What do you think?
Rate this book
Perilous Interventions: The Security Council and the Politics of Chaos
Recent military interventions gone wrong
It was an exclusive lunch at a high-end Manhattan restaurant on 7 March 2011. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his A-team were present. It soon became clear that the main item on the menu was Libya, where it was alleged that the forces of Muammar Gaddafi were advancing on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to crush all opposition. Over an $80 per head lunch, a small group of the world's most important diplomats from countries represented on the Security Council discussed the possibility of the use of force. As things turned out, the Council's authorization came only ten days later, and all hell broke loose.
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN at the time, now reveals the Council's whimsical decision making and the ill-thought-out itch to intervene on the part of some of its permanent members. Perilous Interventions shows how some recent instances of the use of force -- not just in Libya but also in Syria, Yemen and Crimea, as well as India's misadventure in Sri Lanka in the 1980s -- have gone disastrously wrong.
It was an exclusive lunch at a high-end Manhattan restaurant on 7 March 2011. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his A-team were present. It soon became clear that the main item on the menu was Libya, where it was alleged that the forces of Muammar Gaddafi were advancing on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to crush all opposition. Over an $80 per head lunch, a small group of the world's most important diplomats from countries represented on the Security Council discussed the possibility of the use of force. As things turned out, the Council's authorization came only ten days later, and all hell broke loose.
Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN at the time, now reveals the Council's whimsical decision making and the ill-thought-out itch to intervene on the part of some of its permanent members. Perilous Interventions shows how some recent instances of the use of force -- not just in Libya but also in Syria, Yemen and Crimea, as well as India's misadventure in Sri Lanka in the 1980s -- have gone disastrously wrong.
280 pages, Hardcover
Published September 13, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 26, 2017
“Can you bomb an ideology?” (Puri on how ISIS as ideology is different than al-Qaeda)
That something changed was obvious. The largely canned speech and response to questions from the tour guides of the UN on its Security Council in February of ’17 was different than that of both 10 and 20 years earlier, specifically now including a claim that neither tour guide nor UN leadership can justify all UN military actions, or claim that any particular action or set of actions led to meeting of goals or even improvements. In fact, the guide said before anyone could ask, perhaps the Council needed a broad reconstitution of purpose. Puri served as on the UN Security Council for a number of years and was a leader in these recent years of Arab Spring uprisings and responses. He has the same, ironic message as Kofi Annan on UN interventions from five years earlier, that the US, the inventor of the UN, is now the major impediment to its revision. An excellent review of Annan’s book is here: http://thebowedbookshelf.blogspot.com....
Conditions on the ground are worse now than when Annan discussed the political-economic contradictions with the UN’s humanitarian mission in light of the reluctance to challenge claims to sovereign leadership. The US government has failed to provide the UN a clear compass for action with confusions between different interpretations and applications of the “responsibility to protect” with or without “responsibility while protecting”, nor criteria for determining legitimacy of claims of sovereignty by governments or factions with political power. Clearly this comes from the tensions between humanitarian and economic-political interests both at home and around the globe, but I don’t think that excuses us. US politicians have long consciously conflated and ignorantly confused pro-American with pro-corporate views, and those in foreign policy and international affairs struggle to not mimic. We learn that too often the UN is assisting a side without the moral authority or desire to do right by its people, and there are direct links between the UN interventions and the now chronic global crises that have spawned huge amounts of death, destruction, and human suffering. Across all of Puri’s examples, I see the work of racism, tribalism, nationalism, and the remnants of colonialism (both post- and re-colonialism) as old-fashioned structural mystification for the power elite and military-industrial complex. Puri doesn’t discuss political economy at all, except for a list in a graphic of UN problems buried in the middle in the picture section. The common denominator across all social sciences is the pitting of ethnic minorities (named by low quantity or political-economic status and power) against each other by those that benefit.
The UN now has exhibits on the historical use of propaganda in war and on rape as spoils of war. At the end of the tour, we got our daughter the obligatory t-shirt – a brilliant design where the Dove of Peace grabs the “A” out of “W R” and flies up to place it where missing in “PE CE”. There were multiple examples of anti-war sentiment and the futility of war throughout the UN building. After reading Puri, I remembered the enlightened and impassioned exhibits almost like “dirty laundry”, or pointing with irony that UN actions may often promote human suffering instead of ending it. This occurs through political and economic destabilization of regions where we often cannot tell which side to fund, what government to keep, who is granted self-determination, and who is put under military control. I was impressed that the UN had Puri’s book, as it was clearly a UN insider’s deeply critical review. Neither Puri nor the Chinese graduate student working as an UN guide can continue as UN apologists, and both accept that the UN Security Council will not work well without a clearer mission. Puri notes that those that serve in the UN “shed their innocence” quickly with the political-economic games where there are few good choices that are truly “win-win”, and that life is simply shades of bad including all choices for many innocents on the receiving end of our interventions seem like inexcusable failures of international diplomacy.
Puri doesn’t think all interventions are bad or disastrous, and does believe the UN needs the ability to call for it, but his view is clear with the use of “iatrogenic harm” as metaphor to describe not just the effect of poor medical care but of the UN Security Council actions, where harm comes from the treatment (or intervention) itself. In foreign affairs with a lack of diplomacy and impetus to militarized force the treatment, or intervention, can be worst than the original harm, or at least compounding it. Some continuous threads appear to me linking the conflicts of an largely US-controlled oil economy in the Mideast as run with dictators, the widespread “Arab Spring” popular uprising for democracy and human rights, and the growth and influence of al-Qaeda and ISIS all around the Arabian peninsula. Together they seem to keep much hope for social democracy action destabilized in the entire Mideast region, and who gains but the arm dealers (Puri does not say that, though). How sad it is that most people of Arab Spring countries are worse off now than before?
Puri reminds us that while an Arab spring immolation by a young man from Tunisian caught media attention, there were others who also set themselves on fire in Egypt and across North Africa including in Mauritania and Algeria. The US and the UN were seen as supporters of repressive leaders during the Arab Springs, unlike the uprisings in Eastern Europe in ’89 where the US were seen as friends and providers of Western conveniences. Still, Obama said the Arab Spring “shouts for dignity” accomplished more “in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades” across North Africa and the Middle East. The hope for freedom across Arab Spring countries is largely gone, and likely the West was wrong it could offer democracy. This has “exhibited rather than overcome the internal contradictions of the Arab-Islamic world and the policies designed to resolve them.” Protesters wanting open societies with democracy were met by the “violent contest between military-backed authoritarianism and Islamic ideology”. (I hope that Puri finds the recent election of a moderate in Iran as hopeful as I do, but whether it will change fast enough to avoid the likelihood of Saudi Arabia and the US invading it is unclear.)
The UN has caused such “iatrogenic” damage with their interventions in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Crimea, and Sri Lanka, that Puri treats separately.
Trump struck an isolationist tone through his campaign that the US shouldn’t engage so much, especially not in the Middle East, and definitely not in Syria. Last month, after only the latest example of many years now of Assad gassing his own people, we launched $100 million dollars worth of bombs from ship to airfields in order to show the Syria government that gassing is wrong. (Huh?) (Puri mentions how Syria gave Russia this airport space!) With the horror of a thoroughly devastated Syria forever in the news, there is little surprise that Puri named it as the “most serious failure” of inaction by the UN National Security Council among the many other failures he documents. Just last month, after refusing to communicate with the press for months, Tillerson made his first official statement arguing tough that the larger issue of Syria is exactly Russia, and the Russian violations of arms agreements.
Puri’s frustration is clear with the four double-vetos over two years by China and Russia on Syria, and that both countries have refused to criticize Assad. Syria borders that were drawn by “imperialist cartographers” are now broken. “The three easy steps witnessed in Libya – a Security Council resolution, arming of rebels, and NATO military action – became the model for Syria”, but didn’t get the regime change. Iran and Russia supported Assad’s father and son, so the other three members of the Security Council, the US, UK, and France, felt more resolute in their desire to be anti-Assad. Puri says that “It is clear if Assad be overthrown militarily, Syria’s unraveling would be even more problematic than that of Libya”, and arming Syria rebels could possibly supply weapons to enable rebels to use them against Israel. Lacking guidance on foreign policy we pivoted from over a decade of funding Syrian anti-government covert forces, to five years of periodically bombing Syria’s ISIS targets. In ’13 Obama called for a “managed transition” to move Assad out of power with compromise and assistance from Russia and Iran. This changed when Trump suddenly bombing the government directly, even if “only” the airports with a courtesy call to the Russians beforehand. Puri tells us that seven million Syrians were displaced into camps and another 4 million fled to Lesbos out of a total 22 million population. A particularly heart-breaking picture among other excellent pictures provided of is of the 2000-year old ruins in Palmyra. A radical artist I know painted a picture of the shocking image of the 3-year old boy’s body washed up on the shores of Lesbos.
Puri said that the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which had been invoked to justify the Libyan intervention, remains valid despite the negative outcome of the action. Puri claims that the “fanciful justifications” of WMD by Bush in Iraq in ’03 were as bad as our justification of “protection of civilians” in Libya in ’11, and both resulted in massive civilian casualties. Gaddafi was desperate to avoid a military invention by the West to oust him but France wanted access to Libya’s oil production and didn’t like movements to create a gold-backed monetary standard that could undermine the franc. Geneva asked Libya to protect its’ citizens instead of slaughtering them, but clearly that wasn’t the driver of the UN action. Libya has led to Syria that has led to “potential flashpoint between the U.S. and Russia”, Puri argues, even if they do not “see the evolving mess through a Cold War prism”, just yet. He quotes Greenwald in ’16 that there was “no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it.” Puri said that Clinton and the Security Council were afraid of turning “Libya into a Somalia”, yet is seems again that bombs ignite fanaticism around the globe rather than taming it.
Like Syria, Yemen has undergone tremendous disintegration, with a healthcare system collapsed and regular “public health crises,” with no good hospitals and few doctors or nurses left. Puri quotes the Red Cross that we’ve allowed “more damage in Yemen in five months than what Syria has endured over four years.” We didn’t hear much at all about Yemen and it’s own Arab Spring uprisings, but Puri tells us it’s “dubious distinction of being the first country where a terrorist group demonstrated its ability to hold territory” when al-Qaeda set up shop in rural areas. Although National Security members regularly visit to witness “hot spots” themselves, Yemen was considered too dangerous even for a short visit with U.S. military protection. A growing Shia movement that could have fought al-Qaeda was weakened by attacks against it mostly by the Saudis and the US, as Saudi considered Yemen its “red line” against Iran. The concern was that a Shia government could encourage the long oppressed Shia population in Saudi Arabia to revolt. The Saudis misused the UN Charter for it’s multiple attacks against Houthi, argues Puri, as it wasn’t legitimate to claim their country was threatened from them.
So many innocent Yemenites were killed that “bad blood” with Saudi Arabia will likely exist for many generations. When the ruler’s son took over in Saudi Arabia in ’15 he changed the behavior of ignoring regional conflicts and went on the attack. With the US support of Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen, support of al-Qaeda quickly grew in reaction. US policy and drone attacks in Yemen went far in destroying the support that country had long given the US. Thinking we were following terrorist tracks in Yemen, we were “accused of changing allies in Yemen as if they were changing shirts.” Puri notes that Saudi Arabia does not trust the US, and surely the fawning of Trump today over the repressive government that was home to the beginning of ISIS shows how much us as the largest buyer of Saudi oil has made that relationship highly dysfunctional. Years of Saudi and US interventions have only led to Yemen getting worse. The UN responded by naming Yemen a low “humanitarian emergency” and condemning Saudi air strikes on its’ main airport blocking humanitarian aid (while not denouncing any of the previous Saudi bombings.) Military interventions make situations worse but, still worse, we consider improvements may be had by additional military interventions.
Puri warned us that tens of thousands of children in Yemen have “severe malnutrition, and over a million are at risk”, as well as 20 million people facing severe shortages of water. With little care enough to change the trajectory, this week BBC quoted WHO that hundreds of Yemenites have recently died of an “unprecedented” fast-growing cholera outbreak, and that the number could quickly balloon. I stared at Yemen on a map, forgetting that Saudi Arabia hangs menacingly overhead, with Yemen trapped by water across from equally devastated countries including Somali and South Sudan. It looks like Yemenites had not only bad choices but also hardly any chance for even desperate migration. I imagine the US should take Yemen refugees as well as Syrian ones. Puri describes Syria as “multilayered tragedies”, but it appears that poor Yemen is just such a victim, if not worse. The chronic and escalating human suffering must be on our collective hands.
Many of us that know from civics or political science that UN has five permanent members with presumed natural leverage but Puri says often the split is with a US, UK, and France advantage favoring the West, while Russia and China often vote the opposite. Arguing that you need unity among the five members for the Security Council to function, he declared, “There is no alternative but for Washington and Moscow to resolve their differences bilaterally”, as obviously Mike Flynn was trying to do if the haters hadn’t interfered. Seriously, Puri reminds us that the well-known rigging of Putin’s ’12 reelection was tolerated by the West and not acknowledged in the UN.
Puri is clear that our Iraq, Libya, and Syria inventions led to stocking ISIS with ever more dangerous believers, and that the Arab Spring arming by the West succeeded most in provided new clients for weapon dealers. Taking responsibility for ISIS comes not from more bombing, and “to the extent that ISIS is an ideology, does the situation not also warrant a comprehensive strategy to counter violent extremism?” ISIS rule now includes Pakistan, Algeria, and Libya with it’s “reactionary rendition of the sharia law” has “pushed the Iraqi and Syrian people back to the medieval age”.
India appeared to give support to Russia’s annexation of Crimea mentioning national interests as if they were understandable even though the actions violated Ukrainian rights and international law. This was parodied by Putin who rightly criticized the US and Western allies for violating numerous international laws in our own actions justifying separating of Kosovo from Serbia and bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. Rulers in Russia centuries earlier had supported the resettlement of Russians down in Crimea to cement the Russian rule over the area, even as they eventually recognized it was Ukrainian land. Their allure was of Ukraine joining the EU, but Ukraine wanted financial bailout first as the “breadbasket of Europe”. Ethnic Ukrainians were pitted against Russians, and the UN was quiet even as the situation was compared to Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia in ’38, claiming that ethnic Germans wanted the merger for their own safety. BRICs abstention from vetos kept the Security Council “paralyzed” during the Cold War.
I appreciated his thorough analysis of the problem of “mass atrocities”, and mentions how Clinton was concerned to never again allow a Rwandan-type massacre to occur (although we continue to do so – consider Sudan). He says: “Advocates of interventions commit the cardinal error of subjectively equating human rights violations with mass atrocities… When violations are of an egregious nature, the international community provides for a naming and shaming mechanism through Geneva… Popularly accepted definitions of mass atrocities, however, cover genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Subjective labeling also places governments confronting destabilization challenges from an armed insurrection as a disadvantage. Be that as it may, when a legitimate government adopts force to fend off rebels armed by foreign governments, deploys guerrilla tactics, razes neighborhoods and cities down and uses civilians as human shields, it cannot be but labeled as genocide perpetrated by the defending government. A legitimate government cannot commit mass atrocities just because it is confronted by a terror threat. The response itself has to be anchored in the values of a civilized society which places a premium on human rights and humanitarian approaches.”
Puri’s cover conveys his theme of the weakness and ineptitude of the Security Council with the white dove of peace covered in blood. It makes my own blood boil when I think of our continual pivoting away from smart diplomacy, and on continual news of the draining of the State Department and foreign affairs. Statesmanship,” he writes, “requires calling a halt to the chaos and helping restore legitimate state authority”, but Puri knows the contested terrain over what is “legitimate” is too often that which meets some needs and standards and not others. Both cause and solution are buried in an excellent, one-page graphic outlining a “cycle” on both the “policy motivations” and “intended and unintended consequences” for and of UN interventions. He includes: geopolitical domination, inter- and intra-State mass atrocities, terrorist attacks both in targeting and intervening countries with security compromised, efforts to shore up democracy and humanitarian support with “peacekeepers”, taking control of national resources including trading and routes, corporate interests pushing militarization and military alliances, and the global arms dealers of the Military-Industrial Complex creating new markets arming both allies and rebels even as rivals shift sides. Puri does not harangue about the political economy of war but clearly is a major reason why the UN Security Council’s actions are so confused and often misguided.
