LE PARADOXE BELGE

LE PARADOXE BELGE
La Belgique vit avec un gouvernement, dit d’affaires courantes. En moins d’un an de non- gouvernement le pays s’est en fait divise en deux republiques , legitimees par l’existence de la la monarchie. En attendant, Bruxelles s’internationalise et compense la deroute nationale par sa propre plus-value internationale.
Le gouvernement fantome gere plutôt bien les affaires, tandis que les regions s’occupent des pistes cyclables .J’exagere car les regions font souvent un travail remarquable. La negociation en vue de la formation d’un vrai gouvernement a déjà produit un miracle. Des politiciens du nord et du sud qui ne s’etaient jamais adresse la parole dans l’hemicycle se parlent. Les partis negocient comme s’ils avaient tout le temps devant eux. Certes les propos n’atteignent pas les hauteurs de la mondialisation mais on parle « sous », municipalites, football,financements,et j’en passe.Le Roi est tenu informe et l’Entourage invente des neologismes politiques qui font rever les Academiciens du Quai Conti.
En attendant le pays ne se porte pas plus mal. La discipline budgettaire engendre quelques economies et comme l’intendance est dans le congelateur, cela permet au gouverrnement d’attacher plus d’importance aux affaires exterieures, a la crise financiere mondiale ou aux affaires europeennes (la Presidence belge de l’UE a fait un parcours remarque).Le Premier Ministre ,le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, le Ministre des Finances ont trouve leur voix Ce qui prouve que Sainte Helene n’a pas que des defauts.
Tout cela est déjà devenu routine mais celle-ci court le risque d’etre condamnee a terme. D’abord Il n’y a pas de precedent historique au cas belge Le demantelement de la Yougoslavie,le divorce Slovaquie/Tchequie, les problemes de devolution en Catalogne ou en Ecosse ne peuvent servir d’exemple. En Belgique, Bruxelles, pont des soupirs mais surtout atout, commence a echapper au contrôle Belgo-belge ,accelerant son internationalisation. Vouloir greffer sur Bruxelles,mal-aimee et defiguree, des considerations de sous-prefecture la prive de sa raison d’etre. Or celle-ci depasse carcans et frontieres. Les negociateurs sont souvent des personnalites qui semblent impermeables au discours international et indifferents par rapport a l’image qu’ils projettent. Leurs gestes trahissent un complexe d’inferiorite qui alimente a son tour un complexe de superiorite –tout aussi pervers- chez les observateurs qui preferent les commentaires acerbes de la presse internationale aux necrologies locales. En realite on se trouve quelque part dans une situation de lutte des classes new look. Le regional et l’international finissent par mobiliser chacun pour soi une frange de populisme d’une part et un reflexe de distanciation intello d’autre part. La dispute devient meme vestimentaire. Cote debraille oppose au cote cravate. C’est desolant car les imbeciles abondent et se trouvent partout.La cravate ne fait pas l’homme.
Comment sortir de l’impasse ? Ce qui fait defaut c’est justement la volonte partagee de tourner la page et de se mettre d’accord atour d’un projet , qui de toute facon, fera mal partout, et ne sera pas forcement cartesien. L’on pourrait considerer d’ elargir les competences des regions et decider la formation d’un mini gouvernement central charge des affaires etrangeres, finances, defense, justice et quelques portefeuilles porteurs d’avenir. Le premier Ministre pourrait etre designe d’apres une formule de rotation, avec un mandat d’un an. La Fonction de la monarchie deviendrait prioritairement representative . Je constate qu’a travers toute cette crise seule la personne du Roi est sortie aggrandie dans ce spectacle souvent burlesque et franchement indigne. Comme il faudra une nouvelle fois lacher du lest du cote du droit du sol il faut privilegier le collectif. La rotation favorise cela, par le passage du temoin au suivant. Cela « mouillera » les partis et peut favoriser davantage de coherence et de continuite.
La Belgique est une creation. Devenons creatifs ! Il ne sert a rien de vouloir camper sur des positions intenables. Il faut au contraire affronter les saboteurs de tout arrangement raisonnable sur le terrain de leurs propres faiblesses et de leur alienation dans la globalisation. L’anachronique resiste mal a la modernite. Il faut l’isoler comme un virus et l’attaquer ou il ne s’y attend pas, le rendant sans rapport avec la matiere sous diccussion. Ce n’est pas la regionalisation ,au demeurant mouvement de progres,qui est en jeu ici. Ce qui jette le doute sur ce qui se passe dans les coulisses de la formation ce sont des comportements cavaliers et une tactique de la lenteur malintentionnee . Les innovateurs doivent confronter des « filibusters » continus, de part et d’autre d’ailleurs. Ils pourraient etre tentes de jeter l’eponge.
Si,dans ces conditions, l’on veut l’eclatement du pays, qu’on se le dise et que l’on fasse le menage des pots casses. J’entrevois des jours heureux.

