ALICE

La mort d'un etre "particulier " devient intraduisible. Les paroles, les larmes, le renvoi aux souvenirs vecus ensemble ne sauraient cacher de la vue de l'immeuble existentiel qui s'est effondre de l'interieur. Le chagrin est un ecroulement fatal. Toutes ces pieces detachees ne retrouveront plus jamais une coherence. Certaines morts sont plus scandaleuses que d'autres, des lors qu' elles piegent le juste temps, la juste mesure...pour autant qu'il y ait de la justice dans la fin du voyage. Tout au plus peut il y avoir une liberation, un aboutissement. Mais quand le mal frappe avant l'heure, non annonce, il est insupportable.

Je n'entends pas elaborer car il ne s'agit pas de moi mais d'une personne dont l'integrite ne doit pas etre prise en otage par une projection qui doit garder la distance pour ne pas devenir exhbitioniste Mon ultime hommage sera de m'effacer autant que faire se peut,  pour laisser la place a qui la merite.

FAITES VOS JEUX

Enough about the disease, it is time to consider the treatment.  The diagnosis is not that simple though.  Presuming that Egypt is divided in two camps is an oversimplification. True, there are Islamists.   On the other side is the military, who for the time being have the support of a composite majority (for how long?)  Cracks are already appearing in this non-Islamist part of the population which is worried that the military might get "high" on their current status and reluctant to switch to a more pluralistic constitution and representation.  Indeed they appear to be more opportunistic than motivated by better governance. The economy is in shambles and nobody is coming forward with a "grand plan."   Egypt stands alone and the money which is provided by the Emirates or the Saudis does not replace a political regional and international relevance which is lost for an unforeseeable time. The Pharaoh state from Mubarak (watch my words...he might have some "come back") became a hybrid under Morsi, ending up being a pariah, an almost-failed state in the current turmoil.

There are mainly two dangers (besides the structural shortcomings that were always there) despite the largely subsidized foodstuff and the wealth of the few who lived in their gated communities.

The first obstacle is that Egypt stands alone in the region. Money is soft power. Hard power is absent. The army might as well blackmail the United States and turn elsewhere for support, reversing Sadat's strategic U-turn to America (and Israel).  The canal (remember Disraeli's "le canal SUEZ-CIDE") better not be for grabs! The Sinai has to be (ideally) monitored, internationally.

The second danger is Egypt's relative isolation in the region and in the world. Turkey condemns, Saudi Arabia applauds. The EU does what it does best:  talks. The Americans have lost most of their influence and find themselves in a quandary. One could argue that the US should not discontinue its aid package to the mostly Egyptian military.  If this were the case, conditions should have to be attached. If the military showed disregard for such concerns, the Americans might cut off aid. Otherwise they risk losing influence as well as the little moral credibility capital they still hold. The strategic partnership between Cairo and Washington is considered by both parties as a "win/win"situation. The long-term consequences of ending it might outweigh the moral high ground in the short term.  Also, imagine Israel stuck between Syria imploding and Egypt becoming ungovernable!?   Washington risks looking a 30-year investment, following in the footsteps of the Iranian meltdown!

It is becoming obvious that the situation needs an innovative therapy, after so many US leaders have been shown the door by the military. President Obama looks clueless (he is not the only one). If such a thing were still possible, the solution must come from the Arabs, first under the auspices of the UN and the Arab League, secondly with the support of the Quartet, when required. A new constitution, elections, return to civil rule,  better be decided upon in an accelerated fashion with the input of all (Islamists included).  Presidents Mubarak and Morsi should not be relegated to some Egyptian-style Guantanamo. The rule of law must be reinstated. Through all this, the West should help the democratic forces which existed and almost flourished during the last centuries under the Khedive and Kings Fouad and Farouk, until the Palace coup (again) which was stopped by the British. Western countries should be "low key" in this theatre of the absurd where they have more to lose than to gain. Both Islamists and supporters of the "non coup in the coup" find themselves in some anti-American unison. This goes for the West in general by the way, but the potential major losers are the Americans (and possibly Israel).  Iran and, to a lesser degree Turkey, are surprisingly discreet...so are cats when they see an opening.

The (half) Palestinian /Israeli "peace" talks continue, so it seems. The discretion might be as encouraging as it might become embarrassing.  Looking at Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, the Sinai, Macbeth's words come to mind: "Full of sound and fury."  Let us hope that this does not point to a foregone conclusion (Othello.III.3.426) but I fear the the noise will overtake the rumor.

