Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

mercredi, 22 octobre 2014

Rusland en Servië, 'brothers in arms'

 

Door: Dirk Rochtus

Rusland en Servië, 'brothers in arms'

Maandag is het precies 70 jaar geleden dat Belgrado, de hoofdstad van Servië, bevrijd werd door het Rode Leger. De Russische president Vladimir Poetin verscheen er al vier dagen op voorhand om die verjaardag te vieren.

Servië en Rusland zijn als twee handen op één buik. Dat was honderd jaar geleden zo, bij het uitbreken van de Eerste Wereldoorlog, en dat is nog altijd zo vandaag de dag, te midden van een crisis die de relaties tussen Rusland en de Europese Unie (EU) vertroebelt. Servië mag dan wel sinds januari toetredingsonderhandelingen voeren met de EU, maar de liefde voor de grote Slavische broeder is er niet minder om.

Jubel

Op doorreis naar de EU-Aziëtop in Milaan liet Poetin zich op donderdag 16 oktober in Belgrado bejubelen door een uitbundige massa. 'Vladimir, red de Serviërs!' viel er zelfs te lezen op borden die inwoners van de stad met zich meedroegen. De Serviërs voelen zich miskend in hun overlevingsstrijd als natie – getuige de oorlog in Joegoslavië in de jaren 90 van vorige eeuw en de uitroeping van de provincie Kosovo tot onafhankelijke republiek door de Albanese meerderheid in 2008. De steun van Moskou zowel moreel als economisch is dan ook erg welkom voor de Serviërs. Voor hun hoge bezoeker uit Rusland organiseerden ze wat graag een grootse militaire parade zoals ze sinds het einde van het communistische bewind niet meer had plaatsgevonden.

Sleutelpartner

In een interview met het Servische tijdschrift Politika zei Poetin letterlijk: 'Servië was en blijft een van de sleutelpartners van Rusland in Zuidoost-Europa'. Een voorbeeld van die goede samenwerking is het project South Stream, de aanleg van een pijpleiding waarmee Russisch gas vanaf 2017 via de Zwarte Zee, Bulgarije, Servië en Hongarije naar Oostenrijk als poort tot de EU zou moeten vloeien. Dat is ook een van de redenen waarom Wenen fervent de toetreding van Servië tot de EU verdedigt (naast het feit dat er 250 000 Serviërs in Oostenrijk wonen). Oekraïne is in het hele gasverhaal de gebeten hond. South Stream zou Oekraïne links laten liggen waardoor dit land heel wat inkomsten moet derven. Mocht Oekraïne bovendien gas aftappen van het bestaande pijpleidingensysteem, dreigde Poetin met een vermindering van de gaslevering aan de EU.

Armoede

Servië heeft het economisch erg moeilijk. De regering moet er onpopulaire maatregelen doordrukken om het staatsbankroet af te wenden. Hogere gasprijzen zouden heel wat gewone Serviërs in armoede dompelen. Servië is dan ook alleen al om economische redenen aangewezen op goede banden met Rusland. Er zijn maar twee kandidaat-lidstaten van de EU, Servië en Macedonië, die niet meedoen met de sancties tegen Rusland (omwille van de Oekraïne-crisis). Zo voert Servië bijvoorbeeld Duitse goederen zonder etikettering uit naar Rusland waarmee het een vrijhandelsakkoord heeft. De Duitse minister van Landbouw Christian Schmidt riep de Servische premier Aleksandar Vučić daarom op om de sancties van de EU tegen Rusland ernstig te nemen. De vraag is of dit van Servië kan worden verwacht, van een land dat zich vaak onbegrepen heeft gevoeld en nog voelt door Europa, van de grote Slavische broeder daarentegen met loftuitingen en met interessante akkoorden, zeven in totaal, over ondermeer energie, infrastructuur en wapenindustrie, overstelpt wordt.

¿Una nueva geopolítica mundial del desendeudamiento?

 

Por Federico Bernal

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

El Dr. George Georgescu es investigador en el Instituto de Economía Nacional de Rumania. Cuenta con 30 años de experiencia en el campo de la investigación macroeconómica; su experiencia profesional incluye diversos cargos como asesor de la Presidencia rumana, ex director del Ministerio de Desarrollo y Previsión. La primera parte de esta entrevista fue publicada en nuestro artículo "El 'granero del mundo' cada vez más aislado del mundo" (Tiempo Argentino - 1/10/14). Visto que los medios del atraso y la exclusión jamás entrevistarán al especialista europeo –muy a pesar de haber participado en las consultas con el FMI bajo el marco macroeconómico del Artículo IV– aquí insistimos con la segunda parte.