As diplomat, Puri helped broker a successful Indian-Sri Lankian peace treaty. The Sri Lanka chapter was the weakest, but appreciated given Puri’s involvement. Still, even that example followed the script of the intervention of the powerful against the less so, with the involvement of India in Sri Lanka funding various rebels (not so different that Saudi Arabia in Yemen). Besides serving in Foreign Service including as an ambassador to India, he is an expert in multilateral trade, counter-terrorism, and dispute resolution. Puri reminds us that Netanyahu encouraged Congress in ’02 to take military actions to change regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Libya for the sake of Israeli security. Here Puri is on the Israeli settlements post-’67: http://hardeepsinghpuri.com/the-unsc-...
This from the International Peace Institute https://www.ipinst.org/2016/10/perilo...
That something changed was obvious. The largely canned speech and response to questions from the tour guides of the UN on its Security Council in February of ’17 was different than that of both 10 and 20 years earlier, specifically now including a claim that neither tour guide nor UN leadership can justify all UN military actions, or claim that any particular action or set of actions led to meeting of goals or even improvements. In fact, the guide said before anyone could ask, perhaps the Council needed a broad reconstitution of purpose. Puri served as on the UN Security Council for a number of years and was a leader in these recent years of Arab Spring uprisings and responses. He has the same, ironic message as Kofi Annan on UN interventions from five years earlier, that the US, the inventor of the UN, is now the major impediment to its revision. An excellent review of Annan’s book is here: http://thebowedbookshelf.blogspot.com....
Conditions on the ground are worse now than when Annan discussed the political-economic contradictions with the UN’s humanitarian mission in light of the reluctance to challenge claims to sovereign leadership. The US government has failed to provide the UN a clear compass for action with confusions between different interpretations and applications of the “responsibility to protect” with or without “responsibility while protecting”, nor criteria for determining legitimacy of claims of sovereignty by governments or factions with political power. Clearly this comes from the tensions between humanitarian and economic-political interests both at home and around the globe, but I don’t think that excuses us. US politicians have long consciously conflated and ignorantly confused pro-American with pro-corporate views, and those in foreign policy and international affairs struggle to not mimic. We learn that too often the UN is assisting a side without the moral authority or desire to do right by its people, and there are direct links between the UN interventions and the now chronic global crises that have spawned huge amounts of death, destruction, and human suffering. Across all of Puri’s examples, I see the work of racism, tribalism, nationalism, and the remnants of colonialism (both post- and re-colonialism) as old-fashioned structural mystification for the power elite and military-industrial complex. Puri doesn’t discuss political economy at all, except for a list in a graphic of UN problems buried in the middle in the picture section. The common denominator across all social sciences is the pitting of ethnic minorities (named by low quantity or political-economic status and power) against each other by those that benefit.
The UN now has exhibits on the historical use of propaganda in war and on rape as spoils of war. At the end of the tour, we got our daughter the obligatory t-shirt – a brilliant design where the Dove of Peace grabs the “A” out of “W R” and flies up to place it where missing in “PE CE”. There were multiple examples of anti-war sentiment and the futility of war throughout the UN building. After reading Puri, I remembered the enlightened and impassioned exhibits almost like “dirty laundry”, or pointing with irony that UN actions may often promote human suffering instead of ending it. This occurs through political and economic destabilization of regions where we often cannot tell which side to fund, what government to keep, who is granted self-determination, and who is put under military control. I was impressed that the UN had Puri’s book, as it was clearly a UN insider’s deeply critical review. Neither Puri nor the Chinese graduate student working as an UN guide can continue as UN apologists, and both accept that the UN Security Council will not work well without a clearer mission. Puri notes that those that serve in the UN “shed their innocence” quickly with the political-economic games where there are few good choices that are truly “win-win”, and that life is simply shades of bad including all choices for many innocents on the receiving end of our interventions seem like inexcusable failures of international diplomacy.
Puri doesn’t think all interventions are bad or disastrous, and does believe the UN needs the ability to call for it, but his view is clear with the use of “iatrogenic harm” as metaphor to describe not just the effect of poor medical care but of the UN Security Council actions, where harm comes from the treatment (or intervention) itself. In foreign affairs with a lack of diplomacy and impetus to militarized force the treatment, or intervention, can be worst than the original harm, or at least compounding it. Some continuous threads appear to me linking the conflicts of an largely US-controlled oil economy in the Mideast as run with dictators, the widespread “Arab Spring” popular uprising for democracy and human rights, and the growth and influence of al-Qaeda and ISIS all around the Arabian peninsula. Together they seem to keep much hope for social democracy action destabilized in the entire Mideast region, and who gains but the arm dealers (Puri does not say that, though). How sad it is that most people of Arab Spring countries are worse off now than before?
Puri reminds us that while an Arab spring immolation by a young man from Tunisian caught media attention, there were others who also set themselves on fire in Egypt and across North Africa including in Mauritania and Algeria. The US and the UN were seen as supporters of repressive leaders during the Arab Springs, unlike the uprisings in Eastern Europe in ’89 where the US were seen as friends and providers of Western conveniences. Still, Obama said the Arab Spring “shouts for dignity” accomplished more “in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades” across North Africa and the Middle East. The hope for freedom across Arab Spring countries is largely gone, and likely the West was wrong it could offer democracy. This has “exhibited rather than overcome the internal contradictions of the Arab-Islamic world and the policies designed to resolve them.” Protesters wanting open societies with democracy were met by the “violent contest between military-backed authoritarianism and Islamic ideology”. (I hope that Puri finds the recent election of a moderate in Iran as hopeful as I do, but whether it will change fast enough to avoid the likelihood of Saudi Arabia and the US invading it is unclear.)
The UN has caused such “iatrogenic” damage with their interventions in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Crimea, and Sri Lanka, that Puri treats separately.
Trump struck an isolationist tone through his campaign that the US shouldn’t engage so much, especially not in the Middle East, and definitely not in Syria. Last month, after only the latest example of many years now of Assad gassing his own people, we launched $100 million dollars worth of bombs from ship to airfields in order to show the Syria government that gassing is wrong. (Huh?) (Puri mentions how Syria gave Russia this airport space!) With the horror of a thoroughly devastated Syria forever in the news, there is little surprise that Puri named it as the “most serious failure” of inaction by the UN National Security Council among the many other failures he documents. Just last month, after refusing to communicate with the press for months, Tillerson made his first official statement arguing tough that the larger issue of Syria is exactly Russia, and the Russian violations of arms agreements.
Puri’s frustration is clear with the four double-vetos over two years by China and Russia on Syria, and that both countries have refused to criticize Assad. Syria borders that were drawn by “imperialist cartographers” are now broken. “The three easy steps witnessed in Libya – a Security Council resolution, arming of rebels, and NATO military action – became the model for Syria”, but didn’t get the regime change. Iran and Russia supported Assad’s father and son, so the other three members of the Security Council, the US, UK, and France, felt more resolute in their desire to be anti-Assad. Puri says that “It is clear if Assad be overthrown militarily, Syria’s unraveling would be even more problematic than that of Libya”, and arming Syria rebels could possibly supply weapons to enable rebels to use them against Israel. Lacking guidance on foreign policy we pivoted from over a decade of funding Syrian anti-government covert forces, to five years of periodically bombing Syria’s ISIS targets. In ’13 Obama called for a “managed transition” to move Assad out of power with compromise and assistance from Russia and Iran. This changed when Trump suddenly bombing the government directly, even if “only” the airports with a courtesy call to the Russians beforehand. Puri tells us that seven million Syrians were displaced into camps and another 4 million fled to Lesbos out of a total 22 million population. A particularly heart-breaking picture among other excellent pictures provided of is of the 2000-year old ruins in Palmyra. A radical artist I know painted a picture of the shocking image of the 3-year old boy’s body washed up on the shores of Lesbos.
