THE KING'S SPEECH

Le Roi des Belges a une nouvelle fois prefere s'exprimer plutot que de reciter. Il a raison. Son message de Noel etait politiquement sage, opportun et bien calibre. En se faisant,  il semble avoir derange certains. Cette reaction attendue est la preuve que la cible s'est sentie visee et en fin de compte coupable. Le souverain n'est pas pour autant un Torquemada constiutionnel , bien au contraire. A contrario on aurait tort de sous-estimer une main de fer sous ce gant de velours. Depuis quelque temps Alber II n'hesite pas a critiquer la vague d'intolerance et de populisme en Belgique ( qui sevit en Europe d'ailleurs). Le Chef d'Etat fait ainsi preuve de clairvoyance et de courage politique. Il s'agit moins de vouloir marginaliser un courant d'opinion que de le placer devant ses responsabilites et de ses choix , avoues ou non. Au demeurant le Gouvernement Belge couvre les propos du Roi.
On parle de reviser la fonction Royale. Des ajustements sont effectivement envisagables. La famille royale a le devoir de separer dadvantage des convictions privees ,  au demeurant honorables,  de sa fonction officielle et publique. Toucher a l'arbitrage confidentiel serait dangereux. Le Chef d'Etat en Belgique est indispensable pour que les rouages des pouvoirs , trop nombreux , puissant encore s'accorder. L'opposition de Bart De Wever etait previsible. Il a l'ambition de devenir un contre-pouvoir, une alternative municipaliste. L'homme est intelligent et il a un agenda que les gestes ou propos opportunistes ne sauraient masquer. Ses recentes ruminations sur la societe et l'art illustrent bien l'arriere pensee de ce magician d'Oz de sous-prefecture.
Le mal court (merci Audiberti) en Belgique comme en Europe ou surgit egalement un relent des annees 30. La crise economique accentue un sentiment de lassitude et de mecontentement. La societe en Belgique a aussi du absorber des changements necessaires mais trop brusques qui ont fini par destabiliser les assises du pays . Plus que jamais le Roi doit se placer au dessus des ideologies, des religions et des partis. Sa voix est celle de la sagesse  et cette derniere a plus besoin d'espace que de recuperation pour motifs non avoues.
Les recentes photos du Prince Heritier et de la Princesse Mathilde et de leurs enfants projetent une image contemporaine et heureuse. Il faut esperer qu'elles sont aussi revelatrices d'une evolution acceleree de la fonction royale en symbiose avec le  pays " reel".

BART DE WEVER OVER KUNST EN MAATSCHAPPIJ

Bart De Wever heft in de Standaard een interessante bijdrage geschreven over de band die bestaat tussen tussen kunst en maatschappij (ik vereenvoudig). Deze handige politicus is ook een sofist / polemist. Hij hanteert met brio het gedachtengoed van Nietzche, Hoffmann, Wagner en Co.Terecht is hij de mening toegedaan dat L'art pour l'art als concept geen steek houdt en dat de autonomie van de kunst een mythe is. Kunst wordt inderdaad ook gedreven door de maatschappij die een return on investment verwacht voor haar betrokkenheid.
Deze vooropstelling is simplistisch omdat ze voorbij gaat aan het spanningsveld dat bestaat tussen kunst en maatschappij . De verhouding is alles behalve lineair en dat hoort ook zo te zijn. Eigenaardig dat hij niet verder uitwijdt over Jan Hoet die de kunstwereld is ingegaan als een iconoclast, een navolger van Rimbaud en een anti Berenson, Malraux, die meer " farceurs " waren niettegenstaande het  nihil obstat van hun meesters .
De verhouding tussen kunst en maatschappij is dialektisch. Marcel Duchamps, Jackson Pollock of Rothko horen bij een" executie peleton " van idees recues. De kritiek op Tom Lanoye hoort vanwelfsprekend bij een debat maar ik volg De Wever niet in zijn provincialistische argumentering tegen een auteur die weigert ondergeschikt te zijn aan eender welke idelogie of hierarchie.
De poging tot recuperatie van de Leeuw van Vlaanderen is te pathetisch voor woorden, ook in de context van de nochtans  critische argumentering met niveau van De Wever. Alleen het vaandel gesjoemel tijdens de Ronde van Frankrijk ontbreekt nog in dit anachronistisch gedachtengoed.
Wat De Wever impliciet nastreeft is een vorm van collaboratie, een soort Faustiaanse
verhouding tussen kunstenaar en betalende overheid of intrusief clientelisme (men denke maar aan Damien Hirst (  Ex Gagosian fokkerij) of Jeff Koons (Idem, Gagosian/David Zwirner) , de geldschieters , die in fine  ook deel uitmaken van de geprezen maatschappelijke Gordiaanse knoop.
Kunstenaars moeten zich opstellen tegen inmenging van Staat of Galerij "uitbaters ".
Dit houdt niet in dat wij moeten teruggaan naar de voorbijgestreefde mythologie van de eenzame kunstenaar of van het banal "Niets is waar,alles is toegelaten".
Wij moeten wel de agressieve verleiders/kunstenaars ondersteunen, inhoudelijk bekritiseren , betrekken bij de algemene converatie,die verder gaat dan de benaming van een plein in Antwerpen. Belgie is een lelijk land ook omdat de maatschappij er liever de inmenging dult van notarissen en immobilien dan van kustenaars au sens large.
Ik hoop dat Bart De Wever, burgemeester van de meest controversiele en creatieve stad in Belgie, een ruimere dialoog aanzwengelt, waarin plaats is voor kritiek en globaal denken. Voorwaarde is dat hij het sui generis verband  gaat inzien dat ergens bestaat tussen kunst en maatschappij,  als een evoluerend gegeven en niet als een statisch ,doctrinair socio- economish onderdeel van zijn enge puzzle. Anders dreigt  hij de kleine geschiedenis in te gaan als een " Narcisse de province".

THE FISCAL CLIFF

While there is no Lorelei in the United States, it looks as if the members of Congress are heading toward the lure of their worst instincts and might sink the economy. The Republicans are a divided lot and the Democrats pander to their Schadenfreude. The President meanwhile has outmanoeuvred the Republicans and is playing cat and mouse with the House Speaker, who seems to be unable to control his troupes.

Frankly I think nobody comes out aggrandized, after this painful spectacle.
Maybe a last minute deal can still be achieved before year's end, avoiding the more
perverse, arbitrary consequences (automatic tax increase and cuts in vital programs), but any last hour arrangement in Congress risks to be short-lived as long as the sword of Damocles (the national debt) is hanging over the country.

The President is the only one who can still rise above the fray if he chooses to be a Statesman rather than a politician with a vendetta against the Republicans, who are sulking since they lost support and are waging a too personalized war against him. We do not find ourselves in a "tit for tat" situation, wherein sordid warfare rules. On the contrary, we have entered a danger zone which requires more than a band-aid.   It requires a structural bold intervention from the President, who received a popular mandate after all. A recession in the United States must be avoided at any cost. The implications would be worldwide.  Jeffersonian laissez-faire must make room for Hamiltonian interventionism. The Democrats, who are so eager to call upon regulation and federal supremacy, should stick to their guns for a good cause for once. The chief executive cannot be a voyeur for political gain when in the short-term too much is at stake.  Public opinion favors the President and blames the Tea Party, which has taken the GOP hostage. In those conditions the President should act fast, streamlining his current proposal and make it acceptable, if imperfect. A majority of Democrats and Republicans could support such a face-saving move. As a result, households could resume spending, manufactures will hire workers, Wall Street will get over uncertainty (stocks are tumbling already) and the world economy will not come to a halt.

Countries have to pay a price for being perceived as great. America should not have to face further downgrading or Greek jokes. Only the President can make a decisive move. If he doesn't, his inauguration might become a political farce, or better a funeral wake.  Unfortunately, in Washington posture and sound bites get more attention than resolution. The fiscal cliff is starting to look and feel more like a looming reality than an academic metaphor.  All actors in this political melodrama are running out of time.

LA CRECHE AU PALAIS

Les Belges ont pu voir la famille royale au "garde-a Vous " devant une creche, a l'occasion du concert de Noel traditionnel qui se tient touts les ans au Palais royal .
Ils n' auront pas manqué de remarquer sous les lambris une nouvelle fois la creche de Noel "kitsch" . Or les temps ont change.
Ce genre d' affichage religieux est devenu pour le moins deplace et desuet dans un Palais qui est suppose etre au dessus de la melee et neutre. Dans un pays ou la laicite est devenue majoritaire , ce spectacle risque de conforter les critiques, qui reprochent a la famille royale  une absence de connection avec  le "pays reel".
Que les gens aient le choix de celebrer Noel chez eux , comme ils l'entendent, soit. Que la plus haute Autorite arbore un choix  controverse risque d' indiquer une alienation dangereuse, qui pourrait facilement se traduire en un deficit politique
Cela serait d'autant plus regrettable que le Roi, estime  de tous ,obediences confondues  (absent pour cause de grippe ?), est le  lien consensuel qui unit le pays.
Bien entendu la famille royale ,a l'instar de tous, a le droit legitime d'avoir des opinions et des choix, au demeurant respectables , intra muros.
A contrario elle  a aussi une obligation de reserve .Elle ne saurait exiger que la couronne ne soit pas decouverte,  alors qu'elle  contredit par ce type de geste , devenu controverse,  la philosophie du  " colloque singulier " au sens large.
Il faut souhaiter que la crèche trouve refuge dans le domaine du prive et qu'a l'avenir elle ne fasse plus partie de l'officiel.
Il en va de meme pour le deballage religieux dans les aires publiques qui sont defigurees par un Epinal ringard , d'un gout douteux , qui finit par banaliser l'evenement qu'il pretend celebrer.

CONSOLE AND RESOLVE

The memorial service for the Sandy Hook victims was stark and dignified.  It is strange how religious ritual can bring about catharsis, in believers and non- believers alike.

