Since 1863 - a time of bloody internal conversation - the United States has celebrated annually Thanksgiving -  a day to recognise the benefits of peace,  a day to remember the fortunes of this nation, and as Congress proclaimed, 'a day of SOLEMN THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies'. For in many senses this is a day where the majority within the nation's 'secular' society, sits with their religious understanding; a way of translating their own particular 'manifest destiny' with their country's material success. Or is it visa versa?  
 
What is instructive about Thanksgiving is it ranks alongside Christmas and New Year as one the United States few principle federal holidays. This after all is a key domestic affair as it acknowledges implicitly and explicitly the exceptional nature of this 'united nation' and its separation not its congregation from the rest of the World. It is there to remind us all that its closely guarded unified independence is the real recipe of their success. In other words, the notion of self reliance is not just applicable to the individual but also to the nation as a whole.
 
But like much of the 'American Dream' this idea that the US became and remains pre-eminent because of its divine and divorced condition is largely nonsense. The United States on going political and military power is the product of a particular of form of economic and political literacy that continually demands expression, originated by the 'unchallenged' access to raw materials, the industrial revolution, and its imagination and innovation in turning these natural gifts of ideas and ingredients into products that would be sold, resold and retold world wide. The post civil war domestic markets that expanded due to increasing immigration was never going to be able to consume sufficient to satisfy the growing rapacious incorporation of the United States and therefore, it is not coincidental that the 'internationalisation' of the United States political and economic religion found real traction after this declaration of 'Thanksgiving', and the end of their destructive internal argument about the 'meaning of life'.
 
The subsequent 'real success' of the United States has been its unrivalled ability to sell one story and live another without real fear of any further divisive, destructive contradictions: The American Dream providing liberty and opportunity for all due to the unique 'genius of the people': American power that allows the nation to insulate itself from other nation's woes whilst benefiting from its continued participation and intervention in our capitalised world - One of those stories is largely fictional one is not. In other words, due to the mystic of 'unrivalled freedom' that cloaked the reality of geographical determination, political construction and commercial power, whilst other nations fought often self destructively on their own territory for their own understanding of liberty the US has remained largely untouched. The Founder's 'original' interpretation of freedom had long been dismantled on the battlefields of Sumter, Shiloh and Gettysburg and replaced by a Republican Washington into the self serving image of Wall Street and eventually a self service Wall Mart.
 
As growing technological advancements suggested that the natural separation that the New World long enjoyed was under threat the US maintained its insulated condition throughout the The First and Second World War, and the Cold War by protecting its natural borders on other nation's real estate. This is not to suggest that this approach was cost free, however, although US human capital was spent maintaining their domestic integrity the nation remained intact while other nations less fortunate bore a terrible cost. As we are witnessing at present the United States continuing default position to conflict is stark: unless we can clearly identify that 'we have a dog in this fight' stay clear.  
 
Moreover, this approach has allowed the US to benefit hugely financially from 'other nation's conflicts'. The First World War offering the US a material glimpse of the American Dream during the 1920's, the Second World War providing the environment for a decade of unrivalled growth as 1950's America experienced a step change in standards of living that have never been bettered. However, the Cold War abruptly reminded the US that no matter how powerful you are you cannot expect to control and order all international society without there being a domestic price. Vietnam, Afghanistan and then the Middle East continue to demonstrate that. Yet, as the United States sits down to their Turkey dinner with Pumpkin pie their celebratory thoughts will be towards their domestic fortune and future and not to their 'adventures' elsewhere.
 
The President will take time away from the matters of State to enjoy these peaceful celebrations; a far cry from the condition that now envelops parts of Europe, and has engulfed the Middle East for many a year. There will be the obligatory sound/film bite as Obama utters: God Bless America, but of course there will be no reference to the United States complicity in the conflicting story overseas since it just would not fit into their prevailing unflinching narrative. However, that should not stop us reminding the President that instead of concentrating on national self praise and meaningless rhetoric he should actual recognise that the United States continuing 'good fortune' has been due to others huge efforts and sacrifices outside of their nation's borders as well as to their own 'genius of the people'. That after all is truly worth saying thank you for.
 
