A Arte de Governar

by Margaret Thatcher

Deseja entender como as ações de Margaret Thatcher contribuíram para o colapso da União Soviética e a ascensão do neoliberalismo?

Descubra isso e muito mais nas páginas de "A Arte de Governar", a obra escrita pela Dama de Ferro.

Este livro oferece uma visão única das perspectivas políticas, internacionais e econômicas de Thatcher, explorando sua abordagem conservadora em relação a essas questões fundamentais.

Junte-se ao Clube Ludovico e garanta agora o seu exemplar de "A Arte de Governar" de Margaret Thatcher.

Uma leitura essencial para aqueles que desejam compreender o impacto de uma das figuras políticas mais influentes do século XX.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Political Science, Biography, International Relations, Government

464 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

British politician Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher from 1979 served; measures against inflation, a brief war in the Falkland Islands in 1982, and the passage of a poll tax marked her prime administration to 1990.

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts) of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. She was the first and to date only woman to hold either post.

She went to read chemistry at Somerville College, Oxford. She was selected as Conservative candidate for Finchley in 1958 and took her seat in the House of Commons in the following year of 1959. Upon the election of Edward Heath in 1970, people appointed Thatcher as secretary of state for education and science. In 1974, she backed Sir Keith Joseph for the Conservative party leader, but he fell short and afterward dropped out the race. Thatcher entered and led the Conservative party in 1975. She defiantly opposed the Soviet Union, and her tough-talking rhetoric gained her the nickname the "iron lady." As the Conservative party maintained leads, Thatcher went in the general election of 1979.

The longest tenure of Thatcher the longest since that of Lord Salisbury and was the longest continuous period in office since the tenure of Lord Liverpool in the early 19th century. This first woman led a major party in the United Kingdom and held any of the four great offices of state. After her resignation, she was ennobled as Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire, which entitled her to sit in the House of Lords. During her tenure, she needed sleep of just four hours in a night.

Reviews

[Kempite · Rating 5 out of 5]

"...Conservatives have excellent credentials to speak about human rights. By our efforts, and with precious little help from self-styled liberals, we were largely responsible for securing liberty for a substantial share of the world's population and defending it for most of the rest." -- Margaret Thatcher, P. 249

That quote from the book is probably the best way to sum up all of its more than 400 pages.

In Statecraft, Thatcher reveals an unapologetic plea for the application of common sense conservatism to the problems facing our world and Thatcher does so in a way like few others ever have or will.

[Mirau · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read a few chapters every now and then, and I think that this book is very insightful for understanding how Thatcher thinks about IR and history. But her thinking along the lines of security run risk to inspire difficult prescriptions for present-day problems.

[Chin Joo · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title of this book is a little of a misnomer. I was expecting a book that would discuss a craft, but instead got one that is more of Mrs Thatcher's beliefs and reflections of how Britain should have and should relate to other countries, and in particular Europe. She clearly has a strong opinion and cannot be described as idealistic, where peace is concerned. She is of the opinion that peace can only be maintained when power is in the hands of the 'good guys', which she made clear in the book to mean the USA and to a lesser degree, the UK. Europe would not become a power to be reckoned with, particularly with France's belligerent attitude. It's not a bad book if you are hoping to get her worldview, but not one if you hope to learn about statecraft, and even then, many of her comments have been over-taken by events. The book being published slightly after 9/11 has missed other important event such as the Iraq war of 2003, the 2008 financial crisis, and the more recent IPCC reports on the climate. But perhaps more importantly, she would not have a chance to judge the new Prime Minister's performance, the next Conservative Prime Minister immediately after her. Has he held the same line as her?

[MichaelK · Rating 3 out of 5]

'Statecraft' (2002) is Margaret Thatcher's third and final book. It contains her analysis of international trends and advice for politicians who'll have to deal with them: her 'Strategies for a Changing World.' I have no doubt this book was influential on many young policy wonks and politicos, especially those who wanted to build on Thatcher's legacy.

In 'Newswipe', Charlie Brooker compared watching the news to 'episode 389 of the world's most complex soap opera': events and characters are presented without their historical context, crises are reported on when they explode, not during their sometimes decades-long build up, making them seem random, chaotic, and unpredictable. I remember a joke (but not where it's from) about how every time the news reports on crises in the Middle East, to provide appropriate context the report should go back to at least the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, if not all the way back to the Crusades.