The US Secretary of Defense Gates in Brussels

Secretary of Defense Gates in Brussels
The outgoing American Secretary of Defense made his final official presentation in Brussels last week. He is, rightly so, liked, respected and considered to have been one of the most outstanding American secretaries of defense.
Still, his intervention raises more questions than answers. His overall statement that NATO risks becoming irrelevant is correct. His implicit criticism of the failures of the common European defense policy is warranted. When the Berlin Wall collapsed, so did, to a large extent, the European will to fight in the absence of a defined, geographically close, identified military threat. The Cold War days were, paradoxically maybe, the good old times when the Alliance was united against a common “enemy”. The pre-globalization world was arithmetically over-simplified into West, East and what was then considered the Third World, a “nuisance” that could nevertheless be of localized troublemaker in particular situations.
NATO is a pact which is geographically defined. Lately, its workings have started to look obsolete or ritualized. The Europeans no longer directly feel the need for an American umbrella and have become “nonchalant” with regard to their obligations and burden-sharing. Meanwhile, by the way, the EU finds itself in a similar, temporary, overall mess. Given the situation in the Middle East - their backyard - they had better think fast about what to do with Turkey, whose strategic importance in the region grows daily.
NATO was not created to deal with a theatre other than in Eastern Europe or in the range of Article 5. Better than let it become a bygone, like the former CENTO (the Baghdad pact) a fresh look is required. Actors have to get the (American) script before agreeing on the scenario. Gates’ criticism about the reluctance of NATO members to get involved in Libya is understandable, but Libya is not NATO’s playground. On the other hand, the common European defense policy shows daily what a sham it still is. The Arab world looks more and more like a hopeless cause where ”a la carte” interventions appear misguided, devoid of any sort of endgame (“the blind leading the blind”). Two short-term questions remain unanswered. How can this latest free-for-all (the French first shot) be readjusted under a NATO umbrella which does not sit well in what many consider not to be its zone of influence (this is not Kosovo)? Besides, how to defend a doctrine of humanitarian consideration which picks the worthy of help in an endless stream of seekers? Is Muammar Qaddafi worse than Bashar Assad, Ali Abdullah Saleh or Mahmood Ahmedinadjad ?
Indeed the EU, as such, should get more involved in what is de facto both its zone of influence and the source of many of its domestic problems (immigration). Accordingly the EU should actively consider if it wants Turkey to be a cooperating stop-valve or, on the contrary, continue to resort to delaying tactics and relegate it to the adhesion waiting-room, while Ankara is a full-fledged NATO member whose turn eastwards might have serious consequences.
Secretary Gates followed in the steps of some his fellow non-European predecessors who suggested the way, which the Europeans were reluctant to take on themselves. Rightly so, he indicated how much the world has changed since 9/11 and how unprepared we are in both political and military terms to confront the new realities, wherein the West risks losing control of its own monetary, financial, political and strategic compass. This results from a denial or misinterpretation of a world in tatters, of “irregular” enemies, of cyber-pirates and of non-states. NATO, in its current configuration, is also not fully prepared to face this hybrid new reality. It has to reform its mandate, review its terms of engagement and take into consideration a linkage with new countries (Russia, Israel, inter alia). This will be all the more difficult because it will have to be done by consensus.
When the American Secretary of Defense argues that Afghanistan is an essential element to US security interests, I tend to disagree. I am in favor of a disengagement of American troops “hic et nunc”. The result will be that Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Baluchs and other tribes will return to their former ”modus vivendi”. The pathetic efforts of NGOs aiming to bring some rationality to this madness leads to nothing. Meanwhile Karzai and Co. harvest the poppies that kill and that have nothing in common, alas, with “the poppies which grow in Flanders fields”. The US has no alternative but to continue dealing with Pakistan, the subcontinent Janus-faced player, more for reasons of control than trust. Afghanistan can become the black hole again, where some other power, after so many, can lose its face (the Chinese?), and, more important , the lives of men and women in arms. Arguments about nation-building, civil society, women’s rights, anti-corruption, look mundane compared to the money spent, the lives lost, the unconvincing arguments repeated over and over. Besides, the war started because the Taliban refused to “deliver” Osama Bin Laden to the US. The latter having taken care of this poisonous relic should return the Afghan wasteland to the Taliban who might even resort to their tribal arsenal to make some half-baked peace deal which could be legitimized by a Loya Yirga.
Iraq was useless and will be proven counter-productive. Afghanistan is becoming regionally infectious. America and Europe have enormous financial problems. Wars can be just. When they become a perverse misfeasance they must be stopped.
Meanwhile, NATO should review its workings, scope and reach. In the absence of a common identifiable treat it needs to return to its original, more metaphysical roots and shared values which seem to have evaporated after it lost its nemesis and was enlarged. This is almost a repeat of what is happening to the EU: “enlarge till you choke”. The future battles will not follow Bismarckian principles. They are going to be vicious, hybrid and dispersed. Current strategies will have to be reviewed accordingly. In the future, a commonly accepted universal set of values risks being hacked or contaminated by “bacterial” attacks which will try to undermine inbuilt defense mechanisms, if NATO or EU members were to decide to go their separate ways, when convenient. When the US does not lead, the allies tend to disband.
Secretary Gates had some deservedly hard words for the member states. Now we need a pep talk which underlines a commitment both to addressing together given situations and an Atlantic spirit, which gives too often the impression of being in a Spengler downward mode. The Atlantic commonwealth is more or less still homogeneous, while the Pacific galaxy is one of colliding powers which, unlike what happened in Europe, cannot find in themselves the moral strength to forgive past feuds and are suspicious of current divergent ambitions. Meanwhile, the Arab nightmare should be monitored from some distance. It takes without returning favors, it cheats without changing, it oppresses without second thought, it condones what is inacceptable. The time has come for the prayer mats to be just that, and not be diverted to serve as shrouds for the victims of a seemingly arbitrary barbarim.

