Leon Panetta put the last nail on Dick Cheney's coffin.
As soon as he learned, on June 23rd, the existence of a secret CIA counterterrorism program hidden from Congress for 8 years (guess which years), Panetta closed it and alerted both Congress intelligence committees, revealing the fact that this secrecy was imposed by direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney*.
I can't see how Lobby Dick can avoid justice now (he'll probably have to answer to other criminal charges**). David Addington is also in the line of fire on that one. At last, Eric Holder can start the cleaning and America a fair inventory of the doomed Bush Legacy***.
So Dick Cheney is a soon to be convicted felon, an enemy of the State and democracy... nothing new under the sun.
The key question here is : why did it take 5 months to brief Panetta ?
According to CIA Spokesman Paul Gimigliano : "It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing. When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta's attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect."
Well the team was not swift at all. Unless Cheney's orders were to go beyond the Bush-Cheney administration. The time to solve technical issues, like paper jams in the shredder room.
* see "Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project" (New York Times - Scott Shane -20090711)
** see previous blogules on Lobby Dick, including "Welcome on Waterboard", "Yoo got mail"... or on a lighter side "Lobby Dick tries to retire, fails to retract.
*** BTW: Holder is considering - at last - probing Bush torture policy : see "Independent's Day".
20090712
20090707
The Dictatorship of Short Term: Beijing and Uighurs
Beijing is definitely struggling to impose unity over the territories it claimed last century (see "Tibet, Ouïgours... l'Empire éclaté ?").
What strikes me in the spectacular Urumqi riots is the way the "show" is being orchestrated by the official propaganda :
- a selection of images exposing over and over the opposition of order (authorities) and chaos (violent anarchists)
- a convenient scapegoat : Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer, promoted by Beijing as another Dalai Lama, to wit "a terrorist leader planning crimes from his/her foreign lair".
Of course, the regime keeps banning all "unhealthy" contents, but Beijing chose not to put the crisis under the censorship extinguisher. Iranian-style denial did prove unefficient but here, the idea is to legitimate from the start a new wave of repression, to kill any empathy for rioters before it's even born. The Hu Jintao way.
This is not strategy but tactics. It may work in the short term but will prove disastrous in the medium to long term :
- First, the central regime is advertising on the failure of "Pax Sinica"* on Uighur territory (sorry, in "Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region") : the forced "Hanification" of Urumqi (a capital city now 70% populated by ethnic Han) didn't lead to the eradication of the Uighur identity, and the "province" seems a colony under the control of an army of occupation. Han "colons" will think twice before joining the party.
- Second, nationalism is a dead end. The more the regime exposes its own weaknesses, the further it is tempted to go in basic ultranationalism and hatemongering rumors. You never build anything sustainable with this kind of ideologies. I even see this as the main risk for the unity of the Empire : the failure of strategic vision, the triumph of primal hatred and racism.
- Third, as it fuels radicalism in order to artificially create an enemy from the outside, Beijing is bound to come face to face with an even more dangerous ideology : international jihadists. A minority, Islamist fundamentalists are very happy that the central regime fans the fires of religious and ethnic hatred. That was precisely their objective : reaching centerstage, embodying the resistance... and silencing the actual cause of the Uighur people.
* or is it "bellum cynica" ?
---
Initially published on blogules in French.
20090705
GOP - From Morale Building to Moral Damage Control Mode
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) and Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) left without a word the office of the new GOP boss. So did Michael Steele, after a last attempt to keep his job.
"I came to fix this heckuva mess and believe me, change is coming to the GOP", said Sarah Palin to a forest of microphones. "Enough blows below the Bible belt. Enough Appalachian Trails to nowhere. I know about family values : how much do you think it cost me to cancel the party for Bristol and Levi ? And don't try to stop me. I already received stupid e-mail from macho Republicans, and stupid stuff from the letter man. Even Mark Foley tried to page me."
Is she going to run for 2012 ? You betcha.
"I can't hide that I can run", continued the theocon icon. "I'm rather fit for a hockey granma, see ? Actually, I ran all the way from Wasilla down to DC. Bobby wouldn't let me stop. Bobby, the pitbull chasing me... I can run, I tellya. Obama ? He couldn't even run a fever after a trip to swine flu infected Mexico".
"I came to fix this heckuva mess and believe me, change is coming to the GOP", said Sarah Palin to a forest of microphones. "Enough blows below the Bible belt. Enough Appalachian Trails to nowhere. I know about family values : how much do you think it cost me to cancel the party for Bristol and Levi ? And don't try to stop me. I already received stupid e-mail from macho Republicans, and stupid stuff from the letter man. Even Mark Foley tried to page me."
Is she going to run for 2012 ? You betcha.
"I can't hide that I can run", continued the theocon icon. "I'm rather fit for a hockey granma, see ? Actually, I ran all the way from Wasilla down to DC. Bobby wouldn't let me stop. Bobby, the pitbull chasing me... I can run, I tellya. Obama ? He couldn't even run a fever after a trip to swine flu infected Mexico".
20090627
France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one
As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.
I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.
I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").
I should say the same double misunderstanding :
Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.
So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".
But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :
=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.
=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.
Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".
And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.
Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".
The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.
In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.
He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...
Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.
Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.
As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.
People ask "What's wrong with France ?"
Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".
Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".
Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".
Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.
Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.
In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.
Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..
Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.
By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.
France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).
But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.
In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.
There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.
For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :
Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.
Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.
Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.
Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.
I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.
But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.
Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.
As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.
* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.
** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.
*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.
**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").
I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.
I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").
I should say the same double misunderstanding :
- classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
- cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general
Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.
So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".
But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :
=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.
Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).
=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.
Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.
Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".
And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.
Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".
The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.
In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.
He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...
Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.
Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.
As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.
People ask "What's wrong with France ?"
Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".
Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".
Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".
Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.
Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.
In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.
Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..
Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.
By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.
France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).
But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.
In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.
There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.
For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :
- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.
- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.
- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.
- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...
Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.
Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.
Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.
Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.
I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.
But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.
Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.
As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.
* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.
** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.
*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.
**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").
20090624
Keep your eye on the ball, Barack !
Cartoon of the day :
"Back to you in a minute, Mahmoud... Benjamin too".
follows "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish"
"Back to you in a minute, Mahmoud... Benjamin too".
follows "Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada" and "Khamenei's death wish"
Netanyahu's al Aqsa intifada
Benjamin Netanyahu has a sense for timing. To answer Obama's ultimatum on illegal colonies on Palestinian ground, he waited for the POTUS to be silenced by uproar in Iran*.
Emboldened by the crisis in Tehran, Tel Aviv hawks pushed ahead, financing new settlements. Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharanovitch's visit to al Aqsa Mosque was supposed to mirror that of then Interior Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount back in 2000, which ignited the Second Intifada. Only Sharon didn't even dare entering the Mosque. Avigdor Lieberman's friend did, and his team went as far as exlaining that "the intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency"**.
The Temple Mount has been under considerable threat for years, several extreme right Israeli activist groups undermining its very foundations and claiming this sacred Muslim ground as theirs. One could hardly find any more controversial thing to do at this defining moment.
As advertised during his campaign, Benjamin Netanyahu is governing the most extreme way. His intentions are crystal clear : fueling hatred, destroying all peace attempts, strengthening radicals within Israeli as well as Palestinian ranks... business as usual for a post-Rabin Israeli PM. The difference : Netanyahu must act even bolder than his predecessors to maintain his coalition.
Joe Biden mentioned a test during the first 6 months of Obama's presidency ? Here we are. Die hard fundamentalists are putting their very existence in the balance in both Iran and Israel... And oh, Kim Jong-il plans another missile launch to celebrate July the 4th. Take your ticket and get in the line.
* see previous blogules on post-Bush Israel and Iran, and "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?".
** from IslamOnline.net and "Occupied Jerusalem" : "Palestinians Blast Provocative Al-Aqsa Visit"
Emboldened by the crisis in Tehran, Tel Aviv hawks pushed ahead, financing new settlements. Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharanovitch's visit to al Aqsa Mosque was supposed to mirror that of then Interior Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount back in 2000, which ignited the Second Intifada. Only Sharon didn't even dare entering the Mosque. Avigdor Lieberman's friend did, and his team went as far as exlaining that "the intention of the visit was to see how the police would deploy in case of an emergency"**.
The Temple Mount has been under considerable threat for years, several extreme right Israeli activist groups undermining its very foundations and claiming this sacred Muslim ground as theirs. One could hardly find any more controversial thing to do at this defining moment.
As advertised during his campaign, Benjamin Netanyahu is governing the most extreme way. His intentions are crystal clear : fueling hatred, destroying all peace attempts, strengthening radicals within Israeli as well as Palestinian ranks... business as usual for a post-Rabin Israeli PM. The difference : Netanyahu must act even bolder than his predecessors to maintain his coalition.
Joe Biden mentioned a test during the first 6 months of Obama's presidency ? Here we are. Die hard fundamentalists are putting their very existence in the balance in both Iran and Israel... And oh, Kim Jong-il plans another missile launch to celebrate July the 4th. Take your ticket and get in the line.
* see previous blogules on post-Bush Israel and Iran, and "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?".
** from IslamOnline.net and "Occupied Jerusalem" : "Palestinians Blast Provocative Al-Aqsa Visit"
20090622
Khamenei's death wish
It's over now. As expected*, even if Khamenei manages to crush the opposition, the Supreme Leader has totally lost the battle against himself.
Iran rulers are now led to the classic desperate straits of a fascist regime lacking confidence in their discredited leader. Since they cannot anymore pretend to bring the Iranian people together around the figures of Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, they forge a case for terror attacks on the father figure of the 1979 Revolution ("suicide bomber" near Khomeini Mausoleum), and fuel nationalism by mentioning foreign agent provocateurs**.
Official media exhibit demonstrators attacking policemen as a proof of their terrorist nature, but the very image of demonstrators defying the explicit orders of Ali Khamenei is in itself a major blow to the country's most important Ayatollah.
