Author Archives: Guy La Roche

About Guy La Roche

Dutch translator and subtitler living in Brittany with his three cats. Has also lived in the Flemish part of Belgium. Speaks English rather fluently and in a former life used to have a decent command of Spanish. Knows swear words in German and Russian. Not quite francophone yet, but slowly getting there. Vaguely centrist observer of the world around him, extremely naive and, sometimes, rather proud of it. Writes Venale Pecus.

The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East by Olivier Roy

Posted on by

It is reading time again here at AFOE. I am happy to invite you to read The politics of Chaos in the Middle East by Olivier Roy. If you like the world to be simple and easy to understand then you will hate The Politics of Chaos.

Olivier Roy offers his readers a descriptive overview of the many and ever moving social and political currents and dynamics in the Middle East. Understanding these will give a clearer insight into many of the conflicts in the region. Roy places the conflicts within their own context and separates them from the idea of ‘a clash of civilizations’. As the title of the book suggests, there is no single formula, or a ‘geostrategy of Islam’ as he calls it, that would explain everything that currently goes on in the Middle East. In the rather provocative introduction to the book, which you can read at the Columbia University Press website (pdf), Roy States:

Far from bearing out the prevailing theory that there is “a clash of civilizations” and a confrontation between the Muslim world and the West, the conflicts and realignments affect primarily the Muslim world itself and operate along fault lines that have very little to do with ideology.

It is true that some people, in their discussions about Islam, tend to forget the actual social and political ‘realities on the ground’ and see the Muslim World as a huge monolith. Olivier Roy addresses this issue in the first chapter of the book called Who is the enemy? Where is the enemy?, in which he describes how current Western, and notably American, Middle East policy was shaped and why it failed. Talking about the failure of the democratization of Iraq he writes:

Why then, is there talk of failure? Fundamentally because, for the neoconservatives and international institutions alike, democracy is a simple question of building institutions and electoral mechanisms. (…) What is lacking in this theory of democratization is the entire political dimension of a modern society (state), and the entire anthropological depth of a traditional society.

In short, the West looked at the problems in the Middle East from a purely Western perspective that largely ignored ‘the reality on the ground’.

Olivier Roy then goes on to describe ‘this reality on the ground’ in a second chapter called The Middle East: Fragmentation of Conflicts and New Fault Lines. It would be impossible to give a decent summary of all the different actors and complex dynamics Roy describes at length in this most fascinating part of the book. To give you an idea, consider this quote:

A major problem in the Middle East is that of political legitimacy. Local nationalisms generally develop around states, not regimes, but the political ideologies on the market are supra-nationalist while the political “grammar” (the game of individual alliances and loyalties) is inter-state (all that is contained in the term asabiyya or “solidarity group”: clannism, tribalism, sectarianism). (…) And yet nationalisms remain the key to conflicts, but are undermined by internal divisions (…) which can be linked to ideologies and transnational networks.

It is in this chapter that we discover the true political, social and ideological kaleidoscope that is the Middle East. If there is one thing that does unite the countries of the Middle East, it is not a desire to bring down Western civilization but rather an ongoing search for identity (based on nationalism or religion) in a globalised world. And this search is very much influenced by the role the West has played and continues to play in the internal affairs of this region.

The complexity continues in a third chapter that is dedicated to Iran and in which Roy sheds some light on the internal dynamics of that country, its ambitions as a regional power, its nuclear programme and the Ahmadinejad phenomenon. And in the fourth and last chapter of the book Olivier Roy discusses Al-Qaeda and explains why this organization, potentially lethal as it may be, has no real future and that its activism is increasingly detached from actual political developments. As Roy states, “Al-Qaeda’s recruitment map in no way reflects the flashpoints in the Middle East” and, one of many surprising facts in this chapter, “10 to 25% of activists are converts”.

With this short summary, which does no justice to the wealth of insights and information this new book by Olivier Roy provides, I can highly recommend The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East as an excellent introduction to the diverse political and social realities in the Middle East. If you are interested in the subject, you can use this book as a primer to get a better understanding of the Middle Eastern Zeitgeist, its contemporary history and sensibilities with regards to Western influence in the region.

