A while back I wrote a series of posts about the 1998-9 Kosovo conflict. If you’re interested, here they are: Prelude to War, The Serbian Ascendancy, Things Fall Apart, And So To War. This post continues that story up to the unsuccessful Rambouillet peace conference of February-March 1999.
So by early 1999, the Serbian province of Kosovo was the scene of an ugly guerrilla war. Civilian casualties were mounting rapidly. There were bombings and curfews and disappearances. Over 100,000 people were already refugees, and the situation was clearly going to get worse and not better.
There was a concerted effort to solve the problem by holding a peace conference in the spring of 1999. This was the Rambouillet Conference, and its goal was to produce a peace agreement between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians. It failed, leading directly and immediately to the Kosovo War.
Does an unsuccessful peace conference from the previous century hold any lessons? Or is this purely of academic interest?
From the monthly archives:
September 2025
{ 1 comment }
I’m in the midst of doing research, teaching, and outreach activities on a set of questions around economic growth and its relationship to what we value. My research team has Tim Jackson visiting tomorrow, who will give a talk on postgrowth economics and also talk a bit about his new book, The Care Economy. The main claim of that book is that the economy should not be about welfare understood as GDP per capital, with the corresponding economic policy goal being economic growth. Rather, the economy should be about people’s health (using the WHO definition, which I interpret as ‘well-being’), and hence economic policy should be about what we do to preserve and improve our health, which is care – care for ourselves, for others, for the planet including its ecosystems that allows us to live well.
Now, contrast this with the first “mission” taken from the election manifesto of the Dutch VVD, which is the Dutch right-wing party, which sees itself as the defender of classical liberal values, democracy, rule of law and so forth. (note aside: many critical commentators see the VVD increasingly as a populist extreme-right party, but I won’t look into that yawning gap now).
The first mission of the VVD is: Radical Economic Growth. [click to continue…]
{ 28 comments }
A trolley problem, some personal stuff, a bit of Islamic jurisprudence, and then the Honda.
1) Trolley time. Let’s start with the trolley problem. People proposing trolley problems often do them in two parts. First, there’s the anodyne one with the easy answer:
A trolley is rushing down the tracks towards a group of five people. If it hits them, they will die. If you pull a switch, you can divert the trolley onto a different track. There is one person on that track, and they will die instead of the five. Do you pull the switch?
And of course you answer “yes” and then you get sucker-punched with something like this:
Five people are dying of organ failure, from different organs. If they get transplants they will live out their normal lives, Without the transplants, they will die. In front of you is a healthy person who has the organs that they need. If you kill the healthy person you will save the five. Do you kill them?
Okay so on one hand trolley problems can be a legitimate tool for exploring values and morality. There’s a lot of interesting stuff you can unpack with them. But on the other hand these little bait-and-switches can be, frankly, very irritating. They’re set up to put our rationality at war with our intuitions, emotions, and habits of thought.
Yes, that can sometimes be a useful or at least informative exercise. But for most of us, the likely response is going to be less “Hmm, maybe deontological ethics are more appropriate here than a simple utilitarian analysis” and more “Oh, ffs. Now you’re just being ridiculous.”
We’ll return to this shortly. First, a short digression on living green.
[click to continue…]
{ 47 comments }
You’ve probably heard of the “Peter principle”: that employees get promoted until they reach a job they are no longer good at. And in political philosophy, there is a famous dispute between (the camps of) John Rawls and Jerry Cohen about the appropriateness of people in a just society being motivated by money. Last week, reading around about why on earth we organize work life the way we do, I had a eureka moment about how these two are connected.
The Rawls-Cohen debate is about whether within the institutional framework of a just society, it is justified to use monetary incentives – and the ensuing inequalities – in labor markets (and one can add, for the sake of argument, motivation by status, which is usually intertwined with money, even though Carens had famously argued they could, theoretically, be separated). This allows for an efficient labor market allocation that can ultimately benefit the worst-off members of society, some in camp Rawls would say. It is incompatible with an ethos of justice to require a high wage for making a societally useful contribution, Cohen and others would reply (and those are, of course, not the only arguments in this debate).
{ 22 comments }
This weekend has been dedicated to the “reconstitution historique” of 1653 in Pézenas, when the États generaux of Languedoc met in what is now a small town but was then the seat of the Prince de Conti. So, a capital city back then and also a place where Molière used to hang out. There have been processions, music, acrobats, the whole works.
{ 0 comments }
I’m working on a first draft of a book arguing against pro-natalism (more precisely, that we shouldn’t be concerned about below-replacement fertility). That entails digging into lots of literature with which I’m not very familiar and I’ve started using OpenAI’s Deep Research as a tool.
A typical interaction starts with me asking a question like “Did theorists of the demographic transition expect an eventual equilibrium with stable population”. Deep Research produces a fairly lengthy answer (mostly “Yes” in this case) and based on past interactions, produces references in a format suitable for my bibliographic software (Bookends for Mac, my longstanding favourite, uses .ris). To guard against hallucinations, I get DOI and ISBN codes and locate the references immediately. Then I check the abstracts (for journal articles) or reviews (for books) to confirm that the summary is reasonably accurate.
A few thoughts about this.
Mr Magpie has always been a bold friend. He sits at the table with us when we are outside. In the warmer months when we often leave the back door open he walks inside the house, sometimes looking for a snack, but often enough walks all the way through the house, apparently just to say hello.
Mrs Magpie and Magpie Jr are friendly, but less bold. They come and sit near us on the ground, not at the table. And they join Mr Magpie in eating nearby, but they don’t eat with us as he does – insists upon, even.
When there is food the three magpies sing a special song. It starts with one low warble, then the other two join in. The pitch of the warble gets higher and it ends with a long note, in three parts, pleasantly discordant. The song feels like gratitude or celebration to me, but who knows.
Being in relationship with Magpies is just great.
I seem to have become CT’s resident moderate techno-optimist. So let me push back a little: here are five things that we’re not going to see between now and 2050.
1) Nobody is going to Mars. Let me refine that a little: nobody is going to Mars and coming back alive. A one-way suicide mission is just barely plausible.
[spoiler: he does get home]
[click to continue…]
{ 52 comments }
I do these occasional posts about science papers. Some are just for fun. But sometimes — honest! — there’s an underlying connection to the greater Crooked Timber project.
This post is one of that sort, because it’s about the limits of understanding. Unsurprisingly, it involves biology.
So we all learned back in high school that our nerves are sheathed in a coating, like insulation on a copper wire. The coating is made of a special substance called myelin. If your tenth grade biology text mentioned myelin, it probably said something like “myelin allows impulses to flow along the nerves faster and more efficiently”. Which is true! It may also do some other things, but “myelin = faster and more efficient transmission” is what we all learned in sophomore biology back when, and it’s basically correct.
Occasionally something goes wrong, and either the myelin sheath doesn’t form right, or the body’s immune system gets confused and attacks it. This can lead to serious problems, conditions like multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy. Also, newborn babies haven’t finished forming their myelin sheathing yet. That’s why newborns are so very weak and uncoordinated. That magic moment, around the three month mark, where the kid suddenly starts holding up their head, looking around, and intentionally reaching for stuff? That’s when “myelinization” is complete.
[click to continue…]