The Sand Curtain, Two Years Later (or is it 20?)

Islamists being among the fiercest enemies of democracy, you certainly can't defeat them with a permanent denial of democracy, particularly when they've claimed some level of legitimacy in elections. So if no true supporter of democracy can be fully satisfied by Egypt's sudden demorsification, one can hope lessons from Algeria have been learned.

Regional and global terrorism feed upon this kind of shell games and actually, Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb celebrates the merger of the islamist movement that was prevented from winning the 1991 elections in Algeria* with a global franchise whose main theorician and now main leader happens to come from Egypt. And people like Ayman al-Zawahiri loves to have enemies like Hosni Mubarak or Adbelaziz Bouteflika (not to mention the Saudi ruling family, Bibi Netanyahu or, even better, George W. Bush**).

So today, as Abdelaziz Bouteflika reaches the end of his rope, Mohamed Morsi the end of his luck, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan the end of his imposture***, the moment has come to make very clear the point that was at the core of the Egyptian revolution, before the Muslim Brotherhood hijacked it: "we reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism"****.

And again, this should not become a debate about religion, but about politics. And again, secularism is the only way of securing both democracy and freedom of religion. One of the best illustrations is the ban of Burqa in France - a case I discussed with Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawi back in June 2009*****.

Egypt cannot secure its democracy until it states clearly the separation of State and religion (of course the same could be said about any country, be it Iran or Israel). And ultimately, the Muslim Brotherhood will have to chose between democracy and illegality.

blogules 2013
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)


* from Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) and Groupe Islamique Arme (GIA) to Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat (GSPC) to Al Qaeda au Maghreb Islamique (AQMI)

** see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism":

Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. (...) For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment. His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success. Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country. And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party. George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism".

*** see "Turquie : la révolution silencieuse" (20070723 on my French blogules):

Turkey: the Silent Revolution Coupled with the rise of extreme right nationalism (14% for the MHP) and the strenghtening of Kurdish nationalism (again over 20 lawmakers for the DTP), Recep Tayyip Erdogan's triumph (the AKP claimerd over half of the votes) only leaves twenty something percent of the vote to the main republican party. And when one sees this CHP cling to a caricature of edulcorated kemalism, one can wonder if Turkey has not turned its back for good on its ideal of secular democracy. As expected, the pressures from Western Christian fundamentalists on Turkey only beefed up islamists and nationalists, marginalizing the true heralds of a model democracy.  Erdogan won because of his economic results and because of the irrelevance of his opponents. And if he remains hindered by an aging military clique, his islamist revolution is well under way, and time is on his side (like demographics). Turkey is asserting itself as a new model combining economic modernity and religious archaism where woman is progressively sidelined, where the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV) can freely spread its creationist theses, and where change is implemented from the bottom up through socio-religious pressure more efficiently than through a law that will eventually be altered - if not the letter of the law, at least the acts. Turkey's candidacy for EU membership is now taking the turn that all the enemies of democracy wanted: a forum - La candidature à l'Europe prend désormais toute la saveur qu'attendaient d'elle les ennemis de la démocratie : un forum - amplifier for all the hatred and fears they've been knowledgeably feeding for years. European voters must reject this parody of a debate, punish those who deliberately pour oil on the fire, and refuse the 'clash of civilizations' imposture. Let's send to our Turkish friends a message of exemplary nature by rejecting as anti-democratic the return of religion in the political debate. Starting with the debate about the integration of Turkey in Europe.

**** see "Sand curtain" (2011/02)

"(...) Of course, nature abhors a vacuum, and fundamentalists would love to step in to fill the ideology void. At this defining moment, most people on the street seem to reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism, but most people on the street prefer order to chaos, and uncertainty shouldn't last too long. Israel nervously watches as Jordanian and Egyptian regimes falter under popular pressure. Muslim friends who could turn enemies, with the benediction of Iran, whose own corrupt regime postponed its ineluctable fall by a few years by crushing popular uprisings at home. Unfortunately, these days, Israeli leaders seem to position themselves as a corrupt regime with some ideology. Not a dictatorship, mind you, but not a bunch of nice guys either. Barack Obama is a nice guy. Unfortunately, these days, the US leader doesn't seem to be in charge of foreign policy, so huge is the gap between what he says and what the US do. And the poor lad doesn't have one Gorbachev to call if he wants that sand curtain torn down... So what's ahead ? Probably trouble and uncertainties, but somehow this transitional period has started after WWII and independence wars, and we're closer to the end than from the beginning. Something new will emerge and eventually, something positive. Societies freed from political and religious deviances. Hopefully, the time has come for a true Muslim renaissance. Right now, most dictators across the globe must have gotten some kind of message. But even supposedly strong democracies should be thinking twice when they applaud successful local uprisings or self-determination processes like in South Sudan : what is a nation in this globalized world, what will be holding its members together in this networked millenium ? More than ever, each individual will reach for the universal (as a human being), and the personal (identity)."