For more information you can visit the book’s webpages of Columbia University Press and Hurst & Co.

And, as a bonus, go have a quick browse through the books on offer in Columbia University Press’ White Sale. Today (Monday June 2nd) is the last day of the sale.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recommend two other books that I received from Hurst & Co: Iran in World Politics, The Question of the Islamic Republic by Arshin Adib-Moghaddam and Hamas in Politics by Jeroen Gunning.

The absence of politics…?

Posted on by

The associative mind works in mysterious ways. At least, mine does. The New York Times has an amazing article today called Bacteria Thrive in Inner Elbow; No Harm Done about, as the title suggests, the countless bacteria that live in and on our bodies. It turns out humans are really individual ‘superorganisms’. What caught my associative attention was the following (emphasis mine):

Since humans depend on their microbiome for various essential services, including digestion, a person should really be considered a superorganism, microbiologists assert, consisting of his or her own cells and those of all the commensal bacteria. The bacterial cells also outnumber human cells by 10 to 1, meaning that if cells could vote, people would be a minority in their own body.

Fortunately, nobody gets to vote here. And that is exactly what set my mind off. Bacteria and humans share a common society, if you will, and both parties benefit from this coexistence. There are no codified rules or policy governing the life of the individual superorganism called man. And over the course of ages this has evolved into something that really works well for all parties concerned.

This made me wonder if we do not sometimes overpoliticize certain social issues within our human macrosocieties. Can we leave certain issues of, for instance, cohabitation to the population itself to sort out in a free market kind of way? Or will this inevitably lead to violence and grief (even if there were no populist politicians to stir up the flames) as seems to be the case right now in South-Africa? And, after all, bacteria wage war too.

Well, a naieve mind can dream, can’t it? Anyway, I thought the article on its own was interesting enough to mention here. And maybe some knowledgeable readers can surprise and enlighten us with comments about politics in nature?

Afterthougt: Alternatively, does it really matter if there are politics or not? Aren’t we, somewhere deep down, inexorably governed by the ruthless laws of nature regardless of all the nice ideologies and institutions we invent to prevent ourselves, periodically, from killing each other?

«La nature a fait l’homme heureux et bon, mais la société le déprave et le rend misérable.»

Quote taken from Le Mythe du bon sauvage

New cartoon mayhem in The Netherlands

Posted on by

In The Netherlands cartoon artist Gregorius Nekschot has been arrested following complaints by imam Abdul-Jabbar van de Ven that his work discriminates against, notably, Muslims and dark-skinned people. I really do not have the time right now to write a decent post about this and I am also waiting for more information, but Dutch weblog Polderpundit has dedicated a long post on this subject. Here is one quote to give you an idea about the gist of the controversy:

Personally we think most of Nekschot’s drawings (which we only discovered today) are rather tasteless, although some made us smile (wryly). In other words, we will not buy the book and we won’t subscribe to his newsletter. Period, that’s it. We certainly do not feel more negative or less positive about certain ethnic or religious minorities. Seeing a cartoon where Mohammed sodomizes Anne Frank makes us wish we hadn’t, but it doesn’t change our feelings about either. The only thing it incites us to do is, again, to abstain from buying Nekschot’s books. Maybe it makes others incite to buy it, good for them.

As for the “insulting” part, well, it’s hard to pretend Nekschot’s drawings are uncontroversial innocent works of art. It is imaginable that some people feel indeed insulted by some of the cartoons. In which case they would be wise not to look at them. Just as reactionary (or simply long-toed) christians did not watch “Life of Brian” or “The Last Temptation of Christ”. All these artworks can be considered insulting. But criminally insulting? The Western battle for freedom of expression is also the battle for the freedom of expression of ideas we do not like, including ideas we feel insulted by.

