Out in front...

Nicolas Sarkozy is once again on the road…
In Brazil on Thursday to meet with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and Trinidad on Friday to attend a Commonwealth Summit at the invitation of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the French President intends to stress the paramount importance of taking concrete measures in order to reduce global warming. The United Nations Climate Conference, is to take place December 7 to 18 in Copenhagen.
President Obama announced on Wednesday that he would be attending the climate talks on December 9.
Presidents Lula and Sarkozy had already conferred on climate issues recently, signing an agreement which they called their climatic bible, the aim of which being a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
In Manaus, in the Amazonian jungle, the two presidents (who are meeting for the ninth time this year) will seek to rally the support of the other nations invited, including Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Surinam and Guyana, two weeks before the important Copenhagen summit.
These two days away from France, no doubt, will provide a much needed respite from the more mundane political controversies currently swirling around the nation (the national identity debate, the Pantheonization of Camus, law and order issues, and rising unemployment, to name but a few…), with regional elections looming.
Furthermore, Nicolas Sarkozy thrives on international events.
He is able to display fully his drive, ambition, energy and command of the issues of the day, under the gaze of the international media.
From the outset, after his election victory in May 2007, Sarkozy conducted an ambitious and vigorous foreign policy, in the European Union (he succeeded in imposing the Lisbon Treaty after the rejection of the European Constitution had paralyzed Europe),and in Eastern Europe (negotiating, as President of the European Union, a truce in Georgia after the Russian invasion in August 2008), for instance.
Sarkozy also initiated the G20 economic summits of Washington and London in order to address the issue of financial regulation, following last year’s economic meltdown.
The environmental issues provide Sarkozy with a further opportunity to play a prominent part and assert himself on the international scene.
One additional advantage for Sarkozy is the US reluctance to take the lead on the issue, although President Obama finally outlined on Wednesday some concrete objectives ahead of the Copenhagen summit.
The Chinese quickly followed suit.
France’s proposals however, are much more ambitious and advanced.
Sarkozy has been working on the subject for several years and had launched an initiative in France in 2007 called the Grenelle de L’Environement.
Environmentalists and government officials held a series of discussions concerning pressing environmental issues.
Though the French President does not expect all the issues to be resolved by December 18, the last day of the conference, he does hope that concrete proposals and objectives will be adopted.
His aim, shared by Lula da Silva, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% (of the 1990 level) by 2050. The goal, Sarkozy said, is that coherent and comparable objectives are reached relatively soon, so that genuine efforts are not undertaken only in 2048.
France also demands that the needs of the poorest countries, often victims of the effects of global warming themselves, are taken into account.
Though they will need to contribute to the global effort to reduce these emissions, Sarkozy and the European Union are proposing to contribute 100 billion Euros in order to help them make the necessary adjustments, which should cost some 450 billion Euros overall.
Finally, Sarkozy advocates the creation of an international environmental organization.
Its mission would be to monitor compliance with the treaty, which Sarkozy hopes will be signed in June 2010.
Obama’s objectives are more modest.
The US is to reduce its emissions by 17% in 2020, 30% by 2025 and 40% by 2030.
His point of reference however, is not the emission levels of 1990, but 2005...
As such, if the former benchmark were adopted, the 17% decrease would dwindle to a meager 4%.
This is due to the fact that, between 1990 and 2005, US emissions increased by 16%…
Yet, even the more modest goals depend on the Senate’s willingness to endorse them.
So far, only the House has done so.
Sarkozy and Obama differ on other issues as well.
The G20 meetings revealed a difference in emphasis.
Sarkozy is a fervent supporter of financial regulation to ensure that banks are never again in a position to provoke a similar economic crisis.
Obama prefers to focus primarily on economic growth.
Specifically, Sarkozy is clearly intent on what he calls moralizing capitalism, and preventing traders from devising daring and irresponsible financial products and earning millions in the process.
This interventionist creed is not widely shared in Washington.
On the Afghan issue, Sakozy sent an additional 800 soldiers last year, and 150 gendarmes to assist in the training of Afghan forces earlier this year. That is as far as he intends to go.
France will not send one additional soldier, he declared in October.
Obama will announce his plans for Afghanistan next week, and is expected to
increase the US military presence by some 30,000. He hopes NATO will contribute an additional 10,000...
On Iran, although Sarkozy publicly supported Obama’s outreach to the Iranian government, he does not believe that such a policy can succeed, and is much less patient with the current regime. He visibly loathes Ahmadinejad, and asserted after the latter’s fraudulent election victory had provoked mass street demonstrations, I must say how much I admire the courage of the Iranian people. They deserve much better than their current leaders.
It is the French who, during the recent negotiations with Iran concerning the latter’s nuclear program, insisted that the Iranians transfer all of their uranium to Russia in one shipment (thereby preventing them from enriching it further should they indeed have a military nuclear program, as is widely suspected), and not several…
If both espouse the same policy vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Sarkozy has been determined to improve France’s relations with Syria and its president, Bachar el-Assad. Jacques Chirac had spurned the latter due to Syria’s suspected involvement in the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, a close friend.
