Arhiv za Februar, 2015

Ta čuden incident Pahorjevih psov čuvajev

16.02.2015 ob 21:10

Arthur Conan Doyle v noveli z naslovom »Silver Blaze«, kjer je prišlo do izginotja zmagovitega tekmovalnega konja z istim imenom in umora njegovega lastnika, v pogovoru z detektivom Gregoryjem položi svojemu junaku v usta sloviti dovtip:

Gregory (detektiv Scotland Yarda): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

Moje včerajšnje opažanje, da so medijski psi čuvaji tukaj včasih očitno za to, da ne lajajo, ne da lajajo, bi torej lahko nadgradili z naslednjim spoznanjem: ta čudni »incident« nelajajočih psov je točno simptom tistega, na kar nas želi usmeriti Holmes: pes je tistega, ki je vstopal v hišo, poznal. Zato ni zalajal.

Že četrti dan po intervjuju Boruta Pahorja za rusko RT se zgodba ponavlja, navzlic slovenski cehovski novinarski nagradi za »pse čuvaje«: sumljivo zatišje in molk medijev sta pritrdila začetnemu opažanju. Celo najbolj antikonspirativna linija premisleka bi lahko v izgovor navedla, si predstavljam, zgolj eno samcato idejo: da intervju Boruta Pahorja ni bil nič posebnega, zato mi ni treba nameniti prav nobene pozornosti.

RT intervju stran Pahor

Prav nobene? Je predsednik države tako nepomembna figura, je takšna ruska televizijska hiša, je bila tema münchenske varnostne konference tako neznatna, so bili odgovori Boruta Pahorja tako silno nezanimivi, je »nevarno« mnenje slovenskega predsednika republike o Rusiji zanemarljivo, lahko primerjavo med krimskim in slovenskim referendumom absolviramo kot puhlico, je razprava o napadu Rusije na Slovenijo informacijsko preskromen podatek, zakaj neki so se odzvali drugi mediji v Srbiji in na Hrvaškem in njihove tiskovne agencije, je bilo 27 minut pogovora premalo? Težko.

Seveda lahko za velik delež medijev verjetno najdemo bolj prozaične razlage, kot je recimo ta, da so lenobni, nesposobni in indiferentni. Nekatere pasme psov so preprosto lene, pri tem na nekaterih lestvicah vodijo novofundlandec, basset hound in bernardinec. Vendar bo omenjena najbrž težko prevladujoča in dominantna razlaga za vse primere, tudi če bi jo že kdo štel za posebej olajšujočo.

Po nekajkratnem brskanju vse od dneva predvajanja intervjuja (7.2.) sem med mainstream mediji opazil le enostavčni komentar dopisnice Dela Polone Frelih, ki je v članku z naslovom Kratka pot od Kremlja do Kijeva zapisala, da slovenski diplomati ocenjujejo, da je bil nastop Boruta Pahorja v oddaji RT, kjer je za trenutno krizo okrivil izključno Rusijo, »dolgoročno škodljiv za partnerske odnose z največjo slovensko gospodarsko partnerico« (10.2.2015). O čem je Pahor govoril v oddaji, kot celo ne, da je sploh nastopil, pa tudi časopis Delo ni pisal niti z besedo.

Sicer pa je hiša RT objavila prepis celotnega pogovora na svoji strani. Vsekakor sem se ob prvem poslušanju močno zmotil le v enem: besedo dialog je Pahor omenil štirinajstkrat, ne desetkrat:

Oksana Boyko: Hello and welcome to Worlds Apart. The EU was founded on a vision of Europe as peaceful, whole and free. But the return of war to the continent has shaken up the order that stood for more than half a century. What is the cost of keeping that vision alive and can Europe’s smaller nations afford it? Well, to discuss that, I’m now joined by the President of Slovenia, Borut Pahor. Mr President, it’s such an honour to talk to you.

Borut Pahor: Thank you for having me.

OB: Now, we are sitting here on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference where leaders and policy makers gather to discuss the most pressing security challenges. And I think we both would agree that the conflict in Ukraine represents such a challenge. But there are very, very sharp divisions about what precipitated that conflict. How do you see it, what is the conflict in Ukraine all about, in your view?

BP: Well unfortunately, it seems we are facing a war there. And as somebody who dedicated [his] entire political career and my life to peaceful solution of the conflict, I’m still of the strong conviction that if there is a small room for negotiation, let’s try our best to get a solution out of a dialogue. So, I would say today, I do welcome very much the mission by President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel to talk to President Putin, and I hope very much that out of this dialogue or meeting, or next one, we will seek for peaceful solution to the problem.

OB: Well, but I think what’s interesting about Slovenia’s own experience is that you went through some of that. I mean, many people in the West believe that the whole crisis started with the referendum in Crimea, and Slovenia for one also had its own referendum back in the 1990s, with people voting in favour of independence. Are there any lessons that Ukraine or the world could learn from Slovenian or Yugoslav experience? Because many would argue that that Slovenian referendum in which people voted in favour of independence also kick-started the whole war in Yugoslavia. So, any insight that Slovenian people, Slovenian history can offer us here?

BP: Well, number one, we seek for a peaceful solution of crisis in former Yugoslavia. And we’ve been, at that time, occupied by Yugoslav Army. And we defended for our freedom, and we won it. I think it’s no direct comparison with Ukrainian issue, unfortunately, it’s a wrong perception. I think Crimea has been occupied by Russian forces. I think, sorry to say – and I’m saying this as a president of a country which is trying to have friendly relations with the Russian Federation – I think Russia is doing a wrong job to support separatists on the eastern side of the border. I think it’s up to Ukrainian people to decide for the future. And I hope very strongly that at the end of this day, there will be a political solution to this issue, not a military one. But as I said at the beginning of our debate, I do define facts on the ground as a war. And if there will be no political solution to this, somebody, sometimes in the future will seek for military war. And I will try to do my best to avoid this. But, you know, we started with this rhetoric of war. The previous year was awful, and this year started awful as well. So let us focus on a political dialogue.