Subsidiary question: Are the imams who call non-muslim children “dogs”, who wish a tongue cancer onto Ayaan Hirsi Ali and all other kind of documented niceties, are these people insulting and inciting hatred? We cannot measure with two standards. The cases of both Nekschot and islamic extremists should be examined with the same zeal and integrity, and depending on the findings, they should be prosecuted or not, and then tried (or not) with identical impartiality.

The really worrying part comes next:

It is always tempting to think of hidden political agendas, and before you know it you are talking about conspiracy theories. As long as there is no more detailed information available, it would seem wise to stay prudent.

At the same time it is true that some high-profile members and cabinet ministers of Holland’s biggest political party, the CDA (christian centre), have been advocating censorship of the Fitna, a movie critical of islam, launched by Geert Wilders (founder of one of those populist parties). Has this antidemocratic attitude seeped down to lower levels? Were the police and the DA trying to please their political masters?

The latter quote I find particularly interesting because it goes way beyond freedom of speech. There is a strong sense of “Why are they allowed to do these things and we are not?” I have seen this cropping up several times before in internet discussions. Personally, I doubt if there is a political conspiracy behind the arrest, but Dutch politicians and society would do well to address what Polderpundit describes as “this antidemocratic attitude” and, more importantly, the perception, wrong or right, that some people get condemned for the very same things others seem to get away with.

Update: The link to Nekschot’s site went 404 following an official request from the Dutch Public Prosecutor. From the dozens of cartoons that were examined by the judiciary eight have been subjected to charges of discrimination and possibly even incitement to violence and hatred. All the other cartoons were deemed to be within the legal limits of freedom of speech and artistic expression.

Comfortable thoughts: The Rise of the Rest

Posted on by

Just a short linkdump post. Newsweek has an interesting opinion piece by Fareed Zakaria entitled The Rise of the Rest that ties in nicely with my previous post Uncomfortable thoughts and philosophy. Zakaria is much more positive about the emergence of new global powers, even when he understands the transition engenders some degree of anxiety:

American anxiety springs from something much deeper, a sense that large and disruptive forces are coursing through the world. In almost every industry, in every aspect of life, it feels like the patterns of the past are being scrambled. “Whirl is king, having driven out Zeus,” wrote Aristophanes 2,400 years ago. And—for the first time in living memory—the United States does not seem to be leading the charge. Americans see that a new world is coming into being, but fear it is one being shaped in distant lands and by foreign people.

Writing from an American perspective, he concludes his exposé with (emphasis mine):

Americans—particularly the American government—have not really understood the rise of the rest. This is one of the most thrilling stories in history. Billions of people are escaping from abject poverty. The world will be enriched and ennobled as they become consumers, producers, inventors, thinkers, dreamers, and doers. This is all happening because of American ideas and actions. For 60 years, the United States has pushed countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. American diplomats, businessmen, and intellectuals have urged people in distant lands to be unafraid of change, to join the advanced world, to learn the secrets of our success. Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we are losing faith in such ideas. We have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it’s not Americans going abroad but foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down.

There are a lots of interesting ideas in Zakaria’s post. He even confirms Jamie’s recent post Tibet, Trade and Consumer Nationalism:

As economic fortunes rise, so inevitably does nationalism. Imagine that your country has been poor and marginal for centuries. Finally, things turn around and it becomes a symbol of economic progress and success. You would be proud, and anxious that your people win recognition and respect throughout the world.

And the quote that goes best with my own (poorly written) attempt at addressing the impact the rise of new powers may have on Western thoughts/values (emphasis mine):

The result is that the “rest” are now dissecting the assumptions and narratives of the West and providing alternative views. A young Chinese diplomat told me in 2006, “When you tell us that we support a dictatorship in Sudan to have access to its oil, what I want to say is, ‘And how is that different from your support of a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?’ We see the hypocrisy, we just don’t say anything—yet.”

Yummy!Go have a read.

Uncomfortable thoughts and philosophy

Posted on by

It is a good thing I am not a journalist, since I often forget to write down the source of interesting comments I hear on, for instance, television. Come to think of it, this makes me a lousy blogger too. Anyway, recently my beloved Arte had an item on India as an emergent world power and a future engine of global economy.

One of the Indian interviewees, an economics professor if I am not mistaken, anticipated that Western, and notably European, power would decline and that Asia, notably India and China, would then take over control and impose their models on the world.

On Tuesday night, French economist Philippe Dessertine, invited to France 5 current events program C Dans L’Air, was particularly gloomy about the economic forecast, talking about an impending global shit storm. Actually, he simply said une tempête qui s’annonce, but his message was very clear. We are in for a rough ride. If you understand French you can watch part of the program here. Dessertine starts at 17.22.

Back to my Indian professor. Maybe it was my imagination, but this man seemed to take some pleasure in the fact that Asia, among others, is about to turn the tables on Western hegemony. Revenge of the formerly colonized or something like that. Fair enough, I suppose.

Naïve as I may be, I do realize that things are never that easy. But what if he is right? What would that mean for us Europeans/Westerners?

We have grown accustomed to exporting our own grand visions of the world. A few centuries ago it was Christianity and now it is democracy (the US) and human rights (Europe). And when the economic conditions within our own societies became intolerable, we simply exported ourselves to newly discovered places, far away from our own misery. In other words, we and our values spread around the world like an enlightened plague. This blessing in disguise was not always appreciated by the recipients but our own societies fared pretty well as a consequence, some minor glitches (the failing Spanish empire, for instance) notwithstanding.

Now, for my question. What if other civilizations, by the brutal force of economic power and demographics, would start to do the same to us in a not too distant future? How would we cope with that intellectually, morally and economically?

I know this is just a silly mind-game, but it would be interesting to put ourselves in the place of the formerly colonized, if only for a minute, and see if our cherished values can really live up to that kind of a challenge. Besides, I do believe that we will be confronted with these questions, to some degree, sooner or later. Think about the recent Mittal issue in France. If you feel really philosophical you can debate the following question: Are our values merely driven by circumstance? Or, is our “enlightenment” just a luxury product?

German (European) education

Posted on by

New Europe-based weblog Escape Indifference has an interesting post on higher education in Germany called Not welcome in Germany. Chris Osman, the author of the weblog, is a student at a German university. In his post he compares German universities with their American counterparts and finds the Unis lacking in both quality and openness. He is really rather nice about it, attributing it all to lower budgets:

German Universities rank pretty low on the world university ranking list. There is a reason for that. One benefit of studying in Germany is that the price of the education is relatively cheap. To be sure I’m paying less than $1,000 a semester, and that is being an international student. However, after diving into the program it becomes apparent that this does have a price. The universities just do not have any money to put toward its institutions and finding good professors. Furthermore students do not have easy access to print services, good literature, or even to the professors themselves.

I do not know if this is true for all German universities, but I was struck by another comment he made on the mentality of the German students themselves:

If you have ever attempted to attend a lecture, you are met with many distractions such as people talking, walking in and out constantly, as well as being called a “Streber” if you show any remote interest in a subject. In fact, I can readily compare it to the attitude that is found through American High Schools, which makes the price of the education a probable reason for this.

Funny enough, I noticed the very same thing when I was studying in Belgium. My first year in higher education was eerily similar to my years in a Belgian high school. The front rows of the classes were occupied by students who were considered by the rest to be “Strebers”. In the back rows you found the “tourists”, students who tended to disappear after the first year. Much of this had to do with the fact that higher education in Belgium, as in Germany, is relatively cheap compared to other countries, allowing a great number of students to “travel around” a bit and try out different schools.

Even so, after the “weeding” of the first year, with drop-out rates of sometimes seventy percent or more, those who made it through the selections were in my experience definitely motivated to get a degree. So maybe Chris is just experiencing a bout of first-year tourism. He did not mention what year he is in.

