The Republic of Dissent

Curry as the positive aspect of immigration

Here is Nick Griffin's answer, the Chief of Britain far right party, the BNP the British National Party)  to put things mildly, to the question put to me by Iain Dale about the positive side of immigration:

Well, a wide range of curries is a plus. But there again, I've got the recipes.

I'm not appalled, just reassured that I'm right not to take Griffin seriously for he reminds me of Ann Coulter. He has a backbone or a little bit of political culture, he would have put things differently, Neither Geert Wilders nor Jean-Marie Le Pen, who are as far right as Nick Griffin, would have given that answer. In short, Nick Griffin is a clown.

Deconstructing Geert Wilders

The Daily Telegraph has a portrait of Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right politician whose party is calling for the stop of the Islamization of the Netherlands and increasing its popularity with that message. Sugary excerpt:

Wilders describes his far-Right label as "nonsense".
"My supporters say: 'At last there is someone who dares to say what millions of people think'. That is what I do," Wilders said before the European elections last year, in which the PVV took four of the 25 Dutch seats.
"People are fed up with the government; the leftist elite that has failed them," said Wilders.
(,,,).Arguing that "Islam is the Netherlands' biggest problem," Wilders has urged parliament to ban the Koran, comparing it with Hitler's "Mein Kampf."
He also wants a total ban on the burqa as well as a halt to immigration from Muslim countries and the construction of mosques in the Netherlands.
He is awaiting a hate speech trial trial at home and was barred from entering Britain last year to stop him spreading "hatred and violent messages."
"I want to defend freedom, which I think will disappear into thin air the moment the Islamic ideology gains a stronger foothold on this country," Wilders, who is married to a Hungarian, told AFP.

I'm not alarmed by the ascension of Geert Wilders because his ascension and his views are not new in Europe, Extremism, both on the left and the right, tends to rise everywhere especially in times when there is so economic, social, and political distress, which none of the "legitimate" parties seem to be able to address to the satisfaction of an increasingly impatient and radicalized electorate. One only has to analyze the short, but tumultuous and tragic political career of  Pim Portuyn in the Netherlands or even the long and flashy one of Jean-Marie Le Pen to realize that politicians such as Wilders are always very opportunistic, but that they are rarely able to leave any serious political marks or even to ascend to power without cleaning up their message or at least expanding because soon or later two things happen. The first is that their message is co-opted by other political parties who start to pay attention and to realize that they must find less "intolerant" ways to deal with the concerns of the voters who may be unsavory, but are very real. Sarkozy did it very effectively in 2007 and beat Le Pen at his own. The second thing that happens when politicians such as Geert Wilders are actually very good at politics or very ambitious is that soon or later, they come to the realization that they have to widen their message and that Islamization or any other message exploiting the fear of others and of unwelcome change is not enough to be more than a pestilent gadfly.
For these reasons, what I'm really wonder is whether Wilders is ever going to be willing to form a coalition with other Dutch parties of the right if his party becomes a political force or whether he will be content to remain on the margins believing that the system will collapse. I'm also wondering what is Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opinion of Geert Wilders.

Beckism and fascism

This line of reasoning from Sandy Levinson against Glenn Beck troubles me:

We are indeed in a true moment of cultural and political warfare, in which Glenn Beck has made very clear that he has no regard whatsoever for the most basic notions of civility (which begin by granting the possibility that one's opponents simply disagree rather than are "cancers" to be ripped out of the body politic).
What "Beckism" presages is more terrorist violence like that conducted in Austin, Texas, where a demented citizen flew into an IRS building and killed a true American "hero" a/k/a known as a public servant who had dedicated his life to tax collection. One might remember that Justice Holmes called taxes "the price we pay for civilization." Part of our move toward fascism is to view as "heroes" only those who carry guns and are prepared to risk their lives while preparing to inflict fatal violence on others. We must recognize that all public servants are, in their own ways, "heroes." The Republican Party for the past generation has systematically viewed all public servants, save for the military, as chumps, who if they had any real talent, would be working in the private sector (perhaps in Goldman Sachs, etc.). I truly fear for our country.

As despicable as I find Glenn Beck, I don't think he is Mussolini or Hitler. Beckism isn't a prelude to fascism or nazism, but simply a symption that in America, faux populism whether it comes from the right or the left works because it designates scapegoats for the increasing number of people who feel marginalized by the system. What surprises me is that many such as Levinson are voluntary becoming victims of historical amnesia  because they don't know how to fight Beckism. They don't have any answers for people who follow him precisely because they are angry about the fact that America no longer works for them and that he gives them answers that comfort their "conspirationist" world view. An analysis of the recent history of these types of angry popular/populist/fundamentalist movements show that branding them as fascist doesn't work for it doesn't confront the underlying issue which is that increasingly the American political system is seen as not dealing with pertinent issues. What Levinson ought to fear isn't the rise of "Beckist terrorism", but the widening gap between the elected and the electorate that would force people to turn to opportunistic figures such as Beck in order to explode the system. In one sentence, Beckism is just one of the symptoms of a more potent disease, which is ailing America.

Bobby Jindal and Sonia Gandhi, the American dream and the Indian dream

Tarun Vijay has a great essay in the Times of India in which he compares Bobby Jindal’s successful run as the Governor of Louisiana to Sonia Gandhi’s successful ascension into Indian Politics. He argues the point that Bobby Jindal represents the American dream because he adapted to American society by espousing his values and by yes, even converting to Christianity. However, he argues that Sonia Gandhi doesn’t represent the Indian dream because she has never had to become truly “Indian” and has never come to respect and to understand Indian sensibilities. Sugary excerpt:

While being happy seeing Bobby Jindal working so completely to realize an American dream, see homeward and feel how ecstatic the Italians must have felt seeing their daughter reigning supreme in an ancient land of a great civilisation making decisions affecting a billion citizens with many of their leaders prostrating before her for material gains and political space. She is a Roman Catholic of an Italian origin, yet ruling over majority Hindus and gets support from her party and media with a big chunk of Hindu editors, workers, ministers and voters. To understand the importance of it fully, it's like an Indian Hindu lady, sporting a big bindi, born in Bhopal who never had a graduation degree, becoming chief of the ruling Republicans in Washington through dynastic route in such a manner that NYT would write-she is the super President and not the one who has been nominated by her to occupy White House!!
That's what India has done and look what she has done to Indians. Does she represent an Indian dream?
She could get away doing a favour to Ottavio Quattrocchi and pushing the button to demolish Ram Setu, a bridge so deeply revered by the majority and have no remorse on seeing her colleague questioning the identity of Ram in the land where Ram symbolizes the nation and the all inclusiveness and abysmal plurality of the Ram Bhakta Hindus allowed her to come on top through a family Para- drop.
In the land of Statue de la Liberté Bobby can't even dream to do that to any Indian caught in his state for violating US laws or sanction a plan to defile places related to Jesus or George Washington while aligning with Communists, the fountainhead of anti-American hate. He has to prove, at every step, that he is a better person to honour and protect American sensitivities and dreams than those who are 'Americans of American origin'!
That's the difference between a powerful nation and her awakened, conscious people and a weak society living in self-denial so painfully visible from Kashmir to Kohima.

Observing things from a distance, I think that the rise of Sonia Gandhi showed on the contrary that India was even more tolerant than any Western country could be. After all, Sonia Gandhi could never have had the political career that she has had anywhere else without having to wrap herself in the flag and having to espouse very nationalistic views to erase her Italian origins. Once again, I take the example of Sarkozy who had to run a campaign based on the protection of the French identity and on patriotism to be elected to avoid a trial on his “Francité” even though his mom is French. It is always healthy when people follow a leader in spite of her/his ethnicity, of her/his origins, and especially without s/he having to cover their “foreignness” by taking extreme positions so that it can be said that s/he is more patriotic and nationalist than the natives or those with “pure blood.” There is no doubt that Bobby Jindal represents the American dream, but when I close my eyes to forget to be blinded by his origins and to focus on his politics, I don’t like what I see. I don’t like the fact there is no separation between his Christian faith and his politics. Politics isn’t religion and faith when it becomes the center of political philosophy becomes inevitably toxic. What politicians do matters more than the glitz. If Sonia Gandhi is a terrible politician, it is not because she doesn’t represent the Indian dream or doesn’t understand Indian sensibilities, but rather because her politics and policy are wrong (I don’t believe that). In a healthy and democratic society, politics and policy are more important than ethnicity, race, imagery, symbols, and even dreams. The American dream has sustained the challenge of time and of politics, because it is about more than one-time accomplishment and fairy tales ending, but about the idea that at the end, you are what you do which means that in America, you are not born great, you become great, you become an American, you become successful.

DNA and French immigration politics

The New York Times had an editorial yesterday denouncing, a proposed amendment, the Mariani amendment to a new French immigration law that would make it possible for immigrants to “voluntarily” use DNA to prove that the people they want to join them in France are indeed related to them by blood. The New York Times writes that this amendment is abject. Sugary excerpt:

Immigration issues bring out the worst instincts in politicians who should know better. DNA testing can be a useful tool in establishing criminal guilt or innocence. But it has no rightful place in immigration law. Modern French families, like modern American families, are constituted on many bases besides bloodlines and genetics. This is something most French politicians and voters should be aware of.

They should also be aware of the cautionary lessons of modern French history. Under the Nazi occupiers and their Vichy collaborators, pseudoscientific notions of pure descent were introduced into French law with tragic consequences.

[…] Though himself the son of a Hungarian immigrant, Mr. Sarkozy has made his political name with harsh criticism of more recent immigrants, especially North African Arabs. His pandering on this issue helped win him votes that used to go to far-right extremists like the perennial presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Immigrant bashing is an effective vote-getter. Unfortunately, it leads to bad laws, bad policies and needless human suffering for the individuals and families it targets and exploits. Mr. Sarkozy wants to be seen as a statesman. He should act like one.

The problem is that politics in France is the same as it is in the United States and French politicians, even when they have superhuman power as Sarkozy does, govern by appealing to their political base. Sarkozy was elected by tying together immigration and national identity and by promising to be tougher on people who dumbed down French identity and culture. He cannot, now that he is president govern, as the New York Times wants it to govern. In other words, what I am suggesting is that the time for the New York Times to give lessons to Sarkozy on how to be a statesman was before the French elections when he was using immigration and immigrants to get himself elected. It is too late now to criticize for doing what he got elected to do especially that the times has been singing his Atlanticism and pro-American stance by arguing that he was going to revolutionize France.

The nationalization of the American Dream

Fareed Zakaria writes in his column about what he calls the end of American exceptionalism. Zakaria argues and I agree with him that America is no longer the land, which welcomes everybody willing to work hard and to accomplish the American dream. This nationalization of the American dream alarms me because as I always said the world needs America to be America and to be an optimistic and a welcoming country because otherwise, there is no place not only for the imagination, but for people who believe opportunity is all that one needs to make a difference. Sugary excerpt:

The United States has always thought of itself as exceptional.

But nowadays we are standing apart for the wrong things. America has typically been seen as the place where the boundaries of personal freedom were being stretched, where women's liberation was forged, where wacky new lifestyles and crazes were most enthusiastically adopted. For much of the world, America was the future. That is not the impression you would come away with, looking at this survey. For example, America has an unusually regressive attitude on whether homosexuality should be "accepted," a much tamer question than whether to approve civil unions or gay marriages: 49 percent say yes, and 41 percent, no. On what has become a crucial test of a society's inclusiveness and tolerance, the United States lags well behind every Western European country, as well as many Eastern European and most Latin American countries. Catholic Mexico is far more accepting, with 60 percent saying yes, and only 31 percent, no.

The United States is becoming utterly unexceptional on another issue—immigration. It's not really news that majorities everywhere want to restrict and control immigration. But it is strange that sentiment is as strong in the world's foremost nation of immigrants. More Americans are against immigration than Frenchmen or Germans.

Sports, National Pride, and confidence

I apparently underestimated the importance of rugby and the impact of the French’s rugby team defeat to England last Saturday for Dominique Moïsi seems to believe that it is going to have important consequences. Moïsi writes that the French defeat is going to make them less self-confident and more willing to resist Sarkozy’s reforms:

To be defeated by England in rugby in 2007 is not a neutral event for the French. London had already been chosen over Paris for the 2012 Olympic Games and now the players from Perfidious Albion were preventing France from reaching the final of “their” World Cup, the one that is for the first time taking place on their soil.

How unfair can that be! But how unevenly can the French players perform! How could the French stars be able to demonstrate such courage and panache in their victory against the best players in the world, the All Blacks, yet show such lack of flair and imagination in confronting a much less dazzling English team? Is there a sense of fragility within the French spirit that England does not have? Whether because of their culture, education or political system, if not history, the English seem to have a sense of something that guarantees resilience and makes their fighting spirit unique on great occasions, at least against the French.

The French – as they are offered a programme of hard work if not financial sacrifices by their new president, Nicolas Sarkozy – wanted a moment of dream and glory, a period of collective escapism from the harsh realities of labour laws and pension reforms. Now strikes over these issues are coming and their team has not been shining. By puncturing France’s self-confidence, the English rugby team may have accelerated the end of Mr Sarkozy’s honeymoon and even made more difficult the acceptability of reforms, in spite of the fact they are supported by a majority of the French.

If the English players had behaved responsibly – with a sense of the collective good, for the sake of the growth and prosperity of Europe’s economy – they would have conceded the match. For France needed victory much more than England. The mood of confidence that followed the victory of les Bleus in the 1998 soccer World Cup was beneficial for France’s economy, at least for a few years.

If I had known the match was that important, I would have made the effort to pray on Friday, but I wonder to whom I would have had to address my prayers to ensure a French victory.

Poland, transition, and malaise

Wiktor Osiatyński writes an interesting article on Poland in the Dublin Review of Books, which shows the constrasting sides of the country. Sugary excerpt:

Poland appears a prosperous country. New construction sites loom over the cities and the price of apartments soars. The roads are full of Western cars. New shopping malls are packed with customers. There is steady economic growth and exports are booming, despite the very strong Polish currency. EU accession has turned out to be a great success. European subsidies and investments flood in. The opening of Western markets to goods and workers from Poland has cut unemployment, which was close to 20 per cent before 2005. After accession nearly two million people left Poland. The government uses these figures as proof of its success.

However, a visitor who reads Polish newspapers and watches TV would be surprised by the contrasts between what one sees on the streets and what one reads or hears in the media. The dominant tone is one of complaint, anger and resentment. The gap between observable progress and the perception of reality is a wide one. It is as if the Poles do not appreciate what they have achieved during eighteen years of transition to the market and democracy. In fact, many people, both in the authorities and the media, claim these years were wasted and that Poland needs a new beginning.

The issue may just be one of identity and control. I don’t know much about Poland, but I think that this “Polish malaise’ may have to do with the fact that change may be occurring too fast in Poland thus giving the Poles the feeling that they no longer have control over their lives and that the outside world is making their country lose not only its autonomy, but its uniqueness. This would explain decommunisation, the rise of nationalism and catholic fundamentalism.

National identity and immigrants

Alka Sehgal criticizes the attempts by many politicians particularly Blair’s successor Gordon Brown to put immigrants at the center of the crisis of national identity which Britain is facing. He argues that placing the blame on immigrants is avoiding the fact that Britain is no longer what it used to be. Sugary excerpt:

Rather than address more difficult issues – that Britain today is less than inspirational on the world stage, is less of a meritocracy, more socially stratified and a place where individuals are more closely monitored in virtually all aspects of our lives – politicians and pundits tear their hair out wondering why on earth immigrants don’t appear to want to be part of and to celebrate British culture.

Maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. I can see no reason why it should matter to anyone. Many people live outside their countries of birth; they work and socialise without conflict. Yet they do not feel that they necessarily belong to, or have to belong to, the country they have chosen to live in. People may feel contradictory affiliations; and something as subjective as a sense of belonging frequently waxes and wanes over time. A more confident, forward-looking society would be more relaxed about these facts.

Unfortunately, this problem is not solely a British problem for immigration has been tied up in too many countries with a loss of national identity and with impotence. Politicians who as Gordon Brown bind together and national identity and immigration are just following the people because no matter how the elites may feel about populism, it helps to win elections.

Turkey, Armenia, and Hrant Dink

Vartan Oskanian, Armenia's Foreign Minister,  argues in an op-ed in the Latimes that Turkey missed to mend its relationship with Armenia by refusing to grasp the message of the life of the murdered Turkish Armenian Hrant Dink and the significance of his death:
Unfortunately, Turkey's policy of keeping the Armenian-Turkish border closed has resulted in a reinforcement of animosities. Dink was one of many Armenian and Turkish intellectuals who understood that there needs to be free movement of people and ideas in order to achieve reconciliation among neighbors. But Turkey insists on maintaining the last closed border in Europe as a tool to exert pressure on Armenia, to make its foreign policy more pliant, to punish Armenians for defending their rights and not renouncing their past. Armenia, on the other hand, has no preconditions to normalizing relations.
This hermetically closed border combined with a law that prevents Turkey from exploring its own history and memory (by criminalizing truth-seekers such as Dink) have created a world in which Turks can't know their past and can't forge their future. They can neither explore old memories nor replace them with new ones.

Conservatives, Immigration, and politics

David Weigel explains in an article why anti-immigration conservatives fell flat in 2006. He argues that immigration just wasn't an issue that influenced voters last years and that conservatives have trouble accepting "The idea that Americans might be more compassionate about immigrants than they let on is a tough one for hard-liners to comprehend." I think that the problem is that Iraq is overshadowing everything right and because symbolized everything that Americans feel is wrong or right with their country. Although immigration may not yet be a vote-changing issue, it is fast becoming confused with an identity issue  because too many people are choosing to speak of it in menacing terms such as invasion, infection, disintegration, death of an identity, and infiltration.

Cosmopolitanism is the future

“I think cultivating the idea of "world citizens," to take Martha Nussbaum's phrase from Cultivating Humanity, now more than ever beats every alternative I can think of. It offers a rebuke to certain pragmatic nationalisms—and I also think the talk of supersession of the nation-state is running well ahead of the actual facts. Finally, I would much rather be associated with an internationalist left than with a so-called patriotic left, and I think cosmopolitanism works toward that end.” Michael Bérubé.

Patriotism and Reporters

James Wilson in an article the Wall Street Journal laments the fact that journalists reporting about the Iraq war aren't patriotic enough to cheer on the troops and to support America's efforts in the war instead of simply reporting the bad events on the ground. He is accusing the press of intentionally eroding public support for the war:

Naturally, some of the hostile commentary reflects the nature of reporting. When every news outlet struggles to grab and hold an audience, no one should be surprised that this competition leads journalists to emphasize bloody events. To some degree, the press covers Iraq in much the same way that it covers America: it highlights conflict, shootings, bombings, hurricanes, tornadoes, and corruption. But the war coverage does not reflect merely an interest in conflict. People who oppose the entire war on terror run much of the national press, and they go to great lengths to make waging it difficult. Thus the New York Times ran a front-page story about President Bush's allowing, without court warrants, electronic monitoring of phone calls between overseas terrorists and people inside the U.S. On the heels of this, the Times reported that the FBI had been conducting a top-secret program to monitor radiation levels around U.S. Muslim sites, including mosques. And then both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times ran stories about America's effort to monitor foreign banking transactions in order to frustrate terrorist plans. The revelation of this secret effort followed five years after the New York Times urged, in an editorial, that precisely such a program be started.

Wilson confuses the role of a journalist and of the press with one of a poodle, which should follow its master no matter where s/he is leader it and who shouldn't ask tough questions. It isn't new of course for self-righteous ideologues to question the patriotism of journalism when they don't like the news because it is too easy to blame the press for being unpatriotic than to blame the incompetent people who make Iraq the mess that it is today. The American press has just realized after giving the benefit of the doubt for so long to the Bush administration that the role of the press in Democracy is to question those in position of authority and to push them to justify their actions to make sure no only that they do the best job possible, but that they don't take their responsibility to speak the truth to the governed seriously. Accountability is more of a patriotic notion than obedience and silence. History has showed that leaders are fallible and that they make mistakes even when they have at heart the best interest of America. It is because of this fallibility that the press should question power to make sure that citizenry is not only informed, but also to make sure that those in charge know that they can't take the people for granted.

Closing down the land of opportunity

Stephen King (not the author) has an excellent article in The Independent on the recent decision by Britain to require the citizens of upcoming EU members to get visas to work in Britain in an attempt to limit the immigration from Eastern European countries. He shows the contradictions of those who argue for managing immigration without knowing its impacts and it benefits.

Patronizing Turkey

Denis Macshane, a labor member of parliament has a great op-ed with which I agree wholeheartedly about the European Union and its reticence to accept Turkey as one of its members. MacShane argue that this reticence can only have dangerous consequences not only for Turkey, which may be forced to turn eastward if it is not accepted by Europe, but also for the European Union because admitting Turkey is a way to ensure that to promote stability and democracy in the Middle East. Macshane is right because I believe that all the hurdles which France and other countries put in the road of Turkey to EU membership is just a way to hide their own ambivalence about whether a Muslim nation can be a part of the EU and about whether that union is about the creation or rather the affirmation of a European Identity or rather about trade and other common interests. Arguing like Chirac that Turkey must recognize the Armenian genocide is a moot point because Turkey to become a member state would have to do other reforms, and become a more democratic state, which will undoubtedly lead to the recognition of this sad part of its history. Thus, there are two biggest hurdles to Turkey's membership to the EU and they haven't been resolve because the attention has been on controversies such as the French law criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide and the trials of several writers such as Orhan Pamuk for insulting the Turk Identity. The first issue is whether other members are willing to accept an Islamic state within the European Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, the likely French rightist presidential candidate is against it. The second issue is whether Turkey is able to become more democratic by reforming its laws and its institutions. It is likely that Turkey with time will change and will Europeanize itself, however the interesting question is whether it will even be welcome in Europe.

Food for thought: Neopopulism

“A country's first job is to look after its own citizens. If it isn't, it doesn't have a right to exist. If liberals don't want backlash against immigrants and against free trade, they'd better figure out how to give people another solution. Because if the choice is "education" (which we don't do, we just talk about, but it wouldn't work even if we did it and everyone knows it) or slamming America’s doors shut, the choice will be the latter.” Ian Welsh, “Progressive Populism or Nativist Populism.”

The best of yesterday: When french trendsetting goes wrong

The best article, which I read yesterday, was an article in the Guardian website on the passing of a law by the French lower house of parliament making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide. The title of the article is "Legislating for Conflict" and it is written by Elif Shafak which a Turk writer which was put on trial in Turkey because her novel talked about the Armenian genocide. Money quote:

There are difficult periods in almost every nation's history - including Turkey's. The denial of this fundamental fact and the resistance to any mention of the events of 1915 has been a stumbling block in front of an open democracy in my country. It is important to raise historical consciousness about the critical events of the past, no matter how dark they might have been. Memory is a responsibility and a prerequisite to a mature democratic culture.

We Turks can and should share the grief of Armenians and respect their pain. We Turks can and should be able to come to grips with the dark pages of our past. We can talk about the errors of our grandfathers, not to implant new seeds of hostility but to open up a better future for our children.

However, the recent developments in France cannot have a positive role in solving this deeply-rooted historical problem. If states try to dictate one version of history at the expense of all alternative readings, not only freedom of expression but also a genuine interest in history is stifled. No matter how benign the ultimate aim might be, such attempts only make matters worse. Turkey's history with Armenians is a sensitive issue for all involved. This old wound can only be healed if more and more people, both Armenians and Turks, start to hear each other. There is a clash of opinions in Turkey. On the one hand are those who stand up for freedom of thought and open democracy, those who believe that the country should come to grips with its past. On the other hand are those who staunchly oppose Turkey's bid to join the EU and would like to keep the country as an insular, isolated, xenophobic nation-state cut off from the west. This new French law will only play into the isolationists' hands. Hardliners will only create further hardliners. Anti-Turkish sentiments in Europe will buttress Turkish nationalism here and vice versa. The backlash is already coming - newspapers have called for a boycott on French goods while politicians have been talking about possible retaliatory measures, such as passing a law on "the French genocide in Algeria".

I usually like it when France chooses to set a trend, but I think that by passing such a law, which deals with another country's history it has opened the Pandora box, which will lead to countries adopting such laws to provoke others and to try to rewrite history. There are sacred frontiers between history and the law, and by eliminating them, France had led the world down a course that it will soon regret to have taken.

The video du Jour: France, Turkey, and the Armenian genocide

Here is a video that is very popular in Youtube "showing" some of the French atroceties during its colonial days. The video is in Turkish so my guess would be that somebody posted to make the point that France has no lessons to give Turkey on genocide and on Human Rights. President Chirac has said to become a member of the European Union, Turkey must recognize the Armenian genocide. There a bill in the French parliamnent proposed by the Socialist party (the minority party) that would made it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide. The video is graphic and I need to more about it to offer an opinion on its content. However, I think  that its content doesn't change my conviction that laws should not dictate history and that it is wrong for a country to evade its responsibility for something that happened by arguing that all countries do the same thing and worse and that therefore denying history or at least refusing to acknowledge its dark spots  is never acceptable.

Food for thought: intentions and actions

“If our inner soul is good our outer actions must, by definition, be good. This is a naïve idea in the extreme and the source of a certain kind of American nationalism. The person who expresses this idea with intuitive ease is George W. Bush. He said after the 7/7 bombings, while he was in Britain: 'If they could only see into our hearts they would know how good we are', and he honestly believes that. He looks into his own heart and believes he is a good man and therefore his policies must be good, and everything the US does must be good. But there is a flip side of that. Other people say, 'Well, my own heart is not so good. I see envy, rapacity, greed, lust, therefore I know I am not a good person, therefore nothing the United States does can be good. Everything must be bad.' It's George W. Bushism flipped on its head. There is a great deal of this. People say, 'what are we doing trying to fight bad guys in other parts of the world? We should look in our own hearts and see that we are bad'. Instead of trying to rescue oppressed people in other parts of the world, let us try vigorously to improve our own characters. […] I think some element of that entered into the Bush administrations thinking about Iraq. Like everyone I have been dumbfounded at the stupidity of many of the things that have been done, and I try to understand how they could have thought things through so poorly. I think there was a simple faith that everything was going to work out for the best. Bush thought his intentions were good in his own heart and therefore the results were going to be good.” Paul Berman.

Tuesday's Video

I find this old video very disturbing. I wonder how strange the atmosphere will be at the banquet, which the heads of state and of government of the world will have after their speeches at the United Nations. Ahmadinejad has said that he won't be there because alcohol will be served. I wonder also next to whom President Bush and Chavez will be seated.

Background Noise

As expected, the fact that a new terrorist plot was thwarted today has bloggers from the Right and the left arguing about the fight against terrorism and about whether the Bush administration is conducting it as effectively as possible. It is a conversation, which as constructive and as fascinating as watching a train wreck. I don't like the fact that the terrorism issue has become so politicized that the discussion is no longer a constructive one about security and about how to fight terrorism, but about whether some people do want to fight or would rather have America lose it. I don't think America will be able to defeat the people who want to destroy it if its house is divided to use an metaphor used by Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately, I think the security issue has become less about protecting America than ostracizing some Americans by putting fingers at them and making them the enemy.

Cuba libre ?

For the first time since he took power in 1959, Fidel Castro has given up power (temporarily) to his brother Raul for health reasons (intestinal bleeding). Many are speculating that Fidel Castro is dead or close to death. I don't like to rejoice from the death of human beings no matter what I think of them. If Fidel Castro is dead, my hope is that it will mean that Cuba will be able to move forward and that the Cubans who have been in exile will be able to mae great contributions and to give that beautiful island the future that it deserves. However, I regret the fact that Cuba was (is?) the toy of a man who was too much of an ideologue to do what was in the interest of his nation. For almost fifty years, Fidel Castro refused do what a true political leader would have done that is to make peace with the people who ran away fro Cuba after the revolution to unite his country and to give his country a chance to be something other than a paradise for those who are nostalgic of the days when Communism was still a viable political ideology. Let's hope that the time for Cuba to be free has come.

Immigration à la Française

The French Senate just passed a new immigration bill, whose goal is to toughen french immigration laws and to make it more difficult for people who don't have a particular profile not only to immigrate legally in French, but to become French. The man behind this law, Nicolas Sarkozy calls it "immigration choisie (chosen immigration)" because in his opinion, France should be able to choose its immigrants not only according to its economic needs, but also according to its values.

1. I think that behind this toughening of immigration laws is the belief that there are already too many immigrants in France and that the fact that too many of them and the sons and grand-children of immigrants cannot integrate French society is not due to its structures and prejudices, but rather to their unwillingness to give up their culture and religion (Islam in particular) and their resistance to "Frenchness."
2. I find it fascinating that increasingly in the West, immigration is becoming a defining issue. I don't think that this trend is surprising even though it is worrisome. I think that many in the West have an us vs. them vision in the world in the sense that they choose to view the current struggle against terrorism and other forms of irrational violence as a clash of civilizations.  It is precisely because too many people in the West believe that the clash of civilizations exist and that culture is everything that they have reached the conclusion that multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity do not work.
3. This week, Xavier Lemoine, the mayor of Montfermeil, expressed this sentiment by asserting, "it's either them or us. If they win, we are dead ducks. I am a proud French Catholic and I have no intention of living as a 'dhimmi' (a non-Muslim enjoying protected status in a Muslim country - D.B.S.) in my own country. We are different from them, and these people do not represent France. We are caught in the middle of an Islamic war being fought all over the world - in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Everything that happens over there has reverberations here in France and influences the immigrants.[...] I am pained by the thought that my country is ashamed of its culture and values. When France denies its own history and incessantly apologizes for slavery, for its conquests and for colonialism, is it any wonder that the immigrants are rising up against it and are showing no respect for it? Unfortunately, France has not demanded that they change. It has allowed them to speak Arabic and to cultivate their heritage at the expense of French culture."
4. I am not among those who believe that culture or that rather tradition and religion justify everything including the unjustifiable. I do not believe that separation, rejection, and dividing humanity are the answer to  reduce the growing gap that exists between humans despite the fact that globalization makes the physical space between us insignificant.
5. The temptation in too many countries to the current struggle against extremism and violence is to close themselves to the world and to protect their "acquis" and the purity of their race and culture by saying No to others, to strangers.
6. The French Immigration is based no only a bad interpretation of the "integration" crisis that exist in France, but also on the erroneous belief that it is possible that cultural exchanges can be controlled by the state. By selecting the immigrant merchandise to avoid getting rotten fruits, France or rather its government thinks that it will freeze time and protect its culture and values by avoiding the change (and in my opinion progress) that occurs with the mixing of cultures.
7. Like David Brooks, I believe that culture matters. However, I don't think that it is the most important thing and that it should become the determining factor in human relationships. I am not an universalist, but I believe that there are some universal or rather some global values, which are always going to make it possible for us if  we try hard to communicate and to get together.

Flag Burning and Patriotism...

Bob Kerrey has an op-ed in the Washington post in which he argues against any attempt to make flag burning a crime. He writes, "If our First Amendment is altered to permit laws to be passed prohibiting flag desecration, would we like to see our police powers used to arrest an angry mother who burns a flag? Or a brother in arms whose disillusionment leads him to defile this symbol of the nation? I hope the answer is no. I hope we are strong enough to tolerate such rare and wrenching moments. I hope our desire for calm and quiet does not make it a crime for any to demonstrate in such a fashion. In truth, if I know anything about the spirit of our compatriots, some Americans might even choose to burn their flag in protest of such a law."

I agree with him. I think that the United States is too great of a country to be desecrated just by the destruction of its flags. It isn't the US flag that makes America, but America that makes the US flag. As long as America stands for what it has always stood, a land of opportunity and remains what it has always been, a place where freedom is essential, it will remain in the hearts and the minds of the people who respect this value a country too great to be damaged by the burning of a symbol.

Immigration, integration, and shared values

The Washington Post had a good article yesterday on immigrants and integration, which showed that most of the arguments used by those who are against immigration are untrue.

