The Duino ManifestoThe Political Issue, December 2011, United World College of the Adriatic

2

3

Dear Readers,

It is the second to last week of the second to last term and I hope that the second to

first issue of our manifesto will leave you contemplating the meaning of what Duino is

exactly, as we scatter all over the world for the break. The first issue of next term, by

the by, will be under the large and colourless, meaningless and wonderful umbrella of

Existentialism, so may the distance between us, the alienation and sense of self we discover

away, inspire you to think, to write and to share.

In this issue, should you explore it in its entirety, you will find the return of the

Philosophy Ninja, a review, a photo essay, poems, submissions galore from the incorrigible

Philodoxus and a series of your articles - as well as an article from a former US Ambassador

and Foreign Service Agent! Enjoy!

Thanks for the contributions, thanks for your 50cs to be donated to the AGSF, and thanks

for your interest in each other’s opining. Have good holidays, whatever they may entail,

and relish in your liberty, whatever that may mean.

- Love Ed.

4

PART I

1. Why are you here?

I am here as a result of every occurrence, big and small, in the universe, which

somehow provided the perfect conditions for your existence in this time and place.

2. What do you think when you hear your name?

When I hear my name, I turn around and respond. Through years of conditioning,

my name has become a key feature in my identity.

3. What is the greatest wonder of the world?

The greatest wonder of the world is the world itself. The fact that it was formed in

the exact position to both sustain life and to have a good climate is mind-blowing.

4. How should you live?

You should live in a way that is right for you. Everybody has different goals and

priorities in life, so nobody can tell you how you can live yours. It is all about the

personal experience.

5. Is anything infinite? If so, what?

One cannot know if anything is infinite. However, years of experience have shown

that anything and everything known to man will eventually end, though it may take

a huge amount of time.

6. Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living. Do you agree?

Philosophy Ninja: Philosophy Ninja strikes again with

those annoyingly unanswerable and

utterly critical questions about Life,

the Universe and Everything.

5

Yes, what separates human beings from other animals is the ability to selfishly

reflect. Not examining your life is wasting the talent that you have been granted.

7. What is the purpose of the human race?

There is no ground purpose of the human race. We merely managed to evolve to this

state.

8. What happens when we die?

Nobody knows what happens after death. As Voltaire replied on his deathbed, when

he was requested to renounce Satan, “this is not time to time to be making enemies”.

9. Have a look around! Are the things that you see really as they seem to be?

Yes, things are as they seem to be. If you believe Berkley it is because a higher being

perceives them in his/her mind.

10. Can you know something you cannot prove?

You can 100% believe you know something you cannot prove...but you can never

truly know it.

PART II

Certainly one may think: ’Freedom to speak or to write can be taken from us by a superior power’ - but never the freedom to think! -Immanuel Kant What freedom means to you in your society, Do you feel free in your society ? "Freedom means that you can decide about your own things. Without responsibility there is no freedom. I feel free in my society." (FINLAND) "Freedom is freedom to speech. I don't feel free in my society because, for example, newspapers are not allowed to say what they want to." (ISRAEL) "Freedom is security and a gender equality. I don't feel free, because I cannot walk on the streets without being scared." (MEXICO) "Freedom means that one respects other's opinions. I feel free in my society." (GERMANY) "Even words cannot descripe it. I don't feel free in my society. It's hard to explain why. " (ITALY)

6

7

human life, even those that have .

POLITICIANS

Politicians have been blamed and accused of being greedy, brutal and not in touch with ordinary

people. But can we imagine a world without politicians - a world without parties, without

parliaments and with no distinctions between the black and the red? A world where different

ideologies don’t clash anymore, but rather merge and evolve into something deeper? There are

many interpretations of this topic and they are all very interesting. So interesting and

revolutionary, that may represent a menace to our society.