OB: Well, absolutely, I think we have to focus on that. But I want to mention what you just said a couple of minutes ago about Russia occupying Crimea. And obviously the Crimean people held a referendum. We can talk about the legality of that referendum, but people went to the polls in very large numbers. And when we compare Slovenia and Crimea, they actually have a lot in common. The population is similar, roughly 2 million, the territory is similar, around 20,000 square kilometres. You just said that you were fighting for your freedom. Do you think the people of Crimea didn’t have that right to decide on their own destiny?

BP: It’s not up to Russian Federation to get involved-

OB: (crosstalk) But it’s not Russian Federation that went to the polls, it’s the people of Crimea that did that.

BP: The fact is that the army of Russian Federation occupied Crimea, and –

OB: (crosstalk) Do you think that the army of the Russian Federation actually forced people to go to the polls? Or they had an opportunity to express their will?

BP: Well they expressed their will, but the other thing is what Russia has done. And [it] has done a wrong thing.

OB: What do you mean by that?

BP: Well, occupied Crimea.

OB: But there were many elections in the very recent history in your own homeland, well former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, where foreign military…

BP: (crosstalk) Well, Slovenia has not occupied anybody.

OB: Well, I’m not making a direct comparison. Because obviously nothing is perfect.

BP: And that is exactly what I wanted to suggest you, not to make comparison between Slovenia and Crimea.

OB: But we can, what I’m saying is that we can learn from the past experience of other international crises. And there were many experiences when foreign troops were present on the ground, and yet neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq, the results of the elections were called into question. You see what I mean here?

BP: Absolutely. But I stated my view. It is a little bit different from yours. And I do respect your position, but I would like to invite you to respect mine. There is no direct comparison between a status of affair back in 1991 in Slovenia and 2014 in Crimea or Ukraine better.

OB: Now, you mentioned people in Slovenia back then fighting for their freedom. There was a 10-day war. You don’t see any similarity with Donbass, but I do see. I think people there are also fighting for what they see as their rights. Now, that fighting has been going on for much longer than 10 days…

BP: (crosstalk) But let me tell you one thing. Using force is one of main difference between two issues. We didn’t use force to implement our freedom. We’ve been attacked by Yugoslav Army. We just defended. We didn’t occupied anybody.

OB: (crosstalk) But this is what people in Eastern Ukraine also argue.

BP: This is the most important difference between two issues.

OB: But I mean, you just said about the use of force. And you know that one of the proposals put on the table on how to solve this issue is to provide lethal military aid to the Ukrainian government. Do you think, given the experience, and not comparing those two crises directly – do you think that could be helpful, can you fight fire with fire?

BP: Well, I think nobody would even think about this option if Russian Federation would not be involved in Eastern Ukraine, also helping people there, supplying with weapon. So obviously, somebody in the Western hemisphere started to think the similar way. Before that decision, I would like to see, as said before – if there still space for compromise, if it is there, let’s go for a compromise solution. And I do support this diplomatic effort made by France and Germany today. So let us hope that it’s gonna be a successful one. It is not necessary that today will be the definitive answer to the whole issue. But I do support this political dialogue between European Union and Russian Federation.

OB: I certainly want to ask you about that, but if I may, I also would like to ask you a question about the hybrid warfare. We hear that at this Munich Conference all the time. And you just said about Russia’s alleged support, military support, for the separatists. But we see that in so many conflicts. We saw that in Syria as well, the West, Arab countries, Turkey, openly providing military support to the rebels to unseat internationally recognised government. Is it fair to blame Russia, even if you believe that Russia is using, let’s say, dirty tactics – is it fair to blame that only on Russia, or are we actually dealing with the international system as a whole here? Shouldn’t we perhaps redefine the rules of engagement, the rules of dealing with major crises?

BP: Well, you know, I recently addressed a diplomatic corps back in Slovenia. And I said that, sadly, the international community today is less safe than it used to be yesterday. And the main question is, are we still capable to maintain the international order by peaceful means? I do still believe that it is possible to avoid a larger military conflict, world-wide. But we have to be persistent in a political dialogue, that is one – again, I would like to support a political dialogue.

OB: (crosstalk) Let’s talk about…

BP: Also with Russian Federation, you know. Yes?

OB: I just recently watched your speech at the Columbia Leaders Forum, and you spoke there about the advantages and disadvantages of federalisation as far as the European Union is concerned. And I thought it was a very compelling speech. You made it clear there are no easy solutions one way or another. And this is a question that Ukraine will have to address, if it wants to put that question behind it. What do you think the European position, the European advice to Ukraine should be on that front, especially given that Ukraine hopes to join the European Union some day?

BP: Well listen, let me tell you one thing straight, and this is my personal opinion. There is no need that it does reflect a formal position of my country, this is my personal answer to your question. There is a question to be answered by European Union: do we want Ukraine near or within European Union, or not? This should be answered straight. This is important for Ukrainian people and leadership. I think, if this answer would be much more clear than it is at the moment, I think that the leadership back in Kiev would then take some decisions more offensively than they are ready to do it at the moment. It is not the question only that would concern Ukraine. It is also the question concerns Western Balkans. Does European Union want to have Western Balkans within EU, or we will underestimate security and political and social challenges back there, and we will make maybe one other problem out of a opportunity that it is there. So, I would support those in European Union who would deal with much more straight answer to this question –

OB: (crosstalk) You’re calling for honesty here.

BP: Absolutely. Do we want Ukraine within EU, or very close to, and do we want Western Balkans countries within, or very close to European Union? If so, then we should make some promises, and we should take some responsibilities.

OB: But Mr President, regardless of how you answer that question, Ukraine will still be part of Europe. Even if it’s not part of the European Union, it is there on your border. So, I’m sure the European Union, just as Russia, have a great stake in security and well-being of that country. So, I bring you back to my question about federalisation. Do you think that…

BP: (crosstalk) It is internal issue for the Ukraine people to decide –

OB: Absolutely, but we…

BP: (crosstalk) … with the help…

OB: (crosstalk) Yeah, but we’re here at the Munich Security Conference discussing Ukraine, so everybody has his or her opinion on that. And you were talking about political solution. Do you think this is one of the political solutions that perhaps could be discussed and could be encouraged in that country, to solve the crisis?

BP: Could be. It’s not up to me to decide finally. It is to be on the agenda. And if Ukrainian people, the leadership there, which has been elected to lead the country, would invite the international community to be part of this dialogue, I think European Union and Russian Federation, or maybe somebody else, would take their seats around a round table and to debate the issue, to find a peaceful and good solution for the prosperity of Ukrainian people.

