The French View
From France to China, 37 hours in Beijing
On Thursday 25th April, François Hollande arrived in Beijing for the first time in his life at 58 years old, and for the first time since his election, almost twelve months ago. It was about time.
By way of comparison, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has made six visits to the world’s second largest economic power over the last six years, including two visits in 2012 alone. When Merkel travels to the Middle Kingdom, it is for five days. The president of France (who, it should be pointed out, chose for his diplomatic advisor the great China expert, Paul Jean-Ortiz) stayed there for 37 hours.
Martine Aubry, named special representative for economic relations with China at the end of August by Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, has since made one trip there, in January, and regrets that France is not doing more ‘political lobbying’ in China.
But it is never too late to make up for lost time. Paris is finally beginning to notice Asia’s influence on Europe and is showing it. The Elysée is aware of the necessity to normalise a complicated relationship with China, and the coincidence of two new leaders on both sides, Hollande in Paris and President Xi Jinping in Beijing, should help matters.
Thankfully François Hollande’s view of China has changed a little since, as a campaign candidate, he confided to journalist Eric Dupin – who later wrote about it in his book ‘La Victoire empoisonnée’ (Seuil) (The toxic victory) – that he considered China as the “opponent,” and the Chinese as people who “cheat at everything,”.
Pragmatism prevails
As with finance, which was also at one point qualified as an opponent, in the end pragmatism prevailed: the Chinese ambassador in Paris, the very active and influential Kong Quan, was quickly received at the Elysée by the new socialist president.
In recognition of the importance of the Franco-Chinese relationship, the president brought with him to Beijing a delegation of eight ministers and around sixty business owners. There too, he has a lot of ground to make up. China’s trade surplus with France is two times that of with Germany. But the two countries’ interests can converge. Recession in Europe will also take its toll on China. Chinese dynamism could help growth in Europe. The taboo of Chinese participation with French businesses must be removed, provided that the necessary measures are taken ensure the national security.
Finally, the delicate but unavoidable question of human rights. Here too, François Hollande must find a realistic means of communication. As German experience has shown, it is not impossible to do business and at the same time have a voice. France can be China’s partner without sacrificing its own principles.
Welcome to China, Mister President!
Written by Le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/a-la-une/article/2013/04/24/france-chine-les-37-heures-de-pekin_3165340_3208.html
Think of your everyday cat. Think of his attitude towards his feline contemporaries, towards man and towards the rest of the animal kingdom. Does he not show a hopeless desire for independence? A savage need for autonomy? In all, a total disregard for peace? The relationship the cat maintains with those around him and also with his territory – basically his ‘life philosophy’ – makes him an undeniably Right wing animal. Let me explain.
The cat is conservative, maybe even reactionary. From the unanimously accepted fact that he values his tranquillity above all else, we can say that the cat is an animal poorly disposed to change. Given his anti progressionist nature, it is clear that no felis silvestris catus would have supported François Hollande’s 2012 programme, had it been in his power to do so. Indeed, the cat considers the most insignificant change as an intolerable violation of his lifestyle.
In addition to sleeping for around fifteen hours per day, this tame little tiger is an animal of ‘habit’ who delights in recurrent situations such as eating at a set time – something which we may well describe as ‘old man behavoiour’. Our friend the cat thus evokes the image of an elderly gentleman permanently dozing in front of his TV and complaining as soon as any little event comes to perturb his daily routine, which is as fixed as ink on paper. He is an elderly gentleman that votes for the Right because that way it’s less likely that someone will come poking their nose in.
The cat is therefore a resolutely conservative animal. Some cats are more tolerant than others and after deep analysis will accept that a change may be to their benefit, such as the introduction of a new piece of furniture that enables them to access yet unexplored areas of their habitat, for example. Others show evidence of a lesser open mindedness, adopting a clearly reactionary position. But whatever his stance, the uncompromising independence of the cat is often displayed by a behaviour that is solemnly reproved by contemporary morals: xenophobia.
The cat is nationalist, perhaps even xenophobic. By xenophobic, we understand principally the fear and the hatred of others. For this, there is a simple cause: the cat is entirely devoted to his territory. Any non-authorised intrusion by a clandestine outsider on this territory will be seen as the most intolerable affront.
If necessary, this cuddly little kitty will do everything within his power to chase out, and even eliminate intruders with courage and devotion. This is the case for the majority of insects that illegally invade the motherland on a daily basis, but also for the animals of rather larger stature such as foxes or even bears, according to some internet footage.
So from this comes the inevitable question: is the cat a Nazi? Although his xenophobic tendencies are clearly marked (their proof is seen in the visceral hate shown towards his sworn enemy, the dog), the cat cannot be qualified as a follower of the Third Reich. This, for two reasons
Firstly, he does not adhere to the cult of the ‘master’. Of course, the cat respects, and may even like his master. Nevertheless, he maintains with this individual a relationship diametrically different to that which is maintained between the master and his dog, for example. The latter is entirely conquered by the master, obeying him to the last and voluntarily showing himself to be somewhat ‘clingy’. Let’s run this idea by our friend the cat. A cynical critter, he behaves more as a lodger, leading his little life alone, than a true companion, open to all possible and imaginable devotion. I say it again: his independence is the condition sine qua non of his happiness.
The cat cannot therefore give way to an ideology that to his almond eyes is intrinsically liberticidal. This is the second reason for which he cannot be deemed a Nazi. A highly totalitarian concept, Socio-Nationalism is entirely contradictory to the liberal aspirations of the cat.
So the cat is assuredly a Right-wing animal, due both to his conservative mentality and to his exacerbated patriotism. But although these opinions may push him into adopting certain xenophobic behaviours, he escapes the defamatory name of Nazi. Valuing above all his independence, the cat cannot degrade himself by adopting a hitlerian, liberticidal ideology, and it is thus that he falls into the category of Right-wing revolutionary or libertarian anarchist.
Written by Brice Théâte
Edited by Hélène Decommer
Why the cat is a Right wing animal
New
People have been asking me recently if I am going to protest in France to show my support for everything that is going on at the moment in Turkey.
Well, after the latest episode of ‘Politika’, after having been very attentive to the different testimonies, after having read several articles published by various medias, both national and international…I think that multiplying the protests on French soil could lead to misconduct and I do not believe this to be the best idea in the current context (division of our people, loss of energy, political recuperation…). For these reasons I do not recommend protesting.
So why is this my reaction?
It is true that I am happy that the Turks are showing a desire for rupture from society and from the current government – a government that has done some wonderful things, but which is also prepared to surrender a part of the Turkish territory to the East in order to satisfy those who brought it power in the past but who today are out on the streets. A government which, in order to satisfy the desires of some, forgets the needs of many.
I have been deeply impressed by the mobilisation in Turkey. It is a sign of this society’s great frustration, my friends there tell me. But I also wonder about it, because behind this great desire for freedom and change, I tell myself that we must take into account certain question provoking points.
Notably, the fact that Turkey has become very strong economically and that perhaps this detail no longer pleases certain agitators. Because if we look a little closer, we see projects that will have long-term geopolitical results for the area; results that will have a huge effect not just on Turkey, but in Europe as well.
Some things to think about:
· The construction of Istanbul’s 3rd bridge linking the Asian and the European riverbanks.
· The construction of the 3rd airport in Istanbul (which will place Turkey at the heart of the European hub, unappealing for Lufthansa and Germany)
· The lobbies about alcohol (people unhappy that RTE will be removing a part of their market).
· The fact that the French state says nothing to protesters in France, even though no official authorisation for these protests has been published.
· The fact that the national medias are spreading this information very widely, shining the spotlight on the Franco-Turks that are protesting about it - the same people that were in the streets of Paris last January, protesting against the legal penalties regarding the massacre of Armenians, but who did not then have such extensive media coverage.
· Etc. etc…
So with so many points left unclear, rules of play that I don’t understand, and concerns over the intellectual honesty for everything that has already been accomplished, no, I will not be protesting.
Yes, I am delighted by the mobilisation in Turkey, even if it is always regrettable to be obliged to take to the streets to be heard. Protesting is of course a way of expressing one’s views, but it is a little less civilised than heading to the ballot boxes in a democratic manner.
