I have been, as many others, following events in Libya for the past months and now that the conflict seems to be coming to an end, I will publish the following comments I have been jotting down for weeks and that I can fully agree with.
The Libyan conflict was atypical and strange, to say the least, from the very beginning. It actually probably should never even have taken place.
1. Oil was never the real issue. On the contrary, Khadafy himself was the best guarantee of oil supplies. Not to mention the vast quantities of Libyan investments in Europe and the substantial European investments in Libya.
2. Italy, a major European player, made very clear from the very beginning where its strategic interests lie.
3. Germany, another major European player, chose to simply look the other way and to ignore the Libyan rebels.
4. The UK took part in the NATO operations, but never did show any real enthusiasm with the military side of the conflict.
5. The USA has only marginal strategic interests in Libya. President Obama had to be dragged into the war, against his wishes and the majority of his Administration’s opinion.
At the end of the day, France emerges as the sole strong supporter of military action against Khadafy’s regime. It seems that without Sarkozy´s leadership and the advice of Bernard-Henri Levy, there would have been no Libyan war.
My only hope is that they did it for the humanitarian reasons they have so profusely quoted and repeated over and over again.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Xenophobia in Europe
The emergence of a racist and xenophobic Extreme Right in Europe is a reality. And they are more and more inclined to use violence to impose their ideology. But this horrendous fact has its origins in the mismanagement of the immigration issue by the European political left for the past decades. And in the internal contradictions of a society which, whilst going around the world “ preaching and promoting” human rights to others, is incapable of stopping the constant violation of those rights to substantial parts of their own population.
Traditional political parties should be fighting these new tendencies in Europe, and pursuing policies targeted at integrating the newcomers into European society. What they have done, instead, is define a concept of multiculturalism that has led us to the present situation, provoking the wrong reactions in local populations who have being increasingly voting to radical parties since the 80s.
In this “ model society”, the main difference between being guilty and being responsible is what we have to decide in the wake of the killings in Norway. If you remember the novels by Stieg Larsson, and especially the title of his second book, you might already have a clue of what I am saying.
My point is that Norwegian society is not guilty of what one of its citizens perpetrated, but Norwegians certainly are responsible. They have been, as most of the Nordic countries, living in Alice in Wonderland, and they have awakened to a nightmare the proportions of which we can only begin to fathom.
And let me set the record straight: I am in no way saying that they ( or rather, we) are all responsible. On the contrary, I believe that blaming society as a whole is the best formula to guarantee that no one individual is held accountable at the end of the day. That is what the Germans did collectively at the end of the Second World War: they took a step forward and said “ we are all responsible”, the perfect way to ensure that no specific measures would be taken against “ guilty” individuals with a few public exceptions in the early years.
Guilt is different to responsibility. Guilt is always personal, and it is linked to a given action and a specific person, not to intentions or wishes.
It might well be that Anders Breivik is a lone individual and he might even be mad. But that does not diminish the fact that he is guilty. And Norwegians ( and other Europeans) have to feel responsible for an act they did not commit themselves, but for which they are truly responsible for because they belong to an arrogant society, a fact which they cannot voluntarily deny or relinquish.
Northern European societies have generated over the years two extremely dangerous phenomenon: they look upon the rest of us with a sense of superiority, really believing that they were well above those other countries around them which suffered from terrorism and violence. They even boasted about it out loudly.
The absence of adequate security measures and the long time it took for the Norwegian Police to react and control the situation, clearly demonstrates their self-sufficient attitude towards problems they believe they are immune to.
The second extremely dangerous phenomenon is the social democrat policy of multiculturalism, not of integration. This has alienated a quarter of the Norwegian population who votes the “ Extreme Right” ( 23% of the popular vote). Let us not forget that Breivik was an active militant in this party, and from its ideology he took many of his xenophobic, ultra nationalistic ideas, well mixed with racial and gender superiority and hatred against Muslims.
This same situation applies to other radical parties in Holland, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Germany and Austria, and probably many others. And I don’t think for a moment that Southern Europe is immune to xenophobia, but I hope we will learn from other’s mistakes and help prevent similar actions.
I still believe we have the chance to stop the tendency dead in its tracks. It helps that there are not many voluntaristic socialist governments left in Europe after they have mismanaged the economic situation for decades. Now we have to start calling a spade a spade, and putting real integration policies in place, where all, particularly the immigrants, can feel at home and part of a common society.
Traditional political parties should be fighting these new tendencies in Europe, and pursuing policies targeted at integrating the newcomers into European society. What they have done, instead, is define a concept of multiculturalism that has led us to the present situation, provoking the wrong reactions in local populations who have being increasingly voting to radical parties since the 80s.
In this “ model society”, the main difference between being guilty and being responsible is what we have to decide in the wake of the killings in Norway. If you remember the novels by Stieg Larsson, and especially the title of his second book, you might already have a clue of what I am saying.
My point is that Norwegian society is not guilty of what one of its citizens perpetrated, but Norwegians certainly are responsible. They have been, as most of the Nordic countries, living in Alice in Wonderland, and they have awakened to a nightmare the proportions of which we can only begin to fathom.
And let me set the record straight: I am in no way saying that they ( or rather, we) are all responsible. On the contrary, I believe that blaming society as a whole is the best formula to guarantee that no one individual is held accountable at the end of the day. That is what the Germans did collectively at the end of the Second World War: they took a step forward and said “ we are all responsible”, the perfect way to ensure that no specific measures would be taken against “ guilty” individuals with a few public exceptions in the early years.
Guilt is different to responsibility. Guilt is always personal, and it is linked to a given action and a specific person, not to intentions or wishes.
It might well be that Anders Breivik is a lone individual and he might even be mad. But that does not diminish the fact that he is guilty. And Norwegians ( and other Europeans) have to feel responsible for an act they did not commit themselves, but for which they are truly responsible for because they belong to an arrogant society, a fact which they cannot voluntarily deny or relinquish.
Northern European societies have generated over the years two extremely dangerous phenomenon: they look upon the rest of us with a sense of superiority, really believing that they were well above those other countries around them which suffered from terrorism and violence. They even boasted about it out loudly.
The absence of adequate security measures and the long time it took for the Norwegian Police to react and control the situation, clearly demonstrates their self-sufficient attitude towards problems they believe they are immune to.
The second extremely dangerous phenomenon is the social democrat policy of multiculturalism, not of integration. This has alienated a quarter of the Norwegian population who votes the “ Extreme Right” ( 23% of the popular vote). Let us not forget that Breivik was an active militant in this party, and from its ideology he took many of his xenophobic, ultra nationalistic ideas, well mixed with racial and gender superiority and hatred against Muslims.
This same situation applies to other radical parties in Holland, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Germany and Austria, and probably many others. And I don’t think for a moment that Southern Europe is immune to xenophobia, but I hope we will learn from other’s mistakes and help prevent similar actions.
