Dear readers,
I have been away for a while. Sorry about that. I'll try to be more regular, although I would make no promise. This post is a reaction to something I noticed while recently using Google Reader.
I was reading feeds from Slate, the Democrat's US news website when I realized what was the advertisement joined to each post (provided by Google Ad and in Dutch). Because it was about politics, Google Ad automatically displayed an animated ad by Libertas, the Irish party turned pan-European. The ad more or less says: "If you wanted to have a say in the new EU constitution, Brussels says NO. Sign the Libertas petition".
So I would like to help a little bit the persons who might have seen his ad and got confused by it. First, I would like to point out one lie spread by this ad: that the currently discussed treaty is a Constitution. It is pretty clear that the previous project, which had some constitutional aspects to it, was shelved. The current one remains only a treaty between sovereign nations. I personally regret it, but that's the way it is. So the ad is misleading already about this. Secondly, it is a fact that Brussels (i.e. the European Commission or the Parliament) has no say in how countries ratify such treaties. This is down to each country's specific constitution. For this reason, saying that Brussels says no is a pure lie. The ones who say no are the member states, which have always been wary about letting "Brussels"becoming too democratic, because it might stop them from haggling together, away from the citizen's watch.
So Libertas is lying. Again. No real wonder for this obscure party, born from the ambition of an Irish businessman, Declan Ganley. Ganley has pan-European ambitions, a paradox for this very Americanized new politician. He claims to want a more democratic Europe, a claim dispelled very quickly once you have a look at Libertas website, which recycles al the old anti-European themes, falling in the most basic populism and demagogy.
Hence the title of my post, inspired by one of old War-time BBC French speaking slogans aimed at the occupied France. "Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est Allemand". Libertas funds and backing is indeed tightly linked to Ganley's personal fortune, born from very good business in then Bush led USA. Republicans have notoriously been fearing a too powerful Europe. No wonder they might have helped an initiative aiming at undermining European affirmation.
24 October 2008
European marine defence
Dear readers,
As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.
The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.
The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.
Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.
Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.
These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.
I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...
As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.
The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.
The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.
Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.
Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.
These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.
I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...
23 October 2008
Manhattan
Dear readers,
Sorry for yesterday. I didn't post because I was in bed with a terrible back ache. As an apology, I would like to treat you today with a series of pictures: Manhattan.
I think this is a great set by famous Russian blogger Drugoi, on LiveJournal. It shows New-York in a very refreshing and different way. The eye of the beholder, they say...
Sorry for yesterday. I didn't post because I was in bed with a terrible back ache. As an apology, I would like to treat you today with a series of pictures: Manhattan.
I think this is a great set by famous Russian blogger Drugoi, on LiveJournal. It shows New-York in a very refreshing and different way. The eye of the beholder, they say...
20 October 2008
Rotterdam gets a new (Muslim) mayor
Dear readers,
Rotterdam got this week-end a new mayor. Ivo Opstelten, the former VVD (conservative) mayor was leaving, and the gemeenteraad (city council, in Dutch) chose for a man from its main party ranks, the PvdA (Labour). Usually, debates on this type of choice turn around the fact that there is no popular vote for mayors under the Dutch grondwet (constitution). But this time, it's a whole other sort of criticism that erupted. You see, the new mayor is Morrocan born and double nationality holder Ahmed Aboutaleb, Amsterdamer, Muslim and former State Secretary for Social Affairs.
And that was a bit too much for the second Rotterdam's party: Leefbar Rotterdam, an ultra-conservative and anti-immigrant group, heir to the late maverick character, Pim Fortuyn. It was clearly his shadow that was hovering above the town hall this week-end, if you believe his angry supporters. Right wing Marco Pastors and Ron Sorensen both were angrily reacting to the nomination (and very likely confirmation by Queen Beatrix) of the new mayor. To say that they have difficulty to swallow such a choice is an understatement. In terms carefully chosen to avoid any accusation of racism, they both denounced the nomination.
For both of them, the convenient excuse is that Aboutaleb would probably never have been chosen as mayor, should the choice be made by popular vote. And they do have a point there. The choice of mayors in the Dutch system never was very democratic (despite recent attempts) and is more a soup of tit for tat agreements between the ruling coalition parties. Aboutaleb choice is that too (he hadn't got the Ministry he was looking for during the current government negotiations). But it is clearly also a lot more. Beyond the obvious symbol and the controversial message sent to the (massive) immigrant population in the Netherlands that they are welcome indeed, there is also the choice for a very strong, popular and skilled character.
Aboutaleb might be the Muslim son of a Moroccan imam, he is also very articulate and well educated, a long time journalist and civil servant, later becoming a politician. He is certainly not new to politics, having fenced on the seats of the Twede Kamer (the Dutch Lower House) against PvVer (extreme right wing) Gert Wilders or VVDer "Iron" Rita Verdonk. He was also already famous for having publicly and strongly declared that young immigrants (regardless of their culture of origin) should accept Dutch culture, ways and mentality or "pack and go home". A declaration, made after the gruesome assassination of right wing film maker Theo van Gogh by a Moroccan terrorist, that hadn't win him much slack with most Muslim fundamentalists but had won him the respect of most Dutch people.
