un consiglio

Il primo è una clip di Michael MacIntyre che ancora non hai visto. Cercane anche delle altre, come questa, che anche non è male.

Il secondo sono i veri VERI neri per caso!

Avrai notato che sono quasi tutte prese dalla stessa serata, la Royal Variety Performance 2008, e a sto punto puoi vedertela pure tutta. Anche se non tutti gli altri pezzi sono belli come quelli di cui sopra, o anche questo che è carino.

Ah, quasi dimenticavo Fiorello che piglia per il culo Jessica Alba (che continua qua. Arriva alla fine dei dieci minuti, ma Fiorello vale comunque.

blogging de Paris

Here I am, Paris, July, little app in the fifteenth - wooden, cluttered, great view and a few degrees too many: En peu de mots: parisien!

It has been a tormented beginning, but I am here no, in the house, eventhough I don't have the keys to get in the front door... yet. They should come tomorrow, together with Marianne's neighbours - currently enjoying a weekend at the beach.

Still, despite the little obstacles that spring up all over, je suis trop enthusiasmé d'etre ici enfin!!

je deviendra un blogueur dès maintenant. Suive mes aventures.

Kosovo a year and a bit on

I feel Kosovo may be one of those issues I could completely change my mind on. As those of you who know my dispositions can attest I used to be ...condescending towards an independent and sovereign Republic of Kosovo. That conviction was informed by the feeling I have that, somehow, Albanians Serbs in Kosovo formed a community, one entitled to have a State and full sovereignty to protect it. This entitlement does not come from international law, that much is clear. Instead I intend to refer to the entitlement to sovereign protection that, in Walzer's terms, a community as such deserves.

The judgment was one of value, one that I developed largely while writing my thesis on Kosovo and learning its history and that of its people. I gained such insight into popular feelings amongst Kosovars through reference to primary sources for the events that have occurred since the death of Tito (1980) and the dissolution of Jugoslavia about a decade later.

Why did I think so? Ultimately because I thought there was enough common history to create a genuine and solid links between its members. Enough history, culture, language and emotion to give rise to a strong imagined community - a Nation in Ben Anderson's words.


I may have to rethink that through a little, here's why.

The first is a better understanding I now have of Serbia's point of view. As an established community, worthy of a State whose sovereignty is not undermined by aspirations of Kosovar independence, Serbia is now done the tort of seeing its territory stripped of what is arguably its most important region in terms of national history and identity.

The reasons for this are not noble. It is not the kosovars who, through uniting and peaceful demonstrations of their cultural and political independence, manage to seal it in legal terms. Serbia is cornered by the international community into giving up a part of itself to relieve them of what could become a frozen conflict, a similar pickle to that in which israelis and palestinians are stuck. The message from most European capitals is give up Kosovo (and give us Ratko) and we'll let you into our Union.

Moreover, since 1999, when the international community and NATO's KFOR moved into Kosovo and started running it from scratch, ex Liberation Front Guerrillas (who supposedly were meant to have been deprived of their weapons) started perpetrating gross Human Rights violations in Kosovo against its Serb minority. As Nahzi and Sudetic affirm here

"UCK members abducted Serbs, Albanians, Roma, and others after NATO’s arrival. UN missing-persons researchers – not criminal investigators – searched for them for years and found no trace of them in Kosovo. They did, however, find Albanian witnesses who asserted that UCK members took captured Serbs, Albanians, and Roma into Albania, where they were killed".

And let us not forget that Ksoovo, to a significant degree, owes its independence to a NATO military intervention undertaken in the name of human rights. All of this could effectively instill an 'original sin' of sorts, which could seriously hinder Kosovo's shot at independence, by isolating it from the international community and freezing its entry into the UN.

Are we sure it is a good idea to go with Kosovo, who still have everything to prove, thereby alienating Serbia at a point where its cooperation with the international community (helping us shave Radovan) indicates the good will of its pro-western government? I am not so sure anymore...

Rotten times

Italy may be at a turning point. The values carried in italian society have changed, degenerated. A state of resignation with all things rotten in italian public and private life has led the country into a worsening spiral of indifference towards the decay of our democratic institutions. Newspapers are intimidated, the news on tv smells of regime censorship.

Personal scandals affect the man who built and keeps together the italian centre-right, in power since 2008. Could his generals be deserting him? If so would they chose to let this news leak to the foreign press rather than internal newspapers. Would that be because they are less open to blackmail or intimidation?

The answers may just be yes, yes, yes

Nothing is exactly as it seems, nor is it otherwise.

public and private

Copping out

After an exhausting economics exam - a five hour ordeal that used up the best part of my mental capabilities for the day - I ran into this while I was wondering as to origins of the term 'copping out'. The website it was taken from, where "Micheal Quinion writes on international English from a British perspective", has been tabbed together with the other 'links' in the relevant section.

So why was I looking up the origins of the word 'cop-out'? Well, I found myself writing it to a friend of mine (I will leave it to your imagination to figure out what kind of intimation I was obliging him with) and thought it looked very odd on the screen.

'ur not copping out i hope'
'...not copping out...'
copping out???

looks odd doesn't it?

Many words do look odd once they get translated from the verbal/auditory medium onto the written (albeit, virtually) page. Words exist on at least two different dimensions, the verbal and the written one, and the ones that comfortably inhabit one don't necessarily lend themselves to an equally neat usage on the other. Slang derivatives are an obvious example of this.

Hence why it is particularly interesting to investigate the evolutions and semiotic origins of such terms, and find them modified by uses and misuses of a totally contingent nature.

On Coherence, or, How to Kill a Living Corpse

Following a car accident in 1992, Eluana Englaro, a good looking 20 year old at the time, entered a vegetative coma. Since the late nineties her dad, Beppino Englaro, has been trying to let her die. What should happen? Here's what we know:

Her state
She is alive, but in a coma. She breathes on her own, her bodily activities go on normally (e.g. menstrual cycle). She is growing old. She is fed artificially, through a naso-gastric tube. That, together with normal hygenic care, is the only type of treatment she receives.

Her prospects
... of ever opening her eyes again and living a normal life are slim. Should it happen she would find herself in a completely different world, and twice the age she was at the time of the accident.

Her wishes
Beppino Englaro states that on a visit to a friend stuck to a bed because of a car accident, Eluana expressed her will to never be kept alive in those conditions. This fact, obviously, cannot be verified, but given the circumstances, the care the father has taken of her child and his determination to act only under an enabling sentence by a judge I believe it can be assumed to be a good approximation of her own wishes.

Public or Private?
What one does with one's life is surely a public matter. If one is not able to chose for herself, and hasn't left any indications in the event of suffering a heavily debilitating accident, like Eluana's, should her next of kin decide for her? Should there be a moral code of the public conscience that applies?

My position
Whoever wants the right to make the decision, is the person who will have to sustain its consequences. In other words, if the State wants to be the bearer of the public ethics, and force a human in a vegetative state to live on, it must offer her the best care available. The decision to end the life - the irreversible decision - should not be taken by the next of kin where he or she cannot (reasonably) prove that it is what the 'patient' wants.

Two more (connected) conditions
There must be an overwhelming consensus among all doctors who visit the 'patient' that the vegetative state is virtually irreversible.
No decision to end the life ought to be taken before 5 years of the vegetative state.

One imperative
Pass a law that obliges people to express their will in advance, in the event of such a situation occurring to them.

This is not
... euthanasia, which is a whole different matter. This issue is not about killing, it is about the suspension of medical and/or basic care without which the 'patient' cannot survive.

Have your say. With respect for those who live this situation.

more loose ends

Shocking. Over three months of nothing on this blog! Well, i've been busy, and lazy and unconnected to the internet. I've grown older, Barack got elected, the crisis worsened, etc etc.

A few quick thoughts, just to make sure that you are all still on the same page as I:

1) This is the worst financial crisis since 1929. what we must work to avoid now is the comeback of the period 1930-1932, which is when the recession and hyperinflation and unemployment really crippled Europe. As a meter: Hitler was elected in 1933.

2) Protectionism. As Jagdish Bagwhati puts it, with this new "Buy American" package of regulation (american manufacture must buy american materials eg steel) americans, who don't study enough history in school, will learn it by seeing it repeated before their very eyes. He compares it to the Smoot-Hawley act.

3) This crisis offers a chance at catharsis. i'm still waiting for a good left wing government to seize the moment, restructure internally, and come out of the crisis with what would be pinpointed as a 'managed' economy. The State owns big biz already anyways.

4) Its snowing in england: ooooooooooooooh!

5) Last but not least, if we don't count last sunday, AS Roma has been on an excellent run of wins for a while now.

Good evening Mr President

Tonight one of the two candidates, McCain or Obama, will be crowned modern emperor. One of them will go from being "Senator", to "Mr President". It seems most likely that it will be Barack Obama.

Technical analyses indicate that for McCain to get elected president he would have to win all Red States that Bush brought home in 2004 agaisnt Kerry, or get at least one major Blue State to go Red. Unlikely, John. Unlikely.

One interesting thing to point out at this stage is that Obama will genunely be the first blue president of the Us in a while - probably since John F Kennedy. The last three democrats, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson were all a peculiar type of 'southern-bred' democrats, their birthstates being Arkansas, Georgia and Texas respectively. Significantly, all three of these states went red in the 2004 election.

My boy Barack, on the other hand, represents the best (and worst) of east-coast liberal-democratism (the first temr intended with a european cut and the latter with an american one). Leaving his somewhat unusual background out of the question, Obama seems to be one of the most coherently democratic candidates that America's blue party could offer. So how do we explain his success with the undecided electorate and the anti-bush republicans? I say we should look at a mixture of two elements: his charisma and the context of this election.

Charisma first. Well, his image presents an excellent mix of prophetic hope, Will Smithian 'coolness' and a simple background, which makes him highly palatable as a candidate who the electorate can identify with and look up to at the same time. Moreover, he really is an excellent speaker, due to his tone of voice, his cleverlyt written speeches and his natural ability as an orator.

The context that this election takes place has seen the grand theme (a hypersecuritisation according to some) of international terrorism subside in favour of economic fears. In light of this, it seems inevitable that Obama's dirigiste economic policy suggestions appeal more to the electorate than those of John McCain.

Unfortunately fear is still the emotional element with which the most powerful man on the planet will be chosen. Luckily this time its companions will be hope and change rather than beligerent revenge. Go Barack Obama.

Crash

On saturday night I had an accident while driving home with my scooter. I'll lay it out straight, hoping for it to have a cathartic effect on my guilt trips. It was plainly my fault, I didn't brake on time and drove stright into the back of a blue fiat. Yes, the floor was wet. Yes, the fellow in the car broke abruptly, surprising me. But ultimately it was my fault, I should have been more careful.

I learnt just how soft flesh is when it meets a solid wall of tarmac or metal; tyre rubber or windshield plastic. I learnt just how fast 20 kilometers per hour is. At 20 kmh i survived, causing myself a few superficial injuries, a fairly deep wound on my chin, 2 teeth chipped, one broken and a fractured jaw. Who knows what would have happened if I had crashed at 30 kmh. And may the Lord be thanked for the fact that my helmet actually stayed strapped to my head. It probably saved my life.

Mine is one of the many cases of total amnesia as to what happened in the instants following the crash. I don't have any visual memories of it, but from my wounds, and the position that my scooter and I were in when I regained my faculty to remember I came up with this linear reconstruction of events.

I was braking as much as possible (I had started to brake too late, remember, but once I started I went at it energetically) in order to avert what was going to be an obvious crash, which allowed me to slow down my speed to the above mentioned assumption of 20 kmh. That wasn't enough and I hit straight on the back bumper of the car in front of me. The scooter's back wheel left the ground, going up as the scooter was pivoting on the front wheel. As it was doing that my torso must have been flung forward making my face hit the panel where the various indicators are on my scooter.

My chin, and then my face, were the parts of my sorry body that I absorbed the shock with. My tounge was between my teeth and, omitting further unnecessary details, I'll just say that it paid sorely for its unfortunate position at the time of the crash. Through it, my teeth still had enough momentum when the bottom jaw faction attacked its antipod to match each other in an intese, frontal battle. A tragic waterloo for the bottomers, I must admit. The impact caused a hitherto unseen about of dental debris in my mouth, some of which got swallowed, some of which was spat on my jacket together with conglomerates of blood and spit.

The car was moving forward, and the scooter fell over to the left, quite banged up. I assume I was still on the scooter at this stage, but my memory lapse was still going on preventing me from storing any recollection about it. What I do remember, funnily enough, was my ipod's white earphones covered in blood, scattered on the ground, me sitting up without my helmet on and people asking me whether i was fine. I don't know why, but i checked that my phone was still working and that my wallet was still in my pocket. Affermative in both cases.

From then on I can remember everything, the nice people helping me, my cousing and friend coming to help me deal with all the admin, the twat who claimed to be a doctor asking me stupid questions, then the paramedics, the ambulance, the collar, the silly conversations they were having while i had no idea that stupid collar was so damn uncomfortable, the hospital's smell and its ceiling, the wait. More waiting. Then my dad's face when he saw I was ok. And that was good, I knew it would be just the calm before the storm, but it was a calmness and familiarity I thoroughly enjoyed.

I'll spare you the rest. The cathartic effect this blog was meant to have failed to happen, I still think I'm an idiot who could have lost a lot more than his self-esteem over... god i don't even know what to call it... a lapse of concentration???

Luck or what not, I'm happy it played itself out like this. Maybe even grateful, but towards whom, I'm still not sure.

Manifestatio

It seems that italy is in revolt. STudents have been blockading (peacefully, i add) universities and schools to oppose a recent reform (law #133) that sacrifices a large sum of public money away from education to fix italy's budgetary problems. The need for a better management of italian public finances is beyond any sane man's questioning, and it has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the current crisis - bloody yanks - but the solution for it cannot possibly be sought through cuts in education.

"My polls tell me I enjoy the highest level of popular support in the history of this country! Haha, frankly its embarassing" S.B.

Here's what some have suggested is also (or 'actually') happening, an idea that i do not feel ready to categorically reject: Berlusconi has some sort of a 'positive' or 'soft' dictatorship going on in italy, the keyword of which is consent. Baffling, i know, but Berlusconi belieives (excuse the alliteration) that once the consent of those governed is expressed, those who govern enjoy a form of carte balanche mandate enabling them to elude all forms of constitutional guarantees, thereby slowling biting away at italy's social and political plurality. His instruments to achieve this are his televisions, his newspapars, his publishing house, his football team and, last but by no means least, what he perceives as his parliament.

The only lively oppositiion to this system for the control of italian's hearts and minds (which, remember, even according to him is the foundation of his absolute power) is represented by a few lonely voices (Marco Travaglio, Michele Santoro, Enzo Biagi) that SB and his TV's have managed to depict as communist radicals culpable of persecuting him, also thanks to the spinelessness of the rest of italy's journalists. Mildly critical journalists abound, but these only serve to provide a veneer of legitimacy to his subtle, mediatic despotism.

But the real crease in the system that prevents him from achieving total control of the social and cultural fora where destabilising forces may potentially emerge is the education system. Sinking an autonomous university system makes people watch more TV, and if you own most of the TVs in your country, that goes to your unmistakable advantage. Now, I'm not saying that this is the reason for which the cuts in education spending have been adopted, or that there is some kind of explicit plan laid out for the mediatic control of italy that Berlusconi reveiws every night before going to bed. But this is definitely a dynamic that is at play.

The most powerful weapon in the hands of a dictator is the mind of the oppressed. The dumbing down of people and stifling of institutions where autonomous modes of thinking can develop helps every dictator achieve the subjugation of those he governs, even when the dictator is the most subtle, smiling and surgically ameliorated one.

Roberto Saviano and his deadline

Roberto Saviano, author of the book that more than any other is threatening the power of Napoli's mafia bosses, shall die. He will blow up together with his 8 body guards before christmas, the necessary explosives are already being bought.

Thus spoke a 'justice-collaborator', former member of the mafia clan that wants to kill Saviano. The author, still only 28, has been living aways from Naples, where locals won't even rent him a house for fear of the risks that such an uncomfortable association may expose them to. Since the book got published, in 2006, he has had to live surrounded by bodyguards and constantly on the move.

The book is incredibly powerful thanks to the situation that Saviano was in when he was collecting the material for it. Being from Naples, he lived in - and with - the conditions he describes. Immersed in the social wreck that the Camorra has made of Campania, Naples' beautiful region.

His was therefore a shotgun with only one bullet inside. Once the book would be sent to the publishers he knew he could not live in Naples any longer, maybe never again, thereby not being able to denounce the realty on the ground in the only way he knows how to: by living it first hand.

Here is a letter that Saviano, exhausted by his current life and wishing he could have his old one back, sent to the newspaper I read:

"Andrò via dall'Italia, almeno per un periodo e poi si vedrà. Penso di aver diritto a una pausa. Ho pensato, in questo tempo, che cedere alla tentazione di indietreggiare non fosse una gran buona idea, non fosse soprattutto intelligente. Ho creduto che fosse assai stupido - oltre che indecente - rinunciare a se stessi, lasciarsi piegare da uomini di niente, gente che disprezzi per quel che pensa, per come agisce, per come vive, per quel che è nella più intima delle fibre ma, in questo momento, non vedo alcuna ragione per ostinarmi a vivere in questo modo, come prigioniero di me stesso, del mio libro, del mio successo. 'Fanculo il successo. Voglio una vita, ecco. Voglio una casa. Voglio innamorarmi, bere una birra in pubblico, andare in libreria e scegliermi un libro leggendo la quarta di copertina. Voglio passeggiare, prendere il sole, camminare sotto la pioggia, incontrare senza paura e senza spaventarla mia madre. Voglio avere intorno i miei amici e poter ridere e non dover parlare di me, sempre di me come se fossi un malato terminale e loro fossero alle prese con una visita noiosa eppure inevitabile. Cazzo, ho soltanto ventotto anni! E voglio ancora scrivere, scrivere, scrivere perché è quella la mia passione e la mia resistenza e io, per scrivere, ho bisogno di affondare le mani nella realtà, strofinarmela addosso, sentirne l'odore e il sudore e non vivere, come sterilizzato in una camera iperbarica, dentro una caserma dei carabinieri - oggi qui, domani lontano duecento chilometri - spostato come un pacco senza sapere che cosa è successo o può succedere. In uno stato di smarrimento e precarietà perenni che mi impedisce di pensare, di riflettere, di concentrarmi, quale che sia la cosa da fare. A volte mi sorprendo a pensare queste parole: rivoglio indietro la mia vita. Me le ripeto una a una, silenziosamente, tra me".

A brief translation of Saviano's letter in English


The trailer of the movie that was made from Saviano's book.

Culture against weapons, crime, corruption and ignorance.

Saviano, if you happen to venture on this blog, thanks for everything you've done. The cost of it may be heavy, the heaviest even. But it's worth it. It's necessary for the filth that has been stowed under Italy's carpets, its southern regions, to be exposed before it can be gotten rid of.

time is of the essence

these days are incredibly hectic and daily events (some good, some bad, a few properly awful) keep me away from my blog.

there is a lot bubbling in this pot, and once i get my own back against one or two people I will spill my beans and let you in on a few shocking secrets. But I like to keep a few thoughts unpublished.

keep scribbling words and pictures everwhere. spread culture in new ways. upset. make people think about what goes on around them. we all seem to know that life is not a movie, but then most of us cruise through it as spectators.

for now i'm off, time is of the essence here folks!

Hang over ratings

I cam across this again recently and thought it well worth the reference!

1 star hangover.

No pain. No real feeling of illness. You slept in your own bed and when you woke up there were no traffic cones in there with you. You are still able to function relatively well with the energy stored up from all the vodka red bulls. However you can drink 10 bottles of water and still feel as parched as the Sahara . Even vegetarians are craving a Cheeseburger and a bag of fries.

2 star hangover.

No pain, but something is definitely amiss. You may look ok but you have the attention span and mental capacity of a stapler. The coffee you hug to try and remain focused is only exacerbating your rumbling gut, which is craving a full Irish breakfast. Although you have a nice demeanour about the office, you are costing your employer valuable money because all you can handle is some light filing, followed by aimlessly surfing the net and writing junk emails.

3 star hangover.

Slight headache. Stomach feels crap.You are definitely a space cadet and not so productive. Anytime a girl or lad walks past you gag because the perfume/aftershave reminds you of the random gin shots you did with your mates after the bouncers kicked you out at 1.45 am.
Life would be better right now if you were in your bed with a dozen doughnuts and a litre of coke watching daytime tv.
You've had 4 cups of coffee, a gallon of water 2 sausage rolls and a litre of diet coke yet you haven't peed once.

4 star hangover.

You have lost the will to live. Your head is throbbing and you can't speak too quickly or else you might spew. Your boss has already lambasted you for being late and reeking of booze. You wore nice clothes, but you smell of socks and you can't hide the fact that you (depending on your gender) either missed an oh so crucial spot shaving, or, it looks like you put your make up on whole riding the dodgems. Your teeth have their own individual sweaters. Your eyes look like one giant vein and your hairstyle makes you look like a second grade class reject circa 1976. You would give a weeks pay for the following home time, a doughnut and somewhere to be alone, or a time machine so you could go back to last night and NOT have gone out the night before.
You scare small children in the street just by walking past them.

