What do you think?
Rate this book
Does America Need a Foreign Policy?: Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century
In this timely, thoughtful, and important book, at once far-seeing and brilliantly readable, America's most famous diplomatist explains why we urgently need a new and coherent foreign policy and what our foreign policy goals should be in this new millennium. In seven accessible chapters, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? provides a crystalline assessment of how the United States' ascendancy as the world's dominant presence in the twentieth century may be effectively reconciled with the urgent need in the twenty-first century to achieve a bold new world order. With a new Afterword by the author that addresses the situation in the aftermath of September 11, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? asks and answers the most pressing questions of our nation today.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
49 people are currently reading
1141 people want to read
About the author
Henry Kissinger
259 books1,969 followersHenry Alfred Kissinger (born Heinz Alfred Kissinger) was a German-born American bureaucrat, diplomat, and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as Secretary of State in the Richard Nixon administration. Kissinger emerged unscathed from the Watergate scandal, and maintained his powerful position when Gerald Ford became President.
A proponent of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a dominant role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente.
During his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations he cut a flamboyant figure, appearing at social occasions with many celebrities. His foreign policy record made him a nemesis to the anti-war left and the anti-communist right alike.
A proponent of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a dominant role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente.
During his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations he cut a flamboyant figure, appearing at social occasions with many celebrities. His foreign policy record made him a nemesis to the anti-war left and the anti-communist right alike.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
February 19, 2021
Some people say that security, prosperity, and the creation of a better world are the three most prominent goals of American foreign policy.
April 10, 2016
Kissinger wrote this book in the spring of 2001, and in a very short period of time it felt completely out of touch. Kissinger berates the American public in Chapter One for being unable to find other countries on a map, and for being so consumed with ourselves. Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski did the same, in 2008 in America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy. They are probably right. The map looks differently in two dimensions, and certainly we can be self-obsessed. One wonders if they would be pleased if we formed opinions on their conduct of foreign policy on our behalf.
Kissinger nowhere mentions the challenges that faced us later in 2001, an indication of how closely he was paying attention to world events. In a way, this book is a dry run for his later, shorter, more historically distant, and better received World Order (2014). While in that later book Kissinger talks about the long history of foreign relations, in this 2001 book he talks about the continuity of U.S. foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At one point he suggests that Germany might align its interests with a still-strong Russia, showing how hard it must be for an old cold warrior to lose his traditional enemy and to admit that thinking of the world in large strategic chess pieces may cause us to overlook important details.
Kissinger does a better job of looking at Latin America and Africa than these types of books usually manage, though the only thing he praises about the “maladroit” handling of foreign affairs by President Clinton is NAFTA, the “fair trade” deal which we are reconsidering now. (Conversely, he praises the “wisdom” of President George W. Bush.)
Regarding China, he makes the observation that Deng Xiao Ping “had been perhaps too daring in his economic reforms and surely too cautious in the political reforms his policies made inevitable—ironically, the opposite mistake of his contemporary, Mikhail Gorbachev.” Later he says
One of Kissinger’s last arguments, disagreement with the “Responsibility to Protect” U.N. mandate adopted in 2009, was one which shows how far out of step with the world he was becoming.
At the end of this book is a remarkable polemic on universal jurisdiction, or the concept of submitting international politics to judicial procedures.
As usual, what Kissinger says is more reasonable and palatable than what he does.
Kissinger nowhere mentions the challenges that faced us later in 2001, an indication of how closely he was paying attention to world events. In a way, this book is a dry run for his later, shorter, more historically distant, and better received World Order (2014). While in that later book Kissinger talks about the long history of foreign relations, in this 2001 book he talks about the continuity of U.S. foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At one point he suggests that Germany might align its interests with a still-strong Russia, showing how hard it must be for an old cold warrior to lose his traditional enemy and to admit that thinking of the world in large strategic chess pieces may cause us to overlook important details.
Kissinger does a better job of looking at Latin America and Africa than these types of books usually manage, though the only thing he praises about the “maladroit” handling of foreign affairs by President Clinton is NAFTA, the “fair trade” deal which we are reconsidering now. (Conversely, he praises the “wisdom” of President George W. Bush.)
“…it would be an irony if the new millennium’s most distinctive achievement were to turn into a vulnerability…the very process that has produced greater wealth in more parts of the world than ever before may also provide the mechanism for spreading an economic and social crisis around the world. Just as the American economy has been the world’s engine of growth, a major setback for the American economy would have grave consequences transcending the economic realm. Depending on its magnitude, it could threaten political stability in many countries and undermine Americans international standing.”He got that right.
Regarding China, he makes the observation that Deng Xiao Ping “had been perhaps too daring in his economic reforms and surely too cautious in the political reforms his policies made inevitable—ironically, the opposite mistake of his contemporary, Mikhail Gorbachev.” Later he says
“American foreign policy became increasingly driven by domestic politics…[like when] early in his administration [President Clinton] made the granting of Most Favored Nation status to China dependent on Chinese demonstrations of progress on human rights within a year…Nothing illustrates better the collapse of the Westphalian notion of noninterference than the proposition that freedom of speech and the press, which has never existed in the five millennia of Chinese history, could be brought about through legislation by the American Congress…”I guess that’s a “no” on tying cooperation to human rights.
One of Kissinger’s last arguments, disagreement with the “Responsibility to Protect” U.N. mandate adopted in 2009, was one which shows how far out of step with the world he was becoming.
”The United States has come a long way since John Quincy Adams warned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy…On one level the growing concern with human rights is one of the achievements of our age and it is certainly a testament to progress toward a more humane international order…There is irony in all this when one recalls that, during the Cold War, the Wilsonians [the ideological Left] had argued that excessive concern with security was leading to strategic overextension and an illusion of American omnipotence. Yet now, in the post-Cold War era, they are urging a global mission for the United States and on behalf of humanitarian and moral values, which risks an even more sweeping overextension.”I grudgingly concede he is right about that, which has led me to an in-depth study of foreign policy at this time. If we must lead by reason of our role as the world’s sole superpower, how can we best to do that? Even as I write this, I wonder if there might be some unexpected and enlightened leadership from an unlikely source, not a superpower, considering our domestic disarray and our navel-gazing populace. Whatever we decide will have to include some accommodation with the massive changes that will come when water rises around the globe and the dislocations resulting from that and changing weather patterns. How can we best face those pressures with dignity, grace, and that insistence on human rights?
