World Order Kindle Edition

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.

Good to read this book.

「古代帝国からウェストファリア体制の成立をへて現代にいたる国際政治の平和の概念を叙述」といったようなコメントにひかれ購入したが、期待外れだった。読者によっては、ウェストファリア体制やウィーン体制についてこの程度の説明でよしとされる人もあろうが。邦文文献だが、岡義武「国際政治史」が群れを抜いて優れている。著者の岡自身が言うように、「国際政治およびその重要な構成単位である諸国家の政治的・社会的・経済的基礎は歴史的各時期を通じて変化してきている。そして、そのことを度外視しては、国際関係の発展過程を真に理解することは困難であると考えられ、」岡の本はそうした概観を理解するのに優れている。キッシンジャーのWorld Orderはそうした関心はみられない。といって、彼にはこのレベルしか書けないなどと言うつもりはないが。　最後の二章はよい。９章では核兵器の拡散の可能性、サイバーテロ、大衆社会の政治を論ずる。例えばアメリカの大統領選挙では、有権者個人の情報がその個人本人が一々おぼえていないようなことまでが細かく調べられ、コンピューターにインプットされ、この人物の一票を獲得するのにどうした方法が一番いいかと、その個人が操作の対象とされている。個人はそれに気づかず、自己の「理性的判断」を誇る。大統領選挙といっても所詮メディアの競技となり、よくいわれるように選挙資金の量で勝負が決まるようなものだ。　　１０章では現代国際関係の諸問題を要約する。欧米の地位低下にともない、その欧米が考えだし適用されてきたところの、国際関係を律する概念も通用力が低下したきた。また従来の基本的単位であった国家もさまざまな圧力を受け、従来の秩序形成および秩序維持の能力を失う危険がある。例えばＥＵは内部で分裂しており政治単位とはなっていない。中東は多くの地域が宗教宗派や部族間の争いで分裂し、相争っている。。東アジアでは何が正統（legitimacy)であるかについて、各国に一致した考えがない。（中国は自分が中心となって東アジアを取り仕切るべきだと考える。）　国際政治と国際経済面では不一致がある。経済はグローバル化しているが、政治面では指導者たちは各国の事情に縛られざるをえない。また国際経済では、投機マネーが駆け巡っており、システム自体が不安定になっている。しかし、経済的利益を追求する人々は自己の儲けにしか関心がなく、このグローバル化したシステムの脆弱性脆弱化に気づかないなどなど、様々な問題が簡潔に指摘されている。こうした重要な指摘には同意する。　キッシンジャーというとアメリカ一、世界一の国際政治の学者という崇拝が広まっている感じだ。アメリカのアマゾンでこの書評をみると、キッシンジャーの他の本と同様にこの本も評価が高い。しかし、キッシンジャー並みあるいはそれ以上の国際政治学者はいたし、いまなおいる。彼は「マスコミ対策」をする。アメリカのアマゾンにこの本はゴーストライターがいるだろうとするコメントがあった。　彼はニクソン政権で大統領補佐官や国務長官を勤めたが、彼については当時から批判はあった。ここでは書かないが、彼のロシア政策、中国への「台湾売却」など問題は多いし、またこの本でのニクソンへの高い評価（第８章）は滑稽なほどだ。　キッシンジャーは国務省に関係しているとき、部下から日本について知る重要性を聞いても学ぼうとはしなかったそうだが、この本でも５章６章に、彼の日本にたいする偏見と中国にたいする賛美がある。（彼の中国にたいする政治的シグナルか？）　例えば彼は言う（５章、６章）。日本は昔から朝鮮半島を経由して中国にたいする軍事的政治的野心があったと。例は？　その一例として豊臣秀吉の朝鮮出兵をあげる。宜しい。では他の例は？　そんな例はない。日本一の成り上がり者木下藤吉郎・豊臣秀吉の朝鮮出兵と明征服の個人的野心について、ここで説明する必要ないだろう。逆に中国のほうが日本に野心をもっていたが、日本と中国は海によって遮られ、その野心は実現不可能だった。日本は幸運にも大帝国唐の支配下におかれず、また元の日本征服も失敗におわり、その結果中華的な社会となる悲劇から逃れられた。朝鮮・韓国は中国以上に中華的になり、その悲劇は今日まで続いている。　キッシンジャーによると、中国は平和愛好国だそうだ。例えば１．中国の政治的影響力がその周辺に拡大していったのは、その周辺国が中国文明に寄せた憧憬によるものである。（つまり帝国としての中国の軍事的進出の結果は関係ないと。）２．中国では儒教の教え、つまり「いい鉄は釘には使わない。いい人間は兵隊にはならない」に示されるごとく、軍人の地位は低かった。３．１８９３年自国防衛のためせっかく計上した軍事費も、（平和主義者中国はその要なしと？）西太后が庭園を築くのに用いたほどだ。　これらはみな初歩的誤解だ。キッシンジャーの友情ある誤解？　意図的誤解？　１については解説の必要はないだろう。２については、孔子がそう言ったかどうか知らないが、儒教は漢の時代大きくその性格をかえ、支配者のイデオロギーとなった。中国の兵や警察は基本的にゴロツキであり、これは中国人の平和愛好の故などでなく、どの時代の支配者層も被支配者を統治するときの、その強大かつ遠慮ない暴力的威嚇的支配からくるものだ。