Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.78 AVERAGE
3.78 AVERAGE
A solid review of UN interventions under Annan's tenure as Sec-General. As he says, the UN is not a pacifist organization, but he seems torn over some of his decisions that, in his mind, may have led to unnecessary bloodshed.
His main contribution to UN leadership seems to be the perspective of "serving individuals, not states," which led to R2P, or Responsibility to Protect - a formalization of the UN's responsibility in intervening in state-internal human rights abuses. This seems to be reaction to a series of atrocities in the 90s, in which the UN's choice was between acting with the consent of member states and acting to save lives.
He seems of two minds about it, though. I'll give one of several illustrations. In the 90s, the UN strictly required 1) the consent of states to intervene in domestic conflicts and 2) the an endorsement from the Security Council. This has worked relatively well, with its best positive use probably being the Gulf War. The framework divides wars into the illegal and increasingly shunned, versus the legal and well-coordinated.
However, this set the UN up to sit on its heels in cases of state-internal genocide, or in cases of a rogue permanent SC member vetoing intervention. This was the case in Rwanda, when the UN desperately bid for support in a peacemaking mission, but the other major powers declined endorsement (the US, for example, had been bitten by a foolish mission into Somalia, and interventions were not popular; Clinton's hands were tied).
Rwanda gave Amman a crisis of confidence; how could the UN serve individuals, not states, in such an environment?
Determined not to let Rwanda happen again, Annan unofficially endorsed an upcoming NATO intervention in Kosovo, without SC approval and state-internal. It saved lives, but Annan now fears set a terrible precedent for ignoring the Security Council requirement, and perhaps led indirectly to the US/UK ignoring the SC in pursuit of its disastrous war in Iraq. He's afraid he changed the normative structure of interventions that made calamity more likely in sum. I am tempted to say he is right.
Like nearly all world leaders, he can be a bit formal and long-winded, but he was a vastly easier read than Tang JiaXuan. Not quire as good as Wendy Sherman. But you got to see how a SG works, and that's illuminating. And he freely admitted his failings, in direct terms. Refreshing.
His main contribution to UN leadership seems to be the perspective of "serving individuals, not states," which led to R2P, or Responsibility to Protect - a formalization of the UN's responsibility in intervening in state-internal human rights abuses. This seems to be reaction to a series of atrocities in the 90s, in which the UN's choice was between acting with the consent of member states and acting to save lives.
He seems of two minds about it, though. I'll give one of several illustrations. In the 90s, the UN strictly required 1) the consent of states to intervene in domestic conflicts and 2) the an endorsement from the Security Council. This has worked relatively well, with its best positive use probably being the Gulf War. The framework divides wars into the illegal and increasingly shunned, versus the legal and well-coordinated.
However, this set the UN up to sit on its heels in cases of state-internal genocide, or in cases of a rogue permanent SC member vetoing intervention. This was the case in Rwanda, when the UN desperately bid for support in a peacemaking mission, but the other major powers declined endorsement (the US, for example, had been bitten by a foolish mission into Somalia, and interventions were not popular; Clinton's hands were tied).
Rwanda gave Amman a crisis of confidence; how could the UN serve individuals, not states, in such an environment?
Determined not to let Rwanda happen again, Annan unofficially endorsed an upcoming NATO intervention in Kosovo, without SC approval and state-internal. It saved lives, but Annan now fears set a terrible precedent for ignoring the Security Council requirement, and perhaps led indirectly to the US/UK ignoring the SC in pursuit of its disastrous war in Iraq. He's afraid he changed the normative structure of interventions that made calamity more likely in sum. I am tempted to say he is right.
Like nearly all world leaders, he can be a bit formal and long-winded, but he was a vastly easier read than Tang JiaXuan. Not quire as good as Wendy Sherman. But you got to see how a SG works, and that's illuminating. And he freely admitted his failings, in direct terms. Refreshing.
