Everyone expected the Iranian presidential election to be a highly contested one, and the momentum, in the final stretch seemed to belong to the challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
And yet, when the official results were released, the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner, with 62.6% of the vote, followed by Mr. Mousavi with 34%.
Voter participation was a historic 85%, meaning that over 46,2 million Iranians went to the polls..
The supporters of the reformist candidate were bitterly disappointed, and suspecting foul play, took to the streets, to vent their fury…There has been some violence, and many arrests…
Who is Mr. Mousavi, and who are his supporters?
To begin with, in Iran, all candidates belong to the same family: they are all followers of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who overthrew the Shah in 1979...All share his islamist ideology and support the theocratic regime put in place thirty years ago…
Those who oppose the ideology and the regime are simply banned from participating in the political life of the nation. All candidates for the presidency and parliament, the Majlis, are vetted by the Guardian Council, and all those not deemed sufficiently islamist or fundamentalist are barred from running.
The choice for the voter thus boils down to choosing a reformist islamist or a conservative one…
Mousavi is backed by the reformist camp consisting in the Islamic left (the original revolutionaries, who, incidentally, occupied the US embassy in 1979), and the forces that supported the moderate Muhammad Khatami, who was president between 1997 and 2005), and the technocratic wing, also known as the modern right (for a detailed study of contemporary Iranian politics, see Walter Posch’s Prospects for Iran’s 2009 Presidential Elections).
The modern right is composed of pro-free market groups, and technocrats who support Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, another former president, and one of the richest men in Iran (and some claim, one of the most corrupt).
Mousavi also attracted the support of those conservative clerics alienated by Ahmadinejad (who is not a cleric), his populist, autocratic style and disregard for some prominent theologians.
More significantly, however, Mousavi has chiefly benefited from being the anti-Ahmadinejad candidate. Though a poor public speaker without much charisma, many women and young Iranians enthusiastically backed his candidacy in the hope that a government led by him would be more tolerant and less oppressive. As prime minister during the 80s and the Iran-Iraq war, he is remembered as having competently managed the economy during a difficult time.
Generally, the fundamentalist, conservative wing of the islamist movement does support Ahmadinejad. His most prominent supporter is the Supreme Leader (who has the final say in all essential foreign, military and security policy matters), Ayatollah Ali Khameni, the successor of Khomeini.
It is equally significant that he has the backing of the principle security forces in Iran, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (founded in 1979, an elite corps in which Ahmadinejad served in the 80s), and the Basij militia, also founded in 1979. It is an all-volunteer paramilitary group notorious for its role in enforcing the regime’s strict dress and public behavior codes…It has frequently been accused of various human rights violations, including harassing and detaining political opponents.
Yet he has also found support in rural areas, and in the ill-educated urban poor, who appreciate his humble lifestyle, lack of pretense, and the subsidies he disbursed during his first term.
Politically, the two candidates differ more in style than in substance.
Both support the country’s nuclear program, for instance, as do the vast majority of Iranians… A Mousavi foreign policy, however, would be less abrasive, and shun the outrageous. Many in Iran have been deeply embarrassed by Ahmadinejad’s repeated denials of the Holocaust, and his diatribes against the state of Israel…
In addition, it would be easier for the West to negotiate with Moussavi, than having to deal with the unpredictable Ahmadinejad…
So, what did happen? Was the election stolen or was the Green Wave (his young supporters were clad in green) supporting Mousavi not potent enough?
There is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that the official results do not reflect the actual will of the electorate.
To begin with, according to official results, Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi, an Azeri, in his home town of Tabriz, the capital of Azerbaijan province.
Secondly, he also officially defeated him in Tehran, one of Mousavi’s electoral strongholds.
Unlike other elections, the vote results by district were not published.
In addition, 40 different opinion polls recently released all predicted a Mousavi victory (though one issued June 8th, predicted Ahmadinejad would win 34%, and Mousavi 14%, thus forcing a runoff between the two next Friday).
Moshen Makhmalbaf, a filmaker, and campaign spokesman for Moussavi, declared that he had been contacted Friday night by the Interior ministry, and notified that Mousavi had won easily.
Yet, just two hours after the polls closed, Interior minister Sadegh Mahsouli, a staunch Ahmadinejad supporter, released election results indicating an overwhelming victory for the incumbent. Mousavi’s website was then shut down, and all cell communications and text messaging blocked in Tehran.
Furthermore, the Supreme Leader, Khamenei quickly recognized the outcome and congratulated the victor, thereby pre-empting all attempts to dispute the results:
The chosen and respected president is the president of all the Iranian nation and everyone, including yesterday’s competitors, must unanimously support and help him, he declared, even though the Electoral Commission is supposed to officially disclose the results three days after election day, so that all disputes can be examined and resolved…
In any case, demonstrations erupted in Tehran, Mashhal and Baabol .
Universities in Tehran were closed, cell phones and messaging were still unavailable Saturday…
Mehdi Karroubi, another reformist candidate who won little support (just 300,000 votes, according to official tallies) told the New York Times: The results of the 10th presidential election are so ridiculous and so unbelievable that one cannot write or talk about it in a statement.
As for Mr. Moussavi, his whereabouts are unknown.
There are some reports that, along with many other reformists, he has been arrested.
He refused to recognize the results, and has vowed to resist:
The reported results of the 10th Iranians Presidential Election are appalling. The people who witnessed the mixture of votes in long lineups know who they have voted for and observe the wizardry of I.R.I.B (State run TV and Radio) and election officials. Now more than ever before they want to know how and by which officials this game plan has been designed. I object fully to the current procedures and obvious and abundant deviations from law on the day of election and alert people to not surrender to this dangerous plot…We will continue with our green wave of rationality that is inspired by our religious learnings and our love for prophet Mohammad and will confront the rampage of lies that has appeared and marked the image of our nation. However we will not allow our movement to become blind one.
His options are few. If he, or his partisans continue to resist and take to the streets, the regime would no doubt crack down hard, as the security apparatus is firmly in their hands….
Yet, if he does not react, if his innumerable young and female supporters relent and acquiesce, then their hopes of building a more open and tolerant society will be dashed, perhaps for good…
To conclude, one interesting question comes to mind: win or lose, the fundamentalists, with the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council and other key institutions are always, ultimately, in control.
They were able to subvert Khatami's progressive agenda during his two terms in office.
Why would they feel sufficiently threatened, this time, to steal an election?
Were they afraid that the Green Wave might lead to another Velvet Revolution?
.
dimanche 14 juin 2009
mardi 9 juin 2009
Lead me, follow me, or get out of the way
I raise my glass this evening to the great Thomas Paine, who died two hundred years ago today, on June 8th, 1809, in Greenwich Village, New York. He was seventy-two, and all but forgotten. Only six people attended his funeral...
He was the author of the Rights of Man, (1791), a passionate defense of the French Revolution. Paine was, in fact, elected to the Convention, in 1792, by the voters of the Pas-de Calais, in northern France...Though imprisoned by the radicals of the Robespierre faction, he was released ten months later, and returned to the Convention.
He left France in 1802, disappointed by Napoleon's failure to spread the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Europe...May he rest in peace, wherever he may be for his body was taken back to England and misplaced...
An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot
Thomas Paine
Sarkozyism is alive and well
President’s Sarkozy’s party, the UMP, won a decisive victory last Sunday in the European Parliamentary Elections, even though voter participation was disappointingly low, with only 43% of Europeans, and 41% of Frenchman, going to the polls.
Held every five years to elect 785 Euro Mps, the UMP won 27.8% of the vote, and the main opposition party, the Socialist party (PS), 16.4%.
Four years ago, the results were practically the reverse, with the PS polling 29%, and the UMP 16% …
The UMP’s final tally was not far off Sarkozy’s first round showing in the Presidential election two years ago, which was 31%.
Considering the economic and social context, the UMP was visibly relieved.
The victory was all the more resounding as it was the first time since 1979 (the first direct election to the European Parliament) that the President’s party had managed
to prevail in the election.
An election with only one round, with proportional representation (a party winning 5% of the vote obtains 5% of the seats, 10%,10% and so on), opposition parties usually perform quite well, as the electorate seizes the opportunity to punish those in power for the deficiencies of their economic and social policies, knowing full well the elections results will have no impact on the coalition running the country.