At the end of this book is a remarkable polemic on universal jurisdiction, or the concept of submitting international politics to judicial procedures.
“The doctrine of universal jurisdiction asserts that there are crimes so heinous that their perpetrators should not be able to escape justice by invoking doctrines of sovereignty or the sacrosanct nature of national frontiers. …But any universal system should contain procedures not only to punish the wicked but to constrain the righteous. It must not allow legal principles to be used as weapons to settle political scores…”Kissinger sounds horrified that Americans, in particular Americans in leadership, could be judged by such international standards of justice, when they were only pursuing a foreign policy that was for their exclusive benefit. Kissinger tries to explain his role in the CIA overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile and the installation of the notorious Pinochet regime. In any case, he should have known better. When the International Criminal Court later wanted to convict some of the leaders in the former Yugoslavia for “crimes against humanity,” an American judge put in place significant roadblocks which had the effect of raising the burden of proof involved in convicting political leaders. Thus Americans were not indicted for a range of activities that came awfully close to such definitions.
As usual, what Kissinger says is more reasonable and palatable than what he does.
Want to read
June 11, 2020
"Jeffrey Goldberg: Are you surprised?
Henry Kissinger: I thought Hillary would win.
...He is the president-elect. We must give him an opportunity to develop his philosophy"*
"So, what does Trump actually believe? He does have a philosophy, though it takes a bit of insight and historical understanding to discern it."**
My guess is that this book will never become a textbook, or guide, to Donald Trump.
I'll be back on it. Kissinger's thought is past.
UPDATE:
"Donald Trump is a phenomenon that foreign countries haven't seen. So, it is a shocking experience to them that he came into office. At the same time, extraordinary opportunity," Kissinger said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
19th December 2016
Yeah, I said I would be back, because Kissinger is making some believe, ...something.
"VERMITTLUNGEN ZWISCHEN WASHINGTON UND MOSKAU
Kissinger soll neuen Kalten Krieg verhindern" [‘Kissinger to prevent new Cold War’]
in: http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/do...
and: "A flurry of reports suggest the 93-year-old diplomat is positioning himself as a intermediary between Vladimir Putin and President-elect Donald Trump."
in: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peo...
28th December 2016
----
*in:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...
** in:
Trumpism: The Ideology
https://fee.org/articles/trumpism-the...
January 27, 2018
This was a tough book to get through for a number of reasons. First, Kissinger's style of writing is casual and a bit stream of consciousness, with enormous words and ridiculously run-on sentences. He writes sentences that should be broken up into 2-4 sentences to be easier to understand instead of diagrammed. For example,
Get out your pencil and your ruler to diagram that one, readers!
Second - it's a fairly old book, so a bit outdated. Unfortunately, the copy I borrowed did not include the afterward following the WTC attack later in the year this was published.
Third - does Kissinger really need a soapbox to beat up on the Clinton administration? That got old after a while, especially considering all the high-flown recommendations that Kissinger makes about morality -- he's responsible for some of the worst horrors in US foreign relations, such as undermining a democratically elected socialist-leaning government in Chile, or selling the Shah all the military weaponry he wanted and other things to exacerbate the problems in the Middle East. He doesn't even mention the Iran Contra Affair or Dan Quayle in this book. And there's no information about the US involvement in supporting dictators in regimes in Latin America and Africa.
The regional discussions of nations on a continent by continent basis was charmingly skewed and borderine racist in some regards.
Since I am a total neophyte in the study of US foreign policy as a whole (vs study of Latin American countries and their interactions with the US) -- I found some of this book useful and will use it as a foundation for additional research as I know there are bound to be better books out there on diplomatic relations.
The author repeatedly refers to "Wilsonian diplomacy" - and I wasn't really familiar with that term. He did a good job later in the book of detailing Jacksonian vs Wilsonian diplomacy and the impact on US foreign policy. While he's horribly skewed and biased in his reporting of 20th century politics --
he's pretty good on early US history and politics.
Overall - he consistently presents how the US policy has largely been based on the "shining city on the hill" concept. "The absence of any realistic alternatives reinforces the trend toward the American model." He cautions against dropping it wholesale on a state as it's not plug-and-play. A state has to grow into it and adjust -- there will be changes as citizens move to cities to take advantage of opportunity, for example, weakening traditional family and cultural support networks. The people will not tolerate long periods of poverty and deprivation to try on economic theories.
While he briefly mentions the IMF, he talks about the socioeconomic disparities and economic problems in Latin American countries almost as though their issues had no provenance in US or IMF promulgated recommendations or requirements for aid.
He repeatedly makes references to growing gaps -- socioeconomic and access to technology -- as issues that should be a primary concern of developed nations and developing nations alike. Despite these warnings - he is wildly in support of free trade and globalization, he even lays it on the disadvantaged to suck it up to make it work for everyone:
He even goes one step further, to point out the risks of growing socioeconomic disparity -- but it's kind of laughble:
He does mention Karl Marx -- so he's referring to the same ideas and concepts here: Marx said that capitalism depends on building and maintaining a permanent underclass. And, to a certain level - there has always been a permanent underclass in the world (exceptions made for wealthy Scandinavian countries with semi-Socialist public welfare systems).
Kissinger seems to contradict himself -- where earlier he says that you can't rush a country through the process to adopt the American model, think that "Some of these dangers can be averted by accelerating free trade." but cautions:
Almost as an aside - he throws out this tidbit:
What about the converse? Can any political system be maintained without an effective economic base?
Kissinger also has a bad attitude toward anti-globalization protesters -- but then acknowledges that it may be symptomatic of a coming crisis of legitimacy of an international economic system.
Finally, the author touches on the difficulty in establishing internationally agreed upon standards and values, noting that this is a recent initiative among developed countries. He talks about the International Criminal Court and the need for the US to:
PS: Oh, yeah - and Iran - hey, they aren't so bad - even though they held some US citizens hostage, we really have no beef with them and we could totally have a policy of "reciprocal non-hostility" and let them go about their affairs internally however they want. Sort of. As long as it's in line with globalization.
FAIR & BALANCED
As an antidote - here are some articles, at least read the first one - it's effective:
Debacle, Inc.: How Henry Kissinger Helped Disorder the World
https://www.commondreams.org/views/20...
Indefensible Kissinger
https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...
Welcoming War Crimes: The Normalization of Henry Kissinger
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/201...
