Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Should states apologize?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered a predictably unhelpful response to President Barack Obama's conciliatory message to the Muslim world last week. Ahmadinejad's answer: first the United States has to "apologize" for its opposition to Iran's nuclear program and for a host of other transgressions.
I've got news for him: we've already done so -- at least in part -- and he's not going to get another apology any time soon. Obama may be hoping for a fresh start with Tehran, but he is not going to start the process by apologizing for anything. And he's certainly not going to take any steps that might bolster Ahmadinejad's popularity between now and the Iranian presidential election in June.
Yet Ahmadinejad's statement does raise a broader question: should states apologize at all, even when they've done something they regret?
You might think that realists wouldn't put much stock in apologies; aren't they just meaningless "cheap talk?" Don't realists worry more about balances of power and conflicts of interest, and don't they emphasize that international politics is a rough business where states routinely do nasty things to weaker parties? Given that world-view, what's the point of saying you're sorry?
In fact, even realists think being willing to apologize sometimes matters. But as Dartmouth's Jennifer Lind argues in her book Sorry States: Apologies in World Politics, the act of apology can be tricky too, and can easily backfire.
There are at least three good reasons for states to apologize when they have behaved badly towards others.
First, apologizing to those you have wronged is an acknowledgement of their equal status; it is a recognition that they are of sufficient stature to deserve an expression of regret. Refusing to apologize sends the message that you think the wronged party is too insignificant to warrant any contrition. To do so betrays contempt for the party we have wronged, and treating someone with contempt is bound to fuel a desire for revenge.
Second, far from being "cheap talk," apologies can be a costly signal that conveys a genuine and sincere desire for a new relationship. Why? Because apologizing to a former adversary is politically risky, and only leaders who are genuinely sorry would be willing to run the risks and bear the costs. When a state acknowledges responsibility and expresses regret, it also opens itself up to demands for compensation or various forms of sanction and it may even lend legitimacy to opponents who then try to take advantage of the admission. The fact that there can be genuine costs to an apology explains why mere words still carry genuine meaning to the wronged party.
Third, apologizing tells others that no matter what we may have done in the past, we understand where the boundaries of acceptable conduct lie. If a country commits a heinous act and then refuses to apologize for it, others have reason to question whether its leaders are even aware that they have crossed a moral boundary. When someone shows no understanding of where the lines are, there is every reason to think they would cross them again without a second thought. To take an obvious example, had Germany failed to acknowledge the Holocaust and to openly apologize for it, people everywhere would have reason to think that Germans might easily do something similar again. The same logic explains why Pope Benedict's decision to reverse the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying priest is troubling; if the Vatican thinks Holocaust-denial is a minor matter that should take a back seat to the unity of the church, what does that tell us about the priority it places on crimes against humanity?
Even for realists, therefore, apologies can be a necessary tool of diplomacy. Apologizing for past mistakes is sometimes the best -- maybe the only -- way to wipe the slate clean and provide others with some basis for giving a country a second chance. Being a great power may mean that you never have to say you're sorry, but sometimes it is still a good idea.
But not always. Lind's book also shows that the question of apologies is more complicated than the simple picture I just sketched. She points out that states sometimes reconcile in the absence of an official apology -- as France and Germany did after World War II -- especially when former rivals realize that they have powerful strategic reasons to bury the hatchet and move on. Moreover, sometimes the act of extending an apology triggers a domestic backlash that undercuts the very leaders who are trying to promoting reconciliation, reinforcing existing suspicions and frustrating efforts to build a new relationship. In order to balance these conflicting imperatives, states may be better off eschewing efforts to "name and shame" and relying on less accusatory forms of remembrance and regret, such as memorials to victims (on both sides), international commissions to advise on the writing of textbooks and other educational materials, and joint scholarly programs designed to address sensitive historical events.
With respect to the United States and Iran, this is good advice. To build a new relationship, both sides will have to come to terms with the various hostile acts that each has committed over the past fifty-plus years. But no Iranian leader is likely to apologize to the "Great Satan" and no U.S. president could go beyond past expressions of regret without risking a backlash here at home. A better path is to emphasize the interests that the United States and Iran do have in common -- such as a shared desire for a stable and unified Iraq, and a growing concern about the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan -- while addressing the obvious points of contention (e.g., Iran's nuclear program). If we can make progress on the concrete diplomatic issues, we can also begin unofficial efforts to understand how and why U.S.-Iranian relations deteriorated in the past. American and Iranian scholars could usefully explore these issues through academic exchanges and then disseminate their findings more broadly, allowing each society to learn from past mistakes but without demanding humiliating expressions of regret that neither is likely to get.
BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
@Mr Walt - How about a
@Mr Walt -
How about a double apology? The U.S. for taking down Mossaddeq in 1953 and for supporting Saddam against Iran and Iran apologizing for the embassy embarrassment?
Iran btw might just get a new trump card over the U.S. because of the need of new supply lines to Afghanistan.
The Pink Route To Afghanistan
Russia is already using its card on that issue.
---
Second point: I do not agree to what you said about the pope as it does not really fit.
The bishop was excommunicated because he did not respect the teaching of the church, not for his holocaust denying.
The pope reversed the decision when the bishop came back to the church.
That some interpret that as a pope endorsement of the bishops holocaust statement is falling for the usual smear-campaign from the zionist site.
a double apology?!
even better everybody is hugging everybody else like they do at most of those International Conferences but then when they go back home everything must be planned according to the SATFP minutely;->
States kissing each other on the cheeks and posing to the cameras cheek-to-cheek, like Sarkozy and Merkel do;->>
What a scene;->
Please Guys, imagine states as car-salesmen, or if you imagine in French then imagine as a carpet-seller.
Have you been to Grand-Bazaar yet??!
Mind you I am only talking about Surface-States, not Deep-States yet;->>
That reminded me the concept of "state" of the SATFP, I think the SATFP degenerates Surface-State to Deep-State, or perhaps just ignores the SS (suface-state) as a joke/formality/paravane to keep the IP engaged and citizens happy;->>
I hope one of these days Prof. Walt talks about those two states of State and tell us which one is more functional for FP.
I've read about "Deep State" in the book:
"The Road to 9/11" by
Peter Dale Scott 2007
however I was quite familiar with this concept via Turkey for years before.
Grand Sen~or
Deep State
What is more disturbing with Prof. Walt's IL argument is deeper than it looks on the surface. When the power is too centralized it attracts parasitic structures to consume and use it for their purpose. The significant question related to IL is "What is the nature of the entity which responds IL as identified fashion within the Sate? How deeply is it rooted within the State?".
Such roots within the States cannot be eliminated unless an extensive structural change is done to distribute the power accumulated at the center to its real owners.
In Turkey, they named such a structure as Ergenekon, and sort of struggling to up-root it. I don't think they will be successful to do that just because of the nature of the centralized structure in use - a similar constitution like the one US has;-> Even if they succeed to uproot Ergenekon, therewill be others forming already to take the vacuum they left behind.
As you see which ever way we look at the "State", we end up realizing that it realistically became useless, we need better conceptual tools to solve the problems keep on accumulating thanks to it;->
Grand Sen~or
Stephen,you started flying - (updated)
Stephen,you started flying high again from:
to
Wht crimes? what humanity?
Some state's crime is some other state's booty?
Professor Walt!
are you trying to sneak in to introduce another axiom to the SATFP - some sort of moral axiom. Maybe something like:->
Axiom nn: States appologize to increase their National Interests and to tip the Balance of Threat to their favour.
you don't need that Mate!
according to the existing axioms of the SATFP
States do whatever is necessary to increase their National Interest and decrease the threat from other states.
They appologize, they lie, they kill, they wipe out other states, they put other states to reservation areas and treat them as if they are objects of a museum, you name it.
Professor Walt!
don't waste your time on trevial issues, don't appologize your own people, do the right thing, you can't change the Constitution yourself but you can easily invent a TE to open the eyes of your people, that is why they allow you to use their tax funds. You owe them! Pay it back!
BTW, don't bother what the Pope did or did not related to holocaust look at your own Constitution, it is holocaust to all SPEEs, to all your people everyday;->>slow one, but sure one, in place of giving gass in quick spurts, you give slow release assimilation doses. When someone like IL wakes up showing _counter-assimilation_ symptoms, she gets the bat on head;->>
Remeber those christians who were stripped down to their petty-coats in front of your media last year in the Name of Constitution, that kind of things you talk about, before you jump to Afghanistan, Rajhistan, Vatican.
