Spiegel Online (édition anglaise) publie dans un seul article et sous le titre 'Rambo à L'Élysée' des extraits de commentaires de la presse allemande sur le discours de politique étrangère de Sarkozy.
Voici la traduction d'un extrait provenant du Financial Times Deutschland:
"Le style de Sarkozy est rafraîchissant, mais il échouerait comme ministre des affaires étrangères s'il pense qu'il peut forcer les choses. Au niveau domestique interne, dans le système politique français, il est possible de s'affirmer dans une dispute. Quand on en vient à la politique étrangère, un pouvoir moyen comme la France n'aura d'influence que s'il suit les régles de la diplomatie: établir ses priorités et avoir des alliés sûrs."
"Sarkozy ne suit pas ces règles, il ne semble pas dessiner une voie claire en politique étrangère. La seule chose claire est que la France va s'embourber dans des conflits internationaux sous la présidence de Sarkozy. Dans quel but ? Ce n'est pas clair. A moins bien sûr que ce ne soit pour gratifier la soif de reconnaissance internationale de Sarkozy. Avec une clarté rafrapichissante, le président s'est déjà distancé de la Chine et de la Russie. En même temps, il essaie d'effacer l'impression, qu'il a lui-même contribué à donner, que la politique étrangère de la France va se rapprocher de celle des États-Unis."
"Sarkozy veut réaligner complètement l'Union Européenne pour que les pourparlers avec la Turquie pour son accession au statut de membre rencontrent certaines de ses propres conditions. Il aura à apprendre que la politique Européenne ne marche pas de cette façon. Quant à son idée de faire en sorte que l'Union Européenne accède à un rôle plus fort sur la scène internationale en matière de sécurité globale*, il aura là aussi à apprendre cette leçon: plusieurs de ses nouveaux partenaires européens vont rapidement rabrouer le nouveau gars à Paris ainsi que son plan."
* Sarkozy a prouvé le contraire avec l'affaire des infirmières Bulgares. Son geste unilatéral a affaibli l'Union en matière de politique commune étrangère et sécurité globale.
28.8.07
Rallying Around The Renegade: A Realist Portrait of the Aoun Phenomenon in Lebanon
"From the perspective of Christians close to Aoun, however, talking to the Americans was pointless, for the Sunni ascendancy was seen as not at all accidental, but rather part of a strategic realignment that puts Sunni Arab regimes, and in particular Saudi Arabia, at the center of a pro-US alliance against purported radicals. “In the fall of 2005, Washington was facing a stark choice of what to support in Lebanon,” wrote Jean Aziz, who has since become the director of Orange TV. “It could choose either a pluralist, consensual system that may have set an example for the dialogue rather than the clash of civilizations, or a Sunni Muslim system with American leanings and pliant to American interests, a model for American presence in the region.”[10]
But then why turn to Hizballah, another party with a clearly Muslim character, and with a political agenda liable to embroil Lebanon deeper and further in regional struggles, something Lebanese Christians have always been loath to do? For Aoun’s detractors, the answer is simple and straightforward: Both Shi‘a and Christians are tiny minorities in a region dominated by Sunnis. In a system where sectarian considerations trump everything else, their alliance against a powerful Sunni-dominated regime now backed by Lebanon’s Sunni neighbors appears almost natural. With only 30-40 percent of the population, and with non-Arab Iran as its main sponsor, Lebanon’s Shi‘a have no hope of ever dominating the system, unlike the Sunnis, who draw economic and demographic strength from neighboring countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, all liable to be controlled by Islamists in the not too distant future. Additionally, Hizballah, with its disciplined fighting units, appears less scary in comparison to Sunni extremists such as Fatah al-Islam, who have been battling the Lebanese army for three months in the refugee camp of Nahr al-Barid, after allegedly being under the protection of the Hariri family -- developments dwelt upon by media sympathetic to the FPM. "
But then why turn to Hizballah, another party with a clearly Muslim character, and with a political agenda liable to embroil Lebanon deeper and further in regional struggles, something Lebanese Christians have always been loath to do? For Aoun’s detractors, the answer is simple and straightforward: Both Shi‘a and Christians are tiny minorities in a region dominated by Sunnis. In a system where sectarian considerations trump everything else, their alliance against a powerful Sunni-dominated regime now backed by Lebanon’s Sunni neighbors appears almost natural. With only 30-40 percent of the population, and with non-Arab Iran as its main sponsor, Lebanon’s Shi‘a have no hope of ever dominating the system, unlike the Sunnis, who draw economic and demographic strength from neighboring countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, all liable to be controlled by Islamists in the not too distant future. Additionally, Hizballah, with its disciplined fighting units, appears less scary in comparison to Sunni extremists such as Fatah al-Islam, who have been battling the Lebanese army for three months in the refugee camp of Nahr al-Barid, after allegedly being under the protection of the Hariri family -- developments dwelt upon by media sympathetic to the FPM. "
27.8.07
Reporters Without Borders' Secretary General Justifies Torture
Reporters Without Borders are seen as defenders of freedom of expression and liberal western values. So it doesn't come as a surprise that this NGO's secretary general, Robert Ménard, declares Torture to be legitimate in some cases. Why is RWB's endorsment of Torture is not a surprise ? Because there is no debate on Torture anymore in western socieites. We have adopted and banalised Torture. Torture is becoming mainstream. What did we do when we learned about Abu Ghraib ? What did we do when we learned of Guantanmo ? What did we do when we learned of Bush's secret prisons and extraordinary renditions ? Nothing. So it does not come as a surprise that those who hold western liberal values as their lightning rod express actually their acceptation of Torture. Torture is definitely going mainstream. The absence of a public debate about it is a schocking proof of its acceptation. Read the interview, the radio host did not actually react to Ménard. And the french press, in general, except Rue89, did not report the fact. There is nothing to say actually about Torture.
In a transcript of a radio interview given by Robert Ménard and revealed by the French online information website Rue89, Robert Ménard declares:
"On the dark side of the state, there is worse (then Torture I suppose, my emphasis). The movie adapted from the book of Marianne Pearl relating the kidnapping of her husband will be released soon (American movies are sometimes released with a three to six month delay in Europe, my emphasis).
That's not a romanced story. I spoke with Marianne Pearl about this when I was in the US for the movie première few weeks ago. We both recalled that US authorities knew who was holding Pearl hostage. What should they do ? What should they let do ? And what should they close their eyes on ? The Pakistani police took the families of the suspects as hostages, you hear me, and tortured those families in order to extract information on Pearl's kidnappers.
They had the information. But they were late to save Daniel. You know how he was killed and in which conditions, they cut his throat..
Where should we stop ? Should we accept this logic... In some cases we could. "They take hostages, we take hostages; They msitreat hostages, we mistreat them; they torture, we torture.."
What justifies this… Should we go to these limits in order to liberate a hostage ? That's a true question.
But that's real life, that's it, as François just said: we are not here in the world of ideas, there aren't principles anymore. I don't know what to think. Because it happened to Marianne Pearl, I am not saying, I wouldn't say that they were wrong in doing so because she thought that it should be done and that it is O.K., that they ought to save her husband; she was pregnant… For the baby who was going to come to life everything was permitted.
And they ought to save him, and if they were going to harm some people, we ought to do it; to harm them physically you understand, by threatening them and torturing, even if we had to kill some of them.
I don't know, I am lost, because at a certain point I don't know where we should stop, where should we set the cursor. What is acceptable and what is not ? And, at the same time, for the families of the kidnapped, because they are often the first we deal with and adress in the first place, at Reporters Without Borders; from a legitimate point of view, I, if it were my daughter who was taken hostage, there will be no limit, I tell you, I tell you (bis), there will be no limit (inaudible)...
Xavier de la Porte (radio host):
Then, it is better not to know what is going on.
Robert Ménard:
Yes, we shouldn't say it, what do you want ? Do you want to be told such stories ? Can you imagine, people will think … and they will be right to think so; we are trying to mobilise people all the time, but what if people come to think that mobilising for a cause has its downside and this nightmarish aspect which I just described… We don't know anymore where we stand-the Good, the Bad- Inside this..."
It does not come to Ménard that they, at RWB, have a greater responsibility than everybody else in going mainstream on torture because they are the ones who inform us about what is going on. Did you notice that at the end Ménard admits two shocking facts; not only we can endorse Torture in some cases but they, as reporters, should probably not inform the public about it. The case is closed.
Read here my two articles on Torture:
Are We Banalising Torture ?
Torture and Terror: Bush's and Bin Laden's Victories, Everybody Else's Defeat
Read Juan Cole: Gonzalez gone for the wrong reasons
In a transcript of a radio interview given by Robert Ménard and revealed by the French online information website Rue89, Robert Ménard declares:
"On the dark side of the state, there is worse (then Torture I suppose, my emphasis). The movie adapted from the book of Marianne Pearl relating the kidnapping of her husband will be released soon (American movies are sometimes released with a three to six month delay in Europe, my emphasis).
That's not a romanced story. I spoke with Marianne Pearl about this when I was in the US for the movie première few weeks ago. We both recalled that US authorities knew who was holding Pearl hostage. What should they do ? What should they let do ? And what should they close their eyes on ? The Pakistani police took the families of the suspects as hostages, you hear me, and tortured those families in order to extract information on Pearl's kidnappers.
They had the information. But they were late to save Daniel. You know how he was killed and in which conditions, they cut his throat..