Obama has taken few initiatives in this area, engrossed in domestic affairs, such as health care reform, and the Afghanistan conundrum.
There are also obvious stylistic differences as well.
One perceptive observer humorously described the pair this way, watching the two of them onstage together, as when they appeared at D-Day anniversary commemorations in Normandy in June, is like watching the diminutive tough-guy actor Joe Pesci—all twitches and attitude—playing against Denzel Washington, all dignity and reserve.
Sarkozy is also wondering if the President of the United States is sufficiently aggressive and decisive to be successful (Roger Cohen and Richard Cohen have also been musing about Obama of late).
At first, Sarkozy was surprised by Obama’s prolonged rock star popularity around the globe, which he found excessive and irritating.
Just before the Normandy D-Day commemoration, he had quipped, I shall ask him to walk across the English Channel, and he’ll do it…
Yet, he finds Obama too often indecisive. Perhaps this is because he is still a novice in politics. Sarkozy, now 54, won his first election, as a city councilman, in 1977, at the age of 22...
His first became a member of the government of France in 1993, as Budget minister (he was then 38).
In fact, he lacks experience, Sarkozy said of Obama last spring. He was never Treasury Secretary (both Sarkozy and Brown were finance ministers before reaching the top). Politics is more than appearance and glamour. There are the issues.
In addition, he believes that a genuine reformer does not tackle one issue at a time, one after the other, but must be on the offensive on all fronts, the level of pressure that a society can exert is the same, whether you undertake one reform or ten simultaneously. If you only initiate one however, then all the pressure is applied to that lone reform. This is what is now happening to Obama with health care, Sarkozy said recently.
Hence, Sarkozy’s recommendation is to be everywhere at once, the French ought to know this: I have a passion for action and I want to act, he said in January 2008, eight months after his election.
These divergences would not matter, or would be attenuated had the two presidents developed a personal relationship.
Sarkozy is disappointed that the American has not considered worthwhile to cultivate a closer rapport with him.
Sarkozy initially had great hopes for the relationship.
A few days prior to the new president’s inauguration, he had declared, I can’t wait until he gets to work so that we can change the world.
Sarkozy has always been ambitious…
In the beginning, he never had the slightest doubt that their relationship would be the most dynamic, the most significant that either would have among world leaders.
He was convinced that Obama would want to make the most of his drive, ambition and passion for achievement.
However, with time, Sarkozy discovered that Obama did not have any particular consideration for him. He was a partner the US could rely on undoubtedly, but simply one among many others. In fact, his hyperactivity may have been a handicap, on the one hand, here is this American with a cool head, nicknamed «no drama Obama» during the campaign. On the other, we have this emotional and erratic Frenchman.
The White House, which has a consensus-building approach, likens Sarkozy to a lone wolf who is too brutal to be able to deliver European unity on issues important to the US, observed Charles Kupchan, of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In addition, Europe, wealthy, stable and at peace, is no longer a foreign policy priority for an American president.
The US has much more pressing business to attend to elsewhere…
Franco-American relations are sound and friendly it should be said, much more so than earlier in the decade, now everything is operating very smoothly. Sarkozy is an activist we can work with, one US official told Newsweek.
That is undoubtedly true, but far from sufficient.
After all, Sarkozy wants to change the world…
Even he could use a little help…
(all the translations from the French are mine; the photograph on top is by Nicholas Kamm, AFP)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

We should be seeking justice not revenge

One cannot help but wonder why some whose attachment to democracy cannot be seriously called into question are so afraid of justice, preferring revenge instead.
Granted, the latter is certainly much more satisfying, emotionally.
In a democracy however, everyone has the right to a fair trial, even those suspected of having committed the most heinous crimes.
That simple feature-the fair trial- is precisely what differentiates (among other democratic trappings) a civilized society from all the others.
Naturally, it would have been far more convenient to dispose of Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Guantanamo, and execute him there after an ersatz of a trial that would have reached the preordained guilty verdict in an expeditious manner.
This unsavory procedure would have been conducted with limited media exposure, another significant advantage to the Guantanamo trial location.
Hence, many do indeed regret the fact that Mr. Mohammed will be treated like a human being, and, as such, granted rights that he does not deserve.
But that is precisely what a civilized society does with its enemies: it tries them not according to who they are, but according to its laws.
It does not devise laws of exception; create ad hoc courts, the aim of which is to obtain the guilty party’s conviction while denying him all of his fundamental rights.
What, exactly, would a military commission trial achieve, apart from creating additional martyrs for the al-Qaeda cause?
Yes, yes, we are told, but a public trial in a civil court would provide an ideal target for publicity-seeking al-Qaeda terrorists.
Maybe, but so would the Statue of Liberty or the Brooklyn Bridge.
Should we shut those down until further notice?
Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in a civil court in Virginia.
No bombs went off, no Islamic fanatics attempted to behead the judge or the jurors.
In addition, should we allow ourselves to be intimidated or cowed into submission, into betraying our principles and ideals because our enemies could potentially resort to violence?
Yes, yes the supporters of expeditious justice retort, but what if the trial concludes with a verdict of not guilty?
