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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
