SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (17074)2/4/2007 3:41:16 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Robert Conquest's is the softest voice that ever brought down an ideological tyranny.

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Saturday, February 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

PALO ALTO, Calif.--Those who were born in Year One of the Russian Revolution are now entering their 10th decade. Of the intellectual class that got its vintage laid down in 1917, a class which includes Eric Hobsbawm, Conor Cruise O'Brien and precious few others, the pre-eminent Anglo-American veteran must be Robert Conquest. He must also be the one who takes the greatest satisfaction in having outlived the Soviet "experiment."

Over the years, I have very often knocked respectfully at the door of his modest apartment ("book-lined" would be the other standard word for it) on the outskirts of Stanford University, where he is a longstanding ornament of the Hoover Institution. Evenings at his table, marvelously arranged in concert with his wife Elizabeth ("Liddie"), have become a part of the social and conversational legend of visitors from several continents.

I thought I would just check and see how he was doing as 2007 dawned. When I called, he was dividing his time between an exercise bicycle and the latest revision of his classic book "The Great Terror": the volume that tore the mask away from Stalinism before most people had even heard of Solzhenitsyn. Its 40th anniversary falls next year, and the publishers need the third edition in a hurry. Had it needed much of an update? "Well, it's been a bit of a slog. I had to read about 30 or 40 books in Russian and other languages, and about 400 articles in journals and things like that. But even so I found I didn't have to change it all that much."

One of his lifelong friends, the novelist Anthony Powell, once wrote that all classes of Englishmen employ the discourse of irony and understatement. This would itself be an understatement of Mr. Conquest's devastatingly dry and lethal manner, expressed in the softest voice that ever brought down an ideological tyranny. His diffidence made me inquire what else might be keeping him busy. "My publisher wants me to do a book called 'How Not to Write About History,' and I thought, yes. Then I'm doing an essay on the importance of India, and something about the U.N. and internationalism."

I know that he used to serve in the British delegation at the U.N. But India? "My mother was born in Bombay, and I've always been impressed by how Indians have mastered English literature and culture." What about the collection of limericks that he's been promising for a while, in his capacity as the last remaining master of the form after the deaths of his other friends Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin? "I'm getting round to that, but there's first my latest collection of poems, which I'm calling 'Penultimata.' Didn't I mention it? Would you like a copy?" Yes, I would and--oh, what about the memoirs? "Starting tomorrow, when I'm finished with doing 'The Great Terror.' I'm going to try dictating them into this new machine . . . Liddie, what's it called?" Mrs. Conquest--a scholar of English who first told me that Henry James always dictated his novels--comes up with the name of the new voice-activated software. "It's called 'Dragons Naturally Speaking Nine.'" Golly. "Well, my handwriting's pretty bad and my typing is worse," says Mr. Conquest apologetically. That's true enough, as I know, but I can't help thinking that if "Dragons Naturally Speaking Nine" really works, and if it had been available in the 1960s, then the Soviet Union would probably have fallen several years before it actually did.

A history here, an anthology of poems there, an assortment of limericks, a memoir, a lineup of contributions to learned journals and--I forgot to mention--a festschrift of essays in his honor to be edited by the Hungarian-born scholar Paul Hollander. This seems enough to be going on with. Meanwhile, his other great work on the Ukrainian terror-famine of the 1930s, "Harvest of Sorrow," is being produced and distributed, with no profit going to the author, by a Ukrainian charity associated with President Viktor Yushchenko. Is it sweet to be so vindicated? As always, I have to crane slightly to hear the whispery answer. "There was a magazine in Russia called Neva, which found its circulation went up from 100,000 to a million when it serialized 'The Great Terror.' And I later found that at the very last plenum of the Soviet Communist Party, just before the U.S.S.R. dissolved, a Stalinist hack called Alexander Chakovsky had described me as 'anti-Sovietchik No. 1.' I must say I was rather proud of that."

