AP report on secret CIA prison in Romania (EN)

More details here.

UPDATE: Huffington Post is running the same as its lead story, and with a more dramatic title:

Embracing the opportunity (and risks) of Arab democracy (EN)

As the authoritarian order in the Arab world is shaking in the face of popular uprisings that have broken through the socially entrenched fear barrier, an equally epic struggle is taking place in the West to come to terms with its own fears vis-a-vis the Arabs, and to comprehend the until recently unimaginable prospect of Arab democracy. 

For the West, the current dilemma is whether to embrace what looks like the chance of an unprecedented democratic opening in the Middle East (and, yes, with all the risks associated to it), or stick to the old comfort zone of familiar dictators who deliver "stability and security" in a volatile region.

This shouldn't be a dilemma at all.
For the "realist" position of privileging "stability" over change is riddled with inconsistencies and, in the longer term, breeds risks at least as serious than those associated with the alternative.

Something brewing (EN)

UPDATE 2 (14/01): Developments have indeed accelerated in Tunisia - we see the collapse of the regime as we speak. This more and more resembles the fall of the communist system in Eastern Europe in 1989. To watch in the coming period the other countries mentioned in this post.

UPDATE (14/01):  A breakthrough in Tunisia! Things may accelerate in the coming period.

Something is brewing in the Islamic world.

From Iran, 18 months after the rigged presidential elections in June 2009, the main news is not that the regime is still in place, but that the green movement is still alive, managing to propagate a continued message of reason, democracy and moderation (like this one by Mir Hossein Mousavi, the real victor of the 2009 elections) that gains popular support. In fact, in spite of the brutal repression by the regime (a de facto military dictatorship that has been forced to implicitly abandon any pretense of democratic or even religious legitimacy) for a year and a half, the resistance has strengthened its grassroot base and consistently maintained the high moral ground. The standoff continues and it is very difficult to predict when the regime will collapse. For one thing, all the guns are in the regime's hands and it has repeatedly proven that it has no hesitation to use them against the people. However, following a pattern previously seen in the demise of other dictatorships like Romania's Ceausescu regime in 1989, there are small but increasingly visible cracks within the establishment.

True, Iran is shi'a, and in many ways is a standalone case.

But what is happening lately across Northern Africa - in particular Tunisia and Algeria, to some extent Egypt - also signals a broader tendency in the "Western-friendly" South Mediterranean rim: the survival instincts and vital energy of a new generation clash with the status quo of rigid dictatorships led by aging strongmen (Ben Ali, Bouteflika and Moubarak respectively). The lid that has been kept on any dissent for many years has only helped build up pressure; sooner or later, in one form or another, it has to erupt.

This is potentially a turning point. 

In a few years from now, we could have more open and inclusive societies in a traditionally volatile area that has Western Europe within missile (or suicide bombing) range. But the eventual transformation is not risk-free, and increased radicalization is one of the possible outcomes.

A Shame (EN)

This piece of news is an illustration of how wrong things may sometimes go under the label of "justice" in today's world.

To recap:
- the US invades Iraq on false pretenses of links to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction; in the process, it topples Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime under which Iraqis had been suffering for many years;
- the invasion war is followed by occupation and a bloody civil war, during which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are killed, many at the hands of US troops and security contractors under the label of "collateral victims"; scores others suffered injuries and abuse;
- under a new Administration, the US eventually decides to pull out from Iraq and announces the end of combat operations;
- and now Iraq (which has been in a politically fragile situation and without a legitimate post-elections government for months) is pressed into agreeing to compensate american victims of Saddam's regime.

Building an impossible future (EN)

Israel is currently locked in a losing battle with the rest of the world to assert an impossible vision.

The vision to which the current Israeli government committed itself is that Israel has an absolute and unquestionable right to do anything it deems necessary to secure itself - whatever the costs and implications, whatever the suffering and death that it inflicts on others. By refusing to accept limits and constraints to its actions, which are the very essence of civilization, it effectively behaves as a barbarian entity.

The battle to impose this vision is one that Israel cannot possibly win, and - as so many of its honest friends realize - one that will certainly turn it into a pariah state and may potentially lead to its destruction.

