It is always tricky to comment about evolving events in the Middle East. Murky doesn't even begin to qualify the current state of affairs.
What We Know So Far
A few days ago, a stray mortar landed in a border town in Turkey and killed five people, including a mother and her three children. Turkish troops retaliated almost immediately and fired at military positions inside Syria. There are some unconfirmed reports that up to 48 people died as a result and most of them were Syrian soldiers.
Turkey also called an emergency meeting of NATO and sent a letter to UN Security Council demanding unspecified actions against Damascus. As a final touch, the Turkish government convened an emergency session of Parliament and passed a bill that authorizes military action within Syria.
If you add to this picture, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has been going around and jovially advocating safe zones inside Syria, you might assume that this is the beginning of a Turkish military intervention.
Turkish media outlets are convinced that this is the beginning of the end and that Turkey is getting ready to move in.
A Military Intervention in Syria?
As the resident contrarian, I continue to doubt this eventuality.
It is not that I have access to inside information. I just go by Occam's Razor.
To predict a military intervention requires a very convoluted logic, and its proponents typically refer to shadowy influences (usually an Israeli -read Jewish- conspiracy pushed by the US) without explaining what this would achieve.
Military action, even a limited one, would almost certainly escalate rapidly and lead to a protracted civil war. It would give jihadists and Sunni fundamentalists a very prominent role in post-Assad Syria. That civil war could engulf Lebanon and possibly even Jordan. It would certainly put Israel's security in jeopardy. And above all, there is absolutely nothing in it for Turkey.
Until someone can show me how such a move would be beneficial to some regional or international actors, I will maintain my contrarian position.
However, I can see that something significant is taking place and it looks like it will affect the endgame in Syria. I am not exactly sure what this is but there are a few interesting indications that encourage educated guesses.
07 October 2012
03 October 2012
A Monument in Ottawa
A good friend of mine and a loyal reader of this humble soap box, alerted me to the unveiling of a monument in Ottawa in honor of a slain Turkish diplomat.
I found this odd, to say the least. Turkey has always been a remote and distant entity for Canada. The only historic ties between them would be the sympathy felt in Canada for the Commonwealth Anzac Day casualties suffered at the hands of the Ottoman battalions defending Gallipoli.
That and a membership they share in NATO.
Their bilateral trade was tiny for a long time and only in recent years it nudged up (it sounds like a lot but the volume in question represents less than 1% of their foreign trade).
In 2006, Harper government recognized the Armenian genocide and relations have been frosty ever since.
Suddenly, the same conservative government decided to befriend the Islamist government of Turkey by honoring a slain Turkish diplomat.
I was aghast.
The monument was designed and produced in Turkey and Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu came for its unveiling.
According to the Globe and Mail the reason for that radical change was this:
The sad part is that I would feel equally conflicted if I found out that the Erdogan government (and its illustrious Minister of Foreign Affairs Davutoglu) shared my views.
There are times it is hard to be a contrarian.
I found this odd, to say the least. Turkey has always been a remote and distant entity for Canada. The only historic ties between them would be the sympathy felt in Canada for the Commonwealth Anzac Day casualties suffered at the hands of the Ottoman battalions defending Gallipoli.
That and a membership they share in NATO.
Their bilateral trade was tiny for a long time and only in recent years it nudged up (it sounds like a lot but the volume in question represents less than 1% of their foreign trade).
In 2006, Harper government recognized the Armenian genocide and relations have been frosty ever since.
 |
| Credit Fred Chartrand-The Canadian press |
I was aghast.
The monument was designed and produced in Turkey and Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu came for its unveiling.
According to the Globe and Mail the reason for that radical change was this:
An internal foreign policy review carried out last year for Mr. Baird identified Turkey has a key player in the world, and a country that Canada should be focused on.I have to say that I feel somewhat conflicted that my hypothesis about the significance of Turkey as a regional power and a model for Islamist governments might be shared by the illustrious Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird of the Harper government.
The sad part is that I would feel equally conflicted if I found out that the Erdogan government (and its illustrious Minister of Foreign Affairs Davutoglu) shared my views.
There are times it is hard to be a contrarian.
The Anti-Muhammad Movie: Why and Who Benefits From It?
When I heard about the riots following the anti-Muhammad movie trailer, my first reaction was curiosity.
Unlike most people who comments about such issues, I first watched the movie trailer. It was not what I expected. The best word to describe it is comical. The camera was shaky, the set was non existent, the sandy deserts were provided by an incredibly amateurish After Effect background plug-in and the acting was terrible. Moreover, all the anti-Muhammad lines were dubbed in either as a voice over or by someone whose voice was very different from the lead actor. They were unmistakably added on. Clearly, this was not a professional production. In fact, most high school students with a Mac laptop could produce a better clip that this.
My initial curiosity was then replaced with a series of questions: why would someone produce such a clearly silly movie? Since the movie was obviously not an end onto itself what were the goals of its producers?
