Henry KissingerCritiques

Last book from Henry Kissinger, doyen of international statecraft, and one of the most written about men in the 20th century. Average book at best, particularly when compared to a masterpiece like Diplomacy, and even the excellent (and still recent) On China. Plodding, uninspiring, style, its hard to believe that Leadership it was written by the same man, Well, age catches us all, even Henry K. A flawed Great Man, or a man greatly flawed? I go for the former. RIP.

As a summary on all open questions regarding AI and human society interactions and roles, this is relatively good book, but with some very deep issues and weird recommendations. Book is more on philosophical side, but again considering the subject this is expected.

Will this book open new horizons about AI, and make you think about it in a different way? Maybe, if this is first book on this subject you have read. Otherwise there is not much you can read here that was not mention in any of the previous works on AI published in last 2 or 3 years.

Authors' are showing possible effects of AI proliferation for various purposes - from educational, scientific, religious to military - and they constantly compare it with the previous scientific revolutions.

But I have a feeling that in all this rather philosophical approach to the topic they mix up things.
To name the few.

New chess AI (AlphaZero), and "revolution" in chess it introduced by playing in ways that surprised human players. I am not quite sure how is this a revolution - it is just definition of total-war and price one is ready to pay to defeat the enemy. Chess is one on one game and victory does not have effect on follow up games. Reason why players give value to rooks or queen or knights is because they allow for advanced movements that can change the situation in the field so they have greater values than peons (ever lasting, expendable, infantry). In general it does not matter if one wins chess game with only king and peon remaining or with 50% of forces - these loses do not transfer into follow up games. Inherently for human players there is a resistance to losing valuable pieces for the sake of the single game (it is considered waste because humans approach conflict not as a singular event but as a part of possible series of conflicts). For algorithm victory is all that matters, so everything that enables victory is a success (even if it means losing valuable assets). I do not know why is this seen as revolutionary - few people I know play these attrition chess games reducing the entire board to little more than peon combat with King acting as a cumbersome last line defender.
Now imagine situation where AI decides that catastrophe in the one own territory would be beneficial for war effort - what if some other enemy pops up with aggressive tendencies post-factum and surprises everyone? What is level of losses (military and economical) that is acceptable?

Second is talk about how, like in previous scientific revolutions, there will be people that will try to limit exposure of their children to AI systems and how this will affect the society in question.
What are we talking about here - did existence of home schooling or Amishes had any effect on scientific progress? Of course it did not because that progress is dictated on much higher political and state levels, unfortunately no longer at local community level.

Third is constant talk about how modern AIs can generate various texts, images and videos. Outside the development, where these elements play the role of indicating the progress and ability to mimic human like behavior - what exactly is gain here from the user perspective? No need to have somebody to assemble say briefings for various meetings? But how do you know that briefing is correct and wont create disaster? Or about images - DeviantArt showed that AI are basically meshing things together, synthesizing various elements and use feedback to decide is it good or not and then progress forward. But again what is the purpose of this type of artistic expression? Hey I have the best tool around? While I can imagine people being proud of auto generated images - hubris and stupidity go hand in hand - what exactly does that mean when one is judging a person and person's accomplishments? Seems very very shallow, dont you think. Also what does it mean to have AI "paint" a cat sitting at the piano? Does it mean AI know what piano and cat is? No, it is just technology demonstration - hey it can do it [giggle, giggle].