Terror and foreign agent provocateurs are a reality, though. But terror perpetrated by the State, foreign agents invited by the State (some Iranian policemen refuse to hit their own kind, some militiamen talked only Arabic and not Farsi...).
Official propaganda remains strong and powerful, but Iran's level of education and international overture makes it impossible to control minds as tightly as in other countries.
Mousavi brilliantly exposed Khamenei's contradictions, putting a true believer's mirror in front of his face and caricature of faith. Who is the true guardian of the spirit of the revolution ? Who is the true defensor of the Islamic Republic ? Who would be a true martyr if he were to die ? And on the other side, who is this imposteur posing as a Supreme Leader ? Who is this deviant liar ? Who must "face the consequences" ?
The stronger the repression, the quicker the implosion. Khamenei seems ready to go all the way and probably won't concede. The key now is to see who wants to join him as he fullfills his death wish.
* see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow" and "Party Unity My Ayatollah ?"
** UK explicitely named by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. BBC's Jon Leyne asked to leave (BBC in Farsi too independent for the regime).
Iran rulers are now led to the classic desperate straits of a fascist regime lacking confidence in their discredited leader. Since they cannot anymore pretend to bring the Iranian people together around the figures of Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, they forge a case for terror attacks on the father figure of the 1979 Revolution ("suicide bomber" near Khomeini Mausoleum), and fuel nationalism by mentioning foreign agent provocateurs**.
Official media exhibit demonstrators attacking policemen as a proof of their terrorist nature, but the very image of demonstrators defying the explicit orders of Ali Khamenei is in itself a major blow to the country's most important Ayatollah.
Terror and foreign agent provocateurs are a reality, though. But terror perpetrated by the State, foreign agents invited by the State (some Iranian policemen refuse to hit their own kind, some militiamen talked only Arabic and not Farsi...).
Official propaganda remains strong and powerful, but Iran's level of education and international overture makes it impossible to control minds as tightly as in other countries.
Mousavi brilliantly exposed Khamenei's contradictions, putting a true believer's mirror in front of his face and caricature of faith. Who is the true guardian of the spirit of the revolution ? Who is the true defensor of the Islamic Republic ? Who would be a true martyr if he were to die ? And on the other side, who is this imposteur posing as a Supreme Leader ? Who is this deviant liar ? Who must "face the consequences" ?
The stronger the repression, the quicker the implosion. Khamenei seems ready to go all the way and probably won't concede. The key now is to see who wants to join him as he fullfills his death wish.
* see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow" and "Party Unity My Ayatollah ?"
** UK explicitely named by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. BBC's Jon Leyne asked to leave (BBC in Farsi too independent for the regime).
20090619
Scoop : Karl Rove is Pro Choice
According to Karl Rove, "The GOP Can Stop ObamaCare" (see WSJ 20090618).
Beyond the negative title, the idea is to prove that the GOP cares, and that the Party of NO can make proposals.
Karl himself becomes pro choice. Well... in favor of "Patients' Choice Act", at least.
To understand a proposal, you have to understand who's pushing it. Karl named four names :
- Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Yes, that's Tom "But what if I want to drive a gas guzzler ?" Coburn
- Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Famous these days for promoting R.J. Reynolds' highly controversial "tobacco lollipops".
- Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI). This man is in favor of universal coverage but make no mistake : his dream has always been to serve his generous sponsors and to offer to private funds the possibility to manage SS money
- Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA). Citizens Against Government Waste elected him "Porker of the Month" in February 2008 for "attempting to impede the recovery of hundreds of millions in over-payments to Medicare providers in the state of California" (thanks to SourceWatch / CMD for that gem)
This compassionate dream team comes up with a very innovative proposal : vote John McCain, and socialize the losses of companies.
Health insurance portability sounds nice, but it's mainly a scheme to clean up big corp balance sheets. Transferring the tax reductions for health care from the companies to individuals, that's a way of taking the burden off corporate shoulders, empowering private financial advisors, and weakening the collective power of employees.
Karl keeps going : "another proposal is to pass medical liability reforms that will reduce costly junk lawsuits." OK, but what is a "junk" lawsuit ? "A charge on big tobacco", would answer Senator Burr.
Overall, a pervasive system designed to weaken individuals vs big companies, to scatter about all counter-powers.
The GOP set up a Health Care Solutions Group, a one stop shopping joint to facilitate the job for lobbyists.
The GOP does care, after all. For his generous donators.
Beyond the negative title, the idea is to prove that the GOP cares, and that the Party of NO can make proposals.
Karl himself becomes pro choice. Well... in favor of "Patients' Choice Act", at least.
To understand a proposal, you have to understand who's pushing it. Karl named four names :
- Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Yes, that's Tom "But what if I want to drive a gas guzzler ?" Coburn
- Senator Richard Burr (R-NC). Famous these days for promoting R.J. Reynolds' highly controversial "tobacco lollipops".
- Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI). This man is in favor of universal coverage but make no mistake : his dream has always been to serve his generous sponsors and to offer to private funds the possibility to manage SS money
- Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA). Citizens Against Government Waste elected him "Porker of the Month" in February 2008 for "attempting to impede the recovery of hundreds of millions in over-payments to Medicare providers in the state of California" (thanks to SourceWatch / CMD for that gem)
This compassionate dream team comes up with a very innovative proposal : vote John McCain, and socialize the losses of companies.
Health insurance portability sounds nice, but it's mainly a scheme to clean up big corp balance sheets. Transferring the tax reductions for health care from the companies to individuals, that's a way of taking the burden off corporate shoulders, empowering private financial advisors, and weakening the collective power of employees.
Karl keeps going : "another proposal is to pass medical liability reforms that will reduce costly junk lawsuits." OK, but what is a "junk" lawsuit ? "A charge on big tobacco", would answer Senator Burr.
Overall, a pervasive system designed to weaken individuals vs big companies, to scatter about all counter-powers.
The GOP set up a Health Care Solutions Group, a one stop shopping joint to facilitate the job for lobbyists.
The GOP does care, after all. For his generous donators.
20090617
Party Unity My Ayatollah ?
As expected (see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow ?"), Supreme Leader Khamenei ends up badly exposed in the front line after taking too carelessly sides in utterly controversial elections.
Khamenei eventually conceded a recount and theoretically, Guardian Council won't change the story. Except this is Khamenei's last chance to save face : at this stage, he can still dump his joker (Ahmadinejad). Unless he prefers to share his fate.
Either way, the system failed :
=> The official story doesn't stand mathematically or rather, appears too outstandingly perfect. Beyond the elements in the equation already mentioned earlier, some pointed out the fact that when you compared votes for Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, the six official partial results released over election day drew too perfect a line. Farideh Farhi (University of Hawaii) nails the result as "pulled out of a hat"*.
=> A different story would mean a failure in the election process, ricocheting on the country's ruling class.
And either way, the Supreme Leader failed in his judgement and sense of timing. His supporters, but furthermore the people of influence who owe him their powers, must have taken notice. Khamenei caused a disruption that could prove fatal for the unity of Iran as a people as well as a political system.
Even Mousavi would have some trouble playing the Obama role, bringing back all parties together...
Party Unity My Ayatollah ?
* see "Was Iran's election rigged? Here's what is known so far" (Christian Science Monitor 20090617).
Khamenei eventually conceded a recount and theoretically, Guardian Council won't change the story. Except this is Khamenei's last chance to save face : at this stage, he can still dump his joker (Ahmadinejad). Unless he prefers to share his fate.
Either way, the system failed :
=> The official story doesn't stand mathematically or rather, appears too outstandingly perfect. Beyond the elements in the equation already mentioned earlier, some pointed out the fact that when you compared votes for Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, the six official partial results released over election day drew too perfect a line. Farideh Farhi (University of Hawaii) nails the result as "pulled out of a hat"*.
=> A different story would mean a failure in the election process, ricocheting on the country's ruling class.
And either way, the Supreme Leader failed in his judgement and sense of timing. His supporters, but furthermore the people of influence who owe him their powers, must have taken notice. Khamenei caused a disruption that could prove fatal for the unity of Iran as a people as well as a political system.
Even Mousavi would have some trouble playing the Obama role, bringing back all parties together...
Party Unity My Ayatollah ?
* see "Was Iran's election rigged? Here's what is known so far" (Christian Science Monitor 20090617).
20090614
Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow
Iran reformers were denied their "Yes We Can" moment or at least, a second round against the incumbent at the Presidential elections.
To Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I'd say "yes, you can" remain in power thanks to such disgraceful methods but no, you can't declare yourself a winner. Because somehow, you put an end to the 1979 Revolution and alienated, beyond half of the great Iranian people, the clerics who allowed this political suicide.
The problem with official election results is that they look too perfect to be true :
. Ahmadinejad's 62.63% are high enough to avoid controversies about a potential second round, and low enough to avoid embarrassing comparisons with dictator plebiscites in banana republics or stalinian states... or even Bush approval rates in Midland, TX.
. in a model democracy you need a significant opposition, and considering the success of his campaign as well as all polls published before election day, Mir-Hossein Mousavi couldn't decently claim less than one third of ballots. Done, but not by much (33.75%).
Great, but that leaves us with only a few votes to split between the remaining two candidates. And we want to keep the same 2 to 1 ratio in favor of conservatives against reformers... so be it : 1.73% for Roshen Rezaee and 0.85% for Mehdi Karroubi !
Don't get me wrong : I expected Ahmadinejad to come first at the first round, leveraging on his position at the entry point of elections, for the registration. He was bound to get a massive turnout in rural regions, struggling only against candidates with a local stronghold. But a second round was more than likely.
