It appears now that the Belgian police missed Salah Abdeslam by some minutes when Brussels was on "lock out". Police raids could nevertheless not be initiated, in consideration of a legal time-ban (9 pm / 5 am).
This is surreal. That the Brussels police apparatus is already sliced up like some souffle rate is hard to understand, but that a search operation was disabled during the night "slot", is absurd.
Belgium, being an arrangement rather than a state, lacks both hard- and soft-power (unlike the Netherlands or Luxembourg). The government is made up by parties which want to salvage what is left and by others who want to bury the leftovers of the State. They form an opportunistic alliance which, for the time being, seeks to prioritize the economy--rightly so. This does not imply that the separatist North has given up on its dismantling agenda. Already, the responsibilities of the Federal authority are shrinking by the day. The regions discuss climate as if different weather conditions prevail over some square miles (true, it is all about money).
The tragedy is that the many institutions which were obliged to choose Brussels, caught the Belgian disease. The EU has not become more European but, as it turned out, more Belgian. NATO rots near the Brussels airport and SHAPE sulks near Mons. Belgium will never achieve the trans-substiantiating stage. Many individuals there are remarkable, but the system is not! Suffice to see the mayor of Molenbeek...Quod demonstrandum est.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Sunday, December 13, 2015
THE PARIS CLIMATE DEAL.
There is so little to celebrate, that to snub the climate deal would be totally inappropriate. The 2-degrees Celsius warming goal is the objective. Meanwhile, the warming will in reality be limited to 3-degrees Celsius. The five-year revision clause regarding greenhouse gas emissions is a positive added value.
It would be naive to argue that all is solved. The targets are not legally binding and developing countries are still set against measures which might slow growth. China chose to join the "developing camp", which is ironic. The island nations did not get their 1.5% goal. Financial commitments remain hazardous. Still the world came together!
Of course the debate will continue, especially in the United States, where the Republicans are hostage to coal, guns and Evangelicals. President Obama would like his administration to be considered as the climate change champion...so much for Al Gore. The French scored a real diplomatic coup and their foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, deserves praise for his negotiating skills.
One wishes that consensus could be found on other issues, among countries with different, often contradictory interests. Such a breakthrough looks unrealistic. The clash of civilizations is on a collision course. It will get even worse if ISIL is not deprived of the land which feeds it or the media which multiply it. The silent majority of Muslims will remain out of sight as long as the nihilistic narrative gets a free-rein. It looks as if, in the short run, no reversal is to be expected. The bold beholders of martyrdom will continue to strike and the West, prisoner of absurd rules of engagement of its own making, will remain a target rather than the game-changer. Its "heroic" leaders will not forgo their vacation nevertheless. San Bernardino might even get a stop-over on the way to Hawaii. Who knows?
It would be naive to argue that all is solved. The targets are not legally binding and developing countries are still set against measures which might slow growth. China chose to join the "developing camp", which is ironic. The island nations did not get their 1.5% goal. Financial commitments remain hazardous. Still the world came together!
Of course the debate will continue, especially in the United States, where the Republicans are hostage to coal, guns and Evangelicals. President Obama would like his administration to be considered as the climate change champion...so much for Al Gore. The French scored a real diplomatic coup and their foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, deserves praise for his negotiating skills.
One wishes that consensus could be found on other issues, among countries with different, often contradictory interests. Such a breakthrough looks unrealistic. The clash of civilizations is on a collision course. It will get even worse if ISIL is not deprived of the land which feeds it or the media which multiply it. The silent majority of Muslims will remain out of sight as long as the nihilistic narrative gets a free-rein. It looks as if, in the short run, no reversal is to be expected. The bold beholders of martyrdom will continue to strike and the West, prisoner of absurd rules of engagement of its own making, will remain a target rather than the game-changer. Its "heroic" leaders will not forgo their vacation nevertheless. San Bernardino might even get a stop-over on the way to Hawaii. Who knows?
Saturday, December 12, 2015
OBAMA 'S "DECONSTRUCT".
Not a day goes by without a piece of the President's policies being dislodged or weakened. As the saying goes: defeat has many "claimers". The Republicans are waging their own Jihad against anything the President does, for their own reasons, primary to have some smoke-screen handy, in order to hide their more fratricidal doings. The White House acts like Houdini, unable to disentangle himself after gone a trick too far.