In addition, an International Criminal Court (ICC) is in the process of being created that, when ratified by sixty nations, will invest a prosecutor with the power to start investigations of alleged violations of international law at the request of any signatory state and, when backed by three of eighteen judges, to bring indictments against any suspected transgressor anywhere in the world (including against citizens of nations which have refused to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction).
Get out your pencil and your ruler to diagram that one, readers!
Second - it's a fairly old book, so a bit outdated. Unfortunately, the copy I borrowed did not include the afterward following the WTC attack later in the year this was published.
Third - does Kissinger really need a soapbox to beat up on the Clinton administration? That got old after a while, especially considering all the high-flown recommendations that Kissinger makes about morality -- he's responsible for some of the worst horrors in US foreign relations, such as undermining a democratically elected socialist-leaning government in Chile, or selling the Shah all the military weaponry he wanted and other things to exacerbate the problems in the Middle East. He doesn't even mention the Iran Contra Affair or Dan Quayle in this book. And there's no information about the US involvement in supporting dictators in regimes in Latin America and Africa.
The regional discussions of nations on a continent by continent basis was charmingly skewed and borderine racist in some regards.
Since I am a total neophyte in the study of US foreign policy as a whole (vs study of Latin American countries and their interactions with the US) -- I found some of this book useful and will use it as a foundation for additional research as I know there are bound to be better books out there on diplomatic relations.
The author repeatedly refers to "Wilsonian diplomacy" - and I wasn't really familiar with that term. He did a good job later in the book of detailing Jacksonian vs Wilsonian diplomacy and the impact on US foreign policy. While he's horribly skewed and biased in his reporting of 20th century politics --
he's pretty good on early US history and politics.
Overall - he consistently presents how the US policy has largely been based on the "shining city on the hill" concept. "The absence of any realistic alternatives reinforces the trend toward the American model." He cautions against dropping it wholesale on a state as it's not plug-and-play. A state has to grow into it and adjust -- there will be changes as citizens move to cities to take advantage of opportunity, for example, weakening traditional family and cultural support networks. The people will not tolerate long periods of poverty and deprivation to try on economic theories.
While he briefly mentions the IMF, he talks about the socioeconomic disparities and economic problems in Latin American countries almost as though their issues had no provenance in US or IMF promulgated recommendations or requirements for aid.
He repeatedly makes references to growing gaps -- socioeconomic and access to technology -- as issues that should be a primary concern of developed nations and developing nations alike. Despite these warnings - he is wildly in support of free trade and globalization, he even lays it on the disadvantaged to suck it up to make it work for everyone:
World order requires consensus, which presupposes that the differences between the advantaged and those disadvantaged who are in a position to undermine stability and progress, be of such a nature that the disadvantaged can still see some prospect of raising themselves by their own effort.
He even goes one step further, to point out the risks of growing socioeconomic disparity -- but it's kind of laughble:
A permanent worldwide underclass is in danger of emerging, especially in developing countries, which will make it increasingly difficult to build the political consensus on which domestic stability, international peace, and globalization itself depend.
He does mention Karl Marx -- so he's referring to the same ideas and concepts here: Marx said that capitalism depends on building and maintaining a permanent underclass. And, to a certain level - there has always been a permanent underclass in the world (exceptions made for wealthy Scandinavian countries with semi-Socialist public welfare systems).
Kissinger seems to contradict himself -- where earlier he says that you can't rush a country through the process to adopt the American model, think that "Some of these dangers can be averted by accelerating free trade." but cautions:
The dark cloud that is hanging over globalization is the threat of a global unraveling of the free market system under political pressure, with all its attendant perils to democratic institutions.
Almost as an aside - he throws out this tidbit:
No economic system can be sustained without a political base.
What about the converse? Can any political system be maintained without an effective economic base?
Kissinger also has a bad attitude toward anti-globalization protesters -- but then acknowledges that it may be symptomatic of a coming crisis of legitimacy of an international economic system.
Finally, the author touches on the difficulty in establishing internationally agreed upon standards and values, noting that this is a recent initiative among developed countries. He talks about the International Criminal Court and the need for the US to:
find partners not only for sharing the psychological burdens of leadership but also for shaping an international order consistent with freedom and democracy.
PS: Oh, yeah - and Iran - hey, they aren't so bad - even though they held some US citizens hostage, we really have no beef with them and we could totally have a policy of "reciprocal non-hostility" and let them go about their affairs internally however they want. Sort of. As long as it's in line with globalization.
FAIR & BALANCED
As an antidote - here are some articles, at least read the first one - it's effective:
Debacle, Inc.: How Henry Kissinger Helped Disorder the World
https://www.commondreams.org/views/20...
Indefensible Kissinger
https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...
Welcoming War Crimes: The Normalization of Henry Kissinger
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/201...
September 24, 2020
Gerçi güncelliğini yitirmiş ama günümüz ABD dış politikalarını anlamak için çerçeve çizmiş sanki. Kissinger özellikle 20. yüzyıl ikinci yarısı ABD dış politikasına yön vermiş bir politikacı.
Yazdıklarını kısaca özetlemek mümkün iyse bana göre şu demek olurdu: ABD dünyanın tek hegemon gücü ve bunun sürekli şekilde korunmasını sağlamak için gereken her şeyi yapmalı / yapmak zorunda. Anladığım kadarıyla yazar ulusal çıkarların dünya barışından daha öncelikli olduğunu söylemeye çalışmış. Özellikle Filistin-İsrail yaklaşımı bana göre saçmalık. Demek istediğim, yazarın geçmişini ve kimliğini (yahudi asıllı) hesaba kattığımızda bahsi geçen konuya yaklaşımının tarafsızlıktan katbekat uzak olduğunu görüyorsunuz. Kissinger daima İsraili desteklemiş ve İsrailin taviz vermesine daima karşı olmuştur. Yazdığı gibi yaparsanız (bir Filistin devleti oluşumunu belirsiz bir tarihe kadar ertelemek), Filistin devleti fikrinin hayal olduğunu görürsünüz.
Yazarın Çine yaklaşımına gelince, yazdığı dönemde Çin bugünkü gibi bir dünya devi haline gelmemişti ve ekonomik olarak Japonyadan bile küçüktü. Sonuç olarak Çine fazla egilmemiş ama belki 21. yüzyılın belirsiz bir zamanında Çinin ABD için sorun oluşturmaya başlaya bileceğini yazmış. Gerçi yazdığı gibi bir tehdit algısı (tehditin kendisi değil, algısı) kısa zamanda gerçekleşmiş ama bunu öngörmesi bile takdire şayan.