KK
 
   
 
KK 
 

 
  
 
                           

In my previous blog I tried to link European understanding/experiences with American imperatives - A Tale of Two Cities: Paris and Washington - as a way of suggesting that the differences between these two worlds are many in spite of shared values and aims that the empowered and the lazy love to concentrate on. Then came Brussels... and the reaction to the 'terrorists on the lose' was markedly different from Paris, Why the security shut down? What does the 'capital of Europe' represent that Paris does not? Is this just a natural heightened extension of fear after missed opportunities or is their something else in the mix?    
 
Brussels is primarily the capital of Belgium but sometimes you wonder. I find it far easier to speak English in the capital then poor Flemish especially if I'm hungry, OK thirsty - I'm not the only one. But lets pretend that it is not now dominated by French language and sentiment, lets pretend that this form of cultural nationalism does not matter - it shouldn't but it does to some - and recognise that Brussels is the archetypal hub; citizens of the World spilling in and spinning off around Europe - an amazingly vibrant crossroads. It is also the administrative centre of the EU. Did Brussels actually invent the word Bureaucracy! If they didn't they should of, just listen  to the way EU institutions communicate, it defies 'gravity'.            

Brussels also, crucially, is the centre of the United States political and military footprint in Europe - NATO. This organisation was initially set up to protect 'Free Europe' from the dastardly Soviets. But when that particular raison d'etre ended a new reason for maintaining this institution had to be found, Why? Couldn't Europe of 1990's provide their own security ? Didn't the US want to go home ? After all victory had been declared, the US had won and as Hegel sort of predicted, history was a process that would end with no longer anything to be written about. Well, as awkward questions started to be asked about this institution's future, 'thank heavens' along came the Balkans conflict and the 'War on Terror' linking for 'ever 'European security to American imperatives. But what is fundamental to this ongoing relationship is the majority of NATO's funding comes from Washington, the majority of the military input from West Point, and regardless of what European face fronts this organisation the agenda continues to be set  and influenced by Washington. In other words, the lens that is looked through to consider European security was undoubtedly made in silicon valley.           
 
Therefore, as the US has 'significant' assets in Brussels I wondered if the urgency and agency surrounding this new approach in Brussels  had something to do with Washington talking to Charles Michel? Surely not! What I can suggest with some degree of surety is that this conversation would have been far more clearly understood than Secretary Kerry's talks with the Elysee Palace earlier in the week. UK PM Cameron's meeting with President Hollande tomorrow in Paris is not coincidental, this leading Brit is there to clarify what Kerry did not understand as well as saying thank you for the French led UN agreement earlier in the week. The British PM if he wishes to continue to eat at all the political top tables must keep Washington in the loop - as Kissinger famously remarked but then half heartedly denied, 'who do I call if I wish to call Europe'? Ironically, and surely paradoxically the answer was London. Why not Brussels? And we wonder why Europe still remains a mystery to the average desk bound State Department official let alone the political decision-makers! 
 
Last week, the influential US Atlantic magazine printed an article entitled, 'What is Wrong with Belgium?  Strange since two years ago whilst talking to three State Department officials based in Brussels they asked roughly the same question, roughly since we had all been drinking copious amount of Belgium beer. Putting aside their expletives the staffers observations were focused on the differences between this nation's understanding of freedom and Washington's. I did observe that you cannot expect Brussels to be Boston or Baton Rouge, precisely came the retort that is 'your' problem. I would not have minded but no one laughed.    
 
On Thursday the United States celebrates Thanksgiving  - I will write nearer the time on this - but I hope that many in Belgium are NOW counting their blessings that how lucky they are/ we are to live in this place and space with our particular unique nuanced understanding of freedom regardless of the few that come to live here and try to infect our society with hatred.For our sense of life should not be up for debate regardless of where and who, and Brussels should reflect that in any language that is clearly understood.
 
We zijn allemaal Belgen   (excuse my poor Flemish)

 
KK 
          
 

 

Paris a week on from the attacks remains sombre, agitated, anxious. These dismembered sentiments have been extended and accentuated into St Denis as security services using massive fire power stormed and destroyed their 'targets'. This reactive mood was further substantiated by President Hollande's call to extend emergency powers: the banning of demonstrations; tight quasi-military control of public places and spaces; 'on the spot' identity checks. There is little doubt that the mood in the city has changed but how deep and for how long... 
 