The President was the Healer-in-Chief and disregarded almost of all the paraphernalia of the presidency, choosing to be a mourner amongst others. Still, in his orison, he walked at times a fine line aiming for action to prevent tragedies like this in front of an audience which no doubt possesses guns at home, if not in their pocket.
Newtown, in affluent Connecticut, is not going to change. Grief will not lead to a sudden regulation of arms sales, with the possible exception of a quantified and certified sale of assault weapons and ammunition.  Even this will be an uphill battle.

One should not have to live in a society barricaded behind security officers and identification controls at random.  Intercoms, buzzers and surveillance cameras end up creating an Orwellian nightmare.  The President said, rightly so, that these tragedies must end.  Political and economic hurdles might have a greater weight though than moral considerations.  Actually the effect of the tragedy might lead to an unwelcome turn while the cause will end up being erased.  I bet that arms sale might increase rather than not.

Schools or malls should not have to become bunkers in a country where, let's not forget it, the vast majority of people are compassionate, friendly and peace-loving. Equally, gun owners should not be "demonized" per se, nor should lethal weaponry be as available as candy.  Americans came together in shared grief. They can come together to find solutions which respect the Second Amendment without expanding its meaning.  Constitutionalists are always eager to view the Constitution in the context of the time when the Articles were written.  Well now is the time to recognize that the intent was not to arm militia or individuals like Rambos running amok. The rifle addicts should not become constructivists when it fits their agenda!

The President looked very lonely yesterday.  He surely was also thinking about the torrent of obstacles that await him when he calls for legislation.   Once the grief will have run its course, the wolves will shed their sheep's clothing.

THE CONNECTICUT SHOOTING

What happened in the Sandy Hook Elementary School defies imagination. Tragedies do not need spin. The avalanche of comments lead to what Thomas Mann called "knowledge-sickness."  The media feed the outrage and miss the sorrow.  President Obama was dignified, and refrained from rhetoric which in this case would be alien to the wounded heart.  No doubt the hounds of demagogy will not let go, while families will be in hiding, trying to come to terms with irreparable loss.

The debate over "guns in America" will be unleashed again. Arguments pro and contra will have a free ride. I find myself that weapons are too easily acquired in the United States despite the often mild checks and balances which differ from state to state.  Few are inclined to confront the constitutional right to bare arms.  One doesn't deal with a "freakish" phenomenon here, but with a socio-cultural pattern which is part of the American DNA. There is no way that this reality will ever be rolled back.  Besides, in this "culture" of gun availability it is equally remarkable that there are actually less incidents than what could be expected, given the normality of weapon possession.

I am personally hostile to this constitutional largesse, but I realize as well that even in case further controls of the "buyer" of guns might be considered, the situation will remain unchanged.  Lincoln, Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Reagan, the kids in Chicago and Newark, the Mexican illegals at the killing border pay the price . Meanwhile the "vigilante" strain is encouraged. American mainstream movies  upgrade this undercurrent of self-defense and gratuitous violence.  Sundance is the refuge of art, but Hollywood has turned into a money machine, which by the way is a bigger success story in China, India or Mexico than in the States. Those clients are targeted because they have no appetite for "effete" movies made in Europe.  It is a sad state of affairs wherein money prevails, creating a toxic narrative, be it in movies, rap or in the more political sophisms of the National Rifle Association, which is a state within the State and a lobby almost nobody dares to attack.

Nothing will change. The voice of Mayor Bloomberg will not find a chorus. The President spoke the right words and alluded to a communality of approach, regarding this arms proliferation.  Let us not forget that there is also a market for rifles and attack weaponry, which is too easily accessible. Unfortunately this sociological nightmare is here to stay, protected by legitimate rules which are enshrined in the American psyche since 1776.  Politicians might argue, but in the end "the right to bare arms" will prevail and other deranged individuals will find a way to inflict a new coda to this last "successor--tragedy" in a series world-wide.  Here, as in Russia after the Moscow theatre and the Beslan school shootings, or in Norway after the Brevik massacre, the flags are half-mast but the saddened self-restraint of most will not stop the madness of a few. There might be a tightening of rules and individual controls, but all this will be nothing more than an ineffectual sandbag and not a levee.

2012's AGONY

The year is ending like a misshapen cheese soufflé.  All over, contradictions abound, bad faith rules.

In the United States the negotiations about the "fiscal cliff" show all the protagonists in their most unflattering "self." The class warfare that is a permanent sub-title for the comings and goings in Congress and in the White House is not only out of place, it goes head-on against America's psyche.  Worse, economic common sense takes the back seat, while the driver of the moment (there are many) too often appears reckless and demagogic. The President likes to remain aloof, seen as above the fray, but meanwhile the uncertainty principle undermines both the confidence and the morale of the man-in-the street and of the middle-class which he pretends to defend.

The EU received the Nobel Peace Prize. The speech of the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy ("Ich bin ein Europear"), was anything but Churchillian.  Most EU leaders were present but British P.M. David Cameron preferred to send his regrets with his vice P.M. The prize, deservedly so, recognizes past achievements but glossed over recent depressing events and the current dystopia. New emerging economies show more creativity than the EU.  Besides, a number of member states look like lumps of sugar on the verge of dissolving in a cup of hot tea.

The Middle East and the Arab world in general are a diplomat's nightmare. This vast minefield looks as if it will never be cleared. The revolutions are hijacked by various agendas which deprive the few who initiated them of their initial secular message. On the contrary, past arbitrary regimes make room for perverse successors. There are no visible heroes, no Lech Walesa, no Aung San Suu Kyi.  Sunis, Shia Muslims, Alawites, Wahabists--if not a metastasized Al Quaeda redux--kill each other in the name of the same god.  One should think twice before taking sides in those wars within wars.  Meanwhile in Gaza, the lynching of Israel remains the mantra. While disagreeing with him, I can also understand Netanyahu's maximalist reaction with regard to the settlements, although his most recent decision might have unpleasant unforeseeable consequences.

"Asia Felix" continues its march towards progress "a la carte" in the shadow of a rising, unstoppable China, which is able to merchandise its reach as a benevolent added value for all.

It is high time to pay closer attention to the spectacular evolutions in Latin America and the uneven, often dangerous changes occurring in Africa. By the way, the approach of African affairs and regional networking by the presumed front line candidate for the post of American secretary of state, Susan Rice, might raise some questions.

Australia is the first beneficiary of President Obama's "Asia First" foreign policy and is fast becoming a strategic geo-political player on the new world chess board.

The armada of players and problems which will enter the anno 2013 troubled waters does not bode well. The former are no longer identifiable because "non actors" tend to mingle with the recognized ones. The latter are in a flux or limbo, so that it becomes increasingly difficult to categorize or prioritize.  The "hybrid" prevails nowadays, creating a challenge for Intelligence. The yearly recycled James Bond saga looks quaint and antiquated compared to today's toxic cyber Armageddon. Energy, climate change, equality, and resources raise more problems than opportunities for working together, as should be expected. We have been unable to come up with the right answer after 9/11 which besides being a tragedy ended up becoming a multiplier of hell. The tragic miscalculations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the wasted lives for a murky, misguided goal, might stay with us for generations.  Iran and Syria are already on the waiting-list for possible wrong assessments at the wrong time.

The moral compass has disappeared. Instead, we live under the contradictory pattern of a collision course between opportunism and improvisation.  No stakeholder has a "grand plan."  Actions taken are too often directed at constituencies who might lack legitimacy and certainly have no strategic long-term insight. The last illusions stemming from the good old cynical times of Yalta are buried under the rubble of the Twin Towers. Since then political science has come up with ideas that were more fashionable than long-lived. Friedman, Fukuyama, Krugman, Nye or Huntington are formidable intellectual actors but they are also "entertainers" in the sheltered academic blogosphere, in the same vein as the formerly (in)famous French "nouveaux philosophes."

Somehow there is little "gravitas" around.  Challenges remain unanswered. For instance, one will have to end up talking "under conditions" to Hamas.  How to bring about a change of mindset?  One needs equally to face up to the duplicity of the Arab Spring and to "out" the various actors in this perverse poker game.  China needs incentives so that it might become a player rather than just being a raider.  Initiatives have to come from all sides and not be dictated by the few if we want to avoid the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council is obsolete. Europe is over represented while the "rest" continues to sit in the dry-dock.  I realize that reforms are difficult but kicking the can down the road does not provide for answers. One cannot expect countries to look on forever and be helpful, while they have to be content watching  bridge players while not being allowed at the table.  Responsibility is the brainchild of participation. One cannot continue with a static post-World War II situation which does not take into account the fundamental changes. Which of the three:  France, India or Brazil, for instance, has a bigger weight? The United Kingdom is likewise a permanent member. Could Germany not claim this seat? An EU seat would solve nothing and would only project dysfunctions which had better remain in Brussels. We need a new Dumbarton Oaks or Bretton Woods with a different set of players. The incremental recognition of change, ahead of the implementation of the consequences thereof, is preferable to denial. The dots need to be connected, so do the players.

THE AFTER HILLARY

The current American ambassador to the UN is under consideration for nominee as Secretary of State.  Coming after Hillary Clinton this will be a monumental act to follow.  Furthermore, after the Benghazi tragedy, which was bungled by the administration, Ambassador Susan Rice has become unwillingly identified with a clumsy, confused narrative which was not of her doing.  In all fairness, one should indeed recognize that the ambassador became the victim of an "anonymous" script, which continues to haunt the President's record. The Republicans smell blood and will not let go even when they cannot stop if the President decides to go ahead.

A Secretary of State should have the qualities of a diplomat and the trust of constituencies in the land and worldwide. Mrs. Clinton is adept both in charm and professional soundness, while always ready to castigate when required. Her efforts were often successful but remain at the same time incomplete.  She had to navigate treacherous waters, not least in Washington, where her relationship with the President still remains shrouded in ambiguity.  Susan Rice would give Obama the free ride which Mrs. Clinton was apt to reign in.