1. The authors of the article point out that most Latino immigrants speak english well and that “Only 7 percent of the children of Latino immigrants speak Spanish as a primary language, and virtually none of their children do.” The fear that Spanish is suddenly going to surpass english and become the national english of the US is therefore based on prejudice not reality.
2. The most important point made in the article is that integration isn't a problem because “For all the rhetoric on both sides, the evidence deserves a closer look. Latino immigrants, like generations of immigrants before, are entering the mainstream of life in the United States. Ours is the best country in the world at assimilating immigrants. This should be a badge of honor, and one that we wear proudly.”
3. I think that when people use integration to argue against immigration, they are in fact saying that their biggest fear isn't that immigrants won't assimilate but rather that they will integrate America and change it. Immigration scares people because they don't want there to be an exchange between American culture and culture, which they consider to be inferior. These fears are irrational because there is a lot more in common between different cultures than differences. Although globalization hasn't led to uniformity, it has made it possible for us to realize that shared values exist across varied societies and cultures since they are the ones who are making globalization, this compression between time and space possible.

In Ingles Por Favor: the stupidity of making English the national language

George Will “defends” English and the Senate for declaring it the national language of the US. I strongly disagree with him.

1. George Will writes, “What makes Americans generally welcoming of immigrants, and what makes immigrants generally assimilable, is that this is a creedal nation, one dedicated to certain propositions, not one whose origins and identity are bound up with ethnicity. But if you are to be welcomed to the enjoyment of American liberty, then America has a few expectations of you. One is that you can read the nation's founding documents and laws and can comprehend the political discourse that precedes the casting of ballots.”
2. The problem with George Will’s argument is that it is based on a fallacy, which is that there are English is under attack in this country and that if Government doesn’t act then the US will soon become a Spanish speaking country. Although, the US is a relatively young country, it has a rich and diverse history with people who come from different parts of the world and who speak different languages. Yet, in spite of this history, and in spite of the fact that English was never declared the national language. America has remained an English speaking country precisely because immigrants do not come to the United States to stay on the margins of society, but to succeed. It is impossible to realize the American dream without speaking and understanding English.
3. I will not argue that those who believe in English and who are against the use of Spanish of ballots and on other things are racists and bigots. However, I will argue that their belief that English needs to be defended is based on fears, which are irrational. Spanish isn't in competition with English and when it is used by Spanish-speaking immigrants, it is to show pride in their heritage and not as a way to disrespect America, the country, which they love. 

O Europe, where art thou?

Tuesday was Europe Day, which is the 56^th anniversary of the Robert Schuman’s declaration, which led to the creation of the European Coal and Steal Community, which has evolved, into what is know the European Union. This year, however, the European Union doesn’t have much to celebrate since last year was a catastrophic year since the Dutch and more importantly, the French No to the European Constitution stalled European Integration. The EU is a transition period where it not only has to find itself, but also to find leaders who believe in Europe and unfortunately there aren’t many of those around. Angela Merkel, although she was to revive the European Constitution, is untested and unproven as a European leader. Tony Blair has the vision, but lacks the power and the credibility to follow it with action. Since the Iraq war, he has no constituency in the old continent and at home, he is fighting to push back the inevitable that is the ascension of Gordon Brown to the post of Prime Minister, a little bit longer. Chirac is too obsessed with America to be a true European and to help Europe forge an identity that isn’t base solely in opposition to the United States. At a time where the world is facing numerous challenges and needs Europe not only to have diverse solutions to these challenges, European leaders seem to have stopped believing in Europe as a supranational entity and to have resuscitated old and dangerous nationalistic sentiments in order to regain the power they felt they were losing because of globalization and Brussels. I am not one of those who believe that Europe is dead, but unfortunately, I believe that it may take a long time for it to have again the opportunity that was lost last year, that is to become a real political and democratic power.

The criminalization of immigration

The New York Times had an editorial today, which argued the following: “The worst among our citizens and politicians are eager to depict illegal immigrants as criminals, potential terrorists and alien invaders. But what we saw yesterday, in huge, peaceful rallies in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, Denver, New York, Atlanta and other cities, were regular people: the same types of assimilation-minded moms, dads and children we wistfully romanticize on holidays devoted to, say, St. Patrick and Columbus.” I agree with this assertion.

1. Many fear immigrants because they believe that they are not good people and that they will not make America better off, but worst off. This is the reason why many will use the great American Boycott to argue that immigrants do not love America since they were willing to take the risk to affect negatively its economy, by choosing to participate in demonstrations rather to go to work. Immigrants will never be able to win this argument for they will never be able to prove their patriotism in a convincing enough manner for some who believe that they have no right to be in a place where they invited themselves in meaning that they are thieves and can never become legitimate Americans.
2. It is for this reason that the house make it a crime to come illegal in the US because many lawmakers believe that if you come in this country illegally that means that you are incapable of following its laws and of living in the right side of the law.
3. However, the question at the center of all of this remains unanswered. If illegal immigrants are the worst of the worst, then why hasn’t the US crumbled? According to some estimates, there are at least 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, why haven’t they ruined the United States?
4. Immigration is a subject, which awakens within most people strong beliefs. The problem is that it is difficult to make good and rationale when one becomes a slave to one’s passions.

So what was accomplished by the Great American Boycott?

More than one million immigrants marched in the streets today and I wonder if they accomplished their aim.

1. The Great American Boycott was a success in terms of numbers, I wonder if it changed the minds of lawmakers by convincing that American needs immigrants. I don't think that it did. Lamar Alexander and the Senate Majority leader  introduced a nonbinding resolution to affirm the fact that the national anthem should be sung in English.
2. I fear that it is going to be more and not less difficult for congress to reach a compromise on immigration because the debate has shifted from finding a reasonable and fair balance between secured borders and hospitality to one about patriotism and national identity.
3. The Great American Boycott accomplished one thing in my opinion. It showed that Hispanics and Latinos are an emerging force in America and that scared, to say things crudely, the hell out of some people who fear that they will change America.
4. A couple of year ago, Pat Buchanan wrote a book called the Death of the West, which argued that immigration is changing the United States from the White and western nation with Christian Values that he argued he is to one where which is more colored and less Christian. Unfortunately, more people have started to share his beliefs and this is why the immigration is becoming about assimilation, integration, and identity.
5. The Great American Boycott was impressive, but I feat that it scared all those people who feel that immigrants are taking what is theirs or should be theirs. Because of the inequities of globalization, people no longer believe that the pie is big enough for everybody, but instead believe that there has to be winners and losers and that by coming to this country, immigrants are further reducing the size of the pie.

D-day: the day of the great American boycott is here

We are May 1 and I wonder if the great American boycott will work. I don't think it will even it succeed for I think that it will backfire by angering the people who will go to work today. However, I could be wrong. I will be watching for a couple things today:

1. How the press will cover the event? Will place the emphasis on the immigrants or on their methods?
2. What will be the reaction of the politicians?
3. What will be the reaction of other Americans? Will it be hostile or sympathetic?
4. And finally how effective will the mobilization be?

Awaiting a catastrophe

I am extremely anxious about the boycott, which many groups and associations are proposing in support of immigration or rather of immigrants.

