The Republic of Dissent

Bush and Chirac: they belong together !?

It is funny and ironic how things change and how politicians who dislike each other can find each other in the same position and having to reach the same balance to save their terms in office. This afternoon (in the evening in France), Chirac will speak to the French in order to end the CPE (first job contract law) crisis by firmly putting it into effect. His mission is exactly what President Bush’s mission was more than ten year ago when he spoke to mark the three-year anniversary of the war in Iraq. Chirac has to show resolve without appearing to deny reality and without appearing to dismiss what is happening in the streets of Paris. The problem for Chirac is that I do not think that he can be Bush-like that is show that he will not back down while at the same time appearing open to dialogue. The big question is whether a show of authority, of strength with a touch of finesse will work in France. I am not sure, but will depend on how many French want order above everything else.

The problem with Lou Dobbs and other TV personalities turned crusaders

I couldn’t help myself last night and I watched Lou Dobbs on CNN. He is doing his show from Cancun to make as noise as possible about his point of view that the US needs to secure its borders and take a tougher stand on illegal immigration. My problem with Lou Dobbs is not his views, but rather the fact that he uses his TV show as a platform to present them as facts without any balance. I am wondering whether “journalists” should be allowed to do, that is to have an hour on a popular channel such as CNN to preach and to proselytize. That is what Lou Dobbs is doing on various issues especially outsourcing, globalization, and immigration. Is it too much to expect a little bit of balance from a “news show” for after all isn’t what the Lou Dobbs pretends to be or am I expecting too much?

Immigration Myths

I have received many comments related to my post on Immigration. I want first to thank of those who commented and second, I want to try to eliminate a few of immigration myths so that we can have a constructive debate on this important question.

1. Illegality and poverty should not monopolize the debate. There is the feeling out there that all immigration in the United States is illegal and that it brings in poor people in the United States. It isn't true.
2. Immigration is not a multiple-choice question with two simple and extreme answers. The choice is not thus narrow as the debate has been and it isn’t between those who want to close the borders and build a wall around the US and those who want to welcome all the poor people of world.
3. The question of integration is a bigger question than the one of immigration since it questions the type of society that Americans chose to have. Someone wrote to me that the people demonstrating in the streets were loyal Americans because they had flags from other countries. I disagree. America made the choice a long time ago that immigrants didn’t have to give up their roots and their history to become Americans and part of American society. This explains, for example, the fact that Alex Rodriguez could chose between playing for the United States and playing for the Dominican Republic. It explains why politicians such as Ted Kennedy do not hesitate to talk about their Irish roots and show their love for Ireland. I remember that during the Olympics in Australia, Marion Jones celebrated her victory in the 100 meters with the flag of Belize. Nobody said that she was not loyal to America. One of the greatest things about this country is that multiculturalism and multiethiniticy is not in contradiction with american identity. If some want to change that aspect of America, then they should have a debate about, but not use double standards to justify their hostility to immigration.
4. The poor who come to this country do not come here to be on welfare and to take advantage of the United States social system. They come here to find work and opportunity, which are not present in their own country. I think that there is a hidden message behind those who say that if you are poor, you should be allowed to immigrate here and that message is that poor people are lazy and that they are poor not because there is something wrong with them. Poor immigrants usually end up raising their status in American society because they are willing to lick the streets of Los Angeles or of New York to earn a living. The point is that they are ready and willing to work.
5. The solution of the immigration issue is not essentially about border patrol. It is about the rules and the criteria, which the United States chooses to ensure that the people who immigrate here will be law-abiding citizens and will improve its society. Whether people want to accept it or not, the United States needs immigrants. The most important question in my opinion of this whole debate is how to make the immigration process fair so that there is a just balance between accepting those who have great knowledge and skills and those who are poor, but are entrepreneurial. The sad thing is that because the focus has been on illegal immigration and of security, it has become more difficult for people with skills, knowledge, and talent to immigrate to the United States. I know from experience that it is easier in some circumstances for someone who comes here illegal to get her/his papers by seeking asylum than it is for a student who studied it, who has show by receiving his diplomas that s/he is smart and will more than likely offer something to America.

The immigration debate is a complex one and as President Bush said yesterday, the language use to debate this issue should be not be insulting, but should be moderate.

Is the American media anti-French?

I was so shocked yesterday when watching CNN coverage of the French protests to hear Kyra Phillips compared la place de la République in Paris (a famous avenue) to Tiananmen Square, that I decided to take the time to cool down before writing about it. I thought that somebody would say something to her and give her more information and that today, she would apologize for making such an ignorant assertion, but she didn’t. I do not want to hit on Mrs. Phillips for I think that she is part of a bigger problem in the American media’s coverage of the French protests. It is necessary to say more about the context to show how insulting the comparison of Kyra Phillips was. First, yesterday, there were more than a million people (three millions according to the Unions) in the streets of France,  the manifestations happened for the most part peacefully. What CNN and other medias chose to focus on where the violence of a minority of people who have nothing to do with the one fighting against the CPE (the first job contract law). Only 800 people were arrested yesterday and that should tell you how unbalanced the American press coverage has been. I have argued in my French blog that the French are wrong to assert that the American press is anti-French in the sense that it is purposely looking to give the image of France as exploding or a country who is in the middle of a civil war. I think that the problem is that the American media is a sensationalism machine because it tends to focus on spectacular images, which do not reflect the situation. I believe also that criticizing and making fun of French is a temptation too hard to resist given the snobbish attitude of Chirac towards America and towards everything Anglo-Saxon. In the case of the present French crisis, focusing on the violence that is the result of the acts of very people and focusing on what Americans believe are the French taste for disorder gets in the way of the most important mission of the media which is to inform and not to entertain and to propagate stereotypes.

Africa and its women

Newsweek has a positive article on Africa and the role that African women are playing. I would like to believe that African women can save Africa, but I believe that although they have the strength and the skills necessary to do so tradition and culture may stop them from doing it. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, I am afraid, became president because Liberia is an exceptional country. It was a country that has been brutalized by savage men like Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor (who shamed himself by attempting to run away from Nigeria to avoid justice). Liberia were desperate for peace and for change and it is for that reason that the presidential runoff was between a former soccer star and a woman. Liberia voted for Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf because they needed to be mothered by a grand-mother like figure. Unfortunately, very few African countries are in the same situation. I was reading about the rape of little girls in Kenya and I thought of the fact that women no matter how young they are, are still considered to be a sexual object. The case against Jacob Zuma, the former Vice-president of South Africa shows it and also the fact that the time from women in Africa has not (unfortunately) come.

Should Scalia have recused himself from the case of Bin laden’s driver?

