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".
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
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".
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".
Friday, December 21, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, December 17, 2012
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 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.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, December 10, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)