Egypt and the Arab chessboard

The egyptian upheaval  is far from over. It continues to set in motion reactions inside and events all over the Arab world.

The media continue speak too often  about the Arab world as if it were a coherent, organized “ensemble” of nations. Identical causes are also supposed to lead to identical effects. This superficial overview does not take into account the many structural differences which exist in the Arab world.  Suffice to scrutinize the workings of the Arab League which is a lame duck since the day of its creation. The almost identical mantle of authoritarian regimes does not cover the same reality. Likewise the hidden antagonisms between Arab states surface as soon as the binding element of religion disappears. The Mecca link or the anti-Israel paranoia cannot compensate for the tensions which prevail between Sunni and Shia  power or between Wahhabism and Jihadism.  It is hard to find an Egyptian who likes Morocco, or to perceive a common denominator between the necrophiliac leader in Libya and the, for the time being, rather enlightened system in Turkey. The fight over water will even further oppose brother against brother. The Gulf States prefer the allure of Canary Wharf to the voice of the messenger of Jihad.

 The Egyptian outcome is the result of a combination of multiple factors that are for their major part indigenous. We have only seen Act 1 by the way and the social, political, econnomic  aftershocks  remain unpredictable. The  possible trouble in Yemen, Jordan, Libya  etc. might have related causes but they might activate different effects.  In Egypt, the absence of a succession or identification with an agreed alternative leadership, made room for the professionalism of  the armed forces. The vacuum could be avoided. For how  long ? In the short term the power elites remain the same. So are the problems.

This does in no way diminish the importance of what  happened , but the outcome remains  ideologically more hybrid than coherent. The wave which sent Mubarak packing has no defined agenda.  There is no personality like Nelson Mandela or Lech Walesa  to galvanize the Egyptians inside and the Arabs outside. The strength of the change in Cairo is also its weakness. The street believes it got the upper hand but the Establishment remains, for now at least, at the helm. It is too early to predict the outcome of what might be a radical change for the better or an amended continuation of the same. The military are a state within the state . The recent cautious American embrace for democracy in Egypt could very well lead the military to take measures which look ”all right” on the surface but which might be just “placebos”, set in motion to avoid the repeat of scenarios like the ones we have seen in Gaza or Lebanon. Free elections gave – for the West and Arab leaders- undesirable results.  It is true that in Egypt a memory still survives of a pluralistic, multi-party society. The Muslim Brothers might not be as formidable as some predict. Still they constitute an organized force, rooted in history which could  take advantage of  opportunities that might appear once the euphoria recedes.

Nevertheless the contagion in Arab states is unlikely. The Iranian joker will certainly attempt to take  advantage of the situation, twisting events, attempting to  give the Egyptian change an  Islamic content, which it did not have. Until the elections the interim in Egypt might also set in motion uncertainties  which could  allow a spontaneous movement to be hijacked for a more perverse cause.  Mahmoud  Ahmadinejad will apply any pressure so that the Egyptian army (too close to the USA) or some Egyptian Kerensky might not get the opportunity to attempt to play the role of peacemaker with the civil society .On the other hand, the Egyptian Military might also change course and cling on to power. Other Arab states meanwhile will certainly initiate real or half-baked reforms to avoid at any cost a copycat  scenario.

It is clear that the West has largely misinterpreted the signals and lost consensual oversight of the events. The “intelligence” which still plays old cold war games was yet again faulty. The successive policy   adjustments  might come home to roost . They were as totally unconvincing in Egypt as they were in Tunisia. The Americans and the French were equally taken by surprise and were obliged to continuously calibrate their position, post facto. It is to be expected  that  the west might have to make some difficult choices. Incidents and turmoil will erupt elsewhere and it would be ironic that the USA  for example would back freedom “a la carte” and not as a moral obligation.  It is wiser to stay abreast of an evolution rather than to be a reluctant follower.  One has to follow a double track : dialogue with traditional US allies-preventive, discreet diplomacy- and encouragement of democratic evolution -creative policy-.All this will require tact and modulation. Iran is not the United Arab Republics, Morocco is not Algeria. All those countries are not  equal  , indifferent  pieces of a larger puzzle.  They  present us with specific challenges which in turn require tailor-made interaction both with the (friendly) power structure and with the legitimate demands of the people. Iran is a case sui generis because it doesn’t confront the West with a choice. The Ayatollahs must  go. The nuclear doomsday ambition has to be stopped.