Considering the evidence available, that is highly unlikely unless, and let us, for our part be candid here, this is the very reason why military commissions enthusiasts are so reluctant to allow a civilian trial, the evidence against the accused is so tainted that it may be declared inadmissible.
For, Mr. Mohammed was the hapless recipient of the Bush and Cheney enhanced interrogation techniques, and was water boarded 183 times…
Abu Zubaydah received the same treatment a mere 83 times.
The Bush and Cheney torture program may be exposed for the entire planet to see, further damaging America’s standing and reputation.
Without legitimate evidence, evidence not obtained through abuse and torture of the detainee, a conviction may prove problematic.
If we resort to the expedience of kangaroo courts in Guantanamo however, whose judges, juries, lawyers and prosecutors are all provided by the US military, we have nothing to worry about…
Yes, yes our seekers of perfect justice reply, but we shall have to tolerate Mr. Mohammed’s defense of the glory of jihad when he testifies.
What will the jurors, and the world retain, the glory of jihad, or the monstrosity of the crime, and the magnitude of the pain suffered by those personally affected by the tragedy, and to a lesser degree, by all decent human beings everywhere?
Publicity will not promote Mr. Mohammed’s barbarian cause, but expose its vile and nihilistic nature.
Al-Qaeda has much more to lose from a public trial than a civilized society does, for its motivations, actions and fanaticism will be publicly dissected and disseminated across the planet by the international media.
In essence, we have captured these terrorists abroad, held them in secret prisons as ghost detainees, abused them while they were there, and transferred them to Guantanamo where they underwent further torture, violating all of their basic human rights.
Moreover, because we did so, we cannot try them in our courts, that is to say in our genuine courts, those presumably reserved for upstanding citizens such as ourselves.
And since we cannot, then we shall continue denying them their rights as human beings, which as civilized men and women we should feel bound to protect, by trying them in kangaroo courts, or simply detaining them forever if we have no evidence, tainted or otherwise, against them.
Some may consider this justice, their quest for revenge satisfied.
This writer is not among them, and cringes with shame at the very prospect.
The opponents of civilized justice however, have a point when they criticize Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (another water boarded detainee), alleged organizer of the attack on the USS Cole, in a military tribunal.
One is at pains to discover the logic behind that decision.
What we have been attempting to do here is defend the universal principle of justice, of justice for all, not justice for some, excluding those we loathe the most, such as Mr. Mohammed, to the point that we betray every principle we hold dear while detaining, interrogating and judging them.
Military commissions, extra-territorial prisons and judicial shortcuts should not be tolerated.
They have no place in a civilized society.
The crucial issue at stake is the following: we can be faithful to ourselves, to our own history, our principles, our conception of justice, to what we teach our children in our schools, and what a civilized society is, for surely that is what we purport to have erected.
We can try Mr. Mohammed and his accomplices and ensure that our laws, and the rights of all involved are respected, and that at the conclusion of a fair trial, he will receive the sentence he deserves.
Or, we can make concessions, exceptions and argue that Mr. Mohammed’s case is an extraordinary one demanding extraordinary courts and rules.
Yet, can we do all that in the name of democracy and justice, in order to defend both more effectively?
Can we truly betray our concept of justice in the defense of a democratic society?
Can injustice truly serve the interests of a democratic society?
Can a society resorting to such means long remain democratic?
We can try, and run the risk of undermining that which we claim to defend, but we shall also expose ourselves to the damning accusation that al-Qaeda and other enemies have been making about Western democracies for years: that we are nothing but hypocrites whose high morals, principles and values are reserved for the chosen few, namely people like ourselves, and are dispensed with at will, whenever it suits us…
(the photograph of KSM is by Reuters)　
　

The deadening silence of a regime was broken and life emerged

The students initially dominated the small crowd that began marching in the streets of Prague, November 17, 1989, eight days after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
By the time it had reached Wenceslas Square, in the center of the Czech capital, some 50,000 were now demanding free elections, the resignation of the country’s communist leader Milos Jakes, and an end to the Communist party’s monopoly on power.
Though the demonstrations were peaceful, the security forces responded brutally, in spite of the pleas of the protesters, who chanted your work is to protect us, and we are unarmed.
Some 500 were injured that day near Wenceslas Square, on National Boulevard.
A rumor had quickly spread that a student, Martin Smid had been killed by the police. Though the news was widely reported, including by Jan Urban, a journalist and dissident at the time, it proved to be inaccurate.
No one in fact, had died, yet the news helped stoke the anger that led to the mobilization of thousands, and then millions against the totalitarian regime.
Until that day, there had been a deal between the Communist regime and the people: ‘You shut up and we will take care of you’. But the moment people had the impression that their kids were being killed, the deal was off. As a journalist, I am ashamed of the lie because it was a professional blunder. But I have no regrets because it helped bring four decades of Communism to an end, he told the NYT.
Students went on strike, as did their professors, with the support of artists and intellectuals.
A week later, on November 25 and 26, 700,000 demonstrated in Prague alone.
