|
|
Eurocentric Blogs
Live from Brussels
100 days of Rwanda
the Dieudonné Saga...
|
=>Three to four hundred people gathered outside the memorial in Fleury-devant-Douaumont dedicated to the Jews killed in the first world war which was defaced ten days ago with nazi slogans. In a message read aloud by the deputy minister for veterans services, Hamlaoui Mekachera, president Chirac condemned the profanation of the memorial as a "collective wound" and "an offense to the entire nation." Others present included the Grand Rebbe of Nancy, Daniel Dahan; the mayor of Nancy, André Rossinot (Radical Left party); the chair of the regional council, Socialist Jean-Pierre Masseret and the former chairman of the same council, Gérard Longuet (ruling UMP party) and several Jewish, Catholic and protestant representatives who participated in Hebrew prayers. =>Meanwhile, a demonstration against anti-Semitism and against "apathy" took place in Paris. Police put the number of participants at 9,000 but organizers said there were 30,000. Every political party sent representatives to the demonstration with the exception of the National Front. The procession began at Place de la République and went to Place de la Bastille (Web cam here). The head of the procession, demonstrators held a banner that read "Contre l'antisémisitme, je marche" ("Against anti-Semitism, I march").The Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples (MRAP) and the Human Rights League (LDH) had sought to change the order of the day to include anti-Semitism "and all forms of racism" but protest organizers denied this request. Representatives from the two groups "remained at the tail of the demonstration with Green party and Communist militants," according to the AFP.
Youths from the left wing Jewish organization Hachomer Hatzaïr were present along with representatives of the Jewish Student Union of France (UEJF), who chanted, "France, wake up! Thy silence shall undo thee." References to the Arab-Israeli conflict were strictly banned from the demonstration. There were no pro-Palestinian slogans and a young man who tried to brandish and Israeli flag got a stiff dressing down. When the demonstration arrived at place de la Bastille, undersecretary for victim's rights Nicole Guedj said "Suppression must be as firm and as active as possible." Health minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that anti-Semitism "is a crime." Socialist party leader François Hollande said that there can be "no tolerance for intolerance," while UDF leader François Bayrou told the AFP that "there is a movement, a minority but a real one, that must be identified and fought." Novelist and painter Marek Halter said that "France is neither racist nor anti-Semitic. She is apathetic."
Other Newsposted by Douglas @ 6:13 PM
=>Some 780,000 people in France are to-day infected with the Hepatitis C virus, which is nearly 200,000 more than official statistics indicated, according to a study by the Proscop institute, published on Friday in Toulouse.
One of three French persons infected with Hepatitis doesn't know it. Consequently, there are 5,000 new cases of hepatitis ever year, causing the deaths of 4,000 people annually. Nasal and intravenous drug use constitute the principle modes of infection (around 80% of new infections occur in this way). =>Chirac's approval rating has fallen to 43 percent, the lowest since his reelection two years ago. Incidentally, George Bush's approval rating — some people actually approve of him, it seems — has fallen to 44%. =>French police physically abused protesters outside the Cannes festival to-day (protests mentioned yesterday on NP). A crowd formed to demand that six other protesters already in detention be released. Two policemen charged the crowd and, in doing so, allegedly employed excessive force. A cameraman for France 3 suffered cuts and bruises when police threw him to the ground. Eight policemen and three protesters suffered injuries during the troubles. France 3 has announced that it will file a complaint against the police and the deputy commissioner has opened an investigation into the events. Though he was carrying a camera on his shoulder, the reporter in question, Gwenaël Rihet, was thrown to the ground and handcuffed by the advancing police. As a result, he was hospitalized for 24 hours, required six stitches in the head and was incapacitated for four days. Seasonal, part-time or freelance entertainment industry workers are protesting cuts to their welfare benefits which are part of penny-pinching measures designed to stave off fiscal disaster. Protests began with a sit-in that forced the interruption of a film-screening for potential distributors, part of the Cannes festival. The police have brought in 1,000 men to maintain order during the festival and protest organizers say that the demonstrations have drawn 1,500 participants while the police put that number at 500. Staff at Quentin Tarantino's hotel, the Carlton, have also gone on strike over pay. (Who could afford to pay them enough to serve that ambulatory piece of turd?).
What a celebrity-TV show says about French attitudes to rural lifeposted by Erik @ 12:52 PM
Excerpts from Down on the farm, an article in The Economist:
RENOWNED abroad for their fine culture, at home the French busily consume trashy television. The latest hit is La Ferme Célébrités, a reality-TV show that maroons 14 C-list celebrities on a Provençal farm, with neither running water nor electricity. The contestants include a Caribbean-born transvestite who totters across the mud in stilettos and a germ-phobic choreographer who dons rubber gloves while trying to herd sheep. Last month's opening night beat French records for reality-TV … Why has it touched such a nerve?
Middle Eastposted by Jonathan @ 9:53 AM
48% of the French dislike Israel, which ranks only below Syria and Iran in terms of unpopularity in the Hexagon. The feeling is mutual. According to a poll, requested by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of 507 Israelis, 67.1% "do not like" or "hate" France. 41% of Israelis feel "some hostility" and 16% possess a "strong hostility" towards France.
--(via Le Monde (scroll down the linked page))
Saturday, May 15, 2004News Roundupposted by Douglas @ 7:51 PM
Jospin against gay marriageposted by Douglas @ 3:31 PM
An AFP news bulletin reports that former French prime minister Lionel Jospin has written an essay to appear in to-morrow's Sunday edition of Le Parisien in which he reveals that he is opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, asserting that marriage "is, in its principle and as an institution, the union of a man and a woman."
In so doing, Jospin is disagreeing with his own party, who are preparing initiatives to press for the legalization of gay marriage in France, and with 64% of the French, who, as ¡No Pasarán! readers recently learned, also favor gay marriage. Forty-nine percent of the French public also favor allowing gay couples to adopt children, as they can already do in the USA. Jospin adds, "one can disapprove of and combat homophobia while at the same time not favoring homosexual marriage, as is the case with me." He also believes in "the meaning and importance of institutions" and says "I do not believe it correct to deny their meaning.... One can respect the amorous preference of each person, without automatically institutionalizing their practices." Next Week: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! France's former Socialist prime minister ponders the question: if a fascist can knock me out of the running for President, why not join the editorial board of the National Review?
We are all un-American?posted by Jonathan @ 1:19 PM
(A translation of an editorial by Jean-Marie Colombani from Le Monde that appeared on May 14, 2004)
“It's impossible to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. The horror.” So says Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, the film that best represented an America at war, in Vietnam, divorced from itself. The nightmare that isolated America from the rest of the world and from the better part of itself has reemerged, revived by the quagmire created by Bush’s war in Iraq. One, perhaps, should say “crusade,” as Bush’s good conscience—this faith without any doubt that borders on arrogance and that distances America from the values that it is supposed to defend—is omnipresent. “They want to become Americans,” claimed Donald Rumsfeld, when speaking of Iraq. We are all un-American, one is now tempted to reply. The American Secretary of Defense, with his proud use of the word “un-American” to distance himself from the torture scandals, has made America’s best friends desperate. We all felt American in the aftermath of 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld has made us un-American. Today, Rumsfeld is the greatest source of anti-Americanism—he is one of the people responsible for the greatest wave of anti-Americanism ever throughout the world. Every counter-terrorism expert agrees that this war has created precisely the situation that it was supposed to prevent: cooperation (a link) between Al-Qaida and the Jihadist groups who have migrated throughout the Middle East. Even more dangerous: Al-Qaida methods have been placed at the service of Arab nationalism. Faced with this horror and with the question of “how to get out of it,” it is first necessary to gauge the political defeat and strategic reversal that is the occupation of Iraq. It is a political defeat because Bush invoked three goals of the war. Weapons of mass destruction: They represented a threat for the United States that could only be neutralized through war. These weapons no longer exist. Any where. The ties to Al-Qaida. They did not exist before the invasion. War in the name of democratic “values.” This was supposed to liberate a country from a monstrous tyrant and to put in place a decent government that would influence the region. Sure enough, the monster was in Baghdad. But it is according to its own values that America must be judged in Iraq; and to quote an editorialist in Time Magazine: “this means, at the very least, that we should have made sure that Abou Ghraib stopped being a torture chamber.” This is a political, strategic and moral failure. The United States has lost credibility at the moment when it wants to convince the leaders of the Greater Middle East that they must evolve towards…more democratic behavior? Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission, accurately stated that torture is a war crime and that, henceforth, “it has become difficult to define” the American presence in Iraq “as a mission of peace.” It is likewise difficult to justify any participation in this enterprise. Islamist terrorism feeds off of frustration and humiliation that results from the Arab world’s inability to enter the modern age. The Islamists maintain a feeling of Arab dignity that they claim is constantly demeaned by the West—Israel, the US and Europe all caught up in their never-ending, anti-Muslim crusade. The Islamists brood on this fantasy and seek to benefit from it by describing the West, and first and foremost the United States, as a depraved, amoral and violent world. If the fight against terrorism is a battle of ideas—and it is, more than one imagines—and therefore of images, then Mr. Bush has just suffered a major strategic defeat. The war in Iraq has given ammunition to Islamist terrorism; the policy of physical mistreatment—designed to weaken a detainee prior to interrogation—conducted by Americans in an occupied Arab capital that is proud of its rich and glorious past, is the greatest gift ever given to Ossama bin Laden since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Abou Graib confirms the impression that Islamists want to create of the United States in the Arab world. This debacle has it origins in that mix of American power and Bush’s absolutely good conscience. This is a corrosive cocktail that blocks all inhibitions, erases doubts, and prevents self-criticism on the borders of the Potomac just as much as in the corridors of a Baghdad prison. This situation requires a double remedy: Return to the best American tradition of checks and balances that lies at heart of American democracy; listen to the veterans of Old Europe; in brief, remember that trans-Atlantic cohesion deserves renewed consideration. American leaders must agree—one time is not enough—to state: “We are all Europeans!” America must become more European. Americans must draw on that wisdom that Old Europe—so disdained by Donald Rumsfeld—acquired at its own expense, during a colonial past that had its share of somber hours. America desperately needs Europe—Americans suffer from an absence of old European skepticism. At the origin of the Iraqi tragedy is an almost theological conception of power that has driven the Bush administration from the very beginning: America is Good incarnate; all those not with us are against us; the enemies of the United States are Evil. At the end of this absolute conviction that America is “fundamentally good”—as President Bush said to Fox News last year—there is a logical corollary: the temptation to demonize the adversary. If the enemy is dehumanized, if he is evil, one can do anything against and to him. This boundary was crossed in Iraq and probably also in Afghanistan. The boundary was crossed as soon as the United States, with George W. Bush supporting Donald Rumsfeld against Colin Powell, put in place an enormous prison system beyond the pale of international law in Guantanamo. This is essentially an idea that was once European (and specifically French) to conflate universalism and nationalism, to believe that a nation can legitimately anoint itself with a universal mission, to self-proclaim that it is the Chosen People. Let’s take a step back and return to the tragic beginning of this century: September 11, 2001. All free countries—those that actually are free as well as those that aspire to be—immediately felt that they had to fight together. We would all be at America’s side. We were all Americans. This solidarity lasted six months. It was broken when George Bush decided, at the beginning of 2002, to open his Iraqi campaign during his famous speech on Good vs. Evil. Ever since, the two sides of the Atlantic have grown distant: Bush has succeeded in convincing American opinion that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida; he thereby turned America’s and the military’s attention on a more manageable field of operations, on an easier target (so he thought) than the nebulous Al-Qaida, on a more identifiable target (so he thought) than bin Laden and his Pakistani and—at one time—Saudi supporters. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: how could Bush have explained that the fate of bin Laden was in the hands of two American allies? Better, instead, to wage war against Saddam Hussein, even if this meant lying. Even if this meant going against international reason; against a half century of European-America cohesion that relied upon the strategy of “containment” (which has now been replaced by “preventive warfare”). If one wants to eliminate this divergence that has been built on government-sanctioned lies—on weapons of mass destruction, the ties with Al-Qaida—if one wants America to return to what is essential—the fight against terrorism whose true face was apparent in the Madrid blood bath and in the barbaric video from Baghdad; if one considers that free people are only being used to line the pockets of companies like Halliburton and Bechtel that control the Iraqi economy, is there any other path than to wish that George Bush Junior is thrown out by American voters—sent to his prayers and to go speak with his conscience? Let us hope then for the defeat of George Bush and the victory of John Kerry.
"People libel our nation in the most outrageous, abominable, and discreditable manner"posted by Erik @ 10:17 AM
"We are face to face with tremendous, strenuous competition" said one of the leaders of the world's superpower. "We have to hold our own against other nations not too friendly. …
"We see every day that we, the most liberal nation the world has ever seen in its international connections, are also the best hated. Other people are envious of us, they libel us in the most outrageous, abominable, and discreditable manner, they misrepresent us and gloat over what they think is our approaching downfall." Which leader spoke those words? Read the top comment for the answer…
Friday, May 14, 2004Diplomatic Newsposted by Douglas @ 5:19 PM
France has awarded the Légion d'honneur to ten Australian soldiers for their bravery during the allied landings on D-Day.
France has also assured Bulgaria that it will intervene on behalf of the five Bulgarian nationals sentenced to die after being convicted in a Libyan court of willingly infecting hospital patients with HIV.
Edgar Morin Acquittedposted by Douglas @ 3:15 PM
France's famous sociologist Edgar Morin, 82, is Sephardic Jew whose family, the Nahoums, came from Salonica. A long-time socialist and erstwhile communist who claims to have once been an anti-Nazi resister (the time when he dropped the surname Nahoum for Manin and then Morin), he was friends with Marguerite Duras, author/actor Dionys Mascolo (Duras' second husband) and author Robert Antelme (her first).
He is also an acerbic and relentless critic of Israel. Along with Citizen Movement MEP Sami Naïr and author Danièle Sallenave, who lectures at Paris X university in Nanterre, Morin published an essay (my full translation is available here along with a response from the recently deceased Françoise Giroud) in Le Monde in June of 2002. The three authors accuse Israel and its Jewish partisans of reproducing their own sufferings during the Holocaust at the expense of the Palestinians. (Accusing Jews of themselves being Nazis is a common trope in anti-Israel polemics — just ask Norman "stop acting like Nazis" Finkelstein). In that essay, the three authors wrote: The Jews, who were the victims of a pitiless order are imposing their pitless order on the Palestinians. The Jewish victims of inhumanity are displaying a terrible inhumanity. The Jews, scapegoats for every evil, are "scapegoating" Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, made responsibe for attacks that they [the Jews] prevent them from preventing.For these statements, two organizations, Lawyers Without Borders (ASF) and France-Israel took the three authors to court for "racial defamation and apology for acts of terrorism." Libération reported yesterday that Morin et al. have been acquitted of the charges, which Morin says he found "grotesque." Funny. One wonders if he knows what that word means. Morin has also an ambiguous relationship with his own Judaism. He considers himself a "neo-Marano" and rejects the idea of "a chosen people." He says, "I was a Jew who wasn't one. A non-Jew Jew." Curiously, on this subject, Morin feels drawn to volunteer information about his family life that isn't relevant, at least not explicitly so. His mother died of a heart-attack in 1931 when he was ten years old, a moment he describes as an "internal Hiroshima" and after which he withdrew from the outside world, secretly cursing his father, who overprotected him. Later in life, Morin learned that his birth had also nearly killed his mother. He had been delivered in breech position, almost strangled by the umbilical cord. "I had to die that she might live. She died that I might live," he says. His father Vidal felt "connected to Israel," as Morin says he does, too, but not as a mother nation to defend at any cost. Morin has two daughters, the issue of his three marriages.
A Junior Class on Jews, Arabs, Israel, the United States, terrorism, bin Laden and the mediaposted by Douglas @ 1:23 PM
Two students from France's National Foundation for Political Science (Sciences Pô) conducted wide-ranging interviews with a group of "first year" (première, ages 16-17) high school students in a suburb of Paris. Subjects broached included the students' opinions on Jews, Arabs, Israel, the United States, terrorism, bin Laden and the media. The news Web site dedicated to Jewish matters, proche-orient.info, has published portions of a transcript of these interviews. I'm including selected passages. The following anonymous responses come from a class of 34 students at a high school, the name and location of which are undisclosed.
[On the subject of racism] Are there such problems at your school? Continue Reading "A Junior Class on Jews, Arabs, Israel, the United States, terrorism, bin Laden and the media " ...
More Horrific Photos from Iraqposted by Erik @ 8:02 AM
Sickening! The Expat Yank has more horrific photos from Iraq. (This must be one of those that the media has gratefully spared our eyes from…)
The Profundity of Plantu's Hilarious Cartoonsposted by Erik @ 4:44 AM
The fairness, the subtlety, and the eternally-wise-to-the-ways-of-the-world character of Plantu's latest cartoons are discussed on Europundits (in English), on Le Monde Watch (in French), and on Merde in France (in both languages)…
Growing Ever Deeper: the Trans-Atlantic Divideposted by Erik @ 4:23 AM
The New York Times' Richard Bernstein has an in-depth article on the growing trans-Atlantic divide at the International Herald Tribune. This week's Europa column is pretty defeatist, dismal, and depressing, and although all the news from, say Poland, is not altogether good, it is comforting to read this:
In Poland, which with Britain is the strongest American partner in Iraq, the killing of the [Polish] journalists was seen as a reminder of a basic element in the picture: that Abu Ghraib was the United States failing to function as it normally does, while torture, beheadings and assassinations are normal procedures for those opposing the United States in Iraq.
Thursday, May 13, 2004Islamposted by Jonathan @ 11:51 PM
Head Scarf Keeps Woman From Attending Conference In Paris
Un groupe de pression américain musulman critique le refus de la France d'accorder un visa à une femme porteuse d'un voile ReligionNewsBlog has more.
Gay Marriageposted by Jonathan @ 11:10 PM
According to a survey published in Elle magazine (hey, the line at the grocery store was long and I had to kill time), 64% of French are in favor of gay marriage. 49% favor adoption of children by homosexual couples. This is 9 points greater than the 2003 figures with respect to gay marriage and a 12 point increase over the 2003 figures with respect to adoption. Even more surprising: 54% of those French who incline towards the conservative UMP party favor man-man/woman-woman unions.
Glucksmann on Chechen Resistersposted by Douglas @ 6:14 PM
An essay by André Glucksmann in Tuesday's Le Monde (dated to Wednesday) reminded me of Hitchens' recent reflections on ETA:
I can remember when I was a bit of an ETA fan myself. It was in 1973, when a group of Basque militants assassinated Adm. Carrero Blanco. The admiral was a stone-faced secret police chief, personally groomed to be the successor to the decrepit Francisco Franco. His car blew up, killing only him and his chauffeur with a carefully planted charge, and not only was the world well rid of another fascist, but, more important, the whole scheme of extending Franco's rule was vaporized in the same instant. The dictator had to turn instead to Crown Prince Juan Carlos, who turned out to be the best Bourbon in history and who swiftly dismantled Franco's entire system. If this action was "terrorism," it had something to be said for it. Everyone I knew in Spain made a little holiday in their hearts when the gruesome admiral went sky-high.It's a sign of political daring in these times to express praise of any sort for the use of this kind of violence toward political ends. In this essay, André Glucksmann shows just how much he shares this trait with Hitchens. VIEWPOINT Continue reading "Glucksmann on Chechen Resisters" ...
Corner Kicksposted by Douglas @ 5:36 PM
=>A government organization nobody ever heard of, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is rebuking France over the law on secularism. France was the only country in western Europe to receive an entire sub-heading devoted to it in the 2004 annual report.
I told you it's out of the question: there will be no French soldiers in Iraq. Not now. Not later. — French Foreign minister Michel Barnier, quoted by Le Monde, in turn quoted by the AP.Barnier then hopped on a plane for New York. =>France's renowned anti-terror magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière is heading to Australia to interview two Pakistanis, Sydney architecht Faheem Khalid Lodhi and Sydney med student Izhar Ul Haque, currently in detention and awaiting trial for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. Bruguière hopes to obtain information from them about the case of Willie Brigitte. Various intelligence agencies and investigators have linked Brigitte, who has been interrogated by Bruguière numerous times and who is currently in a Paris jail, with the bombing of the Derjba synagogue and to both bin Laden and to Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (whom the Times reports to-day has been rather roughly treated by his CIA interrogators). Authorities allege Ul Haque trained with terrorist group Lashkar e-Toiba (LET), of which they say Lodhi was the leader. Authorities also believe that Brigitte trained with LET. The AFP reported last November that French police had learned from another Islamist in detention, Ibrahim Keita, that Brigitte was planning an attack on Australian soil. Both Keita and Brigitte reportedly received "survival training" while in France between 1998 and 2001 in preparation for further training on the Afghan-Pakistani border. Curiously, Murdoch's Daily Telegraph adds: French authorities have criticised Australia's "soft" anti-terrorism laws and regard us as a weak link in the war on terror. Jacques Vergès has filed a complaint for war crimes against the United Kingdom for abuse of prisoners in Iraq. Just this once, I wouldn't mind hearing French spoken with a British accent, at least to say: Te fais voir, espèce d'enculé de merde! UPDATE: The British government has refused to comment.
Doubts Surrounding GMOsposted by Jonathan @ 1:48 PM
(A translation of a Le Monde editorial from May 13, 2004)
On Wednesday, May 19th, the European Commission is supposed to lift the moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), implemented by the EU’s environmental ministers in 1999. By authorizing the importation of the genetically modified corn, Bt-11, sold by the Syngenta company, Brussels—not the European States who could not reach an agreement—will decide a highly political question. The EU’s authorization of GMO’s is legal. However the majority of European citizens are hostile to these products. It is no longer the case that only ecologists or, in France, the Confédération paysanne are accused of being “archaic” when they oppose GMO development. This complex subject has ended up in the public debate. In France, the Parti Socialiste has become anti-GMO. In Europe, anti-GMO regions have organized since the end of 2003, and the European Commission which is favorable to GMOs in the name of freedom of commerce, is obliged to pay attention. For their part, French regions under the control of the Left will support, in the legal realm, judicial orders forbidding the testing of GMOs in open fields seized by mayors, who will then be called before administrative tribunals by civil administrators. The hope is that anti-GMO rulings will follow and will define a stricter framework. All of these movements flow from the persistent uncertainties regarding the harmlessness or harmfulness of GMO’s for our health and environment. The section published by Le Monde on April 23 that was dedicated to the effects of GMOs on rats emphasized the extent of the uncertainties. The German Government has taken an appropriate lead by adopting a bill that regulates the distance between the farming of classical crops and GMO’s. The Bundestag must now examine this bill. Amidst the growing controversy, the Minister of Agriculture, Hervé Gaymard, may follow the German example. However regulating GMO trials is not enough. There is also the problem of placing GMOs on the market. They will eventually find their way into food. The authorization of Bt-11 seems, at the very least, premature. The French government, following the opinion of the relevant health agency—Afssa—opposes this authorization. At the moment when the giant, Monsanto, has, itself, renounced the growth of genetically modified wheat in the fact of opposition (including opposition from North American farmers), the European Commission should shake off its own certainties and adopt a more cautious attitude. The Commission should wait until European citizens elect a new European Parliament. Otherwise, Europe will once more appear to be governed by technocrats. The deficit of democracy will be apparent on an issue which greatly concerns the public.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004Sophie Shihab Reports...posted by Douglas @ 10:12 PM
Le Monde's Sophie Shihab reports from Sadr City:
In Sadr City, the Shia are tired of fighting
Horror and Dangerposted by Jonathan @ 4:34 PM
(A translation of a Le Monde editorial from May 12, 2004)