Where is the Secretary of State ?

WHERE IS THE SECRETARY OF STATE ?

A minor orthodox Jewish newspaper has joined the ranks of the Chinese and Russian media who specialize in doctoring reality.  Hair dyed or not, the Chinese leaders are displaced on the chessboard like the puppets of the regime they are.  When Cairo was of the opinion that the Rais did not receive the coverage that was expected, the pre-revolution Egyptian press altered the photos to give him an equal place amongst the leaders, while in fact he was only present for reasons of courtesy. His propaganda machine would have gone to the extremes, putting him in Yalta, if necessary (with the dyed look, of course).

 For the incriminated paper, Hillary was probably deemed to create an overflow of testosterone amongst orthodox Jewish readers and she, together with a female attendant, was wiped-out of the photo of the Situation Room of the White House which became disreputable, given the presence of two women. History again made a U-turn to falsify facts in the Goebbels/Stalin tradition. That this was done in a Jewish paper is ironic, at least.

Like all present, Hillary would have continued to concentrate on the events surrounding the killing of Bin Laden, rather than being preoccupied with the priapic “angst” emanating from some ultra-orthodox obscure newspaper.  From Nietzsche to Christopher Hitchens, many have rejoiced in or elaborated on the death of God.  In Europe it looks indeed as if He left us with empty places of worship or some creepy ceremonies of the kind we just witnessed in Rome where the blood of Jean Paul II was serenaded in some gigantic Red Cross cult. Sometimes it looks as if the remaining religions, ascending (Islam) or delocalized (Christianity), have found refuge in the grotesque. They make it impossible for the non-believer to muster a minimum of respect for Allah’s butchers, Jewish censors or Christian necrophiles.

To return to the disappearance of the American Secretary of State from what is already an iconic document, one is entitled to be scandalized. It is sexist, anti-historic and in plain view a repulsive lie.  I doubt that Mrs. Clinton will lose sleep over Der Tzitung’s removal or consider how to extricate herself from this Jezebel moment. Nor is this rag representative of the Jewish press.

The manipulation through religion is the problem. Nevertheless, the proliferation of cults, sects, martyrs and yellers cannot hide the fact that the bathtub is running empty. Only Buddhism, which is not a religion “per se”, seems to be able to avoid the booby-traps of vulgarity.

One should not exaggerate the malpractice of a marginal paper. On the other hand, this fraudulent offspring of religion is an eloquent illustration of the amount of distortions that a dying breed might resort to in order to prolong the secular lie of Creationism. The latter is all too often the twin of a populist, anti- intellectual strand that attempts to weaken the more enlightened part of society.  The US administration will have its hands full to dismantle the Jihad/ersatz offshoot now that it has gotten rid of the main imposter. We are entitled to expect more from the media than another religious sham.

THE SYRIAN JOKER

THE SYRIAN JOKER

As if the Arab labyrinth was not complicated enough, Bashar Assad has added a poisonous card to the deck.  Muammar Quadafi is an unpredictable hybrid who represents a derailment of minor consequence if one chooses not to take into account the human toll.  Otherwise Libya is “oil cum nothing”.