When one is a citizen in a country like France, one respects the French institutions without weakening them and without weakening those of other countries either. So instead of protesting let’s just wait and see what turns out to be lurking in the bushes!
Written by Sophie C., French citizen of Turkish origin.
http://www.turquie-news.com/rubriques/editos-tribune-libre/14184-turquie-je-te-soutiens.html
Turkey, I support you! Yes… but no…
New - For and against, scroll down
Enough with the French bashing!
Self-flagellation is a national sport. Think back. Even when we were in a period of growth the media was telling us that we were in a crisis, and there were fools enough to believe it. From dawn until dusk, bells around the country were ringing out the same notes, the notes of an eternal death knoll, depressive even to the joyful Rabelais.
France is without doubt the only country in the world that considers it a catastrophe that in certain years its large, multinational enterprises have flaunted enormous profits. You’d think the country could congratulate itself for a while before wondering how to split these profits. But no, faced with the figures, France must whine and complain – two of its favourite pastimes.
The situation in France may well be serious, but there is no reason to say that it is hopeless. Over the last few months, developments have been made that would have been unthinkable ten years ago, like the agreement between Medef and the flexisecurity supporting unions, for example. What’s more, the majority of the country no longer rejects, as it did in the past, the efforts necessary for economic recovery – something that ought to poke those in power into action, at long last.
Germany got itself out of the rut into which it had fallen at the beginning of this century thanks to a series of reforms. There is nothing, aside from cowardice and mediocrity, preventing us from climbing out of our rut, too. But our country will only be able to pull itself out of the mud if it takes charge and stops listening to the voices that are rising from within it; voices of bitterness and envy, the diseases of the French.
Self-hatred flourishes on helplessness and spinelessness. Just look at all of the grasping fools, the worthless patriots, obsessed by Germany: a begging bowl in one hand and a plastic knife in the other, these newfound Germanophiles demand that Berlin pay for our mistakes. Buffoons! François Hollande must no doubt have the patience of a saint to put up with these crazy, cynical people who (alas!) are beginning to pop up on the Right, as well as the Left. Poor chap.
The French renaissance will only be possible if the country comes to terms with itself. Has this moment arrived? Bookshops often being ahead of the times where such matters are concerned, there would seem to be every reason to believe that it has. A few signs: in his shaky but joy inspiring essay Polémiques, writer Benoît Duteurtre finds just the right words for celebrating the good old France, casual and carefree. In his pamphlet Invignez-vous!, our friend Jacques Dupont dares to pay a compliment to wine. At the risk of being accused of inciting debauchery and of falling prey to the public health code, I urge and invite you to try this book, a nice glass of red in hand!
Jacques Dupont’s theory is simple: France has two specialities, its wine and its ability to denigrate its national heritage. As the deficit in our commercial affairs becomes catastrophic, we should be thankful for our wine, which represents our second biggest financial earning sector, behind aeronautics and in front of the food sector. But no, to show our thanks, we have virtually blacklisted it inside our own borders, in particular by the introduction of the sinister Evin law which aims to fight against alcohol addiction. The strictest law in the Western world, found in the very home of oenology!
Alcohol abuse seriously damages our health, we get it. But we can say the same thing, states Jacques Dupont, about butter abuse, sugar abuse or salt abuse. Not to mention Nutella abuse, he adds. And yet it is on wine, both the jewel in the French crown and its scapegoat, that we focus. Without a doubt, wine is paying the price for having shaped, in its own way, a part of the country’s identity; a country in which it has moulded the countryside and inspired the arts. It is as if the prevailing moralisation wanted to find its place in our past and in our history.
Such are the effects of health education and the principle of precaution. Whether or not vineyard regions, with their wine drinking culture, are the regions in which we find the most alcohol abuse, is of little importance in the matter: in order to get with the times, our country has decided to make improvements by inflicting harm upon itself. Just think, the state has decided to cut its ties with the vineyard civilisation that has given so much to this country. After whining about the injustices, it is time to ‘wine’ about the political conformist police that are attempting to wipe the wine growers off French soil.
