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, 11 février 2015

Faye à Strasbourg!

Vendredi 13 février à Strasbourg - Conférence de Guillaume Faye: “La colonisation de l’Europe. Situation et solutions”

 
10968192_910536542324359_1724319301150231982_n.jpg

Chypre: bases militaires à la disposition de la Russie

chypre.jpg

Chypre, ce pays de la zone euro qui vient de mettre des bases militaires situées sur son territoire à la disposition de la Russie

Auteur : Mylène Vandecasteele
Ex: http://zejournal.mobi

Le président chypriote Nicos Anastasiades a annoncé vendredi que son pays venait de proposer à la Russie d'utiliser des bases militaires aériennes et navales situées sur son territoire, rapporte le site chinois China Gate.

Anastasiades a indiqué qu’il se rendrait à Moscou le 25 février prochain pour signer un accord qui renforcera les relations des deux pays dans le domaine de la défense. « Il y a un ancien accord (de défense) qu’il faut renouveler tel quel. En même temps, des sites additionnels seront mis à disposition, exactement comme nous le faisons avec d’autres pays, la France et l’Allemagne, par exemple », a dit le président.

L’accord porte notamment sur une base aérienne située sur la côte Sud de l’ile, à 40 km de la base militaire d’Akriotiri, qui est utilisée par l’Air Force britannique, et où l'OTAN prépare ses opérations au Moyen et Proche-Orient.

Chypre et la Russie partagent des liens historiques étroits, basés sur des traditions culturelles et religieuses communes.

La Russie a toujours été l'un des plus fidèles alliés de Chypre dans le différend qui l’oppose à la Turquie. Les Russes ont offert un soutien politique et militaire qui s’est concrétisé par des ventes d’armes.

Au cours de l’interview qu’il a donnée, Anastasiades a rappelé qu’il s’opposait à ce que l’Europe inflige de nouvelles sanctions contre la Russie, et qu’il voulait éviter toute nouvelle dégradation des relations entre la Russie et l’Europe. Il a précisé que les sanctions avaient eu un impact négatif sur certains secteurs de l’économie chypriote, et cité le tourisme, l'immobilier et les investissements dans la propriété.

Chypre a dû demander un programme d'urgence de 10 milliards d'euros en 2013 à l'Eurogroupe et le FMI.

Selon Russia Today, au cours des 20 dernières années, la Russie a investi plus de 30 milliards de dollars à Chypre. Ces derniers mois, la Grèce et Chypre ont émis des signaux qui indiquent qu'elles veulent renforcer leurs liens avec la Russie.

Chypre n’est pas membre de l'OTAN.


- Source : Mylène Vandecasteele

Bassam Tahhan: "En Syrie, Bachar Al-Assad est légitime"

 

TVL : Bassam Tahhan:

"En Syrie, Bachar Al-Assad est légitime"

http://www.tvlibertes.com/

https://www.facebook.com/tvlibertes

https://twitter.com/tvlofficiel

Pour nous soutenir :

http://www.tvlibertes.com/don/

Ou directement via Facebook :

https://www.facebook.com/tvlibertes/a...

Frankrijk en Duitsland breken met koers VS en kiezen voor Rusland

hollmerkpout.jpg

Frankrijk en Duitsland breken met koers VS en kiezen voor Rusland

EU-lid Cyprus biedt Rusland militaire bases aan

De gewone Europeaan mag weer hoop hebben op een vreedzame afloop van de door de Amerikaanse regering gecreëerde crisis rond Oekraïne, nu zowel Duitsland als Frankrijk in scherpe bewoordingen afstand hebben genomen van het beleid van de regering Obama. De voormalige Franse president Nicolas Sarkozy, straks mogelijk opnieuw verkiesbaar, zei zelfs dat ‘wij een gemeenschappelijke beschaving met Rusland hebben. De belangen van de Amerikanen met de Russen zijn niet de belangen van Europa en Rusland.’

De Duitse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Frank-Walter Steinmeier was eveneens fel en zei dat de strategie van Washington ‘niet alleen riskant, maar ook contraproductief is’. Zijn woorden deden de bewering van zijn Amerikaanse collega John Kerry dat er ‘geen sprake was van een breuk tussen de VS en Duitsland’ volledig teniet.

Op de Veiligheidsconferentie in München herhaalde Steinmeier de eerdere verzekering van bondskanselier Angela Merkel dat Duitsland, en specifiek zijn partij, de SPD, nooit akkoord zal gaan met de door het Witte Huis geëiste wapenleveranties aan het regime in Kiev, dat nog altijd hoopt de pro-Russische separatisten te verslaan.

Minister van Economische Zaken Sigmar Gabriel toonde zich voorzichtig hoopvol over de gesprekken met Rusland. Hij zei dat hij van Putin verwacht dat deze de ‘uitgestoken hand van de EU beetpakt’, omdat ‘de EU na de crisis streeft naar een hernieuwing van het partnerschap met Rusland.

De huidige Franse president Francois Hollande lijkt eveneens ‘om’, en roept inmiddels op tot grotere autonomie voor het voornamelijk Russische sprekende oosten van Oekraïne. Op een congres van de UMP, waar zijn voorganger Sarkozy de leider van is, voegde Sarkozy nog toe dat ‘wij geen herleving van de koude oorlog tussen Europa en Rusland willen. De Krim heeft Rusland gekozen, en dat kunnen wij hen niet verwijten. We moeten bekijken hoe we een vredesmacht kunnen creëren om de Russisch sprekende mensen in Oekraïne te beschermen.’

Ook de NAVO en Brussel krijgen een klap in het gezicht, en wel van EU-lid Cyprus, dat besloten heeft om een vliegveld van de luchtmacht open te stellen voor Russische militaire toestellen.

Kortom: eindelijk weer eens hoopvol nieuws, zo vroeg in de morgen van maandag 9 februari. En nu maar hopen dat de Duitsers en Fransen hun ruggen recht houden, want de regering Obama zal de politieke druk op Europa om anti-Rusland te blijven waarschijnlijk nog veel verder gaan opvoeren.

Xander

(1) Zero Hedge

Zie ook o.a.:

08-02: ‘Europa moet oorlogskoers VS en NAVO loslaten en samen met Rusland wereldvrede redden’

11 Septembre: ces 28 pages qui menacent l'axe Washington-Riyad

onzesept92333210_o.jpg

11 Septembre: ces 28 pages qui menacent l'axe Washington-Riyad

Par Laure Mandeville
Ex: http://www.lefigaro.fr
 

Un document classifié prouve le rôle financier des Saoudiens dans les attentats du World Trade Center, assure l'ex-sénateur Bob Graham.

