"Modern foreign policy must meet the highest requirements regarding its speed, adaptability and originality" (p.173). May seem obvious but making this dream come true is not that simple. For instance one of the obstacles which, in my opinion, especially post-communistic countries are facing is the fact that for such qualities of your foreign policy you need welel educated and smart people. But they usually prefer much better paid positions in the private sector.
Park v Ceskem Krumlove / Park in Cesky Krumlov
O dovolene jsem takrka jednim dechem prelouskal knizku Petra Robejska Svet videny z Ripu. Kdyz uz pro nic jineho, jsou v ni pekne citatky, alespon na ukazku:
- "V roce 1939 prohlasil admiral C.Woodward: 'Potopit lod pomoci bomby? To je proste nemozne.' Par mesicu na to se Americane u Pearl Harboru presvedcili o krute mylce cackeho generala." (s.49)
- "Pred lety visel na tabuli v budove varsavske univerzit nasledujici inzerat: 'Vymenim malo pouzivanou suverenitu za lepsi zemepisnou polohu.' " (s.53)
- "Nemame zadne vecne spojence a zadne trvale nepratele. Nase zajmy jsou vecne a je nasi povinnosti temto zajmum slouzit. Britsky ministr zahranici Henry Palmerstone (1784-1866)"
Ale vazneji. Libi se mi jeho slova o tom, ze "Moderni zahranicni politika musi splnovat nejvyssi pozadavky ohledne rychlosti, prizpusobovosti a originality" (s. 173). Pri tom si vzdy vzpomenu na "aha" moment, ktery jsem zazil, kdyz jsem se dostal na stranky estonskeho ministerstva zahranici. Vice bych to nerozvadel, protoze by mi zase stoupnul tlak a tak.
A tak aspon jedna tucne vytistena poznamka od Robejska sameho: "S jinymi staty spolupracujeme proto, ze mame (docasne) stejne zajmy, nikoliv proto, ze jsme cleny stejneho spolku. Spolek je pouze jeden ze zpusobu spoluprace, nikoliv jeji nutny predpoklad."
4 comments:
One question occurs... Why do the smart and well educated people prefer the positions in the private sector? Is maybe individualism and egoism the answer? And in that case; is the well educated people really the smart ones?
Then one can also wonder why a smart man like yourself would just turn to bitterness instead of action....
/just wondering
PS Inefficiency is still misspelled...
Individualism and collectivism... Dont forget that many things seeming obvious may be the other way round - for instance working in private sector which is (not always of course) more efficiten may under some circumstances add more value to the whole society than working in public sector.
Another possible answer: if you call the will to work in satisfying and enriching environment individualism/egoism than yes it is individualism/egoism.
To bring the discussion to more real and less abstract level: I prefer to work in private sector (in the Czech Republic) rather than in public because I dont want to waste most of my time by fighting inefficiency and beraucracy. It is true that working in some positions in public could reward me by working on "big picture" but working in consulting is quite often the same.
And maybe the last idea: so far I enjoyed most working in ESN. I could do practically whatever I wanted to do. Maybe being an entrepreneur is similar. And then usually you also give a lot to the society.
PS It is still mispelled - intentionally.
Yet again there seems like a point is missed. A friend of mine always says "assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups"...
I am not saying that working in the private sector is not adding value to the society or is less efficient than the public. My point is aiming for a more general state of mind, how we look upon our surroundings and our being inside of that.
I still have no conclusion but my question is more conretely (since I guess you want me to rephrase it): Is egoism really the answer to creating a good, valuable and if you want efficient society?
Second thing is that I do not call the will to work in the public sector, which to a great deal of people is not satisfying and enriching, egeoism/individualism. But ALWAYS putting your own will and needs in front of others is egoism but this is getting to far from the issue. I just wanted to point out that if you are really disappointed in how things you basically have these two options; 1. Complain about it and be angry and miserable, 2. Do something about it even if it will cost you a bit (maybe lower income???)
So, if all the well educated people prefer to go for option one while they might have resources (physical, intellectual, charsimatical etc) to go for number 2 and make the foreign policy as Petr Robesjek would like them, then are they really the smart ones? Or are they just shortsighted egoists not willing to work for change despite having the resources for it?
I know why you prefer to work in the public sector and in your case I also think I understand why but I wont post it here in public....
This is putting it quite harshly and I know it is not that simple in reality. What I want to say is that I prefer action to bitterness and counting the value of everyone and not only the assumed smart ones....
Everything counts...
PS Why then??? (they say curiousity killed the cat but luckily Im a bitch...)
K tomu citátu od Woodwarda - no nevím, už v roce 1921 generál Mitchell (po kterém pzději pojmenovali B-25) experimentoval s bombardováním lodí a úspěšně potopil například starou bitevní loď Alabama nebo ukořistěnou německou bitevní loď Ostfrieseland... Že by o tom neslyšel? :-) Samozřejmě britský útok na Taranto, který prokázal jaké je to tvrzení blbost (a do značné míry inspiroval Japonce) přišel až v listopadu 1940...
Post a Comment