If America wasn't the global superpower, if it was country with only minor global weight, we might have heard very little about the Trump presidency until the storming of the Capitol - this may have made the event seem random, out-of-nowhere. As it is, Trump's America has been regularly reported on for the last four years, and we have seen the steady build up leading to last week's event. It was not random; many people predicted something like this happening.

The first half of 'Statecraft' is part analysis of trends in different world regions, and partly Thatcher sharing experiences from trips abroad, complete with holiday photos. One photo is captioned: 'Walkabout with Boris Nemtsov through the centre of Nizhny Novgorod.' Her analyses contain premonitions of things which came to pass. None of it is startlingly prophetic, but it shows how our current crises were visible on the horizon decades ago, to those paying attention to foreign affairs.

She warns of 'potentially serious disputes' between Russia and Ukraine, 'especially as regards the fate of the Black Sea fleet and the future of Crimea', and between the more anti-Russian West Ukraine and the more pro-Russian East Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014; since then, the Ukrainian Civil War, between the Ukrainian nationalists of the West and the Russia-backed separatists of the East, is ongoing.

In an entertaining chapter on her visits to China, she comes across as someone fucking sick of CCP bullshit:

'He tried to argue that democracy had failed in the West, because it had not sufficiently advanced the role of women. I looked hard at him and he moved nervously onto other ground.'

She warns that the CCP is acting really sus around the Uighur population - they may get up to some dodgy stuff and 'will undoubtedly try to justify their repression as an aspect of the war against terrorism. We should not fall for this ploy.'

Thatcher was Prime Minister during the first Iraq War, and in her memoirs directly compares Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to Hitler's earliest expansionist experiments, which were tolerated by Western leaders hoping to avoid war. She feared that if Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait wasn't met with an appropriately punishing response, he'd be encouraged to make further invasions, potentially throwing the whole region into war. In his memoirs, Blair shares this view: he, too, does not want to be remembered as a 21st century Chamberlain who failed to stop Iraq's Hitler. So it is no surprise that in 'Statecraft' Thatcher says, 'There will be no peace and security in the region until Saddam Hussein is toppled.'

Regarding Syria, she notes that it 'has a very unpleasant regime, even if that unpleasantness is directed more against Muslims than against Westerners'. President Assad and the Syrian elites are part of a religious minority (11% of the population) violently keeping the political ambitions of the larger religious groups suppressed. Which might, you know, make them more tempted by extremism.

Her segment on the 'Challenges of Islam' is rather nuanced, making clear that it is foolish to see Islam as monolithic, or inherently evil, or that religious terrorism is uniquely Islamic: the Hindu Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombing; she had herself survived assassination attempts by Irish Republican (Catholic) terrorists.

'As a conservative, and indeed as a Christian, I can appreciate much of what I come across when I visit Muslim countries and read of the opinions of sophisticated Muslim writers.'

She acknowledges that religion has 'often played a role in providing a twisted justification for terrorism', but counters that religion is but one of a panoply of factors - social, personal, economic, political - that can intertwine to convince people to commit terrorism. Here, she was almost writing an anticipatory rebuttal to the post-9/11 New Atheist arguments put forward by the likes of Sam Harris in 'The End of Faith' (2004) and Christopher Hitchens in 'God Is Not Great' (2007).

Regarding Saudi Arabia, the beating heart of radical Islam that pumps funding to extremist groups around the world, she is candid: 'We should not shy away from the blunt facts of national self interest. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the West's most important allies in a region which is itself the principle source of the world's oil. Any power or influence which seeks the overthrow of our allies there poses a direct threat to us.'

The second half of the book is more theoretical, and I expect has been more influential, containing chapters on Human Rights, Europe, and Capitalism.

Her Europe essays contain most of the pro-Brexit arguments we are now very familiar with, from the complaint about the EU stealing our fish to the classically hyperbolic 'EU is like Nazis':

'The Nazis spoke in terms that may strike us as eerily reminiscent of today's Euro-federalists... there is nothing necessarily benevolent about programmes of European integration... European unity has been tried before, and the outcome was far from happy.'

