Kosovo-likes

Dear readers,

I usually try to resist commenting news when they are still too hot topics, but there are cases when the opportunity is too nice to be ignored. Kosovo indepen-dance is one of these. I know it is a heated debate, but it is also a perfect occasion to make a couple of useful comparisons and use the thought framework that has been presented in previous posts.

So Kosovo declared independence unilaterally, an easy shot considering the UN is administrating the Albanian populated Serbian province. Even easier because the UN administration was a de facto EU one, and most EU countries had made clear that they were ok with Kosovar's independence. What's left of Serbia, of the Serbian world (that is essentially Republika Serpska in Bosnia) and of Serbian allies (Russia and China, primarily) is of course outraged. And rightfully so, I would add, as the declaration in question as well as the recognition by the USA and most bigger EU countries is obviously in breach of most international laws. It is certainly nothing new and Russia as well as China have practiced intensively in this field too in the past (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Tibet, Taiwan, Abkhazia, etc., only to name a few).

But let's face it, they are legally right now and they are letting the world know. Serbians are enraged too, which is understandable, even considering that they are themselves partially responsible for what is now happening to them. If they had behaved a bit better with their various minorities in the past decades, they probably would still enjoy a complete national territory. Imagine that Texas would rebel and declare independence under UN/EU supervision, because the Chicanos are considered second class citizens there, and see what the US reaction would be. There would certainly be a nasty fight... Remember Alamo and all that crap. Ok, it would never happen you would say. Why? Well, for one simple reason: the USA are a strong military power and an influential diplomatic one (still) and they can ignore UN decisions and laugh at the EU if they want to. It's called the "reason of the strong" or the law of force.

And that's what happened in Kosovo, no legal process, but a succession of strength conflicts, more or less violent. Serbia oppressed ethnic Albanian Kosovars, Albanians created a guerrilla to answer this, Serbian forces and paramilitary crushed the rebellion and killed many civilians, the UN whined, the Russians laughed, NATO bombed the Serbians to smithereens and invaded Kosovo. I am not saying that it was wrong to invade Kosovo. I supported it when it happened. It is what happened afterwards which went very wrong. The international community let Kosovars think that they could get independence, despite the fact that there is absolutely no treaty, international agreement or UN charter article which allows a part of a national state to split from it if it is not a federal entity. Kosovo was not a federal republic inside Serbia, it was simply a province with an ethnic majority different from the rest of the country. The Kosovar reaction was only predictable: they declared themselves independent, despite the fact that the Serbian minority in the North of the province will never recognize an independent Kosovo government as a legal entity.

Russia and China (but also Spain, Cyprus and various other countries) were quick to denounce the move and quicker to warn other countries that recognizing Kosovo independence was opening the Pandora box. And again they were right. Basically, the EU and the USA have said to the world that Kosovo is a unique case, not an example to follow. Ridiculous: first, ethnic groups, oppressed or not in various country will only see that they can get away with an independence claim if they have the military strength to back their word; second, even if you only follow the Kosovo path exactly, that still paves the way to huge conflicts. So waht is now the guideline to break away, Kosovo style?

First, of course, there need to be some oppression and you have to make the world know about it. Because if you are being oppressed and nobody cares (like nationalities in Central Asian dictatorships, for instance), it does not count. It has to be on Western telly and it has to be easily Googled, otherwise, you can suffer in silence. Second, you have to rebel and get some military power. Having foreign sponsors (preferably Western) helps, but if you can do well on your own, it is fine too. The most difficult part is to get the UN to intervene. The UN is notoriously slow to react and if you have an enemy in the Security Council (or if your oppressor has a really good ally there) you are basically screwed. See Darfur or Palestine, for instance, it does not matter that their plight has been thousand times worse than this of the Kosovars: China is supporting Sudan and the USA are supporting Israel, so their rights will never be recognized. Also the problem is that to get the UN to react and send NATO, EU or ANZAC troops to the rescue, there must be some pretty horrible violations of Human Rights (like slaughters, genocide, tortures, etc.). You might not be ready to play that game, especially if the ones tortured or raped are family members. But sometimes, you don't have a choice... The rest of the story is a piece of cake. Once the connection with the "motherland" is severed by force, declaring independence is a matter of PR and making it look good institutionally. And now that Kosovo got it, nobody can even tell that there is no precedent.