I don't know Aboutaleb personally, but I certainly know his reputation and his ideas. While I might not agree with him on everything (he remains a socialist and a Muslim, after all), I certainly appreciate the choice of a skillful and courageous politician as new mayor. It is clearly also a very good choice for a city which has alledgedly a majority of its population coming from abroad (me included). So, Ahmed Aboutaleb, welcome to Rotterdam and go for it!
Rotterdam got this week-end a new mayor. Ivo Opstelten, the former VVD (conservative) mayor was leaving, and the gemeenteraad (city council, in Dutch) chose for a man from its main party ranks, the PvdA (Labour). Usually, debates on this type of choice turn around the fact that there is no popular vote for mayors under the Dutch grondwet (constitution). But this time, it's a whole other sort of criticism that erupted. You see, the new mayor is Morrocan born and double nationality holder Ahmed Aboutaleb, Amsterdamer, Muslim and former State Secretary for Social Affairs.
And that was a bit too much for the second Rotterdam's party: Leefbar Rotterdam, an ultra-conservative and anti-immigrant group, heir to the late maverick character, Pim Fortuyn. It was clearly his shadow that was hovering above the town hall this week-end, if you believe his angry supporters. Right wing Marco Pastors and Ron Sorensen both were angrily reacting to the nomination (and very likely confirmation by Queen Beatrix) of the new mayor. To say that they have difficulty to swallow such a choice is an understatement. In terms carefully chosen to avoid any accusation of racism, they both denounced the nomination.
For both of them, the convenient excuse is that Aboutaleb would probably never have been chosen as mayor, should the choice be made by popular vote. And they do have a point there. The choice of mayors in the Dutch system never was very democratic (despite recent attempts) and is more a soup of tit for tat agreements between the ruling coalition parties. Aboutaleb choice is that too (he hadn't got the Ministry he was looking for during the current government negotiations). But it is clearly also a lot more. Beyond the obvious symbol and the controversial message sent to the (massive) immigrant population in the Netherlands that they are welcome indeed, there is also the choice for a very strong, popular and skilled character.
Aboutaleb might be the Muslim son of a Moroccan imam, he is also very articulate and well educated, a long time journalist and civil servant, later becoming a politician. He is certainly not new to politics, having fenced on the seats of the Twede Kamer (the Dutch Lower House) against PvVer (extreme right wing) Gert Wilders or VVDer "Iron" Rita Verdonk. He was also already famous for having publicly and strongly declared that young immigrants (regardless of their culture of origin) should accept Dutch culture, ways and mentality or "pack and go home". A declaration, made after the gruesome assassination of right wing film maker Theo van Gogh by a Moroccan terrorist, that hadn't win him much slack with most Muslim fundamentalists but had won him the respect of most Dutch people.
I don't know Aboutaleb personally, but I certainly know his reputation and his ideas. While I might not agree with him on everything (he remains a socialist and a Muslim, after all), I certainly appreciate the choice of a skillful and courageous politician as new mayor. It is clearly also a very good choice for a city which has alledgedly a majority of its population coming from abroad (me included). So, Ahmed Aboutaleb, welcome to Rotterdam and go for it!
16 October 2008
Tax and economy
Dear readers,
Thanks to Kathy Gill, from US Politics, I ran into this excellent series of charts by Karmanaut. While these charts and the discussion on the blog specifically refer to both current US candidates tax plans (and are therefore doubly irrelevant for this blog), I think they are extremely interesting from an other point of view.
These graphs show that the understanding and perception of any economic policy are extremely difficult for the general public and biased by journalists often poor understanding of both mathematics and economics. Mathematics and particularly statistics are not a trivial thing. They are a tool to describe our reality and ultimately, in this case, to base politics. However, statistics can be presented in very different ways because they weight a specific indicator in function of various factors. If you weight the population factor, you end up with a graph about uneven population distributions, which is politically loaded. If you weight the contribution factor (to taxes or the economy), you also get a politically loaded graph.
This comes from the very weird way our perception works: if we see a phenomenon as affecting one group more than any other, we tend to unconsciously perceive it as being unfair. It takes an effort of the mind to realize that such inequality might very well be a good thing for the whole society (and therefore for all its constituent groups in the end). It might even be fair, ethical, good policy. There is no way to know, unless you understand the background behind the graph itself.
Thanks to Kathy Gill, from US Politics, I ran into this excellent series of charts by Karmanaut. While these charts and the discussion on the blog specifically refer to both current US candidates tax plans (and are therefore doubly irrelevant for this blog), I think they are extremely interesting from an other point of view.