The achievements are fragile.  The building blocks of international affairs are in a permanent flux. The former granite worldview has been replaced by a myriad of unstable, ephemeral events and regrouping which often happen to be stillborn. The personal chemistry of yesterday with friend and (often) with foe alike is almost totally gone. The Obama/Clinton "team" was nevertheless able to partially heal bruised egos and dysfunctional relations. This required a lot of patience, creativity and a capacity to listen and to "seduce."

It would be redundant to sum up here situations such as the Middle East or the global financial mess which need continuous mending and adaptation.  No doubt Ms. Rice has the intellectual cloud to deal with this chaotic landscape.  Besides, she has the ear of the President. Other personal qualifications are more dubious. It is not a good omen if one who is called upon to mediate world affairs is not even able to come forward with coherent arguments to placate critics at home.  Her savoir faire became  questionable, even before her possible nomination and hearings in Congress. This might be unfair but this job is not for the weak at heart, nor is it for individuals who might have to deal with a confidence deficit abroad.

Under the circumstances it might be advisable to look for an alternative candidate who could cash in a consensual added value at home to become more efficient abroad. We are in need of principles without becoming abrasive. We have to deal with third   parties, even when we might disagree on certain matters of policy (as will be the case in the UN regarding Palestine.) The Asian agenda must not de-prioritize the Atlantic, BRICS, and other issues which lead to too more meetings than decisions.  America remains indeed the "indispensable" partner and is in need of an unblemished foreign policy machinery. The United States cannot afford a Colin Powell repeat.  Loyalty is admirable as long as it does not obscure the facts.

The debate regarding the future Secretary of State should not degenerate into a frontal attack against the President by proxy.  Neither should the integrity of Ms. Rice be questionable. The heart of the matter is to examine who would serve American interests best.  Faites vos jeux.

HAMAS INVICTUS

After France, the United Kingdom and Germany had declared war against the Reich, nothing happened for awhile.  La drole de guerre acted as a soporific and the French ended up in a sort of induced coma.  We know the rest. World War II started its onslaught with a vengeance.

Now we have a lull in the Middle East where an ambiguous cease-fire was negotiated with so many unknowns and caveats that nobody really can predict if it will have a chance to last. The actors, with the exception of President Morsi of Egypt, must feel bewildered and should have nightmares after having given Hamas some indirect legitimacy on a silver plate. For sure, Israel could have wiped Gaza from the face of the earth.  Besides, most of the inhabitants of this wretched place are brainwashed by a martyr syndrome and became fatalistic, torn by the hardships of miserable lives and deaths. Unfortunately  the political consequences might follow a different, more  ominous predictable path. The Middle East is becoming a killing field. Conversely the Americans cannot longer leave their former proxies (?) in charge and had to intervene, finally, tiptoeing,with some success it seems.

Morsi became the unavoidable broker of a cease-fire, which was swallowed by the United States and Israel as a bitter pill and is marketed by Hamas as a victory. Besides, by adhering to this arrangement, Hamas got an opportunity to recalibrate its relations with Fatah, which might well become neutralised in no time.

Israel showed its sophisticated might but was not allowed to go for a final K.O. Under the circumstances, Egypt regained its regional influence, and can blackmail both the United States and Israel into making deals which would have been unthinkable in Mubarak's times. The negotiation regarding access and circulation in and out of Gaza will be tricky, the more so since Egypt stole the shuttle diplomacy, reducing the American monopoly, and the role of successive go-betweens and special envoys.
The harvest of the Arab Spring could be poisonous.

Henry Kissinger was "the" actor in the past. The Secretary of State today looks more like a "voyeur." Let's not mention the Europeans, who are absent or who risk uncertain bets in the Syrian furnace as they try pathetically to get the accessory under control while the essential is on fire.

It is unavoidable that Hamas will be part of the solution--if there will ever be one--while still keeping its charter which proclaims the destruction of the Jewish state as its goal.  Hitler couldn't have done better.  Netanyahu might not be the ideal peacemaker, but confronted with such hatred it becomes difficult to be magnanimous and to follow in the steps of Sadat, Begin, Abba Eban, Golda Meir, and King Hussein, in times where there was still room for respect, forgiveness and rebuilding of trust. The Israeli P.M. must also consider the mood of his public opinion which was daily under fire and which is rightly so suspicious of this "truce".

The clash of civilisations is no longer. There is now a clash between civilisation and evil. One cannot generalize and I have enough Arab friends who gave me the proof that there are still pockets of tolerance and willingness to compromise. Likewise, Israel doesn't have do that much for the conditions for serious talk to get a lift. Hamas has to abandon its destructive Mein Kampf claims, which should be easier to do than what is asked from Israel: to stop building settlements or negotiating the final status of Jerusalem.

Behind Hamas and Hezbollah there remains the puppeteer in Tehran who lost some of its "Superbe" after Morsi deprived Iran of the hand with winning cards. Egypt won the gratitude of the Americans and provided tranquilisers for Israel (the peace treaty still holds) and for Hamas (unpredictable and to a large extent still unreliable.)  Israel must feel frustrated, but the special relationship with the "indispensable" power could be reset. It would be extraordinary if, in the last days of her role as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton could see this fragile "no man's cease-fire" be consolidated. The means, which await further discussion, will certainly require some remake of indirect diplomacy wherein Cairo, Jerusalem and Washington could become a triumvirate which would change the whole set up in the Middle East. One can always dream.

THE MIDDLE EAST: IN MARRIED LIFE THREE IS A COMPANY AND TWO IS NONE (OSCAR WILDE)

Unfortunately, Bernard Lewis' gloomy predictions that any turmoil in the Middle East becomes always less Arab and more Islamic was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instinctive communal loyally outwits all others. Today, the spread of anti-Western sentiment is reaching a dangerous apex.  Not only is the regional uprising general, it is also incoherent.  From Morocco to Turkey various movements might share in religious fanaticism (which is not uniform by the way) but their Geo-political or tribal agendas differ.  Israel finds itself cornered in an almost impossible situation, given the asymmetry of the hostile environment it has to face.  It has no other alternative than to defend itself aggressively if needed.The West owns the Jewish state an unconditional support.

The current developments are unique, both in their set-up and in their consequences. One needs to apply a case-by-case strategy because the proxies of Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and the Palestinians diverge rather than converge.  Their perceptions of Israel are seldom the same and their sympathy for the Palestinians is generally platonic, for the least. Hence we find ourselves watching a "one against all" situation, understanding very well that in the words of Oscar Wilde: a company of two is none.

A third party is needed which can shuttle, threaten, and propose, blackmailing parties into reason.  Dr. Kissinger's successful diplomacy comes to mind.  Result, in the end, overtakes morality.  Other tentatives by the Quartet, Senator George Mitchell, Tony Blair, Dennis Ross come to mind. They all failed. They derailed for a number of reasons, but primarily because of the stalemate with regard to the Palestinian situation. On top the Western analysis of the Arab Spring only wanted to consider what it liked and looked elsewhere when the first, more unpleasant, developments started to appear. They hoped for a secular rising and they got a repeat of William Robertson Smith's binary "we against them" assertion.  When confronted with the fratricide killings in Syria and Libya, with the Mullahs from Iran's theocracy, or the hired killer's agendas from Hamas and Hezbollah, one is tempted to give up.  Jordan looks like the next possible causality, a repeat of the Shah/Mubarak scenario?   Egypt is not faring well, of course, but President Morsi is more adept at poker than was expected. Until now he has shaken the Mubarak statusquo but has refrained from blowing up the bridges.  He might want to remain a party to a solution rather than aggravate the problem even further.  Let us bear in mind that one of the main resources of Egypt, tourism, is in a standstill.

Nevertheless, a war should be avoided because a lull is not an end. The anti-Israel mood is the only glue that holds Shiites, Sunnis, Alawis and Salafis together.
Israel is far from perfect (after all, it is a democracy) and its leaders have recently not shown political finesse. Neither do the Arabs, but few expected anything of the sort to happen.  Turkey broods, and Jordan is gasping for air.  Benghazi is a tragedy which is unfolding every day but which could hardly be avoided. The Americans made mistakes, but taken together they do not deserve the usual Republican demagogic ire, nor the hysteria in Congress, which are solely politically motivated and directed against the President.

I believe that American diplomacy must return to lean "involvement" with Turkey and Egypt, if possible, and try to get all parties tackling all issues (after all, the main aspects of a peace deal are almost common knowledge.)  Former diplomats dined with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao & Co. Why not talk to all involved?  And at the same time not be shy to send feelers to the Taliban.  Only the Americans can talk to all and stick the taboos through their throats, once and for all. Israel must adhere to the Two States solution and make concessions in East Jerusalem. Hamas must renege on its nihilist killing agenda. Syrians must be forced by military and humanitarian means to stop the slaughter and Assad has to go. We cannot leave Israel in this hurricane of hatred.  Even if the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan stand, there is no way back to the Mubarak days, when America had a third party by proxy.  America can intervene (not militarily, with boots on the ground) . First its Arabists in the State Department must wake up and try to engage all parties involved, conditionally (Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran included.)  If such a regional Dumbarton Oaks were to succeed, the West would then be wise to distance itself and let the Arabs come up with a blueprint for regional cooperation. Under such conditions, the overall mood might change and the West could finally return to the limelight.  Why not a renewed Obama initiative (on the lines of his Cairo speech) which could embolden a local return to the more normal?

I prefer not to dwell on European moves in the region, which while promising in the post-Oslo days, ended up in a series of generally French "cockcrows" which obliged others to follow suit and ended up miserably, needing a US rescue.

AND THEN THERE WERE NONE ...OR AGATHA CHRISTIE IN CHINA

The P.R. of China has its new Politburo Standing Committee.  The chosen were confirmed in an eerie Beijing that had more in common with some Kafka allegory than with a pro-active political landscape. The 18th Party Congress might as well have taken place on the moon.  Xi Jinping became, as expected, the Communist Party General Secretary and will also become the chairman of the military, a first since Hua Guofeng in 1976.

Beijing took surreal measures to ensure that nothing could intervene with the exhausting rituals. Most people hardly paid attention to the "faites vos jeux." The seven leaders will now have to enter the consensual labyrinth and come out with an agreed political road map. This will not be easy. Remarkably, the former president and party general secretary Jiang Zemin was able to be the grand master behind the manoeuvring.  His proteges and allies constitute a majority block. Only Li Keqiang and Liu Yunshan might be considered as close to former President Hu Jintao. It will certainly be interesting to see how brilliant operators like Xi Jinping ,Wang Qishan and Zhang Goli will get along with their peers.

It would be presumptuous to predict how this new leadership will steer the ship of state in these troubled times. Internally, China has manifold problems and the stewardship of the economy looks more and more difficult. China's foreign policy remains basically insecure and paranoid. President Xi might be more pragmatic than President Hu, who often seemed uncomfortable dealing with foreign leaders. Wang Qishan will probably remain in charge of the American treasury nightmare. Fortunately so, the man is exceptional.

In the next few years no major changes should be expected but there might be a more relaxed, less hard-line ideological approach to the various problems that the world at large has to confront. After all, the old, cunning Jiang Zemin and his minions represent a Shanghai line which is often at loggerheads with the Beijing orthodoxy.  One should not read too much inyto this majong political game. The lineup remains more conservative than not, and several of the newcomers will retire in 2017, when the unspoken age limit strikes.  Mr. Xi might then feel free to distance himself from Jiang Zemin's tutelage. Until then he will have his hands full building a power base.  He will be well advised to concentrate in the short term on economic issues, on corruption, and leave the political aggiornamento for later.

Xi's first address avoided the ideology and favoured a notably less formal tone and content, without mention of Marxism-Leninism or Mao.  Instead he spoke briefly about quality of life, education, housing, and environment. This Secretary General will take over from Hu Jintao in March, enough time for sinologists to get over every word, gesture or even body language. There is also enough time for renewed infights, intrigue and power struggles. The consensus which is heralded in the Chinese media still needs a Tiananmen Square cleared of any trace of the April 15/June 4, 1989 arrests, purges, deaths and trials. Shaky agreements are built on the daily censure of souls and minds. Last but not least, the PLA blackmails a party which lacks legitimacy and popularity. The cyberspace is an enemy within and Twitter might well become more threatening than any event in Tibet, the autonomous regions, the South China Sea, Japan or Taiwan. This huge party apparatus sits on a bamboo platform. Bamboo is pliable but major unexpected typhoons might create irreversible damage. This puppet theatre may well end up as a carton box.

CHINA :THE FIFTH GENERATION:..BETWIXT AND BETWEEN

Xi Jinping is awaiting for the supreme ointment this week.  His predecessor, the austere and grey Hu Jintao, leaves the new leader with a rather gloomy testament wherein the fight against corruption stands central. The prologue leading to this new leadership is not auspicious after the many revelations about abuse of power and dubious money manipulations at the helm.  On the other hand, the Hu Jintao/Wen Jiaobao rule has nevertheless attempted to address the inequalities which divide Chinese society and started to pay more attention to the needs of migrant workers and the provinces in the west, which sometimes look like a forgotten lot.

Hu's DNA was conditioned by his earlier responsibilities in Tibet. Xi has followed more a path of proximity in Zhiejang and abroad, where he emulated a Deng Xiaoping attitude.  This does not imply that the iron fist of the fourth generation will suddenly become a hand outstretched both internally and abroad. The P.R. of China believes that it is entitled to its monopoly power situation and that the time has come to cash in and to translate its economic might into an even political dividend. I think, by the way, that this aspiration is deserved and that any attempt to contain it is counter-productive.

Mr. Xi inherits a nucleus of problems. The cyberworld is a monster that can never be fully controlled. The Chinese are discovering an intellectual landscape which is booby trapped because of mismanagement, pollution, corruption and an ailing society structure, undermined by the one-child policy.

The paranoia regarding the American intentions in Asia is vastly exaggerated when compared with the antipathy towards China in the ASEAN.  The United States does not have to build a firewall to ring in expansionist ambitions.  They can count on China's neighbours to take care of that. The changes in Myanmar are a serious politico-economic blow for Beijing, who had in Yangon a "reliable" ally, which it depleted (and in Pyongyang, a regime which appears outwardly friendly but which remains in reality a "loose canon".)  The various hotpots in the Chinese galaxy from Taiwan to Tibet, or Xinjiang, Gansu and Qinghai remain largely unpredictable. The South China Sea disputes or the rivalry with Japan over the Diaoyutais can easily revive the spectre of militarism and the consequences of asymmetric alliances (such as the one which exists between the Philippines and the United States).

Mr. Xi knows the US (so did his father).  His ability to integrate himself with both local and foreign situations is helpful. This does not imply that he will be content
playing the second fiddle.  He can both be charming and nationalistic but he certainly shares with his predecessors the ambition to let China's rise be his ultimate priority. The challenge will stay but it is certainly better for all that Governor Romney's and the neo-con's bellicose posture have been overridden.  Intellectual property rights, trade disputes, and currency tensions are not leaving the international scene. The situation in the Straits has improved. Hong Kong and Macao continue their over-the-top saga. Tibet remains a "taboo" which will be difficult to come to terms with and I fear the worse.  The future, in case of the Dalai Lama's demise, looks bleak.  I fail to see a military/maritime threat.  The cyber war will only become more sophisticated, but we are all players in this "game" which deserves close monitoring and aggressive defense and offense from the West.

America's strategic "pivot" is the word "a la mode" but it should not be overestimated.  From Okinawa to Diego Garcia and elsewhere in the region, the various US fleets already allow for immediate intervention without having to go to transport and logistical nightmares. It should also be made clear that the US Navy is in the South China Sea, disputed by many, but not in territorial waters. The US presence in the Straits (following a defense treaty with Taiwan) can become a deterrent.  With this exception, it is more about safeguarding free trade and access to natural resources than about maritime hegemony.  The same goes for the Chinese by the way, who must find a modus vivendi with Vietnam, the Philippines and other claimants on the Paracels.

China has a long memory and the foreigner seldom plays the role of the "good guy" in a collective narrative of the destruction of the Yuan Ming Yuang,  treaty ports and numerous interventions which carved the country in de facto foreign held entities This should always be taken into account when the message which the Chinese convey in a myriad of ways says "Now, it is our turn." Some of the Chinese interventions in the Security Council often appear  to favor the villain over the victim but we should bare in mind that the non-intervention dogma may have a longer life in the Chinese psyche than any "socialist system with Chinese characteristics."  I have always been surprised by the "hard power" quality of the Chinese mind, compared to the "soft power" seduction of its civilisation.  Xi Jinping might have the magic touch to bridge the gap which exists between those forms of Yin and Yang, but let's not forget that even if this were the case, he is not alone. The PLA (People's Liberation Army) is a state within the State.  The Executive exists "for" the people rather than "of" them.  The personal rivalries behind closed doors are plentiful. The public is informed post facto and remains in the dark with regard to arguments which are played off  in camera.  The government only wants to appear as a consensual body.

Human rights and the rule of law have made inroads, thanks to the social media which the government is adept to censure, block and control. Still there is some form of democratic bottom-up discourse, but it remains weak and often ineffectual. The Bo Xilai melodrama (Macbeth redux) could not be covered up but meanwhile Ai Weiwei and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiabao remain invisible.  The panda bears receive better attention than the benevolent critics of a system in quarantine!

Will the fifth generation succeed in recalibrating a society which is split between caricatured rich and abysmal poor? It is going to be difficult since too many princelings are at the top and are not inclined to immolate themselves for reasons of altruism.  Structural adjustments might still be considered as long as they do not jeopardize the "Leading Hotel Culture" of the leaders and their American-educated offspring.  At least the pop-star wife of Xi Jinping might finally ad some entertainment value in this grey, sorry, uniformly black-dyed hair lot. Mr. Xi, who is relatively young, might still have the natural hair color, which might be a "first."

THE AMERICANS VOTED ANTON CHEKHOV

The never ending presidential campaign is finally over. The electorate chose the redux over the "remade."  During the campaign President Obama often looked like a man who did not want to be there, admitting that he felt sometimes like a sort of prop. He acted like a character of Chekhov, lost in some utopia. Governor Romney, who had a difficult start, became a formidable candidate but let himself become hostage to fractions within a Republican Party which sold its soul to extremes on the right.  Hence women, gays, minorities, and younger people left the ranks of a party which appeared to be steered by cranky old men and women of the Palin/Coulter/Bachmann/Ayn Rand objectivism brand, in the wrong direction. The GOP from the old days went underground.

The result of the election does not look promising in the short-term. The co-founder of Google called any American government today a "bonfire of partisanship," urging politicians to go independent. I can understand him.  While the problems remain-- jobs, economy, foreign affairs (Israel, China, two-states solution in the Middle East, Iran), debt--I fail to see why a bruised party would become more open to compromise. The Republicans need to go into rehabilitation first to get cured of the Tea Party curse. The Democrats have to come up with concrete proposals and stop hiding behind hollow slogans. Meanwhile, Wall Street has suffered a stroke and I doubt that a lame-duck Congress will be able to come up with consensual proposals to tackle the fiscal cliff before year's end.

The President himself does not have it in his temperament to make bold political  moves or to reach out. Besides, he cannot afford to alienate an electorate which will ask for a dividend: immigration, education, health care, climate change, taxing the rich, measures which will end up making any bill a non-starter in Congress where Republicans control the House. In the long run the President might have an opportunity to re-balance the Supreme Court to the centre left.  Likewise, he should continue to reinvest the United States worldwide. His Asian policy, under fire by Prof. Robert S. Ross, is a smart move, but elsewhere more menacing fires continue smoldering.

The elections solved nothing for now. Romney would certainly have been seen as a possible agent for "pivot" (for the better or the worse) and the United States and the world at large would have held their breath.  The role of government would certainly have been X-rayed. The Republican candidate made some faux-pas and often got lost in the rabbit hole which had been trapped by the Democrats.  Nevertheless, his alpha male message and the professionalism (which I disagreed with) of Paul Ryan, his running mate, were impressive. President Obama's demure remains one of distance and chamber music, notwithstanding the obligatory ice cream stops and repetitive stump speeches.  Air Force One was his shelter, the stops were his nightmare. Occasionally there was a glimpse of emotion, which he hurried to lock up as soon as it appeared.
Obviously there will be a change in personnel (less in entourage) but in reality he has only two years to function normally, before becoming a lame duck president. I believe that he realizes that "heaven can't wait" but Congress and his own psyche might stand in the way of compromise or acceleration. One doesn't win over political rivals with drones, neither will a phone call heal broken relationships at home and abroad. Obama is too intelligent not to appreciate the Gordian knots ahead, but will he have the will to switch the "other" for his "reflection" mirror?

A final note:  the electoral college looks more and more like an aberration in times wherein democracy is more than ever in need of transparency rather than of intermediaries.
 

AMERICA AND THE WAVES

The monster storm hit the East Coast of the United States and its punch was merciless. I am always surprised how the Americans are able to come together when they feel being in harm's way.  There is something awesome in this almost spontaneous interplay of hearts and minds. The sleeping Giant comes to life and teaches the world at large how problems must be confronted, head to head. The situation is dire but there is no room for complaints, bitterness or self-pity.  On the contrary, the country looks  united in battle, generous in solidarity. The waves were not allowed to rule.

It is almost as if the elements decided to intervene so that the toxic political debate could be humiliated, or look ridiculous at least.  For a couple of days, the acrimony and the vulgar accusations are in retreat, leaving the political battlefield rot in the debris the hurricane left in its aftermath. One shouldn't be complacent or naive.  Neither should one fail to pay attention where credit is due. Suddenly the contenders for the presidency both look presidential indeed, maintaining their respective disagreements but not letting the former stand in the way of the American values which need to recover after this endless bickering and mutual loathing between opposing parties. No doubt the candidates will try to benefit from this mega-catastrophe and Obama might get some credit for a policy which is all about "being there," which stands in stark contrast with President Bush's "being absent " during Katrina.  Romney has made the smart move to let reason overcome passion.  President Obama and the formidable Republican governor of New Jersey were able to act as partners.  It remains to be seen if this "humane" transformation of words and deeds will persist. At least a moment of grace was created and it showed the world that the United States can apply its soft-power when needed. 

Some radicals on the right and the left will still try to see Machiavellian intentions in the actions and words of whoever gets involved in remedying this situation which will certainly have consequences in the long-term.  The socio-economic fall-out will be gigantic. Yet again the role of government will cast its shadow over the political debate. Those arguments belong to the "normal" ; other vicious personal and ideological attacks on all sides should be swept away together with the waters which encroached on Manhattan and New Jersey.

This should be a moment wherein healing and respect can recover the territory which was lost after the assault of Durer's apocalypse-like hordes of special interests, super PACs, religious zealots, racist agendas and antiquated social machinery. This meteorological nightmare might end up creating an opportunity to calm down and return to American values which after all have proven to be more resistant than what the undertakers of all sides had predicted. The next president will be a "changed" man.  America might have begun finding its way back to what it is. This "perfect storm" might as well have brought closure to the hellish decennial which was ignited in the burning torches of 9/11.

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE

To understand the workings of the United States of America one is supposed to have digested Tocqueville's claim to fame, "Democracy in America," published in 1835. He visited the young republic, James Madison regnante.  He elaborated mostly about the Puritan founding, the American Constitution, the place of women (a "first" almost) and religion. No doubt his generally positive analysis was also indebted to the times of President Madison, who was an extraordinary personality, both as a politician and as a diplomat.

Tocqueville was an admirer of the way the American Constitution had created an architecture of checks and balances which could avoid at all times the trappings of despotism. His awe was nevertheless lucid enough to foresee possible shortcomings in a secular system, besieged by religion.

If he were to return he might have to write a different book. The United States today is a showcase for aberrations, which might occur when a society becomes unable to bridge structural gaps. The Congress finds itself prisoner of ideological prejudices. The Supreme Court is divided between those who adhere to the letter of the Constitution and those who want to give it a breathing space in time. The presidency is no longer judged on merits but on bias. The States of the Union follow paths which are often as divergent as what one might expect to find in the EU machinery (suffering from chronic indigestion, it found nothing better than to give membership to Croatia, foster child of Germany, the Vatican and others who better remain anonymous.)

One is tempted to assert that the American supremacy is over. This is contradicted by numerous facts which help to put the current crisis in perspective. The country continues to harvest Nobel Prizes and to attract immigrants who bring grey cells rather than empty pockets. The economy suffers as other economies worldwide do, given the globalization process. As painfully as it will be, the United States will be the first to regroup, thanks to the mobility of labour and the creativity of Wall Street, which has no parallel in the world. Obviously the caveats of the "fiscal cliff" at the end of 2012 and the debt must be addressed in the shortest term.  The "indispensable nation" is finally turning its back on costly, absurd wars and returning to rearrange a world order wherein the "multiple" is finally seen as an opportunity rather than as a "negative."

For sure Tocqueville would be lost in America today. He would also feel disoriented in Europe, by the way, but he might probably have the mental agility to take stock of a changed world. Europe does not even figure in the presidential debates. Voltaire's and Napoleon's premonitions about China have become a fact of life. The BRICS are pushing the doors open. America remains, nevertheless, the world's keeper and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Already one can see how it is switching from an Atlantic to a Pacific commonwealth while Europe finds itself captive of its former illusions, with more clients than allies.

The coming elections in the United States are over dramatised. Both candidates are able politicians who, unfortunately so, have to submit themselves to the applause of often undesirable followers. One does not choose his public. Obama is more philosophically inclined (but deserves credit for "redirecting" rather than "enduring"). Romney is the man of the praxis. The latter might fit more into the current mood of the country. The former might still appeal to the utopia America was built on.

Finally, it is high time for poison talk and poison pens, which are unworthy of this country, to take leave.

LE PRINCE PHILIPPE DE BELGIQUE

Depuis quelques jours la presse belge commente un livre "dit tout" sur S.A.R. le Prince Philippe et ses proches. Je prefere ne pas m'approcher de trop pres de l'auteur,Frederic Deboursu..  Pour ce qui concerne le contenu (dont je n'ai lu que des extraits) , il y a des poubelles pour cela. Ce qui est en cause c'est la deontologie. Jusqu'a preuve du contraire je n'accorde aucun credit a la veracite des assertions. Si certaines devaient s'averer verifiables il resterait un delit flagrant d'indiscretion et d'intrusion. S'attaquer a une personne et a sa famille,qui sont prisonnieres de servitudes constitutionnelles, depasse les bornes de l'admissible. L'heritier du trone est vise,mais son epouse,ses enfants,ses parents sont egalement traines dans la boue.
La fonction royale a evolue certes et on a le droit de critiquer ou d'etre republicain.Le Roi Albert II a fait preuve d'un stoicisme dans la tempete et il faut l'en remercier. Ces recentes indiscretions concernant le Prince Heritier sont deplacees et meritent d'etre sanctionnees car elles visent en meme temps une famille et la personne de la Princesse Mathilde et de ses enfants. Le procede est inexcusable, teleguide sans aucun doute et  reposant sur des suppositions aleatoires. En ce qui concerne les rares parcelles de verite il eut ete preferable de choisir le camps de la discretion plutot que de s'abondonner a la sensation. Il est vrai que les meutes a l'affut de proies faciles ne lachent pas prise. Plusieurs evenements recents intervenus dans d'autres familles royales ont fait assez de degats.
Que l'on me comprenne bien. Il ne s'agit pas d'etre un inconditionnel d'un systeme. Ce qui est en jeu ici c'est le mal que peut provoquer une narration illegitime qui peut infecter un discours plus large. La Belgique ne tient pas a un fil, elle tient au Roi. Il  convient d'etre clair. L'opposition est un droit. La vulgarite est une tare. Celui qui se sert de cette derniere pour atteidre un objectif non avoue joue avec le feu certes, mais il commet surtout un delit inqualifiable.

US PRESIDENTIALS : THE THIRD ROUND

The final presidential debate yesterday demonstrated more debate fatigue than sparkle. Both candidates tried as much as possible to return to their stump speeches through the backdoor. Foreign policy became a band-aid for ulterior pedestrian motives. Certain predictable themes came up, and when they appeared they did so in a mostly sloppy fashion and were often unconvincing.  President Obama understandably showed more familiarity with the issues but Romney compensated certain insecurities by coming off as "over-presidential," cool and generally in command of the facts.  Both candidates had actually more in common than not. Romney made a U-turn and distanced himself from former more bellicose arguments a la McCain.  Strangely, Obama omitted to elaborate on the more interesting aspects of his foreign policy:  coalition building with new partners, up-to-date type of warfare, redirecting strategic priorities westwards. Both failed to mention the EU, the BRICS, Millennium goals or reform of the UN. Only China was considered an und fir Sich.

There was little fire. Obama might have won by a point but it was more a draw than a K.O.  I doubt that the electorate was spellbound and the situation looks as before, too close to tell.  I wonder if the not-too-subtle signals which the candidates sent to women, blue-collar workers, and particular swing states will have had any effect. Schmaltzy anecdotes rang, often contrived, and came over as artificial. The traditional ending with kisses, family and kids makes Europeans feel like throwing up (fortunately Justin Bieber was not invited).  Strangely, Europeans refrain from getting sick watching the acrobatics of Dominique Strauss-Kahn or Sylvio Berlusconi.