De la correspondante du Figaro à Washington

Dans les sous-sols du bâtiment du Capitole, tout près de l'entrée où des flots de touristes se présentent pour la visite du Congrès, il existe une pièce sécurisée où le Comité pour le renseignement de la Chambre des représentants conserve des documents secrets hautement classifiés. L'un d'eux, long de 28 pages, et intitulé «Éléments, discussion et récit concernant certains sujets sensibles de sécurité nationale», a fait couler beaucoup d'encre depuis treize ans.

Ce texte, qui pose la question du rôle de l'Arabie saoudite dans l'organisation des attentats du World Trade Center, faisait partie du fameux rapport sur le 11 septembre 2001, supervisé par le Comité du renseignement du Sénat, et son ancien président Bob Graham. Mais au moment de sa publication en 2002, ce sénateur démocrate de Floride, qui a depuis quitté le Congrès, a découvert avec stupéfaction que les 28 pages avaient été supprimées et classifiées à la demande de l'Administration Bush. «Raisons de sécurité nationale», avait expliqué à l'époque l'équipe de George W. Depuis toutes ces années, c'est ce même argument qui a empêché la déclassification du texte, malgré les efforts de Graham, l'un des rares à avoir lu le document, même s'il peut être accessible aux élus qui en font la demande.

«C'est notre refus de regarder en face la vérité qui a créé la nouvelle vague d'extrémisme qui a frappé Paris.»

L'ancien sénateur Bob Graham

«Ce rapport montre la participation directe du gouvernement saoudien dans le financement du 11 Septembre», déclare l'ancien sénateur au Figaro. «Nous savons au moins que plusieurs des 19 kamikazes ont reçu le soutien financier de plusieurs entités saoudiennes, y compris du gouvernement. Le fait de savoir si les autres ont été soutenus aussi par l'Arabie saoudite n'est pas clair, car cette information a été cachée au peuple américain», ajoute Graham. «On nous dit que cela ne peut être fait pour des raisons de sécurité nationale, mais c'est exactement le contraire», poursuit-il.

«Publier est important précisément pour notre sécurité nationale. Les Saoudiens savent ce qu'ils ont fait, ils savent que nous savons. La vraie question est la manière dont ils interprètent notre réponse. Pour moi, nous avons montré que quoi qu'ils fassent, il y aurait impunité. Ils ont donc continué à soutenir al-Qaida, puis plus récemment dans l'appui économique et idéologique à l'État islamique. C'est notre refus de regarder en face la vérité qui a créé la nouvelle vague d'extrémisme qui a frappé Paris», martèle l'ancien sénateur. Un autre élu qui a lu le document a confié au New Yorker que «les preuves du soutien du gouvernement saoudien pour les événements du 11 Septembre étaient très dérangeantes» et que la «vraie question est de savoir si cela a été approuvé au niveau de la famille royale ou en dessous».

En 2002, Graham était bien seul dans son combat pour «la vérité». Mais à la mi-janvier, il a tenu une conférence de presse au Sénat sur ce thème en compagnie de deux représentants, le républicain Walter Jones et le démocrate Stephen Lynch, qui ont présenté une résolution HR 428 appelant à la déclassification. «Le soutien grandit mais atteindra-t-il le seuil qui permettra au Congrès de faire pression sur l'Administration Obama? Ce n'est pas clair», note l'ancien élu. Jones et Lynch ont écrit au président pour lui demander d'agir. Selon l'un des membres de l'organisation des familles victimes du 11 Septembre, Terence Schiavo, Obama aurait promis de déclassifier un jour.

«Nous affirmons que des organismes de bienfaisance établis par le gouvernement du Royaume pour propager l'idéologie radicale wahhabite ont servi de sources majeures de financement et de soutien logistique à al-Qaida, pendant toute la décennie qui a mené au 11 Septembre.»

Sean Carter, un des avocats des victimes du 11 Septembre

Les familles de victimes sont en première ligne dans ce combat. Si leurs avocats pouvaient prouver la participation de l'État saoudien aux attentats, Riyad serait forcé de leur verser des compensations. «Nous affirmons que des organismes de bienfaisance établis par le gouvernement du Royaume pour propager l'idéologie radicale wahhabite ont servi de sources majeures de financement et de soutien logistique à al-Qaida, pendant toute la décennie qui a mené au 11 Septembre», a confié l'un des avocats des familles, Sean Carter, au New Yorker. Selon l'hebdomadaire, deux des kamikazes auraient notamment été financés et hébergés à San Diego par un personnage en contact permanent avec la section du ministère des Affaires islamiques basée à Los Angeles. L'Arabie saoudite nie toutefois toute responsabilité et a appelé à la déclassification des 28 pages afin de laver sa réputation.

Bob Graham pense que derrière ces appels, le Royaume fait pression sur Washington pour que le rapport reste confidentiel. Mais certaines des personnes qui ont travaillé sur le document apportent de l'eau au moulin des Saoudiens, en soulignant que le texte n'établit pas de manière irrévocable la participation des autorités saoudiennes. C'est notamment le cas de Philip Zelikow, directeur de la commission du 11 Septembre, qui qualifie les 28 pages «d'accumulation de rapports préliminaires non confirmés». «Je ne suis pas d'accord. Si ce rapport est superficiel et peu convaincant, pourquoi en avoir empêché la publication depuis treize ans?» réagit Graham.

Le fait que Barack Obama ait écourté sa visite en Inde la semaine dernière, pour aller saluer le nouveau roi d'Arabie en compagnie de 30 hautes responsables politiques - alors qu'aucun n'avait pris la peine de se rendre à la marche de Paris après les attaques terroristes - en dit long sur les priorités de Washington.

Pour lui, «la réponse est évidente concernant les Bush, qui sont très proches des Saoudiens» qui craignaient pour leur réputation. La raison pour laquelle Obama suit la même voie semble surtout venir des énormes implications géopolitiques que pourraient avoir de telles révélations sur une relation américano-saoudienne, toujours considérée comme vitale. Le fait que le président ait écourté sa visite en Inde la semaine dernière, pour aller saluer le nouveau roi d'Arabie en compagnie de 30 hautes responsables politiques - alors qu'aucun n'avait pris la peine de se rendre à la marche de Paris après les attaques terroristes - en dit long sur les priorités de Washington.

