Excuse me! Did you mention 'freedom of speech'? by M.J.Ferreira

Excuse me! Did you mention ‘freedom of speech’? by M.J.Ferreira

In this contribution I was supposed to continue to tell a story about ‘epistemic communities’ and how they might influence world power. However, a January 2006 article from the ‘Los Angeles Times’, signed by Stuart Silverstein and Peter Hong caught my attention and led me to decide to tell another story. Not a story about theoretical questions, but a story about ‘freedom of speech’.

In the last few days, we have heard much about ‘freedom of speech’. The recent ‘cartoons’ story (I must say, a very well told story) depicts a drama like a movie scene where western societies are the ‘victims’ of a well organised Muslim scheme to denounce liberal values and to endanger democracy and free thinking. However, we hear and discuss very little the events that are happening inside our ‘western fortress’ and that represent real, even if micro, attempts to curtail our resilient liberty.

The situation I’m about to describe and comment on constitutes one of many examples of how ‘freedom of speech’ is fragile even in century old democracies and how the concept might be differently interpreted by political entities (I consider every citizen as a political entity) who adjust its interpretation of true ‘freedom of speech’ to their political biases and objectives. The following story shows how democracy and liberty are always held on thin strings that need to be firmly grasped by all those that believe in the so-called ‘western values’.

In their 20th January ‘Los Angeles Times’ article, Silverstein and Hong say that a former US Republican congressman has resigned from the advisory board of the University of California (UCLA) alumni group after he discovered the latter was offering students money to point and accuse ‘radical’ and ‘liberal’ professors in this academic institution. James Rogan, who served two terms in office, claimed that he did not want his reputation tied to the inquisitory activities of this alumni association. Rogan's resignation follows those of the Harvard historian Stephan Thernstrom and professor emeritus Jascha Kessler who, for the same reasons, also left the board. Thernstrom said he joined the alumni group's more than 20-member advisory board last year because he believed it "had a legitimate objective of combating the extraordinary politicization of the faculty on elite campuses today."

The University of California alumni association, led by 24 year-old Andrew Jones, has been offering students up to US$100 to supply recordings and notes from classes in order to denounce professors suspected of upholding liberal political views and of passing them to their students. Those are encouraged to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies.

Andrew Jones graduated in June 2003 and was chairman of UCLA's Bruin Republicans student group. Jones defends his association’s idea claiming that its objective is to expose UCLA's teachers that have given signs of being "actively proselytizing their extreme views in the classroom, whether or not the commentary is relevant to the class topic." Although the group says it has a general concern about ‘engaged’ professors of any political field, it has distributed an initial "Dirty 30" of teachers, considered sympathetic with left-wing or liberal ideologies.

He said his organization, which is registered with the state as non-profit, does not charge dues and has no official members, but has raised a total of $22,000 from 100 donors. Jones' group is following in the blueprint of various conservative groups that have taken steps, including monitoring professors, against what they regard as an overpowering leftist incline at North-American elite colleges and universities. He said many of these efforts have not been able to properly document their claims. As a result, the Bruin Alumni Association is offering to pay students for tapes and notes taken from classes. Jones claims he plans to show what he considers biased material to professors and administrators, in order to ensure that teachers present more balanced lectures or possibly face reproach. Jones alleged to have lined up one student who, for $100 a class session, has agreed to provide tapes, detailed lecture notes and materials with what the group considers inappropriate opinion. He does not name the student or the professor whose class will be monitored. Jones characterized the work a non-commercial news gathering and advocacy that does not violate university policy. On one of its websites, the Bruin Alumni group names education professor Peter McLaren as No. 1 on its "The Dirty Thirty: Ranking the Worst of the Worst." It says "this Canadian native teaches the next generation of teachers and professors how to properly indoctrinate students." The website also lists history professor Ellen DuBois, saying she "is in every way the modern female academic: militant, impatient, accusatory, and radical — very radical."

Targeted professors complain of a true witch-hunt: Peter McLaren says that any “sober, concerned citizen would look at this and see right through it as a reactionary form of McCarthyism”. He also claims that the teaching atmosphere at UCLA is being poisoned by these bounty offers to students willing to track down their own teachers.

The University said it will notify the association that selling copies of professors' lectures violates campus regulations, specifically concerning copyright protection. UCLA authorities recognise they will not develop immediate legal action. They will only notify Jones and alert students that selling course material without the consent of the instructor and Chancellor violates university policy. Patricia Jasper, a university lawyer, said UCLA will reserve the right to engage into legal action if a student is proved guilty of unauthorized selling of materials. Adrienne Lavine, chairwoman of UCLA's academic senate, agreed that the University could do little more at this point. She said she found the profiles on the alumni group's website "inflammatory" and "not a positive way to address the concerns that Mr. Jones has expressed. “Still”, she said, “I certainly support freedom of speech and that extends to Andrew Jones as much as it does to every faculty member on campus."

In spite being only a local event that seems not to be achieving very high success, this story can be considered an example of how difficult it is to sustain a proper balance between freedom and responsibility. All freedom has a limit, a kind of boundary that gives sense to freedom itself. Freedom is not practiced in an anomic environment. Freedom is relational. Our freedom should uphold the freedom of the people we enter in relation with.

All freedom is watched and it should be. Otherwise we would have a return to what Rousseau described as a primitive society. However, the references used to limit the practice of freedom (freedom of speech, freedom to teach, freedom of association, freedom of manifestation through public initiatives, etc.) have to be clearly stated, have to be coherent, have to be tolerant, have to be felt legitimate. The question is to ensure that western freedom is not considered hierarchically superior to Muslim rights (namely cultural rights) or that students’ right to a non-politically biased education (as if that could exist) does not constrain their teachers’ ‘freedom of speech’.

