Not lost in translation

Sounding more childish than bitter, André Fontaine presents an ‘anaylsis’ in Le Monde Al-Jazeera sur Seine which is about as unchallenging as a group of ‘the oppressed’ all nodding at each other, trying as best they can not to look happy with the world:

«Against the temptation to do as they would in old Europe [George Washington], wrote to his/her friend Lafayette: "We threw a seed of freedom and union which will germinate little by little in all the land. One day, on the model of the United States of America, therewill one day be a 'United States of Europe'. It will one day be the legislative mechanism of all nationalities."

[Pierre Hassner] wanted to say that, where his distant predecessor dreamed of a peaceful democratization of planet, George W Bush thought it perfectly legitimate to resort to force to advance (these/his) ideas.

Some successes were certainly had: in Morocco, where life has humanized; in Kuwait, Jordan, and in Libya, where Kadhafi become docile, in Lebanon, where the Syrian supervision is more and more openly defied. Certain Saudis finally started coming clean and showing some transparency.»

I really doubt that George Washington ever hinted at transnationalism, or 'one world government' to anyone, or that what you could call what the Syrian were doing in Lebanon 'supervision'. But in any event... it’s time for Fontaine to take another hack, and make another improbable comparison. Failing that and he has to make the US' mention of participatory government both flawed and inadequate.

«But the difference is in ancient Rome, which conquered without scruples, and whose gods were not necessarily paragons of virtue, American Rome is of foundation a Messianic nation. "religion merges there, wrote Tocqueville, (...) with all the feelings that the fatherland gives birth to; that gives him a particular force."

A particular [implying an annointed] force, certainly, but not sufficient to impose its law on nations that don’t want it. If they quickly passed from the worship of the proletariat to that of golden calf, the White House did not find the means of bringing political freedom to Russia and China.

Already engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to speak of the five year war with Al-Qaida, the United States are eager to intervene in Iran or North Korea. It explains the peace that the new Persian president feels, which draws down on the oil and gas reserves that rich countries cannot buy, openly challenges Israel and the West, and pushes ahead with its’ nuclear program.

However there is not just him [Ahmedinajad] and Hamas to play the spoilers. The installation of a Fidel is underway in Venezuela, which also has oil to sell him, and Bolivia is returned to its former Indian Masters.

George W. Bush can no longer believe that he’s the only Master of the world, and recently announced military appropriations won’t change that... Wilsonianism becomes much more difficult to practice when it is been discredited.»

It's curious who he manages to make responsible for any political event in the world, both because the US intervenes at all, even if it's just by representing the concept of participatory government, and is also wrong for not doing enough. Does he really believe that the Maya, a society so obsessed with human sacrifice that it self-destructed, were in fact good little socialist who loved their people? One would think he would rather try to whitewash socialism of that rather apt comparison.

Fontaine's analysis certainly is a useful one - of his own emotional projections.