In these strange days, when the world is threatened by issues such as the global financial crisis,

the armed conflicts that are rising all over the world and the scarcity of resources, we have lost

our faith in the people that rule us and many of us blame them. Irresponsible decisions have been

taken and no one is willing to pay the price. But only a few of us are fully aware of the stressful

decisions that these men and women have to make. It is said that every high ranked politician

sold his soul to the devil; indeed, every high ranked politician loses his private life and usually

their whole family is endangered by mean looks and accusations that are usually unfair and bear

no bonding to the real issue, only spawning an aura of insecurity and erecting an even taller wall

between us. And whilst some politicians have only been working for their own benefit, we shall

always keep in mind that after all there are some who do their work properly and behave

professionally.

In some countries, politicians earn a lot. The Singaporean prime minister’s salary is just below 3

million US dollars per year and the salaries of other politicians all over the globe are always way

higher than those of ordinary people. Therefore, many argue that they are overpaid and are

stealing resources from countries whose economies are shrinking and wherein debt is shattering

the security of normal citizens. Unfortunately, we tend to forget that corruption is usually higher

in countries where politicians’ and functionaries’ salaries are low and thus we can assume that

high salaries are incentives and prevent corruption. Moreover, in Ancient Greece, the first

democracies were those in which politicians earned money for covering a role in public life. This

way, everyone could become a politician and account for their own interests; thus, every social

class could have their own representatives. So imagine a world where politicians did not get a

salary; only rich people would stand a chance of getting into politics (and everyone is afraid of

that, because we are all horrified by rich individuals controlling the world economy) and, of

course, dreamers. Unfortunately, we are lacking those.

Nevertheless, a world without politicians means a world without governments. And a lack of

those leads us to anarchy. Therefore, there would be no institutions that would supposedly

control the citizens and we would devolve into the Stone Age. And even though many politicians

are involved in many illegal businesses, politics and politicians are inevitable if we want to life in

a colorful and open society, where democracy shall flourish. Of course, I didn’t say that

improvements can’t be made to build a more balanced and respectful society in which we all can

express ourselves. Ultimately, this should be our common goal.

Erik Scheriani

8

Homage to Philosophy Notes:

There was a wooden beam,

But you just kind of had to feel it,

because it was hidden.

And there weren’t always those windows.

Believe me.

And the room used to be much nicer,

And we have four minutes.

(Ultra-violet is way high end, for bats.)

Cosmetically facilitate yourselves out of those windows

Because you don’t know what you’re looking for -

Just use your notes to find identity:

Because I know what you mean,

You find these strange names.

They do all these things,

And the guy with the horizon

Never had any words;

Because there’s no causal link between bundles and every book should be burnt.

(Show me causality, Hume. Show it to me.)

Let’s just eliminate any talk of substances whatever and collapse.

Pour ideas in our minds, O Innate Idea,

O Cleanser of Inconvenience!

O Knower of Spheres by Touch!

Joshua Biggs

9

Film Review: V for Vendetta

Here we go with another film review, and even though this is a very popular and

recognized movie throughout, not just UWCers but generally, the movie public, I chose it

not just to recommend it to all of you that haven’t seen it (you must; one thing you

should know before watching it: it’s a love-it or hate-it movie) but to get to know the

political-philosophical side of it better and have a chance to reason with the ideas it is

pointing out.

V for Vendetta had the honour of being chosen as the film for this edition of The Duino

Manifesto, because of its very obvious political aspect.

In an epic fight between utopia and dystopia, this is the ideal movie for arguing and

discussing the general ideas of both. V for Vendetta represents the ideal yearned for

from the people and the regime practiced by the government contradicting the two

ideas I mentioned above. Utopia represents the fight, the war that V, our protagonist is

leading against the government, the Party, in a fascist coup d'état. Dystopia is the idea of

the establishment and the method that they, the government, have of leading the

country.

The conflicting viewpoints of Anarchism and Fascism are what define our characters as

the good and bad. Who is bad depends on what your idea for the system is. Is V the bad

or the good guy, is the applicable question throughout the whole movie and never really

are you able to find a concrete and general answer because it is all based on a personal

perception of the film itself.

In a state where you are strictly directed and every move you make is observed and

watched, prohibited and disallowed what action would you take against it?

