Friday, August 29, 2014

Henry Kissinger- The Assembly of a New World Order

Just published today by WSJ
The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis
 Henry Kissinger
Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.
Our world as a rubiks cube? How very arrogant of the powers that shouldn't be to represent our planet in this manner

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.
This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.
First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

—Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book "World Order," to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

25 comments:

  1. Please read this. And tell me what thoughts enter your mind
    thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.oldbookillustrations.com/gallery/scenes/864/gallows-864.jpg

      Delete
  2. My thoughts? The unmitigated horsecrap of an unrepentant war criminal that is going to the grave trying to shovel more deflective/obfuscating nonsense at the peons.

    Oh, HK, so it just took you - what? - 50+ freaking years and the destroyed lives of how many MILLIONS of people before you've supposedly come to the conclusion that the US needs to recognize "the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security"?!!!! Bull Effing Crap. Save it for your boy toys.

    Rot in hell you murderous POS!!! Nothing you can try and say now is going to mitigate your place in history as a murderous war criminal and nothing you can try and say now should be taken by people to believe that the power elite have all of a sudden changed their spots especially as we see before our very eyes the same globalist plans carrying on apace.

    If these people weren't sociopaths I would say something about shame etc etc but once again HK shows the world that there is indeed NO REASON to even attempt to speak with these inhuman monsters as they have absolutely ZERO grasp of anything resembling the reality of mankind.

    HK's is really gonna try and "good cop" us, now? Holy crap.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To bad he did not think of it this way before bombing Cambodia in 69.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My first reaction was to check how old he is. 91 in May. How much longer can he can continue to contribute to the NWO blueprint?

    I also noted the original name of his ancestors in Germany. Lob (Loeb).

    My impression of the article was that is pure waffle. It is ironic, or not, that he begins by listing US made crises and potential crises, then moves later to repeat the supposedly special democracy and freedom loving nature of the United States. Sick bag please.

    He appears to have no answers and I feel that the old fossil is aware that he has failed in his mission to create a new world order in his lifetime.

    When I see Henry I always think of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who compared to Kissinger is a spring chicken at 85. Do the two men get on? Is there a rivalry? There certainly appeared to be one in the early seventies.

    Brzezinski has probably been more influential in recent years, especially under Obama. He hates Russia with a vengeance, although it doesn't seem that Obama has taken much heed of him there (just consider for a moment mad dog McCain or Killery Klinton in the Whitehouse and Obama really doesn't seem so bad after all.

    Is Kissinger's downbeat essay a criticism of Brzezinski?

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  5. This fossilized curse upon humanity has been touted as a realpolitiker throughout his career. Practical realpolitik requires a sober acceptance of a state's limitations, as much as it's aspirations. Where has this sick joker been for the past 25 years?
    This reads like a guilty child's ambiguous confession - it isn't that America has done anything wrong, but rather the rest of the world that has turned sour!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Penny,

    But my comment in the Ukraine article was pretty buried and it isn't every day that 5 planes get shot down, which appears to be the case.

    "The 4 SU-25s have been added to Military Marker, plus an AN something, transport aircraft.

    The SU-25s are shown in pairs, two south of Donetsk near Novokaterinovka and two more a little further south. The AN transport plane was shot down close to Ilovaisk.

    If you can't find them, change the period to today's date.

    Poroshenko had stated that there was secret plan for the release of the boilers. Apparently this consisted of increased air support.

    So much for that then.

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that was a big fail

      Friday, August 29
      17:37 GMT:

      http://rt.com/news/eastern-ukraine-army-operation-680/

      The Donetsk militia has shot down four of the Ukrainian armed forces’ Su-25 planes, the Donetsk People’s Republic HQ said in a statement. Sixty-five Ukrainian military personnel have been killed and wounded and three residential areas have been freed by self-defense forces, the statement said.

      Delete
  7. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/britain-raises-its-terrorism-threat-level-to-severe/article20275050/'

    Britain raises it's terrorism threat level to severe- We got ourselves a hard sell campaign going on!

