On the eve of its next presidential election, who/ what are the people of France voting on?

The forthcoming election in France is hard to predict, as they all tend to be. The issues are those brought about by the EU, immigration and fear of both and fear in general. 

During this writer's university days, I lived in Rennes, France for a few months. At the time (1998), the National Front's leader was Jean-Marie Le Pen, the father of the current leader, Marine Le Pen. At that time, I saw numerous protests against the FN. One phrase I recall hearing shouted was "Le Front Nationale, ils sont tous fascistes!" 

The disquiet has continued into the next generation. Current president, François Hollande, has publicly said: "the extreme right is deeply dividing France."

So, the ultimate question is: what motives and inspiration does the electorate have? 

Some commentators have observed that France is now in decline. Has Brexit inspired some similar feelings, which would be an irony, given that France is a founding member. The IS-inspired lack of security has recently brought about an atmosphere of fear, which could be leading to support for the National Front. 

The main competitor for Marine Le Pen is Emmanuel Macron, a centrist supported by outgoing President Hollande. 

As is common in France, there is a lot of variety, including of candidates of all extremes (right and left). The future will depend on whom gets elected, and why.

The worst case may arise if the now independent candidate Le Pen, wins the election. The reasons for her policies are not known for being sensible, nor are the motivations and lack of reason of those voting for her. 

The key aim for all men

What should all men want?

Not a dirty question! We all (including me, above) are aiming for success in all areas, be it personal or in one's career. There are also dreams: a fast car, wealth, hobbies ( sports, music, etc.)

Avoid these

Unrewarding work, as well as unrealistic ambitions, and things that make you unhappy will be frustrating.

Some have had trouble growing up with demanding parents or siblings, who can be like bullies at times (psychologically). Don't do what your parents push you to do. They frequently have the wrong idea in pushing you into what they want, and will end up disappointing you ( at least in my case, the disappointment has been monumental). 

So, what will help you achieve your best?

The correct choice of who to marry, of course. Criterea? Not just attractiveness or sexiness, but the right type of heart. A lady who has the strength to support you in bad times and help you recover, shall help you be better than ever before. If you both can do the same, it shall mean you both can avoid bad mistakes, and fulfill both of your potentials together.

Strong will is the key for both of you.

After the Brexit referendum: what next?

The reasons for the British electorate to turn its back

At the time of the yes vote, I recall saying it was a waste of democracy. Of the 30 million voters, 51.9% chose "yes". What were the good reasons for such a decision? Membership was thought of as too expensive, and many desired more control, away from the "U.S.E." 

What could happen next?

Britain joined the EU in 1973, the effort led by Edward Heath. Having undergone vetoes by France (De Gaulle's "non!" comes to mind from the history this writer  knows of). 

What could happen next? Leaving could negatively affect the UK economy, with a lack of access to the EU single market. Gone shall be the trade to the UK's biggest trade partners, fewer visits and visitors. 

The negative characteristics of anti-EU people

The flag lady of those who do not view the EU as a good thing for the UK. This writer will now try to describe anti-EU people as politely as possible. I view the main characteristic as "Isolationist paranoia". Affixing labels to France and Germany as interferers trying to decide Britains policies, does not match reality. In the case of Germany, many in the UK are using the past, specifically WW2, to justify themselves. How does one justify the unjustifiable? Many believe that the EU interferes in UK policies, despite the beneficial facts to all member states deciding such things together. 

What can be done to reform the EU?

A good question, readers might say. 

A change in the structure of the EU could lead to creating separate levels for countries, depending on national preferences. 

More room to manoeuvre when it comes to setting the EU budget could certainly ease a regular point of tension. 

Devolution of EU powers to national capitals could help avoid tensions in Brussels. Change to the power of the EU parliament, shifted away from the commission would certainly boost the democratic nature of the EU. 

Less bureaucracy and less of the notorious "red tape" should, if implemented correctly, make the EU better for all member states. 

It would also avoid the chance of "Frexit" taking place soon.

The next steps to success

Both belong together, not apart. The EU is reformable, and should be reformed. However, the U.K electorate made a bad, uninformed choice. Britain within a reformed EU would be a far better country. 

The truly terrible condemnation that racist behaviour in sport brings upon a particular people

I am aware of being dissappointed by a particular group of people you thought you could trust. 

The same doesn't apply to Everton Luiz, a Brazilian football player/ soccer star who found himself subject to racist abuse while playing in Belgrade. Playing for Partizan Belgrade, fans of rivals Rad Belgrade started monkey chants when he was on the ball. 