1. I don’t think that it will work and even if it does, I think that it will have a negative impact on the immigration debate. The way, I see it, it is a lose-lose proposition for those who want a fairer immigration policy for two reasons.
2. First, it is going to create resentment on the part of Americans who will be going to work tomorrow and who are going to wonder why others aren’t doing the same thing.
3. Second, even if it works, it isn’t going to affect the debate. It will simply polarize it and divide the American public.
4. The goal should be to unite Americans and to make them see that immigrants are people who are just like them not enemies and invaders.
5. The boycott is a show of force and I think that what we need at this moment are softer and gentler demonstration of humanity and the desire that most immigrants have to become a part of this beautiful country.

What’s in a song? : singing the 'Star-Spangled Banner' in Spanish

I just heard the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish and I have to admit that I had mixed feelings about it.

1. I don’t believe that this idea was a great idea because it plays in the hands of those who believe that immigrants want to invade the US and to change its culture and symbols. I can already hear their responses, “The US is not Mexico,” “Learn English,”…etc.
2. This version of the Star-Spangled Banner polarized a debate that is already too intense when what is needed is a common sense and fair approach to the immigration debate.
3. While I believe that releasing a Spanish version of the US National Anthem will not help the debate, I am asking myself the question why shouldn’t there be a Spanish version of the Star-Spangled Banner and why it should not permissible for Americans of Hispanic and Latin America decent to sing their national anthem in the language of their ancestor.
4. If the question is one of legitimacy and of right, then it is hard for me to argue that there shouldn’t be a Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish. In the Washington Post article, someone asked how would the French feel if someone sung La Marseillaise in English and I think that is precisely the issue. France isn’t America. France is currently in what I would an anti-immigration period. The United States shouldn’t follow its example when it comes to immigration. America is a melting pot and a country who has been for the most part an exemplary nation when it comes to immigration.
5. I would love if someone sung La Marseillaise in English or in Hebrew or in Arab, but I know that the reaction in France would be negative, but my hope is that when it comes to immigration, France, one day, becomes more American.
6. The context is important and I regret that a Spanish version of the US National Anthem was done in a period when it is necessary for Americans to come together on this issue and to give an opportunity to radicals to use fear and apprehension to win the debate.

Breaking the cycle: small steps to start the immigration reform process

The immigration debate is for some people a way to vent about everything that is not going well with America and that has gone wrong with their lives. Attacking immigrants, of course, is nothing new for at different periods of American history, immigrants have been the scapegoat for American problems and ills. I believe however that there are small steps that could be taken by congress to reform the immigration policy of the United States and to achieve an equitable balance between security and fairness without sacrificing American ideals.

1. The sad thing about the immigration debate is that it has focused on illegal immigration and not on the fact that it has become harder for the immigrants that America should want to migrate to the US. For this reason, I believe that something has to be done to make it easier for those foreigners who are able to earn a living in the US because they have the skills and the knowledge needed to stay and to become Americans. This means increasing the number of work visas, shortening the process, and making it less burdensome for those aliens who represent, to say things crudely, the best and the brightest of the foreign population.
2. The second small step that should be done is to make it easier for those people to bring in their families. Why? Because they will be able to support them and to help them integrate American society.
3. A lot more money has to be spent on programs, which will help integrate immigrants whether they are refuges or here illegally into the society. This means spending more on English teaching programs because after all, knowing the language is the best way to integrate a society. The reason why so many immigrants don’t speak English is because they can’t afford to do it for it costs money and for their primary focus is survival not integration.
4. Finally, the goal of the immigration policy should be to make it easier to become an immigrant legally. It is important that the emphasis becomes merit that is whether somebody can earn a living in this country and integrate American society. It is also important that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services find ways to deal more efficiently with petitions for immigrant and work visas. Right now, the amount of time that you have to wait to get a decision on your immigrant petition or to receive a work visa depends on where you live, which in my opinion, is unacceptable.

A failure of racial politics

Race plays an important role in politics in most multicultural, multiethnic, and multiracial societies. Politicians tend to use race when everything else has failed to try to hold on to power and to divide the electorate by appealing to their fears and prejudice. Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe is one such politician who has shamelessly divided its country according to race to retain and although he has been able to retain power, its tactics have failed.

1. Zimbabwe is one of the hew nations of Africa, which as South Africa has a sizeable white minority who holds a lot of the land and has economic power. Robert Mugabe came to power as a national hero after gaining independence from the British and one of his promises was to make sure that land was divided more evenly.

2. However, Mugabe never did anything about the distribution of power and started to use racial politics in recent years when it became clear that his status as national hero was no longer enough to get him reelected.
3. He decided that to remain in power, he needed to divide its compatriots according to their race and to act as though White Zimbabweans had no right to their land and to the farms that they owned. 
4. He instituted land reforms, which led to the seizure of lands and farms owned by White Zimbabweans who had to flee and to leave everything behind. It also lead to erosion of the farming sector in Zimbabwe who could no longer produce enough food to feed its own populations because by getting rid of white farmers, they had lost the people who knew how to farm the land. This resulted in the huge migrations of Zimbabweans from their country who fled to South Africa and other neigboring countries.
5. Today, the government of Mugabe has realized that it went too far and is trying to attract the same people they chase away by offering them a way to get their land back.
6. Unfortunately, I believe that the national reconciliation will only happen with the departure or more likely the death of Robert Mugabe.

Breaking the cycle: five small steps to start the immigration reform process

The immigration debate is for some people a way to vent about everything that is not going well with

America

and that has gone wrong with their lives. Attacking immigrants, of course, is nothing new for at different periods of American history, immigrants have been the scapegoat for American problems and ills. I believe however that there are small steps that could be taken by congress to reform the immigration policy of the

United States

and to achieve an equitable balance between security and fairness without sacrificing American ideals.

1. The sad thing about the immigration debate is that it has focused on illegal immigration and not on the fact that it has become harder for the immigrants that

   America

   should want to migrate legally to the

   US

   . For this reason, I believe that something has to be done to make it easier for those foreigners who are able to earn a living in the US because they have the skills and the knowledge needed to stay and to become Americans. This means increasing the number of work visas, shortening the process, and making it less burdensome for those aliens who represent, to say things crudely, the best and the brightest of the foreign population.
2. The second small step that should be done is to make it easier for those people to bring in their families. Why? Because they will be able to support them and to help them integrate American society.
3. A lot more money has to be spent on programs, which will help integrate immigrants whether they are refuges or here illegally into the society. This means spending more on English teaching programs because after all, knowing the language is the best way to integrate a society. The reason why so many immigrants don’t speak English is because they can’t afford to do it for it costs money and for their primary focus is survival not integration.
4. Finally, the goal of the immigration policy should be to make it easier to become an immigrant legally. It is important that the emphasis becomes merit that is whether somebody can earn a living in this country and integrate American society. It is also important that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services find ways to deal more efficiently with petitions for immigrant and work visas. Right now, the amount of time that you have to wait to get a decision on your immigrant petition or to receive a work visa depends on where you live, which in my opinion, is unacceptable.

