The world order has shifted over the years and more elements keep rising that affects it. It has no right time to occur, there are many times when an order is needed and is not found. In the Middle East, the Syrian civil war has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and allowed the rise of terrorists and jihadists groups that threatened the stability of the entire region. In Asia, the rise of China economically spread anxiety among its neighbors and the rise of Russia militarily disseminated fear among most of the European countries. These events and the lengthy costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States is more than fatigued to intervene abroad and the vision of an international stability seems long gone. Henry Kissinger defines world order as ‘the concept held by a region or civilization about the nature of just arrangements and the distribution of power thought to be applicable to the entire world.’ (9) Kissinger states that this type of systems is based on two key elements: a set of accepted rules that points out the limits of actions allowed and a balance of power that enforces constraints when rules are broken. Haas in his article ‘World Order 2.0’ agrees with Kissinger to the respect of sovereignty and the role of the United States in this world. Kissinger’s view of the world is not just power originating from economic wealth and military but also from the influence of ideas and norms. I argue that his analysis is based on a constructivist perspective focusing on threats that manifest from ideas. On the other hand, Glaser and Kelanic in their article ‘Getting Out of The Gulf’ are pure realists emphasizing on power derived only from economy and military might.
Constructivism stands as a theory that focuses on social meanings constructed from an intricate and specific amalgamation of history, culture, ideas, norms and beliefs. While, realism is objective, power based on material capabilities such population, size, resources and capital that might translate into military abilities. The divergence of historical experiences and values can be shaped into a common order. In his book, Kissinger discusses the European order as a derivative from Christianity. “The vision of harmony focused increasingly on the church.” (12) Identity seems to shape political behavior in Kissinger’s analysis of history. Kissinger lays out that “America’s engagement abroad was not foreign policy in the traditional sense but a project of spreading values that it believed all other peoples aspired to replicate. (234)” He explains that even America’s projection of its policies is based on values. He emphasizes many rights that are based on a religious identity and state sovereignty. “If a state would accept these basic requirements, it could be recognized as an international citizen able to maintain its own culture, politics, religion and internal policies.” (27) The central point of peace in the Westphalia and its full utmost legitimacy stood out to be the universal church. He highlights religion to be the utmost ruler of the European order.
In addition, he portrayed Islam as a challenge in many areas of the Middle East, yet realism focused on material power that would have not been concerned with such threats. Kissinger classified threats excluding material power. He talks about the balance of power in terms of norms such as religion and argues that threats such as Al –Qaeda and ISIS that disturb the equilibrium of the world. He also viewed the Iranian-Saudi relationship as a religious struggle between the two sects of Islam: Shia and Sunni. While realism would have perceived as a balance of power type of relationship. Israel and Palestine’s long conflict is due to sacred spaces based on norms and values that each side holds on to. The United States had spread its western values, ideas and norms into the Middle East creating a vacuum for countries such as Iran to react. The Iran nuclear deal is perceived as a way for Iran to get back at the West in Kissinger’s point of view, whereas realists would have viewed it as a position of power. Norms, values, culture and ideas are key factors in shaping foreign policies. He underlines that history plays a significant role that character convenes on human beings. Constructivism runs in his analysis focusing on identity, culture and morality. A constructivist narrative of a comprehensive world order is uttered by culture, history and identity. However, realism would have viewed foreign policy to be shaped by national interest, economy and distribution of power.
Glaser and Kelanic discuss various points about the world order emphasizing on elements such as military and economy that shapes policies. Kelanic and Glaser focus on aspects of security and economic interests. They delineate that the U.S. should focus on itself, growing economically and military by cutting the costs of being involved in the Persian Gulf. They stressed that the U.S. would save so much money by leaving the Persian Gulf and halt its reliance on imported oil. Their article narrates realism at its peak accentuating military might and economic wealth being involved in the Middle East. The United States policies illustrated in this article are shaped by economic interests and studying the various risks of military. They discuss that keeping U.S. military commitment in the Persian Gulf would cost the U.S. so much capital that could be used to achieve something else. In their calculations, there was no relevance of history, culture and identity it was solely military and economic analysis. They cared most about material power and how would that decision shape their interest at most. They are examining foreign policy decision as mainly governed by the quest of national interest. “It would save roughly $75 billion a year, or about 15 percent defense budget.” (128) Glaser and Kelanic go further into domestic economic policies to reduce oil consumption insisting on the fact that the U.S. should position itself to end its military commitment eventually in the Persian Gulf. The United States is more powerful when it relies on its own oil, growing economically and being militarily less involved; two key elements of realism are clearly portrayed in this article. The light is shed on the role of the United States in the Persian Gulf and how its decisions affect the region.
Both Haas and Kissinger discuss the role that the United States play in the world order. They both discuss similar elements that factors in the equation of the world order. Kissinger in his chapter seven states that ‘No country has played such a decisive role in shaping contemporary world order as the United States, nor professed such ambivalence about participation in it.’ (234) The United States indeed plays the role of the policemen in the world and it has a special role in it. Haas says that the United States has unique responsibilities that makes it act on its own and whenever it asks for help, it appears to get a lot of critique. However, they both state that the United States should not be acting alone and there should be some sort of cooperation. Haas elucidates that the United States should step out a little and consult rather than negotiate. He defends with saying that wealthier governments should offer incentives to aid other countries to reach their goals. Likewise, Kissinger asserts that world order cannot be achieved by one country acting alone especially with globalization. Haas also seems fascinated by how changes in one country can disturb the international equilibrium. He focuses just like Kissinger on the historical developments that have made the world interconnected such as technology and the internet.
Furthermore, Kissinger discusses technology and the internet as ways to save human rights and moral values. He gives an example of how technology helped in many of the Arab uprisings and it was a way for external state actors to intervene for humanitarian crisis. They both deliberate about cybersecurity and its significance. Kissinger describes that there are already hackers that have abilities to penetrate government networks and publicize classified information on a large scale. Haas depicts that is necessary to develop cyberspace laws that specifies actions that are allowed and others that are prohibited. He also illustrates legitimate documents such as the ‘responsibility to protect’ for other states to get involved in case some rules have been broken or some human rights have been violated. Similarly, Kissinger explains that the ‘responsibility to protect’ is important and it is necessary to save human lives and their values. The world order is shaped by values, norms, ideas and culture.
Every country has a set of beliefs that inspire and support the individual by supplying him with an explanation for the occurrence of multiple events that imprint on him. History, culture, ideas and norm shape an individual and a country’s internal and external order. History leaves prints on the country and a country grasps to its culture, values and norms; and that is how a country construct its order. Most conflicts are based upon rules and ideas that each country believes in. The Middle East has been fighting many wars due to religion and values. Kissinger’s analysis stresses the importance of historical and current events with national identity and history. He explains the world order in the words of power generating from ideas, religion, history and culture. In parallel, Haas goes into historical developments that makes the world more intermingled. Constructivism is clear in Kissinger’s analysis and it is the way that the world order will shape itself. Both Haas and Kissinger put the problem of the world today and the role of the United States in such interrelated and global world. However, Glaser and Kelanic focus on power originating from economy and military. Realism is portrayed in their article where they discuss oil, military intervention and economy. The world order is still yet to be known and with the rise of so many countries such as Russia and China and the interconnectedness of the world due to globalization, there will be no world order, there will be however, a world of cooperation and maybe more conflicts. Norms will change, power is going to operate differently and new identities are going to be born the political behavior will be affected and the world order will always fluctuate.