Where should we stop ? Should we accept this logic... In some cases we could. "They take hostages, we take hostages; They msitreat hostages, we mistreat them; they torture, we torture.."
What justifies this… Should we go to these limits in order to liberate a hostage ? That's a true question.
But that's real life, that's it, as François just said: we are not here in the world of ideas, there aren't principles anymore. I don't know what to think. Because it happened to Marianne Pearl, I am not saying, I wouldn't say that they were wrong in doing so because she thought that it should be done and that it is O.K., that they ought to save her husband; she was pregnant… For the baby who was going to come to life everything was permitted.
And they ought to save him, and if they were going to harm some people, we ought to do it; to harm them physically you understand, by threatening them and torturing, even if we had to kill some of them.
I don't know, I am lost, because at a certain point I don't know where we should stop, where should we set the cursor. What is acceptable and what is not ? And, at the same time, for the families of the kidnapped, because they are often the first we deal with and adress in the first place, at Reporters Without Borders; from a legitimate point of view, I, if it were my daughter who was taken hostage, there will be no limit, I tell you, I tell you (bis), there will be no limit (inaudible)...
Xavier de la Porte (radio host):
Then, it is better not to know what is going on.
Robert Ménard:
Yes, we shouldn't say it, what do you want ? Do you want to be told such stories ? Can you imagine, people will think … and they will be right to think so; we are trying to mobilise people all the time, but what if people come to think that mobilising for a cause has its downside and this nightmarish aspect which I just described… We don't know anymore where we stand-the Good, the Bad- Inside this..."
It does not come to Ménard that they, at RWB, have a greater responsibility than everybody else in going mainstream on torture because they are the ones who inform us about what is going on. Did you notice that at the end Ménard admits two shocking facts; not only we can endorse Torture in some cases but they, as reporters, should probably not inform the public about it. The case is closed.
Read here my two articles on Torture:
Are We Banalising Torture ?
Torture and Terror: Bush's and Bin Laden's Victories, Everybody Else's Defeat
Read Juan Cole: Gonzalez gone for the wrong reasons
Michelangelo's Melancholia
Please click on the picture for a better view. Those who said or wrote that Michelangelo's David was expressionless esthetism are wrong. That's because they did not look at his face closely.
26.8.07
Bush, Blair, and Israel: A concerted agression on Lebanese civilians during last year's July war
I was away from the blogosphere for one week and nearly missed this interesting post by Craig Murray* shedding some new light on what appeared to be the inability of western governments, especially Blair's, on which many have pinned hopes to stop the savage bombings of civilians in Lebanon by Israel because of its good relations with the US government who was actively and openly promoting and supporting Israel's war on Lebanon (remember Rice's many trips to the ME during this war and famous declaration about the ME pangs of birth ?).
Well, behind the scenes, UK's diplomacy was actually working the other way. While Margaret Beckett, Blair's minister for foreign affairs, as other western leaders, was showing support for the west's darling Lebanese PM Fouad Sanyura with a short visit and a declaration about how her country was working hard to achieve a ceasefire, the UK's mission at the UN was instructed to keep a ceasefire off the agenda.
Murray relates the following: "I had a friend and former colleague call me from our Mission to the United Nations phone me from New York at the time in deep personal despair, as he had been instructed to keep an early ceasfire resolution off the Security Council agenda by making it known that we would veto it. Meanwhile everyday he was seeing news footage of dead Lebanese children dragged from the rubble of their homes. "
At the time, I was deeply moved by British peace activists efforts to expose the UK's complicity and bring the case of war crimes against Israel and its allies in this war by attempting on the night of 6th to 7th August last year, when Israel knew it was loosing the war and consequently intensified its bombings on civilians in a will to inflict maximum damage, to look at Prestwick airport for evidence of US munitions bound for Israel for use in the Lebanon conflict, among them the infamous cluster bombs who continued to kill children well after the end of the war. At the time, we, citizen of Lebanon, felt totally abandoned by our own government and by the international community, who was supporting our government but refusing a ceasefire to save our children, our civilians, and our source of living and infrastructure (remember the ugly oil spill all over the Lebanese coast and the cluster bopmbs scattered in our fields resulting from Israel's bombings ?).
Eight activists were charged of trespassing. Seven were acquitted by the court this August. The remaining activist, Marcus Armstrong, who was charged, refused to pay a 750 pounds fine and preferred prison for 20 days. Indy media Scotland reports that a prominent expert witness of the defendants testified that "a collusion in war crime was relevant to the context of the trial.
Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University told the court that war crime by Israel was very much an issue at the time of the incident at the airport. Israel had been breaching international law by targeting its air strikes in Lebanon at areas and installations liable to contain civilians. They had asked the US for an emergency top-up supply of bombs. US planes delivering these armaments would need a fuel stop-over in the UK and Prestwick was one of the options."
This shows, among others, that activism is never vain, especially when it is brought to the courts of law where it can serve as a basis to build a case for war crimes against powerful governments by ordinary citizens. The impulse shouldn't be changed, it only need to be intensified and extended. As Craig Murray rightly states, Marcus Armstrong is a prisoner of conscience and I wish everyone had his conscience during this ugly war. I wish him well.
Read what Jonathan Cook, Correspondant in Nazareth, has to say about the July war of agression on Lebanon.
*As Britain's outspoken Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray helped expose vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov. He is now a prominent critic of Western policy in the region.
Well, behind the scenes, UK's diplomacy was actually working the other way. While Margaret Beckett, Blair's minister for foreign affairs, as other western leaders, was showing support for the west's darling Lebanese PM Fouad Sanyura with a short visit and a declaration about how her country was working hard to achieve a ceasefire, the UK's mission at the UN was instructed to keep a ceasefire off the agenda.
Murray relates the following: "I had a friend and former colleague call me from our Mission to the United Nations phone me from New York at the time in deep personal despair, as he had been instructed to keep an early ceasfire resolution off the Security Council agenda by making it known that we would veto it. Meanwhile everyday he was seeing news footage of dead Lebanese children dragged from the rubble of their homes. "
At the time, I was deeply moved by British peace activists efforts to expose the UK's complicity and bring the case of war crimes against Israel and its allies in this war by attempting on the night of 6th to 7th August last year, when Israel knew it was loosing the war and consequently intensified its bombings on civilians in a will to inflict maximum damage, to look at Prestwick airport for evidence of US munitions bound for Israel for use in the Lebanon conflict, among them the infamous cluster bombs who continued to kill children well after the end of the war. At the time, we, citizen of Lebanon, felt totally abandoned by our own government and by the international community, who was supporting our government but refusing a ceasefire to save our children, our civilians, and our source of living and infrastructure (remember the ugly oil spill all over the Lebanese coast and the cluster bopmbs scattered in our fields resulting from Israel's bombings ?).
Eight activists were charged of trespassing. Seven were acquitted by the court this August. The remaining activist, Marcus Armstrong, who was charged, refused to pay a 750 pounds fine and preferred prison for 20 days. Indy media Scotland reports that a prominent expert witness of the defendants testified that "a collusion in war crime was relevant to the context of the trial.
Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University told the court that war crime by Israel was very much an issue at the time of the incident at the airport. Israel had been breaching international law by targeting its air strikes in Lebanon at areas and installations liable to contain civilians. They had asked the US for an emergency top-up supply of bombs. US planes delivering these armaments would need a fuel stop-over in the UK and Prestwick was one of the options."
This shows, among others, that activism is never vain, especially when it is brought to the courts of law where it can serve as a basis to build a case for war crimes against powerful governments by ordinary citizens. The impulse shouldn't be changed, it only need to be intensified and extended. As Craig Murray rightly states, Marcus Armstrong is a prisoner of conscience and I wish everyone had his conscience during this ugly war. I wish him well.
Read what Jonathan Cook, Correspondant in Nazareth, has to say about the July war of agression on Lebanon.
*As Britain's outspoken Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray helped expose vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov. He is now a prominent critic of Western policy in the region.
25.8.07
Prosperity, Peace, and Good Governance: A Tuscan History Lesson
I was in Florence and Tuscany for a week. I couldn't help but think about the fate of Florence under the one family rule, the Medicis. And it made me think about another rich family, in Lebanon, who bought power and nobility with its fortune. The comparison goes as far as the rivalries inside the Lebanese family, who adopted the path of power and self destruction exactly like the famous Medicis'.
And the comparison can also be drawn when it comes to the Arts, Sciences, Governance, and their intricate relations. The Medicis, it is said, encouraged the Arts and Sciences. The other Lebanese family, it is said, encouraged the renaissance of Beyrouth and Lebanon. However, it can be fairly said that having the ambition of rich non nobility toward political power as much as the Medicis, the Lebanese family is playing patron to mediocre followers and self appointed geniuses and intellectuals while Florence was shock full of talents at the time of the Medicis who encouraged these talents for the sake of political and economic rivalries with other Italian and European cities* but did their part also in the destruction of the effects of Art, Science and Technology on their city. Florence has a rich history in science and technology. I visited the museum of history of science and technology and was amazed at its collection of historical sceintific instruments.
But contrary to its old rival city of light, Sienna, Florence was only preoccupied by power, not by good governance. Encouraging the Arts and sciences without keeping in mind that 1)only good governance brings prosperity and peace, and that 2) education is a necessary condition for the Arts and Sciences to have lasting effects on humanity, is just merely playing power with knowledge.