Protesters were now chanting, you have lost already, and carried portraits of Alexander Dubcek (the leader of Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring in 1968, crushed by the Soviet invasion on August 21, 1968) and Jan Palach , a young philosophy student who set himself on fire in Wenceslas Square, in protest against the Soviet occupation.
The demonstrators now demanded the fall of the regime and free elections. A two-hour nation wide strike was planned for the 27th.
By December 10, the Czechoslovak people had prevailed and a new government now led the nation.
On December 29, twelve years after the emergence of the Charter 77 movement, Vaclav Havel was elected President of the country by a parliament still dominated by the Communists. Another prominent dissident’s life also changed dramatically, on Tuesday I was a boilerman, shoveling coal into the central heating systems of communal blocks, on Saturday I was foreign minister, Jiri Dienstbier told the BBC.
The Charter 77 movement was born in January 1977, following the publication of a manifesto in the Western press that was initially signed by 243 Czechoslovaks.
The civic association, apolitical in nature so as not provoke the authorities, included individuals from all walks of life and with diverse political opinions.
The aim of the movement was simple, if radical: urge the communist government to obey their own laws, in the words of Anna Sabatova, a Charter supporter.
As a signatory of the Final Act of the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the UN Covenant on political, civil, economic, and cultural rights, the Czechoslovak government was now legally bound to respect human rights.
Charter 77 is a free, informal, and open association of people of various convictions, various faiths, and various professions who are united by the desire...to insist on the respecting of civil and human rights in our country and throughout the world. The Charter is not an organization; it has no statutes, no permanent bodies, and no organized membership. Everyone who agrees with the idea behind it, who participates in its work, and who supports it is a member, the Charter stated.
Its emphasis clearly, was respect for the law, and all basic human rights. It deliberately shunned politics, and endeavored not to antagonize the communist government, although any independent initiative is always perceived as an intolerable threat by a totalitarian government.
Vaclav Havel became one of the association’s spokesmen.
The promoters of the Charter, oddly enough, had been spurred into action by the arrest and persecution of the members of a local rock band, the Plastic People of the Universe the year before.
Founded in September 1968, the month after the Warsaw Pact invasion, the band rebelled against the process of normalization now underway in the nation, the aim of which was to eradicate all remnants of the Prague Spring (Dubcek’s attempt to invent a socialism with a human face) and its tolerance for artistic freedom, and a certain amount of freedom of speech, and restore communist orthodoxy in the country.
The band, influenced by Frank Zappa, the Velvet Underground and The Doors, issued its first album in 1974 called Egon Bondy’s Happy Hearts Club Banned (Bondy being a banned Czech poet whose lyrics were adapted to music by the band).
The rebellious musicians were soon prevented from playing in public and were forced underground, the Bolsheviks understood that culture and music has a strong influence on people, and our refusal to compromise drove them insane, Josef Janicek, the keyboard player, told the NYT.
To be playing music was to be free, to say you are doing what you believe and that you are willing to live with the consequences, added jan Brabec, the drummer.
In essence, the musicians vowed to be faithful to who and what they were, and not to make any concessions come what may, even if that included persecution and prison.
Predictably, the musicians were arrested in March 1976 and tried on September 21, 1976.
They were convicted of organized disturbance of the peace, and sentenced to several months in jail.
The trial caused quite a stir in the country and aroused the indignation of many Czechoslovaks, Vaclav Havel among them, the case against a group of young people who simply wanted to live in their own way was an attack by the totalitarian system on life itself, on the very essence of human freedom, he said.
The Charter 77 movement was born a few months later, in this climate of anger and resentment against the repressive regime. The defiant and authentic behavior of the musicians, who refused to be intimidated and cowed into submission was to inspire many other people.
They are afraid of old people for their memories. They are afraid of young people for their innocence. They are afraid of typewriters. So why are we afraid of them? went one Plastic People song.
Perhaps this was one of the band’s most enduring legacies: it helped convince the Czechoslovaks that there was nothing to be afraid of.
The Charter 77 activists were harassed and persecuted by the authorities from the outset. Havel was arrested a few days after the manifest was published.
In order to help all those detained for political reasons, a number of Charter 77 activists founded the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted (VONS).
They provided legal support, and sought to publicize their cases abroad.
A number of dedicated and fearless individuals were thus now eager to defend the principles of justice and democracy and ready to accept the consequences.
They knew their day would come. It was only a question of time, and opportunity.
Twelve years later they made the most of that opportunity, thanks in many ways to the Moscow Spring.
In early 1989, before the momentous events that took place in Poland, Hungary and East Germany, elections to the Congress of People’s Deputies took place.
According to a new electoral law enacted by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, though the majority of seats were reserved for members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, some 10% were to be decided in competitive elections.
As a result, pro-democracy candidates prevailed in most of them, and for the first time in the Soviet era, were allowed to sit in the assembly.
The pro-democracy activists formed a group called the Inter-Regional Group, and were led by Andrei Sakharov, the human rights activist who, until he was freed by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986, had been serving a seven-year sentence of internal exile in the city of Gorki. Boris Yeltsin was another prominent member of this faction.
Their goal was to establish a multi-party democracy in what was still the Soviet Union.