5 star hangover.

You have a second heart beat in your head, which is actually annoying the employee sitting next to you. Vodka vapour is seeping from every pore and making you dizzy. You still have toothpaste crust in the corners of your mouth from brushing your teeth (to try and get the fur coats they now have off.) Your body has lost the ability to generate saliva, so your tongue is suffocating you. You'd cry but that would take the last drop of moisture left in your body. Death seems pretty good right now. Your boss doesn't even get mad at you and your co workers think your dog has just died you look so pathetic. You should have called in sick because, let's face it, all you can do is breathe...very gently.

6 star hangover.

You arrive home and climb into bed. Sleep comes instantly, as you were fighting it all the way home in the taxi. You get about 2 hours sleep before the noises in you head wake you up. You notice that you bed has been cleared for take off and is flying relentlessly around your room. No matter what you do now you are going to chuck. You stumble out of bed and you find that your room is on a yacht under full sail. After walking along the skirting boards on alternating walls knocking off all the pictures, you find the toilet. If you are lucky you will remember to lift the lid before you spontaneously explode and wake the whole house with your impersonation of a walrus mating call. You sit there on the floor in your undies, cuddling the only friend you have left in the world, the toilet, randomly continuing to make the walrus noises, farting and spitting.
Help usually comes at this stage even if it is short lived.
Tears stream down your face and you abdomen hurts. Help now turns into abuse and he/she usually goes back to bed leaving you there in the dark. With your stomach totally empty, your spontaneous eruptions have died back to 15 minute intervals, but your body won't relent.
You are convinced that you are starting to turn yourself inside out and swear you saw your tonsils fly out of you mouth on the last occasion.
It is now dawn and you pass your disgusted partner getting up for the day as you try to crawl back into bed with lumpy bits of dried vomit in your hair. You reluctantly accept their advice and have a shower in exchange for them driving you to the hospital. Work is out of the question. The whole day is spent avoiding things that might make you throw up again, like moving. You vow never to touch a drop of alcohol again and who knows for the next 3 to 4 hours you might even succeed.

WFP video

Here is an interesting video made for WFP's Hungerbytes contest:



enjoy

The Alitalia Debacle

Despite the low profile i hoped this putrid issue would maintain, I feel that it may now be time to write a brief, but denouncing (as usual - HAA!!), little resumé of the situation:

Since about 15 years, Alitalia, Italy's national air carrier has been very poorly managed. It has been on the verge of bankruptcy a number of times in past years, but the government always flung money at it to keep the ailing company alive and pass the problem on to the next government. It has always been clear to all that Alitalia had to be heavily restructured or fail.

In late 2007 the Prodi government was about to sell it to Airfrance, who were going buy the company with its accumulated debts and do the necessary restructuring (which would have lead to about 3000 jobs being lost). Then the Prodi government collapsed and campaigning for the 2008 elections began. Berlusconi took up the isue saying that our national carrier should not be sold to 'ze ffrench'!! Mysterious questions of national identity were, according to him, intimately tied up in that company. More public money was thrust in that dark pit.

Berlusconi, having lured his gullible electorate into believing that there were a group of italian businessmen willing to buy Alitalia, then did this: He promised a few of his businessmen-friends that they could buy alitalia, without any other potential buyers being allowed to make an offer with better terms, and that they didn't have to buy it with all its debts, like the french were going to do a few months before.

Alitalia was then split into two companies, one was called CAI and it was given all the useful assets, the other, the 'bad company' was only given the debts. The group of italian investors (airfrance is also in there with a minority share) have now bought CAI and signed a deal with the relevant workers' unions so as to get it ready to fly. This deal says that there will be about 6000 people being fired, and the debts (all in the accounting books of the 'bad company') are still publicly owned and will be paid for with tax money.

So the outcome of this mess is that 6000 people will lose their jobs and the debts will still be paid for by italian tax payers. Had we just sold alitalia to the french we would only have lost 3000 jobs and they would have paid for Alitalia's debts. I think this is enough to conclude that us italian tax payers got gypped!

But some may say that this is a fair price to pay to maintain an Italian national carrier. Well, I don't think this will be true for much longer anyways. Here's why:

The italian investors who have the majority share of Alitalia are not in the business of flying planes, or managing airlines. One makes shoes, one is a bank and the rest make various other products. But none fly planes. By law they cannot sell their majority share of the company for the next five years, but given that none of them work in that sector, it is safe to assume that in five years and one day they will sell the company to some other airline. As I mentioned previously, Airfrance is already a minority shareholder in CAI, so it is possible (or likely even) that in five years they will buy the rest of CAI.

Probable long term outcome of the situation: italian tax payers got gypped AND we will lose our national carrier anyway. To make matters worse, it'll probably be the french who buy it anyway.

Thank-you Mr B!!!

Bombs in Pakistan

Too many now, and the country spirals from 'failing' state towards the ever closer, fatalistic label of 'failed' state. Losing its northern provinces, effectively beyond the control of Islamabad, the conflict seems to have taken the proportions of a continuous state of warre - in its purest, hobbesian definition - whereby no-one, nowhere is safe. If the marriott blows up, every building in the country can too. This war seems to be between the government (which, however corrupt, it can be described as 'democratic' and moderate) and extremist religious factions. In fact, in light of the frequency, organisation and effectiveness of the suicidal attacks, most taking the form of manned car-bombs, factions is definitely a euphemism for describing what is essentially a rival armed community, with its deviated code of ethics, its own internal politics, and its own weapons of mass destruction: young, religious and to my eyes fucking naive boys. What is emerging is a state within the state; whether it will manage to engorge pakistan from the inside, to self-digest its political institutions and leave its embryonic democracy in decay, depends on what the real, proud pakistan, the pakistan of the "good people" - whose best members I am lucky enough to call friends - can do to avoid it.

Today was shocking:

here's what the marriott hotel in Islamabad looked like yesterday



Now there's just rubble, dead bodies, broken families, acrid smoke, blood and a massive crater.



If there is one message that this blog wants to send out it's that this is not Religion. Its simple Power Politics, of the most feeble kind.

Should any of the young naive pawns I mentioned venture onto this blog I want to give you my advice: Destroying Pakistan is NOT a cause worth dying for.

link: Arquitectura en Bici

A blog that brings together two passions in the simplest, most direct and at the same time most complete way possible - as its title suggests: Arquitectura En Bici. Technical and linguistic barriers aside, it is a blog that covers the specificity of its topic by employing readily accessible language, which its author commands to perfection in describing buildings, just as much as coffees, patios, bicycles, friends and meals - often in the same post. All of the above in an exquisite fashion, por cierto.

Yet the strong point of Arquitectura En Bici, to this reader's modest and un-researched opinion, is the ability with which buildings are brought apart into their constitutive architectural elements, to show the beauty of some particular choice of style, material, or orientation.

Seen under this light buildings become books, and the author of 'Arquitectura' reads them to perfection. If buildings are books, then, they tell stories and are the permanent witnesses of history - the story of mankind. What wonders the mind and kidnaps the attention of the reader is the way in which history mixes with architecture, thus creating an intricate narrative of architectural styles, statesmen, folk culture, economic cycles, artistic patters, political crises and the periods of restoration that follow them.

When buildings tell our history, its good to have someone listen to them and tell the rest of us about it. Now its happening here. Enjoy Arquitectura en Bici, those of you who are lucky enough to read the language properly. A link to it is now up in the column on the right hand side of your screen.

Classics - a post to remember two of them

There is nothing that anyone can do about classics. They are events, instances, happenings that overcome their objects, the people who are subjected to them, by will of person or ghost or fate.



"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.




"Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to my right
here I am, stuck in the middle with you"

How to recognise a classic when you see, or hear, or taste, or smell, or experience one under any other form? Well... truth is you can't. And that's precisely because it is a classic. You don't recognise classics because you cannot take an active part in front of them, hence the description above of a classic as something that happens to you. It choses to show itself, to reveal its inner lustre and timelessness. It is almost impossible to evaluate because it is something beyond normality, independent of it. It is not abnormal - it is simply not on the same plane as normality, and one is unable to compare it to normality. Thus, a classic.

Energy Securitization in Eurasia

Percival neatly explains the dynamics and risks associated with the securitization of Energy resources and management on the Eurasian continent.

Full text here.

The highly communicative writing style, developed with the 'aid' (sic) of second class thriller-warmonger paperback narratives and a historical academic formation, is applied to what is potentially one of the hottest scenarios in contemporary international politics. It provides a compelling analysis of the dangers involved in chosing to securitise energy politics, thus elevating it beyond the sphere of normal, dialogic politics to adopt the riskier dymanics of 'security thinking'.

Percival is undoubtedly at his best here, where the subject matter of this particular analysis combines all the best skills that this academic casually commands. The analysis of securitising tendencies allows him to argumentatively show all of his historical prowess, and his past as an expert Sovietologist gives him precious insights into the mind of Russia's modern Tsar.(Rumour has it he spent a full, three-term academic year in a one-on-one class following a double module exclusively focussed on the Russian revolution – specialising in those events that took place between Friday 21August 1917 and the Tuesday of the following week)

Percival's recent Magum Opus (Percival, St. Andrews University Press, forthcoming) on the way domestic cultures influence an international actor's foreign policy in the field of energy allows him to be up-to-date with global events in the world of energy politics in an almost swiss-like fashion. For this reason, and because around 80% of his speculations seem to predict destiny, his academic hypotheses have oftentimes been described as divinatory. Considering that this particular piece was written months before the Russo-Georgian crises exploded, it is doubtless that Percival's fine analytical eye has allowed him to see, and us to read about, yet another glimmer of the future of energy politics. It must be hard for the author not to think "I bloody told you so!!!" when, just a few months before the August 2008 war he was typing off sentences denouncing that

[s]ecuritizing an issue such as gas or oil, in the face of increased demand and increased capacity of one of your producers to supply this demand, will only serve to increase the potential for conflict. In the face of very real ‘hard’ security considerations at play in the heartland of Europe at the moment, the danger in securitizing energy lies in the fact that [...] it can become casus belli when actors such as NATO become involved.

The obvious negative note in this matter must be considered the inability of his host institution (Clingendael Institut) to realise this intellectual's potential and publish his piece as soon as the final period was laid on paper.

Percival's fine writing style is applied to what many may call a 'dull' issue and a 'dull theory' (cf. Buzan, Waever and De Wilde, 1999), making it all the more palatable to the expert and layman alike. Percival delights his readers with sentences whose philosphical clout could easily overshadow the maxims of the greatest Confuciuses or Nostradamuses (Nostradami ? ) - such as:

“No one wants the crumbs, because they do not satisfy as fully, but in the end it will be the crumbs that will determine how long one (e.g. an economy) feels satisfied.”

Indeed, the acadimc and political communities alike have an inestinguishable debt towards this young, brilliant mind. One that we hope, for the good of the planet and human civilisation on it, will never stop growing.



BAS ROSS PERCIVAL: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN

link: The Quilliam Foundation

The Quilliam Foundation is a London based "counter-extremism" think tank. Its core members, some having a past in radical islamist organisations, now seek to counter the spread of extremist/militant muslim thought and reaffirm a more mainstream form of Islam in Britain, branching out from western Islam's Andalusian heritage. Their battle is conducted first and foremost on an intellectual level, with their two primary aims being to

Expose and challenge the weaknesses, inconsistencies, and failings of Islamist thought and actions;
Provide a scripturally rooted theological and ideological alternative to the rigidity of Islamism and extreme Wahhabism;

Quilliam's attempt to achieve a practical-political goal through a dialogic encounter with 'alternative' positions, thereby pardigmatically uncovering the very real effects of intellectual endeavour, reflects a deep rooted (and possibly unintentional) marxist framework that is very much appreciated by this author and blog.

Inviting readers to explore the Quilliam foundation's work and wishing its directors a fortunate future, I signal that a link to their website is now up in the column on the right.

Moreover, this is definitely a biografy-in-the-making that is worth reading.

Guilty blogging

why is it that people blog when they are supposed to be doing other things?


(firstly, lets apply all due caveats to such a generalised statement. It is quite clear that when i say "people" I actually mean "I", but seek to bring down the whole bunch with me).

Could be because that is when one is in front of the computer. But if we consider that most people possess a computer in their home, and that most computers are permanently connected tothe internet, and that of these computers most never really get switched off, then being inthe position to blog becomes no more of an effort requiring task than sitting on the bloody loo.

So lets rule that one out.

Could be because in today's day and age during most of our time we are supposed to be doing 'other thngs', and given that blogging is not remunerative (at least not for 99% of blogs, including this one, alas!) and, unless conditions allow it, doesn't even produce fame, glory or success with women. Hence, for the majority of us, blogging will never be considered 'a thing i ought to be doing'.

It oculd also be because blogging makes one feel good about himself, makes him or her feel part of a virtual community of unchartered intellectuals, free from the worldly constraints of paper-based publication. And our allegiance to this imagined community could be so strong as to make us deviate from the tasks that the 'real' (ugh!!) world imposes on us.

No idea, ultimately, as to why it is that peoiple blog when they are supposed to do other things. But that doesn't make much difference. They do. And, again, by 'they' i mean 'I'.

I blog when I'm supposed to be doing other things. This is guilty blogging. All of it.

Slavoj Zizek

A peculiar introduction (worth of Norm's excellent profile series) on Slavoj Zizek.

I don't know much about the man's thought (a hegelian I fancy!) but was nonetheless surprised by this interview.

Come iniziano le guerre

Ebbene, nell'arco di una nottata lo Zar moderno, tramite il suo pupazzo Medvedev, ha condotto un'invasione su larga scala della Georgia, statalino dotato di risorse utili a tutti e di varie repubblichine scissioniste che confinano con la russia e popolate in larga parte da nazionali russi.

Gli scissionisti, forti dell'appoggio massiccio di MadreRussia, provocano il governo centrale che prova a controllare le rivolte con mezzi militari. I russi usano la scusa per entrare e prendersi tutta l'ossezia del sud, arrivano nella capitale (o capoluogo??) e la dichiarano 'liberata'. Proseguono verso Gori, quando si spargono le voci del loro arrivo nelle cittadine che punteggiano la strada verso Tbilisi i civili fuggono, i militari disertano.

I russi, dopo un'annessione riuscitissima sotto forma di blitzkrieg perfetta, come non si vedeva dalla guerra dei 5 giorni Israeliana, dichiarano la ritirata ma proseguono ancora per almeno una ventina di ore la loro avanzata.

Un elemento strategico della vicenda è il gasdotto BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan), l'unico che trasporta il gas proveniente dal Mar Caspio verso l’Europa senza passare per la Russia, su cui è ipotizzabile che la Russia voglia esercitare la sua influenza.

I grandi perdenti sono i Georgiani. I piccoli perdenti gli Americani. Non si spiega come mai l'intelligence USA, presente in maniera diffusa in Georgia, non abbia avvisato Saakashvili che le forze armate russe avrebbero invaso la georgia se tbilisi avesse usato le armi contro i separatisti osseti.

Adesso le forze russe controllano l'ossezia. E' in processo un negoziato tra le parti, pateticamente iniziato con un cessate il fuoco organizzato da Sarkozy in veste di presidente di turo UE a cannoni già fermi. L'occidente chiede di rispettare l'integrità territoriale Georgiana, i russi non permetteranno la presenza di forze di pace internazionali in ossezia.

Effettivamente l'ossezia è Russia in questo momento. lo status della regione è attualmente illegale secondo il diritto internazionale, ma la risposta a tale debole opposizione è già stata espressa al palazzo di vetro in uno scambio di battute tra il rappresentante russo e quello americano. il senso, molto leggermente velato, è: "il diritto, noi come voi, ce lo facciamo da soli".

in questo teatro bellico ottocentesco non c'è altro da fare se non ricordarsi dei realisti, degli strategi, dei militari. E' forse bene ricordarsi delle schifose massime di tucidide, che sembrano essere il vero distillato del nostro codice genetico non degno della qualifica di 'SapiensSapiens': The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.

Olympic Spirit

Those images of a glorious Beijing hosting the whole world into a birds nest had an undeniably positive impact on the rest of the world. Hosts with good manners and a tidy and luxurious front house always impress their guests, even if they engage in not so edifying practices in their own time and space. It shows that the Chinese and the rest have the same goal - a smooth and complete entry by China into the dynamics of the international community. The problem now is how to manage the Chinese ascent rather than predict it (the time for that was when Deng Xiaoping first opened the borders) or hamper it. China will definitely be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, player in international politics for the forseeable future, and, in the words of Stan Lee, 'with great power comes great responsibility'. This is the common understanding of the situation that all the relevant actors share. The only difference being that China puts more stress on the power side of the equation, seeking not to bind its hands particularly in terms of domestic politics, while the r/west treis to emphasise the responsibilities that such economic primacy has bequeathed on the middle kingdom.

So is it all a question of well-dosed international pressure? Yes and No.

The west can't push the giant off the edge and make it resort to isolationism. Even if they are dwarfed by international criticism, the policies of the chinese government have had a number of positive and liberalising effects, even in terms of political rights. The mere fact that such debates have gotten firmly into the international and chinese (albeit less so) public sphere indicates a significant improvement.

No because international law is process. This means that the way in which a country emerges on the international sphere and occupies its position in it will impact deeply on the norms that are created (or ideed eliminated) in the body of international law. As i have shown here and here everything that states do is inherently expressed and understood in terms of international law. In other words, international law is necessarily the language of international politics. Because of its horizontal structure it is a language that is in constant dynamic flux, and adopts the characteristics that those who use it most successfully impart on it. Its as if international law is a slang amongst kids: when a new big kid, a 'cool' kid, comes into the group he has to adopt the language of the group but can also shape it, introduce new words, make others disappear. In this sense, international law can engender China and China's ascent can engender international law.

We shall wait and see how everything goes. The biggest problem i perceive is related to the so called 'new international law'. The law that seeks to influence what states do to their own citizens as well as to each other. The law that impinges on state sovereignty, a weapon that the Chinese know how to wield extremely well and will hold on to for dear life in their ascent to superpowerdom.

Karadzic, Radovan

Fa piacere vedere che la giustizia penale internazionale ogni tanto fa qualche bella presa, come l'arresto e deportazione di Radovan Karadzic, anche se proprio ieri il consiglio di sicurezza ha emanato una risoluzione che estende la missione di pace dei caschi blu in Darfur ma blocca il procedimento giudiziario iniziato autonomamente dal procuratore generale Luis Moreno-Ocampo contro il Presidente Sudanese Omar al-Bashir per 12 mesi. Ma ciò non toglie che Radovan Karadzic, leader politico dei Serbi di Bosnia (leader della "Repubblica Serba di Bosnia") è stato acchiappato e sta per essere giudicato (colpevole) di crimini di guerra, crimini contro l'umanità e genocidio. Il risultato del processo è scontato, ma il valore di portarlo a termine va oltre la semplice esecuzione della giustizia contro un individuo colpevole. Esso risiede sia nell'effetto deterrente per leader presenti e futuri (al-Bashir in primis) suscettibili di macchiarsi di simili reati, sia nella scoperta da parte dell'occidente e dei Bosniaci di dettagli importanti sulle molti parti ombrose della guerra di Bosnia come, per esempio, il massacro di srebrenica o l'assedio di sarajevo. Inoltre, diffondere l'immagine di una giustizia internazionale che arriva anche ai potenti, agli intoccabili, anche se con mezzi di dubbia efficacia e solo dopo molti anni, non può che rinvigorire la percezione internazionale del tribunale istitutito dal Consiglio di Sicurezza, insieme a quella dell'attivismo stesso del consiglio negli anni '90. Politicamente gli effetti saranno molteplici e positivi, ma vanno curati attentamente se non si vuole squilibrare nuovamente la polveriera balcanica e mandare tutto a puttane di nuovo. E' assai dubbio che Karadzic sia stato preso solo ora. Infatti, siccome non si è mai troppo cinici, penso sia meglio parlare di uno scambio che Tadic (attuale presidente Serbo) ha voluto fare con Brussel. Tadic mostra come i diritti umani nonchè il rispetto per le istituzioni onusiane siano ben tutelati nella Serbia odierna, e Brussel già parla di un invito a sedere nell'anticamera del procedimento multi-vano che porta ad essere membro dell'Unione.

