The political character
of Social Media:
How do Greek Internet users perceive and use social
networks?
by Dimitra Karantzeni
dimikar87@yahoo.gr
Abstract
This study investigates the political potential of social networks as
popular platforms of mediated communication. The findings of the survey
reveal the level of engagement of Greek internet users with different
social media, the particular ways in which they prefer to use them as
well as their future expectations as regards the development of these
platforms and their deeper penetration into Greek society.
Keywords
Social media, Greece, politics, communication, citizen participation
Mass
media, due to their symbolic character as well as their level of
penetration into every aspect of social life, play a significant role in
the formation of identity. According to Mezek (2011, p. 7), they have a
triple role: “an information broker, arena for ideas and a community
sustainer”, or in other words, they act as a forum for “public
influence, identity and solidarity” (Alexander and Jacobs, 1998, p. 26).
Thompson underlines the importance of media, as means of “acculturalisation”,
that partly formulate our perceptions of belonging in groups and
communities, creating a so-called, “mediated sociality” (Thompson, 1995,
p. 35).
Social media in particular, appear to have taken – intentionally or not
– a fundamental role in the awakening of citizens, especially the young
ones that are keen internet users. Posting a statement on our personal
Facebook page or updating our tweets has been gradually integrated to
our everyday lives, at a level that we can no longer easily recall our
previous ways of self-expression. To what extent, though, is it normal
to adjust our life moments to a social platform that will afterwards do
the hard job to securely mediate our ideas, anguishes or feelings to our
internet companions? Is that kind of semi-protected exposure – as we
don’t confront face to face any possible contradictions or disapprovals
– a step forward to human communication, and even more, could that have
real effects on the re-politicization of citizens?
When I first joined Facebook, back in 2007, no one really could imagine
how this communicative tool could work. It was just funny to find your
past acquaintances, take a look at their personal information and photos
sometimes without them even knowing it and feed our need of curiosity
about how their lives are progressing. Real, pure, on real time
information has escaped the strict limits of professional journalism and
has now passed into the hands of ordinary citizens, who testify the
events they experience, thus leaving no room for any kind of
misrepresentation or falsification, by the government oriented Media
organizations.
As a matter of fact, we should consider social media not only as
multitasking, communicative platforms, but also as rapidly developing,
coordinating tools for joined actions, new initiatives, even protests
and new political movements.
It is of high importance to focus on the symbolic
character of a new, digital community that was born from its citizens’
deep need for expression, contribution, sharing and participation. In
fact, it is what we call “shared awareness,” the ability of
each member of a group to not only understand the situation at hand but
also understand that everyone else does, too. Social media increase
shared awareness by propagating messages through social networks. (Shirky,C.,
2011, p 7)
On
the other hand, there is a lot of skepticism towards social media and
their possible political effects that are according to them, more or
less a form of a ‘couch-potato democracy’. In particular, its critics
are describing these alternative kinds of political engagement as an
easy and low-cost method to virtually participate in a protest, without
actually contributing to social or political change - ‘‘committed
actors cannot click their way to a better world ’’. (Shirky,C., 2011
p 9). Though, a possible answer here could be that social media’s
effectiveness doesn’t derive from a kind of an exclusive ability to
change the world, but on the contrary, from their contribution to a new
system of coordinated social movements that aim to totally utilize the
benefits of digital, information society.
But still, to what extent could we rely on social media for the
development of our social presence in the world, and after all, is it
really a progress to participate and contribute to both interpersonal
and social actions, securely hidden behind our laptop or cell phone? The
voices against the level of social media’s penetration have
strengthened, somehow doubting the maintenance of human integrity
through these processes. As Prof. Anis Bajrektarevic characteristically
puts it, ‘’Human integrity is self-molested (brutalized) and
self-reduced (trivialized) to a lame shop-window commodity, which is
purchasable 24/7 by ‘poking’ on the photo of someone’s personal profile.
And, likies are available to give a rating for ‘displayed commodities’.(Bajrektarevic,
A. 2011). Additionally, when it comes to politics, part of the
scientific community underlines the necessity to perceive social
networks only as supportive tools to more fundamental freedoms (public
speech, free press, interpersonal communication, free and fair elections
etc.) and not as a panacea to every socio-political uprise. After all,
seen from a historical point of view, media have always played a
fundamental role in social change but other more determinant factors led
the road to change. According to German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, the
printing press helped in Europe’s democratization process by providing
free space for discussion and political interaction among citizens (in
Shirky, C. 2011, p 6)
.
However, the main aim of this article is to present and discuss the
findings of a short survey, which tried to examine how Greek internet
and social media users, perceive social networks, how exactly do they
utilize them and even question the level of engagement of the latter
ones with current socio-political affairs.
The conduction of this survey (which started on June 10th and
was finalized on June 29th 2014) was based on the method of
Simple Random Sampling, which is the most widely-used probability
sampling method and was considered as the most suitable one for the
limited audience of 100 respondents, as it was both easy to implement
and analyze. After the target group was clearly specified, all possible
respondents were equally likely to participate. The link to this online
survey – written in Greek as it was specifically addressed to Greek
citizens, indigenous or expatriates – was repeatedly posted on my
personal accounts on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, My space, on different
social groups of Universities of Political
Science/Communication/International Studies, students’ fora of
University Departments (MBA Program – Athens Open University, Department
of Social Work -Technological Institute of Crete), Associations of Young
Scientists (i.e. Scientific Association of Young Political Scientists -
EONEPE) and other research groups, profile pages of online journals (Apopseis.gr,
Politicsonline.gr) etc. and was also sent via e-mail to all my
corresponding contacts.
Target Group
In
this short survey, we have focused on the age category of 18-35 years
old (even though we have very few responses that exceed this age limit).
The reason why we have selected this particular target group is that it
represents a number of citizens that are both politically active and
digitally literate at a significant level, compared to citizens of other
age groups. According to Eurostat (2009), in 2008, more than 70 % of
those aged 16–24 used a computer daily and 66 % used the internet every
day or almost every day, mostly from home and from the place of
education. Especially young generations (aged 16–24) have integrated the
Internet into their day-to-day life as a communication tool, e.g. using
search engines to find information (86 %), sending emails with attached
files (77 %) or posting messages on chat rooms (61 %) (European
Commission, Youth in Europe, 2009).
Despite a few expected deviations, the homogeneity of this target group
could be explained through its main distinguishing features:
Political and social activity.
Deep diffusion of new technology and digital means of communication.
Common social interests (future employment prospects, socio-economic
stability, environmental issues etc.)
Less entrenched social perceptions. (Karantzeni, D., and Gouscos,
Dimitris G. 2013, pp 485)
Although, we have chosen to include the citizens of between 25-35 years
old as well, as they are, in most cases, more politically mature with
the comparative advantage of multiple, previous voting experiences as
well as of a consequent greater engagement with politics in general.
Findings
One of the first questions aimed to investigate which are the most
popular social networks between Greek internet users. Facebook is a
great winner, gathering a 42% of the total of responses.
Furthermore, the majority of respondents appear to have got engaged with
social networking services between 2007 (19.4%) and 2008 (27.6%). This
appears to be strongly related with the gradual growth of Internet users
in Greece, after 2007. According to Mecometer’s online statistics,
Greece's Internet users had a positive growth of 31.5% during the Great
Recession, as well as another positive growth of 32.1% since the end of
it. From 24% of active users back in 2005, we have 32.25% in 2006,
35.88% in 2007, 44.40% in 2010, reaching a total of 57.85% in nowadays
(2014).
When did you start joining these (or one
of these) social networks for the first time?
