Language Games: Should French Unis Teach in English?

I have long been fascinated with the France's Academie Francaise, a body intended to guard the French language from the barbarisms of other, uncouth languages. The erstwhile linguistic barbarians have changed over the centuries: whereas the Academic Francaise was developed as a bulwark to Spanish, nowadays it's English, of course, that needs to be guarded. Recently, French higher education minister Genevieve Fioraso caused an uproar by suggesting that more courses need to be offered in English to attract international students. To this the traditionalists were of course up in arms. However, this reaction neglects the fact that several elite institutions alike the Sciences Po already provide instruction in English:

Elite French business schools, and Grandes Ecoles such as the Institute of Political Studies also known as Sciences-Po, have been teaching in English for the last 15 years. Why, she asks, shouldn't other less prestigious universities follow suit?

The crux of the counterargument goes like this: if part of the attraction of studying in France is learning French, why dilute this by offering second-rate English-language instruction? Another is the ever-popular idea that speaking French lends the speaker a different worldview from that of English speakers, making (surprise!) French education incommensurate with English education:

Teaching English is very different, they argue, from teaching in English. They support the teaching of foreign languages, and suggest starting it even earlier - in nursery schools - but they oppose the teaching of subjects such as mathematics, history and literature in any language but French.
 

Antoine Compagnon, a distinguished French scholar who taught at Columbia University and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Science, maintained in a public letter that it would be better to teach foreign students French than tolerate "Globish" (the primitive English of non-English-speakers) and the dumbing down of teaching that would inevitably follow.

Foreign students who choose France over Britain, Compagnon says, are not only choosing the French lifestyle but also its culture and language. Teaching them Proust in English, in France, would be a travesty.
French MP Pouria Amirshahi, who represents French expats in North and West Africa, backed him up. "The signal given out to those everywhere who learn French abroad and in francophone countries throughout the world is not reassuring," told The Daily Telegraph.

It looks as though, in France, if you want to teach students in English, you have to do it quietly like the elite universities which never asked permission but never boasted about it either.

I believe that some market research is truly in order to enlighten this debate:

1. (1) Do international students come to France purposely to study in French?
2. (2) How many more international students can France realistically hope to attract if it had more course offerings at the university level in English?

Both questions are certainly worth investigating.if France is serious about addressing the needs and wants of international students.Either way, it's better to proceed from a position of knowledge than from one of ignorace in addressing these language games.

Geopolitics of Eurovision: Echoes of Yugoslavia

Formerly known as the Cold War Studies programme, LSE IDEAS has always been focused on post-1989 events in that part of Europe. As out founders keep saying, understanding the Cold War is key to understanding the current era of globalization. I need not remind anyone that the wars there were especially long and awful after the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. Although Western commentators tend to uniformly portray Soviet-era strongmen in a negative light, I have always had a more sanguine view of Josep Broz Tito. Say what you will about his methods, but centuries-long ethnic hatreds that were again to erupt after the Iron Curtain's demise were mitigated to a significant extent during his reign. It was not uncommon, for instance, for Serbs and Croats to train side by side for international sporting competition and regard it as unexceptional. But then came the deluge.

Fortunately, there remain commonalities amongst these erstwhile rivals that gives you hope in humanity. For, in recent times, former Yugoslavs have stuck by each other in voting for the Eurovision Song Contest. The 2013 event held yesterday night in Malmo, Sweden was like always--small-"n" European nationalisms thrown together with talent and no small amount of cheesiness, It's perhaps not such a big deal in the rest of the world, but Europeans have always loved the competition's mixture of good-natured fun and Euro-kitsch. In more jovial surroundings, it turns out that the former Yugoslavs have no small amount of love for their neighbours despite everything (and Ukrainians and Georgians for Russians elsewhere, etc.):

In addition to media analyses, serious academic studies have been conducted on Eurovision Song Contest (phone in) voting patterns. While geographic proximity alone may not decide how Europeans vote--studies suggest talent plays a part, too--it does help a contestant to do better when they both come from a prominent "voting bloc" and show some real skill. Even this year the former Yugoslavs were active this year despite being depleted of contestants in the later rounds:

We all know that this bloc has been particularly one of the most predictive blocs voting-wise. Hypothetically speaking, if one former Yugoslavian country qualified, the Scandinavian and ex-Soviet blocs would not be affected because that lone former Yugoslavian qualifier would maximize its monopoly from its bloc as much as possible.

