DEATH OF AN AMERICAN ENVOY

In 1805, Captain William Eaton captured Derna, the second city of Libya, after Captain Stephen Decatur had sailed right into Tripoli harbor. Under Jefferson's  pressure against the Barbary powers (Algeria, Morocco and Tunis) the coalition, led by the pasha of Tripoli, crumbled.  For the first time the Americans had waged battle on a foreign shore.  Since then, the Americans have a long-standing dysfunctional relationship with the Arab world, culminating in the 9/11 tragedy which once and forever maybe mixed the good and the bad Muslim in the same cauldron. When I was ambassador to Egypt I experienced more good than bad but I could not fail to notice how literal adhesion to a mindset/religion stood more often than not in the way of a more factual, cool disagreement.  As soon as Islam appeared, the sheep became a wolf.

The killing of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi is the first since Adolph Dubbs was killed in Afghanistan in 1979. This death is at the same time not different from that of the poor dislodged coalition soldiers who are killed in Afghanistan, where yet again foe and friend interlope. Tragedies exist by themselves. Strangely, they end up creating identical graves which remain mute, indifferent to both the ceremonial and the silence.

Most are familiar with the humanity of the slain envoy. Many Libyans appreciated his culture and professionalism. In this he is an example and symbol for what an ambassador should be.  He represented all that the forces of the obscure hate: enlightenment, analytical virtuosity, approachability. The attack is linked to an amateurish YouTube irresponsible brainchild of a still veiled madman, who by gratuitously spewing a grotesque representation of the prophet insulted millions of Muslims, endangering at the same time the lives of men and women in harm's way.  He is in reality almost Osama's pathetic miscarriage, in the opposite camp.

Embassies burn, Americans run, others will follow. Besides, despite the fact that sorrow has no favourites, it has to be recognized that the the death of an envoy has specific consequences. We witness every day how the pillars of a classical world ordinance are under attack. Universal values, which were enshrined in the UN Charter and corroborated in trade, arms reduction, decolonisation, global efforts to deal with AIDS, climate change, rights of minorities and women, are under attack. Tradition expels progress, parochial attitudes undermine globalisation, human rights are becoming a la carte.  Equally, the diplomatic function is undermined by bureaucracy inside and by hatred for otherness outside. History is full of anecdotes about cultural collusion but behind the tension there remained respect.  After all, addressing an ambassador equals addressing the direct representative of a head of state. The universal discourse on that level has fallen prey to the hordes of crazy believers and actors, who at the same time often dispose of their norms and garments once they are in Paris, New York or Knightsbridge.

I do not intend to aggrandize the function of an envoy. After all, Voltaire said it so well: "L'histoire se nourrit aussi bien des temoignages des rois que de ceux de leurs valets de chambre."  Fact is that the "rational" is in retreat.  Islam, by the way, is not the only religion to blame.  Catholics have produced more dogmas and saints in the last century than Detroit produces cars. Still, the Vatican obeys the Vienna Convention, which the Muslim arsonists and killers never heard of, or would denigrate if they did. Muslim countries have often only one" patent", for the suicide vest.

The death in Benghazi is a tragedy. It is also another blow to a system, a step towards the "Somalization" of a region. We cannot ignore it, but we must be wary of becoming the unwilling accomplices thereof, looking the other way or thinking naively that this also will pass...like in Iraq,Yemen or Afghanistan? The Tunisian "match" immolated more than a human being, it set a region on fire. A vulgar movie is still less lethal than an unwarranted death, even if the consequences of that "snuff mishap" might surprise us, even more than they do at the moment.

The American envoy makes diplomats humble, but proud to be counted in his ranks. We mourn a man, we might as well mourn a way, a style, a gentleman's (or woman's)world which had better remain for the time being in an induced coma, for its own good.  Meanwhile, let's honour him by preparing for worse to come.

OBAMA IN MINOR

Political conventions in the United States always have the vulgar in common. Tampa and Charlotte shared the same narrative, weather included. The crowds outdid themselves in some Halloween dress code, while speaker after speaker tried to combine allegiance with self-hype. The Republicans looked more fired-up, despite the fact that their story-line suffered more from oblivion than recognition. The Democrats had their nostalgic time of ignition when former president Clinton addressed the crowds with a manipulative brio, equal to none.