 In the future, on condition that the level of overall security might have risen, a day might come when Israel might consequently be asked to lay its cards on the table.

Only the resolution of the Palestinian question is the “ way out” if the West wants to avoid undesirable results becoming  the offspring of desirable events.  A Palestinian state will deprive the extremists of the flame to ignite or of the message to enflame. The democracy in the present   Arab confusion can only become reality   if   it is also experienced as  a simultaneous equation for the making of a Palestinian state. This will in turn allow Arab states to live in the realm of diversity and not in the fantasy of some   Caliphat   which would  turn  the clock backwards  again.

The China Shadow boxer

In 1703 Lord Macartney was sent on an official mission to China. The purpose was to open the Middle Kingdom to trade  and to lure the Chinese with the latest technological “ know  how “ originated in the British Empire. The outcome of this first tentative approach  was a total failure. The Emperor Qianlong showed an almost insulting disinterest for the British and their ware.

A second attempt by Lord Armherst in 1816 led to the opium war, after the British Envoy received an even frostier reception.

Today similar attempts would have the opposite effect. The wares would be scrutinized in detail, copied, while the visitors would be anesthesied  by endless speeches, recriminations and banquets, which the Chinese  like to use to tire their guests. The WTO would have its hands full,attempting to penalize the infractions against intellectual property rules.

China is a problematic country. It is often seen as a homogeneous  land mass , inhabited  by Han Chinese , with little consideration for the Mongolian, Hui , Uigur , Kazakh and other various minorities.  Besides, the bright lights of coastal China hide a Hinterland where    economical  , environmental, political and religious problems abound. Tibet is a “sui generis” case which requires   a separate study , given the complexities which mark China’s sovereignty claim.

The Chinese leadership   remains basically an inward looking system which is obsessed by its staying power. The interest in the outside world is mostly opportunistic  , often neo- colonialistic  in its exploitative embrace. Foreign policy in the far abroad is amoral, practical and colorblind. Only the near abroad counts and there lies the lure of the dragon. It plays offended   by the “cordon sanitaire” which the Americans have conceived to contain its ambitions in the Pacific, the Yellow sea or the South China sea.  It is currently   elaborating its own” blue sea policy “ to counter this encirclement paranoia. Likewise it mobilizes its population in times of crisis, playing on the undercurrent of nationalism and historical hurt.

China does not want to get too involved in external “adventures”  ,where  the Americans  spend their money and  loose lives with no dividend in sight. They  use their ”soft power” to entice countries to sell them raw materials and energy on the cheap, but they are not inclined to indulge in esoteric nation building or the spread of democracy.

The close abroad (North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet ,S.E .Asia) becomes  a “chasse gardee” where any intrusion, primary from the USA, is seen as a potential hostile posturing. There the “motherland”  shows  its teeth.

The games Beijing plays in monetary and trade matters are unorthodox. It is surprising that this   scourge continues unabated.

It would be unfair not to mention the more positive aspects which derive  from  Deng Xiaoping’s ambitions. In the second world’s economy there is a slow bottom up increase in legal and political transparency. Citizens have already or can expect better standards of life and education. China expands its influence but doesn’t wage wars. It builds up its armed forces,but why should it be deprived of having an air carrier, like the French or the British have ?

 The Chinese have a DNA which sets them apart from Western historical models. They have adopted a Western Marxist theory but the latter is slowly retroceding  its intellectual territory to  classical Confucianism which fits the regime.

The Chinese are delighted to see the post Bretton  Woods  world order crumble and make room for “Asian values” or the empty  “Harmonious Society” slogan. The universal model which is so important for the advocacy of human rights, climate change etc. is slowly retreating in favour of ad hoc , BRIC type of formations ,debilitating a consensual world governance.