The dystopian narrative of this movie is based on the graphic novel written by Alan

Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd. It rests on characteristics of a dystopian society

set in the ominously near future in London, where the power of governing is put in the

hands of the Norsefire Party that manages to establish itself as the only reigning power

and is an unchallenged political force in England. The most contradictory thing is

probably the fact that this party was elected democratically, later on going against the

will of the people with a chain of horrific events that change the society entirely.

After these events the people fear the government, but there is a point raised in the

movie at a specific moment that addresses the idea that the government should be

afraid of its people.

10

V for Vendetta portrays a symbolized recreation of the Gunpowder plot, a failed attempt

to blow up The House of Lords, a historical attempt to revolt in the Midlands. This is

why V wears a Guy Fawkes mask, and its accompanying symbols of revolution and

anarchism.

V (Hugo Weaving) begins and remains an enigma, an anonymous, unidentified character

with only a glimpse of his history to help the viewer out in terms of creating a picture of

who he is. Our other character is Evey (Natalie Portman) the woman that is rescued by

V, whom she disagrees with. She mainly disapprovse of his actions but the little glow of

curiosity, maybe support and amazement, that she carries for him are the reasons why

she stays around for long enough to finish where he had left off. They communicate,

with her never seeing his face and yet still feeling close enough with him that the

respect she has in the end evolves in the much too obvious for a cliché characteristic

(one of the few) of a Hollywood movie, love.

This movie is not only about revolution. It is not about just and wrong. Not even about

the crusade and vendetta against the establishment. It is about the idea behind it. V is

the character we have inside us. He is who we are. He cannot be killed or murdered; He

is an idea, the armour in front of the soul and mind. It cannot be destroyed - only limited

to a certain amount. We are V, and whether we decide to carry out the ideas of the

utopia we have in mind (not an invitation to a revolution, only to express the voice of

the people) or not, it is solely up to us.

A movie worth watching, analysing, discussing… It’s a stream of rebellion, revolution

and obedience.

A tip before watching: You have to be relaxed and open-minded, allow yourself to be

objective, not to like or dislike the movie and it is certainly not an easy one so I advise

you to be fully rested (not after a TOK presentation or a test) when watching it.

After you see the movie, or (if you have seen the movie) read the review, I would like to

leave you with a question worth considering: Is V a proponent of democracy, or the

proponent of anarchy?

If you have an answer, or just an idea in mind do not hesitate to answer it in whatever

way you find possible to find me (even though my email should be fair enough). I hope

to receive some interesting and thought-demanding answers that will help raise either a

discussion or an idea for a philosophical approach of the character.

And never forget but do always ‘remember, remember, the 5th of November…’

Milce Murdjeva

11

What religion is all about:

Your guide to virtue, heaven and such

Religion is humankind’s best invention. Ever.

Why? Well, because we don’t do good things because of their intrinsic goodness, as much as we

don’t abstain from evil because of its intrinsic evilness either. Religion is the best way to mass-

communicate morality. Bad is not only evil in itself but in addition, a supernatural substance (mostly

gods) punish he who does ‘bad’ things; on the same level, good is made even better if it helps one get

to eternal rivers of wine and uncountable virgin women or men. Now, I am not saying that religion is

only that, but I am at least sure that it is a component. The Islamic philosopher Al Farabi said,

describing this function, that: “religion is philosophy (morality) applied to the masses so that they can

understand it”.

Now, what pushed me to talk about this?

It is the increasing feeling I am getting that many people (maybe in the college or not) are forgetting

the moral component of religion and are rather religious in order to “feel good” and legitimize their

lack of moral understanding and basic consideration. All the superstitions and rituals are then a mere

shell in which these individuals can evolve enjoying the comfort of not thinking and not considering

the moral implications of their actions.

If your beliefs and rituals do not translate in this sacred quest for the bettering of your condition and

the condition of others around you, then these beliefs and rituals, are comparable to a dance in

Mickeys or a coffee in Al Castel.