 

LA REGULACIÓN DEL ENDEUDAMIENTO.

Preguntamos al Dr. Georgescu si existe algún país en el mundo que limite o restrinja los préstamos o su endeudamiento externo basándose en parámetros específicos relacionados con el bienestar y el crecimiento endógeno. "Hasta donde sé, no hay ningún estudio analítico acerca de cómo los países ponen límites a su deuda soberana a nivel global. En el contexto económico global y dada la interconexión de los mercados financieros, se torna evidente que el problema del pago de la deuda de un país podría desencadenar dificultades financieras en otros países a través de diversos canales de transmisión. En 2013, el FMI relanzó las discusiones sobre el mecanismo de reestructuración de deudas soberanas, pero el debate y las controversias en torno a esta propuesta se han detenido."

 

¿LÍMITES AL ENDEUDAMIENTO?

Consultamos al especialista al respecto. "La mayoría de los países no tiene límites para su endeudamiento y los pocos que los tienen, los aumentan cuando es necesario. Estados Unidos y Dinamarca tienen mecanismos legislativos similares para fijar límites de endeudamiento estatal pero, al menos en el caso de EE UU, la crisis del techo de la deuda y las disputas de los legisladores son bien conocidos: la suspensión de dicho techo en 2014, que terminó con el reajuste automático a 17.200 millones de USD –512 mil millones de USD más alto que el anterior y el quinto aumento del techo de la deuda desde agosto de 2011–. Finalmente, cabe señalar que algunos países que integran organizaciones regionales, como la Unión Europea, tienen el objetivo de mantener la deuda pública por debajo del 60% del PIB, pero este límite no es vinculante, sino que se aplica, junto con otros criterios, para la adhesión a la membresía. Tras la crisis de la deuda soberana europea se estableció un mecanismo de estabilidad en 2012, con el respaldo de los instrumentos financieros que proporcionan préstamos (programas de rescate soberano) a los países de la UE en problemas financieros."

 

"LÍMITES" MERCADISTAS AL ENDEUDAMIENTO.

Después tenemos los límites impuestos por el FMI... "Claro. Algunos otros países han establecido objetivos que limitan la deuda pública sobre la base de limitar los gastos a los ingresos previstos ajustados según el estado del ciclo comercial (Suiza) o de limitar el déficit estructural (a 0,35% del PIB en Alemania; Austria tiene un objetivo similar) o de alcanzar un superávit neto durante el ciclo económico (1% en Suecia, Chile también utilizan este tipo de objetivo). En varios países (Suecia, Canadá), el gobierno está autorizado por el Poder Legislativo a pedir prestada una cantidad fija de dinero para el año fiscal. Rumania, bajo el acuerdo de derechos de giro (Stand-by) con el FMI, ha establecido un límite de 6000 millones de lei (1700 millones de USD) para la nueva emisión de garantías del gobierno en 2014."

 

RUMANIA, DEUDA PÚBLICA Y FMI.

¿Podría describirnos el caso de su país? "El actual nivel de endeudamiento público en el caso de Rumanía (42,5%) se volvió excesivo aun cuando se sitúe por debajo del valor de referencia del ratio deuda pública-PIB del 60% establecido como criterio de convergencia de Maastricht para los países miembros de la UE. La creciente brecha entre el endeudamiento público y el crecimiento económico ha debilitado significativamente la capacidad de Rumania para amortizar la deuda soberana. El mayor impacto sobre el aumento de la deuda pública durante el período posterior a la crisis fue causado por el paquete de financiamiento externo del FMI, la EU y otras instituciones financieras (Banco Mundial, BEI [Banco Europeo de Inversiones], BERD [Banco Europeo de Reestructuración y Desarrollo]), que asciende a unos 20 mil millones EUR, acordado, a petición de las autoridades rumanas, en condiciones de emergencia, en abril de 2009, bajo la presión de las filiales de los bancos extranjeros de Rumania y bajo la amenaza de desapalancamiento financiero, incluido el riesgo de fuga masiva de capitales. Las condicionalidades impuestas (o autoimpuestas) a través de medidas de austeridad fiscal (principalmente recortes de salarios de un 25% en el sector presupuestario y el aumento del IVA del 19% al 24%) inducidas por el descontento social y el deterioro del clima de negocios, tuvieron un efecto más bien contraproducente y profundizaron la decadencia económica de Rumania en 2009 y 2010."

 

EL MODELO ARGENTINO DE DESENDEUDAMIENTO.

