Category: Interludes

25-3-19

Dear Partners in thought,

Having not commented on Donald Trump for some time, I am very grateful for Robert Mueller finally sending his Report to the Attorney General of the U.S.  who will then send his summary to Congressional Leaders (which the public will likely see), thus giving me a great opportunity.

It would appear that there is no more indictments coming up Robert Mueller’s way so we will be left with the judicial developments we already know regarding Flynn, Cohen, Manafort and a host of minor cogs in the Trump campaign wheel. It is clear that the word “victory’ can be heard from the White House and that the President, Donald Trump Jr. , Jared Kushner and Fox News must be rejoicing as we speak, which is perfectly natural. On the plus side, many will feel to be off the hook on the matter of Russian collusion even if much time will be spent on analysing the full report. On the minus side, the “victimisation” effect that could have help strengthening the resolve of DT’s core support base will not be there. The Special Investigation may end up having been much noise for not much in the end in terms of the main target of the investigation known as “Individual 1”. However it is also a blessing in disguise as there was little leeway to indict a sitting President and certainly no super-majority in Congress (or simply Senate) for impeachment, which would have resulted in a protracted and useless acrimonious debate that would never have led to DT’s removal however some of the Democrats might have wanted it. Nancy Pelosi never seemed gung ho, with reason, for any impeachment process on this very matter of Russian collusion given the odds and the need to focus on what mattered: the 2020 election process and the real issues with DT as President of the U.S.

The Mueller Report, whatever its final contents, is not the right path to change U.S. executive governance. The real issues with DT are multiple and can be found in his appalling Presidential style and role model, demeaning of American values and destruction of free trade and the Western Alliance, all while being out of touch with our times at so many levels like on Climate Change. His redeeming feature of being President in good economic times should not hide the real issues that sow the economic, cultural and political decline of America and the West in the medium term. All the more as the current economic strength of America is more seen in feel-good aggregate numbers with many Americans not feeling the trickling down effect as witnessed with the disappointing tax refunds or the actual increase in their material well being.

The focus should not be on the Mueller Report but on the ballot box. Democrats (and moderate Republicans) should be careful and spend more time lining up contenders and tickets who can in the end win nationally in 2020, reflecting what America really is.

Warmest regards

Serge       

22-3-19

Dear Partners in thought,

It is hard not to find the EU’s latest stance in relation to the Brexit process and Article 50 extension very crafty and productive. The EU has given Ms. May an extension until May 22 to pass the necessary legislation if she first could pass “her deal” and then, if not, alternatively offered a two week extension until April 12 so MPs could have another go at a new plan (which could include “Norway”, a permanent customs union or a second referendum) following which, if a majority could be found for an option, then the EU would grant enough time to put the voted plan in motion. This is a master stroke as it kills Ms. May’s new, last minute volte face blackmail version of “pass my deal (for the third time) or get “No Deal” with the high likelihood that her deal will be voted down (still assuming a third vote is allowed by Parliamentary rules) and puts Parliament in front of its responsibilities while  deflecting any blame for the abyss that could be addressed to the EU itself. All in all, while the EU is understandably preserving its core interests, it could not have acted in a way that would be better for the British people.

If one were facetious, one could be almost forgiven for wondering if the UK should not be better off being run by Bruxelles…This could even be a question on a future referendum…I would never dare saying this of course.

Warmest regards,

Serge   

26-2-19

Dear Partners in thought,

You will remember that once I gave you my likely step-by-step scenario on the Brexit process back on 18th January I decided not to post anything more on the subject given the sensitivities involved and the personal relationships at stake (as I have so many dear Tory Brexit friends I enjoy lunching with!).

However it is worth stressing the importance of Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to back a second referendum and the shadow foreign secretary adding that Labour would back a Remain vote. This decision was doubtless prompted by the courageous and far-sighted Labour defectors (joined by the three lady Tory MPs) who created a shock to the system well beyond their sheer number with their Independent Group (Britain would do well to put them at the pantheon of those patriots who chose national interest before party interest). 

