The crippled giant [Gigantul infirm]

One shouldn’t have necessarily been a great military analyst to anticipate that such a moment would sooner (rather than later) come for the Perfidious Albion.

The commanders of the armed forces (depleted by budgetary cuts) seem to be shrugging their shoulders in front of David Cameron’s request to implement a no-fly zone over Syria.

Great Britain, the former superpower of the 19th and early 20th century, can’t do anything in Syria by itself, and mustering American and NATO support would take much time.

The only readily available ally would be Turkey, but imposing a Libyan scenario on Bashar al-Assad can certainly draw the ire of Russia.

Would Britain (and France?!) risk another Crimean War, when the odds of victory are so different from what they were some 160 years ago?

Assuming that the newly re-elected ‘pacifist’ at the White House agrees with Cameron’s eagerness to go to war, wouldn’t all risk turning into a Third World War?

If I were Argentina’s president these days, I’d be rubbing my hands, wishing very much to see Britain involved in Syria.

The military giant of 1982 is severely crippled, while Obama will most probably not do anything to defend the pride of the USA’s former colonial power.

By the time (2016-2018) London gets a new aircraft carrier, it would be very unlikely for the next (Labour?!) government to promise retaking the Falkland Islands.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

A new Ottoman Turkey – an unforgivable courage [O nouă Turcie Otomană – un curaj de neiertat]

Even before WWI ended in the autumn of 1918, The Ottoman Empire had been theoretically sliced by the Perfidious Albion, and France – the two world powers which had stood by the ailing empire (dubbed “the Sickman of Europe” by its greatest rival, Tsarist Russia) for a century before.

The former empire – whose rise and decadence shaped the history of the Eastern half of Europe since 1299 to the dawn of the 20th century – was supposed to be reduced to a third of Anatolia (97% of today’s Republic of Turkey).

Still, that would have been a remarkable survival of a moribund country that had beaten all bets against it, and should have collapsed under the burden of public debth some 45 years before.

By the mid 1800s, the Ottoman Empire was probably one of the least popular countries in Europe. “The Turks are coming!” had long before been a frightened scream heard in this part of the world, especially in Greece, Romania and in other realms in the Balkans.

Even the Austrians, some of the Europeans most vigorously opposed to Turkey’s Accession to the EU these days, probably used these words in 1529 and 1683.

Seen as backward, corrupt, yet still dangerous as any ailing predator, the Ottoman Empire had nothing good to offer, many believed.

Although the Ottoman Empire did not mean exclusively repeated savage attacks on civilians, plunders, mass abductions of children, desecration of Christian churches, suppression of religious identities (mainly of Greeks, Serbs, Albanians etc), these were the sad things that people rememebred over the centuries.

The Ottomans were probably no worse than the Romans or the Crusaders, and were certainly more religiously tolerant than Catholics and Protestants proved to be among themselves and to their Orthodox brethren or to Jews.

Yet no one remembered any ‘positive shades’ from the Sublime Porte’s history; it was a relic of the past just like the Austria-Hungary, and both were seen as ‘doomed’.

Industrial progress had erupted in Britain and was spreading from Germany towards the rest of the world, democratic ideals burst in the USA and France, while Russia was offering a glimpse of hope (albeit shadowed by wariness) to the Orthodox nations still regarded as ‘Ottoman subjects’ in Istanbul.

In the meantime, ‘The Sickman’ refused to die, because he was not let to die by his ‘quacks’ (the UK and France), who even dared putting their ‘medical skills’ at risk in the Crimean War and who were also his largest creditors.

In a way, supporting the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century by the great powers of the time was similar to supporting Gaddafi’s Libya against a presumed threat al-Qaeda (in the early 2000s) or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq against theocratic Iran (in the 1980s).

But that was over 100 years ago. ‘The Sickman’ refused to bow to the last blow (Treaty of Sèvres), and reborn from the ashes (Treaty of Lausanne + Proclamation of the Republic).

Thanks to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s aggressive secular reforms, Turkey was allowed to be, and underwent massive changes.

However, economic advancement was rather slow for a few decades marked by coup d’etats, and only the past 15-20 years have allowed the rise of a ‘Turkish miracle’ (if it’s not a bubble?!) comparable to what is hailed as a ‘Chinese miracle’.

Brought into NATO (in 1952, even before West Germany), Turkey would be kept up to these days in a humiliating antechamber of the EEC/EU… just until the country no longer needs, nor truly wishes to be part of the extremely ‘dizzy’ Union of today.