You think that I am a cynic and a pro-genocidal Serbian? You could not be more wrong. Remember the previous posts. I don't believe in nation states. They are a product of imperialist XIXth century and European colonization. I am actually enjoying the fact that the Pandora box is open. It is only showing how obsolete the UN has become, how stupid the post World War II border intangibility rule has become. I am, by the way, not ok either with the much quoted right of people to rule themselves. It is only another disguise of the nation state principle. You can always find a subgroup to oppress. The other, the different, the guy with an accent is always the enemy. No, the true path is in supra national non-imperial systems. And if some old empires and nations must die to reach this stage, so be it. So yes, let's allow Taiwan to become officially independent, let's Palestinians have their own state(s), let's Abkhazia, Transdniestria, Kurdistan, Chechnya or Tibet be independent. Let's get rid of Corsica (if there is truly a majority for independence there), of Pays Basque or of Friesland. Who cares?

The point is, they will be independent for a while. Then they will realize that you are nothing in this globalized world if you are alone. And they will want to join the EU, the ASEAN or whichever supranational group they may realistically belong to. Then the real winner will be the citizens. That is of course if the supranational entities in question are anything else than a club of unelected people, irresponsible before their populations...

Who will be the boss?

Dear readers,

As you know, if you have been following this blog for a while, I have always had some admiration for the editor of Europea World, Peter Sain ley Berry. His most recent Comment on the EU-Observer is worth the reading. It is about the choice for the Presidency of Europe. Who will man the post, as described in the Lisbon Treaty? Tony Blair has been quoted as a front runner, though Sarkozy is reputedly against this (and I tend to agree). Peter Sain ley Berry is making the case that such a President (whose functions will very obviously been defined by the man rather than by the vague text of the treaty) will have international law as his only "bible". He goes on saying that any candidate, particularly Mister Blair, will have to be judged on his credentials regarding such laws. Which is equivalent to definitely discrediting the former UK's Prime Minister. We can safely say that his regards for such laws are minimal and his loyalties more towards his American friends. And these, as we all know, have little or no respect for anything international.

I'd like to go a bit further and throw a couple of names. Who would have the obvious stature, natural charisma, massive experience and most of all respect for the supra-national institutions fitting this job? I would say that there are very few contenders. Gerhardt Schroeder has the charisma and the experience, but his links with Vladimir Putin discredit him as much as Tony Blair's links to Georges W. Bush. No French politician could qualify in my eyes, not even François Bayrou, who badly lacks the experience and the charisma. Louis Michel would probably be a good choice, but the current infighting in Belgium could hamper such a nomination. Jean-Claude Juncker has said several times that he wants to remain faithful to his Luxembourg voters, so unless they ask him personally to take the job, he is unlikely to accept it. This is unfortunate, but expected. Apart from the case where one woman would get the job (after all it would be a good sign for Europe), I think there could be a surprise candidate. Romano Prodi has just lost his current job. He used to be a Commission President, which certainly gives him the experience, and he has both the charisma and the international stature and he speaks multiple languages. His respect for laws and international treaties is absolute. So he is a perfect match... Unless of course Mister Berlusconi vetoes him. That would be unfortunate too, but Il Cavaliere is not known for his sense of the public good neither for his tolerance. So I am now running out of names.

Do you have an idea?

Kenya and democracy

Dear readers,

I would like to apply what I discussed last time about Europe and democracy to what is happening in Africa in general and in Kenya or Chad in particular. There is a general feeling in Europe that African countries should be democratic and that Europe should help this to happen. The reasoning behind this is simple: Africa was nearly totally colonized by European countries in the past (and until the 70's) so they now have some responsibility in helping African countries to get better. I am not going to delve into the debate about whether state aid should be given only in exchange of democratic progress. This is not the point. I would just like to discuss the idea: getting better = democracy. It is indeed a point which is strongly challenged by modern powers such as China, Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia. They point out that exporting democracy is an ethnocentric European (or American) bias and that each culture should have its own regime.

A simple and way too basic answer to these countries criticism would be to point that it is probably no accident that all these countries don't show much about democracy themselves and are simply using this as a way of deflecting criticisms from their own shortcomings. It is a fair enough point, and sufficient to discredit the "messengers", but certainly does not address the message. By pointing out China or Iran gross violations of Human Rights, we are not answering the question. Which is in fact the eternal question about universals, civilization and culture. Nothing less.

