The Unfinished Global Revolution by Mark Malloch Brown

This is a very personal account of the history and current state when it comes to the role of the current global governance system, and UN in particular. Parts of the book reads like a self-congratulatory speech, more like an American book than a British, but the subject is important and the journey is interesting so I do not see this as a problem.

After all Brown is someone who looks at the major challenges of our time (although more looking back than forward) and want to do something about them. With a refreshing global perspective Brown provides an insight to how it is to see bad things happen and have administration (and focus on one’s career) tie your hand so you can only watch. (The book “Shake hand with the devil” is a good example of what happens if you refuse to let structures tie your hands down).

There are many things that makes me frustrated, e.g. where I think there are better ways to approach certain challenges (and I like that with a book). But there are also a number of things that got me frustrated in a bad way, as I think they are spreading a perspective that makes it harder to understand what is happening as they have little to do with reality. How Brown describes historic events like the WTO meeting in Seattle is one example where so much happened before, during and after that would benefit from an inside perspective instead of a simplistic perspective.

But for all its weaknesses/challenging parts it is hard to not be happy when you read a book where the author in the very first chapter writes: “We must demonstrate that global governance can deliver economic fairness between nations; security for people from overbearing states; and agreed rules for sharing our finite natural resources, and above all the processes to manage global changes”.

There were so much that I learned, that I felt I should already know. From the creation of NIEO to many of the intrapreneurs in the UN system and I really really like that in a book.

Part of me feels sad as the books does not really include any analytical thinking, Brown is a PR person, he knows how to spin things. That is what he has done in all his different positions. This is no critique it is just something I did not know when I started reading the book. The difference is that most people writing similar books, politicians/business leaders/academics/etc, are also PR people not visionaries that actually know anything, the difference is that many people want to presented that they are something more, so the open admission from Brown is refreshing.

As a PR person parts of the book becomes a sales pitch for Brown himself and not only is everything he does written as if he thinks it has been very successful, but also very exciting. Still compared with his friends at the Economist and their book “the fourth revolution” he has actually been engaged in actual global issues, far from a desk in London, and he has also he himself been doing work. He also seems to have a genuine interest to help support a better global governance system.

Unfortunately he writes in a way that I think many academics and civil servants can interpret as it is not possible to have an ambition to actually change the system, and that the best you can do is to just comment and react to things and pretend that it is meaningful (illustrated by this short and sad note in Foreign Affairs, by a tired academic who I guess have not thought much about the world from any perspective than an incremental US perspective)

I’m not sure what Brown himself wanted, but I think the book is very inspiring as it clearly talks about the need for a very different UN, but also acknowledges that it will require a unique situation. He highlights two things that will “bring matters to a head”: 1. The gap between what is needed and what the global governance system/UN can deliver will continue to grow and create frustration. 2. As more events will happen that require global governance the world will turn to the UN.

He concludes, rightfully I think, that “a fresh try at reform remains inevitable. The question remains when, not if.”

PS In one part of the book the tone changes, and I would love to have seen the first drafts. It is when he talks about John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN. It is very seldom where you see PR people on this level write with passion and rage. Brown really thinks that Bolton has made the world a worse place. Brown pulls no punches when he writes about how destructive Bolton has been and the fact that one individual (supported by people like Dick Chaney) could destroy so much.

It is hard not to agree with Brown as Bolton probably is one of the most bizarre people the US has ever put in an international organization. Bolton is one of these persons that make you wonder if there is any hope for humanity. Not the fact that he exists, there will always be crazy people around, but the fact that this kind of person can be given platforms to disseminate his confused and hateful messages, that is almost as far away from empathy as you can get.

Ghost Fleet by Peter W. Singer and August Cole

This was an interesting book on many levels, tone, style and purpose, but also as it felt like a future imagined by people representing an old world that is still very influential. So many of future scenarios are either just incremental or only look at the new. This was very much on the incremental side, but extrapolated to far that it became a reflection of the world we live in. I enjoyed reading it the same way I read material from established mainstream people like Klaus Schwab, or organizations like McKinsey/PwC, that distill new ideas in a shape that the “old” system understand and can use. These texts are less interesting to read if you want to understand how the future will look like, but they are interesting to read if you want to develop strategies that result in real change, as they help you undertand how the "old" structures will react.