Yet, the President and his majority were spared this time.
Why?
Firstly, Sarkozy’s performance as President of the EU (every six months, a European country, and its president or prime minister is responsible for leading the Union) won plaudits in France, as well as in Europe.
He was a driving force behind the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in December 2007.
Designed to end the political stalemate following the rejection by the French and the Dutch of the European Constitution in referenda held in 2005, the treaty sought to facilitate decision-making within the Union and create the posts of President of the EU, and High Representative for Foreign Affairs, to give the Union greater political coherence and visibility.
So far, it has been ratified by 23 of 27 nations…The process of ratification continues…
In addition, Sarkozy vigorously responded to the economic crisis both at home and abroad, and was instrumental, along with Gordon Brown of the UK, in organizing the G20 meetings, in November 2008 in New York, and April 2009 in London.
Sarkozy’s dynamism was considered opportune and reassuring by many of his countrymen.
On Sunday night, President Sarkozy issued a statement that said: the presidential majority has prevailed. The French demonstrated their appreciation of the efforts made during the French presidency of the EU, as well as those to confront this unprecedented global economic crisis…But this victory drives us to try even harder. Europe must change, and the reforms must be pursued.
Secondly, all other parties, with the notable exception of Europe Ecologie, failed to make any credible proposals, particularly on Europe, the object of the election, and concentrated on lambasting Sarkozy.
As a result, opposition to Sarkozy was clearly insufficient to attract voters.
The two parties most rabidly anti-Sarkozy performed poorly.
Le PS , thus, won 16% and le Modem (Mouvement Démocrate) 8.4%.
The anti-Sarkozy platform was tempting and convenient because it allowed a fractious PS to unify around one of the few themes they all could campaign on.
For François Bayrou, leader of the Modem, who many have accused of being obsessed with Sarkozy and the future 2012 Presidential election, he created the party to serve his political ambitions, the realization of which necessitate the political downfall of Sarkozy.
Martine Aubry, leader of le PS , was particularly shaken and undermined by the dismal showing, as it was her first campaign as party leader.
She conceded on Sunday night that the party had been weakened: the party suffered because it was divided, and incapable of achieving unity. This is not acceptable.
On the national level, le PS finished only 35,000 votes ahead of Europe Ecologie.
In the Paris region, it finished third, and the PS spokesman, Benoit Hamon failed to win reelection.
Even some Socialists believe the party has never recovered from the April 21st, 2002 disaster. That is the day outgoing prime minister Jospin finished third in the first round of the Presidential election, behind the much reviled far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Jacques Chirac and was thus eliminated.
It was the first time since 1969 that the PS had no candidate in the decisive run-off.
Chirac handily won re-election against Le Pen…
One up-and-coming leader, Arnaud Montebourg said: since April 21st, 2002, the PS has not moved, it’s been listless.
In fact, le PS has not won a national election since 1997...
The party is riven by personal rivalries and ideological differences.
With no undisputed leader, and no clear ideological direction, the party has been unable to effectively counter Sarkozy and l’UMP.
François Bayrou’s defeat was particularly acute. He neglected European issues, and preferred instead to excoriate Sarkozy on every possible subject.
Though Sarkozy does have his fair share of enemies, an electoral victory cannot be built simply on a systematic critique of the President’s style and policies. Some kind of alternative must also be proposed…And Bayrou failed to come up with a credible set of alternate policies.
The incident that perhaps sealed his fate took place Thursday June 4th, on national television. The latest polls showed that the ecologists had moved ahead of his own list, such that le Modem was now in fourth place…
A number of political leaders had been invited to discuss European issues, including Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of Europe Ecologie, and Bayrou.
A violent altercation took place between the two, that left the other guests flabbergasted…
After having been accused by Bayrou of deliberately sparing Sarkozy in this campaign, and of being a frequent lunch guest of the president, Cohn-Bendit retorted: hey, pal, you’ll never become president; you’re way too lame.
Incensed, Bayrou then accused Cohn-Bendit of having condoned acts of pedophilia in one of his books, written in 1975...Bayrou said I find it despicable for you to have provoked and justified such acts with children. I cannot accept this.
This is an old accusation that surfaced in 2001, and that Cohn-Bendit had addressed at the time, to everyone’s satisfaction, or so it seemed, for he had expressed regret for having written certain pages…
The incident, in many ways, is reminiscent of Ségolène Royal’s calculated outburst during her debate with Sarkozy, a few days before the decisive round of the 2007 Presidential elections.
Like Bayrou, behind in the polls, she had hoped that a violent confrontation would destabilize her opponent, make him look weak, or even worse, contemptuous, before a national television audience, thereby potentially altering the dynamics of the race, and perhaps, allowing her to prevail at the very end. It was a desperate attempt to change the course of events, the ultimate game changer, the fourth quarter and miraculous Hail Mary pass…
But it was not to be.
Royal was soundly beaten, and so was Bayrou!
In the present case, the incident cost Bayrou dearly: his list finished 8 points behind Cohn-Bendit’s.
On election night, Bayrou admitted the results were disappointing: during a very tough campaign, I was not able to put my message across. I did not consider that you could separate national and European issues, but I was not heard . And I let myself be dragged into an excessively polemical confrontation that alienated many.
Several of his advisors believe that he lost the elections that evening on television: the debate cost him between three and four points, said one. There are some things in a campaign that you cannot predict. That came from deep within him, and he was overwhelmed.
Bayrou compared himself to Zidane (the great, and retired French footballer), who, during the 2006 World Cup final against Italy, lost his cool, head butted an opponent, was expelled from the game, which the French then lost…
The clear winner, apart from Sarkozy, was Cohn-Bendit’s Europe Ecologie.
He was able to unite the various fractious currents of the French environmental movement, the leftist Verts, who were in Jospin’s socialist government between 1997 and 2002; the radical, anti-globalization wing, embodied by José Bové, who became an overnight sensation in France, by dismantling a McDonald’s fast food restaurant during a demonstration in the south of France a few years ago; the apolitical, represented by Nicolas Hulot, a TV personality who hosts a nature show; former Green Peace activists such as Yannick Jadot. Even Eva Joly, a former judge specializing in affairs of corruption, and now an ecologist, joined the movement.
In the first round of the 2007 Presidential election, the Vert candidate had received…1.57% of the vote.
Cohn-Bendit’s charisma, and deep passion for the European ideal did wonders during the campaign, and only he could have succeeded such a feat, uniting personalities who had never managed to work together.
A genuine European (he is a German national, born in France of Jewish-German parents, in 1945), he has been a Euro MP since 1994, and is not interested in being anything else.
Can the movement he created single handedly survive without him, as he will be in Strasbourg (parliamentary sessions alternately take place in Brussels and Strasbourg) for the next five years?
Unlikely, but it will be interesting to see what becomes of Europe Ecologie.
The party’s success also demonstrated the importance that environmental issues now have on the French, and more broadly, the European political scene.
In essence, thus, the two lists that talked politics won the election, which is reassuring…
Sarkozy’s victory is significant because it will facilitate his mission, and revitalize his program of reform, which was buffeted by the economic crisis.
New projects are in the works, as he inaugurates the second stage of his five year mandate.
Sarkozy’s principle opponents having been discredited by humiliating election defeats, he now has time to newly define his objectives, and move even faster on the road to the modernization of France.
Held every five years to elect 785 Euro Mps, the UMP won 27.8% of the vote, and the main opposition party, the Socialist party (PS), 16.4%.
Four years ago, the results were practically the reverse, with the PS polling 29%, and the UMP 16% …
The UMP’s final tally was not far off Sarkozy’s first round showing in the Presidential election two years ago, which was 31%.
Considering the economic and social context, the UMP was visibly relieved.
The victory was all the more resounding as it was the first time since 1979 (the first direct election to the European Parliament) that the President’s party had managed
to prevail in the election.
An election with only one round, with proportional representation (a party winning 5% of the vote obtains 5% of the seats, 10%,10% and so on), opposition parties usually perform quite well, as the electorate seizes the opportunity to punish those in power for the deficiencies of their economic and social policies, knowing full well the elections results will have no impact on the coalition running the country.