A lot has been written on Scalia and on his speech or rather his answer to a question after a speech in Switzerland, and also about the gesture he made to his critics. However, the essential question remains whether the fact that he is participating in the case of Bin Laden’s driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan an ethical decision on his part given the fact that he already said that he didn’t think that enemy combatants like the accused in the case had rights. This is a complicated issue and I can understand those who believe that he should be participating in this case. Nevertheless, I think that it isn’t unethical for him to participate in this case for two simple reasons. The first reason is that Antonin Scalia is an opinionated man and that he comes to all cases with a predetermined view and with his mind made up (as do most justices). It is very hard to argue that in this case, he should not participate because he expressed an opinion that for one did not surprise anyone and that for two means nothing more than something everybody already knows about him that he has strong beliefs and feelings about the US constitution. The second reason why I believe that Antonin Scalia is right to participate in this case is the fact that it is acceptable for Justices to express their point of view. Scalia did not address the Hamdan driver case in his speech in Switzerland. He talked  about a broader issue that is the one of the enemy combatants. I do not agree with his views, but I think that the fact that he expressed them is not a reason enough to ask for a recusal given the fact he did not discuss the case even though he discussed some of the issues the case is going to be about. If talking about issues, which the Supreme Court deals with is reason enough for a recusal then I am afraid that we would less and less justices able to hear cases for after all don’t they tell them what they think all of the time on abortion, civil rights and the use of international law on  American constitutional cases. Justices, too, have the right of free speech.

Is Anti-americanism madness?

Tony Blair said in a speech to the Australian parliament that the Anti-Americanism that is growing across Europe as madness and I agree with him. I think that in Europe and unfortunately in the world, it is extremely convenient for people to blame everything on America and to believe against logic and reason that America is as evil as what it is fighting against that is extremism that manifests itself principally in the forms of terrorism and violence. Unfortunately, too many people want to believe that everything that the United States does is wrong and use to make that point arguments that are appalling. I believe that critiquing and criticizing America is perfectly alright and even necessary for democracy is after all about dialogue. However, what worried is the fact that having Anti-Americanism views or bashing America indiscriminately is becoming popular not only in Europe, but in the world. It is for this reason that I agree with Blair that Anti-Americanism is madness because it closes one’s mind and makes one sees the work of the devil, of America where it isn’t even there and to believe that it is controlling everything and causing every single wrong in the world. This paranoia explains partly the US’s quandary in Iraq. It is in a part of the world where it is not only radioactive, but also hated. I am afraid that all of the propaganda of the world is not change that fact.

A few questions about Sharia law

I don’t know much about Sharia law. I am wondering whether Sharia law like any code of law depends on who interprets it and of who reads it. The case of Abdul Rahman, I think, is centered precisely on that question whether Sharia law can be modernized and on whether it is used by some people to propagate their extreme worldview. I wonder also whether the people in the streets to demand Abdul Rahman’s head were doing so because they believe that he committed a crime against Islam by converting to Islam. I wonder also whether they are already in a clash of civilizations state of mind which makes it impossible to accept that an Afghan can betray the side of Islam for the one of the West. May be what this case showed is that military action is not enough to pacify or rather to modernize a society. Is the United States making a mistake by focusing essential on the military aspects of the Afghanistan conflict?

Paris is not burning, Paris is resisting.

I am starting to be exhausted by having to write constantly to defend France or rather la jeunesse Française (the French youth). I have read more articles than I care to remember about France and its so-called fantasy world. The authors of those articles argue that France is burning. Their main point is that the youth are resisting modernity. I would have no problem with those articles if those people were arguing for the law, le CPE, which has provoked the current demonstrations. Instead, all of their arguments are based on false presumptions, prejudices and on the past, on the unrest that happened in the suburbs at the end of last year and of the reputation that France has for being unwilling to reform. Claire Berlinski had an article in the Post that was just absurd. She concluded by arguing that the real question is “Who rules? This is the second time in 11 years that a popularly elected government here faces dismissal not from the voters, but from the streets. If this does not represent a direct challenge to the government's power, it is hard to know what would. Should the government fall, the question will have been answered.” I disagree. The question posed by the current demonstrations is how to reform and to revitalize the French society and French economy, should it be done on the back of the youth so the current system is preserved no matter the costs or should it be done by putting more choices and more power in the hands of the youth? At the end of last weed, an article in the post argued that the French joie de vivre is fading into fear; I do agree that a malaise is gripping France. However, my argument is that the revolt of the French youth is a positive sign for its shows that the people who are the future of France are not brain dead and care. Newsweek has two negative articles on France and its labor law. In the first one, Robert J. Samuelson argues that the French youth is trying to push the future away by marching in the streets; on the contrary, they are trying to take their future back from the hands of a French political class, which lacks both creativity and inspiration. In the second article, Denis MacShane gives us a truer vision of the situation by saying that French and Europeans leaders only know how to say no to reforms. However, he concludes his article by stating that, “Today's French and Italian leaders preside over their own immobile anciens régimes. Both countries need a revolution. But it will not come from students who protest against change, labor leaders who deny modernity—and politicians who only know how to say Non.” I agree, but again, it is important to insist that the French students are not resisting change; they are saying Non to a future where their only purpose would be to support a system so that baby boomers can still enjoy the fruits of the welfare state. The problem with the labor law, le CPE is that it slaps the French youth is the face, by sending them the message that the state is not ready to give them the tools to face harsh realities, and the opportunities to make France a modern nation. My argument is simple; the Villepin government could have change the debate by making it more hopeful by saying to its youth that although it was going to take something back, it was going to give them something back by making it possible for example for them to become entrepreneurs and to have something to study and to work for. The problem is that Villepin’s message was and still is, it is the CPE or darkness. There was no better incentive for the youth to take to the streets than to send them a message that was the equivalent of giving them the finger.

The immigration question: fear + prejudice = Tragedia Americana

As most people, I watched the demonstrations that happened at the end of the week and this weekend to protest the immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives. It is very difficult for me not to be against that bill given the fact that I am an immigrant and that as such I find it hard to accept that certain key aspects of immigration are criminalized. Paul Krugman has a good article in the New York Times in which he acknowledges the fact that illegal immigration does pose some problems for the US and that it does not have as many benefits to the economy as commonly argued. However, he still argues both against the Bush plan and against the bill passed by the House. He writes, “Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests — legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.” I agree that something that needs to be done, but my fear is that if we treat immigrants as statistics, as merchandise, or even as cattle then we risk losing what is the appeal to this country, which is its openness, and the fact that the American dream remains accessible to all even to those who come here illegally. The big question when it comes to immigration is the following and it has to do with what kind of country the United States wants to be. Is the United States going to decide that it has had its shares of the world’s poor and unfortunate people by closing its borders to them and by making it more difficult for people who have something to offer this country to become a citizen to this country?

Abdul Rahman will be freed

The Afghan Christian will be freed soon for lack of evidence. I believe that the damage to Afghanistan is done even though its leaders were finally able to “convince” the judge to free him. The BBC had a story this morning according to which the government was trying to free him on ground that he was mentally unfit and his family members even said that he was hearing voices. Yeah, clearly that man is crazy for it is the only explanation for his conversion to Christianity or maybe he is just one what is called a true believer.

Are religions above Satire?