E fin quì tutto bene... Ma allora perchè i toni sono ancora così aspri? La risposta è, appunto, l'imputato. Radovan Karadzic, il Macellaio dei Balcani, il Boia di Srebrenica, il poeta, narcisista, innamorato del suono della sua voce, l'intrattenitore, lo psichiatra, il camaleonte, il medico-farlocco Dragan Dabic. Come Milosevic, anche Karadzic si è dichiarato innocente, ha accusato l'imperialismo americano e ha negato la validità e legalità del processo a suo carico. Come Milosevic, inoltre, a deciso di difendersi da solo. Ciò sarà interessante. L'unica ragione per cui Karadzic voglia fare questa scelta, che in sostanza non cambierà l'esito del processo, è che si sia voluto dare una importante vetrina politica internazionale. Come ha già iniziato a fare, accuserà gli stati uniti, l'inghilterra e gli altri membri della campagnia NATO dal '92 al '95. Accuserà governi, istituzioni internazionali e individui (sostiene che tra lui e Holbrook ci sia stato un accordo che gli garantiva l'immunità in cambio del suo ritiro dalla scena politica). Proverà a sollevare un polverone, e probabilmente ne risulterà una tempesta se con la drammaticità del suo personaggio riuscirà a comparire sulle prime pagine europee in maniera costante almeno fino a natale. Se tutto ciò dovesse rivelarsi vero speriamo solo che l'uragano Radovan non sia abbastanza forte da far crollare la precaria legittimità di cui gode il Tribunale dell'Aja in Serbia e nel resto della regione.

the voice and the muscle in the normal human being.

In other words, how should a young individual face his fears, tackle his monsters and dysect whatever skeletons are hiding in his closet? Well, the boring answer would be "with words", "by writing them out" or possibly some presumably more interesting variation on the same theme, such as "by fending them away with your pencil" et cetera. Poof, the answer is one that may lie somewhere in the ether surrounding us, but, nonetheless, it is one i don't know.

Unaware of scientific modes of authoring, a writer will just put pen to paper whenever he or she feels the urge to do so, that is doubtless. A methodical author, however, will write a predefined number of words a day, and catch up the next day if today was particularly unproductive.

Take the gymnast, regular, all day in the gym, looking for his or her fitness, looking to be in shape. Now that is surely commendable and to do it with regularity and determination is essential to succeed in physical exercise. In a way a writer looking to exercise his or her voice, to re-model it, bend it and re-shape is, mutatis mutandis taking part in a very similar sort of endeavour.

But i do sustain that writing (when it is not done as a profession) is a very private undertaking, only to be made public if and when and at the terms of the author's liking. Moreover, it is an undertaking that, given its private nature, is practiced however the author/writer prefers. Ultimately, yes, writing is an exercise. But it is useful to methodically train in it only if writing is your profession (or you want to make it such), in which case it would be a good idea to look at it the "scientific" way, just like the gymnast who works out on a machine.

While it is useful to have both, good writers are not just the technical expression of their voice, just like good athletes are not just a flexing string of muscle. Writers must have something to say and atheltes something that burns within them to make them constantly improve their performance. And for normal people, who like to think of themselves as both a little athletic and a little poetic, you needn't kill yourself with narrative exercises nor on the bench press. But its good to do a little bit of both too at times...

La riforma costituzionale francese - The French Constituitonal Reform

ecco una convincente analisi della riforma costituzionale francese che è il risultato dello studio della commissione Balladur.

here is a compelling analysis of the recently adopted french constitutional reform, born from the work of the Balladur committee.

loose ends

For those of you who actually have noticed the sterile condition in which this blog navigates of late, I'd like to banish your fears and provide a little explanation in the mean time.

I was stranded - computerless, in a world of sylicon chips and bytes - until yesterday, when I invested a considerable sum of money into a machine that will probably be out of date by autumn. I specifically went out to buy a reliable piece of technology to indulge me in my futile and beloved online meanderings this winter but came home withe the second cheapest set the store had on offer. It'll have to do i suppose.

Anyhow, when i last left there were some loose ends that i'd like to try and wrap up on this blog, in order to move on to something else by the end of the summer.

A number of issues have sprung to mind recently that have struck me as "worth a post" but which will unfortunately only be scantly mention below:

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Court of Justice has indicted Omar al Bashir, Sudan's autocratic President who is widely held to be responsible, inter alia, for the bombing of darfur and the Janjaweed's atrocities perpetrated since 2003 in the region. (see the debate going on here to find out if this is a good or bad idea).

Silvio Berlusconi's government has been working on introducing a number of highly controversial laws for: i) taking the fingerprints of all Roma children living in Italy, ii) suspending for twelve months all criminal trials for crimes whose punishment is less than 10 years' imprisonment, and iii) introducing immunity from all judiciary proceedings for the President, the Prime Minister and the presidents of the two houses of parliament. All three are inconstitutional: the first discriminates on the basis of race, the second impinges on the reasonable length of trials and the third runs agaisnt the principle that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law.

On the 8th of July there was a demonstration against these laws in Piazza Navona, Rome. Tones got heated and a number of high-profiled (sic) characters in the Italian political scene were allegedly badly insulted. Amongst them Berlusconi, many exponents of his government (Mara Carfagna in particular), the president of the republic, that of the senate and Pope Benedict XVI. Somehow, according to all mainstream media, this detail overruled any other message that the demonstration might have had.

The G8 meeting in Japan achived nothing meaningful.

There was a meeting hosted by the FAO in Rome about the current crisis in food prices. It too did not achieve much. During the conference Berlusconi was told that Italy would not be allowed to join the "5+1" group in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambition.

Iran fired a nondescript (or rather... misdescript?!?) number of missiles that range up to 20-odd-thousand kilometers. Strategically a display of force, it was very amatorially "buffed up" by reporting that the missiles launched were more than were actually there. All these missiles can be loaded with nuclear warheads. Israel replied saying it would not allow Iran to develop a bomb and would react immediately and unflinchingly should it feel under imminent threat.

Israel also collected the bodies of the two soldiers kidnapped by Hisbullah in August 2006. In return in handed over to Beirut 5 political prisoners and fivehundred-plus arab militants dead in past wars. The event was perceived as a success for Lebanon - image which Nasrallah helped elucidate - but a sordid defeat for Israel.

McCain and Obama are still battling it out over int he US for who gets to be in the front seat. Karl Unterkircher, Eluana Englaro and a girl in Barcelona died (together with many more i am sure). I am over with exams, slowly starting to work on my thesis, planning to set up a local newsletter (more on this soon), looking to improve my french and my physical condition and reading the kite runner as well as flicking through another few items that the bookshelf in my parent's living room coughed up.

SIR

Sir - You describe Mr Veltroni's opposition to the Berlusconi government as weak (a "phantom opposition") and strategically counterproductive ("the benefits [of dialogue] for the left are less evident [than those for Berlusconi]"). This is determined by the lack of long term perspective in your analysis of the Partito Democratico's aims. Veltroni defined his party's opposition on dialogue in order to mark a change with the Italian left's historically obstructionist and unproductive opposition of which the Italian electorate is tired and unsatisfied. The PD, a new party created less than a year before its first electoral test this spring, is a political subject in its infancy whose most important task is now to define its policy positions and thereby affirm itself in the electorate's perception as a governmentally viable new party ready to take office in five years. Veltroni's 'dialogic opposition', therefore, seeks to define the PD's political platform with respect to that of Mr Berlusconi on the most salient and substantial issues in the eyes of italian public opinion: the problem of collecting and handling refuse in Naples, opposing a law that defines irregular immigration as a crime as well as the militarisation of urban security. Recently PD senators also abandoned parliamentary discussions to oppose a law that serves Berlusconi's legal interests an was deemed unconstitutional in 2003 (Lodo Schifani). Indeed, this type of opposition "does not appear British at all". But that is because the British opposition party, unlike the PD, is not just a few months old, nor does it need to define its policy positions from scratch and comuncate them to the electorate. It makes more sense to compare Veltroni's opposition to Zapatero's "oposicion util", which was equally criticised as weak and ineffective but allowed the PSOE to emerge from a period of deep internal crisis and go on to win the elecciones generales in 2004. Italian voters - unlike this magazine - are tired of a destructive (and ultimately arithmetically useless) opposition that only seeks to "embarass the government" on issues such as Travaglio's journalistic style. The PD's parliamentary activity must not be brushed away as merely a "phantom opposition", rather it must be understood as the first baby step of a credible and governmentally viable reformist party.

recent crisis in Beirut

I saw this on a friend's blog and think it needs to be shown, for those of us who, living in post-modern Europe, have only fireworks to compare gunshots to.

...exams loom...

Poker

Aces high, Queen kickers, pocket rockets, full house - kings over nines, I see you, raise you, look at you, lose to you. Two pairs on the flop, nothing on the turn, full house on the river. And you burn it all away, on the river card, to chance, fate, yes, but primarily to him. To your opponent.

Poker isn't luck. Its strategy. Poker is not a game of cards. Its a game of people. Poker is a game that is not limited in space, only in time. Once the game starts, everything is considered, everything is a part of it. Nothing you do while the game is running gets discounted. Nothing you say, you don't say. Nothing you hear, you fail to remark on. No looks go unnoticed, no breath goes unexamined. Poker is not a game you play in turns. It looks like one, but its not. Everyone is always playing, always counting and discounting, considering and projecting their considerations into a melting pot of information, from which they must synthesise a strategy. A strategy that can beat your strategy. A strategy through which I can win over you, not one that only lets my cards win over your cards. In poker one must lose in order to win. One must risk in order to achieve glory, one must be humble and look to be underestimated by his rivals. In poker you must speak and listen. In poker you must have seven eyes: one for the cards, one for the dealer and one for each of your opponents. In poker you must die at first in order to be able to live again. You must suffer in order to flourish. Poker is a zero-sum game. You want to be the sum, not the zero.

And that is why so many life metaphors are taken from the world of poker. "You must fold while you're still winning", "take care of what you have", "double or nothing" "I took my chances, I went all in".

And that is exactly why, if someone ever asks you 'how do your live your life?' you reply: "Texas. No limits..."

Elezioni in Repubblica Domenicana

Il Listìn Diario edizione online, comunica che Leonel Fernandez, il Presidente in carica, esponente del Partido de Liberacion Dominicana (PLD), vince le elezioni ottenendo la maggioranza assoluta (53.4%) riconfermandosi presidente e lasciandosi alle spalle una forte, coerente ma forse eccessivamente ottimista opposizione guidata da Miguel Vargas per il Partido Revolucionario Dominicano che porta a casa un soddisfacente 40.9% del consenso popolare. Amable Aristy prende il 4% e il restante manipolo di voti va, inesorabilmente, nella casella "altri", dove figurano candidati dalle sorti meno fortunate e dalle campagne elettorali meno salate come Eduardo Estrella, del Partido Revolucionario Social Demócrata (PRSD); Guillermo Moreno, del Movimiento Independencia Unidad y Cambio (MIUCA); Pedro Candelier, del Partido Alianza Popular; Trajano Santana, del Partido Revolucionario Independiente (PRI)

Inutile intrattenersi in un'analisi del voto che sarebbe scontata e non aggiungerebbe nulla di nuovo a ciò che la maggiorparte dei giornali hanno già detto. Mi limito a sostenere che il candidato perredeista, in quanto sostenuto da un candidato vice-presidente molto credibile, professionale e rispettoso (per quanto non politico, ma 'tecnico') avrebbe potuto dare vita a un governo innovativo e incisivo. Ahimè, ha vinto Leonel Fernandez, ma in virtù dell'art. 49 della costituzione domenicana:

El Poder Ejecutivo se ejerce por el Presidente de la República, quien será elegido cada cuatro años por voto directo. El Presidente de la República podrá optar por un segundo y único período constitucional consecutivo, no pudiendo postularse jamás al mismo cargo, ni a la Vicepresidencia de la República.

Miguel Vargas, sea pronto por las elecciones en cuatro anos!

videocomunicato sindacale

Questo Ci Piace. Tenete TG3 e PrimoPiano in seconda serata. Servono più programmi di approfondimento come PrimoPiano in Italia, anche se vuol dire opporsi alle ferree leggi del mercato per cui se una striscia satirica fa più audience allora bisogna curarne la posizione nel palinsesto a scapito di altri programmi più utili e informativi. E' con queste piccole decisioni che nasce la televisione spazzatura.

Identity and Politics, but not identitiy politics

Today's La Repubblica, one of the leading newspapers in Italy, publishes an extract from a lecture that one of Italy's leading 'public intellectuals' - and Umberto Eco defines more than deserves this title - gave in what is claimed to be the world's oldest university. He describes what many before him have already described, pointing out how necessary it is to have an 'other' in order to identify a 'self' and define it negatively against it. He goes on to highlight how, more often than one would like, the negative definition of the self with respect to the other takes on a denigratory flavour and imposes the 'natural' (therefore unquestionable) supremacy of Us compared to them. This happens almost naturally given the necessary link that must be perpetually maintained between the Self and the Other. It is because of this necessary link, this negative relationship with the Other, that the Self can continuously affirm its existence and its superiority.

The relationship exists and is protracted not only through time, it also grows stronger and more dangerous as its gets closer to the self in space. To make matters worse, it becomes all the more profitable for those who can use tame it and shape it into a vessel through which to direct other people's fear. And fear can motivate even the most drastic and irrational of actions. Eco concludes:

Allargando a una intera etnia le caratteristiche di alcuni suoi membri che vivono in una situazione di marginalizzazione, si sta offi costruendo in Italia l’immagine del nemico rumeno, capro espiatorio ideale per una società che, travolta in un processo di trasformazione anche etnica, non riesce più a riconoscersi.

The demonisation of the Roma minority (rom, in Italian) in Italy is occurring with dangerous speed and visceral vehemence. Yesterday in Naples groups of people threw Molotov bombs in a Roma camp, who were forced to flee after having spent years there. Today other villagers of a small town near Naples were on the streets and prepared to do the same when they heard that the Roma community that was kicked out of Naples was looking to settle there. Luckily for them they decided not to.

Identity and politics are inevitably interlinked. Politics is the product of a societies common goals, interests and concerns. Politics must stem from a community and represent its identity/ies. But societal fractures must be suppressed and mended through political activity rather than exacerbated and capitalised upon. I vouched for this blog to take less of a political stance for or against Italian parties. But whoever knows about the methods employed by the current government to deal with the societal fractures in Italy will tremble at the thought of being an immigrant in Italy. These are the problems of Identity Politics.

Towards the finish line?

It seems that Barack Obama is significantly close to bringing home the democratic nomination than Hilary ever was. It is noteworthy that, while most commentators (them, but also them) stress the numerical advantage that the first black credible candidate has, noone seems to put him squarely beyond the so called point of no return.

This race has taught us to be wary spectators of what is possibly the biggest and surely most spectacular exercise in democracy this world can offer, for, as they say, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!! But it appears that even the flawless clinton machine - so very able to cash in on old favours made here and there in this time of need - has lost control, even of the strategically crucial super-delegates.

We'll wait, and, be sure, we'll see.

The Man Dissolved

The man dissolved, pt. 1

He was very shabby in his looks, at the opinion of all who knew him, but he also had a remarkable charm that dissolved anyone's inhibitions if they allowed him even only a few minutes of conversation. His long blonde hair seemed to have lost its thickness and brightness too soon for his age and, turning into a receding mullet, was considerably less attended to nowadays than in his youth. Tall, lean figure, his back designed a little curve that made him appear constantly out of balance, but never falling over. Some form of enchantment always kept him floating off the ground, it seemed. His strides were clearly too long even for his elegant legs, but this made his walk appear peculiarly aerial, never allowing the tails of his patched up, grey trenchcoat a moment's rest. His bohemian looks and rive gauche charisma concurred to make him stand out in almost any situation that rural Britain can offer and, equally, to give him an entourage of young females that sadly proved themselves to be a nuisance more than a source for his much sought-after sexual amusement.

Professionally inept, he declared himself a 'writer' on the basis of a few deplorable pages he managed to convince a friend of his to publish in an english language newspaper whose circulation was limited to the southern arrondissements of Paris. He also went to visit Paris once or twice in the hope of stepping into the continental avantgarde he presumed to be cradled in the belle ville. In fact, his short-lived french adventure had a number of reverse effects: it circumcised his creativity, alienated him from the few fellow writers he knew back in England and gave him an annoyingly enduring illness, which badly weakened his left lung turning it into what resembled a raisin in both size and uselessness.

There isn't much else to recount as to the past life of this man, and that is probably what makes his present so surreal and his future so inevitably self-destructive.

Despite his incompetence as a writer of any sort he had what many people describe as "a way with words (sigh)". This 'way' doesn't help much anyone who lives in a hamlet in Surrey and, aware of this harsh reality, he often looked for a way to try and change his destiny in another continental capital (his parisian débacle, unfortunately, hadn't suppressed such fancies). Given the constant lack of funds he abandoned the 'continental' part of his plans and set off for london on a privately rented carriage, the money for which he skilfully managed to talk one of the most gullible of his female companions into giving him.

Once in London he soon realised everything that swooped through his ken could easily be his for the taking. Considering his skill as an orator, his unnatural capability to step in and out of any social role and impersonate any character, be it fictional or real, and his absolute lack of consideration for others (not to mention the complete absence of a moral code to which this man would stick) he was perfectly equipped to live and comfortably fit in amongst London's richest scoundrels. There he had no verifiable history. People knew him by many names and he was careful not to make different acquaintances interact. In fact, he entertained himself with numerous exponents of London's finest tea rooms, drawing rooms and private rooms, but seldom did he establish long-lasting connections.

London was his oyster, all he had to do now was find its biggest pearl.

Io ora sono pe.

Io da adesso sono solo pe. Qualcosa s'è rotto. Forse non era abbastanza forte, o forse c'è finito troppo peso sopra. Resta il fatto che io adesso sono solo pe.

AS Roma: new playfield for the Arab-American war

... e l'ago della bilancia lo faranno i buffi di Rosella Sensi.

George Soros has placed an informal offer for AS Roma of just over 200 milion euros. The market value of the company is about 125 milion. You'd think the offer was more than reasonable and the deal signed. The problem is that the current owners of AS Roma (Sensi) have accumulated more than 300 milion euros of debt to rescue Roma over the last 5 years or so. As such, the Sensis aren't too happy to let Roma go wihtout having covered their full debt.

Luckily for them some sheiks from the UAE made another informal offer for ASR, which rumours say is 'significantly' higher than that of George Soros. As for me, like many Roma supporters I am happy to see that our team may soon have a stronger capital base behind it. But I am also wary of who these offers come from.

More specifically, I am concerned about the American offer and terrified of the Arab one. Mr Soros may be interested in Roma for some form of personal appreciation towards football, or sports in general, and the fact that Roma's financial situation is considerably worse than that of any other club playing at top european levels makes it an intelligent buy. The problem with Soros' mindset is that it takes aways that passion and love for the players, the supporters, the history and the italian league that the Sensi's have. I cannot imagine Soros sticking to Roma even if it means collecting a 300 milion euro debt.

Another problem would be the lack of know-how about the italian league that both potential buyers present. However, the business oriented American mindset would understand this and, as a strategic choice, would - i imagine - take a back seat in the actual management of the team. The Arabs, i fear, wouldn't do that. The risk is that they would see Roma as their toy and decide to buy and sell whoever they please... a techneque that i feel wouldn't work.

My ideal solution to the problem would be for Soros to buy roma but for him to leave the management of it to the Sensi family - which would allow them a good source of unrisky income to finish paying off their debts!

La vera democrazia: partitica, si, ma immediata.

Non diciamoci minchiate. Le democrazie odierne sono fondate sul ruolo dei partiti di massa, che fanno da tramite e da organizzatore per le richieste della società civile nei confronti delle istituzioni di governo. In Italia, come stabilito nell'articolo 49 della costituzione:

Tutti i cittadini hanno diritto di associarsi liberamente in partiti per concorrere con metodo democratico a determinare la politica nazionale.

Il soggetto di questo articolo sono i cittadini, ma ai partiti è riconosciuto il ruolo fondamentale di concorso alla determinazione della politica nazionale.

Ne segue che

Nella costituzione francese i partiti sono visti come meri facilitatori delle operazioni di voto: art. 4, I partiti e i gruppi politici concorrono all’espressione del voto. In quella spagnola sono disciplinati in maniera molto più comprensiva che nella nostra, e la disciplina stessa è poi protetta tramite la sua collocazione all'interno del sesto articolo, quindi tra i principi fondamentali dell'ordimnamento per cui un'eventuale modifica dovrà essere approvata con il procedimento super-aggravato dell'articolo 169 (mi sembra):

Los partidos políticos expresan el pluralismo político, concurren a la formación y manifestación de la voluntad popular y son instrumento fundamental para la participación política. Su creación y el ejercicio de su actividad son libres dentro del respeto a la Constitución y a la ley. Su estructura interna y funcionamiento deberán ser democráticos.

Oltre ad essere la disciplina costituzionale già molto più complessa della nostra, in Spagna si fa rinvio a una ley organica (approvata con maggioranze qualificate) per completare la disciplina dei partiti politici, cosa che in Italia non si è ancora riusciti a fare.

In generale, tali disciplina crea una struttura gerarchica (ma democratica) all'interno del partito. Questo lo si fa rendendo le primarie per la selzione del leader obbligatorie ma anche definendo la linea di partito da seguire all'interno dell'assemblea su determinate politiche con una votazione democratica in seno al congresso di partito. Certo, anche norme giudicate 'antidemocratiche' fanno parte di questo sistema per inculcare una certa gerarchia e trasparenza nelle formazioni partitiche, come, ad esempio, quella che prevede le liste bloccate e l'impossibilità di esprimere la preferenza in sede elettorale.