OB: Well, President Pahor, we have to take a very, very short break now, but when we come back – more Europe, or less? How is the European project evolving, and what does it hold for the future of global security? That’s coming up in a second, so stay tuned.

OB: Welcome back to Worlds Apart where we are discussing the European project with the President of Slovenia, Borut Pahor. Mr President, before we go to discussing the European project, I would like to ask you a couple of questions about Russia, Russia and NATO. I know that Slovenia is a proud member of NATO, and I think we could agree that one of the reasons this conflict is so difficult is because it’s also burdened by somewhat testy relationship between Russia, my country, and the NATO. And I don’t want to debate who is right and who is wrong, but I it’s clear that the current arrangement, where both sides see each other as a threat, where they keep ramping up their military spending, is not sustainable. It’s highly dangerous.

BP: Finally we do agree on…

OB: Do you agree on that?

BP: Absolutely. I agree with you. I think that frank relations between NATO and Russian Federation would be deserved, very much.

OB: Do you see any framework in which that frank relationship could be achieved?

BP: Absolutely. I think with a peaceful solution to Ukrainian crisis, to work together on other issues world-wide, security issues. I think there is a space for NATO-Russian Federation close partnership. I think there is a space. But we have to work for it. I mean, [it] will not come for granted. We have to try to seek for a frank dialogue between Moscow and –

OB: (crosstalk) But we’ve been having dialogue for more than a decade. I mean, that dialogue resulted in a conflict in…

BP: – I mean on the Ukrainian issue. I mean, this is the most important issue that should be resolved in a manner that Russian Federation would think that it’s a good solution, and that European Union would think it’s a fair solution. And basically, that Ukrainian people and the leadership there would think it’s a fair solution. And then, I think, Russian Federation – NATO could once again try to be frank partners.

OB: Speaking of one such possible solution, I know that as a student you wrote a dissertation on the non-aligned movement. Do you think something from your dissertation…

BP: (crosstalk) Peaceful solution. Peaceful solution of crisis among Non-Aligned Movement.

OB: Do you think that framework of Non-Alignment, neutrality could offer any ideas on this front?

BP: Well, basically at the end of my thesis, I discovered that there is no difference in the nature of the position of the country. What it is matter, it is a basically political will to seek for a peaceful solution. This is a basic condition for a peaceful solution. Listen, I’ve been a prime minister back in 2008 and 2009, in a very difficult solution regarding a border issue with Croatia. And with dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. At the end of the day, we resolved the issue. So, that is why I am so much committed with my own experience, that it is possible. But at the very beginning of the issue is a political will to do it. And I think we are now once again watching once more attempt to finally get a peaceful solution with a dialogue, and that is why I support this initiative by Hollande and Merkel.

OB: While we are continuing this dialogue, both sides, both Russia and NATO countries, continue ramping up their military spending. And your own country Slovenia is doing the same. You committed to doubling your military spending over the course of the next decade to 2% of the GDP. And given that both Slovenian and European economies haven’t fully recovered from the crisis, given that 14% of your people live below the poverty line – do you think that is money well spent? Is Russia really such a huge threat for Slovenia to prioritise military spending before, let’s say, job creation?

BP: You know what, if there will be a space for a peaceful solution, as a President of the Republic of Slovenia, I would be very pleased. I would support such an attempt. I would do what is in my capacity for a peaceful solution of all problems, also this crucial one. But in case this will not happen, I will do my best to defend my country. No doubt about it. No doubt about it. So, let us seek for a peaceful solution. If not, then I have to protect. This is task number one for me and for my office, to protect my people –

OB: (crosstalk) And you’re the commander in chief of your country…

BP: (crosstalk) And I will do it with my partners within NATO. No doubt about it.

OB: But there [are] many other aspects to the problem that we…

BP: (crosstalk) You know, just a moment. You’ve mentioned social problems, unemployment rates, all that stuff. Absolutely. I would like to focus on those issues. If, and in case of peaceful solution, I could focus on that problems. That is why I do support peaceful solution to the problems. But no doubt about our commitment to NATO in case world would go wrong way.

OB: Well, Mr President, unlike you I don’t speak for my country, but something tells me there’s no will or intention on the part of the leadership in Russia to attack Slovenia. Moreover, I think Russia is very interested in keeping up its trade ties, both with Slovenia and other countries in the region. I know that the trade between our countries decreased by 20% last year. Isn’t there a sense in Slovenia and perhaps other European countries that you are being asked to bankroll ambitions, political ambitions, geopolitical ambitions of other countries? Because you seem to be, both Russia and countries like Slovenia, seem to be losing quite a lot in economic terms from all this confrontation that, I think, neither of them wants.

BP: This is true, and I am very sorry for it. But we have to see why this is happening. Basically, I do support economic sanctions. This is basically better than using force before trying to convince partner on the other side that it is wrong what Russian Federation is doing in Ukraine. Okay, let us hope for the best, that wise dialogue will prevail at the end of the day. And I’m speaking this as the President of a country which has very good relations with Russian Federation. Political dialogue is very good. Okay, now it’s damaged by this Ukrainian crisis. We have very good economic relations with Russian Federation. And we would like to go on with this good relations with Moscow. But there is one problem in the middle of this road which creates an obstacle.

OB: Mr President, I appreciate your honesty and your frankness in this interview, and let me ask you a question, also a direct question here. You talked about political dialogue, and back in February when that crisis was still developing, there was political dialogue. Russia was involved in the political dialogue. Europe was involved in the political dialogue. Americans were involved in the political dialogue. There was a power transition deal that sides seemed to have agreed on. But then, all of a sudden, that deal was off, and there was a change of power in Kiev that was not in compliance with the Ukrainian constitution. And I think Moscow now feels very betrayed, it felt committed to political dialogue, but in the end it felt cheated because of what happened. If this dialogue, held by Chancellor Merkel, by President Hollande now continues, is there any guarantee that all sides to this conflict will abide by this dialogue? Is there insurance on your part, any confidence on your part, that the American colleagues of yours will stick with political dialogue, rather than pushing the Ukrainian authorities in the direction that they deem necessary?

