Wednesday, March 30, 2005
- Beerd Beukenhorst: "Metternich, Kissinger and the Balance of Power". Summary of "Kissinger and Metternich: is the historical parallel valid?", Presentation at LANDELIJKE AMERIKANISTENDAG", Netherlands American Studies Association (NASA), March 18, 2005 (*)
Henry Kissinger has always been very aware of history in shaping his policies. In his academic work at Harvard, before his political life, he became interested in the ideas and policies of Prince Metternich, the great Austrian statesman of the 19th century who shaped the international order in Europe after Napoleon. Metternich became an historical example for Kissinger, and his ideas were influential to him in several ways.
In my presentation I pointed to three realms of influence. First, there is the definition and scope of diplomacy. Second, there is the Metternichean conservatism and ideas about order and revolution which influenced Kissinger. Third, there is the concept of Balance of Power. In this web-summary I would like to emphasise only the third realm, Balance of Power.
In Metternich's world-view there existed a holy concept of order, which could be applied to the relations between states. Each nation should have their ‘natural’ realm of influence, in which it could satisfy its need for power without endangering their neighbours. A vital part of this order was a realistic approach of international relations, where contesting ideologies should be kept out.
Metternich demonstrated this by his approach towards France, which had brought devastating war to Europe after the Revolution. He insisted on handling France as an equal partner during the construction of the peace Treaty of Vienna. Only by shaping an order in which no parties felt resentment or injustice could there be peace in Europe. The century of relative peace after the Treaty of Vienna proved him right.
For Metternich, disruption of the balance of power would mean catastrophe, since it was against the holy order of nature. For Kissinger, preserving the balance was of equal importance, but for a different reason. In his world, a disruption of the balance would mean nuclear war and the end of civilization. It is a good example of how an historical concept isn’t only applicable 150 years later, but can even gain in importance.
Like Metternich, Kissinger tried to approach other nations without the burden of ideology. It was his idea to ‘open up’ China after decades of diplomatic frost, since China should be considered as a ‘normal nation’. He represented the realist school in American international relations, and his realism was European in fundament.
Kissinger's interpretation of détente has two strong Metternichean elements in it. First, by leaving ideology out of the international political arena, a large obstacle between the two fronts in the Cold War was removed. It made the goal of bringing both sides closer together easier. Second, Kissinger believed that the principle of Balance of Power could help détente. Talking with China should result in a more balanced system in Asia, just as talking in Europe should have the same effect there, according to Kissinger.
Was Kissingers historical example useful? That is a question we can never answer, since we don’t know how his policies would be if he didn’t have Metternich as an example. The successes of détente are questioned nowadays, but this discussion is of course heavily influenced by subsequent events, like the Reagan period and the end of the Cold War.
Without judging the value of historical examples, it is a fact that the ideas of Metternich were very helpful for Kissinger in shaping his vision on international relations and he used them for policy-making purposes. And in uncertain times, like during the Cold War, the man with a vision has an advantage.
beerdensas@zonnet.nl
(*) Many thanks to Mr. Beukenhorst, who wrote this piece especially for our site.
Henry Kissinger has always been very aware of history in shaping his policies. In his academic work at Harvard, before his political life, he became interested in the ideas and policies of Prince Metternich, the great Austrian statesman of the 19th century who shaped the international order in Europe after Napoleon. Metternich became an historical example for Kissinger, and his ideas were influential to him in several ways.
In my presentation I pointed to three realms of influence. First, there is the definition and scope of diplomacy. Second, there is the Metternichean conservatism and ideas about order and revolution which influenced Kissinger. Third, there is the concept of Balance of Power. In this web-summary I would like to emphasise only the third realm, Balance of Power.
In Metternich's world-view there existed a holy concept of order, which could be applied to the relations between states. Each nation should have their ‘natural’ realm of influence, in which it could satisfy its need for power without endangering their neighbours. A vital part of this order was a realistic approach of international relations, where contesting ideologies should be kept out.
Metternich demonstrated this by his approach towards France, which had brought devastating war to Europe after the Revolution. He insisted on handling France as an equal partner during the construction of the peace Treaty of Vienna. Only by shaping an order in which no parties felt resentment or injustice could there be peace in Europe. The century of relative peace after the Treaty of Vienna proved him right.
