World Order by Henry Kissinger, Book Review Example

In Henry Kissinger’s World Order, the author examines the global political problem of establishing a world order of governance from the following perspective: there is no singular idea of what world order itself entails. Throughout history, there has been a plurality of visions of what a world order means. The fundamental theoretical tension at the center of the book is therefore as follows: insofar as a world order, by definition, appears to imply a singular vision of what world order should be – i.e., as determined by the plurality of civilizations that have historically advanced different concept of world order — any world order is itself embroiled in a fundamental antagonism, since the very concept will be constructed in different ways. By identifying this particular problem at the heart of the concept of world order, Kissinger is alluding to a number of relevant theories within the social sciences and, more specifically, political science and international relations. Firstly, Kissinger’s book questions the viability of any type of international agreement between political actors and is thus interrogating the meaning of international relations itself: to what extent may international forms of governance maintain order in the world? In this case, Kissinger’s book openly interrogates the viability of international forms of governance according to the plurality of world-views that exist concerning how the world should be politically organized. Secondly, Kissinger’s work brings to the surface the following crucial theoretical question: who may be counted as a political actor in international relations and politics? Traditionally, theories of international relations have claimed that nation-states are the key political actors, yet Kissinger’s views of different world orders include civilizations, who did not view themselves according to the nation-state model, such as China, and religions, such as Islam, which employs a theological foundation for political decisions. Thirdly, Kissinger’s work also gives a high importance to the question of war: if war is often the solution chosen by political actors when their demands are not met, to what extent does the idea of a world order imply war between the different political actors who possess different visions of world order?

Arguably, the central theoretical question of Kissinger’s book is the viability of the concept of world order. Accordingly, the crucial theory which Kissinger addresses in his work is theories of international governance. For Kissinger, “world order describes 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.” (8) In this definition itself, there appears to be a fundamental paradox at the heart of world order, which is the central interrogatory question of Kissinger’s book. Namely, the world order concept applies, as Kissinger states, to the “entire world.” This entails questions such as: who yields power in the world? and what should be considered just or lawful? The immediate problem, which Kissinger identifies, is clear: the concept of world order is not “held” to use Kissinger’s words by the world itself, but rather by “regions or civilizations.” From this perspective, any concept of international governance is constituted by an antagonism between political actors who wish to impose their view of what the world should look like. However, Kissinger provides here a novel view of the very essence of international governance. For example, international governance may be defined as “alternative mechanisms for solving disputes between governments.” (Hunt & Colander, 414) From this perspective, international governance is not a cause of conflict, but rather a utopian framework which resolves conflict between political actors.

Kissinger therefore applies this theory of international governance in his work by reversing its fundamental premise. International government becomes in Kissinger’s book world order. International government is not a way of resolving dispute, but rather the control of international government itself becomes crucial. For example, Kissinger states throughout the work that different civilizations have a particular definition of world order. The Peace of Westphalia gives political power and authority to nation-states. However, as Kissinger notes, this is a uniquely Western and European model, in contrast to, for example, the Chinese model, which viewed an Emperor as the central figure of political authority. (14) Kissinger therefore sees the problem of international governance not in terms of how international governing bodies such as the United Nations may resolve disputes, but rather in terms of a deeper conflict for control over international governance itself. In this case, Kissinger’s view appears correct. Many of the ideals stressed by international organizations such as the United Nations, such as the basic fact that its members are constituted by nation-states, show the dominance of a Western model in international relations. Accordingly, the control over international governance is itself a conflict as opposed to a possible site for the resolution of conflict between nation-states. Kissinger effectively critiques a theory of international governance which views the latter as entirely benign and only intended to resolve disputes. How the international governance is constructed is itself a symptom of who holds political power in the world and which world order dominates another vision of world order.

Kissinger furthermore critiques the notion of who should be counted as a political actor in his work. In the book, there are numerous visions of world order which are presented. These, however, are not world orders proposed by states, such as the United States. Rather, Kissinger includes chapters on Islam and China, which entail different visions of world order. From this perspective, Kissinger provides a radical interpretation of the notion of state: “a state is a body politic organized for civil rule and government. It is an independent political unit that can carry on negotiations or make agreements with other such units.” (Hunt & Colander, 353) For Kissinger, those who can “carry on negotiations or make agreements with other such units” is much more heterogeneous.

Essentially for Kissinger, any voice that has enough influence within the network of international relations can be considered a “state”, in so far as it is able to communicate its vision of a world order to the world. Hence, Kissinger includes non-political actors, but who act politically, such as Islam, within his analysis of different visions of world order. In this context, Kissinger appears entirely correct: a state may not necessarily be a nation-state with Western forms of political governance. It, instead, may be ideologically based, such as a communist movement, or theologically and ideologically based, such as a particular religious movement. If these various groups have power, then their visions of world order must also be accounted for. Negotiations and agreements between “states”, in this sense, is much more open with regards to who can carry out negotiations and agreements.

Lastly, Kissinger can be said to radicalize theories of war within political science and international relations. Thus, war defined as “if countries do not get what they want, and they have the power to do so, they often go to war to get what they want” (Hunt & Colander, 430) in Kissinger’s world view becomes the desire to promote a vision of world order. Hence, in his book, conflicts such as the U.S.’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan are not only conflicts between nation states, but the desire for the U.S. to secure its particular vision of world order. War accordingly becomes a tool to realize a singular world order within a multiplicity of world orders.

Kissinger’s analysis is adept at seeking out the causes of war. A war is conducted so that a political actor may “get what they want”; however, this desire or aim may transcend the particular political actor that carries out war and take on a global context. This is the fundamental thesis of Kissinger’s book: there are not only wars between political actors, but also a war over how the world should look like. In the case of the U.S.’s wars or major global conflicts such as World War II, this analysis appears correct. It is not only questions of regional influence, but of imposing a way the world should be that motivates war.

In conclusion, Kissinger’s book employs many concepts from political science and international relations, but at the same time, broadens their horizons. Kissinger, for example, questions to what extent the existence of international bodies may be considered to be only actors for peace. How the international body is constituted itself is an indication of who holds power to shape these forms of international governance. Furthermore, Kissinger radicalizes the concept of state to go beyond traditional nation-states, including theological and ideological movements. Lastly, Kissinger extends the concept of war to not only include war between political actors, but war on a global level in terms of competing visions of world order. Kissinger’s work is valuable to anyone who seeks to both understand the conceptual foundations of political science and international relations and challenge some of the preconceptions that exist in the discipline.

Works Cited

Hunt, Elgin F. & Colander, David C. Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society. New York: Pearson, 2013

Kissinger, Henry. World Order. New York: Penguin, 2014.