Questa norma non produce effetti anti-democratici se usata in determinate circostanze e con la giusta normativa di contorno. Per esempio, a circoscrizioni piccole e con una struttura interna al partito comunque democratica l'elettore potrà comunque conoscere i suoi eletti e magari aver preso parte nell'assegnazione degli ultimi alla propria circoscrizione mediante la sua partecipazione al partito. Inoltre, con una forte gerarchia di partito - ma senza andare a intaccare il divieto di mandato imperativo - l'identità del singolo eletto non cambia molto poichè il singolo parlamentare sarà invogliato ad attenersi alla linea di partito. Certo, la linea di partito potrebbe essere determinata dagli stessi eletti in sede di gruppo parlamentare, come avviene in inghilterra, ed in questo caso la scelta del singolo candidato è importante.

L'obbiettivo è comunque quello di arrivare a una situazione per cui il voto di un singolo elettore si trasforma in maniera efficace in un determinato comportamento che l'eletto sosterrà in parlamento. In questa maniera si evitano fenomeni di trasfughismo parlamentare e il voto dell'elettore non diventa un mandato in bianco all'eletto che una volta in parlamento può fare come vuole, bensi diventa un mandato preciso, definito democraticamente all'interno del partito, al quale il parlamentare si deve attenere. Questo è il concetto che Duverger ha chiamato democrazia immediata. Non è una democrazia diretta, poichè si basa sia sulla rappresentanza parlamentare sia su un forte ma disciplinato ruolo dei partiti, ma è immediata perchè al momento del voto l'elettore si trova davanti a due o più scelte sulla scheda elettorale che corrispondono precisamente a due o più linee politiche precise che gli eletti faranno valere in parlamento. Essenzialmente rende la scelta elettorale una scelta di politica effettiva.

Ora, tanti dicono che il modello maggioritario sia antidemocratico perchè toglie la scelta ai cittadini di votare per un partito piccolo che, si presume, possa rappresentare pochi cittadini, ma li sappia rappresentare bene. La verità, per il ragionamento svolto qui sopra con Duverger, è proprio il contrario. Nei sistemi che non danno effetti maggioritari la scelta dell'elettore si traduce in un mandato in bianco all'eletto. A livello nazionale il giorno delle elezioni diventerebbe automaticamente il momento in cui viene dato il potere di decidere le sorti del paese ai partiti che, ora come ora, sono essenzialmente svincolati da qualsiasi disciplina giurdica. Questa è partitocrazia... non perché il potere è in mano ai partiti (nelle democrazie odierne è stupido pensare che i partiti non siano necessari e importanti mezzi per la definizione della politica nazionale) ma perché i partiti non sono disciplinati. La vera democrazia è quella che permette all'elettore di fare una scelta chiara precisa e i cui effetti saranno chiaramente prevedibili in sede di voto.

La Cannabis: da noi e da loro

Repubblica titola così la recente giursipsrudenza in materia di pena per la coltivazione di piante dalle quali si possono ricavare stupefacenti:

Cannabis, sentenza Cassazione
rimane reato coltivarla in casa

E va bene.

Oggi, due giorni dopo la sentenza della suprema corte, Repubblica ci fà sapere anche che

Per coltivare e vendere la cannabis in California si va all'università

Primi 160 laureati al corso di "Scienza agricola della coltivazione della marijuana" alla Oaksterdam University. Presto anche a Los Angeles

Che ci sia un corso universitario negli USA su come si cresce la marijuana è un poco triste, e penso sia più che altro il frutto di un sistema universitario eccessivamente privatizzato... E' una bizzarra trovata del mercato, che in America arriva dappertutto, anche dove la mano invisibile oltre che invisibile dovrebbe essere anche assente.

Ma forse è anche sbagliato che in Italia si mescolino due usi sociali che si fanno dello stesso prodotto. Da una parte quello dei giovani che si fanno le canne, un pò per essere 'fichi' un pò per l'ebbrezza della nuova esperienza, e che poi rischiano di voler provare altro. Dall'altra quello della gente c.d. 'normale', i professionisti che lavorano, sia nel pubblico che nel privato e che si fanno qualche canna per conto loro o con il/la compagno/a alla sera per rilassarsi. Gente per cui non c'è poi tanta differenza tra una canna e una birra. Gente che, molto spesso, proprio per non voler dare adito al commercio illegale di queste sostanzze, e per assicurarsi un prodotto 'pulito', sceglie di crescersela in casa e da solo. Ecco, il nostro ordinamento non distingue fra queste due evenienze, che, a mio avviso, dovrebbero corrispondere a due fattispecie diverse di reato. Chissà, forse perché è comunque impossibile monitorare i due usi diversi che si fanno con lo stesso prodotto...

100 top intellectuals

Prospect and Foreign Policy draft a list of 100 top intellectuals and ask readers to vote for them in order to rank them. Here are the results for 2005. Now, in 2008, they are holding the contest again for which you can vote here.

I like to think that i sort of did a similar thing (but funnier) on my own accord, accompanied by a short explanative paragraph which I invite you all to read.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Le due riviste Prospect e Foreign Policy stilano una lista dei 100 intellettuali più importanti. I lettori delle riviste possono poi votare per colui/lei che ritengono in miglore. Qui ci sono i risultati per il 2005, e qui si può votare per l'edizione dell'anno corrente.

Di italiani ci sono Umberto Eco e Gianni Riotta... no, dico, gianni riotta... sarà bravo ma forse Moses Naim (direttore di foreign policy, interessatissimo all'italia) ce l'ho ha messo come favore personale...

25 Aprile

il 25 Aprile non è una data importante solo per noi. Chissà se certi giorni dell'anno sono particolarmente ben disposti ad accogliere istanze rivoluzionarie in senso democratico. :D

mi limito a riportare il post di un "blogger" ben più autorevole di me:

34 anni fa: quando iniziò la terza ondata democratica

Questa materia non vuole essere un'arida sequenza e accumulazione di testi normativi scissi da valori e da contesti, da assimilare in vista di un esame.
Per questo vi scrivo questo post anomalo partendo dall'inizio del bellissimo libro del politologo americano Samuel Huntington, "La terza ondata", Il Mulino, Bologna, 1993, che vi consiglio di leggere per non dimenticare i diritti che abbiamo acquisito da altri e di cui, proprio per questo, spesso non ci rendiamo conto. In qualche caso neanche loro se ne rendevano conto e l'inizio delle vicende, anche quelle eroiche e rischiose, sembra un pò rocambolesco e casuale..

"La terza ondata di democratizzazione del mondo moderno partì in maniera del tutto inattesa e inconsapevole 25 minuti dopo la mezzanotte del 25 aprile 1974 a Lisbona, quando una radio locale trasmise la canzone "Grandola vila morena".

Questa è la canzone

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=PBK7bd3UYow

Questa è la traduzione

GRÂNDOLA CITTA' DEI MORI

Grândola, città dei Mori
terra di fratellanza
è il popolo che più comanda
dentro di te, o città.
Dentro di te, o città
è il popolo che più comanda
terra di fratellanza,
Grândola città dei Mori.

A ogni angolo un amico,
su ogni volto l'uguaglianza
Grândola bruna città
terra di fratellanza
terra di fratellanza,
Grândola bruna città
su ogni volto l'uguaglianza,
è il popolo che più comanda.

Ed all'ombra d'una sughera
che non sa più quanti anni ha
giurai d'aver per compagna,
Grândola, la tua volontà.
Grândola, la tua volontà
giurai d'aver per compagna
all'ombra d'una sughera
che non sa più quanti anni ha.
E questa è la storia

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%A2ndola_vila_morena

attacco terrorista al bel paese mal governato?

indico un pensiero preoccupante di G Veltri

La caduta di Roma?

E adesso le amministrative. Non se ne può più! Meno male che almeno vauro è ancora legionario in prima linea.

Some context may be necessary here: in 10 days Rome choses its mayor. The rightwing candidate is called Alemanno (i.e. the German). The author is called Vauro, the newspaper it was published on used to be communist. Joooookes.

Birth of the third republic

Italy stepped into the third republic on the 20th January 2008, and the biggest reform in our electoral and party system was caused by one man uttering three words: io corro da solo. sorry, that's four words (but still pretty impressive).

It would be ridiculous to assume that the momentous change there has been in the italian party system doesn't influence the actual working of Italy's institutional mechanics. We have effectively stepped into a much simpler party system, which, even statistically, looks a lot more like that of other democratic countries. There are now only 6 parties represented in the lower house and the same 6 in the upper house. This means more stable governments, which in turn may mean the possibility of reforms, which may mean a stronger executive, a functional (if not in terms of composition) differentiation between the two branches of parliament, a greater shedding of powers towards regional governments, maybe even enacting some form of fiscal federalism.

The truth is, as many academics tell us, that the number, centralisation and membership of political parties in contemporary societies can influence very widely the functioning of government institutions, the climate between majority and opposition, the necessity of finding ad-hoc majorities on particularly salient or divisive issues, the strength of the institution of parliament with respect to the executive.

Yesterday these and many other variables have dramatically changed in Italy, a change that I feel may sanction the announcement of the formation of Italy's third republic. Needless to say it is still very early to speculate as to the new dynamics of Berlusconi's fourth government, but I believe the change with the past has happened.

I only wish it weren't captained by that anti-legalistic c**t.

Obituary column: the Italian Left

In the general elections that were held yesterday in Italy Mr Berlusconi won. The second tragic event that happened yesterday is that left-wing disappeared. They have lost all representation in both houses of parliament. This is the first time in italian history since the end of the second world war that there is no 'red' member of parliament, be he senator or deputy (= senator or congressman, lord or common). And we're talking of ZERO out of a total of NINE-HUNDREDandFORTY-SIX mp's.

Numerous and silly are the reasons that pundits all over the country have been able to offer for this event. Some have said that it is the result of an americanization of italian party politics (by which they mean bipartitism). Other have pointed the finger towards strategic voting, insinuating that a large part of the traditionally left wing electorate gave their vote to Veltroni's Democratic Party (which, despite its best efforts at autoclassification qua centre-left it looks about as left leaning as new labour) in the hope of preventing what I feared here.

The fact is, however, that the left wing has virtually disappeared from national politics. And by this I don't only refer to the demise (maybe inevitable in this day and age) of the communist tradition.

As previously mentioned, the party that came to contain the two major communist parties and the greens (Rifondazione Comunista, Comunisti Italiani and I Verdi) called La Sinistra l'Arcobaleno has been completely cut out from parliamentary representation. Moreover, with the miniscule number of votes (just scraping 3%) they managed to obtain it is difficult to envisage a role for them as a significant player in national politics.

The problem is aggravated by the right-wing drift of the Democratic Party, which, in turn, may have been due to an exagerated estimate of the radical left's popular appeal. Outcome of this mess is that there is a massive void on the left of the italian political spectrum. Unlike France, Spain and Germany (which, I maintain, should in their own respect set the benchmark for the political and institutional development of the remaining continental european countries) Italy does not have a Socialist party. And that is sad more than just unfortunate.

Well, in this mess of attempted explanations I tentatively extend mine - one which I haven't heard elsewhere so far, maybe because it puts the blame for the communists' defeat on the communists themselves.

I contend that Nick Cohen's wide-ranging criticism of western left-wing movements, both in academia and on the streets, claiming they betrayed their traditional values, anti-fascistic leitmotif and defining themselves in a purely anti-american, anti-progressive fashion with the outcome of justifying if not embracins fascist (and fundamentalist) movements may be enlisted amongst the reasons for the tragic collapse of left-wing parties in Italy.

Their somewhat backward view on many economic issues - imposing a false choice of economic management where there isn't one - smells of unsustainability. Their unquestioning pacifism made them appear as a spineless entourage of not-so-credible politicians. Unlike the Trotsky's and Gandhi's of the noble pacifist tradition, these looked more like those who are pacifist purely because they still haven't found anything to fight for. Their own self-image was one which amply overestimated their political base and has made them behave in an often fickle and bitching way while in government under the roof of centre-left multiparty coalitions. People noticed that. Many didn't like it. Maybe this is how they pay for it.

Thse are all just speculations, as usual on this blog. Speculations may vary, but facts remain the same. Right now the fact is that there is no left-wing in Italy. Worse still, this happens at a time where a right-wing coalition is solidly in government (and the balance of power between the members of that coalition has shifted in favour of a secessionist, at times racist, regional party of northern Italy - they define themselves as a "political movement for the independence of Padania").

Now is a time in which a solid, credible and unified left-wing must provide the necessary opposition force in parliament. Today is the day we realise that it's not going to happen. As for tomorrow... we'll just have to wait and see.

depressing omens indicate: 'The Return of the Jester'

Unlike Tolkien's 'The Return of the King' the last chapter in Italian politics, which is unfolding before our very eyes, has nothing glorious, noble, neat and heroic in it. Indeed, a more apt title for our (by no means fantastic) final hour may be 'The Return of the Jester'...

The author of italian politics is probably the best comic that ever walked the earth, and Italy the best practical joke he ever pulled. Too bad for us italians on the receiving end of this bullshit.

Abstentionism has grown since the past election, especially in traditionally 'red' regions of Italy, such as Emilia-Romagna, a traditionally left-wing stronghold.

Provisional results, exit-polls or any other form of statistical lie hasn't been published yet. It is not 1400, they can't be released before 1500.

I sincerely hope Mr Banana won't win again... I swear I will consider emigrating to England and applying for english citizenship if he does.

Leatherhead!!

I cut my hair in a burst of chemical rage... may have been a mistake. It's one of those things that only time will reveal.

So you want to be a writer? Charles Bukowski

So you want to be a writer?

by Charles Bukowski


if it doesn't come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don't do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don't do it.

if you have to sit for hours staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your typewriter searching for words,
don't do it.
if you're doing it for money or fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want women in your bed,
don't do it.

if you have to sit there and rewrite it again and again,
don't do it.
if it's hard work just thinking about doing it,
don't do it.
if you're trying to write like somebody else,
forget about it.

if you have to wait for it to roar out of you,
then wait patiently.
if it never does roar out of you,
do something else.

if you first have to read it to your wife
or your girlfriend or your boyfriend
or your parents or to anybody at all,
you're not ready.

don't be like so many writers,
don't be like so many thousands of
people who call themselves writers,
don't be dull and boring and pretentious,
don't be consumed with self-love.

the libraries of the world have
yawned themselves to sleep
over your kind.
don't add to that.
don't do it.

unless it comes out of
your soul like a rocket,
unless being still would
drive you to madness or
suicide or murder,
don't do it.

unless the sun inside you is
burning your gut,
don't do it.

when it is truly time,
and if you have been chosen,
it will do it by
itself and it will keep on doing it
until you die or it dies in you.
there is no other way.
and there never was.

i used to write fiction

I used to write fiction. Curuious for one who doesn't much like to read it. I always considered it a waste of time to read fiction with all the tragedy and comedy that real life itself can offer. This argument, however, disgusts me. The two are not alternative, obviously, and very often the best meter of judgment for real atrocities is that of fictitious ones we have read in the past, to see just by how much real life can exceed our worse imaginations.

I never wrote fiction. I used to experiment with ideas and styles and 'poems' and all that crap... But I cannot really say I ever wrote proper fiction. To be 'proper' fictuion must keep you glued to the words, or, better still, must make you re-read them twice just for the sheer aesthetic pleasure it brings to the inside of your ears and mouth.

What I used to do, I guess, is a symptom of a deeper problem i have. A mental one, that is. I find it tremendously easy to disassociate my rational mind from the situation that is surrounding me in any given moment. My mind just starts to wonder aimlessly and then, BAM, without even realising it i cross that imaginary line that makes me lose my reality... That's awfully explained. Let me try again,

I start to believe that the situation my wandering mind has brought me into corresponds to the reality surrounding me in that precise time and space. Stupid example: if in a pub and my mind starts to wander, i may step into the illusion completely, severing the rational safety line that bound me to reality. I get lost in my illusions, in my delusions. And all i do once i'm there is explore faces, smells, hair, landscapes, perspectives, double meanings, checking if there are any bits of moulded cheese round any corner of my imagination...

spot the president and the american slug

Here is an excellent cover of the economist, one of the best i think ive seen i think. it took me a while to find it again in my dustbin, but whenever i look at it i cannot help but think that this picture in particular is worth way more than a thousand words...



It will be difficult for Medvedev to assert himself as an autonomous decision maker in the Russian political spectrum (whose borders have always faded well into other fields, oil fields particularly), but at some stage he too, like tough vlad before him, will take the necessary steps to muscle himself out of his predecessor's looming shadow.

And here, is this week's cover, not too bad itself...



what is most discomforting in this one, in my opinion, is the subtitle at the bottom of the page.

of constructivism's essence - on common sense

constructivism aims simply to highlight the importance of common sense, putting the emphasis on the word common. Flathman, in 1972, summed it up briliantly in saing

If a man has two pairs in a poker game and his opponent has three of a kind, the man loses the hand. If he claims to have worn the hand he shows that he does not know the rules of poker.

Artist: Snow Patrol
Album: Eyes Open
Song: Finish Line

The earth is warm next to my ear
Insects noise is all that I hear
A magic trick makes the world disappear
The skies are dark, they're dark but they're clear

[...]

I feel like I am watching everything from space
And in a minute I'll hear my name and I'll wake
I think the finish line's a good place we could start
Take a deep breath, take in all that you could want

Made in Italy: The Big Bet.

In an interesting recent article The Economist once again amuses the world by telling italians that Berlusconi is about as unfit to rule italy as he is likely to get elected. In 1994 and in 2001, Berlusconi went on to win the elections, and it doesn't look like he is likely to lose these ones either. A few of the details reported by the economist left me in shock, even though I have grown accustomed to the grotesque pantomime of the italian political scene:

Italy will go to the polls on April 13th and 14th to elect its 62nd post-war government — and the signs are that it will be led by Silvio Berlusconi, just like the 53rd, the 59th and the 60th.

This few figures show clearly why Italy is not a modern country in a region where most other are becoming rapidly post-modern. Take the example of Spain. A country that has had about 40 years of military dictatorship, held its first free elections a mere 29 years ago, has had 9 governments - all of which have laste the full five year term - and only 5 different prime ministers. Moreover, in four elections the winning party took home the absolute majority and all 9 times the government was composed by the winning party only, not by a coalition of parties. This has had the result of modernising the spanish economy, which in the past 15 years has caught up on all the disadvantage it had accumulated during the Franco era - makining it richer than Italy in GDP/capita terms. On social issues Zapatero has managed to break the taboos that plague all catholic countries and pass sensible laws ensuring civil and political rights for all, irrespective of their sexual tendencies, and solving many of the difficult ethical problems that are endemic in modern-day societies.

The economist goes on telling how between 2001 and 2006

[m]uch of his [Berlusconi's] energy, though, was devoted to furthering his own, or his friends', interests. Some of his efforts took the form of laws (like the country's statute of limitations) that helped him to avoid conviction, some
to attacks on the judiciary, some to the introduction of a voting system
partly designed to keep him in power.

and in a burst of optimistic wishful thinking voices the hope that

[p]erhaps, now that he is rid of most of his legal troubles, he can start to think more about a place in history as a great reformer and less about staying out of jail.

The clever journalists at the economist swiftly correct their idealistic excess, pointing out that

[it] is unlikely. He has never shown much interest in reform. He is more likely to have his eyes on a populist route to the presidency.

Indeed, the economist seems to be on top of its game in hinting at Berlusconi's future at the Quirinale palace - Italy's Buckingham Palace, residence of the head of state. Having brought you this far I ask you to indulge me in a forecast about the evolutions of italian politics in the next half decade or so. In exchange I will show you how the same reforms can be brought about by a well-meaning head of government concerened about the public good, as much as by a scheming thief trying to stay out of jail.

As I explain here the Prodi government fell in February 2007 because it could not keep some of the members of its 11 party strong coalition in check. Back then Italy badly needed a small number of profound constitutional reforms, including a reform of the electoral law (so that single parties may win elections and govern on their own), and a reform of the structure and operation of its main institutions (by this we mean that the government must be stronger with respect to the parliament and that the prime minister should become stronger with respect to his executive). Needless to say, the Prodi government did not have the numbers in parliament to make any significant political moves, with the result that Italy still badly needs those reforms. In democratic countries, when issues as fundamental as these are to be changed there needs to be a general consensus amongst all (or the large majority of) the major political forces.

But that is a well known story. After Prodi's collapse Berlusconi (who is surprisingly the head of italy's largest political party) refused to take part in the creation of a 'technical' government that would enact the necessay reforms. That is why we are having these elections. However, because of the highly undemocratic and inefficient electoral law (invention of Mr Berlusconi himself), it is likely that neither one of the two major candidates in next week's elections, Mr Veltroni - leader of the PD (Democratic Party) - and Mr Berlusconi - leader of PDL - will emerge as the clear winner.