For Metternich, disruption of the balance of power would mean catastrophe, since it was against the holy order of nature. For Kissinger, preserving the balance was of equal importance, but for a different reason. In his world, a disruption of the balance would mean nuclear war and the end of civilization. It is a good example of how an historical concept isn’t only applicable 150 years later, but can even gain in importance.
Like Metternich, Kissinger tried to approach other nations without the burden of ideology. It was his idea to ‘open up’ China after decades of diplomatic frost, since China should be considered as a ‘normal nation’. He represented the realist school in American international relations, and his realism was European in fundament.
Kissinger's interpretation of détente has two strong Metternichean elements in it. First, by leaving ideology out of the international political arena, a large obstacle between the two fronts in the Cold War was removed. It made the goal of bringing both sides closer together easier. Second, Kissinger believed that the principle of Balance of Power could help détente. Talking with China should result in a more balanced system in Asia, just as talking in Europe should have the same effect there, according to Kissinger.
Was Kissingers historical example useful? That is a question we can never answer, since we don’t know how his policies would be if he didn’t have Metternich as an example. The successes of détente are questioned nowadays, but this discussion is of course heavily influenced by subsequent events, like the Reagan period and the end of the Cold War.
Without judging the value of historical examples, it is a fact that the ideas of Metternich were very helpful for Kissinger in shaping his vision on international relations and he used them for policy-making purposes. And in uncertain times, like during the Cold War, the man with a vision has an advantage.
beerdensas@zonnet.nl
(*) Many thanks to Mr. Beukenhorst, who wrote this piece especially for our site.
Friday, March 18, 2005
- Seminar: "LANDELIJKE AMERIKANISTENDAG", Netherlands American Studies Association (NASA). Organized by UvA.
I atttended the following events: the keynote lecture (see the program below), workshop II, workshop IV and the final discussion panel. These sessions were all chaired by Prof. Ruud Janssens. Workshop II started with an excellent presentation by Sandor Loeffen (RU) on "Guantánamo Bay Detainees: International and US Law in the Age of Terrorism."
Sandor gave a legal perspective on the issue; he presented the United States Supreme Court ruling of June 30, 2004, as a vivid illustration of the principle of the separation of powers (*). During the Q&A session, I asked him about the dismail failure of the same principle in early 1942, when more than a hundred-and- ten thousand Japanese-Americans were detained in concentration camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor (**).
Fleur Ravensbergen (RU) followed with an account of her participation in United Nations simulation program at Harvard University. Frans van Nijnatten closed the session with his very interesting comments on "Jimmy Carter, Politician".
Workshop IV included three well-conducted presentations: (a) "Dutch-American military and nuclear relations" by Rienk Terpstra (RSC/UU); (b) "Kissinger and Metternich: is the historical parallel valid?" by Beerd Beukenhorst (UvA); (c) "The Dutch envoy van Polanen and the Republican experiment in the United States, 1796-1802" by Lennart van Oudheudsen.
The seminar was conducted in Dutch. Although I had a hard time understading each and every point made by the speakers, I think I was able to capture the essence of the presentations. I asked Beerd about an interesting paradox involving Metternich, Kissinger and ... Charles de Gaulle (about whom I am writing my MA thesis). In the international arena, all of them proved extremely skillful at balancing foreign powers against each other. However, none of them welcomed any division of power ... at home! Arguably, this led (eventually) to their downfall.
(*) The rulings can be read here, here and here.
(**) See the description of the Japanese internment in Conrad Black. Roosevelt. Champion of Freedom. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.
I atttended the following events: the keynote lecture (see the program below), workshop II, workshop IV and the final discussion panel. These sessions were all chaired by Prof. Ruud Janssens. Workshop II started with an excellent presentation by Sandor Loeffen (RU) on "Guantánamo Bay Detainees: International and US Law in the Age of Terrorism."
Sandor gave a legal perspective on the issue; he presented the United States Supreme Court ruling of June 30, 2004, as a vivid illustration of the principle of the separation of powers (*). During the Q&A session, I asked him about the dismail failure of the same principle in early 1942, when more than a hundred-and- ten thousand Japanese-Americans were detained in concentration camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor (**).
