ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE

Presidents Obama and Xi Jinxing met on June 7 and 8 in Sunnylands, Walter Annenberg’s former Nirvana, in Rancho Mirage.  Both leaders looked somewhat relaxed, certainly an improvement over the icy behavior of Hu Jintao.  The question remains if anything was achieved, other than a robotic walk on the grounds.

It is too early to tell, since both leaders found themselves in the middle of rather internal problems.  Xi needs to come to grips with structural problems (aging population, social unrest, a hellish environment and low technical innovation based on theft rather than creativity). Obama has slipped in his second term and has to deal with scandals, which might be his doing…or not. His distant style makes him few friends and disappoints his most ardent supporters. This is remarkable coming from the “man of change” five years ago. Both leaders have plenty on their plates but they also have reasons to deal together with problems such as radical Islam, climate change or rule of law applied to trade and North Korea. Cyber warfare and hacking will not diminish as long as China feels contained rather than welcomed. Strange how both parties refrain from pushing the crisis button too deep in matters such as Tibet, arms sales to Taiwan, China’s blue power or intellectual property rights.

This summit was also unusual at a time when Obama named Ms. Rice as his national security adviser and Ms. Power as his UN Ambassador. Tom Donilon, Ms. Rice's predecessor, will be universally missed. The abrasive, charmless Ms. Rice might have a chilly welcome, but she is supposed to have the ear of the President. In more mundane matters, the absence of Mrs. Obama while Mrs. Xi was present looked like a diplomatic “gaffe” of the first order.

The summit was revealing nevertheless, given the background of contradictory but similar comments about the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. The former is generally considered as losing steam, the latter is seen as an unstoppable force to reckon with. Both narratives are equally flawed and I will elaborate later on.  Lately we have been brainwashed by the Gs, the BRICs, the EU, the Eurozone, the IMF, MERCOSUR and we can go on from Africa to the Middle East. What is happening is the tiptoe advance of a Washington/Beijing partnership wherein common pragmatic interests rest less on moral/historical values (as is the case between the USA and the EU) than on unrelated issues which might require the lukewarm support of the other rather than having to do it alone. This is also the strange sympathy which surfaces now and then and which dates from the days of General Stilwell or General George Marshall. China’s real xenophobia is directed at Japan and the contenders around the South China Sea.

Beijing is only interested in individual countries, such as Germany, Japan, South Korea (de facto client states), and above all the United States. The problems facing China in the short term are enormous indeed and the Pollyanna representation has little to envy in Potemkin’s pre-Houdini tricks. It looks as if people in the government, in finance, and entrepreneurs see the danger of a “bubble” and the almost ancestral fault lines which continue to remain almost part of the Chinese DNA. The younger generations seem to do better but they are more “bought” than “convinced.”

Nevertheless, the major sagas of the two last centuries will have to arrive at some asymmetrical triangulation, both competing and coming together.  No relationship will be harder to steer and more indispensable to make the world of tomorrow function.

SEARCHING FOR TIME PAST

Others have done much better in commenting on the diverse events in China which led to the collapse of the Ming, the growth of Manchu power, the Treaty ports, the Muslim revolts, the Korean War, and Tibet.  In contrast, American history has been accentuated by mostly internal collisions, notably the Civil War, the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis and Clark expedition, the Mexican War (over a no man’s-land almost). Only Theodore Roosevelt had a rather untypical generalissimo complex, getting countries out of his hat, like rabbits.

The First and Second World Wars were carnage, invented by fools in the first case and by a madman in the latter. Still, the Stalin/Ribbentrop treaty might be considered one of the major abject treaties ever signed.  In comparison, Munich was a trap disguised as a golden cage for foolish birds of paradise.

Post-World War II showed how Stalin became for awhile master of the non-interference in other’s spheres of interest.  He was happy to occupy Central Europe while leaving the west busy reconstructing. I still fail to understand why he let Austria go.

Strangely, “Uncle Joe” had his fans in the West who looked far too long elsewhere while his killing machine got into full-swing.  The Brussels Treaty, NATO, and Churchill's “Iron Curtain" speech put an end to most illusions, and the time of James Bond arrived. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany tried with American help to put their houses in order. This was rendered even more difficult because of decolonization and faraway wars. The Treaty of Rome in 1957 was a watershed and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 ended the nightmare of Stalin’s former gulag.

A lot has been written about the demise of the Soviet Union. Lech Walesa, President Ronald Reagan and Pope Jean Paul XXIII all received the “paternity award” for this historical collapse.  Far from me to try to diminish the role those world leaders played.  It is strange that the name of Margaret Thatcher seldom comes up while it was her intuitive understanding of the individual that made her conscious that he might be the future carrier of the sword upon which his empire might fall.  Besides, the Soviet Union’s obsession with everything "macro"led to spending on the inefficient rather than investing in the doable. The infamous Brezhnev/Honecker kiss was the last scene in this hallucinating scenario, drenched in the blood of so many Russians, Hungarians, Czechs and others.

The Chinese, who were given a baby seat at the Cairo Conference, were hence considered among the great (de Gaulle wanted a James Terrell seat). They were cautious enough to get close to the USSR when appropriate and stay far when convenient (the operatic Nixon/Mao meeting). Tienanmen sent the Chinese leadership for cover and, tragically so, for repression. Gorbachev is still considered the undertaker of a system and represents the ultimate taboo for a Chinese apparatus which will avoid a repeat of an identical downfall in China at any cost. It will continue to feed, play on greed, and crush dissent rather than give up on their eau de rose capitalism with Chinese characteristics. In China the Communist Party is more of an occupier than a popular bottom-up movement with some spontaneity.

The Party tries to increase its credibility with references to the past. This covers an arc which stretches from the refined Song Dynasty to the many humiliations inflicted by the Western powers and Japan. All those elements are manipulated following the necessity of the political wind. This process has also more hilarious aspects as when Confucius is buried and un-buried when convenient. Censure is part of life.

It has to be recognized as well that slowly getting this population out of poverty is an extraordinary achievement. China is a gigantic site where the greatest infrastructure in the world rises by the minute. The accumulative wealth creates a cluster which benefits a whole continent. It is actually helping the West from structural depression and its infrastructure projects can be seen in Africa and South America.  The latter are net beneficiaries but are starting to realize that their natural resources might change hands. China’s geographical neighbors know that too well and are relieved that the American shield protects them from the Chinese “colonialist” greed.

Meanwhile, the US all too slowly is getting out of recession and financial apocalypse. The Fed is trying to create a network of central banks to compensate for the weak political structures (first and for all in Europe) and to build a new Dumbarton Oaks in Jackson Hole. The United States and the ECB try to map an exit route tapping in  their financial, often unorthodox engineering, which is leading to a slow recovery.  The British being half in/half out in the EU and are not member of the Eurozone are a strange lot : We will have to see how the Australian Successor of Mr.Irving King of the Bank of England will far. The Peoples Bank of China remains a hybrid.

Meanwhile. on the lower floor, the lesser members of the Eurozone fought it out under the mocking stare of Madame Lagarde who looks more and more as Maggie Smith in Harry Potter. The briljant Mario Draghi starts to loose some of his luster. The Euro will and must survive but got very bruised in the international Ring.

The Americans came out with flying colors…for today. Their infrastructure is becoming so medieval that they will need to find both manpower  and money to finance this urgent facelift. Their untapped wealth in brains, creativity ,technological ‘‘know how’’ is unfortunately  not "labour intensive" enough so that unemployment is there to stay, for an unforeseeable time. Nevertheless their inventiveness is unparalleled .It is equally prey for stalkers, hackers and thievery. Responsible nations should not be the main participants in what is becoming modern piraterie.
The Chinese play a positive role in the Horn of Africa. They should do likewise in the modern chessboard of modern advancement. Their financial reserves (I prefer not to come to close interfering in yhr discussion on the value of the Yan by the way) and progress in manufacturing goods should be respected and not hindered. Silicone Valley should not be interfered with either .Capitalism works when left alone

Sooner or later a balance must be achieved. By the way China is entitled to feel "contained", sometimes unfairly so . France or the UK want to defend their maritime routes, why not China ? Turkey and Greece ,both NATO members disagree over Cyprus; Spain, Argentina, the Unite Kingdom are at loggerheads over mostly piles of rocks,why not China? The HongKong arrangement ,being far from perfect, is working and could pave the way for a Taiwan solution. Asian  is the mother of Chinese jokes but the screamers around the South China sea know when they risk  going too far. The China/Japan tension is far more serious. Nationalism and emotion run deep and both countries are playing with fire. The Korean Peninsula looks somewhat quitter but it is far too early to see any outcome, one way or the other. Kim jong Un is an unpredictable poker player and what is his "marge de manoeuvre"?

Did we witness some G2 in the making ? I doubt it but I admit that there are many problems which push the Chinese and the Americans in a transactional mode : energy , raw materials,climate change, pollution,terrorism (home grown and other ), management of( post ?) Afghanistan, post Dalai Lama Tibet, border (territorial and maritime) disputes (India, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, the Durand line, Pakistan , Middle East,etc ). Mega conferences are for CNN. Bilateral Tete a tete is for resolve. Let us not return to philosophical talk about how the world has shifted. Iraq is old history with long shadows , Afghanistan will be a continuous nightmare almost two years from now. Do not misunderstand me. Our humanitarian responsibility stays but chances are that China might have to carry the bucket. Better foresee than be surprised!

The Unites States are protected by Oceans and reliable buffer Sates North and South.Terrorism will always find a creepy way in.  Radicalized Islam is a creed without borders.The American Society became more messy due to immigration, political gridlock and the growth of the Tea Party.the latter should not be confused by the Palin/Bachmann brand. There is an intellectual/ moral message there that should not be taken lightly, the more so that it could very well derail the Republican Party as we knew it. Over the years George W. Bush became a moderate almost,compared to his fellow Repulicans of today. Clinton is a dinausore. Obama became a slick but unreliable Drone addict.

America remains strong. Despite the pessimistic pundits of the likes of Vali Nasr (Briljant), Fareed Zakaria or,in a different register, Charles Murray, I Don’t believe in the Cassandra’s mantra. I think that Joseph.S Nye Jr who sees America’s future in alignment with other nations and a devolution from the state to non-state actors,has it right.

Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations is pertinent.  It felt also victim –in Fukuyama mode- of a title which became a slogan. Nothing is more perverse today than generalizations . We risk ending up in a 100 years war wherein the purpose gets overtaken by habit. The Arab Spring lost its purpose as  soon as it was born. The Gericault illusion made room for backward ideas,feuds and religious fanaticism from an other area (while we should also bare in mind the Northern Ireland situation next door). The Arabs found themselves the prisoners of the myriad descendants of the Prophet ,who was not a monogamous model ,as we all now. We should reread Fouad Ajami “The Dream Palace of the Arabs “ and shed a tear for what is lost. While in Egypt, under Mubarak’s iron fist ,I seldom met more generous people with a diabolical sense of (political) humor. The humor is hard to find nowadays ( Do Muslim Brothers laugh ?). One is tempted to return to Kennan and let bygones remain bygones until a  Mandela ,Walesa or Aang Sang Suu Kui appear. Such a miraculous event is rare unfortunately since the individual had to make place for the collective and reciting/memorizing have taken over of  individual scrutiny as we know them since the Renaissance.The global world or the bi-polar world have been  replaced by  Neo states, non states, groupings of actors. who walk different paths and obey by non universally agreed agendas. The Middle East is for the time being a corpse ready for the mortuary. Only the vultures are ready to freed on the energy which is in danger of being overtaken by the “ cracking rage” which might make the United States energy independent and OPEC  irrelevant.