Avec les mouvements de plaques tectoniques qui secouent le Moyen Orient - l'opposition chiites-sunnites, la question du nucléaire iranien, la guerre d'Irak et de Syrie et la déstabilisation du Yémen -, «Obama ne veut pas introduire un nouveau facteur d'instabilité», dit Graham. Même si son jeu avec l'Iran semble indiquer une volonté de se distancer de l'Arabie, le choix est clairement de maintenir plusieurs fers au feu. Faute de mieux.

De la guerre du Golfe au gros souk planétaire

Dubai-Mall.jpg

De la guerre du Golfe au gros souk planétaire
 
On assiste bien à l’émergence d’un monde islamo-occidental.
 
Ecrivain
Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.com

Il y a quinze ans, tout le monde prophétisait un choc des civilisations. Nous avions d’un côté le gentil Occident moderne et démocrate, de l’autre la barbarie musulmane. Les camps étaient bien définis, nous étions tous contents.

Nous oubliions seulement qu’Obama serait élu juste après l’autre ; que le pouvoir saoudien ne cesserait d’affirmer sa loi sur un Occident post-chrétien et post-nucléaire – pourvu qu’il récupérât sa dîme en dollars ; que le clan des Ben Laden avait été le seul à pouvoir quitter le sol américain le soir de l’attentat ; que les composants de cette tribu bien américanisée et descendante de Ladinos d’Espagne construiraient les nouveaux centres de pèlerinage de La Mecque en massacrant le patrimoine traditionnel ; que toute base (Al-Qaïda en arabe) américaine accélère non pas le choc mais l’osmose tératologique dont nous allons parler.

Modèle à suivre ? Principautés pirates comme les îles Caïmans des Caraïbes, paradis fiscaux recyclés dans un monde endetté, ces états élitistes incarnent au contraire le nec plus ultra de la mondialisation. Ils sont la fine fleur de la racaille émiettée des poussières d’Empire britannique. Leur civilisation repose comme la nôtre sur le centre commercial. Ces entités post-musulmanes façonnées par les souks anglais ignorent la terre, consacrant l’oasis marchande cernée de désert. Elles encensent les caravanes, nous les lignes commerciales. Elles n’aiment pas les armées nationales, elles aiment les mercenaires humanitaires. Elles ouvrent des musées d’art islamique, et leurs mosquées sont vides : c’est la civilisation des voleurs de Bagdad.

La population « farcesque » des États du Golfe annonce aussi notre triste avenir. Celle des Émirats a été multipliée par cent en cinquante ans. Il y a moins de 20 % de Qataris au Qatar. On trouve les cadres expatriés des multinationales qui aiment vivre sur ces hideuses tours et les pauvres boys venus en fraude des Philippines, et les esclaves du sous-continent. Ils représentent 80 % de la population, ces misérables venus des Indes, du Pakistan, qui n’ont aucun droit, et ne savent pas à quelle sauce ils seront mangés par leur patron. Ce modèle social et racial de Slumdog Millionaire est à l’image du modèle victorien de retour : malheur au pauvre ! C’est du Dickens à la sauce kebab.

On assiste donc bien à l’émergence d’un monde islamo-occidental que renforce l’appétit de terreur des médias, de tous leurs financiers. Les terroristes ou EGM (êtres médiatiquement générés) renforcent à propos la cohérence de cette parodie de civilisation ; s’il y a choc des civilisations, c’est – comme au Moyen Âge – sur le dos du monde orthodoxe : voyez la Grèce et la Russie, voyez les coptes en Égypte. Le nomadisme islamo-occidental a détruit, en un siècle, le Moyen-Orient chrétien et ce Moyen-Orient musulman qui, justement, n’était pas islamique. Nous ne préserverons que le pire de chaque civilisation.

Le désert croît ; malheur à qui recèle des déserts !

Filmbespreking: Michiel de Ruyter

michderuyter.jpg

Filmbespreking: Michiel de Ruyter

door
Ex: http://rechtsactueel.com

Het is bepaald geen sinecure om de Nederlandse volkheld Michiel Adriaanszoon de Ruyter waardig te verfilmen, die een groot deel van zijn leven ten dienste van het vaderland de zeeën heeft bevaren. Op allerlei functies binnen de Nederlandse vloot heeft hij zich uitermate verdienstelijk gemaakt. Internationaal bekend is de overwinning bij Kijkduin in 1673, de Engelse en Franse vloot was in aantallen veel te sterk voor de Nederlandse vloot, maar De Ruyter wist de overwinning te behalen en te voorkomen dat de vijandige troepen aan wal gingen en Nederland bezetten.

Een dergelijke man van de daad, doorheen de eeuwen zeer geliefd onder het Nederlandse volk, ja ga dat verhaal maar eens verfilmen…. Toch is het filmregisseur zeker geslaagd, het is een knappe verfilming geworden vol met actie en romantiek en het redelijk vast aanhouden van de historische werkelijkheid. De producent is Klaas de Jong, die eerder verdienstelijk de Scheepsjongens van Bontekoe verfilmde.

De hoofdrol wordt gespeeld door Frank Lammers, die Michiel de Ruyter goed weet te spelen, als gewone Zeeuwse volksjongen die vanwege zijn grote kwaliteiten opklimt binnen de marine, sterk en krachtig, aangevuld met wat Zeeuwse humor. Ook zijn er andere rollen die alleraardigst naar voren komen, zo schittert Barry Atsma als een daadkrachtige en intelligente Johan de Witt en Sanne Langelaar als de vrouw van de Ruyter, als een ijzersterke moeder en liefdevolle vrouw.

Michiel-de-ruyter-23cm_RGB-_2_.jpg

Prins van Oranje Willem III komt er minder van af, die wordt geportretteerd als homofiele slappeling, die wordt gestuurd en gemanipuleerd door Oranjegezinde intriganten. Daarentegen wordt de Republiek opgehemeld en haar verdedigers grote kwaliteiten aangemeten. Wellicht is ook interessant daarbij te vernoemen dat de Republiek vooral ook talloze ontwortelde bureaucraten voortbracht, die zich op behoorlijke schaal gingen verrijken ten koste van de Nederlandse bevolking.

Echter dit doet nauwelijks af van de heerlijke kijk- en luisterbeleving die de film is. Vechtpartijen en romantische scènes wisselen elkaar af onder het genot van ophemelende muziekdeunen. Meerdere malen zien we ook de Ruyter knokken met de bemanning van de Engelse vloot en ook zien we de elite eenheid Korps Mariniers aan de slag op de Theems. Ja, het zijn natuurlijk ook mooie stukken Nederlandse geschiedenis.