posted by W @ 3:53 PMThe situation in the Middle East took one further step this week into horror. After the death, Monday in Gaza, of six Israeli soldiers whose bloody remains were paraded before a crowd of Hamas militants, a young American was decapitated in Iraq by Al-Qaida Islamists. Twenty-six year old business man, Nick Berg, had been captured one month ago. His assassins, foremost among which is the Jordanian Abou Moussab Al-Zarkaoui, stated that they sought to avenge the tortures inflicted on Iraqi prisoners by the soldiers of the American-British coalition. They described George Bush as a “Christian dog.” Under no circumstances does one horrific act excuse another. To denounce abuses is one thing, and it is the privileged nature of democratic regimes that this denunciation is possible, even if painful. To commit worse atrocities on the pretense that the “enemy” first dirtied his hands is shameful. The actions of Zarkaoui’s men were barbarous. It was morally inexcusably and politically disastrous for the cause that it claims to uphold. If the indignation provoked in Arab countries and throughout the world by the treatment of the detainees at the Abou Ghraib prison was legitimate, the crime and its video surpass understanding. And one hopes that there will be as unanimous of a condemnation of Al-Qaida’s crime, of this abominable one-upmanship. How can one invoke a god, whoever that may be, when one rejoices in barbaric acts? How can one think that one’s Creator could rejoice at the sight of a man having his throat slit open to cries of “God most great?” How many times can Muslim communities throughout the world and in Europe continue to trust imams who refuse to condemn—clearly and publicly—these barbaric actions? Yet this plunge into the abyss of Iraq two months from the transfer of sovereignty to an interim government shows, yet one more time, the impasse into which the Bush administration has strayed. Instead of holding itself, after 9/11, to a patient and determined fight against Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, their fanatics and metastases in Afghanistan and elsewhere—an objective which all democracies viewed favorably—Washington decided to throw itself into its Iraqi adventure. Far from diminishing the danger, this Iraq detour has increased it. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, the Bush administration wanted to affirm American hegemony in the name of universal values, of which America is one the promised lands. But this choice placed obligations upon the great world power: she should have had a clear strategy for post-war Iraq and her soldiers should have respected those moral values that she trumpets. Unfortunately, the US missed on both accounts. Today, the Iraqi battlefield is a world threat. And it is up to the world, via the United States, to take control of the situation.
Bush as a KKK Member: How Much Truth Is There to Plantu's Charges of Racism Regarding Abu Ghraib?posted by Erik @ 2:54 PM
Plantu has delivered another of those drawings which shows France's legendary subtlety, its unequaled sophistication, and its unique ability to think in a reasonable manner: Dubya as a sneering member of the Ku Klux Klan (renamed Bush Klux Klan). Douglas already mentioned this tribute to French raffinement, but I felt the need to take a further look under the robes.
Washington is in the middle of a major scandal. George W Bush says he is disgusted by the pictures from Iraq. Several investigatios have been launched. As for General Antonio Taguba, he concluded that no direct order had been given for the abuse: I believe that they did it on their own volition. But — qu'importe! Who cares! Remember… any reason is more than acceptable to picture Americans as sadistical racists, ultra-nationalists, and dirty hypocrites. And who cares, then, about its validity or any evidence there may exist to the contrary. The anti-Bush fight is of such importance, we are told, even sacred, that not one occasion must be passed to fire broadsides against Uncle Sam. Hurl as many partisan accusations against America as possible — no matter how reasonable or not they may appear — and let God sort out the mess. In a similar case, across the Rhine, David Kaspar answers thus Spiegel's accusation ("America, the leading power of the West…is obviously continuing to kill and torture civilians in a systematic way by the hundreds, if not thousands, with the backing of the political and military leadership … The moral values (of the democratic West) appear, and are now officially documented, as pure hypocrisy"): the weekly "has gone into absolute feeding-frenzy mode over the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. It seems that the magazine, in its ceaseless quest to defame the Bush Administration, has completely lost touch with reality … The fact that America is investigating and rectifying the situation (as a democracy should) is minimized. SPIEGEL ONLINE makes it look as if the United States is killing and torturing on a daily basis in Iraq on orders from the government, putting the nation on the same level with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. "But then one has to ask: If the government supports such actions, why would it apologize and investigate them? How could a government in which “the Senate voted 92-0 Monday for a resolution condemning the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison [and] urging a full and complete investigation” still support such actions? How could a President who has repeatedly expressed “deep disgust and disbelief" at the abuse photos still support such actions? "The answer: The government does not support such actions and has already implemented mechanisms to detect and punish abuse which were already in motion before this scandal ever made headlines. SPON seems to be following a typical pattern which it has established for itself: If you repeat a lie loudly enough and often enough, people may start to believe it. Especially if those people are inclined to America-bashing as it is." This, as a story arrives from Irak, in which one American was treated somewhat worse than the humiliated Iraqis, since he was beheaded. But — who cares! The perpetrators of that crime, somehow, "we must show some understanding for them". And no more ink (or tears) will used (or shed) on that event than necessary. (W confirms on MiF: "The beheading of American prisoner Nick Berg is covered by a one paragraph note on page 6 of today's edition [of Libération] in a sidebar titled 'Today's events' containing 6 items (as compared to the 20 odd pages splashed with blown up photos of hazing of terrorists we have had in the last few days).") To return to Plantu's picture of Bush as a member (or grand dragon?) of the Ku Klux Klan : as far as racism in America (and the US army is concerned, can we agree that it is supposed to be directed against people who don't belong to the majority defined as WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants)? If so, some may be interested to know that the general who was responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal report is a Filipino-American. To not go too far back in the past, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a black man (he has since moved to the State Department; previously, he had been the individual who had harvested the highest amount of percentage points in polls for whom Americans most wanted to become president). Another has Slavic origins. Two other generals are Asian and Hispanic. And of course, one of the top honchos in Iraq has Arab roots. But let's not be naïve here, let's not be silly. These are facts that do not contribute to the sacro-sanct fight against George W Bush and the horrific country that he represents. So, insofar that those facts will be noted at all, they will be dismissed, or passed over very quickly, so one can concentrate on where the next attack on Uncle Sam should come from. Lire la version française
The Peace Camp's UN-Based Humanitarian Scam in Iraqposted by Erik @ 10:29 AM
"As a general rule, France is very reserved — indeed hostile — to all sanctions" says Jacques Chirac, "because we have observed that, historically, they are not effective and create more difficulties than they resolve." Sure. Why not? France — along with other "peace camp" members — has a long tradition of proving this in its usual altruistic manner. Which reminds me… of a totally unrelated subject…
There follows more on my website, although PS: Be sure to bookmark the Friends of Saddam weblog
Syriaposted by Jonathan @ 9:35 AM
The French government's response to more US sanctions on Syria is less than enthusiastic:
"The French and American positions differ on the question of sanctions. The French position was made clear last October by the French President when he stated: 'As a general rule, France is very reserved--indeed hostile--to all sanctions because we have observed that, historically, they are not effective and create more difficulties than they resolve.'"