Syria is another cup of tea.  The Assads kept the country under control, while creating havoc by proxy, via Hamas and Hizbullah.  The vacuum which followed the fall of Saddam Hussein has never been properly addressed. Syria has been able to reset its relationship with post Mubarak Egypt and an assertive Turkey.  Lebanon is becoming a client state and the rejectionist camp in the Middle East gravitates around Syria, which acts for Iran’s interests. As much as the Libyan situation verges on the primitive, the Syrian events present the West, and especially Israel, with a far more perverse conundrum.  It is hard to imagine a similar scenario as Libya because Syria, while poor in natural resources is a geopolitical “trap” in the region.  Any intervention might set in motion unforeseeable consequences and involve multiple actors.  A NATO intervention would be politically suicidal and is unrealistic given the fact that Turkey will not be the passive onlooker in what happens in its backyard.  Israel must be alarmed by further instability in a region where the question marks start to abound.  After the fall of Mubarak Saudi Arabia is left with a hangover and fear of the Shia tsunami.

The West--the USA in the first place--finds itself in a quasi-impossible situation. Its policy is a patchwork of many ineffective or semi-improvised short term gestures and actions that are incoherent. They reinforce their foes and alienate their allies; they are ill-timed, poorly executed and risk alienating  a whole region. Wisely, Israel has chosen to play the Cheshire Cat (“You must be mad, otherwise you wouldn’t have come here”). 

It is too easy to be critical and not to offer an alternative. Quasi-inaction in Egypt, non action in Tunisia, hesitation in Yemen, bombing in Libya , voyeurism in Syria don’t add up.  The situations differ but they all have potentially similar consequences. What unites them is that they are all threatening.  Rather than getting involved in these fratricide wars that run amok, it is better to let the Arabs deal with their own problems. In Turkey we have a unique player that is both in and out.  To encourage Ankara to intervene politically and to maximize its influence in what is its zone of influence might have a double advantage.  It is a carrot hard to refuse for a power that is on the rise.  It is a stick that cannot be ignored by countries that share a similar DNA.  Both the EU and NATO still have some credit in Turkey  and policies can to some extent still be co-managed without being tainted by what the Arabs consider as the Western “Wild West behavior” towards Arab  dysfunctions. The West must not delocalize its responsibilities but neither must it shoulder what is not in its own direct geopolitical interest. Countries have to share the burden and assume the consequences of globalization in a multi-polar world.  Europeans intervened militarily in the Balkans without asking others to come to rescue their “brethren”. The same applies here.  The Arabs have to be first in line to disentangle themselves from a historical shift that might harm them if it is not timely controlled.  Meanwhile diplomacy must be set in overdrive so that Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan receive the assurance that the “Shah syndrome”, which was repeated in Egypt and will probably affect Yemen, is not a fixture but a fatality.  Such diplomatic endeavor could follow the EU model of the Troika to deflect any chance of hypothermia, which would again target the USA.