Excuse me! Did you mention freedom of speech?

Chatting, cheating and paranoia by Arnild Van de Velde

As the majority of readers – at least as I imagine it – I was raised to face monogamy as the most acceptable type of relationship between lovers. Morover, I was also taught to praise values such as respect for individuality, as people´s sacred, untouchable rights. These days though, fidling around with newspapers and magazines, I was shocked finding out that jealousy (as a side effect of monogamy) is getting people to investigate the habits of their beloved ones on the Internet. Aiming to fight cyber cheating, the current and fashionable form of infidelity which is turning love life into a nightmare, ladies and gentlemen won´t hesitate in breaking rules of privacy, in order to make sure that "if trusting the partner is good, controlling him is better". Fearing the threat behind the monitor, possessive personalities are demanding access to their partner´s Internet connections, including their passwords, to check out what he or she does when browsing the web. Furthermore, some even hire a virtual detective to bring their mistrusting to an end – or to confirm it.

Cheating on the Internet does not necessarily involve sex. It thrills exactly for its virtuality: on the web, anyone can be what he or she wants to be, there are no compromises, no preoccupations , no intimidations, no hesitations. In the virtual world, love is like a dream within a dream. Behind the screen, desire overcomes all sorts of taboos, in a way that "real time dating" would rarely do. Using a computer, men and women easily undress, to use a metaphor. E-loving, as I will call it from here onwards, offers the perfect protection of identities, and this is indeed what encourage individuals to loose their personal sense of moral and religion, and then give place from harmless to bizarre fantasies, without feeling guilty. Cyber cheating provides a comfort zone for those who believe that fooling the partner without having sex, is not really what it seems. So far, hiring a spy to investigate the privacy of husband or wife, girl or boyfriend, it´s not too bad. In fact a defender of freedom, I these days come to re-think the role of monogamy on the base of several conflicts of our times. I might sound weird, but not daft.

When George Orwell wrote his "1984", conceiving Big Brother as a unique control-freak, he was just too far away from what the popularization of the web would bring to people´s lives. Nowadays, everytime you start touching your keyboard, someone, somewhere starts feeling uncomfortable. In fact, the internet seems to have revealed the grotesque in each one of us: some feel they are God, others they are worth a conspiracy. I myself know a bunch of anonymous wannabes whose days and hours are spent with strange thoughts about how many millions of people would be interested in destroying their lives by stalking them on the internet, or just by having an e-affair with their love what sometimes can be true, but this is not for me to say. Tormented but unnable to just give up - in my opinion - the best invention of men after the wheel, they prefer not to love or leave it; the real thing is to scan those who use it, no matter what will bring.

A virtual detective is either a hacker whose work consists on tracking back activities of individuals on the Internet, or programs already available on the web, such as Spector Pro 5.0, eBlaster, Keylogger and Screen Logger, easily installed in any computer via e-mail. The ability of these programs to capture every little thing done in the machines is astonishing. If the computer-to-be-attacked is corporate-owned, for example, the strategy to hack it is rather sophisticated: an investigation about the person´s habits helps to create a trap, generally an e-mail with false information on issues of interest of the victim. By opening the message, the spy program is immediately installed and starts sending all information to whom it may concern. The market for these products is increasing proportionally to the cases of divorce caused by cyber-cheating. Could spicy e-chats really harm a solid relationship? Some 80% believe so, while 60% of those who meet in an extramarital relationship, via the web, end up in bed. The question that remains open is whether the Internet powers infidelity, or if infidelity is taking advantage of the Internet.

Asked to comment on the tendency, psychologists of universities around the globe are suggesting that couples should introduce the matter intothe relationship priority list, considering it as important as the decision of having children or not. The use of the web to express sexual tension - in many cases a cyber-affair involves old friends who never had the courage to show their feelings to one another - is an effective tool to break an old pattern of behaviour: inhibition. In a number of cases, this can be healing. But, if like me, you´re not bothered by the collateral effects of the Internet - gossips, conspiracy theories and even spells - at least remain attentive next time you open your e-mails. Somebody could be watching you.

A Cultural Enlightenment by Dirk Salowsky

Getting along with each other has never been easy. Since September 11th many have for good reasons been afraid of what cloaked religious fanatics may be able to do next. Unfortunately, the step from “fanatic islamists” to “merciless Muslims” is not that big at all. Likewise, it is not a big step from “a blasphemic caricature” to “the ignorant Europeans”, as recently seen in the outrage over the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten‘s caricatures. Blind generalizations aside, why should a Danish caricature insult a Muslim in Beirut or Ram’allah? Are the incident and the consequent protests symptoms of a dawning clash of civilizations? Just what has happened?

The Course of Events

The provocative caricature in the Danish newspaper recently stirred relations between major parts of the Islamic world and Europe. While it was already printed in September 2005, only at the end of January did it lead to violent reactions in a couple of Islamic states, following a reprint in the Norwegian Magazinet on January 10, 2006. (See also Daiana Vasquez’s recent article). The original sacrilege are various depictions of the prophet Muhammad, including one with a bomb-shaped turban. After national and international protests to the Danish Government, in October, the Prime Minister refused to distance himself from the caricatures referring protesters to freedom of press. Then, a group of Danish Imans, Islamic prayer leaders, travels to the Middle East to organize protests throughout the Islamic world. At the end of January, several Islamic countries issue official notes of protest, Saudi-Arabia and Libya call back their Ambassadors to Denmark. A couple of European newspapers reprint the caricatures in support of the freedom of press. The first escalation takes place on January 30, when members of the Al-Aksa Brigades seize a EU office in the Gaza Strip. In the following days, there are various demonstrations, flags are burnt, Norwegian and Danish embassies are attacked. There even are casualties among the enraged crowds in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Somalia. On February 6 and 8 the League of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference urge protesters to calm down. The following days (up to this day) pass without further violence.

