"Kirjailijoiden tapaus" Venäjällä vuonna 1997

In the autumn of 1997, Russian government was faced with media pressure when owners of the TV channels ORT and NTV joined forces against it. This study is based on media sources from October 1997 to December 1997. It shows clearly how the enormous power of the media was able to dictate what happened in Russia. In the mid-1990s Russians started to talk about political technology, which became a commonly used term by professionals, journalists, politicians and intelligence services. As a result of this action, two leading reformers in the government, Anatoliy Chubais and Boris Nemtsov, were dismissed from their highly influential posts as finance and energy ministers respectively, but retained their power as first deputy prime ministers. According to the correspondents, the real reason was to resolve a conflict within the parliament, which had demanded the dismissal of Mr. Chubais. This demand was presented after Chubais had accepted $90,000 as a reward for co-writing a book on privatization. Chubais was considered to be Russia’s “business card” towards the west – the"Authors’ case" (Delo avtorov) was only solved after President Boris Yeltsin took part in the public debate. According to the research, the media owned by powerful businessmen Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinski, was able to use its own security services to expose sensitive material (Russian term ‘kompromat’), if necessary, concerning any given person. The so-called Authors’ case can be considered as a part of the battle and the tip of the iceberg in arrangements designed to organize the funding of the Russian presidential election campaign in 2000. The reason why this particular incident was so widely covered on television was because several programs aimed to reveal to the public "hidden bribes" that, as they claimed, government officials had received. The political aspect, however, was quite mild, when the concrete issues of possible dismissals of Ministers were debated in the Parliament. Everything was dealt with as a “family matter” inside Kremlin. Yeltsin's "family" consisted of practically anybody from oligarch Berezovsky to Chubais, the father of Russia's privatization policy. Methods of critical history implementation analysis has been used in this research in determining the use of the source material. Literature and interviews have also provided a good base for the study. The study proves that any literature dealing with the subject has not paid enough attention to how the dismissal of Alexander Kazakov, deputy of President’s administration, was linked directly with Gazprom, the state gas monopoly. Kazakov had to leave Gazprom and lose his position as Chubais' ally when the influential ORT television company was deteriorated.

Is prosopis a curse or a blessing? : An ecological economic analysis of an invasive alien tree species in Sudan.

The issue of the usefulness of different prosopis species versus their status as weeds is a matter of hot debate around the world. The tree Prosopis juliflora had until 2000 been proclaimed weedy in its native range in South America and elsewhere in the dry tropics. P. juliflora or mesquite has a 90-year history in Sudan. During the early 1990s a popular opinion in central Sudan and the Sudanese Government had begun to consider prosopis a noxious weed and a problematic tree species due to its aggressive ability to invade farmlands and pastures, especially in and around irrigated agricultural lands. As a consequence prosopis was officially declared an invasive alien species also in Sudan, and in 1995 a presidential decree for its eradication was issued. Using a total economic valuation (TEV) approach, this study analysed the impacts of prosopis on the local livelihoods in two contrasting irrigated agricultural schemes. Primarily a problem-based approach was used in which the derivation of non-market values was captured using ecological economic tools. In the New Halfa Irrigation Scheme in Kassala State, four separate household surveys were conducted due to diversity between the respective population groups. The main aim was here to study the magnitude of environmental economic benefits and costs derived from the invasion of prosopis in a large agricultural irrigation scheme on clay soil. Another study site, the Gandato Irrigation Scheme in River Nile State represented impacts from prosopis that an irrigation scheme was confronted with on sandy soil in the arid and semi-arid ecozones along the main River Nile. The two cases showed distinctly different effects of prosopis but both indicated the benefits to exceed the costs. The valuation on clay soil in New Halfa identified a benefit/cost ratio of 2.1, while this indicator equalled 46 on the sandy soils of Gandato. The valuation results were site-specific and based on local market prices. The most important beneficial impacts of prosopis on local livelihoods were derived from free-grazing forage for livestock, environmental conservation of the native vegetation, wood and non-wood forest products, as well as shelterbelt effects. The main social costs from prosopis were derived from weeding and clearing it from farm lands and from canalsides, from thorn injuries to humans and livestock, as well as from repair expenses vehicle tyre punctures. Of the population groups, the tenants faced most of the detrimental impacts, while the landless population groups (originating from western and eastern Sudan) as well as the nomads were highly dependent on this tree resource. For the Gandato site the monetized benefit-cost ratio of 46 still excluded several additional beneficial impacts of prosopis in the area that were difficult to quantify and monetize credibly. In River Nile State the beneficial impact could thus be seen as completely outweighing the costs of prosopis. The results can contributed to the formulation of national and local forest and agricultural policies related to prosopis in Sudan and also be used in other countries faced with similar impacts caused by this tree.