An interesting, though predictable finding is that the majority of users
prefer portable devices to stay connected on social networks (cell
phones, laptops etc.). The level of penetration of social media in
people’s everyday lives is more than profound, as they feel the
necessity to embed this usage in every particular aspect of their day,
from a simple comment about the weather or the traffic, to the uploading
of photos, usually on real time, from their night out, trip, or any
other kind of excursion. Of course, the attraction of numerous likes/retweets
etc., is more than essential.
Another important issue is the considerable differentiation of users’
attitude towards social media’s character/role when they first joined
these networks compared to nowadays. To be more specific, the majority
of users, when they first joined social media – between 2007 and 2008 –
thought that they had to deal with another platform of indirect,
mediated communication, or a free space for entertainment (funny
games/applications etc.).
Additionally, some of them focused on the opportunity of finding friends
and other acquaintances that would probably be connected in the same
network, whereas only very few perceived social media as new sites for
information on news and events all around the world. Furthermore, there
was a minority of respondents who stated that they hadn’t been totally
aware of the extent of its/their uses in the first place. On the
contrary, today most of the respondents argue that they consider social
media as an open environment for information with the capability of
interactivity or an open environment for self-expression with multiple
possible receivers.
The third most popular answer is that social media are means of
frequent, general information. That proves that there has been a gradual
transformation on how Greek citizens – internet users perceive social
networks. From a typical, communicative use of these platforms they have
eventually found a new, alternative field of self-expression, that is
though completely different from keeping a personal blog or journal, as
in the case of social media, there is the opportunity of numerous
receivers in a direct and on real time way, that could even lead to the
incitement of new trends, actions and initiatives with unforeseen
consequences. (see i.e. the Arab Spring). The distance is somehow
eliminated and the citizens feel a new, almost provocative sense of
freedom of thought that, for the first time in the digital world, it
counts.
So, beyond this positive theoretical approach, how do Greek citizens
prefer to use social networks? Unfortunately, there is not any coherence
between the ways respondents characterize or perceive these networks and
the ways they actually use them. A notable idea that seems to be
prevailing among the respondents is that they use social media as
informative platforms. Reading the timeline, with all their
friends/followers updates as well as the groups that they’ve joined
(e-journals and news sites, companies’ profiles, institutions’ accounts,
celebrities etc.) is obviously the most common use.
Furthermore, the respondents seem to pay attention on the opportunity to
read, upload or reproduce different news or articles concerning less
popular topics and interests, that are probably hidden in the chaotic
environment of the internet and the anonymity it offers – numerous blogs
and sites with articles and news of controversial credibility - . So,
instead of individually searching through the internet to find news that
have been excluded from the agenda of the predominant means of
communication, internet users can now use social platforms as an
alternative environment that massively gathers such information. Of
course, the danger of exchanging unverified, doubtful information still
exists.
The second most popular use is the communication between
friends/followers. After all, there is always the need to take advantage
of the opportunity to directly communicate with everyone for free and
also with the enhanced ability to choose between multiple options
(instant messaging, exchanging of photos and other archives, video
calls, group chat etc.)
Only a minor percentage of respondents – around 3.3% - states that their
most common use of social media is to write and upload personal
statements/tweets or links on their personal page/account.
Now when they do write a personal statement, how often do they feel this
need for public self-expression and what is it about? Well they are
interested in expressing their thoughts and feelings by writing
statements in their personal account’s walls or timelines, but only
occasionally as only a 13.4% uploads a fresh new statement every day.
Most of them choose to post a statement very rarely (35.1%), and the
responses that follow record a usage that ranges between one or two
times a week and one or two times a month. What about their favourite
topics? Comments and uploads just for fun (33.3%), comments on personal
moments of their lives or their friends’ lives (28.1%), general comments
on current issues or the news agenda (15.6%), comments related to social
problems that aim to sensitize others (6.3%), comments related to sports
(1%), other topics – unfortunately not specified - (6.3%).
So, have Greek internet users chosen a more passive attitude towards
social networking? They seem to almost silently participate in
everything, giving priority to leisure and fun, hiding their thoughts
and ideas behind a like, a share or a retweet but still, they avoid the
direct way of self-expression that would of course be exposed to
criticism. The irony here is that they do not feel the same reluctance
when exposing their personal moments in public (photos, videos etc.),
which probably seems to them more harmless and carefree.
When it comes to politics, it appears that there is a considerable
hesitation of citizens to recognize a possible political character in
social media and even more to have corresponding prospects from their
regular use.
First of all, there is an interesting tie between the two prevalent
responses, that are very different to each other, as a percentage of
(15.31%) totally disagrees with the idea that social media are a secure
environment for open political debates, resulting to a sum of 55.12% of
respondents, that have chosen between the first 4 points (1-4) of the
scaled responses), actually meaning that the majority vividly disagree
with the statement, whereas another 15.31% has selected the option 7,
showing that they somehow agree with the statement, even if they have
some second thoughts or doubts. Perhaps results would be different if
there were just a few, particular responses available (like totally
disagree, disagree, agree and totally agree), but now that respondents
had to choose from a wider range of responses and were given the
opportunity to self-evaluate the degree of their agreement/disagreement,
the findings reflect some kind of division among the Greek social
networkers.
Additionally, most of the respondents don’t believe that these platforms
create a new sense of proximity between the citizens and the politicians
that use them. Here we have a clear disagreement of 61.22%, with the
most popular answers ranging from 1-4 points, expressing total
disagreement with the statement.
At the same time though, they strongly disagree with the idea that
social media are entertainment platforms (the most popular answer is
point 1 – standing for complete disagreement with a percentage of 20.41%
and the second most popular is point 3, reflecting a strong disagreement
for the 12.4% of respondents), and should only considered as such, which
is by the way, proportional to the ways the majority of them chooses to
use these networks, as outlined above.
Moreover, there is an intense fear expressed, that could partly explain
this negative attitude, and that is that social media gradually lead to
a limitless, uncontrolled exposure of personal political
beliefs/orientation etc. (18.37% of respondents chose option 8,
considerably agreeing with the statement, and another 14.29% gave 10
points, completely agreeing with this idea.) So here, we are in front of
an interesting outcome; people feel free to express themselves on
everyday affairs, to make comments or statements, even to participate in
short dialogues that criticize the ongoing issues.
Sometimes, just a news update on the timeline is more than enough to
offer all the necessary incentives to the users, through its
reproduction or the placement of a simple commentary. Nevertheless, they
are unwilling to step outside these borders and expose themselves to a
clear political debate, as they feel that this free space hardly offers
a secure and controlled environment for a serious, argument-based,
depolarized dialogue between the citizens and the politicians.
At the same time though, a great number of respondents strongly accepts
the idea that social media provide people with new accessibility
opportunities on political affairs and recognize -although very
reluctantly- that social networks raise fruitful debates and arguments
on major socio-political affairs. (answers from 7-10 are the most
popular between the respondents, with the majority of them showing their
highest agreement with the statement – 16.33% voted with 10 points).
Statement 1: Social media are a
secure environment for open political debates
Statement 2: Social media provide
people with new accessibility opportunities on political affairs
Statement 3: Social media create a
new sense of proximity between the citizens and the politicians that use
them
Statement 4: Social media are
entertainment platforms and should only considered this way
Statement 5: Social media gradually
lead to a limitless, uncontrolled exposure of personal political
beliefs/orientation etc.