Fourth, AI will give us insight into things we are not aware about reality. In order to think about the reality around it, AI will need to have senses, not know existing concepts (set by us otherwise it will just reinterpret existing things) and be aware of its surroundings and itself (we are so away from this it is ridiculous) - otherwise what can it say that would be meaningful and different from what we already know? Say you give it senses and you put it into some beautiful valley surrounded by mountains, full of meadows, trees and wild animals. If it sees say the mountain snow peaks, how will it know (a) what is peak and (b) what is snow? If we tell it, then it is not something it will come to by itself - right? And if it does create new terms it will name it differently - what was the gain here then if we need to make do with new language and terms? If we expect that AI will discover new dimensions and new material structures - isn't this a little bit silly expectation? First it will use our knowledge as starting point. Without ability to know that something is missing, how will it know that it needs to look for something? We forget that very large number of discoveries were accidental (transistor anybody?), they happened by observing something completely different. How will AI know that some accident/materiel weakness or specificity is not failure in performance but might have different application in something completely unrelated field some time in the future? With every knowledge comes context but context is not summary of facts, it is experience and facts. Now imagine you need to teach something that cannot be bodily harmed about death? For us this is normal and more or less instinctual, but how can you explain what death is and that various means of losing life are not the same? And plan is to give huge amount of control to such entities?

Same applies to chemical/pharmaceutical industry - say AI delivers compounds that are OK from simulation point of view for various treatments. But lets say one or two generations after using the medication there are effects that are life altering (in a bad way - say these effects could not be foreseen before because full effect of these compounds could not be foreseen)? Are we to blame AI for this or our dependency on it? AI can only work from the starting point we give to it - if you could transfer AI 500 years back its usefulness would be 0 because initial knowledge would be very much limited. There is no magic bullet here. If you take AI and start teaching it theology - do people truly believe AI would end up with recommendation to establish secular states? Neither Newton nor many other great names in politics and science of the past were atheist or fighting for secular views of the world - what changed is society itself, more reliance on internal societal force (trade, and relations without influence of strong religious organizations). Its not like somebody came up and said, from Monday secular state! It is just set of circumstances that world ended up as it ended up - at some point there were multiple choices and one path was selected. Who can say proper path was chosen (in the long run) when compared to other options (whatever these might be, now lost to history). Trusting that machines would come to same conclusions is unrealistic.

Ideas of virtual realities and creations of virtual selves (again, for what purpose except escapism from the real world?) I find very disturbing. As a matter of fact for a lot of applications here I am not sure what would be the real world benefits, except using it for simulating oneself (but again, why?).

AI is tremendous tool as an advisor and knowledge base. It's use as a replacement for our own cognitive functions is idiocy (as we can see in current times, where everyone is trying to do multiple things at the same time, do not achieve anything in any of the fields and basically end up using high technology and access to tremendous amount of information for entertainment only - constant mention of movie recommendations as a high kick in use of AI is s-i-l-l-y to say the least). Using AI to help kids develop is OK, but doing that without touch with other humans (and even worse, encouraging such behavior because-you-know-technology) is for all means and purposes strike against the humanity.

AI development seems to be its own goal - we will create something that has its purposes (especially in governance and security), will become self-fulfilling prophecy (we need to have it because they might/will/could-be-that-they-think-about having it) and will become link to our everyday lives without giving an answer - why does it need to be part of everyday life for everyone? It is like with each cycle of technology progress humanity decides (or somebody decides in the name of humanity) to lose yet another part of it's knowledge and functions and replace it wiyh next shiny toy.

And this is where danger lies - if we get to the point where we trust something, not knowing the reasoning behind, and we trust it fully and without any doubt (even if we have doubt, we dont comment simply because we cannot reason against it because we do not know how decision was made, but regulators say it is OK (khm, khm)) isn't this fall back to times of religious zealotry, only thing being that humanity starts to worship deities it created and new clergy is science (lost completely as everyone else, but belonging to the elite)? Was not this a thing that so heavily divided society during epidemic? Only to have - with all events and hearings, especially those about modelling the progress of the disease that was cause of the major havoc - validated a lot of forbidden [by the regulators and truth-sayers/interpreters] chatter and findings?

Book tries to present itself as asking questions for a lot of very serious areas, but ends up enforcing the simplest (and most stupid) approach. Because you see, AI is here to stay so instead of thinking about it, everybody needs to rush to applying it all over the place without any idea what will follow.

And you would think people in decision making places actually learn from history.