Perhaps a better demonstration of their affection for one another came last year when Serbia finished third:

Serbia came third with a very good ballad sung by a very good international performer, his voice was strong and powerful. Four countries gave Serbia 12 votes [the number of points given to a song receiving the most votes in a particular country], all are geographical neighbours. Ten countries gave Serbia 10 or 8 votes - only two of those countries are anywhere near Serbia.

The Swedish hosts understand the appeal of Eurovision along these lines in IR terms:

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who watched the competition in Malmo Saturday, called it a unique event that unites Europe. "We see the old Yugoslavia, now independent states, after a decade of war they always vote for each other in Eurovision, " Bildt told The Associated Press. "That I think is fun."

Indeed, the voting table from 2012 says it all: eventual third-place finisher Željko Joksimović of Serbia received maximum points from Bulgaria, Croatia, Monenegro and Slovenia. Amidst the rubble of even the worst of conflicts, there is always hope that old enmities can be transcended by the better part of human nature. As my previous intuition suggested, let Eurovision show us the way forward for European Union. Where most EU initiatives fail to create a sense of "Europeanness," Eurovision succeeds--at least in part. In this day and age when the whole integration project is in question, studying successful examples should help.

Liberation Theology, Leonardo Boff & 'Fixing' Catholicism

What is the difference between a socially active priest and one who dabbles in leftist politics? The dividing line was much clearer during the Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI eras when the latter was strictly verboten and priests were discouraged from engaging directly--especially in electoral politics. A few weeks ago I discussed the changes that may be in store at the Vatican given that someone from Latin America-- homeland of liberation theology spurred by the world's highest rates of inequality--has become pope. While Pope Francis has disavowed liberation theology in speech, in practice, many alienated (former) Latin Catholics believe that the hardline of the past will be replaced by a more tolerant and receptive outlook.

The highest profile critic of the Catholic Church so far as liberation theology is concerned is of course Leonardo Boff. Yet even he believes that while rhetorical disdain for godless Marxist elements of liberation theology may remain, in practice we may have a more nuanced and socially aware church emerging. Boff is positive, while the many priests killed in Latin America during the liberation theology period may even be regarded positively once more:

"Pope Francis comes with the perspective that many of us in Latin America share. In our churches we do not just discuss theological theories, like in European churches. Our churches work together to support universal causes, causes like human rights, from the perspective of the poor, the destiny of humanity that is suffering, services for people living on the margins."

The liberation theology movement, which seeks to free lives as well as souls, emerged in the 1960s and quickly spread, especially in Latin America. Priests and church laypeople became deeply involved in human rights and social struggles. Some were caught up in clashes between repressive governments and rebels, sometimes at the cost of their lives.

The movement's martyrs include El Salvador's Archbishop Oscar Romero, whose increasing criticism of his country's military-run government provoked his assassination as he was saying Mass in 1980. He was killed by thugs connected to the military hierarchy a day after he preached that "no soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the will of God." His killing presaged a civil war that killed nearly 90,000 over the next 12 years. The case for beatification of Romero languished under popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI due to their opposition to liberation theology, but he was put back on track to becoming a saint days after Francis became pope.

Boff narrates the familiar difference between theory and practice, with the idea that Pope Francis is oriented towards social action in a way his predecessors were not, really, despite lip service supposedly being paid to its features palatable to the Church (i.e., the non-Marxist ones):

While even John Paul embraced the "preferential option for the poor" at the heart of the movement, most church leaders were unhappy to see intellectuals mixing doses of Marxism and class struggle into their analysis of the Gospel. It was a powerfully attractive mixture for idealistic Latin Americans who were raised in Catholic doctrine, educated by the region's army of Marxist-influenced teachers, and outraged by the hunger, inequality and bloody repression all around them.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, hundreds of Argentine priests were affiliated with a movement that proclaimed Christian teaching "inescapably obliges us to join in the revolutionary process for urgent radical change of existing structures and to reject formally the capitalistic system we see around us ... We shall go forward in search of a Latin American brand of socialism that will hasten the coming of the new man."