Statement 6: Social media raise
fruitful debates and arguments on major socio-political affairs
Statement 7: I don’t know
Consequently, they realize the potential of these networks as means of
enhancing citizens’ political participation but they don’t feel
convinced yet that it is safe or worth getting engaged with these
alternative methods. That is also crystal clear in a particular point of
the survey: in the question ‘’Do you consider social media as a suitable
environment for self-expression or open discussions/debates on major
political affairs?’’, 44.4% of the respondents answered probably yes and
another said 15.2% surely yes.
Only a question below, the same respondents denied that social media are
a secure environment for open political debates. (as analyzed above)..
So, according to them, social media are suitable for self-expression and
open discussions on political affairs but not for an open political
debate that is significantly more organized and requires awareness of
the ongoing matters, clear political position, active and responsible
participation, confrontation with politicians as well as willingness to
express opposition if necessary.
Another possible reason might be that social media, due to their
extremely diverse nature, from funny games and pastime applications to
the transfer of important political, socio-economic etc. information, do
not seem to have a stable, trustful profile that will predetermine its
audience for the necessary accuracy, appropriateness or even seriousness
they should involve.
However, it’s almost a unanimous point of view that Greek politicians do
not have a satisfactory presence on social media. Particularly, 40.8% of
respondents state that Greek politicians have not realized the political
potential of social media yet, 15.3% argue that politicians have
rejected social media as an alternative means of political influence or
interaction with citizens and another 30.6% admits that the latter have
a limited presence but they also believe that they wish to intensify it
in the future.
Only a 13.3% considers Greek politicians’ engagement to social networks
satisfactory. That is probably a good explanation of citizens’
skepticism towards a future political potential of these networks. In
fact, Greek politicians have lately embedded their social media presence
in their political attitude, mainly by using Twitter, where they upload
their tweets – comments related to ongoing political and economic
affairs, inter-party issues, and they sometimes answer to press reviews
or even argue against the opposition parties. Their tweets are at times,
a ‘hot topic’ for some TV news programs, but that’s probably the media
organizations’ struggle for more spicy and scandalous news events. Their
presence on Facebook, the most popular social network at the moment, is
limited to the existence of a profile account, with official
announcements, press releases etc.
Although, they still face social networks as – more or less – announcement
boards, where they can earn temporary popularity or display their TV
presence and electoral campaign. They maintain an indirect way of
semi-participation, ignoring the important power of direct communication
and enhanced proximity that these platforms could offer. Greek political
communication analysts, Ms Maria Katsikovordou and Mr. Stathis Haikalis,
seem to agree with this statement, by supporting it with particular
examples.
Although, all this hesitation illustrated above, does not actually
reflect a negative attitude of Greek social networkers towards the
future political potential of social media use. On the contrary, the
prevalent future expectations underline the importance of focusing on
social problems that are traditionally less featured by the predominant
mass media institutions (25.5%), as well as the transformation of these
networks into reliable, up-to-date, general information (19.70%). In
addition to the above, 15.40% of respondents envision a greater
participation of citizens on major socio-political affairs via social
media, whereas a percentage of 12.70% thinks that social networks use
should be expanded to the field of conducting open political debates.
Only a 10.4% of respondents has voted for the further enhancement of
indirect, mediated communication features (chat, personal messaging,
video calls, etc. ) and a minor percentage of 6.9% hopes that social
platforms be limited on the fields of leisure/entertainment (games,
pictures, applications, videos etc. ).
What are your personal future
expectations from social media?
Concluding Remarks
Greek internet users are highly engaged to social networks, whereas
their most frequent occupation is reading the timeline, the posts and
the news and in general, keeping themselves informed on both the
personal aspects of their friends/followers lives and the current news
agenda. The most popular social networks are Facebook (42%), LinkedIn
(18%) and Twitter (15%). The majority of respondents joined at least one
social network between 2007 and 2008, a fact that could highly
attributed to the great diffusion of Internet usage in Greece, after
2007. The most preferable devices so to stay connected are the portable
ones (portable personal computer 36.50%, cell phone (35.50%), revealing
an attitude that notably embodies social media presence to physical,
everyday social presence.
When they first joined social networks, Greek internet users perceived
them – more or less – as on-line communicative platforms or chatrooms
(36.4%), a useful application to find old friends and acquaintances
(19.2%), accompanied with some funny, pastime applications and games
(25.3%). There was also a minor percentage of respondents, that hadn’t
been totally aware of their actual use (8.1%). Nowadays, they focus on
the free access of real-time general information with the added value –
compared to other blogs or news sites – of being able to interactively
participate, bring issues forward, start a conversation on a hot topic,
criticize or express disapproval and await for immediate feedbacks or
responses.
They like to express their thoughts and feelings but not every day. They
update their statements once/twice a week or once/twice a month and even
more rarely, and they prefer to talk about their lives or make comments
on their friends posts, keeping all this basically to an amusing level.
Furthermore, they share, post or re-tweet news on their own or their
friends’ timeline and in this way they place their opinion on what is
going on in the world, by texting or just ‘like-ing’.
If we could somehow illustrate the social image of these networks – at
least for the questioned target group – we might present it as a new
field of multidimensional interaction, a new alternative opportunity for
ordinary citizens to speak for their selves, to be heard, to be followed
by a familiar or unknown audience, bring important social problems in
the limelight and other less featured aspects of everyday life, the way
they feel it and not the way others demonstrate it.
They don’t see social media just as entertaining platforms, they
recognize the numerous opportunities they offer as tools of enhancing
citizens’ awareness and participation but they don’t trust social media
as mediated platforms on serious ongoing political affairs i.e. open
political debates etc.
Greek internet users appear to feel the intriguing power that these
networks offer in the political arena, by opening closed doors, by
gaining access to a previously strict, top-down approach on the
application of political power, as they have the sense that their word
could count, if added to a massive, rapid movement of politically active
citizens. At the same time though, a great number of respondents
questions the reliability and the effectiveness of such methods and is
also disappointed with the way Greek politicians have seized this new
opportunity of mediatized communication between them and the citizens
(more than half of respondents), whereas another 30.6% more
optimistically argues that Greek politicians may have a limited presence
but they are willing to intensify.
In addition to this, most of them also doubt that these networks have
created a sense of proximity between them and the politicians. The fear
of the unknown as well as the traditionally taboo-subject of openly
expressing your political orientation and beliefs could probably explain
this hesitation, but only in the first place, as if we’d scratch the
surface we could see that all this behavior – conscious or not – has a
very strong basis. This means that it is not possible and it is not
right to build a brand new, digital world, based on likes and pokes,
comments, shares and retweets, we cannot simply text-message a war or
peace situation, we mustn’t have emoticons substitute the real
expression of our anguishes and feelings.
Because of the extreme simplicity of these actions, it is easier to copy
a saying, to imitate a behavior, to adopt an action just because it is
currently in fashion; it’s posted everywhere, liked by everyone or in
other words, because we’ve been brain-washed with it. Literacy is far
more important than social media usage and only deep knowledge and
personal opinion formulation could change something in the world,
accompanied of course by any means available. By no means should we
underestimate the incredible power of rapid massive coordination of
publics that social media offer as a major step to collective action.
On the contrary, we must admit that it’s the level and the frequency of
exposure to major social events and current political issues which
social media offers to its users that reinforces active participation.
‘‘Conceptually, social discourse exposes people to a wide range of
information that may influence participatory decisions, such as
information about the desirability of participation. Discussions with
friends who are interested or active in politics can help people learn
about the reasons for participating while reinforcing the idea that such
behavior is desirable among one’s peers.’’
(McClurg, Scott D., 2003, p. 6).