"El tema de la deuda soberana ha adquirido una importancia crucial para el mantenimiento de la estabilidad financiera mundial. La resolución reciente de la Asamblea General de la ONU sobre la reestructuración de la deuda soberana a fin de establecer un marco jurídico multilateral, que fuera presentada por el grupo de los 77 países en desarrollo más China, por iniciativa de la Argentina, ha sido aprobada por más de dos tercios de los países, lo cual señala la importancia de la cuestión, que incluye el mantenimiento de la seguridad económica internacional y muestra su dimensión a nivel mundial. En mi opinión, el motivo sobre el que se basa esta resolución de la ONU es la determinación de la capacidad de pago real a fin de evaluar la sostenibilidad de la deuda y la de su reestructuración, es decir, exactamente lo que ha sido obviado por las agencias de calificación que degradaron a la Argentina al default en julio, tras el peligroso fallo de una corte estadounidense. Una de las principales razones que explican la necesidad de crear un marco legal que facilite una reestructuración ordenada de la deuda soberana es impedir que los fondos buitre obtengan beneficios especulativos a través de litigios contra los países endeudados, como ha ocurrido en el caso reciente de la Argentina, porque va en contra del espíritu de cooperación con que deben llevarse a cabo las negociaciones para alcanzar un acuerdo consensuado y de buena fe. Por último, teniendo en cuenta el principio del derecho soberano de todo Estado a reestructurar su deuda soberana sin ninguna interferencia procedente de otro Estado, encuentro que la reciente ley aprobada por el Congreso argentino que permite que el país realice pagos localmente o en jurisdicciones fuera del alcance de los tribunales estadounidenses está justificada y, en consonancia con la reciente resolución de la ONU, debería obtener reconocimiento internacional."

 

UNA NUEVA GEOPOLÍTICA DEL DESENDEUDAMIENTO.

Como se aprecia de las opiniones del especialista rumano, el modelo argentino de desendeudamiento (reestructuraciones + desplazamiento del FMI + triunfo en la ONU + Ley de Pago Soberano) podría interpretarse como uno que viene a quebrar, por primera vez en la historia contemporánea y más que exitosamente, la utilización del endeudamiento como herramienta de sometimiento de las naciones históricamente oprimidas. La Argentina enseña al mundo que es posible desarrollar un proceso de desendeudamiento de forma exitosa y en función del interés nacional, de la seguridad jurídica del propio pueblo y de un modelo de desarrollo soberano y moderno. Y más importante aún, revela a los enemigos de dicho proceso y cómo defenderse de ellos. Está en juego una nueva geopolítica del desendeudamiento acorde a un mundo más justo. La Argentina movió estratégicamente su reina.

 

Decoding Erdogan’s shift on IS

Decoding Erdogan’s shift on IS

 

by M. K. Bhadrakumar

Ex: http://blogs.rediff.com

politique internationale, géopolitique, turquie, erdogan, levant, eiil, levant, syrie, irak, kurdistan, histoire, proche orient, moyen orient, The Turkish Parliament vote on Thursday authorizing the government to send troops across the border into Iraq and Syria is a historical reversal of the legacy of Kemal Ataturk that the country would never again get entangled with the Muslim Middle East. 

Ankara has trotted out various reasons to justify its U-turn over Turkey’s role in the fight against the Islamic State [IS]. The thrust of the reasoning is that Turkey is hell bent on fighting terrorism. But Turkish motives are highly suspect. 
 
The US Vice-President Joe Biden said in a speech at Harvard University on Thursday that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan is genuinely repentant about Turkey’s covert support for the IS in the recent years. Biden was inclined to forgive Erdogan for past sins and was delighted that Turkey would now allow the US to use its military bases for launching air strikes in Iraq and Syria, which indeed is a ‘game changer’ of sorts for the American military operations. Biden gave the impression that born-again Erdogan is raring to go against the IS. 
 
But Erdogan himself says his real reason is that his pious heart bleeds at the sight of the carnage and human suffering in Iraq and Syria and he cannot stand by idly. 
 
Both Biden and Erdogan are hundred-pound gorillas in the world of politics. What could be Erdogan’s calculus like? 
 
One thing can be said at the outset, namely, Erdogan has been expounding ‘neo-Ottomanism’, harking back to Istanbul’s destiny as the capital of the Muslim Middle East and north Africa. The ruins of Ottoman citadels as far away as Kenya in east Africa testify to that glorious past. 
 
Baghdad, Cairo and Damascus have been systematically ravaged and weakened in the past decade, thanks to a combination of covert US regional regional strategies and the folly of the Gulf countries (especially Saudi Arabia) to serve in their self-interests as America’s poodles in regional politics. Suffice to say, there is no Arab power today that can pretend to be capable of playing a leadership role in its region. 
 