Reduced to tears (above, being comforted by goalkeeping teammate Filip  Kjajic), the other team also brought dishonour upon themselves: "What shocked me above all was the attitude of the other team. Instead of trying to defuse the situation, they supported that type of behaviour. I want to forget about it all as quickly as possible," Everton was reported as commenting thereafter. 

To help their team do better in a match it was loosing, one set of fans felt themselves justified in sinking to such a level, in order to help their team do better.   The situation in which sports fans believe that descending to such barbaric attitudes can help them win deserves nothing but the broadest condemnation. Where has any sport or society got itself to in which this is thought reasonable?

The one German import that Japan has long since needed

A long history of bitterness

It is a long legacy of war crime denial by Japan that has left behind much bitterness in China, as well as in other nations. 

The bad start

Manchuria's occupation in 1931, above, is where it all started. A great many crimes committed by the Japanese army followed this and Pearl Harbour. 

While the Imperial Army of Japan was celebrating what could be loosely termed "victories" such as above in 1941, the war ended with the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which the average Chinese terms as "deserved ".

The restoration of diplomatic relations between China and Japan in the 1970s was deemed by many as highly unlikely. However, the culture of war crime denial was perpetuated by the governmental authorities, academics, and the average person in Japan. The establishment of the Yasakuni shrine to the nation's war dead (which this writer avoided on a visit to Tokyo) also memorializes notorious war criminals. Such things lead to action being taken by the Chinese public: 

This writer, formerly resident in China, can recall angry crowds of people rolling over Toyotas, shouting the words "Japan is evil!"

(“日本不行/不好！”）

A few worthwhile gestures

It was left to a Japanese Buddhist monk, who in 2006 left his thoughts and prayers  for the souls of those who were victims of the Nanjing massacre. What has been missing before and since have been governing authorities trying to make amends. South Korea and also Singapore (800,000 were victims of the Sook Ching massacre in 1942) are both waiting for changes in Japanese society and of the political class.

Cold relations

Japanese goods are widely boycotted in China because of domestically produced memorials such as the Nanjing Massacre Momorial Shoes above, and PRC government encouragement. 

The future solution to the problem of history

The prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe,  how can he address such a sore spot of pan-Asia history? He could end up being confronted by people turning their backs on him, which the Emperor of Japan has been subjected to numerous times (once in London when I was 12). It will likely take more than trade and peace. 

A key role model 

One former chancellor of Germany, Willy Brandt, introduced a set of principles in society. It enabled the population to face up to the nation's poor past, regardless of an individual's personal record. Willy Brandt himself had been a leading anti-nazi during World War 2. 

Leading by personal example, such as at the former Warsaw Ghetto (above), brought a change in culture to the nation as a whole. The average German ever since has viewed the nation's history differently, in an extremely honest way. This is a key change that Japan has long since needed, and furthermore, it is an action that Mr. Abe should do his very best to emulate. 

After a century of ups and downs, are Sino-US relations about to reset?

Relations between the two nations go back to 1911 just after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. 

An early start

The pre- People's Republic of China (PRC) government, known as the ROC and run by the Nationalists (KMT) was seen as run by anti-communists. The key western ally of the KMT, was seen as having brought about the end of the main enemy, Japan. The PRC was viewed by the nato powers as forming a second  front in the Cold War. The PRC was seen as a target for undermining, 20 years following its founding in 1949. 

The beginning of peaceful relations

Motivated towards peaceful co-existence, both got together to build a mutually beneficial partnership when Mao  and Nixon shook hands. Part of the US president's aim was to unease the USSR  concurrently. He may have been successful in making Leonid Brezhnev  take a few steps backward. 

At the same time, both sides gained from  the arrangements made, economically and developmentally. Part of the PRC's aim was to have itself recognized as the only China, and have the KMT in Taiwan no longer propped up by the USA. This has been a continual demand by the PRC of the USA. 

Discussions/ tensions since Mao

While Reagan found a good audience with the likes of Zhao Ziyang (who favoured dialogue with the students in 1989), the PRC did not react well to American criticisms of its human rights. Movies such as "7 Years in Tibet" led to charges by the PRC of western nations interfering and behaving like "imperialists". 

In the 90s, such tensions boiled over into disagreements over trade. In that decade, the US frequently accused the PRC of manipulating its currency. 