What I found more disturbing was his following comment:

Additionally, German attitudes toward international students is very standoffish and unforgiving. Germany is ranked very low in terms of what they call “Integrationspolitik” and the classroom is a direct representation of that.

followed by some comments from fellow expat-students along the lines of

“If they were in my country, we would show them the excitement of being new and foreign, and would attempt to make them feel at home. I just don’t feel at home here.”

When I was a student foreigners were not a problem at all. But maybe that is because I was at a school for translators and interpreters. On top of that the Erasmus Programme, which brought in most of the foreign students at our school, was still new and exciting. I was an Erasmus student myself and I still have fond memories of my stint at Hull University in England.

So, here is my question to our readers. What is your experience, if you have one, as a foreign student at a European university? Do you find the quality of education, compared to your own country, satisfying? And how do you feel about the integration of foreign students abroad? Secondly, for our German readers or people like Chris who are studying or have studied in Germany, can you corroborate Chris’ experiences? It would be nice to get a bit of a general idea, or at least a debate, about education in Europe.

Quotes of the day

Posted on by

From The New York Times, Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to the USA:

“Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted,” he said.

Then, on the issue of child abuse within the Church (emphasis mine):

For the second day on his first official visit to America, the pope acknowledged the “deep shame” caused by the sexual abuse scandal that has divided and weakened the American church. He agreed that the scandal as it unfolded was “sometimes very badly handled.” He said the church must “address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores. “What does it mean to speak of child protection,” the pope asked, “when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?”

Basically, it’s all secular society’s fault. Get it?

Edit: To clarify why I chose these quotes, here is what I wrote in the comments section:

The sad thing is that I do value spirituality and that I do believe religious institutions can play an important role in providing moral guidance. Yet, if those very same institutions are themselves unwilling to live up to the very same moral authority they accord themselves then they are as subversive as the dreaded “secular society”. Even more so, because you can rightly expect them to be better.

Tibet and the Olympic torch – open thread

Posted on by

As you all know, the Olympic torch barely made it through London. And the Chinese are pissed off about it. IOC president Jacques Rogge was not pleased either. From BBC News

“Violence for whatever reason is not compatible with the values of the torch relay or the Olympic Games,” he said.

Okay, first question for our readers to debate. Why were the OG awarded to China, a country whose human rights values do not seem compatible with the values of the OG either? And what does this say about the values of the international community and the IOC?

Second question. China did not occupy Tibet yesterday. In fact the process of colonisation has been going on for a few decades. Why should we get all upset now that China is organizing the Games? And when the Games are over, shall we still be paying attention to Tibet then?

Third question. Why should we even care? Business comes first, right? And, after all, you do not want to mess with a country the size of China. And, who knows, maybe the Chinese will be so pleased with our trade and their Olympic Games that they will change one day. Like we have changed our own ways. Or, have we?

Feel free to get as cynical as I am in answering these questions. In the meantime, keep an eye out for demos in Paris. From the same BBC News article:

The Paris police chief has said the flame will be protected like a head of state. The head of the Paris-based media watchdog, Reporters Without Borders, said it had altered its initial plans for similar demonstrations because of the expected heavy police presence, but nevertheless promised something “spectacular”. “The Chinese have made sure that for a few hours, Paris will look like Tiananmen Square,” Robert Menard said. “I think it’s shameful.”

Fitna is out

Posted on by

Okay, Geert Wilders’ movie Fitna is finally online. It was posted sometime yesterday and the English version has already been viewed over two million times. As I write this the Dutch version is at 2.5 million views. Talk about word-to-mouth!

First, the good news. Wilders did not do anything really stupid and really irresponsible like tear up or otherwise damage or deface the Koran. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever why someone should want to kill him or anybody else over this*. Besides, it turns out there already has been more than enough ado about nothing.

The sixteen minute movie is essentially a copy-and-paste job with verses of the Koran followed by images and speeches of violence and hate in the name of Islam. A good thing about the film is that, at the end, Wilders addresses the Muslim community, or his vision of this community, to tackle the problem of Islam-inspired violence. He does not advocate non-Muslim violence against Islam. The problem with Fitna is that its vision of Islam is terribly one-sided and limited. The movie, basically, could have been made by your average blogger. There is some truth in it, but it gets mixed up with a great number of simplified associations and generalizations.