The Arabs are down on their knees. At any rate, Turks have always considered the Gulf Arabs as a lower form of life. Thus, Erdogan could be sensing that Turkey’s hour of reckoning has come as by far the most powerful Sunni Muslim country.
 
Tactically, of course, Turkey stands to gain by occupying the Kurdish homelands in northern Iraq and Syria from where the PKK separatists operated and bled Turkey. Turkey is also dead against the formation of any Kurdish entities in Iraq and Syria. 
 
But beyond all that comes another question — Turkey’s expansionist dreams. Turkey is an ‘unsatiated’ regional power. Its present borders were thrust upon it by Imperial Britain and France. But it has no scope to expand toward the Balkans or Greece. 
 
But Erdogan would have heard the tantalizing remark by President Barack Obama in a recent interview with Tom Friedman that the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 is unraveling. Turkey has never reconciled with the loss of territory in Iraq and Syria following the Anglo-French settlement. 
 
Particularly galling has been the loss of territory under the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the developments that immediately followed — Britain denying the oil-rich regions of present-day northern Iraq from beyond Mosul (which is now under IS control) to be part of the Turkish state. Britain insisted that those regions (where oil was stuck in the early 1920s) should be part of the newly-created state of Iraq (so that they remained under British control, of course). 
 
If anyone is interested in reading up on the breathtaking historical background to the momentous developments unfolding in the Middle East today on the pretext of the fight against the Islamic State, I would recommend the brilliant book (which I just finished reading a second time) by David Fromkin titled “A Peace to End All Peace.” 
 
Indeed, the pitiless vultures have begun circling in the skies above the Levant and Mesopotamia to pick on the carcasses that will be littered on those bleached lands as the US-led fight against the IS runs its course. 
 
But how much share will the US and Britain concede to Turkey? In the 1920s, the US was a bystander while Britain dictated the terms to Turkey. Today what is unfolding is an Anglo-American enterprise and they also have an agenda of their own. Then, there are the Kurds who are close to Israel. 
And unlike in the early 1920s, when the Bolsheviks were preoccupied at home — it was the Soviets who disclosed the very existence of the top secret Sykes-Picot pact (1916) — Russia has returned to the Middle East. 
 
Besides, will the Arabs countries countenance the Turkish surge into Sunni Arab territories — on whatever pretext? The humiliating memory of the despotic Ottoman rule still rankles, especially in Saudi Arabia. Baghdad has already voiced protest. So has Syria. How long will Cairo and Riyadh keep silent? Again, how can Turkey’s historical rival, Iran, stand back and watch Erdogan ordering troops to occupy territoriee in its neighborhood? 
 
The interplay of these factors becomes hugely relevant. For the present, though, it pleases Washington to no end that Turkey has followed the laudable example of Australia and is joining the fight against the IS. No doubt, militarily, Turkey will be a strategic asset for the US operations, but politically it can become a liability tomorrow. 
 
Erdogan has given shelter to the Muslim Brotherhood leadership that was evicted recently by Qatar (under Saudi pressure.) Erdogan still probably hopes that if there is a political transition in Syria, Brothers have a fighting chance to capture power. 
 
But then, the Brothers are the sworn enemies of the Egyptian regime. They happen to pose an existential threat to the autocratic Gulf monarchies — and Jordan. It is unclear how far Obama can travel with Erdogan once the latter begins pushing the envelope on the democratic transformation of the Muslim Middle East (Arab Spring), starting with Syria. All in all, Turkey’s entry into the US-led war against the islamic State introduces yet another contradiction.

Iran and the Proxy War in Kurdistan

667758-peshmergas-kurdes-iraq.jpg

Author: Eric Draitser

Iran and the Proxy War in Kurdistan

In the midst of the war against ISIS (Islamic State) now taking place in both Iraq and Syria, a possible shifting of alliances that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region is taking place, and no one seems to have noticed. Specifically, the burgeoning relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Northern Iraq has the potential to remake the political landscape of the Middle East. Naturally, such a development is part of a broader geopolitical gambit by Iran, and it will have significant ramifications for all regional actors. However, it is Turkey, the gulf monarchies, and Israel that potentially have the most to lose from such a development.