One by one the goals of the President backfire or get stuck in the mix of Democratic amateurism and Republican obstructionism. Obama has lost his ability to communicate and he lost the common sense to evaluate the public mood. He touts climate change at a time when the Americans are Christmas shopping for guns rather than being glued to the Weather Channel.
The mood in the US is one of disbelief. Americans are smart enough to realize that for now they have become "almost dispensable" in world affairs. The current Trump poll numbers are more the result of "pique" than of "hype". When diminished or uneasy, countries tend to become insular and go for noise. Trump is, by the way, a formidable competitor playing with bombast on frustration and a new inferiority complex in the land. If elected (no chance) he would be a pariah in the world, making Putin "thoughtful" in comparison.
The President should take some cues from de Gaulle. Rather than sticking to what doesn't work, he should change course...and personnel. He obviously wanted to reboot America first and re-dimension its involvement in world affairs. What he got is a nervous breakdown at home and a devastating reality-check abroad. As a result the United States is in a real confidence/socio-cultural impasse. The intelligentsia chooses for the Aventine, while the demagogues encircle the Capitol. Obama looks totally out of touch. The knowledgeable scholar of yesterday became a president, ignored almost. The Pax Americana is crumbling around the world, while the homeland is besieged by the most unwelcome but understandable challenges.
"New Reality" among allies is no substitute for former sharing of moral principles.
These times call for a study of character to unlock where the President stands. Given his intellect, the result should be interesting. Seldom has such potential been wasted in the minds and hearts of so many. The world is orphaned without American leadership. Babble is no substitute for speech. Obama's legacy might be a sad one, indeed.
One by one the goals of the President backfire or get stuck in the mix of Democratic amateurism and Republican obstructionism. Obama has lost his ability to communicate and he lost the common sense to evaluate the public mood. He touts climate change at a time when the Americans are Christmas shopping for guns rather than being glued to the Weather Channel.
The mood in the US is one of disbelief. Americans are smart enough to realize that for now they have become "almost dispensable" in world affairs. The current Trump poll numbers are more the result of "pique" than of "hype". When diminished or uneasy, countries tend to become insular and go for noise. Trump is, by the way, a formidable competitor playing with bombast on frustration and a new inferiority complex in the land. If elected (no chance) he would be a pariah in the world, making Putin "thoughtful" in comparison.
The President should take some cues from de Gaulle. Rather than sticking to what doesn't work, he should change course...and personnel. He obviously wanted to reboot America first and re-dimension its involvement in world affairs. What he got is a nervous breakdown at home and a devastating reality-check abroad. As a result the United States is in a real confidence/socio-cultural impasse. The intelligentsia chooses for the Aventine, while the demagogues encircle the Capitol. Obama looks totally out of touch. The knowledgeable scholar of yesterday became a president, ignored almost. The Pax Americana is crumbling around the world, while the homeland is besieged by the most unwelcome but understandable challenges.
"New Reality" among allies is no substitute for former sharing of moral principles.
These times call for a study of character to unlock where the President stands. Given his intellect, the result should be interesting. Seldom has such potential been wasted in the minds and hearts of so many. The world is orphaned without American leadership. Babble is no substitute for speech. Obama's legacy might be a sad one, indeed.
Monday, December 7, 2015
THE TRUMP CARD
Donald Trump, Republican presidential candidate, said that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In doing so, he offended all the USA stands for and he cornered himself into some "neo-fascist" niche.
It is one thing to condemn radical Jihadists, it is another all together to resort to a vocabulary which has no legitimacy in the American psyche. Few countries have been as good and generous in accepting plurality in their midst...contrary to Europe. Muslims are in their vast majority Americans first. To confuse all of them with a "bad lot" is a fraudulent assessment. In doing so, Trump was able to insult all Muslims, to provide ISIL with counter-argument and get Mrs. Clinton and Dick Cheney to agree. Who could ever have imagined that to happen?
The anti-Trump uproar, coming after the San Bernardino massacre, shows that America can still relate to its Jeffersonian heritage.