BP: Well, let me answer this way. Up to my experiences, my personal experiences dealing with the issue of borderline between Slovenia and Croatia, for example. Number one task at the moment is rebuild the confidence between Moscow and Brussels, and Moscow and Washington. This is number one task. The confidence that everybody is working for everybody, not against somebody. This is task number one. I think this visit today is mostly, I think, in this direction. It is too, it would be too much to call now, that this is the final trip to Moscow, or our colleagues from Moscow to Brussels. But I think this is a confidence building project. I think this task number one. And then, task number two to find a proper answer to the whole arrangement of questions. It’s too complicated now imagine what could be the final result. But at the end of the day, there is one who should be satisfied most by this compromise solution, and this is Ukrainian people.

OB: Mr President, let me ask you one final question. I think this whole discussion that we’ve been having today ultimately comes down to one question, and this is a question about who should call the shots on the issues of security and foreign policy in Europe. Should it be advised, let me put it mildly, from across the ocean, or should Europe, the continent, step up to the plate and take matters into its own hands? Do you think Europe, at this point of time, capable of ensuring its own security or arranging its own foreign policy in amicable way?

BP: Not so much as I would like to see, but the things are moving in right direction. As you referred before, I am very much in favour of United States of Europe. So this would mean also that European Union would have military capability to defend itself. But nevertheless, should not underestimate, not now, not even maybe in the future, the NATO is here. And I have to say, thanks God it’s here, because if not – listen, maybe Slovenia, you’re right, is not threatened directly as you said by Russian Federation. But talking to my colleagues in Baltics states, or Poland – I have a feeling that they are afraid, that really, some days Russian Federation could pose a direct threat to their national security. And, listen, you should not underestimate these feelings, you know.

OB: Well, President Pahor, I really hope that your expertise will be helpful in the search for that political solution, but in the meantime I have to thank you for being on our show. And to our viewers, please leave your comments on our Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages, and I hope to see you again, same place, same time, here on Worlds Apart.

  • Share/Bookmark

Kako bo Rusija napadla Slovenijo in kako nas bo Pahor obranil

11.02.2015 ob 19:35

Zakaj domači psi čuvaji niso zalajali ob škandaloznem intervjuju predsednika republike za prorusko televizijo RT, nekoč Russia Today? Še več, zakaj slovenski javnosti niso privoščili niti informacije o njem, tudi če bi ne mislili, da je v njem kaj pretiranega?

Pahor Russia Today youtube

Kajti molčali so vsi po vrsti: Slovenska tiskovna agencija, Delo, Dnevnik, Večer (z izjemo priložnostnega zapisa na spletu), nacionalna RTV, komercialna POP TV in tako dalje.Redko izjemo predstavlja tabloid Svet24, ki je novici o sramotnem nastopu namenil naslovno stran. Upravičeno.

Slovenski (slovenly?) mediji so torej klonili: če jim ni bilo težko repetitivno in že skoraj obsesivno povzemati nastopa predsednice vlade Alenke Bratušek na CNN, ki je negativistično silovito odmeval na domačih tleh že zaradi njene bazične angleščine, ne kakšnega vsebinskega lapsusa, so to pot »modro« gledali proč. Še STA je intervju mimogrede omenila zgolj v sklopu poročil o zapisih tujih agencijskih novic:

Hina in srbska tiskovna agencija Tanjug sta poročali, da se je slovenski predsednik Borut Pahor v pogovoru za rusko televizijo Russia Today zavzel za mirovno iniciativo EU glede reševanja krize v Ukrajini, hkrati pa je zavrnil vsakršno primerjavo razmer na Krimu z okoliščinami v Sloveniji, ko je ta leta 1990 izvedla referendum o samostojnosti, šest mesecev kasneje pa razglasila svojo samostojnost. “Dejstvo je, da je ruska vojska okupirala Krim in tako storila napačno stvar, Slovenija pa ni okupirala nikogar,” je izpostavil Pahor.

Res je, tuje agencije in hrvaški, srbski in drugi mediji so o intervjuju poročali, predvsem v delu, ko primerja krimsko in slovensko odločitev. Slovenski, da bo kontrast še hujši, pač ne. Obstaja za tak obsežen molk kakšna dobra in tehtna razlaga? Kolega mi je zaupal svojo, privatno: v večini medijskih agend se novinarji, vsi po vrsti, zapodijo za kostjo, ki jo navrže v prostor Janševa SDS. Kar se je zgodilo pri Bratuškovi. Toda ker je Pahor večni Janšev partner, ker obstaja ena taka tiha koalicija med njima, podobna tisti pri TEŠ6, so v tem primeru tudi Janševi mediji preprosto zamižali na obe očesi. In ker so, se niso zganili niti drugi. Moja teza je nekoliko širša: že dolga leta se nekatere politične opcije in z njo posamezni politiki pri nas preprosto »šparajo«. Seveda obstajajo tudi izjeme, pa vendar. Psi čuvaji so tu za to, da ne lajajo, ne da lajajo. Kam spada Pahor, ni težko uganiti. Za obravnavo Bratuškove je obstajal bistveno večji politični konsenz, ki mu je sledil medijski. To pot konsenza ni.

Zakaj je bil nastop škandalozen?

Oksana Boyko je v oddaji »Worlds apart« odlično opravila svojo moderatorsko nalogo. Vsa vprašanja, vse intervence so bile smiselne, logične, spodobne, poznavalske. Da so morali v uredništvu oddaje in RT močno zabavati ob nastopu Pahorju, nam signalizirajo že napisi med oddajo in pod njeno objavo na strani Youtube. Kako namreč razumeti opis posnetka »SLOVENLY CRISIS ft. Borut Pahor, President of Slovenia« drugače kot izraz sarkastičnega posmeha, igre besed med pridevnikom »slovenly« ter imenom naše države, ki bržčas leti na predsednikov prostodušen nastop, v katerem je mrgolelo mašil, iteracij in puhoglavih misli?