Political transition and structural politicisation : The long shadow of Taiwan's one-party legacy

Väitöskirjatutkimuksessa tarkastellaan Taiwanin politiikkaa ensimmäisen vaalien kautta tapahtuneen vallanvaihdon jälkeen (2000) yhteiskunnan rakenteellisen politisoitumisen näkökulmasta. Koska Taiwanilla siirryttiin verettömästi autoritaarisesta yksipuoluejärjestelmästä monipuoluejärjestelmään sitä on pidetty poliittisen muodonmuutoksen mallioppilaana. Aiempi optimismi Taiwanin demokratisoitumisen suhteen on sittemmin vaihtunut pessimismiin, pitkälti yhteiskunnan voimakkaasta politisoitumisesta johtuen. Tutkimuksessa haetaan selitystä tälle politisoitumiselle. Yhteiskunnan rakenteellisella politisoitumisella tarkoitetaan tilannetta, jossa ”poliittisen” alue kasvaa varsinaisia poliittisia instituutioita laajemmaksi. Rakenteellinen politisoituminen muuttuu helposti yhteiskunnalliseksi ongelmaksi, koska siitä usein seuraa normaalin poliittisen toiminnan (esim. lainsäädännän) jähmettyminen, yhteiskunnan jyrkkä jakautuminen, alhainen kynnys poliittisille konflikteille ja yleisen yhteiskunnallisen luottamuksen alentuminen. Toisin kuin esimerkiksi Itä-Euroopassa, Taiwanissa entinen valtapuolue ei romahtanut poliittisen avautumisen myötä vaan säilytti vahvan rakenteellisen asemansa. Kun valta vaihtui ensimmäisen kerran vaalien kautta, vanha valtapuolue ei ollut valmis luovuttamaan poliittisen järjestelmän ohjaksia käsistään. Alkoi vuosia kestänyt taistelu järjestelmän hallinnasta vanhan ja uuden valtapuolueen välillä, jossa yhteiskunta politisoitui voimakkaasti. Tutkimuksessa Taiwanin yhteiskunnan politisoituminen selitetään useiden rakenteellisten piirteiden yhteisvaikutuksen tuloksena. Tällaisia politisoitumista edistäviä rakentellisia piirteitä ovat hidas poliittinen muutos, joka säilytti vanhat poliittiset jakolinjat ja niihin liittyvät vahvat edut ja intressit; sopimaton perustuslaki; Taiwanin epäselvä kansainvälinen asema ja jakautunut identiteetti; sekä sosiaalinen rakenne, joka helpottaa ihmisten nopeaa mobilisointia poliittiisiin mielenilmauksiin. Tutkimuksessa kiinnitetään huomiota toistaiseksi vähän tutkittuun poliittiseen ilmiöön, joidenkin demokratisoituvien yhteiskuntien voimakkaaseen rakenteelliseen politisoitumiseen. Tutkimuksen pääasiallinen havainto on, että yksipuoluejärjestelmän demokratisoituminen kantaa sisällään rakenteellisen politisoitumisen siemenen, jos entinen valtapuolue ei romahda demokratisoitumisen myötä.

We Are All Georgians : The Neoconservative Narrative on the Russia-Georgia War

In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washington's response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a “neoconservative narrative” that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as “threat texts” and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.

We Are All Georgians: The Neoconservative Narrative on the Russia-Georgia War

In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washington's response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a “neoconservative narrative” that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as “threat texts” and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.