Small talk

Iran is a trouble(d) country, a place where women are oppressed and do not enjoy the equality as many grew so accustomed to. Its reign is one of terror, its fist made of iron and patience is running low. Ahmadinejad is considered a recalcitrant and extremely provocative leader who can only do well in the eyes of those who hate ‘Western Capitalism’, such as Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez.

While women are oppressed, they are also the spearheads of forces steering towards a revolution. My knowledge is not great enough to tell whether or not one is coming any time soon, but I certainly hope so. There is a reason why women are said to be so active in the protests: They have most to gain.

Change is what is needed on many fronts. China and Russia are still holding the west back in imposing sanctions on Iran. You might ask, why not walk the path on your own? And that would be a relevant question. The USA fought the war in Iraq without UN support, but they’re unwilling to impose economical sanctions on Iran, just because China does not want this. It is as ridiculous as it sounds. Even the people of Iran -who are being told over and over again that everything wrong can be attributed to the west-, realize this is an inadequate explanation or justification of their lives of fear. You cannot criticize religious institutions, you cannot criticize the government.

China has a ‘hands-off’ approach along the lines of ‘don’t meddle with our internal affairs, and we won’t even bother to ask you questions on the most simple of things’. This is easy, as they themselves are as corrupt, vicious and unrighteous. In the meantime Iran is setting course to become a nuclear power, which is why actions taken by the UN and USA are so absurd. Though I am no fan of Israeli policies in general, their devotion to secure their existence and freedom via fierce military action can teach us a lot. In the 80’s they acted swiftly when Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear reactor. If they feel endangered, they attack. If Israel knew it would succeed, then I am convinced they would have destroyed each and every one of Iran’s nuclear sites.

My suggestion is not going to war, not at all. There are many ways to get what you want, and politics combined with economics can lead to persuasive results. Fact is that our policies were too soft for too long, which means words and deeds must now be combined in a much more offensive manner to get anything done. Economic sanctions, to prevent Iran from continuing their nuclear projects, are easily justified here, though I doubt that it’ll be enough (if anything at this point still is), as they’re notoriously difficult when it comes to making compromises.

They’re also notoriously infantile on human-rights. Yes, they might have officially signed the declaration of universal human-rights, but that will not prevent nine upcoming executions for ‘taking up arms against God’. One more reason to keep your state well separated from religion.
Under all circumstances, I oppose the penalty of death. It is both irreversible and immoral. It takes us down to a level characterized by revenge, rather than keeping in mind who is the criminal and who should be the wiser man (or woman, naturally). Lady Ashton, the High Representative of the European Commission, clearly agrees as you can read here in a press release. I am very glad that the EU unanimously agrees that the death penalty is not a solution, not even an option.

Europe has its Lisbon Treaty, it is time to step up, take the stage and play the aspired role. Simple words which can be waved away like an irritating mosquito will not bring us anywhere. There are two countries toying with Europe: China and Iran. Its time to put that to an end.

It is nearly three years ago that Hamas took over control and started their bloody reign over the Gaza-strip. Seen as the counter side of more secular minded Fatah, it gets little respect except from extremist and other irrational thinking creatures.

Belgium, where Europe’s hearts pumps -on foreign policies like that of a dying man-, planned to send its minister for development there. Israeli Deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon thought this wasn’t a very good idea.

We’ve heard his name in the news before. Only a few weeks ago he had a meeting with the Turkish ambassador, over allegedly insulting video material that was broadcast on Turkish television, after which he stated words in Hebrew that wouldn’t do much good in any Islamic orientated country, or, for that matter, in any country at all.

This time Israel made the news because the Belgium minster was not welcome in Gaza. The reason is Hamas: Israel neither talks, nor wants to recognize this group, which it considers to be a terrorist group (as do many countries).

Humanitarian aid and food is what is allowed into Gaza’s borders, and that is it. That is it indeed, as even those things have slowed down over the past few years. As an outsider to the region, it is difficult to shape your own views, at least if you would like to have any objectivity in them. So many stories meet each other head on while the truth, often so simple, is hidden and obscure. We hear Israel about terrorists’ casualties, and then moments later Hamas comes up with a story that works only if the other version is falsified. I would like to believe, as I don’t doubt many others do too, that the people in Gaza know that Hamas is no good. I actually do believe that, thought I must admit a lingering inability to make a hard, closed case to support that claim.

