January 2007


Hello, for those of you who do not understand what I am talking about, do not worry, this is Romanian politics.

Hei! Hei! Hei!

Cred ca ne-am saturat deja de viata politica din Romania, desi multi ar zice acum … “care politica?”. In Romania exista politica, o fi ea diferita de cea occidentala, sau de ceea ce multi considera politica, dar ea tot politica ramane (o altfel de politica). In ultimii doi ani in primplanul politicii noastre a fost idila Basescu-Tariceanu care s-a mai racit in ultima vreme. Locul lui Basescu in criticarea guvernului a fost luat de domnul Theodor Stolojan & co. care este destul de talentat in a mentine tensiune in clasa conducatoare astfel incat sa nu ne plictisim iar televiziunile sa aiba ce sa mai dea la stiri.

Totul a inceput cam la un an de la alegerile din 2004, cand au avut loc niste incidente deosebite. Patriciu chemat la parchet, interventia primului ministru, ne luarea unor decizii legislative, reforma “prea inceata”… etc. Toate una peste alta trebuiau sa duca la demisia lui Tariceanu, care… surpriza, n-a facut-o. Ba a mai si invartit-o si imbarligat-o asemeni cantecelului : “Did you ever have that feeling that you wanted to go, still you have the feeling that you wanted to stay? Wanted to go…”. Clasa politica care a adus la guvernare alianta D.A. (desi daca imi aduc aminte bine, a fost popularitatea lui Basescu care a castigat alegerile) , a fost profund dezamagita de atitudinea lui Tariceanu si drept urmare a hotarat ca el trebuie linsat politic.

Astfel, Basescu, dupa ce si-a terminat vizitele in strainatate si simtindu-se lipsit de ocupatie (in definitiv presedintele nu are atributii asa importante in stat) a gasit un nou scop mandatului sau… terorizarea primului ministru cu declaratii dupa declaratii urmate de tipicul “ha, ha, ha”. Domnul prim-ministru, oricum stresat de pregatirile pentru aderare, nevasta cu 25 de ani mai tanara si alte aspecte ale “vietii complicate” a rezistat eroic presiunilor, ba a mai si albit intr-un an cati altii in zece. Oricum sa nu-i plangem de mila, ca nu avem de ce, daca nu avea de castigat cat s-a perindat prin Palatul Victoriei renunta de mult la post, ca doar a terminat ingineria, omul ar trebui sa fie rational.

In toata aceasta piesa de teatru, un fel de Caragiale la nivel national, presedintele se pare ca a avut de castigat, iar cand, in cele din urma, s-a plictisit de stresat guvernul, a venit din spate domnul Stolojan cu forte proaspete, mai vioi ca niciodata, mai coorent ca niciodata si pus pe fapte mari. A inceput prin a critica tot ce era si nu era de criticat (desi uneori mai avea si dreptate) , a facut apoi platforma liberala, a mai cooptat membri si a inceput sa agite apele in PNL. Saturata de nelinistea din sanul partidului, conducerea PNL ia decizia antiliberala de excludere a lui Theodor Stolojan din partid. Intr-un partid in al carui statut valorile ca “respectarea individului”, “libera exprimare” si “toleranta” sunt puse la loc de cinste, conducerea decide eliminarea din partid a unor membri “dizidenti”. Cred ca la asta se si asteptau platformistii care repede s-au reorganizat si au facut un nou partid, PLD. Intre timp a inceput sa se contureze si o noua poveste care a stat mai mult in fundal pana acum.

Se pare ca ideea era ca dupa alegerile din 2004, fortele de dreapta sa se coaguleze intr-un super partid care sa aiba o doctrina populista (adica nu este o doctrina clara, dar merge in directia… facem tot ce ni se cere legal ca sa castigam alegerile) care probabil ar conduce Romania mult timp de aici incolo. Un fel de intoarcere la sistemul unipartidal, numai ca partidul se poate schimba daca face prostii foarte mari. Viata politica se anchilozeaza pana la faza in care nimeni nu mai e interesat de politica iar partidul poate sa faca aproape tot ce doreste atata timp cat nu bate la ochi (cam acelasi lucru visa si PSD, doar ca el a urmat modelul rusesc…adica a mai adaugam si multa multa coruptie impreuna cu mintirea cu nesimtire a populatiei). Ca e bine sau ca e rau? In definitiv populatiei nu-i pasa cine o conduce atata timp cat e condusa bine sau mai bine zis o duce bine, atat timp cat oamenii se simt liberi si cat de cat fericiti.

Ar fii o greseala sa credem ca PNL in toata aceasta sarada este doar o simpla victima. Cum ziceam mai devreme, domnul Stolojan mai are si el ceva dreptate. In PNL s-au adunat multe interese care influenteaza guvernul Romaniei intr-un mod nedemocratic, dar cred ca aceste interese sunt departe de a fi privite ca o amenintare, iar daca devin… exista alegeri din patru in patru ani. PNL vrea sa isi mentina independenta si considera ca are mai multa putere si influenta ca partid independent decat ca aripa a unui super partid de dreapta, dar, dupa cum arata sondajele, aceasta putere scade pe zi ce trece… daca la alegerile anticipate PD si PLD impreuna reusesc sa scoata 40% din voturi iar PNL doar 10%, ceea ce este foarte probabil sa se intample, probabil ca se va ajunge la acel conglomerat de dreapta.

