The very name of Henry Kissinger summons up strong, negative emotions on the part of many liberals who consider him to have perpetuated the Viet Nam War.
Whatever one’s view of Kissinger, his recently published “World Order” provides an edifying educational of the historic derivation and current view of various nations concerning the conduct of world affairs.
Kissinger reaches back to 1648 to discuss the importance the “Peace of Westphalia” played in our Western concept of nations and their relationships.
“The Peace of Westphalia became a turning point in the history of nations because the elements it set in place were as uncomplicated as they were sweeping. The state, not the empire, dynasty, or religious confession, was affirmed as the building block of European order. The concept of state sovereignty was established. The right of each signatory to choose its own domestic structure and religious orientation free from intervention was affirmed, while novel clauses ensured that minority sects could practice their faith in peace and be free from the prospect of forced conversion…
“The Westphalian concept took multiplicity as its starting point and drew a variety of multiple societies, each accepted as a reality, into a common search for order. By the mid-twentieth century this international system was in place on every continent; it remains the scaffolding of international order such as it now exists.”
Commenting on the Iranian / Islamic perspective, Kissinger observes:
“This body of thought represents an almost total inversion of Westphalian world order. In the purist version of Islamism, the state cannot be the point of departure for an international system because states are secular, hence illegitimate; at best they may achieve a king of provisional status en route to a religious entity on a larger scale. Noninterference in other countries’ domestic affairs cannot serve as a governing principle, because national loyalties represents deviations from the true faith and because jihadists have a duty to transform dar-al-harb, the world of unbelievers. Purity, not stability, is the guiding principle of this conception of world order.”
Concerning “The Palestinian Issue and International Order”, Kissinger explains:
“At least three viewpoints are identifiable in Arab attitudes: a small, dedicated, but not very vocal group accepting genuine coexistence with Israel and prepared to work for it; a much larger group seeking to destroy Israel by permanent confrontation; and those will to negotiate with Israel but justifying negotiations, at least cosmetically, in part as a means to overcome the Jewish state in stages.”
Concerning “Nuclear Proliferation and Iran”
“Until this writing, Iran and the West have attached different meanings to the concept of negotiation. While American and European negotiators were speaking with cautious optimism about prospects for a nuclear agreement and exercising utmost restraint in their public statements in hopes of fostering a favorable atmosphere, Ayatolla Khamenei [Iraq’s ‘Supreme Leader’] described the nuclear talks as part of an eternal religious struggle in which negotiation was a form of combat and compromise was forbidden.”
Kissinger concludes: “[Iran[ must decide whether it is a country or a cause. The United States should be open to a cooperative course and encourage it. Yet the ingenuity and determination of Western negotiators, while a necessary component of this evolution, will not be sufficient to secure it. Abandonment by Iran of support for such groups as Hezbollah would be an important and necessary step in reestablishing a constructive pattern of bilateral relations. The test will be whether Iran interprets the chaos along its frontiers as a threat or as an opportunity to fulfill millennial hopes.”
We must defer to future historians to evaluate Kissinger’s impact on our times. But we can state now that his book has considerable value and are eager to continue reading it.