While Iran has long-standing disputes with elements of its own Kurdish minority, it has demonstrably taken the lead in aiding Iraqi Kurds in their war against extremist fighters loyal to ISIS. As Kurdish President Massud Barzani explained in late August, “The Islamic Republic of Iran was the first state to help us…and it provided us with weapons and equipment.” This fact alone, coupled with the plausible, though unconfirmed, allegations of Iranian military involvement on the ground in Kurdish Iraq, demonstrates clearly the high priority Tehran has placed on cooperation with Barzani’s government and the Kurdish people in the fight against the Saudi and Qatari-backed militants of ISIS. The question is, why? What is it that Iran hopes to gain from its involvement in this fight? Who stands to lose? And how could this change the region?

The Iran Equation

While many eyebrows have been raised at Iranian involvement on the side of the Kurds in the fight against ISIS, perhaps it should not come as a much of a surprise. Tehran has steadily been shoring up its relations with Erbil, both out of a genuine desire to form an alliance, and as a counter-measure against the ouster of their close ally and partner, former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Since the US war on Iraq began in 2003, and especially after US troops left in 2011, Iran had positioned itself as a key, and in some ways dominant, actor in Iraq. Not only did it have significant influence with Maliki and his government, it also saw in Iraq an opportunity to break out of the isolation imposed upon it by the US, EU and Israel over its disputed nuclear program. For Iran, Iraq under Maliki was a bridge both physically (linking Iran with its allies in Syria and Southern Lebanon) and politically (serving as an intermediary with the West in negotiations). In addition, Maliki’s Iraq was to be the linchpin of a new economic strategy which included the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, a project which would have provided Iran overland access to the European energy market, thereby allowing the Islamic Republic to overtake Qatar as the region’s dominant gas exporter to Europe.

Additionally, Iraq was in many ways the front line in Iran’s continued struggle against western-backed terror groups, the most infamous of which is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). It was Maliki’s government which closed down Camp Ashraf, the notorious base from which the MEK operated, conducting their continued terror war against Iran. It is of course no secret that MEK is the darling of the neocon establishment, lauded by nearly every architect, supporter, and enabler of Bush’s Iraq War.

Seen in this way, Iraq was both an economic and political necessity for Iran, one that could not simply be allowed to slip back into the orbit of Washington. And so, with the emergence of ISIS, and the subsequent toppling of the Maliki government through behind-the-scenes pressure and a comprehensive propaganda campaign that portrayed him as a brutal dictator on par with Saddam Hussein, Iran clearly needed to recalculate its strategy. Knowing that it could not trust the new government in Baghdad, which was more or less handpicked by the US, Tehran clearly saw a new opportunity in Kurdistan.

Why Kurdistan?

While the imperatives for Iran to engage in Iraq are clear, the question remains as to what specifically Kurdistan offers Tehran both in terms of strategic necessity and geopolitical power projection. To understand the Iranian motive, one must examine how Kurds and Kurdistan fit into Iran’s national and international relations.

First and foremost is the fact that Iran, like Iraq, Syria and Turkey, is home to a considerable Kurdish minority, one that has consistently been manipulated by the US and Israel, and used as a pawn in the geopolitical chess match with the Islamic Republic. With the chaos in Iraq and Syria, and the continued oppression and marginalization of the Kurdish minority in Turkey, it seems that an independent Kurdistan, one that could fundamentally alter the map of the region, is becoming an ever more viable possibility. So, in order to prevent any possible destabilization of Iran and its government from the Kurds, Tehran seems to have begun the process of allying with, as opposed to aligning against, Kurdish interests in Iraq. Likely, Iran sees in such an alliance a tacit, if not overt, agreement that any Kurdish independence will not be used as a weapon against Tehran.

Secondly, by siding with Barzani’s government and providing material and tactical support, Iran is clearly jockeying for position against its regional rivals. On the one hand, Iran recognizes the threat posed by NATO member Turkey whose government, led by Erdogan and Davutoglu, has been intimately involved in the war on Syria and the arming and financing of ISIS and the other terror groups inside the country. While Ankara has publicly proclaimed its refusal to participate in military action in Syria, its actions have shown otherwise. From hosting terrorists to providing space to CIA and other intelligence agencies involved in fomenting civil war in Syria, Turkey has shown itself to be integral to the US-NATO-GCC attempt to effect regime change.

It is, of course, not lost on the Kurds precisely what Turkey has done, and continues to do. Not only has Turkey waged a decades-long war against the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), it has steadfastly refused to treat its Kurdish minority as anything other than second class citizens. And now, given the central role that Erdogan, Davutoglu & Co. have played in fomenting the war in Syria, they allow their terrorist proxies of ISIS to massacre still more Kurds. It should therefore come as no surprise that many Kurds view Turkey, not Syria or Iran, as the great threat and enemy of their people. And so, Iran steps into the vacuum, offering the Kurds not only material, but political and diplomatic support.