Anyway, these are my first thoughts. I am writing this in the middle of the night and I think I should have another look at the movie when my mind is well-rested. In the meantime I am looking forward to comments from our readers. You can view Fitna at LiveLeak.com (or here in case of high traffic) and embedded below. Francophone readers can click here. For the time being, I’ll post any updates in the comments section.

*Disclaimer: I do not believe anybody should ever be killed or hurt over an expressed opinion. I wrote this with some of the death threats that Wilders has received in mind.

UPDATE: LiveLeak apparently had to nix the flick but you can still watch it HERE or HERE. Threats suck and are so pre-internets. Plus, they give the movie more credit than it deserves. I am providing the mirror links because now it really has become an issue of freedom of speech. And sadly so.

UPDATE2: Dutch anthropologist Martijn dissects Fitna. He concludes his in-depth and fact-based analysis with:

Astonishing therefore that people are really seeing this film as soft. Are we used already to all the violence that is depicted, don’t we think that using lies, distortions and so on is a problem? It is an irresponsible form of abusing the freedom of speech, not only towards Muslims but also with regard to the people who voted for Wilders. I have spoken to some of them in the past and they have put their faith in him as the one who perhaps could solve the problems they experience. What Wilders has done know is behaving like a charlatan who sells rubbish, nonsense and a pack of lies and something that probably will not solve any problem.

Holland? Flowers!

Posted on by

I am loathe to add to the Wilders-hype, created both by him and the Dutch government, but the following video by Thomas Erdbrink is simply too amazing to let slip by AFOE’s international radar.
Thomas Erdbrink is a Dutch journalist and correspondent for NRC Handelsblad and he has a wonderful blog called Onze Man in Teheran or “Our Man in Tehran”. You guessed it, this man is working and living in Iran.

In his latest post Nederlanders in Iran or “Dutch people in Iran” he describes how he was contacted, in the wake of all the Wilders hype, by a Dutch television journalist regarding the safety of Dutch people in Iran. Erdbrink tells the journalist that “No, Dutch people do not have to go into hiding yet” and that “Things are pretty cool tension-wise”. Erdbrink then discovers that the unnamed journalist did not find this interesting enough and decided to show on television some spectacular stories about Dutch people in Pakistan instead. The tv programme apparently does not show anything about Iran. However, they do mention Iran in the same context.

Thomas Erdbrink does not find this “fair and balanced” and subsequently decides to make his own little documentary. He dresses up like a typical Dutch soccer fan, including orange hat, and starts interviewing Iranian people in the streets showing them a photo of Geert Wilders… I do not have the time, nor the technical skills, to subtitle this video in English, but absolutely no-one Erdbrink interviews mentions either Wilders or any zionist plot in The Netherlands against Iran. The people associate Holland with flowers, dope and Van Basten. Also mentioned are Dutch racism and freedom of speech in The Netherlands.

What I love about this video, apart from Erdbrink’s clear and justified statement about the way journalism should be practiced, is that it shows normal people instead of foaming-at-the-mouth politicians or clergy. Watch, for instance, the Iranian skaters. What a familiar sight they are to our Western eyes. I also have to mention that this video is NOT apologetic of the Iranian regime. A good journalist simply needs to show, as best he can, the diverse reality on the ground and not stoop to all the hype-making politicians are known for. Hence the caption Erdbrink added to his video: “This video may be shocking to people watching Dutch current affairs programmes.” And at the end of the video he walks into an Iranian store to buy some pistachio nuts and… Gouda cheese!

Here is the video. And do not worry if you do not understand Dutch. The interviews are conducted mainly in English and I think the images speak for themselves.

Update: Correction. The guy in the video is not Thomas Erdbrink but a friend of his. And it was this friend who was contacted by the television journalist. Erdbrink and this friend then made the vid together. Sorry, my mistake.