Muutama kommentti Matti Klingen kirjasta ’Päiväkirjastani – Fin de siècle’ (1999):
Neuvo kirjoittajille: ”Kirjailijan ja tutkijan täytyy olla sekä sisä- että ulkopuolella, elämässä elämää, mukana yhteiskunnassa, mutta samalla tarkkailijana, itsenäisenä.”
Ja lisäksi: ”Täytyy osata puhua, formuloida, argumentoida, täytyy opiskella ja osata retoriikkaa, täytyy tietysti puhua myös turhaakin, mutta vain puhumalla ja kirjoittamalla saadaan suuret asiat henkisesti haltuun, saadaan ne käsitteiden piiriin, konseptualisoiduiksi.” Tämä tuli Klingelle mieleen katseltuaan vaalimainoksia ja niiden tekstejä.
Klingellä toistuu usein huoli yhteiskunnallisten vaikuttajiemme tiedollisesta kapea-alaisuudesta: ”…sen sijaan Yhdysvallat on perin monien henkinen koti. Siellä, olipa vaihto-oppilaana, ylioppilaana, tutkijana, stipendiaattina, YK:n tehtävissä tai firmoissa, ovat olleet kaikki poliittisen ja taloudellisen johtomme näkyvät henkilöt ja kaikki luonnontieteilijät. He osaavat harvoin saksaa, tuskin koskaan ranskaa, italiasta ja espanjasta puhumattakaan. He eivät liiku jalan, he eivät ole olleet kävelyllä Pariisissa, Roomassa, Wienissä, Istanbulissa, Lontoossa…” [kursiivi Klingen]
Tähän voi sanoa, että hiljalleen olisi muutosta tapahtumassa vrt. Stubb.
Klinge siteeraa hauskasti Flaubertia mitä tulee kirjojen kirjoittamiseen: ”Kirjoja ei tehdä niin kuin lapsia, vaan niin kuin pyramideja; ensin on tarkkaan mietitty suunnitelma, ja sitten nostellaan kivenjärkäleitä päälletysten hitaasti, selkä vääränä ja otsa hiessä, eikä tuloksesta ole mihinkään! Se seisoo keskellä autiomaata! Mutta se hallitsee mahtavana ympäristöään. Shakaalit pissaavat sen juurelle, ja poroporvarit kiipeävät sen huipulle, ja niin edespäin. Vertailua voi jatkaa.”
Klinge ja lehdistö: ” Viikkolehdessäni Le Nouvel Observateurissä (kotimaisia viikkolehtiä en enää pysty lukemaan mielenrauhan järkkymättä)…” Tuttu tunne.
Kirjoittaessaan Bosnian sodasta Klinge toteaa osuvasti: "Ja mitä enemmän nöyryytetään, sen syvempään kauna ja kostonhalu juurtuu."
Ja lopuksi Klingen havainto Suomen ulkomaantiedotuksesta: "...Suomi on satsannut ulkomaantiedotuksessaan historian sijasta pääasiassa poroihin, kaunottariin ja urheiluun." Mutta porothan ovat niin söpöjä! Toivoa sopii, että tiedotuksessa on edistytty sitten vuoden 1999.
maanantai 30. elokuuta 2010
perjantai 20. elokuuta 2010
Capitalism
In late 2008 some were in a bombastic mood. Great changes were on the horizon! Global financial problems were seen as the end of an era and as a starting point for something new.
This mood was wonderfully captured by The Guardian Weekly. Two quotes should suffice: “Ben Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and Hank Paulson, the Goldman Sachs tycoon who became U.S. treasury secretary, had done more for socialism in seven days than anybody since Marx and Engels.” Here are people who are trying to save the system and TGW’s only reaction is to wheel out Marx and Engels. TGW also talked about “the capitulation of the prevailing economic model.” Would the collapse of the current system really bring milk and honey to the people? More likely it would open up Pandora ’s Box.
In August 2010 TGW had noticed that the much expected collapse did not come. The paper quoted Sir John Gieve, the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, giving his opinion on why the world did not change: “First, the speed of globalisation, the integration of the global economy, including finance, is continuing, and second, it is continuing around broadly a free-market model.”
Sir John’s opinions reflect those of Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek’s Special Edition – Issues 2010. According to Zakaria there are three reasons that have kept the world reasonably stable during the past twenty years and still keep it stable:
1. There are no serious conflicts between the major states.
2. On the whole the global economy is stable and it bounces back after problems.
3. Advances in technology have eased communication between different parts of the world. This has made expansion easier for businesses and allowed people to exchange information faster.
Zakaria argues that even though times are difficult for many people at the moment they are not willing to give up the possibilities of the current system for some unworkable “workers utopia”.
Sources:
The Guardian Weekly, 13.08.2010.
Newsweek, Special Edition - Issues 2010.
The Guardian Weekly, 26.09.2008.
This mood was wonderfully captured by The Guardian Weekly. Two quotes should suffice: “Ben Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and Hank Paulson, the Goldman Sachs tycoon who became U.S. treasury secretary, had done more for socialism in seven days than anybody since Marx and Engels.” Here are people who are trying to save the system and TGW’s only reaction is to wheel out Marx and Engels. TGW also talked about “the capitulation of the prevailing economic model.” Would the collapse of the current system really bring milk and honey to the people? More likely it would open up Pandora ’s Box.
In August 2010 TGW had noticed that the much expected collapse did not come. The paper quoted Sir John Gieve, the former deputy governor of the Bank of England, giving his opinion on why the world did not change: “First, the speed of globalisation, the integration of the global economy, including finance, is continuing, and second, it is continuing around broadly a free-market model.”
Sir John’s opinions reflect those of Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek’s Special Edition – Issues 2010. According to Zakaria there are three reasons that have kept the world reasonably stable during the past twenty years and still keep it stable:
1. There are no serious conflicts between the major states.
2. On the whole the global economy is stable and it bounces back after problems.
3. Advances in technology have eased communication between different parts of the world. This has made expansion easier for businesses and allowed people to exchange information faster.
Zakaria argues that even though times are difficult for many people at the moment they are not willing to give up the possibilities of the current system for some unworkable “workers utopia”.
Sources:
The Guardian Weekly, 13.08.2010.
Newsweek, Special Edition - Issues 2010.
The Guardian Weekly, 26.09.2008.
tiistai 17. elokuuta 2010
Afghanistan war logs
Between January 2004 and December 2009 the war in Afghanistan did not go well. During this time civilians were killed by the coalition forces and by the Taliban, Pakistani intelligence organisation was working with the Taliban, and the coalition forces even killed each other from time to time.
These 'revelations' are documented in the so-called Afghanistan war logs made public by Wikileaks.
The Guardian Weekly comments that "these war logs show a conflict that is brutally messy, confused and immediate". The paper goes on to say that "it is in some contrast with the tidied-up and sanitised "public" war, as glimpsed through official communiques". And lastly the war is "clumsily prosecuted".
Is this really something new to the Guardian Weekly and the general public? Most people are aware that militaries and governments do not tell everything about ongoing operations. Mostly it is because the enemy might get useful information and generally it is a good idea not to give too much information to the enemy. When it comes to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is messy one should only read few books on military history to understand that throughout history wars have always been messy and clumsily prosecuted. War is hell. It was true 2000 years ago and it is true today.
Regarding the accuracy of the logs, International Herald Tribune reminds us that "the archive is clearly an incomplete record of the war. It is missing many references to seminal events and does not include information that is more highly classified". Further "the documents also do not cover events in 2010, when the influx of more troops into Afghanistan began and a new counterinsurgency strategy took hold". So one should also use other sources if one wants a better picture of the situation on the ground and not put too much faith on a selection of documents.
The Wall Street Journal has a different, more balanced view of the logs. The Journal points out that the logs cannot be compared with the Pentagon Papers from the 1970's. The Afghanistan war logs demonstrate how Pentagon gathers and shares information. They are not about misleading the public.
Pakistan could do more in the fight against terrorism. However, "the leak of selective documents" will not improve the situation. It could complicate the cooperation between the US and Pakistan, cooperation which has began to improve in the past months.
Finally, it would not be prudent to make any hasty conclusions regarding the US war effort in Afghanistan based solely on past performance. The Obama administration has increased troop levels and renewed counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan and it would be good to give these more time to have an impact on the situation. Should there be an immediate and hasty American withdrawal from the country it would bring more problems for the Afghan civilians.
Sources:
The Wall Street Journal, 2 August 2010
The Guardian Weekly, 30 July-5 August 2010
The Wall Street Journal, 27 July 2010
International Herald Tribune, 26 July 2010
These 'revelations' are documented in the so-called Afghanistan war logs made public by Wikileaks.
The Guardian Weekly comments that "these war logs show a conflict that is brutally messy, confused and immediate". The paper goes on to say that "it is in some contrast with the tidied-up and sanitised "public" war, as glimpsed through official communiques". And lastly the war is "clumsily prosecuted".
Is this really something new to the Guardian Weekly and the general public? Most people are aware that militaries and governments do not tell everything about ongoing operations. Mostly it is because the enemy might get useful information and generally it is a good idea not to give too much information to the enemy. When it comes to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is messy one should only read few books on military history to understand that throughout history wars have always been messy and clumsily prosecuted. War is hell. It was true 2000 years ago and it is true today.
Regarding the accuracy of the logs, International Herald Tribune reminds us that "the archive is clearly an incomplete record of the war. It is missing many references to seminal events and does not include information that is more highly classified". Further "the documents also do not cover events in 2010, when the influx of more troops into Afghanistan began and a new counterinsurgency strategy took hold". So one should also use other sources if one wants a better picture of the situation on the ground and not put too much faith on a selection of documents.
The Wall Street Journal has a different, more balanced view of the logs. The Journal points out that the logs cannot be compared with the Pentagon Papers from the 1970's. The Afghanistan war logs demonstrate how Pentagon gathers and shares information. They are not about misleading the public.
Pakistan could do more in the fight against terrorism. However, "the leak of selective documents" will not improve the situation. It could complicate the cooperation between the US and Pakistan, cooperation which has began to improve in the past months.
Finally, it would not be prudent to make any hasty conclusions regarding the US war effort in Afghanistan based solely on past performance. The Obama administration has increased troop levels and renewed counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan and it would be good to give these more time to have an impact on the situation. Should there be an immediate and hasty American withdrawal from the country it would bring more problems for the Afghan civilians.
Sources:
The Wall Street Journal, 2 August 2010
The Guardian Weekly, 30 July-5 August 2010
The Wall Street Journal, 27 July 2010
International Herald Tribune, 26 July 2010
keskiviikko 11. elokuuta 2010
Catherine Ashton
The selection of Ashton to become the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union opened a flood of comments on her suitability for the job. Politicians and newspaper columnists were and are like teenagers in the backseat of a car asking ‘are we there yet’ all the time. Many are complaining that Ashton has not achieved much and she does not know anything about foreign policy.
It is common in business for people to move from one industry to another. Why should this be any different in politics? In business it is expected that managers are capable of learning a new job. Why would politicians be unable to do the same? And is it important for a leader such as Ashton to know all the little details of foreign policy? If she needs more details on some topic surely she can use her staff and interns to find more information on a given topic – that’s why offices have interns in the first place, to find and process information.
Even before she had started her work various commentators were saying that they have seen the signs, the dooms-day has arrived and all is lost. Generally, it was predicted that she would not succeed in anything she tried and that she would do more harm that good to the European Union.
One criticism voiced in early 2010 was that Ashton did not visit Haiti unlike U.S. secretary of State Clinton. Having top politicians on the ground in disaster areas is not necessarily a good thing unless they have special skills in disaster relief. In the first weeks of a disaster it should be sufficient if representatives of politicians visit the area and inform their employer what is happening and suggesting further steps that politicians can take to help those suffering. Then later when the situation has calmed politicians could visit the area. Lets face it, it is just an unnecessary distraction from the rescue effort when a politician comes stumbling around.
Of course, much must be expected from politicians. But in this case more time should be allowed to elapse before making any final decisions regarding Ashton’s suitability for the job. Besides she in the process of building up a new institution which is not an easy task. As Richard Gowan points out, Ashton has not experienced any political crises yet. Her reaction to a political crisis would show us what she is made of.
Richard Gowan:
http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/05/25/why-catherine-ashton-needs-a-good-crisis/
It is common in business for people to move from one industry to another. Why should this be any different in politics? In business it is expected that managers are capable of learning a new job. Why would politicians be unable to do the same? And is it important for a leader such as Ashton to know all the little details of foreign policy? If she needs more details on some topic surely she can use her staff and interns to find more information on a given topic – that’s why offices have interns in the first place, to find and process information.
Even before she had started her work various commentators were saying that they have seen the signs, the dooms-day has arrived and all is lost. Generally, it was predicted that she would not succeed in anything she tried and that she would do more harm that good to the European Union.
One criticism voiced in early 2010 was that Ashton did not visit Haiti unlike U.S. secretary of State Clinton. Having top politicians on the ground in disaster areas is not necessarily a good thing unless they have special skills in disaster relief. In the first weeks of a disaster it should be sufficient if representatives of politicians visit the area and inform their employer what is happening and suggesting further steps that politicians can take to help those suffering. Then later when the situation has calmed politicians could visit the area. Lets face it, it is just an unnecessary distraction from the rescue effort when a politician comes stumbling around.
Of course, much must be expected from politicians. But in this case more time should be allowed to elapse before making any final decisions regarding Ashton’s suitability for the job. Besides she in the process of building up a new institution which is not an easy task. As Richard Gowan points out, Ashton has not experienced any political crises yet. Her reaction to a political crisis would show us what she is made of.
Richard Gowan:
http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/05/25/why-catherine-ashton-needs-a-good-crisis/
torstai 5. elokuuta 2010
Cyberwarfare
There has been writing on cyberwarfare in different publication recently. Article in Arms Control Today (Vol. 40, No. 5, June 2010, Multilateral Agreements To Constrain Cyberconflict by James A. Lewis) discusses the possibilities and problems of multilateral agreements to constrain cyberconflict. The writer distinguishes three problems for multilateral agreement
- Because information is vital in warfare it would be difficult to declare digital infrastructures off-limits.
- As is usual for arms control agreements, verification will be a difficult issue.
- Countries do not want to discuss their possible cyberwarfare capabilities.
It is difficult to prove the source of the attack.
As Lewis argues “the precedent is not perfect” but nevertheless “non-proliferation offers a useful framework for developing the elements of a cooperative approach to cyberwarfare”. Further cooperation would be useful since “the goal in developing international norms for cyberconflict would be to stigmatize certain actions in cyberspace and to reduce uncertainty by creating a normative framework for cyberconflict”.
Article in the Economist (July 3rd, 2010, Leaders) has the same approach: nuclear and conventional weapons are controlled so why not cyberwar. However, the U.S. has resisted weapons treaties for cyberspace:
1. There is a risk of rigid global regulation of the internet.
2. American internet companies might suffer.
3. Treaties might stifle innovation.
4. The openness of the internet might be restricted
Interestingly, Russia has called for a treaty as a “starting point for international debate”.
In July (Washington Post, July 17, 2010, 15 nations agree to start working together to reduce cyberwarfare threat by Ellen Nakashima) a step was taken that is close to the Russian suggestion when an accord was reached in the UN. As Robert K. Knake argues the agreement is a “significant change in U.S posture”. But, as the article states, the agreement is only recommendations and omitted controversial issues.
Hopefully there is now enough momentum for a treaty one day. Well, better an optimist than a pessimist.
- Because information is vital in warfare it would be difficult to declare digital infrastructures off-limits.
- As is usual for arms control agreements, verification will be a difficult issue.
- Countries do not want to discuss their possible cyberwarfare capabilities.
It is difficult to prove the source of the attack.
As Lewis argues “the precedent is not perfect” but nevertheless “non-proliferation offers a useful framework for developing the elements of a cooperative approach to cyberwarfare”. Further cooperation would be useful since “the goal in developing international norms for cyberconflict would be to stigmatize certain actions in cyberspace and to reduce uncertainty by creating a normative framework for cyberconflict”.
Article in the Economist (July 3rd, 2010, Leaders) has the same approach: nuclear and conventional weapons are controlled so why not cyberwar. However, the U.S. has resisted weapons treaties for cyberspace:
1. There is a risk of rigid global regulation of the internet.
2. American internet companies might suffer.
3. Treaties might stifle innovation.
4. The openness of the internet might be restricted
Interestingly, Russia has called for a treaty as a “starting point for international debate”.
In July (Washington Post, July 17, 2010, 15 nations agree to start working together to reduce cyberwarfare threat by Ellen Nakashima) a step was taken that is close to the Russian suggestion when an accord was reached in the UN. As Robert K. Knake argues the agreement is a “significant change in U.S posture”. But, as the article states, the agreement is only recommendations and omitted controversial issues.
Hopefully there is now enough momentum for a treaty one day. Well, better an optimist than a pessimist.
maanantai 2. elokuuta 2010
WSJE
The Wall Street Journal Europe
July 30 - August 1, 2010, p. 2
'Agenda' by Robert Fry
Fry makes good points about the changes in the British-American relationship. In the future as the US focuses more on the Pacific area there will be less need for cooperation with the UK.
As Fry argues, Britain might achieve more by working closely with other EU states especially with those states that are interested in developing the EU into a serious actor in the foreing policy arena. But will this happen is another question.
July 30 - August 1, 2010, p. 2
'Agenda' by Robert Fry
Fry makes good points about the changes in the British-American relationship. In the future as the US focuses more on the Pacific area there will be less need for cooperation with the UK.
As Fry argues, Britain might achieve more by working closely with other EU states especially with those states that are interested in developing the EU into a serious actor in the foreing policy arena. But will this happen is another question.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)