Given the current state of things, why is the matter of Qatar's investment in the French suburbs so problematic?
Not because it's Qatar, of course.
Nor, even less, because it's an Arab country, the very nature of whose funds would be less welcome than those of others.
And, indeed, the fact that this Arab country decides today to invest in disadvantaged neighborhoods and no longer just in the purchase of luxury hotels, mansions, football players or race horses is even, in itself, good news.
No.
What is shocking, first of all, is the sum. For if the figures announced are exact, the emirate is granting the ensemble of the French suburbs an endowment (100 million euros) approximately equivalent to the price of one or two hôtels particuliers it has acquired in the last decade, or of half of the Virgin building on the Champs-Elysées, or of a few percentage points of its participation in the capital of French Total alone. It's a godsend for those concerned. It's a humiliation for the recipient country, which appears to be broke, reduced to panhandling. And it is, most of all, a drop of water in the ocean of need of «lost territories» whose reconquest presupposes not 100, not 200, not 1000, but thousands of millions of euros, a manna, a Marshall Plan, the equivalent of what Truman's America spent to help in the reconstruction of France after the war. Otherwise put, the 100 million announced does not constitute an investment. It's a bluff. Or a publicity stunt. It's a cut-rate cash purchase of a certificate of good conduct for a country that is, true, an ally, but whose commitment to democratic values remains to be demonstrated.
For what is also shocking is the political connotation of this money. It is often said that money "has no odor." Not true. For, like it or not, the Qatari money bears the color of a State that deprives its citizens of civil liberties. It has the color of a country where immigrants (Indians, Pakistanis, Filipinos) are treated as sub-citizens, if not as sub-humans or slaves. It is not, as some have said, "dirty" money. But (and what's almost worst) it is money earned by autocrats in an undemocratic country whose own suburbs are Villiers-le-Bel* or Trappes* multiplied by ten. Would it be impertinent, then, to demand a few political conditions before validating this investment? Not, of course, the miraculous transformation of Qatar into a democracy which, as everyone knows, cannot be built in a day. But the appearance of signs, at least, indicating that such concern for the neglected areas of our Republic is accompanied by the clear awareness of the quality, the rarity, and even the eminent desirability of the model in which the said Republic finds its origins. And, to prove this clear awareness, submission to a simple political test which would be both a test of good faith and of sound reciprocity: France accepts Qatar's money; in return, Qatar accepts the establishment, by France, of a program of cultural and political cooperation based upon civic values and those of citizenship. You fund my neighborhoods. I create, in your universities, teaching chairs on the history and practice of democracy, which is my own wealth. Should each consent, the agreement would be truly enriching for everyone -- and primarily, for the fine and good dialogue of civilizations and cultures.
And then the problem is, obviously, the suspicion of politico-religious proselytism one cannot avoid harboring concerning a regime that, after all, makes no secret of its support for the most rigid currents of Islam. There, also, is a solution. Unfortunately, it probably does not involve testing in Doha the principles of secularism Qataris are supposed to respect in Saint-Denis*. Any more than (although... ) suggesting that our friends begin by cleaning up their own back yard, practicing at home the principle of non-discrimination regarding religious, ethnic, and geographic origins that they supposedly defend in France. But at least it should entail registering their initiative in a double framework that should create constraints for them. The legal framework, first of all, of a mixed, parapublic, or State organization that will be the sole judge of opportunities of investment. And then the moral framework of a republican charter that will codify the spirit in which arbitration will take place. Support for an enterprise whose activities might even remotely contribute one day to the development of Salafism in France should be rendered impossible. But there is no reason whatsoever that the massive use of Qatari funds in the construction of republican schools, or co-ed swimming pools, or neighborhood media that promote the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity should give rise to mistrust.
I know that the establishment of such a charter will constitute a departure from the principles of free trade. But a new situation requires new rules. Today, Qatar. Yesterday, petro-dictatorial Azerbaijan more or less discreetly financing part of the new pavilion of Islamic arts at the Louvre in Paris. Tomorrow, imperialist China, Russia of Putin and the oligarchs coming to the rescue of this or that sensitive area of old Europe's crisis-fraught economies and obtaining, in exchange, that we refrain from giving them a bad time about this worn-out idea that is the question of human rights. This is where we are. And if we are not careful, there is a real risk of corruption and prostitution of the public spirit.
Any democracy in any non-Western country does not have to model "Western democracy" - nay, even in the West, democratic systems and political institutions are not identical across countries.