John Paul and his chief theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, drove some of the most ardent and experimental liberation theologians out of the priesthood, castigated some of those who remained, and ensured that the bishops and cardinals they promoted took a wary view of leftist social activism.

Monsignor Chavez of San Salvador may make liberation theology more palatable by saying that there are many varieties of liberation theology (eat your heart out, Hall and Soskice), with Pope Francis being on the least extreme end in terms of Marxist overtones--Catholic social vision instead of Marxist social vision, if you will:

"There are many theologies of liberation," he said. "The pope represents one of these currents, the most pastoral current, the current that combines action with teaching." He described Francis' version as "theologians on foot, who walk with the people and combine reflection with action," and contrasted them with "theologians of the desk, who are from university classrooms."

Then again, even the would-be Pope Francis acknowledged that there are certain leftist overtones one can readily read into the Gospels if one is not careful:

"The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It is the Gospel itself," said then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio during a 2010 deposition in a human rights trial. He said that if he were to repeat "any of the sermons from the first fathers of the church, from the 2nd or 3rd century, about how the poor must be treated, they would say that mine would be Maoist or Trotskyite."

In other words, leftist critics hope that Pope Francis will ask the faithful to do as he does, not as he says.

Divorces of (Real-Estate) Convenience in China

To paraphrase Steely Dan, this is not your Haitian but your Hainan divorce. Recent regulations in China intended to tamp down real-estate speculation have had an unintended consequence of separating happily married couples to take advantage of better tax benefits accruing to single persons:

Long queues of happy couples waiting to get married might be a common sight in Las Vegas. But lines of happily married couples waiting to get divorced? Only in China. In major cities across the country last month, thousands of couples rushed to their local divorce registry office to dissolve their marriages in order to benefit from fast-expiring tax breaks on property investments for unmarried individuals.

Local media reported long waits at registries in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and elsewhere as savvy investors sought to buy or sell a second home before the government introduced strict new regulations that would force married homeowners to pay hefty taxes on the sale of second properties.

The new regulations are designed to cool speculation in China’s feverish property market and are part of a package of measures that would require couples to pay up to 20% capital gains tax on the sale of second homes. But for determined investors, nothing gets in the way of a good bargain, and some quickly noticed that the 20% impost didn’t apply if the second home was bought before the couple were married — or after they got divorced.

It seems the authorities have caught on, though, and singles are increasingly unable to take advantage of the breaks sought after by the divorcees-of-convenience:

The divorce solution is extreme but it’s the kind of solution to which China’s put-upon middle classes have become accustomed...Of course, the country’s regulators have also taken notice of the long queues outside divorce registries and have acted to put a stop to the practice. In recent weeks, the government revised its regulations to increase the taxes payable by unmarried individuals selling a secondhand property, effectively cutting the most speculative investors out of the market.

Don't you just love it when marriage, profitology and authoritarianism collide?

Brokebank USA: Living Paycheck to Paycheck

Gillian Tett of the FT has an interesting article that seemingly contradicts all of the happy talk about how "America is back" with stock markets hitting all-time highs. There is no particular difficulty understanding stock market speculation and bubbles: with the Federal Reserve practically giving money away, those who still have access to credit have parked the proceeds in stocks. With the last two rounds of all-time highs coming right before the dot-com bubble burst and the subprime crisis, let's say its implications may not be welcome.

Outside of the casino economy, however, there appears to be a new way to measure the desperation of Americans living in and with the real economy. When people are strapped for cash--and American personal savings rates are once more headed to zero--it is only to be expected that business activity peaks during paydays. That is, quite a lot of these Brokebank Yanks Americans are living, as the saying goes, from paycheck to paycheck:

“Consumers are living pay check by pay check, and they tend to spend accordingly. Then you have 50 million people on food stamps and that has cycles too. So for our business it has become critical to understand the cycle – when pay [and benefit] checks are arriving.” Sadly, it does not yet seem possible for outsiders (or journalists) to crunch the numbers across the entire economy. Large companies are very secretive about their big-data projects (this particular company, which produces many of America’s best-loved snacks, would not let me reveal its name). And though economists monitor macro trends in retail spending, they have not traditionally analysed micro spending swings.
Nevertheless, this story is not unique. Executives at Walmart, for example, have recently noted the rising impact of the “pay check cycle”; Kroger, another retailer, notes that the proportion of customers using food stamps has doubled, creating additional swings. And as these anecdotal tales mount up, they are interesting for at least two reasons. First, and most obviously, they should remind us of the silent, dark underbelly of economic pain that is stalking America’s current “recovery”. Most notably, it seems that the financial fragility of the poorer section of US society has risen sharply in recent years, as unemployment remains high and real incomes and household wealth fall. (A revealing survey published last week, for example, suggested that the wealth of Hispanic and black families declined by 44 per cent and 31 per cent respectively between 2007 and 2010.)

Measuring this financial fragility – like measuring micro-level spending swings – is tough, since it is not an issue that economists have traditionally tracked. But one in seven Americans (about 50 million) are now thought to be living in poverty and a similar number in “food insecure” households. Meanwhile, six million are using food banks and 47 million are on food stamps. And when the Brookings Institution tried to look at this fragility issue a couple of years ago, by analysing how many households could find $2,000 in a hurry, it concluded that a quarter of families had no access to ready, rainy-day funds. “Although financial fragility is more severe among low-income households, a sizeable fraction of seemingly middle-class Americans are also at risk,” the study concluded. 

Make no mistake: Americans are worse off now than they were under Bush, and in turn worse off under Bush than they were under (Bill) Clinton. Althoug retailers are naturally wary of disclosing the timing of their sales based on paycheck cycles, it could be gathered anonymously by an impartial entity alike the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Summing it up merely solidifies an image of growing discontent as income and wealth slide and cause changes in consuming habits as a reflection.

Once massive Fed purchases of bonds are discontinued, who knows how far down this entire edifice of casino economy will fall. Certainly, there is no foundation of a real economy to fall back on. 

German (Randian?) Solution: No Minimum Wage

Sometime ago, I remember watching former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testifying before the US Congress when he was asked about his views about the minimum wage. "There should be none," I reflexively blurted out. Knowing that Greenspan was a libertarian former acolyte of Ayn Rand, the answer was obvious and, true to form, that's what he said to the surprise of this congressman. This same debate is being played out in Europe as those championing reform of ossified economies point out that one of the features that makes German unemployment comparatively low to other European nations is its lack of a minimum wage. To be exact, there is no general minimum wage but sector-specific minimum wages arrived at through collective bargaining in the German corporatist system.

That is, would Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain which are all suffering from very high unemployment be better off if they moved to a German-ish system? Many conservative commentators certainly think so, but it's important to point out that even Germans themselves are considering a EUR 8.5/hour minimum wage as pushed by the opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD). Indeed, it has already been passed in the upper house (Bundesrat):

The SPD is in favour of introducing a statutory minimum wage. On the official SPD website, they talk about the introduction of “humane” minimum wages. Indeed, after the regional elections in Lower Saxony in January, the changed majority situation in the Bundesrat permitted, according to the SPD website, to present a law proposal together with the Green Party for a minimum wage. It has been passed on 1 March 2013. This proposal demands € 8.5 for every employee in each industry sector – as enforceable right. They argue that this minimum wage is necessary in a social market economy and is, moreover, one essential element of human dignity. A minimum wage, according to Malu Dreyer, Prime minister of Rhineland-Palatinate (SPD), would bring both flexibility to the employers and security to the employees. It is now up to the Bundestag to approve this law proposal. 

In the FT, Alexander Privitera further argues that there is remorse on the social democrats' part for having pushed employment reforms that many cite for making Germany more competitive post-unification.: 

Mr [Gerhard] Schröder’s reforms helped this process. Limiting unemployment benefits pushed many to look for jobs. But the unintended consequence was that, today, the low-wage sector accounts for a remarkably high 20 per cent of all jobs. Germany’s victory in the battle against unemployment came at the cost of creating a two-tiered labour market – it has a flexible, low-wage sector and a higher-skilled, better-paid one that continues to be extremely rigid to this day.