Let’s celebrate our wine and be done with this France-bashing and with all of the ridiculous clichés that stigmatise so many professions: the wine producers, guilty of encouraging drunkenness; the blood sucking business owners; the nitrate polluting farmers; the supposedly fraudulent artisans; the supposedly lazy teachers and so on and so forth. Come on, as we wait for our economy to get itself back on its feet (if we one day decide to make this happen) let’s start learning to love one another. At least then we’ll have a bit more room to breathe.
Written by Franz-Olivier Giesbert
Women and Power: the great taboo
The progression of diversity within the management of businesses today evokes an important question: do women have an approach or an attitude towards power that distinguishes them from their male homologues? To answer this question, we have led a study which dives right to the source by speaking to women in positions of power: directors, managers, but also some female politicians and experts, both in France and abroad. “What do you think of your role, of your responsibilities, and of any eventual special qualities that you can bring to your work?”
The question of female power is cropping up again today, even though more and more women are gaining access to positions of power within companies. The women at the heart of management and/or administration council boards still face numerous challenges. Truly understanding what the exertion of ‘female’ power can represent is one way of facing these challenges.
Women and power: an ambiguous relationshipAs a (female) professor of European law, I have been leading comparative works on the questions of business governance on a European scale for a long time now. Lately, the specific question of gender diversity has come up, provoked notably by Viviane Redding and, in France, by the law on the feminisation of council boards. After deciding to launch a course aimed precisely at helping experienced women to gain access to these jobs, (“Women, be European board ready,”) I realised that few of the participants brought up the question of power. Yet, management and administrative councils are undeniably places of power; the women participating in this programme clearly want to assume roles of authority within businesses. Why then, this omission of the word ‘power’? Is it still a taboo word for women? The results of the study show that ambition still carries different connotations for women and for men: the fight for power is still seen as something masculine and women have a certain difficulty approaching it.
The vast majority of the women asked, declared that, in effect, they had not constructed their careers with the aim of accessing power, but rather to do something interesting. One of them saw things this way: “We live in a world which valorises male power… Women are not naturally considered as future leaders by their male managers because the managers value ‘virility’ and other typically masculine traits, and they tend to promote those who are the most similar to them.
”This model of masculine leadership proves to be a key obstacle for women as they are unaware of the codes. Additionally, specific qualities or behaviours are often associated with women (stereotypes), and these characteristics are linked with them by default when it comes to power. An over-adaption to the male model can thus ensue in women wishing to access these positions of management, with psychologically negative consequences for the individual and a loss in the added value brought about by their differences.
I have worked in collaboration with a psychiatrist in order to better understand the relationship that we, as women, can have with power, and to identify whether or not this relationship differs from that of the male model. The results show that there is certainly a negative connotation attached to the idea of power: countless female interviewees associate power and intrigue – power games – authoritarianism. Furthermore, they generally believe that power isolates, particularly in the way that it is exercised in the imposed male model.
It is interesting to note that the vast majority of the women interviewed showed specific qualities, which tend to be attributed toall women: the ability to listen, empathy, a sense of ‘teamplaying’, a small ego, a sharp sense of ethics. Without creating a caricature, the study seems to show that women have, in effect, a different approach: more frank, with a real desire to move things forwards. They accord a great importance to legitimacy, for example.
A question of quotas
I approach the question of quotas with prudence. My last works before this ‘Women and Power’ study looked more deeply at this question. An obligatory norm such as this has the advantage of a training effect and of obliging those involved to encourage women to assume roles of authority, because the pathway has been made accessible. But, quotas can also provide a source of resentment from the male point of view or a feeling of illegitimacy from the women involved. Incidentally, it should be noted that women often use their competences to reassure themselves (complex of the imposter). Finally, quotas oblige businesses to modify their leadership criteria, something which can also be done voluntarily.
It is essential that the paradigm in which women exercise power evolve. We need to construct a style of leadership which integrates a mixture of qualities: ‘masculine’ ones – charisma, impartiality, decision making abilities, risk taking – as well as ‘feminine’ ones – practicality, ability to listen, empathy, team playing… Women seem to be adapted to this more flexible business model which is beginning to emerge: pre-assumed stereotypes or weaknesses could well show themselves to be strengths in this more agile form of business, required by globalisation.