Britain, she argues, for reasons of history and culture, is different to continental Europe. She agrees with Charles de Gaulle, who blocked Britain's first attempted entry into the European Community:

'England is insular, maritime, linked through its trade to very diverse and often very distant countries. It has marked and original customs and traditions. The nature, structure and economic context of England differ profoundly from those of the other states of the continent.'

I do think there is some merit to this point; for years the UK has been a troublesome member of the EU. Our island history has meant that while we have been heavily influenced by the continent, and there has been considerable migration between island and mainland (our Royal Family is German), Britain has for centuries been an island on the edge of Europe, not experiencing the invasions and admixture on anything like the same scale as the continental nations, which have changed shape and invaded each other countless times over the past 1000 years, while England has not been invaded since 1066 (unless you count the Glorious Revolution). 'With Europe, but not of it', as Churchill said.

Winston Churchill is often claimed by both Remainers and Leavers as one of them: he waxed lyrical about a United Europe, but was a proud British patriot who stood up for Britain against tyranny. Thatcher explains that in post-war Britain, the political class, including Churchill, was largely in favour of continental Europe uniting, but believed that Britain should remain apart. In addition to its European allies and neighbours, Britain had its close ties with America and the Commonwealth to build on. Thus, Churchill can be imagined as pro-Brexit Europhile.

But as the post-war years progressed, the Empire crumbled, the Commonwealth lost importance, and the Suez crisis showed that America was not as reliable an ally as had been thought. Britain was declining internationally, and the seemingly dynamic and fast-growing European community appeared attractive.

Politically, Britain is more rightwing than most of continental Europe. One of our top allies during the Brexit crisis has been proto-fascist Hungary. Britain lost influence in the EU under Cameron partly because he moved Conservative MEPs from the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) to the far smaller, further right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), a move that disappointed Angela Merkel among others. Thatcher notes that in Europe there tends to be 'more generous social benefits than anyone in Britain, apart from those on the left of the Labour party, would normally consider appropriate to a 'safety net' and fears that the EU will 'seek to combat the 'neo-liberalism', i.e. the belief in free markets, which the French and German Finance Ministers so roundly denounced.'

Britain also has a different idea about human rights to the continent. The British tradition, via Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689, is focused on 'negative' rights: the right NOT to have your property taken by the king, the right NOT to be imprisoned without trial. In contrast, the continental European view of rights, represented by the European Convention on Human Rights, is positive: 'the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety, and dignity.'

Thatcher is deeply unhappy that such un-British rights have been incorporated into British law via the Human Rights Act, which should be abolished and replaced with a proper British Bill of Rights in the proper British tradition of rights which protect the wealthy from interference from the state but do nothing to protect ordinary people from being treated like dirt by their employers.

There is more than a little paranoia in her Europe essays. This comes in part from a lack of imagination and empathy. She can't put herself into the mind of someone pushing for 'positive' rights because they think they're a good thing, she imagines some sinister European plot against Britain's economy: 'Under the cover of enforcement of 'social rights' the competitive advantage of Britain's freer markets, looser state controls and lower government spending is lost... they represent an unwelcome influence in Britain's affairs, and underlying purpose is obvious - it is to reduce Britain's ability to compete successfully.'

Her paranoia crops up elsewhere throughout the book. Sinister forces such as human rights lawyers, the EU, and environmentalists are secretly trying to destroy capitalism: 'Socialism, albeit concealed and repackaged under a variety of exteriors, is a far greater danger to freedom and prosperity than many people realise.' She is skeptical about Global Warming, which she acknowledges is happening but doesn't think it's as severe as the 'doomsters' make out: 'the usual suspects on the left have been exaggerating dangers and simplifying solutions in order to press the agenda of anti-capitalism.' It is worth mentioning that Nigel Lawson, former chancellor under Thatcher, fully committed to climate change denial and wrote a whole book about it.

I will skip over the pro-Brexit arguments that I have more sympathy with: the EU's democratic deficit, the conflict between national and supra-national interests, the dangers of monetary union, the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy and Customs Union on food prices and farmers in developing countries. I should also clarify that while she thinks Britain is very different to the continent, she also thinks the continental nations are also so different to each other that the EU wouldn't work with just them.

