Does America Need a Foreign Policy? : Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century

Does America Need a Foreign Policy? by Henry Kissinger was published in 2001, shortly before 9/11. In the current paperback edition, he has added an Afterword on 9/11 and terrorism. While the Afterword is helpful, what is remarkable is how relevant his pre-9/11 text remains in the post-9/11 world.Kissinger's title question is purely rhetorical. Of course America needs a foreign policy. His point in the title appears to be that American foreign policy has too often been the subject of domestic political campaigns which are focused more on electing the next president than on the country's real, long-term interests. This is a theme that he shares with the late George Kennan.Kissinger's text follows a straightforward outline: Suggestions for US foreign policy with regard to Europe, the Western Hemisphere, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, Globalization, and "Peace and Justice". I'll say more on this topic below.Throughout the text, Kissinger advocates his standard theme of realism versus idealism, as he did in his magnificent prior work, Diplomacy. As a brief example, he points out that a seemingly desirable goal such as the peaceful reunification of Korea may not be as desirable as it might seem at first glance. A unified Korea, he points out, would become a major economic, political, and military power in East Asia. A more robust Korea might be seen as a threat by Japan, thereby destabilizing the current US-Japanese-South Korean alignment. Seeing a unified Korea as a threat, Japan might be tempted to go nuclear and withdraw from its close ties with the US. Do we really want this?The theme of realism versus idealism becomes particularly pronounced in the chapter on "Peace and Justice". Kissinger's point here is that the basis for diplomacy established by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) was that the governments of the European powers agreed to:* Deal with other governments as the sole, legitimate diplomatic representatives of their countries, regardless of the level of cordiality or hostility between them* Refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other nation-states, specifically religious affiliations, which were the basis for the preceding Thirty Years War which had devastated EuropeThese precepts held sway until WWI when the US President, Woodrow Wilson, injected a strong theme of idealism when the US entered the war. His goals were (1) self determination of nationalities, regardless of prior national boundaries, (2) "making the world safe for democracy", and (3) collective security. These goals flew in the face of the Westphalian accords by postulating the existence of a higher (but undefined) diplomatic/legal/moral authority that took precedence over peaceful relations between established governments.This issue is of particular importance today as it underlies many aspects of US foreign policy. Without offering answers, I'll pose the following dilemmas which Kissinger's book brings to mind:* There appears to be an inherent conflict between the goals of maintaining peace among nations (diplomacy based on realism, the Westphalian accord) and supporting idealistic goals generally accepted by Americas, including democracy and human rights in other nations (diplomacy based on idealism, the Wilsonian approach). Can we achieve both peace and our idealistic goals? If not, how do we prioritize between them?* Legal structures in the West, especially Anglo-American legal structures, are based on the mutual acceptance by all parties (or at least most parties) of the existing legal system as a means of settling differences within nations. The concept of "international law" among nations is not so well defined and certainly lacks the level of universal acceptance required to make it effective.There are tough questions. I thank Kissinger (and Kennan) for helping articulate them. Solving them will be up to their successors.

This book is a treatise from America's top expert on diplomacy Henry Kissinger about the United States foreign policy in a post-Cold War world. It is unfortunate that the book was written before 9/11 and the start of the war on terrorism, save for a brief afterward that is mostly in line with Kissinger's pre 9/11 views.The book is entertaining and put in a very organized sequence. It highlights the cross Atlantic world leading American-European alliance and offers fresh perspective on how these relations should develop as the European Union gains shape and witnesses a surge in its economic, demographic and geographic might.Kissinger also talks about other regions in the world including the Middle East and Africa. The book has a much needed historical background about all of the events that it discusses making it easier for readers who are not familiar with overseas issues to get a grasp of what the author is talking about. Kissinger then gives his recommendations on how America should handle its world affairs in the coming century.He debates the United States role in a growingly globalized world and offers suggestions on how America should deal with global organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.Kissinger sounds more often than not a traditionalist in his foreign policy perspective in that he doesn't view fighting terrorism as the world's top priority. He rather maintains a tone of what America should do to maintain its "assets" and "strategic interests" around the world and how this would define America's role making or breaking of world affairs.The book also lacks accurate research and is kind of a blown up opinion. For example, Kissinger mentions a ruling Sunni majority in Iraq and an opposing two minority blocs, the Shiites and Kurds. It is a known fact, however, that the Shiites are the Iraqi majority.

Dr. Kissinger dissects the world into their geopolitical grouping, and discusses where current trends are taking each group. The book may be a little outdated since 911 and world terrorism was pushed to front stage, but generally the geopolitical groups remain. A united Europe dealing with a Russia once again as a rising power, the Middle East and the consequences of China becoming a mature power. As a reader that was of draft age during the Vietnam war it was ironic to read that Dr.Kissinger believes that the USA should not be a major player in the far East, but a better plan would be to play the power broker for the rivaling countries referencing Britain's role in regard to the powers on the European continent during the era of Napoleon.This book is an easy read, very understandable. I read this book because the USA is always criticized for having no foreign policy every time World events hit us broadside.

La consegna è stata rapida ed economica: Amazon si riconferma sicuramente il migliore nel servizio offerto.Quanto al libro, Kissinger è sicuramente un autore difficoltoso non soltanto per il suo stile corposo e paratattico, ma anche per gli intrighi a livello politico, storico ed economico di cui l'autore parla nel suo libro.Ma è per questo che rimane uno dei migliori nel campo delle relazioni internazionali.