There is also little doubt who caused this outrage. So let us remove any doubt as to the three points of reference that should influence what we should do next. Firstly, IS is not a product of Western societal behaviour, it is perverse, mutated version of Islam that has more to do with contested religiosity in the Middle East then any sense of American or European liberalism. Secondly, tragically, because of myopic, insulated American foreign policy supported by European acquiescence and or abstinence, which knew how to start wars but forgot how to end them, we have helped create the opportunity, the space for this socio-political abomination to develop an agenda, gain a foothold and start to secure its 'future'. Thirdly, although other 'terrorist groups' continue to pose an on-going threat to Western security IS offers an exceptionally ' clear and present danger' to us all because their 'representatives' have gained access through our 'forgiving borders' due to the wash back of those ill considered and short term foreign policy initiatives driven by Washington and confirmed in Brussels.  
 
Where are we now? Whether Europe likes it or not Washington and President Obama continues to be the real lead in this situation. Hence, What does Obama see? More importantly what does he want to see?

He looks to the Middle East and... Afghanistan if it ever was a proper state has now returned in large part to Taliban control while Kabul and its immediate surroundings hangs on grimly to some sort of recognised civics. Syria is a broken and dismembered society. Iraq as a political and social entity that no longer exists, it is in three pieces, the IS Caliphate, Kurdistan and a Shia nominated region. Consequently, all these failed states have or are disgorging much of their citizenship onto and into Europe via Lebanon and Turkey. If you add to this the collapse of Libya, the return of a military dictatorship to Egypt, the on going Gordian knot that is Palestine and Israel and the Saudi/Iranian backed conflict in the Yemen the view is hellish.     
 
What does Obama and Washington want to see? What would Paris and Europe like to see? Primarily, the removal of IS, the ending of the civil war in Syria and a return of civil society. A real placement of security in Afghanistan and the introduction of a federal understanding in the region previously known as Iraq. Secondly, the genuine reintroduction of talks based on the 'two state' solution for Palestine and Israel. A constructed plan to drag Libya back from the brink of societal collapse. The cessation of Saudi Arabian and Iranian support for the conflict in the Yemen and the introduction of a 'peace building' force.     
 
This lengthy wish list or any part of it can only be achieved in any meaningful manner if three conditions are introduced. Firstly, the lead on this situation should not be the White House or Brussels but the United Nations driven by the Security Council and supported by the General Assembly. This allows the other significant partners - Russia and Iran - to be responsibly involved. The primary objectives for the UN are clear, the swift, unredeemable removal of IS and the settling of the Syrian civil war, as a consequence some semblance of political social balance will eventually return to 'Iraq'. Secondly, far greater involvement of other Middle East nations in taking responsibility for their own futures - as nation-states and as a region. Especially, in the areas of displaced people, local governance and funding of these 'terrorist' groups. Thirdly, that the US and Europe should re-evaluate their joint understanding of regional security policy and how it should be achieved since Europe should not leave itself vulnerable to the vagaries of Washington politics. Just because the US and EU share some common aims, values and history does that mean we should always follow in the dominant partner's path?

Is Paris just the result of unforeseen consequences? Possibly, but the key question is why were they unforeseen? The principal reasons seems obvious: US imperatives are not always aligned or sensitive to European needs for  understandable reasons; Europe has for far too long ducked responsibility for foreign affairs and therefore, has become far too reliant on 'Uncle Sam'. To consider these observations just visit Washington and then Paris; they are distinctly different worlds filled with competing cultures and competitive politics. Especially now...                                       
   
KK

A very ordinary autumnal Friday evening in Paris was unseasonally bright almost balmy but otherwise it was typically Parisian, the streets busied themselves as people finished their weekly toil and strolled off to find a glass in their local cafe, a plate in their favourite restaurant, a seat in their concert hall, or to chant their way to the national stadium as Les Bleus took on the 'old foe' Germany. For as anyone who has been to Paris will know this is a place and space that enjoys, understands and lives Liberté. Moreover, because historically, culturally and politically this city stubbornly defies other ways of being it continues to offer a unique form of Fraternité.
 
Suddenly 'these best of times became the worst of times' as this majestic 'City of Light' darkened. The ensuing carnage defies words, at least 129 people are dead and hundreds injured. One of the first to respond to this murderous outrage was President Obama who spoke with genuine humanity and humility - I paraphrase - 'as France has been there for the United States so the United States would be there for France', as it struggles to deal with this gross violation of civic society. France is 'our oldest ally'. The closest these two nations will get to Égalité. Yet whatever the level of friendship and understanding that these two nations share the key issue that continues to nag away at all of us is the growing recognition that this unremitting cycle and circle of violence can only be broken if we confront and diffuse this 'war' without continuing to resort to more violence, destruction and isolation.       