Rusyaya gelince, yazdığı dönemde Rusya ekonomik çöküş görmüş ve bir nevi 3. dunya devleti konumuna indirgenmiş ve büyük nükleer stoka sahip bir ülkeydi. Bugünkü Rusya daha güclü ve ABD tehditlerine daha bile özgüvenli olarak göğüs gerecek bir büyük güç. Yazar ABD-nin Rusyayla ilişkilerinde ihtiyatlı davranmasını söylemiş ama geçen 10 yıla (2010-2020) bakınca ABD-nin Rusyaya yaklaşımının ukalaca ve akılsızca serüvenlerden oluştuğu ortaya çıkmış.
Avrupa için diyecek pek fazla bir şey yok, zira Avrupa Birliği Britanyanın birlikten ayrılması ile pek prestijli gözükmüyor ama yazarın kitabı yazdığı dönemde Avrupanın bir bütünleşme sürecine gireceği beklentileri vardı. Bu beklentiler hayal oldu.
Afrika. Yazar bu kıtanın ABD ulusal çıkarları için fazla önemli olmadığı söylemiş. Yine de günümüzde Afrika ülkelerinin Çinle ticari ilişkileri ABD-yi rahatsız ediyor. Yazar bu gibi şeyleri öngöremezdi tabii zira Çin ABD-nin beklediğinden fazla süratle ekonomik yönden gelişmiş ve hala gelişiyor. Günümüzde Mike Pompeonun ülkeleri tek-tek gezerek Çin komünizmine (gerçekte saçma bir iddia) ve 5G-ye karşı uyarmaya çalıştığı zamanımızda da Afrikanın öneminin pek ortaya çıkmadığı gerçeği gözümüze çarpıyor.
Gerçi kitapta fazla resmi bilgi mevcut ama ben bu kadar sığdıra bildim. Yazarın mensubu olduğu devlete karşı sorumluluklarına bir diyeceğim yok. Ama yazarın bir çok fikrini kabul edeceğimi söyleyemem. Bu makul bir sonuç. Zira Kissinger bir devlet adamı olarak devletinin ulusal çıkarlarını ve İsrailin çıkarlarını gözetmiş.
Kitap günümüz için eski denecek bir içeriğe sahip ama yine de bir çok şey öğrenmek mümkün.
Yazdıklarını kısaca özetlemek mümkün iyse bana göre şu demek olurdu: ABD dünyanın tek hegemon gücü ve bunun sürekli şekilde korunmasını sağlamak için gereken her şeyi yapmalı / yapmak zorunda. Anladığım kadarıyla yazar ulusal çıkarların dünya barışından daha öncelikli olduğunu söylemeye çalışmış. Özellikle Filistin-İsrail yaklaşımı bana göre saçmalık. Demek istediğim, yazarın geçmişini ve kimliğini (yahudi asıllı) hesaba kattığımızda bahsi geçen konuya yaklaşımının tarafsızlıktan katbekat uzak olduğunu görüyorsunuz. Kissinger daima İsraili desteklemiş ve İsrailin taviz vermesine daima karşı olmuştur. Yazdığı gibi yaparsanız (bir Filistin devleti oluşumunu belirsiz bir tarihe kadar ertelemek), Filistin devleti fikrinin hayal olduğunu görürsünüz.
Yazarın Çine yaklaşımına gelince, yazdığı dönemde Çin bugünkü gibi bir dünya devi haline gelmemişti ve ekonomik olarak Japonyadan bile küçüktü. Sonuç olarak Çine fazla egilmemiş ama belki 21. yüzyılın belirsiz bir zamanında Çinin ABD için sorun oluşturmaya başlaya bileceğini yazmış. Gerçi yazdığı gibi bir tehdit algısı (tehditin kendisi değil, algısı) kısa zamanda gerçekleşmiş ama bunu öngörmesi bile takdire şayan.
Rusyaya gelince, yazdığı dönemde Rusya ekonomik çöküş görmüş ve bir nevi 3. dunya devleti konumuna indirgenmiş ve büyük nükleer stoka sahip bir ülkeydi. Bugünkü Rusya daha güclü ve ABD tehditlerine daha bile özgüvenli olarak göğüs gerecek bir büyük güç. Yazar ABD-nin Rusyayla ilişkilerinde ihtiyatlı davranmasını söylemiş ama geçen 10 yıla (2010-2020) bakınca ABD-nin Rusyaya yaklaşımının ukalaca ve akılsızca serüvenlerden oluştuğu ortaya çıkmış.
Avrupa için diyecek pek fazla bir şey yok, zira Avrupa Birliği Britanyanın birlikten ayrılması ile pek prestijli gözükmüyor ama yazarın kitabı yazdığı dönemde Avrupanın bir bütünleşme sürecine gireceği beklentileri vardı. Bu beklentiler hayal oldu.
Afrika. Yazar bu kıtanın ABD ulusal çıkarları için fazla önemli olmadığı söylemiş. Yine de günümüzde Afrika ülkelerinin Çinle ticari ilişkileri ABD-yi rahatsız ediyor. Yazar bu gibi şeyleri öngöremezdi tabii zira Çin ABD-nin beklediğinden fazla süratle ekonomik yönden gelişmiş ve hala gelişiyor. Günümüzde Mike Pompeonun ülkeleri tek-tek gezerek Çin komünizmine (gerçekte saçma bir iddia) ve 5G-ye karşı uyarmaya çalıştığı zamanımızda da Afrikanın öneminin pek ortaya çıkmadığı gerçeği gözümüze çarpıyor.
Gerçi kitapta fazla resmi bilgi mevcut ama ben bu kadar sığdıra bildim. Yazarın mensubu olduğu devlete karşı sorumluluklarına bir diyeceğim yok. Ama yazarın bir çok fikrini kabul edeceğimi söyleyemem. Bu makul bir sonuç. Zira Kissinger bir devlet adamı olarak devletinin ulusal çıkarlarını ve İsrailin çıkarlarını gözetmiş.
Kitap günümüz için eski denecek bir içeriğe sahip ama yine de bir çok şey öğrenmek mümkün.
