CAMPUS Archives

About this author:

CAMPUS Magazine Online

Contact:

wmoyer@isi.org

My Articles:

0
August 21st, 2007

An Alliance in Crisis?

Fifty-five miles west of Prague in the historic Czech city of Plzen, famous for brewing the world’s supply of Pilsner-Urquell beer, a memorial stands in honor of General George S. Patton and the American troops under his command who liberated the Nazi-occupied city in May of 1945. This memorial is a testament to American military power advancing human liberty, but freedom for the Czech people was nothing but a lofty dream during the ensuing 43-year nightmare of communist rule. The monument, erected in 2005, symbolized the enduring gratitude the Czech government and people had for America at a time when Europe’s relationship with the United States was characterized by the frosty speeches of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. The mayor of Plzen told U.S. Ambassador Richard Graber, “Plzen is more American than some American cities,” Graber recounted in an interview. But there are signs that goodwill and warm feelings may not be enough to sustain the most important geostrategic initiative ever attempted during the post-Cold War U.S.-Czech relationship: the installation of a U.S. radar system in the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense shield for Europe.

Following North Korea’s testing of a nuclear weapon last fall, and in light of Iran’s unceasing nuclear ambitions, the U.S. announced in January 2007 its desire to place ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic in order to provide Europe with a missile defense shield and add another layer to its own defense capabilities. Although the United States has agreed to foot the bill of over $750 million for the radar system, political problems immediately arose, placing the fledgling proposal in jeopardy. Various constituencies led by the opposition party Social Democrats and Communists began raising concerns that the radar would make the Czech Republic a terrorist target, as well as the target of Russia, which has opposed the plan with increasingly bellicose rhetoric.

All of these factors combined so that Czech public opinion polls have consistently showed opposition to the radar plan hovering around 60%. The Social Democrats and Communists are calling for a national referendum the system’s deployment, and the center-right Civic Democrat president Vaclav Klaus, known for a typically pugnacious personality most recently displayed with his remarks deriding global warming alarmists, recently conceded in an August 3 interview with Radio Free Europe that “I think this opposition should be respected. It is real…No one is faking the polls that are being taken.” Yet, Klaus is not willing to give up on the program, saying that Czech politicians need to explain to Czech citizens “what the threat level is” and “indicate the reason for expressing our loyalty to the USA.”

In other words, politicians must not only clearly explain the seriousness of the Iranian threat, but also why deterring this threat is of greater importance than incurring the wrath of Russia. This is no easy task. Many Czechs do not see radical Islamism as a grave threat since the number of radical Muslims in the Czech Republic is miniscule. Prague did face the possibility of a terrorist attack when Radio Free Europe, located in the heart of the city, was cased by Iraqi diplomat and likely spy Samir al-Ani. But whatever impact these events had on Czech public opinion, concern about terrorism was deflated after initial reports that al-Ani was connected with 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta were disputed by many in American and Czech intelligence circles (although the reports were never proven to be false).

With the Czech populace relatively unworried about Iran’s nuclear threat, the red-hot rhetoric emanating from Moscow in opposition to missile defense has made many Czech citizens apprehensive about cooperating with the United States. In a May 10 speech celebrating the end of World War II, Russian president Vladimir Putin implicitly compared the United States to Nazi Germany, referring to the new threats today that are similar to those “during the time of the Third Reich,” which embodied “the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world.” Later that month, Russia tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and threatened to aim its missiles at European cities if the missile defense system is deployed. The United States insists, however, that the proposed system would be incapable of defending Europe against a Russian attack. The U.S. would only place ten interceptors in Poland, hardly capable of stopping or stemming the damage of a Russian nuclear attack, since Russia is permitted to keep 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear warheads under existing treaty. Furthermore, defenses in Poland would be incapable of thwarting a Russian attack on the United States since the flight path of Russian missiles is beyond the interceptors reach.

Russia’s most realistic concern is that the U.S. is simply trying to get its foot in the door, which would make it much easier to deploy more advanced missile defense systems in the future that could completely neutralize Russia’s missile capabilities. Major-General Vladimir Belousov of the Russian Academy of Sciences World Economics and International Relations Institute recently said that “as the potential of the missile defence system is extended, the danger will only grow.” The U.S. would likely have a much easier time placing more sophisticated missile defense systems in Poland once the initial interceptors were there. Yet, Russia has demonstrated that it is more concerned about losing its ability to threaten and intimidate other nations than it is about protecting itself. When Putin suggested in June that he would favor a U.S. missile defense system in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, the U.S. responded that it would be willing to cooperate, so long as deployment to Azerbaijan was in addition to installing the system in Poland and the Czech Republic. But Russia quickly countered that it would not agree to missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, even though these are the only locations that could protect Europe from an Iranian missile attack.

While the United States has demonstrated the political will to place the security of its allies above appeasing Russia, it remains to be seen if the Czechs will stand up to their hostile neighbor to the east. Vaclav Klaus chalks up concerns about missile defense in part to the historical Czech experience with occupying Soviet forces. “People have their own historical experience and will always be against having large military bases nearby,” Klaus told Radio Free Europe. But Czech experiences with communism should have proven that the American army is in no way morally equivalent to the imperial Soviet force.

If anything, the Czech experience with the Soviets demonstrated an uncomfortable historical fact that the Czechs have been less than stalwart when standing up to their enemies. Douglas Lytle, an American ex-pat living in Prague following the Cold War observed quite bluntly that “Poles will fight and lose, Serbs will fight endlessly, Russians will attack, but the Czechs will lie back and have the crap kicked out of them, despite attempts by Czech leaders to promote a stronger national identity.” It is that sense of national identity that Czech politicians must cultivate today in order to secure the liberty and independence that nation has enjoyed for the past two decades.

Czech politicians looking to history as a guide for the future would do well to make a pilgrimage to the memorial to Patton’s army at Plzen and recall not only that the American military has a tradition of being used as a force for good, but also that its efforts at liberation have fallen short only because of a lack of political will—not a lack of military power. While Patton wanted to march forward and liberate Prague, U.S. appeasers at Yalta had offered up Prague to Stalin. Today, the U.S. is willing to devote the money, men and political capital to march forward and defend Czech liberty. But the Czech people must decide for themselves if they will appease Russia or stand with their allies in America.

John McCormack was a participant in the Collegiate Network’s 2007 Geostrategic Journalism Course which takes place in Washington D.C. and Prague, Czech Republic. John recently graduated from George Washington University where he served as Editor in Chief of The GW Patriot. He is currently deputy online editor at The Weekly Standard.

read more
0
August 21st, 2007

The Fourth-rate Estate: Journalism in Post-Communist Countries

“There are a lot of memories from the time when I was growing up [under] communism. The propaganda and the brainwashing … cultivating a fear of the enemy. The repression … the stories of my father’s expulsion from school for organizing an anticommunist armed youth unit … his later being denied access to higher education for being ‘unreliable’. My great uncle, a high-ranking counterintelligence forces officer and his everlasting silence about his work. I’m just glad the Cold War is over.”