Bin Laden

Exit Bin Laden ?

The death of Bin Laden in a firefight with US Special forces raises a lot of questions:

--The demise of the emblem of Evil gives President Obama and US intelligence a boost.  On the other hand, it further compromises Pakistan.  Bin Laden was not hiding in some fantasy cave.  He was found in a compound not far from Islamabad and close to a Pakistani base. This raises some embarrassing  questionmarks.

--It is too soon to predict the outcome.  Since 9/11, Al Qaeda has become a more decentralized organization which has lately been marginalized during the “Arab Spring” which prioritized socio-economic issues over religious ideology.

--Will Ayman al-Zawahiri take over?

--It is to be expected that certain Arab media and representatives will try to deny reality in favor of the most extravagant alternatives, as they did after 9/11.  They have a mastery of story-telling since the “1000 and 1 Nights.” Proof of what happened will be demanded but I fear that no answer will ever put an end to Bin Laden’s sordid legacy.

--Bin Laden dead doesn’t mean that Al Qaeda will give up.  Its grip on the imaginations diminished but the death of their leader might give them a shot in the arm.  Western intelligence and preparedness should be reinforced as desperate terrorist acts could be more dangerous than the rational, more cerebral acts of the past which were targeted with medical precision.

--The tide that might occur in the Arab countries is unpredictable. There might be rage, there might be resignation, there may be less room  for the usual emotional outbursts, given the new priorities that stem from the Jasmine Revolution.

--The USA should adopt a low-profile and accelerate withdrawal from Afghanistan, since one of the main purposes for their intervention is no longer there.  Al Qaeda has been closely identified with its leader. His death however is not the end of the terrorist wave he largely inspired. If he were to become a “martyr” in the eyes of the radical Islamists, one might as well expect an increase in terrorist acts at random.

--The Obama administration has shown its muscle. The Americans have their scalp. The world takes notice that the USA has both might and a technological advance unique in precision and execution.  I am sure that Bashar Assad and Muammar Quadafi will think twice.

Pakistan lost face after already having compromised its own credibility in the recent past. However, the diplomatic, intelligence and military channels are trails that cannot be allowed to get cold.

-- Conversely, the West must at all cost avoid the deadly equation:  Muslim=terrorist. The “democratic” movements in Egypt, Yemen or Syria remain fragile but our support should at least be unambiguous and not opportunistic as our previous lukewarm appeared, backing disreputable leaders who are now sent packing, via Zurich (if they can).

The Arabs have to handle their own affairs.  When called upon, or under cover of a UN mandate, we should contribute in the making of secular, rule-of-law abiding civil societies, with all means.  Non-legitimate gunboat diplomacy can only have a boomerang effect.

--Bin Laden’s end is not closure, unfortunately.  We had better prepare ourselves for what might lie ahead.  Keeping a reasonable distance is wise, ignoring is a sin.

CHINA 2011 REDUX

I have visited China once again, surviving a rerun of meals and arguments that look inalterable.

Beijing begins to look like a decor for Superman.  It also has an ambiguous energy which recalls the ill-omened 30s in Germany.  By saying so, I certainly do not imply that we might face a repeat of those dark times, which seems the more unpersuasive, given that the Han Chinese is inherently inward-looking.  His outlook serves more an appetite for energy, influence and face than territorial conquest outside of what it considers to be its natural borders (Tibet, Taiwan).

