move and intention. Islamic history (and on topics of ISIS, the Caliphates, Saudi-Arabia, Persia) is also carefully described and analyzed, but not entirely criticized for it's clash with the "Western" ideologies and principles. In my opinion, "World Order" can never be based on religious principles or legitimacy as shown with the fall of the "Holy Roman Empire" in Europe, because it is such a egocentric and glorified concept that we are the creation of a "divine master" of the Universe that will "eventually save us all", because it will -- in time, in my opinion -- fall on it's own axis as it is not compatible with the political and social challenges we as a species face in the near and far future.The book is written by a man who has a lifetime of American and geo-political experience. It comes to my mind that he has without a doubt an invaluable set of insight into politics and the history of political development from the aftermath of World War II and up until this very day, but -- and there is in my opinion a great but -- he does not deal with nor elaborate on great issues of "World Order" such as the worlds economic model of free-market and capitalism and the ever increasing corruption from corporations to politics, the sad military industry complex of the worlds great powers and lesser nations worth billions of $, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the "pay for your interests" lobbyism of American and global politics, global famine and starvation, climate and global pollution, medicine and healthcare and the great risk of balancing "World Order" on a set of political and social principles incrompehensible to the majority of this planets population, which can eventually lead to an all-out war are we not willing to sacrifice and change our ways for the greater good on the path to our common future.This book is great food for thought, it puts forth guidance and analyzes the problems facing a "World Order" and is a must read for anyone slightly interested in geo-politics. For students of Political Science and Philosophy it will serve as a great detailing of the geo-political scene and workings of the great nations of power. For the younger generation it should serve as a factual perception of politics, but we should also learn and make sure that we in the future change and improve upon what is already established, as has forever been done and which has since changed the world immensely in tandem with technological and social development on a global scale. I dont have all the answers, and in my opinion, nor does Henry Kissinger, but the complexity of "World Order" requires a "World in Order" - one nation cannot do it alone, nor can it be solely one set of values and principles that forms it. Kissinger talks of not the improvement but the "reconstruction" of "World Order" based on todays political climate. And this reconstruction, is what human beings should work together for and dare not be afraid to embark on - as it is our sole purpose and destiny to make sure we build a viable future for the coming generations and strive for peace, prosperity and civil-rights on all fronts.I have not talked about every chapter in this book as this review would be too long for people to even bother reading, but I have tried to single out -- to me -- the most important topics and ideas in the book. Read the book for the entirety of the information it describes, it is a lot.I declare and acknowledge that I am a visionary, a dreamer of peace and disarmament of nations and especially nuclear weapons, I put my faith in science and technology to close the gaps between societies and culture - and I am a profound believer in the concept of "World Order". I personally do not believe it is up to the established bureaucracy or elected politicians to dictate and manage it's development. In Kissinger and many others view, it "requires" that "someone has to carry the banner and be the strong voice" -- but try to tell that to the 196 countries on this planet and the 193 members of the UN -- that someone "deserves" or "needs" the upper hand in this transition. It seems logic and rational given the status amongst Great Powers that USA, China and Russia, and eventually India, Japan and EU -- amongst others -- will dictate the future "World Order". But one day, we will all face threats grander than our own self-importance - whether it to be threats from the Universe (asteroids++), a tilt in the planets axis, climate change, or even facing again the threat of all-out nuclear war -- and then, just maybe then, we will have an even more "forced reason" to cooperate regardless of our indifferences, cultures and values. Let's hope we dont have to experience World War III for us humans to "meet up again to make sure it does not happen again".5/5 stars from me for all the thoughts, ideas and feelings this book gave me! Worth every dollar!