The latest blunder at sea is only the latest episode in a long series of - by now - familiar occurrences.

Want Change? (EN)

(Includes UPDATE after the jump)

During the 2008 presidential elections in the US, change was the central campaign slogan. Obama was the first to use it consistently and seize the change momentum; and also the more obvious change candidate. But by the later stages of the long primary campaign, Hillary Clinton - who had initially branded herself as the experienced candidate - was contesting the change mantle herself. And in the proper elections, even John McCain, the candidate of the incumbent party, tried to sell himself as a maverick and champion for change.

It's interesting to see how the change slogan has now caught on in the UK elections.
The LibDems of course are the natural "change party", and the slogan that opens their website is: Change that works for you.
On the other hand, it must be impossible for Labour to use the C-word after 13 years in power, and with Gordon Brown a veteran Chancellor of the Exchequer and subsequently Prime Minister.

But the Conservatives? Why not?
Their (very mediocre, if you ask me) campaign videos - like the one below, or the one here - end up with this rather counter-intuitive punchline: Vote for change, vote Conservative!




But... wait a minute! Isn't Conservatism supposed to be more about stability and (return to) traditions than about change? Sure enough, a Conservative government would be a change after 13 years of Labour, but to make change the central campaign slogan is in a way like saying: "Vote for social justice and equality, vote Libertarian!", or "Free sex and drugs for all - vote the Catholic party!"

What does this change frenzy reveal about the political psychology on the two sides of the Atlantic? And where can this dynamics eventually lead?

Patriotic Resisance (EN)

Patriotic "Resisance" is what happens when the New Barbarians get their troops out to demonstrate.
There is a lot more where this came from.
And remember this?


The epic struggle that is taking place in America is not just one of civilization against barbarity. It is also one of reason vs irrational fear and proud ignorance.

The Principle of Communicating Vessels (EN)

------
UPDATE (25/03): Since I wrote this post, I noticed several comments (see here, also on BBC World yesterday) that getting healthcare reform out of the way has enabled Obama to adopt a tougher line with Netanyahu. I made my original comment in that respect (see below) hours before healthcare reform was voted in the House of Representatives. If anyone can find an earlier comment making this point, please let me know. Until then, I proudly claim the credit of being the first having noted this implication :)
-------

Though I have watched it passionately, I don't have any strong feelings about the substance of the debate on health insurance reform in the US. There are a lot of technicalities in the arguments that have been going back and forth; some of the objections from the conservative camp seem reasonable; it also seems odd for America not to be able to offer basic care to its sick, like virtually every other rich nation has been doing for a long time.

What gets me excited about this day is not the policy substance of healthcare reform, but the broader political significance of the moment. And its potential consequences for issues that I care a lot more about.

Tough Call (EN)

I wonder whether this guy will be seen by the Tea Party movement (or by the New Barbarians) as a hero, or as a terrorist.

Speeding to the Edge (EN)

The data in the table above comes from a recent opinion poll among self-identified Republicans in the US.

Some time ago I wrote:

At some point over the past decade, the New Barbarians took over the GOP and turned it into an ecosystem that breeds ideologically brainwashed, bullying mutants and takes out the oxygen of those with a rational, critical mind.

We are starting to see those mutant life forms multiplying in the ecosystem of the Republican Party and gradually submerging the GOP through the power of their sheer number.


Click here for the full data of the poll, as it has some other interesting items - for instance, Palin and Cheney come respectively number one (by far) and number three (very close to second) in the respondents' preferences for the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. And if you have time take a look at Nate Silver's cogent analysis of what may be the implications for GOP's electoral politics of the unusually uniform views among the Republican base.

But here is my point: the GOP is getting caught into a chain of events that spells its doom.

"Waterboarding Wins" (EN)

(UPDATE after the jump)

Exactly one year into Obama's mandate, the Democrats are losing Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, which they had held for 57 years. Just as Obama's election was the most improbable thing to happen, so is this huge upset by Scott Brown.