Written by Viviane de Beauforthttp://www.huffingtonpost.fr/viviane-de-beaufort/femmes-pouvoir-grand-tabou_b_3946724.html?utm_hp_ref=tetes-chercheuses
Ukraine: No solution without Russia
Stop dreaming!
Europe cannot think of handling the crisis of a country in ruins, which is historically attached to Russia, alone. Salvation must come from Moscow.
There is no getting away from the facts: in Ukraine, the issues are at the same time complex, and incredibly simple. But hearts must not be allowed to rule heads.
Issue 1:
The country is not homogenous.The West is culturally Ukrainian. The East (Donbas, the richest part of the country) and the South (Crimea) are Russian. The new authorities produced by the revolution at Maidan are looking to commit a terrible blunder: to do away with the use of Russian as an official language in the regions in which it is the most highly used language.
Issue 2: Ukraine is historically linked to Russia.The origins of these two countries are inextricably intertwined. In the 9th century, Kiev was the capital of the enormous state Kievan Rus. Over the centuries, this country became divided into regional powers, notably Russia, Poland and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But from the time of Catherine II until independence in 1991, the majority of present day Ukraine was under Russian sovereignty, with the exception of a short period after the October Revolution.
Issue 3: The country is in ruins.Several billion dollars are desperately needed to see to Ukraine’s most urgent needs. And without a doubt, at least 30 billion dollars more will be needed in the years to come. The exchange reserves have melted away like snow on a spring morning. Prior to recent events, their value was estimated at around 17 billion dollars, but the debt service charge alone will come to at least 13 billion dollars this year. All assuming that the Russians, who sell their gas at a reduced price in Ukraine, do not decide to up the bill… The EU and the IMF are willing to help, but only if the Russians make an effort to begin work on structural reform. This is a big ask in a country where corruption is a national sport, seen across the entire political spectrum.
Fact 4: The collapse of Ukraine would not be in Russia’s interests. Moscow has increased pressure and Russian armoured personnel carriers are conscientiously working the fields of the border under the pretext of a manoeuvre. “The Russians are scripting the tensions” suspects one specialist. But it is unlikely that Russia desires a split with Ukraine. Russian banks have around 50 billion dollars tied up in the Ukrainian economy. 60% of Russian gas is supplied to Europe, in particular Germany, and it is still sent through Ukraine, even if new gas pipes (North Stream and South Stream) will allow it to bypass the country.
Rule 5: Ukraine is not destined to join the EU.“A partnership, yes. Membership, no”. Such is the attitude of most of the European Member States, Poland excluded. But of course, any expansion of the EU is a just a pipe dream in the current climate. It would require ratification from ever Member State. We might as well get comfortable, the wait could be long. “In the Ukrainian crisis, Russia is a friend, not a foe” says the French side meanwhile. And it should be remembered that Vladimir Putin will be paying a visit to Paris in April and again in June for the D-day commemorations. It would appear then, that we must try to become bedfellows with the bear.
Written by Pierre Beylauhttp://www.lepoint.fr/monde/ou-va-le-monde-pierre-beylau/ukraine-pas-de-solution-sans-la-russie-27-02-2014-1796335_231.php
The Ukrainian Honour
So here is a country in which hunting homosexuals and people from North Caucasus has become a national sport.
Here is a country where, on the 20th April, the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler, the “non-Slavs” were invited to remain at home so as to avoid being attacked.
Here is a country where, when one thousand young people took to the streets in 2006 to protest against the Duma’s potential banning of Jewish associations suspected to have “made a pact with the Devil”, they did so wearing masks, for fear of turning up on the Facebook page of some member of the ‘white patrol’ who would come and kick their heads in.
And here we have this same country which, through its president’s voice, whilst criticizing France and Germany, has the unbelievable cheek to declare that the Ukrainian revolution will mark the return of Fascism to Europe.