The"Alexandria Quartet" belongs to the past, whatever the outcome of the present "killing streets."   Malesh!

 

RIEN NE VA PLUS

THE WORLD IS TURNING ITS BACK ON JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU AND TILTS TOWARDS VOLTAIRE. THE WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS AND THINKERS MUST BE TURNING IN THEIR GRAVES SINCE THE COHERENCE THEY TRIED TO ACHIEVE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY CONTRADICTION AND BAD FAITH. MANY EVENTS WORLDWIDE HAVE BECOME AN AFFRONT TO DECENCY AND DIGNITY. 

SINCE WORLD WAR II, HUNGER, ETHNIC CLEANSING, DEMOCRACY A LA CARTE, GOT EVEN MORE THAN BEFORE MAYBE, AN ALMOST FREE HAND. THE TRAGEDY BEING THAT THOSE CALAMITIES WERE MAN-MADE AND THAT THEY WERE TOO OFTEN IGNORED, PENDING THE FACT THAT PERPETRATORS WERE ALLIES OR FOES.

WE ARE FORGETTING CONGO AND RWANDA BUT WE PLAY AGGRIEVED FOR EGYPT WHILE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY ARE EQUALLY TRAMPLED  UPON ON A DAILY BASIS ELSEWHERE. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE WEST NEEDS SOME OF THE ARAB PSYCHOPATHS WHILE THEY MIGHT STILL BE HELPFUL, WHILE MEANWHILE OH SO CAUTIOUSLY CRITICIZING THE ONES WE NEED BUT WHO LOOK LIKE BEING IN TROUBLE. 

THE WEST IS ON ITS KNEES FOR A RED CARPET TREATMENT IN CHINA. I WAS A FIRST-HAND WITNESS. THE SAME HAPPENED UNDER MUBARAK'S IRON FIST RULE. THE MILLIONS WHO DIED AND SUFFERED UNDER MAO WERE DUST UNDER THE CARPET. TIEN-AN-MEN BECAME AN OFFENSIVE DIRTY WORD WHICH WESTERNERS AVOIDED.  EGYPT THREE YEARS AGO WAS A PIECE OF CAKE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE SYCOPHANTS.  THE  EMIRATES, SKYSCRAPERS INCLUDED, ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM SUDAN, WHICH IS NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER GAY BASHERS IN UGANDA...AND ONE CAN GO ON AND ON.

PARADOXICALLY, THE TALKS EN MINEUR BETWEEN PALESTINIANS AND ISRAEL ARE A SIDELINE TODAY, WHILE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN FRONT PAGE YESTERDAY.  THEY MIGHT EVEN SUCCEED BECAUSE FEWER CARE ANY LONGER. WASHINGTON PLAYS NANNY BY DEFAULT OF LARGER CAUSES WHERE ITS INFLUENCE HAS BECOME CLOSE TO ZERO.   CHINA AND RUSSIA LEAVE THE AMERICANS TO COPE WITH THEIR MESS AND PURSUE THEIR OWN PRIORITIES WITHOUT CARING TO COVER THEM UNDER THE MANTLE OF SOME MORAL DOCTRINE. WHY SHOULD THEY, SINCE THE AMERICANS HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THE GULF STATES OR SAUDI ARABIA, WHICH CAN BOOST ON A RECORD OF HUMAN RIGHTS  CLOSE TO NIL.  THE INGLORIOUS U.S. DEPARTURE FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN LEAVES A SITUATION WHICH IN SOME ASPECTS IS WORSE THAN THE ONE THEY FOUND, DESPITE THE "EDUCATED CHANGED'' PROPS THEY PARADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OBESE MASSES FED ON FAST-FOOD, UNINFORMED THINKING AND HOLLYWOOD MOVIES.  AGREED, THE LATTER SPECIES ARE ALSO FOUND ELSEWHERE BUT THE MESSAGE THEY ARE PRESENTED IS NOT ONE OF WELCOMING LIBERATORS AND BENEFACTORS, AS IS TOO OFTEN THE CASE ON FOX NEWS AMERICA.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS DUPED.  MARC LEIBOVICH DESCRIBES IN HIS LATEST BOOK "THIS TOWN" HOW THE JEFFERSONIAN IDEAS HAVE BEEN DISMANTLED IN A POLITICAL SUB-CULTURE OF GREED, SEX, MONEY AND BELTWAY BRAIN DEATH. THE E.U. DOES NOT DO MUCH BETTER BUT IT NO LONGER PRETENDS TO. OTHER MAJOR POWERS PUSH INTEREST RATHER THAN WISHFUL UTOPIA. THEY SEE WHAT WE SEE BUT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO INTERVENE.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BECOME UNCONVINCING, A GULLIVER SWIFTIAN CREATURE WHO SEEMS TO TAKE BAD ADVICE INSTEAD OF THE GOOD, FAVORING THE  UNNECESSARY COMPLEX RATHER THAN TRANSPARENCY. SOMETIMES IT LOOKS AS IF WASHINGTON D.C. ('THE SWAMP' IN PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S WORDS) CORRUPTS.  CONGRESS IS AT A DEAD-END.  THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME A POLITICAL LAOCOON. THE FED, WITH THE IMMINENT DEPARTURE OF BEN BERNANKE, IS NOW A MANO-A-MANO BY PROXY BETWEEN LARRY SUMMERS AND JANET YELLEN.  IMPORTANT ISSUES, SUCH AS BAILOUTS, DEFICIT REDUCTION, QUANTITATIVE EASING, ARE RELEGATED FOR NOW TO A SECOND TIER IN THIS PANEM ET CIRCENSES UNPLEASANT POWER STRUGGLE.  HERE AGAIN THE PRESIDENT MIGHT END UP BEING A "VOYEUR.''  THE GREAT CONSOLER-IN-CHIEF HAS TO BE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AS WELL.  INDEED THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING ROTTEN ALONG THE POTOMAC.