There are, however, some other issues that the world’s leaders should fight a little harder for. Israel, founded as a Jewish state over half a century ago, was a place “for the Jews”. After the terrible misdeeds of Hitler in the Second World War, and via a route of nasty deals made by former colonial powers, the United Nations agreed to grant them the right for their own state. The history is complicated, messy and unfair. Not just from the UN’s and Israel’s side, but from the other side as well. Those issues must be left behind, as Israel exists and will not be wiped out, whatever some people might hope or think.

With an eye to claiming borderlines as they were before 1967, many, even some of the fiercest anti-Israelis, unwillingly and silently accept that claim. In part it is all the more ironic, that a state with so called Biblical chosen people is neglecting a basic duty of giving each their due. Living in a country that is only theirs because it was granted to them by those who had no right to give it anyway, why not give to those who have lived through their own Diaspora too? Naturally, the people that occupied those areas prior to ‘Zionism’ also have a right to exist, a right to prosperity and certainly a right to fulfillment of basic human needs.

A two-state solution here is the best hope. That won’t succeed without more White House efforts, of that much I am sure. This also means condemning Israel for their settlement building more vigorously. Yes, Netanyahu might have postponed it, but he neither cancelled it nor did it with an indefinite time table. Add on top of that the buildings currently under construction, which by knowledge will be finished, and all his ‘painful step’ does is create some hatred, instead of a lot.

This all goes much further than basic human needs, which is the absolute place to start. From what I’ve heard and read, a practical stop of people going into Gaza has been active since March 2009. This has led to a severe backdrop in humanitarian aid, of which Michel, the Belgian minister for Development, says that only 20% is still arriving on the places where it is needed. And now that Michel isn’t allowed in either, there is an easy political route to take a look at the situation, again.

As a Dutch citizen, and therefore a European one, my hopes are aimed at Brussels. They’ll probably be futile: Their voice is not unified, and it doesn’t carry much weight in comparison to that of the US. The Belgian minister is right in a way, though, which brings us back to the introduction: Israel’s vision differs.

By not allowing him in, it considers itself to keeping a straight backbone. As I see it, it is doing something very different from that. More than anything else it is neglecting not a political organization, but a large group of people who have asked for their sorrows as much as Israeli citizens who are shot at with rockets.  With an aim of bolstering the ideals of the European Union by meeting parts of the population, not every politician is a political message without being a moral one too. I wonder whether Hamas has ever even heard of Belgium in the first place.

The next Iraqi elections are crucial. There are the more obvious things no one wants to see, such as fraud, violence and deaths, but there are also aspects of the democratic process that are a lot less clear. Remarkably, the old Saddam-Baath party is an example.

They should be kept at bay when it comes to politics is the general tendency. In the past, they have proven themselves to be able to ruin all that can be thought of as fair and free. To which extent does this process need guidance?

To answer that, consider the widely known fact that, even though Shi’ites (Shi’as or Shiites) made up the majority of Iraq’s people, the iron first Saddam-regime with its Sunni-ways waved the scepter. Relationships between religious groups are already, or indeed still, fragile and cannot handle severe blows. Quite simply stated, however, that is exactly what happens when people get punished by being excluded from the upcoming elections.

At this moment Iraq expects to hold Parliamentary elections on March 7^th. That means there is still time; it also means there is not much of it. An electoral commission, called ‘Accountability and Justice’, has already excluded over 500 people from participation. They’re not just names either. One of them is said to be Abdulqadir al-Obeidi, the current minister for defense. This brings two questions readily to mind. The first that arises is whether this can be justified. We know of past-misgivings and crimes, but these are to be handled and decided in court; that is an essential step towards being a more democratized state. You cannot punish people by taking away public rights, unless this is done via the legal system. The second question concerns the political foundations for legitimizing and enforcing any decisions made by the commission. As it never got parliamentary approval, this means – at least according to Iraq’s president Jalal Talabani- that it never had anything to go on in the first place, hence the reason why that very same president took the issue to Supreme Court.

Now giving people the opportunity to speak-out and participate is important. Preventing the Baath-party from coming back is as well. While this is a task you could label as legitimate, it should be a signal more than it is a process of fierce political silencing. Even idiots should be allowed to talk and participate. It is voters that should laugh and punish them; not by formal exclusion, but by means of getting no votes. When toes cross the line that is law, then there will be room for punishment.