These graphs show that the understanding and perception of any economic policy are extremely difficult for the general public and biased by journalists often poor understanding of both mathematics and economics. Mathematics and particularly statistics are not a trivial thing. They are a tool to describe our reality and ultimately, in this case, to base politics. However, statistics can be presented in very different ways because they weight a specific indicator in function of various factors. If you weight the population factor, you end up with a graph about uneven population distributions, which is politically loaded. If you weight the contribution factor (to taxes or the economy), you also get a politically loaded graph.
This comes from the very weird way our perception works: if we see a phenomenon as affecting one group more than any other, we tend to unconsciously perceive it as being unfair. It takes an effort of the mind to realize that such inequality might very well be a good thing for the whole society (and therefore for all its constituent groups in the end). It might even be fair, ethical, good policy. There is no way to know, unless you understand the background behind the graph itself.
15 October 2008
Day against poverty
Dear readers,
Which better day to use to relaunch this blog than the Blog Action Day? So this is a post about poverty in the world.
I am not going to annoy you with whining comments about how the North exploits the South or this kind of typical bullshit. I am going to talk about poverty in front of our own doors. The people we pass in the street but don't really see anymore. Our fellow citizens who are not lucky enough to afford the good things you and me can afford. I assume that you and me do not fall in this category, because, let's face it, if you read this, that means you have access to a computer. And I do.
Poverty in Western countries with social welfare (which includes pretty much all of Europe) should in theory not exist. I don't mean the poverty of just having difficulty to make month ends, no. I mean the abject poverty of the truly homeless, the often sick men and women (sometimes children) in our streets. Our welfare states are supposed to cover for the most dire situations and to offer some kind of "umbrella solution" to the unlucky ones.
And yet, many are falling through the holes in the system, still unable to grasp even the safety net carefully disposed by our modern administrations. But I believe that this is precisely the problem. Administration is not the proper way of dealing with issues which are essentially human and psychological. These people, our brothers and sisters, are often wounded, always ashamed and sometimes psychologically unable to help themselves in the most basic situations. Yes, the safety net exists and should be, if not enough, at least a temporary solution. But many are actually unable to even go to the proper office, to fill in the right paper to read the appropriate form. Some are illiterate, others simply don't know that there are solutions for problems which terrify them. They don't open their post any more, because the envelope might contain another blow to their already fragile state. So they are often hit unaware when they are kicked out of their apartment and end up in the street.
Governments are notoriously bad at dealing with this, because the answer is all too often a human one, not more forms and bureaucracy. Nearly always, the solution could be less costly for society if it was not a standard one but a humanized one. Because extreme poverty means extreme situation, exception to the rule, not generalizations.
Have a good day!
PS: just so you know that I am not talking in the air, I would like to remind the readers that I myself worked for an organization that is dealing with people from the street to offer them support, work and training.
Which better day to use to relaunch this blog than the Blog Action Day? So this is a post about poverty in the world.
I am not going to annoy you with whining comments about how the North exploits the South or this kind of typical bullshit. I am going to talk about poverty in front of our own doors. The people we pass in the street but don't really see anymore. Our fellow citizens who are not lucky enough to afford the good things you and me can afford. I assume that you and me do not fall in this category, because, let's face it, if you read this, that means you have access to a computer. And I do.
Poverty in Western countries with social welfare (which includes pretty much all of Europe) should in theory not exist. I don't mean the poverty of just having difficulty to make month ends, no. I mean the abject poverty of the truly homeless, the often sick men and women (sometimes children) in our streets. Our welfare states are supposed to cover for the most dire situations and to offer some kind of "umbrella solution" to the unlucky ones.
And yet, many are falling through the holes in the system, still unable to grasp even the safety net carefully disposed by our modern administrations. But I believe that this is precisely the problem. Administration is not the proper way of dealing with issues which are essentially human and psychological. These people, our brothers and sisters, are often wounded, always ashamed and sometimes psychologically unable to help themselves in the most basic situations. Yes, the safety net exists and should be, if not enough, at least a temporary solution. But many are actually unable to even go to the proper office, to fill in the right paper to read the appropriate form. Some are illiterate, others simply don't know that there are solutions for problems which terrify them. They don't open their post any more, because the envelope might contain another blow to their already fragile state. So they are often hit unaware when they are kicked out of their apartment and end up in the street.
Governments are notoriously bad at dealing with this, because the answer is all too often a human one, not more forms and bureaucracy. Nearly always, the solution could be less costly for society if it was not a standard one but a humanized one. Because extreme poverty means extreme situation, exception to the rule, not generalizations.
Have a good day!
PS: just so you know that I am not talking in the air, I would like to remind the readers that I myself worked for an organization that is dealing with people from the street to offer them support, work and training.
14 June 2008
It's NO again...