Analyzing the Reactions

Of course the violence against embassies was a shock and fed concerns about the degree of the outrage. I will only concentrate on two questions: Was this the beginning of a fight against the western world? And how did Muslims even get angry at such small western nations?

Pretty soon it became obvious that violent protest and attacks only became possible in countries where the responsible officials let the mob proceed more or less unhindered. The Syrian regime had had trouble with Lebanon and its own citizens, so an outrage against western Kafirs was a welcome distraction. Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan are countries with either a strong influence of radical Islamists (Hezbollah, Taliban) or political problems with Europe and North America (the Hamas in power confronting Israel and supporting nations, Iran and its nuclear program). In general, any faux pas of a part of the western world is a welcome chance for radical groups to rage against it. In any case, did someone ever compare the number of violent demonstrators to the rest of the respective population?

Mostly, western nations represent the economic world elite. It is not hard to understand why also moderate people in Islamic countries (that have not been invaded under questionable circumstances) might not appreciate western culture. In the eyes of not so well educated Muslims, western countries will mostly show up to tell, urge or threaten an Islamic State to behave according to their ideas, while they do not help by even causing people to suffer (e.g., collateral damage in invasion wars). There are enough unfavorable incidents to raise suspicions.

But we may relax, a permanent clash with Islamic Nations is probably not imminent. It is hard to tell how prominent the conviction that “western nations are ignorant suppressors” really is, but there clearly are resentments. Likewise, people in western countries maintain resentments against Muslims “with inhumane habits and traditions”. Neither of us should forget that a group always consists of different individuals, however.

“Enlightenment” vs. Religious Devotion

For Islamic and Christian nations, skepticism and a lack of understanding is, in my opinion, a mutual reason for negative or even hostile attitudes towards each other. And our two worlds are very different. The western democracies are secular. In a long process starting with the Age of Enlightenment, the division of religion and politics became a logical consequence and requirement for a fully functional democracy. Any action against anyone or anything is only legitimate in accordance to secular laws. Personal welfare mostly stands above the welfare in one’s afterlife – if one even chooses to believe in it. Traditions have become hobbies or commercialized holidays. There are only few left who lead a life devoted to religion.

Most Islamic nations have not had anything like an “Age of Enlightenment”. Few of them are democracies. They have not had a slow and strenuous reform forcing them to reevaluate religion and the influence of religious leaders. In fact, Islam does not even have a clergy. There are, however, changes and foreign influences in the Islamic culture, but one can easily argue that many of them are “forcefully” imported (Palestinian/Israeli coexistence, Afghanistan, Iraq). Islam means “submission (to the will of God)”, and the five pillars of Islam define lifetime principles that are ingrained in Islamic culture. This hardly comes as a surprise as three of these principles are very ritual: Salah, 5 prayers a day; Sawm, the fast during Ramadan; Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah. All of them connected with a number of other rituals. One cannot help living by the rhythm of religion, as everybody is a regular part of a religious community. Traditions play a much more vital role in life. Actions are much more likely to be legitimized by religious rules. This is indeed a very problematic difference.

Thus, while Enlightenment is not only an understood part of western culture, bearing a dash of superiority (“I am enlightened – you are not.”), daily worship of Allah and ensuring the welfare of all fellow Muslims is an understood part of Islamic culture. A Muslim is a person “submitted to the will of God” and, by definition, even a Christian might be called Muslim. One does not need to visit the Amish to imagine how decadent, hypocritical and godless western culture may seem in the eyes of a Muslim.

The Avoidable Jihad Factor

To Muslims, the mere depiction of the Prophet is a sacrilege. Idolatry itself is. One of the basic principles of Islam is to abstain from any divine imagery, icons, idols in favor of the true worship of the Almighty. The implications connected with the Prophet wearing a bomb on his head do easily reach beyond the domain of satire (which may be a necessity of this genre). Not having seen all of it, I can imagine what the cartoonists were aiming at with their work, keeping in mind that the caricature was issued in order to solidarize with a disdained author who failed to publish a book about Muhammad. But satire is a very liberal genre in a very secularized culture. In western cultures it is a commonly accepted type of discourse in order to exchange and analyze thoughts and views. It is tacitly acknowledged that the author’s work is never to be taken literally.

I dare say that Islamic culture is nowadays way more religious than Christian culture. Accordingly, religious symbols are “more sacred” and untouchable. Thus, a provocative caricature using a central element of the religion is a very painful insult. With the given mutual respect for either cultural background the “Jyllands Posten Affair” might have been settled rather quickly and without a defensive focus on the freedom of press. But a certain stubbornness in defending the own cultural convictions and principles made it worse. The affair was given the chance to be exploited and to be declared an attack against the Islam. Not only Islamists know that “Islam permits fighting in self-defense, in defense of the religion, or by those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes […]. The concept of Jihad (struggling in the cause of Allah) is stated in the Qu’ran […].”(www.iad.org). It is a matter of interpretation to decide how grave an attack against the religion is, and with a misinformed crowd at hand, a radical Imam may easily instigate a noisy protest. But it were the Taliban to once again (ab)use the word Jihad as a reaction to the affair.

Right and Wrong

Freedom of expression is a fundamental liberal democratic norm. But in my opinion it was not this freedom that caused the affair. It was a lack of dialogue. The affair was a matter of respect that was at least underrated in the aftermath. It was a matter of insufficient understanding of a different culture and value system. And it was a matter of putting one’s own value system above another. Among various reasons the western value system is good because western culture was allowed to choose it and did choose it when it had reason to do so. I know that this statement is controversial when it comes to human rights in general. However, a desired change of culture or social norms in Islamic countries can only emerge from inside of their societies. It requires a careful dialogue, for nobody will force change into anyone’s head. A dialogue requires mutual respect and understanding. May this article add to it.