Puri said that the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which had been invoked to justify the Libyan intervention, remains valid despite the negative outcome of the action. Puri claims that the “fanciful justifications” of WMD by Bush in Iraq in ’03 were as bad as our justification of “protection of civilians” in Libya in ’11, and both resulted in massive civilian casualties. Gaddafi was desperate to avoid a military invention by the West to oust him but France wanted access to Libya’s oil production and didn’t like movements to create a gold-backed monetary standard that could undermine the franc. Geneva asked Libya to protect its’ citizens instead of slaughtering them, but clearly that wasn’t the driver of the UN action. Libya has led to Syria that has led to “potential flashpoint between the U.S. and Russia”, Puri argues, even if they do not “see the evolving mess through a Cold War prism”, just yet. He quotes Greenwald in ’16 that there was “no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it.” Puri said that Clinton and the Security Council were afraid of turning “Libya into a Somalia”, yet is seems again that bombs ignite fanaticism around the globe rather than taming it.
Like Syria, Yemen has undergone tremendous disintegration, with a healthcare system collapsed and regular “public health crises,” with no good hospitals and few doctors or nurses left. Puri quotes the Red Cross that we’ve allowed “more damage in Yemen in five months than what Syria has endured over four years.” We didn’t hear much at all about Yemen and it’s own Arab Spring uprisings, but Puri tells us it’s “dubious distinction of being the first country where a terrorist group demonstrated its ability to hold territory” when al-Qaeda set up shop in rural areas. Although National Security members regularly visit to witness “hot spots” themselves, Yemen was considered too dangerous even for a short visit with U.S. military protection. A growing Shia movement that could have fought al-Qaeda was weakened by attacks against it mostly by the Saudis and the US, as Saudi considered Yemen its “red line” against Iran. The concern was that a Shia government could encourage the long oppressed Shia population in Saudi Arabia to revolt. The Saudis misused the UN Charter for it’s multiple attacks against Houthi, argues Puri, as it wasn’t legitimate to claim their country was threatened from them.
So many innocent Yemenites were killed that “bad blood” with Saudi Arabia will likely exist for many generations. When the ruler’s son took over in Saudi Arabia in ’15 he changed the behavior of ignoring regional conflicts and went on the attack. With the US support of Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen, support of al-Qaeda quickly grew in reaction. US policy and drone attacks in Yemen went far in destroying the support that country had long given the US. Thinking we were following terrorist tracks in Yemen, we were “accused of changing allies in Yemen as if they were changing shirts.” Puri notes that Saudi Arabia does not trust the US, and surely the fawning of Trump today over the repressive government that was home to the beginning of ISIS shows how much us as the largest buyer of Saudi oil has made that relationship highly dysfunctional. Years of Saudi and US interventions have only led to Yemen getting worse. The UN responded by naming Yemen a low “humanitarian emergency” and condemning Saudi air strikes on its’ main airport blocking humanitarian aid (while not denouncing any of the previous Saudi bombings.) Military interventions make situations worse but, still worse, we consider improvements may be had by additional military interventions.
Puri warned us that tens of thousands of children in Yemen have “severe malnutrition, and over a million are at risk”, as well as 20 million people facing severe shortages of water. With little care enough to change the trajectory, this week BBC quoted WHO that hundreds of Yemenites have recently died of an “unprecedented” fast-growing cholera outbreak, and that the number could quickly balloon. I stared at Yemen on a map, forgetting that Saudi Arabia hangs menacingly overhead, with Yemen trapped by water across from equally devastated countries including Somali and South Sudan. It looks like Yemenites had not only bad choices but also hardly any chance for even desperate migration. I imagine the US should take Yemen refugees as well as Syrian ones. Puri describes Syria as “multilayered tragedies”, but it appears that poor Yemen is just such a victim, if not worse. The chronic and escalating human suffering must be on our collective hands.
Many of us that know from civics or political science that UN has five permanent members with presumed natural leverage but Puri says often the split is with a US, UK, and France advantage favoring the West, while Russia and China often vote the opposite. Arguing that you need unity among the five members for the Security Council to function, he declared, “There is no alternative but for Washington and Moscow to resolve their differences bilaterally”, as obviously Mike Flynn was trying to do if the haters hadn’t interfered. Seriously, Puri reminds us that the well-known rigging of Putin’s ’12 reelection was tolerated by the West and not acknowledged in the UN.
Puri is clear that our Iraq, Libya, and Syria inventions led to stocking ISIS with ever more dangerous believers, and that the Arab Spring arming by the West succeeded most in provided new clients for weapon dealers. Taking responsibility for ISIS comes not from more bombing, and “to the extent that ISIS is an ideology, does the situation not also warrant a comprehensive strategy to counter violent extremism?” ISIS rule now includes Pakistan, Algeria, and Libya with it’s “reactionary rendition of the sharia law” has “pushed the Iraqi and Syrian people back to the medieval age”.
India appeared to give support to Russia’s annexation of Crimea mentioning national interests as if they were understandable even though the actions violated Ukrainian rights and international law. This was parodied by Putin who rightly criticized the US and Western allies for violating numerous international laws in our own actions justifying separating of Kosovo from Serbia and bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. Rulers in Russia centuries earlier had supported the resettlement of Russians down in Crimea to cement the Russian rule over the area, even as they eventually recognized it was Ukrainian land. Their allure was of Ukraine joining the EU, but Ukraine wanted financial bailout first as the “breadbasket of Europe”. Ethnic Ukrainians were pitted against Russians, and the UN was quiet even as the situation was compared to Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia in ’38, claiming that ethnic Germans wanted the merger for their own safety. BRICs abstention from vetos kept the Security Council “paralyzed” during the Cold War.
I appreciated his thorough analysis of the problem of “mass atrocities”, and mentions how Clinton was concerned to never again allow a Rwandan-type massacre to occur (although we continue to do so – consider Sudan). He says: “Advocates of interventions commit the cardinal error of subjectively equating human rights violations with mass atrocities… When violations are of an egregious nature, the international community provides for a naming and shaming mechanism through Geneva… Popularly accepted definitions of mass atrocities, however, cover genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Subjective labeling also places governments confronting destabilization challenges from an armed insurrection as a disadvantage. Be that as it may, when a legitimate government adopts force to fend off rebels armed by foreign governments, deploys guerrilla tactics, razes neighborhoods and cities down and uses civilians as human shields, it cannot be but labeled as genocide perpetrated by the defending government. A legitimate government cannot commit mass atrocities just because it is confronted by a terror threat. The response itself has to be anchored in the values of a civilized society which places a premium on human rights and humanitarian approaches.”
Puri’s cover conveys his theme of the weakness and ineptitude of the Security Council with the white dove of peace covered in blood. It makes my own blood boil when I think of our continual pivoting away from smart diplomacy, and on continual news of the draining of the State Department and foreign affairs. Statesmanship,” he writes, “requires calling a halt to the chaos and helping restore legitimate state authority”, but Puri knows the contested terrain over what is “legitimate” is too often that which meets some needs and standards and not others. Both cause and solution are buried in an excellent, one-page graphic outlining a “cycle” on both the “policy motivations” and “intended and unintended consequences” for and of UN interventions. He includes: geopolitical domination, inter- and intra-State mass atrocities, terrorist attacks both in targeting and intervening countries with security compromised, efforts to shore up democracy and humanitarian support with “peacekeepers”, taking control of national resources including trading and routes, corporate interests pushing militarization and military alliances, and the global arms dealers of the Military-Industrial Complex creating new markets arming both allies and rebels even as rivals shift sides. Puri does not harangue about the political economy of war but clearly is a major reason why the UN Security Council’s actions are so confused and often misguided.