Tuesday, May 11, 2004The Western Streetposted by Jonathan @ 10:25 PM
The “Arab Street:” It’s the Arabs who are angry and violent towards the West (and, in particular, the U.S.) for its relative prosperity, its at times hypocritical foreign policy and its support of Israel and of westernized, Arab ruling elites that rape and pillage Arab homelands but provide stable economic returns in Paris, London and D.C. In the disgusting violence at Abu Ghraib and in the revolting attacks against Muslims in France we can see the rising prominence of another “street:” the Western one. The Western Street saw the Twin Towers fall by men who cried “Allah” before massacring thousands of people. In the eyes of the Western Street, the Arab world, if not complicit in these acts, rejoiced at them. The Western Street merges the “Islam” of Islamic Jihad with the use of suicide bombers; and it looks scornfully upon the countless failed Arab governments lecturing others on human rights. Arab protestations are ignored because they are only turned upon the “infidels.” Muslim immigrants escape their homelands and pour into Western countries, only to seek to replicate in new lands the hell of intolerance that they fled. Such are the views of the Western Street.
It is too easy to dismiss as pure evil the soldiers who committed the atrocities at Abu Ghraib or the people who adhere to the anti-Muslim rhetoric of the Front National. It is more realistic to understand their actions in context. There is a dialogue, whether implicit or explicit, that is happening between the Arab world and the West. One may impute some (even much) of the violence in the Arab world to failed Western politics and communication skills. However, this is not a one-way street. The atrocities in Abu Ghraib spring from an anger that the Arab world must learn to address. If not, the Arab Street will meet the Western Street in a deluge of blood.
Imam Detention + School for Scandalposted by Douglas @ 5:49 PM
The AP reports that French authorities have arrested Iraqi imam Yashar Ali for failing to obey a house arrest order. "French intelligence suspects Mr. Ali, who is married with four children, of being a leading figure among imams of the Salafist movement which holds to a strict interpretation of Islam," write the editors of the Australian, citing the AP as their source.
Le Monde reports that Interior minister Dominique de Villepin plans to establish a school for Imams. An expert panel was to convene today ways and means of achieving this. The committee's activities are now closely guarded secrets and officials have been instructed to treat the matter with the utmost discretion. Le Monde's controversial reporter Xavier Ternisien reveals that the committee is meeting at the offices of the International Insitute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a private organization founded in 1981 in the United States (Herndon, VA) by adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood, that describes itself as "an intellectual forum working from an Islamic perspective to promote and support research projects." Since 2000, its chapter in France has been located in Saint-Ouen, a suburb nort of Paris (Seine-Saint-Denis). The French branch is directed by the Tunisian Mohamed Mestiri, a graduate of the Islamic university of Zeitouna, in Tunis, and holder of a doctorate from the Sorbonne, who, according to Le Monde, describes himself as "evolving in contemporary but not necessarily modernist Islamic thought." Mestri admits playing a part in planning for de Villepin's school: "We're in charge of coordination and moderating the committee's reflections. But nothing is official...." Ternisien writes that, surprisingly, few of France's better known experts in Islam (Gilles Kepel or Mohamed Arkoun) are present on the committee. He also says that the establishment of the committee is a clear attempt to circumvent the French Council on the Islamic Faith (CFCM) (which doesn't have great relations with the current government) because its commission on Imam's is not sufficiently active. Only two of its members are on the new committee. It also circumvents the Paris Grand Mosque (affiliated with the CFCM) and the Union of Islamic Orgnizations of France (UOIF), the only two other Muslim federations in France that have training centers for Imams. As if forgetting that his article is news and not opinion, Ternisien also writes that "it is clear, at any rate, that on this score the current miniter of the Interior is seeking to distinguish himself from his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy." Ternisien quotes a source as saying that, "a new time has come, after the Madrid attacks" and that "we can no longer stick to the traditional game plans." There will be no "security management" of Islam, the source says, but an emphasis on "Republican principles and social cohesion." Sarkozy was often accused of playing into the hands of conservative Islam with his tough tactics. However, last April, Sarkozy attended a UOIF conference, and sources close to de Villepin say that this will be quite out of the question for the current office-holder. "The minsiter in charge of religious faiths is not required to appear at such meetings.