Kako je, kar je še huje, mogoče razumeti tale opis istega posnetka intervjuja na njihovem uradnem youtube kanalu:

WWIII can still be averted – President of Slovenia

Ne, Pahor o tretji svetovni vojni ni govoril, je pa ponosno in afektirano, kot zna samo on, navrgel, da se bo Slovenija vojaško branila pred Rusijo, da je lojalna NATU in bo to tudi ostala, če bo »svet skrenil v napačno smer«. Znova ni druge razlage: pri RT so se morali na račun našega predsednika kot rešitelja sveta močno smejati in njegovo štirinajstkrat ponovljeno sintagmo »miroljubna rešitev« prevesti v poanto »Če ne bo šlo na miroljuben način, pa se bomo šli vojno, zdaj pa izvolite«. Žal jim je Pahor za norčavo obravnavo ponudil karseda dober povod.

Bo Rusija napadla Slovenijo?

V sloviti komediji Duck Soup bratov Marx najdemo dovtip, izrečen med ambasadorjem Trentinom in Rufusom T. Fireflyjem:

-I am willing to do anything to prevent this war.

-It’s too late. I’ve already paid a month’s rent on the battlefield.

Vrhunec Pahorjevega nastopa nesporno predstavlja njegova nepričakovano vsiljena razprava, da se bo Slovenija branila, če jo bo Rusija napadla: kakor da bi nekdo navijal za mesečno rento. Dramatična situacija, ki bi jo lahko povzeli z besedami kolegice na Facebooku komentariatu: »Še par krat ga spustijo k mikrofonu, pa bo vojna.«

In res, če odmislimo dejstvo, da Pahorju kar trikrat zapored ni uspelo zapopasti novinarkine primerjave med slovenskim in krimskim referendumom, saj je vsakič narobe navedel razliko med obema političnima situacijama, če odmislimo praznost njegovih odgovorov, iteracijo, ki je močno presegla tisto bolj razvpito pri Alenki Bratušek (v 27 minutah pogovora se je uspeh Pahor štirinajstkrat (!) zavzeti za »miroljubno rešitev« in točno desetkrat za politični »dialog«), potem je največji debakel intervjuja nesporno večkratni namig, da se bo Slovenija branila pred vojaškim napadom. Predsednik države je uspel svojo predanost obrambi svoje države skorajda s pretnjo zatrditi kar štirikrat (»Ni dvoma o tem«).

Pahor RT uradna stran kabineta

Kako sta sogovorca prišla do omembe takšne intervencije? Novinarka je resda namigovala na dejstvo, da se izdatki za oboroževanje v Evropi in tudi Sloveniji večajo, medtem ko se evropska kriza enostavno še ni končala. Njena poanta: je militarizacija res pomembna v trenutkih, ko bi morali prednost dajati socialnim težavam, brezposelnosti, revščini? Naj navedem ključni del pogovora:

Novinarka:

»Is Russia really such a huge threat to prioritize military spending before, let’s say, job creation?«

Pahor:

»If there will be a place for peaceful solution, as a president of Republic of Slovenia I would be very pleased, I would support such an attempt, I would do what is in my capacity for a peaceful solution of all problems, also this crucial one, but in case this will not happen, I will do my best to defend my country, no doubt about it, no doubt about it. So, let us seek for a peaceful soluton, if not, then I have to protectThis is the task number one for me and for my office to protect my people (medklic novinarke: »And you are the commander-in-chief of your country«) and I will do it with my partners in the NATO, no doubt about it! (…)

»Just a moment, you mentioned social problems, unemployment rate and all that stuff. Absolutely, I would like to focus on those issues, if and in case of peaceful solution I could focus on that problems. That is why I do support peaceful solution to the problems. But no doubt about our commitmentto NATO in case the world would go wrong way.«

Novinarka:

»Mister president, unlike you I don’t speak for my country, but something tells me that there is no will or intention on the part of the leadership in Russia to attack Slovenia. Moreover, I think Russia is very interested in keeping up its trade ties, both with Slovenia and other countries in the region. I know that the trade between our countries decreased by twenty percent last year.«

Nekaj minut kasneje se je Pahor sicer poskušal malce popraviti, češ morda Ruska federacija res ne bo napadla Slovenije, toda potem navedel v ilustracijo takšne bojazni Poljsko in zaključil s podukom novinarki, da nihče (oziroma ona) ne bi smel podcenjevati takšnih občutkov (!) ogroženosti (»You should not underestimate these feelings.«)

Zlahka si predstavljamo, da se veliko vojaških spopadom preprosto začne s kopičenjem vojaških sil na meji z domnevno »okupatorsko« deželo, nič manj pa morda prav s svarili, da je ena stran pripravljena na vojno, če bo napadena. Pahor je storil nekaj zelo podobnega: vehementno je ponavljal, da je pripravljen braniti svojo državo, čeprav ne obstaja nikjer niti najmanjši indic, da nas bo kdorkoli napadel. Vrhunska reakcija novinarke, češ »Nekaj mi pravi, da Rusija nima nobenega namene napasti Slovenije« je bila razorožujoča tako rekoč v obeh smislih in pomenih besede.

Samosmešenje, ki ni več smešno

Silovito neroden nastop s samosmešenjem predsednika republike, bolj ali manj res zgolj interni težavi Slovenije, ki je pač ne znamo rešiti drugače kot na volitvah, preti najmanj s čudenjem na mednarodnem političnem in diplomatskem parketu. Ker pač, gledano globalno, svet ne more biti zadovoljen našim »domačijskim« pojasnilom, da naš predsednik svoje zadrege s samopodobo rad projicira v politično dogajanje.

Ampak, kot rečeno, je Pahor tudi simptom našega medijskega trenutka, kjer lahko tehtamo zgolj, ali je splošna medijska apatija in nereflektiranost posledica politične voljnosti medijev, ali pa morda velja obratno in je amorfnost medijev nekaj, kar toliko lažje in z velikim veseljem oblikujejo politični centri. Če sploh kdaj bi pa res pričakovali, da novinarji začutijo nekaj svojega watch-dog poslanstva takrat, ko se navidez nedolžno govoričenje in napihovanje predsednika republike lahko nenadoma spremeni v akutno dramo mednarodnih razsežnosti.

Pahor Krim B92

  • Share/Bookmark

Pravi moški: je to Branko, je to Janis?