Yet, the President and his majority were spared this time.
Why?
Firstly, Sarkozy’s performance as President of the EU (every six months, a European country, and its president or prime minister is responsible for leading the Union) won plaudits in France, as well as in Europe.
He was a driving force behind the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in December 2007.
Designed to end the political stalemate following the rejection by the French and the Dutch of the European Constitution in referenda held in 2005, the treaty sought to facilitate decision-making within the Union and create the posts of President of the EU, and High Representative for Foreign Affairs, to give the Union greater political coherence and visibility.
So far, it has been ratified by 23 of 27 nations…The process of ratification continues…
In addition, Sarkozy vigorously responded to the economic crisis both at home and abroad, and was instrumental, along with Gordon Brown of the UK, in organizing the G20 meetings, in November 2008 in New York, and April 2009 in London.
Sarkozy’s dynamism was considered opportune and reassuring by many of his countrymen.
On Sunday night, President Sarkozy issued a statement that said: the presidential majority has prevailed. The French demonstrated their appreciation of the efforts made during the French presidency of the EU, as well as those to confront this unprecedented global economic crisis…But this victory drives us to try even harder. Europe must change, and the reforms must be pursued.
Secondly, all other parties, with the notable exception of Europe Ecologie, failed to make any credible proposals, particularly on Europe, the object of the election, and concentrated on lambasting Sarkozy.
As a result, opposition to Sarkozy was clearly insufficient to attract voters.
The two parties most rabidly anti-Sarkozy performed poorly.
Le PS , thus, won 16% and le Modem (Mouvement Démocrate) 8.4%.
The anti-Sarkozy platform was tempting and convenient because it allowed a fractious PS to unify around one of the few themes they all could campaign on.
For François Bayrou, leader of the Modem, who many have accused of being obsessed with Sarkozy and the future 2012 Presidential election, he created the party to serve his political ambitions, the realization of which necessitate the political downfall of Sarkozy.
Martine Aubry, leader of le PS , was particularly shaken and undermined by the dismal showing, as it was her first campaign as party leader.
She conceded on Sunday night that the party had been weakened: the party suffered because it was divided, and incapable of achieving unity. This is not acceptable.
On the national level, le PS finished only 35,000 votes ahead of Europe Ecologie.
In the Paris region, it finished third, and the PS spokesman, Benoit Hamon failed to win reelection.
Even some Socialists believe the party has never recovered from the April 21st, 2002 disaster. That is the day outgoing prime minister Jospin finished third in the first round of the Presidential election, behind the much reviled far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Jacques Chirac and was thus eliminated.
It was the first time since 1969 that the PS had no candidate in the decisive run-off.
Chirac handily won re-election against Le Pen…
One up-and-coming leader, Arnaud Montebourg said: since April 21st, 2002, the PS has not moved, it’s been listless.
In fact, le PS has not won a national election since 1997...
The party is riven by personal rivalries and ideological differences.
With no undisputed leader, and no clear ideological direction, the party has been unable to effectively counter Sarkozy and l’UMP.
François Bayrou’s defeat was particularly acute. He neglected European issues, and preferred instead to excoriate Sarkozy on every possible subject.
Though Sarkozy does have his fair share of enemies, an electoral victory cannot be built simply on a systematic critique of the President’s style and policies. Some kind of alternative must also be proposed…And Bayrou failed to come up with a credible set of alternate policies.
The incident that perhaps sealed his fate took place Thursday June 4th, on national television. The latest polls showed that the ecologists had moved ahead of his own list, such that le Modem was now in fourth place…
A number of political leaders had been invited to discuss European issues, including Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of Europe Ecologie, and Bayrou.
A violent altercation took place between the two, that left the other guests flabbergasted…
After having been accused by Bayrou of deliberately sparing Sarkozy in this campaign, and of being a frequent lunch guest of the president, Cohn-Bendit retorted: hey, pal, you’ll never become president; you’re way too lame.
Incensed, Bayrou then accused Cohn-Bendit of having condoned acts of pedophilia in one of his books, written in 1975...Bayrou said I find it despicable for you to have provoked and justified such acts with children. I cannot accept this.
This is an old accusation that surfaced in 2001, and that Cohn-Bendit had addressed at the time, to everyone’s satisfaction, or so it seemed, for he had expressed regret for having written certain pages…
The incident, in many ways, is reminiscent of Ségolène Royal’s calculated outburst during her debate with Sarkozy, a few days before the decisive round of the 2007 Presidential elections.
Like Bayrou, behind in the polls, she had hoped that a violent confrontation would destabilize her opponent, make him look weak, or even worse, contemptuous, before a national television audience, thereby potentially altering the dynamics of the race, and perhaps, allowing her to prevail at the very end. It was a desperate attempt to change the course of events, the ultimate game changer, the fourth quarter and miraculous Hail Mary pass…
But it was not to be.
Royal was soundly beaten, and so was Bayrou!
In the present case, the incident cost Bayrou dearly: his list finished 8 points behind Cohn-Bendit’s.
On election night, Bayrou admitted the results were disappointing: during a very tough campaign, I was not able to put my message across. I did not consider that you could separate national and European issues, but I was not heard . And I let myself be dragged into an excessively polemical confrontation that alienated many.
Several of his advisors believe that he lost the elections that evening on television: the debate cost him between three and four points, said one. There are some things in a campaign that you cannot predict. That came from deep within him, and he was overwhelmed.
Bayrou compared himself to Zidane (the great, and retired French footballer), who, during the 2006 World Cup final against Italy, lost his cool, head butted an opponent, was expelled from the game, which the French then lost…
The clear winner, apart from Sarkozy, was Cohn-Bendit’s Europe Ecologie.
He was able to unite the various fractious currents of the French environmental movement, the leftist Verts, who were in Jospin’s socialist government between 1997 and 2002; the radical, anti-globalization wing, embodied by José Bové, who became an overnight sensation in France, by dismantling a McDonald’s fast food restaurant during a demonstration in the south of France a few years ago; the apolitical, represented by Nicolas Hulot, a TV personality who hosts a nature show; former Green Peace activists such as Yannick Jadot. Even Eva Joly, a former judge specializing in affairs of corruption, and now an ecologist, joined the movement.
In the first round of the 2007 Presidential election, the Vert candidate had received…1.57% of the vote.
Cohn-Bendit’s charisma, and deep passion for the European ideal did wonders during the campaign, and only he could have succeeded such a feat, uniting personalities who had never managed to work together.
A genuine European (he is a German national, born in France of Jewish-German parents, in 1945), he has been a Euro MP since 1994, and is not interested in being anything else.
Can the movement he created single handedly survive without him, as he will be in Strasbourg (parliamentary sessions alternately take place in Brussels and Strasbourg) for the next five years?
Unlikely, but it will be interesting to see what becomes of Europe Ecologie.
The party’s success also demonstrated the importance that environmental issues now have on the French, and more broadly, the European political scene.
In essence, thus, the two lists that talked politics won the election, which is reassuring…
Sarkozy’s victory is significant because it will facilitate his mission, and revitalize his program of reform, which was buffeted by the economic crisis.
New projects are in the works, as he inaugurates the second stage of his five year mandate.
Sarkozy’s principle opponents having been discredited by humiliating election defeats, he now has time to newly define his objectives, and move even faster on the road to the modernization of France.
dimanche 7 juin 2009
A tough game ahead
On behalf of France, I wish to pay tribute to those American youths who shed their blood on Norman soil, and who now rest there for all eternity. We shall never forget them, President Nicolas Sarkozy said yesterday during the ceremony commemorating the 65th anniversary of D-Day at the Colleville-sur-Mer cemetery.
Over 9000 US soldiers are buried there.
The ceremony was also attended by the British prime minister Gordon Brown, the Prince of Wales and the Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, and D-day veterans from the four countries.
Presidents Obama and Sarkozy held only one, one hour meeting during the American president’s two day visit, yesterday at the Caen Préfecture, before the D-Day commemoration.