If France was truly as democratic as it's supposed to be, there wouldn't be the same need for such funding in "certain neighbourhoods"...although you could say that about most democratic nations so this isn't particular to France.
This article also contains a distortion of facts: Qatar is not a salafi state...that's another Gulf country.
Even in cases like... say North Korea?
There I seriously doubt it. Just because the people were living in such conditions that a revolutionary movement is impossible as ideas with the potential of such a movement have been exterminated (along with the people holding them) about two generations ago.
During my 40-year-life linking international scientific societies, I discovered hosts of individuals in the developing countries motivated by the recognition of their merits and ambition by the Western world. I participated in the international opening of Asian and Eastern European scientists. Then natives from Middle East and of Africa were absent. Today, they have become scientifically respectable. By soon they may be leaders in several fields. Everywhere I found a huge majority of people respecting and honoring foreign humanists spending their time and energy to train their populations.
I’m not ashamed of me if I conclude honest “money vs knowledge” perennial exchanges based upon excellence everywhere. Caucasians have to show how much they're indebted to the positive influence of the Arab science on the medieval European civilization, and conversely. The new Hôtel-Dieu should be an excellent lighthouse for the philosophers who are looking for a refurbished definition of the universal human health’s paradigm. Jean-François Moreau, M.D. Paris, France.
And while pejorative criticisms can certainly be made about the Qatari government, where genuine democracy doesn't exist, any visit will reveal an enlightened management of civic affairs for Qatari citizens. Every effort for health and education is being made for all Qatari people. Indeed, immigrant workers from the outside are second-class citizens, but can BHL insist this social arrangement doesn't exist in Western societies to one extent or another.
I understand his fears, but honestly, if France had done a better job, the banlieues could not be baited with 100 million. How can one expect the inhabitants of these banlieues to recognize any value of la République as they are obviously the part of France that is not really included? This makes such investments indeed dangerous. But I'd worry less about a publicized investment by Qatar than about silent investments which will be substantially higher.
But it's nonetheless surprising to read such an article by a french philosopher. Usually one would expect a higher kind of political correctness.
Yes, these kind of investments may (further) undermine state influence in the Banlieues, but only because France is not capable of truly integrating these people into the République.
And yes Mr. Lévy it would be impertinent to demand political conditions for such an investment. The money is needed there and France calls itself a more or less free country. It's not the way to gain loyalty by stopping others cleaning the mess that oneself was happy enough just to look at for a decade.
Would the disadvantaged prefer to stay as and where they are. Or be absorbed into the state and constitution of their would-be benefactor?
Something similar might be asked of the people of Qatar. Would they prefer to stay as and where they are? Or be in another/the same country with a different constitution? The answers to such queries could provide an indication of what needs to change and why.
“a humiliation for the recipient country”
Any country (EU component) that does its business based on books that dare not be audited, is in no position to profess to possess a vestige of pride.Such humbling is self inflicted, by a failure to face the facts and figures as they are. Rather than as some would wish, and even fraudulently claim them to be.
“It's a bluff. Or a publicity stunt.”
Hmmmm… A customer who goes bust, cannot purchase the produce of a producer. Perhaps Qatar does not want to suffer a fate, like Iran’s currently engineered one.
“a State that deprives its citizens of civil liberties.”
Like: As many plebiscites as it takes to enrol in the EU. But not a single one, that might result in an exit?
“as everyone knows”
We only obtain fuel from Democracies?
“the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity”
cannot be bought. But why invest in/support an alternate ideology, totally alien to one’s own?
“corruption and prostitution”
Forms of commerce, half as old as time.
The "you've-done-it-too"-argument should be finally disposed of as it's not a constructive part in moving forward. And it is quite out of context too.
Now, if these people/nations simply want to contribute chartibly..with no claim to ownership..and no expectations of anything in return. That is admirable. But it must be asked...what is the motivation? Especially if the living conditions of some citizens in their own country could be ameliorated.
What a bunch of stinking hypocrites.
Here's a more progressive somewhat democratic middlle eastern country trying to invest in a bankrupt european country and you treat it as too small, potentially corruptive and polutionary investment !
This coming from one of the former european colonial powers of old which built up a fat welfare state, in part plundering the riches of the the world at large.
Or would you perhaps like Qatar to perhaps target the investment to arming and/or helping the Palestinians fight against the unnatural entity in the region ?
Philosopher ?
THINK AGAIN !
As for Qatar's investment in French ghettos, because that's what they are, they certainly need it and it seems in contradiction w BHL usual "gauche caviar" (caviar lefties)' s principles...but then again , he didn't cover all bases in this post....