7.02.2015 ob 12:33

Kaj točno konstituira njega, točno pravega moškega, Njega v sferi politike, pisano z veliko začetnico? Kdo je pravi moški, zastavljeno hevristično? Najlažje položaj opazujemo, ko se kakšen, vsaj po priznanju opazovalke – kajti gre primarno za ženski pogled -, v resnici tudi pojavi in nam odkriteljica to zaupa:

Pogosto me novinarke sprašujejo, kakšen je pravi moški. Kakor kdo in kakor za katero, odgovarjam. Naj povem, da čim se je pojavil profesor ekonomije JANIS VARUFAKIS na grški sirizini politični sceni, sem si rekla: Uau! in šla, kar sicer ne počnem, pogledat njegove fotke na internet. In ponovila: Uau! Danes v Delu berem povzetke tujih komentarjev njegove osebnosti in modnega sloga spod peres Saše Vidmajer in spet pravim: Uau! Prepisujem en njen odstavek in ženskam, ki hočejo videti pravega moškega na lastne oči, priporočam prelet internetnih strani. Takole piše Saša Vidmajer (jo imam na sumu, da je tudi ona porekla: Uau!) pod naslovom Ko normalnost postane popolna svežina: “Ni bankir in ne oblači se kot bankir, bančnikom noče stvari olajšati, temveč otežiti, govori jim, za seboj imam suvereno volilno telo in bankrotirano državo, je te dni zapisal novinar Simon Jenkis. Pripomnil je, da je grški finančni minister v tej branži naposled nekdo, ki “je videti normalno človeško bitje. To je začetek.’” No, kar se mene tiče, tak intelekt, suverena drža, natančno preštudiran modni slog, ki deluje ležerno, a je visokega plačilnega razreda zaradi kakovosti in skrbno zdizajniranih detajlov, predvsem pa samozavesten moški šarm, pač niso normalen pojav. Ne v  svetu, ne v Grčiji, da o Sloveniji ne govorim. Pa mi pokažite kakega Varufakisa med našimi vrlimi možmi, čakam predloge.

Varufakis Manca Košir

Dr. Manca Košir torej ve, kaj je pravi moški, ker ga je odkrila, videla na lastne oči, vsaj na spletu, zato zna nanj s prstom tudi pokazati. To je grški finančni minister, ki zna reči »Ne!« evropskim krvosesom, ustreza opisu in tistemu »Uau!«. Pravega deca odkriješ, uvidiš, zagledaš nenadoma, hipoma in takoj veš, da je to on, da je pravi.

Če je pravi, potem predvidevaš, da ga kot takšnega vidijo tudi drugi, iščeš potrditev zase. Zato avtorica predvideva, da enako vidi tudi npr. novinarka Dela, sicer pa velja, da je pravi moški predvsem »videti normalno človeško bitje«, kar je zgolj evfemizem za pravšnjost in pravost, ki se v realnosti prikazuje kot pravi intelekt, prava suverena drža, pravi modni slog in pravi samozavesten moški šarm.

Približno vse tisto, kar se v danih razmerah, kot so mnogi že ugotovili, najbolje uteleša v Luki Mescu, ki se svojega statusa »pop ikone«, kot odgovarja na vprašanje v nedavnem intervjuju, tudi zaveda, a ga moti.

Težava je seveda lahko, da pravega moškega kakšne druge oči vidijo v kom drugem. Zakaj ne bi bil za koga drugega pravi moški Branko Grims? Kaj točno mu že manjka? Bicepsi gotovo ne:

Grims pomladnik z bicepsi

So privlačnejši levi ali desni?

V eni izmed nedavnih študij so ugotavljali, da so v povprečju moški z desnega političnega pola privlačnejši od tistih na levici, republikanci so bolj pravi moški kot socialisti. Zakaj? Eden izmed odgovorov, ki jih ponuja časopisni povzetek, ponuja takšno razlago: tisti, ki se imajo za lepe, so pretežno antiegalitarci, antiegalitarizem pa je pozicija desnih volivcev:

Right-wing politicians are seen as more physically attractive than socialists and get more votes because of their good looks, a new study has found.

Researchers showed photos of anonymous political candidates to 2,500 people, and asked them to judge them on a scale from ‘very ugly’ to ‘very beautiful’.

Right-of-centre politicians were viewed as better looking, while those left-of-centre were generally seen as less attractive, the report found.

The study was carried out by experts in Sweden and Finland, and the politicians used were 1,357 Finnish council election candidates.

But the people asked to judge their attractiveness were from five non-Scandinavian countries including the USA and Britain.

Researcher Niclas Berggren at Sweden’s Ratio Institute said: ‘We found those candidates on the right were considered to look better than those on the left.

‘Studying the election results, we then found that they benefit from this “beauty premium” in the form of the votes they receive.

‘One explanation is that people who are seen or consider themselves to be beautiful tend to be more anti-egalitarian and hence more attracted to right wing politics.’

Mr Bergren said the study back up previous research in the business world which has found better looking people earn an average of 15 per cent more than those deemed less attractive.

He added: ‘The political right has always been more conscious of good looks.

‘But our study and previous research confirms the effects of beauty in western culture are universal.’

It was now hoped the research, published by the German Institute for the Study of Labour, would appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Mr Bergen said.

Lepota politična

Razlagi manjka vsaj ena premisa, v nadaljevanju članka sicer delno pojasnjena: lepi moški, ki so desni politiki, se večinsko bolj zavedajo svojega dobrega videza.

Kakšna je torej vsebina tistega »Uau!«, ki je neznansko privlekel pogled Mance Košir? Pravost in pravšnjost sta v pogledu, ki vidi pravost in pravšnjost. In ker je socializem zdaj lep, bosta glede na politične preference posledično moška pravost in pravšnjost skrita v pravem političnem pogledu.

  • Share/Bookmark

Je Slavoj Žižek potencialni terorist?

7.02.2015 ob 12:32

Pravzaprav se čudim, da naslovne misli ni izustil Janez Janša s svojimi medijskimi sateliti: zvenelo bi prepričljive kot v primeru novinarske tarče Erika Valenčiča, potencialnega terorista. Zakaj? Ker je Slavoj Žižek, tudi sam pogosto Janševa verbalna žrtev, za TV Slovenija res povedal nekaj, kar zveni potencialno teroristično:

Prvič, kdo je ta »suis«? Ali tisti gnusni politiki tam, ki bi jih bilo treba vse postreliti?