Using the familiar «tu» when addressing Obama (instead of the formal «vous»), Sarkozy said that never have the US and France been so close...it's a pleasure to work with Barack Obama. France is America’s friend, and we have the will to work together on the major issues, and both presidents agreed that, on the issues in question: Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and human rights and security, France and America shared the same vision…
Though the meeting between the two was a short one, Obama said that it helped that Sarkozy talked fast. Sarkozy retorted that it was also highly convenient that Obama understood everything quickly.
The only significant divergence was Turkey, and the question of whether or not it should become a member of the European Union. The US has traditionally backed its membership claims. Sarkozy, on the other hand, though he does advocate a close security and economic partnership with Turkey, does not consider it to be part of Europe, if only geographically, and therefore does not support full EU membership.
One corollary issue is the wearing of the Islamic veil by Muslim women, particularly in Western countries.
In his Cairo speech, Obama said the following: likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
This is the only major aspect of the speech that was criticized in France.
Secularism is taken very seriously here, and the separation of church and state brooks no exceptions.
When responding to a question on this issue yesterday, President Sarkozy forgot to mention that although Muslim women naturally have the right to wear whatever they wish inside and outside the home, the veil is prohibited in public schools; all other religious symbols, such as christian crosses for example, are also forbidden.
As such, Obama’s support of the veil was criticized in no uncertain terms by women’s and human rights organizations.
Ni Putes ni Soumises (Neither Whores nor Victims), a women’s rights organizations founded in the Paris suburbs where many of France Muslims live, and which erupted in violence in 2005 when Sarkozy was responsible for law and order as Interior minister, said in a statement that by attacking secularism and defending the veil, Obama was launching a crusade against women.
La Ligue du Droit International des Femmes (the League of International Law for Women) declared that Obama’s defense of the veil was a slap in the face of all women who struggle not to wear the veil. In many cases, the veil is imposed by the women’s male entourage, and not freely chosen. Human societies are built upon symbols, the organization added. Positive ones like the colors of a flag or a song of liberation. Negative ones, like a convict’s suit or a veil under which women disappear, like in Saudi Arabia.
Was that truly the only difference between the US and France?
One thing that did deeply shock the French was that, last night , having dinner at a fine French restaurant, la Fontaine de Mars, in Paris’ VIIth arrondissement, specializing in French South West cuisine, Obama had a food taster sample his dishes, just in case (that incidentally, smacks of Ancien Régime France)…Apparently, that is also part of the Secret Service’s responsibility. No self respecting Frenchman would taint a fine dish, even if he did want to dispose of the leader of the free world. He would use more traditional means, and certainly not sacrilegious ones…
More seriously, according to the French daily Le Monde, Sarkozy has sought to tighten Franco-American relations since his election in 2007. In order to do so, he sent additional troops to Afghanistan, and successfully led France’s reintegration into NATO’s military command structure. Furthermore, unlike many other European nations including Germany, France accepted to receive a Guantanamo detainee.
Sarkozy hopes that, as a result, France’s influence in Washington will grow. Hence, he emphasized the quality of his relationship with President Obama, and their similar perceptions of the major international issues.
Yet, how much influence does France really have in Washington?
As Obama said, the EU is a stabilizing force in international diplomacy, and thus, does not require that much attention on the part of Washington. There are more pressing issues to attend to elsewhere.
So, the answer to the above question is, probably not much…
And there remain a few differences in the way to tackle issues: though Sarkozy supports Obama’s overtures to Iran, he believes a deadline must be set, beyond which diplomacy ought to be supplanted by a tougher approach, should Iran be procrastinating…Incidentally, this is quite close to the Israeli position…
Sarkozy’s proposal to host an international conference on the Middle East has also failed to get US support…
In essence, the climate is much healthier than in the Bush-Chirac era, and there is plenty of good will on both sides of the Atlantic. That is a promising start, though reconciling the ambitions of France and America will not always be easy.
As French officials told Le Monde : the game with Obama is going to be a tough one…
samedi 6 juin 2009
Restoring Amercia's credibility
President Obama’s speech in Cairo last Thursday was a major event. Many around the world, particularly Muslims, hoped that he would steer US foreign policy in a new direction.
Yet, what exactly were they hoping to hear?
Mistrust of the US only intensified during the two terms of MM Bush and Cheney.
The invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib infuriated and alienated Muslims and the Arab world, to the extent that it was becoming increasingly difficult for that audience to take seriously any overtures on the part of the US.
Mr. Obama was in the position to at least get a chance to address these issues, and he chose Cairo, in many ways the cultural and intellectual capital of the Arab and Moslem world, because of his unique background.
Son of a Kenyan, Muslim father, brought up partly in the world’s most populous Muslim nation, community organizer in Chicago ghettos, he was well versed in discrimination and humiliation.
This granted him sufficient credibility to be taken seriously by his audience.
In addition, his election was interpreted, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, at least in part, as a repudiation of the Bush-Cheney militaristic, unilateralist world view.
He embodied a new start, with a capacity to listen, learn and consider the point of view of others.
Not surprisingly, therefore, he invited critics of the Egyptian government, such as the dissident Ayman Nour, recently released from prison, and who ran against current President Mubarak in 2005, and members of Parliament belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic party tolerated by the government.
Ibrahim Kalin, a Turkish scholar and adviser to the prime minister told Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post: you have never seen a president who has raised expectations so high in the Arab and Muslim world, for the good. People see in him something they would like to see in their own leaders, and that, in itself, creates huge expectations.
Obama thus had a genuine opportunity to chart a new course, but such huge expectations could also easily lead to bitter disappointment if his message did not sufficiently resonate with his audience, and failed to address their major concerns.
What are they?
There is a great thirst for justice in that part of the world .
That is why the withdrawal from Iraq, the banning of torture and the closing of Guantanamo are so important, and will no doubt help bolster Obama’s credibility.
Secondly, many want America to help them overcome poverty and economic deprivation. This is a key element in any policy to combat terrorism, a term Obama did not employ, due to the excessive and reckless use made of the word by the previous administration.
Youths with no prospect are an inviting target for al-Qadae recruiters.
As a former prime minister of Yemen, Abdulkareem al-Eryani put it, eradicating poverty could one day help him, to paraphrase George W. Bush, avoid firing a $100,000 missile at a $700 tent.
Thirdly, the democracy activists in the region need America’s help, for no state in the area, with the exception of Israel, Lebanon and Turkey, is much interested in preserving and promoting human and civil rights. In this domain, one speech will not suffice. Concrete support is anxiously awaited. It would be good if Mr. Obama vowed to support democracy and human rights. But he should talk about these ideals only if he is willing to help us fulfill them, Abduljalil Alsingace, a professor at the University of Bahrain, wrote in the NYT.
For his part, Ayman Nour said: we don’t expect Mr. Obama to bring progress to Egypt. But we expect him to demand freedom for all and to restate his conviction that oppressive regimes march on the wrong side of history.
Fourthly, America must not only support freedom and democracy, but respect the results of elections that are conducted fairly and openly, even if its local favorite does not win.
In this light, Vice President Biden’s recent visit to Lebanon, in which he held meetings only with leaders of the outgoing pro-western government coalition, and hinted that US aid would be reduced were the opposition coalition led by Hezbollah to win, was not well perceived, to say the least…
A Lebanese journalist wrote in the NYT: to restore America’s credibility in the Muslim world, Mr. Obama should promise that come election time, he will respect the will of voters, even if he does not like the results.
Fifthly, people of the region simply want to live a dignified life, where their beliefs are respected and protected, devoid of fear. As a Saudi blogger put it: we want to live in a place where we can be ourselves.
Unfortunately, that goal is not yet within reach, but many yearn for Obama to help them attain it.
Last but not least, there is the Israeli-Palestinian issue…
How did Obama do?
Was he able to fulfill these expectations?
He clearly stated his intention, at the outset, of seeking a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
His insistence on the need to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground was significant, and something of a novelty in a speech by an American president.
It was a clear indication that he would not be trying to impose his views on any one, but seek instead to convince.