While there is always the issue of arithmetics involved with getting a Parliamentary vote backing a second referendum at least on paper, I would wager that there will be enough MPs on both sides, still formally undeclared, who will make the people’s vote happen as it is the only rational way forward. The next step will be very shortly to see the No Deal option killed by Parliament and the Article 50 extended, something that even Theresa May was already somehow preparing her troops for before the last bombshell, all while still strangely sticking to her odd “No Deal or My Deal” mantra with her five minute before midnight tactics. 

I wanted to add this short Interlude not to rejoice in an “I told you so” mode even when it was becoming fashionable (as well as prudent or even boastful for some) to prepare for a No Deal outcome and its abyss, but as I felt happy that Britain might start eventually to regain it full senses and think at long last in terms of its national interests away from passion and fury. Again a second referendum may not change the outcome of June 2016 though very likely would, for the benefits of Britain, Europe and the world.

Warmest regards,

Serge  

19-2-19

Dear Partners in thought,

My generation has relied on Pax Americana and U.S. leadership in making the world safe for democracy and indeed the West, especially Europe throughout the Cold War and beyond. 

The younger generations, like the Millennials, not enjoying the same direct and indirect historical memory of World War II and the Cold War may not realise how key for peace and prosperity the Western Alliance and indeed NATO were for all of us year in year out so we could go on about our lives and building our own dreams.  

The Munich Security Conference this week (which my friends at Tortoise Media aptly described as “like Davos but for people who speak in three letter-acronyms (TLAs), have unusually detailed knowledge of Afghan mountain passes and CVs with suspicious gaps”) saw VP Mike Pence getting the frostiest of silences after offering Donald Trump’s best wishes to the participants, something which was repeated when he forcefully instructed Europeans to withdraw from the Iran deal. Only two people stood up to clap with excitement and admiration: Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. The contrast with Angela Merkel and her frank and unusually energetic assessment of the US approach to world affairs and its “America First” mantra, reminiscent of the 1930s and Charles Lindbergh, could not be more vivid as well as her exhortation for Europe to be the beacon of multilateralism in the world. 

While Joe Biden (which I hope will run, if only to offer a credible alternative against Trump in 2020, even for one term and to put things back on track if at all possible) and the legislative (Democratic) delegation stressed that they “will be back”, the time is now for the Europeans to take things in their own hands. They have for too long being complacent with their defence, relying too much on a benevolent America in what both sides saw as a win-win (which it was). While we should work with America when “it comes back” to its principles, Europeans should build their own defence and bear more of the costs of freedom when the Trump tragedy ends, hopefully in 2020. And regardless of what happens with Brexit, we should do so with our British friends, which combined with France, the other European defence player today, should lead the charge and ensure that Germany forgets its past and rise to the challenges of the day in building this crucial element of European strength and independence, together with the other 25 EU members states. Europe can no longer rely on America as Pax America is virtually dead now, as stated with sorrow by NYT’s Roger Cohen, but as America comes back, Europeans should act responsibly as strong and credible partners in the Atlantic Alliance in a true win-win way. This approach should start now with deeds and not only words. 

Warmest regards,

Serge 

PS: When I write that Germany should “forget its past” and rise to the challenge of the day, this is in the context of collective European defence in 2019. It is not about erasing its Nazi past from its national memory. Germany, the wealthiest EU nation, should meaningfully and at its level contribute to collective European defence. Germany should do so both in financial and actual military terms, something that it was always reluctant to do due to its militaristic past and while, under the American umbrella, it unwittingly channeled most resources to the building of its economic might, an area which admittedly has made the country as well as Europe strong at a different level.          

1-2-19

Dear Partners in thought,

Juan Gaido is the new self-proclaimed President of Venezuela and the game changer who, with good tailwind and good fortune, may bring back Western liberal values to Venezuela after years of populist darkness. He is also the inadvertent unifier of the West as the US, Canada and the EU are today on the same side of the great divide. This is also a major and rare development in these troubled times, which is cause for celebration.