The Idiot’s Guide to Democracy by Pedro F Marcelino

For the second time within three weeks, Capeverdean citizens used their right to vote freely, a rare condition in Africa. On January 22nd, in the legislative election, voters opted for continuity, and re-conducted the PAICV Government, despite the opposition’s claims for over 29,000 fraudulent votes.

Democracy as a concept is far from perfect. As a practice, it is flawed, to say the least. The system is often twisted even in mature democracies such as the United States' (Bush vs. Gore), Italy's (Berlusconi’s direct or indirect ownership or control of 85% of all Italian media as well as other irregularities) or Germany's (with vote results forcing a negotiated Government). In Africa, of late, very few countries endorsed democracy permanently. Kenya often slides down the slope, and so does Mozambique, Angola or Egypt. Cape Verde and The Seychelles have for long been pointed as beacons of democracy in the continent – and what beacons they are, the geographic positions of both making them more similar to lighthouses for democratic endeavours, one on the Atlantic, one on the Indian coast.

Cape Verde has gathered the trust of the international community over the last 15 years, so much so that it has repeatedly been lauded for the almost inexistent corruption in the use of foreign aid monies. In February 12th's Presidential election, as in many others, foreign observers were absent, based on that trust. Yet, as in many other “mature” democracies, situations occurred that were therefore muted.

Independent since 1975, the Republic of Cape Verde was luckier than most young nations in continental Africa. There was no colonial war, no rebellion, and all opposition to the regime in the national territory was peaceful. However, many Capeverdean independence supporters joined the Amilcar Cabral-founded PAIGC (African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde), and played active roles in the wars of the time. Military training in Cuba or in the depths of Africa, guerrilla war in Bissau - Commander Pedro Pires was among them. One year after the Red Carnation Revolution in Portugal, Cape Verde was finally independent. Behind the stage, the split between Guinea-Bissau and the islands was masterfully albeit traumatically orchestrated, and PAIGC eventually became a strictly national entity (PAICV), one that was to rule in a single-party regime for almost 16 years. In 1991, with Pedro Pires in power, and despite his claims that the people were not ready for a democratic change, a coalition of small parties, led by Carlos Veiga’s MpD forced an election. On January 13th, 1991, the Second Republic gave the first steps. It is reminded as one of the grandest days in this young republic's history.

Little after, a new flag for a modern country would be created, along with a new national anthem and a new shield of arms, leaving behind the country’s Marxist-Leninist post-independence past. Despite Chinese and Cuban tacit support, PAICV’s days as sole ruler were over.

With Mr. Veiga’s election for Prime Minister, and later with President António Mascarenhas Monteiro, Cape Verde progressed rapidly and leaped to the forefront of Africa, gathering respect and an aura of stability rare this close to the tropics. Ever more capital transfers were made by its overseas community, and investment in the tourism sector as well as direct foreign aid were attracted. In just 15 years, the country’s economy changed deeply.

In 2001, Carlos Alberto Wahnon de Carvalho Veiga, born in the country's second city of Mindelo, ran for President against the independence-veteran and former single-party regime leader Pedro Pires. Amidst loud claims of electoral fraud, PAICV re-gained power, after Onésimo Silveira’s withdrawal in its favour. The army and police forces were divided, and civil unrest was feared for a few days. Mr. Veiga nowadays claims, somewhat exaggerating, that he alone chose to spare the country a civil war, by accepting fraudulent results.

On January 22nd 2006, PAICV’s Government was confirmed, and the long expected heavy-weight Presidential campaign started. Mr. Pires’ campaign was one of confrontation and aggressive speech from both him and his representatives. Supporters scouted the streets flying First Republic flags (Marxist, implying a union with war-ravaged Guinea), and several claims of incitement to violence were filed. The Supreme Court received complaints of fraud in the legislatives, while the recently elected PM campaigned alongside Mr. Pires.

Whereas Mr. Pires safely stood on his party's grounds, Mr. Veiga claimed to be above any party divide. According to the Constitution that Veiga had helped approve himself (against PAICV’s wishes, whose deputies abandoned Parliament), the President should act as a referee and should dialogue with the whole of civil society. Whereas Mr. Pires’ motto was “vote for PAICV, for a stable governance”, Mr. Veiga concentrated on explaining why his candidature was the right one. Whereas Mr. Pires refused any debates on radio or TV, Mr. Veiga continuously requested them. Whereas Mr. Pires cashed on masses of people with little education and civic formation to gather many of his votes, Mr. Veiga’s mistake seems to have been treating them as grown-up voters. Or was it...?

On the night of the election, claims of irregularities with votes were heard. The electoral system key had been stolen in 2001, remaining adrift in the country or abroad. All the informatics corrections to date were insufficient to curb possible hacking attacks. In Mindelo, as in the capital city, Praia, special intervention forces were deployed to prevent any clashes as a consequence of the heated atmosphere. MpD’s HQ was surrounded by close-faced officers. Very closely, down the street, at PAICV’s HQ, another police barrier prevented supporters from mixing. The National Elections Commission claimed the ballot had been transparent, albeit several misdemeanours.