I still believe we have the chance to stop the tendency dead in its tracks. It helps that there are not many voluntaristic socialist governments left in Europe after they have mismanaged the economic situation for decades. Now we have to start calling a spade a spade, and putting real integration policies in place, where all, particularly the immigrants, can feel at home and part of a common society.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Afghanistan: West Fails to Deliver
Recently President Obama and other Western Leaders have announced the withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan. In my view this implies nothing but an acknowledgment of a huge failure on our side.
There is a fact our politicians have to deal with: US and European public opinion considers the war is lost, and with upcoming elections on both sides of the Atlantic, they are trying to give satisfaction to as many constituents as possible. This will mean the end to 10 years of involvement, 130,000 military personnel, 48 countries, and 2,600 dead of which 1,600 Americans.
So roughly ten years after the conflict began, USA and Europe will leave behind a country still torn by corruption, armed struggle, feudalism and an ever-thriving drug business. But Bin Laden´s death is providing the excuse ( alibi?), and the apparent disarray of Al Qaeda seems to justify abandoning the theatre of operations.
The real problem is that nobody managed or even wanted to grasp the real nature of the Afghan conflict. From a military point of view, results are feeble at best. General Petraeus recently quoted a 3-5% reduction in insurgent attacks in June of this year. These attacks have nevertheless experimented a growth in boldness and efficiency, as the assassination of Ahmed Vali Karzai proves.
The West has decided to further finance the security services, to the point that the Afghans, who still have no running water or electricity for the most part, have the Army and the Police as only credible employers in the country.
Corruption is so large and extended, that billions of dollars in foreign aid have been “ lost” on the way and have ended in the pockets of the current Afghan leadership and their partners abroad. Internally, according to UNODC numbers published in Vienna, local Afghan citizens have paid out some 23% of the country’s GDP in bribes to officials.
President Karzai has no real alternative that the West can foresee, even though he only controls a small portion of the country, while the rest of the territory is in the hands of the Taliban, the Warlords (allies of the Government in theory) or is immersed in violence with no clear winner.
The country’s main source of income is foreign aid and opium, which is funny for a conflict that started with the reduction of the drug problem as one of the main objectives. In 2011, exports of opium have grown to their highest level yet.
In conclusion, another total failure for the West. We went in to help the local population achieve their “ aspirations of democracy and welfare”. But as said, the majority still doesn’t have access to electricity, education, health services or adequate housing, and women and ethnic minorities are no better off than before the invasion.
Globally there is no major improvement in regional stability, and terrorism is in no way defeated. And now we learn from sources in NATO and the US Administration that the real problem and attention is shifting to Pakistan!
In essence, we have learned nothing from the British and Soviet Empires and their own total failures in Afghanistan.
There is a fact our politicians have to deal with: US and European public opinion considers the war is lost, and with upcoming elections on both sides of the Atlantic, they are trying to give satisfaction to as many constituents as possible. This will mean the end to 10 years of involvement, 130,000 military personnel, 48 countries, and 2,600 dead of which 1,600 Americans.
So roughly ten years after the conflict began, USA and Europe will leave behind a country still torn by corruption, armed struggle, feudalism and an ever-thriving drug business. But Bin Laden´s death is providing the excuse ( alibi?), and the apparent disarray of Al Qaeda seems to justify abandoning the theatre of operations.
The real problem is that nobody managed or even wanted to grasp the real nature of the Afghan conflict. From a military point of view, results are feeble at best. General Petraeus recently quoted a 3-5% reduction in insurgent attacks in June of this year. These attacks have nevertheless experimented a growth in boldness and efficiency, as the assassination of Ahmed Vali Karzai proves.
The West has decided to further finance the security services, to the point that the Afghans, who still have no running water or electricity for the most part, have the Army and the Police as only credible employers in the country.
Corruption is so large and extended, that billions of dollars in foreign aid have been “ lost” on the way and have ended in the pockets of the current Afghan leadership and their partners abroad. Internally, according to UNODC numbers published in Vienna, local Afghan citizens have paid out some 23% of the country’s GDP in bribes to officials.
President Karzai has no real alternative that the West can foresee, even though he only controls a small portion of the country, while the rest of the territory is in the hands of the Taliban, the Warlords (allies of the Government in theory) or is immersed in violence with no clear winner.
The country’s main source of income is foreign aid and opium, which is funny for a conflict that started with the reduction of the drug problem as one of the main objectives. In 2011, exports of opium have grown to their highest level yet.
In conclusion, another total failure for the West. We went in to help the local population achieve their “ aspirations of democracy and welfare”. But as said, the majority still doesn’t have access to electricity, education, health services or adequate housing, and women and ethnic minorities are no better off than before the invasion.
Globally there is no major improvement in regional stability, and terrorism is in no way defeated. And now we learn from sources in NATO and the US Administration that the real problem and attention is shifting to Pakistan!
In essence, we have learned nothing from the British and Soviet Empires and their own total failures in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Africa´s Turn
Last week South Sudan became a new country, Africa’s youngest. A separation some of us predicted nearly two decades ago, arguing that it was in the best interest of the USA, among others, and that all efforts to try and keep Sudan as an “ Arab problem” would be futile against the will and wishes of the USA.
I personally never accepted it was a purely Arab problem and refused to defend that it should be up to the Arab League and, notably, Egypt to solve a conflict that had evolved into Africa’s longest civil war. The perpetuation of the conflict was in Egypt’s interest, keeping the Sudanese government occupied and with its mind off pursuing the issue of the waters of the Nile. The same goes for Ethiopia, a country which itself, had to let go of Eritrea a few years earlier.
Economically, the new country makes a lot of sense, because of its oil reserves if nothing else. That alone justifies for some, the decades of bloody war and independence, which should be, nevertheless, treated as a beginning and not as an end to the real issues.
This past week we have read about all the problems facing the new country. The list includes all the issues normally attributed to Africa as a whole: poverty; Human development indicators (education, health, nutrition); a country the size of France but with only 40 kms of paved roads; unclear borders; scars of war, and many others.
So, once again, in Africa, a somewhat positive event, the birth of a new Nation, invites to pessimism. But I resist accepting that pessimism is called for in Africa. I still believe that we are talking about the continent of the future.
UN statistics reports give us some interesting reads. Amongst the ten countries in the World with higher GNP growth in the first decade of the 21st Century, six were African nations: Angola, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Chad, Mozambique and Rwanda. Of course, the realities for some of those countries, the high price of Oil for Angola and Nigeria, and for the rest, the mere fact that they started the Century from the lowest indicators in the World, has to be taken into account.
But it also means, in my view that all-out pessimism about Africa’s future is now uncalled for. The continent is now on the radar of international investors and the rush for its natural resources by the emerging nations, Brazil, India and China, has been a reality for years past. It is true that these positive economic factors carry a heavy toll on local populations, changing their environment for future generations, and handing over to foreigners their resources, including farming lands, but it also has meant steady economic growth, giving Africa a new position in the International Economic Global arena.
According to the Economist, 7 of the 10 countries with higher growth rates in the next decade will be in Africa, closely following in the wake of India and China. Two main hypotheses are mentioned. In the first, Africa will take the Indian “ model” with a green revolution, which will follow a modernization of agricultural production and finally allow Africa to feed its population. As in India, this economic growth will coexist with tremendous poverty for a substantial percentage of the population. The second scenario sees Africa growing steadily following the Latin American model of the last few years, with more integration in global markets, better governance of national economies and better distribution of wealth, but also with the perpetuation of social inequalities. So poverty and its eradication are still in center stage in Africa.
