Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Obama in Cairo
I realize that quite some time has passed since my last posting (if you leave aside some small addenda on the Gegenseitige Provokationen and the Energiewende posts) and since some of you asked me to comment on Obama’s speech in Cairo I would like to say a few words on that adding maybe some more on the outcome of the EU elections later.
Although being rather critical of the Obama administration's foreign policy at first, especially for his choice of nominating Hillary Clinton as foreign minister, I must admit that I found his speech at Cairo University quite interesting and definitely moving into the right direction (it looks as if he had just taken one or two clues from my Master thesis, posted here just a few days before :)).
Although Obama does not ultimately break the vicious circle of 'culture politics' altogether by abiding by religious metaphors and quotes from the Holy Scriptures, he does so in a very smart way: he re-directs the apologists of a culture clash’s own weapons against them by taking them by their own word, which is probably a more successful strategy than simply rejecting any religious discourse altogether. At the same time, although unwillingly, he ridicules all efforts of a so called ‘inter-religious dialogue’ (at least between the three big monotheisms), which must fail not only for its obvious systemic faults (‘mono’ says it all, doesn’t it?) but also for the simple reason that all three Holy Scriptures can be used to either justify or condemn violence, as Obama – in tandem with Osama, I’m tempted to say - so beautifully exposes in his speech.
If you strip off all the nice pearls of wisdom there are yet a lot of statements worth a second look. In fact Obama addresses a number of political and economic issues in a remarkably concrete manner. The clearest sign of a break with the Orientalist-influenced policies of his predecessors consists in my eyes in his assertion on the impact of modernity on the societies of the former colonies. By conceding the double-edgedness of modern Western political reforms on those who rather had to suffer them than partaking in the new-gained freedoms, he definitely steps back from the neo-conservatives’ missionary vision of ‘bringing democracy’ to the underdeveloped societies of the ‘Muslim world’. By reminding Liberalism of its own principles he also unmasks some of the hypocrisy surrounding the issue of the veil, prevailing especially among European liberals and some new-born wannabe-women-liberators on the far right.
If careful enough not to take the bait from the numerous self-declared religious dignitaries and if understanding the popular revival of the religious for what it is, namely an expression of the very yearning for democracy when every other (political) expression is being oppressed, this could definitely open a serious channel for communcation with democratic movements in the region.
The economic part is unfortunately much weaker and seems in big parts being influenced by the international “non-profit”-NGOs active in the region consisting merely of a number of cosmetic retouchings.
That much said, without getting too excited, I think Obama makes some very good points here and it’s well worth listening to the speech, not only for its expected rhetoric brilliance. Yet it is still far too early to tell about the future of US foreign policy in the Middle East and one must not expect big changes over night.
Anyway, folks, here’s the speech:
Although being rather critical of the Obama administration's foreign policy at first, especially for his choice of nominating Hillary Clinton as foreign minister, I must admit that I found his speech at Cairo University quite interesting and definitely moving into the right direction (it looks as if he had just taken one or two clues from my Master thesis, posted here just a few days before :)).
Although Obama does not ultimately break the vicious circle of 'culture politics' altogether by abiding by religious metaphors and quotes from the Holy Scriptures, he does so in a very smart way: he re-directs the apologists of a culture clash’s own weapons against them by taking them by their own word, which is probably a more successful strategy than simply rejecting any religious discourse altogether. At the same time, although unwillingly, he ridicules all efforts of a so called ‘inter-religious dialogue’ (at least between the three big monotheisms), which must fail not only for its obvious systemic faults (‘mono’ says it all, doesn’t it?) but also for the simple reason that all three Holy Scriptures can be used to either justify or condemn violence, as Obama – in tandem with Osama, I’m tempted to say - so beautifully exposes in his speech.
If you strip off all the nice pearls of wisdom there are yet a lot of statements worth a second look. In fact Obama addresses a number of political and economic issues in a remarkably concrete manner. The clearest sign of a break with the Orientalist-influenced policies of his predecessors consists in my eyes in his assertion on the impact of modernity on the societies of the former colonies. By conceding the double-edgedness of modern Western political reforms on those who rather had to suffer them than partaking in the new-gained freedoms, he definitely steps back from the neo-conservatives’ missionary vision of ‘bringing democracy’ to the underdeveloped societies of the ‘Muslim world’. By reminding Liberalism of its own principles he also unmasks some of the hypocrisy surrounding the issue of the veil, prevailing especially among European liberals and some new-born wannabe-women-liberators on the far right.