So what next? My guess is that a tecnical government will be created, with exponents of both centre-left and centre-right political forces, and given the charge of pursuing the afore mentioned necessary institutional reforms. At the end of the day it cannot be any other way. The reforms were as necessary three months ago as they are now, and given they were not undertaken then it seems logical to do them now. And if we consider the profound scope of the reforms it is clear that they ought to be done by a mixed Grosse Koalition kind of government that is above (or in the middle of... eek!) partisan interests. Better late than never, as they say. So why were they not done before? why did we have to wait until now and hold another useless election from which no government will win? My guess is that these elections are being held to change the distribution of "democratic legitimation" (i.e. power) in favour of Berlusconi qua the likely winner of them. This way, he (or his protegé, Mr Gianni Letta, one of the few skilled politicians in the italian political scene, particularly of the right) will be guaranteed the leadership and majority stake in the formation of the 'technical government'.

It'll take at least two or three years for the technical government to achieve anything, if it ever does, that is. Should it happen, it will put us in front of a new election in 2010 or 2011 in which the leader of the centre-right could not possibly be Mr Berlusconi, who would be 76. The likely leader of the centre-right could be Mr Gianni Letta himself - which is what makes me inclined to foresee him as the leader of the tecnical government for reforms. He will want to mark his political career as the leader of a modern, progressive right-wing with a strong success in being the national hero who brought Italy into its 3rd republic. You may consider this scenario another example of naive wishful thnking, of which liberal leftists like myself have often been accused. After all, this prospect would require exponenets of the italian right and left to step up their game and actually work in the country's interest rather than their own. Not to mention the alienation of small parties that the process would necessarily require. However I have a strong(ish) reason to believe that this may actually happen... Ironically, the solution to the italian stalemate may come from one of its primary causes: Mr Berusconi himself.

Berlusconi is a fantastic entrepreneur, thus a clever strategist too. His main objective, since he stepped into politics in 1994, is to stay out of jail. While in and out of government he was able to make laws to keep him out of jail. Once he is too old for government, there is only one solution that would keep him out and about: becoming Italy's President.

Like all parlamentary sistems the italian one is composed of a government and a parliament, whose job is to determine the political path for the country, as well as a president, whose job is to safeguard the constitution and generally make sure that the political side of things (government and parliament) doesn't pass laws (or commit any other acts)that go against italy's fundamental democratic principles. AS such he must be above the political confrontation, extracted from it, and operate in the exclusive interest of the country's institutional and democratic asset. Berlusconi profile clearly doesn't seem to fit the job description, but if he manages to go down as the leader (political if not formal) of the legislature that enacted the reforms Italy needs so badly, he will be a much stronger candidate for the position of president. Hence, he may well end up staying out of jail.

The timing also is incredibly appropriate: Berlusconi can take an active role in bringing about these reforms in the period between 2008 and 2011. He should then lay low for one or two years and let Gianni Letta officially take the lead of the italian right. By 2013, Giorgio Napolitano - the current president - will be out of office and his Parliament (dominated by the centre-right who will have won the elections in 2010 or 2011 - the only variable that seems radically unpredictable in my scheme) will elect him president!! Et voila, there he will be from atop the Roman Hill, chanting la-la la-la, l'etat c'est moi, l'etat c'est moi...

Caro Augias,

Mi chiedo come mai in questa campagna elettorale i temi di politica estera sono quasi interamente assenti, come d'altronde sono troppo spesso assenti dal dibattito politico in generale. Ciò avviene nonostante i recenti grandi successi della politica estera e diplomazia italiana. In particolare, penso alla entrata dell'Italia nel Consiglio ONU per i diritti umani, la presidenza del comitato militare della NATO dell'ammiraglio Di Paola, l'entrata dell'Italia del Consiglio di Sicurezza ONU per il biennio corrente e la guida della missione internazionale in Libano (UNIFIL) oltre ai più noti successi dell'Expo 2015 a milano e del voto favorevole alla risoluzione sulla moratoria della pena di morte nell'Assemblea Generale ONU. Nell'assetto politico internazionale contemporaneo, che tende ad emarginare le medie potenze come l'Italia, ai successi su menzionati della diplomazia italiana dovrebbe essere data maggiore attenzione sia dalla carta stampata (incluso in questo giornale - con la piacevole eccezzione degli sporadici articoli del Cassese) sia nel dibattito politico più in generale.

Cordiali Saluti,

Giuseppe P

shed a tear, cry a river for Tibet

In its second article the Genocide Convention defines genocide as:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The boldening of the root of this definition is determined by the necessity to really focus in depth on those words. The key word there seems to me to be the intent to destroy,

The weight that has been placed on the notion of intention, thus some form of concious responsability and the guilt that ensues from it, is traceable to the experience of WWII, in which the paradigmatic example of a calculated, meticulous, scientific, poderated machine of death was operated by the Nazi regime in an aware and, intended way.

In front of the brutality of the physical extermination of the jews it is clear why the definition of genocide is also so highly focussed on the physical destruction of a group. And while this may be seen as either a fault of the authors of the convention, or a lacune in international jurisprudence, it provides a clear and strong denounciation acts that echo Hitler's folly. Sadly it has many problems and will rarely get utilised, thus making it operate more as a soft law instrument rather than an international norm: useful for its persuasive value, necessary to globally denounce the horrors of WWII, but sterile in preventing their repetition. Darfur, Rwanda, Jugoslavia, Iraqi Kurds are a proof of this.

The limitations of the 1948 definition of genocide are well documented elsewhere, with exponents claiming it can only ever provide a historic rather than regulative value and others arguing that the starkness of the definition is necessary to avoid the banalisation of what has often been described as "the crime of crimes". I must say i tend to favour the former position but, either way, I will not discuss such issues here.

Cutting the chase: is the Chinese policy towards Tibet a peculiar form of genocide, despite it not reaching the bar set in 1948? Yes, I maintain.

The Dalai Lama (strategically, one of the most influential beacons of soft power; spiritually, a leader for many) has denounced the Chinese government's actions in Tibet as a form of cultural genocide. It is beyond doubt that what Beijing is aiming for is a very strong and longlasting form of cultural annihilation, or genocide as the Dalai Lama put it. The mass implantation of ethnically Han chinese people in Tibet is a slow if relentless policy that will inevitably produce a thinning out of the link between the Tibetan culture (now upheld mainly outside the borders of Tibet) and the tibetan people. If coupled with the outright bellicose policies that the Chinese government has been enacting for decades it is clear that its ultimate aim is that of eliminating all reasonable claims that a dispersed and downtrodden population can stake on what was once its territory. The principle of effectivity in international law and that of power relationships in international politics make the tibetan cause a heavily uphill battle, against a vastly more powerful enemy tham them. Beijing, on the other hand, must only wait a few decades without making any strategic mistakes that may spur the (comatose) moral conscience of the international community into organising a long overdue response in protection of the Tibetans' just cause.

Mai tutto, Sempre tutto...

Si dice che la vita non può mai darci tutto e che bisogna accontentarsi di quel che si ha. A volte però è difficile. A volte ritornano gli incubi, quegl'incubi da bambini che, inspiegabili e spesso grotteschi, mi si avvinghiano saldamente alla mente, penetrando in profondità fino al cervelletto, alla parte più primordiale ed istintiva della mia psiche. E lì risvegliano sopiti timori, minano la stabilità matura ed acquisita delle mie 'adulte' certezze, lasciandomi solo come un bambino sprovveduto, abbandonato in una selva di ombre.

E ciò che mi da la vita non mi basta più. Non mi da la stabilità che cerco, e non posso accontentarmi così, a metà, condividendo ciò che ho di più caro con altri, vili ladroni di emozioni, amori e tranquillità altrui. Dovrò liberarmi della cosa che più mi ha dato vita e vitalità in passato. Delle emozioni e dei ricordi dorati, che si sono rivelati sottili laccature gialle su un corpo di sporco ottone. Finzioni, mentiras. Ma se veramente non può essere altrimenti, e da questa selva di ombre non posso tornare indietro... beh, allora, sempre da solo, non potrò che andare avanti, finché non risbucherò dall'altra parte, in una pacifica prateria come quella che mi sono lasciato alle spalle. Una prateria di colori vivi, accesi. Di colori solidi, che mantengono le promesse e scacciano gli incubi insieme al buio. E li - on my side of paradise - preferisco arrivarci da solo piuttosto che in compagnia di bugie o incubi. Con la speranza che quella prateria sarà l'ultima che vedrò, e non un'altra illusione, un'altra effimera schiarita nel bosco.

Spero di trovare - quanto prima, in qualche dove - il coraggio di partire, senza piangere il passato.

New weekly feature: Economist's covers

The covers of the liberal magazine The Economist are undoubtedly the most expressive and witty I have had the pleasure of consistently coming across. As such I thought it could be interesting to scan them and add a little comment once a week. The structure is usually a two element message, the first part of which is in words - often it is the title that sets a theme or question - and the cover image which, when associated with the title, gives that message a witty twist.

This week's:


Russia's Economy: an Oil eating Bear!

(Bear Markets are those where sellers outnumber buyers because of widespread pessimism thus leading to a slowing economy, more or less).

leaving in winter, returning in spring

I left Rome on the eleventh of February. I got back to Rome three weeks later. When I left, a chilled winter embraced my city making it appear as if it were dozed into stillness, almost frozen asleep. As I returned I noticed new flowers on the bushes and fruit trees, new shoots sprouting from the ground, a warmer breeze surrounding the plants, people and buildings. New and brighter colours tinted the atmosphere, giving a new spirit to all things under the sun.

These are important and beautiful realisations, and one should not foil them with political comparisons. But in this, as in many other things, I just cannot help myself.

Elections, in Italy, are held in spring time. This year they will be on the 13th and 14th of April, thus giving almost two weeks from the end of the Communists' evil weapon to reduce the turn-out of comfort seeking (but all powerful) right wing men: behold, the March showers!

The incredible truth is that with conspicuous regularity, like a yearly clock work, spring irresistibly invades Italy's trees, mountains, beaches, hills and pastures. Sadly, spring pervades Italy but doesn't even touch Italians, least of all in their political destinies.

La fin de un sueno?

Mensaje del Comandante en Jefe

What does Fidel's step-down as Cuban head of state mean? Is it the sad realisation that there is no real alternative to the capitalist, free-market way of life?

No, that sad realisation had already been made amply clear by an even superficial analysis of Cuba's economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union, if not earlier. That sad realisation had been already made abundantly clear by Cuban's dismal relationship with their (sic) revolution.

Castro's decision means only that no-one out there is going to try an look for a practical alternative (for of theoretical ones we are already in excess) to the capitalist economy any longer. Raul and the rest of the Cuban Communist Party will slowly, but respectfully for as long as Fidel is alive, abandon the traditionally socialist way and venture into the free market to let the forces of capital just lassez-faire. And that is just another of the sad realisations that, day by day, make up contemporary history.

blogging as a pause for reflection rather than as the result of it

I need some coffee. I've got to get back to the old habits, even though they were imposing a generally unhealthy lifestyle on me. At least it was a balanced, effective lifestyle. A little abstracted from reality maybe, it stank of coffe a little too much maybe - i recognise i drank too much of that. And the smell of coffee sticks to you, maybe more than that of cigarettes. Coffee, cigarettes, closure in front of a small interesting taks, and time. A lot of time to think about it and explore it and play with it and leave it and waste time; blogging as a pause for reflection rather than as the result of it.

Dirty habits, yes. But comfortable habits too. Alienating practices, isolated from worldly connections and daily routines. Time loses its recurring connotations, the certainty that with every hour another organic part of the day comes into fruition. Free from these restraints the hours of the day become mere containers for my filling. Disposable minutes, intense fractions, immovable hours employed to explore futile endeavours. In this interstice of life, shielded from earth-bound necessities and social practices, one can just let go, forget life, forget others, forget oneself and just play with ideas. Maybe with a littel more coffee.

Game Over

That's it, the curtain has fallen, once again. We hope you enjoyed the show. Here’s a quick sum up of the latest episodes:

The CRISIS

Clemente Mastella, the minister for justice of the centre-left coalition (the Union) in government in Italy as of April 9th 2006 a.D. resigned from his position and, with his party, left the coalition.

Without the 3 Senators from Mastella's party, Romano Prodi's coalition government does not have the absolute majority of votes (161) in the Senate, and is obliged to resign after a purely formal vote on a "motion of trust" (mozione di fiducia) for the government tomorrow.

Italy has a classical and perfect bicameral parliamentarian system. Perfect, in this sense, means that both chambers of parliament have exactly the same functions and exactly the same powers. This is not a good thing, it is a waste of time and public money and it reduces governability.

When a government does not have the absolute majority (50% + 1) of MPs' votes in both chambers of parliament there is a governmental crisis. The outcomes of these crises can be various and depend on a number of institutional and political conditions.

HISTORY

Because of different electoral laws, before 1993 a governmental crisis only meant that a new coalition of parties would form in parliament (on the basis of the votes received at the last election) and they would then nominate a government whom they would back. These "reshufflings" (or, Ribaltoni, in italian) in the governing majorities organised among party leaders were very common (they happened with an average frequency of 11 months). It was pure partitocracy back then. One centre-ish party (the "Christian Democracy") was in government almost uninterruptedly from 1946 to 1992, either making alliances with the socialists/communists on its left or with the liberals on its right.

In 1993 we moved towards a more majoritarian electoral system that could construct a bipolar political spectrum, centred on two moderate coalitions/poles. This law (called the “Mattarellum”) was not a bad law. 75% of the votes were awarded with a majoritarian system, and the remaining 25% with a proportional system. It had the effect of producing two poles around which relatively stable coalitions developed, but it did not solve the problem of the huge number of parties that were represented in the Parliament (there are over 60 parties in parliament today). The problem with having many small parties is that they are crucial for the whole coalition to reach the absolute majority of seats in parliament and be able to stay in government. In these terms, their power is over-represented.

In 2005 Berlusconi's government pulled a nasty stunt. Right at the end of his legislature his government changed the electoral law to have slightly different effects. He introduced a proportional law with a strong majority prize awarded to the winning coalition, which gave it the looks of a para-majoritarian law. The cheeky thing he planned was that in the lower chamber, the Chamber of Deputies, there would only be one, pretty large, majority prize given to the winning coalition on a national basis. On the other hand, in the higher chamber, the Senate, there would be 20 very small majority prizes given to whoever got the majority in every different region. Because there are about 8 regions that virtually always go right-wards, and another 8 always go left-wards, this system assured that whoever won the elections - and everyone knew it was going to be a tight vote - would have a negligible majority in the Senate and, because our bicameral parliamentarianism is perfect, would be largely unable to govern. It is significant that this law was later christened (this choice was virtually unanimous) the "Porcellum", etymologically derived from the Italian word "porcata" (something along the lines of "bollocks" in English).

Since autumn 2007 the forces in the Italian parliament have been seeking to re-write an electoral law that would reduce the number of parties present in our parliament, hence in our coalitions, and ultimately increase the stability of whichever government would be in office. This was being done with a 5% limit, like in the German electoral law, and with the use of single-seat constituencies. Needless to say that the little parties in parliament at the moment will never vote for a law which eliminates them from the political scene. Yet, up until two days ago, it looked like it was actually going to happen, one way or another.

In mid-January 2008 the Italian constitutional court judged that a referendum aiming to abrogate certain dispositions of the current Italian electoral law (the “Porcellum” or “Bollocks Law”) would not be prohibited by the constitution. This referendum will happen sometime between April and June 2008, unless the parliament manages to think up a decent electoral law to replace the “porcellum”. Its aim is to eliminate the part of the “porcellum” that determines that the majority prize in the Senate is given on a regional rather than national basis. With the time pressure imposed by this looming referendum the political parties came up with a number of propositions. Some wanted to adopt the German electoral system (proportional, with a minimum limit of 5% to be represented in parliament) some called for the French system (a presidential type of government with a double round of elections), others for the Spanish system (majoritarian, due to the small sized-constituencies). In the end, a new and ambitious proposition was being discussed by the two major parties in Italy: Berlusconi’s Forza Italia and Veltroni’s Partito Democratico.

This option, the “Vassallum” was to be a mixture of the German and Spanish electoral systems, with 50% of the seats awarded through a majoritarian method and the remaining 50% through a proportional count. The latter half of the seats, however, would have a relatively high implicit lower limit due to the small sized constituencies that would be used. Moreover, the majority prize in both chambers would be given to the party (not the coalition) that obtained the relative majority of votes cast nationwide. This would create a strongly majoritarian system centred around two poles, a centre-left and a centre right coalition, but the coalitions themselves would be dominated by largest parties within them (the Partito Democratico for the centre-left and Forza Italia for the centre-right) so as to end the over-representation of mini-parties in large coalitions. In a nutshell, the message of the Vassallum was “Keep the bipolar structure, but eliminate the small parties and take one step towards an eventual bipartitism. Create more stable governments and finally be able to govern for five years at a time”.


All Business is Family Business

Predictably, small parties did not like this idea very much. None of them did. One party in particular called Popolari-UDEUR, a former member of the centre-left coalition that won power in 2006, showed that it would do anything to prevent its removal from national politics by the introduction of the Vassallum (or even some watered down version of it). UDEUR is a centre party that commands only 500000 votes in Italy, and all of them are cast in an area of the Campania region, in between the towns of Ceppaloni and Benevento. This, somehow, allows it to contribute 3 Senators to Prodi’s majority coalition, which only has a lead of 1 Senator over the opposition. It follows that the Senators of UDEUR, by stepping out of the coalition could destroy Prodi’s majority and, ultimately, force him to resign. That’s exactly what they did. To understand why, you need to know something about the leader of this microscopic and infamous party; a party that can determine the death of a whole legislature, the collapse of a government and force every single person in the bloody country to have to go vote again.

Clemente Mastella is the leader of Popolari-UDEUR. In fact, he is its sovereign, its owner, its absolute monarch. He is currently being prosecuted for nepotistic practice in the nomination of public figures in Campania, of simple workers in public offices and even for deciding who should become consultant and/or departmental director in hospitals. His wife is currently in jail for undertaking similar practices. Mastella, who is shamelessly proud of his nepotistic direction of Campania, sees no problem in what he does. He has portrayed himself as the victim of a general state of excessive independence of the Italian judiciary, which uses its powers to pursue its own political objectives by prosecuting political figures whose work they disagree with. While there could be some truth in pointing out that the Italian judiciary suffers from some structural problems and could do with a simplifying reform, Mastella’s allegations seem out of touch with the existing institutional reality. Worryingly, the general character of his accusations is shared by most political figures that see themselves constantly under threat by an overly zealous judiciary.

According to Mastella, the fall of the Prodi government was the inevitable outcome of his realisation that the remaining members of the coalition and the executive did not do enough to protect Mastella and his wife in their time of need. In reality, having realised that a new electoral law that would reduce the influence of small parties on national politics was inevitably coming (either the Vassallum or from the outcome of the Referendum), I presume that Mastella did the only thing he could to prevent his (hence his party’s) imminent downfall: he threw everything up in the air. He made sure that the government would fall, the talks on a new electoral law would stall and, hopefully, the country would be forced to hold new elections with the existing law. Should the next few weeks prove this hypothesis to be right, it is not outrageous to assume that Mastella could join the centre-right coalition captained by Berlusconi and step into office once again. Fortunately it seems that the leaders of most centre-right parties in Italy, whose base is primarily in Northern Italy, don’t much like his “southern” way of doing politics.

One might ask why did Mastella decide to make everything go Kaputt now and not before? A first reason could be that with Prodi’s government he was nonetheless the Minister for Justice – one of the most salient political positions in the country. However, the reason is also to be found in the statements of the newly born Partito Democratico. Walter Veltroni, the leader of this new centre-left party with an openly majoritarian predisposition (essentially this means it doesn’t much like small parties) declared that regardless of what the new electoral law would be, it would stand alone in the next election. Implicitly this is an ultimatum to all small parties of the centre-left who are openly ostracised by the party around which they would naturally coalesce.

What the future holds is uncertain. At the moment, Italy does not have a government and badly needs institutional and legislative reforms – in particular that for a new electoral law. The President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, is now undertaking a series of ‘consultations’ with the presidents of both chambers of parliament, with the main political leaders and with the former Presidents of the Republic to gauge the situation and propose an institutional government. Made up of a mixture of centre-left and centre-right parties that could provide it with a majority in parliament, this transitory government would only have a very limited mandate that involves making the necessary reforms in the country (including a new electoral law) that could then allow the country to hold new elections and chose a new government, hopefully without micro-parties that can sabotage the national political and governmental processes.

Should President Napolitano not be able to mediate between the political forces to create a temporary government able to change the existing electoral law, the country risks having to vote immediately. Sadly, this would probably mean another five years of shocking Berlusconi government (the national polls give him ahead of the any other centre-left option of between 10 and 18 percentage points).

Sadly, this last option needs no further comment.

Steven Walt: Decent Academic, Awful Journalist

Thanks for this lovely piece go, once again, to G. Rachman

The whole question of what makes for interesting reading is the subject of this post - which is provoked not by Moody's, but rather by an outburst from Steve Walt, a Harvard professor. Walt - who has become famous (or infamous) - as the co-author of a critical book on "The Israel Lobby", has written a piece bemoaning the appointment of William Kristol, a prominent neo-con, as a columnist for the "New York Times".