With the second armed forces in NATO, with an economy growing by 9% per year, having earned its place among the strongest economies of the world (G-20), with the fastest expanding population in Europe, Turkey has been showing signs that it is becoming a world actor to be reckoned with.

Nevertheless, almost no world power of our age would have considered Turkey’s growth a ‘threat’. At least not openly, as it would be ridiculous to believe that Moscow’s GRU and SVR didn’t assess the risk posed by the rebirth of a former archenemy.

Even the fact that Ankara befriended Teheran didn’t appear to be excessively worrisome, as long as Turkey was regarded as a staunch ally of the Western World.

But that’s no longer the case, and what has been a bewildering success story is rapidly turning into a geopolitical nightmare.

Turkey is now at odds with Israel (therefore with the USA), with the EU, while vigourously claiming back its influence over parts of the world that had been snatched from the Sublime Porte by its ‘friends’ almost a century ago: Cyprus (1878) and Egypt (1882) by the Perfidious Albion, Libya  (1912, by Italy) and Palestine (1917), by the UK again.

And let no wise leaders of today excuse themselves that they haven’t been warned! Let’s remember what Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on the night when he won the third consecutive elections, this time by a landslide:

“Believe me, Sarajevo won today as much as Istanbul, Beirut won as much as Izmir, Damascus won as much as Ankara, Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, the West Bank, Jerusalem won as much as Diyarbakir.”

He enumerated places that were once part of the Ottoman Empire. Obviously, Erdogan made no territorial claims, but a symbolic claim – that any change occuring in Turkey could only be for the better of the above mentioned places.

Aren’t all empires claiming that? Doesn’t Uncle Sam say that his democracy and his solutions are the best for the world? Wasn’t Adolf Hitler promising his peace for a thousand years?

Anyway, before Erdoğan’s words that can be (mis)interpreted as ‘imperialistic’, his Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, set the stage for the ‘New Ottoman Turkey’ shortly before the historic elections of June 2011 in a different tone.

At the United Nations’ 4th Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), held in Istanbul (9-13 May 2011), Davutoğlu launched a bold diatribe against the current world order:

“We don’t want to have political hierarchy in the world, where certain countries, certain nations, have more to say on the future of political order in the coming decades and centuries,” the minister said.

“There are permanent members in the U.N. Security Council, and permanent [means] they will decide what will be happening in the world [in the future], it means they have the right of veto,” Davutoğlu the explained, calling this system unjust and in need of change, according to Hurryiet newspaper.

This sounds like the position of a country whose leaders wish to lead a new ‘Non-Aligned Movement’ and to speak on the behalf of the opressed.

Or could they have in mind some kind of moderately secularised Ottoman Caliphate, as Davutoğlu’s book Alternative Paradigms theoretizes that a mix of Western-style democracy and Islam is perfectly feasible?

As an admirer of Turkey – I dare assuming that few Romanians who visited the country or made friends with ordinary Turks wouldn’t agree with my admiration – I can only say that this new Ottoman courage shall not be forgiven.

Irrespective whether it is morally right for Turkey to support Turkish Cypriots, irrespective of the fact that those sickened with Uncle Sam’s unilateralism need to have their voices heard in the world, no matter how logical is to break free from EU’s hypocrisy, Erdogan is not putting Turkey on a path to a better future.

On the contrary, he may be taking a huge gamble just like Hitler did in September 1939, when the Führer foolishly imagined that the UK and France wouldn’t react to his invasion of Poland.

Rather sooner than later, the current world order – just or unjust as it it, that can be debated but unchanged! – will punish Turkey.

Up until now, Erdoğan, Davutoğlu along with President Abdulah Gül have proved to be incomparably wiser than the former Austrian corporal of the Bavarian Army.

But we cannot cast aside the sad hypothesis that –  just like Muslims all over the world, irrespective of nationality, wisdom, wealth etc – they may have fallen into a tragic and implacable trap.

This trap is the reckeless assumption that ‘their Allah’ would eventually grant victory to those standing up against Israel.

I may not be offering an earthly (political, military, economic) argument but a religious one, yet here I say it – no human beings could ever beat a nation whose’s name is Israel, the one who wrestles with God.