    ReplyDelete
  8. In the book the mighty wurlitzer it was mentioned that Henry Kissinger was knows as Henry AssKissinger- funny!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did come out from the Rockefeller clan and we all know how fund they are. Tri-Lateral Commission controlling the world one country at a time.

      Delete
  9. First thanks for your input everyone
    Here is my impression of Kissinger and yes, he is a war criminal

    The whole piece is written from the position of an arrogant elitist who is disappointed that no one wants to accept all the generosity, wonderfulness, sunshine & lollipops the anglo american banker empire has brought to the world

    As if that is what has been brought to pass?!

    In the opening paragraph he mentions the disintegration of Libya/Syria etc as if it just randomly happened- it's both absurd and obscene

    Then when he goes on about America- it just reinforcing the myth of american exceptionalism which is the same as israeli entitlement

    Then this- " A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance"
    The idea of .... Not the reality of, just the idea of- wow
    What nonsense!

    "The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order."

    He is still pushing the one world order for the globe and lamenting that the nation state interferes with that- GOOD!

    The nation states he cites are in particular Russia and China

    He then goes on with the multinational/ global banking cartel and their tentacles.

    "The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state"

    He is suggesting very strongly that all nation states need to go in order that the economic system which has gone global can prey on every nation and all it's inhabitants without worrying itself over petty nationalistic concerns


    "The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations'

    HK presents this either/or scenario as if there are no other possibilities
    Prosperity (for who?) is not dependent on globalization
    Perhaps it is for banking and other psycho scum, but, for most of us- globalization isn't necessary, it just isn't-
    The communications aspect of it is wonderful, but, my amenities are all local to me and I prefer it that way- going out of my way to buy from locals to sustain my own home turf- because if the shit hits the fan we all need our local resources, we don't need anything globally because it is impractical

    HK is selling the psycho predator pipedream and not everyone wants it, he just can't accept it
    And there are many good reasons why others don't want that bullshit
    and I can spell out more reasons why I don't agree with it either

    Cripes I prefer, small local government and community based/appropriate solutions because that's more human.

    Anyway, long enough- HK just tries to dazzle us with his bullshit as he speaks from a position of authority, that I don't recognize!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

      The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.


      The point here is that there are losers. And the "international order" has no solution for them, except continued losing. No wonder there is a political reaction.

      And the problem with HK's op-ed is he doesnt propose a remedy for the losers, either. He just has non-concrete ideas for individual dignity and participatory governance of states, states that are powerless against global financial/economic predation. ----ess emm

      Delete
  10. http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2014/08/un-security-council-meeting-regarding.html?showComment=1409344492221#c1648142443210517045

    john and anthony and Original Paul left some good comments in that thread
    don't want anyone to miss them

    ReplyDelete
  11. Like Obama (in practice), Kissinger is a Manifest Destiny advocate. Manifest Destiny operates under the unpleasant pretense that America knows what's best for everyone in the world (Manifest Destiny declares the right to impose at will!), while its real purpose is to enable Multinational (American company with offshore tax haven) Corporations to rape, pillage and plunder any and all resources that can be stolen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh no Heinz....you're not getting out that easy.

    There is always a price to pay.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey All

    Moderation is turned back on. So, I will let comments through tomorrow
    sorry folks, feel free to leav'em, they will get here
    good night ! And stay sharp, all of you :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I doubt these are kissin-the-grr's words.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kissinger is a genius and this is simply more wisdom from him. He has been proven right so many times and his disciples have contributed so much to the world that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

    God bless HK!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yah, he is an evil genius-
      And that diatribe isn't wisdom
      It's spin, from a war criminal

      Delete
  16. http://rt.com/news/183864-ukraine-european-volunteers-fighting/

    It's not looking good for Amerika Nazis

    ReplyDelete
  17. O?T but Penny looks like Canada could be moving to an Amerikan health care system and we all know how well that works. Click on link, sorry.

    http://www.correntewire.com/dr_brian_day_asshole_and_wannabe_killer_owner_of_the_for_profit_cambie_surgery_centre_launches_legal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi jo

      we have been moving that way for some time now
      I wish my fellow Canadians would wake up to that fact- we have been slowly boiling in the post for a while now, I will look at the link thanks

      Delete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS