Checks&Balancesvolume 10, issue 4, 2014

The MachiavellianMisconception

Interview -Constantin von Eggert

Abdul Qadeer Khan -Dr. Strangelove

&Pe

ople

in In

tern

atio

nal

Rela

tions

Life after IRMarije Breukelman

IR in Images Picture in a Frame

Content &

19

FEATURESARTICLESThe Machiavellian MisconceptionPolitics: A tightrope made out of pragmatism and necessity

Source: World Press Photo A

rchives

CheCks&BalanCes

6

Abdul Qadeer KhanThe real Dr. Strangelove

7

The Personality of LeadershipA look at the influence of UN Secretary Generals

8

Interview with Constantin von EggertQuill and Ink versus Power Politics

10

Looking for the Human Face of CommunismA reflection on the life and politics of Alexander Dubček

16

Self-Immolation: Dying Without KillingDelve into the ‘ultimate’ form of social protest

19

The Political Merit of Getting HammeredA guest column by Davy Oostrom

22

On Board Mark reflects on the world of IR

4

Editorial Sander introduces the edition

5

Country ZoomNauru - The Pleasant Island?

12

14

Diary of...David Shim

18

21

&

Cartoon & IR in Images answersChanging the world

23

& Editorial

ColofonChecks&Balances is a publication of

study association Clio.C&B appears four times per academic

year.

editorial staffSander des Tombe

Bas VosSteffen Engling

Till EichlerClaire Defossez

Kristina PreikšaitytėTom Bosma

Coen BerkhoutAnnieke Mossel

Copy editingAndréanne NadeauAnneke Haringsma

Kenneth JhinkoeSuze Commandeur

Theo KerckhoffsCoen Berkhout

editor-in-chiefSander des Tombe

FreelanceMarije Breukelman

David ShimDavy OostromEmmi Schmid

lay-outCoen Berkhout

PrintingScholma Druk

Circulation1150 pieces

Contact informationChecks&BalancesOude Kijk in ’t Jatstraat 269712 EK Groningenchecks@clio.nlwww.checksandbalances.nl

subscriptionFour editions per academic year for €12,50Please subscribe by visiting the website or sending an e-mail to the editorial staff

Cover photoNomad Tales, BrunswickMelbourne

Dear readers,

What kind of impact do we have on the world? Or does this possibility only count for a few people, like the presi-dent of the US? I argue against this, as our decisions influence the world in such inconceivable ways.

While some expect that individual efforts perish in the masses, what exceptions are there than to be found? Could you name a person who held strong in the eyes of grand theories or by himself enabled global norms to

be seriously harmed?

After you read this edition you will. And much more. So start reading and imagine what kind of impact you might have on the world one day. Imagine for instance how you can be a better leader of the biggest international

organization.

While many people will indeed fade into insignificance, I presume few IR students aspire this prospect. On the other hand, few would set themselves on fire or become the scapegoat for authoritarianism to achieve this goal.

It therefore comes all down to this. The world remains a cold and harsh anarchy. But as these stories will prove, it is still what you make of it.

Bearing that in mind,

Enjoy

Sander Des Tombe

Editor in Chief

4

On Board &

Dear reader,

After six weeks of holidays, the University has opened its doors again on the first of September. How different is this university life, where you can just take a six week break, from the real world we live in and the world we study; the world of IR.

These six weeks have brought major changes to the field of IR. Think of the shuffle of power in the European Union or of our new Eu-ropean President who does not speak French or English (yet)? Think about the rise of IS, the self-proclamation of a new Caliphate and the nauseating decapitation videos. And, what about the deals, agreements and truces between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Palestine

and many other countries.

The world of IR is a fascinating world that is captured by our high-quality magazine Checks & Balances. So please, sit down and enjoy the first edition of a brand new Checks & Balances.

On behalf of the 27th Board,

Mark DanhofChairman Study Association Clio

5

Clio Board 2014-2015

The black lists were formed during the German occupati-on. Our family was condemned in 1941. On that fateful evening, three men broke into our house. They checked whether the whole family was present and then read the re-

solution. I was fifteen back then. My other sisters were thirteen, eight and the youngest one was only three years old. Blankets and sheets were thrown on the ground, and in these bundles the most important things were put: clothes, wool, dishes. We were allowed to take a shot pig, three cut chickens and one bag of wheat with us. Neighbors, who came to give us butter, eggs and cheese, weren’t pushed aside. After that we were placed into carriages and taken away, along with three other families.

At that point, staying together was the most important thing. We stopped near the region of Dūkša and then moved into an animal train carriage. We had little time, so we plucked the chickens and chopped the meat. The bag of wheat was taken away. More and more people came, we were forced to squeeze.

That night we could not sleep. The door was closed and there were only two small windows. There were nineteen families in our carria-ge, 56 people in total. At noon, during the Saint Mass time, we all sang psalms, prayed and cried.

It took us eightteen days to get to the camp. While driving, we could not prepare food, so during our short stops we tried to buy some her-ring or a bag of potatoes. People had to excrete just by the train, the guards did not even allow us step from the carriages. Later on we were not allowed to go out anymore. The majority started to excrete inside. It was dreadful. Feces were then spilled out through the window. A horrible, nasty stench. More and more people got ill. We were short on water. Lice started to breed.

Finally, on Friday, June 14th, the carriage stopped. We were accom-modated in a double-storey house: two families on the first floor and

the other two on the second. We got the first one – a room of 20 squa-re meters. There was a wooden table, two benches along the wall, a furnace and a couple of bunks. Obviously, our family did not fit. Thus our stuff was thrown away.

That is how we ended up from Eastern Europe to central Asia, a place near Buryatia, in the national sites of the Mongolians. 27 Lithuanian families were resettled in our farm.

Just as we arrived, ‘death‘ became the principal word, a constant ima-ge that would never leave our minds. Once formed, the cemetery was rapidly expanding. On 1952 April 22, a ten year old boy was laid there to rest, too. He was ill for a while when suddenly a demented drun-kard burst into the house, shouting that he would kill all the fascists, and cut the boy with an axe. All of the Lithuanians and some local people gathered to that harrowing funeral. Silent tears were rolling over all our faces. On February 11, 1953 we buried our grandmother there as well.

Our daily lives were inseparable with backbreaking work. The first task that women had to comply with was the wheat weeding. Later on, we had to dig ditches along the road; however, the most tiring chore was haymaking, since we had to cut 15 acres of hay. In return for labor, our family received 65 kg of various grains. That was all we got and thus famine spread inevitably. I spent the last years of my childhood in poverty and humiliation.

On 1958 April 14 our family was destined to come back to Lithuania. 56 years have passed from the days spent in exile, however, I still re-member our struggles and the injustice which we had to adhere. The wounds of those who were resettled can never be healed.’

& In Short

The MaChiavellian MisConCePTion

Il Principe (‘the Prince’) was written in Florence, Italy, in 1513. During this period Italy was divided, thus weak, with countless enemies threatening the city-states. Therefore, regime change was the Sword of Damocles hovering above rulers and subjects

alike. In this light, Machiavelli wrote Il Principe, a short and prag-matic codification of his expertise that was meant to teach statesmen how to rule effectively for the longest possible time.

The first thing worth noting is that Machiavelli is one of the first po-litical philosophers to completely separate ethics from politics. This amorality may be a cause for distrust in Machiavellian leadership, but is not necessarily a fault; Machiavelli makes a clear distinction between the good of the state and the general –Christian- good. The good of the state is always survival. In a system where power is volati-le and threatened by impending invaders, the end justifies the means. All the more so because for a leader, everything is at stake: his prin-cipality and reputation, but most importantly his life and the lives of his subjects. Moreover, morality demands absolute consistency, dis-regarding context and contravening circumstances. Machiavelli ho-wever, argues that sometimes immoral behavior is allowed to prevent a worse situation. An effective leader does not have to be virtuous or just, as long as state survival is ensured. As he put it himself: “Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

This concept of necessity seems arbitrary, but Machiavelli provides two components that shape the political system: Fortuna and Virtù. Fortuna represents all the uncontrollable elements for a leader which could threaten his state. Often described as the goddess of luck or fortune, she is volatile and neutral, but relentless. The spinning wheel symbolizes her, which one could ride to the top, only to be thrown to the ground. Instead of moral guidelines, Machiavelli advises to be flexible in order to withstand the challenges Fortuna throws at you, because even though Fortuna cannot be stopped, her whim can be altered similar to how dikes and dams can tame a wild river. The term Virtù represents these dikes. Machiavelli uses this term to describe the quality a leader needs in order to rule effectively. It means va-lor, skill or prowess, referring to the awe a leader must inspire in his subjects, soldiers and challengers. Virtù stands for the leader’s acti-ons, and therefore is the opposite of the uncontrollable Fortuna. Even though they are opposites, they are interdependent. Without Fortu-na, or opportunity, Virtù is wasted, and without a leader possessing Virtù, opportunities are wasted.

In conclusion, according to Machiavelli there is no good or evil in politics, only a tightrope made out of pragmatism and necessity, made treacherous by Fortuna’s whim. A rope that only a leader possessing Virtù will be able to walk without falling. Amorality is the choice a leader makes in order to protect not only his reputation or territory, but the very survival of his state, his life and those of his servants.

6

& In Short

The name Niccoló Machiavelli stirs various reactions. Some reverent of his pragmatic approach, others appalled by the negligence of ethical factors. Most people will regard this name synonymous to Realpolitik and brutal, calculating statesmanship. However, leaving moral objections aside, Machiavelli’s most influential book, Il Principe, makes sound, applicable claims. This renders Machiavelli one of the Humans of IR deserving a defense against the misconceptions surrounding him.

By Tom Bosma

Phot

o: W

iki C

omm

ons

Publ

ic D

omai

n

In Short &

Abdul Qadeer, a Pakistani studied metallurgist, joined the scientific staff at the Dutch uranium enrichment compa-ny URENCO in the 1970s. It was here at URENCO where Khan got into contact with URENCO’s mathematical so-

lutions to problems related to the complex gas centrifuges required to enrich uranium and he helped to improve these centrifuges’ effici-ency. Due to India’s first successful nuclear test in 1974 Pakistan got under pressure and nuclear enrichment became top priority. Abdul Qadeer saw his opportunity to apply his URENCO knowledge and reached out to Pakistan officials. After an initial rejection Khan was appointed in the atomic bomb project in 1975 by the Prime Minister Bhutto himself- after a personal audience. What many people did not know was that in the thirty years Khan would be among the top of Pakistan’s nuclear physicists working on the bomb, he would also sell blueprints, expertise and technology to any rogue state with nuclear ambitions who were willing to pay the price.

Some of these allegations surfaced already in the 1980s, when Khan was sentenced to four years in prison in Amsterdam on account of attempted espionage. It was reported that Khan was a key figure in a smuggling network selling nuclear secrets to China where he perso-nally assisted in the building process of the Hanzhong centrifuge faci-lity. This factory used URENCO technology to make the uranium en-richment work. He was never indicted however, which allowed Khan to hand over sensitive documents related to centrifuge technology to the Iranian government five years later. This came to light in 2003, when an IAEA inspection discovered that the centrifuges were also using URENCO technology, obtained from a ‘foreign intermediary’

in 1989. Then, in the 1990s, a new peace treaty was signed between Pakistan and North Korea, making way for Khan to trade centrifuge technology for missile parts. Then finally, in 2003, Libyan officials na-med Khan as a supplier of sensitive information when their nuclear facilities were shut down. Nuclear facilities with centrifuges which looked remarkably like the centrifuges used by URENCO and the Pak-1 centrifuges in Iran.

A long controversy began after 2004, when the AIEA and United States and European Commission officials pressed to investigate the proliferation ring Khan was running. The Pakistani government, led by Musharraf, labeled the Khan-issue as ‘case-closed’, Khan was par-doned and never officially charged with espionage or other criminal offenses. To this day, Khan is never questioned concerning the atomic ring by anyone else than the Pakistan military – a debriefing which was classified and wrapped up swiftly after Musharraf ’s fall from pre-sidential office. Khan has since given some interviews in which he explained that the ring was overseen by Musharraf and ex-Prime Mi-nister Bhutto earlier who instructed him to sell the plans.

Whether Bhutto and his followers were aware of Khan’s actions or in-stigated it is unknown as of yet. Could it be the trade was government ordered during the office of three separate prime ministers and swift-ly wrapped up to evade an even more disastrous scandal? Although we cannot find out the true motives for now, the Khan story makes it clear that the power to change the world can be up to a single person, even those with no political positions.

Far-reaching decisions are not always made by high level top politicians like Obama or Merkel. Sometimes world politics is shaped by individuals which are not members of the international plane at all. Adul Qadeer Khan is an example how single individuals for whatever reasons take action in the global balance of power.

In Short &

7

In Short &

by Till Eichler

abdul Qadeer khan

7

Sour

ce: L

ibra

ry o

f Con

gres

s

8

How much of an impact can individuals have in the world of International Relati-ons? And is this depending on one’s place in the international system or one’s perso-nality, one’s specific set of values, beliefs and talents? An answer to these important questions may best be found when examining the “power” of the UN Secretary General, as different incumbents have exercised it.

The PersonaliTy oF leadershiP

by Steffen Engling

Few offices in world politics are as prominent and prone to public criticism as the office of the UN Secretary General. Many set high hopes in the respective officeholder, believing that he or she can be a force for the original, idealistic goals of the UN (Stabilization of global peace, Humanitarian Progress and Equality among sovereign states). Others think that the Secretary General is merely the highest administrative official of the “bureaucratic monster” that is the Uni-ted Nations.

Over the last 22 years three very different men, Boutros Boutros-Gha-li, Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon, have led the UN and each has un-derstood this task in a profoundly different way. At the same time, the structures of the UN have roughly remained the same, as major reforms turned out to be extremely difficult to fulfill. So let’s examine how their different personalities and biographies have influenced the contents and the success of their respective policies.

In 1992 the UN as well as the world as a whole was in phase of transiti-on. The Cold War was over, as well as the 1st Gulf War. When Boutros Boutros-Ghali took office that year he was seen by many as the perfect candidate: Secondly he was broadly educated in International Law, Politics and Economics and had extensive diplomatic, as well as aca-demic experience. Furthermore he was involved in drafting the Camp David agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. This made him amenable for Arabs, Africans, Westerners, and Jews alike. During his

time in office he focused on peacekeeping as well. He hoped that freed from the gridlock of the Cold War the UN could be much more active in this field, following his “Agenda for Peace” (1992). But although the scale of UN peacekeeping operations quadrupled within the first 2 years of his term, Boutros-Ghali would soon find the limits of his power. Under his leadership the massacres in Ruanda and Srebreni-ca took place (partly because of UN member states’ unwillingness to send troops). And when in 1996 Boutros-Ghali wanted to run for a second term, the US threatened to veto his possible election. For Clinton, Boutros Boutros-Ghali had not reformed (=shrank) the UN sufficiently. Furthermore Clinton feared that the UN would request more US troops for new peacekeeping operations in the future. 1996 was an election year in the US, and after the disastrous Battle of Mo-gadishu in 1993 Clinton’s electorate wouldn’t tolerate more US sol-diers fighting and possibly dying under the UN flag.

Boutros-Ghali’s successor Kofi Annan was one the UN’s very own: he had basically spent all his working life at the United Nations, last wor-king on the crucial post of undersecretary for peacekeeping. For his actions in this function he was heavily criticized after Rwanda and the massacre in the UN guaranteed “safe zone” of Srebrenica. Neverthe-less, in 1996 the Ghanaian was the best pick because he knew the UN better than everybody else. Based on this knowledge he would tailor his policy approach to this: While appearing mildly and friendly, yet determined in negotiations with state leaders, he was a man of big ge-stures and bold statements when acting in public. Annan had under-stood that if he wanted to successfully promote his goals he could not rely on the nominal authorities of the UN Secretary General alone. These very limited powers were helpful when Annan mediated – as he often did - between parties in deadlocked negotiations, but not for much more. Instead Kofi Annan had realized that he had to become an ethic authority, “the world’s moral consciousness”. Only if he could create enough public pressure he could contribute to real progress. And so he did.

& Article

“When in 1996 Boutros-Ghali wanted to run for a second term, the US threatened

to veto his possible election.”

A look at the UN Secretary General

Article &

He made the fight against HIV/Aids a top priority and reached agree-ment with the USA about streamlining the UN and the payment of outstanding US contributions. Under his leadership the creation of the International Criminal Court was finalized, the millennium de-velopment goals were set up and battling Climate Change was made a major issue. For these and many other achievements Annan and the UN both received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001. The commis-sion was in agreement with most scholars and world leaders when it credited Annan with revitalizing the UN after the difficult time in the early 90s. After having been reelected the same year, Annan later also spoke out against the US in 2003 when he called the invasion of Iraq “illegal” and was outspoken in his opposition to the war.

Having experienced such confident and independent leadership in a position that could also become an opponent at times, in 2006 especi-ally the USA were looking for a successor for Kofi Annan who would be easier to deal with. It was Asia’s turn to put forward candidates and soon Ban Ki Moon, who was then South Korean foreign minister, was the only one left in the race who would not be vetoed by any of the Veto-Powers. He came into office in January 2007 and in many ways he was the secretary general the USA (and others) had wished for: Not very controversial; with a focus on consensus and not very tough towards member states. While there is no doubt that he is tirelessly working (in silent) to promote his broad agenda, it often seems that he avoids bringing up critical points in public. Ban tried to use the moral authority of his office as well. But unlike Annan, Ban lacks cha-risma and credibility because he is not able to deliver on his promises. A leaked report from the Norwegian ambassador to the UN stated

in 2009 that Ban was bland, lacking leadership skills and relatively unsuccessful in his policy ventures (e. g. reaching out to Myanmar). He has given speeches and made statements on a broad range of to-pics (Middle East, Climate Change, and LGBT Rights) but so far he cannot really point to substantial progress in any of them. And so you get the impression that he was reelected in 2011 not necessarily for making real progress, but rather for not standing on anybody’s toes too much. Of course, it is still too early to give a definitive assessment of Ban’s performance. But it is probably safe to say that his record so far has not been very promising.

As seen above the three men have picked very distinct approaches to the office of Secretary General, with very different results. This shows us the importance of the personal contributions of world leaders. Their authority and ability to exert influence in world politics is not exclusively dependent on the offices they are holding but rather on how they interpret this office in light of their own personality.

Photo: Pete Souza

9

“A leaked report stated in 2009 that Ban was ‘bland, lacking leadership

skills and relatively unsuccessful in his political ventures.”

Nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world. For this reason, uncertainty about the future should not be comprehended in a negative fashion. The majo-rity of great people that significantly contributed to the conduct of international affairs did not know where their path led. Konstantin von Eggert is one of them. His career achievements and attitude towards Russia’s current foreign policy inspire and affirm that the very search for certainty guarantees fascinating dis-coveries along the way.

by Kristina Preikšaitytė

Konstantin von Eggert did not study journalism. After gra-duating from Moscow University he was enlisted to serve at the national army services in the Yemen Arab Republic for three years as a military translator. ‘It was an interesting

time. The Cold War was on its lasts legs, the first contacts between Is-rael and Palestine had been established and Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The latter had a major effect on American-Soviet relations. Because the Soviet Union decided not to back up Saddam Hussein’s regime, the American officers suddenly started to invite us, Russians, to parties and be grateful for our state’s international position. Every-thing was changing and new openings and possibilities were emer-ging. In the late 1980s and early 1990s in the Middle East it felt as it was spring, as if everything was unfreezing, becoming alive. It was a unique feeling, a testimony of a very deep effect that the Cold War had not only on the political systems, but on people as well. Having witnessed this period of the history of mankind in the Middle East I know that a positive change is always possible’.

A change was evident not only in the Middle East. ‘It was thrilling – I left one country in 1987 and I when I discharged from the army in 1990 I came back to a completely different one. The Soviet Union was ostensibly disintegrating in front of everyone’s eyes: once occupied countries, such as the Baltic States, had already declared their inde-pendence and all Soviet institutions were in a state of complete chaos. I realized early on that my inclination, my nature drew me towards communication with people; hence I wished to work for one of the Soviet news organizations, but due to the overall disorder, for quite a while I could not find a job’.

It was not until Gorbachev’s glasnost was introduced that the pos-sibilities for journalists to find a ‘proper’ job increased. By virtue of the freedom of speech, new media organizations – newspapers, radio stations – emerged. Konstantin von Eggert was accepted to work as a reporter for ‘Kuranty’ and later as a diplomatic correspondent for Izvestia Daily. ‘At that particular time Russian media organizations sought people who were not tainted by the Soviet understanding of journalism based on propaganda and lies. In the early 1990s Russia experienced a virtual influx of journalism, as scientists from different backgrounds – biologists, historians, actors – joined the ranks of new,

innovative newspaper writers. Journalism became a very respectable profession in the eyes of society. Journalists were heroes, according to the general public’.

In 1998 von Eggert started working as the Editor-in-Chief of the BBC Russian Service Moscow bureau. He admits it was rather difficult to cope with his responsibilities. ‘Russian journalism is frequently ba-sed on a mixture of opinion and facts. It is driven by people’s egos, by their perceptions of themselves, their opinion and its significance. In the BBC one has to forget about that and had to present facts by reserving my own personal opinion. I had to put the corporation’s ethics above my personal ambitions. This had a very profound effect on me as a person. I had to restrain my quick temper and the desire to impose my opinion on others. Having to take a step back from the limelight at the end was a great experience. It taught me to listen to other people, to take into account and value different points of view’.

In terms of power politics, maintaining objectivity might also be vie-wed as a challenge. Having witnessed the recent crisis in Ukraine, one inevitably raises the question whether Russia is continuing its Cold War policies. Russian intellectuals who are fleeing their country ap-pear to support this argument.

Is Konstantin von Eggert a proponent of this part of Russian society? ‘I plan to pursue my career in Russia as long as it possible. However, I know friends that are leaving the country now; they feel uncomfor-table in the current political climate. Economic considerations also play a part, since Russia’s economy is not doing particular well and international sanctions will surely not add to its economic well-being. Nonetheless, I trust that my friends will still contribute to Russia’s, at least, intellectual development. Yes, it is unfortunate that so many people are leaving. It testifies to the ineptitude of Russia’s political regime. It identifies one of the main characteristics of the Kremlin’s policy over the last couple of years – a demonstrative mistrust of in-tellectuals. President Putin and Russia’s rulers are committing a huge mistake that other people committed before them. Nicolas II and the Politburo also failed to recognize what kind of role intellectuals play in society. They provide a platform for debate; show the government where the flaws of the system are. Intellectuals hold a mirror up to authorities. If there is no mirror, the government ends up believing

Quill and ink versus Power PoliTiCs

& Interview

The continuation of the Cold War era

10

its own propaganda. Thus intellectuals have to be trusted, since the opposite will lead Russia’s government to problems rather than so-lutions’.