I also wondered how people who never touched a computer in their lives, let alone watch that trailer on You Tube, were informed of its existence? And why they felt so much rage and outrage?
My final question was: who benefited the most from the reaction to the movie?
Unlike most people who comments about such issues, I first watched the movie trailer. It was not what I expected. The best word to describe it is comical. The camera was shaky, the set was non existent, the sandy deserts were provided by an incredibly amateurish After Effect background plug-in and the acting was terrible. Moreover, all the anti-Muhammad lines were dubbed in either as a voice over or by someone whose voice was very different from the lead actor. They were unmistakably added on. Clearly, this was not a professional production. In fact, most high school students with a Mac laptop could produce a better clip that this.
My initial curiosity was then replaced with a series of questions: why would someone produce such a clearly silly movie? Since the movie was obviously not an end onto itself what were the goals of its producers?
I also wondered how people who never touched a computer in their lives, let alone watch that trailer on You Tube, were informed of its existence? And why they felt so much rage and outrage?
My final question was: who benefited the most from the reaction to the movie?
The Anti-Muhammad Movie: The Debate
If you are aware of the existence this humble soapbox you know that I am not in the morality business. My usual focus is to try to explain something, not to pass judgement.
Today, I will make a rare exception and discuss both sides of an issue, namely the anti-Muhammad movie and the ensuing riots. First, let me focus on the debate and the morality argument behind it. In a separate post I will discuss who benefited from these incidents.
Sanctity of Freedom of Expression vs Sanctity of Religious Beliefs?
I have been following the debate around the 14-minute trailer of that silly movie with growing incredulity. More than anything else, I have been puzzled by the central argument that was proposed to frame the debate, namely the sanctity of the freedom of expression vs the sanctity of religious beliefs.
I am not a believer and I am a strong supporter of the freedom of expression. In fact, I am an extremist in that regard: I believe that all speech, no matter how odious, should be protected. And I have a profound dislike for any fundamentalist belief systems, religious or not.
So this line of argumentation should speak to me. But it didn't. Because I realized quickly that it was a disingenuous framework designed to predetermine the outcome of the debate and in the process, to solicit the support of people like me.
Today, I will make a rare exception and discuss both sides of an issue, namely the anti-Muhammad movie and the ensuing riots. First, let me focus on the debate and the morality argument behind it. In a separate post I will discuss who benefited from these incidents.
Sanctity of Freedom of Expression vs Sanctity of Religious Beliefs?
I have been following the debate around the 14-minute trailer of that silly movie with growing incredulity. More than anything else, I have been puzzled by the central argument that was proposed to frame the debate, namely the sanctity of the freedom of expression vs the sanctity of religious beliefs.
I am not a believer and I am a strong supporter of the freedom of expression. In fact, I am an extremist in that regard: I believe that all speech, no matter how odious, should be protected. And I have a profound dislike for any fundamentalist belief systems, religious or not.
So this line of argumentation should speak to me. But it didn't. Because I realized quickly that it was a disingenuous framework designed to predetermine the outcome of the debate and in the process, to solicit the support of people like me.
10 September 2012
Louis Vuitton, a Belgian Brand?
I am being facetious, of course.
But when it became known that Bernard Arnault, the owner of LVMH and the richest man in France with a fortune of 41 billion euros, applied for Belgian citizenship the French media went crazy.
The headline used by Liberation "Casse-toi riche con" is a reference to a derogatory phrase Sarkozy uttered (the meaning in English is here) while responding to a protester.
The French media predicted that it was because of the silly 75 percent tax rate promised by François Hollande for people who earn more than a million euros a year.
I doubt that it was the case, as he would not be able to divest himself of his holdings in France. Moreover, the 75 percent tax rate is likely to be applied to salaried income (no one knows what the tax entails yet). In France, for 90 percent of the population, salaried income represents 80 percent of their revenue. Whereas for the super rich, such income is less than 20 percent of their annual revenue.
In other words, Arnault's 41 billion euros fortune is not under a socialist threat.
I suspect it was partly a stunt to bring this silly tax to the agenda. Partly, as his press people noted, he has investment plans in Belgium, where he has had residency permit for more than ten years.
Incidentally, the reason I call it a silly tax is the fact that in the best case scenario this tax will only bring €250 million to the French treasury. But symbolically, it is used to paint Hollande like a traditional tax-and-spend socialist.
For my way of thinking, €250 million is not worth the opportunity it gives to people like Arnault to pull stunts like these.
The headline used by Liberation "Casse-toi riche con" is a reference to a derogatory phrase Sarkozy uttered (the meaning in English is here) while responding to a protester.
The French media predicted that it was because of the silly 75 percent tax rate promised by François Hollande for people who earn more than a million euros a year.
I doubt that it was the case, as he would not be able to divest himself of his holdings in France. Moreover, the 75 percent tax rate is likely to be applied to salaried income (no one knows what the tax entails yet). In France, for 90 percent of the population, salaried income represents 80 percent of their revenue. Whereas for the super rich, such income is less than 20 percent of their annual revenue.
 |
| Credit Reuters |
In other words, Arnault's 41 billion euros fortune is not under a socialist threat.