Fleur Ravensbergen (RU) followed with an account of her participation in United Nations simulation program at Harvard University. Frans van Nijnatten closed the session with his very interesting comments on "Jimmy Carter, Politician".
Workshop IV included three well-conducted presentations: (a) "Dutch-American military and nuclear relations" by Rienk Terpstra (RSC/UU); (b) "Kissinger and Metternich: is the historical parallel valid?" by Beerd Beukenhorst (UvA); (c) "The Dutch envoy van Polanen and the Republican experiment in the United States, 1796-1802" by Lennart van Oudheudsen.
The seminar was conducted in Dutch. Although I had a hard time understading each and every point made by the speakers, I think I was able to capture the essence of the presentations. I asked Beerd about an interesting paradox involving Metternich, Kissinger and ... Charles de Gaulle (about whom I am writing my MA thesis). In the international arena, all of them proved extremely skillful at balancing foreign powers against each other. However, none of them welcomed any division of power ... at home! Arguably, this led (eventually) to their downfall.
(*) The rulings can be read here, here and here.
(**) See the description of the Japanese internment in Conrad Black. Roosevelt. Champion of Freedom. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.
- Seminar: "LANDELIJKE AMERIKANISTENDAG", Netherlands American Studies Association.
This year's landelijke amerikanistendag ("nationwide American Studies day") was organized by UvA -- and what a success it was! Check out the info (mostly in Dutch) at the seminar's webiste. Here's the list of seminars and workshops:
10:00-11:00. Keynote lecture: prof. Robert Skloot on Arthur Miller (in English). Prof. Skloot is Professor of Theater and Drama, University of Wisconsin at Madison; he holds --this semester-- the Walt Whitman Chair at Universiteit van Utrecht.
11:00-12:30. Workshops I, II & III.
12:30-14:00. Lunch.
14:00-15:30. Workshops IV, V & VI.
15:30-16:00. Coffe & Tea.
16:00-17:30. Discussion Panel on "Integration and American Studies: European Immigration Policy & Federalism: A Comparative Perspective." Panel members: Kathalijne Buitenweg, European Parliament, Groen Links; Jaap Kooijman, professor of Media & Culture, UvA; Rob Kroes, Professor of American Studies, UvA. Moderator: Ruud Janssens, Professor of American Studies, UvA.
This year's landelijke amerikanistendag ("nationwide American Studies day") was organized by UvA -- and what a success it was! Check out the info (mostly in Dutch) at the seminar's webiste. Here's the list of seminars and workshops:
10:00-11:00. Keynote lecture: prof. Robert Skloot on Arthur Miller (in English). Prof. Skloot is Professor of Theater and Drama, University of Wisconsin at Madison; he holds --this semester-- the Walt Whitman Chair at Universiteit van Utrecht.
11:00-12:30. Workshops I, II & III.
12:30-14:00. Lunch.
14:00-15:30. Workshops IV, V & VI.
15:30-16:00. Coffe & Tea.
16:00-17:30. Discussion Panel on "Integration and American Studies: European Immigration Policy & Federalism: A Comparative Perspective." Panel members: Kathalijne Buitenweg, European Parliament, Groen Links; Jaap Kooijman, professor of Media & Culture, UvA; Rob Kroes, Professor of American Studies, UvA. Moderator: Ruud Janssens, Professor of American Studies, UvA.
Monday, March 14, 2005
- DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA: THE PRIVATE AND THE PUBLIC
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
Sigmund Freud. Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Penguin [1930].
Reviewed by Ieva, Sabrina and Wiebke.
Comments by Agustin: Sigmund Freud & Viagra.
Today, I will venture to defend a risky and surprising proposition. My point is that, thanks to the wonders of both Judeo-Christian morals and capitalism, there has never been --in terms of overall sexual satisfaction-- a happier time than today. Indeed, Dr. Freud would be very surprised!
In his remarks on "American civilization" in chapter 5, Freud mentions "the psychological misery of the mass" and --in the very next sentence-- the role played by "individuals of leadership." All in all, and making due allowance for the confusion that permeates the whole chapter, the outlook is pretty grim.
My point is that Freud's therapeutic methodolgy enabled him to see the trees, but not the forest. His focus on the individual, coupled with his lack of knowledge about the inherent vitality of the capitalist system, is at the root of a massive error of interpretation.
Bill Gates' Women -- or Woman?
Let me mention here a well-known American "individual of leadership". In its recently published ranking of billionaires, Forbes Magazine (once again) puts Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, at the top. Now let me ask the following question: how many women does Mr. Gates have?
The answer is: one -- his wife. In terms of overall sexual gratification, this is a truly extraordinary fact. Here's my point: that an individual of Mr. Gates' standing, prestige, power and wealth should have only one woman is a remarkable accomplishment. Only our (much maligned) Western civilization makes it possible.
Thanks to Judeo-Christian morality, even very powerful men can accept the principle of monogamy. This acceptance has a massive consequence: it means that "non-alpha males" can have sex! Our civilization has democratized sex like no other! Let's very briefly review what happens in other civilizations. In his biography of Chairman Mao, Philipp Short acknowledges the positive role played by the Chinese Revolution in terms of the situation of women, especially in the countryside (*).
But if you read on, you will find that Chairman Mao did indeed have dozens and dozens of women at his disposal. Comrades would make sure that, even during his tournées out of the capital, the Chairman would spend a pleasant night in the company of at least one beautiful girl.
Or take the case of Saudi Arabia -- now. There are about five thousand princes of the royal family. Each of these (very wealthy) men has the legal right to marry four women. Given the equal proportion of girls and boys that are born every year, the consequence of such polygamy is impossible to hide: it means sexual starvation for the masses.
Now, the Christian paradise is a fairly spiritual affair: Samuel Johnson described it to his biographer James Boswell as a place where souls are "floating" somewhere in Heaven. The Muslim paradise, on the other hand, is a very sensual place. There's water, wine, food and --above all-- virgins. Lots of them. In other words: the price to pay for a place full of virgins in heaven is sexual starvation ... on earth (**).
ED, EE and DD
The other day, while watching CNBC, I was surprised by the sheer size of the market for the so-called "Life-Style Drugs" created to deal with symptoms such as ED (Erectile Dysfunction), EE (Early Ejaculation) and DD (Desire Dysfunction, for women with "persistent loss of libido".) Billions of dollars change hands annually for these products. That necessarily means that a sexual revolution is going on!
Here's a safe bet: the availabity of cheap medical treatments for ED, EE and DD (among a handfull of sex-related conditions) is putting psychoanalysts out of business ... by the thousands! (***). What a surprise, Dr. Freud! The unending vitality of the capitalist system, with its premium on innovation and risk-taking, is making a sizeable (no pun intended) contribution to the solution of humankind's sexual problems.
My conclusion is thus the following: Judeo-Christian morals and capitalism are creating --right here, right now-- the best period ever, in the history of civilization, in terms of overall sexual satisfaction. True, many individuals still suffer from ED, EE and DD. Presumably, that has always been the case, and that will forever be the case.
But, unlike Dr. Freud, let us not lose sight of the forest! This is indeed a very happy time. And the good news may not be over yet. One the one hand, the democratic tsunami that is currently engulfing much of the world can only bring good news for non-alpha males, especially in the Middle East. On the other hand, the process of business innovation continues unabated. What a wonderful world!
(*) Philipp Short. Mao. A Life. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000.
(**) Lev Navrozov. "Islamic Suicidal Terrorism", NewsMax.com, April 29, 2004.
(***) During the discussion, Prof. van de Bilt agreed with me on this point. He mentioned the case of US insurance companies, which have sharply curtailed expenses on pyschoanalytical treatments in favor of ... the pills!
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
Sigmund Freud. Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Penguin [1930].
Reviewed by Ieva, Sabrina and Wiebke.
Comments by Agustin: Sigmund Freud & Viagra.
Today, I will venture to defend a risky and surprising proposition. My point is that, thanks to the wonders of both Judeo-Christian morals and capitalism, there has never been --in terms of overall sexual satisfaction-- a happier time than today. Indeed, Dr. Freud would be very surprised!