If careful enough not to take the bait from the numerous self-declared religious dignitaries and if understanding the popular revival of the religious for what it is, namely an expression of the very yearning for democracy when every other (political) expression is being oppressed, this could definitely open a serious channel for communcation with democratic movements in the region.
The economic part is unfortunately much weaker and seems in big parts being influenced by the international “non-profit”-NGOs active in the region consisting merely of a number of cosmetic retouchings.
That much said, without getting too excited, I think Obama makes some very good points here and it’s well worth listening to the speech, not only for its expected rhetoric brilliance. Yet it is still far too early to tell about the future of US foreign policy in the Middle East and one must not expect big changes over night.
Anyway, folks, here’s the speech:
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Energiewende
Hier ein ausgezeichneter Vortrag von Herrmann Scheer, der am 12. Mai im Journal Panorama auf Ö1 gesendet wurde. Scheer, dem für seinen Einsatz für die Solarenergie der Alternative Nobelpreis 1999 verliehen wurde, plädiert darin für eine radikale Wende in der Art unserer Energieversorgung, weg von den fossilen Brennstoffen hin zu erneuerbaren, dezentral organisierten Energieformen und unterstreicht die sozialen und politischen Auswirkungen eines solchen Wandels.
(der Player funktioniert nicht im MS Internet Explorer - hier gibts ein mp3)
Dazu passt auch das aktuelle Forschungsprojekt von Timothy Mitchell (Columbia University) das den Titel "Carbon Democracy" trägt. Mitchell untersucht unter Berücksichtigung sowohl der Science and Technology Studies als auch der Postcolonial Theory, die Geschichte der fossilen Brennstoffe und stellt eine Verbindung zu den Möglichkeiten demokratischer Entwicklung im Zuge der Konstruktion moderner Energienetzwerke her. Aus dem Abstract zu einer vorläufigen Fassung:
"States that depend upon oil revenues appear to be less democratic than other states. Yet oil presents a much larger problem for democracy: faced with the threats of oil depletion and catastrophic climate change, the democratic machineries that emerged to govern the age of carbon energy seem to be unable to address the processes that may end it. This paper explores these multiple dimensions of carbon democracy, by examining the intersecting histories of coal, oil, and democracy in the twentieth century. Following closely the methods by which fossil fuels were produced, distributed, and converted into other forms of socio-technical organization, financial circulation, and political power, the paper traces ways in which the concentration and control of energy flows could open up democratic possibilities or close them down; how in the postwar period connections were engineered between the flow of oil and the flows of international finance, on which democratic stability was thought to depend; how these same circulations made possible the emergence of the economy and its unlimited growth as the main object of democratic politics; and how the relations among forms of energy, finance, economic knowledge, democracy, and violence were transformed in the 1967-74 oil-dollar-Middle East crises."
(der Player funktioniert nicht im MS Internet Explorer - hier gibts ein mp3)
Dazu passt auch das aktuelle Forschungsprojekt von Timothy Mitchell (Columbia University) das den Titel "Carbon Democracy" trägt. Mitchell untersucht unter Berücksichtigung sowohl der Science and Technology Studies als auch der Postcolonial Theory, die Geschichte der fossilen Brennstoffe und stellt eine Verbindung zu den Möglichkeiten demokratischer Entwicklung im Zuge der Konstruktion moderner Energienetzwerke her. Aus dem Abstract zu einer vorläufigen Fassung:
"States that depend upon oil revenues appear to be less democratic than other states. Yet oil presents a much larger problem for democracy: faced with the threats of oil depletion and catastrophic climate change, the democratic machineries that emerged to govern the age of carbon energy seem to be unable to address the processes that may end it. This paper explores these multiple dimensions of carbon democracy, by examining the intersecting histories of coal, oil, and democracy in the twentieth century. Following closely the methods by which fossil fuels were produced, distributed, and converted into other forms of socio-technical organization, financial circulation, and political power, the paper traces ways in which the concentration and control of energy flows could open up democratic possibilities or close them down; how in the postwar period connections were engineered between the flow of oil and the flows of international finance, on which democratic stability was thought to depend; how these same circulations made possible the emergence of the economy and its unlimited growth as the main object of democratic politics; and how the relations among forms of energy, finance, economic knowledge, democracy, and violence were transformed in the 1967-74 oil-dollar-Middle East crises."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Afghanistan - Pakistan
Interesting article from the Saudi Gazette on the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan:
Obama worsening Afghan-Pak state
By Graham E. Fuller
For all the talk of “smart power,” President Obama is pressing down the same path of failure in Pakistan marked out by George Bush. The realities suggest need for drastic revision of US strategic thinking. [...]
