Navigating the Complex Realms of International Relations

A Comparative Analysis of Susan Strange’s Retreat of the State and Henry Kissinger’s Theories of Sovereignty

By Jt Pinna

In the dynamic and often unpredictable world of international relations, two influential thinkers stood out early in my career as symbols of the old and the new: Dr. Susan Strange and Henry Kissinger. Both influenced me to formulate my international relations and diplomatic career, offering contrasting perspectives that have significantly shaped academic and policy discourse. Dr. Strange's "Retreat of the State" and Kissinger's traditional theories of sovereignty present differing views on the role and power of states in the global arena. I never really got caught up in Kissinger's whole war criminal argument. Sure, he was involved in several coups and certainly had dropped copious amounts of bombs in Southeast Asia, but he always felt old and antiquated. It always felt like his existence in statecraft at that late stage in the late 90s was wrong. Susan Strange gave me the foundations to operate for 25 years in international affairs. Kissinger gave me a cheat sheet of our origins and an order that most countries try to preserve.

A good example is how Viktor Orbán in Hungary struggles to maintain his country's cultural identity and sovereignty. Regardless of what you think of his policies, he's done a fantastic job at modernizing the concept of sovereignty for an integrated world. The war in Ukraine can echo this, showing the conflict of sovereignty as new states form and powers break apart. The interventions in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and, of course, Israel and Palestine show that the concept of sovereignty is not only alive and well, but it struggles with the ideas presented by Susan Strange. It's fair that I'm intensely into the Susan Strange camp. I believe sovereignty exists for very few countries. I always would say that sovereignty only exists for countries that have the strategic ability, which is the ability to wage war in multiple theaters at the same time, to have a legal system that protects the citizens, has vast natural borders, and maintains a distinct cultural perspective. The United States is one of the few places that fits these criteria, which I don’t only vocalize but utilize daily with my international affairs career.

Susan Strange, a prominent British scholar in international political economy, argued in her seminal work, "The Retreat of the State," that the state's traditional role has been fundamentally altered in the face of globalization. Strange contended that the increasing influence of non-state actors and market forces has led to the erosion of state power. She observed that financial markets, multinational corporations, and international institutions reshape global politics and economics. Strange emphasized the complex interplay between states and markets, suggesting that these forces often undermine state authority and autonomy. These ideas challenge the traditional notions of sovereignty, arguing that the state's ability to control its economy and secure its interests is increasingly limited in a globally interconnected world.

Henry Kissinger, an American political scientist and diplomat, is known for his traditional views on state sovereignty and international relations, primarily influenced by realist theory. Kissinger's perspective is anchored in the belief that states are the primary actors in international relations. He emphasizes the importance of state sovereignty and the Westphalian system as the foundation of global order. A key component of Kissinger's theory is the balance of power, where states act primarily in their self-interest to maintain equilibrium and prevent any single state from dominating. Kissinger's approach is characterized by a pragmatic view of diplomacy and Realpolitik, focusing on strategic interests and power dynamics over ideological or moral considerations.

The fundamental contrast between Strange and Kissinger lies in their perception of state power and sovereignty in the context of global affairs. Strange’s analysis suggests a diminishing role and authority of states due to the rise of market forces and non-state actors. In contrast, Kissinger’s theories revolve around the enduring centrality of state power and sovereignty in international relations. Strange’s work reflects a contemporary understanding of globalization’s impact on state authority, while Kissinger’s views are rooted in a more traditional, state-centric framework. Strange’s approach is more interdisciplinary, integrating political economy into international relations. Kissinger, on the other hand, leans more toward classical diplomatic and strategic analysis.

Strange and Kissinger's ideas offer valuable insights into today's interconnected world. Strange highlights the increasing influence of globalization, which challenges traditional state sovereignty and necessitates a revaluation of how states interact with non-state actors and market forces. Conversely, Kissinger’s emphasis on state-centric realpolitik remains relevant in understanding power dynamics and diplomatic strategies globally, especially in the case of the world view of the Biden Regime’s Jake Sullivan and Anthony Blinken.

Since his death, I have felt that a comparative analysis of Susan Strange’s "Retreat of the State" and Henry Kissinger’s theories of sovereignty underscores the complexity and evolving nature of international relations. Both perspectives offer critical insights into the changing dynamics of state power and sovereignty, reflecting global governance's multifaceted challenges and realities. As the world continues to navigate through an era of profound changes and uncertainties, the ideas of Strange and Kissinger will remain essential in shaping the discourse on international relations and statecraft. I hope that the Trump administration looks to Strange as a guidepost.