Despite the fact that the Germans are promoting their reforms as a model to follow abroad, at home political parties still debate their benefits. Mr Schröder’s Social Democrats are convinced that the reduction in welfare benefits led to rising inequality, and argue that they should be partially reversed. Even some Christian Democrats now admit that a minimum wage might be necessary. One of the main lessons of the Schröder reforms is that timing matters. Pushing Europeans too hard, too quickly and all at the same time will not make them stronger. It could drive them over the cliff. 

Given what's happening in Germany, you have to wonder if the current CDU/FDP advocacy for the rest of Europe holds water. Not economically--you can have an endless debate on that, and people do--but politically insofar as left-leaning parties seem keen on introducing a "wage floor" that definitely is not in tune with the "Germany is a model for Europe--no pain, no gain" line of reasoning.

Egypt's World Beggary Tour 2013 Goes On

The rise and millennia-long fall of the Egyptian Empire continues apace. From the giddy heights of empire catalogued in the Bible to its present penury, Egypt has come a long way--down, that is, with no end in sight. The latest humiliation of course is being flat broke after the "Arab Spring" broke its back financially as tourism and FDI have disappeared due to the very poor law and order situation in the country. That is, the very essential thing a country needs to move forward--political order--is elusive post-Mubarak.

What is happening should be known to almost all readers by now. Losing foreign exchange and unwilling to give up on politically popular food and energy subsidies in a context where even more civil unrest would emerge if these are removed, Egypt is going around the world--begging bowl in hand--to cadge foreign exchange to tide it over. But, for how long can it last without an IMF deal which would unlock further emergency funding? This being the IPE Zone, the "international" aspect comes from its never-ending search for money to tide it over, while the political one comes from its leadership delaying much-needed changes to set it on a more sustainable path in fear of losing in the polls. In a number of simple steps, then:

1. Egypt's foreign exchange reserves have been dwindling since the Arab Spring events since the emergent lack of political order has hurt tourism and FDI;
2. The natural lender would be the IMF but the institution is exceedingly unpopular at home due to Egypt being a repeat borrower during the Mubarak years;
3. Moreover, the IMF is asking for long-desired reforms to do away with foreign exchange-sapping food and energy subsidies;
4. Knowing the political fallout from scrapping these subsidies, the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated leadership has been wary of doing so while its leadership position remains tenuous;
5. Something the Brothers are awaiting to secure their leadership is another landslide victory in parliamentary elections set to be re-run in H2 2013 (a definite date has not yet been set);
6. In the meantime, Egypt is cadging any and all countries--especially energy exporters whose pricey products have caused the country so much difficulty in the first place such as Qatar, (supposedly) Libya and so on. 

The difficulty in lending to Egypt is that, on its own, it cannot conceivably repay its recent loans. It is banking on the IMF coming in after (a) the Brotherhood presumably wins parliamentary elections. With a firmer political base and to please the IMF, it is hoped that Egypt can then (b) remove these subsidies which will almost certainly result in even wider mass riots. It is further hoped that an IMF seal of approval will lead to (c) both tourist revenues and FDI coming back. That's a lot of "ifs" and "buts"--not encouraging stuff for would-be lenders. Before the IMF comes in, though, Egypt is using its recent loans to literally waste on rather pointless government spending including the aforementioned food and energy subsidies that do nothing to put in on a more sustainable economic path. Meanwhile uncertainties abound. It seems the latest cadging target is none other than Russia:

During a meeting in a Black Sea resort city, Egypt's president and members of his government turned to Russian President Vladimir Putin and asked for a sizable loan, according to Putin aide. Egypt's Mohammed Morsi appealed to Moscow and Cairo's past ties, recalling how the former Soviet Union stepped in to finance the building of the Aswan High Dam in the 1960s after the United States abruptly withdrew from the project, according to Russian media. 

Still, the Russians' response seemed rather equivocal: We'll talk later. Egypt has been knocking on doors around the region seeking billions of dollars in loans, bond purchases and grants, trying to fill rapidly draining coffers so it can keep power stations running and bakeries churning out cheap bread for the country's millions of poor. 