Somewhere in the apartment is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded to Mr. Conquest in 2005 at a ceremony which also featured Aretha Franklin and Muhammad Ali. I have a picture of him sitting next to the Queen of Soul, smiling demurely, having paid his own way to come to Washington. And it comes back to me that he rang me up on the day of President Bush's first inaugural. "Did you see that line in the speech about the angel that rides the storm? Any idea where it's from? I'm sure I know it."

I wasn't able to help, but I knew I would get a later call, which I duly did, identifying the line as coming from John Dryden. All part of the Conquest service. Like the limericks, some of which cannot be reproduced in a family-oriented newspaper but many of which are literary and intellectual mnemonic masterpieces. An instance? His deft compression of the entirety of Shakespeare's "Seven Ages of Man" speech:

First you get puking and mewling
Then very p---ed off with your schooling
Then f---s and then fights
Then judging chaps' rights
Then sitting in slippers--then drooling."


Just as one can never imagine Mr. Conquest raising his voice or losing his temper, so one can never picture him using an obscenity for its own sake. A few years ago he said to me that the old distinctions between left and right had become irrelevant to him, adding very mildly that fools and knaves of all kinds needed to be opposed and that what was really needed was "a United Front against bulls--t."
For all that, his life has been lived among the ideological storms of the 20th century, of which he retains an acute and unique memory. He was himself a communist for a couple of years in the late 1930s, having been radicalized while studying in France and observing events in Spain. "I was even a left deviationist--my best friend was a Trotskyist and when King George V was crowned we decorated the college at Oxford with eight chamberpots painted in red, white and blue." He left the party after asking what the line would be if Chamberlain ever declared war on Hitler, and receiving the reply: "Comrade, it is impossible that the bourgeois Chamberlain would ever declare war on Hitler." This he found "oafish." "I didn't like the word 'impossible.' "

Wartime service in Bulgaria, which made him an eyewitness to Stalin's takeover of the country at the end, was proof positive. From then on, working as a researcher and later as a diplomat for the British Foreign Office, he strove to propose a social-democratic resistance to communism. "I'd always been a Labour man and somewhat on the left until the 1970s, when I met Margaret Thatcher and she asked my advice." That advice--which translated into the now-famous "Iron Lady" speech--was to regard the Soviet system as something condemned by history and doomed to fail. If that sounds easy now, it wasn't then (though Mr. Conquest insists that it was George Orwell who first saw it coming).

Like many people with a natural gift for politics, Mr. Conquest finds that he distrusts those who can talk of nothing else. His affiliations are undogmatic and unfanatical (he preferred Tony Blair over Margaret Thatcher's successor John Major), and he does not bother to turn out at election times. "I'm a dual national who's a citizen of the U.S. and the U.K., so that voting in either place seems rather overdoing it." On the events of today he is always very judicious and reserved. "I have my own opinions about Iraq, but I haven't said a great deal about the subject because I don't know all that much about it."

How often do you hear anyone talking like that? If he had done nothing political, he would still have had a life, and would be remembered as the senior figure of that stellar collection of poets and writers--John Wain, Philip Larkin, Kingsley Amis--who became known in the Britain of the 1950s as "the Movement." Liddie Conquest happens to have written rather authoritatively about this group, though that's not how they met. "I was teaching at the University of Texas in El Paso and he came to give a poetry reading. But it wasn't until I met him later in California that something 'clicked,' as people like to say."

Mrs. Conquest might be described as a force of nature, and also as the wielder of a Texan skillet that yields brisket of a rare and strange tenderness; Anthony Powell in his "Journals" was again committed to understatement when he wrote of her engagement to "Bob" that "she is charming, and he a lucky man."

"I know you meet different lefties from the ones I know," he says, referring obliquely to some recent tussles between your humble servant and the Michael Moore faction. "But I've always been friends with what I call 'the good left.' " In the days of the old Soviet Union, he kept up a solid friendship with the radical Russian scholar Steve Cohen, author of a study of Nikolai Bukharin and husband of Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, and admired his objectivity. "I helped out Scoop Jackson against Kissinger on the Soviet Jewish question. Pat Moynihan helped me get a job at the Wilson Center in Washington in the 1970s."