This book places modern international studies issues into historical contexts with analysis as to what affects current major foreign matters.Kissinger observes that President Harry Truman was proud both of the U.S. victories as well as its conciliations that brought defeated nations back into the "community of nations."The U.S. favors nations that have liberal economic systems, do not seek to conquer others, respect other nation's sovereignties, and have a participatory democratic system. Yet modern rules confuse this favoring system. There are non-Western countries that do not adhere by the expectations that the U.S. has although they indicate they are willing to move towards these goals. The 21st century challenges of weapons of mass destruction, global environmental concerns, genocide, and technological changes present new challenges. The vast changes in global communications present new ramifications.There has never been a global "world order" The 17th century saw one fourth of Central Europe's population die from war, starvation, or disease during the Thirty Years' War.The Westphalian peace sought to keep countries from attacking each other by creating a power equilibrium and agreement to respect other countries' sovereignty.Islam arose between Europe and Chia with a belief that Islam would spread through "realm of war". The Ottoman Empire claimed to be the legitimate governance of Islam. It believe it should become world''s one ermpire with Islam as the world's one religion,The United States began advocating for a world order that embraced peace through a balance and having democratic principles. The U.S. now struggles with using its power to update balances of powers and its principles. It does so recognizing the the concept of freedom cannot be spread through coercion.As Kissinger notes, "Order without freedom, even if sustained by momentary exaltation, eventually creates its own counterpoise; yet freedom cannot be secured or sustained without a framework of order to keep the peace." Order and freedom are interdependent.China with its Emperors and Islam with its Caliphs have histories of fallen dynasties replaced by new dynasties seeking to repair the fallen ones. Europe has a history fo divided governments and never had a unified identity. Charlemagne sought to become an Emperor protecting Christianity. Civil wars broke apart that dynasty within a century after Charlemagne's passing.Europeans sought to influence world affairs by saving souls as well as increasing their wealth from other countries. The Protestant Reform split Christianity in two.The balance of power shifted as Britain emerged as a sea power France sought dominance as well. Napoleon sought to unify Europe. Russia appeared as a dominant power. Germany has a history of either being too weak and thus prone to invasion or too strong and thus it became an invader. The European concept of creating a world order guided by its nationality disappeared after World War II. There is a serious effort to bring Russia into this unity.Islam and the Middle East present a disorder to European and American order. The rapid spread of Islam convinced its faithful that Islam could bring peaceful unity to the world, They could make peace with non-Islams, yet this should be done only to give Islam the strength to regroup for future incursions.The Islamic Ottoman Empire did not accept the legitimacy of the European order, The Ottoman Empire was larger and militarily stronger. Thus the 1526 alliance between the Holy Roman Empire, whose Habsburg government feared France, and the Ottoman Empire was a strange one on religious grounds. Later Habsburg and France created an alliance with Shia Persia creating tensions with the Sunni Ottoman Empire.Islam split into two factions. The Sunnis believe the Prophet Ali was the true trustee of the religion. The Shias believed the Sunni claimed authority. While there are today internal divisions between the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, the Shia Khomeini revolution and Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and Hamas, there are unified "in their commitment to dismantle the existing regional order and rebuild it as a divinely inspired region."Sayyid Quitb declared in his 1964 "Milestones" that all non-Isamic governments and societies are "illegal". This created for his followers a purity in the Islamic concept of creating a world order that is Islamic.The Arab Spring movement was mostly guided by a younger generation of Islamics. Democracy, an American value, was a stated goal. This created a conflict for some Americans who saw allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which are un-democratic, challenged by anti-American democratic reformers. Should the United States stick to its values of spreading democracy and liberal reforms or does it stick by its political allies? Kissinger advises "Western tradition requires support fro democratic institutions and free elections" yet warns that the one time use of democracy to elect a religious dominated military regime destroys the progress towards democracy. The U.S. needs to encourage permanent democracy while considering the security risks to the U.S. this could entail.In Syria, the U.S. sought, through the United Nations, a coalition government. The United Nations resisted responding. ISIL, a jihadist group considered too extreme by al-Qaeda, militarily gained much ground in Syria and