There can be no question that Henry Kissinger has a mind that is able to synthesize and explain coherently truisms that exist in the complex world of societal development through the centuries; and then extrapolate what is the best path for a nation to take today in its need to deal diplomatically with other countries.
The unfortunate truth that is understated in the book is that sometimes there are no good choices, there are only less bad choices, and sometimes a national leadership will make a poor choice with dire consequences for their citizens (i.e. Napoleon, Hitler, Mao) and people in nearby countries.
But what Kissinger presents better here than in any other book I have read is a comprehensive review of how nations have interacted with each other diplomatically since nation states were formed. Kissinger believes that the 1st real event is the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 "because the elements set in place were as uncomplicated as they were sweeping. The state, not the empire, dynasty, or regions orientation, was affirmed as the building block of European order."
The book reviews the dynamics that alternately produced peace and war on the Europe continent for the next 300 years. The one constant that was necessary for a lasting peace was diplomacy and an understanding of the need for balance so each countries' needs are met, when those needs are reasonable and universal. Kissinger then analyzes the E.U.'s current position which has followed the global economy into an economic union that transcends the political construction and outlines the challenges that creates for the E.U.'s contribution to World Order.
Kissinger then moves onto the Middle East and illustrates how "Every form of domestic and international order has existed, and been rejected, at one time or the other and there is no settled concept of international order in the region." As a result, the region will remain pulled alternately toward joining the world community and struggling against it."
Islam throughout history has use conquest as the means for expanding its dominance as a religion. The only comparable conquest were the Huns, but they had no religion to leave behind as an influence. Further complicating the Middle East was the Westphalian based establishment of colonization which combined Sunni Shia peoples and put European or Turkish military force on top of their disagreements, and then spun out independent countries when the military force was withdrawn. These countries then became subject to the Cold War alignment between Russia and the U.S. and the complicated issues that have arisen since Russia's Communist leadership disbanded.
The issues present today for both Saudi and Iranian leadership are very complex. Kissinger outlines them without presenting a solution. Suffice it to say both countries have serious domestic issues which affect their international diplomacy both regionally and globally. Kissinger important contribution to non-Middle Eastern policies is to remember "the American attitude toward Iran and Saudi Arabia cannot be simply a balance-of-power calculation or a democratization issue; it must be shaped in the context of what is above all a religious struggle, already lasting a millennium, between the two wings of Islam....There is a delicate latticework of relationships underpinning Saudi Arabia at its heart....and to Saudi Arabia, the conflict with Iran is existential, involving the survival of the monarchy, the legitimacy of the State and the future of Islam."
Needless to say in a book about World Order, Kissinger highlights the danger of states not being governed in their entirety and how technology and modern weapons make such lack of governance more dangerous to the rest of the World because criminal militarily inclined people take advantage of such a void to build a base to take their ambitions elsewhere.
I think, he says it in a fairly oblique manner, that Kissinger's answer for the state of Syria is to support Assad as the opposition to him has tilted in such an extreme direction, and then use diplomacy to bring Assad back from his association with Iran and Hezbollah. The book predates the migration of 25% of Syria's population, so I don't know how that would effect his views.
The important thing to remember about the Middle East and our failure to construct a balanced Sunni/Shia/Kurdish political situation in Iraq, is that "Achieving an American style democracy through military occupation in a part of the world where they had no historical roots and to expect fundamental change in a politically relevant period of time - the standard set by many supporters and critics of the Iraq effort alike - proved beyond what the American public would support and what Iraqi society could accommodate."
Kissinger goes to review the history of Asia with its basis in alternately Confucianism and a"Sinocentric" tribute system. This "organization of Asia is thus an inherent challenge for world order. Major countries' perception and pursuit of their national interests, rather than the balance of power as a system, have shaped the mechanisms that have developed." The important take away is not all the world sees the nature of the world in an identical manner and Asian culture has been developing longer that Western culture.
Kissinger than reviews how the United States has played a decisive role in shaping contemporary world order while at the same time professing great ambivalence about doing so. We alternately attempt to spread our values in the believe that all other peoples aspire to replicate them vs recognizing that not every culture wants to replicate them.
The book has much interesting discussion of the influence of Woodrow Wilson on the U.S. framework for world order because he promoted the tradition of American exceptionalism which both the Republican and Democrats have adapted as their basic framework for foreign policy.
There is an extensive review of 20th Century history and U.S. foreign policy successes, failures and outcomes in-between.
The book concludes with an amazing review of the issues for world order that technology presents. Technology works in many different directions simultaneously. And while technology has improved many things, it also opens the door to vigorous challenges to world order. If the book was just this chapter, it would be well worth reading.
All societies face the need to find a balance between (i) achieving foreign policy goals that protect their society, (ii) setting objectives that we will work towards , even if not supported by a multilateral effort, (iii) setting objectives we will work towards only if supported by a multilateral effort and (iv) determining what we will not engage in even if urged to do so by a multilateral effort. Societies need to define their values and how they will apply them internationally.
"For the United States, the quest of world order functions on two levels: the celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with a recognition of the reality of other regions' histories and cultures."
"America - as the modern world's decisive articulation of the human quest for freedom, and an indispensable geopolitical force for the vindication of humane values - must maintain its sense of direction."
No comments:
Post a Comment