Stephen, please don't tell me that these are related to your IP and has nothing to do with FP, like the Jews used to say when people question them "Why have you been killing your prophets?" and their answer was perhaps still is "This has nothing to do with you, it is our IP!".
If there is a political action takes any part of the world it falls under your FP, because as an FP scientist you have no State, no nationality, remember?! You are _not_ an FP Agent/Officer appointed by the US leadership - not yet;->>
Your SATFP is valif for the US as much as it is valid for Patangonia or Rajhistan if you qualify them as State;->>
So for a change just imagine yourself as a citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan, that would give you real insight of the workings of the SATFP Mate!;->>
So, suppose you are not an American citizen, you are political scientist inventing a TE based on a different Constitution for the US, if that makes you feel a freer thinker and scientist, how about that?!;->>
Grand Sen~or
Mr Walt, you are taking
Mr Walt, you are taking Ahmadinejad way too seriously. He is considered a nobody within the IR powerstructure. Pretty much all that he says is for internal comsumption.
Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad
Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad can talk a lot but do little - he doesn't have control over Iranian foreign policy. That belongs to Supreme Leader Khamenei. If necessary, you could ignore him (Ahmadinejad) completely and negotiate with Khamenei and his flunkies, but he'd probably raise a stink about it (and the Clerics would be strengthened).
What I'd do is come up with a negotiating plan designed to drive a wedge between the Iranian people and the clerics, then put it out there, in public. Force the Iranian government to reject it, and look bad in the process - and once they do (if they do), then you can go ahead and start planning for their nuclear capabilities. That means building a missile defense against their coming missiles (they just launched a rocket into space, which suggests they are close, if not there, to ICBMs), and conducting sabotage of their supply lines.
Khameni
Khameni cannot be negotiated with, as he has NO direct contact with infidels.
Ahmadinejad the foolhardy
Iranians seem to think their position is strengthening but all the while they are being set up like a bowling pin by the great strategist Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, what is he thinking?
Bush didn't have enough political wherewithal left to do anything to Iran while Obama has complete freedom of action; if Iranians only knew the danger they are in. Ahmadinejad understands nothing if he thinks all he will face in the future is Obama's 'soft power'.
It depends on the other country!
As Prof. Walt stated it, apologies are a tool (although it is sometimes the right thing to do also). An apologie should have a different effect on a country like Iran than, for example, the West, as in the case of Germany.
All an apologize to Iran would do is give Ahmadinejad the confidence to increase Iran`s stake in world politics. This is simple to understand, as Prof.Morgenthau wrote, a country that is not satisfied with the status quo can not be appeased (in this case apologize) -and there is no doubt that Iran is not a satisfied country- Although an apologie is not a grand startegy, like the appeasement of Germany was, it would not do any good, indeed, it can turn out to be harmful
could they apologize?
i think it is a good question to ask... why not take what goes on at a personal level and ask the same with international relations? typically most people don't apologize as it is usually an acknowledgement of wrong doing, and few people are big enough to concede that much.. the other problem as some might have pointed out is that the apology can be interpreted a number of different ways and has some possible problems built into the apology process.. however if a country/person wishes to cultivate a better and stronger relationship with another country/person, i think an apology is an appropriate action to consider..i think it generally speaks well of the one giving it and can encourage a more conciliatory attitude on the part of the one receiving it...
with iran and the usa, there is a lot of baggage to resolve. an apology would be difficult to give iran as one would wonder where to begin with... and, it is much more difficult to give it honesty if the country is actually asking for one, which seems to be the case here... another course would be for a country to be more forgiving of past transgressions and openly come out and state that... i think the level of maturity that countries exhibit is in line with human nature to the degree that most people are too smug and self assured and absorbed to ever consider an apology as an act of wisdom... that is how i see it at this point...
an apology as an act of
This time Professor Walt wisely reminded the axioms of the SATFP. In the grammatical structure of the SATFP there is no root to wisdom. But there is a room for "national interest" and "balance of threat". Therefore a state issues an apology to another state according to the theory it issued it to Increase the National interest of herself and/or tipped the Balance of Threat to her favour. You see, you can explain this type of Stately act without using "wisdom".
Regards,
Grand Sen~or
SATFP sounds like a one trick
SATFP sounds like a one trick pony you're riding everywhere and regularly...
I know, that's why I keep
I know, that's why I keep asking alternative tricks, but none so far supplied one;->
Bring your theory Mate!
Bring your theory and speak as much as it makes sense according to it so that people can understand you.
For example, bring your theory which uses "wisdom" as a term - defined or un-defined.
Bring your theory so that we can compare it with the SATFP to understand you even better.
Unless you do that
is not an act in language which moves us.
Here is my valuable suggestion to you too, why don't you invent a theory of FP based on a different Constitution?
That would be rather interesting theory;->
Professor Walt is busy with daily chores and doesn't have time to compose a TE based on a different Constitution. Why don't you try this, invent a theory which beats the SATFP and all the similar ponies like the Chengis' sturdy horse;->
Then sure I would be riding behind you;->>
Grand Sen~or
note: I couldn't correct some of the typing errors on my previous message but I hope you guessed them for example "root" should read "room"..
in a conversation, people
in a conversation, people converse... in an echo chamber, things echo.. their is a difference..
I have already responded to
I have already responded to that, but let me repeat again:
you are right, there is no convo yet, because there is _no_ agreement on the concepts to get engaged into conversation.
For example, you talk about the pony I ride saying "yeah but it just a pony, there are other horses out there!" and whenI ask you bring your horse and lets try it, then you come and tell
here is my reply to this
Grand Sen~or
Common interests? Please provide evidence
Mr. Walt you again you state your own premise(s), even if shared by others, as facts. However you fail to provide any evidence to support what are only premises. You present these premises as uncontradicted or incontrovertible facts which the reader is bound by.
Mr. Walt states as a fact the US and Iran can begin to "...build a new relationship...a shared desire for a stable and unified Iraq, and a growing concern about the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan"
Point 1: stable and unified Iraq I will sort of give Mr. Walt this one but with a major caveat. The Iranian vision for a stable and unified Iraq in no way mirrors anyone else's vision, certainly not the US government's past or present.
Iran seeks regional hegemony and wants a stable client state. Ultimately another Shia Islamic Republic. This will be viewed by all the neighbour States as a direct threat and one they (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other Gulf states and dare I mention it Israel) have been talking about for years. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=202986
There is the problem of 2 very large minority groups , Sunni Arabs and Kurds for whom this is a red line that would quickly set in motion a civil war. After seeing what Iran has done in Lebanon I don't see any evidence that Iran has any concern how bloody the process gets in accomplishing this task.
Point 2: I take complete exception to Mr. Walt's premise that the US and Iran share "...growing concern about the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan".
Iran has been supplying weapons to the Taliban and training them in the use of these weapons. Are we supposed to believe that Taliban tactics that copy Shia Iraqi insurgent tactics, trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a coincidence?
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=249f061f-54b3-4c5e-8f01-0f272a3248ba
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/2958093/Taliban-claim-weapons-supplied-by-Iran.html
On the surface Iranian rhetoric is they want the US and NATO out. But do they really?
Just like the US professed outrage at the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and demanded an immediate withdrawal we now know that in fact that this was the last thing the US wanted. The US wanted the Soviets in Afghanistan for as long as possible bogged down in an unwinnable war bleeding and haemorrhaging resources. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
I would premise that Iranian rhetoric aside Iran wishes exactly the same. Further as long as the US is in Afghanistan with resources tied up it continues to make Iran a less viable target. This is a constant theme one hears that at present and near future an attack on Iran would strain and cripple US capabilities, as an example
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0340978620070204
Further I would suggest Iran needs the US in Afghanistan as a wedge issue. It is exactly the sort of activity Iran needs to demonstrate continuing 'US/Western interference in Muslim land.'
Continuing US and NATO presence in Afghanistan allows Iran to position themselves as a leader in the wider Muslim world championing the 'Muslim cause', opposing 'US interference in Muslim affairs' and to additionally deflect concerns within the Muslim world about Iran being Shia, since always the greater enemy is the non Muslim, the Great Satan, Little Satan (UK) the Crusaders ad nausea.
As I posted here earlier Mr. Walt never seems to get past a headline when he comments on events. Yes, President Ahmadinejad demanded an apology but much more significantly President Ahmadinejad repeated the same Iranian demand, the US must exit the entire region. (apologies in advance I can't find a transcript for his speech so here is the Deutsche Wella English report) http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3104660/Iran-demands-fundamental-change-in-U-S-policy.html
Although it is common knowledge the US orchestrated the departure of Mossadeq, few seem to know the details. The demand by the Clergy is a cynical populist move. It is something more than a little Kafkesque for the Islamic Revolution, the CIA co-conspirators, to demand an apology for the ousting of Mossadeq.
I suppose it could be argued as sour grapes the Clergy expected a return to power so the return and ascension of the Pahlavis was not contemplated and a very bitter pill.
The US presence in the region is of course the elephant in the room, the core of the US/Iran conflict. It is important to mention this is also a key demand of the Islamic Brotherhood and the numerous splinter groups such as Al Quaeda. It is this central non negotiable demand that allows the Brotherhood et al to work together with Iran despite the Sunni Shia schism. Readers are not being served when the real substance of the conflict is neglected and ignored.
Mr. Walt again demonstrates to natives of the Middle East how little he really knows or understands about the region. A part of the world Mr. Walt opines almost daily with no shortage of opinions and 'expert' analysis.
Has Mr. Walt been the Middle East? Where? How long? How many stars at the hotel Mr. Walt stayed in? Can Mr. Walt speak any of the local languages? Read a local paper in the local language? Can Mr. Walt watch and understand a local broadcast? View a local rally or a local place of worship and understand what is being preached? I suspect not. I don't doubt Mr. Walt is vaguely aware there is some incitement but I suspect he has no idea of the volume or the intensity of the drumbeat.
It's not clear that our
It's not clear that our vision for Iraq is all that different from Iran's now that Obama is president. Obama wants above all to get out although he's been very unclear about at what cost. He clearly does not believe in Bush's 'freedom agenda' or whatever you want to call it, and he may be willing to pay the price of significant Iranian influence (which may be unavoidable) in exchange for enough stability to bring the troops home.
Iran and the Taliban have been traditional enemies, and it's likely any current aid is just a matter of convenience against the Great Satan; remove us, and it's likely Iran would be just as hostile to the Taliban as it was. After all, the war within Islam predates us by centuries.
While an Iranian-dominated Iraq may be bad for Israel, it might not be that bad for the US, especially if it spurs us to reduce oil consumption and invest in alternatives; a little fear in the Sunni states might have positive benefits for us. After all, it wasn't 19 Iranians who flew planes into the WTC. And again, it's not clear that we can avoid Iran having significant influence over Iraq, and it seems pretty clear our current president is unwilling to pay the price to avoid this outcome.
re: Blue It's not clear that our
As to your first point it would of course be harder to argue if Mr. Walt had said there might be a common vision. He didn't though. My point is Mr. Walt did not qualify his ideas as conjecture like you do. Mr. Walt used absolute terms.
I am not sure who you mean by "our". Me and you? Americans?
I don't really have any hard opinions on what President Obama will do. I am more sure about what I don't think he will do. I don't think President Obama will go down the path you suggest simply to get out of Iraq sooner than later. He is the US president and I have very little doubt he will be extremely protective of US interests exerercising a lot of caution. I don't believe he will be impulsive, or act on a gut feeling. US interests in regional security extend well beyond Israel.
I think it is inconceivable he would be prepared to trade US influence thruout the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Yemen (very large Shia populations) and Egypt. Now most everyone in the world is desperate for energy alternatives. So it is equally inconceivable to me that President Obama would be prepared to gamble on a quick fix presenting itself by destabilising the Middle East. Not to mention in the beginning of such a deep economic crisis when resources are so stretched.
No argument Iran and the Taliban have been traditional enemies, actually that seems a bit exaggerated they were antagonists. I thought I made it clear in my opinion the current alliance between the Taliban and Iran is one of convenience. Iran isn't tipping the balance of power and really couldn't. My premise is that the status quo serves Iran's interests. Iran is doing exactly to the US what the US did to the Soviets, making the US bleed in a quagmire exhausting US resources.
No it wasn't 19 Iranians that flew into the Twin Towers. They were complicit in it though.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_911_attack/2008/09/10/129632.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html
The question is not was there Iranian involvement just how much?
Iran has been deeply involved with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, no doubt you, like most, know them better since they were driven out of Egypt into Afghanistan as Al Quaeda.
If you want to understand the whole Great Satan concept which is much more than pejorative rhetoric as most would believe. It is this core animosity that allows Iran and radical Sunni elements to work together. You need to know about the 19th century Islamic ideologue, Al Afghani. He is basically the Godfather of the whole modern Islamic Movement. Books have been written about Al Afghani and the Islamic Brotherhood and how they all link up to the newer movements. It is to much information to be presented in a talkback and beyond my capabilities.
Prof Walt doesn't state any facts here
This is _not_ a fact.
This is a prediction or a suggestion according to the SATFP.
Prof. Walt can easily prove this proposition according to the SATFP.
You Guys keep confusing Prof. Walt's theoretical propositions with factual propositions.
I have already pointed this out here before.
There is an easy way ( a rule of thumb) to understand what Prof. Walt says;
If you add "According to the SATFP" in front of his propositions, if it makes sense according to the SATFP then there is no point to criticize him for that, but if it doesn't make sense, I mean if one cannot prove it whether it is according to the theory then you have all the right to question Prof. Walt and ask what does he want to say.
Grand Sen~or
re: easy way (a rule of thumb)
The easy way (a rule of thumb) to determine if a sentence is making a prediction or a statement is English grammar.
Mr. Walt used the present tense "A better path is to emphasise the interests that the United States and Iran DO HAVE in common" Were he making a prediction he would have used the future tense 'will have' or words to that effect.
There is no ambiguity in what Mr. Walt wrote. He is presenting nothing more than a presumption as fact. Mr. Walt didn't qualify or hedge his words with 'should have' or 'might have' 'probably have' he wrote "do have".
I am fairly sure basic rules of grammar trump this SATFP theory you are trying to lock into.
Rules of grammar also require explanation of an acronym in the paragraph introducing said acronym. I am guessing the FP is foreign policy? Bad form mate, making a reader guess at what you are trying to say.
Exception are where the acronym is in such common usage they are routinely used as nouns, examples being the EU, US, USA, USSR or NATO as examples.
"A better path is to
If you think that asserts that "the US and Iran have common interests" then you can question Prof Walt "What are those common interests?".
Then maybe he would answer:
"such and such"
or say
"I didn't assert that they have common interests, I have asserted they should emphasise on their common interets (if they have any), Are you asserting that they have no common interest at all?. How do you know?". Just try him and we'll see;->
If you knew a theory is a grammatical structure invented to serve for a purpose then you would realize that your remark doesn't make sense.
Let me try to explain this to you:
Suppose you have invented a game - football with certain rules and I come and tell you:
"I am fairly sure basic rules of walking on a busy street trump this Football game you are trying to lock into."
What would you tell me?
Maybe you would tell:
"We'll see you at the stadium (the Blog) Mate!;->"
But I would agree with you if you had said:
"When the SATFP doesn't help you Guys fall back to the Ordinary Language, don't you?"
Then the answer would be "Yes! And we can always invent a new one or improve what we have to make it help to what we are doing - FP'ing!"
And to the acronyms I use, I have already given their explanations several times on my previous messages except one. And I have inherited several of them from this Blog, like FP and IP.
Thank you.
Grand Sen~or
Note: BTW, as we see the problem here is we have difficulty to communicate with our scientists, and the scientists don't bother to develop their language to communicate with us, they are happy to communicate with each other. But when they are in trouble they don't mind to use Ordinary Language among themselves. If they had developed their language to communicate easily with Ordinary Language users that would enrich the Ordinary Language tools such that when they fall back to it they wouldn't get lost;->>Like todays physicists.
I am trying hard to fill this gap here in vain...
Note 2: The SATFP is not my theory, it is the theory of this Blog as far as I reverse-engineered it with some critical additions. I can't say that it is Prof. Walt's theory of FP, because he neither approved it nor dis-approved it. When I first joined this Blog I had no idea about such a theory of FP. When I started reading the postings here I have noticed that the Bloggers are using a special conceptual structure here which is different than Ordinary Language conceptual structures I am familiar with. I decided to discover the grammatical structure of the concepts used here, that is how I ended up with the SATFP. The SATFP maybe is not complete as it is updated but still give fairly reliable picture of the conceptual structure use by the Bloggers here.I could do this because I had quite an extensive knowledge in logic and analytic/linguistic philosophy. I can understand the difficulty of getting used to the language used here by the people who don't have the same back-ground I have. I am trying to help but this is not an easy job.
I am not here to criticize the SATFP or introduce a new theory of FP, maybe I am hanging here just to show _why the SATFP_. For me this is kind of philosophical investigation and if I show how I do this openly then perhaps people will become more conscious of what they are doing may will to change by seeing ways out during this process of PI.