UNEASY LIES THE HEAD THAT WEARS A CROWN

Both Presidents Xi and Obama are stuck in a power struggle. The American Congress might look like a vulgar gun fair compared to the Chinese government structure, but the silent corridors of the Standing Committee of the Politburo are as treacherous as a Shakespeare plot. One system is democratic, often mediocre; one is autocratic and perfidious. Both leaders have difficulties in projecting policies to constituents who are far away and have more interplay with their states than with the federal government. In America, Washington is generally disliked; in China, Beijing is often ignored. Hence it is important for the Chinese president and general secretary of the Communist Party also to head the Central Military Commission.

Future wars will be local and high-tech. Mao’s strategy has been overtaken by computers and complex electronics. The Iraq and Afghan blunders have shown the limits of classical warfare which was already in intensive care since Vietnam or Algeria. Today the suicide vests and the rucksacks are the weapons of choice of the enemy.  Normandy looks today like the Bayeux tapestry, a museum piece to valor. The Chinese and the Americans have understood all that and both the PLA and the American army are slowly adapting to this new landscape where borders are irrelevant and wherein Geneva rules look like antiques. The nuclear force is deadly for some, indifferent for the martyrdom hungry Jihadists. The vogue of the Petraeus counterinsurgency theories is already on the wane.  The United States has a serious advantage over China insofar as they do not have to carry the burden of a political department which is, in the PLA, a bureaucracy within a bureaucracy. Americans have the freedom of error which is the precondition for rethinking, reinvention, and recalibration.

Both leaders face identical challenges but contrary to the United States the Chinese prefer chamber music to symphonic. They are uninterested in waging far away wars in countries they discreetly despise. The Han Chinese copies, he is a master of calligraphy, micro-management, born skeptical regarding all there is outside, with the exception of what he can grab. Africa and South America are becoming full of stadiums, schools, and hospitals “made in China” which guarantees the Chinese easy access to what they need, abstaining from political or environmental preconditions. The infamous "banana republics" of the Fifties have changed color and allegiance. The "soft power" which the West has in abundance is underused while the Chinese offer some ersatz instead of the sophisticated wares which sit in our storage rooms.

The battle lies in the ability to create clusters, networks which will become more relevant than yesterday’s states. If we resort to smart power, we might spend less and cover an area of opportunities that is larger than what the outcome of a battle might be. Influence today beats the rifle and sooner rather than later the nuclear option will become the poor man’s diet.  Responsible powers understand that. This is probably one of the reasons why North Korea or Pakistan look the way they look. They have a bomb but no electricity. Iran might end up with a bomb and, as generally happens in those socio- deprived countries, the bomb will have a certified mother and many fathers. Virgins come cheap with the Muslims.

The Chinese have given us a great example of cynical reading, hiding behind their “non interference” credo while indulging in trade, exchanges and exports, if at the other end the retribution is worth the cost of transport or shady infrastructure. China and Bangladesh should figure in the Olympics of labor/mining/construction/natural disasters and other accidents that are forgotten as soon as the rubble is cleared.  Since we speak about human lives one should also speak with respect of Fanon’s "wretched of the earth" who are still with us, hidden behind Bangalore's high-tech or Bombay’s high rises.  We have become used to thinking in terms of “us and the rest.”  What I have seen in Egypt is almost unbearable and one might respectfully ask why nobody questions the Koran’s fatalism while the churches in the West are empty, not out of bad will or lack of willing believers, but because intelligence has come to the conclusion that there was no there there.

America is still, in part, a land of sincere believers. In China belief is more a status symbol: a Louis Vuitton bag with little crosses.  In the end, China and America are more complementary, more alike than they are different. The Chinese dream of Mr. Xi and President’s Reagan “city on the hill” are equally absurd but they make the engine roll and sedate the shopper. The intelligentsia shrinks, the absurd TV shows invade, the news becomes more provincial by the day. Only the weather forecast brings some entertainment.

The cyber domain is a no-win situation. Nobody will be able to dominate it, as one could with the sea or land mass. We will continue to compete as before but we should not let the non-actors in by some backdoor. It is unlikely that they could, but we should not become the unwilling accomplices of their toxic intentions. Here Americans and Chinese have identical interests, instead of opposite. Cyberspace must be regulated and the two major commercial traders of this time should at least find acceptable ways to streamline a code of behavior. All this comes at a rather embarrassing moment for the United  States, when an ex-CIA worker has admitted to disclosing U.S. surveillance. Those WikiLeaks “bis” will present international and domestic political difficulties for the Obama administration’s agenda.

A Sino-US modus vivendi on cyber hacking could lead to other agreements and areas of cooperation:  Chinese investment in the United States and a diversity of American involvements in China such as in urbanization, infrastructure, financial loosening and greater military transparency. The United States can only benefit from China’s rise which, by the way, does not threaten its first-class standing. It  underscores that the US is no longer alone and that the old terminology of 20 years ago belongs definitively to the past. The world has become a multiple of its former self. Who could have predicted that after Mao his successor would enjoy the capitalist lure of Rancho Mirage? We have also Nixon to thank for that. Together with Kissinger he made history for the better while most remember him for having made it for the worse. His journey was far from smooth and the collateral drama could have been avoided maybe, but what is done is done.   Another more personal pivot might as well be in its starting blocks.

NOW IS THE WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT

After the “glorious” Delors Commission years in Brussels, the Euro appeared to be the coronation, initiating a reign of prosperity, progress and enlargement. Now, not later than June 2013, Jorg Asmussen and Jens Weidmann debated the Euro's future in a German courtroom. The dispute covers in fact the power of the ECB and the right of a government to abstain participation in measures it disagrees with.  Some go so far not longer hiding an agenda which could force Germany to leave the Euro altogether.