ISIL : THE NOISE AND THE SILENCE
It is difficult for an atheist to write about what appears to be, in part, the paroxysm of a religious anachronistic aberration. On the other hand, denial of "fact" is not a sustainable attitude for a free spirit. Lately Paris and San Bernardino speak louder than words...and prayers.
The violence waged by Islamic Jihadists has no boundaries. It becomes more difficult by the hour to differentiate between good--if there is room for such a thing in a demented storyline--and bad Islam. First, it is becoming absurd to try to dislodge the better parts of the Koran from the bad ones. Secondly, too many Imans talk more often as the heirs of the heinous than as the interpreters of what might still be worth rescuing. Muslim worshippers can be brainwashed rather than enlightened. Third, the silence or absence of indisputable condemnation of unspeakable mayhem is "scandalous". Muslims are too often shy to recognize the evil in their midst. As a result, the good ones (the majority) are taken hostage by the radical ones.
The West finds itself in a Gordian situation. It would prefer to avoid any sort of profiling. Intelligence is called upon but it does not always work and the sleeper cells multiply in a society which rests on pluralism and diversity. The courtship of the enemy with death is alien to a Western mindset which is bewildered by the rising nihilism.
The "caliphate" gave ISIL an added raison d'etre. Contrary to Al Quaeda, ISIL has recreated the myth of a global caliphate and was also able to consolidate a land grab in Syria and Iraq. The two should not be confused. Territory belongs to the praxis/logistics while the caliphate appeals to history/logos. One is a concrete basis for commerce (?), regrouping, training, services, marriage bureau (yes); the other is a claim to the former Muslim commonwealth, which spanned an area from Spain to India and came as close as Vienna.
ISIL is not going to hide in the mountains of Afghanistan. It chooses the "plains". It is well organised, with a mastery of social media. It does not play defense, it chooses offence. It does not suggest past grievances, it claims future appropriation.
The West bombs what is no longer bomb-able and this strategy looks almost pathetic, given the dichotomy which exists between an organized coalition and a mutant adversary. History does not repeat itself in the same ways. While there are similarities between past situations, when an "advanced" power falls victim to an enemy wrongly perceived as inferior, the comparison stops there. Former wars of liberation rested mostly on rational principles such as Marxism, anti-colonialism. Here the main factor is a religious fanatical strand which is able to sell death for an aftermath of virgins and pleasure. How sick can a creed be?
Instead of fighting the abstract, one has to consider going for the "jugular". Such a move cannot be done ex abrupto. A US diplomatic offensive is needed, mostly with the Sunni states and with the permanent members of the Security Council. Iran, Israel, Turkey must be part of the equation. So must Assad, the Palestinians and the non-states (by way of a third party). ISIL must be hit where it hurts most, in its territorial claim. The territory it covers needs to be taken away by all means. Its de facto capital must be pulled out from under its control, as Berlin was taken from Hitler. ISIL must be rolled back to the bunker of history, by all conceivable means. If informed and consulted, too many Arab states will rejoice and the disenfranchised left in our midst will choke on their own anger. I fully realize the complexity and also the backlash, but at times one needs action. Leave the soliloquy for the matinee audience.
This not about regime change or about a search for what is "not", as was the case in Iraq or to a lesser extent in Libya. This is about giving the fatal blow. This needs fast consultation with the Arab League, the OAU, NATO, revised rules of engagement, and has to end in the destruction of Raqqah (in Syria) as a first step. Symbols legitimate, their destruction hastens the end.
The discussion in the United States lacks direction. The "left" injects gun control, while the right--in the first place the Evangelicals--tries to import other issues such as abortion, climate change, the overall right to bare arms, immigration, into the debate. The current times require clarity of purpose, not some anti-intellectual confusion. The timid hesitations at the top create an opening for grievances and innuendos which only debilitate the argument.
The President was supposed to make a transformational entree in the conversation. His address to the nation on December 6 left everybody confused. He spent more time talking about the "good" Muslims (most are) than about the heart of the matter. The strategy of the Administration remains unchanged, while proven ineffective. The broad-brush therapy, wherein gun control (a separate priority) is smuggled into a larger issue, is counter-productive. At the end of the day, the Oval Office speech fell flat. The strategy (?) remains the same, the worries unattended, the priorities "on sick leave". The Americans were served the old professorial abstract Obama remedy, analytical to a point, ineffectual as can be the case. They hoped for a "reboot". What they got was the same old dish, warmed-up for the occasion. The President convinced few and disappointed most. ISIL had a good night!