He also chose to emphasize not what divides and differentiates human beings, but our common humanity, the aspirations that are common to all of us, to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Obama was not in Cairo to lecture his audience on the virtues of American democracy, but on what could be accomplished together to improve the lot of everyone in the region
Economic prosperity in the Middle east, as elsewhere, is inextricably linked with globalization. Though it has engendered fears that one’s traditions and identity would be undermined, globalization will not simply disappear. It must be dealt with and taken advantage of, and he stressed the need to invest in the future: but all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century.
As a result, he proposes to expand exchange programs and scholarships, develop trade and business ties with the region, and host a Summit of Entrepreneurship.
He also plans to foster technological development and open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.
If he follows through on these plans, then these measures will help connect these countries with the rest of the globalized world and reduce poverty.
On the subject of democracy, Obama conceded the fact that, as the Iraqi enterprise demonstrated, one cannot simply impose it on others.
It is for every nation to develop a form of democracy best suited to its traditions and particularities.
He also evinced a most welcome humility: America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
Every human being, not solely Americans or Europeans, deserve freedom of speech, the right to choose one’s leaders, justice and security. As Obama said: those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
And he vowed to respect the outcome of any election, on one condition: we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.
That is the heart of the matter: respect. Unfortunately, few governments in the region share this preoccupation.
His vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was also much awaited.
His very approach may, in fact, be unprecedented, for he said the following:
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Things that need to be said shall be said, and said plainly. No more secret or tacit understandings between Washington and a party to the conflict. Facts and basic realities will be confronted head on.
Israeli settlements are an impediment to peace. Palestinian violence is not only immoral but useless: violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
The antagonists need to recognize this, or no progress can be made.
Obama has thus restored Washington’s previous role of honest broker, that had been repudiated by the previous administration, which systematically supported Israeli policies, and only Israeli policies.
This was a major and inspiring speech because it sought to mobilize and unite, to encourage his audience to focus on the future, not the past. It appealed to what is nobler inside all of us, and challenged us to fulfill our potential for progress and justice:
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is a challenge worthy of all of us, and it would be a pity not to rise to the occasion.
Can a speech change the world? Probably not, but it can spur people to take action and their destinies in their own hands…
It is a beginning, and it will take sustained effort on Obama’s part to ensure that all the protagonists do not attempt to shirk their responsibilities…
It is a noble enterprise, and we can only wish him well…
Yet, what exactly were they hoping to hear?
Mistrust of the US only intensified during the two terms of MM Bush and Cheney.
The invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib infuriated and alienated Muslims and the Arab world, to the extent that it was becoming increasingly difficult for that audience to take seriously any overtures on the part of the US.
Mr. Obama was in the position to at least get a chance to address these issues, and he chose Cairo, in many ways the cultural and intellectual capital of the Arab and Moslem world, because of his unique background.
Son of a Kenyan, Muslim father, brought up partly in the world’s most populous Muslim nation, community organizer in Chicago ghettos, he was well versed in discrimination and humiliation.
This granted him sufficient credibility to be taken seriously by his audience.
In addition, his election was interpreted, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, at least in part, as a repudiation of the Bush-Cheney militaristic, unilateralist world view.
He embodied a new start, with a capacity to listen, learn and consider the point of view of others.
Not surprisingly, therefore, he invited critics of the Egyptian government, such as the dissident Ayman Nour, recently released from prison, and who ran against current President Mubarak in 2005, and members of Parliament belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic party tolerated by the government.
Ibrahim Kalin, a Turkish scholar and adviser to the prime minister told Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post: you have never seen a president who has raised expectations so high in the Arab and Muslim world, for the good. People see in him something they would like to see in their own leaders, and that, in itself, creates huge expectations.
Obama thus had a genuine opportunity to chart a new course, but such huge expectations could also easily lead to bitter disappointment if his message did not sufficiently resonate with his audience, and failed to address their major concerns.
What are they?
There is a great thirst for justice in that part of the world .
That is why the withdrawal from Iraq, the banning of torture and the closing of Guantanamo are so important, and will no doubt help bolster Obama’s credibility.
Secondly, many want America to help them overcome poverty and economic deprivation. This is a key element in any policy to combat terrorism, a term Obama did not employ, due to the excessive and reckless use made of the word by the previous administration.
Youths with no prospect are an inviting target for al-Qadae recruiters.
As a former prime minister of Yemen, Abdulkareem al-Eryani put it, eradicating poverty could one day help him, to paraphrase George W. Bush, avoid firing a $100,000 missile at a $700 tent.
Thirdly, the democracy activists in the region need America’s help, for no state in the area, with the exception of Israel, Lebanon and Turkey, is much interested in preserving and promoting human and civil rights. In this domain, one speech will not suffice. Concrete support is anxiously awaited. It would be good if Mr. Obama vowed to support democracy and human rights. But he should talk about these ideals only if he is willing to help us fulfill them, Abduljalil Alsingace, a professor at the University of Bahrain, wrote in the NYT.
For his part, Ayman Nour said: we don’t expect Mr. Obama to bring progress to Egypt. But we expect him to demand freedom for all and to restate his conviction that oppressive regimes march on the wrong side of history.
Fourthly, America must not only support freedom and democracy, but respect the results of elections that are conducted fairly and openly, even if its local favorite does not win.
In this light, Vice President Biden’s recent visit to Lebanon, in which he held meetings only with leaders of the outgoing pro-western government coalition, and hinted that US aid would be reduced were the opposition coalition led by Hezbollah to win, was not well perceived, to say the least…
A Lebanese journalist wrote in the NYT: to restore America’s credibility in the Muslim world, Mr. Obama should promise that come election time, he will respect the will of voters, even if he does not like the results.
Fifthly, people of the region simply want to live a dignified life, where their beliefs are respected and protected, devoid of fear. As a Saudi blogger put it: we want to live in a place where we can be ourselves.
Unfortunately, that goal is not yet within reach, but many yearn for Obama to help them attain it.
Last but not least, there is the Israeli-Palestinian issue…
How did Obama do?
Was he able to fulfill these expectations?
He clearly stated his intention, at the outset, of seeking a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
His insistence on the need to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground was significant, and something of a novelty in a speech by an American president.
It was a clear indication that he would not be trying to impose his views on any one, but seek instead to convince.
He also chose to emphasize not what divides and differentiates human beings, but our common humanity, the aspirations that are common to all of us, to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Obama was not in Cairo to lecture his audience on the virtues of American democracy, but on what could be accomplished together to improve the lot of everyone in the region
Economic prosperity in the Middle east, as elsewhere, is inextricably linked with globalization. Though it has engendered fears that one’s traditions and identity would be undermined, globalization will not simply disappear. It must be dealt with and taken advantage of, and he stressed the need to invest in the future: but all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century.
As a result, he proposes to expand exchange programs and scholarships, develop trade and business ties with the region, and host a Summit of Entrepreneurship.
He also plans to foster technological development and open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.
If he follows through on these plans, then these measures will help connect these countries with the rest of the globalized world and reduce poverty.
On the subject of democracy, Obama conceded the fact that, as the Iraqi enterprise demonstrated, one cannot simply impose it on others.
It is for every nation to develop a form of democracy best suited to its traditions and particularities.
He also evinced a most welcome humility: America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
Every human being, not solely Americans or Europeans, deserve freedom of speech, the right to choose one’s leaders, justice and security. As Obama said: those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
And he vowed to respect the outcome of any election, on one condition: we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.
That is the heart of the matter: respect. Unfortunately, few governments in the region share this preoccupation.
His vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was also much awaited.
His very approach may, in fact, be unprecedented, for he said the following:
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Things that need to be said shall be said, and said plainly. No more secret or tacit understandings between Washington and a party to the conflict. Facts and basic realities will be confronted head on.
Israeli settlements are an impediment to peace. Palestinian violence is not only immoral but useless: violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
The antagonists need to recognize this, or no progress can be made.
Obama has thus restored Washington’s previous role of honest broker, that had been repudiated by the previous administration, which systematically supported Israeli policies, and only Israeli policies.
This was a major and inspiring speech because it sought to mobilize and unite, to encourage his audience to focus on the future, not the past. It appealed to what is nobler inside all of us, and challenged us to fulfill our potential for progress and justice:
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is a challenge worthy of all of us, and it would be a pity not to rise to the occasion.