Can anything stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?

Iran has apparently moved a step closer to becoming a nuclear power and the key question is what, if anything can stop it from the final step of actually having the bomb? I am starting to think that the answer is nothing or rather nobody. Threats seem to have done nothing to stop it and sanctions won’t probably do the trick. The UN, as always,  has no good options and is powerless in front of a regime, which has decided to defy its virtual authority. The US and its allies seem to be trapped by their past mistakes, which may force them to accept the fact that Iran will kick the door of the nuclear club and join it without waiting for an invitation. Is the world just going to have to live with a nuclear Iran even it that reality would make it a lot more dangerous?

The Italian elections show that Ideology is everything

The results of the Italian elections show that Ideology trumps everything nowadays when it comes to politics. The left coalition of Romano Prodi seems to have barely won the elections even though the economic situation of Italy and the miscues of Berlusconi were supposed to lead to an overwhelming victory. Nevertheless, millions of Italians voted for Berlusconi not because they believe in him, but because they believe in what he stands against that is communism, leftist politics and the death of traditional Italian values. Prodi didn’t get a mandate not because he wasn’t convincing but rather because Italy, as many countries, is divided. Last year, Angela Merkel was supposed to beat Gerhard Schroeder and to gain a mandate for her party so that she could govern Germany, but Germans did the same thing that Italians did. They chose to stick for their ideology not matter what the realities were. Angela Merkel had to form a coalition with the left and has the unenviable task of trying to govern Germany without losing her ruling coalition. The political center seems to be dead in the beginning of this century and electorates have become so polarized that compromise and consensus are increasingly difficult. This is a worrying trend because our world is so complex that it might be impossible to govern effectively without compromise and without giving up some ideology for a little dose of pragmatism. The results of the Italian elections show that Ideology trumps everything nowadays when it comes to politics. The left coalition of Romano Prodi seems to have barely won the elections even though the economic situation of  Italy and the miscues of Berlusconi were supposed to lead to an overwhelming victory. Nevertheless, millions of Italians voted for Berlusconi not because they believe in him, but because they believe in what he stands against that is communism, leftist politics and the death of traditional Italian values. Prodi didn’t get a mandate not because he wasn’t convincing but rather because Italy, as many countries, is divided. Last year, Angela Merkel was supposed to beat Gerhard Schroeder and to gain a mandate for her party so that she could govern Germany, but Germans did the same thing that Italians did. They chose to stick for their ideology not matter what the realities were. Angela Merkel had to form a coalition with the left and has the unenviable task of trying to govern Germany without losing her ruling coalition. The political center seems to be dead in the beginning of this century and electorates have become so polarized that compromise and consensus are increasingly difficult. This is a worrying trend because our world is so complex that it might be impossible to govern effectively without compromise and without giving up some ideology for a little dose of pragmatism.

French contagion ?

Apparently, the French demonstrations have inspired some people in the United States and have showed that people power can change things. People took to the streets again after the failure of the Senate to reach a compromise on immigration to protest against what is an inhumane immigration policy. The problem isn’t that government is failing, but rather that the gap between the political elites and the people is widening. Globalization isn’t the sole culprit for the fact that public policy do not always reflect the will of the people, poor leadership plays a part and so does the fact that those who governed are farther apart from those who they governed since they come from different social, gender,  and ethnic background. The thing I like the most about the manifestations for immigration is that it shows that people still care enough about something to walk in the streets even though it may not lead to immediate change.

The end of Berlusconism?

According to exit polls (which are unreliable), Romano Prodi is set to defeat Berlusconi and my hope is that this victory if it happens will put an end to the political life of Silvio Berlusconi and to Berlusconism, the system he created. Berlusconism is a political system is in which money is the most important thing since it confers authority and confirms a certain moral superiority. Silvio Berlusconi is the richest man of Italy and his problem is that he ran Italy worst that he ran his companies principally because he got rid of anything, of any laws that would have made him accountable. It would be as if Bill Gates became President of the United States without giving up its stakes and his hold on Microsoft. Unfortunately, if Berlusconi loses, it wouldn’t be because Italians realized that he did not have the temperament of Statesman and that his hands weren’t clean, but it would be because at the end of everything, he failed to make Italy as rich as it made him.

How do witch-hunts start?

The Guardian had an article yesterday about American universities and on the denunciation of many professors as Anti-American liberals. The article compared the attacks on some American professors to McCarthyism, it makes the following point, “Few would argue there are direct parallels between the current assaults on liberals in academe and McCarthyism….But in other ways, argues Ellen Schrecker, author of Many Are the Crimes - McCarthyism in America, comparisons are apt. "In some respects it's more dangerous," she says. "McCarthyism dealt mainly with off-campus political activities. Now they focus on what is going on in the classroom. It's very dangerous because it's reaching into the core academic functions of the university, particularly in Middle-Eastern studies."” I wonder if she is right and if we are witnessing the beginning of a witch-hunt for liberals on American campuses.

Immigration and Identity: the Europeanization of America

The most important thing that the debate on Immigration showed is the fact that America is unfortunately becoming more like Europe when it comes to this issue and the one of identity. Hearing members of the House of Representative speak, I thought for a moment that I was in a European parliament and that I was hearing members of the hard right (not to say far right) speak about purity and about the fact that foreigners are invading their country and making it theirs by changing its racial and cultural makeup. America used to be proud to be a melting pot and used to believe in multiculturalism and cosmopolitism. However, there seems to have been not a change, but a tilt in the other direction where many feel that homogeneity is the only way to preserve what is good and noble about America. I get the feeling that what is hidden behind this fervent fight against illegal immigration isn’t a feeling of insecurity and the fear to lose a job to somebody who doesn’t have the right to be here, it is also the fear that illegal immigrants do not come from the right country and do not have the right genes. In Europe, the consequence of hard line approach has been disastrous. It has created ghettos within European societies where those illegal immigrants or immigrants who are never able to get citizenship are forced to live with their children. The riots in the suburbs of French showed how explosive the situation resulting from decades of exclusion, of segregation and of discrimination is. America cannot afford to become like Europe when it comes to the issue of immigration and to stop believing that multiculturalism is an obstacle to integration and to patriotism.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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 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.

                                       

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?