***** following the post "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one" (200906)

Herman van Rompuy, haikus, humor and religion

The new President of the European Council is praised for his talents as a negociator and haiku writer as well as for an undisputable sense of humor. What bothers me is the main reason why Herman van Rompuy probably got the job.

I strongly campaigned against once front runner Tony Blair. Less for his role in the invasion of Iraq than for his belonging to the clique of fundamentalists who, after ruining World peace along with their Islamist friends, are deliberately turning Europe into their new playground (see "Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?"). But I'm afraid this man could be as dangerous for democracy in Europe.

If HVR passes for a moderate who "hates extremists", he is in favor of a fusional relationship between politics and religion.

For starters, he belongs to CD&V (Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams), Belgium's Flemmish Christian-democratic party. European-style Christian Democracy usually promotes rather balanced platforms for politics, economics and social affairs, but fundamentally, they mix religion with politics and expose a vision of politics somehow superseded by religion, which is incompatible with the concept of secular, republican democracy. Yet at this stage, mentioning fundamentalism would be more than far-fetched.

I nonetheless observe that Mr Van Rompuy, who regularly fights with Luc Van den Brande over the political future of Belgium, supports his CD&V colleague at the European level, where this ayatollah efficiently undermines democracy by promoting Intelligent Design.

Furthermore, our moderate who "hates extremists" is himself using rather radical terms, usually associated with ultra-conservative Christians in Europe. Turkish media didn't forget his outburst during the debate on Turkey's candidacy for the EU : "it's a matter of fact that the universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also the fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey".

Everybody knows Herman Van Rompuy majored Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven) in economics, but he also majored in philosophy. And there again, he tends to blur lines.

Van Rompuy maintains he never campaigned for the job but that's not true. On October 19, 2009, exactly one month before his nomination, he delivered a conference on the last encyclical of a certain Benedict XVI about the Church's social doctrine.

I cannot help but think about John McCain giving a conference at the Discovery Institute ahead of his own campaign, as a guarantee to US theocons (see ""Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?").

In this conference ("Conférence de Herman Rompuy sur Caritas in Veritate", on LaCroix.com), economics / philosophy expert Van Rompuy talks about love and humanism, but also and first of all, just like Pope Benedict XVI, about politics :

. "No political regime, no social organization and no economic system can claim the realization of ultimate salvation" - all this is nothing compared to faith and religion
. "According to Social Doctrine, the political community is at the service of civil society where it originated. This civil society represents the sum of all relationships and goods, either cultural or associative, which are relatively independent from politics and economy" - politics cannot rule over everything, and a superior power somehow needs to be materialized
. "The principle of subsidiarity is binding, each human should have the opportunity to contribute to the construction of well being and prosperity. Yet, the difficult question is to know how today, we can achieve this principle within an unified Europe and in a globalized world where more and more decisions are taken at a level actual individuals cannot reach, even as they know how they condition his well being and prosperity, his work and his responsibilities" - BTW: did you notice that religions are not only relevant when it comes to essential issues, but also perfectly organized to cope with subsidiarity issues, and to reach each and every individual ?
. HvR then directly pushes Benedict's agenda, using the core message of his encyclical : "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago." - the new President of Europe stops here his quote, but Ratzie and his followers perfectly know what comes right after that sentence : "Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth" (...) It would also "require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations". So like Ratzinger, Van Rompuy wants the lines "between moral and social spheres" to disappear.

I already denouced the imposture of Benedict XVI, a hardcore fundamentalist undermining, beyond Evolution itself, centuries of evolution for the Church from a Medieval mob to a modern, compassionate religion. If you purge elaborate and nice sounding circonvolutions from his texts, they always come down to the same message : let's go back to the time when religion was at the center of education, science and politics, the very attributes of democracy, that corrupt system (i.e. "Le mauvais plan de Benoît XVI"). Watch him exulting at the FAO meeting the other day : the "true world political authority" he envisions welcomes religious authorities as star constituents. In this quest, he already had the support of people like Ban Ki-moon at the UNO : very discreet regarding his own faith, and always pretending to be neutral in that field, Secretary General BAN pushes inter-religious dialogs INSIDE institutions he is reponsible for. European secular organizations were likewise appalled to see similar oddities recently performed in official EU meeting places.

Now Herman van Rompuy joins Barroso, van den Brande and company as an eminent element of the wedge strategy of fundamentalists against truly democratic European institutions.

I'm curious to see if this Christian democrat will be more "democrat" or "Christian" when it will come to defend European Court of Human Rights against the next attacks from fundamentalists*...

I wish I investigated a little bit earlier to expose the Herman Achille Van Rompuy imposture.