The turnout exploded (85% vs 62.6% in 2005), but Mousavi contributed a lot to it while mobilising younger generations. With 13.2 M votes, he weighs twice as much as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the first round four years ago (the old leader campaigned for him). But Ahmadinejad's score seems extreme (even in rural areas - 75% according to the IRNA / Islamic Republic News Agency), and Karroubi's simply impossible : 300,000 ballots for a man who claimed over 5 millions at the 2005 presidential elections and was expected to finish significantly ahead of Rezaee ?
In a press conference broadcasted live on international channels (NB: CNN winning over BBC for the Farsi to English interpretation), Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli exposed the smoking gun : in the same speech, he delivered extremely precise results at the national level, and announced further delays in the publication of regional results.
Officially, the announcement has to be done by each region, but the message seems obvious :
- leave us some time to give our "top down" decree some illusion of "bottom up" consistency.
- there will necessarily be some inconsistencies hard to swallow for the opposition (you can't explain quantum physics with classic physics), but we would consider them minor and local, and they wouldn't threaten the national results
Always the vigilant Juan Cole* already pointed out a few aberrations : "Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations", the Lur Karroubi failing in Luristan, the Azeri Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Azerbaïdjan... Mahsouli did announce a victory of the latter in Tehran, though.
Unsurprisingly, opposition turned into resistance as soon as the first results were published.
Violence, arrests, censorship... unsurprisingly, Ahmadinejad confirmed his fundamentalist nature : his main targets are neither Israeli nor Americans but Iranian moderates.
His 2005 victory was already a felony but here, the clash seems final. Something is broken for good, and beyond the trust between some Iranians and their president.
Dragging along with him down to illegitimacy the clerics who let him go this far, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may simply have put an end to the 1979 Revolution :
- as a former Prime Minister of Khomeini, Mousavi was paradoxically in the best position to extend the regime's legitimacy even as he pushed reforms
- by alienating Iran youth, religious leaders deprived themselves of a future
- worse : their destiny is now intimately linked to a man who is not even one of them. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cannot hide anymore behind this joker : he is more than ever responsible for whatever Ahmadinejad does.
- Ahmadinejad wins but the cleric system loses - exactly like the 2004 US elections, when Bush's victory meant the end of the GOP
This President and this system cannot go on forever together and a divorce seems ineluctable. And the more Ayatollahs stick to their suicidal posture, the nastier the separation will be.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never looks so strong, nor Iran so weak since 1979.
Exactly as the world needs a stable and consistent Iran.
Of course, repression can succeed in the short term, but Iran may have soon to choose between the unity of the country and the survival of a regime. Right now, Ahmadinejad is compelled to enter one way or another unknown territories : even only in apparence, he must somewhat offer some positive change in the balance. And the easiest path seems on the international stage.
* see "Informed Comment" : "Stealing the Iranian Election"
---
also on blogules (V.F.)
To Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I'd say "yes, you can" remain in power thanks to such disgraceful methods but no, you can't declare yourself a winner. Because somehow, you put an end to the 1979 Revolution and alienated, beyond half of the great Iranian people, the clerics who allowed this political suicide.
The problem with official election results is that they look too perfect to be true :
. Ahmadinejad's 62.63% are high enough to avoid controversies about a potential second round, and low enough to avoid embarrassing comparisons with dictator plebiscites in banana republics or stalinian states... or even Bush approval rates in Midland, TX.
. in a model democracy you need a significant opposition, and considering the success of his campaign as well as all polls published before election day, Mir-Hossein Mousavi couldn't decently claim less than one third of ballots. Done, but not by much (33.75%).
Great, but that leaves us with only a few votes to split between the remaining two candidates. And we want to keep the same 2 to 1 ratio in favor of conservatives against reformers... so be it : 1.73% for Roshen Rezaee and 0.85% for Mehdi Karroubi !
Don't get me wrong : I expected Ahmadinejad to come first at the first round, leveraging on his position at the entry point of elections, for the registration. He was bound to get a massive turnout in rural regions, struggling only against candidates with a local stronghold. But a second round was more than likely.
The turnout exploded (85% vs 62.6% in 2005), but Mousavi contributed a lot to it while mobilising younger generations. With 13.2 M votes, he weighs twice as much as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani at the first round four years ago (the old leader campaigned for him). But Ahmadinejad's score seems extreme (even in rural areas - 75% according to the IRNA / Islamic Republic News Agency), and Karroubi's simply impossible : 300,000 ballots for a man who claimed over 5 millions at the 2005 presidential elections and was expected to finish significantly ahead of Rezaee ?
In a press conference broadcasted live on international channels (NB: CNN winning over BBC for the Farsi to English interpretation), Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli exposed the smoking gun : in the same speech, he delivered extremely precise results at the national level, and announced further delays in the publication of regional results.
Officially, the announcement has to be done by each region, but the message seems obvious :
- leave us some time to give our "top down" decree some illusion of "bottom up" consistency.
- there will necessarily be some inconsistencies hard to swallow for the opposition (you can't explain quantum physics with classic physics), but we would consider them minor and local, and they wouldn't threaten the national results
Always the vigilant Juan Cole* already pointed out a few aberrations : "Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations", the Lur Karroubi failing in Luristan, the Azeri Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Azerbaïdjan... Mahsouli did announce a victory of the latter in Tehran, though.
Unsurprisingly, opposition turned into resistance as soon as the first results were published.
Violence, arrests, censorship... unsurprisingly, Ahmadinejad confirmed his fundamentalist nature : his main targets are neither Israeli nor Americans but Iranian moderates.
His 2005 victory was already a felony but here, the clash seems final. Something is broken for good, and beyond the trust between some Iranians and their president.
Dragging along with him down to illegitimacy the clerics who let him go this far, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may simply have put an end to the 1979 Revolution :
- as a former Prime Minister of Khomeini, Mousavi was paradoxically in the best position to extend the regime's legitimacy even as he pushed reforms
- by alienating Iran youth, religious leaders deprived themselves of a future
- worse : their destiny is now intimately linked to a man who is not even one of them. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cannot hide anymore behind this joker : he is more than ever responsible for whatever Ahmadinejad does.
- Ahmadinejad wins but the cleric system loses - exactly like the 2004 US elections, when Bush's victory meant the end of the GOP
This President and this system cannot go on forever together and a divorce seems ineluctable. And the more Ayatollahs stick to their suicidal posture, the nastier the separation will be.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never looks so strong, nor Iran so weak since 1979.
Exactly as the world needs a stable and consistent Iran.
Of course, repression can succeed in the short term, but Iran may have soon to choose between the unity of the country and the survival of a regime. Right now, Ahmadinejad is compelled to enter one way or another unknown territories : even only in apparence, he must somewhat offer some positive change in the balance. And the easiest path seems on the international stage.
* see "Informed Comment" : "Stealing the Iranian Election"
---
also on blogules (V.F.)
20090613
Is Your PC P.C. enough for China's PC ? Green Dam Youth Escort
Beijing's idea of fighting porn is to launch a "youth escort".
Announced last month, the Green Dam-Youth Escort system will be implemented starting July 1st, 2009.
Basically, all computers will come with a software preventing web surfers from coming across unhealthy content as defined by the regime. Potentially : pornography, violence, democracy, human rights, resistance against State propaganda and revisionism...
Theoretically, you can switch it off. But the moment this Government plants a troyan horse in every computer, all your own dams break loose.
This pushes the Golden Shield Project (A.K.A. the Great Firewall of China) up one notch on the totalitarian scale. Instead of just controlling the access to specific sites, Beijing may monitor all the traffic and beyond, all usages and every individual from every computer. It would just take a few transparent updates in the "service".
This is about tracking minds, preventing "negative" buzz from spreading, spotting "rebel" patterns, and anticipating potential disruptions. Zombie computers for a zombie people.
US manufacturers see the trap : they would join Google or Yahoo!, regularily blamed as collaborators by human rights groups.
I presume Chinese Authorities consider this as an inoffensive technology transfer from regular NSA partners...
---
Addendum 20090613
I mentioned "technology transfer" and it seems to be the entry point for a US counter attack : "Solid Oak Software Inc said it found pieces of its CyberSitter Internet-filtering software in the Chinese program, including a list of terms to be blocked and instructions for updating the software" (see "U.S. company accuses China of stealing software" - Reuters 20090613).
---
Also published on blogules in French and on mot-bile.
Announced last month, the Green Dam-Youth Escort system will be implemented starting July 1st, 2009.
Basically, all computers will come with a software preventing web surfers from coming across unhealthy content as defined by the regime. Potentially : pornography, violence, democracy, human rights, resistance against State propaganda and revisionism...
Theoretically, you can switch it off. But the moment this Government plants a troyan horse in every computer, all your own dams break loose.
This pushes the Golden Shield Project (A.K.A. the Great Firewall of China) up one notch on the totalitarian scale. Instead of just controlling the access to specific sites, Beijing may monitor all the traffic and beyond, all usages and every individual from every computer. It would just take a few transparent updates in the "service".
This is about tracking minds, preventing "negative" buzz from spreading, spotting "rebel" patterns, and anticipating potential disruptions. Zombie computers for a zombie people.
US manufacturers see the trap : they would join Google or Yahoo!, regularily blamed as collaborators by human rights groups.
I presume Chinese Authorities consider this as an inoffensive technology transfer from regular NSA partners...
---
Addendum 20090613
I mentioned "technology transfer" and it seems to be the entry point for a US counter attack : "Solid Oak Software Inc said it found pieces of its CyberSitter Internet-filtering software in the Chinese program, including a list of terms to be blocked and instructions for updating the software" (see "U.S. company accuses China of stealing software" - Reuters 20090613).
---
Also published on blogules in French and on mot-bile.
20090611
Intelligence Supremacy
Yesterday, an 88 year old unrepented White Supremacist, James W. von Brunn, murdered a black guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Earlier this month, a "pro-life" fanatic murdered a doctor at his church (see '"Pro Life" Murderers').
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
20090605
KIM Jong-nam : Korea's Last Emperor of first governor ?