Read June 2023

This was a review of the current state of AI and an overview of all the risks, potentials, problems, and ways to handle them. It didn't really provide specific answers to these questions but leaves everything open for the reader and for the future. Pretty interesting read.

Scrivere di AI è come scrivere di Gutenberg e dei suoi caratteri mobili quando lui cominciò ad usarli. Sono trascorsi cinque e più secoli e solo oggi possiamo dire cosa è sussesso. Con una differenza non secondaria: cinque secoli in soli cinquanta anni. Siamo ancora "work in progress" per capire cosa è successo, sta succedendo e cosa succederà. Non solo il "cosa" ma sopratutto il "come" tutto accadrà. Mentre leggevo il libro è passato a miglior vita uno degli autori, la mente, il cervello Henry con i suoi 100 anni. Sic transit, tutto scorre, come AI, appunto.

This is a remarkable book about leadership, as the title suggests, but it also covers a wide range of other topics, such as history, global political strategy, and the value of moral character on the international stage. Six twentieth-century leaders are chosen by Kissinger, the majority of whom he knew personally. His descriptions of each place focus on the legacies that the leaders of each nation left behind and the strategic vision that each leader worked to make a reality. Importantly, this vision would improve his or her people's standing in the eyes of the international community.

The book also highlights characteristics of leadership including personal qualities, limitations faced by each, divisiveness created by the changes sought, and the policy imprint that endured for each nation as a result of the leadership of each of the characters: Konrad Adenauer, Charles De Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Margaret Thatcher, and Lee Kuan Kew.

Kissinger's excellent wording and the manner he gave context and history for each of the stories impressed me. What Kissinger referred to as "deep literacy" was one fundamental idea that each leader shared. That is a mind that has been trained by intense reading, and through this reading and their particular experience, they have developed a profound awareness of and the capacity for concentration on the major problems they confronted. Each reader of his book can apply this lesson to their own situation. Overall, this book improved my comprehension of the world I live in and the contributions made by these six leaders.

Public fascination with artificial intelligence (AI) has only increased since this book was published in 2021. AI technologies, such as Chat GPT, have entered mainstream society and are being used in everyday business work. Publicly, however, leaders from philosophy, business, and government do not appear yet ready to grapple with the deep human questions involved. For example, when do we defer to AI bots over human agency? Are we ready for AI tools of war – both offensively and defensively? How will this affect how we view ourselves as creatures of reason? In this book, Henry Kissinger, a dean at MIT Daniel Huttenlocher, and the CEO of Google Eric Schmidt grapple with similar issues at length.

The depth of thought in this work cannot be contained in a short book review. Needless to say, they cover the foreseeable issues through a historical lens. AI technology seems to portend an epochal transition in human civilization, much like the advent of the printing press. A big distinction is between assistive AI, under human direction, and autonomous AI, which directs us. Also in this realm, the prospect of artificial general intelligence – that is, a sentient computer or android – looms large and frighteningly realistic.

AI can apply to many fields of human activity, like the military, healthcare, business, education, and scientific research. These examples and more are explicitly examined throughout this book. Not all are good, however. The prospect of AI weapons scares me deeply. United States policy is not to develop autonomous weapons, but what about other countries? Is there any plausible way to defend against such war? It seems inevitable that someone is going to try using such a weapon eventually, even if they are a rogue terrorist group. Do we have to go through another World War I to learn our lesson?

This book offers more intelligent questions than firm answers, and that is the authors’ apparent intention. We are at the early stages of mainstream adoption of this technology, and questions abound while certainty is scarce. As such, reading this socially focused book behooves anyone interested in seriously forecasting the repercussions on the world. I develop software for a living, on the micro-level, so a treatment like this on the macro-level is helpful to see coding’s impact down the road. My experience tells me that the issues raised are spot-on, and the treatment is even and balanced. As humans, are we ready for this? No, but reading this book will make a reader more prepared.

