World Order Henry

[Beverly Denmark]

InWorld Order, Kissinger says "World Order refers to the concept held by a region or civilization about the nature of just arrangements and the distribution of power thought to be applicable to the entire world." In the book, he explains how Western ideas changed with the 1648 Peace of Westphalia treaty,[2][unreliable source?] and explains the four systems of historic world order: the Westphalian Peace born of 17th-century Europe, the central imperium philosophy of China, the religious supremacism of political Islam, and the democratic idealism of the United States. Kissinger aims to provide a window into today's struggling framework of international order.[3]

The New York Times praised the book, declaring, "his writing functions like a powerful zoom lens, opening out to give us a panoramic appreciation of larger historical trends and patterns, then zeroing in on small details and anecdotes that vividly illustrate his theories."[4]

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger celebrates his 90th birthday, last year in Berlin. In a recent interview with Scott Simon, he gave his thoughts on ISIS, Ukraine and Iran. Gero Breloer/AP hide caption

Henry Kissinger was a Harvard scholar before he became a mover and shaker in the world of foreign policy. And in his new book, World Order, the former secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford gives a historian's perspective on the idea of order in world affairs.

Nations are always trying to establish systems to make the world a more orderly place, but they rarely last for long. His book stretches from China under the emperors, Rome surrounded by barbarians and Islam encircled by infidels, to the treaties of Europe and the pivotal positions of Russia and Iran.

On current affairs, Kissinger tells NPR's Scott Simon why a conflict with the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran, what he would do about the Islamic State, and what he thinks the best solution is for the crisis in Ukraine.

They have cut the throat of an American on television. This is an insult to the United States, which requires that we demonstrate that this is not an act that is free. I would strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS for a period that is related to the murder of the American.

Then, we have to go into the long-range problem. I think when we are dealing with a unit like ISIS, we should not get into a position where they can lead us by establishing ground forces. But we should set strategic objectives where we thwart any goal they set themselves, which we should be able to do by superior air power. And then, if we can enlist other countries, or other more local groups to do the ground fighting, we might actually destroy them.

The attitude of the West and of Russia towards a crisis like Ukraine is diametrically different. The West is trying to establish the legality of any established border. For Russia, Ukraine is part of the Russian patrimony.

A Russian state was created around Kiev about 1,200 years ago. Ukraine itself has been part of Russia for 500 years, and I would say most Russians consider it part of Russian patrimony. The ideal solution would be to have a Ukraine like Finland or Austria that can be a bridge between these two rather than an outpost.

They should study what is going on. I think we would find, if you study the conduct of guerrilla-type wars, that the Obama administration has hit more targets on a broader scale than the Nixon administration ever did. ...

B-52s have a different bombing pattern. On the other hand, drones are far more deadly because they are much more accurate. And I think the principle is essentially the same. You attack locations where you believe people operate who are killing you. You do it in the most limited way possible. And I bet if one did an honest account, there were fewer civilian casualties in Cambodia than there have been from American drone attacks.

I know Hillary as a person. And as a personal friend, I would say yes, she'd be a good president. But she'd put me under a great conflict of interest if she were a candidate, because I intend to support the Republicans. ...

Henry Kissinger offers in World Order a meditation on the roots of international harmony and global disorder. There has never been a true "world order," Kissinger observes. For most of history, civilizations defined their own concepts of order. Each considered itself the center of the worl...

The United States and China are both indispensable pillars of world order. Remarkably, both have historically exhibited an ambivalent attitude toward the international system they now anchor, affirming their commitment to it even as they reserve judgment on aspects of its design. China has no precedent for the role it is asked to play in twenty-first-century order, as one major state among others. Nor does the United States have experience interacting on a sustained basis with a country of comparable size, reach, and economic performance embracing a distinctly different model of domestic order.

World Order is the summation of Henry Kissinger's thinking about history, strategy and statecraft. As if taking a perspective from far above the globe, it examines the great tectonic plates of history and the motivations of nations, explaining the attitudes that states and empires have taken to the rest of the world from the formation of Europe to our own times.

Kissinger identifies four great 'world orders' in history - the European, Islamic, Chinese and American. Since the end of Charlemagne's empire, and especially since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, Europeans have striven for balance in international affairs, first in their own continent and then globally. Islamic states have looked to their destined expansion over regions populated by unbelievers, a position exemplified today by Iran under the ayatollahs. For over 2000 years the Chinese have seen 'all under Heaven' as being tributary to the Chinese Emperor. America views itself as a 'city on a hill', a beacon to the world, whose values have universal validity.

How have these attitudes evolved and how have they shaped the histories of their nations, regions, and the rest of the world? What has happened when they have come into contact with each other? How have they balanced legitimacy and power at different times? What is the condition of each in our contemporary world, and how are they shaping relations between states now?

To answer these questions Henry Kissinger draws upon a lifetime's historical study and unmatched experience as a world statesman. His account is shot through with observations about how historical change takes place, how some leaders shape their times and others fail to do so, and how far states can stray from the ideas which define them. World Order is a masterpiece of narrative, analysis and portraits of great historical actors that only Henry Kissinger could have written.

Henry A. Kissinger served as National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and has advised many other American presidents on foreign policy. He received the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Medal of Liberty. He is the author of numerous books and articles on foreign policy and diplomacy.

Before jumping down the rabbit hole of this thought experiment, I thought it might be helpful to recap the distinguishing characteristics of the current world order, highlighting its structure and its norms.

Who, one might ask, made these comments? Why none other than Vladimir Putin. Were they hypocritical? Absolutely. Did they come from the leader of a country with an odious human rights record? You be the judge.

Among the works that first brought Henry Kissinger to academic acclaim was "A World Restored," his 1950s book about how the greatest diplomats of Europe met at the Congress of Vienna to restore order to a continent shattered by the Napoleonic Wars.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal Friday, Kissinger declared that it is now an imperative that the world's leaders, even as they deal with the raging pandemic, begin to make the "transition to the post-coronavirus order." "Failure to do so could set the world on fire."

Yet, the ingredients Kissinger considers essential for establishing that new world order appear, like ventilators, to be in short supply. "Sustaining public trust," asserts Kissinger, "is crucial ... to international peace and stability."

But how do we trust again our adversary China, after its criminal cover-up of the menace and magnitude of the virus unleashed in Wuhan? How do we trust again this regime that was, until recently, blaming the coronavirus on U.S. Army troops visiting Wuhan?

Observing governments thrashing about in the crisis, the phrase that comes to mind is not "public trust" as much as "every nation for itself." On Monday, The Wall Street Journal described Europe's recent behavior thus: "EU countries unilaterally shut borders and hoarded vital medical gear, leaving people stranded far from home, grocery stores struggling to stock shelves and hospitals desperate to save critically ill patients.

"When Italy and Spain, reeling from some of the world's most deadly outbreaks, urged their richer and healthier Northern neighbors to help, Dutch politicians brushed off the appeals as new signs of southerners' mismanagement."

Last week, the EU's Court of Justice ruled that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic broke EU law by refusing to relocate refugees during the migrant crisis in 2015. The three nations offered no apologies.

Last month, Greece used force to stop Syrian refugees from entering its territory. According to Human Rights Watch, Greek troops and armed men at the Greece-Turkey land border sexually assaulted, robbed and stripped asylum seekers and migrants, driving them back into Turkey. The EU has stayed largely silent.

When Donald Trump's issued his Jan. 31 travel ban on those who had recently been in China, candidate Joe Biden denounced Trump for "hysterical xenophobia and fearmongering." Biden now thinks Trump did the right thing.

3a8082e126