The religious problems so omnipresent in those regions should not get any more fuel either. Is it really worth it to exclude a number of people, if that means enraging many more Sunnis? I’ll finish with an insufficient answer to the first question: To which extent does this process need guidance?  I, for one, do not think it needs any. What is important is preventing fraud and violence, and then, if that goal can be met, the people of Iraq are to decide what happens next.  Can you imagine the rise of a new Baath-party, which escapes the commission’s attention, while also escaping that of the Shi’ites -majority that had to endure their governance?

France is much further when it gets to banning things that are associated with oppression than the U.K. is. Still, there are sounds and ideas that call for a similar policy on burqas on the isles. Surprisingly enough this is coming not from the British National Party (BNP), but from the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

As always, politicians are clear to underline their impartiality by stressing something along that runs along the lines of ‘this is not a move against Islam or Muslims per se’. Indeed, it isn’t. As I argued a couple of days ago, such moves should be seen for what they are: The protection of egalitarian and libertarian principles.

It was Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP) that claimed this was the way to move forward, by stating that

“It makes sense to ban the burqa — or anything which conceals a woman’s face — in public buildings. But we want to make it possible to ban them in private buildings. It isn’t right that you can’t see someone’s face in an airport.”

As a reply to that you could argue that, like for instance Neurope.eu has done, this is a very strange way to move about if it is to be seen as not anti-Muslim policy. Especially as the UKIP is regarded as a libertarian party, which makes government roles and interferences in people’s lives look counter-intuitive. Legislating what we can and what we cannot wear seems strange to adherents of libertarian legacies. It is not as strange as it might seem, however.

No doctrine of Islam, that goes to the heart of the religion, makes wearing a veil or burqa obligatory. You will be sure to find rules for wearing them further along the road, when particular, more diverse and radicalized interpretations find their way into people’s minds. This does not mean that our freedom of religion is at stake. On the contrary: Freedom of religion is not a right that goes beyond freedom of expression and opinion, it is one that builds upon these. The problem here is: Does freedom of religion create opportunities and situations in which particular groups based on gender or ethnicity are subjected to things they might not want?

The answer to that is a clear yes. Not in all cases, no. Probably not even in most of the cases. In some cases, however, the answer must be a definite nod. Now that brings us to a very hard issue. You cannot expect women to sue their husbands, which would be a problematic and unlikely event stemming from someone indebted to Islamic-based cultures. You cannot leave them without any sort of protection and rights either.

And this is the reason why forbidding burqas or veils are no signs of anti-Islamic tendencies, or at least not in the sense people think they are. Many people, and I include myself on that list, think that basic rights of freedom should exist for everyone. Freedom of religion should be a result of that wish. In the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S.A. you can choose and live up to your own ideals, only because there are laws providing a foundation in which freedoms can function. In a sense, and not completely correct, this is as much as saying that there are laws that hold you back, only so that you will not hold other people back. Those are egalitarian laws that do not discriminate between people on the basis of things that are thought to be irrelevant (i.e. gender, ‘race’, and ethnicity). And that is where and why the ways of some Islamists clash with those of libertarians.

If all was well, if all knew that veils and burqas are being worn as a sign of religious piety, rather than subduing the ‘other gender’, no problems would have arisen.  As that is not clear, and as that is exactly what is at stake, even libertarians are willing to step in to protect their base that lies in equality and freedom.

Arguing along this line also solves two arguments brought forward by Neurope.eu. One speaks of the association with terrorism. As I don’t associate burqas with terrorism, any support from my side to the anti-burqa law would make me side with anti-Muslim laws, unless of course it turns out that all terrorists wear burqas. But, as I argued, the reason why we should oppose burqas at this stage is because they are in direct opposition towards the most essential aspect of our modern-day democracies. Coming up with a law against wearing ‘balaclavas’ then, would be of no use, as they are not a sign of discrimination or less freedom. If at any given moment in the near future, Christians will demand that all Christian women start wearing balaclavas, then I cannot stress enough that I would support a law that forbids balaclavas with all my might, right from the start.

That is not something that’ll happen, as our culture differs to an enormous extent on many issues. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they cannot be blended into something that works. When all sides are willing to cooperate, and have a common language to use, then most issues will resolve themselves as long as people keep using their heads. Too bad, many people are not willing or just unable to use their heads (and that happens on both sides of the coin!). And for as long as that is the case, and words cannot resolve (minor) cultural clashes, than we are in a position where we should make sure that we maintain our beliefs in equality and freedom, even if that means restricting others that might create obstacles for an individual to live his or her own life.