Can a speech change the world? Probably not, but it can spur people to take action and their destinies in their own hands…
It is a beginning, and it will take sustained effort on Obama’s part to ensure that all the protagonists do not attempt to shirk their responsibilities…
It is a noble enterprise, and we can only wish him well…
vendredi 5 juin 2009
六四屠殺 (The June 4 Massacre)
Even today, it is not clear how many Chinese were killed during what the authorities euphimistically refer to as the political turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989...
Though China claims 241 died during the crisis, it is feared that many thousands were killed and wounded…We shall most likely never know, as the bodies were spirited away and secretly disposed of…
Today, twenty years on, what is known in the West as the Tiananmen Square Massacre has disappeared into oblivion, and any effort to commemorate the event is severely dealt with.
The Chinese media have ignored the historical event, and policemen have resorted to umbrellas to try and prevent foreign television crews from filming in Beijing…
Many major websites, such as Twitter and Flickr have been temporarily shut down in order to ensure that the taboo issue is not even mentioned. VeryCD, a Chinese version of YouTube suffered a similar fate;YouTube itself was shut down in march…
If the Chinese were treating June 4, 2009 as a non-event, others abroad simply could not do so.
Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State said: a China that has made enormous progress economically and is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership should examine openly the darker events of its past.
The Chinese had other plans…
The government’s strategy was expounded in a memo, a copy of which the AFP managed to spot on the internet : village cadres must visit main persons of interest and place them under thought supervision and control. Such was the mission of Guishan township, located some 870 miles from Beijing.
Thought supervision?
That is an ability that the authorities lost long ago…In this internet age, they must rely on more mundane measures such as harassment, intimidation and imprisonment in their black jails, where they detain the meddlesome, and the more politically motivated of their citizens.
A student leader of the 1989 democracy movement who had to flee China shortly after the crackdown, tried to reenter his homeland Wednesday, and turn himself in, in order to finally go home. Wu’er Kaixi declared: when I turn myself in, I will use the platform of a Chinese courtroom to debate the Chinese government about this incident…My turning myself in should not be interpreted as my admission that my behavior 20 years ago is illegal and wrong. I want to reassert here the Chinese government bears complete and undeniable moral, political and legal responsibility for the tragedy that happened in China in 1989. I hope, 20 years later, the Chinese government can set a new position on the historical problem of the 'June 4 massacre,' admit its guilt and apologize to the Chinese people…
Though China claims 241 died during the crisis, it is feared that many thousands were killed and wounded…We shall most likely never know, as the bodies were spirited away and secretly disposed of…
Today, twenty years on, what is known in the West as the Tiananmen Square Massacre has disappeared into oblivion, and any effort to commemorate the event is severely dealt with.
The Chinese media have ignored the historical event, and policemen have resorted to umbrellas to try and prevent foreign television crews from filming in Beijing…
Many major websites, such as Twitter and Flickr have been temporarily shut down in order to ensure that the taboo issue is not even mentioned. VeryCD, a Chinese version of YouTube suffered a similar fate;YouTube itself was shut down in march…
If the Chinese were treating June 4, 2009 as a non-event, others abroad simply could not do so.
Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State said: a China that has made enormous progress economically and is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership should examine openly the darker events of its past.
The Chinese had other plans…
The government’s strategy was expounded in a memo, a copy of which the AFP managed to spot on the internet : village cadres must visit main persons of interest and place them under thought supervision and control. Such was the mission of Guishan township, located some 870 miles from Beijing.
Thought supervision?
That is an ability that the authorities lost long ago…In this internet age, they must rely on more mundane measures such as harassment, intimidation and imprisonment in their black jails, where they detain the meddlesome, and the more politically motivated of their citizens.
A student leader of the 1989 democracy movement who had to flee China shortly after the crackdown, tried to reenter his homeland Wednesday, and turn himself in, in order to finally go home. Wu’er Kaixi declared: when I turn myself in, I will use the platform of a Chinese courtroom to debate the Chinese government about this incident…My turning myself in should not be interpreted as my admission that my behavior 20 years ago is illegal and wrong. I want to reassert here the Chinese government bears complete and undeniable moral, political and legal responsibility for the tragedy that happened in China in 1989. I hope, 20 years later, the Chinese government can set a new position on the historical problem of the 'June 4 massacre,' admit its guilt and apologize to the Chinese people…
The authorities do not want any of the veterans of the student movement to move freely about at this sensitive time.
He should be deported back to Taiwan shortly…
The most prominent of the student leaders Wang Dan, was jailed for seven years, then expelled to the US in 1998.
Though tragic and painful, he cannot but remember these events with fondness: for me, it was the proudest moment in China’s long history. For the first time in our lives, people dared to exercise the most basic human right: freedom of speech.
What was the June 4th movement all about?
Initially, it was caused by the death, April 15th , 1989, of a respected reformist official, Hu Yaobang, who had been forced to resign in January 1987 because of his liberal tendencies…
University students in Beijing were intent on mourning the official and demanded his rehabilitation. They demonstrated, in bigger and bigger numbers, in Tiananmen Square, where speeches were delivered and a list of grievances established.
By the time of the funeral, April 21st , some 100,000 were in the Square, and their demands became more precise: an end to official corruption, freedom of the press, and democracy!
Workers soon joined the movement, as a high inflation rate, 28%, threatened living standards. It also spread to other cities such as Shanghai.
The students demanded direct negotiations with the government, and many began a hunger strike, as a means to convince the public they were serious, and genuinely fighting for a better future for all Chinese. The movement’s popularity did, in fact, increase as a result…
Because Soviet President Gorbachev was to arrive in Beijing for an official visit on May 15th , many foreign journalists were in the Chinese capital to cover the event…
The Chinese authorities lost patience and declared martial law on May 20th, but did not move on the Square before the evening of June 3rd…
During the onslaught, many students were heard screaming, why are they killing us?
Twenty years on, China is a different country, and a much wealthier one…
Between 1990 and 2007, China’s GDP was multiplied by thirteen…It is now the world’s fourth largest economy, after the US, Japan and Germany
The struggle for political rights, for all intent and purposes, died in Tiananmen square…The government’s obsession since then has been to recover its legitimacy by promoting economic growth so as to improve the lives of as many Chinese as possible…Its performance has been a deft one. Qi Yuting, a retired laborer told the Washington Post: that time (June 1989) was cruel. But ever since, our life has been good. We only have progress. We promote harmony.
With all hopes of political reforms having been dashed, the only remaining viable option for many was improving one’s lot. Zhang Lifan, a historian, put it this way: people all turned to making money, seeking their individual benefits and interests.
Yet, Chinese society is more open, certainly less oppressive than twenty years ago.
Access to the internet has given the Chinese the opportunity to express themselves. Information is much more freely and widely available than ever before…The Chinese have thus used this instrument to effect social change. As Donald Morrison, a former editor of Time Magazine’s Asia edition, observed:
Indeed, foreigners who move to China are struck, as I am, by the wealth of personal freedom on display. Not just the latitude to shop, move to another city or attend wine tastings, but also to debate such poisonous subjects as Tibet, corruption and the shoddy construction of schools flattened during last year’s Sichuan earthquake…It’s not democracy, but it is a better, more responsive, more humane system than the one China had 20 years ago. To my Chinese friends, it is unthinkable that the country could regress to those benighted days.
It would seem that there is less discontent in China than twenty years ago, because the standard of living has improved, and the Chinese do have the means to goad the government to take some of their aspirations into account, as long as the grievances avoid the political.
Increasingly, the Chinese have resorted to the courts to bring about social change.
After the earthquake, many parents sued the government, considering that the poor quality of school buildings had led to the deaths of their children…
More than political transformation, they demand accountability.
Nevertheless, China is by no means a free society.
The last taboo, hence, is freedom and democracy…Censorship is rampant. Some 30,000 cyber cops scour web sites, for instance. The Chinese know where to draw the line: not surprisingly, the majority of Chinese citizens censor themselves, not because of apathy, but out of fear, concluded Yang Jianli, a student activist in 1989, who now lives in the US.