We just have to always bear in mind that these tools are useless if not
exploited carefully, as quality and not quantity should be the primary
criterion for every social rally. No digital means of communication, no
matter how up-to-date it is and the range of opportunities it offers,
should substitute real, active participation, with a physical presence
on socio-political affairs, deep consciousness and critical mind, free
thinking and decision making, especially during voting periods. There’s
always the other side of the coin, where regimes of all kinds, even the
most oppressive ones, become highly literate on the usage of social
media and gradually transform them to perfect means of citizens’
deception and manipulation.
References
Alexander, J.C. and Jacobs, R.N. (1998), “Mass
communication, ritual and civil society”, in Liebes, T. and Curran, J. (Eds),
Media, Ritual and Identity, Routledge, London, pp. 23-41.
Bajrektarevic, A. (2011), Is there life after Facebook?
The Cyber Gulag revisited & Debate reloaded, GHIR 11(2) 2012, Addleton
Academic Publishers New York
European Commission, Youth in Europe – A statistical
portrait, Luxembourg: Publications of the European, 2009
Eurostat (2009), “Youth in Europe – a statistical
portrait”, 2009 edn, Eurostat Statistical Books available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDF
(accessed 15 October 2013).
Karantzeni, D. and Gouscos, Dimitris G., eParticipation
in the EU:Re-focusing on social media and young citizens for reinforcing
European identity, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,
Vol. 7 No. 4, 2013, pp. 485
McClurg Scott D., Social Networks and Political
Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political
Participation, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Dep. Of
Political Science, 2003, available at:
http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ps_pubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.gr%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Del%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fopensiuc.lib.siu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1007%2526context%253Dps_pubs%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm37ARGyvu1_lt53C1rm5j3Nv85hA%26oi%3Dscholarr%26ei%3D3NwAVKnSKcbT4QTwn4C4DQ%26ved%3D0CB8QgAMoATAA#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fopensiuc.lib.siu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1007%26context%3Dps_pubs%22
Mezek, S. (2011), European Identity and the Media –
Re-definition of Identity, pp. 10-11, Stockholm University, Department
of Political Science, available at:
www.statsvet.su.se/mediarum/Media_and_Politics_2/PDF/Cpapers/european_identity_and_media.pdf
Shirky, C. (2011) ’The Political Power of Social Media:
Technology, the Public Sphere and Political Change’, Clay Shirky,
January/February 2011, available at:
http://www.bendevane.com/FRDC2011/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/The-Political-Power-of-Social-Media-Clay-Sirky.pdf
Thompson, J.B. (1995), The Media and Modernity: A Social
Theory of the Media, Polity Press,Cambridge, p. 186.
Dimitra
Karantzeni
She can be contacted at:
dimikar87@yahoo.gr
Links
Internet Live Stats:
http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/
Macro-Economy Meter - Mecometer :
http://mecometer.com/whats/greece/internet-users/
Dimitra Karantzeni is a graduate of Communication and
Mass Media from the University of Athens, also holding a M.Sc. in
European and International Studies from the School of Law, Economics and
Political Sciences of the same University. She is currently working as a
Communication Specialist and independent researcher on the Journal of
Modern Diplomacy. http://moderndiplomacy.eu/
This vividly explains why the authoritarian
governments desperately try to limit their effects by barring the access
to the internet via mobiles or personal computers. (see i.e. Arab
Spring).
As referenced in ‘’The Political Power of Social
Media: Technology, the Public Sphere and Political Change, Clay Shirky,
January/February 2011, pg 6
http://mecometer.com/whats/greece/internet-users/
http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/
http://www.tovima.gr/politics/article/?aid=449197 : Article: ‘’The
keyboard elections’’, 18/03/2012 (in greek)
Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role
of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation, Scott D.
McClurg, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Dep. Of Political
Science, 2003, pg 6
17.10.2014
Were the
Crusades Justified? A Revisiting
Dr. Emanuel L.
Paparella
If one surveys a
magazine of opinion, such as Ovi, among others, it will not take long
before one encounters a tirade or a rebuke against religion in general
or Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular. The five
phenomena which allegedly inspire the attack, coming usually from
secularists and positivists are: 1) The suppression of knowledge and
obscurantism, 2) the required celibacy of its priests resulting in
pedophilia and homosexuality, 3) the Inquisition, 4) Witch hunting and
burning, 5) the Crusades. These are phenomena which go back to medieval
times which in themselves are usually declared as dark times (confusing
the dark ages with medieval times in general) and therefore undesirable
in our modern, scientifically advanced, “enlightened” times. Often
enough a recommendation is freely and egregiously offered: the Church
should simply disband itself after asking for forgiveness for its crimes
and hanging its head in shame, and everybody will be much better off
afterward. Enlightenment and peace, transparency and liberty and
integrity will then arrive on the scene and will reign supreme: a sort
of Utopian Garden of Eden. If any quarter is granted to any form of
Christianity in this highly Utopian world free of corruption and sin, it
will be for a reformed Church, that is to say, the Protestant Churches.
I have already dealt at some length with the first three historical
phenomena. At times it has given rise to reactionary spirited
counter-positions on the matter, sometimes those positions have
degenerated into a diatribe. That is of course undesirable. At the risk
of renewing such a diatribe, and in the more positive interests of free
speech and truth, I’d like for the moment to tackle here the fifth of
the above mentioned phenomena, the one on the Crusades and some of their
assumptions and implications. I suppose the first thing that should be
said about all those phenomena within Christianity is that they are
historical and cannot be denied as existing at one time. To deny that is
to make a dialogue impossible. But on the other hand we should remember
well the fact of their historicity, that all historical phenomena are
subject to an interpretation which may turn out to be correct or perhaps
misleading. That an historical interpretation of an event cannot be made
outside its historicity by 20/20 hindsight; its narration has to be kept
within the period one is describing. I should mention here that to
insure that such was the case, I have drawn for inspiration and
historical correctness from an excellent book on the subject by Jonathan
Riley-Smith, titled What were the Crusades?
What were the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith
(2009)
Before we attempt an answer to such a
question let us situate the Crusades within historical time. They took
place within a span of approximately two centuries within middle Middle
Ages, that is outside of the Dark Ages (500-800 AD) and before the
higher Middle Ages: between 1096 to 1270. There were seven of them and
only the first was successful as a military mission. It should be kept
in mind that the Moslems, the new religion on the block attempting to
overrun the whole of Europe, were already in Palestine some 450 years
earlier. The unintended but more beneficial consequences were a
unification that occurred among different nations and people in Europe,
the economic and cultural exchanges between East and West that occurred
in the defense of a common cultural heritage, Christianity.
Since those Crusades had the Church’s blessing the question arises: had
the Church reversed its attitude toward violence and war in general. The
myth has been propagated that it did. But in fact, as the just war
theory of St. Augustine and its principle of proportionality proclaims,
Christianity, since its beginning, had never been absolutely pacifist.
It did consider war as a last resort to be avoided whenever possible but
at times preferable as a lesser evil. Even Jesus never condemned
soldiers for being soldiers. This is an important consideration at a
time such as ours when once again men go around in Palestine
decapitating and committing all sorts of atrocities are dreaming of
Sharia law in the Vatican, while others talk of “a clash of
civilizations” and an alliance of the West which some have called a call
for a new Crusade to defend the West’s values.
eft: none; border-right: none;
padding-top: 1.76mm; padding-bottom: 0mm; padding-left: 0mm;
padding-right: 0mm; color: #2a2a2a; line-height: 3.09mm"> ISIS’
English-language magazine Dabiq has a cover story about “The Failed
Crusade.”
Which brings us to the second crucial question. Who were the aggressors?