3.1

I purchased and read this book when it was first published. Having a deep interest in the Nixon administration, I wanted to get Kissinger's viewpoint, along with others. But I disliked and distrusted him then, and I feel the same way today. The only reason I rated the book at all is surprising and simple: Kissinger is a terrific writer, with a mastery of the language I can only envy. I've noticed this with several authors for whom English was a second (or third or fourth) language, such as Nabokov and Rushdie, and it only reaffirms my belief that, when all's said and done, English is the greatest language of them all.½

12/3/22

Dr Kissinger profiles significant leaders who talents, determination , brilliant assessment of the history of their countries and place in the world order and showing how their leadership and vision for the future was such a help to their countries growth and place in the world.

Although this book seems to be more a collection of disjointed chapters put together hastily by the three authors, I did enjoy the ways in which the developments and current state of AI were juxtaposed with the start of the first World War, Enlightenment thinking and philosophy in general.

I would have left out chapter 4 though as it is very poorly written and does not contribute much to the rest of the book.

About five years ago, I'd already enjoyed Kissinger's highly readable and lucid [b:World Order|20821140|World Order|Henry Kissinger|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1400873909l/20821140._SY75_.jpg|40167028], so I was curious to what insights he would be able to treat me in his 2011 book "On China". Despite the fact that it is obviously quite dated in the era of Trump (and certainly deserves an update now that the the relations between the US and China seem to be deteriorating), it provided clear insights into the workings, pitfalls, constraints and possibilities of navigating the difficulties of international relations in a world where global order is adrift.

It has certainly left me hungry for some other books in a similar vein in my "tsundoku" including [b:Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?|31125556|Destined for War Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?|Graham Allison|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1488552414l/31125556._SY75_.jpg|51739339], [b:The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal|40405442|The Back Channel A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal|William J. Burns|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1538745305l/40405442._SY75_.jpg|62723493] and [b:A Political History of the World: Three Thousand Years of War and Peace|39074559|A Political History of the World Three Thousand Years of War and Peace|Jonathan Holslag|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1531841329l/39074559._SY75_.jpg|60629808]. Now to find the time...

Henry Kissinger has been out of public life for half a century, just teaching and writing. He just turned 99. But when he showed up at Davos and made a few casual remarks about the Ukraine war, those remarks were reported as major news all over the world. So he's still a player.

His new book Leadership consists of case studies of six important twentieth century leaders and how they -- you know - lead. OK.

He begins with Konrad Adenauer, the man who governed a devastated, divided Germany at the end of the Second World War. His leadership model is one of humility and patience and roll with the punch. Playing a weak hand with incredible dignity and grace, step by step he brought Germany back into the community of Nations and the community of Europe. (Yes, the Marshall plan helped.) It was a remarkable achievement.

(Kissinger brushes aside the fact that Adenauer appointed many ex-Nazis to his official family. Well, yeah. )

From Adenauer he passes to Charles de Gaulle - from "humility" to "audacity" . De Gaulle escaped to England after the fall of France in World War II and presented himself to Churchill as "The Leader of the Free French". "What Free French", thought Churchill, but he gave him an office and a staff. De Gaulle forced himself on Roosevelt (who detested him) and wound up leading the French nation from the humiliation of capitulation to strong fierce sometimes arrogant bristling independence.

(Algeria? Did someone mention Algeria?)

His long chapter on Richard Nixon is perhaps the hardest to read. Of course when Kissinger discusses Nixon he is also ipso facto discussing his (Kissinger's) own foreign policy strategy and goals. So perhaps he is not the most unbiased reporter. He talks about Nixon's brave opening to Communist China, and his bringing stability to the world with meaningful Arms Limitations Treaties with the Soviet Union. Good stuff and worth remembering. Nixon wasn't all Watergate.

But Kissinger goes on to imply that Watergate was nothing more than dirty politics by the Democrats to wound a great president and blow up his careful long range plan for "Pax Americana" and a century of world Peace. If you buy this, you're probably Henry Kissinger.