As diplomat, Puri helped broker a successful Indian-Sri Lankian peace treaty. The Sri Lanka chapter was the weakest, but appreciated given Puri’s involvement. Still, even that example followed the script of the intervention of the powerful against the less so, with the involvement of India in Sri Lanka funding various rebels (not so different that Saudi Arabia in Yemen). Besides serving in Foreign Service including as an ambassador to India, he is an expert in multilateral trade, counter-terrorism, and dispute resolution. Puri reminds us that Netanyahu encouraged Congress in ’02 to take military actions to change regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Libya for the sake of Israeli security. Here Puri is on the Israeli settlements post-’67: http://hardeepsinghpuri.com/the-unsc-...
This from the International Peace Institute https://www.ipinst.org/2016/10/perilo...
July 30, 2017
One of the greatest Books on The UN in contemporary times I have read. Nothing like seeing a professional tear his charge a new one after retirement.
On par with Col.Andrew J Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East
On par with Col.Andrew J Bacevich's America's War for the Greater Middle East
October 28, 2016
"You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems", President George Bush was told by his Secretary of State before the US invaded Iraq. Today, US and it's allies are trying leave behind those dreams unattended to.
This book presents a inside view of the UN Security Council from the perspective of a seasoned Indian diplomat. It shows how UNSC was manipulated by political & strategic self-interest and how it was even left marginalised the power play of modern geopolitics. It also renders naked the notion that unsophisticated simplistic views propounded by most Western media and think tanks are extrapolated as ground realities by those deciding such 'Perilous Interventions'.
The carnage in the intervened nations have left a massive international refugee crisis along with vast internal displacement of citizens in their home countries. The very powers that engaged militarily in the name of humanitarian intervention seem to have curiously lost their humanity in providing asylum to refugees.
Mr. Puri examines the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2C) and how it became a pretext of military interventions and regime change. He introduces the doctrine of Responsibility while Protecting (RwP), propounded by former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, as a measure if UNSC has to maintain its legitimacy in the eyes of a changing world.
This book presents a inside view of the UN Security Council from the perspective of a seasoned Indian diplomat. It shows how UNSC was manipulated by political & strategic self-interest and how it was even left marginalised the power play of modern geopolitics. It also renders naked the notion that unsophisticated simplistic views propounded by most Western media and think tanks are extrapolated as ground realities by those deciding such 'Perilous Interventions'.
The carnage in the intervened nations have left a massive international refugee crisis along with vast internal displacement of citizens in their home countries. The very powers that engaged militarily in the name of humanitarian intervention seem to have curiously lost their humanity in providing asylum to refugees.
Mr. Puri examines the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2C) and how it became a pretext of military interventions and regime change. He introduces the doctrine of Responsibility while Protecting (RwP), propounded by former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, as a measure if UNSC has to maintain its legitimacy in the eyes of a changing world.
March 29, 2017
Though we everyone have little idea about the functioning of UN security counsel, this book gives an insight what is actually happening. It's not just moral values that lead to security counsel judgement, but also, mainly, geopolitical issues which comes to play.
From a career diplomat, who is insider of the happenings during those turbulent years gives an more insight. The case of Libya is a classical example in which media and popular domestic opinion is alone enough to sway the global opinion, even ignoring ground realities and request.
The book also discusses mistakes and dilemmas of India, in various security counsel meeting and voting. For an outsider it definitely looks like a inconsistency but definitely it also have some rationales. And also it speaks about India's mistakes in Srilanka. It explains how decisions from India is skewed and based of opinions of few, thus costing more dearly.
From a career diplomat, who is insider of the happenings during those turbulent years gives an more insight. The case of Libya is a classical example in which media and popular domestic opinion is alone enough to sway the global opinion, even ignoring ground realities and request.
The book also discusses mistakes and dilemmas of India, in various security counsel meeting and voting. For an outsider it definitely looks like a inconsistency but definitely it also have some rationales. And also it speaks about India's mistakes in Srilanka. It explains how decisions from India is skewed and based of opinions of few, thus costing more dearly.
January 23, 2019
A really good book. A critique on the military interventions perpertrated by the West and the failures of the Security Council in this regard. This book deals majorly with issues related to Libya, Syria, Yemen. The author served as India's permanent representative to the United Nations between 2011 and 2012 when India was a non-permanent member of the Security Council. The author had a ringside view of what has happening and these anecdotes are a vital part of the book which adds to its strength.
January 21, 2017
Good book by an Indian diplomat serving on the security council. Naive interventions have brutal consequences.
April 23, 2018
"Perilous Interventions" is an outstanding book by a seasoned diplomat and India's former Permanent Representative to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri. This book gives an insider account of the working of the Security Council of UN.
By 'Perilous Intervention' author means "whimsical and reflexive decision making, and about taking decisions with far-reaching consequences without thinking through their consequences". Through various past incidents author has emphasized that the security council decisions are taken without weighing the pros and cons, or understanding the underlying social and cultural forces but on the basis of some vested political, economic and strategic interests of world powers especially the permanent members of the security council.
Author has not shied away in naming P-5 members of security council in taking sides in a matter that is serving to their vested interests rather than taking decisions based on the ground realities of the situation and after evaluating the consequences of such interventions. Like in case of Libya, where actual crimes against civilian population is far less than the crime numbers in Syria but in case of former, security council authorized the use of force and not in latter's case due to use of veto power by Russia and China.
This book explains in detail the crisis like situations in many countries like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine-Crimea issue and Sri Lanka and the approach of security council in responding to each situation. Security Council's role was ambivalent and indecisive in most of the cases where vested interests of one or more P-5 members were involved like in Ukraine-Crimea issue because of the Russia\'s involvement in the crisis, no security council decision was possible due to the veto power given to Russia.
Author also in no unclear words emphasized the urgent need of the reforms in security council representation where both permanent and non-permanent members representation should be based on contemporary socio-political and economic realities. Otherwise, the present system of representation skewed totally towards P-5 members would bring more indecisiveness and disrepute to the security council as well as the UN as a whole.
Author also discusses the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which must be invoked to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. R2P doctrine does not give automatic power to the security council to allow the use of force arbitrarily. While authorizing the use of force, the security council need to ensure that the alleged violations fall within one of the categories of mass atrocity crimes. Even then, use of force should always be the last resort and should be allowed with great caution and responsibility. As seen from the experiences in Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. world powers invoke R2P to justify their use of force in other countries but often fail to recognize their Responsibility while Protecting (RwP) and cause more damage and the instability to the region than it was before the intervention.
In light of this, author advocates for anchoring of RwP in every single case of the use of R2P doctrine by the security council and then only, the legitimacy of council's decision in public eyes can be ensured.This book is one of its kind that deals with the working of the most powerful body of the UN-the security council.
Everything is not clear black and white in international relations but things are measured based on the vested interests of the parties involved and if interests are served, black and white can be interchanged by the parties involved without any hesitation.
By 'Perilous Intervention' author means "whimsical and reflexive decision making, and about taking decisions with far-reaching consequences without thinking through their consequences". Through various past incidents author has emphasized that the security council decisions are taken without weighing the pros and cons, or understanding the underlying social and cultural forces but on the basis of some vested political, economic and strategic interests of world powers especially the permanent members of the security council.
Author has not shied away in naming P-5 members of security council in taking sides in a matter that is serving to their vested interests rather than taking decisions based on the ground realities of the situation and after evaluating the consequences of such interventions. Like in case of Libya, where actual crimes against civilian population is far less than the crime numbers in Syria but in case of former, security council authorized the use of force and not in latter's case due to use of veto power by Russia and China.
This book explains in detail the crisis like situations in many countries like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine-Crimea issue and Sri Lanka and the approach of security council in responding to each situation. Security Council's role was ambivalent and indecisive in most of the cases where vested interests of one or more P-5 members were involved like in Ukraine-Crimea issue because of the Russia\'s involvement in the crisis, no security council decision was possible due to the veto power given to Russia.
Author also in no unclear words emphasized the urgent need of the reforms in security council representation where both permanent and non-permanent members representation should be based on contemporary socio-political and economic realities. Otherwise, the present system of representation skewed totally towards P-5 members would bring more indecisiveness and disrepute to the security council as well as the UN as a whole.
