He's not here? Why did he enter then?
Please, introduce yourself.
Do we have a microphone?
Yes, but we don't want you to
to lose your voice.
- Now you can whisper.
- Thank you.
I have a few comments. It was
a very interesting debate.
Mr Zizek pointed out the West's
lack of understanding
and our erroneous prediction of what
will happen in Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain.
I have a different view on this.
A change had to occur in this way.
It's not that we were wrong,
the regimes themselves didn't expect it.
And this is the point of "shock change".
A shock was necessary.
Otherwise, the regimes would have
expected it and prepared to it.
In the year 1989 not even the best analyst
had foreseen that the Berlin wall would fall so soon.
These global changes don't occur
gradually, but in leaps, shocks.
About the uneasiness of the West.
We should understand who feels uneasy.
For example, non-governmental organisations
that fight for human rights and changes like this one,
don't feel uneasy. They are glad that
changes occurred. And there are many
non-governmental organisations
who work for this goal.
Governments and the private sector feel uneasy.
Which is normal from an operational point of view.
There are bilateral treaties and agreements,
and it's normal that we take a second look
to see who are we dealing with.
Will the treaties be respected,
will the private sector be able to carry on.
If we consider our own case,
we too had to fight for our
independence.
Because with every such shock/change,
other countries withdraw back a bit
in order to assess the situation,
and then continue with caution.
- Have you a comment?
- Later.
Who is next?
Thanks to all the panellists
for an interesting discussion.
I have a question for Dr Sterbenc.
You pointed out the structural nature of the problem.
Not only state-wise but in general.
I wonder do you have any foresight
in this field of international politics?
And, not to simplify things,
what are the possible implications?
Not sure if I understood you.
You're asking, do I have a foresight into...?
(Foresight into the outcome.)
(incomprehensible)
I can say that these masses
don't have entirely full power.
Even if they have free elections
and independent political forces win,
it won't be in their hands to change things.
You must take into account the financial structure.
Egypt is still economically weak.
It has a structural imbalance between
a too large population
and too few resources.
Hence it is geoeconomically dependent
on foreign markets and resources.
The West holds all the cards.
Am I answering your question?
Concerning the structuralist theory...
One of the principal elements of the theory is
that the periphery is very poorly interconnected.
That's way they remain dependent.
This is certainly true for the Arab world.
Although, politically they knew how to connect.
The Arab League, Arab Nationalism etc.
But in economy there was little
cooperation.
Data show that the Arab world
is the only part of the world
where the least amount of domestic
capital is invested there.
Capital is constantly flowing out
into other investments.
Many Arabs expect of rich oil countries
to help the poor ones,
to have solidarity in the Arab world.
So far I haven't noticed any interest
from rich monarchies, emirates,
to help Egypt, Syria etc.
So, we have this non-cooperation.
Was it anything more? I forgot.
I would like to answer briefly.
I thank you for that critical remark.
I basically agree with you.
However, it's a little more complex.
Beside that surprise, the element of miracle,
those events show an additional stupidity
in the West's view on the Arab countries.
We know it well. I remember it.
Immediately when Milosevic came to power,
you remember when we were in the
committee for the protection of human rights,
we all knew that Milosevic meant war.
And the West didn't come to realize it until the end.
We knew more. That was for me
the horror of the Yugoslav war.
Like the Oedipus tragedy.
Exactly what we have predicted happened.
When I was in Sarajevo then,
they told they knew everything.
A few days before, Sarajevo newspapers published
the exact position of YPA-army cannons in the hills.
What did the West say?
Don't panic, we will take care of it.
The greatest mistake the Bosnians made
was that they trusted the West too much.
Just to finish.
Who really doesn't know?
Look at China. They know it
and are unbelievably frightened.
The regime is... Do you know what is the situation there?
I'm not demeaning their economic development.
When I was there, they told me, officially, that
they have at least 2000 serious incidents a year.
This is their Confucionist Orwellian...
I asked them what does that really mean?
They said that, where the police cannot deal
with the disorder the army intervenes. Many times.
In sum, they know it.
Were can you see that they do?
Maybe you're interested.
A nice detail, my friends showed it to me.
Like every communist country they have
an official "History of the Communist party".
Where you can learn the truth.
In the last edition something extraordinary occured.
A chapter is missing. Which one?
Nothing Stalinist, a fair chapter.
A chapter about the role of the Communist
party in 1920-1930 in Shanghai.
There, before the war with Japan,
there was an economic boom.
Which led to the development of industry
and the rise of the working class.
And the communists did good things there.
They organized strikes ...
This is missing. Because they're afraid
the people might get the wrong idea.
In the sense that they need to do
these things today.
On some level...
How can you say that Mubarak didn't expect it,
when he had a horrific repressive apparatus?
He didn't know it?
- He didn't tell me. - You think he would say,
"Pavel, you are the force of continuity,"
"tell me, how did you open The Department
of State Security, so I can do the same?"
Let's go on.
