SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: epicure who wrote (4517)1/7/2004 2:47:58 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 7834
 
continued===
By a mixture of authority and ambiguity, he imposed his will and gradually acquired the power to impose a solution. It was a masterly performance, but it took him nearly four years. He did enough to retain the initiative, but would not reveal his plans, thus preventing potentially hostile groups from acting against him until it was too late. He normalized relations with Tunisia and Morocco, agreeing to withdraw French forces from both countries (except from the Tunisian naval base at Bizerta). He transferred from Algeria many senior officers who could not disobey the general. General Salan, a prime rallying point for rebels and leader of the May putsch, temporarily retained his command, but was relieved of his civilian duties.

After preliminary moves and with cautious deliberation, de Gaulle delivered his first major statement on the future status of Algeria in September 1959. He offered a choice (similar to France's colonies in western and central Africa in 1958)between independence, integration with France and association with France. The choice was to be made within four years from the end of hostilities, defined as any year in which fewer than 200 people were killed in fighting or by terrorism. It was followed by another pied noires revolt on January 24, 1960 when the European community opposed even de Gaulle. The revolt was a failure because the French government acted quickly in Algeria and at home. But to Algerians, de Gaulle's offer was no more than a half-way house. The FLN wanted full independence. Support for de Gaulle in France was more widespread in 1960 than in 1958. People felt that the war had gone on for too long and they were opposed to the violent means used.

Henri Alleg's book La Question focused on the use of torture by units of the French army. The trial of Alleg in 1960, followed by the disappearance and murder of the French communist and university lecturer Maurice Audin, the trial in 1961 of the Algerian girl Djamila Boupacha, protests by Roman Catholic cardinals occupying French sees and a manifesto signed by 121 leading intellectuals all contributed to turn French opinion against the settler French community and the French army in Algeria.

Toward the end of 1960 the leaders of the January revolt were themselves put on trial. But still one more settler rebellion occurred, in April 1961, led by four generals, which lasted for four days. Two of the four generals, Salan and Jouhaud, were subsequently sentenced to death in absentia and the other two, Challe and Zeller, who surrendered, were given 15 years imprisonment - all sentences were eventually reduced.

Out of the failed rebellion rose the Organization de l'Armee Secrete (OAS) which resorted to terrorism and by creating among the European population fears of reprisals by an independent Algerian government, provoked (as independence became inevitable ) an exodus which deprived the country of much-needed skills in administration, education and other public services. The lesson was well learnt by leaders in South Africa when it became independent at the end of an apartheid regime.

De Gaulle's efforts in Algeria did not improve relations with the nationalist forces. In September 1959, the FLN proclaimed a provisional Algerian government with Ferhat Abbas as prime minister and the imprisoned Ben Bella as his deputy. It then turned for help to Moscow and Beijing. During 1960 it became apparent that the non-combatant Algerians favored the FLN and its unequivocal demand for independence, which made de Gaulle turn to negotiations with the FLN.

In July de Gaulle, in a televised speech, unequivocally accepted Algerian independence, but the FLN adopted a more assertive line when Yusuf Ben Khedda succeeded a moderate Ferhat Abbas as the head of the provisional Algerian government. In the same month the OAS made an unsuccessful attempt on de Gaulle's life as its activities increased throughout France and Algeria, with rumors of the proclamation of a dissident French republic under General Salan in northern Algeria.

The first secret negotiations held at Melun in June were a failure, but after discussions between de Gaulle and Bourguiba, between FLN leaders and Georges Pompidou (then a private banker) and between the FLN and Moroccans, Tunisians and Egyptians, a conference was called at Evian in Switzerland .The problems were the FLN's claim to be recognized as a government, the right of the imprisoned Ben Bella to attend the conference, guarantees for the French who might wish to remain in Algeria, continuing French rights in the naval base at Mers-el-Kebir, Saharan oil, and the conditions under which the proposed referendum on the status of Algeria would be held.

Negotiations were opened in France with representatives of the Algerian provisional government ( GPRA) in May 1961. GPRA had long been recognized by the Arab and communist states, from which it received aid, though it (communism) was never been able to establish itself on Algerian soil. Negotiations were broken off in July, after which Abbas was replaced as premier by the much younger Ben Youssef Ben Khedda. Settler opposition around the OAS began to employ random acts of terror to disrupt peace negotiations.