Dear readers,
So that's it! The Irish have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, the text of which should have replaced the defunct EU Constitution (that they had previously approved). The text of the treaty was more or less similar to the Constitution, only the non institutional aspects and the state symbols had been stripped from it. This was to take into account what the Dutch and French has said they didn't like (or at least what politicians had said they didn't like). All these efforts have been in vain. Obviously, the situation changed between the two series of ratification and the Irish have voted against elements completely different from the French and the Dutch ("the constitution was [supposedly] too pro-business and not social enough"). The Irish are afraid of the supposedly (again) attack against their sacrosanct neutrality, and more generally of getting their voice diluted in the new system.
The fact that both reasons (the previous ones and the current ones) are totally imaginary is irrelevant. People rarely vote for rational reasons. Mostly they vote "with their guts", for the guy who is more eloquent or demagogic (thanks to the Sin Fein...) or simply because they are angry or happy. It does not matter much. I can't help feeling betrayed, as an EU tax payer, by the ungratefulness of most Irish people. After all, they have benefited my generosity for so many years, that they could have made the effort to read the treaty and realize that what a handful populist were saying was a big pile of crap. But I am not feeling that bad against them. They have excuses, just like so many others.
Their excuse (and one major flaw of both the Constitution and the treaty) is that these texts have been discussed in closed chambers, by lawyer and specialists and are the result of tit for tat negotiations between politicians who have everything in mind but their fellow citizens interests. So maybe this time, our politicians will understand that they have to consult the people of Europe to ask them what they want. My guess is they would tell them that they want more transparency in Brussels like in the various capitals, more accountability from the politicians at all level and more democratic decisions. But of course, instead of this, they will continue the blame game: taking credit for all the good things (mostly discussed in Brussels) and blaming Europe for their own failures. I would also hope that this time, they try to create a simple text, easy to explain in layman's terms to everyone. But I know that the Danish, English and other Polish politicians will add a dozen of opt out and conditions so that the text become unreadable again and making sure it is (again rejected).
Fair enough, we have the politicians we deserve. But frankly, sometimes I despair from both the politicians and my fellow citizens... Who is the most ignorant or stupid is not always easy to find out.
So that's it! The Irish have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, the text of which should have replaced the defunct EU Constitution (that they had previously approved). The text of the treaty was more or less similar to the Constitution, only the non institutional aspects and the state symbols had been stripped from it. This was to take into account what the Dutch and French has said they didn't like (or at least what politicians had said they didn't like). All these efforts have been in vain. Obviously, the situation changed between the two series of ratification and the Irish have voted against elements completely different from the French and the Dutch ("the constitution was [supposedly] too pro-business and not social enough"). The Irish are afraid of the supposedly (again) attack against their sacrosanct neutrality, and more generally of getting their voice diluted in the new system.
The fact that both reasons (the previous ones and the current ones) are totally imaginary is irrelevant. People rarely vote for rational reasons. Mostly they vote "with their guts", for the guy who is more eloquent or demagogic (thanks to the Sin Fein...) or simply because they are angry or happy. It does not matter much. I can't help feeling betrayed, as an EU tax payer, by the ungratefulness of most Irish people. After all, they have benefited my generosity for so many years, that they could have made the effort to read the treaty and realize that what a handful populist were saying was a big pile of crap. But I am not feeling that bad against them. They have excuses, just like so many others.
Their excuse (and one major flaw of both the Constitution and the treaty) is that these texts have been discussed in closed chambers, by lawyer and specialists and are the result of tit for tat negotiations between politicians who have everything in mind but their fellow citizens interests. So maybe this time, our politicians will understand that they have to consult the people of Europe to ask them what they want. My guess is they would tell them that they want more transparency in Brussels like in the various capitals, more accountability from the politicians at all level and more democratic decisions. But of course, instead of this, they will continue the blame game: taking credit for all the good things (mostly discussed in Brussels) and blaming Europe for their own failures. I would also hope that this time, they try to create a simple text, easy to explain in layman's terms to everyone. But I know that the Danish, English and other Polish politicians will add a dozen of opt out and conditions so that the text become unreadable again and making sure it is (again rejected).
Fair enough, we have the politicians we deserve. But frankly, sometimes I despair from both the politicians and my fellow citizens... Who is the most ignorant or stupid is not always easy to find out.
22 May 2008
The Doha agreement
Dear readers,
Like all Lebanese crisis before, the latest Beirut coup by Hizbollah has been put into a text by the Doha agreement. The reaction in the various media have been mixed, Western media (and pro-governmental Lebanese ones) underlining the failure of Lebanon and of the Lebanese Army to contain the violent assault of a sectarian armed militia against the majority of its fellow citizens. Other media (basically the ones in Teheran or their allies such as Al Manar TV) claim victory. So imagine my surprise when I read the editorial from Le Monde, French newspaper supposed to be balanced and rather pro-Arab: the article basically congratulates the Arab League members for having found a positive "solution", though a temporary one, to the Lebanese crisis. It goes as far as lauding the role of Qatar's representative who would have used to good his friendly links with Iran.