in western Iraq.Many Arabs for generations now believe that Irael illegally took Muslim land.Saudi Arabia is targeted by al-Qaeda and Iran. This has created a country torn in its support for Islamic radicalism while maintaining Western ties. Saudi Arabia attempted to please radical Islamics abroad while opposing those within its own country. They nurture Wahhabist schools throughout the world to show their support for the growth of Islam with in turn creates more jihadists that threaten Saudi Arabia and its Western allies.The Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and to some degree Egypt and Turkey are in opposition to a Shia block of Iran, Bashar al-Assad's part of Syria, Nuri al-Maliki's parts of Iray, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran seeks to dominate the region. The Sunnis supports uprisings against Maliki in Iraq and Assad in Syria. Russia seeks to protect the Muslim part of its country against Syrian and Iraqi jihadists. The United States denounces the brutality of Assad yet recognizes that Assad's opponents are al-Qaeda and ISIL.Kissinger notes "it is tempting to let these upheavals run their course and concentrate on dealing with the successor states. But several of the potential successors have declared America and the Westphalian world order as principal enemies."Kissinger notes "revolutionary Islam has not, up to now, manifested itself as a quet for international cooperation as the West understands the term." Kissinger does recommend the U.S. and the West be open to "fostering cooperative relations with Iran" in hopes the Iranian people seek "a genuine reconciliation."In 1905, Japan became the first modern Asian country to defeat a Western country in itw war with russia. Kissinger views that modern Japan understands security realities and that it will base its relations with the U.S. on how they view U.S. credibility towards it rather than depending upon U.S. assurances.Chin had historically not acted, for centuries, to impose its political system onto other countries. It was upset when the West imposed its values on them. During the Cultural Revolution of Mao it had just four ambassadors worldwide. Mao began relaxing Chinese interventions with other countries in the 1960s. Kissinger notes the U.S. is allied with Japan and a partner with China.At the end of World War II, the U.S. created 60% of the world's Gross National Product. The U.S. was drawn to a draw in the Korean War. This destroyed the U.S. image of invincibility. China feared the U.S. was using Korea as a pretext to invade it.China lost some geopolitical ground as the war made U.S. committed to keeping China from gaining Taiwan.The Internet create so much information that it is difficult to use it all, Kissinger notes. He fear that historical information that cold be useful in foreign relations is often never seen by decision makers.The international order faces militias that do not consider sovereignties or borders, areas that are ungovernable or have failed governments, nations whose economic systems are at odds with their political systems which all creates strong challenges to all nations in a world that is more connected than ever before, according to Kissinger.

The breadth of this book is quite spectacular. When I began reading this book, I felt I knew nothing about politics at all! My score of 5-star is for the author’s mastery in articulating such a vast subject in under 400 pages without losing the threads of development and arguments. This cannot be achieved without a solid framework of analysis, which itself is very useful for the reader to grasp. If you are a student, it is a good example of how to write history essays!The orientation of the book is centred at the US. All the materials included are to understand the context of the US role in the world scene and its dilemma. Therefore the book does give a good introduction to as well as summary of the political situations in different regions. The author’s knowledge is broad, no doubt from the vintage of the position he served at the US government.Historical events may be objective but the politics perhaps is not. As I closed the book, I was left with a strong sense that this is the US perspective. Viewing from countries of totally different background and position, the reading of the same events would be very different. The US participation in the world order in the 20th century has been portrayed as selfless based on principles and idealism. The glimpse of the Federalist Papers that it provides is refreshing. The political rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration seems to have departed from the US idealism and turned to national interests as the basis of foreign policy? The chapter on modern technology in changing politics surely stretches our minds and heightens our alertness of its potential sway on our politics. Sadly the direction of its influence is not encouraging and it is likely that we end up with much poorer leadership and statesmanship to our shared loss.One must write from a perspective, so I guess the US-centric perspective is not a fault. Accepting that, the book lands us in a good grip of the evolution of the US foreign policy and the challenges it faces. As the US is a dominant player in the world scene, it is still a significant part of the story, even though at the back of our minds we may doubt if the actions really matched the motives they proclaimed.