Warmest regards,

Serge

14-1-19

Dear Partners in thought,

As the Yellow Vests were on their eighth weekend and numbered 84,000, which is a decline from past weeks but still a significant number, I could not help notice the long banner that demonstrators were carrying on Saturday in Paris. It said “Devoir de Mémoire (duty of memory) – Fourmies 1899”. It referred to the time in a Northern French town when the troops fired on workers demonstrating for an eighth hour workday. Putting aside that the event took place in 1891, it shows a certain revolutionary romanticism that points to the hard if not extreme left inserting itself astutely in the movement and which might take the lead going forward. The demonstrators from now on will increasingly be hard core political extremists (with their cohorts of associated “breakers”) which extremist parties like Les Insoumis from Jean-Luc Mélanchon (or even Marine Le Pen’s National Rally) will quietly support, unofficially as violence is not good for image, however with the hope for more votes at the May European parliamentary elections.   

As discussed, while some French are better off than others as would be the case in many societies, France is hardly a slave country where people toil like Gavroche and his friends in Les Misérables in the mid-19th century. As I mentioned in earlier Interludes and The Economist, hardly a paid agent of the French government, remind readers this week in “More égalité than you might think”, France is a very redistributive country and les riches don’t give their lesser off fellow citizens brioche to assuage their eating and living concerns. 

A quick summary might be useful for all to read including the Yellow Vests:

1. France’s tax take and its level of public spending is at 57% of GDP, the highest level of any EU country.

2. Much of the public spending goes to subsidising public services from high speed trains to universities.

3. France has still excellent infrastructure, mostly free education and top health care at little direct costs to patients. 

4. In France the top 1% earners earn less before taxes than the bottom 50%, a gap that has remained stable since 1995 unlike in most developed countries especially America. 

5. According to the OECD, France is the country among developed nations that has done the most to reduce inequality, only slightly beaten by Sweden (see chart on page 24 of The Economist this week).  

6. As INSEE (the French national statistics institute) showed this week, while the top 10% earners earn 22 times more gross income than the bottom 10% that gap is reduced to six times by taxation (incidentally explaining why many top earners go working elsewhere as they also feel the taxation pinch and they can work where they want). As discussed most Yellow Vests pay no or little direct income taxation which is the case for a majority of French people today (The Economist did not mention this latter point).  

7. Real household income grew by 8% from 2007 to 2017, more than in most European countries this in spite of the last financial crisis.                

It is not possible to argue that France is an unfair country to its population, including the lesser off, this since 1945 where the State played a direct role in rebuilding a nation shattered by defeat and occupation and needing to re-find itself indeed as a cohesive nation.

While the real issue may be a breakdown in social mobility and the impact of indirect taxation (like the recent trigger fuel tax), which alter the redistribution process and need to be addressed fairly, France has treated its population well in its entirety for decades. While societal challenges should be further addressed and respectfully recognising aspects of inequality that can be improved, the French should also take a more direct and responsible approach to their lives and taking advantage of the globalised economy rather than waiting from the State to cure all its bad aspects for themselves. Salvation is also in the minds and should be a gradual cultural process, all the more as France as we know it and its vast safety net are happily here to stay.        

We can only hope that the Great National Debate launched by Emmanuel Macron will provide the forum to make progress on the issues that triggered the current unrests though extremists and their destructive agendas should no longer take the lead. The French will eventually stop them as they do when it goes too far like in May 1968. It would be a question of time.  

France has worked well so far and will continue to do so. The time is no longer about taking the Bastille. 

Warmest regards,
Serge 

PS: For those who read la belle langue, I attach the “letter to the French” (or Lettre aux Français) about the Great National Debate sent by Président Emmanuel Macron today. https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2019/01/13/lettre-aux-francais

Serge Desprat- 14 Jan, 2019 (Prague)

7-1-19

Dear Partners in thought, 

As you know, Interludes are made to give you my humble take on international events that follow a certain ethos broadly representing that of Western civilisation, good and bad, that made our world. Interludes are also expressions of “common sense” in a world driven by emotions if not passions, conveying views that may not be always fashionable but are rational at least from an end game standpoint.