Let me remind you what religion is all about: It is about not speaking loudly until 3am at night when

you know your room mate has to wake up at 5am. It is about avoiding organizing all your papers and

plastic bags at 1am. It is about having enough consideration to use simple mind faculties and go to

the day room to perform your light demanding activities at night. It is about using all your powers

and responsibilities to facilitate people’s lives around you.

Finally, it is at least about trying actively to do these things and saying sorry when you are

reminded of them…

I believe that I don’t have to say “in my opinion” in the headings of my paragraphs because, well,

they are my opinions.

Religion is indeed the human most masterly invention. It’s just that some have to read the “manual”

before using it and becoming all “religious”.

Firas Arfaoui

12

Liuba Gonzales de Armas

13

Submissions, uncategorised. Truth, unfound.

“The common code of conduct”

And the death of internationality

Philodoxus had had a lot of rest. He had spent the whole of yesterday on the mighty sick list. He had

not done any work and now, at 7:45 in the morning, he feels like going to class is an appealing option.

At least it is the most appealing option in the “should-I-skip” dilemma. “Puff, logical choices are so

boring sometimes!” he thought. Making his way to the bathroom he was thinking about giving up

logical thinking and thinking altogether…But he saw a post on the wall. It read: “Common code of

conduct”. He was so annoyed that he even gave up his last 2 minutes of illogical internal philosophizing

to ponder on this marvelous “meeting of the heads” baby.

Well, his “head” for sure isn’t one of the heads that met to write this code. Hum, how many actual UWC

students had some heads into the meeting writing their code of conduct. Oh no, he thought, maybe they

were all UWC alumni students that knew how a UWC student’s life goes in details. Nah! He, the mighty

Philodoxus, knew at least one of them, and they weren’t.

Now he made it to class, a little late actually. The electronic system will mark him “below

expectations”. But it would not be totally stupid - this electronic system takes into account all the

variables attached to human experience: the kind of system you would study in a philosophy course

trying to find the difference between a machine and the “self”.

But who cares? The real dilemma is: how does Porto look now with all this wind blowing. It would be

existentially bouldering (he didn’t know the meaning of this word, neither do I) to observe waves

rather than mathematical curves…

Waaake UP! Said his mathematical philosophus. Philodoxus realized that he needed to keep conscious

and aware of his material existence. How boring huh?!!!

Oh Yeah, the “Common code”. So the 13 colleges are in different countries and cultures: right? They

have in them different students in any case: right? But because they ought to respect the cultural

diversity in soul and action (or something like that) the wine in Italy and in Hong Kong is under the

same “alcohol policy”. Now Philodoxus did not even have the slightest affinity for logic, but he had a

feeling that it didn’t make sense: at least not a logical one.

Wow Wow. Wait a minute. “Am I actually supposed to even discuss things that affect my life?” He

interrogated his sleeping classmate. When no response came he thought: No. These students are

teenagers and do not have sufficient knowledge to even think about…well there lives!

The Philodoxus:

14

Debt and Deputy

Do not worry; I shall pay you back the ten cents, rightfully yours

And you shall give me back my integrity, rightfully mine

Thus we shall part

“Joy! Exultation! Festivity! Delight!

Shall we not fail to realize the magnificence of this event! Shall we not treasure our luck! After a

hapless and suppressing era, we will be able to express our critics and therefore our vitality that have

been hitherto stifled! Let us begin a new chapter of our history. Let us evince our disappointment when

necessary. ”

“The heads” will do that for them. They do have that knowledge.

Hum, this crazy thing Philodoxus often had had prophetically poured on him were these parallels. He

imagined how a dictatorship legitimizes itself by assuming that those upon which it rules are unfit to

do so. Then life became pink with democracy and the ruled ruled themselves and were all happy and

rich.

Well, why would an international institution even adopt democratic systems? Such an absurd idea, ha?

Thanks heads. Smiled the Philodoxus (who has a head but not quite the right one for “the heads”).

Oh No! He has to answer this question about the probability of oranges turning bad while the blue

truck transported them…”None if they had a common code of conduct” he said only to get laughed at

by all these eager young heads who can solve this problem, but can’t decide on their “conduct”.