Persistent rumors* have Kim Jong-il's eldest son, nowadays in Macau, defect to China.
This wouldn't come as a surprise : Kim Jong-nam, a compulsive gambler, knows perfectly where the odds for him not only to survive**, but to lead North Korea would be the highest.
Daddy officially picked Jong-nam's younger brother Kim Jong-un as his successor, and China literally enrages at this official declaration of independence*** : Kim Jong-nam could become Beijing's ideal puppet to prepare a coup against the ageing leader or rather his younger son.
Kim Il-sung's and Kim Jong-il's blood runs through Kim Jong-nam's veins, which could grant him legitimacy to rule. Beijing could try to discredit the Pyeongyang regime and host a "resistance" movement home. After all, the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was in exile in Shanghai.
But here, you would expect some location more consistent with the infamous Northeastern Project : according to this official revisionist propaganda, such a puppet resistance government would not be in exile but reside in the Chinese part of Korea, because Korea could only reunite as a Chinese province****.
Not The Last Emperor, but the first governor.
* and the Shankei Shimbun (May 1, 2009 edition), mentioning sometimes inebriated phone conversations between Kim Jong-nam and Kim Jong-il's sister, Kim Kyung-hee. The rehabilitation of her husband Chang Sung-taek by Pyeongyang could further isolate Kim Jong-nam.
** rumor has also it that Kim Jong-nam, confused with another man, escaped from an abduction attempt
*** see on blogules V.F. "Kim Jong-Un Deux Trois" (20090602)
**** see "the great Hanschluss"
---
initially published on Seoul Village.
---
20090617 update : in an informal interview (NHK), Kim Jong-nam played a very low profile, distancing himself from politics and confirming his little brother must have received the paternal benediction. Time for appeasement from Pyeongyang as well : Kim Jong-eun paid a visit to Hu Jintao. Rattle can only last for a limited period of time when pressure mounts from everywhere... Rumor has it the attempted assassination of Jong-nam originated from Jong-il's sister, and that China prevented it... Ever wondered why dramas were so popular here ?
This wouldn't come as a surprise : Kim Jong-nam, a compulsive gambler, knows perfectly where the odds for him not only to survive**, but to lead North Korea would be the highest.
Daddy officially picked Jong-nam's younger brother Kim Jong-un as his successor, and China literally enrages at this official declaration of independence*** : Kim Jong-nam could become Beijing's ideal puppet to prepare a coup against the ageing leader or rather his younger son.
Kim Il-sung's and Kim Jong-il's blood runs through Kim Jong-nam's veins, which could grant him legitimacy to rule. Beijing could try to discredit the Pyeongyang regime and host a "resistance" movement home. After all, the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was in exile in Shanghai.
But here, you would expect some location more consistent with the infamous Northeastern Project : according to this official revisionist propaganda, such a puppet resistance government would not be in exile but reside in the Chinese part of Korea, because Korea could only reunite as a Chinese province****.
Not The Last Emperor, but the first governor.
* and the Shankei Shimbun (May 1, 2009 edition), mentioning sometimes inebriated phone conversations between Kim Jong-nam and Kim Jong-il's sister, Kim Kyung-hee. The rehabilitation of her husband Chang Sung-taek by Pyeongyang could further isolate Kim Jong-nam.
** rumor has also it that Kim Jong-nam, confused with another man, escaped from an abduction attempt
*** see on blogules V.F. "Kim Jong-Un Deux Trois" (20090602)
**** see "the great Hanschluss"
---
initially published on Seoul Village.
---
20090617 update : in an informal interview (NHK), Kim Jong-nam played a very low profile, distancing himself from politics and confirming his little brother must have received the paternal benediction. Time for appeasement from Pyeongyang as well : Kim Jong-eun paid a visit to Hu Jintao. Rattle can only last for a limited period of time when pressure mounts from everywhere... Rumor has it the attempted assassination of Jong-nam originated from Jong-il's sister, and that China prevented it... Ever wondered why dramas were so popular here ?
State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine
Believe it or not, we live in a multicultural and diverse world.
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.
Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.
A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :
Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".
Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)
Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".
Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...
The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.
Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".
The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.
A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.
* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").
** see transcript (NYT 20090604)
*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"
20090604
"Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama
Osama Bin Laden has got a sick sense of humor : Barack Obama would be "antagonizing Muslims"... that's according to a man who killed much more Muslims than non-Muslims.
Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.
Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.
Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".
President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.
Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".
And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.
Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."
Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.
But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.
Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...
You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.
* see "Next stop: Pakistan"
Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.
Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.
Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".
Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".
President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.
Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".
And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.
Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."
Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.
But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.
Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...
You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.
* see "Next stop: Pakistan"
20090601
"Pro Life" Murderers
George Tiller was murdered on Sunday. Just outside the church where he served as an usher, in Wichita, KS. Back in the nineties, this physician already survided one bombing and one shooting.
The murderer* will probably get a life sentence for this monstruous crime... Life for a "pro-lifer", because I presume that this dangerous lunatic considers himself a good Christian and a good defensor of God's creation, and that in this troubled mind, Tiller was a serial killer because he happened to perform late term abortions.
But to the contrary, "thanks" to his crazy act, Tiller died a martyr for actual faith as well as a martyr for the actual "pro-life" movement : those who chose saving one life over fanaticism, those who respect mankind and want to protect democracy from fundamentalism.
Federal law protects people like Tiller because America chose democracy over fundamentalism. His tragic death will resonate during the usual Roe v. Wade bout following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement.
Pro-choice activists will screen Judge Sonia Sotomayor as well as pro-lifers, and both should : any democracy needs transparency, and this one endured enough consequences of hidden agendas. Justice Souter's most important decision was to wait for the Bush-Cheney era to end before leaving office (see "5-4. Still standing").
About Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, I spilled this blogule a couple of days before the November 2004 Elections (see archives : "Red Blogule to this "pro-life" President - Stem cells : who's the murderer ?"**)
Justice Souter will not be replaced by a radical. Nor will Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm so glad Obama makes the choice. Of life.
* probably the man already charged : Scott Roeder, also from Kansas
** to complete the Pro-life trilogy, see also Pro-life / pro-death pro-teges"
The murderer* will probably get a life sentence for this monstruous crime... Life for a "pro-lifer", because I presume that this dangerous lunatic considers himself a good Christian and a good defensor of God's creation, and that in this troubled mind, Tiller was a serial killer because he happened to perform late term abortions.
But to the contrary, "thanks" to his crazy act, Tiller died a martyr for actual faith as well as a martyr for the actual "pro-life" movement : those who chose saving one life over fanaticism, those who respect mankind and want to protect democracy from fundamentalism.
Federal law protects people like Tiller because America chose democracy over fundamentalism. His tragic death will resonate during the usual Roe v. Wade bout following Justice David Souter's retirement announcement.
Pro-choice activists will screen Judge Sonia Sotomayor as well as pro-lifers, and both should : any democracy needs transparency, and this one endured enough consequences of hidden agendas. Justice Souter's most important decision was to wait for the Bush-Cheney era to end before leaving office (see "5-4. Still standing").
About Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, I spilled this blogule a couple of days before the November 2004 Elections (see archives : "Red Blogule to this "pro-life" President - Stem cells : who's the murderer ?"**)
Somebody tell me why this "pro-life" President, so much eager to protect life in the form of embryos, is the biggest supporter of death penalty and holds the record for executions in the US.He did. But American voters redeemed themselves last year.
Somebody tell me why this man, who says every tiny cell counts, doesn't show any remorse when soldiers die because of his failures or kids are slaughtered during his massive bombings to smoke Zarkawi out before November the 2nd.
Somebody tell me why this imposteur, who dares say he defends the values that built America, should even have the slightest chance of fooling the electors once more.
Justice Souter will not be replaced by a radical. Nor will Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm so glad Obama makes the choice. Of life.
* probably the man already charged : Scott Roeder, also from Kansas
** to complete the Pro-life trilogy, see also Pro-life / pro-death pro-teges"
20090530
A Yellow Sea For Roh
Downtown submerged by a tsunami of yellow ribbons, arm bands, hair pins, hats, and balloons.
Not at the Gyeongbokgung today : the color of Roh Moo-hyun's campaigns was strictly forbidden at the site of the official ceremony.
Also forbidden : Kim Dae-jung's eulogy for his successor. This request from the family was turned down by his successor's successor... a measure of respect to other former Presidents according to Lee Myung-bak, a setback for democracy according to the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Also forbidden : Seoul Plaza, closed to mourners until today, for fear of a remake of last year's massive demonstrations. Roh sympathizers improvised the first altar just across the street, in front of Deoksugung's gate, the very morning when he died*. Local and foreign V.I.P.s waited for a more exclusive altar to be opened, a few days later, at the Seoul Museum of History. Both sites felt silent, but one did sound a little more sincere than the other.
Above, the head of the convoy on Sejongno, as it leaves Gyeongbokgung for Seoul Plaza and Roh Moo-hyun's Yellow Sea of supporters.
Right, Roh's collaborators, following the deceased and singing the song that cemented their cause for democracy.
* See "Roh Moo-hyun follows Pierre Beregovoy".
---
initially published on SeoulVillage.
20090523
Roh Moo-hyun follows Pierre Beregovoy
When I read this morning about the tragic fate of former President Roh Moo-hyun, I thought about Pierre Beregovoy, Francois Mitterrand's last prime minister who supposedly committed suicide while under investigation for corruption.
Suicide or not suicide, this not the issue here. Both Beregovoy and Roh came from modest backgrounds, succeeded in politics as outsiders, and ended up in a tragic fate, soon after leaving the top, their main asset, the positive image on which they built their successes, shattered to pieces.
This morning, I made this stupid dream* that Roh's final bow could wake up Korea, help it reconsider politics, put down the guns, and start a vast operation of transparence. To help talents truly motivated by change emerge from the crowd, but also to protect them as they climb to the top of this beautiful yet slippery mountain.
