Recently the decision by the fast food chain Quick in France to switch its entire menu to halal standard in some of its restaurants, notably in Roubaix, raised an outcry in France. The Anglo-Saxon press doesn’t seem to understand the French principle of laicité and look at this situation with its same condescending eye. However if the reaction of the Mayor of Roubaix to sue the chain for discrimination might seem a bit too much, it shows that such a decision by the restaurant is provoking an uncomfortable feeling. Arguing that going to a full halal menu because the Muslim population represents a major part of its customers is a poor argument. The whole problem is that if from a business point of view it does make sense, it does not mean that it is not discrimination against non-Muslim population.

Above all, the mistake of Quick is to take a decision incorporating a religious factor in a country that stand hard to its principle of secularity or laicité. It is obvious that from a marketing aspect it was a success but playing on that kind of conflicts won’t be beneficial in the long term as it will raise tensions between the different populations in France where climate is already unstable. It would have been certainly more diplomatic to offer a halal and a non halal menu especially if there is no difference on the taste of the meat.

Indeed, to an observer this conflict might seem trivial, however it directly attack one of the principle of the republic in a bad moment. It raises several legitimate questions: to what extent does the laicité need to be respected? Usually in France, religion isn’t a subject that it widely discussed as it is seen as something private and thus people feel a bit uncomfortable in the face of visible religious symbols that does not traditionally belong to France. I do not believe that it is because they are racist or intolerant. After all, there are a lot of different foreign communities living in France and being assimilated. On the other hand, how can a community be assimilated when it arrives in a different nation if it persists in keeping its traditions? There is nothing wrong in doing thing differently as long as it does not bother the others. Freedom is a right and must be welcomed nevertheless does it mean that I should have the freedom to do what I want to do and this even though it seem to annoy others?

-C

Health Care Summit

President Obama has called on lawmakers to keep his health care summit from becoming ‘political theater’. The health care bill impasse is likely to be disregarded as Obama has encouraged Democrats to proceed with or without bipartisan support. My question then is why even have the summit in the first place? President Obama is yes trying to incorporate Republican views into a Democratic bill however he has already turned heath care into what he terms ‘political theater’.

The President has spent so much energy trying to push through a health care bill that isn’t widely accepted and has only shown his desperation. He appears that he will stop at nothing to get a health bill through and soon to improve his appearance over making decisions. Obama has faced growing criticism over his lacking ability to achieve results or make decisions. Take the Afghanistan troop surge for example or the meager impact on climate change in Stockholm. He faces declining approval and wants something to show for his just over a year in office.

The problem is that his legislature faces elections. Obama claimed that lawmakers should push forward with the bill and let the voters decide. He basically implies that voters have already backed his Democratic legislators, hence they are in power. However, despite the progression from delegate to trustee, Congress and even the President are accountable to the people and I doubt that Democrats will hold their power if they push through this bill. If the people are speaking now against this health care plan, why isn’t their government listening?

~PB

partnership or rivalry?

These last weeks had shown that the relationship between the USA and China was not as close at it had seemed to be but rather maybe just a convenient fling. In fact, following the Google charade this past month, the refusal of China to revaluate its currency, the Yuan, despite cries from the West, and the sale of weapons from the USA to Taiwan (worth $6,5 Billion) Chinese relationships have turned cold. As a result, the Asian giant decided to cut short all its military relations with the largest military power in the world. In addition, President Obama’s decision to see the spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, provoked another row with the Chinese—they do look favourably on foreign governments supporting the Buddhist leader. The behaviour of the Chinese government during the Copenhagen summit was also exemplary for its casualness and a major cause for its failure.

More and more, China has been seen as reacting in a capricious way. The media has been justifying this reaction because of the weight of the Communist state in the world economy. The Chinese for example, had enough power to cancel a visit to Europe last year because Nicolas Sarkozy, possessing at the time the presidency of the EU, was scheduled to meet the Dalai Lama. They further have the power to intrude in African affairs. The Chinese are not anymore largely welcomed in Africa by the locals as they can arguably be charged with exploiting African natural resources. (Claims, however, none too different from those made towards Europeans in Africa or even Americans in the Middle East). This lead Jack Straw to compared their actions to neo-colonialism, comment that he had to apologize for, of course.
These events seem to show that China is willing to prove the world that it is a force to be reckoned with. That is a fair request, however, how long will they be provoking the other nations? Indeed, China might be powerful but it suffers many problems internally and is heavily dependent on its exports and rely on a undervalued currency. It would probably not be wise for them to continue this behaviour and whether they possess the first population in the world doesn’t make them able to behave like nouveaux riches.