15

In Defence Of

I am a child of Capitalism. It’s not a nice way to say it. “Child of Capitalism” carries quite a negative

connotation and often provokes a frown of disdain. But frown or not, it’s true. In fact, many of us share

these roots. It’s what has allowed us to live the lives we do, and have the opportunities we have had –

including this one right here, at a UWC.

I, and many others here, have been raised in societies that very much value capitalism, albeit maybe

not quite in those words. We’ve been brought up in societies where having money is a way to get

ahead, as much as that may sound bad and cause us to wince a little once in the idealistic UWC bubble.

We are taught to work hard to not only do our best, but to be the best. Personally, some of my greatest

role models are family members and friends who are successful businessmen in addition to good

people.

I’ll be the first to admit that the Occupy Wall Street movement is rooted in a good idea. I’m not about to

argue that the economy is pretty right now. I’m also aware that the rich have a disproportionate

amount of wealth (by definition of being rich). I’m certainly not about to advocate or defend the

actions of certain individuals criticised by the Occupy Wall Street community and the global

community at large.

The problem is the way the movement has emerged and has become something else entirely (angry

mobs of angry people, rather than the peaceful calls advertised now on their website for more

movements of a non –Wall Street nature). When the group has become not just a frustrated but

frustrating body to deal with, it becomes much easier even for those who might have initially been

sympathisers to be snarky about the movement, its people, and what it has come to be, at least to the

outsider. I find flaws on basic, fundamental levels that must at least partially serve as the driving force

for this movement.

The movement cites its anger on the current economic state of the United States, based on the failure

of the government to make sure that the market didn’t fall and crash the way it did, the government’s

response to the crash, the role of Wall Street bankers, brokers, etc., and “disgusting inequality”.

However, there is a seeming incomprehension of the market system and of the economic system itself

that created this mess, and an incorrect pinning of the blame.

First of all, aside from the fact that bubbles are much more common than some would like to admit,

and would, needless to say, have to crash at some point, the specific bubble that crashed in 2008 was

arguably created by a very small group of individuals, or even according to an independent economist,

Andy Xie, created by one person: Alan Greenspan. Unlike the name “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”, the name

“Alan Greenspan” does not account for an entire population, in this case, the entire financial sector.

Wall Street is not made up of but that one man, and the many men

16

and women who work on it are not responsible for one man, or one small group’s actions, and should

not be held responsible for said man or small group’s actions. Thus, the very idea that all those who

work on Wall Street are corrupt individuals who have all worked exceedingly hard in order to

guarantee the undermining of the system and to create direct harm and pain to the people while they

sit back and watch in the glory of their distant glittering buildings is simply unfounded.

When the market crashed in 2008, it was the general public that was astonished – that includes the

majority of those who worked on Wall Street. The immediate aftermath, in fact, if anything, affected

Wall Street more than anyone else – after all, it was Wall Street’s firms that faced bankruptcy. Their

people were being cut.

Here, the second point of discontent comes into play – the government’s reaction. I will consent that

the government could have and should have done a much better job with the bailout. The promise of

the bailout should have come with more concrete corresponding promises on the firms’ parts, or more

and greater incentives to change business practices in order for firms to not contribute as greatly as

they did to the creation of the bubble.

However, that being said, I will argue that the action of bailing out was good. The current

unemployment rate of 9.1% (from August 2011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) is

considered horrifying. Yet, what the bailout did was stop Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,

Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Citigroup from going under. Can “the 99%” really be upset that these jobs

were not slashed and thus not added to the already considered atrocious unemployment rate?

Furthermore, inequality is very much a part of the competitive nature of a capitalist economy, and the

market economy in general. Citing the words of independent economist Andy Xie, “Inequality is an

inevitable result of competition. Of course, competition motivates people.”