We have come a long way from the initial euphoria, asking ourselves now if governments are still able to afford to guarantee their banks. It all started in Ireland and spilled over southwards with no credible solution yet in sight.  With high unemployment, zero growth and a perverse undercurrent of populism, the EU looks bad indeed. Other disturbances are to be expected such as social unrest, the demise of some nation states and the rebirth of ancient prejudice between and inside nations. The Commission has become some invisible wizard, creating absurd decrees about often irrelevant issues while the Council has become a show with few players and a majority of spectators. This is bad news indeed and I do not condone the fatalism which is invading the corridors of European power (?). It has to be hoped that a fast-track negotiation between the United States and the EU about a Free Trade Agreement might alleviate the atmosphere. It has to be hoped that old cows remain in their enclosure where French can still remain some lingua franca for the takers. All this is too important to be derailed at a time when Europe has no other alternative than to race against the clock.

The Chinese look on in disbelief. The Americans try to work through the Central Bankers triumvirate, King, Trichet, Bernanke and it is generally admitted that Bernanke (with the support of Trichet)  stopped the downward spiral, cutting interest rates and easing monetary policy. The creativity of Central Bankers has certainly challenged some more orthodox dogmas.  They were able to shake the inertia and lack of imagination of the gnomes in Brussels.  Only Angela Merkel came out of this saga (which is not finished) as the Prima inter pares. Leaders not longer pay her a call, they come ad limina. The EU has become a German Hinterland, and the old confederate ambition--and the institutions that came with it--look singularly old-fashioned.

The return to an Atlantic commercial/trade bloc might be a game-changer. The US and the EU are each other’s main trading partners. The EU and the United States represent 12% of the world's population but at the same time they account for almost half of global GDP and provide 89% of official development assistance worldwide, but emerging countries still serve as propaganda tools for inter alia China’s generosity.  President George W. Bush, who wouldn’t make it on American Idol, did more for the fight against AIDS in Africa than all his “colleagues” combined!

I see a big bonus in a revamped Atlantic relationship. Trade is essential of course, but other problems remain.  NATO needs a blood transfusion, the EU needs a Dr. Atkins Diet. The ridiculous Bermuda Triangle (Brussels/Luxembourg/Strasbourg) has to be eliminated. Europeans have to get serious about their defense pillar in NATO and their common foreign affairs policy.  The Commission has more commissioners than the United States has secretaries….seeing is believing. The Brussels Babel feeds legions of interpreters(?) while participating in the global deforestation by the absurd multiplication of their paperwork.  It sounds nice to speak about shared values (which exist) but we should also put an end on this Gogol "dead soul’s" charade which gives Brussels the same bad name as Washington, D.C.  Modesty is the tail of the coin.

SOME MADELEINE FOR COMIC RELIEF

The Marcel Proust Questionnaire is very revealing and I would like to apologize for this outburst of narcissism:

-

-What is your most marked characteristic?   Indulgence in melodrama

-What is the quality you most like in a man?  Seduction

-What is the quality you most like in a woman? Flirt

-What do you most value in your friends? A gift to be forgiven

-What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?   A tendency to aggrandize

-What is your favorite occupation?   Understanding subtitles in conversation

-What is your idea of perfect happiness? The knowledge that you have to squeeze it fast before it runs                  out of sap

-What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?  Being too late in confiding that I loved

-In which country would you wish to live?  Anywhere there is enough sun, plenty of sensuality and lack of noise

-Who are your favorite writers? Gustave Flaubert, Thomas Mann,  Christopher Hitchens

-Who are your favorite poets?   Emily Dickinson, T.S.Eliot, Walt Whitman

-Who is your favorite hero of fiction?   Hans Castrop 

-Who is your favorite heroine of fiction?  My mother

-Who are your favorite composers?  Eric Satie, Maurice Ravel, Handel, J.S. Bach

-Who are your favorite painters?   Delacroix, Rothko,Vermeer.

-What are your favorite names?   Fabrizio

-What is that you most dislike?   Odors, other than body odor

-Which talent would you most like to have?   Patience

-How would you like to die?   Discreetly

-What is your current state of mind?   Mild

- What is your motto?   Live surprised

POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE

Summits come with pitfalls, hype and blindfolded communiques.  Leaders send signals to the media through body language and leaks.  Personal chemistry remains hidden from view. I remain a strong believer in person-to-person diplomacy. I am aware that many bureaucrats think otherwise. There is indeed a case to be made as to see if the events push the leaders or viceversa. There are plenty of examples which show that individuals created the event and situations which indicate that the event swallowed the individual. Personal diplomacy can be tricky. Yalta showed how Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill tricked, lied, betrayed and seduced without a shadow of a sham.  Even the relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin was one of jealous lovers more than one of trusted allies. Hitler, of all men, made women run for cover and men faint.  Krushchuv misread the young Kennedy, Mao got Nixon right.  Margaret Thatcher took stock of Gorbatsjov in an instant. And one can go on…

Diplomacy requires a special talent. That might be why there are more bad than good ones. A diplomat has to be more of a doctor than a historian (that’s why the well-documented fascination with body-like functions?)   I thought I met more skilled, educated, informed diplomats in China than anywhere. The great generation of American aristocratic career diplomats made room for too many presidential campaign contributors, amateurs who needed a number two to teach them table manners. State was approached with awe and is now the butte of mismanagement. Obviously there remains a faction of Academia besides Foggy Bottom. American political science is unparalleled. I wish their leadership were larger.

