An "innocent" invitation to a conference on NATO's future
combined with many academics' ignorance on how the e-mail list system works
created a several days long, partly ferocious, partly hilarious logjam
in tens of thousands of academic Internet users. At worst, I estimate that
the original batch invitation must have created a very heavy burden on
the Internet in Europe - with some ripples in other continents.
Here I shall present some of the responses and discuss
also the interesting aspect of people using the system without having an
inkling of how it really works - which can cause catastrophes. It is already
a well known fact that a good way to clog down the system is to send a
warning about a possible virus to as many people as possible and ask them
to forward the message to as many people as possible. In this case
the original mistake was compounded to the nth degree by some enraged correspondents
to whom the message was not at all intended.
What happened was that somebody sent his or her message, intended as a response to the organizers, as a replyall message but also so that the respondents, in replying to the message, sent it to all mailing lists. And as the organizers had made the fatal mistake of sending their invitation to more than 30 large all-European mailing lists (mainly mailbase-lists) without thinking that the addressees included certainly also Yugoslavians and lots of western NATO- opponents for whom the theme and the speakers of the conference were an affront (this was very obviously an extremely uncritical conference about the future of the NATO) the violent reactions got a very large spreading. As developed from several replies (I don't know how many were sent only to the lists concerned) many people were totally submerged by the messages and their attempts to unsubscribe only added to the problem, as they did not know how to do it properly. Many people did not even seem to understand how they had become the innocent victims of this strange bombing campaign. In fact, the parallel which one can draw here is that the original procedure of the organizers corresponded to the way NATO seems to choose its bombing objectives: mechanically, indiscriminately and whith the help of lists where some addresses are not what they are thought to be ...
Thanks to this event, many mailing lists have much fewer subscribers than before, many mailing lists have been closed so that only members can send messages to them (not good if you want to send useful information to the list members, but you can always do it via the list owner) and many people may be very disgusted with the internet.
On the other hand, there is an awareness of the divisiveness
of the NATO issue in Europe which many people perhaps haven't realized.
You are either strongly for NATO as some of the correspondents are, or
you are strongly against it, and these inclinations have a strong effect
on your views of the future of Europe. But I shall not philosophize on
these issues but just give you a selection of the contributions in a rough
chronological order
Here is a selection of the mailing lists included in the original invitation (which also had several individuals as addressees, so that even the addressee list was extremely long and cumbersome)
academic-literacy-culture <academic-literacy-culture@mailbase.ac.uk>,
bisa-globalisation <bisa-globalisation@mailbase.ac.uk>,
earma-all <earma-all@mailbase.ac.uk>,
east-west-research <east-west-research@mailbase.ac.uk>,
esa-all <esa-all@mailbase.ac.uk>,
esrc-desg <esrc-desg@mailbase.ac.uk>,
eurodoc <eurodoc@mailbase.ac.uk>,
euro-econ <euro-econ@mailbase.ac.uk>,
EuropeanSite <EuropeanSite@compuserve.com>,
european-social-policy <european-social-policy@mailbase.ac.uk>,
european-sociologist <european-sociologist@mailbase.ac.uk>,
euroresearch <euroresearch@mailbase.ac.uk>,
eurosearch-request <eurosearch-request@mailbase.ac.uk>,
francofil <francofil@listserv.liv.ac.uk>,
int-rel-nat-sovereignty-request@mailbase.ac.uk>,
iuc <iuc@iuc-europe.dk>,
pilas <pilas@mailbase.ac.uk>,
post-socialist-areas <post-socialist-areas@mailbase.ac.uk>,
russian-studies <russian-studies@mailbase.ac.uk>,
sosig <sosig@mailbase.ac.uk>,
teaching-human-rights <teaching-human-rights@mailbase.ac.uk>,
teaching-politics <teaching-politics@mailbase.ac.uk>,
Here is how it all began (on 11.5.1999)
Douglas Eden wrote:
You are cordially invited to apply to attend the
4TH ANNUAL TRENT PARK CONFERENCE
ON THE FUTURE OF THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY
Organised by the Centre for Study of International Affairs (Europe
and
America), School of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Middlesex
University,
in collaboration with the Atlantic Council of the United Kingdom
and Baylor
University, Texas.