On TCV, sole national TV network (not so much public, rather a State channel), the special broadcast presented three pro-PAICV and one pro-MpD commentators. The moderator seemed somewhat biased, to say the least. One and a half hour before the vote was closed in the circle of the Americas (mostly Brazil, Canada and US), TCV infracted the law, by showing the first temporary results. With 60% of all votes counted, Mr. Veiga was ahead at 50.49% against 49.30%, in what seemed a perfect plot for a turnover. Later, with 90% of the votes disclosed, she smilingly announced that Mr. Pires was now ahead with 50.38% of the votes. Mr. Veiga’s results were repeatedly not revealed. Meanwhile, police protection to MpD’s HQ mysteriously disappeared around 10 pm, when the vote was closed in Boston and Toronto. TCV interrupted the special at that point, only to return 49 minutes later, with final results that gave a clear victory to Mr. Pires. According to the temporary results, Veiga had won among half-million inhabitants of the islands (with little more than 50%), but lost among 1-million Capeverdeans abroad (in a proportion of 61.5% to 34.9%), even if the abstention rate nationally was only 46% against 67% abroad.

With the results seemingly decided (Mr. Pires’ 50.8% vs. Mr. Veiga’s 49.2%), MpD supporters returned home, leaving the streets to the celebrating crowds in yellow. On TV, the moderator asks for final comments. The lonely pro-MpD commentator is scarce in words, followed by three buoyant PAICV supporters. Not able to hide her enthusiasm with the results, the moderator points out that history repeats itself, and requests comments to both the 2001 and 2006 votes. In 2001, she says, Carlos Veiga lost with 50.7% of the vote, while Pedro Pires won with 49.3%. She is baffled and confused for two seconds. Then, she says, “no, it cannot be, the computer must be wrong.” After having been Prime Minister for 15 years, much of which in a single-party regime, Mr. Pires has presided to the country’s destinies for the past five years, so he must have won, you would think – actually, so says history, in 2001 he indeed won by only 12 votes, hardly an acceptable margin elsewhere. All of a sudden, MpD’s claims of fraud seem consequent. Could the wrong result announced by TCV’s moderator actually not be “wrong”?

The country woke up in peace, though, and once again, PAICV rules over all the branches of political power, offering the people plenty of music in the streets. It could happen in any democracy. It happened in the United States of America. But in any normal democracy, however, a reasonable doubt would remain as to why are all the electoral results so close. And why are they always turned around at the last moment. In a regular democracy, when claims that thousands of votes were irregular are made, and the winner has only 12 extra votes, the ballot would be repeated. It may well be that nothing irregular happened this time – yet, so goes the saying, where there is smoke, there is (usually) fire.

Borrowing from Bill Clinton’s campaign: this is democracy for you, stupid – African style, that is.

This text is also available in Portuguese here (Manual de Democracia Simplificada)

Read more on Cape Verde in Pedro Marcelino’s previous article.

Where are the limits? by Daiana Vasquez

The world is shocked with the readiness for violence from the part of many Muslims offended by the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammad, for instance wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Even worse, it seems that in some countries government and spiritual leaders are encouraging the protests, instead of controlling them.

On the one hand, nobody but the attackers seems to agree with this kind of reaction. From all over the world we hear and see politicians, journalists, people, believers or not, claiming that brute force is not only an inadequate reaction, but it is outrageous and shall never be accepted.

On the other hand, barely anyone but the offended Muslims seems to agree that also freedoms of speech, expression and press have a limit and on the moment you expose the belief of a group to ridiculousness and associate it with terrorism this limit is transgressed.

For Islam the image of Muhammad, their holy prophet, must never be shown. Some people contest that this rule is not in the Koran. But even if so, it does not change the fact that the Muslims believe that the face of Muhammad should not be exposed and that they are hurt in their religious feelings when this happens. Shall the press ignore all this in the name of its freedom?

Some journalists say yes, the Muslims have to accept that in the Western countries there are such things as freedoms of speech and press, which in many cases they do not have the chance to experience in their non-secularized countries. This is the case of the Dutch reporter of the German Magazine Der Spiegel, and writer Henryk M. Broder that gave his opinion on this issue for the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel on February the 3rd. He believes that one should be allowed to make fun of Christians, Jewish, Muslims, etc, even with the danger of hurting their religious feelings. And he justifies this by saying that what for one believer is a belief, is for the other superstition.

But should not the difference be exactly the motive for respect and tolerance instead of for ridiculousness? We must accept that we are different. And being different means that perhaps some things that do not bother one group of people are really disgusting for others. Shall I ignore that some things I say may be offensive for others just because if they said the same to me I would not care? Am I not by doing this measuring the others with my canons instead of accepting and respecting the fact that they might have their own? Is my culture superior?

Many other newspapers, although more moderate than the journalist cited above, see in the printing of the cartoons an expression of press freedom. Does it mean that in the name of freedom of press everything can be published? Is there no distinction? No limit?

For many believers, Muslim or from other religions, as well as for politicians in high positions, the press should respect religious feelings. The Vatican, for instance, has condemned the publication of the cartoons, according to the Brazilian online newspaper Globo. According to the Vatican’s opinion, the freedom of thought and speech shall not include the right to offend other people’s religion.

Some media in countries such as Norway and Germany printed the cartoons following the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, despite the fact that they already knew how offensive the cartoons were to Muslims. What was the aim of doing that? Certainly not only to inform people, since this could have been perfectly done without printing the polemic cartoons and leaving Muslims with the feeling they were being provoked and offended on purpose.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan also seems to believe that the press should avoid throwing more oil on fire. He said, according to BBC News, he was "distressed and concerned at the whole affair" and appealed for no-one to "inflame an already difficult situation".

What is the role of the press? Is it to inform people, to open the debate, to analyze and criticize facts, theories, etc or to provoke, cause commotion and sensationalism for more audience and readers? Is it under any responsibility? Should it carefully balance its content because of its possible consequences? Or shall it print everything blindly without measuring the effects it may have?

These questions appear not to be so difficult to answer, but the thought that freedom of speech and press has a limit and also a responsibility has still not found so many echoes in the media. They are concentrated on showing the world the scandalizing violent protests of some of the offended Muslims against the countries where the cartoons were published and on arguing for the right to publish them based on the principle of press freedom. However, it would not harm anyone if they would also direct some attention to their role, their responsibility and maybe exercise some self-criticism.