As such, confrontation with the regime was inevitable.
At the congress a schism emerged, that was never overcome, between the democratic movement and the reformist wing of the [Communist Party] nomenklatura, which was led by Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, said Tatyana Vorozheikina, a Russian political scientist.
Sakharov soon became the most popular politician in the Soviet Union.
Soviet media took advantage of the new climate of reform and published critical articles on the regime.
Tragically, however, the democratic movement was fatally undermined by the death of Sakharov in December 1989. Yeltsin then replaced him and eventually became the first President of the new Russia.
Had Sakharov lived and been elected President of Russia, would Vladimir Putin ever have risen to power and put a halt to, and reverse the movement toward democratization?
For Yuri Vodorin, of the Russian human rights organization Citizens Watch, an opportunity has clearly been missed, and unlikely to reappear any time soon, it was a wave of freedom that we had never seen before, and never imagined that we would see in our lifetimes. But now we have gone backwards, we have departed from this, he told RFE/RL.
What has Putin made of Russia?
It is certainly not a democracy as we understand the term in the West: there is no political opposition to speak of; elections are managed and manipulated by the executive; most of the media and especially television is controlled by the Kremlin, and the economy dominated by groups close to Putin.
According to Andrei Piontkovsy, a Russian political analyst, the country is run and owned by dedicated enemies of freedom, a fact he believes is clearly ignored or overlooked in the West...This system is evolving not in the direction of postindustrial open society, but in the direction of feudalism, when a suzerain distributed and could take at any moment back land to his vassals. The only difference is that Mr. Putin is distributing and taking back not land, but gas and oil companies, he told RFE/RL.
Adam Michnik, a prominent Polish dissident and now editor of Gazeta Wyborcza, described the current Russian regime this way, what is Putinism? Putinism, according to [chief Kremlin ideologue Vladislav] Surkov, is a sovereign democracy. A sovereign democracy means that I am the sovereign; I can imprison all my opponents, in spite of Strasbourg, The Hague, or Brussels.
Twenty years later, even in the Czech Republic the enthusiasm that nurtured and accompanied the Velvet Revolution faded long ago.
The current government led by Mirek Topolanek is but a caretaker government. Last March, he lost a vote of confidence during the Czech presidency of the European Union, which deeply embarrassed the nation…
It was clear that the atmosphere wouldn't last. But what wasn't clear, and what we didn’t realize at the time, was that everything would turn away so sharply -- I wouldn't say from those ideals, but from the atmosphere and social climate at the time, that it would so radically change. That's something we did not foresee, Havel recently reminisced.
Thus, many Czechs and East Europeans have lost confidence in their leaders and in their ability to govern the country effectively for the benefit of all.
The prevalent cynicism has led many to suspect the very motives of their politicians,
But there is clearly a big problem with the political class in the Czech Republic and in many other places in post communist Europe. There's a problem of corruption, there's a problem of pettiness, and there's a sense among the population that these guys are only in it for themselves. That I think is becoming a real cancer in post communist democracies, the British historian Timothy Garton Ash told RFE/RL.
Democracy itself is no longer revered, perhaps because those trapped in totalitarian societies dreamed about it for so long.
When it finally arrived, it failed to live up to all their expectations.
Many people -- perhaps fewer among dissidents or revolutionaries -- thought that if the pressure of a totalitarian police state was lifted, everything would be all right. It was not a utopia, but it was an illusion that democracy solves everything. Democracy does not just solve everything. Democracy offers freedom and basic civil rights. But democracy cannot decide who of us will be happy, Michnik said.
In essence, democracy is always disappointing because it is not an end in itself, but only the beginning, an eternal beginning.
It is only a reflection of ourselves, embodying not only our hopes and aspirations but also our willingness to fulfill them. Democracy, therefore, demands great collective effort, stamina and discipline in order to realize all of its potential.
If we have never known democracy, or experienced freedom as such, then this new status must be frightening and alienating, I have often compared it to being released from prison. In prison everything is laid out for you; you don’t have to decide on anything. They tell you when to get up, what to wear, everything is decided for you by others. If you live in this for years and are then suddenly released, freedom becomes a burden, Havel said.
Learning to cope with the demands of an open, capitalist society after having lived for forty years in a totalitarian entity is a lengthy process, it seems that we need yet another 20 years to become fully emancipated, one more generation that will grow up in freedom, suggested the former Czech dissident Alexandr Vondra.

In the end, perhaps only those born in 1989 or after can ever be at ease in such an open society, and able to thrive within it.
Hence, overcoming the fear, apathy and cynicism engendered by a totalitarian society took longer than many thought, including Vaclav Havel, I admit that I was deeply mistaken to think that it would come earlier. It’s really a task for decades, he said, referring to this adaptation to a new social and economic order.
It is easy to lose sight of the fact that a democratic society cannot survive if we are not sufficiently vigilant and intransigent.
We cannot allow ourselves to compromise with fundamental democratic principles, or we run the risk of evolving toward the Russian brand of authoritarian capitalism (Timothy Garton Ash’s expression).
Respect for the rule of law, at all levels of society is of paramount importance.