But then, what did we learn from our latest reading? We learned that the ultimate universal (incidentally, the one which we believe is fundamental to modern democracy) is that everything should be put into discussion in a regulated but free manner. Regulation should be in the modalities of the discussion, not the topics or the expression itself. Freedom should be as defined by the old rule: "my freedom stops where begins the one of others". Civilization, as defined in Morin's book is in fact the way various cultures can dialog within this framework.

On this basis, we can revisit the criticism above. Is exporting democracy in Africa (for instance) a European ethnocentric biased idea, a politicized form of neo-colonialism, born in our sense of historical guilt? Well, I suspect that it all depends on two other questions: what do we mean by the word "democracy" and how do we actually implement the export?

Democracy is not the regime where the majority of the people rules over a minority through a voting system. This is called a Republic and, it has been proved many times in History, does not allow the respect of multiple cultures by itself. If we keep within Morin's thought framework, a Republic can function relatively well within a single autarcic culture but can not bring civilization (in the meaning we defined previously). Worse, it will not function properly in a globalized world, neither with multicultural groups. And I believe that any reader that has followed until now can see where I am going in regards to Africa: none of the current African states is a mono-cultural entity.

But again, this is not the main issue. Democracy might have very different meanings, modern political science scholars (as well as Morin himself) usually agree on one definition: it is a representative regime where the sovereignty comes from the people and where the government is responsible to the people; it is a regime where decisions are taken according to the rule of the majority but where at the same time the rights and basic freedom of the minority are respected; it is a regime which respects the integrity of each individual while the better good of the whole society is researched; last but not least, it is a regime where no citizen or category of citizens is entitled to more permanent rights or duties than any other. I know that many will dispute this definition, but it is the one this post is about, so it does not matter in principle.

The forms such a regime can take locally or according to a specific culture, the specific laws implemented to reach this state may vary immensely from one place to another and from one time to another. But these principles are the ones which correspond to the idea Morin has of Europe: a constant dialogic between principles which may seem contradictory but are in fact in permanent feedback cycles. Such a regime respects any specific cultural background while at the same time allowing the respect of any other one. Not because it ignores such backgrounds, but because it can integrate them in the daily functioning of the state.

Now we can see why places such as Kenya or Chad are suffering from such massive troubles, despite the fact that they were considered are countries with "democratic credentials". Europe exported there (from the UK and France respectively), a political model of institutions. This model was accepted (not imposed), by a local elite. But they are totally unadapted to areas where different ethnic, religious and language groups are prevalent. We exported the institutions but not the principles. We exported the democratic nation state institutions to these countries which are not based on such entities. We did not export the democratic principles there, because nobody was interested in understanding the local culture(s).

Now, if we really want to help Africa, we can send troupes, restore order or deliver aid. We may temporarily succeed. But what African countries really need is a complete institutional re-engineering. Only this will allow African people to integrate their identities as tribal groups, sub-cultures, etc. into a workable system that respects individuals but still support the society as a whole.

A small revolution within Google Search engine

Dear readers,

I have noticed today a small change in the way Google displays results for a search. It may sound trivial but for people like me, who make a living out of finding information in multiple languages, it is a small revolution. If you type in google.fr a simple word such as virgil, you will get the following result:


As you can see if you enlarge this image, the first three items are your good old Google search results in the localized version of Google (here France). But instead of proposing upfront the alternative spelling virgil, it does so only after the three first results and displays immediately the tentative result. More interesting for me, the lowest results on the page are what the search result would have been if I had made the search in Googel.en, improving considerably the scope and quality of the overall search.

So ok, it is probably still very trivial to you, but for me it is indeed a small revolution.

(Re)-thinking Europe

Dear readers,

I have just finished Edgar Morin's "Penser l'Europe" ("thinking Europe"), which is an excellent excuse for me to begin blogging again. The book will be also the opportunity for me to go a bit beyond and expose my own views on this important topic.

Edgar Morin is a French left wing philosopher and social anthropologist. His Mediterranean roots (born Edgar Nahoum in 1921, he is of Spanish and Sephardi Jewish origin) were soon hidden by his war name of Morin. Involved in the Spanish Civil War and later in the French Resistance, Morin was attracted by Marxism and was until his expulsion in 1951 a member of the French Communist Party. He is still today a known sympathizer of the center left "stream" of the French Socialist Party. More importantly, of course, he is a popular intellectual in France and even in Europe, respected by both right and left wing politicians for his open mind, immense culture and defining ideas.