Once again regarding this concern it is UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who puts things in its right terms: "I share the distress of the Muslim friends who feel that the cartoon offends their religion," he said, according to BBC News, and continued: "I also respect the right of freedom of speech. But of course freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails responsibility and judgment."

When the press does not ponder how a report should be announced it can come to serious problems. This was the case in Brazil, as a central news network reported on a school in which children were supposedly sexually abused. After all this, it was proven to only have happened in their imagination. The owners of the school were ruined even though the press reported the true version afterwards. Another examples are the paparazzi who disturb the privacy of Caroline of Monaco or those who were jointly responsible for the early death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The list is endless. It does not make any sense to go on. The point is that whatever freedom we are talking of, it must have limits. There is no absolute freedom of press. And it is more rational and desirable that the press itself control its publications within reasonable boundaries instead of denying its limits.

In any case, the fact that some published cartoons are the cause for such violence is unacceptable. There are many other ways to protest than the violent path chosen. It is not only shocking that it came to such a conflict but unfortunately also scary, since the whole world saw what some people might be capable of doing in the name of Allah (or in this case, of his prophet). Is there any limit to their use of force?

To live in an economically globalized world does not mean that we have a global culture. We do have a variety of cultures that should be respected for there is not a better one. Not even God is legitimized to say which culture is superior, since there are different Gods in different cultures. No one is legitimized to say what is an offense and what is “only” hypersensitivity or idiosyncrasy. In order to have peace, we must reciprocally accept each other within our differences.


And the question that remains on my mind is not where these limits are, namely the limits of the freedom of press and the limits of the reaction of the offended Muslims, but mainly if we (believers or not) are going to be able to manage this commotion without killing each other.

Epistemic Communities as Normative Hegemons I by M.J.Ferreira

Hegemony in International Relations has always been perceived as a material phenomenon. Superpowers have such qualifications for they possess the material resources that enable them to gain control over other states’ actions and purposes. Recently, theorisation on hegemony developed in order to gain a more relational nature. Actors in International Relations play a hegemonic role if they are able to determine how the global system thinks and acts. In two words: normative power.
Following Deutsch’s cybernetic approach to social science, political systems are fed through inputs converted into outputs by a decision-making process. Both inputs and outputs are never free from an ideological perspective. They always underpin a normative framework for reality: a wish about how political communities should be regulated.

Neo-realist perspectives on International Relations, specifically on foreign policy analyses, traditionally focus on the formality of decision-making processes, thus neglecting the content of political decisions grounding them to mere problem solving mechanisms.

New theories have just started to analyse how several non-state actors are capable of influencing decision-making processes in foreign policy. The aristocratic and elitist nature of traditional diplomacy is slowly fading away. Maquiavel, Metternich and Bismarck would be surprised to see how their “Princes” and “Kings” could hardly now invoke La Raison d’ État in order to take decisions outside public scrutiny. Decision-making process in foreign policy is becoming increasingly more open and democratic.

The democratisation of foreign policy decision-making processes is vital in an international context where neoliberalism is becoming the solution for all world problems. The economic hegemon is promoting Francis Fukuyama’s vision about the End of History. Globalisation seems to be homogenising the economic mechanisms to regulate societies. Even the specificities of the European welfare state are being questioned by a growing market-led European Union. In the wake of such neo-liberal hegemony, big powers try to promote polyarchyc models of governance in recent African, Asian and Latin-American democracies. Robert Dahl describes polyarchies as low intensity democracies where popular participation is confined to regular voting procedures. Those low intensity democracies are quite suitable for neo-liberalism, for individuals become accustomed to be simple commodities consumers and not full citizens with governance responsibilities.

Western societies, who consider democracy as the ‘normal’ regime, are not immune to the polyarchyc modes of authority. The depolitisation of citizen’s participation in governance frees state’s elites from accountability. Among public policies, this lack of accountability is more visible in the foreign policy domain. Two questions arise: who is resisting? And who is doing the thinking?

Who is resisting?

Resistance to the neo-liberal order is clearly being led by worldwide social movements who try to alert societies to the dangers of what Tocqueville called “the worst kind of tyranny”: the tyranny of the mind. This means the government capacity, even in a democratic framework, to control the political will of its citizens. Again two words: normative power.

Nationalist movements are also performing resistance. Nationalism has been perceived by academics as a dead ideology. However, there are those who claim that nationalism belongs to the future and not to the past, that nationalism is not the product of pre-modernity but of a postmodern international order. This leads us to question the nature of political communities. If we picture the evolution of political communities as a cycle we can identify three stages: the imperial system, the feudal state and the nation-state. And after the nation-state (in fact, I must say that a small number of states are true nation-states) what will come? Will it be a neo-medieval system or a transitional period after which we will have a back to the nation movement? Post-modernity should have brought a more cosmopolitan way of governing the international society. However, cosmopolitanism is being resisted by a perceived need to an origin’s return. Whether those origins are local or regional or national, the ties that connect people to their territory are already under discussion. The question is: can we ground citizenship in a non-territorial basis?

Who is doing the thinking?

The neo-liberal order is being sustained mostly by private actors that perform advisory roles near governmental elites. Among those private actors I would like to call attention to what Peter Haas has called epistemic communities. Haas defines such communities as “(…) a professional group that believes in the same cause and effects relationships, truth tests to assess them, and shares common values. As well as sharing an acceptance of a common body of facts, its members share a common interpretive framework, or ‘consensual knowledge’, from which they convert such facts, or observations to policy relevant conclusions. They identify problems in the same manner and process information similarly. They also share a common vocabulary, common political objectives to which such policies should be addressed, and a common network in which findings are exchanged and shared concerns are formulated” (Haas, 1990).