Corruption does not flourish in a society that cherishes and enforces the rule of law.
A case in point is Russia, where there is no political will to apply existing laws, leading to a worrisome increase in corruption, which costs the Russian economy an estimated $ 318 billion a year.
A firm commitment to that principle by the authorities would gradually restore the people’s confidence in democracy.
Granted, that is a difficult, time consuming project but an indispensable one if democracy is to survive…
Though confusion and disappointment abound, the Velvet Revolution still inspires pride and satisfaction in many Czechs: what they achieved, and peacefully at that, is remarkable.
They were able to dismantle a totalitarian system without violence, or hatred.
Thanks to them, the word revolution acquired a new meaning.
Ever since the French Revolution of 1789 a revolution was meant to be violent and driven by an ideological blueprint for radical change. The key innovation of 1989 was that radical change was implemented without radical means; that is, without violence. In this way 1989 established a new paradigm of ‘non-revolutionary revolution’ that has been emulated more recently with various degrees of success – or indeed failure – in places as different as Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, or even Iraq, said Stefan Auer, Director of the Innovative Universities European Union Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne.
Economic difficulties did not vanish with democracy, and political strife appeared where none, by definition, previously existed.
Such is the unruly nature of democracy.
The Velvet Revolution was about something else, I can say unequivocally it was a change for the better. I'm not talking about the economy or anything like that, but the freedom, that's something incredible, concluded Petr Eckl, of the Magic Lantern Theatre Company.
(the title of this post is an extract from a speech given by former Czech dissident Martin Palous commemorating the Charter 77 movement; the photograph above of the demonstrations in Prague in 1989 is by Pavel Hroch)
　
　
　

Our values have not failed us, we have failed them

Although all of his predecessors had been invited, Nicolas Sarkozy was the first French President to come to La Chapelle-en-Vercors, a small town in the Drome, in southeastern France. Last Thursday, he attended a ceremony commemorating the execution by firing squad of sixteen members of the French Resistance by the Waffen SS, on July 25, 1944.
The President had originally planned to deliver a speech on agricultural issues, but at the last minute chose to address the question of national identity instead.
A national debate on the issue has been launched by Eric Besson, a mayor of a small town in the Drome, and minister of immigration issues and national identity, who was also present at La Chapelle.
Mr. Besson is one of the French President’s most fervent supporters, even though he is a former official of the Socialist party.
A prominent member of Socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royale’s campaign in 2007 (during which he had accused Mr. Sarkozy of being an American neoconservative with a French passport) he resigned, convinced that she was not qualified to lead the nation, and supported Mr. Sarkozy instead, a few weeks before the first round of the election in April 2007.
He became a government minister shortly after Mr. Sarkozy’s victory.
The national debate, which began on November 2, is to take place until January 31, 2010. Town hall meetings will be organized throughout the country and all citizens are invited to participate.
Midway through his first term, which ends in May 2012, the President has been weakened politically by the social and economic crisis affecting the global economy.
Though France’s economy has begun growing once again (0.3% for the last quarter, versus 0.4% for the Euro Zone), the unemployment rate remains quite high (9.1%), as factories continue to close, and jobs disappear along with them, albeit at a slower rate (5,550 for the last quarter).
In addition, regional elections are to take place next spring, and Sarkozy clearly needs to mobilize his supporters in this difficult context.
The issue of what it means to be French is one way to accomplish this, for it is a theme that resonates within his moderate and conservative electorate.
Yet, Sarkozy also believes that in the current context of social dislocation and economic mayhem, engendered by globalization, the notion of identity and shared purpose may prove relevant once again, and help revitalize the country.
It is by rediscovering who we are, where we come from and what we are made of that we can rise to the challenges posed by globalization, suggests Sarkozy.
In the age of globalization and connectivity, borders tended to disappear and lose their meaning, we may be experiencing one of these eras where benchmarks disappear and one’s sense of identity fades, and where the idea that something we thought was vital to our existence is disappearing, he said.
The gradual loss of identity, he claims, leads to nationalism, that is to say, that the theme of national identity is confiscated by extremists who substitute love of country with hatred for others.
This is not what national identity is.
On the contrary, it was fashioned by trials and tragedies throughout the centuries. All those who resisted Nazi occupation did so for the same reasons, for France, no matter what their social background was.
How does Sarkozy define France?
France is a land of freedom and equality.
France is a nation of emancipation, where each individual aspires to rise as high as his abilities, virtues and hard work will lead him…
France is a tolerant and respectful nation. But France demands respect in return.
As such, he reiterated his belief that there was no place for the burqa in a country like France.
Yet, these ideals are meaningless if no one believes in them any longer.
That is the heart of the matter: if we no longer have faith in our Republic; if we are no longer convinced that the French system is a meritocratic one, which does reward ability and hard work; if we no longer believe that our educational system is effective and dynamic enough to allow anyone sufficiently motivated to succeed, it is because we have failed the Republic, and given up on its ideals.
Why is it that our Republic, which in the past had been strengthened by its capacity to overcome challenges of all kinds, seems no longer to be able to fulfill its promise the president asked?
