Too much, too early

The 2009 Peace Nobel prize went to the President of the United States of America, Mr. Barack Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". This came as a big surprise to me, and I must humbly say that I do not think this is appropriate.

I do not have to convince anyone about my high respect for Mr. Obama. In the Catalan edition of this blog I expressed my sympathy, recognition and hope when he was elected; both as the first Afro-American person to become president, with all the symbolism it entails after centuries of segregation, and as a man who won the election with a message of reconciliation and hope.

Barack Obama brought to the international arena a new language and some concrete proposals, notably in the area of nuclear disarmament. He reengaged his country with multilateralism. He also appears to engage in efforts to find a long lasting peaceful solution for the conflict in Palestine/Israel. He has cancelled the anti-missile shield project that must be a long cherished dream of his country’s industrial-military complex. And there are a number of other things. However, I feel we are still at the stage of proposals. We are not yet at the stage of accomplishments. That is why I consider this award unjustified.

I can understand some may want to express strong support for his proposals and compel him to redouble his efforts at a particularly complicated time in his domestic arena, by awarding him this prize somehow in anticipation. Yet I still think this is too much, too early.

How to become Parisian in one hour?

"Cute" was the word my friend used yesterday when we were leaving the Théatre de la Main d'Or, after watching this one man show. I dare quoting her as I find it quite fair, considerably accurate. "Sympa" might be a good equivalent in French in this case.

Olivier Giraud conducts the show in English, of course with a French accent. For about an hour and fifteen minutes he illustrates the audience with a number of tips to understand and mimetize at convenience the typical Parisian people's behaviours. That is to say, those stereotypes that earned world fame, and which anyone who has been in Paris for a while had to encounter at some point. If it was not on a daily basis. The way Olivier mimics the facial gestures, the body language and the verbal expressions most typical of Parisians is as remarkable as it is hilarious. He makes fun of everyone, from himself to the French in general including the audience and other nationalities. He is funny but always kind. Cute.

Through comparing Parisians mainly to (North)Americans, out of his own personal experience, he also reproduces a trend deeply enshrined in the French national psique, by which they compare themselves mainly with no less than the USofA. Even if, too often, dimensions force them to wrap themselves in the European flag in order to do so. In any event, in this case the comparison works, because the (North)Americans are also subject to their own stereotypes, and in many respects they have a totally different approach to things which, in contrast and if cleverly taken as Olivier does, can be very funny.

However, I would recommend this show mainly to recent newcomers, frequent visitors and adventurous tourists. For people who have been here for a while, it might be "cute", but not necessarily exhilarating. Because, for instance, if one has had to fight more than once with the likes of the "customer service" commodity companies usually have in France, the risk is finding this show just not that funny. I had a good time, though.

Coup in Honduras

Military coups became increasingly unusual owing to the worldwide expansion of democracy during the nineties. The military were progressively separated from politics, out of the relative but yet existent expansion and improvement of democratic institutions, and the possibility for ruling classes to maintain social control without resort to violence. Such process was particularly visible in Latin America. The continent just went through two decades that were convulsed by regime changes from Ecuador to Argentina, yet in general the military did not interfere in political processes, at least publicly and using arms.

However, two days ago Honduras wake us up with a military coup that resonated with the worst moments of the XXth century in the region. We saw again things we though forever gone. The military forcibly deposed the president and embarked him in a plane heading to Costa Rica still in his pyjamas. They retaliated after the president had dismissed the head of the army, who had refused to install ballot boxes for a referendum. Such referendum was an attempt to modify the constitution to enable the President to stand for re-election, although not immediately but after another mandate by someone else. The Parliament opposed this referendum and the Supreme Court declared it illegal. Yet the president insisted in carrying on. The military decided to expedite matters and ignored the constitutional procedure of impeachment to forcibly remove the president from office.

The background: a President coming from the most conservative sectors who made a 180 degree turn to approach Hugo Chavez’s positions, and an elite increasingly worried about its deeply rooted privileges.
The US administration’s reaction was also unusual, but very positive in my opinion: condemn of the violent action, no public interference and ample leeway for the Organization of American States to lead negotiations. The US no longer considers Central America as their backyard? In fact all the Central American elite hold property in Miami, while millions migrate and send their remittances to sustain their families barely out of a line of poverty that is never lowered. My suspicion is that the US does not intervene in the zone the same way it used to do primarily because they do not need it.