Walt argues that while the neo-cons policy prescriptions have been disastrous (Iraq etc), they continue to be rewarded with prominent newspaper columns. By contrast his own "realist" school of foreign policy analysis has a much better record in the real world. But it has got zero recognition on the op-ed pages.

A realist he writes - "would provide readers with insights that have been largely absent from mainstream discussion for a decade or more. Realism emphasizes that states defend their interests vigorously and that successful diplomacy requires give-and-take; that advancing our own interests often requires us to do business with regimes whose values we find objectionable; that nationalism is a powerful force and most societies resist when outsiders try to tell them how to run their own affairs; that global institutions can be useful tools of statecraft but require great power support to work effectively; and that even well-intentioned democracies sometimes do foolish and cruel things. Most important of all, a realist would emphasize that military force is a blunt and costly instrument whose ultimate effects are unpredictable, and that it should be employed only when vital interests are at stake."

Important ideas - as Walt suggests - so why are there no takers among America's opinion-page editors? Doubtless, there are all sorts of conspiracy theories about this. (Our friend Pacifist will blame the Zionist, neocon ownership of the media, I would guess). But I have a simple explanation. The neocon world view makes for interesting journalism and the realist one doesn't.

Neocons tend to deal in big ideas and sweeping trends - the advance of freedom and democracy, for example. This makes for very readable journalism. I was once advised by an editor that the most successful newspaper columns generally only have one idea in them - and the bigger and bolder the idea the better. Mr Kristol's first column for the New York Times fitted this formula nicely. It was a rollicking read - published just before the New Hampshire primary - which thanked Barack Obama for finishing off the Clinton dynasty and proclaimed confidently - "There will be no Clinton restoration". Oh well, there is always next week.

As for the Realists, they should stop whinging and come to terms with one of the unspoken, unfortunate mottos of journalism - "It doesn't matter if you are right, just be interesting."

Michigan, Wyoming, New Hampshire...

On the US elections I merely wish to quote G. Rachman:

As I was saying, Hillary Clinton is doomed - or possibly Barack Obama is. After Hillary's victory in last night's primary in New Hampshire, I think I may give up making predictions about American politics for 24 hours.

Peace out.

Kenya's elections, African Politics, Democracy and Money

Never again. This simple and oft abused formula seems impossible to apply to the inescapable aberrations of democracy that with clock-like regularity prevent the practice of free and fair elections in Africa. The recent turmoil in Kenya can be cynically explained in simple terms: The incumbent president, unwilling to give up his position of power, rigged the elections to obtain the absolute majority of votes cast. During the counting of the votes it was becoming apparent that the opposition leader, Mr Odinga was overtaking the incumbent, Mr Kibaki. It seemed convenient, therefore, for the latter gentleman to make sure that the outcome of the counting operations would see him victorious. Empowered by a feeling of righteousness and (probably) overestimating his popular legitimacy, Mr Odinga presented himself as the "people's president" of Kenya and demanded a recount as well as Mr Kibaki's resignation.

A conflict between the two political - yet now armed - factions ensued, totalling up to 500 dead.

Kenya ought to have been an example-setting country in Africa as far as political liberties and democracy were concerned. The sad outcome of Kenya's recent experience could spell doom for many countries seeking to move towards more democratic political systems, starting by breaking the solid bond that exists between incumbent leaders and their thrones of power. The most difficult battle in this transition will be that to create a sense of public unity and institutional respect in Kenya and other countries of subsaharan Africa, where those in power perceive their country as some form of private property to be disposed of more or less freely. The relationship between leaders and their country risks to become an exclusively privatistic one, thereby justifying them to "milk" the cash-cow they won on election day for as long as possible.

While this feudal perspective is a lot more widespread amongst power-holding figures wideworld than one would at first imagine (the proof of that is to be found in the abundant corruption 'scandals' of Greece, Italy, but also the UK and the US), in democracies outside Africa it rarely develops into blood shed. For allegedly similar reasons as Mr Odinga's, Mr Berlusconi refused to recognise Mr Prodi as the President of the Council of Ministers for over a month after the 2006 elections in Italy. However, despite Mr Berlusconi's best attempts to stay in office, force a recount and blaze up the masses with his fiery and belligerent speeches to expand his already "immense" popular legitimacy, no conflict followed. No guts were spilled on the streets. This goes to show just how important all the "secondary" institutions are to build the social infrastructure that provides a solid framework for democracy to be safely and rightfully exercised.

Unfortunately, the failure to realise the necessity of erecting a State-of-Law and political liberty before free and fair democratic elections can be meaningfully held is also behind the futile attempts to export democracy that have fuelled much of recent US foreign policy. Without the development of solid and respected institutions to uphold it, the exercise of democracy through the casting of votes is nothing but a dangerous way to spend a sunday morning. On top of that, you have to queue. Elections are only the most externally visible of the institutions that define the democratic organisation of a country - to export elections, as has been successfully done in Iraq, is not to export democracy. The only strategy that foreigners can pursue to promote the spread of democracy is to endorse and fuel the momentum for the development of solid institutions in guarantee of liberty, unity and security to rebuild the lacerated social tissue that characterises many of the poorer societies on the planet. It is necessary to help the development of an independent judiciary, a free and tenacious press, a non corrupt and competent police force and the grass root emergence of honest and pragmatic political parties and movements. And to achieve these conditions one must set up schools, offer some form of social and health care and promote widespread growth in the economy. The key to achieve such long-term reforms lies in the abandonment of clientelistic political tactics and the emergence of a large economic middle-class. But all that we are entitled (and capable) to do is watch, cheer, pray, hope, trade and aid. Unless the political situation spirals out of control, our intervention will always be politically unsanctioned, morally abismal and, effectively, useless.

Iowa elections

Mike Huckabee won the first state's election for the Republican candidacy to the White House. Barack Obama won that for the Democrats.

Does this have any particular significance? Statistically, winning the Iowa caucus does not seem to offer much favour in winning the primaries both on the republican and the democratic side. In fact, given the generally low turn out and high numbers of independent voters, the primaries in Iowa tend to offer remarkably unusual results if compared to nation-wide trends. On the democrat (and more interesting) side Barack Obama, originally from Hawaii, won in a predominantly white state whose main export is corn (Iowa also being known as "the Tall Corn" state). This is doubtlessly a great success for Mr Obama, but should not be interpreted too optimistically as far as the race for candidacy goes.

Both him and Mr Huckabee won because of their passionate oration and moving words. Unfortunately their policy programs did not seem to have occupying the critical forefront of their audiences' minds. Obama managed to swing many of the indipendents his side, as well as many young voters, thousands of which at their first election, thanks to his repeated references to the idea of change - seemingly the cornerstone of his whole campaign. Huckabee, on the other hand, won because of his profound christian faith boosted by his past as a reverend which appealed greatly to the thousands of baptist and born-again christian Iowan voters.

There is also the "momentum building" factor to consider when thinking about the effects of Mr Obama's win over his main opponent Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Even though, as previously mentioned, the Iowa elections are not to be taken as a set trend into which the candidates are inevitably cast, if Mr Obama will go on to win the Michigan primaries on the 8th of this month the two successive victories would probably boost his standing in the polls and go on to influence the independent and undecided voters in the remaining 48 states.

Straying a little bit off topic I point out an excellent article by T. Garton Ash on why Hillary should win the presidency and Obama be her deputy (on today's paper issue of La Repubblica - couldn't find it online).

Moreover, here are a few links to interesting commentaries on this vote and the elections in general.

La Moratoria sulla Pena di Morte e il Ruolo Internazionale dell'Italia

Ieri è stata approvata in seno alla Terza Commissione dell'Assemblea Generale ONU una risoluzione contenente una denuncia sulla pena capitale ed un'esortazione ad applicare una moratoria sulla "giustizia per morte" agli stati che ancora la praticano.

Le ripercussioni in termini strettamente giuridico-internazionali di questa risoluzione sono limitati. Essa non impone nulla agli stati firmatari. Si limita ad esortire gli stati che ancora applicano la pena a cessare tale pratica, o comunque a ridurla e ad assicurare che determinati livelli di dignità (in termini di sanità, diritti civili etc.) vengano assicurati ai detenuti nel braccio della morte.

Ciononostante, questa risoluzione rappresenta un perfetto esempio della così detta Soft Law. Quindi, nonostante sia una risoluzione di natura dichiarativa, essa può avere considerevoli conseguenze procedurali, in termini di come verrà trattata la materia in sede ONU, ma anche sostanziali nel lungo periodo, a seguito di un auspicabile periodo di "solidificazione" o cristallizzazione in termini giurdici e vincolanti di quelle che da ieri sono dichiarazioni ufficiali.

Come scrive il Cassese su La Repubblica di oggi (18/xii/07), questa risoluzione offre

un importante strumento di legittimazione politica (interna) ai numerosi Governi che vorrebbero applicare la moratoria o addirittura abolire la pena di morte (...) Questi Governi potranno ora invocare la risoluzione come autorevolissimo avallo, a livello mondiale, della loro azione a favore della moratoria.

Inoltre, la risoluzioni ha effetti pratici in materia procedurale all'interno dell'ONU:

D'ora in poi la questione della pena capitale è iscritta automaticamente all'ordine del giorno di ogni Assemblea Generale, per essere discussa ogni anno. Dunque, una questione che finora era tabù in seno ai massimi organi dell'ONU, diviene finalmente oggetto "normale" di dibattito politico-diplomatico.

e ancora,

d'ora in poi i vari organi dell'ONU sono automaticamente autorizzati a "lavorare" ed operare su questo tema (corsivo aggiunto).

E' chiaro che sono proprio questi gli effetti più significativi della moratoria. E' prevedibile (oltre che auspicabile) che essi avranno conseguenze significative nel lungo periodo, in virtù della possibilità messa in atto dalla risoluzione di esercitare una pressione diplomatica, politica ed istituzionale automatica, considerevole e per il tramite delle Nazioni Unite.

Ma, a mio avviso, una questione di altissimo rilievo, e che non è stata considerata approfonditamente nella carta stampata italiana di oggi è la questione relativa al ruolo dell'Italia nell'ONU, ed in politica internazionale in generale.

Cassese termina il suo articolo scrivendo che:

Questo successo della nostra diplomazia dimostra anche che per una media Potenza come l'Italia, c'è uno spazio importante in politica estera in cui affermarsi. E' uno spazio che si colloca non nel campo militare, strategico o geopolitico, ma piuttosto in quello della difesa di valori universali, e della promozione tenace dell'Europa come forte attore ed interlocutore politico

L'Italia è una media potenza? Dal punto di vista effettivo materiale, non lo sembra affatto. Difatti il Cassese qualifica questa affermazione dicendo che l'Italia si afferma come media potenza per la "difesa di valori universali" e della "promozione tenace dell'Europa". Io non posso non essere d'accordo con il Cassese su questo punto. L'Italia non può essere una potenza militare per ragioni sia storiche che materiali (economiche, in primis). Deve quindi concentrarsi sulla diffusione di valori, e sull'operatività dell'Europa in campo internazionale.

Ma, i valori che difende l'Italia non sono universali (nel senso che non sono universalmente condivisi), se lo fossero non necessiterebbero della difesa di nessuno. In effetti, dato che valori di importo veramente universale non esistono, l'Italia deve concentrarsi sulla promozione di quelli che sono i valori fondamentali da lei sposati. Riuscendo ad ottenere un ruolo di primazia nella diffusione e protezione di questi valori, l'Italia non solo creerebbe una nicchia operativa in cui poter esercitare il suo vantaggio comparato (data la nostra storia, in campo culturale e di valori non si può negare l'esistenza di tale vantaggio), ma potrebbe anche operare in maniera positiva verso l'arricchimento normativo e l'evoluzione sostanziale della comunità internazionale. In essenza: farebbe bene a noi, designandoci come "(tra i) leader dei valori della comunità internazionale" e farebbe bene alla comunità internazionale, che manca di valori veramente condivisi.

Anche a livello Europeo, l'Italia deve trovare la sua nicchia di specializzazione e svilupparla per poi portarla al centro della dimensione estera della politica comunitaria. L'Europa è senza dubbio una potenza normativa considerevole, forse la fonte dei valori più condivisi al mondo - sia sociali sia liberali. Se l'Italia riuscisse a porsi come fulcro di questo genere di azione comunitaria, ed a catalizzarla, potrebbe trovare nell'UE il veicolo tramite cui svolgere un ruolo davvero fondamentale nell'evoluzione della comunità internazionale, in particolare nei suoi aspetti giuridici e solidali. Così facendo, non solo aumenterebbe l'influenza positiva dell'Unione stessa nella sua politica estera, ma si riuscirebbe anche a dettare dei principi guida a cui si ispirerebbe l'intera opera internazionale dell'UE.

Dobbiamo trovare e sviluppare le nostre nicchie sia in ambito internazionale che in ambito comunitario. Per fare ciò dobbiamo essere coscenti di quali sono i nostri strumenti e di quali sono le nostre materie di forza. Se l'Italia decidesse considerare la sua storia, e se gli italiani di decidessero ad alzare lo sguardo per occuparsi di politica internazionale oltre che di cronaca metropolitana, allora l'Italia potrebbe riuscire ad occupare il ruolo di promotore normativo, culturale e di valori che le spetta.

The State: Constitutive Elements

It is sometimes argued that the constitutive elements of a State are i) its population, ii) its territory, and iii) its organisation of government.

The first two seem aptly straight forward, a population and a territory. The last criterion makes sense if we understand it widely enough, possibly borrowing from Max Weber's definition of an organisation with the "monopoly over the legitimate use of violence" (in Politik als Beruf, which you can find here)

Now, while I contend that this definition may satisfy a student of domestic law, of public administration, of political theory even, it cannot possibly be deemed elegant enough by an International Relations Dudi (as I like to call myself). The magic word, with which those other dudis like myself entertain a love-HATE relationship, is missing. The State must be Sovereign.

Weber's definition captures internal sovereignty particularly well, but does nothing for the external dimension of sovereignty.

Some excessively "social-constructivists" may believe that the external recognition of an entity that is able to exercise control over a piece of land inhabited by some unlucky folk is enough to call that entity a State. I disagree for two reasons:

One: If Kosovo were to declare its independence from Serbia tomorrow and the Americans would recognise it as independent but the Russians wouldn't what would Kosovo be? The problems that follow from such a question are enough to convince me that acts of recognition are not constitutive of statehood.

Two: in answer to "One:" we could say that Kosovo's status would be dubious and conflicted (literally) for a while. But if it did manage to maintain its independence, then the recognition of it by all States would only be a matter of time. This is what we saw with the problem of the "two Chinas" and in many other places. It puts the spotlight back where it is supposed to be: on the reality of the situation that exist on the ground. An act of recognition notes a situation that already exists. It is declaratory, not constitive. (NB - I do not deny that 'social' features influence greatly the evolution of 'material' ones, but they cannot on their own constitutive a 'material' situation - I used to be a Wendtian, now I'm a Popperian, I believe in the existence of three worlds that are superimposed and interdependent on one another).

This rules out the recognition as the only constitutive element of a State. So what about our first three candidates? Are they still running for it? Yes... and no.

If we accept that "a territory, a population and an organisation of government capable of controlling the population in the territory" as the list of the constitutive elements of a State, we are admitting that China is more of a State than Italy (or anyone else for that matter). This is because it has a bigger territory, a more numerous population and its government is more authoritarian - thus capable of exerting more control. Such a statement is clearly ridiculous, as it is ridiculous to believe that Italy became less of a state after WWI because it lost some territories, including important cities, to Slovenia.

So what are the constitutive elements of a State?

I don't really know. Discussions such as that above bring us closer to the mark though. It must be remembered that States are a relatively recent mode of organisation in which the human race has divided itself politically. WE used to live in tribes, city-states, empires and only since about 500 years (for the luckier ones of us) do we live in states. Moreover states are constantly evolving making their most distinctive elements in one period (see the importance of absolute sovereignty in the "liberal" state of the nineteenth century) may be steadily fading away in the next (see current evolutions in "postmodern" Europe).

What has been said above may help us describe a state, but statehood, because of its malleability, may be a forever elusive concept.

PS - And we should recognise Somaliland as a State - at least for this.

il viaggiatore

Si viaggia per soli due motivi. O si viaggia per scoprire il mondo, o si viaggia per cambiarlo. Tutto il resto è una vacanza.

figli del nostro tempo

Hegel scriveva che non si può eludere lo spirito del tempo. Non perché ci è attorno, negli istituti sociali, culturali e linguistici in cui viviamo e dalla quale non ci si può scindere. Non lo si può eludere, lo spirito del tempo, il nostro zeitgeist, perché lui è noi. E' composto da noi ma è lui stesso che ci costituisce, in un rapporto tra l'essere umano e lo zeitgeist che echeggia allo structurationism di Bashkar e Giddens. Noi e Lui siamo reciprocamente co-determinati. Ed è per questo che lo spirito del tempo è la barriera più solida tra noi e il conscio cambiamento, ma al tempo stesso è il riflesso più preciso ed esatto dello stato della nostra cosa pubblica, sociale, culturale e linguistica.

Quindi, noi chi siamo?

Per capirlo bisogna guardare a noi stessi, agli "altri noi" - coloro che sono tra di noi ma non sono come noi (parole di Frankie-Hi-NRG), ma bisogna anche tenere un occhio vigilie sullo zeitgeist, appunto, sia come riflesso di noi come gruppo sociale, sia come limite oggettivo a ciò che siamo ed al nostro potenziale.

Noi siamo precari, scopiamo poco, e passiamo troppo tempo in macchina. Noi muoriamo sul lavoro e sviluppiamo miti d'oltre oceano. Noi votiamo da una parte, e ci ritroviamo con l'altra, sempre, indipendentemente da chi ha vinto le elezioni. Noi mangiamo in 4 con 850 euro al mese, siamo in lizza per una casa popolare da sedici anni ma che non arriva mai, e tra un pò preferiamo chiederla alla mafia invece che allo stato. E saremo beati solo se saremo timorosi.

Noi andiamo a tutti cocco-party ad arcore, indaghiamo come Derrick e Corona e siamo ammanicati con interessi più potenti dei nostri. Viviamo con veline, cartoncine, paperine, cartoline, botoline in sala da pranzo ma non ci faremo mai un cazzo. Siamo immigrati lavavetri e supersindaci-sceriffo. A noi ci mandano a casa con un calcio in culo quando vogliono, non ci daranno mai un mutuo, mai i contributi decenti, mai un prestito di poche centinaia di euro in banca, e tutto questo perché siamo ancora precari. Ed è per questo che noi siamo anche strozzini, papponi, parlamentari e populisti demagoghi.

La nostra politica è tutto, ma non serve a un cazzo. Siamo liberali, ma anche rossi. Siamo Cattolici, ma anche separazionisti. Siamo tutto, ma senza sapere niente di niente. Confondiamo lo stato di diritto con il diritto dello stato. Ci prendiamo una sbronza il sabato sera e avendo una vera ragione per stare di merda la domenica sbrattiamo davvero, ma siamo anche felici davvero.

Il nostro è uno zeitgeist costituito in maniera obliqua, indisciplinato, deciso nel suo stato confusionale. E' il sintomo di tempi strani, dove tutte le grandi battaglie del passato sono state vinto con l'avvento della modernità e della ricchezza, ma nel mentre ci siamo giocati l'identità e la nostra società si è smembrata. In questo smembramento si sono venute a creare così molte fratture in cui si ripercorrono le stesse battaglie che pensavamo di aver vinto nel secondo dopo guerra se non prima, ma si ripropongono in maniera diffusa ed imprecisa. Non sappiamo più quali sono i veri interessi di parte da sbarellare, i veri combattenti di opposta fazione, perchè lo scontro troppo spesso è ovunque, permea la città italiana come una nebbiolina del cazzo, senza dare divise rosse e nere a due gruppi opposti, nel rispetto di un ideale-guida. Oramai non siamo più rossi o neri, abbiamo tutti indosso una divisa marroncina... chì un pò più nera, chi un pò più rossa... ma tutti comunque marroncina.

La verità è che anche se non si riesce a capire chi siamo in maniera definitiva, se non si riesce a paragonarsi in maniera calzante alle epoche passate, non è perché siamo più confusi, o più divisi oppure più in difficoltà ora che in passato. Non è poi così vero che “si stava meglio quando si stava peggio”. E' semplicemente perché la realtà è così, mista e confusa, invece la storia la scrivono gli storici vincitori di questi scontri sociali endemici dello zeitgeist e scrivendola la sua immagine perde colore, chine, tono e profondità diventando semi-stilizzata, quindi apparentemente più unitaria e precisa. Ironicamente questo processo di creazione della storia è in se un artificio che proprio tramite la semplicità mistifica la realtà. Noi non potremo mai accedere alla verità sul nostro zeitgeist corrente, poiché nessuno può eludere lo zeitgeist, nessuno può viverne al di fuori. E di fronte a tale incapacità di fare autocritica l'unica conclusione univocabilmente traibile è che nel nostro spirito del tempo troppo spesso viene a mancare il tempo per lo spirito.