The answer is unequivocal, renunciation!
Our ideals have not failed us, but we have failed them!
Our work ethic is moribund; the notion of authority has been debased, the teacher, police officer ignored when not sneered at.
Instead of promoting equality, ensuring all are given an adequate opportunity to succeed, we have enforced egalitarian tenets, that emphatically refuse to differentiate between individuals. Sarkozy argues that we must resurrect our Republic and its ideals of liberté, égalité, fraternité.
It is because we no longer sufficiently cherish our Republic that we have transformed it into a scapegoat for all of our failures, he said.
Sarkozy’s assessment of France is relevant and lucid, but it is now two years old, for it featured prominently in his victorious 2007 campaign.
Two-and-a-half years have now passed, and he, as well as France, has had to weather the economic meltdown born on Wall Street.
How successful has Sarkozy been in this campaign to resurrect France’s republican values?
Has he made any headway, and will he ultimately succeed?
Though he has tried to revitalize the work ethic by gradually abandoning the 35-hour work week; abolished almost all inheritance taxes and limited the top tax bracket to 50% to enable the French to enjoy the fruits of their labor or that of their parents', for instance, his record is uneven in other key areas.
France’s inner cities are still economically deprived and often off-limits to security forces. As a result, the authority, and thus credibility, of the state is openly flouted.
The education system still produces thousands of virtually illiterate individuals each year, who then join the ranks of the jobless as soon as they leave school.
Sarkozy was not expected to solve these problems in two years.
Yet, when you are the President, these acute problems are now yours, and yours to solve. Eloquent speeches will not be sufficient if potent policies do not follow.
Sarkozy is in charge, and his credibility is now at stake.
If he is trying to mobilize the nation and encourage it to overcome its doubts and hesitations about the future, then the speech may have been a useful one.
The discussion he has launched is a noble one, he said.
True enough, but how many are still listening?
Living up to the ideals of the French Republic, liberté, égalité, fraternité is so demanding. Do we, as a people, have sufficient will, discipline and energy to do so?
It is far from obvious that we all even want to make the attempt.
What is dismaying and tedious however is the mockery, derision and contempt that constitute the standard, predictable and thus expected reaction to any statements delivered by Sarkozy.
That Obama in the US receives the same treatment is probably not much of a consolation, but it is a clear sign that the quality of public discourse in modern democracies is too often petty and mediocre.
It is something we simply have to put up with, and is obviously preferable to censorship, but it renders all attempts to change the status quo that much more difficult.
That is not an excuse for complacency and failure and both Sarkozy and Obama should be held accountable for their actions.
After all, they chose to be where they are.
A little constructive criticism would not do anyone any harm, however.
To give but one example of the anti-Sakozy paranoïa prevalent in many quarters here, Marie NDiaye, a writer who recently was awarded France’s most prestigious literary prize, the Prix Goncourt, for her novel Trois femmes puissantes, said in an interview last August that she had left France with her family and moved to Berlin mainly because of Sarkozy.
I find this vulgar and police-state atmosphere, Besson, Hortefeux (Interior Minister), all those people ghastly. I find their France ghastly, she added.

The reaction of the leader of the Socialist party Martine Aubry was far from unexpected.
It was a speech on the part of a president who is in serious trouble, and attempting, clumsily, to regain control of events. What worries the French most is Sarkozy’s unwillingness to let France’s values express themselves, she said.
Should we be so naïve as to consider that Sarkozy’s speech on national identity does not have a political and electoral dimension?
Certainly not, and it was also devised in part to embarrass the Left, which is not comfortable with the subject, and has refused to participate in the nationwide discussion.
Nevertheless, he has raised important issues, most notably the nation’s capacity and ability to renew its model and adapt it to the age of globalization, issues worthy of being discussed in a serious manner.
Alas, it is far from certain that the French are paying attention.
A recent poll revealed that 64% did not consider the question of national identity to be a priority…
(all translations into English are mine, and the photograph above is by Reuters)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

13 Aban

They had been warned.
Only those political rallies approved by the authorities would be tolerated on November 4, known as 13 Aban in Iran, officially named as the day to fight global arrogance, to quote the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.
On that very day thirty years ago, the American embassy in Tehran was infiltrated by radical students, and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
The event has been commemorated every year, ever since.
Also known as Pupils’ Day, students are officially invited on this holiday to demonstrate against the United States.
We are announcing that only anti-American rallies in front of the former American embassy in Tehran are legal. Other gatherings or rallies on Wednesday are illegal and will be strongly confronted by the police, the authorities stipulated on the eve of the event.
And yet, they came, by the tens of thousands…
The official ceremony organized by the regime involved even larger crowds.
It was 10:30 am at this time. Hundreds of buses (that had brought in pro-regime supporters) lined Taleghani street, and I started to see some pro-regime marchers coming my way, wrote one eye-witness.
The former US embassy, traditionally referred to as the nest of spies, now an Iran Revolutionary Guard center and museum, is located on Taleghani Street.
The official demonstrators, mostly schoolchildren, held up signs reading Death to America, and torched American flags.