It is interesting to know that Edgar Morin, as he admits himself in the book, was initially a strong opponent of the European idea but came later to recognize its vital importance. Converts are often the most enthusiastic missionaries, so it is no surprise that Edgar Morin has written this essay in an extremely convincing and didactic way.

The whole idea of the book is that Europe nearly died during the XXth century, mainly because of its internal tensions. Morin tries to understand what stands behind the European ideal (historically as well as nowadays) and why is it important to find it out. The tone is sometimes a bit precious, as Morin is often obsessed with semantics. But naming things is controlling them, by making them ours, so I guess he has a point in trying to be as precise as he can be. This aspect aside, the reading is pure pleasure. Morin manipulates concepts and ideas with ease and more importantly makes them understandable for people who don't have the same immense scientific and cultural background.

Morin sees Europe as an entity not really well defined from the geographical, cultural or ethnic point of view. He then tries to define what common points have developed and existed along History between the nations and other political organisations which have flowered on its space and which could have explained both the extraordinary expansion and global success of Europe and its terrible implosion and decadence during the XXth century. He finds them to be what he calls a "dialogic" between nihilism and creation, a permanent instability, source of progress as well as destruction. What he calls dialogic is the opposition between two ideas which are antagonistic without being contradictory or exclusive and as the same time complementary without being stable. He goes a bit further by explaining that it is this dialogic which has created the European Nation States and the modern democratic systems, but also the ideologies that have nearly destroyed Europe: Marxism and Fascism. This dialogic has also transformed Europe, both through its oppression of the rest of the world through the colonial system, and through its adoption and integration of other cultures in its own identity. Due to this, Europe has both spread its defining principles through the world and acquired a massive responsibility in doing it. The dialogic between cultures and civilization has made European civilization in some way compatible with all cultures.

This responsibility is the reason Edgar Morin wants a political Europe. He understands that to survive along these principles, Europe must be stronger (not in a military way, but in a softer, influential way) and united. Europe has hurt and changed the world all together, for better or for worse. But it now has to survive with it and in it. The Nation States have been created by the European dialogic and have been made redundant by it. We still have to invent something else to complete our cycle to the next stage, whatever it is. Otherwise, the nihilistic aspect of the dialogic will only destroy them, nothing will have been created to go beyond... Morin thinks that a Confederation (a bit along the Swiss model) could help us define what this next stage is.

But interestingly, at the end of the book, Morin gives clues. The point, according to him, is that there should not be any ideology. Europe has already created and destroyed all religions of earthly salvation. Europe has invented secularism and has proved that it is the only peaceful way to go. But it has not destroyed religions or ideologies. It has absorbed them and invented a system where all systems can coexist without facing annihilation. Our habit of facing the ultimate Void (and surviving it) has given us this amazing ability. Call it democracy if you want (though it is a tricky word to employ here, so much has it been misused), it does not matter. It is a way of handling public matters which solves the problem of power. No other system has done it. Of course, none is perfect either, and our democratic system could see many improvements. But Europe's mission, its new creation process, could be to defend it against the permanent entropy of the Void, and to propose it to the rest of the world that we infected with our own dialogic. Spreading democracy (what a terribly dangerous slogan) could become an ultimate goal for a future European Union.

The point that I would like to add to Morin's analysis is that it does not need to be disruptive. It does not need to be disruptive to the European States. They are going to disappear a way or another, swallowed by this new Void that is globalisation. They can understand that it is not too late for them to accept this kind of immortality. But more importantly, it does not need to be disruptive for the rest of the world. They can understand that Europe has now permanently abandoned any aggressive expansionism. What they can now also understand is that the system that we are offering (for free, so to say) is not exclusive of their own cultures or of their own contribution to civilization. It is the whole point of the democratic process that it is is not ethnocentric. It is not attacking any faith, any social system neither any form of expression. The democratic system only basis is that there should be a rule rather than chaos and that the rule does not need to be any heavier than needed to respect each group or individual. For this reason, it is the ultimate universal. The universal that includes all particularities.

Testing Wipido video

This was sent once already, but I am just trying some code.

Big Brother

Dear readers,

This is just an extra for you: Slate wrote an article on the top 10 things encroaching on our privacy these years... A very interesting piece.

Nice reading and don't forget: "Big brother IS watching you!"

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Dear readers,

Before taking a couple of days of badly deserved vacations in France, I would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas and most of all a very happy New Year 2008.