 

Andrew Sullivan has a great article in the London Times in which he is using the South Park and Scientology controversy to make the point that extremists are winning the fight against freedom of expression and especially against satire. He writes, “And so we are back where we were with the Muhammad cartoons. Someone somewhere won’t let you see the Scientology episode of South Park. You can go to the Comedy Central website and view it on the internet — the last refuge for free speech. But you won’t see it on television. In a battle between satire and religion, although some deny that Scientology deserves that moniker, religion wins again.” I agree with his point of view. I think that the United States or at least its politicians have increasingly made the point that freedom of speech is not the quintessential important American value but that faith or rather decency is. No politicians can run on freedom of speech for it isn’t a winning issue for the person running against her/him will run ads saying that s/he is for indecency on television and for flag burning etc. The FTC has become more aggressive in fining television networks for what it considers indecent programs. It fined CBS because it let its show Without a Trace talked about an orgy even though no images were shown. We are living in a time where the sacred is placed beyond everything including humanity and freedom. The question that we have to ask ourselves is the following: if we cannot make fun of religion or even of God, if some forms of expressions are not free then what makes us different from Islamists, is it just the fact that the sacred of the West, the purity that many of its peole are seeking is different or superior from the ones of Islamists?Andrew Sullivan concludes his article by making this point, “And so we are back where we were with the Muhammad cartoons. Someone somewhere won’t let you see the Scientology episode of South Park. You can go to the Comedy Central website and view it on the internet — the last refuge for free speech. But you won’t see it on television. In a battle between satire and religion, although some deny that Scientology deserves that moniker, religion wins again.”

Tags: South Park, Scientology, Freedom of Speech, Satire

Silvio Berlusconi shames Italy

I just ran across this short video clip of the prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi doing so that I will neither describe nor qualify for I will have to use vile language to describe it. Anyway, you can see it for yourself by clicking here. I heard on a TV show that Karl Rove is advising Berlusconi. If it is true, but if it is, I find it shameful that an adviser of the president of the United States would advise a politician who has an alliance with neo-fascists parties such as the one of Alessandra Mussolini. She is a woman who said recently that it was better to be a fascist than to be gay. Maybe, I am too harsh, but I think that it is hard to fight against what people call “Islamo-fascists” if you are advising somebody who has a political alliance with Italian neo-fascists.

Tags: Italy, Berlusconi

Family feud in Cyberspace

I thought that since it is Saturday, it would take a short breather from heavy stories by talking about a more amusing one and I found this story on the Guardian. It is about a father, Steve Williams who spurred his 20-year-old daughter into cleaning her messy room by building a website (www.shameit.com) with pictures of her filthy room. The daughter, Claire cleaned her room but to get over the public humiliation she fought back by creating her site with pictures of her father in compromising positions.

The Anglo-Saxon obsession of Jacques Chirac

President Chirac walked out last night out of the European Summit when Ernest-Antoine Seillière, head of the Unice employers organization (a European Business group) and a Frenchman, decided to speak in English. Chirac’s advisors said that he did it to defend the French language. My reaction to that is that it is just pure theater and that the French language does not need to be defended by meaningless acts that only fuel ridicule. Chirac is obsessed with what he considers to be the domination of the Anglo-Saxon culture which is shown by the fact that English is spoken everywhere (including in France) and by the fact that some of the biggest companies are American (i.e.,Google). In his speech yesterday, he defended the recent actions of his Prime Minister Villepin, which have embraced economic patriotism because he said that French companies needed to be protected from companies which sole motive is to make money. I am increasingly irritated and discouraged by Chirac’s vision of the world because it seems to put too much emphasis on language and culture and to believe that globalization is bad because it isn’t such Americanization, but Anglo-Saxonization. Such a narrow vision of the world isolates France and takes the focus out of what matter most in the world of today, skill, competence, and the ability to sell a product, a product, and a country. Chirac is placing too much emphasis on language. He is making a mistake by insisting that France and Europe need to create European champions to not allowing companies such as Google and Microsoft to dominate the global economy. With his pedantic views, Chirac is showing that he still lives in the pre-globalization era when nationality and geography were everything and when it was believed that the state could create industries. If France is to succeed in having its own Google and Microsoft, it will do so because it will place the focus where it should on talent, entrepreneurship and on competition. The world isn’t going to become multipolar because French speaking people are going to stop using  Google, but because they would have been enable to offer alternative products, services, and culture that will be more attractive not because they are not Anglo-Saxon, but because they are better.

The trial of a Muslim who converted to Christianity: clash of values or future and brutal rupture with “western values”?

I am wondering what does the case of Abdul Rahman shows about Afghanistan. Abdul Rahman is  this Afghan who is being judged for converting to Christianity and who risks the death penalty for that reason. Does it show that the Taliban did not come to power out of thin air and that they had a real political base in the Afghan society? Or does it show that the US mission in Afghanistan has failed in its most important task, which was not just to overthrow the Taliban, but to place their archaic ideas in a trash can? Afghanistan is often cited a success of a country where democratization is working. However, I am starting to believe that if Afghanistan is really going to be a democratic country than it may have to let politicians who are Taliban-like in the political process.

France bites Apple

Last week, the French lower house of parliament has passed a law that requires Apple to share I-tunes with others mp3 players so that its downloaded music can be used by all of them for the sake of giving consumers freedom of choice and of sharing  online culture. The goal of the law is to open up the market of digital music by forcing big companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Sony to share their technology, and thus to enable other companies to enter the market. My guess and it is only a guess is that the real motivation behind this goal is in fact to create a French company at best or even a European that would offer the same services that Apple does. If this is the purpose of the law, I am afraid that it will not work for Apple will never share I-tunes unless it has too. I think that the French members of parliament have the mistaken that they can create French technological companies out of thin air or rather by forcing foreign companies to share their technology. The problem is that the law if it passed (the French senate still has to approve it) will be limited to France, which means that all Apple and the other have to do is to strike French from the map when it comes to I-tunes. It would have been better to provide incentives to those companies to share for I am afraid that in this era of globalization, states are going to have less and less power.

France is not Disney Land

Many people seem to make the assumption that so many French youths are in the streets is just because they like to be there or because they are refusing to accept the fact that the world is changing and that they have to change with it. Steven Pearlstein wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday which I would have called just simply wrong if he hadn’t repeated all the clichés about France and its unwillingness to accept globalization, liberalism and capitalism, but because instead of making his point, he uses stereotypes, I will called his arguments stupid and offensive. The French youth is in the streets because their government is sacrificing them to restart the economy and to make the labor market more dynamic. The government is unwilling and unable to pass any other kind of reforms that are more urgent such as pension law and health care law. They chose to write a labor law that solely focuses on the French of less than 26 years old because they are the most vulnerable sine they do not vote and since for that reason they are easy to pick upon to try to reform a system that results in more than 20% of youth unemployment. The problem, I will argue is not an attempt to preserve some economic fantasy, but rather a refusal to accept that the youth that is after the future be sacrificed so that the baby boomer be allowed to live long and comfortable retirements. The government of Dominique de Villepin took some risks by reanimating economic patriotism and it did this in spite of the fact that it may face sanctions from the European Union from violating the rules of the European common market. The French youths are in the streets because they want their government to take the same risks for them not by maintaining the façade of security at the price of the future, but rather by making sure that they have the tools and all of the help that they need to compete in a globalized world. Villepin did not talk to those youths and my guess is that he couldn’t talk to them because he could not tell them with a straight face that this law would help them survive in a globalized economy. Some things are worth fighting for and thank god, the jeunesse française knows it.

How to tell whether Iraq is in a Civil war

With the back and forth between those who argue that Iraq is in a civil war (like the former prime minister, Iyad Allawi) and those who say that it is not true (Bush, the current prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafari and Donald Rumsfeld), I decided to make a short list based on recent civil wars particularly those like the one in Rwanda and in Yugoslavia that were ethnic and tribal in nature. Here is the list:

1. Individuality has been replaced by ethnicity.
2. It is increasingly difficult to marry or to even interact with people from a ethnic background.
3. Political leaders and parties are identified not by their ideology, but by their ethnicity. They represent nothing else ethnic interests.
4. It is dangerous to be mixed ethnicity for it makes one a target for both groups.
5. The government isn’t in control and its divisions are mainly on ethnic issues.
6. The rhetoric and the conversation are dominated by ethnic issues.
7. There are places where it is impossible to go if you do not have the right ethnicity.
8. Violence becomes the only effective political tool to settle scores and to seek revenge.
9. Militias and insurgents have more power and more control than the local police and the military.
10. Separation, by either federalism or the partition of the country, becomes an attractive solution to avoid ethnic cleansing.

The objectification of Europe

Francis Fukuyama has an article in today’s Guardian titled, “Europeans should beware of wishing for US failure in Iraq.” He warns Europe against wishing that the desintegrationof Iraq just to see the US humiliated for they would be the ones that would pay a higher price for the satisfaction of seeing the most powerful country in the world defeated by an insurgence and by foreign terrorists. I agree with Fukuyama wholeheartedly. Many Europeans do want to see the US not because they believe that the Iraq war was a mistake, but for the sole pleasure of seeing the world’s last superpower humbled. However, Fukuyama goes a step further and writes:

By invading Iraq, the Bush administration allowed what should have been characterised as a fight with a narrow extremist ideology to escalate into something the Islamists could claim was a clash of civilisations. But that clash will play itself out in large measure in Europe, the breeding ground for Mohammed Atta, Mohammed Bouyeri and the July 7 bombers. …Cooperation to prevent this escalating into a broader civilisational struggle, and to maintain a generally open, integrated international order, will require solidarity. Neither European indulgence in feelgood anti-Americanism nor a bipartisan rise in US nationalism and populism brought about by perceived failure in Iraq will help.

I disagree. I believe that if there is going to be a clash this century it will be between those who believe in modernity (not westernization), progress, and those who believe that tradition and religions outweighs everything. The mistake that Fukuyama makes is to believe that the west, the east, the south, and the east are uniform and are not facing conflicts within their societies between members of those two groups (those who believe in modernity and humanity and those who believe in tradition). We are passed the time when countries and continents could be conquered and transformed (the US is finding that out in Iraq). Europe’s challenge is not a clash of civilization, but rather a clash of modernization because precisely some Europeans are refusing to acknowledge the fact that Europe is changing and that being Europeans in the 21^st century does no longer mean what it meant fifty or even twenty years ago.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word: when politicians behave as sun kings

It is striking to see how difficult it is for politicians to admit that they are fallible and that they can make mistake. I was watching Dick Cheney on Face the Nation yesterday and if I hadn't live the last three years, I would have thought that the Iraq war had gone exactly as he predicted it would. President Bush is still making speeches about Iraq to make the point that the views of Iraq given by Newspapers and television are not accurate. Dominique de Villepin was three years ago the symbol of the opposition against the Iraq war and of what he perceived to be an abrasive style of politics. He is facing a real crisis created not only by his labor law that applies solely to French under 26 years old but also by the harsh manner he chose to pass it through parliament. In spite of the manifestations and the growing disturbances in French universities and high school, Villepin is standing firm and acting as if the problem is one of communication instead of one of policy. He is now showing that he was more in coming in Bush and Cheney that he might have thought. Last year, he became the prime minister of France and got so enamored with the position of power that he started to believe that it make him a Roi Soleil, a sun king, a leader who cannot admit mistake without compromising not only himself, but the function he serves and the state. I understand the need that there is for a leader to be strong, but there comes a point when it becomes impossible to govern effectively without self-criticism and accept that there can’t be sun kings in a democracy. John Steinbeck wrote that only fools do not learn from experience and I think that learning is impossible without acknowledging that the past and the present are not what you want them to be.

What does not kill you makes you stronger and sometimes bitter.

Yesterday was the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the French newspaper, le Figaro focused on the manifestations that there were around the globe and Le Monde had an interesting story about the return home of a American soldier from Iraq who said those words, “There are so many things about Western which I can’t stand anymore.” The Washington Post had a similar story about veterans of the Iraq war. Reading that made think about what could be difficult to stand for someone who fought for his country. Is it self-centeredness or its obsession with petty things? It must be difficult to accept after spending time worrying about the key question of life and death that there isn’t enough introspection. An article on South Africa, and crime made the same point and when the author writes, “After a year spent providing field-based and administrative assistance to an HIV-AIDS organization from Cape Town, I somehow thought my love for this country and all my late nights spent working against its infections would insulate me from its violence.” The reason why the article is interesting is it remind us that the world is not the United States or the West and that people in the West have so many things that they should be grateful that they ought to be at the least less egotistical. There are so many things happening across the world that should be concern us or that should give us hope. The burial of Milosevic, this weekend, showed how difficult it is to move on from the ravages of a genocide when justice has not been done and when the feelings of hatred, which started are still present. The protests of Saturday in France show also how difficult it can be for a government not to just to reform, but to make a case for change when it has spent most of its time precisely making the case against globalization. The problem in France is not really as much the law that makes it easier to fire youth of less than 26 years old than the fact that the Villepin government is timid and has no imagination when it comes to youth and job creation. Villepin limited its options because he has willingly become prisoner of a model that for more than fifty years has failed its youth by making it difficult for them to have rewarding professional lives. Finally, to conclude, I want to go back to Iraq and the op-ed of Donald Rumsfeld, he made many arguments, the most important of which is the following: “The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.” I am afraid that this is no longer a question because we may have past the point of thinking about a free and stable Iraq because may be what we have learned after the last three year is that Iraq was a mission impossible from the start. Fareed Zakaria argues that  the situation Iraq isn’t hopeless yet and I hope that he is right.

Globalization and the tragedy of Urbanization

Middle class families are rushing away from big cities in an attempt to avoid the high costs of living that comes from living in the cities. This trend is not only true in America, but in most of the developed countries where cities are becoming more and more places where people come to work than places where they live and raise their children. However, in developing countries and big emerging powers such as China and India, people are rushing to the big cities in order to run away from the poverty of the rural areas and to live in a place where there are more opportunities. The sad thing is that in China for example, big cities such as Shanghai and Beijing are the focus of the remarkable growth that the country is experiencing while rural areas most of the time do not see any of the good aspects of the Chinese miracle. Chinese leaders have promised not only to focus more on the inequities between cities and rural areas, but also the ones between the rich and the middle class who live in cities and farmers and villagers who are growing increasingly unhappy by  the unfairness of a system which does not protect them from the risks of losing not only their land, but their way of life.