* see the blogule : "Roh Moo-hyun, le promeneur du champ de mai"
Suicide or not suicide, this not the issue here. Both Beregovoy and Roh came from modest backgrounds, succeeded in politics as outsiders, and ended up in a tragic fate, soon after leaving the top, their main asset, the positive image on which they built their successes, shattered to pieces.
This morning, I made this stupid dream* that Roh's final bow could wake up Korea, help it reconsider politics, put down the guns, and start a vast operation of transparence. To help talents truly motivated by change emerge from the crowd, but also to protect them as they climb to the top of this beautiful yet slippery mountain.
* see the blogule : "Roh Moo-hyun, le promeneur du champ de mai"
20090522
Memo : the case is about abuses in Gitmo, not about closing Gitmo
In an unsigned tribune ("Bush's Gitmo Vindication" - 20090522), the Wall Street Journal accuses President Obama of vindication against President Bush's Pristine Heritage in his great speech delivered yesterday. According to the unknown author, closing Guantanamo was a mistake.
"Obama still hasn't said where the worst terrorists will go".
=> Well. After seven years of outrages, Guantanamo still hasn't said whether detainees were terrorists or not. Obama just took office a few months ago, remember ?
To Jim Webb, who said "We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law", the courageous author adds "That was the Bush Administration's point all along."
=> First, a reminder : Bush's Amerika spent hundreds of billions of dollars building an inappropriate war in favor of terror instead of an appropriate war on terror.
=> Second, what Obama and the World point all along is this : of course terrorists are against international law ! But Gitmo abuses were against international law, the Bush Administration was against international law, Bush's Amerika was against international law. The case is not about closing Guantanamo but about what went wrong there.
"Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design. He's the one who announced the end of Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with, or where to put, KSM and other killers".
=> It's like the economy, stupid. You need to stop the wrongs but it's not that easy because the mess is really deep and nasty. What did you expect Obama to say in front of the collapse of the World economies last autumn ? "Good job ! Keep Going" ? Same here : we first say this must stop, and then we work on a solution.
=> "Haphazard design" is not deciding to close Guantanamo. "Haphazard design" is deciding to promote torture, committing Abu Ghraib abuses, and giving a boost to worldwide terror in the process.
"Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?"
=> my pleasure, dear unknown fascist coward : "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
"Obama still hasn't said where the worst terrorists will go".
=> Well. After seven years of outrages, Guantanamo still hasn't said whether detainees were terrorists or not. Obama just took office a few months ago, remember ?
To Jim Webb, who said "We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law", the courageous author adds "That was the Bush Administration's point all along."
=> First, a reminder : Bush's Amerika spent hundreds of billions of dollars building an inappropriate war in favor of terror instead of an appropriate war on terror.
=> Second, what Obama and the World point all along is this : of course terrorists are against international law ! But Gitmo abuses were against international law, the Bush Administration was against international law, Bush's Amerika was against international law. The case is not about closing Guantanamo but about what went wrong there.
"Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design. He's the one who announced the end of Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with, or where to put, KSM and other killers".
=> It's like the economy, stupid. You need to stop the wrongs but it's not that easy because the mess is really deep and nasty. What did you expect Obama to say in front of the collapse of the World economies last autumn ? "Good job ! Keep Going" ? Same here : we first say this must stop, and then we work on a solution.
=> "Haphazard design" is not deciding to close Guantanamo. "Haphazard design" is deciding to promote torture, committing Abu Ghraib abuses, and giving a boost to worldwide terror in the process.
"Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?"
=> my pleasure, dear unknown fascist coward : "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
20090521
Open Season for Yosemite Sam
The Congress voted 279-147 to allow guns in national parks.
Don't ask why representatives tackle such priorities in times of recession. I guess not every NRA card holder can afford paying for meat in his or her local Wal Mart. Who knows ? Some may even want to check if their mortgaged machine guns can still fire correctly.
Anyway, this votes marks a bipartisan "victory", since 105 Dems joined what happens to be a GOP initiative ("yes, we can have initiatives").
Dick "Yosemite Sam" Cheney plans to invite his closest friends to celebrate. The bang of a party in ... deed.
Bambi sadly commented on the vote : "The buck stops here".
Don't ask why representatives tackle such priorities in times of recession. I guess not every NRA card holder can afford paying for meat in his or her local Wal Mart. Who knows ? Some may even want to check if their mortgaged machine guns can still fire correctly.
Anyway, this votes marks a bipartisan "victory", since 105 Dems joined what happens to be a GOP initiative ("yes, we can have initiatives").
Dick "Yosemite Sam" Cheney plans to invite his closest friends to celebrate. The bang of a party in ... deed.
Bambi sadly commented on the vote : "The buck stops here".
20090518
India : no change means change
Congress Party claimed victory in the Indian election marathon, strengthening the positions of Manmohan Singh, party leader Sonia Gandhi and even her son Rahul Gandhi. A crushing desillusion for radicals from the nationalists and fundamentalist sides.
Yes, moderates can win. Even after Mumbai*. Even after a Bush-Cheney victory at the 2009 Israeli elections.
Maybe Indians are smarter and wiser than Israeli. Maybe they are simply more sensitive to demagogy that promises a more humane development instead of demagogy that promises more inhumane treatments. Go figure.
Mir Hossein Mousavi Khamenech is definitely smarter and wiser than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A reformer with the experience of a conservative war Prime Minister, he would get rid of Iran's Moral Police, restore some basic women's rights, open the media to private entrepreneurs, and put the country back on the diplomatic map. A poor score of Hezbollah in upcoming elections in Lebanon could be a good sign for reform in Iran.
Stability and calm in such big countries as India and Iran could radiate around, even as Pakistan and Sri Lanka threaten to fuel future fires while crushing Taliban or Tamil Tigers.
We've been used to electoral calendars overwhelmed with bad news and this year already provided its share, but should the trend be confirmed, even Israel would be forced to reconsider its suicidal stance.
* see "Lessons from Mumbai ?"
Yes, moderates can win. Even after Mumbai*. Even after a Bush-Cheney victory at the 2009 Israeli elections.
Maybe Indians are smarter and wiser than Israeli. Maybe they are simply more sensitive to demagogy that promises a more humane development instead of demagogy that promises more inhumane treatments. Go figure.
Mir Hossein Mousavi Khamenech is definitely smarter and wiser than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A reformer with the experience of a conservative war Prime Minister, he would get rid of Iran's Moral Police, restore some basic women's rights, open the media to private entrepreneurs, and put the country back on the diplomatic map. A poor score of Hezbollah in upcoming elections in Lebanon could be a good sign for reform in Iran.
Stability and calm in such big countries as India and Iran could radiate around, even as Pakistan and Sri Lanka threaten to fuel future fires while crushing Taliban or Tamil Tigers.
We've been used to electoral calendars overwhelmed with bad news and this year already provided its share, but should the trend be confirmed, even Israel would be forced to reconsider its suicidal stance.
* see "Lessons from Mumbai ?"
20090515
Rove v. Pelosi v. Rove v. America
In his latest biweekly piece of revisionism*, Karl Rove pointed his bloody finger at Nancy Pelosi : YOU supported waterboarding and EIT ("Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"). YOU supported what you liberals call 'torture'.
First thing, Karl : whatever Pelosi did or said, waterboarding IS torture. Not 'torture'. And certainly not your edulcorated "EIT".
Second : many Americans (including some Democrats) supported the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, and even voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
Which doesn't mean they were in favor of torture, Abu Ghraib, or that dangerous fundamentalist who wrecked world peace and for whom you used to work for as "The Architect" (or more intimately as "Turd Blossom").
This only shows how powerful was your system of bold lies, wild propaganda, and indecent Weapons of Mass Disinformation. Pelosi was lied to and misled, like all Americans.
But I'm actually glad you raise this issue, Karl.
We are not only about to expose what that infamous administration of yours did, but also the propaganda machine that made it easier to swallow by a people who was supposed to live in a model democracy.
I'm having great fun listening to you giving lectures on torture Karl, but I'm also keeping my eye on the ball. And it's time for you to give some answers to Justice about those attorney firings...
* "Congress and Waterboarding" - Wall Street Journal (20090504)
First thing, Karl : whatever Pelosi did or said, waterboarding IS torture. Not 'torture'. And certainly not your edulcorated "EIT".
Second : many Americans (including some Democrats) supported the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, and even voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
Which doesn't mean they were in favor of torture, Abu Ghraib, or that dangerous fundamentalist who wrecked world peace and for whom you used to work for as "The Architect" (or more intimately as "Turd Blossom").
This only shows how powerful was your system of bold lies, wild propaganda, and indecent Weapons of Mass Disinformation. Pelosi was lied to and misled, like all Americans.
But I'm actually glad you raise this issue, Karl.
We are not only about to expose what that infamous administration of yours did, but also the propaganda machine that made it easier to swallow by a people who was supposed to live in a model democracy.
I'm having great fun listening to you giving lectures on torture Karl, but I'm also keeping my eye on the ball. And it's time for you to give some answers to Justice about those attorney firings...
* "Congress and Waterboarding" - Wall Street Journal (20090504)
20090430
American Banks Post TARP, Stress, Disorder : I.O.U. Holdings
Signs of the times :
* Taliban consultants from the Boston SWOT Valley cling to their regressive vision of economy : "we don't understand what's happening, we are the ones who planted IEDs and we are the ones treated for PTSD"
* A.I.G. is still hesitating for its new name : "A.I.U. Holdings sounds nice, but I.O.U. Holdings would make more sense".
* Barack Obama is looking for a Swine Flu czar : "how about John McCain ? Somehow, it's about fighting pork. John would just need some training to search nosemarks beyond earmarks".
* The GOP wants Arlen Specter back : "we'll do whatever it takes, even hiring Sarah to build this ultimate bridge to nowhere".