In January of 2009 the Dutch government erected a commission burdened with the task of investigation procedures, reasons and mistakes that were made in 2003, when America and the U.K. decided to invade Iraq, which got political support of the Netherlands.

This report has now finally materialized. Over 500 pages present a wide, partly historical view, of what happened in the early years of this millennium, without forgetting processes that have taken place years, or even decades, earlier, which have seen much Dutch political meddling.

It could be argued that little weight might be given to anything that focuses solely on Dutch politics when it comes to these grand, international matters. In general, that would be correct. But although this investigation stems from a relatively small country; it still is a bold underline to an already fiercely debated topic. A general trend towards more objective criticism on government decision procedures and involvement can be spotted in more countries, of which the U.K. is of course one, wherefore I thought bringing this news was relevant to a more general public.

Too bad little is presented in the result of this investigation that was not previously known. On the contrary, there was disappointment on the lack of rigor in condemning the Dutch government. One journalist, who was a guest in evening talk-show ‘De Wereld Draait Door’, repeated what he had stated before by saying that “already in 1998 we knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction” and that the Netherlands, who promised no military involvement, “participated in exploration with F16’s”.

Problem here is the evidence. The sources who speak of F16-usage are anonymous, so their reliability is as questionable as anything. Even so, many people were willing to dig deeper into this issue. David and his men, however, decided to opt for the road supported by the arm of law, neglecting opportunities that could have given us a more profound insight. Their reason for doing so was not persuasive: It could very well be that these sources, possibly military ones, were not allowed to have spoken out in the first place, wherefore the material could be considered illegal and is better ignored. As there wasn’t much more to go on, they dropped it.

Leaving that behind, there still remains a lot to be discussed. Some of this is Dutch politics only; much of it touches broader concerns. It is quite reasonable to suspect that, if the Dutch government knew Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, then so did U.K. and U.S.A. governments. It is equally reasonable to conclude that no country fought a war that can be called legitimate via the chosen route. And while the U.S.A. and U.K. directly fuelled the whole process, The Hague showed lack of spine in their response. In a sense they can be said to have fared even worse: Deciding not to go forth and support America, like France and Germany had also done, would have been wise, sound, responsible and, not in the least sense, justified.

The whole affair was messy and obscure, right from the start. The Dutch parliament did not know that the American government filed an official request for support to build up military forces for an Iraq-invasion on November 15^th, 2002. Only in January 2003 more light was shed on the issue, when prime-minister Balkenende weakly and unconvincingly joined the debate. Gathered information by the AIVD, the Dutch CIA only without torture affairs, and the MIVD (Military intelligence/information and security unit) had also provided the Dutch parliament with their reports and viewpoints on an Iraqi invasion, in a much more nuanced tone than those from foreign intelligence organizations. These were all too readily and easily cast aside, fitting with the picture that it no longer mattered: A decision had already been made.

Now this is definitely something clearly stated by the Davids-commission in their book, which I am not about to summarize to you. The facts that I just mentioned already point out where problems can be found. First of all, the government did not extensively, if at all, use available sources. Second, their opinion was formed quickly and emotionally, rather than via a route of reasoned argument (even without taking sources into account). Third, de Hoop Scheffer, then minister of foreign affairs, had a ridiculous and profound influence over the decision procedure. In a time span of less than an hour something as important as a war got its first, if still temporal, approval. Accusations that de Hoop Scheffer only gave his support to the war in order to get the secretary-general job at the United Nations were proven to be baseless; even if he did only get the job because of support, he did not provide it in order to get it.

An extra dimension is brought in by voters. Polls suggest little support among citizens for political support without military support (46% opposed this, while 43% supported it), but even less backing existed for ‘full-blown’ military support (only 18% ). What probably was the most important conclusion, in my eyes, was that whatever may have happened, an attack on Iraq without UN support or mandate was unjustified. And this was no secret. Practically every citizen was aware of this; the only ones seemingly still able to ignore this were politicians, of whom Dutch prime-minister Balkenende was one until yesterday-evening, when he finally gave in and admitted mistakes made by him and his party: Support for the war arrived too quickly, and should not have been given without the UN’s mandate. On the other hand, on a side note, it could be stressed that from an American perspective this arguments is less important. We should not expect them to wait going to war if they think the cause to be a legitimate one. Security is a complex issue these days, and the bureaucratic systems of Europe are often slow and not transparent. Only this argument is deflated not just by a lack of suitable and reliable evidence that could justify a war, but the absence of it on the whole.