I remind him that I once introduced him to that other great veteran of the Bay Area, Jessica "Decca" Mitford, and that in the course of a tremendous evening she was enchanted to find that this dreaded friend of Mrs. Thatcher was the only other person she'd ever met who knew all the words to the old Red songbooks, including the highly demanding ditty: "The Cloakmaker's Union Is a No-Good Union," anthem of the old communist garment district. At the close of that dinner I challenged him to write her a limerick on the spot, and he gallantly and spontaneously produced the following:

They don't find they're having to check a
Movement of homage to Decca.
It's no longer fair
To say Oakland's "not there" She's made it a regular Mecca.


The old girl was quite blown away by this tribute, and kept the inscribed napkin as a souvenir.

An agnostic in religion ("did you know that Milton Friedman was an agnostic, too?") Mr. Conquest is likewise suspicious of anything too zealous or systematic in human affairs. He is also refreshingly empirical in his judgments. Asked why he, the great anatomizer and accuser of Stalinism, still regards Nazism as morally worse than the Gulag, he replies mildly but somehow irrefutably: "I simply feel it to be so." In his most recent books, "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" and "The Dragons of Expectation," he goes beyond the usual admonitions against Jacobinism and more recent totalitarian utopias, and argues for "the Anglosphere," that historic arc of law, tradition and individual liberty that extends from Scotland to Australia and takes in the two largest multicultural democracies on the planet--the U.S. and India.

There was a time when this might have seemed quixotic or even nostalgic (at least to me), but when one surveys the wreckage of other concepts, and the increasing difficulties of the only rival "model" in the form of the European Union (of which he was an early skeptic) the notion seems to have a future as well as a past. One very much feels, as one also very much hopes, that the same can be said of the Grand Old Man of Stanford.

Mr. Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.

opinionjournal.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (17074)5/23/2007 12:00:53 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Britain and Russia face diplomatic stalemate over man accused of poisoning Litvinenko
CONOR SWEENEY IN MOSCOW AND GERRI PEEV

BRITAIN and Russia were locked in a diplomatic wrangle last night over the extradition of the man accused of poisoning Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB spy.

British prosecutors yesterday named Andrei Lugovoy, a former spy colleague of Mr Litvinenko, as their prime suspect, calling for him to be extradited immediately from Russia to face murder charges in the UK.

Sir Ken MacDonald, the director of Public Prosecutions, said he had instructed Crown Prosecution lawyers to seek Mr Lugovoy's extradition so he could be "brought swiftly before a court in London".

Mr Litvinenko died of acute radiation injury after ingesting a lethal dose of polonium and suffered a "difficult, fatal illness", Sir Ken said.

"I have concluded that the evidence sent to us by the police is sufficient to charge Andrei Lugovoy with the murder of Mr Litvinenko by deliberate poisoning. I have further concluded that a prosecution of this case would clearly be in the public interest."

But Russian authorities insisted they would not extradite Andrei Lugovoy to Britain because of a clear constitutional ban precluding it.

In a conciliatory gesture, the prosecutor's office in Moscow offered instead to bring a case against Mr Lugovoy if they received sufficient evidence of his role from British authorities.

Later, Downing Street also appeared to hint that there could be room for movement from Moscow, insisting that the emphasis was that there had been no co-operation from Russia "so far".

Mr Lugovoy gave an open-air press briefing on the banks of the Moskva River for Russian media to dismiss as "politically motivated" the murder charges laid against him for the poisoning of Mr Litvinenko in London last November.

He denied any role in Mr Litvinenko's slow death from radioactive polonium.

"I did not kill Litvinenko, have nothing to do with his death and can prove with facts my distrust of the so-called evidence collected by Britain's justice system," he insisted, looking relaxed in the sunshine wearing a casual denim shirt.