Some do not hesitate to say that the Christians were the imperialistic
aggressors. But wait a minute. The conflict between Islam and
Christianity began not with first Crusade but with the birth of Islam in
the 7th century
A.D. when the Muslim conquest began encircling the West on the Western
front with the conquest of Spain and the Byzantine Empire on the Eastern
front. A very good case can be made that the aggressors were the
Muslims, even if at first it looks as if it were the Christians who went
looking for trouble and adventure in the Middle East. No historian has
ever condemned Scipio the African for moving the Roman army to North
Africa to finally defeat Hannibal in North Africa. All one has to do is
to remember that Hannibal had already defeated the Romans three times in
the Italian peninsula. The same applies to Western Europe which saw an
outpost such as Vienna threatened by the Turks.
That that there were atrocities committed during the Crusades is
undeniable but here again we need to keep in mind that atrocities
usually go together with any war. The crusades had their share of heroes
and villains, saints and sinners. The Church never approved the Sack of
Jerusalem and Constantinople. The Pope at the time (Innocent III) said
of the incident of Constantinople “No wonder the Greeks call you dogs,”
and he excommunicated those responsible. The anti-Jewish pogrom were
also in direct violation of a Papal decree protecting Jews. The
children’s crusade was never approved by the Church.
The other myth or gratuitous charge against the Church is that it
granted indulgences for evil. The crusades were not for the purpose of
converting the Moslems. In that sense they were not, strictly speaking
religious wars. More properly they were an armed pilgrimage. Moreover
this pilgrimage, a holy act, was often subverted by “crusaders” with
economic or political personal agendas. Blessed Urban II, the Pope who
called the first Crusade never promised indulgences to all crusaders,
only to those undertook the crusade for devotional purposes. Each
crusader made a vow, signified by the wearing of a cloth cross, and he
(or she) was rewarded with the grant of an indulgence and certain
temporal privileges. A distinguishing feature of crusading was that the
cross was enjoined on men and women not as a service, but as a penance,
the association of which with war had been made about a decade before
the First Crusade. While holy war had had a long history, the idea of
penitential war was unprecedented in Christian thought. It meant that a
crusade was for the crusader only secondarily about service in arms to
God or benefiting the Church or Christianity; it was primarily about
benefiting himself. He was engaged in an act of self-sanctification.
Those were the precondition for earning indulgences or commuting of the
time to be spent in purgatory for one’s transgressions. On the contrary,
it was the Muslims who promised unconditional and instant Heaven to all
their war dead.
Charging Crusaders
The figure for the Muslim dead, which
used to range from ten to seventy thousand on the basis of accounts
written long after the event, ought to be revised downward. A
contemporary Muslim source has been discovered that puts the number at
three thousand. Three thousand men and women is still a lot of people,
of course, but it is low enough to make one wonder why the Western
eyewitnesses, who gloried in generalized descriptions of slaughter, felt
the need to portray a bloodbath.
On the other hand, Smith points out that “the behavior of the crusaders
in the East cannot be considered to have been quantitatively worse than
that of those fighting in any ideological war, the behavior of the
crusaders in Europe could sometimes be abominable, even by the standards
of the time. Before heading off to the Jerusalem crusades in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, some Europeans ‘prepared themselves’ through
violent outbreaks of anti-Judaism in France, Germany, and England.
During the crusades launched against fellow Christians or heretics, the
most unpleasant examples of loss of discipline and control took place
(the sacks of Constantinople in 1204 and of Béziers in 1209 spring to
mind). If we are going to express contrition for the behavior of the
crusaders, it is not so much to the Muslims that we should apologize,
but to the Jews and to our fellow Christians.”
The politically correct position nowadays is to apologize for past
atrocities. But the question arises: should we be apologizing at all? No
crusade was actually proclaimed against the Jews. As far as crusading
itself is concerned, most Muslims do not view the crusades, in which
they anyway believe they were victorious, in isolation. Islam has been
spasmodically in conflict with Christianity since the Muslim conquests
of the seventh century, long before the First Crusade, and the crusading
movement was a succession of episodes in a continuum of hostility
between the two religions. In the late nineteenth century, however, they
began to regard the West's monopoly of commerce and colonialism as a
change of tactics, in which everything the crusaders had lost to them
was being more than regained. The crusades are merely symptomatic of a
much longer-term competitiveness.
It is the Church's subjective act of repentance for past sin that
matters. How useful is it to condemn wars that were supported by great
saints like Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bridget of Sweden,
Catherine of Siena, John of Capistrano, even possibly Francis of Assisi?
Ought we not rather challenge the widespread sentimental and
unhistorical assumptions that genuine Christianity is an unambiguously
pacific religion? The consensus among Christians on the use of violence
has changed radically since the crusades were fought. Only in the
sixteenth century did the nearly universal conviction that the use of
violence depended on Christ's direct or indirect authority begin to be
undermined. Now violence can be justified only in terms of the needs of
the "common good," defined in relation to accepted earthly laws.
Smith says in this regard that “Just war arguments thus moved from the
field of moral theology to that of law. The Encyclopédistes referred to
the crusades as ces guerres horribles — but although they agreed
that the use of force nearly always had evil consequences because of the
suffering that accompanied it, they still regarded violence itself as
being morally neutral. No one had yet taken the second step necessary
for the emergence of "modern" just war theory, the conviction borrowed
from pacifism that force is intrinsically evil — though conceding that
it can nevertheless be condoned as a lesser evil.”
Our just war theory has become so embedded in our thinking that we
forget that it represents a relatively short-lived departure from a much
longer-lasting and more positive tradition. The founding of the League
of Nations and then the United Nations and the judgments at the
Nuremberg trials encouraged the revival of concepts of natural law,
manifesting themselves in the notion of crimes against humanity and an
insistence on judgment by international tribunals. So, the coalition
assembled by President Obama is not a coalition of Crusaders out to
impose their religion and values but a coalition buttressed and
justified by humanitarian aims. This development subordinates
international law to natural law and reintroduces ethical judgments to
just war theory. Could it be that the restoration of Christ to the
position of an authorizer of violence, which was a feature of the
militant Christian liberation theology in the 1960s and early 1970s in
Latin America and elsewhere, was part of this process of change?
A stance that justifies a "humanitarian" war on moral grounds has placed
itself at least in the same field as that once occupied by crusade
theorists. As Smith aptly writes: “The language that demands that our
ancestors be posthumously anathematized is not too distant from that of
the men who wanted the corpse of Pope Boniface VIII to be exhumed and
burnt. We may be entering a period of conceptual uncertainty about the
most difficult of all society's dilemmas — when or when not to use force
— and we need not emotion, but cool heads and an objective analysis of
the past.”
Plato’s Myth of the Cave
To return to our initial argument: it seems that those who go around
casting aspersions on religion in general and Catholicism in particular
in the name of “enlightenment” without employing in their analysis the
historical perspective, advocating peace at any cost, may ultimately be
creating more confusion and shadows than light. Even Plato, after an
admirable description via the myth of the cave of the condition of those
who dwell in a dark cave chained to their misguided assumptions and
seeing their shadows and appearances on a wall illumined by fire, asks
if any of us can be sure of being out of the cave under the light of the
sun and seeing reality as it really is. His wise answer is “only God
knows.”
Note: this article, slightly modified, has already appeared in
Ovi Magazine.