Obama worsening Afghan-Pak state
By Graham E. Fuller
For all the talk of “smart power,” President Obama is pressing down the same path of failure in Pakistan marked out by George Bush. The realities suggest need for drastic revision of US strategic thinking. [...]
Monday, May 11, 2009
Gegenseitige Provokationen...
Aus aktuellem Anlass zwei kurze Kommentare zum Aufschwung der extremen Rechten in Österreich. Ausnahmsweise muss ich an dieser Stelle Hans Rauscher vom Standard zustimmen, wenn er meint:
„Arbeitslosigkeit bedeutet politische Radikalisierung, bedeutet in Österreich nicht einen Schwenk nach links, sondern nach ganz rechts - allerdings in der Variante eines nationalen Sozialismus: Der Staat verteilt freigebig soziale Wohltaten, allerdings nur an die eigenen "Volksgenossen". Die anderen werden ausgeschlossen, im Extremfall ausgeraubt (und später ermordet).“
(Der Standard, 8. Mai 2009)
Was Rauscher als Liberaler allerdings nicht erkennen kann, bringt etwa John Gray auf den Punkt:
“There are many deep differences between the far Right in the interwar period and the present. Not all of them are comforting. The standard textbooks of political science interpret the far right as a political aberration that can only develop in conditions of economic and political crisis. In this, as in many other respects, they lag behind the times. In the interwar period, fascist and Nazi parties took advantage of the fact that in many parts of Europe democracy was weak. Today, when democratic institutions are well entrenched throughout Europe, the parties of the far right aim to exploit democracy rather than to overthrow it.“
(Populism and the Failure of the Centre Parties. Speach on the conference Morality and Politics, Vienna, 7 December 2002)
Kommentarlos sei hier übrigens noch Innenministerin Maria Fekter bezüglich der Vorfälle während der Gedenkfeiern im KZ Mauthausen, bei denen TeilnehmerInnen von einer Gruppe Neonazis verbal attackiert und mit einer Gaspistole angeschossen wurden, zitiert:
„Fekter analysierte die grundsätzliche Situation: Es seien die gegenseitigen Provokationen im Vormarsch. Dieses Phänomen sei nicht gut.“
(Der Standard, 10. Mai 2009)
NACHTRAG:
Is fascism on the march again?
Does the election of two BNP MEPs and the success of the far right elsewhere in Europe mean we are facing the threat of fascism? Or is this just a protest vote that will quickly fade? Leading historians give their verdicts
The Guardian, Tuesday 9 June 2009
"It is not the threat from the extreme right that is the most striking characteristic of these elections, though clearly there is a shift to the right, and centre-right governments are likely to make more concessions to the far right. The real story is the crisis of the left." [...]