March 29, 2013
ورد في الصفحة 212 من النسخة الإنكليزية و 216 من النسخة العربية: إن إنكماشاً إقتصاديا سيحدث عاجلاً أم آجلاً. والتوسع الإقتصادي الأميركي الذي يبدو بدون حدود مع كتابة هذه السطور ربيع 2001 مقيد بالدخول في فترات ركود عاجلاً أم آجلاً والمسألة الوحيدة معرفة توقيته وعمقه ... وسناريو ذلك:
- هبوط في سوق الأسهم لفترة طويلة
- خفض إستهلاك الأميركيين الذين يستثمرون مدخراتهم في سوق الأسهم
إنخفاض معدلات التصدير في الدول الأخرى مما سيؤدي الى ركود في تلك البلاد
- تلجأ لمصارف الى تخفيض أموال الإقراض
المسؤولون عن الخزانة والمستثمرون الكبار والمصارف لا يشكون في إحتمال حصول النكسة. لكنهم يترددون في التصرف مخافة أن يتسببوا في حدوث ما يسعون الى تأجيل حدوثه الى المستقبل البعيد
عن الشرق الأوسط:
إتفاقية أوسلو جمعت بين إنجاز كبير وغموض مفرط ...
ثمة أمم قليلة في العالم تملك أميركا اسباباً أقل للتشاجر معها أو مصالح أكثر توافقاً مما هو الحال مع إيران. لا يوجد حافز جيوسياسي أميركي للعداء مع إيران، المستمرة في توفير الأسباب التي تبقي أميركا بعيدة عنها...
- هبوط في سوق الأسهم لفترة طويلة
- خفض إستهلاك الأميركيين الذين يستثمرون مدخراتهم في سوق الأسهم
إنخفاض معدلات التصدير في الدول الأخرى مما سيؤدي الى ركود في تلك البلاد
- تلجأ لمصارف الى تخفيض أموال الإقراض
المسؤولون عن الخزانة والمستثمرون الكبار والمصارف لا يشكون في إحتمال حصول النكسة. لكنهم يترددون في التصرف مخافة أن يتسببوا في حدوث ما يسعون الى تأجيل حدوثه الى المستقبل البعيد
عن الشرق الأوسط:
إتفاقية أوسلو جمعت بين إنجاز كبير وغموض مفرط ...
ثمة أمم قليلة في العالم تملك أميركا اسباباً أقل للتشاجر معها أو مصالح أكثر توافقاً مما هو الحال مع إيران. لا يوجد حافز جيوسياسي أميركي للعداء مع إيران، المستمرة في توفير الأسباب التي تبقي أميركا بعيدة عنها...
December 10, 2019
Just finished 2/3 of this book. My first and last impression on it is fancy vocabulary, at least to a C1 English- learner like me. This book was written in the context of 1990s, but the analysis has still had a stand in the widespread and profound upheavals today. Due to its preeminence in post Cold War era, American foreign policy was toward unilateral and occasionally bullying conduct with a "take it or leave it" attitude. This led to a paradox to the US, albeit at the apogee of its power, America has been becoming irrelevant to the emerging realities. The book also discusses issues like globalization and prosperity, technology and metamorphosis of the word, matter of nuclear weapons; together with the US in relations with other parts: Western Hemisphere, great powers of Asia, Middle East and Africa.
1. To Europe, most things mentioned in the book was outdated (disintegration of Soviet, unification of Germany, burgeoning of EU); however, there is still a fresh view on the ambivalent relations between Eu and Russia.
2. To Asia, the matter inside them is strategic rivals of each other while this with America is efforts of understanding different cultures and ideologies. In contrast to Eu, Asian nations have never acknowledged a common danger and there exists no single homogeneous equilibrium.
* China: Americans think about concrete solutions to specific problems but the Chinese think stages of process that have no precise culmination. To Americans, Chinese leader seem polite but aloof and condescending. To the Chinese, Americans appear erratic and frivolous.
* Unlike China, Japan's culture doesn't so much seek to beguile foreigners, it seems to seal it off with the outsiders. China protects its essence by taming foreigners with Chinese culture. Japanese politics should be approached as a family business, in which PM cannot reach decisions by personal fiat but going through a long process of consulation inside their faction.
*Korea: The presence of American troops is a paradox. Were tensions to ease dramatically, its presence coukd become highly controversial; however, if they leave, it could lead to a quest for autonomous defense policies in Seoul and Tokyo and to the growth of nationalism in Japan, China, Korea. No one is eager for a rapid unification of Korea.
*India: On the surface, America and India appears to understand each other well, nevertheless cultural gap is still noted. India preserved its personality by segregating foreigners. They might bend to force, but it has prevailed by being all but impereable to alien culture.
1. To Europe, most things mentioned in the book was outdated (disintegration of Soviet, unification of Germany, burgeoning of EU); however, there is still a fresh view on the ambivalent relations between Eu and Russia.
2. To Asia, the matter inside them is strategic rivals of each other while this with America is efforts of understanding different cultures and ideologies. In contrast to Eu, Asian nations have never acknowledged a common danger and there exists no single homogeneous equilibrium.
* China: Americans think about concrete solutions to specific problems but the Chinese think stages of process that have no precise culmination. To Americans, Chinese leader seem polite but aloof and condescending. To the Chinese, Americans appear erratic and frivolous.
* Unlike China, Japan's culture doesn't so much seek to beguile foreigners, it seems to seal it off with the outsiders. China protects its essence by taming foreigners with Chinese culture. Japanese politics should be approached as a family business, in which PM cannot reach decisions by personal fiat but going through a long process of consulation inside their faction.
*Korea: The presence of American troops is a paradox. Were tensions to ease dramatically, its presence coukd become highly controversial; however, if they leave, it could lead to a quest for autonomous defense policies in Seoul and Tokyo and to the growth of nationalism in Japan, China, Korea. No one is eager for a rapid unification of Korea.
*India: On the surface, America and India appears to understand each other well, nevertheless cultural gap is still noted. India preserved its personality by segregating foreigners. They might bend to force, but it has prevailed by being all but impereable to alien culture.
June 5, 2011
It was very, well, weak.
The parallels he established between 17th century Europe, the Middle East, 19th century Europe and the Far East, respectively, were simply impeccable. It illustrated the nature of each conflict very well, and brought to light solutions that were actually pretty obvious, but no one would have thought of if it wasn't for the comparisons he made. An egg of Columbus kinda thing.
But that's about all I found remarkable about it. That's quite a weighty statement, I know, but I was seriously surprised at how short-sighted he proved to be on other matters, such as the potential development of a stronger EU-US relation, or how to deal with the new Russia. And the course of action he recommended on Irak? Invasion! How inefficient is that? Pitting Irak against Iran would be much more effective, and far less costly. I know it seems hard, but I'm convinced it was doable (there is a precedent, after all).