Het zeker een film om in het filmhuis te gaan bezoeken, want met de extra effecten en dramatische muziek en de knappe beelden van op de schepen, krijgt men zo meer dan een extra kijkervaring.

Elementos nos 85, 86, 87 & 88

ELEMENTOS Nº 88. LA NUEVA DERECHA Y LA CUESTIÓN DEL FASCISMO

 


Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com


Descargar con google.com



SUMARIO.


Nueva Derecha, ¿extrema derecha o derecha extravagante?, por José Andrés Fernández Leost

La Nueva Derecha y la cuestión del Fascismo, por Diego Luis Sanromán

La Nueva Derecha. ¿«Software» neofascista?, por Rodrigo Agulló

Plus Ça Change!  El pedigrí fascista de la Nueva Derecha, por Roger Griffin

¿Discusión o inquisición? La Nueva Derecha y el "caso De Benoist", por Pierre-André Taguieff

El Eterno Retorno. ¿Son fascistas las ideas-fuerza de la Nueva Derecha Europea?, por Joan Antón-Mellón

¿Viejos prejuicios o nuevo paradigma político? La Nueva Derecha francesa vista por la Nueva Izquierda norteamericana, por Paul Piccone

La Nueva Derecha y la reformulación «metapolítica» de la extrema derecha, por Miguel Ángel Simón

El Frente Nacional y la Nueva Derecha, por Charles Champetier

La Nueva Derecha y el Fascismo, por Marcos Roitman Rosenmann

ELEMENTOS Nº 87. LEO STRAUSS: ¿PADRE DE LOS NEOCONS?

 
 

Descargar con issuu.com

Descargar con scribd.com


Descargar con google.com



Sumario.-


Leo Strauss: filosofía, política y valores, por Alain de Benoist


Leo Strauss, el padre secreto de los “neocon”, por Esteban Hernández


Leo Strauss y la esencia de la filosofía política, por Eduardo Hernando Nieto


Leo Strauss, los straussianos y los antistraussianos, por Demetrio Castro


Leo Strauss, ideas sin contexto, por Benigno Pendás


Leo Strauss: los abismos del pensamiento conservador, por Ernesto Milá


Leo Strauss y la política como (in)acción, por Jorge San Miguel


Leo Strauss y la recuperación de la racionalidad política clásica, por Iván Garzón-Vallejo


¿Qué es filosofía política? de Leo Strauss. Apuntes para una reflexión sobre el conocimiento político, por Jorge Orellano


Leo Strauss y su crítica al liberalismo, por Alberto Buela


Leo Strauss y la redención clásica del mundo moderno, por Sergio Danil Morresi


Leo Strauss: lenguaje, tradición e historia, por Jesús Blanco Echauri


Mentiras piadosas y guerra perpetua: Leo Strauss y el neoconservadurismo, por Danny Postel


La mano diestra del capitalismo: de Leo Strauss al movimiento neoconservador, por Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera

 

ELEMENTOS Nº 86. UN DIÁLOGO CONSERVADOR: SCHMITT-STRAUSS

 





Sumario.-

¿Teología Política o Filosofía Política? La amistosa conversación entre Carl Schmitt y Leo Strauss, por Eduardo Hernando Nieto

Entre Carl Schmitt y Thomas Hobbes. Un estudio del liberalismo moderno a partir del pensamiento de Leo Strauss, por José Daniel Parra

Schmitt, Strauss y lo político. Sobre un diálogo entre ausentes, por Martín González

La afirmación de lo político. Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss y la cuestión del fundamento, por Luciano Nosetto

Modernidad y liberalismo. Hobbes entre Schmitt y Strauss, por Andrés Di Leo Razuk

Leo Strauss y los autores modernos, por Matías Sirczuk

Leo Strauss y la redención clásica del mundo moderno, por Sergio Danil Morresi

Sobre el concepto de filosofía política en Leo Strauss, por Carlos Diego Martínez Cinca

Secularización y crítica del liberalismo moderno en Leo Strauss, por Antonio Rivera García

La obra de Leo Strauss y su crítica de la Modernidad, por María Paula Londoño Sánchez

Carl Schmitt: las “malas compañías” de Leo Strauss, por Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera

Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss y Hans Blumenberg. La legitimidad de la modernidad, por Antonio Lastra
 

ELEMENTOS Nº 85 EL DINERO: DEIFICACIÓN CAPITALISTA

revue,nouvelle droite,nouvelle droite espagnole,leo strauss,carl schmitt,théorie politique,sciences politiques,politologie,philosophie,philosophie politique,théologie politique,argent,ploutocratie,capitalisme

 

 

 

 

La religión del dinero, por Ernesto Milá
 
Dinero, dinerización y destino, por Germán Spano

 

El dinero como síntoma, por Alain de Benoist

 

El poder del ídolo-dinero, por Benjamín Forcano

 

El poder del dinero: la autodestrucción del ser humano, por Antonio Morales Berruecos y Edmundo Galindo González

 

El dinero como ideología, por Guillaume Faye

 

La ideología del dinero en la época actual, por Juan Castaingts Teillery
 
Georg Simmel: el dinero y la libertad moderna, por Andrés Bilbao
 
¿El dinero da la felicidad?, por Pedro A. Honrubia Hurtado

 

Los fundamentos onto-teológico-políticos de la mercancía y del dinero, por Fabián Ludueña Romandini
 
Mundo sin dinero: una visión más allá del capitalismo, por Juan E. Drault
 
La época de los iconoclastas, por Alain de Benoist
 
Las identidades del dinero, por Celso Sánchez Capdequí
 
La ganga y la fecundidad del dinero, por Emmanuel Mounier
 
El dinero-financiero y el poder de la globalización, por Iván Murras Mas y Maciá Blázquez Salom

Arctic Resources to Boost Russia’s Pivot to Asia

Arctic_Gas.jpg

Arctic Resources to Boost Russia’s Pivot to Asia

 
The West is not the only global player to have its eyes on Asia. Russia is looking to become a key energy supplier for the Chinese and Indian markets and will use its Arctic gas to do so.
 
Global energy markets in deep transition
 
Russia is looking at diversifying its oil and gas exports which have so far mostly targeted the European market. Additionally, the recent tensions with the West, followed by economic sanctions, and the slow-down of Europe’s economy have made it necessary for the Kremlin to find new recipients for its oil and gas exports.
 
