Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Diplomacy was not a bargaining process between multiple sovereign interests but a series of carefully contrived ceremonies in which foreign societies were given the opportunity to affirm their assigned place in the global hierarchy. In keeping with this perspective, in classical China what would now be called "foreign policy" was the province of the Ministry of Rituals, which determined the shades of the tributary relationship, and the Office of Border Affairs, charged with managing relations with nomadic tribes. A Chinese foreign ministry was not established until the mid-nineteenth century, and then perforce to deal with intruders from the West. Even then, officials considered their task the traditional practice of barbarian management, not anything that might be considered Westphalian diplomacy. The new ministry carried the telling title of the "Office for the Management of the Affairs of All Nations," implying that China was not engaging in interstate diplomacy at all. -World Order, p. 214
Find one thing wrong with any of that!
Well, it - the quote itself, I mean - is long. Splendid gibes like "Upper Volta with rockets" and "It's a pity they both can't lose" aside, Henry Kissinger was not a lapidary kind of guy. Some concepts just require elaboration, minute or broad or both. And yet in this passage there are so many portable chunks, their value not at all diminished by isolation.
"Ministry of Rituals." Perfect. "Barbarian management." Bingo.
The more I read Kissinger's work, the more I am impressed by it. I do however confess a fear that he may have, uh, farmed out some of this writing. Elsewhere in this 2014 book, he - or an amanuensis - credits South Korea with something "vibrant." I find it very hard to believe Kissinger himself ever resorted to that word, with a straight face anyway. And later in this book, speaking of the enthusiasm that greeted what would prove to be World War I, he says that there was in Europe "nary even token opposition" to it. "Nary"? Hank, you ain't no goober.
What else, as long as I'm on the line? Reading long ago the English Wikipedia article about Kissinger, I had felt the desire, and I do still feel the desire, to campaign for the automatic superscripting of the word "controversial" with [so what?] And contrary to my earlier guess that this volume pretty much skips Latin America - no doubt because of its conspicuous absence of order, world or otherwise - Kissinger does mention the region, in connection with the Monroe Doctrine. He points out what we all could guess: President Monroe didn't consult with anyone actually in Latin America. But he also, and very efficiently, gives a good reason why not: in 1823, there just weren't many Latin American countries.
Discussion (9)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
An Editor’s Choice for The Collected Works.
Or briefly, Thx.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Love it!
More descriptive than "Executive Branch". Or "Legislature."
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You have the right idea! For sure it’s a better* term than “Executive Branch.”
* * *
*But, better in what way?
Not because it’s less descriptive, but because it’s incorrect.
There is a difference between (a) a term that is correct but not very descriptive and (b) one that represents a category error.
More particularly, calling a department of the Executive Branch “the Executive Branch” is confounding the part with the whole.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Kissinger, being well-read, is just as prone as the rest of us to drop in a colloquialism that strikes his fancy. And if he did not write every last word, and I concede he may not have, I have no doubt he directed and approved every word. At least until proven otherwise.
I object to many of his conclusions but I like to drink endlessly from his arguments for them and his general reflections. Which surprised me, because I expected to not like him very much and I am appalled by his China policies.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Most of Latin America was independent by 1823 - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemla, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela were.
The US didn't have the naval power to enforce it at the time, but the British did. They welcomed it as a moral statement to be used to keep their continental rivals (France, Spain, Austria, Russia) from expanding their influence in the New World.
You're seeing five of nine comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.