The Democratic platform had to be corrected at the last minute after someone noticed that the word God got lost underway (Christopher Hitchens had the last post-mortem laugh.)  Obama's speech was eloquent, as always, but the President looked distant, aloof almost, as if he didn't believe anymore that a second term was still a viable possibility.  The tone was right, the ideas often convincing, but the broader and bitter crowd did not find much to rejoice in.  The President, rightly so, loves to elaborate on  grand themes of technology, education, global warming and globalization. He can argue that the United States under his leadership stands now with the world, rather than against it, as was too often the case under President George W. Bush.  On the Republican side things are different.  Romney tends to go back to the old Cold War rhetoric, and a certain macho posture. Together with his teammate, the smart Paul Ryan, he has nevertheless found a way to appeal to the Americans who are, correctly, more interested in jobs, than in lofty ideas which always crowd Obama's conceptual world.  The President is basically a narcissistic personality who hides distance behind congeniality.

Obama seemed almost lonely.  While he could brag about having ended (almost) useless wars and reconnected the United States with the outside world, unfortunately this is not the right time for philosopher presidents and he will have to fight hard to get his second term.  Romney has found in these difficult times for the United States a language and a narrative which appeal to the Independent voter. The "numbers" play against Obama while he is the one who saved Detroit, pushed the health-care agenda through and, together with his Secretary of State, changed the geo-political course of America westwards.  Those are great achievements but they fall victim to the wrong times.  The unemployed, understandably, look the other way and are not mesmerized by grand ambitions.

I am sure that other presidents encountering similar socio-economic problems might have decided that ambitious goals, in the current times, are distractions. After all, there is a time for everything and the current days are not made for personalities who put creativity and innovation ahead of legitimate kitchen table agendas.  President Obama who is halting the arrival of the body-bags, might fall victim to his own interiorisation and a strange form of stillness, which are disconcerting for a country used to noise and pride.  It reminds me of this line in Henry IV: "The better part of valour is discretion".

Unfortunately for the President his rival appears to be better connected with what preoccupies the average American.  He does not offer dreams, he talks management and jobs.  With the help of his formidable running mate, who masters both economy and social issues (pro life, anti-gay), they suggest solutions which are sometimes one-sided but which have the added value of the "concrete".  The voters cannot be seduced as they were four years ago, they need a workable plan.  Numbers speak louder than words and the numbers are abysmal.  It is not a new arms deal with Putin, or a presence in the South China theater which will turn public opinion towards the Democratic ticket.  The convention was, ironically, more about the good days of Clinton than about the dour days of the globalized world Obama inherited.  The financial cliff which awaits him at the end of the year might as well be a Tarpeian rock.

THE BIG EURO WEEK....WELL...AN OTHER ONE

I was in Brussels last week. The weather was nice. The city looked somewhat better than in the recent past. Still, the former East-German-like architectural monstrosities prevail. The EU as well has opted to perpetuate the latter, rather than making a statement about harmony and beauty.

The Central Bank's leader in Frankfurt is supposed to come up with a comprehensive plan to put an end to the Euro melodrama this week by cutting the benchmark interest rate or intervening in the bond market, which might be tricky given Angela Merkel's philosophy.  Simultaneously, European decision makers will meet at random and try to find a deterrent against the contradictory moves of the Bundesbank, investors and governments who seldom stick to agreed economic overhaul plans when they do not serve their own self-interest.
It is hard to see any direction in the EU at the moment since the large number of member states collide rather than cooperate. On the contrary, old rivalries and prejudices are making a come-back and dependable countries such as the Netherlands are starting to show unexpected fault lines.

The EU these days must feel at home in Brussels, capital of a country that has a unique savoir-faire in deal-making, which unfortunately generally leads to kicking the can closer to the abyss. The international media have been very critical of the EU lately, describing Europe's increasing irrelevance, being snubbed almost by friend and foe alike. I think that some of those hasty considerations are unfair but it cannot be denied that the EU seems to be short on ideas, other than being responsible for creating a taker mentality. This is aggravated,now that the ghosts of the past often appear to overtake the promises of the future. These irritants also are the result of a faulty political and economic construction, which gave while at the same time reining in. The ECB has problems intervening in a divided fiscal and political landscape. The outer world prefers to deal with individual leaders rather than wasting time with the Commission. The European Parliament is nothing but une chambre introuvable.

Individual member states are currently faced with disintegration and pre-Cold War blues.  Europe is adrift and the Euro, which was supposed to be the ultimate step to further integration, is for the moment the nemesis it has to deal with on a daily basis. It is paradoxical that the prime world economic bloc ends up being admonished or ignored by China or the United States. Draghi did not even find the time to attend the Jackson Hole meeting of global central bankers.  It is time for some white fumes to appear from the ECB, otherwise fear might set in.

I remain confident that in the end intelligence, which is abundant, will prevail, on condition that the means match the intentions and that agreements stand rather than be continuously rehashed. Still, the German, Luxembourg and Finland dissenters
might oblige Mario Draghi to propose smaller steps which might not convince the markets. The many bi-laterals this week are very crucial in this regard. They highlight the fragility of the EU as central bulwark, the weight of Germany and the diminishing status of  "the rest".  President Hollande's economic policies or the brewing Spanish regional nightmare are certainly not helpful in finding a coherent "remake" of the workings of the Euro machinery.

Draghi's toolbox is limited. It remains to be hoped that the political will will not be!

SCYLLA and CHARYBDIS

Leaving for a short trip to Europe, I feel like someone condemned who has to choose between two equally painful choices. The United States in pre-convention mood feels like a journey in Sabbath and I expect Europe to remain a crossroads of repetitive meetings wherein  the stausquo is sold as a path forward.
On this side of the Atlantic, Obama and Romney are sinking in generalities.  On the other side of the ocean the situation looks almost hopeless. There are too many doctors in the European ER who know too well where to cut and intervene but retreat out of fear of being seen as the Brutus of the moment.
The Americans have a choice between two dysfunctional concepts. Obama wants to impose a view devoid of management, while Romney suggests management without consistency. Both candidates have the teammates they deserve: Biden who is supposed to entertain, and Ryan who has been asked to be the wizard of the insoluble. This being said, both presidential candidates also have their pluses. Obama too often plays the philosopher king and fakes proximity, an attitude which he shares with Romney. The Democrat is probably more focused on the world as it is while the Republican appears stuck in a worldview which was.  Romney's forte is the economy but his belligerent trade talk is counter-productive. Obama is better at social issues but looks sometimes pathetic in foreign affairs, where his right instincts have been unable to achieve the global governance which figured high in his agenda.
The EU has become fatherless, even if it has to be admitted that Angela Merkel tries to keep her self-control and confers with more leaders than Mary Poppins is able to achieve in three acts. The Europeans look insular and become tribal, if not irrelevant, in a world wherein the Chinese start to rule the waves and fill the gaps while the EU and, to a lesser degree, the US look on.
I don't see the end of the fiscal or monetary cliffs which are threatening both the Americans and the Europeans. They are in a stage of panic wherein the abstract overtakes the concrete. When the deficit numbers eventually go down in the US there will be a sigh of relief, independently of the consequences in such fields as education, clean energy, Medicare or military expenditures, and the list can continue. When the Greeks are out of the way, the Europeans will be tempted to run for Beethoven's Ninth and let loose the lies they carried for too long.
I always pleaded in favor of  a new Atlantic partnership.  Without such an aggiornamento we run the risk of becoming second-tier spectators of a world in flames by its own doing or depleted by the Chinese inroads. The United States might still try to play at being indispensable.  Europe on its own cannot. The mare nostrum has become a highway for dangers of any kind; a short-sided immigration or enlargement policy almost made a joke of what was a grand ambition after the Treaty of Rome. Rather than partying with Arab Springs and the Chinese "harmonious society," and  too often turning a blind eye to the Wal-Mart of nuclear waste in the Caucasus, we had better regroup, set our priorities right and act later. We are running out of time since the Iranian bluff might become a reality and since Syria risks inflaming the whole region.
It is to be hoped that the statesmen--if they are still around--amongst us stand up and show the politicians, who have taken the bureaucracy hostage here and there while being themselves manipulated by lobbyists and interest groups, the exit door.
Hamlet said it all:  More in sorrow than in anger.

OBAMA VERSUS ROMNEY

The electoral dominoes in the United States are in place. The pieces are known, the set is complete after Governor Romney chose Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. His choice was a bold one and might prove to be a formidable adversary for Vice President Biden, who represents a more traditional, less technocratic profile. He looks and acts "old," compared to the youth and aggressive posture of his Republican opponent.