Title: NATO'S FUTURE and ATLANTIC FRIENDSHIPS and RIVALRIES
Date & Venue: Friday, 18th June 1999, The Mansion and
New Hall, Middlesex
University, Trent Park; 9.45am to 5pm. Lunch (12.45-2.15)
will be
served on
the terrace of the 18th century mansion overlooking Capability
Brown's park
and lake.
Cost: £30 (£15 students and concessions) including
lunch ($50/$25)
Organiser: Douglas Eden, Head of the Centre for Study of International
Affairs
> > (Europe and America),
School of Humanities and Cultural Studies,
> > Middlesex University.
> >
> > SPEAKERS (all confirmed, but not necessarily in order of speaking):
> >
> > Sir Oliver Wright GCMG GCVO DSC, HM Ambassador to the United States,
> > 1982-86, and to
West Germany, 1975-81:
> >
"Europe and America: Friends or Foes?"
> >
> > Air Marshal Sir John Walker KCB CBE AFC FRAeS, Chief of Defence
> > Intelligence, Ministry
of Defence, 1990-95; previously Deputy Chief
> > of Staff, Operations
and Intelligence, HQ Allied Air Forces Central
> > Europe;
> > Chairman, Airship
Technologies:
> >
"NATO: 50 and Still Growing Up."
> >
> > Richard Balfe MEP, Member of the European Parliament (Labour) for
London
> > South Inner since
1979, Labour Defence Spokesman, Member Foreign
> > Affairs and Security
Committee:
> >
"The Democratic Input."
> >
> > Professor Margarita Mathiopoulos, Professor for American Foreign
Policy and
> > International Politics,
University of Braunschweig, and Senior
> > Advisor for
> > European and North
American Markets, British Aerospace plc:
> >
"Europe: a Future Global Player with London on Its Side."
> >
> > Professor Emil J Kirchner, Jean Monnet Professor in European Integration
and
> > Director of the
Centre for European Studies, University of Essex;
> > co-author
> > (with James Sperling)
of "Recasting the European Order: Security
> > Architectures and
Economic Co-operation":
> >
"NATO and New Security Threats,"
> >
based on a study prepared for the European Commission.
> >
> > Dr William Schneider Jr, Member of the Rumsfeld Commission to Assess
the
> > Ballistic Missile
Threat, President of International Planning
> > Services Inc,
> > US Under Secretary
of State for Security Assistance (1982-86),
> > Chairman of the
President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control
> > and Disarmament
(1987-93):
> >
"Findings of the Rumsfeld Commission:
> >
threats from the proliferation of ballistic missiles
> >
and weapons of mass destruction - and possible remedies."
> >
> > Professor Stephen Gardner, Herman Brown Professor of Economics
and Director
> > of the McBride
Center for International Business, Baylor University;
> > founding member
of the International Educational Consortium for St
> > Petersburg; author
of Comparative Economic Systems, used at more
> > than 100
> > universities around
the world:
> >
"Atlantic Economic Relations and NATO."
> >
> > Advisory Board of the Centre: Sir Oliver Wright (chairman), The
Rt Hon the
> > Lord Ryder of Wenum OBE, The Hon Edward Streator, Richard Balfe
MEP,
> > Nicholas Harvey MP, Alan Lee Williams OBE, Professory Gary L McDowell,
> > Professor Joseph A McKinney, Professor Geoffrey Lee Williams, Dr
William
> > Schneider Jr, Dr Melvyn Stokes, William Mader, Peter Robinson,
Geoffrey
> > Smith.
> >
>
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Slobodanka Nedovic wrote:
I am most definitely NOT cordially invited. On the contrary, I am
visited by the topic of your conference, without invitation, every
day
and night. You guessed right: I live in Belgrade. And no, I am not
Milosevic's follower, just as 1.5 million of Belgraders are not.
Remember the Protest against him in Belgrade and all the major cities
here, that NATO now bombs constantly? Close to one hundred days in
the
streets. Carrying USA and EU banners. What are we to carry now? Are
you
going to answer this question at your conference?
I can not believe that you are planning a conference on NATO without
even mentioning the actual goings on. Where do you live? Planet Earth
calling to the School of Humanities (???) and Cultural Studies!