Author also discusses the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which must be invoked to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. R2P doctrine does not give automatic power to the security council to allow the use of force arbitrarily. While authorizing the use of force, the security council need to ensure that the alleged violations fall within one of the categories of mass atrocity crimes. Even then, use of force should always be the last resort and should be allowed with great caution and responsibility. As seen from the experiences in Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. world powers invoke R2P to justify their use of force in other countries but often fail to recognize their Responsibility while Protecting (RwP) and cause more damage and the instability to the region than it was before the intervention.
In light of this, author advocates for anchoring of RwP in every single case of the use of R2P doctrine by the security council and then only, the legitimacy of council's decision in public eyes can be ensured.This book is one of its kind that deals with the working of the most powerful body of the UN-the security council.
Everything is not clear black and white in international relations but things are measured based on the vested interests of the parties involved and if interests are served, black and white can be interchanged by the parties involved without any hesitation.
July 19, 2017
Mr. Puri was permanent representative of India to UN for nearly 5 years. He had witnessed the turnings of time, the big decisions and indecisions of the permanent members and UNSC towards the middle east crisis. In his book, we have read about the UN dealings on crisis in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Crimea & Sri Lanka covered in a very unbiased, matter-of-factly manner, condemning the wrong and highlighting the good.
We see how selfishness of the powerful has caused millions to die from guns, bombs, starvation, drowning, how millions are displaced, fled country only to face tall walls. It is not only failure of the UN permanent members to see the crisis from the issue country's perspective but a major failure of UNSC to take action itself and also ensure fair application of sanctions, treaties by their authorised countries.
Time and again, US coalition forces have taken the wrong sides, funded and armed terrorist, but have preached others to not support terrorism. US has created monsters - Al Qaeda, ISIS. Destruction continues - Iraq, Libya, and now Syria, seems US doesn't want to learn from its mistakes and this denial is absolutely dangerous!
I do want to understand 1 thing though - Asad gov has iron fisted the initial peace rebellion. It was accused of using barrel bombs on its own citizens, hospitals. However late 2016 reports from ground activists have proved that these attacks were carried by the moderist groups. Does the Mr. Puri look at Asad in better light now(slightly, if at all)?
Highly Recommended. However please note that the book is very academic in structure and many may find it dry and scholarly.
We see how selfishness of the powerful has caused millions to die from guns, bombs, starvation, drowning, how millions are displaced, fled country only to face tall walls. It is not only failure of the UN permanent members to see the crisis from the issue country's perspective but a major failure of UNSC to take action itself and also ensure fair application of sanctions, treaties by their authorised countries.
Time and again, US coalition forces have taken the wrong sides, funded and armed terrorist, but have preached others to not support terrorism. US has created monsters - Al Qaeda, ISIS. Destruction continues - Iraq, Libya, and now Syria, seems US doesn't want to learn from its mistakes and this denial is absolutely dangerous!
I do want to understand 1 thing though - Asad gov has iron fisted the initial peace rebellion. It was accused of using barrel bombs on its own citizens, hospitals. However late 2016 reports from ground activists have proved that these attacks were carried by the moderist groups. Does the Mr. Puri look at Asad in better light now(slightly, if at all)?
Highly Recommended. However please note that the book is very academic in structure and many may find it dry and scholarly.
July 4, 2017
This is a brief account of the policies of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and their consequences during and after the Arab Spring. Hardeep Singh Puri draws on his experience during India's membership of the UNSC, which coincided with the Arab Spring, to show that the military interventions in the Middle East led by the West have had a devastating impact on the region. It has led to the unravelling of countries like Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen while making the whole region of the Middle East unstable.
The arguments made by the Interventionistas are often couched in moralistic terms of human rights violations and mass atrocities. What has to be borne in mind is that the living standards of the people of these countries have gone down significantly compared to the times when Gaddafi ruled Libya and the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham did not exist. With the highest number of Internally Displaced People in the world, Syria has only seen significantly worse human rights violations than before.
The author's stand in this book is vindicated by the positions he took on issues of military interventions while serving as India's PR to the United Nations. The book is a quick read and contains small chapters on each country that is discussed.
The arguments made by the Interventionistas are often couched in moralistic terms of human rights violations and mass atrocities. What has to be borne in mind is that the living standards of the people of these countries have gone down significantly compared to the times when Gaddafi ruled Libya and the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham did not exist. With the highest number of Internally Displaced People in the world, Syria has only seen significantly worse human rights violations than before.
The author's stand in this book is vindicated by the positions he took on issues of military interventions while serving as India's PR to the United Nations. The book is a quick read and contains small chapters on each country that is discussed.
January 16, 2019
This is a fantastic book because of how terse and even-handed it is.
It isn't easy to convey the gist of long and complex issues, while also making your point, by devoting a single chapter to each. But Mr.Puri does an excellent job of it. It's heartening to know there are people like him working in government.
I also liked that he focused on things he himself has direct experience with, rather than commenting irresponsibly on ALL related issues based on his conjecture. The latter is a mistake that more self-involved thinkers tend to do, and Mr.Puri avoided it throughout the book. For instance, he did not touch upon the Israel-Palestine conflict at all. At first, I was annoyed by this, but I quickly saw there was much wisdom in the choice.
One criticism, because of which I docked a point: I was really looking forward to examples of diplomatic conversations and how diplomats behave and speak to each other-- and how those play out in the real world. But these were entirely missing. However, it did have many quotes from talks, speeches and memos, which were very interesting to read.
With regards to his main point, of "perilous interventions" and the failures of the Security Council, there is much to learn from this book even if you already agree, especially as a layperson.
Read this book!
It isn't easy to convey the gist of long and complex issues, while also making your point, by devoting a single chapter to each. But Mr.Puri does an excellent job of it. It's heartening to know there are people like him working in government.
I also liked that he focused on things he himself has direct experience with, rather than commenting irresponsibly on ALL related issues based on his conjecture. The latter is a mistake that more self-involved thinkers tend to do, and Mr.Puri avoided it throughout the book. For instance, he did not touch upon the Israel-Palestine conflict at all. At first, I was annoyed by this, but I quickly saw there was much wisdom in the choice.
One criticism, because of which I docked a point: I was really looking forward to examples of diplomatic conversations and how diplomats behave and speak to each other-- and how those play out in the real world. But these were entirely missing. However, it did have many quotes from talks, speeches and memos, which were very interesting to read.
With regards to his main point, of "perilous interventions" and the failures of the Security Council, there is much to learn from this book even if you already agree, especially as a layperson.
Read this book!
Read
September 27, 2022الكتاب: تدخلات محفوفة بالمخاطر.. مجلس الأمن وسياسة الفوضى
المؤلف: الدبلوماسي الهندي السابق في الأمم المتحدة، هارديب سينغ بوري
الناشر: هاربر كولنز المحدودة للنشر
تاريخ الإصدار: 13 سبتمبر 2016
عدد الصفحات: 280
اللغة: الإنجليزية
هارديب سينغ بوري؛ دبلوماسي هندي، شغل منصب الممثل الدائم لبلاده لدى الأمم المتحدة ما بين 2002 و2005 في جنيف، وما بين 2009 و2013 في في نيويورك، تزامنًا مع عضوية الهند غير الدائمة في مجلس الأمن، خلال عامي 2011 و2012. وكان رئيس المجلس في أغسطس 2011 ونوفمبر 2012.
المناسبة: غداء خاص
المكان: أحد مطاعم مانهاتن الراقية
الزمان: السابع من مارس عام 2011
كان الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة بان كي مون وفريقه حاضرًا. وسرعان ما اتضح أن البند الرئيس على جدول الأعمال هو: ليبيا؛ حيث كانت قوات "القذافي" تتقدم نحو معقل المتمردين في بنغازي لسحق المعارضة.
مُتَحَلِّقين حول مائدةٍ تبلغ تكلفة غداء الفرد الواحد عليها أكثر من 80 دولارًا، ناقشت مجموعة صغيرة من أبرز دبلوماسي الدول الممثَّلة في مجلس الأمن إمكانية استخدام القوة. مرَّت مياهٌ قليلة تحت الجسور، قبل أن يأتي تكليف المجلس بعد عشرة أيام فقط؛ ثم انفتحت أبواب الجحيم على مصراعيها.