Crucially, and indeed heavily foreshadowing the last few years, while Thatcher devotes a lot of pages to flaws in the EU, she doesn't spend very much time detailing either what Britain should have done instead of joining the European Community, or what should be done if we leave. A few options are floated: 'a policy of unilateral free trade' which she notes might be 'politically unrealistic' but 'worth discussing... because it exposes the fallacy that outside the EU Britain would be 'alone', 'isolated', 'excluded', and so on.'

Or maybe Britain could join NAFTA (renamed North Atlantic Free Trade Area) and focus on building its relations to the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Her most speculative proposal is that Britain, with the US and other countries, could create a new global Free Trade Area.

'Ideally, of course, this would take place before Britain formally withdrew as a full member of the EU: no one wants more disruption than necessary.'

Thankfully for us, Thatcher provides sage advice for how her successors could diplomatically negotiate Britain's exit from the EU on favorable terms:

'The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them... they know perfectly well that Britain as a European power is in a league of her own... it should be made clear right at the start that in order to secure our objectives we would be prepared, if it became necessary, to unilaterally withdraw from EU membership. This might seem at first like a provocative tactic: but it actually makes good sense.'

No deal is better than a bad deal.

I find Margaret Thatcher a fascinating character, like a real life Mrs Coulter. Her viewpoint is well argued and understandable, but there is so much missing from her analyses, however intelligent and witty they may be. Her limited life experiences and lack of imagination (as can be seen in her memoirs) leave her making some glaring errors.

Redistributive taxation is unjust because it limits the freedom of the talented wealthy to make the most out of their hard-earned wealth. She quotes her mentor, Keith Joseph, who wrote an anti-equality book: 'There is no greater tyranny possible than denying to individuals the disposal of their own talents.' Out of context, this sounds very similar to the line by Stephen Jay Gould: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” However, Joseph is complaining that rich people's talents are mildly inconvenienced by having some of their wealth taxed, while Gould is pointing out that poor people are thoroughly denied 'the disposal of their own talents'. People who have not experienced financial difficulty, who only know poverty at theoretical distance, do not understand the limits financial insecurity places on freedom.

'As long as all men and women are truly equal before the law, and as long as the law is effectively administered and honestly adjudicated, then however much their fortunes differ they have no right to complain that they are 'unjustly' treated. It is up to them what they do with their lives and their property. They bear the ultimate responsibility for success or failure.'

Those 'as long as' conditionals are doing an awful lot of work.

[Glauco Pires · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the book has lost some of its tarnish with age, it still is a remarkable portrait of the world in the early XXIst century, and while not all of Baroness Thatcher's previsions came true (such as the CCP losing power within 15 years), the book is scarily on point about other subjects more than 20 years later, such as Brexit, the rise of globalism, the climate scare and even the war in Ukraine. I suspect The Downing Street Years is better due to being atemporal, but this book is still a worthy read and a good insight on Margaret Thatcher's mind. Doesn't hurt the fact that she simply wrote very well and eloquently.

[Mikhail Ignatev · Rating 1 out of 5]

Как и многие, всегда сдержанно восхищался баронессой Тэтчер. Но читать это невозможно.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

You can do a lot worse, and not much if at all better, when it comes to reading about geopolitics, than to take a look at what Margaret Thatcher had to say about them.  This book is an insightful collection of material written in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center that demonstrates Thatcher's firm grasp of realism when it comes to looking at the world.  The author also manages to provide a way forward for Brits that indicates her support of what would later become the Brexit movement as she writes at considerable length about the problems of subordinating a powerful Britain to the follies and errors of European bureaucratic socialism.  Indeed, it is difficult to see many observers with a more clear-eyed view to the geopolitical issues of our time, whether she examines the problems of refugees and immigration to the problem of European and other identities to radical Islam and the problems involved in the rise of China.  The scope of this book and the soundness of the author's analysis makes this a book that is still well worth reading and pondering over many years after it was written, which cannot be said for many policy books like this one.