Yesterday's debacle in Massachusetts, most observers agree, was wholly preventable for the Democrats. A combination of ineptitude, overconfidence and complacency from the state party, combined with the perceived ineffectiveness in Washington and the resurgence of culture wars, made it possible for the Republican underdog to campaign as the change candidate and win against a totally uninspiring Democratic opponent, notwithstanding her 30-point lead in some polls just weeks before the election (!!!).

But this also speaks of America's confusion and very volatile emotions these days.

Where America's Founding Principles Came to Die (EN)

Three months ago I wrote:

The real, mortal danger comes when a civilization's core values are compromised from the inside. When the very things that distinguish it from its enemies are trampled by those who claim to be their defendants. When those who make the decisions at the centre give away moral superiority for the sake of some temporary tactical advantage. When in the fog of war one forgets what he or she ultimately stands for and morphs into something else.
In absolute, atemporal logic, this is the biggest threat for a civilization: to lose or compromise its core principles. From there on, it's only a matter of time before it succumbs to historical erosion.

What emerges from Guantanamo seems to confirm the worst fears.
Read Andrew Sullivan's text after the jump. And his other today's pieces that are linked from there. Read carefully. And reflect.

Sadly, the mindset that made it possible seems to be back, and its champions ride the wave again. We'll talk about that soon.
I would just say now that America increasingly hysterically has begun to hate the hope that it voted for little more than a year ago.
I ultimately don't much care about Obama, he's just a guy. And yes, he maybe screwed up a thing or two. But this is not about him, it's about us.
God save us.

Bowing to Royalty (EN)

He did it again!
Why is Obama bowing to foreign monarchs? What message does this send? And why some in the US have a problem with this?

Critics say that by bowing the president forfeits American dignity and sends a message of weakness. Dick Cheney, who in 2007 shook the Emperor's hand without bowing, said that "There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don't expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness".

Supporters see the bows - or at least the latest one - as an expression of politeness and cultural sensitivity.

Interestingly enough, a large majority of Americans is not riled by Obama's bowing - in fact, a full two thirds (67%) approve, including a majority of Republicans (53%). And this nowhere else than in a Fox News Poll.

I'm pretty cool about the bows.

The Meaning of Abu Ghraib (EN)

My statement that the New Barbarians pose a bigger threat to the Western civilization than Al Qaeda (and also than islamic fundamentalism, nuclear proliferation, rogue states or any other external enemy) has raised some eyebrows. I will try to explain.

The point is not whether more Americans (or West-Europeans) and foreign civilians have perished or are at risk because of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld policies (or those of their allies in Europe) than due to, say, terrorist attacks over the same period. While the case could be made, the point isn't about the body count. Rather, it's about the nature of the threat.

The New Barbarians (III) (EN)

If you wanted to see Sarah Palin at the White House and if you are a fan of Joe the Plumber, you are likely to love Glenn Beck's show on Fox:

The Meaning of Obama (EN)

America is not just a country like others. It is also a concept, an integral part of the collective conscience of the world. An ideal of freedom and limitless opportunity. The American dream is not the dream of Americans, it is a part of the dreams of many around the world. America's messianic ambition ("Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." reads the bronze plaque inside the Statue of Liberty) has inspired not only the millions of migrants, who left their countries and communities for a fresh start in the New World; but also those who remained behind to claim their rights and challenge their rulers.
Thus, America in a way is necessarily always bigger than itself. Its meaning to the world far exceeds its historical incarnation at any given moment.

The New Barbarians (II) (EN)

So why is Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize?
Most people I talked to are perplexed. Surely he hasn't done anything truly great so far, except maybe being the first non-white to win US presidential elections... but this is hardly a reason for being awarded the Nobel.

I have a different explanation, which starts eight years ago.

The New Barbarians (I) (EN)

The Western civilization is under attack, and in serious danger. And the most serious danger comes not from Al Qaeda-type terrorism, fundamentalist Islam, rogue states, nuclear proliferation or any other external factor. Rather, it comes from within, from people who profess to be its defenders. And who, in the name of defending the West's fundamental values violate them on a routine basis. People who think they can abolish the rules when it suits them, and reinstate them at will. Who think double standards are OK - e.g. you can unlawfully spy on your citizens or torture suspects and be a liberal democracy at the same time. Who think you can eat a cake and have it.

I call them the New Barbarians.