Unless the Occupy Wall Street movement is proposing a new economic structure on which the world,

or at least America is to run, their occupation of the streets only serves to angrily interrupt the lives of

people who are just trying to get on with their work and their lives, and let the government know that

they are angry, although they would be that regardless. It would be different if Occupy Wall Street had

clear goals, and a feasible and straightforward plan to achieve said goals for the change they wish to

see.

17

Americans support the movement (versus the 45% who oppose it) according to a new Public Policy

Survey, a striking contrast to the claims of the group.

The fact that we are here as UWC students means we are part of a 1% who has this kind of

opportunity. For many of us, no matter our background, UWC is a chance to attend top universities

worldwide and go on to successful careers. So, it would be a little odd for us to starkly defend trying to

bring down capitalism or calling it broken. This is even truer for those of us who will apply for a Shelby

Davis scholarship to attend a US university, as Mr Davis was once a very successful Wall Street man.

Indeed, please do call me when Occupy Wall Street comes up with a set of logical goals and a proper

plan to follow through on them. Until then, I will not be joining in their ranks.

- A Child of Capitalism

18

Professional Foreign Service

How can you in good conscience support that policy?

It’s a fair question, and relevant. In a diplomatic career that spanned 32 years, six

presidents, and three continents, I encountered policies that I would have preferred we

had never adopted, at least in the form that the administration at the time had given

them. Yet I dutifully went out and tried to convince the world that these approaches

were enlightened, prudent, and beneficial.

My colleagues did the same. Few if any of us ever agreed in every particular with every

policy we promoted. But if the United States, or any other country, is to maintain a

professional diplomatic corps, that kind of personal dilemma is inevitable. It is also

manageable.

All of us were perfectly aware of it when we joined. In my oral exam, which was the

second step after the written test in the process to enter the Foreign Service, I was

asked, “Can you publicly support policies of our government with which you disagree

personally?” If I had not answered in the affirmative, I would have been told to leave.

Once we are at an embassy, it is no longer hypothetical. We are put to the test. It tends

not to be difficult, at least most of the time. The fact is, every administration pursues the

nation’s perennial interests: safeguard America’s national security, promote America’s

prosperity, and advocate for America’s values – liberal democracy, free commerce,

economic development, and respect for human rights. During my three decades of

service, there were certainly changes in emphasis and style from one administration to

another as each sought to achieve these ends in its own fashion. Some I liked. Others I

didn’t. For example, I thought that many officials in George W. Bush’s first government,

with their tendency to dismiss allies and speak bombastically, served poorly our

national interests and damaged our image among friends.

But when I was asked to go to Iraq in 2004 as embassy spokesman and press attaché, I

went. I had opposed the invasion in 2003, thinking it was premature and that it would

be wiser to finish our affairs in Afghanistan before embarking on another armed

enterprise, and regarded the occupation as a disaster. Once there, I recognized how

daunting our task was. I quickly realized that we could not possibly deliver on what had

been promised – a prosperous, democratic Iraq – within the year or two we had

announced it would require.

After consulting with the ambassador and others, I developed a different public affairs

approach. Rather than claiming against all evidence that the situation was improving

daily and that we would soon emerge victorious, I spoke candidly about the serious

challenges we confronted and recast our near-term goals, making them more modest. I

admitted that it would take years, perhaps decades, for Iraqis to establish true

19

democracy. I conceded that the insurgency was indeed formidable. I acknowledged

that we were engaged in a costly, bloody battle and that it might continue for a long

time.

In short, I told the truth as I understood it. In this I had the full support and confidence

of the ambassador and other senior officials. I continued to think that we had erred in

invading Iraq, but once committed there I thought that we had to make the best of it. It

would have served no geopolitical or moral purpose to abandon the country. In fact, it

would have compounded the mistake.

Having come to some sort of strategic justification for our presence and policies in Iraq,

I began to develop an emotional attachment to Saddam’s victims, both living and dead.

We can claim that our calculus is always rational and dispassionate, that we base our

assessments on reality, not emotion, but personal feelings do come into play. It is what

Graham Greene called “The Human Factor,” the title he gave to one of his novels.