The AP gets most big picture details right:

The most crucial piece of aid, a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, has been delayed by months of negotiations over how Egypt will reduce its massive system of subsidies, which the poor rely on for cheap fuel and food but which suck up large portions of the budget. The government has taken some limited steps, but many economists believe it is postponing extensive reforms until after parliament elections to avoid austerity measures that could hurt Morsi's majority Muslim Brotherhood party at the polls. The problem is: No date has been set for elections, and they won't be held until the fall at the earliest. That could mean months of economic limbo, with foreign lenders and donors reluctant to give unless there is a clear economic plan. Securing the IMF loan is considered key to boosting investors' confidence in Egypt and unlocking further aid.

In the meantime, the government has been seeking injections of cash. Overall, Egypt has sought or is in talks for more than $30 billion since the fall of Mubarak — the vast majority since Morsi was inaugurated in June, according to a compilation by The Associated Press of what has been announced. In an email, an official in the president's office could not confirm exact numbers but said the figure is "close to accurate." The official, who was not authorized to talk to reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity, did not give further comment on economic policy...

With revenues down, the government has been burning through its foreign currency reserves, which have fallen to just $13.4 billion, a third of the pre-uprising level. Much of that has gone to propping up the currency and importing fuel and wheat for the subsidy system. Egypt spends some $14.5 billion a year in subsidizing fuel and $4 billion in food subsidies, the bulk of which goes to bread. Nearly half of Egypt's 90 million people live near or below the poverty line of $2 a day. 

They have no pride for Brother Morsi will beg anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Such is the fate of modern-day Egypt. I'll bet the Pharaohs are turning in their graves:

EU-US FTA & the Lameness of 'Cultural Exception'

There is already a certain desperation to the idea that trade can significantly be boosted between the US and EU FTA when they already have exceptionally low tariff levels. What more substantial trade barriers can be removed? Are these dynamic and growing markets? The answers, of course, are "few" and "no." Despite there being a number of obstacles to even this smallest of possible achievements--especially agriculture--one of the more interesting ones concerns trade in "audiovisual industries."

Today, I came across two interesting articles on US entertainment. The first concerns American firm director Michael Bay "apologizing" for his movie Armageddon. Alike the vast majority of US-based productions, Bay's films have next to no artistic merit despite having commercial appeal. So it's schlock, but it's schlock that finds a ready audience of gullible folks worldwide of the lowest common denominator variety [explosions! special FX! naked people! cussing!] I myself prefer watching documentaries, but that's beside the point.

Another article deals with the latest resurrected and utterly ridiculous trade grievance of the Europeans. It may seem to you that I usually side with the Europeans in trade disputes with Americans, but that's not always the case--especially over the non-issues of GM food, hormone-fed cattle, and so on. Here we have another blatant form of European protectionism waiting in the wings over the supposed cultural erosion that will occur if American films are allowed unfettered access to European markets:

The cultural exception has its roots in 1993 when a furor erupted as Hollywood, notably led by late MPAA chief Jack Valenti, wanted to include the audiovisual industries in the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) negotiations. Europe, led by France, balked. Member states claimed that including the arts would threaten their quota and subsidy systems and put them in danger of total Hollywood hegemony. Hours from the deadline, a deal was struck and Europe got its way.

In their current petition, Euro filmmakers say 20 years ago, “the cultural exception burst onto the international scene, leading to the recognition of a specific status for audiovisual works as they are not just goods like any others and must therefore be excluded from trade negotiations.” The group calls the proposed negotiations mandate “a renunciation,” “a capitulation” and “a breaking-point” which would “reduce culture to nothing more than a commodity.” The group further argues that the trade negotiations appear “strikingly like a conscious desire to bring European culture to its knees.”

The most vociferous opponents of this so-called cultural invasion are (surprise!) the French:

But that wasn’t quite good enough for France’s external commerce minister Nicole Bricq and culture minister Aurélie Filippetti, who said, “France has placed a sine qua non condition on its accord for trade negotiations with the United States: The full respsect of the cultural exception and in particular the pure and simple exclusion of audiovisual. The draft mandate must therefore be modified” to erase De Grucht’s “ambiguity.” They added, “France will not compromise. The exclusion of audiovisual services is not negotiable. A policy statement is not enough.”