هارديب سينغ بوري، المبعوث الهندي لدى الأمم المتحدة في ذلك الوقت، يكشف في هذا الكتاب كيف اتُّخِذَ هذا القرار الأمميّ غريب الأطوار، ويسلط الضوء على الجدال غير المدروس من جانب بعض أعضاء المجلس الدائمين.
"تدخلات محفوفة بالمخاطر" يوضح كيف أن بعض الحالات التي استُخدِمَت فيها القوة مؤخرًا- ليس فقط في ليبيا ولكن أيضًا في سوريا واليمن والقرم، فضلا عن مغامرة الهند في سريلانكا خلال ثمانينيات القرن الماضي- تمخضت عن نتائج كارثية، بحسب المؤلف.
إصلاح الأمم المتحدة لم يعد خيارا
مقدمة الكتاب، كتبها دبلوماسي مخضرم آخر هو: عمرو موسى؛ مندوب مصر الدائم لدى الأمم المتحدة عام 1990، ووزير خارجيتها عام 1991، وأمين عام الجامعة العربية عام 2001، تحت عنوان "إصلاح الأمم المتحدة لم يعد خيارا".
يقول "موسى" إن الكتاب صدر في لحظة محورية بالنسبة للأمم المتحدة، والنظام العالمي ككل؛ تُطِلّ على العديد من الاحتماليات، ويحفها قدر كبير من المخاطر وعدم اليقين.
ويشير إلى بعض الحالات التي تضمنها الكتاب تكشف كيف تصرف مجلس الأمن خلال اللحظات الحاسمة في العصر الحديث، وكيف أثر سلوك الدول الأعضاء على أمن العالم وسلامته، وكيف أن التدخل كان في غالب الأحيان يسبق الدبلوماسية الوقائية والوساطات.
وهي المشاهد التي تتضافر؛ لتدفعنا إلى التفكير في الهدف الأول الذي من أجله تأسست هذه المنظمة الدولية في المقام الأول، وكيفية إصلاحها لتواكب التحديات التي نواجهها في الحاضر، على حد قوله.
وإذ يؤكد "موسى" أن إصلاح الأمم المتحدة أصبح حتميّة لا فكاك منها، وأن هذا التغيير شرط أساسي لاستدامة النظام العالمي، ويشير أيضًا إلى التوصيات المتعلقة بتجسير الفجوة بين ما تتوقع المنظمة إنجازه وما تنجزه بالفعل على الأرض، فإنه في الوقت ذاته يؤكد على أن الإصلاح الحقيقي للأمم المتحدة هو في جوهره مسألة سياسية، تتطلب رؤية وجرأة، ناصحًا بأن يكون إصلاح مجلس الأمن الدولي على رأس أولويات هذه الأجندة الإصلاحية.
بعض الأخطاء يستحيل إصلاحها
تبلورت فكرة الكتاب مع بداية الدورة السابعة لعضوية الهند الدائمة في الأمم المتحدة عام 2011-2012. ويخلُص مؤلفه إلى أن استخدام القوة- بتفويض مجلس الأمن التابع للأمم المتحدة أو بدونه- أسفر عن الكثير من التداعيات غير المقصود، والتي كانت- في معظم الحالات- كارثية.
والاستثناء الذي يُستَشهَد به غالبا هو التدخل في كوسوفا عام 1999، حينما شن حلف الناتو ضربات جوية بدون إذن المجلس الأمميّ، ونجح في وقف التطهير العرقي بحق المواطنين الألبان. لكن ما عدا ذلك- يتابع المؤلف- كانت معظم التدخلات ذات آثار كارثية.
"حينما يخطئ طبيب في تشخيص المرض، ووصف الدواء؛ يكون هناك في الغالب علاج لهذا الخطأ، على الأقل طالما بقي المريض على قيد الحياة. وحتى لو فاضت روح المريض إلى بارئها؛ تظل الفرصة سانحة لمقاضاة الطبيب المخطئ.
والمشكلات الناتجة عن انهيار جسر أو مبنى، سواء نتيجة خطأ فادح ارتكبه المهندس أو تدني مستوى التنفيذ؛ يمكن أيضًا علاجها.
بيدَ أن قضايا السلم والأمن الدولية تشكل معضلة من طراز مختلف تماما؛ ذلك أن تداعيات هذا النوع من الأخطاء ذات طبيعة أكثر خطورة واستمرارية، والمسؤولون عن هذه القرارات غالبا ما يتترسون بدرع "المسئولية الجماعية" "والنوايا النبيلة"، والتراجع عن هذه الأخطاء تمثل تحديًا يقارب المستحيل".
(نُشِرَ هذا العرض على موقع مركز إدراك للدراسات والاستشارات في عام 2016، ومتاح على الرابط التالي https://idraksy.net/perilous-interven...، كما نُشِرَ على موقع "العالم بالعربية"؛ أول منصة عربية متخصصة في رصد وتحليل اتجاهات الصحف ومراكز الأبحاث والإصدارات العالمية)
المؤلف: الدبلوماسي الهندي السابق في الأمم المتحدة، هارديب سينغ بوري
الناشر: هاربر كولنز المحدودة للنشر
تاريخ الإصدار: 13 سبتمبر 2016
عدد الصفحات: 280
اللغة: الإنجليزية
هارديب سينغ بوري؛ دبلوماسي هندي، شغل منصب الممثل الدائم لبلاده لدى الأمم المتحدة ما بين 2002 و2005 في جنيف، وما بين 2009 و2013 في في نيويورك، تزامنًا مع عضوية الهند غير الدائمة في مجلس الأمن، خلال عامي 2011 و2012. وكان رئيس المجلس في أغسطس 2011 ونوفمبر 2012.
المناسبة: غداء خاص
المكان: أحد مطاعم مانهاتن الراقية
الزمان: السابع من مارس عام 2011
كان الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة بان كي مون وفريقه حاضرًا. وسرعان ما اتضح أن البند الرئيس على جدول الأعمال هو: ليبيا؛ حيث كانت قوات "القذافي" تتقدم نحو معقل المتمردين في بنغازي لسحق المعارضة.
مُتَحَلِّقين حول مائدةٍ تبلغ تكلفة غداء الفرد الواحد عليها أكثر من 80 دولارًا، ناقشت مجموعة صغيرة من أبرز دبلوماسي الدول الممثَّلة في مجلس الأمن إمكانية استخدام القوة. مرَّت مياهٌ قليلة تحت الجسور، قبل أن يأتي تكليف المجلس بعد عشرة أيام فقط؛ ثم انفتحت أبواب الجحيم على مصراعيها.
هارديب سينغ بوري، المبعوث الهندي لدى الأمم المتحدة في ذلك الوقت، يكشف في هذا الكتاب كيف اتُّخِذَ هذا القرار الأمميّ غريب الأطوار، ويسلط الضوء على الجدال غير المدروس من جانب بعض أعضاء المجلس الدائمين.
"تدخلات محفوفة بالمخاطر" يوضح كيف أن بعض الحالات التي استُخدِمَت فيها القوة مؤخرًا- ليس فقط في ليبيا ولكن أيضًا في سوريا واليمن والقرم، فضلا عن مغامرة الهند في سريلانكا خلال ثمانينيات القرن الماضي- تمخضت عن نتائج كارثية، بحسب المؤلف.
إصلاح الأمم المتحدة لم يعد خيارا
مقدمة الكتاب، كتبها دبلوماسي مخضرم آخر هو: عمرو موسى؛ مندوب مصر الدائم لدى الأمم المتحدة عام 1990، ووزير خارجيتها عام 1991، وأمين عام الجامعة العربية عام 2001، تحت عنوان "إصلاح الأمم المتحدة لم يعد خيارا".
يقول "موسى" إن الكتاب صدر في لحظة محورية بالنسبة للأمم المتحدة، والنظام العالمي ككل؛ تُطِلّ على العديد من الاحتماليات، ويحفها قدر كبير من المخاطر وعدم اليقين.