The Great Wall has become a relic.  Only the firewall is relevant, attempting to keep unwanted information out of reach. Meanwhile, everyone who dares to trespass the authorized limits of free speech and creativity disappears from the scene. China’s intellectuals are like the burghers of Calais, who take their Noble Prize to their tombstone.  Meanwhile the metamorphosis--mega cities, trade, transport, military might – continues unabaited.  Seen from close-up, the trueness of the China myth is nevertheless more Potemkin-like.  Planes, cities, manufacturing might look formidable but without an active civil society they become soulless.  

 A growing middle class is “entertained” by non-intellectual gimmicks, amusements, games and lotteries (L’orthodoxie a réponse à tout, Ernest Renan).  Although we also suffer ourselves at times from that pattern of commercial “panem et circences”/”dancing with the stars” syndrome, we still can benefit from the other face of the coin, a legion of Nobel Prizes, thinkers, writers and political critics who rock the boat of democracy.  Societies should be able to impress by their transformational added-value rather than by building full speed soulless perspectives and vistas where the individual is robotized in a consumer rush.

China might raise many questions but since the meetings between Emperor Qianlong and Lord Macartney in 1793, and the equally failed mission of Lord Armherst in 1816, little has changed in the DNA .  The Chinese still consider compromise as weakness and press for their entitlement and superiority. They play now the BRIC card (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) while still believing that they are first.  Their claim to be a developing country is a sham. In reality they perceive the West, and the United States in particular, as countries in decline. Being able to mobilize masses of cheap labor for their grandiose projects they fail to grasp the problems democracies encounter when they have to balance ambition with social concerns.  In reality the majority of the Chinese are builders of a decor which reminds us of the Forbidden City allegory, where the work was done by people who could never aspire to see the result of their labor. Today, the middle class of 400 million will grow, consuming Western luxury brands and  aspiring to some over-the-top lifestyle that was the rage in Hollywood when Joan Collins heralded the vulgarity of wealth in the soap opera ”Dynasty”.  The Chinese government tries to control this maddening social behavior with empty slogans, a rehabilitation of Confucianism and a dazzling network of airports, roads, transport and entertainment. This overheating favors movement rather than thought and benefits the “princelings”, such as the sons of Hu Jintao and of premier Wen Jiabao (interesting contributions in the Economist from April 9^th and 16^th).

The government is made of personalities who do not dare to say the word “vote”.  The official ”modus operandi” remains as non-translucent as in the time of the emperors.

There are certainly also positive advances that the Chinese are rightly proud of. Twenty years ago China was both the victim of famine and of the Cultural Revolution. Today it is a world power which is watched with awe.  Lately however it has over-reacted and the world has felt the bite more than the bark.  Its neighbors in particular took notice of the bite. This has benefited the USA, seen in Southeast Asia as the ultimate protector.  Beijing got the message and has recently changed its tone, recognizing the negative downside of its aggressive posture. The mottos of Deng Xiaoping are starting to reappear. The leadership has become more discreet and while still wanting foreign things to be China’s servants and not its master, they put an end to the saber-rattling.  President Hu’s recent state visit to the USA marked a U-turn when compared with President Obama’s visit to China or the climate change comedy in Copenhagen.    The Chinese psychology remains tainted by the obsessive notion of non-interference in internal affairs, which spans a large arc wherein political, social and economical interests collide and collude.  Nationalism and an ingrained perverse xenophobia further complicate relations with the world outside, considered an intruder despite smiles, photo-ops and the signing of numerous MOUs which are take-overs in disguise, depleting  poor countries of their natural resources for a pittance.

Some see China as a dangerous, unreliable partner in steering world affairs. I dare to reply that China has no other priorities than Chinese ones. Deng called foreign interferences “flies”. This continues to be the case, with the exception of the United States. The American way of life occupies imagination, creativity and education. The EU is seen as obsolete, the Euro a “has been”.  I dispute both assertions but we cannot choose the verbal arsenal of our interlocutors.