This is the manner in which Georgi Georgiev, who lived under communism during his childhood, described his experience to CNN in an interview a few years ago.

The world was much different when Georgiev was a boy. The threat of nuclear holocaust loomed large as the world’s two superpowers were locked in a battle of will that would shape the course of history. And while there were beacons of freedom shining out through the dark, far too much of the globe was shrouded in the pervasive darkness of totalitarianism.

Life in communist countries was disrupted, the normal affairs of its citizens irrevocably altered during this time. One of the many aspects of life that was shattered was the operation of a free and unencumbered press. Although this was just one of many institutions mangled in the wake of communism, it was an essential one. As countries have set out to repair their homelands from the corrosive effects of totalitarianism, well trained journalists have proven to be an essential tool to shape their growth.

Moreover, the lessons learned in the process are of special importance in an age where forms of communism and its repressive echoes still haunt the world in far too many places. Those who have fought to refashion the fourth estate, a vital element of any free society, in their countries must become role models for others around them and around the world who have set out to do the same.

Throughout history, communism has consistently used subterfuge to achieve its means. It has always attempted to present itself in an innocuous fashion. Most often it attempts to enact its destructive ideology as a remedy to the ills of the modern age. Indeed, this was exactly the tactic that communists took in the Czech Republic. Communists used the anger towards the agreements reached after the close of World War II to fashion itself as the party which cared about the plight of the common man. Jiri Grusa, head of the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna, said in an interview to the Czech News Agency in 2005, “We’re a specific country, we actually voted for the [installation of] communism in 1946. In this respect, we resemble the Germans who elected Hitler in the same way in 1933, therefore we have nothing to reproach each other for.”

With the worldwide fall of communism, many countries struggled to reestablish themselves as a sovereign state. In that effort, people attempted to reassemble the institutions that are a hallmark of any democratic state including, of course, a probing, free press corps. But the path to a vibrant fourth estate has been a difficult one for many post-communist governments. Chief among the roadblocks is a cultural impediment honed after years of communist oppression.

One such cultural impediment is the blind acceptance of the government’s rhetoric. Under communism, the only version of events was the “official” version, the version proffered by the government. Therefore, it is understandable that the skepticism of authority that is natural among the American press, fostered after years of open and often combative relations with the US government, would take awhile to cultivate in former Soviet bloc countries.

A related phenomenon is the adjustment to work ethics. Although much progress has been made on this front, many suggested to the students attending the Geo-Strategic Journalism course that this was still an issue for the Czech Republic. During communism, there was a general attitude of anger towards the failed system of government. As such, stealing from the government was looked upon as a normal, even accepted behavior. During one of the sessions for the Geo-Strategic course, a young executive from Skoda Auto explained this sentiment. “Under Communism,” he related with a half-smile, “we had a saying that he who doesn’t steal from the state, steals from his own family.” This account is echoed by Henry Danziger, a Duke alumnus who moved to Prague during the in 1993. Frustrated by the lingering attitude of communist-era labor, Danzinger explains that “theft from the company is a huge problem.” Expounding on the saying offered by the Skoda executive, Danzinger explains that “the company was equated with the state, and it’s been tough to get them [the Czech populace] to think of it as their own. People don’t believe that if you work harder, you’ll benefit more.”

This phenomena was described most eloquently by President Havel in a New Year’s Address to the Czech Republic.

“The worst thing is that we live in a contaminated moral environment. We fell morally ill because we became used to saying something different from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore one another, to care about ourselves. Concepts such as love, friendship, compassion, humility or forgiveness lost their depth and dimension. Only a few of us were able to cry out loudly that the powers that be should not be all-powerful.”

With all of these growing pains from the long road from communism to democracy, it is no wonder that Western style journalism has been slow to develop.

But despite the changes that have taken places in countries like the Czech Republic, many are concerned about the pace of progress being made, as well as the creeping threat of totalitarian resurgence in a number of countries. And, unfortunately, such worry is not unwarranted.

James Greenfield, former foreign editor for The New York Times, founded the Independent Journalism Foundation in 1991. The organization was created, according to the group’s website, to “help fellow journalists in post-Communist countries upgrade their reporting skills, technology and business practices.” The coalition has been successful in training aspiring journalists, as well as hosting lectures and workshops around the world. But even this expert group of seasoned journalists was uncertain of the prospects of returning democratic-inspired journalism. According to an article in The New York Sun, “one of their [contributors] asked Mr. Greenfield, ‘How long is the long haul?’ Mr. Greenfield thought at the time that his foundation perhaps needed to stay in business for four or five years. ‘It’s now 16 years later, and we’re still in it for the long haul,’ he said.”

As if the sluggish pace of journalistic renewal wasn’t bad enough, there are also some signs that there is a resurgence of state control of the media in many countries.

One prominent example, of course, is Russia. Although the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, many critics say the oppression that typified that power has not been significantly lessened by the emergence of the Russian state, especially as it applies to the operation of a free press. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, roughly 44 reporters have been murdered since the fall of the Soviet Union and around 14 have been killed since Vladmir Putin’s ascendancy to power in 2000. One of the most notable examples is that of Anna Politkovskaya, who had extensive coverage on war crimes in Chechnya. According to an article from Reuters shortly after her murder, “Politkovskaya, 48, was shot in her apartment building as she stepped out on her way to fetch shopping bags from her car. The killer first fired in her chest, then finished her off with a shot to the head.”

In June of this year, media representatives from around the world traveled to Moscow to show their solidarity with members of the Russian press who have been oppressed, threatened, and all too often murdered for their independence and criticism of the Russian government. As this group points out, the loss of editorial independence was slow but steady. According to a New York Time editorial in May of this year, television stations were among the first to lose their editorial control. Print and radio news, explains the author, followed shortly thereafter. As the piece concludes, “polls show President Putin’s popularity has soared. No wonder. Fewer and fewer Russians can see or hear from anyone who opposes him, his policies or his government.” Nina Ognianova, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, concurred, stating, “The process of squeezing critical journalism out of the public space is now near complete.”

Another example is Cuba. Although repression of media is nothing new in Cuba – it’s been a continuous factor for the almost 50 years – it is noteworthy for the attention it has received. Unfortunately, the coverage is not to bring to light the abuses of this tyrannical dictatorship, but rather all too often it is to fawn over Castro’s “accomplishments”. In fact, the Latin American Federation of Journalists (an organization affiliated with the United Nations) recently awarded the Cuban dictator a medal for “his dedication to truth, his understanding of the importance of journalism’s role in society, and his fight against falsehood, disinformation, and media manipulation.” As Bree Nordenson in the Columbia Journalism Review correctly pointed out, Castro is deserving of none of those laudable titles. Indeed, Cuba under Castro is described by Reporters Without Borders as one of the “worst predators of press freedom.”