Only the Lord will vanquish Israel, only when and how He finds it right. And that defeat may be only quantified in metaphysical terms, having nothing to do with ‘wiping Israel off the map’ as some of the newest friends of Turkey (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) imagine.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Aşteptând încă revoluţia mondială... (8) [Still waiting for the world revolution…]

Indiferent de cum s-o fi văzând el însuşi, s-au găsit destui care să îl considere ‘erou’ (al luptei pentru accesul la informaţii), ‘deschizător de drumuri’ (înspre o altă lume, în care guvernele să fie obligate la mai multă transparenţă), un ‘revoluţionar’, un ‘vizionar’…

….ba poate chiar un viitor ‘martir’, dacă ar fi să le dăm crezare avocaţiilor săi, care se tem că, odată ajuns în mâinile Unchiului Sam, clientul lor ar fi torturat, executat sau ucis mişeleşte în puşcărie.

Acesta este Julian Assange*** – hackerul australian ale cărei furtuni în pahare cu apă, oricâtă rezonanţă planetară or fi părând să aibă în această epocă a tehnologiei informaţiei, tot nu au stârnit adevărate revoluţii.

Zicea Andy Warhol că, “în viitor, oricine va fi faimos pentru 15 minute”, iar acel viitor pe care îl trăim noi acum părea să se confirme şi în cazul lui Assange. Iată, totuşi, că ‘faima’ acestuia a ţinut ceva mai mult, cam cât iarna 2010/2011.

Au venit revoluţiile arabe, cutremurul din Japonia, războiul din Libia, astfel că despre  ‘martirul’ de la Londra s-au auzit tot mai puţine. Aura lui revoluţionară păleşte cu fiecare zi petrecută în vila cu zece dormitoare...

Revoluţionarului – celui de modă veche vreau să zic, de secol 19 şi 20 – îi şade bine cu chinul, cu hăituiala, cu clandestinitatea, cu austeritatea şi asceza chiar, ci nu cu reşedinţele de lux.

Ceea ce nu i-a împiedicat pe fani să atragă atenţia, când s-au împlinit şase luni de arest, asupra “condiţiilor excesive şi dezumanizante de detenţie” şi să se plângă că eroul lor este vânat de camere de supraveghere (CCTV), ceea ce avea să se dovedească o exagerare.

Erau doar camere de monitorizare a traficului. Însă nicio exagerare nu-i de lepădat în aceste vremuri, când nimic, oricât de gogonat ar fi, reuşeşte să scoată oamenii din lumea revoluţiilor virtuale, în cea a revoluţiilor cu distrugeri şi moarte.

Revoluţionar mondial şi violator (încă neconfirmat în ambele privinţe), un (aparent) paria cu prieteni bogaţi (care i-au plătit cauţiunea), cinic şi narcisist, hedonist şi amoral, idealist şi calculat – pentru care unii ar face moarte de om, pe când alţii au cerut asasinarea lui.

Nicidecum imaculat, dar nici vrednic de a fi dat în mâinile Unchiului Sam, în fruntea unei entităţi nedemocratice (WikiLeaks) care serveşte idealuri democratice (?!)... cu mii de poveşti pe seama lui, care mai de care mai năstruşnice.

Nicicând nu se poate spera la o revoluţie mondială (fie ea definită troţkist sau altcumva) fără exagerări şi minciuni. Oricât de adânci ar fi cauzele reale ale revoluţiilor (definite ulterior de istorici) fără ‘scântei de exagerare’ nu se poate face vreo revoluţie.

Dezvăluirile WikiLeaks s-au dovedit a fi o făsâială. În urma căreia, Uncle Sam n-a ieşit prea şifonat. Ba chiar este demn de admirat: n-ar fi bine ca şi România să aibă diplomaţi atât de talentaţi în a trage de limbă pe toată lumea din jur şi a descrie atât de plastic evenimente şi personaje?

Şi atât de mare a fost făsâiala aceasta, încât mă gândesc că scopul lor nu are legătură cu dezvăluirile în sine, ci cu propulsarea lui Assange la rolul de ‘revoluţionar mondial’, pentru care destui fanatici ar fi gata să arunce lumea (internetului şi nu numai) în haos.

Închis sau liber, dar cu siguranţă în carne şi oase, autentic, acest Assange – pe care unii să-l adore, iar alţii să-l urască, la fel ca pe Osama bin Laden – este un ‘activ de mare valoare’ în zilele noastre când oricine poate fi ‘revoluţionar’, dar arareori pentru mai mult de 15 minute.

Pentru cine şi pentru ce va servi (conştient sau nu) Assange– să-i las pe cititorii mei (care şi câţi or mai fi) să îşi dea cu părerea. Eu doar îmi exprim scepticismul ca atâta tam-tam cu WikiLeaks nu se prea poate să fi fost creat doar pentru fâsâiala de până acum.