We have now two weeks post mortem in front of us, before V-day.  I feel that the longer this campaign dragged on, indifference dislodged enthusiasm. Both candidates adjusted their messages to such an extent (Obamacare excluded) that they became like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The alpha males of the second debate decided to play "cute", almost. In the first debate Obama napped, in the third, both appeared to be operating on Valium.

The Tea Party must be in disbelief, seeing Romney's transfiguration (again) into a centrist politician and must be tempted to cry "no room, no room!" as in "Alice in Wonderland."  The military/industrial complex, for its part, must feel relieved after their Republican Caesar pleaded for an expansion of fleet and military budget.  It is sad that it had to end this way.  Both candidates turned their back on earlier promises, both played to constituencies which they manipulated and who will be forgotten as soon as the occupant of the Oval Office is elected. The economic doomsday is still a big chip on the future leader's shoulder, while the fiscal cliff at year's end and the national debt are creating a Swiftian metaphor wherein the United States risks becoming hostage to its lender (China).

The pundits are thinking already about 2016 and about who will come next.
Political addicts and pollsters are incurable. Statesmen are an extinct species. Only the taxpayers abound, lost in opaque cyphers. Whoever the winner will be, the voter will be the dupe, ending up paying the tab for the misleading promises made by both contenders.

THE BOOK OF MORMON

Finally, the Broadway success has arrived in Los Angeles.  I saw it and I liked it. Besides, with a Mormon running for the Republican ticket, the Mormon religion is getting a lot of attention. This farce helps to debunk the "sect" label of Mormonism and underscores the absurdities that are the backbone of every religion. The jokes never cross the line of disrespect and do not venture into the more tumultuous waters as Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens do, with relish. 

Contrary to what happens in America, the religious narrative no longer appeals to Western Europe.  True, Western Europeans have become generally disconnected from religion.  Hence they tend to look with bewilderment at the proliferation of churches and God talk in the US. The same goes mutatis mutandis for the Muslims in Europe, who are more often seen as Huns than believers.  Paradoxically perhaps, the religious diversity which in America goes from the vulgar to the morally respectful might also help the Muslims to integrate better. The United States is a society which has not thrown God under the bus, while in Europe it is becoming gauche to mention God.  Churches are empty when not transformed into restaurants.  Parishes disappear because of "lack of service" and the Pope laments about the fading Christendom in his close realm.  Other forms of devotion which flourish in the United States and elsewhere also find few followers on the other side of the Atlantic, where God is almost becoming an unspoken word.

The "Book of Mormon" success story is the more remarkable given the socio-cultural American fabric, where mega-churches, sects and "Christian fatwas" abound and where the cross sits comfortably in between silicone Hollywood breasts, underscoring Hitchens' dictum:  "god is not great"   ...Hence there is room.

Meanwhile, God will continue to bless America (with what?) and the mint will remain the "In God We Trust" currency of Stuart Mill's descendants. As long as there is time for comedy all this becomes more palatable. The neo-cons will lament yet again about the war against Christmas, which looms larger in their little minds than the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  True, I doubt that the European encyclopedists ever occupied a prominent role in their upbringing, as was the case with the founders of the Republic.  The belated sexual outrage following the scandals in church, boy scouts and the outings or bullying of gays and minorities risk also to be short-lived, contrary to what happened in Europe, where similar situations accelerated the decomposition of the corpse.

It might sound strange to attach importance to a Broadway play but there is "a play within the play."  There is trenchant humor and wit in this comedy of errors. The public stays, cheers and ends up applauding what is in fact an indictment of the religious machine in general.  Religion per se is not on trial here.  One deals more with Gogol's dead souls than with arithmetic of believers.  Spectators leave the show, after having enjoyed two hours, feeling liberated from dogma and ridiculous theology. The winners are reason, humor, and also outrage after realizing that we have been fed for too long with toxic fairy tales.  In the end we arrive at Pascal's cynical conclusion:  "If you believe in God, and there is a God, you win.  If you believe in him and you are wrong, so what?"   I think Pascal's "wager" would make for a good show as well.

GETTING LOCAL ...AND IN FLEMISH !

De jongste gemeenteraadsverkiezingen in Belgie kenden hrt verwacht verloop.Alles draaide rond Antwepen en Bart De Wever is de duidelijke en verdiende overwinnaar. Hij is een handige politicus die zijn programma aan de man weet te brengen, zonder toegevingen.Hoogstens zal hij de rietstengel wat omplooien zonder hem te kraken.
Hij beschikt nu over de belangrijkste troeven in het Belgisch politiek kaartspel. Brussel is een administratieve doolhof.Antwerpen is het ekonomisch kroonjuweel.
Alarmisten zien in de Vlaamse politicus de doodgraver van Belgie. Zijn partijgenoten daarentegen beschouwen hem als de man die orde op zaken kan stellen, zij het in een uitgesproken vlaams perspectief. De waarheid is waarschijnlijk een berekende "mix" en de pokerspeler laat niet in zijn kaarten kijken.
Sinds het regionalisme en grensoverschrijdene initiatieven ook het nihil obstat van de EU hebben gekregen is deze koerwijziging  in versnelde manier beginnen te evolueren.Noord Italie,Catalonie,Schotland en Vlaanderen, eisen meer autonomie op, alsmede een rechttrekking van de geldstromen met inachtname van eigen specifiek belang. Op zichzelf is daar weinig op aan te merken,alhoewel het op zijn minst eigenaardig kan lijken dat terwijl Griekenland en Co. mogen rekenen op financiele steun van EU lidstaten, de onmiddellijke buur in eenzelfde land niet langer solidair zou worden behandeld. Dit is trouwens een probleem waarvoor ad hoc oplossingen en ponderatieregels kunnen worden gevonden.
Moeilijker is een kader te vinden waarin hervormingen kunnen worden overwogen. In een tijd van globalisatie en interconnecties zijn provincialisme/populisme te weren. in wezen denkik dat De Wever dit inziet.Antwepen is trouwens een wereldhaven en geen Vlaame haven. Zijn internationale troeven wegen zwaarder dan enige andere overweging. De Staatshervorming moet daarom dringend worden afgerond.Dan stelt zich de vraag minder om het voortbestaan van Belgie dan van welk Belgie .Op termijn is een bondsstaat nog haalbaar omdat hij ook de internatinalale toegevoegde waarde van Brussel helpt verzekeren en een positief signaal kan doorsturen naar internationale gebruikers en investeerders. Ipso facto geldt hetzelfde voor Antwerpen dat moet kiezen voor een model a la Singapour of Duinkerken.
Anderzijds moet Bart De Wever ook open kaart spelen en een duidelijke keuze maken tussen een profiel van een Jorg Haider-bis of van een modern politicus die bereid is verniewde bestuursmodellen viir te stellen binnen een verlicht Belgisch / Europees kader. De andere politieke families in Belgie zouden er trouwens goed aan doen versleten routines overboord te gooien. Met Elio de Rupo als uitgesproken briljante Federaal Premier zou zo een globaal gesprek moeten mogelijk zijn, opvoorwaarde dat hij er in slaagt afstand te nemen van een corrupt  waals socialistisch erfgoed dat o.m. verantwoordelijk is voor de kloof van armoede,vervuiling en ekonomische ondergang, die de broeders Dardenne zo scherp hebben gediagnostiseerd. De Belgische Premier moet Wallonie helpen overstappen van het passief/fatalistisch patroon naar een actieve veranderingsmentaliteit (nieuwe energie, technologie, politieke kultuur) die er kan toe bijdragen de Noord/Zuid spanningen,die er altijd zullen zijn,te relativeren.

Op korte termijn stelt zich de vraag van koninkrijk of republiek niet. Koning Albert II speelt een onvervangbare rol in het Belgisch politiek leven. Dit is te danken aan zijn karakter en talent maar ook aan wat overblijft van een gentleman's kultuur en het colloque singulier.De republikeinse De Wever kan de meerwaarde van afstand en diskretie goed genoeg afwegen.
Sommige buitenlandse en binnenlandse media slaan opnieuw de alarmklok.Deze lokale verkiezingen  draaiden vooral rond lokale toestanden (immigratie, tewerkstelling ,millieu, infrastuktuur enzv.) maar als ze niet korrekt worden afgerond en ingevuld, kunnen zij ook voor onaangename verrassingen zorgen,die in deze moeilijke ekonomische,sociale en fiskale tijden beter worden vermeden. Oplossingen  vragen trouwens om een multilaterale aanpak en kunnen niet  worden gevonden in een afbrokkelende Staat. Ook Bart De Wever weet terdege dat het eenvoudiger is een Staat te creeren dan hem af te schrijven. De faktuur zou duur uitvallen !

THE SECOND ROUND

The American presidential candidates were at it again yesterday. This time both were awake and aggressive, to a point. They did forgo every decorum, which should be expected from a potential president, and went for the jugular. Cool Obama was vicious, granite Romney was wavering. The result was a draw, but advantage Obama on testosterone.  If this will compensate for the President's distracted  previous performance, it needs to be seen.

There is one looser in this war of words. The "future" remains an empty canvas, waiting to be filled.  Both candidates threw generalities at each other and mostly at the electorate, but avoided specifics.  They know that their numbers do not match reality. They kept talking about the deficit, spending cuts and taxes as if they mistook the public for dummies.  Soundbites are no solutions, sophisms are no believable answers.
Obama won on points and zingers. Both lost on substance. In the end nothing has changed. The race is a neck to neck affair, where problems give way to egos.  All this underscores an intellectual deficit in the American system which chose for a "lock out" over engagement. The fiscal cliff which is looming is almost ignored, while the enormity of the federal deficit is slowly becoming a fait divers.  Americans must feel betrayed by both candidates. Besides their deceiving, they do not venture into what is really at stake, the four years ahead.  Their cardboard plans are utterly unconvincing if not inexistent.