News Roundupposted by Douglas @ 4:58 PM
RAS in Chechnyaposted by Jonathan @ 2:50 PM
(A translation of a Le Monde editorial from May 11, 2004)
The war in Chechnya does not exist, at least according to Vladimir Putin. And since the Russian president largely controls the press, and in particular the television media, the Chechnyan war is non-existent—in Moscow at least. The little Caucasus Republic, a member of the Russian Federation, has been pacified, explains Russian propaganda. A political process is happening. The Russian army is retreating and only specialized units remain. They are not fighting a popular up-rising but a residual, Islamist terror linked to Al-Qaida. Russians are thereby participating in the “global war on terror” launched by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Less than one week ago, during his inauguration speech marking the beginning of his second term as head of state, Putin barely mentioned Chechnya. Then, three days later on Sunday, May 9th, a terrorist attack struck a stadium in Grozny, the wasteland that is the Chechnyan capital, reminding us amidst the horror that Chechnya is still at war. The pro-Russian “president” of the Caucasus Republic, Akhmad Kadyrov, and several others were killed. This massacre also blew apart the so-called war strategy of “Chechnyization” that the Kremlin has pursued for several months. It consists of using Chechnyan militias to combat the guerillas fighting for independence and to cordon off the population. In particular, Putin uses the well-known Kadyrov clan: it spreads terror, pillages, steals and kills with impunity. It is thus similar to the Spetsnav special forces of the Russian army which completes this parade of horribles by systematically using kidnapping for political (as well as other) ends. Relaunched five years ago by Putin, the dirty war of Chechnya continues. Each morning, the corpses of the tortured victims from the night before are placed at the entrance to a street, to a village, or to a house. This war pits Moscow against the guerillas fighting for independence, and notably against those fighting under the banner of Aslan Maskhadov—a president elected in 1997 under conditions much more legal than any election that the Kremlin has since tried to hold. It is true, though, that the guerillas have tries to radical Islamism and that they use terrorism. Mr. Putin does not want to negotiate with Mr. Maskhadov. In Putin’s eyes, this would be to signal defeat. He wants to subdue, overwhelm, exhaust Chechnya—the martyr of Russian colonialism for more than a century. Mr. Putin can count on Western, American and European complicity. No special Senate investigation, no military officers facing court martial, no NGO reports (NGO’s can no longer work on site), no photos published in newspapers. The dead number in the thousands; the tortured are no longer counted. But shhhhh! There is no war in Chechnya.
"Catastrophic" and "Disgraceful" Cell Conditions Leading to "Violence"posted by Erik @ 8:31 AM
Is it Abu Ghraib? Riker's Island? Non, it's Vincennes, Lyon, Nice, and elsewhere dans l'Hexagone.
We've already heard about how suicides among France's inmates surpasses the number of death penalty executions in America (in a country five times less populous). Now, it turns out — and this, as France's media and intellectual élite launches broadside after broadside on Washington's treatment of prisoners in an Iraqi prison, (noting the obvious racism in the fact that the prisoners that the Americans jailers were abusing are people of another color/race/religion/nationality) — that the jails of France aren't so gung-ho as they would like to think. At the end of April, as Le Monde writes in an article, members of an ecumenical organisation for helping foreigners in France judged cell conditions in France's administrative retention centers (where illegal foreigners are placed) "catastrophic", "wretched", and "disgraceful", because of their (or leading to) filth, promiscuity, and violence. Sylvia Zappi goes on to make a summary of La Cimade's list of delightful amenities, including: "intolerable promiscuity" in the Lyon prison; harassment of women refusing to prostitute themselves in the Seine-et-Marne one; and rats in Paris cells and toilets. How about it, Plantu? How about a drawing of Chirac as a Nazi-era kapo? (Thanks to Steve Flint)
The Second Liberationposted by Douglas @ 1:30 AM
Erik commented on this article in an essay and that made me think I might I should translate it.
LE MONDE | 06.05.04 | 13h52Continue reading "The Second Liberation" ...
Monday, May 10, 2004Army Times: Rumsfeld Must Goposted by Douglas @ 4:59 PM
In an editorial post dated to next week, the Army Times writes:
Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.
Etch-a-Sketch Bloggerposted by Douglas @ 4:04 PM
We've taken taken advantage of a few of blogger's new features. Sadly, that means that all of the judicious and pithy comments you left are gone. Believe me, it saddens me, too. I had to shitcan the stupid remarks as well. Sorry. But there's a new comments function available and we hope it makes reading this blog more enjoyable. (remember, the same rules as before: no trolling. Mind your manners or you're gone.)
False Alarm Alarming Neverthelessposted by Douglas @ 2:51 PM
Lafleur and the Pebbleposted by Jonathan @ 2:14 PM
(A translation of a Le Monde editorial that appeared on May 10, 2004)
Sixteen years after the signing of the Matignon Accords, the regional elections of May 9th have finalized the radical political divisions in New Caledonia. One could speak of a political landscape completely in flux in this South Pacific archipelago that is undergoing increasing political autonomy, which will climax in a referendum on self-rule between 2014 and 2019. In addition to the divisions among the former lieutenants of Jean-Marie Djibaou (the historical leader of the independence movement) which were already evident during the previous elections in 1999, there is now a rupture in the so-called “loyalist” camp. Close to Jacques Chirac, Jacques Lafleur—the president of the Rassemblement pour la Calédonie dans la République (now called Rassemblement-UMP)—lost a majority in the southern province which is the most populous and the richest of the “Pebble.”** The Rassemblement-UMP will not be able to continue to head the Congress and the regional government unless it forms compromising alliances or unless there is further turn-over. For more than ten years, the middle and upper classes originally from Europe have challenged the omnipotent Mr. Lafleur. Successive government administrations—from the Left as well as the Right—pretended not to notice and only recognized as worthy interlocutors the signatories of the Matignon Accords: Mr. Lafleur’s party on one hand and the Front de libération nationale kanak socialiste (FLNKS) on the other hand. This behavior on the part of the administrations ignored that the landscape had changed. An increasing number of those liberal and modern individuals who support keeping New Caledonia within France are growing tired of Mr. Lafleur’s authoritarianism, paternalism and his omnipresence in economic circles. Moreover, those who support independence today are not the same as those who supported independence in the 1980’s. Although independence remains an objective, it seems increasingly mythical. The exercise of power, in the north and on the Loyauté islands, has convinced the most lucid, New Caledonian leaders that much must be done in order to build the country. This exercise of power has, unfortunately, also corrupted several people close to Djibaou. The failure of Mr. Lafleur—who did not want to run for office and only did so at the request of the French president—also represents a set-back for Jacques Chirac. Six weeks after the defeat of Lucette Michaux-Chevry in local elections in Guadeloupe, another pillar of Chirac’s over-seas policy is vacillating. The only one left is Gaston Flosse in Polynesia. The May 9th election risks weakening the process of independence set in motion by the Left in New Caledonia. As an extension of the Matignon Accords, concluded under Michel Rocard, the Nouméa Accord that was signed on May 5, 1998 by Lionel Jospin envisioned a progressive autonomy, followed by a referendum on independence after 2014. Tens years remain to invent a new New Caledonia. This is not much time to create “a single people,” as the Union calédonienne—the oldest part of the FLNKS—once proclaimed. **NOTE: New Caledonia is nicknamed “Le Caillou” or “the Pebble.”