THE BLOODY DELTA

The Nile Delta which ends the river's laborious path through the desert is an oasis that creates a micro-climate which enriches and multiplies the Egyptian bread basket.  The pool of blood in Cairo might likewise strengthen the will of the Muslim Brotherhood which has now plenty of martyrs who are fueled by hatred.  The military onslaught may have created a division within Egypt which looks "fatal" in the foreseeable future.  The Brotherhood missed a chance to obey by the rule of democracy, alienating large segments of the Egyptian society.  It might find rehabilitation in the brutal repression unleashed against it.

The situation became oversimplified, reduced to the most "elementary" components of the confrontation. This was no longer a rational political debate wherein one might find a compromise between two opposing intellectual propositions. The situation degenerated in the rejection by the majority of an almost theocratic hidden agenda which collided with the priorities of the army, bourgeoisie and entrepreneurs who feared that Egypt was on the way of becoming a "failed state." President Morsi played (badly) Sphinx but he had his hands tied by his supporters. The army's "non coup in a coup," and the installation of a puppet civilian government could not placate the ire of the Islamists who felt that a democratic election was stolen in plain sight.   Further moves by the military led to the Egyptian version of the Massacre de la Saint Barthelemy.  . Cairo is a shell-shocked city while the provinces now have military rulers as de facto pro consuls.  The future looks ominous and I doubt that a dialogue can be foreseen between a "politico-military-business" faction and a mostly underdog religious minority which will be tempted to avenge in some anti-Western, anti-pluralism frenzy.

Meanwhile, the onlookers look pathetic and the whole region risks becoming even more destabilized, with Syria in hell, Jordan on life-support, the Emirates fearing contagion, Iraq falling apart, Turkey upset, and the rest becoming a reserve for radical Islamists.  The silence of Russia and China speaks for itself. The narrative in Washington is totally unconvincing. It was hard to imagine that the joint military manouvers between Egypt and the USA would proceed as planned. Congress might likewise reconsider the financial aid package to Egypt if there is no credible offer for reconciliation, apology and a multi-party system.  Unfortunately there is no Egyptian Mandela in sight who could push an inclusive concept.   The situation is surreal with two former presidents jailed, hospitals and funeral homes overflowing, a curfew and the Valley of the Dead fulfilling some dark prophecy.

It is hard for a Western to swallow the "Allah Akbar" screams but we should also be cognizant of former and current religious tensions (remember Ireland ) and bigotry (Franco's Spain yesterday, Putin's Russia today).  Before trying to come to terms with a complex, often anachronistic mindset there is a need for compassion and some empathy for the wretched of Egypt who have been humiliated for too long and who will provide for a generation of radicals, if they are deprived of respect.  The West has to push this imperative loudly, erga omnes.  In the absence of a global creative policy or diplomacy there should at least be room for moral outrage and condemnation. The Egyptian military needs to be shown the way back to their barracks after having shown contrition.  If their staying power overrules more civil society priorities and the rule of law, they are better left to their own devices rather than becoming the sole interlocutors. I am afraid that this Egyptian "twister" will be difficult to control.  Laws of probability and mathematical chances make for a bad outcome.