Go here to see the beautiful fresco of the Allegory of good governance with some details. The Allegory is a 14th century fresco painted on the walls of the palace that is now the civic museum of Sienna.
On this partial picture of the allegory shown above, the woman in white symbolises Peace. On its right is the judicial power and on its left the political power. The two powers must are separate and practised under the guidance of virtues. The virtue of justice is knowledge and the virtues of politics and good governance are Magnanimity, Temperance, etc...On the lower part of the fresco one can see the nobility of Sienna, those who believe in and defend the virtues of good governance.
*The Lebanese family is only concerned by one rival, Syria, and is not countering this rival with the adequate measures, it is not working for the interests of Lebanon but only for what it thinks is its self interest of power grab through extremely destabilising and lethal alliances for Lebanon.
15.8.07
Iraq Set To Disintegrate And With It The Entire Middle East
The only constant feature to the US policy in the middle east had been to break unity, any kind of unity, arab nationalism, nurtured by secularism in the 70s, and now that this Nationalism was replaced by Islamism, the US is arming Sunnis against Shias. Look at Iraq, it is an example of what will happen in any multiethnic country in the ME where the US has influence. This is too convenient for Israel to hold it innocent in this killing game. Actually, only the Israelis are finding that the Iraq war is a success. Israel and Saudi Arabia are the only monoethnic states in the region, no wonder why they were and still the US's strongest allies. If the middle east breaks apart in small ethnic states, those two countries will benefit the most. Saudi Arabia will not appear as an awkward religious state anymore, and Israel, after refusing to give a viable state to Palestinians can refuse to include Palestinians in a binational state. It would also be unfair to accuse Bush alone of this mess. The US policy was set in this direction before him.
Iraq is set to disintegrate. The report, written by Guido Steinberg, suggests that federalism will be the only hope for Iraq. We have been hearing the federalist siren for a while now (we are hearing it also in Lebanon from USrael's allies there). And even this will not be the end of the mess created by Bush and USrael in Iraq.
"The sectarian wrangling means, the study says, that the best solution -- that of a federalism free of ethnic and religious divisions -- has largely been rendered impossible. But even a federalism resting on the ethnic divisions that have been established seems challenging given the opposition from within the Shiite and Sunni factions to such a solution.
And that's not to mention the opposition of other countries in the region. "The discussion within Iraq is influenced to a large degree by the interests of neighboring countries," the report states. "Due to their potential to become involved, the Iraq federalists have to take their positions into account. And Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria all reject the ethnic-religious federalism model out of hand." Military intervention from Iraq's neighbors to protect their interests, particularly from Turkey in the north, is a very real possibility, the report warns."
Read also: Disappointment at US policies all over the Middle East
Iraq is set to disintegrate. The report, written by Guido Steinberg, suggests that federalism will be the only hope for Iraq. We have been hearing the federalist siren for a while now (we are hearing it also in Lebanon from USrael's allies there). And even this will not be the end of the mess created by Bush and USrael in Iraq.
"The sectarian wrangling means, the study says, that the best solution -- that of a federalism free of ethnic and religious divisions -- has largely been rendered impossible. But even a federalism resting on the ethnic divisions that have been established seems challenging given the opposition from within the Shiite and Sunni factions to such a solution.
And that's not to mention the opposition of other countries in the region. "The discussion within Iraq is influenced to a large degree by the interests of neighboring countries," the report states. "Due to their potential to become involved, the Iraq federalists have to take their positions into account. And Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria all reject the ethnic-religious federalism model out of hand." Military intervention from Iraq's neighbors to protect their interests, particularly from Turkey in the north, is a very real possibility, the report warns."
Read also: Disappointment at US policies all over the Middle East
14.8.07
Michel Aoun: The US government is working to destabilise Lebanon
On August 9th, general Michel Aoun, the leader of the Free patriotic Movement and a Hezbollah ally in Lebanon, gave this post-election interview to Le Temps (Genève). The interview appeared in Le Monde. It is part of their paid archives now.
By Alain Campiotti
Lebanese live in bubbles, against their own good, prisoners of archaic and sectarian institutions set by the French mandate which administered the country after the fall of the Ottoman empire until 1943. There are maronite bubbles very high in the mountains. Shia bubbles at the periphery of Beyrouth and in its south. Sunni bubbles in Tripoli and Hamra... Michel Aoun's bubble is in Rabieh, on a wooded hill, where luxurious villas are protected by multiple layers of high-tech security. "Six assassination attempts including three who died around me", says Aoun.
Since his return, two years ago, from a 15 years exile in France for fighting the Syrian occupation in his country, this politician and military has been fighting the sectarian bubbles. Or at least that's what he declares forcefully he is doing in Politics. His adversaries in the Sanyura government, furious at his alliance with Hezbollah, accuse him of the contrary. As a justification, Michel Aoun accpeted to be interviewed by le Temps in his eagle's nest, the headquarters of his political party, the Free Patriotic Movement.
Le Temps : Since you defeated ex president Amine Gemayel in an election last sunday, Your Maronite adversaries are saying that you lost, that you don't control, like in 2005, the Maronite community.
Michel Aoun : They are deluding themselves and they still have an old way of thinking politics in Lebanon. Those among them who are in parliament today were elected by a sunni majority in an elctoral law devised by Rafiq Hariri and Syria destined to dilute the Christian vote. Our candidates' electorate is half Christian and half non Christian. I am ready to sacrifice 20% of my popular support if this is the price to pay in order to prevent a confrontation in the country. That's what we were looking for when we signed last year an agreement with Hezbollah.
Le Temps : Is putting an end to the system of confessional parity in the state's institutions, inherited from the French mandate, the goal of such a move ?
Michel Aoun : This is a bankrupt system destined to become extinct. We want to establish, step by step, a secular state. Lebanese must get themselves used to excercise power and take decisions on a political level without resorting to a confessionnal organisation of¨Politics.
Le Temps : Isn't your agreement with Hezbollah an example of this confessionnal organisation ?
Michel Aoun : Our agreement with hezbollah is not an empty agreement meant to exercise parity for the sake of parity. It is a political program ! On the reform of the state, its independance, relations with Syria, and with the Palestiniens (Aoun actually wanted to discuss this program with other parties and sects in Lebanon but they were not interested). Hezbollah is convinced by the idea that Lebanon needs a civil code. Its chief, Hassan Nasrallah, declared, ten days ago, that he was ready to discuss the following: laying Hezbollah's arms and armistice between Israel and Lebanon, independant of the situation in the rest of the Middle East. I challenge our adversaries, supported by th West, to have the courage to come up with such a program as we did.
Le Temps : But is Hezbollah independant ? Aren't they tied directly to the supreme guide of the Iranian revolution by the principle of "Velayat al-faqih" in the Shia religion ?
Michel Aoun : Political leaders, as ordinary people change over time and according to circumstances. To assume that Hezbollah's allegiance lies outside Lebanon, within the Shia principle of "Velayat al-faqih", is to assume that the human being is a rigid stone that does not change over time. Hezbollah used to refer to "Velayat al-faqih", as much as Samir Geagea, the Maronite chief of the Lebanese Forces, used to refer to some areas in Lebanon as Christian cantons, and as much as Walid Joumblatt, the Druze chief, used to refer to Druze frontiers in Lebanon. Times have changed. Hezbollah, today, is claiming its fair share of power in Lebanese politics, nothing else.
Le Temps : Isn't Syria still yielding much more political influence than Iran in Lebanon ? And didn't you meet recently in Germany, according to the Saudis, with a Syrian emissary ?
Michel Aoun : That's a fabricated and defamatory lie intended to hurt me. I caught Amine Gemayel repeating this calumny. Syria is playing against me. Some pro-Syrian movements have called last sunday to vote for my candidate. This has costed us votes because Lebanese have developped a rejection of the Syrian diktat.
Le Temps : Do you consider the West, and especially the US, as your adversary ?
Michel Aoun : The US is refusing any attempt at ending the isolation of Hezbollah in giving their full support to the Sanyura government in order to maintain this isolation. George Bush had announced last week the freezing of assets of any individual who acts against the "legitimate government" of Lebanon. We have been disputing the legitimacy of this government for a year now. Bush's announcement came three days before the August 5th sunday election as to scare those donors who support us.
Le Temps : You have called for a national unity government. Do you believe that Lebanon's unity is under threat ?
Michel Aoun : Our agreement with Hezbollah on a political program for Lebanon, and the unity we are calling for, are the only way to salvage the country. The West doesn't want to discuss our proposal. I suspect the US is working to destabilise Lebanon, after having destabilised Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. I believe that the US wishes for a new armed confrontation in our country. Their goal is to create, amid the confusion of a new confrontation, the conditions for a permanent implementation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. That's because the US does not intend to give those Palestinians a homeland.
By Alain Campiotti
Lebanese live in bubbles, against their own good, prisoners of archaic and sectarian institutions set by the French mandate which administered the country after the fall of the Ottoman empire until 1943. There are maronite bubbles very high in the mountains. Shia bubbles at the periphery of Beyrouth and in its south. Sunni bubbles in Tripoli and Hamra... Michel Aoun's bubble is in Rabieh, on a wooded hill, where luxurious villas are protected by multiple layers of high-tech security. "Six assassination attempts including three who died around me", says Aoun.