South Sudan is, thus, born into a continent that will count more and more in the global context. Africa will surpass India in population in the next 12 years, and end up very close to Chinese numbers. Global issues like climate change and food security will be, for the most part, battled out in Africa, and its role in the World economy will increase significantly. Watching the new nation and its people celebrate independence proves once again that the African dream of managing their own future and resources is still there.
For me, the only sour part of this story was the presence of Robert Mugabe, the liberator turned dictator, who has destroyed his country in the years after independence. But that is a whole new story.
I personally never accepted it was a purely Arab problem and refused to defend that it should be up to the Arab League and, notably, Egypt to solve a conflict that had evolved into Africa’s longest civil war. The perpetuation of the conflict was in Egypt’s interest, keeping the Sudanese government occupied and with its mind off pursuing the issue of the waters of the Nile. The same goes for Ethiopia, a country which itself, had to let go of Eritrea a few years earlier.
Economically, the new country makes a lot of sense, because of its oil reserves if nothing else. That alone justifies for some, the decades of bloody war and independence, which should be, nevertheless, treated as a beginning and not as an end to the real issues.
This past week we have read about all the problems facing the new country. The list includes all the issues normally attributed to Africa as a whole: poverty; Human development indicators (education, health, nutrition); a country the size of France but with only 40 kms of paved roads; unclear borders; scars of war, and many others.
So, once again, in Africa, a somewhat positive event, the birth of a new Nation, invites to pessimism. But I resist accepting that pessimism is called for in Africa. I still believe that we are talking about the continent of the future.
UN statistics reports give us some interesting reads. Amongst the ten countries in the World with higher GNP growth in the first decade of the 21st Century, six were African nations: Angola, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Chad, Mozambique and Rwanda. Of course, the realities for some of those countries, the high price of Oil for Angola and Nigeria, and for the rest, the mere fact that they started the Century from the lowest indicators in the World, has to be taken into account.
But it also means, in my view that all-out pessimism about Africa’s future is now uncalled for. The continent is now on the radar of international investors and the rush for its natural resources by the emerging nations, Brazil, India and China, has been a reality for years past. It is true that these positive economic factors carry a heavy toll on local populations, changing their environment for future generations, and handing over to foreigners their resources, including farming lands, but it also has meant steady economic growth, giving Africa a new position in the International Economic Global arena.
According to the Economist, 7 of the 10 countries with higher growth rates in the next decade will be in Africa, closely following in the wake of India and China. Two main hypotheses are mentioned. In the first, Africa will take the Indian “ model” with a green revolution, which will follow a modernization of agricultural production and finally allow Africa to feed its population. As in India, this economic growth will coexist with tremendous poverty for a substantial percentage of the population. The second scenario sees Africa growing steadily following the Latin American model of the last few years, with more integration in global markets, better governance of national economies and better distribution of wealth, but also with the perpetuation of social inequalities. So poverty and its eradication are still in center stage in Africa.
South Sudan is, thus, born into a continent that will count more and more in the global context. Africa will surpass India in population in the next 12 years, and end up very close to Chinese numbers. Global issues like climate change and food security will be, for the most part, battled out in Africa, and its role in the World economy will increase significantly. Watching the new nation and its people celebrate independence proves once again that the African dream of managing their own future and resources is still there.
For me, the only sour part of this story was the presence of Robert Mugabe, the liberator turned dictator, who has destroyed his country in the years after independence. But that is a whole new story.
Friday, May 20, 2011
The Cost of " No Europe"
Populism is not new to politics. I believe it is natural in politics, it is built into politicians. What is now happening in Europe is nothing but populism. Leaders are increasingly looking only at local problems and are forgetting the greater aspects of European integration. This is also not new in Europe, and it brings back dark memories from the middle of the last century.
The example of Denmark comes to mind. Let us not forget that this country has been for decades a model of democracy, tolerance and social justice. It set a trend when in the 40s the Nazis ordered Danish Jews to wear the yellow star, and the King of Denmark set the example for the whole nation by wearing it himself on his uniform while riding his horse through town. But now, Denmark is surrendering to fear and xenophobia.
Further south, Greece is not getting all the support it needs from other partners, and Finland and Slovakia are refusing to pay their share of Portugal’s bailout.
Two other symptoms: the immigration crisis from North Africa has led Italy and France to restrict movements in the EU and Germany has not supported the UN Security Council Resolution against Ghadaffi´s Libya.
And finally, my own country, Spain, has not voiced its opposition to all the above measures, not even shaming the attitude of the European Commission and its Portuguese President, Durao Barroso on the above issues.
It has been said that the current crisis in European integration has four main reasons leading to a crisis of values and political shortsightedness: The Euro´s crisis; a rise in xenophobia, not limited but higher in the “ newer members of the EU”; no real common foreign policy and a worrying lack of leadership.
Concerning xenophobia, Europe has quickly forgotten its solidarity for refugees, with the last example in the 90s with the ex-Yugoslavia. Now, a few thousand desperate North Africans have thrown Europe into disarray. We have to be thankful that Denmark borders Germany and Sweden, two of the most stable and safe countries in the world. If they had common borders with North Africa or other regions, they would be electrifying the border and maybe laying land mines.
As far as the crisis of the euro, some of us think that Southern countries would be better off out of the euro zone, which is really little more than tailor made for Germany and based on the ex-Deutschmark. Take the example of Spain. We pay 200 basic points extra to service our debt than the UK, but the UK has a higher debt ratio than Spain. The difference: the UK has the pound in circulation and therefore keeps it margin for competitive monetary policy. Spain does not have this luxury any longer.
Chancellor Merkel, supposedly defending European economic integration, has two days ago called for Southern Europeans to work more, take fewer vacations and retire at a later age. What exactly did she mean by this? In Germany the official retirement age is 67. The same as in Spain. The average retirement age in Germany is 62.2 years, considerably lower than in Spain.
Germans have between 25 and 30 vacation days a year. Spaniards have “ only” 22. But in her speech, Merkel mentioned Spain, together with Portugal and Greece as countries that have been rescued. And she conveniently forgot about Ireland, presumably because the Irish are off the German public’s radar. So she is really addressing her own constituents, not the broader European public opinion, regardless of what she says or thinks she is doing.
The real problem in Europe today is the absence of long-term vision. We have to get back to basics and our leaders have to think again of the “ Costs of No- Europe”.
The example of Denmark comes to mind. Let us not forget that this country has been for decades a model of democracy, tolerance and social justice. It set a trend when in the 40s the Nazis ordered Danish Jews to wear the yellow star, and the King of Denmark set the example for the whole nation by wearing it himself on his uniform while riding his horse through town. But now, Denmark is surrendering to fear and xenophobia.
Further south, Greece is not getting all the support it needs from other partners, and Finland and Slovakia are refusing to pay their share of Portugal’s bailout.
Two other symptoms: the immigration crisis from North Africa has led Italy and France to restrict movements in the EU and Germany has not supported the UN Security Council Resolution against Ghadaffi´s Libya.
And finally, my own country, Spain, has not voiced its opposition to all the above measures, not even shaming the attitude of the European Commission and its Portuguese President, Durao Barroso on the above issues.
It has been said that the current crisis in European integration has four main reasons leading to a crisis of values and political shortsightedness: The Euro´s crisis; a rise in xenophobia, not limited but higher in the “ newer members of the EU”; no real common foreign policy and a worrying lack of leadership.
Concerning xenophobia, Europe has quickly forgotten its solidarity for refugees, with the last example in the 90s with the ex-Yugoslavia. Now, a few thousand desperate North Africans have thrown Europe into disarray. We have to be thankful that Denmark borders Germany and Sweden, two of the most stable and safe countries in the world. If they had common borders with North Africa or other regions, they would be electrifying the border and maybe laying land mines.
As far as the crisis of the euro, some of us think that Southern countries would be better off out of the euro zone, which is really little more than tailor made for Germany and based on the ex-Deutschmark. Take the example of Spain. We pay 200 basic points extra to service our debt than the UK, but the UK has a higher debt ratio than Spain. The difference: the UK has the pound in circulation and therefore keeps it margin for competitive monetary policy. Spain does not have this luxury any longer.
Chancellor Merkel, supposedly defending European economic integration, has two days ago called for Southern Europeans to work more, take fewer vacations and retire at a later age. What exactly did she mean by this? In Germany the official retirement age is 67. The same as in Spain. The average retirement age in Germany is 62.2 years, considerably lower than in Spain.
Germans have between 25 and 30 vacation days a year. Spaniards have “ only” 22. But in her speech, Merkel mentioned Spain, together with Portugal and Greece as countries that have been rescued. And she conveniently forgot about Ireland, presumably because the Irish are off the German public’s radar. So she is really addressing her own constituents, not the broader European public opinion, regardless of what she says or thinks she is doing.
The real problem in Europe today is the absence of long-term vision. We have to get back to basics and our leaders have to think again of the “ Costs of No- Europe”.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
South Africa and Nigeria on Libya
I have long been known, and sometimes even criticized for taking issue with South Africa for allowing Mugabe to get away with repression, tyranny and murder for years. I strongly believe that if South Africa really takes its own role as a regional power and a BRIC seriously, it has to show the courage to make tough decisions and call the shots as they are, not as they would wish them to be. And playing to become more influential in world politics doesn't come free of charge. You have to prove that you are capable of defending the new values of the international community, like Human Rights and individual freedoms, against the traditional thinking of Third World countries and there long dying defense of national sovereignty and non intervention in internal affairs. Always a poor excuse for the use of violence against its own citizens.
In this sense, South Africa's vote in the UN Security Council in favor of a no-fly zone is Libya is good news. and Zuma's presence in Libya in the AU mediation efforts is also good news. It is less good news, however, that Zuma left abruptly before the mission completed its task, and that he has kept largely quiet since then.
It is also not so good news, that Gambia has had to be the first country in the continent to recognize the rebel government, as was pointed out in the press a couple of days ago.
Having said this, I am also rather disappointed with Nigeria, a country that has sometimes shown a capacity to lead the region, as Ivory Coast, a few weeks ago proves. But a mitigating factor in this case might be it's Presidential elections which does provide an excuse for keeping its attention elsewhere. Let us wait and see how Nigeria plays its cards in the coming days. Up to now, it has stood up to South Africa for a leading role in the continent.
In this sense, South Africa's vote in the UN Security Council in favor of a no-fly zone is Libya is good news. and Zuma's presence in Libya in the AU mediation efforts is also good news. It is less good news, however, that Zuma left abruptly before the mission completed its task, and that he has kept largely quiet since then.
It is also not so good news, that Gambia has had to be the first country in the continent to recognize the rebel government, as was pointed out in the press a couple of days ago.
Having said this, I am also rather disappointed with Nigeria, a country that has sometimes shown a capacity to lead the region, as Ivory Coast, a few weeks ago proves. But a mitigating factor in this case might be it's Presidential elections which does provide an excuse for keeping its attention elsewhere. Let us wait and see how Nigeria plays its cards in the coming days. Up to now, it has stood up to South Africa for a leading role in the continent.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
On Ivory Coast
It seems to me a pity that Ivory Coast had to wait so long, so very long, until the UN ( or was it France yet again?), decided to take events seriously.
And all this with more than a little help from two other West African states, Nigeria and Burkina Fasso.
I still remember when, in the 80s, I was first posted to Cameroon, and Laurent Gbagbo was a democracy activist and fighting for freedom in his own country. Yet, as we have been recently reminded of, after 11 years in power he has refused to concede defeat in national elections and has, once again, brought his country to the brink of civil war.
All this while the African Union is doing virtually nothing, quite the same as in North Africa. But the AU is now chaired by Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. Together with Mugabe, Bongo, Eyadema, Mouseveni and Kagame, he is one of many African leaders who have, either died in power, or seem willing to do so.
Can we really expect a signal of concern for the welfare of the people of Ivory Coast from the likes of them? I think not. And this is regretful and sad for those of us who would like to believe Africans have a future better than their past.
And all this with more than a little help from two other West African states, Nigeria and Burkina Fasso.
I still remember when, in the 80s, I was first posted to Cameroon, and Laurent Gbagbo was a democracy activist and fighting for freedom in his own country. Yet, as we have been recently reminded of, after 11 years in power he has refused to concede defeat in national elections and has, once again, brought his country to the brink of civil war.
All this while the African Union is doing virtually nothing, quite the same as in North Africa. But the AU is now chaired by Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. Together with Mugabe, Bongo, Eyadema, Mouseveni and Kagame, he is one of many African leaders who have, either died in power, or seem willing to do so.
Can we really expect a signal of concern for the welfare of the people of Ivory Coast from the likes of them? I think not. And this is regretful and sad for those of us who would like to believe Africans have a future better than their past.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Why Libya will not change much
Watching what is going on in Libya and the semi-public tensions among the “ coalition”, I cannot but think that the conflict will be short lived and that, most probably, Khadafy will survive yet again to fight another day.
How can I say this? Well I can think of a few reasons:
• Colonel Ghadaffi has never had expansionist or “imperialist” designs in his politics. Contrary to others, Sadam Hussein for example, he is not and has never been a threat to his neighbors or the nearby nations. At the end of the day, it is much better to control him than to have him set loose on his own people and neighbors.
• The Libyan military have not hesitated to align themselves, with very few exceptions, with the Colonel. Contrary to what the Egyptian and Tunisian Armies did a few weeks ago. For them it seems a matter of survival.
• Historically, intervention in what amounts to little more than a tribal dispute, is something to be very prudent about. Examples like Afghanistan and Iraq are there to prove my point.
• At the end of the day, the interest of the coalition countries lies in assurance of supply of oil. Is there any reason to believe that such assurance is better off with a new regime? Khadafy himself has always assured such a supply for years, even when his country was subject to sanctions.