This is, excuse my French, utter bullshit. Qatar's role was certainly one of a host and must be indeed signalled. But I fail to see in which way this is a success for the Arab League. I fail to see how this would be a positive thing, even less a solution of any kind. The Doha agreement simply freezes a situation obtained by violence against the rule of law or even simple dialogue. It is a good thing, admittedly, that the various Lebanese factions reach some agreement (any agreement) through an exchange of words rather than the exchange of bullets we had been used to in the latest weeks. But in this case, the victory is all on Hizbullah's side. It got everything that it had asked: a veto right in the government (despite the fact that it does not reflects its parliamentary representation), its secret communication system and its control over Beirut airport traffic. In exchange, it does not give anything to the representation of the majority of Lebanese. To save face, the immediate election of Michel Suleiman as President is presented as a concession to the government (through a "temporary modification to the Constitution" which normally forbids the Chief of the Army to take the Presidency). But in fact this very point had always been accepted by Hizbullah (for the simple reason that Suleiman is, like Nasrallah himself, one of Syria's assets in Lebanon). The same is said of the application of the electoral law as is (1960 version), the only demand of Hizbullah that hasn't been accepted.
Let's face it, Doha is just a lesser evil to avoid another catastrophe in Lebanon. But it is not an Arab League success, it is a slap in the face of all Arabs by Iranian proxies. And it is another show of impotence for both French diplomacy (Kouchner proved once more that one can be a great humanitarian worker and an extremely lousy Foreign Minister) and for the French press. Before writing a paper, damn it, try to check your facts first!
Like all Lebanese crisis before, the latest Beirut coup by Hizbollah has been put into a text by the Doha agreement. The reaction in the various media have been mixed, Western media (and pro-governmental Lebanese ones) underlining the failure of Lebanon and of the Lebanese Army to contain the violent assault of a sectarian armed militia against the majority of its fellow citizens. Other media (basically the ones in Teheran or their allies such as Al Manar TV) claim victory. So imagine my surprise when I read the editorial from Le Monde, French newspaper supposed to be balanced and rather pro-Arab: the article basically congratulates the Arab League members for having found a positive "solution", though a temporary one, to the Lebanese crisis. It goes as far as lauding the role of Qatar's representative who would have used to good his friendly links with Iran.
This is, excuse my French, utter bullshit. Qatar's role was certainly one of a host and must be indeed signalled. But I fail to see in which way this is a success for the Arab League. I fail to see how this would be a positive thing, even less a solution of any kind. The Doha agreement simply freezes a situation obtained by violence against the rule of law or even simple dialogue. It is a good thing, admittedly, that the various Lebanese factions reach some agreement (any agreement) through an exchange of words rather than the exchange of bullets we had been used to in the latest weeks. But in this case, the victory is all on Hizbullah's side. It got everything that it had asked: a veto right in the government (despite the fact that it does not reflects its parliamentary representation), its secret communication system and its control over Beirut airport traffic. In exchange, it does not give anything to the representation of the majority of Lebanese. To save face, the immediate election of Michel Suleiman as President is presented as a concession to the government (through a "temporary modification to the Constitution" which normally forbids the Chief of the Army to take the Presidency). But in fact this very point had always been accepted by Hizbullah (for the simple reason that Suleiman is, like Nasrallah himself, one of Syria's assets in Lebanon). The same is said of the application of the electoral law as is (1960 version), the only demand of Hizbullah that hasn't been accepted.
Let's face it, Doha is just a lesser evil to avoid another catastrophe in Lebanon. But it is not an Arab League success, it is a slap in the face of all Arabs by Iranian proxies. And it is another show of impotence for both French diplomacy (Kouchner proved once more that one can be a great humanitarian worker and an extremely lousy Foreign Minister) and for the French press. Before writing a paper, damn it, try to check your facts first!
09 May 2008
Update: Lebanon
Dear readers,
This is just to tell that Hizbollah has accomplished what it was hoping for all along. After long preparations, exchanges of rebuttals and provocations, ensuring that no power would resist it, the theo-fascists have taken control of Western Beirut by force, killing or capturing anyone who would resist and burning the TV station of pro-government Future Movement. The Lebanese Army, as usual, has done little to oppose the coup. Hizbollah is now again in a strength position, not because it is right, nor because it represents a majority, but simply because of brutal violence and its will to use it against a state that has been emptied of any strength by external powers.
It is a sad day for Lebanon, a sad day for Muslims (who have killed each others the whole last two days) and a sad day for the Middle-East. Nothing new, unfortunately, but I believe it was worth mentioning amongst the general indifference of Western media and the boredom of the chain of news coming from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
This is just to tell that Hizbollah has accomplished what it was hoping for all along. After long preparations, exchanges of rebuttals and provocations, ensuring that no power would resist it, the theo-fascists have taken control of Western Beirut by force, killing or capturing anyone who would resist and burning the TV station of pro-government Future Movement. The Lebanese Army, as usual, has done little to oppose the coup. Hizbollah is now again in a strength position, not because it is right, nor because it represents a majority, but simply because of brutal violence and its will to use it against a state that has been emptied of any strength by external powers.