*** NOTĂ: Am creat imaginea cu ajutorul acestui site.

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

God’s place in a humanist society (15) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

As the Perfidious Albion is about to join France, the USA & other more or less reluctant ‘allies’ in bombing Libya, the invoked cause of war is – time and again! – the need to provide the ‘security’ of the Libyan people.

If only things were as easy as the slogan “Bomb the tyrant, liberate the people!” (often used by leaders of the ‘free world’) goes! As a matter of fact, the elusive (and quite improbable for now) ‘liberation’ could only bring more misery for the Libyans.

It’s so sad to witness that Libyans are such misfortunate human beings who can only be liberated by bombs, and whose security can only be provided by destruction brought upon their country…

Is it because they happen to have a religious faith? That is they are ‘enslaved by faith’, as humanists could put it… Oh, it would have been so easy to offer them more ‘security’ to them, had they been a secular country!

“More CCTV means more security for you!” – Britain’s Big Brother says on posters that passers-by can’t miss, and he is as hypocritical as the self-proclaimed Brother Leader in Tripoli.

Any Big Brother – in the UK or any other civilised nation for that matter – promising a ‘free’ and ‘secure’ world without its Maker is as mad as the Brother Leader of the al-Jamahiriya.

Any God-less society could one day be what Libya is today, a land where the will of one man is done. Sooner or later, people are bound to look for a ‘saviour’ who would drag them out of the abyss where irreligiousness took them.

Yet there is only One true Saviour – all other fake saviours (including the so far benign Barack Obama who surfed a tsunami of Obamania in 2008) have only brought disasters after disasters upon mankind. Unfortunately, they will keep doing so till the end of times...

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

The world is ablaze [Lumea este în flăcări]

Ever since the Wall Street Crisis of September 2008, the word as we knew it up until the mid 2000s turned into an erratic stage on which actors appear to have been messing up the play script.

To some of us, all (or most) elected leaders, autocrats, nations, multinational companies, ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ alike appear to follow no indication of a director. Their actions seldom make any sense. They seem to act chaotically.

To others, all these characters are actually following scrupulously some precise guidelines, according to what are naively dimissed as ‘conspiracy theories’.

We don’t know who wrote the script, neither can we indentify the director, yet we surely are crazy about this global reality show. And who are we, after all?

Let’s assume that we are the 1,966,514,816 internet users in the world, that is some 28,7% of all people alive today. We’re being served ‘news’ as cattle are fed feed on grass and on other dubious fodder that makes our food so unhealthy.

Of a truth, ‘news’ isn’t as it used to be anymore. Novelties don’t travel across the world in sailing ships, but with the speed of megabytes per second.

Gun barrels are still smoking and bullet wounds still bleeding in Libya (or anywhere else for that matter), yet we have already chewed and spit some ‘news’.

The world is ablaze, and here we are, mesmerised by the flames, enjoying the show. Whether it lasts or not makes no difference to us, as more and more episodes have been stockpilling in our civilisation’s (the one that gave us the internet!) backyard.

We, the ‘civilised ones’, have sown so many toxic seeds, all over the world, throughout the past 200-300 years, that we could reap disasters for centuries to come.

For instance, the USA, the Perfidious Albion & Italy are much guiltier (as accomplices) for the horrors we witness in Libya today than Saddam Hussein was guilty in 2003, when a ‘coalition of the willing’ struck him down.

The self-proclaimed ‘King of Kings’ ruling Libya for 41 years was a despicable ‘dictator’ decades ago, yesterday’s eccentric ‘jester’ – received with great honours everywhere, and a friend of ‘T. Bliar’ – whilst he is now an archenemy of civilisation.

And this time it seems to be for real. There’s no need of a PR campaign to describe him as a monster, no need to invent a ‘threat’ represented by his weapons of mass destruction. His utterly senseless murders did truly happen and keep happening.

Nevertheless, I wonder: who would dare a military intervention, ousting him from the last bunkers and patches of desert where he is still clinging on to power? Is there in preparation any ‘coalition of the willing’ ready to intervene?

Will Barack Obama – a loather of George W. Bush’s ‘war of choice’ in Iraq – choose to fight a war for the sake of all the values himself and America stand for?

Would David Cameron use his overstretched and underfinanced British armed forces in Libya as Winston Churchill did in the early 1940s? Could ‘T. Bliar’ exert some influence on his gone-mad friend, in order to stop the bloodshed?

If not in the name of values, will Obama and Cameron do it for the sake of oil or for saving America’s and Britain’s EU allies from the catastrophic perspective of having a new Somalia right across the Mediterranean Sea?

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]