True, the election is about the President and less about the teammate. Nevertheless, precedents have given ample proof that the choice of the vice-president (a hallucinatory hangover dixit Senator Joe Liberman) can be toxic (Sarah Palin), smart (Lyndon Johnson) or misguided (Eagleton) and can end up becoming a burden rather than a bonus.  Romney, who still has a problem as coming over as "ordinary," filled this gap by going for the conservative "first of the class."  In doing so he risks  alienating the Independent voters who might find Ryan's brew too conservative.

Obama wanted to be a philosopher king, feeling home in a soliloquy, acting too often like a solipsism. I have a hard time imagining how he connects or is able to create loyalties which can reach further than the photo-op.  He inherited a global mess from the Bush years and was able to contain a feared overspill.  Some of his economical ideas were correct. Aspects of his surprisingly cynical foreign policy are right. Obamacare has become a distraction rather than an added value, capable of reassembling the Americans around an ambitious project. Congress felt sidelined and gave him not an inch. Sometimes it looked unfair if not rude, but the President also chose for hauteur rather than for consensus. Personally I still like him but in these current times of deficits and a grounded economy, Romney can easily look like the right man for those difficult situations which have affected Americans, both in their purse and in their pride.

This country does not take a vacation when things go bad, it does not kick the can down the road, as Europeans too often do. There is still the idea of exceptionalism which remains alive in the American psyche and which is hurting today.  Obama's lofty words can be extraordinary but after these long years they have failed to convince people that they were right to see in him the man of change.  Romney is more of a pragmatist, convincing in the realm of "hardware," but utterly unconvincing in the world of foreign affairs (which finds little interest with the American bread and butter voter).  His turn rightwards might help Obama, who nevertheless risks having to work with a Republican Congress in case he wins. The stalemate would be total.

America has a hard time getting over the wasteland of the Bush years and Obama looked and sounded like the almost providential guide, who would lead the way out of the pathological "no-man's land," the country felt itself to be in.  His global outreach, his neo-geo-political strategy, his containment of the economic tsunami after the Bear Sterns debacle and the Detroit meltdown were successful.  Likewise, the stimulus was the right thing to do, even when it has to be admitted that there were too many loopholes which could have been avoided. The policies of Romney come too often over as textbook solutions.  He represents the "rational expectations" theories, monetarism versus Keynesianism, Milton Friedman versus Paul Krugman. Obama is more the man in the middle, often seen as leaning towards the more centre-left school of ideas. In this he has often been misunderstood and criticized as an interventionist and over-regulator.

The campaigns have, dangerously so, veered off course and risk becoming overshadowed by class-warfare and social, often religious subtitles. They are more and more polarized, so that the choices get obscured by ulterior agendas. What is said is less about the real than about the hidden, and this goes both ways.  It is too early to foresee the outcome and it is equally naive to advance that sobriety will rule in the end. Whoever wins will be bruised and the American democracy might be a patient in need of a cure for an indefinite time.  This is all the more dangerous since we live in an era of multiple disparities.  A lack of American leadership risks setting the clock backwards to the rotten times of social unrest, populist rise and religious anachronism worldwide.

, Milton Friedman versus Paul Krugman.

MARIO DRAGHI DRAGS ON

Today was supposed to be the Euro salvation day, after the ECB president said last week that he was now prepared to do "whatever it takes" to safeguard the Euro. Nothing drastic happened . We should have listened with more attention to the  ominous parallel analyses from the president of the Bundesbank Jens Weldmann or  Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, who sounded more cautious in their assessments.  Mario Draghi is obviously a very creative and astute banker. He might have underestimated though the resistance which exists amongst the member states to use the permanent or temporary bailout fund for secondary-market bond purchases.  Paradoxically, the weaker Euro aids the major exporters and widens even more the divide between Germany and the ailing peripheral members.  Accordingly, the stock market and the Euro might return to their downwards spiral, benefiting too few while penalizing too many.