Not that I think they SHOULD have done that, all I am saying it that, from a purely amoral point of view, that would have been considerably more efficient.
I've always liked his completely amoral approach to diplomacy, and I, well, I admire the man. I believe he's the Metternich, the Castleborough, the Bismarck of our era. So it was very shocking for me to see that his mind-set is, apparently, still stuck in the 20th century. National interests are irrelevant, or at least viable to be considered secondary, in an era of commonwealths. The time of the countries, even the super-countries, is over. Inter-connectivity is much more important than it was before, and that should be taken into account when defining the overall diplomatic strategy you're going to follow. Kissinger mentions the Internet, of course, but he passively dismisses its impact.
Aaaah, I got carried away. Point is, it is a good book, if you're looking for a brilliant, if a little obsolete, view of the diplomatic situation of the world today.
The parallels he established between 17th century Europe, the Middle East, 19th century Europe and the Far East, respectively, were simply impeccable. It illustrated the nature of each conflict very well, and brought to light solutions that were actually pretty obvious, but no one would have thought of if it wasn't for the comparisons he made. An egg of Columbus kinda thing.
But that's about all I found remarkable about it. That's quite a weighty statement, I know, but I was seriously surprised at how short-sighted he proved to be on other matters, such as the potential development of a stronger EU-US relation, or how to deal with the new Russia. And the course of action he recommended on Irak? Invasion! How inefficient is that? Pitting Irak against Iran would be much more effective, and far less costly. I know it seems hard, but I'm convinced it was doable (there is a precedent, after all).
Not that I think they SHOULD have done that, all I am saying it that, from a purely amoral point of view, that would have been considerably more efficient.
I've always liked his completely amoral approach to diplomacy, and I, well, I admire the man. I believe he's the Metternich, the Castleborough, the Bismarck of our era. So it was very shocking for me to see that his mind-set is, apparently, still stuck in the 20th century. National interests are irrelevant, or at least viable to be considered secondary, in an era of commonwealths. The time of the countries, even the super-countries, is over. Inter-connectivity is much more important than it was before, and that should be taken into account when defining the overall diplomatic strategy you're going to follow. Kissinger mentions the Internet, of course, but he passively dismisses its impact.
Aaaah, I got carried away. Point is, it is a good book, if you're looking for a brilliant, if a little obsolete, view of the diplomatic situation of the world today.
January 14, 2026
For a foreigner whose first language is not English, it was quite difficult to read, but very interesting—especially if you have a strong background in geopolitics. His thoughts were actually quite deep, just written in a somewhat complex diplomatic language. Kissinger was a very famous American diplomat, politician, and Nobel Prize winner, and this book also reveals much about him and his worldview. I would highlight a few important passages that particularly caught my attention:
“Deng said to me six months after the suppression of the Tiananmen Square revolt, ‘But if stability had been lost, it would have taken a generation to restore it.’”
“Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America: give them the love of equality and of freedom; but God Himself gave them the means of remaining equal and free by placing them upon a boundless continent.”
“Success will depend on gradual progress in politics, economics, strategy, and society, while saving resources by knowing what is necessary, optional, or impossible.”
“Good foreign policy needs more than technical skill. Great leaders succeed through intuition and vision, not just data.”
“The information age is a major revolution, like the invention of printing. Printing spread ideas and helped science and nation-states grow, but it also caused centuries of upheaval.”
“U.S. hegemony is unsustainable, since it would cause isolation and decline, as history shows with past empires. American leadership will remain strong in the near future, but its long-term role depends on how it uses its power.”
“Deng said to me six months after the suppression of the Tiananmen Square revolt, ‘But if stability had been lost, it would have taken a generation to restore it.’”
“Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America: give them the love of equality and of freedom; but God Himself gave them the means of remaining equal and free by placing them upon a boundless continent.”
“Success will depend on gradual progress in politics, economics, strategy, and society, while saving resources by knowing what is necessary, optional, or impossible.”
“Good foreign policy needs more than technical skill. Great leaders succeed through intuition and vision, not just data.”
“The information age is a major revolution, like the invention of printing. Printing spread ideas and helped science and nation-states grow, but it also caused centuries of upheaval.”
“U.S. hegemony is unsustainable, since it would cause isolation and decline, as history shows with past empires. American leadership will remain strong in the near future, but its long-term role depends on how it uses its power.”
November 7, 2017
Kissinger provides a good overview of global political history alongside his opinions regarding that history and possibilities for the future. In particular, his overview of said history from the conclusion of the Cold War to 2001 is insightful, concise, and enjoyable.
The historical overviews give way to the final two chapters (The Politics of Globalization; Peace and Justice) where the author presents thoughtful assessments on several topics within each chapter’s theme. His ideas regarding humanitarian intervention and universal jurisdiction were especially interesting. The “Conclusion” (Information and Knowledge) which was enjoyable seemed disjointed from the rest of the book.
Overall, Does America Need a Foreign Policy is good. I would recommend it with the caveat that the author’s bias must be acknowledged. Overt at times, subtle at others, but it is there. The bias should not detract from the beneficial overviews or the intelligently crafted insights and arguments that Kissinger makes, but it does need to be acknowledged.
The historical overviews give way to the final two chapters (The Politics of Globalization; Peace and Justice) where the author presents thoughtful assessments on several topics within each chapter’s theme. His ideas regarding humanitarian intervention and universal jurisdiction were especially interesting. The “Conclusion” (Information and Knowledge) which was enjoyable seemed disjointed from the rest of the book.
Overall, Does America Need a Foreign Policy is good. I would recommend it with the caveat that the author’s bias must be acknowledged. Overt at times, subtle at others, but it is there. The bias should not detract from the beneficial overviews or the intelligently crafted insights and arguments that Kissinger makes, but it does need to be acknowledged.
August 17, 2012
Not as good as his early work "Diplomacy" but still an interesting and insightful read. You can almost feel Kissinger straining to try to incorporate "humanitarian" goals in foreign policy into his much more traditional realpolitik views. He definitely is not a fan of the Clinton foreign policy and made some pretty accurate predictions about our post-9/11 involvement.
December 1, 2023
Publishers Weekly
Former Secretary of State Kissinger ambitiously undertakes herein the total revamping of U.S. foreign policy. This is necessary, he contends, because even though the U.S. is enjoying an unprecedented preeminence, it lacks "a long-range approach to a world in transition."