Yes, I know, Christmas is over and New Year's Eve is not now yet, but that's the spirit... I personally would like to share my wishes for 2008. I know most of these are totally unrealistic, but who cares?

I wish that Dutch people learn the meaning of the words "cooking" (no, it is not something Gordon Ramsey is doing on telly, it can happen in your kitchens...) and "service" (it is something worth paying for, yes...). Sorry darling, if you read this, it was not meant for you personaly.

I wish that French people learn the meaning of the expressions "arrogant ignorance" (that's unfortunately the summary of your foreign policy) and "Europe" (no, it is not an extension of the Francophonie, neither the source of all your local problems).

I wish that American people learn the meaning of "democracy" (it is not just the name of a liberal commie party, you know, it is also a political regime you used in the past) and "arrogant ignorance" (strange how problems can be similar, regardless of size or power, he?). To all my American friends, you know I love you very much and that you are not included in this.

I wish that Afghan people learn the words "Human Rights" and "Women Rights". I know it is not only your fault, considering the Great Game was played upon your heads since the 1800's... Anyway, Nasim my friend, if you are reading this, I wish you particularly all the best, considering that, unlike me, you are risking not just the estim of your friends but your very life by blogging for your people and fighting for a free press in your country.

I could go on like this for the 180 countries or so that are members of the United Nations, but you are already bored, so I am going to do something else. I am going to speak for countries that are not. ;-)

To my Taiwanese friends, I wish that China let you go and that other countries grow some spine and tell Beijing to shove it up where the sun never shines... Yes, you have a free country, and the continentals are only jealous because they can't even dream about achieving what you did.

To residents of Somaliland, I'd like to say good luck. Nobody knows where you live and nobody cares about your lives. Nevertheless, you have achieved what few managed in a region of the world better known for its pirates, civil wars, terrorists, dictatures and extremists: building some haven of peace, relative prosperity and civility.

To Kurds, I'd like to say good luck too. Everybody knows where you live now, and especially the Turks. Sorry for you about this...

To Kosovars, I'd like to wish a lot of patience. It's worth a lot, believe me. And I am sure you know first hand that nothing is worth war.

To my family and friends I wish you all happiness, wealth, health and a lot of friends. ;-)

Sarkozy and the EU - follow up

Dear readers,

Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French president, loses no opportunity to look like a fool. He had, before his election, made very clear that he was opposed to Turkey's accession to the European Union. He had even strongly supported his predecessor's idea to include into the French Constitution an article stating that before any EU enlargement (after Croatia's), French people would have to approve it by a referendum (as a constitutionalist, I strongly reject the idea of mixing levels of priority in legal texts, but that's another story).

Furthermore, he had put as a condition to any extra discussion with Turkey (such as the opening of new "accession negotiation chapters") that an EU committee would discuss enlargement rules. This was accepted by other EU members (under Greek and Cyprus pressure) and such a committee was indeed created last week. Though the UK managed to exclude from the committee powers any discussion on the final borders of Europe, Sarkozy claimed loudly in the (French) media that such powers had been indeed included. Denying the obvious can be damaging in the future, but it seems that an otherwise relatively clever Sarkozy has suddenly lost touch with reality. Of course, the fact that French people and media did lost touch with any reality a long time ago probably helps.

Now Sarkozy has another issue at hand. He wants to be seen as the President who changes things (especially things made by Jacques Chirac, his predecessor and mortal enemy). So he decided yesterday to ditch the Constitution article mentioned above and replace it by one where the President has the right to chose between a referendum and a vote by the Congress (both French Parliament Chambers gathered together). Needless to say that it is usually a lot easier to get the second right than the first. This infuriated politicians and media opposed to Turkey's EU accession. They see it as a concession to Turkey, as French MP's are globally more in favor of Turkey's accession than French citizens themselves. I truly wonder how Sarkozy is going to sell this to his party and his voters without looking like an idiot... On the other hand, he seems to have other preoccupations right now. And about this one, I have only one thing to say: the bastard! OK, I am only jealous. ;-)

Belgium again

Dear readers,

As an update on my last post, I would like to announce that Guy Verhofstadt was indeed asked by the king to begin the formation of a new government in Belgium (without Yves Leterme's party, but with the French speaking ones). This will be a transitional government, without any real power except the one, specified by the king himself, to undergo a complete institutional reform. If this puts an end to extremely damaging times for Belgium, it does not really solve anything yet. There is still absolutely no majority in Belgium, at the Federal level, to govern the country. Worse, there is absolutely no consensus on what institutional changes to achieve. And last but not least, if the will to "live together" has been restated by some of the major politicians, there is no consensus on how to achieve and perpetuate this.

It seems to me that Belgium problems are far from over. However, the style of Guy Verhofstadt will certainly help improve the situation. To be honest, anything would have been better than going on with Yves Leterme...

Update: my bad! I failed to realize that Yves Leterme party is still in the new transitional government. So good luck to the new Prime Minister...

Kigali - Brussels

Dear readers,

Sorry for such a long absence. I will soon be writing regularly again. This week, we will have a band review and a film critic. But today I can't resist bashing our Southern neighbors a bit (I mean Belgium, of course).

Yesterday, Yves Leterme, who had received from the Belgian king the responsibility of negotiating a new government, declared to the press that the RTBF, the French speaking national Belgian TV channel, was like "Radio Mille Collines", the genocidal civil war time Rwanda radio. The absurdity of the charge alleviates probably some of its sting. RTBF is a highly respected quality public channel, relatively independent despite its language bias. The same case can hardly be made about Flemish channels who gather certainly more funds but for a result which is not really shining.

Obviously, it is Yves Leterme himself which will be the most damaged by this moronic and insulting comment. C&V leader Yves Leterme lost all credibility, adding to an already long list of past outrageous comments. The Flemish politician was once seen as the next Prime Minister to replace Guy Verhofstadt after the present record power vacuum. Unfortunately, it is now unlikely that the French speaking community parties can ever trust him anymore. This is probably the reason why the king asked Guy Verhofstadt to renegotiate a government agreement. But furthermore, it underlines again (if it was ever needed), the unlikeliness of a Blue Orange coalition in Belgium. The differences between the coalition members is so obvious, core to their convictions and rooted in their voters that I can hardly see them working together. Their only points of agreements are on economic policies. This proves again (if it was still needed) that there is more to politics than economics. Our European leaders seem to forget this fact all too often.

Let's hope that the sad Belgium example is going to give them food for thoughts. Politics, let's repeat it once more is what binds us as a community. It is the basic contract of living togetherness (if you allow me this weird expression). It is what the Dutch call "samenleving", or the French "contrat social". Belgium has reach a point where Flemish and Walloons will have to chose if this still exists between them and under which conditions. I desperately hope for them that they will. Despite the Dutch good will towards such an idea, I doubt that a Flanders reunification to the Netherlands is desirable...

Very funny video

Always inspired, Slate has published this animated cartoon video about the current White House predicament: find motivated people to fill in the gaps left by leaving officials...

Myanmar, China, the EU and the Olympics

Dear readers,

I have been away for much too long and I would like to apologize. I have been pretty busy doing too many things at the same time (and thus nothing really well enough).

To come back to our topic, I would like to talk today about Myanmar. Our newspapers have been full of public indignation to what just happened there and what is most certainly still happening. They were also full of governmental indignation at the same facts. We heard the UK, USA, French or German governments having terrible words for the mad generals' junta. Sanctions were even voted by the European Union as well as the US Congress. Even the UN Security Council (this true embodiment of international hypocrisy) went as far as calling the Myanmar thugs to more measure. But, let's be honest, for what result? Nada! The government violently cracked down on the unhappy monks and their civilian supporters. Everything went back to normal, and, while the generals feast on the spoils of the people in their new capital, the "order" reigns in Rangoon.

Why is that? Well, it is simple. The Western countries have little or no interaction with Myanmar (ex-Burma) and the suppression of this little won't change anything for the ghoulish members of the junta. They can continue to mismanage, plunder, torture, slaughter and exploit in all impunity. The only true country with which they have any interaction is China. But as we all know, the People's Republic of China is not shy about Human rights violations. It cultivates it as a national sport. And speaking about sport, it is just organizing the next Olympics. What an unfortunate coincidence! Immediately, of course, some voices rose to ask China to act towards Myanmar in a responsible way to help the International Community stopping the slaughter. But China's answer was the usual: Myanmar problems are internal and do not threaten the region's stability. This is basically a diplomatic way of saying: "as long as Myanmar problems don't threaten our oil and raw material routes, we prefer to continue help the generals plundering the country, it is highly profitable and who cares about poor citizens, they'll die sooner or later anyway". Just the way China deals with North Korea, basically, and, after all, just the same way it deals with its own citizens when they are unhappy...

So the same voices raised an idea: why not ask for a boycott of the same Olympics if China does nothing? That sounds like a fair idea: China badly needs these Olympics to help it improve its international standards (quite spoiled by its treatment of Tibet or Sin Kiang or its unfriendly gesticulations against Taiwan). And it probably needs it even more than it needs Myanmar. So, what happened? Well, nothing of course. I don't know why, but there is not any such request anymore in the global press. Not a word. So I am asking myself a question: did China pressured the Western governments (after all, China is a big market for their industries, but, more importantly a major workshop for the goods they consume)? It is actually unlikely. As the recent Dalai Lama visit to Washington shows, the Chinese dictators don't have this power yet. So maybe it is another reason. Maybe main media were too afraid? For instance afraid of being banned from covering these famous Olympics. Or worse, simply of losing very substantial publicity revenues if the show (as unlikely as it is) does not go on? I don't have any proper answer to these questions. But I think they deserved to be asked.

For myself, I will boycott the Beijing Olympics. I am sad of seeing the Games once again giving up to a country which violates some of the basic principles of sport and more importantly Humanity. So I will not watch TV broadcasts showing the Games and I will not read newspapers about it either. It would be a serious treason to the poor people of Burma who suffer and desperately hoped that this time we would mobilize for them. With something more than good words. We are very good with words. Not too much with actions.

During this time, China holds the 17th Party Congress. A vast farce where journalists dig up in word counts (you don't really want to listen to the whole speeches, it's way too boring) what the next party line will be. A farce where new party leaders try to impose their mark on History, like Deng Xiao Ping in its time. Apparently, the new fad this year is "Scientific Outlook on Development"... Probably a cover up for more exploitation and pollution. But who cares? It's China, right?

European Treaty on the (dissection) table

Dear readers,

The Portuguese Presidency of the European Union has decided to fast track the discussions on the new European Treaty. For those who have been sleeping in a glass box during the last years, the new treaty is a barely readable but badly cut down version of the Constitutional Treaty sunk by the French and the Dutch referendums in 2005. Anyway, the Portuguese (who currently hold the presidence of the European Commission as well) want to close the negotiation in six weeks to have something signed and validated by the member states before 2009. Most commentators are underlining the difficulty of the task (if not its unreal timetable). They point at Poland's coming elections in October as well as UK's Georges Brown lock up with unions and its own Labour Party. They also mention more minor points such as Austria's issue with University policy. All agree anyway to say that pulling the treaty out of the ditch is going to be nothing less than Herculean.

But I personaly believe than, further than the usual bickering and Teheran carpet seller style of the negotiations (which is sadly nothing new), the real problem comes from the legitimacy. We are again paying for decades of governments playing against the EU at home and even sometimes in Brussels. We are paying for the failure from most political parties to actually show some European commitment. Worse we are paying the total absence of "selling the EU to its citizens". I have said it earlier, but unfortunately, the current events are showing again the urgency of such points. The EU can't survive another blocking of its institutional construction. But it can even less survive the total disaffection from its citizens. Most citizens of the EU, even educated ones, have no idea what are the positive aspects of the EU, even the quite obvious ones. Most citizens on the other hand believe all the bad stories that an ignorant press or irresponsible politicians have spread over the EU. In summary: everything bad in the EU comes from Brussels, but everything good comes from the local politicians... Yeah, sure...

The UK unions fortunately know better, and they have severely attacked Georges Brown for its opt-out clauses in the social policy. But in other countries, unions and political parties alike blindly attack the EU for all kinds of wrong reasons. So, let's say it once and for all: yes, the EU is not very democratic, neither very transparent. But let's be honest about it, the main reason has nothing to do with Brussels (which has always attempted to simplify and democratize things) but everything to do with a bunch of ruthless national politicians. And it's time to name a few, just for the sake of responsibility (a word they use a lot but practice very little, if at all): Tony Blair and Georges Brown, Jacques Chirac (though sadly his current successor seems to take exactly the same way) and Laurent Fabius, the Kazynsky brothers, Jan Pieter Balkenende and, last but not least, Silvio Berlusconi (the frightening clown of the Italian politics). There are others, but I believe that these ones are the most directly responsible.

So if the Portuguese really want to do something for the EU, it is, I believe, more important to win the hearts and minds of its citizens, through a massive explanation campaign. This is the most urgent thing at the moment, probably the only real one actually. All the rest is technicalities which could easily be overcome, if only the European citizens had a little faith in their institutions. I just hope that decades of power play, haggling and sabotaging by national authorities haven't killed the little good will left.