As long as the individual does not directly question the party’s authority or legitimacy, than he or she is allowed a certain autonomy…
As such, some 100,000 anti-government protests take place every year…
The writer Lijia Zhang summarized the situation this way: we’re still in a cage here. But for many…it has grown so large that we hardly feel its limits. In that sense the 1989 protests weren’t a total failure. Without our efforts, China’s rulers might have not expanded the cage at all.
It is far from certain however, that in this age of globalization, the authorities had much of a choice in the matter…
Should we conclude that the Chinese democracy movement is dead?
Not quite!
In December 2008, a number of Chinese activists posted their Charter 08 on line. Some 8000 Chinese have signed it, and many have borne the brunt of the authorities’ wrath since having done so.
It is obviously inspired by the Czech Charter 77 movement…
Sponsored by prominent Czech intellectuals, such as Vaclav Havel, the future president of the new and free Czech republic, it demanded that the Communist government respect fundamental human rights, after it had signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Predictably, the signatories were hounded and jailed by the oppressive regime.
The Charter 08 states emphatically: China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government.
The authors propound a number of fundamental universal values that they hope will soon form the basis of a new, democratic China, one that will have repudiated once and for all its authoritarian ways.
Hence, they advocate freedom, human rights, equality, republicanism, democracy and constitutional rule. their objective being establishing a free, democratic and constitutional country.
It took the Czechs twelve years to reach the goal…
May the Chinese reach it even sooner…
It seems more than fitting to conclude this piece on Tiananmen with a tribute to a man whose name we do not know. Nor do we know where he is, and even if he is still alive…
On June 5th, 1989, a young man wearing a white shirt and holding a shopping bag walked to the center of a large and deserted avenue and stopped the advance of a column of tanks.
The stunning picture is by Jeff Widener, of AP (here is where and how it was taken), and is featured at the top of this post.
He should be deported back to Taiwan shortly…
The most prominent of the student leaders Wang Dan, was jailed for seven years, then expelled to the US in 1998.
Though tragic and painful, he cannot but remember these events with fondness: for me, it was the proudest moment in China’s long history. For the first time in our lives, people dared to exercise the most basic human right: freedom of speech.
What was the June 4th movement all about?
Initially, it was caused by the death, April 15th , 1989, of a respected reformist official, Hu Yaobang, who had been forced to resign in January 1987 because of his liberal tendencies…
University students in Beijing were intent on mourning the official and demanded his rehabilitation. They demonstrated, in bigger and bigger numbers, in Tiananmen Square, where speeches were delivered and a list of grievances established.
By the time of the funeral, April 21st , some 100,000 were in the Square, and their demands became more precise: an end to official corruption, freedom of the press, and democracy!
Workers soon joined the movement, as a high inflation rate, 28%, threatened living standards. It also spread to other cities such as Shanghai.
The students demanded direct negotiations with the government, and many began a hunger strike, as a means to convince the public they were serious, and genuinely fighting for a better future for all Chinese. The movement’s popularity did, in fact, increase as a result…
Because Soviet President Gorbachev was to arrive in Beijing for an official visit on May 15th , many foreign journalists were in the Chinese capital to cover the event…
The Chinese authorities lost patience and declared martial law on May 20th, but did not move on the Square before the evening of June 3rd…
During the onslaught, many students were heard screaming, why are they killing us?
Twenty years on, China is a different country, and a much wealthier one…
Between 1990 and 2007, China’s GDP was multiplied by thirteen…It is now the world’s fourth largest economy, after the US, Japan and Germany
The struggle for political rights, for all intent and purposes, died in Tiananmen square…The government’s obsession since then has been to recover its legitimacy by promoting economic growth so as to improve the lives of as many Chinese as possible…Its performance has been a deft one. Qi Yuting, a retired laborer told the Washington Post: that time (June 1989) was cruel. But ever since, our life has been good. We only have progress. We promote harmony.
With all hopes of political reforms having been dashed, the only remaining viable option for many was improving one’s lot. Zhang Lifan, a historian, put it this way: people all turned to making money, seeking their individual benefits and interests.
Yet, Chinese society is more open, certainly less oppressive than twenty years ago.
Access to the internet has given the Chinese the opportunity to express themselves. Information is much more freely and widely available than ever before…The Chinese have thus used this instrument to effect social change. As Donald Morrison, a former editor of Time Magazine’s Asia edition, observed:
Indeed, foreigners who move to China are struck, as I am, by the wealth of personal freedom on display. Not just the latitude to shop, move to another city or attend wine tastings, but also to debate such poisonous subjects as Tibet, corruption and the shoddy construction of schools flattened during last year’s Sichuan earthquake…It’s not democracy, but it is a better, more responsive, more humane system than the one China had 20 years ago. To my Chinese friends, it is unthinkable that the country could regress to those benighted days.
It would seem that there is less discontent in China than twenty years ago, because the standard of living has improved, and the Chinese do have the means to goad the government to take some of their aspirations into account, as long as the grievances avoid the political.
Increasingly, the Chinese have resorted to the courts to bring about social change.
After the earthquake, many parents sued the government, considering that the poor quality of school buildings had led to the deaths of their children…
More than political transformation, they demand accountability.
Nevertheless, China is by no means a free society.
The last taboo, hence, is freedom and democracy…Censorship is rampant. Some 30,000 cyber cops scour web sites, for instance. The Chinese know where to draw the line: not surprisingly, the majority of Chinese citizens censor themselves, not because of apathy, but out of fear, concluded Yang Jianli, a student activist in 1989, who now lives in the US.
As long as the individual does not directly question the party’s authority or legitimacy, than he or she is allowed a certain autonomy…
As such, some 100,000 anti-government protests take place every year…
The writer Lijia Zhang summarized the situation this way: we’re still in a cage here. But for many…it has grown so large that we hardly feel its limits. In that sense the 1989 protests weren’t a total failure. Without our efforts, China’s rulers might have not expanded the cage at all.
It is far from certain however, that in this age of globalization, the authorities had much of a choice in the matter…
Should we conclude that the Chinese democracy movement is dead?
Not quite!
In December 2008, a number of Chinese activists posted their Charter 08 on line. Some 8000 Chinese have signed it, and many have borne the brunt of the authorities’ wrath since having done so.
It is obviously inspired by the Czech Charter 77 movement…
Sponsored by prominent Czech intellectuals, such as Vaclav Havel, the future president of the new and free Czech republic, it demanded that the Communist government respect fundamental human rights, after it had signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Predictably, the signatories were hounded and jailed by the oppressive regime.
The Charter 08 states emphatically: China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government.
The authors propound a number of fundamental universal values that they hope will soon form the basis of a new, democratic China, one that will have repudiated once and for all its authoritarian ways.
Hence, they advocate freedom, human rights, equality, republicanism, democracy and constitutional rule. their objective being establishing a free, democratic and constitutional country.
It took the Czechs twelve years to reach the goal…
May the Chinese reach it even sooner…
It seems more than fitting to conclude this piece on Tiananmen with a tribute to a man whose name we do not know. Nor do we know where he is, and even if he is still alive…
On June 5th, 1989, a young man wearing a white shirt and holding a shopping bag walked to the center of a large and deserted avenue and stopped the advance of a column of tanks.
The stunning picture is by Jeff Widener, of AP (here is where and how it was taken), and is featured at the top of this post.
The young man has been referred to since then, though the nickname by no means does him justice, as the Tank Man…
Shortly after the picture was taken, he was grabbed by several spectators of the extraordinary scene, and taken away, into the crowd..
Rumors abound as to his fate…In all likelihood, he was seized by the secret police and executed …We simply do not know…
Shortly after the picture was taken, he was grabbed by several spectators of the extraordinary scene, and taken away, into the crowd..
Rumors abound as to his fate…In all likelihood, he was seized by the secret police and executed …We simply do not know…
lundi 1 juin 2009
Euro-indifference
The European elections are but six days away, and yet the campaign has failed to generate much passion in France, or elsewhere, for that matter…
According to a recent poll, 57% of the French said that they had no interest in the campaign. It is thus widely feared that less than 50% of the electorate will bother to go the polls next Sunday.
Sarkozy’s party, the UMP, is faring rather well, considering the current economic and social context, and is expected to come out ahead with 26% of the vote, followed by the opposition Socialist party (le PS), with 20%.