I spoke to many Iraqis who had been imprisoned and tortured by Saddam and others

whom he had traumatized in different ways. One man, then in his early thirties, told me

how twenty years earlier he had gone to spend a weekend with relatives outside

Baghdad. When he returned, he learned that Saddam’s agents had come to his house

and, in the presence of his mother, executed his father and his three older brothers. His

mother had not uttered a word since.

Another Iraqi, an eminent scientist who had refused to participate in Saddam’s nuclear

program, explained how he had spent 12 years in solitary confinement. He had had no

access to books or newspapers, no radio, no contact at all with the outside world. Once

a day, he would glimpse a man’s forearm as it slid his food under a solid steel door. That

was his exposure to other humans. For 12 years.

With a group of journalists I traveled to northern Iraq, where we viewed the well-

preserved remains of Kurdish men, women, and children who had been murdered

during Saddam’s Anfal campaign in the early 1990s. There were two mass graves, one

for the women and children and the other for the men, and combined they held close to

200 people. We saw the body of one woman, dressed in a colorful folk dress, who

clutched her small infant to her face. They had been killed by a single shot. The bullet

passed first through the back of baby’s neck, then into his head, and from there into his

mother’s brain. Their skulls had fused together, the two now locked forever in a final

hug.

No matter what I thought about the wisdom of the Iraqi invasion, no matter what I

thought about the competence of our occupation, after seeing these things I could not

help but think that Iraq, and indeed the world, was much better off without Saddam

Hussein.

20

So, for any number of reasons diplomats may come to embrace a policy. And when we

do, we tend to be more eager and persuasive in promoting it. When we are not entirely

comfortable with a policy, or find it seriously defective in some way, we may bring less

enthusiasm to advocating for it. But we will still do it. We are professionals.

New administrations always seem dubious about our commitment to their president.

For example, when Bill Clinton won the 1992 election his appointees asked themselves

how Foreign Service officers, who had just spent 12 years working for Republican

presidents, could possibly now promote a new agendum? And when the younger Bush

came to office after 8 years of a Democrat in the White House, his loyalists asked the

same question. After all, and no matter their party, they were passionately partisan and

had just emerged from a divisive political campaign.

And although it may take a while, those foreign policy practitioners appointed by the

president – fifty or so senior people at the State Department and about 30 percent of

ambassadors -- usually come to accept that the diplomatic corps will faithfully serve the

administration and its policies. They learn that we are professionals, motivated by

patriotism and not party affiliation.

Still, there may come a time when a diplomat concludes that a certain policy is not just

misguided, but immoral, and that he or she cannot possibly abide it, much less defend it.

This happened with some frequency during the war in Vietnam, and more recently, but

in many fewer cases, with our actions in Iraq. In those instances, the officer’s only

honourable recourse is to resign. The Foreign Service cannot expect diplomats to

compromise their sincerely held moral beliefs in the interest of institutional cohesion.

At the same time, diplomats cannot expect the Foreign Service to behave as a legislative

chamber, where everyone is free to accept or reject whatever issue happens to be under

review.

To my mind, and despite our occasional doubts and policy disagreements, professional

Foreign Service officers are the only ones who can effectively promote and defend our

national interests abroad. Although diplomats don’t need the specific and elaborate

training that, for example, surgeons and engineers require, ours is not a profession for

dilettantes. We have the experience, language skills, and knowledge of cultures,

geography, and history that make us persuasive advocates for the United States and that

allow us to work successfully throughout the world.

We should ask ourselves if American interests would be better served if the

implementation of our country’s foreign policies were turned over to thousands of

amateurs every time an administration changed, even if these inexperienced officers

supported without a quibble every policy of the new president?

The answer, I think, is clear. A professional foreign service is both the embodiment and

reflection of the American people, and is essential to America’s security, prosperity, and

image.

21

Robert Callahan

Mr. Callahan is a former U.S. Ambassador and Foreign Service agent. He joined the Foreign

Service in 1979 and recently retired after serving as the Ambassador to Nicaragua. He has

also served in Costa Rica, Honduras, the UK, Bolivia, Greece, Italy, and Iraq.

