CEO of Dassault Aviation Eric Trappier shakes hands with Egyptian Major General Montasser Mayhop after signing a contract for the sale of 24 Rafale fighter jets last week.
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Why the Charlie Hebdo march has nothing to do with 18F
Last week was a great one for Eric Trappier, the French tycoon who sells Rafale jet fighters for a living. The head of the Dassault empire announced 11 days ago in an interview with Le Figaro that negotiations to sell 24 Rafale fighters worth more than US$6 billion to a country he did not identify were at an advanced stage (it must be noted that the France’s leading conservative newspaper is owned by Dassault).
All eyes were immediately on the Egyptian regime lead by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. A few days later those assumptions were borne out when the contracts were signed in Cairo. Additionally Trappier feted upcoming arms deals with Middle Eastern and leading Asian countries. The newly blossoming Socialist French President, François Hollande, joined in on the national celebration: “The Rafale fighter has won its first export contract.” The purchase includes a frigate and other equipment.
The el-Sisi regime appears to have become an attraction for the great powers as they compete for influence. Also last week, Russian president Vladimir Putin visited Cairo to consolidate a trade alliance that amounts to US$4.5 billion annually. The stage (streets decorated with the image of the Russian, praise for the visitor in the Cairo press and grandiloquent rhetoric) would have been the same 50 years ago for the occasion of a visit by the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to one of the capitals in the bloc.
El-Sisi sums up the grimmest explanations for the destiny of the so-called Arab revolutions that began in 2010. The general, who won elections with more than 90 percent of the popular vote, had the mission of restoring the central pillars of Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Which is, specifically, repression leading to thousands of victims, mass death sentences, and the banning of the Muslim Brotherhood to which a majority of Egyptians adhere and which was responsible for an ephemeral, chaotic and authoritarian government after winning elections in June, 2012. The list continues with an asphyxiation of civil society and good ties with Western countries. At far as it was known, Mubarak is unable to return to public office because of health concerns but he was duly acquitted of all charges stemming from the deaths that took place in 2011.
Mubarak’s fall in 2011 put the Western powers in an awkward position. He was Europe’s favourite dictator, both in terms of trade and as the ruler of a country where many leaders enjoyed their holidays. In contrast with Israel, which did not beat around the bush and immediately lamented Mubarak’s removal, the major European capitals were entrapped in their own rhetorical labyrinth —first, bewilderment, then support for the “democratization” of Egypt and later distance from the Islamists. These were followed up by short press releases following the military coup launched by el-Sisi and lastly, the return to normality, as evidenced by the signing of contracts related to the Rafale planes.
Let us leave Cairo, the cold calculations of the selling and purchase of weapons and the games involving favoured and abhorred dictators. Let us return to Paris.
France was stunned by the massacre of 12 employees of the Charlie Hebdo satirical weekly on January 7 and four days later its people participated in the largest demonstration in the country’s history. The collective imagination (accurate or not) of secularism, democracy and diversity had been struck by terrorist fury. The demonstrations brought four million people onto the streets in various cities with a single and clear rallying-cry. “Je suis Charlie” was chosen to defend freedom without necessarily backing the weekly’s leftist, secular, irreverent and sometimes offensive ideology.
As a matter of fact, it wasn’t a march for everybody in France. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, was excluded for her well-known xenophobia that she barely conceals under her “France for the French” slogan, which has transformed her into the presidential hopeful with the greatest voter support, surpassing the traditional centre-left and centre-right parties. The Islamists who promote hatred did not attend the march either.
There was, in addition, an absence that was more painful. Among the faces of those who rallied for Charlie Hebdo there was a lack of people of Arab and Muslim origin. Or at least, a number not in proportion to the 7.5 percent of the total French population that Pew Research says they represent, be it due to a fear of negative reaction or because there isn’t a critical mass in the community that has determined that there is a need to differentiate themselves from the atrocities committed by fanatics who distort their culture. The devastated Hollande who marched for the Charlie Hebdo victims is the same president who last week celebrated the sale of war material to an Arab dictatorship (which was itself forced to react this week to the brutality of the Islamic State terrorist organization). It is a matter that presidents with budgetary and governance needs must deal with, and it is useless to measure them against a moral compass.
At the end of the day, the French president was one more among the global leaders who stood for a photo-op in Paris, their arms intertwined but their positions far from the multitude of the common citizens. Included in the human chain and that unforgettable photograph were some veritable men of war.
It is relevant to review the content and the context of the Charlie Hebdo march because in Argentina’s frequently maddening political debate, some voices have compared the Paris march with the demonstration scheduled for today with a broad range of rallying-cries. One of those is in memory of the late AMIA special prosecutor Alberto Nisman. Another one of the slogans for the march, promoted by judicial officials and prominent opposition politicians, is that Nisman was murdered by the government so that the accusation against the president for allegedly covering up the role of Iranians in the AMIA attack would not prosper.
Subtle differences between the Charlie Hebdo and the 18F march.
@sebalacunza