Yesterday, Sarkozy and chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany wrote an op-ed urging all Europeans to vote in order to build a strong and vibrant Europe.
For that to happen, all Europeans will need to adopt the Lisbon treaty, designed to streamline European institutions, and facilitate decision-making within Europe, a union of twenty-seven members states. Ireland, which rejected the treaty in 2008, is expected to vote again this year and back the treaty.
The Socialist party is led by Martine Aubry, a former labor affairs minister in the Socialist government of Lionel Jospin, that governed France between 1997 and 2002. She was formerly also known as Madame 35 heures, for having lowered the work week in France from 39 to 35 hours…This legal limit, though reformed and amended by Sarkozy, is still the law of the land….
Le Mouvement Démocrate, a centrist party led by the fastidious and intransigent M. François Bayrou, an arch Sarkozy critic, is third with some 13% of the vote.
Finally, the last major list is Europe Ecologie, headed by the dynamic and flamboyant Daniel Cohn-Bendit (who, in May 1968, was known as Danny the Red , and was one of the leaders of the student movement) is expected to garner a robust 10% of the electorate…
Though, quite predictably, M. Sarkozy has been the main target of all the parties competing in the election, the focus of late has shifted somewhat, as both the Socialists and the UMP have been trying to undermine the meddlesome M. Bayrou…
François Hollande, former PS leader (and former companion of Ségolène Royal, who ran against Mr Sarkozy in 2007, and lost) and who harbors presidential ambitions of his own, declared in a radio interview : his method, I repudiate. The ideas, where are the ideas?
M. Hollande was no doubt referring to M. Bayrou’s strategy, which is to systematically criticize Sarkozy, at each and every opportunity, in order to position himself as the President’s principle opponent, and hopefully surf to victory on an anti-Sarkozy wave in the 2012 presidential elections.
He has just published a book here in France called Abuse of Power, a vitriolic attack on Sarkozy, his style and policies, which climbed to the top of the best seller list …
For her part, Mme Aubry denounced what she called Bayrou’s narcissism. Furthermore, she added, all that he thinks about is the presidential elections. All he talks about is Sarkozy and himself. He never talks about Europe, and never makes any proposals.
He reminds many here of the late former president François Mitterrand, who began his long political career on the right only to gradually shift to the left, according to his immediate political interests, for the right was then dominated by the formidable de Gaulle... He finally won the presidential election on his third try, in 1981, as a Socialist. He was a consummate politician, a devious and Machiavellian strategist (he was nicknamed the Florentine), who outwitted all his rivals and was a dominant political figure for some 40 years…
Bayrou’s many enemies dismiss him as a shallow opportunist, his numerous supporters praise the selfless patriot, the only one capable of saving France from Sarkozy’s ostentatious and Anglo-Saxon brand of free market politics….Time will tell which Bayrou finally emerges…
A new face ,however, has emerged during the campaign. No, it is not M. Lepen’s successor, for the 80-year-old veteran is still campaigning, though not as briskly as in the past, and his National Front is expected to woo 7% of the voters.
Her name is Nathalie Arnaud, a 39 year-old school teacher.
She has replaced the venerable Arlette Laguiller (universally known here as «Arlette»), an institution of French politics, as chief spokeswoman of Lutte Ouvrière (Workers’ Struggle, is a rough translation). Arlette had led the Trotskyite revolutionary party for over thirty years…In fact, she has participated in every French presidential election since 1974!
She traditionally began all her speeches, and Melle Arnaud continues the tradition, with travailleuses, travailleurs, camarades et amis (Workers-travailleuses being the feminine form of travailleurs-comrades and friends).
The party, in style and vocabulary, resembles the revolutionary organizations of the nineteenth century: the enemy of the working class is the bourgeoisie, a real class of exploiters, made of flesh and blood, Melle Arnaud tells her small but enthusiastic crowds.
The party is not expected to get much more than 1% of the vote…These are hard times indeed, even for revolutionaries…
According to a recent poll, 57% of the French said that they had no interest in the campaign. It is thus widely feared that less than 50% of the electorate will bother to go the polls next Sunday.
Sarkozy’s party, the UMP, is faring rather well, considering the current economic and social context, and is expected to come out ahead with 26% of the vote, followed by the opposition Socialist party (le PS), with 20%.
Yesterday, Sarkozy and chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany wrote an op-ed urging all Europeans to vote in order to build a strong and vibrant Europe.
For that to happen, all Europeans will need to adopt the Lisbon treaty, designed to streamline European institutions, and facilitate decision-making within Europe, a union of twenty-seven members states. Ireland, which rejected the treaty in 2008, is expected to vote again this year and back the treaty.
The Socialist party is led by Martine Aubry, a former labor affairs minister in the Socialist government of Lionel Jospin, that governed France between 1997 and 2002. She was formerly also known as Madame 35 heures, for having lowered the work week in France from 39 to 35 hours…This legal limit, though reformed and amended by Sarkozy, is still the law of the land….
Le Mouvement Démocrate, a centrist party led by the fastidious and intransigent M. François Bayrou, an arch Sarkozy critic, is third with some 13% of the vote.
Finally, the last major list is Europe Ecologie, headed by the dynamic and flamboyant Daniel Cohn-Bendit (who, in May 1968, was known as Danny the Red , and was one of the leaders of the student movement) is expected to garner a robust 10% of the electorate…
Though, quite predictably, M. Sarkozy has been the main target of all the parties competing in the election, the focus of late has shifted somewhat, as both the Socialists and the UMP have been trying to undermine the meddlesome M. Bayrou…
François Hollande, former PS leader (and former companion of Ségolène Royal, who ran against Mr Sarkozy in 2007, and lost) and who harbors presidential ambitions of his own, declared in a radio interview : his method, I repudiate. The ideas, where are the ideas?
M. Hollande was no doubt referring to M. Bayrou’s strategy, which is to systematically criticize Sarkozy, at each and every opportunity, in order to position himself as the President’s principle opponent, and hopefully surf to victory on an anti-Sarkozy wave in the 2012 presidential elections.
He has just published a book here in France called Abuse of Power, a vitriolic attack on Sarkozy, his style and policies, which climbed to the top of the best seller list …
For her part, Mme Aubry denounced what she called Bayrou’s narcissism. Furthermore, she added, all that he thinks about is the presidential elections. All he talks about is Sarkozy and himself. He never talks about Europe, and never makes any proposals.
He reminds many here of the late former president François Mitterrand, who began his long political career on the right only to gradually shift to the left, according to his immediate political interests, for the right was then dominated by the formidable de Gaulle... He finally won the presidential election on his third try, in 1981, as a Socialist. He was a consummate politician, a devious and Machiavellian strategist (he was nicknamed the Florentine), who outwitted all his rivals and was a dominant political figure for some 40 years…
Bayrou’s many enemies dismiss him as a shallow opportunist, his numerous supporters praise the selfless patriot, the only one capable of saving France from Sarkozy’s ostentatious and Anglo-Saxon brand of free market politics….Time will tell which Bayrou finally emerges…
A new face ,however, has emerged during the campaign. No, it is not M. Lepen’s successor, for the 80-year-old veteran is still campaigning, though not as briskly as in the past, and his National Front is expected to woo 7% of the voters.
Her name is Nathalie Arnaud, a 39 year-old school teacher.
She has replaced the venerable Arlette Laguiller (universally known here as «Arlette»), an institution of French politics, as chief spokeswoman of Lutte Ouvrière (Workers’ Struggle, is a rough translation). Arlette had led the Trotskyite revolutionary party for over thirty years…In fact, she has participated in every French presidential election since 1974!
She traditionally began all her speeches, and Melle Arnaud continues the tradition, with travailleuses, travailleurs, camarades et amis (Workers-travailleuses being the feminine form of travailleurs-comrades and friends).
The party, in style and vocabulary, resembles the revolutionary organizations of the nineteenth century: the enemy of the working class is the bourgeoisie, a real class of exploiters, made of flesh and blood, Melle Arnaud tells her small but enthusiastic crowds.
The party is not expected to get much more than 1% of the vote…These are hard times indeed, even for revolutionaries…
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)