The violence waged by Islamic Jihadists has no boundaries. It becomes more difficult by the hour to differentiate between good--if there is room for such a thing in a demented storyline--and bad Islam. First, it is becoming absurd to try to dislodge the better parts of the Koran from the bad ones. Secondly, too many Imans talk more often as the heirs of the heinous than as the interpreters of what might still be worth rescuing. Muslim worshippers can be brainwashed rather than enlightened. Third, the silence or absence of indisputable condemnation of unspeakable mayhem is "scandalous". Muslims are too often shy to recognize the evil in their midst. As a result, the good ones (the majority) are taken hostage by the radical ones.
The West finds itself in a Gordian situation. It would prefer to avoid any sort of profiling. Intelligence is called upon but it does not always work and the sleeper cells multiply in a society which rests on pluralism and diversity. The courtship of the enemy with death is alien to a Western mindset which is bewildered by the rising nihilism.
The "caliphate" gave ISIL an added raison d'etre. Contrary to Al Quaeda, ISIL has recreated the myth of a global caliphate and was also able to consolidate a land grab in Syria and Iraq. The two should not be confused. Territory belongs to the praxis/logistics while the caliphate appeals to history/logos. One is a concrete basis for commerce (?), regrouping, training, services, marriage bureau (yes); the other is a claim to the former Muslim commonwealth, which spanned an area from Spain to India and came as close as Vienna.
ISIL is not going to hide in the mountains of Afghanistan. It chooses the "plains". It is well organised, with a mastery of social media. It does not play defense, it chooses offence. It does not suggest past grievances, it claims future appropriation.
The West bombs what is no longer bomb-able and this strategy looks almost pathetic, given the dichotomy which exists between an organized coalition and a mutant adversary. History does not repeat itself in the same ways. While there are similarities between past situations, when an "advanced" power falls victim to an enemy wrongly perceived as inferior, the comparison stops there. Former wars of liberation rested mostly on rational principles such as Marxism, anti-colonialism. Here the main factor is a religious fanatical strand which is able to sell death for an aftermath of virgins and pleasure. How sick can a creed be?
Instead of fighting the abstract, one has to consider going for the "jugular". Such a move cannot be done ex abrupto. A US diplomatic offensive is needed, mostly with the Sunni states and with the permanent members of the Security Council. Iran, Israel, Turkey must be part of the equation. So must Assad, the Palestinians and the non-states (by way of a third party). ISIL must be hit where it hurts most, in its territorial claim. The territory it covers needs to be taken away by all means. Its de facto capital must be pulled out from under its control, as Berlin was taken from Hitler. ISIL must be rolled back to the bunker of history, by all conceivable means. If informed and consulted, too many Arab states will rejoice and the disenfranchised left in our midst will choke on their own anger. I fully realize the complexity and also the backlash, but at times one needs action. Leave the soliloquy for the matinee audience.
This not about regime change or about a search for what is "not", as was the case in Iraq or to a lesser extent in Libya. This is about giving the fatal blow. This needs fast consultation with the Arab League, the OAU, NATO, revised rules of engagement, and has to end in the destruction of Raqqah (in Syria) as a first step. Symbols legitimate, their destruction hastens the end.
The discussion in the United States lacks direction. The "left" injects gun control, while the right--in the first place the Evangelicals--tries to import other issues such as abortion, climate change, the overall right to bare arms, immigration, into the debate. The current times require clarity of purpose, not some anti-intellectual confusion. The timid hesitations at the top create an opening for grievances and innuendos which only debilitate the argument.
The President was supposed to make a transformational entree in the conversation. His address to the nation on December 6 left everybody confused. He spent more time talking about the "good" Muslims (most are) than about the heart of the matter. The strategy of the Administration remains unchanged, while proven ineffective. The broad-brush therapy, wherein gun control (a separate priority) is smuggled into a larger issue, is counter-productive. At the end of the day, the Oval Office speech fell flat. The strategy (?) remains the same, the worries unattended, the priorities "on sick leave". The Americans were served the old professorial abstract Obama remedy, analytical to a point, ineffectual as can be the case. They hoped for a "reboot". What they got was the same old dish, warmed-up for the occasion. The President convinced few and disappointed most. ISIL had a good night!