From Tehran’s perspective, Turkey continues to be the representative of the US-NATO-GCC agenda; Ankara has played a key role in blocking Iranian economic development, particularly in regard to energy exports. It should be remembered that Turkey is one of the principal players in the Caspian energy race, providing the requisite pipeline routes for both the TANAP (Trans-Anatolian Pipeline) and Nabucco West pipeline project, among a basket of others. These projects are supported by the US as competition to both Russia’s South Stream (a pipeline which would bring Russian gas to Southern Europe) and the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. Essentially then, Turkey should be understood as a powerful chess piece used to block Iranian moves toward economic independence and regional hegemony.

Iranian overtures toward the Kurds, and involvement in the fight against ISIS generally, must also be interpreted as a check against Iran’s other regional rivals in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Both countries have been implicated in organizing and financing many of the terror groups and networks that now operate under the “ISIS” banner, using them as proxies to break the “Resistance Axis” that includes Hezbollah, Syria’s Baath Party, and Iran.

The economic and political interests of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, more specifically the families ruling those countries, are self-evident; maintaining their grip on power is only possible by maintaining dominance over the energy trade. In Iran, the gulf monarchies see a powerful, resource-rich nation that, given the opportunity to develop economically, would likely displace them as the regional leader. And so, naturally, they must activate their jihadi networks to deprive Iran of its two strategic allies in Iraq and Syria, thereby severing the link with Hezbollah and breaking the arc of Shia dominance. It is basic power politics, only it is now Kurds paying with their lives for the petty aspirations of gulf monarchs.

Finally, Iranian moves in Kurdistan represent a new phase of the long-standing proxy war between Iran and Israel. It is no secret that, as mentioned above, certain Kurdish factions and organizations have long been quite close with Tel Aviv. In fact, the decades-long relationship between the two is one of the primary reasons for Kurdish acquiescence to western designs against both Iraq and Iran. As pro-Israeli blogger and self-proclaimed “prodigious savant” Daniel Bart wrote:

There was very close cooperation between Israel and the KDP in the years 1965-75. During most of that time there were usually some 20 military specialists stationed in a secret location in southern Kurdistan. Rehavam Zeevi and Moshe Dayan were among Israeli generals who served in Kurdistan…The Israelis trained the large Kurdish army of Mustafa Barzani and even led Kurdish troops in battle…The “secret” cooperation between Kurdistan and Israel is mainly in two fields. The first is in intelligence cooperation and this is hardly remarkable as half the world including many Muslim states have such relationships with Israel. The second is influence in Washington. 

Bart, relying on the work of noted Israeli author and researcher Shlomo Nakdimon, is quite correct to point out that Israeli intelligence, including some of the most celebrated (or infamous, depending on one’s perspective) Israeli leaders, have had intimate ties with the Kurdish leadership for more than half a century. Though the documented evidence is scanty, those who follow the relationship closely generally believe that the level of cooperation between Tel Aviv and Erbil has increased dramatically, particularly since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Indeed, Israel likely has covert operatives and intelligence officers on the ground in Kurdistan, and has for some time. This is certainly no secret to the Iranians who are convinced (and are likely correct) that many of the assassinations, bombings, and other terrorist acts perpetrated by Israel have been planned and organized from Kurdish territory.

Such thinking is backed up by the investigative reporting of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh who noted in 2004:

“The Israelis have had long standing ties to the Talibani and Barzani clans [in] Kurdistan and there are many Kurdish Jews that emigrated to Israel and there are still a lot of connection. But at some time before the end of the year [2004], and I’m not clear exactly when, certainly I would say a good six, eight months ago, Israel began to work with some trained Kurdish commandoes, ostensibly the idea was the Israelis — some of the Israeli elite commander units, counter-terror or terror units, depending on your point of view, began training — getting the Kurds up to speed.”

Iran’s leaders have been keenly aware of the presence of Israeli Special Forces and intelligence on the ground in Kurdistan, knowing that ultimately it is Tehran in the crosshairs. And so, Iran has clearly taken this brief window as an opportunity to assert its own influence in Kurdistan, inserting itself into what had been, until now, the domain of the Israelis. It remains to be seen how Tel Aviv will respond.

While the world watches with horror the continued advance of ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, there is another story unfolding. It is the story of how Iran, long since demonized as the regional pariah, has turned the chaos meant to destroy it and its allies into a possible springboard for future cooperation. It is the story of how terrorism and proxy war has brought former enemies closer together, while exposing before the world the treachery of governments once seen as Iranian allies. It is the story of alliances shifting like desert sands. But in this story, the next chapter has yet to be written.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.