There is one small upside to this new report. If forces Dutch parties that were involved towards recognizing mistakes. As I just mentioned this did not go down easy with Balkenende, who is the leader of the christian democrats (CDA). He refused to take over the document’s conclusions, stubbornly holding onto a view that made you think they took a wise decision to the best of his and his party’s abilities. Well, if it truly is the best you were able to pull off, it might be better to give up politics altogether. His stance has nearly led to a pre-mature break-up of the governing coalition. Sadly, it did not get this far: A full day of talks prevented early elections.

Only to those without the tiniest bit of education in European history might ‘the French revolution’ be a new term. It was, by near definition, a time of political and social upheaval, a revolution by the book: Bloody, drastic, influential and the sort of tale fit to make legends.

And so it did. For ten years, from 1789 until 1799, it drastically changed the way politics would be perceived for centuries to come. There are many things that can, one way or another, be traced back to the French revolution. Feudalism was cut off at its roots, monarchs were restored and executed, Napoleon entered the scene and empires were built and torn down.

But the French revolution is remembered in the minds of people for a slogan too: Liberté, égalité et fraternité, meaning liberty, equality and fraternity. This led to a secular tradition, combined with such pride that only one example would serve us well as an illustration. Back in the days, when king were seen as god’s replacement on earth, divine trust and legitimization made people loyal. Any act against the king, was an act against god. When, on 17^th of January 1793, Louis XVI was condemned to death, we could almost say a tradition died with it.

Many Western traditions have a secular constitution, among them America.  Yet in America president Obama had to lay his hand on a bible, and people in court hear the words ‘so help you god’. The French would be utterly perplexed if this happened in their public institutions. I believe no western state is as fearful as is France when it comes to losing its secular character, for which it feels that it fought so hard to attain. In order to preserve these precious gifts of history, they are willing to go to surprising lengths in limiting other aspects of people’s lives.

Lately, particularly Switzerland created upheaval across the globe by a minaret ban, as many Swiss people saw these as a sign of Islamic imperialism (there is a sort article on that issue on this site). Wild rounds of applause by right-wing parties across Europe followed, most vividly expressed by Wilder’s, no doubt sincere, congratulations to the Swiss people for their ‘splendid decision’. With recent threats to the Danish cartoonist, bad news from Yemen on terrorists, problems in Iran and with Pakistan being picky on which parts of the Taliban they want to fight (Afghan Taliban is mostly left alone, while the Pakistani Taliban, who are responsible for many suicide bombings in Pakistan, has had to endure many attacks by the army), we can hardly say Islam is thriving in the minds of secular rationalists. In France, however, things are of a different order.

There it is much less a right-wing anti-Islam offensive and much more of an enduring process that defends equality for everyone, by virtue of fighting things that are associated with radicalism. Already in 2004 a law went into force forbidding the burqa in public schools and on identity cards. It is as if they ran years ahead on the now as fraudulent perceived debate on multiculturalism. More and more people who think ‘outsiders will accustom to our values, traditions and opinions’ are being ridiculed and booed off-stage.

And to a certain extent this is justified: Doing nothing simply does not work. But too much enthusiasm, with stereotype ways of interpreting your own culture, which is then shoved down immigrants’ throats like they did in the Netherlands, will not work either. The Dutch’ heard-headed, unrealistic ways of bending people into newly baptized model-citizens was far from a success (constant policy changes and additions to a rotten core won’t do much to cure that). This is not to say that no firm measures are needed. You cannot simply let people in, without subjecting them to rules by which the game is played.

And that is what the French state is aiming for. If you want to live in France, then you will act and behave like it. This does not mean you will have to undergo a diet of wine and baguettes while wearing ugly caps, but it does mean the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, and indeed the French language. Don’t get me wrong. With millions of immigrants problems are bound to arise; then again, so do problems pop up among ‘ordinary’ citizens (forgive me my bold statements. I do not mean racial divisions, but elaborating on each term will make this text unreadable. I think you know what I am aiming for; if you do not, then please feel free to comment and I will elaborate).