Africa and Aids: overcoming stigmatization and the burden of tradition

The Anglican Church of Kenya took what I think is an important step toward the fight of Aids in Africa by issuing an apology for its past attitude towards those who suffered this illness. Although Aids kills millions in Africa by year, it is still an issue that many governments and societies are reluctant to make a priority because doing it requires changing local attitudes toward sex, gender, and even homosexuality. It is sad to say but traditions are sometimes an impediment in the fight against Aids because it makes it difficult to convince people to use protection and more importantly to get tested in order to avoid contaminating somebody else. It is for these reasons and because it is important to send the message that Aids patients are not sinners but are people who have grave disease that the Anglican Church of Kenya should be applauded for recognizing that it made a mistake by contributing to the stigmatization of Aids victims

The internationalization of torture

A report cleared the French police of torture accusations for arrests that happened in 1995 when France experienced some terrorist attacks principally from Algerian Islamists. The accusations were made in a book, Place Beauveau and in defending the police, the report states, “The short-cuts, untruths and the allusions to the Algerian war and the sinister Iraqi prison of Abu Ghraib give a terrible image to a difficult police enquiry that allowed us to ... condemn those responsible for the attacks.” I believe that we are going to hear more about such allegations not only against the French police, but also against the police of all the countries, which are fighting against terrorism. The fact that there will be allegations will not of course mean that authorities have used torture, but it will mean that they pushed the envelope so close to the limit that many people are not going to be comfortable with it. In the next few years, countries are going to have to enact clear and more emphatic rules about torture and the use of force to clarify what is permissible, to avoid not only confusion and the exploitation of gray zones to do acts that may not be illegal, but that are despicable. Rules are important because it is easier for things to get out of control when they are done under the radar without the proper framework to insure that there are no violations of important values.

Iraq is Iran’s most powerful weapon

So Iran is willing to talk directly to the US about Iraq and I am wondering why are they changing their tune on this issue after dismissing such talks earlier. Did the restatement of the Bush doctrine scares them or are they such so aware of the power that they have in Iraq’s that they want to show it to the United States as a sign of the pain that it can inflict to it there? Tom Friedman writes in this morning’s New York Times that the biggest fear of Iran is to see the United States succeed in Iraq and he is right. Iran has everything to gain by changing strategy on this issue because doing does two things. First, it legitimates their power in Iraq since the US by meeting with them is recognizing that Iran has a role to play in Iraq’s present and future. Second, it enables to show the world and the United States that it is not weak and that it has to power to destabilize the whole region if it chooses to do so. The message seems to be that  Iran is able to push back if pushed too hard (by making the UN hit it hard for example) and that the world should be careful with the way it deals within this country because it needs it on some many issues.

The trouble with the Bush doctrine

The Bush administration restated in a document its doctrine of preemptive war, which in simple terms states that the United States will attack its enemies before it is attacked. My trouble with the doctrine isn’t the preemptive part of it for I believe that it is justified for the United States not to wait to be attacked. The problem is in the fact that in the doctrine as stated by the White House the concept of imminent danger loses all importance and preemptive war is confused with preventive war. Preemption has solid foundations not only within American law, but also within international law, however the key is that the justification of the war and in the proofs provided to show the imminence of the threat. My fear is that if preemptive war is equated to preventive war, then justification becomes unnecessary since all that matters is a country’s subjective assessment that it is being threatened. This is dangerous because it encourages paranoia instead of encouraging rationality. If we allow countries to strike whenever they feel threatened then we are going to be living in a very dangerous century. We will be living in a world where paranoia rules over rationality. Iran would be able to use this doctrine to strike at Israel under the pretext that it feels threatened by its mere existence or by using the argument that Israel was preparing to strike at its nuclear installation whether it is true or not. My point is that preemption cannot be separated from the requirement that the imminent nature of the threat be demonstrated to justify the unusual action of striking first. War cannot be allowed to become the first options of every country that feels threatened.

Islam, religion, integration, and Incompatibility

After reading an article of the Washington Post on the integration test that Dutch authorities are now requiring for people who want to acquire Dutch Citizenship. The most controversial aspect of the Dutch test is a film that includes two men kissing in the park and a woman walking bare-chested. France is soon going to have one of those integration tests if the law proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy is approved. I don’t know what the French test will include, but I believe that the message that Islam is incompatible with Dutch, and French society is implicitly given with those tests for their goal seems to be to stop certain types of people from gaining citizenship. I understand that the need to make sure that new citizens “fit in” however, I am wondering if it is acceptable to exclude people based solely on the fact that they are very religious or that are fervent Muslims. I am not again the idea of testing people who want to acquire citizenship. The US naturalization test is a good example of a test , in my opinion, that is as neutral and as fair as can be expected. Germany is in the process of establishing a naturalization test that is based on the US model for it asks questions about German culture and German History. I understand that the preservation of an identity and of the traditions of a society is important, however, if it is done through discriminative means then it becomes a wrong. Are Europeans willing to say to its millions of Muslims that in order for them to become fully Europeans they have to give up what makes them Muslims, what makes them different so that Europe doesn’t have to change and so that it can remain the old continent. The choice isn’t between accepting the radical ideas of religious extremists which do not tolerate openness and freedom and refusing to acknowledge that to be Dutch, French, German, and Dane in this new century does not mean the same thing that it means a generation ago. Identity is a fluid concept and it must be allowed to evolve with the times as long as its core values are not thrown out the window.

Made for TV justice

The Saddam Hussein trial looks more and more like one of those made for TV event that is supervised by a judge and defendants who play to the camera. I am wondering who had the bright idea to have a trial of such a magnitude while Iraq is still fighting for its survival and while Iraqis are still worry about basis things such as security and electricity. I understand the importance of trying a dictator and that the people who wanted to judge him fast and to do it in Iraq thought that it would unify the country, but it is wrong. My question can there be justice in this trial in such an insecure atmosphere? If the goal is to condemn Saddam to death no matter the outcome, then there is no need for a trial. However, if the goal is to achieve some kind of just verdict to show not only Iraqis and but the world that things have changed in Iraq, I am afraid that that goal will not be realized. There hasn’t been a strong enough framework to conduct a fair trial, to avoid disruptive outbursts and to avoid Saddam Hussein to take control of his trial as he did today when he encouraged the insurgence and the violence. The Saddam Hussein trial was a much too serious and important matter to be left to a country whose first priority should be to remain unified and to achieve a minimum of stability for its citizens.

On Google vs. the government: the end of privacy?

As most people, I feel uneasy about the fact that a judge has allowed the government to see some  of Google’s data. However, I am not sure if my uneasiness is based on something that is becoming passé that is outdated, the concept of privacy. Is it still reasonable to expect privacy in a society where technology makes it possible to find almost anything about everything and everybody? I fear that slowly but surely we are entering an era where in the name of openness, security, and even curiosity (which is becoming a virtue), it is going to become impossible to justify keeping some doors closed. Privacy after all originated from the noble idea that individuals have the right to keep some things about themselves hidden from everybody else. Privacy used to come pretty close to a guarantee in Modern society but that was before technology, before tools existed to find out what people wanted to keep hidden or rather to keep out of the public arena. The times are changing and I fear that this ruling by the judge is just one of the first indications that we have that privacy is no longer a sacred right.

Lips service to democracy

I have read many articles lately about democracy, about the fact that it causes instability, and about the fact that it may not be a viable goal for foreign policy. However, I believe that the problem is not the promotion of democracy but rather its exploitation to justify policies goals that are purely realist in nature. A good example of this hypocrisy is the case of Iran. It has been a theocracy for more than 20 years now and the United States has never really considered that it was an important goal to support democracy in Iran until it elected a president who seems to be deranged (Ahmadinejad) and is waiting for the end of the world and until it started to have clear nuclear ambitions. Of course, democracy isn’t a perfect system, and those who argue that it leads to instability are in fact saying that it is not good for some societies because the people within them are will never be able to exercise it orderly and that chaos will spread not only in their countries, but in vast regions. It is only noble to promote democracy when it is a goal in itself and not a means to achieve other goals, which are considered more important because they are most of the times economic in nature. The problem isn’t democracy, it is hypocrisy, inconsistency, and more importantly the tools used to promote it.

Zealot's stupidity

Pat Robertson has outdone himself one more time by saying once again something that is not only divisive, but also ignorant and hateful. He accused Muslims (not just some Muslims) of wanting to dominate the world and he called some of them “satanic.” He said that Islam is not a religion of peace. Pat Robertson knows about Islam as he knows about Christianity that is not much. I am starting to have the feeling that God has stopped talking to Pat Robertson and that the voices that he hears in the morning are not divine, but rather signs that he is either psychotic or schizophrenic.

Questions of faiths

There was a good Op-ed piece on the Sunday New York Times written by Slavoj Zizek titled “Defenders of Faith,” which poses what I believe to be one of the most important question of our times “What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?” I do agree that religion is as much part of the problems of extremism, radicalism, terrorism and violence that we are facing but I do not believe that it is what causes the ills of our time. I may be naive but I believe that radicals do not become radical and violent because of religion. Religion is a subterfuge, a pretext; even in an atheist society, there would be terrorism and violence. The problem to me is not faith, but rather the fact that few people have faith in humanity and have placed fraternity above more dominant value such as conquest and submission. Faith isn’t the problem. The cause of strife is the differences between those who want absolute justice and those who want absolute freedom. The first group uses God to justify the unfairness and sometimes the violence created by their absolutism. Those who want absolute freedom argue that human beings are God and are therefore free to rule on earth. As Camus reminded us more than half a century ago, the fact that everything is permissible doesn’t mean that nothing is forbidden and human beings are still the future of humanity. It is for that reason that the hope is not necessarily atheism, but rather faith in our humanity.

Rice on India

Condi Rice has an op-ed article in the Washington post, which defends the US historic deal with India on nuclear energy. She writes, "our agreement with India will make our future more secure, by expanding the reach of the international nonproliferation regime" and she argues that, Our agreement with India is unique because India is unique." She is right, but two questions come to mind after reading her article. First, is India going to be the only country which gets special treatment from the United States on the Nuclear issue? I believe that the deal with India was a good thing, but I am nevertheless aware of the message that it sends which is the one of inconsistency. It is essential for the United States to address that issue, but clarifying the new rules of the game for it is clear that this deal changed the role. Second, can other countries do the same kind of deal with countries that they consider unique? Can China or Russia have the same type of deal with Iran for example by arguing that Iran is unique (which it is) and that they believed that it deserve preferential treatment too?  The danger here is not only inconsistency, but the disintegration of the system, that attempted to restrain nuclear proliferation. If Miss Rice is going to argue that India is unique and that it is fighting terrorism, she must also answer the central question of what happens now and why this deal isn't a tacit admission that the non-proliferation treaty is dead..

The rise of antiamericanism in South America

It was startling to look at the images of the inauguration of Michelle Bachelet and to see images of Evo Morales and of the gift he offered Condi Rice (a guitar with leaves of coca). Latin America is changing and what is worrisome is the fact that to be popular in the region, it is helpful and even required to be anti-American as Hugo Chavez and Castro are. Chavez has made anti-Americanism the base of his power and knows that the more he positions himself as a fighter against American hegemony in Latin American the more popular he becomes. Castro too is making a comeback by using the inequities of globalization and the fact that America has never been as unpopular as it is now because its sole focus has been on trade and not much else. What is scary is that this rise of anti-Americanism that follows a backlash against international trade and globalization may lead to the rise of governments, which will use hatred and fear to close down and to use old Marxist and totalitarian methods. I don’t think that what is to fear is the rise of the left is Latin American, but rather the rise of a neo-nationalism mixed with totalitarianism that is going to hide under the shape of progressivism. Latin America needs more leaders like Michelle Bachelet because even though it is too soon to say how successful she will be, it is possible to say with almost certainty that she is a democrat and that she will not use the state to hold on to power.

The temptation of eternal power

Nigeriais in crisis. There are clashes between Muslims and Christians, between the government and militants that want the oil from the delta to be used in that region. As always, when countries face those types of crisis, politicians are tempted to expand their power and to change the laws to make to remain in charge even when it is time for them to go. The president of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo is finishing his second term, and normally the constitution forbids him from running for office next year. However, there is a growing expectation that the constitution will be changed to allow him to remain in office in order to save Nigeria. A group of members of parliament voted in favor of a change to the constitution. Of course, this has been done before and the threat to Nigeria is that Obasanjo’s prolonged time in power will start to resemble more and more like a military dictatorship. Political leaders in countries where there are weak institutions tend to believe that they are the only ones capable of ruling their countries. They tend to view themselves in traditional term in order to justify excesses and abuses and to try to hold on to power by all means necessary. The problem is that the more a country depends on one person, the less secure its future, and the more likely it is that the political class will not be rejuvenated because the leader tends to believe as Louis XIV that they are not only the state, but that they are the country.

The Napoleon Complex of Dominique de Villepin

The French prime minister, Dominique de Villepin is facing his first real crisis and it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that he chose to support economic patriotism. It has to do with the fact that he chose to force down the throat not only of the French parliament, but also of the Youth new and radical measures that would reform the employment code by making it easier for companies to hire the Youth and to fire them. There is going to be a presidential election next year in France and Villepin is fighting with Nicolas Sarkozy to impose himself as the candidate of the right. The problem that Villepin is facing is that Sarkozy is seen as the candidate, which represents change, rupture, action, security, and authority. With this attempt to reform the employment, Villepin tried to show that he was the reformer with results. However, because he is a fervent admire of Napoleon, he forgot that France is a special country and that it is impossible to pass reform without at least giving the impression that there are negotiations going on and that the people who are going to be affected by the reforms, the youth in this case, will be listened to. Villepin did not listen and did not dialogue because he wanted to impose his authority and to show that he too could be tough like Sarkozy. I believe that he showed his inexperience and his lack of political skills for after all, he has never been elected and has spend most of his life in the halls of power.  His approach backfired because the opposition sensed that he was weak and that his obsession with Sarkozy would force him to act like Napoleon in order to support his authority. The youth are in the streets and they have mobilized to defeat his reforms. Sarkozy smelling blood shortened his trip to the Antilles to come back to France to show that he is the only one in the government capable to maintain order. Villepin will not back down. He knows that if he does, he will never be president so what he is doing now is holding on. He is hoping that the demonstrators will overplayed their ends and use violence so that he will be able to say to the French that it is impossible to dialogue with them and that he is right to say no to them.