First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/10/16/iran-and-the-proxy-war-in-kurdistan/

Le livre-hexagramme de Jean Parvulesco

hexagramme_marial.jpg

Le livre-hexagramme

 

de Jean Parvulesco

 

par Alain Santacreu

Ex: http://www.contrelitterature.com

Deux livres de Jean Parvulesco (1929-2010), La Spirale prophétique et Le Retour des Grands Temps, constituent une figure d’ensemble qui, l’un et l’autre s’entrelaçant à travers le chasse-croisé d’une lecture appropriée, suggère l’image d’un hexagramme, symbole de leur structure tantrique cachée, mandala dissimulé de l’action de la lecture.

Est-ce à dire qu’il faille se livrer à une lecture parallèle de la Spirale et du Retour ? Il semble évident qu’il y a une voie de lecture qui aimanterait tout lecteur prédisposé, une sorte de marche rituélique salomonienne.

D’un livre à l’autre, on retrouve les mêmes thèmes, en des endroits souvent inversés. Par exemple, dans La Spirale prophétique, dès les premiers chapitres, en référence à l’œuvre de Denys Roman, la Franc-maçonnerie se voyait octroyer une mission de sauvegarde des héritages traditionnels à la fin du cycle. Dans Le Retour des Grands Temps, ce rôle conservateur d’Arche vivante des symboles se verra dévolu au « roman occidental de la Fin ». En effet, s’interroge Jean Parvulesco, « depuis l’heure des plus atroces, des plus obscènes déchéances spirituelles de la Franc-Maçonnerie, qui fut, pour nous, longtemps et si heureusement l’Ordre des Refuges, le grand occultisme n’est-il pas réduit, lui aussi, à son tour, à chercher asile, à se dissimuler, provisoirement, et désormais comme faute de mieux, derrière les œuvres finales, crépusculaires, d’une certaine littérature occidentale ?  » (p. 107).

Mais, ce rôle exchatologique promis à la Franc-Maçonnerie, conservatrice des héritages, ressurgira dans les derniers chapitres du Retour des Grands Temps, dans la même perspective intégralement traditionnelle, impériale, qui s’était découverte sous l’impulsion de Denys Roman.

C’est ainsi que dans le chapitre intitulé « La mission occulte de Julius Evola », il est fait allusion à une réémergence de la Roma Principia, archétype occidental de l’idée impériale : « À cette enseigne, dira Jean Parvulesco, l’Église, la Franc-Maçonnerie et le Judaïsme s’y trouvaient directement concernés dans leur double éidétique, intact, persistant virginalement dans l’invisible, et c’est la convergence, l’intégration et les épousailles abyssales de ces Trois Instances qui constitueront alors l’immaculée concepion du Nouvel Un, de l’Un final demandant à émerger une nouvelle foi à travers l’identité suprahistorique de la "Roma Ultima". » (p. 383).

C’est par le roman que s’établit la jonction entre La Spirale et Le Retour. Durant la dizaine d’années qui les séparent, l’auteur aura écrit ses quatre premiers romans  – qui sont autant de départs clandestins vers l’Inde[1]. Le roman est le liant des deux livres et, par les recensions, en constitue la matière première.

Le Retour des Grands temps, lu en miroir avec La Spirale prophétique, donne lieu à un livre-hexagramme, étrange essai d’alchimie spirituelle.

Dès le deuxième chapitre, l’analyse d’un livre de Graham Masterton, Walkers, nous révèle la métaphore récurrente du Retour. Un long passage est consacré aux voyages souterrains pratiqués sur les lignes dites "ley" par les anciens grands initiés celtes. Cette magie de la terre supposait, dans les temps pré-chrétiens, des lieux magiques reliés entre eux par un réseau de lignes situées à l’intérieur de la terre et que l’on pouvait suivre en marchant.

Métaphoriquement, le lecteur devra lui aussi parcourir ces lignes tracées par Jean Parvulesco sur les pistes du roman occidental de la fin. Romans ardents et passes mystérieuses, romans en tant que récits et récits en tant que romans, glissements ontologiques de l’être dans sa remontée sur la spirale prophétique, les romans sont des chemins initiatiques.

Très vite, il s’établit une sorte d’identité entre le lecteur de Parvulesco et Parvulesco en tant que lecteur d’une autre instance narratrice. La lecture devient ainsi acte transmutatoire donnant lieu au mystère d’une  identité agrégative.

