Thanks, George.  I use to *be* a diplomat which may explain my
non-cream status! ;-).

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

In the last mail Charles said:
>
> On Fri, 4 Nov 1994 20:53:00 -0500 > said:
> >A friend of mine from England reminded me through private mail that I was
> >wrong on the number of channels BBC owns. Apparently, BBC has two channels.
>
> --Not that it matters, but there are four regularly available channels
> in the UK (not counting satellite broadcasts and cable)  The BBC has three
> and the other is independent.  Several regional companies broadcast on the
>
Not that it matters, I agree, but the BBC has two channels and there are
two independent networks.

--
Nigel Swain: 
Tel: +44 (0)151 794 2422; Fax: +44 (0)151 794 2423
Centre for Central and Eastern European Studies, University of Liverpool
11 Abercromby Square, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

On Sun, 6 Nov 1994 23:12:02 GMT > said:
>
>it seems to me that the difference between american and english is great
>enough
>to consider them as distinct but related languages, rather than simply
>different
>dialects.
>
--Oh come now, imi.  This is too much.  It's true that I can't understand
broad Yorkshire, but neither can people from the south of England.  I
have spent a little time in England and never really had a problem.

>not only is there a divergence in spelling and vocabulary, but also
>increasingly
>in syntax and grammar as well. in america, when i asked "how are you?",
>the
>usual response was to boast of sexual prowess rather than to tell me
>about the person's
>state of health and being.

--In living in America for 63 years, I've never had this experience.
You must have spent your time here hanging around redneck pubs.  You're
making this sound as if were standard American practice.
>
>i think you'll find that that is not true. i do not know how strong the
>church of england is in the usa, and certainly most religious christians
>i know deny the "christianity" of other
>varieties of christianity.

--The C of E only has about 3 million members here.  And the religious
Christians that you meet must be an interesting lot.  There are a few
sects that take the position that you describe, but I find it is
hard to accept as a generalization for everyone's experience.

 roman catholics are not notorious for their
>appreciation of the various orthodox and protestant varieties of
>christianity and vice versa.
>
--Even this has changed since the papacy of Paul I.

                        hawaii from the rest of the usa,

--Didn't Hawaii ask for statehood?

--And we are all going to get flamed, since this has strayed a long
ways from Hungary.

Charles

On Mon, 7 Nov 1994 09:19:33 +0000 Dr. N.J. Swain said:
>>
>Not that it matters, I agree, but the BBC has two channels and there are
>two independent networks.
>
--Oops!  Are both channels 3 and 4 independent?  I've been gone awhile.

Charles

George Antony writes:

> We [George & Glen] obviously do not agree and will not convince
> each other.

I wonder if Glen would kindly respond to your prescription for the
Balkans.  Granted you may disagree about the "disease's" cause, does
he perhaps agree on the treatment?

> Yes, I too enjoyed the exchange and hope to read more from you in HUNGARY
> on other issues too.

me too.


--Greg

Imi Bokor writes in relation to the Balkans (text deleted)

Please add the History of the Medieval Balkans to the History of the US
that needs to be further studied.

Jeliko.

While, it is difficult to add to George Antony's discussion, the quotes
from various prior politicians quoted by others cause me to smile and
remember the most appropriate one from Chamberlain, which is very true for
most current British, French and even American politicos, the one about a
"far away country about which we know very little". There seem to be a
number of these countries in Central Europe. However, the lack of
knowledge never seems to stop them from meddling when it is not needed and
retreating to lipservice when they could actually help. Well, at least
tomorrow I can vent some of my anger at the ones who gave me stupid
responses in prior correspondance.

Regards,Jeliko.

Greg writes:

> 2
> I've seen sentiments here along the lines that President Clinton
> is showing signs of improvement lately in foreign policy.  I
> feel the same, but--surprise!--not everyone does.  Charles
> Krauthammer (sp?) in Time excoriated Clinton's trip to Damascus
> and his handling of the North Korean nuclear crisis.  He felt
> the US paid an extremely high price (prestige and legitimacy in
> the one case, hard cash to the tune of billions in the other) and
> got nothing real back.  Haiti he dismissed as irrelevant to our
> real foreign policy goals, Kuwait he ignored or I missed it.

> --Greg
To paraphrase Will Rogers "the US foreign policy is an open book, mostly an
open checkbook". I prefer the older policy of nothing paid to Tripoli,
except a visit.....

Regards,Jeliko.

On Mon, 7 Nov 1994 19:27:18 GMT JELIKO said:
>While, it is difficult to add to George Antony's discussion, the quotes
>from various prior politicians quoted by others cause me to smile and
>remember the most appropriate one from Chamberlain, which is very true for
>most current British, French and even American politicos, the one about a
>"far away country about which we know very little".