‘The fate of Russian intellectuals is closely linked to the fate of Rus-sia as a country’ – claims Konstantin von Eggert. More important-ly, its destiny is inseparable from the fact that Russia spent nearly three quarters of a century being a communist country. ‘Combined with the authoritarian tradition of the past, transformation into a democratic state could not mean anything but difficulties. In other words, the Soviet Union collapsed too quickly. The Russians still do not understand that it fell apart because it was badly governed, that it was corrupted and morally bankrupted. This understanding must be brought by the intellectuals, who present the multi-faceted truth and emphasize the ethical side of an issue. The Soviet Union was a country that committed a considerable number of crimes, including crimes against its own people. The Russians must comprehend that. Moreover, communism was not imposed on Russia and in this sense,

Russia has a more difficult task than, for example, the Poles or Li-thuanians, for whom communism was forcefully implemented by the occupant. Thus what we see in the Ukraine and in Russia’s conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, are the last vestiges of the Soviet Union. Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia are finding their post-post-Soviet identities. They are saying goodbye to the Soviet Union, elements of authoritarianism and immorality. In response, Russia is trying to re-gain its imperial power; hence Crimean annexation can be interpre-ted as a collective psychotherapy session for the Russians who long for their lost imperial glory of the USSR’.

‘Russia is an empire. Imperial powers die hard and die last. We impo-sed communism on ourselves and thus we have to solve our problems ourselves as well. For this to be achieved, one must look into the eyes of truth. We have to understand that the so-called greatness of the 20th century was built on blood. As long as we do not admit this, we are forever trapped in our past’.

Interview &

Photo: Sir Constantin von Eggert

11

& IR in Images

PiCTure in a FraMe

12

In line with our theme ‘humans in IR’, we have delved into the year-books of some of the main figures in IR. Wile they all became autho-rative figures in their countries or policy area, they either look re-markably unvirtuous or surprisingly innocent. While we expect that you have no trouble identifying them, we have provided you with the answers on the last page of this edition. Try not to cheat and make sure you test your ‘well-informed’ friends!

by Coen Berkhout

IR in Images &

13

by Bas Vos

& Countryzoom

Photo: Lorrie Graham

14

surFaCearea

PoPulaTion ThaT suFFers FroM TyPe 2 diaBeTes

PoPulaTion ThaT suFFers FroMoBesiTy

ToTal liFe exPeCTanCy

aPPlied on oCToBer 1sT 2014

daily news PuBliCaTionson naTional Television

9.373 inhaBiTanTs

For one thing, they’re not working. More than 90% of Nauru’s population is unemployed. The 10% that does have a job, works for the govern-ment. A government which is, according to the Asian Development Bank, broke. The Nauruan government hasn’t got enough money to perform basic governing tasks despite a ‘broad popular mandate’. If you think about it, the way the average Nauruan’s political life works is: “I’m unem-ployed, I don’t pay any taxes, I want to eat the entire day, so I give the government free reign to govern.” Seems legit.

It’s not the case that Nauru never had any money. In the 80’s, the island state flourished because of the phosphate reserves on the island. This phosphate (in Latin America known as guano) originates from sea bird droppings. Bird poo as a major source of income, the Nauruans have it all. In an ironic twist this same mining of bird poo destroyed the habitat of many birds and animals living on and around the island, as well as the reef barriers surrounding the island killing most of the fish and plants living there.

Being a country so small has, however, its advantages. If you ever find an island in the Pacific, inhabit it with 10.000 friends and become member of the UN; big fortune will come to you if you follow the Nauruan example. Step one: Support Taiwan. Step two: Start supporting China instead, angering Taiwanese government, and receive $130 million from the Chinese. Wait two days before step three. Step three: Change back your support from China to Taiwan, the Chinese government doesn’t like you now but it will keep its office on your island and the money is yours. A similar profit maximizing strategy applies if you let Russia know you will support the state formation of Abkhazia. Russia will pay you about $50 million for that vote. If you’re really out of money because of all the governing you do, ask neighbor Australia to build a detention center for im-migrants on your island. A lousy A$20 million will come your way, in return for setting up 10 tents for 50 refugees who seek asylum in Australia. Eat, hang out on the beach, divide $200 million among the ten thousand of you. Do you understand why Nauruans live on their Pleasant Island?

Countryzoom &Nauruans are special people. Not only do they live in a country with the second smal-lest population on earth (only Vatican city is smaller), Nauruans are the most obese people in the world. The island, located in Micronesia in the southern Pacific, has a population of which more than 90% is obese: a record. Apart from Obese Island, Nauru used to be called Pleasant Island. Why? Doesn’t lying on the beach and eating sounds pleasant to you? Nearly ten thousand inhabitants on a rock in the pacific. What are they actually doing?

by Bas Vos

15

“Eat, hang out on the beach, divide de $200 million among the ten thousand of you.”

Source: d-online

Raised in a community of workers and farmers established to help rebuild socialism in Soviet Kyrgyzstan, Alexander Dubcek was bound to be a loyal disciple of the communist spectre. He was born in 1921 in Slovakia and later moved to the Soviet Union where he became a product of the Soviet educational system. When he returned to Slo-vakia in 1938, he became a vicious member of the Communist Party, which marked the starting point of his turbulent career.

Although he started as an ordinary comrade in the communist sp-here, he worked his way up and gradually earned his reputation as a highly trustworthy and committed supporter of the leadership in Moscow. As a result, he was appointed as Principal Secretary of the Slovak Communist Party in Bratislava.