„Arbeitslosigkeit bedeutet politische Radikalisierung, bedeutet in Österreich nicht einen Schwenk nach links, sondern nach ganz rechts - allerdings in der Variante eines nationalen Sozialismus: Der Staat verteilt freigebig soziale Wohltaten, allerdings nur an die eigenen "Volksgenossen". Die anderen werden ausgeschlossen, im Extremfall ausgeraubt (und später ermordet).“
(Der Standard, 8. Mai 2009)
Was Rauscher als Liberaler allerdings nicht erkennen kann, bringt etwa John Gray auf den Punkt:
“There are many deep differences between the far Right in the interwar period and the present. Not all of them are comforting. The standard textbooks of political science interpret the far right as a political aberration that can only develop in conditions of economic and political crisis. In this, as in many other respects, they lag behind the times. In the interwar period, fascist and Nazi parties took advantage of the fact that in many parts of Europe democracy was weak. Today, when democratic institutions are well entrenched throughout Europe, the parties of the far right aim to exploit democracy rather than to overthrow it.“
(Populism and the Failure of the Centre Parties. Speach on the conference Morality and Politics, Vienna, 7 December 2002)
Kommentarlos sei hier übrigens noch Innenministerin Maria Fekter bezüglich der Vorfälle während der Gedenkfeiern im KZ Mauthausen, bei denen TeilnehmerInnen von einer Gruppe Neonazis verbal attackiert und mit einer Gaspistole angeschossen wurden, zitiert:
„Fekter analysierte die grundsätzliche Situation: Es seien die gegenseitigen Provokationen im Vormarsch. Dieses Phänomen sei nicht gut.“
(Der Standard, 10. Mai 2009)
NACHTRAG:
Is fascism on the march again?
Does the election of two BNP MEPs and the success of the far right elsewhere in Europe mean we are facing the threat of fascism? Or is this just a protest vote that will quickly fade? Leading historians give their verdicts
The Guardian, Tuesday 9 June 2009
"It is not the threat from the extreme right that is the most striking characteristic of these elections, though clearly there is a shift to the right, and centre-right governments are likely to make more concessions to the far right. The real story is the crisis of the left." [...]
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Mythen der Migration
Interessanter Artikel zum Thema Migration aus der Wissenschaftsbeilage des Falter:
Mythen der Migration
Was die Wissenschaft an Stereotypen und Klischees über Zuwanderer längst widerlegt hat, spukt immer noch in unseren Köpfen herum. [...]
Mythen der Migration
Was die Wissenschaft an Stereotypen und Klischees über Zuwanderer längst widerlegt hat, spukt immer noch in unseren Köpfen herum. [...]
Friday, April 10, 2009
Sprachlose Linke
moecht ich jetzt erst mal nur so posten, ein laengerer Kommentar zur Wirtschaftskrise folgt dann irgendwann später:
Sprachlose Linke
Die Stille nach dem Crash
Werden die Ostermärsche zu Trauerkundgebungen? Eigentlich sollte die Krise des Kapitalismus der Linken jede Gelegenheit bieten, den Systemwechsel zu fordern. Aber welche Utopie, welche Alternative ist noch übrig? [...]
Drei kurze Anmerkungen möcht ich hier dennoch schon mal anbringen:
1. Ist die Frage nach dem Warum die SPD nicht im Stich gelassen werden sollte (G.Grass) in der Tat eine berechtigte (Hobsbawm spricht etwa in einem kürzlich erschienen Artikel im Guardian von Gordon Brown - stellvertretend für viele andere SozialdemokratInnen im Westen - als "Thatcher in trousers").
2. Stünde die im Artikel von den Linken geforderte Selbstkritik auch dem Spiegel nicht schlecht an, stand er doch noch bis vor Kurzem selbst in der ersten Reihe der Befürworter eines bedingungslosen wirtschaftlichen Liberalismus.
3. Finde ich den Umstand äußerst entlarvend, dass die Basis der "Linken" in Hessen gegen den Willen der Parteiführung eine Attac-Aktivistin an ihre Spitze gewählt hat (Die Zeit) und dies gleich in zweifacher Hinsicht: Zum einen kann es wohl in der Tat als Teil des Ausdrucks der Unzufriedenheit mit dem traditionellen ideologischen und strukturellen "Establishment" der Partei gewertet werden, wie Zeit und Spiegel nicht ohne Häme betonen. Zum anderen bringt es, meiner Meinung nach, jedoch auch einen Umstand zum Ausdruck, den die Führung von Attac und anderer, sich selbst als zivilgesellschaftlich definierender Bewegungen und "Vereine" selbst noch in keinster Weise verstanden haben: Nämlich, dass die Tendenz, die innerhalb der Linken und vor allem in den sozialen Bewegungen und NGOs a la Attac sehr stark verbreitet ist und die auf der Dichotomie von Staat versus Zivilgesellschaft basiert, in Wirklichkeit den neoliberalen Diskurs bis zu einem gewissen Punkt regelrecht imitiert und sich damit den Zugang zur Sphäre wirksamer politischer Auseinandersetzungen in einer Art und Weise versperrt, die sie fortwährend in einer defensiven Rolle gefangen hält. Emir Sader schreibt hierzu in der NLR vom Juli 2008: „Some movements have remained trapped in this paradox, ostensibly embodying hubs of resistance yet unable to move forward into challenging neoliberal hegemony, via a fresh articulation of the social with the political.” und empfiehlt daher: “[…] given that neoliberalism is characterized by the wholesale expropriation of rights, it can only be overcome in the political sphere: through the universalization of rights enacted by the governing authority of the state.”