Recent U.S. foreign policy, he says, has become dangerously ad hoc, a case-by-case response to challenges as they occur. Needed instead is "ideological subtlety and long-range strategy," which Kissinger provides.
Chapter by chapter, he analyzes the broad challenges facing the U.S. and the world, from globalization and its attendant promises and disruptions (he warns that globalization has enriched many and impoverished and dislocated many others) to humanitarian intervention from Somalia to Kosovo.
In other chapters he offers recommendations on how the U.S. should proceed in various areas of the world: Europe, the Western Hemisphere, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
Kissinger's point is that each region is unique and thus so should be U.S. foreign policy toward them.
Our alliance with Europe, for example, is the bedrock of Kissinger's U.S. foreign policy; we must make sure, he warns, that the European Community remains a political partner, not a competitor.
While not all will agree with his findings he is, for instance, quite skeptical about humanitarian intervention it is a pleasure to experience a first-class mind subtly explaining in an accessible way the immense intricacies of modern U.S. foreign policy.
Forecast: Given the author's prominence, this is bound to get major media attention and to spark debate, fueled by national advertising and publicity and a four-city author tour.
........
Amazone
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.
---
I felt his chapter on Europe was dry but he makes up for it with his chapter on Asia. His thoughts on China, Taiwan, and India to me were the most interesting of the book.
---
We can argue how to handle Russia, Brazil, Israel, China, South Africa all day. But we should all look beyond Kissingers specifics, the guy knows his stuff but I agree his specifics are open for debate.
But what we can all agree on, what I think Kissinger is calling for is a foreign policy that is thought out and serves the best interest of the US around the world and not a foreign policy based on CNNY polls and media spin.
Again, not a light read. Not the most exciting read. But an informative and thought provoking read.
---
I am wondering why Dr. Henry Kissinger hasn't been asked on any of the news broadcasts for his opinion. He has a very unique perspective. I know many don't like him, but I respect (even when I disagree with) him.
---
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.
---
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.
---
I was stunned at the understanding and insight about political, historical, cultural environment of three countries of Northeast Asia - China - Korea - Japan. Mr. Kissinger provided a very interesting viewpoint for the pressing concern that makes us, Koreans suffer - the Confucianism. It is worth to read.
March 19, 2021
Obviously his expertise in the area of American and global politics is unparalleled, no one apart from maybe J.Edgar Hoover has spent more time in the corridors of power. This makes his analysis of the post 9/11 period impeccable and in the whole I found myself in agreement. What I find staggering in its ignorance is his removal of American intervention in creating the chaos which he tries to unravel. To describe the turmoil of South American politics as their own doing is a remarkable piece of mental gymnastics that ignores the constant election rigging and political assassinations which America furthered to support genocidal regimes. When describing the Israeli/Palestine struggle he assures us that Israel isnt capable of apartheid, which to say the least, is a gross miscalculation if not outright lie. He mentions nothing of his own involvement in population control in Asia which inspired the Chinese birth policy and of the enforced sterilisation programs in the regions. I find him to be very much like the centrist ideologues who believe in their own views so fervently that they have very little relation to the real world. Take with a pinch of salt I'd advise.
April 9, 2023
Does America Need a Foreign Policy was published shortly before the events of 9/11. Although not its purpose this book from an expert in foreign policy looks at what the 21st Century of American Diplomacy might have been had 9/11 not occurred. This book looks at the United States in a unipolar world where the dominant super power has hegemony which does not mean unlimited ability to do what it wants diplomacy. The centralization of Europe under the EU, the potential rise of Russia, the emergence of China and India are all discussed in detail in this book. Each chapter takes a look at a different part of the world. Unfortunately for Kissinger this book was made irrelevant almost after it was published. It is useful as a study of what might have been but otherwise not much relevance in today’s diplomatic calculations or studies.
September 24, 2018
I have many reservations about Dr. Kissinger's roll in American history, but did find myself enjoying this book. Kissinger is probably one of the smartest people to ever hold high office in the US and it shows in his writing and analysis. I was surprised to find him skeptical about neoliberal economic intervention in the developing world, and his candidness regarding the pitfalls of direct military intervention.
This book was written before 9/11 attacks. I am interested in reading something more recent from him to see how those events have altered his perspective.
This book was written before 9/11 attacks. I am interested in reading something more recent from him to see how those events have altered his perspective.
February 19, 2023
The book was interesting but ponderous. Not in size but style. Being twenty years old kind of kills the relevancy of most of the discussion. Kissinger writes like he talks, so I found myself drifting and losing concentration in many chapters. The final chapter, Peace and Justice, was the most interesting part of the book. He seems to equate foreign policy and economics as equal parts to global relations. All discussion seems to find its way back to that main premise. If this is indicative of Kissinger's writing style it's probably the last I will attempt.
July 1, 2018
The significant obsolescence of this book as in 2018 should humble anyone, pundits or not, who attempts to predict future.
However it is equally important not to be arrogant and take satisfaction when one is judging from hindsight, subconsciously or consciously.
Principles discussed in this book are forever true. The different are applications and contexts, as for every field.
Thus I emphasize, Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
However it is equally important not to be arrogant and take satisfaction when one is judging from hindsight, subconsciously or consciously.
Principles discussed in this book are forever true. The different are applications and contexts, as for every field.
Thus I emphasize, Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
November 25, 2020
Enjoyed the exploration of early American political schools of thought. Dividing them into the Roosevelt and Wilson branches and tracing those influences on preceding and subsequent statesmen was interesting.
Significant overlap with his book World Order.
Significant overlap with his book World Order.
April 19, 2025
Interesting but not mind blowing. Kissinger does not have the most exciting writing style. It is interesting though to see what he predicted and said would be important in the future, which is now because he wrote this book 25 years ago. He was right about a lot.
August 6, 2019
فصل اول رو خوندم و قسمتی که درباره ایران بود
نویسنده در سال ۲۰۰۱ برای یک قرن پیش رو سیاست خارجی امریکا رو توصیف کرده
در قسمت مربوط به ایران حتی چالش های فعلی امریکا و ایران هم ذکر شده
نویسنده در سال ۲۰۰۱ برای یک قرن پیش رو سیاست خارجی امریکا رو توصیف کرده
در قسمت مربوط به ایران حتی چالش های فعلی امریکا و ایران هم ذکر شده
April 21, 2020
Great explanation of things and a very interesting subject.
June 13, 2020
Classic Kissinger.