中国皇帝は武人だったのである。ここが日本の天皇と違うところであり、それが中国と日本の違いを象徴的に示す。中国の新い王朝はすべて武力によって樹立され、武力は中国社会統治の基礎だった。今の共産党王朝しかり。（日本の支配者は歴史的に違う。特に鎌倉時代以後は違う。日本では暴力団でも一応任侠道をもっている。）３．は平和主義ゆえに転用したのではなく、無知と驕りゆえに転用したにすぎない。例えばこのあと西太后が欧米諸国にたいし義和団をいかに利用し、いかに好戦的だったことか。　すでに述べたようにこの本の最後の部分はいいが、キッシンジャーの本は学術書としてより、政治的パンフレットとして注意して読む必要がある。　ただ、キッシンジャーが最終章で概観したように、わたしたちの抱える問題はとても大きなものだ。最終章は推薦する。日本は対米関係を中心として国際的連携を強化することが重要だ。　　キッシンジャーなどはアメリカの東アジア政策の中心に日本をおくのではなく、中国をおく。彼はこの本で何度もパワー・ポリティックスの必要性を述べる。それに理があることは否定しない。ＡとＣは大国で、Ｂは小国としよう。Ａ－Ｂ－Ｃの関係において、大国のＡとＣは小国のＢを犠牲にして平和が保てるならそうする。これは、キッシンジャーがこの本で推奨しているウェストファリア体制でしばしば採られた政策である。ポーランドの分割は世界史の教科書に出る。有名なミュンヘン会談は大国英仏が大国ナチドイツに歩み寄り、自分たちの平和と保とうと、小国チェコスロヴァキアを犠牲にしたものだ。成功しなかったが。　彼が肯定的に何度も引き合いに出すウェストファリア体制のなかでは、それまでの３０年戦争のような入り乱れての大戦争こそなかったが、しかし、彼は言わないが絶えず戦争はあった。彼の対中政策の頭のなかにあるのは、上の図式だ。　しかし、Ｂも相当の強国であるとき、またＡ＞Ｃであったり、ＡとＢが基本的価値観を等しくし、Ｃの価値観と大きく食い違うとき、あるいはＣがＡ指導の秩序を望まないとき、Ｃは国際関係を法的に平等な国家から成りたつ関係とみず、Ａの指導的地位を奪おうと考えているとき、あるいはＢも相当大きな力を持つとき、Ａ＋Ｂが大きくＣを上回るとき、ＡとＢの同盟は大きな意味をもってくる。大部分の東南アジアの国々は中国の意を知っているから、口には出さないが、日米の協力関係を歓迎している。　だからこそ、中国はことあるごとにＡ＋Ｂの日米関係に楔を入れようとする。日本叩きである。　　詳述はしないが、中国は伝統的な自給自足体制はもはや不可能であり、世界の様々な地域に様々な形で依存しなくてはならない。中国は見かけは大きく、また中国の指導者は伝統的に大物の格好をしたがるし、中国国民はそれを望んでいるし、中国はすべて事もなしといったふりをするが、その内部は脆弱だ。われわれは物事をよく見る必要がある。キッシンジャーはこの本でパワーポリティックスの重要性を指摘する一方で、アメリカの外交はアメリカの価値感を守る重要性も説く。　３章と４章では中東をあつかう。日本をふくむ欧米のメディアは、エジプトやリビアの反政府運動をすぐ民主化運動と報道し賞賛した。しかし、キッシンジャーによると、民主主義が成立するためには、それだけの社会的条件が熟成していることが必要だと言う。この点は全く賛成だ。例えばシリアの反政府運動は単に反アサド運動であって、欧米のいうような民主主義運動ではないと言う。またロシアが欧米の政策に理解を持つと期待するのは、そもそも間違いだ言う。これらの点にも賛成する。シリアの分析（第３章）を読んでみても、マスコミ報道で伝えられるような単純なものではないことがわかる。　ただしキッシンジャーのロシア評価については、反対だ。これも彼の変化球の一つで、彼はこの本でドストエフスキーのスラブ主義などを引用し、ロシアの覇権主義を大きな問題だとしているが、ロシアの歴史的底流にあるものは、ヨーロッパへの復帰であって、スラブ主義は中国の「中華思想」とは違う。中国こそロシアと違い、ウェストファリア体制の各国の法的平等性とは相いれない平和思想を持っている。追伸：　お読みになった方もおられるかもしれませんが、昨日１２月３１日付でウェッジインフィニティ（Wedge Infinity)に平田聡東大教授が「開かれたアジア太平洋を目指す『１００年マラソン』の幕開け」と題した論評を載せておられます。中国外交の特質をズバリ指摘しておられます。まだの方には是非おすすめします。[・・・]

本格的な英文であり、暗唱もしたい名文でもある。また、これ以上ないという詳細な内容で、世界の歴史がわかってきた。

"World Order" é como a sequência do clássico "Diplomacia". É um livro que apresenta os principais fatos da política internacional, seus desdobramentosos e "cenários" sobre o mundo no século XXI.Leitura altamente recomendável!

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.