You might try inviting experts from Yugoslavia (or if that is too bold,
maybe Russia, or China, perhaps?) I'm sure it would add flavor to your
"terrace of the 18th century mansion" atmosphere.
And when NATO makes some kind of "patchwork" deal with Milosevic,
leaving refugees where they are, with the opposition in Serbia
destroyed, Milosevic voted "President for lifetime", are you going
to
organise a new conference, with some Serbian guest speakers?
Sincerely,
Prof. Slobodanka Nedovic,
School of Law, University of Belgrade
> JONATHAN HOLLOWELL wrote:
>
> > Who the hell gave you my e-mail address? Don't send me your
gratuitous
> > bullshit !
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> > JONATHAN HOLLOWELL
Tel: 01865- (2)80204 (Direct Line)
> > St. Peter's College,
01865- (2)78900 (Porters Lodge)
> > Oxford University
Fax: 01865- 278855
> > OX1 2DL England
> > __________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 12
May 1999 08:16:46 +0200
Reply-to: vjrott@access.ch
Subject: Re: Conference on NATO's
Future
From: Vladimir
Rott <vjrott@access.ch>
May I kindly ask you university folks to calm down, however hard your
feelings may be?
Amazing to me, how an answer to a well-ment invitation to an academic
- perhaps too an
academic - event, gets a rude comment addressed from one of the top
universities.
As one of the people who were lucky enough to escape one of the Soviet
Block countries in
their youth, I can imagine what frustrations people over there live
with. (Even if,
strictly speaking, former Yugoslavia did not count fully to the Soviet
satellites.)
May I plea to seek ways to cooperation with colleagues from the less
lucky countries? Of
course, you may choose to withdraw from any of the CEE/CIS discussion
or mailing lists.
Sincerely
Vladimir Rott
PO Box
CH-8033 Zurich
Switzerland
P.S. Dear Mr Hollowell - looks like you are subcribed to one of the
mailing lists.
I feel no alternative but to reply to this post on the NATO
conference. It is very hard to 'calm down' when you see your
homeland being destroyed - especially when you've been working
to achieve a more democratic and inclusive society.
I am frankly amazed that such a conference, with these speakers,
could be organised in the midst of this war - it beggars belief.
Perhaps the main problem though (because we have to recognise
an individuals right to speak their mind) is the manner in which this
conference was publicised. I notice that although Prof Nedovic was
not mailed directly - that person (along with others in Yugoslavia)
is
on the European Social Policy mailing list - and that only required
a quick check.
I sent out a large mailing recently on three academic lists (albeit
not as large) and I took reasonable precautions to ensure that no
ethnic Albanians were subscribed to the lists I subscribe to and
use - as I had no wish to cause offence even though none was
intended. I note that Douglas Eden had obviously not taken this
most elementary of precautions - this is gross insensitivity and
betrays a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation
in
Yugoslavia/Kosovo. Those of us who have been interested in and
concerned with the region for some time, and who do not share the
traditional International Relations perspective (which tends to ignore
cultures and societies) have a pretty reasonable idea of the issues.
The topic and timing of this conference merely indicates the
ignorant insularity which the British have traditionally displayed
over
foreign affairs.
When this miserable war is over (perhaps if would be better) it will
be recognised that there are no 'winners' - instead it will be ordinary
Yugoslav citizens (Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, Roma etc.)
who are the losers. Moreover it will be those citizens who have to
pick up the pieces - and hopefully honourable 'Westerners' will do
likewise. We have to work with our colleagues in Yugoslavia
afterwards - and now as well - and eventually will begin the
long
task of building a sustainable and equitable peace. You can be
sure that neither Milosevic nor NATO will help ordinary Yugoslavs
to recover their futures as they desire. In other words we have to
maintain a dialogue (that means now - and with the 'enemy'!) - a
conference and publicity such as this only makes the task more
difficult who for those who stay behind (after the military and
strategic analysts have forgotton all about it). I would hope that
an
apology would be forthcoming - although I very much doubt it...
Bob Jiggins
Research Unit in South East European Studies
University of Bradford
West Yorkshire
UK
Date: Wed, 12
May 1999 12:36:34 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: Conference on NATO's
Future
From: Karl Maton
<kam13@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
To:
Bob Jiggins <r.jiggins@bradford.ac.uk>
I really do not understand the outrage at the conference. Outrage
at
armed conflict is one thing; outrage at a conference at which people
may
(may) have an opportunity to express their outrage at the armed conflict
is simply ridiculous. 'How can you do this in the middle of a
war' -
well, I guess now is probably the best time to do it in fact.
Who would
have really cared a few years ago beyond defence studies people etc.
Stop
attempting to shut down potential possibilities for reasoned debate.
With best wishes,
Karl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Maton
School of Education, University of Cambridge
17 Trumpington Street,Cambridge CB2 1QA
Tel. + 44 (0) 1223 336288
Fax: + 44 (0) 1223 332894
email: kam13@cam.ac.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 20:54:45 +0100 (BST)
To: Slobodanka Nedovic <nedovic@nomos.ius.bg.ac.yu>
Dear Prof. Nedovic,
I am sorry you are offended.
This is an academic conference. It
was planned before the present crisis. The announcement of the
conference
did not assume a debating position or intend to stimulate a discussion
over
the email mailbase. Of course, the contributors will inevitably
relate the
consequences of NATO's treatment of the Balkan crisis to their chosen
subjects. In the event, I expect the contributors to deal critically
with
NATO's present policies in the course of assessing NATO's future as
the
guarantor of European stability and transatlantic co-operation.
Quite incidentally, I had
been informed the mailbase used was a
European Union mailbase. I could have had no idea that the message
would
have been transmitted to you. In your present circumstances it
is bound to
appear insensitive, but at least I can assure you that this academic
conference is not a NATO rally. Again, I am sorry you were upset
and I
sincerely regret the appalling position in which you currently find
yourself (and which you describe so vividly). It is a pity that,
in your
upset, you caused such a calamity on the mailbase by sending and resending
to everyone in sight. But perhaps that has been a source of some
understandable satisfaction to you. In the event, the multiplicity
of
messages was compounded by others responding to you by broadcasting
wholesale to the entire mailbase instead of just to you (and perhaps
me),
and without first deleting previous messages. Hence, many innocents
were
bombarded many times by the same messages. I am sure you could
not have
intended this. Nor did I.
There is also no need to
respond to this, which, in the interests
of personal contact and preservation of the mailbase facility, I address
only to you with copies just to those who responded solely to the both
of
us. Finally, may I join you in praying that the present disastrous
situation can be resolved soon without further loss of life and with
justice and liberty for all in your country.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Eden
On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:31:00 +0100 Duncan Fuller
<duncan.fuller@unn.ac.uk> wrote:
> I agree. Thanks Chris for that.
>
> And in response to the messages I've received all asking how to be
removed
> from 'this bloody mailing list', a few quick points:
>
> 1. this isn't an individual mailing list - all the addresses
above are
> either personal email addresses, or individual mailing lists in themselves
> 2. whilst not condoning the methods employed in distributing the
original
> conference, everyone who receives this message must be subscribed
to one of
> the individual mailing lists in the address field above, or see their
own
> email addresses in this list
> 3. Therefore, if you want to unsubscribe, refer to the list(s)
you are
> subscribed to that also appear above, in order, if you feel the need
to find
> out how this can be done.
> 4. In the absence of this, it takes under a second to hit delete.
>
> In the grand scheme of things, is it really that important?
>
> DF
From: Helen Peters <h.peters@unl.ac.uk>
I would also like to endorse Chris and Duncan's comments and express
my
strong opposition to the war. This series of communications has
certainly been an eye opener in terms of attitudes and
although not particularly surprised I am dismayed at the indifference
expressed by many academics to the destructive and futile events being
perpetrated in our names. When/if they come for you, who will be there
to stand up for you?
HP
Date: Thu, 13
May 1999 20:54:45 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: Conference on NATO's
Future
From: ALEXANDRA
ARELLANO <arellano@unix.lancs.ac.uk>
To:
P J French <carlyle@celestial.com.au>
Hey Peter! How many letters from you have we received already? I think
you really enjoy it. I sent the letter from prof. Nedovic
too many more adresses, that is not much but I am with him (her? JPR).
I can't believe
that you don't care?
Alexandra
On Fri, 14 May 1999, P J French wrote:
> I join lists for a specific purpose.
>
> As it is I get 100+ letters a day - I don't need this and I object
strongly
> to a misuse of my address.
>
> Why should I unsubscribe? Just giver me what I joined for and was
offered?
> is that an unreasonable request?
>
> Peter French
> Melbourne
THIS IS one EXAMPLE OF NUMEROUS SIMILAR MESSAGES!
Organization: Wye College, University of London
Date: Wed, 12
May 1999 18:16:45 +0100
Reply-to: J.Kydd@wye.ac.uk
Priority: urgent
Subject: PLEASE, PLEASE DELTET
ME FROM YOU MAILING LIST
From: "JONATHAN
KYDD" <sae-jk@wye.ac.uk>
Dear Folk:
I do not know how I got on your emailing list, but I am not in your
field.
While you discussions appear to me to be very important, I would welcome
immediate EXCLUSION from them as you are clogging-up my system.
Does anyone know how to do this?
Jonathan Kydd
Subject: RE: Junk mailbase
Date: Wed, 12
May 1999 17:58:21 +0200
The cause of this "horror" both
from the point of
view of contents and means was an impossibly large and
indiscriminating mailing list of the original invitation. It
is
incomprehensible to me why the message should have been sent to so
many and extensive mailing lists, in view of the restricted academic
interest of the conference.
The people who have reacted to the message have compounded the
problem by including the messages and their mailing lists in their
replies. And by replying to all original recipients, not only
to
the sender of the message.
So I ask everybody who receives this message, NOT TO USE the replyall
command and to send their comments only to those senders directly
concerned. I do not wish to leave the mailing lists I have
subscribed to just because of a badly considered NATO-conference.
J.P.Roos
From: h.wollman@napier.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 12
May 1999 14:52:11 +0100
Subject: Re[2]: Junk mailbase
To:
"JP ROOS" <jproos@valt.helsinki.fi>
How much I agree with you!
To:
D.Eden@mdx.ac.uk (Douglas Eden)
Subject: Re: Conference on NATO's
Future
Date: Fri, 14
May 1999 11:46:16 EET
Dear Mr Eden
I'd like to make some comments on your reply to Prof Nedovic.
In my view the original program did not look very academic to me,
but rather as some writers pointed out, a collection of retired
dignitaries. Also, to leave out the essential elements
of NATOs present situation from a conference devoted to the
future seemed a little odd.
But there is a clear misunderstanding concerning the
unfortunate mailing list. It had very little to do with European
Union: you seem only to have selected all such mailbase lists
which had the word European or perhaps some other NATO-related
word on their names. Thus I am getting mail concerning this
discussion from three different mailing lists: European Social
Policy (not only EU), European Sociologial association
(not EU-connected) and European sociologist (ditto). So you
should have used a little more discernment when sending your
original invitation. Or a little more competent personnel. But
perhaps you just wanted to copy in a way the method used in
selecting targets of NATO bombings in Yugoslavia ...
Regards
J P Roos
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:37:04 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Jorma Anttila <janttila@cc.helsinki.fi>
To: Douglas Eden <D.Eden@mdx.ac.uk>
Cc: european-sociologist@mailbase.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Conference on NATO's Future
What is wrong with this announcement of the Nato conference?
There are many points, which all have also connection to
questions of sociology.
1) It is made in form of a SPAM, electronic mass postings to many
email lists and personal addresses in same time. Too large
network causes communicative block and general confusion if only
someone decides to react.
2) It is provocative irrespective of its neutral
and businesslike format. Nato is going on its air war
in Yugoslavia causing new and deeper ethnic tensions; social,
economic and ecological disaster in whole area, regardless of how
good and fair its aims one can think to be. This context makes
the "cordial invitements" for aplications to be possibly approved
to become distictive member of this "Atlantic community", whose
"lunch will be served on the terrace of the 18th century
mansion", look grotesque or cynical. So ...
3) It is arrogant. It is spread all over maybe to thousands of
internet addresses. Here some are thougt to be defined by face
value members of "Atlantic community". When you take look the
list of speakers and organizers below, the political, military
and business elite of the US America and Britain is regarded as
most eminent inner circle of this "Atlantic community".
Then there are these email address owner in different kinds of
mailing lists, who must evaluate the grade of their
actual belongingnes and qualifications to this "community". Mrs.
Slobodanka Nedovic, an academic adversary of Milosevic rule from
Belgrad, showed in her message dramatically that some of the
invited must continuosly suffer the results of the bombing of the
infrastructure of their country and contamination of its natural
environment. The logic of thinking and acting of this
"community" has been causing it.
4) In frequently used terms by sociolgists, this "Atlantic
community" does not seem to be very reflexive. There is nothing
in the conference program about, what the organisation of this
"community" has caused in Balkans, which seems to be a big
failure for next decades. "Community" has not used any
information available about the history of the Balkan and the
mythologies, collctive moods, belief structures and ways of
thinking of its people. It was only expected, that by dropping
some bombs, people would rise, go and throw Milosevic away.
View to the action of communities of these cultures is
mechanistical.
Milosevic regime is a regional catastrophe. "Atlantic community"
can be appraised to be a global catastrphe.
Jorma Anttila
Department of social psychology
University of Helsinki, Finland
JP ROOS wrote:
> Dear Mr Rott
>
> This conference you have been helping to organize has
created
> quite a stir in the mailing lists. You should have made a better
> selection of the addressees. I hope you have also gotten a
> somewhat better understanding of the role of NATO in Europe.
> There are many of us who think that it should have disappeared at
> the same time with the Warsaw Pact and that the eagerness of the
> people from Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic etc. to join the
> NATO now is very unfortunate and will create in the future
> serious problems for Europe in its relations with Russia. As it
> already has, in the case of Serbia.
>
> What I don't understand is the eagerness of people
who have
> experienced real oppression to become dependent of the opposite
> powers, when they would finally have the possibility to become
> independent. This is what has happened in my country, too, but to
a
> lesser degree and the suspicions towards NATO are luckily quite
> strong.
>
> Sincerely
>
> JP Roos
Dear Mr Roos,
I never helped to organize any conference on NATO. Though some other
conferencences - with subjects: CEE, ethics, how and why to avoid
corruption, how to help to build up civil society (in countries with
no
traces of it left).
Have personal friends in former Yugoslavia, who are in real troubles
by
being thrown back (at least) half a century to ethnic/religious hatred
and killings. Encountered similar hatred (though no more "cleansing")
in
my native CEE country.
But I can quite follow, and mostly agree with, you.
Best regards
V.J. Rott
Zurich, Switzerland
Prague, Czech Republic
---------
Date: Sun, 16
May 1999 11:36:57 +0200
From: Vladimir
Rott <vjrott@access.ch>
Reply-to: vjrott@access.ch
To:
JP ROOS <jproos@valt.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: Conference on NATO's
Future
Dear Mr Roos
I think this is a second reply of mine to you. First being that of
noting that I do not help to prepare the NATO conference (but perhaps
it
is not a bad idea to talk about NATO's future right now).
Those long oppressed people look only for another "shelter" (chains)
or
"good king" (dictator) to keep them "safe" (stupid), to give them
"rewards" (feed them) for being good "followers" (slaves). Too much
of
that left in my native country, still some but easily avoidable traces
in my second (= first now) country.
Someone's comment from some of the conferences on these things: "That's
classical Popper!"
As in Finland, people over are mostly thinking and the oposition to
any
political stupidity is strong. How lucky we are.
Best regards
Vladimir Rott
Zurich, Switzerland
Prague, Czech Republic
Apologies for adding yet another message to this discussion, but I do
find
it very hard to believe how social scientists on most if not all these
lists (European integration/Union, NATO, East-West esearch, human rights,
IR, ...) can be unconcerned with the issues being discussed, even outright
hostile to the discussion. Many of our countries are, after all,
at war!
I also object most strongly to messages concerning the war in Yugoslavia
being called 'junk mail'. That is an insult to those concerned,
interested, and, most of all, affected by the war.
Sincerely,
Marcus Pistor
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Political Studies
Queen's University
Kingston, Canada
Date: Tue, 18
May 1999 17:19:45 +0100
Subject: RE: Giddens' war guilt
From: R.Thomas@open.ac.uk
To:
european-sociologist@mailbase.ac.uk
Reply-to: R.Thomas@open.ac.uk
Giddens mentioned Kosova in his final Reith radio lecture on democracy
a
fortnight ago. I havn't seen a printed version, but
my memory is that he
gave a quotation about Kosova and its troubles, and then revealed (with
a
touch of theatre) that the quotation came from the 1920s.