There is a wistful chapter on Anwar Sadat and the shuttle diplomacy that produced the detente between Egypt and Israel. This far and no farther, alas. Kissinger is rather dismissive of the Camp David accords, miffed that Jimmy Carter didn't pay enough attention to the Kissinger playbook. Even great men can be small.

There is a fawning chapter on Margaret Thatcher. (K never loses a chance to remind you of their "personal friendship") Thatcher's outsider status allowed her to see clearly that England's economy had changed, and that England's policies would have to change too. She saw the future clearly, and acted. People got hurt.

My favorite chapter is about Singapore and the economic miracle that Lee Kuan Kew and his family created -- changing a poor city state dismissed by China into an innovative technical and economic powerhouse.

(BUT you have to read very carefully to get it that Lee was a "strongman" who brutally repressed political opposition and held high office for three decades! Ok by me, says Doctor K. )

So what is leadership? Humility, audacity, flexibility, ruthlessness, insight, conviction? Remembering the past, but looking to the future. Kissinger's coldly pragmatic Realpolitik had people gritting their teeth fifty years ago. Don't look for idealism and belief here. Kissinger likes results.

For the historian, a footnote. A lot of this has been covered in Kissinger's earlier books. But worth a read.
“

this book will show the difference between information and knowledge

Ez a könyv nem csak simán amerikai, de duplán az. Amerikai elsősorban azért, mert amerikaiaknak írták, így aztán helyenként túlteng benne az összefoglaló jelleg. Ez nekem, mint európainak különösen (és nyilván) az Európáról szóló részben szökik szemembe: olvasom, olvasom, és végig az jár a fejemben, hogy korrekt, meg pontos, csak nem sok újat mond. Ez persze valahol érthető, csak épp ennél a könyvnél gyakorta kaptam magam azon, hogy majdnem kiidéztem egy szövegrészletet, aztán elméláztam rajta, és mégsem. Mert hogy végül is: evidens. Kissinger könyvében meglepően kevés olyan passzusra leltem, ami revelációszerűen hatott volna rám – ha összevetem mondjuk Brezinskivel vagy akár Huntingtonnal (aki amúgy nem szívem selymes szőrű vombatbébije), különösen szerény a végeredmény.

Másfelől ez a könyv amerikai abból a szempontból is, hogy amerikai írta. Nos, én a magam részéről nem vagyok nagy ellensége az amerikai központú világrendnek (legalábbis akkor, ha mondjuk orosz világrendet vizionálok magamnak helyette), és azt is megértem (ha nem is örülök neki), ha az amerikai külpolitika bizonyos vonulatai időnként nem harmonizálnak az én elképzeléseimmel*. De amikor Kissinger a „szabadság gyümölcseit” emlegeti, azért meghőkölök. Tisztában vagyok vele, hogy vannak amerikai érdekek, és nem kell cukros mázzal bevonni őket, hogy még a számat is nyalogassam utánuk. Az USÁ-ról szóló részekben amúgy is az volt az érzésem, hogy Kissinger felvette a Vote for Nixon pólóját, és abban gépel – de rá kellett jönnöm, hogy ezt a mély szimpátiát majd az összes amerikai elnökre kiterjesztette, még a republikánus körökben nem túl népszerű Carterre is. Mintha el akarná hitetni velem, hogy még az is a mindenkori amerikai elnökök stratégiai bölcsességének köszönhető, ha Bácsröcsögén egy koca 15-öt fial.

Nem akarok azért igazságtalan lenni, mert összességében ez egy remek áttekintése a világrendek evolúciójának, csak épp többet vártam egy olyan személytől, az egyetem állítása szerint egyedül végezte el színjelesre a Harvardot. Tudom ajánlani azoknak, akik most ismerkednek a geopolitikával, de azért az Amerika mélyen érző szívéről szóló részeket nyugodtan osszuk el kettővel. Amúgy is, jegyezzük meg végre: a nemzeteknek nincsen szíve, nincs agya, és nincs mája se**. Nem jók vagy rosszak: absztrakciók. És egyébként is: óvakodjunk a metaforáktól.