-C

Jobs for All?

An $80 billion job bill vote has been postponed in the US Senate. This bill is aimed at job creation and will expand a highway trust fund, provide a tax credit for employers hiring new workers, and a tax break for small business owners.

This is all excellent news to the unemployed lady at this side of the monitor but how much will this bill really do or accomplish? The proposed sum is an exorbitant amount of money and what sorts of jobs will result. Will manufacturing increase? Will the US actually increase production of something? Or will this money just get funneled into providing services? Services are necessary for both the domestic and international economies but without improving and expanding American infrastructure, the US will indefinitely suffer and will have a struggling job market. I find this will be the case because without growth in productive industries many people will begin to be left out of the job market. The car industry is a good example. Michigan struggles with unemployment and there are not many other places these people can work. How can a job bill provide something for these workers?

I am a skeptic over government expenses and I hope that efforts to expand the job market are successful because they are necessary especially for younger workers; I just don’t believe that throwing money at the problem will solve it. I think the American economy needs to be adjusted and shift away from services and towards the promotion of renewable and cleaner energy and transportation. Why focus on these industries? They are areas where the nation can improve infrastructure and can contribute on the international market. There is high demand for energy and efficient transportation. Americans have long forgotten the power of trains and have lost an interest for energy with their fingers in the Middle East. I urge the Senate to consider more explicit uses for the funds and hope that they attempt to target job growth in areas that will actually help the jobless and provide for a more successful future.

~PB

A new nuclear nation

On the 9 February, Iran was supposed to start its production of enriched uranium for medical purpose. It has been reported that Iran set out a plan to begin enriching its stockpile to 20-percent purity, news reports said. That is high enough for use in the medical reactor but significantly lower than the 90 percent levels needed for weapons. The worry is that any effort to produce 20-percent enriched uranium would put the country in a position to produce weapons-grade uranium in a comparatively short time, nuclear experts say.

So it is possible to deduce from this information that Iran is starting to develop a nuclear industry that would be more powerful than it should be. Does this mean that its program will go further? Obviously this is a million dollar question but it is fair to say that the Islamic Republic is trying to see what the limits of the West tolerance are. Ahmadinejad claims that Iran does not need the bomb but it would be naive to believe the man on his word especially after his bold statements notably toward Israel and its presence on the map.
France, Russia and the United States of America pushed for more sanctions on Iran at the UN council. It is noteworthy to observe that Russia, often opposed to sanctions to Iran, is getting worried by the Iranian actions.

In the nuclear world, Iran is surrounded by Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel; does this mean that as a result Iran need to get some nuclear capabilities because it feels threatened? By extension every country in the world should get it as Kenneth Waltz advocated. I believe that it would be a mistake to allow any new country to get the nuclear weapons, not because my country owns it and is capable of sending them anywhere in the world. The spread of these devices would at the same time increase the chance that somewhere a nuclear war would start. In addition, following the principle that the nuclear weapon is a weapon of the big powers, it would mean that any nations with a nuclear weapon could check any others thus creating a chaos in the world hierarchy. Indeed, no one would really like to start a war in which they would lose too much. I for one believe that Iran should not get it because it would motivate more nations to try to get it and also because it would raise tensions in the Middle East and god knows what might happen there. It is also possible that Tehran might not use it all like Pakistan, India or Israel but I would personally feel safer if they just did not have it.

Olympics 2010

I have started watching the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics and it has not only excited me but it has gotten me thinking. Not only is the Olympics and amazing and interesting display of physical capacity and sportsmanship but also of international capacity and, for the lack of a better phrase, international sportsmanship.

Theories of international relations are put into question with the Olympics in some respects. I am not fully aware of all the politics and governance of the IOC but this international organization is able to form partnerships among countries which create surprisingly successful international events. North Koreans, though tightly controlled, travel to the West and the Chinese welcomed democratic guests by the plane full into their red lines. There are politics in the display of national athletes on the international stage—one possibly of strength—but I think there might be the buds of cosmopolitanism within these international gatherings. Every nation desires gold medals and cheers on their own with pride, which demonstrates the residual nationalism, but the fact that so many nations are able to gather every two years is somewhat remarkable. Many nations meet everyday at offices of the United Nations or in universities world wide but the fact that such national demonstrations take place without large international chaos is just startling. Is sport an international universality that cosmopolitanism can build on?

I would like to suggest the universality of a sport like football (aka soccer) and the World Cup. This game appears to be the most unifying sport with players on all continents (well maybe not Antarctica). Though it is highly nationalistic, the fact that it is a universal game represents areas in the world of agreement. Sport, the World Cup, the Olympics, may be the first steps towards global cosmopolitan governance.

There is one point of critical however that I want to touch on…The Olympics and the World Cup do not demand or enforce participation. They are therefore voluntarily participating. With the ability to not participate means that there is no international enforcement, which is the same issue that the UN and other international organizations run into. However, as there is a universal dimension, it seems to be the most successful.

Missionary Arrests in Haiti

Children in Haiti are being snatched up left and right. Recently, American missionaries were arrested under charges of kidnapping and trafficking. They were accused of not having appropriate Haitian documentation for these ‘orphans’ and that these missionaries had little knowledge of Haitian laws or customs. The group retaliates that many parents were giving up their children freely in hopes that they could have better lives. These American Christians are just trying to spread better lifestyles to these children.

So, from this we can determine that according Christians, it is considered moral, Godly, to bring children a better life. Can it also be argued though that taking children away from their families during/after a traumatic event is moral? Taking them to the US is a noble effort but can that even guarantee a better life? High crime rates, capital punishment, areas of high poverty—what makes the US the best option for these kids? It is not possible to be certain. Also, why do they wish to confront parents with whether they want to keep their kid? Why give them that option? How can showing children that they aren’t wanted by their parents/family be moral?

There have been many moments is my adolescence—or even adulthood—that my parents have joked of trading me in or been tempted by thoughts of my absence but no one has confronted them with that permanent opportunity. This is a long-term decision and not to be taken lightly. Luckily, for my parents I am still around. Those decisions should not be forced on them during this time of confusion.

I understand that these missionaries and groups around the world are trying to do the right thing but if the ‘right thing’ can’t even be defined how is it possible to do it? I think that adoptions in Haiti should be halted—as they rightly are—and charity and missionary groups should be watched with caution and encouraged not to take children from their rightful home.

Francafrique? Still on?

In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy pledged to end the Francafrique network that was linking the government of France to various dictatorships in Africa. In exchange for various services, generally in the form of military help, the various rulers of the old French colonies would allow French companies to benefit from advantageous contracts when it came to exploit the rich African lands. In addition, the elites from the French government would receive nice royalties. This corruption has been characteristic of the relations between France and its African allies for the past 40 years. What has happened now three years after his election?
This rupture with the past was further emphasised in 2008 when Jean-Marie Bockel, the French minister for overseas aid, declared that he wanted to sign the death warrant for Francafrique. Unfortunately for him, his declarations scared some African leaders and he was quickly replaced by Alain Joyandet. In fact, Sarkozy did not need someone knowledgeable on the question of development but someone capable of following directives and able to act as a business man defending the interests of the Republic. This is a huge shift compared to his declaration.

In November 2009, the New York Times was recapitulating the different actions that were suspect to the eyes of observers. In September 2009, Ali Bongo, the son of the late Omar Bongo, was elected at the head of the Gabon and perpetuating the rule of his family. This election, that was suspected to be rigged, was fully backed by the Elysées.
In October, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, the general who staged a coup in the desert nation of Mauritania was also backed by the French capital; and in Niger, President Mamadou Tandja who locked opposition figures and managed to maintain himself in power for longer than he should , can also count on the support of Paris.
Furthermore In July, President Sarkozy cordially received the president of Cameroon, Paul Biya, who has been in power since 1982 and has removed presidential term limits last year. Mr. Sarkozy praised the country as a “pole of moderation.”
Yet, in France everything that has been noted by the NYT is only objected by the media that do not carry a lot of weight. Although everybody is aware of these practices, nothing seems to be done in order to change this cycle as it coincides with the economic sphere of France and stopping these relations would likely result in the fall of some national industrial champions. It is possible to think that Nicolas Sarkozy genuinely wanted to remove this circle of influence. However, the power of corruption that the African leaders wield is enough to provide contracts to French multinationals and force any leaders on their sides. Nevertheless after three years of his presidency, Mr Sarkozy did not manage to apply his promise.
However a lot of factors are to be taken into account. First, the advantages that France takes as a beneficiary of the resources and largess of the African countries. On the other hand, these African regimes are not developed enough to defend themselves and assure stability on much on their internal than external affairs. The recent case of China being a new favourite of African leaders shows that they can barely control and develop their country (or rather continent) on their own. This vicious circle is likely to continue for Africa. The nationality of their protectors does not really matter as long as they bring money and weapons to sustain their authority. And last but not least, the greed of certain rulers, if not all, is not to be excluded from the equation.