The Arab chaos which resulted primary from the disreputable Iraq invasion allowed the formerly more geographically contained al-Qaeda to metastasize, spanning an arc from Yemen to Mali. So much for geo-political thinking.  Drones kill people while simultaneously multiplying the number of adherents to the culture of death.

THEY HAD TO BE TWO TO TANGO

President Obama has cancelled his meeting with President Putin in Moscow.
He will still attend the G20 in St Petersburg together with his Russian nemesis, where an improvised discreet tete-a-tete cannot be excluded.

The Washington/Moscow dysfunctional relationship is worrisome.  There are many issues which require mutual support or initiative. They range from arms control to Syria, from Iran to Egypt, which lately is in full anti-American mood (military and Morsi supporters can agree on this at least.)  American pundits seem to support President Obama's "snub."  The sordid Snowden saga was not the cause but rather the alibi for skipping a summit which risked to be childless. Besides, the chemistry between the two presidents is an absent commodity.  It is interesting to notice that both Russia and China historically prefer to deal with Republican US presidents, rather than with Democratic ones, who are often considered unpredictable.

Personally I am more in favor of a difficult meeting maintained than an aggravating affront. Diplomacy consists also in talking with the other side even when disapproval looms larger than short-term benefits. Besides, it gives the aggrieved party an opportunity to tell its reading of the story while the international press and (Russian) public opinion are listening. It is difficult for the host to stop his guest in "prosecuting" mode. The absence of tangible results can also backfire and make Putin look as a "cold war left-over."

It is to be hoped that the expected meeting between the US Secretaries of State and Defense with their Russian counter-parts, planned for tomorrow in Washington, will not fall victim to a "tit for tat" retaliation which would be highly unwelcome. Both countries have to face hybrid situations where they need to cooperate. "Pique" is human but it is not a substitute for conducting international affairs. 

What is done and remains unattended might become more difficult to undo later. The patient needs care now.  I hope we do not have to wait until the UN General Assembly for the two leaders to meet. The terror threat, the Syrian implosion, the new Iranian ambiguities, the Afghan requiem, require almost permanent consultation.  Insight can alleviate misunderstanding. The Egyptian "collapse" is an indication of America's diminishing influence in what was almost a "client state."  The same goes for Russia, which finds itself embedded in Assad's folly. Moscow and Washington can afford to agree to disagree if intentions have been made clear. Therefore a potentially unpleasant conversation is preferable to playing "dummy." Last but not least, one should pay attention to the possible changing atmospherics which such a congress can produce. 

AMERICA'S NEW NORMAL--?

The disclosures of Wiki Leaks, Pfc. Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are embarrassing. America's allies consider them offensive. The official "spin" does not alleviate the negative consequences. Foreign officials will think twice before entering into "frank" discussions with their American counterparts.

The real diplomatic harm cannot be denied, despite the official version that the consequences for U.S. policy were "fairly modest."

Actually, one ends up finding himself or herself in a dangerous syllogism of sorts. The "yes, we can" from candidate Obama has become perversely expanded into an imperial "yes we can." Guantanamo, the drones, the Orwellian "Big Bother" apparatus, which invade privacy without consent or supervision, all this distorts the image of the United States as a benign superpower. Sure, the Americans are entitled to self-preservation at a time when terrorism is becoming an all-invasive preoccupation. This legitimate priority should not be pursued at the cost of the rule of law or the basic rights of the individual, who is entitled to question what happened to his constitutional "right to happiness." 

The President sometimes gives the impression to give in to the temptation to further elaborate and expand on theories of the neo- conservatives, which he was the first to criticize when he was the community organizer/candidate. It is almost as if the forgotten Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty has received an American new look.

The actions of the various whistle-blowers lead to serious damaging security breaches. The motives are often murky, seemingly more rooted in paranoia than in moral indignation. Subsequent actions, like those of Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, lay bare opportunistic pragmatism where one might have expected a more confrontational reactive pattern. The best defense remains offence, the advantage going with the initiative.

More serious is a certain undoing of principle in the official American ways. It is one thing to protect against the new generation of actors who use pressure-cookers to kill indiscriminately. It is another to create an overall form of distrust which penalizes de facto citizens and listens in on foe and ally. The NSA (National Security Agency) has tried to minimize the intrusive character of the telephone meta data it collected and the reach of various surveillance programs. This was as unconvincing as the motivation of whistle-blowers who seek asylum in a London Embassy or in President Putin's lair.