During the 1960s Czechoslovakia found itself tied in an increasingly difficult economic situation. The agricultural sector failed on its plan-ned output. National income severely declined and the centrally-led plans of the government proved to be overly ambitious. Economists blamed the Soviet model of economic management for the poor state of the country and called for decentralisation. Czechoslovakia had already shifted from an agricultural to an industrial state and thus needed a new economic policy. Aware and deeply concerned about the consequences of the country’s dysfunctional economy, Alexan-der Dubcek succeeded the leader of the Slovak Communist Party at that time, Antony Novotny after the latter was removed from his position. From that moment on, Dubcek took his own interpretati-on of communism to the forefront of the country. He directed for a

reduction of the totalitarian aspects of the Soviet regime and aimed for a more liberal apprehension. He declared political freedom to any non-communist partyt that sought to challenge the Soviet regime. In addition, members of the Communist Party were given the right to challenge party policy and to ‘act according to their conscience’. The Prague Spring was born and newspapers vigorously reported on bad government policy and corruption, as censorship was no longer in force. Farmers were allowed to form their own independent coope-ratives and trade unions were granted increasing ability to bargain working conditions for their members. Taking his reforms even fu-rther, he promulgated an action plan that guaranteed Slovakia as an independent state, a revision of the constitution that ensured civil rights, liberties and plans for the democratisation of the government.

Naturally, this put Dubcek in a very fragile and cautious position as he tried to convince the authorities in Moscow that Czechoslovakia would still be a prominent member of the Soviet bloc and that turn-ing towards capitalism was unthinkable. In an attempt to reassure Moscow, he met with senior Russian politicians at the Slovakian-Uk-rainian border in April 1969 and ascertained them that his reform

Liberalism and communism appear to be one of the oldest and most deeply rooted juxtapositions throughout history, finding force in con-tinuously challenging their opponent. Nevertheless, some pioneers have, entangled in severe circumstances, tried to escape the dictato-rial voice of their ideological masters and prioritise the lives of their people by finding a nuance in their beliefs. One of these brave men was Alexander Dubcek, member of the reformist Czechoslovakian go-vernment of 1968. His momentous efforts only lasted for six months but are nonetheless a highly memorable phenomenon.

looking For The huManFaCe oF CoMMunisM

by Claire Defossez

& Article

16

“Dubcek’s plan seemed to be turning alarm-ingly close towards the liberal spectre...”

programs were not in any sense a threat to the Warsaw Pact and its capability to challenge NATO.

But of course these were the times when communism and liberalism were most strictly divided; hatred toward the other was the driving force behind politics. Dubcek’s plan seemed to be turning alarmingly close towards the liberal spectre, thus immediately perceived as a thre-at to communist rule. Consequently Dubcek was arrested on August 20th, when Soviet troops invaded Czechoslovakia. He was brought to Moscow to speak about about his reform programs. Frightened to be imprisoned he promised to abandon his liberalist stance in leading Czechoslovakia. This proved to be enough for his release, but never-theless he was expelled from the Communist Party and evacuated to Bratislava, where he worked in a timber yard for several years.

Nineteen years went by and this pioneer in the communist era had to remain politically dormant. When the Cold War ended in 1989, he experienced a short renaissance in his career as he was again appoin-ted as Speaker of the Federal Assembly. It was here where he plead

against the split of the future Czech Republic and Slovakia. Obviously, his efforts proved to be unfruitful.

Nevertheless, with his bold reforms during the Prague Spring he had tried to lift his country beyond the ideological division between communism and liberalism. He had risked himself in a grey area in the middle of his own firm belief in communist ideals and the well-being of the people of his country. Unlike most radical ideologists at that time, he was not blind for the reality of communism and dared to criticise his own ideology. His story highlights how the setting of the Cold War did not tolerate any moderate interpretation of com-munism, as the Brezhnev Doctrine had a clear and non-negotiable mindset for its affiliates.

It is admirable that in this particular setting, he managed to give soci-alism a human face while still strongly adhering to his communist be-liefs. Although his efforts did not last very long, they marked a sparkle of light in the Cold War era.

Article &

Photo: Johnjt44 on Flickr

“He had risked himself in a grey area in the middle of his own firm belief in communist

ideals and the well-being of his country.”

17

& Life after IR

After obtaining my MA degree in IR/IO in 2007, I became a management trainee for the Dutch province of North-Hol-land. I did not stay there for long: I missed having an inter-national dimension in my day-to-day work. That was an

important lesson I learned very quickly after graduating and I have not had a job or position without that dimension ever since.

After this first year, I started working for Nicis Institute (now Plat-form31), the Netherlands Institute for City Innovation Studies, where I was active as a project manager for different European urban net-works and projects. I learned a lot in the two and a half years that I worked there and also used a lot of knowledge and skills that I learned in Groningen. On the theoretical level I knew which European Insti-tutions did what, who the influencers were, etc. On a more practical level, I knew my way around Brussels literally because of a 6-months internship I did there in my final year as a student.

Although I am still intrigued by the European Union, its mandate, its peculiarities, and the ever changing balance of power, I found that I also became a little bit bored by all the reports, the subsidy possi-bilities that we needed to chase after, and the subsequent execution of those plans, all within quite rigid European Commission frame-works. I thrived when organising big networking events or conferen-ces but was less enthralled when I needed to write reports, keep up with my project finances and the endless meetings about what should or should not be in our next project plan for a European Commission call. Another lesson learned: I needed to deal with people more, or people-related issues if you like.

I applied for a job in a very different field: education. At Amsterdam University College (AUC, a liberal arts programme of the University of Amsterdam and VU University), I worked for the communicati-on department and quickly became involved in internationalisation: selecting and advising incoming and outgoing exchange students, li-aising with partner universities, ensuring new exchanges were set up, etc. After a while I also became the Student Services Coordinator for AUC. The good thing about being an IR/IO graduate here was that I

new what it meant to study an interdisciplinary programme. Not only did that mean I knew what the students were after in their education in the broader sense, it also meant I was good at explaining the pro-gramme and its benefits to prospective students.

Since this summer, I work for a new interdisciplinary programme of the University of the Amsterdam: PPLE (Politics, Psychology, Law and Economics) taught in English, which started this September. Alt-hough the title may suggest otherwise, it actually looks a lot like IR/IO. My position at PPLE is two-fold: I am a student counsellor, which means I help students when they are struggling, when they want to undertake extracurricular activities, study abroad, attend a student conference, when they are top athletes wanting to combine studying with high-level sports, etc. This helps me develop my interpersonal skills. At the same time, I am a policy officer, which means I help shape the programme, from the Teaching Regulations to quality assu-rance. In my daily work, I meet not only with students, but also with test experts, deans, programme managers, etc.

I still meet IR/IO graduates every now and then (actually, my hus-band is an alumnus as well and I see him everyday of course) and we have all concluded that we loved the programme and would not have traded it for anything else. It taught us very much the analytical skills that are required for many jobs and it gave us an interdisciplinary background in a very relevant field in today’. The one downside I felt was that it was always quite unclear what you could do with the de-gree, because you could do so many things. Studying dentistry limits your options quite a bit, but studying IR/IO keeps it wide open and it meant a search for me as to what I loved doing most and what suited me best. I will take the liberty of offering some advice: stay true to what you like and love and do not stay in a job for the sake of it. With a broad degree you can go many ways and not every way will suit you. Taking a gamble every now and then is fine, but having the courage to admit a wrong turn and make a switch will not only make you feel happier, it will also give you the respect of others (even the employers you turn away from).

MarijeBreukelMan

18

Educational Background:2001-2002 Propedeuse English Lan-guage and Culture (IR/IO was still a master programme at the time)

2002-2006 Bachelor IR/IO, including a full-year Erasmus exchange at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow.

2006-2007 Master IR/IO, thesis on Private Military Companies

An American journalist by the name of David Halberstan witnessed the self-immolation of the Vietnamese monk Thích Quảng Đức on June 11, 1963. With him was also Malcolm Browne; who later that year won the World Press Photo with his picture of the monk. It de-picted the monk in traditional lotus position, completely enveloped in flames, and his Austin Westminster Sedan car with the bonnet open in the background. This ritual act of self-immolation and the accompanying plea to Diệm ‘to take a mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement religious equality to maintain the strength of the home-land eternally’ has sparked a tradition of Dying Wihout Killing.

Skipping forward almost fifty years; March 3, 2013, Bulgarian photo-grapher and mountainclimber Plamen Goranov dies in the hospital after his self-immolation in front of the Varna municipal building. Now called the Bulgarian Jan Palach - the Czech student who set himself on fire after the Soviet Union crushed the Prague Spring – Plamen protested against the criminal organisation TIM and called for resignation of dozens of government officials and Varna mayor Kiril Yordanov. TIM is a holding company in Varna, Bulgaria, which according to a U.S. State Department cable leaked to the media by WikiLeaks, was engaged in organized criminal activities. Jan Puhl describes in an article for Der Spiegel, that TIM started out as a pri-vate security firm in 1990s, the start capital of which was partially acquired through smuggling, prostitution, gambling, car theft and drug trafficking.

Plamen was the second case of six self-immolations in Bulgaria to protest against the Borisov Cabinet, and has been a catalyst of nati-on-wide protests. Two days after his death, mayor Yordanov resigned, and the resigned cabinet of Boyko Borisov held a minute of silence in tribute to Plamen.

Just as in 1963, a case of self-immolation sparked a social movement that carries a greater cause than just that of the individual. The story of Thích Quảng Đức sparked protests all over the world, not sole-ly against the Diệm regime, but against the influence of the United States in the Vietnam crisis. Plamen Goranov has not just caused the resignation of a corrupted mayor, but sparked a movement where Bulgarians take to the streets for more transparency and supremacy of rule of law.

Self-immolation poses an intricate social problem: Why does it have so much political consequences? Compared to a suicide bombing there is no threat, no damage to material or bystanders. Yet, the effect of self-immolation is potentially far greater than any other individual contribution to a cause, but… at the price of one’s life.

“Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shrive-ling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning flesh . . . Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think...As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his out-ward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.”

by Coen Berkhout

Photo: Jason Taellious

selF-iMMolaTion

19

Article &

“Whatever it is that people do, they need to do it with passion and to do it well.”

- Plamen Goranov, Varna

dying wiThouT killing

david shiMMy main tasks as an Assistant Professor at IRIO are teaching and research. Besides giving lectures and seminars on, for instance, theories of international relations, I supervise BA and MA students on their theses, read seminar papers and grade exams. In terms of research, I write my own papers, which I present at international conferences and submit to academic journals for review and, even-tually, publication. I am also applying for funds to facilitate my re-search. My next project will handle a particular case on comics and geopolitics, asking how geopolitical narratives of states are embed-ded in, and expressed through, comic images.

My diary refers to the second week of September 2014, coinciding with the general start of the new academic year.

by David Shim, Assistant Professor in IRIO

Monday, 8 September:

Part of my tasks for today is to prepare for my lecture in the evening (19-21h) and for the seminars following the next day. I read the required readings, compile a power point presentation and think about questions

to be discussed in the seminars. At 12.30h I have lunch with some of my Dutch colleagues at the restaurant in the Academy Building, where I often eat. This is a good opportunity to im-prove my Dutch language skills as I am trying to talk (and lis-ten) to them in Dutch. At 16h, I have a brief meeting with Luis Lobo-Guerrero to discuss work-related issues. I am a member of his Chair Group on History and Theory of International Re-lations. For 17h, I am invited for a corridor warming party of the Globalisation Studies Groningen, where I also meet some of my IRIO colleagues. I cannot stay too long since I have to give my lecture at 19h, which takes place in the Offershauszaal in the main building of the university. My working day ends around 21h.