In reality China does not contest the supremacy of the dollar, neither does it adopt an aggressive posture as long as the Americans do not come too close to the Straits, Tibet, the contested Spratlys and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea or North Korea.  China is building a fleet which might have the ability to break the American Pacific wall which encircles it from Guam to Seoul. This maritime strategy is partially military, partially supposed to keep the routes for commerce open.

One tends to forget that China is a composite of races, religions and regions such as Xinjiang, Gansu or Tibet.  Coastal China is all lights, the west is still mostly darkness. The dissident movements continue to operate and are symptomatic of the tensions which exist between state and society.

In reality coastal China does not have to demand change.  It is already there. The authorities often arrest, control, spy, but the Chinese people have mastered the internet in such a way that the flow of information has become unstoppable. The government knows too well that the Chinese are largely materialistic.  Hence the Party has revamped Deng’s theories of a socialist market economy (“It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white; if it catches mice it is a good cat” –and feeds while at the same time it controls.) They still fear a Gorbachev copycat scenario or the contagion of democratic upheavals elsewhere (Jasmine Revolution).

China is an introverted country, a geopolitical unicum which spans many millennia. Self-conscious, humiliated in the past, ambitious for the future, it will avoid military “escapism” as long as its crucial interests are not endangered. It watches the latest American military interventions with skepticism but it is at the same time relieved that a third party does the dirty job. It has its own homegrown Islamic problem and deals with it mercilessly. It has no interest in foreign arrays other than in some ersatz neo-colonialistic  exploitation of the raw materials it so desperately needs (You sell me iron and I build you a stadium).  It will be an unpredictable player in the globalization process, being picky rather than engaging in a partnership.

The Party is the country but the “intra muros” struggles between factions can lead to dangerous  splits . China presents itself for what it is not. It is neither monolithic nor representative of a bottom-up consensus, nor is it without fault lines that run deep. From time to time the leadership uses the undercurrent of nationalism to recreate a kind of painting from the Mao area wherein smiling workers harvest bushels of golden happiness.  But kitsch is a placebo not a remedy. 

The giant will pursue his ambition and deserves respect for his achievements which are plentiful.  However, the cracks remain still too often unattended- -migrant workers, minorities, inflation, two-tier country, corruption, lack of inventive soft-power-- and  those structural weaknesses need urgent mending.  The post-Hu leadership (Xi Jinping) which, once again, will not have a democratic legitimacy, will have its hands full. Meanwhile the whereabouts of Ai Weiwei, Liao Yiwu, Liu Xiaobbo, amongst other literati, are still unknown.  The French would say “plus ça change…..”

CONGO : Boek van David Van Reybrouck

Het Opus van David Van Reybrouck is opmerkelijk. De stijl is gepolijst, het verhaal houdt zich strict aan een lineaire rechte lijn, en het opzet kan voorzeker beschouwd worden al seen unicum in de belgische ‘historische’ literatuur. Het genre beperkte zich tot nog toe ofwel tot het karikaturale (genre Leeuw van Vlaanderen) of tot de vervalsing, of alleszins, de ombuiging  a la Pirenne.

Het Congo boek is een bijna abstrakte voorstelling van historische feiten, die onverschillig elkaar opvolgen zonder dat de auteur poogt de etapes te laten optreden al een grieks korus. De archeoloog wint het soms op de schrijver omdat hij zijn bevindingen zakelijk in reele tijd laat evolueren. Hij probeert niet Leopld II, Mobutu of Kabila  voor te stellen als akteurs in een voorbedacht scenario. De hoofdspelers  van die Saga stralen geen greintje romantiek uit. Het feitelijk raderwerk draait onverschillig verder. De gruwel en de middelmatigheid volgen elkaar onverschillig op, zonder date er plaats wordt voorzien voor beoordeling of veroordeling. Het scalpel blijft koud.