The main fuel of this dystopian process is fear. This is not a new understanding since Franklin D Roosevelt's inaugural observation that 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself' became a modern day truism. Fear after all  has become recently an emotion that seems far more powerful than hope. Yet our continuing eagerness to intervene in other nation's disputes, to adopt a moral crusades without any real understanding of what to do next, to remove leaders that do not conform to our understanding of life has left vacuums in societies that have been filled largely by forces and ideas that fail to understand humanity, who fail to understand hope. What struck me as I listened to the latest Democrat TV debate last night was the inability of Saunders, O'Malley and Clinton to articulate a policy or a plan that did not involve more intervention or more insulation.    
 
Aung San Suu Kyi the Burmese political reformer observed recently that the true definition of freedom is to be found when fear has been eradicated. It was clear last night that this condition is nowhere to be found. Since there is no real answer to this practical and existential crisis when our would be leaders are too frightened to speak their minds and too frightened to think differently. The French mother being told in a Paris hospital that her young son died at Bataclan wished they had - an absolute personal tragedy. Yet our politician's will review this event alongside Madrid, Mumbai, and Charlie Hebdo and come just see it regardless of tragedy and humanity, as just another piece of grim statistics.

 
This condition is truly scary...

 
Je Suis Paris

 
KK
 


 
       

Lewis Carroll's 'The Hunting of the Snark' has often been portrayed as a deeply philosophical, even theological search for the meaning of life without truly identifying, understanding or needing to understand what 'the Snark' actually is. Similarly, on Tuesday we witnessed the latest in a series of televised GOP debates as the Republicans continued their own particular quest for a a true conservative that could explain what American life is and as a consequence win against the liberal, libertine and clearly loathsome Clinton. The underlying argument being that the reason why Obama won two consecutive terms was because the Republicans failed to put up an authentic conservative and therefore, their supporters stayed at home. After all McCain and Romney were just moderate, weak and diluted representations of what life really stands for in the United States. Hence, Bush, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Kasich, Paul, Rubio, and Trump have all been identified as potentially the 'real deal', the right type of political animal that can lead the nation's search for conservative fulfilment and happiness. If only they can identify themselves?  
 
Unlike the previous TV debates the moderators from Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal largely focused their questions on financial and security policies and not on personalities, interestingly, this approach provided the best evidence to date of the differing characteristics that each candidate offered in this endless search. Rand Paul provided a view that traditional isolationists would have been happy with, whilst Carly Fiorina offered a corporate conservatism that would have sat well with Big Business if not Wall Street. Moreover, Ben Carson seemed to represent a closer, more genuine understanding of this own individual 'hunt for the snark' since the madness that Carroll induces in his allegory is certainly present in Carson's personal insanity as he tried desperately to square the circle between truth and deceit while not understanding the difference between them.
 
Predictably, Donald 'Duck' Trump offered the 'entertainment' as with his customary surety that comes from being a 'self made man' he noted that the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US should all be sent home - wherever that is - whilst a slumberous, somnolent Jeb Bush on hearing this view suddenly awoke observing this idea to be errant nonsense without truly understanding why. But clearly both these 'hunters' share common ground; they lack any real substance to support their political and social utterances, the only difference being is at least Trump provides some amusing if sometimes offensive nonsense whilst Bush offers little that is close to thought, entertainment or offence. This leaves Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Both are articulate, well groomed and informed, but informatively whilst Cruz spoke willingly on the immigration issue through his own particular understanding of the law Rubio chose not too, since these two differ not so much on the meaning of life but on who it is applicable too. 
 
Therefore, the search continues... with Cruz and Rubio probably offering the Republicans with the best opportunity to defeat the dangerous, insidious and demonic Hilary. However, as we start to leave the ' parallel realities' of the TV debates and enter the true world of primary elections we wonder what will come first the madness that is induced by the Republicans searching for a true American Conservative (the Snark) or for the hunting down and finding the real meaning of life? As McCain and Romney learnt to their cost relatively recently it requires one form of lunacy to prove your right wing conservative credentials to the Republican Convention but subsequently, it takes an entirely different form of neurosis to make these views acceptable to the majority of Americans - hey, that's life wherever that Snark might be!     
 
KK