Further diplomatic tensions came about through frequent near misses between both nations air forces. Both would accuse each other in their own way. Post Gorbachev, the PRC was labelled with the same words previously reserved for the USSR, and the domestic Chinese media was filled with anti-US propaganda. The accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 2008 by NATO provoked riots in the PRC. 

Cooler heads gradually took over, such as here in a warm moment between Zhu Rhongji and Bill Clinton. They were able to discuss their differences calmly, with the aim of common peace.

Hope for the future

So, despite a few statements by both sides of late, including the People's Daily accusing President Trump of "playing with fire" when it comes to pressure applied on Beijing over island building in the South China Sea, and pressure brought foward to change trade relations,      there have been recent discussions between Trump and the PRC president, Xi Jinping. Agreeing to recognize the "One China" principle after Beijing was upset by hearing about the head of the KMT/ ROC president congratulating Trump personally on winning the presidency, Trade and diplomacy is once more in the offing. The potential is certainly there for good relations to resume to the benefit of both, but as long as both are listening to each other respectfully, as has been recently happening, there could be a resumption of good relations that will be the best to both the PRC and the USA. The ingredients are there for optimism, despite the challenging relationship of the past few decades.

When the law of unintended consequences meets denial on all sides

Paris is another tragedy in a long line of them, stretching back to 9/11 say some, still further back say others. 

In a complex web of cause(s) and effect(s), 2 broad sets of factors have led to Paris and the comparable, almost daily, but somewhat unnoticed tragedies in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere (it's hard to know where to stop the list of countries).

I: Outsider induced environment 

The Crusades started it all if you believe the Jihadists (I dislike the term "Islamist", linguistically it falls short). The true origin is a little more recent. 

Colonial lines in the sand

(Source: BBC)

Most of the borders in the Middle East were literally drawn with a ruler and pencil  in 1916 by British and French government representatives Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot (their signatures above). Not taking proper account of local wishes or realities on the ground, it has set the geopolitical framework and the resentful tone for subsequent events leading up to today (for a full history of the Middle East's borders, see www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553). 

War on "terror"

Aside from the term being an affront to grammar, and leaving aside the decade lead-up to September 11, 2001, the result of the actions of mainly the US, but others too, can be seen clearly in 2015 and the rise of ISIS.

(Source: NBC)

It is obvious when outlined briefly: 

Iraq, nothing to do with 9/11, invaded.

With little thought given to the problems created by the artificial borders, they quickly resurface when "liberators" seen as an occupying power. 

Protests/ rebellion in many Arab nations, turns sour in Syria when not supported in same way as those in Libya. 

ISIS rises inside the cross-border vacuum created in Iraq and Syria.

Bombs not boots

How does knowing the consequences of the Iraq and Syria decisions, and wishing something different had been done help us now? Not much in the immediate future.

The various militaries involved are painted into a corner: the non-ISIS side somewhat relies on their aerial support to make gains, having been overrun before this help arrived. 

It would however be a toxic error to send in ground forces. The locals must be helped to win, not have all their fighting done for them and very recent history repeat itself. We'd all be back where we started.

(Source: ARMA)

One lesser known aim of ISIS is to draw "crusaders" into a kind of Armageddon-style showdown. While the macho instinct might be to give them exactly that with our superior technology, recent history should have taught us that solving one problem in the Middle East creates a bigger, unforeseen one. Unforeseen by those making the key decisions.

II: Problems at the source 

The second set of aspects concerns those that outsiders are not responsible for, from lack of economic opportunity to the doctrine of Jihadism/ extreme literalism itself. 

Filling the void

Another existing vacuum is a lack of economic opportunity for a lot of restless young men. It is far easier to suspend critical judgement when feeling desperate. Along comes an individual or group talking in determined, strident tones (other than that of whichever dictator or perhaps toothless leader), and it has a Munich beer hall effect.

Alienated 2nd generation

There's probably nothing that can be done by Europeans and others about the disaffected youth in the Middle East itself. However, there is an opportunity to have a rethink within those western countries themselves. A significant source of recruits for ISIS, this supply needs cutting off. Physically stopping them is just treating the symptoms. 

People far smarter than this writer need to be listened to by those in authority about what to do to end the marginalization of Europe and North America's second generation of youth of Middle Eastern background (and others). 

Weaponized Love 

The sadistic cruelty on display, in a sense mesmerizing, and reactions to it, hides some of the true aims of ISIS.