Si le roman est l’expérience des limites, les romanciers de la grande littérature, telle que l’entend Parvulesco, appartiennent à cette confrérie des marcheurs du ciel dont le tracé transmigratoire est une via ignis de la romance. Les compagnons de route de Jean Parvulesco, dans Le Retour des Grands Temps, s’appellent Graham Masterton, John Dickson-Carr, Erle Cox, Bram Stoker, Guy Dupré, Patrick Ferré, Maurice Leblanc, Jean Robin, Raoul de Warren, Zacharias Werner, Olivier Germain-Thomas, Talbot Mundy, John Buchan, Donna Tartt. Tous d’une seule confrérie agissant à l’intérieur d’un seul Ordre – ainsi que le montre Herman Hesse dans son Voyage en Orient.

Ces pressentis de l’outre-monde forment une confrérie héroïque, agrégat d’existences engagées vers les chemins brûlants de l’Inde intérieure ; et, les translations romanesques auxquelles ils s’adonnent, annoncent uniment le Retour des Grands Temps.

Jean Parvulesco insiste sur la correspondance du roman de la fin avec l’ Œuvre au jaune des anciens alchimistes – la Xantosis grecque, le Citredo latin –, « manière de rêve éveillé, de réalisation passagère de ce qu’un jour, plus tard, nous en viendra éternellement » (p. 389).

Cet état de supraconscience onirique, de rêve abyssal, dans un chapitre de La Spirale, « G.I. Gurdjieff et la Fraternité des Polaires », Jean Parvulesco l’avait nommé « le quatrième rêve ».

Cette assimilation du roman de la fin à l’« Œuvre au jaune » induit le regard du lecteur vers une vision chromatique. Dans Le Retour, à partir du chapitre « En réentrouvant les portes de l’Inde », il semble que le livre se teinte en bleu, d’un bleu toujours plus intense, jusqu’à atteindre l’indigo le plus marial dans les derniers chapitres.

C'est à partir de la lecture de Talbot Mundy que le livre bleuit. De ce roman, Il était une porte, Parvulesco nous dit qu'il est un mandala, « une porte induite entre ce monde-ci et l'autre monde : c'est l'"écriture même de ce roman d'aventures qui nous conduit jusqu'aux pieds de la Captive aux Cheveux bleus, qui est, elle, en elle-même, le passage vers l'autre monde, et qui, dans un certain sens, n'est faite, elle-même, que de la seule écriture qui n'en finit plus, en ce roman, d'aller vers elle et de la rejoindre en la constituant. Un mandala qu'il s'agit de savoir réactiver par une lecture appropriée »(pp. 306-307).

Nous pouvons alors prévoir, qu'entre le jaune et le bleu, le vert doit surgir. Ce lieu du passage au vert devra être recherché dans la structure d'ensemble de l'hexagramme constitué par Le Retour et La Spirale ; c'est au milieu exact de cette figure cachée que pointe le vert.

Quelle orientation donner à l'hexagramme ? Quelle lecture appropriée adopter afin d'activer ce mandala ? Le triangle pointé vers le haut, est-ce celui du Retour ? et celui pointé vers le bas, est-ce celui de La Spirale ?  Heureusement, le centre commun aux deux triangles qui s'interpénètrent, leur cœur orientant, est explicitement désigné par Jean Parvulesco dans le chapitre du Retour intitulé « La mission occulte de Julius Evola » : « Ainsi ai-je eu à susciter, au cœur même – comme on vient de le voir – du présent écrit, l'inquiétant problème d'un livre de "témoignages et de révélations" abordant "tout ce qui sans trahir peut être dit" sur Julius Evola » (p. 395).

Il suffira par conséquent de retrouver le chapitre correspondant « au cœur même » de La Spirale pour découvrir la juste orientation de l'hexagramme.

Le lecteur zélé aura déjà compris que ce lieu ne peut être que le chapitre intitulé « La réapparition du Visage Vert » – car, entre le jaune et le bleu, verte est la teinture des marcheurs du ciel, verte est la faille du centre qui les aimante. Cette faille intérieure, stigmate du cœur incendié, passage secret de la structure d'ensemble, transforme le phénomène de la lecture qui devient acte alchimique. Lire, ainsi conçu, est une prise d'arme pour l'ultime combat.


Alain Santacreu

[1] La Servante portugaise, Les Mystères de la Villa Atlantis, L'Étoile de l'Empire invisible, Le gué des Louves.

(Une première version de ce texte est parue, en 1998, dans le n°3 de la revue "Avec Regard", pp. 100-101).

Kemi Seba/Laurent James : "Le pérénialisme global ou l'union ésotérique des dissidences"

Kemi Seba/Laurent James :

"Le pérénialisme global ou l'union ésotérique des dissidences"