Rating: 
Summary: Well written propaganda....
Review: This is not a "good" book. Spooked me in a different way than he intended. The ideology masked by Kaplan's claim to objectivity and realism balanced with a clever aversion to self-rightiousness, is just the kind of ego-centric dominator species reality view that is racing us toward oblivion. He speaks of "natural resources" rather than environment. What can I say? Give me faerie dust any day over this kind of cool-headed fascist approach to running the world...which, by the way is what his ilk is after. Henry K. for Heaven's sake......give me a break.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't give up after the first essay...read on!!
Review: "Kaplan is no more than an alarmist." That is what I thought somewhere in the middle of the first essay from which the book gains its title, The Coming Anarchy. Then I began the second of the nine essays which make up the book, "Was Democracy just a Moment?" "O.K., he's an alarmist who believes democracy will destroy the world," my thinking continued. But by about page 69 I began to find insightful principles like, "States have never been formed by elections. Geography, settlement patterns, the rise of literate bourgeoisie, and, tragically, ethnic cleansing have formed states." And, "Social stability results from the establishment of a middle class" (70). These were the kinds of foundational thinking I could agree with. "Maybe I shouldn't dismiss this guy altogether," I speculated. At that point I never imagined that I would find what I did, at the end of the book.
The fact that Robert Kaplan recognizes the import of powers of observation is one of the things that impressed me as I continued to read Kaplan's essays. The first several essays of the book paint graphic pictures of a not-so-idealistic post Cold War world. Kaplan undauntingly portrays the chaos in most Third World countries. He draws parallels that cannot be dismissed. Whether you agree or not, you are forced to consider. While many people look away, and journalists won't consider writing, Kaplan keeps watching and composing.
Linked with his deductions resulting from observation, Kaplan combines a commanding respect for understanding the significance of human nature. In the fifth essay in the book, "And Now for the News..." he establishes the value of history as related in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbons. He says, "The Decline and Fall instructs that human nature never changes, and that mankind's predilection for faction, augmented by environmental and cultural differences, is what determines history" (113). Throughout all of his essays, I began to see the basis for his theses are amazingly simple, at least insofar as understanding human nature is simple. When he concludes this essay with, "When Gibbon describes everyday people in poor nations as exhibiting a 'carelessness of futurity,' he exposes one tragic effect of underdevelopment in a way that many more-careful and polite tomes of today do not" (117), I realized that this guy is not only observant and somewhat discerning, he is brave, it's just not politically correct to insult people who live in the Third World.
The third, fourth, and sixth essays in the book establish without a doubt, Kaplan's identity as a realist. This fact coincides with his attention to observation and study of human nature. In the last sentence of the third essay, "Idealism won't Stop Mass Murder," he says, "But many Americans think that it may be possible to afford some protection to all those other people. If so, I fear that we may have to be very ruthless indeed" (104). "Uh oh," I thought, "he's crossing the line again, give me balance, Robert." In the next essay, "Special Intelligence," he does just that. He shifts his emphasis from observation and estimation, to more concrete illustrations. He explains that, "The assumption at Fort Bragg is that despite war-crimes tribunals and Geneva Conventions, future adversaries will play by the rules even less often than present ones do" (109). I found that, in a post 9/11 world, I have to agree with that.
By the sixth essay in the book, "Proportionalism: A Realistic Approach to Foreign Policy," Kaplan had earned my respect, although still somewhat begrudgingly. He aptly characterizes liberals and conservatives, and generously describes government, "Caught among the various mind-sets are well-meaning Washington bureaucrats who are trying to craft workable policies on global humanitarian issues" (120). In this essay Kaplan actually presents a balanced and thoughtful proposition about this subject. Given my initial impression of the book from reading that first essay, I had not thought to discover any semblance of balance or generosity. I still don't necessarily agree with him, but as a reader I am moved to consider and that is an accomplishment for an author, especially one whose approach is forceful.
I remember that I thought at this point in my reading, "He'll never conclude this book with realizing we will end up with world peace." And because I believe that we will eventually achieve world peace (albeit temporarily), I judged Kaplan as observant, discerning, generous-at-times, and unexpectedly balanced, but ultimately wide of the mark. I read the next two essays. They continued to be challenging, insightful, and proportionate. When I turned the page to begin the last essay, I still was not expecting to find the topic, "The Dangers of Peace" (169).
