Decades ago, in a brief conclusion to a chapter on comparative politics, I suggested that translation is a form of political intervention that can serve as a model for inquiry into inter-nation relationships.  While that has had little or no discernible effect in the various sub-disciplines of political studies I have high hopes for the reception of this book. With a collection of uniformly excellent essays, addressed to diverse translation inquiry problematics – theory, history, and order – the collection’s diverse contributions have everything necessary to fulfill the overall aim of the intervention, to demonstrate the ‘difference a systematic understanding of translation in global politics would make for how IR is defined, practiced, and studied.’ Lacking space to provide chapter synopses, I want to address the political value emerging from the collection by referring to a remark by Michel Foucault in his The Archaeology of Knowledge. Pondering ‘the value of statements’ in discursive formations, he says they’re ‘not defined by their truth’ or ‘gauged by the presence of secret content’. Rather, their value consists in their use value. It’s a matter of for whom they are an asset, ‘an asset’ he adds, ‘that is, by nature, the object of a struggle, a political struggle’. Heading a section in the Introduction with the title, Who Gets to Speak in/for International Relations, Caraccioli & Wigen set a frame that concurs with that Foucault insight. Thereafter the collection’s chapters follow the language-power issue, questioning agency, analyzing hegemonic language, treating the politics of explanation, assessing indigenous presence in languages of empire, looking at dynamics of linguistic encounter, and assessing the order-legitimating effects of language.