What do you think?
Rate this book
Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World
Five to Rule Them All tells the inside story of this remarkable diplomatic creation. Drawing on extensive research, including dozens of interviews with serving and former ambassadors on the Council, the book chronicles political battles and personality clashes as it opens the closed doors of its meeting room. What emerges here is a revealing portrait of the most powerful diplomatic body in the world. When the five permanent members are united, David Bosco points out, the Council can wage war, impose blockades, redraw borders, unseat governments, and levy sanctions. There are almost no limits to its authority. Yet the Council exists in a world of realpolitik.
Its members are, above all, powerful states with their own diverging interests. Time and again, the Council's performance has dashed the hope that its members would somehow work together to establish a more peaceful world. But if these lofty hopes have been unfulfilled, the Council has still served an invaluable purpose: to prevent conflict between the Great Powers. In this role, the Council has been an unheralded success. As Bosco reminds us, massacres in the Balkans and chaos in Iraq are human tragedies, but conflicts between the world's great powers in the nuclear age would be catastrophic.
In this lively, fast-moving, and often humorous narrative, Bosco illuminates the role of the Security Council in the postwar world, making a compelling case for the enduring importance of the five who rule them all.
Its members are, above all, powerful states with their own diverging interests. Time and again, the Council's performance has dashed the hope that its members would somehow work together to establish a more peaceful world. But if these lofty hopes have been unfulfilled, the Council has still served an invaluable purpose: to prevent conflict between the Great Powers. In this role, the Council has been an unheralded success. As Bosco reminds us, massacres in the Balkans and chaos in Iraq are human tragedies, but conflicts between the world's great powers in the nuclear age would be catastrophic.
In this lively, fast-moving, and often humorous narrative, Bosco illuminates the role of the Security Council in the postwar world, making a compelling case for the enduring importance of the five who rule them all.
310 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
11 people are currently reading
353 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 21, 2022
Bosco lays out an excellent history of the U.N. security council. From its power-hungry beginnings the Security Council has been a concert for global powers to rub shoulders and negotiate their differences within a global context. Each section of the book lays out the short-comings, successes, and obstacles facing the Security Council/UN bureaucracy. Bosco enlightened my understanding of the Security Council's importance; however, he concludes that the Security Council framework is a necessary component of global governance 'on the margins.' However, I have issue with this analysis. The Security Council only appears effective when each global power is willing to work in-tandem or defer to the biggest player at the table. When the world is unipolar, the Security Council is able to pass resolutions, handle humanitarian situations, and fulfill its mandate. One can see this with the military interventions against North Korea in 1950 and Iraq in 1990. Each of these situations allowed for one power to orchestrate a response to global dilemmas.
However, when the world is bipolar, or multipolar, the Security Council tends to get bogged down. The current Russia-Ukraine crisis is a prime example of this situation. With Russia holding veto power, and China unwilling to fully condemn the invasion, the Security Council appears weak and unable to accomplish its mandate to promote global security. Bosco outlines similar instances of this problem during the period between 1960-1980 as the Soviet Union and the United States were operating within a bipolar world order. Whereas Bosco believes the U.N. is effective on the margins across its history, I hold that the Security Council is only effective 'on the margins' within certain periods of the modern era (i.e. when the world is unipolar or dominated by a central power).
Additionally, Bosco attributes too much faith in the U.N.'s ability to maintain peace among the great powers. His main thesis is oriented around the Security Council's ability to limit major war between the great powers. Yet, association does not imply causation. Bosco ignores the dramatic impact nuclear weapons have had on global diplomacy. I assert that nuclear weaponry has done more to limit interstate war between major powers. Rubbing shoulders at the U.N. is not enough to curtail the ambitions of powers willing to navigate around the Security Council's ramifications.
Bosco does an excellent job outlining the history of the U.N. and its accomplishments/failures. However, he fails to understand the dramatic reforms necessary to keep the U.N. relevant in a 21st century world.
However, when the world is bipolar, or multipolar, the Security Council tends to get bogged down. The current Russia-Ukraine crisis is a prime example of this situation. With Russia holding veto power, and China unwilling to fully condemn the invasion, the Security Council appears weak and unable to accomplish its mandate to promote global security. Bosco outlines similar instances of this problem during the period between 1960-1980 as the Soviet Union and the United States were operating within a bipolar world order. Whereas Bosco believes the U.N. is effective on the margins across its history, I hold that the Security Council is only effective 'on the margins' within certain periods of the modern era (i.e. when the world is unipolar or dominated by a central power).
Additionally, Bosco attributes too much faith in the U.N.'s ability to maintain peace among the great powers. His main thesis is oriented around the Security Council's ability to limit major war between the great powers. Yet, association does not imply causation. Bosco ignores the dramatic impact nuclear weapons have had on global diplomacy. I assert that nuclear weaponry has done more to limit interstate war between major powers. Rubbing shoulders at the U.N. is not enough to curtail the ambitions of powers willing to navigate around the Security Council's ramifications.
Bosco does an excellent job outlining the history of the U.N. and its accomplishments/failures. However, he fails to understand the dramatic reforms necessary to keep the U.N. relevant in a 21st century world.
July 17, 2024
A very dense, detailed, and informationally heavy read. I have a lot better understanding of the 5 UN great powers, but I think this book still had a lot of gaps in how these powers interact with the rest of the world nations and their real-world influence apart from high-level diplomacy.
The conclusion was valuable and could easily be read alone for anyone who doesn't desire to read the whole book.
At the end of it all, the US continuously emerges as a superpower who simultaneously desires for the UN and the ICC to be used to keep other nations in order without fully submitting itself to the same standards.
Either way, I do think this heightens the necessity of an organization like the UN and of course the security council itself, especially in light of events that have ocurred after this book's publication.
The conclusion was valuable and could easily be read alone for anyone who doesn't desire to read the whole book.
At the end of it all, the US continuously emerges as a superpower who simultaneously desires for the UN and the ICC to be used to keep other nations in order without fully submitting itself to the same standards.
Either way, I do think this heightens the necessity of an organization like the UN and of course the security council itself, especially in light of events that have ocurred after this book's publication.
September 14, 2018
Buy, Borrow or Burn: Burn. The title made this book an instant grab for me as I was hoping to gain deeper insight into the Security Council. Unfortunately, the book sadly disappointed and felt underdeveloped and poorly researched. I would recommend this topic but another book on this subject.
One Word: Underdeveloped.
Style/Structure: Fair.
One Word: Underdeveloped.
Style/Structure: Fair.
May 20, 2021
As about an interesting a narrative as one can weave about a topic like the UN Security Council.
May 16, 2022
A really good prep for understanding the United Nations and it's general history.
January 27, 2023
I opened this book to read a few pages to see if I liked it… and I accidentally finished it in one sitting. Brilliant.
December 11, 2010
An interesting read detailing the history of the Security Council. I was interested in reading this book to better understand why the Security Council is incapable of responding to situations of genocide or crimes against humanity. The author is very clear in demonstrating the utility of the Security Council, a necessary point since a lot literature out there on the Security Council deals more with its inutility and the need for Security Council reform. Given the changing line up of countries that are now considered economic power houses and the ever present influence of the NAM within the GA, reform will remain an important topic and will most likely happen.
In the end power politics lies at the center of most decisions made by the Security Council who still focus on national foreign policy and security issues when either voting for or against a resolution. Something that remains frustrating for those looking in. Without looking beyond these interests and considering the moral and ethical responsibilities of the SC as the arbiter of international peace and security, as specified by the UN Charter, the SC runs the risk of rendering themselves unuseful in many parts of the world.
In the end power politics lies at the center of most decisions made by the Security Council who still focus on national foreign policy and security issues when either voting for or against a resolution. Something that remains frustrating for those looking in. Without looking beyond these interests and considering the moral and ethical responsibilities of the SC as the arbiter of international peace and security, as specified by the UN Charter, the SC runs the risk of rendering themselves unuseful in many parts of the world.
October 13, 2014
In "Five To Rule Them All", David Bosco seamlessly weaves together a series of pivotal events to create a compelling, informative, and thoroughly entertaining narrative of the UN Security Council. It is obviously well-researched, but instead of being boringly informative it weaves a compelling narrative.
Main takeaway: While the Security Council has fallen short in achieving many of its goals, it has succeeded in accomplishing its primary objective: to avoid conflict between the great powers.
Main takeaway: While the Security Council has fallen short in achieving many of its goals, it has succeeded in accomplishing its primary objective: to avoid conflict between the great powers.
May 12, 2011
Fascinating read! If it was not non-fiction, it would make an excellent political thriller. I found myself breathlessly anticipating what the Russian ambassador would say next or what position the British would take.
August 27, 2016
A good history of the UN from it's formation through it's deliberations on the Iraq War. I wished it was able to continue through 2013 and the Syrian debate.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews