Editorials

Image via Wikipedia

Between 1923 and 1930 Spain was ruled by General Miguel Primo de Rivera (whose son José Antonio will,  before being put to death by a Leftist tribunal, create the semi-fascist, quasi-socialist movement, Falange). While the regime of Miguel was officially authoritarian, it lacked many traits that are usually associated with military dictatorships: it was bland rather than bloodthirsty or cruel; it was not rightist –on the contrary, it favored the lower classes; it was not ended by a coup d’état, a revolution or a foreign invasion. The dictator resigned as soon as he found out that the side effects of the international Depression had dried up the reasonable prosperity his government had brought to Spain in the mid- and late Twenties. Furthermore, Marquis Primo de Rivera, a top general and a member of the Andalusian landowning upper nobility, did not uphold his class. On the contrary, he aroused the discontent of his fellow aristocrats, then still the dominant stratum of Spanish society.

The dictatorship used to be the legal, highly respected top office of the pristine Roman republic, a very strong position that in hard times was deemed vital to the survival or success of the State. In the 90 years between 1833, when king Ferdinand VII died, and 1923 (Primo’s military coup), Spain had 111 governments, 3 bloody civil (“Carlist”) wars and, in 1898, was disastrously defeated by the United States, so losing the last remnants of her American and Pacific empires. In addition, the country suffered serious reverses in North Africa and a few Anarchist attempts at social revolution, including in 1909 the Semana Tragica (Tragic Week). When Primo de Rivera stormed the government, the parliamentary regime of the liberal oligarchs had reached its end.

Immediately after the disaster of 1898, Joaquin Costa, the leading mind of the “Regenerationist” movement, had prophesied that Spain’s disease was so advanced that only an “iron surgeon”, that is a dictatorial innovator, could possibly heal the nation. That was exactly what Primo de Rivera was for seven years after 1923 –a Roman-type legal dictator who would demolish the parliamentary politics, wind up the colonial adventure in Morocco and then start doing something new in favor of the country: mitigating the century-old poverty of the masses and modernizing the economy. Ludovico Incisa di Camerana, a career ambassador who investigated Spanish problems for years, stressed in a remarkable book that Primo’s dictatorship “was oriented in favor of the working men, their unions and the Socialist party” and that he “destroyed the power of the oligarchy”.

Indeed, the social orientation of the dictator appeared so strong that his top labor lieutenant was Francisco Largo Caballero, who in the ‘30s, after Primo’s fall, led the whole of the Spanish left as “the Spanish Lenin” and in the Civil War became head of the Republican government. With the strong support of Socialist Largo Caballero and of José Calvo Sotelo (who at 32 was appointed the supremo of economy and finance, and whose assassination in 1936 ignited the Civil War), dictator Primo de Rivera acted decisively in favor of the workers. Then, he built roads, railroads, canals, hydroelectric dams, promoted industrialization and other economic programs. Strikes almost disappeared, the salaries improved. Between 1920 and 1929 state expense grew 50% in the field of education, 98% in subsidies to the poors, 200% in the overall health budget, of 2,246% in help to caring for children (before Primo the State gave practically nothing to children).

Most bona fide historians routinely admit that Primo de Rivera, while despising democratic institutions and practices, strove to help the working class. So much so that he aroused the bitter resentment of the privileged– especially those upper aristocrats who were insensitive, brutal and foolish enough as to try keeping everything they had, only to be almost annihilated in 1936 (many were put to death).

Of course, Primo de Rivera antagonized intellectuals, Miguel de Unamuno first of all, who certainly was the best. But political choices of intellectuals are very seldom realistic or relevant. It’s a fact that the temperament and behavior of General Primo were often such to excite criticisms. He was overly spontaneous, unmethodical, individualistic, sometimes capricious, much attracted by women, and so forth.

On the other hand, Primo was principled. He decided not to marry a very rich fiancée, Mercedes Castellanos (in the opinion of the King she was the Second Lady of Spain), after discovering that she made some money out of her social connections. And he vetoed a love affair between a son of his (not José Antonio) and Infanta Beatriz, daughter of the King. The explanation: a Primo de Rivera, being born very high, must not further climb the social ladder by becoming a relative of the monarch. Primo made a number of favors to his friends, but was also lenient with his enemies and very generous with poor people. Above all he, unlike so many liberal/democratic politicians, did not steal public money. No historian is known to have advanced allegations of corruption against Marquis Primo de Rivera, who was born rich.