According to recent estimates, by 2050, emerging markets will account for 70 percent of the world trade. The Pacific pivot of the world’s main economies is quietly taking shape, and the Kremlin is jumping on the bandwagon.
 
Russia and India together in the Arctic
 
Last month, Gazprom Marketing & Trading Singapore (GM&T) and Yamal Trade entered a long-term contract for liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply. And most of the gas will be delivered to India. According to Gazprom’s website, the contract will be effective for over 20 years and provide an annual supply of 2.9 million tons of LNG. Although the price of the contract has not been announced yet, it will be determined using the formula with oil indexation, the news report says.
 
What is interesting in this deal is that Russia will be using its Arctic resources to supply a client for over 20 years. Beyond being another solid evidence of the «Indo-Pacific» pivot, this move teaches us two important things. First, that discussions about dropping Arctic oil and gas projects are somewhat moot and second, that long-term economic development of the Arctic is underway.

Analysis

First, some context. Let’s look at the actors involved in Russia’s energetic pivot to Asia. GM&T is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Gazprom group. It has five offices around the world, including one in Singapore established in 2010, focusing mainly on trading LNG.
 
Yamal Trade, a subsidiary of Yamal LNG founded in 2006 and headquartered in Moscow, offers LNG exploration and production services, such as the engineering and designing of the Sabetta onshore LNG facility. The construction of the Sabetta port in the Yamal peninsula started in 2012, and it comes as no surprise that the port is designed to facilitate shipments of LNG to the Asia-Pacific region.
 
The contract signed last month did not happen overnight. The deal is the result of lengthy talks and it took years for the Russian-Indian partnership to develop and mature.
 
In October 2013, Indian state-owned oil company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) expressed its interest in partnering with Russia to explore for oil and gas in Russia’s Arctic waters. Officials from the two countries met and discussed the possibilities for exporting Russian gas to India via pipeline.
 
A few months later, in January 2014, Russia’s Energy Ministry unveiled a draft plan to at least double its oil and gas flows to Asia over the next 20 years. In 2013, only 16% of the total Russian oil and gas exports was sent to Asia. But by 2035, the Kremlin’s goal is to raise gas exports to Asia from 6% to 31%.
 
Then, in May 2014, it became public that GM&T and Yamal Trade signed an agreement to supply up to 3 million tons of LNG, and already, India was to be the main recipient. The press release stressed that LNG would be delivered under «FOB» terms. FOB stands for «free on board», meaning that «the individual or organization buying the goods is responsible for freight costs/liability». The LNG would transit from Western Europe to Asia.
 
By the end of 2014, during the 20th Offshore South East Asia Conference and Exhibition (OSEA) in Singapore in December, Moscow’s top oil and gas officials announced that Russia would take Asia-Pacific countries as main partners in the oil and gas sector and highlighted the benefits of mutual cooperation. OSEA is «Asia’s leading business technology event for the oil and gas industry», explains the official website.
 
Russia’s economic policy statement represents a landmark in its energy policy history and will have consequences that stretch far beyond the simple business relationship established between the two countries.
 
A few days later the same month, during Putin’s visit to India, Putin declared he was ready to export LNG to India with the involvement of the ONGC in Arctic projects. According to the company’s website, ONGC is ranked as the top energy company in India, fifth in Asia and has a market value of 46.4 billion US dollars – against 99.9 billion US dollars for Gazprom in 2013.
 
Putin also specified that using a cross-country pipeline to export natural gas would be much more expensive than relying on shipping to sell it in its liquid form, LNG. In the end, it comes down to a “question of commercial feasibility”, Putin said.
 
With a booming economy and population, India was the fourth-largest energy consumer in the world in 2011, the EIA notes. And although coal is still its main source of energy, New Delhi is actively trying to reform its energy sector.
 
India is expected to start receiving LNG shipments as early as in 2017, Putin indicated during his state visit.
 
Years of negotiations between Moscow and New Delhi paved the way for the contract signed on January 23rd by GM&T and Yamal Trade. According to the terms of the contract, an annual supply of 2.9 million tons of LNG will be shipped to Asia, most of which will end up fuelling India’s fast-growing energy needs.
 
Implications for the future
 
Although some pushed for a halt in Arctic drilling, Russian Natural Resources Minister Sergey Donskoy’s statement this week is not shocking in any way. « No one has suggested that the oil production forecast [in the Arctic] should be reduced », the minister said.
 
The « Russindian » deal evidently illustrates the major ongoing transformations that are happening in the energy sector: the exploitation of resources in new areas, and the need for the world’s main energy suppliers to broaden their horizons in amending their export policies. To draw a parallel, one could argue that, to some extent, Russia is in a situation similar to the one of Canada. A situation where the traditional recipients for energy exports (the U.S and the E.U) no longer reflect stability and predictability, but rather waning economic partners.

SOURCE: The Arctic Monitor

Where’s the Anti-War Movement When You Really Need It?

aw300985.jpg

Missing-in-Action in the Expanding War on ISIS

Where’s the Anti-War Movement When You Really Need It?

by SARAH LAZARE
Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

The expanding U.S.-led war on the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS, has largely fallen off the radar of U.S. social movements.

Many (but not all) who were active in anti-war organizing over the past decade have turned away from this conflict. The dearth of public debate is conspicuous, even as the U.S. government sinks the country deeper into yet another open-ended and ill-defined military operation. The refrain “it will take years” has become such a common utterance by the Obama administration that it slips by barely noticed.

There are many reasons for the relative silence in the face of this latest military escalation. I would venture that one of them is the sheer complexity of the situation on the ground in Iraq and Syria — as well as the real humanitarian crisis posed by the rise of ISIS, the many-layered power struggles across the wider Middle East, and the difficulty of building connections with grassroots movements in countries bearing the brunt of the violence.

But the answer to complexity is not to do nothing. In fact, great crimes and historic blunders — from Palestine to South Africa to Afghanistan — have been tacitly enabled by people who chose not to take action, perhaps because the situation seemed too complex to engage. When millions of lives are on the line, inaction is unacceptable.

The task is to figure out what to do.

The most important question to ask is this: Do we really think that the U.S. military operation against ISIS will bring about a good outcome for the people of Iraq and Syria, or for U.S. society? Is there any evidence from the more than 13 years of the so-called “War on Terror” that U.S. military intervention in the Middle East brings anything but death, displacement, destabilization, and poverty to the people whose homes have been transformed into battlefields?

The answer to these questions must be a resounding “No.”

