World Order by Henry Kissinger is supposed to be a seminal work on understanding United States' International Relations. I read a review of the book by Hillary Clinton and decided that I should read it. Her review was glowing and given her position as former Secretary of State as well as Kissinger holding the same office, I thought it merited attention.
Started: 2/8/2016
Completed: 4/26/2016
Recommendation: You have to really be interested in theories of why the world political order is the way it is
Recommended By: Hillary Clinton
Review:
Kissinger is in a position to offer some unique insights into US foreign policy. He has developed (and explained) a theory of why and how the world organizes itself. He takes an essential Hobbsian argument that countries live in a combined anarchy where might is right and each country would gladly take out his neighbor to increase power. He tempers this with an argument based on the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648. Basically, this was the resolution to the 30 years war and was hammered out between a bunch of countries who wanted to stop the blood letting. He argues that this is the model for how countries should interact with one-another in order to keep a stable world and further argues that this is how it was done, basically from 1648 onward.
Kissinger is not an idiot. He doesn't suggest that China, for example, took a look at the treaty and rearranged governance based upon it. Rather he points out that virtually every country has perceived itself to be the center of the world and offering enlightenment to the rest of the world. This is brought to the fore when China basically rejects the concept of a British ambassador by saying that if they want to educate Britain in the fine art of governing, China will summon a British representative, but the thought of housing such a distant nation at court on a regular basis is rather silly. China has had to operate within the concepts wrapped in the Westphalian Peace Treaty not because it agrees with them, but because it has been overwhelmed by European force. Now that China is becoming a world super power, will the reverse occur and China exert its concept of governance on the rest of the world?
Kissinger does explain many different theories of governance (excluding, for the most part, all of Africa) and points out some really serious issues with the way in which Islam views the world and the way non-Muslims view the world being very incompatible. This may well represent personal bias rather than an objective view, but, at the least, it highlights an issue which is very relevant today. This book also forces one to realize that there are serious and substantial cultural divides that make it very difficult for different governments to interact in a productive manner.
One thing that I gained from the book was a perspective on why other countries are upset about America exporting its philosophy. I was one of the Americans who takes the concepts of freedom and liberty as givens and perceives those concepts as something of value to everyone in the world when that is not particularly true. It is useful to come to an understanding of how these fundamental tenets of our government can be perceived as being forced down the throats of those who do not share them as values. In a sense, I can relate only by analogy.
Our system of marriage seems free and respectful of the intelligence of individuals to me. To someone used to arranged marriages, however, I can see how our system of marriage can be perceived as repudiating the family (instead of fostering ties between families, our marriages seem to be all but random), fostering lust (most marriages end in divorce in the US and there must be a reason for that--maybe lust is part of that), and harming children (while the parents pursue true love they could leave children in the wake twisted and turning looking for someone to love them). While I don't agree with the assessment of marriage that I have put up as a straw man, I can see where someone used to arranged marriages might look at our free and equal concepts of marriage and recoil in horror (kind of like I do when I think about my parents selecting a bride for me). While Kissinger does not involve marriage, he does point out that cultural divides make it difficult to communicate with common understandings and I think that the marriage example I have given illustrates that point.
I'm not comfortable with Kissinger's pessimistic Hobbsian view of countries (though, I understand how he came to it and his arguments are well reasoned). I think I have a fundamental wish to view countries as innately good (until proven otherwise) rather than innately evil (until proven otherwise). I also don't like the idea that there is true anarchy between countries. Surely we recognize Britain as our sire and while there was a period where relations were cool, it feels like that has been left well in the past and our relations have matured to the point where we can look fondly on all of the United Kingdom. There is a familial relationship there, in my opinion, not just an opportunistic quelling of general anarchy.
I do worry about Kissinger's admonitions against the concepts of alliance that led to both WWI and WWII. Clearly, we are backing into an increasingly rigid alliance structure (particularly when looking at NATO) which is perceived as threatening to non-NATO countries and especially to Russia. I don't know how to define a place at the table for governments that are as cruel to their citizens as North Korea or Syria, but I also don't know how to address the concept of human rights when America puts so many of its citizens in prison and has a death penalty. America does not seem to have a concept of right and wrong that is consistently applied, but we seem to be a country of compromises struggling to find a path between right and wrong. Given that, are we really ready to step up on the World stage and lead by decree rather than find a way to consensus that is deeper than a simple beauty contest?
Kissinger doesn't answer these questions even with his carefully considered approach, but his book offers some insightful issues and some reasons to question ourselves and our direction.
It is hard to recommend this book. I'm not sure what is right and what is wrong in the book, but there is so much content that I'm uncomfortable becoming a follower of Kissinger's theories as presented (the breadth of this work is staggering and yet, at the same time, wildly incomplete--I fear that some really important things have been glossed over because they are not consistent with his theories, but I don't know enough details about all of this to be able to identify where this may have happened). It worries me that a potential leader like Hillary Clinton read this book and concluded, "No other nation can bring together the necessary conditions and provide the necessary capabilities to meet today's complex global threats." I read this book and think, "Holy crap, there are a whole bunch of things we aren't considering and if we don't change our approach from one of fear to one of compassion, really bad things are going to happen." I worry that there are tons of misunderstandings (some intentional, like the explanations for the Iraq war and Putin's invasion of Ukraine) and that there needs to be some voice of reason that tries to link the narratives of diverse cultures into a broader sense of the common good. While I love and respect my country, I question whether this is an area at which America excels. I'm really worried about Clinton's suggestion that, "Sustaining America's leadership in the world depends on renewing the American dream for all our people." I find it hard to believe that looking inwardly is going to lead to fruitful international leadership and I think this is something that Kissinger cautions the reader not to do.