Notwithstanding all this, the United States will remain Number One but the group of players has become larger. Usually they are an unruly lot.  Exceptionally, as is the case with China, Russia, the EU, Mexico, Japan, Canada or South East Asia, they usually behave like difficult but responsible partners, even when the nays outflank the yeas. China has to face a difficult time ahead and the internal priorities will certainly reduce its external outreach. The Americans for their part have to reign in their more adventurous inroads and concentrate on lands where their support will be welcomed. Unfortunately for the time being, the Arab/Muslim world (Pakistan, Indonesia, north Thailand included) remains hostage to sectarian, tribal, and religious dysfunctions. One has to interact a la carte. After too many repeats, Afghanistan does not need another one. Unfortunately the Talibans will come home to roost and the Al Queda offspring has already marked its territory and is sending his zealots out. The West, Russia and China have common enemies!   A remake of the Triple Entente might not be such a bad idea after all.

LE PRINCE PHILIPPE A LOS ANGELES

Les Missions commerciales Belges se resemblent, se suivent, passent gerealement inappercues  et , en fin de parcours, lassantes. Trop souvent elles corroborent les idees recues, comme si leBelge passait son temps a digerer plutot qu'a creer.En tant qu'Ambassadeur j'ai survecu  plusieurs manifeatations de ce tpe,  qui renvoaient plutot a la pluie q'a une meteo ensoleillee.Il arrivait qu'elles frisaient  le ridicule, comme en Egypte, lorqu'une espece de convention" bidon"etait signee en grande pompe ( projet de navettes genre Disney/ luna parc a Alexandrie avec reconstruction du Phare, idee loufoque  pourtant appuyee par le tres intelligent Elio de Rupo,Ministre du Commerce Exterieur a l'epoque).Je crus rever. Les archeologues Francais , scandalises, qui fouillaient l'ancien Palais de Cleopatre immerge, pensaient que la suggestion faisait partie de la panoplie des blagues dites "belges". Helas dans le plat pays la realite depasse souvent la fiction.

Et pourtant...a Los Angeles,

J'ai pu appercevoir que les violons  etaient accordes et que la nebuleuse absurde/ formule  commerciale belge , pouvait malgre tout collaborer au lieu de saboter. Sans doute eut-il fallu mieux viser  un public Californien qui a le show et le techno bizz dans la peau et qui a du subir d'interminables exercises oratoires (?) vantant la "Grande bouffe" made in Belgium". On a pourtant autre chose a offrir que les pralines et bierres, dans la periferie de Silicon Valley. Le Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres,  Didier Reynders,  l'a bien compris et a parfaitement pris la mesure de son auditoire.
La question qui se pose est "ou allons nous" ? Tot ou tard le Prince succedera a son pere, mais qui relevera le defi  ? Je ne vois que son neveu le Prince Amedeo prendre la releve. Il est indeniable que sans la personne du Prince, ou de son semblable,  ce genre de mission passerait inappercue. Il faut estimer a sa juste valeur le role du Prince qui est essentiel dans les prises de contact qui seraient hors portee sans son engagement. Certes la critique est facile mais en l'occurence elle est deplacee. Philippe de Belgique ne sera jamais un Windsor, mais les Belges ne sont pas des Anglais.
Il existe (encore) en Belgique de part et d'autre un capital de loyaute pragmatique,  majoritaire mais fragilise il est vrai qui doit etre maintenu a tout prix. Les discussions autour du role de la Famille Royale sont normales mais elles ne doivent pas devenir abusives. De meme une revision des responsablites devolues au Chef de l'Etat est legitime pour autant que l'on prenne garde  de ne pas fragiliser des equilibres, qui en Belgique sont aleatoires.
Contrairement a d'autres monarchies, la Famille Royale Belge court le risque de devenir un element de societe gomme, sans visibilite structurelle si elle ne s'insere pas davantage dans le reel. Il faut esperer qu'un nouveau regne, avec un entourage plus en symbiose avec lrs sensiblites actuelles puisse renouer des liens devenus trop distendus avec les priorites, qui preoccupent le citoyen. Le virtuel ne passe plus.
Le monde politique en Belgique a de meme perdu le contact avec l'homme de la rue qui se sent desoriente dans une toile bureaucratique qu'il ne parvient plus a delier. Le Chef de l'Etat represente dans ces conditons un rempart contre l'affaiblissement de l'Executif at du Legislatif. Certains parlent  aussi"republique" et pourquoi pas ? 
Je vois tres bien Hrman De Croo  , les Minitres Mark Eyskens et Armand De Decker ou l'ancien Senateur Roger Lallemand occupant cette charge, mais tout choix, toute alternative risqueraient  d'etre DOA (Death on arrival) , faute de consensus en amont .
 Ce pays a assez frole la catastrophe et a desormais  besoin de convalescence plutout que de" regime change". N'oublions pas que nous portons aussi une responsabilite internationale avec, entre autres , l'UE et l'OTAN. Or les locataires ont tendance a chercher ailleurs s'ils constatent que le rapport cout / benefice leur devient defavorable. Si l' union fait la force, le bancal amene la banqueroute, emportant avec lui tout ce qui peut encore en reduire les effets secondaires destabilisants.

SYRIA: all is said? nothing is done!.

For two years we have been "voyeurs" of a multiple tragedy in Syria with no end in sight. The Americans--and most of the other "interested" parties--are clueless about sorting the good from the bad. The Europeans might repeat the Bosnian scenario, arming their respective "clients," while the Chinese will hide behind Lao Tzu and the principle of non-intervention (wu wei). The Russians do not want to lose their foothold in the Middle East, even if it comes at a price, aligning themselves with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. Moscow's arms deliveries are a shot in Assad's arm and one can rightly ask what Israel or the United States got from their recent talks with the Russians. So much for the "reset."

The Syrian catastrophe can no longer be confined.  Jordan, Israel, Turkey and Lebanon are catching the flu.  Assad, contrary to earlier predictions, cannot be ignored.  Only some uprising or military coup could dislodge him. The United States is rightly baffled,  looking into a strategic abyss.  Any hard intervention could lead to a dangerous regional escalation while a selective arming of some rebels might well lead to a new bolder Russian response, not to mention Iran's  "Heidrich," Hassan Nasrallah, whose belligerent talk shouldn't be taken lightly.