The main speaker at the event was Gholam Ali Haddad Adel.
After having denounced US intentions towards Iran, the former Speaker of the Iranian Parliament accused the leaders of the opposition, MM. Karroubi, Khatami and Mousavi, and their supporters, of having betrayed the nation.
What will they answer to the families of the martyrs? To the pure children of the revolution? What will they answer to our supreme leader? They will have to answer to the nation, he thundered.
The counter-demonstration was to take place simultaneously in Haft-e-tir Square, in downtown Tehran, some 800 meters from the former US embassy.
The paramilitary forces were waiting.
They had been on the scene since dawn, eager to confront the peaceful demonstrators, even more so than on the previous occasion, last September.
Security forces harassed opposition supporters in the subway, tearing off green bracelets, scarves and armbands, all symbols of the Mousavi movement.
Central subway stations were closed, and internet and cell phone services interrupted.
Heavy security presence, including armored Special Guard, Basij, and plainclothes forces on motorbikes.
Harsher violence than expected, weapons used on protesters included tasors, paintguns, batons, and teargas
Opposition crowds were spread in pockets of hundreds and sometimes one or two thousand across large area of downtown to north-central Tehran including:Haft-e-Tir, Fatemi Sq, Valiasr, Abbas Abad, Argentine Sq (reported so far); estimate of total turnout hard to gague, eyewitnesses told Tehran Bureau.
Violent clashes on Talaghani St by US embassy compound all day, another added.
Yet another told RFE/RL, people were throwing stones, they used teargas and pepper gas against people. The number of people who were injured is high. I don't know if anybody died, but [Basij forces] were hitting people with batons. I was hit on the head. They don't care if you're young or old. They're beating everyone, she said.One woman demonstrator corroborated the brutality of the police response, I've never seen such violence. They chased us down a dead end. We were all crushed together and the riot police shot something like five teargas canisters into the alley, she said.
And though the demonstrators had initially been marching peacefully, chanting slogans such as Death to Dictators, No fear, nor fear, we are all together, and a green Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons, there are reports that some demonstrators retaliated once the Basijis and paramilitaries attacked the protesters.
When opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi sought to join the demonstration at Haft-e-tir Square, he also was assaulted by the paramilitaries, the police forces shot tear gas directly toward Karroubi and his supporters. It resulted in the injury of two of the guards, who were transferred to the hospital, his son, Mohammad Taghi Karroubi declared.
Mir Hussein Mousavi was prevented from leaving his office to attend the event by a police motorcycle squad.
Demonstrators also gathered in front of the Russian Embassy, and chanted hostile slogans, including nest of spies, previously reserved for the American diplomatic compound. Russia was one of the first nations to congratulate Ahmadinejad after his fraudulent election victory last June.
At Tehran University, some 2000 students and professors confronted the security forces, yet the campus remained peaceful, if tense, as the girls (were) standing in front of the boys to protect them, according to timesonline.
Demonstrations also took place in other Iranian cities such as Rasht, Ahvaz, Mashhad, Tabriz, Najafabad and Shiraz..
President Obama seized this opportunity to deliver a statement of his own to the Iranians, the American people have great respect for the people of Iran and their rich history. The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice, and their courageous pursuit of universal rights. It is time for the Iranian government to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity and justice for its people, he said.
The opposition activists also had a message for the American president, Obama: either with the murderers or with us, they chanted.
It seems many opposition activists were urging President Obama not to negotiate any deals with Ahmadinejad. Severely undermined by the rigged election, the Iranian president would have much to gain politically from a normalization of relations with the West, and with the US in particular.
It would vindicate his past policy of confrontation, especially on the nuclear issue, and restore some legitimacy to the regime.
He would inevitably receive credit for having achieved what had eluded all his predecessors, including the former reformist president, and current opposition leader Mohammad Khatami: the restoration of ties with the West, while preserving intact Iran‘s nuclear program.
None of his enemies, on the right or the left, want to see him benefit from such a breakthrough.
This may be the reason why the deal initially accepted by Iran to ship its uranium abroad for reprocessing was excoriated by so many within the political establishment.
Thus, for the West, the vexing Iranian nuclear issue presents an additional dilemma: do the US, and the European powers truly want to sign a deal that would politically rehabilitate Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and those responsible for the harsh crackdown on Iran’s democracy movement?
This factor can only further complicate the nuclear issue, and render its resolution ever more remote.
In any case, last Wednesday, the opposition movement manifested, both clearly and boldly, that it was still relevant and robust, and a force to be reckoned with.
This is a people’s movement that the system can’t destroy, one protestor said.
We have again sent a message to [President] Ahmadinejad and the [Supreme] Leader that society has not forgotten what they’ve done. They have beaten, raped, tortured and threatened the people but we still showed up, declared another. One mother of three children and 54 years-old concluded, I was beaten up with a baton so badly that one policeman begged his colleague to have pity on me and stop beating me. But I am not scared. I will keep protesting until the end.
If that is so, and let it be so, it is only a matter of time before they reach the coveted goal, which they have earned and deserve, justice and democracy…
(the photograph above can be found here)