We have to learn to live with the world as it is. Fukuyama’s former ideas were already antiquated before the ink was dry. China will certainly evolve and when needed concede but it will never forget the past humiliations of the treaty ports ,unequal  treaties , the Boxer Protocol  or the looting of the Yuan Ming Yuan. Loss of face is for the Chinese loss of Self.

 In the collective memory of the Han Chinese  ,the leadership has a firewall which can be activated at any given time. China is a world player but it has turned its back to the internationalism from the Bandung days. This player is a reluctant one who puts self interest above Utopia. Left on its own devices it might concur, pressured it might bite.

The West and its allies in Asia should   learn from Lord Macartney  who advanced that nothing was more erroneous than to judge China by European conceptions. I am fully aware that this can also be applied to other countries, the difference being that  there is no” other”  for China  .We will have to compose with this partner/competitor who will never play by our rules, and why should  he ? We were the architects of a world structure that mainly served our own interests. Bygones are bygones. Policy rooted in nostalgia is D.O.A. It is time to redistribute responsibilities and concepts if we don’t want to end up in the Chapter of missed opportunities. Card games have to go on, even with a cheater in our midst. This  might even boost some creativity in  Western thinking, which is cruelly lacking lately.

Afghanistan: no end in sight.

The Kutuzov curse
 
The Americans and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) Iforces] are fighting a formidable war in Afghanistan, but there is no end or staying power in sight. One ends up questioning why so many lives have been lost, so much money spent, such a quantity of technology applied, to such little avail.
What comes to mind is the tactic that the Russian Generals Kutuzov and Bagration used to lure Napoleon into an ever-expanding spider web, which encouraged the French to overreach. The Taliban follow a similar path, obliging the American and  ISAF forces to adjust to enemy tactics rather than impose their strategy on an elusive enemy.
The Peruvian Nobel Laureate for Literature, Mario Vargas Llosa, not known for being pro-American, now calls Islamic fundamentalism the definitive “enemy”.
 It has been pointed out that this faceless, borderless, metamorphic enemy which pursues a strategy of metastasis worldwide is often immune to “traditional “warfare. In Afghanistan, the US and  ISAF have no alternative but to rely upon a “hit and run” model, supported by high- tech weaponry.  However, advanced technology is no match for a psychological situation where the other camp is addicted to a culture of death.
There is a growing clash at all levels (established government, Afghans, Taliban) between a tribal society, ruled by traditional rules and allegiances and a centralized, rational intervention force.
The Taliban did not “deliver” Osama Bin Laden because the rules of “giving shelter” that apply in that cultural model do not allow such a transgression. There were other motives as well, certainly, but one should not underestimate the “firewall” aspect of ingrained tribal customs.
Is this war “winnable”?  Maybe, but then what? Fundamental Islamism is a fifth column which can no longer be confined to a geographic area. Should we envisage a formula of permanent dispersed warfare that would distract us from our own priorities?
Under the current strategy we will never be able to evict this perverse Hydra from the face of the earth. We know that the ”beast” still feeds mostly in the elusive Bermuda triangle of Afghanistan/Pakistan/India.
 Afghanistan does not represent a homogeneous “ensemble.” Pashtuns, Tajiks, and Uzbeks divide Afghanistan, rather than uniting it, while Pakistan becomes an unreliable ally by the minute .THe US have there a geopolitical interest which is far more important than Afghanistan “an und fur Sich”.
India is a friendly democracy which fears for its own priorities in the region and will not accept living under the cloud of failed states (one nuclear) on its northern border.
Meanwhile China, Russia and the Caucasus look on or  give reluctant minimalist logistic  support to the Americans, without sharing the burden and  cash[ing] in [on] for their lip service.
I  share the belief that the United States has no real vested strategic interest in [the region] Afghanistan, other than to fight terrorism through other means  such as “intelligence” and micro interventions (drones, special forces).
Once the US troops leave, one might expect a wave of political Darwinism, with political, ideological and religious opponents fighting it out amongst themselves in the absence of the “Western Satan.”
The outcome will largely condition [our] policy in the future. [We].The lesson learned from the Iraq debacle is that the enemy you know can be more desirable than an alternative which lurks in the shadow. Besides, those costly interventions “a la carte” are amoral, since other similar situations in broken states, such as Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe, continue to deteriorate in a climate where indifference is fed by greed.
After Saddam, we got an emboldened Iran, its geopolitical power multiplied by two with the weakening of its rival, Iraq. Such miscalculations must be avoided at all cost in the future. The strategy should be to isolate, and only intervene[ in last instance,] with planned timing, economy of means, international support and attention to a timely “finish” (as was the case with the first Iraq war).
This form of containment is not passive. Humanitarian aid, education, and development of infrastructure are goals that are better pursued by the UN, which is not tainted by the burden of an occupant reputation. The US has its own priorities both at home and as  the leader of a multi-polar world.
Overstaying in Kabul is not in America’s interest. Despite America’s [this country’s]  many negatives (a damaged K-12 educational system, an economic model that is penalizing the middle class, to name just two), these are offset by a record number of Nobel Prize winners and creative entrepreneurs. America continues to attract minds. It should pay more attention to winning hearts.
Some commentators predict the end of American supremacy. Newly emerging countries have made extraordinary strides which generate disruptive innovations. China, first of the league, creates uneasiness not only in the West but also amongst its fellow dragons. Let us not forget that while some might dislike the USA, they still want to emulate them, whereas the Chinese are looked upon with envy but there is no love left for Beijing’s “pull model”.
 Meanwhile Beijing is all too happy to see the Americans do the dirty work in Afghanistan, which fits into their own handling of the Muslim minorities in Western China .
 The same goes for the Russian Federation, which faces an Islamic insurgence both at home and in Chechnya, Dagestan and Tajikistan. Moscow wants to stay clear of another engagement in Afghanistan but is fearful of an American debacle. Its support for the Americans comes more from self interest than genuine solidarity.
The added value of the American way of life should never be endangered, as it is today, by following a policy which is more an imposition than a choice. The US has friends, but the US and its [western] allies should not lose oversight of their fundamental interests, which are not rooted in the graveyard of Empires.

