English Political discussions
Dear Reader, you will find a new thread: Political discussions.
The first article in the thread comes from Spiegel online. I red this article in Spiegel online and thought that it would be an interesting article for the English Forum in the ST. So I asked Spiegel online recently to get this article for the ST. The ST receives from Spiegel online the rights to use headlines and leaders, but the article itself is to read on Spiegel online only.
For that you have to set in motion the link below. - I beg you pardon, I could not set a short link.
Der Spiegel online, English Site 9-October 2014
Anarchy vs. Stability: Dictatorships and Chaos Go Hand in Hand
A Commentary By Mathieu von Rohr
»The fall of dictators is not always a cause for joy, my colleague Christiane Hoffmann wrote in an essay published yesterday on SPIEGEL International. If the citizens of a country were to have the option of choosing between a "functional dictatorship and the chaos of a failing or failed state," she argued, the dictatorship would often be the "lesser evil" because it promises continued stability. It's a seductive thesis that has gained renewed traction since the outbreak of civil war in Syria. The Arab Spring unleased exaggerated hope for Middle East democratization -- and now that idealists have been disappointed almost everywhere, the proponents of so-called realpolitik are once again arguing that, although their message of stability may sound unsympathetic and maybe even cynical, it's realistic. But is it really?«...
I am looking forward to reactions and responses to the article!
Angeli44
Link
The first article in the thread comes from Spiegel online. I red this article in Spiegel online and thought that it would be an interesting article for the English Forum in the ST. So I asked Spiegel online recently to get this article for the ST. The ST receives from Spiegel online the rights to use headlines and leaders, but the article itself is to read on Spiegel online only.
For that you have to set in motion the link below. - I beg you pardon, I could not set a short link.
Der Spiegel online, English Site 9-October 2014
Anarchy vs. Stability: Dictatorships and Chaos Go Hand in Hand
A Commentary By Mathieu von Rohr
»The fall of dictators is not always a cause for joy, my colleague Christiane Hoffmann wrote in an essay published yesterday on SPIEGEL International. If the citizens of a country were to have the option of choosing between a "functional dictatorship and the chaos of a failing or failed state," she argued, the dictatorship would often be the "lesser evil" because it promises continued stability. It's a seductive thesis that has gained renewed traction since the outbreak of civil war in Syria. The Arab Spring unleased exaggerated hope for Middle East democratization -- and now that idealists have been disappointed almost everywhere, the proponents of so-called realpolitik are once again arguing that, although their message of stability may sound unsympathetic and maybe even cynical, it's realistic. But is it really?«...
I am looking forward to reactions and responses to the article!
Angeli44
Link
Dear Angeli44,
it is my conviction that it is a big mistake to remove a dictator by a third party from the outside, especially when this party has no idea of the country's culture and is persuing its own interests and not those of the people in the country of the dictator.
Concretely, it was a desaster that the US army and its allies invaded Irak. What we observe now, is the direct consequence of this illegal act, the disruption of the state and the failure of "nation building".
Karl
it is my conviction that it is a big mistake to remove a dictator by a third party from the outside, especially when this party has no idea of the country's culture and is persuing its own interests and not those of the people in the country of the dictator.
Concretely, it was a desaster that the US army and its allies invaded Irak. What we observe now, is the direct consequence of this illegal act, the disruption of the state and the failure of "nation building".
Karl
To Karl and all interested readers in this thread
Dear Karl, you are right, and the author oft the article, Mathieu von Rohr says the same. Look in the chapter „Inside vs. Ouside Regime Chance“: Here he says:„ It can't be created by the West bombing dictatorships out of existence, as we've learned since the disastrous 2003 Iraq War -- an attempt to impose democracy from the outside.“ And he says further in this connection: “Nor can, as the Arab Spring showed, stability be fostered by supporting dictatorial regimes. The Arab Spring also demonstrated that the decisions about the fate of a country aren't made by the West, but within the countries themselves.“ And so the author emphasizes that it would be „important to make the distinction between "regime change" from the inside and from the outside“.
It is such a long article and so I was interested to get the essence and to write down it.