In conclusion, having taken power a few months after Mussolini did, for 5-6 years Primo was as popular as the Duce would be. The Spanish dictator lost consensus when the economy worsened, both for too many public works and subsidies and for the consequences of the international Depression of 1929. In the previous years, most Spaniards approved Primo’s forcing out of power the oligarchs (the liberal politicians) and cancelling parties and parliamentary institutions. Labor particularly supported the populist, socially inclined side of the Dictadura, a regime which in a few ways resembled Fascism but in the main was rather inspired by the social doctrine of the Church (in addition to simple common sense).

On Jan. 28, 1930, the dictator resigned and left Spain, only to die in Paris 48 days later. Considering the tragedies of Spain between the very beginning of the XIX century and the Civil War of 1936, any dispassionate student of history cannot help judging Primo de Rivera as  the statesman who acted better than all Spanish liberal politicians, including the respected Canovas del Castillo, Sagasta and Antonio Maura. Of course, said politicians were not dictators. But they were worse than that– they perpetuated the socio-political marasmus that in 1936 made the rebellion of the proletarians inevitable and killed the national peace.

Many observers share the belief that very dangerous or, on the contrary, very positive, situations can be determined by minor accidents. For instance, that a war could finally follow a disruption of equilibriums between politicians and generals in Turkey. That in Italy severe strife, even the end of the Berlusconi era, might be the ultimate consequence of paradoxically light mishaps in the filing of candidacies to elected offices that are not important enough. That the emergence of a brilliant orator who makes capital of social discontent could torpedo the partitocratic regime the Allies installed 65 years ago (many surveys show that here derisory percentages approve the Italian institutions and their political ways).

The above fuses may or may not ignite large explosions. But, by a sort of counter-analogy it’s arguable that, if certain marginal or escapable events of the past had not occurred, the contemporary world would be incredibly different. Had the Emperor of the French, Napoleon III, assessed a diplomatic slight by chancellor Bismarck for what factually was a simple discourtesy rather than a threat to the vital interests of France, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 would not have followed (no serious conflict existed then between Paris and Berlin). Just two battles annihilated the French armies and their prestige. The Emperor was deposed, France was occupied, Alsace-Lorraine lost. Then, thousands died in the Paris Commune insurrection.

In the following 44 years France was dominated by ‘revanche’, the obsession of vengeance. So, had it not been for the foolish choice of 1870, possibly in 1914 French president Poincaré wouldn’t pressure St.Petersburg, and even London, to fight Austria-Hungary and the German Reich. Without the Tsarist defeat, it is not proven that a Bolshevik revolution would triumph in Russia. Had WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles not humiliated Germany, probably Hitler would not become the Fuehrer, Germany would not resort to WW2, and our history would be entirely different.

There’s more.

If Hitler had a quirk different from antisemitism, millions of Jews would not be killed. Not dissimilar could have been the consequences had the Jewish world community decided to buy Hitler with (a lot of) money or otherwise instantly confronted him. For many centuries, Jews easily bought Christian sovereigns’ tolerance, namely in Castile, France, and England.

Nobody of course can demonstrate the above successions as inevitable. But as nobody can prove the contrary, the assumption is legitimate that the XXI century world would be almost the opposite of what we have, if only Napoleon the Third with his courtiers, diplomats and marshals had been wiser.

Academic historians traditionally decry this way of thinking. But in no way can they prove the superiority of their approach. They idolize just what is archived and recorded. Which is at the same time scientifically correct and devoid of human lessons. Things that do not happen can be more fateful than actual events.

Massimo Calderazzi is member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to which many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.

When a cancerous metastasis spreads too much, a person usually dies as no further surgery is possible. When metastases invade a nation, surgery is mandatory, as physical death doesn’t apply. Italy is presently the most metastasized among Western political societies, and her cancer is corruption in public affairs.

In past weeks the alarms have become deafening. Political scandals have multiplied -national figures being sent to jail, or indicted for crimes that deserve jail; respected institutions (like Protezione Civile, a powerful sub-ministry, headed by Mr. Guido Bertolaso, which deals with emergencies) disgraced; lastly, a two billion Euro tax fraud, the biggest one in a couple of centuries (56 arrests yet to be made). The prestigious Fiat-owned daily ‘La Stampa’ has summarized the state of affairs as “Repubblica dei Corrotti”, meaning a country governed by the corrupt. Warnings of danger are becoming desperate.

In the years before and after the Great War many countries of the world were shattered by revolutions and/or authoritarian  coups d’Etat, some of which paved the way to WW2. What can Italy do in order to escape disaster? The obvious answer is – changing her ways drastically and as soon as possible.

Change 1: The profession of the career politician must be dismantled in a succession of strokes, with a shift from parliamentary democracy to a selective (restricted) direct democracy. Corrupt politicians should be sent to labor camps.

Change 2: The whole body of government officials should be invested by an extraordinary assault. In the 1914-18 war the most extreme punishment on mutinous or coward combat units was decimation- selecting by lot and executing by firing squads every tenth man of companies, regiments, even brigades. Nothing less than bloodless decimations will crush corruption in the Italian bureaucracy. In the top echelons of civil service one officer in ten must be indicted and suspended. Until they prove their innocence they shall lose salaries, pensions, benefits. Their properties, including houses, cars, boats, etc., must be temporarily confiscated or seized, their office shall be given to substitutes (who will themselves be subjected to the next decimation). The loss of some experienced bureaucrats will not be painless, but the lucky ones will work harder and practice less corruption. Such harsh measures will  beneficially terrorize rank and file too.

Change 3: Those business people whose deals involve taxpayer’s money must be ‘decimated’ in ways that are appropriate to them, beginning with huge fines, confiscations, time in jail and will get refunds if proved innocent.

The sinister establishment  which runs, even owns, Italy will never do the above things, which of course will be said to infringe the noble Constitution, the law codes, civil and human rights, and so on and so forth. Therefore, the establishment must be pulled down through a temporary breach of legality and by an emergency leadership. Present laws protect thieves and scoundrels too much. If nothing is done, metastases will ‘kill’ more than decimations.

Massimo Calderazzi is member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to which many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.

Image via Wikipedia

Dark rumors have been circulating these past few weeks on possible power struggles in the high echelons of the Roman church. Rivalries are said to oppose two Vatican clans headed  by cardinals Bertone and Ruini. The former is the Secretary of State, almost a prime minister, of the Holy See. The latter chaired the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, the body that groups the Italian bishops.

However, the really serious ills of Catholicism, better of Christendom, go beyond the feuds in Rome on specific issues. They extend to what many believe is the slow agony of the religious sentiment in Western societies. The secularization of our values goes on since the year 1000 BC- the time when believers expected the end of history. Especially in the last half millennium the hold of religion on the Christian world has steadily weakened, contrary to some semblances.

For instance, scholars commonly believe that the overall history of Spain cannot be understood if the faith element is not seen as the central component of that civilization, even of the Spanish imperial conquests. Today, we have areas of said country where Catholic practice involves much less than 5% of the population. The process started there with the XVIII century Enlightment. True, the Islamic religion looks strong and spreading. But as soon as Islamites are drawn into the modern way of life, they accept the spirit of secularism.

Yet the great religions of the world are challenged today by a calling which is the exact opposite of the agony of faith. As the main ideologies of modernity (socialism, democratic capitalism) increasingly appear empty or ineffective, religions often emerge and recover relevance. This may be cogently true for Catholicism, which is organized around a strong center. Given new circumstances, the Pope might go back to being the supreme guide of the Christian peoples, as he was eight centuries ago.

For this to happen, the Roman Catholic Church will need a different kind of pastor. The Pope of the future should be a revolutionary. He should repudiate two millennia of continuity, move his seat from Rome, sell Vatican real estate and the richest archbishopric palaces, and renounce the official status of prelates. With deeds, giving practical help to the poor and searching for new ways of faith, he would prove the Church as a genuine source of truth. Possibly, not necessarily, such an innovating pontiff should be a very young, saintly monk -not a cardinal, particularly not a diplomat. Benign pope John XXIII was a diplomat for years, and that did not help. To reconstruct, a Pope for the future should demolish first. Continuity may one day kill the Church.

Massimo Calderazzi is Junior member of the Société Européenne de Culture, to whom many eminent
scholars and a few Nobel prizewinners belong.

Teodor Obiang, president ‘vitalicio’ (for life) of Guinea Ecuatorial  (the official name is Spanish, as this tiny republic was a possession of Spain until some 42 years ago) has not been deposed, exiled or worse in the past few weeks. So, it is still relevant what El Mundo, the leading Madrid daily, and the The New York Times were writing recently about his son Teodorìn Obiang. The latter, in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture and Forests, introduced a new, ‘revolutionary’ tax on timber, a main resource of the country. As far as those forests are mined by foreign capitalists, the tax is totally legitimate. But the above reputed dailies affirmed that most of the Obiang wealth was acquired through corruption. The heading of the Madrid article was “EEUU prueba que Teodorìn Obiang roba a su paìs”- The United States proves that Teodorìn Obiang steals from his country.

The management of oil, discovered ten years ago, seems to have fattened the income of the presidential scion. This republic, with 400,000 barrels a day, is now third among the oil-producing countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. A November 2007 report by the US Justice Department is includes extortion to the Obiang repertoire. According to said department, the young minister transferred some 78 million dollars to American accounts. This also explains how he paid 35 million dollars for an ocean-view mansion in Malibu, Cal. He flies there for vacations on his private jet.