Žižek pobiti politike Utrip

Streljaško domislico filozofskega zvezdnika, zdaj skorajda že po pravici imenovanega »dangerous philosopher« in »deadly jester« obenem, sem sicer spregledal, ogledal sem si jo v Utripu po tistem, ko sem naletel na kolumno novinarja in politika Mira Petka, v kateri se ob njej upravičeno zgraža.

V nadaljevanju bom pokazal, v čem se s slednjim strinjam, v čem nikakor ne in podobno kot on anticipiral, da tako kot njegova tematizacija ne bo doživela nobene recepcije, tudi vsa nadaljevanja ne morejo zaobiti registra molka: je všteto in pojasnjeno že v tezi tega zapisa.

Kaj pravi Miro Petek?

Petek, tudi sam žrtev krvavega obračuna, ima popolnoma prav v presoji, da je izjava na TV Slovenija nedopustna in nedostojna, čeprav ne eksplicira, na kateri ravni. Pravilno ugotavlja, da (že povsem predvidljivo) obstaja nenavaden medijski molk ob njej. In prav ta je tisti, je verjetno bolj zanimiva okoliščina situacije:

Levi intelektualci in levičarski mediji, ki v Sloveniji dominirajo, so Žižkovo izjavo preslišali in pisali le o tem, kako je Žižek že več dni pred dogodkom razprodal zagrebško Hrvaško narodno gledališče, ki je bilo polno kot še nikoli poprej.

Miro Petek kolumna Žižek politike postreliti

Strinjam se z oceno, da so jo zavestno prezrli, kot že marsikatero drugo njegovo brutalno izjavo (npr. tisto, da je treba v zrak spustiti Cankarjev dom). Tudi sam se, ko je šlo za kakšno mojo kritično reakcijo na Žižka, doživel podoben embargo na svoji koži in ugotavlja podobno. Tudi če sem sam doslej kot »levi intelektualec« reagiral, pa se strinjam s Petkovo oceno, da pretežno prav ta segment intelektualcev zelo prepoznavno tišči glavo v pesek – v takšnih in podobnih okoliščinah. Na več mestih se opozarjal na še nekaj hujšega: da to počnejo tako radi tudi sicer.

Iz kakšnih razlogov? Navedel bom nekaj možnosti, ne nujno v tem vrstnem redu, o katerih zgolj spekuliram; kajti o njih ne bomo izvedeli veliko, radi molčijo tudi o njih.

Prvič, zaradi manka poguma in intelektualne poštenosti. Ker pretežno ne premorejo tveganja za morebitno zamero, pljunke proti sebi, socialno izolacijo in neodobravanje v javnosti; potencialno stigmatizacijo postavljajo višje od resnice. Žal. V tem so si tako hudičevo podobni z desnimi intelektualci: ti npr. obmolknejo, ko ušpiči kakšno podobno nedopustnost Janez Janša ali kdo iz desnih ideoloških krogov. Ko bomo sprejeli, da si v tem eni in drugi niso karseda različni, temveč medsebojno avtentično podobni, bomo morda celo napredovali iz krogov ujetosti v lastne mentalne zanke.

Drugič, zaradi ideološke ali idejne solidarnosti, torej v nasprotju s prvim razlogom. Molk intelektualcev izvira iz prepričanja, da se lahko miselno s Žižkom strinjamo, nesprejemljiva je le njegova artikulacija. Ker je začrtana provokativno, ker je konfliktna in ekscesna po stilu, kar jo sicer nekoliko diskreditira,  a ne more povsem diskreditirati intence in vsebine. In ker je ne, intelektualci zato raje tihoma spregledajo Žižkov »lapsus«, podobno kot privrženci Janše venomer spregledujejo njegove ekscese le zato, ker je poanta že prava, četudi ni artikulacija. Med levimi in desnimi intelektualci s tem ni nobene razlike.

Tretjič, ob ekscesnih besedah se ne zganejo, ker predpostavijo njegov način komunikacije v veličastni idiosinkraziji, ker je Žižek pač tak, kot je, zato moramo pretiravanja in grobosti »nevarnega filozofa« vzeti v zakup – tudi če bi reagirali enkrat, bi to bilo neproduktivno, saj bi morali reagirati ves čas. Zakaj bi se potem trudili? In spet: mar desni intelektualci tega ne počnejo na isti način, ko gre za »nevarnega politika«, prvaka SDS?

Navkljub vsem trem razlogom menim, da ima Petek še zmerom prav, noben med njimi me docela ne prepriča.

Levičarski mediji

Petek, med drugim včasih tudi direktor direktorata za medije, je svojčas sam stresal izrazite grobosti proti medijem in zanje uporabljal izrazito ideološki žargon. Če se strinjam z njegovo tezo o nedopustnem molku intelektualcev, pa se ne povsem z oceno o tem, da podobno počnejo levičarski mediji – zato, ker označba ni točna. Ker je politično obremenjena. Medijski molk je predvsem širši, le delno motiviran z zgoraj naštetimi »intelektualnimi« razlogi in ne zajema zgolj politično bolj motivirane medije, razumem ga pa predvsem kot izraz refleksijske podhranjenosti in sega širše. Povedano preprosteje: slovenski mediji se bojijo avtonomno misliti, morda niti ne znajo, zato v avtocenzuri prejkone o Žižkovih domislicah ne dovolijo lastne presoje: raje zgolj producirajo informacije, stališča si velikokrat ne upajo zavzeti. Pretežno ne znajo razumeti niti, v čem je produkcija informacije lahko tudi njena re-produkcija in fabrikacija.