This book of more than 450 pages is divided into eleven chapters that deal with different concerns faced by the author and the world and by British and American conservatives.  The author begins, after a list of illustrations, maps, and tables, acknowledgments, and an introduction, with a discussion of the Cold War and how it ended (1).  After that there is a look at the American achievement and the author's praise for Reagan (2).  After this there is a discussion of the Russian enigma and the struggles Russia has faced in seeking to strengthen its own national identity and push its weight in the near abroad (3).  After this comes a look at Asian values in Southeast Asia and the importance of encouraging a friendly and powerful Japan (4) while also dealing with the Asian giants of India and China (5).  The author turns her attention to rogue states like North Korea and Iran as well as to the problem of Muslim terrorism (6) and also looks at how conservatives can deal with human rights and wrongs (7) in a thoughtful and politically successful manner.  After that the author discusses the problems of the Balkans (8) as well as the dreams and nightmares of Europe (9) and Britain's ambivalent relationship with it.  Finally, the book ends a discussion of the need for Britain to renegotiate its relationship with the EU (10) and a discussion of Capitalism and its critics (11) before closing with a look at civil rights and Runnymede and an index. 

There is something to be said for Thatcher's view of statesmanship as statecraft.  This implies a certain degree of skill that must be acquired in order to safely sail the ship of state in dangerous waters, an attention to the real conditions of the outside world that are frequently adverse, and a recognition that ideas, whether true or false, whether good or bad, have serious consequences in the world in which we live.  The author does a great job at providing some ideas of what could be done in order to deal with some of those adverse conditions and provides a way forward for the UK and US in such a way that it ought to warm the hearts of conservatives in both nations and around the world.  The course of history for the last couple of decades vindicates Thatcher's insights, even though she is no longer among us to write about the times in which we live.  And those insights remain in this book (and others by the author) so that readers can profit from what she wrote, making this an enduring and worthwhile book about geopolitics from someone who was well-equipped to know it well.

[Louis Leung · Rating 3 out of 5]

An insider look at international relations at the highest level. Although I don't agree on some of the things mentioned (especially on how to influence other countries to *counter balance* the powers of the world), I was in awe on the breath and depth on some of her analysis. The iron lady is no joke.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thick, full of history, and good. Worth reading. Margaret Thatcher sounds like a remarkable woman and I look forward to reading more by her

[KT · Rating 2 out of 5]

A good insight into the author's economic and political beliefs, throughout the author makes clear their dislike of Communism and West Europe (France, Germany), and their worship of Free Market Capitalism and the USA, guided by their Conservative values and Christian faith

The chapter on human rights and wrongs had some interesting points on International Criminal Courts and global governance, but devolves into a bizarre defense of Pinochet riddled with inaccuracies that seem motivated by their aforementioned bias

The last couple of chapters on the UK's relationship with Europe are probably the best parts of the book as the author makes several good points on the flaws of the EU and single currency that have been proved correct after the passage of time

However I disliked the following problematical features of the book:

The caricature of Chinese people as a diligent and entrepreneurial monolith very much leaning on the narrative of the model minority myth

The author's characterisation of Islam as a global threat to the (white, Christian) West is often Islamophobic and assumes a very narrow and exclusionary image of the West

Objectively false statements such as Britain's colonisation of India was an unmitigated success in providing the foundations for India to prosper post-independence

The expected worship of free market capitalism including proclamations such as "Capitalism may not be culture-blind, but it is Colour-blind. Prejudice stands no chance jn a free economy because it leads eventually to poverty." This Chicago School logic has aged poorly since as the rise in inequality and discrimination has shown, not forgetting that this totally neglects that capitalism is built on the exploitation of the less powerful for the gains of the elite

The author's stubborn reliance on conservatism and liberal notions of freedom have blinded them to the threats faced by climate change and global warming, instead warning of the dangers of global regulation rather than heeding the evidence provided

[Ravi Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent analysis, no doubt using her own vast experience from the 11 years plus she was Prime Minister of Great Britain (and the best one ever actually). The problems she highlights, the lack of investment in the armed forces, the problems for the EU of the reunification of Germany, all too relevant and academically teased out and discussed. To read this excellent work is to hear the great lady's voice from beyond the grave.
Current leaders are all pussy-whipped career politicians from the same cesspool of public school and elitist universities. Not a real leader amongst them. Which fills one with foreboding in light of what is required according to Margaret Thatcher's view of the future.
A big criticism I have of her though is her constant championing of America to lead the world into the future, when they are not the leader to do this and should not be put on a pedestal for us all to look up to. They have destroyed their own reputation with what followed 9/11, Haliburton, Iraq, secret renditions. They have too much of the world against them. Thatcher gives no alternative. Indeed, Western leaders would bulk at such alternative suggestions and only, as I said above, pick from the cesspool of their own elitists institutions.
An excellent analysis from a master of statecraft. Highly recommended.