Thursday, December 3, 2015
SAN BERNARDINO MASS SHOOTINGS
The photos which were published on the occasion of the President's youngest daughter's 14th birthday show Obama as a proud father, self-secure, happy. Obviously he is a great family man.
His comments regarding the San Bernardino shootings show another Obama, a man who appears to be unable to leave behind some form of "holding pattern". At this early stage of the FBI inquiry caution is required, of course. Nevertheless, the linguistic contortions of the President, who remains unwilling to call things by their name or to keep issues separate, are becoming a liability. He leaves both the Americans "word shocked" and foreign leaders at a loss. In Heidegger's words he is more sollen than sein. His perceived aloofness has created a credibility gap. Foes and friends alike find themselves in a remake of "Delphy sur Potomac".
The Administration makes links where they are not warranted, creates expectations that stay empty, and takes half-measures which are unconvincing. From climate change to Syria, from terrorism to Iran, policies look shaky, in part because the President chooses to remain stubbornly hostage to his former commitments. Today's problems will not be solved by yesterday's policies. The man of "change" risks being seen as the ultimate immobiliser.
America looks stuck in an approximated mood. The Fed, the Pentagon, State, are perceived as being frozen in some form of "airplane mode". Everything in the world seems to happen despite the United States, rather than because of them. This gives rise to a frustration, especially among Republicans. Unfortunately, they react in the worst possible fashion, making a further right-turn which pushes them into a religious/populist/reactionary frenzy. The Democrats resort to their spending/regulatory habits, with disregard (for now) for some form of financial discipline.
When America does not lead, understudies step in. This seldom benefits the quality of the play.
His comments regarding the San Bernardino shootings show another Obama, a man who appears to be unable to leave behind some form of "holding pattern". At this early stage of the FBI inquiry caution is required, of course. Nevertheless, the linguistic contortions of the President, who remains unwilling to call things by their name or to keep issues separate, are becoming a liability. He leaves both the Americans "word shocked" and foreign leaders at a loss. In Heidegger's words he is more sollen than sein. His perceived aloofness has created a credibility gap. Foes and friends alike find themselves in a remake of "Delphy sur Potomac".
The Administration makes links where they are not warranted, creates expectations that stay empty, and takes half-measures which are unconvincing. From climate change to Syria, from terrorism to Iran, policies look shaky, in part because the President chooses to remain stubbornly hostage to his former commitments. Today's problems will not be solved by yesterday's policies. The man of "change" risks being seen as the ultimate immobiliser.
America looks stuck in an approximated mood. The Fed, the Pentagon, State, are perceived as being frozen in some form of "airplane mode". Everything in the world seems to happen despite the United States, rather than because of them. This gives rise to a frustration, especially among Republicans. Unfortunately, they react in the worst possible fashion, making a further right-turn which pushes them into a religious/populist/reactionary frenzy. The Democrats resort to their spending/regulatory habits, with disregard (for now) for some form of financial discipline.
When America does not lead, understudies step in. This seldom benefits the quality of the play.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
THALASSO ROYAL.
Le roi et la reine des Belges etaient en France quand Bruxelles etait sous haute surveillance.
Et alors ?
Neanmoins les questions sont legitimes, bien que les intentions soient au dessus de tout soupcon.
On est en droit de s'interroger sur la qualite de "l'entourage", qui est suppose conseiller le roi. Le capitaine du navire est suppose rester a bord en temps d'incertitude.
Les temps du "twitter" accordent au moindre geste ou pas, qui pourraient apparaitre inopportuns, une importance qu'ils ne meritent pas. Autant eviter les pieges !
Et alors ?
Neanmoins les questions sont legitimes, bien que les intentions soient au dessus de tout soupcon.
On est en droit de s'interroger sur la qualite de "l'entourage", qui est suppose conseiller le roi. Le capitaine du navire est suppose rester a bord en temps d'incertitude.
Les temps du "twitter" accordent au moindre geste ou pas, qui pourraient apparaitre inopportuns, une importance qu'ils ne meritent pas. Autant eviter les pieges !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)