This argument is quite frankly moronic in exactly the same way that French authorities acting as "guardians" of French language is: In a free market, no thought police are supposed to disapprove of your (exceedingly poor) taste in (lowbrow) American fare for as long as your (deplorable) viewing habits harm no one else. If people want to watch garbagey American films and don't hurt anyone in the process, then they ought to be free to do as they damn well please.

So here's a (backhanded) salute to Michael Bay and other directors of proto-garbage American entertainment from the IPE Zone. I certainly wouldn't want to watch their brand of Ameritrash, but I will strongly support the right of others to watch it. Heck, I'll even encourage you to play the archetypal American entertainer Whitney Houston's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner while you're at it ;-)

Of Profits & Reconciliation: Kaesong Industrial Complex

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that certainly seems to be the case here: opened in 2004 as a manifestation of the late Roh Tae Woo's "sunshine policy" of South towards North Korea, it was hoped Kaesong Industrial Complex would herald closer economic ties between the two Koreas. Located in the North near the now-legendary 38th parallel, this (quasi-) export processing zone was modelled in part on the example of other successful EPZs in the region. Through trials and tribulations you are all well aware of including North Korea's penchant to throw tantrums every so often, Kaesong has not really lived to its billing. Not only has South Korean investment there been (wisely as it turns out) somewhat limited, but closer economic ties leading to better political ones did not emerge.

That said, there have been some South Korean investors who saw potential advantages in low-cost labour north of the border. It could even have led to knowledge transfer helpful to north Korean development. Many of them poured not-insubstantial savings into facilities in Kaesong, only to be stung this year as occasional short-lived evacuations and closures since 2004 have now led to full-scale desertion of the industrial estate. Can you say "mass expropriation"?

The South Korean entrepreneurs who invested up to 10 years and millions of dollars in the Kaesong industrial complex, a symbol of economic collaboration between the Koreas that is now shuttered by the North, have little more than hope to cling to as assembly lines sit idle day after day. They say they want to go back to work. The sooner the better. They say they cannot abandon their investments in factories, or the cheap North Korean labor that helped them put aside misgivings about doing business with the South's unpredictable neighbor. Some were just getting over their beginners' mistakes and were starting to see the fruits of their work. 

But North Korea has been unrelenting in its decision to bar South Koreans from entering the factory city just inside its border, and withdraw the 53,000 North Korean workers who manned assembly lines. As the lockout enters a third week, customers of the South Korean companies are growing impatient and losses are mounting. Some businesses are quietly mulling giving up on Kaesong altogether.

"We have built the Kaesong industrial complex by the sweat of our brows, believing in guarantees that we would be able to work freely," said Han Jae-kwon, chief of the association of South Korean factories in Kaesong. "We find the reality tragic and sad that we are unable to travel to our own factories." The Kaesong complex has been nearly deserted since early April, when Pyongyang pulled the plug on its last significant economic link with the South. Most of the nearly 900 South Korean managers and entrepreneurs left soon after. Some 200 remain and are getting by on whatever food they had stored.

It does not seem fair that positively-minded South Koreans who went there for non-economic reasons--especially a desire to bring about reconciliation--are being punished for their efforts. When only one side wants to talk it over regarding Kaesong, that's not going to work as firms located there keep losing international business. But then again, how did the saying go about the road to hell? One certainly hopes they will recoup their investments when North Korea again relents on its comic-fantasist-Leninist-Marxist stylings, but the damage has been irreparably done to the idea that the hermit nation would interfere less with this project that seemed so promising all those years ago.

UPDATE: Employing North Korean style hyperbole--don't ask me why--South Korea has made an ultimatum on re-opening Kaesong and releasing the South Korean managers held captive there:

After weeks of threatening rhetoric from the North, South Korea on Thursday promised its own unspecified "grave measures" if Pyongyang rejects talks on a jointly run factory park shuttered for nearly a month. The park in the North Korean border town of Kaesong is the most significant casualty so far in the recent deterioration of relations between the Koreas. Pyongyang barred South Korean managers and cargo from entering North Korea earlier this month, then recalled the 53,000 North Koreans who worked on the assembly lines.