Crime and punishment: should there be shorter jail sentences for rape?

In Great Britain, the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) is recommending that the jail terms of rapists should be cut by 15%. Why? Because the prison regime is “more demanding.” My question is more demanding than what? Can jail be more demanding than the time that a rape victim has to spend to accept what happened to her, to learn to erase the disgust that she feels at having had a stranger “have” her, and to find a way to live with it? Will this reduction apply to people who rape children too or just grown women? Have we come to a time when rape is no longer viewed as a crime that should be severely punished by rather one that is less than other crimes? The move is designed to free space from prisons, which are overcrowded in Britain. The same council recommends that mitigating factors be given more weight or rather that they be allowed to reduce further the sentence of a rapist. I am trying to find good reasons that could justify this change of attitude toward sex crimes and I can find none. I am wondering how should we decide which crimes should be given “demanding” jail sentences. Should we take in consideration the number of victim, the impact of the crime, or just the state of mind of the perpetrator?

How to stop genocide without dramatic images?

To me, the most important news of the week was the extension by the African Union of its peacekeeping in Darfur and the fact that it didn’t get much coverage in the media. I can’t remember the last time I saw images of Darfur on Television with the commentary of international reporter. I think that part of the problem is that Darfur is inaccessible, but it is also that the pictures that you get from that there are spectacular and therefore do not make good television. I believe also that the biggest challenge that Darfur poses for the media is that it is too complicate since it involves religion, ethnicity, nationalism, and African regional issues.  Complexity doesn’t seem to be something that the media can deal it and it is worrisome because the world is increasingly complex. As to what happens this week, I am very reluctant to say that it is a step in the right direction, because nobody seems to be willing to do what it takes to deal with this crisis and to force Sudan to put an end to it. What scares me is that the strong suspicion that the government of Sudan wants to purify Darfur much more than the world wants to save. I remember that after Rwanda, the West said what it said after the Shoah, “never again,” but we know now that because it takes money, will and political leadership to stop genocides, leaders will almost never act unless images broadcasted on Television shames them into action.

When the West infects the East

The Washington Post has a great article on Adoption and China. It talks about how the increasing desire in the United States for Chinese infants is creating a market for stolen babies in China. This is of course not new information, but it is still appalling how need in what part of the world creates markets for everything in another part of the world. The West has become dependent on the rest of the world not only to provide cheap labor, but also to provide other things that are harder to find in the West. In this case, the fact that we are talking about children show how difficult it can be to survive in a country where the laws and the civil society aren’t strong enough to stop the trade of children. China is not the only country facing this type of problems, and the sad fact is that being stolen isn’t the worst thing that can happen to children. They can be raped and sold into prostitution some by family members. China has started a morality campaign in order to remind its citizen of their moral heritage. It will not stop anything for what is needed is more than words. In these situations, the countries with the means (money, power, etc…), countries from the West, have to act and do everything they can to make sure that in this case, the children that are adopted have not been stolen by their parents.

When death frustrates justice

Slobodan Milosevic who was on trial for genocide and crimes against humanity died this morning apparently of natural causes. His trial had started more than 3 years ago and justice was never served. In my opinion, this death just showed how slow and bureaucratic the international justice system is and how difficult it actually is to judge former head of states. Milosevic (as Saddam Hussein is doing right now) was able to transform his trial in a political forum to defend his ideas and his actions. However, it is important to say that the fact that the court of The Hague let him defend himself showed its fairness and its impartiality. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of the court that is judging Saddam Hussein. In my opinion, the US made a mistake by not giving custody of Saddam to the UN tribunal because it would have ensured at least that the outcome was seen as fair by everybody even if it would have taken a lot time. I have the feeling that Saddam is going to end up like Milosevic; he is going to escape justice by dying.

When fear and stupidity rule

Unfortunately, Unfortunately, the concession by Dubai Ports World did not end the debate about foreign ownership in the United States. Some members of congress are going to introduce legislation to give congress more oversight over foreign acquisitions of American businesses. My thought of this issue is it is not only a PR mistake, but a political mistake is going to have international and serious consequences. It is going to affect negatively not only the US government, but also US businesses. Somehow, politicians have this illusion that the United States doesn’t need the world and that it can survive without foreign investment. They should revise their facts and realize that without foreign investments, the US would be in trouble, and that any attempt to try to regulate or to make sure that the “right foreigners” invest in America can only have negative impacts. So what signal does all of this sudden awakening against the evils of foreign investment send to the world? It sends a message that goes further that the fight against terrorism. It sends the message that America is afraid of the world because it has lost its legendary confidence in itself and its ability to compete. The US used to let all people invest here because it believes that openness was an American value. Closed doors must not be allowed to be the symbol of the US in this new century because if it is the system will disintegrate and collapse.

                                       

Bill Gates on the future

Bill Gates has written an article on what he believes to be ahead for our world. To him it is about knowledge and the economy is “the knowledge economy, a phenomenon that has transformed the business of business and helped entire emerging economies to compete globally.” He also believes that we live in what he calls a “information democracy” because it is becoming increasingly possible to tap into sources of information worldwide. He concludes by emphasizing the power of search engines and by saying that “The next step is pattern-recognition engines and mental models to help people mine and assess the value of all that information, and technologies that infuse online data with meaning and context.” It is hard not to be impressed by Bill Gates, but my question is what is going to happen to those who do not have the "knowledge"? Are we going to have to live in a world where technology is everything?

When Iran out-cheneys Dick Cheney

Cheney said two days ago that Iran would face “meaningful consequences” if it didn’t stop defying the US by going through with its nuclear plans. As I said before, the problem with Cheney’s words is that they were empty and couldn’t scare Iran because he had nothing to back them up. He couldn’t even sound tough and fearless as he usually does because he knew that he is an army of one (figuratively speaking of course). Well, Iran came back and thumped its chest. It did to the US and the West what Cheney used to do a few years ago. It showed that it is the side with most of the power (for now) and that it means business by saying that the US will face “harm and pain” if the UN imposes sanctions on Iran. The problem with macho language is that it only intensifies conflict unless parties have what it takes to back it up. Apparently, Iran is willing to put its money and its oil where its mouth is what will the West do? Moreover, what will happen if the rest of the World comes to realize that now, more than ever international law has no value, and that it is a jungle out there?