One needn’t look far for proof that Castro’s regime is unfriendly to a free press. The Cuban Constitution states, “Citizens recognize freedom of speech and press conform to the needs of the state.” But as the truism goes, actions speak louder than words. In 2003, Cuba jailed 28 journalists, who were all found guilty of “working with a foreign power to undermine the government” which carries sentences up to roughly 30 years in jail. In 2005, the number of jailed reporters was up to 32. But yet, Western media has continued to praise the Cuban system. Tom Korski, writing for the Canadian Hill Times, compiled some of his favorite descriptions of Castro. During his tenure, the island’s despot has been described in all the following ways: “remarkable”, “heroic”, “superman”, “Herculean,” “visionary”, and even “brilliant.”

It is this alleged lack of distance and perspective among Western journalist that many find disconcerting. Say such critics, such exuberant praise of areas where free press has been choked off is much worse than simply ignoring the situation, because at least in the latter, Western journalists don’t serve to further the propaganda of dictators. “Why is Cuba our pet police state?” writes Korski, “Perhaps it reflects a northern fascination with Latin culture and media’s pulse of anti-Americanism.” At one point in his article, Korski quoted an Amherst Daily News article which stated that Cuba “is not as badly off as some other nations.” As Korski quipped, “Many Cubans don’t think so; 2,834 fled the island on rafts last year.”

It is absolutely imperative for the future of a strong and, most importantly, an independent news media, that the lessons of the past not be forgotten. Unfortunately, there is disconcerting evidence that this is not the case, even in countries where the stale odor of communist oppression should be the most pungent.

In 2005, a group of Czech artists banded together to create the “T-Shirts Against Communism” campaign to highlight the repressive dangers of communism and the frighteningly naïve and superficial knowledge of the philosophy among many youth. “There are situations where we should recollect why we [Czechs] were hit by communism. Many people have forgotten it already. They cherish a sentimental, nostalgic feeling of having been young at the time; therefore it must have been better [than the present regime]. It is necessary to stem this nostalgia,” said Jiri Grusa, who was presented with one of the T-shirts.”

But this is not a problem local just to the Czech Republic. Even Russia, which was at the epicenter of the Soviet Union is also suffering from collective amnesia about the dangers of its past. According to a November 2005 edition of the Ottawa Citizen, “What Mr. Putin and Russians have done is create a useful past by selectively forgetting, says sociologist Boris Dubin. “We now live in peace with our past, but excluding the Communist ideology and all the negative things that happened then. We just know that it is our past now.”

For many, this is a troublesome development. As the article continues, the author brings Germany into the mix. “There is no amnesia in Germany, we know. Awareness of Germany’s Nazi past is near absolute and Germans overwhelmingly accept that horrible crimes were committed. There are no Hitler T-shirts for sale under the Brandenburg Gate.”

This is a perfect example of something that a dogged media would be responsible for fighting. However, many media critics cite poor training for many of these nations’s youngest crop of journalists. Livia Thova wrote a piece for the Slovak Spectator entitled, “What Happened to All the Good Journalists?” in which she discussed this very dilemma. “Newspapers, news agencies and TV stations are full of people who claim to be journalists,” she writes, “but the truth is that only a few of them are really good.”

According to Matus Korstolny, an editor of a Slovak paper who was featured in the article, the problem is essentially that “we lack a really good journalism school in this country.” There is a lack of finances and adept professors to teach the material which results in an increased return of stagnated classes.

Although the media coverage in much of the former Soviet Union-dominated countries has the potential to continually improve, a concerted effort must be made. Current journalists must be the mentors that the younger generations so desperately need. After all, the older journalists should be much more cognizant of the signs that repression is growing, as it was not too long ago that they felt the stings of government censorship. And it is these tools, along with an increased tutelage in the practices of Western media, as well as a constant vigilance with which real change can be accomplished and cemented. With this done, the final words of President Havel’s New Year address can ring out without any contradiction: “People…your government has returned to you!”

Brandon Stewart was a participant in the Collegiate Network’s 2007 Geostrategic Journalism Course which takes place in Washington D.C. and Prague, Czech Republic. Brandon graduated from Wabash College and is currently a program associate at FIRE.

read more
0
August 21st, 2007

Vaclav Klaus’s Conservative Influence: How One Man’s Views and Personality Will Shape Czech History

The election of Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus in 2003 furthered a new era of conservatism, with Klaus following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Vaclav Havel. And Klaus’s blunt mannerisms have further accentuated his brand of conservatism and his country’s advocacy for conservative views on key issues, even if it has meant going against the grain of global and domestic public opinion. His frankness has received a significant amount of attention, and his personality may shape geopolitical relationships for the foreseeable future.

The three hot button topics that have arguably been the most prominent and controversial in recent months are global warming, taxes, and, perhaps the most heated, missile defense. And Klaus has had no shortage of opinions on these issues. On the two issues of global warming and taxes, Klaus’s positions are more conservative than those of some mainstream American conservative politicians – a remarkable feat, considering that European conservatism is almost akin to American liberalism in the present day. But despite this, he still remains enormously popular in the Czech Republic.

Global warming

Klaus is certainly a firebrand when it comes to climate change: “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so…. Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate,” he told a Czech newspaper, Hospodarske noviny, in February, after the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had released a report linking human behavior with warming climate trends.

Klaus thinks it is a “waste of money” to conduct government-funded research on this issue, a sentiment he shared on a panel at the Cato Institute earlier this year on March 9 during a U.S. tour. He wrote in a Financial Times piece, “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

This is even more conservative than President George W. Bush’s official position, which is that there is no doubt that humans contribute to global warming, but the extent to which human behavior exacerbates global warming is still unclear, and should be researched further. Richard Graber, U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic, carefully couched his language and said that Bush has concluded, “People cause global warming in part,” and that this would be a “difference of principle between the two leaders.”

Klaus’s view can be attributed in part to his extensive economics background. He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Economics in Prague in 1963, and then received his Professor of Finance degree from the same institution more than 30 years later. He has even taught economic courses while in office. Klaus compiled all his opinions in a book he released on May 16, 2007, titled “A Blue, Not a Green Planet…What’s At Risk – the Climate, or Freedom?” Blue is the color of his party, the Civic Democrats. The book, according to Radio Praha, received an expected “frosty reception from the environmental lobby.”

Klaus was even called to share his opinions before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Members sent him written questions, to which he responded:

“The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals.… they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures…and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making.”

According to Jiri Ellinger, the first secretary and head of political office at the Czech Embassy, Klaus has no problem being brutally honest about his views, and this is just his way of “provoking public debate because he knows he’s the best public debater.” He likes to “provoke for the sake of provocation,” and he takes a “grain of truth” and adds some flavor.

When he introduced his book, he challenged his detractors: “Let’s bring the debate to whether the 0.6 (degree Celsius warming over the last century) is much or little, how much Man has contributed to the warming and … if there is anything at all Man can do about it.”

But despite this, Klaus is still able to bring together coalitions; Ellinger pointed out that for the first time in Europe, the Green Party has joined the rightist government led by the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) that Klaus co-founded back in April 1991. As Ellinger says, “the environment shouldn’t be the political property of one party.”

The Flat Tax

Klaus’s fiscal policies also run to the far right, more closely aligned with Steve Forbes’s position than President Bush’s stance. He fought a fierce battle in the Parliament for the adoption of a flat income tax.

Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek rolled out a new reform proposal back in April of this year that would have set the personal income tax rate at 15 percent and corporate tax rates at 19 percent by 2010. The personal rate, which, considering all the regulations, would have really ended up being around 23 percent, would have changed from the current progressive rates ranging from 12 to 32 percent. The corporate rate would have dipped 5 percent.

The measure is also popular in other nearby countries, noted Radek Spicar, former Deputy Vicepremier for economics, and the adoption of it by the Czech Republic would “help companies stay and invest.” In his opinion, the “flat tax would be positive if it wasn’t too low.” Rates of 19 or 20 percent would be acceptable for economic growth in his estimation.

His current employer, Skoda Auto, one of the largest auto manufacturers in the region, is thinking of relocating its headquarters to another country in Eastern Europe that has a lower flat tax rate. Currently, nine other countries in Eastern Europe have implemented flat tax policies.

Even the Western media is picking up on this motive. On April 13, The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial:

“In going flat, the Czechs are following in the footsteps of former Communist countries, from Russia to Romania, that have shown how flat taxes help produce rapid growth in output and revenues.

In deciding on a flat tax, it’s a good bet that Prague had Bratislava on its mind. The Czechs’ traditionally poorer Slovak cousins have outshined their former countrymen with the help of a flat 19% tax on corporate and personal income. The peaceful break-up of Czechoslovakia has led to some mutually beneficial competition between the two countries. It’s past time that this competitive flat-tax spirit extends to the economies west of the old Iron Curtain.”

But Jiri Ellinger said the cause is probably lost for now with the current configuration of the Parliament, because the Christian Democrats (KDU) and the Green party weren’t on board. Spicar was also skeptical that the flat tax would be implemented in the near future.

Missile defense

Aside from global warming and tax policy, missile defense is probably the most controversial issue at the moment. President Bush visited the Czech Republic in the beginning of June during his European tour, culminating with the G-8 Summit in Germany. Bush proposes housing part of a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic as a means of detecting possible missiles launched from Iran, and a possible contingency of about 150 military personnel. It would improve U.S. defense capabilities, as well as shield most of Europe.

The Russians strenuously object, calling for NATO involvement, and the Christian Democrats in the Czech Parliament agree. The Bush administration has conceded that NATO should be involved to an extent, but the degree to which NATO should play a role, and the location of the site, is still a major point of contention. The U.S. would fund the proposal, which is still under discussion. Richard Graber, the U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic, said that this should be a “no brainer” for the Czech people.

During Bush’s visit to Prague, he directly addressed Russian President Vladimir Putin, as reported in The New York Times: “My message will be, Vladimir…. you shouldn’t fear a missile defense system…As a matter of fact, why don’t you cooperate with us on a missile defense system? Why don’t you participate with the United States?” The U.S. and Russia have discussed the issue, but Russia still remains adamantly opposed to the location in the Czech Republic, which it argues is too close to its territory.

But Bush won’t balk, and even went on to chide Russia that day: “In Russia, reforms that were once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development.”

When it comes to missile defense, Klaus is not one to float a trial balloon and conduct polling exercises and survey groups. On domestic policy, he might be constrained more by public opinion and Parliamentary procedure. But, much like in the U.S., foreign policy is a completely different sphere, and Klaus takes his role as executive and the responsibility of ensuring national security very seriously.

As Jiri Ellinger alluded to at the Czech Embassy, missile defense isn’t an issue for which Klaus has to consult the general public. “People do have a voice, through the election of the MPs,” but “as your president, John F. Kennedy said, you cannot govern without courage.”

This is analogous (on a much smaller scale) to Bush’s attitude on foreign policy matters. Bush boldly set the tone of the war on terror soon after September 11 with his Doctrine, whose key principles include the following: any nation that harbors terrorists is considered a terrorist state, the U.S. has the right to act preemptively/preventively to provide national security, and the U.S. has a right to maintain its status in the world and promote liberal democracies around the world. Similarly, Klaus is setting forth his government’s policy and supporting the missile defense shield, regardless of the divided public opinion.

Tomas Pojar, the deputy minister of foreign affairs of the Czech Republic for bilateral relations, said, “No one wants war, and there will be political debates internally, but it is crucial that Europe be protected. If the U.S. doesn’t do it, no one else will. It is very important, and it’s not a strategic military move against Russia. We’d like to see U.S. assets in Czech. We don’t want to be left alone.”

In holding this stance, Klaus not only stirs the public, he also risks alienating Russia, at a time when his country’s dependence on Russian gas is at 75 percent and increasing, according to Pojar.

Klaus is staunchly pro-American, and Pojar expressed this unambiguously. Not only does he stand by Bush on missile defense, he is one of the few European nations still on Bush’s side on the Iraq war, and Czech soldiers are still in Iraq in a support role.

Klaus’s impact

Even though Klaus’s specific duties as president are less than those of a United States president, and the role is more ceremonial, Klaus as a public figure has wielded a significant amount of power on influencing the public debate and the political debate in Parliament.

Radek Spicar, former deputy vice premier for economics and currently an executive at Skoda Auto, said that Klaus was not only “a symbol for transformation,” but also a catalyst of economic “shock therapy” for the nation. He moved it towards a capitalist, democratic mindset, and he was successful. The GDP real growth rate was at 6.1 percent for 2006, he pointed out. Analysis by the BBC also indicates this: “As prime minister from 1992 to 1997, Mr Klaus is credited with successfully transforming the Czech economy.”

Besides the domestic economic policy influence, on the foreign policy front, as discussed previously, Klaus’s role in the missile defense debate cannot be underestimated. His fierce support for Bush’s proposal is affecting geopolitical relations with the U.S., and much of Europe, especially Russia, in many different ways. A country slightly smaller than the state of North Carolina is caught in the middle – geographically and politically – of a huge debate with ramifications ranging from NATO involvement, deterrence against rogue nations, and disapproval from the Czech Republic’s former occupier, Russia. The Czech Republic, just 14 years old, really is “center stage,” so to speak, and Klaus is a major figure, with the U.S. turning to him for permission to locate one of its most high profile, strategic defense initiatives in his backyard.

While it’s probably too premature to definitively declare Klaus as a figure that has unequivocally changed the course of history for the Czech Republic, it’s not too early to explore the international relations theory applied by John Lewis Gaddis when analyzing the impact of President Ronald Reagan’s personality in winning the Cold War.

Gaddis, who believes that Reagan’s personality undeniably contributed to the U.S. victory in the cold war, places a great deal of emphasis on the individual psychology/personality of a leader:

“…there are points, even with the limited sources now available, where we can see that the President himself had a decisive impact upon the course of events. They include, among others: the Strategic Defense Initiative, which may have had its problems as a missile shield but which certainly worked in unsettling the Russians; endorsement of the “zero option” in the INF talks and real reductions in START, the rapidity with which the President entered into, and thereby legitimized, serious negotiations with Gorbachev once he came into office; and most remarkable of all, his eagerness to contemplate alternatives to the nuclear arms race in a way no previous president had been willing to do.” (Gaddis 527).

Incidentally, Klaus has the utmost respect for Reagan. After Reagan died in June 2004, Klaus eulogized:

“Reagan’s truth-telling — together with the examples of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic success and Pope John Paul’s moral strength — gave millions of people courage to rise up when the opportunity for change came.”

The question remains – if Klaus was not in office now, and perhaps a leftist leader was in place, what would the political environment look like? It’s doubtful that the Czech Republic would still have troops in Iraq, support President Bush on missile defense, go against much of the international community with such bold statements on global warming, or even be debating the merits of a flat tax.

Secret to Klaus’s popularity

Klaus continues to experience extremely high approval ratings. One recent survey puts him at a 67 percent approval rating, and sources we heard from said the number is often in the 70s. Surprisingly, 54 percent of leftists also support him, according to the poll.

What could account for the broad approval ratings, despite his over-the-top provocations, and his sometimes-brusque personality? One news report in the BBC characterized him as a “divisive and outspoken figure” who has “never shrunk from confrontation” and was described by one historian as “one of the rudest men he has ever known.” But the article also cites his “popular touch” with the public. His party, after all, was able to form a coalition with the Green party.

One factor could be the Czech culture. Klaus’s frankness might not just be an individual character trait; in our experience, it is it indicative of Czech mores as a whole. Perhaps the Czech public appreciates his candor, and while citizens might not agree all the time, they know exactly where he stands.

Many of the speakers we heard were not scripted at all, even if they were government officials. They spoke very informally, and while there was still a bit of PR spin and rhetoric included in some of the addresses, when asked direct questions, for the most part, they answered.
Political correctness was, in some instances, completely abandoned. At one point, when discussing Turkey’s possible accession into the EU, Jiri Ellinger from the Czech Embassy said that the “problem with Turkey is there are too many Muslims.” Later on, he said, “If I have a chance to tell a joke about Russians, I will.” And a final nugget of bluntness: “We are always the example of incompetence, America is always the example of competence.” Despite this flattery, he still wasn’t afraid to share his personal opinions on the Iraq war, and express the general sentiments of the Czech people, who he said feel slightly embarrassed for partaking in the war.

And many of the Czech officials our group met with did not feel the need to constantly speak on behalf of Klaus’s administration, or to keep repeating the administration mantra regardless of the particular question they were asked.

When questioned about Klaus’s remarks on global warming, Tomas Pojar, current deputy minister of foreign affairs, said, “the issue is too much overblown…in 10 years we’ll be debating something else.” He also added that focusing on global warming should really be an afterthought for many countries: “The Serbs should forget about global warming for now and take care of their own problems.”

Oldrich Cerny, former national security advisor under President Vaclav Havel, recalled his experiences witnessing the Czech Republic’s negotiations with NATO for admission: “I wondered why NATO wanted us; we are weak, stupid Europeans.”

Radek Spicar wasn’t afraid to admit either that “Czechs are lazy” when discussing the low possibility of migration from the Czech Republic.

The contrast with American politicians was markedly perceptible. U.S. Ambassador Richard Graber even admitted this. He was “not surprised by the candor” we perceived. These are a group of people you “go out with for beers a and get more done…in time we trust each other and become friends.”

Looking to the future: A new generation emerges

While Klaus enjoys wide public support, a generational gap is burgeoning. Those who do not remember what it was like to live under Communism – either because they were too young or not born yet – have a completely different perspective. As Jiri Ellinger from the Czech Embassy said, “We need to help the younger generation remember” what the country went through, from the Prague Spring, to the Soviet invasion, to the Velvet Revolution.

Soviet scholar Ronald Suny describes the liberalization during the 1968 Prague Spring under Alexander Dubcek, which many young people did not experience:

“Almost immediately censorship fell away….The whole country awoke politically, and hundreds of public meetings were held. The movement was spearheaded by intellectuals, writers, scholars, and journalists; workers and farmers were at first hesitant to join in and only later became supporters of reform….Non-Communist political parties began to form, and criticism of the Soviet Union appeared in the press (Suny 427-428).

This of course, was all taken away in a period of months, followed by 20 years of Soviet repression, which the youngest generation also has no recollection of, and only knows a world without Communism. The absence of this first-hand knowledge is not surprising: Oldrich Cerny told us there is now an “apathy to politics” among the younger generation, because “now they never had it so good.”

As the generation of the Prague Spring and the Velvet Revolution ages, and a new generation takes the helm, the question remains, “What will become of the progress of the Czech Republic?” Only time will tell, but hopefully the democratic, capitalist beginnings will endure and strengthen. If they falter, it certainly will not be any fault of Vaclav Klaus’s.

Sources

Websites / articles accessible online:

The Associated Press. “Czech president calls for rational debate on global warming, rejects ‘current hysteria.’” The Associated Press, published in the International Herald Tribune. May 16, 2007.

BBC News. “Vaclav Klaus: Prague’s outspoken populist.” BBC News. February 23, 2003.

Cameron, Rob. “Klaus – our blue (not green) planet at risk from environmental lobby.” Radio Praha. May 16, 2007.

CIA. “The World Factbook: Czech Republic. CIA. July 19, 2007.

Fund, John. “Freedom’s Team.” Opinion Journal. June 7, 2004.

Klaus, Vaclav. “Be Afraid – But not of global warming – the Greens are out to get us.” The Prague Post. March 28, 2007.

Klaus, Vaclav. “Freedom, not climate, is at risk.” Financial Times. June 13, 2007.

Lagunina, Irina. “Czechs Respond To Proposed U.S. Missile-Defense Shield.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. February 26, 2007.

Lazarova, Daniela. “President Klaus’s popularity untouched by political deadlock.” Radio Praha. January 15, 2007.

Lopatka, Jan. “Czech leader Klaus fights global warming ‘religion’.” Reuters – published in The San Diego Union Tribune. March 21, 2007.

“Multinational Force in Iraq.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. July 20, 2007.

Parker, George. “Cameron worlds apart from Czech ally.” Financial Times. March 6, 2007.

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. “Bush Says Russians Have Derailed Reforms.” The New York Times. June 5, 2007.

United Press International. “Czech Pres: Environmentalism is a religion.” United Press International. March 9, 2007.

“Vaclav Klaus.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. July 30, 2007. .

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. “Flat Czechs.” Wall Street Journal. April 13, 2007.

Ward, Andrew. “Putin, Bush see Nato role in missile defence.” Financial Times. July 2, 2007. < http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d2264b56-28e1-11dc-af78-000b5df10621.html>

Books:

Gaddis, John Lewis. ” President Ronald Reagan’s Successful Strategy of Negotiating from Strength.” Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Volume II: Since 1914. Ed. Dennis Merrill and Thomas G. Paterson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.

Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment, Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Whitney Blake was a participant in the Collegiate Network’s 2007 Geostrategic Journalism Course which takes place in Washington D.C. and Prague, Czech Republic. Whitney graduated from University of Virginia. She is currently a freelance reporter.

read more
0
June 6th, 2007

Finding Burke Among the Street Sleepers: A Guided Tour of London’s Homeless Scene

On Thursday, July 20, I had a rare opportunity to see the workings of Britain’s welfare state from the very bottom as I visited four popular venues for the homeless population of central London. This article is not a policy argument, as 12 hours of observations and anecdotes did not make me an expert on homelessness. It is simply an account of what I saw and what I heard with a few brief reflections on what it all means.

One of the most interesting things about the tour is my guide. Michael is in his late 50s and has been homeless for five years. We met in early June, soon after I arrived in London. The church I am staying at for the summer gives out sandwiches and coffee every Saturday to local homeless, and Michael is one of the regulars.

Michael is clean and eloquent. He is also very outspoken about what he thinks is wrong with the way London deals with homelessness. There is a great ignorance, he says, of who homeless people are, leading to “solutions” to homelessness that are both utopian and cosmetic. He keeps up with all the proceedings of the Westminster (Central London) City Council regarding the homeless population, and the Council consults him from time to time to get an insider’s view of the situation.

I meet Michael in Trafalgar Square at 8:15 a.m. His plan is to take me through a modified version of his daily routine. We will make four stops, all in places where he has talked to the management to clear my visit. Many people hide among the homeless, he explains, so they are wary of newcomers. He also warns me against taking photos. Over the next 12 hours, we will walk more than ten miles around the city to the places where Michael eats, showers, and checks his email. “Being homeless is a full-time job,” he says.

He tells me that it is practically impossible to go hungry in London, even for homeless without the desire or ability to walk as much as he does, as there are hundreds of venues around the city that offer free meals. Street beggars may be the public face of homelessness, but many of them are not homeless at all. Most homeless, he insists, mind their own business and blend in with the regular population during the day.

Michael is a rarity among street homeless in that he does not attempt to collect public funds. Unemployment benefits in the United Kingdom are around £56 ($105) per week, and while in theory the recipient must be actively looking for work, in practice he can easily dupe the system. In Britain, furthermore, eligibility for benefits never expires, so it is possible to live on the dole for most of one ’s life.

Michael, however, makes no pretence about looking for work and prefers to keep his integrity. With no rent to pay, free meals, and Britain’s national healthcare, he can cover his incidental expenses with the few pounds per day of loose change he finds on the ground of a nearby park.

Our first stop is across the river in Lambeth for breakfast at an establishment run by the London City Mission, an evangelical group. It has seats for 120 people and a few showers. The staff is friendly and the atmosphere is peaceful—largely, Michael says, because they do not tolerate any disturbances.

This is a “community” breakfast, he explains, which means both homeless and non-homeless are welcome. Most of the non-homeless here were once on the street but have since found placement in locally subsidized “Council flats.”

This gets Michael talking about one of the “utopian ideologies” he often encounters, which holds that the way to solve homelessness is simply to give everyone homes. The plan is to get as many street homeless as possible into long-term hostels until a Council flat opens up. The accommodation generally costs about one-third of one’s unemployment benefits and is deducted directly from the handout.

Many people are certainly grateful for a bed, but ultimately, he says, putting homeless in Council flats simply pushes the problem out of the way.

“You take someone from the street, put him in a flat, and just expect him to become a model citizen. Meanwhile, you have isolated him from the only community he knows, and he starts to get lonely. He’s back out on the street within months.”

Often, Michael explains, people will continue to sleep on the street while using their flat to store their belongings or subletting it to finance a drug habit. Others have their keys stolen or simply neglect to sign their renewal paperwork. Sitting at lunch one Saturday a few weeks before our tour, Michael could point to various people and tell me how many times they have been through “the system.”

Our next stop is lunch at the Manna Centre, a Catholic-affiliated institution a mile to the east. The Manna Centre is a bit larger than the London City Mission, employing nine full-time staff and serving hot meals daily from a full kitchen. A group of homeless men are drinking near the entrance as we walk in, but the staff makes sure that no alcohol enters the building. This is another no-nonsense venue.

Michael takes a shower while I talk to the Centre’s director, an Irishman named Paddy Boyle. A full 85 percent of the Manna Centre’s operating budget comes from private sources , I learn. The remainder comes from the Southwark City Council and covers the salary of two welfare workers who advise homeless about housing and benefits.

The Manna Centre is proud of its independence, Paddy says, especially as more and more homeless drop-in centers, following New Labour money, have shifted from simply feeding the homeless to actively trying to rehabilitate them.

Paddy has no problem with rehabilitation, and he says that the Manna Centre is ready to help anyone who comes to them looking for help. Nevertheless, he insists that there needs to be a place for what he calls a “simple Christian” ethos: feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

We talk briefly about the difference between the American and European social models. Paddy prefers the safety net of the European welfare state, but he is honest about the failures of the system. It is not unusual, he says, for parents to bring their children in to claim benefits as soon as they are eligible, fully expecting that they could spend their entire lives on the dole.

Michael clearly appreciates the Manna Centre’s live-and-let-live outlook, and he resents the implication that he needs to be “rehabilitated.” He considers the rehabilitation efforts at most government-funded centers to be just another part of the system through which the homeless are herded, and he worries that the process can undermine their dignity.

“The conventional assumption is that the homeless are a bunch of miserable wretches who need serious help,” he says. “But most of us have adjusted to the lifestyle. It’s what we know.”

He tells me about the teams of welfare workers that go around by night trying to convince street sleepers to add their names to a list to get a bed in a hostel. He says that they have harassed him several times, and most of his friends do not like them.

Many long-term homeless have no desire to live in hostels, which provide living accommodation, counseling and benefits advice to homeless people waiting for a permanent place to live. The wait to get a Council flat can be over two years, and frequent drug abuse in the hostels can make life miserable.

With a few hours of free time before our next stop we take in some sights along the river. Michael says that the middle of the day can get boring, and he is glad for the company.

Michael strikes me as a paradoxical figure. He is the most active and aware homeless person I have ever met, but he insists that he is just trying to live his life in peace. He has spent most of his life in normal society, yet when I ask him if he would take a job and a settled life if he had the chance, he says he does not want the hassle.

He is also a serious Christian, and he credits his faith with getting him through a messy divorce ten years ago. “I’ve fought my battles; I’m at peace,” he says. His sense of peace, I guess, is still compatible with a real compassion for the people around him.

We are back in Trafalgar Square at 5 p.m. to visit the London Connection at St. Martin-in-the-Fields. This is not one of Michael’s usual stops, but he wants me to see some contrast.

The London Connection is one of Westminster’s official, Council-financed homeless centers. It offers a laundry service, a National Health clinic, employment advice, internet access, entertainment, art classes, group discussions, field trips, and 25 temporary beds for people it deems especially desperate.

These services come at the price of a layer of bureaucracy. All clients have to register before they enter. Non-homeless are turned away, and homeless who are not from Westminster are told to contact the relevant authority for their district. The staff is sympathetic and well intentioned, but there is a tone of weary condescension in some of their voices.

The director of the youth program gives me a tour of the building. She shows me the art room and sadly reflects on how talented some of the homeless are. When we get to the career advice room, I ask her how much success the London Connection has had in getting people off the street and into stable employment. “It’s a long process,” she says. I take that to mean “not much.”

We do not eat at the London Connection, which charges for food. Dinner is still a long walk away at an Anglican church called St. James the Less, one of Michael’s favorite places to eat. Volunteers run the entire service, so it only opens once every fortnight.

There is a line of about 50 people outside the door as it opens. We are welcomed, seated, and served restaurant-style as volunteers bring food and drinks right to our table.

It is a wonderful meal, and everyone seems genuinely grateful. Michael says that the homeless especially appreciate venues like St. James because the volunteers take the time to eat and chat with them. He considers it a sign of respect.

After dinner, we walk toward Michael’s sleeping ground. He has had a sheltered place to sleep for the past few years, and he makes me promise not to reveal where it is. He knows the local security guard, who lets him stay as long as he cleans up and leaves by 7 a.m.

As we walk, I start thinking. I have been seeing homelessness through the eyes of a man who has his life sorted out and who has a strong sense of what is wrong with the system. But what about the street homeless who truly are “miserable wretches,” who have some mental health problem and do not know what to do besides beg and drink? How would they see a place like the London Connection or the welfare workers who try to get them into hostels?

I share my thoughts with Michael. He reminds me that he has no big solution to homelessness; he just wants to get people who might find one to see the situation from the street level. As for rehabilitation, he says that while it does happen, it is very rare.

“You can try to convince someone to give up the bottle, but what is he going to give it up for?” he asks. “A menial, low-paying job? A lonely, isolated life in a Council flat? That’s not much of an incentive.”

London is a lonely place when you look at it from the bottom. It is hard to put down roots, and the drugs, the mental illness, and the hardness of the life separate people even further from each other. St. James, I think, was so wonderful in contrast precisely because it showed a faint glimmer of real community.

Day-to-day street life is not completely void of community, however. Michael is close to a long-established charity called the Simon Community, in which volunteers and homeless people live and work together, serving other homeless in the surrounding area. Organizations like Simon are in a good position to give real help to homeless who are ready for it. The kind of community they create could also provide that incentive Michael was talking about—something tangible for which to leave street life. In a way, they are recreating on the streets of London what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons” of society—small communities held together by the natural bonds of family, proximity, and tradition.

It seems that the politicians are starting to take notice. David Cameron, the youthful new leader of Britain’s Conservative Party, is advocating a brand of compassionate conservatism several times more cheerful and sunny than President Bush’s. Both Cameron and Prime Minister Tony Blair are heaping praise on private charities and looking for ways to encourage and even fund them. There is talk of turning the “little platoons” into grand “armies of compassion.”

They should keep in mind, however, that the sense of community that charities like Simon offer is only replacing what is not there in the first place. People talk about stopping homelessness before it starts through increased drug education or advanced mental illness screening. But where is the love, the respect, or the neighborly hand to help people up when they are first falling?

That is not something that a government program can provide, but it has everything to do with the health of a society. It gets me wondering how generations of the welfare state, of son after father spending a lifetime on the dole, have affected Britain’s little platoons. Does a community start to break down when individuals’ need for each other becomes less apparent?

I do not know. The homeless of London are a cross-section of British society, which means that the various problems of British society show up here in particularly vicious form. Perhaps, then, the only real “solution” to homelessness is a healthy, hardworking, and compassionate body politic. Good luck, Britain.

John Wilson, the winner of the Breindel Award for Collegiate Journalism, is a recent graduate from Claremont McKenna College. He is the former editor of the Collegiate Network member publication the Claremont Independent.

read more
0
May 11th, 2007

Handel’s Concerti Grossi, Op. 3

Handel: Concerti grossi, Op. 3, Sonata a 5

The Academy of Ancient Music / Richard Egarr
Harmonia Mundi HMU 907415, DDD, 68 minutes

($16.99 on ArkivMusic.com: Click here to buy this CD)

Typically, when one speaks of Handel’s concerti grossi, the 12 renowned concertos of Opus 6 come to mind. It is this prejudice that harpsichordist Richard Egarr—in his first recording in his new role as the music director of the Academy of Ancient Music—challenges with this reading of Handel’s earlier set of the six Opus 3 concerti grossi.

From the very opening of the first track, the listener is aware that this is a recording of the highest quality. Ensemble is perfect, and the balance between the concertino of violin and oboe and the ripieno ensemble in Concerto No. 1 is flawless. The clarity of the recording is such that one can even hear the clicking of the keys on the baroque oboes during their solo and duet sections, an added treat for the careful listener. Concertmaster Pavlo Beznosiuk and principle oboist Frank de Bruine exchange gorgeous melodies during the middle movement, every turn and trill synchronized with the highest precision. The largo of Concerto No. 2, in B-flat like No. 1, contains yet another sublime oboe line, entering after a rich ritornello offered up by the warm baroque celli. De Bruine shapes the line with intelligence and understanding, crafting beautiful tone quality in each passing phrase. This ends (as does the middle movement of Concerto No. 1) with a masterful treatment of the typical, ornamented baroque Phrygian cadence.

Concerto No. 3 is a consummate example of the perfect balance that is a hallmark of the Academy of Ancient Music. The transverse flutes are never drowned out, while at the same time, the archlute—not by any means a loud instrument—can be clearly heard, happily strumming basso continuo chords in the jovial outer movements.

Handel was the master of the French ouverture style first introduced by Lully at the court of Louis XIV, and the opening movement of Concerto No. 4 indeed gets the royal treatment. The ouverture style is characterized by a slower, pomp-and-circumstance opening fit for a king—communicated through dotted rhythms—which leads into a fast, lighter melody that is always imitative and often fugal. The ensemble here remains ultra-tight and coordinated during both sections, even with the addition of tasteful ornamentation. This is an incredible feat, considering the collective virtuosity the tempi demand.