The third debate should center around foreign policy.  Hearing what the President had to say about Benghazi, or Romney's "Trump-like" criticism of the P.R. of China and Russia, one is tempted to run for the lifeboats.  This is regrettable, given the fact that Obama was able to turn certain Bush blunders around.  Memory is an unreliable ally and the Iraq tragedy is no longer a speaking point which sells. I even wonder if Libya will have lasting power, given that the buck has been reclaimed by almost everyone in the Administration, with the exception of Ambassador Rice, who doesn't even have the decency to hint that she might have spoken too early!

The questions raised by the "undecided voters" belonged to some bad high school rather than to this format of town hall meeting, which by the way, was trampled on by the candidates in the first place.  The moderator came out rather well but her tilting in the direction of Obama was unmistakable. Romney's hair looked less sculptured, Obama was looking for the scalp.  In the end the spectators must have been bored, watching politicians trying to portray themselves as the alpha males they are not.

Three more weeks of this? We all had better stock Alpha Bismol.

THE OSLO SURPRISE

This is the season of falling leaves and misty morning light. While Hollywood's Oscars bask in the limelight, Nobel Prizes shun it and are forgotten as soon as the laureates--often obscure writers, scientists and well-wishing NGOs--have left the awkward pomp and their Andy Warhol 15 minutes of celebrity.  After Gore and Obama were rewarded for the weather forecast and rhetorical skills (remember Berlin?), the jury found nothing better than to come up serendipitously with a surreal idea, attributing the prize to the European Union.  Brussels being Magritte's surreal lair, this "over the top" choice might be in line with the EU capital's inescapable, absurd merry-go-rounds. Their Swedish colleagues are equally famous for choosing the forgettable rather than nominating the meaningful (Marcel Proust, Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens,Tennessee Williams...shall I continue?) 

If the prize had been given to the European coal and steel community or to the Treaty of Rome or to the historic embrace between Adenauer and de Gaulle, the applause would have been general.  Admittedly, Europe has made extraordinary macro economical advances, enshrined in the EU, but military, political and financial strands lag behind.  Qualitative and quantitative inroads are not without pitfalls and ulterior motives. Certain recent scenes in the streets of Athens and Madrid are frankly unacceptable. The euro crisis is an unpleasant eye-opener.

Under these conditions, giving a prize to this post-Delors European hybrid is hard to phathom. Contrary to the European euphoria after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the mood today is cynical and frankly unpleasant. The images of the Soviet invasions in Budapest and Prague, the East German Stasi laboratory, the horrors in Sarajevo, Kosovo or Srebenica hardly fit into the narrative of a continent at peace since World War II.  True, Western Europe has no ownership of these events but it is undeniable that it often chose to look elsewhere rather than get involved. This attitude was not only incorrect, it was immoral.

I wonder who will be the recipient in Oslo, by the way. The President of the Commission? The President of the European Council? The rotating President of the EU? The member states, united by mutual loathing?  The EU's relevance has been diminished. The BRICS under China's de facto leadership, America's westward turn, Arab chaos, Australia rising, Russia's assertiveness (after having digested the loss of, inter alia, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus) have reduced the EU to a second-class power, which is ironic given the fact that it remains an economic giant, walking around in baby clothes (quote by Norman Davies).  Regionalism can be a good thing as long as it is not self-destructive, leading to the rise of  provincial, almost fascist entities. Europe should learn lessons from the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia if it wants to avoid a similar sinister slippery slope.

Maybe we can still hope that out of Oslo there will come a message which skips generalities and instead suggests hard choices, forgoing self-congratulation for the sake of a renewed daring vision.  The speech is not that difficult to come up with, it is the visionary speaker who will be hard to find.  Only nonsense is abundant these days. Oslo's deliberations in camera probably resulted from the fact that the cocktails served were shaken not stirred.

THE WAY THINGS GO IN PAKISTAN

A young girl was shot in Pakistan by the Talibans.  Her only sin was to be an education activist for women. Malala Youstafzai became an object of rage and vengeance in the realm of the cavemen who rule de facto in the Swat valley or Helmand in Afghanistan .  Pakistan plays aggrieved, while the madrases continue to brainwash children who grow up with a worldview loaded with hangings, honour killings and prussic acid.  I don't understand how Pakistani women still dare to represent this hell on earth as foreign minister or ambassador to Washington D.C.  Do they have any decency or shame? Meanwhile Imran Khan will have some words of sympathy and switch as fast as he can to drones talk and to the ugly Americans. The Pakistani exodus in London and elsewhere will continue to get high on booze and nail polish, unconcerned.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are today what the black areas were on the maps of the 1980s, god forgotten places, hearts of darkness where the gropers and thieves could fill their pockets and kill unabated.  I bet you that the Talibans are getting ready for a second round, once the NATO forces leave. Their perverse cosmology does not tolerate a passing star like Malala.  As soon as the Americans put an end to their absurd Afghan involvement, the beast will be back. It is almost laughable to see some girls playing soccer for CNN and to hear how much has changed since the start of the war. The Talibans, who do not appear to be the viewers of Comedy Central, might even have a chuckle when seeing the gullibility of the West. The likes of politician-former cricketer-toast of Mayfair-Imran Khan will shed some crocodile tears and regroup under the umbrella of  collective indignation because of the drones or poor Osama who had his summer quarters next to the Pakistani Intelligence Centre--speaking of coincidences! Together with Pakistan's tribal bent, Afghanistan is the other half of the twins from the dark ages which is equally better left alone.There is no room for embarrassment in intelligent assessment.  The Americans realize that this was a hopeless case from the start and have stopped denying.  Packing is the only way out. Too bad for the few enlightened individuals who saw from the beginning the ominous signs on the wall!

The tragedy is that we speak about people we know nothing about and who deserve respect while lacking introspection to collectively cut the head of the snake. The collusion between extremist ideology, corruption and drugs is creating a nightmarish monster, a toxic sum of Al Qaeda, the Haqqani and the Talibans.  Some see in this latest tragic event a possible game changer.  I do not. Hard line clerics will not move a finger and the situation will remain unchangd.  In the end outrage will, as usual, be replaced by inaction seconded by collusion. This is a "culture" of martyrs. There is no room for saints. So Malala Yousazai,still an intended victim, had to go to make room for Imran Khan & Co's motorcades who criscross the country not for the good but for the worse. We should be humanitarians still, but otherwise we are better off with this nightmare out of our minds and illusions stored for better ends. Malala and the many women flogged, mutilated and raped have showed the world that even in hell there might still be light. We should return to what we do best:  being a soft power. Hardliners fear seduction and enlightenment.

THE JUNIOR LEAGUE

It might sound paradoxical to describe the vice-presidential debate as the junior league. Indeed Paul Ryan, the Republican contender is young but his Democratic rival can count the ways and the years. It showed. The latter was impressive, showing both a sense of entitlement and savoir faire. The former played more in a technocratic mode, which was impressive by the way.  In doing so, both helped the presidential candidates and the debate ended with some punchlines but without a match point.  Romney must be pleased, Obama should be relieved.

The President will have to look awake next Tuesday because Governor Romney will find in foreign policy matters ample ammunition.  I find this unfair because President Obama and his Secretary of State can boast considerable achievements after the dark Bush years. Their Asian Fire Wall strategy aiming at controlling the perfect storm which is menacing the South China Sea is timely.  Their calibrated handling of the Middle East mess is generally well-timed.  It is too bad that the American ambassador to the United Nations made a fool of herself and, by proxy, of the American policy in the region. This unfortunate event gives the Republicans the stick they were looking for, after the debacle in Iraq and the Afghan fiasco.

Romney continues to ascend, thanks also to the good performance of his running mate. He should beware of veering too much off course though, because there are certainly more Tea Party aficionados than independents. Obama must go for the jugular and his vice president helped him in this.   He almost made the viewers forget his age, his unpredictable temperament and a style of debate which was more geared to the mores of times past than to the cyberculture of times in the making.  Still, since he did not lose, he won, almost. The President meanwhile looks more like the man of hope in his first campaign but he will have to climb a steep mountain if he wants to keep an advantage, which is small. Romney might be short on details but in these economic hard times the voter might be more tuned to a financial record than to abstract lyricism. I do not pretend that Obama's bilan is unconvincing.  It is just rooted in a vocabulary which has not the concrete appeal which is needed.  The Americans hate the moral void and this in turn creates a feeding ground for the absurd, the birthers and the other camp. The neo-cons and evangelicals will brandish the spectrum of socialism, communism and a Moloch state, while they often have no clue of what those terms cover. The political landscape has become a wasteland right and left werein only beasts roam.  Foremost, the next president will have to be an animal trainer.  Both Romney and Obama have the class to come to terms with a situation which starts to look almost hopeless. It has to be hoped that the Democrat will be able to recharge his magnetism and that the Republican will not be distracted by the treacherous currents in his own party. A level field can bring the best out of both. It is Obama's turn to show that a bad moment should not be confused with a downspiral mood. Biden might have been the one who gave him the needed lift. Contrary to the movie, this is still a country were an older man can help a president jump through the hoop of a lackluster performance.

The President is still liked by a majority of voters but in these dire times, unemployment, foreclosures, and economic downturn might speak louder than a smile, which looked irresistible four years ago. On Tuesday, the second presidential debate may be judgement day and a redemption for Obama.  Better economic indicators and an improved labor market might help too, but the financial cliff will continue to claim victims.  The glass is still half-full and cheers remain muted for an indefnite time.

PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS NOT THERE...

The first presidential debate, October 3, was expected to be a duel between two superstars:  one, the President known; one, the contender in the making.
What we witnessed was a scoop showing the Republican candidate reinventing himself, while President Obama almost stumbled, as if he had skipped his homework. He was often incoherent if not "absent."  Governor Romney knew his numbers and was on the offensive "non-stop." The President missed opportunities to counter-attack (the "infamous" 47%  and numerous flip-flops of Romney) as if he was following the wrong script rather than his instinct of former days.