[Andrea Conde · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sin duda, uno de mis libros favoritos de política. Margaret Thatcher te explica porque surgen los conflictos en el mundo y cuáles son sus sugerencias para resolverlos esta relacionado con los conflictos actuales.

[Maxim Kavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Маргарет Тэтчер — железная леди, первая премьер-министрка в истории Соединенного Королевства. Всем она запомнилась как неуступчивая женщина, за что, собственно, она получила свое прозвище. В русском издании эта работа почему-то именуется «научной», но в оригинальном описании нет ничего из «science» или «scientific».
Возможно, тому причина то, что эта работа не является научной. Какие критерии у научного познания? Например, опора на источники и объективность. Ни того, ��и другого у Тэтчер нет. Тому пример то, что она на протяжении всей работы высказывает свое мнение — ну уж явно не научное познание. Я, конечно, не хочу умалять заслуги Тэтчер на посту премьерки Соединенного Королевства, но эта работа — лишь плод субъективных размышлений о политике.
У Тэтчер есть мысли, с которыми я, безусловно, могу согласиться, например, в оценке постсоветской России. Глава про нашу страну пробудила во мне дополнительный интерес: в России гуляет миф о русофобии Тэтчер, мол, она предлагала оставить в СССР 15 миллионов человек для обслуживания нефтедобывающих производств и сети транспорта для перевозки нефтепродуктов. Разумеется, это наглая ложь, в которую, однако, многие верят. Но в главе про Россию Тэтчер очень тепло отзывается о нашей стране, заявляя, что ее нельзя сбрасывать со счетов. Как это может исходить из уст человека, который якобы предлагал оставить 15 миллионов русских — непонятно. Возможно, те, кто заявляет о ее русофобии, просто перепутали русофобию с антикоммунизмом.
Что еще приятно: Тэтчер рассматривает сразу несколько стран в одной книге. Помимо России здесь представлены: США, Япония, обе Кореи, Китай, Сингапур, Индия, Сирия, Ирак, Иран, государства бывшей Югославии и другие. То есть, в этой работе Тэтчер размышляет сразу о нескольких — вернее сказать, многих — политических аспектах в нескольких странах, что, безусловно, дает балл в копилку обширности работы. Важно, Тэтчер именно размышляет о политике, а не исследует ее. Для исследования требуется, как минимум, научное познание, которого в книге нет.

В книге замечены двойные стандарты. Одно из размышлений дошло до диктатора и преступника Августо Пиночета. Тэтчер сразу же упоминает, что ее мнение никак не связано с тем, что Пиночет помог Соединенному Королевству в Фолклендской войне. Но, мне кажется, что именно с этим связано завышенное мнение Тэтчер об этой политической фигуре. Все дело в том, что «Железная леди» считает неправильным преследовать политических деятелей и требовать им уголовной ответственности, — по ее словам, достаточно политической ответственности, иными словами, достаточно отстранения от поста главы государства. Но дело в том, что при Пиночете в Чили систематически нарушались права человека. Чего стоит доклад Валеча о пытках в чилийских тюрьмах, согласно которому 94% арестованных подвергались пыткам. Это ли не идет вразрез с идеями классического либерализма, который защищает Тэтчер в своей книге? И она считает, что уголовное преследование Пиночета недопустимо. Честно сказать, я был ошарашен, когда прочел это. Мне казалось, что любое нарушение прав человека должно, как минимум, вызывать осуждение. Однако Тэтчер приводит в доказательство следующую логику: раз уж Пиночета хотели осудить, то нужно осудить премьера и министра внутренних дел Соединенного Королевства за то, что происходит в британских тюрьмах. Если не обращать внимания на абсурдность такой логики, можно попробовать провести аналогию методом дедукции дальше: тогда и Гитлера нельзя было судить, — если бы он, конечно, выжил. Посудите сами, был бы ли он главой послевоенной Германии, будь он жив? Разумеется, нет. Вот вам политическая ответственность, о которой пишет Тэтчер. Или, например, Слободан Милошевич — не меньший преступник, чем Гитлер, который, к тому же, современник Пиночета. Про него Тэтчер сама пишет, что он является преступником, которого нужно судить уголовно. Это ли не двойные стандарты, когда одного преступника нельзя судить уголовно, а второго можно? Почему я так сильно акцентирую внимание на этом небольшом факте, который занимает лишь пару страниц в пятисот страничной книге? Дело в том, что Тэтчер — сторонница либерализма. А либерализм ставит права человека превыше всего. Даже сама авторка книги в начале главы, где говорится о Пиночете, пишет, что она пришла в политику защищать права человека. Но через пару страниц защищает того, кто права человека нарушал. Кстати, насчет бредовости сравнения Чили и Соединенного Королевства. Почему премьер и министр внутренних дел Соединенного Королевства не могут нести уголовную ответственность за то, что происходит в британских тюрьмах? Не они строили институты, в том числе институт пенитенциарной системы. А Пиночет как раз таки самолично построил авторитарные институты, которые позволяли себе нарушать права человека.