* Chrysler and GM shall survive, but Nardelli remains a little bit nervous : "I feel comfortable with Italian backers and stronger trade unions, and I love the designer shoes they offered me. I get the idea behind the material used (steel), but I'd rather have them branded 'Jimmy Choo' than 'Jimmy Hoffa'".
* Taliban consultants from the Boston SWOT Valley cling to their regressive vision of economy : "we don't understand what's happening, we are the ones who planted IEDs and we are the ones treated for PTSD"
* A.I.G. is still hesitating for its new name : "A.I.U. Holdings sounds nice, but I.O.U. Holdings would make more sense".
* Barack Obama is looking for a Swine Flu czar : "how about John McCain ? Somehow, it's about fighting pork. John would just need some training to search nosemarks beyond earmarks".
* The GOP wants Arlen Specter back : "we'll do whatever it takes, even hiring Sarah to build this ultimate bridge to nowhere".
* Chrysler and GM shall survive, but Nardelli remains a little bit nervous : "I feel comfortable with Italian backers and stronger trade unions, and I love the designer shoes they offered me. I get the idea behind the material used (steel), but I'd rather have them branded 'Jimmy Choo' than 'Jimmy Hoffa'".
20090422
A Greater Wall Of China - Bonus, Korea Inside (The Great Hanschluss)
As soon as I heard about a new Chinese study extending the Great Wall from 5,000 to 8,850km, I knew it would mean more trouble for neighboring Korea.
This report is logically stamped by the State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage, but make no mistake : here, "Cultural Heritage" points well beyond the Great Wall of China, towards the new territories claimed by Beijing and the chunks of history and culture that come with them.
As expected, the main news is not the length of the Wall but the "fact" that it goes much further into ancient Korea.
This "information" is not "collateral damage" but the very aim of the game.
The political agenda looks more obvious when you consider how the news are delivered :
=> "Diplomatically", the "new" section dating from the Ming Dynasty stops at today's borders with North Korea (around Hu mountains), and the lines circling around Pyongyang date from ancient times that are not too distant
=> The report announces further investigations over the next 18 months focusing on the Qin (221-206BC) and Han (206BC-9AD) Dynasties. In other words : at the root of Goguryeo civilisation, the actual target of this study for China.
=> Beijing is playing it "double stage". An "innocuous" first delivery to provide the "neutral and scientific" alibi (while testing the waters during a shaky period for NK), and a second serve to slam and literally drive home the key political message : in spite of all historic and scientific evidences, Goguryeo was not a Korean kingdom but a Chinese fiefdom, and we are not only rewriting founding moments of Korean History as parts of Chinese History, but also artificially relocating Goguryeo's political, cultural and geographic epicenter within China's (newly extended) ancient borders.
Goguryeo a Chinese phenomenon ?!? This outrageous claim has been at the core of Beijing's revisionist propaganda against Korean heritage for over thirty years, and particularily over the past few years* : modeled after the Southwest Project (for Tibet) and the Northwest Project (for the Uyghurs), the "Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences" was ignited in 2002 as the main vehicle of their pervasive strategy of sinicization of Korean civilisation.
Unlike Tibetan or Uyghur territories and population, Beijing doesn’t control Korea nowadays… except a portion of what used to be the Korean kingdom of Goguryeo. No problem when you excel at manipulating information and distorting history. Western countries realized only last year how far the regime could go in revisionism with the infamous "pedagogical" exhibition on Tibet (part of a series of unfortunate events covered with the fingerprints of the controversial State Administration of Cultural Heritage).
Traditionally, China considers Korea as some kind of familial spin-off. Now it wants Korea heritage to be fully recognized as Chinese. Because according to the script, beyond Goguryo, even gimchi becomes Chinese !
A cultural Anschluss or rather, pardon the sick pun, the ultimate "Hanschluss"...
Why would Chinese leaders act so crazily ? As far as I know, China's Korean minority is not claiming independence, and its armies are not exactly occupying North Korea and South Korea... But the Central Government cannot accept the idea of part of its empire being, even potentially, under any kind of foreign influence. Especially from a neighboring country and that's one of the reasons why Beijing has always been doing its best to postpone the Reunification of the Peninsula : a stronger and united Korea would threaten the Middle Kingdom's sacred unity and furthermore, it's monopoly on unification. The Chinese regime simply cannot allow Korea to reunite outside of China.
Their solution ? Turning Korea into a part of China, a Chinese province founded by China in ancient times on Chinese territory.
This imposture is not only a defensive move to put a lock on the Korean Chinese minorities : the North East project may also pave the way for a glorious and "legitimate reunification" of North Korea with its "motherland", should Pyongyang regime negociate, as a last resort, its survival against a passive and "friendly" Anschluss*.
This may sound extreme but as the Tibetan example shows, Chinese leaders are masters in underground asymmetric warfare over long periods of time. Think of it as a game of go where one player would place a hundred pieces at each round while the other would not be aware of the stakes... nor even of the existence of the game. And when someone refuses the diktat (ie the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso), he simply cannot outlive the system.
Remember : China invented strategy, and in the country of Sun Tzu rulers think decades or centuries, where others think months and years. In the country of Bae Yong-joon ? The unit of measure seems to be converging towards a Twit (I'm not mentioning this pathetic Michael Jackson wannabe because the full content of his brain can be displayed within 140 characters, but because the Northeast Project may have been precipitated by the success of the Korean Wave across Asia and especially in China). So Seoul was caught off guard when Beijing released its massive campaign claiming the Goguryeo Heritage.
Up to now I haven't seen any reaction from either the South or the North about the report on the Great Wall, so Beijing can candidly launch its second rocket and 18 months from now, one can expect a few bomb "revelations" (ie Goguryeo confirmed to be a Chinese fiefdom). There is already a Wikipedia stub about a certain "Great Wall of Goguryeo" related to the "History of China" !!! Why Goguryeo leaders would ever want to protect themselves from themselves is another question...
Let's be clear : I love China as much as Korea, Korea and Korean culture owe a lot to China, and at certain points in history, parts of Korean land may have been claimed by China in the past as they were by Japan much later... but denying Korean culture its authenticity is not only bold revisionism but a first step towards cultural genocide.
History belongs to those who write it, territory belongs to those who draw the map.
But China doesn't own Korea.
Yet.
* see previous warnings : "China ready to bail out North Korea", "Korean hubs", "China's revisionism - No to the Chinese cultural Anschluss"
---
initially published on Seoul Village.
This report is logically stamped by the State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage, but make no mistake : here, "Cultural Heritage" points well beyond the Great Wall of China, towards the new territories claimed by Beijing and the chunks of history and culture that come with them.
As expected, the main news is not the length of the Wall but the "fact" that it goes much further into ancient Korea.
This "information" is not "collateral damage" but the very aim of the game.
The political agenda looks more obvious when you consider how the news are delivered :
=> "Diplomatically", the "new" section dating from the Ming Dynasty stops at today's borders with North Korea (around Hu mountains), and the lines circling around Pyongyang date from ancient times that are not too distant
=> The report announces further investigations over the next 18 months focusing on the Qin (221-206BC) and Han (206BC-9AD) Dynasties. In other words : at the root of Goguryeo civilisation, the actual target of this study for China.
=> Beijing is playing it "double stage". An "innocuous" first delivery to provide the "neutral and scientific" alibi (while testing the waters during a shaky period for NK), and a second serve to slam and literally drive home the key political message : in spite of all historic and scientific evidences, Goguryeo was not a Korean kingdom but a Chinese fiefdom, and we are not only rewriting founding moments of Korean History as parts of Chinese History, but also artificially relocating Goguryeo's political, cultural and geographic epicenter within China's (newly extended) ancient borders.
Goguryeo a Chinese phenomenon ?!? This outrageous claim has been at the core of Beijing's revisionist propaganda against Korean heritage for over thirty years, and particularily over the past few years* : modeled after the Southwest Project (for Tibet) and the Northwest Project (for the Uyghurs), the "Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences" was ignited in 2002 as the main vehicle of their pervasive strategy of sinicization of Korean civilisation.
Unlike Tibetan or Uyghur territories and population, Beijing doesn’t control Korea nowadays… except a portion of what used to be the Korean kingdom of Goguryeo. No problem when you excel at manipulating information and distorting history. Western countries realized only last year how far the regime could go in revisionism with the infamous "pedagogical" exhibition on Tibet (part of a series of unfortunate events covered with the fingerprints of the controversial State Administration of Cultural Heritage).
Traditionally, China considers Korea as some kind of familial spin-off. Now it wants Korea heritage to be fully recognized as Chinese. Because according to the script, beyond Goguryo, even gimchi becomes Chinese !
A cultural Anschluss or rather, pardon the sick pun, the ultimate "Hanschluss"...
Why would Chinese leaders act so crazily ? As far as I know, China's Korean minority is not claiming independence, and its armies are not exactly occupying North Korea and South Korea... But the Central Government cannot accept the idea of part of its empire being, even potentially, under any kind of foreign influence. Especially from a neighboring country and that's one of the reasons why Beijing has always been doing its best to postpone the Reunification of the Peninsula : a stronger and united Korea would threaten the Middle Kingdom's sacred unity and furthermore, it's monopoly on unification. The Chinese regime simply cannot allow Korea to reunite outside of China.
Their solution ? Turning Korea into a part of China, a Chinese province founded by China in ancient times on Chinese territory.
This imposture is not only a defensive move to put a lock on the Korean Chinese minorities : the North East project may also pave the way for a glorious and "legitimate reunification" of North Korea with its "motherland", should Pyongyang regime negociate, as a last resort, its survival against a passive and "friendly" Anschluss*.
This may sound extreme but as the Tibetan example shows, Chinese leaders are masters in underground asymmetric warfare over long periods of time. Think of it as a game of go where one player would place a hundred pieces at each round while the other would not be aware of the stakes... nor even of the existence of the game. And when someone refuses the diktat (ie the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso), he simply cannot outlive the system.