The idea would be laughable if so many men and women had not already paid with their lives for the right for survivors not to hear such insults. And also, if there were not quite so many feeble-minded or gullible people in France who seem ready to say to themselves: “well, no smoke without fire…after all, are the Ukrainians really as innocent as all that? In romanticising these protests, couldn’t the West have been taken in by a revolution which isn’t quite what it seems?” Etc.
So ok, let’s have a look at it. As these questions must be answered, let’s go through them one by one:
Yes, of course there exists in Ukraine (as in everywhere else in Europe) an ultranationalist tradition.
No, this country, home to communist revolutionary Nestor Makhno, the ‘Holocaust by bullets’ and the massacre site Babi Yar, has obviously not managed to avoid the anti-Semitism virus.
And yes, of course, there are some small Right wing groups at Maidan, including one party, Svoboda, which up until ten years ago defined itself as ‘social nationalist’.
However:
1. At its peak, in the October elections in 2012, Svoboda won 10% of Ukrainian votes– sure, this is a lot, but it is still fewer votes than have been won by similar parties in the Netherlands, in Austria or, yes, in France.
2. Far from progressing and, as Putin’s propaganda is constantly repeating throughout Europe, benefitting from the radicalisation of demonstrations in Ukraine, this party has suffered the opposite effect, with the emergence of new leaders diluting the monopoly on radicalism and thus marginalising Svoboda. Have all of the polls, including the recent survey carried out by the SOCIS Institute on the 31st January, not shown less than 5% support for Svoboda?
3. The key people concerned, those who have turned out in force on Maidan square, have made no mistake: local Jewish institutions (the Judaica Institute, the Kiev-Mohyla academy),Ukrainian representatives from international Jewish organisations (Josef Zissels of the World Jewish Congress) and certain figures of moral authority (philosopher Constantin Sigov, a specialist involved in the work of Emmanuel Levinas) – none have doubted, even for a second, that their place was there, as part of this enormous group in which Cossacks rub shoulders with rabbis, and the descendants of survivors of the Holocaust stand with those of survivors of the Holodomor, the Ukrainian Famine-genocide of the 1930s, ordered and orchestrated by Stalin.
4. It should also be noted that over the last three months, Maidan square, home to all words and all freedoms, has heard all kinds of speakers, even the most fanciful. But during all of this time, there is one ‘fancy’ that has never been heard, not from any of these people: the insanity of anti-Semitism.
5. It is remarkable, too, that the media from the whole world over has had ample time during the last three months to scrutinise the walls of graffiti produced by modern revolutions and prominent in Maidan – and yet, if there is one sort of graffiti that has not been seen there, once again highlighted, filmed and photographed, it is anti-Semitic graffiti. There is not one single occurrence.
Of course, it’s not all goodness and love. Vigilence is still required, as normal, when the merged collective threaten to turn into a terrorist group or a lynch mob. But, with all due respect to the Putinist mis-informers, we are not at that stage.
At the moment, things are progressing as if a sort of brotherhood of pain and struggle has grown up between the peoples of Ukraine and between the descendants of victims of Hitler’s massacres, Stalin’s massacres and massacres by both – a brotherhood which evokes memories of the ‘solidarity of the shaken’, dear to the great Jan Patočka.
And one thing is certain: the only demonstrations characterised by anti-Semitism have come from the other side – the side of fallen power which attempts to lecture those living in democracies. Amongst many other cases we find, for example, that of the Berkut militia, whose website, during the last days of the repression, highlighted the alleged ‘Jewish origins’ of Maidan leaders and superimposed, in clear neo-Nazi style, the Star of David and the swastika…Such is the reality, not the cliché. Such is the true face of this revolution, which at this point, appears admirable. And such is the face that we must bear in mind when the leaders of a New Ukraine come knocking at the European Union’s doors. For them, Europe is not just a territory, it is a name. It is a name which signifies, as it did for the founders of the European Union, a great leap out of the ranks of totalitarian murderers. So a word to the wise: may we be ready for this Ukrainian version of the ‘heroism of reason’ that philosopher Edmund Husserl believed to be at the heart of our Europe.
Written by Bernard-Henri Lévyhttp://www.lepoint.fr/editos-du-point/bernard-henri-levy/l-honneur-des-ukrainiens-27-02-2014-1796134_69.php