In his remarks on "American civilization" in chapter 5, Freud mentions "the psychological misery of the mass" and --in the very next sentence-- the role played by "individuals of leadership." All in all, and making due allowance for the confusion that permeates the whole chapter, the outlook is pretty grim.
My point is that Freud's therapeutic methodolgy enabled him to see the trees, but not the forest. His focus on the individual, coupled with his lack of knowledge about the inherent vitality of the capitalist system, is at the root of a massive error of interpretation.
Bill Gates' Women -- or Woman?
Let me mention here a well-known American "individual of leadership". In its recently published ranking of billionaires, Forbes Magazine (once again) puts Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, at the top. Now let me ask the following question: how many women does Mr. Gates have?
The answer is: one -- his wife. In terms of overall sexual gratification, this is a truly extraordinary fact. Here's my point: that an individual of Mr. Gates' standing, prestige, power and wealth should have only one woman is a remarkable accomplishment. Only our (much maligned) Western civilization makes it possible.
Thanks to Judeo-Christian morality, even very powerful men can accept the principle of monogamy. This acceptance has a massive consequence: it means that "non-alpha males" can have sex! Our civilization has democratized sex like no other! Let's very briefly review what happens in other civilizations. In his biography of Chairman Mao, Philipp Short acknowledges the positive role played by the Chinese Revolution in terms of the situation of women, especially in the countryside (*).
But if you read on, you will find that Chairman Mao did indeed have dozens and dozens of women at his disposal. Comrades would make sure that, even during his tournées out of the capital, the Chairman would spend a pleasant night in the company of at least one beautiful girl.
Or take the case of Saudi Arabia -- now. There are about five thousand princes of the royal family. Each of these (very wealthy) men has the legal right to marry four women. Given the equal proportion of girls and boys that are born every year, the consequence of such polygamy is impossible to hide: it means sexual starvation for the masses.
Now, the Christian paradise is a fairly spiritual affair: Samuel Johnson described it to his biographer James Boswell as a place where souls are "floating" somewhere in Heaven. The Muslim paradise, on the other hand, is a very sensual place. There's water, wine, food and --above all-- virgins. Lots of them. In other words: the price to pay for a place full of virgins in heaven is sexual starvation ... on earth (**).
ED, EE and DD
The other day, while watching CNBC, I was surprised by the sheer size of the market for the so-called "Life-Style Drugs" created to deal with symptoms such as ED (Erectile Dysfunction), EE (Early Ejaculation) and DD (Desire Dysfunction, for women with "persistent loss of libido".) Billions of dollars change hands annually for these products. That necessarily means that a sexual revolution is going on!
Here's a safe bet: the availabity of cheap medical treatments for ED, EE and DD (among a handfull of sex-related conditions) is putting psychoanalysts out of business ... by the thousands! (***). What a surprise, Dr. Freud! The unending vitality of the capitalist system, with its premium on innovation and risk-taking, is making a sizeable (no pun intended) contribution to the solution of humankind's sexual problems.
My conclusion is thus the following: Judeo-Christian morals and capitalism are creating --right here, right now-- the best period ever, in the history of civilization, in terms of overall sexual satisfaction. True, many individuals still suffer from ED, EE and DD. Presumably, that has always been the case, and that will forever be the case.
But, unlike Dr. Freud, let us not lose sight of the forest! This is indeed a very happy time. And the good news may not be over yet. One the one hand, the democratic tsunami that is currently engulfing much of the world can only bring good news for non-alpha males, especially in the Middle East. On the other hand, the process of business innovation continues unabated. What a wonderful world!
(*) Philipp Short. Mao. A Life. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000.
(**) Lev Navrozov. "Islamic Suicidal Terrorism", NewsMax.com, April 29, 2004.
(***) During the discussion, Prof. van de Bilt agreed with me on this point. He mentioned the case of US insurance companies, which have sharply curtailed expenses on pyschoanalytical treatments in favor of ... the pills!
Monday, March 07, 2005
- DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA: THE PRIVATE AND THE PUBLIC
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
John Dewey. The Public and its Problems (1927)
Reviewed by Rhonda & Martijn.
Lecturer: Eduard van de Bilt
John Dewey. The Public and its Problems (1927)
Reviewed by Rhonda & Martijn.