Washington and Moscow have agreed to convene a peace conference in Geneva. Such an undertaking might be more difficult than the infamous Paris peace conference about Vietnam, where more time was spent on the format of the table than about parts of Southeast Asia that were burning. The Middle East is in flames as well, and amid the rubble Assad can boost on his new missile defenses and, if pressed, on his stockpiles of chemical weapons. The global diplomatic vacuum is Russia's opportunity for a comeback, since President Sadat expelled them from Egypt. The Americans will be under pressure to increase arms deliveries to the so called moderate Free Syrian Army. Meanwhile, the White House was obliged to make an embarrassing U-turn, letting Assad in, after having stated that his departure was a precondition for talks. I concur with the school of thought which ascertained that Assad  had to be part of any diplomatic solution (if such an outcome is still feasible.)

After all, Ambassador Holbrooke had to swallow Milosevic as well.  Likewise, Mugabe or Omar al-Bashir are not made for the weak at heart, even when The Hague waits for them...in vain. America must remain active if it does not want to be forced out of the game or have to call 911 and end up being forced to support the French or the British, who are so credulous to claim to be able to differentiate the opposite camps who fight each other under Allah's mantle or under some tribal or terrorist umbrella. The West has a humanitarian responsibility first and in doing so it can alleviate the burden on Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.  The latter must be moored in the Western hemisphere, sooner rather than later. The latest unrest could get out of hand and Erdogan should not have to follow the path of Mubarak. Israel wisely abstains from intervening openly. 

Washington should build a coalition (different from the former CENTO) guaranteeing that the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia could act as  stakeholders of regional stability and be supportive of the outlines of a peace process blueprint that was outlined by the Arab League.  In the long run it is not totally Utopian to imagine that such an initiative might later include Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Qatar has to stop playing double agent. The Talibans cannot be ignored. The United States still has the joker, but for how long? China and Russia are closely watching  and are all too ready to fill an eventual void. This is made easier since the Arabs have no qualms to exchange their Koran for a stadium.  Africa and South America already regurgitate hospitals, roads and bridges "made in China."  The American infrastructure is ready for the rust belt and its technological know-how, second to none, is under cyber attack from mostly the Chinese PLA.  Meanwhile, the Chinese president enjoys happy hour with President Obama in, of all places, the Annenberg estate. Isn't that ironic?

THE AMERICAN DECLINE ?

Since the American blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan the pundits have made pessimistic assertions regarding the future and credibility of American power. The political gridlock in Congress combined with recession and the threat of home-grown terrorism only aggravated this wave of pessimism. No day goes by without a book appearing announcing the future relegation of the United States to a declining power.

I can see that many indicators may indeed point in that direction. The U.S. Army is overstretched where it should not.  The Americans are seen by foe and ally alike as cynical opportunists who, since the Shah, are seen as throwing former allies who become cumbersome, under the bus. Diplomacy misses  focus and looks more often than not like an incoherent repair job which is missing a Grand Plan.  Numerous scholars are highly critical of the ways thing are going since September 11.  President Obama raised hopes and proved indeed to be a sophisticated thinker but one can also over-think and end up in some Hamlet soliloquy in a graveyard.  The President is eloquent in the land and abroad.  His oratory skills dwarf the utterances of Republicans and Democrats alike but there is a need to connect if the words are mend to hit a target. Obama appears strangely unable to bridge the gap between good intentions and change on the ground.

Accordingly, China gets all the credit while it is really more show than fact.  The structural problems will appear sooner rather than later when the toxic consequences of pollution, foodstuff security, construction standards, labour conditions, censorship, bottom-up discontent, a public sector shadow economy, and a hostile neighborhood come home to roost.  The extraordinary growth which is needed to support the country is unsustainable in the long run, when an aging population becomes a burden and when investors start to look for other low-salary heavens. China does not invent.  It is a predator both of raw materials and intellectual property. The rivers are sewers.  It is about time one looks at the facts behind the numbers. 

On the positive side, China pursues a smart policy abroad. Chinese infrastructure, which can be seen everywhere, is more popular than drones which cannot be seen. America must review how it is seen abroad:  as a brass, indifferent force which pays scant attention to local cultures or creeds. This is also partially unfair, considering its involvement in NGOs or US Aid.  For a country which invented contemporary P.R. it looks almost absurd that so little is invested in the positive.  President George W. Bush did more for the fight against AIDS in Africa than any of his former or current colleagues. The Americans, rightly so, came to the conclusion that certain changes have to come from within. This policy of distance is not a choice for indifference. Peace efforts under or with American leadership have to be continued. Humanitarian and other forms of support should be increased. Military might should become the exception, not the rule. The "pivot" to Asia should be seen and presented as a desire for positive co-leadership with China (which is more unpopular in Asia than it is in Africa or South America). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton understood the glamour of soft-power when addressing town hall meetings in all parts of the world. Her successor is right to be cautious and to try to involve others rather than doing it alone in Kissinger mode (Les temps ont change).

Vali Nasr has written a book which is almost a pamphlet "The Dispensable Nation."  He considers a mix of economic engagement and diplomacy, and rightly suggests that diplomacy should not be limited to the partners we feel "comfortable" with but also with the ones that might kill us.  All the more so, since counter terrorism has proven to be a dead-end.  He points to the shifting geo-political reality wherein America's absence is always filled by China, be it in Iran,Syria, Pakistan, or the Indian Ocean which might as well become a Chinese mare nostrum. Turkey might soon become the American's indispensable partner in the ever worsening Middle East spiral.