The current political crisis in Belgium

The Belgian Agony

Belgium is no longer a failed State. It has entered a  new stage ,a coma which can last for years. Meanwhile what is left of the state   can hardly pay   attention to macro- priorities worldwide.  No overhaul has worked .  Politicians are exhausted while the verdict of the public opinion   ranges from   indifference , to disgust or rage.  Soon a diplomatic and financial “reality – check” might  lead to the conclusion that a modern state , which ranked amongst the most  developed  ,is near its end (in its current form ).

For years Belgium has ignored the structural consequences of globalization , while  becoming  self- obsessed  with its own small-town problems. Turning its back to statesmenship  it embraced  instead the claims of local necessity. Larger unavoidable challenges were   handed over to individuals for whom the next street was the “abroad”. Simultaneously   the country  was  slaughtered by an overdose of infrastructure which had more in common with “porc” than  economic  necessity. The governance became a Babel of competing lilliputian centers of power. The country sank under the weight of the monstruous metastasis which became the” Belgian way”: the solution to every problem resided in the multiplication of its guardians.

Today we  see  how the corpse is  no longer able to absorb and sustain this misguided therapy . The new global necessities, the large intellectual debates which are clouding the future like a gigantic sandstorm  bypass a country which lives barricaded in permanent denial and retro-introspection, oblivious  of the new millennium.

Is there an outcome ? Talking about it under the present circumstances, highlights the problem rather than creating conditions for a sound solution. In the absence of any efficiency  consideration  , the future looks  messy. Belgium is no Tchecoslovakia which opted for a clean divorce. Neither is it Yougoslavia  which  mobilized the attention of the political medics worldwide. Belgium stands, or better,  lies alone , without visitors or doctors. Its antiquated illness does not respond to a contemporary therapy. Soon  it might even disappear from the pages of the Economist.

 One should no longer exclude that Nato or the European Union will sooner or later prefer an alternative to being obliged to function in a self- imposed quarantine ,trying to stay afloat  in this sinking ship. The EU should be spared the contagion of this dysfunctional environment.