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Not as interesting as I'd hoped. Less of a memoir and more of an exoneration/justification of his actions during his time as UN sec-general, Annan comes across by turns as a messiah and a badass. There are no shocking revelations - Annan's accounts of various key events (Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq) toe the party line of majority public opinion. The focus is very much on these high-profile conflicts as well as the Millennium Development Goals, and there was no mention of the more obscure human rights issues going on around the world, for example in Western Sahara.
All things considered, a good read and a decent modern history of the UN, but I was expecting a lot more from this unique perspective.
All things considered, a good read and a decent modern history of the UN, but I was expecting a lot more from this unique perspective.
informative
medium-paced
Fighting against reading as quite self congratulatory throughout, this book is an impassioned defence of the UN and an interesting insight into a period of recent history.
A straightforward, candid account. I appreciated Kofi's candor re: the backstage politicking at the UN, especially following 9/11. I was also jostled out of my US-centric viewpoint by his blunt assessments of the US since 2001.
Overall, he covers: the UN failures from the 1990s (Rwanda, Bosnia); Africa and Africa's political history (yay); the MDGs; 9/11 and the War on Terror. Am I missing any sections? It's much less a memoir in the proper sense - we get basically two lines between him flying off to Macalester College and then getting his first job at the UN - and it's much more a short political history, as seen from his (very interesting) vantage point.
A funny writerly tic: everyone - and I do mean EVERYONE - that appears in his entourage is described as "my most trusted..." or "the able...", etc.
Overall, he covers: the UN failures from the 1990s (Rwanda, Bosnia); Africa and Africa's political history (yay); the MDGs; 9/11 and the War on Terror. Am I missing any sections? It's much less a memoir in the proper sense - we get basically two lines between him flying off to Macalester College and then getting his first job at the UN - and it's much more a short political history, as seen from his (very interesting) vantage point.
A funny writerly tic: everyone - and I do mean EVERYONE - that appears in his entourage is described as "my most trusted..." or "the able...", etc.
Kofi Annan's reflections are clear and thoughtful in this book. It is difficult to read about so many failures in the United Nations and the massive amounts of life needlessly lost in the second half of the 20th century. Especially because the United Nations was created specifically to prevent such global catastrophes. Still, this book is an excellent, if dry at times, way to learn about the complex webs of international relations in our modern world. One can only hope that future leaders will be as reflective as Annan.
Incredible read capturing international politics over the past 50 years and food for thought for the current global political climate
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Maybe 3,5
This book is part of my 2016 reading challenge
This is Kofi Annan’s memoir, focusing on an aspect of his work as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN.
It is amazing to read how diplomacy and peacekeeping actually plays out in the field. The book is full of interesting facts and insight of the UN and its politics. It is well written, sometimes a bit difficult to follow because I’m not familiar with all the conflicts in the world.
However, I missed the heart. Annan explains and gives a vivid picture of different interventions he has done over the years, but mostly left out his own feelings and thoughts. It felt more like a report of what happened than a memoir.
He writes a lot about UN’s failure and is openly discussing them, which was both interesting and admirable. However, sometimes it felt like he was trying to justify the failures more than explaining them.
This book is worth reading! It is interesting and it gives you an insight in the UN.
More book reviews here: Elzas book reviews
This book is part of my 2016 reading challenge
This is Kofi Annan’s memoir, focusing on an aspect of his work as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN.
It is amazing to read how diplomacy and peacekeeping actually plays out in the field. The book is full of interesting facts and insight of the UN and its politics. It is well written, sometimes a bit difficult to follow because I’m not familiar with all the conflicts in the world.
However, I missed the heart. Annan explains and gives a vivid picture of different interventions he has done over the years, but mostly left out his own feelings and thoughts. It felt more like a report of what happened than a memoir.
He writes a lot about UN’s failure and is openly discussing them, which was both interesting and admirable. However, sometimes it felt like he was trying to justify the failures more than explaining them.
This book is worth reading! It is interesting and it gives you an insight in the UN.
More book reviews here: Elzas book reviews