These principles are part of a heritage, now deemed valuable enough by politicians to stick out their necks and ban burqas in public altogether. At least, that is the direction the French state is now heading for. Many fear violent reactions by Islamists, or much negative publicity that will bend the effect-curve of the ban downwards, instead of making it a positive addition to cultural and political upholding of values. With a five to six million Muslim population, it is a courageous step by any standards though. Nicolas Sarkozy summed up why this step is necessary: It is a ‘sign of subservience and debasement’.

It would be a safe bet to state that many will find this an inappropriate step. Especially other European governments will be quick in casting their doubts on the policy. The step itself is not unsound, however. Not many people will be affected by this new measure, at most a couple of thousands: This is not in itself an argument of course, though it does send a very clear signal to people by underlining that it is neither numbers nor religion they care about. It is a signal not just to Muslims, without sending it to everyone else.

Something as simple as looking a person into his or her eyes, seeing a facial expression and making recognition a possibility are not things we should consider to eradicate from public life, especially not if gender discrimination decides who should and should not be concealed. Keep that in mind: This should not be seen as a step against Muslims. It should be seen for what it is and what it does. No direct Islamic doctrine prescribed wearing a veil or burqa. And in any case, Muslims, like Christians, are free to practice their religion according to French tradition: Privately.

A couple of years ago the internet giant received a good deal of criticism because their Chinese version of Google was censored. But according to them it was “better to provide a search engine partly censored, than nothing at all”.

They were, and are, probably right. No one denies the sheer difficulties tied to working in and with China, especially when this concerns freedoms and knowledge that have not been state-approved. “Beijing” has now crossed the line.

Breaching Google’s security measures for breaking into Google users’ accounts, mostly belonging to people who are active in human-rights affairs one way or another, was part of putting the toe firmly over the line. According to Google it is very unlikely that hackers succeeded in doing this, but it was enough to make the company change its mind, which could very well lead to backing out of the Asian country.

Via another route of “phising scams or malware” hackers are said to have had more success in hacking Gmail accounts.  These cyber attacks were, however, not just directed at people; also at companies and businesses, which naturally include their potential valuable information and knowledge.

This al has led Google to reconsider their practices in China. In the coming weeks they will be holding talks with government officials about what is going to happen next:

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

You can read Google’s own report here.

With a replacement of Mr. Hu Jintao getting nearer, ironic and futile hopes are put in day-dreams of more democratic road-signs presenting themselves in due course. That, however, is not at all what the party leaders have in mind. The establishment in Beijing continues to put hard efforts in polishing the country’s image by idolizing stability and national pride.

Of course this is not what many Chinese people, and the rest of the world, were hoping for. The global economy has much to thank China for in 2009. Without the huge ‘stability packs’ to bend the economy, the world would probably have got a much tougher blow. (China’s economy didn’t even decline; the growing-pace just shrunk.) But everyone was hoping for more democratic rights, for China to re-shape its political structure, if even a little, like it had done with its economy over the past decade.

Some put their hopes in the words of Hu Jintao’s, China’s leader still, who claimed before that ‘the party needs to be democratized’. Sadly the way in which the concept democracy is defined by him and his backing, is totally different from what we are used to. Mr. Hu’s philosophy speaks of ‘personal freedoms’ and little public (read: political) ones. How much actually remains of the first, if the latter is not there?

And this is important. With the west’s downfall, the Asian tigers struck and usurped much of the vacuum. Now the west is recovering too; though most expect that not all countries will be assigned their former share of power. Together with economies, images have been hit hard as well. Many, understandably but wrongly, feel that America ‘got what it deserved’, and that China is now a good alternative. A nation so tightly controlled is not a good alternative.  Certainly huge government spending, infrastructural projects and industries will fire up any economy, but it will not make it keep going indefinitely. The same political structure that made these projects will also cause its downfall it no measures are taken.

Eyeing the statistics, you would be inclined to conclude that the communist party still holds great sway over the people. And in a sense it does; only not because of its ideals, popularity or political support. There a more simple explanation: People that want to work, earn money and gain as much control over their own futures as possible need the contacts the party provides. The party has become a strategic institution as much as a political one.

Since it is such a powerful institution, it is hard to hold a public opinion that differs from that of the institutionalized establishment, as we saw again last week. Liu Xjaobo has been sentenced to eleven years in prison. Two of these years will be without any political rights, destroying any opportunity of displaying his opinion publicly (and getting away with it).