1.The author says further - in remotion to his colleaque - at the beginning oft this article about the Arab uprisings: „It tells the story of authoritarian regimes that were in part propped up by the West for decades -- using exactly this argument -- and then ultimately fell apart surprisingly quickly. Their foundations had been eaten away by youth unemployment, economic problems or state-instituted degradations…. These regimes had long been rotten at their core. They came to an end because of their inner contradictions and inability to satisfy the basic needs of their citizens. Those needs weren't necessarily freedom of expression and democracy, which are often secondary, but work, food and a dignified existence.“
2.The author then says that the Western societies (nowadays) have found a possibility stopping revolts and revolutions in their beginning: think-tanks. He says in the chapter „History lessons“ about the revolution in France 1789: „Had there been think tanks producing geopolitical analyses at the time, they likely would have frowned upon the revolution and the beheading of the king and fretted about its consequences for European stability.“ And he thinks that „…the current crises in the Arab world are not the consequence of naive Western interventionism. On the contrary: Following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the West appears to have learned its lesson. The US under President Barack Obama has been particularly reluctant to engage in military interventions in recent years. When it does, it is usually to comply with the UN's "Responsibility to Protect" dictum -- and in Syria, it didn't even do that until recently.“ (From the chapter Changed Interventionism)
3.The author says in the chapter: „A Compelling Example“ in view of Jugoslavia in the 1990’s and Syria: „The idea that dictatorships foster stability is a fairy tale; chaos is often the product of the autocratic systems it follows. People themselves make the decision whether to rise up against dictatorships.“ And: „The only question for the West is when it should intervene in such a rebellion -- and that cannot be answered in the abstract with pleas in favor of, or in opposition to, dictatorships. It can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.“
4.And he says at last, that „one nation in particular should know that it takes time to create a functioning democracy -- that it is a learning process, but that even people who have a history of authoritarianism can create democratic stability: The Germans. A country that created history's most appalling dictatorship is now an exemplary democracy. It is hard to find a better rebuttal to the theory that there are cultures ill-suited for democracy.“
I hope I selected the essentials from the article. And I have to say that I am not consent to all thoughts of it. Other thoughts are lacking. At the head different thoughts about that what cultur is.
Dear Karl, you are right, and the author oft the article, Mathieu von Rohr says the same. Look in the chapter „Inside vs. Ouside Regime Chance“: Here he says:„ It can't be created by the West bombing dictatorships out of existence, as we've learned since the disastrous 2003 Iraq War -- an attempt to impose democracy from the outside.“ And he says further in this connection: “Nor can, as the Arab Spring showed, stability be fostered by supporting dictatorial regimes. The Arab Spring also demonstrated that the decisions about the fate of a country aren't made by the West, but within the countries themselves.“ And so the author emphasizes that it would be „important to make the distinction between "regime change" from the inside and from the outside“.
It is such a long article and so I was interested to get the essence and to write down it.
1.The author says further - in remotion to his colleaque - at the beginning oft this article about the Arab uprisings: „It tells the story of authoritarian regimes that were in part propped up by the West for decades -- using exactly this argument -- and then ultimately fell apart surprisingly quickly. Their foundations had been eaten away by youth unemployment, economic problems or state-instituted degradations…. These regimes had long been rotten at their core. They came to an end because of their inner contradictions and inability to satisfy the basic needs of their citizens. Those needs weren't necessarily freedom of expression and democracy, which are often secondary, but work, food and a dignified existence.“
2.The author then says that the Western societies (nowadays) have found a possibility stopping revolts and revolutions in their beginning: think-tanks. He says in the chapter „History lessons“ about the revolution in France 1789: „Had there been think tanks producing geopolitical analyses at the time, they likely would have frowned upon the revolution and the beheading of the king and fretted about its consequences for European stability.“ And he thinks that „…the current crises in the Arab world are not the consequence of naive Western interventionism. On the contrary: Following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the West appears to have learned its lesson. The US under President Barack Obama has been particularly reluctant to engage in military interventions in recent years. When it does, it is usually to comply with the UN's "Responsibility to Protect" dictum -- and in Syria, it didn't even do that until recently.“ (From the chapter Changed Interventionism)
3.The author says in the chapter: „A Compelling Example“ in view of Jugoslavia in the 1990’s and Syria: „The idea that dictatorships foster stability is a fairy tale; chaos is often the product of the autocratic systems it follows. People themselves make the decision whether to rise up against dictatorships.“ And: „The only question for the West is when it should intervene in such a rebellion -- and that cannot be answered in the abstract with pleas in favor of, or in opposition to, dictatorships. It can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.“
4.And he says at last, that „one nation in particular should know that it takes time to create a functioning democracy -- that it is a learning process, but that even people who have a history of authoritarianism can create democratic stability: The Germans. A country that created history's most appalling dictatorship is now an exemplary democracy. It is hard to find a better rebuttal to the theory that there are cultures ill-suited for democracy.“
I hope I selected the essentials from the article. And I have to say that I am not consent to all thoughts of it. Other thoughts are lacking. At the head different thoughts about that what cultur is.
Thanks for the interesting article, Angeli, but it is way too long and complicated to respond on the hoof. (I have a tight time schedule this next 10 days). Please excuse my brief and erratic participation.
I was immediately attracted by this:
"These regimes had long been rotten at their core. They came to an end because of their inner contradictions and inability to satisfy the basic needs of their citizens. Those needs weren’t necessarily freedom of expression and democracy, which are often secondary, but work, food and a dignified existence."