I will not expand on my erstwhile two favourite topics which are Donald Trump and Brexit. Borrowing from the witty Economist this week, “Trump Season 2” is starting roaringly with a potential government shutdown forever if no wall so America can stem the evident rape endemics and related ills from down South. It seems at times that the key British political leaders still would oddly prefer for different reasons, mostly partisan at heart, not to have a second referendum whatever the abysmal costs to their nation of a looming No Deal. And while the EU will likely give them a few more weeks to decide, this not to be accused, as they unfairly will, to be the source of all the post-Brexit ills that would likely befall Britain. Let’s hope that reason prevails and that taxpayer money ends up being well spent in the US and that the people in the UK are given a voice after all so they can decide their fate for themselves based on facts this time and whatever the outcome.       

Two pieces of news deserved to be mentioned this week: the resilience of the hard core “Gilets Jaunes” or “yellow vests” and their hard to find agenda in France, and the news that a boat of 32 refugees wanting to cross the Mediterranean has been at sea for more than a month being unwanted by any European and indeed EU country.   

The yellow vests are not as numerous in their eighth weekend as they were at the peak of the movement and indeed riots. There is a hard core at work that wants to demonstrate, mainly to change the (or their) world, many of them simply wanting to remove a democratically elected President and executive and feeling that it is a perfectly fine thing to do in 2019, time of the free. While they are a minority, they feel empowered to voice their wishes partly as they exist more in a world of mobile technology and social networks when people feel they exist because they can express what they want without either constraints nor restraints. They now feel that it is fully unacceptable that public order might be maintained by the police even though many demonstrators have shown a liking for free and quasi-permissible violence and looting. They feel they can do away with having executives having been elected and with a bit of push and understanding from France at large maybe they will reach their goal. This empowerment is dangerous and reminiscent of periods of history where active minorities resorted to undemocratic ways, similarly opposed to the views they would defend in the first place, to achieve their goals generally ending in the suppression of individual rights. Having started with expressions of despair at capitalism (one would think) and not making it socially with the usual French expectations from the State to “assist” (not taking into account that France is already redistributing 57% of its GDP) as well as vague but some specific wants (like on the gas tax to fund partly climate change), the yellow vests achieved their goals when Macron and the French government caved in (something that can also be discussed but may be a French choreographic feature of societal “debate”). Now they go further and like in May 1968 want to change the world we live in and rewrite how democracy works. They want the street, mobile phone and social network empowered, to rule the day. They want to decide for countries where they go just because they can scream and walk down roundabouts. So far the French are generally sympathetic, as they often are with big strikes and the like, especially when they are not bothered – and they don’t mind for the Parisians to pay for being Parisian in a very French habit. My bet is for the NIMBY factor (not in my backyard) and when riots come too close to home or their costs destroy too many of the jobs they could have benefitted from, as they start doing, yellow vest support will quickly vanish. Whatever the style of Emmanuel Macron, who is still supported by a large group of silent and reform-minded French voters, sympathy for the yellow vests will be replaced for screams of law and order and a 30 May 1968-like pro-order demonstration will materialise, reaching the very roundabouts of France. It will be difficult for the yellow vests to capitalise upon any wants they may have as they do not know what they want and are prone to contradiction as previously explained (while they likely pay no or little direct income tax with France being the ruling EU tax champion, they do not want more indirect taxation though would want increased spending to benefit them). They have no clear leaders, no coherent programme, no ability to manage anything much less a country like France. Besides screaming slogans, they can’t negotiate as they have nothing to give or really desire specifically. The yellow vests are like kindergarten kids on steroids some of whom like to break things. It is a question of time before they crumble but every weekend is costly to France (and thus Europe and its reforms) financially and in terms of image. As Macron explained recently in his own style but with accuracy: “We can’t work less, earn more, cut taxes and increase spending”.  