15.10.2014
Europe – the letzte Mensch
or
Übermensch,
the new Byzantium or declining Rome
Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic
A
freshly released IMF’s World Economic Outlook brings (yet again, for the
sixth year in a row, and for the third time this year only) no
comforting picture to anyone within the G-7, especially in the US and
EU. Will the passionately US-pushed cross-Atlantic Free Trade Area save
the day? Or, would that Pact-push drag the things over the edge and mark
an end of the unionistic Europe? Is the extended EU conflict with
Russia actually a beginning of
the Atlantic-Central Europe’s conflict over
Russia, an internalization of
mega geopolitical and geo-economic dilemma – who accommodates with whom,
in and out of the Union? Finally, does more Ukrainian (and Eastern
Europe) calamities pave the road for a new cross-continental grand
accommodation, of either austerity-tired France or über-performing
Germany with Russia, therefore the end of the EU? For whose sake Eastern
Europe has been barred of all important debates such as that of Slavism,
identity, secularism and antifascism? Why do we suddenly wonder that all
around Germany-led Central Europe, the neo-Nazism gains ground while
only Russia insists on antifascism and (pan-)Slavism?
Before answering that, let us examine what is (the meaning and size of)
our Europe? Where, how and – very importantly – when is our Europe? For
example, is the non-EU Europe the existent but invisible world, sort of
the dark side of the moon? Or, is that more? Beyond the ancient
Maastricht and Schengen: the Roman Hadrian Wall and Limes Line there was
no world at all. There was only (an instrument of) the Silk Road – that
antique WTO, isn’t it? Hence, is this unionistic condominium the best of
Europe, or Europe itself?
Is the EU an authentic post-Westphalian conglomerate and the only
logical post-Metternich concert of different Europes, the world’s last
cosmopolitan enjoying its postmodern holiday from history?
Is that possibly the lost Atlántida or mythical Arcadia– a Hegelian
end of history
world? Thus, should this OZ be
a mix of the endemically domesticated Marx-Engels grand utopia and
Kennedy’s dream-world “where the weak are safe and the strong are just”?
Or, is it maybe as Charles Kupchan calls it a ‘postmodern imperium’?
Something that exhorts its well-off status quo by notoriously exporting
its transformative
powers of free
trade dogma and human rights stigma–a
modified continuation of colonial legacy when the European conquerors,
with fire and sword, spread commerce,
Christianity and civilization overseas – a kind of ‘new Byzantium’, or
is that more of a Richard Young’s declining, unreformed and rigid Rome?
Hence, is this a post-Hobbesian (yet, not quite a Kantian) world, in
which the letzte
Mensch expelled
Übermensch?
Could it be as one old graffiti in Prague implies: EU=SU²? Does the EU-ization
of Europe equals to a restoration of the universalistic world of Rome’s
Papacy, to a restaging of the Roman-Catholic Caliphate? Is this Union a
Leonard’s runner of
the 21st
century,
or is it perhaps Kagan’s ‘Venus’– gloomy and opaque world, warmer but
equally distant and unforeseen like ‘Mars’?
Is this Brussels-headquartered construct, the 20th
century’s version of
Zollverein with standardized tariffs and trade, but of an autonomous
fiscal policy and politics? Thus, is the EU a political and economic re-approachment
of sovereign states or maybe just an(other) enterprise of the borderless
financial capital? Ergo, would that be a pure construct of financial
oligarchy whose
invisible hand
tacitly corrupted the Maastricht Treaty as to web-up a borderless,
limitless, wireless and careless power hub, while at the same time
entrenching, silencing and rarefying labour within each nation state?
Is this a supersized Switzerland (ruled by the cacophony of many
languages and enveloped in economic egotism of its self-centered
people), with the cantons (MS, Council of EU) still far more powerful
than the central government (the EU Parliament, Brussels’ Commission,
ECJ), while Swiss themselves –although in the geographic heart of that
Union – stubbornly continue to defy any membership. Does it really
matter (and if so, to what extent) that Niall Ferguson wonders: “…the EU
lacks a common language, a common postal system, a common soccer team
(Britain as well, rem. A.B.) even a standard electric socket…“?
Kissinger himself was allegedly looking for a phone number of Europe,
too. Baron Ridley portrayed the Union as a Fourth Reich,
not only dominated by Germany, but also institutionally Germanized.
Another conservative Briton, Larry Siedentop, remarked in his Democracy in Europe
that it is actually France who
is running the EU ‘show’, in the typical French way – less than
accountable bureaucracy that prevents any evolution of the European into
an American-style United States. Thus, Siedentop’s EU is more of a Third Bonapartistic
Empire than
possibly a Fourth
German Reich. The
Heartland
or Rimland?
After all, is the Union yet another virtue out of necessity, as
Brzezinski claimed, that after centuries of colonial overstretch and of
mutual destructions (between protagonists in close geographic
proximity), Europe irreversibly lost its demographic, economic and
politico-military importance, and that the early EU was more of an
attempt to rescue a nation state than it was the quest for a true
enterprise of the European Community building?
Despite different names and categorizations attached, historical
analogies and descriptions used, most scholars would agree upon the very
geopolitical definition of the EU: Grand re-approachment of France and
Germany after WWII, culminating in the Elysée accords of 1961. An
interpretation of this instrument is rather simple: a bilateral peace
treaty through achieved consensus by which Germany accepted a
predominant French say in political affairs of EU/Europe, and France –
in return – accepted a more dominant German say in economic matters of
EU/Europe. All that tacitly blessed by a perfect balancer–
Britain, attempting to
conveniently return to its splendid isolation from the
Continent
in the
post-WWII years. Consequently, nearly all scholars would agree that the
Franco-German alliance actually represents a geopolitical axis, a
backbone of the Union.
However, the inner unionistic equilibrium will be maintained only if the
Atlantic-Central Europe skillfully calibrates and balances its own
equidistance from both assertive Russia and the omnipresent US. Any
alternative to the current Union is a grand accommodation of either
France or Germany with Russia. This means a return to Europe of the 18th,
19th
and early 20th
centuries – namely, direct
confrontations over the Continent’s core sectors, perpetual animosities
wars and destructions. Both Russia and the US has demonstrated ability
for a skillful and persistent conduct of international affairs, passions
and visions to fight for their agendas. It is time for Brussels to live
up to its very idea, and to show the same. Biology and geopolitics share
one basic rule: comply or die.
Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic
Vienna, 14 OCT 2014
Contact:
anis@bajrektarevic.eu
Author is professor in international law and global
political studies, based in Austria. His recent book Is There
Life after Facebook? is published by
the New York’s Addleton Academic Publishers.
. One of the greatest historians of our age, Sir Toynbee, gives an
interesting account of our civilizational vertical. He clas-sifies as
many as nineteen major civilizations: Egyptian, Andean, Sinic, Minoan,
Sumerian, Mayan, Indic, Hittite, Hellenic, Western, Orthodox
Christian/Russian, Far Eastern, Orthodox Christian/main body, Persian,
Arabic, Hindu, Mexican, Yucatec, and Babylonic. Further on, there are –
as he calls them – four abortive civilizations (Far Western Christian,
Far Eastern Christian, Scandinavian, Syriac) and five arrested
civilizations (Polynesian, Eskimo, Nomadic, Ottoman, Spartan). Like to
no other continent, majority of them are related (originating from or
linked) to European proper.
. Lately, it looks like a
Gay-rights Jihad at many places. The non-selective, but massive
push without premeditation on the key issue here: whether homosexuality
should be either tolerated behavior or promoted life-style, has to be
urgently revisited and (re-)calibrated. As it stands now, this
Gay-rights Jihad serves neither the human/behavioristic rights
nor a worrying birth-rates decline. The European demographics is far
more of a serious and urgent socio-economic problem. Why? It is closely
related to the emotional-charge inflammable triangular issues –
identity, migration and integration, and by it triggered (to say:
justified) right-wing anti-politics.