Until now, Mr Lugovoy has laughed off the rumours that he would face prosecution for a role in the murder of his former colleague in the KGB.

Now, the Moscow-based businessman will face arrest if he travels abroad, should an international arrest warrant be issued for him by Britain.

Mr Lugovoy had known Mr Litvinenko since they trained together in the KGB academy in the former Soviet Union.

Mr Litvinenko fled Russia four years ago however, claiming his life was in danger after he accused the Russian secret services of plotting to kill the businessman Boris Berezovsky.

He then lived in London in a house owned by Mr Berezovsky, the exiled oligarch who recently called for a revolution to oust president Vladimir Putin from the Kremlin. Mr Lugovoy also had links to Mr Berezovksy, providing security services through his business in the past.

Tony Blair's spokesman said the case was being taken very seriously and stressed that the UK would "not in any way shy away" from trying to ensure justice prevails. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, said she expected "full co-operation", while the Russian ambassador, Yury Fedotov, was summoned to the Foreign Office.

The statement from the Crown Prosecutor's Office demands Mr Lugovoy's extradition for this "extraordinarily grave crime", citing the 1957 European Convention on Extradition.

However, Russia only signed this in 2001, which should mean its constitution, adopted in 1993 after the fall of communism, takes precedence.

The Kremlin has always denied any role in the death of Mr Litvinenko, though he is widely perceived as a traitor within the security services for speaking out against his former colleagues and for taking British citizenship.

• THE tension between London and Moscow over the death of Alexander Litvinenko is just one example of Britain and Russia's worsening relationship.

In Russia, there is anger over Britain "sheltering" exiled tycoons, such as Boris Berezovsky, who has called for a revolution to oust President Vladimir Putin.

Last month, the Russian leader said in Red Square that Russia had enemies "who show the same contempt for human life as in the time of the Third Reich and the same claims to world exclusiveness and diktat".

According to the World Energy Council, Russia now supplies about 40 per cent of the European Union's natural gas. As the West increasingly relies on that energy source, Russia has flexed more muscle on the global stage, objecting to missile defence systems and re-nationalising successful firms. Last year, Shell and its partners were forced to sell half their Sakhalin oil project to Russia's gas export monopoly, Gazprom. The consortium agreed last month to pay hundreds of millions more per year in dividends to Moscow.

Yuri Federov, of the Chatham House think-tank, said: "The European political class and European top echelons are, on the one hand, in a panic about European energy dependence on Russia, and, on the other hand they don't know how to overcome this dependence."

The Litvinenko case was a very small part of a much larger degradation of Russia's relationship with the West, he said.

Related topic

Alexander Litvinenko
news.scotsman.com
This article: news.scotsman.com

Last updated: 22-May-07 00:29 BST



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (17074)10/25/2007 12:45:58 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
It's Your Move
Garry Kasparov's new book offers life lessons from chess.

BY CHRISTOPHER F. CHABRIS
Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Garry Kasparov was the world chess champion from 1985 to 2000, and even after he lost the title he retained his No. 1 ranking on every rating list until his abrupt retirement in early 2005. Since leaving the world of competitive chess he has produced six books on world chess champions and other great players of the past, with more volumes promised. But he has suspended that series for the moment to write what might be best described as a self-help memoir. "How Life Imitates Chess" draws on his own experiences--on and off the chessboard--for lessons on how to succeed in business and in life. Mr. Kasparov himself, it should be said, will need every advantage he can gain from his own advice, since he has recently been nominated for the presidency of Russia by a coalition of disparate opposition parties that he played a large part in unifying. In the election, he will face powerful adversaries who may stop at nothing to thwart him.

"How Life Imitates Chess" is not the first book to compare the game of 64 squares and 32 pieces to the whole of human experience. Mr. Kasparov's rival and predecessor as world champion, Anatoly Karpov, titled his autobiography "Chess Is My Life"--as did Karpov's frequent challenger Viktor Korchnoi. Bobby Fischer, the great American champion, generalized the proposition to "chess is life," and at least in his own case this was true: Over the board he was a genius in full command of events; away from it he became the victim of vicious, paranoid delusions.