France's Efforts to Equate Iraq with Algeriaposted by Erik @ 11:26 AM
In its ever-present efforts to demonize Uncle Sam and keep the pressure up no matter what (all the while minimizing French sins, however serious they may be), today's print edition of Le Monde has a special eight-page supplement on Torture in Wartime (which can be obtained by downloading "Dossier : La torture dans la guerre (pdf)"). Parts of the last two pages are devoted to France's experience in Algeria, so the goal is obvious: minimize (in relative terms) the French army's experience in the matter while maximizing the U.S. military's experience. Good for future reference : "Ah, but you did ze same s'ing. Oh non, arrêtez ; vous voulez rire?! — yours was no better zan ours!"
Of course, some will say point to the beginning of Florence Beaugé and Philippe Bernard's interview with Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and say it reveals that the human rights fighter shows some admiration for America (its media's rapidity in uncovering the scandal), but the point here is to make the two cases comparable in the public mind. And the French are ever and always pointing to admirable details (large or small) in America only to follow it immediately afterwards with an ugly generalized picture. Indeed, in his very next sentence, Vidal-Naquet comes back to say the usual — to regret that America's media outlets are not entirely admirable (they haven't demonized the Bush administration enough) and to huff that "the United States claim to be imposing [democracy] with cannon fire and other, less savory methods". Vidal-Naquet goes on to say that "the French state has remained virtually mute to this day", but makes no analogy between what still seems to be a state secret 50 years later and the Iraqi one, uncovered after less than six months. Later, he speaks of what really riles him and gets his temper to rise: he expresses his disgust at the way Americans have "dehumanized the adversary" and at the way Saddam Hussein was treated when he was caught (c'était absolument abject); he qualifies one of Dubya's pro-Sharon statements as "one of the most montrous lies ever uttered by a statesman"; and he says that "what is perhaps the most worrying" is that John Kerry has made almost no comments about the prisoner abuse story. (This — consensus — is "the worst risk for democracy in America".) And certainly the Le Monde reporters' questions are meant to give the idea that the twin instances of soldiers committing torture ("yesterday in Algeria, today in Iraq") are one and the same. Except that: probably, Americans could — as in so many other subjects! — learn a lesson from France's new generation, which — obviously, so obviously — has advanced far beyond that mentality in the intervening years. (The ¡No Pasarán! editors will take a deeper look into the file, and we may get back to you…)
And We'll All Feel Joy When Juanito Comes Marching Home…posted by Erik @ 9:45 AM
When Juanito comes marching home again, ¡Olé! ¡Olé!…
The Boston Globe's Charles M Sennott has an article about how proud Spain's soldiers are to have finished their job, how joyous la España is at seeing its "boys" again, and how Spaniards, high-ranking members of el gobierno, and the troops revelled together at the meeting welcoming the latter home. Excerpts: "It didn't really feel like that much of a homecoming for us. It felt more like a political celebration for Zapatero and those who never wanted us there in the first place," said Manuel Garcia, 31, a sergeant in a brigade that was among the entire Spanish contingent of 1,300 troops ordered home.
No Commentposted by Douglas @ 9:20 AM
 "The person at Le Monde most likely to be accused of being anti-American is unfortunately the cartoonist you have before you. Even though I am not. Not at all." — Jean Plantureux
Your Average Friendly Europe Day in Parisposted by Erik @ 9:19 AM
End of World War II Day. Dien Bien Phu Day. No Pants Day. All in all, it's been a good week-end for Days. (Those with a capital D).
You probably missed it, but there was also Europe Day, which was celebrated with Tony Blair meeting Jacques Chirac in Paris. As the International Herald Tribune tells it: Despite their falling out over Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and President Jacques Chirac of France marked a cordial "Europe Day" in Paris on Sunday… The two leaders answered students' questions for more than an hour before breaking for lunch to discuss the issues of a future European constitution and the makeup of the new Iraqi transitional government …(Where did he get that evidence from? Le Monde? Oh, okay. I see.) "So it is very urgent to transfer true sovereignty and powers to an authentically Iraqi authority that is recognized as such by the Iraqi people," said Chirac. The French president was one of the most outspoken voices against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that Britain took part in. The French president did not directly address allegations of coalition soldiers torturing prisoners. But he said that people who are "humiliated" would become aggressive.(Meaning Uncle Sam, naturellement.) But, he added: "Anything that calls this bond into question is dangerous for the future of Europe and the United States." …Earlier, The Economist had warned Blair of the latest fashionable notion in Brussels: the idea that Britain might be chucked out of the EU if it refuses to ratify the new constitution that the 25 members are likely to agree next month. Tony Blair has promised a referendum on the constitution, and all the polls suggest that British voters will reject it. That, in theory, could mean that the whole document is still-born, since it needs to be ratifies by every EU member. So Jacques Chirac, France's president, has begun to exert what he calls a little "friendly pressure", by suggesting that any country that rejects the constitution will have to leave the EU altogether. Long experience has taght Mr Blair that nothing is more menacing than a "friendly" gesture from Mr Chirac.
In-Depth Article on EU 25posted by Erik @ 6:37 AM
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