It is a sad day for Lebanon, a sad day for Muslims (who have killed each others the whole last two days) and a sad day for the Middle-East. Nothing new, unfortunately, but I believe it was worth mentioning amongst the general indifference of Western media and the boredom of the chain of news coming from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Europe's Day and Lebanon Civil War
Dear readers,
It's today Europe's Day (9th May) and it could be a great celebration for me and all other European dreamers like me. We could wave European flags, sing the European anthem, fire blue and gold fireworks, whatever. But I don't feel like rejoicing. First, nobody cares. My fellow French and Dutchmen voted against the EU Constitution and we are now stuck with parliamentary approval of a fig-leaf, watered down Lisbon Treaty. Europe is not more democratic than three years ago, not more transparent and not more social (nor "pro-business", by the way). The No-sayers shot themselves in the foot, but they also back stabbed the pro-European Yes-voters. So I don't see much reason to party.
There is another reason I feel sad today: Lebanon imploded again in Civil War. This unfortunate country is torn between pro-Iranian opposition militias (essentially Shia, with the silent approval of the Aounists) and the pro-Western government (with a divided Army unable to re-establish law and order) and some Sunni militias. The Shias have taken the airport and a TV station, while the Sunni have blocked the Syrian road to cut Hezbollah and Amal from potential Syrian reinforcements. But Shias could benefit from Iranian air bridge if their supplies run out (again unlikely). As usual, the ones suffering are the ordinary Lebanese of all confessions and political views who believe that laws and not thugs should rule the country.
Some people are quick to send both sides back to back with shared responsibilities. I am not one of these. Sure, the government might have mishandled the situation... But everybody should keep in mind that the Lebanese legitimate government has been pushed in its last throes by Hizbollah. A private sectarian militia controls half of the country, decides of war and peace, runs private secret services, a command and control network, secret arm stashes and randomly kills peaceful journalists, politicians or too brave Army officers for their liking. This militia is not even representing domestic interests but the ones of a foreign power (Iran and, to some lesser extent Syria). The Lebanese government and Army might have left things gone too far and have left themselves bullied. But the first responsible for all this violence is a fascist theocratic murderer: Hassan Nasrallah.
So you see, dear reader, there is really nothing to be happy about.
It's today Europe's Day (9th May) and it could be a great celebration for me and all other European dreamers like me. We could wave European flags, sing the European anthem, fire blue and gold fireworks, whatever. But I don't feel like rejoicing. First, nobody cares. My fellow French and Dutchmen voted against the EU Constitution and we are now stuck with parliamentary approval of a fig-leaf, watered down Lisbon Treaty. Europe is not more democratic than three years ago, not more transparent and not more social (nor "pro-business", by the way). The No-sayers shot themselves in the foot, but they also back stabbed the pro-European Yes-voters. So I don't see much reason to party.
There is another reason I feel sad today: Lebanon imploded again in Civil War. This unfortunate country is torn between pro-Iranian opposition militias (essentially Shia, with the silent approval of the Aounists) and the pro-Western government (with a divided Army unable to re-establish law and order) and some Sunni militias. The Shias have taken the airport and a TV station, while the Sunni have blocked the Syrian road to cut Hezbollah and Amal from potential Syrian reinforcements. But Shias could benefit from Iranian air bridge if their supplies run out (again unlikely). As usual, the ones suffering are the ordinary Lebanese of all confessions and political views who believe that laws and not thugs should rule the country.
Some people are quick to send both sides back to back with shared responsibilities. I am not one of these. Sure, the government might have mishandled the situation... But everybody should keep in mind that the Lebanese legitimate government has been pushed in its last throes by Hizbollah. A private sectarian militia controls half of the country, decides of war and peace, runs private secret services, a command and control network, secret arm stashes and randomly kills peaceful journalists, politicians or too brave Army officers for their liking. This militia is not even representing domestic interests but the ones of a foreign power (Iran and, to some lesser extent Syria). The Lebanese government and Army might have left things gone too far and have left themselves bullied. But the first responsible for all this violence is a fascist theocratic murderer: Hassan Nasrallah.
So you see, dear reader, there is really nothing to be happy about.
29 April 2008
What's wrong with Italy?
Dear readers,
This morning, the results of the elections in Rome have been confirmed and published: The PDL (People of the Freedom Party) Gianni Alemanno, actually a Neo-Fascist, has been elected mayor of Rome by a large margin of 7.4 points. The centre left Francesco Rutelli admitted his defeat, due to a combination of voters bored with the 15 years of ruling of the capital city by the left and to their adhesion to the anti-immigration and security promises of the right. The right wing party scores is also a reflection of the national level elections two weeks ago.