In Concerto No. 6, Handel employs a continuo organ, rather than a harpsichord, and provides it with a virtuosic solo part in the third movement. Egarr displays his utter mastery of the keyboard in playing the organ here. His phrasing, ornamentation, and execution of the line are witty and sensitive and serve as another example of Egarr’s total mastery of this music. The original middle movement of No. 6 has been lost. To fill this gap, Egarr has created his own second movement, an organ improvisation that sounds strange at first, but finishes so convincingly you think Handel himself wrote it.

The filler for this album is the Sonata a 5 (“sonata for five parts”), HWV 288. This piece, written when Handel was only 22, displays the Italian influence on Handel’s early compositional technique. Here, as with all other instances of solo violin performance on this album, Beznosiuk delights with buttery smooth phrasing and flawless tone quality.

The making of this album was undoubtedly a test not only for Egarr but also for the members of the Academy of Ancient Music, as the ensemble embarks upon a new era in its fabled history. Egarr and his players pass the test, at once respecting the great tradition of the Academy as handed down by previous conductors Christopher Hogwood, Andrew Manze, and Paul Goodwin, and also infusing these too little-known orchestral works with their own panache and flair.

Grade:
Performance: A
Sound: A+

Nick Fitzgerald is the Editor in Chief of The Virginia Informer Online, the Collegiate Network member publication at The College of William and Mary.

read more
0
January 11th, 2007

Wabash and Single-Sex Education

The men of Wabash College understand well the Burkean mandate to remember the importance of history and tradition. Wabash College is a private, liberal arts college for about 870 men in Indiana. At Wabash, the students and alumni are committed to their shared history, their own “contract between the living, the dead and those who are yet to be born.”

Wabash has been a single-sex college for 175 years, ever since its founders knelt in the snow one cold evening in 1832 to christen the college. It has been committed since that time to educating men by entrusting them with numerous responsibilities and enough freedom to make their own mistakes and learn from them. The students are governed by only one rule: the Gentleman’s Rule. This states that “the student is expected to conduct himself at all times, both on and off the campus, as a gentleman and a responsible citizen.” This ideal is buttressed by a traditional liberal arts curriculum designed to pass on the great learning of the past while helping Wabash men apply it to the present.

However, an increasing number of new faculty members and an increased interest in more “modern” academic studies have made it clear to many that Wabash cannot completely insulate itself from the realities of the modern Academy. At its best, Wabash is a place where boys become men, where spirited tradition and fierce loyalty are revered and the love of the college is kindled anew in each successive freshmen class. At its worst, Wabash is yet another college under siege and fighting for its soul.

Because it is precisely that—the soul of our modern universities—that is under attack. The Academy today is ailing, growing sicker each day from a cancer of its own creation: hypocrisy. While claiming to champion a place big in ideas and inclusive in membership, many colleges have become small, isolated places that encourage the development of small minds and the regurgitation of ‘hegemonies’ of their own. Witness, for example, the vetting of former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, which demonstrated quite clearly what happens when one speaks one’s mind and crosses the liberal elite. All it took for Summers to be shown the door was for him to criticize an African-American professor’s job performance and suggest the existence of sex differences.

It is in this environment that Wabash is trying to survive. The very existence of single-sex colleges like Wabash is an affront to those who minimize sex differences and reject traditional gender roles. Never mind that single-sex colleges represent a small number of colleges in the U.S. Never mind that coeducation has been king for years. It seems that those champions of “choice” and “diversity” do not place great emphasis on consistency. By educating men absent from women, we are a threat. And with so many of our old faculty retiring and the ranks being increasingly filled with young professors fresh out of graduate school, the threat is not an idle one.

Single-sex education has been gaining increased media attention in recent years, especially after Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling recently announced the relaxation of Title IX regulations which “give educators more flexibility, under Title IX, to offer single-sex classes, extracurricular activities and schools at the elementary and secondary education levels” according to the Department of Education. Dr. Leonard Sax, author of Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences, an in-depth look at the biological differences between men and women, is a forceful advocate for the benefits of single-sex education. He is the founder of the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education (NASSPE), which is dedicated to encouraging the development of single-sex alternatives. His research has demonstrated that “educators and parents are recognizing that all too often, coeducational settings actually reinforce gender stereotypes via the process that researchers call ‘gender intensification.’ Boys at coed schools will tell you ‘poetry is for girls.’ Girls at coed schools will tell you that ‘computer science is for boys.’ ”

I cannot speak for women at all-female schools, but as for my time at Wabash, I can speak anecdotally at great length. Ask any Wabash student about his collegiate experience and he will no doubt tell you that the absence of women, although certainly a source of considerable lament, also allows men to focus more on their studies both in the classroom and during the week. Partying is relegated to the weekend, while the weekdays are spent working. While more and more is being said about the declining enrollment and increasing “gender gap,” Wabash is there in the trenches, proving it is possible for men to be successful in college.

What you will hear praised most often from students and alumni alike, however, is the brotherhood and the sense of camaraderie. The all-male environment provides a fraternal feel—no doubt the reason why there are 10 different fraternities for a campus of 870. With no women present on most weekdays, men have the opportunity to open up to each other, to bond with each other; in short, they have the opportunity to live like men in a world increasingly hostile to that idea. After all, we are taught by the media that men are angry and violent, and even more so in groups. The thought of men living and learning together is antithetical to far too many in higher education. Although it is hard to say exactly where this suspicion of men comes from, the virulent anti-man rhetoric that passes for feminism on many campuses today certainly plays a role.

Because single-sex education is being short-changed, it is up to our students and alumni to embrace the task of defending single-sex education in general and Wabash in particular, and to teach others about why it is worth preserving. After all, the facts seem to speak themselves. First of all, the majority of alumni have never supported—with their dollars or their hearts—a move toward coeducation. Second, a move to change the college at this time makes little sense considering that our enrollment numbers and competition for the entering class have never been better. In fact, the College announced a few days ago that this was the earliest in the College’s history that it had reached the 1,000 application mark. But beyond the numbers, it is important that colleges for men continue to have as their goal the development of men of character and moral strength. Despite the attacks on traditional conceptions of men and women, there continues an increased interest in single-sex education. This is a propitious moment; its advocates must make haste not to squander it.

And the so the question becomes: How will Wabash defend itself from succumbing to the rot of the modern Academy? It will do so by continuing to embody the spiritedness characterized by the Greek word thymos which columnist David Brooks has characterized as that spirit which “drives [men] seek glory and assert themselves aggressively for noble causes.” The men of Wabash will continue on as before: just a good group of guys trying to learn and grow into good men and responsible citizens.

As Theodore Roosevelt once counseled, “Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” The men of Wabash will continue to fight for their school as before and through their spirit and vitality, demonstrate the very greatest of what their beloved alma mater instills.

Brandon Stewart was a participant in the Collegiate Network’s 2007 Geostrategic Journalism Course which takes place in Washington D.C. and Prague, Czech Republic. Brandon graduated from Wabash College and is currently a program associate at FIRE.

read more
« Previous Page
Next Entries »