Holidays

Dear readers,

I was in holidays in France for a couple of weeks. This is why there haven't been any posts lately. It was nice (though rainy). Those who wants to see the pictures can here. Mostly boring if you are not a family member, but there are nice pictures of my parents town and region.

New name for the blog !

Dear readers,

I had to chose a new name for the blog, as the old one was creating too many wrong search results. Temporarily, it is now Logrus Marelles Story, until I find something better or more fitting the content. If you guys out there have any good idea I can use, I am open to suggestions. It is a bit tricky, considering that my rantings are covering several very different topics... But well, we'll see how this works.

Gert Wilder and the Koran

Dear readers,

I just wanted to react to the hot topic of the day in the Netherlands. The leader of the PvV (Party for Freedom, an extreme right wing small Dutch party), Gert Wilders, has asked for a ban on the Koran in the Netherlands, comparing the Muslim holy book to Mein Kampf. As you can imagine, this has stirred quite some reactions, not only from the Muslim community, but also from the media, the government and, more interestingly, from lawyers. Two lawyers are suing Wilders on the basis that he is attacking the Dutch "samenleving" concept. This concept means that The Netherlands ability to survive as a crowded small multicultural country is based on a relative tolerance and the possibility to "live together" ("samenleven" in Dutch) peacefully.

Wilders has attacked this relentlessly indeed, even since before his election in the Tweede Kamer (the Dutch lower chamber of the Parliament). His targets are mainly the left wing SP (and anything vaguely socialist) and the Muslim community and concepts. He likes also to fire at will on the conservative government. His favorite tactics are slander, calomny, veiled threats and Parliament open questions... This is resented by many in the Netherlands, but not all, as the PvV enjoys a small but significant level of electoral support.

This last outburst though is probably one too many. The Netherlands is a very religious society (very comparable to the USA in that matter) and most its social and educational system, as well as part of its political system is confessionally based. While most political and social movement are Christian (Catholics and Protestants are roughly representing 45% of the population each), the Muslim community is strong here and sometimes quite radicalised. Muslims here have schools, mosques and social organisations. Attacking their most basic faith is a very dangerous game. Not that they might retaliate physically (it is not to be excluded, but Wilders is quite paranoid and pretty well protected), but because of the parallels that could be made.

I have read the Koran myself (though not in its original language, unfortunately) as well as the Bible and some other "holy books". To be honest, the Muslim sacred book is not worse nor better than most of the others. It is for some parts fairly violent, unfair and one sided. For other parts it is tolerant, open and poetic. The same can be said of most of these books. Attacking one on the fact that parts of it are violent is in a way attacking all the others. And that is something that most Dutch people, Christians, Jews and Muslims alike are not ready to accept...

Lieke Snellen expo

Dear readers,

I visited yesterday the art expo of a friend, Lieke Snellen, at the Tent (Witte de Withstraat, Rotterdam). Lieke is a Master graduate of the Piek Zwart Art School. She was showing her work for the public in this space reserved for young contemporary artists. I took the liberty to take some pictures to show her work. They are available on my Flickr gallery (the link is in the right hand menu).

I think Lieke has done a great job, both in using every day's life objects and transforming them into sculptures, but also in the video montages she has put on display. I particularly liked what she did with the chairs, but also a very nice piece of work including bricks of two colors. It is, all in all, very promising and I wish her a lot of success in the future. She has some talent!

Shop story

Dear readers,

This is just a little story I heard recently. But quite revealing of the times we are living in...

It's this little cute black girl in a shop in Rotterdam Zuid. She bables with the sales woman and explains her how happy she is. The sales woman asks her about her parents. The girl is beaming with pride: "My dad is a musician. He is really good..." The sales woman: "Really. That's nice." The girl replies: "He is such a good musician that he even received a prize..." The sales woman obviously asks which prize her dad got. And the little girl answers, dead serious: "Hij heeft een general pardon gewonnen!" (he received imunity from prosecution for being an illegal immigrant in the Netherlands, effectively granting him residency permit).

No comment...

New pictures uploaded

IMG_2927, 1ère mise en ligne par Alphast.

Dear readers,

I decided to use a bit of my precious time to upload new pictures on Flickr. Especially recent Rotterdam ones, but also old ones from the ports I had visited in the last years. So you can enjoy these here.

Have a good day!