ويشير إلى بعض الحالات التي تضمنها الكتاب تكشف كيف تصرف مجلس الأمن خلال اللحظات الحاسمة في العصر الحديث، وكيف أثر سلوك الدول الأعضاء على أمن العالم وسلامته، وكيف أن التدخل كان في غالب الأحيان يسبق الدبلوماسية الوقائية والوساطات.
وهي المشاهد التي تتضافر؛ لتدفعنا إلى التفكير في الهدف الأول الذي من أجله تأسست هذه المنظمة الدولية في المقام الأول، وكيفية إصلاحها لتواكب التحديات التي نواجهها في الحاضر، على حد قوله.
وإذ يؤكد "موسى" أن إصلاح الأمم المتحدة أصبح حتميّة لا فكاك منها، وأن هذا التغيير شرط أساسي لاستدامة النظام العالمي، ويشير أيضًا إلى التوصيات المتعلقة بتجسير الفجوة بين ما تتوقع المنظمة إنجازه وما تنجزه بالفعل على الأرض، فإنه في الوقت ذاته يؤكد على أن الإصلاح الحقيقي للأمم المتحدة هو في جوهره مسألة سياسية، تتطلب رؤية وجرأة، ناصحًا بأن يكون إصلاح مجلس الأمن الدولي على رأس أولويات هذه الأجندة الإصلاحية.
بعض الأخطاء يستحيل إصلاحها
تبلورت فكرة الكتاب مع بداية الدورة السابعة لعضوية الهند الدائمة في الأمم المتحدة عام 2011-2012. ويخلُص مؤلفه إلى أن استخدام القوة- بتفويض مجلس الأمن التابع للأمم المتحدة أو بدونه- أسفر عن الكثير من التداعيات غير المقصود، والتي كانت- في معظم الحالات- كارثية.
والاستثناء الذي يُستَشهَد به غالبا هو التدخل في كوسوفا عام 1999، حينما شن حلف الناتو ضربات جوية بدون إذن المجلس الأمميّ، ونجح في وقف التطهير العرقي بحق المواطنين الألبان. لكن ما عدا ذلك- يتابع المؤلف- كانت معظم التدخلات ذات آثار كارثية.
"حينما يخطئ طبيب في تشخيص المرض، ووصف الدواء؛ يكون هناك في الغالب علاج لهذا الخطأ، على الأقل طالما بقي المريض على قيد الحياة. وحتى لو فاضت روح المريض إلى بارئها؛ تظل الفرصة سانحة لمقاضاة الطبيب المخطئ.
والمشكلات الناتجة عن انهيار جسر أو مبنى، سواء نتيجة خطأ فادح ارتكبه المهندس أو تدني مستوى التنفيذ؛ يمكن أيضًا علاجها.
بيدَ أن قضايا السلم والأمن الدولية تشكل معضلة من طراز مختلف تماما؛ ذلك أن تداعيات هذا النوع من الأخطاء ذات طبيعة أكثر خطورة واستمرارية، والمسؤولون عن هذه القرارات غالبا ما يتترسون بدرع "المسئولية الجماعية" "والنوايا النبيلة"، والتراجع عن هذه الأخطاء تمثل تحديًا يقارب المستحيل".
(نُشِرَ هذا العرض على موقع مركز إدراك للدراسات والاستشارات في عام 2016، ومتاح على الرابط التالي https://idraksy.net/perilous-interven...، كما نُشِرَ على موقع "العالم بالعربية"؛ أول منصة عربية متخصصة في رصد وتحليل اتجاهات الصحف ومراكز الأبحاث والإصدارات العالمية)
May 11, 2020
An inside look into the workings and decision making process of the UN Security Council. As one of India's foremost diplomats in their permanent mission to the UN, Puri takes us through his observations of the Security Council's handling of the crises in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, and Sri Lanka during the time that India had a seat on the council. Puri concludes the book with a critique of the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine and a proposed revision of it.
In the early stages of the book, Puri's analysis of the outbreak of ISIS is rather nauseating. He blames the rise of the group on all the typical targets: Western imperialist motivation, the poverty of the region, the power vacuum created by the toppling of Sadam's regime, etc. What Puri fails to consider is ISIS's own manifestos regarding their professed hatred towards the west and what they aim to accomplish. For anyone interested, I recommend reading "Why We Hate You, and Why We Fight You" from the official publishing house of ISIS to get a crystal-clear idea of the terrorist group's motivations (spoiler: it's not because of "Western imperialism" or their own poverty).
After getting through his high-brow, clichéd "intellectual" analysis of the rise of ISIS, the book picks up to get into the gritty decision making process of UN intervention in various middle eastern conflicts. For those wanting to get a get an inside look into the power politics of the UN and the various motivations and interests that are at play in these conflicts, this is quite the read. Despite my opposition to his analysis of ISIS and the refugee crisis, this is a quality and important addition to a growing collection of literature covering 21st-century conflicts in the Middle East.
In the early stages of the book, Puri's analysis of the outbreak of ISIS is rather nauseating. He blames the rise of the group on all the typical targets: Western imperialist motivation, the poverty of the region, the power vacuum created by the toppling of Sadam's regime, etc. What Puri fails to consider is ISIS's own manifestos regarding their professed hatred towards the west and what they aim to accomplish. For anyone interested, I recommend reading "Why We Hate You, and Why We Fight You" from the official publishing house of ISIS to get a crystal-clear idea of the terrorist group's motivations (spoiler: it's not because of "Western imperialism" or their own poverty).
After getting through his high-brow, clichéd "intellectual" analysis of the rise of ISIS, the book picks up to get into the gritty decision making process of UN intervention in various middle eastern conflicts. For those wanting to get a get an inside look into the power politics of the UN and the various motivations and interests that are at play in these conflicts, this is quite the read. Despite my opposition to his analysis of ISIS and the refugee crisis, this is a quality and important addition to a growing collection of literature covering 21st-century conflicts in the Middle East.
May 17, 2022
This book had interesting and important ideas but really could have used better editing and a clearer narrative. I would have loved more in-depth narratives of the various conflicts and crises (with Security Council and state actions in parallel) followed by analysis of how different actions by the Security Council might have changed outcomes and why they went so awry. Instead, everything is jumbled together, seemingly repetitive, and without clear steps forward at the end. Indeed, the main takeaway may be that we're better off without the UN because it's either (1) become political cover for individual state foreign policy maneuvers, and/or (2) prone to mucking things up even worse by taking foolhardy action. In any case, my takeaway was that we need a reset of the UN and its functions, but given its current makeup, I doubt that will happen or, even if it were to happen, that much would change.
January 26, 2021
Como estudiante en Relaciones Internacionales, el Consejo de Seguridad es un punto focal en relación a los efectos que los Estados tienen sobre los otros.
Este libro muestra; tal como Nassim Taleb lo menciona, por primera vez los efectos de segundo orden y el concepto de iatrogenia general en la política internacional.
Qué es la iatrogenia general? Cuando el remedio o el plan traen más consecuencias que beneficios.
Un must para todo internacionalista.
Este libro muestra; tal como Nassim Taleb lo menciona, por primera vez los efectos de segundo orden y el concepto de iatrogenia general en la política internacional.
Qué es la iatrogenia general? Cuando el remedio o el plan traen más consecuencias que beneficios.
Un must para todo internacionalista.
March 29, 2020
It's an excellent book which shows how interventions by West have failed in Middle East (Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq), and have led to unintended consequences. Also solidifies my personal view that UN is an obsolete and irrelevant (or rather relevant in the sense that it does more harm than good) organization.
April 7, 2024
it seems that whenever a conflict arises, the UN/western response seems to be to intervene in some way. this book digs into the UN security council and some of its inner workings along with the often negative consequences that have arisen from interventions in foreign conflicts such as libya and syria
December 7, 2022
Written by a former ambassador to the UN, it is an insightful window into the inner workings of what is typically an opaque and impenetrable organization. The section on the 2014 Ukraine crisis is particularly pertinent to today.
February 5, 2021
Wow. Informative. Several in depth examples from all over the Middle East, to Crimea, to Sri Lanka. Intervention precedes destruction when interests are asymmetrically aligned.
March 3, 2022
Particularly daunting. Very interesting. I feel ignorant.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews