Oh yes, it's big. But you need to see it. Take off your shoes and walk along the shore, picking up speckled stones. Brave the cold water. Watch the pines teetering on the edge of the bluff along Twelve Mile Beach. Walk into the woods and climb up the higher ridge, once the border of Lake Nipissing, mother of all the Great Lakes. Maybe you'll see a bear among the blueberries.
The Lake of the Clouds is glittering in the Porcupine Mountains. This is Michigan's upper peninsula. Rough country. The general stores sell live bait and beer. The names are Finnish and the voices are nasal. The mine bosses pulled out long ago. It was much cheaper down in the South American town, where the workers work almost for nothing (Bob Dylan, North Country Blues).
Bring your tent, and a pickup truck if you have it. You'll cook your own food. But there's a whitefish breakfast in Grand Marais, and books, coffee and email at The Fallen Rock in Munising.
21 August 2009
09 May 2009
Motives, Means and Opportunity: Targeting Political Violence
Why do groups sometimes engage in armed violence? There is a lively debate among scholars about motives such as greed and grievance. Another driving force could be fear, but this has not received much attention. Discussions about the root causes of armed violence are important, because if we better understand the emotions and ambitions that drive such behaviour, we will be able to devise more effective ways of preventing and limiting armed violence by non-state actors. I do not mean to suggest that armed violence exercised by governments is not problematic, but it is different. I will focus here on non-state actors.
The point I wish to make is that motives are not the only factors that determine armed violence. When investigating a crime, detectives look at three major factors—motive, means and opportunity. We can usefully apply this checklist to political violence as well. To understand such violence, we must not only find out what drives it, but also what facilitates it. And if we want to discourage and suppress political violence, we again need to look at motive, means and opportunity.
It is often more fruitful to target the means and the opportunity than the motives of political violence. Motives are difficult to establish and influence. It is easier and more useful to limit the access to the tools of political violence, and to reduce the opportunities for such violence. Let us imagine a group with a strong motive to engage in political violence. If they do not have access to the requirements for such violence, that is to say, leaders, fighters, money, arms and ammunition, it will be difficult for them to engage in violent action. The easier their access to the tools of violence, the greater the chance that they will indeed engage in such action, the wider the scale on which they can operate, the greater the damage they can cause, and the longer they can sustain such action. All other things being equal, of course.
Now let us imagine that our hypothetical group has all it needs to engage in political violence, but is facing an unfavourable environment. If they go ahead with their plans, they are likely to be arrested, tried and punished. They will face intense disapproval from the population, including their own communities. The public will not understand why they chose the path of violence instead of using peaceful and legal forms of political action to pursue their objectives. Such a hostile environment makes violent action difficult, unattractive, unlikely to spread, and unlikely to last long. By contrast, if there is nothing to deter or dissuade our violent activists from carrying out their plan, if they have reason to believe they will gain public approval and support, if there are few lawful opportunities for settling political disputes, and if it is considered normal and appropriate for conflicts to be settled by violence, then our violent activists will be encouraged to carry out their plans. Indeed, if they have motive, means and the opportunity, they may well achieve what they are aiming for.
I think this means that if governments and civil society wish to prevent and discourage political violence, they should be looking carefully at ways of limiting the means and opportunities for such behaviour, rather than focussing primarily on motives.
Weapons control is one useful example of limiting the scope for violent action. Guns do not kill people, of course. But in disputes and in danger, people are more likely to shoot, wound and kill other people if they have easy access to small arms, light weapons and their ammunition. Therefore I think governments should strictly regulate and control the possession, transfer, transport and use of such items. However, they should acknowledge that citizens sometime have a legitimate need for weapons to defend themselves and their families, if the police cannot provide adequate protection. In conflict-ridden countries, promoting effective weapons control can make a very useful contribution to the prevention of criminal and political violence.
The same applies to government reform. Security system reform, as advocated by the OECD, seeks to make the security agencies and the judicial system more effective, while at the same time enhancing their integrity. The police must be capable of enforcing the law, but they must also gain the confidence and support of the communities they serve. The military must have the capacity to defend the sovereignty and integrity of the country, but must be under the command of civilian politicians who are accountable to the elected representatives of the people. The law must apply equally to all citizens, high and low. It must protect their rights, and hold them accountable for any violations of the law. The fundamental freedoms and liberties of all citizens must be guaranteed against government encroachment, but citizens must also feel an obligation to participate in political life and uphold the law. This is a safe and enabling environment for peaceful political action, but discouraging to those who seek to impose their will through political violence.
The point I wish to make is that motives are not the only factors that determine armed violence. When investigating a crime, detectives look at three major factors—motive, means and opportunity. We can usefully apply this checklist to political violence as well. To understand such violence, we must not only find out what drives it, but also what facilitates it. And if we want to discourage and suppress political violence, we again need to look at motive, means and opportunity.
It is often more fruitful to target the means and the opportunity than the motives of political violence. Motives are difficult to establish and influence. It is easier and more useful to limit the access to the tools of political violence, and to reduce the opportunities for such violence. Let us imagine a group with a strong motive to engage in political violence. If they do not have access to the requirements for such violence, that is to say, leaders, fighters, money, arms and ammunition, it will be difficult for them to engage in violent action. The easier their access to the tools of violence, the greater the chance that they will indeed engage in such action, the wider the scale on which they can operate, the greater the damage they can cause, and the longer they can sustain such action. All other things being equal, of course.
Now let us imagine that our hypothetical group has all it needs to engage in political violence, but is facing an unfavourable environment. If they go ahead with their plans, they are likely to be arrested, tried and punished. They will face intense disapproval from the population, including their own communities. The public will not understand why they chose the path of violence instead of using peaceful and legal forms of political action to pursue their objectives. Such a hostile environment makes violent action difficult, unattractive, unlikely to spread, and unlikely to last long. By contrast, if there is nothing to deter or dissuade our violent activists from carrying out their plan, if they have reason to believe they will gain public approval and support, if there are few lawful opportunities for settling political disputes, and if it is considered normal and appropriate for conflicts to be settled by violence, then our violent activists will be encouraged to carry out their plans. Indeed, if they have motive, means and the opportunity, they may well achieve what they are aiming for.
I think this means that if governments and civil society wish to prevent and discourage political violence, they should be looking carefully at ways of limiting the means and opportunities for such behaviour, rather than focussing primarily on motives.
Weapons control is one useful example of limiting the scope for violent action. Guns do not kill people, of course. But in disputes and in danger, people are more likely to shoot, wound and kill other people if they have easy access to small arms, light weapons and their ammunition. Therefore I think governments should strictly regulate and control the possession, transfer, transport and use of such items. However, they should acknowledge that citizens sometime have a legitimate need for weapons to defend themselves and their families, if the police cannot provide adequate protection. In conflict-ridden countries, promoting effective weapons control can make a very useful contribution to the prevention of criminal and political violence.
The same applies to government reform. Security system reform, as advocated by the OECD, seeks to make the security agencies and the judicial system more effective, while at the same time enhancing their integrity. The police must be capable of enforcing the law, but they must also gain the confidence and support of the communities they serve. The military must have the capacity to defend the sovereignty and integrity of the country, but must be under the command of civilian politicians who are accountable to the elected representatives of the people. The law must apply equally to all citizens, high and low. It must protect their rights, and hold them accountable for any violations of the law. The fundamental freedoms and liberties of all citizens must be guaranteed against government encroachment, but citizens must also feel an obligation to participate in political life and uphold the law. This is a safe and enabling environment for peaceful political action, but discouraging to those who seek to impose their will through political violence.
07 May 2009
Friedrich Hölderlin: To the Fates
Friedrich Hölderlin
To the Fates
Allow me this one summer, oh Mighty Ones,
And autumn days of song and maturity.
May then my heart, replete with sweeter
Music, more willingly stop and perish.
A soul that fails its destiny here in life
Will neither come to rest in the underworld.
But once my poem is accomplished,
Heavenly song of my heart's desire:
Then welcome, silent darkness of Hades' world.
My lyre cannot go with me, and yet I am
Contented. Once I lived the life of
Gods, and there is nothing more to wish for.
Translation: Sami Faltas, 2018
All rights reserved.
Friedrich Hölderlin
An die Parzen
Nur einen Sommer gönnt, ihr Gewaltigen!
Und einen Herbst zu reifem Gesange mir,
Dass williger mein Herz, vom süßen
Spiele gesättiget, dann mir sterbe!
Die Seele, der im Leben ihr göttlich Recht
Nicht ward, sie ruht auch drunten im Orkus nicht;
Doch ist mir einst das Heil'ge, das am
Herzen mir liegt, das Gedicht, gelungen:
Willkommen dann, o Stille der Schattenwelt!
Zufrieden bin ich, wenn auch mein Saitenspiel
Mich nicht hinab geleitet; einmal
Lebt ich wie Götter, und mehr bedarfs nicht.
Why Don't They Just Say They're Sorry?
A defence scandal in the Netherlands
On 14 September 1984, Rob Ovaa, a technician working for the Netherlands Ministry of Defence, was told to test a type AP-23 landmine. When it failed to detonate, he waited for the prescribed five minutes, then came closer in order to safe it. As he bent over it, it exploded and killed him. He was 27 years old. A social worker called Fred Spijkers was sent to inform Marjoein Ovaa. He was instructed to tell her that her husband had died because he had not taken proper precautions. But he revealed to her that he did not believe this story. He started his own investigation, was harassed by the government and eventually lost his job.
“Just imagine it happening to you. A man comes to your door and tells you that your husband, the father of your children, has been killed in an accident, an accident he caused himself.” Frans Timmermans, now the Dutch Minister for European Affairs, commented on the Spijkers scandal when he was a Member of Parliament. “At that moment, a process is set in motion that even Kafka could not have imagined. Years and years of deception—there is no other word for it. This is a process that all representatives of the state should feel deeply concerned about. And all of us, inside and outside the Ministry of Defence, should feel deeply ashamed.”
On 14 September 1984, Rob Ovaa, a technician working for the Netherlands Ministry of Defence, was told to test a type AP-23 landmine. When it failed to detonate, he waited for the prescribed five minutes, then came closer in order to safe it. As he bent over it, it exploded and killed him. He was 27 years old. A social worker called Fred Spijkers was sent to inform Marjoein Ovaa. He was instructed to tell her that her husband had died because he had not taken proper precautions. But he revealed to her that he did not believe this story. He started his own investigation, was harassed by the government and eventually lost his job.
“Just imagine it happening to you. A man comes to your door and tells you that your husband, the father of your children, has been killed in an accident, an accident he caused himself.” Frans Timmermans, now the Dutch Minister for European Affairs, commented on the Spijkers scandal when he was a Member of Parliament. “At that moment, a process is set in motion that even Kafka could not have imagined. Years and years of deception—there is no other word for it. This is a process that all representatives of the state should feel deeply concerned about. And all of us, inside and outside the Ministry of Defence, should feel deeply ashamed.”
I often teach in countries with high levels of corruption, and I tell my students there is no such thing as an honest government. All over the world, state officials lie and abuse their powers if they think they can get away with it. The only way to keep them honest is to watch them day and night, and to hold them accountable for their actions. In the
The AP-23 landmine that killed Rob Ovaa had a faulty fuse. The Ministry of Defence had been aware of this for several years, and had banned the use of this weapon back in 1970. However, it had not removed the landmine from its stockpile. On 18 July 1983, several soldiers had died and others had been seriously injured when a landmine of this type exploded in a military classroom.
The AP-23 is an antipersonnel weapon similar to a Claymore mine. It was manufactured by Eurometaal, formerly a state ordnance factory called Artillerie-Inrichtingen. In 1997, the Ottawa Convention banned all anti-personnel mines. The Netherlands supported the adoption of this treaty and has ratified it.
There was a secret file on the 1983 accident, and social worker Fred Spijkers had seen it. He had joined the Ministry of Defence in the spring of 1984. On the day Rob Ovaa was killed, Spijkers was instructed to inform Marjolein Ovaa, a police officer and a mother of two children, that her husband had died as a result of his own mistakes. Spijkers drove to Zandvoort and carried out this order, but revealed to the widow that he did not believe the official story. He began to investigate the real cause of Ovaa’s death and attempts by the defence authorities to cover up the facts. It would take about 13 years before the story hit the mainstream media.
In 1985, a secret investigation by the military police concluded that Ovaa had died because he had not been careful enough. His widow was denied compensation.
Fred Spijkers’ role in this scandal was complicated by the fact that besides working for the Ministry of Defence, he was working for the
On 18 June 1989, unknown persons shot at Spijkers in the car park of a McDonald’s restaurant in Huis ter Heide, but he survived. Spijkers claimed that one of the assailants was working for one of the security agencies. He reported this incident to the police, but it was not investigated.
In 1992, the human rights organisation Global Initiative on Psychiatry criticised the treatment of Spijkers as ‘political abuse of psychiatry’.
Spijkers won another court case in 1993 but lost his unemployment benefit because he refused to sign a declaration that he was unfit to work. In the 15 years that have since passed, Fred Spijkers has not had an income.
In the mid-1990s, the leadership of the Ministry of Defence began negotiating the payment of compensation to their former employee. Since then, as a result of hostile publicity, critical questions in parliament, condemnations by experts and court rulings, the Dutch government has been on the defensive in this scandal.
By the turn of the century, it was clear to all concerned that the government had frequently lied, tried to intimidate Fred Spijkers and violated his rights. Now, 24 years after his ordeal began, it seems likely he will soon receive complete rehabilitation and proper compensation. However, Spijkers also expects an apology. He wonders: “Why don’t they just say they’re sorry?” This the government seems to find particularly difficult.
We can learn several things from this story. Power tends to corrupt. In the
Transparency helps to prevent the abuse of state power. But the media are not always vigilant and thorough. It took many years before the Spijkers affair developed into a full-blown scandal. Now that it has, leading politicians and officials have egg all over their face. Some are still in office.
The Dutch government has not done itself any favours in this scandal. If at an early stage it had carried out a full and honest investigation, acknowledged its mistakes and misdeeds, taken action against the people responsible, apologised to the victims, repaired the damage, and acted to prevent any such scandal from recurring, it would have done the right thing. It would also have spared the victims further pain and damage. Finally, the government would have saved itself a lot of money and embarrassment.
Transparency and accountability are essential for good governance. Without them, we would never be able to keep our governments honest. But they are also useful to the people in power. When things go wrong, they can cut their losses. By coming clean quickly, they can limit the painful consequences of their lies, their wrongdoing and their bungling.
Sami Faltas
This article was published in Security Matters, newsletter from the Centre for European Security Studies, issue 20, November 2008, pp. 11-12.
06 May 2009
Long Live the Queen
30 April is Queen's Day in the Netherlands, our most popular national holiday. It's a jolly affair. The whole country is transformed into a fair ground. Amsterdam goes mad. And one town is selected for a visit by Queen Beatrix, who brings along the whole royal family. This year, they went to Apeldoorn.
As the open-decked bus carrying the royals drew up to the entrance of a small palace, a blond man driving a black Suzuki smashed through the barriers, killing and wounding several people. He missed the bus and crashed into a stone monument. Before he died, he said he had intended to attack the House of Orange. His reasons seemed more personal than political. He had recently lost his job as a security guard.
Visibly shocked, Beatrix went on television to express her sympathy with the victims and their families. Four days later it was Remembrance Day. On 4 May, the Queen always lays a wreath at the National Monument on Dam Square in Amsterdam. There were some doubts whether she would show up this year, so soon after the attack in Apeldoorn.
But she did. As the ceremony began, Job Cohen, the mayor of Amsterdam, addressed the crowd. He said: "Today we are particularly happy to have our queen with us." Then someone began to clap, and before long the whole crowd was applauding the monarch. This was not only unscripted, it was unheard of on Remembrance Day.
It was a rare moment of togetherness. That evening, during the customary two minutes of silence, I thought not only of the people killed in the war. I also thought about Beatrix. The hereditary monarchy is a silly way to appoint a head of state, but it has provided us with an amazing queen. Intelligent, brave, honest, diligent and caring, she is everything we seek but rarely find in our leaders. Republicans like to say they would choose Beatrix as their first president. I used to say that too. Today, I think we should keep the monarchy as long as it's working for us. Long live the Queen.
As the open-decked bus carrying the royals drew up to the entrance of a small palace, a blond man driving a black Suzuki smashed through the barriers, killing and wounding several people. He missed the bus and crashed into a stone monument. Before he died, he said he had intended to attack the House of Orange. His reasons seemed more personal than political. He had recently lost his job as a security guard.
Visibly shocked, Beatrix went on television to express her sympathy with the victims and their families. Four days later it was Remembrance Day. On 4 May, the Queen always lays a wreath at the National Monument on Dam Square in Amsterdam. There were some doubts whether she would show up this year, so soon after the attack in Apeldoorn.
But she did. As the ceremony began, Job Cohen, the mayor of Amsterdam, addressed the crowd. He said: "Today we are particularly happy to have our queen with us." Then someone began to clap, and before long the whole crowd was applauding the monarch. This was not only unscripted, it was unheard of on Remembrance Day.
It was a rare moment of togetherness. That evening, during the customary two minutes of silence, I thought not only of the people killed in the war. I also thought about Beatrix. The hereditary monarchy is a silly way to appoint a head of state, but it has provided us with an amazing queen. Intelligent, brave, honest, diligent and caring, she is everything we seek but rarely find in our leaders. Republicans like to say they would choose Beatrix as their first president. I used to say that too. Today, I think we should keep the monarchy as long as it's working for us. Long live the Queen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
