Re: I am sure Gustave has something to add... (season's greetings, Gus!).
You bet! A Christian Club, eh? But remember that your so-called Christian Club was a NAZI Club only 60 years ago (btw, I still have to read the book Hitler's Pope, on Pius XII.....). No, Europe, definitely, has no humanitarian lesson to teach to Turkey --especially when one ponders about the fact that some of its latest "acquisitions" were themselves mere dictatorships in the 1970s: Portugal (Salazar), Spain (Franco), Greece (Papadopoulos), etc.
As I said, France and the UK were able to reconcile with Nazi Germany, Austria, and Italy in the 1950s on the assumption that Europe's centuries-old foes should cut their losses and build a better future for the next generation --FINE!! Of course, in the aftermath of WWII, Germany was divided along the Yalta agreement, was occupied by Allied troops (including a Belgian battalion), and a new political framework was enforced upon it in which a collegial executive was favored on Fuehrerprinzip politics....
Oh! Sure, this is all granny's old stories --everybody knows how Germans and their fellow Christian Saints have changed over the past 50 years.... hey, just look at how weak Austria's FPO, Flanders's Vlaams Blok, France's Pasqua/Le Pen trends are today to mellow out and praise Europe's anti-fascist stance! Indeed, today, they're entitled to sermonize the Turks!
Talking of France's Pasqua/de Villiers party, I have to tell you that I've been watching France/Europe-Express last night (on the France 3 channel). It's a weekly talkshow about interviewing French politicians. Yesterday, the guest was Francois Hollande, Secretary (ie CEO) of the Parti Socialiste. The last 10 minutes was, as usual, a give-and-take with a political opponent. So, moderator Christine Ockrent introduced Mr Abitboul from Pasqua's newly launched RPF party. RPF galvanized France's so-called tendance souverainiste, a euphemism for a rather chauvinist party that promotes a Europe of Nations as against a Federal Europe proper. Eventually, the discussion was about the last Helsinki accords and the official recognition of Turkey as an applicant eligible for European membership.... well, Mr Abitboul's comments regarding this issue were compulsively prejudiced: how in the world, he complained, could France consider that Turkey might one day be part of [our beloved Christian] Europe?!? Turkey is in Asia, not in Europe! If we accept Turkey today, then why not China later? In short, Europe's jingoist fringe doesn't want to mingle with these Muslim greaseballs.
This is not the best way for Europe to thwart the creeping protofascism within its political landscape.
Regarding Europe's task force of 50-60,000 troops --the very last hip idea-- Ockrent and her associates interviewed Javier Solana in Barcelona. As "Commissioner at large" in charge of the EU's foreign policy, Solana told us how frustrated were European countries in handling the Kosovo crisis. He said he was confident that Europe's public opinion(s) will wholeheartedly welcome the setting-up of an all-European army under an all-European command. Hence, the question is, as I once said, what kind of foreign policy would be supported by such an all-European military endeavour? A pro-democratic, humanitarian-oriented agenda? A militarized version of M‚decins sans frontiŠres? But the problem is that we ALREADY have such a liberal-minded power: the United States of America! With its geopolitical cynicism (Kurds, Palestinians, Latin America,...), with all its economical shortcomings (working poors, urban violence, religious fanaticism, unbridled financial network,....), with its exasperating cultural hegemony (Hollywood,....), the US is still dedicated to foster pluralism throughout the social fabric. Yet, I'm well aware that most of the American agenda is wishful thinking and that the US, as the self-proclaimed leader of the "Free World", has until recently supported the most brutal dictators on earth (the Shah in Iran, Mobutu in Zaire, Pinochet in Chile, Sukarno/Suharto in Indonesia, etc., etc.). However, I suspect that a key motive for such an anti-democratic policy has been removed: the global threat of Communism. This is not to say that the current unleashed Anglo-Saxon capitalism will lead the world to some Disneyland Utopia --other types of conflict will likely intensify, worldwide. And, at this point, I believe that when dealing with these new types of conflict, the US and Europe (and China, Japan, Russia,...) will show diverging rationales. To put it short, you just can't have TWO Democracy Champions emulating each other.... just as you can't have two popes, or two US presidents in office.
Today, both the US and Europe portray themselves as democratic heavens --with Europe's welfare state having an edge on US Laissez-faire. Both challenge each other over the best way to foster and to sustain a more democratic world --in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America,... So, are we really dealing with perfect political twins? And if we are not, what are the (currently hidden) discrepancies, and how and when will they pop up? So far, the Euro-US mismatch is basically made up of economic grievances, or is it?
Merry Xmas to All,
Gus. |