Kaplan's last essay is a superlative ending for this book. It is a prophecy that can't quite be believed, yet he supports his thesis with significant illustrations and facts. As he concludes this essay he makes this outrageous suggestion regarding the United States and its relationship with the United Nations, "The U.S. should pay its dues and, in essence, without declaring it, take over the U.N. in order to make it a transparent multiplier of American and Western power" (181). By this point in the book I have become used to these kinds of statements by the author, so I just take a deep breath and read on, "That, of course, may not lead to peace, since others might resent it and fight as a result; but such an action would fill the world organization's insipid ideological vacuum with at least someone's values-indeed ours" (181). The danger of a world with an ideological vacuum...it's quite ironic that it takes a realist to understand that.
Concluding this review in the context of a course on the United States and the Post Cold War, Kaplan's book, The Coming Anarchy; Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War, is entirely relevant. It is demanding and shrewd; and invites the student to think critically about the present and the future. While the author evokes passion and emotionalism by his literary technique, the student must exercise mental restraint and evaluate objectively the analysis and prediction the author offers.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting
Review: Kaplan successfully discusses the geo-political issues of a bi-polar world. The issue of how to deal with rogue states, and criminal, unelected, unaccountable rogue groups is also addressed. Kaplan has presented a number of concise, cogent methodologies to deal with these issues. And for the most part they are suitable and appropriate. I look forweard to reading his other works
Rating:
Summary: Can't see the forest for the trees
Review: Kaplan's Coming Anarchy is one of the weakest books I've read, and now in my 3rd year of a Pol Sci Phd program, that's a lot of books. He is the Jenny Jones of literature, spotlighting all that is shocking yet meaningless. This book is a collection of problems, yet he offers no theory of how all of these events are related, no theory behind this anarchy, and no explanation for where it is leading, except for a possibly racist suggestion that it is leading to a society like that in current-era West Africa. Interested readers should consider Robet Wright's Nonzero, in which he argues there is a progressive and equilibrium path in human development. Even in if you share Kaplan's argument that there is or going to be anarchy, he offers nothing in the way of a coherent argument.
Rating: 
Summary: Simple Realism for the Common Man
Review: Kaplan is one of my all time favourite travel writers and cultural commentators. His "Balkan Ghosts" remains a classic of the region and its sequel, "Eastward to Tartary" is full of descriptions that will allow people to gain an good understanding of the cultural rifts and tribal bigotry that underline the chaos in this region. In "Anarchy" however, Kaplan steps out of his travel realm and becomes international relations professor in a series of essays (most published before). It is an area that does not totally fit him well. His interpretations of international relations, although pithy and well written are nothing that could not have been sifted from a good introductory book in international relations, especially if it was written by Henry Kissinger. Kaplan presents a start manichean world where good intentions often produce outcomes bad for humans and where hard-boiled realism is the best proscription for understanding and reacting in human affairs. Some of his statements, such as that not all colonialism is wrong if it protects the rights of minorities, or that intervention is warranted only when moral imperatives intersect with national interest, are not new. Charles Beitz and Henry Kissinger offer good interpretations for both. But the real flaw is Kaplans division of motive into the two mutually exclusive forms of national interest and moral imperative. The two are not always necessarily different. Many times they are different sides of the same coin with many people in western countries seeing it as in their national interest to intervene for a moral purpose --- as most people viewed the intervention in Kosovo. Military force prevailed in persuit of a moral end. That is not to say that all interventions should or will be like Kosovo in the future. But it also means that narrow national interest far removed from the average person's everyday life is also not the only imperative for a successful foreign policy. Sometimes enlightened societies see more imperative to national interest in the faces of the starving and those being slaughtered by Serb bombs than they do in perserving oil supplies. The best essays are the two in the beginning. The rest are short and usually do not include enough to hold your attention (his essay on Special Forces is especially soporific). On the other hand for all of those who love classics and the power of classical teaching to yield a superior understanding of world events, you will love Kaplan's love affair and well written appreciation of Gibbon's "Fall of the Roman Empire." If you are thinking of spending money on this book it is clearly one that borrowing in the library or reading in the ... would probably be a better use of time and money.
Rating:
Summary: Half truths and distortions for the clueless?
Review: This book represents to me an interesting, yes, but nevertheless old trick: state an opinion that mostly everyone agrees on ( in this case "we are moving fast towards global economic and social doom") dress it up with platitudes and foggy "explanations" and finish off by actually advocating that the movers and shakers of the system aren't responsible for any of it themselves..
So who's responsible for the economic and social doom or the "coming anarchy"?
Well that's where it gets even more interesting. The author points out to us the guilty ones by actually telling us who is not guilty. That would be for example Henry Kissinger for whom Kaplan dedicates more than a whole chapter praising his efforts to maintain a balance in this mad, mad world we're living in..