• Cost: a no-fly zone is anything but cheap, and coalition countries are going through severe budgetary restrictions. And those who, further east, have the financial means, have all sorts of ties with the current regime that precludes more active involvement in the Colonel’s removal from power.
How can I say this? Well I can think of a few reasons:
• Colonel Ghadaffi has never had expansionist or “imperialist” designs in his politics. Contrary to others, Sadam Hussein for example, he is not and has never been a threat to his neighbors or the nearby nations. At the end of the day, it is much better to control him than to have him set loose on his own people and neighbors.
• The Libyan military have not hesitated to align themselves, with very few exceptions, with the Colonel. Contrary to what the Egyptian and Tunisian Armies did a few weeks ago. For them it seems a matter of survival.
• Historically, intervention in what amounts to little more than a tribal dispute, is something to be very prudent about. Examples like Afghanistan and Iraq are there to prove my point.
• At the end of the day, the interest of the coalition countries lies in assurance of supply of oil. Is there any reason to believe that such assurance is better off with a new regime? Khadafy himself has always assured such a supply for years, even when his country was subject to sanctions.
• Cost: a no-fly zone is anything but cheap, and coalition countries are going through severe budgetary restrictions. And those who, further east, have the financial means, have all sorts of ties with the current regime that precludes more active involvement in the Colonel’s removal from power.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Defending nuclear energy
In the wake of the Japanese tragedy, in which the system has once again proven that it works even against a tsunami 100 times more powerful than anything humanity has foreseen, is it still possible to defend nuclear power?
Yes it is. For some of us, there is no other choice.
Take Spain. In order to grow 1% its GNP, Spain needs to increase its energy consumption by over 1.2 %. this is the highest energy dependency in the OECD.
And an energy dependency from abroad of 50% is considered dangerous for national security. Over 70% it is considered unacceptable.
Spain's external energy dependence is over 80%!!!
So for this country it is a matter not only of national security but most probably, of national survival.
And nuclear energyi ismthe cheapest and cleanest national source of energy known to mankind. S there really is no other choice for Spain, is there?
Yes it is. For some of us, there is no other choice.
Take Spain. In order to grow 1% its GNP, Spain needs to increase its energy consumption by over 1.2 %. this is the highest energy dependency in the OECD.
And an energy dependency from abroad of 50% is considered dangerous for national security. Over 70% it is considered unacceptable.
Spain's external energy dependence is over 80%!!!
So for this country it is a matter not only of national security but most probably, of national survival.
And nuclear energyi ismthe cheapest and cleanest national source of energy known to mankind. S there really is no other choice for Spain, is there?
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Security issues in North Africa
It has been some time since I have been able to sit down and reflect about the current situation in North Africa and the Middle East. I have being dealing with an undiminished conflict of interests between the " West" and the Non Aligned Movement, along old lines and with some of the Emerging Powers still unsure on which side of the fence they really want to be. This is particularly true in the AIEA in the case of South Africa and Brasil.
But recently a friend, Dr. Chris Sarver, has asked me for my take on the issue. And I have spent my first day of the weekend break thinking what I could tell him, a professor of International Relations, that he didn't already know. So I decided that I would limit my sketchy thoughts to what I think the security implications of the current tensions and violence can mean for Europe broadly and for Spain in particular. I would caution my readers that I am focusing exclusively on security issues. That is what I do for living. There is as little " ideology" as possible in the next few paragraphs as possible.
The first major issue concerning security is oil and gas. Not only have they being going up in price, as supplies have been threatened, but this threat is not likely to change in the near future, and transport through the Suez Canal, along the coast of North Africa and the physical security of the gas pipelines coming to Spain could be targeted in the next few weeks. All this further implies an increase in European energy dependency from Russia. And Russia itself might, just might, be more interested in maintaining a level of chaos and tension in the Mediterranean to encourage this increased dependency.
Spain's dependency of oil and gas from the affected region is close to 50%. So it is clear that for us it is an issue of vital national interest. But we, together with the rest of the European Union, have seriously impaired our capacity to react. The European Union has decided to support the regime changes and transitions in North Africa and the Middle East. This support can, thus, only be in development and financial aid. This also means that we are excluding any other form of intervention, military or otherwise, if events turn in a direction that we consider to be against our own interests and stability. And this in an area of direct strategic interests for us who would have to cope with the associated problems. Just one example: a substantial increase in migratory pressures. If events go in the wrong direction we could face a massive influx of refugees from North Africa in the short term. In the medium and long term, we could face a massive exodus of people should improvements in living conditions, both economic and political, not meet the current expectations of the peoples of the area.
But let us descend into deeper levels of security implications for us Europeans, neighbors to the current events. For countries involved in a violent process of change, notably Libya, what could happen if Human Rights violations become a fact? Please notice that I personally believe that these violations exist. But my personal belief and what we see and hear in the media, don't make them an " international fact" that the International Community is called upon to stop. For this, according to article 39 of the UN Charter, the UNSC has to determine that violations have occurred and we are in a situation which constitutes an exception to the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another country. I hope that China would abstain in the end. But what would Russia do? Is it inconceivable that they would veto? Not at all in my opinion. As stated before, they could very well covertly support tensions and conflict which entail an increase in EU dependency from their oil and gas, at premium prices. And the Arab League, a major political player in this scenario is not really up to standard. Neither is the African Union, incidentally.
Regional conflict and instability could also become an issue. Peaceful transition and change, not to mention violent change, in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, could very well result in an escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this time around, the scope and violence of such a conflict could very well get out of control very soon. And I hesitate on the use of the word control in this context. But again it is what I do for a living. Choices will still have to be made, and the long term results are far from obvious.
Finally in this brief outline of my thoughts, I have to mention tensions and possible violence in the Magreb region. We " suppose" that violence is under control in Algeria and Tunisia. And the string and prompt support by the Spanish and French governments to the political reforms announced a couple of days ago by the King of Morocco, are a testimony to our concerns. The Spanish PM' s recent visit to Tunisia to express support for the transition to democracy when there was not even a government in place after the resignation of the new Tunisian leader, is further evidence of this concern.
I believe that a repetition of the Iranian Revolutionary model is not to be excluded, if change is achieved via the empowerment of radical Islamism in those countries. And let us not forget that in Egypt, for example, after the unity shown in the overthrow of Mubarak, we are now witnesses to examples of harassment of women like on March 8th, to violence against Copt Christians, and to more regular appearances of Amin Al Ansari, the Egyptian cleric who justifies the Holocaust and violence against Jews and Christians, and whose following seems on the rise.
So, in conclusion, are we ready over in Europe to react to a scenario of generalized hostile answers to social and political situations and problems in North Africa? I hope so, but in all honesty, I don't think so.
But recently a friend, Dr. Chris Sarver, has asked me for my take on the issue. And I have spent my first day of the weekend break thinking what I could tell him, a professor of International Relations, that he didn't already know. So I decided that I would limit my sketchy thoughts to what I think the security implications of the current tensions and violence can mean for Europe broadly and for Spain in particular. I would caution my readers that I am focusing exclusively on security issues. That is what I do for living. There is as little " ideology" as possible in the next few paragraphs as possible.