Since his return, two years ago, from a 15 years exile in France for fighting the Syrian occupation in his country, this politician and military has been fighting the sectarian bubbles. Or at least that's what he declares forcefully he is doing in Politics. His adversaries in the Sanyura government, furious at his alliance with Hezbollah, accuse him of the contrary. As a justification, Michel Aoun accpeted to be interviewed by le Temps in his eagle's nest, the headquarters of his political party, the Free Patriotic Movement.
Le Temps : Since you defeated ex president Amine Gemayel in an election last sunday, Your Maronite adversaries are saying that you lost, that you don't control, like in 2005, the Maronite community.
Michel Aoun : They are deluding themselves and they still have an old way of thinking politics in Lebanon. Those among them who are in parliament today were elected by a sunni majority in an elctoral law devised by Rafiq Hariri and Syria destined to dilute the Christian vote. Our candidates' electorate is half Christian and half non Christian. I am ready to sacrifice 20% of my popular support if this is the price to pay in order to prevent a confrontation in the country. That's what we were looking for when we signed last year an agreement with Hezbollah.
Le Temps : Is putting an end to the system of confessional parity in the state's institutions, inherited from the French mandate, the goal of such a move ?
Michel Aoun : This is a bankrupt system destined to become extinct. We want to establish, step by step, a secular state. Lebanese must get themselves used to excercise power and take decisions on a political level without resorting to a confessionnal organisation of¨Politics.
Le Temps : Isn't your agreement with Hezbollah an example of this confessionnal organisation ?
Michel Aoun : Our agreement with hezbollah is not an empty agreement meant to exercise parity for the sake of parity. It is a political program ! On the reform of the state, its independance, relations with Syria, and with the Palestiniens (Aoun actually wanted to discuss this program with other parties and sects in Lebanon but they were not interested). Hezbollah is convinced by the idea that Lebanon needs a civil code. Its chief, Hassan Nasrallah, declared, ten days ago, that he was ready to discuss the following: laying Hezbollah's arms and armistice between Israel and Lebanon, independant of the situation in the rest of the Middle East. I challenge our adversaries, supported by th West, to have the courage to come up with such a program as we did.
Le Temps : But is Hezbollah independant ? Aren't they tied directly to the supreme guide of the Iranian revolution by the principle of "Velayat al-faqih" in the Shia religion ?
Michel Aoun : Political leaders, as ordinary people change over time and according to circumstances. To assume that Hezbollah's allegiance lies outside Lebanon, within the Shia principle of "Velayat al-faqih", is to assume that the human being is a rigid stone that does not change over time. Hezbollah used to refer to "Velayat al-faqih", as much as Samir Geagea, the Maronite chief of the Lebanese Forces, used to refer to some areas in Lebanon as Christian cantons, and as much as Walid Joumblatt, the Druze chief, used to refer to Druze frontiers in Lebanon. Times have changed. Hezbollah, today, is claiming its fair share of power in Lebanese politics, nothing else.
Le Temps : Isn't Syria still yielding much more political influence than Iran in Lebanon ? And didn't you meet recently in Germany, according to the Saudis, with a Syrian emissary ?
Michel Aoun : That's a fabricated and defamatory lie intended to hurt me. I caught Amine Gemayel repeating this calumny. Syria is playing against me. Some pro-Syrian movements have called last sunday to vote for my candidate. This has costed us votes because Lebanese have developped a rejection of the Syrian diktat.
Le Temps : Do you consider the West, and especially the US, as your adversary ?
Michel Aoun : The US is refusing any attempt at ending the isolation of Hezbollah in giving their full support to the Sanyura government in order to maintain this isolation. George Bush had announced last week the freezing of assets of any individual who acts against the "legitimate government" of Lebanon. We have been disputing the legitimacy of this government for a year now. Bush's announcement came three days before the August 5th sunday election as to scare those donors who support us.
Le Temps : You have called for a national unity government. Do you believe that Lebanon's unity is under threat ?
Michel Aoun : Our agreement with Hezbollah on a political program for Lebanon, and the unity we are calling for, are the only way to salvage the country. The West doesn't want to discuss our proposal. I suspect the US is working to destabilise Lebanon, after having destabilised Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. I believe that the US wishes for a new armed confrontation in our country. Their goal is to create, amid the confusion of a new confrontation, the conditions for a permanent implementation of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. That's because the US does not intend to give those Palestinians a homeland.
Sarkozy's visit to Bush: fast track for world leader media status for Sarko and chicken soup for Bush
From Spiegel
Hot dogs instead of lobster and hamburgers rather than swordfish: French President Nicolas Sarkozy's blitz visit to the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport was anything but a culinary summit. Politically, it was all show.
...Although he does not speak English fluently, and although Bush does not speak French at all ("I can barely speak English," the US president quipped), the visit was meant to emphasize one thing more than anything else: that the physically unimposing Sarkozy is used to dealing with the world's powerful in a completely relaxed way.
...Hamburger diplomacy at the lunchtime barbeque organized by the Bush family was just the right thing for hyperactive Sarkozy (who jetted across the Atlantic earlier to attend the funeral of Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger). And since neither Tony Blair from Britain nor Silvio Berlusconi from Italy nor José Maria Aznar from Spain is still in office, Sarkozy used the opportunity to sharpen his profile as old Europe's allied leader.
... It was chicken soup for Bush's soul. A solid 65 percent of US citizens now take a negative view of their president. His international ratings are similarly devastating: According to one poll, citizens in 42 out of 47 countries believe Washington is primarily pursuing its own interests when it claims to be promoting democracy. The Bush administration's power politics are being criticized the world over. That makes the friendship with Sarkozy all the more satisfying...
Hot dogs instead of lobster and hamburgers rather than swordfish: French President Nicolas Sarkozy's blitz visit to the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport was anything but a culinary summit. Politically, it was all show.
...Although he does not speak English fluently, and although Bush does not speak French at all ("I can barely speak English," the US president quipped), the visit was meant to emphasize one thing more than anything else: that the physically unimposing Sarkozy is used to dealing with the world's powerful in a completely relaxed way.
...Hamburger diplomacy at the lunchtime barbeque organized by the Bush family was just the right thing for hyperactive Sarkozy (who jetted across the Atlantic earlier to attend the funeral of Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger). And since neither Tony Blair from Britain nor Silvio Berlusconi from Italy nor José Maria Aznar from Spain is still in office, Sarkozy used the opportunity to sharpen his profile as old Europe's allied leader.
... It was chicken soup for Bush's soul. A solid 65 percent of US citizens now take a negative view of their president. His international ratings are similarly devastating: According to one poll, citizens in 42 out of 47 countries believe Washington is primarily pursuing its own interests when it claims to be promoting democracy. The Bush administration's power politics are being criticized the world over. That makes the friendship with Sarkozy all the more satisfying...
Political Covergence: Saudi Arabia Is Not An Ennemy Of Israel
Saudi Arabia has let itself be pressured by Arab public opinion into getting involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict only once, in 1973...The Saudi government had been hesitant to take this step, fearing negative economic consequences.
The then King Faisal, who ruled from 1964 to 1975, wanted to avoid taking a clear position against the USA and Israel and he only acted reluctantly on the boycott as a consequence of enormous domestic pressure.
...Since the seventies Saudi foreign policy has been concentrating on the conflict with Saudi Arabia's two powerful neighbours, Iraq and Iran. Whatever the rhetoric coming out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia has felt more threatened by them than by Israel. More...
The then King Faisal, who ruled from 1964 to 1975, wanted to avoid taking a clear position against the USA and Israel and he only acted reluctantly on the boycott as a consequence of enormous domestic pressure.
...Since the seventies Saudi foreign policy has been concentrating on the conflict with Saudi Arabia's two powerful neighbours, Iraq and Iran. Whatever the rhetoric coming out of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia has felt more threatened by them than by Israel. More...
13.8.07
In The Name Of The Father
A Portrait of Saad Hariri and his father, and of Lebanon's recent history.
In Condé Nast, By Kevin Gray.
But there is also a shrewd political calculation behind Saad’s outbursts. As the power broker for all Sunnis in Lebanon, Saad must make sure Shiites don’t infringe on his base’s interests.So when Hezbollah pinned Siniora behind barbed wire, it was understood as a threat to Sunni power, not just to the government. Saad made sure Sunnis rose up in their strongholds at Sidon and Tripoli, staging massive rallies that were broadcast on his Future TV.
Saad has been willing to play that sectarian card in a way his allies consider risky. He has been accused of funding Al Qaeda-inspired Sunni jihadists in Lebanon. A close adviser told me that doing so was a necessary evil. But less than 24 hours after the adviser’s admission, in early May, one such group attacked the army. Saad’s Western patrons say they’re worried about such ties. “We’re not particularly comfortable with some of his relationships,” a Western official tells me just days before the fighting breaks out. But the U.S. is also playing a similar game in the region, backing Sunni militants as a way to counter Iran. After all, the U.S. may very much like—and need—Saad’s combative friends.
According to the article, Sanyura is a kind of prince consort for March 14th who were, ever since Hariri father died, grooming his son to become the prime minister of Lebanon. If that's true, I forsee a very dark future for Lebanon made of sectarian strife and a latent civil war...Saad will never be a statesman. He will be a good puppet for Saudi Arabia (and by extension presently for the US and France) where he grew up, where he holds a citizenship, and where he nurtures a family and business and political ties.