I know I can't change their will but if they know that they can then they may. So, basically I am trying to show that they can if they will.
Theories without facts can't
Theories without facts can't be empirically tested and have no utility and are therefore without value.
I give Prof. Walt enough credit to believe he isn't simply indulging in theoretical policy masturbation.
Theories are not invented to be tested
Theories are _not_ invented to be tested. They are invented to enable the user to conduct tests according to the test specs they built using them, and then communicate the results to fellow users (scientists).
Also theory decides what is a "fact". In other words as I pointed out before "a fact is a fact if and only if it is a fact according to the theory in use". Scientists are rarely interested non-theoretical "facts". Their activities are organized and conducted according to the theory they use, that makes research so much easier and productive for them, they can't do without it.
I suggest you read books about axiomatic systems.
Grand Sen~or
thank you
This is really a good piece. Thank you Doctor Walt.
By the way, you do know Berlusconi officially apologized to Qadafi for Italy's interregnum colonialism, as a result of which a 5 billion Gas deal was cinched?
Mixing Morality and Politics
Apologies, belong to the realm of soft-power. They are nothing but tools of foreign policy, having absolutely no moral cache. Its like choosing whether to bomb or not to bomb.
Apologies amount to acknowledgment and recognition, and hence open the door to litigation - essentially in cases of Genocide. But they have no binding nature.
If a state is to apologize, it is to do so as a state, not on behalf of the people it represents. It is inconceivable for us to apologize on behalf of the American people - for example - as the American people remain largely ignorant of the events of 1954, and had absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is equally impossible to apologize for the errors of the past, or of one's predecessors - as again this has absolutely nothing to do with us. The old argument used by Wright/Farrakhan Reparations extortionists, is a game of politics, not morality.
The Germans can apologize all they want for the Shoah, but they can care-less whether their ceaseless support of the Palestinians, translates into a relentless war against Jews in Israel.
That they pay reparations, is another matter. But is this in anyway connected to an apology? Not entirely.
Whether it is conceivable for the German state to apologize for the Shoah, is also a big question, considering Naphtali's NSA sponsored Listening in on Hell, which claims that the world was ignorant of the Shoah, and most Germans were clueless. So what they should technically apologize for is:
1) having contributed to conditions favorable to the execution of the Shoah (i.e. anti-semitism, etc).
2) not having fought hard enough to learn about the Shoah while it went on.
3) Having collaborated
4) Having denounced Jews.
So how have the German's apologized? Any of the four points mentioned, or one wholesale apology for the Shoah? If so, on whose behalf? Is it a collective crime for which the collective nation bears responsibility?
Anyway, they points are ridiculous - they require that every country in the world apologize for the Shoah, including in the end, many Jews. Resistance, is not legislated, and there is no obligation for it, and in the end, who really resisted?
Can the Germans apologize in a collective way for the Shoah?
Its beyond the possible.They can regret it, and be sad about it, the state, or even the entire German people, but hey - that's a sentiment most of the world, except Islamists, can share. Yah, everyone is sad about it - and?
Now let's take something immediate. The Armenian Genocide. What kind of apology is necessary?
Nothing more than
1) Acknowledge the Young Turks planning and execution of it
2) Acknowledge that the Young Turks and founders of the Turkish nation are not saints (i.e. violate your own laws against defaming them)
3) Acknowledge the Kurdish, Circassian participation in the Genocide.
4) Acknowledge that other factors, like Armenian disapora, Russian interests, and private US relief efforts cannot be blamed for the Genocide, i.e.
5) The blame lies solely with the group of planners and executioners.
Even this, will carry with it international obligations, vis a vis the survivors and or children of survivors, or the victims. They can sue Ankara for compensation, and they can sue various insurance companies in New York and France, for compensation long overdue. But virtually nothing can be done on the national level - nothing. Want Nagorny-Karabach - too bad. Here's some cash for a monument - not more.
Now imagine something else. Most Turks, will not want Ankara to apologize. In as much as any leader were to do so, it would fail to represent public opinion. So doesn't this make the apology null-and-void?
Take the obverse. Turks do feel sorry, like Germans do, and the state does apologize on their behalf - ok, how do you compensate for your father's actions? Do you hand back Ararat?