. Is globalization the natural
doctrine of global hegemony? Well, its main instrument, commerce –as we
know – brings people into contact, not necessarily to an agreement, even
less to mutual benefits and harmony...Or, “If goods cannot cross
borders, armies will” is the famous saying of the XIX century French
economist Frederic Bastiat, so often quoted by the longest-ever serving
US Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
. ”No venue has been created
in which an EU-wide public opinion might be formed… European Parliament
elections are not truly European because they are 27 different elections
with different electoral systems after campaigns in which national
issues predominate… Under present procedures, both the President of the
European Commission and the President of the European Council are
selected in private meetings of heads of governments..”, says former
Irish Prime Minister John Bruton. Bruton, J. (2013), How real is the
danger of an EU collapse?, EU Journal Europe’s World 23(13) 2013,
Brussels
08.10.2014
Brazil – New Age
Patricia Galves
Derolle
Brazil
is the largest country in size and population in comparison to other
Latin American countries, and it is the seventh largest economy in the
world by nominal GDP. Since the mid 2000’s, Brazil has become a more
attractive global player: it has diversified its economy and its
partnerships, and launched the Growth Acceleration Plan (2007) in order
to increase investment in infrastructure and provide tax incentives for
economic growth. Brazil has also decreased domestic poverty through
development plans: according to the World Bank, poverty (people living
with USD 2 per day) has fallen from 21% of the population in 2003 to 11%
in 2009. An overall view of Brazilian economy shows that the level of
foreign direct investment is increasing, the wages are rising, the
middle class in growing, and the unemployment rate is low, which offers
a wide range of opportunities in different areas. Despite the positive
scenario, Brazil is an emerging economy and faces issues and challenges
to be surpassed.
Commercial and
Economic Partnerships
Brazil has strong commercial and economic ties with both the developed
and the developing world. To diversify partnership so that its economy
is not entirely dependent on the West is not a recent action plan for
Brazil. Since the 1960’s, with the Independent Foreign Policy, Brazil
has searched for different markets to export primary goods. In the 90’s,
Brazil focused its economy on the developed world, being the United
States its primary partner. During Lula da Silva’s government, Brazil
started searching for alternatives to boost economic growth and increase
exports, although keeping traditional partners.
After
the Goldman Sachs report on emerging economies, released in 2001, Brazil
started again to diversify its partnership with other countries that
were similar to it. In this context, Brazil, Russia, India and China
decided to strengthen their relationships and to create a non-structured
grouping called BRIC. Only in 2011 South Africa joined the grouping,
turning the acronym BRIC into BRICS. Recently, the BRICS created a
Developing Bank, which offers its members credit to infrastructure
needs. With the traditional western partners, Brazil intensifies
commercial and economic relations, mainly bilaterally or through
regional groupings. In a simple analysis, Brazil exports primary and
imports manufactured goods. In a multilateral level, Brazil disagrees
with the West on issues that concern the International Monetary Fund
(quotas) and the World Trade Organization (agricultural subsidies).
Read more on the next page:
Patricia Galves Derolle
Founder of
Internacionalista
São Paulo, Brazil
25.09.2014
“War as Usual” in
Palestine.
Can Kosovo’s Independence Serve as Role Model for a Way Out?
by Corinna Metz
Israel and Hamas are leading their “war as usual” like a cynical biennially
routine at the expense of the civilian population of Gaza. However, when
taking a look at the map of the Middle East one sees that time is running
out for the Palestinian hope for a state since the territory it could be
built on increasingly gets absorbed by Israel.
Kosovo Style Independence – A Purported Way Out of the
Crisis
So what’s the solution? Palestinians desperately search for a way out of the
stalemate in the conflict with Israel and thereby clutch at every straw.
Without questioning the purpose and limits of analogy, several Palestinian
officials perceived the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo in
2008 as universal remedy to conflicts about statehood. This was expressed in
the statement “Kosovo is not better than us. We deserve independence even
before Kosovo, and we ask for the backing of the United States and the
European Union for our independence.”
ii made by the high ranking member of the Palestine National
Authority and advisor to the Palestinian President, Yasser Abed Rabbo.
Despite its popularity, this approach was rejected by most members of the
Palestinian leadership including President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian
Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, who clearly commented the discussion with the
assertion “We are not Kosovo”.iii
Notwithstanding, political commentators and scholars seized the opportunity
for a broader debate about the relevance of a comparison of Kosovo and
Palestine.
Read more on the next page:
August 9, 2014 by Corinna Metz
Global Climate Negotiations and
Politics
Alisa Fazleeva
Alisa Fazleeva earned an MA in International Relations from
the University of East Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom in 2013. Her
research interests include foreign policy decision-making, realism and
constructivism, and social psychology and constructivism.
Once climate and ecological problems are put in the
agenda of international organizations, they immediately become a tool
for wider political controversies.
The first observation is that climate negotiations are
becoming one more way for the governments to pursue their interests. The
brightest example happened last year, at the UNFCCC (United Nations
Framework Conference for Climate Change) held in Bonn, Germany, which
caused utter dissatisfaction among the delegates. The reason for that
was an agenda dispute concerning a proposal by the Russian Federation,
Belarus and Ukraine to introduce a new item on legal and procedural
issues related to decision-making under the Conference of the Parties
(COP) and Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the
Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP). (Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2013)
This is particularly interesting because, given the
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the Russian Federation in 2004
(the protocol at which many developed countries agreed to legally
binding reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases), it seems
there was a shift in the Russian attitude towards the negotiation that
needed to be addressed. Was the amendment to the Kyoto protocol
desirable because the protesting countries intended to influence the
environmental negotiations decision-makers? Or did it happen because the
Russian economy is alive mainly because of oil extraction and chemical
industry and pending the UNFCCC conclusions was beneficial for Russia?
Read more on the next page:
02.08.2014
On 28th
July exactly 100 years ago, Central Europe declared a war to Eastern
Europe, an event that marked the official outbreak of World War I. This
was a turning point which finally fractured a fragile equilibrium of
La Belle Èpoque, and set the Old Continent and the whole world with
it into the series of motions that lasted for almost a century, before
docking us to our post-modern societies. From WWI to www. Too smooth and
too good to be true? Let us use this occasion and briefly examine our
post-modernity and some fallacies surrounding it.
From
WWI
to
www.
– PUTIN
NEXT DR
Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic
In the (Brave New) world of
www.
where, irrespectively from your current location on the planet, at least
20 intelligence agencies are notifying the incoming call before your
phone even rings up, how is it possible to lose jumbo-jet for good? The
two huge aviation tragedies affecting same country – Malaysia, are yet
another powerful reminders that we are obsessed with a control via
confrontation, not at all with the prosperity through human safety.
Proof? Look at the WWI-like blame-game over the downing of the plane – a
perfect way to derail our most important debate: Which kind of future do
we want? Who seats in our cockpit and why do we stubbornly insist on
inadequate civilizational navigation?! Consequently, Ukraine today is a
far bigger crash site, which is – regrettably enough – well beyond an
ill-fated MH 17.
Why in the
www.
world our media still bears the WWI-like rethorics? The ongoing
demonization of President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin in the
so-called mainstream media actually serves as a confrontational nostalgia
call on the side of West. Hence, this main-scream
seems aiming not to alienate, but to invite the current Russian
leadership to finally accept confrontation as a modus operandi after a 25 years of pause.
