World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History

The author’s Introduction sets the tone for the whole book. Kissinger highlights some of the key problems with the concept of a world order both theoretically and practically. He provides the reader with a definition of this concept and outlines its limitations. The author believes that a global order should be developed as a consensus not only among the leaders around the world but also among their respective citizens. Developing such a consensus seems like a challenging task considering the competing value systems that are particularly visible in a relatively globalized world.

The author acknowledges the utopianism and limitations of this concept. For example, he describes the differences between how the Chinese and the Muslims historically perceived this idea. To the Chinese, an order was linked to an emperor controlling “all under Heaven” (4). In contrast, in Islam, such an order was the “single divinely sanctioned governance uniting and pacifying the world” (4). Such differences, even if historic, might be problematic when it comes to arriving at a consensus about a single global system.

Second, Kissinger acknowledges, even if briefly, the imposition of a world order by Europeans and Americans onto many other parts of the world through a system of colonial oppression, exploitation, or, more recently, cultural and economic hegemony. He understands that eventually, the colonial subjects of the Global South used the Europeans’ own beliefs about sovereignty to begin dismantling colonial systems of oppression. Arguably, the first time this incongruence was highlighted on an international scale was in the era of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and, specifically, the idealistic humanitarian ideas of President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson advocated for the self-determination of all people around the world. Kissinger examines Wilson’s ideology and personality in a subsequent chapter on the United States.

Despite this hegemonic, unequal power relationship, Kissinger still believes that:

Westphalian principles are, at this writing, the sole generally recognized basis of what exists of a world order. The Westphalian system spread around the world as the framework for a state-based international order spanning multiple civilizations and regions because, as the European nations expanded, they carried the blueprint of their international order with them (6).

Kissinger presupposes that it is the Euro-American principles that should guide the world. Indeed, he makes an example of President Harry Truman who was proud that “we totally defeated our enemies and then brought them back to the community of nations I would like to think that only America would have done this” (1). Kissinger, therefore, also presupposes that the United States continues being a hegemon even though contemporary America has had difficulties when it comes to defining its place in international relations after several stalemates and losses in the recent wars. The author refers to the Westphalian system as a “world community” even though it was designed by the Europeans with little contribution from other parts of the world. This approach is quite different from suggesting a multipolar world order in which non-European powers, especially major players such as China and India, would have an equal say in designing such an order.