The silent pain of Africa

Every time, I try to write something positive about Africa, I come across an article that makes me things that to have a positive view of Africa, you either have to be a naïve optimist or you have to want to believe really badly that a whole continent cannot continue to be ignored by the rest of the world. The AP has a story that talks about the growing water crisis in Kenya, which is made worst for the fact that there is a drought in the whole region that is affecting not only Kenya, but Ethiopia and Somalia. CNN has a story on its site in which a family says, “God has cursed us.” I don’t believe in curses, but sometimes I believe that too many bad policies decisions coupled with indifference can lead to the realization of self-fulfilling prophecy that Africa is doomed.

A victory for…?

Dubai Ports World just renounced taking over US ports. It has decided to transfer the control of those ports to an American entity. I wonder whom or won. Is it a victory for Congress? For Ignorance? for economic patriotism? For anti-Arab sentiment? For xenophobia? Or is it just a lost for America? I think is the latter, but what do you think?

When perception trumps reality...

According to a new poll published in the Washington Post, there is an increasingly negative view  of  Islam in the United States. This may explain why the frenzy behind the Dubai port deal and why the House for the first time in six years has defied the Bush Administration by choosing to do everything it can to stop the deal between Dubai ports world and the American government and is ready to stand for the somber principle of economic patriotism. In spite of the fact that Dubai Ports World was ready to wait and to be investigated for 45 days to reassure Congress and in spite of the fact that experts  said that security was not the issue, members of congress could not (and would not) see reality. They knew that their constituents had this scary image of Arabs infiltrating the US through the ports and perpetrating terrorist acts and since we are in an election year, they choose to capitulate to fear. I am sure that many of them believed that their rhetoric, but I believe that they put politics in front of everything by forgetting that words have meaning and that the US is attractive to foreigners because it is an international and open country. I fear this whole controversy will have negative effects on foreign investments. It isn’t going to stop it but it is going to strengthen the perception that the US is less a welcoming place for foreigners and this will lead foreigners to diversify their investments and to less america-centric. It will also have negative effects on American firms who are trying to settle in the Muslin world because it is going to make it more difficult to make their origin a sign of openness. Countries are becoming more and more like a brand and I do not to the American brand to stop being the symbol of openness and meritocracy. When I hear “America’s ports in American hands,” I wonder what’s next and I fear that it means that there are things that foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to own in America just because they are foreigners. That is called xenophobia.

Blair on Globalization

Tony Blair has written an excellent article on Globalization and Europe in Newsweek. At the beginning of this article, he states, “Complaining about globalization is as pointless as trying to turn back the tide. There are, I notice, no such debates in China. They are not worrying about potential threats but are busy seizing the opportunities in ways that are transforming their society and ours as well.” He is right for the tendency has been in Europe and in America to complain and to say as children do when they are faced with adversity, “that isn’t fair!” Competition is not always about fairness, even though I will argue that the point here is that the West is less willing to look inward for some of its problems than to look outward by point at China and at India. Globalization is an opportunity for the rich and the poor, the West and the rest of the world, what countries needs are the tools and the skills to take advantage of it. Blair is right to focus on Education as the key to competition for Europe and to argue that the UK and Europe should invest more on it. He talks about modernizing the old European model that over-relies on the state, curbs entrepreneurship, and that freezes dynamism. The only thing with which I disagree with Blair is the fact that he seems to be using the same TINA (there is no other alternative) that some many of technocrats at organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World bank use when they force neoliberal policies down the throat of underdeveloped countries. I think that there is more than one way for European countries to reform and that not all of them have to choose the Anglo-Saxon method to do it. They can choose the Norwegian method or even the Danish method, which focuses more on the community and less on the individual, and thus in fact modernize the welfare state while giving people and companies more flexibility and thus improving the quality of life. But I think Blair has it mostly right even though I fear that he isn’t the right person to carry this message to the rest of Europe, because  unfortunately with the war of Iraq, he lost all the chances that he had (and that he may not have really wanted) to be a  force in European Politics.

Ramblings on International Women’s day

  I didn’t know that today was International Women’s day and I wonder what does it say about me.  In France, some TV programs like Télématin (a French version of a TV morning show) have all women journalists on this day except for the main presenter who is the star of the show. This day is a bigger deal in some countries than in others even though I think that it is a good thing that there is such a thing as Women’s day. To talk about women in American, I think that I should talk about Kate O’Beirne and about her book. I saw recently an interview of her on C-Span and I thought that her views were fascinating because of the fact that she has a different vision of women, gender roles, and society. I don’t agree with any of it, but I think that the fact she is expressing her opinion is a good thing because it gives women the opportunity to hear different point of views and to decide which one fit with their worldview. However, what I didn’t like is the way she deliberately put down some women that she didn’t like by saying as the title of her book say that they are making the world worse (it is no longer just America, it is the world). She gave of course the examples of Hillary Clinton and of Jane Fonda, who are, in her opinion, putting their feminist ideology above the welfare of women. What I deplore is that too often the debate among women goes to such a low level that some feel the need to point fingers and to cast stones. Meghan O’Rourke had an interesting article in Slate titled “Desperate Feminist Wives” which discussed equality and happiness. I did not agree with much of what she says. As a woman, I am sick and tired of every one of my choices being overanalyzed that I sometimes feet like one of those monkeys that are used to tested new pharmaceutical products. However, strangely enough, I agreed with her conclusion when she wrote, “sometimes the personal is just personal.” I think that the key for women is to be able to make personal decisions without having to worry about whether they are doing the right thing for others or for society and yes, about whether they are giving the right example to other women. Finally, because women’s day is international in nature, I wanted to take you to South Africa where an ex-vice president, Jacob Zuma is being tried for rape. What is fascinating about this trial is not only what is happening inside, but also what is happening outside. The accuser testified yesterday and she had to hear songs by the supporters of Jacob Zuma denigrating her name while watching her picture being burned. South Africa has had a problem with rape for a long time, but unfortunately because of mostly of traditional beliefs that make it difficult for rape to be viewed as a crime rather than a natural (and thus tolerable) act, very few things have been done to punish harshly and justly men who rape. What I fear is that even if Mr. Zuma is condemned, when he gets out of jail (he won’t get a long sentence), and he will run for office by using his condemnation for a sexual act as a badge of honor. However, the accuser is always going to be just that: a woman who accused a powerful man of rape just because he slept with her. She will never be a victim. She is always going to be the whore (the defense got the right to use her personal history) who tried to bring down a popular political figure.

The Globalization of Eating habits

Apparently, more people are eating like Americans that is eating fast food or what José Bové and some French would call “mal bouffe.” I can attest to that fact for I think that more and more people are looking for convenience and the one thing is favor of fast food is that it is convenient because you get it fast, it fills you up and you don’t have to worry about sanitary issues (at least most of the time). Globalization is primarily about speed and this is why the world has taken up American eating habits. However, having poor eating habits has consequence for it means more eating disorders and more diseases. So the question is how to export healthier eating habits? We do it the same way that we exported bad eating habits by making it possible for people to eat convenient and fast healthy meals. To me, the answer to this growing crisis is not just about education, but about making it easier for people to eat healthy without having to take a lot of time to worry about  and to actually do it. It is time to find not only ways to make fast food less unhealthy and to make healthy food more rapidly available.