Remember : China invented strategy, and in the country of Sun Tzu rulers think decades or centuries, where others think months and years. In the country of Bae Yong-joon ? The unit of measure seems to be converging towards a Twit (I'm not mentioning this pathetic Michael Jackson wannabe because the full content of his brain can be displayed within 140 characters, but because the Northeast Project may have been precipitated by the success of the Korean Wave across Asia and especially in China). So Seoul was caught off guard when Beijing released its massive campaign claiming the Goguryeo Heritage.
Up to now I haven't seen any reaction from either the South or the North about the report on the Great Wall, so Beijing can candidly launch its second rocket and 18 months from now, one can expect a few bomb "revelations" (ie Goguryeo confirmed to be a Chinese fiefdom). There is already a Wikipedia stub about a certain "Great Wall of Goguryeo" related to the "History of China" !!! Why Goguryeo leaders would ever want to protect themselves from themselves is another question...
Let's be clear : I love China as much as Korea, Korea and Korean culture owe a lot to China, and at certain points in history, parts of Korean land may have been claimed by China in the past as they were by Japan much later... but denying Korean culture its authenticity is not only bold revisionism but a first step towards cultural genocide.
History belongs to those who write it, territory belongs to those who draw the map.
But China doesn't own Korea.
Yet.
* see previous warnings : "China ready to bail out North Korea", "Korean hubs", "China's revisionism - No to the Chinese cultural Anschluss"
---
initially published on Seoul Village.
20090417
"Insects placed in a confinement box" (welcome on waterboard)
"In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carrying out their duties relying in good faith upon the legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution".
Some may cringe at this weakness : we want to bring down a system, and the guys who did the waterboarding are as guilty as those who obeyed orders from the IIIrd Reich, so they should be brought to justice as well.
Obama is fighting the good fight, at the root of extremism and fundamentalism, starting from enemies from within.
But Barack Obama is not pointing the finger at anybody : he is showing the direction for Justice. As the head of executive power, his job is not to define what is legal and what is illegal, and certainly not to tell what is good from what is evil (see "True v. False vs Good v. Evil").
Justice will eventually prevail, and the most rotten apples fall by themselves. Not by exposing the dark side but the best side of everyone : it's not about being with us or against us, but about embracing justice or refusing it. Some of the torturers will be jailed, many will walk free. But Justice will have won when the main culprits are behind bars or at least officially condemned : Jay Bybee, John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney.
Cheney will fall only when his protégés feel that his protection won't save them. Thus his panic as George W. Bush refused to pardon Scooter Libby. Lord Dubya ? He will do what he does best : play dumb. Torture memos have Lobby Dick's fingerprints all over them, but The Fundamentalist in Chief himself grew very prudent following Abu Ghraib "revelations". What, me worry ?
Their torture memos led to such atrocities as "insects placed in a confinement box"* and ironically, that's exactly the image I have of this disgraceful mob.
I can't wait to enjoy the show. A perfect way of celebrating Darwin Bicentennial.
* "Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A." (20090416 - New York Times Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane)
Some may cringe at this weakness : we want to bring down a system, and the guys who did the waterboarding are as guilty as those who obeyed orders from the IIIrd Reich, so they should be brought to justice as well.
Obama is fighting the good fight, at the root of extremism and fundamentalism, starting from enemies from within.
But Barack Obama is not pointing the finger at anybody : he is showing the direction for Justice. As the head of executive power, his job is not to define what is legal and what is illegal, and certainly not to tell what is good from what is evil (see "True v. False vs Good v. Evil").
Justice will eventually prevail, and the most rotten apples fall by themselves. Not by exposing the dark side but the best side of everyone : it's not about being with us or against us, but about embracing justice or refusing it. Some of the torturers will be jailed, many will walk free. But Justice will have won when the main culprits are behind bars or at least officially condemned : Jay Bybee, John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney.
Cheney will fall only when his protégés feel that his protection won't save them. Thus his panic as George W. Bush refused to pardon Scooter Libby. Lord Dubya ? He will do what he does best : play dumb. Torture memos have Lobby Dick's fingerprints all over them, but The Fundamentalist in Chief himself grew very prudent following Abu Ghraib "revelations". What, me worry ?
Their torture memos led to such atrocities as "insects placed in a confinement box"* and ironically, that's exactly the image I have of this disgraceful mob.
I can't wait to enjoy the show. A perfect way of celebrating Darwin Bicentennial.
* "Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A." (20090416 - New York Times Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane)
20090416
Last Throes of Democracy : India Votes
The World's biggest democracy votes. Ahead of Iran, and after Israel (another candidate for theocracy*).
Soon, we can actually measure the "Lessons from Mumbai" : either fundamentalists and nationalists gain ground, or moderates secure the country. Or politics at its worst wins : an unnatural coalition cripling democracy and fueling the rise of hatred upon which radicals feed.
Manmohan Singh is far from being Mr Perfect, but he somehow managed to minimize the impact at home of Pakistan's gradual collapse under Pervez Musharraf. India is far from being a model democracy, and it suffered its share of terror well before Mumbai, but the central Government kept some distance from fundamentalism as well as from ultranationalism.
Yet the main issues for voters will be economy, inegalities, not politics. But precisely : beyond these elections, the best way to prevent radicalism from rising is to eradicate poverty and unfairness. May India strengthen its so rich and diverse identity around that noble mission, may India sent the right message of mutual respect to our troubled world.
* "Beyond the Iranian people, Obama is addressing Israel"
see "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?" in "Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief"
Soon, we can actually measure the "Lessons from Mumbai" : either fundamentalists and nationalists gain ground, or moderates secure the country. Or politics at its worst wins : an unnatural coalition cripling democracy and fueling the rise of hatred upon which radicals feed.
Manmohan Singh is far from being Mr Perfect, but he somehow managed to minimize the impact at home of Pakistan's gradual collapse under Pervez Musharraf. India is far from being a model democracy, and it suffered its share of terror well before Mumbai, but the central Government kept some distance from fundamentalism as well as from ultranationalism.
Yet the main issues for voters will be economy, inegalities, not politics. But precisely : beyond these elections, the best way to prevent radicalism from rising is to eradicate poverty and unfairness. May India strengthen its so rich and diverse identity around that noble mission, may India sent the right message of mutual respect to our troubled world.
* "Beyond the Iranian people, Obama is addressing Israel"
see "Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?" in "Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief"
20090403
G20 on Twitter
@barackobama.com : "uh... hem... Look : 120 characters left. Good day : we reached an agreement. Bonus: prevented a fight btwn Sarko and Hu."
@nicolassarkozy.fr : "Good day : I made the headlines and saved the World as usual. Bonus : prevented war btwn US & China."
@hujintao.com.cn : "Good day : saved Macau & HK, purchased the US, cut ties btwn France & Dalai Lama. Bonus: spied UK in the process."
@gordonbrown.co.uk : "Good day : managed to kept my chin up, and my jaw not too low."
@tayyiperdogan.com.tr : "Good day : Shimon Peres wasn't there."
@robertzoellick.us : "Good day : if a Bushite like me gets a hike during this slump, there's still hope for easy money."
@bankimoon.un.org : "Good day : wish we had the same cast at the Security Council."
@abhisitvejjajiva.com.th : "Good day : was right behind Obama on the photo. Bad day : his smiles eclipsed mine."
@taroaso.co.jp : "Good day : wasn't caught sippin' sake."
@dmitrymedvedev.ru : "Good day : I kept those morons busy while Vlady nuked Georgia. Even got an Obama autograph."
@stephenharper.ca : "Bad day : got locked in the johns during the official photo op."
@mbtious.co.kr : "Good day : Kim Jong-il helped me get an itw w. BO."
@lula.com.br : "Good day : was hired as a bodyguard for Brown and the Queen. Kept that French lunatic away from Barack."
@angelamerkel.de : "Good day : was seated next to Oby for dinner, far from Sarko on the final picture."
@dskimf.com : "Good day : I got a budget to purchase flowers for Michelle Obama."
@silvioberlusconi.it : "Good day for plastic surgery : on the pixes, I look younger than Obama and Medvedev combined."
@kevinrudd.com.au : "G'day and seeya."
@nicolassarkozy.fr : "Good day : I made the headlines and saved the World as usual. Bonus : prevented war btwn US & China."
@hujintao.com.cn : "Good day : saved Macau & HK, purchased the US, cut ties btwn France & Dalai Lama. Bonus: spied UK in the process."
@gordonbrown.co.uk : "Good day : managed to kept my chin up, and my jaw not too low."
@tayyiperdogan.com.tr : "Good day : Shimon Peres wasn't there."
@robertzoellick.us : "Good day : if a Bushite like me gets a hike during this slump, there's still hope for easy money."
@bankimoon.un.org : "Good day : wish we had the same cast at the Security Council."
@abhisitvejjajiva.com.th : "Good day : was right behind Obama on the photo. Bad day : his smiles eclipsed mine."
@taroaso.co.jp : "Good day : wasn't caught sippin' sake."
@dmitrymedvedev.ru : "Good day : I kept those morons busy while Vlady nuked Georgia. Even got an Obama autograph."
@stephenharper.ca : "Bad day : got locked in the johns during the official photo op."
@mbtious.co.kr : "Good day : Kim Jong-il helped me get an itw w. BO."
@lula.com.br : "Good day : was hired as a bodyguard for Brown and the Queen. Kept that French lunatic away from Barack."
@angelamerkel.de : "Good day : was seated next to Oby for dinner, far from Sarko on the final picture."
@dskimf.com : "Good day : I got a budget to purchase flowers for Michelle Obama."
@silvioberlusconi.it : "Good day for plastic surgery : on the pixes, I look younger than Obama and Medvedev combined."
@kevinrudd.com.au : "G'day and seeya."