It brought the present situation of millions of unemployed people (especially the young) and homeless across Europe, the Harz IV and €400 mini-job workers in Germany and hard-pressed social benefit claimants and zero hours contracts in the UK and the ever-growing increase between the rich and poor to mind. The rise in Euro-scepticism as well as fascism could well be the response of these millions to what they regard as a rotten regime. A similar process appears to be under way in the USA with the Republicans being voted for by the very people their policies will harm the most.
Dictatorships are uncomfortably closer than we care to admit, not least because they are (to some extent at least) "all in the mind". Which is why the dark arts of spin and propaganda now make Machiavelli and Goebbels look like rank amateurs.
The world is further complicated by globalisation and the power of the corporations vs the state. The simple equation people : government, has thus been compromised. And not just through third-party intervention and their associated political systems.
What interests me, is when do the losers decided "enough is enough"?
I was immediately attracted by this:
"These regimes had long been rotten at their core. They came to an end because of their inner contradictions and inability to satisfy the basic needs of their citizens. Those needs weren’t necessarily freedom of expression and democracy, which are often secondary, but work, food and a dignified existence."
It brought the present situation of millions of unemployed people (especially the young) and homeless across Europe, the Harz IV and €400 mini-job workers in Germany and hard-pressed social benefit claimants and zero hours contracts in the UK and the ever-growing increase between the rich and poor to mind. The rise in Euro-scepticism as well as fascism could well be the response of these millions to what they regard as a rotten regime. A similar process appears to be under way in the USA with the Republicans being voted for by the very people their policies will harm the most.
Dictatorships are uncomfortably closer than we care to admit, not least because they are (to some extent at least) "all in the mind". Which is why the dark arts of spin and propaganda now make Machiavelli and Goebbels look like rank amateurs.
The world is further complicated by globalisation and the power of the corporations vs the state. The simple equation people : government, has thus been compromised. And not just through third-party intervention and their associated political systems.
What interests me, is when do the losers decided "enough is enough"?
Dear Piglet,thank you very much for your answer! Yes the article is so complicated and hard to understand that you are kept busy a long time to understand this. And yes, the whole world seems in such confused political situations that we could be in despair! But my interest on this article now is especially the end! Here the author says that in only one nation a peaceful revolution was possible. In Germany. He doesn’t say exactly, why. He only gives a reference of the culture and so the question should be, what is the „German cultur“?
But I don’t think that a cultur alone can create a peaceful revolution. And in Germany we were controlled and commanded by other countries for a long time, 44 years. We had the biggest control with 4 states, you know: the USA, France, Great Britain and Russia (Soviet Union)!
But there is another interesting point, I think. The setting-up of democracy under insertion of human rights in Western Germany! It was a long, difficult process. But it was succesful. You know, the first human rights ( individual rights) come from Britain, Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689). 1989-1990, as the wall was destroyd, Western Germany was a democracy with great variety! This I think was the best basic for all processes which were comming, the revolution in Eastern Germany and the reassemble of both countries, Western and Eastern Germany.
Angeli
I'm glad to hear, that finally Munich, too, intends to erect a permanent work of art in memory of the homosexuals persecuted under the Nazi regime. Apart from the historical aspect, the art project should be a visible sign warning against intolerance and animosity towards lesbians and gays and their social exclusion.
>>> cf.
Best regards - Shenaya
Dear Angeli44,
it is my conviction that it is a big mistake to remove a dictator by a third party from the outside, especially when this party has no idea of the country's culture and is persuing its own interests and not those of the people in the country of the dictator.
Concretely, it was a desaster that the US army and its allies invaded Irak. What we observe now, is the direct consequence of this illegal act, the disruption of the state and the failure of "nation building".
Karl
Essentially, the problem is that the US can only do regime change by pumping huge amounts of money and equipment into a country. If you flood a poor corrupt country with money and equipment, what you get is corrupt government not democratic government.
Middle Eastern countries with strong tribal traditions and without any track record in democratic government can only be ruled by a tribal leader who comes to power by forming alliances with other tribal leaders and by eliminating those who don't comply. And such a leader can only stay in power by suppressing opposition with strongman tactics. That's not nice, but that's the way it is.
The puppet government in Afghanistan will be overrun by the Taliban when the last Western soldiers leave and we'll have a few million more Afghan refugees in Germany. We are lucky if the Taliban can stabilize the country. If it falls into the hands of ISIS, things will be even worse. 15 years of war for nothing.
Iraqi soldiers threw away their expensive US equipment and ran away when they where under attack from the ISIS fanatics. Why should they risk their lives for a corrupt regime in Baghdad? Simply doesn't make sense. If they retake Mossul and other cities, it'll only be after US bombers have razed almost every building to the ground.
Western values such as democracy and human rights are used as pretexts to expand Western geopolitical interests by military force. This lie will come to haunt the West.