South Korea's Unification Ministry on Thursday proposed working-level talks on Kaesong and urged the North to respond by noon Friday, warning that Seoul will take "grave measures" if Pyongyang rebuffs the call for dialogue. In a televised news conference, spokesman Kim Hyung-suk refused to say what those measures might be. Some analysts said Seoul would likely pull out the roughly 175 South Korean managers who remain at the complex.

UPDATE 2: On 2 May, aside from "repatriating" the remaining South Korean managers these past few days still keeping guard over their firms' plant, property and equipment, South Korea has decided to lend these pioneering firms emergency aid. Call it an unexpected but most certainly welcome form of "political risk insurance" insofar as outright grants cannot be given:

South Korea has offered 300 billion won ($272.41 million) million in special loans to companies affected by Pyongyang's decision last month to close a jointly run industrial zone in North Korea, a government official said on Thursday. A government taskforce will provide the assistance from May 6 in the form of loans with interest rates of 2 percent. More than 120 South Korean businesses have invested in the border complex at Kaesong.

"The government is currently trying to provide tailored support for these businesses and once we finish determining the current status of the companies, we will continue to make more support available," said Suh Ho, a director-general at the Unification Ministry which deals with inter-Korean affairs. Suh said cash handouts to the companies were legally impossible and that loans - money for which will be taken out of various government funds - were the only available solution in the short-term.

Arab Spring F1 (Ep III): 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix

For a third consecutive year, we have controversy over whether the Bahrain Grand Prix should proceed. In 2011, it was famously cancelled despite attempts by F1 bigwigs to insulate this event from the turmoil that engulfed the region via the Arab Spring of protests against authoritarian regimes (alike that of Bahrain)[1, 2, 3]. Despite many conscientious F1 drivers saying that F1 is simply a sport while what's going on in the country is a life-or-death matter to some, the race went ahead anyway in 2012.

This year, the protesters are back in action. To be sure, the protesters are smart in understanding that the travelling circus that is F1 has few peers in attracting the world's attention to their cause annually. They have barricaded routes to the F1 track, forcing the government to again vow for the safety of F1 personnel. Why waste such an opportunity to score easy publicity? On the other hand, F1 bigwigs are sticking to the tack they've had since last year: Instead of marginalizing the protesters as nuisances, their approach is to position the hosting the race as part of the reconciliation process. Which, of course, is rather superficial insofar as it is the government the protesters are up in arms against who pay Formula one its fees. As the saying goes, he who has the gold...

Activists have demanded that F1 bosses cancel the race due to Bahrain's poor human rights record. The race which was first run in Bahrain in 2004 was cancelled two years ago following the forcible clearance of an iconic Manama landmark, Pearl Roundabout. In the unrest that followed more than 50 people died, hundreds were arrested and thousands dismissed from their jobs. Last year's race went ahead in an atmosphere of heightened security. One protester was shot dead by police...

But in a joint statement on Friday, motorsport's world governing body and Formula One management said this year's race should proceed as planned. The Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) and Formula One Management (FOM) said they "also strongly believe sport can often be a force for good and that the staging of the Grand Prix in Bahrain will come some way in helping soothe some of the issues which have been raised in the media". Protests were reported across the kingdom on Thursday night, with demonstrators chanting "No Formula on Bahrain's occupied land", according to AFP news agency.
Protesters blocked roads with burning tyres, and police responded with tear gas and stun grenades.

I am still undecided on the matter of who's in the right here, but rest assured that the govenment's intentions to use the race as a showcase for Bahrain all those years ago has since backfired ever since protests spread throughout the Middle East. Indeed, the balance of public relations is arguably negative nowadays with no end in sight as this race is held year in and year out.

UPDATE: Being ever so politically incorrect, F1 ringleader Bernie Ecclestone has labelled Bahrain's leaders "stupid" for hosting the grand prix and in the process giving protesters free publicity as described above.