The Democratic Party

Il Partito Democratico

We expect it to be strong, flexible, left wing but reformist, social but dynamic, modern and progressive, insensitive to the ethical blackmails that old Christian Democrats believe they have a right to throw at us.



It must be left-wing

Many observers say there is a right wing wind sweeping across the continent. There is Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany, Brown in England - who strikes nobody as being even merely left-leaning - the revival of a racist party in Switzerland. Austria has been dominated by its conservative people's party since the end of WWII, in Greece Karamanlis holds high the banner of right-wing conservatism. Rasmussen in Denmark heads a liberal-conservative coalition and the Dutch pm, Balkenende, is the head of the Christian Democratic Alliance. Not to mention the former soviet republics, who have knocked down - albeit for obvious historical reasons - the left side of their political spectrum together with the Berlin Wall. The only pleasant exception is Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who leads Spain with a modern and progressive yet socially aware party, that is able to maintain a steady and rampant rate of economic growth.

It must be progressive

The European Left used to be the modernist, secular, progressive balance against the conservative, Christian, traditional Right wing. This depiction doesn't hold any longer. The right has reinvented itself in economic rather than political terms, becoming the home of laissez-faire, the guardian of the rules in which strenuous competition amongst big and small firms alike can exist. It has become the political faction of dynamic production, low taxes and the invisible hand. The Left, by contrast, has become the fractioned, old fashioned domain that embodies a forlorn and faulty post-communist tradition. The solution to this problem is not a "liberal-isation" of the left to bring it towards the centre. Nor should it be a reformulation of Blair's and Schroeder's "third way". It must achieve social ends by restructuring the incentives present in markets away from that of exclusive profit-making to encompass community centred solutions.

It must be strong

It must stand alone, it must not be threatened by microparties that are over-represented in parliament, as is the case with the current electoral law in Italy. It must be a giant with solid feet and deep roots. It must have a strong leader with dynamic intrapersonal and mediation skills. He must be able to kickstart a process of reinvention for the European left and bring Italy to cover a more significant role in international affairs as a fountainhead of cultural and social values. Essential to this is that it spearheads a strong and egalitarian regional European policy for southern immigration. It must represent the politics of people, not of ideology, for ideology is nothing but a fancy form of bigotry. Ideology must merely inform the general principles to whichits practical politics ought to make implicit reference. Any attempt to follow an ideologically determined plan will crash against the wall of people's pragmatic political necessities.

Must it be democratic?

Well, yes, that would be good. For the sake of coherence if nothing else.

Big Brother Berlusconi

Yesterday, an Italian newspaper (La Repubblica) discovered that in the period between 2004-05 the two major (and only) italian broadcasting companies were coordinating their programs rather than savagely competing to offer us lazy tv-watchers better services at reduced prices.

For now, nothing too surprizing there.

During that period Berlusconi was Prime Minister for Italy. Phone calls between the top directors in Berlusconi's private broadcasting company (Mediast) and those in the public company (Rai - the Italian bad copy of the BBC) were organising when to have publicity breaks during the coverage of Pope John Paul II's death, had agreed to "soften" the results of the 2005 administrative elections (where Berlusconi lost in 15 out of 20 italian regions), the public directors reassured those of Mediaset that they would leave controversial and contentious opinions and events at the end of every news broadcast and that, during the campaining period prior to the elections they would "mention the Doctor as often as possible" (the Doctor being the code name for Berlusconi).

Now that is worse.

In a normal country, he not only would not be allowed to held a political position because of his immense private interests in the fields publishing, newspapers, television, radios (and a lousy football team), he would not be allowed to detain such high portions of the market in these industries!! The televisions cartel - because that is clearly what exists in Italy - is an obvious and well known case, but not many know that something like 8/10 books published in Italy are somehow reconducible to the publishing house "Mondadori" - another one of Berlusconi's toys...

I only hope for someone to write and pass a decent conflict of interest law in Italy and prevent that man from doing further political damage.

unfolding crisis in pakistan

An excellent exampls of "soft", incentive driven diplomacy. Given Pervez's Pakistan was not a member of the commonwealth for 6 of the past 8 years i fear it may not prove to be such a successful move.

One interesting question: In Wendt's now antiquated models of social learning in IR with our good friends "Alter" and "Ego", would a revolution (or political and social upheaval such as Pakistan's) in Alter be tantamount to him going crazy and not being able to respond to simple stimuli and establish a pattern of action with Ego?

Update Pakistan

it seems that Pervez is targetting his arrests in a more precise fashion than he was in the beginning of the month. Despite these releases Pakistan is more of a dictatorship now than it ever was in the past. He is targetting journalists in Karachi, a standard move to curb opponents' enthusiasm, cover his bloody hands and make people forget what happened by thinking only about what he says (now that means elections, allegedly, on the 8/1/2008). Let's also not forget his more-than-petty squabbles with Pakistan's judiciary (which proved itself to be more independent than I would have expected).

One must think however, what is Pakistan's alternative to Pervez? Is it Benazir? She does not have a particularly clean record herself. On top of that it is necessary to also consider that there is still a lot of this going on in the background. In light of which I ask again, what is Pakistan's alternative to Pervez?

Blog, to avoid paralysis

To avoid the paralysis of pretending too much or too little. I do not pretend to know, I do not pretend to deserve anything above what is due to me as a human. The only right one can pretend to have is that of keeping one's dignity. To be less-than-human, to lose one's dignity is below death. Death is a part of life as a human, as a mortal. To lose one's dignity is to lose one's life, to step out of it, not to finish it with life's last action, to finish it with death.

Blog, to avoid the paralysis of pretending too much, of pretending too little.

a word on Pakistan

Events in pakistan have recently become common knowledge for unfortunate reasons. The inconstitutional and violent attempt of general Pervez Musharraf to stay in power as head of the armed forces by declaring a state of emergency in the country, by replacing the top judge of the supreme court, by relegating Benazir Bhutto to house arrests has echoes of the events that brought him to power in 1999, only this time it seems like he is staging a coup against himself, as a mere excuse to suspend the state of legality and order in the country to let might be right.

His excuse - and to what extent it is a good one I cannot say - is the danger that is posed by islamic militant fundamentalists. While this is a reality that cannot be ignored in the highlands of northern pakistan in particular in the Peshawar region, it is far from true as a description of the southern areas, Karachi in particular.

These events do not come unannouced. During the summer there has been mounting pressure on Musharraf to forego his leadership over the armed forces so as to be able to seek another lawful term in office as president of the country. Resenting this move, Musharraf has been seeking an alternative throughout this period by, for example, substituting a number of supreme court judges - event which lead to the lawyers' strike and peaceful yet bloody protests earlier this autumn.

While I have not yet found any reliable non-maistream information the present confrontations, it would be good to hear/read testimonials from locals or foreigners on the field. To this purpose I ask you readers to post comments with links that could supplant such a need.

Finally, I wonder what the end of this issue will see. Musharraf has not been a despicable leader of pakistan. He has sought to align the country with western, not only US, foreign policy objectives and methods, he has effectively treid to keep a spreading fundamentalism at bay, he has progressed in relations with India, particularly over their nuclear stalemeate and the Kashmir dispute. However, he is not a democratically elected leader. The right with which he occupies his seat of power is the product of his own doing: he took it by force in 1999 usurping what may have been a badly corrupted and incapable goverment. Whatever good he may have done, he was never invested with the capability to legitimately do it by the sovereign people of Pakistan. Ideally, the situation whould resolve itself with Musharraf resigning from his role as Military General, and the institution of free and fair elections between him, Benazir Bhutto and Nawal Sharif (I know not his history and am not aware as to whether he is eligible from both a legal and practical-ethical point of view). The risk here is that Musharraf will have to forego his position as leader of the military and risk, as is very likely, to lose the elections to Benazir. What could end up happening is the institution of a power-sharing agreement between Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf after a set of unfree and unfair elections whose result will be disputed by most if not all candidates. This may not even end up being such a bad idea.

The last possibility is for Pervez not to give up his position as leader of the armed forces or prime minister, for him to re-instate control over the country by force through further restrictions of civil liberties and constitutional guarantees, through a further forceful intromission into the judiciary's operations and the reinstitution of a state of emergency maintained and controlled by means of martial law. It is needless to say that this is the worse solution, both for the short term, in which Pakistanis will be stripped of their rights and liberties if not many of their lives, and for the long term, in which the government will lose control at first of the peripheries to fundamentalist forces operating in Afghanistan, and at the same time lose its strategic spot under as an ally of the US.

My opinions on this issue about which I care very much are sadly ill-formed. I hope to find interesting and instructive comments to this post from which I can learn. Add links too.

To realise the value something through its absence

I did not think I would be saying this, but bloody hell do I miss LSE! The university I am studying in at the moment is just not serious. today there was a test in class - I felt like I was in grade 9 for how ridiculously people behaved. Copying attemtps, whisperings of answers, multiple choice questions, invigilators reprimanding students, not a moment of silence for an hour straight.

Depper dynamics were a little more interesting if anything, albeit just as ridiculous if not more. The 12 "assistants" competing for who got to speak on the mic and slyly fighintg over which proteges to take under their wing. Every single one of these neo-doctorates would pace along the class room tell copying students to shut up or leave and then interrupting others intent in writing (well, ticking the coreect boxes actually) to ask whether everwas alright with them and if they had any questions.

All of this while an angry dude outside was shouting accusations and threats through a megaphone against a number of professors who failed him at his doctorate exam. This guy looks like he is 50ish...

I should stop moaning and do myutmost to get the hell out of the italian education system - trying to keep my dignity throughout.

New Computer Screen

Even the purchase of a simple computer screen has many different sides it can be seen and understood from. This goes to show that things, actions, events, and situations have no inherent meaning. Words are all there is.

The Specs
nineteen inches, flatscreen, no catodic tube, ten-twentyfour by ten-sixtyeight pixel resolution, Acer AL one nine zero six, four by three dimensions.

The Value
primarily material, there is no doubt about that, but serves crucially as a means (when complemented by other such material means) through which to express oneself and read others' expressions. In other words, deontologically speaking it has little value. Consequentially, it is potentially invaluable.

The Use
Purely instrumental, as stated above. Exactly the same use as a piece of paper, a blank piece of paper.

The Price
Round, but not because of that honest. Two-hundred euros.

So now I stare at that rather than at blank paper. One bloody expensive notepad.

untimely interruption of postings

A cause du fact que l'écran de mon ordinateur s'est cassé, je sera impossibilité de ecrir sur mon blog.

Per via della rottura dello schermo del mio computer non potrò pubblicare post per un pochettino.

I will be unable to publish on this blog for a short while due to my computer screen having recently broken.

Morality and an Exit Strategy from Iraq

An interesting debate on what should be the exit strategy from Iraq, or whether there should be one

it is a debate chaired by Trudy Rubin, between Michael Walzer, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Sohail Hashmi and Gerard Power.

Being Kurdish: between the US, Turkey and Iraq

Congress passed a bill recognising the Armenian genocide undertaken by the Ottoman empire. Turkey's parliament authorised a military move in Iraqi Kurdistan to suppress the PKK's (Kurdish Worker's Party) activities in Northern Iraq.

These events are clearly interwoven (co-dependent, should one be inclined to speak in pseudo-scientific jargon). To unbalance and create squabble in the only area of Iraq that could lend a semblance of success (or at least not catastrophic disaster) to the liberation of IRaq from Saddam's regime is, obviously, against the US interest. Turkey, who objectively does have a problem with the Kurdish separatist wing that operates violently from northern Iraq, was hoping that the US would take care of the PKK, a hope gone unfulfilled.

The Iraqi Kurds are doing moderately well. Even though the area has no access to the sea and a limping economy at best, it seems stable and able to recollect and organise its largely homogenous population into a state that, in the long run, could reasonably achieve self-determination. The problem with secession is that along the potential borders of such a state lies oil, particularly in the soil under Kirkuk. Kirkuk is also a point of territorial contention because of its dishomogenous population.

Iraqi Kurdistan ought to be an independent country, not quite now, but within the next 20 years or so. To do so it ought to try and keep the lowest profile possible, mediate cautiously with Baghdad so as to achieve not unfavourable conditions of peaceful secession and time will do the rest. The American, Armenian and Turkish meddlings with the destiny of this old population's soon-to-be new nation will not help Kurdistan achieve independence.

Burma is Red

It seems like the people, seculars and religious alike, have clearly had enough of the stifling military junta in Burma (Myanmar). A lot has been on the news recently, more than I could ever tell anyone in a blogpost, but I still feel something must be written, if only to clarify the messy information we have been getting in the past 10 days. I will try and list the more important insights and turns of events that have been occurring. In the meantime, I would also like to point you towards a link that I added today, the best source I have found to follow what has been happening in Burma given the recent prohibition of internet access from within the country.

Monks protesting against the Junta first descended onto the streets of Rangoon on the 20th of September. They soon attracted the help of civilians who joined the march. The groups in which these monks march around the city of Rangoon are organised according to their "home temple". They march from and to Pagodas, sacred temples, and have rendez-vous there. This protest, spearheaded by the monks, while against the regime is of a very religious nature. The monks chant sutras about peace and love and solidarity. Their conviction is that the message of peace of the Buddah will overrule evil in Burma.

The big absentee from the street protests is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, nobel peace prize winner and long standing founder and leader of the National League for Democracy, a human rights, democratic party in Burma funded by Aung San in 1988, after the massacre that quelled a pro-democratic demonstration much like the one we are witnessing now. She won national elections in 1991 but because of the military coup d'Etat that followed never actually made it into office. She has been under strict house arrest for the past 12 years.

Ibrahim Gambari, the UN envoy that arrived yesterday, 29th sept, in Burma requested and, achieved a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. He has since met her and the chief of the military Junta, General Than Shwe in more than one occasion. The relevance of the UN special envoy heartily seeking a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi is remarkable, indicating already now that the international community supports her and considers a legitimate opposition leader with prospects for someday leading the country.

The actions of the Junta have been progressively geting more violent and repressive and have come to include notorious acts of violence that have brought about the death of at least one foreign national (a japanese reporter), a dozen confirmed civilian deaths - but with all likelyhood many more - and widespred arrests and unsanctioned detentions of protesters and monks alike.

The regime seeks to quell the protest also by cutting it off from the outside world, so as to isolate it from much important support which could give it material aid as well as political legitimacy and which could also lead other countries to take action against the regime. The Junta has done so, in my opinion very effctively, by cutting off internet access, imprisoning the already scattered and intellectual opposition in the country and, as we have seen, by targetting the Burmese corrispondents of foreign media.

While this may help prevent any action from third countries to intervene in the Brumese protests, the vetoes of China and Russia in the UNSC also impede the international community from significantly aiding the oppressed. China and India have significant economic interests with Burma's Junta - thus wish for them to remain in power. Russia goes at great lenghts to frame the issue as one that pertains exclusively to Burma's domestic administration and one which does not put at any risk international peace and security. It does so to prevent from setting a precedent which might work against its interests with its own secessionist republics.

In recent days the protests onthe ground seem to have quelled. The Junta seems to be slowly giving into the pressure it has been subjected to both from within the country and by foreign actors. However, they still hold control over people's daily lives in Rangoon and elsewhere. The fact that the confrontations on the ground have eased a little is also apparent from the junta's decision to re-establish internet access from within Burma, but only during night time.

The visit of Ibrahim Gambari has sent a strong message from the international community to begin a process of national reconciliation. It appears that this process may be starting sooner than many maintain. General Than Shwe is set to meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and begin a dialogue which should improve the situation in Burma and shift power away from its current exclusive locus amongst high ranking armed forces officials.

What will happen is hard to tell. The information we get from inside Burma is scattered and imprecise. There is no way for external observers to effectively keep a finger on Burma's pulse. It is virtually impossible for us to understand in large detail how the Burmese feel about these recent events and what their inclinations for a post-crisis Burmese government would be. However, some things are clear. Some impressions we get are apparent - and correct. It would be more of a mistake at this stage for foreigners to refrain from commenting on Burma's condition - even without a full appreciation of it - than not to denounce the atrocious crimes that have befallen the Burmese for the past 20 years.

What is important to keep in mind is that 1) countries are sovereign - and the events in Burma do not sanction foreign intervention for the safeguard of international peace and security; 2) the solution to Burma's present crisis will involve the political appeasement of China, India and, more easily, Russia. While I am of the impression that a corecive form of foreign intervention would be a huge mistake - for a genuine process of national reconciliation a people must become united through in their struggle for liberation, in their "appeal to heaven" - I also believe that the much proffered Western will to impose sanctions on the military regime would not produce any positive results. The limits of economic sanctions are notorious and the ease with which some governments are willing to press that trigger is, to say the least, disconcerting. Burma, an already virtually autistic country in its international relations, and its afflicted populace need as much intellectual and moral support as the international community could possibly offer them. To sanction them into further isolation may well clean our consciences, but it will only damage the prospects for the successful development of Burma's popular struggle (see also Gideon Rachman's opinion on this). My last piece of advise, to those of you who have read thus far, is to read about, discuss and constantly support Burma's cause.

Back in Rome

I have left the United Kingdom and moved back to Rome today. Things are strange, I feel a little lost. But such, I suppose, is inevitable. I left a truly loved one behind, without really knowing when I will see her again. I have left numerous good friends I have made in four years in this wet country. I have finished my time in a wonderful academic institution which has pressed me to hitherto unreached extents, and am about to join an intellectually mediocre and administratively hellish new university. I left the freedom of living alone and have moved back to the domestic nest to live in with my sicilian father. As I said, things are strange, and I feel like a stranger amongst them. But such is life, a succession of endings and beginnings with peaks and troughs in the middle through which one must plough and shine.

Whenever I come back to Rome for a few days I am still a foreigner, and I love it. Still immersed in a non-Italian mindset I have a small window of time in which to observe and marvel at the quirks that make Italians, and Romans in particular, fascinating and annoying people. And the country a riddle of paradoxes, desperation and poetic beauty. And only with the midset of a foreigner are these aspects of life in Rome clearly visible to me. But what to do after these few days have passed?

Friends, come visit me and do not let me fade into italianness - a pit that many fail to drag themselves out of.

Dissertation, ex post facto - Conclusion

Concluding: The Society of States where Politics meets Law

This examination has been divided into three parts and has come to three main conclusions about the relationship between obligation, international law and international society. While these three conclusions may be listed as distinct claims, they profusely interpenetrate and necessarily imply one another. The first section of this paper has demonstrated, both analytically and historically, that the international legal system, while centred on consent, necessarily rests on the acceptance of the extra-consensual norms of pacta sunt servanda and the legality of custom. The implication of this is that states themselves are inevitably constituted as international legal persons with a sense of international legal obligation and whose cognitive framework is provided by international law.

The second section of the paper has argued that the norm of pacta sunt servanda is constitutive of international society. Normal international action amongst members of international society is defined in accordance with pacta sunt servanda, as well as with other norms such as sovereignty and its corollary of non-intervention. It is significant that for actions in defiance of these constitutive norms an apology is generally proffered, showing that recognition of these norms as constitutive of international society is virtually unanimous.

The argument that international law serves as a common cognitive structure, or language, between states, because its validity is accepted through the internalisation of pacta sunt servanda and the legality of custom, was developed in the second and third sections of the paper. By virtue of this, it has been argued, that shared meanings amongst the members of international society can be established and international action can be interpreted. Because all states are constituted as legal, as well as political, subjects, through the ‘language’ of international law they are able to consciously recognise certain common interests in the basic goals of international order, and develop the norms and institutions that constitute contemporary international politics as an international society.

The third part of this paper has engaged critically with the role of international law in Hedley Bull’s notion of international society. It has not done so to uncover the faults of his account of international law; on the contrary, I have attempted to reinterpret the idea of international society in a more self-consciously constructivist fashion, to adapt it to the present international political context. My attempt to render the ideas behind it more applicable to the present must be understood as a restatement of the value and usefulness of Bull’s notion of international society and an attempt to adapt it to the current condition of international politics. In accordance with Hurrell’s claim that “Bull’s work on international society continues to provide a rich source of insights which are not fully encapsulated in the dominant strands of international relations theory” (2000, 66), I have attempted to develop Bull’s insight into the role of international law as an institution of international society by relaxing his unstated rationalist assumptions about the relationship between politics and law.

The recognition that international law constitutes international society by operating as a universal language through which states interpret international actions has emerged from the questioning of the anti-thetical relationship presumed to exist between international politics and law. As was argued in the final section of this paper, by expanding the perception of international law beyond the legal positivist and realist paradigms, one is able to see international law and politics as complementary practices. From this perspective, contemporary international relations is revealed as a society-specific politics articulated and interpreted through the common language of international law

Dissertation, ex post facto - Introduction

Some friends have expressed an interest in my dissertation and I have decided to post the introduction and the conclusion on this blog so that you readers may get a taste as to the general argument and, should you be so minded, you could drop me an email to ask for a copy. I'd be delighted to send it.



Title: An examination of the relationship between obligation, international law and international society.