Read more on the next page:
Vienna, 28 JUL 2014
A Modest “Australian”
Proposal to Resolve our Geo-Political Problems
The Continent and Nation of
Australia
Dr. Emanuel L. Paparella
There is little doubt that our geo-political problems are
becoming more and more intricate and intractable. We presently have on
our hands the middle East crisis, the Ukrainian crisis, the Iraq and
Syria crisis, the economic crisis of the West, the border crisis between
the US and Mexico (with thousands of unaccompanied children from Central
America crossing the border), the territory disputes between Japan and
China, North and South Korea, the EU-Africa crisis with refugees
arriving almost daily in Lampedusa, Italy attempting to get a foot-hold
in Europe, and the list goes on and on. The world is indeed a sorry
mess.
It has not dawned yet on our myopic politicians, our so
called leaders and statesmen, that, as the Pope has repeatedly declared,
the problem is one of inequality and distributive justice; that as long
as there are desperate people in desperate circumstances there will be
refugees crossing the borders in search of a better life. Usually those
crisis lead to wars and socio-political global turmoil benefiting none,
not even the affluent countries.
I have a modest solution which some may find laughable,
even absurd, but it is practically historically inevitable within our
ongoing process of globalization. Before I suggest the solution let us
consider some present geo-political realities. There is a polity in
place which can be termed a Continental nation in the true sense of that
word. It is Australia. It is completely surrounded by the Pacific Ocean
which functions as its borders. It is a nation with a common language
and a multicultural background, including the aboriginal culture which
is now respected if not exactly promoted.
Read more on the next page:
27 July 2014
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2014
AND INDONESIAN FOREIGN POLICY
Igor Dirgantara
Abstracts:
Indonesian foreign politics are closely related to the issue of its
national pride, position, and role in the international affairs. The
fact that a peaceful election in Indonesia should be a major capital and
stimulus to improve the active role in regional and global arena, as
mandated by opening of the Constitution 1945 paragraph 4 to participate
in creating a world order, as well as to resolve issues and security
challenges. The question that a distinguish prof. Anis Bajrektarevic has
recently asked in his luminary work “Europe of Sarajevo 100 years
later”, ‘Was history ever on holiday?’ – is nearly answered, at least
this time in Indonesia – the 3rd largest
democracy in the world.
Keywords :
Indonesia Presidential Elections 2014, Foreign Policy Performance,
Security Challenges, Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa, Jokowi-Jusuf Kalla
By: Igor Dirgantara (Researcher and
Lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Politics, University of Jayabaya)
Indonesian Presidential general election has been underway on July 9th.
There were 2 pairs of strong candidates for Presidential and
Vice-Presidential position: Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa
(Prabowo-Hatta) and Joko Widodo and Jusuf Kalla (Jokowi-JK). There will
be numerous challenges for the elected pair, and one of the more
important challenge will be regarding Indonesia's future foreign
politics policy. This article will try to foresee the type of leadership
of each couple and also their foreign politics performance.
Read more on the next page:
16.07.2014
Is the ‘crisis of secularism’ in Western Europe the result of
multiculturalism?
by Peny Sotiropoulou
Introduction
Prof.
Anis Bajrektarevic famously claimed that “…the conglomerate of
nation-states/EU has silently handed over one of its most important
debates – that of European identity – to the wing-parties, recently
followed by the several selective and contra-productive foreign policy
actions.” Elaborating on these actions he went further as to claim that:
“…sort of Islam Europe supported in the Middle East yesterday, is the
sort of Islam that Europe hosts today. (…) and “…that Islam in Turkey
(or in Kirgizstan and in Indonesia) is broad, liberal and tolerant while
the one in Northern Europe is a brutally dismissive and assertive.”
******
Western Europe is phasing the outcomes of the development of two
different trajectories. On one side, the immigrant presence from the
former colonies, growing since the 1960’s, has turned Western Europe
into a multicultural and, by extension, multi-faith mosaic. On the
other, the permanent decline of religious performance has brought up a
wider consensus concerning the privatization of religion as well as its
status of invisibility in the public sphere. These two trajectories can
be perceived as oppositional if one bears in mind the significant
numbers of non- white immigrants residing in Western European states and
the paramount importance most of them place on religion for
identification, organization and political representation. Several
prominent academics refer to the emergence of the aforementioned
phenomenon as a ‘crisis of secularism’.
Read more on the next page:
July 5, 2014
Geo–cultural strategy for
Eurasia
A Paradigm for the New Silk Road
Emre Kovacs and Murray Hunter
In September 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed that China and
Central Asia collaborate to build a Silk Road Economic Belt,
which would comprise all countries within the Eurasian region. According
to Eurasian expert and China Daily columnist Liang Qiang, such a
corridor would be the
World’s longest economic belt, with the most potential for development,
and a strategic base of energy resources in the 21st century.
Liang Qiang further noted: “The Chinese government can strive for the
vision of establishing the Silk Road Economic Belt by making further
efforts to build mutual trust and overcome doubts, such as making clear
the difference between China’s vision and those of Russia and the US,
and stressing development and cooperation without economic integration,
and by taking into consideration the different concerns of different
countries and actively seeking converging economic interests with
regional countries.”
Read more on the next page:
22.06.2014
EU = SU² - An ahistorical
enterprise?
(Of Europe’s 9/11 and 11/9, 100 years later)
Europe of June 1914 and of
June 2014. Hundred years in between, two hot and one cold war. The
League of Nations, Cristal Night, Eurosong and Helsinki Decalogue Coco
Chanel, VW, Marshall Aid, Tito, Yuri Gagarin, Tolkien’s troll, Berlin
wall and Euro-toll Ideologies, purges, repeated genocides, the latest
one coinciding with the Maastricht birth of the Union… a televised
slaughterhouse and the Olympic city besieged for 1,000 days, just one
hour flight from Brussels.
E
non so più pregare
E nell'amore non so più sperare
E quell'amore non so più aspettare[1]
Key words in 1914: Jingoism, booming trade and lack of trust,
assassination, imminent collision, grand war. 100 years later; Europe
absorbed by the EU project, demographic and economic decline, chauvinism
reloaded … Twisting between the world of (Gavrilo) PRINCIP and global
village of (instant) MONETISATION (of every-thing and everyone)… Are our
past hundred years an indication of what to expect throughout this
century?! What is our roadmap?! Is it of any help to reflect on the
Sarajevo event of June 28th,
1914 which has finally fractured a fragile equilibrium of La Belle Èpoque,
and set the Old Continent (and its world) into the series of motions
that lasted for almost a century, before ending with the unique
unionistic form of today’s Europe?
Four men leading one
man bound
One man whom the four men hound
One man counted bound and led
One man whom the four men dread[2]
The following lines are not a comprehensive account on all of the
events. Rather interpretative by its nature, this is a modest reminder
of what Europe used and still tends to be, despite all our passions and
hopes, visions and targets, institutions and instruments.
![Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan, Assos. Prof.[1] Nguyen Linh[2]](images/Prof_Dr._Nguyen_Anh_Tuan_140.jpg)
World
Security Network reporting from Berlin in Germany, April 17, 2014
One
of the fastest growing economies (over 6%) and the forthcoming power
house in the impressive world’s top 10 club, as well as the largest
Muslim (but secular, republican and non-Arab) country is heading towards
its presidential elections. Mood, wisdom and passions of the strongly
emerging Indonesian middle class will be decisive this time. Or by words
of distinguish colleague of mine, professor Anis Bajrektarevic: “The
middle class is like a dual-use technology, it can be deployed
peacefully, but it also might be destructively weaponized, for at home
or abroad.”
1
Introduction
december-2014