20090330
HU Got Mail
China may not be as powerful as the US right now, but it sure is gaining some superpower status in major fields beyond economy and politics.
America has already been overtaken as the World's top polluter and these days, Washington is complaining about major disruptions in the weapon balance across Asia. Now Echelon is facing a major rival in "GhostNet", China's pervasive online spying network.
Recently uncovered by Canadian researchers from the Munk Centre for International Studies, GhostNet did not only fish sensitive information from foreign nations, but practiced identity theft at the State level... if you consider Dharamsala as the capital of the Tibetan administration in exile, that is (see "Vast Spy System Loots Computers in 103 Countries" - New York Times / John Markoff - 20090328 - and "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" - MCIS).
America has already been overtaken as the World's top polluter and these days, Washington is complaining about major disruptions in the weapon balance across Asia. Now Echelon is facing a major rival in "GhostNet", China's pervasive online spying network.
Recently uncovered by Canadian researchers from the Munk Centre for International Studies, GhostNet did not only fish sensitive information from foreign nations, but practiced identity theft at the State level... if you consider Dharamsala as the capital of the Tibetan administration in exile, that is (see "Vast Spy System Loots Computers in 103 Countries" - New York Times / John Markoff - 20090328 - and "Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network" - MCIS).
HU Jintao has a rather weird way of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the "liberation" of Tibet : a revisionist exhibition in Beijing, foreign journalists kicked out of Tibet, and now this massive online (cons)piracy...
Beyond Tibet, Beijing is waging the wrong war with itself. Online and IRL. Again, the more China gives to nationalism and the short term, the more it loses in unity and the long term.
Beijing strategists intend to outlive the Dalai Lama and to hand Dharamsala to the most radical Tibetan factions after the death of their leader. History would then catch up with their own biased version : an hostile foreign power on China's doorstep. Who knows, India could even be cast as the Taliban regime hosting al Qaeda terrorist camps...
But Beijing cannot at the same time leverage on the Empire's vast cultural diversity and feed a mixture of nationalism and racism turned against one of its own minorities. Just like Russia is committing suicide by deterring immigration when it most needs it, China is alienating its own future.
20090324
J Street Releases New Poll of American Jewish Community
Food for thought following Obama's Nowruz speech (see "Beyond the Iranian people, Obama is addressing Israel"):
1) Two unfortunate events happened soon afterwards : first a collision between a US submarine and a US warship in the Strait of Ormuz resulting in an oil spill (smells almost like Cheney's false flag tin can spirit), second a speech of Shimon Peres to the same Iranian people, probably meant to sabotage Obama's. Both events could and should have been prevented.
2) A very fortunate poll by J Street on how American Jews want Obama-style diplomacy to operate in the Middle East. Yes, there was some support for Gaza, but the war was improductive for peace. Furthermore, far from the AIPAC rethoric, American Jews are ready for major concessions to reach peace, refuse Lieberman, and want the US to discuss with a Hamas-Fatah Palestinian leadership.
---
J Street's announcement (below) :
J Street Releases New Poll of American Jewish Community
(Amy Spitalnick - March 23rd, 2009 10:56 am)
A new J Street poll, released today, shows strong continued support among American Jews for assertive American diplomacy in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as in the Middle East generally. The results, which you can read in full below, demonstrate an understanding that difficult compromises will have to be made by both sides in order to bring true peace and security to Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region.
American Jews remain remarkably supportive of assertive American efforts to achieve Middle East peace. The poll finds an extraordinarily strong base of 69 percent of American Jews firmly supporting active American engagement in bringing about Middle East peace, even if it means publicly disagreeing with or exerting pressure on both Arabs and Israelis, compared to 66 percent eight months ago;
69 percent also support the U.S. working with a unified Hamas-Fatah Palestinian Authority government to achieve a peace agreement with Israel, even when informed that the U.S. does not recognize Hamas due to its status as a terrorist organization and its refusal to recognize Israel. Interestingly, a March poll conducted by the Truman Institute at Hebrew University reported that 69 percent of Israelis also think Israel should negotiate with a joint Hamas-Fatah government;
By 76-24 percent, American Jews support a two-state, final status deal between Israel and the Palestinians along the lines of the agreement nearly reached eight years ago during the Camp David and Taba talks;
On Avigdor Lieberman: When told about Lieberman’s campaign platform requiring Arab citizens of Israel to sign loyalty oaths, as well as his threats against Arab Members of Knesset, American Jews opposed these positions by a 69 to 31 margin. One in three believe their own connection to Israel will be diminished if Lieberman assumes a senior position in the Israeli cabinet.
On Gaza: While Jews rallied behind Israel and approved of Israel’s military action by a 3 to 1 margin, 59 percent still felt that the military action had no impact on Israel’s security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent), while only 41 percent felt it made Israel more secure.
Full March 2009 J Street Survey Results:
Survey Data.
Survey Analysis from Jim Gerstein, Principle at Gerstein Agne, the firm that commissioned the poll. Press Release.
Powerpoint Presentation, also from Jim Gerstein of Gerstein Agne.
Read J Street’s July 2008 survey results here.
1) Two unfortunate events happened soon afterwards : first a collision between a US submarine and a US warship in the Strait of Ormuz resulting in an oil spill (smells almost like Cheney's false flag tin can spirit), second a speech of Shimon Peres to the same Iranian people, probably meant to sabotage Obama's. Both events could and should have been prevented.
2) A very fortunate poll by J Street on how American Jews want Obama-style diplomacy to operate in the Middle East. Yes, there was some support for Gaza, but the war was improductive for peace. Furthermore, far from the AIPAC rethoric, American Jews are ready for major concessions to reach peace, refuse Lieberman, and want the US to discuss with a Hamas-Fatah Palestinian leadership.
---
J Street's announcement (below) :
J Street Releases New Poll of American Jewish Community
(Amy Spitalnick - March 23rd, 2009 10:56 am)
A new J Street poll, released today, shows strong continued support among American Jews for assertive American diplomacy in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as in the Middle East generally. The results, which you can read in full below, demonstrate an understanding that difficult compromises will have to be made by both sides in order to bring true peace and security to Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region.
American Jews remain remarkably supportive of assertive American efforts to achieve Middle East peace. The poll finds an extraordinarily strong base of 69 percent of American Jews firmly supporting active American engagement in bringing about Middle East peace, even if it means publicly disagreeing with or exerting pressure on both Arabs and Israelis, compared to 66 percent eight months ago;
69 percent also support the U.S. working with a unified Hamas-Fatah Palestinian Authority government to achieve a peace agreement with Israel, even when informed that the U.S. does not recognize Hamas due to its status as a terrorist organization and its refusal to recognize Israel. Interestingly, a March poll conducted by the Truman Institute at Hebrew University reported that 69 percent of Israelis also think Israel should negotiate with a joint Hamas-Fatah government;
By 76-24 percent, American Jews support a two-state, final status deal between Israel and the Palestinians along the lines of the agreement nearly reached eight years ago during the Camp David and Taba talks;
On Avigdor Lieberman: When told about Lieberman’s campaign platform requiring Arab citizens of Israel to sign loyalty oaths, as well as his threats against Arab Members of Knesset, American Jews opposed these positions by a 69 to 31 margin. One in three believe their own connection to Israel will be diminished if Lieberman assumes a senior position in the Israeli cabinet.
On Gaza: While Jews rallied behind Israel and approved of Israel’s military action by a 3 to 1 margin, 59 percent still felt that the military action had no impact on Israel’s security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent), while only 41 percent felt it made Israel more secure.
Full March 2009 J Street Survey Results:
Survey Data.
Survey Analysis from Jim Gerstein, Principle at Gerstein Agne, the firm that commissioned the poll. Press Release.
Powerpoint Presentation, also from Jim Gerstein of Gerstein Agne.
Read J Street’s July 2008 survey results here.
20090321
Beyond the Iranian people, Obama is addressing Israel
NYT's Ethan Bronner is not exactly holding fire against Israel these days, and he shouldn't : investigations are proving how essential principles were deliberately abandoned during the recent invasion of the Gaza strip.
Bronner also pointed out* the obvious fact that Israel cannot stick to its darkest sides (racism, fascism, which are not a Avigdor Lieberman monopoly these days), particularily if moderates gain ground in Iran on June 12, 2009.
As a Nowruz celebration, Citizen Obama decided to cast a video ballot for the upcoming presidential elections.
The Iranian people discovered a POTUS talking directly to them with words of mutual respect, a humble admiration for the great Persian culture, and a genuine spark of intelligence and compassion in the eyes. Barack even cautioned the Islamic Republic of Iran label, tearing down a 30 year old wall between both nations.
Reaching out without touching faith, Obama's speech was actually putting as much pressure on Israel as on Iran.
Livni and Netanyahu had better come up with something fit for this new millenium.
* see "After Gaza, Israel Grapples With Crisis of Isolation" (NY Times - 20090318)
PS: Obama sent an even more direct message to Bush when he wrote to Chirac.
Bronner also pointed out* the obvious fact that Israel cannot stick to its darkest sides (racism, fascism, which are not a Avigdor Lieberman monopoly these days), particularily if moderates gain ground in Iran on June 12, 2009.
As a Nowruz celebration, Citizen Obama decided to cast a video ballot for the upcoming presidential elections.
The Iranian people discovered a POTUS talking directly to them with words of mutual respect, a humble admiration for the great Persian culture, and a genuine spark of intelligence and compassion in the eyes. Barack even cautioned the Islamic Republic of Iran label, tearing down a 30 year old wall between both nations.
Reaching out without touching faith, Obama's speech was actually putting as much pressure on Israel as on Iran.
Livni and Netanyahu had better come up with something fit for this new millenium.
* see "After Gaza, Israel Grapples With Crisis of Isolation" (NY Times - 20090318)
PS: Obama sent an even more direct message to Bush when he wrote to Chirac.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