As a former top negotiator on the world stage, Kissinger's book is exceptionally authoritative and takes a high-level view of power politics and events on the world stage. Half the book is historical, WWI or earlier, and a key event is the Wesphalian congress of 1648 where European leaders met to attempt to prevent reoccurrence of events like the devastating 30 years war of 1618-48. The European nations became sovereign above religion, empires or dynasties. Each state could conduct its internal affairs free of interference and new foreign embassies facilitated peaceful negotiations between states. Britain plays a leading role in maintaining an equilibrium of competing powers in Europe during this period. The 1804 congress of Vienna attempted to restrain an overwhelming French influence. However the unification of Germany in 1871 began a destabilization of Europe, a failure of the "system", and there followed a train of events culminating in complex alliances and a sudden slide into WWI. After WWI, Europe and the USA essentially try to impose Westphalian ideas onto the rest of the somewhat unwilling and incompatible world.America begins to flex its muscles on the world stage in the 20th century and, at least in Kissinger's view, attempts to bias world affairs in the direction of disinterested human rights, freedom from tyranny etc. The US world vision set itself above the pragmatic power politics which had disastrously characterised recent European history.After WWII, world domination fell to the USA and Russia. The book relates how the modern American presidents, super-statesmen to a man in the text, managed to bring the nuclear arms race to a halt with the SALT treaty and also succeeded in ruining the Russian economy by devising ever more expensive defence projects.The growth of China, Israel's problems and the lack of stability in the Middle East all get in-depth analysis while Islam also gets a whole chapter, tracing its opportunist and expansionist history back to its sixth century origin. The effects of computer and internet technology and cyber-warfare on world stability form the final chapters of the book. Kissinger thinks that international treaties are needed to curb their, as yet barely understood, influences.Not a particularly easy read due to the amount of factual information but consistently fluent and an attempt to bring some transparency and even predictability to an otherwise rather random catalogue of world events.(such as lesser historians sometimes churn out). It worked for me anyway.

This book deserves the high praise it has attracted. A deep and wide ranging survey of the past two millennia of international relations bringing the reader to where we are today, and why. Kissinger's unique perspective as an accomplished academic, a refugee, and a statesman whose impact will last longer than the presidents he served has resulted in a masterpiece. For those critical of Kissinger's track record during the Indochina conflicts there are more thoughts with the benefit of hindsight, and the position seems very well balanced.It is very current as well, including the situations unfolding in the middle east up until the time of publication, with prescient comments and analysis.The main negative, especially if trying to use the book as a reference work, is the unusual configuration of the notes; they are all at the back of the book, with no indication in the text that there is a note relevant to it. Most odd, and surely a failing of Penguin to let it out like this?

This is a first rate guide from the Peace of Westphalia into the fog of the planet's political future. It is a primary source, not an academic work. To allude to Bernard Shaw's 'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach' (Man and Superman), these are the observations of a practitioner who has worked for years within the cauldron of practical superpower policy, diplomacy and negotiation at the highest levels. Henry Kissinger has many critics amongst 'armchair' commentators. It needs to be recognised that in statecraft decisions must often be made to identify and pursue the 'least bad' option – dilemmas that many before Kissinger, Churchill for instance, were frequently obliged to accommodate. And ‘hindsight engineering’ by academics is not inclined to be indulgent about such decisions. Highly recommended..

The book is good in places, hard work in others.It is written in dry, abstract terms, only occasionally does the author drop into the first person to relate something that happened in his career. But in general it explains a.lot and puts some of the world's problems in context. Although it was written a while ago this is mainly about the bigger stuff which changes only occasionally so it will probably still be full of wisdom for decades.