Si unde vin oamenii in toata aceasta parodie de politica. Noi suntem cei care platim parodia. Noi suntem cei care suferim daca liderii nu se inteleg. Noi suntem din ce in ce mai plictisiti si ignoranti si care spunem mereu “dar ce pot eu face?”. Eu unul cand ma uit la stirile politice din tara: RAD. Rad cu o pofta nebuna, mi se par politicienii nostri atat de simpatici si nostimi, mereu vor sa para ca fac ceva serios , ca sunt cine stie ce persoane foarte importante, cand de fapt ei isi fac meseria iar intr-un context global, nu valoareaza nici cat o ceapa degerata. Sa nu mai vorbesc despre declaratiile care au mereu cate ceva picant de te minunezi…”cum de a reusit asta sa scape de la nebuni? de ce nu e omul asta la scoala pentru deficiente mintale ?”.

Nu stiu daca noi avem viata politica asa cum intelege lumea, sau cum se vrea, dar sigur avem viata in clasa noastra politica. In occident, unde democratia este mult mai batrana ca la noi, este multa politica la nivelul conducerii, dar nu e strop de viata.

In the past few days there has been heavy speculation regarding the new Bush policy towards Iraq. As information started to emerge regarding the imminent announcement of today’s new Iraq policy…a very strange story started to take shape.

Most of the people expected that after the Republican defeat in this autumn Congress and Senate elections, which was mostly due to the incapability of USA to deal with the Iraq situation, we would see a shift in the policy of the White House. The fact that the former US Secretary of Defence (Donald Rumsfeld) gave his seat away to Robert Gates, combined with the public statements of President George W. Bush earlier this winter seemed to show that we might expect a change…

However, in the past days, news sources informed that the new US policy would involve the sending of more troops to Iraq, information that was confirmed today by the president of United States through his unveiling of the “Iraq policy”. YES, some 21,500 troops will be sent to Iraq to fight the war on… ahhh… terror/oil/hegemony/something elusive and incomprehensible/etc.

However, when you come to think about it, there is not much of a choice. I believe there are three main options here regarding Iraq: retreat (regardless if immediate or over a couple of years), maintaining of troops and focus on diplomacy to stabilise the region, send more troops in a hope that you will eventually win the war (with a lot of help from God).

Retreat – To retreat from Iraq is not some unthinkable option, but given the current state of the country, it would do little to improve the situation. The country will plunge in a terrible civil war; US will face a similar situation like when it had to abandon Vietnam not long ago, its authority being heavily undermined and probably lead to an even greater destabilization of the Middle East. Hard to say though what effect this will have on the terrorist organizations. Will they see this as victory and become less aggressive? Or will they do the opposite? Either way, overall on the international stage, things will look bad for USA if a retreat would be to take place … the future seems blurry and messy.

Diplomacy – Maintaining the troops while trying to engage with the nearby countries to stabilize the region and so reducing the violence in Iraq and eventually proclaiming victory and pulling out… seems like a good option. However, the countries with which USA will have to start to cooperate are Iran and Syria, both labelled as anti-American and probably having a good role in influencing terrorist movements in the Middle East. This makes cooperation extremely hard. Even if a consensus will be achieved, no one can be sure that the situation in Iraq will improve, not to mention that USA’s reputation, as an all-powerful nation, will be undermined. (I personally support this option)

More troops – Although for some might seem insane, it is still a good option. Sending more troops in Iraq will with no doubt help bring more authority and control to the area, and might eventually bring about the all searched stabilization. If successful, it will boost US authority on the world stage and bring the Republican’s back into the picture. It appears to be the option with the least tradeoffs, that of course if you do not take in account the bloodshed that will take place and its highly improbable chances of success.

So how should one choose?

Bush, although indeed made mistakes (as any human), is still a strong and proud man, with a cabinet mostly dominated by neoconservative ideas. He is advised to promote a powerful and dominant US on the international stage as well as not to disappoint his fellow citizens. To remain in Iraq is for him indeed a good strategy (not for the US citizens though, but who asked the citizens anyway?). A retreat would be like admitting that he spent billions of dollars on a war that only brought tears and chaos, to talk with Iran and Syria would probably mean to bow before them, which no American would stand, so he is left with only one option: send more troops and pray to God. In addition, for the “military-industrial complex”, which somehow managed to get a strong grip on US policy, a retreat spells disaster, especially if the population starts to realize that there is no need for a “military-industrial complex”. Government spending on defence has soared to new heights during the last 7 years, and the economic perspective is crippling with huge trade deficits and external debts, Iraq is still a good way of keeping public opinion away from these internal problems.

What will become of all this, only the people, that master planed this sequence on events and decided that invading Iraq was a good idea, know.

News sources on the issue:

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070111125556.86tcb9rf.html

http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=400440&lng=1

Hello dear reader,

Not long ago I thought that blogs are a waste of time and actually, I still believe that. Do not ask me way…it is rather a personal thing. However, a couple of friends of mine who are quite good bloggers, convinced me in opening a blog. I do not expect anything of it, frankly I believe very few people will ever read it, but I will do my best in telling you, the person who by some unthinkable, unexpected and improbable accident, ended up on this page… what I believe about our world.

If you have reached the end of this post, it means I am not a complete failure,

Thank YOU!