Reflection on Political Parties

When people describe themselves in modern day society, when they label their

identity, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and political

affiliation are all common points. Every single one of these categories is diverse with

many possible answers; this applies especially to political ideologies. One can be far left,

far right. Social conservative and economic liberal. One could be for national health care,

be pro-choice and against the death penalty, but anti-gay marriage. Any infinite number

of combinations is possible. However, an infinite number of political parties to support

these views are not possible, especially in such a polar environment as the United

States.

Do political parties make sense? Do they actually do more harm than good by

forcing people to surrender key beliefs in order to fit pre-constructed models?

We have high expectations of our fellow citizens to be informed on the politics of

their country. We expect them to have a basic knowledge of economics, ethics and

foreign affairs; then, an opinion must be formed based on this knowledge. Completely

opposing opinions can still both be justified by facts and reasonable arguments. In fact,

conflict and argument are healthy components of a political environment, so long as

mutual respect and a desire to understand are also present.

Yet, in an ideal world where all citizens are informed, contributing members of

their societies, social practice still encourages them to join a particular political camp.

Suddenly those carefully thought-out opinions and viewpoints are surrendered, simply

to belong to a particular side. Then, once firmly entrenched in that camp, the extent of

conceptual concessions becomes extremely flexible, as different leaders will align with

their original views to different extents. And the smaller the number of parties, the

more intense the inconsistencies of party members becomes. For example, you cannot

logically say that fifty percent of the United States feels exactly the same about certain

issues and that the other fifty percent feels exactly the opposite. This is how the voting

will go more or less, but it can’t be how people truly think.

22

If we change the setup of the ideal world and allow those same opinionated

citizens to be free of political affiliations, what happens to the political process itself?

More candidates with more diverse views will emerge. It is unlikely that all citizens will

find one who fits them perfectly, but the chances are increased greatly. Individuals will

be forced to examine the candidates more critically, rather than simply going with their

party. Perhaps we would see the emergence of more qualified professional people into

the political scene, since the old oligarchy system would be done away with. Each citizen

would be his own political entity, rather than just another in the ranks.

As wonderful as this seems, it has drawbacks and may actually be impossible. To

deny citizens the right to organize into political parties would be a restriction of civil

liberties. Not only that, but people naturally gravitate to organize together and discuss

their opinions. Political parties, at least in their basic form, are forums for discussion of

political ideas where the participants generally agree on ideologies.

Perhaps if each citizen was informed and put the effort into forming their own

opinions, then they wouldn’t be as dependent on parties, either. However, this idea is

impossible in principle as well. We can’t expect that all citizens, coming from different

economic, social and personal backgrounds will be interested enough in politics to stay

informed. For these people, joining a group is the easy answer. It takes out the

responsibility of personal thought or input; the extent of their input needed is a signed

ballot and a forfeiting of opinion.

Here is the problem with people who join the ranks like this. If I vote for a

particular party out of habit or ritual, then I am freely giving support to something that I

may not understand. This static approach can be extremely dangerous, because it turns

voters into robots with no conscience. On the other hand, if I am easily swayed by grand

speeches and large movements of people to the newest political idea, then what do I

stand for? Both are results of large political parties, and both destroy a country’s ability

to think independently.

Political parties cripple our capability to hold and express truly individual

opinions. They hold a state hostage under decisive lines that are rarely crossed. Even

the definition of a politician shifts from a representative of the people to a leader of the

party. With all their faults, though, our nations can’t avoid but have them, follow them,

and remain subject to them. They simply lie too deeply entrenched and are too much

the result of our own weakness and lack of interest.

Matt De La Cruz

23

A Note of Thanks to: The Duino Manifesto Creative Activity Matthew De La Cruz

Diane Laing Maja Šipek Joseph Samucha Erik Scheriani

Milce Murdjeva Reetta Mataleena Seppanen

Contributors: Robert Callahan Liuba Gonzalez de Armas Philodoxi ‘A Child of Capitalism’ Joshua Biggs (editor)