February 16, 2021
Man hat mehr von ihm erwartet
January 28, 2015
عنوان الكتاب يختصر لحد كبير محتواه , والسؤال بحد ذاته فيه الكثير من المفارقة ! , ففي البداية يوضح كيسنجر كيف أن الحملات الانتخابية لرؤساء الولايات المتحدة المتعاقبين تعتمد بشكل رئيسي على مخططاتهم وسياساتهم الداخلية حيث لا يكترث معظم الشعب الأمريكي للسياسات الخارجية للدولة . ومع التقدم بقراءة الكتاب يتوضح لك أن السياسة الخارجية تشغل حيزاً كبيراً من اهتمام الرؤساء أثناء فترة توليهم للحكم .
مما يثير الإعجاب في هذا الكتاب هو كيف يفنّد كيسنجر العالم دولة دولة , و منطقة منطقة . ويكتب عن رؤيته للسياسة المناسبة الواجب اتباعها من قبل الولايات المتحدة في تلك المنطقة بتفاصيل أحياناً قد تخفى عن سياسيي تلك المنطقة بحد ذاتهم .
باختصار يلخص الكتاب كيف تُدار المؤسسات السياسية في الدول العظمى كالولايات المتحدة حيث ترسَم السياسة والاستراتيجية الخارجية للدولة على أسس عالمية و تُوضع خطط لعدة سنوات قادمة .
مما يثير الإعجاب في هذا الكتاب هو كيف يفنّد كيسنجر العالم دولة دولة , و منطقة منطقة . ويكتب عن رؤيته للسياسة المناسبة الواجب اتباعها من قبل الولايات المتحدة في تلك المنطقة بتفاصيل أحياناً قد تخفى عن سياسيي تلك المنطقة بحد ذاتهم .
باختصار يلخص الكتاب كيف تُدار المؤسسات السياسية في الدول العظمى كالولايات المتحدة حيث ترسَم السياسة والاستراتيجية الخارجية للدولة على أسس عالمية و تُوضع خطط لعدة سنوات قادمة .
June 2, 2008
Kissinger gives a tour d'horizon of the geo-political chessboard of different regions of the world, and how America should deal with them.
Kissinger's approach is -- as is his style -- Bismarckian realist. His central frame of reference is that of Europe, area to which he first applied his rigorous study.
One way to judge the quality of a book on geopolitics is its staying power. Written in 2001, this work passes the test with flying colors. Globalization may have since remade the economic landscape, yet geo-politically the contents of the book holds up very well. This work could have been written yesterday to prepare the next American president for what he (or she) is to expect in facing the world.
Kissinger's approach is -- as is his style -- Bismarckian realist. His central frame of reference is that of Europe, area to which he first applied his rigorous study.
One way to judge the quality of a book on geopolitics is its staying power. Written in 2001, this work passes the test with flying colors. Globalization may have since remade the economic landscape, yet geo-politically the contents of the book holds up very well. This work could have been written yesterday to prepare the next American president for what he (or she) is to expect in facing the world.
March 17, 2011
This is a fantastic primmer on the interrelationships between countries and peoples. Kissinger brings the reader through the histories of the different regions of the planet, spanning time and helping the reader understand how country borders have been defined over time and how they relate with the different cultures and religions in those regions. He also explores the expanding global economy and the interrelationships across the various regions as they exist today. He threads all of this together with a basic economic outloook and describes why all of this is relevant to America as a world power. This book can be dry at times, but if you are interested in learning a but about history and why America needs to play in the global economy, this is the book for you.
December 20, 2014
يحتوي هذا الكتاب التوصيفات "الامريكية" للملفات الدولية، ووصفات التعاطي مع تلك الملفات. ابتداءا من اوروبا مرورا بالناتو وروسيا. وملف امريكا الجنوبية الراكد نسبيا. وملف اسيا الهادئ نسبيا برغم ثقل الصين والهند واليابان. وملف الشرق الاوسط الملتهب والمتغير. وملف افريقيا المغضوض الطرف عنه.
بعض الصفحات استقراء للمستقبل، وبعضه قراءة في تاريخ الامم، وبعضها توصيف لحاظر بات ماضيا وتاريخا لحقبة ما بعد ٢٠٠١.
العالم تغير كثيرا .. وما كان يؤرق قادته في مطلع القرن بسيط جدا بالنسبة لما يدور اليوم في ارجاء المعمورة .. ح تى النظام الدولي لم يعد ذاك الذي كان قائما قبل ١٠ سنوات.
الاربعون صفحة الاخيرة دروس لكل لرجال السياسة والقادة.
بعض الصفحات استقراء للمستقبل، وبعضه قراءة في تاريخ الامم، وبعضها توصيف لحاظر بات ماضيا وتاريخا لحقبة ما بعد ٢٠٠١.
العالم تغير كثيرا .. وما كان يؤرق قادته في مطلع القرن بسيط جدا بالنسبة لما يدور اليوم في ارجاء المعمورة .. ح تى النظام الدولي لم يعد ذاك الذي كان قائما قبل ١٠ سنوات.
الاربعون صفحة الاخيرة دروس لكل لرجال السياسة والقادة.
March 30, 2011
If you really want to know his on the world than read this book and his book Diplomacy. Lengthy but insightful perspectives on the post-nuclear world, détente, and globalization. A brilliant man's view without a lot of the ego that is ever-present in his memoirs.
This was his last book before 9/11 and as such gives a unique insight into how he viewed the world at the end of the Clinton administration. His views and opinions on the ME are striking; in that, they are playing out similar to how he predicted in this book.
This was his last book before 9/11 and as such gives a unique insight into how he viewed the world at the end of the Clinton administration. His views and opinions on the ME are striking; in that, they are playing out similar to how he predicted in this book.
September 10, 2008
This is a very easy read. Kissinger is one of America's most famous diplomats and explains well what our foreign policy goals should be and the history of why. He easily goes through each of the world democracies: America & Europe, The western hemisphere, Asia, The Middle East & Africa. It is a very intricate and difficult board game everyone plays in their attempt to keep peace and safety around the globe.
Great book!
Great book!
August 6, 2011
Well, if I wanna write a review I need another one or two books to do so. The book is thorough, includes almost every single thing that happened during the past thirty years. It also recorded historical events and stuff to back it up! Although Mr. Henry used fancy vocabs and various types of structures of sentences, but it was easy to understand, to learn a particular concept such as why some contries are using foreign policy as a reflect to their domestic policies...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews