whoa...

here's something i completely forgot about....i have to start filling this one in again i guess. give me a good spot to dump random musings again i guess...

Nukes

Someone sent me this wonderful aphorism on nukes that i thought i would share with all the people who don't read this:

"You know what the nice thing about nukes is? If they are not used, you don't have to worry. If they are used, you won't be able to."

French elections

Here is a piece i am trying to shop around about the French elections. Still a little unformed. Any thoughts would be very welcome...

Pourquoi Indeed?

As France approaches the end of a political era, one would be remiss not to note the rather Gallic shrug emanating from the United States. Those few that are likely taking notice of what is happening would mostly note that they are grateful to finally see the back of President Jacques Chirac, who has been a particularly thorny friend to the United States. Beyond this, the alternatives on offer may seem different, but in fact will have little impact on the transatlantic alliance beyond moving the timeline a bit further from the demons of Iraq.

Whoever is voted in to the Elysee (the French White House) will likely proclaim themselves a friend to America. Center-right leader Nicolas Sarkozy has been unfailing in his Atlantic boosterism, while center-left pretender Segolene Royal has not gone down the path of America-bashing for which her party is usually known (some have even pointed to a quiet pro-Americanism during her primary campaign). While centrist Francois Bayrou seems more eager to embrace the “multipolar” rhetoric, his idea of creating an all-embracing party taking in both left and right means he is likely not to go against the grain of the others general pro-Atlanticism.

Beyond this, Turkey stands first and foremost as a subject of American concern: Sarkozy and Bayrou believe Turkey should have a “privileged partnership” with the EU, definitively closing the door to membership, while Royal has expressed a tepid acceptance towards letting it into the Union.

For Europe? Thus far, they have all indulged in some rather typical Euro-politician Brussels-bashing (an age old political trick amongst European politicians – blame distant mute Brussels for all your domestic ills). They all seem to embrace an old-school dirigisme (the French tradition of protecting politically your big companies) and none are willing to break the protective social shield the French see as their birthright.

Unfortunately, given the fact that Europe is mostly a French creation – two Frenchmen first drafted the proposals to create a European Coal and Steel Community that later blossomed into the current European Union, and the constitution was written by a former French President – this therefore has negative connotations for Europe.

For the French themselves, this is mostly a rather depressing election. This is reflected in the hugely broken up field between a left, right, a centrist, and then an assortment of others led by far right leader Jean Marie le Pen. Royal’s great initial promise faltered first over a gaffes like congratulating the Chinese on their judicial system, while the darker side to Nicolas Sarkozy’s immigration and security policies have slowly built up behind him to produce a general sense of menace. While Francois Bayrou’s “third way” (and how many times have we heard that phrase reformulated now) started with a fresh appeal, it is still not clear whether he has managed to get the traction of credibility behind it.

So we circle back to the beginning: why should the United States care? Or what can the United States do?
For the first question, America should care what happens to her allies. They are those that she faces the world with and an understanding of them will be critical to work with them in the future.

For the second, the passing of the Chirac era will mean that the latent anti-French posture often adopted by Americans must finally be jettisoned. While it is undoubtedly amusing to poke fun at the French and their foibles (as a Brit I can assure you I enjoy nothing more), to institutionalize it seriously – as one can find in Washington – is something different. The two nations are close and have a long history together (for example, fighting the English together for American independence) that is often glossed over amongst quibbles about “freedom fries.”

This may seem like a modest aim to draw from a national election, however, it is upon these impressions and discussions that relations between nations are nurtured. Unless greater care is paid to establishing warm links at a very basic level between Europe and the United States, who knows how far they might drift apart in the future? While France is unlikely to send troops to Iraq or ramp up efforts in Afghanistan, she is one of the EU3 leading negotiations with Iran and her role in Lebanon and parts of Africa has taken pressure off the American military.

It was Frenchman Jean Monnet who coined the phrase of America as the “arsenal of democracy,” Mr. Monnet was also one of the two who first drafted the idea of the European Community. This arsenal is ultimately at the disposal of those who wish to nurture a world built on a Euro-Atlantic outlook. A greater recognition and fostering of this fact is critical if we are to advance our Western liberal ideals in world increasingly crowded with alternative ideologies.

Neoconservatism is dead

This is a rather unruly piece that i have not yet managed to publish yet. I have somewhere in mind, but it needs some revision. If anyone is actually reading this - i would appreciate thoughts (or passing it on to others who might be have comments on it)...

Neoconservatism is dead. Or I should rephrase (as really no political movement ever really dies, rather it mutates, or lies dormant for some misty-eyed romantic to discover later) – the current strain of neoconservatism that is able to actually achieve something, ultimately the only kind of political movement that matters, is dead.

This may seem like an awfully loud and obnoxious thing to say, especially on a website like this, but it needs saying so that hopefully we can try to move on from stagnant debates and recapture the essential pragmatic optimism that lies at neoconservatism’s core and salvage it in some way.

First, to explain why it is indeed dead. This is not for the obscure and vague anti-Bush reasons – though they are in a way a part of it – rather it is dead because neoconservatism at its core is about power. It is about having power, and using the power to go out and change the world for the better. It is about deciding that an evil is happening in the world and we must go and right it, and we will assume this strategic mentality because we possess the power to go and right this wrong.

Now hold on; I do not mean that in the bullying “might makes right” sense, rather in the pragmatic evolution of that phrase: “moral might makes you think you can actually do right.” Ultimately, the only way one can go and actually achieve things in the world, or the only way that one can train one’s strategic thinking that in this sense, is if one has the physical might to begin with. Modest means train you to have modest aims.

The result is that you look at the world around you and you see wrongs and you see (or at least you think) that it lies within your physical abilities to do something about this. The world is no longer divided into issues that impact you and issues that are someone else’s concern – it is divided into a world that you inhabit and you must try to make better. But at its foundation, it is about thinking that you have the power to do something.

It is from this idealistic foundation that one can trace the early neoconservative movement, who moved from being liberal idealists who found themselves stuck in a passive peacenik world that refused to go out and do something to make the world a better place. Yet at the same time they saw that within their grasp was the power to actually affect some change, and right some of the wrongs in the world.

These idealists are not only found in the city on the hill amongst the Bushian ideologues, but also amongst the European halls of power. Joschka Fischer managed to persuade a hyper-pacifist Germany that something needed to be done in the former Yugoslavia, and Tony Blair’s soaring rhetoric was something that predates anything that Michael Gerson penned for President Bush.

The unifying factor was that they saw a wrong and they thought they could right it. In Mr. Fischer’s case, and early Mr. Blair, they were right: unfortunately, President Bush seems to have overstepped the mark.

The reason for his failure is manifold, and I am not going to go in it, as it has been expressed by many more knowledgeable and sage than me. But, at its core, it was founded on the principle that he thought his nation had the power to right the wrong he saw in Iraq. The Bush administration, and Prime Minister Blair, saw that a tyrannical regime was thumbing its nose at the international community, and nothing was being done. The looked at the massed troops and physical might they commanded, and they thought that here was an easy equation: a people to liberate and they had the tools to liberate them.

The aristotelian flaw with their calculation was the same flaw that so often fails liberals: they operated on the assumption that inside everyone else is someone just like them fighting to get out. Inside Iraq they arrogantly assumed that there was a people with democracy as their default setting, simply waiting for someone to come and liberate them.

The result is one that we can watch on our television screens every night, and the unseen result has been the breaking of the notion of idealism in foreign politics as a viable alternative. To many of us this is rather confusing: the hopeful optimism that we see imbued in Tony Blair (and some President Bush) speeches has us hooked. They talk of a world that we can do something about, and as western liberal idealists, we drink it up. Yet, see where it has left us now: stuck in a war with no end in sight which has the added benefit of providing a bloody training ground that will undoubtedly come back and haunt us in years to come.

The simple solution for future actions is one of two paths (the likely outcome will be a moderate trundle somewhere down the middle): leave those poor saps to kill each other (isolationism) or figure a way of manoeuvring someone else to deal with the problem (realism).

Is there another way? To retreat to the old notions of neoconservatism is manifestly not going to function: not only is the power in the world that one could employ to impose one’s will gone, but the foundation of how it was being imposed was flawed anyway. People have different needs and desires, we are in no position to decide these for them.

Rather, we need to start to think pragmatically about how one can go about and right the wrongs in the world in a sensible manner. If we want the world to be like us, then we must recognize that it is not a sudden overnight change: it is an incremental process. If we are going to continue to assume that we are the pinnacle of humankind, then we must recognize that it took us an awful long time to get here.

How do we do this? Well, this does not mean simply jettisoning the army, and other security services and opening our borders to all and sundry dangers: it means taking stances that we know are right across the board. This does not translate into unilateral or sudden confrontation with every troublemaker we see around the world, but it does mean re-evaluating a number of key relationships, and accepting a certain burden as a result. So, rather than accept an awkward leader because he holds the keys to our energy supplies: work feverishly to find other sources, reinvigorate others that we have let fall by the wayside and accept that we may have to pay a bit more for electricity or gas (or in the latter case, stop using cars). Arms deals present a more delicate situation, as we need to maintain some sort of national capabilities if we are to truly remain independent: but more conscientious management is surely possible. Or else, why not make greater efforts to ascertain how military technologies can be utilized for civilian purposes? The Internet is a prime example of a former weapon that has transformed the world for the better.

More crucially, however, it means making sure that we are able to broadcast the rationale and reason behind what we are doing to the public. We live in an educated society. They do not require spoon feeding incorrect tabloid headlines to keep them onside: they can handle complex debates, and if done gradually and sensibly (and as long as we are right), will be persuaded.

Then we need to learn how to broadcast this message abroad. The failure to reach out to the Iranian people to let them know that we have essentially offered their leadership the deal they asked for is breathtaking.

Other more tangible ideas exist: we are seeing a resurgence in philanthropy, we should harness this tool to send out goodwill ambassadors around the world and make it more attractive for others to go and join them. It would also do our social fabric no harm if youngsters were offered opportunities to work abroad for a year or so. The idea already exists within the EU to get all students to spend a year in another EU country to strengthen the European identity: why not expand this to the world?

Unfortunately, the problems we have at the moment are not going away any time soon. However, we do not need to let our response to them dictate and destroy the notion that can try to do good in the world. We need to cauterize the wound, while pushing forwards in other ways and making sure that as a society we recognize what we are trying to achieve. We need to learn from the neoconservative’s mistake: our world cannot be imposed. We need to nurture the world to our side.

Helicopters

This is a completely unnecessary and stupid thing to do as no-one is reading these random musings that I putting here. And, as if that wasn’t reason enough not to do this, I am also in the middle of furiously writing a proposal that I have got to get on with. Oh, and it is almost one in the morning. Suffice to say, I shouldn’t be wasting time scribbling thus, but instead be hard at work comprehending Islamism and the like.

Anyhoo – I have now moved into a new place. Soon after moving in I took the bus to work and discovered that lo and behold I am right near a prison (one of the more infamous ones). Well, no matter I thought, at least I know that they are locked away. A week later I went for a stroll the other way and noticed a sign to another prominent prison that was also apparently nearby. An amusing coincidence.

About a week later, I was farting around in my spacious kitchen (no doubt doing something along the lines of what I am doing now) and I noticed a very low flying helicopter with a light shining all over the place. Never really made the connection until earlier today over lunch when I was telling my family about it and I realized it was probably seeking some escaped convict. Hmm. Well, it amused me.

Zurich

Well, I have been appalling at keeping this no matter what. Oh well, here’s another story which I remembered, which is basically what I was planning on using this for.

I was travelling through Zurich airport on my way from (I seem to recall) Prague. The airport itself is absolutely fantastic and super modern and chic – though I was particularly irritated by the fact that they had lots of very trendy looking computahs all over the shop, but that you had to pay an astronomical amount to use. I also recall getting into quite the tiff with the bitch running the Swissair lounge, we tried to fight our way in (justifiably I might add, the plane was late so we missed a connection and were stuck there for a while. Bastards were completely useless and Teutonic about the whole thing).

Anyhoo – so we were stuck waiting and ended up grabbing seats near some escalators. After being there for about half an hour, a massive crowd of Chinese tourists appeared pushing trolleys (these days you will find them absolutely everywhere. I mean this in a good way, of course. The most intriguing thing is that you only really find Japanese tourists when you go through Paris, but everywhere else they are Chinese). They got to the escalators that were clearly marked with signs to not take trolleys down them, and the first one went straight down trolley first.

It was quite the hilarious site to watch (her as I recall) battle to keep the thing from completely spilling or from completely losing control. The others all stood by watching. She got safely to the bottom. Without a second’s hesitation the others set off in pursuit. I couldn’t stop laughing.

Power cut

Today I was treated to a day off from work thanks to a power cut that managed to completely sabotage my work day. This is both a blessing and curse. It is a huge pain in the ass as I have a big event Tuesday/Wednesday and now I am going to have to completely panic to get everything done tomorrow. The biggest part of the nuisance was that all the bits that I need to do the various things that I owe are on my email and hard drive at work. So nothing got done. Well, I did a bit of writing, but I suppose that hardly counts. On top of that the woman who I am working with on this event from the partner institution is understandably concerned – and I keep remembering things that I am going to have to do. Argh. This post proved to be more dull than i thought, something of a reflection on my day really.