--I apologize, but I've been drinking gin and I have to horn in for a
minute.  I am old enough to remember the newsreels of Chamberlain holding
that goddam paper aloft and assuring us that we would have "peace in our
time."  While I don't see the likelihood of a general war over the Balkans,
it is clear that the area remains a troubled place.  I think that George
Anthony has captured the issues very well.  I must admit, however, that I
have a lingering fear of the Germans.  Everytime they have gotten together,
other powers have had to sort them out.  Please don't discount this as
paranoia.

Charles

Joe Pannon wrote:

>I've been getting this feeling quite some time now
>that the real movers and shakers in Washington must be looking back
>fondly to the cold war days when they only had to deal with the
>Sovietunion, instead of all her component parts today.

Definitely.  This applies to all the foriegn offices/ministries of
the Western powers, in my view, and its root is 'the devil you know'
mentality.

>I can sense that
>quietly they are already working hand-in-hand with the Russian
>hardliners in rebuilding the old empire of the East.  And disarming
>Ukraine is part of that.

Perhaps it is lack of imagination and stuck-in-the-mud thinking on my
part, but I am not sold on this conspiracy.  I think it is mostly a
lamentable extent of ignorance on part of the state-department decision
makers of lesser countries.  They prefer dealing with large powers,
where visits make international headlines, not bothering with dozens of
poxy little upstarts who keep upsetting the convenient status quo, make
maps a mess and impose on the bureaucrats' memory with new names of
capital cities, presidents, etc. to remember.  Hence, they tend
to be fixated on the biggest country in the region (except where US
strategic interests are at stake, e.g., Kuwait), lavish their attention
on her  and ignore the rest.  Perhaps a little more, too: while trying to
develop some relationship with the biggest bully in the region, a local
version of the Munro doctrine is afforded to her automatically, perhaps in
return to accepting a US sphere of influence in America.  While there was
a Soviet Union, State-Department bigwigs dealt with that and were baffled by
her dissolution. Now it is a Russia-only foreign policy.  They were caught
just as flat footed with x-Yugoslavia, and the well-publicized resignations
of a number of specialist in the State Department were the jolt, together
with some old-fashioned US idealism about justice, partly ridden by
Clinton for electoral purposes, that caused a change in that region.

>After that, I would not give big odds for
>Ukraine being still independent in the year 2000.

I think it all depends on the Ukrainians.  If they manage to get their
act together economically, the Russian minority will be much less dis-
affected, and there will be less scope for meddling by Russia.  At the
moment, Russia is still bankrolling the Ukraine through delivering
oil and gas without being paid.

>Same goes for Belarus
>and most of the other former Soviet republics.

The Belorussians effectively decided to return to the fold, only the
Russian Central Bank doesn't want having to subsidize that bundle of
economic misery and incompetence.  The other x-Soviet republics: those
that need Russia will be pulled ever closer (Armenia, Georgia), those
that can stand on their feet are much less impressionable (Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan, Baltic states).  Turkey is also a thorn in Russia's
side by trying to form a kind of a Turkish Commonwealth to reorient
Turkish-speaking countries politically (a good project, I wish it
had US support).

>What I am not quite sure
>yet is the fate awaiting Hungary and the other former satellites.  I
>would be far more optimistic if they were quickly brought under the
>umbrella of EU and Nato.

Definitely, the quickest possible integration into Western structures
is the only way to counter Russian influence.  Economic development,
rising living standards and Western-style social structures are the
precondition for that.  These also make countries more stable and less
amenable to outside meddling: this is what the Albanians are trying
to do, although they have no chance of EU or NATO membership.

Unfortunately, Serbia will be a bastion of Russian influence just on
Hungary's doorstep until they change their national orientation from
paranoid machismo to decent, Western-style money-grubbing.  Alas,
Romania seems to be deteriorating into the other red-brown state
now that they ceased to be the focus of Western attention.  I still
have hopes for Slovakia: Meciar's problems with forming a government
indicate that Slovak society has a non-trivial anti-nationalist section.

>From what I can see, so does Germany.  Not so the others.

Sadly, right on.  I had better not keep repeating my opinion about
the UK and France.  But I concede Andras Kornai's point that a more
balanced political orientation would be desirable for Hungary than a
German-only one.

George Antony

ibokor writes:

>>apply all the more so to the independence of catalonia from spain, the
>>basque country from spain
>>hawaii from the rest of the usa,
>>i asked  whether those supporting
>>such a separation in the case of yugoslavia would be as enthusiastic in
>>the other cases.

In every case for the above, my answer is yes. Since I feel that freedom
is the most important consideration.
You can add Quebec from Canada. I hope it will not happen, but the french
do have the right to separate, if they want to. Union always should be
voluntary, never by force.

Sandor

Imi Bokor writes in connection with the discussion on the breakup of
Yugoslavia, and the common language, the Serbo-Croatian, of Croats, Serbs,
and Bosnians

>it seems to me that the difference between american and english is great
>enough
>to consider them as distinct but related languages, rather than simply
>different
>dialects.

And let's add Australian English. That must be the reason why Imre Bokor and
I don't understand each other: he speaks the Australian dialect and I the
American, mixing it a little with the Canadian variety.

Eva Balogh