The first major issue concerning security is oil and gas. Not only have they being going up in price, as supplies have been threatened, but this threat is not likely to change in the near future, and transport through the Suez Canal, along the coast of North Africa and the physical security of the gas pipelines coming to Spain could be targeted in the next few weeks. All this further implies an increase in European energy dependency from Russia. And Russia itself might, just might, be more interested in maintaining a level of chaos and tension in the Mediterranean to encourage this increased dependency.
Spain's dependency of oil and gas from the affected region is close to 50%. So it is clear that for us it is an issue of vital national interest. But we, together with the rest of the European Union, have seriously impaired our capacity to react. The European Union has decided to support the regime changes and transitions in North Africa and the Middle East. This support can, thus, only be in development and financial aid. This also means that we are excluding any other form of intervention, military or otherwise, if events turn in a direction that we consider to be against our own interests and stability. And this in an area of direct strategic interests for us who would have to cope with the associated problems. Just one example: a substantial increase in migratory pressures. If events go in the wrong direction we could face a massive influx of refugees from North Africa in the short term. In the medium and long term, we could face a massive exodus of people should improvements in living conditions, both economic and political, not meet the current expectations of the peoples of the area.
But let us descend into deeper levels of security implications for us Europeans, neighbors to the current events. For countries involved in a violent process of change, notably Libya, what could happen if Human Rights violations become a fact? Please notice that I personally believe that these violations exist. But my personal belief and what we see and hear in the media, don't make them an " international fact" that the International Community is called upon to stop. For this, according to article 39 of the UN Charter, the UNSC has to determine that violations have occurred and we are in a situation which constitutes an exception to the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another country. I hope that China would abstain in the end. But what would Russia do? Is it inconceivable that they would veto? Not at all in my opinion. As stated before, they could very well covertly support tensions and conflict which entail an increase in EU dependency from their oil and gas, at premium prices. And the Arab League, a major political player in this scenario is not really up to standard. Neither is the African Union, incidentally.
Regional conflict and instability could also become an issue. Peaceful transition and change, not to mention violent change, in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, could very well result in an escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this time around, the scope and violence of such a conflict could very well get out of control very soon. And I hesitate on the use of the word control in this context. But again it is what I do for a living. Choices will still have to be made, and the long term results are far from obvious.
Finally in this brief outline of my thoughts, I have to mention tensions and possible violence in the Magreb region. We " suppose" that violence is under control in Algeria and Tunisia. And the string and prompt support by the Spanish and French governments to the political reforms announced a couple of days ago by the King of Morocco, are a testimony to our concerns. The Spanish PM' s recent visit to Tunisia to express support for the transition to democracy when there was not even a government in place after the resignation of the new Tunisian leader, is further evidence of this concern.
I believe that a repetition of the Iranian Revolutionary model is not to be excluded, if change is achieved via the empowerment of radical Islamism in those countries. And let us not forget that in Egypt, for example, after the unity shown in the overthrow of Mubarak, we are now witnesses to examples of harassment of women like on March 8th, to violence against Copt Christians, and to more regular appearances of Amin Al Ansari, the Egyptian cleric who justifies the Holocaust and violence against Jews and Christians, and whose following seems on the rise.
So, in conclusion, are we ready over in Europe to react to a scenario of generalized hostile answers to social and political situations and problems in North Africa? I hope so, but in all honesty, I don't think so.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Egypt, Arab World and Zimbabwe
I thought I would share this article on arrests in Zimbabwe for attending a lecture on Egypt and its revolt. Some things will never change, and Old Bob will certainly, as Ghadaffi said yesterday, die fighting. And meanwhile, the African Union has still said nothing about events in Libya....
QUOTE
Zimbabwe police arrest 46 attending lecture session on uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia
By Angus Shaw, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – Tue, 22 Feb, 2011 10:38 PM EST
HARARE, Zimbabwe - Zimbabwean police detained 46 people, including a former lawmaker, for attending a lecture and discussion group on mass uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, an independent lawyers group said Monday.
Police confirmed the arrests at a meeting convened Saturday by the Zimbabwe branch of the International Socialist Organization where videos were shown and an agenda item allegedly asked: "What lessons can be learnt by the working class in Zimbabwe and Africa?"
Police spokesman James Sabau told state radio that authorities would clamp down on any alleged plotters of "destabilization" against the government.
The independent Lawyers for Human Rights said those detained in Harare and expected to appear in court on Monday were holding an "academic discussion" on North Africa and deny any wrongdoing.
The group said police were drafting charges Monday against former opposition lawmaker Munyaradi Gwisai, an official of the International Socialist Organization, and labour and student activists arrested with him.
Police say attendees called for solidarity with Egyptian and Tunisian workers and intended to incite Zimbabweans to hold demonstrations against three decades of authoritarian rule by President Robert Mugabe.
U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley criticized the arrests in a comment posted to Twitter.
"Activists meet in Zimbabwe to discuss the implications of Egypt and Tunisia and end up arrested. Mugabe did not learn the right lessons," Crowley wrote.
The protests at the northern tip of the continent have drawn attention elsewhere in southern Africa. In Malawi, a university professor in the eastern city of Zomba was questioned by a senior police officer after he reportedly drew parallels in his classroom between protests over fuel shortages in Malawi and the demonstrations that toppled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Professors in Zomba have been on strike since last week, demanding that police apologize and pledge not to repeat such a questioning.
Zimbabwe's Mugabe, meanwhile, turned 87 Monday. He returned home Sunday from a weeklong trip to Singapore where he underwent medical checks after a cataract operation on a previous visit in January, his office said.
State radio said Mugabe will celebrate his birthday on Saturday with children and young leaders, an annual tradition, the radio said, that encourages young people to follow his example as a statesman. On Monday, state TV showed him blowing out candles.
Mugabe arrived quietly Sunday and broke with his tradition by not addressing his supporters who had gathered at the main Harare airport to greet him.
Mugabe's party has denied reports he underwent cancer-related surgery during an extended vacation in Asia in January.
The party of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, the former opposition leader in a shaky two-year-old coalition government, says Mugabe's absences have disrupted routine government business since December.
___
Associated Press Writer Raphael Tenthani contributed to this report from Blantyre, Malawi.
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Zimbabwe police arrest 46 attending lecture session on uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia
By Angus Shaw, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – Tue, 22 Feb, 2011 10:38 PM EST
HARARE, Zimbabwe - Zimbabwean police detained 46 people, including a former lawmaker, for attending a lecture and discussion group on mass uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, an independent lawyers group said Monday.
Police confirmed the arrests at a meeting convened Saturday by the Zimbabwe branch of the International Socialist Organization where videos were shown and an agenda item allegedly asked: "What lessons can be learnt by the working class in Zimbabwe and Africa?"
Police spokesman James Sabau told state radio that authorities would clamp down on any alleged plotters of "destabilization" against the government.
The independent Lawyers for Human Rights said those detained in Harare and expected to appear in court on Monday were holding an "academic discussion" on North Africa and deny any wrongdoing.
