This part of the AGB2009 series (see the presentation)
AGB2009: BRIDGES
BACKGROUND
I know what some of the locals would say.
But, on an overall “helicopter view”, it is irrelevant.
I had the chance of being a “bridge” between organizations and cultures since at least early 1980s, and I think that we need to say more often what others would like to say, but cannot.
If you look at European history since Middle Age, more than once a country played a “bridging” role between the powers to be.
Peter the Great’s modernization plan was built on attracting foreign talent (to the extent of opening the language to foreign contributions)- to say nothing about the Medicis, or Charlemagne.
I think that most bridging was in the “divide atque impera” mode- and no country has been more successful at that than Great Britain.
But this role is much needed today, to avoid getting into an artificial consensus that overrides long-term realities for short-term gains.
ABSTRACT
Mixing change in politics and business is always a risky affair- and I am not referring to the tulip craze.
Just read the enclosed bibliography.
I might be wrong- but changing a culture requires a long-term view, that sometimes requires more real-politik and less short-term results.
Somebody would say that President Gorbachev damaged the long-term prospects for Russia by conceding on German unification without assurances about NATO expansion- but Soviet Union has always been a bridge between two continents.
And the same applies to Turkey and Israel.
It might well be that US and EU are smaller than the two powers-to-be, India and China- but we both have still the richest markets and largest IPR wealth.
I remember reading that there are more Chinese than Russians in Siberia.
And a long list of grievances about border relationships between Turkey/Israel and their neighbors.
Anyway- most borders were built without really looking at the cultural or “nationhood” issue.
My questions are: why should we keep using the “border issue”, a framework from the XVIII century, to discuss XXI century developments? As in financial markets, shouldn’t the incumbent economic powers use their “intellectual capital” to “seed” bridges- and assure their own long-term sustainability?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This time, the bibliography is a little bit unusual- but, having to stick to the “English only” rule, unfortunately I have to omit some French-only books coming from SciencesPo.
John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell, “The Godfather Doctrine”, 2009 Princeton University Press/dt>
despite the title, and some quirkiness, a short and funny book on what’s next for the foreign policy of the leading superpower
Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, “The Starfish and The Spider”, 2007, Portfolio
about organizational resilience and development; if you are in a hurry, just have a look at page 54 and 55
Dmitri Trenin, “Russia Reborn”, Foreign Affairs November/December 2009
Agree or disagree with the conclusions, the section “Moscow’s attitude adjustment” is quite interesting, advocating a different kind of collaborative real-politik- that, incidentally, has long been the role of language institutes abroad (e.g. from France, Germany, Spain, UK, US, and others)
AGB2009: Bridges
This part of the AGB2009 series (see the presentation)
AGB2009: BRIDGES
BACKGROUND
I know what some of the locals would say.
But, on an overall “helicopter view”, it is irrelevant.
I had the chance of being a “bridge” between organizations and cultures since at least early 1980s, and I think that we need to say more often what others would like to say, but cannot.
If you look at European history since Middle Age, more than once a country played a “bridging” role between the powers to be.
Peter the Great’s modernization plan was built on attracting foreign talent (to the extent of opening the language to foreign contributions)- to say nothing about the Medicis, or Charlemagne.
I think that most bridging was in the “divide atque impera” mode- and no country has been more successful at that than Great Britain.
But this role is much needed today, to avoid getting into an artificial consensus that overrides long-term realities for short-term gains.
ABSTRACT
Mixing change in politics and business is always a risky affair- and I am not referring to the tulip craze.
Just read the enclosed bibliography.
I might be wrong- but changing a culture requires a long-term view, that sometimes requires more real-politik and less short-term results.
Somebody would say that President Gorbachev damaged the long-term prospects for Russia by conceding on German unification without assurances about NATO expansion- but Soviet Union has always been a bridge between two continents.
And the same applies to Turkey and Israel.
It might well be that US and EU are smaller than the two powers-to-be, India and China- but we both have still the richest markets and largest IPR wealth.
I remember reading that there are more Chinese than Russians in Siberia.
And a long list of grievances about border relationships between Turkey/Israel and their neighbors.
Anyway- most borders were built without really looking at the cultural or “nationhood” issue.
My questions are: why should we keep using the “border issue”, a framework from the XVIII century, to discuss XXI century developments? As in financial markets, shouldn’t the incumbent economic powers use their “intellectual capital” to “seed” bridges- and assure their own long-term sustainability?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This time, the bibliography is a little bit unusual- but, having to stick to the “English only” rule, unfortunately I have to omit some French-only books coming from SciencesPo.
Tags: AGB2009, china, european, gorbachev, india, israel, politik, real, russia, turkey, union, usa
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 1st, 2009 at 18:26 and is filed under AGB2009, commentary, everything, publications. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.