In the short-term all this looks rather ominous but in the long-term America will regain its footing. It is already the creator/manifucterer by excellence, even if the spare parts are "made in China," but for how long?  Its economy is mutadis mutandis resilient. It does not suffer from a Han Chinese xenophobia. The problem is that the Americans got tired of wars in countries that they do not relate to, the more so that they are becoming energy independent. They have to find the path back to a coherent worldview, some intellectual strategy as George Kennan, Dean Acheson or Henry Kissinger (with some reservations) had. They need to address multi-polarity which can be a force for the good rather than for the bad. China's threats are more directed to its own future than abroad (with the exception of Taiwan, Tibet -which could well become China's Iraq,after the demise of the Dalai Lama-, the South China Sea, the Dyaoyutais and the Autonomous Regions). If they are careful and patient enough, the Americans might as well have to look at China over their shoulder. A world on fire needs more than one to carry a bucket of water, so better know your neighbour and have plenty of buckets at hand.  Do not forget where the faucet is. I trust President Obama, who will meet his Chinese counterpart in the Annenberg capitalistic nirvana of Palm Springs next week, will be so gracious as to show Xi Jinping where the water outlet is.

ABOUT MAPS AND FACTS

Maps over time have become not unlike bodies after torture or strenuous unnatural exercise.
Formerly it was different. One in the Western Hemisphere was used to seeing the world through the eyes of the Flemish cartographer Mercator who created, in 1569, the first cylindrical world map, using meridians and parallels. His revolutionary projection was immediately considered a heresy. Nevertheless, his map still stands as a close-up scientific view of the world as it was known then, without any hidden agenda or malice. Europe in this mindset was the focal point of the Orbis. The Chinese emperor, who certainly had another concept of where China stood, nevertheless invited Flemish and other Jesuits to China to share their astrological know-how with the Middle Kingdom.

Since then, the objective translation of facts on the ground has shifted.  The political agenda syndrome metastasized, multiplying interventions which led to the upstart of artificial entities which overruled natural borders or self-contained cultural/political clusters.  Maps and worldview in general were manipulated and subjugated to hidden agendas.  Google is making strives towards the future, trapping misrepresentations by way of higher technological objective velocity.

In the 19th Century, Africa figured as a black hole, ready to be consumed. This void was also a statement. Today, Iran erases Israel from the map. Tomorrow the map will probably undergo a "topsy-turvy,"  which could overturn the worldview which has inhabited the Western retina for centuries.  Europe might be "relocated," becoming an extension of Asia.  The Asian tell uric mass is indeed marginalizing Western Europe which could be reduced to an appendix, if there were not the Russian buffer, which is actually more a two-headed Hydra looking both ways:  to Europe and to Asia.

Admittedly maps have been indifferent toys when the West ruled, carving countries out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.  Heterogeneous newcomers were created with no time spent to test their viability. Minorities were dispersed over several borders, which is partially at the origin of the Middle Eastern mess.  Curzon, Balfour, MacMahon, the treaty ports imposed upon the Qing Dynasty, etc., imposed arbitrary borders and nautical line limits disguised as map updates. Natural frontiers, socio-cultural homogeneity had to make room for expeditiousness and the depletion of natural resources. The Conference of Berlin in 1884/1985 and the Sevres Treaty in 1920 were more about indifferent carving than about mapping. 

Who knows what can be expected in the Arctic?  The eight Arctic Circle member states seem to have a consensual approach with regard to research and conservation. National borders have been agreed upon. What will happen when agreement meets the test of greed?  The science of mapping has been overtaken by other considerations. Paradoxically, the scientific exactitude of rendering logically the geographic mass has been mortgaged for political ends. Despite the advances of the tools, the possible positive consequences thereof have been distorted and we are left with sleeping toxic situations such as the unresolved border dispute between India and China or India and Pakistan for instance. Balfour is like Hamlet's ghost, clouding the Middle East peace(?) process...and one can go on.

Whatever the Google map shows, Google becomes in certain quarters the enemy. The distortion will continue to rule in corners, which refute the Holocaust as much as the reality on the ground. Maps were supposed to be enlightening. They might become treacherous and as a result we might look at the Mercator, Chinese or older Arab representations of the world as museum pieces, overtaken by ulterior motives.

I quote Houellebecq: "It's a game.  It's a million-dollar game."  The writer went into overdrive with the map allegory which figures in his book  "La carte et le territoire"  wherein the banal Michelin map becomes some sort of contemporary art totem.  He refers to Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst, the " usual suspects ".   We have come a long way since Mercator!   Prejudice and the empirical find themselves locked in a combat to the finish.

WHO IS PUSHING WHOM IN CHINA?

Traditionally, each Chinese leader likes to embrace some form of "slogan" which sets him apart from his predecessor(s).  Xi Jinping has come up with "The Chinese Dream" after the rather dour and opaque pulpit utterances of his immediate predecessors: "Harmonious Society" and "The Three Represents." In doing so he appeals to the ever-present nationalistic undercurrent in Chinese society.  Equally, he sends a signal to the PLA which has lately become a major player internally and externally, projecting a mix of hard and soft (?) power. 
One wishes that the Chinese could build a model society wherein rule of law is paired with economic and political projection. There remain many stumbling blocks in the longer term:  an aging population, a demographic pyramid turned upside down, social unrest, sluggish growth (all things being relative), current and future tensions in Xinjiang, Gansu and Tibet.

When looking at China many observers too often are blinded by the myriad of lights which make the coastal corridor glamorous. It has to be recognized that the Chinese leadership has made major inroads to alleviate the asymmetric economic development and to take control of the ecological disaster it has unleashed as a consequence of capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
A fundamental question remains unanswered.  To what extend is the leadership in control of the trends?  In other words, do we observe a top to bottom policy or is there a bottom-up dynamic which "obliges" the Party to adhere to an economic and social acceleration which is, so to speak,  almost a wild card in the game? The Chines leadership has always been a cynical appropriator (Deng Xiaoping ).  It could as well be a mix of two energies which collude rather than collide. 