The group said police were drafting charges Monday against former opposition lawmaker Munyaradi Gwisai, an official of the International Socialist Organization, and labour and student activists arrested with him.
Police say attendees called for solidarity with Egyptian and Tunisian workers and intended to incite Zimbabweans to hold demonstrations against three decades of authoritarian rule by President Robert Mugabe.
U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley criticized the arrests in a comment posted to Twitter.
"Activists meet in Zimbabwe to discuss the implications of Egypt and Tunisia and end up arrested. Mugabe did not learn the right lessons," Crowley wrote.
The protests at the northern tip of the continent have drawn attention elsewhere in southern Africa. In Malawi, a university professor in the eastern city of Zomba was questioned by a senior police officer after he reportedly drew parallels in his classroom between protests over fuel shortages in Malawi and the demonstrations that toppled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Professors in Zomba have been on strike since last week, demanding that police apologize and pledge not to repeat such a questioning.
Zimbabwe's Mugabe, meanwhile, turned 87 Monday. He returned home Sunday from a weeklong trip to Singapore where he underwent medical checks after a cataract operation on a previous visit in January, his office said.
State radio said Mugabe will celebrate his birthday on Saturday with children and young leaders, an annual tradition, the radio said, that encourages young people to follow his example as a statesman. On Monday, state TV showed him blowing out candles.
Mugabe arrived quietly Sunday and broke with his tradition by not addressing his supporters who had gathered at the main Harare airport to greet him.
Mugabe's party has denied reports he underwent cancer-related surgery during an extended vacation in Asia in January.
The party of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, the former opposition leader in a shaky two-year-old coalition government, says Mugabe's absences have disrupted routine government business since December.
___
Associated Press Writer Raphael Tenthani contributed to this report from Blantyre, Malawi.
UNQUOTE
Monday, February 21, 2011
Revolt in the Arab World, interesting reading in French
I am sharing a letter I have written to an old friend of mine who lives in Turkey on an interesting article on the revolution in the Arab World.
Dear Benoit:
Many thanks for the link. (http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/02/12/revolution-post-islamiste_1478858_3232.html) It is definitely a very interesting perspective on what is going on in the Arab World these past weeks. I have a few comments to the text, which is of course in French in the original.
The very first comment is that that the Author seems to look at Islam as a unified religion, which it is not. Shiites are in no way the same as Sunnis, and even if for both Religion is the basis for the whole political, economic and legal organization of society, Shiesm is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy as we know and enjoy it.
I agree when he says that the Muslim Brotherhood has changed and evolved. It has gone in two different directions, radicalism and Al-Qaida, and moderation, which I hope is the most extended of the two.
Turkey, incidentally, has given the lead in a secular political system which others should follow.
I also agree when he mentions the social problems - higher education and high unemployment- that make the difference this time. However, I do not agree with his assessment of former President Bush’s Democracy Initiative. I would recommend you to google Condy Rice’s column on this issue on the NY Times or the Washington Post last week. I cannot agree either with the author when he says that President Obama’s policy is “ pragmatic”. I think the current US Administration is far too interested in the internal political repercussions of its foreign policy actions to be considered serious or reasonable.
Finally, I would very much agree and support his view that the massive islamization of society in the Arab World in the past 30 years has not led to a political radicalization. The paradox, as he correctly points out, is that islamization has depoliticized Islam. This can be nothing but good news. Maybe in the near future the individual will become the centre of attention in Muslim societies. That would really allow those societies to break away from the burdens they have suffered for the past few centuries.
Amitiés
Santiago
Dear Benoit:
Many thanks for the link. (http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/02/12/revolution-post-islamiste_1478858_3232.html) It is definitely a very interesting perspective on what is going on in the Arab World these past weeks. I have a few comments to the text, which is of course in French in the original.
The very first comment is that that the Author seems to look at Islam as a unified religion, which it is not. Shiites are in no way the same as Sunnis, and even if for both Religion is the basis for the whole political, economic and legal organization of society, Shiesm is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy as we know and enjoy it.
I agree when he says that the Muslim Brotherhood has changed and evolved. It has gone in two different directions, radicalism and Al-Qaida, and moderation, which I hope is the most extended of the two.
Turkey, incidentally, has given the lead in a secular political system which others should follow.
I also agree when he mentions the social problems - higher education and high unemployment- that make the difference this time. However, I do not agree with his assessment of former President Bush’s Democracy Initiative. I would recommend you to google Condy Rice’s column on this issue on the NY Times or the Washington Post last week. I cannot agree either with the author when he says that President Obama’s policy is “ pragmatic”. I think the current US Administration is far too interested in the internal political repercussions of its foreign policy actions to be considered serious or reasonable.
Finally, I would very much agree and support his view that the massive islamization of society in the Arab World in the past 30 years has not led to a political radicalization. The paradox, as he correctly points out, is that islamization has depoliticized Islam. This can be nothing but good news. Maybe in the near future the individual will become the centre of attention in Muslim societies. That would really allow those societies to break away from the burdens they have suffered for the past few centuries.
Amitiés
Santiago
Friday, February 4, 2011
A few quick thoughts on events in Egypt
A few thoughts on what is happening in Egypt since January 25th:
1.- The dilemma the US is facing is trying to balance national security concerns and the moral responsibility to stand with those who have the courage to oppose authoritarian rulers.
2.- Politicians like stability. Bankers like stability. But the stability we have so long embraced in the Arab World, wasn’t really stability, it was repression. The democratic movement is unfolding so quickly that Washington has been on the brink of being left behind. Yes, Obama has been close to ending up on the wrong side of history.
3.- More books are translated each year into Greek, a language spoken by only 10 million people, than into Arabic, spoken by more than 220 million people. Who has benefited from keeping their populations in the dark ages culture-wise?
4.- Arabs may not be calling for democracy as it is known in the West, but they are demanding better rule of law, equitable treatment and far less corruption.
5.- Across the turbulent Arab World it is a paradox that strong armies are now platforms for change.
6.- It is encouraging that the demonstrations are not being used to attack the US and Israel, as seemed to be always the case in previous decades. And it is also encouraging that fundamentalism has not been the seemingly major force behind the revolts, at least up to now. It might just be true that the reasons are the quest for basic human needs and dignity. People want jobs and goods.
7.- The West keeps on regarding the area between Rabat and Jakarta as the belly of the world, and stuffed with explosives.
8.- It is encouraging to see that Israel has finally reacted and the PM has said that a democratic Egypt is not a threat for peace. Up to now the impression was that Israel was happy with its regional monopoly concerning democracy in an ocean of tyrannies. And that they were ready to keep it that way as long as possible.
1.- The dilemma the US is facing is trying to balance national security concerns and the moral responsibility to stand with those who have the courage to oppose authoritarian rulers.
2.- Politicians like stability. Bankers like stability. But the stability we have so long embraced in the Arab World, wasn’t really stability, it was repression. The democratic movement is unfolding so quickly that Washington has been on the brink of being left behind. Yes, Obama has been close to ending up on the wrong side of history.