What is at stake is the moral credibility of the United States in the conduct of foreign affairs. Every state spies, that is a "given." Every state controls suspicious elements on its territory. However, when the exceptional overtakes the normal, various branches of the state apparatus should be consulted and due process has to be followed.

Guantanamo is in this regard a lawless planet, despite the rebuttals of the administration. Besides, it is a breeding ground for extreme radicalization. Candidate Obama promised to close this contemporary Chateau d'If. No Count of Monte-Cristo there, but the vengeance will follow, unbending.

It is impossible to eradicate evil by unlawful means. After World War II, the instigators of this cosmic massacre benefited from due process in Nuremberg and Tokyo. The various "butchers" in the Bosnian conflict are receiving the same safeguards in the Hague. American military tribunals which operate under certified but not fully transparent conditions fail to override the scepticism of the doubters.  Lately, America looks better suited to invading overseas than to clean-up. This deviation externally seems to be gaining ground internally, where the administration is increasing the range of invasion of privacy. The Founding Fathers might disapprove. 

OF COUNTRIES AND SCORPIONS

President George W. Bush said that even though human cultures can be vastly different, the human heart desires the same good things, everywhere on earth. This belief, rooted in the American exceptionalism as formulated in the neo-conservative Perle-Kristol-Kagan agenda, can no longer "walk."  It agonizes in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere where a jihadist culture of death prevails. The Americans were not greeted as liberators in Baghdad, neither will they be regretted by an ungrateful Kabul. The probabilities for a lasting contemporary, democratic, equal model after the Americans will leave are close to nil.  A large part of the world chooses to remain in some theocratic theorem rather than to probe a more empirical path.  Put to a vote, Sharia would prevail from Rabat to Jakarta, even if it had to compete with Western style democracy!

Since 9/11 we have witnessed how the scorpion's "bite" became more lethal than states' "might."  The horde of isolated non-actors who aspire to martyrdom is harder to defeat than conventional armies.  One can rightly ask if the loss of so many lives, the cost of war, the trauma, were worth the unleashing of a war machine which ends up being seen as unable to kill the scorpion. I perfectly understand that few want to get involved in the Syrian tragedy, which is cannibalizing all camps, which fight each other while sharing an identical creed ... Allah Akbar!

The American psyche is often misguided, unfamiliar with the ailments it pretends to cure. On the other hand the United States is too often dragged in various conflictual situations, not by choice but by lack of takers.  It is one thing to make mistakes, quite another to be used.  So the dilemma is real. The Middle East is a perfect example of this perverse situation wherein the Americans find themselves, trying to solve an inextricable problem over the heads of a majority of people who feast on anti-American hatred.

The Arab Spring is giving refuge to jihadists worldwide who end up creating a war within a war, more insecurity in existing chaos and giving legitimacy to terrorists who are taking over movements which where not necessarily evil at the start.  The US Army will leave, or better stay away from further mayhem and the scorpions will multiply and,  dangerously so, spread.  The "collective" mood under American leadership, be it Wilsonian or post World War II, is no longer. The" problem states" from earlier days have become players in a multi-polar new galaxy. The new generation of rogue entities did not figure on the map after World War I and own their "existence" to the same world concept they are currently fighting against, directly or by proxy. They own their existence to democratic principle but chose to become "parricides." 

Should responsible countries turn their backs and give up? Certainly not, but conditional involvement needs some form of reciprocity. The choice is clear. One has to choose between being a state or some "safe heaven" for the hackers of lives, security and good governance. What good does it do to continue being involved in Afghanistan if the Taliban Jirgas rule?  Are we going to mediate between Sunnis and Shias?  There might be a time, as is the case with the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, where there is a small window of opportunity, less because the two sides have become closer than because the Palestinians are more isolated today.  Egypt is another paradox of sorts. One is obliged to swallow the democratic deficit for some better (?) outcome...in geopolitical terms at least. So much for democracy, a la carte.

Realpolitik can be the better choice if antagonistic partners still recognize the rules of the game. If they do not, it is better to bet on integrity than on uninformed miscalculation. The United States remain indispensable but they had better rally China and Russia (despite the chill after Putin's accustomed brutal "anachronistic cold war style" handling of the Snowden affair) which have an equal stake in radical pest control. This triple alliance against terrorism and radical freelancers should not take second place because of unpleasant "bumps" in the road. Scorpions are reputed to play hide-and-seek in their natural habitat...and to sting undercover, overseas! Hidden threats loom larger than blatant indiscretions.