The second Evian conference took place in March 1962. On March 18, a ceasefire agreement was signed. The conference also agreed on the terms for the referendum and presuming that the result would favor independence, further agreed (among other things), that French troops would be withdrawn progressively over three years, except from Mers-el-Kebir. France might continue its nuclear tests in the Sahara and retain its airfields there for five years and would continue its economic activities in the Saharan oilfields. France also agreed to continue technical and financial aid to Algeria for at least three years.

This announcement produced a violent outburst of OAS terrorism, but in May it subsided as it became obvious that such actions were futile. A referendum held in Algeria in July 1962 recorded some 6 million votes in favor of independence and only 16,000 against it. After three days of continuous Algerian rejoicing, the GPRA entered Algiers in triumph, as settler Europeans began to depart.

Algeria becomes Independent
On July 3, 1962 Algeria became an independent sovereign state. But its leaders could not remain together. Ben Bella returned to Algiers after six years' absence in prison and joined hands with army chief Colonel Houari Boumedienne to become the first president . But perhaps he alienated colleagues and followers by trying to reorganize the FLN on communist lines and playing a leading role in African and Afro-Asian affairs to the neglect of urgent domestic problems. In June 1965 Ben Bella tried to sideline conservative Boumedienne, now defense minister, but was himself overthrown, with the latter becoming the president. Ben Bella was imprisoned until 1978 and remained under house arrest until 1990. But Algeria remains a violent place and in the bloody confrontation between FLN/army and radical Islamic groups 100,000 Algerians were killed during the 1990s.

Civil wars and Turkey's war of Independence
After the Allied powers' victory in World War 1, the Ottoman government in Istanbul under the 36th and last Ottoman Sultan Caliph Mehmed VI Vahideddin (1918-22) decided that resistance to Allied demands was futile, but there remained many pockets of resistance in Anatolia. These consisted of bands of irregulars and deserters, a number of intact Ottoman units and various societies for the "defense of rights".

At this time, Mustafa Kemal (he became Ataturk "Father of Turks" later ), a hero of the Gallipoli front in the war was sent as Inspector of the army to eastern Turkey. Landing at Samsun on May 19, 1919, he immediately began to organize resistance and was soon joined by other military leaders like Ali Fuat Cebesoy, Kasim Karabekir, Ruaf Orbay, Refet Bele and others with their troops. The Association for the Defense of the Rights of Eastern Anatolia was founded and a congress at Erzurum (July-August) summoned. It was followed by a second congress at Sivas with delegates representing the whole country. A new Association for the Defense of the Rights of Anatolia and Rumelia elected Mustafa Kemal as the chairman of its executive committee to organize national resistance.

But the fire of resistance really flared up when the hated Greeks, with British encouragement, occupied Izmir (May 15, 1919). The Allied plans imposed in the Treaty of Sevres, which the Ottoman representative signed, would have created an independent Armenia, an autonomous Kurdish region, demilitarization and international control over the Straits and Istanbul, with the rest of the country parceled to the Greeks, the French and the Italians. Only a barren northeast rump of Anatolia would have remained with the Turks.

Negotiations were arranged between the Istanbul government and the Kemalists. A new parliament was elected, which met in Istanbul in January 1920. Kemal was against the meeting in Istanbul and stayed back in Ankara. The new parliament passed the National Pact, formulated at Erzurum and Sivas, which called for independence roughly within the October 1918 armistice lines. In response the Allies enlarged the area of occupation in Istanbul (March 16, 1920), arrested and deported many deputies and set out to crush the Kemalists. Most deputies escaped to Ankara and the die was cast.

To establish a legitimate basis of action the Grand National Assembly (parliament) met at Ankara on April 23 and asserted that the Sultan's government was under infidel control. It was the duty of Muslims to resist foreign encroachment. In the Fundamental Law of January 20, 1921, the assembly declared that sovereignty belonged to the nation and that the assembly was the "true and only representative of the nation". The name of the state was declared to be Turkey, and executive power was entrusted to an executive council, headed by Mustafa Kemal, who could now concentrate on the war of independence. Soon the Kemalists were faced with local uprisings, official Ottoman forces and Greek hostility supported by the Allies.

In response to the declarations of the Grand National Assembly in Ankara, the Istanbul government appointed its own extraordinary Anatolian general inspector and a new Security Army, later called the Caliphal Army, in 1920 to enforce its rule and fight the nationalists with British support. The Istanbul and Ankara governments issued fatwas against each other, specially against Kemal. Thus the stage was set for a full civil war. The situation was similar to the chaos in Anatolia in the early 15th century after Bayezit's defeat by Tamerlane, when rival Ottoman governments in Europe and Ankara contested control over Anatolia. The empire was threatened by foreign invasion and the land was infested by local rebellions and roaming bands. And in both cases it was the heartland of Turkish life and tradition, Anatolia, that produced the victor.

In this chaotic and lawless situation, many bands rose to seek wealth and power for themselves, in alliance with one or the other of the governments, sometimes at the instigation of the Greeks, the British, or even the communists. Sometimes the bands represented large landowners who were seeking to regain their power. Most degenerated into little more than bandit forces, manned by a motley assortment of dispossessed peasants, Tatars from the Crimea and Central Asia and Turkish and Kurdish nomads, always ready for a good fight against whoever was in power. These armies became so powerful that on April 29, 1920, the Grand National Assembly passed a law that prohibited "crimes against the nation" and set up independence courts (Istiklal Mahkemeleri) to try and execute on the spot. These courts became a major instrument of the Ankara government to suppress opposition long after independence was achieved.

Most famous of the private armies operating in Anatolia during the civil war was the Green Army (Yesil Ordu), which posed a major threat to all sides. It was organized during the winter of 1920 "to evict from Asia the penetration and occupation of European imperialism". Its members were former unionists, known to and respected by Mustafa Kemal, including its secretary general, Hakki Behic, Bey and Yunus Nadi, an influential Istanbul journalist, whose journal Yeni Gun (New Day) had just been closed by the British. Nadi in 1924 founded the leading newspaper of republican Turkey, Cumhuriyet (The Republic). Its objective was to counter the reactionary propaganda spread in Anatolia by agents of the Istanbul government and the Allies and to popularize the national movement and mobilize the Turkish peasants' support.

So the Green Army was supported and encouraged by Kemal. But many of its members wished to combine unionism, Pan-Islam and socialism and "establish a socialist union in the world of Islam by modifying the Russian Revolution". Soon it attracted a number of groups opposed to the Ankara government, including not only supporters of the Istanbul government but also anti-Kemalist unionists and communists connected with the Third International. This led Kemal to get Hakki Behic to disband the organization late in 1920, though its various anti-Kemalist elements continued to act on their own during the next two years.

There were two other independent armies, both led by Circassians, which were very active. They were mostly formed of Tatar and Circassian refugees driven into Anatolia by the Russians. A left-leaning guerrilla movement led by Cerkes Ethem was at first quite successful against the Greeks near Izmir in 1919. It supported the national movement for some time against the reactionary Caliphal army and the anti-Ankara movements that were active in the eastern Marmara region in 1920.

The other Circassian, Ahmet Anzavur, led a more conservative movement and force with money and arms provided by the Istanbul government and the British. He led two major revolts against the nationalists in the areas of Baliksir and Gonen in October-December 1919 and again from February to June 1920. For a time he even led the Caliphal army and his bands began to ravage the countryside. Kemal chose Cerkes Ethem, who was still with him to defeat and send Aznur on the run in April 1920. Anzavur soon raised a new army, but was defeated and killed and his army dispersed by the nationalists in May, 1920.

Ultimately, Cerkes Ethem became too big for his boots and increasingly rapacious towards the civilian population, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. He had allied with the Green Army, sometimes he supported various communist manifestos being circulated. And he was not inclined to follow Ankara's plans so essential for the success of the new nationalist army being raised. Finally, Kemal sent a major force to destroy Cerkes Ethem's army in January 1921, forcing him to flee to the Greeks and eventually to Italy into exile.

There were also strong local rebellions around Bolu, Yozgat, and Duzce, (halfway between Ankara and Istanbul). The last was led by the Capanoglu Derebey family, which tried to restore its old power. He and his followers were hunted down and dispersed by the nationalists. Its leading members were hanged in Amasya in August 1920. Such movements and revolts did not subside, even after the establishment of the republic. It took time to reduce the old family and tribal forces that were revived by the civil wars.