The former Governor of the People's Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, might be the optimal representative of this more syncretic third way, navigating sound monetary policies with the consent of the Standing Committee which does not intend to lose the monopoly of Imprimatur of last resort on all aspects of governance.  Still, there can be a window ajar.  The Party fears, above all, that opening it too wide might lead to some Perestroika, which is taboo.

Meanwhile, "The Chinese Dream" is still in its starting blocks.  Xi Jinping appears to be very cautious in global world affairs.  The "near abroad" is something else all together.  China will not allow intruders in what it considers its zone of influence, be it on land or on sea. Washington's shift to Asia is taken seriously, but the Chinese remark about the American Giant, which is often considered in academic circles as more "dispensable" than not.  The drama played over the Diaoyutais, the posturing over the Paracels, possible developments in Taiwan or a post-Dalai Lama Tibet, should be taken seriously.  America's firewall leaves the Chinese more amused than worried, given the US Administration's reluctance lately to get over-involved. 

Nevertheless, Beijing has to tackle more structural problems internally if it wants to continue rising.  Besides, contrary to the American Dream, the Chinese one is for internal consumption only.  China has more clients than allies. The United States lately has more allies than clients. The two superpowers are more complementary than they like to admit.  The "pivot" might end up being more a rapprochement cordial than a strategic move in defiance of China's rights. 

The future is hard to predict. The slow demise of the United State and the continuous rise of China are unsustainable assertions.  The world has become a plural and major players will have to stear it with due respect for existing legitimate priorities and a willingness to manage flash points (climate change, poverty, terrorism) together rather than continuing to play the lonely cowboy when the public has long left the cinema.

BRUXELLES... encore *

Jean Quatremer a fait dans un article paru dans Liberation le constat de l'aberration urbaine qu'est devenue la capitale belge. Je m'etais deja permis certaines observations analogues dans mon essai TRACES, qui n'ont pas manque de deranger ceux qui ont troque le regard pour la complaisance.
L'article paru dans Liberation est different parce que sans merci. Il eut ete opportun de considerer egalement les exceptions a la regle,  qui sont nombreuses mais tombees victimes d'un urbanisme absurde qui a disloque le tissus urbain plutot que de le renforcer. On arrive fatalement a une defiguration globale qui rend la ville illisible et incomprehensible. C'est sans doute la raison pour laquelle Bruxelles n'a jamais beneficie d'un choc Bilbao ou de l'intervention d'architectes type Frank Gehry,Norman Forster ou Rem Koolhaas (entre autres).
Le mal est fait, accentue par des constructions et des interventions qui semblent appartenir aux regimes defunts de guerre froide (et encore). Ce qui neanmoins continue a seduire dans cette jungle  semble isole, sans rapport organique avec l'environnement plus large (Lewis Mumford).
Bruxelles est la victime d'une mentalite, d'une gouvernance " provinciale" et de l'Europe qui se trouve a l'etroit dans une capitale qui ne parvient pas a digerer voir meme a co-gerer la metastase type GOS plan,propre a l'envahisseur Europeen. Ce dernier a fini par attraper le mal belge, qui ne pardonne pas. Le facadisme continue a faire des ravages et le concept d' "architecte belge" est entre dans les manuels. Cela est injuste car il ya plethore d'excellents architectes en Belgique mais l'autorite prefere deleguer a ceux qui lui ressemblent et qui privilegient le profit sur le dos du gout.
Certes, il faut encore prendre en consideration que d'autres capitales auraient aussi interet a faire leur examen de conscience. L'"autoroute" Pompidou cote Seine ou la tour Montparnasse ne passeraient plus l'examen d'entree. A Londres la cathedrale Saint Paul est prisonniere d'immeubles qui renvoient au meme scenario que celui qui etouffe la cathedrale Saint Michel a Bruxelles. Le mal est fait mais a Bruxelles il semble irreparable,  faute aussi de l'absence d'un maire comme Delanoe a Paris ou Bloomberg a New York (megalopole "propre" et securisante) .
L'autre jour j'etais oblige a changer de train a la gare du Nord a Bruxelles a six heures du matin...c'est la descente en enfer ! Ne parlons pas de Bruxelles Midi qui est a l'oppose de ce qui peut se fait dans d'autres capitales ou la gare devient un pole de croissance et de gout, cote services et accueil.
Le proces d'intention que le journaliste de Liberation fait a la circulation routiere a Bruxelles est exagere car le mal automobile est comme dans la piece d'Audiberti un mal qui court partout. A contrario si on avait eu le gout de rendre le Grand Sablon pietonnier autour d'un plan d'eau par exemple ou eut pu eviter la lente derive de ce quartier, qui avait garde son caractere, n'etant plus qu' un assemblage disparate et opportuniste qui n'a plus de racines. C'est la sociologie de l'epicier !
L'evolution politique en Belgique ne favorise pas la capitale qui n'a plus les personnalites ou les moyens pour s'affirmer. Elle ne parvient meme pas a tirer benefice de sa pluralite qu'elle semble considerer comme un probleme insoluble alors qu'elle devrait favoriser une integration plus eclairee (malgre les problemes inevitables que cela pose).
Le coup de semonce de Quatremer vient a point alors que le patrimoine culturel de Bruxelles est mal servi, desuet (Musees) ou absent (art contemporain, face-lift pour attenuer les effets catastrophiques de la cicatrice / Jonction Nord/Sud ou du decor lugubre qui accueille les voyageurs gares du Nord et Midi,...entre autres). Est-ce trop tard ? D'aucuns le pensent. Leopold II a frequemment fait appel a un architecte francais pour sortir Bruxelles de son obscurite. Le journaliste francais pourrait bien devenir malgre lui l'acteur d'un renouveau au lieu de devoir etre considere comme le notaire ayant passe acte d'un echec. Je lui donnerai volontiers la pioche pour demolir l'horreur qui a "remplace" la Maison du Peuple...Il faut commencer par l'estocade.


*Clavier anglais sans accentuation.