Soft Power

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been released from house arrest. It turned out that the maid who had accused him of rape lied. Prior to announcing Strauss-Kahn's attempted attack on her maidenly virtue, she had discussed on the phone with her imprisoned boyfriend how much she'd be able to milk the sugar daddy. Three aspects stand out in this dirty, and still unclear, story: first, the living example of American justice; second, Strauss-Kahn's political future; third, the general "philosophical" conclusions.

At first, I thought (and had written in Rossiyskaya Gazeta) that there was no conspiracy here. This was simply a senile triumph of political correctness. But now it's getting much harder to think like that. Judge for yourself.

On May 14, as the TV cameras rolled, Strauss-Kahn was handcuffed and put into the jail's general population. On May 19, he resigned from the International Monetary Fund's managing director post. On May 20, he was transferred to house arrest. On June 28, a new head of the IMF was elected. On July 1, Strauss-Kahn was released from house arrest. Whoever organized the incident with Strauss-Kahn managed to get the most out of it.

Of course, all this can be considered a coincidence, because justice in the United States is unbiased. For many people (not just Americans) it's a holy symbol of faith, a cornerstone of philosophy. If you do not believe in American justice, then there's no reason to live! Similarly, real Soviet citizens believed that our courts are honest, while the U.S. courts are the "whore-children of imperialism." Well, it's true that life can have many coincidences, but in this case they are suspicious: money in advance. When coincidences happen twice in a row, the suspicion is squared. The assumption that these are mere coincidences is an insult to probability theory.

Next: Why exactly did it take the investigators a month and a half to figure out the simple details — the maid's recorded phone conversations (she called a prison) and the basic inconsistencies in her testimony? If we accept the hypothesis of a "raider investigation," then everything falls into place. By the way, the judge might not have been in on it; a judge does not conduct the investigation. The judge simply makes decisions based on the information provided. Therefore, there's no need to pressure the judge. It's sufficient to organize the investigation correctly.

In my opinion, the fact that someone ordered the displacement of the IMF's leader is more than likely. Trying to guess how it was done is useless. Perhaps the "honey-trap" was organized by some special ops agency. But it's far more likely that the naughty boy himself created this trap, and his opponents just took advantage of it. The dumb maid and her boyfriend decided to blackmail Strauss-Kahn at their own risk, while those who listened to their conversations (and, perhaps, also monitored the IMF's leader) slightly tweaked the situation.

Who benefits from this? I'm not an expert on fiscal policy. Many experts say that the United States was not comfortable with Strauss-Kahn at this post. And certainly, the United States was far more satisfied with Sarkozy as the president of France.

Then, we go to step two: Strauss-Kahn's future. It’s well known that he was one of the most likely candidates for the French presidency in the 2012 elections. Now, the French sympathize with him, feel sorry for him, resent the injustice and demand his participation in the elections. But it's not certain that he will run for the presidency, that his own Socialist Party will nominate him or, most importantly, if he becomes a candidate, that he has a strong chance of winning. It's a sad story, but also a disgusting one. And the victim is not completely pure — his dirty underwear is peeking out of his tuxedo. He had sex with a random maid. He looked pathetic. Whether he did it, or it was done to him, something happened. The French are too aesthetic to elect such a disgraced man as their president. France is all about style, and that style must be impeccable. You can't say that about Strauss-Kahn. His story is like something by Maupassant or Rabelais. But does that fit the Elysee Palace? The French like to laugh (even at themselves), but do not like it when others laugh at them. Yes, an insult to him is like an insult to France. But this scandal (and Strauss-Kahn) has not brought glory to France.

There are also reasonable arguments against Strauss-Kahn. Like it or not, his inadequacy is obvious. Even without rape, seducing an unknown black woman (a maid, who might even be HIV-positive) just on a whim, risking everything... Not to mention what kind of authority a president like that would have in the world; how he would negotiate in (for instance) the United States, etc.? All in all, pity (and even sympathy) doesn't make someone president. At least, not in France.

Whoever organized this incident made the most of it. Strauss-Kahn was squeezed like a lemon, and then released.

Third: General life philosophy. Conspiracy theories insult my intelligence. I don't believe that within world history there is a living, breathing, and all-determining "secret, man-made" history that's organized by "behind-the-scenes forces." I don't believe that anyone can calculate and reshape years (decades) ahead of time the developments of the world, individual countries, etc. I don't believe that bloody crimes (e.g. 9/11, house explosions in Moscow, etc.) are organized by government agencies. At a minimum, such claims require strong evidence — hints and winks are not enough.

But just as a person's life is full of petty intrigues, so too is history. In this case, I think the intelligence agency of either the United States, France or both countries participated in the intrigue. Note that they did not risk anything. No one was fatally injured. Formally, no laws were broken. But the desired goal was accomplished: If there's no man, there's no problem. Here it is, soft power in action. No killers necessary; “slight of hand, and no swindle.”

And in conclusion, some thoughts. First, about our virtual world: Nowadays, by using the media and administrative resources, you can easily crush anyone into newspaper dust. Strauss-Kahn's story is not the first example of this. Second, we have another piece of evidence showing that the World Democracy Teacher — the United States — tends to play dirty. I know that 99 percent of our citizens are a priori certain of this, while I'm sure of something else.

“Americanophobia” — the belief that all evil in the world (especially "against Russia") is caused by the United States — is a real phobia, i.e. a form of mental inadequacy. And like any phobia, it's dangerous not to the phobia's object (i.e. the United States), but its subject (“Americanophobes”). At the very least, it substitutes the country's real problems with invented problems. But “Americanophilia” — the belief in America's infallible moral policy (and justice), a "shining city upon a hill” — is also completely inadequate. There are some “Amercanophiles” in Russia, though they're rare. In general, they think that way in order to spite their own leaders and TV. According to their logic, if TV scolds the United States, they will praise it. I don't accept the teenage logic of being contrary.

There are no ideal models in politics. There is no ideal reference system. (Of course, this does not mean that everyone is the same.) Then who/what should be used as the guiding model? Your own common sense and an intuitive sense of justice are the only remaining things. They have to be used as the guide. It's a trite, but inconvenient, conclusion.