In creating its caliphate and bringing about the above mentioned showdown, the intention is to create an "us and them" feeling among younger Muslims of the west. Furthermore, the same feeling among others towards them is desired, to enable the pushing younger Muslims into the arms of ISIS (the Syrian passport found on the body of one of the Paris attackers seeming suspicious to many, for example).

The fact that many are running away from Syria to "mix with Christians, Liberals and Atheists" is also deeply upsetting to ISIS. 

It follows then that continuing to work at integration and being humanitarian to those seeking refuge is what defeat looks like to it. While it might ordinarily sound naive and even soppy, it could just be that love is the most potent weapon against them.

The Right is Wrong

There is a problem with perception on both the right and left. There's been a tendency on the right towards prejudice expressed through a willingness to believe misinformation, driving fear or assumptions that almost all Muslims are bad people. This plays into the hands of ISIS and its us-and-them narrative.

The oft-heard demands phrased as questions such as, "where are the condemnations from moderate Muslims?", imply a guilt by association of those who do not speak up against any kind of violence perpetrated by "their religion".

Ostrich Liberals 

The at times bigoted paranoia of some on the right is perhaps to be expected. The attitude of many (maybe most?) on the left is perhaps worse.

(Source: Real Time With Bill Maher)

Everything, every single set of ideas, be it an ideology or a religion, is and should be open to question, debate, and free inquiry. A number of Liberals seem however to be in denial, misleading themselves with lines of thinking such as "this has nothing to do with religion".

The dreadful term "islamophobia" has come into being. It seems to be a catch-all label that lumps criticism of some of Islam's ideas in with bigotry and racism (Need it be said that Islam is not a race?) 

Along with a certain measure of outright fear, it has lead to the suspension of the critical faculties of some on the left when it comes to tackling certain bad ideas.

It is self-defeating and also anti-progress, leading to what counter-extremist activist Maajid Nawaz terms a "racism of low expectations". (See his video on the "regressive left" for a more in depth look at this: http://bigthink.com/videos/maajid-nawaz-on-islamic-reform) 

The trouble with Islamic Literalism

What of the perpetrators themselves, not just those in Paris? So we come then to the proverbial elephant in the room. 

For all the above factors which have provided the framework for recent, and less recent events, there is still a set of ideas motivating ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others. There are several individuals who made a conscious choice to plant bombs, start massacres and film beheadings. 

So let's talk about what this is really about. ISIS is Islamic in a certain sense. It is pure folly to claim it has "nothing to do with religion." There are theological grounds for them to take their actions. While some of the less palatable parts of the bible are no longer taken literally, there is still a significant minority of adherents of Islam who take the "sword verses" extremely literally.

While easy to cherry pick the violence inciting parts, this is exactly what the worst among them have been doing. It provides a select few with full devine justification for violence above and beyond that of self-defence:

Qur'an 3:56: "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Qur'an 8:12: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

Not only is it justified, it shall be rewarded:

Qur'an 44:54 "Even so (it will be). And We shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." This is part of the "72 virgins" concept that many have heard of. Many scholars will disagree that this is promised in the Qur'an or the Hadith (sayings of Mohammed), but this is the entire point. The strongest desire is to create a Caliphate (roughly, a theocratic kingdom) along 7th century lines, a time when there was surely a greater proportion of literalists to be found.

Such a time pre-dates what is referred to as the Islamic Golden Age of the 8th to 13th centuries. In the early 21st century, groups are trying to take us all back to pre-enlightenment times. Furthermore, it seems that an equivalent of the Reformation is yet to firmly take root. Such backwardness needs to be exposed and challenged - intellectually - for what it is.

Nuanced background, nuanced solutions

There are numerous causes, which all should be dealt with and openly discussed. 

Blundering into the affairs of the Middle East has failed for over a century. Ways need to be found to back away from military interventions that have brought with them bigger problems than those attempting to be solved.

Compassion towards those fleeing conflict is needed, while labelling them as being the same as the killers they are trying to flee has got to stop. 

On moral grounds it runs counter to humanitarian principles that are supposed to make western liberal democracies superior.

In practical terms, it would also have the long term effect of undermining one of the most central tenets of ISIS.

Finally, ISIS and its pre-medieval thinking needs regular and continual debunking from both outside and from within (the latter especially). 

Islam itself, as with any and all religions, should be subject to scrutiny and free enquiry. Misplaced sensitivities need to be abandoned so as to stop conflating the criticism of ideas with racism. 

All need to stand up for higher principals and condemn societies that don't value human rights.