And finally there were the communists, with Russia sending propaganda literature into Anatolia. Kemal was opposed in principle but took little action initially as he needed the Bolsheviks' help. He even tolerated a number of communist activities during 1920, including a new joint communist-unionist organization in Ankara called the People's Communist Party (Tiirkiye Halk Istirakiyun Firkasi), which enabled the communists to come out publicly in Turkey for the first time.

It had some connection with the Green Army. On October 18, 1920, to please the Russians, Ataturk even allowed the formation of a separate Turkish Communist Party (Tiirkiye Komiinist Firkasi). But it was manned mainly by some of his close associates from the assembly. It was less radical than the first group and was used by the government as a tool to divide and confuse the communist movement and its supporters.

But when the former became too active it was suppressed. It had issued a joint declaration with the Green Army and Cerkes Ethem that they had "approved the Bolshevik party program passed by the Third International ... and joined to unite all the social revolutionary movements in the country", and adopted the name Turkish People's Collectivist Bolshevik Party. Communist agents became active around Ankara and Eskisehir and cooperated with unionist groups in Erzurum and Trabzon, which were centers of Enver Pasha's supporters throughout the war for independence.

This forced Ataturk to criticize the communists for working outside the organ of the people, the Grand National Assembly. After crushing the Green Army and chasing out Cerkes Ethem, he now turned on the communists. Their leaders were tried, but the final sentences were suspended until after a treaty was signed with Moscow in March 1921. As Russian support was important, the sentences were relatively light. The only violent action against the Turkish communists came when communist Mustafa Suphi and others entered Anatolia via Kars in December 1920. Though they met with top nationalist leaders like Ali Fuat and Kazim Karabekir at Kars in January 1921, they were arrested soon and sent by boat to Erzurum for trial. On the way they were assassinated by a group of pro-Enver supporters from Trabzon, apparently because of the fear that Suphi might expose Enver's plans.

As for the dashing Enver Pasha and his colleagues Cemal and Talat, who had led the Ottoman empire into World War 1, they fled from Istanbul on November 2, 1918, on a German freighter going to Odessa. Then they went over to Berlin, but lived under assumed names, since the victors had demanded their extradition for the "crimes" of their regime. Soon they were invited by Karl Radek to continue their work in Moscow, with full Bolshevik support for the "Turkish national struggle". Talat, who remained in Germany, was killed by an Armenian assassin on March 15, 1921. Cemal and Enver went to Moscow and later to Central Asia, where they undertook a series of political activities with the ultimate intention of using the Bolsheviks to regain power in Turkey once the nationalists were defeated.

With Bolshevik encouragement, Enver proclaimed the organization of the Union of Islamic Revolutionary Societies (Islam Ihtilal Cemiyetleri Ittihadi) and an affiliated Party of People's Councils (Halk 'uralar Firkasi), the former as the international Muslim revolutionary organization, the latter as its Turkish branch.

In early September 1920, he attended the Congress of the Peoples of the East at Baku. But while Ataturk generally encouraged Enver, hoping to use him to get Bolshevik aid, he never trusted him. Enver had some groups of supporters in Anatolia, including about 40 secret unionists in the assembly, working to install Enver in Ataturk's place at an opportune moment. Enver moved from Moscow to Batum in the summer of 1921 when the Greek offensive began, hoping to enter Anatolia if Ataturk nationalist forces were defeated. But following Kemal's victory over the Greeks at Sakarya (September 1921), Enver abandoned Turkey and went into Central Asia to lead its Muslims against both the British and the Russians. He was killed in a battle with Russian forces near Ceken while pursuing his pan-Turanian mission.

What was the role of the Sultan in the conflict? According to Sir Horace Rumbold, British ambassador in Istanbul, the Sultan did not understand the nationalists or their movement. He thought a handful of brigands had established complete ascendancy and stranglehold on the people as a whole. The Ankara leaders were men without any real stake in the country, with which they had no connection of blood or anything else. Kemal was a Macedonian revolutionary of unknown origins. Bekir Sami was a Circassian. They were all the same, Albanians, Circassians, anything but Turks. There was not a real Turk among them. The real Turks were loyal to the Sultan, who had been hoodwinked by fantastic misrepresentations, like his own captivity. They looked for external support and found it in the Bolsheviks. The Angora leaders might discover and regret too late that they would bring on Turkey the fate of Azerbaijan.(which was taken over by the Bolsheviks).