But then again, Kaplan admits that Kissinger was one of the pivotal decision makers for the brutal bombings in Cambodia with 1000s of innocent civilians dead. The reason according to the book? It was nothing more than an expression of power to China (!!!)..And the Vietnam war? Oh that was also "needed" because the region had to be "stabilised"..
Just when it starts becoming obvious that the author is an apologist for some of the darker eras of the past century you come upon the more intriguing parts. Why cant the world be saved?
That, according to the author, is because aside of the west vast parts of the rest of the world and in particular Africa and -secondarily??- Asia are "not ready for democracy"! Why? Because their populaces are illiterate and because they have a history of political violence and instability..See, it all is far too simple and if politics or, more importantly, history is not your forte it might even sound logical too.
It is strikingly obvious though that stating a result alone doesn't justify an explanation if you dont state the process that led to that result. If, for instance, you say that criminality rates are sky rocketing and then you advocate harsh measures for criminals without bothering to explain the sociological basis for such a development (i.e high unemployment, the erosion of the social bonds etc) you are stating half truths.
African societies have not, by some magical and mysterious reason, remained "uneducated" because they somehow tend towards disorder and chaos. Same goes for Asian societies as well. Kaplan mentions not a single word about the the ongoing and very old in fact brutal exploitation of african and asian societies by the west. Exactly how were these societies supposed to advance under the centuries-old colonial boot of Europe and later on by multinational companies? Minor detail according to the "Coming anarchy"..
What Kaplan professes is that these societies are not only not ready for democracy but they actually need brutal regimes in order to keep anarchy in check!! Hmm, i hadn't, for one, thought of that, i must admit.
And besides, the author goes on, dictatorships arent by definition "bad". They have their purpose when the right timing is involved...
Kaplan ends up being an apologist for backing up dictatorships then (it's not that he denies it but he sees the "necessity" of it) and an apologist for those that were central figures behind such policies (Kissinger and Nixon for example and -wow- Metternich). Further on he blames the victims, the "third world" societies, for the coming anarchy and concludes that "we" in the west are doing relatively ok but that the world isnt only made up of "us" and thus "we" have no total control over what is going to happen.
In reality noone of course has any "control" of what is going to happen, not in terms of fate, but it would be anyway over the top arrogant to consider us as a species "in control" of things to begin with.
But when it comes to sociological developments, to matters like war and peace (war can be good claims the author because without war there cant be any peace, a cold war motto in this case) one has to acknowledge every single piece of the puzzle and Kaplan very obviously does not care to do that. Judging from his book i assume he's actually perfectly aware of the reasons african and/or asian societies are in the state they are. But he he doesn't bother to mention it. This speaks volumes about where he's coming from.
I could go on and on as this book is filled from beggining to end with such "facts". It's as solid as water its author tries hard to justify his position with incredible inaccuracies and omissions.
Eschatology and world politics are interesting topics and they involve some of the most brutal truths that humanity has to face. In "Coming anarchy" the prevailent theme is half truths and distortions passed along as an "intellectual" approach.
Rating:
Summary: The world is not a Coming Anarchy. Still worth the read..
Review: This book started off well. Kaplan presented us with the current conflicts as well as culture changes and their effect on geographical borders. Beginning with West Africa, Kaplan has good first hand experiences to offer. I was impressed by all the travelling the man had done. Still, I found his views too extreme (but maybe that is what he was trying to do). I would not say the book isn't worth it. I would still recommend the book. Other key points; relates to other authors too much; no real flow; and too many statistics (e.g. Population Growth by 2025 which Kaplan bases arguments on).