A large part of the Equatorial Guinean population is poor. Before oil was discovered, the per capita income was around 250 dollars a year, and it’s unlikely that the oil wells enriched the villagers as well as the  country’s minister. Now, let us suppose that an entity of the industrial world decides to donate money that can improve the lot of Equatorial Guinea’s poor villagers. Might said entity entrust funds to the Obiang government, out of respect to its sovereignty? Of course not. How then can the donation reach the deserving poor? Sending Marines to conquer the country is out of question.

Instead the donor country may legitimately disregard the local authorities and dictate that, should they want to help poor people, an area of Equatorial Guinea must be handed over to a foreign armed contingent which will regulate and protect the charitable and/or productive activities to be run for the direct benefit of the population. This would mean paying no heed to the indignation of advocates of former colonies’ national pride.

Massimo Calderazzi is an author and journalist.

Image via Wikipedia

Many Britons, as well as many thoughtful people around the world, have indicted Tony Blair as a warmonger and a liar. They expect the Westminster special commission of inquiry to condemn, if only morally, the former star of Cool Britannia for wrongdoings in Iraq. The longing for justice of those who mourn the human beings killed in Tony’s and George’s ‘crusade’ deserves unbounded respect. However, if Blair is guilty, his crime is minimal in comparison with that of the most illustrious   among his predecessors at Downing Street.

The real villain of British warmongering in the 20th century is none other than Winston Churchill.

I am not at all trying to reopen the dispute on who were the worst culprits of the two World Wars. I am simply stressing that the most striking stamp of individuality in Churchill was his craving for armed conflict to attain his country’s ends.  Other statists (except for Adolf Hitler) did try to reach their goals with other means, usually short of conflict. But singleminded Churchill preferred conflict as, of course, he was skeptical of the realistic prospects of conciliation. At times he was right, but it’s a fact -he concentrated his vast intelligence and energy on the use of battleships and armor .

This son of a lord and of an American lady, also a descendant of the Duke of Marlborough, the famed general, made his debut as a 21 year old warrior, fought with distinction in India, Sudan and the Boer War, was captured, escaped, and then became a war correspondent. When WW1 broke out, he was first lord of the Admiralty, later serving  as Minister of Munitions and Secretary of war. In his keen belligerence, Churchill succeeded in overcoming the objections of the naval chiefs and got his Gallipoli campaign (1915). It ended in such complete disaster that he had to resign… for a while. In the following years, in addition to striving for a strong intervention against Russia’s Soviets, Churchill adamantly opposed the international efforts to prevent WW2. In 1938, he left the government, which was ‘too conciliatory’ for him, but when the hostilities broke out he emerged as the top warlord of Britain: supreme chief of the Navy, then finally as the extremely powerful, prime minister.

Nobody ignores the glories of Churchill in the six years of WW2 (but, in Asia, Britain harvested defeats rather than successes; it was America that beat Japan). In 1945, at the moment of the final victory, Churchill lost power- the electors repudiated the fierce leader who pursued war for the sake of national greatness.

As many millions died in the tragedies of war, no comparison is possible between the burdens on Churchill’s conscience and the ones on Blair’s. In this sense, let’s allow the latter to enjoy the millions he is making since the day he abandoned Downing Street.

Massimo Calderazzi is an author and journalist.

Hanoi Vietnam.

2 flights and 20 plus hours of traveling.

I’m a long way from New York City but it’s a warm late December morning in North Vietnam, and I’m just fine with that. I’m a little confused about the time change… Can it really be that I haven’t eaten for 2 days??!  Not sure, but I am hungry and that’s not up for debate.

This is not a travel piece, and I am not a travel writer. I am a culinary student and I’m in Vietnam. And I packed light. All I brought was my camera and my appetite.

This was my first meal in Vietnam. Cha ca fish. I was starving and would have eaten just about anything at this point, except cottage cheese – can’t stand the stuff. That said I enjoyed meal but little did I know that I would find this fish just around about any corner in Vietnam.

The ubiquitous Cha ca fish- part catfish, part bass. It’s a firm, round white-fleshed fish, that tastes just a little bit tough and fishy. The consensus at the end of the meal was that fresh herbs, greens and toasted peanuts were the winners.

I was pleasantly surprised when I found the same fresh herbs (basil, thai basil and coriander) accompanying my next meal (which was about an hour later).

Bun Cha (above) is my personal favorite.