But there are also many things to say “Yes” to. A better path forward can only be forged by peoples’ movements on the ground in Iraq and Syria — movements that still exist, still matter, and continue to organize for workers’ rights, gender justice, war reparations, and people power, even amid the death and displacement that has swallowed up all the headlines.

Now is a critical time to seek to understand and build solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian civil societies. Heeding their call, we should strengthen awareness here at home of the tremendous political and ethical debt the United States owes all people harmed by the now-discredited war on Iraq and the crises it set in motion.

“U.S. Military Action Leads to Chaos”

“A rational observer of United States intervention in the swath of land that runs from Libya to Afghanistan would come to a simple conclusion: U.S. military action leads to chaos,” wrote scholar and activist Vijay Prashad a month after the bombings began.

More than 13 years on, there is no evidence that the “War on Terror” has accomplished its stated, if amorphous, goal: to weed out terrorism (defined to exclude atrocities committed by the U.S. and allied states, of course). According to the Global Terrorism Index released by the Institute for Economics and Peace, global terrorist incidents have climbed dramatically since the onset of the War on Terror. In 2000, there were 1,500 terrorist incidents. By 2013, this number had climbed to 10,000. People in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria suffer the most, the index notes.

The so-called “good war” in Afghanistan, which is now entering its 14th year and has not ended, illustrates this failed policy (President Obama’s recent claim that the combat mission is “over” notwithstanding).

In contradiction of the Obama administration’s “mission accomplished” spin, Afghanistan is suffering a spike in civilian deaths, displacement, poverty, and starvation, with 2014 proving an especially deadly year for Afghan non-combatants. The Taliban, furthermore, appears to be growing in strength, as the U.S. forces Afghanistan into long-term political and military dependency with the Bilateral Security Agreement signed last September by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

The Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan is one of numerous civil society groups in Afghanistan that have no illusions about the U.S. track record so far. “In the past thirteen years, the U.S. and its allies have wasted tens of billions of [dollars], and turned this country into the center of global surveillance and mafia gangs; and left it poor, corrupt, insecure, hungry, and crippled with tribal, linguistic, and sectarian divisions,” the organization declared in a statement released last October.

The current crisis in Iraq and Syria is another piece of this puzzle. It is now well-documented that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 played a critical role in fueling al-Qaeda in Iraq, which would eventually become ISIS. Emerging as part of the insurgency against the United States — and now thriving off opposition to the sectarian Shiite government propped up by Washington — ISIS did not even exist before the United States invaded Iraq. Its ranks were initially filled with Sunnis who were spat out by the brutal, U.S.-imposed de-Baathification process, and later by those disaffected by a decade of negligence and repression from Shiite authorities in Baghdad.

antiwar-leadin.gif

In neighboring Syria, the United States and Saudi Arabia backed anti-Assad fighters that were, as journalist Patrick Cockburn put it, “ideologically close to al-Qaeda” yet “relabeled as moderate.” It was in Syria that ISIS developed the power to push back into Iraq after being driven out in 2007.

Ordinary people across the region are paying a staggering price for these policies.

2014 was the deadliest year for civilians in Iraq since the height of the U.S. war in 2006 and 2007, according to Iraq Body Count. The watchdog found that 17,049 civilians were recorded killed in Iraq last year alone — approximately double the number recorded killed in 2013, which in turn was roughly double the tally from 2012. And more than 76,000 people — over 3,500 of them children — died last year in Syria, according to figures from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, recently warned, “The Syria and Iraq mega-crises, the multiplication of new crises, and the old crises that seem never to die have created the worst displacement situation in the world since World War II,” with at least 13.6 million people displaced from both countries.

But instead of reckoning with these legacies, the U.S. government has taken a giant leap backward — towards another open-ended, ill-defined military operation in Iraq and now Syria.

President Obama vowed in his recent State of the Union address to double down in the fight against ISIS, declaring yet again, “this effort will take time.” His remarks came just days after the United States and Britain announced a renewed joint military effort, and the Pentagon deployed 1,000 troops to Middle Eastern states to train “moderate” Syrian fighters. That comes in addition to the 3,000 soldiers ordered to deploy to Iraq, with more likely to follow. Meanwhile, the rise of Islamophobia in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks is feeding war fervor abroad and at home.

And so the Obama administration — which falls into the political realist camp and has, at times, pressed for a moderate retrenchment of U.S. war in the Middle East (in part to enable a disastrous pivot to Asia) — is now leading a military response to a crisis that the president himself has acknowledged cannot be solved by the U.S. military. To do so, Obama has repeatedly sidestepped congressional debate by claiming authority from the post-9/11 war authorization against the perpetrators of the attacks — the same legislation he once denounced for “keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing.” (He vowed in his State of the Union address to seek out explicit authorization from Congress for the war on ISIS, but has claimed in the past not to need it.)

“As If Further Militarization Ever Brought Peace to Iraq”

As the U.S. government makes unverified claims that U.S. lives are under threat from ISIS, it is Muslims, Arabs, Kurds, Yazidis, and Christians in the Middle East who are being killed, raped, and displaced. “The occupation of the city of Mosul started a new chapter of women’s suffering in Iraq,” wrote the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq in a statement published last December. “Daesh (ISIS) reawakened the ancient tribal habits of claiming women as spoils of war.”

Meanwhile, Kurds are fighting and dying to beat back ISIS in both Iraq and Syria but are not even offered a seat at the international table. This was highlighted in the recent exclusion of Kurdish groups from an anti-ISIS conference in London of representatives from 21 nations.

At this conference, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the coalition had “halted the momentum” of ISIS fighters, while other U.S. officials insisted that half of the “top command” of ISIS had been killed. While global media outlets ran with this “news,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel publicly expressed serious doubt about such claims, describing the body count as “unverified.”

Furthermore, the ability of the U.S. military — the most powerful in the world — to blow up and kill is not in question. But in a complex geopolitical arena, that’s simply not a valid measure of “success.” The histories of the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars are tragic examples of the vast difference between killing a lot of people and “winning” a war.

Over five months in, U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria are neither alleviating the humanitarian crisis nor meeting any of the shifting goals of U.S. officials (containing ISIS, destroying them, etc.). The perception that ISIS is primarily at war with the United States is, in fact, critical to their growth. The CIA estimated in September — just a month after U.S.-led bombings began — that ISIS had tripled its ranks, from 10,000 to over 30,000. As Patrick Cockburn reported in early January, “The territories [ISIS] conquered in a series of lightning campaigns last summer remain almost entirely under its control, even though it has lost some towns to the Kurds and Shia militias in recent weeks.”