In the meantime, Kemal organized his national army to fight for Anatolia's independence, trained, disciplined and armed at a new officers' school established in Ankara. Russian arms and ammunition began to flow across the Black Sea in increasing amounts. In Istanbul after the Allied occupation a new and well-spread group was organized among the remaining civil servants and officers and called the National Defense Organization (Mudafaa-i Milliye Tefkildtt) to send information, arms and equipment to the nationalists.

During 1920-1921, the Greeks had made major advances, almost to Ankara, but were defeated at the Battle of the Sakarya River (August 24, 1921) and began a long and hasty retreat that ended in the Turks regaining Izmir (September 9, 1922) and the expulsion of Greek forces from Anatolia. The total dead in the war was; for Turks, 10,000 dead in fighting and 22,000 from disease. Greek dead and wounded were estimated at 100,000. During World War 1, with the front with Russian forces shifting in northeast Anatolia where Armenians were encouraged and hopeful of an independent state, terrible killings took place involving all sides. It continued even after wars. In the World War 580,000 Ottoman soldiers died, half from disease. Turkish official history calculates that 300,000 Armenians were killed. An Ottoman war crimes tribunal set up by the victors gives a figure of 800,000. But Armenian historians allege that 1.5 million died, practically the entire Armenian population in Anatolia.

The Kemalists had already begun to gain European recognition. On March 16, 1921, the Soviet-Turkish Treaty gave Turkey a favorable settlement of its eastern frontier by restoring Kars and Ardahan. Problems at home induced Italy to withdraw from the territory it occupied; and by the Treaty of Ankara (Franklin-Bouillon Agreement, October 20, 1921), France agreed to evacuate Cilicia (Adana region). Finally, by the Armistice of Mudanya, the Allies agreed to Turkish reoccupation of Istanbul and eastern Thrace.

A comprehensive settlement was eventually achieved at the Lausanne Conference (November 1922 - July 1923) which negated the Treaty of Sevres. The Turkish frontier in Thrace was established on the Maritsa River and Greece returned the islands of Gokge and Bozca. A compulsory exchange of populations was arranged, as a result of which an estimated 1,300,000 Greeks left Turkey in return for 400,000 Turks. The question of oil rich Mosul was left to the League of Nations, which in 1925 recommended its retention by Iraq. But Turks have never been reconciled to the loss of Mosul. The Lausanne Treaty also provided for the apportionment of the Ottoman public debt, for the gradual abolition of the Capitulations (Turkey regained tariff autonomy in 1929), and for an international regime for the Straits. Turkey recovered complete control of the Straits by the 1936 Montreux Convention.

On October 29, 1923, Turkey was declared to be a republic and elected Mustafa Kemal as its first president. The Caliphate was finally abolished on March 3, 1924, and all members of the Ottoman dynasty were expelled from Turkey. A full republican constitution was adopted on April 20, 1924; it retained Islam as the state religion, but in April 1928 this clause was removed and Turkey became a laic (secular) republic.

K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Email Gajendrak@hotmail.com



To: epicure who wrote (4517)1/7/2004 2:50:59 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 7834
 
Interesting article on China, imo:

China's way forward paved in cement
By Li Yong Yan

BEIJING - China's cement industry best resembles the country's economy as a whole: low-tech, high-growth and environmentally-hostile, it is building itself into overcapacity and eventual decline, hurtling down the same route the Western cement sector has traveled.

The cement industry took off in the 1980s when the country's economic development embarked on a fast track. Within a few short years, China climbed to the world's No 1 spot in the production of this dusty material and has kept the crown since. For the past 18 years, China consistently has produced more cement than any other country in the world. In 2002, China's cement production was 722 million tons and was set to reach a new high of 780 million tons in 2003. That accounts for 40 percent of the world's total. The past nine years have recorded an annual average growth rate of 6 percent, with the last two years spiking to 10.8 and 9.8 percent respectively.