The 53 year-old Xjaobo is one of the best known critics of the way in which China deals with human-rights. He has been jailed before, among other things because he co-authored the Charta 08-petition, which aimed at changing China’s one-party system and has gathered about 10.000 signatures so far. Pick a search engine, and find more on this man. I had no particular idea of this small text in mind, except for the wish to express my utterly useless, though nevertheless sincere, sympathy with this man, and likewise with the many unknown men and women who crossed the path of Beijing’s leaders.

A request for a building-permit in 2005, in a small municipality in eastern Switzerland, eventually resulted in a huge controversy. People didn’t only actively seek ways in which to prevent Muslims from adding a minaret to their mosque, they even went to as far as the Federal Supreme Court in preventing the six meter high tower to be built. They lost.

But only the first round as we saw this week. On November 29th, the Swiss-people voted in a referendum on a constitutional amendment that forbids building any new minarets and voted in favor with a 57,5% majority. Also a majority of the cantons, needed in order for the law to be approved, turned out not to be much of a problem: 19,5 out of 23 passed the bill (cantons are member states of the federal state). This made it even more surprising, for many polls told us that the referendum would probably rid us of this strange proposal. As it stands, it will be implemented. No one doubts that this will not be the end of the issue.

It’s a peculiar issue, for when such massive opposition to building minarets arises, you might start to think that they are a prominent aspect of the Alp-country’s landscapes. However, they are not. Switzerland currently holds only four of them, and since it is a free, democratic and secular state this seems no big deal. Still, it bothers people.  Not because of inherent objections to Islamic religion, or so the argument goes, only because the minaret is in their eyes a symbol of Islamic law, and therefore incompatible with Swiss’s legal system. This sound is echoed by MEP Oskar Freysinger (Swiss People’s Party), who clearly states that “we don’t have anything against Muslims”, before elaborating on minaret’s as a symbol of aggressive imperialism rather than open Islamic tendencies.

As in many places, right winged politicians are doing well. Since this is a general election year, hard-liners, as a replacement for overly optimistic one-liners such as ‘yes we can’, are doing well, adding more weight to the prejudices many people already hold. Unsurprisingly, Dutch Geert Wilders was quick to congratulate the Swiss nation with this decision. He even proposed holding just such a referendum in the Netherlands. Luckily, there are many people who seem to reason their way out this upheaval. Zurich, Geneva and Basel, the countries three biggest cities, all voted against. Street protests have been organized, protest banners reading claims as ‘this is not my Switzerland’; ‘I did not grew up in this country’. The largest political parties have firmly pressed citizens to vote against this plan too, backed by the Vatican, as both saw it as a real threat to religious peace, stability and freedom.

And there is more. Economic interests for instance. Arab nations, whose majority adheres to Islam, are huge investors in Swiss businesses and innovation processes. It is not unlikely that they will refrain from doing so in the future. Economic interests are trampled by those of morality however, as the old saying tell us: Rights trump utilities. And that is something definitely true in this case, even if it is a false generalization. Whatever the faults of Muslim fundamentalist might be, we cannot and should not make peaceful living Muslims a target. There are many discussions whether it is even possible for Islam to be combined with democratic freedoms and values, but that does not mean we have to dispose our own values.

A last remark or question, to which the answer is still unclear, is whether this new step by the Swiss is actually legal. They might not be a member of the European Union, but they have signed several international treaties that bear on freedom-rights. Whether it clashes with this will depend on how essential a minaret will be judged to be for religious practices and expression, as well as on the extent to which this new law is a result of unfair discrimination.

All that has happened misses the actual point though. It borders on arbitrariness and stupidity to forbid building buildings. Solve problems where they need solving, don’t create more reasons to create more problems. And how can a minaret be a symbol of oppression if we do not recognize it to be just that? It is a building that many believers attach value to, even if it is not essential in religious practices. We should realize that when problems arise, when it comes to women treatment to name one, it will make no difference at all whether a building does or does not exist. It is practices and values we need to worry about.

(I am a fervent atheist. I do not support any religious doctrine; I just think this will do more harm than good)

Chocolate tastes like chocolate is what we call a truism. When we judge it, it’ll most likely be a judgment based upon quality, which is a result of a combination of ingredients. We will not be likely to judge it on where it came from, or whether the amount of money that was paid for cacao beans could be called fair trade. But with a month of festivities, gifts and foods coming up, that is something we should take a look at, as I hope you will agree with me.