The message seemed to be that some places in the world will always be
trouble, even in a world which in general is resolving its problems
more
frequently by democratic means than it used to. There was
a Panglossian
tone in Giddens' lecture and I don't recall that he said anything about
the
use of force. Giddens avoided any ethical dilemmas with a kind
of dynamic
functionalism, interpreting the growth of democratic institutions as
a
response to change and the growing dominance of the market.
Is there any evidence that Giddens supports the bombing?
My impression is people in the UK are reacting rather slowly to Blair's
belligerence. Mounting casualties, reports of the degrading procedurs
associated with receiving Kosovan refugees in the UK and the lack of
any
indication of any positive achievement from the bombing are leading
to
growing scepticism. But Blair's position is attributed
to his dominance
within the cabinet and consequent suffering from megalomania
rather than
applying the ideology of New Labour.
Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
Email: r.thomas@open.ac.uk
Tel: 01908-679081 Fax: 01908-550401
Post: 35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: t [mailto:P.Treanor@zap.A2000.nl]
Sent: 18 May 1999 10:33
To: european-sociologist@mailbase.ac.uk
Subject: Giddens' war guilt
The men behind the evil men should not go unpunished. Clearly, being
a
sociologist is no excuse for evil. It does not absolve from
responsibility.
Anthony Giddens is a leading ideological advisor to Tony Blair. Even
the
official LSE website says: "Frequently referred to as Tony Blair's
guru,
Professor Giddens has made a strong impact on the evolution of New
Labour." Clearly, he must share guilt for Blair's killings in the
Balkans. It is Blair and his ministers who have claimed a right to
kill
in the name of their principles, but those who helped formulate those
principles are equally responsible for their implementation. They were,
after all, political principles: they were meant to be applied.
It is reasonable that, as a leading advisor, Giddens should face trial,
for the civilian deaths caused by the implementation of New Labour
policies. A tribunal should consider whether he ever specifically
advocated military action, or supported the Atlantic Alliance. It is
important to establish the principle, that sociologists are guilty
of
their theories. Giddens and Blair themeselves have no problem in this
kind of identification. They exercise political power, partly because
they are ready to kill their political opponents, and did so (by bombing
their party offices). Minister Clare Short stated, that those who are
part of the propaganda machine are legitimate targets.
--
Paul Treanor
http://www.diagonal.demon.nl/koseth.html
Dear folks
Just to inform you all: I have collected some of
the most
interesting contributions of this NATO/junk mail debate on my
Home page so if you wish to check how it all began, there it
is:
www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/jproos/nato.htm
Best regards
J.P.Roos
PS: Don't use the replyall command as I have used!!!
From: "Bob Jiggins"
<r.jiggins@Bradford.ac.uk>
Organization: Research Unit in South East European Studie
To:
jproos@valt.helsinki.fi
Date: Tue, 18
May 1999 18:33:50 +0100
Subject: Re: End junk mail on war
topic!!!!
Reply-to: r.jiggins@Bradford.ac.uk
Priority: normal
I think that's truly an excellent idea! In retrospect I don't think
I've
had such amusement for ages - the pressures of work... :-)
Regards
Bob Jiggins
Research Unit in South East European Studies
University of Bradford
West Yorkshire
UK
Dear J.P.
I am really in a very bad mood because weeks ago I said to me:
(Good Girl), collect that stuff (nato.../junk-mail...) and start a
serious
content-analysis. And I thought: Maybe I can learn a little bit of
sociologist's ability to handle and debate reality outside universities
and
other lovely places...
But than: Frustration, FRUSTRATION etc. (up to 48 or more points in
fonts)
and permanent use of the famous DEL-Button...
Therefore: Thank YOU for doing this annoying work (I just have had
a short
look at your homepage - serious looks will follow) !
And now my question: Have you collect them all - till now? Will you
continue
? Have you any plans for analysing etc. etc.?
With my best regards
I remain Yours sincerely
W. Gaspar
_____________________
walburga gaspar-ruppert
institute of sociology
university of vienna