I suspect it was partly a stunt to bring this silly tax to the agenda. Partly, as his press people noted, he has investment plans in Belgium, where he has had residency permit for more than ten years.
Incidentally, the reason I call it a silly tax is the fact that in the best case scenario this tax will only bring €250 million to the French treasury. But symbolically, it is used to paint Hollande like a traditional tax-and-spend socialist.
For my way of thinking, €250 million is not worth the opportunity it gives to people like Arnault to pull stunts like these.
Soros on Eurozone: Inflation or Bust
It is not everyday that you discover that George Soros is making the same argument as you. And on something as complex as the Eurozone crisis.
According to the BBC, Soros will give a speech today in Germany and he will recommend that Eurozone countries should have a new growth target of 5 percent. In an article published two days ago in the New York Times Review of Books he contends that to do this, they should give up the austerity idea (what I called, after Krugman, internal devaluation) and should accept a higher inflation rate.
Since Germany is the biggest stumbling bloc in that respect, apparently, Soros is planning to suggest hat Germany should either accept this solution or exit the Euro. Or as he puts it,
Incidentally, Soros believes, as I do, that a German (or Finnish, as predicted by Roubini) exit would be less problematical than a Greek exit, as this latter would almost certainly trigger a domino effect.
It would be interesting to see if anyone would pay attention to Soros' recommendations. In the past, many institutions paid a heavy price for ignoring him. He has an exceptionally sharp understanding of major trends (he sensed the 2008 crisis and took control of his Quantum fund just in time to post a series of very high returns when everyone else was losing substantial sums) and if I were Merkel, I would listen to him carefully.
 |
| Credit Bloomberg |
According to the BBC, Soros will give a speech today in Germany and he will recommend that Eurozone countries should have a new growth target of 5 percent. In an article published two days ago in the New York Times Review of Books he contends that to do this, they should give up the austerity idea (what I called, after Krugman, internal devaluation) and should accept a higher inflation rate.
Since Germany is the biggest stumbling bloc in that respect, apparently, Soros is planning to suggest hat Germany should either accept this solution or exit the Euro. Or as he puts it,
In my judgment the best course of action is to persuade Germany to choose between becoming a more benevolent hegemon, or leading nation, or leaving the euro. In other words, Germany must lead or leave.Indeed, Europe has a German problem.
Incidentally, Soros believes, as I do, that a German (or Finnish, as predicted by Roubini) exit would be less problematical than a Greek exit, as this latter would almost certainly trigger a domino effect.
It would be interesting to see if anyone would pay attention to Soros' recommendations. In the past, many institutions paid a heavy price for ignoring him. He has an exceptionally sharp understanding of major trends (he sensed the 2008 crisis and took control of his Quantum fund just in time to post a series of very high returns when everyone else was losing substantial sums) and if I were Merkel, I would listen to him carefully.
08 September 2012
Big Brother Is Watching
Last, week a group known as AntiSec posted one million UDID or Unique Device Identifiers used by Apple to put together each IOS device (iPhone, iPad or iPods) and its owner's private data.
Basically, we are talking about my iPhone ID along with my address, my numbers, applications I downloaded and a bunch of other personal information.
AntiSec stands for Operation Anti Security and refers to a number of hactivist attacks by members of a group known as LulzSec (Lulz Security). They are associated with the hacker group Anonymous. You might have seen them on TV news wearing Guy Fawkes masks supporting Occupy Wall Street movement.
They hackers released a long statement (worth reading if you want to understand their motivations) to explain that the information came from the laptop of an FBI Special Agent by the name of Christopher Stangl. And the file contained 12 million UDIDs.
In other words, FBI had a large database of personal information of IOS device users (iPhone users to you and me).
They said that, before releasing these one million IDs, they scrubbed the attached personal information.
FBI was not pleased. They first sent out a tweet denying the fact that they had people's private information on an FBI laptop. It is a cute one.
 |
| Credit wikipedia |
Basically, we are talking about my iPhone ID along with my address, my numbers, applications I downloaded and a bunch of other personal information.
AntiSec stands for Operation Anti Security and refers to a number of hactivist attacks by members of a group known as LulzSec (Lulz Security). They are associated with the hacker group Anonymous. You might have seen them on TV news wearing Guy Fawkes masks supporting Occupy Wall Street movement.
They hackers released a long statement (worth reading if you want to understand their motivations) to explain that the information came from the laptop of an FBI Special Agent by the name of Christopher Stangl. And the file contained 12 million UDIDs.
In other words, FBI had a large database of personal information of IOS device users (iPhone users to you and me).
They said that, before releasing these one million IDs, they scrubbed the attached personal information.
FBI was not pleased. They first sent out a tweet denying the fact that they had people's private information on an FBI laptop. It is a cute one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)