This definition underpins the normative framework of epistemic communities. They are a group of people, scattered by several areas that produce technical knowledge and that are forming among themselves networks of communication. In some Anglo-Saxon literature we find epistemic communities under the label of ‘think-tanks’. Slowly, such groups are setting the bases for a new international order. They are highly politicised groups with a tendency to disguise their normative functions under the clout of technical knowledge. Epistemic communities deserve a more profound study. I will undertake such analysis in my next contribution to Thinkblogal.

I will try to do the thinking.

Seeds Of Tomorrow by Pedro F Marcelino

The 80’s. The idea of a seed bank appears for the first time, when politics is dominated by the oppressing, castrating threat of a major nuclear showdown. The idea was not original: Noah’s Ark, so claims the legend, was filled with a male and a female specimen of each animal of the Creation. Ancient Egyptians and some pre-Hispanic peoples of South and Central America traditionally kept special seeds in safe houses, perhaps as a last resource in case of… anything. In the 60’s, US children ritually filled time capsules with childhood memorabilia to be dug up decades later in someone’s backyard.

(The tradition persists, with 21st century space crafts being sent astray with seed samples, text databases and audio libraries for the passing-by alien of the future.)

Spitsbergen Island, in the archipelago of Svalbard, Arctic Polar Circle, was back then pointed as a perfect location to host a seed bank for future generations. With only 2,330 inhabitants and strict laws that limit any new arrivals, Spitsbergen is perhaps one of the most isolated human communities in the world. Located at about 81 degrees north latitude, it has only two significant settlements, Longyearbyen and Ny Ǻlesund. The northernmost phone booth and mailbox are located there, as are the northernmost marathon and polar jazz festival (both in June), among other chilly superlatives. Summer temperatures are scarcely above the freezing point, and typical winter temperatures neighbour -30, or even -50 with wind chill.

The location would have been appropriate, if it were not for Star Wars: the Cold War was far from over. A 1920 treaty with Norway gave Soviet Union’s mining companies exploitation rights in coal-rich Spitsbergen, and perhaps the presence of the “enemy” represented too much of a jeopardy for such a sensitive project. That attitude, in fact, potentially implied the anihilation of the Soviet Union, or the desire to save only non-Communists after a major catastrophe had taken place.

Whichever the case, the idea never went through, ending up in a drawer. Nor did a major catastrophe occur (yet).

In 2004, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the Global Crop Diversity Trust and the Foreign Ministry of the Kingdom of Norway signed a treaty that finally opened the road for something feasible, which was to be announced as the first step in an ambitious, albeit necessary, project. Sponsored by the Norwegian Government and the private trust, the seed bank now means to establish a workable basis for a new start, should nuclear war occur, but also in case of major crop diseases or any catastrophic natural disasters (such as earthquakes, extreme climate changes or gigantic volcanic eruptions). This resource will only be used when all other alternatives have been explored. In the words of Cary Fowler, the Trust’s Executive Secretary, “if worse came to worst, this would allow the world to reconstruct agriculture in the planet”.

Established in association with FAO, the Trust’s mission is the collection and preservation of edible plants diversity, mostly resourcing to seed banks the world over. Ideally, several other modern seed banks will be placed in safe points of the globe, using a similar co-operative structure.

A vast majority of the seeds being safeguarded by this project will be received from existing banks in Africa, Latin America and Asia, where security and climate conditions do not guarantee preservation. Experts have warned that the world subsists on a relatively small number of crops, and that most of the population uses little more than 150 species as a nutritional basis. Genetic diversity is decreasing swiftly, as the risk for major perturbations visibly grows.

The vault is to be installed in the depths of a sandstone Spitsbergen mountain covered with permafrost, where one-metre-thick concrete walls will enclose the seeds, kept sealed from terrorists, global warming or nuclear radiation by blast-proof doors. If electricity fails, for some reason, permafrost will promptly naturally replace the artificial deep-freeze. This will be the world’s safest gene bank to date.

From a global situation where nuclear weapons were available to a selected few – the US, the USSR, Britain and France, the “European nuclear umbrella” – the international community saw China acquire them, followed by India and Pakistan (technically, still at war), allegedly also Israel and South Africa. Not only that, but many other developed and developing nations chose, with mixed results, to invest in nuclear energy to supply domestic needs – Spain, Brazil, Italy, Germany, Canada, to name a few. The fall of the USSR in 1989 brought an unprecedented danger, as the world’s second nuclear nation suddenly was unable to assure the security of its own weapons and power plants, scattered throughout a score of new independent republics (mostly in Ukraine and Kazakhstan). But in an era when any status quo is old within months, it is hardly surprising that Iraq eventually started its own nuclear programme, followed by uranium enrichment (did it ever happen?). Or that Iran now follows suit. Or that countries such as North Korea or Syria conduct their own programmes. It is difficult to justify to any nation why it is that nuclear endeavours are limited to those who can, as opposed to those who want – the best gig in realpolitik. It grows harder as many western countries, simultaneously, develop their own energy-oriented programmes for the first time, as the easy way out of oil dependency, while the UN’s directorium does not seem to bother them. Finally, as the world’s first nuclear power becomes a bullying state – in the eyes of many – it is only fair that third parties ask themselves why should a traditionally aggressive, war-driven nation be allowed to possess an array of nuclear weapons, while preventing others from an equal right. Why should only the power circle have that privilege, and why not, say, Djibouti? With these dilemmas on today’s agenda, and the rule of war over politics seemingly far from a 20th century anachronism, it is understandable that the nuclear threat still dwells on our minds – and feasible that it actually looms over our heads. This project is only a scary reminder of human history.