Kissinger is in a position to offer some unique insights into US foreign policy. He has developed (and explained) a theory of why and how the world organizes itself. He takes an essential Hobbsian argument that countries live in a combined anarchy where might is right and each country would gladly take out his neighbor to increase power. He tempers this with an argument based on the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648. Basically, this was the resolution to the 30 years war and was hammered out between a bunch of countries who wanted to stop the blood letting. He argues that this is the model for how countries should interact with one-another in order to keep a stable world and further argues that this is how it was done, basically from 1648 onward.
Kissinger is not an idiot. He doesn't suggest that China, for example, took a look at the treaty and rearranged governance based upon it. Rather he points out that virtually every country has perceived itself to be the center of the world and offering enlightenment to the rest of the world. This is brought to the fore when China basically rejects the concept of a British ambassador by saying that if they want to educate Britain in the fine art of governing, China will summon a British representative, but the thought of housing such a distant nation at court on a regular basis is rather silly. China has had to operate within the concepts wrapped in the Westphalian Peace Treaty not because it agrees with them, but because it has been overwhelmed by European force. Now that China is becoming a world super power, will the reverse occur and China exert its concept of governance on the rest of the world?
Kissinger does explain many different theories of governance (excluding, for the most part, all of Africa) and points out some really serious issues with the way in which Islam views the world and the way non-Muslims view the world being very incompatible. This may well represent personal bias rather than an objective view, but, at the least, it highlights an issue which is very relevant today. This book also forces one to realize that there are serious and substantial cultural divides that make it very difficult for different governments to interact in a productive manner.
One thing that I gained from the book was a perspective on why other countries are upset about America exporting its philosophy. I was one of the Americans who takes the concepts of freedom and liberty as givens and perceives those concepts as something of value to everyone in the world when that is not particularly true. It is useful to come to an understanding of how these fundamental tenets of our government can be perceived as being forced down the throats of those who do not share them as values. In a sense, I can relate only by analogy.
Our system of marriage seems free and respectful of the intelligence of individuals to me. To someone used to arranged marriages, however, I can see how our system of marriage can be perceived as repudiating the family (instead of fostering ties between families, our marriages seem to be all but random), fostering lust (most marriages end in divorce in the US and there must be a reason for that--maybe lust is part of that), and harming children (while the parents pursue true love they could leave children in the wake twisted and turning looking for someone to love them). While I don't agree with the assessment of marriage that I have put up as a straw man, I can see where someone used to arranged marriages might look at our free and equal concepts of marriage and recoil in horror (kind of like I do when I think about my parents selecting a bride for me). While Kissinger does not involve marriage, he does point out that cultural divides make it difficult to communicate with common understandings and I think that the marriage example I have given illustrates that point.
I'm not comfortable with Kissinger's pessimistic Hobbsian view of countries (though, I understand how he came to it and his arguments are well reasoned). I think I have a fundamental wish to view countries as innately good (until proven otherwise) rather than innately evil (until proven otherwise). I also don't like the idea that there is true anarchy between countries. Surely we recognize Britain as our sire and while there was a period where relations were cool, it feels like that has been left well in the past and our relations have matured to the point where we can look fondly on all of the United Kingdom. There is a familial relationship there, in my opinion, not just an opportunistic quelling of general anarchy.
I do worry about Kissinger's admonitions against the concepts of alliance that led to both WWI and WWII. Clearly, we are backing into an increasingly rigid alliance structure (particularly when looking at NATO) which is perceived as threatening to non-NATO countries and especially to Russia. I don't know how to define a place at the table for governments that are as cruel to their citizens as North Korea or Syria, but I also don't know how to address the concept of human rights when America puts so many of its citizens in prison and has a death penalty. America does not seem to have a concept of right and wrong that is consistently applied, but we seem to be a country of compromises struggling to find a path between right and wrong. Given that, are we really ready to step up on the World stage and lead by decree rather than find a way to consensus that is deeper than a simple beauty contest?
Kissinger doesn't answer these questions even with his carefully considered approach, but his book offers some insightful issues and some reasons to question ourselves and our direction.
It is hard to recommend this book. I'm not sure what is right and what is wrong in the book, but there is so much content that I'm uncomfortable becoming a follower of Kissinger's theories as presented (the breadth of this work is staggering and yet, at the same time, wildly incomplete--I fear that some really important things have been glossed over because they are not consistent with his theories, but I don't know enough details about all of this to be able to identify where this may have happened). It worries me that a potential leader like Hillary Clinton read this book and concluded, "No other nation can bring together the necessary conditions and provide the necessary capabilities to meet today's complex global threats." I read this book and think, "Holy crap, there are a whole bunch of things we aren't considering and if we don't change our approach from one of fear to one of compassion, really bad things are going to happen." I worry that there are tons of misunderstandings (some intentional, like the explanations for the Iraq war and Putin's invasion of Ukraine) and that there needs to be some voice of reason that tries to link the narratives of diverse cultures into a broader sense of the common good. While I love and respect my country, I question whether this is an area at which America excels. I'm really worried about Clinton's suggestion that, "Sustaining America's leadership in the world depends on renewing the American dream for all our people." I find it hard to believe that looking inwardly is going to lead to fruitful international leadership and I think this is something that Kissinger cautions the reader not to do.