It’s something I could eat at any meal of the day or, for that matter, every meal of the day. Bun Cha is a luke warm fish broth with cold rice noodles served with fat bits of meat (either pork or beef or other) or sometimes fried egg rolls, garnished with fresh herbs, soy beans, toasted peanuts and finished with chili sauce. If you are particularly fortunate, your Bun Cha will be served with a cold local beer called Bia Hoi and prepared by the lady seen above.

Bun Cha is an anomaly. A hearty, savory dish that is both unctuous and refreshing. Maybe this is because it is a fish soup served neither hot nor chilled, but at room temperature. One would think: Its definitely a fish soup, isn’t it? But the trick is, while it has a fish broth and fish sauce, the floating bits of protein in the broth are beef.

A better way to think about Bun Cha may be as a wet salad as opposed to a tepid soup. The raw greens, cold noodles, and cold meat are reminiscent of an Asian beef salad, something about as common as a rat in the subway, and in my opinion not much more appealing. But don’t get me wrong, Bun Cha – I’m a big fan of yours. The difference is the fish sauce. Vietnamese fish sauce come in two versions: non-fermented and fermented. Both are sweet and tangy but the latter has a smell similar to a men’s locker room.

After 48 hours in Hanoi, I hit Halong Bay. It’s beautiful. It should be one of the 7 wonders of the world. But it’s not, so there is a huge promotional campaign to have it included in the “next” 7 wonders of the world. I hope it works out.

Halong Bay has over 2000 limestone hills that seemingly just pop out of the water. It’s incredible. If you want to hear more about it, see pictures in a Lonely Planet guide or something…

Within these 2000 or so islands there are fully functioning communities, complete with their own stores, markets, even bars.

I decided to stop by one of these villages to pick-up some food for a simple lunch of fresh local fish. Who am I kidding? That was never going to happen. Things got out of hand pretty quickly and I had a full-on shellfish orgy on my hands.,

Here are a couple “before” pictures from lunch- a big-ass octopus and crayfish-looking shrimp straight from the bay.

Lunch wasn’t bad. The shrimp were steamed in vinegar and green onions and the octopus was steamed as well but in beer and red chillies. Both were served with fish sauce, but fortunately it was of the non-fermented variety. Otherwise lunch would have smelled like a wet gym-sock.

On the left is the octopus steamed in beer and chillies accompanied by the fish sauce. On the right are 2 different types of crabs that were pulled out of the bay less then an hour before they ended up on this plate and then in my belly.

On the left: the fish-monger called it a carp. But I knew better, once again the ubiquitous cha ca fish, this time fried and stuffed with tomatoes, peppers, and onions. As for the photo on the right, like I said: I enjoyed myself. Let’s leave it at that.

From Halong Bay it was time to head south and hit Saigon, the largest city in the country for a day visit.

Saigon is a big city with lots of motorbikes. About 4 million of them, so the air quality was not great, but the city more than made up for that with its gastronomic offerings. While in Saigon I ate everywhere from the gnarly (and I mean it in both the good and the bad ways) stalls in the markets (below [fish stand, roast pork, and random parts] yum) to a classic French restaurant where I was able to enjoy a traditional 5 course lunch of smoked salmon, foie gras, truffles, maigret de canard, and venison. The chef was from Nice and didn’t speak any English or Vietnamese. I may have been in Vietnam but in his house it was France, France and more France.

I enjoyed my classic French meal rich with the flavor of nostalgia, for what now feels like an ancient colonialism. The lesson I took away from this meal was that imperialism, like most other things French, tastes better in France.

During my brief stay in Vietnam I also had the chance to try some of what the hotel concierge called the “new Vietnamese haute cuisine.” It was good; I enjoyed it. But it was basically just better quality versions of the staples such as spring rolls, seafood pancakes, and the like. I really enjoyed this meal and I am going to choose not to be critical. Why? South Vietnam as we know it today is basically a completely new country. It was entirely destroyed less then 50 years ago and has only been open to trade with the United States since the mid-1990s.

I say give it time. With the quality of produce that is available in Vietnam and the ever-increasing influx of western cultural influences, there is a bright future for high-end Vietnamese cuisine.

That said the most memorable thing I ate in Saigon was Pho (below).

Pho is a large noodle soup served hot with beef or pork, and clear rice noodles, in a broth of unknown or secret origin. Like Bun Cha (and Cao La in some parts) the Pho is also topped with fresh herbs and served with fish sauce and chili sauce.

My final thoughts on Vietnam; I came in with high expectations and was a little disappointed to find that the cuisine did not vary regionally as much as I had anticipated.

But I arrived hungry and left full so the food couldn’t have been that bad.