1,5 года назад я поставил наивысшую оценку книге, но, спустя время, я, видимо, поменял свое мнение. Я искал научного исследования, но здесь нет ничего кроме субъективного мнения насчет будущего некоторых стран. Благо, в оригинале эта книга не обозначена как «научная». Google Books индексирует ее как «автобиографию». И как автобиография эта книга, может, заслуживает оценки «хорошо». Но стоит держать в уме те двойные стандарты, о которых я писал выше.

[Rainier Moreno-Lacalle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maggie Thatcher's view of politics and human nature endlessly fascinates me. This is a great book that every human being should read!

[Cvetannka · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well worth the read.
One of the most interesting books I have ever read. It is great to find out what Thatcher thought on the many political issues of this country and the world.

[Ross Hougham · Rating 5 out of 5]

"There is much to be said for trying to improve some disadvantaged people's lot. There is nothing to be said for trying to create heaven on earth."

[Lara · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب تطبيقي أكثر من كونه نظري. يعطي نظرة مباشرة على كيفية تفكير قائدة سياسية في العلاقات الدولية.
مفيد لفهم عقلية صانع القرار، لكنه متأثر جدًا برؤية تاتشر نفسها

[LivinLaVidaLibros · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend this book to anyone who would like to better understand the current modern world and its particular challenges. I certainly gained more knowlege about political strategies and power through Margaret Thatcher's point of view and exposition. Take the time to review the annotations as well.

[yengyeng · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is no such thing as grey area in Margaret Thatcher's methodology of governance. She minces no words and goes on the offensive or defensive for what she believes is justified and not what is popular. Political correctness be damned and she will whack naysayers of Reagan's America, Gorbachev and Pinochet with her iron handbag. The lady suffers no wimps. Refreshing yet disturbing at the same time.

[David Alexandre Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Depois deste livro fiquei a discordar sobre assuntos que antes discordava com ela, e a concordar com assuntos que antes discordava com ela. Realmente, uma escrita que traduz o seu caracter determinado, e que nas suas muitas linhas de pensamento europeu lemos previsões que hoje sabemos terem-se tornado realidade. O fracasso do euro e o papel de um governo alemão de intenção federalista é algo que hoje em dia podemos desmembrar como parte integral desta Europa de interesses.

[Tair Kuanyshev · Rating 3 out of 5]

Even so the name of the book is catching, content is frustrating. Margaret Thatcher, the "iron lady" mostly praises United States as a undoubted global leader. She even does not account own UK as a leading country in prospective. Good points contain well written historic facts and her own views on the history line. Overall the book is only onetime reading, should be interested for people who wants to see only the US as a gegemonic power in the world!

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting. I knew nothing about Lady Thatcher prior to finding this book. After this experience, I have a better appreciation for the managed collapse and transition of the Soviet to post-Soviet Russia, and the role of political leadership in shaping history.

[Summisse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Margaret Thatcher's Statecraft is spot on!

[Alina Ioana]

A very complex book. It gives you a very good idea about international relations nowadays and which is more, about the fight for supremacy.

[Cathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

She is one of my personal heroines! Very insightful, well written and spot on!

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Must read. Her thoughts on the EU and the Euro are scary but accurate.
Suggestions for the future should be read by our leaders in DC

[Veronika]

Good book

[Azamat]

nnnn

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliantly written by a phenomenal national leader and human rights advocate. Insightful given the current international political climate.