On an overall level the book is therefore a little unsavory, as large parts of it comes a cross as chanting for more traditional military investment by the US. Part of the book actually felt as if a, pretty smart, PR agency had come up with a script for a movie for Lockheed Martin. Without any spoilers it actually turns out that it could be a PR project from another sector in the US.

Beyond the plot where the traditional, and American home made, solutions are what can save us the geopolitical framing is entertaining. Building the story around the emergence of an aggressive side of a commercial conglomerate in China that has taken over the government is interesting, although there are many other scenarios that I think would have been more interesting to explore. The kind of conflict portrayed feels very 19th century.

Even if they play on the fear of a raising China and the dependence on Chinese technology/manufacturing in a very simplistic way there is such a string of fun observations that the worst China bashing is pretty easy to forgive.

One thing that I find equally amusing and frustrating is how all authors now need to include hackers in any plot with a major conflict. As in many other books the hacking/cyber elements seem to be the area where the authors do not have much interest and knowledge. I wonder when, is ever, we will find a language (written and imagery) where coding/hacking can be communicated in a relevant way that can reach beyond a few and capture the complexities.

What saves the book for me is that it feels genuine. I think the writers have a passionate interest in new military technology, geopolitical changes and different scenarios.

Influx, by Daniel Suarez

I really liked Daemon and thought it was great that Daniel dared to follow-up the story after the climax in what I think is one of the best stories about AI ever in FreedomTM. Kill Decision was not bad, but it felt more like a narrow (but still highly relevant) drone discussion, than a broader discussion about society. The interesting thing is that now after reading his latest book, Influx, I realize now how much I liked Kill Decision and also how important I think it is.

There are some fun technologies in this book, but they are used in a way where I felt they where sprinkled in a really thin story that lacked any context to make the ideas relevant.

Influx is more like a normal science fiction and Daniel is a good writer so it is good book. Still, for me it lacks the edge from earlier books where he managed to surprise you and also put them in an overall context that felt interesting. I hope that Daniel got a few ideas off his chest and that he will continue on the more hard science fiction where the technology is part of a living society.

If you have nothing to do and like near-time science fiction the book provide some fun examples of technologies that are currently being developed.

World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History, by Henry Kissinger

World order is probably the best book I have read by Kissinger and one of the most interesting from a "politician" when it comes to global governance. It is not very helpful when it comes to actual solutions, or inspiration for solutions and as that is what I tend to look for it took some time for me to appreciate the book. I would say that it is interesting in two very different ways.

First, during the most of the book Kissinger comes across as a wise old man (although too sloppy, as too many of the references are not correct) interested in the long-term historic perspective. We are taken on a journey where a lot of time is spent in the 17th-century and the time leading up to and following The Peace of Westphalia. The process and outcome related to The Peace of Westphalia is the center of the universe that Kissinger sketches.

The focus is on the balancing act required in a multipolar system. Something that result in a focus status quo at the center is used to contrast alternative approached, all more “totalitarian” in their approach. The logic behind this system is never analyzed.

James Traub captured it perfect in his review of the book in WSJ: “The villains of Mr. Kissinger's account are the totalizers, like Napoleon and Bismarck; the heroes are the deft manipulators of an ever-shifting equilibrium among states— Talleyrand and Metternich.”

The very special situation that has allowed the nation state to emerge with governments accountable in some ways to the population is very interesting. For anyone interested in global governance I would argue that this book is mandatory reading.

Second, in the last part of the book, something interesting happens. Here Kissinger turns into something very unpleasant. Instead of using this book, that might be his last, for some actual reflection, it turns into a very strange and almost pathetic excuse for his less pleasant choses in life. I’m no expert on Kissinger, but it was easy to see when it was time to google some information about actions described in the book that he is ashamed of as the style of writing changed. The change of tone, arrogant and cold, is really unpleasant. I was not expecting a true and deep introspection from Kissinger, but perhaps something along the lines that Robert McNamara did in Fog of War. Not admitting to being wrong, but at least open up to the possibility that everything might not have been as good as it seemed back then (or hopefully not even back then).

The way he celebrate Bush and Reagan is as if he is a fundamentalist refusing to see any other possibilities. It would have been interesting to hear him discuss how things could have developed in different ways.

Overall, the long-term perspective and reflection of the fragility of our current international system makes the book well-worth reading.