Read the whole article
Another interesting read
Solidere: Vigilantism under color of law. Or the story of the intimate intricacies between political and business interests of the Hariris and their company, Solidere, meant to 'build' Lebanon after the civil war.
In Condé Nast, By Kevin Gray.
But there is also a shrewd political calculation behind Saad’s outbursts. As the power broker for all Sunnis in Lebanon, Saad must make sure Shiites don’t infringe on his base’s interests.So when Hezbollah pinned Siniora behind barbed wire, it was understood as a threat to Sunni power, not just to the government. Saad made sure Sunnis rose up in their strongholds at Sidon and Tripoli, staging massive rallies that were broadcast on his Future TV.
Saad has been willing to play that sectarian card in a way his allies consider risky. He has been accused of funding Al Qaeda-inspired Sunni jihadists in Lebanon. A close adviser told me that doing so was a necessary evil. But less than 24 hours after the adviser’s admission, in early May, one such group attacked the army. Saad’s Western patrons say they’re worried about such ties. “We’re not particularly comfortable with some of his relationships,” a Western official tells me just days before the fighting breaks out. But the U.S. is also playing a similar game in the region, backing Sunni militants as a way to counter Iran. After all, the U.S. may very much like—and need—Saad’s combative friends.
According to the article, Sanyura is a kind of prince consort for March 14th who were, ever since Hariri father died, grooming his son to become the prime minister of Lebanon. If that's true, I forsee a very dark future for Lebanon made of sectarian strife and a latent civil war...Saad will never be a statesman. He will be a good puppet for Saudi Arabia (and by extension presently for the US and France) where he grew up, where he holds a citizenship, and where he nurtures a family and business and political ties.
Read the whole article
Another interesting read
Solidere: Vigilantism under color of law. Or the story of the intimate intricacies between political and business interests of the Hariris and their company, Solidere, meant to 'build' Lebanon after the civil war.
12.8.07
Sarkozy's Politics of Exclusion
Grozbulles, a centrist French blog (from the only real political center in France, not the counterfeited ones) that publishes political cartoons and extensive analyses of French Politics, has featured an article I wrote on the first measure of Sarkozy's infamous ministry of Immigration and National Identity.
Les Politiques de l'exclusion: Dissection de la première mesure du ministère de l'immigration et de l'identité nationale.
Les Politiques de l'exclusion: Dissection de la première mesure du ministère de l'immigration et de l'identité nationale.
10.8.07
The Hebron Tactic
By Amira Hass
The tactic is one that is well-known from Hebron, the same tactic that helped to cleanse the Old City of most of its Palestinian residents: Jews harass and bully and then threaten to lodge complaints against their victims with the Israeli police.
Harassment and sabotage of a much more serious nature than what we experienced has become routine for the Palestinian shepherds and farmers in the area. As a result, about 850 of the 3,500 or so inhabitants of the area known as Masafer Yatta (Yatta's periphery) have left their habitations, in caves and tent encampments. Sometimes it is their access to water sources that is damaged, sometimes their herds, other times themselves. They have piles of papers attesting to the police complaints they have submitted. Until they stopped filing complaints. MORE...
The tactic is one that is well-known from Hebron, the same tactic that helped to cleanse the Old City of most of its Palestinian residents: Jews harass and bully and then threaten to lodge complaints against their victims with the Israeli police.
Harassment and sabotage of a much more serious nature than what we experienced has become routine for the Palestinian shepherds and farmers in the area. As a result, about 850 of the 3,500 or so inhabitants of the area known as Masafer Yatta (Yatta's periphery) have left their habitations, in caves and tent encampments. Sometimes it is their access to water sources that is damaged, sometimes their herds, other times themselves. They have piles of papers attesting to the police complaints they have submitted. Until they stopped filing complaints. MORE...
The Middle East Peace Process Scam
By Henry Siegman, London Review of Books, Augut 16th, 2007
The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank....
...Anyone familiar with Israel’s relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza’s situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants...
...If the US and its allies were to take a stand forceful enough to persuade Israel that it will not be allowed to make changes to the pre-1967 situation except by agreement with the Palestinians in permanent status negotiations, there would be no need for complicated peace formulas or celebrity mediators to get a peace process underway. The only thing that an envoy such as Blair can do to put the peace process back on track is to speak the truth about the real impediment to peace. This would also be a historic contribution to the Jewish state, since Israel’s only hope of real long-term security is to have a successful Palestinian state as its neighbour. MORE...
The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank....
...Anyone familiar with Israel’s relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza’s situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants...
...If the US and its allies were to take a stand forceful enough to persuade Israel that it will not be allowed to make changes to the pre-1967 situation except by agreement with the Palestinians in permanent status negotiations, there would be no need for complicated peace formulas or celebrity mediators to get a peace process underway. The only thing that an envoy such as Blair can do to put the peace process back on track is to speak the truth about the real impediment to peace. This would also be a historic contribution to the Jewish state, since Israel’s only hope of real long-term security is to have a successful Palestinian state as its neighbour. MORE...
7.8.07
Free Spirits, Free Minds
They are one of the few professional journals worth reading and they need your support through subscriptions.
Corporate and political interests have already changed the way the news are made and delivered. Across the world, civil society is paying the price. From the Iraq lies to the color coded alerts, fear, and warmongering, the citizen is the prime target of large scale disinformation for purposes of orienting and influencing the democratic process to legitimise failed policies and attacks on Human Rights. Not one day goes by without a government or a country flexing its muscles at journalists who are becoming more and more subserviant and helpless. Take this example of the day from this wonderful country that Lebanon has become under the Hariri-Bush doctrine.
More than ever, we need reliable, independant, and state of the art news and analyses on the world we live in and on our future and the future of the planet. Le Monde Diplomatique is such a journal. I have been an avid reader since the 80s and it rarely disappointed me.
Introducing our first print issue in September 1998, Ignacio Ramonet wrote a leader called “Taking a stand”. In it, he said: “We believe that we are at a turning point in the business of providing news. Our readers are proof of this; they demand greater rigour, more seriousness and greater reliability. They also want guidance on how to achieve real solutions to some of the world’s problems.”
Since then, those needs and expectations have grown. Across the world, major newspapers are being bought up by private interests (The Wall Street Journal in the United States and the economics daily La Tribune in France), provoking fresh doubt about the objectivity of the media. The internet has become central to the provision of news and information, but its sources are often unmediated – and unedited for accuracy or brevity.
This rearrangement of the media landscape is happening as the world is becoming more complex, diverse and hard to decipher. The rise of China, India, Brazil and the Gulf states demonstrates these changes. One country can no longer decide global politics and economy. China invests in Africa (and in a major British bank’s bid for a Dutch bank), India develops relations with Latin America, the Gulf states invest in southeast Asia. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia seek to play a greater role in politics; this may in time limit the manoeuvrability of the United States or even of what we like to call the West. Le Monde diplomatique wants to give its readers a way to decode the new arrangements and understand the new realities.
Corporate and political interests have already changed the way the news are made and delivered. Across the world, civil society is paying the price. From the Iraq lies to the color coded alerts, fear, and warmongering, the citizen is the prime target of large scale disinformation for purposes of orienting and influencing the democratic process to legitimise failed policies and attacks on Human Rights. Not one day goes by without a government or a country flexing its muscles at journalists who are becoming more and more subserviant and helpless. Take this example of the day from this wonderful country that Lebanon has become under the Hariri-Bush doctrine.
More than ever, we need reliable, independant, and state of the art news and analyses on the world we live in and on our future and the future of the planet. Le Monde Diplomatique is such a journal. I have been an avid reader since the 80s and it rarely disappointed me.
Introducing our first print issue in September 1998, Ignacio Ramonet wrote a leader called “Taking a stand”. In it, he said: “We believe that we are at a turning point in the business of providing news. Our readers are proof of this; they demand greater rigour, more seriousness and greater reliability. They also want guidance on how to achieve real solutions to some of the world’s problems.”
Since then, those needs and expectations have grown. Across the world, major newspapers are being bought up by private interests (The Wall Street Journal in the United States and the economics daily La Tribune in France), provoking fresh doubt about the objectivity of the media. The internet has become central to the provision of news and information, but its sources are often unmediated – and unedited for accuracy or brevity.
This rearrangement of the media landscape is happening as the world is becoming more complex, diverse and hard to decipher. The rise of China, India, Brazil and the Gulf states demonstrates these changes. One country can no longer decide global politics and economy. China invests in Africa (and in a major British bank’s bid for a Dutch bank), India develops relations with Latin America, the Gulf states invest in southeast Asia. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia seek to play a greater role in politics; this may in time limit the manoeuvrability of the United States or even of what we like to call the West. Le Monde diplomatique wants to give its readers a way to decode the new arrangements and understand the new realities.
5.8.07
Lebanon's Partial Parliamentary Elections: The Metn's Christians Say 'NO' to March 14th
Amin Gemayel was so afraid of loosing these elections that he adressed a request to the minister of interior asking him to post a public notice about the different titles the voters might add to his name when voting, in order not to invalidate the vote. The interior ministry complied, and it was contrary to the Lebanese electoral law.
Mr. Gemayel listed on the public notice his different titles, former deputy, former president of Lebanon, sheikh, and how might the voter designates him on the ballot according to these titles:
His excellency the president Amin Al-Gemayel;
His excellency the president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
Amin Pierre Al-Gemayel;
Amin Al-Gemayel.