But what does this mean? It means that it is nowadays perfectly ok for millions of European voters to put a yes bulletin in a ballot box for parties which are openly claiming the inheritance of Benito Mussolini. And I can already hear the allegations of some pundits that this is an Italian specificity and that Italian elections and politics have never been really that serious. To these I will tell: wake up! Italian elections might have some folkloric elements (how could it be different with a clown like Berlusconi heading the right wing alliance), it is very serious that only 63 years after World War II, Europeans have learned nothing. And it is really not limited to Italy.
The positive point with Italy is that at least they don't mind calling the thing by its name. After all, how could they hide it when the head of one of the right wing parties is Alessandra Mussolini? But look at facts: Austrians have voted neo-nazis in a coalition government for years and "tolerant" Dutch regularly vote for parties such as the PvV (Party of the Freedom, a fascist group) or ToN (Trots op Nederlands, from ex-prison guard Rita Verdonk). What is wrong with Europe?
In my views, two things, none of them easy to reach:
- lack of ambition and vision for its politicians and intellectuals
- lack of education and awareness for its citizens.
Edit: thanks Paco for the correction about ToN... ;-)
This morning, the results of the elections in Rome have been confirmed and published: The PDL (People of the Freedom Party) Gianni Alemanno, actually a Neo-Fascist, has been elected mayor of Rome by a large margin of 7.4 points. The centre left Francesco Rutelli admitted his defeat, due to a combination of voters bored with the 15 years of ruling of the capital city by the left and to their adhesion to the anti-immigration and security promises of the right. The right wing party scores is also a reflection of the national level elections two weeks ago.
But what does this mean? It means that it is nowadays perfectly ok for millions of European voters to put a yes bulletin in a ballot box for parties which are openly claiming the inheritance of Benito Mussolini. And I can already hear the allegations of some pundits that this is an Italian specificity and that Italian elections and politics have never been really that serious. To these I will tell: wake up! Italian elections might have some folkloric elements (how could it be different with a clown like Berlusconi heading the right wing alliance), it is very serious that only 63 years after World War II, Europeans have learned nothing. And it is really not limited to Italy.
The positive point with Italy is that at least they don't mind calling the thing by its name. After all, how could they hide it when the head of one of the right wing parties is Alessandra Mussolini? But look at facts: Austrians have voted neo-nazis in a coalition government for years and "tolerant" Dutch regularly vote for parties such as the PvV (Party of the Freedom, a fascist group) or ToN (Trots op Nederlands, from ex-prison guard Rita Verdonk). What is wrong with Europe?
In my views, two things, none of them easy to reach:
- lack of ambition and vision for its politicians and intellectuals
- lack of education and awareness for its citizens.
Edit: thanks Paco for the correction about ToN... ;-)
22 April 2008
Free Tibet or free China?
As usual, I prefer, dear readers, to comment on things after they have happened. Some people could call this a lazy habit, but I call it a safer one.
So here are some simple, proven facts:
- China is going to host the Olympics this year (whose boycott I support, just like I support Chiquita banana or Monsanto products boycott).
- At the occasion of the anniversary of China's invasion of Tibet, Tibetan demonstrations in Lhasa (and other regions) turned to violent anti-Han riots.
- These riots were suppressed violently and a ban on foreign press was imposed in Tibet.
- No free/critical information (even non political) can be published without dire consequences inside the Great Firewall of China.
- No free/critical information published outside the Firewall can be accessed from inside (such as this blog, for instance)
- The People's Republic of China is neither a Republic nor democratic. It is the uncontested rule of the Communist Party clique over the multitude.
- China is not a communist country, it is an oligarchy (and a very corrupt one).
- China does not tolerate any separatism, not even autonomy of peripheral regions.
- China does not tolerate freedom of religion.
- Many Tibetans are asking for independence, though the Dalai Lama (the head of their exiled government) is only asking for total religious freedom and an autonomy which would maintain its cultural and ethnic identity.
- Pro-Tibetan groups and free press activists have used the Olympic Torch relay to demonstrate against Chinese position.
- The Chinese government had promised some substantial Human Rights improvements to the Olympic Committee, ahead of the Games and in exchange for being allowed to organize them.
- None of these promises have been hold. Actually in some areas, the situation has become worse, arguably because of the Games.
- Chinese netjects (a neologism, contraction of "net" and "subjects", that I just created to replace the term "netizen" in places where citizenship is not obvious) have massively used the internet and messenger services to show their unconditional support to their government.
- Such netjects have shown no ability to hold an argumentative and rational conversation, using rather pre-digested babble and nationalistic rethorics.
My conclusion: if you want to make everyone happy (and that includes Taiwan, Macao and Hong-Kong), don't free Tibet, free China!
So here are some simple, proven facts:
- China is going to host the Olympics this year (whose boycott I support, just like I support Chiquita banana or Monsanto products boycott).
- At the occasion of the anniversary of China's invasion of Tibet, Tibetan demonstrations in Lhasa (and other regions) turned to violent anti-Han riots.