The pundits, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree that the Republican candidate scored, while the President under-performed. It is too soon to make hasty conclusions. After all there are two more debates, but on international affairs, the President finds himself in an uncomfortable situation amidst the Libyan cover-up (following the assassination of the American ambassador), the feared Afghan Requiem and the Syrian quagmire. The Republicans smell blood as the Democrats did after the WMD fiasco in Iraq.  Besides, the fiscal cliff in the USA, with the automatic budget cuts which would follow, creates a feeling of apprehension both on Wall Street and Main Street.

The "man of change" from the former campaign is no longer. This does not diminish his obvious intellectual qualities and personal appeal but it cuts him from XL to L. Romney occupies the void with assurance, professionalism, bluff and cunning. The businessman became a sterling politician. Paul Ryan, his running mate, is a shark who could very well drive Vice-President Biden into the danger zone of the "ridiculous."  It is almost sad to see the Republican glee while they are the main culprits of the stalemate in Congress, aided, involuntarily, by the shrill behaviour of the inept Democratic leadership.

The President remains popular as a person but as late he often looks like having lost his "mojo."  Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has ample opportunity to spin a narrative as being the saviour for these difficult times, close to business and finance, opposed to foes and promising an American "reformation," in pure Reaganesque form.  I doubt that his hyperbole will bring about the miraculous cure, but it is undeniable that he has picked up the frustrations of a large segment of Americans. The latter start to question in which direction their country is heading.

The United States has never been able to come to terms with the role of government. The debate is as old as the country and the path since independence has been more a roller-coaster than straight-sailing. The often unpopular wars and political stalemate have created a bitterness of late, which is un-American.  Obama was chosen for a vision he projected and personified.  He was the program. He lost it. Now he and his opponent have to come forward with a program instead. The President is bruised after his Pyrrhic victory in health care, Romney must come up with a plan, almost any will do. The Americans might still give the President a second chance, but some marriage counselling might be an appropriate choice ante.  The performance of the President in the coming debates will be crucial.  He had better look for his presidential mantle, which Romney appropriated yesterday, and regain his former body language, rather than avoiding eye contact and taking notes like some underling.

The coming times will be interesting!

ARABS TODAY: SOLLEN or SEIN ?

The Louvre Museum has opened its new wing of Islamic art. This is a welcome window at a time when, unfortunately, the Arab world looks more often like a depository of fury rather than creativity. We also too often tend to let the current toxic political narrative obscure the cultural input of the Arabs, who made extraordinary inroads in fields as diverse as mathematics, science, architecture, medicine and philosophy.

The West is guilty of having created an Orientalist vision for its own purposes.  Edward W. Said wrote a very disturbing book in this regard. The Arabs, for their part, never had the courage to confront their beliefs in a Kantian fashion. The Koran is set in stone and any attempt to replace a text in its context is considered blasphemous by the majority of Muslims. The book became a wall.  It did not have to be like that. At times there have been periods of creativity, tolerance and pluralism. The Omayyad Caliphate, inter alia, illustrates very well that there can be room for original creation instead of rehashing.  Fouad Adjami has written a moving account of this "strand" in his book "The Dream Palace of the Arabs".  Unfortunately, the theories of Bernard Lewis seem to prevail today and on almost all fronts mutual distrust and loathing prevail.

Responsibilities for this derailment can be found in both camps. A secular West cannot understand how the Muslims let their religion be hijacked and dyed in negative, dark and spooky terms, in Jihad, Fatwas and inequalities. For its part, the West has certainly done too little to come forward with creative thinking regarding the Palestinian issue, which is becoming a menacing metastasis.  Besides, the World War I territorial arrangements imposed upon the Arabs were more "flippant" than legitimate.

The main problem today, underpinning all others, might be the absence of alternative in the Arab world.  How can intellectual knowledge and scholarship thrive under a Wahhabi's stream of thought?  Arab intellectuals are obliged to consult Western sources, while (as Said observes) the converse is seldom true. As a result, there is a
self-loathing and complex of inferiority amongst many Muslims which can catch fire at random. The Arab spring is already turning sour, in the absence of an Arab Mandela, Havel or Aung San Sun Kyi.  Meanwhile Islam, which was not incompatible with beauty, innovation and tolerance, is taken hostage by radicals who are manipulating the masses from Bangladesh to Indonesia.

It would be tragic if yet again we would have to count upon ourselves to try to decipher a legacy of otherness which fascinates us in the Metropolitan Museum or the Louvre. The Arab world looks too often like a negative component in a world which seeks to avoid a deathtrap on its path to globalization.  If Arab leaders choose to remain the keepers of minds and souls of their own, so be it.  The consequences will be dire. The West, too, must act and support "actively" a two-state solution for the Palestinians,if it wants to quell the irrational killing wave which engulfs so much of the Arab world.

I realize that the current times are not an ideal launching platform for speculative thinking or artistic enlightenment. At the end of the day, the choice will have to be made by the Arabs themselves, either "in favour of being part of," or to end up in a mono-coloured barren mental and political landscape of their own making. They gave us algebra.  We might return the favour by encouraging them to question rather than be content to follow. They might find pride in connecting with past achievements and regain the self-esteem which is needed to facilitate the consideration of major decisions.  Art is not a frivolous passe-temps for the few, it is the collective memory of all, and an alternative which can finally be helpful in resetting events in a more positive mode.  If one had to choose between Persian miniatures or the collective utterances of President Ahmedinadjad, the outcome is predictable.

A WORLD DISMEMBERED

The former millennium tried to glue the pieces of a disjointed world together. It did not become one--and why should it--but it looked for awhile almost able to pursue consensual goals. While ambitions were universal, the methodology was diverse.  Since then even the vocabulary has changed. The "third world" or "the group of 77", were erased and a myriad of groups and sup-groupings appeared which could be mobilised against the "end of history", prematurely advanced by the likes of Francis Fukuyama.  BRICS, G7, G20, and their off springs filled the void.

Recent events show us that the world has regressed, that enlightenment is no longer on the agenda and, quite to the contrary, is covered with ugly alternatives.  Nowhere is the divide as deep as between Western and Muslim societies.  The ideological tension which even reduces the 9/11 tragedy to a masquerade cooked up between Israel and the United States to feed anti-Muslim resentment might be the most absurd construction ever invented. True, the Iranian president denies the Holocaust. All those lies find an eager public ready to adhere to them with relish.

One has to abandon "friendly fire" rhetoric or ecumenical utopias finally, and face the fact that we have reached a neo-war echelon.  Religious conflicts abound, economical propriety stealing is endemic and the new wave of techno/hacker sabotage is a fact of life. The Muslim nuke is in Allah's hands and we know what that means.

Meanwhile, individuals continue to be killed in numbers in the name of some faceless prophet, while the threat of Muslim rage approaches by the minute.  The fighters against colonisation were, paradoxically, at the same time the interlocutors of the day, because they fought for values which we monopolised, while also wanting to be part of this same intellectual added value.  The "third world" of yesterday fought a battle which we could not set aside because their grievances had been ours before.  Nehru, Mao, Nasser,Tito, and Mandela were closer to us than to the masses they were supposed to lead.  This paradoxical "complicity" between opposite camps was the result of a battle of wills waged on an even playing field. Today, the Muslim world fights for their own backwards inroads in secular societies, which have chosen scientific and economic progress, rather than being delayed by mules and suicide bombers. The few progressive elements in the Arab society will end up, like the "Satanic Verses," in hiding, exile or in body bags.

I suggested years ago that the only policy was one of containment, a form of isolation or ostracism from the progressive power narrative. If there is still some hope it has to come from secular Arabs themselves and not be imposed by the outside world, which has become too Cartesian to mingle with the bearded killers who choose the Koran over cyber power. The money we spend over there is misused.  The dialogue which has been tried has fallen victim to tribal customs, and our own naivety.  Secularism or pluralism do not fit in the "Mecca model", where stone-throwing at the "devil" and at individuals is alike.

There is no shame in a healthy selfishness.  I prefer Stuart Mill to Muhammad's aberrations (the same goes for the Bible).  Let's get our own house in order and let the Chinese deal with their neighbors. After all, we have no proven geo-political interest over there and there is enough conflict between tribes and strands of Islam to keep them busy where they should, and not plan where they should not.  Our help should go to the ones who deserve it rather than to the ones that will usurp it.  The United States, Europe and others should create a pole of innovative creativity, wealth unlike any.  Resources should not be wasted, soldiers have better things to do than being surrogates for shooting exercises by the very same people who pose as allies. Shall we allow ourselves to be the "dupes' of Karzai and Co.?  Many use the Vietnam War as an example, forgetting that it was an intervention based on wrong assumptions, inherited from French colonial megalomania in Indochina.  Afghanistan and Pakistan are never going to be what Vietnam is today:  a China-bis, secular, a capitalistic hybrid and a de facto ally, almost, against the China shark in the South China Sea.

Today we find ourselves indeed in a clash of civilisations, or better, in a frontal competition wherein the secular contemporary world can still dwarf the obscurantist devil incarnate who is unable to find the path to advancement and is totally unreliable.  It is high time to transfer the burden of this hapless situation to takers, if they can be found.  Otherwise it is advisable to go, to ignore and to close the windows because the scent of the rot to come will not be for the weak hearted. Believe me, aligned with others, this is a battle for progress to win. Oil, which was their raison d'etre, might end up being their curse.

The last editorial in the Economist left me flabbergasted. It argued that the United States should be the world's policeman. In the same vein it describes the Arab Spring as a great awakening.  It advances that in the Arab world, America should do more rather than less. All these lapidary affirmations are a recipe for disaster, and are gratuitous, given the facts on the ground. They also sound out of place in a magazine which is more linked to reliability than to gratuitous soundbites.