But that did not prevent him from loosing the battle for a doctor*, Camille Mansour Khoury, who is quite new to Politics, who is not former president, and who is not a former sheikh. And there are more titles Camille Khoury doesn't have and which Gemayel has; former warlord, former Syrian collaborator, former Israeli collaborator, and an ally to the Sunni-Saudi dominated March 14th's government.
Aoun is accused by March 14th of being pro-Syrian because he is against them. It is only since 2005 that March 14th like to describe themselves as anti-Syrian and everybody else as pro-Syrian. "You are either with us or against us". Some other critics of Michel Aoun have also pointed to the fact that his alliance with Hezbollah, an Islamist party, was going to loose him votes. However, there is a reality on the ground felt by Christians every day. The Gemayel and Lebanese Forces alliance with Hariri is diminishing the role of Christians in Lebanese Politics. Christians in the March 14th movement are not even playing second fiddle to Hariri. They have lost the support of their community for blatant corruption, special interest politics, and political incoherence. In a country used to freqent shifting in political alliances, they beacme the champions of the process to the point they are unable to make their moves intelligible for the community; allied to syrians one day and then to their ennemies the day after. However these leaders are acting like their fathers, grand'fathers, and grand grand'fathers, as if the people of Lebanon were going to vote along sectarian lines for the Zaim (local leader of the community), without accountability. And so Hariri, in his alliance with them, has been thinking the same, that by buying the Zaims he is buying the popular vote. But it didn't work that way for him since 2005. The emergence of general Michel Aoun, a former Syrian foe when everybody else was allied with the Syrians, and his party, The Free patriotic Movement, after Aoun's return from his exile in France after the Syrian withdrawal, has changed the political landscape in the christian community and beyond. The Hariri-Merch 14th coalition first tried to discredit him by depiciting him as a fool and a marginal of Politics but his popular support among Christians stayed unchanged. They then tried to strirr up the sectarian divide when they realised that this was not working enough for the March 14th coalition. But the more they try to push the people of Lebanon along this line and the more they discredit themselves in part of the population, the disappointed of 15 years of civil war, of two years of sectarian agitation since Hariri father died, and of the slow economic and social decline of the country that has emerged in Lebanon under the Hariris.
Christian leaders are only a screen for Hariris who, with the help of Saudi Arabia, continue implementing a one family rule (the Hariri family) of Lebanon marked by a shift from interreligious balance to affirming a Sunni-Saudi inspired and monitored takeover of the country, its economy, and its future. March 14th Christians are not even heard on decisions taken by the Hariri backed government and concerning their community in the first place;
The financing of Sunni extremism in Lebanon (for which many proofs have been given during the recent clashes between the Lebanese army and an extremist group in Nahr El-Bared);
The supression of the good Friday as a national holiday;
The signing by the Sanyura Hariri backed government of the Islamic chart for children's rights;
Many decisions disregarding the Christian community, the Hariri and Saudi backed Sanyura government has been taking, couldn't have been taken without the servility of March 14th Christian allies, and in total disregard for Lebanese political traditions in interreligious dialogue and balance of power between the different religious communities (in times of peace of course because when there is no dialogue they fight). Christian representatives allied to Hariri, like the Gemayels, Chamouns, Eddés, and Gea'gea, having lost the popular support, are just happy to be supported themselves by the all powerul Hariri and his money while sticking to the same sectarian politic of their ancestors.
The other reality is that the alliance between Michel Aoun's Christians and Hezbollah is different from the one between Christians and Hariri in March 14th. In the alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah, Christians are playing a major role and will continue playing this role on decisions concerning the fragile politico-religious equilibrium in Lebanon and the oecumenic character of the country. And because Hezbollah needs them in order not to appear as a southern only, shia only, political party, their influence extends to the way Hezbollah has practised and may continue to practice governance and power sharing in Lebanon. In addition to the fact that in the presence of a strong Christian party as an ally, Hezbollah, as Sheikh Nasrallah has expressed it in many occasions, will never govern Lebanon as an Islamic country, unless it is the will of all Lebanese. And as long as the voice of the Christian community will be heard, there will not be an Islamic republic in Lebanon. The other option being a secular Lebanon but under present circumstances in the Midlle east this option appears as an utopia.
On the other hand, as there is no written agreement between Hariri and his Christian allies on governance, Hariri feels he has free hands to do whatever he likes in all aspects of Lebanese life. The Saudi born and educated Hariri is islamising the country by small decrees under total silence from his Christian allies.
There is rhetoric and there is reality. Lebanese Christians may be sensitive to the rhetoric of March 14th and their propaganda. However, most of them, having lived through the civil war, are still more sensitive to reality because it allows them to sense danger and threats on their future in their country. The reality of the Christian community now in Lebanon is about the insecurity they feel for the place they might occupy in the Lebanese political chess game in the future. Changes for this future are hovering around. Who will choose the next Lebanese president, Hariri and Saudi Arabia or the people of Lebanon ? What will be the prerogatives of the new president to be elected in September in order to counter the monolithic Sunni ruled government and the all powerful Hariri and his holding that is sucking the blood of Lebanon, Solidere ?
No matter how much Aoun's political adversaries will try to pin on him the image of a Syrian collaborator - because of his alliance with Hezbollah - a man chosen by Syria and Iran, the reality is different. Because this same man had fought savagely the Syrian occupation while others like Gemayel and the Lebanese Forces have accepted unscrupulously the external American diktat of the time on collaborating with the Syrians. And no matter how much the March 14th will portray Hezbollah as an Islamist party, March 14th are the ones who are fighting sunni extremists who have gotten out of their control and of their pockets...
We can say many negative things on Lebanese and Lebanon's Politics but there is one thing the civil war taught Lebanese as communities: to evaluate danger on their survival. Hariri father and son have been transforming Lebanon and have achieved what a fierce civil war for survival and power sharing between religious communities had not achieved; putting Lebanon under the influence of one community while disregarding the others. The Mansourieh, Metn, Christians, and with them the whole Christian community who have been doing a soul search as of late, do no trust the Hariri coalition for their own future and the future of a multireligious Lebanon, the only viable option for Lebanese Christians.
"That General Aoun’s candidate, a virtual political unknown, proved a tough competitor to Mr. Gemayel, the onetime president who curried sympathy and campaigned in his son’s memory, underscored the level of discontent many Christians here have been feeling and the resonance of General Aoun’s message.
The general, in alliance with Hezbollah, has led the revolt against Lebanon’s political system, demanding greater inclusion and an end to control by a series of political dynasties."
Read this excellent analysis of the meaning of Gemayel's defeat by Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.
Angry Arab: Why I am worried about the safety of Armenians in Lebanon.
Angry Arab on Walid Jumblatt's Racism against Lebanese Christian Armenians
Mustapha Mond at Ms Levantine: Going Ugly early.
Angry Arab on Gemayel's reaction
*The results of the election are being contested by Gemayel as of Monday 1. a.m. local. This indicates that the tallies are in favour of Khouri. But even though Gemayel might be declared winner, given all his former titles and the fact that he led his campaign to replace the seat of his slain son, his 'victory' would only reflect the political loss Mr. Gemayel is incurring within his own community because of his alliance with Hariri.
P.S: The other partial election was in Beyrouth and the only challenger to the Hariri candidate was a secular communist. hezbollah boycotted the elections because they were not called by the president of the republic but by the March 14th government in disregard for the constitution. The participation was 18.9 % and the results are 22988 votes for the Hariri candidate and only 3556 for his communist rival.
Mr. Gemayel listed on the public notice his different titles, former deputy, former president of Lebanon, sheikh, and how might the voter designates him on the ballot according to these titles:
His excellency the president Amin Al-Gemayel;
His excellency the president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president Amin Al-Gemayel;
The president sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
The sheikh Amin Al-Gemayel;
Amin Pierre Al-Gemayel;
Amin Al-Gemayel.
But that did not prevent him from loosing the battle for a doctor*, Camille Mansour Khoury, who is quite new to Politics, who is not former president, and who is not a former sheikh. And there are more titles Camille Khoury doesn't have and which Gemayel has; former warlord, former Syrian collaborator, former Israeli collaborator, and an ally to the Sunni-Saudi dominated March 14th's government.
Aoun is accused by March 14th of being pro-Syrian because he is against them. It is only since 2005 that March 14th like to describe themselves as anti-Syrian and everybody else as pro-Syrian. "You are either with us or against us". Some other critics of Michel Aoun have also pointed to the fact that his alliance with Hezbollah, an Islamist party, was going to loose him votes. However, there is a reality on the ground felt by Christians every day. The Gemayel and Lebanese Forces alliance with Hariri is diminishing the role of Christians in Lebanese Politics. Christians in the March 14th movement are not even playing second fiddle to Hariri. They have lost the support of their community for blatant corruption, special interest politics, and political incoherence. In a country used to freqent shifting in political alliances, they beacme the champions of the process to the point they are unable to make their moves intelligible for the community; allied to syrians one day and then to their ennemies the day after. However these leaders are acting like their fathers, grand'fathers, and grand grand'fathers, as if the people of Lebanon were going to vote along sectarian lines for the Zaim (local leader of the community), without accountability. And so Hariri, in his alliance with them, has been thinking the same, that by buying the Zaims he is buying the popular vote. But it didn't work that way for him since 2005. The emergence of general Michel Aoun, a former Syrian foe when everybody else was allied with the Syrians, and his party, The Free patriotic Movement, after Aoun's return from his exile in France after the Syrian withdrawal, has changed the political landscape in the christian community and beyond. The Hariri-Merch 14th coalition first tried to discredit him by depiciting him as a fool and a marginal of Politics but his popular support among Christians stayed unchanged. They then tried to strirr up the sectarian divide when they realised that this was not working enough for the March 14th coalition. But the more they try to push the people of Lebanon along this line and the more they discredit themselves in part of the population, the disappointed of 15 years of civil war, of two years of sectarian agitation since Hariri father died, and of the slow economic and social decline of the country that has emerged in Lebanon under the Hariris.