Not everyone enjoys the benefit of living in a state where an extensive legal system provides many safeguards to mall-treatment or production malfunctioning. We can easily return any product that does not work as it should, and we could also file a complaint when a shopkeeper made me pay more than other customers because my skin-color is not to his liking. Our relationships with employers are firmly based on mutual understanding, respect and indeed profit, as we even have minimum-wages. I label it to be shameful therefore, that as often as we make use of these acquired rights, we still tend to overlook those very same basic rights elsewhere, even if their separation from us is geographical, not moral.

I have reason to introduce this text in this way, since it came about by fictional traditions (Contrary to my aims;  these resulted from cold, hard reality). In foreign countries, i.e. not the Netherlands, there is someone in fiction called Santa Claus. He rides on a sledge, with reindeer pulling it into the air. Then he goes to all the houses, global scale except my country, and delivers expensive sweets and gifts. We, on the other hand, have St Nicholas. A white bearded, long rather than fat, figure. St Nicholas does not like flying, so he arrives from Spain by Ship. He is always a little earlier than his rival Santa, cause he goes to work on the 5^th of December. Their jobs are about the same though, for St Nicholas too delivers gifts and sweets.

One sort of sweets he likes to give are the so called chocolate letters, which come in as many forms, colors and tastes as in brands, prices and qualities. Logically, these have been created somewhere, by someone. But most companies that take care of chocolate letter fabrication processes do not produce cocoa-beans themselves. This has been done mainly by farmers, often poor ones. The money received by them is often too little to provide decent living-conditions, as multinationals care about balance sheets, not about personal well-being. That needs changing, and yes we can. Oxfam Novib, a Dutch charity organization, recently started its ‘Green St. Nicholas’ campaign again (For those of you who do not know: He is usually dressed in red). It was enough to make at least me feel awkward and reluctant to eat chocolate. I never knew that of all the chocolate letters that are being sold, over 19 million are the result of ‘unfair beans’.

This sounds vague, so let me make it more precise. The numbers are Dutch numbers, relating to Dutch shops and sales. A total of about 23 million letters are sold each year, of which about 85% is being produced of beans bought from farmers who were unable to get a good price for their products. Now you’d be inclined to say that this is just the way in which open markets function, and normally I would back that statement. Not this time. These farmers do not have a fair position to negotiate from, because selling nothing means making no money at all, and that means personal disaster. So it is better to sell for a bad price, than to demand a good price and stay behind with empty hands. If we want third world countries -as if there is more than one world – to develop and become more autonomous, than long-term self-reliance should be granted much more prominence. Giving society’s backbone the means to support itself seems an essential step herein.

Now I don’t think we will be capable to solve this problem with generally short-sighted legislature. In my view the best place to start is by making an appeal to our own moral standards. This can be done easily: By buying only products that have a fair-trade hallmark, such as ‘Max Havelaar’. You probably all know some variants, perhaps because they have origins in your country or via charity organizations you know. Now it’ll be way too optimistic to think that all brands will hasten to change their policies because of a slight shift in consumer spending, but it seems foolish to refrain from letting the idea take off. And in any case, more familiar brands such as ‘Mars’ and ‘Verkade’ already made the required steps, so no need to bend our knees too quickly; results are definitely possible.

Arriving at a conclusion here, you might be as puzzled as I am. I started writing on world food production, on which you will read more this week, but ended up with this. I also ended up with disposing a chocolate letter, one which did not reassure my feelings of unease. When I opened a package containing one by Verkade I was assured however. Assured by a very simple observational conclusion: It is so very, very easy to help make this world a better place. All you need to do is to take a look at the products you are buying, and think how you would feel if your employer cut your salary in half next payday, for the moral of this story will not have ebbed away as soon as chocolate letters have left the shelves of our stores.  It will only disappear when fair-trade hallmarks have become superfluous.

The article ends here, but I will add some remarks. This is what you can do:

• You can become a member of the ‘Green St. Nicholas/Oxfam Novib’ onFacebook, Hyves or Twitter.
• You can, from now on at least, buy only fair-trade products.
• You can actively support organizations such as Oxfam Novib, and/or ones you are more familiar with.

For more information on Fair Trade products I suggest you take a look here.