Tuesday, 9 September:

I have two seminars with one starting at 9h in the morning and the other starting at 14h. In both seminars we discuss the content of yesterday’s lecture and that of the required readings. In between, I have a lunch meeting with the research assistant

of Luis. We are interested in continuing a reading group that Luis introduced last semester. We exchange ideas about pos-sible texts and authors and when it would be the best time for these meetings. At 20.30h, I have a working dinner with a colleague from the Department of Cultural Geography who is specializing in studies in tourism. We are discussing options of inviting a well-known professor in International Relations and Geography to give a guest lecture at both our departments. I also introduce her to my colleague Francesco Giumelli who has a similar interest in Tourism studies.

Wednesday, 10 September:

My working day starts at 9h with a three-hour seminar for Pre-master students on methodology and research practice. Today we discuss what is at stake for doing research when certain ontological and epistemological positions are adopted. After my lunch, I have a meeting with a student who wants to write a BA thesis under my supervision. Between 15h and 17h, I have my second lecture of the week. This time, I introduce approa-ches of Marxist theories in international relations. During the break, I am asked by a student to contribute to this very diary of Checks&Balances. After the lecture, I am heading to the se-mester welcome party of IRIO, where I meet my colleagues from the department. At around 19h, I head back to my office in order to prepare the seminars for the next day.

& Diary of ...

20

Diary of ... &

Friday, 25 April

The whole day, I am trying to catch up with things that were rather neglected during the week. This includes administra-tive work like completing application forms for business trips and replying to emails. I am also trying to invite scholars to present papers at a workshop on IR theory and political thin-king in East Asia that is scheduled to take place at our de-partment in June 2015. I also have some time to read about my own research on comics and geopolitics, which I enjoy very much. While preparing the readings for the next week, I am looking forward to having a relaxing weekend

Thursday, 11 September:

My first seminar starts at 9h, while my second begins at 13h. In between I have a lunch meeting with Yongjun Zhao who is the course coordinator for the newly founded research se-minar on East Asian Studies. I will have two appearances in the programme and Yongjun briefs me about the whats and the hows of that course unit.

21

EducationPhD, Political Science (International Relations), University of Ham-

burg, 2012

MA, Korean Studies, Political Science, Economics, University of Hamburg, 2005

Academic EmploymentUniversity of Groningen, Assistant Professor in International Rela-

tions, 2013

Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Lecturer in International Relations and East Asian politics, 2011-2013

German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Research Fellow/Postdoc/PhD Student, GIGA Institute of Asian Studies,

2007-2013

Paññāsāstra University of Cambodia, Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Social Sciences and International Relations, August-October 2012

Additional ExperienceUN World Food Programme, Food Aid Monitor, Democratic Peo-

ple’s Republic of Korea, September-November 2008

CurriCuluM viTae

Photo: David Shim

& Guest Column

Besides the claims of several media outputs that he supposedly is a technocratic European federalist who managed to secure his nomination through back door politics, we are lead to believe that this former Prime-Minister of Luxembourg has

a severe drinking problem. As a result, his competence to head one of the European Union’s primary bodies is openly questioned. Setting aside the questions of competence, and if these political attacks are not a gross exaggeration, we should shed a different perspective on how Jean-Claude Juncker’s supposed drinking habits could influence his performance, possibly even in a positive manner.

Although the English press might phrase it too provocatively, Junckers drinking habits have been confirmed by insiders. Dutch minister of Finances Jeroen Dijsselbloem, and successor of Juncker as Eurogroup chairman, called him a ‘stubborn drinker’ in a Dutch TV programme. Apparently Juncker consistently ignored the rule not to smoke and drink during meetings. He denied the statement to be true. Unfor-tunately, Dijsselbloem’s slip of the tongue proved to be costly and due to his statement he reportedly lost one of the heavier posts in the Eu-ropean Commission. His remarks about the culture during meetings represents to some extent his desire to have a more, how he put it, Calvinistic working environment. Although some might desire this, the question begs, does such a working environment further progress?Drinking has played an important role in international diplomacy; just consider the effect a nice glass of scotch could have in order to loosen up difficult bilateral negotiations. The Daily Telegraph reported last year on how the 1942 meeting between Churchill and Stalin beca-

me successful once the two engaged in an all night drinking session. How could history have turned out if they had not opened a bottle that evening?

In 1996, when Juncker was Prime-Minister, he was famously dubbed by the international press as the ‘hero of Dublin’. That year, during important treaty negotiations, he was key in finding a compromise be-tween German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and French President Jacques Chirac with regard to the Stability and Growth Pact. His skills in nego-tiations are revered. Even among politicians across the political spec-trum, he is known to be capable at creating an ‘atmosphere of mutual understanding and trust’. If this is one of the key qualities Juncker pos-sesses, to what extent is this facilitated by having the occasional drink?Although it remains unclear how problematic Juncker’s drinking ha-bits are, it is questionable if they can genuinely be considered as such. Seen as the Union comprises of 28 different nation states, a whole set of complex institutions, and an ever increasing lack of popular sup-port, having a competent alcoholic diplomat on top might just be ne-cessary in order for the EU to work.

by guest columnist Davy Oostrom

“A nice glass of scotch could loosen up difficult bilateral relations...”

The PoliTiCal MeriT oF geTTing haMMered

‘’A drunk who has cognac for breakfast.’’ That is how the English newspaper the Daily Telegraph depicted future chairman of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker. Not necessarily known for its balanced and neutral journalism, this newspaper demon-strates one of the more extreme attempts to oppose the candida-ture of Mr. Juncker. But, as I will argue, does this exaggeration hint towards ignorance?

22

Sour

ce: F

lickr

Cre

ativ

e Co

mm

ons

Lice

nse

Cartoon & & IR in Images Answers

From left to rightTop Row:

Barrack Hussein Obama II, Mao Zedong, Aung San Suu Kyi, Josef Stalin, George Walker Bush,

Bill Clinton

Bottom Row:Hilary Clinton, Friedrich Engels, John McCain,

Nelson Mandela, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,Vladimir Putin

rug studenten genieten van voordelige tarievenneem contact op met het carreer office voor meer details