Translated material
Foreign Library, #5
From the compilers: The boundary between the sacred and the profane , as we know, is no longer the same. On both sides of it there are dilapidated checkpoints, stray dogs and fragments of warning signs: “Don’t go here, otherwise”, etc. No one starts collecting brushwood anymore when they say about the Pope that he condoned fascism. No one reaches out for a medal anymore when they say that he is the last stronghold of democracy. And yet, the paradoxes of the abstract have not yet been fully transplanted onto the soil of everyday life: when thinking about the Balkans, no one refers to the categorical imperative , and even when it comes to human rights, they prefer to remember the economic doctrine of the Clinton administration rather than the classics of the Enlightenment. Perhaps the modern observer gets the opportunity to reflect on the enduring only by getting behind the wheel of a bicycle - the very one that they still have no time to invent.
The Case of Pius XII by Judith Shulevitz
If the hero of Vysotsky’s famous song knew what it really was like to be the Pope, his desire to share the papal throne with his girlfriend would be significantly reduced. Not only are popes subject to severe criticism from the public during their lifetime (for example, the current one did not please progressively-minded humanity with his criticism of condoms), the public does not leave them alone either after death or even after canonization. Pius XII is accused of collaboration and condoning the massacre of Jews. Having not even become the sinless Pope, he, as the Vatican Secretary of State, concluded a concordat in 1933 with Hitler who had come to power, thereby legitimizing the latter’s power in the eyes of Catholics and completely depriving the ranks of the internal German resistance of religiously motivated fighters. Since there was practically no one to protect the poor Pope, the Jews themselves stood up for him: Hannah Arendt explained the Pope’s official miscalculations by the excessive bureaucracy of the Vatican - the Pope was so mired “in papers and prayers” that he did not find time to look out the window, right under which the mass arrest of Jews took place .
Quote: “The usual charges against Pius XII are that he had a soft spot for Hitler and therefore maintained diplomatic relations with the Nazis throughout the war. He failed to declare his opposition to their atrocities even in the now famous phrase he uttered when Catholic Jews were rounded up right outside his windows. Compare this, say his opponents, with his attitude towards the Communists, whom he hated, condemned and excommunicated. His defenders respond by pointing out that Pius XII did speak out on this matter, although he spoke the most general words, and simply could not allow himself to be more specific for fear of bringing reprisals on those whom he was trying to protect."
Order a full translation of an article?Viceroy of God against the servants of the people
Papacy and Power by George Weigel
Quote: “Contrary to all the concepts that have become generally accepted since the end of the eighteenth century, the social influence of John Paul II proves that politics (understood as the struggle for power), like economics, like various combinations of politics and economics, is not the only and main driver of history The revolution of conscience that John Paul kindled in June 1979 in Poland - the moral revolution that made possible the revolution of 1989 - is simply inexplicable in generally accepted political-economic categories. John Paul's social activities created an empirical basis for intellectual and moral polemics with the most powerful political theories of our time ", including French revolutionary Jacobinism, Marxism-Leninism and utilitarianism. It turned out that the political world simply does not work the way materialists imagine."
Unlike Pius XII, John Paul II not only has not yet died, but has already managed to gain a reputation as an evangelical Pope, acting not according to traditions and institutions, but solely according to his conscience. It is not known how much Karol Wojtyla himself would have been satisfied with comparisons with Solovyov and Solzhenitsyn and the attribution of his innovation to the properties of a particularly sensitive Slavic soul - apparently, it was precisely out of fear that his fantasies on this topic had gone too far that the author suggests not writing off the success of the pontificate of John Paul II solely on his personal charisma and pay attention to the principles that guide the Pope in his activities. There are three of them: special papal sovereignty, which allows the Holy See to participate equally in international organizations and meetings in the absence of any dependence on any state; active participation in the creation of civil society by referring to a power other than the state (deriving his authority from God, and not from sovereigns, the Pope thereby introduces the principle of pluralism into public life); unconditional refusal to play “realpolitik”. By following these three principles, the Holy Church, as a special institution, and under another Pope, can achieve the same public success. The only question is whether the next Pope will follow them. Or - in a more general form - a discussion about the role of the church in society turns, like any discussion about society, into a question that has long been ingrained in the teeth about the authority responsible for social changes: who actually makes them, an individual or an institution?
Order a full translation of an article?Balkan cherry orchard and Washington aunt's money
New Balkan Policy Needed by Robert D. Greenberg
Quote: "Congress has threatened to cut off material assistance to Yugoslavia if Belgrade refuses to hand over Milosevic and other war crimes defendants to the international tribunal in The Hague. The United States resumed providing material assistance to Yugoslavia after the arrest of Milosevic by the Serbian military. However, Secretary of State Colin Powell insists that Yugoslavia must "to cooperate fully" with the military tribunal in The Hague if it needs additional international economic assistance. Such an ultimatum is counterproductive. The Kostunica government needs a much longer period of time to establish full control in Serbia and destroy the Milosevic political machine that reigns supreme in the country "for more than thirteen years. Instead of jeopardizing good relations with Yugoslavia by pointing out its past mistakes on the issue of war criminals, Washington should prioritize the problems of the present."