Introduction

The most widely accepted view of the international legal system is the positivist account of a consent-based system of law. This understanding often leads International Relations (IR) scholars to the perception that the main task of international law is to create order between self-interested, sovereign states in an anarchical environment, thus making international law a largely epiphenomenal concern for IR. Because of its perceived ineffectiveness at limiting state behaviour, given the primacy of state survival and the cardinal rule of sovereignty, international law is denied any meaningful relevance in international politics (Kegley and Wittkopf, 2001, 598; overview Koh, 1997). This perception results from the construal of law and politics as distinct, even opposing, endeavours that underwrites traditional understandings of international relations. Despite being one of the few scholars to consider the role of international law in the establishment of order, Hedley Bull adopted this view of international law. He regarded it as a secondary institution of international society, indicating that because of its unenforceability, it would have to be subordinated to the more power-political institutions of international society, without which “the ‘softer’ elements of international order (international law, international organisations, the existence of shared values) would be so many castles in the air” (Hurrell, 2002, viii).

By adopting this perspective, not only is an analyst of international politics disinclined to pay international law much heed, but the alternative functions played by international law, such as the provision of a common cognitive Gestalt, or lingua franca, amongst members of international society will be overlooked. Attempting to shed light on this function of international law, the aim of this paper will be to investigate the nature of international legal obligation and the constitutive role of international law in international society. In doing so I attempt to build on Bull’s work and counter “the tendency of political scientists to […] downplay the importance of the international legal system” (Alderson and Hurrell, 2000, 67). My analysis of international law as the common Gestalt that allows the emergence of today’s global international society rests on a much needed re-articulation of the perceived tensions between international politics and law, seeing the two as complementary rather than anti-thetical social processes.

The first part of this paper it will argue that the contemporary consent-based international legal system necessarily relies on the acceptance of extra-consensual norms that allow international laws to generate obligation in states. An analysis of the affirmation of European states’ sovereignty and internalisation of the norm of pacta sunt servanda, enunciating that states have an obligation to fulfil the treaties they consent to, during the colonial period will follow. It will be concluded that European states emerged from this period simultaneously as sovereign entities, subjects of international law and members of international society.

The second part will outline the constructivist notions necessary to analyse the roles of obligation and international law in international society. It will show that the central norm generating obligation to international law, pacta sunt servanda, is constitutive of international society because it defines a central feature of normal interaction between members of international society and establishes treaties as generative of obligations, hence as a source of law. Furthermore, by internalising this norm, thus accepting the construct of international law, states established a common Gestalt, or language, between them, in which meaning-full international relations can be undertaken. By virtue of the fact that international law operates as the common ‘language’ through which members of international society engage in political relations, today’s international sphere can be described as a society rather than a mere system.

The final part of this paper will measure my understanding of obligation and international law against Bull’s traditional conception of obligation and international law in international society. By adopting a rationalist or legal positivist understanding of international legal obligation and of the role of international law in contemporary international society, Bull is forced to give pride of place to the power-political institutions of international society, thereby reinforcing the false dichotomy between politics and law at the international level. Revisiting these assumptions I hope to demonstrate that by accepting the complementary relationship between international politics and law, the possibility of conceiving contemporary international relations as societal relations – articulated through common language of international law – becomes apparent.

Dissertation Update 5 - Dedication

It's done. And I only have 2 regrets about the whole thing. The first, in reverse order of importance, is that I did not find a suitable epigraph with which to begin the thesis. I would've liked to host some more distinct author than I, possible one not related to my field, to populate the first few inches of my dissertation with some wisdom and/or wit. The second, far greater regret I have is not to have been able to add a dedication to it. As such, I would like to make one here, no matter how common it may sound:

This modest work has benefited from the discussions I had about it with many friends and colleagues. In particular, I thank my parents and brother, Rosa, Ugo e Franci, whose encouragement was never taken for granted. Most of all, this thesis is dedicated to Sarah Leyla, who unknowingly shaped it more than anyone else, and without whom it would never have reached the elusive standards of academic decency. The usual caveat applies.

Quotes

Here's a number of quotes I collected on a "social network" website which I have developed a sense of repugnance towards (perhaps too strong there, lets say profound mistrust). More on such a diabolic device soon, I promise. The quotes below have been by and large listed in according to my preference.

Hemingway leads the table purely because I envy his beard, the 'cry of the partisan' closely follows the master but for radically different reasons. Coetzee climbs the lowest step on the podium for highly deserved aesthetic reasons, the same ones for which Deleuze tags along at a short distance (Gilles just doesn't have the same impact when divorced from Felix Guattari). Stefano, a young boy to be kept an eye on for I believe there is some fabulous potential in him, cannot be relegated below the fifth position. Butch and the Kid remain firmly in the top bunch, slightly - only slightly - above Michael Walzer, a man who's work I have had the pleasure to study and whose words I have had the honour to listen to at the Euston Manifesto conference. I must admit I found Walzer's verba incongruent with his scripta, which impedes him fro topping a meagre mid-table performance. The following three quotes had to be added for personal and rhetoric value, albeit they have proven to be tremendously suited for such a large number of occasions that I quote these fellows on an almost daily basis (yes, including Hart's and Negri's. You'll be surprised). Profound apologies for Prof Brown, whose work is significantly more valuable (and fashionable) than the quote I chose. Even deeper apologies go to Prof Buzan, whose genial and cryptic mind surely does not need the scant exhibition that this god-forsaken corner of the web has to offer. As for Mr Twain... stick to kid's books, will you?

I am open to suggestions and/or discussion as to which one, or more, of these quotes should be top of the table.


"The way to hunt is for as long as you live against as long as there is you and colors and canvas, and to write as long as you can live as long as there is pencil and paper and ink or any machine to do it with, or anything you care to write about, and you feel a fool, and you are a fool, to do it any other way."

Hemingway, Green Hills of Africa

"We want to destroy all the ridiculous monuments 'to those who died for the fatherland' that stare down at us in every village, and in their place erect monuments to the deserters [...] because every one of them [who died in the war] died cursing the war and envying the happiness of the desterter"

Antifascist partisan, Venice, 1943

"The new men of Empire are the ones who believe in fresh starts, new chapters, new pages; I struggle on with the old story, hoping that before it is finished it will reveal to me why it was that I thought it worth the trouble."

JM Coetzee

"We do not lack communication, on the contrary we have too much of it. We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present."

Gilles Deleuze

" In un mondo dove regnano i Denari c'è ancora chi carica a Bastoni!"

Stefano B

Challenged to a fight that could be terminal: "Listen, I don't mean to be a sore loser, but when it's done, if I'm dead, kill him."

Butch Cassidy to the Sundance Kid

"The liberation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself"

Michael Walzer

Make no mistake. It will be epic.

K M F

" As long as society is founded on money we won't have enough of it"

French leaflet

"Cooperation and revolution remain together, in love, simplicity, and also innocence. This is the irrepressible lightness and joy of being communist."

M Hardt & A. Negri, Empire

"In International Relations a marriage of convenience unites Chomskyan Radicals and old-style right-wing realists in opposition to a an internationalism willing to at in support of moral valies - and indifference to genocide is the end result"

Chris Brown

"Il sesso è stato inventato da Dio, il matrimonio è stato inventato dai preti. Per gli altri. "

Voltaire

"The dead know only one thing: It is better to be alive."

Private Joker, Full Metal Jacket

"I thereby concluded that I was a substance whose whole essence or nature resides only in thinking, and which, in order to exist, has no need of place and is not dependent on any thing material"

Descartes, Discourse On The Method

"Anything can happen in the social world. Whether it will happen only depends on the number of things that have to change before it does."

Barry Buzan paraphrasing "Dream" Ole Waever

"Donde hay una necessidad, hay un derecho"

common knowledge (hopefully)

"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact"

Thomas Huxley

"It takes two to make a war: President Bush and Bin Laden, the war president and the holy warrior, have not failed each other in this respect"

Gilles Andreani

"The past does not repeat itself, but it rhymes"

Mark Twain

Past and Present

In retrospect, some scholars we meet influence us more than what we would've liked to admit to ourselves at the time, especially given the puerile attitude with which we (occasionally) attended their lectures. I can remember three such academics that have, all three unknowingly, shaped my way of thinking in remarkable yet distinct ways. As a politics student, it would be a unique more than rare feat to go through 4 years of senior education without changing perspective on most issues of political relevance. Yet it is difficult to trace this evolution, possibly because it does not follow a distinct and uniform direction. Again, as a politics student the task is all the more complicated by the allegedly 'deeper' understanding of politics that one should have obtained. In our eyes politics cannot be termed simply left- or right-wing any longer, just as a physics post-graduate student could not in all seriousness describe the theory of special relativity by succintly concluding that "really, time is relative, pal". In accordance with my epigraph, on the right, all you achieve while studying politics is a large dose of confusion. But then, if true knowledge really is to know the extent of one's ignorance, us political scientists (politologists) are by far the wisest in these mad houses called universities.

Yet, amidst this forest of contradictions, paradoxes and circular arguments spoken for their mere rhetoric effect, one can find people, professors even, with whom to genuinely discuss ideas and perspectives that you both share. Without delving into too much detail, I would like to post a note i recently sent to one of these figures whom, despite my modest disliking of him at the time, I must recognise has influenced my thought more than most.

Dear Istvan,

You may not remember teaching me amongst the many International Law students in 2005/6, which I took as a third year student from the Politics department. Since then I have come to London for a Masters in International Relations, which I am about to conclude. I ended up writing a dissertation on the salience of international law in international relations arguing, against the mainstream, that the true function of law in international relations has been radically misunderstood. While proof-reading it in these past few days I have become aware of how much your course has helped my (perhaps excessively) ambitious argument, and your repeated appreciation for scholars the likes of Martti Koskenniemi has guided my research. As such, I believe a belated thank you is in order.

With gratitude,

Giuseppe P

to just close your eyes and write

To just close your eyes and write is relaxing, peaceful, anonymous, unsure, maybe false? cowardly but irrereverent. Freeing oneself from the radiating forwardness of the silverscreen, writing in the dark seems to bring one much more in contact with his orphaned feling of writing on paper. It is more honest to write this way, to just ignore your audience for once, even to ignore oneself - simply not to judge what is going on paper - or screen for that matter. its like a breath of fresh air in thi smoggy world, where to avoid alienation one must, ironically enough, be isolated. We dont really have achoice, our ficticious choice, which in fact is a ordeal between being alienated together with the rest of the "consumer public" or to be isolated from all societu and just be alienated from socieal connectios. Mauybe that is why i listen to folk songs and the type of coutnry music that i used to consider almost repugnant. Oh byt beloved digressions, when we used tohave te time, space and energy to just... digress for digression's sake. It is a form of stream of conciousness a-la-Joyce. But you need to slouch on your chair and let your head tilt back on the... ehm... back part of your chair, so that you are making no effort with your neck muscles and at the same time you get a little head rush , which relaxes us and reminds us of greater head rushes we self-induced in the past. And you can come back upo with an at least fugitive smile... hopla!

Libertarianism according to Ben Harper

"
My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.

Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.
"

I thought it a pretty good description of libertarianism, pas?

In a nutshell:
"If you don't like my fire, then don't come around"

On change and the proletarian revolution

The room was small, cluttered and packed with random individuals. Each and every one of the members to that seminar had a markedly distinct reason to be there. That first seminar's guest speaker - a little known Australian post-Marxist scholar of international political economy whose academic focus was on tribal relations of production and exchange in contemporary Western Africa - had delivered an awkward speech. It was interesting, but for all the wrong reasons. The talk, which I am graceful enough to spare you finished with a 10 minute long conclusion about the tragic effect that the international economic system was having on the relations of production and exchange that were prevalent in pre-modern societies, such as those of Western Africa analysed by the speaker. However let me not be too negative about the whole thing; it had the wonderful effect of guiding our discussion in directions previously unknown, but which we henceforth explored in great depths.

Straying away from the African context, and cutting a long story short, we came to discuss the elements of proletarian revolution. The process of revolution is justified a posteriori, by reference to the conditions it helps bring about. The accepted aim of these should be a shift in ownership of the means of production, thereby establishing higher levels of social justice through a re-articulation of labour relations.

Beneath this succulent Marxist jargon that seasoned our conversation lurked a crucial question about the essence of revolution:

How to bring about Change?

The answer that the class agreed on was that change fundamentally undermines the established order. It follows that it will be opposed by those who gain from this order, and promoted by the downtrodden, the underdogs being continuously crushed by the establishment. It is for this reason that the crucial, purest and more powerful form of economic change (therefore also political and social change from a historical materialist perspective) is the Proletarian Revolution.

How to philosophically conceptualise this process of change is a question best answered by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's framework of dialectics, from which Marx's more technologically determinist ideas expressed in the historical materialist approach emerge.

When two opposing forces, a thesis and an anti-thesis, come into conflicting contact they clash and a new form is created, the synthesis. Applied to our thinking about change in economic social and political order the establishment is the thesis represented by the bourgeois that stand to gain from this order, the downtrodden are the antithesis, represented by the rebellious wishes of the proletarian, and the outcome, the synthesis that emerges out of the conflict which is the proletarian revolution is the class-less Marxist society.

The seminars like this one were many when in class with our Marxist tutor from the Carribbean, who all-too-often played devil's advocate for our learning, explicitly (and, for us, confusingly) going against her own beliefs. Nonetheless these were the thoughts that pervaded our young eager minds. They brought the debates and arguments well outside the classroom and into our gatherings with friends at parties, dinners, pubs etc. The message that we drew from them was not what was seemingly propagated by the Soviet Union, Maoist China or any allegedly communist political system ever to have been enacted. We were theoretically driven youngsters. For us it was a mental challenge, a challenge - but not a game. It was much more than a game, because we had real people, real need and real justice in our minds when we spoke and argued. The message that lay at the basis of all our encounters was that change is resistance to the present, and resistance is inevitably a struggle. But a struggle for a social cause is always worth fighting for.

I only hope that many of us still remember that idea. I only hope that the old message still motivates our actions and frames our decisions.

Hasta la Victoria. Siempre.

Dissertation Update 4

It's turning into a book!!!!

Dissertation Update 3

I need to do less reading and more thinking.

The Man, the Drunk and the Warlord

How pleasurable a drop or two of red wine can be on an average rainy evening on this climatically god-forsaken island on which I find myself stuck. My all time favourite late night drink, however, has got to be rum, dark rum, aged preferrably 7 to 9 years in some barrel-laden stockhouse in San Jose, Santo Domingo or Kingston. I find it much warmer than other inebriating spirits commonly drunk on this gray land that speeds away in an attempt to stay afloat, just above the Pareto waterline. Gin is empty, Vodka is dirty, I like Whiskies - but they are colder than Rums. Tequila is festive and false, Sambuca undrinkable. Needless to say other - usually foreign - spirits are easily reperible in your local stores of choice, but why drink Amaretto, Limoncello, Ouzo and the like away from the lands that creted them? How could one genuinely appreciate them outside of their natural environment? I believe it is impossible.

Yet something mellow does strike my chords when I am left alone kissing that bottle of Brugal in my room with an old record playing in my ears. Dust, clutter and clothes cover most floor space in my poor excuse for a bedroom - yet there is some comfort to be found in unorderly environments. It is as if they provide a shield that covers those unwelcome corners, unknown corridors and prisonesque labels on the outside of our doors.

Things have been covered by a bleaker shade of gray recently. The dissertation seems, yet again, a sterile endeavour. The validation and recognition of my degree from warwick has been almost derised by some better informed friends than I, making it an endeavour more sterile even than my dissertation at the moment. Prospects for the medium- to long-term future seem... absent. Yet I see youngsters less endowed than I, in natural as well as social assets, taking strides towards a fixed point that lays somewhere off in the foggy distance. A point that I still have not managed to find for myself. I would be content to find even a mere general direction - even a sizeable portion of horizon - towards which I would feel a true, genuine, natural attraction.

Yet I seem not to be made for life on the pareto frontier. Maybe I just am not capable of being a warlord - I don't have that thickness of skin, so to speak. Why try to get into a social machinery in which I would be but a dented wheel? Maybe I am not meant to follow some direction, to pursue an ineffable dream that materialises itself continously just beind a fraction of horizon towards which I would have to work. Maybe I am just not meant to make money for others while pursuing my dream. I would rather go up than forward. I would rather get a birds-eye view of things than a view from up close of a treasure that keeps eluding me. Maybe I would just rather step out and above the rat-race, partially because of cawardice and partially because of lack of inspiration.

And how to raise oneself above the average height of human eyes? How to become a small dot in the sky, to start from six feet high and keep on rising? Careful consideration and lengthy deliberation have indicated to me that Rum on lonely nights might, at times, help. But it must be used expertly and parisimoniously. Give me too little, and I will be blind, deaf and dumb. Give me too much and the same will happen. But give me the right amount and I will speak truth, see happiness and hear the Man tell me all the secrets I seek.

a picture of cuba

While not mine and thus not the sort of thing I said I'd put up on this blog I really think it is an exellent post, something special and genuine which is definitely worth reading. The comments are not necessarily as informative.

Dissertation Update 2

So, after some heady advice offered to me by more seasoned writers than I, it seems like progress has been made on the dissertation front. A more careful reading of Bull's text, in particular of the 123 pages that relate to order in international society, its generation, its maintenance, and the role of international law in all of this, has opened a new, subtler path for my dissertation to follow.

It seems like I will be able to make my original point after all, albeit in a slightly more refined and, alas, less ground breaking fashion. The key to the differences in mine and Bull's conception of the processes that generate international society rests on my fundamentally wider understanding of international law. When Hedley Bull speaks of international law, he is strictly referring to a body of disjointed primary rules proscribing or mandating certain behaviour on states. My understanding of internatinal law is, in my humble opinion, somwhat more refined - and indeed meaningful - than Hedley's.

I believe that it is shortsighted to consider international law a mere set of discrete, self-standing rules whose status as laws is merely accepted as a given and left unexamined. I contend that it is more meaningful to consider international law as a system comprised not only of primary rules, those aspects of international legislation codified in treaties and custom which Bull refers to, but also of the normative framework which gives rise to this body of rules and which ascribes to them the status of law. In other words, Bull fails to consider the normative mechanism that give rise to obligation to international law. I contend that there is a normative framework which does not rely on consent, rather emerges out of custom, upon which the international legal system rests. It is this body of grundnorms which ascribes specific rules with the status of international norms, and, as a corollary of this, generates a sense of obligation in states (the members of interantional society) to these specific norms.

NB it is important to note my specific phrasing when i speak of obligation TO international law, rather than obligation IN international law.

While obligation in international law is quite unambiguously generated by consent, by the signing of treaties and conventions, obligation to international law rests on a body of norms which emerge purely out of custom and must be accepted by states in order for the whole construct which is the international legal system to exist. These norms that generate obligation to international law are, I contend, constitutive rules of the international legal system and of international society in the Wittgensteinian sense.

More to come before Monday (hopefully).

Dissertation update

Am working solidly on my dissertation, temporarily entitled "An inquiry into the nature of obligation to international law in international society".

To some this title might ring a bell or two. To other, luckier, ones it won't.

To the former, I'd like to voice a feeling of deep discontent and anxiety related to an unsurmountable obstacle (or so it seems now) that I encountered today in the development of my argument. I was planning to argue that the fundamental norms that give rise to obligation to international law are the same norms that are generative of the society of states. I was looking to develop my argument in three simple steps.

Firstly I would argue that international law rests on both consensual and extra-consensual foundations. The extra-consensual foundations of obligation to international law essentially embody fundamental norms and principles of the international legal system, such as the idea that pacta sunt servanda.

I would then argue that such norms, those that give rise to obligation in international law, i.e. the fundamental norms that sustain the structure of international law in international society are not only constitutive, but indeed also generative of international society. This is tantamount to saying, contra Bull, that the institution of international law implies an accepted normative base from which the international legal system stems, and this normative base itself creates international society.

Lastly I would conclude by arguing that while international law was used by Bull as a mere tool to measure and recount the existence of an international soceity of states, with my enriched understanding of the normative structure that underlies a developed international legal system, the role of international law in giving rise to international society is rghtly appreciated and the framework, tools and methods of international law can be employed to thicken the fabric of international society as well as widen its membership.

My problem, then, is that I have just read that Bull does indeed claim that international law as an institution - and the norms that underlie it - do in fact create international society, rather than just reflect its development, they can cause it. As such, Bull already implicitly makes all the remarks I wished to make about international law in international society. How then can my dissertation provide something new to the field of International Relations?

This is the question I ask the more competent of you readers.

To the others, I wish to convey my feeling of downtroddenness by use of an analogy: I feel like an idea, a dream that was rightfully mine has been snatched away from me in the last possible moment. Yet I feel like a fool more than someone who has been subjected to a wrong because I know that it is in effect my own fault. My lack of timely preparation of the topic of this thesis has showed itself now, only a month before the deadline. Its as if it were that evening in mid July 1994, final of the world cup, Brazil-Italy penalty shootout, and Roberto Baggio shoots it over the crossbar... over and over again.