Christian leaders are only a screen for Hariris who, with the help of Saudi Arabia, continue implementing a one family rule (the Hariri family) of Lebanon marked by a shift from interreligious balance to affirming a Sunni-Saudi inspired and monitored takeover of the country, its economy, and its future. March 14th Christians are not even heard on decisions taken by the Hariri backed government and concerning their community in the first place;
The financing of Sunni extremism in Lebanon (for which many proofs have been given during the recent clashes between the Lebanese army and an extremist group in Nahr El-Bared);
The supression of the good Friday as a national holiday;
The signing by the Sanyura Hariri backed government of the Islamic chart for children's rights;
Many decisions disregarding the Christian community, the Hariri and Saudi backed Sanyura government has been taking, couldn't have been taken without the servility of March 14th Christian allies, and in total disregard for Lebanese political traditions in interreligious dialogue and balance of power between the different religious communities (in times of peace of course because when there is no dialogue they fight). Christian representatives allied to Hariri, like the Gemayels, Chamouns, Eddés, and Gea'gea, having lost the popular support, are just happy to be supported themselves by the all powerul Hariri and his money while sticking to the same sectarian politic of their ancestors.
The other reality is that the alliance between Michel Aoun's Christians and Hezbollah is different from the one between Christians and Hariri in March 14th. In the alliance between Aoun and Hezbollah, Christians are playing a major role and will continue playing this role on decisions concerning the fragile politico-religious equilibrium in Lebanon and the oecumenic character of the country. And because Hezbollah needs them in order not to appear as a southern only, shia only, political party, their influence extends to the way Hezbollah has practised and may continue to practice governance and power sharing in Lebanon. In addition to the fact that in the presence of a strong Christian party as an ally, Hezbollah, as Sheikh Nasrallah has expressed it in many occasions, will never govern Lebanon as an Islamic country, unless it is the will of all Lebanese. And as long as the voice of the Christian community will be heard, there will not be an Islamic republic in Lebanon. The other option being a secular Lebanon but under present circumstances in the Midlle east this option appears as an utopia.
On the other hand, as there is no written agreement between Hariri and his Christian allies on governance, Hariri feels he has free hands to do whatever he likes in all aspects of Lebanese life. The Saudi born and educated Hariri is islamising the country by small decrees under total silence from his Christian allies.
There is rhetoric and there is reality. Lebanese Christians may be sensitive to the rhetoric of March 14th and their propaganda. However, most of them, having lived through the civil war, are still more sensitive to reality because it allows them to sense danger and threats on their future in their country. The reality of the Christian community now in Lebanon is about the insecurity they feel for the place they might occupy in the Lebanese political chess game in the future. Changes for this future are hovering around. Who will choose the next Lebanese president, Hariri and Saudi Arabia or the people of Lebanon ? What will be the prerogatives of the new president to be elected in September in order to counter the monolithic Sunni ruled government and the all powerful Hariri and his holding that is sucking the blood of Lebanon, Solidere ?
No matter how much Aoun's political adversaries will try to pin on him the image of a Syrian collaborator - because of his alliance with Hezbollah - a man chosen by Syria and Iran, the reality is different. Because this same man had fought savagely the Syrian occupation while others like Gemayel and the Lebanese Forces have accepted unscrupulously the external American diktat of the time on collaborating with the Syrians. And no matter how much the March 14th will portray Hezbollah as an Islamist party, March 14th are the ones who are fighting sunni extremists who have gotten out of their control and of their pockets...
We can say many negative things on Lebanese and Lebanon's Politics but there is one thing the civil war taught Lebanese as communities: to evaluate danger on their survival. Hariri father and son have been transforming Lebanon and have achieved what a fierce civil war for survival and power sharing between religious communities had not achieved; putting Lebanon under the influence of one community while disregarding the others. The Mansourieh, Metn, Christians, and with them the whole Christian community who have been doing a soul search as of late, do no trust the Hariri coalition for their own future and the future of a multireligious Lebanon, the only viable option for Lebanese Christians.
"That General Aoun’s candidate, a virtual political unknown, proved a tough competitor to Mr. Gemayel, the onetime president who curried sympathy and campaigned in his son’s memory, underscored the level of discontent many Christians here have been feeling and the resonance of General Aoun’s message.
The general, in alliance with Hezbollah, has led the revolt against Lebanon’s political system, demanding greater inclusion and an end to control by a series of political dynasties."
Read this excellent analysis of the meaning of Gemayel's defeat by Joshua Landis at Syria Comment.
Angry Arab: Why I am worried about the safety of Armenians in Lebanon.
Angry Arab on Walid Jumblatt's Racism against Lebanese Christian Armenians
Mustapha Mond at Ms Levantine: Going Ugly early.
Angry Arab on Gemayel's reaction
*The results of the election are being contested by Gemayel as of Monday 1. a.m. local. This indicates that the tallies are in favour of Khouri. But even though Gemayel might be declared winner, given all his former titles and the fact that he led his campaign to replace the seat of his slain son, his 'victory' would only reflect the political loss Mr. Gemayel is incurring within his own community because of his alliance with Hariri.
P.S: The other partial election was in Beyrouth and the only challenger to the Hariri candidate was a secular communist. hezbollah boycotted the elections because they were not called by the president of the republic but by the March 14th government in disregard for the constitution. The participation was 18.9 % and the results are 22988 votes for the Hariri candidate and only 3556 for his communist rival.
2.8.07
The Politics of Exclusion: France to pay immigrants to return home
Some 5 million immigrants, who are irregular residents in France and asking for the French citizenship, are eligible for this measure which opens the way to paying a family around 6000 euros in exchange for their returning to their country of origin. Sarkozy as minister of interior had already offered this measure to families. Some 3000 families accepted the deal. Now his immigration minister wants to offer it to individuals who are willing to use this money to invest it in their country of origin and start a business. The countries of origin of France's immigrants are mainly in north Africa.
Let me tell you why this is only posturing or "du vent", like they say in French, in terms of political and social handling of immigration, and a very dangerous measure, not only for the immigrants who will choose to stay, but also for the entire French society.
Sarkozy was elected thanks to the supproters of the far right, anti-immigration politician Jean-Marie Le Pen. However, anti-immigrant sentiments are not only restricted to Le Pen's supporters and have become pervasive among many, left or right, in a French society faced with acute problems related to access to jobs for the young and insecurity in Paris's suburbs. No matter how much facts and figures tell the story of a disgruntled young generation from the immigration, well integrated, but unable to lead a normal life, let alone find a job or an appartment to rent, having to fight an implicit discrimination in a country that boasts about its standing for Equality and Human Rights, Sarkozy and most of the French press controlled by Sarkozy's high profile friends in the business community, have made of immigration the number one issue, not for immigrants, but for the French society which was led to believe that immigration was the cause of its economic and social problems, problems which were mainly the result of the mismanagement of the country by Sarkozy's political governing party, the UMP, for the last 12 years.
Now Sarkozy wants to appear as an appeaser, a pacifier, and a generous compassionate person, while in fact following a very coherent goal for his political project for France: get rid of the poor, the unfit, and the weakest elements of the French society. What kind of family or individual would accept to leave for such a meager sum ? Even though it might represent something more substantial in his country of origin. This measure targets very few, those who live in squatters and in very dire conditions, those who are desperate and willing to cash in, or at the best, those who have some creative ideas and projects. Will the families who are able to send their children to school and, even unemployed, manage to live in the meanders and hardship of immigration while hoping for the better, accept this 'generous offer' ? Will individuals who are really creative and have projects accept the offer ? I bet not, or only very few of them. Immigration is made of hope and the hope for a better life cannot be bought for 6000 euros, unless, of course, one has lost any hope for the future or one has creativity, commitments, and some help to implement his project in his country of origin. These are the families and individuals who will accept Sarkozy's offer, the 'lowest of the low', those who lost any hope for the future, or the brightest of the low, those who are entrepreneurs and creative but lack money and means.
These are extremes on the Bell curve of immigration profiles.
Most likely, it will be the lowest of the low who will accept Sarkozy's offer because those who have a project for the future can still hope implementing a successful project for their life in France.
And how this measure will help 'development' in the countries of origins, as Sarkozy and his minister claim, when the families who will accept 6000 euros are the ones who in fact did not succeed in adapting to even a miserable life in France and had lost hope in the future ?
In fact what Sarkozy is doing, he is getting rid of the unfit elements of the French society and he can do so because thay are irregular immigrants, while, on the other hand, not offering a large scale solution to the problem of immigration per se for those who choose to stay and fight; integration, equality in rights, respect, and so on...Those who are in the middle of the Bell curve of immigration profiles. Or may be he will be going to make the life of these others who choose to stay so miserable that in the end he will be putting more and more of them outside the system. This is integration in reverse. French citizens should be very worry about this measure because when a country starts to get rid of its weak elements while marginalising the others, less weak, but still not completely fit for sarkozy's standards, the process can lead to abuses in all strata of society, and there are historical chilling examples for that.