The heady growth came about because the government, with the zeal of a new convert to marketism, believes that a fast-growing economy is the panacea to cement its grip on power. Beijing has gone to unusual lengths to spur a lethargic economy. Education has turned into a growth industry, driving costs further beyond the means of an average-income household. World Trade Organization membership is suddenly not as detrimental to the national economy as Beijing used to make it out to be. Even the ravaging floods are a blessing in disguise, as damages will give rise to domestic demands in reconstruction efforts.

When all these measures stalled, the government reached deeper into its coffers in an all-out effort to keep the momentum going. In 2002, government-funded capital investment in infrastructure projects such as power, roads and ports increased 18 percent. In the first three quarters of 2003, capital investment jumped another 30.5 percent, the highest since 1994, creating a corresponding increase in demand that in turn stimulated industries such as power, raw materials and transportation.

Responding to this government-led investment spree, cement, like many other segments, began to build up capacity in a mad rush to meet the perceived demand. In 2002, 51 dry kilns became operational with a total investment of an equivalent of US$1.11 billion. As of August 2003, another 242 kilns were under construction at an estimated cost of $6.8 billion. And this figure does not include the countless new projects and expansions on a smaller scale that do not get included in the statistics.

The furious rise in both revenue and profits has blinded many to several factors that severely affect the sustainable growth of the cement industry.

First, will the demand continue to go up at the rate we see today? The answer is a sobering no. Government projects by definition are time-consuming and prone to cost overruns. The experience in the West shows that except as emergency relief measures, government does well to keep from becoming involved in the economy as an investor. Inefficiency and conflict of interest are incurable ills under the best circumstances of supervision and independent auditing. Moreover, China is now running a budgetary deficit equivalent to $41 billion. For the past five years since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Beijing has issued $80 billion in long-term domestic debts in an effort to boost the sagging economy, primarily by investing in infrastructure. It is inconceivable to continue this deficit-financed investment boom without overheating the economy and causing runaway inflation. In fact, warning signs such as the recent price hikes in energy and food are already showing up.

Second, cement relies on natural resources but is a big polluter in return. The industry releases a staggering 10 million tons of dust into the air every year, or 42 percent of the country's total dust emission. With ever-tighter environmental controls, it is expected that a lot of the smaller producers will be shut. Of the 700-plus million tons produced, more than 83 percent came from small producers that average less than 150,000 tons annually, compared with the world average of 600,000 tons a year per producer. As a result, further consolidation will be anticipated. The number of cement producers has been halved in the past 10 years from more than 9,000 in 1993 to 4,700 in 2003. The trend will continue. Gone will be those small players who are the least efficient, waste power and pollute the most.

Competition will bring more pressure to bear on the Chinese cement industry. As the government finds itself no longer able to finance megaprojects, the economy will slow, forcing the cement manufacturers to look outward for survival. But what will they see? Southeast Asian countries are already gobbling up China's traditional export market shares. China's cement export peaked in 1994 with 11 million tons shipped out and has been in steady decline ever since. Only 5.18 million tons were exported out of China in 2002. Offered at $34 a ton, Chinese cement is pricing itself out of the market as Thailand is asking as little as $20 for the same quality.

Looking ahead, the dusty industry still has four to six years to pave a high-growth road for itself, especially as the dry kilns will gradually expand its current share of 16 percent to take up the vacuum left by the phasing out of obsolete technology. Fully 100 percent of South Korea's cement is produced by the state-of-the-art dry process. Even Thailand turns out 97 percent of its cement using dry kilns.

Given the problems faced by the cement industry in China, it is not the high-value investment proposition it once appeared to be. However, it will be a momentum industry to watch for the next three to five years.



To: epicure who wrote (4517)1/7/2004 3:03:52 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander  Respond to of 7834
 
France, as a collective culture, learned a lot from Alger, although one can say that "repetitio is mater studiorum", but that was maybe the last kick they needed??

Now France seem to be still waiting for another set or two of generations, one reason they too have to stumble back and forth with their election system (Le Pen, etc)

While those generations are slowly sinking in the (chose any direction) it is anyway clear that most french leaders have voiced the new (old) direction, hand-in-hand with german leaders (boats, sinking, hawainwar-stuff)

Btw, few has claimed April Glaspie was ignorant, expert on arab culture, nor what she said, more a question of who told her to say it the way she said it

whatreallyhappened.com

Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause)

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

PS Me skipping that already well known quote.

PPS Then as more recently, the US plans on occupying Iraq, too