So while the expansion of ISIS’ frontiers may have slowed, the intervention has failed to prevent the group from consolidating its control in Iraq and Syria. “Extremism thrives during foreign interventions and military actions,” said Raed Jarrar of the American Friends Service Committee in an interview for this article. “Bombing different groups who live in the same areas as ISIS has helped unite ISIS with more moderate groups, more reasonable groups, who could have been persuaded to rejoin the political process. In Syria, bombing ISIS and other extremist groups, including al-Qaeda, has helped them unite, although they have been killing each other for the past two years.”

In addition to the crimes perpetrated by ISIS, U.S.-backed and armed Iraqi forces, sectarian Iraqi militias, and “moderate rebels” in Syria are also committing brutal war crimes.

In July, for example, Human Rights Watch condemned the Iraqi government for repeatedly bombing densely populated residential neighborhoods, including numerous strikes on Fallujah’s main hospital with mortars and other munitions. And in October, Amnesty International warned that Iraqi Shiite militias, many of them funded and armed by the Iraqi government, are committing war crimes that include abductions, executions, and disappearances of Sunni civilians. In Iraq, Patrick Cockburn writes, “The war has become a sectarian bloodbath. Where Iraqi army, Shia militia, or Kurdish peshmerga have driven ISIS fighters out of Sunni villages and towns from which civilians have not already fled, any remaining Sunni have been expelled, killed, or detained.”

In other words, U.S. military intervention is not advancing the side with a clear moral high-ground, but militarizing what Raed Jarrar calls a “bloody civil conflict with criminal forces on all sides.”

And now, of course, Iraqis must contend with the return of a far more powerful fighting force guilty of numerous atrocities and war crimes across the globe, including torturemassacres, use of chemical weapons, and cluster bombing of civilians in Iraq: the U.S. military.

In a recent statement, the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq slammed the U.S.-led military campaign for, in the midst of this humanitarian crisis, “providing further military arms and bombing only, as if further militarization ever brought peace to Iraq.” Neither the international coalition nor the Iraqi government, the statement continues, is concerned “with the enslavement of more than five thousand women who are being bought and sold in broad day-light in Mosul, Raqqa, and other ‘Islamic State’ cities.”

None of this is to overstate the coherence of the U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria, nor to even confirm the existence of one.

Since the bombings began in August, the U.S. has waffled and balked, going from support for “moderate rebels” in Syria to the announcement that it would create its own proxy force. The United States initially hesitated to militarily back Kurdish forces holding out against ISIS in the Syrian town of Kobani, and many people bearing the brunt of ISIS’ repression on the ground seem to doubt that the U.S. is seriously trying to stem the group’s advance. The U.S. government has trumpeted its broad military coalition, yet seemingly turns a blind eye as its allies go on directly and indirectly supporting ISIS.

In truth, the U.S. and global publics are kept in the dark about what the U.S.-led military coalition is doing, how long this war will last, where its boundaries lie, and what “victory” means. Obama and Kerry have both indicated that the war on ISIS will take years, but Pentagon officials repeatedly refuse to reveal basic information, like what specific duties troops on the ground in Iraq are tasked with and who is dying under U.S. bombs in Iraq and Syria. Just last December, a U.S. coalition bomb struck an ISIS-operated jail in the town of al-Bab, Syria, killing at least 50 civilians detained inside, according to multiple witnesses. Yet while the Pentagon has demurred that civilians “may have died” during its operations, it’s refused to actually acknowledge a single civilian death under its bombs.

Alternatives to U.S.-Led War

Some people in the United States have thrown their support behind the military operations, or at least not opposed them, out of a genuine concern for the well being of people in Iraq and Syria. However good these intentions, though, all evidence available suggests that military intervention won’t make anyone safer.

“The first level is stopping the U.S. from causing more harm,” Jarrar told me. “That is really essential.” According to Jarrar, a U.S. push to stop the bombings is solidaristic in itself. In fact, he said, we can’t talk about solidarity, reparations, or redress for all the harm the U.S. has done in the now-discredited 2003 war “while we are bombing Iraq and Syria. It doesn’t make any sense to reach out to people, ask them to attend conferences for reconciliation, while we are bombing their neighborhood.”

However, stopping the U.S. from further harming Iraq and Syria requires far more than simply halting the bombings and ground deployments. The U.S. government must withdraw and demilitarize its failed war on terror, not only by pulling its own forces from the Middle East, but by putting out the fires it started with proxy battles and hypocritical foreign policies — including its alliances with governments that directly and indirectly support ISIS, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey.

Obama-War-2.jpg

In a recent article in Jacobin about the courageous struggle of the people of Kobani against ISIS, Errol Babacan and Murat Çakır argue that the United States, and the West more broadly, should start with Turkey. “Western governments must be pressured to force their NATO partner Turkey to end both its proxy war in Syria as well as its repression of political protest,” they write. “Western leftists could also work for goals such as the removal of foreign soldiers (as well as Patriot missiles) stationed in Turkey and demand sanctions against Turkey if it continues to support” the Islamic State.

Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, argues that U.S. power to pressure allies to stop supporting ISIS extends beyond Turkey. “A real coalition is needed not for military strikes but for powerful diplomacy,” she writes. “That means pressuring U.S. ally Saudi Arabia to stop arming and financing ISIS and other extremist fighters; pressuring U.S. ally Turkey to stop allowing ISIS and other fighters to cross into Syria over the Turkish border; pressuring U.S. allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others to stop financing and arming everyone and anyone in Syria who says they’re against Assad.”

Meanwhile, it’s critical for the U.S. left to step up its opposition to further escalation of the military intervention, including the upcoming White House bid to win bipartisan authorization. It will also be important to fight back against congressional efforts to sabotage diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, which could embolden hard-line forces in both countries and open the door to further escalation in Iraq, Syria, and beyond.

Towards a Politics of Solidarity

A long-term alternative to war, ultimately, can only be built by popular movements in Iraq and Syria. While we in the United States are inundated with images of death and victimization, surviving grassroots efforts on the ground in both countries tell a different story. These countries are not mere geopolitical battlefields — they’re hotbeds of human agency and resistance.