Lepa ilustracija povedanega je že sam pristop novinarjev in urednikov Utripa: ko so v eter spustili Žižkovo »ubijalsko« domislico, se do nje niso niti poskušali distancirati, še manj cenzurirati, temveč so jo dobesedno nadgradili in opremili s posnetkom politikov, ki jih je po Žižku treba postreliti. Češ: »Poglejte, na te je mislil!«

Kamera torej sprva pokaže filozofa, njegov »tisti gnusni politiki tam, ki bi jih bilo treba vse postreliti«, nato pa v naslednjem kadru ilustrira povedano z vizualno prezentacijo vseh, ki si po njegovem zaslužijo likvidacijo:

Žižek pobiti politike

Zato se seveda ne moti Petek, ko pravi: »Ne verjamem, da bi Žižek resno mislil, da je treba pokončati Angelo Merkel, Françoisa Hollanda, Davida Camerona, Mattea Renzija, Ahmeta Davutoğluja ali Abdulaha II in Mahmouda Abbasa, ne nazadnje sta bila v Parizu tudi naš predsednik vlade Miro Cerar in zunanji minister Karl Erjavec.« Ker tudi če odštejemo ironijo, nas razprava o tem, ali je Žižek »resno mislil« s pobojem političnega vrha, ne pripelje nikamor. Morda ni resno mislil niti Janša, ko je Erika Valenčiča v tujino vsaj mimikretično ovajal kot nevarnega potencialnega terorista, a vendar lahko v obeh primerih zaključimo, da takšne izjave s hujskaškim predznakom niso sprejemljive, ne glede na resnost intence izjavljalca. Težko si predstavljam, da bi nekdo, ki obsoja eno, sprejemal drugo, kakor koli sta primera že različna. A ravno to se očitno – glede na molk – tudi dogaja.

Nesorazmernost občutljivosti na spektru levo vs. desno

Ali ima Petek prav tudi v svoji oceni o nesomernosti občutljivosti na diskreditacijski in hujskaški govor, ko ta prihaja z leve ali desne? Situacijo riše takole:

Če bi poziv o streljanju politikov prišel iz ust desne politične opcije ali kakšnega desno usmerjenega intelektualca, potem bi se sestajali parlamentarni odbori, svet za nacionalno varnost, v posebnih oddajah bi nastopila varuhinja človekovih pravic, poklicali bi Maco Jogan, Gabi Čačinovič Vogrinčič in Sonjo Lokar, bile bi razprave o javnem diskurzu, sovražnem govoru in njegovem umeščanju v politični kontekst, že včeraj bi se s svojo izjavo oglasil Mirovni inštitut.

Opis je močno pretirana karikatura, ki pa v osnovi, vsaj kar zadeva situacijo nesorazmernosti, v vsaj neki meri  drži na isti in istorodni način, kot to velja za molk intelektualcev. Povedano drugače, hrbtna plat neupravičenega molka javnih institucij, politike in civilne družbe je njihova čudežno povečana selektivna občutljivost. Tendenca tovrstna hipokritične selektivnosti nedvomno obstaja, a jo je težko specificirati, saj postavljalci teze o njej to največkrat počnejo takrat, ko želijo pred očitki zaščititi tistega, ki bi ga ne smeli braniti, temveč tudi sami obsojati. Skratka, ena od težav je, da so tudi avtorji zahteve največkrat sami hipokritično selektivni. Po drugi plati tudi sama pritrditev tezi, recimo moja v tem trenutku, hitro postane predmet manipulacije in si je avtorji raje ne upajo izustiti.

Kaj je deset mrtvih novinarjev v primerjavi z dva tisoč trupli?

Žižkov osnovni razlog, čemu bi morali pobiti cvetober gnusnih svetovnih voditeljev, se po vsem sodeč nanaša na njegov očitek o hipokriziji nesorazmerne obravnave:

»Deset ljudi umre v Parizu in so vsi na nogah, tam je celo mesto pobito, ne vem kaj vse, to je pač nekaj, kar se tam daleč dogaja.«

Poanta je preprosta: solidarnostna drža »Je suis Charlie« je po Žižku hinavščina in dokaz zanjo so prav voditelji: po eni strani se klanjajo desetim preminulim, prav nič pa jim ni mar za pokol dva tisoč ljudi, ki ga je v nekaj dneh sposobna opraviti skrajna skupina Boko Haram. Ni čisto jasno, ali se očitek o hinavščini nanaša le na politični fokus voditeljev ali tudi na nesorazmerno medijsko pozornost. Razumeti je, da bi jih ravno zaradi take hinavščine najraje videl postreljene.

Teže tega »primerjalnega« argumenta iz mehaničnega tehtanja števila žrtev ne bom celovito presojal, zdi se mi precej trhel. Le nekaj namigov. Ponavadi ga v praksi slišimo s strani desnice, recimo pri nas: čemu bi se ukvarjali z eno romsko družino in njenimi deložacijskimi problemi, ko pa je na drugi strani na stotine Slovencev z isto težavo? Tovrstne primerjave pogosto vodijo v zmoto lažne dileme. Iz tega, da bi namreč morali več časa posvetiti grozotam afriške islamistične skupine, s čimer se lahko nesporno strinjamo, pač še ne sledi, da je posvečanje pozornosti ducatu mrtvih novinarjev in urednikov v Parizu hinavsko početje.

Razen tega se, ker smo pač uvedli kvantifikacijski kriterij,  težko izognemo regresu, saj lahko vedno nekdo reče naslednje: »10 ni nič v primerjavi z 2000, toda 2000 ni nič v primerjavi s 3000, itd.« Omenjati v tem kontekstu, da se je včasih Žižek navduševal nad diktatorji, kot je Pol Pot, krivih za poboje milijonov ljudi, bi bilo zanesljivo že interpretirano kot udarec pod pas.

Za nameček pa teza o hipokriziji ne zadene le svetovnih političnih voditeljev. Ob njih so hinavili milijoni ljudi po svetu in Franciji v spomin na umrle, hipokritski pa so tudi slovenski novinarji, vključno s TV Slovenija, ki so se poklonili svojim ubitim kolegom na Prešernovem trgu in nosili napis »Je suis Charlie«.

SIOL DNS Je suis Charlie

In v tem je tudi ultimativni cinizem prispevka iz Utripa: ko ilustrativno prikazuje Žižkovo misel o streljanju gnusnih politikov, istočasno z neko drugo necenzuriranostjo strelja tudi po novinarjih, ko skozi kritiko gesla »Je suis Charlie« graja solidarnost domačih novinarjev do pobitih francoskih. Implicitno torej tudi novinarjev Utripa, kolikor so del te solidarne skupnosti. Molk medijev ima morda zato v tej točki še dodaten rezon.

  • Share/Bookmark