The latest refugee crisis in the Mediterranean shows a valiant boat of 32 brave refugees being unwanted by any EU country after one month at sea with many NGOs expressing their outrage and screams of shame as expected. The situation is certainly dire. There are a few teens and a couple of children involved. Nobody can rejoice at such an abysmal situation. One would hope that they will find a safe harbour soon. Having said this, it is also time to be honest and admit that Europe cannot welcome “all the misery in the world” (as said by French PM, Michel Rocard in 1990 nearly 30 years ago). Ms Merkel accepted one million refugees due to the combination of her pastoral and Eastern German descent with the clear need to correct the critical and ever looming German demographic time bomb. Her move made a lot of sense and was well-intended but the implementation and impact of such a massive arrival of ethnically and culturally different individuals in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) created a change that was not foreseen and Europe was not prepared for. This move created the “Alternative für Deutschland” (AfD) movement, which incidentally scored highest in local elections where immigrants were the fewest like in Saxony, mirroring similar trends for non-mainstream populist parties and candidates with huge and unsettling societal agendas in “left out” midwestern America or Northern England where immigration fear played a big role. This massive immigration influx, which was corrected also as to ensure that skilled applicants were targeted to stay permanently (something the US could learn as they still have a lottery for any work visa applicant, regardless of skills of whether they are renewing their visa and are employer-sponsored and paying tax!) created ripple effects in other countries leading to a rise in populist parties’ fortunes and very likely to the Leave vote in Britain in June 2016. There is a great need for governments how liberal-minded and pro-globalisation they may be (and should be) to do a reality check and start understanding that national identity matters to European people and not everybody can come in and stay in Europe. There must be an immigration process that is fair and also focused on national balances at all levels lest we risk going into nightmarish integration processes throughout the continent. There is also a need now to limit immigration to skilled applicants who add to the pie of EU countries and do not end up being an additional burden to national societies in the context of a sound EU if we want the latter to grow serenely. National governments and the EU should work together to clamp down systematically on those criminal outfits that prey on refugees and bring them to European shores on false promises and in risky, if not lethal, conditions. Being aware of the Syrian war catalyst and putting aside something that may have been initially seen as a tactical negotiating advantage by Damas, there is also a need for a strong economic Marshall-like development plan to help those economies of Africa and the Middle East to keep their refugees at home – their national home. While this may sound harsh and devoid of humanity, Europe will not survive if it does not adopt a resolutely proactive policy that breaks with naive credos of the past and faces reality. This is manageable and will prevent European populist parties and their leaders ill-fitted to run modern societies and economies from seizing power democratically on the back of fears or send their nation down the economic abyss. 

Having said all that and hoping you will forgive this European “humanist-realist” for his straight, no-nonsense views, I wish you all a very happy and most healthy New Year 2019, which I also want prosperous and far less yellow in the attire.   

Warmest regards,
Serge                     

Serge Desprat- Jan 7, 2019 (Prague)

2-1-19

Dear Partners in thought,

The Washington post essay of last night, which was a clear Happy New Year salvo from Mitt Romney against Trump, was predictable and marks the start of the pre-campaign for the Republican nomination. While he has not yet declared himself, Romney, a patriot, did not come back to the frontline of politics just to represent Utah in the US Senate – something I wrote to you in earlier Book Notes and Interludes. He is a Republican of the old fashioned (and quasi-extinct) way post-Trump absorption and had to voice his serious concerns against Trump and his administration notably in relation to the damage done to America around the world. 

His words were unambiguous: “The appointment of senior persons of lesser experience, the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the President’s thoughtless claim that America has long been a “sucker” in world affairs all defined his presidency down”, adding that “Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world” and that  his “conduct over the past two years is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office”. It is to be noted that last November he had already started in an oblique way his attack in stressing that the media was “essential to the Republic, to our  freedom, to the cause of freedom abroad, and to our national security”adding  that he would now “speak out against statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest and destructive to democratic institutions”.        

Romney who managed a serious presidential campaign in 2012 is standing for the old Republican Party of the Nelson Rockefeller moderate wing. While his position is as an independent before he takes office in the Senate in two days, he would likely gather support in the future pre-Republican primaries throughout 2019 at a time when the economy will provide little shelter for Trump who will keep amassing problems largely of his own making. There is little doubt in my mind that after this clear salvo Romney will seek the Republican nomination. If and when he wins the nomination, his moderate yet conservative approach will position him well to win the presidency nationwide, also as the Democrats may go too far left and nominate someone  like Elizabeth Warren who is currently making soundings about a primary run.   

America and the world could not have wanted a better start of 2019. Very Happy New Year, Mr. Romney!

Warmest regards,
Serge 

Serge Desprat- Jan 2, 2018 (Prague)