Iraq saw a blossoming of nonviolent, Sunni-led movements against repression and discrimination by the U.S.-backed government of Iraq in 2013. But the Iraqi military brutally crushed their protest encampments. This included the Hawija massacre in April 2013, discussed by scholar Zaineb Saleh in an interview last summer, in which at least 50 protesters were killed and over 100 were wounded. In a climate of repression and escalating violence, civil society organizations from across Iraq held the country’s first social forum in September 2013, under the banner “Another Iraq is Possible with Peace, Human Rights, and Social Justice.”

Amid siege from ISIS, repression from the Iraqi government, and bombing from the United States and its allies, popular movements survive on the ground in Iraq. Groups like the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq are organizing emergency aid for women and families fleeing ISIS — while at the same time demanding U.S. withdrawal, and end to Iraqi government oppression, and reparations for the U.S.-led war.

The Federation of Workers Councils and Trade Unions in Iraq, meanwhile, continues to organize workers against Saddam Hussein-era anti-labor laws that were carried over into the new government and backed by the United States. Right now, the Federation — alongside OWFI — is mobilizing within the country’s state-owned industries, which are undergoing rapid privatization and imposing lay-offs, firings, and forced retirement on hundreds of thousands of workers.

Falah Alwan, president of the Federation, explained in a recent statement that the gutting of the public sector is the result of austerity measures driven, in part, by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. “We are in daily confrontations with the government, by demonstrations, sit-ins, seminars, [and] agitating the other sectors to take part,” Alwan told me over email. “At the same time we are preparing for a wide conference next March, for all the companies across Iraq, that will need support from our comrades in the U.S. and worldwide.”

Both of these organizations are collaborating with U.S. groups — including the War Resisters League, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Madre — under the banner of the Right to Heal Initiative to press for reparations for the harm from U.S. policies in Iraq dating back to 1991. Along with damages from the last war and the sanctions regime that preceded it, their grievances include environmental poisoning in Iraq from the U.S. military’s use of depleted uranium, white phosphorous, burn pits, and more.

Likewise, “There are still people and groups in [Syria] who are working through nonviolent means,” said Mohja Kahf, a Damascus-born author and poet, in a recent interview. “And they matter. They are quietly working for the kind of Syria they want to see, whether the regime falls now or in years.” As Kahf argued in a piece penned in 2013, it is critical for the U.S. peace movement to connect with movements on the ground in Syria, not only when they are threatened by bombings, and not only when they are used to win arguments against U.S.-led military intervention.

We in the U.S. left must take a critical — if painful — look at the harm U.S. policies have done to the Middle East, press for a long-term shift in course, and seek to understand and build links with progressive forces in Iraq and Syria. The United States has a moral obligation to provide reparations to Iraq for its invasion and occupation. But these things must be demanded now, before the U.S. spends one day more waging a new armed conflict based on the same failed policies.

Grassroots movements did offer an alternative to endless war following the 2003 invasion, and that needs to happen again. This dark time is all the proof we need that the U.S. must get out of the Middle East once and for all, and the pressure to do so is only going to come from the grassroots.

Next Steps

Building international solidarity takes time, but you can get started today. Here are a few suggestions for productive next steps anyone can take.

Direct Support. Donate to relief efforts on the ground in Iraq and Syria that are orchestrated by grassroots organizations seeking to help their communities survive in the face of ISIS. The Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq has been working to provide food and winter survival gear to people fleeing ISIS and maintains shelters in Baghdad and Karbala. Furthermore, they have created a “Women’s Peace Farm” outside of Karbala, which provides “a safe and peaceful community” for refugees, according to a recent OWFI statement. Direct donations to this work can be made at OWFI’s PayPal account.

Learn. Now is a critical time for U.S.-based movements to educate ourselves about both the histories and current realities of struggle and resistance in Iraq and Syria, as well as Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and beyond. A forthcoming book by Ali Issa, field organizer for the War Resisters League, will be important reading for anyone interested in learning more about Iraqi social movements. Entitled Against All Odds: Voices of Popular Struggle in Iraq, the book is based on interviews and reports highlighting environmental, feminist, labor, and protest movement organizers in Iraq.

In the process of learning about civil societies in Iraq and Syria, it is important to avoid simplistic equations that reduce all opponents of Assad to agents of the U.S. government, and likewise regarding opponents of ISIS. As Kahf emphasized in her interview, “It is racist to think that Syrians do not have agency to resist an oppressive regime unless a clever white man whispers in their ear. … Syrians can hold two critiques in their minds at the same time: a critique of U.S. imperialism and a critique of their brutal regime.”

There is also a great deal to learn from U.S. civil society, including the powerful movement for black liberation that continues to grow nationwide. From Oakland to Ferguson to New York, people are showing by example that justice and accountability for racism and police killings will not be handed from above, but rather must be forced from the grassroots. This moment is full of potential to build strong and intersectional movements with racial justice at their core — a principle that is vital for challenging U.S. militarism.

Make this live. Talk to your families, friends, and loved ones about the war on ISIS. Encourage conversations in your organizations, union halls, and community centers. Raise questions like, “How does U.S. policy in the Middle East relate to our struggles for social, racial, and economic justice here at home?”

The Stop Urban Shield coalition — comprised of groups including Critical Resistance, the Arab Organizing and Resource Center, the War Resisters League, and the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement — powerfully demonstrated the connection between domestic and international militarization when they kicked a global SWAT team, police force, and mercenary expo out of Oakland last September.

Ultimately, solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian people will require more than a push to end the U.S. bombings, but long-term pressure to steer away from U.S. policies of endless war and militarism, in the Middle East and beyond. Building consciousness across U.S. movements is critical to this goal.

Pressure the U.S. government. Grassroots mobilization in the United States can play a vital role in preventing lawmakers from charging into war. This was recently demonstrated when people power — including overwhelming calls to congressional representatives and local protests — had a hand in stopping U.S. strikes on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2013. Mass call-ins, as well as scattered street protests, also had a hand in preventing war hawks from passing new sanctions in the midst of talks with Iran last year. It will be important to closely track any Obama administration attempt to pass explicit authorization for the war on ISIS, as well as congressional efforts to sabotage diplomacy with Iran.

OWFI wrote in a December 11 post, “With the help of the freedom-lovers around the world, we continue to survive the ongoing attacks on our society, and we will strive to be the model of a humane and egalitarian future.”

We must strive alongside them.

Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for Common Dreams and an independent journalist whose work has been featured in The Nation, Al Jazeera, TomDispatch, Yes! Magazine, and more. She is also an anti-militarist organizer interested in building people-powered global movements for justice and dignity. You can follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare.

This article originally appeared on Foreign Policy in Focus.