Perhaps it is not surprising that world chess champions (and near champions) become so absorbed in the game that it consumes their lives. But Mr. Kasparov's essay on this theme is more audacious than those of his predecessors. He proposes not that chess was his life (though it was), or that chess is like life (all games are, to some extent), but that life is so much like chess that deep insights can be found by comparing the two. In "How Life Imitates Chess" he does just that, recalling some of his games and explaining the most general principles of good chess play, followed by analogies to real-world situations.

Thus leaving a good job to get more education is compared to sacrificing a piece for a better position in a chess game; holding illiquid assets is akin to having more pieces than your opponent, a long-term advantage; and Jack Welch's early strategy for GE was the business equivalent of the chess dictum to focus on improving the position of one's worst pieces. There could be something to these parallels, although one has to wonder whether even chess players think about chess strategies when solving life's problems. What chess can certainly do for life is to train the mind in careful, systematic thinking--and perhaps even to help the mind know when it needs to abandon the path of pure logic.

In a section called "developing the habit of imagination," Mr. Kasparov describes a game against Alexei Shirov in which, rather than retreat his attacked queen, Mr. Kasparov "fantasized" about just continuing his offensive plans without it. After much thought, he sacrificed his queen to increase the activity of his pieces. Shirov could not withstand the added pressure and blundered into a loss. Here Mr. Kasparov draws an unusual lesson from chess: Imagination is valuable, and it is a habit that can be developed. Chess fans, it must be said, may want to hear more about this particular game than this brief anecdote, and readers unfamiliar with chess may not grasp just how difficult Mr. Kasparov's move actually was--and thus why it required a special leap of imagination.

Throughout "How Life Imitates Chess," Mr. Kasparov finds the broader aspects of chess thinking that do indeed apply beyond the game itself. He notes, for instance, that talent and hard work are not necessarily opposing explanations for chess success: The ability to work hard may itself be a talent. He notes the importance of pattern recognition to chess skill and points out how much decision-making happens outside our conscious awareness. And he takes one of the great lessons of the Soviet school of chess--the need to make an analysis of one's own decisions and expose it to outside scrutiny--and urges it as a method for improving unconscious mental processes. His insights are surprisingly thought-provoking and surely possess more value than the bromides of so many business books. "Why did I move my bishop?" may be a question with more lessons for success than "Who moved my cheese?"

In the course of this lesson-giving, Mr. Kasparov touches on many of the most famous moments of his career, including his series of matches against Karpov from 1984 to 1990 and his battles with the Deep Blue chess computer in the 1990s. Concerning Deep Blue, he has barely moderated his stance since he accused IBM of cheating--during the match--by allowing human grandmasters to intervene in the machine's thinking. He still does not understand that it was entirely possible for Deep Blue to make subtle and beautiful moves and still leave Mr. Kasparov an escape--an escape, in the event, that Mr. Kasparov failed to see. He admits to being a sore loser but still hints at an Enron-like conspiracy by IBM to pump up its stock price by rigging a chess match.

As a chess player, Mr. Kasparov was more than just a world champion. "How Life Imitates Chess" provides more evidence that he was, and still is, a great chess intellectual. His career arc resembles that of Reuben Fine, an American grandmaster and brilliant chess writer who in 1948 turned down an invitation to play for the world championship in order to devote himself full-time to the practice of psychoanalysis. As Gilbert Cant wrote in Time magazine many years later, this was a loss for chess and at best a draw for psychology. Mr. Kasparov has achieved more in chess than Reuben Fine, and he has greater ambitions outside chess. If life truly does imitate chess and Mr. Kasparov somehow overcomes the Russian establishment to reach the summit of his new profession, his latest move may have been a winning one for himself, his countrymen and the rest of the world.

Mr. Chabris, a psychology professor at Union College, holds the National Master title in chess. You can buy "How Life Imitates Chess" from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

opinionjournal.com