The main problem is that there are no takers. The two major partners have no suitors and the capital has sold its soul  to  real estate, rather than bother about quality of life, environmental priorities or immigration. Brussels is too often a perfect example of  “non savoir-faire” and of perverse gerrymandering at all levels. In the absence of takers and therapy, Europe’s “invalid” seems to be doomed to fall victim to its self inflicted necrosis.

 One  can no longer ignore a scenario wherein  Belgium dissolves itself in the EU . The consequential absurdity might be that three ” rotten successor “states  (if one counts Brussels) might end up having to do what they  stubbornly refused , bail each other out.

Paradoxically  Belgium  will look some day like a Paradise lost.

Egypt 01 01 11:The riddle of the Sphinx

The RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX

The current events in Egypt are creating a quagmire for the United States. They find  themselves  hostage to contradictory readings of the situation.  On one hand they certainly would prefer Mubarak to leave the scene, while being unable to push him off the cliff (as they did with the Shah), on the other hand, time is running out for an uprising that is still a composite of different discontents. If not supported in unambiguous terms, it will surely in no time be hijacked by a more extreme fringe of the  opposition. The foreseeable  regional consequences of such a drastic transformational twist give rise to alarm.

The west is stuck in a triangulation exercise which might be lethal and alienate the street which has been united against Mubarak, rather than being  driven by a single  ideology.

What is at stake is enormous, covering oil supply ,the peace process in the Middle East, the ownership of the canal and, last but not least, the interplay of regional powers such as Iran, Saudi Arabia or the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. The silence of Israel is deafening. The clumsy analysis that comes out of Washington is totally unconvincing. The American answer ignores the Egyptian clamor (“Away with Mubarak”) and resorts to a tangential tactic (democracy), hence ignoring the cause and interjecting the effect. One cannot follow two opposite strategies without blurring the good with the undesirable.

The Egyptian armed forces are “made in USA” and for the time being they stick to keeping their distance. If this can last or if , on the contrary, engagement with or against the uprising are in the cards remain an unanswered riddle. The President, new Vice President and Prime Minister all come from the army ranks. Supposed  loyalty is to be handled with care and can become a dangerous bet. It is better to confront the short pain, avoid compromising  ideological credibility in the region, than to continue  giving a lukewarm support to an unreliable joker. The longer the wait, the more contagious the crisis might become. Already the containment looks porous. Jordan , Yemen, Lebanon are in the eye of the storm. Egypt’s turmoil might awaken the Sudanese conundrum.

I fully realize that it might look as unfair to burden the USA again with yet a new supplementary  problem, while the Europeans, the Russians, Chinese and other Arab States  take refuge in platonic banalities.  The fact is that Egypt is linked to ”cynical “ US  interests , more than any other country maybe. Washington is partially to blame for its past unconditional support of a regime that was internationally helpful but internally corrupt and rotten to the core.

The United States should distance itself from ownership of this unfolding crisis by means of fast international deliberation and commitment to universal human rights, before others take the lead and divert the events in a direction that can be catastrophic. Mubarak must be pushed to the exit in order to avoid  other “bouncers”, with a different agenda, taking on the job, clearing  the place, and replacing democracy with theology.

The Shiites don’t need a Sunni twin, neither should we stay idle if the Suez Canal were to become  a transit for Islamism rather than for trade.

We are running against time, while others are ready to run against the future. We must support the original aims  if we do not want this consensual revolution to be deprived of its primary message. The   latter is in urgent need of breathing space to stay alive.  Only Mubarak’s immediate demise might give it still room to remain what it was meant to be.

Traces

Traces est un essai qui essaie a la fois de faire un constat personnel et de suggerer une approche du monde globalise tel que nous sommes obliger a l'affronter en 2010. Il s'agit moins d'affirmations que de suggestions. Celles-ci trouvent leur modeste legitimite a travers une serie d'experiences personnelles et donc sujettes a reexamen et critiques.

Traces is an essay which attempts to come to terms with experiences lived and which suggests an approach of this globalized world we inherite in 2010. The goal is less one of affirmation than of suggestion. The latter is rooted in personal experiences which are obviously open to critical reexamination.