Rating: 
Summary: Elitist and cynical
Review: The title essay was the only one of Kaplan's articles I had read before perusing this collection, so I was looking forward to a thoughtful warning of the dangers facing the world. What I got was a disappointment. A realist is on reasonably solid ground to argue that war is an ugly but inevitable part of international relations. Kaplan goes further than this - he actually argues that war is a good thing, apparently because it shakes societies up and makes them focused. Somehow I think starving, orphaned children living in bombed-out rubble would disagree with that, but that doesn't stop Kaplan from constantly criticizing idealists as the ones out of touch with those they seek to help. A constant tone of snobbery underlines the book. Third World countries aren't "ready" for democracy, he sniffs paternally, they need tough authoritarian medicine to lick them into shape first. By conveniently highlighting examples that seem to support his ideas (South Korea, Singapore) and ignoring those that don't (Indonesia, Venezuela) he paints a picture of a world where democracy is only suitable for the rich Western countries. Contradictions abound. Kaplan argues that developing countries shouldn't go for democracy without a stable middle class, but he is highly critical of Western middle classes, whom he repeatedly compares to the the bread-and-circuses mobs of ancient Rome. The same Burkean theme - that popular struggles will turn into anarchy and mob rule if not carefully controlled by all-knowing elites - flies in the face of nearly every achievement in social justice in the past two hundred years, most of which were fiercely resisted by elites. An entire chapter is devoted to praising Henry Kissinger, claiming that Kissinger's brutal and illegal bombings of Vietnam and Cambodia, and the installation of a fascist regime in Chile, were necessary to intimidate China, the USSR, and the Arab countries into making concessions. He offers not a shred of evidence to suggest this was actually the case (or even the motivation in the minds of Nixon and his officials). And even this tenuous argument couldn't possibly extend to the CIA's funding of the apartheid South African regime's war in Angola and Namibia, which, rather conveniently, isn't mentioned in the book. In the last chapter, Kaplan jumps off the deep end. He doesn't settle for the usual realist contention that war is ugly but inevitable and can never be fully eradicated. No, for him war is actually a good thing - it helps keep societies vigorous! He actually goes so far as to muse that a world without war is not just unrealistic, but undesirable - apparently we need some mass slaughter every few decades to keep us on our toes. The argument is worthy of Mussolini. It also contradicts an earlier chapter, which praises the 19th-century Austrian diplomat Clemens von Metternich for having used internal repression and force to prevent war from breaking out. Kaplan lightly glosses over the human suffering and devastation caused by war, but then turns around and accuses idealists of being the ones divorced from the real needs of the people they espouse to help. Yet a reading of the book clearly indicates that it is Kaplan trapped in the unreality of academic theories of the balance of power and the necessity of force, and quite removed from the struggles of ordinary people around the world. Kaplan vacillates about the role of corruption, praising authoritarian regimes like Singapore for rooting it out in one chapter, then attacking human-rights activists for demanding it be reined in elsewhere, calling it "evidence of our humanity." That statement is telling - for the biggest criticism of the principle of elite rule is that the power corrupts - the elite will govern for their own benefit, not the greater good. To consider corruption positive is to consider tyranny positive. On and on go the statement ranging from the laughably senseless to the unspeakably cruel. Israel's use of massacres and killings to prevent....massacres and killings, is to Kaplan the finest example of proactivity. China's atrocious human rights record - including the often savage treatment of ethnic minorities - is lauded as "keeping the country together." The United Nations, he goes on, is only useful when it is used as a tool of the U.S. He doesn't quote Martin Luther but he might as well have: "the brute people must be kept down by brute force." Again and again Kaplan states that evil can only be countered by being partly accomodated. Thus, the US was justified during the Cold War in backing right-wing dictatorships in order to stop left-wing dictatorships from forming. But countering evil with evil ends with evil - and how is that any better than the Munich-style appeasement Kaplan so abhors? Mr. Kaplan's writings in this volume do not live up to his reputation. This one deserves to be passed over.
Rating:
Summary: A Scary Vision of the Future
Review: Robert Kaplan's book is one of the most absorbing, hard-to-put-down reads on current events/foreign policy that I have read recently. The observations on current trends and their implications for the future are not couched not drab, abstract prose but always grounded in the author's personal experience of conflict in places like the Balkans and Sierra Leone. To boil it down, Robert Kaplan's main thrust is that, wherever we look today (especially in undeveloped regions), ethnic and religious conflict is displacing ideological conflict. Wars are not fought between communism and capitalism anymore, but between Christians and Muslims, between Sunnis and Shiites, between Hutus and Tutsis. The old idea of the nation-state (which, Kaplan rightly points out, is a totally European concept born in the 18th and 19th centuries) is dying. Boundaries are breaking up and peoples are seeking less to define themselves in terms of national identity than in terms of religous and ethnic identity. You can even see this trend in America, where identity politics have displaced older ideas about "being an American" (despite the recent feeble attempts by the Ad Council to show America as a multicultural rainbow wonderland where we all get along and pledge allegiance to the flag together). This is an extremely pessimistic, bleak look at the future. The most disturbing reading in it are the sections on Sierra Leone and what happened there a few years ago. Kaplan gives us an unflinching look at what REAL anarchy looks like. Those little pink-haired brats hanging out in malls wearing "anarchy" tee shirts would do well to get a glimpse of it. They'd realize they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Rating:
Summary: A Fast, Grim Read
Review: Many people have become familiar with Robert Kaplan from his magazine work and travel books. If you've only read his travel works, it may come as a surprise that Kaplan is in fact the dean of the American neo-conservative movement. Kaplan's world view is one where the end game of western international efforts must be to preserve our institutions, rather than force them on others. Even if you disagree with him, this is a compelling and interesting book.
|