At this stage, I didn't find anything suspect against Cathy Ashton, alias Lady Catherine, a.k.a Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the EU's first High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

blogules 2009 - initially published on blogules (V.F.) "Herman van Rompuy, les haikus, l'humour et la religion"

* see "European Court of Human Rights slams fundamentalists (a)cross Italia and Europe", "Traditions, conservatismes, obscurantismes et fondamentalismes"

WWIII : playtime

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon".

The man who said that is a fundamentalist leader who wants to destroy peace and democracy. The man who actually provided Iran with the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon : Bush's United States of America had research documents forwarded to Ahmadinejad's Iran, supposedly with the intention of leading that country to a wrong track, but we know better, don't we* ?

If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing this man from remaining in power : impeach Bush and Cheney before it's too late.

The Democrats are having fun putting things in order with History (genocide against Kurds in Turkey, a medal of honor for the Dalai Lama), it's time for members of Congress who really love democracy to go one decisive and much needed step further.


* see "Iran : who wants war and why" (20070925). Note that this declaration follows critics by Putin on how Bush deals with Iran, and his warnings about murder attempts (see "Archduke Vladimir Putin's assassination attempt" (20071015).

"Kurdistan, the other Iraq"... or "Kurdistan, the other other Vietnam" ?

Iraq's Kurdistan region opened, through the Kurdistan Development Corporation, a lobbying office in Washington, DC*. Headed by Qubad al-Talabani, son of Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq as a whole (a black hole some may say), this unit officially promotes investments and tourism in the region. Autonomy and independance could be part of the discussions.

I do feel some sympathy for Kurds in general and I do wish them a peaceful future. Yet, I'm not so sure this is the way everybody wants it and even if Talabani were honest, other players would join the lobbying frenzy.

I remember the intense Iraqi lobbying between the two wars. Who could forget Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress ? Among the different approaches for the liberation of Iraq, US theocons deliberately favored the factions that were bound to cause maximum damage. The parting of Iraq and the strengthening of fundamentalists across the region (especially and Iran and Israel) was not only expected but planned from the start.

If I were a US fundamentalist, I surely wouldn't want a democratic and peaceful Kurdistan to emerge in the dead middle of my playground.

A failed proof of concept Kurdistan could not only strengthen radicals in Iran but also infuriate and exacerbate fundamentalists in Turkey. To the contrary, I would seize the opportunity to bring chaos in this relatively protected part of the country, and to exacerbate radicalism everywhere. I would especially infuriate Turkish nationalists and fundamentalists, because as anybody can see these days, the radicalization of Turkey is key to the revival of Christian fundamentalism in Europe.

Don't mistake this initiative as an attempt to put a lock on Kirkuk oil fields : the aim of the game is to get rid of secularism in Turkey.


* see CMD's "The "Other Iraq" Opens a DC Lobbying Office" (20070302)

Red blogule to Condi Rice - is war "worth the investment" ?

Each war has its purpose and the War in Iraq was sold as a war on terror. It proved to be a war in favor of it... and sold through bold lies.

Democracy ? Bush replaced a cruel dictatorship with an even more lethal chaos. Not to mention such collateral damages as the failure in Afghanistan, or the repeated insults to America's values.

I do hope democracy will prevail in Iraq but it will cost much more in time, money and lives than through the constructive ways of the international community, also crushed by this excuse for an Administration.

Let us consider the "investment" in American lives and dollars mentioned by USA's top "diplomat" (and not consider the losses in Iraqi lives, which Condoleeza Rice must consider yet another "wonderful opportunity") : "I don't think it's a matter of money - along the way there have been plenty of markers that show that this is a country that is worth the investment, because once it emerges as a country, that is a stabilizing factor you will have a very different kind of Middle East".

We'll have a very different kind of Middle East, all right. For a start, Iraq will not emerge as a country (as it used to do) but as several countries. Iran will emerge as the dominant player in the region, which could be considered "a stabilizing factor"... but for the nerves of some neocons / theocons.

Fundamentalism will emerge in Israel, Palestine and Turkey, new herds of terrorists will emerge in Jordan. As planned from the start, Christian fundamentalism will strengthen its base in the US and overseas.

I've been telling the same for years on these pages, Condi : this war in Iraq was definitely worth the investment for the fundamentalists who sold it to such a gullible audience.

White blogule to Orhan Pamuk

So mentioning the genocide of the Armenians and the killings of Kurds is an insult to the Turkish nation and Orhan Pamuk should be jailed for telling the truth. The poor man was already cruising dangerous waters in his beautiful book "Snow", exposing fundamentalists and radical politicians from all sides in the same crude light, now Pamuk may turn out to be yet another victim of France's no to the EU constitution.
Because this nationalistic bravado represents the stupidest answer to the recent attacks from Erdogan's former friends. All charges should be dropped and if a trial were to take place, it should be about Turkey's troubled past.
And as far as the French are concerned, they can frown and denounce such a medieval censorship, but still have to answer for their own History.