Sarkozy's measure, although restricted, for the time being, to the most weak elements of the French society, is a perfect example of an explicit ideology for a politic of exclusion that will be the common feature for all Sarkozy's political decisions. It should raise the alarm bells in the French society. I am not worried only for these immigrants, after all, they might be happy just to cash in and return home, I am worried of what this kind of ideology might lead to in the future in France if Sarkozy will be given a green light from the French society and political parties, and if his measure will be welcomed with some admiration, as all his other moves, because it will be seen as a bold move, or a light embarrassement, at worse.
p.s: If you look at the Technorati page of the blogs discussing the story as reported by Der Spiegel, the measure seems to have already seduced some while right wing extremists are cheering. I hope there will be some kind of reaction, a strong one, from the Frecnch blogosphere. I am waiting for some substance on the subject that might prompt some real criticism, not only indignation or cheering.
Let me tell you why this is only posturing or "du vent", like they say in French, in terms of political and social handling of immigration, and a very dangerous measure, not only for the immigrants who will choose to stay, but also for the entire French society.
Sarkozy was elected thanks to the supproters of the far right, anti-immigration politician Jean-Marie Le Pen. However, anti-immigrant sentiments are not only restricted to Le Pen's supporters and have become pervasive among many, left or right, in a French society faced with acute problems related to access to jobs for the young and insecurity in Paris's suburbs. No matter how much facts and figures tell the story of a disgruntled young generation from the immigration, well integrated, but unable to lead a normal life, let alone find a job or an appartment to rent, having to fight an implicit discrimination in a country that boasts about its standing for Equality and Human Rights, Sarkozy and most of the French press controlled by Sarkozy's high profile friends in the business community, have made of immigration the number one issue, not for immigrants, but for the French society which was led to believe that immigration was the cause of its economic and social problems, problems which were mainly the result of the mismanagement of the country by Sarkozy's political governing party, the UMP, for the last 12 years.
Now Sarkozy wants to appear as an appeaser, a pacifier, and a generous compassionate person, while in fact following a very coherent goal for his political project for France: get rid of the poor, the unfit, and the weakest elements of the French society. What kind of family or individual would accept to leave for such a meager sum ? Even though it might represent something more substantial in his country of origin. This measure targets very few, those who live in squatters and in very dire conditions, those who are desperate and willing to cash in, or at the best, those who have some creative ideas and projects. Will the families who are able to send their children to school and, even unemployed, manage to live in the meanders and hardship of immigration while hoping for the better, accept this 'generous offer' ? Will individuals who are really creative and have projects accept the offer ? I bet not, or only very few of them. Immigration is made of hope and the hope for a better life cannot be bought for 6000 euros, unless, of course, one has lost any hope for the future or one has creativity, commitments, and some help to implement his project in his country of origin. These are the families and individuals who will accept Sarkozy's offer, the 'lowest of the low', those who lost any hope for the future, or the brightest of the low, those who are entrepreneurs and creative but lack money and means.
These are extremes on the Bell curve of immigration profiles.
Most likely, it will be the lowest of the low who will accept Sarkozy's offer because those who have a project for the future can still hope implementing a successful project for their life in France.
And how this measure will help 'development' in the countries of origins, as Sarkozy and his minister claim, when the families who will accept 6000 euros are the ones who in fact did not succeed in adapting to even a miserable life in France and had lost hope in the future ?
In fact what Sarkozy is doing, he is getting rid of the unfit elements of the French society and he can do so because thay are irregular immigrants, while, on the other hand, not offering a large scale solution to the problem of immigration per se for those who choose to stay and fight; integration, equality in rights, respect, and so on...Those who are in the middle of the Bell curve of immigration profiles. Or may be he will be going to make the life of these others who choose to stay so miserable that in the end he will be putting more and more of them outside the system. This is integration in reverse. French citizens should be very worry about this measure because when a country starts to get rid of its weak elements while marginalising the others, less weak, but still not completely fit for sarkozy's standards, the process can lead to abuses in all strata of society, and there are historical chilling examples for that.
Sarkozy's measure, although restricted, for the time being, to the most weak elements of the French society, is a perfect example of an explicit ideology for a politic of exclusion that will be the common feature for all Sarkozy's political decisions. It should raise the alarm bells in the French society. I am not worried only for these immigrants, after all, they might be happy just to cash in and return home, I am worried of what this kind of ideology might lead to in the future in France if Sarkozy will be given a green light from the French society and political parties, and if his measure will be welcomed with some admiration, as all his other moves, because it will be seen as a bold move, or a light embarrassement, at worse.
p.s: If you look at the Technorati page of the blogs discussing the story as reported by Der Spiegel, the measure seems to have already seduced some while right wing extremists are cheering. I hope there will be some kind of reaction, a strong one, from the Frecnch blogosphere. I am waiting for some substance on the subject that might prompt some real criticism, not only indignation or cheering.
1.8.07
Zionism, Land Theft, and Racism, are Blatant Violations of Democracy and Human Rights by Israel
Last week the Knesset passed in preliminary reading a law that would require the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to allocate land that it owns only to Jews. Presumably this means that Jews who are not citizens of Israel would qualify, but Israel's Arab citizens would be barred from access to land owned by the JNF. A blatant violation of the norms of democracy.
And I am not going to cheer, like some bloggers, the courage of the few Israelis who voted against the law. They must have known before what Zionism means. These people have voted for the July war on Lebanon last year, they voted for all the other racial laws of their country, otherwise, they would not be sitting where they are retaining their right to vote on their country's laws. Their vote is only late posturing, and an attempt at clearing their conscience, against a very dangerous ideology.
Watch the video: Land theft continues in Palestine
Thanks Elizabeth
And I am not going to cheer, like some bloggers, the courage of the few Israelis who voted against the law. They must have known before what Zionism means. These people have voted for the July war on Lebanon last year, they voted for all the other racial laws of their country, otherwise, they would not be sitting where they are retaining their right to vote on their country's laws. Their vote is only late posturing, and an attempt at clearing their conscience, against a very dangerous ideology.
Watch the video: Land theft continues in Palestine
Thanks Elizabeth
Sarkozy's Stolen Victories
Nicolas Sarkozy is a man constantly on the move. He practically hops around in his suit. He shrugs his shoulders, jerks his head and raises his eyebrows. In his manner, he likens a bouncing ball, full of energy but completely unpredictable. Since his election in early May, the French president has been ricocheting through European diplomatic circles like an out-of-control comet.
...The small-statured Sarkozy has assumed the role of the great statesman. Slapping shoulders, patting backs and distributing kisses, he leaves the impression of success in his wake. His approach is allowing the French to breathe a collective sigh of relief. After many years of near-paralysis, the country is assuming the leadership of an increasingly lethargic EU.
This, at least, is the impression Sarkozy would like to make. His European partners can only look on in speechless astonishment as Sarkozy rushes ahead. The crowing of the Gallic rooster is replacing the European anthem as Europe acquires a leader who has shown himself willing to flaunt tradition. His will, it appears, is the road to success.
There is only one problem: Sarkozy's victories are stolen victories. He is steadily co-opting successes which, in some cases, others have spent years diligently preparing. His policies are intended to radiate dynamism and energy. But in reality, he jumps from one issue to the next -- with apparently no system or coherence, but with a great deal of fanfare and fireworks... More...
...The small-statured Sarkozy has assumed the role of the great statesman. Slapping shoulders, patting backs and distributing kisses, he leaves the impression of success in his wake. His approach is allowing the French to breathe a collective sigh of relief. After many years of near-paralysis, the country is assuming the leadership of an increasingly lethargic EU.
This, at least, is the impression Sarkozy would like to make. His European partners can only look on in speechless astonishment as Sarkozy rushes ahead. The crowing of the Gallic rooster is replacing the European anthem as Europe acquires a leader who has shown himself willing to flaunt tradition. His will, it appears, is the road to success.
There is only one problem: Sarkozy's victories are stolen victories. He is steadily co-opting successes which, in some cases, others have spent years diligently preparing. His policies are intended to radiate dynamism and energy. But in reality, he jumps from one issue to the next -- with apparently no system or coherence, but with a great deal of fanfare and fireworks... More...
US Pressures Germany to Cut Iran Business Ties
The United States is using rough-handed methods to force Germany to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. The government in Berlin is resisting, but German banks are already caving in.
Building an Economic Coalition of the Willing
But the US government is no longer content with United Nations economic sanctions on Tehran -- Washington wants more. And so, US President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have directed Levey to form a worldwide economic coalition of the willing to increase the pressure on Iran. Despite their best efforts, American officials are irked that German companies are still doing business worth billions with Tehran. In particular, Washington has little understanding for the export guarantees Berlin still offers firms, effectively helping the mullah regime to buy new ships and power plant technologies.
Building an Economic Coalition of the Willing
But the US government is no longer content with United Nations economic sanctions on Tehran -- Washington wants more. And so, US President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have directed Levey to form a worldwide economic coalition of the willing to increase the pressure on Iran. Despite their best efforts, American officials are irked that German companies are still doing business worth billions with Tehran. In particular, Washington has little understanding for the export guarantees Berlin still offers firms, effectively helping the mullah regime to buy new ships and power plant technologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006