counter create hit Does America Need a Foreign Policy?: Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

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

Availability: Ready to download

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 Unite 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.


Compare
Ads Banner

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 Unite 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.

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

  1. 5 out of 5

    Owlseyes

    "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 foreig "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...

  2. 4 out of 5

    Trish

    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 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.) “…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.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Jenn "JR"

    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, 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 in 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, 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...

  4. 5 out of 5

    Luís C.

    This book is divided in seven chapters: 1ST. America at the Apex: Empire or Leader? These particular chapter talks of the environment as changing of the entire world,and also the challenge America as to confront. 2ND. America & Europe: The World of Democracies I It talks of the changes of the Atlantic,as also of the European Relationships.The Future of Europe & Atlantic integration & cooperation in his meaning.The European Military Crisis as a strategic doctrine: The missile cases and The Atlantic This book is divided in seven chapters: 1ST. America at the Apex: Empire or Leader? These particular chapter talks of the environment as changing of the entire world,and also the challenge America as to confront. 2ND. America & Europe: The World of Democracies I It talks of the changes of the Atlantic,as also of the European Relationships.The Future of Europe & Atlantic integration & cooperation in his meaning.The European Military Crisis as a strategic doctrine: The missile cases and The Atlantic Alliance.The Russian Relations.A New Structure in Atlantic Relations. 3RD. The Western Atmosphere: The World of Democracies II Revolution in this Area.The New Challenges this area traverses.The Colombia Plan.The Promises of this area experiments.NAFTA & MERCOSUR. 4TH. Asia.The World of Equilibrium. The complexity geopolitical of Asia.Japan & Korean's relations.China Relations:The Historical & Strategic Context.Taiwan & China.India. 5TH. The Middle East & Africa: Worlds in Transition. The Arab-Israeli Conflict.America & the Gulf.Iraq.Iran.Whither Africa.The African Environment.The African Policy. 6TH. The Politics & Globalization. Economics & Politics.Crisis Management & the International Monetary Fund.Political Evolution & Globalization. 7TH. Chapter and last. Peace & Justice The American Tradition.Roosevelt & Wilson.The New Interventionism.Humanitarian Intervention & the National Interest: Four Principles.Humanitarian Intervention & the Context of History.Universal Jurisdiction. .............................................................................. This is not a good beginning to read Kissinger's books,since these stories are passed in the reign of Clinton's presidency.More or less in the time of the bombing attacks to the Twin Towers,in 2001.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Rodrigo

    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 w 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.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Ali Kabalan

    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 الخزان 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...

  7. 5 out of 5

    Quỳnh Nguyễn

    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, Ame 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.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Pat

    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 hum 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.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Nathan Oliver

    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 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.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Publius

    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.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Ivan

    Great explanation of things and a very interesting subject.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Shahab

    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

  13. 5 out of 5

    Mohammad Tahrani

    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 ا 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 .

  14. 5 out of 5

    Scot Berkey

    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 toget 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.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Tian Chen

    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 landsca 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.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Ahmad Abdulsattar

    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 المعمو 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.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Bryan

    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 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.

  18. 5 out of 5

    BBBTerri

    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! 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!

  19. 5 out of 5

    Mustafa Basree

    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...

  20. 5 out of 5

    Andrew

    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.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Ernie

    Flat out must read for anyone who cares about the US foreign policy and why we spend billions. Just a fascinating book to see how in a global economy how he puts it all together and comes full circle. This is a book to read and re-read to really appreciate.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Bistra Ivanova

    може би също интересна, но четена набързо и отново за изпит все пак кисинджър е малко досаден с твърде позитивното си отношение към сащ - нарича ги най-значимата нация в историята на човечеството, ей!

  23. 5 out of 5

    Kash

    a tad old for 2011 but some arguments are still relevant

  24. 4 out of 5

    Steve M

    Kissinger provides the blueprint for America's priorities in the future. Regardless of your personal opinion of Kissinger, when he talks diplomacy you listen.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Vincent

    2005?

  26. 5 out of 5

    Brenden

    Does America Need a Foreign Policy? : Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century by Henry Kissinger (2001)

  27. 5 out of 5

    Steve J

    While I marked it as read, I couldn't make it past the first 20 pages. I got mired down in the story line complexity and vocabulary.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Clare Tanner

    Personally, I love all of Kissinger's works because his writing style is fluid. This book was no different.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Leo

    Though published right before the attacks of 9/11 it is still a very good read a very insightful on the last 40 years of the USA's foreign policy and in which direction HK feels it should take.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Ray

    I was willing, and tried to absorb it, but it was just too dry. Seemed to have more generalizations than specifics. No timely advice here.

  31. 4 out of 5

    Jay Verhorevoort

  32. 4 out of 5

    Philipp

  33. 4 out of 5

    Ryan Fooster

  34. 4 out of 5

    Chris

  35. 5 out of 5

    Gpressl

  36. 4 out of 5

    Erwin

  37. 4 out of 5

    Rory

  38. 4 out of 5

    Barry Lopez

  39. 4 out of 5

    John Port

  40. 5 out of 5

    Aditya Mittal

  41. 4 out of 5

    Phillip Newell

  42. 4 out of 5

    Jon

  43. 5 out of 5

    Rajeev Purnaiya

  44. 4 out of 5

    ST

  45. 5 out of 5

    Mason

  46. 5 out of 5

    Miguel Angel

  47. 4 out of 5

    Bernard Van Dycke

  48. 4 out of 5

    Regina Verdeschi

  49. 5 out of 5

    Sherif Kamel

  50. 4 out of 5

    Danielle

  51. 5 out of 5

    Jeromy Rose

  52. 5 out of 5

    Vishal

  53. 5 out of 5

    Annie Yuliyanti

  54. 5 out of 5

    Neal

  55. 5 out of 5

    Kate

    Informative

  56. 5 out of 5

    Ryan

  57. 5 out of 5

    Melissa

  58. 5 out of 5

    Daniel

  59. 5 out of 5

    Jameson

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.