The Euro began in a sceptical mode, went into an euphoric overdrive, and fell recently on hard times.  The cycle has staying power.  This hangover will last.
I believe that the problem lies in over-politicization, so that a succession of therapeutic monetary interventions brings only a small solace to a small number. The Euro was meant to be binary political instrument. The bankers, technicians and wizards had to be content with a second tier. The politicians created a hybrid in Frankfurt, monopolised the better seats, and daydreamed some ersatz fantasy of the school of  the Chicago Palimpsest. The myth was hence created that the EU was the Euro and vice versa. This is bogus. Not all EU members adhere to the Euro right now, and the "opt out" formula should be called upon where necessary (precedents exist.)  Besides, the ECB is anything but independent (as it should be) from the states which are represented in its governing board.  The fiscal and economical cacophony is deafening.

One can argue over Friedman or Krugman, zero inflation or a little inflation. Such discussions are normal between specialists. They can however become perverse when they oppose member states, who find themselves already divided by dangerous fault lines. The Greek and Spanish sagas are also toxic because they tend to reinforce socio-cultural cliches which split Europe in half and undo the visionary philosophy, which since World War II, brought about reconciliation, peace, prosperity and a common destiny for most. The totally obscure Maastricht Treaty fiasco, the referendums (i.a. in the Netherlands and France) were a clear signal which indicated that the Brussels jargon was no longer a unifying factor.  Public opinion expected an American type of constitution. They received instead a bureaucratic set of rules and ambitions without an inch of "sex appeal." The Euro was supposed to bring people together at a time when a hidden civil war opposed immigrants and Europeans, old and new Europe, and the United Kingdon versus the rest. The Euro looked good on paper.  If the Greek farce cannot be contained, it risks ending up in the shredder.  Once again Adam Smith will have to rule.  "Self interest" is to economy what Darwin is to existence. Both can help us understand why Germany is so adverse to absorbing shocks created elsewhere.  The ECB architecture has to undergo drastic changes or it might as well dissolve like a house of cards.  The outlooks remains bleak and the consequences might reach shores which had better remain off limits, and unspoken.

EXIT GORE VIDAL

With the demise of Gore Vidal the United States has lost one of its most prominent "intellectuals."  He was probably the last of a breed, with Susan Sontag and Christopher Hitchens, dilettantes who showed us the way and, in Vidal's case, lost us in the labyrinth of his more cranky utterances (Franklin Roosevelt, 9/11, Timothy Mc Veigh and tuti quanti.

The formidable writer and iconoclast from the earlier days gave way to a half-baked conspiracy-mongerings (in Hitchens' words).  He walked every avenue in life from his beloved Ravello to California, from the dark rooms of a forgotten gay sub-culture to the limelight of failed national politics.  He could be acerbic and it has to be recognized that he seldom came over as the "good guy."  Still, he was a giant in the great Anglo-Saxon tradition of historicity and prank, of personal vendettas (Norman Mailer, John Updike, William Buckley) with a nonchalant approach to genre and gender.

The Tea Party must be jubilant to see the ranks of their enlightened enemies shrinking. Vidal was indeed a true democrat (not along petty party lines), who knew that history was often the brainchild of blue blood who choose to write in red ink.  His quarrels with most things Kennedy were "family quarrels", which had nothing in common with the often exaggerated rendition of a fight between gods in some Valhalla on Pennsylvania Avenue.  He could be petty but was never banal.  Some of his best works such as Burr and Lincoln, were a Hineiniterpretierung with a bite which was not for the weak at heart or for the torch-bearer of the American dream, who was more often than not reduced by Vidal to an an American nightmare. In this he was closer to the French encyclopedistes or Edmund Burke than to the literature of his fellow countrymen, which he usually described as being provincial, if not parochial.

Despite those shortcomings, he was great and loved to let his sarcasm roam in "America, the beautiful."  In doing so he made enemies and created feuds which let his amazing talent be overtaken by his own prejudices. There was something of Oscar Wilde in him, a desire to shock and to make middle-Americans lose their bigoted balance.  Often he went too far, as he did yesterday, abandoning us. His death deprives us of a writer, a pamphleteer, an amuser and, of all things, a man truly of all seasons.  His qualities were such that his missteps did not make any difference in the end.  He played his Hamlet sparing nobody and willing to pay the price. His readers are the losers.  A Renaissance man, maybe the last American aristocrat, he ended up seemingly lost in these current mediocre times, preferring to leave for the winter of his discontent.