In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich auch auf den mittlerweile etwas älteren aber äußerst empfehlenswerten Artikel von Malcolm Bull für die London Review of Books hinweisen, der den vielsagenden Titel "You can’t build a new society with a Stanley knife" trägt.
Sprachlose Linke
Die Stille nach dem Crash
Werden die Ostermärsche zu Trauerkundgebungen? Eigentlich sollte die Krise des Kapitalismus der Linken jede Gelegenheit bieten, den Systemwechsel zu fordern. Aber welche Utopie, welche Alternative ist noch übrig? [...]
Drei kurze Anmerkungen möcht ich hier dennoch schon mal anbringen:
1. Ist die Frage nach dem Warum die SPD nicht im Stich gelassen werden sollte (G.Grass) in der Tat eine berechtigte (Hobsbawm spricht etwa in einem kürzlich erschienen Artikel im Guardian von Gordon Brown - stellvertretend für viele andere SozialdemokratInnen im Westen - als "Thatcher in trousers").
2. Stünde die im Artikel von den Linken geforderte Selbstkritik auch dem Spiegel nicht schlecht an, stand er doch noch bis vor Kurzem selbst in der ersten Reihe der Befürworter eines bedingungslosen wirtschaftlichen Liberalismus.
3. Finde ich den Umstand äußerst entlarvend, dass die Basis der "Linken" in Hessen gegen den Willen der Parteiführung eine Attac-Aktivistin an ihre Spitze gewählt hat (Die Zeit) und dies gleich in zweifacher Hinsicht: Zum einen kann es wohl in der Tat als Teil des Ausdrucks der Unzufriedenheit mit dem traditionellen ideologischen und strukturellen "Establishment" der Partei gewertet werden, wie Zeit und Spiegel nicht ohne Häme betonen. Zum anderen bringt es, meiner Meinung nach, jedoch auch einen Umstand zum Ausdruck, den die Führung von Attac und anderer, sich selbst als zivilgesellschaftlich definierender Bewegungen und "Vereine" selbst noch in keinster Weise verstanden haben: Nämlich, dass die Tendenz, die innerhalb der Linken und vor allem in den sozialen Bewegungen und NGOs a la Attac sehr stark verbreitet ist und die auf der Dichotomie von Staat versus Zivilgesellschaft basiert, in Wirklichkeit den neoliberalen Diskurs bis zu einem gewissen Punkt regelrecht imitiert und sich damit den Zugang zur Sphäre wirksamer politischer Auseinandersetzungen in einer Art und Weise versperrt, die sie fortwährend in einer defensiven Rolle gefangen hält. Emir Sader schreibt hierzu in der NLR vom Juli 2008: „Some movements have remained trapped in this paradox, ostensibly embodying hubs of resistance yet unable to move forward into challenging neoliberal hegemony, via a fresh articulation of the social with the political.” und empfiehlt daher: “[…] given that neoliberalism is characterized by the wholesale expropriation of rights, it can only be overcome in the political sphere: through the universalization of rights enacted by the governing authority of the state.”
In diesem Zusammenhang möchte ich auch auf den mittlerweile etwas älteren aber äußerst empfehlenswerten Artikel von Malcolm Bull für die London Review of Books hinweisen, der den vielsagenden Titel "You can’t build a new society with a Stanley knife" trägt.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
LRB: Perry Anderson on the Italian Left
Two articles from the London Review of Books by Perry Anderson on Italian post-war politics:
An Invertebrate Left - Perry Anderson on Italy’s Squandered Heritage
An Entire Order Converted into What It Was Intended to End
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)