* Jó vicc. Biztos szörnyen megrémülne ez a fránya amerikai külpolitika, ha egyszer majd nem érteném meg őt.
** Mondjuk lelkiismeretük az speciel van. Utálják is rendesen.

Reading this book right after _The Alignment Problem_ made it seem like a lightweight work indeed. (And who'd a thunk the venerable "Henry the K" would co-author a new AI book?) It centralizes the general concept of "AI-enabled global network platforms" such as Google and Uber, as well as the technology's geopolitical/military implications. The later chapters are more philosophical. Although the book is pretty silent on the privacy problem and what Crawford's _Atlas of AI_ calls AI's highly extractive nature, the gravity of the issues it does discuss means that it is not so lightweight after all.

Obra interessante, bem escrita, imbuída da autoridade que lhe dá o facto de ter sido escrita por um dos principais actores da política internacional do século XX.
A obra aborda vários temas relevantes da ordem internacional, começando com a ordem saída da Paz de Vestefália no século XVII. Apesar de fazer uma interessante revisão histórica pela ordem internacional dos séculos XVIII, XIX e XX, analisando a perturbações trazidas a essa ordem pelas revoluções americana, francesa e russa, é sobre o período do pós II Guerra Mundial que o autor pretende se debruçar. Desta análise retira linhas de longa duração que se prolongam até ao presente, acabando o autor por tecer projecções dessas linhas no futuro próximo.
O principal defeito desta obra é o de apresentar uma visão americanocêntrica, tão segura da justeza e superioridade dos seus valores quanto a visão eurocêntrica do passado estava segura dos seus valores. Nota-se que a obra foi pensada para ser lida por leitores americanos, pois os valores defendidos estão longe de serem universais e a interpretação oferecida sobre o papel dos EUA na ordem internacional do pós-guerra, está longe ser aceite fora dos EUA, mesmo entre os seus aliados ocidentais.

interesting

Kissinger’s “World Order” is somewhat of an academic treatment of histories of modern nations and how they maneuvered for power or power sharing over the years. A starting place is the Treaties of Westphalia in the mid 1600's, which set a pattern for national self-determination and mutual acceptance. While that set a pattern for European Nations at that time and moving forward, Dr. Kissinger points out that there hasn’t been a true world order for all Countries and for all times. A world order over past centuries was more determined by the individual views of each Country, and may have been held in near isolation. But as the world shrinks in our modern times, no Country acts in isolation, and any view of world order has more immediate global implications. However, the rules and form is hardly universal in nature, as Dr. Kissinger points out.
In parts, the book was a little dry, and since I selected the audiobook version, I found I really had to focus and pay attention to absorb it all. I didn't find the book to be written in a sexy, exciting narrative style, but was done more in the language of a historian and diplomat.

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.

"On China" is quite an interesting book. I would call it "America & China", which is what the book is all about really.

Henry Kissinger has taken a somewhat chronological approach. The first section goes back to 'the century of humiliation', and he explains how this has influenced the Chinese.

From there, there is a broad swathe until the time of Hu Jintao.
He has dedicated a large section of the book to the Mao/Zhou Enlai/Deng Xiaoping era, and I assume that this is because this is the time he was involved with China.

His writing on Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao are more cursory.

I do not think that he has explored geopolitics in its entirety, and this is fine because it would have complicated the narrative.

Along the way, you get some insights into how the Chinese negotiate and their approach to relationships and strategy. This is why I have given it a 5-star.

I am sure he has glossed over, and ignored his missteps and miscalculations insofar as China is concerned.