- These riots were suppressed violently and a ban on foreign press was imposed in Tibet.
- No free/critical information (even non political) can be published without dire consequences inside the Great Firewall of China.
- No free/critical information published outside the Firewall can be accessed from inside (such as this blog, for instance)
- The People's Republic of China is neither a Republic nor democratic. It is the uncontested rule of the Communist Party clique over the multitude.
- China is not a communist country, it is an oligarchy (and a very corrupt one).
- China does not tolerate any separatism, not even autonomy of peripheral regions.
- China does not tolerate freedom of religion.
- Many Tibetans are asking for independence, though the Dalai Lama (the head of their exiled government) is only asking for total religious freedom and an autonomy which would maintain its cultural and ethnic identity.
- Pro-Tibetan groups and free press activists have used the Olympic Torch relay to demonstrate against Chinese position.
- The Chinese government had promised some substantial Human Rights improvements to the Olympic Committee, ahead of the Games and in exchange for being allowed to organize them.
- None of these promises have been hold. Actually in some areas, the situation has become worse, arguably because of the Games.
- Chinese netjects (a neologism, contraction of "net" and "subjects", that I just created to replace the term "netizen" in places where citizenship is not obvious) have massively used the internet and messenger services to show their unconditional support to their government.
- Such netjects have shown no ability to hold an argumentative and rational conversation, using rather pre-digested babble and nationalistic rethorics.
My conclusion: if you want to make everyone happy (and that includes Taiwan, Macao and Hong-Kong), don't free Tibet, free China!
19 April 2008
Geert Wilders and the Koran II
Gert Wilders eventually published his film on the internet. Fitna (that's the title, and it means division in Arabic) is a sixteen minutes montage of archive images (international and Dutch) and tacky music. It also shows gruesome news archives, such as a beheading and various terrorist attacks by some extremist Muslim groups (mainly Al Qaeda). There are also a couple of provocative pictures such as one of the caricatures of Muhammad from the Jyllands Posten and a short view of the Koran (read in the wrong direction), followed by the noise of pages torn. Fellow Muslims, don't worry, the film production informed us that the pages actually torn off were from a telephone book. Yeah, right... The symbol is there. Anyway, to summarize on such a non event, it is a totally uninteresting film with no original image whatsoever and a poor message. It can be summarized as: "Some Muslims do horrible things and follow some very extreme surates from the Koran. Ergo, most Muslims are dangerous people and should radically change their views and amend their religion or get the hell out from the Netherlands".
Needless to say that the film was not welcome in the Netherlands (a traditionally very tolerant country). Politicians from practically all parties did what they could in term of damage control before the publication and after. But the law in the Netherlands is fortunately very liberal and protects freedom of opinion. So the film was published on the Internet (no TV station wanted to take the risk to publish him in its entirety, which is I think a shame). And now that it is done, I could also add: why all the trouble? There is nothing interesting there. It is a non event. Ok, it is more of a media event than a real event. The film is provocative but pretty mildly, the images are gruesome, but they are only archives. And the film is full of mistakes and approximations.
In the end, Geert Wilders managed to get sued three times for it. The Muslim associations in the Netherlands sued because it attacks religion (under the anti-racism laws). This has no chance of success because of the prominence of the freedom of expression laws. The caricaturist of the Jyllands Posten sued (and might win) because his caricature was used without his authorization, which is a violation of European laws on copyright. And a Dutch Muslim artist sued (and won) because his picture was used in place of the face of a Dutch-Moroccan terrorist.
As we say in French: "Circulez, y a rien à voir" (go on, there is nothing to see)!
Needless to say that the film was not welcome in the Netherlands (a traditionally very tolerant country). Politicians from practically all parties did what they could in term of damage control before the publication and after. But the law in the Netherlands is fortunately very liberal and protects freedom of opinion. So the film was published on the Internet (no TV station wanted to take the risk to publish him in its entirety, which is I think a shame). And now that it is done, I could also add: why all the trouble? There is nothing interesting there. It is a non event. Ok, it is more of a media event than a real event. The film is provocative but pretty mildly, the images are gruesome, but they are only archives. And the film is full of mistakes and approximations.
In the end, Geert Wilders managed to get sued three times for it. The Muslim associations in the Netherlands sued because it attacks religion (under the anti-racism laws). This has no chance of success because of the prominence of the freedom of expression laws. The caricaturist of the Jyllands Posten sued (and might win) because his caricature was used without his authorization, which is a violation of European laws on copyright. And a Dutch Muslim artist sued (and won) because his picture was used in place of the face of a Dutch-Moroccan terrorist.
As we say in French: "Circulez, y a rien à voir" (go on, there is nothing to see)!
22 February 2008
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...
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...
08 February 2008
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?
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?
07 February 2008
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.
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.
06 February 2008
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.
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.
02 February 2008
(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.
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.
25 January 2008
28 December 2007
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!"
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!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)