Wat mij vooral treft in dit boek is enerzijds het palet van de schrijver en anderzijds de opmerkelijke, niet onsympatieke kijk op het dagelijks paternalistisch gedragspatroon van de kolonisator, die zich als het ware beschutte tegen de onmetelijkheid der dingen door de import van een belgische middelmaat. De Belgen waren niet slechter dan de kolonisatoren in Algerije, Angola of Rhodesie. Zij waren waarschijnlijk beter. De delokalisatie van de opvoeding – die niet te ver of te snel mocht worden doorgevoerd - naar de katholieke kerk was de hoeksteen van een “second pouvoir”, die een grote verantwoordelijkheid draagt voor het ontbreken van een minimale elite in 1960.

Ik wil terugkomen op de taal en de beelden die dit boek als het ware opengooien op geluiden, kleuren, geuren, regen, zon, aarde en zee zodat de inhoud ervan de meerwaarde biedt van een tocht door het evenaarswoud heen of van het plotseling aanschouwen van de bloeduitstorting van de Congo rivier in de Atlantische Oceaan. In dit tropisch scenario komen alleen de autochtone verhalen eindelijk tot hun existentieel recht. Daarom is dit boek terzelvertijd melancholisch en picaresk. De rubbersaga in de Vrijstaat werd alom beschreven. Overdrijvingen zijn legio. De auteur houdt zich aan een numeriek scenario (no rubber,no pay) “an und fur Sich”, waarin de beruchte “chicotte” en de uitvinding (de opblaasbare rubberband) van John Boyd Dunlop de “ghostwriters” waren van Joseph Conrad’s befaamde “Heart of Darkness”. Van Reybroeck blijft hier en elders (o.m.de Genocide in Ruanda, het onaafhankelijkheid fiasco) een soms curieuze afstandelijkheid behouden die regelmatig onderbroken wordt door een poetishe opklaring, een regenstorm die de deur op een kier zet naar een potentiele verzoening, waarin de natuur vrij spel krijgt.

Belgie mist elke historische beschouwing, wellicht omdat het nooit een Staat was zoals Nederland of Zweden bijvoorbeeld. Er waren wel Staatslieden, maar de geschiedenis blijft vastzitten in het stedelijke, het onmiddelijke. Congo is misschien het eerste boek dat zich waagt aan een historisch,episch en etnografish verhaal waarin Belgie de hoofdspeler was. Er bestaat geen onschuldige kolonisatie. Leopold II was niet slechter dan Cecil Rhodes, hij was noch demonisch, noch geniaal. Hij was een intelligent opportunist die de goede kaart wist te spelen. Dit boek geeft ons een deel van onze geschiedenis terug. Dat deze recuperatie het daglicht zag, is een heuse gebeurtenis. Wij zijn zo platgedrukt door wat doorgaat voor belgische politiek dat een boek van dit niveau ons er aan herinnerd dat er meer in Begie aanwezig is dan wat men nu opvoert. Een land- hoe verscheiden ook - mag niet leiden aan geheugenverlies. Het is verfrissend en opzienbarend dat Van Reybroeck ons aantoont dat het alom aanwezig Alzheimer in Belgie misschien op de valreep nog ombuigbaar wordt.

Onrechstsreeks wordt hier een pleidooi gehouden ten gunste van de collectieve herinnering. De geschiedenis die bij ons op een dieptepunt ligt moet kunnen, naar angelsaksish model, een coherent Gesamtvehaal voorstellen. Nationalistische mythologieen zijn uit den boze. Provincialistische mythes zijn eveneens te vewerpen. Pirenne en de Gouden Sporen horen bij elkaar. Beiden hebben een “narrative” opgelegd dat haaks staat op de hartkloppingen van de historie. Vooral in Europa moet men vermijden zogenaamde halfslachtige antecedenten te canoniseren. De Balkans zijn daar nog niet in geslaagd. Het valt te hopen dat wij niet op onze beurt verzeild geraken in het contra-geschiedenis syndroom.

Kongo toont ons de weg. Het boek is bijna een chirurgische ingreep die de druk op de hersenen wegneemt en dat soms afstandelijk, soms van dichtbij, van mens tot mens, aantoont hoe een verhaal , niettegenstaande de tragiek, een loutering aanbiedt, op voorwaarde dat het wordt gevoerd onder wat Harry Mullisch beschreef als de ontdekking van de hemel.