The author of the material, a professor of Slavic studies at the University of North Carolina, like any professor, wants to make only undeniable judgments. The best way to achieve this is to limit your statements to truisms. The United States does not have a clearly defined Balkan policy; The United States does not match its verbal support for the Macedonian government with any financial assistance; The United States continues to habitually support the Albanians, despite their bad behavior, and continues to quarrel with the Serbs, despite the fact that Kostunica, unlike Milosevic, is a man deeply committed to the ideals of democracy; The United States does not want to deal with Balkan problems at all, considering this a matter for European politicians. It's hard to argue with all this, because it's all true. One can only argue with the author’s conviction that with a change in the position of the United States, something will change in the situation in the Balkans. For greater clarity, let’s try to imagine what would have changed in the fate of Chekhov’s cherry orchard if the Yaroslavl aunt, having clearly formulated her financial policy, had sent the necessary money. Nothing. The money would have gone either to support the Social Democratic movement represented by Petit and Anya, or to buy champagne for the author of the telegrams from Paris. Because the problem was not the cherry orchard at all. Each had their own deeply personal problem. And the Yaroslavl aunt behaved very sensibly. I would like to wish the same to Western politicians. In this case, the measure of their soundness would consist in recognizing the simple fact that the problem of the Balkans is not at all about establishing peace, but about interethnic conflicts that cannot be resolved by financial injections and military presence. If Serbs, Albanians, Croats, Bosnians, Macedonians and Montenegrins want to sort things out among themselves, no money and no bombs from “disinterested observers” will prevent them from doing so. And Washington Auntie should have remained silent.
Order a full translation of an article?Rights and people: a new configuration
The Bush Administration and Human Rights by Neil Hicks
Question: which state on the world political stage is the most zealous defender of human rights? Answer options: 1. Luxembourg; 2. USA; 3. Iraq. However, everything is not so simple. Now the Americans themselves (and, of course, they were meant) are somewhat puzzled: the fight for human rights was such a frequently used trump card that Clinton kept up his sleeve that a legitimate question arises: will Bush play with a new deck?
Quote: " The defining aspect of the Clinton administration's foreign policy was economic issues. Human rights figured prominently within that policy, which promoted that the success of political freedom was linked to economic freedom and that the rule of law and the protection of fundamental freedoms were the foundations of an effective economy. Open This doctrine was further promoted following the Asian economic crisis in 1997, when explicit links were drawn between corrupt and oppressive governments and faltering economies. This approach saw human rights being brought into discussions about trade and economic relations as never before. " .
However, the newly elected President Bush, even during his election campaign, criticized the unrestrained peacekeeping activity of the Clinton administration. It is not yet clear whether large-scale changes will be made in US foreign policy, but it is already clear that the way problems are discussed is undergoing a metamorphosis. However, in this case, Bush will be forced to face a number of theoretical problems: the place that was previously assigned to human rights not only depended on a very specific policy, but was also justified “philosophically” (as they like to say overseas). So it seems that we are in for new revelations about the state of nature and the social contract, as well as about moral sense and alienation. The public is in anticipation.
Order a full translation of an article?About good mistakes in a bad election campaign
Liberal Loss or Progressive Mandate by Will Marshall
Americans could not count the votes of their fellow citizens for so long after the presidential election that during this time journalists managed to write a lot of homework about the election results, without saying anything about these results themselves (due to their - at that time - uncertainty). Some of these preparations continue to be published to this day. This and only this can explain the fact that the article analyzing the failures of the Gore election campaign contains only a description of Clinton's successes. Or is it simply that with such an unobvious loss one can make extremely successful mistakes?
Quote: " Despite all the populism, the 2000 presidential campaign divided Americans not along class lines, but rather along cultural lines. Living conditions, family, religion, positions on abortion and gun ownership - these factors influenced voter behavior more than their income "Undoubtedly, the Clinton scandal contributed to the issue of 'moral decline' becoming a key issue. However, it is also true that during the Clinton-Gore administration, Democrats made significant progress in adapting their party to the ideals of traditional social and cultural values ."
Order a full translation of an article?Metaphysics of bicycle helmets
Over Their Heads by Jacob Sullum
Hegel also noticed that representatives of English-speaking peoples are distinguished by extreme sanity. This means that they tend to reduce philosophical reasoning to completely everyday problems and, conversely, to see any everyday thing in its rational-philosophical context. And really any. For example, a bicycle helmet.
The fact is that the New York City Council first legislated for children under 14 to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle, and then extended this requirement to those who ride a scooter. What about downhill skating? - asks the author of the article. How about playing hopscotch and jumping rope? What about the swing? - it's just a nightmare. In the end, you can fall off the sofa, says the author, confirming his arguments with inexorable statistics.
Quote: "Obviously, the surest way to avoid bicycle-related injuries is to avoid bicycles, but most of us would be unlikely to require this of our parents because cycling is generally agreed to provide benefits that outweigh the associated benefits." On the contrary, allowing a child to ride a bicycle without a helmet - which until recently was universal practice - is now seen as a form of neglect.
It's not that parents are now more aware of the risk - they are no longer inclined to tolerate it. Increased prosperity, decreased fertility and the tendency to have children later in life make us more concerned about our offspring. This trend cannot be stopped, but we would probably do well to think about the extent to which we want to follow it.”
Order a full translation of an article?Material prepared by Peter and Olga Serebryany