Having seen Ice Age (and the squirrel who lost his pre-historic nuts), however, three questions loom in my mind: who will be around to remember where the seeds are, after a nuclear war? And if someone is indeed around, how will they reach Svalbard to fetch them, anyway? Even if they do, how is the safest safe to be open?

Alfred Einstein’s words, dozens of years ago, on the brink of the nuclear revolution that would change Earth forever: “I do not know how will World War II be fought, but the Third I know: it will be with sticks and stones.“ (sic)

The World of Flying by Angelo Meneses

In the beginning it was just a dream. Icarus tried it, but the Wright brothers did it. Since then, aviation has developed from an elite-only luxury to an all public basic service. But it has many new challenges ahead and many other developments to be expected.

It’s a fact that the world is running at an astonishingly fast pace and that, more than ever, time is money. Business men need to be in different places in the world almost at the same time. And, although new technologies make it possible to be somewhere without really being there, there are many occasions that still need a physical presence. Thus, the importance of transportation, especially, aviation.

But the interesting aspect of the modern aviation industry is the massification of flying, specially for tourism purposes. From intercontinental flights that took many days, had stops aplenty and would cost a big amount of money, the aviation industry has evolved to a point where it is possible for a passenger to cross the Atlantic in under 8 hours (and in fact, until recently, in less than 4 super-sonic hours).

It’s a paradox that the Concorde has been put to sleep, when many other models of aircrafts have had more accidents and the need for speed in air travel has seen an increasing demand. But the low demand on Concorde flights definitely dictated its future, specially in an era where profit is the number one aim for the airlines.

But if speed is not the only bet for the future, what is it then? Actually, there are two answers for that, depending on where you seek them. In the USA, Boeing is targeting a more regional style of flying, whilst in Europe Airbus is betting on long-haul flights, with its A380, for which there are now over 150 requests from airlines all over the world. The truth is that both companies are probably right. The future of flying will in fact include more and more short-haul flights between small regional airports. It is already happening. Just look at the North American market and all the low cost airlines booming through out Europe. But passengers won’t stick to short-haul flights in a world that is apparently shrinking every minute. What to do when one needs to get to the other side of the world? One will, obviously, need to take a long-haul flight.

And for this mixed future, the airplane construction companies are getting ready. Boeing will introduce the Dreamliner, which will mainly provide flights for short distances. And Airbus will lead the way with the A380 on the long distance flights, providing a spacious aircraft, able to take off with up to 800 passengers. Whether we look to one or the other, some things are obviously common: the worries about fuel efficiency, safety and construction costs and materials (specially with composite materials of the Dreamliner).

But the massification of air travel brings up another very important aspect: low-fare flying. This complex idea is based on three main pillars: the proximity to the clients’ needs, a natural low cost in exchange for no frills, and a lower cost for handling the aircrafts in smaller airports (which nowadays have to compete among themselves). For many years now, low cost airlines have been thriving in North America and Europe (where they still find room to grow), but they haven’t stopped growing. Southeast Asia has now more than one option and even India and Pakistan have their own low-fare carriers. But they still have something in common: the short distance of destinations. But even that will change soon. Entrepreneurs in Hong Kong will launch the first long-haul low cost airline, with cuts up to 80% over the cost on traditional airlines (according to its own sources). Whether this will be successful or not is not even a question. The question is how fast will it become a success?

Another challenge airlines will have to face in the future, specially in countries such as Japan, Germany, Spain or even China is the growth of high speed train travel. And it’s a rather unfair fight that airlines may actually lose: why should a passenger bother going out of town, all the way to the airport, checking in and out, then to another long transfer to the centre of the city upon his arrival? High-speed trains, on the other hand, will nowadays get you from one city centre to the other in almost the same time, with much less hassle.

But, on the other hand, there is a very interesting aspect going on in developing countries. The increase of business making and the growth of the middle class in those countries will bring an all new public to airlines, making it possible for them to grow domestically and also internationally. China is no good example, as it changes every hour, but the transformation of the flying market there is a good example: In 2000, for example, very little foreign companies flew to Guangzhou – only 7- , nowadays there are 16; even Shanghai had to build a new airport (Pudong) only to cope with the influx of flights and a second terminal is already underway, with two more to go. But other places show how different things are nowadays: Dubai was a small emirate for centuries and its airport had little if no importance until the 90’s. Nowadays it’s the hub to one of the fastest growing airlines, consistently voted as one of the best, Emirates. It receives flights from over 60 different airlines; and projects for a second airport in Dubai are already under way. Even in Latin America, LAN (from Chile) has grown into a multi-national company, filling the voids in countries such as Peru or Ecuador.

Finally, there is yet another element to take into analysis: the future of the airlines themselves. In Africa, for example, every day seems to bring new airlines to life (mainly because of failed ventures – as Air Afrique – and political instability, despite the good performances of TACV or Ethiopian Airlines), but in Europe, for example, major airline take-overs are becoming more common, as Air France proved when it bought KLM, and even the failed businesses have their importance: the recent attempt by TAP to purchase Varig; the previous attempt of merging KLM and Alitalia; and the doomed merging of Swissair and Sabena (one of the first airlines in the world). In North America, airlines seem to live on the edge every day, buffered by governmental aid. But the future will certainly see the reinforcement of the present alliances, drawing new companies into themselves and the widening of cooperation agreements.

Today, we live in a world of flying, where more people than ever are getting a chance to fly and where non-first time flyers tend to fly more. The massification of air travel is a fact, and there is no turning back, despite all the set backs. But the niches can always be explored, being low cost, business or very long non-stop flights (A380 will make it possible to fly from Europe to Australia non-stop). And that is also a fact. All this will happen long before Man can hop in a spacecraft to spend a weekend on the Moon.