A New world Order

 

So what is this “New World Order”?  I am not inclined to give much credit to the boundless conspiracy theories but they do make for some humorous anecdotes (see Simpson’s “Stonecutter’s Song”).

Seriously though what would Kissinger say now, almost 20 years after the publication of this book, about the New World Order.  There is an inescabably Eurocentric focus to his analysis of the periods of various World Orders, from the Peace of Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna.  What did these conceptions mean to the populations of Southeast Asia, Africa or the Americas?  Not much, thank you.  If that is the case then, if Kissinger is really talking about European hegemony, and I think we could safely argue that the United States is a product of that, then is our current embroilment in the “war on terror” really much of a suprise?

As we conquered the west in the euphamism of “manifest destiny” the native American’s pushed back but could not prevail.  As “we”, meaning the European history and culture of representative democracy, seperation of church and state and free market systems, push into all corners of the globe,  is it really suprising that some are pushing back?  Is it suprising that some have acquired the means to really hurt us?   Will 9/11 be regarded as a sort of modern battle of little bighorn?  Was the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan like the Spanish retreat from the great Pueblo Revollt of 1680? Are the events in Ukraine and North Korea a Cold War 2.0?

By 2110 at least one other “New World Order” will have emerged by then according to Kissinger’s rubric, what will the students of this classroom refer to our time as? Will it indeed be, “the end of history” as we read about last week?  What do you think?

 

One Response to “A New world Order”

  1. Nick Lee says:

    I enjoyed the ending of Diplomacy and the explanation of what he thinks lies ahead. It’s interesting how he thinks the next dominating areas of land could be a united Europe or Asia, even though that seems unlikely now. He overlooked the issues of the Middle East and the incredibly complicated conflicts that are going on there. And instead of the balance-of-power that Kissinger thinks will be necessary in the following years, we’re still in an unpopular war that hasn’t been in our interest for years now. Unless we’re still there for the oil- I’m not sure. I agree with Kissinger that the U.S. is not the superpower that it was once considered to be during the Cold War era, but it’s still one of the most influential countries today. I still feel like we’re in the recovery phase after the Cold War without changing the main focus of U.S. foreign policy, but it’ll hopefully change to the “new world order” that’s to come.

Leave a Reply