3.- More books are translated each year into Greek, a language spoken by only 10 million people, than into Arabic, spoken by more than 220 million people. Who has benefited from keeping their populations in the dark ages culture-wise?
4.- Arabs may not be calling for democracy as it is known in the West, but they are demanding better rule of law, equitable treatment and far less corruption.
5.- Across the turbulent Arab World it is a paradox that strong armies are now platforms for change.
6.- It is encouraging that the demonstrations are not being used to attack the US and Israel, as seemed to be always the case in previous decades. And it is also encouraging that fundamentalism has not been the seemingly major force behind the revolts, at least up to now. It might just be true that the reasons are the quest for basic human needs and dignity. People want jobs and goods.
7.- The West keeps on regarding the area between Rabat and Jakarta as the belly of the world, and stuffed with explosives.
8.- It is encouraging to see that Israel has finally reacted and the PM has said that a democratic Egypt is not a threat for peace. Up to now the impression was that Israel was happy with its regional monopoly concerning democracy in an ocean of tyrannies. And that they were ready to keep it that way as long as possible.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Davos, useful?
The Davos Forum is on again in this beautiful town in Switzerland. Interesting speakers and subjects are intensely debated. Really?
Take this year: a debate on Latin America in which no mention is made of drug trafficking and the 30.000 deaths it has caused in what is in reality a civil war in Mexico our nearest neighbor; a debate on the Middle East in which the fact that the talks have been interrupted once again is not mentioned once; the revolution in Tunisia and in other Arab States is barely an issue in debates on politics; and Assange and Wikileaks are absent in all the debates about the future of international relations.
Efforts have been made to bring these and other issues to the front of the debates, but with little success so far. Up to now, Davos has survived and thrived because of the quality of the discussions and debates, but this year is, so far, quite disappointing, at least to me.
Take this year: a debate on Latin America in which no mention is made of drug trafficking and the 30.000 deaths it has caused in what is in reality a civil war in Mexico our nearest neighbor; a debate on the Middle East in which the fact that the talks have been interrupted once again is not mentioned once; the revolution in Tunisia and in other Arab States is barely an issue in debates on politics; and Assange and Wikileaks are absent in all the debates about the future of international relations.
Efforts have been made to bring these and other issues to the front of the debates, but with little success so far. Up to now, Davos has survived and thrived because of the quality of the discussions and debates, but this year is, so far, quite disappointing, at least to me.
Revolution in the Arab World
Four days ago I was invited to take part in a panel on the Middle East at Flagler College in St. Augustine, FL. I sat together with Senator McGovern and Writer Ron Estes to discuss this issue before an audience of some 200 people in the Student Center.
For someone of my generation, sitting beside George McGovern whom I still remember very well from when he ran against Nixon in 1972, made one of the days which I will always remember.
I had the opportunity during this debate to mention that the real threat to US security and interests in the region is the possibility of revolution. We then knew what had happened in Tunisia. As I write these words, we are following developments in Egypt, where President Mubarak has forced the government to resign but has not, as yet, been made to leave power by his own people.
The Administration seems to have realized how delicate it's position is in the area, and has changed its attitude and speech in the last hours. About time too! Mubarak is a strong US ally, sort of. Egypt has been and is a nuisance in many ways. And I don't totally share the argument that any such regime is better than whatever can come out of the unrest.
But certainly the US has to make up for the lost years and get a bonding message across to civil society and moderate opposition in the country. Many Egyptians cannot understand why we always stand behind dictators and repressive regimes for decades, and do not also promote relations with alternative leaders, thus leaving the way open for radicals to challenge the establishment and take power eventually.
The next few hours will be crutial to Mubarak's regime. I, for one, will be neither surprised nor unhappy to see him leave.
For someone of my generation, sitting beside George McGovern whom I still remember very well from when he ran against Nixon in 1972, made one of the days which I will always remember.
I had the opportunity during this debate to mention that the real threat to US security and interests in the region is the possibility of revolution. We then knew what had happened in Tunisia. As I write these words, we are following developments in Egypt, where President Mubarak has forced the government to resign but has not, as yet, been made to leave power by his own people.
The Administration seems to have realized how delicate it's position is in the area, and has changed its attitude and speech in the last hours. About time too! Mubarak is a strong US ally, sort of. Egypt has been and is a nuisance in many ways. And I don't totally share the argument that any such regime is better than whatever can come out of the unrest.
But certainly the US has to make up for the lost years and get a bonding message across to civil society and moderate opposition in the country. Many Egyptians cannot understand why we always stand behind dictators and repressive regimes for decades, and do not also promote relations with alternative leaders, thus leaving the way open for radicals to challenge the establishment and take power eventually.
The next few hours will be crutial to Mubarak's regime. I, for one, will be neither surprised nor unhappy to see him leave.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
China in Africa
Since the early 80s, but particularly in the last decade, China has been actively pursuing a policy of ensuring a healthy supply of raw materials and goods from Africa. According to the IMF, commercial relations between China and Africa have been growing at a rate of 30% and have gone well over 100 billion US dollars in 2010.
At the same time, over half a million Chinese nationals have emigrated to Africa to work and achieve better living conditions than they had back home.
In Africa we often see Westerners complain of everything: corruption in business and government, bureaucracy, disease and mosquitoes. Chinese just work and get on with it. They have built heavy infrastructure, revolutionized entire sectors, ie. Personal transportation with their cheap mopeds and other vehicles; and have set up hotel businesses. All without complaining.
Africans themselves prefer Chinese humility to Western paternalism. It is true that Chinese emigrants do not mix with the locals and do not speak their language. But, for the most part, they share the same living conditions and do not pretend to be superior in any way.
Governments also welcome Chinese attitudes, particularly their silence on issues of governance and human rights. They do not feel threatened with the Chinese presence and which ensures a degree of economic growth ( an average of 4% annually after China has become a major partner) even if it has not meant any significant change in the conditions of the majority of the African population.
China knows Africa is the future. It has become a principal player in African politics. When Europe and the West have accepted this fact, it was already too late to react. Now little else than adapting to the new ways of making business in Africa is left for us.
At the same time, over half a million Chinese nationals have emigrated to Africa to work and achieve better living conditions than they had back home.
In Africa we often see Westerners complain of everything: corruption in business and government, bureaucracy, disease and mosquitoes. Chinese just work and get on with it. They have built heavy infrastructure, revolutionized entire sectors, ie. Personal transportation with their cheap mopeds and other vehicles; and have set up hotel businesses. All without complaining.
Africans themselves prefer Chinese humility to Western paternalism. It is true that Chinese emigrants do not mix with the locals and do not speak their language. But, for the most part, they share the same living conditions and do not pretend to be superior in any way.
Governments also welcome Chinese attitudes, particularly their silence on issues of governance and human rights. They do not feel threatened with the Chinese presence and which ensures a degree of economic growth ( an average of 4% annually after China has become a major partner) even if it has not meant any significant change in the conditions of the majority of the African population.
China knows Africa is the future. It has become a principal player in African politics. When Europe and the West have accepted this fact, it was already too late to react. Now little else than adapting to the new ways of making business in Africa is left for us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