Apresentando uma interpretação pessoal dos factos e relatando as negociações que realizou enquanto secretário de Estado com muitos dos grandes dirigentes mundiais,demonstra como a arte da diplomacia levou ao mundo em que hoje vivemos e como os Americanos - protegidos pelo isolacionismo do seu país e escudados numa desconfiança em relação à velha ordem - conduziram uma política internacional única.

Analisando mais de três séculos de história, de Richelieu - o pai do estado moderno - à nova ordem mundial, Henry Kissinger vem mostrar como a diplomacia moderna nasceu das tentativas e experiências do precário equilíbrio de poder entre guerra e paz e de que modo a América, por vezes correndo riscos, recusou sempre os ensinamentos destas experiências. O retrato pormenorizado dos maiores dirigentes mundiais - de Gaulle, Nixon, Chu En-Lai, Mao, Gorbatchev - fornece ainda aos leitores uma visão singular das cimeiras diplomáticas.

Enquadrada por um profundo conhecimento histórico,rara perspicácia, uma boa dose de ironia e uma compreensão notável das forças que congregam e dividem as nações, Diplomacia é uma obra fundamental de leitura obrigatória.

Kissingert leginkább külügyminiszterként vagy nemzetbiztonsági főtanácsadóként ismerjük, de ő eredetileg az akadémiai ember volt, Harvardon szerzett PhD-t, és ott tanított amikor Nelson Rockefeller külpolitikai tanácsadója, majd később Nixon elnök stábjának része lett. Vagyis nemcsak azért írt könyvet a diplomáciáról, mert amerikai külügyminiszterként saját maga is befolyásolta a XX. század eseményeit, hanem mert tudósként ez volt a szakterülete.

A könyv az amerikai külpolitika két fő irányzatát, a Wilson nevéhez köthető idealizmust és Theodore Roosevelt realista megközelítését elemzi. Némi elméleti bevezetés után egy elég hosszú történelmi áttekintést kapunk, a XVII. századig visszamenőles elemzi Kissinger a két irányzatot. Az első pár, európai történelmet bemutató fejezet nagyon tetszett. A főbb történelmi eseményekről persze már sokat olvastam, de sok látszólag értelmetlen részlet hátterét most értettem meg. A szerző nem igyekezett túlzottan független maradni, elég nyilvánvaló volt, hogy kik azok a történelmi személyek akiket nagyra becsül, és hogy mik azok a történelmi események, melyek befolyásolták az ő világlátását. Ahogy haladunk előre a könyvben, érthető módon egyre inkább az amerikai események a hangsúlyosabbak, itt azért kicsit furcsa, ahogy Kissinger megpróbál néha kívülállónak tűnni, amikor a saját történelmi szerepéről ír. A könyv 1994-be jelent meg, így egészen a hidegháború végéig jutunk el.½

Henry Kissinger architect van de hernieuwde diplomatieke banden tussen China en de vs in de jaren zeventig van de vorige eeuw onderzoekt in dit boek de geschiedenis van de Chinese diplomatie. Hij laat zien dat de unieke omstandigheden waaronder China zich in het verleden heeft ontwikkeld nog steeds van invloed zijn op het huidige beleid ten aanzien van de buitenwereld. Kissinger schetst de belangrijkste episoden in het Chinese buitenlandbeleid, van de eerste diplomatieke betrekkingen van het land met de buitenwereld tot de meest actuele ontwikkelingen in de eenentwintigste eeuw. Hij beschrijft onder andere de vroege Europees-Chinese contacten, de banden van China met de Sovjet-Unie en de latere verkilling tussen de twee landen, de opstelling van China in de Koreaanse oorlog, de ontmoeting tussen Mao Zedong en Richard Nixon in 1972 in Beijing, het Tiananmen-protest, de toetreding van China tot de wereldhandelsorganisatie wto en de huidige rol van supermacht China op het wereldtoneel. Kissinger baseert zich zowel op historische bronnen als op persoonlijke gesprekken met Chinese leiders. Een belangwekkend boek van een van de grootste staatsmannen van de twintigste eeuw.½